You don't have free will, but don't worry.

In this video I explain why free will is incompatible with the currently known laws of nature and why the idea makes no sense anyway. However, you don't need free will to act responsibly and to live a happy life, and I will tell you why.
Support me on Patreon: / sabine
The reference I mentioned is here:
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...
#physics #science #philosophy
0:00 Intro and Content Summary
0:30 Free will as the possibility to select a future
1:21 Free will is incompatible with the laws of nature
3:02 Chaos and quantum mechanics make no difference
3:50 Free will is nonsense
4:28 Other definitions of free will
6:32 What is really going on
6:58 Reacting to a prediction is not free will
8:00 Free will is unnecessary for moral behavior
9:30 How to live without free will

[@michaelanderson4849]

Sabine is brutal in how she gives "certain" types of philosophers, who keep on insisting that their Ph.D. in philosophy makes them some sort of universal scientific authority, a painful wedgie. I love it!

[@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885]

Professor Olivier Costa de Beauregard: QUOTE: Any how k [knowledge] is very small “because N [negentroipy] is very big”; so knowledge is extremely cheap and organization expensive; said otherwise: “cognizance is normal and psychokinesis [6, 7] paranormal”. If k [knowledge] were zero cognizance would be cost-free and free-will an illusion

[@nothingmoretocontribute1866]

they need to pay the bills..

[@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885]

Olivier Costa de Beauregard: a hypothesis that was implicit in the theory named “epiphenomenal consciousness”. Interestingly, Born’s wavelike probability scheme associates [8, 9]retarded or advanced causation with statistical pre- or retro-diction."

[@jwarmstrong]

@Janusha So you must be filled w/ hate since you are from the IQ lower end

[@MindGameArcade]

Usually like you videos, but this one is quite bad. You fall into the typical trap of doing pseudo-science, everything presented there is self-contradictory. Using multiple logical fallacies with zero rigorousness whatsoever. And you are dodging the true question, which is: do consideration, awareness exist as we intuitively think they do, (see point 6) and below) 0) In summary this video is just explaining determinism or so called hard determinism. Nothing new here, very old idea, explained quite arrogantly I have to say. But the job of explaining this is OK. 1) None of the concept presented here are properly defined (free will, self awareness, determinism, etc.). Overall there is a complete lack of true scientific approach. 2) The causality argument paired with the "big bang" is ignoring the most simple observation one can make: the most fundamental truth is that there is something instead of nothing, and this something is arbitrarily the way it is, and not another way. Also by taking this deterministic approach you are implicitly saying that you have a proper definition of time and causality, events, sequences, and a lot of fundamentally open and very difficult question. What prevents another universe or other stuff to arbitrarily emerge. 3) What you are basically saying is that you don't know how to define free will or that free will is a tautology. Thus here is the question you should answer instead of making this video: given that you can create any universe with any law, what are the requirements for an universe with free will. Or said in another manner: define a system where there is free will. That's the proper approach. Otherwise you are just saying "as far as we know stuff is deterministic". 4) Even if we agree with everything you said, the fact is that we can act. Then if we can act, what prevents us of changing the law of the universe we live in. Basically, can free will be artificially created, similarly to 3) 5) The "little people", the "dumb common people" who get sad and depressed when they contemplate the fact that free will may not exist are right. You are coping with the idea by using your story metaphor, but it doesn't change anything. A purely mechanistic universe is not very welcoming. And you are dodging the true questions, if everything is deterministic/mechanistic then causing harm is not causing harm, it's just moving gears. Then why anything matters. 6) You cannot talk about free will without tackling self awareness. And you dodge the question here, free will is secondary to self awareness if you truly reflect on that point. *Consideration is the concept to define here. Is it possible to consider something or not. That is the true point.* If it's impossible to consider something, then consciousness is an illusion and we live in a purely mechanistic universe where nothing matters. However, the fact is, that you consider morality in your speech. Thus you say that regardless of the nature of the universe, you believe in moral actions, thus you are saying that your mind can arbitrarily understand, apprehend such concepts and define them, give them meaning. 7) All in all you are in this video ignoring many arguments you made in previous videos, like "we don't know", there is so many thing we don't know (dark matter, etc.). Yet you are claiming that no matter what free will can not emerge. Thus the scientific argument is unnecessary, just say that you are not able to define free will or that's it's a tautology. Otherwise you are saying that no matter what we discover about the truth, the nature of the universe, etc. no matter what, it will have no impact on our apprehension of free will. Basically in this video you ignore all your own principles about doubt and you are basically giving up on finding a concept that would resemble the intuitive idea of free will we all have. As I said, free will does not matter. What matter is consideration. You say free will doesn't matter and we can think of it like a story we don't know yet. But truly, if you follow your own arguments, consideration itself doesn't even exist, you cannot comprehend anything, you cannot perceive anything, so the metaphor of the story is meaningless. NOTHING is there to watch your story, there is no concept of seeing, there is just reaction. There is no awareness. You stop halfway though the reasoning and it looks like you try to satisfy your own complacency and condescension.

[@dogbiscuituk]

You say "don't worry" as if I have a choice!

[@whatewb]

Hahaha

[@AmericanBrain]

@@whatewb Someone just said it’s all neurons ( no mind, only brain ) . Another asked me to explain Penrose theory of mind . I told them : “ that is incorrect like someone else just asking me to explain Penrose . You are incorrect as neurons means computationalism and algorithmic. That means no free will . That means you can never form VALId conclusions. You are therefore incorrect . Please comb through the logic in the above paragraph. You need to enroll in a high school and plead a teacher to learn logic . It’s not instinctive . ----------------- Sir Roger Penrose ,The Nobel states it’s Microtubules that connect the cosmos to the brain . I told the other person what I tell you : “ Look into Penrose for that as it’s detailed like using Goedel and then Goldstein’s theories / but some notes : 1. Penrose is better than everyone except me 2. Penrose is wrong . Math is not metaphysics like he assumes and states buying into bunkum called Platonism ( fantasy). Science and math are SUB-SETS of epistemology. Math and science must be interpreted using reason and logic . And reason is used with a mind exercising free will ( found in metaphysics ). Remember : consciousness is the identification of existence. So existence , mind and identity are the triad of metaphysics. 3. Finally Penrose is a physicalist theory of mind . It’s very s*xy ! I spend several years on it . Just because of his reputation and demeanor it’s easy to get seduced ! Very easy. The mind is a separate identity with free will . So ditch the physicalist theory . Ditch the idea you can derive philosophy from math or physics : it’s the wrong way around ! Math and physics dependent upon correct philosophy else you have modern day pure fantasy from multiverse to 2D space projected as 3D in ADS space or inflation or Big Bang etc . All bunkum . Existence exists means it existed and will exist forever . If physics contradicts philosophy then philosophy dominates else you have religion : Scientism !!!!!! You must separate “myth even with muscles” Of Nobels and rigorous math ( e.g. others’ string theory ) from reality : existence , mind and identity .

[@AmericanBrain]

@@whatewb are you keeping up ? Todor put in a good set of arguments today ! You can infer his points from the answers I gave him : “ Todor you said “eternalism is a religion! @Silver Cloud will love this !!!! “. A. Why do quantum physicists use it in Hamiltonian? The above is a trick question to show you it’s perfectly all right in math . -> The trick is you can’t derive reality from math so moving to point B. B. Let’s play !!!! If existence is NOT eternal then we have your favorite concept !!!!!! Beginning !!!!! Yeah !!!!!!! Like the Pre-Quel to the movie ALIEN !!!! Did you see it ? Man goes to search for his maker and finds earlier more advanced man ! That earlier man made modern man AND ALIEN! ALIEN killed the maker ! But wait ! Who created the maker ? See the absurdity ? You will below . So the only reasonable conclusion is existence exists as the broadest concept even possible ! Advanced development of this idea below ---- C. Turing machines ? Beginning ? God ? Simulation hypothesis? ALL ARE THE SAME MYTH !!!!!!!! Why ? I am very well versed in Turing machines . It’s nothing BUT fiction - SCI FI . There are NOoOOO Turing machines . All machines are within Existence . Understand ? Else you’re once again grasping for a beginning ! Who created that Turing machine ? You ? Another man? Your mother “earth”? I thought that was GRETA’s mother ? Sick foul girl . Earth is not sentient - man needs to invade the earth always to create and trade value - but apology for a rant - back to you . You can’t call it “beginning” nor grasp at a MACHINE ( Turing or WOLFRAM or cellular automata ). ->>>> There’s only existence . That means it existed into infinity . How do you know ? Consciousness is the identification of existence !!!!! Done !!!! Just like in black hole physics or quantum things are counter intuitive ; similarly in analogy - your mind looking for a “beginning” is the result of your brain applying the intrinsic need for causality patterns . That’s fine at macro level . But doesn’t apply to “existence / cosmos”. ( In analogy : many other things do not apply like “what is space expanding into ? Another space ? But where is that other space held ? Another space ? Back to reductio ad ABSURDUM!!! You keep grasping for error : REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM!!!! Error ! There’s only existence as the broadest concept . 1 I believe I already answered all this . If you don’t read then what’s the point ? “Big Bang” is a derogatory misnomer that stuck! Fred Hoyle stated it to disconfirm it! Later evidence suggests something like a Big Bang indeed. But a real Big Bang is impossible . Existence exists means it existED and will exist into infinity . There was NOO bog bang. Something does NOTTT come from NO-thing . 2. You CAN’T ask for a beginning even !!!!!! Why not ? To ask implies an existence BEFORE existence : so it’s a logical contradiction like your sim /computationalism failed non-theory as it means “who created the sim ? And who created the creator ? And the Creator’s creator ?” It goes into reductio ad ABSURDUM! ABSURDUM! Get it ? 3. Unaware and notice : your mind is crying and grasping for the “scam of scientism” that you had absorbed . Do you now notice it ? Your questions have implications that are dieing for science but science is NOT metaphysics ;map don’t make it into a religion like you are unaware doing because of the HORSEMEN and Sabine ! --- P.S. all science , math must be processed using human word game language to have understanding . 1011100011101001 has no inherent understand / meaning by itself . So the only way to get to truth is reason and logic using language - human word game language . And the only way to reason is using the mind ( with free will ) actively - an act of consciousness.

[@ziggyfreud5357]

@@AmericanBrain Double double thumbs up dude :)

[@AmericanBrain]

@@ziggyfreud5357 A man ( computer coder that tries to reject Rand) objects to the words I use to defray the conclusions so he can carry on with delusion like green commie girl called Greta; like God believers who’d rather embrace myth than face facts ; like the unelected Dalai Lama who forever lost a huge nation due to ongoing stupidity via fictional philosophy - their evil : socialism . So yes words matter : as concepts are the filters through which you perceive reality ! I told the guy: “You said that your mind forms meaning regardless of the dictionary - like a primitive but modern man that is illiterate ( many are around today ). Are you correct ? Yes ! Wow ! How ? Yes! But . But what ? 1. As I said in my earlier posts : a growing child or you are automatically and always forming concepts because you have a mind ( unique : as there’s nothing like it ) and concepts pertain to the mind . 2. But many or most higher level concepts are wrong ( fully or aspects of them). It needs man to learn , practice, master and use the methods of reason and logic to get things correct . Many believe the moon landings are fake ; or the earth is flat . They only judge reality using concrete ( experience ). They do not grasp higher level concepts . Only man has this and this ability . A.I/computers do not . Like driving or reading : man must formally learn but also actively use reason and logic at all times for all things (!) - the active use of a real mind ( vs computers are passive like a Turing machine ). 3. So learned man must do things that are counter intuitive in some things or intuitive-that’s - expanded using subjects one learns in academia and uses - using reason and logic. Such as a lawyer or philosopher where words are important . Even a architect and engineer : else there’s calamitous confusion - death and damage ! With a computer coder: without precision there is error . I stated in yesterday’s post : words are either descriptive or prescriptive . Both are important depending upon the context . Coders use operational prescriptive words like mathematicians use functional symbolism . Lawyers , philosophers and in fact theoreticians in every subject ( sciences ) - and everyone everywhere - use words to grasp concepts , understand and therefore ideate properly to reach VALID conclusion and/or hypothesis ( a “reasonable” guess out of a innumerable cloud of possibility!) In science this is called praxis . Without praxis - there is no science ! Both theory and practice ! Both concepts ( theory ) and experiment ! Praxis is where theory is modified by practice ; and practice is informed by theory ! To conclude: - man , all man uses the mind , uses concepts - rationality is never automatic and man must learn and properly use the methods of reason and logic. This means precision . - practical life is about praxis such as science OR an internet marketer choosing what to test ; what markets to target and engaging in Taguchi testing and/or simpler split testing ALL the time relentless! - but to understand the indisputable , immovable essences of reality ( actuality ) needs man to properly use descriptive language. The key word here is “properly” - and that needs the use of the dictionary . - to restate any uneducated man can use words like a young man screaming that his sister “assaulted” him for screaming at him . Assault in the criminal law , if established has certain consequences that the judge must follow including minimum sentencing . But in the law : screaming usually does not constitute assault . “Assault” is well defined by the dictionary and legal dictionary . Legal case law based upon established judgment elaborates upon the meaning and use of the concept ( the word ). Lawyers have to put in substantial time ( and money ) to reach a stage where one is certified to be able to argue in court - for these things are of the greatest importance in educated ( and free) society . Uneducated man can and does use words , concepts even numbers HOWEVER the you like welly-nilly ! Turkish architects constructing buildings that appear to look good to the paying clients ; that appear to hold up - until they do not in a minor earthquake resulting in great numbers of deaths . That’s the difference in grasping concepts , rigidity Of numbers ; and therefore standard of exams to notate if you do or do not really ( really ) understand concepts and words . Then there’s licensing by professional body to have minimum ( high) standards . That’s how important concepts are : words . But yes a less educated man CAN build sand castles Like kids ! One can use words , even concepts however you like and mostly get along with others in “lay” conversation . These posts are about something truly most serious . Reality . And precision is used . That is the subject of western philosophy: the underlying forest floor upon which all other subjects “depend” ( e.g. physics- tree in the forest ). The tree doesn’t stand in a vacuum : you can never derive reality ( philosophy) from physics nor math . Hence the mind has never been found nor will it be found using A.I , math or neuroscience nor physics ! The mind is an axiom - a valid one as you can validate it using your sense organs . Consciousness is the identification of existence! This means consciousness is a separate identity to all other identities including your brain ! It means consciousness is perpetual first cause ! It means the mind is real ! And the brain NoR computer can do “the mind”.

[@Cherokie89]

My reaction to realizing free will was an illusion, if anything, was to get mad less often--particularly at people.

[@mapro3948]

I can relate. The same happened when I realized it.

[@Simkets]

Damn, same. I think it also made me feel happier. The thought that "everything I do will affect my future" suddendly got a way less heavy. I think I'm taking my life for what is is now, enjoying it more, and stressing over it less.

[@conorquinn9245]

So you chose to behave differently?

[@Simkets]

@@conorquinn9245 No, our brain made a calculation and came up with new results according to the new information. Watch the video again.

[@victorshikuku4355]

​@Simkets an those random calculation came up with the exact outcome you desired after learning you have no free will 😂

[@rickthomas422]

The fact that I'm sitting here eating these cookies after working out for an hour tells me all I need to know about free will.

[@JkennGG]

Lol, best reply

[@bw0081]

You could have chosen to not work out before you ate those cookies. Also you could have put interventions into place preventing you from eating those cookies. Or chosen not to.

[@rickthomas422]

@@bw0081 True, Could have, would have, should have... but I didn't do any of those things did I?

[@bw0081]

@@rickthomas422 Of course not. Because you only could have made one choice. This is called "resulting." As in, you have determined that since the result was what it was, that it could not have been anything else. What would be required in this situation is a time machine to go back and see if this exact scenario was repeated 100 times, that you would have eaten those cookies every time. Since we don't have time machines yet, we cannot determine this, though I would venture to say that different decisions would have been made in different simulations since the odds are in my favor. Other than this, the best way we can determine this is through experimentation. But we can't do that either, as each person runs of a different "program" and therefore would make different decisions based on this (even though the field of psychology posits that two groups (experimental and control) should be treated as fundamentally the same, especially if the sample size is large enough. Therefore, what we have here, is a hypothesis (we have no free will) that is entirely untestable and entirely unable to be disproved (such as the existence of God). So yes, we can determine that you indeed did not do any differently. We can only use God of the Gaps to conclude that no other decision ever would be made, because that is always how it was predetermined to be. I am unwilling to give into a conclusion such as this until it can actually be tested rather than refuted with things I can't experimentally test.

