Does science require a soul?

[grmorton]

Great question, but yer post is too long for me to read Glenn, being lazy and all that. However, for what it's worth after having glanced at the first few lines ...


I think science needs a myth, a set of principles and ideals which it claims to strive for, but never actually reaches. These principles and ideals are ones we think make sense in this modern age - truth, objectivity, skepticism of authority, non-bias (other than bias as a BS filter), reasoned discussion and debate, etc.

And of course as a part of all this, there needs to be a sense of wonder and awe, and a sense of humility in that for all our knowledge, there really is so much that we simply do not know, knowledge with could completely undermine our most cherished ideas.

An appreciation of a philosophy of science and an understanding of the history behind various scientific ideas feed into this.

Without this myth, science definitely lacks a soul.

With the myth, there is always hope?

I understand that it is long, but I think I have a logical chain that shows that Science needs something outside of science in order for science to be true at all. Without that ghost outside of the machine, truth can't exist.

[37818]

Comment: Randomness is contingent on an underlying order.

[grmorton]

Comment: Randomness is contingent on an underlying order.

Your line of reasoning please?

[TheLurch]

I think the argument falls down in the quoted section below. I'll label the two points A and B, for convenience:

A.)The quantum decision maker has no freedom to do other than what the rules tell it to do. This quantum decision making machine is really not much more than a look-up table in a computer program--if X then Y, If X' then Y' etc etc. Because of this, quantum does not provide free will inherently.

B.)

For A, the issue is that, once a particle creates an interference pattern, that's not the end of matters. It can go on and engage in other quantum interactions, each of which allows further indeterminacy. Collectively, these interactions can create situations where all possible quantum states are possible, and it becomes impossible to tell with any certainty where a particle is. So, yes, there are rules for each of these interactions, and probabilities associated with each outcome. But start stacking interactions, and the probabilities become effectively meaningless - unless it's a carefully planned series of interactions that you can arrange in a lab, there's simply no telling what the outcome would be, and all possibilities become accessible.

For B, this is a common problem that people have with the term "observer". You don't actually need an observer to collapse a wave function - any interaction with the environment would do. That's why quantum experiments are so hard and require such elaborate equipment: they need to prevent interactions with the environment in order to keep things in a quantum, indeterminate state. Now, to know you've collapsed the wave function and to register what state it's collapsed into, you do need to observe things. But "observation" in this case simply means having the quantum system interact with one specific part of the environment: the detector.

In other words, the quantum definition of an observer is nothing like our common definition of observer. It's a distinction that's caused no end of confusion over the years.


NB: I don't have a strong opinion on the free will question. I'm not arguing against it per se; I am arguing for a good understanding of quantum mechanics.

[firstfloor]

Our choice seems to be between having no basis upon which to believe anything is true or having a soul.

[Carrikature]

I think you're on the right track, grmorton, but you've some issues with your assumptions and conclusion. You've skipped a step and combined another, and I think this will change the outcome significantly.

Here are my suggested revisions in bold:

Assumption 1. Properly derived chains of logic and mathematics allows no contradictions. (If we deny this assumption, then we have no means of gaining knowledge. Consider the case of a contradiction which allows anything to be proven. (search 'John is a wise fool')

Assumption 2. Matter follows the rules of logic and mathematics.

Assumption 2a. These rules are revealed to humans via the scientific method.

Conclusion 1. Therefore the true view of the universe is logically consistent and allow no contradictions. (To deny this is to say that logic and math don't govern the universe. If they don't then what does?)

Assumption 3. Atoms are part of the universe.

Conclusion 2. Atoms in our bodies are governed by the laws of the universe.

Assumption 4. Atoms are required to follow those laws. For atoms and molecules, there is no escape from the inexorable dictates of the laws of the universe. (One can't deny this if one accepts assumption #2 and #3)

Assumption 5. Our bodies and brains are made of atoms which follow the laws of the universe. (The materialist assumption)

Assumption 6. Our mind or set of mental states is an epiphenomenon of the arrangement of matter in our brain.

