What is a Boltzmann Brain? (Thought Experiment)

[@subliminallime4321]

I've always understood these sorts of ad hoc skeptical scenarios like brain in a jar, the Matrix, solipsism, etc... to not necessarily be positive arguments for these positions, but more of a way to point out that most of us are foundationalists, or maybe as a tool to think about which beliefs are properly basic. They're fun to think about though.

[@decouvrir69]

What are your thoughts on holographic duality? Gravity doesn’t exist.. biocentrism, metaphysical solipsism & Boltzmann brain theories all play into one another.

[@Anonymous-yh4ol]

​@@decouvrir69Interesting

[@Tyler-df8ht]

I appreciate the video, my friend. Thank you! Cogito ergo, I truly appreciate the notion I'm forgiven that I have become but the error of my ways. The modal logic of this thought experiment is a great stride in ending the fallacies one generates such that emotional intelligence often disregards higher faculties of reasoning. Wave particle duality may very well claim, we exist in and out of flux with the Boltzmann brain, cognition as a dynamic of continuity always morphing and disrupted by varying polarities found in our electromagnetic spectrum in relation to super gravitational forces bound by earths weak and super nuclear forces... but we have primitive quantum mechanics for all of that.

[@zsoltnagy5654]

Thank you for that response and reference, Carneades. Though I wouldn't consider any of your videos to be "old", since sure each of them have your very specific style and format, but they also are at the same time very minimalistic and are on point. In that regard your videos are very much so timeless. I guess, that it all depends on the definition of the notion of "person" - What makes a person into a person? - as also @Eta Carinae has pointed this out. It always comes down to _"Dumbfounding _*_Definitions,_*_ Dizzying Distinctions, and Diabolical Doctrines"._ So of course materialists might or might not adapt my definition/distinction/doctrine of a "person". I just wanted to show another such credo to the notion of "person" - "You are what you eat." I guess, that I'm just more submitted towards the more excentric eastern philosophy than towards the more egocentric western philosophy. Apropos, excentric eastern philosophy! I don't know, which other media do you enjoy besides reading books, but in this regard I like to give a recommendation of a japanese anime called *"Earth Maiden Arjuna" (2001).* This is a bit older than your video. But it has quality to it and presents that excentric eastern philosophy quite beautifully and effectively. If we are, what we eat, and we are constantly changing with, what we are inhaling/exhaling, then the individuality of a person, through which a person might defined him or herself, might just be an illusion, since we are descended not from multiple "individual" natures, but just from only "one" nature, which doesn't make such a distinction between individual persons: The same nature and rules apply to all of us - not individually in any apparently given way.

[@SuperGoldenDuck666]

I’ve used to watch ur channel to understand my philosophy course but now I just watch it cuz I found it so interesting and I got addicted to ur vids lol

[@kato_dsrdr]

Man, what if I'm just a boltzmann brain.. Maybe i will actually exist for just a second but the brain manages to make that one second look like my entire lifetime.. And when I think about it, it's probably more likely that I'm a boltzmann brain formed through sheer time and probability than being a product of literal billions if not trillions of chain of events leading to my existence.. Damn..

[@decouvrir69]

So gravity doesn’t exist right. Research into holographic duality - specifically the work happening with NASA and university of Michigan. Metaphysical solipsism, biocentrism, Boltzmann brain theories all play into one another. You could be the only thing that even exists inside ur reality. Like the president whole nine yards - just your own creation. They could be all Boltzmanns. You could be the non Boltzmann brain but the millions of other you’s, are the Boltzmanns too. Wild stuff

[@Eta_Carinae__]

The way I've had this explicated to me is that the Boltzmann brain is more likely to exist than the entire natural history of the universe leading up to the formation of regular brains, by dint of the succession of events being multiplied along the probabilities. The thing that stood out to me was of course, that such an argument rests on the machinations of a universe whose likely existence is being challenged. From here is a fork: the first prong is that it's not clear what would count as a random local reverse gradient-flow of entropy that _causes_ a brain. Our best empirical theories do refer to such a process as having taken place, more or less. The argument becomes more something like: "it is more likely that an object is caused by a random process than by a determined one." The same argument works as well for non-brains. But the likelihood is small for small timescales, and taken universally becomes either incoherent or trivial; I think at that point the notion of randomness would have to break down, so it depends on what you would mean. The second prong is to take a natural history of any of these "possible universes" modally accessible, which would be defined under the same laws of physics, etc. and realise Boltzmann brains are as likely in these universes also, not _more_ likely. You can sum/integrate over these universes probabilities to get a number bigger than this one, but you could do the same thing over the space of universes which do have analogous causal chains as well. The boundary of disanalogy is unclear, so too will be the number. Those were my first impressions, anyway.

