Is Free Will Incompatible with Neuroscience?

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I agree with you in the fundamentals of QM, but your reference to the 'Many Worlds' is a bit dated.

1) It is a rather foundational paper that is still absolutely relevant. Work in a field doesn't simply become dated because a certain number of years pass. Wigner's friend is far older, and last year I was at a conference on that specific thought experiment (Encapsulated Agents in Quantum Theory: Re-examining Wigner’s Friend) which, incidentally, discussed in some detail the 2018 paper in Nature Communications by Frauchiger & Renner where we find (unsurprisingly) the paper I attached cited as a standard reference on the many-worlds interpretation.
2) Much of the more recent work has become a muddle due to confusions over decoherence and spontaneous collapse combined with Everettian-type interpretations. Additionally, many of the newer solutions to the problems with probabilities in no-collapse theories like the MWI (much more serious than the preferred basis problems) involve subjective probabilities (see especially the recent work on this by Wallace extending the decision-theoretic approach of Everettian agents by Deutsch). Even Vaidman has acknowledged that i) probability remains the most serious flaw in any MWI approach and ii) there is no way to solve this issue that doesn't involve our own subjective experiences.
H. D. Zeh puts it best, perhaps:
"The multi-universe interpretation of quantum theory (which should rather be called a multi-consciousness interpretation) seems to be the only interpretation of a universal quantum theory...that is compatible with the way the world is perceived." (italics in original)
Zeh, H. D. (2000). The problem of conscious observation in quantum mechanical description. Foundations of Physics Letters, 13(3), 221-233.

Observations called randomness in the behavior in Quantum Mechanics is a problem of the limited human perspective, and more recent research is beginning to show this apparent randomness is not so random, understandable and predictable.

It isn't. Recent research in the past decade has, in fact, shown the opposite, e.g.:
Acín, A., & Masanes, L. (2016). Certified randomness in quantum physics. Nature, 540(7632), 213-219.
Colbeck, R., & Renner, R. (2012). Free randomness can be amplified. Nature Physics, 8(6), 450-453.
Gallego, R., Masanes, L., De La Torre, G., Dhara, C., Aolita, L., & Acín, A. (2013). Full randomness from arbitrarily deterministic events. Nature communications, 4(1), 1-7.
Likewise in the case of the fundamental limitations in terms of the subjective nature of quantum theory as seen in e.g.,
Proietti, M., Pickston, A., Graffitti, F., Barrow, P., Kundys, D., Branciard, C., ... & Fedrizzi, A. (2019). Experimental test of local observer independence. Science advances, 5(9), eaaw9832.

I do not believe we have yet defined the limits of 'physical laws which hold strictly only for closed, isolated systems to the universe' in part because we have not defined the limits of our universe.

That's how they are defined. The laws are based upon symmetries (usually of the Lagrangian but one can derive them even from Galilean relativity let alone other action principle frameworks) and the subsequent conservation principles, and these do not hold in general but rather for isolated systems (also generally for closed, but one can constrain open systems in thermodynamics and statistical physics or in frameworks similar to those in these fields to be more general).

I disagree with your reference concerning determinism and 'Free Will.' (freedom of choice?)..

Which reference? I gave several. Also note that in recent years (in quantum information and quantum computing especially) free choice has become key in many theorems and derivations.

 

[wellwisher]

Free will, like character, is something we develop. We are not born with free will or character. The child may not like broccoli and there is nothing you can say or do to change their mind. As time goes on, and the child becomes an adult, other choices become possible.

People often go to therapy so they can overcome linear or deterministic behavior that is regressive for them. One will gradually develop the skills needed to have other choices. All it takes is an awareness of parallel unconscious deterministic processes, and then other choices become possible.

We have two centers of consciousness, the inner self and the ego. The inner self is the original center. This center is also common to animals. The ego, which is only connected to humans, is relative new and appears to have consolidated near the start of civilization. Two centers allows one to make two sets of choices, innate=inner self and willful=ego. The child has an inner self but their ego is not yet fully developed to overcome innate.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Free will, like character, is something we develop. We are not born with free will or character. The child may not like broccoli and there is nothing you can say or do to change their mind. As time goes on, and the child becomes an adult, other choices become possible.

People often go to therapy so they can overcome linear or deterministic behavior that is regressive for them. One will gradually develop the skills needed to have other choices. All it takes is an awareness of parallel unconscious deterministic processes, and then other choices become possible.

