Timeline for Can the "Boltzmann brain" concept inform discussions of cosmology?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
3 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 18, 2021 at 15:15 | comment | added | benrg | @AndrewSteane This argument is really about relative densities, not infinity, although that's just as bad because of the measure problem. "To assert that a complex physical outcome arose by pure chance is to abandon the attempt to understand" is the point of the argument – you're supposed to reject the conclusion (that the scientific method doesn't work) because it essentially contradicts the premises, and instead conclude that the premises are wrong. It's not like the simulation argument, where the conclusion is similar but the people making the argument seem to actually believe it. | |
| Apr 18, 2021 at 12:00 | comment | added | Andrew Steane | Thanks for this answer; I may tick it "accept" but for the moment I'm going to wait to see if anything else comes in. Your comments underline for me the danger of too lightly invoking the notion of infinity. I think infinity should never be invoked without good reason and an understanding of what it is that is said to be infinite and why we should think it is. Also, to assert that a complex physical outcome arose by pure chance is to abandon the attempt to understand unless there is a good argument to show that there are no further factors in play. | |
| Apr 17, 2021 at 21:46 | history | answered | benrg | CC BY-SA 4.0 |