Is the Scientific Method invalidated without Free Will?

[Fishteacher73]

Actually, part of the SM is quantum theory which has its own uncertanity.

Sorry....a different abrev. Scientific Method (not standard model).

[bumab]

We can do something wrong lots of ways.

 

You realize that "wrong" requires free will to be a valid concept, of course! ;)

 

It's interesting how much the ideal of free will is woven into our language, as well as our thought processes. I think I'll start another thread on that... is it possible to make a statement about ourselves that does not presuppose free will?

[paultrr]

So are you saying that validity can be found in a preponderance of evidence, as in individual observations may or may not be "true," however a lot of observations together count as validation?

 

Generally we follow the prepoderance of evidence. For instance the mention of many random quantum events leading to the same end run situation. That would be an example of following the evidence trail, so to speak. It actually does not discount all those random events themselves, however. There was a simular problem a couple of years back when NASA attempted to duplicate those spinning disks for a bit for signs of antigravitational effects. The original experiments reported way larger differences than NASA itself came up with. I think, and I can stand corrected on this, that their results only showed 2% of the experiments performed showing any signs of a mass loss. 2% would not meet the requirement of a prepoderance of evidence or consistant duplication. However, at the close of BPP there was mention that further testing was in order.

 

I think it boils down to how well one accepts the statistical answers. From a statistical point of view the universe for the most part on large scales is deterministic. However, when you get down to the quantum level at points the statistics can go out the door. Taking the uncertanity principle into account the closer to the planck scale one gets the worse things tend to become unpredictable. We also tend to have a backwards in time unpredictability also where our models tend to require change the more we are able to view observationally further back in time.

[paultrr]

Sorry....a different abrev. Scientific Method (not standard model).

 

No problem.

[paultrr]

You realize that "wrong" requires free will to be a valid concept, of course! ;)

 

It's interesting how much the ideal of free will is woven into our language, as well as our thought processes. I think I'll start another thread on that... is it possible to make a statement about ourselves that does not presuppose free will?

 

I'm not certain that the actual way he mentioned wrong really implies free will that much. Its more a matter of either following scientific methods or not in that specific case. One could look at that case as one in which determinism lead to some very wrong choices for the guys who did that.

[bumab]

True. Sorry about that Fish. Of course, one can't blame the person who didn't follow the scientific method for doing it "wrong," cause they were determined to do it, right?? ;)

[Biochemist]

It's interesting how much the ideal of free will is woven into our language, as well as our thought processes. I think I'll start another thread on that... is it possible to make a statement about ourselves that does not presuppose free will?

Great point. This will be a great thread.

[mcsquared]

In QM we learn that observation implies an interaction. It isn't necessarily an ad hoc interaction though, the matter is simply that with no interaction the observation wouldn't be possible.

 

Is an astronomer influencing a star by seeing the light coming from it? Find the influence in this case!!! ;)

 

 

Ignoring Alpha Centauri,it depends on the star in question. How many light years distant it is and who will check, and will records still exist at the right time! Whatever your reply, we today will never know, so how long is a piece of string!!? Nice propo though !

[maddog]

1) Many folks in the deterministic universe camp believe that free will does not exist, i.e. that all events in the universe are the resultant of earlier events.

2) Determinism and predictability are only tangentially related. Only a subset of deterministic events can be predicted, due to obfuscation of resultant outcomes by chaotic behavior.

3) Free will appears to exist on a subjective evidenciary basis. We can run experiements with humans subjects and ask them to make decisions, and those decisions will appear uncaused.

4) We can certainly hypothesize that there is a cause for the decisions (and that the cause is obfuscated by chaotic behavior, as in point 2 above). Ergo, free will would not exist in reality, in spite of the subjective evidence that it does.

5) If our subjective perceptions about free will are an illusion, it would be easy to suggest that the logical consequence is that all of our perceptions of observations are illusions.

6) If our perceptions of observations are illusions, can we contend the scientific method is valid?

 

Overall question: Does the contention that free will does not exist imply that the scientific method is invalid?.

I Italicized points I wish to bring up later, on this post I only wish to address the

bold question at the bottom of the quote.

