you have five minutes to prove i'm not a boltzmann brain

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68 |

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68 |

Skip to content
# you have five minutes to prove i'm not a boltzmann brain

###

you have five minutes to prove i'm not a boltzmann brain

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68 |

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68 |

>disprove my unfalsfiable hypothesis

You have to be 18 to post here

You do realize that all sciences founded on empirical data are based on axioms, which by definition, do not require verification, and thus are unfalsifiable, right?

Maybe you need to deepen your own understanding of the world a bit before posting?

>You do realize that all sciences founded on empirical data are based on axioms, which by definition, do not require verification, and thus are unfalsifiable, right?

Non sequitur.

Because a brain can only process a limited amount of information? What do you think, that everything you go through life is just stored in your brain like that?

it takes an infinite amount of time to form one. it might possess just enough power to compute one's perception of reality.

or enough to make an illusion of perception of reality.

ad-hom, i accept your concession

please post your preferred school of philosophical thought so i can laugh at it

it might validate both eternal return and nihilism

you're boltzmann ass

From the quality of this thread I can definitely tell that you're an american of predominantly sub saharan ancestry, so you're not an boltzmann brain

You fail at the "brain" part

Why does it matter if it doesn't change your perception of reality?

I can't prove that because I can confirm you are a boltzmann brain. Me and the observer boys are having fun watching you waste the experiment on wanking and IQfy again. It's funny, we even tried to give you a modicum of intelligence this time but you always do the same thing!

Boltzmann brains don't have souls, so they can't experience anything. The neurons send signals to each other in a purely mechanistic way and consciousness doesn't arise.

For those of us that believe in simulation theory, that would be a step up from being a bunch of lines of code.

>simulation theory

redpill me on this

For me it was when physicists proved that the universe isn't locally real. But if you take all the shit you see on /x/ and try to neatly slot it into a single framework, that we're all living in a simulation of some kind reconciles everything.

Maybe gnostics were kind of right.

It's meaningless nonsense. What would it mean to NOT live in a simulation? It's just a question of terminology. Abrahamic religions, where God "creates" the universe, could be rephrased as God "simulating" the universe without changing anything.

>Goldberg

Given the fact that you gave us 5 minutes and not a mere fraction of a second which a Boltzmann brain would exist for I think you’ve done the refuting yourself

You have 15min to prove me you are not bolzman brain in folzman brain in dolzman brain.

>could imagine whatever reality you want

>imagine yourself posting on IQfy

Why would it be a brain? You could imagine that reality as you're not experiencing it is literally anything or something you couldn't possibly imagine. If reality is an illusion, then why would what is not an illusion be something that you can imagine making sense as you understand in the illusion? How can you have the idea of everything being an illusion but for some reason the actual reality makes sense in there being an object as a brain and concepts such as memory? You can imagine anything, and you can imagine there's things you can't imagine.

The Boltzman brain wasn't the point Boltzman was trying to make. It was just an example in a thought process he tried to build. He was thinking about entropy, the fact that dynimics of entropy move in only one direction over time, about probabilities. I watched a video about it recently. The conclusion was that it's more likely that the world suddenly appeared out of nowhere than the likelihood that the world actually started with a big bang and then evolved for billlions of years.

Wait, I think I need to correct myself here.

> It was just an example in a thought process he tried to build.

I'm not even sure he actually used it as an example. Maybe other people condensed the thought process to one example and then made a meme out of it.

> The conclusion was that it's more likely that the world suddenly appeared out of nowhere than the likelihood that the world actually started with a big bang and then evolved for billlions of years.

Not "out of nowhere", but out of chaos. The logic is built on the assumption that the big bang happens only once, and then the universe evolves, then turns into chaos, and then there is an infinite amount of time of the universe being in the chaos state, so there is some likelihood for some order suddenly appearing in that chaos.

How can it be infinite but not everything already happened? Given infinity a monkey on a typewriter types every possible combination, including the complete works of Shakespeare.

Also, I just realized technically the monkey would type Shakespeare infinite times but also everything else infinite times, but that's not possible to type more than one thing infinite times on one typewriter. (Assuming all the inputs are random, the monkey doesn't just input one thing on an infinite loop).

Yeah, I was thinking about the monkeys and a typewriter example.

Why should monkeys produce complete works of Shakespeare just because they have a lot of time? For me, it seems that there's zero chance of that happening, now matter how long of a time period we're talking about.

In general, multiplying every probability by infinity regardless of how small it is, seems wrong.

I don't really understand it too well considering monkeys typing wouldn't be completely random, so I imagine a possibility of a monkey on an infinite loop of gibberish never randomly typing a specific string of text as long as Shakespeare's works.

> I imagine a possibility of a monkey on an infinite loop of gibberish never randomly typing a specific string of text as long as Shakespeare's works.

That's what I'm talking about.

Seems like if you plot the probability over the length of the time period, yes, it will grow in the beginning, but then at some point it should reach a plateau.

>but then at some point it should reach a plateau.

why?

I don't know, it just intuitively feels right.

>randomly smash keyboard for a few seconds

>eventually you will type a few actual words

>as long as you keep smashing your keyboard randomly, the words don't stop appearing

>wait a few eternities

>get hamlet

>???

>Profit

Yes, it just intuitively feels like you won't get Hamlet no matter how long the monkey smashes the keyboard.

when does it stop feeling right? one word? one line? one act?

It doesn't matter, the border is somewhere between one word and a complete works of Shakespeare.

