Scientism, Skepticism and the Philosophy of Science

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
121

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

Simply: Quantum Mechanics requires that the Universe is not deterministic. It is limited but not every event is pre-determined.

[/quote]

Please provide a reference for this repeated interpretation of yours. I’m not saying the universe is deterministic, I take exception to your interpretation that QM supports that. Even if QM supported that, it has nothing to do with what you have repeatedly referred to as “free will”, which is just an extension of “consciousness”. When science can identify the “consciousness particle”, I might be swayed by your interpretation of QM. :)[/quote]

QM does NOT support it. As I said before, prior to QM the belief was that if we had all the data we could predict the future forever, not just the long term outcome, but every interaction of every particle. This would mean that even your thoughts are predetermined.

http://linas.org/theory/quantum.html
http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/views/freewill.html

[/quote]

If it was truly independent though, you wouldn’t observe the pattern predicted by the experiment. The pattern itself is not random, and is predictable.

More to the point, even if true randomness was proven to exist, this says nothing about free will. It’s not like quantum particles have a mind of their own. Randomness is different from free will.[/quote]

Again, that all doesn’t even matter. What matters is whether you believe in free will or not. If you really believe in free will, it either violates a deterministic universe or affects a non-deterministic one.[/quote]

It matters if you’re trying to use quantum physics to make a case for free will.

If free will did exist, it would still be a deterministic universe…the question is what it is that is doing the determining.[/quote]

Deterministic means that every interaction of particles in the universe, past, present and future can be determined by the laws of physics and a set of input variables. This means that there are no real choices.[/quote]

As you point out, determinism still requires a set of input variables. That set of input variables could include, or not, free will. Everything would still be determined and explained by the input variables.

122

Pat, I agree that we can’t know anything with absolute certainty. My point was that logic, reason, and science get us a hell of a lot (Tirib will appreciate the term) closer to understanding and predicting reality than religious faith ever will.

Just because we can’t know everything perfectly doesn’t mean there is no predictability at all. Where there is no predictability, the most honest and accurate position is acknowledged ignorance, not faith based on what people want to be true.

123

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:<<< It does neither. The existence of freewill does not violate a deterministic universe >>>[/quote]Lemme see if I got this. You are willing to believe in a “deterministic” universe as long as it doesn’t violate your free will? But, you will not believe in the providence of God which also doesn’t violate your will? Neither of which are actually explicable in strictly logical terms?
[/quote]

Your idea of the providence of God does violate free will. You said yourself that you did NOT want God to save you. It was CONTRARY to your will that God saved you. It was predestined, and you had NO CHOICE.

124

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
A complete history of the universe, from the Big Bang to the Internet, in 18 minutes

Well hell, it must be true!

Sup ephrem? Good to see ya.[/quote]

What did he utter that was subject to dispute?

125

[quote]ephrem wrote:
A complete history of the universe, from the Big Bang to the Internet, in 18 minutes
[/quote]

I feel like he might have left some stuff out.

126

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
A complete history of the universe, from the Big Bang to the Internet, in 18 minutes
[/quote]

I feel like he might have left some stuff out.[/quote]

yeah. he left out that pesky mythology. a better talk might have been a complete history of religion - it actually might have illustrated the absurdity of some beliefs and their common ancestry.

127

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

Simply: Quantum Mechanics requires that the Universe is not deterministic. It is limited but not every event is pre-determined.

[/quote]

Please provide a reference for this repeated interpretation of yours. I’m not saying the universe is deterministic, I take exception to your interpretation that QM supports that. Even if QM supported that, it has nothing to do with what you have repeatedly referred to as “free will”, which is just an extension of “consciousness”. When science can identify the “consciousness particle”, I might be swayed by your interpretation of QM. :)[/quote]

QM does support the idea that the universe is not deterministic but one would need a good grasp of mathematics to understand why – in more simple terms it comes down to the principle of uncertainty which states that when certain attributes of a particle are known there must be other aspects that remain unknown. You can find various derivations of the Schroedinger equation into the Heisenberg formulation all over the internets.

