The full lecture series (6 lectures) can be found here: mediacentral.p... Papers: arxiv.org/abs/q... arxiv.org/abs/0... "I can calculate the motion of heavenly bodies, but not the madness of men." - Isaac Newton -
The way I see it, the problem of free will basically stems from a perceived conflict between two equally plausible or desirable hypotheses: 1) everything we think we know about modern science, which (disregarding quantum mechanics for a moment) seems to suggest we live in a deterministic universe, and 2) our overwhelming sensation of being "free", meaning we perceive ourselves as going through our lives making choices in a way that is genuinely "up to us", i.e. not conclusively predetermined by any underlying laws of nature or any other external factors outside of ourselves. Most arguments against free will typically consist of hammering hypothesis 1 while completely ignoring hypothesis 2, or simply dismissing it as an "illusion". Now, I realize not everyone will agree with me on this, but personally, I'd argue that hypothesis 2 is so fundamental to our way of life, indeed, so fundamental to what it means to be human, that if you're going to claim it is an illusion, you at least have the burden of proof of explaining how this illusion arises in the first place, which, so far, no one seems able to do with any degree of satisfaction. While it's true that it's difficult to see how free will might work given our current scientific understanding of the universe, it is equally true that it hasn't been definitively ruled out yet. What this suggests to me is simply that our current picture of the universe is at best highly incomplete (something I don't think anyone can dispute). I know it may sound like I'm making an argument from ignorance (and again: not everyone will agree with me, and that's fine), but I don't find it completely implausible to suppose that free will does exist, but that the exact mechanism by which it functions is simply outside the scope of what our current science can explain; in fact, I'm very much open to the idea that future scientific developments will allow us to finally arrive at a comprehensive picture of how "free" we are exactly. Whatever the case, I personally take developments like the Conway-Kochen theorem as evidence that we should not throw in the towel on free will just yet!
I have to think about this more and probably watch the full lecture series several times (I've only watched it once so far). But I can say off the bat that I have one semantic but important qualm with this conclusion. I think they are defining "will" or "decision" wrong. I have no problem with saying the particles are "free" as in not completely constrained by their past. But the words like "will" and "decision" I don't think apply to anything other than consciousness. The definition of consciousness is very controversial, but no definition would state that particles are conscious (and indeed Conway specifically states that he isn't saying they are conscious). I think that's where most people find his conclusion odd. As Conway mentions, his conclusion is widely believed by physicists (although he thinks they believe it without enough rigor). However, his conclusion as stated is something that physicists definitely do not agree with. The problem is simply in the statement, the use of the word "will". I definitely have to think more about this whole argument though. It is complex and slightly over my head. I studied philosophy of physics rather than physics itself because the math was a bit beyond me. Not surprisingly, Conway, a brilliant mathematician, breezed through the mathematics way too fast for me to follow. I'm a big fan of Bell's Theorem, but I'm not quite understanding yet what about KS makes it different. I know it has a slightly different and stronger implication, but I'm not entirely sure yet why that's true.
The reason it sounds odd is the same reason it's such a profound theorem - we make certain assumptions about choice because in our own experience (and thereby our intuitions) choice is only a property of big, lumbering, complex systems that presumably possess related properties like "consciousness" and "mental worlds." But nothing about choice necessarily relies on consciousness as it's colloquially understood, especially not in the materialistic sense of an emergent property of complex deterministic systems, i.e., a "projection" of underlying physical processes. Indeed, many such materialistic definitions of consciousness _a priori_ rule out the possibility of choice. If a conscious system could be devoid of choice, maybe these properties aren't so tied up after all. So, can simple systems make choices? There isn't (at least not yet) any precise reason for the qualitative ability to make free choices to become more likely as a system becomes more complex. Even a brain the size of the universe seems no freer from the constraints of its constituent particles than a single particle. If anything, the freedom seems to correlate with size in reverse. So ultimately the question has to be whether any system at all can make choices - big or small, dumb or conscious. And how can any system be necessarily unconstrained by its past and yet be statistically constrained in empirical observation without having something like "choice"? What does it mean for a system to "choose"? There's a reason one of these lectures is about the philosophical implications. If particles' choices among equally possible outcomes are distributed in a nonrandom manner, this has serious metaphysical implications, whether most physicists want to acknowledge them or not. Surveys