The Boltzmann Principle Undermines Both Idealism and Materialism

[Robert Arvay]

The Boltzmann Principle Undermines Both Idealism and Materialism

There are three false concepts that lead atheist philosophers astray.
1. Materialism
2. Idealism
3. The Boltzmann Principle

1. Materialism, or physicalism, is the philosophy that avers that material reality is the only reality. More explicitly, it says that if anything other than material reality exists, it never has any detectable influence on material reality. Materialism is an atheistic philosophy, and therefore denies spiritual reality.

2. Idealism is the philosophy that holds that nothing exists except thought. It says that the only reality of which we can be certain is the reality of our perception. We know that we perceive. “I think, therefore I am.” We perceive physical reality, but all we can know of it is that we perceive it. It does not (according to Idealism) exist outside of our thought.

3. The Boltzmann Principle is also an atheistic idea. It derives from both materialism and Idealism. It addresses the extreme unlikelihood that our universe came into existence by chance. It is far, far more likely that a single brain could spontaneously arise out of universal chaos, far more likely than an entire universe doing so.

The Boltzmann Principle is the name I give to a modified form of a famous thought experiment proposed by Ludwig Boltzmann, who was one of the great names in both physics and statistics.

The atheist theory of the universe is that it came into being by random chance. While this initially seems absurd, it becomes not only possible, but probable, if one accepts the atheist idea that physical reality is the only reality. Acceptance of that idea leads to the belief that some form of physical reality has always existed. The question of how it began is never fully answered, but the fact that the universe exists is answer enough for many atheist philosophers.

Basically, the idea is that, no matter how unlikely a particular event might occur by chance, it can still occur, so long as the chance never sinks to zero. For example, the chance of a spinning wheel, the kind found in carnivals and casinos, with numbers from one to one hundred, stopping at the number one hundred, is of course, one in a hundred (assuming an honest wheel). The chance, one in a hundred is very slight on any given spin of the wheel. However, the more times one spins the wheel, the more chance there is that the wheel will eventually stop at the 100-mark. Indeed, if one spins the wheel a thousand times, it becomes very likely that the wheel will stop at 100.

This idea applies to the formation of the universe. Of course, the chances here are far less than one in a hundred. They are, one in a number so unimaginable that I call it, a kazillion. So the chances of our universe forming by chance are one in a kazillion, which we can safely assume will never happen after only a few spins of the wheel. However, after a kazillion spins, it becomes more likely. After kazillions of kazillions of spins, it becomes probable. If the universe is infinitely old (arguably impossible), it becomes a certainty.

How does this apply to the Boltzmann Principle?

Remember that the Boltzmann Principle is my term for a modification of a thought experiment. That thought experiment goes as follows. If our complicated and intricate universe could possibly have formed at random from an earlier physical reality, a chaotic reality, then it is far more likely that instead of a complicated universe, a simple universe would be more likely.

If it is more likely that a simple universe would form at random, than a complex universe, then it is even more likely that a single brain would form at random. That random brain could spring into being with a full array of memories, memories of a past that never happened, and perceptions of a universe that never existed. This is similar, in some respects, both to materialism and Idealism.

The modification to Boltzmann’s thought experiment is this: such a brain would need to exist for only the tiniest moment of time before once again dissolving into random chaos. In that tiniest moment, the conscious brain could experience a continuous series of the events of a lifetime.

Here is where all three of our false concepts prove false.

If materialism is true, we can never know that it is true. This is demonstrated by the Haldane paradox, an idea which I have developed in detail elsewhere. Mentioned by JBS Haldane and others, it simply says that if my brain is controlled entirely by natural law, then that natural law, not logic, will dictate what I think and believe, even if such belief is false—even if it is absurd. If the universe is entirely material, I can never truly know that, because the universe might be forcing me to believe it. Indeed, there can be no natural explanation of nature, because nature cannot have come about by natural means. Until nature existed, there were no natural means. That leaves divine creation.

If Idealism is true, then everything is thought, that is, conscious perception. That being the case, I may be a pinpoint of reality, existing only momentarily in the grand scheme, but perceiving that my memories are true, and perceiving that I live for more than an instant. As in the Haldane paradox, I would have no ability to discern whether my perceptions make any sense.

