On the Campus Free will for particles

Mark Kaplowitz '95 Says:

2009-07-21 14:00:24

I'm about to start watching the videos, and chances are that they will leave me with more questions than answers. Does anyone have any suggestions for those who want to read more about Conway and Kochen's theory? Are there any critiques of the theory that we should also keep in mind as we begin to watch the series of lectures?

Donald Tschudy '48 Says:

2009-07-21 14:02:12

Are the Conway lectures available for purchase on DVD? If so, how much for the whole series?

Gregg Lange '70 Says:

2009-07-22 11:20:18

Here's one commentary with some good points, plus attached comments http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/35391/title/Math_Trek__Do_subatomic_particles_have_free_will%3F Here's the professors' new writeup of their strengthened theorem (with MIN substituted for FIN) with citations of others' comments http://www.ams.org/notices/200902/rtx090200226p.pdf

Geoff Canyon Says:

2009-07-28 17:50:52

I haven't watched the lectures yet -- I'm curious to see what Conway's conclusion is. But it seems to me fairly clear that there is no such thing as free will as we perceive it -- just a very very good simulation of it. I wrote about this several months ago: http://gcanyon.wordpress.com/2009/02/23/the-illusion-of-free-will/

Jim Newcomer Says:

2009-07-29 04:31:46

What is my problem? It's 1:30 in the morning, and I'm still trying to watch the first lecture. I am getting it in 30-second bites and then waiting while more loads. I get other movies just fine. Is there something I should do? (I downloaded the new Flashplayer for Mac, and it changed nothing - that I could see.)

Dan Says:

2009-08-01 12:16:14

The greatest evidence against determinism is that the more we believe in it the more our lives circle around the drain hole and the less we believe in it the more peculiar we appear for fighting the current.

Jeanette Leuers Says:

2009-10-26 09:30:10

I've watched a couple of the lectures twice, having had no previous 'lecture' experience of this kind, (since circa '60s). I found Conway quaint and funny, and think, maybe, I'll gradually get to understand clearly what he and Kochen are talking about when I've seen all the lectures 3 times each. *Many* thanks to Princeton.edu for putting these (and many other) lectures online. Wonderful stuff, guys!

Paul Mason Says:

2009-11-06 05:14:07

I am also getting very broken up play on my Mac. Could you please suggest a fix.

Don Carey '51 Says:

2009-11-09 13:56:40

Are transcripts available?

John Waterman Says:

2010-01-29 08:54:45

These are also available through iTunes U. Just search Conway

David Hawkins Says:

2010-11-15 09:29:04

Conway seems like a really nice guy, but I think he could benefit from hearing a lecture by a 20-year-old philosophy student. I did very much like a few of his analogies at the beginning of the lecture though. His choice of words was often confusing and his ideas seemed ambiguous. I know next to nothing about determinism, but I recently watched a lecture by Daniel Dennett that was far easier to understand. Dennett is a compatiblist. Here is a link if anyone is interested... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKLAbWFCh1E&feature=&p=549B3C8A424F7D8B&index=0&playnext=1

Robin Wison Says:

2011-04-04 09:34:08

Conway is a wonderful mathematician, but there's a deep problem to this sort of thing. People somteimes say that Saint Anselm proved that God exists. However, what he really did was prove that IF you set up a language framed in a particular way, THEN within that framework it is meaningless to speak of God as not existing. But that says nothing about God because the question of his existence cannot depend on the rules we choose for langauge. Centuries later, A.J. Ayer came along and made a similarly limited contribution. He showed that he could frame a language so that it was meaningless to speak of God as existing. What Conway and Kochen are doing is showing that IF you frame a language (or a notation, or a calculus) in a particular way THEN even a neutrino must have free will. That is a statement that makes sense WITHIN their chosen framework. But most of us actually LIVE elsewhere. They are mistaking their particular description of the world for the world itself. It may not be true or meaningful in the real world. God probably doesn't care about our choice of language, anymore than a neutrino does.

Leonardo F. Olsnes-Lea Says:

2011-07-14 09:25:08

My opinions on the Free Will Theorem: I think it requires complexity of heavier bodies of matter for free will to obtain. The Wikipedia page has a criticism of them as a part of presenting the Free Will Theorem. The url to it is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will_theorem. Fx. a stream of photons of visible light can only do that much when speeding away from the Sun. There is no evidence that the stream of photons can change anything in particular, let's say direction, compensating for some gravity. See Einstein's relativity for gravity effects on photons. Also, complexity should be required for the decision for choosing between pleasure and relaxation and exercise and feeding and hunt. Although, these properties are only present with animals and ourselves, the humans. So unless a bigger body is chosen and the choices are somehow explicated, I think "undetermined" is too weak for giving any plausibility to it, or credibility for that matter. I think, though, that the Dr. Dick Bierman experiments of Holland show that "monades" are likely to obtain in a fundamental way, in line with the Free Will Theorem by John Conway and Simon Kochen, rather than an unknown mechanism that may be impossible to find. This is a warning to future experimenters (the physicists). The conclusion must be that a bigger system is effectuating the free will existing everywhere, whether you call it God or some strange unknown super entity of the Universe / Multiverse or whatever. A note may be added for where this significant free will enter the "Earth's System." I think one can evaluate the whole span from organisms (with genes) to organisms with brains and sensing organs like eyes, ears, nose, tongue. In addition, you may cut the brainy sensing organisms in two by the (classic) mirror test. All in all, all these beings can or should be investigated for what degrees they "step out of" a bound chain of events to display free will, in little or greater degrees.