Is the Scientific Method invalidated without Free Will?

[paultrr]

Actually, our brains(our Mind) is formed of particles itself. Quantum effects relate to particles themselves as well as scales below that.

[Qfwfq]

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"

I question the step:

 

We just react to stimulli => We would have no basis to assert "validity"

 

There is a difference between being unable to make a truly arbitrary choice and being unable to draw a conclusion. A deterministic algorithm, although it can't make an arbitrary choice, can draw conclusions according to input data. I see the two things as different. :xx:

 

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.

Chaotic systems are essentially ones in which an arbitrarily small (initial) difference causes totally different outcome. Arbitrarily small means that Heisenbrg is enough to invalidate 3c)

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

even when the parts of the chaotic system are macroscopic.

 

Some obsessive nut computed how little change in boundary conditions would be sufficient to cause radically different evolution for the triangle of pool balls being broken by the first shot, i. e. to have a hit-or-miss difference after a couple of minutes, assuming an ideal table with ideal balls, exact values of masses, diameters, initial and final positions and force of shot, no friction etc. A difference comparable to the gravitational attraction from a distant electron is sufficient. Heisenberg gives a monstruous uncertainty in the phase space of those pool balls, in comparison.

[Qfwfq]

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)

The transitive property of equivalence relations, applied to reaction to a condition. :xx: Reaction to a condition isn't what I call an equivalence relation, it has none of the three properties of equivalence relations (reflexive, symmetric and transitive). Reaction can depend on a lot more than a single condition, unless A is the condition of the whole universe.

[Biochemist]

I question the step:

 

We just react to stimulli => We would have no basis to assert "validity"

 

There is a difference between being unable to make a truly arbitrary choice and being unable to draw a conclusion. A deterministic algorithm, although it can't make an arbitrary choice, can draw conclusions according to input data. I see the two things as different. :xx:

This puts you firmly in one of the two camps noted in point 9). I don't agree with your conclusion here, because I think any conclusion is a decision. But it's just my opinion

Chaotic systems are essentially ones in which an arbitrarily small (initial) difference causes totally different outcome. Arbitrarily small means that Heisenbrg is enough to invalidate 3c) even when the parts of the chaotic system are macroscopic.

My understanding of the mathematics is that this is not true. I could well be incorrect. My reading of Hawking suggested that even though Heisenberg uncertainty made particle movement/location unpredictable (and apparently random), serial Schrodinger waveforms (that describe the boundary of Heisenberg uncertainty) appear to behave deterministically. You know more QM than I do, but my understanding was that determinism was preserved above the Schrodinger waveform, so the macro world is shielded from the particle-level Heisenberg uncertainty. I do understand the butterfly effect, but in this context, it was not applicable. Am I incorrect on this?

[Biochemist]

Some obsessive nut computed how little change in boundary conditions would be sufficient to cause radically different evolution for the triangle of pool balls being broken by the first shot...Heisenberg gives a monstruous uncertainty in the phase space of those pool balls, in comparison.

And I agree with the point that apparently trivial changes in initial conditions drive significant changes in outcome. But chaotic behavior is still deterministic. It is just not precidtable. The issue is whether Heisenberg-level movements apply when the Schrodinger waveforms appear deterministic.

[bumab]

Reaction can depend on a lot more than a single condition, unless A is the condition of the whole universe.

 

That's actually what I meant by A. If EVERY condition was known, it would be a valid conclusion. Sure, it's mind boggling huge, but the outcome is still valid.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

This is a trick question.

 

I assume that I can only invalidate the Scientific Method by using the Scientific Method.

 

So the issue of free will is not relevant. The answer is NO.

[maddog]

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...

Young ? About a hundred years or so (give or take a few). How many years constitute an old theory ?

Is the work of Newton old ? Or do we have to go back to the works of Aristotle to be appropriately old ?

I am glad you think QM, QFT, etc have merit; you then are in agreement with the 1000's of physicists

around the world who continually test these components daily with increasing accuracy. To say, loosely

describes what is going on", implies that you feel the detonation of an atomic blast is loosely targeted when

it's epicenter can be computed to within 3 meters in todays targeting abilities! :xx: :xx:

 

Maddog

[Biochemist]

This is a trick question.

