Post by Eugene 2.0 on Oct 25, 2020 4:58:24 GMT
Boltzmann brain is a bunch separated particles (the sufficient elements of the University) which have been composed to a function brain, typical to a human-ish brain, that works a second or more and, supposedly, it can think like a human being.
Another way of imagine it is to say that each of us can be that type of brains – Boltzmann brains. Say we can think some things, we may remember our fake memories, solving tasks we never really have, etc. It's more like living in the Matrix, yet we are just a bunch of particles which have been groped together by a chance.
So, that "by chance", is it really possible? At first sight, the first formulation tells about it – casual bunch of the elements – and, nevertheless, it's always possible to say to anything that is casual. We might think our life has been living by chance, our thoughts are working by chance, the work of physical laws are casual. Moreover, the last one claim is the direct inference from the principle of relativity in the modern physics.
And there's some other ways to try to imagine that brain saying that the whole Universe has made occasionally. The last one has no really contradictions with the modern physics, is that so, it change our example from the foundations of parts to parts of foundations. In this example the real mind-task is being decomposed or disappears.
Ok, the most common objection to see us as the composition of parts is to understand that there's no need for such a brain to conclude about himself any false decisions. And the brains are of no to be taken for this example. What if the brain is a composition of parts which have been composed occasionally: if it confirms it, then it will be correct; if it denies that, it will be correct also, because no fake brains thoughts are real.
The second one is to see that denying occasionally we take necessity and they are both works similarly as in this Boltzmann brain experiment so in other typical ones, plus it has some flaws (I'll write down about it below). Necessity and occasionally may be taken as the same if and only if there have been no choices and no purposes. Having a choice for a thing is to do it intentionally or not, and that's the way to claim necessity/casuality; having a purpose for a thing is the way to say that something has been using the thing intentionally or not... and then we have the same result as in previous.
It allows us to say there's no real casuality the brain of Boltzmann experiment has, because neither from the point of the brain view, nor from a point of necessity/casuality we can logically imply (=we can't be sure about the conclusion) casuality of such a brain.
Flaws in necessity/casuality can be seen better in the Chaos problem. If to say that the chaos is a mess, and there's no order within, then we'll stuck in guessing what is like to have no order? Because either we say "it's mess", or "it has no order" we predicate some structure or, more precisely, conceptual structure to that chaos, and the chaos looses all its chaosness.
Another way of imagine it is to say that each of us can be that type of brains – Boltzmann brains. Say we can think some things, we may remember our fake memories, solving tasks we never really have, etc. It's more like living in the Matrix, yet we are just a bunch of particles which have been groped together by a chance.
So, that "by chance", is it really possible? At first sight, the first formulation tells about it – casual bunch of the elements – and, nevertheless, it's always possible to say to anything that is casual. We might think our life has been living by chance, our thoughts are working by chance, the work of physical laws are casual. Moreover, the last one claim is the direct inference from the principle of relativity in the modern physics.
And there's some other ways to try to imagine that brain saying that the whole Universe has made occasionally. The last one has no really contradictions with the modern physics, is that so, it change our example from the foundations of parts to parts of foundations. In this example the real mind-task is being decomposed or disappears.
Ok, the most common objection to see us as the composition of parts is to understand that there's no need for such a brain to conclude about himself any false decisions. And the brains are of no to be taken for this example. What if the brain is a composition of parts which have been composed occasionally: if it confirms it, then it will be correct; if it denies that, it will be correct also, because no fake brains thoughts are real.
The second one is to see that denying occasionally we take necessity and they are both works similarly as in this Boltzmann brain experiment so in other typical ones, plus it has some flaws (I'll write down about it below). Necessity and occasionally may be taken as the same if and only if there have been no choices and no purposes. Having a choice for a thing is to do it intentionally or not, and that's the way to claim necessity/casuality; having a purpose for a thing is the way to say that something has been using the thing intentionally or not... and then we have the same result as in previous.
It allows us to say there's no real casuality the brain of Boltzmann experiment has, because neither from the point of the brain view, nor from a point of necessity/casuality we can logically imply (=we can't be sure about the conclusion) casuality of such a brain.
Flaws in necessity/casuality can be seen better in the Chaos problem. If to say that the chaos is a mess, and there's no order within, then we'll stuck in guessing what is like to have no order? Because either we say "it's mess", or "it has no order" we predicate some structure or, more precisely, conceptual structure to that chaos, and the chaos looses all its chaosness.