Is the Scientific Method invalidated without Free Will?

[Qfwfq]

So, a long winded statement- tear it apart! ;)

Here goes:

 

What is meant when saying that the ideal scientist is one that can be a completely independent observer?

 

The actual requisite is impartiality. A "scientist" likes a theory and performs experiments and analyses the data in the way that will most tend to support it. This is partiality. The best scientific method is, borrowing Popper's terms, based on being falsificationist rather than on being verificationist.

 

It is a fact that we might or might not have preferences, or be partial or impartial, regardless of whether or not this ensues from boundary conditions. It doesn't matter what determines that I prefer peach jam to strawberry jam. Therefore, determinism or not, it makes sense to say that impartiallity is required, in order to justify the theory.

[tarak]

There are two things.One is certainity, a direction driver for order.In that case there is no illusion or chaos.the farther you move on that path the more certain you become.The second thing is the opposite of this which brings the chaos part of the decison.Either way the scientific method has to move forward out of the seeds of freewill to get validated.

[paultrr]

Objective Reality is a mixture of predictability and non-predictability. Although Newtonian physics stipulate total causality, science has long been aware of several major factors that invalidate cause/effect relationships.

 

Deviations from strict causality and predictability have become apparent with the evolution of Quantum Mechanics. A list of deviations from strict causality and predictability includes the following phenomena:

 

The law of Relativity has successfully challenged the absolute measure of time. Under some circumstances, it is inherently impossible to determine that one event occurred prior to another event. The well known Twin Paradox illustrates the relativity of time.

 

It is often inherently impossible to understand the interaction of the multitude of causes that appear to trigger a specific observable effect. Thus, even if a causal relationship exists in nature and is recognizable as such, knowledge of the specific cause/effect relationship might not necessarily result in the ability to project or forecast complex events accurately.

 

A man consists of thousands of chemical compounds that, independent of each other, are merely inanimate substances. However, if these chemicals combine in a certain manner, they can take the form of a living human being, instead of a mixture of inanimate chemicals. The totality of an object can be more than the sum of its parts.

 

Brownian Motion covers the random movement of small particles suspended in a gas. Due to their collision with molecules of their surrounding medium, the individual movements of these particles are random and are therefore unpredictable. However, when taken as a whole, when we apply statistical laws to the totality of molecules and particles, the particles follow sharply defined Natural Laws, such as Avrogado’s Law, a fundamental law of chemistry.

 

 

When we are considering a large number of analogous events, we can draw statistical conclusions that are always reliable when they refer to the aggregate of multiple events. However, these statistical principles do not apply to individual, isolated events as illustrated above.

 

Strict causality, strict cause/effect relationships, can be observed and predicted in the simple machines and mechanics of Newtonian Physics. However, a haze of uncertainty and unpredictability descends over events when we are dealing with complex systems that are subject, not only to Newtonian principles, but also to Post-Newtonian laws of physics. The major laws in this category are Relativity, the Chaos Principle, Probability, the Uncertainty Principle, and Quantum Mechanics.

 

Nature as such is not actually as deterministic as one would like to assume it is. The old question Einstein posed about God playing dice has long had an answer ever since the advent of quantum mechanics. Yes, God does play dice and as such making the answer to this question of free will that the universe is only partially deterministic. This was also the basis of why I've mentioned using statistical evidence in debate of biogenusus is rather frought with error to begin with since there are processes that concern the very early periods in this cosmos we have only begun to understand. At one time we thought we had all our models rather correct. But we've found planetary systems out there that have forced us to redo those models somewhat. We've also discovered galaxies and star formation started earlier than we thought. The Universe is a very complex system that cannot be fully predicted by any current model we have.

[Qfwfq]

The law of Relativity has successfully challenged the absolute measure of time. Under some circumstances, it is inherently impossible to determine that one event occurred prior to another event. The well known Twin Paradox illustrates the relativity of time.

Relativity per se doesn't go against determinism. A Lorentz-covariant dynamic system needn't be chaotic at all. The measurement of time isn't the point anyway. The twin paradox is resolved by the distinction between inertial and non inertial frames.

 

The old question Einstein posed about God playing dice has long had an answer ever since the advent of quantum mechanics.

The question came about because of QM, it wasn't answered by it later, it was the argument between Einstein and Born.

 

According to the Born interpretation QM intrinsically isn't deterministic. According to EPR there must be hidden variables and according to Bohm it can be viewed like classical chaos.

[Biochemist]

It may be argued that the same process might apply to our scientific observations. A subtle distinction, just the type of thing that many a sophism is based on. The conclusion you draw isn't a logical consequence.

I admit that I can't see a meaningful difference between my version and yours. I am comfortable with yours.

Now, that's a mighty step, from the first sentence to the second!

I agree the text of my second sentence should not have been so affirmative. It sounds like you agree with the point that determinism (if we include an assumption of non-existence of free will) may obviate the validity of the scientific method, but that the causal connection is not affirmative. True?

[Biochemist]

According to the Born interpretation QM intrinsically isn't deterministic. According to EPR there must be hidden variables and according to Bohm it can be viewed like classical chaos.

