Last week’s Science Times section of the NY Times made me aware of the “Boltzmann Brain” concept. My goodness, how could I have lived so long and never have heard of it? It’s a huge idea, a bold idea, way out there on the bleeding edge of cosmology and mathematics, wandering off into the field of epistemological philosophy and speculative metaphysics. It’s a Starship Enterprise kind of idea!
It’s actually too big an idea for me to properly explain here (and I probably don’t fully understand it anyway). Nonetheless, just for fun, I’ll try to describe it and make some observations regarding its theological implications. Whether I’m right or wrong, the concept certainly does have much to do with life and consciousness and their relationship to the Universe and to all creation — whatever that is or isn’t.
We know that there is conscious self-awareness in the Universe; as Descartes said, if we know nothing else for sure, we do surely know of our own individual consciousness. We’re also pretty sure from our scientific observations that conscious life occupies an incredibly tiny part of the Universe; it seems like nothing more than a small side show in a big carnival. The Universe is mostly made of thermonuclear-fueled galaxies and gravity-powered black holes and dark matter and vacuum space — incredible volumes of unoccupied space. Oh, and throw in dark energy; lots and lots of dark energy, causing those vast gobs of unoccupied space to expand at an accelerating pace. Relative to the vast Universe, intelligent, self-conscious life (i.e., the human race, and any other intelligent life out there) is like a little barnacle along the side of a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier.
That does strike some people, including myself, as kind of odd. Wasn’t there a more efficient arrangement for supporting sentient life, other than some huge, Big Bang-inflated Universe where we’re just a tiny spec created by chance over eons of time? The Creationists think they have a better explanation, but I am not ready to throw centuries of scientific evidence and critical thought out the window, so I’ll end any consideration of Creationism right here.
On the other end of the spectrum of opinion regarding Biblical inerrancy, some physicists have speculated that there may be such a “more efficient arrangement” for conscious life. They speculate first that the Universe that we observe and live in is just a small event happening on a much bigger stage; i.e., there is a much bigger reality where untold trillions and zillions of other universes come and go over unthinkable spans of time. In fact, they speculate that that this time span may be infinite. Our 13 billion year old Universe, and whatever may eventually happen to it (heat death, big crunch, big rip, etc.), is just a tiny event on this much bigger stage. All kinds of other things are happening, and the generation process is entirely random, completely ‘luck of the draw’. Given an infinity of time, anything that can happen will happen; in fact, everything that can happen already has happened! That includes much more compact universes where the efficient formation of intelligent, conscious life was the main event. (These are the ‘floating brains’, Boltzmann’s Brains).
Some of these physicists postulate that such “efficient consciousness universes” are much more likely to happen than our Universe, as they would need less energy potential and allow higher levels of thermodynamic entropy. (This is from the second law of thermodynamics: higher levels of entropy are more likely, all else the same, than lower levels; roughly speaking, that’s why cold water mixed into a bathtub of cold water causes luke-warm water, instead of cold water on one end and hot water on the other). And recent studies of the accelerating expansion of our Universe caused by infamous “dark energy”, and certain interpretations of super-string theory, have hinted that this “big stage where everything randomly happens sooner or later” idea could be true.
So, if it is true, and everything is luck of the draw, then what we think has happened with our Universe (lots of energy, lots of space, lots of time, and just a tiny bit of conscious life) is really not very likely. It could happen; and if we’re on an infinite stage, it certainly HAS happened; but there must be so many more of the smaller, more likely “mini-efficient consciousness universes” (i.e., the Boltzmann Brains floating out in space). And if those things so vastly outnumber the Universe we know (or think we know), then maybe we really ARE just one of those mini-efficient consciousness universes; perhaps there was a random glitch at the start which caused us to imagine that we are living in a vast Universe with galaxies and black holes. Perhaps Bishop Berkeley was right, except that it wasn’t and isn’t God who set up our ‘illusion of reality’!
My half-assed attempt here to explain the Boltzmann Brain thing really only covers a small portion of it. There are all sorts of spin-offs and implications and reality checks that are part of the messy intellectual splat caused by the notion of Boltzmann’s Brains in space. For a good summary of the real, hard thinking about all this, the Cosmicvariance.com web site is a good place to go. For now, though, I want to get mushy and bring God back into the picture (but I won’t get as mushy as the Creationists; I’m still more of a mushy agnostic than a totally pureed-brain believer). What might be the implications of the arguments and viewpoints being bandied about in the Boltzmann Brain discussion for the question of belief versus atheism? Are there any?
