Stopping for lunch at the usual time I made my way to my seat in the corner of the canteen beside the rack of journal articles. One thing I love about working for a CRO is the plethora of sciency-related readings available in the staff library. The August issue of New Scientist caught my eye with its intriguing title; “Spooks in space“. Now before we get started I would like to make one thing clear; I am not a physics guru, mathematical representations of physical theorems not only confuse me but I also question the usefulness of over complicating a subject that already holds such a stereotype of requiring intellectualism and genius in order to fully appreciate it. Therefore, while the first section will outline a (very) basic foundation of the theories, I hope that the second part is more thought provoking and practical for discussion.
Boltzmann brains, named after the 19th century thermodynamicist Ludwig Boltzmann, are a hypothesised phenomenon arising from the cosmological interpretation of the second law of thermodynamics (the complexity of the universe will always increase). Boltzmann’s original idea was that random thermal fluctuations may have been responsible for the creation of our universe. Delving deeper, Boltzmann proposed that our observable universe (with its low level of entropy and thus higher organisation) may be a figment of our own imagination; we may simply be the result of a ‘random fluctuation’ within another universe of higher entropy (lower organisation, higher chaos).
The Boltzmann paradox is thus; if we are the result of a a random fluctuation, our likelihood of existing is much less probable than a universe full of Boltzmann brains. In short, the billions of self-aware brains that make up humanity (remember, if we are due to random fluctuations) are less likely than a single, self-aware and conscious entity with false memories and perceptions of the world around it.
The good news is, we aren’t Boltzmann brains! I believe the argument here is that in order for Boltzmann brains to arise, the target universe from which they are formed must be at a high level of entropy. Due to the fact that we exist in a universe with low entropy (being relatively young) tends to rule out the likelihood of so many brains spontaneously arising all with false memories and perceptions of the universe. The Boltzmann scenario is only salvageable if our portion of the observable universe is a small ‘bubble’ within one much larger that has high entropy (chaotic and prone to random fluctuation).
Boltzmann brains have vast theological implications, if correct. They may form the basis for a rationalised and scientific explanation for the existence of a god. As a devout atheist (who has gained some tolerance for religious discussion over the years) I do hold an active interest in rational theological discussion. The Boltzmann hypothesis seems to be the first plausible (although still highly unlikely) explanation for the existence of god that doesn’t involve mindless devotion and ‘leaps of faith’. Below is a post I found that outlines a basic theory, which I hope to develop further.
“Getting back to Boltzman Brains, it occurred to me that a Boltzman Brain could provide a naturalistic explanation for the existence of God.
The first cause proof of God is that there has to be a first cause to our universe. Atheists, however, always retort: “Oh yeah, then what caused God?”
So, a theist can now say that God was a spontaneously-formed Boltzman Brain formed from the formless chaos of Nothingness.
This response also rescues God from the charge that if He exists, then He is Nothingness itself; God would really be a Something rather than a Nothing if He were a Boltzman Brain.
Since there is no existence more lonely than being a disembodied, utterly alone, Boltzman Brain, God created the world and us in order to have some company. . ” – Warren Plats, link.
Thus the requirements for a Boltzmann-based god would be;
- A sufficiently old universe (infinite age?) to allow for the spontaneous formation of a being with self-awareness and omniscient capabilities.
- Methods for that being to interact with its universe or itself in order to create the target universe.
- A desire on the god’s behalf to create the target universe.
- Allowance of the god’s existence for a sufficiently long enough period to both formulate and enact the creation (random fluctuations in chaos can more easily remove order than create it – a cup is more likely to drop and smash than it is to jump up and reform).
Moving on from these requirements, a possible Boltzmann god may then arise from the constituents of an infinitely old universe rearranging themselves spontaneously so as to create order from chaos and in the process, give rise to an all knowing, all powerful entity. As a side note I would like to make the point that the name “Boltzmann Brains” is slightly misleading; our ideas of what constitutes consciousness is often clouded by our own experiences. So far, humanity is the only fully conscious entity in our observable universe, therefore we tend to describe consciousness in terms of ourselves. Boltzmann brains, and in fact other more exotic forms of alien consciousness need not necessarily be made up of the same stuff that makes up our brains. Nerve cells, blood vessels and electrical impulses can give way to, and are less likely to produce consciousness than more simple models such as silicon chips and even clouds of interacting atoms (such as Hydrogen, the most abundant element in the universe). Given enough time, anything that can happen, will. In this case, a universe that has existed for an infinitely long period has a higher likelihood of producing such a conscious entity.
But the question remains of how such an entity can spark the creation of a universe that is suitable to lifeforms like us. Was it external manipulation such as a conscious and purposely directed fluctuation that gave rise to our universe? Or was it an internal rearrangement of its own constituents (eg; the creation of a singularity); a self-directed suicide on behalf of the entity that created our reality? The latter opens up the possibility of a cyclic universe, in that everything that has come to pass will happen again. The eventual creation of a god-like Boltzmann brain serves as the eventual catalyst which prevents the perpetual darkness that an infinitely expanding universe would bring and starts everything afresh.
I hope to revist the topic of Boltzmann brains sometime in the future. What seemed as a relatively ‘goofy’ and niche area of philosophical physics quickly spills out into a question of reality itself, the implications of Boltzmann brains as typical observers (can we really be sure that our measurements of the universe are ‘really real’) and the usefulness of Boltzmann brains as a theological model for creationism (albeit in a distinctly more science-heavy form).
Jotlab 
27 comments
Comments feed for this article
13 October, 2007 at 1:27 pm
mark eales
I quote you; ” the Boltzmann hypothesis seems to be the first plausible (although still highly unlikely)…………..” I am curious to know the science behind why this is highly unlikely? maybe i am being extremely stupid but if you could explain this to me i would be extremely greatful.
13 October, 2007 at 3:34 pm
vulcanis
Sorry about the ambiguity here, I have a habit of passing comment without really explaining what I am on about.
The Boltzmann Brain hypothesis is unlikely because it deals with the concept of infinity, which is something that humans have a hard time dealing with (we are only around for a very minuscule time period compared to the life of the universe). Basically what this boils down to is that given enough time, that being an infinite amount of time, it is hypothetically possible that a being (not necessarily resembling a brain as we know it but still conscious) could ‘pop’ into existence. This comes from quantum theory and the zero-point energy phenomenon (even in the dead of space, vacuum, particles pop in and out of existence all the time).
I don’t pretend to know much about this topic, but it does interest me. Boltzmann brains are unlikely (in my understanding) due to a) that is based on a theory – meaning it is not necessarily correct b) the large time scales involved (it would take an extraordinarily long time for such brains to pop into existence – quantum theory posits that anything could technically happen as it is based on probabilities, the more time that passes the more likely it is to happen) and c) if we were not ‘typical’ observers in the universe (being outnumbered by Boltzmann brains) surely there would be some objective evidence available by now.
