Is the Scientific Method invalidated without Free Will?

[Qfwfq]

It is "fuzzy" because we have begun to understand that there are other forces at work. The forces are not unmderstood to a finite level, so there will be variation and the "randomness". We can measure precisely, but not accurately.

Hidden variables, do you mean? Very few still believe in them. There is much evidence against. QM goes quite against determinism.

[maddog]

Hidden variables, do you mean? Very few still believe in them. There is much evidence against. QM goes quite against determinism.

I didn't actually know Hidden Variables concept was out of favor these days. I have been reading some

background on Einstein and found he liked the idea in his later years. What makes a variable hidden ?

Is this just because we have not discerned the evidence for such a variable heretofore ? I will do a

Google search on "Hidden Variable" just to see what I find.

 

Maddog

[Fishteacher73]

I am not implying hidden variables, just that the math we use to describe these events is theoretical and much of QM is manufactured to make the math work and we have no evidence of the existence of such particles (such as the gravity particle).

 

This ambiguos nature of this branch of science makes it a bit open for interpretation and not the most solid foundation for argument.

[bumab]

 

A "Causal" Universe does not prevent "Free Will". No Laws of Physics are broken!

Plus, if you want to whack Causality what about Antimatter who according to QED

appear to have time run backwards (consistent with it). No Laws of Physics broken

there either. I have my hand on a hot stove. Your causality notion would have me

instinctually remove my hand as it was hot. What if I chose to leave it. It would get

burned. What about people who kill themselves -- is that instinct ? If I were you I

would look Causality up in a dictionary. You have quite taken it to extreme. :xx: :xx:

 

I don't think I've taken it to the extreme, but rather it's logical conclusion. I also happen to think free will exists, because that "extreme" is so contrary to the evidence in our own lives we see daily. However, I was setting up the deterministic worldview at it's logical conclusion- casual determinism. Obviously you believe in more. So do I.

 

Suicide is a great example of possible evidece for free will. Not argueing with you. But be ready to accept that if you believe your will lies outside the casual universe, you are believing in the supernatural.

[maddog]

I don't think I've taken it to the extreme, but rather it's logical conclusion. I also happen to think free will exists, because that "extreme" is so contrary to the evidence in our own lives we see daily. However, I was setting up the deterministic worldview at it's logical conclusion- casual determinism. Obviously you believe in more. So do I.

 

Suicide is a great example of possible evidece for free will. Not argueing with you. But be ready to accept that if you believe your will lies outside the casual universe, you are believing in the supernatural.

You fail to understand me. I don't think my WILL (free or otherwise) lies outside of Laws of Physics. This includes Global Causality. We already see in QM where local causality can be broken and

this does not violate Physical Laws. I am happy you believe in Free Will. Fine. The point is you have not

read much of Kant and the 18th Century Philosophers that derived from Newtonian Physics the

philosophy of Determinism. This is what I mean by your "extreme" view. I am sure what your version is.

This why I am perplexed.

BTW, what is "Supernatural". Would a definition be "beyond nature" (just a guess). Maybe another

domain where physical laws have not been encroached. Would "Dark Matter" constitute Supernatural ?

We don't know how Dark Matter works, just that there appears evidence for it. What I am hearing I

think is a superstition from you. It might be my own bias and I don't mean to put this upon you.

 

Maybe you derive an example how Determinism as you define it (even if you don't agree with it) would

preclude Free Will from being included. It might help me to follow your arguement.

 

Maddog

[maddog]

I am not implying hidden variables, just that the math we use to describe these events is theoretical and much of QM is manufactured to make the math work and we have no evidence of the existence of such particles (such as the gravity particle).

 

This ambiguos nature of this branch of science makes it a bit open for interpretation and not the most solid foundation for argument.

I take to mean you can deny the existence of QM, QFT, SM, etc, because you mention 1 particle from

the Std Model which is theoretical (Graviton) at the moment ? This logic allows you to conclude that

humans don't think. It is all instinct. It seems boring from your side. :xx:

 

Maddog

[paultrr]

Hidden variables, do you mean? Very few still believe in them. There is much evidence against. QM goes quite against determinism.

 

I agree. I actually only included that hidden variables just because of some of the discussion of late.

[maddog]

I thought up another thing. If as everybody here is talking Determinism. This implies all of QM even

to the Schroedinger equation is invalid. In Determinism, there would be no waveform to collapse. I

now agree with Paultr I think that Determinism and Pre-determinism are definitely one in the same.

This means your life from birth is pre-destined and cannot be changed.

 

Maddog

[Qfwfq]

I didn't actually know Hidden Variables concept was out of favor these days. I have been reading some

background on Einstein and found he liked the idea in his later years.

It is well known that he said "Gott spielt nicht Würfel" while arguing with Born and other supporters of the Copenhagen interpretation. This is why Einstein proposed hidden variables. He believed in determinism because he believed God determines things and doesn't leave them up to chance. Other people could argue that we can't predict the outcome of a measurement because God decides it. Einstein's argument wasn't scientific but theological.

 

What makes a variable hidden ? Is this just because we have not discerned the evidence for such a variable heretofore ?

This is much the way Einstein's answer was criticized by Born et al.

[Qfwfq]

the math we use to describe these events is theoretical and much of QM is manufactured to make the math work

:xx:

 

we have no evidence of the existence of such particles (such as the gravity particle).

The gravity particle isn't the basis of QM. The Higgs boson hasn't been and isn't likely to be observed, all other particles in the Standard Model have been. QM isn't based on the SM anyway, it's the other way around. QM is one of the main bases of 20th century physics. I hope you aren't teaching Physics to your pupils.

