Proof of nonexistence of free will

As for the mentioned "interference" it not concerns an interaction between superposition's with each other but the wave function effect itself...

There are several propositions on Many Worlds, not just one, when it comes to determinism or not there´s a possibility that supports that all States exist simultaneously in superposition only because there are several worlds interfering with each other thus the wave function "effect" being perfectly deterministic in nature even if not knowable due to the said interference...you would still have classical mechanics.

You haven´t challenge nothing on what I said !!!
People can read and follow the links ! That simple...

This interference concerns the WAVE FUNCTION ITSELF as an EFFECT not the superposition's between themselves, which was what you suggested I was saying !!!

Again there IS INTERFERENCE between WORLDS when it comes to WAVE ITSELF !

To contextualize those who might at this point feel lost in the nonsense around, this was brought up precisely to say that there are theory´s like this one that defend that possibility´s are actual or REAL and that therefore cannot be possible impossibility´s on an Ontological level, but only the very question that the observer poses to himself in he´s epistemic attitude...

In many-worlds, the subjective appearance of wavefunction collapse is explained by the mechanism of quantum decoherence. By decoherence, many-worlds claims to resolve all of the correlation paradoxes of quantum theory, such as the EPR paradox[7][8] and Schrödinger's cat,[1] since every possible outcome of every event defines or exists in its own "history" or "world".

The same article:

Quote:

In many-worlds, the subjective appearance of wavefunction collapse is explained by the mechanism of quantum decoherence. By decoherence, many-worlds claims to resolve all of the correlation paradoxes of quantum theory, such as the EPR paradox[7][8] and Schrödinger's cat,[1] since every possible outcome of every event defines or exists in its own "history" or "world".

Notice "subjective appearance of the wave function" distinct from "every possible outcome of every event defines or exists in its own "history" or "world"

Exactly what I said just above !

That´s why this is just a theoretical model...of course to us we still have no way of preventing a non deterministic perception of the World...

That was my point from the beginning ! Maybe its a problem of perception thus Epistemic, (problem on Knowing) and not an actual state of Reality considering Multiverse is all Actual ! (all possible hypothesis exist )

Got damn it !!!
Again you are speaking on someone a BEING knowing or not Knowing instead of speaking on WHAT IS or not IS even if we have no way on knowing...

...just throw God out of the Equation its not needed here

Its not just Many Worlds...11 dimension M theory "Brane" theory, also posits the possibility of Multiverse...actually explains Big-Bang as a collision Between Universes...are you up to discredit this one also ?

And what is "GOD" to be ? a sentient "being" ? Why a being (not BEING) ? or even sentient ?
Why not just Multiverse as God ? God should be just everything there is throughout all Time...

The problem with the God of the Many-Worlds interpretation of quantum physics is that:

1. It must be a consciousness: a God that knows about all worlds -- the only one to know about that.
2. It must be outside of all those worlds for them to be the object of his/her knowledge, hence outside of quantum physics.

So that God poses the same logical problem of a Creator for those who believe in creation.

Poor Many-Worlds God: can you imagine one being the eternal observer of all outcomes in all possible worlds already knowing what they will be? He would have died of boringness by now.

Quote:

The problem with the God of the Many-Worlds interpretation of quantum physics is that:

1. It must be a consciousness: a God that knows about all worlds -- the only one to know about that.
2. It must be outside of all those worlds for them to be the object of his/her knowledge, hence outside of quantum physics.

So that God poses the same logical problem of a Creator for those who believe in creation.

Poor Many-Worlds God: can you imagine one being the eternal observer of all outcomes in all possible worlds already knowing what they will be? He would have died of boringness by now.

This many worlds god idea is not far off from what is needed to justify the statistical basis for quantum mechanics. You said earlier that god would be the only one capable of holding many worlds together. Yet a similar problem results from a fundamentally statistical and indeterminate interpretation of quantum mechanics.

