Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community
Topic

Sabine Hossenfelder

Type
post
Author
Denyse O'Leary
Date
November 28, 2020
Categorized
Cosmology, Intelligent Design, Multiverse, Physics
Tagged
, , , , ,

At Quanta: Are we looking at the end of physics?

Denyse O'Leary
November 28, 2020
Cosmology, Intelligent Design, Multiverse, Physics
Ah yes, the problem of dead-endedness that Sabine Hossenfelder often writes about. As does Columbia mathematician Peter Woit, on the subject of string theory. But surely much of the nonsense around string theory and the multiverse is in part due to a practical failure—the inability to find even a single particle of dark matter or similar evidence for dark energy. Read More ›
Type
post
Author
Denyse O'Leary
Date
October 23, 2020
Categorized
Cosmology, Intelligent Design, Naturalism, Physics
Tagged
, , , ,

Theoretical physicist Sabine Hossenfelder is being labelled “anti-science”

Denyse O'Leary
October 23, 2020
Cosmology, Intelligent Design, Naturalism, Physics
Also, let this sink in: Despite believing in determinism, Hossenfelder believes we should “decide” against a new particle collider… We can decide? On that account, to other naturalists, she is “anti-science.” Naturalism is weird like that. Eats its own. Read More ›
Type
post
Author
Denyse O'Leary
Date
October 20, 2020
Categorized
Intelligent Design, Mind, Naturalism, Philosophy
Tagged
, , , , ,

Free will makes more sense of our world than determinism—and science certainly allows for it

Denyse O'Leary
October 20, 2020
Intelligent Design, Mind, Naturalism, Philosophy
Scientists weigh in on both sides but accepting free will allows us to avoid some serious problems around logic and personal freedom. Read More ›
Type
post
Author
Denyse O'Leary
Date
October 17, 2020
Categorized
Intelligent Design, Mind, Neuroscience
Tagged
, , , , , ,

Mike Egnor on why Coyne and Hossenfelder are wrong to deny free will

Denyse O'Leary
October 17, 2020
Intelligent Design, Mind, Neuroscience
Egnor: Now let’s get to the neuroscience. Neuroscience has a lot to contribute to the debate over free will and all of it supports the reality of free will. There isn’t a shred of neuroscientific evidence that contradicts the reality of free will. Read More ›
Type
post
Author
Denyse O'Leary
Date
October 16, 2020
Categorized
Fine tuning, Intelligent Design
Tagged
, , ,

Sabine Hossenfelder dismisses fine-tuning; Brian Miller and Steve Meyer respond

Denyse O'Leary
October 16, 2020
Fine tuning, Intelligent Design
Fine-tuning of the universe is one of those concepts that can pass every possible evidence test and still be rejected because it is just not supposed to be true. No matter how foolish the arguments against it are, they will always appear preferable. If the situation results in confusion, well, confusion is clarity. Read More ›
Type
post
Author
Denyse O'Leary
Date
August 27, 2020
Categorized
Geology, Intelligent Design, Philosophy, Science
Tagged
, ,

Sabine Hossenfelder: Flat Earthers are wrong but not stupid

Denyse O'Leary
August 27, 2020
Geology, Intelligent Design, Philosophy, Science
Hossenfelder: It is not possible for each and every one of us to redo all experiments in the history of science. It therefore becomes increasingly important that scientists provide evidence for how science works, so that people who cannot follow the research itself can instead rely on evidence that the system produces correct and useful descriptions of nature. Read More ›
Type
post
Author
Denyse O'Leary
Date
August 20, 2020
Categorized
Intelligent Design, Mind, Naturalism
Tagged
, , , ,

A Universal Mind is a reasonable idea, says Bernardo Kastrup

Denyse O'Leary
August 20, 2020
Intelligent Design, Mind, Naturalism
One reason that science media are respectful of cosmopsychism may be growing awareness of the problems with strict materialism, naturalism, or physicalism: As Michael Egnor has noted, “How can you have a proposition that the mind doesn’t exist? That means propositions don’t exist and that means that you don’t have a proposition.” Read More ›
Type
post
Author
Denyse O'Leary
Date
July 27, 2020
Categorized
Intelligent Design, Physics
Tagged
, , ,