In my opinion there are, and they are significant (but they are not dispositive; no knock-out punches either way). The whole Boltzmann Brain idea assumes that the ultimate generative principle is randomness and infinity (no beginning, no end, no reason for it all either). Our quantum physics gives us a hint of what randomness means. There are certainly laws and patterns and “attractors” in our Universe; without them, there could never have been life and consciousness, not to mention suns and planets and galaxies and black holes and such. But in the biggest picture, even these laws of physics are ultimately random; E = MC squared may apply in our Universe and in some others, but probably not in most of the others. In the “meta-verse” behind all universes, the ultimate principle is a stark randomness, one that is even worse than what we see in our quantum physics (where there is still some order “in the aggregate”). If any laws at all apply within the bubbles of time-space that pop off from the “ultimate stage”, it’s just a luck-of-the-draw thing; what those laws are also varies by chance. We just happen to be living in the one where F = MA and E = MC squared and gravity accelerates mass by 32 feet per second squared (or we THINK we are in it).
That’s the scenario where there should be lots of mini-verses having self-consciousness as the main event; and where our big, sprawling, low-entropy Universe having just a smidgen of consciousness – or what we THINK we observe as our Universe – is an unlikely fluke. Randomness and temporal infinity are king. If you’re interested in theology and are looking for clues and hints as to whether there is a God or not (as I am), that situation looks like a vote against God. To me, it just doesn’t seem like a situation where God would be. Of course, there COULD still be a God who works in very strange ways, and of course if there is a God, humankind would never completely understand that God anyway. So the hyper-random situation is not a complete deal-breaker for the existence of God. But the smart money would surely bet against God in that case; my smart money, anyway.
On the other side of the coin, there is the possibility that law and order are more ultimate than randomness. Oh, sure, randomness is still needed. It’s still a yin-and-yang, chicken-and-egg thing. Without randomness, there would be no generation, no novelty, no life; everything would be fixed and still (and even if there was motion, it would be entirely ordered motion, tick-toc, ultimately meaningless). But under the “order first” point of view, there would be common laws that apply in every “universe bubble” that occurs. String theory hints that the laws in alternative universes and parallel realities are not the same as the ones we know; the constants (such as the rate of fall caused by gravity, or the speed of light, or having only three spacial dimensions) might vary. But still, there would be some ultimately fundamental “meta laws” that would apply throughout infinity. E.g., some physicists have postulated that the process of inflation ‘levels the playing field’ between Boltzmann Brain “mini-verses” and the Universe that we know; under their assumptions (i.e., that inflation laws would hold for all “universe bubbles”), our Universe is NOT an unlikely fluke.
So, back to the theology question – what about a creation where randomness keeps the stew bubbling, but law and order are the ultimate thing? To me, that sounds more like a place where God might be. But again, it’s not a knock-out punch. Just because there is some eternal order balancing itself against randomness doesn’t mean that there is GOOD order. We’re still quite far from the idea of a God who somehow knows and cares about this creation and its self-conscious expressions, which are hidden away in tiny, obscure corners of certain time-space bubbles. But it seems as though ultimate order would be necessary (if not sufficient) for such a God to know and possibly interact with that consciousness. So at least God is still in the game.
Personally, I don’t think that we are Boltzmann Brains, nor that there are zillions and zillions of Blotzmann Brains out there (if there were so many, why wouldn’t some of them find a way into our time-space and make contact with us? I’ve heard of UFO’s, but why should they all be so shy?). Personally, I think that there could be ultimate order in the greater multi-verse and that there could be a God transcending it all who makes use of that order to somehow promote and preserve the consciousness that develops within it. But I respect the realm of critical thinking, and I acknowledge that this could be all wrong. Nonetheless, I think that everyone is entitled to their hopes, and this just happens to be my own. Like it or lump it.
Jim,
My initial thoughts on your blog; maybe I will have others later: Once again, I find myself coming back to what I have thought so many times when it comes to physicists/cosmologists and their thoughts. I have noticed in life that if/when a person gets an idea, eventually, that idea becomes a reality. (Hence my thoughts about the culture of violent movies and violence in general being simply a kind of meditation on violence that eventually will find its way to reality as we know it. But I digress.)
So, once again, my observation has been that these “great thinkers” do their thinking, have their ideas and eventually, they come to find what it is they are seeking. It started with the atom and went smaller and smaller from there. It takes many years sometimes to find what it is that scientists may be looking for–but they seem to eventually find it.
Thus, I find myself wondering if what may be really happening is: Think about Boltzmann Brains long enough, and they will be found.
Thus, I wonder if it is not WE who are the creators. Might WE be GOD? Hmmmm….
Well, there is a concept for theological speculation. And then if one is an atheist, does one deny oneself?
