Smolin's View of Time
Edge Question 2009: "What Will Change Everything?" http://www.edge.org/q2009/q09_9.html#smolin What do we think about this? Smolin seems to disagree with most of what we are on about on this list. My mind remains open in all directions, particularly as Smolin appears to be enjoying substantial advances in his field of Quantum Gravitation. Does his argument about time have legs? Maybe we can get him back on this list to talk to us if we yell loud enough in his direction... regards, Kim LEE SMOLIN Physicist, Perimeter Institute; Author, The Trouble With Physics THE LIBERATION OF TIME I would like to describe a change in viewpoint, which I believe will alter how we think about everything from the most abstract questions on the nature of truth to the most concrete questions in our daily lives. This change comes from the deepest and most difficult problems facing contemporary science: those having to do with the nature of time. The problem of time confronts us at every key juncture in fundamental physics: What was the big bang and could something have come before it? What is the nature of quantum physics and how does it unify with relativity theory? Why are the laws of physics we observe the true laws, rather than other possible laws? Might the laws have evolved from different laws in the past? After a lot of discussion and argument, it is becoming clear to me that these key questions in fundamental physics come down to a very simple choice, having to do with the answers to two simple questions: What is real? And what is true? Many philosophies and religions offer answers to these questions, and most give the same answer: reality and truth transcend time. If something is real, it has a reality which continues forever, and if something is true, it is not just true now, it was always true, and will always be. The experience we have of the world existing within a flow of time is, according to some religions and many contemporary physicists and philosophers, an illusion. Behind that illusion is a timeless reality, in modern parlance, the block universe. Another manifestation of this ancient view is the currently popular idea that time is an emergent quality not present in the fundamental formulation of physics. The new viewpoint is the direct opposite. It asserts that what is real is only what is real in the moment, which is one of a succession of moments. It is the same for truth: what is true is only what is true in the moment. There are no transcendent, timeless truths. There is also no past. The past only lives as part of the present, to the extent that it gives us evidence of past events. And the future is not yet real, which means that it is open and full of possibilities, only a small set of which will be realized. Nor, on this view, is there any possibility of other universes. All that exists must be part of this universe, which we find ourselves in, at this moment. This view changes everything, beginning with how we think of mathematics. On this view there can be no timeless, Platonic, realm of mathematical objects. The truths of mathematics, once discovered, are certainly objective. But mathematical systems have to be invented-or evoked- by us. Once brought into being, there are an infinite number of facts which are true about mathematical objects, which further investigation might discover. There are an infinite number of possible axiomatic systems that we might so evoke and explore-but the fact that different people will agree on what has been shown about them does not imply that they existed, before we evoked them. I used to think that the goal of physics was the discovery of a timeless mathematical equation that was isomorphic to the history of the universe. But if there is no Platonic realm of timeless mathematical object, this is just a fantasy. Science is then only about what we can discover is true in the one real universe we find ourselves in. More specifically, this view challenges how we think about cosmology. It opens up new ways to approach the deepest questions, such as why the laws we observe are true, and not others, and what determined the initial conditions of the universe. The philosopher Charles Sanders Pierce wrote in 1893 that the only way of accounting for which laws were true would be through a mechanics of evolution, and I believe this remains true today. But the evolution of laws requires time to be real. Furthermore, there is, I believe, evidence on technical grounds that the correct formulations of quantum gravity and cosmology will require the postulate that time is real and fundamental. But the implications of this view will be far broader. For example, in neoclassical, economic theory, which is anchored in the study of equilibria of markets and games, time is largely abstracted away. The fundamental results on equilibria by Arrow
Re: Boltzmann Brains, consciousness and the arrow of time
Bruno, I have also wanted to ask how you come to 2^aleph_zero > Well, in part this results from the unbounded dumbness of the > universal doevtailing procedure which dovetails on all programs but > also on all non interacting collection of programs (as all interacting > one). How do you discern interacting/non-interacting programs? What do you mean exactly with the term in regard to UD? > In particular each computation is "entangled" to dovetailing on > the reals, What do you mean by this? How do the reals enter the picture? Cheers, Günther --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Boltzmann Brains, consciousness and the arrow of time