I hope that helped!
13 October, 2007 at 4:59 pm
mark eales
yeah thanks for the prompt reply……..i am becoming increasingly intrigued by the concept quantuum vacuum fluctuations and its potential correlation with Botzmann brains. I am no creationalist but i think you are right in suggesting that many out there will see this as a scientific argument for god and who really does know the truth however, To be a little conflicting i would question if necessarily we can ever have objective evidence of anything, when it seems that all our tools of perception or measurement are completely inadequate when dealing with such things as the infinite.
13 October, 2007 at 5:23 pm
vulcanis
It is a fascinating topic, mainly (for me) because of its plain weirdness and total contradiction to the reality we experience as “macro-sized” beings.
And no, I also don’t believe we will ever have all the answers to everything, but its a good motivator for scientific progress. Besides, if we did know everything there is to know and be able to look at things in a purely objective way, surely that would classify us as gods?
I personally don’t hold much faith in Boltzmann brains, or the suitability of quantum physics in the macro-world. Sure, probabilistic mechanisms probably do govern phenomenon that exist at sub-atomic scales, however there is most likely a barrier or some sorts that prevents these effects taking hold over large objects. Basically quantum physics governs the very small, while classical Newtonian mechanics and to degree Relativity governs the large (the ‘real’ world).
Although some quantum effects can be ‘amplified’ for lack of a better word, and utilised at a macro level. Giant magneto-resonance is one such effect which has revolutionised the portable storage industry (allowing us to have such small ipods). This effect is due to a quantum process that changes the resistance (and hence flow of current) when a hard-drive reader passes over a changing magnetic field (the stored bits of information). So in this sense, the quantum bridge can be crossed through the use of suitably sensitive and accurate devices that are created by scientific endeavor.
Another topic that really interests me is the role of quantum physics in the macro-world. Are the macro, classical type effects that we all experience and are familiar with a by-product or emergent phenomena of the quantum? Do all these spooky weird actions that quantum physicists talk about add up (eg probability waves) into one definite outcome? It certainly has ramifications for free-will and the (in)deterministic nature of reality.
14 October, 2007 at 8:47 am
mark eales
Weirdness is certainly rife at the microcosmic level. It is amazing that with all the wonderment that physics/science offers more people are not interested. Despite my very limited knowledge on concepts within this field however i continue to strive to know and undersatnd more………for this i feel lucky.
The macrocosmic comparisons to the microcosmic has in philosophy been evident for millenia and yet quantum physics has almost established a unique reality to that of our known macro existence……Non-locality, singularities, probabilty waves, dark matter, quantum vacuum fluctuations, even superstrings…….its mind blowing, im sure you could think of many many more ideas that border on the near impossible to the down right bizarre.
This is i guess, why i shed myself of objectivity and embrace aspects of spirituality, (i must stress however i am not referring to the standardized religions of the world since i believe that a very very small proportion of people understand the true teachings of these beliefs anyway). I like the duality that spirituality and science seem to hold, with both ultimatley seeking the same answers but with different methods. I know its a cliche but it is timeless wisdom, the Buddhits proverb of the elephant and blind men?????? it illustrate the need for a closer relationship with science and spirituality regarding the pursuit of knowledge and truth………….i dont know if you are familiar with the proverb (i will keep it short) but basically, asked to describe an elephant, each have a different body part and not surprisingly each blind man offers a conflicting description, a wall, a rope, a spear, a tree, a fan, a snake….an argument ensues requiring the Rajah to highlight the blind mens folly, advising them to use all their fragmented descriptions to see the whole………….you know what im going to say next im sure.
I love science it enthralls me, when non-locality of a particle implies potential interactions even over vast distances, or whenever i imagine a black hole collapsing space time and everything else into a realm of improbabilities, i sit back in awe.
However surely we need to be as subjective as the cutting edge concepts lighting up physics at the moment (and years to come no doubt) and utilise all our macrocosmic gifts.
In a infinite universe surely we have to believe in the infinite possibilties which will always evidently incorporate the sprirtual as well as the scientific…………
17 October, 2007 at 3:48 pm
Dennis Quine
In the various papers, notes, and ruminations (including the original New Scientist article) adressing the Boltzmann Brain concept, I see little discussion of just what a “brain” is comprised of. About the simplest thing we know of that can actually compute anything is a Turing Machine, a far cry from a self-conscious super entity (e.g., god). But even the simplest living “brains” (probably insectoid), are substantially more complex than a Turing Machine in terms of processing sensor inputs, directing responses, etc. Ever try to swat a fly?
In the natural world we have “brains” of various levels of complexity from viral/bacterial thru insects, various types of “dumb” animals, and primates (including us). If Boltzmann Brains are the result of random fluctuations in the universal quark (or stringy) goo that underlies physical reality that briefly result in more complex organizations of matter, small fluctuations are more likely than large fluctuations. This is straight from basic statistical physics.
So fluctuations that result in smaller, less complex oraganizations of “brainy matter” are more likely than extreme fluctuations that result in primate-class (or dolphin-class) self aware consciousness. Thus insect-class Boltzmann Brains are more likely than animal-class brains, which are more likely than human or superhuman-class intellects. And the most likely fluctuations produce viruses and bacteria (or something like them in terms of organization).
Thus the hypothesized future universe where Boltzmann fulctuation- created “brains” dominate would seem to be largely populated not by super intellects but by bug brains, just as they dominate the total mass of living material on earth. The bugs rule, even in a Boltmann-Brain era of the universe’s future.
Now where did I leave that can of bug spray?
DHQ
17 October, 2007 at 7:47 pm
vulcanis
Great post DHQ!
The New Scientist article really struck me as only skimming the surface; as if the author didn’t really grasp what the concepts really were, and I felt this was reflected in the explanation of what a Boltzmann Brain actually is.
This made it harder from my own point of view to organise the facts appropriately in my head and come up with my own thoughts and opinion on the subject.
In regards to your statistical analogy, and assuming the Boltzmann hypothesis is correct, the universe should be a seething mass of virtual particles. And it is! Well according to Paul Dirac anyway.
The question I have regarding the whole Boltzmann hypothesis is that since it is due to quantum fluctuations, which are in turn due to the spontaneous creation of virtual particle/antiparticle pairs, how do we know that a) such particles capable of spontaneous appearance (or are all types possible?) are atomically analogous to the kinds of particles that make up macroscopic objects (including brains) and b) since the particles are virtual by definition, they exist for a limited period of time; in effect they cease to be virtual once we take measurements, so how can they be useful in creating ‘brains’? It seems as though once the particles are noticed (does acting as a mechanism in a conscious being count as observation?) they cease to exist (particle-antiparticle annihilation).
Finally, forgive my ignorance, but surely the universe has been around long enough now for some evidence of this phenomenon to have presented itself? I realise that the likelihood of an object appearing spontaneously on our small blue dot amidst the vast sea of the cosmos is inconceivably small, but something just keeps nabbing at me regarding the plausibility of things ‘appearing’ out of thin air. Perhaps the effect cannot be scaled up to post-atomic scales.
