• Banno
    24.5k
    But it's a faith, not something supported by empirical evidence.Michael

    As if basing one's beliefs on empirical evidence were not an act of faith... If you are a Boltzmann brain, what are the chances of your having just happened to have imagined into being a world that exactly corresponds to the actual world? You happened to drop into existence in a way that allows you to realise you are a Boltzmann brain...

    Pretty suspicious. Perhaps a good argument for solipsism...

    Are you still there?
  • Janus
    16.1k
    Yes, I would say that discussion performatively, if not logically, presupposes the existence of a mutually experienced world external to the body. We all believe in such a world, so why give any air to faux-doubt about it?
  • Banno
    24.5k
    IF you are a Boltzmann brain, all bets are off. The coffee container might contain a lion. The cup will have fallen down a black hole inside the cupboard.

    But this is not the world we experience.

    I'm happy to treat this as a reductio; the persistence and predictability of the world shows that the Boltzmann brain argument is in error, even if it is not clear exactly what that error is.

    And that is not a disproof of Boltzmann brain theory, so much as a rejection of mere quibbling.

    Something like that.
  • Michael
    15.2k
    As if basing one's beliefs on empirical evidence were not an act of faith... If you are a Boltzmann brain, what are the chances of your having just happened to have imagined into being a world that exactly corresponds to the actual world? You happened to drop into existence in a way that allows you to realise you are a Boltzmann brain...Banno

    There are, broadly speaking, four possibilities:

    1. We are Boltzmann brains and our scientific theories are mostly correct
    2. We are Boltzmann brains and our scientific theories are mostly incorrect
    3. We are not Boltzmann brains and our scientific theories are mostly correct
    4. We are not Boltzmann brains and our scientific theories are mostly incorrect

    If our scientific theories are mostly correct then either (1) or (3) is the case, with (1) being most likely (as per those very scientific theories).

    So one of these is true:

    a. We are most likely Boltzmann brains (1 or 3)
    b. Our scientific theories are mostly incorrect (2 or 4)
  • creativesoul
    11.9k
    The argument is valid:

    1. There are far more long-lived Boltzmann brains than long-lived humans
    2. I am long-lived
    3. Therefore, I am more likely to be a Boltzmann brain than a human
    Michael

    It is impossible for a human to not be a human.
  • Michael
    15.2k
    It is impossible for a human to not be a human.creativesoul

    And it's impossible for a Boltzmann brain to not be a Boltzmann brain, or for a horse to not be a horse.

    What of it?
  • creativesoul
    11.9k
    What of it?Michael

    It's odd to me when one exclaims that they are more likely to be a philosophical tool for thinking than a human whose thinking and/or using the tool.

    That's what.
  • Michael
    15.2k
    It's odd to me when one exclaims that they are more likely to be a philosophical tool of thinking than a human.creativesoul

    It is a fact that our current scientific theories entail that we are more likely to be Boltzmann brains than ordinary humans.

    It's certainly counter-intuitive, but then so is much of science. I won't claim that my intuitions ought take precedence over scientific evidence.
  • creativesoul
    11.9k


    :smile:

    :insert shaka:
  • Lionino
    2.7k
    that discussion performatively, if not logically, presupposes the existence of a mutually experienced world external to the bodyJanus

    Where there has never been language use, there could have never been any discussion such as this one. It does not matter if one believes that or not.creativesoul

    That still does not defeat solipsism, what I said before to Banno applies to language too:
    In the case that I think there is no world, it follows that I believe that everything around me is merely a projection of my mind (or simply is my mind). If I also believe that I am here discussing for a purpose, it could very well be that I believe that I am interacting with the very contents of my mindLionino
  • Janus
    16.1k
    That still does not defeat solipsism, what I said before to Banno applies to language too:
    In the case that I think there is no world, it follows that I believe that everything around me is merely a projection of my mind (or simply is my mind). If I also believe that I am here discussing for a purpose, it could very well be that I believe that I am interacting with the very contents of my mind
    Lionino

    Solipsism cannot be defeated with certainty, but it is defeated by plausibility. You say, "in the case that I think there is no world", but no one or almost no one thinks that due to its implausibility. The issue of solipsism only gets raised because we cannot be, as with many other things, absolutely certain it is not the case.
  • Banno
    24.5k
    Yep.

    And given that there is a brain, the longer it persists the less likely it is to be merely a quantum fluctuation.

    You are nothing if not persistent.