Explanation: Mental states arise from a collection of atoms organized in a particular pattern entailing our knowledge, experience and memories beliefs, all of which follow the laws of the universe because the underlying matter follows the universe. (Given that each of us have different memories and experiences which can only be encoded in the brain via different arrangements of matter, this seems easy to accept).

Conclusion 3. Beliefs are mental states and arise in the epiphenomenon of the matter in our brain from the particular arrangement of the atoms in the brain which follow the laws of the universe. Beliefs, memories, experience etc are entirely due to an arrangement of matter. (This follows from assumption 5 mental thoughts are the state of the epiphenomenon of matter).

Assumption 7: Actions arise from pre-existing mental states. One thinks of an apple before reaching out taking one and subsequently eating the juicy fruit.

Conclusion 4. The previous chain of logic shows therefore, that actions are based ultimately on the laws of the universe which admit of no contradiction or escape. A murder is nothing more than the actualization of the thoughts and intensions in the mind of the murderer which were caused by the particular arrangement of matter in his brain, which was caused by the laws of the universe. (follows from #7).

Conclusion 5. Actions have no escape from the inexorable demands of the laws of physics and the arrangement of matter which underlies the mental states. Therefore, actions have no free will. The mental state is caused by the arrangement of matter, and the action is caused by the mental state. The individual is forced to do, believe and experience what the patterns of atoms in his brain require, and those atoms, in turn, are required follow the laws of the universe.

This position is best summed up by Dawkins:
*snipped for space*


Let's extend this reasoning a bit. If conclusions #4 and #5 are true, then it seems the following must also be true.

Assumption 8. The arrangement of the atoms in the brain is not influenced by interactions with matter outside of the brain.

Conclusion 6-1. then the belief that we have or don't have free will is held, not because of evidence but because of the arrangement of the atoms in the brain.

Conclusion 6-2. The belief in the efficacy of logic is held, again, not because it is actually efficacious, but because of the arrangement of the atoms in the brain. We can't actually know if logic tells us anything true because it is an arrangement of atoms and molecules which force us to believe in the efficacy of logic.

Conclusion 6-3. Belief in atheism, theism or pantheism, scientific theories and love for family and everything we think we know, are held not because the person believes or loves, but because the arrangement of atoms require said beliefs or love. Evidence does not enter into the equation here.

Conclusion 6-4. Therefore, reality cannot be known because each and every belief is held because of the arrangement of atoms which require us to believe and 'know' what we know. We do not independently confirm scientific data or hold a single opinion that our molecules don't force us to hold. Evidence is meaningless.

Conclusion 6-5. Our memories don't represent actual events but are forced upon us by the atoms in our brain being arranged in a particular pattern which followed the laws of the universe. Our parents might not really have existed. The past scientific experiments we use as the building blocks of science might not have ever been carried out but merely be an arrangement of matter in our brain. Truth is a meaningless concept, since every belief and action is predetermined by the arrangement of our molecules.

Conclusion 6-6 Science is impossible; knowledge is impossible; history is impossible. Science, knowledge and history cannot possibly be proclaimed true because it is the arrangement of atoms in our minds that makes us hold that the facts of science, knowledge and history is true, not the data.

Now see how your set of conclusions hold up. I don't think they will, but I'm interested in your take.



Other comments of note:

The information is then transferred to the observable world and the atoms put into appropriate patterns for those beliefs.

You're hardly the first to suggest this, but the distinction of first to explain it is still open.



It's always interesting to me to see people insist on true beliefs in order to accept determinism without realizing that they don't think people necessarily have true beliefs.

[Carrikature]

I think the argument falls down in the quoted section below. I'll label the two points A and B, for convenience:


For A, the issue is that, once a particle creates an interference pattern, that's not the end of matters. It can go on and engage in other quantum interactions, each of which allows further indeterminacy. Collectively, these interactions can create situations where all possible quantum states are possible, and it becomes impossible to tell with any certainty where a particle is. So, yes, there are rules for each of these interactions, and probabilities associated with each outcome. But start stacking interactions, and the probabilities become effectively meaningless - unless it's a carefully planned series of interactions that you can arrange in a lab, there's simply no telling what the outcome would be, and all possibilities become accessible.

