4 ms·

I can’t agree more with the OP about free will and stuff. The main problem of superdeternimism though is that it both explains everything and nothing. It’s lik

by d--b 5y ago

I can’t agree more with the OP about free will and stuff. The main problem of superdeternimism though is that it both explains everything and nothing. It’s like giving up.

midjji 5y ago
Exactly so, its an interesting philosophical idea,but its by definition invalidates the scientific method, and all forms of meaningful reason. The correct answer to the question of if you are dreaming a dream from which you could never wake up isnt perhaps that explains why my math doesnt make sense, its: by premise that can not matter.
- naasking 5y ago
  > Exactly so, its an interesting philosophical idea,but its by definition invalidates the scientific method, and all forms of meaningful reason It doesn't, and Sabine specifically addresses this point.
astrange 5y ago
The explanation of superdeterminism she gives here isn’t a “full” superdeterministic theory (nothing actually happens over time, there are no physics, the universe is just a movie being played back, etc) and she does say it only applies at the quantum level. So there’s still room for science.
- midjji 5y ago
  Just means she hasn't thought of the inevitable consequences. Besides, the paradox she is resolving isn't a paradox, she just does not understand the answer in standard QM.
  - astrange 5y ago
    Seems like if you “thought of the consequences” and “understood QM” here you’d have a theory of everything all ready to go.
    - lmm 5y ago
      I do, it's called "quantum mechanics". It's the most thoroughly verified theory in the history of physics, and in my subjective opinion the most mathematically beautiful one. It is the greatest pinnacle of human scientific achievement. But people think the idea that things might superimpose on each other like waves is weird, it's not what they see everyday objects that are 10,000,000,000x larger behaving, so it can't possibly be right, and they keep making up overcomplicated nonsense so that they can keep pretending that elementary particles behave like billiard balls.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - astrange 5y ago
        What’s going on with gravity though? Actually, did they decide if the holographic principle is true yet?
        lmm 5y ago
        I don't know, and a theory with a good answer to that may well supersede QM in the long run. But personally I don't find the idea of a standard model + spin-2 graviton so offensively complex the way some people apparently do, so I don't feel a lot of pressure to find a more unified theory of quantum gravity.
  - naasking 5y ago
    It's pretty hilarious that you think Sabine Hossenfelder doesn't understand standard quantum mechanics.
naasking 5y ago
> The main problem of superdeternimism though is that it both explains everything and nothing. Not sure why you think that. You still have to explain precisely what is superdeterministic and what isn't, and elaborate how this works in a coherent way, and that process will end up telling you a lot. Is that really any different that accepting non-locality to explain spooky action at a distance?
thinkski 5y ago
It’s also an inconvenient idea. For instance, how can one be guilty of a crime if one had no choice in committing it? Why try at anything if you have no choice — everything that will happen was decided at the universe’s origin and is merely playing out. It’s nihilism to the extreme. Then again, the quantum idea of true randomness isn’t much better — if human choice stems from a coin flip, can you really call it a conscious choice? The scientific method and human free will rely on a possible fiction of choice that is neither 100% deterministic, nor 100% random.
- temp438 5y ago
  > For instance, how can one be guilty of a crime if one had no choice in committing it? Guilty is a social concept derived from the assumption that some events in the universe are "bad" > Why try at anything if you have no choice — everything that will happen was decided at the universe’s origin and is merely playing out. > It’s nihilism to the extreme. Realising that there is no free will is not smth negative or positive. It's just smth which sets your further path which had no other purpose but spreading Life in the universe
- naasking 5y ago
  > For instance, how can one be guilty of a crime if one had no choice in committing it? Why do you think you had no choice in committing it? Are you saying these people don't have any reasons they think justified committing a crime? That seems clearly false in general. Certainly if someone was literally forced to commit a crime, ie. they didn't want to do it, then they are not guilty, but why wouldn't they be guilty if they wanted to commit the crime and then did so? This is a common confusion in thinking about moral responsibility under determinism. "Choice" is a process whereby a set of options is reduced to one. This process is typically driven by an individual's reasons for acting, ie. there existed a hypothetical set of possible actions Y, but I did action X from Y because of reason Z. Z counterfactually describes why X was selected from Y, and when Z is an internally held value/justification for acting, this is a person's "will". When a person is "free" to use their will to make choices, then they are acting of their own free will. If they are instead coerced into choosing W from Y instead of Z, where W is defined by somebody else's values, then they are no longer free to act on their will. This is Compatibilism, where free will and moral responsibility are compatible with determinism. I also think it's important to distinguish "free will" as used in ethics and "free will" as used in science, where they speak of the experimenter's freedom. They are simply not the same thing, because one is compatible with determinism where the other may not be. > Why try at anything if you have no choice — everything that will happen was decided at the universe’s origin and is merely playing out. What you're describing is fatalism, not nihilism or determinism. Given some tragedy is caused by a person, consider two scenarios: 1. they wanted that tragedy to happen 2. they fought tooth and nail to prevent it from happening It's very clear to most people that the person in scenario #1 should be held responsible, where in #2 they should not. #2 is fatalism and absolves a person of moral responsibility, but this does not describe what happens under determinism. Under determinism, the people who make bad choices wanted to make those choices, and being held responsible is the moral feedback they need to correct their flawed decision process.

