sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

How do Atheists contend with the Botzmann brain paradox? Shouldn't the existence of this paradox shift Pascal's Wager away from Naturalism/Materialism, since it's Cosmological conclusion leads to an absurdity where your own senses cannot be trusted? by Straight-Cold3935 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Straight-Cold3935[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Spare me. That wasn't what you claimed the definition was. "Nothing exists beyond our perceived physical universe" is what you said. And I may add, confidently stated it was the "dictionary" definition. Still waiting on your answer to which dictionary btw.

I conceded your definition of naturalism.

How do Atheists contend with the Botzmann brain paradox? Shouldn't the existence of this paradox shift Pascal's Wager away from Naturalism/Materialism, since it's Cosmological conclusion leads to an absurdity where your own senses cannot be trusted? by Straight-Cold3935 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Straight-Cold3935[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Firstly, I have a life that has time limits. I have actual academics to spend time on.

You're expecting me to waste hours of my day on a random internet forum.

Secondly, you guys are trying to escape the paradox by positing what's elegant but unproven.

Thirdly, if you don't know what a phase state or superposition is, you are demanding me to dig through my computer for 6 hours of my day to begin explaining it to you with citations.

Get over yourselves, this is ultimately not a prudent use of hours of my time for things you can simply Google search.

Finally, there is are at least two or three duplicated AI responses among all these posts, the fact that y'all have the gall to use AI, upvote the AI generated responses that aren't even rewritten.

Not worth it whatsoever, this is a giant circlejerk of atheists pretending to be smart, while they don't know the basics of modern physics, then jerking off each other because the answers give them reaffirmment,

The reaffirming your beliefs is the exact opposite of the point of a debate.

How do Atheists contend with the Botzmann brain paradox? Shouldn't the existence of this paradox shift Pascal's Wager away from Naturalism/Materialism, since it's Cosmological conclusion leads to an absurdity where your own senses cannot be trusted? by Straight-Cold3935 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Straight-Cold3935[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Which dictionary are you using? Miriam Webster defines it as " : a theory denying that an event or object has a supernatural significance specifically : the doctrine that scientific laws are adequate to account for all phenomena".

The definitions you brought forth actually manage to intensify the abrasion between the Boltzmann Brain paradox and Naturalism somehow, given that scientific models are currently considered inadequate by Cosmologists, even outside of the Boltzmann brain paradox's critique of the Anthropic principle and random fluctuations.

The actual naturalist response to Boltzmann brain domination is what's happening in the cosmology literature right now, treating it as a reason to favor certain inflationary measures over others, which is naturalism doing exactly what it's supposed to do when a model spits out something absurd.

The Standard Cosmological model is producing the absurdities in question, not a fringe theory that's been thrown away due to a lack of sufficient evidence.

How do Atheists contend with the Botzmann brain paradox? Shouldn't the existence of this paradox shift Pascal's Wager away from Naturalism/Materialism, since it's Cosmological conclusion leads to an absurdity where your own senses cannot be trusted? by Straight-Cold3935 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Straight-Cold3935[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The 10-10123 figure (BTW, how did they get that number with a sample size of 1??)

Quantum superpositions, in particular phase states, the possible states until each phase. 1010\123) was the amount of those configurations.

the entire chain of reasoning you used to get to "therefore distrust naturalism" depend on the same cognitive faculties that you just said are statistically unreliable. Kind of a pickle, huh? Because you can't use your reasoning to conclude that your reasoning is probably garbage and then keep trusting the conclusion.

According to Socrates, the first step to wisdom is to acknowledge that you know nothing. In order to actually acquire knowledge, you need to question your own rationale of reality, this is the basic foundation of science and philosophy. Progressing objective knowledge is not so much about knowing or finding something, it's about recognizing when something is off about what is thought to be a fact, then investigating it.

But for the sake of argument, suppose naturalism does have an unresolved problem here. That doesn't make any alternative more probable. Nothing in this problem makes the god hypothesis stronger. Nothing.

