The stumbling block for atheists.

[variant]

For point 2 it's worth noting that some structures in the universe look like some structures in neurons. It's more of the cargo-cult speculation that tries to relate apparent structural similarities to functional equivalence while ignoring the overall context; e.g. certain ways of imaging neuronal connectivity in the brain resemble certain ways of imaging computer simulations of the universe therefore they probably have the same function (!).

Even the quoted article suggests the structural similarities reflect a deeper correspondence:

“Seeing very similar shapes in such strikingly different systems suggests that the energy of a system may depend on its shape in a simple and universal way.”​

Good point, the neuronal structure is going to be vastly varied given it's complexity, so we should be able to find structures within brains that "look like" other things.

The problem is that we might be looking at clouds and seeing sandcastles. This idea becomes a bit of a Rorschach test.

 

[Michael]

Good point, the neuronal structure is going to be vastly varied given it's complexity, so we should be able to find structures within brains that "look like" other things.

The problem is that we might be looking at clouds and seeing sandcastles. This idea becomes a bit of a Rorschach test.

The problem for your argument is that they don't just *look* like the various structures in the brain, they function as current carrying filaments just like we would expect. It's easy to ridicule anything, particularly cosmology theories. It's a lot harder to provide a "more compelling" cosmology theory. Compared to what passes for "science" today in terms of cosmology theory, you have nothing to complain about. At least I'm not introducing four different supernatural constructs to describe the universe.

 

[Michael]

The idea of a cosmic-scale Boltzmann brain is contrary to the whole rationale for Bolzmann brains.

How so?

 

[Michael]

Even the quoted article suggests the structural similarities reflect a deeper correspondence:

“Seeing very similar shapes in such strikingly different systems suggests that the energy of a system may depend on its shape in a simple and universal way.”​

That "simple and universal" influence is electricity and current flow, but such an influence wouldn't *automatically* create structures that mimic structures of intelligent beings.

 

[Michael]

Well you presented me with only two points of evidence, 1 that people believe in God, and 2 that some structures in the universe look like neurons.

1 Can certainly be true if God doesn't exist.

That seems like speculation on your part. How do you know it would be such a widespread belief in the absence of God?

2 Seems to make little sense if you don't expect the universe to actually generate awareness like a complex set of neurons does.

"Little sense" in comparison to what? I don't expect the universe to generate 'dark energy' or exotic matter either, but some folks put a lot of stock in those concepts, even when they are combined into one theory of the universe.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

How so?

Because Boltzmann brains are basically a statistical counter to the idea that our low entropy universe (with us, conscious observers), could be the result of a random quantum fluctuation in a high entropy bulk; the premise is that it's far more likely that such random fluctuations would be much smaller and of much lower entropy.

For conscious observers (like us) to exist, the most likely configuration would be the minimal conscious configuration - a disembodied brain, complete with memories; i.e. a Boltzmann brain. In a bulk of vast or infinite spatial and/or temporal extent, BBs would far outnumber conscious observers resulting from universe-scale fluctuations; so, individually, we're vastly more likely to be BBs than the products of the universe we think we perceive(!).

It has the same kind of superficial logical structure as the simulation hypothesis, with the same kind of deep logical flaws. But nevertheless, under this regime, a cosmic-scale BB is even less likely than a low entropy universe in which conscious observers evolve.

So a cosmic-scale BB is contrary to the whole rationale for Bolzmann brains (such as it is).

This cosmological quantum metaphysics is entertaining, but the novelty soon wears off.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

That "simple and universal" influence is electricity and current flow, but such an influence wouldn't *automatically* create structures that mimic structures of intelligent beings.

The physics (materials and forces) and the scales involved in the two contexts are completely different. Similarities in structures formed under such different circumstances are either expressions of some deeper relational principles - much as the shapes of spiral galaxies and Earthly tornadoes are related; or they may be coincidental... unless you're suggesting that structures in neutron stars may have some functional similarities to the structures in cells, despite their entirely different contexts and environments?

 

[Michael]

Because Boltzmann brains are basically a statistical counter to the idea that our low entropy universe (with us, conscious observers), could be the result of a random quantum fluctuation in a high entropy bulk; the premise is that it's far more likely that such random fluctuations would be much smaller and of much lower entropy.

Far more likely? That's amusing. All would take is for one of them to form, and surely it would want to start to manipulate the environment around it. It a consciousness can exist at a QM level of reality, pretty much anything becomes possible in terms of a living universe.

For conscious observers (like us) to exist, the most likely configuration would be the minimal conscious configuration - a disembodied brain, complete with memories; i.e. a Boltzmann brain. In a bulk of vast or infinite spatial and/or temporal extent, BBs would far outnumber conscious observers resulting from universe-scale fluctuations; so, individually, we're vastly more likely to be BBs than the products of the universe we think we perceive(!).