18 October, 2007 at 12:55 am
Dennis Quine
The part about particles popping in and out of existence troubles me less than the argument that somehow a cluster of this stuff can actually self-organize into an aggregation we would consider to be a minimal intellect; e.g., capable of doing even basic computations like logic gates. That smacks of some sort of teleological “intellect-seeking” force operating on the quantum level. Wasn’t in my physics books. Forget something self-organizing out of the quantum goo that is self-aware and spontaneously understands relativity.
I think one of the difficulties we have in taking the Boltzmann Brain concept seriously is that we have no agreed measurable hierarchy of “braininess” on which we could rate various spontaneous aggregations of particles and molecules. There are so many different dimensions of seemingly “intelligent activity” in the living creatures in the earth ecosystem, that it is clear that whatever “braininess” is, it has several dimensions, not just one of, say, processing throughput as we use in characterizing microprocessors.
To mention a few: We have termites that are individually pretty dumb, but collectively build these aggregate, complicated nests;
There are “bird brains” that nonetheless manifest complicated nest building, migration, and other marvelous behaviours;
We had the Neaderthalers who apparently possessed larger craniums (and brains) than the Cro Magnons (us) who dispossessed them about 40,000 years ago. So were they less bright than us, or is there some other measure of “braininess” than sheer volume of processing material, total number of interconnections, program complexity, etc.? Or maybe some other factor than sheer brainpower led to our competitive advantage (e.g., language use in a social context).
It appears that some creatures (ants, termites, bees) manifest substantial brain power in social activities, but are individually pretty limited in individual “braininess”, as measured by the size of their nervous systems. Humans seem to be the other way around: mobs are incredibly stupid (every political demagog understands this), but individuals can manifest very high levels of intellect and creativity.
So what kind of measure of “brain capability” would we propose that would encompass all of these dimensions of known biological intellectual behavior? And how would we connect it to the intellectual activities of non-biological brains (robots, computers), and then extend it to randomly-generated aggregations of atoms and molecules that pop into existence and can do some kind of calculations?
For a Boltzman Brain to show up (and last for a while), we are talking about incredibly rare events where virtual particles pop into existence in a cluster that proceeds to aggregate into real particles that then form atoms, and then can form molecules, that can aggregate into something organized at least as well as a Turing Machine. Getting from a collection of organized molecules that can do simple binary addition like a logic gate to a sensing self-aware super brain seems to involve so many steps we haven’t even got a useful scale yet.
The only process of getting from molecules to intellects we have any appreciation for is the one inferred in the fossil record on earth over its multi-billion year history. In that case, we see the process operated close to a huge source of negentropy (the sun). The postulated creation events for Boltzmann Brains seems to occur in deep space (there is much more of that out there than nice warm planetary real estate), so after the initial cluster of molecules pops out in some “brain-like” organization, there is likely no local source of energy to drive increasing brain complexity: and not enough density of brains to allow for competition and natural selection: Boltzmann brains are not subject to evolutionary pressures. Whatever they pop out as, that’s it; it don’t get any better. Thus the argument in my earlier note that brains on the lowest rung of the “braininess” scale must predominate, if they can arise at all.
Its fun to play with some of these ideas, but I don’t think anyone would have taken “Boltzmann Brains” very seriously if the idea had not shown up in that article in an excellent weekly science magazine.
I’m still looking for my bug spray: the evening mosquitoes are buzzing around; I’m not worried about an attack by Boltzmann aliens from deep space … yet.
DHQ
18 October, 2007 at 12:10 pm
vulcanis
“So were they less bright than us, or is there some other measure of “braininess” than sheer volume of processing material…”
I think you are on to something here. Size does not mean everything, at least when it comes to neural complexity. Having a bigger brain volume does not necessarily equate to better cognitive skill. I think the leading hypothesis on the Neanderthal displacement involves the occurence of an iceage and their lack of physical adaptability.
“Humans seem to be the other way around: mobs are incredibly stupid (every political demagog understands this), but individuals can manifest very high levels of intellect and creativity.”
I just wanted to point out that I love this observation. But are you being overly optimistic? Im my experience, it is easy to become detached from the “reality of ignorance” that unfortunately surrounds a great deal of intellects. Don’t forget that you and I (and other readers) most likely correspond to the 50%+ bell curve of intelligence distribution within the population. Arguably, one hald of the population below the IQ100-110 (an imperfect measure unto itself and worthy of further discussion) could be said to have below average intelligence, thus subjectively “dumb” at the individual level.
I do concur though with your mob mentality analogy. Group-think (see NASA Challenger disaster, Vietnam war, Iraq war) processes seem to override common sense and de-personify the individual. The group behaves as one organism, with peer pressure and survivial (fear of ostracism) instincts taking over rational thought processes.
“so after the initial cluster of molecules pops out in some “brain-like” organization, there is likely no local source of energy to drive increasing brain complexity”
Would there be a need for the brain to improve? I believe one of the alternate lines of thought proposed by the Boltzmann hypothesis is that we at the individual level could all be Boltzmann brains, whether it be one solitary entity with false memories and perceptions (although so extremely unlikely as to be impossible) or one tiny population of humans admist a sea of non-typical observers, this calling into question our notion of truth and objectivity regarding observations of the universe (isnt this problem still posed by extra-terrestrial life forms?).
“Its fun to play with some of these ideas, but I don’t think anyone would have taken “Boltzmann Brains” very seriously if the idea had not shown up in that article in an excellent weekly science magazine. ”
Seconded for emphasis. They knew that such a tantalising cover story would sell copies of the magazine. I was sucked in; such an idea was incredibly intriguing, however the actual article failed to satisfy due to its lack of detail and haphazard approach to explanations.
You keep that bug spray handy DHQ, I might be joining you soon!
18 October, 2007 at 2:14 pm
Dennis Quine
As I read the original article, and some of the other discussions on the web regaring the Boltzman Brain idea, it was being taken seriously by some cosmologists for the reason you mention: these critters might sense the universe differently than we do, thus calling into question our mental models of “reality”. But they (Boltzmanns) are not all of a single biological species, and probably differ from each other as much as from us in sensory capabilities and concept-formulation abilities. So I don’t see how the Boltzmann Brains pose us any different problem than the differences in world-view between humans and other animals, or possible alien biologicals, as you note.
We already live in a sea of non-human observers (e.g., bacteria, insects, small animals, etc.), so if my argument is correct about Boltzmann Brains being largely confined to the low end of the complexity scale due to the improbability of extreme fluctuations, we have the challenge of differing views of the universe already, posed by the abundance of non-human observers on planet earth.
