6 ms·
I am an ex-physist who stopped after his PhD in particle physics. I love physics but while money does not bring happiness, it is better to cry in a Mercedes tha
by BrandoElFollito 2y ago
I am an ex-physist who stopped after his PhD in particle physics. I love physics but while money does not bring happiness, it is better to cry in a Mercedes than on a bike (this is not true, I just laughed when I first read it).
I went through the stages of OP (on a way smaller scale, I do not have his experience) and I think this is awesome. You continuously go from "oh yeah, now I get it" to "crap". This always have you on the bleeding edge between "this si physics, I know that" and "yes, but what if...". To me this is the essence of knowledge though curiosity.
I started my PhD on a specific topic and at some point I was a bit stuck (not panic mode stuck but pissed off stuck). I had dinner with a friend, we were discussing about my work (she is also a physicist) and she off-handly suggested something. And bam! my world changed. The direction of the thesis changed. I added an extra thesis director because what I was about to do was a world where the hands of men did not step on yet.
I thanked her profusely for her help in the thesis and suggested a joined publication (which she did not want to take because she was not interested and asked me to stop stalking her :))
And this is how science moves: because of eureka moments under the shower or at dinner or because someone thought "hmmm..." (looking at you Nikola Tesla).
So the fact that this guy doubts about what the world is, and that he is a theoretical physicist (so hopefully will not switch to some insanities) is awesome.
- kaiwen1 2y agoOff topic, but eureka moments are my favorite go-to evidence for the absence of free will. No one chooses to have a eureka moment. They just arrive. And not just those moments, but every thought in every moment. They all just arrive, none are choosen.
- futuramaconarma 2y agoThat's not evidence But I agree there's no free will and anybody who believes it also believes in magic and god
- mettamage 2y agoI experience having mo free will whenever I am in the break of a meditation retreat. During those breaks it’s sometimes quite easy to observe my thoughts, given that I focus 10 hours per day on making my internal chatter very very quiet. The most fascinating thing to me is how subtle body sensations lead to thoughts and vice versa.
- mensetmanusman 2y agoPeople who disbelieve in free will are often not educated in the fact that the laws of physics don’t include explanation of most of what is observed and clearly lack in the area of the existence of mind, and are therefore extremely incomplete. Also, it’s impossible to disprove the existence of free will because it requires will to make a conclusion like that.
- Vecr 2y agoWhy? A robot should be able to disprove free will by following the rules of correct reasoning, if such a thing is relatively easy, i.e. you would expect humans to ever solve it.
- Workaccount2 2y agoThis is just a free will version of "god-of-the-gaps", where you can shovel the basis of any unknown into the gaps of scientific understanding. We know far more about physics and the mind than we did 100 years ago, and the boundaries for free will to exist in have done nothing but shrink. Not even leaving a mark or hint behind. Free will is much closer to leprechauns (we still haven't mapped every forest!) on the truth spectrum than it is to cancer cures or fusion energy.
- mensetmanusman 2y agoI would believe you, but you had no choice but to output that information, so it’s noise :)
- 2y ago
- mensetmanusman 2y agoBecause instincts exist, there is no free will. (Although free will is required to make any conclusion about the presence or absence of free will, so the point is moot).
- thrance 2y agoGrandparent's argument is ridiculous but so is yours, how is free will required to make a conclusion on the existence of free will ?
- mensetmanusman 2y agoMaking any conclusion requires the use of a will, otherwise it’s just a coin flip, and random decision aren’t part of logical frameworks.
- Vecr 2y agoYes they are, look at the derandomization program in computational complexity, or if you're slightly more forgiving with your definition of logic, then look at mixed strategies and Monte-Carlo algorithms.
- mensetmanusman 2y ago*only random decisions can’t come to a conclusion. That would mean a random proof of free will is just as valid :) Definitely random generators can be a subset of logic, not the superset.
- Vecr 2y agoI don't know what you're saying. A derandomized Las Vegas algorithm is deterministic for a given seed, so far so good. From there I'm lost.
- mensetmanusman 2y ago
- InDubioProRubio 2y agoEureka moments, is the subconscious assembling conclusions and deductions and presenting them to you. That the subconscious is engaged and busy, is fed with information to build stuff from and rewarded for its actions - thus repeats it, is all conscious choices, thus subject to free will. The horse does pull of a record and the rider barely had to steer, is not a indicator of wild horses.
- pwm 2y agoOne thing I've discovered and utilised from a relatively early age was synergising the difference in how my conscious and subconscious processes information. It's really just the usual advice of "when stuck, go for a walk" but in my experience it's a very useful tool when done mindfully.
- cameldrv 2y agoI don’t think it rules out free will, but perhaps free will is more limited. There is a self reflective part of your mind, probably physically located in your frontal lobe, but there are also many other parts of your mind and brain that do important things, but aren’t self reflective. I’ve come to think of my brain as a committee. There are many things I can do, like walk or even do a mathematical proof, that I cannot really describe the process. We see in things like addiction that the self reflective mind also does not always (or maybe even often) have ultimate control over behavior. Kahenaman and Gallwey talk about this as System 1/2 and Self 1/2. Julian Jaynes even thinks that people used to have complete other simulated people inside of themselves that they called gods, and this still happens to people with Schizophrenia.