It's not actually random when you smash a keyboard because there's certain finite characteristics to how smashing a keyboard works. Plus how are you infinitely inputting gibberish and not-gibberish at the same time? You can't infinitely input not-gibberish and infinitely input gibberish at the same time. You can infinitely input gibberish that never creates a not-gibberish. Given infinity, you can infinitely randomly input Shakespeare by smashing the keyboard, no, but you can infinitely input Marlowe? How does that work given you can't input 2 different things infinitely on 1 keyboard?

>how are you infinitely inputting gibberish and not-gibberish

You only think Shakespeare isn't gibberish because you speak English. If you didn't you would consider it gibberish. Inputting 8 characters randomly can create both the string ANUDLYYO and the string THINKING. Both have the same chance of appearing. You consider the former gibberish and the latter as non-gibberish because you're a literary-racist.

There are approximately 130,000 characters in Hamlet. If the way you're generating letters is truly random, then the chances of you generating just AAAAA[...] 130,000 times IS the same as the chances you will generate the whole of Hamlet.

If you think a true random, 26-sided die can't get you the same result 130,000 times in a row, you simply have a math problem.

>but the monkey typing isn't random

As far as I know the monkey typing is just a way to ease your imagining.

But if it's truly random infinitely with infinite variations of text, then there's a variation of randomness that created infinite Shakespeare. But if there's also infinite not-Shakespeare as well as infinite Shakespeare, then how is that possible given there's only 1 infinite string of text? Is there not also an infinite possibility of randomly inputting AAAA...?

>1 infinite string of text?

1 infinte string of text can include everything that is not infinite. hamlet isn't infinite.

But the infinite string would include infinite Hamlet's. There's an infinite chance that Hamlet is inputted letter by letter from the very beginning as much as there's an infinite chance of inputting FDJDJARPMATG.... Every variation of random infinite input has an infinite chance of occurring, but you can't have more than one infinite string. What's the chance of Hamlet occurring 40 thousand characters in vs 40e300.

>What's the chance of Hamlet occurring 40 thousand characters

26^-130,000

every 130,000 characters there is a one in 26^130,000 chance for hamlet to be randomly generated, which is a long shot. good thing we have infinite amount of shots to take.

look if you still think one word is feasible but hamlet isn't because of "reasons" you're hopeless. 5 letters and 130,000 are the same to infinity.

What I'm saying is that an infinite string means it has infinite Hamlets but also infinite King Lears. How can both be infinitely occurring on one string? I get that you can infinitely alternate between inputting Hamlet and inputting King Lear, but since it's random then that means there's infinite chance that you never alternate.

NTA, but if I understand you correctly, that's just a problem of encoding.

You already mentioned alternating between texts to get two infinities encoded in one infinite string.

The problem would be with encoding infinite works in one string, because alternating between them wouldn't work.

I don't know what that means in the context of Boltzman's thought experiment.

no, wait, I think you mean the contradiction between an infinite chance of the whole infinite string being all letter A, and an infinite chance of it being all letter B, right?

Yes, sorry I'm not explaining myself well

>look if you still think one word is feasible but hamlet isn't because of "reasons" you're hopeless. 5 letters and 130,000 are the same to infinity.

right, there's a paradox.

so you're saying that 5 letters and 130,000 are the same to infinity.

what's the likelihood of the infinite string being all letters A starting from some point?

by your logic we should answer that the likelihood is 100%.

now what's the likelihood of it being all letters B starting from some point?

also 100%.

now we have a contradiction.

He could answer that the likelihood of appearing is 100% for any finite sequence of letters, but for the infinite sequence of letters it's 0%.

So there it is, the border, the plateau I was talking about, it's somewhere between a finite sequence of letters and an infinite one.

>but for the infinite sequence of letters it's 0%.

or some value that is less than 100%.

>So there it is, the border, the plateau I was talking about, it's somewhere between a finite sequence of letters and an infinite one.

Or maybe the conclusion is that you don't simply multiply everything by infinity, it's more nuanced than that.

There are infinite combinations of 26^x where no high literary work is included. Therefore the infinite combinations of infinite letters with Shakespeare must compete with the larger infinities of infinite combinations where they don't appear. And this other set of no-S are infinitely infinitely larger that the infinite infinities where S do appear. Therefore it is impossible for Shakespeare to appear.

It's not once in 26^-130,000 it's once in 26^-130,000^infinity^infinity, which is impossible.

Randomness and infinite of time doesn't mean all combinations will occur, it means infinite combinations of infinity WON'T occur.

Infinity does not exceed infinity.

TL;DR: Infinite combinations of random given infinity, = infinitely infinite. Or rather infinitely different infinite different potentials.

They assume given randomness there won't be infinite repetition of non-S when that's the exactly opposite of what would happen.

At what point did infinity become intuitive to you?

Think about pi. You can use one of those pi searches and find your birthdate, your phone number and this post's number there. If we knew more digits of pi, you could find the three of those in that order.

Forget base 10, use base 26 to expand pi. 0 = a, 1 = b and so on.

If what I wrote at the start sounds sound, then "Somewhere along this base 26 pi you will find Shakespeare" should sound sound, too.

The monkey thing is just a way to visualize it.

Is IQfy even knowledgeable on metaphysics and epistemology? All the philosophy I ever see on here is ethics and the more flowery continental shit.

Some of us, yeh, at least enough to know that OP's challenge is just an internalist trap.

you have 5 minutes to tell my why the knowledge of being a boltzmann brain would have any tangible effect on your life

Mathematically unfeasible, but we both know that it's not the case. Locksisters we win again.

Your brain is limited by your IQ. It cannot simulate someone of significantly higher IQ. The fact that my IQ is at least 50 points higher than yours disproves your solipsism.