    (See what I did there? )

    That still does not defeat solipsismLionino

    No, it doesn't, but it might reduce the solipsist to the status of a mere object of ridicule.

    That is, in both these cases, as in the case of the existence of the world, there may be a point at which one's credulity is strained a bit too far. That point will be different for different folk, some of whom never participate in philosophy fora, some who treat it as an amusement and a very few who take it seriously enough to find themselves in an asylum.

    So perhaps all up it is not unreasonable to take things at face value?

    At the least, it makes it easier to buy coffee.
  • Janus
    16.1k
    It is a fact that our current scientific theories entail that we are more likely to be Boltzmann brains than ordinary humans.Michael

    No, it is a fact that some interpretations of our current scientific theories entail that we are more likely to be Boltzmann brains than ordinary humans. It pays to remember that scientific theories, and science generally, only tell us how to make sense of how things appear to be to ordinary humans.
  • creativesoul
    11.9k
    that discussion performatively, if not logically, presupposes the existence of a mutually experienced world external to the body
    — Janus

    Where there has never been language use, there could have never been any discussion such as this one. It does not matter if one believes that or not.
    — creativesoul

    That still does not defeat solipsism...
    Lionino

    Solipsism is a philosophical idea. It is a language construct. Language constructs are existentially dependent upon shared meaning; shared meaning... more than one mind. It is impossible for solipsism to be true.




    ...what I said before to Banno applies to language too:
    In the case that I think there is no world, it follows that I believe that everything around me is merely a projection of my mind (or simply is my mind). If I also believe that I am here discussing for a purpose, it could very well be that I believe that I am interacting with the very contents of my mind
    — Lionino
    Lionino

    Solipsism is a philosophical idea. All philosophical ideas are existentially dependent upon language use. Language use... shared meaning; shared meaning... more than one mind... solipsism... more than one mind.
  • Michael
    15.2k
    And given that there is a brain, the longer it persists the less likely it is to be merely a quantum fluctuation.Banno

    But still more likely than not being a Boltzmann brain.
  • Banno
    24.5k
    In the case that I think there is no world, it follows that I believe that everything around me is merely a projection of my mind (or simply is my mind). If I also believe that I am here discussing for a purpose, it could very well be that I believe that I am interacting with the very contents of my mindLionino

    That whole thing radically changes what is usually meant by "mind' and "my".

    I understand what it is to dream - the world around me is no dream. I understand what it is to imagine or fantasise - the world around me is no such phantasm. So if the world around me is somehow a construct of my mind, it is very different to other mental constructs.

    So different that one might be tempted to call it "real"?
  • Banno
    24.5k
    But still more likely than not being a Boltzmann brain.Michael

    Are you still here?

    Good.
  • creativesoul
    11.9k
    The issue of solipsism only gets raised because we cannot be, as with many other things, absolutely certain it is not the case.Janus

    I am.
  • Michael
    15.2k
    It pays to remember that scientific theories, and science generally, only tell us how to make sense of how things appear to be to ordinary humans.Janus

    They tell us how to make sense of how things appear to us. Whether or not we are ordinary humans or Boltzmann brains is the very question being considered.

    it is a fact that some interpretations of our current scientific theories entail that we are more likely to be Boltzmann brains than ordinary humans.Janus

    Not just some, but the leading theories.
  • Banno
    24.5k
    It pays to remember that scientific theories, and science generally, only tell us how to make sense of how things appear to be to ordinary humans.Janus

    I wonder what more Janus wants? What more could he want?
  • Janus
    16.1k
    I am.creativesoul

    I also feel absolutely certain that solipsism is not the case, but since it cannot be proven to not be the case, I cannot be absolutely certain.

    ↪Michael I wonder what more Janus wants? What more could he want?Banno

    That's all I want, and since it seems incoherent to want something unimaginable, you might also say it's all I could want.

    They tell us how to make sense of how things appear to us. Whether or not we are ordinary humans or Boltzmann brains is the very question being considered.Michael

    If Boltzmann brains are random fluctuations, it begs the question as to how anything like that could make sense of anything, and thus how they could (in concert?) construct the whole edifice we know as science.

    Also, if, as Boltzmann brains our remembered past histories are illusions, whence the shared memories that humans routinely experience? Can you make sense of that? How far back into the memories of the past before we, as Boltzmann brains, encounter illusion? Years, months, day, hours, a few seconds. The whole idea seems, however it might be supported by (the mathematics of?) some theories, absurd. Are not all theories interpretations? Are our memories of what we have learned of science and mathematics also illusions? If so, then how can we justifiably use them to support any conclusions at all?
  • Banno
    24.5k
    ...since it cannot be proven to not be the case, I cannot be absolutely certain.Janus
    Drop the requirement of proof and take it as a "hinge" proposition, not to be subject to doubt.

    That's all I want, and since it seems incoherent to want something unimaginable, you might also say it's all I could want.Janus
    Yep. It's not as if, that the description is only as it appears to ordinary humans implies that the description is wrong... But that seems to be what some folk think.
  • Banno
    24.5k
    @Michael?

    You still there?

    Damn.

    :yikes:
  • Janus
    16.1k
    Drop the requirement of proof and take it as a "hinge" proposition, not to be subject to doubt.Banno

    :up: Yes, I think I do, but some are not satisfied with being unable to attain the unattainable.
  • Michael
    15.2k
    Are not all theories interpretations? Are our memories of what we have learned of science and mathematics also illusions? If so, then how can we justifiably use them to support any conclusions at all?Janus

    See here.
  • wonderer1
    2.2k
    There are, broadly speaking, four possibilities:

    1. We are Boltzmann brains and our scientific theories are mostly correct
    2. We are Boltzmann brains and our scientific theories are mostly incorrect
    3. We are not Boltzmann brains and our scientific theories are mostly correct
    4. We are not Boltzmann brains and our scientific theories are mostly incorrect

    If our scientific theories are mostly correct then either (1) or (3) is the case, with (1) being most likely (as per those very scientific theories).

    So one of these is true:

    a. We are most likely Boltzmann brains (1 or 3)
    b. Our scientific theories are mostly incorrect (2 or 4)
    Michael

    This ignores the fact that some aspects of science are far more speculative than others, and that a binary distinction between mostly correct and mostly incorrect doesn't address the fact that Boltzmann brains are a matter of speculation and not observation.
  • Corvus
    3k
    Well yes, there are good reasons to doubt that the cup will remain in the cupboard. The point here is simply that your "when I am not perceiving the world, there is no reason that I can believe in the existence of the world" is not a good reason to think that the cup has disappeared from the cupboard.Banno
    When you are not perceiving the world, you wouldn't be asking the question where is my cup, would you? The question sounds absurd.

    This had me puzzling. How do you go about buying coffee? There's the package on the shelf at the store, brightly labeled "Dark Roast". But when one is not perceiving the coffee,Banno
    Again when you are not perceiving the world, you wouldn't be going out buying coffee either. Isn't it an absurd puzzling? The puzzle must be an illusion when you are not perceiving the world. Where does your puzzle come from?
  • Corvus
    3k
    But it's not a belief. The world really exists. And it really exists precisely because there is nothing outside of ideas or perceptions. Since there is nothing outside those, there is no "outside" at all, and since there is no outside, the so-called "inside" is actually the world itself. So the world does exist. It lies within the idea itself. Idealism leads to realism and realism leads to idealism. It's a "loop".LFranc
    When one is a hard idealist, and the world is just a representation in his mind, it would be hard to refute him. Indeed if what you see is a representation of the world, how do you know the real world?
    If you are a part of the world, do you even exist yourself?
  • Michael
    15.2k
    Boltzmann brains are a matter of speculation and not observation.wonderer1

    You're right that it's not a matter of observation (and perhaps that my binary distinction is imprecise), but it's wrong to suggest that it's as simple as speculation. Rather it's a consequence of our best understandings of quantum mechanics and thermodynamics.

    So either we are most likely Boltzmann brains or our best understandings of quantum mechanics and thermodynamics is mistaken.

    Given that the scientific evidence supports our best understandings of quantum mechanics and thermodynamics, the scientific evidence doesn't support the claim that we are not likely to be Boltzmann brains.

    So what justifies your claim that we are not likely to be Boltzmann brains? Is it just "common sense" or "intuition"? Are "common sense" and "intuition" more reasonable than scientific evidence?
  • wonderer1
    2.2k
    You're right that it's not a matter of observation (and perhaps that my binary distinction is unfair), but it's wrong to suggest that it's as simple as speculation. Rather it's a consequence of our best understandings of quantum mechanics and thermodynamics.Michael

    I'm not suggesting it is simple speculation, but it does depend on assumptions such as that the universe is eternal. Furthermore, science is hardly exhaustively covered by quantum mechanics and thermodynamics, and the best scientific case is for us being the result of biological evolution.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.