[@NickMirro]

😄 I'd say your response shows that we are stimulus driven, vs will driven. No cookies in the house, no temptation, though less fun!

[@JonFrumTheFirst]

Defendant: "The particles made me do it! Judge: "Ten years!"

[@WhatIsNature]

You joke, but it's incredible what the implications of this are on criminal justice. Basically, the concept of punishment is as incoherent as that of free will itself. I think of an analogy to demonstrate this. It's important to wrap ones mind around such implications. Imagine that you have a Sci-Fi kitchen appliance that has the function of turning rotten eggs into perfectly healthy and nutritious eggs. An Egg-Fixer Machine, if you will. It fits on your countertop. So, for example, if your eggs go bad, you just put them into this little gizmo, and it has a chance of turning them into good eggs. Not a 100% success rate, but it only uses a little energy. Awesome, right? Why not? Better than nothing. But now imagine that you walk into the kitchen one day, and you find your child throwing bad eggs into the trashbin. Ridiculous--you think--why not just use the Egg-Fixer? What a waste, right? The child says, "it was a bad egg, it deserved it!" Ludicrous logic, you judge. That's the analogy. Now look at justice systems globally and historically, and follow the logic to realize that punishment is just as ludicrous. Some good news is that Scandinavia has largely got the memo, and their justice/prison systems focus on rehabilitation. It should come to no surprise that Scandinavia, particularly Norway, have some of *lowest* recidivism rates on earth. And considering that recidivism is the primary measure of prison efficacy, this is huge. No contrast is necessary here, but if you need it, consider that the US bases their prison philosophy on punishment, among the highest threshold in the world, and have some of the *highest* recidivism rates on earth. It literally only makes logical sense to rehabilitate people, and to not actively punish them beyond confining them (if necessary) for rehabilitation. You can arrive to this conclusion more thoroughly by studying brain science, which is what I did for my degree and is the way in which I initially realized that free will doesn't exist. Thinking through the implications of it, however, in this case regarding justice systems, is deeply startling to public opinion.

[@CraftyF0X]

@@WhatIsNature Excatly man, ppl are hung on punitive justice and insist upon some sort of revange, and while I can understand why some ppl goes vigilanty, one needs to understand that just because your house burned down you can't just go around and put out every fire on earth in every woods, lighter,stove, oven, boiler etc. "Evil" ppl are more like malfunctioning than anything else, and you don't punish and sentence your malfunctioning engine, but you either repair or replace it. Everytime I bring this up ppl around me thinks that Im naive because I don't belive in evil and bad intent. They fail to see that as - history shown - many times ppl rationalize "evil acts" and they just don't see themselves as bad at all. This misguided moral conviction makes ppl think that they would never be a nazi, yet psychological studies keep coming back with the result that, yes indeed, most of them would become one under certain circumtenses. They over estimate their free will and vastly underestimate the forces of enviroment on them. And as you said very well, it is somehwat an open secret now but as far as science goes, courts and the criminal "justice" systems does little to no good at actually solving the crime problem, at least not in their current form.

[@RihannaIsIluminati]

@@WhatIsNature There is no such thing as an “egg fixer” as you described it for human beings. Punishment is one way of handling justice that is meant to exact a “cost” on the perpetrator in question as a means of rectifying the “cost” that their wrongdoing had on others. The purpose of punishment is to instill in the person, and society at large, the idea that their actions have consequences, and those consequences affect them just as much as they do to others. Honestly, the question of free will is pretty much irrelevant here.

[@vivaleonjodido]

Ten years for your particles!

[@newtypealpha]

@@WhatIsNature On some level, I think we kind of knew that already. Punishment isn't really meant to be restorative or address the original crime, it's mostly vindictiveness and a vain fantasy of deterrence for other criminals. Neither of those is well justified and probably just as illusory as free will.

[@foodforagingaustralia4274]

"you're not here to make the choice. Youve already made it. You're here to understand WHY you made it." -The Oracle

[@BIGBADWOOD]

I HAVE FREE WLL I QUIT WARCHING THIS VIDEO 30 SECONDS IN ! SEE WE DO HAVE FREE WILL AFTER ALL !🤣🤣🤣😂😂😂😂

[@biblebadcopycatofcuneiform8210]

"You're not here to make the choice. You've already made it. You're here to understand WHY you made it." - please get the grammar correct. Anyway, I stopped watching this video about 4:34 into it. I already KNOW why I chose to check the video, and I understood why before I did. So....isn't it funny how some people try to screw with your thinking and your awareness? Those are fun movies, the only thing they get Right is that Jesus is a lie. Own your own stuff.

[@aliensarerealttsa6198]

Smith: The problem IS choice.

[@blucat4]

Neo: Do you already know what I am going to do? Oracle: Well, I wouldn't be much of an Oracle if I didn't. Neo: But if you already know what I am going to do, how can I have free will to choose? Oracle: You don't.

[@generalapathy7490]

The oracle ? You're quoting a movie ? You do know real life is not the same as a movie, right ? Movies are mind programming, just like the garbage coming from the mouth of the communist in This video

[@theyovilleshows]

I have felt this my whole life, but did not have the words for it. Thank you so much, this video gives me such a feeling of clarity.

[@wikimon]

The universe will do exactly what it will do, and YOU will do exactly what you will do. Both of these things will never be known by a third party and therefore it doesn't matter that the outcome is "determined" because that word has no meaning unless it is KNOWN to someone

[@gregtroufas8066]

@@wikimon No there is no need for someone to have the information of an outcome in order for this outcome to be determent , it is regardless you just dont know it.

[@wikimon]

if no one knows it, it is absolutely provably pointless as "information" by definition

[@MDFGamingVideo]

Interesting theory. The problem I have is, it assumes a LOT of 1 way relationships between the laws of nature and human consciousness, and that these are calculable. This is a huge leap considering that we still do not even fully understand enough about how these things actually work to make these assumptions.

[@yorankerkhofs8183]

Yes, exactly. She rambles something about materialism for a moment but fails to mention that it is not yet proven that consciousness is derivative of the brain or is something purely physical (but might soon be, yes, but if we want to be correct, like good scientists, we should avoid making these 'obvious' assumptions). Building on this assumption with such confidence that it's sometimes straight up arrogant (or 'brutal' as those who find joy in it like to call it) is pretty annoying.

[@colekuhlers3003]

@@yorankerkhofs8183it is certainly known that consciousness is a product of the brain

[@connorgrynol9021]

Occam’s razor dictates we accept the theory that makes the least amount of assumptions. In the case of determinism and naturalism, we have only found evidence for a natural world that has this “1 way relationship” as you put it. If we assume free will is true, then you need to assume an undemonstrated mechanism by which it affects reality. How can you hope to defend that?

[@florian_z_8735]

@@connorgrynol9021 I am only a layman, so please bear with me. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that the collapse of the wave function is deterministic. Please explain!

[@connorgrynol9021]

@@florian_z_8735 at best, it’s random. At worst it’s not and there is some unknown mechanism behind wave function collapse. In either case, free will would not exist. If a wave function collapse is random, then soft determinism is true, the difference being your decisions are more of a coin flip than a book.

[@dubz4828]

When I was asked as a child “what do you want to be when you grow up”, I’d always enthusiastically reply “I want to be a robot”. Today I found out I’m a biological robot. Mission accomplished!

[@RAF71chingachgook]

Don't believe her. She's stuck in the 1800's. The materialists don't have a leg to stand on yet they keep spewing this crap. Unreal how stupid/uninformed/or agenda driven they are.

[@shitlordflytrap1078]

@@RAF71chingachgook what agenda is there to this lmao. The entire point of the video is that it doesn't really matter if you don't have free will because everyone's perceiving it.

[@pcriged]

@@RAF71chingachgook you still believe in God don't you 😆.....🤣🤣🤣🤣....😩....😞

[@stevenscott2136]

@@pcriged Doesn't help even if he's religious. "If Yahweh (that's his name) wants everyone to go to Heaven, why doesn't he just forgive them all?" I asked an educated Christian. "Because that's not in his nature" I was told. Ergo: Yahweh himself is a prisoner of his own programming, just like us -- he'd LIKE to forgive, but CAN'T. "Free will" is just their way of excusing the fact that Yahweh's behavior (which is predetermined by whatever gods have in place of DNA and childhood socialization) is contrary to human instincts of proper behavior. Yahweh can't be wrong, by definition, and human instincts can't be changed, so they claim the individual human "deserves" the treatment. This requires that you invent a way to "deserve" punishment for being what nature or Yahweh made you, and there's your "free will".

[@alexneigh7089]

Lol dreams come true if you have the free will to dream them.

[@Snikit]

This was very freeing. I’m not going to become a terrible person, but I will be less mad about misfortune and to take more joy in my successes and less or no regret in my failures while keeping the lessons learned. Thank you! ✨💎✨

[@carelienventer1960]

Can you please help me understand the reasoning behind it? I think I'm dumb. I've watched this video over 10 times.

[@aquashadow-if8gl]

The implication is your successes weren't even yours, so how can you take joy in them? You can't just choose to say your failures weren't yours either, when for both victory or failure you exerted the effort and felt the very real pain to get there. You felt the pain or effort but the result wasn't yours? What a cruel joke then freewill is if it's an illusion.

[@thefuturist8864]

​@@aquashadow-if8gl If this is Sabine's argument then it's flawed in quite a fundamental way. Just because there may be many hundreds of thousands, even millions (or more) things going on at the same time as my own behaviour, with many of these things influencing the outcome of my efforts, it doesn't follow that free will is an illusion. All it says is that as the combination of causes and effects becomes more complex I have less and less control over the *precise* consequences of my behaviour. This isn't the same thing as a lack of free will. For example: if I get on the bus to go into town because I want to buy something for my computer, there are *many* things that affect my journey that are themselves outside of my control. It doesn't follow from this that I lose all ability to make choices for myself.

[@josephsmith6351]

I think when Sabine made rational decision what to study if she choose law faculty she would be very good advocate or lawyer. or she could be very good director as well. But she choose physics for reasons which only she knows. Nevertheless very good video, but my thoughts is that there is problem how to define free will and things associated with it. if we are not able to define it exactly precisely and not able to measure it under every conditions than we cannot get precise results. So theoretically she is right but our society cannot function if we take her results as granted. even in Afghanistan or ancient Egypt etc they have laws courts and judges and people are not allowed to do whatever thay want /what could some people thought after seeing this video/.

[@aquashadow-if8gl]

@@josephsmith6351 You should accept that there are some things in the universe that can not be tested, can not be measured. Take pain, pain is very real to you, but it doesn't "exist". It can not be measured or calculated, it can only be felt by "you". If you were in the most severe pain you've ever felt in your life, and someone told you that it isn't 'real' because it can't be measured or isn't defined within the current scope of physics, or that it's an "illusion", you would think they were crazy. Freewill in the same way deals with subjective Observers, it is a function of consciousness. In this way "freewill" can never be something that can be tested or measured. But just because something can never be tested or proved doesn't mean it isn't a thing. Godel's Incompleteness Theorem has already proved that there are aspects of the universe that can not be proved, that there are some holes so deep you can never reach the bottom, that there are in some instances, never an 'answer', and this is a hard concept for humans to accept, because our personal philosophical journey is geared from the start to find an "answer".

[@stephanieweil178]

I wrote a paper arguing this standpoint in a philosophy class years ago and people thought I was crazy. Thank you for the validation!!!

[@ronpapi9539]

And they were correct.

[@geografixxxx]

@@ronpapi9539 Yes... if they were talking about you.

[@FixedFace]

@@geografixxxx no u

[@geografixxxx]

@@FixedFace yo mama

[@francisvaughan7460]

Interestingly Roger Penrose has spent a lot of time trying to convince the world that free will exists. I had the pleasure of attending a lecture series he gave many years ago, not long after his somewhat controversial book The Emperors New Mind came out, where he expounded on his ideas, many of which he didn't really give full voice to in his book. The overwhelming insight was that he is a closet hidden variable physicist, and he believes that free will exists in part because quantum processes are not random, but have some deeper structure, one that can be tied back into the physical world. (As an example of an indeterminate but not random process he, of course, gave Penrose tiling as an example.) I think there is a critical point to be made here. An assertion that free will cannot exist because quantum processes are truly random is implicitly asserting this randomness as a basic axiom, not just an interpretation of QM. One can argue this one forever, but it isn't yet an accepted axiom of physics, and it isn't hard to find physicists who, in their hearts, don't believe in it. Personally I won't make a call on this. We clearly don't yet know enough to assert this as undeniable truth. There is nothing that says we have to make a choice about it either.

[@garanceadrosehn9691]

My understanding of Roger's point (based on more recent interviews with him) is that our mind is not a computational engine. He's not necessarily saying that we have free will, he's saying that we have the ability to "understand" things in a way that our current computers will never be able to do.

[@tassadardaris7294]

You can test whether hidden variables actually exist or not. It has been tested and hidden variable interpretation diverges more and more from measurements which are correctly predicted by assuming probability based randomness.

[@francisvaughan7460]

@@garanceadrosehn9691 This was his point even back then. It seemed to stem from a desire to remove the reductionalist argument from any discussion on human cognition. Clearly computers are a big part of that. We end up with the ghost in the machine. Hence spending a book arguing against AI. But it all comes back to the core point. He doesn't want a deterministic brain. He needs the hidden variable as a get out of gaol card.

[@bzztbzztboy]

@@francisvaughan7460 Why does he need the hidden variable, actually? Isn't it possible for you to be able to move away from reductionism and simultaneously acknowledge the randomness in QM?

[@garanceadrosehn9691]

@@francisvaughan7460 I'm sure I cannot find it now, but I'm fairly sure I've seen one of his recent talks where he says that he still thinks we (humans) are entirely material (not spirit, although he didn't say it that way), and obey laws of physics. He is just very confident that we don't know what all of those laws are yet.

[@TheSimChannel]

Came for the clarity, stayed for the brutality.

[@KibyNykraft]

How comically ironic to hear someone initially rational here ,still believing in "quantum random jump". Like particles mysteriously disappears and reappears and are mini flatearths("mathematical points" etc). Rubbish. Particles have spin states and many have mass, so they have volume and causal variability. Of course freewill is gibberish as well ,yet most people miss out on the historical meaning ,which is related to laws and formal responsibility. It was probably not intended to be interpreted otherwise (😆)

[@TheSimChannel]

@@KibyNykraft is this a comment to my post?

[@KibyNykraft]

Sorry ,No..Just a general comment to the general stupidity of postmodernism. The debate is sometimes getting embarrasingly stupid and especially when the public start confusing will with free will. Everyone has will, that is evolved naturally. Of course there is neither literally free will nor literally any determinism. Nature is causally variabilistic. That is how one gets brown hair, black hair, blonde hair, etc. That is how one gets different solar systems in continuous change over time. There is no such thing as neither randomness, determinism nor free will. The exception for free will is the original meaning of the expression if we stick to english language ,and that is that in politics history ,the rights to education, speech or property are individual rights - thus a formal freedom of one's will. Old philosophy debated these kind of questions already many thousands of years ago, and we know for sure that the ancient greeks did. But here one also had to be careful about the translations.

[@KibyNykraft]

We only need to read the second law of thermodynamics in order to solve the question.

[@texantony2410]

😆 well put.

[@NickMirro]

"...because you embody the problem and locking you up will solve it." I've been waiting since the 90s for someone to say this with clarity. It's so basic and yet our legal system doesn't get it. My version of this was "an unacceptable behavior aberration easily solved by imprisonment". Morality doesn't enter the picture. This is easily the best channel on KZbin.

[@KA-vr4uu]

Sapolsky said the same thing a long time ago but with different wording

[@Red-Tape-Rending]

In the words of a wise commentor here, I believe that the intention of punitive action is to incur a 'cost' on those who intentionally make irresponsible or destructive choices. This is not unreasonable. The threat of punishment serves as a deterrent to destructive behaviors. Regardless of its success rate, the concept of punishment is a way that humans have attempted to rectify harm that has been inflicted.

[@konyvnyelv.]

​@@KA-vr4uuwhich video?

[@KA-vr4uu]

@@konyvnyelv. He has multiple short and longer discussions on free will, or lack thereof plus all it’s implications…on YT.

[@konyvnyelv.]

