Free Will and Determinism from a Physicist’s Perspective (Sabine Hossenfelder)

The Michael Shermer Show # 294
What is time? Does the past still exist? How did the universe begin and how will it end? Do particles think? Was the universe made for us? Why doesn’t anyone ever get younger? Has physics ruled out free will? Will we ever have a theory of everything? According to Sabine Hossenfelder, it is not a coincidence that quantum entanglement and vacuum energy have become the go-to explanations of alternative healers, or that people believe their deceased grandmother is still alive because of quantum mechanics. Science and religion have the same roots, and they still tackle some of the same questions: Where do we come from? Where do we go to? How much can we know? The area of science that is closest to answering these questions is physics. Over the last century, physicists have learned a lot about which spiritual ideas are still compatible with the laws of nature. Not always, though, have they stayed on the scientific side of the debate.
Shermer and Hossenfelder also discuss: theories of everything • quantum flapdoodle • Is math all there is? Is math universal? • Uniformitarianism and the laws of nature • theories of aging • Emergent properties, or why we are not just a bag of atoms • Is knowledge predictable? • Free will and determinism from a physicist’s perspective • Do copies of us exist? Could they ever? • Consciousness and computability • Does the universe think? • Why is there something rather than nothing? • What is the purpose of life, the universe, and everything?
Sabine Hossenfelder is a research fellow at the Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies, Germany, and has published more than eighty research articles about the foundations of physics, including quantum gravity, physics beyond the standard model, dark matter, and quantum foundations. She has written about physics for a broad audience for 15 years and is the creator of the popular KZbin channel “Science without the Gobbledygook.” Her writing has been published in New Scientist, Scientific American, the New York Times, and the Guardian (London). Her first book, Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray, appeared in 2018.
SUPPORT THE PODCAST
If you enjoy the podcast, please show your support by making a $5 or $10 monthly donation.
www.skeptic.com/donate/
SPONSOR
Wondrium
wondrium.com/shermer
#michaelshermer
#skeptic
Listen to The Michael Shermer Show via Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Music, Google Podcasts, Stitcher, iHeartRadio, and TuneIn.
www.skeptic.com/michael-sherm...

[@conjurors-prelude]

Mathematician here 😊. I feel like the reason many lay people think they have discovered grand theories is because of the Dunning-Kruger effect. They just aren’t aware of how little they know. After getting my degree in higher math, I feel much tinier and much dumber. I have been humbled by just how much knowledge there is out there. Also, Sabine is my hero. I’m studying physics now because of her ❤

[@schmetterling4477]

You better not learn physics from her, though. Her physical intuition is atrocious. ;-)

[@jonathansturm4163]

My admiration for Sabine is almost boundless. So many “I don’t knows” which is fine in a Universe with so many things we can conceive that are determinable. There’s no shortage of answerable questions!

[@0214hjalle]

Sabine is a treasure. A skeptic of science and a good educator.

[@jorgeratin3383]

Sabine no es una escéptica, es demasiado razonable para eso, el escéptico suele ser imbécil, esta mujer es una buscadora de la verdad, que es otra cosa Sabine is not a skeptic, she is too reasonable for that, the skeptic is usually an idiot, this woman is a seeker of truth, which is something else

[@WayneLynch69]

@@jorgeratin3383 "We cannot see if Schrodinger's equation contains frogs, musical composers or morality. So we cannot say whether a God is needed or not needed. Leaving to the individual the choice of opinion for or against a God." Richard Feynman 1964 Cornell series of 9 lectures

[@rishabsaini8347]

She's not a skeptic of science, she is a good Scientist.

[@paulheinrichdietrich9518]

@@jorgeratin3383 La búsqueda de la verdad presupone un cierto escepticismo.

[@Joe-ym6bw]

She's smart

[@earlbonie3779]

I love that Sabine is very strict in restricting her answers to her area of expertise. Socrates would be proud!

[@noway8233]

Thats the Way!

[@timnray99]

she would be prohibited from attending the School of Athens.....after all the most common question asked of Hypathia was.....but can you cook and clean

[@mikebirminghamnz]

If only others like ndtyson would do the same thing they would be far more credible.

[@richardleetbluesharmonicac7192]

Climate change is not one of them

[@nancygerette]

She stopped doing that.

[@manelsalido]

Sabine is a wonderful communicator, and a wonderful person!!

[@seivaDsugnA]

Not bad for a mathematician. It's great to see her dive right into internet penising.

[@mkilptrick]

I've been hooked on Sabines YT channel now for a couple of years. She does a good job of explaining complicated subjects.

[@chrisbennett6260]

its always complicated when your opposed

[@gandydancer9710]

@@chrisbennett6260 That sentence isn't complicated, but it sure is incomprehensible.

[@chrisbennett6260]

@@gandydancer9710 fine

[@gandydancer9710]

@@chrisbennett6260 Why write if you don't wish to be understood? Use sentences that make sense next time.

[@kirstinstrand6292]

I've never listened to her. Now, she's up there with Robert Sapolsky as far as dispensing truth goes. It's so frustrating not being a genius. We NEED your minds. 😮❤

[@sherrydionisio4306]

Sabine is my favorite living physicist. She defines pragmatism and in her ideas, she is always succinct. I imagine her to be more honest, unbiased and humble than most people, though I have never known her. Such qualities always seem to help make any person more believable.

[@Lincoln_Bio]

Sabine visibly dying inside at the mention of Deepak Chopra is comedy gold

[@victorjcano]

Chopra the charlatan. I can’t stand to listen to that man so I don’t LOL.

