Okay, take a very simple example.
Someone: Reality is physical.
Someone else: No, reality is from God.
Me: I wonder how that is possible at all.
Let us keep it simple - one of them have a wrong belief, right!!!
How does that work? Well, reality must include wrong beliefs.
Okay, but where does that take place? We can't see, touch/hold or otherwise use our external senses to experience wrong beliefs. It is going on in the mind. So reality includes at least one mind, yours.
You don't know if you are a Boltzmann Brain or not, but you know that not all your experiences are yours. These ones as this text are now coming to you. You know that because you can test it.
Let me see, if I can explain how I see your approach and why it might be flawed, because I think you are asking the wrong question to begin with, to then end up drawing a near impossible conclusion, which then loop back to asking the wrong question again, because you are using the wrong conclusion to ask the wrong question. Which at some point seems to have gotten you stuck in what I would call some strange limbo and your critical thinking or reasoning are unable to get you out, At least that is how I see it. But will try to highlight where I think you are going wrong and maybe that will explain what I mean with this, a bit better.
If the conclusion you reach is that you do not know whether or not you are a Boltzmann Brain, then the initial question regarding who has a wrong belief doesn't matter, because you can't verify whether or not these people even exists to begin with. Because the
only thing you can be certain of, is that one mind exists, and that is yours since you are experiencing this conflict. But since you have no way of verifying whether or not, those holding the contradictory beliefs exists or not, or whether only one of them does, means that you are stuck in this position.
Lets use what you at least know to look at the initial question again.
"At least one mind exists, which is your own".
Based on that, lets assume that the person, saying that
"Reality is physical" doesn't exists, but the other one does. Then there is no contradictory beliefs, correct? And therefore wrong beliefs doesn't exists at all.
You simply assume that both of them are existing and therefore they are able to make the statement they do. But again looking at what you can know with certainty from asking the question the first time, is that only
your mind exists. But since you have absolutely no way, based on that reasoning to know, which of the people actually do exists or doesn't. it makes no difference.
Besides that, both of them could be wrong, then you are stuck with only wrong beliefs, which would change the question completely, to whether or not right beliefs even exist?
But regardless of how you twist and turn it and what questions you ask. It makes no difference anyway, because the only relevant starting question, based on the
only evidence that you can trust, is that
"Your mind exists". There are no other starting question, that would make sense, except to ask whether or not you are a Boltzmann brain or not? Because you are stuck in a loop.
Whatever question other than that you might ask, is just noise for which you can never get an answer, since you can never reach a sound conclusion, as long as you do not know whether or not you are in fact the only Boltzmann brain to begin with.
And as I already told you in a former post, there is no way for me, to proof whether or not you are one or not. Because I might be part of your Boltzmann brain, simply feeding you nonsense. Again you would have no way of telling.
Which is why, I think you are asking the wrong question to begin with, while already having drawn a near impossible conclusion.
So lets try to look at some questions, in regards to a Boltzmann brain being true:
1. Where do you think history comes into this reality? You didn't live when the dinosaurs walked the Earth, so did they actually exists or did they jump into existing as you did?
2. If you are just a mind, then what is the need for your parents and did they even exists before you were born or is that just an illusion? Why would you have to spend such a long time being a baby?
3. How do you explain new technology and scientific development, which you can see popup in front of your eyes pretty much daily, Because you know that you are not the maker of all of these. So where do they come from, who is making them?
Eventually if you believe that you are a Boltzmann brain, the only true conclusion that you can reach, as I see it, is that all of what you are experiencing is purely made up in your mind and that reality is simply an illusion or a simulation. If your conclusion is that the only thing you can know for certain is that
"Your mind exists". Then there is no basis for you to assume any other conclusion, from a rational point of view, if you want to be true to the only piece of evidence you have.
And even if it were the case, that it was all just an illusion or a simulation, it would make absolutely no difference, as you wouldn't know which of them it is and therefore you would never be able to do anything about it anyway.
Now assuming that we can't tell the difference, between it being a Boltzmann brain or not. So simply working within that limitation.
We can start asking questions whether or not, it is reasonable to hold such belief.
1. We have no clue what a thought is, where it exists, how long it exists. But we can measure a brain and see that it shows activity when we are thinking. So is it reasonable to assume that in order for a thought to exist, we also need a physical brain?
2. So if we need a physical brain to create thoughts, despite us having no clue what exactly they are, is it reasonable to assume that, reality can both be physical things and non physical things?
3. Since we know that whatever thought a brain makes up or what to say, is part of what we consider either part of our natural world, that being culture, history etc. But can also be imaginary things, like wizards, trolls etc. That we at least have a somewhat common understanding of the reality we live in. Meaning I can say the word "polar bear" and most people would have an idea what I might refer to. I don't suddenly start talking gibberish about something that is completely outside our common understanding. Except if we are talking imaginary things, like a science fiction story, where an explanation usually follows of what these imaginary things, that im talking about is suppose to be, so other people can understand them as well. So is it reasonable to assume that we are all sharing some common reality?
4. If people are able to make up imaginary things and all thoughts are part of the reality that we share, which is immensely complicated and not all that well understood. That people can be wrong about it? And therefore reach wrong conclusions and wrong beliefs?
A belief is simply nothing more than a thought, which can't exists without a physical brain.
We know that our brains are not perfect and that it make mistakes all the time, as it is easily fooled to believing things which are not true. Like optical illusion, which in reality as Neil deGrasse Tyson would put it, is a brain failure. Our brain have a really hard time seeing the difference and therefore reach wrong conclusions or because it take shortcuts.
Looking at these questions from a rational point of view, again taking into account that we do not know whether or not we are actually part of a Boltzmann brain or not. That at least approaching life, based on it being false is more rational than not?
Because going back to your initial questions.
Someone: Reality is physical.
Someone else: No, reality is from God.
Me: I wonder how that is possible at all.
What you ought to ask instead, is how did these people reach such conclusion and why should I believe them?
I personal have a huge interest in beliefs myself, probably not all that different from you I think. But I also initially wondered, how come people having access to the same information reach completely different conclusions?
Like im an atheists, I have read the bible and don't think it is true based on this and that...etc. A Christian might also have read it, but is firmly convince that it is true. How is that possible? And to me, its a questions of faith (or wants) and our way of approaching things for which we are not sure, what the right answer is suppose to be.
As I got interested in religion, I obviously also ended up listening to a lot of lectures from Pastors, debates etc. Having asked the very question I posted to you above:
How do these people reach such conclusion and why should I believe them?
And listening to a Pastor telling how we can trust in God and Jesus and if we don't, then we go to hell. (Just an oversimplified example):
The first question I ask myself is:
1. Where did he get his information from to draw such conclusions?
Since he is a Christian he say that he got it from the bible. But I already read it and it didn't convince me.
2. Just because he is a Pastor, does that mean that he is better suited to reach a correct conclusion about whether or not, the bible is true or not?
It would be insane to believe that is the case, when the material from which his belief is drawn, is available for me to read for myself and therefore draw my own conclusion. I have no idea whether he is good at critical thinking or have a bias and im not going to give him the benefit of doubt.
3. The only thing im interested in, is what evidence he have to backup his belief, and why I should believe it as well?
And eventually this will go straight to the bible, which again can't be verified to be true. So he have no good evidence for why I should believe him. Which make me draw the only logical conclusion, based on what have be presented to me, that he have no clue, it is just what he believe. Which is perfectly fine, absolutely no issue with it. But since its just an opinion or belief, then I don't have any reason to believe he is correct, because there is no authority (evidence) behind what he is claiming.
Continue...
