Philosophy Now Forum

From reading this, it sounds as if they do, free to choose their spin:

"In 2004, Conway and Simon B. Kochen, another Princeton mathematician, proved the free will theorem, a startling version of the 'no hidden variables' principle of quantum mechanics. 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 to make the measurements consistent with physical law. In Conway's provocative wording: 'if experimenters have free will, then so do elementary particles.'"

PhilX

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will_theorem
===
http://www.informationphilosopher.com/s ... ts/kochen/
===

socratus wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will_theorem
===
http://www.informationphilosopher.com/s ... ts/kochen/
===

Does this mean you agree with this?

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote:From reading this, it sounds as if they do, free to choose their spin:

" 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 . . . . .'"

PhilX

If an elementary particles can choose their spins: h or h*=h/2pi
. . . . then it must have free will.
===

duplicate
This Forum algorithm obviously has free will

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:From reading this, it sounds as if they do, free to choose their spin:

"In 2004, Conway and Simon B. Kochen, another Princeton mathematician, proved the free will theorem, a startling version of the 'no hidden variables' principle of quantum mechanics. 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 to make the measurements consistent with physical law. In Conway's provocative wording: 'if experimenters have free will, then so do elementary particles.'"

PhilX

How silly. Do you not think you are missing the point?
Isn't a bit like saying if ducks could drive a car, then why not geese?

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:From reading this, it sounds as if they do, free to choose their spin:

"In 2004, Conway and Simon B. Kochen, another Princeton mathematician, proved the free will theorem, a startling version of the 'no hidden variables' principle of quantum mechanics. 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 to make the measurements consistent with physical law. In Conway's provocative wording: 'if experimenters have free will, then so do elementary particles.'"

PhilX

How silly. Do you not think you are missing the point?
Isn't a bit like saying if ducks could drive a car, then why not geese?

I think you missed the point as I didn't say I agreed with it. However, due to John Conway's reputation, I have to consider whether the free-will theorem is actually true (apparently you don't agree with it).

PhilX

Try and answer this then.

If particles are free - from what are they free?
And if they are free to decide, how do they have desire and choice?

The function of the theorem is not a real question at all. You missed the irony.

If a person has free will then so too does a particle. A particle cannot have free will, as that would be absurd, therefore humans do not have free will either, being comprised of particles.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Try and answer this then.

If particles are free - from what are they free?
And if they are free to decide, how do they have desire and choice?

The function of the theorem is not a real question at all. You missed the irony.

If a person has free will then so too does a particle. A particle cannot have free will, as that would be absurd, therefore humans do not have free will either, being comprised of particles.

So the question is what do the provers of the free-will theorem mean by free will since they took the trouble to prove it?

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Try and answer this then.

If particles are free - from what are they free?
And if they are free to decide, how do they have desire and choice?

The function of the theorem is not a real question at all. You missed the irony.

If a person has free will then so too does a particle. A particle cannot have free will, as that would be absurd, therefore humans do not have free will either, being comprised of particles.

So the question is what do the provers of the free-will theorem mean by free will since they took the trouble to prove it?

PhilX

They have not "PROVEN" anything.
Try and answer my questions and you will see what I mean.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Try and answer this then.

If particles are free - from what are they free?
And if they are free to decide, how do they have desire and choice?

The function of the theorem is not a real question at all. You missed the irony.

If a person has free will then so too does a particle. A particle cannot have free will, as that would be absurd, therefore humans do not have free will either, being comprised of particles.

So the question is what do the provers of the free-will theorem mean by free will since they took the trouble to prove it?

PhilX

They have not "PROVEN" anything.
Try and answer my questions and you will see what I mean.

How do you know since details weren't provided?

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:
So the question is what do the provers of the free-will theorem mean by free will since they took the trouble to prove it?

PhilX

They have not "PROVEN" anything.
Try and answer my questions and you will see what I mean.

How do you know since details weren't provided?

PhilX

Please refer to the post I made above.

That would explain buyer's regret I often feel after an inexplicable choice of purchase. It wasn't me deciding, it was the particle's, of which I'm comprised. I guess that also relieves me of moral responsibility of anything 'I' supposedly do.

"It's in my makeup, your honour. Couldn't help it."

Philosophy Explorer wrote:In Conway's provocative wording: 'if experimenters have free will, then so do elementary particles.'"

This could also imply that if the experimenters are confused looking at a particle then the particle may in turn be as confused not knowing which way to spin only compounding our confusion and the poor particle. Maybe that's the reason they're so tiny because they don't want to be looked at. Translating this to the macro world looking at a particle is a lot like looking at a politician. You get a lot of spin.

Sometimes one's system just has to take a laxative.

Dubious wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:In Conway's provocative wording: 'if experimenters have free will, then so do elementary particles.'"

This could also imply that if the experimenters are confused looking at a particle then the particle may in turn be as confused not knowing which way to spin only compounding our confusion and the poor particle. Maybe that's the reason they're so tiny because they don't want to be looked at. Translating this to the macro world looking at a particle is a lot like looking at a politician. You get a lot of spin.

Sometimes one's system just has to take a laxative.

Dubious, I didn't write that. I copied it from Wikipedia.

PhilX