Science, soul and free will

[s_lone]

After having thought about it for a while, it is my understanding that science as we know it and the concept of free will are fundamentally incompatible. It seems to me that anyone who claims to only believe in scientific ''facts'' cannot reasonably believe in actual genuine free will. It also seems to me that only some form of leap of faith can lead someone to believe in pure, authentic free will because to the best of my knowledge, there is not a single bit of scientific data that can prove human beings to be anything else than very elaborate ''machines''.

Before the discovery of quantum indeterminacy, science understood the world as being purely mechanistic. That meant that all phenomena could be attributed to the very precise and strict laws that govern the universe. If followed rigorously, universal mechanism can only lead to anthropic mechanism, which maintains that all human affairs can, in the end, be explained in mechanical terms.

Rare are the ones who will adhere to this strictly deterministic view of the world and the reasons for this are obvious. This worldview shuts the door completely to the concept of free will and very few of us who can admit having no freedom whatsoever. Not only does it defy common sense but it is also counterintuitive.

Science has evolved and it now faces a much more complex reality. The microcosmic world seems to function under some sort of fundamental indeterminacy. The implications of this are huge. No longer is the universe understood as being purely mechanical.

But does this really open the door to the concept of free will? I believe it can, but only if one is ready to go beyond scientific knowledge (leap of faith).

If one is not ready for a leap of faith and desires to ground his understanding of the world in purely scientific terms, I believe one's only logical position is to assume free will to be an illusion. The only way out of this is to find a reasonable hypothesis in which free will becomes possible. But this hypothesis will probably be impossible to verify. I have yet to be exposed to a reasonable scientific hypothesis that makes genuine free will possible.

Your thoughts?

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Free will is randomness, s_lone. Anyway we will chat later, I gotto go.

 

[s_lone]

Free will is randomness, s_lone. Anyway we will chat later, I gotto go.

I hope you do realize how odd your proposition sounds? Free will is free will and randomness is randomness. Unless you are trying to say that what we delude ourselves in thinking is free will is in fact nothing else but pure randomness... In that case, there is no such thing as free will... (following the logic of your statement of course)

 

[Cliffy]

First wrong assumption is that thought is a biochemical reaction. More importantly it is the result of billions of electrical impulses although biochemistry is also involved. The problem is that the science can't prove yet the existence of another factor in human makeup, and that is the multidimensional aspects of our being. Quantum mechanics and physics are beginning to tap into our greater possibilities that have been indicated by "mystics" for thousands of years.

The quantum aspects of our reality hold the key to our capacity to think beyond mechanical reactions to external stimuli. Just the fact that we can have this conversation through the electronic impulses generated by these computers is testament to the human capacity to think freely. We created these machine to mimic the mechanical functions of our brains but without free will and a capacity to think freely, we would be nothing more than a computer. A computer cannot reason or manipulate information and draw conclusions.

The aspect that allows us to think is beyond present day science so at this time we are left with the mystical until science catches up. I believe we are not that far away from that ability.

 

[Liberalman]

Science is a theoretical concept that stands the test of time until it is disproved which happens a lot.

The soul is a largely untapped resource that when focused or used correctly can out perform science greatly.

Free will is a navigation device that one uses to go to or stay away from places or thoughts depending on the danger that is involved

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I hope you do realize how odd your proposition sounds? Free will is free will and randomness is randomness. Unless you are trying to say that what we delude ourselves in thinking is free will is in fact nothing else but pure randomness... In that case, there is no such thing as free will... (following the logic of your statement of course)

It depends upon how one defines free will. I define free will as our ability to respond to outside stimuli, to take action in response to outside influences (but that brings up an interesting question: if one is floating into space, there are no outside influences to react to, no action to take, can one be said to possess a free will in that case? When there is absolutely nothing you can do, absolutely no action you can take, do you still have a free will?).

Outside influences mostly tend to be random in nature. Where we are born, to which parents, in what socioeconomic situation etc., are all acts of randomness. The job we get is usually an act of randomness, so is the first encounter with the loved one.

But then the question arises, if we knew enough to analyze each and every force, each and every phenomena in the world, had a big enough (and fast enough) computer to do so, can we then predict everything that goes on in the world? Can we then predict what the reaction of an individual would be, can we then way that there is no free will, that we can always tell how an individual will behave in any circumstance?

I don’t know the answer to that; there is the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, after all.

 

[s_lone]

It depends upon how one defines free will. I define free will as our ability to respond to outside stimuli, to take action in response to outside influences (but that brings up an interesting question: if one is floating into space, there are no outside influences to react to, no action to take, can one be said to possess a free will in that case? When there is absolutely nothing you can do, absolutely no action you can take, do you still have a free will?).

Good question... supposing I'd be floating in a void with absolutely no possibility of action, I guess the only freedom I would have would be in the way I decide to deal with it... acceptance or despair?

Outside influences mostly tend to be random in nature. Where we are born, to which parents, in what socioeconomic situation etc., are all acts of randomness. The job we get is usually an act of randomness, so is the first encounter with the loved one.