 

This ambiguos nature of this branch of science makes it a bit open for interpretation and not the most solid foundation for argument.

If you believe this, you'd better steel yourself for a few surprises. :xx:

[Fishteacher73]

I am not saying QM is wrong, but the model is young and seems to have a lot of bits and pieces that are a bit nebulous. I think there is merit in the theory, but that it is incomplete and at best currently only loosly describes what is going on...

[Fishteacher73]

.....This logic allows you to conclude that

humans don't think. It is all instinct. It seems boring from your side. :xx:

 

Maddog

 

No one said that reality was exciting....

[Qfwfq]

You said some slightly odd things, now you add:

I am not saying QM is wrong, but the model is young and seems to have a lot of bits and pieces that are a bit nebulous. I think there is merit in the theory, but that it is incomplete and at best currently only loosly describes what is going on...

The QM formalism passes every test with flying colours and so does RQFT, there is no reason to invalidate it as a basis for argument. Unless Bohm can fully get around the reductio ad absurdum, I say QM points totally against determinism. Hidden variables schmidden schmariables. Aside from Bohm or Bohr, Heisenberg shows that to our practical purpouses, we shall never have complete predictivity.

[Fishteacher73]

You said some slightly odd things, now you add:

The QM formalism passes every test with flying colours and so does RQFT, there is no reason to invalidate it as a basis for argument. Unless Bohm can fully get around the reductio ad absurdum, I say QM points totally against determinism. Hidden variables schmidden schmariables. Aside from Bohm or Bohr, Heisenberg shows that to our practical purpouses, we shall never have complete predictivity.

 

 

So you are saying that our current model is a complete and accurate picture of the quantum realm?

 

I think it is still a bit young and has some flaws in it that are absorbed by constants and unsubstanciated elements. This IMO is the source of the "random" nature of it; by nature I do not think that it is truly random. So yes, I do think think that the use of QM in this specific argument is weak at best.

[Biochemist]

...Heisenberg shows that to our practical purpouses, we shall never have complete predictivity.

Since I started this thread, I feel some obligation to get it back on track. It is a little tough to distill the 130+ posts to a logical thread but here goes:

 

1) The scientific method is primarily deteministic in style, in that it assumes consistent cause-and-effect

2) Many basic scientists are (hence) determinists, generally speaking

3) QM does indeed have some elements that appear non-deterministic, but

3a) even though particle behavior does appear to have its deterministic behavior in question

3b) Schrodinger waveforms (that proscribe the boundaries of Heisenberg uncertainty) appear to be deterministic

3c) Ergo, all physics "above" the Schrodinger waveform appear to retain deterministic structure

4) If the world is deterministic, humans are deterministic

5) If humans are deterministic, human thoughts are deterministic

6) If human thoughts are deterministic, our decisions are deterministic

7) If our decisions are deterministic, then our objectivity in observation (within the scientific method) is called in to question, since we could not "objectively" review data and "decide" whether it is valid. We just react to stimulli. We would have no basis to assert "validity"

8) Theists separate free will from the determinism of the universe to solve the conundrum in 7) above

9) Atheists question whether the point in 7) above is actually true, or leave the conundrum unsolved.

10) No one contends that determinism equals predictability. Underlying chaotic complexity often exposes us to systems where the causality cannot be identified. This does not mean that those systems are not deterministic.

 

Anyone disagree with my thread summary? :xx:

[bumab]

Looks like a great summary!

[bumab]

You fail to understand me. I don't think my WILL (free or otherwise) lies outside of Laws of Physics.

 

Awsome. Everything in your will has a cause, then, because nothing is uncaused in the laws of physics. So what causes your will? Your mind? What causes your mind? Some chemical interaction? So what causes that chemical interaction? The pre-existing conditions.

 

This includes Global Causality. We already see in QM where local causality can be broken and this does not violate Physical Laws.

 

QM is something which happens on a scale below what we normally deal with when talking about the mind. Everything above that scale is causal. Also- QM is random (although many think it will eventually be shown to be determinstic as well). So unless you think you can control randomness to create a will, it stil doesn't work, you are still appealing to the supernatural, or something outside of nature, as you said.

 

The point is you have not read much of Kant and the 18th Century Philosophers that derived from Newtonian Physics the philosophy of Determinism.

 

I have read quite a bit, thanks. Kant has his critics as well.

 

BTW, what is "Supernatural". Would a definition be "beyond nature" (just a guess). Maybe another domain where physical laws have not been encroached.

 

Not sure what you mean by "physical laws have not been encroached," but I think beyond nature is a good alternate. Something that lies outside of physcial reality.

 

Would "Dark Matter" constitute Supernatural ? We don't know how Dark Matter works, just that there appears evidence for it.

 

Obviously not, because dark matter can follow the rules of causality. Free will, as I thought we had all defined it, by definition CANNOT, since it's not logical that:

A=B

A=C

B does not equal C

(where A is some condition and B and C are your responses to that condition)

 

What I am hearing I think is a superstition from you. It might be my own bias and I don't mean to put this upon you.

 

Don't worry! I'm not offended, just trying to work it all out. You COULD say it's superstition, in that if free will exists, it's non-testable in the scientific sense. But I am with Fish and the others- free will is either supernatural or an illusion.

 

Maybe you derive an example how Determinism as you define it (even if you don't agree with it) would preclude Free Will from being included. It might help me to follow your arguement.

 

Sure. I did a little bit ago in the other thread- presuppositions and free will.

 

Thanks for debating this! :xx: