Conway finished by saying that he believes the converse of what he's proved, i.e. that if people have free will, then it is because particles have free will.  But, he says, he still has some work to do to prove that.  It sounds nice, though, doesn't it?

NPR, Morning Edition, October 18, 2004
  At 28, Manjul Bhargava has already won a coveted full professorship at Princeton University. An expert in number theory, the study of the properties and relationships of numbers, Bhargava is also a master of the tabla, a small Indian hand drum used to create music with rhythmic, precise patterns.
Number theory is the type of math that describes the swirl in the head of a sunflower and the curve of a chambered nautilus. Bhargava says it's also hidden in the rhythms of classical Indian music, which is both mathematical and improvisational. He sees close links between his two loves -- both create beauty and elegance by weaving together seemingly unconnected ideas.
As part of a Morning Edition series exploring the intersection of art and science, NPR's Richard Harris reports on the beauty of mathematics, its ties to art -- and the man who straddles both worlds.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4111253

ning principle,  f_L = f_R.  Since I_C, is the same in both, we can write f_L (t, i₀, I_L ) = f_R (t', i_O, I_R ) for some constant i₀.  By the twinning principle, we assume t = t'.
Here is where free will comes in.  If and experimenter has free will to decide which triple will be asked about and in which order the orthogonal directions will be asked about without influence of the past history of the universe, then f_L is not determined by I_L and f_R isn't determined by I_R as the experimenter can choose to measure the same triple in both particles.  So we get the results f_L (t, i₀ ) = f_R (t, i₀ ) = f₀ (t).  So this function is only determined by the triple measured. 
      So by the twinning axiom, we get f₀ (a, b, c) = f₀(b, a, c), so we know the answer on the direction measured of the particle is independent on the order in which the question was asked.  This means that f₀ spits out a constant value for a single direction of the particle we'll call a and that the direction of a is only dependent on the direction of chosen measurement.  The implication here is that a function spitting out the spin squared on a chosen angle of spin measurement is well-defined, which also means this function is well-defined on a sphere with the properties of the orthogonal angles including two ones
and a zero from the spin axiom and this entire sphere is determined.
But this is wrong.  A particle's behavior is only based on the behavior available to it and if the experimenter has free will, he can choose which angle to measure next. 
Yeah.  I got lost at the end.  But it seemed to make sense. If we have free will, then so do particles. The basic underlying idea was that quantum physics could not have a classical explanation to describe the behavior of particles at a subatomic level.  Although this has been examined and theorized before, this proof is unique in that it requires so little base information to achieve the theorem's end.

                                                              9