My understanding is that in the case of heat death, if this state continues to persist for infinite time, then every possible event that can happen will eventually happen due to sheer infinite time and every possible thermal fluctuation that can happen eventually happening; although of course much smaller fluctuations are always more likely than bigger ones.
A brain fluctuating into existence and then existing for long enough to take an instantaneous mental action is absurdly more unlikely than the brain popping into existence and then scattering just as fast; but the infinity, if true, would make infinite such brains inevitable and much more likely than real brains.
Again, this is just my understanding of the argument as an amateur, definitely not a professional in this and I think there are physics and epistemics arguments which might overcome this.
Thanks, I hate it! I guess I hadn’t seen a full presentation of the argument or didn’t remember it. Now I see why it’s troubling enough to want to resolve. Those physics and epistemics arguments seem important but I’m going to resist getting into them just in case I’m real and should be working on solving alignment.
My understanding is that in the case of heat death, if this state continues to persist for infinite time, then every possible event that can happen will eventually happen due to sheer infinite time and every possible thermal fluctuation that can happen eventually happening; although of course much smaller fluctuations are always more likely than bigger ones.
A brain fluctuating into existence and then existing for long enough to take an instantaneous mental action is absurdly more unlikely than the brain popping into existence and then scattering just as fast; but the infinity, if true, would make infinite such brains inevitable and much more likely than real brains.
Again, this is just my understanding of the argument as an amateur, definitely not a professional in this and I think there are physics and epistemics arguments which might overcome this.
Thanks, I hate it! I guess I hadn’t seen a full presentation of the argument or didn’t remember it. Now I see why it’s troubling enough to want to resolve. Those physics and epistemics arguments seem important but I’m going to resist getting into them just in case I’m real and should be working on solving alignment.