Ler

What kind of person is in the top right?

Your argument is that dogs bred for hunting animals can't distinguish between animals and small humans. Are you walking that back now?

Most types of terriers and hounds

So then by this logic, all hunting breeds must have the same innate desire to hurt children, right?

Are pitbulls bred to kill children?

How precisely are they bred more dangerous than they "need" to be?

Given that most small dogs are physically incapable of killing humans, it's not surprising that the most common large dog is also responsible for the most human deaths. And that's without considering other confounding factors like abuse, neglect, lack of training, etc

I read up as far as I could and I saw no evidence given that pitbulls are inherently more likely to attack children.
Given how loosely "pitbull" is defined, they make a large majority of all large dogs.

Pulling out my lyfe scanner

I care only in the sense that we should make it much faster to become citizens

Ummm everyone is naming known conspiracy theorist characters in real world settings so that's not really fun. I'm going to go with Galadriel. She'd be like no no eat this leaf that's the tears of an ancient hero

Yeeeeaaaahhhhhhhhh

Lyfe???

Why is it that only universes with regular observers can be infinite? Why wouldn't we have a universe that has the same infinite geometry but with a higher initial entropy? Or is this just the "other" BB problem you mentioned before?

For example, I don't think Trump is a Christian even if he claims to be.

True but I'd argue that being Christian should at least involve a little bit of actually following Jesus' teachings. Like, you know, the whole bit about loving others, caring for the vulnerable, etc. if someone constantly flouts that then I can understand if some people question the label

I still don't understand how to go from "it appears infinite for a given observers" (subjective) to "it is infinite" (objective) but for the sake of argument, why is it that BB universes must be finite?

Time and space trading off to make the universe appear to be infinite for a given observer does not entail an actually infinite amount of observers

Taking this approach, the only way to solve BB problem is to somehow show that *only* natural universes are infinitely large AND that they don't flucutate once it reaches equilibrium. (3/3)

A boltzmann bubble is just a local region of order within a surrounding area of disorder. In an infinitely large universe with high entropy, there would be an infinite amount of boltzmann bubbles of various size, with the smaller ones being more numerous. (2/3)

Guth describes our universe as appearing to be unbounded and possibly indefinitely expanding, but I don't think he suggests our universe is actually infinite in extent. However, even if there are somehow infinite ROs, that would likely imply infinite BBs as well. (1/3)

I'm also not a cosmology expert, but it doesn't seem like Guth's arguments provide for such a multiverse

Setting aside the nuances with measuring over infinities, the crux of the problem is the number of BBs vs ROs in your multiverse. It seems the only solution is to get a multiverse that somehow produces a huge number of low-entropy "natural" universes AND one that doesn't fluctuate out of equilibrium

Right, the reason that BBs are a problem is that everything from a single brain with false memories to an entire galaxy but with deceptive external photons can produce the exact same observations as a natural universe.

Ah ok I agree with that. So then this leads back to Guth's apparent response to this. Positing some sort of selection effect for universe size doesn't seem to solve the Boltzmann problem in its entirety.

In this discussion are they just assuming that there is in fact a Hubble volume and they aren't considering the possibility of a universe with illusory order?

I guess I don't understand Penrose's view on the BB problem. It's not just entire Hubble volumes that we are worried about forming through random fluctuation. It's any size of universe between the Hubble volume and one that only contains a single brain.

Also, for any given universe that lasts forever or sufficiently long enough, the high entropy state that spontaneously produces BBs is inevitable. So integrated over enough time, most universes contain many more BBs than ROs

I thought the primary issue was the surprisingly low initial entropy of our universe. I can see how universe size is factor to consider, but regardless of size, a universe that starts out with non-low entropy is much more likely to create boltzmann brains (BB) instead of regular observers (RO)

Right, that's the problem as I understand it. It wasn't clear to me that Guths response at min 35 of the video directly addresses this issue.