Free Will isn't real

German theoretical physicist Sabine Hossenfelder says free will is unscientific and it doesn't exist.

What do you think about it?

Schizophrenic Conspiracy Theorist Shirt $21.68

Homeless People Are Sexy Shirt $21.68

Schizophrenic Conspiracy Theorist Shirt $21.68

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I think she's the blackest moron gorilla Black person in science. Determinism made me say that

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Determinism made me say that
      correct, you said it because of your need for attention and validation, knowing that the first post would gain increased visibility compared to others thus exposing (You)r stupid sense of humor more.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      if someone took an axe and chopped off her head, said person should walk free. After all, it was not his decision to do so.

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    How do I find an anti-compatibilist gf like her

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    She should try to deboonk Justin Riddle's arguments for how free will might be possible. Free will could exist if consciousness collapses the wave function.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Yeah it can also be real if god exists, or if dualism is true, or any other thing someone can come up with, stop posting this schizo

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Quantum randomness is exactly and argument AGAINST free will. Imagine every action you take is reduced to a coin toss. Cope already neither determinism nor quantum randomness allow free will. Why are you so upset?

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    free will is an incoherent concept.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Why would you expect reality to be coherent?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      will - desire, something you want to do in order to achieve something

      free - a relative scale of options that are available to do or achieve something

      free will - desire, something you want to do in order to achieve something in a relative scale of options that are available to do or achieve something

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This

      https://www.lesswrong.com/tag/free-will-solution

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Image has nothing to do with free will

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous
        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >there are no good reasons to doubt my perception
          ...said the schizophrenic madman.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >if free will doesn't exist then how do you explain my feelings
          Absolute state.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            agree... so many low-IQ people flooded IQfy lately...
            did it become too mainstream?
            time to migrate?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            you cant even begin to explain anything then

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Is free will one of those things like consciousness where you're supposed to have a weird feeling that pulls you into confused philosophical debates? Because that's the only reason I can think of for why people have so many confused philosophical debates about it

  6. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    free will is a red herring to distract from why phenomenal experience exists

  7. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I agree

    but then if you stay conscious and keep it in mind, you can make it real

    for a little while, until you see breasts and get horny and rub one out and then you're back to watching anime and wait what were you thinking about? need to piss?

    this is what is known as willpower

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >watching tranime
      cringe

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        okay fine rick and morty then

  8. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I entirely agree with her. Though it cannot be proven, I too suspect that for every action we take, we could not have done differently. Ergo no free will. I have met her a few times btw (yeah I'm bragging)

  9. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >a woman
    >who produces WEF propaganda on youtube
    >denies free will
    >by copying stale ideological arguments from 400 years ago
    It's all so tiresome.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      An ugly woman, to correct you there

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        ugly women have a higher chance of pursuing studies for many years as a mechanism of defense from being rejected by quality males and the search of alternative validation / power, this is also determinism.

  10. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Her argument isn't wrong, but it's only from a materialist philosophy applied to physics. That's like trying to use our current understanding of physics to prove consciousness when we still don't even have a solid definition of consciousness.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      actually determinism has zero dependence on materialism whatsoever. the only claim being made is that events as they occurred couldn't have occurred any differently. that can easily fit into both idealist and materialist frameworks.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >actually determinism has zero dependence on materialism whatsoever
        wrong, in a materialistic universe, which is fully determined mathematically, there cannot be a process that is not pre-determined.
        Free will is an illusion in such a universe.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >in a materialistic universe, which is fully determined mathematically, there cannot be a process that is not pre-determined.
          that's wrong. there are many materialists who subscribe to indeterministic interpretations of quantum mechanics, for example.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >In a materialistic universe determinism is a given
            Not true. You don't know what you're talking about.

            then you're talking about an idealistic universe.
            quantum mechanics is determined, our impression of indetermination is an illusion.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >indeterministic interpretations of qm must be idealist
            wrong. there is no such rule.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >wrong. there is no such rule.
            because nobody found out yet.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      actually determinism has zero dependence on materialism whatsoever. the only claim being made is that events as they occurred couldn't have occurred any differently. that can easily fit into both idealist and materialist frameworks.