[@manjsher3094]

After the short quiz, turns out I am a Boltzmann brain. Neato

[@DjiBalz]

That's Ego the living planet

[@waliaphellps1745]

What is very striking about this arbitrariness is that the spontaneously created consciousness harbors memories and information not obtained as a result of experiences or through observation of the environment. This implies that the knowledge possessed by Bolztmann's brain thus created is a fantasy and has nothing to do with the surrounding reality. This also applies to us, understood as beings who have lived, observed and experienced, but from the point of view that knowledge has fractal characteristics and, therefore, it will never be possible to develop a correct model of reality. A scientific community may believe that it has it 99.9% but what remains, that apparently tiny fraction, is as vast and complex as everything supposedly advanced so far.

[@KaiHenningsen]

I'd say the question of being a Boltzmann Brain or a piece of a simulation are, essentially, the same situation as the question of Solipsism, and the same non-answers present themselves. I do not think it is really worth investing a lot of thought into, but I'm sure there are people who will, and will tell us about any great insights they get.

[@manaisle507]

See that is the problem with taking entropy as your only measure. Physics has many more laws that have to be considered, for example the uncertanty principle. The one relating uncertanty between position and impules is rather well-known, but you can also derive one for energy and time, that is the product of uncertainty in energy and uncertainty in time has some upper limit in the order of magnitude of planck's constant. but you can imagine that a brain is quite massive, and you can relate the mass to its energy with E=mc^2. Overall for a brain to pop into existance and back out like fundamental particles do wouldn't leave even close to enough time to make even a single easy thought. And it just popping into existance for a long time would obviously violate energy conservation. Another thing to note is that the law of thermodynamics says entropy is most likely to increase, but not that it can't be low in the first place. Saying that it would be unlikely for a high-ordered universe such as the universe near the big-bang to exist is nonesensical, as we measure this likelihood from particles within this universe. The laws of thermodynamics make no claim about how this universe came into existance (with it's low entropy); just general notions on how it' contents will evolve most likely.

[@cliffordhodge1449]

As I understand this, it is a brain-in-a-vat variation, with the difference that the brain-in-vat scenario is reached as a conclusion from an argument beginning with assumptions about physical laws. The problem is that once you reach the conclusion about your brain having just come to be, and fully supplied with memories, the premises are now undermined, being all taken from your memory, from your representations of your supposed experiences. It's like the Firesign Theatre album when the guy says, "Everything you know is wrong." If this is your state, if you are a Boltzmann Brain, why would you talk of such things as laws of physics or even think you can construct an argument to conclude that you are a Boltzmann Brain? If you conclude that everything you believe about the world which is not you is illusion or falsehood, you cannot use those beliefs to conclude that everything you believe about the world which is not you is illusion or falsehood. And what could possibly be your basis for comparing probabilities of different scenarios? The whole thing seems such a fragile construction that the induction problem does not even need to be adduced.

[@CarneadesOfCyrene]

Interesting idea. The point of the argument is the according to physical laws a Boltzmann brain is possible, just unlikely, by the random bouncing of particles in a space. It is an interesting question of whether a Boltzmann brain could have any justified beliefs, given that their justification for those beliefs is not actually based on a chain of reasoning, but simply the result of the atoms suddenly forming in that pattern as opposed to another. All the more reason to be skeptical of everything (though not assume you are a Boltzmann brain), because you might be a Boltzmann brain and have your justifications be undermined because they are just the way the atoms happened to arrange themselves.

[@FairnessIsTheAnswer]

I want a super capable brain. I'm hoping that it will instantly pop into existence. And the first thing I will do with my super capable brain is to determine how to keep it from deteriorating. I could use my new super capable brain to learn how to be in bliss, but I'm worried that bliss is addictive and then I'll never get out.

[@havenbastion]

"Much more likely" means nothing whatever when we have exactly zero reason to believe a mechanism for such a thing as an entire mind-brain popping into existence without being formed is even possible. All known existences of brains did Not come about that way. Statistics is a measure of the upper limit of uncertainty. It is meta-knowledge, not knowledge.

