-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
New Scientist: "String theory may limit space brain threat"
- Thread starter twobear
- Start date
- Status
blame space
Banned
I've known this for years.
That just happened, all in the same universe. I saw it on HD and it was awesome.
Will happen? What if this stuff happened already?
ElectricBlue187
Member
Seems equally possible that anti space brains could form going around and ridding the universe of space brains till they are extinct
SquiddyCracker
Banned
Yep, that's infinite for you.
Some have speculated that the big bang is just that, something of extremely low improbability that happened in another dead universe.
but the anti-space brains would still be space brains to us.
...
My brain hurts. I think i understand stuff like this much better than average person but still...
I should avoid thinking this...
We're fucked....
SquiddyCracker
Banned
Don't forget the anti-anti-space brains!
SquiddyCracker
Banned
Sure, that's possible too, if the universe is infinite.
Cameron122
Member
Fuck this I'm becoming religious
Hear me, Odin.
Hear me, Odin.
Yes, yes. What do you want?
It is possible if the universe is infinite and has an infinite amout of energy and chaos.
As far as we know, the second part is not true. Barring some kind of frequent violent matter dump from other universes or constant mini big bangs, the idea is not possible, because of entropy. Spontaneous random compilation of matter required to immediately form a fully formed cosciousness needs to be constant to the point where it is impossible in our universe, because the conditions to generate that matter pattern needs to be constant over trillions of years, which is impossible.
IamMattFox
Member
But I don't wanna be a Boltzmann brain!
All I can think of is that episode of Futurama where Bender is set adrift in space and eventually bumps into an intelligent entity in the middle of nowhere. I was actually trying to read a book called The Cosmic Landscape: String Theory and the Illusion of Intelligent Design not too long ago. Never finished it but I intend to finish it this year for my 50/50 attempt.
I'm also getting close to finishing The Silmarillion right now. My brain is going to start getting mushy soon, I think. -_-;
I'm also getting close to finishing The Silmarillion right now. My brain is going to start getting mushy soon, I think. -_-;
Mgoblue201
Won't stop picking the right nation
Well as far as I understand the low entropy state at the beginning of the universe is still a real unanswered issue, since according to our currently understood laws it's extremely unlikely that the universe would initially exist in a low entropy state. There must be a reason why the universe was originally low entropy, but there is no testable explanation. I don't know if that's the point the article is making, as it's not very well written.
This high entropy future state of the universe would not be absolute zero, so thermal fluctuations are still possible. Particles are coming in and out of existence all the time.
Unless it's true.
Darkmakaimura
Member
Far out stuff!
Kind of reminds me of the whole Precursors in Halo thing or something way out of field in Star Trek.
So this may have been on to something....
Kind of reminds me of the whole Precursors in Halo thing or something way out of field in Star Trek.
So this may have been on to something....
which one, the detached rationalism, or the graspy and desperate vacillation?
As far as I'm concerned paradoxes such as this and thought experiments such as Schroedinger's cat are just semantics. They all stem from our incomplete understanding of how the universe(s) actually works as a whole. The situations help us to work towards the real mechanisms but some people get too caught up in the paradox or thought experiment itself.
If everyone pooled together a bit more it would just speed up the process of defining the next unexplainable thing, should string theory become the leading thought.
If everyone pooled together a bit more it would just speed up the process of defining the next unexplainable thing, should string theory become the leading thought.
I think the more I piece my understanding of this together, the more it suffers from a lot of philosophical questions. If these brains are controlling(indirectly or directly) my entire existence, does that include the entire perceived universe I'm in as well? Cuz that wouldn't just trouble some cosmological ideas, it would make everything we know about anything useless and arbitrary, including the idea of these brains and the physics that we suppose can create them.
Seems to me that the exceedingly minute chance of a brain popping into existence and then going on to combine an exceedingly smaller chance of it firing off in a manner that creates this incredibly huge and well-working universe of mine is so ridiculously absurd that its not really worth much concern.
Seems to me that the exceedingly minute chance of a brain popping into existence and then going on to combine an exceedingly smaller chance of it firing off in a manner that creates this incredibly huge and well-working universe of mine is so ridiculously absurd that its not really worth much concern.
MemoryHumanity
Member
Assuming that the multiverse theory is correct, there are a potentially infinite number of parties like an S-Club party.
We needn't stick too tightly to our human perception of time when talking about this concept. There's no reason that our perception of a human lifetime couldn't be expressed by single state Boltzmann brains that appear and vanish in completely random order. Perhaps this is even the indirect mechanism that our elusive "consciousness" uses to observe and interpret the perceived universe, which itself is the product of another Boltzmann brain in a higher universe.
