Is the Scientific Method invalidated without Free Will?

[paultrr]

Let's see Everett himself, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, one other major one comes to mind with no premission to quote being required there, Michael Clive Price

February 1995. Permission to copy in its entirety granted for non-commercial purposes which I think this qualifies as such. Price's own comments appear in part on wikipedia which requires no quoting at all. Hawking which I already mentioned. Several other published and unpublished references on quantum theory interpretation which Price himself borrowed from. Probably could add in a lot of other Encyclopedias out there that all tend to repeat these same issues when it comes to quantum theory and at least one 70's era textbook on quantum theory that I have in my own library. Some others would be Hardy, David Hume, and several others.

 

As to the other responce about macro versus micro. There are several published articles out there on consciousness and quantum theory that would well debate that issue with you. The human brain, is after all formed of particles itself with particles being effected by quantum effects. Its not just the plank scale were the weirdness comes into play. Its basically the particle scale on down with the closer one gets to the Planck level were uncertainity becomes more and more an issue. Yes, the human brain is large. But thought is carried on via electrochemical processes that in the end run boil down to quantum scale effects. So the uncertanity about real determinism does apply there also. I was more thinking of the macro applying to scales beyond the particle scale. But in the end run everything is made up of particles at least everything we call matter. If nature teaches us anything its that randomness can generate order in and of itself.

[maddog]

Haven' any of you heard of operant learning theory? It is obvious, based on Skinner's learning theory, that human behavior is determined by external causes - the physical and social influence. There is no room for free-will.

 

Except, perhaps, if you include another source of influence in Skinner's construct - the inner speech. Only then would there be valid explanation for human actions as being based on free-will.

Yes, I have read his book on Operant Conditioning as well as some of his research papers. Most of his

research was on Pigeons. Some on dogs and other mammals and some tests were given to humans. None

to me as I understand deny the ability to make a choice. It was describing how easily the behavior can be

added into the mix of animals and people. This may in fact limit volition, not eliminate it.

 

Maddog

[maddog]

One issue (although just a semantics one) is that I think many people confuse a deterministic universe as the same thing as a pre-determinied universe.

A deterministic universe could be illustrated by dropping a box of rubber balls on a concrete floor. If you could calculate all the collisions you would be able to determine why a specific ball ended up where it was as well as the direction of the next rebound. It is essentailly impossible too predict far into the future because there are too many unknowns (collisions with other balls chaoticly bouncing about).

 

A pre-determined universe would imply that the final outcome was known before the box was dumped. All the ending locations were already determined.

 

In a deterministic system each "step" combines with each prior step to determine the outcome. That outcome then in turn becomes part of the factors determining the following step. Kind of like a Goldbergian machine.

Yes, in doing so you have suspended Heisenberg and his Uncertainty Principle. One can not know both

the velocity and position of your set of balls equally to determine far into the future. With each collision

increasing information is lost. This is for macroscopic balls. Were these to be quantum particles then the

particles become more pronounced in their dual nature. I believe this is what both Qfwfq and Paultr are

getting at. The 20th Centure and QM, etc has basically eliminated the deterministic world of the 18th

Century and given a fuzzy replica. With that you get a vague knowledge of where these balls with be

in the future. ;)

 

Maddog

[maddog]

As I said it is semantics... To me pre-determined implys a degree of planning and stucture. In a pre-determined system every time you dumped the balls they would end up in the same place, while deterministic iterpretation would conclude that each event was unique and could be calculated if all the variables were known.

 

Not a huge difference, and probably even to a smaller extent someone that disagrees...Maybe its like arguing how many angels fit on a a pinhead w/ me.....

Not according to Quantum Mechanics. You haven't specified the size of the balls. If one inch in diameter,

I will concede the attributable error is negligable. Of course you haven't stipulated to what accuracy you

are "determining" the "outcome" and to have far into the future. If the size of these balls were

50 microns or so. There would be more error (less determined). In fact Chaos would reign in that Thermodynamics would come into play (fourier analysis of the heat equation for the air in the room). I

imply you are not "dumping" in a vacuum. Were the size to much less than .1 Micron (100 nm), QM

would need to be used to verify whether electrons weren't tunneling between balls transfering

momentum between balls. This would NOT be repeatable at ALL!

 

Maddog

[maddog]

Oh but it does violate laws of physics. Free will is independent of causality. Free will is saying: Given two identical situations, I could choose different things.

 

I also believe in free will, however, I understand that does not square with the laws of physics, thus making for some belief in the supernatural right off. I don't think one can believe in free will and NOT believe in the supernatural, because free will is, certainly, supernatural itself.

You are saying my choice to reply to this post is violating the Laws of Physics ? Or or you saying someone else made this choice for me. Maybe it was "pre-determined" before I was born ? ;)

 

Maddog

[Fishteacher73]

The 20th Centure and QM, etc has basically eliminated the deterministic world of the 18th

Century and given a fuzzy replica. With that you get a vague knowledge of where these balls with be

in the future. ;)

Maddog

 

 

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.

