Boltzman Brain.

[daniel l.]

Are they even possible? And what would they be like?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain

Edited May 14, 2016 by daniel l.

[Nibb31]

You might want to explain what it is before asking the question.

[daniel l.]

1 minute ago, Nibb31 said:

You might want to explain what it is before asking the question.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain

[Nibb31]

Thanks, I know how to use google too. It's more a matter of properly introducing a discussion instead of "Random subject, discuss".

[daniel l.]

Just now, Nibb31 said:

Thanks, I know how to use google too. It's more a matter of properly introducing a discussion instead of "Random subject, discuss".

I would like your opinion on whether or not my new avatar is damaging to my mental health.

[kerbiloid]

45 minutes ago, daniel l. said:

Are they even possible?

Boltzmann had one.

1 minute ago, daniel l. said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain

13 bln years ago one had suddenly appeared. Though, we have at once "anthropic principle", "visible Universe", "Fermi paradox".

[PB666]

6 hours ago, kerbiloid said:Boltzmann had one.

13 bln years ago one had suddenly appeared. Though, we have at once "anthropic principle", "visible Universe", "Fermi paradox".

You assume that Boltzmann was aware of the universe, not a universe. We may not be aware of the universe, even we are aware of a visible universe, one of many.

We could argue that within every visible uuniverse there is a self aware being the problem is without knowledge of the whole universe we can't argue that our current held view is correct. 

Boltzmann was not aware that the opposing sides of the universe were moving away from each other faster than the speed of light. The is no way to see both sides of the universe, as far as we know the other other side coukd be the antimatter version of our side. 

[kerbiloid]

56 minutes ago, PB666 said:

You assume that Boltzmann was aware of the universe, not a universe.

I (jokingly) mean that quantum mechanics introduces an "observer" which determinates the indeterminated.

[PB666]

But on the quantum scale there can never be a perfect observer, because the power limitatations of light are such that we can never resolve quantum length or time rt events. 

We can potentially address reality on a relativistic scale but it is fairly impossible to resolve with certainty the most fundemental properties 20 magnitudes of 10 below you smallest resolution limits because there is always the potential for lower resolvation of particles, or virtual particles that coexist at these smaller scales. 

[kerbiloid]

The perfect one is not required.
There was/is a superposition of possible quantum states describing the Universe pattern. Once an observer randomly appeared, the states are/were determined and "realized". Now we are watching a 13 bln years long expanding rings on the water. (Maybe jokingly, maybe who knows).

Btw: the "light speed limit" is just a postulate defining the scope of applicability of relativistic theory. Nothing makes it a kind of divine entity, especially if assume that any "speed" - light or no -  is just a "dy/dx" locally measured for some two coordinates. If presume that "time" is just a dimension, any speed is just a static slope inclination in multi-dimensional space, nothing more. Also, nothing can "appear" in this case, anything can only permanently exist, while an "observer" just defines an azimuth at which "we" "are" "looking" at this multidimensional landscape.

 

[PB666]

1 hour ago, kerbiloid said:

The perfect one is not required.
There was/is a superposition of possible quantum states describing the Universe pattern. Once an observer randomly appeared, the states are/were determined and "realized". Now we are watching a 13 bln years long expanding rings on the water. (Maybe jokingly, maybe who knows).

Btw: the "light speed limit" is just a postulate defining the scope of applicability of relativistic theory. Nothing makes it a kind of divine entity, especially if assume that any "speed" - light or no -  is just a "dy/dx" locally measured for some two coordinates. If presume that "time" is just a dimension, any speed is just a static slope inclination in multi-dimensional space, nothing more. Also, nothing can "appear" in this case, anything can only permanently exist, while an "observer" just defines an azimuth at which "we" "are" "looking" at this multidimensional landscape.

 

The quantum states fate is only realized once it is traveling away faster than the speed of light, aprioir quauntum gravity is not resolved as a consequence the state is not observed, it simply exists in some inobservable free of the constraints of space and time, to observe is a process that occurs over time. At any given position in space except the precise center the symmtry of the entire process cannot be observed, the symettry that we see is a local symmetry as a consequence of inflation, if we were at the ceneter we could not infer that either unless we existed while the initial inflation was resolving. There is no matter, there is no observer until matter exists, thus the god observer cannot be material and would need to be free of space and time. After inflation the universe is composed of intercommunication quantum states superposed, but the resolution of the communication is on planks scale. If we could tap into and rwad all of those at once we could backtrack the universe to its origin and creating a faux space-time frame observe it, but alas we still cannot see quantum gravity or convince it tomtalk to us. 

This is one of the pondries of the early universe because it was so extremely hot, by any fathomable standard of measure it was cold, because zero is the register of something that cannot be measured. We have to create an artificial extrapolation to define how much energy is in the unit space, but the nature of that energy is undefined because its trapped in the entirity of a quantum singularity. Much like we cannot see the energy inside a black hole. During inflation the singularity resolves, I cannot even speculate on this process. I could imagine that the universe antipated space-time and started to fill all that. But if that were the case, if inflation is the result of a many possible positions quantum resolution then observation is not required. Hypotheticaly while bouncing around in 'time' the universe realized an outcome where space-time existed and thus resolved to occupy the space. Some papers claim that space time is a response to a fracturing the scalar energy within quatum gravity. In this particular scenario the spreading of energy is consistency of order moving to disorder. 