But then the question arises, if we knew enough to analyze each and every force, each and every phenomena in the world, had a big enough (and fast enough) computer to do so, can we then predict everything that goes on in the world? Can we then predict what the reaction of an individual would be, can we then way that there is no free will, that we can always tell how an individual will behave in any circumstance?

If the universe is mechanistic, than yes, it would seem that a strong enough computer could precisely predict the behavior of anything... at least in theory. But quantum indeterminacy fuzzes any kind certainty... Perhaps the universe IS purely mechanistic and that there is only apparent indeterminacy... But I suspect things are a lot more subtle and complex than a purely mechanistic universe.

I don’t know the answer to that; there is the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, after all.

It seems to me that the only salvation for the concept of free will lies precisely in the indeterminacy of things. It's as if the principles underlying the structure of the universe are just loose enough to permit the existence of willful intentionality, unless you refuse to see anything else but pure determination mixed with pure randomness... It's a pretty odd mix...

 

[SirJosephPorter]

S_lone as long as we are speculating, there is another possibility. The randomness that we see (including the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle) may not be randomness at all, but could be worked out mathematically in higher dimensions.

According to String Theory, the universe has ten dimensions, we live in only three of them (or it has eleven, we live in four, if you count time as a dimension). So it is quite possible that anything we do not understand may make sense in higher dimensions. If that is the case, what appears to be free will may be preordained in higher dimensions.

Indeed, higher dimensions give rise to interesting speculations. Thus it has always puzzled scientists why gravity is so weak. Of the four elementary forces, gravity is by far the weakest, much weaker that strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force etc. There is no satisfactory explanation for it.

But one fascinating possibility is that gravity may exist in more than three dimensions and its projection that we see in three dimensions is very small. The projections of other forces onto three dimensions may be strong.

So in the end it may well turn out that what we regard as free will is something that can be worked out scientifically, mathematically in higher dimensions.

 

[VanIsle]

Free will is randomness, s_lone. Anyway we will chat later, I gotto go.

I don't think there is anything random about free will. Random is like the numbers for a 649 ticket. Here is free will:
freeÆ willÆ,
1. free and independent choice; voluntary decision: You took on the responsibility of your own free will.
2. Philos. the doctrine that the conduct of human beings expresses personal choice and is not simply determined by physical or divine forces.
When something is random, it is not a choice. I would say the two are the complete opposite of each other.

 

[AnnaG]

After having thought about it for a while, it is my understanding that science as we know it and the concept of free will are fundamentally incompatible. It seems to me that anyone who claims to only believe in scientific ''facts'' cannot reasonably believe in actual genuine free will. It also seems to me that only some form of leap of faith can lead someone to believe in pure, authentic free will because to the best of my knowledge, there is not a single bit of scientific data that can prove human beings to be anything else than very elaborate ''machines''.

Before the discovery of quantum indeterminacy, science understood the world as being purely mechanistic. That meant that all phenomena could be attributed to the very precise and strict laws that govern the universe. If followed rigorously, universal mechanism can only lead to anthropic mechanism, which maintains that all human affairs can, in the end, be explained in mechanical terms.

Rare are the ones who will adhere to this strictly deterministic view of the world and the reasons for this are obvious. This worldview shuts the door completely to the concept of free will and very few of us who can admit having no freedom whatsoever. Not only does it defy common sense but it is also counterintuitive.

Science has evolved and it now faces a much more complex reality. The microcosmic world seems to function under some sort of fundamental indeterminacy. The implications of this are huge. No longer is the universe understood as being purely mechanical.

But does this really open the door to the concept of free will? I believe it can, but only if one is ready to go beyond scientific knowledge (leap of faith).

If one is not ready for a leap of faith and desires to ground his understanding of the world in purely scientific terms, I believe one's only logical position is to assume free will to be an illusion. The only way out of this is to find a reasonable hypothesis in which free will becomes possible. But this hypothesis will probably be impossible to verify. I have yet to be exposed to a reasonable scientific hypothesis that makes genuine free will possible.

Your thoughts?

One can have free will and still be confident in science. Science would tell someone that going polar bear dipping is potentially dangerous to their health, especially if they aren't in good health to begin with. Yet people still go polar bear dipping. Same with firefighters entering a burning building. Logic tells them of calculated risks. Free will & intuition takes them the rest of the way.
Free will may appear random sometimes to someone else, but between your logic and your intuition, it is definitely not random. That's just an ignorant comment.
Thought by the way is ELECTROchemical activity occurring in a biological environment.

 

[AnnaG]

"A computer cannot reason or manipulate information and draw conclusions. " Sorry, Cliffy but if that were so, computers couldn't even add 1 + 2 to get 3 let alone calculate things like pi to a hundred decimal places. Have you ever seen a spreadsheet at work in a computer? If you enter data and find a mistake, you change the mistake and the rest of the data changes accordingly.

The aspect that allows us to think is beyond present day science so at this time we are left with the mystical until science catches up. I believe we are not that far away from that ability.

No we aren't left with the mystical. We are left with the unknown. There's a huge difference.

