The Boltzmann Principle Undermines Both Idealism and Materialism
Posted: Tue Jun 13, 2023 3:47 pm
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.
-
-
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.
-
-