Hi, then I have a difficult question to ask. Let's imagine that in the distant future of our universe, through the arrangement of atoms that move in empty space, various objects are formed, any object can be formed, the important thing is that it does not violate the laws of physics (to know in detail , see my previous post: https: //www.lesswrong.com/posts/LGMSLXkpKAofebjfi/a-terrifying-variant-of-boltzmann-s-brains-problem). Obviously, objects with less mass and less complex will form more often, this is because they are random arrangements. Now, this possibility opens up a dangerous scenario, since if any object can be formed, a human brain can also be formed, for example, and since despite the small probability that a brain will aggregate, having a lot of time available ( like 10 to 10 to 105, and our universe is "only" 10^10 years old, the amount of time is frighteningly large), nothing prevents this from happening and it happens many times, more than all humans who have lived on earth , one might wonder if I am such a brain, born eons after the birth of the universe, experiencing false sensations, this problem is called boltzmann brain (in detail in my previous post: https://www.lesswrong.com/ posts/LGMSLXkpKAofebjfi/a-terrifying-variant-of-boltzmann-s-brains-problem). The problem, however, seems easy enough to overcome, a brain born at random would also most likely have random, incoherent memories (some are, but most are not, and since the world we perceive is coherent, the a priori hypothesis can be rejected. since it leads to a logical contradiction) and also would not survive long in empty space. The problem is that just as brains can be formed, computers can be formed, for example, which could in some way form human brains and make them believe they are living in a world that is actually simulated. Small digression, one way to refute the boltzmann brains hypothesis a priori is to show that the most likely scenario in which a brain will be found in the distant future is inconsistent with my (and I hope our) observations.
Going back, if a brain alone is very unlikely, more than a computer of the same size in my opinion, since I believe that in order to function, even for a very short time, it must have cells with the same DNA, and it is already very unlikely. That human cells of a brain are formed at random, if they must have the same DNA, it becomes much more unlikely than a computer of the same mass, which I do not think has restrictions similar to those mentioned above since I think the fundamental units of a computer just work , it doesn't matter what they are made of, or if they are very different from each other (I think).
So a computer is most likely to form, now, the most likely scenario a human brain will be in, will depend on the most likely type of computer (so there will be many more in proportion), now, comes the real question of the post: forming randomly, it is likely a computer and therefore an AI that has innate information and instructions on how to create a human brain, or it is more likely an AI that has an innate component, an algorithm capable of understanding (not in a conscious way, a weak AI in short) and maybe even self-improve, and get to form a human brain, for example, forming unicellular organisms, arranging atoms randomly, and then starting a simulation of the environment in which these beings could live and then in the simulation, get to humans as a species and decide to simulate one and make them believe they live in an external world. Most environments would not lead to humans as we know them, but some do. Sorry for the confusion, it's a complex idea. However, to contextualize where these AIs are, they are in a cold universe and where there is almost nothing left except for Black holes, iron stars (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_star) and neutron stars. Therefore they have no possibility of learning from direct experience, the terrestrial environment or more generally, of an und "dead" universe. However in simpler words: it is more likely an AI than to create a human brain, it already has the innate information and instructions, or an AI that starts with a very powerful learning algorithm, which maybe (I don't know if it is feasible ), is able to improve himself a lot and understand the universe very very well, despite being very dead?
Hi, then I have a difficult question to ask. Let's imagine that in the distant future of our universe, through the arrangement of atoms that move in empty space, various objects are formed, any object can be formed, the important thing is that it does not violate the laws of physics (to know in detail , see my previous post: https: //www.lesswrong.com/posts/LGMSLXkpKAofebjfi/a-terrifying-variant-of-boltzmann-s-brains-problem). Obviously, objects with less mass and less complex will form more often, this is because they are random arrangements. Now, this possibility opens up a dangerous scenario, since if any object can be formed, a human brain can also be formed, for example, and since despite the small probability that a brain will aggregate, having a lot of time available ( like 10 to 10 to 105, and our universe is "only" 10^10 years old, the amount of time is frighteningly large), nothing prevents this from happening and it happens many times, more than all humans who have lived on earth , one might wonder if I am such a brain, born eons after the birth of the universe, experiencing false sensations, this problem is called boltzmann brain (in detail in my previous post: https://www.lesswrong.com/ posts/LGMSLXkpKAofebjfi/a-terrifying-variant-of-boltzmann-s-brains-problem). The problem, however, seems easy enough to overcome, a brain born at random would also most likely have random, incoherent memories (some are, but most are not, and since the world we perceive is coherent, the a priori hypothesis can be rejected. since it leads to a logical contradiction) and also would not survive long in empty space. The problem is that just as brains can be formed, computers can be formed, for example, which could in some way form human brains and make them believe they are living in a world that is actually simulated. Small digression, one way to refute the boltzmann brains hypothesis a priori is to show that the most likely scenario in which a brain will be found in the distant future is inconsistent with my (and I hope our) observations.
Going back, if a brain alone is very unlikely, more than a computer of the same size in my opinion, since I believe that in order to function, even for a very short time, it must have cells with the same DNA, and it is already very unlikely. That human cells of a brain are formed at random, if they must have the same DNA, it becomes much more unlikely than a computer of the same mass, which I do not think has restrictions similar to those mentioned above since I think the fundamental units of a computer just work , it doesn't matter what they are made of, or if they are very different from each other (I think).
So a computer is most likely to form, now, the most likely scenario a human brain will be in, will depend on the most likely type of computer (so there will be many more in proportion), now, comes the real question of the post: forming randomly, it is likely a computer and therefore an AI that has innate information and instructions on how to create a human brain, or it is more likely an AI that has an innate component, an algorithm capable of understanding (not in a conscious way, a weak AI in short) and maybe even self-improve, and get to form a human brain, for example, forming unicellular organisms, arranging atoms randomly, and then starting a simulation of the environment in which these beings could live and then in the simulation, get to humans as a species and decide to simulate one and make them believe they live in an external world. Most environments would not lead to humans as we know them, but some do. Sorry for the confusion, it's a complex idea. However, to contextualize where these AIs are, they are in a cold universe and where there is almost nothing left except for Black holes, iron stars (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_star) and neutron stars. Therefore they have no possibility of learning from direct experience, the terrestrial environment or more generally, of an und "dead" universe. However in simpler words: it is more likely an AI than to create a human brain, it already has the innate information and instructions, or an AI that starts with a very powerful learning algorithm, which maybe (I don't know if it is feasible ), is able to improve himself a lot and understand the universe very very well, despite being very dead?