[@scotthardy6485]

35:25

[@asynchronicity]

Why even bring that goofball into the conversation?

[@blugreen99]

Deepocket Chopra shows there is money in gobble de geek.

[@ecstacie40]

This was absolutely fantastic. I’ll be listening to it again and mulling the ideas for a long time. I’m definitely going to buy her book, and I just subscribed to her KZbin channel. Thank you so very much for introducing me to this wonderful person!

[@MrHARRYGOODNIGHT]

I love Sabine's pristine fidelity to her understanding and beliefs.

[@edreusser4741]

You forgot to mention that Sabine's channel is one of the most brilliant communicators on the planet. By listening to her broadcasts I find myself actually able to understand more than I ever imagined being able to. Different ideas like the block universe make so much more sense now. And the whole thing about time. My mind has been expanded in ways I never thought was possible.

[@david203]

He actually didn't forget to mention that.

[@JohnBrown-nd1jb]

Thank you, miss Hossenfelder, for promoting real science!

[@davidmarquez2821]

This was fascinating. As a fan of both, I think Michael did an amazing job with the questions and topics he picked here for Sabine, outside of the purely scientific zone.

[@aikendrum1518]

I cant help but think the universe is like any other container ... even if its IP5000 sealed ... its bound to leak somewhere

[@d.r.tweedstweeddale9038]

I follow Dr. Hossenfelder's vlog & find it quite educational at a level aimed at the level of we curious lay types & get a kick from her personable humour. Thank Sabine on my behalf, please.

[@ralfg9194]

Dr. Hossenfelder is a true hero. In Germany we have a nice verb that became uncommen, it is called "verbrämt", If something is "wissenschaftlich verbrämt" this means something is scientifically dressed up. And so Dr. Hossenfelder's telling is true that many scientist hide behind a wall of mathematics, at least the ones that know mathematics, the other ones hide behind a wall of technical terms like social scientists, political scientists and educators. All these people are a real pain in the a..! This is why we need strong persons as Dr. Hossenfelder, who may not have many friends in the scientific community especially not under physicists, but the people that like her do like her very intensely! Keep on! Kind regards from Germany!

[@augustadawber4378]

The reason her viewpoint is a very tiny minority viewpoint among the Physics Community is because the Observer Affect has been verified and repeated tens of thousands of times over the last 100 years !. Quantum Mechanics is the most succesful scientific theory of all time. Her attempts to debunk Quantrum Mechanics and Non-Locality through Super-Determinism makes 99 % of all Physicists laugh.

[@mitchkahle314]

Love Sabine Hossenfelder!

[@NeilRieck]

I've been a fan of Sabine ever since I attended her public lectures at the Perimeter Institute of Physics in Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.

[@Thomas-gk42]

Sabine is such a smart, special, and nice lady. She has to give a lot to humanity ❤

[@schmetterling4477]

And there is the SEO bot. ;-)

[@jonathansturm4163]

On female sensitivity: A friend sent me a video clip he’d taken on the train in Germany. Two women were discussing the problems they had being sensitive to the electromagnetic fields in their homes. They suffered terribly from them attributing all sorts of petty ailments to their sensitivity. My friend pointed out that they were all travelling on an electric train and were in a much more intense electromagnetic field than you find in any normal home.

[@asystole_]

How does that relate to "female" sensitivity aside from the fact that the two people in your anecdote were women?

[@jonaseggen2230]

@@asystole_ Sabine talked about this female sensitivity.

[@thijsjong]

An example if the problem being all in their heads. A made up problem. If you canconvince a oerson he she has braincancer. That person can conjur up a terrible headache just with their imagination.

[@david203]

Not all electromagnetic fields are the same. They vary in direction, frequency, amplitude, orientation (polarization), and in the distributions of all these quantities in space and time. So you can't compare EM fields in two places unless you know exactly what quantities you are comparing.

[@michaeltorrisi7289]

@@asystole_ As someone else pointed out, it was discussed in the video. But beyond that, I'd like to note that some types of stupidity are - broadly - gendered. Like any male/female comparison, there's a bit of overlap. So like, you can say "men are stronger than women". There's some overlap, the strongest women are stronger than many men, but broadly, the statement is true. Empathetic stupidity is more of a woman thing. So like astrology, crystals, the idea of different types of alcohol making you behave differently (I'm fine on vodka, but guuurl, on tequila, watch out!). Things that involve being "in tune" or "in touch" with the environment they're in. For men, the stupidity is usually more self-promotional. Attempting physical stunts beyond their capability, being entirely certain of the soundness of their thinking (like the example Michael gives of overwhelmingly men sending him crackpot theories), etc. When you hear the "women don't want to date nice guys", that's an extension of that kind of stupid. It's not some weird tactic to shame women into dating them, they think that they're amazing and cannot comprehend why they're not inundated with attention. Then they do a terrible job of figuring out what it is about them that keeps them from getting that attention because they're so subconsciously convinced of their own above average worth. There's probably a better term for it, or more concise examples, but basically, whereas women's crazy ideas tend to be focused on connectedness, men's crazy ideas tend to be focused on self-superiority. And it's probably a scale, not scope thing. Like most of us have these gendered traits, just not maybe to the "I've proven Einstein wrong because I'm a genius!" level.

[@Danny_6Handford]

Sabina is an amazing lady! In all of the academic professions from philosophy to physics including engineering, economics, finance, business and politics, people try to baffle you with bullshit. At times, it can be a real challenge to separate the facts from the fiction and to recognize the swindlers and con artists. I think at some point all of us have been fooled by someone myself included.

