It is argued that the Strong Free Will Theorem (Conway-Kochen) does not prove nonlocal determinism wrong. This is done by the before-before (Suarez-Scarani) experiment, which is used here to prove the following General Free Will Theorem: If humans have a certain amount of free will, there are other free beings outside space-time producing nonlocal effects in our world, which are both random and lawful.
It is argued that the Strong Free Will Theorem (Conway-Kochen) does not prove nonlocal determinism wrong. This is done by the before-before (Suarez-Scarani) experiment, which is used here to prove the following General Free Will Theorem: If humans have a certain amount of free will, there are other free beings outside space-time producing nonlocal effects in our world, which are both random and lawful.
Conway and Kochen have presented a "free will theorem" (Notices of the AMS 56, pgs. 226-232 (2009)) which they claim shows that "if indeed we humans have free will, then [so do] elementary particles." In a more precise fashion, they claim it shows that for certain quantum experiments in which the experimenters can choose between several options, no deterministic or stochastic model can account for the observed outcomes without violating a condition "MIN" motivated by relativistic symmetry. We point out that for stochastic models this conclusion is not correct, while for deterministic models it is not new.
I begin with description of quantum entanglement and its relevance to the EPR-type experiments, which played a decisive role in rejecting determinism and hidden-variable theories. Thereby I prove the closely-related Kochen-Specker paradox, on which also the main object of my paper, the recently published Conway and Kochen’s Free Will Theorem, is founded. It is being shown there, on the basis of three physical axioms, following from the special theory of relativity and quantum mechanics, that if the choice for a particular type of spin 1 experiment is not a function of the information accessible to the experimenters, then its outcome is equally not a function of the information accessible to the particles. Therefor the response of the particles can be seen as free. In conclusion I mention some critical remarks on the theorem, expressed in subsequent responses to the original article.
Introduction The two theories that revolutionized physics in the twentieth century, relativity and quantum mechanics, are full of predictions that defy common sense. Recently, we used three such paradoxical ideas to prove “The Free Will Theorem” (strengthened here), which is the culmination of a series of theorems about quantum mechanics that began in the 1960s. It asserts, roughly, that if indeed we humans have free will, then elementary particles already have their own small share of this valuable commodity. 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. Our argument combines the well-known consequence of relativity theory, that the time order of spacelike separated events is not absolute, with the EPR paradox discovered by Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen in 1935 and the Kochen–Specker Paradox of 1967 (see [5]). We follow Bohm in using a spin version of EPR and Peres in using his set of thirty-three directions, rather than the original configuration used by Kochen and Specker. More contentiously, the argument also involves the notion of free will, but we postpone further discussion of this to the last section of the chapter.
The title refers to the Free Will Theorem by Conway and Kochen whose flashy formulation is: if experimenters possess free will, then so do particles. In more modest terms, the theorem says that individual pairs of spacelike separated particles cannot be described by deterministic systems provided their mixture is the same for all choices of measurement settings. We reformulate and generalize the Free Will Theorem theorem in terms of systems of random variables, and show that the proof is based on two observations: (1) some compound systems are contextual (non-local), and (2) any deterministic system with spacelike separated components is non-signaling. The contradiction between the two is obtained by showing that a mixture of non-signaling deterministic systems, if they exist, is always noncontextual. The "experimenters' free will" (independence) assumption is not needed for the proof: it is made redundant by the assumption (1) above, critical for the proof. We next argue that the reason why an individual pair of particles is not described by a deterministic system is more elementary than in the Free Will Theorem. A system, contextual or not and deterministic or not, includes several choices of settings, each of which can be factually used without changing the system. An individual pair of particles can only afford a single realization of random variables for a single choice of settings. With this conceptualization, the "free will of experimenters" cannot be even meaningfully formulated, and the choice between the determinism and "free will of particles" becomes arbitrary and inconsequential.
The concept of 'super-indeterminism' captures the notion that the free choice assumption of orthodox quantum mechanics necessitates only the following requirement: an agent's free-choice performance in the selection of measurement settings must not represent an exception to the rule of irreducible quantum indeterminism in the physical universe (i.e, "universal indeterminism"). Any additional metaphysical speculation, such as to whether quantum indeterminism, i.e., intrinsic randomness, implicates the reality of experimenter "freedom", "free will", or "free choice", is redundant in relation to the predictive success of orthodox quantum mechanics. Accordingly, super-indeterminism views as redundant also, from a technical standpoint, whether an affirmative or a negative answer is claimed in reference to universal indeterminism as a necessary precondition for experimenter freedom. Super-indeterminism accounts, for example, for the circular reasoning which is implicit in the free will theorem by Conway and Kochen [1,2]. The concept of super-indeterminism is of great assistance in clarifying the often misunderstood meaning of the concept of "free variables" as used by John Bell [3]. The present work argues that Bell sought an operational, effective free will theorem , one based upon the notion of "determinism without predetermination", i.e., one wherein "free variables" represent universally uncomputable variables. In conclusion, the standard interpretation of quantum theory does not answer, and does not need to answer in order to ensure the predictive success of orthodox theory, the question of whether either incompatibilism or compatibilism is valid in relation to free-will metaphysics and to the free-will phenomenology of experimenter agents in quantum mechanics.