There is a solution that avoids the absurdities inherent in all three of these false concepts.

First, it is important to understand that randomness can operate only in a nonrandom context. For example, the spinning wheel may indeed stop at a random point, or a quantum fluctuation may occur entirely at random, but the spinning wheel itself does not come into being at random. It had to be designed and manufactured with conscious intent. Likewise, the natural laws governing quantum fluctuations require a context, a potential for occurrence. That context cannot spring into existence at random, unless there is an infinite regression which reduces all chances to zero. Randomness requires intentional design.

Second, there is the fact that we are conscious. While the outward appearance of consciousness might be explainable in material terms, our INWARD experience cannot. Consciousness is the only known phenomenon which observes itself.

Third, and after this, I shall refrain from adding ever more to the list—there is the fact of volition. We have free will. We are neither deterministic robots, nor randomly acting pinballs. We make purposeful plans. We choose between alternatives. Were this not the case, we could never know it. We would be robots, observing our lives, but not participating in them. Without free will, we would never be morally accountable for our deeds. There are people who deny that they have free will, and who knows, perhaps those people do not have it, and therefore cannot help believing that they do not have it. Nor can they hold anyone morally accountable.

All atheistic ideas inevitably lead to absurdities and futile ideas. They conclude that reality has no plan, purpose or meaning, and that therefore all of our actions are ultimately futile. It is fruitful, however, to believe that all our moral decisions have eternal consequence, and that we ourselves are not random fluctuations in a meaningless sea of chaos, but intentionally created by a divine and merciful God. Only in that context do human rights and responsibilities rise above the absurd.
-
-

[ScottRoberts]

This

2. Idealism is the philosophy that holds that nothing exists except thought. It says that the only reality of which we can be certain is the reality of our perception. We know that we perceive. “I think, therefore I am.” We perceive physical reality, but all we can know of it is that we perceive it. It does not (according to Idealism) exist outside of our thought.

is not at all how I would describe idealism, and so I have to ask how you came by this description? For example, I (an idealist) would deny the bolded part. And you seem to be saying that idealism is an atheist concept. Some idealists might be atheists, but I think most would be some sort of theists, or panentheists perhaps, all depending on how one thinks of God.

Further, and I think we have been over this before, I would argue that theism implies idealism.

[Robert Arvay]

There seem to be a few variations on the theme of Idealism. From what I have read on this site and elsewhere, they have in common the centrality of our conscious perception. That perception is, according to what I have read, our only sure and certain knowledge. The Boltzmann Brain thought experiment is the materialist version of that.

Bernardo Kastrup's development of the Idealism paradigm is quite detailed and specific. I cannot recall if it specifically denies that physical reality exists, but it is consistent with the assertion that it does not exist outside of thought. That concept straddles the fence, without asserting either side of that fence. Perhaps this capsule is unjust, but I think it is in the ballpark.

I am a bit more extremist on theology than to use such phrases as, "all depending on how one thinks of God." That is akin to saying something like, "all depending on how one thinks of Consciousness." I find that too ambiguous. Instead, I argue that the God of the Bible is the one true God, and then we can debate or discuss from there, pro or con.

You did make an interesting point some months ago, that everything material exists in the mind of God, or something along that line. I don't have any particular objection to that, I just find it too general for me to apply it usefully in my life.

I hope you have been well. My best wishes for you and yours.

[ScottRoberts]

There seem to be a few variations on the theme of Idealism. From what I have read on this site and elsewhere, they have in common the centrality of our conscious perception. That perception is, according to what I have read, our only sure and certain knowledge. The Boltzmann Brain thought experiment is the materialist version of that.

Bernardo Kastrup's development of the Idealism paradigm is quite detailed and specific. I cannot recall if it specifically denies that physical reality exists, but it is consistent with the assertion that it does not exist outside of thought. That concept straddles the fence, without asserting either side of that fence. Perhaps this capsule is unjust, but I think it is in the ballpark.