[@NeedsEvidence]

Sa-bi-ne

[@Danny_6Handford]

@@NeedsEvidence Yes, I realized that I spelled Sabine's name with and "a" at the end instead of an "e". It was an honest mistake, but thanks for pointing this out.

[@NeedsEvidence]

@@Danny_6Handford Don't worry. But what bugs me is that virtually all English-native hosts interviewing Dr Hossenfelder on their podcasts pronounce her first name wrong, like it was as difficult as rocket science.

[@Danny_6Handford]

@@NeedsEvidence There are many things that bug me in this world, but spelling or pronouncing someone’s name wrong is not one of them, unless it is done intentionally to criticize the person or to disrespect the person. It may not be rocket science, but with all of the world’s languages and dialects that go with them and even if we use some of the amazing technologies that have been developed like “Google Translate”, it is still possible to pronounce or spell words wrong. What is really amazing to me and did not see coming in my lifetime is the technology now available to virtually communicate to just about anyone anywhere in the world. As long as we can learn how to filter out the nonsense, the scams and the fake news, we should be able to increase trust amount each other.

[@Ralph85Williams85]

Couldn't wait enough for such an episode! Thx guys!

[@kencreten7308]

One thing that I have come up with in the shower, many times, and I believe it to be true is, "I think I'm hungry...." That's my great contribution to the theory of everything.

[@HarryNicNicholas]

there is of course a direct correlation between flow and gut bacteria activity, related to decibel and echo parameters, known as "sandwiches law"

[@AvenEngineer]

Not sure how Michael struggles so hard to imagine death, it's exactly the same as all the time before birth, complete non-existence. For me it's was a literally unremarkable place, for infinite time into the past. Nothing to be afraid of.

[@coreywiley3981]

Isn't it so mind blowing that we didn't exist for an infintity of time before we are born and then sudenly we emerge and exist for a relatively very breif amount of time and then we die and we (probably) never exist again for infinity! I think that is so weird, even though it is normal.

[@AvenEngineer]

It is astonishing what appears from nothing, given infinite time.

[@arldoran]

Great podcast! Well done, sir! Thanks a lot!

[@alanjones5639]

Many good questions well answered. I'm currently reading her "Existential Physics" and find it refreshing. Her instrumentalist perspective is most refreshing (see Dewey's instrumentalism). I like her use of "ascientific". Many ascientific notions are notions that are claimed to be derivative from science but are really just confusions of metaphysics with science. She makes her own meanings. She is responsible for her life.

[@lonzo61]

I have an average level of science education (primary and secondary) which is to include a basic physics class. My dad was a bio-chemist, and I suppose I have his sensiblities--though not his brains. So, I have found personalities like Sagan, Dawkins, Tyson, and Hossenfelder to be so interesting, even as I have a difficult time following some of the concepts they discuss. It's comforting to know there are people who are intelligent and deeply interested in finding out what is true, rather than making up woo woo (the bible, the koran, or Deepak Chopra, Wayne Dyer, big tent preachers....or pull just about any number of names out of a hat filled with woo woo). Our world is filled with woo woo. It seems to have been the default setting for as long as we've had language. Science is hard. Woo woo is easy--and more profitable.

[@schmetterling4477]

In other words... you know nothing about science, either. ;-)

[@johngrundowski3632]

I agree heartily , thanks

[@tomgip]

Finished her book last night. It is now my favorite physics book. No make that my favorite book overall. Of course the Moral Arch is second.

[@nikolaosdimitriadis15]

Great conversation with a great guest! Well done!

[@stephenlawrence4821]

Free will and wine drinking. Obviously we can and do learn from past mistakes. So tomorrow Sabina can drink less wine than today. But assuming determinism, she only will drink less wine tomorrow than today if she is already on a determined path that will lead to that outcome. Could she have done otherwise? Yes but she would have had to have been on a different determined path stretching back to the initial conditions of the universe to have done so. That is very straightforward and shows that what we ordinarily think of as free will and I dare say, what Michael Shermer has in mind, is not compatible with determinism.

[@paulanderson7628]

Sabine does her best to rescue the realism from the constant speculation that we survive death in some form. Arcane fears are a distraction.

[@williamrunner6718]

This lady, Sabine Hossenfelder is a genius for sure and I love the way she can be critical of mainstream mathematical physics and think out of the box at the same time.

[@david203]

It is easy to be critical of the mainstream and think outside of it. The hard thing is to transcend what one is taught to accept without question.

[@PhilLeith]

I love how she looks at, and describes -- equations and mathematics. I think it helps that she came at Physics from Mathematics, instead of Mathematics from Physics, where it is basically a toolbox. Math is a language we use to describe relationships between things in the universe. It allows abstractions of abstractions of abstractions. Which can be really useful. But it's still a language. And language isn't the things it describes. I majored in Atmospheric Science, and I did NOT go at it from mathematics... I kind of sucked at mathematics after Algebra 2, though I aced Geometry. I did NOT ace Analytic geometry, or anything after it through Diff Eq. Lotta "C"'s and sometimes only the second time I took the courses. However, I found it eye-opening how we came up with equations to describe fluid dynamics, and it was obvious to me that we were just describing things as best we understand them with the language of mathematics. So does "math" exist? Kind of depends on what we mean by existence. It exists in our heads and on paper. It can be passed along. In that sense it exists. But when we get into discussions like this, you get into Sabine's talk of the past and future and present all exist, and we "invented" this language, so the language exists, so it exists in all of the universe, therefore it is a structure that just exists in the universe ... but I think we're getting into religion here, frankly. I do NOT think we can copy consciousness without literally biologically reproducing ourselves. I think ....and I know this is ascientific ... that consciousness is an integral part of the universe and has some fundamental structure we haven't found the source of yet. If we ever do.

