Is the Scientific Method invalidated without Free Will?

[paultrr]

Perhaps, but on this site, you are in the mjinority among the physics sorts to hold that opinion.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.Hawking is certainly not discussing philosophy when he discusses the denigration of pure determinismOne 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?

 

Actually, he's not the only one here that has been saying that pure absolute determinism is no longer accepted, nor supported on a quantum level.. I think the problem is she refuses to admit no one else out there of any major import in physics would agree with her anymore. Blind faith at its worst. Would she reject scientists like Hawking and others even though they do not see things exactly the way she does. The english he uses is rather plain enough for anyone with even a HS education to understand. As that matter goes I can think of few out there, perhaps a handful of scientists that believe that way any more period and they are generally looked at as holdouts from a older period to begin with. One name comes to mind right off the top of my head and he's considered a crackpot even though he still does scientific work for the DoD. But even he does not go as far as to reject all aspects of a human's ability to think on their own or he would not be into all the ESP type discussions.

 

I think the problem is she interprets things the way it fits her own world view and not the majority. That's not science. Its a belief system with admixtures of science. She can quote everything about biology when it comes to evolution. But she cannot quote a single modern author that holds to anything but soft or moderate determinism, except perhaps Smolin with his many worlds interpretation or old, now somewhat out of vogue hidden variables views. Its just no longer accepted that absolute determinism still holds. Hasn't been popular since the turn of the century for that matter. Even with Smolin he tends towards the moderate camp.

 

Moderate determinism still holds to everything being governed by natural law. It still holds to cause and effect. It simply rejects the unsound notion that we can ever hope to predict everything. If we do not and cannot know everything then the view that everything is predetermined is an unsound stance from a scientific perspective. That does not at the same time translate to everything being left up to chance either. Its a subtile difference between the view commonly held today and that of the past. But that little bit of difference means questions like can we inspite of external stimulus think on our own enough to make a choice have no solid answer when it comes to science. They remain at this present time something for philosophy debate alone which I believe is what this portion of this forum is about. As such its open to discussion and difference of opinion. But when it comes to opinion there is no absolute ruler to judge by, except perhaps majority opinion and even there its anyone's guess untill such time as there is absolute evidence one way or another.

 

You are welcome to you're opinion Linda. But at least I can find well known scientists to back mine up. Nor am I unable to at least hold a cival conversation with people of different opinions. This might seem like a personal attack. It isn't. I actually rather agree with some of the points you make when it comes to this whole faith issue in general and to cause and effect. I'd say,outside of being dogmatically to the near anger point that agnostics and athiests share a lot of common ground. But we differ on conclusions when it comes to scientific facts and the outcome of scientific research.

 

You see everything is black and white, almost as bad as the religious do. Most of us do not see things that way, nor does the historical background of some of the greatest brains we ever had on this planet support such a view as a whole. I see life in full color where it takes all aspects: Unity in infinite deversity. I say I love you to my own children not because some preordained forces beyond my control cause me too as if I was a robot. I do it because I want to and I feel that way. I was born like every other human being with the ability to make my own choices on what to eat and when to eat. In fact, on both I never have the same meals everyday, nor do I exactly eat at the same time of day. If I pick up a book I read it because I want to. Not because some force causes me to do so, unless you count a desire to learn such a force. I am not a robot and I think few people in this world would see themselves as one and still have any desire to go on living.

 

Is that scientific? Probably not in you're book. But I happen to be in the majority opinion when it comes to planet earth's human population which you by no choice, nor I by choice where born on. In short, I have no need of a God of forces anymore than some bearded old man that many a faith tends to portray telling me everything I can and cannot do. There are enough laws of nature to last us an eternity without artificial one's being invoked like some anchient god of thunder. I believe in one thing because its based upon logical evidence and that is that Nature alone is our creator. No need of a God, nor any need of some absolute determinism either.

[Biochemist]

... I think the problem is she {lindagarette] interprets things the way it fits her own world view and not the majority. That's not science. Its a belief system with admixtures of science.

Seems to be true. I am pretty sure that everyone has a belief system. Most folks just admit they have it.

[paultrr]

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.

