Scientific Justification for Free Will?

[Divine Insight]

Is there any scientific justification for the notion of Free Will?

Question #1. If you believe their is, can you please state your scientific evidence for the existence of Free Will.

Question #2. If you believe there is no scientific justification for the notion of Free Will, then please explain how we can have any scientific justification for holding anyone responsible for their actions. In fact, wouldn't the very notion of personal responsibility be scientifically unsupportable?

[JohnPaul]

Ok Im confused, if these words have no well defined meaning, what do you mean when you speak of spiritual or mystical aspects of reality.

Im not trying to create a false dichotmy but confused as to what youre saying.

IMHO, these words describe aspects of the human consciousness and therefore can be replaced with the word "unknown." That does not mean they are not real. It simply means that so far, their true nature is unknown.

[Peter]

There is absolute no way that we can claim that we have detected all of the relevant forces of nature and claim with a very high degree of certainty that there are not more. That stance right here is totally unsupportable, I don't care how famous the physicists might be who take that stance. It's simply not supportable. 

Would you be so kind to explain how any new force would enable the existence of beyond the physical? Forces are as much as any other thing "natural" and not supernatural.

To begin with the very term "supernatural" is truly meaningless unless you can first provide me with a complete picture of what constitutes "natural".

Is science a completed and finished field of study? Do we know the true nature of reality to the point where we can say precisely what is "natural" with no unanswered questions?

The current answer to this question is no. Science is not a completed field of study and the true nature of reality is not known. Thus to even make a reference to the "supernatural" is meaningless. How can you refer to super-natural when you can't even say with certainty precisely what constitutes natural?

So you are creating a false dichotomy with words when in fact the words you are using are not well-defined technically to even say what might be "supernatural".

Also, we already know that the behavior at the quantum level of reality is indeed extremely strange. So strange that we can't even begin to explain it in any way that doesn't dramatically violate our sense of logic and what we consider to be natural laws of physics.

Thus, we actually have overwhelming evidence that things in reality are indeed going on in ways that we consider to be unnatural (i.e. supernatural)

So, in this sense, science is already showing us that the "supernatural" must necessarily exist.

If we are ever able to make sense of it and explain it, only then will it become what we consider to be natural. But as of yet no one has been able to do this, and the theory of QM actually states quite profoundly that this will never be possible to do.

Scientists are actually hoping beyond hope that Quantum Mechanics will someday fall, or be by-passed in some miraculous way.

But what does this amount to?

It amounts to scientists hoping on pure faith-based desire that their own theories will turn out to be wrong.

They don't want QM to be right, because if QM is indeed correct that spells the end of science, at least in terms of investigation into the workings of the quantum domain.

We would need to concede that the quantum world will forever be "supernatural" (i.e. beyond our ability to ever explain it in term of what we consider to be natural laws).

So for you to even speak of the "natural" and "supernatural" like as if there is some well-defined dichotomy there is actually a totally misguided notion. That's simply not the case to date.

Furthermore, for that to ever become the case, all of the riddles of QM must be solved and understood in terms of what we consider to be "natural laws". But currently we aren't even remotely close to doing this.

Some people have the extremely misguided notion that String Theory is somehow embarking on this task. Nothing could be further from the truth. String Theory was devised originally to unify Gravity with QM. String Theory assumes QM as a postulate and is in no way attempting to explain QM.

Moreover, String Theorists have never been able to actually unify Gravity with QM yet anyway. Thus far all they have ever produced are empty promises and a lot of interesting abstract mathematics that can't even be experimentally verified.

Heck, even I can write mathematical equations that are totally impossible to recreate in our universe, yet those equations are perfectly logical in mathematics.

String Theory is doing the same thing. It's producing tons of abstract mathematics much of which clearly does not apply to our reality. In fact, it would be impossible for all their proposed mathematics to be correct simultaneously.

So we're not even close to unlocking the mysteries of the quantum world. The quantum world is currently "supernatural" because we cannot explain it using natural laws of logic or physics.

So in this sense we actually have scientific evidence that the "supernatural" actually does exist. Although it may not be supernatural in terms of a conscious entity, spirits, or gods. But it's certainly supernatural with respect to what we normally consider to be natural.

So the supernatural does exist insofar as we know, and we have overwhelming scientific evidence that it indeed does exist.

