Could a Bolzmann Brain Understand Logic?

If so, it's better than AI.

So, the problem is, how does eternal and universal logic match the perception of logic of a Bolzmann brain? Or how does the perception match the eternal and universal logic?

What C. S. Lewis remarked about Logic (or Reason) has a more humdrum parallel. Not in the question, but in objecting to an Evolutionist "solution"

The Evolutionist "solution" is, whatever degree of reflection a creature has can be considered as some kind of logic perception, it just got better and better to suite survival needs. The answer by C. S. Lewis was, survival doesn't priorise for logic. Quickness of perception, quickness of reaction, capacity to hold back reaction ... but not logic.

The Evolutionist at least on the popular level tends to reason as if "inventing language" gave the man who was anatomically and genetically capable of it (human FOXP2-gene, human hyoid bone, human ear, Brocas area and Wernicke's area) a survival advantage. The problem is, survival pressure would here also priorise what the "anatomically human" not yet speaker already had inherited from ape ancestors, a system of calls, one sound per call, limited in number, with a limited number of meanings that are pragmatic and emotive, not notional. I've seen people basically say that it's practical to be able to say "lion" in order to warn against a lion. Apes that live near lions already have calls that warn against lions. Man is distinguished by the ability to speak dispassionately of lions, like a notion. "Male lions have a mane" is sth no ape could express. But they already have their ways of saying "a lion! run for your lives!" but these ways are NOT human language. So, the survival value of inventing "the word lion" is simply not there. And in order to say "the lions sleep now, lets walk away slowly and quietly" you have to invent lots more words than "lion" ... you would still not be inventing them just for warning about a lion, since you already have a call for that. Some more calls, for new situations, yes. Or forgetting calls from situations that they no longer run into. ... But. Not. Language.

However, I have so far not seen anyone able to prove Heliocentrism without appealing to either Deism or Atheism (God exists but doesn't interfere, or doesn't even exist) in order to disprove Geocentrism by lack of mechanism. This means Geocentrism, proven by observation (until there are logical reasons against it, if there are any) has as its obligatory mechanism a God Who turns the visible universe around Earth each day. Geocentrism proves God. And it proves His power is inexhaustible. Precisely as St. Paul said in Romans 1. Equally, the proof is observable to the senses.

And, some people are somehow able to say "it's not self contradictory if a Bolzmann brain comprehends logic" but they would usually admit the universe on its own would not turn around Earth each day. Heliocentrism is their cop-out.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Genevieve
3.I.2026

Lutetiae Parisiorum sanctae Genovefae Virginis, quae, a beato Germano, Antisiodorensi Episcopo, Christo dicata, admirandis virtutibus et miraculis claruit.