tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post1658458639935652802..comments2023-09-27T07:44:19.769-04:00Comments on Sabine Hossenfelder: Backreaction: How to live without free willSabine Hossenfelderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comBlogger485125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-27865621435725466632021-06-02T15:47:22.051-04:002021-06-02T15:47:22.051-04:00What is wrong with decisions being made based on a...What is wrong with decisions being made based on available evidence and logic, i.e., determinism? That way, for example, if the evidence changes and/or logic flaws become apparent, the decisions can be changed next time. Granted, some randomness in the mix can be a good strategy at times. What else is there?<br /><br />"Top-down causation", it seems to me, would imply we could ignore JimVhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10198704789965278981noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-47390999909247700312021-06-02T09:33:01.097-04:002021-06-02T09:33:01.097-04:00Sabine,
Your certainty on the subject of freewill ...Sabine,<br />Your certainty on the subject of freewill is noteworthy and perplexing. I don’t see how you can come to such a firm, far reaching conclusion based on the present reach of field theory. If it is your intuition at work, then one might also intuit that any dynamical system may be reasonably considered equivalent to a logical system and thus subject to the various theorems limiting theirDon Fosterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04814669413022486958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-23028015205662668722021-05-19T07:18:18.808-04:002021-05-19T07:18:18.808-04:00Of course I can talk about law without referring t...Of course I can talk about law without referring to free will. As a matter of fact I have done so. Free will is entirely unnecessary construct that doesn't bear any relevance for the question what to do about people who endanger others or who make our living together harder than it needs to be. Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-25528872454846606142021-05-19T07:03:55.847-04:002021-05-19T07:03:55.847-04:00Dear Dr, in any western legal system, conscious gu...Dear Dr, in any western legal system, conscious guilt nor no-guilt principle, it is asboultely essential. If "politics " was aware fo reductionisim, the whole legal system whould nned be rebuilt from its deepest roots.There is really no way you can talk about law and order without referring to free will. Albertohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15436187904801167307noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-80204375448389233162020-10-01T02:10:45.136-04:002020-10-01T02:10:45.136-04:00No, a solar cell that reacts to sunlight is not a ...No, a solar cell that reacts to sunlight is not a top-down causation. A top-down causation is one in which a macroscopic level causes a change on a microscopic level in a way that could not have been derived from the information solely on the microscopic level. It does not exist. If you use the word "top down causation" for something else, you are just talking about a completely Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-63513377154081588692020-09-30T16:13:31.611-04:002020-09-30T16:13:31.611-04:00"The configuration and interaction of particl..."The configuration and interaction of particles" doesn't disprove top-down causation. A solar cell that reacts to sunlight is also a top-down action. Do you think a mechanism cannot work top-down just because it has a configuration of interacting particles? What is the basis for your opinion?<br /><br />Yes, our brains are made out of interacting atoms, of course, but that doesn&#TheSheikhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16233701380741061308noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-26753594586470565032020-09-30T05:45:48.299-04:002020-09-30T05:45:48.299-04:00That's just wrong. To have top down causation ...That's just wrong. To have top down causation you'd have to show that it would not have been possible to describe your mental state by the configuration and interaction of particles in your brain. You clearly do not even understand what you are even talking about and I suggest you stop making false claims. Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-11702704197968855802020-09-30T05:26:31.799-04:002020-09-30T05:26:31.799-04:00Dr. H., you say "There is no such thing as &#...Dr. H., you say "There is no such thing as 'top down causation.'" To disprove your assertion, I'll give you an example of top down causation:<br /><br />Let's say, I go for a walk. As I'm walking along, I notice dark clouds gathering. The sky looks like it's going to rain. So I decide to walk back home before I get wet. My mental state is affected and TheSheikhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16233701380741061308noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-54122192330400095082019-11-22T19:46:24.831-05:002019-11-22T19:46:24.831-05:00"it is extraordinarily rare to see just how m..."it is extraordinarily rare to see just how much one’s self is influenced by human nature"<br /><br />Yes, well said Louis.<br />And the monitor / witness is as much an illusion as is free will, but it is all we have and precious. Its usefulness and beauty is as a gift to share.Now John Donahuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02357949810570138412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-8048108785959262542019-11-04T14:33:30.969-05:002019-11-04T14:33:30.969-05:00Thank you for this very good article. The thread i...Thank you for this very good article. The thread is also interesting. What would happen if human beings could fully analyse what the laws of physics entail at a given point? Would they be unable to choose a different action? Or do the laws of physics dictate that human knowledge cannot reach that point?Hugo Coxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13493073784734284123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-82449837707322772342019-09-13T11:03:44.271-04:002019-09-13T11:03:44.271-04:00@Walter Esler
Are you talking about a computer mo...@Walter Esler<br /><br />Are you talking about a computer model that equals a human being?<br /><br />If so, which human?<br />John Donohuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15002005729072165615noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-65473021375301905622019-09-13T04:36:56.758-04:002019-09-13T04:36:56.758-04:00In re modeling human consciousness. What I had in ...In re modeling human consciousness. What I had in mind was a brute force approach using lots of computational horsepower. I wrote about this 45 years ago. At that time not nearly enough was known about physiological psychology to put such a project into effect, and available computer hardware would have been challenged by the task. (I had estimated computational resources by calculating the Walter Eslerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18109521016382896687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-27340737493737672662019-09-10T12:36:21.277-04:002019-09-10T12:36:21.277-04:00Walter,
“We could in principle develop a descript...Walter,<br /><br />“We could in principle develop a description of the nervous system which would permit a model to be developed which could account for human consciousness, behavior, sensory inputs, etc.”<br /><br />For sake of argument, consider that this may be the illusion of an orderly mind, not really possible even in principle. There is a limit to the compass of our equations.<br /><br />Don Fosterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04814669413022486958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-56117350227159431852019-09-09T15:01:34.636-04:002019-09-09T15:01:34.636-04:00My difficulty with free will is not that it is an ...My difficulty with free will is not that it is an illusion, but that it is undefined. So long as free will lacks an agreed upon definition the question of its existence would be meaningless.<br /><br />Some things depend on point of view. Looking at our world, we may decide that everything is deterministic. People, plants and animals, stars planets, neutrons, protons, etc. follow deterministic Walter Eslerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18109521016382896687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-11048198006125791462019-09-09T11:48:00.395-04:002019-09-09T11:48:00.395-04:00Walter,
Should you resign yourself to the proposi...Walter,<br /><br />Should you resign yourself to the proposition of free will as illusion or adapt yourself to the notion that you are the ‘pilot wave,’ a small portion of life’s leading edge with a potency in your touch and a need to pay attention to present circumstance?<br /><br />What, to you, would be more disturbing ?<br />Don Fosterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04814669413022486958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-22058802978488406882019-09-07T20:06:45.489-04:002019-09-07T20:06:45.489-04:00We could in principle develop a description of the...We could in principle develop a description of the nervous system which would permit a model to be developed which could account for human consciousness, behavior, sensory inputs, etc. In principle, everything would be accounted for, all behavior predictable. That's where things were heading 45 years ago when I finished a major in psychology. They are still working on it. Eventually they willWalter Eslerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18109521016382896687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-78975969205576554872019-09-07T19:55:51.136-04:002019-09-07T19:55:51.136-04:00We could in principle develop a description of the...We could in principle develop a description of the nervous system which would permit a model to be developed which could account for human consciousness, behavior, sensory inputs, etc. In principle, everything would be accounted for, all behavior predictable. That's where things were heading 45 years ago when I finished a major in psychology. They are still working on it. Eventually they willWalter Eslerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18109521016382896687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-77637205503107766372019-09-07T12:02:42.863-04:002019-09-07T12:02:42.863-04:00As far I am concerned, free will is beside the poi...As far I am concerned, free will is beside the point. At issue is a proper sense of how the universe works, the topology of its causality. Is it punctuated or entwined in a fashion that affects and supports biological processes? I believe that determinism as characterized here is unnatural, not the correct description. Our equations of the micro-realm, while astonishingly accurate, are not provenDon Fosterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04814669413022486958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-11048567850894519082019-09-07T03:27:10.913-04:002019-09-07T03:27:10.913-04:00In order to overcome an opposing viewpoint, we sho...In order to overcome an opposing viewpoint, we should begin by understanding it. Failure to do so will lead to confusing outcomes. That's been a problem with this and similar discussions elsewhere.<br /><br />I think the difficulty in this case is going to be construct validity, but we're not even close to being able to discuss that. We haven't yet defined our "construct."<Walter Eslerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18109521016382896687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-10921269675775897672019-09-06T13:52:44.060-04:002019-09-06T13:52:44.060-04:00I love this, and I completely agree that pure logi...I love this, and I completely agree that pure logic alone already implies that there can be no free will. However, there also cannot be such thing as randomness. Even quantum processes as e.g. radioactive particle decay can't be random, because if it was, half-life time would not exist. So please Sabine, don't only kill the free will myth -- make done once and for all also with the Mailproxyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06831836057349900397noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-47871630286001345162019-09-06T13:48:03.232-04:002019-09-06T13:48:03.232-04:00Sabine,
If we are, quite literally, given a toy u...Sabine,<br /><br />If we are, quite literally, given a toy universe populated by a set of (N) Lego blocks that are drawn from a set (K) of different kinds of Lego blocks that differ according to their particular rules of combination, then it is reasonable to conclude that for any (N) there would be a limit on the number of lawful constructs that could be created in combination. <br /><br />It is Don Fosterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04814669413022486958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-40253162240725915422019-08-20T22:32:19.245-04:002019-08-20T22:32:19.245-04:00The reason natural laws of physics can't be ap...The reason natural laws of physics can't be applied to biology is due to a severe lack of information. It is not because the rules don't stand. We simply can't single out the rules due to the complexity of biology.<br /><br />Simply put, biology behaves following the rules as all things in biology are made out of particles and energy. Which both have to either follow our laws of Thor. B. Deltahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15661806454960143298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-12970322413687064362019-08-20T22:31:50.042-04:002019-08-20T22:31:50.042-04:00Lawrence, I do not mean to beat you up over someth...Lawrence, I do not mean to beat you up over something you've already admitted to not being beneficial to free will.<br /><br />But you seem to insist everything does happen. You say "the world splits". Assuming you mean that everytime any decision is made, our universe breaks up into one where you've made decision A, and one where you've made decision B, you're basicallyThor. B. Deltahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15661806454960143298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-45093361341112793772019-07-29T21:08:33.334-04:002019-07-29T21:08:33.334-04:00Sabine,
Here are two quotations from mathematicia...Sabine,<br /><br />Here are two quotations from mathematician Michael Berry:<br /><br />“However, there is a creative side to singular limits: They lead to new physics. For large N, where a central idea is symmetry-breaking, this creative side is concisely expressed in Philip Anderson’s celebrated phrase: More is different.”<br /><br />“Such postmodern quantum effects are emergent phenomena par Don Fosterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04814669413022486958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-14480283890055023462019-07-14T18:11:28.162-04:002019-07-14T18:11:28.162-04:00There are really two sources of noise; classical d...There are really two sources of noise; classical determinate noise and quantum phase noise. Both sources of noise limit our ability to know why we make the free choices that we make. However, there is no limit to how well we can know classical noise since classical noise is infinitely divisible just like time and space. In contrast, quantum phase noise has a well defined and discrete uncertainty steve agnewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00177693538649923112noreply@blogger.com