BK's (and others') idealism denies that physical reality exists outside of consciousness. Idealisms may vary in how it describes just how it exists. For example, Berkeley held that the perception of a physical object is the object. Others (like BK) say it is our first-person view of other consciousness (what he calls Mind-at-Large).

I am a bit more extremist on theology than to use such phrases as, "all depending on how one thinks of God." That is akin to saying something like, "all depending on how one thinks of Consciousness." I find that too ambiguous. Instead, I argue that the God of the Bible is the one true God, and then we can debate or discuss from there, pro or con.

The problem is that "the God of the Bible" means something different to a Mormon, to a fundamentalist or evangelical or liberal protestant, to a liberal or conservative Catholic, etc. Does God have flesh-and-blood right hand, or is that metaphorical? And once one admits some metaphor, where does one stop? I bring this up not to complain how any particular person worships God, but one does have to get specific if one brings God into philosophy.

You did make an interesting point some months ago, that everything material exists in the mind of God, or something along that line. I don't have any particular objection to that, I just find it too general for me to apply it usefully in my life.

But it is applicable if you are going to make a claim that idealism is a false atheistic concept.

[Robert Arvay]

But it is applicable if you are going to make a claim that idealism is a false atheistic concept.

Fair enough, but the false atheistic concept is that of substituting the collective consciousness for God. It is going too far to say that all Idealists are atheists, at least in their own mind. The Bible does not spend as much time refuting atheism as it does refuting false gods.

My main point in this thread, perhaps too much to elucidate exhaustively in these short commentaries, is that the Boltzmann thought experiment is a sort of materialist version, or companion idea, of idealism. It is, like materialism, a false atheistic idea, and it ties in with Idealism insofar as it regards physical reality as somewhat of an internal perception, rather than a reality independent of perception.

Boltzmann, whether intentionally or not, is inconsistent with both materialism and Idealism, and so it is one of those strange ideas that follows a circular pattern, unable to find its own ground of being.

I have found through my own, 75 years of life, wandering through the desert, that the best path for me is Biblical Christianity. It is far deeper and more meaningful than its critics describe it, and although it requires faith, that faith does not violate reason but enhances it. Faith is a gift to be accepted or rejected, not an achievement.
-

[ScottRoberts]

Robert,

What I am puzzled at is why you think, as the title of the thread says, that the Boltzmann Principle undermines idealism. Idealism, you say, is "the philosophy that holds that nothing exists except thought". Ok (though a lot has to be added to explain how feeling, sense perception, willing, etc. can be placed under the heading "thought", but nevermind that for now). The Boltzmann Principle is about some reality appearing by chance from chaos. But thought is not chaos. So an idealist would just reject the Principle out-of-hand, since the idealist holds that thought is fundamental, not chaos.

Now you claim, in your OP, that there is no way for an idealist to know with certainty that the conscious experience one is experiencing "right now" isn't the totality of reality. Well, yes, one can't know that, or that solipsism isn't true. But of course, I am implicitly denying both just by writing this post. Both are just idle mental fantasies that no one takes seriously.

[Robert Arvay]

The Boltzmann thought experiment contradicts Idealism. It indirectly contradicts its own materialist assumptions. It is atheistic, at least from a Christian perspective, as described by mainline Baptist, Catholic, Orthodox and Evangelical theologies. In other words, the value of the Boltzmann thought experiment is to demonstrate an absurdity, somewhat as the Schrodinger Cat hypothesis does.

Idealism centers around the notions I mentioned, that of the only certainty, that of the inward, personal experience of consciousness. From that central notion, one can produce many versions of Idealism, some perhaps plausible, many others flawed.

A frequent statement by many who espouse a version of Idealism is that, there is no "out there," out there. There is only consciousness, a sort of Jungian collective.

My personal view is that of utility versus futility, with the preference being for philosophies that have practical application. It is pointless to aver that we are mere illusions having illusions. Even if somehow that were true, it would be useless to try to live according to such a futile belief.

I find it more useful to believe that I am a creature of God, personally accountable for my deeds, but rescued from eternal punishment by His grace. So I stumble forward, guided both by reason and faith. I find that each supports the other, and each is indispensible in living a rewarding, fulfilling life.

