Re: [math-fun] If We Have Free Will, Then So Do Electrons
Hopefully, these upcoming lectures will appear as Princeton University podcasts, which you can get for free & automatically using iTunes (or other podcast receiver): http://www.princeton.edu/WebMedia/podcasts/ At 01:24 PM 3/20/2009, Ray Tayek wrote:
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/03/20/1229233
snahgle writes "Mathematicians John Conway (inventor of the Game of Life) and Simon Kochen of Princeton University have proven that if human experimenters demonstrate 'free will' in choosing what measurements to take on a particle, then the axioms of quantum mechanics require that <http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0604079>the free will property be available to the particles measured, or to the universe as a whole. Conway is giving <http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S23/69/84A24/index.xml?section=announcements>a series of lectures on the 'Free Will Theorem' and its ramifications over the next month at Princeton. A followup <http://www.ams.org/notices/200902/rtx090200226p.pdf>article strengthening the theory (PDF) was published last month in Notices of the AMS."
--- vice-chair http://ocjug.org/
From: Henry Baker <hbaker1@pipeline.com> To: Ray Tayek <rtayek@ca.rr.com> Cc: math-fun <math-fun@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Saturday, March 21, 2009 4:59:49 AM Subject: Re: [math-fun] If We Have Free Will, Then So Do Electrons Hopefully, these upcoming lectures will appear as Princeton University podcasts, which you can get for free & automatically using iTunes (or other podcast receiver): http://www.princeton.edu/WebMedia/podcasts/ At 01:24 PM 3/20/2009, Ray Tayek wrote:
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/03/20/1229233
snahgle writes "Mathematicians John Conway (inventor of the Game of Life) and Simon Kochen of Princeton University have proven that if human experimenters demonstrate 'free will' in choosing what measurements to take on a particle, then the axioms of quantum mechanics require that <http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0604079>the free will property be available to the particles measured, or to the universe as a whole. Conway is giving <http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S23/69/84A24/index.xml?section=announcements>a series of lectures on the 'Free Will Theorem' and its ramifications over the next month at Princeton. A followup <http://www.ams.org/notices/200902/rtx090200226p.pdf>article strengthening the theory (PDF) was published last month in Notices of the AMS."
--- vice-chair http://ocjug.org/
I'm not sure what to make of Conway's paper. He concludes that a particle's response to a measurement is not determined by the past history of the universe. That's half-right. From the physicist's understanding of quantum theory, the past history determines the probabilities of the possible values of a measurement, but then the actual choice is completely random. So if one wishes to say that this randomness is a consequence of a particle having free will, that interpretation is surely irrefutable. Conway remarks that "... it is often said that the probabilities of events at one location can be instantaneously changed by happenings at an- other space-like separated location, but whether that is true or even meaningful is irrelevant to our proof, which never refers to the notion of probability." This notion, quite common in physics popularizations, is completely false. Indeed were that not so, we would already have faster than light communication. The situation is that a source S produces a pair of particles that are detected at A and B at space-like separation, so that A and B cannot influence each other (if you believe causality and relativity). It can happen that the measurements at A and B are correlated, e.g. if the z components of spins are measured, A has spin up if and only if B has spin up. These correlations become evident only when the recorded measurements are brought together and compared. The cause and effect relation responsible for such correlations is the common origin of the particles at S. There is no possible measurement at A that can be influenced by what happened at B. -- Gene
I thought the free-will issue was done in decades ago by General Relativity. Brian Greene discusses it as follows: Visualize space-time as a loaf of French bread with time as the long axis (forget Z for the moment). "now" is a slice across the loaf. The crucial observation is that a bit of acceleration changes the angle of the slice. It still goes through your "now" point, but "now" on the other side of the universe is suddenly 100 years earlier, or 100 years later (!) - that is, the universe for all time must be extant everywhere - ergo, both free will and the arrow of time are illusory. That notwithstanding, I personally like to cling to the illusion, even though I know it can't be real. I rather prefer to remain plugged into the Matrix . . . James A. (Andy) Moorer www.jamminpower.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Henry Baker" <hbaker1@pipeline.com> To: "Ray Tayek" <rtayek@ca.rr.com> Cc: "math-fun" <math-fun@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Saturday, March 21, 2009 7:59 AM Subject: Re: [math-fun] If We Have Free Will, Then So Do Electrons
Hopefully, these upcoming lectures will appear as Princeton University podcasts, which you can get for free & automatically using iTunes (or other podcast receiver):
http://www.princeton.edu/WebMedia/podcasts/
At 01:24 PM 3/20/2009, Ray Tayek wrote:
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/03/20/1229233
snahgle writes "Mathematicians John Conway (inventor of the Game of Life) and Simon Kochen of Princeton University have proven that if human experimenters demonstrate 'free will' in choosing what measurements to take on a particle, then the axioms of quantum mechanics require that <http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0604079>the free will property be available to the particles measured, or to the universe as a whole. Conway is giving <http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S23/69/84A24/index.xml?section=announcements>a series of lectures on the 'Free Will Theorem' and its ramifications over the next month at Princeton. A followup <http://www.ams.org/notices/200902/rtx090200226p.pdf>article strengthening the theory (PDF) was published last month in Notices of the AMS."