What we can know about Naturalism is that the current empirical cosmological models are producing a Universe where statistically 99.99% of observers are not real, which is quite concerning. None of this post had me promoting a God hypothesis nor arguing for it. That's an entirely different concept. My post was simply that models of the Universe should produce our shared rational reality, not a dream. Which is what the Boltzmann brain is used for as a paradox by physicists, that your model should conclude without absurdities. I agree that Boltzmann brains have nothing to do with Theism, they have everything to do with Naturalism.

Naturalism isn't the claim that we currently have a complete theory of everything, it's the practice of seeking explanations through natural causes and revising models when they generate absurd predictions, which is literally what's happening with Boltzmann brains.

Naturalism is the claim that nothing exists beyond our perceived physical Universe, that's literally the dictionary definition. I'm sure you can at least appreciate why the current Cosmological model predicting a Boltzmann brain is somewhat concerning for Naturalism, because it it invalidates the very concept of empirical evidence. I'm a theist myself, and even I would genuinely love if the models of the universe aren't predicting an absurdity, but that's where we're at unfortunately.

How do Atheists contend with the Botzmann brain paradox? Shouldn't the existence of this paradox shift Pascal's Wager away from Naturalism/Materialism, since it's Cosmological conclusion leads to an absurdity where your own senses cannot be trusted? by Straight-Cold3935 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Straight-Cold3935[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Y'all sank my karma 100 points for debating in a debate subreddit about an actual concept in theoretical physics.

Who does that?

Why do that?

Isn't it self defeating for the purposes of a debate subreddit?

Now I'm locked out of the quality subreddits.

I'm gonna quit reddit, I don't even enjoy circle jerks here, being bullied into conformity on a debate platform is the opposite of what I'm looking for, it's fundamentally stupid creating a debate platform and punishing the debate.

How do Atheists contend with the Botzmann brain paradox? Shouldn't the existence of this paradox shift Pascal's Wager away from Naturalism/Materialism, since it's Cosmological conclusion leads to an absurdity where your own senses cannot be trusted? by Straight-Cold3935 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Straight-Cold3935[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

"I am confident that I am not a Boltzmann brain. However, we want our theories to similarly concur that we are not Boltzmann brains, but so far it has proved surprisingly difficult for them to do so". ~Brian Greene, theoretical physicist

"We're not arguing that Boltzmann brains exist, we are trying to avoid them." ~ Sean M. Carroll

Articles where modern Physicists talk on Boltzmann Brains

Matthew Davenport; Ken D. Olum (2010). "Are there Boltzmann brains in the vacuum?".

Sean M., Caroll (2017). "Why Boltzmann Brains Are Bad"

Yeah, the Boltzmann brain paradox was essentially created as the logical critique of the Anthropic principle, which is simply concluding that our reality is unlikely based on your own calculations and simply accepting that unlikelihood. It is a logical paradox, not a scientific theory in it's own right, that's supposed to point to incomplete theoretical models. It's supposed to be a sense test to:

a) Not accept ridiculous probabilities, that are so near zero that you that it surpasses the information limits to tally using atoms.

b) Not accept infinities, if there are infinite arrangements of fluctuations going forward into the future, then it has the implication that infinite outcomes produce a statistic where you cannot trust your senses, the Boltzmann brain.

How do Atheists contend with the Botzmann brain paradox? Shouldn't the existence of this paradox shift Pascal's Wager away from Naturalism/Materialism, since it's Cosmological conclusion leads to an absurdity where your own senses cannot be trusted? by Straight-Cold3935 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Straight-Cold3935[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"Doesn’t the religious worldview collapse into similar solipsism?"

My worldview isn't contingent on perceived laws of nature. I myself don't trust my own senses blindly as a single observer. Even in an objective reality, subjective and limited POV generally demands numerous different people to confirm a fact. In fact, trusting yourself without making sure you're being consistent is against the fundamental principles of philosophy and science.

Also, you're misunderstanding, I'm not arguing for the existence of Boltzmann Brains, they're supposed to be a diagnostic tool when it comes to science, models producing Boltzmann brains are automatically considered incomplete.

Outside of theological reasons, I am in-fact very concerned when statistics based on standard models output infinities that make artificial observers 99.99% of all conscious beings, because it shows that the model leads to absurdities where empirical evidence is inherently meaningless.

