Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Forget Being a Brain in a Vat—You May Be a Brain Floating in Space
The New York Times Science section features a nice article looking at one of the odder speculations of cosmology--the Boltzmann brain hypothesis. As the Times reports:
It could be the weirdest and most embarrassing prediction in the history of cosmology, if not science.
If true, it would mean that you yourself reading this article are more likely to be some momentary fluctuation in a field of matter and energy out in space than a person with a real past born through billions of years of evolution in an orderly star-spangled cosmos. Your memories and the world you think you see around you are illusions.
This bizarre picture is the outcome of a recent series of calculations that take some of the bedrock theories and discoveries of modern cosmology to the limit. Nobody in the field believes that this is the way things really work, however. And so there in the last couple of years there has been a growing stream of debate and dueling papers, replete with references to such esoteric subjects as reincarnation, multiple universes and even the death of spacetime, as cosmologists try to square the predictions of their cherished theories with their convictions that we and the universe are real. The basic problem is that across the eons of time, the standard theories suggest, the universe can recur over and over again in an endless cycle of big bangs, but it’s hard for nature to make a whole universe. It’s much easier to make fragments of one, like planets, yourself maybe in a spacesuit or even — in the most absurd and troubling example — a naked brain floating in space. Nature tends to do what is easiest, from the standpoint of energy and probability. And so these fragments — in particular the brains — would appear far more frequently than real full-fledged universes, or than us. Or they might be us.
This kind of thing can make Plato's Theory of the Forms look reasonable. Of course, Jim Holt reports that when he asked a group of elite mathematicians how many of them are Platonists, three-quarters held up their hands.
Enjoy the Science Times article here.
Addendum: Besides Plato's speculations, there is always Hindu cosmology. As the Hindu Wisdom website explains:
Prior to the creation of the universe, Lord Vishnu lies asleep on the ocean of all causes. He rests upon a serpent bed with thousands of cobra-like hoods. While asleep, a lotus sprouts from His navel. Upon this lotus is born Brahma the creator of the universe. Lord Brahma lives for a hundred years and then dies, while Lord Vishnu remains. One year of Brahma consists of three hundred and sixty days. At the beginning of each day Brahma creates the living beings that reside in the universe and at the end of each day the living beings are absorbed into Brahma while he sleeps on the lotus.
FYI, the calculation for Brahma's 100 year lifetime in divine terms is 311,040,000,000,000 years.
Sulla|1.15.08 @ 11:35AM|#
Is this an implicit caution to anyone who throws out "Occam's Razor" anytime a scientific theory is questioned? I think Occam's razor is quite useful, but it is the not a determinative factor in any metaphysical debate.
highnumber|1.15.08 @ 11:39AM|#
Also an implicit caution against remembering anything you ever
thought about on an acid trip.
So I am told.
Jay D|1.15.08 @ 11:41AM|#
And so these fragments - in particular the brains - would
appear far more frequently than real full-fledged universes, or
than us. Or they might be us.
I told all y'all this in a previous thread. This is why I'm not
atheist. I look at the universe and think that it has no business
existing.
|1.15.08 @ 11:41AM|#
Nature tends to do what is easiest, from the standpoint of
energy and probability.
So do I. So, I guess I'll stop trying to figure out the
cosmological meaning of it all.
|1.15.08 @ 11:43AM|#
Fragmented, endlessly cyclical, disorderly, semi-coherent
patterns of wasted energy...
It may not define the universe but it sure explains the LP.
|1.15.08 @ 11:43AM|#
Beep-beep-beep SOMEBOY TURN beep-beep-beep OFF THEIR beep-beep-beep DAMNED B/S DETECTOR!!! beep-beep-beep-beep-beep-beep-beep-beep-beep-beep-beep-beep...
|1.15.08 @ 11:44AM|#
except...if i'm a brain floating in space, then this 'discovery' is not real, because these cosmologists don't really exist except in my mind. :)
Urkobold™|1.15.08 @ 11:47AM|#
FOOLS! THERE IS NOTHING BUT THE URKOBOLD. WAIT, WHY IS THE URKOBOLD TALKING TO HIMSELF? MUST REFINE SOLIPSISTIC THEORY.
bluetoo|1.15.08 @ 11:48AM|#
But evolution is a fact! It's science, darnit. I can prove it to you in my moldy tennis shoes. And I've been telling all my Intelligent Design friends how right I am and how wrong they are!