You're essentially playing the role of judge, jury and executioner with respect to "evidence". Not only does the universe contain a circuitry pattern that is consistent with the patterns that we find inside of living organisms, humans since the dawn of recorded civilization have been reporting to have a relationship to a higher power of some kind. A living, intelligent universe certainly "predicts" both of those observations. The alternative does not. That's at least two different "observations" that would *certainly* be consistent with a living universe. Furthermore the BB concept isn't even all that 'far fetched' in terms of physics. If something like "inflation" and "space expansion", and "dark energy" are "possibilities" in physics, then an intelligent universe isn't any more far fetched, in fact less so. I'm not even required to introduce *any* new forms of energy or mass to ascribe "intelligence" to the universe and intelligent organisms abound in this universe, as close as Planet Earth.

FYI, presumably the only thing that "saves" us from an intelligence in the universe is the miracle of inflation.

It has the same kind of superficial logical structure as the simulation hypothesis, with the same kind of deep logical flaws. But nevertheless, under this regime, a cosmic-scale BB is even less likely than a low entropy universe in which conscious observers evolve.

I fail to see why it's an either/or proposition. Even a cosmic scale Boltzmann brain could be an "evolved" being. If we can't rule out the possibility of microscopic life and evolution, how could we possibly exclude it on the macroscopic level?

So a cosmic-scale BB is contrary to the whole rationale for Bolzmann brains (such as it is).

That's just your personal "take" on the issue as far as I can tell. It's a manifestation of your judge, jury, executioner thing, it's not a limitation of physics.

This cosmological quantum metaphysics is entertaining, but the novelty soon wears off.

The "novelty" wore off over a hundred years ago, but the concept still remains quite viable. Compared to the alternatives that are currently "popular", it's far less "needy" of supernatural elements.

 

[Michael]

The structural analog to a neuron you showed me is beyond gigantic. Do you think there are other structural analogs in solar systems as well?

There are certainly structural analogs in life forms on Earth inside this solar system. As I mentioned before, the sun also contains more visible circuits in it's atmosphere than I have in my whole body. Even the planets are 'wired' to the sun.

If we limit ourselves to light speed then the picture you were showing me is probably fairly meaningless. It will simply not be capable of acting like the thing you are comparing it to because of the scaling issue.

Well, assuming it *has* to involved information movement between all those structures, it could just operate on a much slower scale. You haven't really explained how you know what the 'speed of awareness' might be.

"has circuits" isn't really enough to justify anything, as there is no reason to call the brain "just a bunch of circuits" which would be an impressive oversimplification. You're basis for comparison so far was a picture of circuitry many orders of magnitude larger.

But the circuitry at the macroscopic scale doesn't appear to be just a random pattern of circuits, it's highly congruent with the circuitry we find inside of living organisms. You can call that a "fluke" if you like, but I'm not obligated to take that similarity lightly.

I am working with the evidence as you present it. Again, your basis for comparison was a much larger "circuit".

It could be "infinitely" large in fact, which keeps bringing us back to the need for "awareness" to transmit information to "every" neuron in the brain (or not). You keep insisting that this issue be looked at purely from the standpoint of the need for all information to pass through every circuit.

You've not presented an entire cosmology were that criticism valid, just a very weak justification for why you think large scale awareness is possible via physical means.

Well, admittedly you'd need to read Birkeland's work, and Alfven's work, Peratt's work and the work of Charles Bruce to get a real "cosmology theory" going. Then again, it's all been written.

We're talking about physical mechanisms for phenomena you are proposing, issues of what I don't know, don't really tell me anything.

Well, the most common 'physical mechanisms" in terms of transferring energy and power in a plasma environment are Birkeland currents and double layers. One of the most interesting things about Plasma that Langmuir noticed about the behaviors of matter in the plasma state is that it acted a lot like human plasma. That's in fact why he personally chose that name to describe the forth state of matter.

You can propose things that move faster than are currently known to be physically possible, but again, it's conjecture.

Well, unless you can demonstrate that "awareness" has mass, I'm not really that far out on limb to start with, even *if* you could demonstrate that "information" must be processed in some remote place rather than inside our solar system.

If we allow un-evidenced conjecture to fill in gaps and problems in our theoretical descriptions of phenomena, then we've moved beyond science into a world of fantasy.

Fantasy compared to LCDM? You have to be *kidding* me! I have to accept the existence of four different supernatural constructs to hold belief in LCDM. Even if I added one "unseen" (in the lab) element to the mix, that would still be three supernatural elements *less* than current cosmology theory. We fill in the gaps with conjecture all the time in cosmology theory.

God is the conclusion you are trying to reach, we call this fallacy begging the question.

Not at all. I didn't even think about the implications of EU/PC theory before embracing that basic concept over LCDM. I also couldn't help but notice the implications as it relates to Panentheism once I did so. I could help but notice those mass layout and circuity similarities when I saw them either.