 

[Majorjim!]

2 hours ago, PB666 said:

The quantum states fate is only realized once it is traveling away faster than the speed of light, aprioir quauntum gravity is not resolved as a consequence the state is not observed, it simply exists in some inobservable free of the constraints of space and time, to observe is a process that occurs over time. At any given position in space except the precise center the symmtry of the entire process cannot be observed, the symettry that we see is a local symmetry as a consequence of inflation, if we were at the ceneter we could not infer that either unless we existed while the initial inflation was resolving. There is no matter, there is no observer until matter exists, thus the god observer cannot be material and would need to be free of space and time. After inflation the universe is composed of intercommunication quantum states superposed, but the resolution of the communication is on planks scale. If we could tap into and rwad all of those at once we could backtrack the universe to its origin and creating a faux space-time frame observe it, but alas we still cannot see quantum gravity or convince it tomtalk to us. 

This is one of the pondries of the early universe because it was so extremely hot, by any fathomable standard of measure it was cold, because zero is the register of something that cannot be measured. We have to create an artificial extrapolation to define how much energy is in the unit space, but the nature of that energy is undefined because its trapped in the entirity of a quantum singularity. Much like we cannot see the energy inside a black hole. During inflation the singularity resolves, I cannot even speculate on this process. I could imagine that the universe antipated space-time and started to fill all that. But if that were the case, if inflation is the result of a many possible positions quantum resolution then observation is not required. Hypotheticaly while bouncing around in 'time' the universe realized an outcome where space-time existed and thus resolved to occupy the space. Some papers claim that space time is a response to a fracturing the scalar energy within quatum gravity. In this particular scenario the spreading of energy is consistency of order moving to disorder. 

 

Ignoring all the other 'stuff' you wrote the universe has no precise center. The Big Bang happened everywhere. The Center is relative to the observer. That is very important. 

Back on topic..

 A Boltzmann brain would be unfathomable. It would have no concept of anything. It would have no instinct, no inherited behaviour of any kind. It would be also indescribable.

Edited May 14, 2016 by Majorjim

[kerbiloid]

45 minutes ago, PB666 said:

the early universe

No "early Universe". "Early visible/perceptible Universe".
"Early" is just "situated on the coordinate axis (so-called "time") with lesser coordinate value". Universe contains this axis (so-called "time") too, it can't be "early" or "late". There is no "left ocean" and "right ocean", only "ocean" and an arbitrary direction you are looking in.
"Big Bang" is an "initial state of visible entities where known physical laws are applicable", not a "born of Universe", just because to "appear" it needs an external coordinate axis with "before-after". Any axis is by definition contained in the Universe. Not a Universe appeared, but a point of view initialized, nothing could "appear" without external measuring ruler,

54 minutes ago, PB666 said:

The quantum states fate is only realized once it is traveling away faster than the speed of light

"Known physical laws are applicable do describe"  "quantum states realized ... traveling away faster than the speed of light".
"Travelling", "speed" are defined only if you take not a whole Universe, but its cutoff from a desired direction. Because you should extract one axis at will - to call it "time".

59 minutes ago, PB666 said:

After inflation the universe

"Viewing the right-hand side of 4-dimensional diagram describing the progressive sequence of VisibleUniverse states".

[PB666]

27 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

No "early Universe". "Early visible/perceptible Universe".
"Early" is just "situated on the coordinate axis (so-called "time") with lesser coordinate value". Universe contains this axis (so-called "time") too, it can't be "early" or "late". There is no "left ocean" and "right ocean", only "ocean" and an arbitrary direction you are looking in.
"Big Bang" is an "initial state of visible entities where known physical laws are applicable", not a "born of Universe", just because to "appear" it needs an external coordinate axis with "before-after". Any axis is by definition contained in the Universe. Not a Universe appeared, but a point of view initialized, nothing could "appear" without external measuring ruler,

"Known physical laws are applicable do describe"  "quantum states realized ... traveling away faster than the speed of light".
"Travelling", "speed" are defined only if you take not a whole Universe, but its cutoff from a desired direction. Because you should extract one axis at will - to call it "time".

"Viewing the right-hand side of 4-dimensional diagram describing the progressive sequence of VisibleUniverse states".

Then use the universe before we perceived it, the universe before the light of the CMWBR was emitted. Its immaterial from our point of view because we can't observe it.
Then the next question could anyone have observed it, the answer is only if they had eyes that saw things traveling faster than the speed of light and could see things happening at 10-34 seconds. Based upon our known laws.