We don’t even have to compare different species; within the human species we have an abundance of different world views, many of them challenging the picture of things slowly being constructed by scientific methods. My wife (of 40+ years) is a fundamentalist Christian, and I can assure you she has a totally different view of the nature of reality and the place of God in it than I do. In her view, everything is always part of a celestial plan; contingent events that just happen do not exist. Some of the arguments that she makes to “prove” that something is part of a grand design for humans are very creative, but nonetheless difficult for me to swallow.
The issue of whether an intellect possesing different sensory apparatus than humans would come to different conclusions about the nature of ultimate reality must be answered at least tentatively “yes”, but we have difficulty understanding what would be changed in our scientific world view. Bertrand Russell’s little book on relativity that I read centuries ago first called my attention to the extent to which we rely on vision in formulating our principles of physics. He particularly thought that Special Relativity was a product of the visual thought experiments Einstein conducted, and because of that might have been formulated much earlier that it actually was.
Dogs with their exquisite sense of smell have got to envision the universe differently than we do. But I can’t imagine what that universe must look like in their intellects: walking down the sidewalk and “seeing” all the places where other dogs have marked their territory, but being oblivious to things like cars, which are primarily detected by sight.
So where does that get us? We still have to use our senses (and their instrumental extensions), and the limited cognitive capabilities evolution has left us with to try to make sense of what we observe. The human brain was not selected by evolutionary processes to be good at philosophy or quantum mechanics (so that’s why its so hard!), but rather to survive in the wilds of Africa, and avoid being eaten. Its an unexplained accident that we can even understand mathematics and create these exotic theories of the universe. Even more amazing that some of these abstract theories of the world actually appear to work and allow us to build bridges and microprocessors.
Anyway, I have to take my primitive brain now and actually do some money-producing work.
DHQ
17 January, 2008 at 5:42 pm
JGN
In a nutshell – this is modern science re-enacting the medieval scholastic practice of arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
They are following logical conclusions derived from completely speculative premises:
Is the universe a bubble in a larger container?
Completely speculative.
Is the universe infintely large and or infinitely old?
The apparent answer today seems to be NO – but that
causes other problems – so lets suppose YES – and have fun
with age old conundrums regarding infinity. Ho Hum.
BTW – I think the original poster (owner of this blog) got it completely wrong here:
“The good news is, we aren’t Boltzmann brains! I believe the argument here is that in order for Boltzmann brains to arise, the target universe from which they are formed must be at a high level of entropy.”
No, you might think that in order for Boltzmann Brians to arise one merely needs enough time and or space – i.e., in probability talk – trials. But really, one doesn’t even need that. Whats are the odds of getting 10 Reds in a row on an unbiased Roulette wheel? One in 2 to the tenth – a teeny number. Even so its not zero. So if you stay at the table LONG ENOUGH it will happen, EVENTUALLY. Now I’ve played a trick on you – the words capitalized are red herrings. The odds of this occuring after a million trials are EXACTLY THE SAME as it occuring when you first start playing. So, it could happen that the 10 Reds come up for you right away. Unlikely, but possible. So it is with the Boltzmann Brain – it could happen right off the bat. And “entropy” really has nothing to do with it. That’s like saying you’ve been around at the table LONG ENOUGH and so now its time for your ship to come in. Tough luck kiddo – it doesn’t change the actual odds of the next few trials in any way.
What the argument really is, (1) is that in an infinite (or near infinite if you prefer) universe Boltzmann Brains will almost certainly arise. That in itself says nothing about (2) the non-zero possibility of arising in a non-infnite universe. The converse of (1) does not follow logically. Getting 10 reds does NOT mean that you’ve at the table a long time.
19 January, 2008 at 4:04 am
Dennis Quine
JGN:
I think your argument regarding the rare event (10 reds in a row) is correct. The Boltzmann Brain argument (as I understand it from the original article, however, is a little different.
I believe they are arguing that if the universe is essentially infinte in both space and time, that there are a (countable?/uncountable?) infinty of those roulette wheels running all the time. Thus the appearance of extremely rare events (like creation ab initio of a fully formed cognitive entity) someplace, is inevitable. Further, they argue that because of the nature of those assumed infinities, there will likelwise be a huge number of “roulette wheels” cranking out the conscious entities. Thus they will eventually outnumber biological cognitive entities.
As you note, you can conclude amazing (and foolish) things when you start with unjustified assumptions.
Thanks for joining the conversation.
DHQ
25 November, 2008 at 12:29 pm
Mark Eales
Well well well…..i dont know if i will get a reply to my comment since it has been so very long……..i will give it a go none the less. I have been revisiting the Boltzmann brain concept of late (although i never effectively stopped reagarding it) I too was originally prompted to thought by the “spooks in space” article. I strangely was discussing probabilities in a very similar manner to JGN….only i used 100 coin tosses and the likely hood of heads or tails landing 100 times in a row…… any way i am going to be lazy and paste my recent discussion i have had, so excuse any lack of continuity..my aim to give you the “gist” of my ideas. Basically i go further with the Boltzmann brain hypthesis to suggest the emergence of a “God entity”…….i would appreciate if you indulge me on this.
>The spooks in space article suggests that the emergence of a conscious entity, (even with a limited life span) given enough time and enough space could be a possibility. With the universe expanding (through the mysterious dark energy) the voids/vacuums get bigger. Bigger voids/vacuums = more quantum vacuum fluctuations (and the appearance of random matter which may include a Boltzmann brain)
Before bringing in my GH, i would like to look at Probabilities……..
Consistently the article spoke of the “chances” that a Boltzmann brain might appear. The probability that a BB (Boltzmann brain) would appear were insanely low……however, my understandings of probabilities is simplistic…. probabilities do not tell you what is going to happen, they merely tell you what is likely to happen. Simple, like i said…….imagine tossing a coin endlessly…it may take an extraordinary amount of time to land heads 100 times in a row…..i am sure some mathematician could tell me the probability, but the fact remains i could land heads on my first 100 tosses regardless of the near impossible odds……….with this in mind i ask….why cannot a BB appear in a short time frame and in a small amount of space? Regardless of the odds of it happening.
Now my point is not to prove or disprove the likelihood of a a BB’s appearance………but to suggest the appearance of a God entity!
………i noticed with the BB article, BB’s were found within our universe……….our time frame…….and then it hit me…………..there is no mention of the appearance of a BB before time….before space…….i am talking PRE-BIG BANG!
I love the big bang theory and cannot wait to discover what the Large Hadron Collider is going to tell us about the conditions evident during the cosmic genesis…….understanding the intricacies of the cocktail of fundamental particles and energies will be so exciting. However beyond this, the question will remain……What went before? This is the question that truly rocks me……..and this is where my GH takes centre stage……
It has been hinted that before the Big Bang…..time and matter did not exist as we know it. Some believe that the big bang occurred through a Quantum vacuum fluctuation (Akin to those spoken about in the BB article)….this indicates a timeless vacuum (maybe quantum foam) prior to the big bang. A sea of potential and probabilities. And here it is……
If theorists claim that in a large enough time frame and large enough space (void/VACUUM) a Boltzmann Brain could be born…….WHY NOT A GOD!!!!!