For B, this is a common problem that people have with the term "observer". You don't actually need an observer to collapse a wave function - any interaction with the environment would do. That's why quantum experiments are so hard and require such elaborate equipment: they need to prevent interactions with the environment in order to keep things in a quantum, indeterminate state. Now, to know you've collapsed the wave function and to register what state it's collapsed into, you do need to observe things. But "observation" in this case simply means having the quantum system interact with one specific part of the environment: the detector.

In other words, the quantum definition of an observer is nothing like our common definition of observer. It's a distinction that's caused no end of confusion over the years.


NB: I don't have a strong opinion on the free will question. I'm not arguing against it per se; I am arguing for a good understanding of quantum mechanics.

My impression, which I think has been reinforced time and again, is that quantum is a catchword for the "and then a miracle occurs" bit from that Farside cartoon. It's used by both sides to justify their arguments. Neither side actually understands it.


I did not know that about the observer, though. That's useful information to have. Thanks.

[seer]

Wow, very good!

[37818]

Your line of reasoning please?

Chaos is defined by some kind of order. Chaos being preceived as a lack of order. Chaos is chaos of what? There has to be something to be chaos of. What ever it is, is some type of an order.

[rwatts]

I understand that it is long, but I think I have a logical chain that shows that Science needs something outside of science in order for science to be true at all. Without that ghost outside of the machine, truth can't exist.

Yes. I'm inclined to agree.

None of us are exactly rational creatures, even when we are being rational. Intangibles play their role in science, things like imagination, emotion, and so on.

Imagine doing science without emotion. It would just be a recipe with nothing of value underpinning it. Emotions give things value in a subjective and intangible way that's different to how, say, money gives value to something.

I think you are right.

[seer]

I have been absent but not absent thinking about the world we live in. In this thread I am posting something I have worked on for 6 months. It began when my preacher son sent me a quotation by my favorite liar (go look up the frog and princess episode) Richard Dawkins. Dawkins made an interesting point which set me to thinking about things. I don't want Jorge involved in this thread if I have any say about it. He never adds anything substantive. Anyway, I will see if this will fit into my allotted number of characters. I will discuss the Newtonian view first. In a second post I will discuss the most often claimed escape clause to the Newtonian problems--quantum mechanics and show why it won't actually allow escape from these problems. I will watch and see what stones are thrown my way.

Free Will, God and Scientific Knowledge

By Glenn R. Morton copyright 2016

Glenn, would you mind if I quote some of this on this thread: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...oherent/page40

If not, that's OK.

[The Thinker]

Free Will, God and Scientific Knowledge

By Glenn R. Morton copyright 2016

I will show why the classical material position that there is no free will leads to a refutation of science. I will then show that the addition of an entity outside of our universe allows scientific knowledge to be trustworthy. Then I will show why quantum mechanical indeterminism does not allow escape from this problem and finally show a second problem that quantum mechanics causes for the acceptance of scientific data and theories.

[...]

Conclusion 6-1. then the belief that we have or don't have free will is held, not because of evidence but because of the arrangement of the atoms in the brain.

This is an assumption. You are assuming that the arrangement of the atoms in the brain cannot be caused by the evidence pertaining to free will. It's an assumption that none of our brain states have a causal relationship with the world - that they're always disconnected.

From there just about everything else is wrong. It's so easy for me to pick out where theists go wrong.

Conclusion 6-4. Therefore, reality cannot be known because each and every belief is held because of the arrangement of atoms which require us to believe and 'know' what we know. We do not independently confirm scientific data or hold a single opinion that our molecules don't force us to hold. Evidence is meaningless.

It can be argued that reality can never be known because it is impossible to logically prove that you're not a brain in a vat.

Conclusion 6-5. Our memories don't represent actual events but are forced upon us by the atoms in our brain being arranged in a particular pattern which followed the laws of the universe. Our parents might not really have existed. The past scientific experiments we use as the building blocks of science might not have ever been carried out but merely be an arrangement of matter in our brain. Truth is a meaningless concept, since every belief and action is predetermined by the arrangement of our molecules.

This, again, assumes that the "predetermined" process has no causal connection with what's true or real.

