To open up discussion on free-will and how it could reside in the unknown, non-physical, realm where particles are entangled; i refer you to an upcoming study.

Lucien Hardy, a theoretical physicist from the Perimeter Institute in Canada, is suggesting that the measurements between A and B could be controlled by something that may potentially be separate from the material world: the human mind. His idea is derived from what French philosopher and mathematician Rene Descartes called the mind-matter duality, “[where] the mind is outside of regular physics and intervenes on the physical world,” as*Hardy explained.

To do this, Hardy proposed a version of the Bell test involving 100 humans, each hooked up to EEG headsets that would read their brain activity. These devices would be used to switch the settings on the measuring devices for A and B, set at 100 kilometers apart. “The radical possibility we wish to investigate is that, when humans are used to decide the settings (rather than various types of random number generators), we might then expect to see a violation of Quantum Theory in agreement with the relevant Bell inequality,” Hardy*wrote in a paper published online earlier this month.

If the correlation between the measurements don’t match previous Bell tests, then there could be a violation of quantum theory that suggests A and B are being controlled by factors outside the realm of standard physics. “[If] you only saw a violation of quantum theory when you had systems that might be regarded as conscious, humans or other animals, that would certainly be exciting. I can’t imagine a more striking experimental result in physics than that,” Hardy said. “We’d want to debate as to what that meant.”

The sensation of free will evolved in the higher animals to enhance motivation and problem-solving.

To understand free will you need to reverse engineer the coding of the human brain.

Quantum entanglement is over thinking on the wrong level. Hardy's off chasing wild geese.

Donald Hoffman there said something interesting with the following:

You can't have free will without consciousessness...
You can't have consciousness without free-will.
The first assertion is true, I believe. Free-will is of no use without consciousness alright.

The second, not so fast. Conceive of a world where you are conscious but not free to move away from a painful stimulus i.e. Hell.

Thinking of free will for as long as ye have is a waste of brain space.

Imagine being on a rollercoaster. You begin at point A and you end at point B.
At no time during the journey, do you even remotely feel as though you are free. You may even anticipate getting to point B so you can get off and do something else. Life does not feel like that rollercoaster ride. It may be like it in a much bigger domain, but that ain't the point.

I think there's no reason to anticipate Hardy's experiment will indicate duality. He may well perform it though. Then the case against duality may be even stronger.

Looks entanglement is the new God. Think our brains are a bit too bulky.

Spinoza ^^^^ Only God is free.

This.

That latest is It from Qubit which is something, something, space is made up of quantum bits of entangled information.

Regarding Hoffman: Apparently he starts w/ consciousness as fundamental and claims the laws of nature are derived from that. Somewhere in his vids he's claimed that his math leads to some of QM's rules. You want God? There's your God.

I've always been good w/ concepts but these ppl are doing their damnedest to twist my consciousness in knots.

Seems reasonable depending on exactly how you define consciousness and free will.

Imagine you decide not to have a piece of chocolate cake because you are on a diet, but nevertheless a little while later you find yourself eating it.

"A dog is a kind of cat" is reasonable depending on exactly how you define dog and cat.

Feeling sad (or the ability to experience the color blue) doesn't require freedom to behave independently of causes and freedom to behave independently of causes doesn't require the ability to feel sad (or the ability to experience the color blue).

I'm fairly certain that physics doesn't deal with the non-physical.

I think you will find that many people find the concept of cat and dog, clearer than that of free will or consciousness.

That's fine as far as it goes.

However, if you accept that free will and consciousness are both features of how some higher animals on earth's brain have developed then it boils down to the exact way sensing free will and consciousness is implemented in our brains.

Is it possible to have one implemented, without the other being implemented at least at some level?

The same is true of calculus and cheese-making.

I don't accept that free will exists. I pretty much do what I expect I will do. I never pick a poop sandwich off the menu or any other unexpected thing.

