Is the Scientific Method invalidated without Free Will?

[bumab]

True, but that is not the point. Determinism does not require predictability. Even though I can't predict based on the laws of physics that I will eat lunch today, take 3 bites of my sandwich, then a drink of 100 mL of soda, or whatever, doesn't mean that in a deterministic universe I am not bound to do that.

[Queso]

ah.........i see.

[bumab]

Right. So, if you believe you can choose what you want to eat for lunch, then you believe in free will. In a nutshell...

[Queso]

after reading this thread, i guess i don't. i just see it as extremely complicated and absurd in the every-day world..but scientifically, when it comes down to it, i don't believe in free will.

[Fishteacher73]

Perhaps this notion is as difficult for some people to accept as the concept of evolution. The idea if humans being less than humans some people just will not accept. The idea that we are just vehicles of chemical reactions rolling down the pathway unable to alter course is frightening to some.

[bumab]

Perhaps this notion is as difficult for some people to accept as the concept of evolution. The idea if humans being less than humans some people just will not accept. The idea that we are just vehicles of chemical reactions rolling down the pathway unable to alter course is frightening to some.

 

Definatly. It's disturbing to me- I'll admit it. But I agree with the spirit of what you are saying- just 'cause something is hard to accept does not mean one shouldn't accept it.

 

That said, there are reasons to believe free will could exist. the fact that we all think it exists is hardly an evolutionary benefit, it does nothing but slow us down. The fact we've chosen to create art, for example, is something that no other animal has done (notice I said chosen). Apes can create art when we show them what to do, elephants can as well. but we've been leaving artistic, "spontanious" creations around for years.

 

The fact that the only reason we are having a scientific discussion about free will is because those before us have presupposed their own free will is another one. We are only where we are because of this illusion.

 

well... before you say "we'd be here anyway, it's determinism :)" let me interject this. I think we've still asserted that the scientific method is based on decisions, which are based on free will, illusion or no. So this illusion has played an important part of our development.

 

Basically, I see free will being rejected because we can't imagine a mechanism for it. We've got lots of evidence, i think, but no mechanism. Is that why it's being rejected, or is there some other reason?

[Fishteacher73]

I would love for free-will to exist...I fought against determinism for a while in my head... Unfortuantly I could find no example that counld not be reto-actively descibed in a deterministic frame. The only real argument is that I think I have free will. This does not stand to scrutiny...This would not be validation of any other concept, so I don't accept it in this one.. So here I am...a determined deterministic....

[Queso]

yeah isn't that a weird feeling? it hit me today after reading this post. ;)

[bumab]

So here I am...a determined deterministic....

 

Truely, I admire your resolve...

 

So let me ask you this: You said no action, retroactivally, can be shown to be non-deterministic. Since the scientific method, and indeed- our entire understanding of the scientific universe- requires causality, is that a surprise? Let's say we do have free will. Would evidence of that EVER come to light under scientific investigation, which by its very nature REQUIRES determinism (although the method may require free will, illusion or no)?

 

Basically- by using science, a causal-dependent way of thinking, could we ever find evidence for a non-causal event? ;)

[paultrr]

Truely, I admire your resolve...

 

So let me ask you this: You said no action, retroactivally, can be shown to be non-deterministic. Since the scientific method, and indeed- our entire understanding of the scientific universe- requires causality, is that a surprise? Let's say we do have free will. Would evidence of that EVER come to light under scientific investigation, which by its very nature REQUIRES determinism (although the method may require free will, illusion or no)?

 

Basically- by using science, a causal-dependent way of thinking, could we ever find evidence for a non-causal event? ;)

 

Hawking made an interesting statement that is true. When one works out the equations for wavefunctions they do incoporate as possible states what would be termed FTL states or backwards in time states. Normally we assume these states are not probable. As such they are ignored. But such states can imply a possible violation of casuality. Let's for the second suppose that such states do exist. We find no evidence for those states inside of what we can observer of our frame of reference. So if they do exist then they are outside of this frame that we can directly observe. In general that for at least this time period unless someone finds a way in the future to observe such an outside frame would actually answer that question. But it does not in itself fully say such a frame does not exist and in fact in no way rules such out. That being the case then the idea that everything is deterministic is in itself not fully ruled as valid either.

