Well you can do quite a lot of stuff in a simulation..but you do possess some amount of control over your life.. Like if you study hard , you're less likely to fail ..or put it this way..if you eat healthy and do excercise regularly..you're less likely to die early..or die of cancer
@ayushlacu o as you yourself have mentioned that this is just a theory ... You need not to freak out.. This is far from reality.. atleast our reality.. biology and chemistry is real.. physics doesn't completely support this idea either.. Just keep learning science.. we don't know what can interest you .
@@andrewfrankovic6821 “people with political convictions going out of existence is good.” That makes your own existence being snuffed out good because your anti-political rhetoric is a political stance. I find it interesting how strong the anti-human dogma is in those who purport to be curious of “science.”
@@erik-ic3tp : In recent years, he has only made "Mind Field" videos on his Vsauce1 channel, which are only accessible through RU-vid Premium. However, I think they're worth the money!
I thought this also. Then I thought, could it be possible to be the Boltzmann brain of the Schrodinger cat, attempting to observe and quantify it's situation and in doing so observe itself at the transition from life to death? Leading to reflection of it's life or existence leading up to that instant, bringing more questions or mental projected simulations of alternate life that it could have lead to result in a different outcome. Or not. Who know's, I'm just plucking from thin air.
Another great video Jade! I find one of the more interesting facets of considering the universe as a simulation, and which is related to the "cognitively unstable" point, is that if the universe is a simulation, there is no reason to assume that the physics and math of everything outside the simulation is remotely similar to what's in the simulation. So if we (and everything we have ever observed) is part of a Boltzmann brain, entropy outside the brain may not always increase. Maybe it's a conserved quantity. Or maybe the physics of the "real universe" is so foreign to our "simulated universe" experience that the concept of entropy is altogether irrelevant outside of the simulation.
Hi there Dr. Strong. Nice to see you too are interested in such fascinating topics. Really appreciate your ECG videos, have been a subscriber for quite a long time now. You should also check out this channel "Closer To Truth" which also discusses such philosophical and physics based questions. Best Regards. Dr. Wajahat Ali.
Absolute rubbish. You scientists don't know what the hell you're talking about; this question is a philosophical one and has been investigated by philosophy for centuries. Clueless scientists like you pretend as though they can get to the heart of this question by themselves. But honestly; this isn't a scientific question, it's a philosophical one. My advice; stick to other fields, and before opening your mouth about this ever again; read tonnes of philosophy papers on the subject. Just so you know Isaac Arthur is an absolute noob when it comes to philosophy. He doesn't read jack.
That's a really interesting point! If you think of having a Boltzmann brain, then there are two universes: the "experienced/simulated universe" and the "real universe". So, if my Boltzmann brain just popped into existence in the "real" universe with all of my spontaneously created "simulated" memories, then the fact that that I can think shows that my brain is working, and that the "real" universe has the same physics as the "simulated" universe, does it not?
Any argument that leads us to conclude that we are most likely living in a simulation can also be applied to those who are purportedly running the simulation, to conclude that they are most likely in a simulation themselves. And so on to some quite deep degree (depending on the probability you estimate). Like for example hundreds of thousands of levels.
@@ismayonnaiseaninstrument8700 most likely no. The architect had enough iterations of the matrix constructed previously to realize the necessity to implement a firewall for people like Neo. Send them all to a second, smaller matrix and do some garbage collection. And occasionally reboot the main Matrix just to fix memory leaks or whatever else. I like to think that in base reality, the Matrix is actually a prison to trap the machines and let them think they won the war and trapped the humans in their own matrix. Like running a virtual machine in a virtual machine. But there is nothing I can think of to suggest that is the case, it's just a nice thought.
When the dolphins heard these theories from earth natives, they realized their help would never be truly appreciated, and they were like, “So long, and thanks for all the fish.”
The amount of hardwork your eyebrows do in the videos you post, contributes majorly to your excitement, expression and confidence. It's just a delight to see them jump around your eye!!
Great video! My area is biophysics, rather than astrophysics, so I’m only hearing about the Boltzmann’s Brain hypothesis for the first time here. But it seems to me that it relies heavily on the assumption that the laws of physics before the Big Bang were the same as they are now. But with no way to obtain information from before the singularity, that assumption is only a conjecture of convenience. It’s impossible to prove that before the Big Bang, entropy didn’t always moved to a lower state, or that time didn’t move “backwards.” For all we know, back then it really was turtles all the way down :) PS - You have an incredible gift for distilling salient points to make complicated concepts easy to digest!