Time has no value in a universal quantum singularity, nor spatial dimensions, temperature or mass and since no known theory can describe how the singularity ends or how space-time begins, and it is a non-testable hypothesis, suffice it to say you cannot create space-time simply because its convenient. Somewhere before matter begins, somehow energy poured into the system, that rolled out the fabric of space (the so-called higgs field). Read any text or observe any theory, none describe precisely when the higgs field arose, most argue it began spreading before the end of the initial inflation at which point space and time have a component.

But the reality is this, given quantum singularity, given the fact that quantum space and time do not precisely describe the limits of motion in either direction, at the moment that the singularity ended space time and inflation may have begun with a tensor force applied to all energy relative to position in a bubble. All variations in between could exist from an accelerative spreading to as previously stated. But at the end of that process we have what is referred to as the big bang ( a rather heated expansion), where energy from whereever pours into spatial dimensions and heat and temperature exists as we know it, spreading those dimensions out and cooling the universe.  For all we know the higgs field could still be pouring into the Universe.

My interpretation is this since even energy is bound by Einsteins theory of relativity, a bound scalar state that is halved cannot travel away from the other half greater than the speed of light, therefore the spread is a consequence of the quantum state. It does allow halved states to half themselves and repeat, but then that most uniform CMWBR radiation. Therefore much of inflation has to be governed in a self resolving quantum state. This is inenigmatic unless you are considering exotic energy or fields (which I don't), prior to space-time the universe can be in all time and spatial dimensions or none, but at some point it resolved into the Universe.

1 hour ago, Majorjim said:

Ignoring all the other 'stuff' you wrote. The universe has no precise center. The Big Bang happened everywhere. The Center is relative to the observer. That is very important. 

Back on topic..

 A Boltzmann brain would be unfathomable. It would have no concept of anything. It would have no instinct, no inherited behaviour of any kind. It would be also indescribable.

As I have repeatedly pointed out, that is a belief that is not substantiated, it is a bias based on the fact that CMBR is relatively uniform, but given the universe is of unknown size at least 92 billion light years across and we can only see about 26 billion light years and given the uniformity of inflation . . . . .  .All that we know, for fact, is that we are not on the edge, that is the only scientifically supportable fact, none other are supportable. We also know that the universe does not curl back in on itself and geometric in all directions excepting the occasional black hole is Euclidean flat.

Because of inflation no matter where you are in the bubble, whether it be the center or closer to the edge, everything is moving away from you, if you are on the edge you probably would never as the question to begin with, from the edge point of view the big bang has just occurred, that is because to be on the edge you simply are light moving out into space, and light does not age, and thus the big bang just occurred and you, a beam of light, just occurred. 

[Majorjim!]

22 minutes ago, PB666 said:

As I have repeatedly pointed out, that is a belief that is not substantiated

According to current theory the universe has no edges, no ends, and no center. If you want to question current cosmological theories you really are going to have to make one hell of an argument. Alas you are again off topic again though.

 Do you have any input or ideas about Boltzmann brains?

 

 

[Kertech]

Thanks to the "see also" links I have now not worked for three hours! 

[PB666]

3 hours ago, Majorjim said:

According to current theory the universe has no edges, no ends, and no center. If you want to question current cosmological theories you really are going to have to make one hell of an argument. Alas you are again off topic again though.

 Do you have any input or ideas about Boltzmann brains?

 

 

Read other posts, and uts according to whose current hypothesis. CMBR is the current limit of knowledge which precede this discussion. 

 

[kerbiloid]

6 hours ago, Majorjim said:

Do you have any input or ideas about Boltzmann brains?

According to the previous, from my pov all (and technically infinite) Boltzmann brains which are possible, just are by definition already exist in the "all-inclusive" Universe and have no substantial difference from any other form of consciousness.

As the process of resolution of indeterminated states needs an observer, any consciousness, including the Boltzmann brains, is just as a "view direction" on a static Universe landscape,

So, the only difference between Boltzmann brain and human's personal consciousness are their scale and everyday commonness.

Edited May 15, 2016 by kerbiloid

[PB666]

7 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

According to the previous, from my pov all (and technically infinite) Boltzmann brains which are possible, just are by definition already exist in the "all-inclusive" Universe and have no substantial difference from any other form of consciousness.

As the process of resolution of indeterminated states needs an observer, any consciousness, including the Boltzmann brains, is just as a "view direction" on a static Universe landscape,

So, the only difference between Boltzmann brain and human's personal consciousness are their scale and everyday commonness.

But there can be no static view of the Universe as I told you, with out knowledge of is origin their is only superficial knowledge of its existance. In response to Majorjim, the universe does not need a center now or the center is an observable, but to know the universe you would have to have a snapshot of inflation, which did fleetingly have center prior to the general motion outward  exceeding SoL, the problem is that is prior tobspace-time and withou space time how can an exterior position of view exist. We often equate the visible universe with the universe, if one was omnisentient, the visible universe would be nothing more than parsect in space-time. 

The brain cannot exist, it would be like a dream still asleep and unaware of actual reality. If we claim knowledge of the universe, we would half to know many facts, how wide it is a any given moment, what dark energy is, where it pour in, why it pours in, etc.