• NightAuthor@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    There are physicist, respected ones, that believe the universe is deterministic. That we don’t have free will.

    And psychologists that believe that feeling of consciousness is a result of the brain developing a self-supervising function for higher order thinking.

    Essentially free will is just an illusion.

      • NightAuthor@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Of the 2 compatible explanations, I really like the many worlds theory over hidden variables. Many worlds explains this unexplainable randomness, the probabilistic nature of subatomic particle movements, by saying all possible movements happen…. The probabilities just indicate the likelihood that our reality is the one that movement X happens in.

        And then you throw the block universe in, and it’s just all the more beautiful.

        All possible combinations of atomic interactions all happen. Well “happen” is so linear time thinking, they all just exist.

      • NightAuthor@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Well, if true, it doesn’t make any difference. Because it always was and always will be. Nothing makes any difference.

        But in another way, it’s kinda neat. I guess it’s simultaneously a not fun fact, and a fun fact.

    • argv_minus_one@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      There are physicist, respected ones, that believe the universe is deterministic.

      Quantum mechanics involves true randomness, so it is already proven that the universe is not deterministic.

      That doesn’t mean we have free will, though. Random actions are no more free than predetermined ones.

      • Malfeasant@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think the argument they make is that quantum randomness doesn’t have any way of influencing our choices, the scales are too different. I disagree, I think quantum randomness is free will, and there’s some sort of quantum amplifier, for lack of a better word, that bridges the gap between particle interactions and consciousness. But since there is no way to prove or disprove such a thing, since it is by definition indistinguishable from chance, it’s basically naval gazing…

      • NightAuthor@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Of the 2 compatible explanations, I really like the many worlds theory over hidden variables. Many worlds explains this unexplainable randomness, the probabilistic nature of subatomic particle movements, by saying all possible movements happen…. The probabilities just indicate the likelihood that our reality is the one that movement X happens in.

    • MJBrune@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Some of the top scientists believe in a higher power god. NdGT makes the argument in one of his lectures that until that number is zero you have no right to look down on them for believing in a higher power.

        • MJBrune@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I want saying you you but instead the royal you. That’s where a lot of the determinism their cones from. God doesn’t play dice with the universe and all that. Which is entirely taken out of context from Einstein and a lot of people wrongly think Einstein was religious but he wasn’t. Still the quote remains and have kept scientists religious for decades.

          • NightAuthor@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            I like Sabine Hossenfelders way of explaining things, she disregards god altogether. It’s not necessary for these explanations.

            I saw some other scientists basically throwing a hissy fit about determinism, and how they wouldn’t get credit for being so smart and making the discoveries and stuff if determinism was true. Like obviously I’m so smart, I’m making hypotheses so I’ve got free will.

            It was utterly embarrassing, I was looking for a legit counter view to see what the other side said. And the first two videos I found were PhDs throwing tantrums on podcasts.

            But to those that believe in a god generally, sure, with our current knowledge anything is a possibility… just some theories have more standing than others… but some also are nicer to believe in, and just make sense for a being to want to believe.