have previously shown that about 60% of theoretical physicists who accept the Copenhagen interpretation are resistant to the immediate philosophical implications of the Copenhagen interpretation. It's presumably because many are holding out hope for the discovery of some non-local hidden variables that will salvage determinism or at least realism. And who wouldn't? The concept of fundamental non-realism of elementary particles' properties is like a giant "no trespassing" sign to scientists, like a barbed wire fence surrounding the perimeter of the universe. And the statistical constraints are a sure sign that there actually is something mechanistic (at least in a probabilistic sense) behind the barbed wire, in the same sense that rates of nuclear radiation are mechanistic, i.e., there is some logic narrowly constraining possibility that annoyingly eludes inquiry. And the particular constraining logic there has all the hallmarks of teleology, so it's not only infuriatingly out of reach, it also smells like mysticism. I think about 6% still prefer Bohmian mechanics, ostensibly for the same reason. It preserves the worldview that _drives_ scientific inquiry and especially theoretical physics. And physicists are right to be hostile - the seriousness of the problem should not be diminished, that would only further contribute to stagnation. The information theorists are probably the most likely to clear the hurdle for that reason, they're not pretending we're only dealing with emergent statistical "echoes" of initial conditions. I don't know of any surveys that account for focus at that fine resolution, but at least in my experience they're among the most open-minded regarding realism and teleology.
I completely fail to understand why so many people want to cling to determinism. Before the advent of quantum theory I can see why they felt like science was pushing them in that direction. But... quantum theory DID come along, and it just swept all of that away. There is no reason whatsoever to continue to stubbornly deny what science has plainly revealed to us.
Yes you’re right, nice observation that is often overlooked. For the second time around argument to work, you would have to assume some form of induction. This would allow you to make the following conclusion: “because the first time I saw the movie, A occurred, then the second time I see the movie, A will occur”. But by assuming induction you might as well assume determinism and so it becomes circular
@@BennettAustin7 Exactly. I find that there still seems to be a very, VERY strong tendency in people to "cling to determinism," in spite of the fact that we've known for over a century now that it's not actually a thing. I guess it's because our moment-to-moment lives are for the most part so well described by classical physics (it's why we never even thought of quantum theory until we started looking at the deep down little stuff). So every experience seems to reinforce determinism - it's hard for our psyches to give it up. But, if we're going to discuss deep things like this, then we really do have to give it up.
That isn't an explanation of relativity at all. It's an explanation of one possible consequence of a violation of relativity. He has an explanation of relativity in one of the later videos and in principal it is a fine one, but it is definitely not among the easier to understand ones that I've seen. I got relativity when I read Brian Greene's book The Elegant Universe. If you really want to understand relativity, read that. Thanks to that book, by the time I formally studied relativity in college, it was easy for me. The math of relativity is simple algebra, it's the concepts that are hard. Thanks to Greene, I already knew the concepts. (Of course that's special relativity, in general relativity, the math is a monster that lead Einstein to say "whatever your problems with mathematics, I assure you mine are far greater still." He got his colleague Bose to do the math for him.)
Well, I'm fairly well educated - I have a PhD in engineering, have studied physics for decades, etc. And I am 100% convinced that we do, in fact, have free will. I think it's patently obvious.
fate and free will the question of free will is critical-especially in connection with prediction. is life predetermined to the degree that the individual is chained to a specific series of events that cannot be changed. yeap Einstein L-fields four forces of the universe triggering mechanisms. languages words/worlds neils bohr atomic physics and human knowledge double u w-lord word/lord. symmetry sword fish lord Matsya thanks dr jung psychology and alchemy Princeton series cirlot Barcelona school of arts
But what if a chaotic system is a kind of resonator that allows random quantum processes at the micro level, if they occur in areas close to the bifurcation points, to influence the macro-level world? For example, in the microtubules of neurons, according to Penrose's theory.
This is a non sequitur, or a misunderstanding of chaos theory. The water circulating in a sink/basin can go either left or right; that fact that it will go either left or right is completely predictable. This is the notion of a strange attractor or Lorenz attractor. Whether the water (or floating bead, etc.) will go left or right on any given trip around the basin is completely unpredictable - this would require knowing the initial conditions, and modeling the system, with an infinite level of precision, which is absurd. So, i think the correct statement is that "Chaos theory makes task of distinguishing deterministic behavior from free will essentially impossible."