I was sent here by I.A. as well, didn't know this girl, and came to love her style. I'd ask them: Why not the 3 of them altogether doing a cross-over? That would be AWESOME!!! Extra points if it's filmed in sir Richard Branson's private island in the Caribbean, while they escape from a bunch of genetically modified human-animal hybrids intent on hunting or heroes :-D
I know when I've arrived at a great video when I keep stopping and replaying parts- over and over. SUBSCRIBED! Thank you for the clear, concise and most intriguing presentation!😄
Boltzman Brains don't seem to obviously be inherently more likely. Because this means instead of being a universe, its an equal sized universe, but simulated by a boltzman brain. Which means due to Occam's Razor its actually less likely.
Not necessarily true, if the brain is less complicated than the universe then it'll be more likely to come into existence from a fluctuation, it doesn't matter what it's "thinking about"/simulating. Of course you could argue that anything capable of simulating the universe would necessarily have to be more complicated than the universe, but I'm not sure you could prove that.
I like Roger Penrose’s model of continuous cycles of universes. The probability of a low entropy early universe thus depends on how the universe re-starts. There’s a lot of this “the universe if just a simulation” going around at the moment. It sounds very radical but is it really new? Plato cave? Bishop Berkeley’s idealism? Descartes “cogito ergo sum”?
You are getting into the god paradox here, if it takes an intelligence to design an intelligence what designed the designing intelligence. The same principle applies to the Boltzmann brain idea what creates the whatever the simulation is running in and if that is the case what creates what was before that and add infinitum and so on.
God is outside time and has no beginning or end. God created the universe, including matter, energy, space, and time. Whether He created real particles or started a program on a computer bigger than the entire universe, there is no way to know, until we enter the World to Come.
@@pierreabbat6157 And who or what created god. If the universe in its entirety cannot just pop into existence neither can god or gods they also had to be created and to my mind man created god in his own image.
Equiluxe1 You do NOT need an intelligence for a Boltzman brain to spring into existence. That's intelligent design thinking, and we better leave such crap to the religious nuts deal If you wait just long enough and try often enough, every result that has a likelihood > 0 will sooner or later materialize if you don't quit. E.g. say you have 50 balls numbered 1 to 50 in an urn and randomly take 7 out. If you just repeat this process often enough sooner or later every possible combination of numbers will come up. It's just a matter of tries (=time). A Boltzmann brain is an incredibly complex system, but it's still just a finite configuration of elementary particles. There is a chance that this springs spontaneously into existence as a result of random vacuum fluctuations. The likelihood of such an event is of course very very close to zero, but still slightly >0. This means, if you just wait long enough, a Boltzmann brain WILL spontaneously manifest itself as a result of random quantum fluctuations. Again it's just a matter of waiting long enough. Unfortunately is the waiting time (due to the comparatively high complexity of a brain) many, many degrees of powers higher, than the current age of the universe, so don't expect to observe one anytime soon. It's important to understand that things like Boltzmann brains are primarily mind games. They are physically possible, but mankind will never observe something like that, just like we'll never observe a decrease in entropy of the universe (although this is an inevitable event that must occur, if we move just a lot closer to the universe being in thermodynamic equilibrium (=heat death of the universe)) BTW the big bang formed very likely from exactly such kind of extremely unlikely (because it was so big) kind of spontaneous vacuum fluctuation.
This channel is great, Jade’s writing and presentation are top notch, the production values are spot on for a channel with 100k subscribers... but what the hell are those sockets doing so high up on the wall behind the sofa? What would you ever use those for? I need to know!!!
Really good video! This has been bugging my mind for quite a long, because certain topics in science fit well in the assumption that our universe is a computer simulation :D And, to go real meta here: What _is_ reality?
another good one, thank you. what's interesting about the popularizer's critique around 8 minutes in is how valid it is when applied instead to his views of parallel worlds.
My main problem with the Boltzmann Brain theory is that if everything is simulated by a single brain, then how does it determine what to simulate? We're constantly experiencing events that we don't expect to happen, and those can't be simulated by a single brain, since the events would have to be expected on some level in order to be simulated. For instance, it would be totally implausible for a tree to start spinning around in place uncontrollably. But suppose it were to happen one day. Wouldn't the Boltzmann Brain need to have a concept of such a thing beforehand in order to simulate the event? And wouldn't the Boltzmann Brain need to simulate all the circumstances surrounding such an event? Basically, completely unexpected events happen all the time but no one gives them any thought before they happen, so they can't be a result of a simulation. There have to be other factors besides a single floating brain causing all the events that occur.
