Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!
An 'urgency': Sensing threats to institutions of society, church leaders make declaration 
Click to Print
Include Comments
Brain theory baffles man with brain
If you’d like to be baffled on your lunch break, please read this Times article about brains floating in outer space. I am sure this piece covers an important scientific idea with implications for the way we look at the world; only, I don’t get it. Someone, please explain this for the rest of us.
Topic: Culture, WorldMagBlog
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
back to top29 Comments to “Brain theory baffles man with brain”
I don’t really understand it either, but I think the key sentence is this one: Nobody in the field believes that this is the way things really work, however.
Report comment to moderator
I can’t believe I just spent 10 or 15 minutes reading this.
At least Boltmann Brains make perfect sense, as opposed to the “mysticism” so many here espouse. [/sarcasm]
Report comment to moderator
“In terms of probability…”
“Another is that one of the central orthodoxies of cosmology is that humans don’t occupy a special place in the cosmos…”
“If the odds of us being real instead of Boltzmann brains are one in a million…”
These all require blind chance Darwinian evolution to the exclusion of “God created…”
I can hardly wait for RDEAN’s Pavlovian response to a believer using the phrase “Darwinian evolution.”
Report comment to moderator
It seems to be an example of finite beings trying to account for something beyond their scope of imagination. Fun theory and it could go on and on and on. But it is again trying to come up with anything that will replace the idea that we are imperfect and need a Savior and a Creator.
Report comment to moderator
cosmologists, who gave us dark matter, dark energy and speak with apparent aplomb about gazillions of parallel universes, have finally lost their minds.
Gee, how many is a “gazillion”?
Report comment to moderator
“It sounds crazy because here we are touching issues we are not supposed to be touching in ordinary science.”
Re-evaluating the scope of science doesn’t sound to me like a bad idea.
Report comment to moderator
Gazillion:
http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mgazilli.html
http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/59170.html
Report comment to moderator
People in science have always dabbled in philosophical and the theoretical. Get used to it. They’re smart people. As usual they demonstrate that smart people can come up with wild eyed ideas too. Not too surprising given the subject and the dearth of “knowns”.
Report comment to moderator
I like Dr Math’s answer to what a Gazillion is (well actually I liked both the answers I linked to above – but this one makes a point for me.):
In other words engineers won’t get the general idea that it’s a “really big number” because they’re so stinking literal.
Report comment to moderator
When they say, “Brains in space”, are they being so stinking literal?
Report comment to moderator
The “faithful” here speak as if “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin” was never a legitimate question! The faithful have at many times argued inane metaphysics, including angels being in more than one place at one, more than one being in the same space, and moving from point A to B without passing through the space in between.
Report comment to moderator
They aren’t engineers….
Report comment to moderator
So the meaning doesn’t go “zip”, right over their heads.
Report comment to moderator
I kind of, sort of, understand the “logic” of their reasoning.
Ironically, their whole thinking is based upon — caused by, actually — their initial presumption: that, in a universe bound by the laws of nature, the Second Law of Thermodynamics (AKA “entropy”) would cause everything to get simpler, not more complex. The fly in the ointment is that events since the Big Bang are definitely events of increasing complexity.
Since the facts (increasing complexity) don’t jive with the “laws” (entropy), they’ve come up with this theory as an explanation for the apparent increasing complexity.
If they would just look up over their shoulders at the infinitely intelligent Creator God, who is responsible for this increasing complexity, they might find the answer to their dilemma . . .
But, ever “naturalists,” they can’t (won’t?) do that . . .
Report comment to moderator
If they would just look up over their shoulders
You are so right. “God did it”. The answer to everything. We can get rid of our military now. No more doctors. No more science. Just, “God did it”. Now, if only he would put in just one little appearance.
Report comment to moderator
In light of the present discussion, R, how can you be so sure he hasn’t appeared to everyone but you? You’re demanding more clarity from the “mystics” than the scientists are offering here.
Report comment to moderator
StuBob: I would have spent 10-15 minutes too, but I came to the key sentence SteveG mentions. “Nobody believes this is how things really work” But I have wondered: If the world started with an uncaused Big Bang, why haven’t we had more big bangs. They should be banging all over.