[@corypride5096]

Hi Michael. I'm old enough to remember that bike race. Good to see you still in action.

[@jeffersonianideal]

My favorite physics rule: Nothing happens in no time.

[@david203]

And more happens the larger the duration. In general, of course.

[@brucehitchcock3869]

Sabine is a truther physicist . Much love to you Sabine.

[@augustadawber4378]

'Super-Determinism' and 'Unknown Variables' are the Physicist's version of 'God works in mysterious ways'.

[@gardenladyjimenez1257]

I loved this conversation the first time and am watching it again. Full disclosure. I am a committed Catholic. The questions discussed here are essential to the struggle to understand the world. I have been frustrated with many other discussions which treat a long list of untestable ideas as "theoretically and potentially true". A further frustration is that many scientists exploit their expertise with technical jargon and math unreachable to the average person, implying that big questions are "too big" for "regular folk down there." Shermer's questions are wonderful, and Sabine's answers and explanations are clear. I love her agnostic honesty...where I once lived. I often feel like many scientists prefer to live above the heavens where the smart people go in order to avoid the poor, silly people down below...creating intellectually silly theories of almost anything...which is preferable to even considering the existence of a mind/being/creator outside of the material world. Thanks very much!

[@schmetterling4477]

So what does your belief in Adult Santa have to do with this? ;-)

[@david203]

None of your statements of appreciation of Dr. Hossenfelder seem to have anything to do with your being a committed Catholic.

[@gardenladyjimenez1257]

@@schmetterling4477 "poor, silly people down below." No need to respond. That's not the major point of my comment.

[@schmetterling4477]

@@gardenladyjimenez1257 You didn't answer the question. Adult Santa is of no help when it comes to serious conversation. ;-)

[@gardenladyjimenez1257]

@@david203 Sure. I could jave left that out and still made my point. I find it interesting, though, that you and Mr. Ling cue in on this one word. That says as much about you as it does about me. Really! Enough said!!

[@0The0Web0]

Enjoyed this a lot, great guest! 👌

[@colinbrigham8253]

Thank you Sabina 😊

[@NeilRieck]

I forgot where I read this but decades ago someone once said "biological systems are islands of negative entropy". So just as you can expend energy to store some of the energy in a clock's mainspring, biological systems can expend energy to do error detection then error correction (explains why Michael's 6-yo can heal faster than Michael)

[@david203]

It isn't clear what point you are making by presenting these particular facts. Neither of the speakers in this video denied the truth of the laws of thermodynamics.

[@NeilRieck]

@@david203 I was talking about the physicists' view of entropy always heading in one direction (from order to chaos). But biological systems get around this by using energy to implement negative entropy to implement repair. Their ultimate trick is to use an insane amount of energy to create a new copy via sexual reproduction.

[@herbertvanlynden6629]

It all reminds me of Kamakurka and Herr Seele's comics strip "The disappearance of Nothing," followed by "The Return of Nothing." By then the newspaper that published the comics strips had received so many complaints from readers that it stopped publication.

[@scaryb69]

Subscribed! Been a follower of Michael Shermer for years.

[@jorgeratin3383]

Sabine brilla como una supernova, ilumina todo lo que la rodea Sabine shines like a supernova, lighting up everything around her

[@Deuceeg]

You have my attention know Sabine. I really do love watching you.

[@HolgerGruber]

Meanwhile, Sabine's channel has reached the 1-million-mark!

[@Hugoknots]

great conversation. Sabine is well spoken, concise, and bold. at 49:02 Sabine goes on to state that a belief in God and belief in the Multiverse as derived from mathematics are both religious beliefs and unnecessary to describe what we observe.

[@rhqstudio4107]

I understand just from watching these conversations!!!

[@david203]

You understand everything better just from this video? Amazing.

[@pmiecz]

Great Interview

[@JohnAutry]

Great show Mike you breathe life into an otherwise flat field of numbers and more numbers…

[@eljcd]

Very enjoyable conversation. Now if only Amazon stop delaying my copy of her book!!

[@kirstinstrand6292]

Why does humanity not know that everyone is on the Consciousness spectrum? ❤❤❤

[@timnray99]

Sabine and Kathy loves physics and are such great voices here on KZbin.....

[@MW-xi5go]

Excellent. Thank you

[@SchgurmTewehr]

This was published on my birthday 😊.

[@wells2671]

Loved the conversation, going to buy her book. The video editing caused some overlap in speech and at times seemed like you were each responding to a different question.

[@jonaseggen2230]

This was slightly annoying yes

[@david203]

Good video editing is not so easy to do. Even finding a good video editor program is difficult.

[@producer2123]

I will definitely read her book.

[@user-dh1zg5dq7d]

This is a skeptical feast. Thank you both.

[@augustadawber4378]

Yes its a skeptical feast. But you really should not advertise that you are not an Independent Free Thinker. Sabine constantly stating 'I don't know' or 'we don't know' is not proof that there is nothing bizzare going on in the world of sub-atomic particles. Forget 'Quantum Eraser'. Just in 'Delayed Choice', a Photon has to 'know' that in the Future it will be analysed, measure, observed, etc. Thats called Future Influencing the Present. There is no way around it. A Photon will go through a double slit as a Wave unless it knows that in the future, a measuring device is going to be put in place. Knowing that, the photon goes through a single slit as a particle even though there is no one measuring or observing it when it goes through the slit. Of course, another explanation is that it did go through the double slits as a Wave and when a Measuring Device was put in place, another Universe came into existence where the Photon went through as a single Particle.

