You should really give it a try. I'm not referring to quantum mechanics in general but the relation between these very interesting aspects of the physical brain and our subjective experience - you'll at least have an in depth perspective over the matters, hence an ability to criticize. This makes for a very fun read: citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.688.8100&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Ideed many people's lives are being determined by the forcefulness of his arguments.

hfyaer i do not understand what you are trying to say.

Im not nearly as intelligent as you but Im going to ask a question that I think relates to what your proposing, though I didnt understand what you said fully. One interpretation of the double slit experiment is that photons act in waves of uncertainty, but the wave function collapses when it is consciously observed by proxy (through a camera). This implies that matter, at least on the subatomic level, acts probabilistically, and much like a radio our consciousness taps into a frequency within the wave. In other words, we are constantly collapsing waves of uncertainty through observation, but there is much of the universe that clearly exists outside of our consciousness at the same time. Could this lend credence to the multiverse theory in that with every wave collapse we dip into a slightly altered timeline? And even still, I do not see how this would at all lend credence to the idea of free will. Each individual timeline would still be deterministic and linear regardless of whether or not we dip in and out of them, no? I dont think we as humans could even conceive of a scenario where we arent predetermined... and even if somehow free will existed what would that even mean? how could we even make sense of this? Hell... even the illogical notion of libertarian free will itself STILL doesnt lend credence to "agency" from what I can tell because our actions would be baseless and random...

@@littleolive15 It might suggest that each time we observe something we create something manifest and orderly out of the probabilistic chaos of the multiple dimensions of reality. Whether that has implications on a multiverse-level is a hard question that‘s based on degree of divergence between hypothetical time-lines. It‘s also a waste of time to think about the relation between consciousness and multiple realities, as it doesn‘t affect consciousness‘ role in an embodied lifetime. It would be really interesting to see however, how it would relate to ideas like rebirth or the ability to experience or influence someone else‘s consciousness (if that ability has any validity) But I don‘t think things like rebirth or transferring of consciousness between bodies have any agent free will given to them. The fact you will have such an experience is in some sense determined by many probabilistic factors.

Aight, I like your explanation. I'm pbbly not as much into physics as u. But lemme see if I understood what you said. U mean that Quantum Mechanics can explain what Peterson missed here. I agree with that. But then u bring out Causality as our hero here to save us from an exact set of rules that dictates the behavior of matter (including our brains) hence maybe making quantum physics irrelevant in how it affects the nature of events. (In such way, freeing the brain from being a piece of matter that answers to an exact randomless order of nature...) So... Wdym here? Are events actually random or just not as straight as quantum physics dictates? U think that this could affect free will anyway? I personally don't think so, cuz our brains are still not evolved enough to recognize Causality or Quantum nature in order to escape it. What do u think? Or, could u explain 2 me if I'm getting stuff wrong into this intent of understanding what u just said?😅 Thanks for the explanation tho, I didn't know that Causality proved the quantum model wrong 🤯

It‘s probably ‚objectively‘ deterministic, but not experientially. We will never be able to compute the causality of the universes deterministic factors because they‘re literally incomprehensible. No branch of mathematics can give us an answer about the location of a system-independent object x in the far future. That’s the case if the deterministic system that one is supposedly observing or calculating is infinite and ever changing / expanding. Additionally, there is the potential factor of the existence of multiverses, which are by no means centrally deterministic as far as we understand the idea. There is no one local point of causality for the hypothetical existence of multiverses, because that would mean that there is one core-universe. Physics allows us to observe the dynamics and rules within a system, but it cannot point at a single source of causality, because that would suggest the existence of a higher intelligence, which is not the appropriate goal of an explorative scientist. God is what encompasses both the unpredictable and the predictable. God itself can‘t even fully know the REALLY unpredictable, but it simultaneously still knows and processes it. Sort of arbitrary but intentional.

I’m not sure what physics even says about free will. “the physicist believes you must be able to reproduce every intellectual model in detail; that you really master everything. That’s why I’ve come to the conclusion to say that the physical science is really the science of the simple phenomena. As you move from the physical sciences to the biological and social sciences it gets into more complex phenomena. And the essence of complex phenomena is that you can explain the principles on which they work but you can never master all the data which enter into this complex phenomena. Therefore, even a perfect theory does not yet enable you to predict what’s going to happen.” - F.A. Hayek If your theory is not pragmatic - meaning it can’t be embodied and participatory - THEN IT IS NOT TRUE.