Is free will possible in Conway and Kochen's FW theorem?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Descartz2000
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Theorem
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around Conway and Kochen's free-will theorem (FWT) and its implications for the concept of free will in particles. Participants explore the relationship between free will in experimenters and the behavior of particles in quantum experiments, particularly in the context of correlations and spacelike separation.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express confusion about how particles can exhibit free will if they are correlated with each other, particularly in light of the FWT's implications.
  • One participant notes that the FWT does not explain why particles respond identically when experimenters choose the same orientation of their magnets.
  • Another participant emphasizes that the responses of particles are not determined by properties of the universe that exist before the experiments, highlighting the role of spacelike separation in quantum experiments.
  • Some participants suggest that if experimenters have free will, then particles should as well, but they also entertain the possibility of faster-than-light (FTL) influences or superdeterminism as alternatives to the notion of free will.
  • A critique of the free-will theorem is shared, indicating ongoing debate and examination of the theorem's validity.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally express uncertainty and disagreement regarding the implications of the free-will theorem, particularly about the nature of free will in particles and the potential influence of correlations and FTL. There is no consensus on how to reconcile these ideas.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the need for further reasoning to explain the correlation between experimenters' choices and particle responses, suggesting that without such explanations, the concept of free will may be called into question.

Descartz2000
Messages
138
Reaction score
1
Can anyone give any feed back on Conway and Kochen's free-will theorem? I thought the particle in area B knows instantaneously that its' separated partner in area A has altered, and as a result changes. Yet, the free-will theorem requires if free-will experiments are true, then particles must maintain some form of free will as well. But, how would the particle display free will if it is correlated with A? It seems this would be the result of A and FTL? Any help out there? If I've got it all wrong, please let me know-
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Descartz2000 said:
Can anyone give any feed back on Conway and Kochen's free-will theorem? I thought the particle in area B knows instantaneously that its' separated partner in area A has altered, and as a result changes. Yet, the free-will theorem requires if free-will experiments are true, then particles must maintain some form of free will as well. But, how would the particle display free will if it is correlated with A? It seems this would be the result of A and FTL? Any help out there? If I've got it all wrong, please let me know-

1. The FWT makes no attempt to "explain" why the particles response is identical if the experimenters happen to (freely and independently) choose the same orientation of their magnets.

2. What it does claim is that the responses are not functions of properties of the universe which are earlier than the actual experiment at each location. Specifically, the experimenters spacelike separation allows an inertial frame where A's experiment is before B's and also one in which B's experiment is before A's.

Skippy
 
Last edited by a moderator:
skippy1729 said:
1. The FWT makes no attempt to "explain" why the particles response is identical if the experimenters happen to (freely and independently) choose the same orientation of their magnets.

2. What it does claim is that the responses are not functions of properties of the universe which are earlier than the actual experiment at each location. Specifically, the experimenters spacelike separation allows an inertial frame where A's experiment is before B's and also one in which B's experiment is before A's.

Skippy

I think to maintain the true value of 'free-will', the theory must take into account the correlation between the free choice experimenter and the identical reponse in the particles. If this can not be explained or reasoned then I would be inclined to question a 'free-will' approach. However, I do agree that if the experimenter does in fact have free-will then so do particles. Yet, I would be more likely to buy into FTL of some kind or superdeterminism and leave the notion of 'free-will' to the birds.
 
Descartz2000 said:
I think to maintain the true value of 'free-will', the theory must take into account the correlation between the free choice experimenter and the identical reponse in the particles. If this can not be explained or reasoned then I would be inclined to question a 'free-will' approach. However, I do agree that if the experimenter does in fact have free-will then so do particles. Yet, I would be more likely to buy into FTL of some kind or superdeterminism and leave the notion of 'free-will' to the birds.
I fully agree. :approve:
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
7K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 76 ·
3
Replies
76
Views
8K
  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K