Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
Sean Carroll (a well-known physicist who actively and professionally participates in philosophical discussions at both the popular and academic levels )in a recent article examines in detail why the Boltzmann brain hypothesis is most likely false. The article is academic, you need to be a physicist to accurately describe it, and I am a literary worker. Therefore, I will leave a link and ask experts to pay attention. https://arxiv.org/abs/1702.00850
These hypotheses will be able to follow from somewhere only when they receive empirically verifiable content. Until then, this is pure metaphysics, and science is not concerned with metaphysics. If we talk about the philosophical side of the issue, then these are just another solipsistic assumptions that can be discarded for meaninglessness – they do not have any empirical, but also any other meaningful meaning.
I will answer this question in the words of A. Einstein: “Man is a part of the whole that calls us the universe, a part that is limited in time and space. He feels himself, his thoughts and feelings as something independent and unique, which is a kind of optical illusion. This delusion forces us to live in an illusory world of our own desires and limit ourselves to communicating with a narrow circle of people close to us. Our task is to overcome the stagnation of thinking and embrace the whole world, in all its grandeur and splendor.” With respect.
It should not be, because there is no truly truthful evidence for these 2 hypotheses.
We are just brains encased in the skulls of newly evolved apes.
Boltzmann brains are too complicated for me. As for the simulation: for example, a billiard player breaks a pyramid, and at the moment when the cue ball breaks off from the cue, it is clearly predetermined to the micron how these balls will stop. The observer may not know the result in advance only due to the lack of calculations of the initial information about the impact force, the elasticity of colliding objects, the strength and direction of wind flows, air composition, etc., etc. It doesn't matter if it started with the big bang or not. The result of any interaction is uniquely determined by the initial interaction conditions. The result becomes the initial conditions for subsequent interaction, and so on. Why is this all fundamentally not a simulation? The emphasis is Hollywood or human egocentric to shift away from related thoughts: who is the observer or creator of all this, why, what is the role of everyone, what is the meaning of life and similar human nonsense, then the main sign of simulation is obvious.