What some people seem to forget (or not understand) is that particles and the human free will are distinct; what can be statistically applied to particles cannot be applied to humans – which is why economics cannot be supported by positivism.

I don’t know why anyone would make the argument that because the universe is not predetermined humans must have a free will. Non sequitur for sure.

I do believe that consciousness is a material entity in the human mind that must follow the laws of physics but I wouldn’t make the argument that a non predeterminsitic universe must lead to a human free will because of that.

128

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

Simply: Quantum Mechanics requires that the Universe is not deterministic. It is limited but not every event is pre-determined.

[/quote]

Please provide a reference for this repeated interpretation of yours. I’m not saying the universe is deterministic, I take exception to your interpretation that QM supports that. Even if QM supported that, it has nothing to do with what you have repeatedly referred to as “free will”, which is just an extension of “consciousness”. When science can identify the “consciousness particle”, I might be swayed by your interpretation of QM. :)[/quote]

QM does NOT support it. As I said before, prior to QM the belief was that if we had all the data we could predict the future forever, not just the long term outcome, but every interaction of every particle. This would mean that even your thoughts are predetermined.

http://linas.org/theory/quantum.html
http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/views/freewill.html

[/quote]

If it was truly independent though, you wouldn’t observe the pattern predicted by the experiment. The pattern itself is not random, and is predictable.

More to the point, even if true randomness was proven to exist, this says nothing about free will. It’s not like quantum particles have a mind of their own. Randomness is different from free will.[/quote]

Again, that all doesn’t even matter. What matters is whether you believe in free will or not. If you really believe in free will, it either violates a deterministic universe or affects a non-deterministic one.[/quote]

It matters if you’re trying to use quantum physics to make a case for free will.

If free will did exist, it would still be a deterministic universe…the question is what it is that is doing the determining.[/quote]

Deterministic means that every interaction of particles in the universe, past, present and future can be determined by the laws of physics and a set of input variables. This means that there are no real choices.[/quote]

As you point out, determinism still requires a set of input variables. That set of input variables could include, or not, free will. Everything would still be determined and explained by the input variables.[/quote]

I should actually of said input values. What I mean is that if we a) had a perfect model and b) had the right input values, (determinism would say) we could run the universe and get a set of results, and if we repeated the process would would get the same results.

QM actually would say that there are no such thing as exact input values-just more and more accurate values, but for example we can’t know the position of a particle to less that about 10 E -35 meters. Sounds pretty accurate, but Chaos theory/butterfly effect says that small discrepancies can have macroscopic effects over time.

QM says this, the universe has a huge number (though not infinite) of possible “paths” no matter how good our model is, and accurate our values are, even if we were to hypothetically use the universe ITSELF to model the universe, it could turn out different-not the final result of say forming a singularity, but the paths of all the independent particles. In fact Chaos theory would say that the only model capable of modelling the universe would actually have to be GREATER than the Universe because it would have to be able to account for all of the different possible paths of the Universe, and the Universe itself can only map 1 set of paths.

(such a model can’t exist I think we would agree).

If you place a PERFECT pin on its point straight up on a perfectly level table, which direction will it tip over. Quantum physics says that it will fall in all directions with equal probability-that’s the best science can do.

129

So what you are saying is that there is no lab this hypothetical experiment can be done in.

130

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

Simply: Quantum Mechanics requires that the Universe is not deterministic. It is limited but not every event is pre-determined.

[/quote]

Please provide a reference for this repeated interpretation of yours. I’m not saying the universe is deterministic, I take exception to your interpretation that QM supports that. Even if QM supported that, it has nothing to do with what you have repeatedly referred to as “free will”, which is just an extension of “consciousness”. When science can identify the “consciousness particle”, I might be swayed by your interpretation of QM. :)[/quote]

QM does support the idea that the universe is not deterministic but one would need a good grasp of mathematics to understand why – in more simple terms it comes down to the principle of uncertainty which states that when certain attributes of a particle are known there must be other aspects that remain unknown. You can find various derivations of the Schroedinger equation into the Heisenberg formulation all over the internets.

