@Background Pony #565E  
Oooh, interesting.

@Communist Starlight  
2020 here comrade, and we even got a new meme for you great leader Starlight.

@Background Pony #834C  
Star Trek is Star Trek, no one could ever stop liking it once they start.

you are a fan because you have a liking of content for a show but when that show ends you still are a fan for the reason of what you liked of that show and it can last as long as it is remembered look at Startrek.

Hon hon hon

@AwkwardLuna  
Well… Yeah. Franchise fandoms tend to go through phases of contraction and expansion.

Yeah, there’s no way of knowing. The current show won’t last forever, and despite Hasbro doing a good job keeping old fan interest up with FiM they’ll shift to a new tone with a sequel series, if need be to attract it’s primary demographic. Some won’t like the new format and lose interest, and some already have with the current show. The fandom will certainly continue to exist in some form but it will likely be much smaller.

@Darth Sonic  
I dunno. Someone said something about hoping ponies die, we rightfully chased them off with pitchforks and torches, then I somehow got to cosmology and theoretical physics. Like always.

@Darth Sonic  
There was a controversy because those who couldn’t see with foresight tripped over their own folly. I have shewed true pony-ways to all here and have quelled the rabble. I am that one character who goes, uluta gee fo.

What confuses me the most about this thread is why there was any controversy in the first place?
 
This article states the obvious: The Brony fandom is attached to a franchise, a long-running franchise, and not a singular series like Steven Universe. Franchise fandoms tend to have longevity, regardless of shows ending or the quality of current iterations (just look at the Sonic fandom there). Therefore, the Brony fandom will have similar longevity.
 
I swear, many in this fandom seem so attached to the cynical idea that the Brony fandom is not special, that it ends up like humanity in the Cthulu Mythos: We become so insignificant that we become special and unique in our insignificance.

@monikerpending  
F**k. Too late.

@Einsman  
No, build a statue of the other gods and worship them. Do not worship the likes of Discord, Tirek, and the other foul beings. Start the worship of Twarkle SParkle so you may gain true knowledge of ponies only she can grant.

@monikerpending  
Can I build a statue of you to worship

Some of you gibber, others jabber. Celestia has given me the true wisdom that transcends and supersedes your notions. I have conquered all tyranny, and I am the herald of a greater thing to come. First Jesus will come and do his magic tricks, then I will lead you all to Equestria.

@Eeveeinheat  
Wait, what was that bit about “everything is real”?
 
Also, circular logic actually does have a little grounding in mathematical proofs by induction.
 
Maybe it’s not exactly circular, but it’s pretty darn close…
 
The problem is really when it makes a circle and then destroys its support columns when it comes back around…

@Eeveeinheat  
Perhaps I should have stated from the get go that I was kinda trolling. Your right, it’s pointless to debate Boltzmann Brains because of how bullshit circular it all is (not to mention outdated). At the same time, it’s technically a positions that can’t be argued against, so it makes for a fun bit of trolling.
 
@Einsman  
Please don’t start a Humanities VS STEM fight. As a Sci-Fi fan, I can’t help but feel like the crying child watching mommy and daddy fight, and daddy STEM is reaching for the rolling pin…

@Cirrus Light  
Physics has no place in philosophy, casual!

@Darth Sonic  

 
I don’t even care what you are debating, just never use this ‘logic’ again. You are correct that it is circular logic, so there is no “at least”. The fact that it is circular makes it irrelevant and useless in logical debates. The only assumption you should assume to be true in physics and math is that everything is real, otherwise there is no point in even arguing. It’s like an axiom. Everyone needs to agree on it, or else it is useless to debate it.

@Darth Sonic  
But then you can’t even trust the laws of physics that led you to hypothesize Boltzmann brains in the first place, namely, entropy.
 
At least solipsism doesn’t take down its own support pillars.
 
There was a physics quandary with this as well in cosmology. If each moment is far higher entropy than the last, then it’s more likely the universe popped into existence with your memories in place than your memories are true - but then you can’t even trust the physics that led you to that conclusion if you can’t trust your memories.
 
The solution is a universe that simply starts with low entropy.
 
Some inflationary cosmology models actually propose that the big bang arose due to a quantum fluctuation in the inflaton field basically causing a big bang that started our universe. This more or less goes outside the realm where entropy remains valid.
 
Entropy can be restated as the decreasing of thermodynamic gradients, since those can produce work. So if a quantum phenomenon more or less creates a rapidly expanding pocket of space, then quantum inequalities are blown up to macroscopic sizes, leading to macroscopic thermodynamic gradients. Viola’. Order out of chaos, literally, since quantum fluctuations are completely random.
 
Quantum mechanics is known to break all kinds of laws with its uncertainty, but typically people don’t care because they’re restricted to quantum intervals, and over larger intervals average out to something that doesn’t violate all those laws.
 
But if you blow up a quantum space with a rapidly expanding space like the early universe… Yeah.

@Cirrus Light  
Or all the physics you just posted in rebuttal is physics made up by your Boltzmann Brain to justify why you are not a Boltzmann Brain, because you cannot stand the loneliness otherwise implied by being what you are.
 
Yes, it’s bullshit circular logic, but it’s bullshit circular logic that you can’t technically dispute with logic and science, as it’s starting premise is that logic and science are creations of the Boltzmann Brain.

@Darth Sonic  
Self aware entities born out of high entropy environments? I don’t see how that’s a rebuttal.
 
Also I think people take entropy way too seriously. One thing you must understand is that you can’t really declare it ad hoc. It must be used in predictions with very specific criteria, because what does “order” mean, anyways?
 
Secondly the universe shouldn’t be a thermodynamic soup because of gravity. In fact, most cosmological models assume that the very early universe was, in fact, a thermodynamic soup, but that gravity caused the coalescence of matter into structures such as super clusters, galaxies, solar systems, stars and planets.
 
Thirdly, classic theory cannot overrule observation. If they are in disagreement, then theory is probably wrong, or has reached the limits of its application,* rather than observation.
 
*For example, classical mechanics aren’t wrong per sae, they just only apply in circumstances where the speeds are much less than light, gravity is weak, and sufficiently larger than quantum scales.

@Cirrus Light  
Rebuttal: Boltzmann Brains.

@Einsman  
Math is immune to this nonsense xp
 
Also, yeah no. You sound probably spend more time studying physics if you think that way…

@monikerpending  
Truth is subjective. Everything is a potential lie. Nobody is ever what they seem. Which side of the mirror are we on? Where does reality end and dreams begin? Ask yourself: Who ARE you? Ignore the answer.

@Einsman  
You want to go. Do you have truth to share from some knave?