DuncanS comments on A boltzmann brain question. - Less Wrong

8 Post author: DuncanS 25 September 2011 10:35PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (24)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: DuncanS 26 September 2011 07:01:29PM 0 points [-]

I didn't have the numbers of axons in the corpus callosum, and they are interesting. If we assume they either fire, or not, independently of each other, at a rate of up to 200Hz, then the bit rate for the bus is about 4 Gigabits per second. If the brain lives a couple of minutes, you'll need about 400 Gigabits, or 40 Gigabytes. This means you get about 4 bytes per brain cell in the other hemisphere.

A single brain cell is so complex that nothing that complex could come into existence as a sheer coincidence over all space and time. It requires an evolutionary process to make something that complex. 4 bytes worth of coincidence happens essentially instantaneously.

Comment author: asr 26 September 2011 08:30:46PM 1 point [-]

A single brain cell is so complex that nothing that complex could come into existence as a sheer coincidence over all space and time. It requires an evolutionary process to make something that complex.

I think you may have missed the point of the Boltzmann-brain hypothetical. As the volume of space and time goes to infinity, the chance of such a thing forming due to chance will converge to one.

4 bytes worth of coincidence happens essentially instantaneously.

I have no idea how to attach meaning to this sentence. Surely the frequency of a one-in-four-billion event depends how many trials you conduct per unit time.

Comment author: DuncanS 26 September 2011 08:50:20PM 0 points [-]

My fault for not describing this more specifically. I know that in truly vast spaces of space and time, it eventually becomes quite likely that a Boltzmann brain emerges in the vastness of the space. But the space and time required is much greater than our observable universe, which is what I was referring to in the first case.

I guess my second sentence is intended to mean that any real universe gets through four billion events of the requisite size (cosmic rays) pretty quickly.

Comment author: Nornagest 26 September 2011 09:01:15PM *  2 points [-]

The interesting part of the hypothesis, as I understand it, is less that the probability of a Boltzmann brain approaches one as the universe grows older (trivially true) and more that the amount of negentropy needed to generate a universe is vastly, sillily larger than that needed to generate a small self-aware system that thinks it's embedded in a universe at some point in time -- and thus that anthropic considerations should guide us to favor the latter. This is of course predicated on the idea that the universe arose from a random event obeying the kind of probability distributions that govern vacuum fluctuations and similar events.