That's a very interesting summary of some of the current limitations of Science and you've obviously done your homework but I must disagree that anything currently unexplained by natural laws is even remotely close to evidence for the supernatural. Yes, we see some strange behavior in the quantum world but unless you think this strange behavior extends to corpses reanimating and humans walking on water, in short the suspension of natural laws, there is zero evidence for the supernatural.

Furthermore, if a "supernature" existed as described in the bible then literally anything would be possible. This is just my opinion but I don't think that science will ever discover natural laws that allow literally anything to be possible. You may disagree but if your justification for disagreement is that "funny stuff" happens at the quantum level I feel that justification is pretty weak.

That said, I wonder if we can start a thread on weird quantum effects. The double slit experiment that hints at time travel has always fascinated me.

[instantc]

There is absolute no way that we can claim that we have detected all of the relevant forces of nature and claim with a very high degree of certainty that there are not more. That stance right here is totally unsupportable, I don't care how famous the physicists might be who take that stance. It's simply not supportable. 

Would you be so kind to explain how any new force would enable the existence of beyond the physical? Forces are as much as any other thing "natural" and not supernatural.

To begin with the very term "supernatural" is truly meaningless unless you can first provide me with a complete picture of what constitutes "natural".

Is science a completed and finished field of study? Do we know the true nature of reality to the point where we can say precisely what is "natural" with no unanswered questions?

The current answer to this question is no. Science is not a completed field of study and the true nature of reality is not known. Thus to even make a reference to the "supernatural" is meaningless. How can you refer to super-natural when you can't even say with certainty precisely what constitutes natural?

So you are creating a false dichotomy with words when in fact the words you are using are not well-defined technically to even say what might be "supernatural".

Also, we already know that the behavior at the quantum level of reality is indeed extremely strange. So strange that we can't even begin to explain it in any way that doesn't dramatically violate our sense of logic and what we consider to be natural laws of physics.

Thus, we actually have overwhelming evidence that things in reality are indeed going on in ways that we consider to be unnatural (i.e. supernatural)

So, in this sense, science is already showing us that the "supernatural" must necessarily exist.

If we are ever able to make sense of it and explain it, only then will it become what we consider to be natural. But as of yet no one has been able to do this, and the theory of QM actually states quite profoundly that this will never be possible to do.

Scientists are actually hoping beyond hope that Quantum Mechanics will someday fall, or be by-passed in some miraculous way.

But what does this amount to?

It amounts to scientists hoping on pure faith-based desire that their own theories will turn out to be wrong.

They don't want QM to be right, because if QM is indeed correct that spells the end of science, at least in terms of investigation into the workings of the quantum domain.

We would need to concede that the quantum world will forever be "supernatural" (i.e. beyond our ability to ever explain it in term of what we consider to be natural laws).

So for you to even speak of the "natural" and "supernatural" like as if there is some well-defined dichotomy there is actually a totally misguided notion. That's simply not the case to date.

Furthermore, for that to ever become the case, all of the riddles of QM must be solved and understood in terms of what we consider to be "natural laws". But currently we aren't even remotely close to doing this.

Some people have the extremely misguided notion that String Theory is somehow embarking on this task. Nothing could be further from the truth. String Theory was devised originally to unify Gravity with QM. String Theory assumes QM as a postulate and is in no way attempting to explain QM.

Moreover, String Theorists have never been able to actually unify Gravity with QM yet anyway. Thus far all they have ever produced are empty promises and a lot of interesting abstract mathematics that can't even be experimentally verified.

Heck, even I can write mathematical equations that are totally impossible to recreate in our universe, yet those equations are perfectly logical in mathematics.

String Theory is doing the same thing. It's producing tons of abstract mathematics much of which clearly does not apply to our reality. In fact, it would be impossible for all their proposed mathematics to be correct simultaneously.

So we're not even close to unlocking the mysteries of the quantum world. The quantum world is currently "supernatural" because we cannot explain it using natural laws of logic or physics.

So in this sense we actually have scientific evidence that the "supernatural" actually does exist. Although it may not be supernatural in terms of a conscious entity, spirits, or gods. But it's certainly supernatural with respect to what we normally consider to be natural.

So the supernatural does exist insofar as we know, and we have overwhelming scientific evidence that it indeed does exist.

That's a very interesting summary of some of the current limitations of Science and you've obviously done your homework but I must disagree that anything currently unexplained by natural laws is even remotely close to evidence for the supernatural. Yes, we see some strange behavior in the quantum world but unless you think this strange behavior extends to corpses reanimating and humans walking on water, in short the suspension of natural laws, there is zero evidence for the supernatural.

