Is the Scientific Method invalidated without Free Will?

[Fishteacher73]

I am not implying that free-will breaks all physical laws, but it implies that some must be broken.

 

The physical laws expect that if identical circumstances are set, the same outcome is required. Same input=same output.

[Biochemist]

I am not implying that free-will breaks all physical laws, but it implies that some must be broken....

Agreed.

[C1ay]

The physical laws expect that if identical circumstances are set, the same outcome is required. Same input=same output.

Why is that required? For intelligence to allow us to make a choice among choices constrained by physical laws we are only allowing for a purpose for us to have an evolved ability to analyze and reason. That doesn't mean that ability is supernatural, just that maybe it's a part of our biology that we don't understand yet.

[Fishteacher73]

With that being said, Bio, there can not be free-will without external causation (Which I do not adhere to). This is the crux that it essentially boils down for me to. I see no evidence other than a personal illusion of free-will and many counter examples that deny the existence of this concept.

[C1ay]

With that being said, Bio, there can not be free-will without external causation (Which I do not adhere to). This is the crux that it essentially boils down for me to. I see no evidence other than a personal illusion of free-will and many counter examples that deny the existence of this concept.

For me I just remain open to the possibility that either is correct since I don't believe anyone can disprove either. Then again, according to your belief my choice to remain in my own is determined for me isn't it ;)

[Biochemist]

With that being said, Bio, there can not be free-will without external causation (Which I do not adhere to). This is the crux that it essentially boils down for me to. I see no evidence other than a personal illusion of free-will and many counter examples that deny the existence of this concept.

I understand the point, and I think you are internally consistent on this. I just draw the opposite conclusion. Really interesting.

[Fishteacher73]

When can 4 times 4 be anything other than 16? When can obeject ignore inetria?

 

Intelligence allows us to gain information (additional causal factors). We do not choose exactly what and how we remember things. There may be biology that is not understood, yet it will fall within the laws of physics and chemistry.

[C1ay]

When can 4 times 4 be anything other than 16? When can obeject ignore inetria?

 

Intelligence allows us to gain information (additional causal factors). We do not choose exactly what and how we remember things. There may be biology that is not understood, yet it will fall within the laws of physics and chemistry.

How can we claim what constraints there might be on biological processes we don't understand? The only conclusion I can draw is that either or both are possible. I think a step would be in investigating just what our intelligence is and our ability to analyze and reason. Is there anything to these abilities besides physics and chemistry? IMO, we cannot answer that yet.

[lindagarrette]

I am not implying that free-will breaks all physical laws, but it implies that some must be broken.

 

Which physical laws can you break?

[paultrr]

Bolding mine.

 

So why would you suppose that, without supernatural help, you could operate independent of those laws of nature and control your own thoughts, independent of nature. Either you believe in the supernatural (usually God giving humans this ability), or you have a really inflated sense of your own mind's abilities!

 

Not at all. What I and most of the rest of modern scientists like Hawking for example are saying is this universe isn't as clear cut deterministic as we once thought it was. I am also not implying that free will or the ability to think on our own violates any law of nature period. The idea that somehow human's can through the exercise of free will violate a law of nature is going beyond science into pure speculation and in itself is no better than some faith system. I can will to my hearts content. But if I jump off of a high building gravity will win unless I use a tool to slow down it's effect. I cannot violate gravity with will power alone. But I can make the choice to jump or not and I can choose to use a tool also. We are not robots in that sence of the word. But it is also true that we are subject to nature both in its aspects that are deterministic and those which are more random.

 

Fully determinstic system require nothing period random about them. Its the random aspects of nature that over time has done away with pure determinism as a philosophy accepted by most scientists anymore. Pure determinism, as Hawking pointed out was something that belonged in the 19th century. Its no longer accepted anymore. Its also never been accepted outside of the faith arena that somehow free will implies we can violate any law of nature. We are part of nature and subject to it. But either we have the ability to think and make choices are we are robots period. There is no in between choice to be had or an external one to my knowledge. If we are robots then why have morality period, except as some social exercise for the good of the many? Even then its rather a useless one because everything is predetermined anyway even the choices one makes. Pure determinism is an abondoned system anymore weither people like it or not.

