This essay is a foray into the esoteric end of the majestic science that is physics. This is a grey area encroaching into the domain of classical philosophy. Of course, theoretical physics of the non-classical bent fosters strange and wonderful concepts. This is the natural extrapolation of the physics of Neil Bohr and Einstein. Sadly the wonderfully simple, intuitive mechanical 'world' of Newton has been superseded by the incomprehensible and often bizarre. Mayhap a case can be made that physicists should stay in their 'own lane' and not delve into the artsy/fartsy world of the philosopher. Physics and philosophy are completely different areas of intellectual endeavour, except perhaps where they intersect in the realm of logic. With that said, it is clear that a deep contemplation of theoretical physics, involving the quantum world fosters a mindset bordering on the mystical. This post delves into the shadowy corner of one of those topics, a messy hinterland between the rigorous physics of entropy and infinity combined with philosophical speculation together with a sparkle/sprinkle of recondite bollocks.
So here goes.........
How can you be certain that you are you, and that your 'reality', as perceived, is a process that has been conjured up as a hallucination in another sentiment entity? Or are we merely a computer generation, no more than a list of zeros and ones? This represents the summation of the so-called simulation hypothesis. I have dealt with this subject elsewhere in this very blog and will say no more here.
But it gets worse
The Boltzmann Brain is a thought experiment in physics that postulates the possibility of the spontaneous creation of a conscious entity out of random fluctuations in the universe. The idea was named after the Austrian physicist Ludwig Boltzmann, who was a pioneer in the field of thermodynamics and the study of entropy. The Boltzmann Brain scenario is based on the idea that in an infinite and eternal universe with a finite amount of matter, there is a chance that a large fluctuation of matter could occur, leading to the spontaneous formation of a brain-like structure with consciousness.
The Boltzmann Brain scenario challenges many assumptions about the nature of the universe, the origins of consciousness, and the role of causation in the evolution of the universe. One of the key arguments against the Boltzmann Brain scenario is that it requires an extremely improbable event to occur for consciousness to emerge spontaneously from random fluctuations. In addition, the scenario raises questions about the nature of identity and continuity in a conscious entity that emerges from random fluctuations.
The idea of the Boltzmann Brain has been debated by philosophers, physicists, and cosmologists for decades. Some have argued that the Boltzmann Brain is a plausible explanation for the existence of conscious beings, as it provides a way to account for the subjective experience of consciousness without invoking the need for a divine or supernatural creator. Others have argued that the concept is flawed because it relies on highly improbable events that are unlikely to occur in a finite amount of time or space. They reject infinity as preposterous and cling to a universe with an edge/hedge.
One of the key challenges to the Boltzmann Brain scenario is the problem of causation. If consciousness can arise spontaneously from a random fluctuation of matter, then it is difficult to explain how this process could be causally connected to the rest of the universe. In other words, how can a Boltzmann Brain be part of a larger causal chain that accounts for the origins and evolution of the universe?
Another challenge to the Boltzmann Brain scenario is the problem of identity. If consciousness can emerge from a random fluctuation of matter, then it is unclear how to define the boundaries of a conscious entity. Is a Boltzmann Brain a distinct individual, or is it just a temporary configuration of matter with no lasting identity or continuity?
Despite these challenges, the Boltzmann Brain scenario remains a fascinating and thought-provoking concept that challenges our assumptions about the nature of reality and the origins of consciousness. Some philosophers and physicists have proposed alternative theories to account for the emergence of consciousness, such as the idea of panpsychism, which posits that consciousness is a fundamental property of the universe that exists at all levels of complexity. To my mind, this hypothesis is but a madman's dream configured by a malignant entity with too much space and time on its hands.
In summation, the Boltzmann Brain is a thought experiment that raises many important questions about the nature of the universe, the origins of consciousness, and the role of causation in the evolution of the universe. While the concept remains controversial and unproven, it has the potential to inspire new insights and theories about the fundamental nature of reality and our place within it.
