Yes I am familiar with the physics behind what I said. Quoting a university textbook on a philosophical argument is an interesting choice.
I have studied and reflected on the subject and I really think Boltzman brains and Schröedinger cat are thought experiments that go way over the head of their pop sci/undergrad classroom interpretations.
Boltzmann brains have nothing to do with Schrödinger: statistical mechanics works fully classically, and nobody treats Boltzmann brains in a quantum mechanical way because a Boltzmann brain is an unembodied ephemeral human brain. Natural human brains have a history of being warm and electrically noisy (any quantum features decohere faster than thought), while fluctuated-out-of-equilibrium human brains aren't around long enough to have their temperature measured, nor to produce much electrical noise.
A quantum-mechanical Boltzmann brain emerging from a gas of photons in (cold) equilibrium in which fluctuations take photons out of equilibrium and into the farrrr UV is going to be on the short-lived end of Boltzmann brains: things like annihilations and complicated decay chains will dissolve them away quickly. Which is the point. Boltzmann brains, unlike the bowl of petunias in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, should not have time to compose poetry.
Very hot thermal radiation is what destroys classical Boltzmann brains. They sort-of are a cool spot in an extremely violently hot bubble in an otherwise cold (colder than brains!) gas of almost everywhere uniform temperature.
> Yes I am familiar with the physics ...
> Quoting a university [physics] textbook on a philosophical argument
... which is philosophizing about actual physics ...
> is an interesting choice.
Well, what textbooks or other sources do you rely upon when philosophizing about fluctuation theory? What have you read or taught from?
I understand the concepts thanks for explaining them again. They have things in common because they are both thought experiments that I think most people miss the point of.
Undergrad textbooks are not exactly cutting edge philosophy wise and you're giving me a "?" for using one in a philosophical argument and having it called pop sci/undergrad classroom interpretations, makes me doubt your reading comprehension entirely.
I have studied and reflected on the subject and I really think Boltzman brains and Schröedinger cat are thought experiments that go way over the head of their pop sci/undergrad classroom interpretations.