Guy Montag|1.15.08 @ 11:52AM|#
Nobody in the field believes that this is the way things
really work, however.
That is just what they want us to think.
jj|1.15.08 @ 11:52AM|#
Am I paleo or cosmopolitan, racist collectivist or libertarian? Did I evolve or just float around?
Gnome|1.15.08 @ 11:55AM|#
Nobody in the field believes that this is the way things
really work, however.
"Believes"? Believes?! Fuck believes. The difference between
intelligent design and positivistic materialistic evolution is that
you could PROVE and they couldn't. You're all fakes. Cosmopolitan
fakes.
ed|1.15.08 @ 11:57AM|#
I am, therefore I'm the outcome of a recent series of calculations that take some of the bedrock theories and discoveries of modern cosmology to the limit.
|1.15.08 @ 12:04PM|#
This is what happens when the theorists race too far beyond what the experimenters can check out. It's just so much gobbledy gook.
Curious|1.15.08 @ 12:15PM|#
One year of Brahma consists of three hundred and sixty days.
At the beginning of each day Brahma creates the living beings that
reside in the universe and at the end of each day the living beings
are absorbed into Brahma while he sleeps on the lotus.
FYI, the calculation for Brahma's 100 year lifetime in divine terms
is 311,040,000,000,000 years.
I don't get this. If one year of Brahma is 360 days, how can 100
years equal 3.1X10^14 years? It might be me, I was never good at
either math or hindu cosmology in grade school.
Guy Montag|1.15.08 @ 12:19PM|#
I believe that real universe cloned veal will be tastier than imagined universe real veal. Perhaps it is just faith.
|1.15.08 @ 12:20PM|#
If you are the figments of my floating space brain's imagination, I am really, really fucked up.
|1.15.08 @ 12:25PM|#
Curious: Take a look at the Hindu Wisdom site to which I linked. It's all explained there.
robc|1.15.08 @ 12:28PM|#
Warren,
This is what happens when the theorists race too far beyond
what the experimenters can check out.
Theory is always right. Sometimes reality is wrong.
R C Dean|1.15.08 @ 12:36PM|#
Theory is always right. Sometimes reality is
wrong.
Take it to a global warming thread, robc.
dhex|1.15.08 @ 12:39PM|#
I don't get this. If one year of Brahma is 360 days, how can
100 years equal 3.1X10^14 years? It might be me, I was never good
at either math or hindu cosmology in grade school.
man don't even get me started on the jains.
besides we are all products of the trollish maya of urkobold.
|1.15.08 @ 12:41PM|#
Scientists have come to doubt that the universe even exists, but
anyone who doubts the theory of evolution is a moron.
Ah, Enlightenment.
George Donnelly|1.15.08 @ 12:44PM|#
typo:
This kind of thing can make Plato's Theory of the Forms look
reaonable.
should be reasonable not reaonable.
|1.15.08 @ 12:50PM|#
I still subscribe to the sun being a grain of salt on URKOBOLD's pretzel theory, dude...
Franklin Harris|1.15.08 @ 12:54PM|#
a naked brain floating in space
I think that was in an episode of Futurama.
Jesse Walker|1.15.08 @ 12:54PM|#
FYI, the calculation for Brahma's 100 year lifetime in
divine terms is 311,040,000,000,000 years.
What about dog years?
|1.15.08 @ 1:00PM|#
Anyone know where the wormhole is to Carl Sagan's B&B? I could use a shower and a bagel.
GILMORE|1.15.08 @ 1:01PM|#
Im still pretty sure it's turtles all the way down.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down
|1.15.08 @ 1:01PM|#
Today a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves. Now here's Tom with the weather...
|1.15.08 @ 1:04PM|#
Take a look at the Hindu Wisdom site to which I linked. It's
all explained there.
Aw, that's super.
lunchstealer|1.15.08 @ 1:11PM|#
I call shenanigans.