We have two centers of consciousness, the inner self and the ego. The inner self is the original center. This center is also common to animals. The ego, which is only connected to humans, is relative new and appears to have consolidated near the start of civilization. Two centers allows one to make two sets of choices, innate=inner self and willful=ego. The child has an inner self but their ego is not yet fully developed to overcome innate.

However, this is rather interesting:

MRI scans of the brains of 130 mammals, including humans, indicate equal connectivity

Researchers conducted a first-of-its-kind study designed to investigate brain connectivity in 130 mammalian species. The intriguing results, contradicting widespread conjectures, revealed that brain connectivity levels are equal in all mammals, including humans.

 

[Straw Dog]

Scientific progress takes time. We probably shouldn’t let just a single or a few experiments completely convince us of an absolute belief in hard determinism. Sometimes the interpretations of the experiment in question are flawed. Sometimes the premises are misleading.

Does free will exist? Neuroscientists debunk popular argument against free will | Neuroscience

 

[Tambourine]

Science is based on a deterministic framework. Therefore, scientific experiments will always, inevitably, lead to conclusions to support the notion of a deterministic universe. Trying to prove determinism with the scientific method is, effectively, a form of circular reasoning.

 

[shunyadragon]

Science is based on a deterministic framework. Therefore, scientific experiments will always, inevitably, lead to conclusions to support the notion of a deterministic universe. Trying to prove determinism with the scientific method is, effectively, a form of circular reasoning.

Actuallt no, first, scientific method does not prove anything, Yes science assumes Natural Laws are deterministic. Eveery time scientists propose a theory or hypothesis they indeed do test the determinist nature of Natural Laws, and not inevitably lead to true conclusions. Often the proposal for the theory or hypothesis is found false or fails in its present form.

The deterministic nature of our physical existence is not a mechanistic determinism. There is abundant room for variation and diversity in the outcomes of complex relationships because of the fractal nature of the chain of outcomes of cause and effect events in our existence, but nonetheless their is consistency and predictability in nature and computers and airplanes work fine because of this.

 

[Tambourine]

Actuallt no, first, scientific method does not prove anything, Yes science assumes Natural Laws are deterministic. Eveery time scientists propose a theory or hypothesis they indeed do test the determinist nature of Natural Laws, and not inevitably lead to true conclusions. Often the proposal for the theory or hypothesis is found false or fails in its present form.

The deterministic nature of our physical existence is not a mechanistic determinism. There is abundant room for variation and diversity in the outcomes of complex relationships because of the fractal nature of the chain of outcomes of cause and effect events in our existence, but nonetheless their is consistency and predictability in nature and computers and airplanes work fine because of this.

I never posited that science follows a mechanistic determinism, but its philosophical foundation is still a deterministic one. The chain of cause and effect may be understood fractal in some ways, but we nevertheless need to presuppose an unbroken chain of causality in order to analyze and explain natural phenomena, and to test our explanations by observation or experimentation. Any "free will" that science would be capable of finding would have to be explicable as a part of this unbroken causality, under a deterministic premise.

 

[shunyadragon]

I never posited that science follows a mechanistic determinism, but its philosophical foundation is still a deterministic one. The chain of cause and effect may be understood fractal in some ways, but we nevertheless need to presuppose an unbroken chain of causality in order to analyze and explain natural phenomena, and to test our explanations by observation or experimentation. Any "free will" that science would be capable of finding would have to be explicable as a part of this unbroken causality, under a deterministic premise.

Well, this is true, and your description is better this time.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Science is based on a deterministic framework. Therefore, scientific experiments will always, inevitably, lead to conclusions to support the notion of a deterministic universe. Trying to prove determinism with the scientific method is, effectively, a form of circular reasoning.

