LogFAQs > #982942008

Doe posted...

When someone says something so compatibilphobic you gotta hit them with that Hume stare

To be fair, theoretical physicists have argued that one solution to Bell's inequality is that it is an illusion and that history was predetermined at the Big Bang. MIT has a 2014 article on testing Bell' Theorum on their site:

https://news.mit.edu/2014/closing-the-free-will-loophole-0220

which goes on to state:

However, scientists have also identified several major loopholes in Bells theorem. These suggest that while the outcomes of such experiments may appear to support the predictions of quantum mechanics, they may actually reflect unknown hidden variables that give the illusion of a quantum outcome, but can still be explained in classical terms.

This ties into what Sabine Hossenfeld is referring to, as the MIT article continues:

Though two major loopholes have since been closed, a third remains; physicists refer to it as setting independence, or more provocatively, free will. This loophole proposes that a particle detectors settings may conspire with events in the shared causal past of the detectors themselves to determine which properties of the particle to measure a scenario that, however far-fetched, implies that a physicist running the experiment does not have complete free will in choosing each detectors setting. Such a scenario would result in biased measurements, suggesting that two particles are correlated more than they actually are, and giving more weight to quantum mechanics than classical physics.

Bell himself brings this up in a radio interview from the early 80s. He talks about the ramifications of his theorem upon the concept of free will. It always fascinated me how there could be a possible empirical answer to one of the great questions of philosophy.