Our best ideas on the big bang put the universe as huge, but finite in space. (Way bigger than the observable universe) The question is time. If time is infinite then Boltzmann brains win.

Matter has a finite life, energy differentials run out. Stars run out of fuel. Black holes evaporate. Even protons eventually fall apart to energy. Then there is endless emptiness.

That emptiness would be finite in space, but infinite in time. Without that last boundary, weird things happen to maths.

When the results are inseparable, then complexity is the only element, it doesn’t prove anything, but it does bias.

Also, most gods don’t fall into this debate. Most gods would be quite happy interfering. This is (in principle) distinguishable from the null. It was aimed primarily at the simulation hypothesis. A perfect simulation is indistinguishable from a base reality.

It’s also a local maxima trap. To shift to chewing, they would have to change both bite behaviour, and teeth structure. The intermediate stage is a lot worse than either style.

Even if chewing was the better option, it’s inaccessible from the crocs current method.

It’s not 3 points, but 4.

Atheist==>Theist Agnostic==>gnostic

There are agnostic atheists and agnostic theists.

If things are not all equal, then we can slice off a section of the axiom, and start dissecting it, via science. The axiom only applies if things are exactly equal.

E.g. Gravity wave detectors have found oddities, just above the noise floor. These are likely equipment artifacts. They are also consistent with us being in a simulation, and us touching close to the resolution limit. If true (quite unlikely) then it would prove the axiom false.

The logic is that the universe of big bang matter has a limited lifespan. This sets a hard limit on the number of humans via “normal” means.

Boltzmann brains are due to a quirk of quantum mechanics. Matter can come into existence spontaneously. The rate is proportional to the amount (technically the energy content). Given enough time and space, something that would fit the definition of human could spontaneously appear. The odds of this are unbelievably long, but, so long as it’s finitely large, in a true infinite universe it will happen an infinite number of times. It’s a bit of infinity Vs very large number weirdness.

End result is that there will be a large but finite number of “normal” humans, but an infinite number of Boltzmann brain humans. Therefore, the chances of being an actual “normal” human is effectively infinitesimal.

Agreed about it not mattering, day to day. It’s one of those things that is of interest to theoretical physicists, since it might tell us something interesting about the nature of our universe.

It’s more reasonable via Occam’s razor (more complexity is less reasonable, when everything else is equal). However it is still just a belief axiom. You have to assume 1 holds.

You say that, but, if the universe has an infinite lifespan (as current models suggest) then we would almost certainly be Boltzmann brains. (There would be an infinite amount of Boltzmann brains, but only a finite number of humans)

I personally believe I am not, and the universe actually exists, rather than a sensory/memory ghost.

It’s useful to understand the mechanisms, it helps you to understand both what it can do, and its limitations. E.g. they can only mirror the parts they see or talk about. The parts of yourself that you hide away will be lost from their imperfect model.

For more info, it generally falls under “mirror neurons”. They help us empathise with others. E.g. when we smile, certain mirror neurons start firing. When we see someone smile, the same ones fire. We feel the appropriate emotions because of this. They also fire preemptively. E.g. when you hear your mother yelling about the mess, even though you’ve lived alone for a decade.

It’s an assumption, not an extrapolation. Assumptions, without evidence are beliefs.

We assume several unprovable axioms to allow science to function. A lot of work has also been done to collapse them down to the core minimum. What is left is still built on belief.

The fact that the results are useful back validates those beliefs. It doesn’t prove them however.

Belief in a null is a lot more reasonable than belief in something so powerful it can pretend to be a null.

Belief that I am not in a Truman show like environment is a lot more reasonable (without evidence) than belief that I am in a Truman show, and they are doing a perfect job.

That doesn’t mean I don’t try disproving the null hypothesis.

I think consciousness is more than just our neurons, it’s an active waveform riding and guided by them.

Unfortunately, I don’t think it survives death. Without the underlying structure, it collapses to noise.

Interestingly, our brains have special circuits, design to emulate others. In effect, our consciousness imprints onto theirs. It’s not the full pattern, and imperfect, but a part of us lives on in the consciousness of everyone who knows us.

Like ripples in a pond. The water of the initial wave is no longer involved, but it has passed to others.

The belief would be that your senses aren’t being actively deceived. Also, that you’re not a Boltzmann brain hallucinating in the void.

I personally believe all the axioms of science apply. It’s still fun to poke at them.

It’s actually a really REALLY fat cable. We spend our entire time inside it.

The point is that the reasonable null hypothesis is flat. It’s the starting point, before you apply the scientific methods.

It’s quite simple to disprove that however, particularly if you have access to an ocean, or large body of water.

It’s less based on the capacity, and more on how much time is likely a premium.

E.g. motorway services are more expensive, since people need the power and want to get back on the road. It’s exactly the same logic as the price of petrol there.

PhD level and up are notorious for over specialisation.

My university had a personal assistant, dedicated to 2 professors. Half their job was to make sure they made it to lectures on time. They still managed to be late sometimes.

I suspect this would change a bit, if you separate serial killers from mass shooters.

Serial killers need to plan out what they are doing, to not get caught. They can often hide behind a mask of charisma.

Mass shooters fit this quite well. It’s also the exact behaviour I would expect from someone trapped in an untenable situation. The pressure builds until something happens. In a few of those people, it is via anger and rage against those they feel wronged them.

1 group is likely naturally broken, to some degree. The other is broken by modern society.

Isn’t that basically what Huel is?

This only works if the group size exceeds the Dunbar number. Below that, you will quickly be kicked out.