Readers may remember Sabine Hossenfelder’s essay and blog against free will:
Here’s Cornelius Hunter’s video response:
Hossenfelder and Why Determinism is Important: Determinists such as theoretical physicist Sabine Hossenfelder claim that “the whole story of the universe in every single detail was determined already at the big bang. We are just watching if play out.” While that may seem unlikely, what is important is that they claim this is an undeniable truth. This is no scientific hypothesis and this video shows why this claim is false.
Hat tip: Philip Cunningham
Every word spoken in an attempt to prove there is no free will shows more than simple action and reaction seen in all other creatures capable of sound. The words are not random, but with thought behind them that animals lack. For animals, there is no free will; only what their nature dictates through instinct by design. Humans are not limited by what is instinctual. To do anything beyond instinct, including type this post, proves free will does exist. The delusion is not on the side of those who accept free will, but on those who deny its existence.
BobRyan:
Just curious . . . do you think you had a choice with who you fall in love with? Do you like real liquorice? How about Marmite? Whether you’re heterosexual or homosexual?
Sabine Hossenfelder, when she claims that the state of all the particles in her brain were predetermined at the Big Bang, despite her claim that it is a scientifically true claim, is simply in complete denial of scientific evidence, (from both neuroscience and quantum mechanics), that directly contradicts her philosophical belief in determinism.
As Neurosurgeon Dr. Michael Egnor states, “the neuroscientific evidence unequivocally supports the existence of free will.”
Brain Plasticity, (where the focused attention and/or intention of the immaterial mind is shown to produce structural changes in the material brain), also directly undermines Hossenfelder’s claim that all our thoughts are determined by the prior state of the material particles of out brain.
Quantum Mechanics, which Hossenfelder should be much more familiar with than neuroscience, goes one step further than neuroscience does and proves that our thoughts, or more specifically, proves that our free will choices have not been determined for at least the last 7.8 billion years.
Basically, with the closing of the setting independence and/or ‘free will’ loop hole, by Zeilinger and company, the Atheistic naturalist is now reduced to arguing that “a particle detector’s settings may “conspire” with events in the shared causal past of the detectors themselves to determine which properties of the particle to measure.”
In other words, instead of believing what the experimental results of quantum mechanics are actually telling us, (i.e. that free will is a real and tangible part of reality),, the Determinist, and/or Atheistic Naturalist, is now forced to claim, via ‘superdeterminism’, that the results of the experiments were somehow ‘superdetermined’ at least 7.8 billion years ago, (basically all the way back to the creation of the universe itself), and that the experimental results are now merely ‘conspiring’ to fool us into believing that our experimental results in quantum theory are trustworthy and correct and that we do indeed have free will.
To call such a move on the part of Atheistic Naturalists, (i.e. the rejection of experimental results that directly conflict with their apriori philosophical belief in ‘determinism’), unscientific would be a severe understatement. It is a rejection of the entire scientific method itself.
Atheistic Naturalists, in their appeal to ‘superdeterminism’, are basically arguing that we cannot trust what the experimental results of quantum mechanics themselves are telling us because events in the remote past ‘conspired’ to give us erroneous experimental results today. Erroneous experimental results that are merely ‘fooling us’ into believing that we have free will.
As should be needless to say, if we cannot trust what our experimental results are actually telling us, then science is, for all practical purposes, dead.
Atheistic Naturalists, in their rejection of experimental results that conflict with their a-priori belief in determinism and/or materialism, have become ‘science deniers’ in the truest sense of the term ‘science denier’,,,
If free will does not exist, WHY ARE YOU ARGUING?
Philosophy always plays second fiddle to economics. If your job depends on believing X, you will probably not pay attention to philosophers who say “belief in X is irrational”. Sabine’s job depends on solving differential equations. And yes, she does QM too, but she doesn’t hold to the many “foundations of QM” theories that suggest that QM implies something about ontological (existence) of reality. For example, if you can’t measure position & speed at the same time and same place, you could say the tools are bad, or you could say the position and speed really exist but humans can’t know it, or we could say ignorance is a real substance we can’t live without, we might even say, “Even God doesn’t know both”. All of these answers are different philosophical interpretations of the QM math, and all have some physicists supporting the view.