 

Its back to the old adage that one cannot prove or fully disprove God on a sliderule. The system of science was never actually designed to go beyond what we can directly observe.

Being that it is a causal-dependent way of thinking there are limits to what it actually can rule on. In the end run one is left with a choice. But in making that choice in no case is absolute knowledge possible to base that choice upon. One is left with what one either by logic or feeling decides. Most of us, even though not all of us see things as that deterministic, tend to perfer the evidence we can observe directly. Thus, we accept the scientific method and its general conclusions. But one must also make note that such a decision is based itself upon incomplete knowledge given what appears to be an infinite universe. Personally, I'd better trust even partial knowledge as versus something based upon pure faith alone, or the dictates of some pope or religious leader of today or even past authors of the books of the Bible or other religious books themselves.

 

(The above reference to Steven Hawking comes from his book: The Universe in a nutshell."

[paultrr]

I would love for free-will to exist...I fought against determinism for a while in my head... Unfortuantly I could find no example that counld not be reto-actively descibed in a deterministic frame. The only real argument is that I think I have free will. This does not stand to scrutiny...This would not be validation of any other concept, so I don't accept it in this one.. So here I am...a determined deterministic....

 

The problem is you are seeking an answer to something that would be so fundamental a part of our human nature that no division of life into statistics could prove or disprove such. The way to actually even begin to answer that question is to ask the basic question does our ability to make accurate predictions break down at some level and some scale? If it does then in essence you're faced with a level were determinism itself tends to fail. "God"(notice the quote marks) would literally at that scale be playing dice. In a random situation anything becomes possible when there are that many variables.

 

Fractuals from out of chaios can at large scales generate very fine order. This universe itself could be just such a situation. There are patterns in the chaios. But at small scales things are random also. Science is designed to read those patterns, not the random part. If free will does exists its up to us as individuals to exercise such and think at times outside of the box, so to speak. Einstein refered to imagination as being important. Is not the idea of free will something that stems from the mind of man to begin with. Man alone of all the creatures on this planet seems to be the only one capable of asking the big questions. We for certain are the first creatures ever to rise from the primordial soup capable of perhaps altering our own future. The dino's could not even fathom what say that bright streak in the sky was before they died. We can at least know what they are and perhaps even alter the course of one if need required such. What then except free will and imagination has set us above all the rest?

 

I think the real answer to this is found in the sum of human existance and not on some slide rule.

[paultrr]

The Everett, relative-state, many-histories or many-universes interpretation or metatheory of quantum theory. Dr Hugh Everett, III, its originator, called it the "relative-state metatheory" or the "theory of the universal wavefunction. Many-worlds comprises of two assumptions and some consequences. The assumptions are:

 

1) The metaphysical assumption: That the wavefunction does not merely encode all the information about an object, but has an observer-independent objective existence and actually is the object. For a non-relativistic N-particle system the wavefunction is a complex-valued field in a 3-N dimensional space.

 

2) The physical assumption: The wavefunction obeys the empirically derived standard linear deterministic wave equations at all times. The observer plays no special role in the theory and, consequently, there is no collapse of the wavefunction. For non-relativistic systems the Schrodinger wave equation is a good approximation to reality.

 

Some consequences are:

 

1) That each measurement causes a decomposition or decoherence of the universal wavefunction into non-interacting and mostly non- interfering branches, histories or worlds. The histories form a branching tree which encompasses all the possible outcomes of each interaction. Every historical what-if compatible with the initial conditions and physical law is realised.

 

2) That the conventional statistical Born interpretation of the amplitudes in quantum theory is derived from within the theory rather than having to be assumed as an additional axiom.

 

Many-worlds view treats the process of observation or measurement entirely within the wave-mechanics of quantum theory, rather than an input as additional assumption, as in the Copenhagen interpretation. Everett considered the wavefunction a real object. Many-worlds is a return to the classical, pre-quantum view of the universe in which all the mathematical entities of a physical theory are real. For example the electromagnetic fields of James Clark Maxwell or the atoms of Dalton were considered as real objects in classical physics. Everett treats the wavefunction in a similar fashion. Everett also assumed that the wavefunction obeyed the same wave equation during observation or measurement as at all other times. This is the central assumption of many-worlds: that the wave equation is obeyed universally and at all times.