@@timross3841 Water circulating in the sink basin will always rotate to right on the northern hemisphere and always left in the southern. Good luck with your studies.
A.T.Mann still great book for myselfie einsteins l-fields cross reference with triggering mechanisms under fate and free will lots of multi discipline science syllabus even though labeled astrology . symmetry laws of the universe all natural laws are statistical laws, mathematical approximate reality, trial and error, which has betrayed certain of its qualities, barely enough to allow physicist to predict its behaviour. This implies that matter its fields and space are all interdependent parts of the whole. the relativity of parts to the whole means that any vantage point in the universe can be affected by the whole as well as affecting the whole. the universe is an energetic fabric which is dynamic, and all its parts relate to one another. libido psychic energy. some extracts thanks pages house of cards alice take care le carte da gioco di fama mondiale . carte t-care alice
So is his conclussion that based on the fact that" if a person has free will, then so do particles"? Given this premise, does he conclude that the uncertainty of quantum theory leads to humans having free will? The explanation given by the speed of light seemed too weak to be the base reasoning.
You are wrong: I can not explain my self in this little space but right now I'm giving a big load of support to the The Free Will Theorem. First of all, you need to read a lot of stuff in order to get a proper discussion on this topic.
The theorem only uses certain three properties, two of which have been verified experimentally and the third seems virtually certain. So the theorem will hold even if quantum mechanics is replaced by something completely different in the future.
Topically, this borders on nonsense. Is this philosophy, mathematics, or physics? The philosophy/theology of free will does not concern itself with whether particles have free will. Math can be axiomatic; we can assume free will or not, and we can see what math flows from the axiom. Physics, presumably, concerns itself with reality: Is there free will? The same is true for those who follow Sam Harris: Does the neurobiology support the idea that there is free will? Unfortunately, the brain is a complex and chaotic system; calculating whether decisions are deterministic or due to free will will always be beyond primary observational and computational capacity. Further, the Uncertainty Principle guarantees that the truly exact measurements needed to establish the initial conditions of a chaotic system can never be obtained. In short, you're on you own as to whether there is free will. I would define free will as a spiritual/non-material/metaphysical "thing" that has the power to act upon the material world/universe. As such, it can NOT be observed; otherwise, it WOULD be subject to science, and not spiritual. So, we see why we cannot see "the thumbprint of God" - we can't even see our own! I assume physics detests theories based on elegant mathematics, but which can never be tested by experimentation. So it is with free will. Mathematically, we assume a background of determinism: If the one or more people with free will do not exercise their free will, then we assume that things will proceed "in the normal fashion." The free will assumption is that the "normal fashion" can somehow be disrupted by the free will actor. Accordingly, the mathematical model for free will is: "The universe is deterministic, except when it isn't." You could probably prove anything with that kind of logic. Who wants pie?
Tim Ross You’re right on target, thank you for your contribution here. Sadly, physicists and mathematicians usually make terrible philosophers, especially these days, and they don’t like to have it pointed out.
Tim Ross, I agree that this talk was not sensible or coherent. It seems that John Conway believes that everything in the brain is determined and controlled by the elementary particles of which it is composed. He just doesn't think the particles themselves are necessarily determined, which would break the causal chain on which Determinists hang their whole position. I appreciate that you took a stand and defined what you mean by free will. I personally think that this definition is counterproductive. I am a materialist so I don't see any need to postulate immaterial things to explain a natural process. The short answer is that Determinists are confused about how cause and effect work. We don't live in a "clockwork" universe where one cause is assigned to each effect in a single chain back to the Big Bang. This illusion seems to be supported by the fact that when you look backwards, you naturally see what seems to be a single path. This doesn't mean that there is a single path forward, just that after a thing has happened, all other options are gone, but that doesn't mean that they weren't there in the first place.