Think about it….pre big bang we are in a timeless void/vacuum………yes a BB is unlikely…….a God entity more so…however we are in TIMELESS INFINITE VOID (I cannot stress this enough)…….probability is not an issue, everything should be possible……
I can imagine it now, the pre big bang endless void…….. quantum fluctuations rife…..a proton appears…and is instantly destroyed…….a complex molecule…….another proton……a quark…..a Boltzmann brain!……..all suffer the same fate….annihilation………..but then in the quantum foam appears something more…….a being………
God is born…….Nearing perfection and complexity and simplicity, this being has infinite knowledge and capabilities….the knowledge of EVERYTHING (words describing such an event can only ever seem crude and empty). In that moment of its existence it will share the same fate as all other quantum random fluctuations…….Destruction… and knows of only one thing in that instant………..SURVIVAL……. a future echo of Darwin perhaps.
The being “Creates” in a cataclysmic BIG BANG a sustainable place that it might realise its existence and know its potential…..a place we call the Universe………Our Universe.
It sounds very sci fi…i know, but it makes more sense than saying (in the Abrahamic sense) that god has always been….end of discussion, and it is a scientific explanation that i can be happy with. I do need to tweak it and research a bit more in depth, but then the premise is a simple one and history’s scientific achievements have often been born from simple notions……….
25 November, 2008 at 12:31 pm
Mark Eales
Owe just for reference GH is the abbreviation for “God hypothesis”
26 November, 2008 at 11:54 am
vulcanis
Hi again, glad you have returned to the discussion. Not that I can talk, the real world unfortunately encroaches more than ever on my life lately.
Your first point regarding the expanding nature of available space and the resulting increase in virtual particles seems to make intuitive sense. The more roulette wheels, the more brains may pop into existence. We aren’t increasing the probability of brains popping into existence, but I think rather the potential number of brains that could exist at any one time.
I agree that probability does not necessarily equate with time, in that just because an event has a low probability of occuring, does not mean that it will take a long time to happen. Increased time only results in an increased certainty that the target event has taken place (after 5 flips of the coin we can be more sure of getting heads than only after 1 flip). As it pertains to the Boltzmann Brains theory, the concept of infinite time, or at least the billions of years since creation, simply gives us more certainty that a brain has popped out of virtual particles.
I love the idea of a timeless vaccuum before the big bang, and how it could potentially result in an emergent BB ‘god’. But how can we be sure of the physical conditions prior to the big bang? I think it is dangerous to assume that anything at all existed before the big bang. If time does not exist, how can events occur to break that spell? Without time to measure against, individual events have no meaning. The very concept of an event makes no sense.
The laws of physics would certainly be vastly different to how they are now. At the beginning of the big bang all physical forces were united into one, and no individual particles existed – there was just too much energy. Now going back before this point, did anything actually exist at all? Is it meaningless to talk about conditions previous to the big bang? As an analogy, can we talk about the notion of a person named ‘Einstein’ before the man was born?
I think one way of reconciling your theory is if the universe is cyclical. If a BB God is responsible for the ignition of each big bang iteration, it makes sense that such a being could pop into existence given the amount of time that could elapse in a universe. But we have already eliminated time as the primary factor here. Maybe this time around, our universe has not yet been graced with the presence of a BB, whereas a previous incarnation (cycle) of the universe may have, sparking the end of that cycle and the beginning of the new. That is, of course, variable depending upon whether our BB god has suicidal tendencies (sparking a premature end to the universe) or is benevolent (waiting until all intelligent life has run its course before initiating another cycle).
This gets me thinking about the collective nature of the universe itself. The human brain is made conscious simply by the individual activities of interacting neurons. Why not the Universe also? After all, our Universe consists of an infinitely large number of small interacting elements all governed by consistent laws – a functional system. Are we all just contributing to the ‘brain’ activity of god?
Certainly very sci-fi, but I love it.
26 November, 2008 at 1:02 pm
Mark Eales
I am really pleased i revisited your thread, you and i seem to share similar views which is reassuring considering the distractions and constraints of the Western world….. a world that seeks to create empty illusions that debase life, stifle our potential and restrict expansive thought……
I have to admit understanding the conditions prior to the big bang is a near insummountable problem to overcome, but this is what really motivates me…it really is the “final frontier” in science and dare i say spirituality…..however you view the origins of the universe, you will always come to a regressive solution, since we will always be drawn to “beginnings”….even a cyclic universe must start somewhere! and it is this paradox that tantalises my imagination…..i mean there must be a beginning, but an ultimate beginning is the biggest paradox i know of!……my brain becomes frazzled thinking about it, but maybe that is a clue….my finite brain cannot deal with physical infinitities…….the questionis why not?
For a long time now i have believed that the concept of infinity is a key to the understanding of such notions as the genesis of the universe, i am drawing on purely intuititive processes (which i believe are greatly underated), But for some reason our finite minds have created the concept of infinity and i am wondering if truly understanding infinity, could lead to that “eureka” moment, maybe “enlightenment” and who knows perhaps even a transcendance of being, of a sort….. the whole philosophizing of infinities is a huge discussion in itself and i really need to sit down and spend some serious thinking time on this matter….not that ihavnt already, but it is a brain aching exercise!
I would like to say that your concept that we, along with the cosmos, contribute to the emergence of a “super consciousness,” just as human consciousness is an emergent property of our neurons, is a brilliant notion. I am deeply interested in the interconnectedness of the universe…from quantum intanglement, to cell communication, DNA coding and many more processes that seem freakishly connected……looking into the concept of Holarchies (Which i recommend you look into) It would seem connectedness is the typical state of the universe and not at all isolated or rare phenomenon…..in fact it represents nothing more than the beauty and elegance of the universe…..the nail on the coffin for me, regarding this Unity and interconnectedness, is the parallels to spiritualty and religion……the illusion of the Self, the shedding of the ego, the search for oneness…..Wherever you look, human knowledge points to this “Oneness” ……And this is where my confusion continues….whether it be God, A collective consciousness, Ubiquitous energies, infinities raer there ugly heads….. time and time again…….and we come to the same seemingly unanswerable questions…….What came before? Where does it all end? (and other qustions such as how can the universe be infinitely large?…….. Is there an ifinitely small space?)
I have digressed and embellished to say what i have already said, but what came before is for me the ultimate question, and it would seem that so little thought and resource is given to answering this! Particularly with regard to the big bang. Theorists tend to work on everything that came after…..damn lazy if you ask me….lol
I am usually a bit more measured in my response, however i feel very passionate about this, forgive me for losing objectivity. Oh and thanks for the quick response….i really was not expecting anything at all!
3 December, 2008 at 11:23 pm
Dennis Quine
V:
Glad to see you posting some more extensive essays in hyperspace. Provides me more ideas to explore.