Compare and contrast that series of events with how Guth came up with his inflation concept. He begged, borrowed and stole every question possible, from the "lack of monopoles", to the supposedly "flatness" of the universe.

OK, so, I'll count this as another point of agreement.

Fair enough.

Well first one would have to define what they mean by God in a way where we could make observable predictions that would likely to happen if it existed and unlikely to happen if it did not.

It seems highly unlikely that a non living universe would necessarily be "wired together" in the first place, let alone wired in a way that is similar to living organisms here on Earth. Pure coincidence?

Then we would have to make observations that tended to confirm it's existence.

What type of observations would you accept?

Gravity and light are fairly compelling, even if you don't really understand them.

What people call "God" is usually so ill defined it is basically meaningless.

It's not really ill defined in Panetheism, or Pantheism for that matter. I don't personally have any control as to how others might define that term.

Your "universal awareness" differs, which is why I find it an interesting take on the idea.

I'm pleased that you at least find it interesting.

Let's keep to the ideas you are trying to pass off as valid. My purpose here is not to attempt to justify mainstream physics, and I would be ill prepared to do so.

Don't take it personally, so are the "professionals" in my online experiences.

Disembodied brains are purely hypothetical. We have neither evidence or justification that any such thing exists and a hypothesis from the 1900's doesn't help demonstrate that they are even possible.

What then is a 'possibility' from the standpoint of physics in your opinion? It doesn't technically have to be "disembodied", or remain that way forever. FYI, the DM hypothesis goes back close to a 100 year with the work of Fritz Zwicky. Birkeland's working solar models go back more than a 100 years too. It's not at all uncommon for cosmology ideas to be decades old, if not centuries old. The static universe concept was the prevailing theory in cosmology for hundreds if not thousands of years and it may still be valid.

What you seem to be lacking is a good idea of how brains actually work, or how they would possibly form disembodied.

First of all I wouldn't assume that it's 'disembodied". The universe has physical structure and form, and it's wired together in a pattern that is consistent with living things. At a quantum level awareness might "seem" to be disembodied, but I doubt it actually works that way.

But no, you don't as I have pointed out have a full cosmology simply by having one hypothetical idea that doesn't seem to square with what we think we know about reality.

I think you're overlooking a lot of work on EU/PC theory. It's not like EU/PC theory is even *remotely* similar to conventional cosmology theory, and it does enjoy a great deal of published support as well. That's all necessary foundational information as it relates to cosmology theory even *before* we can consider the other hypothetical aspects. The basic strength of EU/PC cosmology is that fact that so many other observations of the universe can be explained by it's tenets.

http://plasmauniverse.info/downloadsCosmo/Peratt86TPS-II.pdf

So, you want to use an analogy to neuronal frameworks and circuitry as your basis for saying disembodied awareness is possible and also throw out everything we know about how neurons and circuits work?

That's an interesting trick.

I think you're taking this 'disembodied' idea too far. I'm not really suggesting it's "disembodied" intelligence, I'm suggesting it's body is the entire physical universe. We wouldn't want to toss out anything related to physics.

Even if the big bang is entirely as flawed as you say, it doesn't support the idea that your ideas are correct. You have again lapsed into a logical fallacy.

No, I'm simply using current theory as a "standard of comparison". Sure Panentheism has some weaknesses, but they are nothing in comparison to other cosmology theories. I'm not suggesting it's an "either/or" comparison, or that I'm automatically right if (because) LCMD is wrong. I'm simply noting that we're going to have to do some type of comparison if you're going to ascribe "believably' to various cosmology alternatives.

If we take that to be true they would actually have to function like them to demonstrate your point.

In terms of the current flow aspects they do have a similar function. Whether that translates to "awareness" is hard to say, but the electrical aspect is similar. As that other article demonstrates, even hypothetical structures of neutron stars seem to have similarities in terms of 'structure' to cells of living organisms. I can't really tell if they have exactly the same "function" however.

We don't know why the universe is structured like that so any number of reasons are quite possible.

Sure, but some of those "possibilities" will require the introduction of many more supernatural elements than I am proposing. When does 'elegance' and simplicity factor into the debate?

The weaknesses of cosmological conclusions are not particularly interesting to me.

With the exception of *one* cosmological conclusion you mean. All I'm noting is that all cosmology theories are prone to containing "weaknesses" from various vantage points.

I think it would be fairly difficult to find some grounding for the idea that gas clouds are ordered for effect like a living brain.

True, but most of the universe is in the "plasma" state, and even Irving Langmuir noticed the similarities in the behaviors of plasma to living blood plasma.

That's the rub, actually showing why ones ideas are true.

Without control mechanisms to work with, all cosmology theories suffer from the same limitations. It's not unique to any particular cosmology theory. Some concepts like inelastic scattering can be shown to have a tangible effect on photon momentum in the lab. Other claims like "space expansion" cannot. Even still, physics doesn't automatically "rule out" ideas which lack empirical lab support.