 

The "relative state" formulation predicts that interactions between two (or more) macrosystems typically split the joint system into a superposition of products of relative states. The states of the macrosystems are, after the subsystems have jointly interacted, henceforth correlated with, or dependent upon, each other. Each element of the superposition evolves independently of the other elements in the superposition. The states of the macrosystems are, by becoming correlated or entangled with each other, impossible to understand in isolation from each other and must be viewed as one composite system. Specifying the state of one subsystem leads to a unique specification of the state (the "relative state") of the other subsystems.

 

If one of the systems is an observer and the interaction an observation then the effect of the observation is to split the observer into a number of copies, each copy observing just one of the possible results of a measurement and unaware of the other results and all its observer- copies. Interactions between systems and their environments, including communication between different observers in the same world, transmits the correlations that induce local splitting or decoherence into non- interfering branches of the universal wavefunction. Thus the entire world is split, quite rapidly, into a host of mutually unobservable but equally real worlds. According to many-worlds all the possible outcomes of a quantum interaction are realised. The wavefunction, instead of collapsing at the moment of observation, carries on evolving in a deterministic fashion, embracing all possibilities embedded within it.

 

Alternatives:

 

1.) Copenhagen Interpretation. Postulates that the observer obeys different physical laws than the non-observer, which is a return to vitalism. The definition of an observer varies from one adherent to another, if present at all. The status of the wavefunction is also ambiguous. If the wavefunction is real the theory is non-local. If the wavefunction is not real then the theory supplies no model of reality and is simply what we term at best a construct to try and explain reality.

 

2.) Hidden Variables. Explicitly non-local. Bohm accepts that all the branches of the universal wavefunction exist. Like Everett Bohm held that the wavefunction is real complex-valued field which never collapses. In addition Bohm postulated that there were particles that move under the influence of a non-local "quantum- potential" derived from the wavefunction in addition to the classical potentials which are already incorporated into the structure of the wavefunction. This would imply non-local action in our universe which leaves room for violations of direct measurable cause and effect. The action of the quantum- potential is such that the particles are affected by only one of the branches of the wavefunction.

 

3.) Transactional model. Explicitly non-local. A theory, based on the Feynman-Wheeler absorber-emitter model of EM, in which advanced and retarded probability amplitudes combine into an atemporal "transaction" to form the Born probability density. It too allows for aspects which are beyond our present ability to directly observe and measure. However, it like the proposed Woodward effect relies upon Mach's principles at its heart. See: John G Cramer The transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics Reviews of Modern Physics Vol 58 #3 647-687 (1986)

 

These are some of the different quantum interpretations possible. Only one of these is actually fully deterministic at all. None of these can be considered fully observationally or experimentally tested out as the exact theory. At the present time that translates into their being no real proven case for or against determinism and rather leaves the door open on the subject itself.

 

Consider the following:

 

The world we daily interact with seems very deterministic; if indeterminacy is a fixture of our world, why can’t we see it?

 

If the objects we experience in the world seem to behave deterministically, where would indeterminism come from?

 

How would an indeterministic world view affect our notion of causality?

 

1.) As physical bodies, we are still subject to physical laws, be they deterministic or otherwise. We are part of the system we are trying to measure and apply statistics too. If free will exists it would be such an intrinsic part that full measurment might just be impossible. Thought itself involves quantum processes and as such really would depend upon which if any of the major interpretations are correct to begin with.

 

2.) Scientists often work with mathematical formalisms supposed to characterize events in the world. These formalisms, which vary in their levels of abstraction, face two major problems. The first is that a particular formalism must demonstrate some domain of utility. Though a particular model may, in and of itself, seem sound, this model may be of no particular import if the circumstances described by the model do not appear in the natural world. One thing I've tried at times to get accross to a few friends who come from the math field and try to figure grand theories on the universe out is those who study physics and propose models underline such models with math. But unlike in the math field it's physical reality that must be the judge of what is right or wrong. Not in the end the math itself.

 

The second issue is with proving that any determinism or indeterminism apparent in these abstractions is not an artifact of the way the phenomenon is being idealized or mathematized, rather than inherent to the phenomenon itself.