Sabine has picked one interpretation of QM, which she calls “superdeterminism”. The problem is that superdeterminism is incompatible with “free will”. This is why she spends a lot of time trashing free will. She says resistance to her position is “cognitive dissonance”–completely unaware that it is HER cognitive dissonance with superdeterminism that is on view here. In other words, why trash philosophers to support a very esoteric physical theory? In terms of gambler’s odds, there’s a better chance that Sabine and the dozen physicists supporting superdeterminism are wrong, than the 1000 famous philosophers or 7 billion people who believe in free will are wrong. I can do math Sabine, and the house odds are against you. So why waste your time and mine, talking trash about things you never really studied in grad school or beyond?
“do you think you had a choice with who you fall in love with?”
JVL,
Assure us again that you are not a teenage girl. lol
Andrew
JVL: Just curious . . . do you think you had a choice with who you fall in love with? Do you like real liquorice? How about Marmite? Whether you’re heterosexual or homosexual?
Those are not acts of the will. Hold your finger up to your face and wiggle it. That’s an act of will.
If you were going to try and simulate free will in an AI how would you set about it? How would you define free will so that you would know if the AI achieved it or not?
EvilSnack/4
Because that is our destiny?
Per Pearlman YeC:
Sabine no vs Cornelius Yes, is actually proof of the incredible design/creation of free will for human beings to be aware, or opt to live in denial.
Be aware, and exercise our free will to grow our soul’s connection with The One designer/creator aka G-d of Abraham, or opt to live in denial.
This motive for creation (human free will), helps explain a lot of science (explanation of the empirical observations, and why scripture did not spell out everything for us.
Angels on the other hand. may have been created great, but can not grow, as we (mankind) have a chance too) via obedience, service, faith, study, knowledge..
reference Pearlman YeC
As to the claim that homosexuality does not entail free will in the least, and that one is completely helpless against any homosexual desires that may come along, many former homosexuals whom turned to Christianity, many of whom are now in heterosexual marriages, would strongly disagree with that claim.
Moreover, there is no evidence that homosexuals are ‘born that way’. Nor is there any evidence for a ‘gay gene’.
Moreover, men and women are found to be far more different, both physiologically and mentally, than transgender activists like to portray them as being.
Moreover, there is a strange cognitive dissonance in the left’s progressive sexual ideology.
On the one hand progressives hold that you are completely helpless to choose your sexual orientation. Yet on the other hand, they hold you are completely free to identify as whatever gender you want to be. Biological facts to the contrary be damned.
I guess consistency in logic is not something progressives are overly concerned about. so long as they achieve total sexual liberation from those antiquated notions of sexual morality that are embedded within Christianity.
.
Quote and Verse:
By JVL’s “logic” we do NOT choose to breath so free will is a myth. 🙄
JVL your logic is ridiculous
You’re splitting hairs, you honestly are.
Do you realize that when you split hair you really don’t have a point? why do you think by pointing out there are things in life we can’t choose to do, somehow it is proof that there is no exception to that rule?
Why do you think that by saying you don’t have a choice in whether or not you like a color Somehow stretches to we absolutely have no choice in anything we do?
First of all you can make a choice on something you like or do not like in fact that’s how you end up liking things
You look at your environment, you gather information, you develop a liking or disliking for things based off of your experiences, and how you weigh the outcomes, and how you value them
It’s all part of the very complex process that you seem to think you can someone by saying “do you have a choice in your heterosexuality?”
Which I guess bisexual people would say yes I do
Which to be honest with your sexuality is not black and white like you would like it to be it’s actually very gray and muddy
By the way in a world of determinism you can only know what you have experienced there is no such thing as an illusion
That’s why it seems silly to argue about something that you believe doesn’t exist
You Could never know better if it didn’t exist and you would never know the difference
But you know the difference enough to actually argue about it
if you need an example of my point why don’t you find someone who has been blind since birth and has never seen a color and ask them to describe the color blue
That’s why the argument from determinism is self-defeating
And if you truly believe in determinism then you must understand that you are wasting your time arguing your point with anyone
Its so utterly futile. You obviously don’t understand your own position. If you did you’d realize you’re never going to change anybody else’s mind, it’s wired into their brain.
