Rounin

From the paper:

1. "It follows that we cannot prove our Free Will assumption – determinism, like solipsism, is logically possible."

So not a proof of free will.

2. "Although we find ourselves unable to give an operational definition of either “free” or “random,” we have managed to distinguish between them in our context, because free behavior can be twinned, while random behavior cannot (a remark that might also interest some philosphers of free will)."

I stand corrected. This IS a meaningful distinction from pure randomness, after all, as entangled particles don't behave randomly with respect to each other. Though I still disagree with the name "free will", as that makes it sound as if there's a conscious will behind it, which the authors make it clear that they don't claim.

How about "proceeding, made, or occurring without definite aim, reason, or pattern". From https://www.dictionary.com/browse/random .

As far a I can tell from the article, Conway doesn't prove the existence of free will at all, not even attempt to do so. Instead he explores what the implications of free will would be if it exists.

And despite the claim to the contrary, his definition of "free will" isn't appreciably different from randomness, only he uses the word "randomness" to mean pseudorandomness, so he sticks the term "free will" on true randomness.

An interesting contribution to quantum physics, presumably, but not a proof of free will.

It seems eerily reminiscent of those terrible passages in the Gospel of Matthew, where Jesus warns of those of those who "shall not be forgiven", "either in this age or in the age to come". https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+12:22-3... It's almost tempting to think that the author of that gospel knew about Mandaeism and put those passages in there specifically to discourage it.