 

Letting W be the collection of all possible worlds satisfying all of the natural laws of the actual world, then w Î W is deterministic just in case every w’ Î W that agrees with w on any time slice, agrees with w on every subsequent time slice. ‘Agreement’ here means in terms of all occurrent physical properties. The thesis of determinism applies primarily to macro-level physical objects and their interactions. It cannot be proven that the quantum world is fully deterministic at all at this time. Where indeterminacy arises is with the so-called measurement problem: that when the quantum system interacts with a measuring device of some kind, the outcome is unpredictable, except that it falls within a probability distribution specified by the theory. Unpredictability need not imply determinism, nor does it support such; rather, it is within the Copenhagen Interpretation that (i) these probabilities are taken to be a complete description of the particle’s behavior, and (ii) the reality of the deterministically evolving psi-function is considered subordinate to the reality of the of the classical objects whose position and momentum it does not determine.

 

The movement toward a ‘hidden variable theory’, as it is called, is viewed by some physicists as highly speculative, largely unmotivated, and hence uninteresting and possible unphysical to begin with. Nearly all hidden variable schemes have been shown by Gleason and Bell as being inconsistent with our observations of actual quantum systems. One problem, never fully answered by those in this camp is that it rather violates one major assumption that concerns our entropy laws to begin with, or at the very least throws an unknown monkey wrench into our equations. It would imply this universe started with information or entropy we cannot directly measure and then followed the normal pattern. That in itself implies something at the present beyond the ability of scientific methods to observe and measure which rather throws the whole statistical thing out the door then. At best our statistics could only properly measure everything but that hidden information. Anything beyond that would be guess work and perhaps would imply a leap of faith, so to speak.

 

It is possible, on the other hand, using say Gott's model out of his book "Time Travel in Einstein's universe" that our universe could have started with just such a hidden bit of information in the form of information coming from a very short loop in time or many such loops. The assumption would be then that these hidden variables do form a deterministic system. It would just be a system we cannot hope to fully measure unless some one can invent a time machine. Either way, we are stuck with a problem that there is a point beyond which we can fully prove determinism.

 

As such, given the many unknows when it comes to quantum theory, I find taking the fully deterministic approach as not scientific at all since there is no absolute evidence for such an approach. Simply put, the only part we can show full evidence on concerns the macro-world. And when it comes to human thought both that world and the micro world are involved. Evolution itself involves quantum processes. While the major processes of such have a lot of evidence in their favor. There are aspects of the whole start of life that await a more solid QM theory before anyone can say for sure. That in itself is one reason I say arguing over statistics involving odds of life evolving is frought with a certain amount of error itself. Its also why I think we cannot prove this universe is that deterministic and find the agnostic camp more in keeping with the scientific spirit.

[bumab]

Simply put, the only part we can show full evidence on concerns the macro-world. And when it comes to human thought both that world and the micro world are involved.

 

Interesting post!

 

I'll pick on this last quote, however- I assume when talking about the "micro world" you are talking about the size reigon where quantum effects are dominent. Do you think the human brain, in some fashion, can control things at that size? That scale was MUCH smaller then the smallest functional unit of the human brain, and thus, one could (and probably will) argue that quantum effects can play no role in the human brain, thus leaving human thought deterministic. ;)

 

(just playing devil's advocate for clarification purposes!)

[Biochemist]

I would love for free-will to exist...The only real argument is that I think I have free will. This does not stand to scrutiny...

Interesting. Like it or not, that thought is a data point. You may regard it as not enough to form the foundation for an integrated argument. However, the fact that the thought is broadly experienced in humans, and that many of the things that we regard as uniquely human depend on free will lead many to believe that a) free will does exist, and ;) the logical consequence is some form of theism to provide a source for it.

[Biochemist]

...I think we cannot prove this universe is that deterministic and find the agnostic camp more in keeping with the scientific spirit.

I think this is a reasonable conslusion.

 

By the way, another record length quote, Paultrr. And really pretty well organized.

[IrishEyes]

By the way, another record length quote, Paultrr. And really pretty well organized.

 

Actually, Paultrr, you owe some credit in your post. If you'd be so kind as to add it, then I won't feel the compulsion to delete the post in its entirety.

 

Folks, it's great to have discussions. And we don't mind long posts at all. However, if you take more than a few words from another site or source, it needs to be credited.

 

take care of this one, or it's gone.

 

Thanks so much!!!

[IrishEyes]

Sorry for not being clear.

the post in question is Post #97.

thanks!