[Qfwfq]

I don't agree that free will must break any laws of nature. Considering QM, we no longer believe in the total and rigid determinism of past times. Whether or not we have a soul (or some supernatural entity, or ability, as Bumab says) that controls the neural activity in our brain, is something I don't argue for or against. If you believe we do, this needn't mean it breaks physical laws, it could just have a capability, I don't know how, of influencing the outcomes of interactions for single QM states, without necessarily changing the overall statistics and hence what we could observe as physical law. This would be a limited influence, just fitting the purpose of what Bumab calls Linda's great question.

 

I don't know whether or not 'I' have this capability of controlling 'me' and I don't worry about it. I consider it a question unrelated to science and the validity of scientific method.

 

When can 4 times 4 be anything other than 16?

In Z_16, or in Z_15, Z_14, Z_13 etc. ;)

[Biochemist]

Which physical laws can you break?

I think I can decide what to eat for lunch. Or whether to respond to this post. If I understand your previous posts (and FishTeacher's), you would contend that this would break a physical law (even though C1ay and Paultrr would not agree). I think that physical laws are broken when I make independent decisions (sorry C1ay, Paultrr).

[Biochemist]

Pure determinism, as Hawking pointed out was something that belonged in the 19th century. Its no longer accepted anymore. ...Pure determinism is an abondoned system anymore weither people like it or not.

This is not really what Hawking said. Quoting Hawking from Universe in a Nutshell, "Therefore, there is still determinism in quantum theory, but it is on a reduced scale. Instead of being able to predict both the positions and velocities {of partcles} we can predict only the wave function. This can allow us to predict either the positions or the velocities, but not both accurately. Thus in quantum theory the ability to make exact predictions is just half what it was in the classical Laplace worldview. Nevertheless, within this restricted sense it is still possible to claim that there is determinism."

 

Hawking is saying that the particles may not be deterministic, but the serial wave functions are determninistic. None of this replaces the classic determinism, except at the level of physical behavior below the boundary described by the wave function. Above that, determinism still reigns. Free will would thus violate determinism above the wave function.

 

And I think it does.

[lindagarrette]

I think I can decide what to eat for lunch. Or whether to respond to this post. If I understand your previous posts (and FishTeacher's), you would contend that this would break a physical law (even though C1ay and Paultrr would not agree). I think that physical laws are broken when I make independent decisions (sorry C1ay, Paultrr).

We are really only talking about the main law of physics: cause and effect. If your decision were based on free will, it could easily be to eat a rock, or dog poop.

[Biochemist]

If your decision were based on free will, it could easily be to eat a rock, or dog poop.

Then I am really glad that my view of the limits of free will is different than yours.

[Qfwfq]

I'm not sure exactly what Hawing meant by:

"Nevertheless, within this restricted sense it is still possible to claim that there is determinism."

but I don't think he would agree with your conclusions at all:

...at the level of physical behavior below the boundary described by the wave function. Above that, determinism still reigns.

A (fully macroscopic) detector may trigger or not depending on single particles being emitted, and in the right direction, and even with the right values of some observables including spin (see Stern-Gerlach magnets). The QM formalism which predicts the emission will, as you might expect, predict a QM state and not necessarily determin said values with certainty. Bell's disequalities are one of many examples, among the most intriguing.

 

Can the detector's output be predicted? Is there determinism? If you want to discuss these things, perhaps the right place might be:

 

http://hypography.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2419

[Biochemist]

I'm not sure exactly what Hawing meant by...but I don't think he would agree with your conclusions at all.

I guess you will have to get Hawking on the phone to clarify or correct his book

A (fully macroscopic) detector may trigger or not depending on single particles being emitted, and in the right direction, and even with the right values of some observables including spin (see Stern-Gerlach magnets). The QM formalism which predicts the emission will, as you might expect, predict a QM state and not necessarily determin said values with certainty....Can the detector's output be predicted? Is there determinism?

Well, first, determinism and predictability are only tangentially related, give the vicissitudes of chaotic behavior. Although the example you gave is (probably) not a chaotic event, it is (probably) a random one. I admit there is an incongruity when we measure individual apparently random particle behavior with macro-world devices. It does seem that in this unique case, the determinism of the macro world (above the Schrodinger waveform) is disturbed in a random fashion. One could argue that the disturbance is an artifact of experiment, but I (frankly) am not comfortable with that argument.

 

I think I will store this one as an antinomy.