
Do Subatomic Particles Have Free Will? - rms
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/35391/title/Do_subatomic_particles_have_free_will%3F
======
dmfdmf
"John Conway and Simon Kochen, claim to have proven that if humans have even
the tiniest amount of free will, then atoms themselves must also behave
unpredictably."

I think there is a big equivocation here. Free-will does not mean
"unpredictable" -- which as a human trait, is a consequence of free-will not
its essence. More to the point, free-will is a property of human consciousness
not atoms, etc. If the authors have (unwittingly) proven anything it's that QM
commits the mind-projection-fallacy as specifically identified by Edwin Jaynes
in "Probability Theory" or more generally a form of Ayn Rand's primacy-of-
consciousness error in many of her articles.

~~~
gregwebs
The title of this article is stupid- and leads to the mixups you are talking
about. But if you read the article, your quoted statement is not an
equivocation, it is the specific paradox the scientists propose.

Free will does not mean unpredictability, but if unpredictability is a
consequence of free will, and there is no unpredictability, then we can say
that free will does not exist.

~~~
dmfdmf
I hardly think FW needs an existence/non-existence proof because without it
you can't have knowledge, concepts, language, morality, math, science nor HN
discussions!

------
sysop073
"he's content with the notion that free will exists only effectively (not
theoretically)"

I don't understand that; how can something exist in reality but not in theory?
That implies to me that the theory is wrong

~~~
river_styx
_I don't understand that; how can something exist in reality but not in
theory?_

That's kinda the point of Gödel's incompleteness theorems, which prove that
there are definite limitations in formal (read theoretical) systems.

~~~
yters
Axioms aren't part of a theory?

~~~
whacked_new
Your set of axioms will never be complete.

------
mattmaroon
I tend to agree with Einstein. Since the moment people started thinking,
they've attributed to randomness that which they don't understand. I'll
certainly admit the possibility, but to say definitively that some things are
simply unpredictable just seems too arrogant.

On the other hand, that has nothing to do with free will. Even if true
randomness exists, and we suppose that even the ability to act randomly would
not fall under most's definition of "free will".

------
dominik
Idiotic title, but interesting article.

------
gaika
This question of free will only makes sense if you believe in god. If you're
an atheist then the question just doesn't make sense.

Edit: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will>

~~~
river_styx
Huh? If anything, the existence of God threatens the concept of free will.
It's kinda hard to feel free if there's some omniscient, omnipotent dude who
knows and controls everything that will happen ahead of time...

~~~
gaika
Definition of "free will" is the ability to act free of the will of god. What
do you mean by "free will"?

~~~
river_styx
Free will is the capacity of an individual to make his/her own choices and
either to act or not act on those decisions. It really has nothing to do with
God outside of theology and philosophy of religion.

~~~
Herring
And how do you know if the individual is "really" free? As opposed to being
controlled the environment or god or some unknown factor? Set up an experiment
& you'll be far ahead of all the useless philosophizing.

~~~
river_styx
_And how do you know if the individual is "really" free?_

This is a philosophical question, and as such, can't really be answered
experimentally. At the risk of sounding sophistical and clintonian, it depends
on what you mean by "'really' free". You can be controlled by environmental
factors and still exercise free will by some definitions of that term.

------
hugh
Even if they did, I don't think they'd have anything interesting to make
decisions about.

------
nazgulnarsil
the question of free will is a foolish way of phrasing things that leads to
circular logic. free will is what the process of optimizing a decision tree
feels like when you are the one doing the optimizing.

------
Ardit
Isn't the basis of science built on the proposition that everything obeys a
set of rules?

As such, there is no free will, there is simply responses to outside
influences which are grounded on some rules.

Hence, how can he say there is no algorithm to the way that the particle
responds? How can he possibly know?

Or is he conducting what could be called "pop science" you know like stuff
that people are walking faster today than twenty years ago

------
Eliezer
No.

~~~
gaika
Because to admit that there's free will is to admit that there's something
above physical laws.

