1
$\begingroup$

The Boltzmann brain hypothesis states that a big-bang-causing entropy fluctuation is larger than a brain-causing entropy fluctuation, therefore, you are much more likely to be a BB rather than a wet brain. But this doesn't make sense to me (maybe I don't understand?) because when $10^{80}$ particles fluctuate into one location, they will ALWAYS create a big bang whereas when $10^{22}$ particles fluctuate into one location, they will create a BB only one out of every ($10^{22}$)! times. The chance of $10^{80}$ particles fluctuating into one location seems absurdly more likely than the chance of $10^{22}$ particles fluctuating into a specific pattern.

The way I see it, there are four events, and their respective rarities, to compare here:

  • the event where $10^{22}$ particles fluctuate into one location (event rarity a)

  • the event where $10^{22}$ particles fluctuate into my BB (event rarity b),

  • the event where $10^{80}$ particles fluctuate into one location (event rarity c)

  • the event where $10^{80}$ particles evolve into my WB (event rarity d).

I don't understand why BBH says $(a \times b) > (c \times d)$

What am I not understanding here?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ IMHO the Boltzmann Brain hypothesis is wild speculation. Nobody knows what would, physically, constitute a Boltzmann brain. Nobody knows what makes a big bang happen. Nobody knows how to calculate the probability that a human-class brain will emerge via evolution on an Earth-like planet. We do know that evolution is vastly more efficient at producing organized structures than random association of atoms is. $\endgroup$ – S. McGrew Nov 11 '18 at 16:14
  • $\begingroup$ "We do know that evolution is vastly more efficient at producing organized structures than random association of atoms is." That's why I only stated an inequality. $\endgroup$ – EternalPropagation Nov 11 '18 at 16:44
  • $\begingroup$ Yup, I'm agreeing with you. $\endgroup$ – S. McGrew Nov 11 '18 at 21:28
  • $\begingroup$ I don't think you are. My view is that it is virtually impossible to be a Boltzmann brain. We can actually use this inequality to infer an upper bound on the probability of a big bang occurring which can infer the size of the universe; the less likely the BB, the more room there is for a large universe. This also implies no aliens; if observers are likely, why didn't we occur in a small universe? $\endgroup$ – EternalPropagation Nov 11 '18 at 23:00
  • $\begingroup$ I agree (for what that matters!) that a Boltzmann brain is essentially impossible. However, we don't have a clue how a Boltzmann brain would be structured, so estimates of its probability of existence are pretty much meaningless. And, consequently, any calculations based on a value for the probability of a Boltzmann brain would be pretty much meaningless. By the way, I don't quite understand d. Surely you don't mean a wet brain containing 10^80 particles. That would be rather large. $\endgroup$ – S. McGrew Nov 12 '18 at 1:01

Your Answer

By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.