https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/does-quantum-mechanics-rule-out-free-will/

"Superdeterminism is a radical hidden-variables theory proposed by physicist John Bell. He is renowned for a 1964 theorem, now named after him, that dramatically exposes the nonlocality of quantum mechanics.

"Bell said in a BBC interview in 1985 that the puzzle of nonlocality vanishes if you assume that “the world is superdeterministic, with not just inanimate nature running on behind-the-scenes clockwork, but with our behavior, including our belief that we are free to choose to do one experiment rather than another, absolutely predetermined.”

***

"Hossenfelder’s commitment to determinism puts her in good company. Einstein, too, believed that specific causes must have specific, nonrandom effects, and he doubted the existence of free will. He once wrote, “If the moon, in the act of completing its eternal way around the earth, were gifted with self-consciousness, it would feel thoroughly convinced that it was traveling its way of its own accord.”

"I’m nonetheless baffled by superdeterminism, whether explicated by Hossenfelder or another prominent proponent, Nobel laureate Gerard t’Hooft. When I read their arguments, I feel like I’m missing something. The arguments seem circular: the world is deterministic, hence quantum mechanics must be deterministic. Superdeterminism doesn’t specify what the hidden variables of quantum mechanics are; it just decrees that they exist, and that they specify everything that happens, including my decision to write these words and your decision to read them.

***

"Hossenfelder and I argued about free will in a conversation last summer. I pointed out that we both made the choice to speak to each other; our choices stem from “higher-level” psychological factors, such as our values and desires, which are underpinned by but not reducible to physics. Physics can’t account for choices and hence free will. So I said.

"Invoking psychological causes “doesn’t make the laws of physics go away,” Hossenfelder sternly informed me. “Everything is physics. You’re made of particles.” I felt like we were talking past each other. To her, a nondeterministic world makes no sense. To me, a world without choice makes no sense.

"Other physicists insist that physics provides ample room for free will. George Ellis argues for “downward causation,” which means that physical processes can lead to “emergent” phenomena, notably human desires and intentions, that can in turn exert an influence over our physical selves. Mathematicians John Conway and Simon Kochen go even further in their 2009 paper “The Strong Free Will Theorem.” They present a mathematical argument, which resembles John Bell’s theorem on quantum nonlocality, that we have free will because particles have free will.

"To my mind, the debate over whether physics rules out or enables free will is moot. It’s like citing quantum theory in a debate over whether the Beatles are the best rock band ever (which they clearly are). Philosophers speak of an “explanatory gap” between physical theories about consciousness and consciousness itself. First of all, the gap is so vast that you might call it a chasm. Second, the chasm applies not just to consciousness but to the entire realm of human affairs.

"Physics, which tracks changes in matter and energy, has nothing to say about love, desire, fear, hatred, justice, beauty, morality, meaning. All these things, viewed in the light of physics, could be described as “logically incoherent nonsense,” as Hossenfelder puts it. But they have consequences; they alter the world. (my bold)

"Physics as a whole, not just quantum mechanics, is obviously incomplete. As philosopher Christian List told me recently, humans are “not just heaps of interacting particles.” We are “intentional agents, with psychological features and mental states” and the capacity to make choices. Physicists have acknowledged the limits of their discipline. Philip Anderson, a Nobel laureate, contends in his 1972 essay “More Is Different” that as phenomena become more complicated, they require new modes of explanation; not even chemistry is reducible to physics, let alone psychology.

"Bell, the inventor of superdeterminism, apparently didn’t like it. He seems to have viewed superdeterminism as a reductio ad absurdum proposition, which highlights the strangeness of quantum mechanics. He wasn’t crazy about any interpretations of quantum mechanics, once describing them as “like literary fiction.'”

Comment: I've always agreed with Horgan. Our intentional actions show free will. Note the bold. Note we do not understand quantum mechanics, so suggesting there MUST BE determinism underling indeterministic quantum results is a mental act of desperation.

