Is the Scientific Method invalidated without Free Will?

[paultrr]

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.

 

In Z_16, or in Z_15, Z_14, Z_13 etc. :Alien:

 

I'd agree with that also.

[Qfwfq]

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

I don't think so.

 

No success in getting the issue of QM and determinism into the new thread. :circle:

[Queso]

verrry wise :circle:

[bumab]

Whether or not we have a soul (or some supernatural entity, or ability, as Bumab says) ....

 

I was merely stating that free will (if it exists) is good evidence for a supernatural entity.

 

 

 

...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.

 

A mechanism by which the brain could control QM states of sub-molecular particels and, through those, influence the macroscopic world in an intentional fashion, and in real time, is really far fetched.

 

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.

 

It's a pretty big question to ignore!

[Tormod]

Okay, dear folks - 278 posts in this thread. Are you getting anywhere or are you ready to start new topics?

[Qfwfq]

I did start one Tormod, and we're still having a whale of a time here!!! :)

A mechanism by which the brain could control QM states of sub-molecular particels and, through those, influence the macroscopic world in an intentional fashion, and in real time, is really far fetched.

What I meant was, "by which the soul could control the outcome of QM states". Is it more far fetched than believing in our soul, and an Almighty that sees the sparrow fall? What other way would "I" have to control "me" considering that's the only way out of determinism, as far as we know?

 

It's a pretty big question to ignore!

One day I'll either find out, or be unable to worry about it any longer.

[bumab]

What I meant was, "by which the soul could control the outcome of QM states". Is it more far fetched than believing in our soul, and an Almighty that sees the sparrow fall? What other way would "I" have to control "me" considering that's the only way out of determinism, as far as we know?

 

Oh, I misunderstood.

 

Basically, I was using the term "soul" to characterize that part of us which does seem to operate outside of causality.

[Qfwfq]

Basically, I was using the term "soul" to characterize that part of us which does seem to operate outside of causality.

Of course, and the soul must somehow influence the neural activity, if it is to determine our will and choices.

 

The margin for non deterministic progress could be where single or few molecules determine the firing of neurons. I don't know the details of neurophysiology but I do know that a single photon can cause a pulse from our retina on the optic nerve.

[bumab]

The margin for non deterministic progress could be where single or few molecules determine the firing of neurons. I don't know the details of neurophysiology but I do know that a single photon can cause a pulse from our retina on the optic nerve.

 

Right, but what controls those few molocules? Your mind, your soul, or physical properties?

[paultrr]

The doctrine of determinism is opposed by the principle of emergence, which states that truly novel and unpredictable events may occur out of the composite forces of nature. Determinism is the philosophical thesis that every event is the inevitable result of antecedent causes. Applied to ethics and psychology, determinism usually involves a denial of free will. But it is this author’s contention that the two are not as exclusive as one might think.

 

The principle of emergence actually has its roots in both modern day quantum theory and in evolution as derived from Darwin’s Origin of the Species. Darwin himself saw both randomness and order as being the central aspects of evolution. Quantum theory goes on to show that exact predictability at a quantum level is impossible which is often raised as an objection to pure determinism. It is also true that our bio-chemical process within our brains, since they originate at the quantum level, are, themselves partially governed by this unpredictability.

 

But what is often missing in all of this discussion on determinism versus free will is the aspect that, while we can never hope to totally determine via scientific methods and experiments every last aspect of all events, random events are themselves a cause and as such do work to invoke their own random events version of determinism. This type of determinism is more in line with modern day thought than the older determinism that once governed scientific thought. It incorporates all that the principle of emergence has shown and keeps the general spirit of determinism. At the same time it also does away with the idea that everything about us is guided in such a fashion that we become pure robots, as often emphasized by certain Hard deterministic approaches:

 

The world is governed by (or is under the sway of) determinism if and only if, given a specified way things are at a time t, the way things go thereafter is fixed as a matter of natural law(Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).

 

It would be the word FIXED that would come into question under this approach. If there is a random cause at time T, then the things that follow, while fixed by natural law, are themselves originated in a random source and cannot always be predicted.