What some people seem to forget (or not understand) is that particles and the human free will are distinct; what can be statistically applied to particles cannot be applied to humans – which is why economics cannot be supported by positivism.

I don’t know why anyone would make the argument that because the universe is not predetermined humans must have a free will. Non sequitur for sure.

I do believe that consciousness is a material entity in the human mind that must follow the laws of physics but I wouldn’t make the argument that a non predeterminsitic universe must lead to a human free will because of that.[/quote]

I am not saying that. I am saying that if you believe in free will you are believing in something that can not be explained by a complete fundamental theory. If you believe in free will, you believe in something that can effect the course of the universe but can’t be explained by any model that arises within the universe and at that point, you have fulfilled what some say science does not allow in a god. If you don’t believe in free will then that’s fine, except that Science is about falsefiable testable esperiments and without free will we can’t call anything falsefiable because our conclusions are predestined.

The last part has several “outs” by the way. I think it is a paradox due to our inability to truly define what is an experiment. The only complete experiment would be EVERYTHING, the whole universe and the only way to objectify it would be from the outside-hmmm.

131

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
So what you are saying is that there is no lab this hypothetical experiment can be done in.

[/quote]

see the next post about the definition of an experiment. The pin is an imperfect example though. What is important is that QM says that science is unable to completely model reality.

In the end, QM says that the best theory possible will literally be like looking at a black hole and trying to figure out as much about what went into it as possible.

A little manipulation of equations like e=mc^2 and e=hc/lamda and centripetal force, and centrepetal acceleration and up showing something.

As a wave of light gets shorter and shorter it gains mass (light has non-rest mass, and light must move or it does not fulfill the definitinion of light, the requirements for an EM wave for example). At a certain wavelength, at the Planck scale it has so much energy, which is equivalent to so much mass that it traps itself. It becomes a self trapping black hole with a radius (using black hole equations) that JUST so happens to be the planck length as well.

That means that anytime we try to observe something below the planck scale we are literally looking into a sub microscopic black hole-we can never know the universe on a more detailed level-however the outputs of the black hole are probabilistic.

132

[quote]mertdawg wrote:
if you believe in free will you are believing in something that can not be explained by a complete fundamental theory.[/quote]

Aren’t most a priori propositions like that?

133

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
So what you are saying is that there is no lab this hypothetical experiment can be done in.

[/quote]

see the next post about the definition of an experiment. The pin is an imperfect example though. What is important is that QM says that science is unable to completely model reality.

In the end, QM says that the best theory possible will literally be like looking at a black hole and trying to figure out as much about what went into it as possible.

A little manipulation of equations like e=mc^2 and e=hc/lamda and centripetal force, and centrepetal acceleration and up showing something.

As a wave of light gets shorter and shorter it gains mass (light has non-rest mass, and light must move or it does not fulfill the definitinion of light, the requirements for an EM wave for example). At a certain wavelength, at the Planck scale it has so much energy, which is equivalent to so much mass that it traps itself. It becomes a self trapping black hole with a radius (using black hole equations) that JUST so happens to be the planck length as well.

That means that anytime we try to observe something below the planck scale we are literally looking into a sub microscopic black hole-we can never know the universe on a more detailed level-however the outputs of the black hole are probabilistic. [/quote]

Ummm, yeah, I am a trained physicist but thanks for the rundown of how relativity works. Now, if you will just unify it with QM that would be nice. Thanks in advance.

134

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

Simply: Quantum Mechanics requires that the Universe is not deterministic. It is limited but not every event is pre-determined.

