My documentaries, the documentaries that I recommend

Using the wording random fluctuation in this context is absurd. Rather state that this fluctuations are necessary as everything that can happen will happen even if the frequency is low thus the wording should be pseudo random in the context of a Multiverse.
As for the Boltzmann brains being a "bad idea" it depends on the Set they fit in which might be one in which they have to be minimally mentally stable in order to rationalize anything at all, as that is the definition of what a brain can do. Other objects might be similar to brains but they don't produce anything typical of braining so they belong to another set. The assumption they could be mentally unstable and come to existence statistically with silly ideas drops a potential set where they all need to have a minimum viable stability as belonging to such set to be "thinking machines". Oh and yes, on a side note the ideas such brains came up with have no actual "authorship", they are Universal and come to existence into "you" by necessity in a pseudo random fashion. I also heard no word about embodied cognition in which case the very definition of a Boltzmann brain would need some adjustments on what is a brain...

There are many more problems coming along as what is or is not a right or wrong observation about a mental picture of "your" Universe...what is a "world" can fit many distinct sets and observation about such worlds are neither right or wrong but pseudo random necessities of a given state of mind in a properly working Boltzmann brain. Eg: Super Mario would have all the reasons to assume the "world" he lives in is actual and rational...and in some way it is, as the very distinction on what is a deeper reality is absurd, as all possible realities have by necessity an equal footing on BEING independent on the level of complexity they display.

My final point in case today is that there was not a good enough effort here to play Devil's advocate which is bad in Philosophy.
Simplified tutoring to the masses results always in half baked explanations...

Same advise I gave her on youtube:

Don't use the corner toilet which is the statistically more likely to be used due to comfort and privacy, use the middle one which is the least comfortable and thus have a better probability to be more clean!

Human treasure troves lost in the rain forest, uncontactable tribes today:

Russia threatens the UK with "Flying Chernobyl" doomsday Poseidon:

Very informative on what not to do while flying:

What Portugal good liquor can you recommend?
(Piggy would rather come here to have a chat, because piggy “sure enough” if this poor porky pie contacts old classmates for good liquor, they would persuade piggy to do a security guard in the Jiangmen city again. It’s no good for the face of science…haha)
…
Hurry up! And do more job, otherwise, you will be buried by T – 33 style of “non - sense” and J – 10 style of “delusional squat” too. Then, the resource of this galaxy will have to “has compassion for” and “lead to” charity to those useless things only. (Piggy has to confess the pig has become a “loser” again.)

The latest on AI controversy the sum up:

More here:

Into the mind of North Korea leader Kim Jong Un, a national geographic documentary well worth seeing!

Superdeterminism gets Parmenides point...

Pealing off concepts...

My youtube comment:

When a Scientist come up with an "idea" he is playing first a Meta Physician and second a Philosopher, the scientific method for gathering the data is then the third way to develop the "idea" to something tangible that translates in predictive data that can be falsified. The "idea" per se is not a guessing game, doesn't come out of nowhere, as l'air du temps, cultural baggage, and complexity often bring the "idea" to the mind more then the mind "creates" an idea out of thin air...Science is thus FIRST and foremost a tool, a method, not, never a thinking process! The idea that Science is something more then a method is preposterous! Pretty soon AI bots will replace Scientists in the menial task of applying the method, only much later will bots be able to question axioms, concepts, language and the breaking point of what words mean phenomenologically in our embodied species specific cognitive process!

PS - Footnote, because I used the word Metaphysics let me clear that I am an atheist regarding a mind that creates Reality which it can't as it cannot create itself out of his own bootstraps, out of nothingness! Minds properties are thus a given and rule out a mind of all minds...on the other hand "demigods", incomplete minds, are not only possible but probable given the size of the Universe! (we certainly look like a demigod compared to a snail...that process is not exhausted with us probabilistically speaking)
Why do I use the wording "incomplete minds" you might wonder? Because minds troubleshoot "problems"... and "problems" are the word for lack of completeness...a complete mind would be dead, not needing to compute, "think" about anything! Again this is in direct contradiction with the axiomatic premisses on the classical Abrahamic God which is self inconsistent!

Finally regarding Bayesian thinking, its not new, and it does not grant true facts, it has an older name, Natural Philosophy, "Science" is just the new "techno word" for Natural Philosophy!

You say things in such an unclear way, one has to suppose what you actually mean...so in the bolded part above, one could "suppose" you are saying "there are no gods."

If you are saying that, why not just say in plain words that your guess is that there are no gods?

The rational is simple Frank:

Minds have properties.
A First mind has properties by definition.
A First Mind (God) did not create his own properties, they are a given for the mind to exist.
Therefore a First mind is not the Creator of Reality in the manner that it did not create his own mind conditions/properties...properties that themselves a priori should belong to the Reality Set...

None of this has anything to do with guessing...further for all that matters a sufficient evolved Demigod might be so transcendent and powerful that puts our Anthropomorphic concept of the big God to shame, as the limit of our IQ and Homo Sapiens embodied cognition limits a detail description on the obscure wording for "God", that is to mean the very wording "God" is ambiguous as it points to "alienation" well beyond our thinking boundaries!

As for our little classical take on the Abrahamic God as the creator of Reality it is patently clear the contradiction in terms I pointed out above!