The Assumptions of Science

Direct Arrivals From a Google Search

If you arrived here directly from a Google Search, this website accepts free will as real. We then make free will compatible with physics. You may click here for a brief overview of all the chapters.

The Free Will Paradigm

The incompatibilities between physics and free will are so fundamental in nature that we cannot hope to resolve these conflicts with simple patches. If this were possible, it would already be done. To understand this universe in which free will is possible, we will have to rebuild the foundational assumptions of science.

This new philosophy of science will be based on two assumptions: (1) free will is real, and (2) the universe is a knowable place. As we progress, we will freely change any scientific understanding as needed to keep these two foundational assumptions always true.

By the end of the book, we will have a new and comprehensive understanding of physics, biology, consciousness, and the universe. We will call this new understanding the free will paradigm. To succeed, this free will paradigm will have to make it possible for science to fulfill its mission without any limitations in a universe where conscious minds can act freely on the matter they govern.

The Rational Thinker

A rational mind is always free to accept any soundly supported information as true. This openness to new information is lost when we think or act in a way that creates a corrupting bias.

Corrupting biases are created by conflicts of interest, ideologies, doctrinal certainties, superstitions, blind love, jealousy, groupthink, addictions, prejudices, narcissism, hatred, anger, self-pity, greed, fears and phobias, laziness, mental fixations, obsessive compulsive disorders, and so on. These corrupting biases will interfere with our openness to new information whenever the new information compels us to think or act in a way that we are unwilling to accept.

Corrupting biases may lead us to confuse causes and effects, and facts and beliefs. Intellectual freedom is needed to think rationally, a freedom that is attained by purging ourselves of all corrupting biases. Because rational thinkers free themselves of corrupting biases, this keeps them free to update their beliefs when presented with new and soundly supported information.

The Rational Thinker:

A rational thinker is free to accept any soundly supported information as true.

Because freedom from corrupting biases is the only condition for being rational, all thinking minds are capable of rational thought. While some minds will have better analytical capabilities than others, all thinkers will have sound reasoning capabilities if they only keep themselves free of all corrupting biases.

The Scientist

A scientist is a rational thinker with a disciplined intellect, is educated to the leading edge of knowledge in a scientific field, and is dedicated to advancing that field for the common good.

Science

Before we can fully understand the problems that free will creates for science, we will first have to understand what science is. The goal of science is to fully know the universe and all agents capable of causing changes in the universe. This means knowing the universe as it is and at all scales, knowing the universe throughout time, and understanding all the universe’s processes and interactions. So how does science work towards its goal?

To learn, we first observe our surroundings, and then we use reason to explain those observations. However, when we rigorously control all the parameters that could affect our observations, and when we use an unbiased and transparent reasoning process to methodically analyze our observations for the purpose of creating hypotheses and theories to be tested by future experiments, this process becomes science. Scientific activity systematically expands our knowledge and understanding of the universe.

The scope of science is not bound by subject matter; it is the place of science to study any subject where a rigorous application of observation and reason will yield an expansion of knowledge. Because the scope of science is unlimited, the reach of science extends to all universal truths – truths that remain the same throughout space and time.

Furthermore, there can be no limit to the depth of understanding to be sought out by science, for science could not claim to fully know a phenomenon until the phenomenon is understood at the level of its root causes.

This brings us to the mission of science.

The Mission of Science:

To expand our knowledge of universal truths without limitation by scope or degree.

Because the mission of science is to discover universal truths without limitation by scope or degree, there are no universal truths that can be known that do not fall under the purview of science. In other words, if a universal truth is knowable, it falls to science to discover that truth.

Before the end of this book, we will find that fields of study presently thought to be outside the reach of science must be recast as scientific fields that will be subject to the rigors of the scientific method. In this free will paradigm, everything that is universally knowable belongs under the umbrella of science.

The First Assumption of Science

Whenever science makes an effort to learn about the universe, this effort reveals a preexisting assumption that the universe can be known.

The First Assumption of Science:

The universe is a knowable place.

The free will paradigm we are currently working on will be built upon two assumptions, the assumption that free will is real and the first assumption of science that the universe is a knowable place.

