Boltzmann’s brains

Here is a bit of material for philosophical reflection, from yesterday’s NYT.

The basic idea, as I understand it, is this. Scientists think that the universe’s level of disorder, as a rule, never decreases. What this means is that things decay, disperse, and lose any non-uniform distribution of qualities over time. You can’t unscramble an egg; you can’t unswirl the cream in your coffee; you can’t make the universe, as a whole, warm up, or even stay the same temp. This is the second law of thermodynamics: disorder (entropy) never decreases.

That’s a law for the universe as a whole.  It doesn’t preclude little isolated burps of increasing organization, so long as, over the long haul, there is a net loss in order. So the universe can tolerate isolated exceptions to the second law. But, since nature seems to always choose the simplest path, these exceptions should be kept to a minimum.

Here comes Boltzmann. Suppose the universe had two choices. One is to allow the great big exception to the second law known as the history of human evolution and civilization. The second is to allow the comparatively minor exception which would have you spontaneously come into existence, for a few seconds, with all the memories, perceptions, and expectations you are experiencing right now. Case number two is the smaller breach of entropy. So we should believe that that’s the truth: you think you are part of a great big exception to entropy, but you’re not. You’re something like a one-second-old brain in a vat.

What do you think?

Nietzsche lecture coming up

See the details in the Announcement box, on the right. Here is the abstract for Rutherford’s talk:

“Nietzsche’s writings offer pointed challenges to received views in almost every area of philosophy, from metaphysics to ethics.  One question that is too infrequently raised, however, is how Nietzsche conceives of the activity of philosophy itself.  What is the overall goal of philosophy?  What does it mean to think and live as a philosopher?  I canvass a range of answers to these questions, and argue for the distinctive answers that I believe Nietzsche gives to them.  I conclude by describing what I see as the significance of these answers for Nietzsche’s principal philosophical project: the revaluation of all values.”

All are welcome to attend!

Undergrad Philosophy conference, UVSC

Call for Papers: Annual Undergraduate Philosophy Conference

The Annual Undergraduate Philosophy Conference will be held Thursday, April 3, 2008. The topic of this year’s conference, titled The Greening of Ethics, addresses the expansion of the scope of moral considerability in Western Philosophy from the traditional focus on human beings. This includes, but is not limited to, topics such as:

Ecological Feminism
Animal Rights/Liberation
Holistic (Ecosystem) Ethics
Sustainability
Religious Stewardship Ethics
Social Ecology/Marxist Critiques of Capitalism

Presentations will be 20 minutes.

Please email a title and 250-word presentation proposal by noon, February 15, 2008, to:

ethics.center@uvsc.edu
thinkthoughtaway@gmail.com
david.keller@uvsc.edu

Presenters will be awarded $100 honorarium.

If you have any questions, please contact Dave Newlin <thinkthoughtaway@gmail.com> or David R. Keller <david.keller@uvsc.edu>.

The Conference is sponsored by the Department of Philosophy and Humanities
and the Center for the Study of Ethics, UVSC.

New question for the new semester

The Edge is an interesting blog, mostly aimed at discussion among scientific humanists about big questions (it’s on the blogroll, at the right). Their first question for 2008 is a good one; I thought I’d raise it again here to see what people here have to say, both in terms of answers and in terms of how they have set up the question:

When thinking changes your mind, that’s philosophy.
When God changes your mind, that’s faith.
When facts change your mind, that’s science.

WHAT HAVE YOU CHANGED YOUR MIND ABOUT? WHY?

 Any takers?