The question then becomes do we actually have free will? To answer that question we must first go back to the statement above. The words, fixed by natural law eliminate the issue of free will somehow violating the laws of nature itself. As such, whatever one implies about the free will of man must in itself be subject to the laws of nature. One cannot will oneself out of existence in one form or another because energy cannot be created of destroyed. But that does not eliminate the ability of one to kill or terminate one’s life. As to the cause of such an event there would be both predictable causes and unpredictable causes of such an event. What can be said is that freedom of choice does exist even if there are determining causes behind such a choice. One is forced to that conclusion simply because of the unpredictability or randomness aspect of cause in the first place.

 

The basic point is that pure hard determinism simply does not exist in the world as much as some of us would like to think it does. What does exist is what we could define as soft determinism. There may be actual causes behind our choices. But the randomness that exists as a first cause leaves such forever beyond our ability to fully predict such.

Steven Hawking said it right in The Universe in a Nutshell. Stephen Hawking. (Bantam Press 2001). PP 104-105, ” The success of Newton's laws and other physical theories led to the idea of scientific determinism, which was first expressed at the beginning of the nineteenth century by the French scientist the Marquis de Laplace. Laplace suggested that if we knew the positions and velocities of all the particles in the universe at one time, the laws of physics should allow us to predict what the state of the universe would be at any other time in the past or the future.

 

In other words, if scientific determinism holds, we should in principle be able to predict the future and wouldn't need astrology or prophets. Of course, in practice even something as simple as Newton's theory of gravity produces equations that we can't solve exactly for more than two particles. Furthermore, the equations often have a property known as chaos, so that a small change in position or velocity at one time can lead to completely different behavior at later times. As those who have seen Jurassic Park know, a tiny disturbance in one place can cause a major change in another. A butterfly flapping its wings in Tokyo can cause rain in New York's Central Park. The trouble is the sequence of events is not repeatable. The next time the butterfly flaps its wings, a host of other factors will be different and will also influence the weather. That is why weather forecasts are so unreliable.

 

Thus, although in principle the laws of quantum electrodynamics should allow us to calculate everything in chemistry and biology, we have not had much success in predicting human behavior from mathematical equations.”

 

He goes on later in other writings to mention that, “We are more than the sum of our parts.”

 

Since many limitations on predictability are now known, Karl Popper's book The Open Universe: An Argument For Indeterminism argues that in its strongest version, scientific determinism makes a very strong assertion that "all events are in principle predictable". The qualifier "in principle" can lead to persistent arguments.

Most people who argue for determinism do not argue in favor of a strong version of scientific determinism. For example, a weaker type of determinism is one that only implies a unique, mechanical course for the universe with future events being caused by past events. But as far as humans go it’s that randomness that often leads to the argument in the first place over pure determinism. As long as that limitation on predictability remains the question of if we can choose or not will remain a valid one. At the very least we can say that absolute determinism is rather not supported by scientific knowledge at the present.

 

What we have then with the case of absolute determinism is a pseudo-scientific version of what those who study theology would call a Doctrine. Everyone has doctrine, either good or bad. Doctrine, from Latin doctrina, (compare doctor), means "a body of teachings" or "instructions", taught principles or positions, as the body of teachings in a branch of knowledge or belief system. What doctrine boils down to irrespective of the source is a system of belief which in turn dictates one’s world view. Since there is no scientifically supported absolute determinism then such cannot by rights be considered an actual scientific principle. If it is not a scientific one then what remains is simply an article of faith.

 

This then brings up the question of what is the motivation behind those who hold to absolute determinism being so against faith when what they propose is itself a belief system that runs counter to known scientific findings? You cannot uphold to a faith system and then turn around and say faith itself is unscientific. Logic would dictate that either faith is real or it is not. If faith is not real then the doctrine of absolute determinism is itself not real. In this case whatever world view one holds to would in itself have no solid scientifically verifiable existence as a complete set and becomes little better than any other faith system out there. At the very least such doctrine has no place in real scientific thought and belongs more in the area of religion than anything else.

[lindagarrette]

Paultrr, whoever you got this nonsense from and I expect you didn't just make it up, deserves the award for most convoluted logic on this topic to date. :(

[paultrr]

Paultrr, whoever you got this nonsense from and I expect you didn't just make it up, deserves the award for most convoluted logic on this topic to date. :(

 

Well, absolute determinism is not well accepted anymore by the scientific community. By you're own implication if its not science it must be faith based to believe in something there is no proof of. After all, that is one of the reasons for rejecting God and faith in the first place that there is no proof of either. Since science in general, at least those who's voice out there tends to count when it comes to reflecting the general concensus of the majority of scientists, have by their own statements found absolute determinism no longer valid based upon the evidence they have, the same should apply as a judgement on it too if one is consistant to one's own methods of judging such. Either you are consistant or you are not? You say you uphold to science and its principles. Yet, you make statements counter to the findings of the general scientific community as a whole. Which is it? You cannot have it both ways.