[maddog]

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.

No, I don't have a problem with evolution. I actually don't have a problem what I think/know of as

Determinism. I do have a problem with the definition bantied around here. In essence what you are

saying is that humans are not sentient. We are preprogrammed and driven only by instinct for there

to not be Free Will. Choice is an illusion. I say Balderdash!

 

Maddog

[Fishteacher73]

In essence what you are

saying is that humans are not sentient. We are preprogrammed and driven only by instinct for there

to not be Free Will. Choice is an illusion. I say Balderdash!

 

Maddog

 

 

I would think it quite nice to be wrong, but I see no evidence of a non-deterministic universe, and plenty that indicates it. The biggest "support" for free-will is that one thinks it exists. People think aliens exist. Does that make them exist? No. People though the Earth was flat. Did that make it flat? No.

 

Much of this debate stems that people want to think that humans are "special" or have a purpose. This is heavy bias and people want to accept reasoning that supports the desired outcome that they would not accept on any other issue. So the question I ask, is what makes human meat better than say, rat meat?

[maddog]

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.

So you think like Einstein that "God does not play dice with the universe" in order to be deterministic.

I thought you were an atheist ?

 

Maddog

[maddog]

I would think it quite nice to be wrong, but I see no evidence of a non-deterministic universe, and plenty that indicates it. The biggest "support" for free-will is that one thinks it exists. People think aliens exist. Does that make them exist? No. People though the Earth was flat. Did that make it flat? No.

 

Much of this debate stems that people want to think that humans are "special" or have a purpose. This is heavy bias and people want to accept reasoning that supports the desired outcome that they would not accept on any other issue. So the question I ask, is what makes human meat better than say, rat meat?

If you even wish to hear my point, it is Sentience. A rat/mouse does not appear to give any awareness

of his/her being aware of itself. Otherwise, we are no different that insects and there is no "I". For me

there is.

 

Maddog

[Fishteacher73]

If you even wish to hear my point, it is Sentience. A rat/mouse does not appear to give any awareness

of his/her being aware of itself.

Maddog

 

 

What is neccessary to show awareness? The drive for self preservation, the drive to reproduce or protect one's offspring? What about social organisms such as birds or dolphins (much less colonial insects)? What aspect do humans posess that these do not?

[Fishteacher73]

I do not mean to be confrontational, sorry if it came across that way... Just discussing..

[bumab]

You are saying my choice to reply to this post is violating the Laws of Physics ? Or or you saying someone else made this choice for me. Maybe it was "pre-determined" before I was born ? ;)

 

Maddog

 

No, I was saying in a non-free will universe (also known as a causal universe), you could not do otherwise. If you believe you could have chosen NOT to reply, you believe in free will, and thus, the supernatural. (I believe you could have ;))

 

Perhaps some confusion arises with the term "pre-determined." In a causal universe, actions are predetermined, however the word "determined" makes it sound like something chose that action. Perhaps "inevitable" would be a better approximation.

[maddog]

What is neccessary to show awareness? The drive for self preservation, the drive to reproduce or protect one's offspring? What about social organisms such as birds or dolphins (much less colonial insects)? What aspect do humans posess that these do not?

What is nessecary ? That you respond to my post for one. Or are you saying that is

instinctual ? Is comrehension of the printed word instinct ? I am not taking offense,

I am having problem comprehending how much you misunderstand about what was

originally meant about determinism. I am quite in awe of the illogical silliness coming

from someone who only days ago had posted what I considered great post arguing

with some Creationist tripe. You hear "Free Will" and you go sh?t. I would say

constrain the "Will", though that wouldn't matter to you. I think it is the "Will" you

have a problem with. Apparently for you there is no will. Then I ask how you respond

to my posts earlier ? :xx:

 

Maddog

[maddog]

No, I was saying in a non-free will universe (also known as a causal universe), you could not do otherwise. If you believe you could have chosen NOT to reply, you believe in free will, and thus, the supernatural. (I believe you could have :))

 

Perhaps some confusion arises with the term "pre-determined." In a causal universe, actions are predetermined, however the word "determined" makes it sound like something chose that action. Perhaps "inevitable" would be a better approximation.

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:

 

Maddog

[paultrr]

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:

 

Maddog

 

Good point. It seems to me a lot of people tend to get mixed up on the meaning of terms like causality. I find it odd that so many religious people do since cause and effect is actually taught in the scriptures also. "What one sows is what one reaps." That is Causality also. One could say that by cause(placing one's hand on the hot stove) and the choice to leave it there one comes to the effect(being burned).

[paultrr]

I might add that the Biblical idea of God being the predistinator(first cause) does not negate free will either else salvation in itself would not be something one can freely receive according to the same book.