Is the Boltzmann Brain theory babby first discover or is it the end game? The idea that we exist because of a stochastic fluctuation in a higher-entropy universe sounds very appealing to my brain. Am I being deceived by my desire for answers or did Boltzmann discover The Answer for us?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain
>>7655732
No.
>>7655732
Yes.
>>7655732
Maybe.
Anyone who needs scholasticism to explain consciousness in a way that deterministic causality doesn't is someone who just WANTS consciousness to be inexplicable (perhaps external), but doesn't actually believe it.
In other words, his god is in the cracks.
>>7656258
Your that super determinism guy aren't you?
The one who made the thread about quantum mechanics and insisted randomness = god
>>7656258
>explain consciousness in a way that deterministic causality doesn't
Anyone who clings to a 19th century dead-end nihilistic philosophy might as well go ahead and give in to the darkness, snap and go on a killing rampage.
The universe is NOT deterministic, despite your emotional need for there to be an absolute answer to every question.
p.s. Boltzmann's "paradox" is neatly countered by the weak anthropomorphic principal.
>>7656286
>randomness = God
So hes a faggor crack?
>>7656286
Nah, first time in /sci/ in like a year. This place is too slow for my tastes.
Anyway, I'm not saying that randomness is god. To the contrary, I believe that this Boltzmann guy is using randomness as a kind of stand-in for 'spirit' and other such religious things. I personally can't see the difference between scholasticism and determinism as being anything other than a mathematical subtlety.
>>7656306
I don't think consciousness involves any soul or spirit, I think you are your brain.
That said maybe the actions within your brain are fundamentally random. Idk.
>>7656294
>Anyone who clings to a 19th century dead-end nihilistic philosophy might as well go ahead and give in to the darkness, snap and go on a killing rampage.
>The universe is NOT deterministic, despite your emotional need for there to be an absolute answer to every question.
Complete ad hominem. Also, the emotional need for free will leading to irrational clinging to non-deterministic paradigms is a more compelling scenario to my mind.
You yourself provide evidence that this is the case when you liken a deterministic universe as one of darkness where one ought go on a killing rampage. You fear that the universe is deterministic, as you see that your existence in such a form would be pointless and not worth preserving.
>>7656323
Tbh if its all deterministic you can't chose not to go on a killing rampage.
If your gonna kill people your gonna kill people. If your not your not.
>>7656314
Physical studies of the brain don't really support the idea that there is a high representation of true randomness, even though there is an astronomical amount of chaos.
Think of it like this: even assuming the world IS stochastic at a fundamental level, computers nonetheless are deterministic (with perhaps some cosmically-insignificant chances of spontaneous deviation). It does this by wrangling a collection of information (energy) into set identities (gate one or gate two: 0 or 1) by its physical properties, with a large amount of error checks built in.
The brain, while by no means completely parallel to this construction, seems to operate with the same kind of information-wrangling. A neuron either fires or it doesn't fire, and the stochastic drift of the electrical chemical mechanisms it operates on is utterly insignificant compared to its "intended" function.
>>7656331
That sounds reasonable. Its basically what I believed already.
>>7656294
>Anyone who clings to a 19th century dead-end nihilistic philosophy might as well go ahead and give in to the darkness, snap and go on a killing rampage.
I would, but I am not determined to.
But how you betray your god complex for determinism to seem like dismissive omniscience. For if a thing can be determined, then surely it must mean that it IS determined to you. It is only by conspiracy fate that an all-being such as yourself is confined to a perspective of relative ignorance, uncertainty, and choice. As opposed to, you know, your personal want and human condition. For if, indeed, such a thing as theoretical know-ability is true and yet you personally are not all-knowing, how it must be such a strain against your self-image that the only reconciliation is impotent revenge against causality.
>>7655732
Mans got a pair of shoulders on him