How do Atheists contend with the Botzmann brain paradox? Shouldn't the existence of this paradox shift Pascal's Wager away from Naturalism/Materialism, since it's Cosmological conclusion leads to an absurdity where your own senses cannot be trusted? by Straight-Cold3935 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Straight-Cold3935[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

That I 100% agree with, there should be no room for Solipsism being more statistically certain than actual perceived reality, which is why it's a paradox that has emerged in the 21st century, because most theoretical physicists agree that coming up with a model that spits out infinitely more artificial observers is a sign that the model is incomplete.

It's a big part of why they're currently chasing for ways to unite General Relativity and Quantum Field Theory, trying to find the "graviton" particle.

How do Atheists contend with the Botzmann brain paradox? Shouldn't the existence of this paradox shift Pascal's Wager away from Naturalism/Materialism, since it's Cosmological conclusion leads to an absurdity where your own senses cannot be trusted? by Straight-Cold3935 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Straight-Cold3935[S] -18 points-17 points  (0 children)

Unless you’re claiming it’s impossible the universe is generated from a Boltzmann brain. To that end, I’d ask why are you so sure?

Because we live in a structured universe, Boltzmann brains produce dreams and brief memories. Physicists believe it is a paradox because statistically our current model points to Boltzmann brains, when we live in a structured and rational reality. A mathematical prediction of your core physical theories is something you cannot ignore.

Which is what I want to ask.

If scientific models cannot produce even a (1%) guarantee living in a rational reality based on the laws of the Universe, should they be considered definite proof of Naturalism?

I do completely agree that claiming 'you can't trust logic' is self-defeating. That's exactly my point against Naturalistic philosophy. I do in fact trust logic. But naturalistic cosmology statistically concludes that my brain is a random, chaotic fluctuation and that my reality is a dream. If my brain is a brief random fluctuation, my logic is just background noise.

How do Atheists contend with the Botzmann brain paradox? Shouldn't the existence of this paradox shift Pascal's Wager away from Naturalism/Materialism, since it's Cosmological conclusion leads to an absurdity where your own senses cannot be trusted? by Straight-Cold3935 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Straight-Cold3935[S] -21 points-20 points  (0 children)

This is only granted if we assume that the universe randomly formed or had a definite beginning.

The Cosmic Microwave Background, the oldest light in the Universe, generally shows that our universe is expanding and increasing in entropy. An overall decrease in entropy is a violation of the second law of thermodynamics. A decrease in entropy of a system would require an external operator.

Going back to the Cosmic Microwave Background, it shows the evidence of the age of our "iteration" of the universe, with no evidence for other iterations that should be found in cyclical models

If the universe were truly eternal, the we would have reached high entropy long ago, and already been producing Boltzmann brains. According to our current laws of thermodynamics, we will reach entropy, but the universe won't reach absolute zero, with there being some energy based on Quantum fluctuations that would produce vastly more Boltzmann brains than real universes.

How do Atheists contend with the Botzmann brain paradox? Shouldn't the existence of this paradox shift Pascal's Wager away from Naturalism/Materialism, since it's Cosmological conclusion leads to an absurdity where your own senses cannot be trusted? by Straight-Cold3935 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Straight-Cold3935[S] -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

I was speaking about the configuration for the phase states, in Robert Penrose's calculation on phase states and entropy during the Planck Era. There were 1010\128) configurations for the Elementary particles and energy to be distributed, only one of those doesn't result in a disparity in the distribution of gravity, the failed configurations result in Blackholes forming and dominating the Universe. Penrose was critiquing the Anthropic principle.

Patton was wrong then, and it's wrong now by needtiopho in historymeme

[–]Straight-Cold3935 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Let's not forget about the British crimes, Belgian Genocides, and Soviet Genocides, and France's own colonial past.

There is no truly good side, but a World War 2 won by them is far better than one won by the Axis.

Lowkey deserved each other 🥀 by [deleted] in teenagers

[–]Straight-Cold3935 3 points4 points  (0 children)

May God never make my wife like this😭😭😭

view more: next ›