--- vice-chair http://ocjug.org/
I'm finding this discussion to be knowledgable about mathematics and physics, but pretty naive philosophically. In particular, I don't in the least buy the identification of free will with nondetermnism. If your behavior is controlled by unpredictable random chance, rather than as a result of decisions made in your brain, why would that fell subjectively like "Free Will" any more than a decision caused by brain activity. On the contrary, a decision caused in a way completely unrelated to your sense perceptions, memories, and past history wouldn't feel like a "free choice" by you; it would feel like a random choice made by some outside agency you have no control over. What do we mean when we say "Agent A has free will"? I don't think we mean "Agent A does not obey deterministic laws of physics"; I think that we mean something much closer to "in predicting the future behavior of A, it is far more useful to adopt an intentional stance towards A, and reason according to A's goals, than to adopt a physical stance and reason according to the physical components of A". This isn't something that quantum mechanics or relativity can shed any useful light on. Recommended reading: Elbow Room: The Varieties of Free Will Worth having, http://www.amazon.com/Elbow-Room-Varieties-Worth-Wanting/dp/0262540428/ref=p..., and Consciousness Explained, http://www.amazon.com/Consciousness-Explained-Daniel-C-Dennett/dp/0316180661... both by Daniel Dennett. Andy Latto On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 3:34 PM, James A. (Andy) Moorer <jamminpower@earthlink.net> wrote:
I thought the free-will issue was done in decades ago by General Relativity. Brian Greene discusses it as follows: Visualize space-time as a loaf of French bread with time as the long axis (forget Z for the moment). "now" is a slice across the loaf. The crucial observation is that a bit of acceleration changes the angle of the slice. It still goes through your "now" point, but "now" on the other side of the universe is suddenly 100 years earlier, or 100 years later (!) - that is, the universe for all time must be extant everywhere - ergo, both free will and the arrow of time are illusory.
That notwithstanding, I personally like to cling to the illusion, even though I know it can't be real. I rather prefer to remain plugged into the Matrix . . .
James A. (Andy) Moorer www.jamminpower.com
----- Original Message ----- From: "Henry Baker" <hbaker1@pipeline.com> To: "Ray Tayek" <rtayek@ca.rr.com> Cc: "math-fun" <math-fun@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Saturday, March 21, 2009 7:59 AM Subject: Re: [math-fun] If We Have Free Will, Then So Do Electrons
Hopefully, these upcoming lectures will appear as Princeton University podcasts, which you can get for free & automatically using iTunes (or other podcast receiver):
http://www.princeton.edu/WebMedia/podcasts/
At 01:24 PM 3/20/2009, Ray Tayek wrote:
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/03/20/1229233
snahgle writes "Mathematicians John Conway (inventor of the Game of Life) and Simon Kochen of Princeton University have proven that if human experimenters demonstrate 'free will' in choosing what measurements to take on a particle, then the axioms of quantum mechanics require that <http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0604079>the free will property be available to the particles measured, or to the universe as a whole. Conway is giving
<http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S23/69/84A24/index.xml?section=announcements>a series of lectures on the 'Free Will Theorem' and its ramifications over the next month at Princeton. A followup <http://www.ams.org/notices/200902/rtx090200226p.pdf>article strengthening the theory (PDF) was published last month in Notices of the AMS."
--- vice-chair http://ocjug.org/
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
-- Andy.Latto@pobox.com
----- Original Message ----- From: "Andy Latto" <andy.latto@pobox.com> To: "James A. (Andy) Moorer" <jamminpower@earthlink.net>; "math-fun" <math-fun@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 5:41 PM Subject: Re: [math-fun] If We Have Free Will, Then So Do Electrons
I'm finding this discussion to be knowledgable about mathematics and physics, but pretty naive philosophically. In particular, I don't in the least buy the identification of free will with nondetermnism. If your behavior is controlled by unpredictable random chance, rather than as a result of decisions made in your brain, why would that fell subjectively like "Free Will" any more than a decision caused by brain activity. On the contrary, a decision caused in a way completely unrelated to your sense perceptions, memories, and past history wouldn't feel like a "free choice" by you; it would feel like a random choice made by some outside agency you have no control over.