Hal, I have entertained quite similar musings some time ago, and this led me to a position I called "naive materialism" NMAT some time ago on this list - that causality does not matter, and consciousness would supervene on the material states directly - and both backward and forward versions would actually be "the same" from an endophysical perspective. But the problem of these considerations is that indeed we get the BB issue and causality loses it's role, leaving us with a quite strange tangle of states. Considering that in a fundamental theory, time shouldn't be a parameter chugging along, and we are still considering an "external time" (where the cosmic perturbations are actually happening) as opposed to the endophysical time registered by the brains in the fluctuations, the thinking along these lines reveals itself to be even more disappointing. In the meantime I have come to agree with Bruno: "It seems to me that your reasoning illustrates well the problems with physical supervenience and physicalism, and perhaps ASSA." The solution Bruno has worked out is much more satisfying - supervenience on computations, and the "physical" emerging from the most probable histories. It is a form of objective idealism, avoiding the problems of subjective idealisms which are inimical to scientific inquiry. In sum, BBs and perturbing universes are, I think, more evidence that there is something wrong with materialism (and I say this having arrived on this list being a materialist ;-). Cheers, Günther Hal Finney wrote: > Sometimes we consider here the nature of consciousness, whether observer > moments need to be linked to one another, the role of causality in > consciousness, etc. I thought of an interesting puzzle about Boltzmann > Brains which offers a new twist to these questions. > > As most readers are aware, Boltzmann Brains relate to an idea of Boltzmann > on how to explain the arrow of time. The laws of physics seem to be time > symmetric, yet the universe is grossly asymmetric in time. Boltzmann > proposed that if you had a universe in a maximum entropy state, say a > uniform gas, then given enough time, the gas would undergo fluctuations > to regions of lower entropy. Sometimes, purely at random, clumps of > molecules would happen to form. Even more rarely, these clumps might be > large and ordered. Given infinite time, one could even have an entire > visible-universe worth of matter clump together in an ordered fashion, > from which state it would then decay into higher entropy conditions. Life > could evolve during this decay, observe the universe around it, and find > itself in conditions much like our own. > > The Boltzmann Brain is a counter-argument, suggesting that the universe > and everything else is redundant; all you need is a brain to form via > a spontaneous random fluctuation, and to hold together long enough to > engage in a few moments of conscious thought. Such a Boltzmann Brain is > far more likely to form than an entire universe, hence the vast majority > of conscious thoughts in such a model will be in Boltzmann Brains and not > in brains in large universes. If we were tempted to explain the arrow of > time in this way, we must accept that the universe is an illusion and > that we are actually Boltzmann Brains, a conclusion which most people > don't like. > > Now this scenario can be criticized in many ways, but I want to emphasize > a couple of points which aren't always appreciated. The first is that the > Boltzmann scenario, whether a whole universe or just a Brain is forming, > is basically time symmetric. That means that if you saw a movie of a > Boltzmann universe forming and then decaying back to random entropy, > you would not be able to tell which way the movie was running, if it > were to be reversed. (This is an unavoidable consequence of the time > symmetry of the underlying physics.) It follows that while the universe > is moving into the low-entropy state, it must be evolving backwards. That > is, an observer from outside would see time appearing to run backwards. > Eggs would un-scramble themselves, objects would fall upwards from the > ground, ripples would converge on spots in lakes from which rocks would > then leap from the water, and so on. > > At some point this time reversal effect would stop, and the universe > would then proceed to evolve back into a high entropy state, now with time > going "forwards". Now, the forward phase will not in general be an exact > mirror image of the reverse, because of slight random fluctuations and > the like, but it will be an alternate path that essentially starts with > the same initial conditions. So we will see one path backwards into the > minimum-entropy state, and another path forwards from that state. Both > paths are fully plausible histories and neither is distinguishable from > the other as far as which was reversed and which was forward, if you > ran a recording of the whole process ba
Re: Boltzmann Brains, consciousness and the arrow of time
