Attack of the Boltzmann Brains from Space (CampKill)

Hello ATS family!!! Mr Mask back again to share another video I created about a topic I find interesting.

This time its about the Boltzmann Brain Paradox that says there is a possibility that bodiless brains will appear randomly in space-time and eventually outnumber biological brains in our universe. This paradox is a mathematical one, and it has been debated on all sides by some of the largest minds in math, cosmology and various branches of physics.

If you believe in the paradox or not, this video explains the bare basics of the theory.

WARNING: Like all my videos, this is a voice commentary (my voice, my words) placed over video game footage (me kicking but in MW3). I am a video game commentator and that's what my people demand to see. There is no vulgarity in this video so its safe for the ears (if you don't mind a nasally voice of a geek talking fast). There is video game violence in the video tho, so if that offends you, do not click it.

With that all said, please enjoy "Attack of the Boltzmann Brains from Space".

a reply to: Mr Mask

Me and the guy on the right side of the screen got no clue what you said, but it sounds smart.

Veddy nice!!
Send your audio clip to Rev. Ivan Stang.
Def slack worthy.

I think there are a couple of problems to this theory.

First off the amount of matter that is contained in the universe is not infinite.

Secondly due to entropy all the matter that is in the universe will eventually decay and break apart so that even is the universe did last forever the matter contained in it would not have an infinite amount of time to put itself together in different ways. So using the deck of cards analogy provided in the video, the deck might wear out and break apart before every single combination was reached , even if there was an infinite amount out time.

Third even with an infinite amount of time and entropy did not happen (which is impossible) certain combinations may never be reached. I got into a very deep discussion about this at a maths a philosophy forum one time. The people there eventually proved to me that not all combinations can be reached using a binary table, it took me a long time to get my head round it. Just cant remember the mathematician that proved this, though i have a feeling it may have been Cantor. He was the guy that proved some infinities are larger than others..try getting your head around that one lol

a reply to: Mr Mask

Thumbs up again Mr Mask. I had no hesitation clicking on your thread this time. The content is way over my head but you know what, I learnt something from the video, now I'm an old git, so I can see kids benefiting from this type of video.

When I was at school, wayyy back in the dark ages, using ink wells and nibbed pens, we were taught "Religious instruction" (as it was called) the teacher was trying to get a classroom full of kids (about 40) to learn the books of the old and new testament, he achieved this by adding a tune, so in affect he turned it into a song. Genesis , Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and so on.

All forty kids, knew all the books in sequence.

What you have presented reminded me of this. Could be a great teaching aid, well done again.

originally posted by: PhoenixOD
I think there are a couple of problems to this theory.

First off the amount of matter that is contained in the universe is not infinite.

Secondly due to entropy all the matter that is in the universe will eventually decay and break apart so that even is the universe did last forever the matter contained in it would not have an infinite amount of time to put itself together in different ways. So using the deck of cards analogy provided in the video, the deck might wear out and break apart before every single combination was reached , even if there was an infinite amount out time.

Third even with an infinite amount of time and entropy did not happen (which is impossible) certain combinations may never be reached. I got into a very deep discussion about this at a maths a philosophy forum one time. The people there eventually proved to me that not all combinations can be reached using a binary table, it took me a long time to get my head round it. Just cant remember the mathematician that proved this, though i have a feeling it may have been Cantor. He was the guy that proved some infinities are larger than others..try getting your head around that one lol

The Boltzmann Brain Paradox deals with quantum fluctuations of particles that emerge from the vacuum of space, not particles that are present here and now today. Particles that are here today will not be remotely present within timescales needed to produce Boltzmann Brains.

If dealing with infinity, all combinations of particles will eventually be reached, in theory. If this is possible or not is where the paradox is argued or not. One of the suggested arguments of escaping this paradox is that time will not operate infinitely. But many of suggested it doesn't need to be infinite to produce Boltzmann Brains.

As for "infinity" and sets of infinity being larger than another, that is actually not true. Cantor's Theorem dealing with "set theory" states nothing of the kind. In fact, set theory reveals quite the opposite in mathematics. The math behind set theory of magnitudes (or sets) of infinity plainly show that one infinity-set is exactly the same size as a trillion infinity-sets.

That a famous paradox of infinity.

"if you take one set of infinity, and add it to another set of infinity, you are still left with infinity".

