Intelligent Design Physics

Cornelius Hunter responds to Sabine Hossenfelder’s claim that there is no free will

Spread the love

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

24 Replies to “Cornelius Hunter responds to Sabine Hossenfelder’s claim that there is no free will

  1. 1
    BobRyan says:

    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.

  2. 2
    JVL says:

    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?

  3. 3
    bornagain77 says:

    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.”

    Michael Egnor: Is free will a dangerous myth? – October 6, 2018
    Excerpt: 4.the neuroscientific evidence unequivocally supports the existence of free will. The first neuroscientist to map the brains of conscious subjects, Wilder Penfield, noted that there is an immaterial power of volition in the human mind that he could not stimulate with electrodes. The pioneer in the neuroscience of free will was Benjamin Libet, who demonstrated clearly that, while there is an unconscious material predisposition to acts as shown by electrical brain activity, we retain an immaterial “free won’t,” which is the ability to veto an unconscious urge to act. Many experiments have followed on Libet’s work, most of which use fMRI imaging of brain activity. They all confirm Libet’s observations by showing what is at most a loose correlation between brain activity and volition (for example, nearly half the time the brain activity that precedes the act is on the wrong side of the brain for the activity to determine the will)—the looseness of correlation being best explained as evidence for libertarian free will. Modern neuroscience clearly demonstrates an immaterial component to volition.
    Harari is wrong about free will. It is not a myth. Free will is a real and fundamental aspect of being human, and the denial of free will is junk science and self-refuting logical nonsense.
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/michael-egnor-is-free-will-a-dangerous-myth/#comment-665916

    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.

    The Case for the Soul – InspiringPhilosophy – (4:03 minute mark, Brain Plasticity including Jeffrey Schwartz’s work) – Oct. 2014 – video
    The Mind is able to modify the brain (brain plasticity). Moreover, Idealism explains all anomalous evidence of personality changes due to brain injury, whereas physicalism cannot explain the mind.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBsI_ay8K70

    Jeffrey Schwartz: You Are More than Your Brain – Science Uprising Extra Content
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFIOSQNuXuY&list=PLR8eQzfCOiS1OmYcqv_yQSpje4p7rAE7-&index=9

    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.

    Cosmic Bell Test Using Random Measurement Settings from High-Redshift Quasars – Anton Zeilinger – 14 June 2018
    Abstract: In this Letter, we present a cosmic Bell experiment with polarization-entangled photons, in which measurement settings were determined based on real-time measurements of the wavelength of photons from high-redshift quasars, whose light was emitted billions of years ago; the experiment simultaneously ensures locality. Assuming fair sampling for all detected photons and that the wavelength of the quasar photons had not been selectively altered or previewed between emission and detection, we observe statistically significant violation of Bell’s inequality by 9.3 standard deviations, corresponding to an estimated p value of approx. 7.4 × 10^21. This experiment pushes back to at least approx. 7.8 Gyr ago the most recent time by which any local-realist influences could have exploited the “freedom-of-choice” loophole to engineer the observed Bell violation, excluding any such mechanism from 96% of the space-time volume of the past light cone of our experiment, extending from the big bang to today.
    https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.080403

    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.”

    Closing the ‘free will’ loophole: Using distant quasars to test Bell’s theorem – February 20, 2014
    Excerpt: Though two major loopholes have since been closed, a third remains; physicists refer to it as “setting independence,” or more provocatively, “free will.” This loophole proposes 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 — a scenario that, however far-fetched, implies that a physicist running the experiment does not have complete free will in choosing each detector’s setting. Such a scenario would result in biased measurements, suggesting that two particles are correlated more than they actually are, and giving more weight to quantum mechanics than classical physics.
    “It sounds creepy, but people realized that’s a logical possibility that hasn’t been closed yet,” says MIT’s David Kaiser, the Germeshausen Professor of the History of Science and senior lecturer in the Department of Physics. “Before we make the leap to say the equations of quantum theory tell us the world is inescapably crazy and bizarre, have we closed every conceivable logical loophole, even if they may not seem plausible in the world we know today?”
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....112515.htm

    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’,,,

    John 3:12
    If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?

  4. 4
    EvilSnack says:

    If free will does not exist, WHY ARE YOU ARGUING?

  5. 5

    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?

  6. 6
    asauber says:

    “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

  7. 7
    Karen McMannus says:

    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.

  8. 8
    Seversky says:

    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?

  9. 9
    Seversky says:

    EvilSnack/4

    If free will does not exist, WHY ARE YOU ARGUING?

    Because that is our destiny?

  10. 10
    Pearlman says:

    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

  11. 11
    bornagain77 says:

    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.