Socially useful labour should substitute prison. It's pointless to keep inmates doing nothing in a room for 23 hours a day

[@joelfreed8080]

Well, I recently discovered you and I’m thrilled that I have. I’ve ordered two copies of your new book so I have someone to talk about it with. And while I may not have come to the conclusion by myself, or for myself, I do have the ability to make decisions, thank you for your videos they keep my brain afire.

[@normdeeploom5945]

“You can chose to believe that reductionism is not correct.” Apparently not.

[@anthonymccarthy4164]

That is a problem for this, it reduces everything to a banal inconsequential nothing, including the science that Sabine H. and her fans insist has a transcendent value that their ideology insists it can't have. The entire structure of physical science, the articulation of physical "law" is of no more transcendent value than iron oxidizing, water evaporating or any other banal chemical or physical reaction. It can have no truth value because truth would have to transcend it. Her very advocacy of her various positions is an indication she doesn't believe it, herself, at least for those things she likes, but her liking would have no more meaning than those of her opponents.

[@merikijiya13]

@@anthonymccarthy4164 I believe what she is referring to is that it is a possibility someone would reject the claim. Although I’m not entirely sure but your response seems like argument from consequence.

[@anthonymccarthy4164]

@@merikijiya13 Well, as the consequence of insisting on a deterministic character of the mind, precluding the possibility of the mind doing anything except fulfilling the actions of molecules and atoms in the brain - going on to however lower a level of physical entities the reductionist chooses to make their assertion - means that every idea is merely the consequence of the physical antecedents present in the brain, those that produce an accurate representation of reality and those that don't. The imposition of the value judgement of one of those being true and the other false would, as well, be merely an expression of physical antecedents present in some brains and not in others, the assertion that one kind of result would be better than another is unfounded in any actual evidence because even the evaluation of evidence would be, as well, reduced to a banal expression of which physical antecedents, by chance, happened to be present. If that is true then Sabine H. has no reasonable claim that any of the things she is claiming here are true which would be a shame as many of the things she points out here, especially when she limits herself to her professional subject and leaves out her ideological preferences seem to me to be valuable. The disastrous consequences of adopting the ideology of materialist reductionism, as she has, are there even if the reductionists choose not to admit it and it cannot but help to discredit their assertions in every area they choose to make them. Not being a reductionist or a materialist I have no problem pointing out that if they really believe what they say then their claims are irrational and discredited by their very own conclusions.

[@77377]

@@anthonymccarthy4164 So you don't like the conclusions you derive from her argument, so be it. But where's your proof her reasoning is false? You can't throw out a line of reasoning just because following makes you butthurt. lol.

[@anthonymccarthy4164]

@@77377 Evidence shmevidence. It's my experience of arguing with atheist materialists that no amount of evidence will get them to admit the most obvious of truths. They are idologues who believe they have the truth and nothing will shake them anymore than biblical fundamentalists will be moved. There is far more evidence that her contentions that the idea of free will, which would be more honestly be called "free thought" is incompatible with "natural law" is false than anything I've pointed out. Any number of far superior scientists have believed in and discovered "natural law" and who were complete believers in the possibility of free thought. Much as I like Sabine H. and her colleagues, I don't think any of them are likely to displace Issac Newton in those rankings of "greatest physicists" anytime soon. If free will is impossible due to her contentions then you don't get to pick and choose which areas of thought are not the mere product of physical determinism, none of it breaking "natural law" so all of it having exactly the same lack of truth value. That's true for all of human thought including all of science, all of mathematics, all of logic. That is a necessary logical conclusion of her kind of materialist monism. The basis of her argument is logically incoherent because it requires "natural law" to have the value of truth which her ideology prevents it from having in her framing. I don't need "evidence" to point that out, merely that she doesn't get to pick and choose where and when the limits of her materialistic monism is applicable so as to exempt the things she likes from it.

[@Three-Chord-Trick]

Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, p. 449 (2nd ed.): 'If in employing the principles of understanding we do not merely apply our reason to objects of experience, but venture to extend these principles beyond the limits of experience, there arise pseudo-rational doctrines which can neither hope for confirmation in experience or fear refutation by it. Each of them is not only in itself free from contradiction, but finds conditions of its necessity in the very nature of reason - only that, unfortunately, the assertion of the opposite has, on its side, grounds that are just as valid and necessary.' The next time a journalist tells you free will doesn't exist, punch him in the face, and see how he responds.

[@martincattell6820]

Great video 👍 I would also add this: If we assume 'free will' can exist we have four possible combinations Exists Believes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes No No For the first and fourth cases there is no problem but for the second case, if free will exists and we don't believe in it we will miss out on the opportunity to shape our own futures. However, if it doesn't exist and we choose to believe, it won't make a difference except, as Sabine says, to maybe improve our wellbeings and to enable us to examine the information we receive and the way we process it. Also, we can argue that our belief in free will is not an act of free will. Your description of the illusion of free will as the awareness of internal calculations is very helpful for me. Free will is the product of awareness. Awareness could simply be separate brain regions with different motives communicating, aware they are different but still out of 'our' control. However, I feel grateful that I can experience the story unfolding. If I'm not grateful, I'll be bored and miserable till I die 😂

[@NickMirro]

"However, I feel grateful that I can experience the story unfolding." Well said!

[@raynavarrete7898]

Something about having to make a choice about how I feel about the fact that I don't have a choice makes me uneasy 😅

[@jc6226]

Yeah, her logical inconsistencies lol.

[@polyhistorphilomath]

Let me convince you of a thing. Just kidding. This is actually performance art.

[@G1vr1x]

We still make choices, unless we are constrained in a coercive way. Freedom is just a subtle way of being constrained, that doesn't hurt our feelings and conceptions. But we can't choose about how we feel, only stumble onto convincing reasons to ignore it or to change perspective.

[@polyhistorphilomath]

@@G1vr1x your concept of coercion is masking agency. Like almost everything in the comments section, it’s dripping with an implicit assumption of free will that no one can (seemingly) filter out of their own thoughts as expressed here.

[@ff-qf1th]

@@jc6226 it's not a logical inconsistency just because it makes you uneasy. Do not make the mistake of using your intuition in place of logic.

[@philswift791]

First video of the morning, and I am going back to bed. I will be restarting the day with cat videos. Thank you, that is all.

[@AmericanBrain]

Penrose says consciousness is real : offers proof such as intuition via Goedel’s theorem. I say consciousness real because you identify the identity that precedes it called existence . This means you can identify there is “something as opposed to nothing” . You can’t say God created something for reasons shown below . All you can say is “existence exists “ as the widest concept humanly possible . The ground floor . In fact God is perpetually fantasy fiction and fraud as it always triggers “reductio ad absurdum “. Logical error . Therefore the BIBLE is correct : god needs FAITH ( the same as belief in Mickey Mouse as a sentient larger character !!!!!!!) Emotions like faith ( feeling of certainty of meaning ) are the “wrong” tool to get to any conclusion else you’re left like primitive man or modern little child . The right way is logic : you need to learn this skill and it’s never automatic . Emotions are important and automatic but never the tool for reaching valid conclusion . Summary: 1. Existence exists 2. Consciousness is the identification of existence . You have free will . 3. Aristotle’s law pf identity : there is truth . ( But how to identify any truth ? Reason and logic. )

[@FunkySwanson]

Lol took the blue pill?

[@AmericanBrain]

​@@FunkySwanson ​ @black_star said that because I had stated science can never find free will that I agree with Sabine. I replied : incorrect but Thank you. Firstly, I believe in free will. But whether I believe or not is "not of importance" as I could be tossing a coin to reach a argument for you. You'd never know! Man has a universal system to know what is true. That is the methods of reason and logic. Using such reason you will see that you have free will. You ultimately have no choice but to believe. I don't think you understand: science is a methodology Not a metaphysics, Not a philosophy. So science has not and will NEVER find free will/mind. The mind (with free will) must be "assumed' as an axiom. Do you understand what an axiom is ? If you deny mind (with free will) then you immediately fall into "logical error". So you can Not even deny it. Let's try: If you say "I have no free will". Then who is the "I" that says this? How does that "I" know this to be true if you have "no mind"? Without a mind, there is no way to know what is true in the first place! To know what is true, man must exercise the methods of reason and logic to differentiate truth from falsity by exercising free will. You have no choice otherwise you could program computers to do the "reason and logic" . Computers are algorithmic. Your mind is "non algorithmic, non computational" (source: Sir Roger Penrose proves this using Goedel's theorem). So what is the truth? Metaphysics: the nature of reality regardless of your perceptions of reality> 1. Existence exists. This is an identity. 2. Consciousness is the identification of existence.This is a separate identity that IDENTIFIES there is something, anything but something - labelled as "existence". 3. Aristotle's law of identity [truth] must necessarily exist by implication. But how does man come to know any truth? The methods of reason and logic.

[@DjMaginity]

Lmao! 🤣

[@EbenMonney]

Lol

[@goodleshoes]

I don't know... If we don't have the answer to the hard problem of consciousness (which we probably never will) solved then it's hard for me to accept lack of free will. There is so much more going on.

[@pythondrink]

Why do need to consider consciousness at all? That's literally what gives us the illusion of free will in the first place. And I don't see the problem other than ignorance.

[@pythondrink]

@@isaacpender determinism is just an emotional grudge? Are you fucking srs? A srs philosophy that is held by most philosophers as well as scientists is just an emotional grudge. Plz stfu with your appeal to motive. Also, determinism has jack shit to do with quantum mechanics since those are, yk, random. Although they can still result in deterministic effects. I guess they are related.

[@AngelCaroline9]

Right? Lol the only way I see it is if we can somehow prove that we're able to choose the lives that we're born into, and indeed science can't explain consciousness, then yes we do have freewill, just not physically here on Earth@@pythondrink

[@pythondrink]

@@AngelCaroline9 "Science can't explain conscious." Yet.

[@AngelCaroline9]

It either does (or at least helps) or doesn't. Whether we'll be able to find out the answer is a different question@@pythondrink

[@KainMalice]

Got so high at work one time that I literally felt like I was outside of my body just watching myself do tasks. It was scary at first, but once you let go and realize its gonna be ok, then you basically just start to enjoy the ride.

[@ahmetdiril824]

so are you able to change the ride? jump around?

[@KainMalice]

@@ahmetdiril824 It kinda forces you to let go of trying to control everything

[@monica.s1345]

U were just dissociating homie

[@KainMalice]

@@monica.s1345 Yeah. Schizophrenia runs in the family.

[@BananaBLACK]

There are times when I liken my life to a novel. Even though the story is complete, I still need to read it for myself.

[@Klinoklaz]

I have to write this down on my notebook.

[@khust8161]

I have had similar thoughts. Mine differ in that I view my life as a predetermined set of events in this particular universe. I am just along for the ride in the cockpit known as my head. Though I don't think this way often because I experience every day life as having free will. These thoughts do still surface every now and then. I do believe the predetermined future is most likely to be the actual truth - until proven otherwise.

[@MYBIGKINDHEART]

@@Klinoklaz in might be even better unless it's full ha

[@DonTrump-sv1si]

Suicide is for those of us that hate reading

[@eliteteamkiller319]

“Because you didn't come here to make the choice, you've already _made_ it. You're here to try to understand _why_ you made it. I thought you'd have figured that out by now…”

[@sixproleague6307]

The first Matrix movie?

[@xrc7445]

Wjere is this from?

[@KA-vr4uu]

Excellent analysis. I also love your sense of humour Sabine!

[@josephsmith6351]

Sabine could become a part time advocate and fight at court with judge that murder is innocent because they couldnot do otherwise... She is right but it all depends on definition of free will. Apparently its impossible to define free will in a sense of physic laws like or define it precidely like eg speed of light. When judge put murder in prison because murder hasnot to decide to kill people it is not the EXACTLY same free will which she is talking about. Plus Everybody has its own definitions what free will means. Problem is in definition and initial assumptions thus results slightly differs. When Sabine is not talking about physics but people then results are not black and white but colourful it is not just yes or no but it could be anything between 0 and 1.

[@kelvinlord7192]

A lot of people don't will to believe this . Will, will power,want , desire , hunger , thirst , passion , interest. Try holding your breath, at first it could be easy and then it becomes impossible and so there are levels of freedom.

[@sangitaekka]

"Chaos is deterministic." I will buy that merch.

[@joed180]

My ass on Zazzle right now.

[@sangitaekka]

@@joed180 No one is buying that.

[@marioluigi9599]

She's talking crap. If everything is predetermined because of the starting positions of all the particles in the universe when they came into existence, but then quantum events mean that the constituents of the particles behave in an entirely undetermined and random manner, then those random events clearly WILL have an influence on the particles even if YOU might not ...which by the way she can't prove either because she can't explain how consciousness works. She just assumes it's entirely chemical brain processes and quantumness has nothing to do with it. Therefore things can't be predetermined, since at every instant of time, randomness comes into it. (i.e. whether a particular atom decays or not depends entirely on random chance, so whether the cat lives or not cannot be predetermined at all). But even if it is all predetermined and you go with the idea that, "well for God, quantum doesn't matter, he already knew how the movie of the universe would play out from beginning to end before he created it, including pre-knowing every decision that YOU would make", then that still doesn't get rid of free will. Just because he knows what will happen, does not mean he's taking anything away from you. Him knowing the future doesn't mean that you didn't freely choose your decisions and put in the hard work to make them happen.

[@marioluigi9599]

This discussion on free will goes into the heart of what consciousness is and how it comes about. Simply assuming that it's all chemical and material is bad science. Clearly it's not all just material, because what are feelings? How do you make dead atoms feel? A lot of our will depends on our feelings. If we are scared of something, we won't go near it. Or we will behave in an entirely irrational way because of our feelings. Clearly our feelings have an influence on our will. Therefore before she's so quick to dismiss free will, I would also ask her to explain how feelings come about from mere chemical reactions. If our brain is just a computer, then how do you make your computer at home hurt? What, it's not complex enough? Lol what a cop out! Who says that "complexity" is all there is to it? Anyway, a bunch of computers added together is already more complexity than one single brain. Oh but it's not complex SOFTWARE? Predetermined software, if you mean DNA, doesnt determine our thinking. Our hardware itself grows and makes new links with itself based on its own decisions. Therefore the only way a computer can feel is if it's alive. So instead of just being a tool that makes decisions based on the predetermined instructions of the software, it decides for itself based primarily on its feelings. But what chemical arrangement, by itself, should necessarily give rise to a perceiver of feelings. Why should that be true any more so than electrons travelling through complex wires or water travelling through a complex arrangements pipes, with one flow of water in one pipe pushing ahead to switch on another flow of water in another pipe. Why should such complex flow then give rise to consciousness and feelings? Where's the bridge there? There's a missing link there. She hasn't explained anything. She's making assumptions. Bad science to jump to conclusions with incomplete knowledge and simplistic assumptions

[@sangitaekka]

@@marioluigi9599 Agh, calm down. Just because I quoted her doesn't mean I agree with her completely. I do admire the thinking of chaos having more parameters and hence it could be deterministic in a grander scale. I do not entertain the idea of the linear relationship of brain particles states to one's behaviour , because even if I put that under chaos model, we don't fully understand consciousness yet, just like you mentioned, but the takeaway of looking at chaos from a finite perspective does make one think, without arriving at conclusions yet.

[@NotSoNormal1987]

It doesn't matter if free will exsists or not. My choice is to continue to try and be a better person and always keep learning. If this isn't truly a choice, so be it. My choices, illusory or real, affect how I feel about myself and the world around me.

[@jonab.5508]

What she says was not to take away your free will, just to explain what it is and where it comes from and on top it give you a great opportunity, you choice ppl surrounding you and with this a new path and even this still is a part of something that just roll out ore maybe not for you but now you can alway better your self up

[@kr8432]

Thats exactly how you should approach it 💪

[@_Billy_Pilgrim]

Rest assured, your choices are not illusory.

[@kr8432]

@@_Billy_Pilgrim yes, they are..

[@Jackson_Plop]

@@_Billy_Pilgrim Do materialist determinists ever actually think their model through? Imagining that the initial conditions played out according to the laws of quantum mechanics, and this massive universe of ours magically emerged from nothingness and eventually produced all the works of Shakespeare and Tolkien, etc.? It’s mysticism of the highest order. The idea that unthinking, deterministic particles can answer the questions on your math test is just bizarre and kind of silly. They’re basically missing the whole point! LOL.

