Does my total evidence support that I’m a Boltzmann Brain?

Philosophical Studies:1-7 (forthcoming)

Authors
Sinan Dogramaci
University of Texas at Austin
Abstract
A Boltzmann Brain, haphazardly formed through the unlikely but still possible random assembly of physical particles, is a conscious brain having experiences just like an ordinary person. The skeptical possibility of being a Boltzmann Brain is an especially gripping one: scientific evidence suggests our actual universe’s full history may ultimately contain countless short-lived Boltzmann Brains with experiences just like yours or mine. I propose a solution to the skeptical challenge posed by these countless actual Boltzmann Brains. My key idea is roughly this: the skeptical argument that you’re one of the Boltzmann Brains requires you to make a statistical inference, but the Principle of Total Evidence blocks us from making the inference. I discuss how my solution contrasts with a recent suggestion, made by Sean Carroll and David Chalmers, for how to address the skeptical challenge posed by Boltzmann Brains. And I discuss how my solution handles certain relevant concerns about what to do when we have higher-order evidence indicating that our first-order evidence is misleading.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/s11098-019-01404-y
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Translate to english
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Higher‐Order Evidence and the Limits of Defeat.Maria Lasonen-Aarnio - 2014 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 88 (2):314-345.
The Skeptic and the Dogmatist.James Pryor - 2000 - Noûs 34 (4):517–549.
Knowledge and its Limits.Timothy Williamson - 2000 - Tijdschrift Voor Filosofie 64 (1):200-201.
Time and Chance.S. French - 2005 - Mind 114 (453):113-116.
Structuralism as a Response to Skepticism.David J. Chalmers - 2018 - Journal of Philosophy 115 (12):625-660.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Why Boltzmann Brains Are Bad.Sean M. Carroll - forthcoming - In Shamik Dasgupta & Brad Weslake (eds.), Current Controversies in Philosophy of Science. Routledge.
Atheistic Induction by Boltzmann Brains.Bradley Monton - forthcoming - In Jerry Walls & Trent Dougherty (eds.), Two Dozen (or so) Arguments for God: The Plantinga Project. Oxford University Press.
Letter to the Editor.Meir Hemmo & Orly Shenker - 2015 - International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 29 (1):91-93.
Ludwig Boltzmann's Mathematical Argument for Atomism.Torsten Wilholt - 2001 - Vienna Circle Institute Yearbook 9:199-211.
Boltzmann, Gibbs, and the Concept of Equilibrium.David Lavis - 2008 - Philosophy of Science 75 (5):682-696.
Boltzmannian Immortality.Christian Loew - 2017 - Erkenntnis 82 (4):761-776.
The Approach Towards Equilibrium in Lanford’s Theorem.Giovanni Valente - 2014 - European Journal for Philosophy of Science 4 (3):309-335.
Die Atomistik bei Ludwig Boltzmann. Zur wissenschaftlichen und philosophischen Bedeutung einer kontroversen Position am Ende des 19. Jahrhunderts.Juan Tutor - 2004 - Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 35 (2):371-384.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2019-12-20

Total views
106 ( #83,870 of 2,309,716 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
105 ( #5,255 of 2,309,716 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes

Sign in to use this feature