      Yeah, I agree with you. Its just that people typically associate materialism and physics for exactly the reasoning she spelled out. They assume that decision making is the result of the brain, being explainable with physics, like our brains are all just computers without actual minds inside of them. Her argument isn't wrong, but there are still more possibilities to consider - from a metaphysical standpoint. Which has not actually a lot to do with physics.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >solid definition of consciousness
      Exactly.
      Because it doesn't exist.
      It's a meaningless word.
      It's like saying we don't have a solid definition of "umpa doompa prootity doo".

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        So we're just robots then? Why are humans sentient?

  11. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Rotten words. The question of free will is irrelevant and only people hoping to demoralize others would bother making claims that it doesn't exist.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >it's irrelevant, who cares
      >but btw free will is real!!!

      every time lol

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Nowhere did my post assert that it does exist, mr. strawman.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >>but btw free will is real!!!
        That's not being said and it's determined from your low IQ that you would think that. It's irrelevant. People want to believe that determinism is true for political and/or smug fedora "telling kids that Santa isn't real"-tier reasons, regardless whether they have those reasons because of their free will or because they were determined to.
        There is no genuine believer in determinism. Even if determinism was true, no human could really accept it, just like humans couldn't really accept not existing after death (regardless of that being true). Both ideas are attractive to pseuds because only pseuds are pretentious enough to want to talk down on the unenlightened masses that can't accept these "facts". They themselves can't accept it but there is an implicit "I'm above it all" mentality that these types share.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          i am a genuine believer in determinism who really accepts it, believe that or don't

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            If you believe that you really accepted and internalized it then you are just an idiot that doesn't know his limits or doesn't understand what I mean by accept. Nobody that accepts determinism would bother arguing about it.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            i argue about it because it's fun and i consider it important

  12. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    This 0/10 troll grifter baiting for ad revenue is still getting attention? Bros come on.

    https://web.archive.org/web/20170718113249/http://motls.blogspot.com/2016/01/free-will-of-particles-and-people.html?m=1
    >In the Backreaction comment thread, Ppnl, Oren, and a few others were trying to convince Sabine Hossenfelder that aside from the "outside view", there also exists an "inside view" that involves feelings that simply can't be proven externally.
    >She denies the existence of her own internal feelings and consciousness of any sort that couldn't be communicated or empirically proven by external gadgets. To deny one's own consciousness sounds like something so incredibly stupid that I can't imagine that we are debating her.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >She denies the existence of her own internal feelings and consciousness of any sort that couldn't be communicated or empirically proven by external gadgets. To deny one's own consciousness sounds like something so incredibly stupid that I can't imagine that we are debating her.

      Is this for real? Holy shit she is not only moronic but arrogant, appealing massively to authority when humans barely started making science.

      We're still baboons in the cosmic scale of things but Mrs. Einstein is the science god thinks we got all figured out.
      I like her for debunking pop science, but the way she goes out of her field, trying to use the authority of current science to claim shit is arrogant at least.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        This is what Sciencism as a religion does.
        >"Hey, I had a dream last night..."
        >"DID YOU? WERE THERE ANY WITNESSES? HOW CAN WE MEASURE THIS? SURELY ONLY RANDOM ELECTRON NOISE OCCURRED!"

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      That guy really went overboard with his hatred and insults against her to the point where it became a bit strange from what I remember

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        It's understandable. There are few things worse than ugly midwit women.

  13. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >I dindu nuffin!!1!
    >free will doesn't exist so you can't hold me accountable for my actions, God Almighty!1!!

  14. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >I have noticed that even people who claim everything is predetermined and that we can do nothing to change it, look before they cross the road. One cannot base one's conduct on the idea that everything is determined, because one does not know what has been determined. Instead, one has to adopt the effective theory that one has free will and that one is responsible for one's actions. This theory is not very good at predicting human behavior, but we adopt it because there is no chance of solving the equations arising from the fundamental laws. There is also a Darwinian reason that we believe in free will: A society in which the individual feels responsible for his or her actions is more likely to work together and survive to spread its values.
    Stephen Hawking
    (pp. 133-135 Black Holes and Baby Universes and Other Essays (1993))

    Sabine is appealing to authority massively here, in fact, that's her whole argument.

