3 ms·

It's freaky because the "conscious" state of a Boltzmann brain might last a nanosecond, and could mimic what you are thinking right now, or could be psychotic.

It's freaky because the "conscious" state of a Boltzmann brain might last a nanosecond, and could mimic what you are thinking right now, or could be psychotic. Imagine if shifting charges in piezoelectric materials in the dirt could generate Boltzmann brains, so when you take a walk, your footsteps create a string of thoughts in the ground. Maybe those thoughts resemble words, in the language of dirt, and maybe they rhyme, so they're a kind of poetry. Maybe star fusion leads to Boltzmann brains, so our sun sings to itself, or works out mathematics, or occasionally imagines that it is a dog. Such possibilities are freaky, I'd say, but feel free to remain unimpressed. I get your point, but the possibilities strike me as weird and wonderful. I'd be glad to learn that Boltzmann brains exist.

dogma1138 8y ago
I don’t think that we have the same definition of freaky. As far as Boltzmann brains go then a classical Boltzmann brain can actually be disproven even without going into the debate if there is even unbounded amount of randomness in the universe. As for quantum Boltzmann brains then it’s not again freaky and it heavily is dependent on how you take on physicality. If you think that the brain is a quantum system then a Boltzmann brain can never be a duplicate of you due to the no cloning theorem. If the brain is not a QM system but a classical one which is more likely to be the case then classical Boltzmann brains aren’t really possible in our universe. Overall this is again a philosophical niche not really physics it’s a fun anecdote to ponder not something you should take on seriously. Now if you want to take evolution as a random activity despite it not being random then we are all Boltzmann brains but again as a whole a Boltzmann brain does not provide any insight into fundamental natural law or useful heuristics for emerging properties so it’s not as much freaky as well pointless.

dogma1138 8y ago

I don’t think that we have the same definition of freaky. As far as Boltzmann brains go then a classical Boltzmann brain can actually be disproven even without going into the debate if there is even unbounded amount of randomness in the universe. As for quantum Boltzmann brains then it’s not again freaky and it heavily is dependent on how you take on physicality. If you think that the brain is a quantum system then a Boltzmann brain can never be a duplicate of you due to the no cloning theorem. If the brain is not a QM system but a classical one which is more likely to be the case then classical Boltzmann brains aren’t really possible in our universe. Overall this is again a philosophical niche not really physics it’s a fun anecdote to ponder not something you should take on seriously. Now if you want to take evolution as a random activity despite it not being random then we are all Boltzmann brains but again as a whole a Boltzmann brain does not provide any insight into fundamental natural law or useful heuristics for emerging properties so it’s not as much freaky as well pointless.