The circuitry isn't the problem here it's the function.

How would anyone demonstrate the 'function'?

I have reason to think that a living system might self order brains as part of a biological system, but I don't see a way of ordering the things you are talking about.

The same processes that you're suggesting might 'self order brains' as part of a biological system might be the same processes that self order intelligence at the cosmological scale. AFAIK, it's the same process.

 

[Michael]

You'll have to forgive my spelling mistakes. I'm a little pressed for time in terms of proofreading.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Far more likely? That's amusing.

Simple probability. A small quantum fluctuation is more likely than a large one.

You're essentially playing the role of judge, jury and executioner with respect to "evidence".

Nope; I'm just telling you that your idea isn't consistent with the rationale for Boltzmann brains, which is predicated on the smallest fluctuation that can result in a conscious observer. It's likely to save avoidable misunderstandings and explanations if you call it something else.

Even a cosmic scale Boltzmann brain could be an "evolved" being.

A Boltzmann brain is not an evolved being, it's a singular quantum fluctuation.

If we can't rule out the possibility of microscopic life and evolution, how could we possibly exclude it on the macroscopic level?

Nobody is doing that; we already know life exists at both microscopic and macroscopic scales.

That's just your personal "take" on the issue as far as I can tell. It's a manifestation of your judge, jury, executioner thing, it's not a limitation of physics.

I'm not saying a cosmic-scale consciousness could not conceivably arise out of a quantum fluctuation, or that you can't call it a Boltzmann brain if you insist; I'm saying that such an entity is contrary to the rationale for Boltzmann brains, as described above.

The "novelty" wore off over a hundred years ago, but the concept still remains quite viable.

The Boltzmann brain paradox isn't a hundred years old - it's named after Boltzmann because he first suggested our low entropy universe could be the result of a quantum fluctuation in the 'void' (he attributed the idea to his assistant, Dr. Schuetz) . Later physicists (possibly Eddington in the 1930s, or later) suggested smaller fluctuations were obviously more probable, and that the minimum requirement for a conscious entity would be a fluctuation producing a small assembly something like a biological brain. See Boltzmann's Universe.

 

[Michael]

Simple probability. A small quantum fluctuation is more likely than a large one.

My bad. I misread you original statement. If smaller ones are more likely than large ones, then a Boltzmann brain is more likely than a "big bang".

Nope; I'm just telling you that your idea isn't consistent with the rationale for Boltzmann brains, which is predicated on the smallest fluctuation that can result in a conscious observer. It's likely to save avoidable misunderstandings and explanations if you call it something else.

Fluctuation might occur at the smallest scales, but it also occurs at every scale we can measure.

A Boltzmann brain is not an evolved being, it's a singular quantum fluctuation.

Emphasis mine. Citation please.

Nobody is doing that; we already know life exists at both microscopic and macroscopic scales.

By macroscopic, I'm referring to "cosmological" in scale.

I'm not saying a cosmic-scale consciousness could not conceivably arise out of a quantum fluctuation, or that you can't call it a Boltzmann brain if you insist; I'm saying that such an entity is contrary to the rationale for Boltzmann brains, as described above.

That seems to simply be your 'take' on the concept.

The Boltzmann brain paradox isn't a hundred years old ...

Alright. I think that's a valid point.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Emphasis mine. Citation please.

See Boltzmann's Anthropic Brain:

"... if we are explaining our low-entropy universe by appealing to the anthropic criterion that it must be possible for intelligent life to exist, quite a strong prediction follows: we should find ourselves in the minimum possible entropy fluctuation consistent with life’s existence.

And that minimum fluctuation would be “Boltzmann’s Brain.” Out of the background thermal equilibrium, a fluctuation randomly appears that collects some degrees of freedom into the form of a conscious brain, with just enough sensory apparatus to look around and say “Hey! I exist!”, before dissolving back into the equilibrated ooze."​

By macroscopic, I'm referring to "cosmological" in scale.

Probably better to use 'cosmological' rather than 'macroscopic', which generally means 'everyday' or 'human' scale - in contrast to 'microscopic' which is smaller than readily visible to the naked eye.

That seems to simply be your 'take' on the concept.

It follows from the definition of Boltzmann brains as the the minimum possible entropy fluctuation consistent with producing conscious awareness, being a reductio ad absurdum counter to the concept of (anthropic) consciousness as the result of an entropy fluctuation producing a low entropy, life sustaining, universe (such as we seem to see).

I think it's thermodynamic solipsism, but it has a superficial logic - although I've heard there is now a physical rather than metaphysical argument against Boltzmann brains, see Squelching Boltzmann Brains.

 

[Michael]

See Boltzmann's Anthropic Brain:

"... if we are explaining our low-entropy universe by appealing to the anthropic criterion that it must be possible for intelligent life to exist, quite a strong prediction follows: we should find ourselves in the minimum possible entropy fluctuation consistent with life’s existence.

And that minimum fluctuation would be “Boltzmann’s Brain.” Out of the background thermal equilibrium, a fluctuation randomly appears that collects some degrees of freedom into the form of a conscious brain, with just enough sensory apparatus to look around and say “Hey! I exist!”, before dissolving back into the equilibrated ooze."​

​

I still don't follow how you can 'assume' it's just a 'single' QM fluctuation from the 'minimum' fluctuation that would be consistent with any sort of 'sensory apparatus' that allows an entire "brain" to "look around" and have any sense of self.

It may be a "small amount of fluctuation", but not a 'single' fluctuation. What exactly do you mean by the term 'single quantum fluctuation'?

Probably better to use 'cosmological' rather than 'macroscopic', which generally means 'everyday' or 'human' scale - in contrast to 'microscopic' which is smaller than readily visible to the naked eye.

True. So noted.

It follows from the definition of Boltzmann brains as the the minimum possible entropy fluctuation consistent with producing conscious awareness, being a reductio ad absurdum counter to the concept of (anthropic) consciousness as the result of an entropy fluctuation producing a low entropy, life sustaining, universe (such as we seem to see).

I guess I'm having a hard time with with you're describing as a "single" fluctuation. The concept of self awareness (“Hey! I exist!”) would require a sense of identity, and some kind of sensory input over some small period of time. While that might be doable with *a bunch* of QM fluctuations, I think the term "single" is misleading.

I think it's thermodynamic solipsism, but it has a superficial logic - although I've heard there is now a physical rather than metaphysical argument against Boltzmann brains, see Squelching Boltzmann Brains.

In the microscopic and macroscopic realms of life, a "brain" tends to be a physical device which is capable of emitting energy, and directing energy. I therefore see no reason to think that any "brain" would vary from that particular trend.

From the article:

In an expanding universe that has nothing in it but vacuum energy, there simply aren’t any quantum fluctuations at all.

Er, since when? The whole point of "vacuum energy" is that a vacuum isn't "pure". It deviates up and down from a 'base' that is greater than zero, but the deviation is what allows us to call it 'vacuum energy', and the deviation is continuous over time. I'm calling a foul over his premise. If there were no fluctuations there would be no 'vacuum energy'.

I swear that the term 'vacuum energy' is one of the single most *misused* concept in physics. All it really means is that it's entirely impossible to remove all forms of kinetic energy from any vacuum that humans might experience in their lifetime. We're bombarded with neutrinos and photons galore which cause kinetic energy to flow through every sort of "vacuum" we could hope to build.

Guth misused the term by claiming that a "vacuum" contains "negative pressure". The term vacuum energy has been misused continuously, and it's meaning seems to change on a whim based on the person who's using the term.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I still don't follow how you can 'assume' it's just a 'single' QM fluctuation from the 'minimum' fluctuation that would be consistent with any sort of 'sensory apparatus' that allows an entire "brain" to "look around" and have any sense of self.

It may be a "small amount of fluctuation", but not a 'single' fluctuation. What exactly do you mean by the term 'single quantum fluctuation'?

It's just a convenient (conventional) way of describing how the Uncertainty Principle could result in a random variation in the amplitude of the quantum fields at some point in spacetime sufficient to produce particles.

In this case, enough particles to constitute a mass that could, by chance, constitute a conscious observer for a brief moment. It's absurdly unlikely (some say impossible), but that's Boltzmann brains for you.

I guess I'm having a hard time with with you're describing as a "single" fluctuation. The concept of self awareness (“Hey! I exist!”) would require a sense of identity, and some kind of sensory input over some small period of time. While that might be doable with *a bunch* of QM fluctuations, I think the term "single" is misleading.

The idea is that enough particles are produced in a small volume of spacetime to constitute a conscious brain whose configuration would be complete with the memories of a life leading up to that moment, including a sense of identity, and the sense of some recent sensory input.

From the point of its sudden appearance, it would have sufficient time for a brief conscious moment (but no perception of its real context) before being destroyed by the vacuum.

Whether it's a single large quantum fluctuation that achieves this, or a huge number of coincidental lesser quantum fluctuations is really beside the point - it's a fleeting occurrence in a small volume of space, i.e. enough space to contain a brain capable of consciousness, and enough time for it to be aware of its existence. It's simpler to describe it as 'a fluctuation' (and I suspect that a single large fluctuation is more probable than the equivalent in many small coincident ones, but I don't have the math to demonstrate that).

In the microscopic and macroscopic realms of life, a "brain" tends to be a physical device which is capable of emitting energy, and directing energy. I therefore see no reason to think that any "brain" would vary from that particular trend.

All brains will give off energy as heat; biological and electronic brains will also give off energy as electromagnetic noise. They may direct energy by triggering external systems, e.g. physical actuators, if appropriately connected; but how is that relevant? What did you have in mind here?