  15. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >hurr durr I'm-a believe there is no free will so I don't have to take responsibility for my life

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It's even worse. Because no free will, you can just program people like machines if you have the right learning environment.
      Because THAT idea has worked out well historically, right?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I guess you could say belief in free will is predetermined by other aspects of one's life and personality.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        No, it's genetic. Some people do, some don't.

  16. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Trying to explain consciousness when we don't know anything about it or how it works or where it even comes from
    >Trying to explain consciousness with a purely atheistic/materialistic worldview only
    >Having any definitive stance on consciousness and everything derived from with our current understanding of it, which again, is nothing

    Why is science so fricking gay and stupid?

  17. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It's an ill defined philosophical rubbish that mostly westerners care about.

  18. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    She's right in this case. I don't like her though, seems like a mad b***h that thinks she's smarter than she is

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Except she's wrong about almost everything in this video.
      Free will is not incoherent. Determinism is incoherent. Nobody (including Sabine) has given a coherent definition of what it means for human behavior to be determined.
      Even the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philsosophy very clearly acknowledges this and explains why many common definitions of determinism are inconsistent and incoherent.

      https://i.imgur.com/wdyMnur.jpg

      >hurr durr I'm-a believe there is no free will so I don't have to take responsibility for my life

      This armchair psychoanalysis is fun to turn around on the no-free-willers who claim free willers just like the comfort it gives them to believe they and others are responsible but ultimately it's a useless way of looking at it.

      i am a genuine believer in determinism who really accepts it, believe that or don't

      What is determinism according to you?

      free will is an incoherent concept.

      What's incoherent about the ability to have done otherwise in some situations?

      How do I find an anti-compatibilist gf like her

      Compatibilism is actually the correct position. Free will exists and determinism (whenever it's coherently defined) is consistent with it.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >What is determinism according to you?
        the inability to have done otherwise.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Ok that just seems to me like a plain denial of free will rather than a definition of determinism but I'll accept it. What's your arguments in favor of it?
          To me it seems like your position is just a lack of imagination.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            there is obviously no proof of either side, it's just a belief. but one thought i often have is the following: respecting our observations to the highest degree favours determinism, because we only observe one outcome happening for any given event. i don't consider this a very powerful argument, but it does compel me somewhat

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Respecting our observations to the highest degree favours indeterminism. According to determinism, it's either impossible for the next character you type to be A, or it's impossible for the next character you type to be anything other than A. Both of these statements are false, hence logically the premise is false, and there are situations where things can go more than one way.
            This is not a proof, and it's possible for one to be logically consistent and believe in determinism. Ultimately determinism is just a theological superstition: one posits a magical object/function somewhere in this or the platonic universe which has the record of everything that has happened or will happen (or a complete algorithm for the evolution of the physical universe, which is no less mystical because nobody is even close to finding one and all the evidence suggests there isn't one). This is similar to postulating god, or postulating solipsism, or postulating that the whole universe was created last tuesday. It's possible to be consistent while holding those beliefs, but it doesn't make you look smart and ultimately there is no evidence for holding those beliefs.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Both of these statements are false
            not provably.
            >Ultimately determinism is just a theological superstition
            i disagree, but if you believe that, you really have to believe the same about indeterminism, since they are equivalent commitments, just to different sides of the question.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Is the belief that the universe was created last thursday an equivalent commitment as the belief of the negation?
            Because that's analogous to what you're arguing about determinism.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Because that's analogous to what you're arguing about determinism.
            no it isn't, i argue. we know that the answer to that is no, whereas we don't know the answer to the determinism question.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >we know that the answer to that is no,
            So your position is that one cannot be logically consistent while believing the universe was created last thursday? Why not?

            If tomorrow the Sun explodes and exects high energy plasma towards the Earth, all consciousness on planet Earth will be destroyed. There is no way your free will alone, without material conditions, could prevent this.
            The explosion the Sun is the material event eradicating all our consciousness. The life cycle of stars and the moment of their explosion (or lack thereof) is determined by their materialistic atomic composition and life stage.