- sgt101 2y agoI choose thoughts - I can conjour images, or scenes into my mind. I can choose not to think about things. In fact, this is a proof of free will. If you were compelled to consider the consequences of your actions then evil would be impossible. The fact that we see evil means that people can choose not to think about what will happen when they do evil things.
- lostmsu 2y agoNot really, the decision to choose a particular thought first comes into your mind the way above comment says.
- sgt101 2y agoReally - to state otherwise is just a play on words. Think carefully. Think friend, think.
- tasty_freeze 2y agoAs the famous quote goes, you are free to choose, but you aren't free to choose what you choose. Unpacking: assuming you aren't coerced, you choose one of N options "freely". But all the factors (many inscrutable) that contribute to the ultimate choice are predetermined from your biology to all your lived experience (which ultimately is encoded in your brain in some manner). Sam Harris has a short (7 minute) video with a demonstration of this. The demonstration starts about 1:20 in, but it is worth watching the minute setup. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXTEmu-jUqA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXTEmu-jUqA
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- dwaltrip 2y agoI think, at this point, if someone says free will exists, beyond mere compatibilism, it should be required that they very carefully specify what the hell they are talking about. P.s. Am I wrong for assuming that whenever someone talks about free will without mentioning compatiblism, they most likely talking about some other form?
- ck2 2y agoYou can still have free will with "locked in" events. Time is a fourth dimension but think of everything that has and everything that will happen as a three dimensional cube for a moment. Now step outside the cube and observe everything that has and ever will happen. Does that mean there was no free will because it's all observable and was "locked in" ? No of course not. It's a unique box of time. If you look around there could be another unique box of time with different free will choices being made inside it. (btw this is one way they attempt to theorize an excuse for quantum entanglement, it "knows" the outcome already by also existing outside the box)
- api 2y agoThe choice is upstream. You choose what to focus on, which gives standing orders to your brain, which eventually leads to eureka moments. If you choose to focus entirely on baking you'll have eureka moments about that.
- dsizzle 2y agoWhy would you assume it's all or nothing? Will (free or otherwise) implies something like effort and clearly we're not constantly applying effort. Believing in free will doesn't mean believing that everything results from it.
- fijiaarone 2y agoUsually people that don’t being in thought can’t think, so from their limited perspective, their arguments kinda make sense. It’s like white swans. If you’ve never seen a bird, you might think that nobody has ever seen a white swan.
- jll29 2y agoThis is a bit like saying program counters don't exist because a program's control flow can be changed by interrupts.
- d0mine 2y agoThe presence of subconscious processes doesn't deny the existence of conscious ones. Focus/diffuses modes are widely known/accepted. You can direct the unconscious thoughts too. If I spend some time intensely trying to solve a problem on the conscious level, often I get new ideas on how to approach it in the morning or during a long run (without thinking about it on the conscious level). --- Unrelated: the discussions about free will often miss that the existence of atoms doesn't imply that a wooden table doesn't exist: they are on different levels of abstraction--no point in comparing.
- lukan 2y agoOne can want to have eureka moments. And than one thinks hard. And then one fine day "eureka!" But they do not happen on their own. It takes effort to make them possible, even though there is no guaruantee that they will come (Dead ends exists).
- exe34 2y agoi don't believe in free will either, but this isn't very convincing evidence. eureka moments don't hit like bird poo in the middle of the street. they hit people who have spent months-decades thinking about the problem. a more convincing argument is that they didn't have a choice in choosing that ball of yarn to pick at - mostly it comes along as an irrepressible urge to figure it out.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- k99x55 2y ago> it is better to cry in a Mercedes than on a bike Do you perceive bicycle as a poor man's mode of transport? Rich countries is where everyone can travel by public transport or bicycle (or car). Poor countries is where everyone HAS to travel by car (locked in car dependency) I see what you are trying to say: its better to cry and have wealth than to cry and not have wealth. But bike=poor, car=rich is not a good analogy. It sends the message bikes/public transport are for loosers, when its not. Well it might be in car-centric societies, but not in more fair societies.
- BrandoElFollito 2y agoHoooooooo, it was a joke! (and I noted that). Honestly, this does not require a comment like that. This is from someone who commutes to the office by bike daily (30 km) in a country where biking=good! :) Actually the joke was Mercedes vs "trottinette" but I did not have a good translation of this French work handy (a kind of scooter you stand on and you traditionally move by pushing your foot on the ground - now they are electric). Which of course does not change anything because the scooter is good and comparing this in car-centric countries etc.
- k99x55 2y agook I was a bit harsh, I have been watching too much Not Just Bikes/Urban channels and I see too many cars everywhere lol 30k is a good daily ride. Keep it up!
- dvqc 2y agoA trottinette is actually called a scooter in english. I believe a "motor scooter" is what we in France call a scooter.
- BrandoElFollito 2y agoThanks, good to know. We have plenty of these false friends.
- 2y ago