Furthermore, if a "supernature" existed as described in the bible then literally anything would be possible. This is just my opinion but I don't think that science will ever discover natural laws that allow literally anything to be possible. You may disagree but if your justification for disagreement is that "funny stuff" happens at the quantum level I feel that justification is pretty weak.

Who has been trying to justify Bible miracles here? I think the bottom line is that it would be presumptuous for us to pretend to know all the forces of nature conclusively.

[Nilloc James]

There is absolute no way that we can claim that we have detected all of the relevant forces of nature and claim with a very high degree of certainty that there are not more. That stance right here is totally unsupportable, I don't care how famous the physicists might be who take that stance. It's simply not supportable. 

Would you be so kind to explain how any new force would enable the existence of beyond the physical? Forces are as much as any other thing "natural" and not supernatural.

To begin with the very term "supernatural" is truly meaningless unless you can first provide me with a complete picture of what constitutes "natural".

Is science a completed and finished field of study? Do we know the true nature of reality to the point where we can say precisely what is "natural" with no unanswered questions?

The current answer to this question is no. Science is not a completed field of study and the true nature of reality is not known. Thus to even make a reference to the "supernatural" is meaningless. How can you refer to super-natural when you can't even say with certainty precisely what constitutes natural?

So you are creating a false dichotomy with words when in fact the words you are using are not well-defined technically to even say what might be "supernatural".

Also, we already know that the behavior at the quantum level of reality is indeed extremely strange. So strange that we can't even begin to explain it in any way that doesn't dramatically violate our sense of logic and what we consider to be natural laws of physics.

Thus, we actually have overwhelming evidence that things in reality are indeed going on in ways that we consider to be unnatural (i.e. supernatural)

So, in this sense, science is already showing us that the "supernatural" must necessarily exist.

If we are ever able to make sense of it and explain it, only then will it become what we consider to be natural. But as of yet no one has been able to do this, and the theory of QM actually states quite profoundly that this will never be possible to do.

Scientists are actually hoping beyond hope that Quantum Mechanics will someday fall, or be by-passed in some miraculous way.

But what does this amount to?

It amounts to scientists hoping on pure faith-based desire that their own theories will turn out to be wrong.

They don't want QM to be right, because if QM is indeed correct that spells the end of science, at least in terms of investigation into the workings of the quantum domain.

We would need to concede that the quantum world will forever be "supernatural" (i.e. beyond our ability to ever explain it in term of what we consider to be natural laws).

So for you to even speak of the "natural" and "supernatural" like as if there is some well-defined dichotomy there is actually a totally misguided notion. That's simply not the case to date.

Furthermore, for that to ever become the case, all of the riddles of QM must be solved and understood in terms of what we consider to be "natural laws". But currently we aren't even remotely close to doing this.

Some people have the extremely misguided notion that String Theory is somehow embarking on this task. Nothing could be further from the truth. String Theory was devised originally to unify Gravity with QM. String Theory assumes QM as a postulate and is in no way attempting to explain QM.

Moreover, String Theorists have never been able to actually unify Gravity with QM yet anyway. Thus far all they have ever produced are empty promises and a lot of interesting abstract mathematics that can't even be experimentally verified.

Heck, even I can write mathematical equations that are totally impossible to recreate in our universe, yet those equations are perfectly logical in mathematics.

String Theory is doing the same thing. It's producing tons of abstract mathematics much of which clearly does not apply to our reality. In fact, it would be impossible for all their proposed mathematics to be correct simultaneously.

So we're not even close to unlocking the mysteries of the quantum world. The quantum world is currently "supernatural" because we cannot explain it using natural laws of logic or physics.

So in this sense we actually have scientific evidence that the "supernatural" actually does exist. Although it may not be supernatural in terms of a conscious entity, spirits, or gods. But it's certainly supernatural with respect to what we normally consider to be natural.

So the supernatural does exist insofar as we know, and we have overwhelming scientific evidence that it indeed does exist.

That's a very interesting summary of some of the current limitations of Science and you've obviously done your homework but I must disagree that anything currently unexplained by natural laws is even remotely close to evidence for the supernatural. Yes, we see some strange behavior in the quantum world but unless you think this strange behavior extends to corpses reanimating and humans walking on water, in short the suspension of natural laws, there is zero evidence for the supernatural.

Furthermore, if a "supernature" existed as described in the bible then literally anything would be possible. This is just my opinion but I don't think that science will ever discover natural laws that allow literally anything to be possible. You may disagree but if your justification for disagreement is that "funny stuff" happens at the quantum level I feel that justification is pretty weak.