What do we mean when we say "Agent A has free will"? I don't think we mean "Agent A does not obey deterministic laws of physics"; I think that we mean something much closer to "in predicting the future behavior of A, it is far more useful to adopt an intentional stance towards A, and reason according to A's goals, than to adopt a physical stance and reason according to the physical components of A". This isn't something that quantum mechanics or relativity can shed any useful light on.
Just making a quick guess, I would assume the authors of the article in question probably did not insinuate that electrons have intent. So I would imagine they were talking of free will as some degree of violation of physical law as we know it or else some measure of unpredictability within it. Obviously, from a social standpoint, we stand to benefit by associating intent with action, which correlate well in humans. But questions of determinism aside, we are by and large not the conscious authors of our own intents.
Recommended reading:
Elbow Room: The Varieties of Free Will Worth having, http://www.amazon.com/Elbow-Room-Varieties-Worth-Wanting/dp/0262540428/ref=p..., and Consciousness Explained, http://www.amazon.com/Consciousness-Explained-Daniel-C-Dennett/dp/0316180661... both by Daniel Dennett.
Andy Latto
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 3:34 PM, James A. (Andy) Moorer <jamminpower@earthlink.net> wrote:
I thought the free-will issue was done in decades ago by General Relativity. Brian Greene discusses it as follows: Visualize space-time as a loaf of French bread with time as the long axis (forget Z for the moment). "now" is a slice across the loaf. The crucial observation is that a bit of acceleration changes the angle of the slice. It still goes through your "now" point, but "now" on the other side of the universe is suddenly 100 years earlier, or 100 years later (!) - that is, the universe for all time must be extant everywhere - ergo, both free will and the arrow of time are illusory.
That notwithstanding, I personally like to cling to the illusion, even though I know it can't be real. I rather prefer to remain plugged into the Matrix . . .
James A. (Andy) Moorer www.jamminpower.com
----- Original Message ----- From: "Henry Baker" <hbaker1@pipeline.com> To: "Ray Tayek" <rtayek@ca.rr.com> Cc: "math-fun" <math-fun@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Saturday, March 21, 2009 7:59 AM Subject: Re: [math-fun] If We Have Free Will, Then So Do Electrons
Hopefully, these upcoming lectures will appear as Princeton University podcasts, which you can get for free & automatically using iTunes (or other podcast receiver):
http://www.princeton.edu/WebMedia/podcasts/
At 01:24 PM 3/20/2009, Ray Tayek wrote:
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/03/20/1229233
snahgle writes "Mathematicians John Conway (inventor of the Game of Life) and Simon Kochen of Princeton University have proven that if human experimenters demonstrate 'free will' in choosing what measurements to take on a particle, then the axioms of quantum mechanics require that <http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0604079>the free will property be available to the particles measured, or to the universe as a whole. Conway is giving
<http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S23/69/84A24/index.xml?section=announcements>a series of lectures on the 'Free Will Theorem' and its ramifications over the next month at Princeton. A followup <http://www.ams.org/notices/200902/rtx090200226p.pdf>article strengthening the theory (PDF) was published last month in Notices of the AMS."
--- vice-chair http://ocjug.org/
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
-- Andy.Latto@pobox.com
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.0.238 / Virus Database: 270.11.28/2022 - Release Date: 03/25/09 07:16:00
From: James A. (Andy) Moorer <jamminpower@earthlink.net> To: math-fun <math-fun@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 12:34:03 PM Subject: Re: [math-fun] If We Have Free Will, Then So Do Electrons I thought the free-will issue was done in decades ago by General Relativity. Brian Greene discusses it as follows: Visualize space-time as a loaf of French bread with time as the long axis (forget Z for the moment). "now" is a slice across the loaf. The crucial observation is that a bit of acceleration changes the angle of the slice. It still goes through your "now" point, but "now" on the other side of the universe is suddenly 100 years earlier, or 100 years later (!) - that is, the universe for all time must be extant everywhere - ergo, both free will and the arrow of time are illusory. That notwithstanding, I personally like to cling to the illusion, even though I know it can't be real. I rather prefer to remain plugged into the Matrix . . . James A. (Andy) Moorer www.jamminpower.com ________________________________ An event in space-time can influence only those events that lie within its future light cone, and can be influenced only by those events that lie within its past light cone. Thus the "sphere of influence" expands at the speed of light. If and only if A can influence B is there a unique time ordering of A and B, and then B lies to the future of A. If A and B lie outside each other's light cone, then to different observers A and B can have opposite time order. This is the reason why causality and relativity together imply that influences propagate, not merely to the future, but to that subset of the future within the light cone. All this has been known since the discovery of special relativity. The claim that "the universe for all time must be extant everywhere - ergo, both free will and the arrow of time are illusory." is just excessive grandiosity. -- Gene
participants (5)
-
Andy Latto -
David Wilson -
Eugene Salamin -
Henry Baker -
James A. (Andy) Moorer