Final answer:
The Closure Principle and Putnam's Causal Constraint contribute to the argument against being a Boltzmann Brain by challenging the skeptical hypothesis and providing justification for our beliefs.
Step-by-step explanation:
The Closure Principle and Putnam's Causal Constraint contribute to the anti-skeptical argument against being a Boltzmann Brain by challenging the skeptical hypothesis and providing justification for our beliefs. The Closure Principle states that if we have knowledge of a proposition P, and P logically entails Q, then we have knowledge of Q. This principle helps to refute the skeptical hypothesis by asserting that if we have knowledge of our current mental states (such as perceiving ourselves as having physical bodies), and these mental states logically entail that we are not Boltzmann Brains, then we have knowledge that we are not Boltzmann Brains.
Putnam's Causal Constraint, on the other hand, emphasizes the causal connection between our mental states and the external world. According to this constraint, in order for us to have justified beliefs about the external world, there must be a causal link between our mental states and the external world. If we are Boltzmann Brains, then there is no such causal link because our mental states would be purely the product of random fluctuations in the thermal equilibrium of a Boltzmann Brain. Therefore, the Causal Constraint supports the argument against being a Boltzmann Brain because it denies the possibility of having justified beliefs about the external world in such a scenario.