 

Besides you never answer a question I once posed. Do you actually think everything about life including love is that robotic in nature. The reason I ask is you go out of you're way to damn everyone for their beliefs as if you are on a crussade of some sort. I asked the question to see just how consistant you yourself are to the philosophy of life you tend to try and sell everyone else as if it was the gospel, so to speak. I would suspect that you cannot fully answer that question honestly because if you do and have ever loved someone then that would make such expression of feeling and emotions nothing more than a predetermined responce to some casual stimulus which makes saying the words I Love You to anyone else rather empty and void. So I ask again do you really see yourself as a bio-chemical robot?

[Biochemist]

Paultrr, whoever you got this nonsense from and I expect you didn't just make it up, deserves the award for most convoluted logic on this topic to date. :(

I am a little surprised. I thought Paultrr's post, although long, was a pretty clean argument. It was:

1. Pure determinism was once a broadly held view within the scientific community
   
2. Experimental evidence has since overturned portions of the pure determinism argument
   
3. The current broadly held view is a modified view of determinism
   
4. Holding to the original rigid view, since it is unsubstantiated (or controverted) by factual observation, requires a faith step
   

I am not sure why this seemed convoluted to you.

[paultrr]

I am a little surprised. I thought Paultrr's post, although long, was a pretty clean argument. It was:

1. Pure determinism was once a broadly held view within the scientific community
   
2. Experimental evidence has since overturned portions of the pure determinism argument
   
3. The current broadly held view is a modified view of determinism
   
4. Holding to the original rigid view, since it is unsubstantiated (or controverted) by factual observation, requires a faith step
   

I am not sure why this seemed convoluted to you.

 

I can think of a reason, that being her own logic is itself founded upon a general belief in something that is not considered at the present anymore to be scientific fact. As such, bring up that issue constitutes a denial and attack on her own world view. If anyone bothers to notice I utilized comments by perhaps the most well known representation of modern day scientists who are not believers themselves, namely, Steven Hawking. He's at the forfront of research and has always had in both research publication and the popular press an insight to how most scientists today tend to think as far as their world view goes. Modified determinism is todays version weither people like Linda like it or not. The form of determinism she favors has long ago gone out of vogue.

 

However, notice something within all of what I posted: Random events are themselves a cause in a chain we tend to call cause and effect. Modified Determinism does not deny that everything out there in this universe relies upon some cause for any effect to take place. Linda is fully correct as have been others that free will does not negate the laws of nature at all. In fact, its governed by those laws which include chaos. There is an order in nature and I have no doub't myself that certain preditable patterns do exist as well that a lot of what gets lumped under the title of free will is nothing more than speculation about how the random part of nature effects us. But its also just as speculative to think that we can actually predict and prove out everything. No right minded scientists alive today that is honest to everything that is known thus far would come to that conclusion.

 

What I see in most people who try and present the gospel of pure determinism is inconsistancy. I've seen plenty of them on the one hand state that all emotions and all thought are the result predetermined aspects and yet, in the same token they can claim that "THEY" love someone. Notice the emphesis upon the word THEY. Its there for a reason. Pure determinism has no place for anything like individuality at all. Everything by the doctrine or theory should be based upon cause and effect. If the source of love is nothing more than some predetermined cause with the effect being that one is forced to love something then I would suggest that such a word as love ought not exist in their vocabulary. In fact, a person with such a view cannot claim THEY love anything because the emotional state itself is something that was predetermined by forces beyond their control or choice.

 

If Linda is actually consistant to her world view this would be the case. But I suspect she knows full well that is not the case at all which in essence means she really does not fully accept the actual implications inherient in pure determinism. I suspect that sometime during her life she has used the words, "I Love you" to someone which is making the vocal agreement to her having the actual ability to choose to love someone when pure determinism at its core would reject such as being possible.