My plan was to make this video about set-theory and infinity, but I wanted to touch on Boltzmann Brains first. My video on Infinity is coming soon.

Hugs bro!

MM

originally posted by: DenyFlatulence
Veddy nice!!
Send your audio clip to Rev. Ivan Stang.
Def slack worthy.

Lol thanks bro! Ummm, I had no idea who Rev Ivan Stag was...so I googgled him. After reading his wiki, I must admit I still do not know what he is lol. But thanks for the nice review and big hugs!

MM

First off the amount of matter that is contained in the universe is not infinite.

Secondly due to entropy all the matter that is in the universe will eventually decay and break apart so that even is the universe did last forever the matter contained in it would not have an infinite amount of time to put itself together in different ways. So using the deck of cards analogy provided in the video, the deck might wear out and break apart before every single combination was reached , even if there was an infinite amount out time.

Third even with an infinite amount of time and entropy did not happen (which is impossible) certain combinations may never be reached. I got into a very deep discussion about this at a maths a philosophy forum one time. The people there eventually proved to me that not all combinations can be reached using a binary table, it took me a long time to get my head round it. Just cant remember the mathematician that proved this, though i have a feeling it may have been Cantor. He was the guy that proved some infinities are larger than others..try getting your head around that one lol

PS-The Boltzmann Brain Paradox has been addressed in many papers and journals of science for decades. There are solid arguments for and against it, but the arguments you presented are not any of those. The nest defense against the Brains currently is the Higgs Boson.


Hugs bro!

MM

originally posted by: keenasbro
a reply to: Mr Mask

Thumbs up again Mr Mask. I had no hesitation clicking on your thread this time. The content is way over my head but you know what, I learnt something from the video, now I'm an old git, so I can see kids benefiting from this type of video.

When I was at school, wayyy back in the dark ages, using ink wells and nibbed pens, we were taught "Religious instruction" (as it was called) the teacher was trying to get a classroom full of kids (about 40) to learn the books of the old and new testament, he achieved this by adding a tune, so in affect he turned it into a song. Genesis , Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and so on.

All forty kids, knew all the books in sequence.

What you have presented reminded me of this. Could be a great teaching aid, well done again.

Awww man, glad to see you gave another one of my vids a chance! Thanks so much my friend!!! As for the teacher using rhythm and song to teach a subject, that was very clever of him indeed. It is also why i choose to use the media and format I use to share these concepts.

Videos games are usually seen as mindless things that teach most people nothing. I try to use them to entertain AND share information. I'm aware many of the people who watch my vids are younger minds and I do try to trick them into learning something as best as I can (when I'm not being a silly dummy, that is).

Thanks again for watching this vid and being awesome!

HUGS bro!

MM

originally posted by: Trueman
a reply to: Mr Mask

Me and the guy on the right side of the screen got no clue what you said, but it sounds smart.

lol. Jessi Ventura? He don't know Boltzmann Brains!!!??? Well now he should! I mean...comon Jess!!! You fought the Predator!!! You gotta know about space brains!!!

Thanks for the comment my friend and big hugs!!!

MM

a reply to: Mr Mask

As for "infinity" and sets of infinity being larger than another, that is actually not true. Cantor's Theorem dealing with "set theory" states nothing of the kind. In fact, set theory reveals quite the opposite in mathematics. The math behind set theory of magnitudes (or sets) of infinity plainly show that one infinity-set is exactly the same size as a trillion infinity-sets.

Sorry you dont understand how this maths works. Its far more complex than adding one infinity to another. That makes no difference to the outcome because infinity is not a number and so you can not multiply it or add to it. Its just an idea , a concept. Buuut... Cantor did prove that some infinities are larger than others.

Take a circle for example, it is made of an infinite amount of points. Now draw lines from the center to those points. Now draw a much larger circle around the first one and extend those lines beyond the first circle to meet the edge of the larger second circle. You then would have gaps between the lines on the edge of the second circle. So the larger circle contains a larger infinite set than the first. This is just one of the easiest examples to explain and i may not have worded it a specifically as the original but the imagery it there.

Infinity is bigger than you think - Numberphile


The Hilbert Hotel example (not cantors theory but another good example)




Some Infinities Are Larger Than Others: The Tragic Story of a Math Heretic

Cantor was the guy that proved that not all combinations can be reached , its called Cantor's Diagonal Argument.

