= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
pragmatist comments on Boltzmann Brains and Anthropic Reference Classes (Updated) - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (112)
This isn't some fringe interest of Page's though. Other cosmologists who have written and spoken about the issue are Hawking, Hartle, Guth, Susskind, Linde, Carroll, Vilenkin and Bousso (I could go on). Hardly crackpots. Doesn't the fact that a number of eminent scientists consider this an issue worth talking about shift your opinion about it being nonsense a little bit?
Do you mean, they have written about Boltzmann brains, or that they actually raise concerns similar to those you raise in this post? A string of names does not actually assert the latter.
All of the physicists I named, except Hartle, have raised concerns about the Boltzmann brain problem threatening observational cosmology. Hartle has argued against the SSA, so he thinks Boltzmann brains aren't problematic. I probably shouldn't have included his name in the list. Still, the fact that he has published on the issue suggests that he regards it as more than just nonsense.