You are mixing up 2 things, the first is a Boltzman brain, which is just a spontaneously arising (and very fast dying) brain from random vacuum fluctuations. The other thing is the concept of the simulated universe, which assumes that our universe is just a very complex simulation. Both have a common factor,: that the universe is not what is perceived it is, either by the brain (Boltzmann brain), or by us (simulated universe). But that's it. Scientifically the major difference is, that the Boltzman brain is a valid (albeit extremely unlikely) hypothesis, based upon real physics, while the simulated universe is not a scientific hypothesis, because it can in principle not be falsified.
Issac sent me as well. Kinda a bummer that RU-vid changed their algorithm. They should have recommended your channel based on the ones I normally watch.
When all coins are again showing the same value, entropy still went up in your closed system. This system does not consist of the coins only, but you (or some mechanism) are part of it, otherwise the coins were never flipped. And the energy you had to invest to make the flipping changed their quailty from a higher quality (e.g. bound chemical potential energy with a lower entropy) to the lowest quality of energy (warmth, having a higher entropy), and the resulting sum of entropy will be higher than before. For the same reason, a frige will always heaten up your room, not cool it down, and even faster when the door is open.
You can only calculate the probability of this Universe existing by using the physics of this Universe in the calculations, but entropy may work completely differently "outside" our Universe or "before" our universe fluctuated into existence. Universes may be coming into existence all the time because in a "realm" where fluctuations are likely to lead to Universes, it happens all the time. I wonder what the relative probabilities are of a universe thought up by spontaneously extant brains and a Universe where the laws of physics readily allow other Universes to spawn inside it.
HOLY SHIT what an amazing channel. Fantastic find, subscribed. Solid explanation, the concepts aren't watered down, charming host. Checks all the boxes.
If we were boltzman brains wouldn't our psychology be linked with each other somehow? I mean we would basically be talking to another aspect of ourselves in this world and our own psychological quirks would be represented somehow in the universe right? Would explain all the deju vu stuff that's been going on in my life!!!
An Isaac Arthur collaboration? Woot! It is so awesome to see that my favorite RU-vid creators collaborating on a project. I watch you guys more often now than any show on TV, so congrats!
Can you explain the decrease in entropy in the following system: Raw materials of aluminum, rubber, glass, plastic, and steel go in one end, and new Cadillac SUVs come out the other end?
There is a problem in your example for entropy. In the room with cool vs hot molecules, there are physical forces in actions that push the molecules in some specific directions that will push the cooler molecules down because they are denser, which is a qualitative difference of entropy (not a different degree in entropy). Then the transfer of heat will occur and the system will gradually be entropic (tending to disorder-always because of law of physics). In fact, the system will always start to be entropic because the transfer of heat will occur right at the start but not fast enough for all to all spread equally among the hot molecules (because the cold molecules are grouped together in the first place). But the entropy will stop overall except locally for small transfers quickly stabilized by the whole. For your coins, all heads or mixed coins of head and tails are actually a difference in entropy that is qualitative, not quantitative. The universe does not care about head or tail as this is related to information not physics. It is pure probabilities as long as the coins are exactly the same physically (they can’t hardly be in an absolute way). That is why statistical fluctuations are not often applicable to the physical universe as they omit the forces that are inherent to what exists physically as it assumes there is no forces acting on them and that all objects are free to move freely in the space allowed to them. In brief, it looks like the universe is just following the forces inherent in it like a dance between what seems to be more order and less order because of the exchange between “what exists” considering all forces to be. More descriptively, it seems that there is a force that put things in a certain way that reaches a critical point where things are forced to go the other way until it start all over the other way, eternally: the dance of the universe as the deity Shiva perhaps attempts to illustrate. This why we have stars but also supernovas; a dance of creation and destruction. At the end it all balances out. This should exclude a big Bang and instead should lead to an infinite universe, in space in time… and no simulation.
If our universe is a simulation run by some...others, then who is to say that the others universe is not a simulation run by some..errr...other others. And so on and so forth. It's turtles all the way down.
An interesting idea! The conventional argument against an infinite series of nestled simulated universes is that, at least in our universe, there is a finite amount of information that can be stored per unit volume. So we can't have an infinite number of simulated universes within our universe - a universe cannot produce a simulation that is as detailed as the universe itself. While there could still be an infinite number of universes "above" ours, this would put us close to the finite end of a string that is infinite in the other direction, which is unfathomably improbable.
