Can science determine the presence of free will?

[SimonC]

Just to throw a slightly different perspective into the discussion - the opposite of 'free will' is sometimes referred to as 'determinism'. This takes the topic into somewhat deeper, more philosophical waters. The idea is that if we accept that our universe started from a state which could theoretically be defined - that every pre-big bang flicker of energy could somehow be charted then, thoretically, it should be possible to predict the course of those constituent parts throughout the evolution of the universe, and thus predetermine the course of universal history.

Think of each subatomic particle as a pool ball, bouncing off the cushions - if we could account for every miniscule bump in the baize, and so on, with unerring accuracy then we could perfectly predict the tragectory of the ball every time.

The determinist position posits that, disregarding any supernatural/divine intervention, the development of the universe from its inception should, in theory at least, be perfectly predictable. That prediction would, of course, include the tragectory of the atoms that make up each one of us. Our lives, thoughts and actions would, therefore, also be absolutely predictable and predetermined by the intitial state of the universe.

Food for thought, eh?

[Matt]

Determinism precludes free will, but it is stop possible to have a non-deterministic universe without free will.

[Trinoc]

What if the universe was deterministic, but with infinite (or at least amazingly large) resolution? Then, a bit like Laplace's all-knowing observer, it would be possible in principle to predict the future of the universe if you knew the exact position and velocity of every particle at a given time (I'm ignoring quantum uncertainty here). However, the amount of information needed to predict anything would be so much greater than the amount of information gained from the event itself, that it would be a pointless exercise. In effect, the future is chaotic ... determined in principle, but so sensitive to initial conditions as to be undetermined in any practical sense. No way of prediction would involve processing less information than simply waiting and seeing what happened, except in very limited cases.

[SimonC]

What if the universe was deterministic, but with infinite (or at least amazingly large) resolution? Then, a bit like Laplace's all-knowing observer, it would be possible in principle to predict the future of the universe if you knew the exact position and velocity of every particle at a given time (I'm ignoring quantum uncertainty here). However, the amount of information needed to predict anything would be so much greater than the amount of information gained from the event itself, that it would be a pointless exercise. In effect, the future is chaotic ... determined in principle, but so sensitive to initial conditions as to be undetermined in any practical sense. No way of prediction would involve processing less information than simply waiting and seeing what happened, except in very limited cases.

I agree, of course, that the universe is vastly too complex for us to make any great predictions about. Perhaps, though, it's interesting to turn the question around - what ( if anything ) has intervened between the Big Bang and this very moment to determine the current state of every speck of matter in the universe? If we put aside the idea of outside, supernatural influence, then hasn't it all just unfolded as inevitably determined by the starting point? And doesn't that include all the matter that goes to make us, our brains and thoughts and, therefore, our actions?

I find this question fascinating as it seems to be the ultimate point for the rationalist/materialist outlook. It's hard to argue against ( at least for me ) without introducing some notion of 'soul' or a divine guiding hand. It's also tempting to talk about 'chaos' or 'unpredictability', but this seems to fudge the issue - these things should also be 'part of the system', inevitably determined from the start, not some outside force acting upon the universe.

[Trinoc]

I'm wondering whether there is any essential difference between indeterminacy, and determinacy in which the amount of information needed to determine anything would be greater than the total information capacity of the matter in the universe, possibly infinite.

In other words, given a situation in which the probability is essentially zero of being able to work out the exact initial conditions to result in a given outcome, is it really any different from a situation in which there is no determinism at all?

[SimonC]

I'm wondering whether there is any essential difference between indeterminacy, and determinacy in which the amount of information needed to determine anything would be greater than the total information capacity of the matter in the universe, possibly infinite.

In other words, given a situation in which the probability is essentially zero of being able to work out the exact initial conditions to result in a given outcome, is it really any different from a situation in which there is no determinism at all?

But surely, even if the probability of working out the initial state is zero, that doesn't have any bearing on the course of events that follow that starting point? In other words, even if we can neither predict future events, nor extrapolate all the way back to the beginning, it all still had to unfold inevitably from the start, without outside influence. Maybe??

Forgive me if I'm not being fantastically clear today - had a migraine this morning and still feeling very fuzzy!