Report comment to moderator
Ed isn’t here to call me an idiot for that.
Report comment to moderator
RDean wrote: “Now, if only he would put in just one little appearance.”
He did . . . in a little Middle East crossroads country ~2,000 years ago.
Report comment to moderator
I have a friend who is an astronomy hobbyist. He spends a lot of time reading about this stuff. I remember him saying that the big bang theory had been outdated, and that the cyclical collapsing/expanding theory of the universe was also doubted at this point.
I wonder what the current theory is?
Report comment to moderator
#20 (MIM): I have a friend who is an astronomy hobbyist. He spends a lot of time reading about this stuff. I remember him saying that the big bang theory had been outdated, and that the cyclical collapsing/expanding theory of the universe was also doubted at this point.
The “Big Bang” theory is the standard cosmology. It fits all the facts and is predicted by Einstein’s Theory of Relativity (A theory that really predicts and matches facts).
There are a few cosmologists that cannot accept the theological implications of the “Big Bang” and are constantly providing possible scenarios that might make the “Big Bang” a non-singular event. The article is a very bad summary of some of these ideas. However, all the data collected so far and all the data that can be collected necessarily confirms only that a singular event, the “Big Bang,” occurred some 14 Billion years ago. Plank time prevents gathering data before that point. So anything else is sheer speculation fueled by the desire to address the necessary inference that the “Big Bang” was caused. The silliness in the article is the attempt to find something other than God as that necessary cause.
Report comment to moderator
#19: That wasn’t God, that was Art.
Report comment to moderator
Hmmmm…
Wasn’t it Einstein who, after an exceptional violin concert, said “there must be a God”?
Report comment to moderator
Dr. Dave,
I emailed my friend and jogged his brain about the conversation we had.
The reason it didn’t stick with me was because we had been talking about Dark Matter theory. He says it’s “been under an oxygen tent lately and it looks as though the Big Bang is next. The Big Bang has been celebrated long enough now that the problems it creates are becoming fair game. I do not know of anyone that has discredited the theory, but it’s not going to get the free pass it once got among most (not all) theorists.”
I believe we spoke about the oscillation theory of the universe too, and it seems that it has it’s own problems as well.
These folks are theorists as you aptly point out. I think it’s a very good example of philosophy driving the direction of science. This is a point I’ve made several times on this blog, but some of us are evidently impervious to rational thought. “Science is only a tool” they’ll say. Uh huh. That’s right. It’s the brain behind the tool that decides where it’s going to go next though…
Report comment to moderator
That’s because it sounded “heavenly”. But if heaven is a place filled with the likes of vile people like Ben Stein and Jerry Falwell and Pat Roberton and George Bush, then I would rather go to the other place. At least I can talk to Michaelangelo and Di Vinci and history’s greatest writers and painters and entertainers and singers and dancers. It would be hot in more ways than one. The evangelicals can go and grovel and beg for eternity in heaven. That is until God gets tired of the wailing and whining. If Elton John or Anita Bryant gave a concert, which one with Jesus go to?
Report comment to moderator
#24 (MIM): It is my understanding that the “Oscillating Universe” notion was in deep trouble some time ago. The problem is that there is not enough matter in the universe to force a collapse (and a new Big Bang). Moreover, there is some evidence that the universe is expanding at an accellerating rate (Einstein proposed a “constant” based on his theory that would predict this, later removing it–my information suggests he shouldn’t have).
Dark matter is a hypothetical construct created to handle, in part, the data suggesting an accelerated expansion. I will have to revisit the current data and thinking to see what the status of the Dark Matter hypthesis is.
I don’t know about the oxygen tent needed for “Big Bang” theory. The presence of the background cosmic radiation at 3 detrees Kelvin is a pretty hard piece of evidence to ignore.
Report comment to moderator
cosmologists, who gave us dark matter, dark energy and speak with apparent aplomb about gazillions of parallel universes, have finally lost their minds.
Does that mean cosmologists are not scientists anymore, rdean, ’cause we know that scientists would NEVER do that!
Report comment to moderator
#18: Neither is Donato, No, wait . . .
Report comment to moderator
The great thing is, flights of fancy allow carry-on luggage.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!