 

[AnnaG]

Science is a theoretical concept that stands the test of time until it is disproved which happens a lot.

Not as frequently as that. It os modified more than anything else.

The soul is a largely untapped resource that when focused or used correctly can out perform science greatly.

......depending on the task at hand. And then even if one can use free will and intuition to guess a result, one often cannot explain how one arrived at a result. Science's job is to explain things to us. Hence the investigations that follow a discovery.

Free will is a navigation device that one uses to go to or stay away from places or thoughts depending on the danger that is involved

Or to decide whether to have a fudgsicle or an ice cream sandwich. Or to go for a run or a swim. Or .......... It is more a decision device than a navigation device. Like choosing straws rather than ogling a map or a compass.

 

[AnnaG]

S_lone as long as we are speculating, there is another possibility. The randomness that we see (including the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle) may not be randomness at all, but could be worked out mathematically in higher dimensions.

According to String Theory, the universe has ten dimensions, we live in only three of them (or it has eleven, we live in four, if you count time as a dimension). So it is quite possible that anything we do not understand may make sense in higher dimensions. If that is the case, what appears to be free will may be preordained in higher dimensions.

Indeed, higher dimensions give rise to interesting speculations. Thus it has always puzzled scientists why gravity is so weak. Of the four elementary forces, gravity is by far the weakest, much weaker that strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force etc. There is no satisfactory explanation for it.

But one fascinating possibility is that gravity may exist in more than three dimensions and its projection that we see in three dimensions is very small. The projections of other forces onto three dimensions may be strong.

So in the end it may well turn out that what we regard as free will is something that can be worked out scientifically, mathematically in higher dimensions.

String theory isn't a theory, but rather an hypothesis.
But make up your mind, either free will is randomness or it is something else.

 

[Ron in Regina]

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Ron, that does indeed summarize String Theory nicely, but that is an outdated view. When String Theory was first proposed, the higher dimensions were considered to be minute, several order of magnitude smaller that the diameter of an electron. So the higher dimensions did not really affect us, they were so small, minute that we would never experience them. The higher dimensions, higher than 3 were considered to be ‘collapsed’ dimensions.

However, that gave rise to problems, the mathematics did not add up. To make the mathematics make sense, .they had to postulate big dimensions, not sub atomic dimensions. The current theory holds that we live in a ten dimensional universe, though we see only three dimensions. The other seven dimensions are as big as these three, not smaller than an electron (as the old String Theory supposed).

 

[s_lone]

S_lone as long as we are speculating, there is another possibility. The randomness that we see (including the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle) may not be randomness at all, but could be worked out mathematically in higher dimensions.

According to String Theory, the universe has ten dimensions, we live in only three of them (or it has eleven, we live in four, if you count time as a dimension). So it is quite possible that anything we do not understand may make sense in higher dimensions. If that is the case, what appears to be free will may be preordained in higher dimensions.

Indeed, higher dimensions give rise to interesting speculations. Thus it has always puzzled scientists why gravity is so weak. Of the four elementary forces, gravity is by far the weakest, much weaker that strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force etc. There is no satisfactory explanation for it.

But one fascinating possibility is that gravity may exist in more than three dimensions and its projection that we see in three dimensions is very small. The projections of other forces onto three dimensions may be strong.

So in the end it may well turn out that what we regard as free will is something that can be worked out scientifically, mathematically in higher dimensions.

Yes indeed SirJosephPorter... This is all fascinating...

Who knows what secrets the universe has in store for us...

 

[s_lone]

One can have free will and still be confident in science. Science would tell someone that going polar bear dipping is potentially dangerous to their health, especially if they aren't in good health to begin with. Yet people still go polar bear dipping. Same with firefighters entering a burning building. Logic tells them of calculated risks. Free will & intuition takes them the rest of the way.
Free will may appear random sometimes to someone else, but between your logic and your intuition, it is definitely not random. That's just an ignorant comment.
Thought by the way is ELECTROchemical activity occurring in a biological environment.

I agree that one can believe in free will and be confident in science... you give good examples of why we'd want to do that... What I'm saying is that a belief in free will has a faith aspect to it...

And whether you call it biochemistry or electrochemistry, the fact remains that free will cannot yet be explained in scientific terms.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I don't think there is anything random about free will. Random is like the numbers for a 649 ticket. Here is free will:

I did not say there was anything random about free will, VanIsle. What I said was that free will is ability to react to outside stimuli, many of whom tend to be random in nature. Free will is spent mostly reacting to random events.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

What I'm saying is that a belief in free will has a faith aspect to it...

And whether you call it biochemistry or electrochemistry, the fact remains that free will cannot yet be explained in scientific terms.

we are in agreement, here, s_lone.

 

[AnnaG]

I agree that one can believe in free will and be confident in science... you give good examples of why we'd want to do that... What I'm saying is that a belief in free will has a faith aspect to it...

And whether you call it biochemistry or electrochemistry, the fact remains that free will cannot yet be explained in scientific terms.

Not sure about the faith thing. But, for sure science can't explain a lot of stuff yet.
There's a pretty big difference between biochemistry and electrochemistry, but I agree.