[Trinoc]

But surely, even if the probability of working out the initial state is zero, that doesn't have any bearing on the course of events that follow that starting point? In other words, even if we can neither predict future events, nor extrapolate all the way back to the beginning, it all still had to unfold inevitably from the start, without outside influence. Maybe??

This is the problem. It used to be possible to imagine a universe which had a particular state to infinite precision, because we imagined there was an observer capable of infinite precision looking at it (or directing it, if you prefer), i.e. God ... but if we accept that no observer, not even the whole universe itself, is capable of discerning things with infinite precision, is it really meaningful to say that the universe has such a precise state at all?

This is of course without adding in quantum uncertainty, which wrecks the possibility of precision altogether ... but I'm reluctant to put in quantum uncertainty as an initial assumption. Any idea that tries to explain the whole universe should be able to explain quantum uncertainty as well, not simply assume it without explanation. Maybe quantum uncertainty is just the manifestation of chaos at a lower level ... but that would just be speculation.

[SimonC]

This is the problem. It used to be possible to imagine a universe which had a particular state to infinite precision, because we imagined there was an observer capable of infinite precision looking at it (or directing it, if you prefer), i.e. God ... but if we accept that no observer, not even the whole universe itself, is capable of discerning things with infinite precision, is it really meaningful to say that the universe has such a precise state at all?

I'm honestly not sure. When we look at maps of the universe as it is, and we try to extrapolate backwards ( considering red shift and so on ), isn't that exactly what we try to do? To get as close as we can to describing the original starting conditions of the universe? Of course, we will never do that in anything other than a clumsy and very limited way, but isn't there an assumption that it should be possible to achieve that aim?

This is nothing more than speculation on my behalf ( I don't have the science to discuss this in anything other than very broad terms ), and I hope I'm not straying into woo here, but I wonder if the determinist stance is limited by a Newtonian, three-dimensional view of the universe. It's easy to visualise energy/matter flying out from the big bang, and continuing in its inevitable tragectory - subatomic particles forming, matter coalescing and so on. All of that 'stuff' continuing to interact right up to the present moment.

I wonder, however, if the theories about 'higher dimensions' might give a different and more complex persective on all of this? Again, this is just speculation on my part, and I really don't have the knowledge to back up such pondering!

[Trinoc]

To get as close as we can to describing the original starting conditions of the universe?

First we have to decide whether the universe has a unique set of starting conditions, or a unique past at all, of course.

Seems like a suitable time to plug one of my favourite speculative science articles: The Janus-Headed Arrow of Time by Donald Kingsbury. Read it, and see if you find it as difficult to fault the reasoning as I do.

[chaggle]

Is there an "It's all going straight over my head" emoticon?

[SimonC]

First we have to decide whether the universe has a unique set of starting conditions, or a unique past at all, of course.

Seems like a suitable time to plug one of my favourite speculative science articles: The Janus-Headed Arrow of Time by Donald Kingsbury. Read it, and see if you find it as difficult to fault the reasoning as I do.

Thanks for the link Trinoc. Looks like interesting reading!

[Question Authority]

The link to the Implicit Association Test mentioned above:
https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/uk/takeatest.html

I have taken a couple of these tests several years ago, and just now took a couple of them again (plan to do a few more), but I really have an issue with such an arbitrary testing methodology. Maybe it's just me who's slow on the uptake, lol, but it takes me a while to readjust my thinking when they switch gears and therefore, my responses are slower in the second phase of this testing.

Case in point, I just took the Age test and it's trying to tell me that I have a strong preference for young over old. Couldn't be further from the truth (even when I was a youth myself, I preferred the company and counsel of older people, lol), but the order in which they had the "young/old" and "good/bad" categories would have revealed the exact opposite of the results if it had been switched around. (They explain it has to do not only with errors made - I made a ton of errors after they switched gears - but also the speed with which you respond. I was much slower after they shifted terms because my brain was still geared toward the first set.)

It was also off on the Country preference, saying that I show a slight preference for the US over the UK. Also couldn't be further from the truth, although there's also the whole familiarity thing in addition to changing the order of terms presented. As an American, I'm obviously more familiar with Americana, it can't be helped. But as an Anglophile, I think their conclusion is silly at best, lol.

Since I don't think this is scientifically valid enough to be a good indicator of the various things they're testing, I can't imagine how science could test for free will, especially in light of things already mentioned here such as pre-conditioning.