I speculate, out of my own free will, that Hossenfelder is a Calvinist, i.e., in thrall of predestination and all that. In addition she has no choice but to make the claims that she does, because she was predestined to become a theoretical physicist. :)
Her argument as I understand it is neurons are particles, and every action and place of a particle can be traced back to a cause, in turn back to the first cause, and thus forward to infinity if we only had enough computing power. Therefore, with this chain of causes set irrevocably in motion an instant after the Big Bang, we do what we do because of an intricate chain of mechanical causes.
First, this is an unfalsifiable hypothesis, and not as proof. I can also theorize without contradiction that we live in a Simulation. Second, she kind of handwaves at consciousness, which is an undeniable and so far inexplicable characteristic of all those particles that make up a human. When it's gone, the human particles are inert and all decisions cease. Perforce the world is now different with the disappearance of at least one consciousness. With conscious agency animating all the animal particles, the future is being created at the leading edge of time. If we can think it, that's probably what's going on.
It's kind of slippery in that I can't disprove Sabine's World's Biggest Equation just like I can't disprove the Simulation, or an agentic, discrete being who is God. Free will isn't a slam dunk but neither is Sabine's World's Biggest Equation, and the fact that alive particles can act on unalive particles suggests more of the former than the latter.
I'm punching above my weight here so happy to be corrected.
Free will is such an intriguing concept, and I've come to believe that our free will is somewhat limited. And this view is actually based on a mix of reading scripture, observing my own experiences, a fascinating talk given by Jordan Peterson many years ago ("Self-deception in Psychopathology" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxJzWcwcRd0), some AA talks, especially a few by Sandy Beach, and other small things here and there that are too numerous to name.
To sum it up, we seem to be complicated moral agents who do things for reasons we do not understand, and it appears our "thinking" largely comes into play to try to tell stories to explain why we did this or that - like narrators in a movie or play by play sports broadcasters - when in reality we are motivated and animated by all kinds of subconscious forces (which literally means forces outside of our field of awareness), and then the part of us that is aware and observing us - our conscious mind - then attempts to narrate to ourselves what is happening and why.
And we have many common place experiences consistent with this, such as when we say teenagers are thinking with their hormones, or when we explain behavior by some universal motivation, such as saying wall street bankers are greedy, or this or that politician is corrupted by power, or whatever. We all know what it means to think with our hormones, or to have anger come over us, or to become hangry and then return to normal once satiated, and such experiences are universal. Heck, we universally ascribe the color red to anger, and when the anger passes, its as if some animating spirit has left us and we are horrified and say something like "I don't know what came over me." In 12-step circles, people talk about being controlled by various "character defects" such as lust, greed, gluttony, etc. And it appears to me that is another way of saying they are slaves to sin. Isn't that what is going on when you have no choice in the matter and become animated by anger and obey anger by doing what it orders you to do? Isn't that what Paul talks about in Romans when he laments about his inability to do what he knows is right, which he ascribes to giving in to his flesh and being trapped by his body of death? But Paul doesn't seem to juxtapose that default slave nature with freewill. Instead, Paul also talks about being a bondservant in chains for Christ, and he talks about being controlled by the Holy Spirit, and Christ is described as Lord, King, etc., So in these examples, Paul is using subject /slave language when talking about God also, not just sin. Thus, it is possible our "free will" is limited by the choice to either choose God, meaning turning our will and lives over to the care of God as voluntary bond servants, or being controlled by our default sin nature as slaves to sin. This would also be consistent with some otherwise baffling versus, such as "for it is God who works in you to will and to act ...." which seems to be saying God is alive in you, God is doing the work, God is the one acting, and God is even the one willing.
Subpar thinkers like this lady don't think of the implications of what their assertions. One of many is that there is no merit to anything. All the Nobel prizes and other vanity awards should be scrapped, on misinformation grounds: the laureate is being recognized for something he does not have, merit, thus misleading the public into endless ad verecundiam fallacies.
Public Health demands that Scientists shut their pieholes!
One look and I exercised my aesthetical free will to skip Hossenfelder's video.
Is it narcissistic personality disorder that drives moths to the flame of You Tube and Tik Tok? The same "watch me" mental illness that motivates life's lowly worms to inch their way to high office?
Briggs cites Sabine for laughter, motivation enough, he suggests, for suffering the view.
To which I say that humor requires the grace of the lighthearted and said with a serious sneer is not funny. For two decades, SNL has proven it.
