Are Boltzmann Brains running Hilbert\'s Hotel? by William T. Parsons

Dear Dr. Parsons,

I do not wish to be disrespectful, but I do not think Boltzman abstract brains and Hilbert's abstract hotel have anything to do with how the real Universe is occurring for the following real reason:

Do let me know what you think about this: This is my single unified theorem of how the real Universe is occurring: Newton was wrong about abstract gravity; Einstein was wrong about abstract space/time, and Hawking was wrong about the explosive capability of abstract NOTHING. Proof exists that every real astronomer looking through a real telescope has failed to notice that each of the real galaxies he has observed is unique as to its structure and its perceived distance from all other real galaxies. Each real star is unique as to its structure and its perceived distance apart from all other real stars. Every real scientist who has peered at real snowflakes through a real microscope has concluded that each real snowflake is unique as to its structure. Real structure is unique, once. Unique, once does not consist of abstract amounts of abstract quanta. Based on one's normal observation, one must conclude that all of the stars, all of the planets, all of the asteroids, all of the comets, all of the meteors, all of the specks of astral dust and all real objects have only one real thing in common. Each real object has a real material surface that seems to be attached to a material sub-surface. All surfaces, no matter the apparent degree of separation, must travel at the same constant speed. No matter in which direction one looks, one will only ever see a plethora of real surfaces and those surfaces must all be traveling at the same constant speed or else it would be physically impossible for one to observe them instantly and simultaneously. Real surfaces are easy to spot because they are well lighted. Real light does not travel far from its source as can be confirmed by looking at the real stars, or a real lightning bolt. Reflected light needs to adhere to a surface in order for it to be observed, which means that real light cannot have a surface of its own. Real light must be the only stationary substance in the real Universe. The stars remain in place due to astral radiation. The planets orbit because of atmospheric accumulation. There is no space.

Warm regards,

Joe Fisher

Dear William,

I loved your essay which managed to be both funny and rigorous at the same time. I also think your solution to the infinity problem was amazingly clever. Boltzmann Brains have always given my nightmares and your essay is now like a flashlight under the bed.

Please take some time to check out and vote on my essay:

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2391

All the best in the competition!

Rick Searle

Dear Bill,

Thank you for not reporting my comment to FQXi.org as being inappropriate in order to have it classified as Obnoxious Spam.

Joe Fisher

There are some aspects of this in the literature. One paper critiques this. There are ways to non-Turing processing, and this is a discussion on interactive programming, similar to oracle Turing machines, that offers something interesting.

Cheers LC

William,

This is a valiant effort to defeat physical significance of infinities of number and extent (as of space-time and its contents). However, the aspects of infinity considered most problematic in physics are actually those regarding what could be called intensity or density of energy etc. One example is the case of the QED infinities that are handled by the suspiciously kludges of renormalization, another is the compressed singularity of GR. Ironically, the first one is caused by aspects of quantum mechanics, and the other kind might be ameliorated by QM! Your thoughts?

This surreptitious log-out is really getting annoying. I wrote the above comment, sorry. BTW thanks again for your comments at my essay. Note to any readers: my essay tries to make a true, specific contribution to physical knowledge (about why space is three-dimensional) and not just general points of principle.

Dear Conrad,

I liked much your essay, I gave it a high rate and I included it in the (second) list of best essays of my review. You seem to gather unanimity here, so I think the interesting question is: who would think otherwise (believe in physical infinity) ? You wrote in your comment that you "started out believing in physical infinity" yourself. Was it just a default position by lack of precise ideas ? Do you know any physicists having a firm belief in physical infinity ?

If I had to express a bet with respect to cosmology, I would opt for the idea of a spherical universe, that I see as the simplest and most natural way a universe can be created. Indeed, I hardly see the sense and possibility of an infinite universe (how can it start in the first place ?), and I don't believe I have clones anywhere. So, since we already verified the surprising fact that the cosmological constant is extremely small (compared to its microphysical causes) but nonzero, I see it natural to expect a similar property for the curvature of the universal "geography".

But the other question is that of the infinitely small. You seem to assume that nobody takes seriously the idea of a physical infinity in the infinitely small, as all we can measure is approximations. But I do think that there are many people whose views logically imply the existence of a physical infinity in the infinitely small, even if they are not ready to admit it. What I mean here is that they have mutually contradictory beliefs and they fail to notice the contradiction.

Precisely, I see only 3 possibly coherent views with respect to the infinitely small:

1) A digital universe, made of pixels (or the like), where continuous geometrical symmetries are only an emergent property.

2) A quantum universe, where the (usually called "paradoxical") properties of quantum physics are accepted as actually describing how things are, and finally understood as not really paradoxical since they are the solution of this other paradox : the reconciliation of continuous geometrical symmetries with the absence of actual infinity in the infinitely small. This is achieved by the fact that the continuous symmetries (such as rotations of a local object) are not acting over an actually infinite list of really distinct states, but over the continuous values of probabilities for the system to appear in one or another state if it is measured. This means to reject physical realism, as the continuity of the transition between the possibilities for 2 states to be identical or distinct, means that there is no physical reality of which state a system exactly is in. I commented this further in pages 5 and 6 of my essay.

3) A classical continuous universe, which logically means to admit an actual infinity of physically distinct possible intermediate states between 2 states. A typical example is Bohmian mechanics. Supporters of such views may hope to keep this compatible with practical finiteness, i.e. that this actual infinity only concerns the ontology that, at the same time, they wish to deny on an effective level, where it would behave as a potential infinity only. Namely, they expect the effects of the whole infinity of decimals of their "hidden variables" are not popping up in finite times. However I do not see it clear if they can really find a coherent theory satisfying that property and that would be compatible with known physics (quantum field theory). For details, see in my criticism of Bohmian mechanics, the section "Problem 2 : the nonsense of deterministic randomness".

Dear William,

I think Newton was wrong about abstract gravity; Einstein was wrong about abstract space/time, and Hawking was wrong about the explosive capability of NOTHING.

All I ask is that you give my essay WHY THE REAL UNIVERSE IS NOT MATHEMATICAL a fair reading and that you allow me to answer any objections you may leave in my comment box about it.

Joe Fisher

Dear Bill Parsons,

I agree that Hilbert's hotel is unphysical. But do you think that potential infinity is unphysical?

Best,

Lou Kauffman

Dear Bill,

Thank you ever so much for leaving such a positive comment about my essay.

One real Universe can only be occurring in one real infinite dimension. Unfortunately, scientists insist on attempting to measure the three abstract dimensions of height, width and depth, with completely unrealistic results. The real Universe must be infinite in scope and eternal in duration.

Gratefully,

Joe Fisher

Bill,

Your Hilbert Hotel is an esoteric location steeped in meaning. Do Boltzmann Brains have physical baggage of a type 0 civilization that restrict a Hilbert Hotel in a type 2 civilization?

My connections of mind, math, and physics are quite pedestrian in producing advances in quantum biology, DNA mapping and simulation of the BB: http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2345.

Thanks for sharing your imaginative hotel.

Jim