[@thomas-marx]

That is life/paradigm changing information. Thank you Sabine.

[@NickMirro]

I agree!

[@Red-Tape-Rending]

Some (including Sabine) would argue that it changes nothing. lol

[@charlesjmanning]

Hi Sabine, are you suggesting the outcomes of quantum events were predetermined at the Big Bang? Otherwise, it seems to me that the two statements; "The story of the universe in every single detail was determined at the Big Bang" and "Quantum events are random" are contradictory.

[@lukebtv947]

this video is like the culmination of every thought i’ve ever had about free will vs determinism but put into a beautiful flowing argument and it’s so good

[@bobinthewest8559]

Ah…. Free will vs determinism 🤷‍♂️ My whole life, I’ve found it impossible to choose

[@mokiloke]

@@bobinthewest8559 Yeah i was determinism, but then moved to non deterministic universe due to unresolved quantum interpretations, after reading "Quantum: Einstein, Bohr and the Great Debate About the Nature of Reality" . But i leave it to smarter people than I to give us an answer.

[@phildunn3195]

She doesn't understand the importance of falsification when she says "established science". Newtononian physics was "established science" until relativity came along. She takes the big bang as "established science." She needs to read Popper, as she's making statements that can't be falsified or tested and are therefore non-scientific. So she's speaking now as a philosopher, not a scientist. DiffEQs don't "prove" determinism. It's mathematics, used to model determinism. The equation "predicts" the future because you set it up that way, with time as a parameter. It's the observations that test that model that are important. So that's logical slight of hand. There are blind spots in her understanding and weaknesses in her arguments. Keep looking. There's no reason any of us should be smug that we found the answers.

[@marcospina162]

​@@pikas_palace I think civilization can still exist without that belief. It sometimes makes me feel more empathy towards others, wondering if they had a choice.

[@extrullorgd4444]

Omg same here 😂

[@windjunkiehippy]

Most of Sabine’s videos are about the stuff we all talk about in somebody’s kitchen at 2am in the morning as we refuse to leave the party lol

[@janthegood]

2am is much too early anyways

[@MagnumInnominandum]

Some people never really leave the party, no choice.

[@billyt8868]

except she’s actually smart

[@usuario2967]

she has another video where she says that conciousness can not be transplanted to a machine because no one knows how to produce conciousness and even what is counciousness, like you can simulate gravity in a computer but not generate it in the computer, now she claims that brain generates counciousness and particles in it determine everything this counciousness will do, which is totally contradictory of her other critcism video, at this point i think she is just click baiting

[@starfishsystems]

@@usuario2967 Not knowing HOW the mechanism of consciousness works is one claim. Knowing WHERE that mechanism is located is another claim. These two claims are entirely compatible.

[@Anirossa]

I always thought of free will differently, thought of it as: what I want to do, what I end up doing, and why I wanted to do it, what was possible to do and the outcome of all other factors. I see the factors all is set in stone. However, what I ended up wanting and what I did in the lived experience is still decisions made, even if they were already set to happen. So in the experience of life it's free will, and that's the part I care about. But I do understand from the definition and this perspective there is no such thing as free will. So it all comes down to how you define it I guess, I never read too much into the definition, so therefor I just had my own definition.

[@BlackWolf-uk2yb]

Id like to say that this demonstrates how vital Education is (since that forms one of the 'reasons' for the 'choices' we make) but of course whether we as a species take that route is already predetermined as was your creating of this video, me watching it and commenting.

[@MrIgnitus]

It wasn't until I watched this video for a second time that I really 'got' it. Thanks Sabine, my day is severely perturbed.

[@sandrokostic6008]

I'm just going to repeat it because of the same, lol. I thought in on moment that I get it and ended totally confused by the end.

[@goldenwarrior1186]

Maybe it’s confusing because some of these things contradict each other. Try to interpret it more literally or abstractly

[@andyh87able]

Don't worry, I agree with everything in the video but I still believe in free will based on some things not mentioned. I love Sabine's videos but remember physicists disagree on some stuff and Sabine takes some positions that others don't!

[@goldenwarrior1186]

@@andyh87able I believe in free will for reasons not mentioned in the vid, just like u. I came to the realization on my own that we 100% have some form of free will. The fact that we don’t know what is in our thoughts that influence us subconsciously means that free will exists in one form or another. I met someone who has this crazy sounding (but not impossible) idea that before we came into existence, we discussed what sort of personality we had with God. She doesn’t believe in any conventional religion. It’s some New Age mysticism that I’m not sure whether or not to believe Edit: I’m paraphrasing here because she was pretty vague about it and I also don’t remember the convo that well. also, Tier Zoo’s a cool channel. He makes vids about biology from the perspective of life being a video game. Would be funny if he turned out to be right about that (tho it’s just his way of explaining things. U might have heard of the channel before. He does biology tier lists)

[@goldenwarrior1186]

@@andyh87able I’m a Christian in the sense that I go to Church, but I’m not what they call a “true Christian” (whatever in the world that’s supposed to mean). I think I’m what you’d call agnostic (I’m not sure whether I believe in God or not. I guess u could say I’m on the verge of being an atheist, but I’m not quite an atheist). I might try to go to another church, like maybe the church of Scientology, or I might go to some Buddhist place, but I’m not even sure of that. What religion are u part of, if anything

[@allanplant8756]

For some reason this has been instinctive in me since I was a kid. Now, at the age of 72 it kind of explains why I have no regrets about all the 'wrong roads I took'. Who knows where the roads not taken would have led ? It's pointless to dwell on these things because life will take you where it will. The only thing to do is learn morally from one's mistakes along the journey. I have contentment knowing that.

[@CrazyGaming-ig6qq]

You are contradicting yourself, if you truly believe what Sabine is saying then there has been NO reason for your instinctive, and not for SOME reason. The whole point in the video was that random quantum events are TRULY random, and as such has absolutely no reason. Since random quantum events actually do have an effect on our world it means there are things happening for NO reason (according to Sabine, that is: it's not not free will, there's just no reason for it). I dont subscribe to that btw, namely because it is unreasonable. It has basically become a type of religion to believe that random quantum events are TRULY random and without any reason for them happening. Why not just call it "God" and be done with it then? Or maybe there actually is a reason for those random quantum events, we just havent discovered it yet making it appear random....

[@bres.3449]

The true God did give you free will. To choose Him or reject Him. John 3:16-21 [16]For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. [17]For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. [18]He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. [19]And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. [20]For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. [21]But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

[@CrazyGaming-ig6qq]

@@bres.3449 what are you, a god-bot?

[@bres.3449]

@@CrazyGaming-ig6qq I'm a christian. It's very important for people to understand their God-given free will, and the fact that Jesus died on the cross for the sin of the world. Anyone can be saved by believing in Jesus. Accept His payment for your sin. Salvation is a free gift. I've accepted, and He has changed my heart in a miraculous ways. I no longer love the things I used to love, such as drinking 6 days a week/smoking/ overeating, I could go on. He gives a person new desires. Many millions can attest to the change in their hearts after being born again and receiving the Holy Spirit.

[@CrazyGaming-ig6qq]

@@bres.3449 so you exchanged spirit with holy spirit.

[@Maluhkye]

What an incredibly insightful video. bravo!!!

[@petrusdecourtrai]

"Man can do what he wants, but he cannot will what he wills" . - Schopenhauer

[@benheideveld4617]

YourGothicMaster That is the quintessential question. Can one, confronted with this statement, choose a food or a color one doesn’t like, and willfully change that preference. Not by superficially fooling oneself, but by contemplation and careful kindly exposing oneself to these sensory impulses authentically rewire one’s mind and wash one’s brain of the negative connotations once held. And is it easier or more difficult to change less trivial revulsion, like turning revulsion about Trump into adoring him. Germans actually did the experiment in the 1930’s and found that it is relatively easy. Also kicking the habit takes little time, as was proven in the mid 1940’s.

[@denisbaudouin5979]

​@@benheideveld4617 It would only make it one step down. It doesn’t contradict the core point. He will then will what he will, but not will what he will what he will. (he didn’t chose to want to choose a food he didn’t like)

[@benheideveld4617]

Denis Baudouin I disagree. The meta-question does not destroy the demonstration of free will. My opinion.

[@noelwalterso2]

You may believe in free will if you wish but I choose not to.

[@denzali]

Ben Heideveld rewiring is possible, been doing it since forever and over time I’ve come to feel like a passenger in this body’s journey. Freeing but spooky at times. Lately I’m down to my foundations and I wonder what (if anything) lies beyond.

[@crawkn]

The problem with this position concerning free will is that it defines the term differently than what most laypersons mean when they use it. You could accurately state scientifically that every decision is dependent on everything that came before it, and that at an atomic level or below, the causative interactions are only dependent on prior interactions. But even if free will may be an illusion created by consciousness, it is inescapably significant to the discussion that we don't fully understand how consciousness arises, or in some senses even how to define it. The bottom line is that our nervous systems are machines who's purpose is to make decisions, and when those are made deliberatively at a conscious level, that is what we call free will, in common language use. It's critical when telling people that something is not as they believe it to be that a clear distinction be drawn between scientifically precise definitions of the words used, and how people normally use the words. Failing to do so risks alienating people from science, because they will frequently conclude that it makes no practical sense.

[@benjaminroe311ify]

What an insightful and I daresay correct response. "Free Will" as it is scietifically defined of course does not exist as she says. But a person's "ability to choose" yes that very much is in exsitence in most cases.

[@crawkn]

@@benjaminroe311ify It's an interesting distinction, "ability to choose" vs. "free will." There is no debate concerning our ability to choose, since we clearly make choices. But are we _free_ to choose? The thing which makes me feel that I am free is that I am often ambivalent, and consciously consider, and seek out new information upon which to base my choice. Just now, I added a sentence, then deleted it. I thought about it for some time before deciding to do so. Nothing about that process was preordained. I don't think we will have certain knowledge about that until we understand consciousness. We may never.

[@benjaminroe311ify]

@@crawkn Yeah well it's an interesting discussion anyway. I know for one thing. I generally HAVE to comment back when people respond to my comments in an engaging and intelligent manner. So you might say, I am in this, compelled to comment back. Cheers!

[@crawkn]

@@benjaminroe311ify Thanks and cheers to you.

[@usarms149]

While I completely agree with the nature of your argument, I must take issue with your classification of use of the term "free will," ie. scientific definition vs common use. In this particular case the "scientific definition" that Sabine uses to refute free will is not the actual, textbook definition of the term. Almost every dictionary I referenced has at least one entry defining it as simply as "the ability to choose" or "voluntary choice or decision." Aside from that, bravo on pointing out the entirely semantic basis of the discussion.

[@BR612]

Damn that was so good. Thank you for this video Sabine.

[@timgosling6189]

Excellent summary. I first came across this question in Chaucer, in particular the Nun's Priest's Tale (or The Nonnes Preestes Tale of the Cok and Hen, Chauntecleer and Pertelote). Given that this written over 600 years ago, and draws on much earlier work as well, it's fair to say that the debate has been going on for a while. Like the Great Question of life the universe and everything, it is potentially solvable but that would put all the philosophers out of a job, although that may also be their immutable destiny anyway..... The interesting point for me is that although free will may be illusory, the future is nevertheless not deterministic. Despite Einstein's protestation God is indeed 'playing dice with the world'.

[@jaredjordan9863]

Before I give up on free will, I'll need to understand how consciousness emerges from elementary particles and first principles. Before I can define what consciousness can and can't do, I need to fully understand the parameters within which it operates.

[@nycbearff]

As she says, your belief or disbelief in free will is fundamentally irrelevant. So go ahead, you don't have any choice in the matter, whether you believe or not.

[@aquashadow-if8gl]

@@nycbearff You didn't address his concern at all, nor did she. She didn't offer any relationship or equation that relates anything material with consciousness. Anyone serious about this topic should want to find such a relationship.

[@AnimaMundi641]

Quite so. She seems behind the curve when it comes to the latest theories. Being arrogant doesn't make someone right.

[@paulogaspar8295]

@@nycbearff but we are not talking about belief here. Do you understand that her own argument is also a belief? she is extrapolating the evidence in very few systems with the data that humans can perceive to every system with data humans can't perceive. This could be completely wrong. She saying that she believes that every system functions with the same fundamental logic whether humans can perceive and understand it or not. Sure there's a probability she be right, but she can be wrong. And we don't know the probability so she can even be mostly wrong.

[@paulogaspar8295]

@@davegraham9100 yep. Basically she is making a huge assumption that how humans perceive the idea behind laws of physics is correct and that it applies equally to everything after big bang. There's an infinite amount of ways this can be proven wrong in the future, or maybe it can never be proven wrong despite being.

[@peplegal8253]

"You can DO what you want...but you cannot WANT what you want" (Schopenhauer).

[@paulheinrichdietrich9518]

He never wrote that.

[@peplegal8253]

@@paulheinrichdietrich9518 : If Albert Einstein himself quoted this phrase...who am I to doubt it ? kzbin.info/www/bejne/poOtZ4GfndKXl9k

[@paulheinrichdietrich9518]

@@peplegal8253 He wasn't quoting Schopenhauer but rather paraphrasing him. The relevant book here is Schopenhauer's "On the Freedom of the Will" in which the author exposes a doctrine which could (more or less) be summed up as "Man can do what he wills, but he cannot will what he wills", but the exact quote is nowhere to be found in this brief book. It is like when people quote Machiavelli as saying "The end justifies the means".

[@peplegal8253]

@@paulheinrichdietrich9518 : Good to know ! Thanks ! But let's agree it's just technicalities. If the idea is there...the exact phrase is kind of irrelevant (considering philosophy is not an exact science).

[@paulheinrichdietrich9518]

@@peplegal8253 Yes, I agree

[@pal9878]

Finally! 👍 And elegantly put.

[@SolaScriptura77]

Inside the Court Room: Defendant: The Devil made me do it! Judge: Not Guilty!

[@nerdsunscripted624]

One of the only science videos I actually come back semi regularly to watch

[@robertmuller1523]

Sabine: "These random events in quantum mechanics are not influenced by *you*, regardless of exactly what you mean by *you*, because they are not influenced by anything. That's the whole point of saying they are fundamentally random: Nothing determines their outcome. There is no will in this. Not yours and not anbody else's." Robert: This line of argument seems to rule out the possibility of free will by definition. On the one hand, you say that deterministic events leave no room for free will, because they are determined. On the other hand, you say that random events leave no room for free will, because nothing determines their outcome. Following your argument, free will requires events that are not deterministic, but still their outcome should be determined by *something*. This seems to be a contradiction in itself. Either the outcome is determined by something, then the event is deterministic, or the outcome is determined by nothing, then the event is not deterministic. There is no room in between. So if you define both of these possibilities as incompatible with free will, then you rule out the possibility of free will by definition.

[@SabineHossenfelder]

What you say would be correct if determinism and randomness were the only two options, but that is not the case. It just happens that the laws of nature we have discovered so far are a combination of these two. I speculated here about what kind of natural law would allow for free will: arxiv.org/abs/1202.0720

[@andrewguthrie2]

In a deterministic universe randomness doesn't exist and in fact is meaningless. We only have the concept of strange seemingly random events which we blame on quantum mechanics because we think we are devising clever experiments that show it.

[@SabineHossenfelder]

@Goran Vukovic Well, it's one of the reasons we are unable to predict the future. But in most practical matters it's not the dominant reason. Think of predicting election outcomes or next year's weather. It's not quantum effects that are the obstacle.

[@robertmuller1523]

@@SabineHossenfelder Wow, you got feedback from Lee Smolin and Scott Aaronson on this topic? Cool! However, there is one thing I do not get. Your article says: "For simplicity, let us assume that the evolution is reversible and deterministic except for a series of moments [...] in which the agent “makes a decision” and the set of possible states branches [...] into different options that are only probabilistically known." Why does the Schrödinger equation not satisfy the requirements for the agent's decisions? The part about "only propbabilistically known" seems fulfilled, so where is the gap?

[@jhoughjr1]

I think to assume over 100 years we “know” QM is a bit myopic considering we knew the atom was indivisible. Before relativity physiscists knew they had mastered all physics and knew nothing was left to discover.

