Does Conway's Free Will Theorem imply the the universe has free will? or that we do not?

Question

Jim, I think if you read the theorem you will find it reads something like 'if the observer has free will, then so does the particle observed', but the circumstances are 'framed' a special way by Conway...I'm not especially concerned about the nature of what a theorem is & I think that by phrasing the question as I have it's 'fairly' clear that what I am getting @ is that there is a supplementary phrasing of what Conway says...that's all...

It seems a question worth 'throwing around' for, if nothing else, 'entertainment' purposes...

Scyth, is the 'fallacy' the 'dragging (of) a philosophic notion like free will' onto the stage? Are you of the opinion that QP/QT is something that is not on the 'philosophic' fringes of science... surely such a field deserves engagement any which way a Mathematics/Physics literate person wishes? ...& I've sincere doubts about the value of your brief statement on the nature of free will...

Sago clarifies the 'correctness' of my question...

Thanks (please find 'some irony' attached) =)!

Scyth, Conway's theorem is pure mathematics... & I am a trained Mathematician... & I don't believe that one can/should cordon off Math's from questions such as this... I think if you read the theorem, then you will find that Conway has treated your concerns...

Finally, if nothing else, I go w/ Rota on Math's exposition.. you speak/write as if Mathematics is something that must have a character that Logic has shown is either impossible or only possible by abandonment of 'standard models' that are not representative of what people claim &/or act as if representing..

Answer 1

neither... I would go directly to the source.
Conway is a great mathematics writer.
good luck! .

Answer 2

Jim has answered most of your question and has a good link. But it should be added that Conway's "Free Will Theorem" defines free will as something "not determined" by prior conditions. If we make the substitution and call it "Conway's Theorem of Things Not Determined By Prior Things", then it's an interesting statement about certain quantum phenomenon. The fallacy is dragging a philosophical notion like free will into a subject of quantum physics. Free will does not necessarily mean that you are totally unpredictable, it means that YOU feel free to exercise your decisions. For example, put a kid in front of a cookie. You and I and his mother all know that he'll probably reach for it, but that does not mean he won't reach for it out of his own volition.

Addendum: KV, did you see my answer posted in your OTHER place you've posted this question? As I have said, questions about free will belong in philosophy, not physics or mathematics, until it's sufficiently defined to be described mathematically. Conway clearly has failed to do this, or has made some strong presumptions that may not even apply to humans.

Answer 3

It does neither, based on the Wikipedia article I read.

According to the article:

IF the universe has free will, THEN so do elementary particles.

The rule for logical implications like this is that they are true unless the hypothesis is true and the conclusion is false.

So if elementary particles don't have free will, according to the theorem, we can conclude that neither does the universe. (This is called the contrapositive: "If a, then b" is true if and only if "If not b, then not a" is also true.

If, however, elementary particles DO have free will, then the universe might or might not have free will. Either way, the theorem would be true.

That's how I read it.

Answer 4

I've answered KV's question elsewhere, but just wanted to correct previous answerers.

Conway's theory is 'observer has free will' implies 'particles have free will' (and not the more obvious reverse!).

Because:

A implies B == not A or B

the theory is equivalent to:

'observers don't have free will' or 'particles have free will'.

So KV's quesion was correct, assuming one allows KV's transposition of 'the universe' for 'elementary particles', of course.