[/quote]

Please provide a reference for this repeated interpretation of yours. I’m not saying the universe is deterministic, I take exception to your interpretation that QM supports that. Even if QM supported that, it has nothing to do with what you have repeatedly referred to as “free will”, which is just an extension of “consciousness”. When science can identify the “consciousness particle”, I might be swayed by your interpretation of QM. :)[/quote]

QM does support the idea that the universe is not deterministic but one would need a good grasp of mathematics to understand why – in more simple terms it comes down to the principle of uncertainty which states that when certain attributes of a particle are known there must be other aspects that remain unknown. You can find various derivations of the Schroedinger equation into the Heisenberg formulation all over the internets.

What some people seem to forget (or not understand) is that particles and the human free will are distinct; what can be statistically applied to particles cannot be applied to humans – which is why economics cannot be supported by positivism.

I don’t know why anyone would make the argument that because the universe is not predetermined humans must have a free will. Non sequitur for sure.

I do believe that consciousness is a material entity in the human mind that must follow the laws of physics but I wouldn’t make the argument that a non predeterminsitic universe must lead to a human free will because of that.[/quote]

I agree with you in general, but not specifically as to your conclusions about QM. I’m not about to go pulling out books and quoting.

“I don’t know why anyone would make the argument that because the universe is not predetermined humans must have a free will. Non sequitur for sure.” - QFT

135

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
So what you are saying is that there is no lab this hypothetical experiment can be done in.

[/quote]

see the next post about the definition of an experiment. The pin is an imperfect example though. What is important is that QM says that science is unable to completely model reality.

In the end, QM says that the best theory possible will literally be like looking at a black hole and trying to figure out as much about what went into it as possible.

A little manipulation of equations like e=mc^2 and e=hc/lamda and centripetal force, and centrepetal acceleration and up showing something.

As a wave of light gets shorter and shorter it gains mass (light has non-rest mass, and light must move or it does not fulfill the definitinion of light, the requirements for an EM wave for example). At a certain wavelength, at the Planck scale it has so much energy, which is equivalent to so much mass that it traps itself. It becomes a self trapping black hole with a radius (using black hole equations) that JUST so happens to be the planck length as well.

That means that anytime we try to observe something below the planck scale we are literally looking into a sub microscopic black hole-we can never know the universe on a more detailed level-however the outputs of the black hole are probabilistic. [/quote]

Ummm, yeah, I am a trained physicist but thanks for the rundown of how relativity works. Now, if you will just unify it with QM that would be nice. Thanks in advance.[/quote]

Do the math! When I found it I just assumed that I wasn’t the first one to do the math. I assumed that physicists had already found that a planck scale wavelength of EM radiation has a mass equivalent that would create a photon sphere with a planck length radius. Isn’t that what a quantum black hole is? And the concept of quantum foam?

I found that about 7 years ago and if I thought it was my unique discovery I would have applied for the Nobel Prize or something.

Here’s a quick summary. Use the equation for the energy of a photon. Use E=mc^2 to get the mass equivalent of that energy. Use GMm/r^2 to get the gravitational force of the mass, and V^2/r (using C for V) to get the radius at which light would be bound by the gravitational force (the Photon sphere).

Another way to look at it: What’s the planck mass, something like 2.17 E -8 I think. Calculate the photon sphere of a black hole with that mass! Its the planck length. Then calculate the wavelength of EM radiation that would have a mass equivalent of the planck mass. I think its 2pi Planck length but we don’t really know how the diameter and circumference of a sphere would be related at that scale, they may be the same thing for a black hole.

136

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
So what you are saying is that there is no lab this hypothetical experiment can be done in.

[/quote]

see the next post about the definition of an experiment. The pin is an imperfect example though. What is important is that QM says that science is unable to completely model reality.

In the end, QM says that the best theory possible will literally be like looking at a black hole and trying to figure out as much about what went into it as possible.

A little manipulation of equations like e=mc^2 and e=hc/lamda and centripetal force, and centrepetal acceleration and up showing something.

As a wave of light gets shorter and shorter it gains mass (light has non-rest mass, and light must move or it does not fulfill the definitinion of light, the requirements for an EM wave for example). At a certain wavelength, at the Planck scale it has so much energy, which is equivalent to so much mass that it traps itself. It becomes a self trapping black hole with a radius (using black hole equations) that JUST so happens to be the planck length as well.

