If the people who set up experiments have free will, then so do the elementary particles....

The paper is freely available here. (or is the free availability only an illusion ?)

twistor59 wrote:If the people who set up experiments have free will, then so do the elementary particles....

The paper is freely available here. (or is the free availability only an illusion ?)

This sounds to me like a conservation law for free will. Obviously doesn't apply to brain function.

Also, it is a circular argument to claim that there is no FW "because it's an illusion" when it was only considered to be an illusion in the first place on the assumption that we didn't have it. I'm talking biological FW (in the sense that Sam Harris attempted to deny we have, via a faulty neurology experiment), not religious FW.

I am looking forward to hear the precise, physical definition of "free will".
I can see only the first page of the paper, in which there isn't this definition.

Microfarad wrote:I am looking forward to hear the precise, physical definition of "free will".
I can see only the first page of the paper, in which there isn't this definition.

I had a quick look at the paper. Basically, it seems to argue that, in QM, particles have to make "decisions" (such as which direction to take after encountering slits, or whatever) and that it is therefore relevant to study whether they have FW, even though they admit that fundamental particles are not conscious. They seem to conclude that they do not know.
Personally, I suspect that they are not entirely serious. This is hinted at at various points, such as the mention of the construction of the Panama canal implying that "even the curvature of space is not determined"!

DavidMcC wrote:

Microfarad wrote:I am looking forward to hear the precise, physical definition of "free will".
I can see only the first page of the paper, in which there isn't this definition.

I had a quick look at the paper. Basically, it seems to argue that, in QM, particles have to make "decisions" (such as which direction to take after encountering slits, or whatever) and that it is therefore relevant to study whether they have FW, even though they admit that fundamental particles are not conscious. They seem to conclude that they do not know.
Personally, I suspect that they are not entirely serious. This is hinted at at various points, such as the mention of the construction of the Panama canal implying that "even the curvature of space is not determined"!

EDIT: I note that the paper was received by the journal on April 5th, 2006. Perhaps it was sent on April 1st?

DavidMcC wrote:EDIT: I note that the paper was received by the journal on April 5th, 2006. Perhaps it was sent on April 1st?

This explains everything.

Microfarad wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:EDIT: I note that the paper was received by the journal on April 5th, 2006. Perhaps it was sent on April 1st?

This explains everything.

It would be better if it were published on April 1 and submitted on April 5!!

Cito di Pense wrote:

Microfarad wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:EDIT: I note that the paper was received by the journal on April 5th, 2006. Perhaps it was sent on April 1st?

This explains everything.

It would be better if it were published on April 1 and submitted on April 5!!

Presumably as a special delivery, in a Tardis!

Cito di Pense wrote:

Microfarad wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:EDIT: I note that the paper was received by the journal on April 5th, 2006. Perhaps it was sent on April 1st?

This explains everything.

It would be better if it were published on April 1 and submitted on April 5!!

R-i-i-g-h-t! And free will requires time-travelling neurons, just like that nice Mr Harris proved. Innit so?