Er, since when? The whole point of "vacuum energy" is that a vacuum isn't "pure". It deviates up and down from a 'base' that is greater than zero, but the deviation is what allows us to call it 'vacuum energy', and the deviation is continuous over time. I'm calling a foul over his premise. If there were no fluctuations there would be no 'vacuum energy'.

Er, the whole article is an explanation of why they think that, under certain plausible assumptions, de Sitter space settles into a quiescent vacuum in which there are no quantum fluctuations, and that "... the conventional understanding of inflationary perturbations gets the right answer, although the perturbations aren’t due to “fluctuations”; they’re due to an effective measurement of the quantum state of the inflaton field when the universe reheats at the end of inflation.":

"The basic idea is simple: what we call “quantum fluctuations” aren’t true, dynamical events that occur in isolated quantum systems. Rather, they are a poetic way of describing the fact that when we observe such systems, the outcomes are randomly distributed rather than deterministically predictable. But when we’re not looking, a system in its ground state (like an electron in its lowest-energy orbital around an atomic nucleus) isn’t fluctuating at all; it’s just sitting there. And in de Sitter space — empty space with a positive cosmological constant — all of the fields are in their ground states. If we were to probe empty de Sitter space with a particle detector, it would certainly detect particles — but there are no particle detectors around, so in fact the quantum fields are sitting there quietly in a stationary state with no definite particle number. Therefore, these kinds of fluctuations aren’t “really happening.”"
​

Following that is the more detailed explanation (with the caveat that it depends on the Everettian 'Many Worlds' QM interpretation). If you disagree with their argument, take it up with them.

 

[Michael]

It's just a convenient (conventional) way of describing how the Uncertainty Principle could result in a random variation in the amplitude of the quantum fields at some point in spacetime sufficient to produce particles.

Well, spacetime as we know it certainly seems to have particles in it.

In this case, enough particles to constitute a mass that could, by chance, constitute a conscious observer for a brief moment. It's absurdly unlikely (some say impossible), but that's Boltzmann brains for you.

Impossible? Compared to inflation? FYI, Penrose demonstrated that inflation is actually 10 to the 100th power *less* likely to produce a flat universe with inflation than without it. Impossible by those standards?

The idea is that enough particles are produced in a small volume of spacetime to constitute a conscious brain whose configuration would be complete with the memories of a life leading up to that moment, including a sense of identity, and the sense of some recent sensory input.

That "sense of recent sensory input" would tend to require real sensory input over time.

From the point of its sudden appearance, it would have sufficient time for a brief conscious moment (but no perception of its real context) before being destroyed by the vacuum.

Including all the sensory input features too? This doesn't sound like a single quantum 'fluctuation' but rather a whole series of them which seem to culminate in a sense of *self* awareness. Where does that awareness of sensory input originate and where does it go?

Whether it's a single large quantum fluctuation that achieves this, or a huge number of coincidental lesser quantum fluctuations is really beside the point - it's a fleeting occurrence in a small volume of space, i.e. enough space to contain a brain capable of consciousness, and enough time for it to be aware of its existence. It's simpler to describe it as 'a fluctuation' (and I suspect that a single large fluctuation is more probable than the equivalent in many small coincident ones, but I don't have the math to demonstrate that).

I think the point I'm trying to make is that given enough time, awareness can form. Whether it's restricted to non cosmological scales remains to be seen. It's certainly a "possibility" in terms of physics.

All brains will give off energy as heat; biological and electronic brains will also give off energy as electromagnetic noise. They may direct energy by triggering external systems, e.g. physical actuators, if appropriately connected; but how is that relevant? What did you have in mind here?

Well, the universe is producing all types of EM noise that could be similar in some ways to the EM noise produced by living things. Unless we check it out, how would we know?

Following that is the more detailed explanation (with the caveat that it depends on the Everettian 'Many Worlds' QM interpretation). If you disagree with their argument, take it up with them.

It's not really their assumptions that I'm questioning.

 

[variant]

That seems like speculation on your part. How do you know it would be such a widespread belief in the absence of God?

Speculation would be saying that we know that the only possible explanation for a widespread belief in God is that a God actually exists.

That is your position and you can defend it as you please.

"Little sense" in comparison to what? I don't expect the universe to generate 'dark energy' or exotic matter either, but some folks put a lot of stock in those concepts, even when they are combined into one theory of the universe.

This line of argument is very tiring as your only justification for your ideas is to attempt to point out the flaws in other arguments.

If I presented a new idea to you and my only justification was, "well there are a lot of stupid ideas that people believe" you would have no reason to believe me either.

 

[variant]

The problem for your argument is that they don't just *look* like the various structures in the brain, they function as current carrying filaments just like we would expect.

No, you've not demonstrated that the structure you pointed out functions anything like "we would expect" if we were trying to compare it to a brain.