Shouldn't all this talk of momentarily formed 'branes be spelled
'branes? As in shortened from "membranes"? As in the things that
strings are supposed to be attached to in M-theory, which is the
higher trim-package of the string theory model line?
I believe that we'd be talking about 'branes floating in the void.
But brains floating in space is a much different question.
Egosumabbas|1.15.08 @ 1:12PM|#
According to artificial intelligence theory, a brain cannot
exist in a vat (or any other place without external inputs, such as
floating around in space). Without a way to interact and a way to
receive feedback, a neural net cannot form.
Or maybe I don't understand because I've never taken acid or
shrooms.
MattXIV|1.15.08 @ 1:15PM|#
*Warning - speculation about theoretical physics from a physical
chemistry background follows.*
It make sense overall if the math does work out they way the
hypothesis assumes, but it doesn't seem that meaningful.
First off, there are some states that aren't just improbable, but
impossible - the need for internal mathematical consistency within
the fluctuations probably clears out a lot of the potential
weirdness. The minimum internally consistent system necessary to
create a brain may be much more complicated than the brain
itself.
Second, for every Boltzmann brain, there's going to be massive
quantities of much less interesting Boltzmann junk created - clouds
of hydrogen, random photons, etc not to mention incomplete or
malformed "brains" or brains with incoherent memories. Our little
pocket of the universe has a much higher brain density. A stable
state, while unlikely itself, would enjoy a kind of economy of
scale in brain production.
Finally, the probability of a brain being structurally stable
enough for to function decreases rapidly with time. A brain formed
in a small fluctuation would be like pieces of shrapnel that spell
out a sentence in mid-flight during an explosion. "Thinking"
requires biological functions like membrane depolarization that
occur in the millisecond range, so the vast majority of Boltzmann
brains could be argued to lack conciousness. Big fluctuations may
host more stable brains than small ones.
Egosumabbas|1.15.08 @ 1:17PM|#
And the reason why I bring up artificial intelligence theory is that if you start talking about neurology, psychology, or just brains in general, you're just making up un-falsifiable bullshit, unless you can actually test out your theories. I can simulate a neural net on my computer. Can you simulate a brain floating around in space in an alternate dimension? No? Well STFU.
|1.15.08 @ 1:20PM|#
My dear imp,
To me, at least, it is not that those who doubt evolution are
stupid for act of doubting, but rather that they are stupid for the
reason why they are doubting.
Egosumabbas|1.15.08 @ 1:20PM|#
Today a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely
energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one
consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such
thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of
ourselves. Now here's Tom with the weather...
Throughout human history, as our species has faced the frightening,
terrorizing fact that we do not know who we are, or where we are
going in this ocean of chaos, it has been the authorities, the
political, the religious, the educational authorities who attempted
to comfort us by giving us order, rules, regulations, informing,
forming in our minds their view of reality. To think for yourself
you must question authority and learn how to put yourself in a
state of vulnerable, open-mindedness; chaotic, confused,
vulnerability to inform yourself.
God I love Tool.
|1.15.08 @ 1:24PM|#
I dare any of you to prove anything.
You can't do it, can you?
Proving your beliefs is even harder.
|1.15.08 @ 1:34PM|#
"Your memories and the world you think you see around you
are illusions."
Thank you Morpheus. Now let's go kick Agent Smith's ass. I need
guns, lots of guns....
thoreau|1.15.08 @ 1:36PM|#
All I know is that the data I'm able to examine makes it look
like my brain is contained in a body, and this body walks around on
a planet. Maybe I'm imagining it all (why the hell did I imagine
interacting with you guys instead of becoming Nicholas Sarkozy and
vacationing with Carla Bruni, BTW?), but it sure as hell looks like
the world exists and obeys physical laws, so that's what I go with.
It's all I've got, so I use it.
FWIW, most of theoretical physics isn't like this. I'm doing
calculations on molecules around tumors, working on algorithms to
analyze microscope images, and trying to simulate some weird
photochemistry that might be useful in manufacturing circuits. The
cosmologists are a bunch of weirdos, the rest of us are analyzing
important shit.
|1.15.08 @ 1:42PM|#
"(why the hell did I imagine interacting with you guys instead
of becoming Nicholas Sarkozy and vacationing with Carla Bruni,
BTW?)"