On 01 Jan 2009, at 21:10, Brent Meeker wrote: > > Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> It seems to me that your reasoning illustrates well the problems with >> physical supervenience and physicalism, and perhaps ASSA. >> >> In any case the Universal Dovetailer generates all such gaz universes >> generating the Boltzmann brains. Now the probability that you are >> implemented by a particular Boltzmann brain is null, as it is null >> for >> any particular. With the comp supervenience you have to "attach" >> consciousness on ALL the histories going through your computational >> state. It is a sort of double cone of histories. > > Are you assuming time as fundamental here? If time is merely > inferred then it > seems that states of Bbs could fit into the inferred time sequence > as well as > states that arose in some other way. I assume only the sequence 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ... or the axioms of Robinson arithmetic, or Peano. This is enough to recognize the working of a universal dovetailer, and the execution of all programs. It is not infered but postulate. You can call it a digital time, or you can unravel such a dynamical deploiment into a statical n n+1 dimensional cone (with n the dimension of the space used by your starting universal machine (but some have no concept of dimension, and the statical picture is more a logical than a geometrical one). It is not "physical time", nor even the subjective time builded by internal entities. > > >> >> We cannot belong to the aleph_zero Boltzmann brains state, because, >> from our first person (plural) point of views we already belongs to >> the 2^aleph_zero "winning" (infinite) histories. (or comp is wrong). > > I don't understand the counting measure. Why are histories order > 2^apleph_0? Well, in part this results from the unbounded dumbness of the universal doevtailing procedure which dovetails on all programs but also on all non interacting collection of programs (as all interacting one). In particular each computation is "entangled" to dovetailing on the reals, and infinite computations are multiplied into 2^aleph_zero by this entanglement with the reals. Now this is a good thing because it means that the stable histories will be those who manage that background noise, who exploits it probably. Our mind states are enumerable, but our histories are not. Bruno > > > Brent > > >> >> This is a case for RSSA indeed. I think. Bb are reduced to the >> "usual" >> white rabbits histories, with RSSA, it seems to me. >> >> Bruno >> >> >> >> On 31 Dec 2008, at 22:58, Hal Finney wrote: >> >>> Sometimes we consider here the nature of consciousness, whether >>> observer >>> moments need to be linked to one another, the role of causality in >>> consciousness, etc. I thought of an interesting puzzle about >>> Boltzmann >>> Brains which offers a new twist to these questions. >>> >>> As most readers are aware, Boltzmann Brains relate to an idea of >>> Boltzmann >>> on how to explain the arrow of time. The laws of physics seem to be >>> time >>> symmetric, yet the universe is grossly asymmetric in time. >>> Boltzmann >>> proposed that if you had a universe in a maximum entropy state, >>> say a >>> uniform gas, then given enough time, the gas would undergo >>> fluctuations >>> to regions of lower entropy. Sometimes, purely at random, clumps of >>> molecules would happen to form. Even more rarely, these clumps might >>> be >>> large and ordered. Given infinite time, one could even have an >>> entire >>> visible-universe worth of matter clump together in an ordered >>> fashion, >>> from which state it would then decay into higher entropy conditions. >>> Life >>> could evolve during this decay, observe the universe around it, and >>> find >>> itself in conditions much like our own. >>> >>> The Boltzmann Brain is a counter-argument, suggesting that the >>> universe >>> and everything else is redundant; all you need is a brain to form >>> via >>> a spontaneous random fluctuation, and to hold together long enough >>> to >>> engage in a few moments of conscious thought. Such a Boltzmann Brain >>> is >>> far more likely to form than an entire universe, hence the vast >>> majority >>> of conscious thoughts in such a model will be in Boltzmann Brains >>> and not >>> in brains in large universes. If we were tempted to explain the >>> arrow of >>> time in this way, we must accept that the universe is an illusion >>> and >>> that we are actually Boltzmann Brains, a conclusion which most >>> people >>> don't like. >>> >>> Now this scenario can be criticized in many ways, but I want to >>> emphasize >>> a couple of points which aren't always appreciated. The first is >>> that the >>> Boltzmann scenario, whether a whole universe or just a Brain is >>> forming, >>> is basically time symmetric. That means that if you saw a movie of a >>> Boltzmann universe forming and then decaying back to random entropy, >>> you would not be able
Re: KIM 2.1
