Absolutism In Science

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2019/09/free-will-bereitschaftspotential/597736/

So what has been touted as absolute proof that free will can’t possibly exist appears very likely to simply be an artifact of the way the data was analyzed. In other words, evidence of nothing at all, except the foolishness of jumping to conclusions and of predetermining the outcomes of scientific data.

> ...neuroscientists barged in like an elephant into a china shop and claimed to have solved it in one fell swoop... <

It should be noted that even if it had been confirmed, it could only show that under extremely limited circumstance requiring virtually no rational thought, or decision-making, or exercise of free will, the brain predecides a response without conscious input. Had this been correct (and now appears to be incorrect) it still would not have warranted the conclusion that therefore every single decision ever made by every human being can only be made in this particular non-conscious manner. Such an overreach is simply unwarranted. It reminds me of BF Skinner’s conclusion that since some learning takes place as a conditioned response, all learning must take place in that manner. This is the equivalent of saying that since some people get from place to place on a skateboard, the only way human beings can ever transport themselves from place to place is on a skateboard. Thus, there are no such things as automobiles, cars, trains, rollerskates, or human feet.

This inevitably reminds me of a supposed absolute truth that free will can’t exist which is based in classical physics. For decades it was declared as an absolute that since every single cause has a single effect and every single particle must react to the previously existing conditions in an exactly predictable manner, there was no room for free will or choice. Every thought was ultimately produced by the motions and interactions of atoms and molecules and since these were moved in an exactly predictable manner from one existing state into the next existing state, there was no such thing as original thought or free will. Everything, including our thoughts and our choices were always predetermined.

Then came quantum physics. Suddenly the very same individuals who were loudly (very, very loudly) declaring free will is impossible because of this absolutely perfect proof were insisting that the destruction of their beloved proof was totally meaningless and had no effect on the debate whatsoever. Ultimately, it seems, the perfect and irrefutable argument was composed entirely of sour grapes.

In fairness, we must be remember that scientists are, inevitably, human beings. The public image of scientists as cold calculating individuals who lack emotion or are at least are uniquely objective is nonsense. More than anything else, at the most basic level, a scientist is a human being; and as with all human beings this class of individuals is subject to the same emotional prejudices, confusions, and errors that are inherent to our entire species.

The classical physics argument that all particles follow a rigid and invariable pattern and therefore there can be no such thing as free will since we are completely, including our brains, composed of those particles so that everything is already predetermined was as deeply offensive to me in high school as it is today. Like it’s theological cousin, the Calvinist theory of predestination, the belief that human beings have no control of their own fate was anathema to me. I didn’t know where the fault lay in this particular theory, it seemed to be a perfect proof. Yet I had a deep conviction (one could argue a faith) that it was wrong.

Now that its flaws have become manifest, I feel deeply vindicated, even while those who once swore that classical physics theory was the absolute proof of their correctness now discard it as never having been relevant to the discussion. It should be noted that in the area of quantum physics there are still those who advocate for a theory referred to as the “hidden variables” interpretation. This suggests that there are variables which adhere to the classical physics model which are unknown to us at this time and which will eventually prove (when they are discovered) that classical physics was correct all along. The number of scientists believing this shrinks every year. As an old adage by Max Plank indicates, “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”

FYI: it was Max Planck’s work on the blackbody problem that caused him to introduce a new concept, that of the quanta. When he first introduced it to resolve that problem, he regarded it as a mathematical fiction, but it grew into a new reality, indeed, into an entirely new physics.

This leaves the questions of, what is conscious, what is free will, unanswered. While we continue to seek the truth, we must wonder if it will ever be found. A very interesting article suggests that a single ultimate answer may not be possible. It presents a very interesting concept. One, I think, especially in the context of this post, is well worth consideration. See the link below.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/pluralism-beyond-the-one-and-only-truth/