Consciousness is simply an illusion emergent of a Boltzmann brain configuration....

[JuliaL]

One other consideration. If the Boltzmann Brain hypothesis is based on the concept of matter randomly coming together to form various things (like pizzas, or teapots, or brains) given an infinite amount of time, one must also consider that the matter in our universe is probably NOT infinite. Protons, for example, are thought to have a half-life of about 10^31 years or so. A very, very long time, to be sure, but certainly nowhere near the infinite time scales imagined when considering the chances of a Boltzmann Brain forming. Furthermore, given the accelerating expansion of the universe at present, if this trend continues into the future, it will be less likely that matter will be able to clump together to form anything, including galaxies, solar systems, planets... and especially random brains. The more I think about this hypothesis, the less probable it seems to become.

Sure you can consider the life span of protons and conclude a finite time/space.  That does not take into account any number of alternatives.  
One, that there is an underlying substrate on which protons reside which is in fact eternal and infinite.  
Two, that at some point, where space has expanded enough and average mass density has become assymptotically zero, what we consider physical laws become in effect suggestions.  e.g. before Planck time, at singularities, our observed regularities don't apply.
That tomorrow may not be essentially like yesterday even though, for billions of years as far as we can tell, it has been.  Extrapolating indefinitely from current observations bears a similarity to young earth creationist arguments: From the current rate the moon is receding, a 4 billion year earth would have had the moon at its core.  From the rate of salination of oceans, if the world were old, the seas would be pure salt by now.

To preempt an objection that we can only infer from what we observe.
Here's an analogy with respect to lack of causation in QM.
If you were to examine encrypted packets passing from bank to bank, you might well conclude there was only noise there, no signal.  Without the key to decrypt them, this would be a reasonable conclusion.  Yet the banks can reliably balance their accounts.  A more modest interpretation is that the data only looks random.  It could be that we lack the ability to look in the direction where the key lies.  The universe looks ordered and predictable strictly to the degree to which it looks ordered and predictable.  Even if we knew it all, we wouldn't know that we knew it all.
Every time we've been able to see farther, the universe has gotten bigger.  The shaman's model included dances to bring rain.  The monotheistic religions of the mid east were largely limited in their imaginations to the mid-east.  It's only been a century since nebulae were considered near earth objects.  The reletivists mixed time and space into something that fails to connect with our intuitions.  Then dark energy etc happened.  To think that we've finally got it and there shortly won't be anything left to discover continues to ignore this history as does the position that everything there is is much like what we see. 
My wonder is whether there is a hard limit to what we can find out about a universe which could be massively larger than what we can investigate.  And if we could ever tell.