    Such Were Some Of You – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKSFPdyH8x4
    “Such Were Some of You” (A Documentary) was inspired by the passage in 1st Corinthians 6:11 that declares that in Jesus’ day there was a population who had been so transformed by their relationship with Him that they were no longer “same-sex attracted” or at the very least, actively homosexual. They had found such a measure of healing from the brokenness and strongholds associated with what we now call homosexuality that they no longer considered themselves homosexual, nor did they act in that way. “Such Were Some of You” features interviews with a “cloud of present-day witnesses” who testify to the same life-transforming power of Jesus Christ. They describe the development of their same-sex attractions, what the gay lifestyle was like, what their conversion process was like, and the various ways that Jesus has brought healing to their broken places. “Such Were Some of You” lays out the facts about healing homosexual confusion and rejoices in the reality that Jesus Christ can heal anyone from anything while providing grace for the journey.

    Extended Interviews with 29 former homosexuals who are now Christians

    GUESTS – THE EXTENDED INTERVIEWS – videos – Extended Interviews with 29 former homosexuals who are now Christians
    http://suchweresomeofyou.org/

    I found this testimony particularly moving

    Daniel Delgado Pt 1 – Transgender Transformation – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bv1ZK6a3ITk

    Moreover, there is no evidence that homosexuals are ‘born that way’. Nor is there any evidence for a ‘gay gene’.

    Born gay or transgender: Little evidence to support innate trait, Wednesday, August 24, 2016
    Excerpt: “a report finds scarce scientific evidence to conclude that gay and transgender people are “born that way. The 143-page paper, published this week in The New Atlantis journal, combs through hundreds of studies in search of a causal, biological explanation for sexual orientation and gender identity, but comes up empty. “The belief that sexual orientation is an innate, biologically fixed human property — that people are ‘born that way’ — is not supported by scientific evidence,” says the report, written by a psychiatrist and a biostatistician at Johns Hopkins University. “Likewise, the belief that gender identity is an innate, fixed human property independent of biological sex — so that a person might be a ‘man trapped in a woman’s body’ or a ‘woman trapped in a man’s body’ — is not supported by scientific evidence,””
    http://www.washingtontimes.com.....-evidence/

    There’s no evidence that a single ‘gay gene’ exists – Aug. 2019
    Excerpt: First reported at a genetics conference in 2018, the study found five genetic variants associated with having a same-sex sexual partner (SN: 10/20/18). But those variants, called SNPs, don’t predict people’s sexual behavior, researchers report in the Aug. 30 Science.
    “There is no ‘gay gene’ that determines whether someone has same-sex partners,” says Andrea Ganna, a geneticist at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard and the University of Helsinki.
    https://www.sciencenews.org/article/no-evidence-that-gay-gene-exists

    Moreover, men and women are found to be far more different, both physiologically and mentally, than transgender activists like to portray them as being.

    The genetic difference between men and women,,, – 06 Nov 2017
    Excerpt: a full third of our genome is behaving very differently in men and women.
    These new data pose challenges for science, medicine and maybe even gender equity.
    The human genome
    Men and women have practically the same set of about 20,000 genes.,,,
    They found that about one third of these genes (more than 6,500) had very different activities in men and women. Some genes were active in men only or women only. Many genes were far more active in one sex or the other.
    A few of these genes showed sex biased activity in every tissue of the body. More commonly, the difference was seen in one or a few tissues.
    Most of these genes were not on sex chromosomes: only a few lay on the Y or the X.
    How could a third of our genes be differently controlled in men and women?
    https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/11/throughout-our-bodies-thousands-of-genes-act-differently-in-men-and-women

    How Men’s Brains Are Wired Differently than Women’s
    Male brains have more connections within hemispheres to optimize motor skills, whereas female brains are more connected between hemispheres to combine analytical and intuitive thinking
    By Tanya Lewis, December 2, 2013
    Excerpt: “On average, men connect front to back [parts of the brain] more strongly than women,” whereas “women have stronger connections left to right,” said study leader Ragini Verma, an associate professor,,,
    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-mens-brains-are-wired-differently-than-women/

    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.

