Talk:Epistemological pluralism

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Epistemology

Broadened treatment[edit]

I've modified this article to bring it beyond a stub with in-line citations and a wider treatment of its subject, which extends beyond philosophy. Brews ohare (talk) 22:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kantian Pluralism and Boltzmann[edit]

I think it's worth pointing out that Ludwig Boltzmann, an Austrian physicist and philosopher whose achievements include the development of statistical mechanics, and the statistical explanation of the second law of thermodynamics (through the current definition of entropy, S=kB ln Ω, where Ω is the number of microstates whose energy equals the system's energy, interpreted as a measure of statistical disorder of a system), based some of their theoretical philosophical and scientific models on Kant.

For example, the Boltzmann brain thought experiment suggests that it might be more likely for a single brain to spontaneously and briefly form in a void (complete with a memory of having existed in our universe) rather than for the entire universe to come about in the manner cosmologists think it actually did.

Theoretically, over a sufficiently long time, random fluctuations could cause particles to spontaneously form literally any structure of any degree of complexity, including a functioning human brain. In this thought experiment, a Boltzmann brain is a fully formed brain, complete with memories of a full human life, that arises from a state of thermodynamic equilibrium. The scenario involves only a single brain and not an entire person, because a single organ is less complex than an entire body and therefore more likely to spontaneously occur. Also, an entire body would include sense organs which would immediately disprove the brain's misperception that it is a normal brain in a normal situation. Like any brain in such circumstances (the hostile vacuum of space with no blood supply or body), it would almost immediately stop functioning and begin to deteriorate.

Which means, though you would think the average individual person that believes they are holding an intelligent conversation with you, came about from the conventional methods, viz., they had parents, were born, attended schooling, and bases their a priori argument on their prior experiences, it is possible that that individual only believes they are having a meaningful conversation, and their cryptoamnesiac belief stems from the fact that due to fluctuations of temperature (such as have the heater on in the room and a cold draught coming from an opened door), that they spontaneously formed as an entire thinking and feeling human brain, with a lifetime of (admittedly false) past experiences.

So, I think it's worth pointing out, that while it may look like there is only one clear answer, or few valid alternatives, it may impossible to rule out the possibility of only being a "Boltzmann Brain" with the belief in a posteriori knowledge, which as we know is the most logical form of inference we can use as reasoning entities.

Thank you for coming to my TED talk.

Signed - René Descartes 49.185.137.168 (talk) 03:46, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]