No joke.
|1.15.08 @ 1:45PM|#
the rest of us are analyzing important shit.
thoreau, just make me immortal, OK? Jeez.
|1.15.08 @ 1:50PM|#
If you are interested in this sort of thing, it is imperative that you read Greg Egan, especially Permutation City and his short story collections. Sometimes a little didactic, but when he's in form he's nothing short of brilliant.
|1.15.08 @ 2:07PM|#
The cosmologists are a bunch of weirdos, the rest of us are analyzing important shit.
Unless they're right about this. Then you're doing something
less than useless.
Have a nice day!
|1.15.08 @ 2:13PM|#
de stijl,
Got the Simpsons reference.
My other favorite line from that episode is:
"And what if we picked the wrong religion? Every week, we're just
making God madder and madder!"
lunchstealer|1.15.08 @ 2:26PM|#
It's much easier to make fragments of one, like
planets,
However, the galactic economy isn't nearly rich enough to support
this trade, so the Planet Magrathea is temporarily closed for
business. We look forward to your custom in future lives.
|1.15.08 @ 3:01PM|#
The article references "brains" -- plural. There's no
justification for that in principle of the argument. Earlier, they
put it this way: "Nature tends to do what is easiest, from the
standpoint of energy and probability."
Surely the easiest and cheapest is just one brain (that would be
mine; call me the Solipsist Piper). If I'm going to imagine a whole
universe, then it's child's play for me to imagine you
figments.
So, why am I writing to a bunch of figments? Because I don't
believe any part of this junk. Occam's Razor has NOT been called
upon in the article nor applied correctly in these comments.
Assuming that something resembling String Theory works out, the
universe is made of just one kind of stuff and there is one law to
govern its behavior. (Even if not, there's few dozen.) All the
complexity around you is the result of symmetry breaking. Compare
that simplicity with the idea that a fully functioning brain,
complete with illusory external universe, that arises from ... from
... errr, uh, the article seems to be admirably silent on that
point.
Occam's Razor says to make Your Theory simple, not to conserve the
energy or space required. Nature is notably spendthrift about enery
and space, which is why we're 93 million miles from a sun that
wastes 99.999% of its energy, instead of some much more economical
arrangement.
Besides that -- suppose the Theory of the Floating Brain is really
true... then, exactly what am I supposed to DO about it? Useful
theories have some sort of consequence.
Occam|1.15.08 @ 3:10PM|#
Oh, you think my razor is funny, do you?
Maybe you'd like to see it up close - real close.
Try it, punks.
Occam|1.15.08 @ 3:12PM|#
My name is Occam, and I get respect
Deference to my philosophy is what I expect
Never dis me, 'cause it won't be nice
I'll take out my razor and I'll slice and dice.
Sam Grove|1.15.08 @ 3:18PM|#
If true, it would mean that you yourself reading this
article are more likely to be some momentary fluctuation in a field
of matter and energy out in space than a person with a real past
born through billions of years of evolution in an orderly
star-spangled cosmos. Your memories and the world you think you see
around you are illusions.
Apart from the 'illusion' thing, why does it have to be
either/or?
Neu Mejican|1.15.08 @ 3:25PM|#
R C Dean | January 15, 2008, 12:36pm | #
Theory is always right. Sometimes reality is wrong.
Take it to a global warming thread, robc.
RC, that was Einstein's position on the relationship between the
existing data and his theories....
Also see Murray Gell-Mann
http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/194
|1.15.08 @ 3:50PM|#
A naked brain floating in space would not have any time to dream. Temperatures hovering around absolute zero in a near-vacuum are kinda hard on tissues.
Bingo|1.15.08 @ 3:51PM|#
Here's a fun one:
An exact atom-for-atom simulation of the universe would require a
quantum computer the size of the universe. Its actually possible
that the universe is a giant quantum computer computing itself.
Sulla|1.15.08 @ 4:33PM|#
I really hope I don't sound like an elitist. The purpose of this
argument is to classify not to rank or declare any world-view
"better" than an other.