            Fair enough but how does any of that disprove free will?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Fair enough but how does any of that disprove free will?
            No free will (except the one of a divinity) can interfere in the deterministic processes happening in the Sun, thus if it must explode, it will explode and unless there are some other material conditions at play (you suck half of the iron out of the Sun with a giant funnel before it explodes), it WILL explode.
            Thus a materialistic reality is deterministic, everything that appears free will is an illusion.

            This is about free will, not consciousness. But I do think you're right to fear the possibility of consciousness falsifies determinism.

            As for consciousness, the argument for the mapping of material conditions onto conscious states can be run in reverse the same way. This is exactly what happens on simulation theory, in dreams, imagination, platonic realism, some dualisms, etc.

            >This is about free will, not consciousness.
            consciousness was just an example, reread the post, it's just about free will.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I'm pretty sure people are perfectly capable of choosing whether to have cheerios or cornflakes.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            prove that you could have done otherwise.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I could have chosen corn flakes or cheerios there is no fundamental force preventing me from choosing either, the burden of proof is on you to prove their is.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >there is no fundamental force preventing me from choosing either
            actually, there may well be
            >the burden of proof is on you to prove their is
            there is an equal burden on both sides

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >the ability to have done otherwise in some situations
        This. This is the part that's incoherent. Unless there are multiverses, everything was only ever going to be the way it is.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          correct

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          i disagree, i think one can believe in the ability to have done otherwise only at certain times, it is coherent. this would be a kind of constrained indeterminism. i don't believe in that myself, but I'm just saying it's not incoherent.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >constrained indeterminism
            Indeterminism is just the negation of determinism. If you think there is even a single instance where determinist beliefs are false, you are an indeterminism. "Constrained indeterminism" is a redundant and stupid phrasing.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >If you think there is even a single instance where determinist beliefs are false, you are an indeterminist
            i agree
            >"Constrained indeterminism" is a redundant and stupid phrasing.
            disagree. if the ability to have done otherwise is only possessed some of the time, then it's clearly constrained compared to having that ability all of the time.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Unless there are multiverses, everything was only ever going to be the way it is.
          Doesn't follow.

          >What's incoherent about the ability to have done otherwise in some situations?
          In a materialistic universe, everything is determined, so your ability to have done otherwise is a naïve illusion.
          In reality your behavior is explained by your current material status (hunger, thirst, fear, internal biochemical processes, materialistic will to power, etc.).
          Nothing that has ever happened to you was random, the illusion of randomness comes from you not knowing all the involved variables.

          > In a materialistic universe, everything is determined
          Doesn't follow.
          > everything is determined, so your ability to have done otherwise is a naïve illusion
          Doesn't follow.
          > In reality your behavior is explained by your current material status (hunger, thirst, fear, internal biochemical processes, materialistic will to power, etc.).
          Not even wrong (meaningless nonsense).
          > Nothing that has ever happened to you was random
          Very possible.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            If tomorrow the Sun explodes and exects high energy plasma towards the Earth, all consciousness on planet Earth will be destroyed. There is no way your free will alone, without material conditions, could prevent this.
            The explosion the Sun is the material event eradicating all our consciousness. The life cycle of stars and the moment of their explosion (or lack thereof) is determined by their materialistic atomic composition and life stage.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            This is about free will, not consciousness. But I do think you're right to fear the possibility of consciousness falsifies determinism.

            As for consciousness, the argument for the mapping of material conditions onto conscious states can be run in reverse the same way. This is exactly what happens on simulation theory, in dreams, imagination, platonic realism, some dualisms, etc.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >What's incoherent about the ability to have done otherwise in some situations?
        In a materialistic universe, everything is determined, so your ability to have done otherwise is a naïve illusion.
        In reality your behavior is explained by your current material status (hunger, thirst, fear, internal biochemical processes, materialistic will to power, etc.).
        Nothing that has ever happened to you was random, the illusion of randomness comes from you not knowing all the involved variables.

  19. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    In a materialistic universe determinism is a given... in a dualist or idealist one there could be free will.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      actually determinism has zero dependence on materialism whatsoever. the only claim being made is that events as they occurred couldn't have occurred any differently. that can easily fit into both idealist and materialist frameworks.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >In a materialistic universe determinism is a given
      Not true. You don't know what you're talking about.