[@user-dh1zg5dq7d]

@@augustadawber4378 Panpsychism, eh? I can’t say it’s a skeptical point of view. It’s just dualism in new clothing

[@schmetterling4477]

@@augustadawber4378 The only bizarre thing that is going on in quantum mechanics is the fact that almost nobody (Sabine included) seems to remember that they were taught these eight words in high school: "A quantum is a small amount of energy.". That definition makes quantum mechanics completely trivial. :-)

[@auditoryproductions1831]

43:30 I disagree with Sabine here. If a process is "testable" then it is in fact science. Including testing whether it will rain carrots. The idea it will rain carrots (as Sabine mentioned) is a very stupid conjecture, but it is science in that it can easily be refuted by the fact it never rains carrots.

[@noeditbookreviews]

For sure get her book. She's great.

[@PhilLeith]

I don't know. I'm the MOST comfortable with "we don't know". It is, in fact, the most honest point of view. And I agree with Sabine .... we will probably never know. I, in fact, believe that we can't ... due to the nature of infinity.

[@david203]

We know a little bit more about Nature as time goes by, because science is designed to correct itself. But progress in science has never been linear with time: sometimes progress happens in big leaps, sometimes in tiny incremental steps. Not being able to know everything doesn't stop us from learning more about lots of things.

[@theplenum]

The principle of observational equivalence - the foundational principle operating as the equivalence principle in physics, the principle that Einstein used to formulate his theories of special and general relativity, also tells you that any object, of any size, can only be modeled probabilistically when you cannot observe it. That, right there, proves that there is no qualitative difference between the quantum and classical worlds, other than the fact that the classical world is observable. It also proves the equivalence between a particle observer of quantum mechanics, and a human observer - showing that observation is fundamental to any statement that can be formulated relative the physical world. This equivalence is what allows one to draw valid inferences that are mathematically supportable from the position of the human observer. This equivalence can then be used to infer that observation must be the source of the determinism we see in the Universe, but that obervation is also a radiator of entropy, and that 'observation' and 'locality' are fundamental to each other, because by radiating entropy an observer is correspondingly concentrated to a point of low entropy. Modern physics is still completely stumped about this. The next major discoveries will not come from some egghead who has spent 30 years on some deep detail of reality. It will come from someone able to perform a fundamental conceptual inversion of the concepts we all understand, to reveal something foundationally new about them - while keeping the resulting effect as unremarkable as it is now. The fact that both of you are making fun of people trying to be creative in ways you no longer are - while being unable to even approach the foundational questions of life - was my motivation for leaving this comment. I welcome you to try and falsify my above statements - good luck!

[@delhatton]

FYI BN ebooks cannot be read on a Kindle. Ordinarily this would have been a deal-breaker, but I purchased your book anyway.

[@Serenade314]

People like Chopra found a safe and convenient place in Quantum Physics to put their ignorance. It is beyond our understanding, so it’s basically magic. Magic makes everything possible, so it’s a great way to tell people what they want to hear. Cyclical deliciousness.

[@paulierymenko4411]

1:01:43 computability and free will

[@karlhalvorson4172]

At 51:24, Michael talks about being agnostic vs. atheist, which is actually two questions. Gnostic/Agnostic refers to what someone knows and theism/atheism refers to what someone believes or has a lack of belief of. If you do not know if a god exists, then you are agnostic. You can still be a theist or an atheist either way. I don’t know for sure what Michael or Sabine believe, but if I was to guess, I would think neither are convinced a god exists, or in other words, they lack the belief in a god or gods. This would make both of them agnostic atheists. Michael did mention hard atheist, however, and this often is interpreted as a strong conviction or belief that no god exists. This belief is often backed up with reasons (knowledge) to support the lack of belief. So in this case you might say they are a gnostic atheist. Honestly, though, if we do not have conclusive evidence, either way, does’t that mean we are all agnostic and its just a matter of degree?

[@tommyvictorbuch6960]

"When we are saying "only God knows," we are saying, no one knows." - Christopher Hitchens -

[@schmetterling4477]

The people who are saying "only god knows" are usually the people who didn't pay attention in high school science class.

[@Superlongevityinstitute]

Very good show

[@gmotionedc5412]

Love it👍👍

[@davidwright8432]

I think a lot of technical/academic publications are written because in career terms, it's true - publish or perish, promotion-wise No paper-citations or counts, no tenure. Brutal, but true. So you get stuff published in many fields that while not actually wrong, doesn't genuinely help increase understanding.

[@david203]

It's nice to have the academic freedom to publish interesting conjectures, because it's always possible that one of them will trigger a real paradigm of change. But it would also be nicer if there were some standard of making such papers have a sufficient rationale to make them believable.

[@BloodRaisin]

Wonderful conversation. Michael, I’ve been noticing on a lot of your episodes there seems to be a time lag. Is there a different program you can try? It kind of disturbs the flow of the conversation

[@david203]

If you're talking about the video editing, it should use cross-dissolves instead of cuts. Is that what you mean?

[@notanemoprog]

Great to see Sabine's new book discussed, btw "Gospel of Judas" got a huge media blitz back in 2006 it's amazing that anyone managed to miss that!