The Universal and Timeless Physical Laws

If the universe is a knowable place, it necessarily follows that the physical laws must be the same everywhere and throughout time. We will now explain why this must be true with an example.

At times, a scientist in one part of the world will run a new experiment that gives unexpected results. Before other scientists accept the results of this new experiment, they will first rerun the same experiment in their own labs to make sure the reported results can be reproduced. If the original results cannot be reproduced, scientists will reject the newly reported findings.

Interestingly, though, there are ways to explain how identical experiments could give different results. If it were possible for the physical laws to be different at the different locations, or if the physical laws could change with time, these possibilities would explain how the results could be different.

However, if the physical laws could vary by location or with time, it would now be impossible to prove or disprove any experimental result. No one could say for sure what the physical laws had been up to at any specific time or in any given location. Any scientist could now make any claim and no claim could be proven wrong. Thus, if the physical laws were not the same in all places and at all times, scientific investigation would be pointless and the universe would be unknowable. Therefore, for the universe to be a knowable place, the physical laws must be always and everywhere the same.

Science Must Assume Universality

Notice that it is not enough for the physical laws to just happen to be the same always and everywhere, it is also necessary for science to positively assume that the physical laws are always and everywhere the same. Allowing for even the possibility that the physical laws might vary would already make it impossible for scientists to verify the work of other scientists by rerunning their experiments. This is because an inability to reproduce the original results would no longer invalidate the original experiment due to this openness that the physical laws might be varying.

Therefore, for the universe to be a knowable place, the physical laws must be the same always and everywhere, and science must also assume that the physical laws are the same always and everywhere. The assumption of science that the universe is a knowable place is the foundation upon which all scientific activity becomes possible.

A Hiccup in the Physical Laws

For the sake of numerous arguments that will be presented throughout this book, it is necessary that we consider a one-time, uncaused change in a physical law.

We have argued that for the universe to be knowable, the physical laws must be always and everywhere the same. But what happens if a physical law hiccups only one time during one experiment, and this one hiccup leads to an indisputable experimental observation that otherwise would never have been possible? How will science deal with this one incompatible data point that will never fit in with all the other data points?

Some might think that because this single observation would not be reproducible, it would therefore be discarded. However, no matter how unique this data point, no matter how incompatible, unbelievable, inconsistent, or contradictory, this lone observation would not and could not be discarded. This is important, so we will argue the point.

When an experimental observation is not reproducible and is not compatible with all the other observations, scientists will seek the flaw in the experiment that made this incompatible observation possible. An experiment is flawed when at least one parameter that can affect the outcome is not being properly controlled. When experimenters discover a parameter that is not being properly controlled, they will make the necessary corrections before taking any new data.

It is at this point, after they have exposed a flaw in their experiment, that the scientists are justified in discarding their earlier results. But until a flaw in the experiment has been identified, experimenters have not earned the right to discard any collected data.

In real life, whenever we toss data outliers, we are implicitly accepting that our experiment is subject to human error, equipment instabilities, contamination, uncontrolled environmental effects, and so on. However, we are not accepting that it is ever okay to toss sound data from a fully controlled experiment. The fact that outliers are often tossed from scientific data does not mean that this is an acceptable practice when data is collected from fully controlled experiments, it only means that fully controlling experiments can be a daunting task.

In our example here, our experimenters were already controlling all the parameters that could affect the results. We know this is true because we are discussing an indisputable experimental observation. Therefore, the experimenters cannot toss the data point, and they cannot assume a physical law changed as this would mean an unknowable universe.

There are only two choices left for these scientists. They could continue searching for a nonexistent flaw in their experiment, or they could continue seeking a theory that would fully explain all the experimental observations. However, such a theory cannot exist because the one-time observation is incompatible with all the other data.

This brings us to the important point that even a one-time change in a physical law could turn the universe into an unknowable place; a single hiccup could make it impossible for scientists to arrive at an understanding of the physical laws for the rest of time. This assumption of science that the physical laws are always and everywhere the same is a prerequisite that makes all scientific progress possible.

