Doesn't the choice of measurement prove free will

[PeterDonis]

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.

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 ?

 

[cosmik debris]

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

 

[stevendaryl]

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.

 

[entropy2information]

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.

 

[PeterDonis]

You can refute an argument without showing that it's false.

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

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.

 

[PeterDonis]

This has gone on long enough. Thread closed.