tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post7664205407581684937..comments2023-09-27T07:44:19.769-04:00Comments on Sabine Hossenfelder: Backreaction: Will it end? [In which I have breakfast with John Horgan]Sabine Hossenfelderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comBlogger130125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-81262387525825197602018-11-19T20:15:32.829-05:002018-11-19T20:15:32.829-05:00Jim wrote: po·et·ic li·cense
Unus e verbo, multis...Jim wrote: po·et·ic li·cense<br /><br />Unus e verbo, multis argumentisSteven Masonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05140374687362624448noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-81005447743148818302018-11-19T16:23:33.663-05:002018-11-19T16:23:33.663-05:00Jim
Well Jim , if the Bard rubs you up the wrong ...Jim <br />Well Jim , if the Bard rubs you up the wrong way then I’ll throw in the poetic license of a rather well respected physicist who had a word or two to say about super determinism ..... Physics isn't the most important thing. Love is.” Pure poetry . Pure reality .Sidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08050611921659172044noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-70559788554234119262018-11-19T08:40:41.835-05:002018-11-19T08:40:41.835-05:00po·et·ic li·cense
noun
the freedom to depart from ...po·et·ic li·cense<br />noun<br />the freedom to depart from the facts of a matter or from the conventional rules of language when speaking or writing in order to create an effect.JimVhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10198704789965278981noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-20469518158057932822018-11-18T15:47:03.795-05:002018-11-18T15:47:03.795-05:00Steven K
No Steven , emotion may well be an expre...Steven K <br />No Steven , emotion may well be an expression of love but it does not define love . A little bit of Shakespeare goes a long way - <br /><br /> Love is not love<br /><br /> Which alters when it alteration finds,<br /><br /> Or bends with the remover to remove:<br /><br /> O no; it is an ever fixed mark,<br /><br /> That looksSidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08050611921659172044noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-79594801743373726262018-11-18T10:44:33.723-05:002018-11-18T10:44:33.723-05:00Sid:
"love" isn't an emotion and a ...Sid:<br /><br />"love" isn't an emotion and a word? I give up.Steven B Kurtzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03545389243058689810noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-2410300272643283632018-11-18T09:58:09.242-05:002018-11-18T09:58:09.242-05:00Steven K
I have not used the words - emotions- so...Steven K <br />I have not used the words - emotions- souls and the like - , I recognize that this is a science blog and I try to stay within a science framework , so those words stay with you . <br />Science doesn’t do the non -physical . The evidence / absence line is applicable here . I gave a perfectly good example of something being present -Love , in the analogy of a starving mother , that Sidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08050611921659172044noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-66864053816182186742018-11-18T05:39:37.562-05:002018-11-18T05:39:37.562-05:00Sid:
"Our everyday reality and humanity’s und...Sid:<br />"Our everyday reality and humanity’s understanding of itself from the beginning of time says that freewill is fundamental to humanity ."<br /><br />SK:<br />Whatever is fundamental to humanity is fundamental to all life barring evidence of non-physical anything. I rest my case. Your case is that semantics, verbiage, concepts, etc. about emotions, souls and the like is evidenceSteven B Kurtzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03545389243058689810noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-27423986715247378022018-11-17T09:44:49.638-05:002018-11-17T09:44:49.638-05:00There are many species of fish which will protect ...There are many species of fish which will protect and feed their young. This is an instinct which evolution found, by trial and error, which makes it more likely for that species to continue to exist (and evolve). How many children would survive to adulthood if humans had not inherited this instinct from precursors? I know in your case your children are wonderful, but have you seen how the JimVhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10198704789965278981noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-84557056772216764112018-11-17T07:54:08.733-05:002018-11-17T07:54:08.733-05:00Steven K