However, seriously, I must protest to one item in your note posted 26 Nov. In para 3 regarding probability, you assert:
“Increased time only results in an increased certainty that the target event has taken place (after 5 flips of the coin we can be more sure of getting heads than only after 1 flip).”
I think this is considered the classic “Gambler’s Fallacy”, that (e.g., in coin flipping), in a long series of flips a string of “heads” would make the probability of the next flip being a “tail” more likely. In the gambler’s environment, it is the subjective feeling that a long string of “red” outcomes in roulette should make a “black” on the next turn of the wheel more likely.
The source of the Gambler’s Fallacy is confusion between the “probability of the next flip” and the “probability of the string”. If the coin is fair, each coin flip is an independent event, and the P(H) = P(T) = .5, for each coin toss, no matter how many times you toss the thing. However, one can see easily that a long string of “heads” is less likely than a mixed string where “H” and “T” are somewhat intermixed. We can demonstrate this with a short string of four sequential tosses of a fair coin. The possible outcomes are:
HHHH
HHHT
HHTH
HTHH
THHH
HHTT
HTHT
THHT
HTTH
THTH
TTHH
HTTT
THTT
TTHT
TTTH
TTTT
Total = 16 possible outcomes. But note the probabilities of the different strings:
All “H” or all T”: 1/16 each (1/8 if you consider a string of identical outcomes, H or T, as one outcome).
Mixed 3 “H” and 1 “T” or 3 “T” and 1 “H”: ¼ for each
Mixed 2 “T” and 2 “H”: 6/16 possible outcomes.
So, it is true that a string of identical outcomes (TTTT or HHHH) is less likely than one of the mixed cases (HHTT, etc.) Precisely, the identical strings occur 1/8 of the time (on long term average) in 4 throws of a fair coin, and some mixed result occurs 7/8 of the time. Thus we think that having a long string of identical out comes (e.g., TTTT) makes the next throw more likely to be an “H”. But it is only the string “TTTT plus T” that is unlikely. It is still 50:50 whether the next coin flip is “T” or “H”.
What this has to do with the probability of Boltzmann brains emerging out of virtual particles popping in and out of existence over long stretches of time in nearly infinite space probably deserves more investigation. Any kind of “brain” would require a long string of unlikely events to occur in close space-time proximity. If we assume each virtual particle pops in and out of the gloppy substrate with the same probability, “p”, then we have to have a long string of these events occur at/near the same “place” in space –time to allow them to coalesce and form some organized form of brain. We need the right “stuff” to do brain-building, so we need “ppppp…” and not one of the mixed strings.
Susskind (“The Cosmic Landscape”, 2006) says (p 73) that emergent virtual electron –positron pairs last a “billion-trillionth” of a second. That’s 10 to the minus 21 sec (American “trillion” – the Brit version is different).
“p” then is a number like that above, and getting a long string of these events to occur in close proximity in space-time to form up some organized crystal that can seed a “brain” is like getting “ppppp…”. An increasingly rare string, composed of very rare events in the first place.
But, this issue is what we have discussed in the past: how would you actually build a BB out of these exceedingly rare events. Nothing biological could survive in the interstellar environment long enough to grow. Biologicals have to have extensive environmental controls to survive (like planetary surfaces). We think we know how that version of “brainiacs” comes into being.
So I think we must focus on some kind of crystal matrix that self-organizes and seeds a progressively growing “brain” that accretes out of virtual particles as they pop into real space at the same space-time “location” (“pppp… good luck). But then we are in trouble again, because crystals are composed of higher atomic weight atoms that have been baked in supernovae. No one knows of any type of crystal that could be made out of the basic electron-positron pairs that pop in and out of virtual space. Needs more research methinks.
Hang in there,
Dennis
4 December, 2008 at 11:54 am
vulcanis
DHQ,
Point taken, I feel a bit silly now! Basically each successive coin toss event is statistically independent from previous events. Must have been that time I spent in Vegas….
I don’t pretend to understand the whole premise behind virtual particles popping in and out of existence, however I was under the impression that such particles should annihilate each other, as you mention, within trillionths of a second. How then can such particles exist for a long enough period so as to allow a congealing into something akin to a BB? Could the highly improbable event of so many billions of virtual particles all popping into existence in close proximity and in the appropriate physical arrangement facilitate a BB?
I was under the impression that virtual particles could only survive and become ‘real’ if they popped out near a black hole. One particle would be overcome by gravitational forces while the other may live another day outside the event horizon (appearing to an observer as an emitted particle). Otherwise known as Hawking Radiation. Maybe I am missing something here..I just don’t see how a permanent physical structure can exist for any meaningful time period from temporary, mutually exclusive (positron/electron pair annihilate each other) phenomenon.
More essays forthcoming.
4 December, 2008 at 3:15 pm
Dennis Quine
V:
Yeah, its been fun contemplating these super brains (BBs) emerging out of the gloppy substrate and self-organizing all over the place, but I don’t see how it can happen either. Unless our understanding of the processes is still incomplete in some way.
It has raised for me a larger research question about how many different kinds of structures can be considered to be “minds”. Do ant and termite colonies constitute a different kind of “mind”? Does a Turing Machine qualify as the minimalist “thinker”? What about basic logic functions as implemented in semiconductors (AND, OR, etc)? Where and how do we draw the line and say that this minimal level of functional capability is required before we have a “mind”?
On the other end of the scale, watching the antics of our Congress on TV I am tempted to say that there are a lot of high level biological “brains” that do not seem to qualify as supporting working minds.
Anyway, glad you are back.
DHQ
16 December, 2008 at 3:43 pm
Dennis Quine
V:
Thanks for posting an new think piece (your missive of 13 Dec). I remain uncomfortable with the program and vision of Transhumanism. We had some interchanges on this a few months back, and I assume they are still floating around JOTLAB someplace.
You do seem to have synch-ed up with my argument from the earlier discussion regarding the fact that we are becoming “transhumans” piecemeal, by gradual accretion of artifacts (glasses, artificial limbs, etc). All so far seen as basically restoring “natural” human capabilities for those having some impairment (congenital or accidental). Similarly, surgical aid for those with impairments (e.g., hair-lip) must be applauded. The computer integration with brain operation to allow paraplegics to control devices in the environment is an extreme technical accomplishment, but is also consistent with the theme of “making us whole”. I applaud all such accomplishments and steps on the way to “transhumans”.
Drug-enhanced physical performance has so far been deemed a stretch, and outlawed in most sports (Olympics, etc), but steroids are common in body building, and no one seems to want to stop that, in spite of known cases of cancer and death associated with their use. So there is a dark side of the augmentation gift.
I foresee the “making us whole” theme that motivates most current augmentation research as gradually mophing into “making us more” over the next 50 years. As we get smarter about genetics, correcting genetic defects will naturally evolve into tinkering to make us smarter, stronger, faster, more disease-resistant, etc.
