Free Will Theorem (Strong) - Conway & Kochen

I have not seen this discussed much.

The Free Will Theorem (FWT) does not prove that we have Free Will, or that things are Deterministic. Most people hear that -- so they often look for more interesting game elsewhere.

The theorem's usefulness lies in the corollaries that affect the philosophy of matter, mind and how they may interact. Also, it has an impact on the Determinist when asked how much determinism do you really have... one must have nearly a 100% deterministic world view.

Another concept (implied, if thought out) is that to get free will... one must use Quantum Computers/Mechanisms. Totally deterministic "anything" should not work. Penrose agrees in his book "The Emperor's New Mind". Quantum Computer technology is already a Consumer Of The Shelf (COTS) product. You had better be ready for it. (I may give the minimal "basics" if someone wants it - i.e. a serious person wanting it)

The Free Will Theorem states that if two experimenters are free to make choices about what measurements to take, then the results of the measurements cannot be determined by anything previous to the experiments. Since the theorem applies to any arbitrary physical theory consistent with the axioms, it would not even be possible to place the information into the universe's past in an ad hoc way.

The theorem assumes 3 axioms:

1)    Fin (Finite): There is a maximum speed for propagation of the information (not necessarily the speed of light). This assumption rests upon causality.
2)    Spin: The squared spin component of certain elementary particles of spin one, taken in three orthogonal directions, will be a permutation of (1,1,0). (Operationally definable)
3)    Twin: It is possible to "entangle" two elementary particles, and separate them by a significant distance, so that they have the same squared spin results if measured in parallel directions. This is a consequence of (but more limited than) quantum entanglement. (Operationally definable)

(The experimenter must have free will also)

Dr. Conway gave 6 Lectures (at Harvard Univ.) that are targeted for any freshman in Philosophy, Math or Physics. In general, they are a bit harder than he intended.

However, the "Heart" of all 6 are in the first and the last two (fifth & sixth). They are understandable for very many people. Dr. Conway gives good lectures, and he is very entertaining. He is a very famous Mathematician and rather acts like one. I highly recommend those three lectures.

The 6 Lectures (~< 1 hour each)

1) “Free Will and Determinism in Science and Philosophy”

Above is recommended to view

2) “The Paradox of Kochen and Specker”

3) “The Paradoxes of Relativity”

4) “Quantum Mechanics and the Paradoxes of Entanglement”

The 3 lectures above are not for most people. However - the math is not that bad. I know several people on this site who would not have any problems. Also - to just watch the above, ignore the math details, and they are worth watching.

5) “Proof of the Free Will Theorem”

6) “The Theorem’s Implications for Science and Philosophy”

Above is recommended to view

Source Papers: (not very accessible to most)

The FWT paper: Free Will Theorem (Arxiv.org)

I have also added Dr. David Mermin's 2-page paper (from Archive.org) that strengthens/assures that stochastic arguments fail (period). Cloning a single Bit

3 members like this

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Hari Menon on March 31, 2013 at 7:51am

Dear John/ Captain ,

I was intigued and looked into Tarun Menons paper , I find John more lucid !! , Did not read fully Taruns paper - a few more days of this and maybe I will start to see it in correct perspective . John has done the studying for me !!. I feel that I can reasonably enter ''Brihadarnayaka" and come out safely without a Tree with me !!!!.

ModeratorPermalink Reply by John on May 5, 2013 at 5:45pm

The May issue of Notices ,of the American Mathematical Society (AMS), published an interview with Prof. John H. Conway.

In it he discusses the Free Will Theorem plus many of the other items he is rather famous for. It is open for download and viewing here.

John

ModeratorPermalink Reply by John on May 14, 2013 at 10:09am

Bringing the book of Genesis into the argument is difficult to respond to. I consider it a typical myth for theosophical pondering, as described in the FAQ. It is difficult for me to assume any obvious conclusions from it, especially since the book contains two different myths of creation. William Meegan has analyzed the book of Genesis for several decades and is far more knowledgeable than I am. You might want to ask him (?). God made a major mistake in putting that tree there. If not, he/she obviously wanted something/someone to eat the fruit.

A perfect human being has free will to alter the future, and suffer the/any consequences. Otherwise one would not be formed in the image of God...

God may mess-up (on purpose perhaps? my opinion). In any case, I find God to be a laissez faire entity.

The lecture #6 is about the philosophical implications of the theorem.

see 6. ) “The Theorem’s Implications for Science and Philosophy”

"Either I am free or I am not there is no middle ground. Thoughts please?"

One problem you are hitting on is the "Black or White" analysis/thinking. This is also called the fallacy of the excluded middle. One can have free will; not have free will; have some free will etc. (my personal opinion only),

Also if you are a Determinist, you have to believe in a deterministic world which includes yourself&mind, very strongly. There is a large gap formed. A deterministic world must come hand in hand with a fully deterministic mental life.

Not sure this addresses your question. lecture #6 does address aspects of your question, and is entertaining to boot. Get paper and pencil out. There will be some philosophical and scientific thinking that will raise questions. A theosophist without questions, is not a very good thinker... <G>. (Mystics are different).

The theorem basically states that if you have a portion of free will, then nature does too.

The theorem does not answer several items in your question.