We might as well assume that we are not Boltzmann’s brains, just as we might as well assume that we are not brains in vats,īut our incentive to assume we are not seems like a Pascal’s wager argument.
How do we know we are not Boltzmann’s brains that just think we’re part of a bigger fluctuation with a lower entropy past? Or is it information that’s interpreted differently? Which seems to say it’s not the Gibbs or Shannon entropy that’s meant in QM. Information is conserved in QM, but entropy is not, Or maybe there’s something that makes momentum fundamentally less useful than energy for the purpose of counting macro states?ĭEntropy/dCharge? dEntropy/dBaryon? That seems strange to me,īut maybe there could be something in there related to osmosis. I don’t recall ever hearing anyone speak of dEntropy/dMomentumīut maybe it appears somewhere in work on fluid dynamic dissipation. Lead to other notions analogous to temperature for those quantities. That makes me wonder if using other conserved quantities for our macroscopic observable might (So a monotonicity is a consequence of a conservation/symmetry and a boundary condition) To a system with high (dEntropy/dEnergy)^-1, the number of possible micro states increases. Which has the natural consequence that when energy flows from a system with high (dEntropy/dEnergy)^-1 It seems like an obvious objective macroscopic observable of system would be its energy. Regarding the ideas in this particular video, To find where I could have gotten that impression.)
(I think I had the impression that the textbook would be more narrowly focused on quantum mechanics,īut since these videos are not (yet?) a textbook, they don’t have an index with with I might try If it will be structured along the lines of these videos? You’ve also mentioned that you were writing a textbook, so I’m wondering You remarked a few times in these videos that they are not “lectures”īut it seems to me that they would make a good basis for a nice textbook.
0 kommentar(er)