It is that part of the transhuman agenda I am uncomfortable with. And I can’t put my finger on the issues that are troubling (without some more thought), but we do have a lot of science fiction stories that revolve around the themes of augmented humans in conflict with normals (e.g., Van Vogt’s classic “Slan”).
However, there is no way to control those “making us more” experiments. No global police system for genetic experimentation. So you know if the West doesn’t do it, someone in China or elsewhere will. The race for the first “superman” is probably shaping up now. But if they get loose, what of the rest of us mere normals? The technology will never be available to all humanity. We haven’t even provided clean water to hundreds of millions of people, and that is a technology from the Romans. The supermen in our fiction usually seem to have superpowers, but not super morality.
And on that happy thought…
Be sure to drink your carrot juice,
Dennis
24 December, 2008 at 8:02 am
vulcanis
Hi DHQ,
This whole transhumanist thing does seem to open up a can of philosophical worms. As with you, my qualms arise from the potential abuse of such progression. From my observations of human nature it is apparent that the balance between good and evil is going to be a persistent facet of society. The question is whether superintelligence also guarantees supermorality. I think the answer to this is not only intriguing, but determinant of the future longetivity of the human race.
As you mention, our fictional superhumans are most certainly not supermoral. However, the humanist within me does gain some reassurance in the possibility that truth is often stranger than fiction and also that fiction is often over-embellished for dramatic effect; so we may yet see a real ‘superperson’ with corresponding virtues and values.
It’s a great experiment for the moral philosophers, and may actually answer some of our most puzzling questions regarding the universality of good and evil as extremes on a scale. If the boosting of intelligence results in a corresponding boost of morality, surely that would lend support to the idea that leading a ‘good’ life is what is natually intended of humanity as a species. Of course, this does not include artificial augmentation of the neurological structures that are responsible for morality; such an act would constitute cheating in this high stakes game of moral ontology.
I suppose what I am really saying is that while transhumanist technologies do seek to improve the human condition through ingenuity and innovation, their potential for misuse and the uncertainties we hold regarding concomitant gains in morality along with gains in intelligence takes a least a bit of the wind out of transhumanist sails. On the one hand we have an empiricist’s dream; elimination of discrimination based on intellect (for the rich at least), rapid technological progression and an extension of the human condition. On the other hand, maybe we should solve other worldly problems before we look to far ahead. Perhaps we need to get to a place as a species (morally, socially, spiritually) before we truly ‘deserve’ a transhumanist future.
PS: Merry Christmas, if that’s your thing!
28 December, 2008 at 3:34 pm
Dennis Quine
V:
As we have observed in earlier conversation, the difference in our ages makes for some contrast in perspective (68 coming up in March). I have gone from a youthfull optimism about the “onward and upward” trend of humanity to an old age “curmudgeonship” (is that a real word?). I have developed a reputation among my peers at work for being the sceptic and cynic, though not often wrong. And I’ve learned not to throw cold water on the youthful enthusiasms of my co-workers, even though they are wanting to try something that I tried (or saw others try) decades before, and failed gloriously. I see my earlier self in their efforts.
Arthur C. Clarke’s great novel from the fifties “The City and the Stars” portrays humanity “progressing” to a solar-system-spanning civilization, and making the leap to the stars only to encounter beings so far beyond humans that we cannot even deal with them on the same level. We get the crap kicked out of us in several wars, and are driven back to the solar system, and eventually just to earth. Then, with a bit of a stellar quarantine in place, we nurse our wounded pride, and embark on a eons-long enterprise to drive the human genome as far as possible. Telepathy, super intelligence, and modifications to the body to make it disease resistant, stronger, etc.
Clarke was writing before the modern era of bioscience and had to hypothesize the use of conventional breeding (for humans its called eugenics) to weed out undesirable traits and augment the presence of desirables in the population over millenia. Today, of course, we might achieve the same results in a matter of a couple of generations, if we can find the right segments of the genome to modify. Then, the “superhumans” go out to meet the rest of the universe on more equal terms.
Part of the point he was making is that the current breed of mankind is the result of natural evolutionary pressures, and the superior and long-lived species we may encounter in the universe are likely to be augmented and improved by millenia of conscious breeding improvement, with talents unlikely to arise in the course of fighting with sbare-tooth tigers for survival. Clarke was a perennial optimist about the future of humanity.
The spanner in the works (of his vision) is that we are unlikely to get much global agreement on what traits should be augmented and which should not. But with the spread and advance of genetic modification knowledge, “all” of humanity need not agree on a course of action. A small number of people in some cloistered enclave (forgive me, but like New Zealand or Australia), could undertake a secret genetic boosting effort to produce a group of telepaths or people with telekinetic abilities (if a genetic marker to those elusive traits is found), and produce a bunch of children with marked superhuman abilities, before anyone even knows. Just like in the X-men movies, the deed can be done before anyone in the larger society is any wiser.
Just as the technologies for nuclear weapons, and deadly diseases are now widely available, the technology to produce super humans will become available. Available to all the nut cases on the planet. You often see “What if Hitler had the Bomb before the Allies?” articles; yeah, well, what if Hitler had the technology to run a genetic factory to breed his “master race”? Just as Aldous Huxley describes in “Brave New World”.
I can’t get rid of the feeling that we are not in any way “better” than our more primitive forebears, and that the more of these tools for “progress” get spread around the planet, the more likely we will see disasters as often as “progress”. And I’m an engineer and love technology. But it has not made us any better as people. So the technologies (biological they may be) for making super-people may just make the world more deadly and unpleasant.
However, I still want the longevity pill when they discover it.
Cheers,
DHQ
18 January, 2009 at 10:57 pm
Dennis Quine
V:
I’ve been reading on edge.org some of the brief essays addressing the question “What will Change Everything?” Good stuff. 280 WORD pages, about 150 different authors , short papers that you can download. Usually Brockman (the fellow who runs EDGE) usually publishes the contributions to these “out of the box” think questions in books. This collection he left on line.
The contribution by Kurzweil, predictably, promotes the Singularity thesis and argues it is right on schedule. This reminded me of an issue I wanted to take up with you: the issue of intelligence amplification. Kurzweil and his ideological cohorts argue that the machines will not only become self-conscious, but will boot-strap themselves thru human-level intelligence in a flash and become 100, 1000, a million times as “intelligent as humans”.
I think there are two issues here: the first is what could anyone possibly mean by saying some entity is 100 or a 1000 times as smart as humans? The whole concept of intelligence is closely tied to the tests we use to measure it. So how are we going to “measure” something with an intellect a thousand times that of normal humans? And if it is that smart why would it sit around taking some vocabulary test? The smartest measured human (so she claims) is Marilyn vos Savant who claims something around 250 IQ on standardized tests, although I don’t know what test provides assessments that high. So what do we mean an entity is 1000 times as smart as Marilyn? For that matter is Marilyn 100 times as smart as a normal bright person (IQ 125), or only twice as smart (2 x 125 = 250). But the IQ scale is not a ratio scale, so such arithmetic operations are meaningless on IQ numbers.
