A criticism to the whole idea.

We actually do not have a definition of observer. We don't know what
structure is needed for consciousness and even what phenomenon is the basic
cause of a mental entity.
In such an atmosphere one can oppose in the same (somehow in-scientific)
way; for example I say: Is there any point in time where you can
say some substances constitute a conscious being before that and unconscious
one after it? If we're relying on physicism in philosophy of mind(and the
whole BB idea, seems to have that implicit assumption), then such line is
meaningless, because we know that it(existence of such line) is not true for
us as conscious observers and if there's no such line... you know what

On 5/31/07, Russell Standish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I came across a reference to Boltzmann brains in a recent issue of New
> Scientist. The piece, quoted in full is:
> Spikes in space-time
> There is another way to think about why our universe began in a highly
> ordered or "low entropy" state. In 2002, a group of physicists led by
> Leonard Susskind at Stanford University in California proposed that
> entities capable of observing the universe could arise via random
> thermal fluctuations, as opposed to the big bang, galaxy formation and
> evolution. This idea has been explored by others, including Don Page
> at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada. Some researchers
> argue that under certain conditions, self-aware entities in the form
> of disembodied spikes in space-time - "Boltzmann brains" - are more
> likely to emerge than complex life forms. Because they depend on
> fluctuations of particles, Boltzmann brains would be more common in
> regions of high entropy than low entropy. If the universe had started
> out in a state of high entropy, it would be more likely to be
> populated by Boltzmann brains than life forms like us, which suggests
> that the entropy of our early universe had to be low. As a low-entropy
> initial state is unlikely, though, this also implies that there are a
> huge number of other universes out there that are unsuitable for us.
> It seemed to me that a Boltzmann brain was none other than one of our
> white rabbits, or at least very closely related. Any thoughts?
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> A/Prof Russell Standish                  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
> Mathematics
> UNSW SYDNEY 2052                         [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Australia                                http://www.hpcoders.com.au
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >


Mohsen Ravanbakhsh,

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to