Their thesis is that if Humans have free will so do elementary particles (in a defined respect).
Anyone know much more on this? -- Does this relate to the theory that everything was predefined at the big bang - e.g. a big random number was generated and everything since then has simply been cause and effect? Or is it on another tack?
Although I'm not a particle physicist, if I remember well what I read about it, this very demonstration proves that there is no predetermined hidden variable revealed by observation.
"More precisely, if the experimenter
can freely choose the directions in which to orient his apparatus in a certain measurement,
then the particle’s response (to be pedantic – the universe’s response near the particle) is not
determined by the entire previous history of the universe."
Based on this article, there isn't enough information to answer your question. The authors are clearly aware of quantum theory and you'd have to dig in deeper.
It is generally accepted that quantum events are "truly random", so the random number generation is ongoing. The standard proof of this is Bell's theorem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_Theorem ), but I feel a deeper understanding of the theorem shows rather that it constrains what hidden variables could exist and that the conventional understanding is impossible, not that hidden variables in all senses are completely impossible. (Still, the hidden variables people were "hoping" for are impossible; if there are hidden variables they will be undeniably "quantum".)
"I feel a deeper understanding of the theorem shows rather that it constrains what hidden variables could exist and that the conventional understanding is impossible, not that hidden variables in all senses are completely impossible."
That was my conclusion too: I've been meaning to write about it, but time constraints keep getting in the way.
The thing I like about the Free Will theorem is that it highlights the importance of the experimenter's choice, as opposed to in Bell's theorem, where demonstrations mostly take this as given. There's room for 'hidden variables' of a certain type in the decision making process of the experimenter and the state and process of the measurement apparatus. Having blind faith that important state is located there is perhaps unwise, and certainly it is hard to demonstrate, but assuming that the experimenters are entirely un-entangled and uninfluenced causally, that there's no interesting modified state in the experimenters or measurement apparatus at all, would, to my mind, also be a mistake.
Well there was nothing and there became something.
If we take the cause and effect theory which clearly conforms to the evolutionary theory then logicaly we are able to so rewind the cause and effect to a point where there was nothing. Hence, if there is no choice but only predetermined causes, what predetermined something from nothing?
I do not know. You may be right. That's metaphysics. In practise you can't even tell whether the universe is like a movie or a computer game.
I.e. a movie on a film reel consists of frames that are created once and when you watch it looks like a coherent story --- but when you paint over some frames at the beginning, it has no effect on any other frame.
Whereas when you manipulate the state in a computer game --- say, give Super Mario that mushroom --- you change everything that comes later.
And for that straw man theory of causality: You can just exchange it for a theory that postulates a cause for everything _but_ the Big Bang.
(By the way, I do not believe in causality. At least not the kind of mono-causality exhibited in human storystelling, esp. stock market commentators on TV. Strangely I still manage to believe in determinism.)
Anyone know much more on this? -- Does this relate to the theory that everything was predefined at the big bang - e.g. a big random number was generated and everything since then has simply been cause and effect? Or is it on another tack?