  20. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    physics applies indiscriminately, neurons are not an exception

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You think you know what physics proclaims to do but you don't.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought-terminating_clich%C3%A9

  21. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    If the universe is determined then what determined it? It determined itself, which is the definition of free will.

  22. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    These discussion are so funny, you just feel people's need for it to be real, they want to conform reality to their beliefs and not the other way around

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Exactly, they are all probably fat, poor and lazy, and can't stand the idea that their own choices are responsible for where they ended up!

  23. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The effect of quantum indeterminacy is miniscule. I wish free-willers would stop being pussies and just deny that we know for certain that physics is causally closed.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >The effect of quantum indeterminacy is miniscule
      Huh? It obviously affects everything else, including large scale things like humans and their behavior.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >obviously
        No.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Have you tried thinking about it for more than a second?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >obviously
            No.

            Seems like you weren't able to come up with it on your own. Let me explain. I set up an experiment as follow:
            I set up an experiment in which I'm going to measure the spin of an electron. The outcome of the experiment is decided what you called quantum indeterminacy. Before the experiment is conducted, I decide that if I measure spin up along my specified axis, I will go to the cinema that day, otherwise I will stay home.
            The large scale phenomenon of whether I go to cinema or whether I stay home is decided by quantum indeterminacy.
            Since there is nothing magical about me setting up the experiment, nature doesn't care about consciousness, physically it's just a thing that happens like any other, there is all the reason to believe that quantum indeterminacy stops constantly affecting large scale things once I'm done with my experiment. I.e. quantum indeterminacy influences large scale things all the time.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            [...]
            Seems like you weren't able to come up with it on your own. Let me explain. I set up an experiment as follow:
            I set up an experiment in which I'm going to measure the spin of an electron. The outcome of the experiment is decided what you called quantum indeterminacy. Before the experiment is conducted, I decide that if I measure spin up along my specified axis, I will go to the cinema that day, otherwise I will stay home.
            The large scale phenomenon of whether I go to cinema or whether I stay home is decided by quantum indeterminacy.
            Since there is nothing magical about me setting up the experiment, nature doesn't care about consciousness, physically it's just a thing that happens like any other, there is all the reason to believe that quantum indeterminacy stops constantly affecting large scale things once I'm done with my experiment. I.e. quantum indeterminacy influences large scale things all the time.

            >Have you tried thinking about it for more than a second?
            Your <2σ IQ will never get it no matter how long you think about it. Your example is the same as someone drawing tarot cards and making decisions based on that. Not very convincing.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >missing the point so hard

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You didn't make your point very well. Deciding to go to the cinema based off a measurement of spin isn't proof that a quantum effect generated the impulse to make the decision in the first place. It's pure sophistry.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >It's pure sophistry
            The surest tell of cognitive dissonance.

  24. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    *kills you*
    whoops, determinism is a b***h innit

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      if you start walking in the middle of some Chicago ghetto and get hit by a bullet, it means that you should simply not have been there at that time to avoid this outcome.
      your skeptical personality questioning determinism, probably your skin color and the presence of armed feral humans just at the right time caused your death in this case, also deterministic.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      but you won't kill me because the punishment for doing so deterministically deters you from doing so.

  25. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Non-compatibilist versions of free-will are unscientific, whats so hard to understand about that?

  26. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    To get a IQfyner against determinism you simply have to point out that black and israeli people wouldn't be responsible for their actions as it was all determined when a quantum fluctuation happened 13.8 billion years ago and the universe began.
    It's all been happening as it was pre determined.

  27. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The axioms of racial and sexual equality are based entirely on appeal to emotion and appeals to Star Trek and therefore aren’t based in reality either.