The Unobserved Hiccup Event

We found that a single hiccup in the physical laws could make the universe unknowable for the rest of time. But what if this one-time hiccup was not observed? Would the universe remain knowable in this case? What if we took this question even further. If a hiccup in the physical laws were only possible, but no such hiccup ever took place, would the universe be knowable?

If a hiccup in the physical laws were only possible, but never takes place, we would be living in a hiccup enabled universe with no possibility of discovering this. If science cannot discover the universe as it is in reality, then we could not make the claim that the universe is knowable. Therefore, if the physical laws were hiccup enabled, we would consider the universe to be unknowable in this free will paradigm. Whether or not any hiccup ever took place would be irrelevant; a universe that cannot be known as it is, is an unknowable universe.

The Universality of Reason

Recall that the hiccup caused data point did not fit with all the other data points. But according to whom did it not fit with the other data points? If one experimental data point does not fit with all the other data points for one scientist, is it possible that this same data point will fit with all the other data for a different scientist?

When science makes the assumption that the universe is knowable, the word “knowable” presupposes that the universe is knowable to all rational thinkers everywhere. If the universe were not knowable to all, we would be arguing over to whom the secrets of the universe are knowable, and this uncertainty would already make the universe unknowable.

So for the universe to be knowable to all rational minds, reason itself must be the same throughout the universe. It would not matter if the physical laws were universal, but the reason being used to evaluate the physical laws were not.

It is the universality of reason that makes mathematics universal. Not only are the same mathematical proofs taught and understood around the globe regardless of language or culture, but these same mathematical proofs must also be discoverable to all scientists throughout the universe. This universality of reason means that a rational proof for one is a rational proof for all, and a contradiction for one is a contradiction for all.

Thus, if one experimental data point is incompatible with all the other data points for one scientist, this same data point will be incompatible with all the other data points for all scientists everywhere. For the universe to be knowable, not only must the physical laws be the same always and everywhere, but reason itself must also be the same always and everywhere.

The Universe Is Knowable in Its Entirety

The first assumption of science is that the universe is a knowable place. For the universe to be knowable, everything that exists in the universe must be knowable. After all, if any part of a whole is not knowable, then we cannot claim that the whole is knowable.

For scientifically informed readers, this finding may be difficult to reconcile with current experimental results in modern physics. Extraordinary experimental results appear to indicate that the universe could be unknowable at its most elementary level. However, this free will paradigm is not compatible with a universe that is unknowable or undiscoverable at any level. The logic used by this free will paradigm requires a fully knowable universe. Therefore, we accept that insights are discoverable that will eventually bring science to a full understanding of the universe.

Predictive Models in Science

If a theoretical model were to exist that could perfectly predict all past experimental outcomes, but does not provide an understanding of the deepest underlying causes that brought about these outcomes, this model would not be adequate to support the claim that the universe is known. Where models do not provide us with an understanding of the deepest underlying causes, past predictive successes would be no guarantee of future success because there would remain a void in our understanding.

Therefore, any claim that the universe is known based on the successes of predictive models would be logically unsupportable. Because we have accepted that the universe is a knowable place, it must be possible for science to move beyond predictive models to a full understanding of the universe in all areas.

The Four Free Agent Rules

The first assumption of science is that the universe is knowable. We will now consider conscious agents that are capable of causing changes in the universe independently of the physical laws. We will call these conscious agents, “free agents.”

Free Agent:

A free agent is capable of causing changes in the universe independently of the physical laws. A free agent may cause physical changes or changes in the progression of conscious thoughts.

If a free agent causes a change independently of the physical laws, then scientific observations of the resulting event would not be compatible with the physical laws. If the free agent is undiscoverable, this event would be indistinguishable from the one-time hiccup in the physical laws that we covered earlier, so the action of this free agent would make the universe unknowable. Therefore, to keep the universe knowable with free agents, all free agents must be discoverable.

If an undiscoverable free agent exists, but never causes any change, then the universe becomes hiccup enabled and the universe again becomes unknowable as discussed earlier. Once again, we find that if a free agent exists, the free agent must be discoverable, and this remains true even if the free agent never acts on the universe.

