
The Strong Free Will Theorem [pdf] - TriinT
http://www.ams.org/notices/200902/rtx090200226p.pdf
======
dasht
For those encountering this paper for the first time I thought it would could
helpful to point out some stuff:

"The Strong Free Will Theorem" is a successor paper to an earlier paper called
"The Free Will Theorem" (easily found via a search engine or Wikipedia). Both
papers are fairly accessible to the typical hacker. Both are somewhat
profound. It might be easier to start with the earlier paper.

Traditionally, people debate "interpretations" of QM especially and relativity
to an extent. E.g., the "many world" interpretation of QM. These papers take a
novel and interesting approach to analyzing such questions. They are quite
refreshing, in terms of avoiding needless metaphysical claptrap.

Finally, I don't recall if the papers themselves mention this but at least in
speaking appearances Conway has said that he doesn't mean for people to read
too much (or too little) into the word "Will", here. Fundamentally, the
theorems are about how the history of the universe up to some point (taking
into account a relativistic view of history) does or does not relate to the
future action of the universe. They formulate things in particularly poignant
anthropomorphic terms but the result is more general. If you would rather not
locate "will" in these results, Conway is happy to concede that the theorems
could as well be dubbed the "free whimsy" theorems... implying meaningless
rather than meaningful randomness in certain human choices.

~~~
gnosis
What is the difference between meaningful and meaningless randomness?

~~~
Estragon
One reflects our ignorance of the underlying mechanisms, and could be
predicted with more information and/or a better model, one is intrinsically
stochastic and theoretically impossible to predict.

~~~
gnosis
You mean it's "meaningful" if it wasn't actually random in the first place.

------
protez
What if there's nothing deterministic in this universe? The notion of
determinism deduced from God, Nature, or whatever is the key behind the
concept of free will. Otherwise, how can we identify free will, which is
essentially a fancy term for "non-determinism"? The concept of free will
cannot stand by itself without the notion of determinism. In other words, if
everything is truly random, then there's no room for both determinism and free
will. However, I don't think the structured randomness described by quantum
mechanics counts for the randomness that truly goes beyond both determinism
and free will. It may be incomprehensible for any of internal observers of
this universe.

------
yters
Lack of determinism is not the same as free will. Being constrained to the
past to include the future (i.e. some probability distribution over possible
choice states) is still a mechanism embedding stochastic processes, and can be
modelled algorithmically.

To really get to free will we also need teleological causation:

danielnolanphil.googlepages.com/TeleologyHawthorneNolan.pdf

Also, here are empirical results from my research showing we are capable of
teleological causation and thus have free will:

<http://www.box.net/shared/u13u3agxqg>

------
ssamuli
To quote Douglas Hofstadter: There is no free will.

~~~
xtho
Since he didn't write it by free will, I wonder what it's worth.

~~~
ssamuli
"When a male dog gets a whiff of a female dog in heat, it has certain
extremely intense desires, which it will try to extremely hard to satisfy. We
see the intensity only too clearly, and when the desire is thwarted (for
instance, by fence or a leash), it pains us to to identify with that poor
animal, trapped by its innate drivers, pushed by an abstract force that it
doesn't int the least understand. This poignant sight clearly exemplifies
will, but is it free will?" - Douglas Hofstadter (I Am A Strange Loop)

------
ars
Very interesting.

If I'm reading this correctly, he says that the idea that human will is
deterministic is obsolete. The idea came because it was thought the universe
is deterministic, but modern quantum mechanics shows the universe is not
deterministic, and neither is human will.

~~~
jomoba
I'm not sure how you got that. In both the original theorem and the new
"strong" theorem, the theory is a conditional statement (if-then), and that
humans have free will is part of the condition, not part of the conclusion.

In describing the original theorem they write: "It asserts, roughly, that if
indeed we humans have free will, then elementary particles already have their
own small share of this valuable commodity."

And in describing the new theorem, they write: "The axioms SPIN, TWIN and MIN
imply that..." Where the axiom MIN is: "Assume that the experiments performed
by A and B are space-like separated. Then experimenter B can freely choose..."
That "then" clause occurs inside the axiom, so is part of what is assumed. The
axioms are assumed - in particular, the free will of experimenter B is assumed
- and a conclusion is drawn.

~~~
ars
"It asserts, roughly, that if indeed we humans have free will, then elementary
particles already have their own small share of this valuable commodity."

He goes on to show the reverse of this. This line is a teaser, not a
conclusion.

It doesn't really make sense than human free will should affect elementary
particles, but the reverse does make (some) sense.

The experimental setup of having a human choose something is to correlate the
two, not to mean that a human choosing the setup give the particles free will.
(Unless I totally misunderstood this article, which is certainly possible.)