And I have to say about the “unthinkable spans of time”–13 billion years, etc., must be by definition other dimensions. Somehow I simply cannot conceive of 13 billion years as being in the same dimension as the reality in which we currently live.
I think you’ve got a point about the UFOs being “shy.” But then again, I wonder about the fact that they always seem to be seen in the dark, in deserted areas. I wonder if (and I do not mean here to diminish the experience of those who have seen UFOs) there is not some element of altered state of consciousness that allows the individual to perceive another dimension.
I’ve always wondered the same about ghosts–if they exist, why can’t they be seen in light? But perhaps some element of altered state of consciousness has to be present to actually perceive this “other” dimension of “ghost.”
And I say why is such an “other” dimension not possible? And why should it be impossible to perceive such dimensions under certain circumstances?
And I have no doubt that if the scientists keep thinking in these terms that Boltzmann is thinking, no doubt eventually such universes/brains will be found to exist.
So much for now.
MCS
Comment by Anonymous — January 21, 2008 @ 4:56 pm
Jim,
My initial thoughts on your blog; maybe I will have others later: Once again, I find myself coming back to what I have thought so many times when it comes to physicists/cosmologists and their thoughts. I have noticed in life that if/when a person gets an idea, eventually, that idea becomes a reality. (Hence my thoughts about the culture of violent movies and violence in general being simply a kind of meditation on violence that eventually will find its way to reality as we know it. But I digress.)
So, once again, my observation has been that these “great thinkers” do their thinking, have their ideas and eventually, they come to find what it is they are seeking. It started with the atom and went smaller and smaller from there. It takes many years sometimes to find what it is that scientists may be looking for–but they seem to eventually find it.
Thus, I find myself wondering if what may be really happening is: Think about Boltzmann Brains long enough, and they will be found.
Thus, I wonder if it is not WE who are the creators. Might WE be GOD? Hmmmm….
Well, there is a concept for theological speculation. And then if one is an atheist, does one deny oneself?
And I have to say about the “unthinkable spans of time”–13 billion years, etc., must be by definition other dimensions. Somehow I simply cannot conceive of 13 billion years as being in the same dimension as the reality in which we currently live.
I think you’ve got a point about the UFOs being “shy.” But then again, I wonder about the fact that they always seem to be seen in the dark, in deserted areas. I wonder if (and I do not mean here to diminish the experience of those who have seen UFOs) there is not some element of altered state of consciousness that allows the individual to perceive another dimension.
I’ve always wondered the same about ghosts–if they exist, why can’t they be seen in light? But perhaps some element of altered state of consciousness has to be present to actually perceive this “other” dimension of “ghost.”
And I say why is such an “other” dimension not possible? And why should it be impossible to perceive such dimensions under certain circumstances?
And I have no doubt that if the scientists keep thinking in these terms that Boltzmann is thinking, no doubt eventually such universes/brains will be found to exist.
So much for now.
MCS
Comment by Anonymous — January 21, 2008 @ 4:56 pm
Jim,
Some further thoughts on Boltzmann’s Brains:
The thing I always think is missing from these discussions about other life(ves) in the universe(s) as we know it (them) is that every discussion of other intelligence existing somewhere is that it must be like us.
For the life of me I don’t understand why scientists can’t posit intelligence(s) that are not like us. I know it’s probably stupid to use this example, but I always think of the very early Star Trek episodes which were so very well written. One of these episodes had an intelligence that was “silicone based.” So the “pebbles” in the cave were really the babies of the big rock-like things in the cave–I’m simplifying, but it’s the best I can remember after almost 40 years.
But I wonder about such an idea–an intelligence based on a totally different type of being. Why is such a thing not possible?
Then too: I don’t think enough attention is given to the intelligences already here are this earth. For instance, if I have it correct, whales have a higher proportion of brain weight to body than we have. What if whales were actually more intelligent than we are? But the problem is that we are unable to recognize the intelligence of some of these large beings on this earth. Another is the whole chimpanzee-communicating-with-man project where the chimps were taught sign language. Of course, many scientists poo-pooed that. But I wonder what might be the possibility that whales, chimps, other such animals might have abilities that we don’t even conceive of. We are looking for “outside” (read technological) evidence of intelligence. Why wouldn’t it be possible for intelligence to turn inward on itself and develop inwardly. Perhaps there is a whole “inward” world in such animals that is not exhibited outwardly.