Second issue is intelligence amplification as part of the transhumanist agenda, and who gets smarter faster (machines or transhumanists). Seems to me we are already way too smart for survival. Running around inventing nasty things like nuclear weapons and related goodies. If we were a little dumber, we might have better long-term survival prospects. Homo erectus lasted over a million years, we (the Cro Mangons) haven’t even made it quarter of a million years. If you believe in conventional Darwinian evolution, we shouldn’t be as smart as we are. Evolution is a process of adapting to the environment, not overcoming it. We shouldn’t be able to do mathematics, talk, sing, or invent monster machines. None of those capabilities are needed to survive on the plains of Africa. But here we are.
Anyway, hope you make it back for some more conversation.
DHQ
25 January, 2009 at 12:20 am
vulcanis
Hi DHQ,
I too have been reading that Edge special; quite a formiddable task given the number of entries they received! I had a quick search for the singularity article you mentioned but could not find it – did you happen to have a link?
I agree totally with your frustrations regarding IQ. It is such a controversial topic that I’m sure we could devote more than several essays to it and still have a million questions to explore.
IQ tests are part of the group of standardised tests that rely upon the cohort’s results in order to obtain meaning. As you mentioned DHQ, it is not a linear relationship, therefore when comparing individual scores it is meaningless to quantify degress of intelligence (eg 100x more intelligent). I guess all we can really infer from such scores is that Subject X scored in the 99th percentile, while subject Y scored in the 60th percentile; relative to the cohort as a whole. Changing the reference group changes the degree of intelligence ‘multiplication’. IE; if we change who we measure as a standardisation group, this changes our interpretation of the two scores.
I think the other key point about IQ is that the tests used to measure it do so indirectly, and are constructed so as to fit the normal distribution (bell curve). In short, we’re not really sure that we are measuring the right variables. Given that we can’t take a person’s intelligence out of their head and hold a tape measure against it, we are forced to measure IQ as a latent variable (indirectly through scores on other correlated measures that we can measure).
If we talk of intelligence amplification, it seems that we are merely moving our reference point for the IQ tests, and also probably changing the nature of the distribution. If such technology were distributed evenly among the population, we would see a single point instead of a distribution; every person would have their intelligence boosted by the same amount to some ceiling that was determined by the level of technological achievement in the ‘boosting’ device.
This raises more questions though. Would artificial intelligence amplification raise all intelligences to the same point, or would it rather extend existing intelligences (preserving the original distribution, but moving the reference point)? Gains in intelligence would thus only be measurable by comparing cohorts, namely the population pre-amplication to that post-amplification.
In regards to your second point DHQ, again it raises some thought provoking ideas. My gut feeling on this issue would be that a balance probably exists whereby certain levels of intelligence are correlated with different probabilities of survival. I will try to elucidate this a bit more with an example. Primitive humanity, for instance, with low technological impact on its environment and lack of destructive weaponry would experience low chances of extinction on those measures, however would be completely exposed to external threats such as asteroid impact, cosmic irradiation (supernova etc) and viruses, just to name a few. As technology increases, these external threats become smaller due to advances in detection (deep space radar), intervention (Armageddon-style space shuttle missions to blow up the thing) and future planning (quick, to ze underground lair!). All these things, related to intelligence and the resulting innovation, seek to preserve our race. On the flip side, internal threats could wipe us out before that happens (environmental catastrophes, nuclear war). Fortunately, these things are controllable by humanity. And as we advance further, those external threats will again reduce as we invent more effective intervention methods.
But, are we really that much smarter than our ancestors? Maybe intelligence hasn’t really increased at all. Chronological time could be the main factor in determining technological advancement rather than IQ. As time passes, and information is stored more effectively, humans are able to continue building their platform of innovation, steadily increasing each level with passing generations of empirical enquiry.
Perhaps IQ is more directly related to the amount of knowledge stored collectively by the human race, rather than some intrinsic, biological degree of smartness. If we could inplant a medieval pleb with the knowledge that today’s citizens hold, would there be a difference in IQ?
26 January, 2009 at 3:49 pm
Dennis Quine
V:
You are correct; I misspoke. Kurzweill did not make it into the on-line collection (“What will change everything”). However, one of the articles stimulated my question (probably by a Singulatity fellow traveller) which I posed to you. Can’t tell you which one now.
Kurzweill does have an essay in the new print book by Brockman(“What have you changed your mind about?”), but it is not about the Singularity. There’s too much of this mind-expanding stuff. I can’t read it as fast as Brockman publishes it. Used to have the same problem with Azimov: he wrote and published faster than I could catch up.
Re: your essay. If “intelligence” is mostly determined by nature, then our genetic endowment is essentially the same as that of our Cro Mangnon forebears of 100,000 years ago. So we are only “smarter” today because of all the “nurture” available to us: arithmetic, alphabets, readin’, writin’, and centuries of accumulating experiences and knowledge. But it all comes back to how we choose to measure intelligence. If it is measured by performance on a standardized test in English, the Cro Mangnons don’t do so well, but if it is measured by ability to fashion a sharp spear and catch a deer for supper, maybe the modern humans don’t look too bright.
Which returns to the original question that continues to puzzle me: what could the Singularity protagonists possibly mean by saying that computers will soon be 1000 times as smart as me? Does that mean they will be able to catch a deer for dinner with only hand-made tools plus do calculus problems in their head? Or is it just a expression signifying “really, really smart”, but not measurable in any significant way?
James Fixx (dead many years) had a couple of puzzle books out probably 25 years ago (“Games for the Superintelligent”, and “More Games for the Superintelligent”). A couple of my favorite puzzle collections. In the beginning of the first one he goes over some incidents that illustrate how the superintelligent often get themselves into trouble with society at large. Their intelligence leads them to impatience with the mundane and trivial in life, and they have trouble adjusting to normal life situations. His point was that conventional intelligence may be great in the physics classroom, but fails us when we are trying to get along in social situations (e.g., a job) where “normals” are the majority. We now think of “social intelligence” as also being an important thing to cultivate, but that idea came after Fixx.
So maybe our superintelligent computers/robots will be great at making spear heads and doing calculus (i.e., anything involving solo performace), but flops at the annual office party(?).
Whatever,
Thanks for the response.
DHQ
11 April, 2011 at 10:39 pm
robin
How interesting! I followed this link from a Mike Lynch article in CIO magazine. And now I think my non-Boltzmann brain (whew! glad to hear we don’t have those!) is getting a bit of a cramp just reading this! 🙂 So complicated!
12 April, 2011 at 7:16 am
vulcanis
Thanks for visiting Robin, although I am sure that most of your brain-cramping is probably related more to my chaotic writing than the topic! One day I will get back to this…although, I have to finish my thesis first!