Recently a preprint was released with the funny title “ Do Quantum Processor Robots Have the Freedom to Disobey? ”. The idea of the article is that a quantum processor is possibly a system that is complex enough for a consciousness with free will to arise inside it (yes, it sounds like science fiction).
Usually, all sorts of pseudoscientists write about the connection between quantum physics and consciousness, and the main message there is something like “thinking forms reality”, which simply follows from a wrong interpretation of the measurement problem . In general, I would have ignored this article if one of the authors was not the founder of the Google quantum lab, and if the article was not about, in fact, the Google quantum processor.
In addition, although it seems to me that quantum mechanics has nothing to do with free will, I think that one should look for arguments against their position. This is important to be able to change my mind in case I am wrong. Therefore, I decided to understand in more detail what is meant in this article.
Disclaimer: I believe that information about whether we have free will should have little or no influence on our actions. I am interested in the question of free will just out of curiosity, without practical value.
How is quantum mechanics related to free will?
Usually, free will means the ability to make choices regardless of the circumstances. In other words, this means that different decisions can be made in the same circumstances. In this article, I will use this definition (there are also less mainstream definitions such as compatibilism , but I will not touch on them). From the point of view of an external observer, such free will means that, knowing all external conditions, it is impossible to predict how the subject will behave.
What does this mean from a practical point of view?
: - ? , . , ( ) , . , , . .
, — . , , . , , - . - , , .
, - , , . : . : ?
, : — , , - , . .
, , ? . , ( , — ) . , “” , . , , , , .
, . , . , .. , , , . , , , ( ):
, , , (? ? ?) — !
, - .
(Knightian uncertainty) — . : , , , — . , ( , , , , ). — , , .
, Google , 100 (.. – ). , , . , .
, . , , , , 100 , 2100 . 2 , 20 . 3*109 . 47 , , 2020 . 100, 300, , , , .
, : , , . Google , - , , . , : ?
, , - . . , “ ” - , .
, , , , . , . , , , . :
?
. , , , . , ( , , ). , . , , , , . .
, , ?
— , , . . , .
?
. , , , . . , : ( ) , , , , , . , .
, . , - . , , . ? , , — , .
?
(, ) . : , . , -, .
, , . : , ( “ + ”).
, ( ) , , . “-” (Block Universe) — 4- - , “” . - . “ , ” , “ , ”. , “ , ” !
, - (, ), . , , , .
( , ), , ( - ) , . , , “” , , — . , — . , . , , , , , — . , — “” , , .
, , “” , - , — . , , .
, . , , , .. , , , .
, , , ( ). , .
, . :
. . , .
. , , .
, . . , - .
, , . , , .
, , . , , , . , , , , , . , , . , (.. ) — , , .
, — . , , , , , .
, , Google . , 100- .
Despite the fact that I disagree with the authors of the articles that I analyzed, I really enjoyed the process: I like the moments when I can rethink my picture of the world a little. I hope you enjoyed reading this text as well.