[@ThoughtsAreReal]

I mostly agree. And I also think there is a non-physical source of inspiration that can, sometimes, transcend determinism + random. Well, random less so, maybe. 😂

[@LizardVideoDude]

The funny thing is that not having "free will" doesn't actually _change_ anything. Our experiences, personality, guiding principles, values, desires, conditions influencing us, etc. are the initial conditions. Our decision making process is the differential equations running. That's the physics Sabine describes. While very disturbing initially, it makes sense logically. _It might be reassuring to remember that those initial conditions include you, everything about you up to and including that moment, and everything you are aware of._ The equations are still _your own_ decision process, also down to the smallest detail. The kicker is that your decision is deterministic based on those conditions and equations, not random. I think people are okay up to there. Lack of "free will" is simply saying that random factor is not there. The decision is based on actual information, down to the smallest detail. Hence it is predetermined, and can be predicted given sufficiently detailed knowledge of the initial conditions and the equations run. These all follow and make sense, but the implications and feeling of "lost freedom" is what makes it so hard to accept. Damn, that's a hell of a lot to think about.

[@AshtonScripts]

exactly. say "free will" exists, then look at the possible alternate futures that didnt occur as a result of your decision. they didnt happen, didnt exist. if you say it doesnt exist, and your decision was a result of a massively large equation, it still results in the future that did happen and the futures that didnt still doesnt exist. you are still you.

[@nadadenadax4903]

Of course you can trace what happened before this moment, explain, what happened and come to the conclusion, that it had to be that way, that it was determined... But, what if something else had happened? You would just find other explanations...

[@nadadenadax4903]

@Don´tbehasty what about Henri Bergson?

[@BrianBors]

It does change a few things pragmatically speaking. One, if you really grasp this than anger in yourself is easier to combat (unless you are a person that also gets angry at objects like computers or tools for braking) and might even disappear completely if you grasp this truth on an emotional level. People that hurt you do this based on their initial conditions and maybe fluctuated by quantum randomness. They could not have done otherwise. Just like a tool braking at in inopportune moment. You can be frustrated with the situation and the object. People can still bore, hurt and frustrate you. But anger seems to disappear. This frees you from seeking revenge and furthermore stops any negative feelings as soon as the person is no longer in your life or has bettered their behaviour. Punishment might still be needed if it helps correct that behaviour or deter others or protect the innocents by removing the person from society, but revenge or "justice" is no longer one of the driving forces behind punishment. Which means we can be compassionate towards our criminals and feel with them for having been born into such a life. If all or most of society ditches the silly notion of free will we could build a criminal punishment system based purely on science: what works best to stop this person and others from doing harm to other individuals in te society without needlessly hurting the criminal in the process?

[@nadadenadax4903]

@Don´tbehasty interesting, and thank you for Baggini.. To me, we are not only the mind and we can overcome that circular and spacial thinking of the mind... So, yes, I agree, it must be compatible... And the whole question of having or not having free will is in itself erroneous

[@I-h4t3-4ll-0f-y0u]

That's a hard pill to swallow. It was always on the back of my head but I always just ignored it. The thing I find most interesting of this is that free will can be literally classed as placebo with this argument. It literally doesnt do physically anything and yet it helps.

[@leesiongchan]

"People do not understand that free will is an illusion underestimate how much their decisions are influenced by the information they are exposed to."

[@zdcyclops1lickley190]

You mean they don't think before they decide? Oh wait no one can decide because decisions are a result of free will.

[@Dman9fp]

And so people can never realize things on their own? I'll admit, there's a bunch more luck of the cards in the universe, tho it doesn't reveal all. Nor do our environment in how it shapes all of us and our mindsets. We choose what mindsets to follow, for better or worse. Maybe debatable we choose what we value, since we tend to auto-assign what gives us pleasure and less pain higher priority (unless at least long as it isn't too out of control addictive or other mallady)... This may apply to Most people, ignorant and overly trusting the news and t.v. ramblings, but not to all who have a brain (and even if it were technically otherwise if you dig deeper, what good is it in believing we have no control?? Just promotes hopelessness, being overly hyper-rational is a disease not a cure. Wisdom is the treatment and balance between exacting truths and functionable reasoning (especially since we cannot control our inner mind 100%, moreso when push comes to shove, it Controls Us. We must do what we can to appease it with compromises but not delusions, imo)

[@deepfriedsammich]

Spot the self-contradiction? This is the problem with "determinists." Underestimate? Sorry, determinists, you cannot have that word without contradiction. To say that human beings estimate or underestimate is predicated on judgment and the ability to value a conceptualization about some subset of the universe according to its correlation to that actual subset of the universe. In a world where "free will" "does not exist" neither does "estimation." Of course, we could look at it from the other direction: in a world where "free will" is "an illusion" (and what does THAT mean?) then so is estimation an illusion. Even the concept of Illusion presupposes a free-willed consciousness that is either "fooled" by illusion or sees through it. In fact, in a deterministic context, consciousness and thinking are "illusions." A deterministic universe contains only "stuff happening." If you want to live in that world that consists only in "stuff happening" you are welcome to do so, but when you start conceptualizing you are dropping contexts and stealing concepts. Thought, calculation, and even the giving and referencing of names are the exercise of conscious choice. The only way you can dismiss "free will" out of hand is to dismiss consciousness itself out of hand, and even your dismissal reflects a choice.

[@marils8452]

​@@deepfriedsammich You make unwarranted assumptions. A computer can estimate. A computer can be fooled by an illusion. Thought and calculation, the giving and referencing names are NOT the exercise of conscious choice, as has been proven repeatedly. Also, what do you mean by "stealing concepts"? I'm thinking you didn't watch the video...

[@deepfriedsammich]

@@marils8452 A computer does not conceptualize "illusion." Computers are programmed, by people, who exercise a value judgment. A computer doesn't "care" about its state, per se. Human beings do. To care or not to care, normative value judgments, are an act of choice. Stealing concepts and dropping context are what happens when someone tries arguing from a particular context but then is forced to resort to concepts or conditions only obtaining outside the context. If you're going to play the determinism game and establish a criterion that says all emergent phenomenon are illusion and insignificant then if your argument is to hold substance, you need to avoid invoking other emergent phenomenon that are rooted in the phenomenon you are trying to dismiss. The only way you can dismiss "free will" out of hand is to dismiss consciousness itself out of hand, and even your dismissal reflects a choice. Consciousness is the ability to direct our attention to one thing as opposed to another, in other words to choose what matters.

[@UltimateBargains]

"I have noticed even people who claim everything is predestined and that we can do nothing to change it look before they cross the road." -- Stephen Hawking

[@clmasse]

That's about at the level of Sabine: junk. Oh it is Hawking? Then what a fine spirit and what a high thought !

[@Mutantcy1992]

He said that? Even great minds can espouse inane views.

[@clmasse]

Virtually everybody has spotted the fallacy: looking before is predestined, and that's how stupid accidents are predestined to be prevented.

[@davidalexander6811]

I think the vid is right. In the 4th dimension past present and future are simultaneous; this includes the permutations of all phenomena within them. It's like a real of film, it's all there. In 3D it unfolds frame by frame. Choice is more so an interactive gestalt of a holographic model of interrelated spacetime, and occurs as a reflex of it.

[@rafrokid79]

That says nothing about us having free will. Quite a lame comment from the great one there.

[@salls877]

This is so well explained! Thank you!

[@NickMirro]

I agree!

[@woojongson5431]

The most beautiful presentation I have ever seen.

[@waroftheworlds2008]

This is like the answer to "what is truly real?" It actually doesn't matter what is real, it only matters how much value you give particular things.

[@KibyNykraft]

Is that so? Does the general reality of the Cosmos care about what you personally believe or how your senses change or perceive? I doubt it :) What is up to you in a sense is how you adapt to it, but those adaptations do not start in a theocosmical vacuum.... They are a part of a long chain of relative dynamics. Which in science is simplified by language to "cause and effect", although there is really only "interactivity". The most influential part energyphysically, is called cause, and the weakest is called effect. Here Sabine at least occasionally closes up to the excellent skeptic and physicist called Alan Sokal :) "Beyond the hoax" is really a must-read for everyone who wants to study physics or chemistry or philosophy. Not as a teaching book literally on a subject, but as a very important warning about the always present danger of religion and esoterica always trying to plunge its way into sciences- which practically always will damage science and reduce its quality standards. Think about the following: In a world where we have "words", we also have objects for the words. Those objects existed already, the words are re-presentations of the objects. Nature is always in continuous motion ,it is completely relativistic. There is such no literal position or unrelative condition as standstill in any way possible for localities of matter/energy, whether it be a particle or a human body, or the human mind which is a sum of particle interactions and chargefield dynamics. Thus, ideas, expressions or single words like position or free will or randomness are literally impossible as existentials, they are contradictions to what all of thorough empirical science always have showed about nature in lab and engineering physics, in chemistry, in geology, in neurology etc. If some energystate or particle is isolated, literally, how would it affect anything else? A very simple question the supporters of free will and other esoterica never are able to answer. If we talk of free will as a judicial/law-related expression however, it is a whole different story, and here many mess up things politically by believing that personal responsibility "by your will and mind" by law systems has anything to do with cosmic existentials, which is of course never meant like that in law studies. In law studies "free will" means that you are responsible for your action to the Law and to others by defineable morals of a civilization (see Sam Harris : The moral landscape, and "moral relativism vs moral objectivity"-type of debates and lectures on the web, youtube etc). It doesn't mean that you magically chose to be born or that the world is an "illusion" or something rather anti-intellectual like that ;)

[@waroftheworlds2008]

@@KibyNykraft i think i should have been clearer in how I connected the two ideas. I apologize. "Free will or fate/determinism?" is a philosophical question like "what is truly real?". Also like "FWoF/D", it has a weirdly simple answer (at least in my opinion). I side with determinism/fate based on the premise of "2 twins with the same experiences will make the same decisions". Everything is cause and effect. When it comes to people, it is extremely complex cause and effect. We are still responsible for our choices because that is something that goes into the "CaE" analysis. Free will is an illusion, but we should still strive to make the best decision possible.

[@meltingintoair7581]

​@@KibyNykraft "If some energystate or particle is isolated, literally, how would it affect anything else? A very simple question the supporters of free will and other esoterica never are able to answer." "Nature is always in continuous motion ,it is completely relativistic." It will be exceedingly obvious to future generations that human beings have free will and the only reason why there was an agenda in this current age to deny this reality is because a tiny group of sadistic psychopaths benefit from a population of human beings who do not know how powerful they are. The universe is mathematical. The mistake of thinking free will is impossible derives from a non-mathematical, materialistic worldview. We are not far from a world so advanced intellectually that they will look back and view you free will deniers, materialists and philosophical illiterates as we do the absurdity of the times when doctors didn't know to wash their hands. A mathematical universe is non-local. There is no relativity in the fact that 2+2=4, it is an absolute fact. That absolutism, combined with the diversity of a different expression on each side of the equation, is how the universe generates the rich complexity and expansiveness of the cosmos. In a relativistic universe, certainty and absolutes are impossible. There even is no objective reality in the relativistic universe which will baffle future generations as to how long such an irrational worldview could have been held in such esteem. As far as a relativistic universe is concerned, the spaceship traveling near light speed doesn't experience the length contraction and time dilation that Einstein's laws say will be observed by the relatively stationary observers of the craft on earth. The objective reality of the length contraction and time dilation of a spacecraft traveling near light speed can be ignored from the spaceship's frame of reference in the relativistic worldview and instead the spaceship merely experiences those effects in its perceptions of planet earth because earth, even though it is stationary in objective reality, is moving at light speed relative to the craft. This obviously doesn't make sense. But science doesn't care about rationality at all because it is worship of the psychological function of sensing and the dogma empirical materialism. Science masquerades as a rational worldview when anyone who has a basic level of knowledge of the matter knows that science is a bitter rival of rationalism and rationality. Science's true hidden identity is empirical materialism and the whole project is about total service to the rich elites and their narrow, psychopathic agenda of arbitrary, total domination. Rationality and rationalism is about actually confronting reality and it immediately follows that you look after the people. Science says fuck you pay me. Fuck the people, fuck reality, there is no objective reality(!), all we care about are the rich elites who control all scientific institutions we work at. Science says, we will literally concoct any reality you want for the right price because after all, reality is relativistic so there is no objective reality that our data should be searching for. It is here that the relativity of science operates a necessary feature of the worldview warfare waged by the rich elite.

[@waroftheworlds2008]

@Nickers which 'other thing'? And the twin thing is pretty true: kzbin.info/www/bejne/h4jSgKOvm7mHeLc Find me a good example of twins having similar experiences and acting differently.

[@Samtastrophi]

@@KibyNykraftThe notion of non-interacting/non-conditioned entities or "particles" was what made me really tilt my head when reading Kant. So much seemed on the money, but when it got to agency it seemed like he just couldn't give up the ghost on what he could clearly see.

[@demrasnawla]

You're right, even if the outcome is determined, we still have to do the decision-making, there's no magical auto-pilot we can just turn off and fall asleep. A decision we make still matters, even if it was the only decision we were ever going to make.

[@equsnarnd]

No there is some expert word salad. You must be related to Humpty Dumpty who was known to say, 'A word means exactly what I choose it to mean, nothing more and nothing less.' We'll ignore HD's being silly thinking he had a choice but then he was the Master of his Own Word Salad.

[@the_first_Transhuman]

Well said!

[@z242]

To put it a little more concisely, free will and choice are not at all the same thing. We all have the ability to choose and make decisions, which should be obvious. But so do computer programs. Free will is something else entirely.

[@equsnarnd]

@@z242 Then you should be able to offer a concise definition of both. Computer programs neither 'choose' nor 'decide.' To think they do is simply a sloppy use of language [and thinking]. Or are we going to talk about Hurricanes being angry and deciding to go on shore or not. Rocks that choose to move or weather or stay still. A lens that allows a light to shine through it. A light that goes on or doesn't. There is a reason to maintain language that is aware of these distinctions and no good reason to confound thinking by using language in a sloppy way.

[@NickMirro]

Not quite. Interesting but we are not on autopilot for a reason. We need pain and pleasure to drive us. Pure logic alone (autopilot) is to slow and inefficient. Burning finger requires a forced (pain driven) response. I believe that is the place for conscious awareness.

[@Leto85]

I love it how you manage to end this video on a positive note where I thought I wouldn't think there was any positivity in not having free will: be curious about the thoughts and its outcome. To me it kind of feels freeing, I may not be fully responsible for my actions, but actions do have consequences. If I would be programmed to do bad things, then others would be programmed to defend themselves against that. Not my fault, nor theirs, but it will happen either way. Thinking I can choose to prevent that from happening seems to prevent this from happening. I do not understand that sentense though. Still, neither of us is responsible for the results of these brain-calculations, so I am but the observer of this life I live?

[@rizdekd3912]

"Thinking I can choose to prevent that from happening seems to prevent this from happening." This!. I take comfort that my actions are determined by who I am coupled with what I am aware of. I am, by nature, congenial and like to get along. I am aware of and fear law enforcement and the criminal justices system for what they can do to me if I don't follow societal rules and laws. I like that others may feel the same way...be afraid to misbehave and react to the world around them to try to fit in rather than feeling 'free' to misbehave. Many do...apparently...choose to misbehave, but I think overall, a society that can show its disapprobation for misbehavior is part of the environment that modifies behavior of most people.

[@bw0081]

It would not be your fault if you chose to rob a bank? Steal a lollipop from a baby? More so, it would not be your success for making through a PhD program or curing cancer? Is that really the type of world you would want to live in? Where responsibility for one’s negative actions are shrugged off and accomplishments mean nothing?

[@Leto85]

@@bw0081 Want to live in? We don't really have much of a choice.

[@bw0081]

@@Leto85 How do you figure? To reduce human behavior to mere programming, akin to computers, is a gross oversimplification of our capabilities. It neglects our capacity as humans to evaluate different options, draw from our experiences, education, and biological makeup, and make choices that reflect what we have learned, and how we apply that knowledge. It is crucial to recognize that humans are not mere victims of circumstance or prisoners of genetics. The actions of criminals cannot be solely attributed to external factors, just as the achievements of pioneers in their fields cannot be solely attributed to genetic predispositions. By acknowledging free will, we acknowledge the complexity that goes into making decisions and the agency we have to ultimately decide how to go about various situations. To view the absence of free will as freeing seems nihilistic and dismissive of the richness of human existence. It echoes sentiments like "what's the point" or "why bother?" It undermines the pride and sense of accomplishment that individuals rightfully experience for their achievements. We absolutely have a choice to reject determinism and in my belief we are better for it.

