3 ms·

Those questions are very old. You may think the anthropic principle is sufficient here: complex systems seem to rely on an entropy gradient (no life exists in a

Those questions are very old. You may think the anthropic principle is sufficient here: complex systems seem to rely on an entropy gradient (no life exists in an uniformly chaotic or static state). Ludwig Boltzmann made this argument in the 19th century [1]. However, the argument can apparently be extended to the conclusion that, in a probabilistic sense, your consciousness is just a sliver of a random fluctuation of a near-maximal entropy state. Feynman argued[2] that this shows we do not arise from a random fluctuation, because (even though we're conscious), when we look far away the universe looks highly organized. Note that those arguments make a bunch of assumptions that may not be valid in our universe, and may not make cosmological sense (entropy is not well defined cosmologically). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain [2] http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/12/29/richard-feynman-on-boltzmann-brains/ http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/12/29/...

d4rkph1b3r 11y ago
>Feynman argued[2] that this shows we do not arise from a random fluctuation, because (even though we're conscious), when we look far away the universe looks highly organized. Oh that is an interesting and compelling argument I have not heard! Thank you for sharing.
- effie 11y ago
  Both Boltzmann's idea of fluctuation and Feynman's argument against it are unfortunately devoid of meaning, because we do not know how highly organized and thermal death universe look like. We never saw and probably never will see another state of the universe and there is no way to experiment with it.
  - d4rkph1b3r 11y ago
    His argument is sound. If there is infinite #s of universes, or the universe keeps reforming infinitely (implication being it will have varying degrees of uniformity), then it's mathematically probable that we would be boltzman brain's in a less coherent universe. We don't observe that.
    - effie 11y ago
      We don't know whether what we observe is more coherent than the majority of universes, because we have never observed other kind of universe. The very fluctuation hypothesis and the argument against it have no solid basis in science.
Retric 11y ago
I am not sure what is meant by that. Evolution is not a purely random process nor is say star formation.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- darkmighty 11y ago
  The context of those arguments is almost metaphysical. When you ask 'Is it more likely my consciousness is a local random fluctuation of some large system or the result of a one-off process?' you have to imagine you may be part of some abstract system that satisfies our notion of time and has rich enough dynamics to comport entropy and intelligence, but this universe could look nothing like ours, and you have to notice you are abusing probability, which is nothing more than a model of uncertainty and not an Oracle of reality. But if you're willing to make some assumptions, Feynman's evidence for the latter seems valid.

d4rkph1b3r 11y ago

>Feynman argued[2] that this shows we do not arise from a random fluctuation, because (even though we're conscious), when we look far away the universe looks highly organized. Oh that is an interesting and compelling argument I have not heard! Thank you for sharing.

effie 11y ago
Both Boltzmann's idea of fluctuation and Feynman's argument against it are unfortunately devoid of meaning, because we do not know how highly organized and thermal death universe look like. We never saw and probably never will see another state of the universe and there is no way to experiment with it.
- d4rkph1b3r 11y ago
  His argument is sound. If there is infinite #s of universes, or the universe keeps reforming infinitely (implication being it will have varying degrees of uniformity), then it's mathematically probable that we would be boltzman brain's in a less coherent universe. We don't observe that.
  - effie 11y ago
    We don't know whether what we observe is more coherent than the majority of universes, because we have never observed other kind of universe. The very fluctuation hypothesis and the argument against it have no solid basis in science.

Retric 11y ago

I am not sure what is meant by that. Evolution is not a purely random process nor is say star formation.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
darkmighty 11y ago
The context of those arguments is almost metaphysical. When you ask 'Is it more likely my consciousness is a local random fluctuation of some large system or the result of a one-off process?' you have to imagine you may be part of some abstract system that satisfies our notion of time and has rich enough dynamics to comport entropy and intelligence, but this universe could look nothing like ours, and you have to notice you are abusing probability, which is nothing more than a model of uncertainty and not an Oracle of reality. But if you're willing to make some assumptions, Feynman's evidence for the latter seems valid.