@@StrongMed " a universe cannot produce a simulation that is as detailed as the universe itself" It takes very little to simulate the things that you experience. Its ironically something video games rely heavily on.
Came here from Isaac Arthurs channel. I saw that those coins were from Australia! So for that reason, I am subscribing (and because the few videos I've watched were really interesting).
So if I'm a Boltzmann Brain, then I'm creating the ideas of a Boltzmann Brain myself and I'm imagining that this girl is explaining what I am. Am I the only Boltzmann Brain or are there others out there experiencing their own realities that are completely different from my reality? Everyone in my reality who reads this or responds to this is only a a figment of my imagination. So I'm basically only asking myself this question. Is just so weird to think about it like that, but I've questioned this in the past even before I learned about Boltzmann Brains.
@@gottlichhg That explains it!! I didn't even consider that it might be an impediment. I understand him completely so I just thought he was from some country whose accent I've never heard before
Agree with Sean Carol that we can't assume anything about the physics of the "true" universe if we're in any sort of simulation. It's like saying FTL travel is possible because you dreamed about warp travel. Maybe the 2nd law of thermodynamics is just a weird thought experiment someone came up with, so they wrote a simulation to see how it would work out, haha.
It's like Lady Luck from The Flash. It's an entropy runaway that rips apart the universe until the eventual 'resetting' of everything, to then blissfully reinvent itself again.
I think Sean Carroll is right that the belief that we are Boltzmann brains is self-stultifying. But he fails to take this to its logical conclusion. It means that any model of the universe that predicts the likelihood that we are Boltzmann brains is equally self-stultifying. And that's a good reason to reject those models. Carroll appears to think it's a reason NOT to reject those models. Unless I've misunderstood him. To put this in a formal syllogism: 1. If Model M of the universe is true, then it is likely that we are Boltzmann brains. 2. It is not likely that we are Boltzmann brains. 3. Therefore, Model M of the universe is not true.
If you're wondering, like i was, why there are 252 ways of rearranging 0000011111 (T and F in the video), the answer is 10!/(5!x5!). It's an example of a multiset permutation, explained on wikipedia here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permutation#Permutations_of_multisets
First question to ask is how would a universe that is a simulation differ from one that isn't a simulation or "How would you tell if the universe were a simulation"? Second question to ask is "Why would it matter whether our universe was a simulation" or "Would you do things differently if the universe was a simulation"? If the answer to the first is that there would be no discernible difference between a universe that was real versus one that was a simulation, why would you assume it was a simulation? If there is no discernable difference, then doing things differently without the knowledge of it being a simulation wouldn't make sense. Occam's Razor strictly disagrees with Boltzmann Brains as Boltzmann Brains is the more complex conclusion.
I saw both of these in my subscription feed and thought "Wow what are the chances both of these channels decided to talk about the same topic on the same day?" The answer, it turned out, is "the exact same chances that they'd collaborate on that topic"!
The big bang wasn't a special state of low entropy it was a state of entropy lower than we have now- it's all relative. Brains are more specifically highly ordered than anything else in the universe we know of (and one capable of simulating everything would be even more so and are actually the result of being a huge entropy sink) and are therefore less likely to exist than the universe itself. To use the coin flip analysis lets say we have to flip 10 coins, half of those results (assuming it's equal) would start at a lower entropy than it evolved into so 50% (512 in 1024) chance whereas if the Boltzmann Brain were all heads that's a 1 in 1024 chance.
I have called 'Why?' the question that is often asked, but is rarely answered. Not to everyone's satisfaction. I like the way that science can tie into history and human behavior. Now, that there is a war in Europe, more than ever.
