Sabine Hossenfelder is wrong about Free Will @SabineHossenfelder #philosophy #physics

Sabine Hossenfelder is wrong about Free Will

🔴 Watch My Free Webinar Link in Bio

[kennyprice]

But the event of choice is contingent on prior causal events you had no choice in there’s no freedom in that.

[YoungMatt]

The free will "debate" is kinda tedious because it seems to mostly be a game of semantics.

[jojomojojones]

The dominos decision to fall left or right is as determined as anything else. It becomes clear when you realize that a decision is a calculation with a necessary outcome.

[bleepbloop]

This analogy is incoherent. If the magical domino you are positing could make a choice about which direction to fall, it would necessarily mean that it was capable of overriding the laws of physics, or that the laws of physics did not dictate some dimension of movement. Easy enough to assert, but this necessitates rendering both the laws of physics and causality itself incoherent. In fact the domino has no choice. Whether it falls left or right is predetermined by the laws of physics just as much as whether it falls at all.

You're asking us to imagine an impossible situation and then asserting that situation to be the case. The argument essentially reduces to this:

Imagine a domino that has free will in one dimension, but not all dimensions. That domino represents a human. Therefore humans have free will. QED.

You need to demonstrate that it is possible to choose to fall either left or right in some literal sense, and that the choice is not pre-determined by the atoms in your body bouncing around according to the laws of physics.

No offence, but aren't you well into a PhD? You should be able to construct much more sound arguments than this.

[KeanuReevesIsMyJesus]

By your definition, a domino with a chip inside that’ll determine it to fall left or right will have free will. This isn’t the common way people think about free will.

[Cernunnnos]

Sure. If you just assume that there isn't a perfectly sequential causal chain active within that _decision_ making.

To you it may seem as though you're deciding whether to turn right or left. But really, you're just going to go either right or left based on the sequence of events that lead to that _decision._

[poplimgerer]

These Youtube shorts are embarrassing for you, whether we have free-will can't be explained in 40 seconds. You are just making dogmatic assertions and are barely trying to justify them.

[Bit-while_going]

I've long understood this, but have been surprised ever since at how many otherwise rational thinkers go mystical on this issue no matter how I try to explain it.

[carlsderder]

I really tried to give an opportunity to free willers, but not, Sabine is still superior on her reasoning.

Keep trying.

[julianbicknell]

The “choice” to fall left or right as you put it is simply a result of the chemicals interacting in the dominoes brain, similarly to how we can exactly predict what will happen when baking soda and vinegar come in contact with each other we could also theoretically exactly predict how the chemicals in a “””dominoes””” brain will interact when faced with different stimuli

[septitais]

The argument for free will is pointless because it's a semantic problem. To explain "something" you need to show a working "mechanism" for that "something", and mechanisms are deterministic. But the moment you postulate a working "mechanism" for "free will", you show that "free will" is deterministic.

Your video doesn't even attempt to give a mechanism though. You just state that "we have causal power determined by our capacity to reflect", which is just a "feedback loop". You haven't proposed an explanation "how" a "feedback loop" has any bearing on "choice". Until you do, this argument is no better than saying "We have causal power determined by our capacity to make poems."

[OffBrandChicken]

Love how you claimed she’s incorrect while also not proving her wrong in the slightest

[georgepantzikis]

I think she would just respond that in order to rationally analyse and reflect upon a given situation we must have the desire to do so. Sabine holds that a desire is reducible to a given brain-state. Therefore, the desire to be rational is determined, meaning that we cannot choose whether or not we will act rationally or not.

[Enaccul]

But free will, if not in conflict with causation or determinism, is not free will. Its just will. You may have a choice to go left or right, but if you went back in time (and forgot your choice) and chose left every time, do you really have free will if you are determined to choose left every time?

Also, if your decision is a product of your desires (to go left lets say) you dont have control over that desire in the first place, meanjng your choice to go left is itself a product of determinism, on top of you making thag same decision every time.

Free will is EITHER determined, OR random. Neither of these options leave room for free will.

[v.a.n.e.]

I seriously wanted to write a comment that would be a reflection on your video, but it seems that my every attempt would be pointless since you claim that domino has—a free will.

[noah]

Terrible analogy. There is no free will if you believe in causes.

[MyContext]

You have still claimed determinism in your depiction and thus failed to show her to be incorrect.

[misterdemocracy]

I'm just here to prove that I would have made the comment anyway.

[jeremydunbar]

Can it decide not to fall? Of course not. It cant even decide which direction, its all a matter of physics. Its a line of causation.

[nickvuci]

This video is a perfect example of why modern philosophy is a joke compared to modern science.