Ronald, On 21 Dec 2008, at 15:40, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> How is there any mathematics with nothing to >> conceive of it? Let me try a straightest answer from math, with an example. Take the digital or discrete line. You can map it on the integers. It is the symmetrical extension of the natural numbers. Is there a diophantine equation capable of breaking that symmetry? Could *that* be true by convention? Actually there is one: an integers is a positive integers if and only if it can be written as the sum of four squares. This has been discovered by Diophantus and rediscovered and proved by Legendre centuries later. The sum of four squares property break the digital line symmetry. Then you can ask yourself the natural question: is there a formula or algorithm giving the numbers of ways a natural numbers can be written as a sum of four squares. This is a difficult exercise. Jacobi has found the solution. Then odd numbers have 8 * sum of its divisors ways to be written as a sum of four squares (the order counts). The even numbers, the feminine numbers for some Greeks!, have 24 * sum of its male, well odd, divisors. What do you mean by nothing to conceive of it? Just the numbers gives plenty questions at different levels. For example, at another level, the four squares sum property shows that the notion of natural numbers can be represented in the theory of integers. It can be shown in similar ways that first order theory of positive integers, integers and rational are mainly equivalent. First order theory of the reals leads to a decidable theory. The reals realm looses turing universality. The reals simplifies the numbers too much. But the real + trigonometry gives the waves and their stationnary quanta. The waves reintroduce the integers, digitality, and Turing universality in the realm of the reals. There is a mathematical reality, and it contains many processes and relations, transformation and fixed points, symmetries and breaking of symmetries, even galaxy collisions, brane collisions, why not taxes and other local relative financial crisis ... The mathematical reality kicks back would say David Deustch. Jacobi theorem is not easy to prove, in a book by Kak, I found a proof of Jacobi theorem which uses ... the bosonic string theory. In the same manner the study of the distribution of the prime numbers leads to a surprising sequence of surprises, I tend to believe that such distribution could encoded a key in our inquiries as I have described in some of my Riemann Zeta TOE old posts. With addition and multiplication, shit happens, already. Assuming comp, all the possible shit happen, but the beauty is that "we" are not eliminated, and "we" can keep a *partial* control. Of course the price here is that "we" are also responsible of some amount of that shit. If I can say. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Boltzmann Brains, consciousness and the arrow of time
Bruno Marchal wrote: > > It seems to me that your reasoning illustrates well the problems with > physical supervenience and physicalism, and perhaps ASSA. > > In any case the Universal Dovetailer generates all such gaz universes > generating the Boltzmann brains. Now the probability that you are > implemented by a particular Boltzmann brain is null, as it is null for > any particular. With the comp supervenience you have to "attach" > consciousness on ALL the histories going through your computational > state. It is a sort of double cone of histories. Are you assuming time as fundamental here? If time is merely inferred then it seems that states of Bbs could fit into the inferred time sequence as well as states that arose in some other way. > > We cannot belong to the aleph_zero Boltzmann brains state, because, > from our first person (plural) point of views we already belongs to > the 2^aleph_zero "winning" (infinite) histories. (or comp is wrong). I don't understand the counting measure. Why are histories order 2^apleph_0? Brent > > This is a case for RSSA indeed. I think. Bb are reduced to the "usual" > white rabbits histories, with RSSA, it seems to me. > > Bruno > > > > On 31 Dec 2008, at 22:58, Hal Finney wrote: > >> Sometimes we consider here the nature of consciousness, whether >> observer >> moments need to be linked to one another, the role of causality in >> consciousness, etc. I thought of an interesting puzzle about Boltzmann >> Brains which offers a new twist to these questions. >> >> As most readers are aware, Boltzmann Brains relate to an idea of >> Boltzmann >> on how to explain the arrow of time. The laws of physics seem to be >> time >> symmetric, yet the universe is grossly asymmetric in time. Boltzmann >> proposed that if you had a universe in a maximum entropy state, say a >> uniform gas, then given enough time, the gas would undergo >> fluctuations >> to regions of lower entropy. Sometimes, purely at random, clumps of >> molecules would happen to form. Even more rarely, these clumps might >> be >> large and ordered. Given infinite time, one could even have an entire >> visible-universe worth of matter clump together in an ordered fashion, >> from which state it would then decay into higher entropy conditions. >> Life >> could evolve during this decay, observe the universe around it, and >> find >> itself in conditions much like our own. >> >> The Boltzmann Brain is a counter-argument, suggesting that the >> universe >> and everything else is redundant; all you need is a brain to form via >> a spontaneous random fluctuation, and to hold together long enough to >> engage in a few moments of conscious thought. Such a Boltzmann Brain >> is >> far more likely to form than an