[@rizdekd3912]

@@bw0081 What (which person) are you referring to in your statement 'it would not be your fault if you chose to [list the possible actions]? And who is the implied 'other' who would be finding fault?

[@TheJayman213]

Well put and I agree 99%. The 1% is the empiricist reservation, namely that we don't technically "know" any physical laws to be true, simply from having witnessed them being true any finite amount of times.

[@SerendipitousProvidence]

I had posted that 'original' joke. Safe to say that I deleted it the instant I got into the middle of the video - I had no choice but to.

[@ASLUHLUHCE]

Nice

[@Dave2170]

Omg, why bother...

[@deepaknanda1113]

Looking for this...during 2nd watch of this video...

[@chrisramberg]

Ohhh this joke has layers. A+

[@jesseissorude]

they had us in the first half, not gonna lie

[@VictorJD]

Sabine: "I also find it unenlightening to have an argument about the use of words" Me, a law student: :(

[@Bassotronics]

Joao Victor Lima It was a pure coincidence that as soon as I saw your comment, she said it at the same time on the video!

[@garanceadrosehn9691]

Well, there's the LegalEagle channel too! 😀

[@0Tyr]

@@Bassotronics ha, it was predetermined!

[@clmasse]

It's true the meaning of words is immaterial, anyway the physicists are the ones who are right.

[@SimonSozzi7258]

Ha ha! 😅

[@sKTkC]

I think that some people make it too easy for themselves on this subject, just to "finally" reach a conclusion. As if it would be a mathematical task. You should have said that there is probably no free will after the today's state of knowledge. If we look 2,000 years into the past and see the progress we have made, it is very difficult to imagine the scientific successes of the next 2,000 years. An absolute answer here is, to put it mildly, out of place. And it seems rather presumptuous to want to give such an answer when we have just scratched the surface.

[@dimkakishko1]

@Sabrina, you mentioned studies that showed an increase in moral behavior in people who believed in the absence of free will. That is very interesting. Can you provide references yo where I can find those studies?

[@genathing903]

All I have left are fantasies of being a better person

[@chrisramberg]

Roger just spanked genathing with a truth paddle

[@genathing903]

@Roger Loquitur what’s your point? Define “good”. The Nazis thought they were doing good? I’m not sure that’s true. They knew that they were committing amoral and heinous acts. This has nothing to do with religion. I don’t know if you first stumbled on Nietzsche and adderall and decided to go off here, but what you said reads like a pile of mental masturbation.

[@genathing903]

@Roger Loquitur and furthermore, those who decided to impeach Trump did so with cause. We all saw that cause and it’s effects on the capitol on January 6. You should go jerk it with your fascist friends instead of doing it online. Thanks.

[@genathing903]

@Roger Loquitur all I’m saying is that you’re just giving me word salad. Where was the contradiction? Point it out. You haven’t proved anything. You’re just a garbled voice screaming baseless accusations. Also: I’m mot sure that you understand English grammar.

[@genathing903]

@Charles Unleashed did you learn this response from your “incel hearts fascist” message forum?

[@frankt9156]

Serial killer: Your honor, Physic proves I don’t have freewill when I kill these people. Judge: You are correct, you didn’t have free will. But I also don’t have free will and have no choice but sending you to the electric chair.

[@gabrielweber5912]

You may have invented this little story, but there is an old Arab story about this. Something like "I am not responsible, it was written"...

[@frankt9156]

@@gabrielweber5912 interesting. Please post the story.

[@tgenov]

@@gabrielweber5912 the point is that it doesn’t matter whether it has been written or not. The two scenarios are logically confluent. We have no free will -> Serial killer kills -> Judge judges -> serial killer is convicted. We have free will -> Serial killer chooses to kill -> Judge chooses to judge-> serial killer is convicted. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confluence_(abstract_rewriting)

[@gabrielweber5912]

@@tgenov It does not matter, indeed. Sabine stated it clearly. It's just about accepting the soundest scientific evidence available. If somebody appears with better evidence showing we have free will, we must evaluate it. But it won't matter, still.

[@pimpilikaa]

ppl are trying so hard to make jokes in the comment section.

[@tinox12]

thanks that you are here and educate us :)

[@RialuCaos]

I love this video and I anticipate referencing it many times in the future when talking to KZbin commenters.

[@patrickb.4749]

Have you had any impact? E: Clarification: Have you made any progress convincing people on the topic of free will?

[@RialuCaos]

@@patrickb.4749 People generally don't change their viewpoints immediately, and if they do then they typically won't admit it. If there is any impact then I probably won't be able to observe it on this platform. All I can do is try to help people be a bit more thoughtful and reflective of their ideologies, especially ones they have taken for granted.

[@patrickb.4749]

@@RialuCaos I suppose, I asked you about it because 2/3 times I brought my disbelieve in free will up to acquaintances, all I got was dismissal and/or ridicule. I might as well have questioned whether the Earth was round. It was neither fun nor productive, I just felt hurt (a little, anyway).

[@RialuCaos]

@@patrickb.4749 Even if you are dismissed or ridiculed, it doesn't necessarily mean you didn't make an impact. When I was younger with a less-developed worldview I also thought that the idea of humans not having free will was ridiculous, but eventually I came to realize that it was actually the most logical conclusion from learning and observing the principles of the world.

[@Jemoh66]

Sabine: "but don't worry" Me: "do I have a choice in the matter?"

[@tomashull9805]

Exactly right! Your choice in the matter was predestined... and the oxymoron by Sabine goes on... and people love it... they have no choice lol

[@chapfathead9961]

Regardless what she may think philosophy is king. Science gathers data and interprets the data to get to a conclusion. Philosophy is there to judge the interpretation and the conclusion against the laws of logic. She's probably a good scientist but like Richard Dawkins should probably stay out of the world of Philosophy.

[@MichaelAntonFischer]

@@chapfathead9961 nah, it's about time science takes over philosophy. The only problem is that she makes a conclusion that does not follow from her premises.

[@rlustemberg]

@@chapfathead9961 extremely naive approach to philosophy. She could not stand her ground for more than one minute in a debate with a scientifically informed theologician.

[@chapfathead9961]

@@rlustemberg All theology is, is philosophy about God. Theos/Logos.

[@paxomatic]

Also, I want a T-Shirt with Sabine's face emblazoned on the front, with the words "There is nothing interesting going on in this argument".

[@paulwilson3057]

yes please. missed market here.

[@AmericanBrain]

You’re looking at (metaphor) the Holy Grail below . Let's start at the beginning. Questions before we start: Do you now understand there is no way around it - you have free will? Do you grasp science is NOT A RELIGION you've made it into ? ______________ Here's the ​ GRAND SUMMARY. Valuable? Yes, every legend throughout history was looking for the system I gave and give you in summary below. _______________________ What is metaphysics? It means actuality-reality, regardless of your feelings. 1. Existence exists: this is the broadest concept of the entire cosmos! How do you know that? You can touch something like a chair and know something exists, anything. So existence exists is the abstraction. But how do you know that? Consciousness is the identification of existence. So consciousness is a separate identity with free will to identify existence as opposed to the OTHER CHOICE "no-thing-ness" if you're a rational man. Well if existence and consciousness as identities then Aristotle's law of identity is so (a penguin is a bird even though it has strong bones and no wings and can not fly; a whale looks like a fish but is a mammal!). Everything has identity. Truth. Do you now understand there is no way around it - you have free will? Do you grasp science is NOT A RELIGION you've made it into ? 2. Epistemology: but how do know any identity or truth? The methods of reason and logic. 3. What is ethics? Your Sovereign: inalienable rights because above we establish you have a mind and need to use it to sustain your life. You need liberty to sustain your life. And man lives to pursue happiness. 4. Politics: democracy. Why? An Elected government to protect you - the Sovereign! That means evil is the use of force or force against you (Except in self defence). Economics: capitalism. Why? Your property rights are also derived as a self evident truth from ethics above. All animals come pre-adapted to a niche environment but man must re-adapt the environment - create cloth, shelter, fire and all the items you enjoy that you can see and much you can't see (under the hood of your car, house or smartphone - there's many ingenious invented - smashed, extracted, mined and drilled from nature and brought to you as value that you pay for in a transaction directly or indirectly such as when renting or living with parents!) Man must acquire, maintain, dispose OR TRADE your services or property (E.g. hat, cat, mat, iphone or money, etc.) A trade is a meeting of minds between two people without fraud or force. Indeed a government is needed for disputes like the courts. YOU MUST readapt the environment. Greta is completely wrong because of these reasons. 5. Aesthetics: good art! Yes! The problem is too many humans (almost 100%) mistake FICTION for fact like you had previous to my posts. Fiction is GREAT BUT IS NOT FACT. Facts are ascertained like the above using the methods of reason and logic: man's ONLY way to reach valid conclusion in anything, in everything like the above!

[@svenhaadem]

I am so glad she finds the subject that still challenges and occupies greater minds than hers “silly” and “trash”.

[@svenhaadem]

Yeah, a calm, rational science debate is way too boring. Let's make this into a circus.

[@KutWrite]

@@svenhaadem I think that's a Germanic trait, whether or not that's her heritage. It's mine and I recognize it.

[@michaelyyy2872]

If I am a Spike upon the Universal Wave function or upon a thread (String Theory) at any particular point, where my Spike appears, is there not variance or randomness - then not pre-determined? Therefore there is freewill upon my thread. Similarly, at any collapse of the Universal Wave Function - is that collapse point not random?

[@alexstein3894]

Wonderful channel. Your group of particles were in a bad mood in this one. Seriously- that Human Extinction video- outstanding.

[@jacobdgm]

I like Sean Carroll's approach to this question: On the level of fundamental physics, it's pretty clear that we live in a deterministic universe. But things like consciousness and human behavior are emergent phenomena - there's no practical way to model the actions of a human being based on the interactions of all their fundamental particles. The best models we have for predicting human behavior involve the concept of choices, and so it makes sense to think of choices as real things, at least within that domain of applicability. Quite similar to the points you raise starting at 9:45, but with Carroll's approach of thinking of things as "real" if they help us model the universe.

[@sodiumsalt]

If you cannot predict the behavior of emergent phenomenon from the interaction of particles, which btw is not predictable itself either, then you must admit that emergent phenomenon bring in extra information that was previously absent from just a gross sum of the particles constituting the system.

[@laszlo3547]

The difficulty of modelling is an engineering issue stemming from lack of knowledge and computational power, not from inherent unpredictability.

[@wturber]

The first time I heard the "determinist" based argument why we don't have free will, I paused for a moment and realized that this is obviously true if our assumption about a determinist world is correct. I then fairly quickly realized that for most people in most situations that conclusion is of little value or relevance since we still experience life "as if" we have free will. It seems to us like we are independent authors of our decisions. That's what led our brains to come up with the concept to begin with. And in most practical situations, that's a perfectly reasonable concept or approximate model to explain what we do. I can't actually access all the actual data that led to my typing this message. But a reasonable "autonomous agent" model could give some coarse insight.

[@usuario8245]

Nice contribution. Also, I do believe that Lee Smollin also "believes" in free will, or at least that yes futures are changeble.

[@wturber]

@@usuario8245 Would like to here his explanation for his belief.

[@dakotadad8835]

Discovered this channel recently I love it, fantastic topics and she gets straight to the point while being very informative. Great content and hope this qualifies as an original comment lol thank Sabine

[@AmericanBrain]

But this video - she is of course incorrect. I have a 12 part set of posts in this thread that corrects both Sabien and you. Why not argue there?

[@AmericanBrain]

@Dakota - Sabine is wrong. A man said I should write a book after seeing my posts to you. I told him and you: ​ @Andrew Holster and @Dakota: Thanks. I am about to do that! We should actually agree on everything I have said. Each point follows from the earlier point below . They are not therefore separate but part of a chain in this order. 1. You said "reality is real" or I said "existence exists" . But "how' Can you know that? 2. Consciousness is the "identification' of the preceding "identity" - what you call reality or I call existence. This means "Consciousness" is a separate identity to to existence; and is 'from and of' existence. Similarly consciousness is a separate identity to a cup of tea, but a cup of tea is real , 'of and from existence' . 3. If existence and consciousness are identities then it means Aristotle's law of identity is also part of existence. This means there is truth! It's NOT about your perspective versus another's perspective. It is NOT subjective (to you) but Objective to reality itself. The above 3 items are METAPHYSICS: existence, mind and identity. 4. EPISTEMOLOGY: But how can you know any identity (i.e. truth)? The methods of reason and logic. 5. What about science and math ? These are "Sub-sets' to Epistemology. This means you can have PROBABILISTIC truth BUT it must always be interpreted using reason and logic. Metaphysics is ABSOLUTE truth. The existence of epistemology is also absolute so is what follows: ethics, politics (including economics) and aesthetics. But how and why? 6. We've established you have a mind (so it is NOT impotent but potent: with free will; a separate identity that must be exercised IF rational man to reach "valid" conclusion: that there is existence. Even a blind, deaf and mute girl - Helen Keller reached this understanding. A mental patient can not reach this position. To reach the fact existence exists (or your words reality-is-real) needs one to distinguish "non reality" from "reality" and reach the correct conclusion . This needs man to exercise free will to make that choice. It is Not automatic : no animal has ever reached this conclusion nor can any animal conclude. They just "are" but have no "human mind" (i.e. no free will; although animals have 'Awareness" state of consciousness ). 7. The fact you are an individual of a species that must "decide' at every moment of your life (exercising free will) to sustain your very life ; means by your very intrinsic nature you have to have liberty to think (to decide) and therefore act on the conclusions of your decision. Why would do you do that? To sustain your "life". And humans seeks happiness in the immediate term (eg. get to the bathroom or get a glass of water) , short , medium, long and longest term (your life). Whether you make the correct decision right now is judged AGAINST your "longest term". For example - you may decide to do 'dr*gs" to feel happy: but judged right now against the longest term, it is a "Wrong" and there is "right vs wrong" [law of identity]. It's NEVER HOW YOU FEEL like you had originally and incorrectly stated - never SUBJECTIVE TRUTH but Objective and reality is knowable, as your mind is potent (not impotent like you imply by the wrong conclusion about subjective reality in the previous post). Therefore we can summarize you have the inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. You have NO RIGHTS to happiness else you can "rapture" another lady by force for example or force welfare in a state by stealing from free fair earners (we'll come to that below). You only have the inalienable right to the pursuit of happiness. If you want love or wealth then you must use your mind to think , and learn the method to think properly (methods of reason and logic; see epistemology above; using your mind - which is potent - see metaphysics above). And you must act. Then you must learn from feedback and optimize. Indeed online marketing is constantly about this 'optimization'. 8. Politics: you need an elected government to protect you else in anarchy the strongest thug will rule you (Mad Max; the history of any Dictator/Monarchist nation or Commie nation). Because you have the right to pursue happiness and sustain life: you as a human being must acquire, maintain, dispose or trade your services or property (Eg. hat, mat, cat, or money etc.) A trade is a meeting of minds between two people without force or fraud. The only evil is force or fraud (e.g. taxation or minimum wage or any economic regulation). This is because every person is equal (see ethics) with "inalienable" rights. That means the rights are part of the cosmos itself and can not be bestowed upon you NOR taken (except in self defence such as justice). This means the only correct economics is capitalism (laissez-faire). You are OWED NOTHING for being alive EVER, for you are not Dictator (and dictator is evil as it means the use of force). You need a government to protect you using the arms like the military (Against foreign invasion) , the courts (including civil courts like at divorce or contractual dispute; tort like if you slip in McDonalds, even outside contract they owe a duty of care that is implied the place is safe when you enter their premises). 9. Aesthetics: man needs good art. Art is a magnification of life. Art is a spiritual need. Spirit does not mean woo woo but it means "pertaining to the mind". But the way how does man have a mind? It is not known and not knowable. It is an assumption But not a frivolous/arbitrary assumption. Consciousness (to remind you) is the identification of existence itself. You can touch things and realize "Something exists". So your sense organs inform your "mind" - a real thing - of existence, from existence, a separate identity (see metaphysics above, points 1 , 2 and 3). BUT THE PROBLEM IS TOO MANY HUMANS MISTAKE FICTION FOR FACT. Sabine's post above for example.

[@loizospapaloizou9494]

You were born into this world with logic and free will.