In set theory, Cantor's diagonal argument, also called the diagonalisation argument, the diagonal slash argument or the diagonal method, was published in 1891 by Georg Cantor as a mathematical proof that there are infinite sets which cannot be put into one-to-one correspondence with the infinite set of natural numbers.[1] Such sets are now known as uncountable sets, and the size of infinite sets is now treated by the theory of cardinal numbers which Cantor began.

The diagonal argument was not Cantor's first proof of the uncountability of the real numbers; it was actually published much later than his first proof, which appeared in 1874.[2] However, it demonstrates a powerful and general technique that has since been used in a wide range of proofs, also known as diagonal arguments by analogy with the argument used in this proof. The most famous examples are perhaps Russell's paradox, the first of Gödel's incompleteness theorems, and Turing's answer to the Entscheidungsproblem.

en.wikipedia.org...

So Cantor DID prove that some infinities are larger than others, there's is just no arguing that. Its one of the biggest paradox's in maths and Cantor went mad thinking about it and ended his days in a mental institution.

As for particles that just pop into existence they are instantly annihilated by their anti versions so don't last for any amount of time. Matter form the past is destroyed in the present by anti-matter from the future etc etc..

Don't get me wrong i do like your video.

originally posted by: PhoenixOD
a reply to: Mr Mask

As for "infinity" and sets of infinity being larger than another, that is actually not true. Cantor's Theorem dealing with "set theory" states nothing of the kind. In fact, set theory reveals quite the opposite in mathematics. The math behind set theory of magnitudes (or sets) of infinity plainly show that one infinity-set is exactly the same size as a trillion infinity-sets.

Sorry you dont understand how this maths works. Its far more complex than adding one infinity to another. That makes no difference to the outcome because infinity is not a number and so you can not multiply it or add to it. Its just an idea , a concept. Buuut... Cantor did prove that some infinities are larger than others.

Take a circle for example, it is made of an infinite amount of points. Now draw lines from the center to those points. Now draw a much larger circle around the first one and extend those lines beyond the first circle to meet the edge of the larger second circle. You then would have gaps between the lines on the edge of the second circle. So the larger circle contains a larger infinite set than the first. This is just one of the easiest examples to explain and i may not have worded it a specifically as the original but the imagery it there.

Infinity is bigger than you think - Numberphile

The Hilbert Hotel example (not cantors theory but another good example)

Some Infinities Are Larger Than Others: The Tragic Story of a Math Heretic

Cantor was the guy that proved that not all combinations can be reached , its called Cantor's Diagonal Argument.

In set theory, Cantor's diagonal argument, also called the diagonalisation argument, the diagonal slash argument or the diagonal method, was published in 1891 by Georg Cantor as a mathematical proof that there are infinite sets which cannot be put into one-to-one correspondence with the infinite set of natural numbers.[1] Such sets are now known as uncountable sets, and the size of infinite sets is now treated by the theory of cardinal numbers which Cantor began.

The diagonal argument was not Cantor's first proof of the uncountability of the real numbers; it was actually published much later than his first proof, which appeared in 1874.[2] However, it demonstrates a powerful and general technique that has since been used in a wide range of proofs, also known as diagonal arguments by analogy with the argument used in this proof. The most famous examples are perhaps Russell's paradox, the first of Gödel's incompleteness theorems, and Turing's answer to the Entscheidungsproblem.

en.wikipedia.org...

So Cantor DID prove that some infinities are larger than others, there's is just no arguing that. Its one of the biggest paradox's in maths and Cantor went mad thinking about it and ended his days in a mental institution.

Actually, I do understand the math. I'm sorry you don't. There is countless documentaries about set-theory and how paradoxes arise with the concept of infinity being added to infinity (if you can;t handle more complex lectures on the subject), and how it results in no infinity larger than the next.

Its pretty basic stuff in the realm of math paradoxes. I'll allow Prof Peter Cameron (one of set-theories brightest living experts today) explain it to you in laymen's terms.

Go to 13:40 of this video here for a brief and simple explanation of this basic concept of a theoretical concept such as "infinity", or "set-theory.



Lastly, "higher orders of infinity" does not translate into "larger infinities", no matter how your Tv shows put it. And I surely wouldn't follow Cantor's ideas on the subject (even though he was a monumental mind in maths and the pioneer of set-theroy) his ideas on infinity have since been attacked and seen as "naive" and misled by all of math today.

