By “the BB problem”, you might mean the problem of how to know whether you are a BB, but the OP explains how, and I can’t imagine what else you might mean by “the BB problem”.
The wiki page had Yudkowsky describe the problem as follows:
Yudkowsky’s paradox
Suppose your model of physics says that the universe will eventually dissolve into a sea of particles in thermal equilibrium, and these particles will then exist indefinitely.
Then an exponentially vast supermajority of all observer-moments in this universe take place inside brains that momentarily assemble themselves from the sea of entropy by random fluctuations, and probably dissolve a moment later. These are “Boltzmann brains”.
The vast supermajority of Boltzmann brains have relatively disordered experiences; they momentarily see chaos before dissolving again.
So your own, far more ordered and orderly experience in this very moment weighs heavily against the hypothesis “I am a Boltzmann brain”. Inder most systems of anthropic reasoning this weighs heavily against the possibility “a supervast majority of all moments of consciousness are vastly less orderly than my own”.
To be clear, it’s not “Yudkowsky’s paradox” as Yudkowsky is explaining a standard and known problem in cosmology here.
Admittedly, many cosmologists are not super careful when reasoning about Boltzmann Brains and they also disagree about what exactly is the problem they pose (e.g., see this dialectic between Carroll (2017)and Elga (2025)about whether belief in Boltzmann Brains leads to “cognitive instability”). But the core phenomenon of Boltzmann Brains and that they seem like bad news for many cosmological models is well-understood.
After a brief chat with one of the AI’s I had the impression that the main value of the BB was more about model/theory evaluation. Basically a theory that predicts a lot of the phenomenon should be questioned and probably “back to the drawing board” case.
A lot I don’t follow here but seems like the post might be challenging that, or perhaps some more simplified applications of that view.
But after the chats I actually wonder if that is the critical aspect rather than juts how we deal with infinities/really long time frames or how we think/define of equilibriums as the more critical areas of exploration.
By “the BB problem”, you might mean the problem of how to know whether you are a BB, but the OP explains how, and I can’t imagine what else you might mean by “the BB problem”.
The wiki page had Yudkowsky describe the problem as follows:
Yudkowsky’s paradox
Suppose your model of physics says that the universe will eventually dissolve into a sea of particles in thermal equilibrium, and these particles will then exist indefinitely.
Then an exponentially vast supermajority of all observer-moments in this universe take place inside brains that momentarily assemble themselves from the sea of entropy by random fluctuations, and probably dissolve a moment later. These are “Boltzmann brains”.
The vast supermajority of Boltzmann brains have relatively disordered experiences; they momentarily see chaos before dissolving again.
So your own, far more ordered and orderly experience in this very moment weighs heavily against the hypothesis “I am a Boltzmann brain”. Inder most systems of anthropic reasoning this weighs heavily against the possibility “a supervast majority of all moments of consciousness are vastly less orderly than my own”.
To be clear, it’s not “Yudkowsky’s paradox” as Yudkowsky is explaining a standard and known problem in cosmology here.
Admittedly, many cosmologists are not super careful when reasoning about Boltzmann Brains and they also disagree about what exactly is the problem they pose (e.g., see this dialectic between Carroll (2017) and Elga (2025) about whether belief in Boltzmann Brains leads to “cognitive instability”). But the core phenomenon of Boltzmann Brains and that they seem like bad news for many cosmological models is well-understood.
After a brief chat with one of the AI’s I had the impression that the main value of the BB was more about model/theory evaluation. Basically a theory that predicts a lot of the phenomenon should be questioned and probably “back to the drawing board” case.
A lot I don’t follow here but seems like the post might be challenging that, or perhaps some more simplified applications of that view.
But after the chats I actually wonder if that is the critical aspect rather than juts how we deal with infinities/really long time frames or how we think/define of equilibriums as the more critical areas of exploration.