[@philflip1963]

In this video there is a of talking about things in terms of our conceptualisations of such things rather than what those things may be, 'in themselves'. There seems a danger of confusing epistemology with ontology of conflating sensations with conceptualisations and both of these things with any 'objects' that may exist in external reality. As to wether things actually exist in external reality as substancial 'objects' or alternatively as 'processes' between insubstancial forms that are themselves akin to processes is at present beyond my understanding but would seem to bear upon the contrary doctrines of materialism and idealism.

[@tuvstar100]

She's awesome !!!!!

[@tx29219]

We don't say, "What is the purpose of a neutron star?" so likewise a scientist would not of necessity ask, "What is the purpose of a biosphere?", which is perhaps akin to the question "What is the purpose of life?" But one does ask, "What is the purpose of the Antikythera Mechanism?", and likewise, "What is the purpose of this or that component of the biosphere (such as an organelle in a cell)?" If life is the same kind of thing as a neutron star or a galaxy, i.e. a naturally occurring phenomenon of physics, then why do we ask the purposes of the workings of one but not of the workings in the others? Why does one natural phenomenon of physics posses a collection of "purposes" while the others do not?

[@david203]

Don't understand this. What are physicists saying that annoys you?

[@tx29219]

​@@david203 Nothing. I'm just asking some questions.

[@charleshuguley9323]

The fine-tuned argument for intelligent design assumes that there is something essentially special about us. It has the same basis as the argument that the world is the center of the universe. It can be counter-argued that this universe is simply the one that is. If it didn't exist, if the laws of nature were different then an entirely different universe might have come into being. The fact that this universe evolved us means nothing in particular.

[@david203]

Yes! Thank you! We are a superb random confluence that don't appreciate our own unique value.

[@briansmith3791]

The universal fine-tuning argument (not ID) says that humans were not created special, evolution made us special. And we are special, no other animal comes close to us. The Physical Constants point to a created universe.

[@david203]

@@briansmith3791 Unless there are many Universes, each having a random set of constants. This would mean a kind of cosmic version of evolution: most Universes wouldn't survive, because the constants wouldn't work to make atoms, etc. Of the Universes that are consistent enough to survive, we are the result not only of that particular Universe, but this locality of the Universe, with the Earth being a certain distance from the Sun, and having a Moon, and the Earth having a certain composition, etc. In other words, we are in a very rare place in a very rare Universe such that life and DNA could occur. Furthermore, we've had a unique geologic history, with dinosaurs dying out, ice ages to test us, etc., leading up to homo sapiens. And, unless we kill ourselves off, there will be further growth, too. Why are we only in this rare place and time? Because it required this rare place and time, for the arising, randomly, of a life form that could be self-aware, could grow in intelligence, and could, finally, reach the peak of development: the ability to make KZbin comments and feel that they were worth our time and energy. There is no need to invent a super-intelligent God when random chance alone is sufficient.

[@briansmith3791]

@@david203 As Sabine Hossenfelder says, " the multiverse ideas are pseudo-science". There is zero evidence for the existence of any other universe. Even if we could discover some observable evidence for them, (which we can't), we will never know the values of the Laws and Constants which govern them. They could have the same values as this universe. We are left with probably the only evidence we'll ever have on this subject : One observable universe with the inherent Physical Constants. As the atheist physicist Leonard Mlodinow recently said, " It's either a multiverse or God, i have no other answer".

[@NeilRieck]

Isn't Michael's last question taken from "a hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy"?

[@bradb7342]

We lost carl sagen as a science communicator years ago, Sabine helps fill his absence

[@HarryNicNicholas]

1:12:00 there is a little man in my head who suggests to me what i should do, and he lays awake at night wondering if there is a little man inside _his_ head telling _him_ what to do. how can you have free will if you can't listen to your thought and then decide if it's a good or a bad thought? we don't even know hos _will_ works, let alone free will. on god's free will: no one can "give you" free will. if there is a god, then i'm his creation and i live in his creation, that's god's will not mine, let me_decide_ to live here, let me _design_ my own universe, _then_ i have free will. how can i have free will when there are commandments? god makes laws, provides you will a painful alternative to obeying those laws, then says "you chose freely" - i can only swear at him. free will is just a "gotcha" that allows you to be sadistic and burn someone alive while claiming to be moral, if we have no choices in life we are not culpable, religists HATE that, they want an excuse for hell so they have an excuse for heaven.

[@marewhiskey1807]

This interview has inspired me to send Sabina my totally not crazy theory of everything for her to review 😆

[@david203]

If you read the comments on her videos, you can see lots of them. The funny thing is that they are all vague claims. There is not one statement of a genuine insight that would support such a claim.

[@markkennedy9767]

This is genuinely great stuff. I don't know what to make of Sabine just saying there are things that are untestable and always unknowable. Like the multiverse. On the one hand I admire her ability to do this. On the other hand, I wonder if she's giving up too readily on these kinds of things.

[@alanjones5639]

I don't think she is giving up. Our [current] understandings/abilities don't allow us to make [reasonable] evaluations.

[@david203]

It's really rather simple: we live entirely within the confines of our Universe. Not the tiniest bit of matter or energy reaches us from outside of our Universe (if there even is an outside). Since all we can observe is contained in the Universe, there is no way to detect whether even one other Universe exists. That is the reason that Multiverse theories are all untestable and hence unfalsifiable and non-scientific. Is it clear now, Mark?

[@markkennedy9767]

@@david203 forever untestable and unknowable?