by d--b 5y ago

I can’t agree more with the OP about free will and stuff. The main problem of superdeternimism though is that it both explains everything and nothing. It’s like giving up.

midjji 5y ago

Exactly so, its an interesting philosophical idea,but its by definition invalidates the scientific method, and all forms of meaningful reason. The correct answer to the question of if you are dreaming a dream from which you could never wake up isnt perhaps that explains why my math doesnt make sense, its: by premise that can not matter.

naasking 5y ago
> Exactly so, its an interesting philosophical idea,but its by definition invalidates the scientific method, and all forms of meaningful reason It doesn't, and Sabine specifically addresses this point.

astrange 5y ago

The explanation of superdeterminism she gives here isn’t a “full” superdeterministic theory (nothing actually happens over time, there are no physics, the universe is just a movie being played back, etc) and she does say it only applies at the quantum level. So there’s still room for science.

midjji 5y ago
Just means she hasn't thought of the inevitable consequences. Besides, the paradox she is resolving isn't a paradox, she just does not understand the answer in standard QM.
- astrange 5y ago
  Seems like if you “thought of the consequences” and “understood QM” here you’d have a theory of everything all ready to go.
  - lmm 5y ago
    I do, it's called "quantum mechanics". It's the most thoroughly verified theory in the history of physics, and in my subjective opinion the most mathematically beautiful one. It is the greatest pinnacle of human scientific achievement. But people think the idea that things might superimpose on each other like waves is weird, it's not what they see everyday objects that are 10,000,000,000x larger behaving, so it can't possibly be right, and they keep making up overcomplicated nonsense so that they can keep pretending that elementary particles behave like billiard balls.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - astrange 5y ago
      What’s going on with gravity though? Actually, did they decide if the holographic principle is true yet?
      - lmm 5y ago
        I don't know, and a theory with a good answer to that may well supersede QM in the long run. But personally I don't find the idea of a standard model + spin-2 graviton so offensively complex the way some people apparently do, so I don't feel a lot of pressure to find a more unified theory of quantum gravity.
- naasking 5y ago
  It's pretty hilarious that you think Sabine Hossenfelder doesn't understand standard quantum mechanics.

naasking 5y ago

> The main problem of superdeternimism though is that it both explains everything and nothing. Not sure why you think that. You still have to explain precisely what is superdeterministic and what isn't, and elaborate how this works in a coherent way, and that process will end up telling you a lot. Is that really any different that accepting non-locality to explain spooky action at a distance?

thinkski 5y ago

It’s also an inconvenient idea. For instance, how can one be guilty of a crime if one had no choice in committing it? Why try at anything if you have no choice — everything that will happen was decided at the universe’s origin and is merely playing out. It’s nihilism to the extreme. Then again, the quantum idea of true randomness isn’t much better — if human choice stems from a coin flip, can you really call it a conscious choice? The scientific method and human free will rely on a possible fiction of choice that is neither 100% deterministic, nor 100% random.

temp438 5y ago
> For instance, how can one be guilty of a crime if one had no choice in committing it? Guilty is a social concept derived from the assumption that some events in the universe are "bad" > Why try at anything if you have no choice — everything that will happen was decided at the universe’s origin and is merely playing out. > It’s nihilism to the extreme. Realising that there is no free will is not smth negative or positive. It's just smth which sets your further path which had no other purpose but spreading Life in the universe
naasking 5y ago
> For instance, how can one be guilty of a crime if one had no choice in committing it? Why do you think you had no choice in committing it? Are you saying these people don't have any reasons they think justified committing a crime? That seems clearly false in general. Certainly if someone was literally forced to commit a crime, ie. they didn't want to do it, then they are not guilty, but why wouldn't they be guilty if they wanted to commit the crime and then did so? This is a common confusion in thinking about moral responsibility under determinism. "Choice" is a process whereby a set of options is reduced to one. This process is typically driven by an individual's reasons for acting, ie. there existed a hypothetical set of possible actions Y, but I did action X from Y because of reason Z. Z counterfactually describes why X was selected from Y, and when Z is an internally held value/justification for acting, this is a person's "will". When a person is "free" to use their will to make choices, then they are acting of their own free will. If they are instead coerced into choosing W from Y instead of Z, where W is defined by somebody else's values, then they are no longer free to act on their will. This is Compatibilism, where free will and moral responsibility are compatible with determinism. I also think it's important to distinguish "free will" as used in ethics and "free will" as used in science, where they speak of the experimenter's freedom. They are simply not the same thing, because one is compatible with determinism where the other may not be. > Why try at anything if you have no choice — everything that will happen was decided at the universe’s origin and is merely playing out. What you're describing is fatalism, not nihilism or determinism. Given some tragedy is caused by a person, consider two scenarios: 1. they wanted that tragedy to happen 2. they fought tooth and nail to prevent it from happening It's very clear to most people that the person in scenario #1 should be held responsible, where in #2 they should not. #2 is fatalism and absolves a person of moral responsibility, but this does not describe what happens under determinism. Under determinism, the people who make bad choices wanted to make those choices, and being held responsible is the moral feedback they need to correct their flawed decision process.