entire universe, hence the vast >> majority >> of conscious thoughts in such a model will be in Boltzmann Brains >> and not >> in brains in large universes. If we were tempted to explain the >> arrow of >> time in this way, we must accept that the universe is an illusion and >> that we are actually Boltzmann Brains, a conclusion which most people >> don't like. >> >> Now this scenario can be criticized in many ways, but I want to >> emphasize >> a couple of points which aren't always appreciated. The first is >> that the >> Boltzmann scenario, whether a whole universe or just a Brain is >> forming, >> is basically time symmetric. That means that if you saw a movie of a >> Boltzmann universe forming and then decaying back to random entropy, >> you would not be able to tell which way the movie was running, if it >> were to be reversed. (This is an unavoidable consequence of the time >> symmetry of the underlying physics.) It follows that while the >> universe >> is moving into the low-entropy state, it must be evolving backwards. >> That >> is, an observer from outside would see time appearing to run >> backwards. >> Eggs would un-scramble themselves, objects would fall upwards from the >> ground, ripples would converge on spots in lakes from which rocks >> would >> then leap from the water, and so on. >> >> At some point this time reversal effect would stop, and the universe >> would then proceed to evolve back into a high entropy state, now >> with time >> going "forwards". Now, the forward phase will not in general be an >> exact >> mirror image of the reverse, because of slight random fluctuations and >> the like, but it will be an alternate path that essentially starts >> with >> the same initial conditions. So we will see one path backwards into >> the >> minimum-entropy state, and another path forwards from that state. Both >> paths are fully plausible histories and neither is distinguishable >> from >> the other as far as which was reversed and which was forward, if you >> ran a recording of the whole process backwards. >> >> One might ask, what causes time to run backwards during the first >> half of >> the Boltzmann scen
Re: Boltzmann Brains, consciousness and the arrow of time
It seems to me that your reasoning illustrates well the problems with physical supervenience and physicalism, and perhaps ASSA. In any case the Universal Dovetailer generates all such gaz universes generating the Boltzmann brains. Now the probability that you are implemented by a particular Boltzmann brain is null, as it is null for any particular. With the comp supervenience you have to "attach" consciousness on ALL the histories going through your computational state. It is a sort of double cone of histories. We cannot belong to the aleph_zero Boltzmann brains state, because, from our first person (plural) point of views we already belongs to the 2^aleph_zero "winning" (infinite) histories. (or comp is wrong). This is a case for RSSA indeed. I think. Bb are reduced to the "usual" white rabbits histories, with RSSA, it seems to me. Bruno On 31 Dec 2008, at 22:58, Hal Finney wrote: > > Sometimes we consider here the nature of consciousness, whether > observer > moments need to be linked to one another, the role of causality in > consciousness, etc. I thought of an interesting puzzle about Boltzmann > Brains which offers a new twist to these questions. > > As most readers are aware, Boltzmann Brains relate to an idea of > Boltzmann > on how to explain the arrow of time. The laws of physics seem to be > time > symmetric, yet the universe is grossly asymmetric in time. Boltzmann > proposed that if you had a universe in a maximum entropy state, say a > uniform gas, then given enough time, the gas would undergo > fluctuations > to regions of lower entropy. Sometimes, purely at random, clumps of > molecules would happen to form. Even more rarely, these clumps might > be > large and ordered. Given infinite time, one could even have an entire > visible-universe worth of matter clump together in an ordered fashion, > from which state it would then decay into higher entropy conditions. > Life > could evolve during this decay, observe the universe around it, and > find > itself in conditions much like our own. > > The Boltzmann Brain is a counter-argument, suggesting that the > universe > and everything else is redundant; all you need is a brain to form via > a spontaneous random fluctuation, and to hold together long enough to > engage in a few moments of conscious thought. Such a Boltzmann Brain > is > far more likely to form than an entire universe, hence the vast > majority > of conscious thoughts in such a model will be in Boltzmann Brains > and not > in brains in large universes. If we were tempted to explain the > arrow of > time in this way, we must accept that the universe is an illusion and > that we are actually Boltzmann Brains, a conclusion which most people > don't like. > > Now this scenario can be criticized in many ways, but I want to > emphasize > a couple of points which aren't always appreciated. The first is > that the > Boltzmann scenario, whether a whole universe or just a Brain is > forming, > is basically time symmetric. That means that if you saw a movie of a > Boltzmann universe forming and then decaying back to random entropy, > you