That means that anytime we try to observe something below the planck scale we are literally looking into a sub microscopic black hole-we can never know the universe on a more detailed level-however the outputs of the black hole are probabilistic. [/quote]

Ummm, yeah, I am a trained physicist but thanks for the rundown of how relativity works. Now, if you will just unify it with QM that would be nice. Thanks in advance.[/quote]

lol

137

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
So what you are saying is that there is no lab this hypothetical experiment can be done in.

[/quote]

see the next post about the definition of an experiment. The pin is an imperfect example though. What is important is that QM says that science is unable to completely model reality.

In the end, QM says that the best theory possible will literally be like looking at a black hole and trying to figure out as much about what went into it as possible.

A little manipulation of equations like e=mc^2 and e=hc/lamda and centripetal force, and centrepetal acceleration and up showing something.

As a wave of light gets shorter and shorter it gains mass (light has non-rest mass, and light must move or it does not fulfill the definitinion of light, the requirements for an EM wave for example). At a certain wavelength, at the Planck scale it has so much energy, which is equivalent to so much mass that it traps itself. It becomes a self trapping black hole with a radius (using black hole equations) that JUST so happens to be the planck length as well.

That means that anytime we try to observe something below the planck scale we are literally looking into a sub microscopic black hole-we can never know the universe on a more detailed level-however the outputs of the black hole are probabilistic. [/quote]

Ummm, yeah, I am a trained physicist but thanks for the rundown of how relativity works. Now, if you will just unify it with QM that would be nice. Thanks in advance.[/quote]

Do the math! When I found it I just assumed that I wasn’t the first one to do the math. I assumed that physicists had already found that a planck scale wavelength of EM radiation has a mass equivalent that would create a photon sphere with a planck length radius. Isn’t that what a quantum black hole is? And the concept of quantum foam?

I found that about 7 years ago and if I thought it was my unique discovery I would have applied for the Nobel Prize or something.

Here’s a quick summary. Use the equation for the energy of a photon. Use E=mc^2 to get the mass equivalent of that energy. Use GMm/r^2 to get the gravitational force of the mass, and V^2/r (using C for V) to get the radius at which light would be bound by the gravitational force (the Photon sphere).

Another way to look at it: What’s the planck mass, something like 2.17 E -8 I think. Calculate the photon sphere of a black hole with that mass! Its the planck length. Then calculate the wavelength of EM radiation that would have a mass equivalent of the planck mass. I think its 2pi Planck length but we don’t really know how the diameter and circumference of a sphere would be related at that scale, they may be the same thing for a black hole.
[/quote]

Deriving it theoretically and actually measuring it are two separate things.

Fortunately for me I am no longer a lab rat and care neither about QM nor relativity. I was actually talking about unifying QM with General Relativity which proves difficult to even the most trained mind (though I guess you could say GR collapses to SR under zero gravity - ha!). Unifying QM with special relativity is trivial for any math whiz and one would get Maxwell’s equations when done properly. Maxwell did it before QM was even discovered. In fact the first postulate of of SR combined with Maxwell’s equations can be used to deduce the second postulate of SR.

138

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

Simply: Quantum Mechanics requires that the Universe is not deterministic. It is limited but not every event is pre-determined.

[/quote]

Please provide a reference for this repeated interpretation of yours. I’m not saying the universe is deterministic, I take exception to your interpretation that QM supports that. Even if QM supported that, it has nothing to do with what you have repeatedly referred to as “free will”, which is just an extension of “consciousness”. When science can identify the “consciousness particle”, I might be swayed by your interpretation of QM. :)[/quote]

QM does NOT support it. As I said before, prior to QM the belief was that if we had all the data we could predict the future forever, not just the long term outcome, but every interaction of every particle. This would mean that even your thoughts are predetermined.

http://linas.org/theory/quantum.html
http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/views/freewill.html

[/quote]

If it was truly independent though, you wouldn’t observe the pattern predicted by the experiment. The pattern itself is not random, and is predictable.