If you take it that the infinite number of possible particle positions or paths created by the wave function are real possibilities, though they do not yet exist in this universe, where is the information of that infinitude of possible states stored?

In the wave attribute of the duality? But do those possible states (paths) of particles also have a dual wave attribute?

How can an infinite amount of information of particle paths (also having wave states with more paths, etc...) be justified if not by being outside this universe?

Also who or what is sorting through these possibilities and picking the observable particle?

Because if I understand the way this works... when we observe something the possible states collapse to one observable one. Yet even the process of observation should be based on these same rules. And the wave function (all possible states) of the photon from the particle to be detected cannot be resolved by the wave function from particles in the retina. How can something that only describes the totality of possibilities pick anything?

Something outside this process must pick which one is the reality.

And this goes for any interaction between waves/particles in the universe.

Who decides which state? Or what is outside the wave function that is actually doing the selecting? I think this sounds like a problem God could solve.

This is why a deterministic view of the world is superior to an indeterministic one.

God is not required.

But when statistics is the fundamental rule of the universe, something is needed to keep track of and make a judgement on an infinite number of possible states.

Something like God.

Deterministic laws can produce the same results that are said of statistcal indeterminance but the path is inherent in the particles reaction to other particles.

A much cleaner, non-solution free, way for a universe to exist.

Up to the moment, there is in any sense no proof with absolute certainty, that the Nature of the Universe/s, is fundamentally non Deterministic... thus and consequently, curbing your exaggerated enthusiasm would only seam fit and wise. In turn, there seams to be good reason to suspect that our knowledge will in fact always be incomplete, or non fully determined...which is a very, very different statement indeed !

As for Science regarding Quantum Physics, you are a bit stuck in the 90´s...since the leading theory at the present day, M. Theory, Superstring Eleven Dimension Brane Theory, is actually positing the feasibility of actual parallel Universes going on, and branching into several hypothesis and explanations concerning on how they may work or operate in terms of Determined, non Determined Nature...there are ideas going both ways without any bias, precisely how it should be done.

The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is a feature of nature itself, so not even God could ever know what we cannot. The Many-Worlds interpretation of quantum physics eliminates (not solves) only the wave-function collapse problem, but nature continues to be fundamentally non-deterministic (uncertain, thanks to the HUP), which simply eliminates the logical possibility of an omniscient God. The fact that the Many-Worlds interpretation requires a God (as it does) is just another clue of its internal inconsistency, since it requires what quantum physics prohibits.

The wave function is not an attribute of the particle: it is the whole set of probabilities of observing that particle anywhere. You are thinking as if the particle actually existed when it is just a possibility: you are confusing possible existence with actual existence, then turning possible existence in an attribute of actual existence, as if the latter preceded the former. It is the other way around: possible existence (the wave function) precedes actual existence (the particle).

In the wave attribute of the duality? But do those possible states (paths) of particles also have a dual wave attribute?

This monstrosity is just the consequence of the inversion in precedence between possibility and actuality.

Because if I understand the way this works... when we observe something the possible states collapse to one observable one. Yet even the process of observation should be based on these same rules. And the wave function (all possible states) of the photon from the particle to be detected cannot be resolved by the wave function from particles in the retina. How can something that only describes the totality of possibilities pick anything?

That's the point: it can't. Nothing can: it is random (have you ever heard that word?). This is just chapter two of your confusion between possibility and actuality: you want possibility to be already actual, when it is not. Since possibility precedes actuality, they must be really different: you must accept the nature of possibility, which is precisely to be not actual, hence the nature of actuality as non-deterministic. This is the essence of non-determinism: the absence of any actuality to act as a determinant.

Wave functions and particles do not interact, because wave functions do not actually exist. This is something quantum physicists know exceedingly well. Wave functions are not physical objects: only particles are. If wave functions were particles, then there would be no wave/particle duality.

This is neither a decision nor a choice: it is a random event, and the fact that you don't like it doesn't create the logical necessity for either a decision or a selection.