@MBrouwer "Why couldn't there be a will acting through QM?" <- Not what I said; reread

In particular, we're talking about phenomena driven by the application of the Born Rule, which computes a probability that something would happen. Within QM, this probability has strange properties not quite reflected in classical probability

For example, given classic probability theory, iterations of an event with fixed probability P can lead to random walks... with QM, there's a type of "pure balance" in the long run

What makes it suspicious to tie this to will is precisely the fact that will should allow for control. If I just really like chocolate, I should be able to pick it over vanilla every time, if I were so inclined; or if I'm feeling jovial, I should be capable of just upping and deciding to alternate each choice between chocolate and vanilla

You simply can't describe such allowances with quantum randomness

If, say, my choice of chocolate or vanilla were determined by some process whose probability is 50%, I wouldn't be able to "use" that to pick chocolate every time

@MBrouwer AI is deterministic so it does not have free will. It is a tool that we have made for our purposes. It does not have purposes of its own. Most any tool I can imagine at the moment could be used by someone with free will to do harm. Our purposes may not always be good.

@HWalters QM doesn't allow anything to happen. That's not a criteria for free will. It just has to be able to have alternatives, restricted though they be, and choose between one of those alternatives. That choice is what we measure when the wave function "collapses" from many possibilities to an actuality. The opposite of determinism is not anything could happen.

@FrankHubeny I think you're discussing a different point than I am.

The wave function collapsing is a way to describe what we empirically observe. What is going on can be metaphysically described as a free choice.

"The wave function collapsing" is not the issue

The Born Rule specifically is

It's not that something indeterministic is happening... it's that the equation demands that thing to have a specific probability

And I'm not arguing against such will here... I'm arguing the same point you've made multiple times... that Quantum Indeterminacy isn't a fit to explain something like will

In this particular case, the will being explained would be based on interference of a deity

I see nothing wrong with the Born Rule. As I understand it, it interprets the wave function as providing probabilities of particular choices occurring. By describing it as probabilities it is not talking about the particle itself which may not even be there. The particle appears upon measurement. Prior to the measure it is unknown what it is.

It's still fishy

"Choice" in this sense is something so alien to what I'd call choice that to claim this is the mechanism is perverse

As I see it the Born Rule provides an interpretation so we do not have to imagine the particle itself as a wave when we are not measuring it.

I agree that using choice in this context is unusual. Consider the unusual interpretation of many worlds where all the alternatives are realized in separate universes (that we can't observe). That is an interpretation designed to salvage determinism.

No, it's not

Just because determinism/indeterminism might be your pet concern doesn't mean MWI's intended to salvage it

I see no other point in the MWI than to salvage determinism.

Measurement problem... parsimony (ironically)

It is even more parsimonious to consider there is agent activity at the QM level making choices. No need for multiple universes.

MWI doesn't posit multiple universes

Way too many people have that misconception

MWI posits the existence of an underlying reality comprised of the wave function

The "many worlds" simply falls out of what this looks like from a classical point of view

The wave function has no underlying reality. It is a mathematical model that allows probabilistic predictions to be made. If it did that would be some sort of unconscious deity.

It's just as easy to say "I don't hold a view of MWI"... takes far less typing :)

Or we can abbreviate this further... it sounds like you're a classical realist

MWI contrasts with this by positing wave function realism

classical reality under this view is emergent

I don't hold a view of MWI. I prefer to see what is call the "collapse of the wave function" as an agent making a choice. Rather than positing the existence of an underlying reality comprised of the wave function, I posit the exist of agents capable of making choices. This is one example of free will in the universe.

Nor am I a classical realist. Such a realist claims there is some object (particle) there prior to measurement. The particle appears upon measurement.

Sounds fair, but I would caution you to project intentions for those who do hold MWI in terms of why you don't

Regardless, decoherence in MWI is simply a POV kind of thing, but that is actually one of the reasons why MWI may be preferred regarding parsimony

This gets back to the measurement problem applied to particular cases... e.g., to Schrodinger's cat

But if we hold that the BR does apply... assuming there's a resolution to the MP (and a few other things)... then we established a rule set where a particular type of randomness occurs

But that randomness has a very specific probability for particular setups

The underlying problem between these interpretations is a metaphysical question of what is really there when we are not looking at it. When we look at it we get a measurement and assume we are talking about a particle. When we are not looking at it it has alternate possibilities for how it will appear and then collapses to one of them. Particle don't do things like that.

I think that framing biases the issue... the underlying problem between the intepretations is a metaphysical question of what is really there.

Also, there's more there than simply alternate possibilities for how the particle will appear

Using terms like "indeterminism" and "randomness" also frames the issue biasing it away from an agent making a choice.

There's some sort of "thingness" to those possibilities... they collectively "mix" with each other as if they are all ontic in some sense

You're comparing apples to oranges though

You're describing the issue between all interpretations

I'm simply interpreting the interpretations

In fact, I am, as I have been, highlighting that quantum randomness is only a thing under particular interpretations. There's no such thing as quantum randomness, for example, under MWI

I agree that there is some reality there even when we are not looking at it. I don't think it is a wave function (that's just our model). I don't think it is a thing (that's just the measurement). It may be Berkeley's God observing reality. It may be al-Ghazali's Allah continually creating the universe.

I suspect neither of us want the idea of quantum randomness. Our interpretations have a way around the randomness.

Actually, I'm just agnostic about it

Randomness is for the Copenhagen interpretation.

I'm bothered neither by determinism nor indeterminism

I simply prefer my boxes to be organized for when something interesting pops up :)

For me, neither determinism nor indeterminism exist--or at best they are epiphenomena, a way of looking at things when it is convenient.

I am going to have to go. Best wishes.

You too

Ah... just need to point this out... I think you're under the impression that I prefer MWI as an interpretation... that's not the case.

I don't have a preferred QM interpretation

@MBrouwer Processing... :)