Of course, honorable men may disagree.
-

[lorenzop]

Not sure if I understand the OP . . . I would suggest that #2 is more of a description of various flavors of Solipsism; and,
while Physicalism and Materialism are ontologies, the Boltzman thought experiment is not an ontology, and doesn't address ontologies . . . while the example of the Boltzman experiment is a brain, it's not really about a brain.

[Robert Arvay]

You are obviously more accomplished in the systematic study of philosophy (and philosophers) than am I, so I cannot discuss usefully on that level.
I like your statement that,

while the example of the Boltzman experiment is a brain, it's not really about a brain.

I liken it to Schrodinger's Cat, which of course is is obviously not about a cat.

Perhaps the key to both fallacies is that they involve random chance, without acknowledging that randomness can operate only within non-random parameters, ie, purposeful, intentional design.

Idealism does not, as you say, involve chaos, but rather, a ground of being. BK does an ingenious job of taking the basic idea of consciousness being an (the) absolute reality, and then expanding on that to refute materialism.

In my view, spirit is the most basic reality that we can encounter, but then we enter into indefinable areas such as God, and the unknowable essence of all being. I am at a total loss in that forest, so instead, I limit myself to my finite experience(s). I compare my years of believing in false theologies, or atheism / agnosticism, to my present state, after having an ineffable encounter with Jesus, when all else had failed.

Of course I have neither wisdom nor virtue, but only a simple and ofttimes struggle with imperfect faith. However, the contrast with my previous and present conditions is night and day.

When I encounter people who have had a similar path, I find that we quickly recognize that in each other.

While I enjoy philosophic discussions, my faith does not rest on them. I find that you have led me to be more specific and more disciplined in my limited participation in those discussions, and I am grateful for that. Thank you.
-

[AshvinP]

You are obviously more accomplished in the systematic study of philosophy (and philosophers) than am I, so I cannot discuss usefully on that level.
I like your statement that,

while the example of the Boltzman experiment is a brain, it's not really about a brain.

I liken it to Schrodinger's Cat, which of course is is obviously not about a cat.

Perhaps the key to both fallacies is that they involve random chance, without acknowledging that randomness can operate only within non-random parameters, ie, purposeful, intentional design.

Idealism does not, as you say, involve chaos, but rather, a ground of being. BK does an ingenious job of taking the basic idea of consciousness being an (the) absolute reality, and then expanding on that to refute materialism.

In my view, spirit is the most basic reality that we can encounter, but then we enter into indefinable areas such as God, and the unknowable essence of all being. I am at a total loss in that forest, so instead, I limit myself to my finite experience(s). I compare my years of believing in false theologies, or atheism / agnosticism, to my present state, after having an ineffable encounter with Jesus, when all else had failed.

Of course I have neither wisdom nor virtue, but only a simple and ofttimes struggle with imperfect faith. However, the contrast with my previous and present conditions is night and day.

When I encounter people who have had a similar path, I find that we quickly recognize that in each other.

While I enjoy philosophic discussions, my faith does not rest on them. I find that you have led me to be more specific and more disciplined in my limited participation in those discussions, and I am grateful for that. Thank you.
-

Robert,

One thing we explore deeply on this forum is the possibility that, just as we awakened from the default dogma of materialism to idealism, where the former is then found to be quite absurd or dream-like in its way of thinking, we can likewise continue awakening from the limitations of finite perceptual-conceptual experience within the framework of idealism to the inner essence of the living Ideas as such. That process of awakening is not at all at odds with spiritual faith, but the latter is actually an indispensable condition of the former. Because the further awakening from the outside contours of our concepts-perceptions to the Spirit of their inner essence is not simply a matter of increasing knowledge, but of perfecting our moral character in humility and the pursuit of loving ideals. The threshold between the physical (including our physical concepts about the structure of 'reality') and the spiritual is of a sublimely moral nature, and is really none other than Christ himself.

Are you interested in exploring this possibility? One thing I always like to mention in these circumstances is how Divine providence has a way of steering our life circumstances towards opportunities to further strengthen and inspire our faith, but always leaves it in our complete freedom whether to pursue those opportunities or not.