  28. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    What does determinism have to do with responsibility? If anything, it makes responsibility more rigorous. If you tell me that Bob killed some guy and we should therefore kill him, I'd be a lot more likely to agree with you if you could show that Bob's brain was arranged in such a way that it MUST have lead to him killing someone than if he might have killed someone due to freak quantum fluctuations.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Its because of punishment. Bob was born to get buttfricked in prison, there was no way for him to avoid that fate, thats his life. Similar in a way to someone being born get cancer, to be a slave, to be disabled, to suffer all kinds of horrific tragedies. Most people think that unavoidable suffering is a bad thing, controversial take, i know

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Its like blaming a mosquito for being born a mosquito, its silly

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        most people don't let the silliness of that idea stop them from swatting mosquitoes, though. We think that "being a mosquito" is bad. I think that "being the kind of person that murders people" is bad. In fact, I think that "being the kind of person that murders people" is worse than "being the kind of person who MIGHT murder people if they lose some cosmic lottery."

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          You arent exactly wrong but if reincarnation does exist (it should be if consciousness cant be destroyed just like matter cant be destroyed) then one day you will end up as the one who murders people. If you made rules to kill murderers, you will just be punishing the future you, its short sighted masochism

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            But you'll also end up reincarnating as the people who may or may not end up getting murdered due to ineffective law enforcement. This is just utilitarianism, which works perfectly well without free will.

            To be honest I don't actually like retributive justice, mostly for reasons like this. But I think a fully non-retributive justice system (or at least, a justice system where retribution is based on calculation and not emotion) is out of reach for modern society so I accept it as a shitty band-aid.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            That is true, cant find fault in anything you said. But going back to your original question about how responsibility gets weakebed by determinism, i think its fear. People want to believe that if they choose things right, they can avoid undesirable consequences that they are scared of. I think thats what most people think of when they think about responsibility, determinism takes that security away from them. That being said, i have a hunch that you already knew this

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I think that's the wrong way to look at it, though I understand that many people do think of it that way. Our choices do matter, and I think people think that determinism or the fact that souls aren't real or whatever somehow threatens that idea, which I think is just silly. A choice still matters even if you're guaranteed to make it in a certain way given initial conditions. Even if we somehow do have nondeterministic souls that aren't subject to influence from the material world, that would still end up looking the exact same from our perspective. There's no reason to expect anything different would happen between the two options based just on the knowledge we have now.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Our choices do matter
            What do you mean by "our choices"?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The plans and actions that are created as a result of (deterministic?) computational processes in our brains(/souls?)

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >I'd be a lot more likely to
      no you wouldnt be more likely to do anything

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Are you saying that my behavior doesn't depend on initial conditions?

  29. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >unscientific
    Yes
    >doesn't exist
    Wrong
    What is or is not scientific merely means whether or not something can or cannot be approximated by current models.
    Just because man-made models can't explain something that is directly observable does not magically make it non-existent.

  30. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    In short: Sabine isn't an expert on anything besides physics and trolling for clout. She's amusing from the controversial shit she says and how people different positions react to that.

  31. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    you can't prove a philosophical paradox with science

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This. You can come up with some testable proposition and say that its truth is equivalent to free will being real, and then test it and show it to be false, but that doesn't matter if nobody agrees with you that the thing you tested is equivalent to the thing you're actually trying to talk about.

  32. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    She is making her stupid woman career on this anti-free will meme, it only shows how rotten she is on the inside. Only a b***h homosexual parasite would even consider this. So meh

    Anyway the argument for free will is pretty clear: we are not machines, emergence is essentially a midwit saying 1+1=3, we have pyramidal neurons in our frontal cortex with inner processing structures that are empirically small enough to avoid mindless causation and instead have telesis i.e. retrocausation. If you are too dumb to understand such a simple explanation then just assume you don't know, instead of believing literal pop sci made by people who might soon die.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      What's the important difference that makes "your actions are decided by whatever stable retrocausal structure your neurons fall into" more free-will-y than "your actions are decided by whatever the boundary conditions of the universe are"?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Future is made of potentials. In order for there to be retrocausation in this context of telesis these potentials must be created, then one is picked. This generation itself takes energy(at some point) but is what allows a human mind to add axioms to itself and expand. Imagine denying free will lmao