if you mentioned Sam Harris - you should also mention his main premise which is not only that "Free will" as commonly defined/used does not exist, it ALSO does not even have a coherent meaning. it doesn't MEAN anything to say X has free will. It is a non-nonsensical expression. What isn't determined (or "caused") is by definition - random - random in the sense that any value (within the range of possibilities) could arise (perhaps with a non-uniform distribution) - and there's (by definition) NOTHING that would make it this specific value or other --- it just IS some arbitrary value. there's nothing "in between" --- and it doesn't matter if the agents involved are "material" or even something else. whatever it is - it either has some clear mechanism that produces the values, or there is no mechanism and they are random. if a so-called "soul" produces these values but this "soul" doesn't act according to some clear mechanism --- but cant spew out any value, and isn't just unpredictable but UNDETERMINED (i.e. it is meaningless to ask what "caused" a value to be chosen) ---- then it is indistinguishable from pure randomness. And saying that "random dice" are the supposed way in which humans exert any kind of "free will" is nonsensical and hardly what people mean when they refer to free will. People don't mean to say that humans are free to make random choices. They mean to say that people can make WELL DEFINED mechanistic choices (e.g. consider several options, weigh their pros and cons, employ prior knowledge, imagine possible futures, etc. and come up with some desired output) supposedly without those decisions having been determined by outside forces. which is of course, nonsense. no one chooses who to be. no one "chooses" or "creates" their own brain. our brains are the very thing we use to make choices or create things, yet we didn't choose or create our own. therefore, the ultimate source of ALL of a person's brain is external to that brain, hence - the ultimate source of all of a person's (or a robot's, or a rabbit's) decisions are - external to them. Either in their present, or in their past.
You can’t derive free will from a material reductionist perspective. Free will would transcend the material world and be more linked to something like soul.
I think he really shouldn’t step out of his professional field. His second time around argument about movie doesn’t make sense at all. Of course the movie is predetermined for the friend who haven’t watched it. 😅
So you can't prove we have free will? And so you have it. There is no such thing as free will. He's playing with semantics. A brilliant mathmatician, not so much of a philosopher. Furthermore our science and math relates to our 3 dimensional reality. Imagine what we would observe and how our theories would change using a 4,5,6,7,8,... dimensional model. The limitations of our math is that it relates mostly to a 3 dimensional modeled reality. The impossibilities and limits of our science relates mostly to our 3rd dimensional reality. I suppose someone should create a 6 dimensional model then experiment.
Mathematics is in most cases extremely general, meaning that in the case of dimensions, many results deal with an arbitrary number of dimensions. I would perhaps rephrase your statement to say that physics and other sciences might be limited to a 3-dimensional model, but math certainly is not.
yes, I wrote that statement too hastily. Admittedly, it is filled with grammatical and conceptual errors. I feel he is going against both his intuition and all that he has proven to be correct regarding his work on surreal numbers. What he has been able to prove is that there are an infinite number of expressions within a seemingly infinite number of expressions. And to be able to pinpoint any particular point on that series as to definitively define and identify a cause and its accompanying effect seems to need a superhuman effort. The sheer number of numerical values seem to make this impossible. How can anyone definitively calculate such a vast array of numeric potentialities? I.e "Free will"? Free will is lost in the infinite. Belongs only to the infinite. Not mere mortals. At worse, his work on surreal numbers proves mathmatically that free will is impossible. But it sometimes happen that we humans make discoveries that seem to betray our definition of the human experience and we resist our newfound knowledge. Why, because it then makes the world both sane and comfortable, again.
1. He didn't say he can't prove free will. He said their theorem doesn't disprove determinism. 2. A theorem in mathematics is not just an argument designed to convince people, but it is an irrefutable logical consequence. One's skepticism does not nullify the mathematical argument (unless there was a human error in the proof). 3. Surreal numbers have nothing to do with his argument about free will (unless someone ties the two together, which I doubt will happen). 4. The surreal numbers are concrete mathematical objects and the explicit construction can be given. 5. Even if your concerns about surreal numbers were valid, this in no ways discredit the free will theorem just because it was given by the same person (or a group of people which includes the person). Prescription: Read the proof and find an error if there is any. 1. If you succeed, you will be remembered for it. 2. Otherwise, you will have convinced yourself of the theorem, provided that the process terminates.
Neutral Criticism I hear ya. But you must admit that my theory is at least an interesting perspective. Could it proven? Maybe, maybe not. But we must always challenge and ask questions. This is what has brought us far as a species. I certainly have gaven Conway food for thought if he were to ever read my idea. He would at least find it worthy of debate.
Pragmatic Insight By convention, we call the result, of the mental process of choosing what we will do, a “freely chosen will”, or simply “free will”. The word “free” means that the choice was our own, as opposed to a choice imposed upon us by external coercion or some other undue influence. In all cases of a freely chosen will, two facts are simultaneously true: (A) We have made our choice according to our own purpose and our own reasons, therefore it was made of our own free will. (B) We have made our choice according to our own purpose and our own reasons, therefore it was causally determined.