But other conditions must also be met with free agents. The universe can only be knowable if we can know all the agents capable of changing outcomes in the universe. For example, the physical laws direct physical events, so the universe can only be knowable if we can know the physical laws. And this is equally true for free agents. Free agents can cause changes in the universe, so the universe can only be knowable if all free agents are knowable.

There are a total of four free agent rules, two that apply to all free agents, and two more that apply to free agents that are matter bound. We begin with the two free agent rules that apply to all free agents: (1) all free agents must be discoverable, and (2) all free agents must be knowable.

For matter-bound free agents such as the conscious minds of humans, there are two additional free agent rules: (3) it must be possible to identify exactly the atoms that give the free agent its existence, and (4) it must be possible to discover exactly the atoms the free agent can act on with forces.

The Universality of the Conscious Experience

For the universe to be knowable, everything in the universe must be knowable. We are in the universe and we are conscious, therefore, consciousness must be knowable.

I am conscious and I can know my own consciousness by way of personal experience. However, you too are conscious, but I cannot know your consciousness by way of personal experience because personal experiences are non-transferable. This means I cannot know your consciousness by way of personal experience, nor you mine. Therefore, for your personal experience of consciousness to be knowable to me, and for mine to be knowable to you, our personal experiences of consciousness must be the same.

Reason, contradiction, and an awareness of self are all part of the conscious experience, and thus must be the same for all conscious beings. Your experience of making free will decisions must be the same as my experience of making free will decisions. Your experience of having a continuous train of time-dependent thoughts must be the same as my experience of this continuous train of time-dependent thoughts.

That is, for consciousness to be knowable, the conscious experience must be always and everywhere the same. If the conscious experience were not always and everywhere the same, then consciousness could not be knowable in the same way that the physical laws could not be knowable if they were not always and everywhere the same.

However, our common conscious experience is about more than run-on thoughts, the use of reason, an awareness of self, and making choices. Conscious beings are also preeminently concerned with outcomes. If I go skydiving for the first time, I do not tell myself factually and with static awareness, “My parachute just opened and now I will live.” Instead, I experience an intense feeling of relief and exhilaration upon seeing my parachute open. But outcomes matter not only to me, they matter to all conscious beings. If your chute, or mine, were to not open, we would both feel the same panic and horror because for all conscious beings, outcomes matter.

When a loved one dies, I am not indifferent to the loss of a dear someone who will now be gone from my life forever. Instead, I will feel overcome by a grief that I cannot disregard or suppress. And so do we all experience this same emotion when faced with the loss of a loved one. Outcomes that matter bring out emotional experiences, and the more important the outcome, the more intense the emotional experience.

If you get angry and I witness your anger, then as a like, conscious observer, I am capable of recognizing and understanding the emotion that you are experiencing. Upon witnessing your anger, I do not start wondering whether your anger is the same as my anger. I do not wonder if perhaps you are experiencing the emotion of joy, but because your conscious experience is different than mine, your joy is expressed as anger.

No one ever had to explain to us that fear is the same for you as it is for me. The makers of horror movies start out with the assumption that fear is universal without even considering whether it could be otherwise. Languages have words for joy, anger, love, hate, passion, depression, regret, hunger, sorrow, humor, gratitude, and so on. Each of these words has a unique meaning that we are all able to understand, and this common understanding is possible because the conscious experience is shared and universal. That is, language presupposes a common conscious experience.

If your conscious experience were not the same as my conscious experience, then part of the universe would be unknowable to each of us, and this would make the universe an unknowable place. This brings us to the assumption of science that the conscious experience is universal.

The Universality of the Conscious Experience:

The conscious experience of all conscious beings is fundamentally the same.

The universality of the conscious experience brings us to an understanding that all conscious beings have the same experience of consciousness. We are very much alike, and very little different. This subject matter will become important in the coming chapters.

The Universality of Like Entities

If two entities are identical and one is known, then the other is also known. To know all the like members of a set, it is only necessary to know one such member.

The universality of like entities makes it possible to learn about all the oxygen atoms in the universe by studying only one oxygen atom. But these like entities could be anything: like electronics used for collecting experimental data in distant labs, the gravitational fields of two like planets in far apart galaxies, or the structure and operational capabilities of consciousness. In a knowable universe, all like entities function alike.