And then it just dawned to me, why shouldnt someone use such a device for himself and then ask the question: "do I have free will now ? Whose free will is it now ? " — Nicky665
Rather it says that subatomic particles have as much free will as us. — Michael
But the notion of free will that this theorem uses is simply "present behaviour is not a function of the past". This isn't anything like libertarian free will. It's more like free will in the sense of random behaviour. — Michael
The free will we assume is just that the experimenter can freely choose to make any one of a small number of observations.
So don't mistake it as saying that particles make choices. — Michael
The definition of free will they employ is the common sense one - that under certain circumstances humans can decide what will happen. In particular they assume that a human can choose which button to press. — tom
That would be ridiculous!
What the FWT demonstrates is that IF we possess free will, then fundamental particles possess a TINY amount of the same thing.
And, they go to great lengths to distinguish randomness from freedom. The result has nothing to do with randomness.
Last night someone said robots cant have preferences since they're machines. So I suggested that we might associate a quantum random number generator to it and make the robot take certain decisions based on the outcome of the quantum random generator. No natural law can predict the choice.
And then it just dawned to me, why shouldnt someone use such a device for himself and then ask the question: "do I have free will now ? Whose free will is it now ? "
... — Babbeus
One uses the device to decide between yes or no to an action ( do i floss my teeth now , do i answer the phone, do i go there today) . Something like that. He substitutes his will for the indeterminate result of the quantum randomness. Nothing prevents him to break the rule.
you said to not make the mistake to say particles make a choice, then how de we define "make a choice " — Nicky665
And then it just dawned to me, why shouldnt someone use such a device for himself and then ask the question: "do I have free will now ? Whose free will is it now ? " — Nicky665
So it's equivocation ... it's perhaps more accurate to call it the Spontaneity Theorem — Michael
The difference is that a coin toss or the weather is in principle determinate and predictable . A computer with enough data about initial conditions can predict it. — Nicky665
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.