would not be able to tell which way the movie was running, if it > were to be reversed. (This is an unavoidable consequence of the time > symmetry of the underlying physics.) It follows that while the > universe > is moving into the low-entropy state, it must be evolving backwards. > That > is, an observer from outside would see time appearing to run > backwards. > Eggs would un-scramble themselves, objects would fall upwards from the > ground, ripples would converge on spots in lakes from which rocks > would > then leap from the water, and so on. > > At some point this time reversal effect would stop, and the universe > would then proceed to evolve back into a high entropy state, now > with time > going "forwards". Now, the forward phase will not in general be an > exact > mirror image of the reverse, because of slight random fluctuations and > the like, but it will be an alternate path that essentially starts > with > the same initial conditions. So we will see one path backwards into > the > minimum-entropy state, and another path forwards from that state. Both > paths are fully plausible histories and neither is distinguishable > from > the other as far as which was reversed and which was forward, if you > ran a recording of the whole process backwards. > > One might ask, what causes time to run backwards during the first > half of > the Boltzmann scenario? The answer is, nothing but very, very odd > luck. > Time is no more likely to continue to run backwards, or to run > backwards > the same everywhere in the local fluctuation-area, than it is to start > running backwards right now in the universe around you. Nothing stops > eggs from unscrambling themselves except the unlikelihood, and the > same > principle is at work during the Boltzmann time-reversal phase. It is > m
Re: Boltzmann Brains, consciousness and the arrow of time
2009/1/1 "Hal Finney" : > I want to emphasize that this picture of how Boltzmann fluctuations would > work is a consquence of the laws of thermodynamics, and time symmetry. > Sometimes people imagine that the fluctuation into the Boltzmann > low-entropy state is fundamentally different from the fluctuation out > of it. They accept that the fluctuation out will be similar to our own > existence, with complex events happening. But they imagine that the > fluctuation into low entropy might be much simpler, molecules simply > aggregating together into some convenient state from which the complex > fluctuation out and back to chaos can begin. While this is not impossible > and hence will happen occasionally among the infinity of fluctuations in > the Boltzmann universe, it will be rare. It will be no more common for a > "simple" fluctation-in process to occur than for a simple fluctuation-out > process. In our universe, knowing it will evolve to a chaotic heat > death, we might imagine that molecules would just fly apart into chaos, > but we know that is highly unlikely. Instead, by far the most likely > path is a complex one, full of turbulence and reactions and similar > activity. By time symmetry, exactly the same arguments apply during > the fluctation-in phase. The vast majority of Boltzmann fluctuations > that achieve a particular degree of low entropy will do so via complex, > turbulent paths which if viewed in reverse will appear to be perfectly > plausible sequences of events for a universe which is decaying from > order to disorder, like our own. This is an interesting idea. I had imagined that the fluctuations in the decreasing entropy or winding up direction would involve chaotic aggregation of matter which would then wind down in a more organised way, giving rise to stars and planets and so on, but as you point out there is no reason to assume this. I am not sure why you suggest that the winding up direction lacks causality (leading to your question about whether it could give rise to consciousness): if all the air in the room moved to one side because, with incredible luck, the molecules all vibrated in the same direction for a few seconds should this event be called acausal? If we are conscious in winding up direction and winding up is no less likely to occur though interesting pathways than winding down, this would imply that at any point, we have about an equal chance of living in the winding up as the winding down phase: we would have no way of knowing. This would be the case whether we are ordinary brains or Boltzmann Brains, since in either case there has to be a winding up before the winding down can happen. A further implication is that there will be far more observer moments in the later stages of the universe than in the earlier stages. This is because unlikely as it is that the universe will wind up all the way to January 1st 2009, it is even less likely to continue winding up to 31st December 2008 (it is far more likely of course to only wind back to a state near the heat death end times, but there are less likely to be observers there). If you support the ASSA, that would imply that you are near your last moment of consciousness, since OM's later in your life have a much higher measure than earlier ones. Under the RSSA or if you take into account Boltzmann Brains that would not be a problem. -- Stathis Papaioannou --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