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I don't deny free will (at least in general). I just don't see how your explanation of things is MORE free-will-friendly than alternatives. In particular, at least how you explain things here, I feel like "one is picked" is doing a lot of heavy lifting. What is the process by which one is picked? and why is that process more free-will-y than any other process? Is there an information theoretic difference?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Didn't mean you deny free will, just laughed at the idea. There is no previous state or hidden variable that determines the pick, thus the free choice. There is however one choice that is initially more consistent than the other with the agent's identity(eg to drink water at a thirsty moment). He can do it or not, regardless of his desire.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I feel like even if identity completely determines the choice, it's still free. the problem comes from deciding exactly what counts as "identity"

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Just create levels of identity, closer to the individual vs his environment. Very close includes personal beliefs and abstractions which are located in his private mind, next level is close but is now more concerned with our geometrical physical identity(eg hydration) and so on and so forth(my house, my neighborhood). You can also quantify by how much something bothers you at baseline and long term and create levels on that. Identity is constantly changing as well, overall expanding if the individual is healthy.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I agree, but that might not be satisfying to someone who's kept up at night by the question of free will

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      atop seething so hard lol. you can't disprove determinism

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >we have pyramidal neurons in our frontal cortex with inner processing structures that are empirically small enough to avoid mindless causation and instead have telesis i.e. retrocausation
      prove it.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        You are not aware of what your eyes see until after their signal reaches the back of the head for low level processing and passes through the white arrow path in pic related to finally reach the PFC, where the pyramidal neurons are. Damage to the top of the brain thus cause cortical blindness. So we conclude that whatever consciousness is, and with it conscious choice, is in the pyramidal neurons structure. Some moron will even read this text and think I'm defending the absence of free will

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >inner processing structures that are empirically small enough to avoid mindless causation and instead have telesis i.e. retrocausation
      Where is the free will in that? This would merely make things undetermined (from our perspective that is), not free willing, moron, also retrocausation isn't real; unless you want to argue that electrons are conscious and they are the one that decide when neutrons decay too

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Makes things self-determined since it is a both-ways loop of causation. The common usage of determined and undetermined is unfortunately not dichotomic because we've allowed to many midwits in Academia. Retrocausation exists at highest level because of the inherent relation between state and syntax, it is not a proposal of individual electrons being conscious, which is more of a physicalist's closeted view(because brain=turing machine to them)

  33. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >telesis
    langan drone spotted

  34. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I think so too. You may weight the options of a desicion but the weighting is done step by step similar to a computer I think.

  35. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Superdeterminism is a dippy concept that fails to account for symmetry breaking.
    She doesn't actually believe it either. It's just clickbait for her.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      symmetry is a complete made up idea. there is no proof that nature conforms or needs to conform to it. she does believe it btw

  36. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I will it to be real. But also it's one of those things that's pointless to talk about since it either affirms your own beliefs or provides no benefit at all. It's basically atheism for will

  37. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I choose to believe what I was programmed to believe.

  38. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Of course there is no "free will", you couldn't have done anything that you didn't do before, if you wound the clock back in time. You would make literally the same exact choices an infinite number of times.

    Everything obeys the laws of cause and effect, your brain runs on the laws of cause and effect, there are no uncaused causes or effects that are "cuased" by things not bound by the laws of physics, which are either deterministic or random (but not "free").

    99% of the time this argument breaks down in semantics, but there is no denying the basic facts here. We are all the result of a series of causes, none of which we had any control over, because we are all physical beings that obey the laws of physics from the quarks to the brains that hold them.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      If wound back time what's stopping from moving my right hand instead of my left hand.

      There isn't any physical force preventing us from taking any path we want (chaos theory proves that).

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >chaos theory proves that we could have done otherwise
        no

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >If wound back time what's stopping from moving my right hand instead of my left hand.
        The fact that you will have the exact same brain state as you did when you first moved your hand.

        Chaos doesn't grant you free will either. Just because there is a random number generator in the series of dominos doesn't mean *you* are free from the laws of cause and effect.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          If you rewound time you'd be messing with the flow of causality which would effect space-time continuum and entropy since time is local force as proven by time dilation, unless you think you can rewind time everywhere across the universe accounting for dilation all at the same time, it would not play the same at all.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You are missing the point here. Were are in the land of thought experiments where we can rewind time without any of the autistic physics wanking you are doing here.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Well at that point you're not asking if were doing things differently because your asking for a dream beyond a dream that is already terminated.