[@david203]

I don't think that entropy/thermodynamics is the main reason we age. I think our DNA has evolved to make us age, deteriorate, and die, just as fungi have evolved to process the dead organisms on a forest floor so that they can be recycled into new life. We can see DNA getting shorter with each mitosis in the lab, and the fixed number of telomeres (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telomere) may be one mechanism for limiting the lifespan of many organisms. Dying of individuals confers an evolutionary advantage on the species, and so makes more sense than a more abstract explanation based on entropy.

[@MichaelSmith420fu]

Quite a twist when thinking about the idea of survival of the fittest eh? Ever noticed like how the psyche will block negative things out subconsciously? Like.. you know how people will forget traumatic events n shit? There's Soo so much contingencies going on with our existence that we don't really get to appreciate.

[@jimmyjasi-anti-descartes7088]

Lol. One of the best guests ever! So Dr. Shermer are you skeptical about lack of Free Will?

[@pcuimac]

The whole discussion was determined to happen (as was this comment), but it had in some parts some randomness to it. 🤣

[@HarryNicNicholas]

he's determined not to answer yet.

[@haroonaverroes6537]

56:00 mathematics is a representation of human logic, human logic is a different story ...

[@michael.forkert]

Einstein said: The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has limits. Quasi one and a half hour of genius! Right Frau Doktor Hossenfelder!

[@a.gwhiteley1855]

It does astonish me how easily and often today the idea of free will is relinquished, given the huge logical problem with denying it. For if we are seriously saying that all our thoughts are in the long run determined by the mindless forces and particles of the material universe, such that we could not possibly have thought differently, how can we know any of our thoughts to be true or false - including our denial of free will? As has been said, the problem with determinism is that if it is true we can never know it to be true since our thoughts are determined, including determinism. It is a self-refuting position. Free will is essential not only to moral responsibility but to reason, logic and therefore science. What Sabine and Michael are saying ultimately is that we know we don't have free will, but let's all pretend for the sake of our mental and social health that we do - which scarcely seems a rational approach.

[@jaysampson6310]

Well said. How is it she proposes to know this when there is no way to test it. Is it just a belief for her?

[@producer2123]

Superb conversation. Cool that Michael Shermer stressed that an upload of a person is a copy of the person just like a computer file.

[@globalist1990]

As we can't even copy that yet, the possible capabilities are unknown. If you consider our brains as electric synapses (i have no clue what I'm talking about), it might be possible to replace organic cells with synthetic, replaceable, upgradable, even shared and communal cells or even a synthetic structure of some kind. I've heard all cells of our body will be different cells within two years, does that mean you die partially several times throughout your life?

[@jcolvin2]

Once a few years have gone by and all your atoms have been replaced, are you a copy of yourself? The ship of Theseus is still relevant.

[@alanjones5639]

@@globalist1990 I'm a process that extracts and uses energy and that makes processors, sensors, etc. with matter. My death will be the ending of my life process.

[@david203]

If the brain is only responsible for thinking and the processing of sensory perception, and consciousness is NOT an emergent property of the nervous system, then copying the parameters of all the neurons might produce a logical mind, but not a fully functioning human being.

[@david203]

@@alanjones5639 Your consciousness may not die. It may be shared with everyone else: one observer, observing through multiple bodies.

[@AndreyBogoslowskyNewYorkCity]

To develop #visual #art perception: 1. turn off your hearing. Visual memory will take years to develop. I remember every brushstroke, every #painting. Every #drawing I made since age 8. reality is unveiling in front of you as an infinite rainbow of colors, vibrations not much different than the #radio or #tv television. Take advantage of those infinite choices to express ideas, dreams, #fantasies, or even #prophecies. Take an example from me. I created my #ScienceFiction idea of #cactus #cacti flourishing 5 million years in the #future on #planet #Earth. #Cactusia #IamBogoslowsky🦁🤴

[@david203]

The question of why we can't imagine being dead is an interesting one, and it points to the philosophy of nonduality. It points to our identification as primarily an observer rather than an object of observation. What if what we take to be "we" (or "I") is more real than our mind or body? What if the only entity that truly exists is an Observer who can only be described as pure witnessing consciousness? Then we would have at least an intuition that we aren't limited to this body and mind, that our existence is somehow never born and never dies. And, in fact, that is what people who achieve self-realization perceive, directly and not through the physics of having a body. This might seem unlikely or complex, but it's actually far simpler than either physics or religion: it says that the laws of physics, and spacetime, are all real, but illusory. It says that prior to matter and energy is consciousness, but not a mystical consciousness based in pseudoscience (like a misinterpretation of quantum mechanics), but a directly perceived awareness of just being aware. Such a pure subjective consciousness would be zero-dimensional, being located somehow at the origin not only of matter and energy, but at the origin of life, peace, happiness, creativity, and intelligence as well.

[@Iamjamessmith1]

Heiight, width, and lenght do not usually change on objects. They are non changing dimensions. Time does move so that dimension seems quite different.

[@Iamjamessmith1]

Configurations can be destroyed. Therefore, they, as they were, cannot be retieved.

[@yifuxero5408]

Parallel universes at an Engineering Company. A Co. has two foremost engineers vying for different models, but the Board of Directors can only select one. Engineer A wants a blue wire with accompanying hardware which differs from B's model which uses a red wire and other hardware. In two days the Board of Directors must decide on which model to fund, by taking a vote But the very next day one of the Board members is talking to a neighbor, who sees the Board member sneeze twice. The neighbor thinks to herself, "If the Board member sneezes a third time, I'll recommend a certain remedy and that the Member should stay home. and rest In parallel universe #1, the Member doesn't sneeze, doesn't stay home, and votes for the engineer's model with the blue wire. In parallel universe #2, the Board Member sneezes, and with the recommendation of the neighbor, stays home. The result is that the Board votes for the engineer promoting the red wire... Wrong choice! The client was displeased with the model, crashing the Co. due to lack of funds. Did the neighbor cause this? Question: How much energy is involved in the neighbor's thought to intervene on behalf of the Board member? Did a single fleeting thought disconnected from the Co. sink it? Was she a spy who deliberately did this, paid by an enemy of the Co?

