Absolutely everything you think about yourself and the universe could be an illusion. As far as you know, you are real and exist in a universe that was born 14 billion years ago and that gave rise to galaxies, stars, the Earth, and finally you. Except, maybe not.
Other explanations for Boltzmann Brains did not require an ‘inside-out black hole’, for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain, so this inclusion came as a surprise to me. Not sure if it’s necessary.
What baffles me about the theory: If it’s true, and reality is (mostly, statistically speaking) imagined … the physical reality could be anything. It could be very different from the reality we live in. But we created our models of the universe in this one reality we know, and the theory of Boltzmann Brains emerged from that.
So based on these physical models we arrive at the idea of BBs. But if this idea is true, the physical reality could be completely different.
Or what do you think?
This video annoys me. There’s a trend in quantum physics where science has given way to what is essentially philosophy. This always seems to be driven by the inclusion of an infinity symbol and the acceptance of an untestable hypothesis. It’s not science if you can’t test it. Is there any evidence that would lead anyone to make the claims in the video? It looks an awful lot like someone came up with a story, then retroactively generated a justifcation for how it could be true, aNd tHeReFoRe mUsT bE tRuE.
While I am in full support of kids having imaginations, even within the space of STEM subjects, in this case I think it dilutes the value of the channel which otherwise produces excellent content.
There’s a trend in quantum physics where science has given way to what is essentially philosophy. This always seems to be driven by the inclusion of an infinity symbol and the acceptance of an untestable hypothesis. It’s not science if you can’t test it.
That’s relatable, yes. Sorry the video annoys you. At least we’re talking in a philosophy community, so that’s kind of fitting.
On the other hand, generally speaking, theoretical physics, based on thought experiments and logical conclusions, is a thing.
Is there any evidence that would lead anyone to make the claims in the video? It looks an awful lot like someone came up with a story, then retroactively generated a justifcation for how it could be true, aNd tHeReFoRe mUsT bE tRuE.
Depends with which of the two meanings of ‘evidence’ you want to go. As a synonym for ‘proof’, no. As a synonym for ‘clue’, yes.
The idea could be true IF our models are right, IF our understanding is complete, IF our calculations are right … many big ifs.
The evolution of the idea can be read in the linked Wiki article. It was proposed as a reductio ad absurdum in 1896, and only picked up as a more serious conclusion in 2002, as a consequence of modern perspectives.
While I am in full support of kids having imaginations, even within the space of STEM subjects, in this case I think it dilutes the value of the channel which otherwise produces excellent content.
I get your point. While I agree to a good amount (in terms of caution, not necessarily conclusion), it’s not THAT unscientific as you make it seem. BBs are certainly an interesting thought experiment driving ideas to the extreme, like the mediocrity principle. It’s an idea which originates from physicists and theories about our world.
Even if we let go of the scientific background, it can be a good toy to sharpen skills, equally so if the result is to reject the idea for reasons.
Sorry, I didn’t even realize that this was posted in a philosophy sub. It was just in my general feed on a science instance from a youtube channel almost entirely focused on science.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Stzj2_Rlo4
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source, check me out at GitHub.