So dear readers what do think? You had better 'get in' quick before your brain dissolves and becomes one with the cosmos.
The fiction of Philip K Dick is interesting as it explores the theme of what is real.
ReplyDeleteI am not familiar with his work. Sounds interesting though.
Deletehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_K._Dick#Style_and_works
Deletehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_Androids_Dream_of_Electric_Sheep%3F filmed as Blade Runner
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_Recall_(1990_film) based on short story 'We Can Remember It for You Wholesale'
... and so on.
This is interesting too - https://philipdick.com/resources/miscellaneous/the-religious-experience-of-philip-k-dick-by-r-crumb-from-weirdo-17/
- as William Wordsworth said about the poet William Blake 'There was no doubt that this poor man was mad, but there is something in the madness of this man which interests me more than the sanity of Lord Byron and Walter Scott.'
Robert Crumb. He is great. He started to illustrate the Old Testament as only be could. He and O. Winston Link are neglected geniuses, or should that be genii? But that is just my opinion.
DeleteClearly there is a gap in my education that requires attention.
DeleteSounds similar to the million monkeys banging away on typewriters will eventually produce a work of Shakespeare theory.
ReplyDeleteA brain on its own without sensors, to detect material vibration, electromagnetic radiation, gravity, other forms of radiation etc., would be reduced to baseless thinking. Time would be meaningless. It would need to have an energy source to keep running. But would it know this?
Could we humans think without a language, sight, hearing, skin feeling, heat sensitivity etc. And no past experience of any of these?
My brain hurts. It needs some ethanol.
Yea the monkey example is the 'Readers Digest' take on the problem. I suspect that there is a subgroup of theoretical physicists with too much time on their hands. My opinion: it is all bollocks. But fascinating bollock.
ReplyDeleteIt's related, in some way, philosophically at least, to the "ghost in the machine" arguments one hears now and then in relation to sentient machines.
ReplyDeleteConsciousness - separate development from the complexity of the brain that houses it - would have to develop over time based on external inputs and the reactions/responses to these. Whether a sentience could be "programmed" and then "run" in the real world at some unspecified future date remains to be seen (although, of course, the machine attaining sentience - with the full gamut of human nastiness in attendance is a familiar trope of science fiction. I am a bit dubious about singularitarianism for this reason).
Of course, if there is no explanation for how sentience appears, a supernatural sentience can always be cited as a prime mover.
I do wonder though (I have a sneaking suspicion), as time passes and we discover more about the universe and the working of the mind that we may find it a lot more "mechanistic" than generally assumed and that the scope of the mind (any mind, but excluding the supernatural one of course) - the freedom to "philosophise" ( hope I've spelt that right, if it's a word) etc - might perhaps have definable limits. That would be an interesting discussion.
Today's philosophy quite possibly will become tomorrows physics and the day after that's technology. Quite scary when you think about it
It is beyond comprehension, almost.
DeleteHi Flax, wow - so cool again. Yeah Doonhamer, very right - the Boltzmann-Brains are dealing directly with the theorem about the ape typing all of Shakespeare´s works by random in case of having infinite time (and bananas). Great mathematicans like Emile Borel or Roger Penrose had fun by "calculating" this pretty inspiration to think deeper about concious, mind, soul, existence... (the "me" is not = brain) with an inescapable link to constructivism/solipsism/plausibilism. Our way of thinking (all sciences too) use to follow philosophy and it´s epistemological manuals to go fishing for some "cendence" on that tempting ocean named transcendence.
ReplyDeleteKeep on constructing very well,
great good fortune & cheers
Josh
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uk2DeTet98o
https://ifunny.co/video/rick-and-morty-season-3-episode-1-the-rickshank-rickdemption-Fd4z8PU98
Yea Josh, this 'existence' is definitely a funny old thing. I'm often overwhelmed by the complexity- but comment anyway.
ReplyDelete