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.
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 :)