David: I don't control my brain chemistry any more than you reach inside your computer to control the transistors. I make my brain have thoughts. The neurons respond chemically.-> Romansh: Where exactly does this 'I' that makes your brain have thoughts reside?-In my consciousness. I'm sure you have one also. 
> 
> > David: I make my brain produce the conscious thoughts I want to appear. I think there is a marked degree of dualism. None of us can show how consciousness arises from the matter of the brain.-> Romansh: I only have other people's anecdotal stories for consciousness. We also think we see colours, but the physics is difficult to reconcile with our perception.-But we have the perceptions and most of us in a group will agree to the color we all are seeing. 
> 
> Romansh: Dualism as a concept to me seems like an illusion.-But is it? Our consciousness is not an anatomic entity.-> 
> Romansh: You control what you think? Really?
> Not only is not clear how you do it, it is not clear that we do. 
> It is clear that we have the perception of control.-That perception can be reality. Just because we cannot describe how consciousness arises does not mean it isn't real and under our control.

I don't control my brain chemistry any more than you reach inside your computer to control the transistors. I make my brain have thoughts. The neurons respond chemically.
Where exactly does this 'I' that makes your brain have thoughts reside?-> I make my brain produce the conscious thoughts I want to appear. I think there is a marked degree of dualism. None of us can show how consciousness arises from the matter of the brain.
I only have other people's anecdotal stories for consciousness. We also think we see colours, but the physics is difficult to reconcile with our perception.-Dualism as a concept to me seems like an illusion.
> You are right to that extent. I do not directly control each and every neuron or even masses of neurons. But I control what I think, although it is not clear how that is accomplished, since it falls into the black hole of how consciousness arises.-You control what you think? Really?
Not only is not clear how you do it, it is not clear that we do. 
It is clear that we have the perception of control.

David: My brain is a chemical computer, but more than the computer in front of me or you. I control it almost as much as you or I control our electronic computers. 
> Romansh: So how do you control brain chemistry - with your thoughts? I don't think so.-I don't control my brain chemistry any more than you reach inside your computer to control the transistors. I make my brain have thoughts. The neurons respond chemically.
> 
> Romansh Unless you are arguing for a stark dualism of mind and matter being separate, then you have to provide some evidence for this position.-I make my brain produce the conscious thoughts I want to appear. I think there is a marked degree of dualism. None of us can show how consciousness arises from the matter of the brain.
> 
> > My brain use is not independent of the brain chemistry, but also not controlled by it.
> 
> Romansh: I would beg to differ here. Of course there are environmental aspects, mechanical and perhaps quantum phenomena occurring in your brain. I would argue that you are controlling none of these in any meaningful sense of the word control.-You are right to that extent. I do not directly control each and every neuron or even masses of neurons. But I control what I think, although it is not clear how that is accomplished, since it falls into the black hole of how consciousness arises.

My brain is a chemical computer, but more than the computer in front of me or you. I control it almost as much as you or I control our electronic computers. 
So how do you control brain chemistry - with your thoughts? I don't think so.-Unless you are arguing for a stark dualism of mind and matter being separate, then you have to provide some evidence for this position.-> My brain use is not independent of the brain chemistry, but also not controlled by it.-I would beg to differ here. Of course there are environmental aspects, mechanical and perhaps quantum phenomena occurring in your brain. I would argue that you are controlling none of these in any meaningful sense of the word control.


> Romansh:How do you make choices David? Independently of your brain chemistry?-My brain is a chemical computer, but more than the computer in front of me or you. I control it almost as much as you or I control our electronic computers. I say almost as much because my brain will adapt to my use to grow thicker grey matter and more connections to accommodate my use of my brain. My brain is self-programming, if you will, as to more hardware and gigabytes of functionality responding to my use. My brain use is not independent of the brain chemistry, but also not controlled by it.


> > Romansh: I understood free will is a concept I could not defend intellectually. It took a couple months or so to let go of the concept of free will.
> 
> Then how do you make choices, choosing between alternatives? This site is up again:
> 
Firstly that link is a quagmire of shoddy thinking.-How do I make choices? I get sensory inputs from my environment, my brain that has been shaped by at least 3.5 Gy of evolution and recent events carries out chemical reactions which result in actions.-Now I might think I am consciously deliberating what action to carry out, but I suspect that is simply a reflection of those pernicious chemical reactions.-How do you make choices David? Independently of your brain chemistry?