However, we didn't choose our purpose or our reasons. We didn't "choose who to be", so to speak. You are who you find yourself to be --- based on genes, education, random encounters, etc. No one chooses who to be "born", to make choices requires you to be someone to begin with. Therefore, in a very fundamental sense, no one is *ultimately* "free", since who they would be (which will determine their choices) , was not chosen by them but forced upon them by the laws of causality and by external forces which preceded our birth and accompanied every step of our lives - shaping our brain to what it is.
@@Klayhamn Well, there's no such thing as "absolute" freedom, of course. There are at least three impossible freedoms: "freedom from cause and effect", "freedom from oneself", and "freedom from reality". And, because such freedoms are impossible, no use of the terms "free" or "freedom" can ever be taken to imply any one of them. Because they cannot, they do not. Take "free will" for example. Free will is when we decide for ourselves what we will do while "free from coercion and other undue influences". Our decision is not free from cause and effect because it is reliably caused by our purposes and reasons. Our decision is not free from ourselves, because, well, then it would be someone else's decision. Our decision cannot be free from reality because then it would not be our will, but only our wish. So, fortunately, none of those three impossible freedoms are required by free will. And most ordinary people intuitively understand that free will is just a choice free from undue influences. That's all it ever was, and all it ever needs to be. The rather odd thing is why anyone would think that free will implied "freedom from causation" in the first place. I address that here: marvinedwards.me/2019/03/08/free-will-whats-wrong-and-how-to-fix-it/
@@marvinedwards737 “Well, there’s no such thing as “absolute” freedom, of course. There are at least three impossible freedoms: … And, because such freedoms are impossible, no use of the terms “free” or “freedom” can ever be taken to imply any one of them. Because they cannot, they do not… So fortunately, none of these three impossible freedoms are required by free will. And most people intuitively understand understand that free will is just a choice free from undue influence.” “Undue influence is any extraordinary condition that effectively removes a person’s control of their choice.” What greater influence is there than the laws of nature? The universe doesn’t need police to make sure that everything follows it’s laws to the exact letter. What is a “choice”? That implies a will behind it. So what is this “will”? Well, it would come from a mind. So what’s that? The mind would simply be an abstraction of the processes that happen in the brain. So what makes the brain special? It’s made of the same stuff that everything else is. Therefore, if we can have free will, then so can anything else. And therefore, everything has free will, even elementary particles, even using your own premises. “The rather odd thing is why anyone would think that free will implied “freedom from causation””
@@biblebot3947 what on earth is that supposed to mean? If causation then there’s no free will. There is no panpsychism because our differential equations are predictive of change, even nonlinearity, chaos is deterministic and predictable theoretically given enough compute. Particles and their indeterminism doesn’t effect the predictive power of quantum mechanics does it. There is no transitive relationship such that unpredictable particles create free will it’s just a nonsense.
There's a very good chance I'm misunderstanding something here, but isn't the motivation for using MIN rather than FIN because he finds it easier to presume we have free will instead of proving the speed of light limitation from sufficiently testable hypotheses? N. David Mermin's Relativity Without Light proves it from simple testable postulates on the degree to which the universe is invariant (I'm stating that imprecisely. I interviewed Mermin about it prior to writing a thesis on this subject back in 2003. His paper was beyond me, so I interviewed him personally to make sure the conclusions I was reaching from it were accurate but I can't state today what those conclusions were from memory.) Given how common the view is today that we have no free will, it seems to me that Mermin's postulates are a far better way to ground your theory.
This is all very good and interesting but isn't this sort of free will, defined in that way, rather meaningless? He's extracting "choice" out of indetermenism. For me, even if you're free of total determinism, as long as you're travelling between those 2 poles of indeterminism and determinism, there is nothing will there. Either it was determined, or it wasn't but the result was just totally random, you had no "choice" in it
Max What is the difference between random and free choice? Random is what appears to lack a pattern to tjr external observer, while free choice is the internal feeling of “willfully choosing that choice, out of many possibilities”. In other words they could be two angles of looking at the same phenomenon.
