A very brief explanation of why I'm not concerned about Boltzmann Brains the-lagrangian.blogspot.com/2016/05/why-yo
Conversation
Replying to
@The_Lagrangian that's assuming boltzmann brains run on matter
but it doesn't matter either way if you buy egan's dust hypothesis
2
1
Replying to
@The_Lagrangian anything that can give rise to computation in its interactions (how many layers can we fit below quarks?)
1
1
Replying to
I am here using matter in a generalized sense to refer to any excitations of quantum fields
1
Replying to
@The_Lagrangian ah yes that should about include everything within this universe
I'm fond of the idea that [epistemic status: experimental]
1
Replying to
@The_Lagrangian computation steps do not need to "happen" physically but Exist as mathematical relations in the platonic realm
2
1
Replying to
yeah I used to be a strong Tegmarkian as well but I'm less on that side nowadays space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/m
2
1
Replying to
@The_Lagrangian mind you there's an easy and critical metatheoretic problem with this: it explains everything and therefore nothing
2
1
Replying to
thinking about it though, it does solve the metaphysical and "_why_ are we here" becomes "why are we _here_" (more useful)
1
2
Replying to
as in, through this argument, an ill-posed metaphysical question is replaced by a more tractable one
and that's the appeal