Conclusion 6-6 Science is impossible; knowledge is impossible; history is impossible. Science, knowledge and history cannot possibly be proclaimed true because it is the arrangement of atoms in our minds that makes us hold that the facts of science, knowledge and history is true, not the data.

Given the above this conclusion does not necessarily follow.

Assumption 6a Beliefs and judgments about data arise from analyses accomplished by an non-observable entity, i.e. a soul, which is not rooted in our observable universe, and thus not constrained by the inexorable demands of the physical universe. This entity may be rooted in dark matter or some other substrate which is unobservable. That entity is free to consider all the information, and choose the appropriate position. The information is then transferred to the observable world and the atoms put into appropriate patterns for those beliefs.

And this is totally false. If it is the case that we have a soul, science would have confirmed it. What you don't realize is that dark matter - whatever it is - is too weakly interacting to have any effect on our atoms. So if a soul is like it, it cannot affect our bodies in a way that wouldn't have been detected already or that is undetectable. If you knew quantum field theory you would know this. And we've completed the standard model of physics such that there are no forces out there unaccounted for that can have any effect on our atoms. They would have been found already. A soul that injects energy into the universe would violate the law of the conservation of energy too. So if we're assuming that we have a soul under your description that is required for science then science would disprove it. That means it is self contradictory.


See here:

The World of Everyday Experience, In One Equation

Seriously, The Laws Underlying The Physics of Everyday Life Really Are Completely Understood

Conclusion 3a. Beliefs held by the individual, are not caused by the arrangement of matter in their brain but are the result of actions and beliefs accomplished by another entity based in some other substrate, i. e. dark matter, immaterial soul etc. The particular arrangement of matter in the brain is logically later than the decision-making event.

This is refuted by tons of scientific data, and therefore to assume what you're proposing it would have to violate science and it would therefore be self-refuting.

Internally generated preactivation of single neurons in human medial frontal cortex predicts volition.


Predicting free choices for abstract intentions


Tracking the Unconscious Generation of Free Decisions Using UItra-High Field fMRI


Unconscious determinants of free decisions in the human brain




Reading My Mind

Conclusion 6-1a. If this is true, then the belief that we have or don't have free will is held because of Logic and evidence, and because of decisions made by the unobservable entity which then encodes an appropriate arrangement of matter in our brains. Libet's electrical potential comes into play here. The encoding of our brains is a result of the decisions by the unobservable entity, NOT because the atoms in our brains constrain us. It is the freedom of the unobservable entity based within dark matter or classical soul, which allows us to truly be free.

If the belief that we have free will is because of logic and evidence, then you should have no problem showing that libertarian free will is coherent. You can try that on this thread here. And also how does logic and evidence have a causal impact on the soul? Claiming that the soul encodes the arrangement of matter in the brain injects new energy, which again, violates the law of the conservation of energy. It also violates the laws of physics and chemistry. Nothing we've ever discovered in the brain does that, so the burden of proof would be on you to show scientific evidence of that.

Conclusion 6-3. Belief in atheism, theism or pantheism, scientific theories and love for family and everything we think we know, are held because an entity free of the inexorable demands of this universe's laws allows a free decision on what it chooses to believe. The person believes or loves, based on the evidence he has at hand. Evidence and data are extremely important.


If we were free from the laws of the universe then we'd all be violating the laws of physics every second. Thing is, we don't. And the burden of proof would be on you to show scientific evidence of that.

Conclusion 6-5. Our memories do represent actual events because we are free from the forced mental states the materialist position requires. Our parents did exist. Past scientific experiments we use as the building blocks of science were carried out. Truth is, if not absolutely obtainable, at least assymptotically obtainable.

How does this account for the fact that we all have false memories? How do false memories arise in your view where the mind is the product of "because of logic and evidence"?

Conclusion 7. Scientific and historical knowledge can be real if and only if there is an entity free of the laws of the universe which can examine the data and make a free unhindered, unconstrained decision.. The materialist position is self-defeating. Our choice seems to be between having no basis upon which to believe anything is true or having a soul.

Your view is actually self defeating given our knowledge of science. It also assumes libertarian free will as if it is coherent. You have to show that it is, I showed that it isn't. It claims that without an entity free of the laws of the universe, science and logic are impossible, and yet science has already ruled out a soul rather than affirming it - it is not a matter of not knowing enough, we know enough.