And let’s not forget homosexuality and all the other little points that you brought up are nothing more than unfortunate genetic accidents whether it’s epigenetic or you’re born that way.
you believe that people should show some level of empathy because they can’t help who they are so don’t hate them. But as a determinist you also have to except the fact that people that hate homosexuals also can’t help it. they probably evolved to get rid of the genetic defect that is homosexuality
So if your precious determinism is true then stop bitching about how the world is. nobody can help what they are and nobody can help what they do, your point is futile. now shut up and watch the show because you and all the rest of your little determinist won’t affect a thing
It’s more of a delusion that it determinist thinks that they can change anybody’s mind
I believe in free well I believe you have a choice in what you can and cannot do
I believe homosexuals have a choice like my sister did and I also believe I have a choice to love them which I do
AaronS1978: Why do you think that by saying you don’t have a choice in whether or not you like a color Somehow stretches to we absolutely have no choice in anything we do?
Because that’s not what I believe.
It’s all part of the very complex process that you seem to think you can someone by saying “do you have a choice in your heterosexuality?”
I think some people had a choice, I think some did not. Again, you assume my point and then argue against that.
Which to be honest with your sexuality is not black and white like you would like it to be it’s actually very gray and muddy
I never said it was black and white for everyone. I think it is for some though.
That’s why it seems silly to argue about something that you believe doesn’t exist
You Could never know better if it didn’t exist and you would never know the difference
But you know the difference enough to actually argue about it
Again, you assume my view and argue against that without finding out what it is I actually think.
Its so utterly futile. You obviously don’t understand your own position. If you did you’d realize you’re never going to change anybody else’s mind, it’s wired into their brain.
You clearly don’t actually understand my position since you never found out what it is.
And let’s not forget homosexuality and all the other little points that you brought up are nothing more than unfortunate genetic accidents whether it’s epigenetic or you’re born that way.
So, you think sexuality can be deterministic?
But as a determinist you also have to except the fact that people that hate homosexuals also can’t help it. they probably evolved to get rid of the genetic defect that is homosexuality
I didn’t say I was a determinist. You assumed that I am. Do you really think that homosexuality is a genetic defect?
So if your precious determinism is true then stop bitching about how the world is. nobody can help what they are and nobody can help what they do, your point is futile. now shut up and watch the show because you and all the rest of your little determinist won’t affect a thing
Again, you assume something which is not correct.
I believe homosexuals have a choice like my sister did and I also believe I have a choice to love them which I do
I should hope you do!!
I only assume it from what you wrote
Unless this wasn’t you
Just curious . . . do you think you had a choice with who you fall in love with? Do you like real liquorice? How about Marmite? Whether you’re heterosexual or homosexual?
AaronS1978: Unless this wasn’t you
Why would you assume that the questions I ask have anything to do with my own beliefs and views? Have you never heard of ‘playing the devil’s advocate’?
Again, you’re not that interested in what I actually think (as you haven’t asked me despite the fact that I’ve told you you got it wrong). You are very interested in picking a fight with one of those damned materialist idiots so you take some questions I asked as an indication I’m not ‘one of you’ and go on the offensive.
And why is that? Why not first check to see if your first impression is correct? Or do you always judge a book by its cover?
Ok tell me, what is your position I’ll listen
I’m interested
And if I got you wrong I apologize
By the way not looking to pick a fight just a super soar subject after constantly being attack by those stupid materialists else where
AaronS1978: Ok tell me, what is your position I’ll listen. I’m interested
I don’t think the universe and us in particular can be completely determined. There’s too much chaos at the base for that to be possible. And even someone like Dr Dawkins will say: if you ran the history of the world back to the beginning and let it go forward again you wouldn’t get the same end result. To me that says that what is determined is limited. Also, look at some of the classic physics experiments like the double slit. Or radioactive decay. You can make statistical arguments about a distribution but you cannot call each and every single event.
I do think that a lot of our opinions and values and preferences come from either our environmental upbringing (the immediate culture if you will) or our hard-wired properties. I would not say that homosexuality was due to a genetic defect but there may be some genetics involved. There is probably a lot of culture and upbringing involved at least in terms of if someone chooses to encompass a certain lifestyle.
Things like being right or left handed, liking or disliking liquorice or Marmite seem to me to be largely determined. People rarely choose to be right or left handed, I don’t think for most of us that’s something we have a choice about. I am partially ambidextrous naturally I think but I have chosen to sometimes practice using my ‘off’ hand. Years ago I decided to try brushing my teeth with my ‘off’ hand and now I can’t do that with my dominant hand. I programmed myself in that situation.