If I ask you to give me a series of 1s and 0s using your free will but was able to always predict them then you would have no free will as your choices were predetermined. If you have free will then these numbers could not be predetermined, they would in essence be random. Your ability to choose something that isn't predetermined is the same as having the ability to, for that choice, make a random/probabilistic choice.
@@ElectricQualia Simply, choice must be a rational even when it seems it might not to be, because to be meaningful it must be constrained by circumstance, how is it choice otherwise. There is no "free choice" because randomness. Would it even be free will if it were. Neither can non determinism at the quantum level produce freewill, or vice versa. These particles aren't “willfully choosing that choice, out of many possibilities”, because of human freewill unless panpsychism. Surely “willfully choosing that choice, out of many possibilities” should be called the human condition and is produced by consciousness, otherwise known as not knowing a lot about the universe and therefore the future. However, even if particles are non deterministic does it follow that we are? What is the mechanism, and ironically is there were a mechanism would it be non-deterministic. Its strange when someone you admire like John Conway, who invented something you follow: CA, says something that doesn't seem to pass muster. Essential it's not possible to design an experiment for this stuff. I did laugh at the dropping of the book though - honestly even a bit of Bayesian modeling might have predicted that stunt. I briefly imagined him saying "poo" "randomly" then taking a step back to say "I bet you couldn't have predicted that". He was a very clever man and the world is lesser for his untimely passing.
@@benjones1452 Rational? You mean, the "free will" ought to, at least in some way probabilistically, satisfy a determined(!) optimization? Hmmmm... Because then, congratulations, the brain works via Markow chains, which are implicitly given by the weightings of synaptic inputs and superpositioned in perycarion depolarization, and it exactly seeks to establish a stochastic process to recursively maintain constructive methods (nutrition, novelty seeking, occupation). It is just the particular choice (math/construction/art/law/athletics) which is quasi-random.
I think Conway needs to sit down and have a long talk with a Logical Positivist. He would never think of doing set Theory Problems without having laid out what is an axiom and what is derived, but in this case he is using the phrase „free will“ without having had it taken apart linguistically/semantically first to really state what he specifically means by that Phrase. Unfortunately he doesn’t do that. In fact I have the feeling that he uses the phrase to mean different things at different times as his argument develops.
Exactly. The main problem with free will is the difficulty of even defining what it means. He seems to imply that by saying that he proved atoms have free will- a claim that makes no sense in the traditional free will debate.
@Ummer Farooq I think that perspective is completely mistaken. First of all there is no reason to believe any "mind" outside of your brain exists, as every experiment indicates that there is no part of your personality that cannot be manipulated by altering your brain. At the very least your mind is completely dependent on the physical state of your brain. Second, factorials and non-logicist maths no more represent how the universe works than a work of fiction could be assumed to. Almost no maths are descriptive of or have any correlation to the physical world. Thirdly, even your idea of conceptualizing free will as a factorial misses the main critique of free will- time and causation. How did the "atom" come to have free will in any instance? It can't very well will its will, and it did not choose to start there (or wherever you want to begin).
you've missed my point. Brain and mind are not interchangeable terms in philosophy. There is no reason to believe that your mind exists. What you call intelligence is the function of your brain (your nerves are connected to your brain and spinal cord- which is a good point you mention. Some of your "decisions" never even reach your brain, because your spine is programmed to make them quite predictably before you even know you have "chosen" them). If your skull were opened up, a knowledgeable neurosurgeon could disconnect parts of your brain that would change your personality in predictable ways. Things you imagine to be controlled outside of the physical body are not. Your choice to graph imaginary ideas is not proof of "free will" unless you can explain how you overcame all the causations that brought you to that point of the neurons firing in your brain in a non-deterministic fashion. It is easy to assume that none of your thoughts are the effects of external causes, until you have to explain why there is no evidence for any entities that exist without known causation chains in your brain. You are assuming that everything you do is free because you are free, but how could you possibly exist in freedom? 'You' have to occupy a state right now. That state has to have been caused by something. You can't claim to have caused yourself or you are in an endless loop with no solution--not a solution that you ultimately cause your current state. The very idea literally contradicts every logic. And I am not the same thing as my name, so yes, all names are fiction. They have nothing to do with the physical world, or at least no more than other abstract ideas which have been created, like math, or like an image generated on a computer that does not at all represent its actual physical relationship to the hardware of the physical computer, which is only the lines of code stored in its memory.
