Boltzmannbrain

Wikipedia says it well in their Quantum Mind page, It's still early, but there have been some interesting progress towards the possibility of QM as a functional part of the brain that correlates to consciousness.

I was talking more about QM having correlations to the mind.

Integrated information theory would probably interest you if you don't already know about it. I don't think the question anymore is if QM plays any sort of a role, but rather to what extent. There is more and more QM falling through the cracks of warm macroscopic systems.

Yes, I totally agree.

I used to have these kinds of wild thoughts before I learnt about this subject. Either you swallow your pride and learn what has already been discovered, or you will plug away in your own imaginary reality that nobody agrees with.

I think the how will lead you to the what. Current scientific papers are a good place to look for special topics because they will discuss the latest research and even give educated opinions in the introduction. I am sure if you type in graviton in the Google Scholar search, you will find a lot of good information.

Depends on how much physics the person understands I guess. If you understand enough, you can try going to the Google Scholar search and putting in key words to find any papers written on the topic.

I found that quite surprising too, but I don't think I would start doubting everything.

I have good news and bad news. The bad news first: you do not understand Einstein's theory of general relativity. The good news is that if you read and understand what the posters are saying, you will see how different the theory is from classical mechanics.

This question gets explained starting at 6:00

I don't understand what you are saying. How is a multiverse and the idea of a multiverse different? The reason why I posted this thread is because the Doug Adams quote, or this line of thinking, is probably not an agreed upon solution. Afterall, that line of thinking was my first reaction when I first heard of this "problem". It just seems too obvious for the scientists out there who are contemplating this and who still call this a problem. I have to think that there is more to this than the quote or how I am thinking about this in the OP.

From Wiki, " Theories requiring fine-tuning are regarded as problematic in the absence of a known mechanism to explain why the parameters happen to have precisely the observed values that they return. The heuristic rule that parameters in a fundamental physical theory should not be too fine-tuned is called naturalness." Fine-tuning (physics) - Wikipedia

Stuart Kauffman has done many videos about the fine-tunning problem of the universe. I have watched all of them, and I still do know exactly how it is problem. It has been mentioned that this universe, if it is the only universe, is improbable in various readings I have come across. But I have yet to really understand exactly how the probability is calculated. This is how I am confused about why we need a multiverse. Let's say there were x possible universes. 0.1% of them have life. Okay, now, from our perspective, after it happened, why should this seem improbable? it has already happened! As an analogy, I have a glass of water. If I point out 1 h2o molecule, and I ask what the probability of that water molecule entering my glass was when it was created, say 100 years ago, it should be quite low. Of course I should not be perplexed in any way because it has already happened. How is the fine-tuned universe improbable after it has already happened? (The first couple minutes gives a brief summary of the problem of fine-tuning.)

For anyone interested, I did some digging around and found that the infinite sum of 1/2^n is actually 2, and not just arbitrarily close to 2.

You skipped a very important part. If you want to understand me, you have to include the quote that you did not include in your last post. "I was told on here that the infinite sum of 1/2^n = 1, and not just gets close but actually equals 1." And then I said, "I can't help but notice that we are giving infinity a definite beginning point at 1/2 and a definite end point at 1." Well, when they swap the word "mean" with a equals sign, I take that to mean "equals" also.

It says "the sum", not the limit. It also shows more examples of it being the sum and not the limit. Here is another example, "When we have marked off 1/2, we still have a piece of length 1/2 unmarked, so we can certainly mark the next 1/4. This argument does not prove that the sum is equal to 2 (although it is), but it does prove that it is at most 2. In other words, the series has an upper bound. Given that the series converges, proving that it is equal to 2 requires only elementary algebra. If the series is denoted S, it can be seen that Therefore,

Wiki just shows the infinite sum as being 1 without the limit notation, (at the top) 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + ⋯ - Wikipedia

I did not have to put a limit anywhere to get 1.

This is how I am getting that the partial sums would total 1. (2^n-1)/2^n = sum of 1/2^n sum of 1/2^n (when n goes to infinity) = 1 -> (2^n-1)/2^n (when n goes to infinity) = 1

How can that be? The definition says that the infinite sum of 1/2^n = 1. This would mean that the partial sums total 1.

I was watching some professor on YouTube talking a little while ago (I only watch lectures from top universities), and he said something like "we never reach the limit but of course in some sense it does". Now of course I cannot find the video. Anyways, I also want to say that the definition of the infinite sum seems to imply that the sequence (2^n-1)/2^n reaches its limit. If it doesn't reach its limit, then that is in conflict with the definition. What proofs? If there is a proof that the infinite sum of 1/2^n does not equal 1, then wouldn't that be proving the definition wrong? No it doesn't. As you have said, there is not someone cutting each slice one by one in a limited amount of time. Clearly that wouldn't end. What if all infinite (all n of N) slices were cut in, say, 1 second. What would be left? That is not an accurate interpretation of my OP. My perception of infinite would not have an end or a final point.

Yes, I agree that time/humans have nothing to do with what numbers exist. But I still need to know if it reaches 1 or not with or without humans existing.

Because my issue in the OP has essential come down to the sequence from the partial sums of 1/2^n, namely (n-1)/n. If this actually reaches 1, then my issue in the OP is still a problem. +1's given yesterday

Yes, the steps make sense now. Thanks! Now it seems like the argument has become more about whether or not infinite functions actually reach the limits they converge to. So does something like 1/n ever reach 0 after using the whole set of natural numbers?

Do we have to use partial sums to define the limit of a sequence? I don't remember leaning that. I just learnt the definition E>0, n>N --> |an - L| > E I don't think that I am misunderstanding anything. But maybe I am missing something important about the partial sum part. I will explain what is going on in my head with a question. The limit of the infinite series 1/2^n is 1. Why isn't this enough to define the sum as 1? Obviously the sum is 1 (or arbitrarily close). Why do we need the partial sums part? How does it help tell us that the series is 1?