Either that, or the idea is groundless and/ or incoherent. I don't know what to think about it. — Janus

If the idea that minds can emerge from mindless stuff is incoherent, this problem goes away. As does simulation theory.

Is at best, a limited way to offer credible evidence of a proposal, and as your subjective probability is further based on a complete unknown, such as 'is the universe infinite?' then this does not add to my confidence level that Boltzmann brains are possible. — universeness

Yes, I confused you with another poster, sorry about that.

Assuming that the universe is infinite, what do you think the probability is that you're a Boltzmann brain?

Re-reading Otherland by Tad Williams. Two books longer than it needs to be, but it's a good series.

Can you address my reply to you about subjective probabilties?

Analyzing Russia's Massive Failures in War Against Ukraine
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nel-xVJQuV4&ab_channel=TheInfographicsShow

You just endlessly repeat the same claim, without backing and without addressing any of the counter arguments. The links you supplied do not support your case. — noAxioms

Sure they do. If A and B are both countably infinite, A=B. Do you dispute this? Is the link I proved wrong? You also haven't provided any links to back up your point. Can you do so? Do you want to say they're the same size instead of being equal? That's fine with me.

ETA:
In the late 19th century, the German mathematician Georg Cantor captured the spirit of this matching strategy in the formal language of mathematics. He proved that two sets have the same size, or “cardinality,” when they can be put into one-to-one correspondence with each other — when there is exactly one driver for every car. Perhaps more surprisingly, he showed that this approach works for infinitely large sets as well.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/mathematicians-measure-infinities-find-theyre-equal-20170912/

In their spare time their mind is preoccupied with mentally living out rape, murder, torture and paedophilia. How would that sit with you, if it meant that this is done in privacy with no "real" victim. — Benj96

Again, authors do the exact same thing in their fictional worlds, do they not? Is Stephen King a monster? To your point, I wouldn't want to hang out with the person you're describing though. But that's not a moral issue. Someone who gets their rocks off torturing virtual characters...ew.

The two sets are not equal. — noAxioms

Your claim is then that the two countable infinite sets (Boltzmann brains and non-Boltzmann brains) are not equal? Any math people want to comment on that? It's my understanding all infinite countable sets are equal.

With these definitions, here are the answers (without proofs):

(a) Yes, every uncountable infinity is greater than every countable infinity.

(b) No, all countable infinities are the same: if A and B are both countable and infinite, then α=β
.
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22countable+infinities+are+equal%22&rlz=1C1CHBH_enUS956US956&oq=%22countable+infinities+are+equal%22&aqs=chrome..69i57j33i160l2.10534j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

But if it encourages future violence against people or animals etc then it could be considered a contributing factor (indirect harm). Proving that is very difficult to establish. — Benj96

It could also lead to less violence, since people have a harmless outlet for their rage.

Immoral acts can be crimes again the self, against others, against animals, or against the environment (ecological destruction). As all of these things cause harm to living systems either directly or indirectly. — Benj96

But all those things you listed are in a different category than virtual characters. Virtual characters are essentially mindless collections of electronic switches. Can you harm a light-switch? Can you harm a collection of switches?

f the universe is infinite, then there are infinitely many Down The Rabbit Hole brains and infinitely many non-@Down The Rabbit Hole brains. So for any given brain, there is a 50% probability that it is a @Down The Rabbit Hole brain. — SophistiCat

We were talking about subjective probabilities, not actual probabilities, and it's already known by me that I don't have "Down the Rabbit Hole"'s brain, so this "If the universe is infinite, then any given brain is either a @RogueAI or a @Down The Rabbit Hole brain." is false. I already know that my own given brain cannot be Rabbit Hole's brain.

I'm not sure you're right, so let me ask you the same question I asked Axiom:
What do you think the probability that you're not a Boltzmann brain is? And how do you arrive at that value?

In essence, is someone who rapes a virtual character knowing there's no consequences, as moral as one that doesn't rape a virtual character knowing there are no consequences. I would say no. — Benj96

Doesn't an immoral act require a victim? I.e., someone who is harmed by the immoral act?

Also, are authors wrong when they subject fictional characters to horrific acts?

:up:

Who is comparing two countable infinities? — noAxioms

If the universe is infinite, then there are infinitely many Boltzmann brains and infinitely many non-Boltzmann brains. Since the two sets are equal, the subjective probability that one is a member of either set is 50/50. What else could it be? What do you think the probability that you're not a Boltzmann brain is? And how do you arrive at that value?

I think we can defeat the Boltzmann Brain problem by adopting idealism. The idea that consciousness and mind can come from non-conscious mindless stuff leads to all sorts of problems.

