Doesn't the choice of measurement prove free will

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the implications of the free will theorem proposed by Conway and Kochen, particularly regarding the relationship between measurement choices made by experimenters and the concept of free will. Participants explore whether the theorem supports the existence of free will in the context of quantum mechanics, as well as the philosophical and theological implications of such a claim.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that the free will theorem suggests that the choices made by experimenters in quantum measurements imply the existence of free will, as outcomes cannot be predetermined.
  • Others contend that the concept of free will is a theological argument and not necessarily tied to quantum mechanics or the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, suggesting that the discussion is largely conjectural.
  • One participant emphasizes that the unpredictability of measurement choices does not require metaphysical assumptions about free will, arguing that the focus should be on the unpredictability of choices rather than their philosophical implications.
  • Several participants express disagreement over the use of the term "free will," with some arguing it is misleading and others defending its appropriateness in the context of the theorem.
  • There are references to the specific axioms of the free will theorem, including the "fin," "spin," and "twin" axioms, and how they relate to the independence of measurement choices.
  • Participants discuss the acceptance of the theorem in the scientific community and its implications for the ongoing debate between free will and determinism.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the implications of the free will theorem for the existence of free will. There are competing views regarding the relevance of free will to the theorem and whether the terminology used is appropriate.

Contextual Notes

Some participants express concerns about the philosophical implications of the term "free will" and its potential to mislead discussions about the theorem. There is also a recognition that the debate encompasses both scientific and philosophical dimensions, which may not be fully resolved within the thread.

  • #61
entropy2information said:
The free will theorem is a clear refutation of determinism. Conway and Kochen makes this clear in their lectures.

That's their opinion. They haven't proved it. "Discarding" determinism as a "serious view" is an opinion, not a proof.

entropy2information said:
bhobba already said this mechanism is too complex for us to know. That's like saying U.F.O.'s are Alien spacecraft but it's too complex for us to know.

Once again: so all of chaos theory isn't science? It's no different from saying UFOs are alien spacecraft ?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: bhobba
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
black hole 123 said:
hi, this is slightly off topic, but can someone clarify wat free will is?

obviously determinism means no free will, but non determinism doesn't imply free will. u might then say free will is behaviour that's not deterministic nor conforming to the calculated probability distributions of the system (a human in this case), but that still doesn't capture the meaning of free will. I am not sure free will makes any sense...

This paper by Scott Aaronson is a good starting point.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1306.0159.pdf

Cheers
 
  • #63
entropy2information said:
The free will theorem is a clear refutation of determinism. Conway and Kochen makes this clear in their lectures. Here's how Conway ended 1 lecture.

...

They say determinism can't be disproved therefore it's logically possible

To me, "refute" and "disprove" mean the same thing, so I don't know how they refuted determinism without disproving it.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Demystifier and bhobba
  • #64
stevendaryl said:
To me, "refute" and "disprove" mean the same thing, so I don't know how they refuted determinism without disproving it.

Again, you're debating semantics just like you didn't like the term free will. I try to stay away from semantic debates and stick to the merits but here we go.

Conway is smart to say disproved because to disprove something is to show that it's false. You can refute an argument without showing that it's false. They have crippled determinism and made it essentially hard to accept while acknowledging it's still logically possible because the free will theorem doesn't disprove determinism.

Here's a recent article on the strong cosmic censorship conjecture.

Mathematicians Disprove Conjecture Made to Save Black Holes

Nearly 40 years after it was proposed, mathematicians have settled one of the most profound questions in the study of general relativity. In a paper posted online last fall, mathematicians Mihalis Dafermos and Jonathan Luk have proven that the strong cosmic censorship conjecture, which concerns the strange inner workings of black holes, is false.

https://www.quantamagazine.org/mathematicians-disprove-conjecture-made-to-save-black-holes-20180517/

Again, there's a difference between showing something is false Mathematically or through observed evidence and refuting something in a debate.
 
Last edited:
  • #65
entropy2information said:
You can refute an argument without showing that it's false.

I don't see how, any more than @stevendaryl does.

entropy2information said:
there's a difference between showing something is false Mathematically or through observed evidence and refuting something in a debate.

No, there's a difference between actually refuting something--proving it false--and just stating your opinion that you think it's false.
 
  • #66
This has gone on long enough. Thread closed.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Demystifier, Evo, bhobba and 2 others

Similar threads

  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
5K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 43 ·
2
Replies
43
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 75 ·
3
Replies
75
Views
12K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
4K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 140 ·
5
Replies
140
Views
13K