[@faulkgough1768]

well, as nothing you "see" "touch" "smell" or in anyway interact with, is what is really is happening; you are just your brain interpreting those interactions. I am no more real; as we have never spoken before; than anything else. And don't think of brains, but more of the idea of concepts. The concept of a thing that just now knew it was a thing and had memories is much easier to happen than a universe worth of trial and error. I'm not saying Boltzmann Brains are right, but, philosophy is a janky place.

[@shanecoleman5309]

Surely this idea assumes that thermodynamics holds true while simultaneously assuming that thermodynamic theories as developed by the human race are just an imcidental "memory" on the part of the boltzman brain

[@VidkunQL]

So? Our theories of thermodynamics were developed over centuries of experimentation and careful thought; they are supported by enormous amounts of evidence. If they are correct, then this argument claims that that evidence is almost certainly imaginary. If they are _not_ correct, then that evidence is almost certainly imaginary. (Personally I consider the argument deeply flawed, and the historical evidence almost certainly real.)

[@guillatra]

When you ask how likely it is, that we are Boltzmann Brains, do you mean you and me?

[@faulkgough1768]

we mean me, because, this is all just a false memory of mine. it is a really hard idea to get behind.. but... the base concept is... you just now became aware.... everything before right now... is not real... your whole life, the whole world, everything... not real statistically, all of that randomly happening is harder to make than a random brain to form with those thoughts. the universe could form a random brain that has a whole universe's life memories, then it dies more easily that it could create whole star systems with convoluted areas of heat and light and food and.... ...

[@garethcroson8851]

Your argument would only hold water if you are the Boltzmann brain. But if I'm the Boltzmann brain, then those laws are constant and will still exist and still apply to reality tomorrow.

[@faulkgough1768]

that's rather missing the point... There is only one, and it is... well, me. see, that's the kicker. you would have no way of knowing... everything up until right now, is a lie... you are the only being to have ever been. You just...... remember... Of course I am the Brain. I am the one living all of this. you can't look at Boltzmann brain like normal... it requires abstract thought.

[@garethcroson8851]

@@faulkgough1768 Lol.

[@faulkgough1768]

@@garethcroson8851 why you laugh?

[@garethcroson8851]

@@faulkgough1768 Because nothing so purely hypothetical can be taken so seriously. It's a theoretical rabbit hole.

[@sexyeur]

@@garethcroson8851 Thank you. It's exactly stupid as for stupid'sake.

[@VidkunQL]

This is what I dislike about academic philosophy. Suppose I came up with a really good rebuttal to the Boltzmann Brain argument, and stated it here. Would that be the end of the matter? Some press, an honorary PhD or two, and it's settled? No. That's what would happen in science or mathematics, but not in academic philosophy. Unsound ideas persist, bad arguments pile up on both sides of every controversy, and academic philosophers stay employed.

[@technofeeling2462]

I find that so sexist. Why is it Bolzmann and not Bolzwoman? ;)

[@zsoltnagy5654]

Not just this "probable Boltzmann brain" raises challenges for claims of personal identity. Materialism on its own quite frankly is already capable of raising such challenges: If any person - any actually existing person, God not necessarily included, is made out of matter and any person is identifying him- or herself with his or hers own matter, then by what means does a person from five seconds ago remains to be the same person now, since that matter, which that person might be identifying with, is "constantly" changing over time? With every breathing - inhale and exhale of different matter - the matter of a person is changing. So the associated/identified person should also be expected to be changing alongside that changing of matter. "Inhaling air with more oxygen Alice" is not the same "identified person"/specified/associated matter as "exhaling air with more carbon dioxide Alice" so to speak.

[@CarneadesOfCyrene]

Interesting ideas. While this poses some issues things like the somatic approach to personal identity offer responses from a more materialistic perspective, (here's my video on this, warning it is very old kzbin.info/www/bejne/qXqsiZZrgMytobM). Materialists don't need to hold that something must have all the same molecules to be the same thing over time.

[@Eta_Carinae__]

I don't know if you would call it materialism, but it is adequately scientific: we may draw a statistical boundary across organisms whose interiors represent a set of correlated random variables within a Markov chain. The issue with this approach is that the boundary has to also be a stochastic object to fully subsume all our identification schemas, but it's usually sufficient.

[@michaelgarrow3239]

Just another argument on weather God exists….

[@marcinsarnicki6375]

boltzmann brain theory, monkeys and typewriters ⌨️🐒

[@wellbutrinwellbutrin7387]

Who cares? I got lotion on my wick rn