I'm not a math major by any means. I'm going by stuff like this:

https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/760553/are-all-uncountable-infinities-greater-than-all-countable-infinities-are-some-u#:~:text=(b)%20No%2C%20all%20countable,numbers%2C%20than%20%CE%B1%3E%CE%B2.

Countable infinities are equal, so the infinite set of worlds where we're Boltzmann brains is equal to the infinite set of worlds where we're not. It's a 50/50 chance, epistemically speaking. Given an infinitely large multiverse, of course.

Regarding the US, our political democracy without economic democracy is a democracy-in-name-only (DINO) which, from periodic national crisis to crisis, has been dismantling itself brick by brick since 1789 by disproportionately serving Capital at the expense of Labor and Nature (both of which are in revolt: reactionary populisms and global warming, respectively). — 180 Proof

But the arc of history for the past two centuries has been towards liberty. Women and minorities are de facto second class citizens, but they are not de jure second class citizens anymore. I was watching "In the Heat of the Night", the other day. America really has made a lot of progress in the last 60 years. How does that square with what you're saying?

Yeah.

I'll try. Basically, my argument is that if someone else solves the Hard Problem, I think we could understand their solution. Even if we didn't understand it completely, we could probe the solution and ask a lot of simple questions that we would understand the answers to. If that's possible, then it would seem to also be possible to figure out the answers to those questions ourselves. If we can understand a lot of the solution to the Hard Problem, I don't see why we should think that we don't have the brain-power to figure those answers out ourselves.

"The boss of Russian mercenary group Wagner, Yevgeny Prigozhin, accused a Russian brigade of abandoning its position in front-line Bakhmut, allowing Ukraine to seize territory."
https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/10/europe/prizoghin-bakhmut-russia-ukraine-losses-intl-cmd/index.html

It's irrelevant that Trump was on tape admitting he gropes and kisses women without asking them first?

I was replying to Nos when I asked why they took so long. He was claiming it was a conspiracy by Carrol and her friends. I understand why women don't report sexual abuse (or wait a long time).

Don't you think the Access Hollywood tape and deposition also hurt Trump in the eyes of the jury?

I think they were all in on it. — NOS4A2

Why did they wait so long?

There was evidence. Two of her friends testified she told her it happened right afterwards. Is your claim that they were both in on it? That they would risk a possible perjury conviction? That Carroll made the whole thing up and then told her friends to add some verisimilitude to her story and then waited years and years? That seems very farfetched.

I don't want to rehash all that. I just wanted feedback on my objection to mysterianism.

Well, I just as soon have a woman president. Less skeletons in the closet.

KAPLAN: And you say – and again this has become very famous – in this video, ‘“I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab them by the p*ssy. You can do anything.” That’s what you said. Correct?

TRUMP: Well, historically, that’s true with stars.

KAPLAN: It’s true with stars that they can grab women by the p*ssy?

TRUMP: Well, that’s what, if you look over the last million years I guess that’s been largely true. Not always, but largely true. Unfortunately or fortunately.

KAPLAN: And you consider yourself to be a star?

TRUMP: I think you can say that. Yeah.

You think that's funny? Where's the humor? You think someone like that should be president?

Did you watch Trump's deposition video?

Possibly, but I don't think something as fundamental and knowable as consciousness should be unsolvable. In fact, I think idealism is the obvious solution.

Apparently, it's not a very good argument.

:100:

I'm not accusing you of being a mysterian. I want feedback on this argument of mine.

I wish I had never brought up ChatGPT in the OP.

No, "just us"; specifically: only human brains cannot scientifically explain human consciousness. — 180 Proof

Two points:
A) What about augmented human brains? I can see us developing technology that vastly improves our brains.
B) Even if we stipulate mysterianism only applies to us, it still doesn't make much sense. Again, suppose aliens arrive and tell us they have it all figured out. If we're capable of asking them a bunch of yes/no questions which would greatly help us understand their solution to the hard problem (e.g., are atoms conscious? Can machines be conscious? Can consciousness arise from non-conscious matter), then we're capable of figuring out the answers to those questions. Why wouldn't we be?

Thanks for replying! I was wondering if it was me or something.

Ok, instead of ChatGpt, let's just assume that an advanced alien race tell us they have it all figured out.

I'm not happy about all that, but I don't see any of that as some sort of existential problem. I'm a little irritated, in fact, at conservatives who couldn't give two shits about women's sports in the past suddenly pretending to care deeply. It's just a convenient way to attack trans people.

I believe that there is a fatal conflict between women's rights and identity and the concept of a trans woman. — Andrew4Handel

I'm sympathetic to preserving safe spaces for women, but what do you mean by "fatal"? What horrible thing do you think will eventually happen if biological trans men are accepted as women?