True. And similarly, even though we cannot assert determinism related to the location and velocity of specific particles (because of Heisenberg uncertainty), we can assert deterministic causality between sequential Schrodinger wave equations (which circumscribe the boundares of Heisenberg uncertainty). This part seems to remain deterministic.

[bumab]

The actual requisite is impartiality. A "scientist" likes a theory and performs experiments and analyses the data in the way that will most tend to support it. This is partiality. The best scientific method is, borrowing Popper's terms, based on being falsificationist rather than on being verificationist.

 

Impartiality is only one possible situation, I still believe complete independence is the ideal. My reasoning is thus- being impartial to the results of an experiment is not enough in many circumstances. If I am watching insect behavior, and constantly am breathing on them while I bend over them to watch, I will influence their behavior. While I may be inpartial to the results- I don't care how they behave, I ust faithful write it down- I'm still influencing the results. I am not getting a good picture of the "natural world."

 

While that may be an odd description, I hope you get the point. Inpartiality is not enough, the ideal is indpendence. In QM, you influence things simply by observing them. Thus, while you may be impartial to the results of your experiment, you are not getting an accurate picture of the state of affairs. Same goes on the macroscopic level, for almost all things.

 

The ideal scientist NEEDS to be completely apart from the experiment- independent. Just because you don't care either way as to the results (impartial) does not mean it's a good experiment or a good analysis of the results.

[Qfwfq]

I admit that I can't see a meaningful difference between my version and yours.

I do! ;) If you can't, work it out. If you want to persuade me of the claimed logical consequence, in your initial point 5), then you need to get the logic down to the tee.

 

It sounds like you agree with the point that determinism (if we include an assumption of non-existence of free will) may obviate the validity of the scientific method, but that the causal connection is not affirmative. True?

Quite, that the causal connection is not affirmative. That is what I mean by the lack of logical consequence. But I don't agree with the wording that determinism may obviate the validity of the scientific method, I simply say that the existence of illusions is a difficulty that needs to be accounted for. There are many sources of illusions, determinism isn't necessary to exhibit the difficulty, imo determinism determines nothing (;) ) about the validity of scientific method.

 

And similarly, even though we cannot assert determinism related to the location and velocity of specific particles (because of Heisenberg uncertainty), we can assert deterministic causality between sequential Schrodinger wave equations (which circumscribe the boundares of Heisenberg uncertainty). This part seems to remain deterministic.

;)

 

Took me a while to see what you might mean. I don't expect your knowledge of QM to be perfect, so let me try to help: The Schrödinger equation of a dynamic system describes the deterministic evolution of a dynamic system, which is mathematical and doesn't fully determine the evolution of the one that can be observed. How does that sound?

[Qfwfq]

If I am watching insect behavior, and constantly am breathing on them while I bend over them to watch, I will influence their behavior.

You can always avoid breathing on them. The ideal scientist reduces influence to the minimum possible and takes into account what can't be avoided. Even Galileo who is considered the founder of modern scientific method discussed this problem.

 

In QM, you influence things simply by observing them. Thus, while you may be impartial to the results of your experiment, you are not getting an accurate picture of the state of affairs. Same goes on the macroscopic level, for almost all things.

QM does not invalidate scientific method. It is even less invalidated at the macroscopic level.

[Biochemist]

Took me a while to see what you might mean. I don't expect your knowledge of QM to be perfect, so let me try to help: The Schrödinger equation of a dynamic system describes the deterministic evolution of a dynamic system, which is mathematical and doesn't fully determine the evolution of the one that can be observed. How does that sound?

I think this is close. My understanding is that although the underlying particle behavior may or may not actually be random, the sequential wave equations are deterministic, although unpredictible (because they are chaotic). I did not understand your last phrase -"doesn't fully determine the evolution..." because my understanding is that it does fully determine the evolution, even though it may or may not be observable.

 

Am I incorrect here?

 

By the way, I was really impresed that you took the time to put the dots over your "o" in Schrodinger. It would take me 10 minutes to find the font that does that.

[Qfwfq]

Am I incorrect here?

Hmmmm........

 

The dynamic system described by a Schrödinger equation needn't be chaotic at all, it depends on what the hamiltonian is, in typical case it isn't chaotic at all. To fairly precise boundary conditions correspond fairly precise integrals. Born's interpretation contemplates the result of a measurement being non deterministic. Bohm explains this in the same terms as classical caos. Can't say much more at this time of day.

 

I did not change font to get the umlaut!!! I use a text editor in my job, I practically always have several files open in it, and it has a nice ASCII table feature. Quick enough. ;)

[bumab]

You can always avoid breathing on them. The ideal scientist reduces influence to the minimum possible and takes into account what can't be avoided.

 

Right. With the realization that the ideal is 0 influence, which is impossible. 0 influence = independent of the system. We cannot be independent of any system, since all systems are part of the universe, and we are part of the universe.