1) A great deal of scientific inquiry makes no use of deterministic theories or models but rather probabilistic models and statistical structures. From high-energy particle physics and quantum theory to medical research and neuroscience to dendroclimatology and evolutionary biology and so on, stochastic processes, random variables, statistical frameworks, etc., form the basis for constructing, testing, extending, and interpreting scientific theories.
2) Entire interdisciplinary fields are centered primarily around such atemporal approaches as network science. Related work in e.g., relational biology extends such frameworks with e.g., anticipatory systems and models of e.g., cellular processes that are closed to efficient causation. In cosmology and astrophysics we find foundational work on cosmic scales in a would-be classically deterministic physical theory in which closed-timelike curves violate causality fundamentally and would-be solutions are disregarded because they would involve renouncing free will. These and other examples are designed to show that even apart from research based upon probabilistic, stochastic, and statistical (rather than deterministic) approaches, there remains whole swathes of scientific inquiry that does not involve deterministic approaches.
3) Most of the determinism you appear to refer to is actually rather unique to physics and some related fields, not the sciences more generally. And historically, this philosophical and conceptual development originated in theology:
“The orthodox view of the nature of the laws of physics contains a long list of tacitly assumed properties. The laws are regarded, for example, as immutable, eternal, infinitely precise mathematical relationships that transcend the physical universe... In addition, it is assumed that the physical world is affected by the laws, but the laws are completely impervious to what happens in the universe…It is not hard to discover where this picture of physical laws comes from: it is inherited directly from monotheism, which asserts that a rational being designed the universe according to a set of perfect laws . And the asymmetry between immutable laws and contingent states mirrors the asymmetry between God and nature: the universe depends utterly on God for its existence, whereas God’s existence does not depend on the universe…
…the orthodox concept of laws of physics derives directly from theology. It is remarkable that this view has remained largely unchallenged after 300 years of secular science…”
Davies, P. (2010). Universe from bit. In P. Davies & N. H. Gregersen (Eds.) Information and the Nature of Reality: From Physics to Metaphysics (pp. 65-91). Cambridge University Press.

"Such mechanical determinism in the seventeenth century reinforced views of divine foreknowledge. Absolute determinism (in principle) in the equations of mathematical physics was consonant with the generally accepted theological belief in an omnipresent, omniscient God. Such a belief preceded Newton's formulation of his mathematical laws of motion. Although Newton certainly believed in the existence and action of such a God, he was less certain that the laws of mechanics could alone represent the deterministic evolution of a stable universe…
If one accepts a God who runs the universe in an orderly and law-like fashion, then it makes sense for such a person to seek to discover these laws as represented in the workings of His creation...The point here is that a belief in or an inclination toward the acceptance of a law-like evolution of the universe predated any specific set of analytical or mathematical laws of physics." (pp. 168-170)
Cushing, J. T. (1998). Philosophical Concepts in Physics: The Historical Relation between Philosophy and Scientific Theories. Cambridge University Press.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Yes science assumes Natural Laws are deterministic.

What Natural Laws might you be referring to?

 

[shunyadragon]

What Natural Laws might you be referring to?

ALL the Natural Laws that define the nature of the Quantum World we describe as Quantum Mechanics, and are the basis of the theories and hypothesis of our macro world such as gravity, physical constants and the Theory of Relativity.

The basic deterministic assumptions of science are confirmed by the consistency and and predictictability of the objective verifiable evidence used by Methodological Naturalism in th efalsification of theories and hypothesis.

 

[shunyadragon]

1) A great deal of scientific inquiry makes no use of deterministic theories or models but rather probabilistic models and statistical structures. From high-energy particle physics and quantum theory to medical research and neuroscience to dendroclimatology and evolutionary biology and so on, stochastic processes, random variables, statistical frameworks, etc., form the basis for constructing, testing, extending, and interpreting scientific theories.
2) Entire interdisciplinary fields are centered primarily around such atemporal approaches as network science. Related work in e.g., relational biology extends such frameworks with e.g., anticipatory systems and models of e.g., cellular processes that are closed to efficient causation. In cosmology and astrophysics we find foundational work on cosmic scales in a would-be classically deterministic physical theory in which closed-timelike curves violate causality fundamentally and would-be solutions are disregarded because they would involve renouncing free will. These and other examples are designed to show that even apart from research based upon probabilistic, stochastic, and statistical (rather than deterministic) approaches, there remains whole swathes of scientific inquiry that does not involve deterministic approaches.
3) Most of the determinism you appear to refer to is actually rather unique to physics and some related fields, not the sciences more generally. And historically, this philosophical and conceptual development originated in theology:
“The orthodox view of the nature of the laws of physics contains a long list of tacitly assumed properties. The laws are regarded, for example, as immutable, eternal, infinitely precise mathematical relationships that transcend the physical universe... In addition, it is assumed that the physical world is affected by the laws, but the laws are completely impervious to what happens in the universe…It is not hard to discover where this picture of physical laws comes from: it is inherited directly from monotheism, which asserts that a rational being designed the universe according to a set of perfect laws . And the asymmetry between immutable laws and contingent states mirrors the asymmetry between God and nature: the universe depends utterly on God for its existence, whereas God’s existence does not depend on the universe…
…the orthodox concept of laws of physics derives directly from theology. It is remarkable that this view has remained largely unchallenged after 300 years of secular science…”
Davies, P. (2010). Universe from bit. In P. Davies & N. H. Gregersen (Eds.) Information and the Nature of Reality: From Physics to Metaphysics (pp. 65-91). Cambridge University Press.

