Is the Scientific Method invalidated without Free Will?

[C1ay]

Clay, you are so obstinant. I don't have to prove "it." If it weren't for causal determinism nothing would be predictable.

Obstinate is declaring that everything must be causal and predictable. You cannot declare or prove that our decisions must be causal. The difference between us is simple. It is not my claim or declaration that there is freewill because I nor anyone else could prove it. I accept that it is possible though because mankind cannot prove that our decisions absolutely must be causal either. Now if you can prove otherwise have at it because until someone proves that it is not possible for any of our decisions to come from freewill then I'm not ruling the possibility out. IMO, that too would be an act of faith.

[bumab]

Sometimes your thoughts are caused by previous thoughts, and sometimes by reactions to external events. Thoughts are no more exempt from real causes than boiling water is. Only a metaphysical engine could bypass natural laws to do something random. (And if there could possibly be any effect resulting from quantum events at the sub-particle level, how could you even be aware of it, much less control it?)

 

If you are at all interested in finding out why it is so difficult for most people to accept the absense of free will, then try reading some essays or books by one of the best authors on the subject: Daniel Dennett. Elbow Room is a good one.

 

I think you summed it up pretty well, linda (although we don't agree that there is no "metaphysical engine," I certainly agree with your assessment of cause and effect). I'll check that book out.

[Biochemist]

Clay, you are so obstinant. ... Let's break it down into simple components and maybe you'll get it.

Odd. As a casual observer to this portion of this thread, it appears to me that C1ay does "get it", he just does not agree with you.

 

Among people that have posted within this forum we have:

 

1) People that do not believe in free will (you for example)

2) People that make no decision about whether free will exists or not (C1ay for example)

3) People that believe free will exists.

 

A subset of folks in position 3 are theists. To my knowledge, you are the only person who believes others are obstinate because they do not agree with you. Further, your position within this forum seems to be a minority. Could you tell me what you mean by "obstinate" and how you can identify who is acting as such?

[Buffy]

Obstinate is declaring that everything must be causal and predictable.

I've stayed out of this thread cuz I'm still trying to find some time to research a bit more. I just wanted to pull this quote from C1ay, because it is the crux of this debate that Bumab and Linda and I have gotten into before, but I'm starting to get a little clearer on: It seems to me that its really important to realize that "causal" does not necessarily imply "predictable". There is an obvious aversion within science toward anything that is "uncaused" because it would imply some outside Godlike force influencing events in an unexplainable manner, and in fact the march of science continues to explain the unexplainable as we learn and think more. On the other hand there are many things in science--from Heisenberg's indeterminancy to Goedel's incompleteness theorem--that indicates that *prediction* of future events is likely impossible. Linda has argued in other threads that quantum effects do not affect the macro world, and by implication she argues that all events can be perfectly predicted, we just do not have the ability at the present time to model the universe completely (Linda: apologies for over simplifying, and please continue to clarify!), and therefore predictions--which may not possible at the present time--can in theory be made as a consequence of full knowledge of current states. There is actually strong argument for the theoretical possibility of modeling the entire universe--although it would require resources larger than the universe itself!--but in theory it might be possible. I disagree with this position and take the view that because of things like quantum indeterminancy, it is not possible to predictions before the fact even in theory.

 

I'll be back on this, but I think its important to clarify that these two things are not necessarily mutually exclusive....

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[paultrr]

And, as I keep reiterating again and over again, quantum events are not relevant in space time reality.

 

That's an interesting statement for someone who claims science is valid since the whole universe(space time) itself originated in a quantum event(ie the BB). Or did you're version of the universe just pop into existance full scale? I'd say quantum events are relative given that every particle out there is governed by such, formed by such, etc and we ourselves or made of particles. You're logic is rather inconsistant.

 

Also, chaos and random, as I stated, would be a cause itself was a prime statement I made several times over. If you have a cause you have an effect. What you are missing in that chain is that as such thoughts can be random generated. If they are random generated then in essence, while we may not be able to directly control them, they are at the same time not always predictable. Except perhaps in you're case where you are always predictable.

[paultrr]

Going back to Schrödinger's cat, "Nature's criterion for determining when two geometries are significantly different would depend upon the Planck scale, and this fixes the timescale in which the reduction into different alternatives occurs."(Roger Penrose). From that point upward everything becomes fixed and nature has made a choice, so to speak. We then have a state where the original cause that lead to an effect took place at a scale where in everybody's book we are talking about the quantum level. What transpires after this may be macro or large scale but the roots of the cause itself took place at a small scale which by rights is governed by the random and chaotic. We ourselves may have had no input into this process. But that does leave room for randomness in our thoughts. If thoughts can be random generated then we are not fully robots, as some would assume. Notice the term generated. That denotes cause and effect. Its the randomness of that cause that goes to the heart of old line determinism.