> Romansh: I understood free will is a concept I could not defend intellectually. It took a couple months or so to let go of the concept of free will.-Then how do you make choices, choosing between alternatives? This site is up again:-http://inference-review.com/article/free-will-again

I'm thoroughly convinced about cause and effect being valid.-I always was too. But had never applied it thoroughly to the concept of free will. Once I started thinking about free will terms of cause and effect ... an overwhelming feeling of cognitive dissonance erupted. -I understood free will is a concept I could not defend intellectually. It took a couple months or so to let go of the concept of free will.

Romansh: Have you read Harris's book David?
> 
> The link does not work.
> 
> I am not ready to admit cause and effect are in some way false.-No, just the review. I've checked the website just now and it is not responding, but I looked at it 2-3 days ago ad it was OK then. I'm sure it will be back up shortly. I'm thoroughly convinced about cause and effect being valid.

But unicorn is a physical proposal, so of course you would look there. Like the teapot orbiting the sun. But a non-physical concept is still a concept. Where do you look for it?
This implies things like consciousness, will and self are not physical. All three certainly respond in a cause and effect manner. So I would examine the physical world to find these supposedly immaterial concepts. -Until you can show me some evidence that these are not physical I will consider mine a reasonalable assumption to hold.-> You have described two different reasons for the rules of society, one secular society, one religious society? Aren't both the same?
Yes they are both societal ... but one might be based on a fear of god or the society itself ... the other could be based on reason and desire. -> I don't know it is a religious morality that supplies what is morally correct, so we probably agree here. But inherently we seem to have understood how to get along with one another. I don't know that evolution is capable of implanting that kind of right and wrong instinct into us. it may be a simple practical adjustment-I am not sure here either ... but experiments where babies watching coloured blocks on a TV screen come to mind as do surveys about pushing people off bridges to stop runaway trains.


> Romansh: Beg to differ David
> Wherelse am I going going to look for a concept like a unicorn but in the physical?-But unicorn is a physical proposal, so of course you would look there. Like the teapot orbiting the sun. But a non-physical concept is still a concept. Where do you look for it?-> Romansh: What are acceptable on a beach in Iran and in St Tropez, are very definitely a product of society. -> Yes groups of various sizes set up the rules; some do it in the name of an intrinsic morality others for an orderly society.-You have described two different reasons for the rules of society, one secular society, one religious society? Aren't both the same?
> 
> Romansh: I would agree humans have evolved a capability to have a sense of fairness/morality. It is society that fills the capability. Having said that I will agree that evolution may have given humans (most) some small measure of what is right or wrong .That of course does not mean there is an intrinsic right and wrong.- I don't know it is a religious morality that supplies what is morally correct, so we probably agree here. But inherently we seem to have understood how to get along with one another. I don't know that evolution is capable of implanting that kind of right and wrong instinct into us. it may be a simple practical adjustment

You are again using an example of physical research for a supposed something which is mental, a concept. The supposed something we have a partial handle on is quantum mechanics and without a better place to look I still think that may be how consciousness arises from or with the brain, but I still don't see how concepts that involve non-physical proposals can be nailed down. 
Beg to differ David
Wherelse am I going going to look for a concept like a unicorn but in the physical?-Similarly for consciousness. 
> So you think rules of conduct are imposed by societies as they develop? We are now in the controversal area of evolutionary psychology. What has been obvious to me is small groups of folks have to set up rules by which they can cooperate and live together. But there must be an inherent sense of fairness, a non-zero-sum game. Given by God, no. Just common sense.-Err yes.
What are acceptable on a beach in Iran and in St Tropez, are very definitely a product of society. Yes groups of various sizes set up the rules; some do it in the name of an intrinsic morality others for an orderly society.-I would agree humans have evolved a capability to have a sense of fairness/morality. It is society that fills the capability. Having said that I will agree that evolution may have given humans (most) some small measure of what is right or wrong. That of course does not mean there is an intrinsic right and wrong.