    Jordan Peterson: Gender ideology is ‘completely insane’ – March 23, 2018
    (LifeSiteNews) – “The LGBT lobby is dead set against anything that smacks of conversion therapy, the idea that you could convert someone who has a primarily homosexual identity to someone who has a primarily heterosexual [identity],” he told Trussell. “It’s illegal in Ontario and in many [American] states now to even attempt that. But if there’s complete independence between the biology, the identity, the expression and the sexual preference, then there’s no reason to assume that it can’t be changed.”
    Bolstering his argument, Peterson mentioned the ultimate conclusion of gender ideology, namely that gender is totally fluid. Some activists teach that a person can be a man one day and a woman the next, or even change sexual identity from minute to minute.
    “If it’s that fluid, and it’s only dependent on subjective choice, which is what the legislation now insists, then why can’t that argument be used by conservatives to say exactly the same thing about sexual preference?”
    https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/jordan-peterson-gender-theory-has-become-unquestionable-doctrine-thats-comp

    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:

    “I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning; and consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics. He is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do. For myself, as no doubt for most of my friends, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom. The supporters of this system claimed that it embodied the meaning – the Christian meaning, they insisted – of the world. There was one admirably simple method of confuting these people and justifying ourselves in our erotic revolt: we would deny that the world had any meaning whatever.”
    – Aldous Huxley, Ends and Means

    1 Corinthians 6:9-11
    Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who submit to or perform homosexual acts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor verbal abusers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

  12. 12
    ET says:

    By JVL’s “logic” we do NOT choose to breath so free will is a myth. 🙄

  13. 13
    AaronS1978 says:

    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

  14. 14
    JVL says:

    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!!

  15. 15
    AaronS1978 says:

    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?

  16. 16
    JVL says:

    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?

  17. 17
    AaronS1978 says:

    Ok tell me, what is your position I’ll listen
    I’m interested

    And if I got you wrong I apologize

  18. 18
    AaronS1978 says:

    By the way not looking to pick a fight just a super soar subject after constantly being attack by those stupid materialists else where

  19. 19
    JVL says:

    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.

  20. 20
    bornagain77 says:

    At 8 Seversky asked,

    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?

    Free will is one of the primary properties of the immaterial mind that can’t be reduced to any possible materialistic explanation.

    The Mind and Materialist Superstition – Michael Egnor – 2008
    Six “conditions of mind” that are irreconcilable with materialism: –
    Excerpt: Intentionality,,, Qualia,,, Persistence of Self-Identity,,, Restricted Access,,, Incorrigibility,,, Free Will,,,
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....13961.html

    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.

    Six reasons why you should believe in non-physical minds – 01/30/2014
    1) First-person access to mental properties
    2) Our experience of consciousness implies that we are not our bodies
    3) Persistent self-identity through time
    4) Mental properties cannot be measured like physical objects
    5) Intentionality or About-ness
    6) Free will and personal responsibility
    http://winteryknight.com/2014/.....cal-minds/

    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.

    Algorithmic Information Theory, Free Will and the Turing Test – Douglas G. Robertson – 1999
    Excerpt: Chaitin’s Algorithmic Information Theory shows that information is conserved under formal mathematical operations and, equivalently, under computer operations. This conservation law puts a new perspective on many familiar problems related to artificial intelligence. For example, the famous “Turing test” for artificial intelligence could be defeated by simply asking for a new axiom in mathematics. Human mathematicians are able to create axioms, but a computer program cannot do this without violating information conservation. Creating new axioms and free will are shown to be different aspects of the same phenomenon: the creation of new information.?“
    … no operation performed by a computer can create new information.”
    http://cires.colorado.edu/~dou...../info8.pdf

    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.

    Wheeler’s Classic Delayed Choice Experiment:
    Excerpt: Now, for many billions of years the photon is in transit in region 3. Yet we can choose (many billions of years later) which experimental set up to employ – the single wide-focus, or the two narrowly focused instruments. We have chosen whether to know which side of the galaxy the photon passed by (by choosing whether to use the two-telescope set up or not, which are the instruments that would give us the information about which side of the galaxy the photon passed). We have delayed this choice until a time long after the particles “have passed by one side of the galaxy, or the other side of the galaxy, or both sides of the galaxy,” so to speak. Yet, it seems paradoxically that our later choice of whether to obtain this information determines which side of the galaxy the light passed, so to speak, billions of years ago. So it seems that time has nothing to do with effects of quantum mechanics. And, indeed, the original thought experiment was not based on any analysis of how particles evolve and behave over time – it was based on the mathematics. This is what the mathematics predicted for a result, and this is exactly the result obtained in the laboratory.
    http://www.bottomlayer.com/bot.....choice.htm