[lindagarrette]

It seems to me that its really important to realize that "causal" does not necessarily imply "predictable". There is an obvious aversion within science toward anything that is "uncaused" because it would imply some outside Godlike force influencing events in an unexplainable manner, and in fact the march of science continues to explain the unexplainable as we learn and think more. On the other hand there are many things in science--from Heisenberg's indeterminancy to Goedel's incompleteness theorem--that indicates that *prediction* of future events is likely impossible. Linda has argued in other threads that quantum effects do not affect the macro world, and by implication she argues that all events can be perfectly predicted,

 

Cheers,

Buffy

Here is some clarification on a few points you mentioned that may not have been explained properly (by me). I didn't say that determinism means pre-determinism. Of course the future cannot be precisely determined since there is no way we would have access to all the information affecting it. Also, since the future has yet to happen.the events we cause will be included in the causality. In other worts, we are not robots, but players in the process. Yet, if the process were repeated with the same exact conditions, then it would yield the same results, thus predictabliity. If any of the variables changes, you could have chaos, which is still determined. One thing is certain, you cannot prove you would have done something other than what you did, given the same circumstances.

 

Space time reality differs from quantum theory in many respects. First, the two concepts have not been combined into a unified theory because there are no common equations. Second, time is not a factor in quantum events and it is a key factor in relativity (space/time). For people to argue that a quantum event , even if it were only predictable through probability, would have some effect on their free will is sort of outrageous! As to predictability in the space/time universe, the scientific method is based on that premise. If it weren't for determinism, then experimental results could not be verified.

 

Again, the fear of this concept can be eliminated with understanding. Its just that most people can't grasp it. Generally, arguments against determinism are based on opinion or misconceptions.

[Biochemist]

Again, the fear of this concept can be eliminated with understanding. Its just that most people can't grasp it. Generally, arguments against determinism are based on opinion or misconceptions.

I do understand these arguments. I generally agree. However, there are known, reproducible examples of cases were individual quantum events are directly driving macroworld events (e.g., registering a single electron at a specific location on the far side of a double-slit screen). These events are discreet quantum-random events, and they are measured on macro world devices. (This was Q's example in another thread).

 

We could contend that the only cases where quantum randomness "leaks" into space-time are experimental, but that would seem to be a bit of a dodge, since that position would rule out any possibility of proof.

 

A better example might be microprocessor design. As I understand it, some current research in microprocessor design has had to deal with the fact that quantum fluctuations have direct effects on some circuits (due to small size). Chip designers need to "design around" the indeterminism of some chip designs. This strikes me as a pretty reasonable example of quantum "wierdness" invading space time. Some engineer ought to correct this if I am mistaken.

[lindagarrette]

As I understand it, some current research in microprocessor design has had to deal with the fact that quantum fluctuations have direct effects on some circuits (due to small size). Chip designers need to "design around" the indeterminism of some chip designs. This strikes me as a pretty reasonable example of quantum "wierdness" invading space time. Some engineer ought to correct this if I am mistaken.

There are many hypotheses to explain this wierdness. Besides, what does that have to do with free will? (The topic of this thread.) It's inconceivable that I could tap into some quantum fluctuation in my brain for making a decision or that such a fluctuation could control my actions

[Biochemist]

There are many hypotheses to explain this wierdness.

So, are you acknowledging that QM may have direct effects on the space-time world?

Besides, what does that have to do with free will? (The topic of this thread.)

If I understood your previous arguments, your core argument against free will was that the world is deterministic, ergo free will is impossible. The counterargument offerred by Paultrr and others is that the world is not purely deterministic, therefore you would have to have some other reason to obviate free will. You could certainly argue that adding an occasional random input to the system does not support free will either. But I did not see you argue that.

It's inconceivable that I could tap into some quantum fluctuation in my brain for making a decision or that such a fluctuation could control my actions

Inconcievable??? I think most of string theory is inconceivable. At least, I would never have concieved of it. So what? Lucky for me, the world of science is not limited to my conceptions.

 

You point was that ALL actions are the result of some previous chain of events, presumably back to the BB. Paultrr and others have suggested that experimental evidence does NOT support that uninterupted chain of causality. Evidence is currently on their side. You would have to build a different argument than pure determinism to obviate free will.