DAvid: How do you give a concept properties?
> Romansh: Take does the aether exist? If we give properties to aether eg light has to travel through - luminiferous aether. The Michelson Morley experiment put that concept out of its misery. But there may well be another "aether" out there with other properties that we have not tested for.-You are again using an example of physical research for a supposed something whicvh is mental, a concept. The supposed something we have a partial handle on is quantum mechanics and without a better place to look I still think that may be how consciousness arises from or with the brain, but I still don't see how concepts that involve non-physical proposals can be nailed down. 
> 
> > David:Now you are arguing for an inherent human concept of right and wrong, but each society has its own rules.-> Romansh: No I am arguing against an intrinsic (inherent) concept of right and wrong.-So you think rules of conduct are imposed by societies as they develop? We are now in the controversal area of evolutionary psychology. What has been obvious to me is small groups of folks have to set up rules by which they can cooperate and live together. But there must be an inherent sense of fairness, a non-zero-sum game. Given by God, no. Just common sense.

How do you give a concept properties?
Take does the aether exist? If we give properties to aether eg light has to travel through - luminiferous aether. The Michelson Morley experiment put that concept out of its misery. But there may well be another "aether" out there with other properties that we have not tested for.
 
> I assume, in a way, this could be considered your answer to my new question above. but how scientific is setting up judgmental parameters?
I am not suggesting this at all. Are the properties of the concept corroborated by the evidence. If this is what you mean by judgemental - fair enough.
 
> Now you are arguing for an inherent human concept of right and wrong, but each society has its own rules.
No I am arguing against an intrinsic (inherent) concept of right and wrong.

Romansh; Max Planck referring to science: the truth never triumphs, your opponents just die out
> 
> David: It takes time and research, as I have pointed out in the past regarding the story of the etiology of peptic ulcer and its medical cure (in the early 1980's). Today we have the crowd control of peer review and too much government money for grants bringing in politics such as the global warming foolishness (over 17 years without any). The result: faked results, paywalls, and unwanted pressures. And too many falsehoods. Science results are always open to philosophic interpretation, as in my book.-Another major paper retraction:-http://blogs.nature.com/news/2014/03/call-for-acid-bath-stem-cell-paper-to-be-retracted.html

Romansh: I would agree that neither can be proven right, but if we give our concept of free will properties then I would argue free will could be proven false. That is the nature of scientific investigation.-How do you give a concept properties?-> Romansh: This is where I disagree with Sam Harris. If we don't have free will the then the dichotomy of morality and immorality is unnecessary if not false.-I assume, in a way, this could be considered your answer to my new question above. but how scientific is setting up judgmental parameters?
> 
> Romansh: For, me it is a logical consequence of the absence of free will.-Now you are arguing for an inherent human concept of right and wrong, but each society has its own rules.
 
> > Romansh: If you believe only science brings truth.
> Again science eliminates falsehoods
> Max Planck referring to science: the truth never triumphs, your opponents just die out-It takes time and research, as I have pointed out in the past regarding the story of the etiology of peptic ulcer and its medical cure (in the early 1980's). Today we have the crowd control of peer review and too much government money for grants bringing in politics such as the global warming foolishness (over 17 years without any). The result: faked results, paywalls, and unwanted pressures. And too many falsehoods. Science results are always open to philosophic interpretation, as in my book.

Then why argue with each other, since neither can be proven right. Ego!
I would agree that neither can be proven right, but if we give our concept of free will properties then I would argue free will could be proven false. That is the nature of scientific investigation.-I have to smile when someone points to someone else and says Ego! I suppose that is my ego. 
 
> > Romansh: I was moral too, but I am now striving against all odds to be amoral.
> Why? To be prevocative?
Not at all, no intention of being provocative at all here. This is where I disagree with Sam Harris. If we don't have free will the then the dichotomy of morality and immorality is unnecessary if not false.-For, me it is a logical consequence of the absence of free will.
 
> > Romansh; Regarding scientism ... sadly I don't buy the criticisms. The criticisms are generally poor. And too often science and scientism gets confounded. Scientism becomes a pejorative. 
> If you believe only science brings truth.
Again science eliminates falsehoods
Max Planck referring to science: the truth never triumphs, your opponents just die out