It's easy to ridicule anything, particularly cosmology theories. It's a lot harder to provide a "more compelling" cosmology theory. Compared to what passes for "science" today in terms of cosmology theory, you have nothing to complain about. At least I'm not introducing four different supernatural constructs to describe the universe.

It's very easy to ridicule in your case as your theory is very poorly defended.

 

[variant]

There are certainly structural analogs in life forms on Earth inside this solar system. As I mentioned before, the sun also contains more visible circuits in it's atmosphere than I have in my whole body. Even the planets are 'wired' to the sun.

Analogs have to work the same way, not just be used in an analogy.

Well, assuming it *has* to involved information movement between all those structures, it could just operate on a much slower scale. You haven't really explained how you know what the 'speed of awareness' might be.

Again analogs need to have some similarity.

You're proposing a scale change from the movement across a neuron being almost instantaneous to taking billions of years.

This would mean God would be relatively dim compared to a mouse.

But the circuitry at the macroscopic scale doesn't appear to be just a random pattern of circuits, it's highly congruent with the circuitry we find inside of living organisms. You can call that a "fluke" if you like, but I'm not obligated to take that similarity lightly.

You would have to show some evidence that there are congruence between the brains of living organisms and the layout of the universe, as you have not yet done so. You showed me one picture.

It could be "infinitely" large in fact, which keeps bringing us back to the need for "awareness" to transmit information to "every" neuron in the brain (or not). You keep insisting that this issue be looked at purely from the standpoint of the need for all information to pass through every circuit.

We need the circuitry to act like a semi unified being for it to be aware like a brain is aware yes.

Well, admittedly you'd need to read Birkeland's work, and Alfven's work, Peratt's work and the work of Charles Bruce to get a real "cosmology theory" going. Then again, it's all been written.

Well your floating brain concept was first hypothesized as a purposefully absurd concept so It wasn't looking very promising when I started.

Well, the most common 'physical mechanisms" in terms of transferring energy and power in a plasma environment are Birkeland currents and double layers. One of the most interesting things about Plasma that Langmuir noticed about the behaviors of matter in the plasma state is that it acted a lot like human plasma. That's in fact why he personally chose that name to describe the forth state of matter.

Right, sometimes things look the same, but those two things are pretty differn't.

Well, unless you can demonstrate that "awareness" has mass, I'm not really that far out on limb to start with, even *if* you could demonstrate that "information" must be processed in some remote place rather than inside our solar system.

Again, YOU were the one comparing the cosmic scale thing to a neuron.

Fantasy compared to LCDM?

Fantasy when compared to well evidenced reality.

It seems highly unlikely that a non living universe would necessarily be "wired together" in the first place, let alone wired in a way that is similar to living organisms here on Earth. Pure coincidence?

You've not demonstrated any similarity though.

The coincidence would be that there are some natural phenomena you can call or view as "circuits", because that's all you have here.

What type of observations would you accept?

An example? If you found some sort of recognizable pattern that would denote something like "brain activity", it would be fairly convincing.

It's not really ill defined in Panetheism, or Pantheism for that matter. I don't personally have any control as to how others might define that term.

It's generally very ill defined in terms of what kind of observations would be very likely to exist if it indeed existed, and more importantly what observations should be excluded and falsify the idea. I don't consider you much of a reputable source on the matter because "people tend to believe in it" is one of your observations leading you to believe.

What then is a 'possibility' from the standpoint of physics in your opinion? It doesn't technically have to be "disembodied", or remain that way forever. FYI, the DM hypothesis goes back close to a 100 year with the work of Fritz Zwicky. Birkeland's working solar models go back more than a 100 years too. It's not at all uncommon for cosmology ideas to be decades old, if not centuries old. The static universe concept was the prevailing theory in cosmology for hundreds if not thousands of years and it may still be valid.

You're not just arguing physics, you are arguing that the universe is aware like a life form.

So, any discipline that has something to say about how awareness works could weigh in.

First of all I wouldn't assume that it's 'disembodied". The universe has physical structure and form, and it's wired together in a pattern that is consistent with living things. At a quantum level awareness might "seem" to be disembodied, but I doubt it actually works that way.

Yes the "body" of the thing is pretty important to your idea, but, I am talking about the awareness not being carried by a living organisms body.

I think you're taking this 'disembodied' idea too far. I'm not really suggesting it's "disembodied" intelligence, I'm suggesting it's body is the entire physical universe. We wouldn't want to toss out anything related to physics.

Regardless, neuronal brains are built to be part of a living organism in a very intimate way that I don't see an analog for with the universe.

The information transfer and storage is what they are FOR, and the scaling is an obvious problem.

In terms of the current flow aspects they do have a similar function. Whether that translates to "awareness" is hard to say, but the electrical aspect is similar. As that other article demonstrates, even hypothetical structures of neutron stars seem to have similarities in terms of 'structure' to cells of living organisms. I can't really tell if they have exactly the same "function" however.