[McGyver]

A Hindu theory on human existance on Earth, astrology, and some explanation of determining factors from birth and past life, suggets that the Earth revolves on a 24,000 year equinoctial cycle that is divided into an Ascending period, or acr, and a Descending period or arc, each comprising 4 periods of about 3000 years each. This theory was published in Hindu writings some 80 years ago in a book today entitled "The Holy Science."

 

It's author, Sri Yukteswar suggests that we are subjected to different magnetic pulls from the sun and other stars, and that as time passes the changing electromagnetic fields from space effect human intellect and thought. If such a theory is true, it would suggest that predisposition to free will is not static, rather, it is dynamic and evolves with the ages, therein enabling immeasurable prediction to a set predisposition. And as science is measured by knowledge of the ages, evolving knowledge and clarfication of science would also affect subsequent measurements and data. This theory would suggest that both scientific measurement and free will are dynamic, and that future scientific measurements from today forward would more likely than not, be valid. There is always a subjective component, bias, or error in data gathering. So what is relevent or valid to one observer (perception), can be viewed slightly differently by another.

[paultrr]

So, are you acknowledging that QM may have direct effects on the space-time world? If I understood your previous arguments, your core argument against free will was that the world is deterministic, ergo free will is impossible. The counterargument offerred by Paultrr and others is that the world is not purely deterministic, therefore you would have to have some other reason to obviate free will. You could certainly argue that adding an occasional random input to the system does not support free will either. But I did not see you argue that.Inconcievable??? I think most of string theory is inconceivable. At least, I would never have concieved of it. So what? Lucky for me, the world of science is not limited to my conceptions.

 

You point was that ALL actions are the result of some previous chain of events, presumably back to the BB. Paultrr and others have suggested that experimental evidence does NOT support that uninterupted chain of causality. Evidence is currently on their side. You would have to build a different argument than pure determinism to obviate free will.

 

I think what one needs here is some defining of uninterupted chain of causality. In general, what I was trying to get across is not that causality isn't valid. Its more that because of unknowns we cannot hope to fully predict everything. Not being able to predict such exactly actually does not eliminate the general idea that everything has a chain of cause and effect.

 

The chaotic and random aspects out of quantum theory can be their own cause creating an effect. That in itself supports causality as we understand it even if our ability to predict everything isn't there. However, by the same token it also means that aspects we can predict from are not the whole picture. So just because everything seems to dictate that Joe will eat a peanutbutter sandwich does not always translate to Joe actually eating such. There are factors in each decision one makes which we call a choice that are beyond are ability to fully predict each and every outcome upon simply because we do not have all the picture at anyone point. However, Linda from a certain perspective would also be correct in that its still a cause and effect situation even here.

 

I've been trying to pin Linda down on where exactly she does stand on all this. If she is one who holds to absolute determinism then by the book everything should be totally predictable. Personally, I do not think anyone in this modern age actually sees things that way anymore. There are too many examples where we simply cannot follow the whole chain of cause and effect out to a point we can predict everything that well on macroscales. I'm not saying it would not be nice if we could. Its just a fact that there are variables in all this that make it impossible for us to work things out that well.

 

Linda, an athiest, and those Christians who hold to some version of limited free will may well be right even though their evidence for such is different. Yes, we can make a choice. But those choices can have factors which would be causes that lead to those choices(effects) that while not distroying the idea of determinism make absolute prediction on such impossible.

 

That leads one back to the definition of free will and choice. None of us who follow science would suggest that choice can advocate a law of nature. I've noticed some Christians would suggest it can. At that point one believes in miricles where natural law is set aside by some supernatural outside agency. I do not believe in either. I think choice, while it exists fits within the scope of cause and effect which is limited by natural law. Since the debate about ESP shows up on this forum I will shortly mention something. If ESP exists it would not be an actual violation of natural law. Most of the few scientists who tend to see such as possible also see such as having a natural explination behind it. With a natural explination there is no outside of nature agent involved. Its not supernatural as such. There would still be a cause and effect behind such from a scientific point of view. However, that does not at the same time translate to us being able to predict everything about it either.

 

Again, we are more than the sum of our parts. But that parts summation does figure into what we are. We can make a choice. But that choice would have its own chain of cause and effect even if we cannot fully predict everything about it. I do not support pure determinism. However, I do support cause and effect.

[lindagarrette]

 

I've been trying to pin Linda down on where exactly she does stand on all this. If she is one who holds to absolute determinism then by the book everything should be totally predictable. Personally, I do not think anyone in this modern age actually sees things that way anymore. There are too many examples where we simply cannot follow the whole chain of cause and effect out to a point we can predict everything that well on macroscales. I'm not saying it would not be nice if we could. Its just a fact that there are variables in all this that make it impossible for us to work things out that well.