 

How does whether Free Will exist have ANY impact on the Scientific Method ? ;)

Free Will basically is a reference to whether a sentient individual can make a choice.

The Scientific Method derived from works by Sir Francis Bacon in the 17th Century that

we can make a hypothesis, gather evidence to support hypothesis to create a valid

conclusion that the hypothesis is valid. I can get from A (hypothesis) to B (conclusion).

To make a choice freely is that after looking at all the evidence one way or the other to

what would be best, such an individual might make the choice that is not even in their

best interest because they chose to.

 

1) Determinism was around in 18th Century following the exacting efficiency of

Newtonian Mechanics making the Universe run like "clockwork". Kant spoke on this at

length. It was the prevailing belief structure of the day. Then in the 18th Century,

questions came in about the working out the Heat equation and Thermodynamics.

Raised a few eyebrows and then the 20th Century hit with a bang. Relativity and

issues of Simultaneity; Brownian Motion, QM (especially Heisenburg Uncertainty

Priciple), and Chaos (eg "Butterfly effect). The Universe wasn't so clockwork

before. Determinism lost complete popularity.

2) Predictability is a way to corroborate Determinism.

3) Ya' people choose and decide daily. I am not sure how Causality comes in here.

4) This would imply some "boogie monster" is making peoples decisions. So who is

that ?

5) Another path to mankind being "puppets on a string" by method of illusion.

6) More of 5)

 

Qfwfq & Paultr stated the case of phenominae in Physics better than wish to spend the

time to. My ability to choose to post this message did not violate any Physical Laws

that I know of. Maybe someone could enlighten me ??? ;)

 

Maddog

[maddog]

Don't drag misticism into the reality. Free will is not an illusion. It simply does not exist. Humans are part of nature and as such, are subject to all natural laws. To presume that there is such a thing as free will for humans would exempt us from the laws of nature and we would become supernatural.

Linda,

 

Please explain to me how whatever you think Free Will is would violate Laws of Nature.

I may be dense here, I am not getting there is a conflict. In fact, I can create an

experiment using an electron gun (spitting out electrons with a direction and momentum)

at a 2-slit opening to view an interference pattern against a wall. Fine. Now I slow

down the gun till 1 electron comes out per second into the slit. QM will calculate the

expectation value of where the electron went (which slit) to produce the interference

pattern. So that it would appear to be complely random. However allowing this to go

for a time. The pattern will emerge against the wall anyway. This same experiment

has been done with single photons as well. Same effect. Natural laws. Behavior as

though the electron is "choosing" which slit to go. Free Will ? I will grant you there

is likely no sentience in the electron. Fill me in please. ;)

 

Maddog

[maddog]

Free will implies that given two identical situtaions (hypothetically, of course) a person could decide two different things.

 

Determinism implies that given identical conditions, a person would always do the same thing (not "choose" to do the same thing).

 

Doesn't seem like a big deal at first, until you think about it. then you realize that if determinism is true, you didn't choose to read this, rather, pre-existing conditions "led" you here, and will determine your response- emotional, rational, etc.

Basically, I concur. In fact this boils down to there really is no intelligent life on Earth.

Because if there was, they could make CHOICES !!!

 

I will grant you Programs don't have Free Will. I write it, run it and it executes. I run

it again and it does Exactly what I programed in. NO Choice. Totally Determined.

To declare Determinism is to declare we are only machinery and nothing more. I

question this point of view. ;)

 

Maddog

[maddog]

But it leads me to the conclusion that the scientific method NEEDS free will, for it is the only way a scientific observer can be APART and INPARTIAL in making decisions about the natural world. Free will supplies the seperation from the natural world that an impartial and independent observer needs.

I think I'm not disagreeing with the earlier part. However, I have a problem here.

Maybe you need to clarify.

 

If I were to follow your logic here and I could create a program that could use the

Scientific Method, you would conclude this program had Free Will. Hmm. Well, just

in case you didn't know, there is some software (College Research) that has proved

Euclid's Postulates by following deductive reasoning. That is to prove the Hyposthesis

by logic and axioms to that the Hypothesis is valid and true. What was interesting is

one of these postulate was proved by a method never before seen anywhere. It was

even better than anyone else had done!!! So would you say Software has Free Will.

