It’s only a problem if you want it to be a problem.
There doesn’t *need* to be anyone doing the interpreting, because all possible representations (and the interpreters/ees within) exist for free. I’m comfortable with that. There’s no need to invoke special privilege to make reality more complicated, just because you want it to be. Fundamental reality *should* be simple, on some level, don’t you think? The complexity is all internal.
Every possible conscious state exists in some immaterial way, for some unspecified reason.
(Alternatively you might be saying that Boltzman interpreters exist, that there are some configurations of matter which are performing computations equivalent to interpretation. However, that would be based on the implicit assumption that being an interpreter is not itself a matter of interpretation. But it if there are interpretation-free facts about which computation maps onto which physical process, then why should there not be such facts about the the computations corresponding to consciousness—again, the detour into interpretation is unnecessary. And the original applies: accidental computations are of any sort are going to be rare, because a computation is a coherent sequence).
It’s only a problem if you want it to be a problem.
There doesn’t *need* to be anyone doing the interpreting, because all possible representations (and the interpreters/ees within) exist for free. I’m comfortable with that. There’s no need to invoke special privilege to make reality more complicated, just because you want it to be. Fundamental reality *should* be simple, on some level, don’t you think? The complexity is all internal.
Quodlibet, being able to prove anything, is widely seen as a problem.
Is that a fact?
Boltzman brains would certainly follow from that bold conjecture. However, something similar would follow from simpler assumptions.
You seen to be saying:
There are certain configurations of matter that could be conscious minds under a certain interpretation.
The required interpretations exists, since all interpretations exist in some immaterial way, for some unspecified reason.
Therefore accidental conscious minds, Boltzman brains, exist.
Which has the simpler equivalent:-
Every possible conscious state exists in some immaterial way, for some unspecified reason.
(Alternatively you might be saying that Boltzman interpreters exist, that there are some configurations of matter which are performing computations equivalent to interpretation. However, that would be based on the implicit assumption that being an interpreter is not itself a matter of interpretation. But it if there are interpretation-free facts about which computation maps onto which physical process, then why should there not be such facts about the the computations corresponding to consciousness—again, the detour into interpretation is unnecessary. And the original applies: accidental computations are of any sort are going to be rare, because a computation is a coherent sequence).