I think it's helpful to consider usefulness in context. To the
majority of the world's population, it's probably not important to
consider metaphysics beyond the daily struggle for survival. Useful
world-views are ones that help you find food, shelter and safety
from the bad guys. Once you begin having substantial access to
technology and/or leisure time, certain cosmologies become more
useful. However, unless you are a scientist or an engineer, it's
probably enough to look at the universe as obeying Newtonian laws
even if you don't accept all of the premises of the scientific
worldview, i.e., you should believe in at least enough "science" so
you don't go jumping off a cliff because you believe you can fly.
If you can fly, please come show me so that I can adjust this
argument.
I think that scientists should accept the basic premises of
"science" and this precludes ID and creationism (in other words, I
don't think ID or creationism is "scientific"). Otherwise, who
cares if people believe in the flying spaghetti monster, Old Earth
creation, or the Matrix (as long as they don't use government or
other force to impose their viewpoints on you). I recognize
fundamentalist Christians do do this, so I have no problem with
efforts to keep church and state separate. My point is that just
because someone does accept the premises of science, this does not
mean they are stupid. This is ultimately a self-serving argument,
because I do not accept those premises (as an existentialist [more
or less] I think it's all very interesting, but don't really care
that much), and I don't want to think of myself as stupid. Hey, at
least I'm honest, right...
Xanthippas|1.15.08 @ 4:48PM|#
Compare that simplicity with the idea that a fully functioning brain, complete with illusory external universe, that arises from ... from ... errr, uh, the article seems to be admirably silent on that point.
To be fair, what the author is trying to say is that in a
multiverse that can last for eternity, in which quantum mechanics
dictates that there is always some chance that particles can
coalesce into macro-level objects, then all possible objects
must appear at some point, including brains that float in
space. Or put more simply, in a universe that lives forever where
random things can happen, then everything must happen at some
point. Which is not really as sexy as the article makes it
sound.
But I'm definitely with you about the "useful theories" having
consequences bit. This is the sort of speculation that's very
exciting to some scientists and a lot of lay people, but it's not
very useful. So what if I could appear fully embodied 1 trillion
years in the future as the result of a random coalescing of
particles? How does that even answer basic questions about the fate
of the universe? You'll note after reading that article that even
after all this fancy metaphysical speculation, we still can't
answer questions like what is dark matter/energy and why is our
universe comprised so much of it?
|1.15.08 @ 4:52PM|#
All I know is that the data I'm able to examine makes it look
like my brain is contained in a body, and this body walks around on
a planet. Maybe I'm imagining it all (why the hell did I imagine
interacting with you guys instead of becoming Nicholas Sarkozy and
vacationing with Carla Bruni, BTW?), but it sure as hell looks like
the world exists and obeys physical laws, so that's what I go with.
It's all I've got, so I use it.
FWIW, most of theoretical physics isn't like this. I'm doing
calculations on molecules around tumors, working on algorithms to
analyze microscope images, and trying to simulate some weird
photochemistry that might be useful in manufacturing circuits. The
cosmologists are a bunch of weirdos, the rest of us are analyzing
important shit."
Well said Throeau. If it is all a figment of my imagination, I sure
have a crappy imagination and for being a figment that bus is sure
going to hurt when it hits me.
|1.15.08 @ 11:08PM|#
Anytime I read about a speculation to the effect that reality
does not exist, or that our fundamental perceptions are nothing but
illusion, I have to take it with a mountain of salt and basically
dismiss it as Not Useful.
I mean, suppose we had experimental proof of this. The headlines
would read:
There Is No Objective Reality and All Perceptions Are Illusions,
Say Scientists Based on Their Inherently Unreliable Perceptions of
the False Results of Nonexistent Experiments Conducted in a Reality
That Isn't There
I mean, isn't that like a double negative? At least?
|1.22.08 @ 3:31AM|#
At this stage of human evolution of consciousness, either outcome is logically irrelevant, since this is but a philosophically meaningless ontological exploration. I could just as easily propose that we are light beams, floaty things or spaghetti monster particles that are all part of the same all-singing all dancing crap of the universe. It's froofy nonsense. I could just as easily propose that existence is an illusion springing from the concept of nothingness, which itself relies on and is related to somethingness in a conceptually reflexive nonduality of everything/nothing. Therefore 'being' since there cannot 'not be'. And in this context, our intelligence could just be static cling.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245