I've known this for years.In an infinite universe, there is a random change that a GAF user might blink into existence.
In fact, the mathematics dictate that there will be far more of these cosmic GAFfers than human GAFfers.
In all probability, you are the only human on this forum.
Also, every single fictive universe ever conceived could actually spontaneously appear at the same time, and every single main protagonist would simultaneously scream "Bag full of dicks!" upon materialisation.
Given enough time, everything is possible, right?
If it's infinite, it will happen - regardless of how ridiculously improbable they are.
Also, every single fictive universe ever conceived could actually spontaneously appear at the same time, and every single main protagonist would simultaneously scream "Bag full of dicks!" upon materialisation.
Given enough time, everything is possible, right?
Will happen? What if this stuff happened already?
Seems equally possible that anti space brains could form going around and ridding the universe of space brains till they are extinct
Some have speculated that the big bang is just that, something of extremely low improbability that happened in another dead universe.
If Boltzmann brains can be a thing, so can naturally occurring space dicks. Space dicks would definitely be less physically complex than Boltzmann brains, which means they should be more common. What if space dicks fill up space before Boltzmann brains have a chance to spawn? What then?
but the anti-space brains would still be space brains to us.
If brains can suddenly come into being through energy and matter colliding
Why can't humans just spontaneously appear too?
Or can they?
Fuck this I'm becoming religious
Hear me, Odin.
Sure, that's possible too, if the universe is infinite.
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.So things will change a lot in the future. I get that. But so what? Why does that change anything we know now? What do spacebrains and the number of them have to do with anything? I dont think it being a brain is a completely random choice of object by what it sounds. Cyan mentioned something earlier about how our existence could actually be something to do with it, but I dont understand that part, especially as a brain in space couldn't survive.
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.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.
Having a theory that "this is all a dream" is such a terrible belief.
space dicks made from energy and exotic matter? sure.
actually...
you're not really bitter, you just think that you are, but it would be better for you to stop deluding yourself with your imaginary bitterness. You are addicted to feeling, which is understandable, but wouldn't it be better to focus on more enjoyable sensations?
this.This.This!.THIS.THIS!
is why science moves slow.
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.
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.
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?
Wow.
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.
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.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.
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.
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?
which one, the detached rationalism, or the graspy and desperate vacillation?
the probability for our type of life, we would call low, but from a macro view, that probability might be a lot higher.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?
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.Babies are born with all the brain cells they will ever have. Their brains are more active than yours and learn faster.