Who has been trying to justify Bible miracles here? I think the bottom line is that it would be presumptuous for us to pretend to know all the forces of nature conclusively.

It is also presumptious for us to take any unkown and shove our privately prefered bias into that gap.

[instantc]

Who has been trying to justify Bible miracles here? I think the bottom line is that it would be presumptuous for us to pretend to know all the forces of nature conclusively.

It is also presumptious for us to take any unkown and shove our privately prefered bias into that gap.

I agree, but it's not that we speculate about consciousness because we want it to be that way. The extraordinary nature of conscious experience is the reason for the speculations. It simply doesn't seem plausible that an ordinary physical entity could have such properties, this is also backed up by logical arguments, read more about property dualism if you are interested.

[Divine Insight]

That's a very interesting summary of some of the current limitations of Science and you've obviously done your homework but I must disagree that anything currently unexplained by natural laws is even remotely close to evidence for the supernatural. Yes, we see some strange behavior in the quantum world but unless you think this strange behavior extends to corpses reanimating and humans walking on water, in short the suspension of natural laws, there is zero evidence for the supernatural.

Furthermore, if a "supernature" existed as described in the bible then literally anything would be possible. This is just my opinion but I don't think that science will ever discover natural laws that allow literally anything to be possible. You may disagree but if your justification for disagreement is that "funny stuff" happens at the quantum level I feel that justification is pretty weak.

That said, I wonder if we can start a thread on weird quantum effects. The double slit experiment that hints at time travel has always fascinated me.

I disagree with how you are using the term "supernatural". Supernatural doesn't necessarily mean that anything goes. Nor do absurd superstitions define what supernatural is. Although such absurd superstitions would indeed require supernatural causes to support their claims. That much is certainly true.

When speaking of science the term "supernatural" simply means "above and beyond what is natural". My point is simply that science can't yet say what the true nature of reality is, and it may never be able to even address that question. In fact, the theory of Quantum Mechanics actually states mathematically that it will indeed be forever impossible to answer this question, and that this fact itself is an intrinsic part of "Nature".

So it may indeed be impossible for Science to ever be able to speak of the "supernatural" since it can never even know the truth of what's "natural".

Where or not the supernatural could ever be used to support rumors of decayed dead human bodies climbing out of graves is another matter entirely. I personally do not support those rumors. In fact, (as an aside) I dismiss the Biblical rumors concerning this matter entirely on spiritual grounds. In other words, the Bible claims that spirit is non-physical, yet these the authors of the biblical myths apparently got carried away making up superstitions about physical bodies being physically resurrected from physical graves and then physically ascending off to a Heaven which would be physically located upward toward the sky. So those rumors are self-contradictory to their very own thesis that spirit itself is supposed to non-physical. So I would dismiss those rumors even if it were physically possible to do these things. It would be absurd to do them anyway if spirit is non-physical. So the Biblical rumors are not merely "supernatural" but they are super absurd as well.

But that's a whole other topic.

In the meantime, for this thread, science cannot lay claim to referring to anything as "super-natural" without first laying claim to having a complete knowledge of what constitutes natural. And at this point in time humans do not possess enough knowledge to make that claim. And, as I mentioned above, the scientific theory of Quantum Mechanics itself clearly states mathematically,in no uncertain terms (ironically), by the mathematical relationship call the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, that it will indeed be impossible to ever understand the true nature of the quantum world.

At least not via the methods of scientific reductionism. If we're going to gain an understanding it's going to need to come from a whole different approach. A whole change of philosophy of who to view the world. Or, the ultimate breakdown of QM, or at least some new, as yet unknown, discovery of a loophole to by-pass the Heisenberg Uncertainty relationship.

But currently science has no reason to believe that such a loophole exists.

To believe that it does would be a matter of pure faith by scientists.

[scourge99]

I think the bottom line is that it would be presumptuous for us to pretend to know all the forces of nature conclusively.

That is a strawman. No one has claimed absolute certainty about anything. But not being absolutely certain doesn't mean we can't be reasonably certain or draw rational conclusions.

For example, suppose you give me a glass jar and ask me "what large objects are inside the jar?" I look at the jar and see 2 pennies. I shake the jar and hear two pennies rattle around. I open the jar, dump out the jar and only find two pennies. I then tell you there are two pennies inside the jar. "Ahah" you reply, "its presumptuous for you to pretend to know all the objects in the jar. There is absolutely no way that we can claim that we have detected all of the large objects and claim with a very high degree of certainty that there are not more. "

That is an example of the know-nothing, hyperskepticism you and Divine Insight seem to be putting forth.