[@cecillekinnear4585]

I knew a person who was diagnosed to be on the autistic spectrum who couldnt lie and he was also exceptionally focused not only that he was tall blond athletic and generally much liked despite being somewhat socially awkward and not very socially competent. He was always held up as being somehow a better human being by his parents who praised for being honest. His neurologically more typical brothers and sisters who were the result of a second marriage and had different genes were unfavourably compared to him as if it were their fault and their difficulties and achievements devalued by their mother who thought the older son who could not tell a lie and who had an above average drive to succeed against the odds was morally superiour to more normal children. In other words our belief in human agency gives certain people praise and privilages as if biology does not exist and all people are at birth equiped in the identical way to deal with life.

[@hussen8202]

The issue with her argument is that she assumes particles determinism is true, but since the 20th century, this has not been a common-sense truism. Quantum mechanics proposes laws that are probabilistic rather than deterministic. There is an interpretation that suggests particles have an inherent indeterministic nature, which implies that we will never fully comprehend it 100%. There will always be a gap that remains unexplained because NOT everything in the universe follows a straightforward cause-and-effect pattern. This interpretation aligns with the views of Niels Bohr and Heisenberg On the other hand, there's another interpretation, favored by Einstein and seemingly adhered to by Sabine, which suggests that the entirety of reality is entirely deterministic 100 %. According to this view, as the Big Bang took place 13 billion years ago, the entire history of the universe was already predetermined or settled. Including even what you will eat next week In order to tackle the persistent uncertainties within quantum mechanics, they suggest the existence of hidden variables or another layer of reality. Once discovered, this hidden layer may eventually offer a comprehensive scientific explanation and bridge the gap, theoretically allowing us one day to have a complete understanding of 100% of reality. However, this hypothesis or philosophy is still awaiting concrete proof. Conversely, recent advancements appear to align more with Niels Bohr's explanation, as demonstrated by the 2022 Nobel Prize that confirmed the concept of entanglement. Despite the existence of multiple interpretations of quantum mechanics, none of them have received scientific confirmation to date. As Richard Feynman famously stated, nobody "truly comprehends" quantum mechanics. So, Sabine's primary issue lies in her apparent arrogance, as she communicates her ideas as though these complexities do not exist , and that everything is straightforward, with unanimous consensus among scientists. The second concern revolves around the idea that, given that ""we might be"" comprised of inherently indeterministic atoms, our consciousness could inherit this indeterministic characteristic without necessarily acquiring randomness. This argument originates from the philosopher John Searle

[@jonathano4811]

'Even if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choie'

[@fuckamericanidiot]

Neil Peart RIP

[@mikel5582]

I'm a longtime fan of Rush's music but, sorry Neil, that's not in any way a solid argument for free will. But I will concede that it is tautologically correct.

[@brianpdavis07]

I've watched this video 10 times... it blows me away. Makes me think of the Matrix when Neo was confronted with the idea of "choice", the oracle told him: he doesn't have to make a choice because he already made it, he just has to understand why he made it.

[@randomstuff1534]

Brilliant observation

[@admininfo536]

Her point was that our consciousness makes a choice before the body registers the choice. Not the same as saying we have no free will. Rather, that the intelligence that you are is beyond your human existence 🤯

[@golubvolodemerovich7512]

@@admininfo536 umm..that too.

[@dirtcastle]

@@admininfo536 I think her point was more that we can't predict the outcomes of our thought processes, not that there is an unrealized decision waiting to be revealed.

[@dankbene]

@@admininfo536 That wasn't her point. But incidentally, your consciousness is by nature quite slow. It results while, or perhaps just after, processing all of the various signals from your environment and your body. The process of making choices occurs, and THEN we become consciously aware of it. When we recognize our internal thoughts undergoing a decision-making process, that process is merely our interpretation of the true reason we made the choice. But the decision was made by the brain before the mind could be aware the decision was made. Hence how people often find out through therapy that many of the things in their life that caused them problems were a result of their behaviors that they didn't properly understand. After an objective outsider can listen to their life story and how they think, and point out where their reasoning for their choices were irrational, it helps them to see the true reason for their past choices.

[@sofinefeline]

Thank you Sabina. I love your talks, although physics is over my head. I decided many years ago that there is no free will, nor do we have a purpose for being here on earth. However, our actions do have consequences so I try to optimize positive outcomes in my sphere.

[@marcogarrido3781]

How can any action have (what we call) consequences? You say you "try to optimize positive outcomes", how do you do that? That's a mere illusion, since you're not optimizing anything, because you're really not doing anything at all, everything was already predetermined since the Big Bang. You're not responsible of anything, nor me, nor anybody; everything was set in motion by the laws of physics, and to think we can have "actions" and "actions with consequences" is just a lie we tell ourselves, like the lie of free will, but none of it is true.

[@JohnPaul-ol5zl]

@Marco Garrido yeah, this notion of Free Will not existing is incorrect. If that were the case then criminals would never be prosecuted. Most judicial systems are founded on that individuals have free will in their actions. Noone, that I have heard of was ever Not prosecuted for their crime because the lawyer said the individual was pre-determined to act as he did. It seems like this lady's claim is that we are pre-determined when we do good, but not when we do bad. If we do bad, then we are branded with the free will rule......of course she doesn't use those words. We do not just do what is best for ourselves or society for optimization just out of the blue. We analyze situations look at cost, byproducts, short term vs long-term effects and then make a Decision accordingly. Decisions are based on free will, there is no way around it. We have free will and therefore are responsible for the consequences of our resulting Decisions. Not every decision gives optimized results, but we have to make decisions with the best of intentions, else progress is stifled.

[@clearstonewindows]

" I decided many years ago that there is no free will" go back and re-read that.

[@JohnPaul-ol5zl]

@clearstonewindows precisely. If there is no such thing as free will, then we have been placing individuals in jail/prison arbitrarily? Death penalty? With the justice system just as a smoke screen.

[@snowwhitebeautyful]

You decided 😂😂😂

[@OGNeilNeilOrangePeel]

It’s an enormous leap to go from quantum entanglement- a theory of which we in any case have a rather poor grasp to implying free will does not exist. We already know we lack a sufficient theory of everything, and don’t currently understand how to bring all our observations of the universe and it’s forces together. In biology, production of useless structures is never tolerated as it causes a disadvantage. For this reason sighted fish that migrate into cave systems lose the development of eyes within a relatively short evolutionary period. Brain physiology tells us that many resources are devoted to enabling animals to make choices based on environmental stimuli from their senses, in the case of higher animals from their thoughts. If all actions were predetermined there would be no advantage to having evolved complex (or even simple) brains, and the most efficient animal would likely have a brain no bigger than that of an insect.

[@jeffwells1255]

Christopher Hitchens solved this years ago when he said "Of course I believe in free will: I have no choice!"

[@BrettCaton]

Well, if you have no choice, then there is no successful strategy and it doesn't matter. If you have choice, and don't know for sure either way, then acting as if you are free gives you the only path to victory.

[@BennyEternET]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/f3jChXqEf8uaZtU

[@johnallenrichter]

Christopher was an adamant atheist. We live in a physical world which definitely controls our fate. I agree with Christopher on that. But I also believe in deity and spiritualism. And I believe free will affects us only in the spiritual sense. I find Sabine to be incredibly intelligent and also wonderfully flamboyant. Those qualities cause my physical body to find her intensely sexy. That is a natural physical reaction. It happens most often in professional relationships and is acknowledged and identified as transference. "Free Will" only comes in to play spiritually. I can "choose" to covet her physical beauty in the form of fantasy and use that fantasy to abuse myself sexually through self gratification. Or not. God warns us that it would be better for us to blind ourselves than to abuse ourselves sexually based on the natural beauty we find in other naturally sexy bodies. What a hard task! My body finds many members of the opposite sex to be incredibly sexually exciting. There are groups that would call that misogynistic or somehow perverse when in fact it is absolutely and perfectly natural. To me it seems that people live their lives traveling through social circles pretending that their bodies are not extremely affected by what I refer to simply as ass. Ass is the bodies desire to enter into sweaty, grunting sex with those the body finds desirable. In itself that is not perverse. But ignoring the Holy Spirit and allowing that natural desire to allow ourselves to pursue that animalistic sex is spiritually perverse. Free will exists, but only in the spiritual world. This material world is only a blink of the eye in the big picture.

[@logosao88]

@@johnallenrichter Haha. I like your response. I would add that Sabine's argument does have a potential weakness. She does not want to grant that the "randomness" of the quantum world hints at any type of "free will" because (as she says) our Will does not affect it. But what if our Will just IS a complex phenomenon with quantum components? If one wishes to speak with a spiritual slant, one could say that our will manifests as a complex and at least partially quantum phenomenon. One does not have to beleive in radical free will to believe in free will in some sense. I also find it detrimental to science to take philosophical positions like this when it is entrirely unnecessary. It does more harm to science than good. We should be encouraging scientific investigation/research without pushing Scientism. It will turn off more people than it turns on.

[@idlejuggle6759]

dishonesty of video starts where she blatantly claims that we KNOW there's no free will where as even the biggest neuroscientists say they THINK there's no free will it's at best just a theory

[@Sanctor95]

This is something I've been struggling to convince people of for a long time when I'm asked why I accept things so easily. Everyone is doing the best they can with the tools they are given. This is something said in spiritual circles, but actually has a good amount of truth to it. Everyone is a result of their conditions and their conditioning, right down to their behaviours. Accepting this doesn't mean we need to tolerate all kinds of nasty or harmful behaviour, but it lets us see people as people and have empathy for that, while separately making judgements on their actions. With the right kind of influences, I believe most people have the potential to be good people, or at least better people. And we should encourage that. But there are definitely some people that aren't worth your time in that regard - the impetus you would need to provide to steer them in the right direction is too much and you need to walk away, leave that job to somebody who's being paid for it, like a therapist or correctional establishment staff in the extreme. As for looking inwardly, you don't need free will to strive to make positive changes in your life. It's simply in your nature, and in your best interest, to do so. Most of us want better for ourselves, and with luck you already have the hope of that becoming reality. This will automatically set you on the path of pursuing that happiness, and achieving it is a matter of learning as you try to work with the puzzle of life. With the right mental and social software, and the luck of helpful exposure, you will get there. Don't give in to hopelessness. Life has many pitfalls, but we as humans have a great base package to work with, there's always potential for things to improve.

[@sehrishbalouch7068]

Very eloquently said

[@alsdean]

@@mofayer no it's not, he means that the "striving" was never a choice in itself, making it possible

[@shareenear9344]

@@alsdean then it ultimately doesn't matter, just like Benjamin typing that comment and Sabine making this video 🤷‍♂️ See? Choosing an idea that implies there's no such thing as choice is self-defeating.

[@ralx225b]

If you realize there is no free will you will also realize..."luck" doesn't exist either.

[@lunkerjunkie]

@@mofayerspot on. it would be a choice to fight against the hopelessness wouldn't it. how could hopelessness even exist in a predetermined life without the choice of a better future?

[@kylethompson1379]

If I worry, I had no control over it.

[@user-uw7cr4os4r]

At 7:58, Sabine says that "there's nothing interesting going on in this argument" about a scenario where a system gets an input that you didn't account for, and therefore your prediction turns out to be wrong. I disagree that there's "nothing interesting going on" - because this is exactly what our experience of reality is: constant new inputs, to our system (brain), that it didn't and *couldn't have* accounted for. Moreover, due to the limited speed of light (causality) in our Universe, this is the only possible experience for us to have, or for any other observer for that matter. Even if theoretically, given all the inputs and all the rules governing a system, all its future states can be predicted; this will never be an observer's real experience in our Universe, simply because it's impossible to know all inputs, as some will only reach us in the future. I fully agree with Sabine that "free will" is an illusion, however, this makes no practical difference.

[@henriquekleinpedroso2029]

When someone say; "consciousness is just ilusion", whe can say: OK, who is being deluded inside my brain???... This problem is too subtle to anyone think that has the answers. There are lots of people working on this "the hardest problem of neuroscience"... No one has yet the answer... maybe we will never achieve an answer

[@benheideveld4617]

Henrique klein pedroso Exactly!!!

[@emmettpeels7114]

Rupert Sheldrake

[@fabiocaetanofigueiredo1353]

Consciousness (the "hard problem", specifically) and free will are in fact two different questions - Sabine is only talking about the second in this video. Existence or nonexistence of the second does not influence the first.

[@stromboli183]

How do you mean, ‘who’ is being deluded? Why would there have to be a who? The notion that there has to be a ‘who’ to be deluded is in fact part of the delusion.

[@mikicerise6250]

I think the difficult part of subjective experience is more the 'whence' than the 'who'. But the whole universe is a bit funny with emergent properties. Light is a timeless thing, yet we are all made of essentially confined light, by virtue of which we perceive light to move through time. I don't think it's too far fetched to conclude that the 'entity' we perceive as ourselves is an emergent property of the information patterns in the brain.

[@dindinmel762]

After years of having these ideas in my mind while lacking the professional linguistics to communicate it, I have finally found a video explaining it in a neat and engaging way. Thank you!

[@johnrowland9570]

The words 'free will' make no sense. The human psyche is made up of mind, affections and will. The mind and affections may pull in opposite directions. This determines which way our will takes us. Hence we do not have free will. It is better to say that we are free moral agents. If our minds incline to evil but our affections incline to moral good whichever is stronger determines how the will acts. This way of viewing this issue is from the bible. It shows why humanity largely rejects God. The mind and affections collaborate in this. Only God himself can change this and he does in the case of his elect.

[@davewalker8850]

I had no other choice but to leave a comment...

[@nightmareTomek]

@@johnrowland9570 You can define "free will" however you like. That's why you can always make an absurd and dumb argument how you think we have no free will. Particle physics injecting itself into psychology claiming "well there's science on that" is one of the stupidest things I've heard Sabine say. Or maybe she wants to test our critical thinking, in which ofc we have none - but that definitely wasn't determined at the big bang. We don't even know for sure that the big bang is real, up to now it's just a theory. On the other hand 600 years ago we knew for sure that the earth is flat. People were saying that Columbus is gonna sail off the edge.

[@user-zc2ek1sq2h]

I also often have that feeling.

[@Paul-kd3ui]

​@@johnrowland9570 indeed the constraints of being a biological entity just being hungry can affect outcomes

[@quaxky326]

I feel like although it is true, I feel like this twists the definition of what makes free-will, “free-will”. She provides pretty good evidence that everything was determined from the beginning, but to us, to our perspective, we could still do anything we wanted. I go outside and eat dirt, kill someone or even myself right in this very moment. Even if everything was destined to happen right from the very beginning, that implies that anything I do doesn’t matter because it was gonna happen from the moment it started. But it does matter, because to us, unless a choice is made or an action is observed, the future cannot be determined. At this point, there is a 100% chance of any event that’s gonna happen, will happen, but that’s derived from a point where those events were chosen by random chance, so is any event that was chosen really a 100% chance?

[@Laconic-ws4bz]

Self awareness a useful tool in trying to understand to some extent the information received. Absolutely gob smacked. 😎👍

[@donh3217]

Oh Sabine! You are a living classic! Much love to you,

[@kenttm42]

"So what am I, just a clockwork orange?" -Alex

[@weezer648]

“We are all just running software that is trying to optimize our well-being.”

[@Kobez24x]

@@AfricanLionBat she said that in the video

[@mjordan5382]

but we are not. degenerative diseases are on the rise. everyone is eating the wrong diet. if everyone was running software to optimize well being everyone would be eating a species appropriate diet which is carnivore.

[@Kobez24x]

@@mjordan5382 well not everyone’s “software” is good enough to realize that carnivore may be the best diet.

[@blackfalkon4189]

who's the programmer?