Related to this, I think that in order to do science, as an axioma, either spacetime needs to be finite, or there needs to be some constraint on randomness. If neither exists, any science becomes useless. Take gravity for example, for simplicity gravity on earth, an object, accelerates toward earth with about 9 m/s/s (assuming it's not lighter then air, or generates significant drag) that's an observation that can be repeated. But how do we know that objects don't accelerate in a random direction at a random speed and that in all cases we observed it just so happend to be about 9 m/s/s. well I don't think we can know for sure, it would be unimaginable unlikely. But in an infinite spacetime, there would be an infinite amount of places where that still would be the case, as their would be an infitite amount of places where it wouldn't. So in order to do any science, we have to assume that the universe is finite, or that there is a limit to how unlikly something can be before the probablity becomes 0 I probably don't express myself very clearly and i might be wrong, but i kinda think this is the case. OR we are wrong about the nature of infinity
Your brain provides a simulation of reality. Eventually you run into the problem where the nature of your ability to perceive the universe via simulation leads you to conclude that the universe is a simulation. To wit, the only way we can see the universe is as a simulation because our brain simulates everything. So when we're looking at the smallest length of the universe or tiniest particle or simplest relationship or whatever, what we're actually examining are the most fundamental components of the simulation our brains can provide us AND NOT the universe as it actually is. The brain's power to simulate has become introspective, essentially.
I get what you are saying but I think you are misusing the word simulation to over simplify things. Simulation implies there is a thing that is real and a less real copy of that thing. You can pick up a stone but you cant pick up the concept of a stone, so the concept of a stone is just that - a concept and not a simulated stone. The brain does a lot of things. It perceives the senses, it interprets those perceptions to build concepts, it stores and recalls concepts and the relationships between them as memories, meanwhile it also experiences the process, and when you are dreaming It does simulate experiences. This is just scratching the surface of the input side of what our brains do.
@@boggers I'm not misusing it. 'Copy' presumes that there's some transmission of information (truth) between the phenomenal and noumenal such that we can create a representation of a real thing. But the 'brain simulates reality 100%' notion eliminates any such transmission. Consider the lens idea. If you always wear pink lenses then everything you can ever learn about color a la sense data (even you perception of conclusions which were designed to operate apart from sense data) will be pink. Ergo, you can only discover the nature of pink and not the nature of the full color spectrum itself. But it's actually worse, since now we apply this same problem to literally everything i.e. every sensation, interpretation, conceptualization, all of it. So now trapped within our lens, a lens which we can't even understand (we don't know if it's 'pink' or whatever else it does), the only thing we can learn about is the lens itself since there is absolutely no transmission of information (truth) between the phenomenal and noumenal. So there can be no truth regarding noumena (real world) but there can be truth regarding phenomena (concepts). Or better put, we can only learn of the nature of HOW the brain simulates and not WHAT the brain simulates. So all that said, presuming that there's a simulation in which we're some component of, there's no reason to assume that the universe is a simulation when it's just as likely (more in fact) that the brain creates the simulation entirely. To wit, we're player characters in our own personal videogame which the brain creates. So here, it's not even fair to assume that because the brain simulation created the concept of a rock this therefore ensures that rocks must exist in the noumenal realm i.e. the actual universe.
@@Marcara081 I think we have a fundamental difference in our definition of the word simulation. I'm right there with you on the limited filters through which we perceive reality, and yes our minds construct models of reality, but even a model is not a simulation - where a simulation strives to be a similar copy of a thing, a model simply represents the thing. We dont "simulate" the colour pink, we perceive the colour pink in a manner completely abstracted from the combination of photon wavelengths that combine to form that perception. If we simulated it, pink would look like a combination of photon wavelengths, not a colour. Colours as we recognise them do not exist outside of our minds, so what exactly is being copied in the simulation? I don't disagree with you in principle other than your word choice, to stretch the definition of simulation to mean what you want it to mean leaves it vague and inaccurate, there are better ways to describe how our minds work.
A matrioshka brain may be possible within our observable universe, but it would be built by a civilization that had started out through Darwinian evolution. A Boltzmann brain requires an absurd amount of time which we don't have in our neighborhood because of accelerating expansion and eventual heat death. It requires a cosmology in which somewhere there is a region where conditions allow complexity sufficient for a brain/computer, and those conditions persist for absurd amounts of time. We don't know what sort of physics that would be, but in the absence of any deep and well-supported theory that predicts such physics must occur somewhere, it's an idle speculation. In Boltzmann's time, it seemed to many that an infinitely old Democritean "atoms and the void" cosmology was possible, but it's not possible in the light of our present cosmology and astrophysics.
A grade + video. Our instrumentality observing the far reaches of universe is the equal of Gallieo studying Neptune with his telescope. Haven't been studying long enough to suspect somethings out there, a lot out there we don't know, and the equipment we have probably wouldn't allow us to see it even if it was known. Give astronomy another 200 years to have the equipment to determine what's happening
Boltzmann brains assumes the universe evolves according to classical dynamics, but what about quantum dynamics? Is order just a fluctuation on a sea of randomness (entropy) or is the seeming randomness an illusion that is just the result of our inability to see the total underlying order?
