REVIEW 3 cited by
Why Boltzmann Brains Are Bad
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
Some modern cosmological models predict the appearance of Boltzmann Brains: observers who randomly fluctuate out of a thermal bath rather than naturally evolving from a low-entropy Big Bang. A theory in which most observers are of the Boltzmann Brain type is generally thought to be unacceptable, although opinions differ. I argue that such theories are indeed unacceptable: the real problem is with fluctuations into observers who are locally identical to ordinary observers, and their existence cannot be swept under the rug by a choice of probability distributions over observers. The issue is not that the existence of such observers is ruled out by data, but that the theories that predict them are cognitively unstable: they cannot simultaneously be true and justifiably believed.
Forward citations
Cited by 3 Pith papers
-
High-rate qLDPC processors
Non-abelian "mitten" qLDPC codes achieve 20% encoding rate with distances 10-24 on 150-975 qubits, and simulations indicate fault-tolerant processors sustaining ~10^10 logical operations at 0.1% physical error rate.
-
Bell Correlations and Selection Bias
Bell correlations are selection artefacts induced by sampling methods, removing any tension with relativity or realism.
-
Algorithmic Idealism II: Reassessment of Competing Theories
The paper asserts that algorithmic idealism, which treats reality as an observer-centered computational process, is the most coherent framework for identity and existence.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.