[mcsquared]

It seems to me that 'Free Will" and "Chaos (Determinism)" are one and the same, each independently random when viewed with hindsight. But suppose that a totality of chaos next week for example, could be identified.Then if we had the means at our disposal we could exercise free will in the decision to allow it to arrive or to destroy it on or before arrival .The destruction of all deterministic causes and effects would still leave us with free will at that time and the opportunity to start again from scratch! or would it?

[Biochemist]

It seems to me that 'Free Will" and "Chaos (Determinism)" are one and the same, each independently random when viewed with hindsight. But suppose that a totality of chaos next week for example, could be identified.Then if we had the means at our disposal we could exercise free will in the decision to allow it to arrive or to destroy it on or before arrival .The destruction of all deterministic causes and effects would still leave us with free will at that time and the opportunity to start again from scratch! or would it?

E- Welcome to the Forums. I noticed this is your first post.

 

I suspect you will get a lot of push-back in your first sentence from the determinists on this site. They would contend that free will does not exist and that you would never have the means to alter the projected future state.

 

I tend to think that free will does exist, and that it is separated from the deterministic causality of the physical universe.

 

That would make me (obligatorly, I think) a theist.

[paultrr]

Relativity per se doesn't go against determinism. A Lorentz-covariant dynamic system needn't be chaotic at all. The measurement of time isn't the point anyway. The twin paradox is resolved by the distinction between inertial and non inertial frames.

 

The question came about because of QM, it wasn't answered by it later, it was the argument between Einstein and Born.

 

According to the Born interpretation QM intrinsically isn't deterministic. According to EPR there must be hidden variables and according to Bohm it can be viewed like classical chaos.

 

Actually, I think the general progression has been through Relativity to QM that things are not as predictable as we'd like to assume. That actually does not discount cause and effect, since generally we see out of nature no general events where cause and effect seem to be broken. It's also true what you said about uncertanity and certain ways around such. There was a bit back an article about how the String scale sets its own uncertainity aspect into the equations which I found interesting. On a personal level I actually have always favored free will. But on certain levels determinism does seem to apply in this universe.

 

I think the side issue that enters into all this is consciousness itself. There are aspects, and several articles over the last few years have begun to look at this, where quantum effects and consciousness interlap.

 

Certain authors in reference to the hidden variables aspect from EPR tend to argue that eventually these too enter in as far as determinism goes. From what little of the Bohm camp that I have studied before the classic chaos seems to work in favor of free will against total determinism. Accross the board here I'd say the approaches followed in this forum are rather split between determinism and free will. I've noticed one party who especially see's everything as deterministic. But I've yet to see where that is actually the majority opinion expressed by scientists in general.

 

That brings me to a curious side question: Not being one who can be labeled an outright athiest, more agnostic than anything, do all athiest tend to see everything as predetermined? Reason I ask is I've rather begun to wonder if my agnosticism colors my own view there a bit.

[Qfwfq]

Actually, I think the general progression has been through Relativity to QM that things are not as predictable as we'd like to assume.

Well, ok, perhaps you refer to the limitations on causalty/info propagation while I don't see these on the par with the more intrinsic matter in Heisenberg & Born. In fact the light cone limitation can be translated into the problem of how we can know the boundary conditions. If we want these to be initial conditions we must consider a sufficiently wide region of space according to the overall time duration and the region of space we wish to predict by integration.

 

Actually, this means we need to know less than if causality could propagate arbitrarily fast. However, you will surely rebutt that, as the velocity of info is also limited, we have greater difficulty in knowing that region before t_0 rather than knowing it afterwards. True, but when talking about determinism we don't strongly require our actual knowledge but rather we argue about an if A then B matter. To avoid epistemological objections, let me say:

 

If we could collect sufficiently precise data about the whole space-time region a sufficient time after all is said and done, so the whole thing is within our past light cone, can we say that for the same values at t_0 there can be one and only one evolution up to t_n defined by the dynamic equations? Such a definition of determinism encounters no operative obstacle in Lorentz-invariant, but non-quantum, mechanics.

 

It's also true what you said about uncertanity and certain ways around such.

Sorry, I can't remember enough to match up with words of mine that you refer to.

 

There are aspects, and several articles over the last few years have begun to look at this, where quantum effects and consciousness interlap.

Many commenters of QM talk of the role of the conscious observer, thus linking QM to existentialism and such. I disagree, like many, who talk instead about decoherence.

 

From what little of the Bohm camp that I have studied before the classic chaos seems to work in favor of free will against total determinism. Accross the board here I'd say the approaches followed in this forum are rather split between determinism and free will.

;) ??????

 

But, Born is more intrinsically non-deterministic than classical chaos. ???????

 

...do all athiest tend to see everything as predetermined?

So should many religious people, while at the same time they should not. According to the Old Testament, God has total knowledge of past, present and future. At the same time He grants us free will and puts us to the test. Can an irresistable force move an immovable object?

[Qfwfq]

0 influence = independent of the system.

Hmmm, ?, doesn't 0 influence imply the system being independent of the observer?

 

The observer can't by definition be independent of what is observed! Impartial , yes ;), independent.... ?