            But In the real world that isn't tied by our definitions you are a living organism who is capable of choosing where to allocate they chemical and physically energy in your body.

            Neither Gravity, the weak force, the strong force, or magnetism decided whether you as a person choose whether you move your right hand or left hand or to eat or drink, perhaps play video game, or invent them, that is you.

            and being autistic because you can't see the world where you didn't is a moot point your choosing to be a moot instead of thinking of something productive like the cure for cancer or something that'll actually benefit or continue your life so I simply suggest you choose to move on instead of shilling determinism on 4 chan.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            there's no proof that we could have done otherwise contained within your post.

  39. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    degrees of freedom and perfect maths

  40. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >i can't do a back flip
    >therefore no one can
    literally every determinist

  41. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    She's actually one of the more positive liberal atheist so I like her.

  42. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Free will is incoherent. However the problem free will is trying to solve is the nature of control/ownership. The free will assumes an uncaused actions being generated by being that interfaces with the human body host that it controls from outside time/space. Its a really silly way to look at reality.

    The real problem is how to deal with ownership relation to control mechanism. That requires deep understanding of how our mind works, how our minds perceive subject-object duality, how our mind perceives the relation between the two, how our minds perceive the subject coherence for there to be a relation, etc. Its a difficult and more interesting problem that eastern philosopher/religious traditions looked to solve through understanding the nature of the mind/personhood/identity/causality/relations between mind/persons/identity/causality/etc.

  43. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    free will doesn't exist because freedom in this sense presupposes no connection to anything else in the universe, which of course is blatantly false, there is only will. free will as a concept was created by the ancient israelites, resentful in their prosecution, as a way to blame people for acting within their nature even though their god supposedly created all men and knows everything.

    determinism is also false because nothing has been determined, and nothing can be determined. causes are not real either and just ways to describe the infinitely dense information content of the universe.

  44. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I'ts clear some anon have a crush on her because there's almost as most threads about Sabine in here than there is of kpop generals on /mu

  45. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >German theoretical
    >german

    stopped reading there. of course turbo autist npc krauts believe free will doesnt exist

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >of course i could have done otherwise!

      where is your PROOF?

  46. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Modern science is a meme.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Half the paid pop scier's, who are not even scientists, certainly do it

  47. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Yes and? Everything is either random or pre-determined. Can you change it? No.
    Sending you some photons to give you photoneurosis.

  48. 3 weeks ago
    the one mirror reflects it's self the one mirror sees it's self

    the one mirror reflects it's self
    the one mirror sees it's self

  49. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >What do you think about it?
    I think she is incorrect.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Thomas_Schulz

      Yeah, it's much better to read Nietzsche.

  50. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Words used as spells
    Like tolling of bells
    The people gather round
    For truths sprinkled down
    But all they find are crumbs
    In measley tiny sums
    And all the while they scream
    "Put me back in the dream!"
    But the dream never ended
    We all merely pretended

  51. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Lets say it is deterministic, you are still throwing dice and creating randomness with each decision and action you take. Whatever your determined so called future is, is set by you yourself determined actions but chaotic and free flowing

  52. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Some people just cant handle facts like this so they cope.

  53. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Free will is found in the quantum window where all reality binds everything to this little bubble.

    It's as simple as that zooming in until you see yourself again thing, except retro-causually

  54. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >German theoretical physicist Sabine Hossenfelder says free will is unscientific and it doesn't exist.
    This would be a perfectly legitimate thing to say if they didn't immediately draw the conclusion that there is no such thing as crime and therefore criminals should not be punished.

    That's an entirely different idea that they sell with this one in a two-for-one deal. How about a different idea: if free will doesn't exist, criminals likely to re-offend should be executed and excluded from the gene pool.

    > but who gets to decide-
    Anyone does. We apparently live on a speck of cosmic dust void of all meaning. That means that anything does, including capital punishment and racism.

  55. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    define freewill mathematically

  56. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I have thought of and left unsolved the question of free will/determinism for years.
    Now at 30 I favor free will

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *