3 ms·
Conway proves the existence of free will not by nebulous philosophical arguments but by a combination of quantum mechanics and relativity. Note the definition
by finmin 8y ago
Conway proves the existence of free will not by nebulous philosophical arguments but by a combination of quantum mechanics and relativity.
Note the definition of 'free will' here is specific: fundamental particles future states cannot be purely a function of the information in their past light cones and so only 'they' can fully determine their future state, and this is not the same thing as them having random number generators; they truly are free
- Rounin 8y agoAs far a I can tell from the article, Conway doesn't prove the existence of free will at all, not even attempt to do so. Instead he explores what the implications of free will would be if it exists. And despite the claim to the contrary, his definition of "free will" isn't appreciably different from randomness, only he uses the word "randomness" to mean pseudorandomness, so he sticks the term "free will" on true randomness. An interesting contribution to quantum physics, presumably, but not a proof of free will.
- zornthewise 8y agoCan you define precisely what you mean by random in this context?
- Rounin 8y agoHow about "proceeding, made, or occurring without definite aim, reason, or pattern". From https://www.dictionary.com/browse/random https://www.dictionary.com/browse/random .
- Rounin 8y agoOn second, thought, though, after looking at the paper at finmin's suggestion, I agree that their definition is distinct from randomness in a meaningful and interesting way.
- finmin 8y agoyou have to read the actual paper not the article
- Rounin 8y agoFrom the paper: 1. "It follows that we cannot prove our Free Will assumption – determinism, like solipsism, is logically possible." So not a proof of free will. 2. "Although we find ourselves unable to give an operational definition of either “free” or “random,” we have managed to distinguish between them in our context, because free behavior can be twinned, while random behavior cannot (a remark that might also interest some philosphers of free will)." I stand corrected. This IS a meaningful distinction from pure randomness, after all, as entangled particles don't behave randomly with respect to each other. Though I still disagree with the name "free will", as that makes it sound as if there's a conscious will behind it, which the authors make it clear that they don't claim.
- Tactic 8y agoI think a better phrase would be self-deterministic, meaning that the action is determined regardless of external influences. However, I will admit, that sounds a lot like free will.
- Rounin 8y agoBy the way, thanks for the suggestion.