Sabine Hossenfelder: Einstein’s greatest legacy was the thought experiment

Denyse O'Leary
July 27, 2020
Intelligent Design, Physics
She notes that one needs evidence from real experiments to demonstrate that the outcome of a thought experiment is real. But it is significant that the human mind is capable of developing the basis for momentous discoveries even before we commit to stuff that requires a budget. Read More ›
Type
post
Author
Denyse O'Leary
Date
July 14, 2020
Categorized
Cosmology, Intelligent Design, Physics
Tagged
, ,

Sabine Hossenfelder asks: Do we need a theory of everything?

Denyse O'Leary
July 14, 2020
Cosmology, Intelligent Design, Physics
Hossenfelder: So this whole idea of a theory of everything is based on an unscientific premise. Some people would like the laws of nature to be pretty in a very specific way... This is simply not a good strategy to develop scientific theories, and no, it is most certainly not standard methodology. Read More ›
Type
post
Author
Denyse O'Leary
Date
May 8, 2020
Categorized
Climate change, Intelligent Design, Philosophy, Science
Tagged
, , , , ,

Sabine Hossenfelder says predictions are overrated; Rob Sheldon responds

Denyse O'Leary
May 8, 2020
Climate change, Intelligent Design, Philosophy, Science
Sheldon: … ironically, most of Sabine's blogs are about the poor predictive power in particle theory, but in this blog she feels she has to reverse herself to defend the good name of global warming. My advice to her is to stick with what she has first-hand knowledge of, because 2nd-hand knowledge always suffers from authoritarian bias. Read More ›
Type
post
Author
Denyse O'Leary
Date
March 13, 2020
Categorized
Cosmology, Intelligent Design, Physics
Tagged
, , ,

Rob Sheldon on dark energy: Does it exist?

Denyse O'Leary
March 13, 2020
Cosmology, Intelligent Design, Physics

Sheldon, our physics color commentator, writes to say, “I’ve mentioned before that Subir Sarkar at Oxford has questioned the existence of “dark energy” and by implication, the award of the 2011 Nobel prize. Sabine Hossenfelder’s blog links to a 7 minute summary of the Nobel prize and Sarkar’s work: But even more compelling is her 45 minute interview with Sarkar here: In the 45 minute interview, note (29:30) how cosmologists assume dark energy in order to prove dark energy. It is a logic popularized by Darwinists but in my experience, it is also endemic in all fields of physics. For some reason, in all the effusive praise for the scientific method by both educators and scientists alike, no one ever Read More ›

Type
post
Author
Denyse O'Leary
Date
February 29, 2020
Categorized
Intelligent Design, Philosophy, Science
Tagged
, ,

Sabine Hossenfelder slams panpsychism

Denyse O'Leary
February 29, 2020
Intelligent Design, Philosophy, Science
Electrons cannot be conscious Sabine Hossenfelder’s view because they cannot change their behavior. Hossenfelder’s impatience is understandable but she underestimates the seriousness of the problem serious thinkers about consciousness confront. Read More ›
Type
post
Author
Denyse O'Leary
Date
February 4, 2020
Categorized
Cosmology, Intelligent Design, Physics
Tagged
, , ,

Sabine Hossenfelder asks: Does nature have a minimal length? Could it point to a final theory?

Denyse O'Leary
February 4, 2020
Cosmology, Intelligent Design, Physics
Hossenfelder: What does this all mean? Well, it means that we might be close to finding a final theory, one that describes nature at its most fundamental level and there is nothing more beyond that. That is possible, but. Remember that the arguments for the existence of a minimal length rest on extrapolating 16 orders magnitude below the distances what we have tested so far. That’s a lot. That extrapolation might just be wrong. Read More ›