"Such mechanical determinism in the seventeenth century reinforced views of divine foreknowledge. Absolute determinism (in principle) in the equations of mathematical physics was consonant with the generally accepted theological belief in an omnipresent, omniscient God. Such a belief preceded Newton's formulation of his mathematical laws of motion. Although Newton certainly believed in the existence and action of such a God, he was less certain that the laws of mechanics could alone represent the deterministic evolution of a stable universe…
If one accepts a God who runs the universe in an orderly and law-like fashion, then it makes sense for such a person to seek to discover these laws as represented in the workings of His creation...The point here is that a belief in or an inclination toward the acceptance of a law-like evolution of the universe predated any specific set of analytical or mathematical laws of physics." (pp. 168-170)
Cushing, J. T. (1998). Philosophical Concepts in Physics: The Historical Relation between Philosophy and Scientific Theories. Cambridge University Press.

Too many theological assumptions that cannot be objectively confiemed and must be accepted by 'faoth' and subjective assumptions,

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Too many theological assumptions that cannot be objectively confiemed and must be accepted by 'faoth' and subjective assumptions,

Any theological assumptions must be accepted by "faith" and are not scientific, IMO. But the references to theology I made were historical. I was responding to a claim about the philosophical origins and nature of certain aspects of scientific inquiry, and in the case of determinism and natural laws that origin is theological in nature.

ALL the Natural Laws that define the nature of the Quantum World we describe as Quantum Mechanics, and are the basis of the theories and hypothesis of our macro world such as gravity, physical constants and the Theory of Relativity.

Such as? I'm looking for these deterministic natural laws, and all the ones that I am aware of that are in fact deterministic are approximations that ultimately fail and only hold strictly speaking for isolated systems. One could make the case for deterministic physical laws derived from the appropriate symmetries of Lie group (together with the base manifold out of which stems the fibre bundles and therefore the connections) or more generally the underlying Lagrangian (simplistically) of the field theories of general relativity, as general relativity is classical. But as I pointed out in a previous post, such a fundamental law or laws not only fail to be globally deterministic they admit causal paradoxes.
That said, the fundamental physical laws governing our best theories are not deterministic at all. Nor is the general scheme out of which such theories are constructed in a deterministic one. The standard model is built out of the cross product of spaces of three symmetry groups of the relevant Lagrangian/Hamiltonians of the relevant quantum field theories (electroweak, strong, etc.) as is modern gauge theory more generally. The fundamental constituents, interactions, and laws of modern physics are fundamentally indeterminate and statistical, not deterministic. There is not now any manner in which one can make them deterministic, as even the would-be successful attempts to reformulate the statistical indeterministic structure of QM with a deterministic one have not led to successful extensions relativistically.

Heck, a fundamental law in quantum mechanics is the conservation of probability, which is rather a difficult one to even begin to try to explain deterministically. But the whole idea of Natural Laws is as antiquated and out-moded as a theologically motivated determinism anyway, so it is sort of a moot point. I just wondered what Natural Laws you might have in mind that are both modern and deterministic.

 

[shunyadragon]

Any theological assumptions must be accepted by "faith" and are not scientific, IMO. But the references to theology I made were historical. I was responding to a claim about the philosophical origins and nature of certain aspects of scientific inquiry, and in the case of determinism and natural laws that origin is theological in nature.

Such as? I'm looking for these deterministic natural laws, and all the ones that I am aware of that are in fact deterministic are approximations that ultimately fail and only hold strictly speaking for isolated systems. One could make the case for deterministic physical laws derived from the appropriate symmetries of Lie group (together with the base manifold out of which stems the fibre bundles and therefore the connections) or more generally the underlying Lagrangian (simplistically) of the field theories of general relativity, as general relativity is classical. But as I pointed out in a previous post, such a fundamental law or laws not only fail to be globally deterministic they admit causal paradoxes.
That said, the fundamental physical laws governing our best theories are not deterministic at all. Nor is the general scheme out of which such theories are constructed in a deterministic one. The standard model is built out of the cross product of spaces of three symmetry groups of the relevant Lagrangian/Hamiltonians of the relevant quantum field theories (electroweak, strong, etc.) as is modern gauge theory more generally. The fundamental constituents, interactions, and laws of modern physics are fundamentally indeterminate and statistical, not deterministic. There is not now any manner in which one can make them deterministic, as even the would-be successful attempts to reformulate the statistical indeterministic structure of QM with a deterministic one have not led to successful extensions relativistically.

