A plea for help. I'm trying to write something about this paper, by John Conway and Simon Kochen of Princeton. Any guidance from physics experts would be greatly appreciated. I'm afraid that when it comes to these sorts of papers I'm like the simple son at the Seder: I don't even know what questions to ask.
On the basis of three physical axioms, we prove that if the choice of a particular type of spin 1 experiment is not a function of the information accessible to the experimenters, then its outcome is equally not a function of the information accessible to the particles. We show that this result is robust, and deduce that neither hidden variable theories nor mechanisms of the GRW type for wave function collapse can be made relativistic. We also establish the consistency of our axioms and discuss the philosophical implications.
UPDATE: Let's try this Wiki style. After struggling with the original paper, here's a writerly summary of it. Please let me know what pertinent facts/presumptions/theorems I got wrong. (Please keep in mind that I've got to summarize 31 pages of dense math in 300 words):
Free will has traditionally been reserved for big things, like brains and people. But what if free will was embedded in the very essence of everything? What if elementary particles - matter in its most minute form - were also endowed with some existential elbow room?
John Conway and Simon Kochen, two Princeton mathematicians, have given this strange idea an elegant mathematical proof. On the basis of three rhyming physical axioms - spin, fin and twin - they have constructed a theory of sub-atomic freedom. After acknowledging their debt to various quantum paradoxes, they argue "that the response of particles to a certain type of experiment is not determined by the entire previous history of that part of the universe accessible to them." The results are also not a function of information accessible to the experimenter. According to Conway and Kochen, even an omniscient mind, capable of knowing everything about everything, would still be unable to predict the position of the particles.
What, then, is determining the outcome of the experiment? The obvious yet absurd answer is that the particles themselves are determining the outcome. As Conway and Kochen write, "No theory can predict exactly what these particles will do in the future for the very good reason that they may not yet have decided what this will be!" Of course, most of these sub-atomic choices - the mathematicians call them "ineffectual flutterings" - won't affect very much beyond their own trajectory. Nevertheless, their indeterminacy appears genuine. If we are free, then so are they.
- Log in to post comments
I haven't read much of it yet, and Chad is way more qualified to think about sort of quantum thing than me...
My first response, despite the condescending warning that physicists shouldn't think that there's nothing new here because the authors are doing things too deep for standard quantum mechanical notation, is that there's absolutely nothing new and mysterious here.
No hidden variables in quantum mechanics? Old news. The result of a quantum state experiment not being determined by information available to the particle? That's another way of saying no hidden variables. Now, I must be missing something, because the authors do refer to EPR and say that lack of hidden variables has been long known... but damn if I can figure out what's really new and deep about this.
It may just be that they're interpreting quantum indeterminacy as "free will" for the particles, but I would say that that interpretation is semantically suspect. I would go farther and say that they're only one step away from What the bleep do we know? level nosense, entangling terms like "free will" with not-intuitive-to-humans aspects of quantum mechanics.
To have a more informed opinion, I'd have to spend a lot more time reading this... but I'm inclined to be lazy and see what somebody like Chad has to say about it first. :)
-Rob
I haven't read the paper carefully (I skimmed it just now, and wasn't really blown away), but it generated some discussion in physics circles a little while back. I would start with Dave Bacon's post, and follow the links there and in the comments.
Thank you both so much for your help and advice. I really appreciate it.
I feel this: "is not a function of the information accessible to the experimenters, then its outcome is equally not a function of the information accessible to the particles." very strange. Too bad I can't understand the paper, because I really wonder how someone could prove such statement. If you ever write a reader-friendly explanation, please let me.
I would definitely recommend Gerald Schroeder's work for more information on the subject. His book "The Science of God" covers subjects very much like this and I think he's brilliant. Good luck.
I am not a physics major but I have studied the dualist/physicalist debate for quite some time. This statement: "is not a function of the information accessible to the experimenters, then its outcome is equally not a function of the information accessible to the particles" neglects the problem in our current scientific understanding today. We can explain how a person's physical body works to the point where we question the source of free will. We then get down to the level of electrons, which we cannot explain in the same way, so we wonder whether free will might exist at that level and permiate up.
The problem in science today is that what we use to understand the physics of very large bodies and of very small bodies do not line up. Also, the experimenters cannot "access" certain information because it is beyond our capablity, or because in doing so we interact with our subject; this does not mean, however, that the information that is inaccessable is irrelevant to physical processes.
The problem starts with that at quantummechanical level there are sometimes no electrons. There is no difference between one and the other and may share the same state (like in superconductivity).
They can also transform into photons and be produced from photons.
I rather see it as energy that vibrates and resonates with its environment. When enough energy is together the waves seem to show particles.
Then the question becomes: does energy has free will.
When we look at the maths we only see simple formulas about conservation and resonance. Maths cant put free will in to formulas anyway. So that doesnt bring us much further.
Secondly there is the idea that free will and thought comes from the brain. Since molecules and atoms (and not electrons) govern the processes in the brain.
And in this sense i have a radically different view. There is no thought in the brain, because if the brain is inactive people still seem to notice dreams and other things. Also the circuitry and functioning of the brain is closest to an antenna with adaptive regulation. We can see processes of consiousness and free will in the brain, but not their origin. The simples experiment is: imagine drinking water.. Your body even reacts to that, just like your brain. But your imagination did not origin (as i see it) from the brain but from somewehere else. The body and brain only reacts to those imaginations. And we simple dont know what that is in fysical terms. But because this is hard to test and to discuss because of human reasons and so many factors. So i'll just skip this part.
Maybe if we put the question differently it will become clearer:
Where can we see the outcome of some kind of free will in physics?
There are many different fields here, but i'll pick one i like myself:
Crystallisation
Atoms get from one state into an other.
We know growth rates depending on temperature and concentrations.
But if we look at snow-cristals in nature we can see that crystallisation is direction dependent en creates geometric structures. So the the process of crystallisation has something in it that is geometrical. We can see geometrical structions in other crystals too and in biological structures.
Something might be influencing this geometry or not, but that is a totally different discussion.
I would rather just say that snow-crystals have much more beauty in them than we can imagine.
I think electrons do have free will; here's why.
I had a six-pack in my car, and was walking to my apartment. The beer, purchased several hours earlier, was warm in the car. When I entered my apartment with it is was frozen. No bullshit.
The electrons decided to cool my beer, so that I could drink it, and so pushed the molecules further apart.
Free Will is what this world is all about...
Best Regards,
http://www.freebundles.com/free-game-consoles.html
Yes, this is what the world is coming too!
Best Regards,
http://www.BuyingItNew.com