 

I simply do not hold to the world view you do, nor does it seem many other people out there do either weither or not they are believers or agnostics. Its simply not an accepted world view that's commonly held anymore. You've had scientists at research Institutes here tell you that, I've tried telling you that, as well as others. I think its you that do not get it that you're view of things is not considered correct anymore. And please explain if choice does not violate the laws of nature how it could be inconsistant with reality. For that matter, I simply stated that even random events can be a cause leading to an effect. So where does that violate reality?

[C1ay]

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.

You could bother to provide some proof for your position if you are so absolutely positive that you are right and everyone else is wrong. Can you point us to any absolute proof of determinism?

[lindagarrette]

You could bother to provide some proof for your position if you are so absolutely positive that you are right and everyone else is wrong. Can you point us to any absolute proof of determinism?

Every event is absolute proof. Determinism is a key process in the scientific method. Without it all experiments would yield random results. As it is established and has been ever since Newton's time and probably before as Greek philosphers recognized it, whoever can show that it is not the case would probably be up for the Nobel prize. Hey, that could be you!

[Smokinjoe9]

Ok, I read a couple of the posts and I think I understand.. A good question, deterministic, or predestine world...I like it, sort of like recording a video and then playing it back over and over. Our universe is like a huge expanding stamp. Yeah, that's it, the video starts runs through to end and then starts over, that's determined right? Ok, that would explain my deja vu.

[Smokinjoe9]

Think about that for a minute or two...It is a possibility that the entire universe has done this exact same thing more than once, or even twice. Everything as we know it has happened before from beginning to end.

[paultrr]

Every event is absolute proof. Determinism is a key process in the scientific method. Without it all experiments would yield random results. As it is established and has been ever since Newton's time and probably before as Greek philosphers recognized it, whoever can show that it is not the case would probably be up for the Nobel prize. Hey, that could be you!

 

Nothing in the current held modified version of determinism denies that Linda. In fact, it agrees totally with that fact. I believe the only one's who have suggested things different are a few of the religious who have mentioned our will being able to violate the laws of nature. Even there its only a minority. Most people who hold to our ability to think and acton our owndo not hold the position that it either violates the laws of nature or that any valid experiment will yield random results. Its the issue of just how predictable things are that is questioned. As mentioned before it all goes back to modern quantum theory and to chaos theory. Every since the advent of both its been realized that absolute predictability of everything is impossible. There is just too many varables to take into account. If we could do it, Hawking's example on the weather would be incorrect and weathermen would know exactly where it would rain at any given moment, we'd know the exact path storms would take, etc. It does not mean there is not cause and effect. It simply means we cannot predict everything exactly.

[bumab]

If we could do it, Hawking's example on the weather would be incorrect and weathermen would know exactly where it would rain at any given moment, we'd know the exact path storms would take, etc. It does not mean there is not cause and effect. It simply means we cannot predict everything exactly.

 

Just because you can't predict something doesn't mean you can control it. I think everybody is in agreement that cause and effect still reign in the natural world. Quantum theory supplies randomness, but no control over that randomness.

 

Back to the topic of the thread- can our mind control that QM randomness you keep talking about, or is our mind totally subject to cause and effect (random or not), and thus no free will? Or is there a third possibility?

 

Paul- sounds like you are holding out that our mind can control that random QM effect. If we can control it, however, it's hardly random. Got a mechanism?

LG- you've always been consistent in saying free will is an illusion because it violates causality- i.e. if I can choose A or B from a given situation, causality is violated because the same pre-conditions could lead to two possible outcomes. I agree with you there.

[Biochemist]

...Determinism is a key process in the scientific method. Without it all experiments would yield random results......

Yes, but some experiemtns DO yield random results. Reproducibly. That is the issue here.

[Biochemist]

...Its the issue of just how predictable things are that is questioned. As mentioned before it all goes back to modern quantum theory and to chaos theory. Every since the advent of both its been realized that absolute predictability of everything is impossible. ...

I think we ought to be careful to separate determinism from predictability. Chaotic behavior is purely deterministic and is (by definition) unpredictable. If it were predictbale, we would label the deterministic relationship linear or curvilinear. Random behavior is both unpredicable and non-deterministic, although in adequate volume, random behavior tends toward deterministic bahavior.

 

I suspect this last element is LG's point. But I don't think anyone has proven that the quantum randomness does not affect the macro world, since we can demonstrate narrow cases where it certainly does. I think this is Paultrr's point.

