I think your observation can be generalised - all of physics is human narrative description of events in the universe, coupled with some principles for choosing one narrative over another.
I think when a scientist says "free will does not exist", they mean that in a very particular sense - a theory of physics (or narrative) that includes free will has as much predictive power as one that doesn't. So from a scientific point of view it's parsimonious to exclude it.
As you rightly point out this has nothing to do with the subjective experience of free will, which is an aspect of consciousness that I expect most people are familiar with (scientists or no).
By the way, this is not directly related, but who are these scientists you speak of who claim to be unable to measure time? Time, as it is used in theories like classical mechanics or relativity, has been measurable with clocks for millenia. The measurements fulfil the role of time in those theories; the predictions they make have been tested to an extreme degree. This is the strongest evidence for time as an ontological primitive that science can produce!
(which is not inconsistent with the fact that it may behave differently outside those regimes)
> I think your observation can be generalised - all of physics is human narrative description of events in the universe, coupled with some principles for choosing one narrative over another.
At least in regards to scientific study, this is not correct. The purpose of science is to discover the properties of the physically existent universe. The properties, themselves, cannot be "narrative". For example, we would not describe magnetic force as "narrative". We may use "words" to communicate what a magnetic for is, but this does not mean the magnetic force, itself, is narrative, and the magnetic force is what science is discovering.
> I think when a scientist says "free will does not exist", they mean that in a very particular sense - a theory of physics (or narrative) that includes free will has as much predictive power as one that doesn't. So from a scientific point of view it's parsimonious to exclude it.
This is an opinion on what this individual is claiming. However, I can also have an opinion on what this person is claiming, and based on my personal experience with both the body language and tone of the statement, my opinion is she is likely a Humanist or heavily influenced by Humanists (even without realizing this), as a critical part of Humanism is that free will does not exist.
> By the way, this is not directly related, but who are these scientists you speak of who claim to be unable to measure time?
It is easier for me to find them than to post a comment on HN. I am confident you experience will be similar.
> The purpose of science is to discover the properties of the physically existent universe. The properties, themselves, cannot be "narrative".
The purpose of science, as I understand it, is to discover predictive models of the extant universe. I don't think "magnetic force" is a property of the universe any more than "good" or "evil" is. It's a model that gives us good predictive power in certain regimes. It is completely inadequate in others. These models are typically operationalized using formal languages (such as mathematics, or programming languages), so I think calling them "narrative" is justified.
Science also typically proceeds in narrative fashion via papers, journals, conferences and review processes. Your comment strikes me as a map/territory confusion.
> It is easier for me to find them than to post a comment on HN. I am confident you experience will be similar.
This is nice rhetoric, but I know a lot of physicists and none of them claim that they cannot measure time. We literally do it all the time when we set alarms, run stopwatches, etc. It's only mysterious when you get to regimes that physics has yet to capture adequately (microuniverse or extremely high energy microuniverse).
I think when a scientist says "free will does not exist", they mean that in a very particular sense - a theory of physics (or narrative) that includes free will has as much predictive power as one that doesn't. So from a scientific point of view it's parsimonious to exclude it.
As you rightly point out this has nothing to do with the subjective experience of free will, which is an aspect of consciousness that I expect most people are familiar with (scientists or no).
By the way, this is not directly related, but who are these scientists you speak of who claim to be unable to measure time? Time, as it is used in theories like classical mechanics or relativity, has been measurable with clocks for millenia. The measurements fulfil the role of time in those theories; the predictions they make have been tested to an extreme degree. This is the strongest evidence for time as an ontological primitive that science can produce!
(which is not inconsistent with the fact that it may behave differently outside those regimes)