[scourge99]

Who has been trying to justify Bible miracles here? I think the bottom line is that it would be presumptuous for us to pretend to know all the forces of nature conclusively.

It is also presumptious for us to take any unkown and shove our privately prefered bias into that gap.

I agree, but it's not that we speculate about consciousness because we want it to be that way.
The extraordinary nature of conscious experience is the reason for the speculations.

and the extraordinary nature of the Bible is a good reason to believe it was inspired by a god.

It simply doesn't seem plausible that an ordinary physical entity could have such properties,

Except for the mountain of evidence that says otherwise. But you have to ignore the evidence just as young earth creationists have to ignore the evidence for an old earth.

this is also backed up by logical arguments,

AKA, "i can imagine its true therefore i think its true".

Philosophical musings about things in the real world are always trumped by contradictory physical evidence.

Your overreliance on naval gazing to draw conclusions about the real world has repeatedly been your Achilles heel in debates.

read more about property dualism if you are interested.

Are you a property dualist? Or are you just playing devils advocate. You never give a straight answer and I've asked you on two separate occasions.

[Peter]

That's a very interesting summary of some of the current limitations of Science and you've obviously done your homework but I must disagree that anything currently unexplained by natural laws is even remotely close to evidence for the supernatural. Yes, we see some strange behavior in the quantum world but unless you think this strange behavior extends to corpses reanimating and humans walking on water, in short the suspension of natural laws, there is zero evidence for the supernatural.

Furthermore, if a "supernature" existed as described in the bible then literally anything would be possible. This is just my opinion but I don't think that science will ever discover natural laws that allow literally anything to be possible. You may disagree but if your justification for disagreement is that "funny stuff" happens at the quantum level I feel that justification is pretty weak.

That said, I wonder if we can start a thread on weird quantum effects. The double slit experiment that hints at time travel has always fascinated me.

I disagree with how you are using the term "supernatural". Supernatural doesn't necessarily mean that anything goes. Nor do absurd superstitions define what supernatural is. Although such absurd superstitions would indeed require supernatural causes to support their claims. That much is certainly true.

Thanks for clearing that up. Your previous post left me with the impression that you were somehow trying to support the potential existence of the magical supernatural found in religious books.

[instantc]

It simply doesn't seem plausible that an ordinary physical entity could have such properties,

Except for the mountain of evidence that says otherwise. But you have to ignore the evidence just as young earth creationists have to ignore the evidence for an old earth.

You have presented a good case. However, I think that there is room for skepticism as long as we are not able to build an artificial consciousness or anything remotely like it. Reason for skepticism comes from logical arguments.

read more about property dualism if you are interested.

Are you a property dualist? Or are you just playing devils advocate. You never give a straight answer and I've asked you on two separate occasions.

As a layperson I would probably put my money on narrow materialism, but I am not happy with settling the issue at its current stage. I think DI is right about the fact that it we shouldn't claim to know every law of nature that could affect the brain/mind relationship. Nor am I happy with just hand waving the arguments for property dualism away. You keep saying that philosophical arguments are not worthy of anything without physical evidence. I have given you a few examples of a priori arguments that can give us information about the physical world. Consider Noether's theorem that can mathematically prove the law of conservation of energy, which could never be conclusively derived from experiments alone.

For example, suppose you give me a glass jar and ask me "what large objects are inside the jar?" I look at the jar and see 2 pennies. I shake the jar and hear two pennies rattle around. I open the jar, dump out the jar and only find two pennies. I then tell you there are two pennies inside the jar. "Ahah" you reply, "its presumptuous for you to pretend to know all the objects in the jar. There is absolutely no way that we can claim that we have detected all of the large objects and claim with a very high degree of certainty that there are not more. "

That is an example of the know-nothing, hyperskepticism you and Divine Insight seem to be putting forth.

The brain is not a jar with two pennies in it. I get what you are saying, but skepticism is warranted to some extent, as consciousness being a physical property of the brain seems highly counterintuitive. Were people who didn't believe in witchcraft being hyperskeptical, at the time when all the the available evidence clearly suggested that illness is caused by hostile spells and curses? Case seemed causally closed, who would have thought that there are life forms that are invisible to the naked eye.