[Biochemist]

...Paul- sounds like you are holding out that our mind can control that random QM effect. If we can control it, however, it's hardly random. Got a mechanism?...

Good summary, B. Paultrr- this is the way I read your posts too. Is this what you are saying?

[paultrr]

Good summary, B. Paultrr- this is the way I read your posts too. Is this what you are saying?

Outside of military experiments of a sort I once mentioned elsewhere on this forum I have never personally seen anything that would suggest to me that we actually can control the quantum realm, per say. Unless you count some of the views out there that we by being an observer do such. However, part of my point was that even what we call random is itself a cause. What my main point was is that with the random and chaotic side of nature there is room for people to make their own choices within the framework of the laws of nature itself.

 

As to those military experiments I at one time was witness to I've kept an open mind on the subject. But at the present I do not have a solid theory to try an explain what I witnessed, outside of it being an interesting example of possible quantum scale information transfer. The only guy I know of who's gone as far as using any quantum model on this stuff is the same crackpot I mentioned earlier on. He's not really one in my book. But thats the general label he has recived from others before. He uses the Bohm interpretation and claims it would explain such things as being possible. I'm not personally sold on that model even if I do like certain aspects of it. Given all the unknows I'd suggest there is room for such being possible. But I've yet to meet anyone who holds to the modified version of determinism outside of that one scientists who would go out on a limb and claim something like that is real at this point in time. But in a way perhaps I am holding out on such do to some things I have personally witnessed before.

[lindagarrette]

Nothing in the current held modified version of determinism denies that Linda. In fact, it agrees totally with that fact. I believe the only one's who have suggested things different are a few of the religious who have mentioned our will being able to violate the laws of nature. Even there its only a minority. Most people who hold to our ability to think and acton our owndo not hold the position that it either violates the laws of nature or that any valid experiment will yield random results. Its the issue of just how predictable things are that is questioned. As mentioned before it all goes back to modern quantum theory and to chaos theory. Every since the advent of both its been realized that absolute predictability of everything is impossible. There is just too many varables to take into account. If we could do it, Hawking's example on the weather would be incorrect and weathermen would know exactly where it would rain at any given moment, we'd know the exact path storms would take, etc. It does not mean there is not cause and effect. It simply means we cannot predict everything exactly.

What you are describing is chaos theory which is the greatest evidence for determinism. There is no modified version. Either it is or it isn't. If there were any evidence, one single evidence of an uncaused event in space time reality, all of science would be in turmoil. It's simply not possible. And, as I keep reiterating again and over again, quantum events are not relevant in space time reality. Whatever goes on in that realm, effects only other things in that realm.

[C1ay]

Every event is absolute proof.

No it's not and you can't prove it either. People make decisions and you nor anyone else can prove that decision was determined or made by free will. To claim that it is one or the other is a leap of faith.

[bumab]

However, part of my point was that even what we call random is itself a cause. What my main point was is that with the random and chaotic side of nature there is room for people to make their own choices within the framework of the laws of nature itself.

 

I fail to see how you can make this leap. If it's random, we certainly can't control it, or it would cease to be random. And that's granting you the mechanism by which we CAN control the QM fluxuations, which is a doubtful ability for our biological brain to posess.

 

There's room, perhaps. But that doesn't mean we can use it.

[lindagarrette]

No it's not and you can't prove it either. People make decisions and you nor anyone else can prove that decision was determined or made by free will. To claim that it is one or the other is a leap of faith.

Clay, you are so obstinant. I don't have to prove "it." If it weren't for causal determinism nothing would be predictable. We couldn't count on water boiling or freezing or ourselved eating to satisfy our hunger.

 

Everything you do is caused by some set of previous events. Let's break it down into simple components and maybe you'll get it. Your introspection, your ability to review the knowledge you have accumulated and the experiences stored in your mind are all part of the factors that go into your decision. If you had a will free of all causes, then you would never know what you were going to do next. And it wouldn't make sense. Even a mentally defective person's actions are caused, and that cause may be in part physical.

 

You don't eat dog poop because you have learned that it is not good for you. You don't eat a rock because it's not on your plate. Everything you decide to do is a result of something in your genes, experience or environment that makes it possible at the time.

 

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.