Discussions of set-theoretic paradoxes began to appear around the end of the nineteenth century. With Cesare Burali-Forti exposing the first such paradox "the Burali-Forti paradox" proving that ordinal number sets of all ordinals "must be an ordinal" and this leads to a contradiction.

This also leads to Russell's paradox that shows it is not possible to take non-axiomatic steps to set theory without contradiction. This leads Ernst Friedrich Ferdinand Zermelo and others to produce axiomatizations of set theory.

I am sure you are already not caring...long story short...math today shows a paradox in the "theoretical concept of infinity" that can not be overlooked. If you add one set of infinity to another set of infinity, it remains an infinity. If you minus 50% from infinity, it remains infinity. If you remove 99.9% from infinity- it still remains infinity.

This is a basic concept of set-theroy, and far simpler then the deeper ideas attached to such a complex discipline of maths.

Hell, this is covered and explained in the overly popular/famous (and cute) paradox of Hiltbert's Hotel in itself.

Please...do not speak down to me about "infinity" when you failed to even grasp the point of this video talking about fluctuating particles past the decay stage of existing particles of now.

it's just a waste of both our time. I suggest you go and acquire some real literature on Cantor's work (since you even failed to remember if it was his work your were falsely quoting in the first place) and gain a better grasp on the concept you say I am failing to understand.

Thanks.

MM

PS- Did you really use a video with William Lane Craig to argue complex math? lol. Cute. Hugs bro!

Funny part is, he also went on record misquoting the Boltzmann brain argument as well...in attempts to prove God. Gotta love that daffy guy!

MM

double post.

originally posted by: PhoenixOD
As for particles that just pop into existence they are instantly annihilated by their anti versions so don't last for any amount of time. Matter form the past is destroyed in the present by anti-matter from the future etc etc..

Don't get me wrong i do like your video.

Sigh...that's why Boltzmann brains are theorized to exist for portions of instances mostly (with room for very statistically rare ones lasting longer). BUT before you take this down a road unintended by thinking I am trying to prove Boltzmann Brains- let me explain what a scientific paradox means. It means there is a flaw within the system of our understanding. Paradoxes can not logically exist. Scientists assume there is a problem that needs fixing when a paradox arrises in theory.

Meaning, as stated in the video, that the Boltzmann Brain paradox shows a fundamental flaw within the lambda-CDM Model. Not that "space brains indeed will arise".

MM

a reply to: PhoenixOD

One last thing...you keep acting as if this video is my personal opinion that can be shrugged off with ancient math.

No...

This is a widely debated paradox that has haunted mainstream physicists and mathematicians for decades, with plenty of major minds in these fields publishing papers on the concept for many many years.

I didn't come up with the Boltzmann Brain Paradox. And those who did were surely aware of Cantor's overly popular theories and of course the decay rate of atomic particles.

It always shocks me the nerve of laymen who think they can pop a magic rabbit out of a hat using youtube videos and TV shows to argue against things all of science fights with proper study and intellectual vigor.

I'm sorry if I seem rude. I really don't mean to be. its just every time I share something I've spent over 30 years studying to understand, there is always some dude who stands up with some illogical argument that is easily defeated by 10 minutes worth of study.

I'm sorry...it just bothers me a little. fact remains If you had the answer you would be world famous in under an hour.

Hugs bro.

MM

originally posted by: PhoenixOD
a reply to: Mr Mask

As for "infinity" and sets of infinity being larger than another, that is actually not true. Cantor's Theorem dealing with "set theory" states nothing of the kind. In fact, set theory reveals quite the opposite in mathematics. The math behind set theory of magnitudes (or sets) of infinity plainly show that one infinity-set is exactly the same size as a trillion infinity-sets.

Sorry you dont understand how this maths works. Its far more complex than adding one infinity to another. That makes no difference to the outcome because infinity is not a number and so you can not multiply it or add to it. Its just an idea , a concept. Buuut... Cantor did prove that some infinities are larger than others.

Take a circle for example, it is made of an infinite amount of points. Now draw lines from the center to those points. Now draw a much larger circle around the first one and extend those lines beyond the first circle to meet the edge of the larger second circle. You then would have gaps between the lines on the edge of the second circle. So the larger circle contains a larger infinite set than the first. This is just one of the easiest examples to explain and i may not have worded it a specifically as the original but the imagery it there.