How would you even begin to "tell"?

Sure, but some of those "possibilities" will require the introduction of many more supernatural elements than I am proposing. When does 'elegance' and simplicity factor into the debate?

Simplicity is NOT what we find in biological brains when they are fully functional. Biology is usually only simple when we're dealing with the building blocks, not the formed structure as part of a whole organism.

The elegance is how you take simple pieces and make them into something so complex it is mind boggling.

How would anyone demonstrate the 'function'

You would need to find evidence for the information your "nerves" are transmitting and how that works.

The same processes that you're suggesting might 'self order brains' as part of a biological system might be the same processes that self order intelligence at the cosmological scale. AFAIK, it's the same process.

To get a universe to order like life:

Universes would need to exist as population and evolve with respect to a larger environment like lifeforms do.

Also there would need to be a method for keeping the info about how to build universes as they do.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

That "sense of recent sensory input" would tend to require real sensory input over time.

In the case of Boltzmann brains, it just requires the same neural state (for example, particular depolarizations at the afferent nerve roots) as would be present if there had been recent sensory input.

Including all the sensory input features too? This doesn't sound like a single quantum 'fluctuation' but rather a whole series of them which seem to culminate in a sense of *self* awareness. Where does that awareness of sensory input originate and where does it go?

It would be effectively identical to a human brain that had suddenly been transported out of its body and into empty space. There would be the memories of previous experiences and the awareness of the perception and sensation of the last sensory experience from the body, which would last a second or two. The awareness would be a function of the BBs configuration and brief functioning and would dissipate as that configuration was disrupted - just as would be the case for a human brain magically transported there.

I'm not sure why you seem to be having so much trouble grasping the concept - it's analogous to the Star-Trek transporter, but instead of a whole body being reconstructed and continuing as if with no apparent interruption, just a brain appears, purely by chance, configured as if just transported from a real person.

I think the point I'm trying to make is that given enough time, awareness can form. Whether it's restricted to non cosmological scales remains to be seen. It's certainly a "possibility" in terms of physics.

Of course it can happen - we're living exemplars. My point is that an awareness that forms (e.g. evolves) over significant time, isn't a Boltzmann brain - it needs a different label.

I remain extremely sceptical of the hypothesis of cosmological scale consciousness or awareness. The only conscious awareness we have evidence for is biological, of a scale from a few centimetres to around thirty metres, evolved in populations over millions of generations as a successful survival strategy, and requires a complex ecosystem to survive.

There seems to be no plausible way a cosmological scale consciousness could have any equivalent route to, or explanation for, its existence; and if we ignore all that, there seems to be no way for electromagnetic phenomena to allow the necessary interaction and integration over cosmological distances, given the light speed restriction.

The superficial similarities between a neuron's structure and the cosmic 'web', or internal cell structures and neutron star structures, etc., at best reflect fundamental physical principles (least action, minimal energy profile, etc.), and at worst are coincidental. Also, there's no reason to suppose that the electrical 'circuits' in stars are anything more than products of the intense magnetic fields and charged particles produced by such vast balls of hydrogen fusion.

I'm not saying it's inconceivable, but it seems to me all the available evidence strongly indicates against it; i.e. I can see less reason to suppose it may be the case than to suppose there are faeries at the bottom of my garden.

Well, the universe is producing all types of EM noise that could be similar in some ways to the EM noise produced by living things. Unless we check it out, how would we know?

The EM noise given off by biological life is characteristic of biological (organic) life, and is scale dependent. It is also incredibly weak and barely detectable at the surface of such life. If similar EM noise is detectable in the wider universe, you could be pretty sure it wasn't indicative of cosmological scale life. Even among biologically related creatures on Earth, relatively tiny differences in scale (relative to cosmological scales) produce very different signatures - the EM noise signature from a mouse (brain activity, neuromuscular activity, heart beat, etc.) is very different from that of a whale, or a fly; as are their sound and heat signatures.

Throwing out a bunch of disconnected and superficial similarities of structure between microscopic and cosmological scales, and wildly imaginative speculation about cosmological scale life - let alone awareness - wouldn't even make acceptable science fantasy. It's all redolent of confirmation bias and wishful thinking. Disagreement with mainstream cosmological theory doesn't mean abandoning scientific reasoning and critical thinking altogether.

If it's in any way intended as potential evidence of panentheism, I'd suggest you'd be better just following standard religious protocol and simply relying on faith; if not, start again with a scientific approach - find a set of as-yet-unexplained observations that can potentially be explained by a reasonable, plausible, unifying, explanatory, and testable hypothesis, then enumerate the testable predictions of that hypothesis. With luck, there will already be data to confirm or falsify some of those predictions.

Having said that, I expect you to reject such critical comment, and to continue to recruit the unsustainable in support of the unreasonable. YMMV.