~~~
hugh
Nothing is above physical laws.

That's not an assertion, that's a definition.

~~~
maxklein
You are SO wrong. The physical laws are physical laws because we observed them
that way, and we defined them that way. Gravity? Time? Small c? Matter? Mass?
Those are the physical laws, but they are based on our unique observation.

The truth is that we cannot know if there are things that are 'above' these
laws, because we are not capable of observing outside of these laws. You are
eyes are made of matter and mass, if something existed that was fundamentally
different, how could you deal with it with your eyes? You can't see it or
observe it.

~~~
dcurtis
Maxklein, I have an idea for you. After you write something, read it again and
add "you idiot!" to the end. If it sounds like the tone is compatible, then
rewrite what you said until it is polite.

Anyway, with respect to the topic: you're suggesting that there is the
possibility of a higher level of knowledge beyond what we can observe with our
physical eyeballs. This is a fallacy that goes against everything science
stands for. Science is the platform upon which you build models that describe
the physical world.

For example, if we witness the effects of gravity occurring over and over in
many experiments, then we can create a model of what we saw: the Law of
Gravity. Then we can make the assumption that whenever there is mass, there is
gravity. So far, it works. If something can be physically shown to
break/violate the law, then it will be reexamined and the model will be
changed to satisfy the new information.

There is no evidence of anything above or beyond the physical/theoretical
models of science. To suggest there is implies faith.

Are you religious, maxklein?

~~~
maxklein
I'm not religious, and I have no inclination to argue a simple and obvious
point.

Observation is inherently limited by our observational capabilities, and this
is not a radical thought, it's a very very basic thought. So your argument is
not just wrong, it's incredibly wrong, and you should not be making it.

For example: Electrons. To posit that there are electrons, but viewed strictly
from a 16th century perspective is a position that cannot be observed based
off the technology available to them at that time.

As a purist, I take offense when anybody tries to claim that observation and
experimentation can be anything but assumptions. It is something we observe to
be a certain way, but very restricted by our particular viewpoint.

You think you are a man of science, but what you actually are is one of those
people who said the earth could not be round because it looks flat. I've said
something that is perfectly realisitic if one has some imagination, and you
immediately shoot it down because it does not conform to how you think
scientists should think.

Free your mind, and learn to deal with uncertainty.

~~~
dcurtis
Science in its current form wasn't prevalent back when people were saying that
the Earth couldn't be round. Any modern day scientist would always be open to
the possibility, given physical evidence. The very best model at the time
showed that the earth was flat-- hey, it looks flat when you go outside. But
evidence through experimentation led to the model being updated.

Electrons are small and you can't see them with your eyeballs. But J.J.
Thomson used models of how cathode rays work and how electrical conduction
works, and he hypothesized and then experimentally showed that electrons
exist. They may not exist, and any good scientist would be open to that
possibility, given evidence. But the best models we have today show that they
do exist.

Observation and experimentation are one level beyond assumption. They're
assumption backed by evidence. Blind assumption is to "suppose a case is true
without proof."

Imagination drives science, true. But nothing imagined is _ever_ considered
science, or even possible, without some kind of evidence.

Uncertainty is fine. Is there dark matter? Is it possible to travel faster
than the speed of light? Why are photons both particles and waves? Uncertainty
is what makes these the interesting questions in science.

~~~
maxklein
These are the easy things to be uncertain about. But what about the more
difficult things? For example - is time discrete? Such a concept would require
as the very first step that we must let go of our usual observational
abilities, as they are unable to step outside of time. So, first we have to
discover how to observe, and only then can we start to experiment.

------
kirse
Quantum Mechanics always blows my mind and I only ever end up frustrated that
I don't know the answer to how it all works.

Even "basic" stuff like the Double-Slit experiment keeps me daydreaming for
awhile.