[@MichaelSmith420fu]

I think one could make an analog between modern computing/AI decision making and our own "free will". I'm too tired too expand, lol but I agree with a lot of what Sabine said.

[@david203]

I wish you hadn't been so tired. Sounds like some good thought experiments can be based on these conceptual areas.

[@jaysampson6310]

Not even the same thing.

[@REDPUMPERNICKEL]

1:10:00 YOU cease to exist whenever you are not conscious. If YOUR unconscious material substrate is copied perfectly into a room on the moon and YOUR original material substrate incinerated in an instant here on earth then it would seem to YOU that YOU had been teleported to the moon and YOU would be surprised that it happened. The trick is to realize that YOU cease existing when YOU are not conscious and that what YOU are is a thought instantiated by a very complex material process (taking note that 'process' is an abstract notion that depends for its existence on a material substrate to supply all the little particles whose collective *movements* constitute the process). Does 'movement' reside within the purview of physics, considering the fact that 'movement' is not made of matter? Or does 'movement' reside within the purview of philosophy? Or does 'movement' sit on the border between the two where it merges mind and matter?

[@SloppyGoat]

I can tell you exactly how to imagine not being conscious anymore. I died once. It's just like not being born yet. That's the best way I can explain it. So, if you can think back to that, there you have it. No memory of it all. I could not be more sure, now, that you only get one life, and then you don't exist anymore. I'm actually a bit of a medical anomaly, since I was without oxygen for over 10 minutes. They were already telling my parents that I would never regain consciousness, or if I did, I would be a complete vegetable. That is really about as dead as you can get, and still be revived, I guess. I remember the moment I slipped away, very clearly. But then there was less than nothing. I just didn't exist anymore. I actually died twice, but the second time I don't consider a real death, because I didn't slip away like that. You definitely know the moment that you leave your consciousness behind. Unless you're killed really quickly, I guess.

[@david203]

I hope you find a place to publish your experiences, as they are of interest, probably, to many. What I'm getting from this is that dying is like returning to the pure consciousness that we were before mind and body impressed us with their conditioning.

[@SloppyGoat]

@@david203 You cannot use the word consciousness to describe death.

[@juliocortez5209]

you cannot remember before you were born. you also didnt "die once". Death is permanent...no "coming back"...everything else by definition is not death.

[@auditoryproductions1831]

How does Sabine define what is and isn't science if not whether something is "Testable"? What other criteria is there? Her personal opinion on whether she does or doesn't like the hypothesis?

[@david203]

Your comment lacks context.

[@auditoryproductions1831]

@@david203 It's a youtube comment, not a dissertation bud

[@diogenesagogo]

Nothing wrong with Popper's falsifiability criterion. But you have to some reason for testing the model you've just created, i.e. the model must have some theoretical justification underlying it, .otherwise you'll spend all your time testing the probability of umbelliferae precipitation

[@davidladd5597]

If this Mem-self could be created, it would lack the emulator (your physical system) to get anywhere close to a person that could be mistaken for you. If that Mem-self were loaded into a different emulator, it would not be you. Over the course of a lifetime, concepts, biases, and such change. To complicate this, your mem-self in a totally unique physical, emotional, or community environment would behave differently. What would be the point of all this?

[@oakbellUK]

I suggest that the main difference between postmodernist mumbo-jumbo and a scientist using technical language is that you can quiz the scientist and present the material in a simpler way (which Sabine does really well). You can't do the same with post-modernism.

[@david203]

And by 'post-modernism' you simply mean pseudoscience presented by the under-educated?

[@peterbranagan1010]

The Greeks two and a half thousand years ago wondered about the 'The One and the Many'. Moving on to the mid 20th century, Heidegger wrote in Being and Time about 'The Ground of Being' (the ONE) from which all entities (the MANY) emerge. Is it not true therefore that there can be no information in The ONE in and of itself as there is no differentiation until entities, (energy fields/particles), 'emerge'. It seems that information is not a thing in and of itself. Information is about relationships between entities and seems to be entirely meaningless independent of entities? If all the individual entities being consumed by a black hole are destroyed and become entirely undifferentiated from the Ground of Being, the question of whether or not information is destroyed appears to be moot?

[@schmetterling4477]

The Greek and Heidegger were idiots. So what, though? So nothing. :-)

[@jonathansturm4163]

For a comprehensive description of the concept of time discussed here Julian Barbour wrote a book: _The End of Time_ it’s tough going, but I’ve not come across better.

[@david203]

Is it physics or philosophy?

[@jankilly3516]

As grad student, my professor (leading robotics researcher) said he knew of many scientists who were denied publication, they banded together to start their own journal, thereby getting their questionable articles published. (professors need publications to get jobs). And while attending science conferences, noticed many "scientists" trashing others, because FUNDING was dependent. (aside - the earthquake thing is interesting, many stories of women who sensed impending earthquakes - one lady moved out of Cali to an earthquake free state (VA), because she was getting migraines all the times, then she got a serious migraine - few days later historic, first time ever earthquake occurred. A high level of magnetite was found in her brain ,,, )