Who we fall in love with is an interesting issue . . . many of us definitely choose who to pursue when there are options. Some people report only wanting and loving one person their whole life. I guess we’re all somewhere on a continuum.
So I think we do have free will to make certain choices. I don’t believe my choosing to reply to you was down to some atomic arrangement from billions of years ago. I think some people in some situations are somewhat ‘programmed’ by their genetics, epigenetics, upbringing, experiences, etc so their behaviour is somewhat predictable. I’m sure we can all think of a person we know who is very easy to get a certain reaction out of.
For me, personally, my sexual orientation seems locked. I’ve never been curious or inclined to try something different despite having ample opportunities. That’s just the way I am and I don’t see how I could be any different and be the same person. I think some of my cognitive abilities are at least partially hardwired but I could have chosen not to pursue or develop them.
I hope that helps clarify my views. I do not believe in determinism. I do believe in genetics, epigenetics, the influence of culture and upbringing and environment. I believe that sometimes we can allow ourselves to be constrained by our surroundings, situation and companions. But there’s too much random chaos for the whole system to be determined. That can’t happen and we know that.
At 8 Seversky asked,
Free will is one of the primary properties of the immaterial mind that can’t be reduced to any possible materialistic explanation.
Likewise, J. Warner Wallace has a very similar list, (but not an exact match to Dr. Egnor’s list), of six properties of immaterial mind that are irreconcilable with reductive materialism.
Another reason why we know that we will never program free will into computer algorithms (AI) is because free will precedes the creation of algorithmic and/or axiomatic information itself.
Indeed, besides free will preceding the creation of algorithmic and/or axiomatic information, and via recent experimental results from quantum mechanics, we now know that free will also precedes the existence of physical reality itself.
Thus, free will, (a primary property of the immaterial mind), is now experimentally shown to precede material/physical reality itself.
In short, the Christian’s contention that the Mind of God sustains this universe in its continual existence is now experimentally shown to be true by quantum mechanics.
Quote and Verse
@ jvl
Lol I tricked you into wasting your time hahahahahahaha!!!!
Nah I just kidding, thank you for the above post and explanation
I apologize
Just to let you know my comments do not reflect my attitude towards homosexuals, as my sister is a lesbian
When I argue or get angry at the particular view like determinism, which is what I thought was the position you were taking, I will reduce the individual’s views with their own view on determinism
Often they don’t apply determinism to themselves
But they will happily apply it to everything they know and love
So I apply it to what I see that they might like know and love for them
Now maybe I have mistaken you with another person who’s tag was a three letter word that started with j, But I thought you defended homosexuality and transgender a like with a passion
So when you mentioned it in your comment while being the devils advocate I became annoyed
So I specifically used a little bit of Jerry Coyne’s secret sauce at reductionism and applied it to what I thought was your position
I do this quite a bit with people who think that they get have their cake and eat it to
I do not think homosexuals are defective or genetically defective
But if you take a reductionistic deterministic Darwinian take on it, it is definitely it’s a genetic defect, no matter how many bad kin selection studies studies you do to justify it
So I apologize and again thank you for the exclamation
AaronS1978: When I argue or get angry at the particular view like determinism, which is what I thought was the position you were taking, I will reduce the individual’s views with their own view on determinism. Often they don’t apply determinism to themselves
I agree, they don’t. Because pure determinism would be the death of reason so they would be just meat machines then.
Now maybe I have mistaken you with another person who’s tag was a three letter word that started with j, But I thought you defended homosexuality and transgender a like with a passion
I think my view there is actually a lot like yours: the important thing is to love and care for and help people. If that is support then yes, I do support the individuals. I don’t find those life choices threatening or a problem for me personally so I tend to say: live and let live.
So I apologize and again thank you for the exclamation
No problem!
Actually, it forced me to consider my position and think harder about why I’ve come to my view. Which I realise is somewhere in the middle. Well, it seems that way to me.
Lol explanation not exclamation oh how I hate talk to text
She is quite funny.
Not long ago she wrote that there is no more evidence for Big Bang than for any story of creation.
Now she says that it was all determined at – Big Bang.
So the evidence for her statement should be regarded as fictitious.
That’s not science.