Welcome to Gaia! ::

about Boltzmann Brains?

I've never heard of it o.O

I haven't responded to this because it irritates me. The Boltzmann brain idea has always been such a stupid thing, in my opinion.
It postulates that the observable is just a fluctuation in a larger universe where the entropy is significantly higher; this would explain why the entropy of our observable universe is so low.
Now, taking this fluctuation hypothesis and raping it, the Boltzmann brain idea is that it is more likely for a random fluctuation to create a single brain with false memories of its life and a universe than for the fluctuations to create an entire universe with our observable universe's level of organization.

As far as I can tell, it's a mixing of the anthropic principle and intelligent design and doesn't merit consideration.
I don't mind the fluctuation hypothesis, that kind of makes sense, although I don't bother thinking about those kinds of things because thermodynamics irritates me. But the Boltzmann Brain paradox just seems like people putting too much weight on self-awareness, when I personally feel that self-awareness is inevitable in any universe that isn't entropically flat.
Furthermore, it treats self-awareness like an irreducible complexity problem, saying that because it's more likely for there to be only one brain instead of several, it's unlikely that the fluctuation idea could be true. It sounds suspiciously similar to the idea that because things like eyes and flagella and such don't work if you take out certain parts, a "random process" such as evolution wouldn't be able to create them.

The Boltzmann Brain is a hypothesis, derived from the hypothesis of evolution. Evolution - often referred to as fact, doesn't even meet the physics standard of theory. There are too many holes and contradictions. One of which is the self-awareness of human beings - and The Boltzmann Brain is an attempt to answer.

As for those think that this is a feather in the cap of "Intelligent Design", the origin Greek version of the Bible, does not rule out evolution as the hand of God. The Greek also has day (as in the six days of creation) as a loose translation that could equally define a marking of a period, without being specifically defined as a 24 hour period.

This leaves the "creation" of the universe and open question. Proper physics theory is now pointing to the Higgs Boson (the God particle) to explain the observed structure of the universe. For example, the observed periodic (table of elements) order of a supernova explosion. This period order is observed in the nuclear reactions in the cores of stars, and also appears in the spectral classification of stars. Solid evidence that the universe is far from "random".

This begs the question, should entropy be replaced with a chaos/probability theory (a proper physics theory and not an abstract philosophy theory).

You're going to have to explain a few things to me, 'cause as far as I can tell, nothing you've said is true except for maybe the bit about the dead white guys.
Firstly, how self-awareness is a hole or a contradiction in the theory of evolution.
Secondly, how the Boltzmann brain answers any question at all regarding this issue.
Thirdly, why evolution, which has as much evidence as any astronomical theory, and more because it has been reproduced in a controlled setting, is not up to a "physics standard" of theory.
Fourthly, how is the Higgs boson at all relevant to this conversation?
Fifthly, how is entropy an abstract philosophy theory?