by ughaibu wrote:Now, if the behaviour of human beings is determined such that they "couldn't do otherwise", then at the start of the experiment there is only one action, that the researcher can perform, in the pair 1. write "decay occurred" or 2. write "decay didn't occur". But as the experimental setup is not determined such that the result "couldn't [be] otherwise", the probability of the researcher making the correct recording of the result is one half. If this is what is happening, then researchers are chronically deluded to the extent of being mistaken in at least half of their records and thus we have no empirical basis for science.
Is that an attempt at humour, or do you think that gibberish is remotely rational?
To state the incredibly obvious, if human behaviour is determined by prevailing circumstances the behaviour of recording a result can be determined by that result, among other factors.
You seem to have in mind some sort of 'fate' divorced from the world. The issue of physics determining behaviour is that physics determines behaviour, so there is no conflict with scientific experiment and science has no tools to detect free will, or not.
What science can do is uncover some of the causal mechanisms that relate the physics to the subjective experience of choosing
ughaibu wrote:On the other hand, it's not just that we cannot accept that researchers are mostly mistaken about phenomena and thus their behaviour is not determined by some species of pseudo-determinism limited to the so called "macro world", we also require that researchers correctly record their observations on almost all occasions. But that means they must correctly record their observations with a probability of almost one, in short, their behaviour cannot be random or any matter of chance, it must be behaviour controlled by themselves.
It is bizarre that you would offer an example of researchers reliably doing what physics tells them as an example of free will.
