Slashdot Mirror
If We Have Free Will, Then So Do Electrons
snahgle writes "Mathematicians John Conway (inventor of the Game of Life) and Simon Kochen of Princeton University have proven that if human experimenters demonstrate 'free will' in choosing what measurements to take on a particle, then the axioms of quantum mechanics require that the free will property be available to the particles measured, or to the universe as a whole. Conway is giving a series of lectures on the 'Free Will Theorem' and its ramifications over the next month at Princeton. A followup article strengthening the theory (PDF) was published last month in Notices of the AMS." Update: 03/19 14:20 GMT by KD : jamie points out that we discussed this theorem last year, before the paper had been published.
I am sorry this proves nothing in the deterministic debate. All it says is If the observers have free will then teh particles must have free will. It does not answer the question: Does the observer have free will?
Bad Panda! No Bamboo for you! In matters of importance ACs will not be responded to. Want to say something critical,OK
Ah, but if you can prove free will exists, then you can prove evil people will go to hell!
Seriously, this whole free will debate is pointless. Every manifestation of so-called "free will" can be adequately explained by assuming that our human brains can convincingly imitate free will (to other human brains). And that is a much simpler proposition that looking for free will in the fabric of the cosmos (what religious balderdash!).
I pretend to have free will, you believe me, and we're both happy.
My blog
If I have free will, I don't need to worry about it. If I don't have free will, there's no point in worrying about it. :->
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
For myself, there's a psychological effect. When I have wanted to disbelieve free will, I also drifted towards victimhood. If I have free will, my choices matter and I can't be a victim. My life is better. YMMV.
If you want your life to be different, live it differently.
quote
More precisely, if the experimenter can freely choose the directions in which to orient his apparatus in a certain measurement, then the particle's response (to be pedantic--the universe's response near the particle) is not determined by the entire previous history of the universe.
end quote
I've not read the whole thing yet but it sounds like they've managed to prove that if free will exists then there is no non-local hidden variable theorem compatible with the results of QM.
Tim.
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = -@B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," and there was light.
Mathematics is said to have an "uncanny" ability to model the universe. My pet theory is what we call our mind is a self referencing MATHEMATICAL MODEL of the universe that emerges from the cellular colonies we refer to as ourselves.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
(With apologies to Dr. Feynman.)
If a layman could understand it, it wouldn't be worth publishing a scholarly paper about it.
If you want to really understand it, you gotta get into the hard stuff. Because it's hard.
It is the theory that has been making steady progress since the introduction of quantum mechanics, using probabilistic interpretations. Progress like the development of quantum field theory, and the standard model.
Your complaints that that the consequences of probabilistic interpretations are absurd are like the complaints of opponents of relativity that relativity's consequences are absurd. The same sort of arguments that you're making now can be turned into arguments that we should be using an "ether-based" theory to explain electromagnetism. One which does all its work in some absolute reference frame, but makes the same predictions as relativity.
Yes, you can do it that way. But it's a pain in the ass, and the only benefit to it is that it pretends to satisfy the philosophical preconceptions of people who believe there's an absolute reference frame. It doesn't actually, it just pretends to. Same with Bohmian mechanics.
Can I have some of what your smoking?
"Except that neural computation is inherently non symbolic..."
And yet I close my eyes and I see symbols, emerging from those computations, right???
"this is your fallacy"
So where's the falsification, individual ants don't "know" the optimum search method but nevertheless the ant's nest performs that feat.
"you have no understanding of neurology."
I never claimed to have an "understanding of neurology" but zero is a little harsh. If you're not just shooting your mouth off and do know something then show me the falsification...
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Then I read Berlekamp, Conway and Guy's "Winning Ways For Your Mathematical Plays" and found that just as much fun.
If a layman could understand it, it wouldn't be worth publishing a scholarly paper about it.
Naturally, the converse -- "If a layman couldn't understand it, then it must be worth publishing" -- isn't true, but it's a reasonably effective way to increase your publication count.
[/cynicism]
If we are purely matter, we have no free will. If there is more to us then matter, then we might have free will. There is no way for physics, the study of matter, to decide whether or not matter is all there is.
Sure there is. If there's "more to us than matter" then it still has to interact with matter somehow. If this "more than matter" exerts a force on our bodies, our bodies must exert a force back. That should be measurable.
If the metaphysical interacts with the physical, we should be able to detect it through physical means. If it does not interact with the physical, then it is entirely irrelevant.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
If a layman could understand it, it wouldn't be worth publishing a scholarly paper about it.
If you can't explain it to a layman, you don't really understand it.
From this it follows that: If it's worth publishing a scholarly paper about it, then you don't really understand it.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
When the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem resembles a nail. The universe seems mathematical if you use mathematics. If you wear blue glasses, the sun itself is blue.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
"Particles" are just a modeling tool. They are a means of conceptualizing mechanical causes for the behavior of the world as we experience it.
So far, they have proven to be a very useful means of said modeling. The predictions that particle/force-based models make are quite accurate these days, and have been successfully applied to do a huge variety of useful work (playing world of warcraft being my particular favorite). Accurate predictive power is the final judgment of the scientific process, so from that perspective particles are sure winners.
But the fact remains that particles are abstract representations of phenomena which we cannot directly perceive (we infer the behavior of subatomic particles through detection devices which were themselves built upon these inferences, for example). The popular visualization of tiny little solid spheres bouncing around was rejected based on evidence gathered way back in the 20's, and rival visualizations that also have predictive power had been proposed since the dawn of recorded history. However, these are technical details which need not confuse non-scientists, so simply saying "particles are where it's at" makes life a lot simpler.
The issue of free will is not properly within the domain of science. Science doesn't study that sort of thing. Free will is the proper subject matter of philosophers, theologians, and so on. Trying to determine its scientific validity is trying to talk about aviation technology using only the vocabulary of gardening techniques.
"Do particles have free will" is an absurd question. You may as well ask about the nutritive properties of thrust and lift. That visualization just doesn't fit the subject matter.
The inclination to think of things in these terms comes from the popular notion that science has the market cornered in "truth," and that the word "truth" has a single and unambiguous meaning within all conceptual domains (which it clearly does not). We think, "science proves or disproves things, right? So lets get the final proof or disproof of free will." But I maintain that we are confusing ourselves by asking the questing incorrectly, and of the wrong people.
No, at the bottom, the universe is non-deterministic. Quantum events adhere to statistical measurements, but any given event is truly random. You can say that half of the uranium in a given sample will decay in a certain amount of time, but you cannot predict when any single particle will decay, and it's not just because you don't have enough information. It's because the event is truly random.
-- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!