And here I think of the movie “Into Great Silence” about the Carthusians in the French (?) Alps. It certainly looks to the outward eye that nothing at all is going on, or maybe very little. But the amount of inward activity that exists in these men is nothing short of astounding. Actually, any thinking person has a great deal of mental activity going on that does not show on the outside. (I don’t know how many times I’ve been thinking with my eyes closed and have been asked by someone around me, “Are you sleeping?” And the answer is actually absolutely not–in fact, a great deal of mental activity is going on that does not exhibit itself on the “outside.”)
Not only may some being exist that we cannot conceive of, but their activity could not then possibly be perceived either.
While I think that it’s OK to look for other intelligence like we are, I wonder how much we are missing. And I absolutely question why on earth (yes I deliberately said “earth”) intelligence has to be like us.
At the very least such an idea seems extremely lacking in creativity, well as far as I see it.
And then some further thoughts:
I found myself coming back again to the same tho’t: This cosmological theory seems a modern version of the Gnostics sitting around trying to figure out the universe. Only in our modern day we have to couch it all in the “religion of our times”: Science–particularly physics or astronomy/cosmology (in this case).
I find myself reminded of how the “ancients” used philosophy (or what we have today relegated to “philosophy”) to sit around and talk about god, gods, the universe, how it all came to be, the implications of what they tho’t for humans of their time, etc. They used the knowledge they had at hand–astrology and the stars they could see at night (which they saw so much better than we do). This philosophical discussion would go so far as to influence their whole life, how they lived, how they thought, etc. How does what they did with “philosophy” differ from what we today do with “science”–and specifically physics and astronomy/comology?
MCS
Comment by Anonymous — January 22, 2008 @ 4:34 pm
Jim,
Some further thoughts on Boltzmann’s Brains:
The thing I always think is missing from these discussions about other life(ves) in the universe(s) as we know it (them) is that every discussion of other intelligence existing somewhere is that it must be like us.
For the life of me I don’t understand why scientists can’t posit intelligence(s) that are not like us. I know it’s probably stupid to use this example, but I always think of the very early Star Trek episodes which were so very well written. One of these episodes had an intelligence that was “silicone based.” So the “pebbles” in the cave were really the babies of the big rock-like things in the cave–I’m simplifying, but it’s the best I can remember after almost 40 years.
But I wonder about such an idea–an intelligence based on a totally different type of being. Why is such a thing not possible?
Then too: I don’t think enough attention is given to the intelligences already here are this earth. For instance, if I have it correct, whales have a higher proportion of brain weight to body than we have. What if whales were actually more intelligent than we are? But the problem is that we are unable to recognize the intelligence of some of these large beings on this earth. Another is the whole chimpanzee-communicating-with-man project where the chimps were taught sign language. Of course, many scientists poo-pooed that. But I wonder what might be the possibility that whales, chimps, other such animals might have abilities that we don’t even conceive of. We are looking for “outside” (read technological) evidence of intelligence. Why wouldn’t it be possible for intelligence to turn inward on itself and develop inwardly. Perhaps there is a whole “inward” world in such animals that is not exhibited outwardly.
And here I think of the movie “Into Great Silence” about the Carthusians in the French (?) Alps. It certainly looks to the outward eye that nothing at all is going on, or maybe very little. But the amount of inward activity that exists in these men is nothing short of astounding. Actually, any thinking person has a great deal of mental activity going on that does not show on the outside. (I don’t know how many times I’ve been thinking with my eyes closed and have been asked by someone around me, “Are you sleeping?” And the answer is actually absolutely not–in fact, a great deal of mental activity is going on that does not exhibit itself on the “outside.”)
Not only may some being exist that we cannot conceive of, but their activity could not then possibly be perceived either.
While I think that it’s OK to look for other intelligence like we are, I wonder how much we are missing. And I absolutely question why on earth (yes I deliberately said “earth”) intelligence has to be like us.
At the very least such an idea seems extremely lacking in creativity, well as far as I see it.
And then some further thoughts:
I found myself coming back again to the same tho’t: This cosmological theory seems a modern version of the Gnostics sitting around trying to figure out the universe. Only in our modern day we have to couch it all in the “religion of our times”: Science–particularly physics or astronomy/cosmology (in this case).
I find myself reminded of how the “ancients” used philosophy (or what we have today relegated to “philosophy”) to sit around and talk about god, gods, the universe, how it all came to be, the implications of what they tho’t for humans of their time, etc. They used the knowledge they had at hand–astrology and the stars they could see at night (which they saw so much better than we do). This philosophical discussion would go so far as to influence their whole life, how they lived, how they thought, etc. How does what they did with “philosophy” differ from what we today do with “science”–and specifically physics and astronomy/comology?
MCS
Comment by Anonymous — January 22, 2008 @ 4:34 pm