It's kind of a comforting idea, actually.
It's kind of a comforting idea, actually.
D
Deleted member 80556
Unconfirmed Member
Why brains, why not livers or pancreas? Or pizzas?
I think this is beyond my comprehension.
I think this is beyond my comprehension.
speculawyer
Member
This sounds ridiculous. A spontaneous brain appearing could happen but that is meaningless. The brain also needs a support system, sensory organs, and lots of time to figure anything out. Look at a baby . . . that thing is useless for a long time. It only learns due to millions of years of evolution and teaching from adults.
StalkerUKCG
Banned
So if I read this correctly.
Given infinite time and infinite space and thus the possibility for infinite combinations of matter space brains will pop into existence and then out number humans and then some how get here and destroy us because that is the primary thing they want?
What.
I mean sure if time and space are infinite something like a "space brain" could happen or a "space lifeform" but its far more reasonable to assume that if that can happen Alien lifeforms as intelligent as us have or at some point will exist and that is a far more likely threat(in comparison) than just a disembodied space brain
Given infinite time and infinite space and thus the possibility for infinite combinations of matter space brains will pop into existence and then out number humans and then some how get here and destroy us because that is the primary thing they want?
What.
I mean sure if time and space are infinite something like a "space brain" could happen or a "space lifeform" but its far more reasonable to assume that if that can happen Alien lifeforms as intelligent as us have or at some point will exist and that is a far more likely threat(in comparison) than just a disembodied space brain
Bornstellar
Member
Wow.
not an actual brain. just a thing that does what a brain does, made of some kind of special matter created by quantum fluctuations in the spacetime continuum... Where is the Doctor?
speculawyer
Member
But the probability is just so so low. You would not only need a brain but a brain, support system, time, sensory organs, etc. Brains are useless without training.
Does it surprise you that a baby's brain doesn't do much and can't do much?
Byakuya769
Member
Can those space brains observe sex? No. Fuck them. Humans win again.
Lower than the probability of complex, conscious life?
Lower than the probability of complex, conscious life?
Mgoblue201
Won't stop picking the right nation
That's because it's intended to be a reductio ad absurdum. The point is to posit the minimal amount of "effort" required for some kind of intelligence to pop into existence through a statistical fluctuation. An older version of the problem used a physicist instead of a brain. The point, however, is similar. If life in the universe is to come about through a fluctuation in space, then it is overwhelmingly likely to favor the smallest possible fluctuation. But instead the universe we see around us "evolved" from a low entropy state, which would have required a massive fluctuation.
Again, this is trying to force fit the concept into our perceived biological paradigm of continuity. One of these "brains" could simply be a structure that effectively maps out a state of a mind, with an already existing set of memories and data that is to the mind itself perceived as sensory input. This structure could come into being for an instant then dissipate. An enormous amount of time previous to this, there could be another such structure appearing that just happens to be the next state in the time continuum that the mind is observing. And maybe much later than that a state that's from much earlier in the mind's "life".
So the universe we observe could simply be the substrate for these random states to appear, while a conscious mind is a brain in a higher universe encapsulating this universe and randomly accessing certain states to assemble a perceived continuous existence. By extension, that could be how our consciousnesses are implemented -- a cross section of certain random states in another universe, while the universe we observe is contained within our included sensory data.
If infinity exists, all this is possible, and nothing is ever lost.
Bornstellar
Member
No I'm surprised by your own underestimation of a baby's ability to learn and develop quite rapidly - much more so than that of an adult. It is not "useless" as training is not a necessary component of that development.
everyone wants now. no one worries about the future.
the probability for our type of life, we would call low, but from a macro view, that probability might be a lot higher.
instead of a brain, imagine a purple glowy thing made up of super excited quarks that, for some random reason, can hear radio frequencies in space and perceive the electromagnetic radiation. And can 'think' about them. The focus isn't so much on the brain but the consciousness.
Like a computer AI that is fully conscious, or a human mind. It's all a lot of instructions being processed at super speed, at a constant pace that isn't allowed to slow down. Ours is so advanced that we have human consciousness. So this created thing could be some kind of physical computer made up of particles that process on a different level of time than we do. The only thing relating to us is that it thinks, not what it is. So it won't need a "support" anything, beyond the conditions that created it and what it exists under.
so now we have quantum fluctuations that warp the universe, killing everything in its path. And fluctuations that create the conditions for consciousness. it's stranger than fiction anyway. while not exactly non-fiction.
Their neurons are also unmyelinated. It isn't a coincidence they're twitchy, imprecise, and unsophisticated, all that untapped potential as yet isn't tapped.
- Status