    Reflecting light off satellite backs up Wheeler’s quantum theory thought experiment – October 26, 2017 – Bob Yirka
    Excerpt: Back in the late 1970s, physicist John Wheeler tossed around a thought experiment in which he asked what would happen if tests allowed researchers to change parameters after a photon was fired, but before it had reached a sensor for testing—would it somehow alter its behavior mid-course? He also considered the possibilities as light from a distant quasar made its way through space, being lensed by gravity. Was it possible that the light could somehow choose to behave as a wave or a particle depending on what scientists here on Earth did in trying to measure it?,,,
    The experiment consisted of shooting a laser beam at a beam splitter, which aimed the beam at a satellite traveling in low Earth orbit, which reflected it back to Earth. But as the light traveled back to Earth, the researchers had time to make a choice whether or not to activate a second beam splitter as the light was en route. Thus, they could test whether the light was able to sense what they were doing and respond accordingly. The team reports that the light behaved just as Wheeler had predicted—demonstrating either particle-like or wave-like behavior, depending on the behavior of those studying it.
    https://phys.org/news/2017-10-satellite-wheeler-quantum-theory-thought.html

    Extending Wheeler’s delayed-choice experiment to space – Oct. 25, 2017
    Excerpt: We implement Wheeler’s idea along a satellite-ground interferometer that extends for thousands of kilometers in space.,,,
    http://advances.sciencemag.org.....0/e1701180

    Experiment confirms quantum theory weirdness – May 27, 2015
    Excerpt: The bizarre nature of reality as laid out by quantum theory has survived another test, with scientists performing a famous experiment and proving that reality does not exist until it is measured.
    Physicists at The Australian National University (ANU) have conducted John Wheeler’s delayed-choice thought experiment, which involves a moving object that is given the choice to act like a particle or a wave. Wheeler’s experiment then asks – at which point does the object decide?
    Common sense says the object is either wave-like or particle-like, independent of how we measure it. But quantum physics predicts that whether you observe wave like behavior (interference) or particle behavior (no interference) depends only on how it is actually measured at the end of its journey. This is exactly what the ANU team found.
    “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,” said Associate Professor Andrew Truscott from the ANU Research School of Physics and Engineering.
    Despite the apparent weirdness, the results confirm the validity of quantum theory, which,, has enabled the development of many technologies such as LEDs, lasers and computer chips.
    The ANU team not only succeeded in building the experiment, which seemed nearly impossible when it was proposed in 1978, but reversed Wheeler’s original concept of light beams being bounced by mirrors, and instead used atoms scattered by laser light.
    “Quantum physics’ predictions about interference seem odd enough when applied to light, which seems more like a wave, but to have done the experiment with atoms, which are complicated things that have mass and interact with electric fields and so on, adds to the weirdness,” said Roman Khakimov, PhD student at the Research School of Physics and Engineering.
    http://phys.org/news/2015-05-q.....dness.html

    “Thus one decides the photon shall have come by one route or by both routes after it has already done its travel”
    – John A. Wheeler

    “It begins to look as we ourselves, by our last minute decision, have an influence on what a photon will do when it has already accomplished most of its doing… we have to say that we ourselves have an undeniable part in what we have always called the past. The past is not really the past until is has been registered. Or to put it another way, the past has no meaning or existence unless it exists as a record in the present.”
    – John Wheeler
    – The Ghost In The Atom – Page 66-68 – P. C. W. Davies, Julian R. Brown – Cambridge University Press, Jul 30, 1993

    “The Kochen-Speckter Theorem talks about properties of one system only. So we know that we cannot assume – to put it precisely, we know that it is wrong to assume that the features of a system, which we observe in a measurement exist prior to measurement. Not always. I mean in certain cases. So in a sense, what we perceive as reality now depends on our earlier decision what to measure. Which is a very, very, deep message about the nature of reality and our part in the whole universe. We are not just passive observers.”
    Anton Zeilinger –
    Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism – video (7:17 minute mark)
    – per YouTube video

    The free will theorem of John H. Conway and Simon B. Kochen,,,
    Since the free will theorem applies to any arbitrary physical theory consistent with the axioms, it would not even be possible to place the information into the universe’s past in an ad hoc way. The argument proceeds from the Kochen-Specker theorem, which shows that the result of any individual measurement of spin was not fixed (pre-determined) independently of the choice of measurements.
    http://www.informationphilosop.....eorem.html

    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

    Lecture 11: Decoherence and Hidden Variables – Scott Aaronson – MIT professor
    Excerpt: “Look, we all have fun ridiculing the creationists who think the world sprang into existence on October 23, 4004 BC at 9AM (presumably Babylonian time), with the fossils already in the ground, light from distant stars heading toward us, etc. But if we accept the usual picture of quantum mechanics, then in a certain sense the situation is far worse: the world (as you experience it) might as well not have existed 10^-43 seconds ago!”
    – per Scott Aaronson’s website

    Colossians 1:17
    And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist.

  21. 21
    AaronS1978 says:

    @ 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

  22. 22
    JVL says:

    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.

  23. 23
    AaronS1978 says:

    Lol explanation not exclamation oh how I hate talk to text

  24. 24
    ivo says:

    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.

Leave a Reply