[grmorton]

I think the argument falls down in the quoted section below. I'll label the two points A and B, for convenience:


For A, the issue is that, once a particle creates an interference pattern, that's not the end of matters. It can go on and engage in other quantum interactions, each of which allows further indeterminacy. Collectively, these interactions can create situations where all possible quantum states are possible, and it becomes impossible to tell with any certainty where a particle is. So, yes, there are rules for each of these interactions, and probabilities associated with each outcome. But start stacking interactions, and the probabilities become effectively meaningless - unless it's a carefully planned series of interactions that you can arrange in a lab, there's simply no telling what the outcome would be, and all possibilities become accessible.

For B, this is a common problem that people have with the term "observer". You don't actually need an observer to collapse a wave function - any interaction with the environment would do. That's why quantum experiments are so hard and require such elaborate equipment: they need to prevent interactions with the environment in order to keep things in a quantum, indeterminate state. Now, to know you've collapsed the wave function and to register what state it's collapsed into, you do need to observe things. But "observation" in this case simply means having the quantum system interact with one specific part of the environment: the detector.

In other words, the quantum definition of an observer is nothing like our common definition of observer. It's a distinction that's caused no end of confusion over the years.


NB: I don't have a strong opinion on the free will question. I'm not arguing against it per se; I am arguing for a good understanding of quantum mechanics.

First, the 2nd part is in some part independent from the first, but if the Quantum argument doesn't hold, one can legitimately have faith that there is an out somewhere within quantum.

Let me see if I can clarify my quantum decision maker. The decision choses one option. One of the possible options is chosen in a quantum system ONLY when an observation takes place. There is a symmetry here. Prior to observation, yes, all things are potential but once a decision is made, only one reality, one outcome of the quantum system happens, so, I disagree that one can have a decision that creates all possible outputs. Even a quantum computer only gives one answer. It calculates via all possible histories but only gives the proper answer. If it output all possible answers, it would be useless.

So with that as background, if I understand what you are saying then I must disagree strongly. Your comment "there's simply no telling what the outcome would be, and all possibilities become accessible." is irrelevant (I simplified the decisionmaker by using big bins rather than having all bins-I did this for those who don't understand quantum). I would agree that all possible outcomes are certainly possible, but that just means a bigger look up table (yes an infinite table). But ONLY ONE OUTPUT IS DECIDED UPON. That singularity implies that the decisionmaker system has collapsed via an observer which is the only thing that collapses the wave function. So I stand by my point there.

Secondly what you describe is not how we make decisions. I don't decide to go to Moscow and the next second decide to go to Timbuktu, and then in the following second decide to go to the grocery store. A quantum system that outputs all possibilities would output random destinations when I want to go somewhere. Whatever is making the choice of destination, and I believe it has to be something outside of the physical, it isn't quantum mechanics.

To your point about the wave function collapsing without an observer, I already addressed that and rest my case on John von neuman. Unless you are prepared to show how his analysis is false, his point that every physical system that contacts a quantum system goes into superposed states. The observer is the only way out of that conundrum and that works only if the observer isn't a physical system.

I must make a comment on the collapse due to the environment. When we try to isolate a qubit from the environment, we only know it collapsed when we look at it. The observer can't possibly know if the environment collapsed it except by observing it, and that observation may be the thing that collapsed the qubit--afterall, our observation disturbs a system which can be in any possible state.

I too argue for good understanding of quantum. If we are nothing more than a physical system, John von Neuman's argument remains--everything should be in superposition.

[grmorton]

Yes. I'm inclined to agree.

None of us are exactly rational creatures, even when we are being rational. Intangibles play their role in science, things like imagination, emotion, and so on.

Imagine doing science without emotion. It would just be a recipe with nothing of value underpinning it. Emotions give things value in a subjective and intangible way that's different to how, say, money gives value to something.

I think you are right.

Yeah, hard nosed logico-rationalism has some tough philosophical questions it can't answer, imo.

[grmorton]

Glenn, would you mind if I quote some of this on this thread: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...oherent/page40

If not, that's OK.

go ahead