Free Will Theorem

[Melllvar]

While taking an aimless morning stroll through wikipedia, I came upon something truly bizarre: the free will theorem, proven by John Conway (of Game of Life fame) and Simon Kochen:

The theorem states that, given the axioms, if the two experimenters in question 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.

It states that given certain conditions, if an experimenter can freely decide what quantities to measure in a particular experiment, then elementary particles must be free to choose their spins in order to make the measurements consistent with physical law. In Conway's provocative wording: "if experimenters have free will, then so do elementary particles."

Other stuff:
- Their paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0604079
- Six 1-hour lectures on the theorem given by one of it's provers (scroll down).
- 3 page paper criticizing the theorem: What does the free will theorem actually prove? This seems to claim that it only applies to a deterministic universe.
- Another article discussing the theorem.



I haven't had time to go through any of that yet, so not really much to say on it either. The definition of "free will" given (according to the wiki article) is that an outcome is not determined by prior conditions. In a deterministic universe though, shouldn't everything be determined by prior conditions? I'm also not sure that this definition of "free will" would imply "free choice" so much as just randomness and non-determinism. Would this be an argument against people claiming that humans are special because of possessing something like free will, in fact showing that we're no more special than inanimate particles? Or that whatever sort of "free will" a person might possess is no different from the randomness associated with measurement on a quantum level?

I should probably read up on this more before asking these questions, but this whole thing was just too bizarre and interesting not to post immediately.

 

[Cognisant]

The phrase "free will" begs the question, free of what?

Causality? Okay so let’s say you can escape causality, where does that get you?
Without the context of causality free will is moot.

Outside the inanity of theological debate this phrase is irrelevant.

 

[Melllvar]

Well, in their case it seems that "free will" was simply being used to imply non-determinism, which makes the criticism of the proof all the stranger (to me) since it implies that the proof only applies in a deterministic universe. And since a deterministic universe would again seem to imply the absence of truly random phenomena, so in essence the theorem + criticism (if accurate) would be saying "a deterministic universe is deterministic." Redundant. Again though I haven't read most of the materials I linked to yet.

I think a better question might be "what do they mean by choice?" Since it would seem to imply that choice on the part of the experimenter implies choice on the part of the elementary particles being measured. Does choice simply mean random phenomena (in the quantum mechanical sense)? If so wouldn't that mean that we don't really make decisions, but our actions are either determined by previous stimuli, or when they're not we're acting fundamentally randomly?

In general though I agree about 'free will' being an illusion, meaningless words. That's why this theorem was all the weirder and more interesting. If human actions and decisions are determined by previous events, then we aren't really responsible for them, we just have the illusion of responsibility (we still have to try, of course). While if they're completely random, it's the same thing, "we" aren't really making any kind of conscious decision, we just have the illusion of having decided when in fact our choices and actions were randomly chosen by nature.

So no, I don't believe in free will, quite frankly I'm not even sure what the term is supposed to mean. But this theorem has made me think significantly more about it.

 

[rattymat]

They do define free will as non-derministic, which I would imagine means it cannot be based upon previous data, though I suspect that it is merely the limitation of human logic which makes it non-deterministic.
In that sense, I disagree, for I do believe that there is a process in the Universe which derives its basis from the previous, and is fit within the limits of certain physical laws. However, to say that just because free will is an illusion that we are not responsible for our actions, that is simply being ignorant. Humans have the capacity to be reflective of the past and thus have the ability to determine outcomes based upon previous occurrences, making us responsible for the outcome of our actions dependent upon our level of awareness.
I personally would define free will as our ability to do and to perceive within the limitations of physical law and the bounds of other's free will.

 

[alrai]

I would have to agree in some sense, on the contrary, free will is the ability to make a decision free from previous data, and meta physics contributes a great deal to this notion although it doesn't have all the answers, but its principles are respected overall. To have an objective say on this matter you would need an understanding of the bigger picture, instead of odd observations that maybe legitimate, nonetheless, they would still be heavily limited. You cannot fully understand free will if you don't recognize it as an ability of "choice" i.e you'll end been a slave of your own thoughts.

 

[rattymat]

Well there is no such thing as complete free will, however choice does exist. Choice, being the ability to choose, gives one a limited freedom, or flexibility, to choose what one wills to a certain extent. But genuine freedom does not exist because we must abide by certain (physical) laws and the limitations of human society. So I guess free will does not really exist, however it is not as bad as people seem to think, for will most certainly does exist. I would even go as far to say flexible will.

 

[alrai]

I suppose the choice is limited, so you would have multiple options to freely choose from, hence, you still have the freedom of choice. We use free will everyday by selecting and taking action about, what we assume, is the most appropriate options. Even in a world where the possibilities can seem endless, making the right choice and genuinely committing to all the branches of choice that will stem from it, for me, demonstrate free will .

