Re: The first scientific proof of free will (based on Conway &

On May 6, 10:07 pm, Oh No <N...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

You would argue incorrectly. In a quantum computer the process does not
need to go through a set sequence to produce a set result, and is
certainly not dynamical in any classical sense, but the result can still
be determinate.

As the authors show, it is possible to mathematically define quantum
computation solely via kinematical terms, thus avoiding considerations
of dynamics.

Also, here are two ideas I do not have much sense of yet, and perhaps
someone could shed some light on:

Conway and Kochen mathematically define free will so that it means non-
deterministic and non-random. Castagnoli himself just told me via
email that in his judgement it is this mathematical version of free
will that is driving his non-deterministic description of quantum
computation.

Physicists were shocked when they discovered in the 1920s that QM is
incomplete. Conway himself implies that my argument for free will
means that any potentially final or ultimate theory of physics must
also be incomplete. How would this implication pertain to quantum
computation?

.