Skip to main content
No. of Recommendations: 0
I know that the subjective is inadmissible. I’m not quite sure why you make an exception for “free will”.

It is not inadmissible. It is evidence. For example, first thing your doctor will do is ask for your personal experiences: how you are feeling, where it hurts, etc. Subjective experiences are data.

Suffice to say that if your “subjective experience” of some experiment told you one thing, but your actual measurements (from some instrument you’re using) said something else, you would -I’m sure- publish the instrument reading.

Fine, but what I have continuously asked and have received no answer from you is what is the measurable evidence against free will. If you don't have any, and I think it is now clear that you don't, then why do you assume your personal experience of free will is wrong?

As for burden of proof, that is on you. You are claiming a new property of matter. Not I. The burden is on you to justify that claim if you want to take it any further than a moderately interesting discussion on a message board.

Not quite right. I propose that consciousness is a property of matter. I claim that there is as much evidence for that as there is for your contention that consciousness emerges from complex interactions of the non-conscious. My claim is that both our positions are equally supported (or not) by the evidence, but mine has the advantage of being consistent with personal experience.

Or that the entanglement isn't affected by the original notion posited by Bell with respect to EPR. Difficult to know if it says the randomness is equal, or the lack of relevance is equal. Bell was just positing a possible problem with entanglement and trying to measure/gauge it. It was never a certainty that his objection was actually a problem. At least not that I'm aware of. As I recall it was more of a possible variable that should be eliminated "just in case".

Prior to the Big Bell Test, tests of Bell's inequality were done with physical generators of randomness, like quasars. The conclusion from these studies was that if these spontaneous physical events are free from determination, the outcomes of measurements on entangled particles are similarly free. The Big Bell Test used human choices as the source of unpredictability and the conclusion is now that if human free will exists, entangled particles are similarly free.

At this time, the preponderance of the evidence argues against local realism and classical determinism. The characteristics of a particle are determined when the choice of what to measure is made independent of events prior to that choice. This is something one might expect with free will.

This was not a trivial result done "just in case". A 100,000 people were involved with the Big Bell "freedom of choice loophole" study with inequality tests performed in twelve different labs on five continents.
Print the post  

Announcements

What was Your Dumbest Investment?
Share it with us -- and learn from others' stories of flubs.
When Life Gives You Lemons
We all have had hardships and made poor decisions. The important thing is how we respond and grow. Read the story of a Fool who started from nothing, and looks to gain everything.
Contact Us
Contact Customer Service and other Fool departments here.
Work for Fools?
Winner of the Washingtonian great places to work, and Glassdoor #1 Company to Work For 2015! Have access to all of TMF's online and email products for FREE, and be paid for your contributions to TMF! Click the link and start your Fool career.