 

Linda, an athiest, and those Christians who hold to some version of limited free will may well be right even though their evidence for such is different. Yes, we can make a choice. But those choices can have factors which would be causes that lead to those choices(effects) that while not distroying the idea of determinism make absolute prediction on such impossible.

Your argument is weaving in and out of itself. First you say everything is caused, then you say you don't think so. I have already made myself quite clear. Determinism is a necessary law for the scientific method to work. An experiment cannot yield random results... and there is no evidence of free will. All evidence supports cause and effect.

 

There is no sometimes or maybe. If there were random elements cropping up anywhere (even once), the entire universe would fall apart. It would be like haveing a god interfere with the laws of nature. Your perception of free will stems from you ability to learm by experience. My cat can do that too. Neither of you can analyze all the factors caused you to "choose" one path over another To do so, you would have to live your life all over. If you were able to reach the same point in time again (extreme deja vu) where all factors were identical, there is no way you would do otherwise than what you did the first time. Furthermore, there is no way to prove that you could!

 

The multiverse theory which is highly speculative (and for which there is no evidence) postulates that every single causal event could have many possible effects that would branch off into different universes and the saga would proceed in each one, differently. But this contradicts the cause and effect theory since there is no way to take another path than the one determined by the previous or consequent causes without introducing a random element.

[Qfwfq]

Determinism is a necessary law for the scientific method to work. An experiment cannot yield random results...

:)

 

Try measuring the time after which a radioactive nucleus decays.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Gentlemen and Ladies, start your flamers.

 

Doesn't determinism presuppose that we someday will understand the exact nature of all things to the extent that we will be able to predict all effects of any action?

 

That seems to be a big assumption. A complete understanding of any single thing in existence has so far eluded all of us. So how can anyone say that all things are predictable?

 

The only thing I know for sure is that I don't know the exact nature of anything and neither does any of you.

 

Whatever drives the nature of the universe might have change inherent within it. In other words, since we've never reached the level of understanding to grok anything at any instant in time, to assume that natural law doesn't change over time is also a very big assumption. We'd need the exact understanding of the nature of existence verified over time before we could conclude that.

 

So, we build models of the world and to the extent that those models reflect the functional nature of things within the context of this earth at this time, we can survive.

 

Our predictive abilities work fairly well in some areas, areas that we can see and touch and manipulate. But in others, not so good. When we can predict whether or not I'll get sunshine tomorrow at 1:00pm on the 3rd bird feeder from the left in my backyard and whether or not I'll see an orchard oriole or a northern oriole, then and only then will I listen to the arguments for determinism.

[Fishteacher73]

Gentlemen and Ladies, start your flamers.

 

Doesn't determinism presuppose that we someday will understand the exact nature of all things to the extent that we will be able to predict all effects of any action?

No. The system is chaotic, thus not very easily predictable. But knowledge of the system is not required for the system to exist. Did gravity not exost before Newton?

 

That seems to be a big assumption. A complete understanding of any single thing in existence has so far eluded all of us. So how can anyone say that all things are predictable?

Determinism and predictability are not the same.

 

The only thing I know for sure is that I don't know the exact nature of anything and neither does any of you.

Perhaps...but that has nothing to do with the discussion.

 

Whatever drives the nature of the universe might have change inherent within it. In other words, since we've never reached the level of understanding to grok anything at any instant in time, to assume that natural law doesn't change over time is also a very big assumption. We'd need the exact understanding of the nature of existence verified over time before we could conclude that.

It must have taken a long time to reach that conclusion as well.

Our predictive abilities work fairly well in some areas, areas that we can see and touch and manipulate. But in others, not so good. When we can predict whether or not I'll get sunshine tomorrow at 1:00pm on the 3rd bird feeder from the left in my backyard and whether or not I'll see an orchard oriole or a northern oriole, then and only then will I listen to the arguments for determinism.

Yet again, predictability and detrminism are not the same.

[Buffy]

No. The system is chaotic, thus not very easily predictable. But knowledge of the system is not required for the system to exist. Did gravity not exost before Newton?

Linda will differ...but there's also the issue that the computer necessary to model every element of the Universe would by definition need to be larger than the Universe, so any predictions of a sub-Universe-scale computer would of necessity be an approximation. (I think Linda would agree with that).

Determinism and predictability are not the same.

Amen! I said that elsewhere too...

 

Cheers,

Buffy