I used to encourage reading the paper but @Alrenous linked me to a blog that makes it clearer https://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~jas/one/freewill-theorem.html …
-
-
okay yeah but it doesn't reduce to "refutes"
-
"the only way" vs. "does not rely" -> refutation
-
enh nah because it isn't speaking to the question pomo's assertion addresses at all, a many-worlds-derived free will would slot into the model as well as any other kind
-
I thought I had made this clear, but let me try again: It is sufficient to show that Many Worlds is not a /necessary/ predicate of Free Will.
-
no, you've just kept saying it, but because Conway's model doesn't say anything at all about where its free will comes from, it cannot do that because it is completely disjoint from the question
-
It shows that any interpretation of QM can have free will at the quantum level. That the interpretation is orthogonal to the question of free will.
-
OP claims that interpretation is /not/ orthogonal that it is compatible only with Many Worlds.
-
oh, i see the difficulty. you're just talking about different things. Conway's assertion that free will of collections of particles implies free will of particles holds under any QM interpretation. pomo is saying free will itself can only come from many-worlds
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.