Infinity is bigger than you think - Numberphile

The Hilbert Hotel example (not cantors theory but another good example)

Some Infinities Are Larger Than Others: The Tragic Story of a Math Heretic

Cantor was the guy that proved that not all combinations can be reached , its called Cantor's Diagonal Argument.

In set theory, Cantor's diagonal argument, also called the diagonalisation argument, the diagonal slash argument or the diagonal method, was published in 1891 by Georg Cantor as a mathematical proof that there are infinite sets which cannot be put into one-to-one correspondence with the infinite set of natural numbers.[1] Such sets are now known as uncountable sets, and the size of infinite sets is now treated by the theory of cardinal numbers which Cantor began.

The diagonal argument was not Cantor's first proof of the uncountability of the real numbers; it was actually published much later than his first proof, which appeared in 1874.[2] However, it demonstrates a powerful and general technique that has since been used in a wide range of proofs, also known as diagonal arguments by analogy with the argument used in this proof. The most famous examples are perhaps Russell's paradox, the first of Gödel's incompleteness theorems, and Turing's answer to the Entscheidungsproblem.

en.wikipedia.org...

So Cantor DID prove that some infinities are larger than others, there's is just no arguing that. Its one of the biggest paradox's in maths and Cantor went mad thinking about it and ended his days in a mental institution.

I remember watching a documentary about Cantor and how he proved some infinities are larger than others. Its brain twisting stuff

originally posted by: VitalOverdose

originally posted by: PhoenixOD
a reply to: Mr Mask

As for "infinity" and sets of infinity being larger than another, that is actually not true. Cantor's Theorem dealing with "set theory" states nothing of the kind. In fact, set theory reveals quite the opposite in mathematics. The math behind set theory of magnitudes (or sets) of infinity plainly show that one infinity-set is exactly the same size as a trillion infinity-sets.

Sorry you dont understand how this maths works. Its far more complex than adding one infinity to another. That makes no difference to the outcome because infinity is not a number and so you can not multiply it or add to it. Its just an idea , a concept. Buuut... Cantor did prove that some infinities are larger than others.

Take a circle for example, it is made of an infinite amount of points. Now draw lines from the center to those points. Now draw a much larger circle around the first one and extend those lines beyond the first circle to meet the edge of the larger second circle. You then would have gaps between the lines on the edge of the second circle. So the larger circle contains a larger infinite set than the first. This is just one of the easiest examples to explain and i may not have worded it a specifically as the original but the imagery it there.

Infinity is bigger than you think - Numberphile

The Hilbert Hotel example (not cantors theory but another good example)

Some Infinities Are Larger Than Others: The Tragic Story of a Math Heretic

Cantor was the guy that proved that not all combinations can be reached , its called Cantor's Diagonal Argument.

In set theory, Cantor's diagonal argument, also called the diagonalisation argument, the diagonal slash argument or the diagonal method, was published in 1891 by Georg Cantor as a mathematical proof that there are infinite sets which cannot be put into one-to-one correspondence with the infinite set of natural numbers.[1] Such sets are now known as uncountable sets, and the size of infinite sets is now treated by the theory of cardinal numbers which Cantor began.

The diagonal argument was not Cantor's first proof of the uncountability of the real numbers; it was actually published much later than his first proof, which appeared in 1874.[2] However, it demonstrates a powerful and general technique that has since been used in a wide range of proofs, also known as diagonal arguments by analogy with the argument used in this proof. The most famous examples are perhaps Russell's paradox, the first of Gödel's incompleteness theorems, and Turing's answer to the Entscheidungsproblem.

en.wikipedia.org...

So Cantor DID prove that some infinities are larger than others, there's is just no arguing that. Its one of the biggest paradox's in maths and Cantor went mad thinking about it and ended his days in a mental institution.

I remember watching a documentary about Cantor and how he proved some infinities are larger than others. Its brain twisting stuff

And I just linked a video of a living expert on set-theroy saying that is very incorrect. But ok...you want to argue against the most famous paradox of infinity, written about in many mathematic papers over the years by giant minds in the field of maths, be my guest.

I surely don't want to argue with a discovery channel documentary...

MM

This vid just got featured on the front page of Ebaumsworld. Whoooohooooo!!! I love those guys. 3rd science vid they featured of mine in the last three weeks. A total help to my silly lil channel.