What question?

I assume that I can only invalidate the Scientific Method by using the Scientific Method.

If the scientific methold was intrinsically invalid, you certainly could not use it to invalidate itself.

So the issue of free will is not relevant.

This is a longstanding conundrum. You can certainly argue that you don't agree with the postiion that the SM is invalidated, but it is a stretch to suggest the free will issue is irrelevant.

[maddog]

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.

I wouldn't say that is what Qfwfq was saying. He was emphasizing how QM inherently has uncertainty

embedded in (i.e. "anti-deterministic"). Basically since the late 20's (1920+), determinism was out and

uncertainty was in. You could argue there is determinism somewhat still around because of strange

attractors. Maybe, though not as classically Newtonian as you paint it to be.

 

If I flip a coin, it's heads or tails. I'd you like to predict the next 10,000 tosses.

 

Maddog

[paultrr]

This puts you firmly in one of the two camps noted in point 9). I don't agree with your conclusion here, because I think any conclusion is a decision. But it's just my opinionMy understanding of the mathematics is that this is not true. I could well be incorrect. My reading of Hawking suggested that even though Heisenberg uncertainty made particle movement/location unpredictable (and apparently random), serial Schrodinger waveforms (that describe the boundary of Heisenberg uncertainty) appear to behave deterministically. You know more QM than I do, but my understanding was that determinism was preserved above the Schrodinger waveform, so the macro world is shielded from the particle-level Heisenberg uncertainty. I do understand the butterfly effect, but in this context, it was not applicable. Am I incorrect on this?

 

What everone keeps messing is that everything out there including us, animals, stars,planets, and our brains are formed of particles. How those particles interact at the quantum level has bearing on the microworld as well as in the macroworld. The boundry of Heisenburg uncertainity may well be considered more defined. But, Hawking also stresses the point himself that there is uncertanity. His own statement about us being more than the sum of our parts is just one example. We cannot fully determine everything in this universe. Determinism, in its strict sence does not really apply at all levels and where it does not apply then whatever system one wants to propose is capable of randomness.

[maddog]

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

I categorically disagree on 1+2 as per earlier discussion. I will admit the notion

not heretofore used as "DETERMINABLE" (as in able to determine). This to me is

a relaxed condition. This is so, in that not all things may have a cause. If not

what "caused" the big bang. If this can not be identified, can we not say this is

Not determinable.

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

Only once the waveform collapses by measuring the value.

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

This implies the Radioactive decay of some elements can be predicted with

100 % accuracy. FALLACIOUS!!!

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"

4-7 fail since based upon a fallacious premise!

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.

Appears to me Atheists/Theists alike contrast Free Will from Determinism to

simplify their little minds.

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.

I DO! I have by the discussion in this thread and previous maintain that

Determinism as currently used and Pre-Determinism as blasted and Predictability

as you separate out are actually one and the same. Otherwise we are arguing

where to place the deck chairs of the titanic!

Anyone disagree with my thread summary?

I do so completely!

I have embedded my answers within your quote. There are numerous cases where things can not be

very well determined thus preventing predictability. How then does this in essence afford

determinism ?

 

Second point as y'all are using "determinism" as to prevent the ability of sentient creatures (like humans)

from making a cognizant choice. Instead the creatures are actually behaving according to a program

prepared from previous experiences. If part of this "program" was to propagate itself (and species)

then why would such a human commit a selfless act to save anothers life (even if it would end their

own) ?

 

Third then humans are not different than programs (software) because we are predictable as you say.

We can "teach" programs to play chess and to prove theorems from given set of axioms. This means

learning. Does this mean programs are alive like we are ? Conversely, Chimpanzees learn how to

improve their tools thereby enhancing their abilities, yet we don't ? We are programmed to do what

we've done before. This means that we are lower than chimpanzees on the evolutionary scale ?

To learn we would have to take in and evaulate information and change the current thought process

with a new thought process.

