Kkwan, dear oh dear as soon as I unblock you I have to unravel this mess. Still it was an interesting link if ultimately useless.
From this article HERE
Why go to secondary sources when you could go to the primary literature?
A theorem recently propounded by Princeton mathematicians John Conway (who invented the famous Game of Life) and Simon Kochen (one of the originators of the Kochen-Specker paradox of quantum mechanics) supports a powerful challenge to the scientific credentials of determinism, by showing that two cornerstones of contemporary science, namely acceptance of the scientific method as a reliable way of finding out about the world, and relativity theory’s exclusion of faster-than-light transmission of information, together conflict with determinism, in both its versions. Belief in determinism may thus come to be seen as notably unscientific.
The following is not an argument by either Conway or Kochen!!!! It was very misleading to post it the way you did.
However, as I have argued in various publications, there are other reasons for believing in free will associated with rational conscious decisions and actions; and refutation of determinism supports an argument that the physical world is not closed to influences from rational conscious processes, and thus that there is ‘room’ for free will.
And what was before the “however” lurkers might be wondering?? Here it is:
“Recognition that the Conway-Kochen theorem makes it unscientific to accept determinism would not directly support free will. Quantum mechanics treats the indeterminism involved in the results of such measurements as being random within probability parameters specified by the mathematics; and as has often been pointed out, randomness is inimical to free will rather than supportive of it.”[My emphasis]
And room for free will is found in downward causation of biological systems of which human free will is the epitome.
There is nothing in this paper to remotely indicate any such thing neither “downward causation” nor “biological system” are discussed in this paper! It was deeply misleading, given just this paper, to imply that is what Conway was arguing for. Almost libellous I would say.
So what is the relation of this paper to free will? Even the author, who is a free will advocate, admits that:
“Although the authors called their theorem the free will theorem, it does not actually either depend on any assumption of free will as generally understood, or directly support any conclusion about free will. “
It was an argument in physics, arguably going beyond the Bell inequalities demonstrated by Aspect that refuted EPR. It was a new piece of work to do with quantum indeterminism combining quantum mechanical and special relativity axioms. Unlike Bell by Aspect, it has not been experimentally verified. One would need to have a twin labs on the Moon and Earth to do so (as suggested by the original authors)!
Kkwan is back on my block list.