I speculate, out of my own free will, that Hossenfelder is a Calvinist, i.e., in thrall of predestination and all that. In addition she has no choice but to make the claims that she does, because she was predestined to become a theoretical physicist. :)
Her argument as I understand it is neurons are particles, and every action and place of a particle can be traced back to a cause, in turn back to the first cause, and thus forward to infinity if we only had enough computing power. Therefore, with this chain of causes set irrevocably in motion an instant after the Big Bang, we do what we do because of an intricate chain of mechanical causes.
First, this is an unfalsifiable hypothesis, and not as proof. I can also theorize without contradiction that we live in a Simulation. Second, she kind of handwaves at consciousness, which is an undeniable and so far inexplicable characteristic of all those particles that make up a human. When it's gone, the human particles are inert and all decisions cease. Perforce the world is now different with the disappearance of at least one consciousness. With conscious agency animating all the animal particles, the future is being created at the leading edge of time. If we can think it, that's probably what's going on.
It's kind of slippery in that I can't disprove Sabine's World's Biggest Equation just like I can't disprove the Simulation, or an agentic, discrete being who is God. Free will isn't a slam dunk but neither is Sabine's World's Biggest Equation, and the fact that alive particles can act on unalive particles suggests more of the former than the latter.
I'm punching above my weight here so happy to be corrected.
Is she really this stupid, or is she clowning us?
Cue Orwell: "Some ideas are so stupid that only intellectuals believe them."
And yes, what is with this spate of middle aged-to-septugenarian women (looking at you, Jill Biden) wearing dresses designed for 25 yo lasses?
Free will is such an intriguing concept, and I've come to believe that our free will is somewhat limited. And this view is actually based on a mix of reading scripture, observing my own experiences, a fascinating talk given by Jordan Peterson many years ago ("Self-deception in Psychopathology" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxJzWcwcRd0), some AA talks, especially a few by Sandy Beach, and other small things here and there that are too numerous to name.
To sum it up, we seem to be complicated moral agents who do things for reasons we do not understand, and it appears our "thinking" largely comes into play to try to tell stories to explain why we did this or that - like narrators in a movie or play by play sports broadcasters - when in reality we are motivated and animated by all kinds of subconscious forces (which literally means forces outside of our field of awareness), and then the part of us that is aware and observing us - our conscious mind - then attempts to narrate to ourselves what is happening and why.
And we have many common place experiences consistent with this, such as when we say teenagers are thinking with their hormones, or when we explain behavior by some universal motivation, such as saying wall street bankers are greedy, or this or that politician is corrupted by power, or whatever. We all know what it means to think with our hormones, or to have anger come over us, or to become hangry and then return to normal once satiated, and such experiences are universal. Heck, we universally ascribe the color red to anger, and when the anger passes, its as if some animating spirit has left us and we are horrified and say something like "I don't know what came over me." In 12-step circles, people talk about being controlled by various "character defects" such as lust, greed, gluttony, etc. And it appears to me that is another way of saying they are slaves to sin. Isn't that what is going on when you have no choice in the matter and become animated by anger and obey anger by doing what it orders you to do? Isn't that what Paul talks about in Romans when he laments about his inability to do what he knows is right, which he ascribes to giving in to his flesh and being trapped by his body of death? But Paul doesn't seem to juxtapose that default slave nature with freewill. Instead, Paul also talks about being a bondservant in chains for Christ, and he talks about being controlled by the Holy Spirit, and Christ is described as Lord, King, etc., So in these examples, Paul is using subject /slave language when talking about God also, not just sin. Thus, it is possible our "free will" is limited by the choice to either choose God, meaning turning our will and lives over to the care of God as voluntary bond servants, or being controlled by our default sin nature as slaves to sin. This would also be consistent with some otherwise baffling versus, such as "for it is God who works in you to will and to act ...." which seems to be saying God is alive in you, God is doing the work, God is the one acting, and God is even the one willing.
Pretty good commentary.
Subpar thinkers like this lady don't think of the implications of what their assertions. One of many is that there is no merit to anything. All the Nobel prizes and other vanity awards should be scrapped, on misinformation grounds: the laureate is being recognized for something he does not have, merit, thus misleading the public into endless ad verecundiam fallacies.
Public Health demands that Scientists shut their pieholes!
I cannot watch this. I just cant.
One look and I exercised my aesthetical free will to skip Hossenfelder's video.
Is it narcissistic personality disorder that drives moths to the flame of You Tube and Tik Tok? The same "watch me" mental illness that motivates life's lowly worms to inch their way to high office?
Briggs cites Sabine for laughter, motivation enough, he suggests, for suffering the view.
To which I say that humor requires the grace of the lighthearted and said with a serious sneer is not funny. For two decades, SNL has proven it.
Greta Thunberg redux, not Gilda Radner.
"Nevermind."
“O, wad some Power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as others see us!
It wad frae monie a blunder free us,
An' foolish notion.”