he publishes stuff on Boltzmann Brains, for pity’s sake
I must be missing something here, because this by itself doesn’t seem to be a heavy criticism. (Nor for that matter does his being an evangelical Christian seem very relevant. Never underestimate compartmentilization.)
Not sure. Boltzmann brains are really cool, and at some point you realize that they’re really a statement about entropy. At which point there’s not much more to be said. So most of what can be said about Boltzmann brains will just be silly. Given this fact, we should assume any paper on Boltzmann brains will quickly degenerate into silliness.
Well, you see, the vast majority of things that can be written about Boltzmann brains will be wrong. Therefore if we assume that a paper on Boltzman brains is pretty much average, it will be wrong.
That assumes that the average paper on Boltzmann brains will be saying things about Boltzmann brains at random. The “therefore” doesn’t follow unless you assume there’s no filter between possible things that could be said about them and things that actually would be said.
You could argue that the filters wouldn’t be strong enough, but that’s an argument that has to be made rather than assumed.
Everyone knows that what you see in the real world is like the most common thing you could see. I forget who came up with that, but it was someone smart.
I must be missing something here, because this by itself doesn’t seem to be a heavy criticism. (Nor for that matter does his being an evangelical Christian seem very relevant. Never underestimate compartmentilization.)
Not sure. Boltzmann brains are really cool, and at some point you realize that they’re really a statement about entropy. At which point there’s not much more to be said. So most of what can be said about Boltzmann brains will just be silly. Given this fact, we should assume any paper on Boltzmann brains will quickly degenerate into silliness.
EDIT: FYI: there’s a joke here.
Can you elaborate on this, or provide a pointer to a discussion about it?
Well, you see, the vast majority of things that can be written about Boltzmann brains will be wrong. Therefore if we assume that a paper on Boltzman brains is pretty much average, it will be wrong.
That assumes that the average paper on Boltzmann brains will be saying things about Boltzmann brains at random. The “therefore” doesn’t follow unless you assume there’s no filter between possible things that could be said about them and things that actually would be said.
You could argue that the filters wouldn’t be strong enough, but that’s an argument that has to be made rather than assumed.
Everyone knows that what you see in the real world is like the most common thing you could see. I forget who came up with that, but it was someone smart.
I really hope you’re in on the joke :)