 

[SkyWalker]

i agree that humans are as deterministic as quantum particles

like: most humans go to work at 9:00 am. some however go at other times or dont.
take any human activity and the same thing applies: there is a peak for the average, most humans behave like that, and there is a few exceptions. standard deviation.

but maybe thats just the way our brain works? maybe thats just the way we model the universe? maybe its not the universe itself?
is it just our internal model maybe???


lots of quantum physisists say that the smaller we go, the more we run into the structure (limitations) of our brain.

either the universe and the brain are both the same, e.g. the universe really applies to this model. or it is just our brain's only way to model the universe (and the universe only seems to fit this model because thats the way we see it).

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

Does the law of large numbers hold if the sample space is not fixed?

We model the world as if there were a fixed number of states we could enter into at any given time, but this is probably not the case. The Will knows nothing of law.

 

[rattymat]

I suppose the choice is limited, so you would have multiple options to freely choose from, hence, you still have the freedom of choice. We use free will everyday by selecting and taking action about, what we assume, is the most appropriate options. Even in a world where the possibilities can seem endless, making the right choice and genuinely committing to all the branches of choice that will stem from it, for me, demonstrate free will .

Understand what you're saying, but still that is not FREE. Because free has no constraints, is in essence a limitless concept. But we are limited. we have the some ability to make choices, but that ability still works within certain constraints. Therefore it is not free.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

Understand what you're saying, but still that is not FREE. Because free has no constraints, is in essence a limitless concept. But we are limited. we have the some ability to make choices, but that ability still works within certain constraints. Therefore it is not free.

What?

The existence of free will doesn't imply total limitlessness, except in the sense that a bounded open set is limitless (i.e. doesn't contain all its limit points).

Free will just implies that there is a degree to which actions are willed. The choice made must necessarily take into account the current state of the representation of the subject.

If the existence of constraints contradicts free will, then a strawman conception of free will must be being used.

 

[mainiac]

I think the only place one might have free will is in your dreams!

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

Understand what you're saying, but still that is not FREE. Because free has no constraints, is in essence a limitless concept. But we are limited. we have the some ability to make choices, but that ability still works within certain constraints. Therefore it is not free.

What?

The existence of free will doesn't imply total limitlessness, except in the sense that a bounded open set is limitless (i.e. doesn't contain all its limit points).

Free will just implies that there is a degree to which actions are willed. The choice made must necessarily take into account the current state of the representation of the subject.

If the existence of constraints contradicts free will, then a strawman conception of free will must be being used.

 

[nanook]

i am afraid we will have to come up with a synthetis of determination and freedom. causality and creativity. it's like a dance. the movement isn't localized in a zone of control, that deserves the label "will", but it isn't evenly spread into the whole process either. there is some gravity going on. and there is additional freedom in meta-properties of this gravity. so there is a zone of freedom, of creativity, surrounded by a zone of determinsim or causality. but the true freedom is not in the creativity, at lest it's not a freedom of will, because no one can will or control creativity. it has it's own live, just like the determined, it just has a different character. but a sort of freedom is in the meta-property of scope, in the movement of gravity, it's expansion and extraction.

this is difficult to visualize, but without achieving a brand new level of visualisation you won't get anywhere with this discussion. you will choose sides, have an opponent, both sides will be partially right, but mostly wrong.

if you ask the wrong question, a question suggesting too much, you won't get an answer.

you can't have meaningful reasoning, if you reason about or around objects that can't even be coherently perceived/visualized.

 

[rattymat]

What?

The existence of free will doesn't imply total limitlessness, except in the sense that a bounded open set is limitless (i.e. doesn't contain all its limit points).

Free will just implies that there is a degree to which actions are willed. The choice made must necessarily take into account the current state of the representation of the subject.

If the existence of constraints contradicts free will, then a strawman conception of free will must be being used.

ok, ive compiled several online definitions of the word free.
2. Not controlled by obligation or the will of another:
16. Not bound, fastened, or attached
a. Not affected or restricted by a given condition or circumstance: a healthy animal, free of disease; free from need.

and will;
1. To decide on; choose.


Is our ability to decide on or choose not controlled by obligation or the will of another? I would say we all have obligations and have instances where our will is imposed upon by another will.

Is our ability to decide on or choose not bound, fastened, or attached? In some scenarios it is, in some it is not.

Is our ability to choose or decide on not affected or restricted by gvien conditions or circumstances?
I would argue it most certainly is. Gravity, for example, restricts our ability to fly. The methods of earning money, restrict our will to buy things in whatever manner we want. We are subjected to certain conditions in order to have money to buy. etc.

So yeah. You're wrong.

 

[gilliatt]

The function of your lungs, stomach, heart are automatic, the function of your mind is not. You are free to think or evade that effort. To think in an act of choice. A man is a being of volitional consciousness. Reason is not automatic, thinking, not automatic. logic not by instinct. You are free to think or not think but you cannot escape from your nature, from the fact that reason is your means of survival. The question is, "to be or not to be", is the question "to think or not to think"
This is an interesting thread!!

"Man is the only living species that has the power to act as his own destroyer--and that is the way he has acted all through most of history."