When Physics Meets the End of Autonomy
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 9 июл 2024
- This is my review of Sabine Hossenfelder's thought-provoking work on how physics challenges the concept of free will.
Her insights as a German theoretical physicist and philosopher offer a compelling perspective on the topic.
#SabineHossenfelder
#FreeWill
#Determinism
#PhysicsAndPhilosophy
#NoFreeWill
#DeterministicUniverse
#PhysicsAndReality
#TheIllusionOfFreeWill
#ScientificDeterminism" 
Наука
![The moment we stopped understanding AI [AlexNet]](/img/1.gif)
Wow, that´s great, she´s a jewel. -- Neat summary of her thinking. In "Existential Physics" she also names the loopholes, that hypothetically can save the idea of free will. It´s a brilliant book.
Sabine is a beautiful thinker ❤ I haven't read her book yet
It is only that there is no undo button, which gives us the illusion we could choose something else. Given the same set of circumstances, we would make the same choice. So, she is right. It does not mean we are not responsible for our choices, however, it just means we can't undo them and try something else.
Enlightening perspective. 0:58 would have been the perfect time to also introduce the theoretical aspect of the 3 body system. I would appreciate your views on that. Predicting the trajectory of particles beyond two is chaotic despite knowing the starting position and velocity. Every particle in orbit extends a form of gravitational pull around it that affects any nearby particle thereby changing its trajectory. If it is two particles involved, the trajectory can be predicted. If it is more than two it becomes difficult to predict.
In the example of Schrödinger's cat. Imagine instead of having one male cat and poison under the box, we introduce a second female cat. The outcome when we open the box is no longer whether the cat is dead or alive. We might end up with one dead cat, two dead cats, two cats alive, maybe more than two cats. Basically, endless possibilities.
I personally believe free will as a concept is relative. It can either be subjective or objective depending on the point of reference. If you live in a box with two options, it means you only have two choices to make and you are free to make either choice. But because the outcome is determined by the two choices it means it is not really free will. But if the outcomes are endless as with the chaotic nature of the universe, you are free to choose any possibility.
Very enlightening video.
@@augustineliyanda1465 just beautifully put, I strongly feel this perspective definitely needs a video of it's own
@@augustineliyanda1465 This is a great perspective and kills off the over simplification of determinism and yeah this definitely needs a video of it's own, let me do my home, perhaps it will be one of my next big topics
I just can't wrap my mind around this stuff
Yo what in the game boy advance are you holding
@@mattshu my thought exactly 😂😂
@@mattshu 😂😂 I need to get a mic brav so I use my phone lol just out here working with what I have
There is "free will" in the context of human decision making.
Sabine suggests that all things are deterministic and follow the the laws of nature. She loses me when she attempts to change the meaning of term "free will".
Definition of Free will: " the capacity of humans to make decisions or perform actions independently of any prior event or state of the universe."
Example: Two friends, Bob and John, grow up together and both start smoking in grade school.
Both boys get the same information that continued smoking will cause health issues and or death. John makes the decision that he appreciates his health and quits smoking in their final year of high school (free will). Bob however, although he's been exposed to the same information decides that he enjoys smoking, and makes the decision to continue despite the known risks.(free will)
Thirty years later Bob is on his deathbed with cancer and John shows up. John says to Bob, "Why didn't you quit when you knew it was bad for you?" Bob says, "I enjoyed every second of my life, and I lived it the way I wanted to." Then he dies.
Free will with some cause and effect.
Lifeforms have free will if we are using the present definition of " free will".
Things that aren't alive, have no free will from what I've observed in nature.
Don C.
Have you seen the Ben Shapiro and Alex debate?
@@Zino-m8r Yeah I have and loved the conversation
So this video made itself 😂 you didn't will it into action
Thats not how it works. Free will would make he could decide to not make this video, and the argument is, not really, given his interest, education, upbringing acces to information a platera of other factors that ultimately inspired him. You can say he freely decided to make a video but then that was kind of the consequence of his entire life up until that point. This same route determined that he is not a goat herder or a famous actor, probably not really decided against those more like these weren't on his path.
@@TimothyBanda-s4j yep so my decision to make the video falls in a complex, larger chain of causation stretching back to everything that make me me
You are killing the poetry of existence by explaining everything based on its materials constituent parts
Seriously? What are the poetic components, you want to depend on? The most poetic thing is, that we can understand ourselves. Scientists like Sabine Hossenfelder contribute to this.
@@Thomas-gk42E=mc. Everything is an emergent property of acceleration. Modern physics is not explaining acceleration. They are explaining mass. Why? Because only religion can explain acceleration.
F=ma. Heaven and Earth. What is the outside force accelerating this universe. Is an outside force even necessary? Is the universe accelerating itself.
Humans like to think there is more to life than just living and dieing.
That's why you 'Have Let There Be Light' in religion and not science.
And yet, science cannot explain where acceleration comes from. Why everything is an emergent property of acceleration. What causes a hunk of clay to get up and start walking around and building machines that takes it to the stars. And why is it organic, frail, limited to a specific environment. Why can't it be inorganic, immutable. Like photons. Traveling the universe, experiencing only space, not time.
Nope. Physicists like Sabine are leading you down a different path. The road to darkness.
F=ma. There is either an outside force (heaven) acting on the universe or ma, that's all she wrote, and infinite loop of acceleration between 0 and c.
F=ma. Two gods. The god of mass (darkness) and the god of Acceleration (light).
Which is the one true god and which one is the false god?
@@Thomas-gk42 man I know everything can be explained away but reductionist roads are just not fun to take that's why spirituality always wins because scientists are crude
@@VictorBanda-g3j science is not rude, and it´s not in conflict with religion. Both has it´s place in a human being, as long as you don´t mix it. If you do, the outcome is pseudoscience.
@@VictorBanda-g3jit's not about what is fun but what is true. Great scientists like Einstein, Feynman and many others enjoyed music, had romance, and some were spiritual as well. People have this strange notion that human "qualities" have to be shunned by those who try to understand nature as is without considering anything super natural. A gynecologist doesn't just consider his wife as just a few organs!
I just can't wrap my mind around this stuff
@@TimothyBanda-s4j Have you seen the first video I put out on Sam Harris Book?