[@AmericanBrain]

@Jeff Poland AND ALL READERS: ​ A man said I should write a book after seeing my posts to you. I told him and you: ​ @Andrew Holster and @Jeff Poland: Thanks. I am about to do that! We should actually agree on everything I have said. Each point follows from the earlier point below . They are not therefore separate but part of a chain in this order. 1. You said "reality is real" or I said "existence exists" . But "how' Can you know that? 2. Consciousness is the "identification' of the preceding "identity" - what you call reality or I call existence. This means "Consciousness" is a separate identity to to existence; and is 'from and of' existence. Similarly consciousness is a separate identity to a cup of tea, but a cup of tea is real , 'of and from existence' . 3. If existence and consciousness are identities then it means Aristotle's law of identity is also part of existence. This means there is truth! It's NOT about your perspective versus another's perspective. It is NOT subjective (to you) but Objective to reality itself. The above 3 items are METAPHYSICS: existence, mind and identity. 4. EPISTEMOLOGY: But how can you know any identity (i.e. truth)? The methods of reason and logic. 5. What about science and math ? These are "Sub-sets' to Epistemology. This means you can have PROBABILISTIC truth BUT it must always be interpreted using reason and logic. Metaphysics is ABSOLUTE truth. The existence of epistemology is also absolute so is what follows: ethics, politics (including economics) and aesthetics. But how and why? 6. We've established you have a mind (so it is NOT impotent but potent: with free will; a separate identity that must be exercised IF rational man to reach "valid" conclusion: that there is existence. Even a blind, deaf and mute girl - Helen Keller reached this understanding. A mental patient can not reach this position. To reach the fact existence exists (or your words reality-is-real) needs one to distinguish "non reality" from "reality" and reach the correct conclusion . This needs man to exercise free will to make that choice. It is Not automatic : no animal has ever reached this conclusion nor can any animal conclude. They just "are" but have no "human mind" (i.e. no free will; although animals have 'Awareness" state of consciousness ). 7. The fact you are an individual of a species that must "decide' at every moment of your life (exercising free will) to sustain your very life ; means by your very intrinsic nature you have to have liberty to think (to decide) and therefore act on the conclusions of your decision. Why would do you do that? To sustain your "life". And humans seeks happiness in the immediate term (eg. get to the bathroom or get a glass of water) , short , medium, long and longest term (your life). Whether you make the correct decision right now is judged AGAINST your "longest term". For example - you may decide to do 'dr*gs" to feel happy: but judged right now against the longest term, it is a "Wrong" and there is "right vs wrong" [law of identity]. It's NEVER HOW YOU FEEL like you had originally and incorrectly stated - never SUBJECTIVE TRUTH but Objective and reality is knowable, as your mind is potent (not impotent like you imply by the wrong conclusion about subjective reality in the previous post). Therefore we can summarize you have the inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. You have NO RIGHTS to happiness else you can "rapture" another lady by force for example or force welfare in a state by stealing from free fair earners (we'll come to that below). You only have the inalienable right to the pursuit of happiness. If you want love or wealth then you must use your mind to think , and learn the method to think properly (methods of reason and logic; see epistemology above; using your mind - which is potent - see metaphysics above). And you must act. Then you must learn from feedback and optimize. Indeed online marketing is constantly about this 'optimization'. 8. Politics: you need an elected government to protect you else in anarchy the strongest thug will rule you (Mad Max; the history of any Dictator/Monarchist nation or Commie nation). Because you have the right to pursue happiness and sustain life: you as a human being must acquire, maintain, dispose or trade your services or property (Eg. hat, mat, cat, or money etc.) A trade is a meeting of minds between two people without force or fraud. The only evil is force or fraud (e.g. taxation or minimum wage or any economic regulation). This is because every person is equal (see ethics) with "inalienable" rights. That means the rights are part of the cosmos itself and can not be bestowed upon you NOR taken (except in self defence such as justice). This means the only correct economics is capitalism (laissez-faire). You are OWED NOTHING for being alive EVER, for you are not Dictator (and dictator is evil as it means the use of force). You need a government to protect you using the arms like the military (Against foreign invasion) , the courts (including civil courts like at divorce or contractual dispute; tort like if you slip in McDonalds, even outside contract they owe a duty of care that is implied the place is safe when you enter their premises). 9. Aesthetics: man needs good art. Art is a magnification of life. Art is a spiritual need. Spirit does not mean woo woo but it means "pertaining to the mind". But the way how does man have a mind? It is not known and not knowable. It is an assumption But not a frivolous/arbitrary assumption. Consciousness (to remind you) is the identification of existence itself. You can touch things and realize "Something exists". So your sense organs inform your "mind" - a real thing - of existence, from existence, a separate identity (see metaphysics above, points 1 , 2 and 3). BUT THE PROBLEM IS TOO MANY HUMANS MISTAKE FICTION FOR FACT. Sabine's post above for example.

[@HABLA_GUIRRRI]

when i saw the title i decided subconsciously not to watch it but eight seconds later i changed my mind, apparently.. and now im just some idiot who has read a lot of thick books in the original greek and german what do i do now?

[@hartyewh1]

You are free to be exactly who and what you are. Anything else is absurd to a philosopher and a physicist.

[@williammoses5939]

You're wonderful thank you for explaining this for me fr. You're helping people free their minds and giving your time and resources to help others thank you

[@undeadpresident]

She is spreading ideological poison without realizing it. Considering living beings to be purely mechanical amalgamations opens the door wide open to all the horrors science and technology have to offer. She outsmarted herself and is denial of her own consciousness. Inhabiting a physical form and being enslaved to it are not synonymous.

[@SovereignStatesman]

You're pretty grateful for a determinist, with no answer to what caused anything in the first place.

[@triconte4418]

Having or not having free will is the same sh*t. You have to live it and feel it anyway

[@IsaacClarke74]

In the deterministic argument, the notion of „initial conditions“, i. e. , the input data, is applied in a misleading way. You could just equally well choose the „initial“ conditions or input data for the differential equations governing the time evolution of the particles at the exact moment in time a person is under the impression of exerting free will and not, say, after the Big Bang. These equations work forward and backwards in time. So you can always take the point of view that it is free will that impacts the evolution of the corresponding particle trajectories in the past and in the future that have led up to or follow from the moment in time a person thinks to act according to free will. Of course, we never have total free will, since we are not omnipotent and our decisions, the decisions of others, or other external circumstances influence more or less strongly our future (or past) actions. Nevertheless, the concept of initial conditions does not prove that there would be no free will at all, as it is asserted here. This is also not changed by the reported neurological observations that making a decision is apparently a longer process that one is not consciously fully aware of at all stages: The dynamical equations determine the future and the past, once you decide to choose the initial conditions at some arbitrary point in time, which includes the processes that happen before the conscious decision-making. Moreover, in a classical setting, if everything was predetermined in this sense, one could imagine a person or being that can predict all of our future actions (Laplacian demon). Talking to this person can lead to time-traveller-paradox-like situations. For example, one could ask this omniscient person what one will do next and simply decide to do otherwise. Whether the „occasional quantum-jumps“ are sufficient to escape this paradox would, given their claimed unimportance, have to be seen.

[@M4rcLL]

"There are some things that we don't know and those things are definitely more than the things we know." said me.

[@M4rcLL]

@peter I can't choose to say this or not.

[@andrewrivera4029]

“I don’t know what the problem is but I think I know” my platoon Sargent Gonzalez

[@holgerholjerau983]

And I can see from the comments that people would like to have free will ...😉

[@Rog5446]

You need not have said that, because we all knew you were going to say it.

[@murraymadness4674]

Rumsfield said "There are things you know, things you don't know, and things you don't know you don't know" when talking about the IRAQ war.

[@highqualitymemes3592]

"From where your kneeling must seem like an 18 karat run of bad luck. Truth is, the game was rigged from the start."

[@stupidjoinrequiremen]

Ring a ding ding daddy-O

[@janssenmccormick7824]

What in the goddamn!?

[@Rattus-Norvegicus]

What is that from? I swear I've heard it.

[@highqualitymemes3592]

@@Rattus-Norvegicus Fallout New Vegas

[@Bucky1836]

Know what you believe courier

[@PolarChimes]

The discussion around this topic is complicated and has a long history, and I feel the conversation about it could go on forever, or for as long as there are people. It is important to remember that there are many theories on offer about this subject, and if it is something that concerns you, you can become familiar with the literature on it and choose which philosophical attitudes make most sense to you, all of them will have some problems.

[@thefluffychild4619]

There's a lot of stupid irrational nonsensical theories all observations prove Free Will is not a real stop over complicated things with your philosophical gobbledygook

[@z242]

Well, I guess you had no choice but to say that.

[@namenloserflo]

@@z242 that's your guess. We will never really know...

[@SteveSteve7590-di2dn]

Use your own logic you don’t need dozens of philosophers to answer the free will question. You don’t even have to understand physics or neuroscience. If a will would be truly free also from your internal circumstances (your psychological make up) it wouldn’t be YOUR will anymore and even more bizarre.

[@jibberer]

The problem with all this is that we don't actually have a complete picture of the laws of nature. That is not in any way an anti-science statement, but a statement of fact. Sabine also seems to be working on the assumption that the "hard problem" of consciousness has been solved... She uses metaphors like consciousness as software and computations as if they are established fact. I'm certainly not saying these metaphors aren't useful, they clearly are, but there is a certain amount of hubris in presenting these assumptions as certainties. None of this should be taken as a dis of Sabine as I think she is totally, totally awesome and the best speaker and presenter of science on the go today!

[@chickenlover657]

I think you need to re-listen to the video, maybe more than once. Because that's been covered.

[@psychohist]

@@chickenlover657 No, it hasn't. Sabine assumes that the "hard problem" of consciousness has a solution within deterministic physics, but even the existence of quantum randomness - which Sabine assumes exists but is far from proven - could provide a nondeterministic solution to consciousness and thus also to free will. However, there are only assumptions and she gives us no reason to agree with them.

[@chickenlover657]

@@psychohist That's totally wrong and only demonstrates you don't understand what she's saying. Watch it again. Try actually listening, as opposed to assuming.

[@astropicgmailcom]

Has it been proven "we" don't have control over quantum randomness in our brains? I believe we interfere in other undetected systems that the now "observable" quantum randomness is subjected to. A (infinite?) chain of increasing subtler systems hierarchically structured until an "absolute essence" that behaves as a "butterfly effect" takes place here.

[@Silvannetwork]

Exactly. Some of her peers, like Rodger Penrose, argued that consciousness is not computable.

[@PixelPulse168]

We are defined by the knowledge and information we received. Therefore, we need always preserve curiosity and the ability of questioning ourselves. Thanks Sabine.

[@epajarjestys9981]

Why the need for preserving curiosity and ability of questioning if your curiosity is predetermined and all your efforts are illusions?

[@AmericanBrain]

Definitely not. Sabine is wrong . Free will exists . The “coherent” framework is summarized below . Instead of re-writing it, let's go for a fresh summary [but note - you have to read the main meat and potatoes in the above posts as a summary can not by itself explain the ENTIRE OF ALL PHILOSOPHY . There have been ump-teenth western philosophers . Almost all were wrong: full of myth . Many were OUTSTANDING logic but the reason at the root was pure bunkum : Plato-Kant myth like Hume, Descartes, Russell, and almost everyone. What is correct? What is reality? How can I/you the reader and you know it? Here is the summary again: Metaphysics means "what is actuality-reality" regardless OF your feelings? 1. Existence exists. How do you know that ? See earlier posts . 2. Consciousness with free will: sui generis (unique, de novo) and an emergent power from the function of the brain. This means you can’t reduce it to parts . Biological systems are oft filled with emergent levels versus a car/mechanical systems you CAN reduce it to parts . The mind is the highest emergent level - an axiom so impossible to reduce to parts. You can however use introspection , induction - or other methods I show you to validate full free will . . It is "causal" : you cause it such as deciding to lift your right arm and/or any other deliberate thinking . [And to remind you the fact you can smell a rose and identify it is of existence is exercising free will to make a choice . Only man can do that . Or point to something -anything: this is an "ostensive" definition of that item. The items like rose or whatever you point to is an "existent" of existence. Therefore you can abstract and generalize the ground floor of the universe: existence exists. This means existence existed , exists and will forever exist. It means high school teacher saying "big bang" is WRONG because science does NOT precede philosophy but is dependent upon the correct philosophy [otherwise indeed Hume and Skepticism, Goedel and incompleteness theorem ; Russell Bertrand's "liar's paradox" ; Descartes' "I think therefore I am" would all be right. Instead they are all fully wrong : the fact you can think does NOT manifest the freaking reality. It only has the subjective perception of reality: like the earth feel flat and looks that way. However man must use reason and logic- coming up far below to know what is "truth" as in the whole truth and nothing but the "absolute" truth such as my posts]. Anyway I was saying metaphysics is : existence and consciousness. But wait - there's one more sub-branch! The fact one identity identifies another identity: consciousness identifies existence means there is Aristotle's law of identity (truth). But how to know what is true? Epistemology asks "how to know identity or truth" [same thing]? The answer is using the methods of reason and formal logic. Example of an application of the above? Goedel can NOT be correct IF abstracted to the entirety of reality because it would mean man's mind is IMPOTENT to know truth; and all "viewpoints" are mere subjective and egalitarian (equal). This is nonsense. TALIBAN ARE WRONG. IRAN IS WRONG. COMMIES ARE WRONG NORTH KOREA IS WRONG. RUSSIA IS WRONG. There is right versus wrong [Aristotle's law of identity] regardess of your FEELINGS. FAith - FEELING OF CERTAINTY about what something means like a JIHADI or SABINE AND YOU AND GOEDEL -dOES not "THEREFORE" make it reality. You can NOT fight the metaphysically given! KANT was wrong: there is NO "is" - versus "ought". WILFRED SELLERS/DENNETT is wrong there is no "fundamental truth: scientific imagine like fundamental partcles as true" VERSUS all else are "USEFUL stories" that man tells giving living things the idiom of purposefulness (an illusion). Dan Dennett, you , Sabine, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Krauss, Shermer are WRONG. So what is right again and how can we know it ? Have you forgotten? Metaphysics: existence, consciousness [with free will] and truth [identity]. Epistemology: the methods of reason and logic [VIS A VIS emotions like faith or intuition]. The above lead like dominoes to ETHICS: neither mysticism of deity NOR you make up ethics. You have the inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Therefore you are Sovereign and equal to all others under the law [no PRESIDENT NOR EX-PRESIDENT gets a free pass]. Why is the above true? Because an individual of a species that can think, must de facto think at every moment of your life ; thereby having liberty to "Think and act" on the conclusions of your thinking to sustain your "life" at every moment. See? Life and liberty . Man also has a spiritual need to pursue happiness [a value]. The mind is spiritual [but NON mystical : it is KNOWABLE AND KNOWN because you exercise your consciousness to know the identity of things like a CAT IS NOT A DOG, your baby is NOT a chair - cat, dog, baby and chair are DIFFERENT existents of existence: different identities. Man exercises his mind using reason and logic: applying free will to make choices. The decisions are NOT "Whatever you like" - a cat is NOT a dog. But man has a method to reach the correct conclusion when man exercises his spiritual quality - consciousness to reach the correct conclusions using reason and logic. So what is the correct form of government if any and economics? Democracy because you need an elected government to protect your rights in ethics above. Laissez-faire capitalism because your right to property comes from your right to sustain life in ethics. Unlike all other species man must acquire, maintain, dispose or trade your services or property (E.g. hat, cat, mat, iPhone or money etc.) to sustain your life. Man is NOT born with blubber to keep you warm nor COOLING system of a lizard to keep you cool. Man is not born with defensive tools of a Lion's teeth nor the claws of a Polar bear. Man must use his distinguishing characteristic from all other species -that spiritual quality with potency (free will) - consciousness to reach conclusions, to invent to have tools to protect yourself and progress (e.g hunt; build shelter, create fire etc.) A trade is a meeting of minds between two people withOut force or fraud. So there IS evil in the world : the use of fraud or force against you because every man has equal rights in ethics. You can only use force in self defense to maintain your right to life. Finally man needs aesthetics [art] for his mind [a real entity - see metaphysics above] to nourish it like you nourish your body with food. Good art magnifies life. Romance is a sub-set of art. In summary of the entirety of reality; the totality of all philosophy - the whole truth about existence- THE FRAMEWORK you were looking for: metaphysics: existence, consciousness and identity. epistemology : reason and logic ethics: inalienable rights politics and economics: democracy and capitalism. aesthetics: yes! The above each flow onto each other like dominoes in a water tight framework.

[@davehart7943]

And the Government has controlled ALL of the information you have received since birth ..

[@davehart7943]

@@AmericanBrain I'll be honest with you .. I'm NOT about to read your whole reply/post .. MAKE A VIDEO .. Send me the link when you get the video uploaded ..

[@AmericanBrain]

@@davehart7943 Huge thanks for reply. I read both of your posts. You must please read my posts . Even if I make a video, the precision, pause, reflect to connect the dots will be needed so you will need to read. I am saying something bigger than Einstein and I validate it above - consciousness with free will.

[@terughh]

I completely agree with you, even though it took me 55 years (I'm 59) to come to this conclusion, thanks in part to a video by Monsieur Phi that triggered the process.