@Ummer Farooq no, I've never heard anyone describe the mind body problem as a problem of transferring memory, and that is nothing close to a proof. If you are going to claim to have a proof in philosophy you will need to make some attempt to outline the logic of your argument. The traditional definition of "mind" is logically irrelevant in a philosophical context, where the meaning of the term is more specific. Google: "mind-body problem" "arguments against dualism" or "determinism" if you want learn more about the topic. I believe in things that I have reasons to believe in. I don't believe in ideas we make up to explain how we are in control of things we do not appear to be in control of. Just because we feel like we have and wish that we have some inexplicable freedom from the cause and effect that describes everything else we know in the world does not make that true.
GR isn't about the speed of information, it's about the speed of energy. transmission of energy is the source of causality, and it's also the only way to measure time, thus limitations on the transmission of energy put limitations on both causality and the flow rate of time. this is not the case for information, however. while it is a strong trend that information is conveyed along with energy, and in all computing devices we utilize the transmission of energy to transmit information (because we want that information to have causal effects), we know for a fact that information does not have a speed limit because we can observe that it doesn't via entanglement. the information transmitted via entanglement does no work because it is not associated with a transmission of energy, but it is (instantaneously) transmitted information nonetheless.
"According to some interpretations of quantum mechanics, the effect of one measurement occurs instantly. Other interpretations which don't recognize wavefunction collapse dispute that there is any "effect" at all. However, all interpretations agree that entanglement produces correlation between the measurements and that the mutual information between the entangled particles can be exploited, but that any transmission of information at faster-than-light speeds is impossible." This excerpt, in particular the second sentence, appears to contradict your conclusion entirely. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement
@@willhastings731 I am familiar with the fact that my conclusions are not popular. In fact I've never heard anyone say them apart from me. Yet, when I look at the math and the logic surrounding it I find my conclusion absolutely inescapable. It's also worth noting that nobody understands QM, so trying to dispute my interpretation based on argumentum ad populum is absurd on the face of it.
imagine a space wherein you have two particles floating around that cannot interact with each other. but this is your entire system. there is no causality within this system yet there is existence.
If you get rid of the term "Free Will" and replace it with a term with less philosophical baggage such as "degrees of freedom" then this view seems quite trivial. The possible states of the particle(s) is counterfactually dependent on the way in which the measurer chooses to measure the particle system. Everyone in physics knows this.
That's not what the theorem says. It says that if the measurer's choice does not depend on any event in the measurer's past light cone, neither does the particle's in its past light cone.
@@danzigvssartre I simply pointed out that your original question missed the point. I'm not saying this point represents free will to everyone's satisfaction, only that it looked to me you misunderstood Conway's definition/abstraction of the concept. Namely, it's not just a question of the degrees of freedom.
@@JanPBtest It's a long time since I watched and commented on this video. All I can say is that every physicist now knows, after the Alain Aspect experiment, that no classical signal could mediate entanglements, as no signal can travel faster than light Therefore, the fact that the choice does not depend on the past light cone seems trivially true. Honestly, I don't understand my comment now. I state that quantum states are counterfactually dependent on the measurements, which to me, seems pretty close to saying that this is evidence for something like Free Will. I would need to watch the video again to contextualise my comment or maybe my opinion has changed. I don't know.
@@JanPBtest The particles light cone is fully dependent of the past cone. The only problem that exists is that we cannot know the complete past light cone.
The theorm is concrete. It was experimentally proven in 2016. arxiv.org/abs/1603.08254 The only way someone can be self centered is if they don't accept scientific research based on their own biases.
@@4subvoid4 I apologize if I offended u . Some theories might seem self centered. But there is a huge difference between our personal assumptions , biases and objective reality. If u cannot give up your prejudices for the sake of science. Well , we dont need u. Science doesn't need emotions.
@@4subvoid4I feel sorry to repeat this. But if you cannot question your own emotional biases and prefer philosophers over actual scientists, then you dont deserve to sit in discussions of scientific reality. Conway was a genius. The mathematical and scientific contributions of John Conway and Simon kochen wete immense. I think what would he say if he saw that people tend to believe philosophy over scientific facts. Hmmmmm, weird.
@@soapprice6494 Lol ... you are funny ... "self centered theories" ... you invent as you write and try to connect to my original comment ... like a AI chat bot :-)
