Much thanks Brent!
I will read it asap :)
Best,
Bruno
On 10 May 2017, at 01:18, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 5/9/2017 7:44 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 May 2017, at 10:20, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 9/05/2017 5:44 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 May 2017, at 01:07, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 8/05/2017 8:48 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 May 2017, at 05:53, Bruce Kellett wrote:
I think the problem here is the use of the word "consistent".
You refer to "internally consistent computations" and
"consistent and hence intelligible 'personal histories'." But
what is the measure of such consistency? You cannot use the
idea of 'consistent according to some physical laws', because
it is those laws that you are supposedly deriving -- they
cannot form part of the derivation. I don't think any notion
of logical consistency can fill the bill here. It is logically
consistent that my present conscious moment, with its rich
record of memories of a physical world, stretching back to
childhood, is all an illusion of the momentary point in a
computational history: the continuation of this computation
back into the past, and forward into the future, could be just
white noise! That is not logically inconsistent, or
comutationally inconsistent. It is inconsistent only with the
physical laws of conservation and persistence. But at this
point, you do not have such laws!
In fact, just as Boltzmann realized in the Boltzmann brain
problem,
Can you give the reference please?
There are many book which give accounts of Boltmann's work, but
an accessible introductory overvies is given by Carroll himself
in his book "From Eternity to Here".
Thank you. But I am still looking for the precise place where
Boltzmann talk on its brain. Not only I don't find it, but nobody
seem able to provide that reference.
It seems that the name was not given by Boltzmann himself, but
seems to have originated from consideration of a short 1895
article by Boltzmann: "On certain questions of the theory of
gases". (Nature 51:413-15) in which he considered the possibility
that our Second Law might have arisen from an extremely unlikely
random fluctuation. I got this reference from Penrose's recent
book, "Fashion, Faith, and Fantasy in the New Physics of the
Universe".
Thank you very much, Bruce.
If anyone has an exemplar of Boltzmann's "On certain questions of
the theory of gases", (Nature 51:413-15), I am interested.
Best,
Bruno
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
<boltzmann1895.pdf>
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