Brilliant and interesting video! 👍🏻😀 One question I still think about: Wouldn't it be impossible to exist as a Boltzmann brain for more than a few seconds due to erosion in space (vacuum, no nutrition, cosmic radiation,...)? Therefore we couldn't be ones as we live longer than a few seconds, unless time were perceived faster in the Boltzmann simulation which seems odd as neurological information processing is limited in velocity. What do you say about that?
I would guess that a Boltzmann brain needn't be a brain as we know it. And the space it's floating in needn't be space as we know it. Because everything it knows about brains and space is just a figment of its imagination. Even though it *thinks*, it cannot *perceive*.
But Fire is really really hot. Spinoza theorized God as the Universe some time back. Whether the objective defining context is conscious is impossible to prove due to a reality similar to the Heisenberg Principle. Can the “lack” of free will demonstrated by lower energy matter ( on planets, mostly ) be a manifestation of a far greater free will? You ask some of the most awesome questions.
The interesting question is that if we are *not* Boltzmann brains, why is our universe so big? There are 5 plausible answers 1) Large entropic fluctuations are significantly more common than expected. If universe sized fluctuations are only like 100 X less common than brain sized ones, it is much less unexpected that we are in a universe sized one 2) Some physical process facilitates universe sized fluctuations, but brain sized ones are significantly less probable than the process 3) For some reason, small fluctuations tend not to support observers(Ie the energy density could be too low or star formation would occur significantly less often) 4) Sketchy time elapse argument. In the future there will be many times more observers and much higher entropy, so most observers will experience much higher entropy than us 5) pure dumb luck
Does the statistical exlanation of entropy really need to time as having a direction? It seems like the argument would be just as valid if we measured entropy against proximity. The further the object is from observation or design entropy will tend increase. It may be that human activity has fostered this notion that entropy increases with time. A physical experiment begins in a highly ordered state and measurements are only taken from this point onwards. Similarly man made objects are made in an ordered state. The formation of stars shows how entropy can increase as you go into the past. Stellar nebulae are highly disordered. The process in making the stars is highly unpredictable at this stage. The reversal of the process is much easier to model, at least in concept.
I think postulating a brain spontaneously generating at the beginning of spacetime confuses entropy and order. At the beginning, the universe had the lowest entropy it would ever have--and it was in the most disordered state it would ever be in. Everything was so dense and energetic that no stable structure could form. In a process almost analogous to the formation of crystalline structures when water loses energy and freezes, the universe had to expand and dissipate its primordial heat for particles to form interacting accretions of matter. The graph of the actual entropy of the universe shot up like a rocket--but the maximum possible entropy of the universe increased much faster, permitting regions of slow, stable behavior to arise. A brain doesn't take a lot of entropy, but it requires immense orderliness, and thus evolves late in the history of any cosmos.
I know this isn't really related and probably won't get read, but I wanted it out of my head. What if magnetism, gravity and spacetime are all the same thing just in different densities? For instance magnetism would be the most dense and spacetime would be the least dense.
The universe started out with low entropy? We were not there to observe it. How do we know it didn't start out as a high entropy and then go to a low entropy state?
Can you guys explain Enzimes? Because they destroy entropy theories like this. At 9:00 the concept is the paradox of observation and changing what we observed by being in that system. In this case, to prove a simulation, you must get out, like the Matrix, they can escape the simulation and prove they are outside.
The fact that the human brain makes up an optical presentation for the color Magenta, makes me question whether the reality that my brain is presenting to me, has any element of Absolute Truth to it. I, personally, believe that the presentation of Absolute Reality is achievable by a physically conscious being. At best, the brain or nerve center of the being can only present a Reality that is just short of being 100% Absolute Real. In short, I believe that our realities are as real as can be, without being Absolutely Real (100% Real). I also believe that the Evolution of Life is the result of atoms comprising Biological Entities with the goal of developing levels of Consciousness that allow them (the atoms) to obtain knowledge & wisdom of their origins & their purposes.....I believe that you & I are the vehicles for atoms to achieve this.
There is a problem here.. You said the universe began compressed into a small space and that is low entropy (I agree) but then the universe just expanded from there continuously increasing in entropy. How can that be when the Big Bang produces a ball of hydrogen (high entropy) then makes stars which are lower entropy? It was shown by Dr Wallace in 2009 that the gravity hydrogen is not strong enough to collapse it all the way down to form a star.?