 

Denying the ability to make choices freely for sentient creatures denies sentience. Denying that puts

us at the level of animals (I know we are wun...) and maybe below if you don't allow that we learn

and chimps do. Odd. :xx:

 

Maddog

[maddog]

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.

Probably the same which "causes" your will if you admit you have one.

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.

Are in effect saying you can predict the weather accurately for the next month and be 100% correct ?

There lots of cases where phenomenae is unpredictable.

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.

My apologies, I have a bad habit of not writing all the words. Typical case of where the brain/mind

is ahead of the hands. I skip now and then. Oops. :xx:

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)

Actually, it unfair to say much beyond what Physical laws Dark Matter does follow except what we

have discovered it by and that is Gravity. We do know that Gravitation has an effect upon Dark

Matter. The rest is empirically accepted until corrobarated.

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.

I don't have problem with Illusion per se. Though I wonder which is illusion and which is "Real" ?

Something I have been working out for awhile is dealing with bifurcated realities (Dual). This has

some ability to incorporate String Theory. I have yet to get a chance to study in depth Loop

Quantum Gravity. However, SuperNatural is I think a superstition. What is beyond Nature to have

to supercede it ? This doesn't mean I don't think some form of Spirit could exist. Just that I don't

think this is in any way beyond Nature. If anything to have existance, it must be able to adhere to

scrutiny of investigation and validation. Currently String Theory doesn't yet do a good job of that. We

need to create better ways to determine (determinability again) whether String/M-Theory is valid or not.

 

Maddog

[bumab]

Are in effect saying you can predict the weather accurately for the next month and be 100% correct ? There lots of cases where phenomenae is unpredictable.

 

Yeah, if you know all the variables. the fact that it's PRACTICALLY impossible has no bearing.

 

Just that I don't think this is in any way beyond Nature. If anything to have existance, it must be able to adhere to scrutiny of investigation and validation. Currently String Theory doesn't yet do a good job of that. We need to create better ways to determine (determinability again) whether String/M-Theory is valid or not.

 

Maddog

 

Perhaps it would help me if you could explain this. If your will is free AND lies inside of nature, could you tell me the mechanism by which it works? Does it influence QM randomness? What do you think?

[maddog]

That's actually what I meant by A. If EVERY condition was known, it would be a valid conclusion. Sure, it's mind boggling huge, but the outcome is still valid.

Have you read the Foundation Trilogy by Asimov ? His theory in the series was called Psycholinguistics

(I think) in which were all the variables of human behavior in aggregate plugged into a model, then it

(human behavior) could be model with sufficient accuracy to predict the future. I may have oversimlified

it. Now be aware this was basically all before much was know about Quantum Tunneling and Solid State

Physics of the late 40s and early 50s. The impact to the culture was not well known. Were he to have

written this series even 10 years later. I don't think his premises of this theory would have been laid

out so strong. Currently any thought of attempting such a computation with your condition A would be

laughable. :xx:

 

Maddog

[maddog]

Yeah, if you know all the variables. the fact that it's PRACTICALLY impossible has no bearing.

Chaos and the Theory of Strange Attractors prevent you from predicting such an effect with increasing

inaccuracy of time passes (i.e. "Butterfly Effect").

Perhaps it would help me if you could explain this. If your will is free AND lies inside of nature, could you tell me the mechanism by which it works? Does it influence QM randomness? What do you think?

This is something I am looking at. It would be like saying my will to change roll of a

die or a flip of a coin. I don't say I can explain it yet. I am not at the moment,

Not dismissing it out of hand.

 

Maddog

[C1ay]

While reading through the thread here I have come to an interesting observation. It seems that the determinists have come here to argue in favor or determinism because that is what they believe they were predestined to do. What's interesting is that they have come to argue this point with the believers of free will as if those very belivers had a choice to be convinced to change their minds in favor of determinism which is an act that would itself bolster the case for free will because in involves a decision to chose determinism over free will. This begs the question, "Are the determinists predestined to argue in favor of their position on determinism in order to lose the argument by winning the argument?

 

This is beginning to look like the makings of a good logic problem. :xx: