Sabine Hossenfelder Studied in Mainly Non-Catholic Schwalbach am Taunus

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Sabine Hossenfelder Studied in Mainly Non-Catholic Schwalbach am Taunus · somewhere else: Do Determinisms in Material Processes Leave Room for Free Decisions by Souls or God Over Matter? · New blog on the kid: Angels chosing orbits = no violation of laws of physics ?

Denn bis 2006 gab es hier in Alt-Schwalbach (St. Pankratius) und in der Limesstadt (St. Martin) zwei Katholische Kirchengemeinden, die sich aber 2007 vereinigt haben. Zusammen sind wir mehr als 3.900 Katholiken und damit ca. 26% der Stadtbevölkerung.

If Catholics are 26 %, it means Protestants and non-Christians are very close to 74 % (not sure if there are any Orthodox there). The most numerous non-Christian group would be Atheists, that being originally Protestants who have lost the Christianity. In other words, she is speaking with a background that makes for deterministic / Calvinistic bias. As she has free will, she can obviously change that.

I don't believe in free will. This is why.
Sabine Hossenfelder, 3 June 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TI5FMj5D9zU

2:50 A physician observing pool balls on a pool table in a ship on the sea could certainly calculate properties for movements, but only for as long as no one used a pool queue on them.

4:58 While a genuine emergent property arises from a property of the constituent, this is only possible with comparable properties.

Metals vs metal atoms.
Atoms aren't shiny, but have the possibility to absorb or reflect light.
Atoms won't hurt when they fall on your foot, but they do have mass.
Atoms won't conduct electricity, but they do have electrons.

In each case, an atom very clearly and provably does part of the job that the emergent property does the whole of.

7:04 "It follows from their laws, it doesn't make them go away."

An excellent observation about actual emergent properties, but while agents from outside the emergence don't make the laws go away either, they can interfere with the expected results, making them non-deterministic with regards to actual constituents - like the man with a pool queue is not a constituent of what goes on on the pool table, but definitely influences it.

I obviously contest the idea that thought and will are emergent properties in relation to brain biology, electro-chemistry or particle physics of the brain. There is no warrant for the one emerging from the other. It's about as idiotic as pretending the shining property of the metal emerges from the mass of the atoms, or that the weight of the metal falling on your feet emerges from photon interactions of the atoms.

7:17 Indeed, there is no evidence for strong emergence, and so there is no evidence for thought or will to be emergent properties at all

9:25 I suppose the argument was reached from:

1) treating will as "emergent from particles" which is unwarranted

2) making for particles the dichotomy of either having freewill or behaving deterministically.

There is a third option, not having free will themselves, but being only partly determined by past states of themselves, and partly participate in free wills or be subject to free wills.

11:57 One does not have to be able to change one's past by one's thoughts for one's thoughts, not determined by particles, except on many but not all parameters at a time, to determine the way particles go, to the exclusion of a purely "from the past states" determination of them.

What is miraculous is of course the existence of such a hybrid being that has both particles, a k a matter, and thoughts, a k a spirit.

12:18 Oh yes, my free decision to answer your video certainly does explain the letters that exist on the computer screen and therefore in the physical world.

Your proton pseudos is believing the physical can only be causally influenced by the physical.

Our everyday experience both involves direct observation of physics influenced by will and therefore also thought, and does not involve any reason whatsoever they are emergent properties themselves of the physical, i e, our everyday experience is a very good argument that physics can be influenced by non-physical things.

15:38 I deny the proposition that the result ultimately results from deterministic brain functions, as I also deny the proposition that thought or will are emergent properties of the matter in the brain.