I don't think so. If you interested do a google search with "Euclid's Posulates" program.

 

I will say that there is no way to actually have in existance an "ideal observer". One

can have as Qfwfq/Paultr said to be impartial. This can minimize the bias that is

always present. Scientist, grad students are always driven to publish. They either wish

to prove something true or false. Immediate bias. This is why the scientific community

always demands to have reproduceability. For example who remembers the Cold

Fusion fiasco ? Some guy was recently caught fudging data about discovering a new

element. It happens. ;)

 

Maddog

[maddog]

That brings me to a curious side question: Not being one who can be labeled an outright athiest, more agnostic than anything, do all athiest tend to see everything as predetermined? Reason I ask is I've rather begun to wonder if my agnosticism colors my own view there a bit.

I've beginning to wonder this myself. Lindagarette in an earlier post got very against

"Free Will" as though there Must be Determinism. So saying this really means the "We"

in us doesn't really exist ? Because if there is only instinct then I could follow there is

what Stimulus Response will create. Bell -> Salivate.

 

At the same time, I don't see how my viewpoint gets in. I have a belief in God. So

what. I can still make a choice. I don't need any God to this. Of course, I am much

more easy going. ;-)

 

Maddog

[Biochemist]

I Italicized points I wish to bring up later, on this post I only wish to address the

bold question at the bottom of the quote.

 

How does whether Free Will exist have ANY impact on the Scientific Method ? ;)

MD- The italicized points are the suggested logical proof case for the question. If all of our actions/thoughts/behaviors are determined by prior events, we have no basis to assume that we are analyzing anything as an independent observer of data. We may individually (or as a group) react in a similar way to some observed data, but that does not mean it is connected to "reality" in any way. We are just reacting like a deer in the woods to a loud noise. It may or may not be a real danger, but the flight reaction is common to deer.

 

Free will would allow for independent analysis, even though our observations per se might not be truly independent (as discussed earlier).

[maddog]

IMO I see no argument for free-will. The only case for it is our belief in it. There are many examples that indicate that the is no breaking point at which the fundamental laws would not apply. To concede free-will is to concede the inability of science to apply uniformly under the same conditions. I initially was pro free-will, but the only out for this under tighter scrutiny would be a devine power (Which this in itself also instigates another argument against free-will) and this is an option that I cannot completely discount but a concept about which I am very sceptical.

So someone makes your choices for you. You actually don't make them. What I fail to

see is whether Free Will existing directly predetermines an exsitance of any kind of

fundamental law would no longer apply. Unless you implying the Free Will running

around independent of sentient creatures. Because maybe the Will is Free ? Call it

the Ability to make a Choice then. If all my choices are made for me before I got here,

that seems spookier to me. That does sound weird.

 

Maddog

[maddog]

For analogy, examine a NASCAR race (in basic terms). The cars only go in a clockwise direction in an oval. There is no other option. This is determined. Just because this is the only way for them to race, it does not negate the intricaies of the mechanics of the engine nor the necessity of understanding them.

There is an option. I as a driver could choose to turn around and go the wrong way.

I would likely die in the process, so this would be very stupid. I could be insane.

There are rules about not killing people. Every day or so you hear of another shooting

either in a school or a workplace. This is deterministic. These people who shoot were

predetermined in advance to do this. Then why did we let them have guns ?? ;)

 

Maddog

[Biochemist]

So someone makes your choices for you.

Well, the argument is not that someone makes decisions for you, but that there are no decisions made at all, just resultant states from previous states. We are essentially no more independent that ping pong balls are on a table. They move when they are hit, and all hits are traced back (eventuially) to the Big Bang. Given the underlying chaotics, we actually could not trace them. But we assume the traces are there. Determinists (at least the ones that are atheists, per Fst's note) contend there would never be a decision at all.

If all my choices are made for me before I got here, that seems spookier to me. That does sound weird.

That would pretty much sum up the argument. The determiists would also contend that your action to read this post and respond or not was not a decision either. Whatever you do is just the resultant of earlier events/actions.

 

As FsT mentioned, the only way "out" if you are a determinst is to allow that God separated free will from the cause-and-effect of nature.