So we don’t know what the fundamental ba...Steven K <br />So we don’t know what the fundamental basis of anything is , we only have points of reference that we have reached but not gone beyond <br />If freewill is rejected based upon the predictability of physical laws then unless you can prove that the laws of nature are fundamental and there is nothing beyond them then your rejection of freewill is only a reference point that you have Sidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08050611921659172044noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-46952751456077624272018-11-16T20:50:31.963-05:002018-11-16T20:50:31.963-05:00Sean
I believe your flying car analogy fits into t...Sean<br />I believe your flying car analogy fits into the “you cannot will what you will “ statement . Of course nobody can just will anything into existence but we can certainly “ do what we will “ . If this makes this constrained freewill in your mind so be it . I’m not interested in arguing over the meaning of words . I define freewill for the sake of this debate as an undetermined freedom to Sidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08050611921659172044noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-84501448553944615092018-11-16T12:52:31.031-05:002018-11-16T12:52:31.031-05:00"In general, your question is the mystery of ..."In general, your question is the mystery of where everything came from. Clearly something must be first, and that First Something must be – in some sense – eternal. There’s no reason I know of that the First Something can’t be “merely physical”. No mystical phenomena or persons are required by any evidence I know of."<br /><br />Thanks, Sean, for honing in on an *assumed* beginning. Steven B Kurtzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03545389243058689810noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-36728768623166414562018-11-16T12:01:53.473-05:002018-11-16T12:01:53.473-05:00Sid;
“If the physical is all there is then we can...Sid;<br /><br />“<i>If the physical is all there is then we can assume according to the Causal argument that the Laws of Nature are a product of the physical , if not , then which came first ? If the argument is that we are all just products of a determined physical process without any freewill then the laws of nature must also be the same . So how does the physical produce the laws of nature sean s.https://www.blogger.com/profile/04190153587965701495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-6205953379705728952018-11-16T10:19:00.464-05:002018-11-16T10:19:00.464-05:00Sid;
“You realize the truth ? You cannot prove th...Sid;<br /><br />“<i>You realize the truth ? You cannot prove this truth .</i>”<br /><br />Not only can I prove it, I did so. My will is constrained and limited. Otherwise <i>I would have used my flying car this morning to fly from my Zeppelin-home to a near-by space-port to take an FTL trip to Betelgeuse.</i><br /><br />But I can’t. No one can. Do you have proof to the contrary? Nope.<br /><br />sean s.https://www.blogger.com/profile/04190153587965701495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-32505892131684888992018-11-16T10:17:53.397-05:002018-11-16T10:17:53.397-05:00Anthony;
“Free will needs no defense.”
All claim...Anthony;<br /><br />“<i>Free will needs no defense.</i>”<br /><br />All claims about the world need “defense” (which I take to mean justification, proof, <i>etc.</i>) Free will is no exception. If it’s so obviously true, then “defending” it (justifying it) should be easy; but it’s not.<br /><br />“<i>... you are correct that our choices are constrained by deterministic factors. Some choices are sean s.https://www.blogger.com/profile/04190153587965701495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-58225470088778591302018-11-16T10:04:10.944-05:002018-11-16T10:04:10.944-05:00Sabine
Yes , I get that . Of course it is a theor...Sabine <br />Yes , I get that . Of course it is a theory that other philosophers disagree with , you choose to accept the theory . <br />Does the theory explain where the mental / physical came from ? <br />If the physical is all there is then we can assume according to the Causal argument that the Laws of Nature are a product of the physical , if not , then which came first ? If the Sidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08050611921659172044noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-42443341654438917402018-11-16T08:35:05.179-05:002018-11-16T08:35:05.179-05:00I suspected Sid would chime in.
Re:
"If you ...I suspected Sid would chime in.<br /> Re:<br />"If you believe that physicality is the only reality then it’s not surprising that you would find the subject of love to be a ridiculous discussion . "<br /><br />Please present your scientific evidence to the Nobel committee that any non-caloric/energetic/chemical idea, emotion, etc. exists. Theists do like wise, please! The world is Steven B Kurtzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03545389243058689810noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-10510244651886419772018-11-16T08:08:49.597-05:002018-11-16T08:08:49.597-05:00Sid,
I have already repeated that several times, ...Sid,<br /><br />I have already repeated that several times, but here we go again. Free will is ruled out because it is incompatible with experimentally well-established theories. You are simply ignoring this, which amounts to denial. Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-52990801289070664052018-11-16T08:04:18.723-05:002018-11-16T08:04:18.723-05:00Steven M
If you observe a starving child eating th...Steven M<br />If you observe a starving child eating the mothers food and there is no action of any kind from the mother for you to observe the how do you deduce the mothers motivations ( love ) from this non action ? <br />No double standard Steven , this is a science blog , my free will actions everyday are my proof . Where is the proof beyond intellectual arguments that my freewill belief Sidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08050611921659172044noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-9871032211905920142018-11-16T05:15:00.359-05:002018-11-16T05:15:00.359-05:00A.V. postulates yet again using The Negative Falla...A.V. postulates yet again using The Negative Fallacy. This is akin to religious belief. Reason isn't possible with leaps of faith. All that needs to be done is agreement on a semantic difference re the chosen definitions involved in this ridiculous discussion. What is "love"? The history of human poetry, art, music, literature...describes the varieties of definitions. But nobody canSteven B Kurtzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03545389243058689810noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-30583367432376296162018-11-16T00:52:52.662-05:002018-11-16T00:52:52.662-05:00Anthony,
I am not "denying" free will, ...Anthony,<br /><br />I am not "denying" free will, I am simply telling you it is incompatible with experimentally well confirmed theories. As I already said above, please look up the causal exclusion argument. We already have a theory for the human brain, it does not contain free will, you cannot have a second theory that arrives at other predictions, that would be logically inconsistentSabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-57989599020671979482018-11-15T20:06:07.361-05:002018-11-15T20:06:07.361-05:00You realize the truth ? You cannot prove t...You realize the truth ? You cannot prove this truth . This is an endless debate that goes round and round . Until you can prove that free will does not exist then the reality of the choices you make each and every day is the only reality and the rest is just an intellectual workout .<br />Free will is free until proven otherwise .Sidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08050611921659172044noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-66871257353751835092018-11-15T15:44:51.560-05:002018-11-15T15:44:51.560-05:00Sid wrote: A person can love without performing an...Sid wrote: A person can love without performing an observable action. Example. The starving mother lets the child eat her food so the child may survive at the expense of the mothers hunger. The mother doesn’t do or say anything that can be measured or quantified. How would an observer know this is an act of love?<br /><br />It's my turn to say "really?" A mother giving her food to aSteven Masonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05140374687362624448noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-87471027672925841342018-11-15T14:31:56.680-05:002018-11-15T14:31:56.680-05:00Sean wrote: The term “love” in English can refer t...Sean wrote: The term “love” in English can refer to behaviors or it can refer to the emotion or internal mental state that prompts those behaviors.<br /><br />There are many good points you've made in this post. I'll respond to this one because I'd like to add something. <br /><br />We've been discussing the "programming" of love. I suggested that perhaps 90% of love is Steven Masonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05140374687362624448noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-40276535798414680492018-11-15T13:28:36.105-05:002018-11-15T13:28:36.105-05:00Sid, you said it well. Free will needs no defense....Sid, you said it well. Free will needs no defense. Free-will denial, on the basis of an incomplete theoretical world-view, is what must be proven. Just as Sabine rightfully rejects some physical theories because they have no chance of experimental verification, I reject free-will denial for the same reason. I view free-will denial itself as a exercise of free will, and I hold nothing against Anthony Verbalishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16060520707969857204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-73175695164675261092018-11-15T12:09:40.877-05:002018-11-15T12:09:40.877-05:00Sid;
“A self driving car avoiding accidents is ab...Sid;<br /><br />“<i>A self driving car avoiding accidents is about as poverty stricken analogy of love as I can imagine ...</i>”<br /><br />Now you’re just being silly. My example is precisely on point.<br /><br />The nature of the sacrifice is irrelevant; risky acts taken without regard to one’s own well-being and for the benefit of others can be programmed into robots; they are being programmedsean s.https://www.blogger.com/profile/04190153587965701495noreply@blogger.com