More to the point, even if true randomness was proven to exist, this says nothing about free will. It’s not like quantum particles have a mind of their own. Randomness is different from free will.[/quote]

Again, that all doesn’t even matter. What matters is whether you believe in free will or not. If you really believe in free will, it either violates a deterministic universe or affects a non-deterministic one.[/quote]

It matters if you’re trying to use quantum physics to make a case for free will.

If free will did exist, it would still be a deterministic universe…the question is what it is that is doing the determining.[/quote]

Deterministic means that every interaction of particles in the universe, past, present and future can be determined by the laws of physics and a set of input variables. This means that there are no real choices.[/quote]

As you point out, determinism still requires a set of input variables. That set of input variables could include, or not, free will. Everything would still be determined and explained by the input variables.[/quote]

I should actually of said input values. What I mean is that if we a) had a perfect model and b) had the right input values, (determinism would say) we could run the universe and get a set of results, and if we repeated the process would would get the same results.

QM actually would say that there are no such thing as exact input values-just more and more accurate values, but for example we can’t know the position of a particle to less that about 10 E -35 meters. Sounds pretty accurate, but Chaos theory/butterfly effect says that small discrepancies can have macroscopic effects over time.

QM says this, the universe has a huge number (though not infinite) of possible “paths” no matter how good our model is, and accurate our values are, even if we were to hypothetically use the universe ITSELF to model the universe, it could turn out different-not the final result of say forming a singularity, but the paths of all the independent particles. In fact Chaos theory would say that the only model capable of modelling the universe would actually have to be GREATER than the Universe because it would have to be able to account for all of the different possible paths of the Universe, and the Universe itself can only map 1 set of paths.

(such a model can’t exist I think we would agree).

If you place a PERFECT pin on its point straight up on a perfectly level table, which direction will it tip over. Quantum physics says that it will fall in all directions with equal probability-that’s the best science can do. [/quote]

I thought we were talking about free will. If the decisions people make are the input values, you still have a deterministic universe driven by those decisions.

People advocating free will suffer from the same logical fallacy as people advocating a god: in both cases, they fail to explain what created the original input values. Unless you believe free will is created ex nihilo, then it really isn’t free, and is dependent on whatever created it.

139

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
So what you are saying is that there is no lab this hypothetical experiment can be done in.

[/quote]

see the next post about the definition of an experiment. The pin is an imperfect example though. What is important is that QM says that science is unable to completely model reality.

In the end, QM says that the best theory possible will literally be like looking at a black hole and trying to figure out as much about what went into it as possible.

A little manipulation of equations like e=mc^2 and e=hc/lamda and centripetal force, and centrepetal acceleration and up showing something.

As a wave of light gets shorter and shorter it gains mass (light has non-rest mass, and light must move or it does not fulfill the definitinion of light, the requirements for an EM wave for example). At a certain wavelength, at the Planck scale it has so much energy, which is equivalent to so much mass that it traps itself. It becomes a self trapping black hole with a radius (using black hole equations) that JUST so happens to be the planck length as well.

That means that anytime we try to observe something below the planck scale we are literally looking into a sub microscopic black hole-we can never know the universe on a more detailed level-however the outputs of the black hole are probabilistic. [/quote]

Ummm, yeah, I am a trained physicist but thanks for the rundown of how relativity works. Now, if you will just unify it with QM that would be nice. Thanks in advance.[/quote]

you don’t have to have a unified model to say that the there is no complexity below the Planck scale.

140

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]mertdawg wrote:
if you believe in free will you are believing in something that can not be explained by a complete fundamental theory.[/quote]

Aren’t most a priori propositions like that?[/quote]

Yes, if its a priori its not part of science. If you believe in it then you accept something unexplainable by science. The conclusion for you seems to be that you don’t believe in free will. That’s fine. But then you have no reason or even ability to really believe science either.