Consciousness is pretty well-accepted by everyone who has it and many who don't. Ah, the color blue has some sort of qualia to it.

Don't be more silly than is required, please.

"The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence." - Tesla.

Particles cannot be entangled in a physical realm since information between them travels faster than the speed of light (instantaneously) - someone please correct me if I'm wrong here.

If you need examples of scientists studying the non-physical, refer to the study I mentioned and Beale's mind-blowing video.

Exactly how did you conclude that your reality is indeed deterministic? Is your conclusion the result of predetermined cause and effect? If so, how can you know ANY of your conclusions are correct? Aren't you just saying whatever you were predetermined to say, regardless of any merit or truth to the claims being made?

Determinism is true because determinism told you so?

If I write that free will is real and that my first act of free will is to write this, how could you demonstrate that was not an act of free will?

Quantum fields aren't made out of anything, afaik. At the end of 'A Universe from Nothing' Krauss refers to 'the quantum haze from which we may have come.' It seems disingenuous to write an entire book explaining how we came from nothing and then mention what sounds like an enormous something but, in order to make sense, the 'quantum haze' must be a non-physical 'nothing.'

So there: Science examines 'nothing' scientifically. And if there's ONE 'nothing' there may be others...............

I call BS re something outside the material world ie the human mind. Sure there can be outside the "real world" or something outside our current framework that requires expansion but dont bs putting in it the human mind lol as if something magical supernatural happens when a collections of cells forms! The human mind is part of the real material world. It is emergent from properties of the brain and how it works. Sure enough entanglement can affect many things and using human behavior to reveal interesting aspects of entanglement may be possible but unlikely to be better than much simpler systems. QM subtle details other than the basic functions of chemistry and randomness has very likely absolutely nothing to do with the way the mind works because the mind and its functions are a macroscopic emergent complexity system. A cell is already a very big system. It is so far away from the concept of entangled elementary particles that its laughable. Look at decoherence to see why;

"Quantum decoherence is the loss of quantum coherence. In quantum mechanics, particles such as electrons behave like waves and are described by a wavefunction. These waves can interfere, leading to the peculiar behaviour of quantum particles. As long as there exists a definite phase relation between different states, the system is said to be coherent. This coherence is a fundamental property of quantum mechanics, and is necessary for the function of quantum computers. However, when a quantum system is not perfectly isolated, but in contact with its surroundings, the coherence decays with time, a process called quantum decoherence. As a result of this process, the quantum behaviour is lost. Decoherence was first introduced in 1970 by the German physicist H. Dieter Zeh and has been a subject of active research since the 1980s.[1]

Decoherence can be viewed as the loss of information from a system into the environment (often modeled as a heat bath),[2] since every system is loosely coupled with the energetic state of its surroundings. Viewed in isolation, the system's dynamics are non-unitary (although the combined system plus environment evolves in a unitary fashion).[3] Thus the dynamics of the system alone are irreversible. As with any coupling, entanglements are generated between the system and environment. These have the effect of sharing quantum information with—or transferring it to—the surroundings."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_decoherence

Now ask yourself how big of a system a single neuron is. Can someone say 10^-5 m (a few micrometers)? How many atoms is this now? Enough said.

You're confusing freedom of action with freedom in general, as existentialists would likely point out. Just because you may not be free to take a certain action does not mean that you're not free to interpret your situation in any way you want. Freedom of interpretation is always there. Even what you may classify as delusion is an act of free will - refer to the Myth of Sisyphus.

Where is the information that entangles particles located?

What could POSSIBLY be the physics? We have electrical impulses racing around an enormous collection of wires and intersections that gives rise to consciousness how? We can measure the condition of the mind but we can't feel it w/ our fingers or instruments. So what is it? I see no reason why we can't say 'let's consider everything, we don't have to rush' esp if it ever comes down to policy/ethics decisions.

Just look at the possible mechanisms. So far there is no evidence whatsoever of anything supernatural, anywhere.

I didn't say a thing about supernatural and don't believe 'supernatural' is necessary in any way. But, go on, what are the possible mechanisms? There is the flow of electrical impulses and some chemical reactions, I suppose. If that were it we should be able to replicate it. There are electrical signals everywhere these days. The internet has plenty and they race through many connections also and nobody is saying that the internet is conscious. David Chalmers who says it's time for a crazy idea says that he is a scientific materialist. Hoffman doesn't speak of the supernatural. He's a university academic w/ a lab, has developed a mathematical formalism for his claim, says that it makes falsifiable predictions and invites science to prove him wrong. What I like about him is that he's sober, calm and, above all, confident while acknowledging that 99% of his field doesn't agree w/ him. He may be right or wrong but I like his style.

The human mind is the observation of its own glory, thats all. A very fast sequences of connections triggered. We operate real fast over many connections (but not like computers that are even faster) and so it feels very smooth when observed and very randomized also due to chaos theory. But we are essentially simple!

A fast series of if then else with some randomization and fuzzy math convergence to not require super deep search (ie only superficial scanning of the world) does it well too. A system of neurons converges very fast to the truth because the world is simple enough typically. Physics is simple. A stone on earth is the same looking object in Mars. How hard does it prove then to see a stone and know its a stone and not liquid!

Example; You see something boiling in something that looks like a pot that produces something that looks like steam and sounds like bubbling. Instantly images of water boiling that meets the criteria for matching become the emergent conclusion. That is called intelligence basically! You figured out what it is without all the details! It works most of the time but not always. Most is good enough.


You want to hit something to the wall like a nail. Instantly ideas about pushing it fast with something become triggered (because you have seen it before many times) and you look for hammers, or stones or whatever heavy. But how about the first time as baby? You would be clueless. You were clueless!

How hard is all this to do with a computer? Totally easy eventually. Wait for it and you will have it soon.

All you need is billions of connections and networks that converge to the most likely prediction of what comes next.

We are training all our lives. A baby is a stupid system (albeit still great) but a toddler is far more interesting. An adult even more interesting. How many training events till age 18? Here is how many;

At reaction time 0.1sec we are trained about more than 300 mil times per year or close to 5 billion incidents all organized usually within their stronger connections. How long does it take to train a neural net to play backgammon? Lets train it now to play all we experience!

Our world is made of what... a few thousand different objects and 10 types of usages for each? A few thousand words and their meaning? etc. Far less than the billions above.

Get out of here. We are totally trivial actually. It is a matter of time to put it all together. Someone get me the f inside a lab to do it with other nerds lol! Oh wait it is actually happening right now and you will learn soon. So many doing the same already more seriously than i described.

Seriously study how a baby becomes a progressively more interesting system over time. It first learns to breathe. Then it learns to recognize images somewhat, then mom, then more, hearing sounds etc. At this level it is not thinking. Only reacting. The world makes no sense yet. But it does make a lot of sense by age 5 doesnt it? It has all converged to some critical mass minimum set that works. It doesn't happen overnight. Wait how much more sense it makes by 18, 40 and 70. See how much more sense it makes with even better training and education. Notice the most remarkable of it all. That no matter how terrible the parents the baby by age 5 has more or less learned a ton of things!!! But also notice how much better it is with even greater care for its environment. If babies worldwide can do it by age 5 almost all of them similarly then it has to be easy!

Learning to ride a bike? Do we actually think when we ride a bike? How about walking? But we wanted to think when learning both because it looked so hopeless twice.

Training, relentless training is behind intelligence. If you can recognize dozens of things around you a lot of ideas make sense suddenly about what to do right next. All you need now is triggers for what value/idea is more important to pursue next. Go for it and register more training.

In the next scientific revolution. Our concept of reality is expanding and it is definitely not the statistical convergence picture our senses first reveal.

May I suggest that it's not located in time?

Short of suggesting that there is no time, I don't see many other explanations for how information can travel faster than the speed of light.