Heck, a fundamental law in quantum mechanics is the conservation of probability, which is rather a difficult one to even begin to try to explain deterministically. But the whole idea of Natural Laws is as antiquated and out-moded as a theologically motivated determinism anyway, so it is sort of a moot point. I just wondered what Natural Laws you might have in mind that are both modern and deterministic.

I listed them. You are making an 'argument from ignorance' based on theological assumptions, and the necessary existence of God to explain things, which has no support with oobjective verifiable evidence.

Of course, science does not 'know' the ultimate Laws of Nature, but the successful falsification of theories and hypothesis has successful demonstrated the consistency and predictability of our physical existence.

Unfortunately you have have failed to offer an alternative expalnation except for a vague 'We absolutely do not know therefore God.' Arguing from ignorance' 'Par Excellence.'

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I listed them. You are making an 'argument from ignorance' based on theological assumptions, and the necessary existence of God to explain things, which has no support with oobjective verifiable evidence.

I'm agnostic. Nothing you've stated above describes me nor any position I hold. I can't make theological assumptions personally as I am not a theist. You've fundamentally misunderstood me and completely misrepresented my position

 

[shunyadragon]

I'm agnostic. Nothing you've stated above describes me nor any position I hold. I can't make theological assumptions personally as I am not a theist. You've fundamentally misunderstood me and completely misrepresented my position

This does not fit your previous post. I answered your questions concerning determinism and you did not respond.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

This does not fit your previous post. I answered your questions concerning determinism and you did not respond.

I stated:

Any theological assumptions must be accepted by "faith" and are not scientific, IMO. But the references to theology I made were historical. I was responding to a claim about the philosophical origins and nature of certain aspects of scientific inquiry, and in the case of determinism and natural laws that origin is theological in nature.

In other words, I'm not making theological assumptions and they aren't scientific. I had raised them in the context of history and the origins of the concept of natural laws. I was not and am not claiming there is any connection between between how I or any other physicist or scientist uses physical theories or laws and theology or god or anything like that. You responded with:

I listed them. You are making an 'argument from ignorance' based on theological assumptions, and the necessary existence of God to explain things, which has no support with oobjective verifiable evidence.

You listed no laws. Such laws are things like the conservation of angular momentum, Newton's laws, the laws of thermodynamics, etc. What you said was:

ALL the Natural Laws that define the nature of the Quantum World we describe as Quantum Mechanics, and are the basis of the theories and hypothesis of our macro world such as gravity, physical constants and the Theory of Relativity.

This is not a list of laws, it is a list of physical theories with some nonsense you threw in. It certainly doesn't justify this claim:

Yes science assumes Natural Laws are deterministic. Eveery time scientists propose a theory or hypothesis they indeed do test the determinist nature of Natural Laws,

None of this is accurate. To the best of our knowledge, physicists have confirmed that physical or natural laws are NOT deterministic, and neither are the most tried and tested physical theories. Nor is it remotely true that every test even of a deterministic theory let alone of those that are actually fundamental (and are not deterministic) "do test the determinist laws of nature" which I take it from your limited description is, for you, just wishful thinking.

Unfortunately you have have failed to offer an alternative expalnation except for a vague 'We absolutely do not know therefore God.' Arguing from ignorance' 'Par Excellence.'

Interesting. I don't believe in God. Ergo, go back and read my posts and try again. Try reading in CONTEXT, perhaps. Historical claims about the nature of the conceptual development of natural philosophy and physics and with them the concept of Natural Laws are not equivalent to claims about modern physics (still less my own views).
I find the term "natural laws" anachronistic, reflecting a theistic worldview from the early modern period I fundamentally disagree with and one I do not see reflected in modern research, progress, etc., in physics and other natural sciences. But we still do use terms like "laws" even for those that we know are wrong or are approximations. That doesn't make what you said about deterministic laws and scientific research any less wrong or nonsensical. It still is. As was your mischaracterization of me and my worldview.