 

Machines, like our computers have no emotions beyond that which we program in. If we where really bio-machanical machines then emotions would be nothing more than the result of some cause. As such, saying I love you or I hurt would have no meaning any different than one of our machines saying Good Morning Dave. It would have the same general empty meaning and those who where constant to their own world view would tend to drop such fully out of usage. They cannot simply because to do so would be to admit that even the thinking up of responces to an argument on belief was not their's to make in the first place. It was simply predetermined as is love and nothing more than a responce empty and devoid of meaning and feeling.

 

Such a view on nature and life in general everyone knows at heart deep down is not consistant. For some reason they do love and they do feel and they do make choices everyday which is something no machine has every managed to do, especially the part on feel. Try as they like to rationlize everything there is something about the human mind that sets it apart from a machine. No, we do not know all the answers to everything and I doub't we ever will. Perhaps there is some rational reason for everything. But like Hawking has pointed out we have not been able to use all those consitant elements to fully predict everything. Untill such time as we can then pure determinism is dead in the water and people who claim such is true are holding to a world view based upon nothing more than faith itself since faith is holding to something being true which is not seen and as such not proven.

 

What you end up with is one faith system against the other. Those who hold to pure determinism reject any notion of God. Only if they narrow the scope of what faith actually is can they say that such a belief is devoid of faith. Their faith is in cause and effect. Its so strong a faith, even though there is no 100% evidence for such, that they make the leap to assuming that everything must be the same. By making that leap they exercize what faith themselves weither they notice and recognize such for what it is. Sure I agree with them that effects take place because of a cause. But if some aspects of that casuality can be shown to be random then it takes a leap beyond logic to assume everything is predictable.

 

I also agree with them that there is no evidence God in the general forms that religions like Christianity hold to exists. But that's because the system of science was never designed in the first place to go beyond what nature itself shows us. The only evidence science can find of a God would be some signature that God left upon nature itself. But since the system is designed to look to nature to provide its own answers such would never be considered as evidence for God under consistant scientific thought. Only belief in one form or another can make the leap to say order showing a Creator. Once that leap is made one has gone beyond science. Going after pure determinism itself makes a simular leap beyond science.

[lindagarrette]

I am a little surprised. I thought Paultrr's post, although long, was a pretty clean argument. It was:

 

1. Pure determinism was once a broadly held view within the scientific community
   
2. Experimental evidence has since overturned portions of the pure determinism argument
   
3. The current broadly held view is a modified view of determinism
   
4. Holding to the original rigid view, since it is unsubstantiated (or controverted) by factual observation, requires a faith step
   

I am not sure why this seemed convoluted to you.

Except for partial truth in statement number 1, all your claims are wrong. There has been no experimental evidence to overturn space/time determinism. The jury is out on the relevance of quantum activity which would negate itself, at the macro level, even if it were a factor. The only modified views are philosophical and have nothing to do with physical space/time reality. There is no faith involved in any scientific hypothesis. You need to check your sources before making such outrageous claims. If you do have any evidence of an undetermined event, then you should present it.

[lindagarrette]

If Linda is actually consistant to her world view this would be the case. But I suspect she knows full well that is not the case at all which in essence means she really does not fully accept the actual implications inherient in pure determinism. I suspect that sometime during her life she has used the words, "I Love you" to someone which is making the vocal agreement to her having the actual ability to choose to love someone when pure determinism at its core would reject such as being possible.

 

Our emotional reactions are causally determined. Otherwise they would be inconsistent with reality. I don't know why I bother to reply since you just aren't getting it.

[Biochemist]

Except for partial truth in statement number 1, all your claims are wrong.

Perhaps, but on this site, you are in the mjinority among the physics sorts to hold that opinion.

There has been no experimental evidence to overturn space/time determinism.

Q has offered a couple simple examples in other threads of how the quantum "wierdness" (my words, not his) breaks into the macro world. I cannot tell if this agrees with Hawking (Universe in a nutshell, P108, chap 4) but it seems to.

The only modified views are philosophical and have nothing to do with physical space/time reality.

Hawking is certainly not discussing philosophy when he discusses the denigration of pure determinism

If you do have any evidence of an undetermined event, then you should present it.

One of Q's examples was registration of a particle on a detector. The dectector is certianly macroworld. It would probably be tough to contend (without proof) that the only cases where quantum indeterminacy sneaks above the Schrodinger waveform is when we put a detector on it. Is that what you are asserting?