Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

arXiv:0804.0871

Quantum randomness can be controlled by free will -a consequence of the before-before experiment

Antoine Suárez

Published Apr 5, 2008• 11 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

The before-before experiment demonstrates that quantum randomness can be controlled by influences from outside spacetime, and therefore by immaterial free will. Rather than looking at quantum physics as the model for explaining free will, one should look at free will as a primitive principle for explaining why the laws of Nature are quantum.

DOI
10.48550/arxiv.0804.0871

Related papers

Quantum randomness and free will

Chetan S. Mandayam Nayakar, R. Srikanth

Both deterministic and indeterministic physical laws are incompatible with control by genuine (non-illusory) free will. We propose that an indeterministic dynamics can be $weakly$ compatible with free will (FW), whereby the latter acts by altering the probability distribution over allowed outcomes. In the quantum physical world, such a FW can collapse the wave function, introducing deviations from the Born rule. In principle, this deviation would stand in conflict with both special relativity and (a variant of) the Strong Church-Turing thesis, implying that the brain may be an arena of exotic, non-standard physics. However, in practice, these deviations would not be directly or easily observable, because they occur in sub-neuronal superpositions in the brain, where they would be shrouded in random measurement errors, noise and statistical fluctuations. Our result elucidates the difference between the FW of human observers and that of observed particles in the Free Will Theorem. This difference is a basic reason for why FW (and, in general, consciousness) cannot be recreated by standard artificial intelligence (AI) technology. We propose various neurobiological experiments to test our proposed theory. We speculate that for observers to be aware of a physical theory such as quantum mechanics, FW is necessary and that the theory must therefore not be universal. We suggest that FW may be regarded as a primitive principle in Nature for explaining quantum indeterminism.

arXiv:1011.4898•Nov 22, 2010•0 citations

Quantum Will: Determinism meets Quantum Mechanics

Irene Latorre

We present a brief non-technical introduction to the standing discussion on the relation between Quantum Mechanics and Determinism. Quantum Mechanics inherent randomness in the measurement process is sometimes presented as a door to explain free will. We argue against this interpretation. The possibility that Quantum Mechanics provides just an effective description of Nature which is only valid at our low-energy scales is also discussed.

•Jul 2, 2013•1 citation

Quantum Will: Determinism meets Quantum Mechanics

José Ignacio Latorre

We present a brief non-technical introduction to the standing discussion on the relation between Quantum Mechanics and Determinism. Quantum Mechanics inherent randomness in the measurement process is sometimes presented as a door to explain free will. We argue against this interpretation. The possibility that Quantum Mechanics provides just an effective description of Nature which is only valid at our low-energy scales is also discussed.

arXiv:1307.0611•Jul 2, 2013•0 citations

Theory of Dimensional Randomness

Lucas Resende

There is still no scientific consensus on the existence of ontic randomness. Understanding it is especially important for physics, as the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics is believed to be irreducible. This theory aims to explain how the existence of true randomness is possible for the referential of a non-omniscient observer.The theory is built on a toy model in two thought experiments. We propose the concept of invisible and inaccessible laws as explanation for the occurrence of unpredictability and states that it represents the physical reification of Gödel's incompleteness theorem.The article proposes that the geometry of spacetime is able to explain several physical phenomena in the set of dimensional random events. Among these are the event horizon in black holes, the hypersensitivity to initial conditions, and the Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. We develope the theorem of dimensional randomness for proving that a non-causal theory in a dimensionally incomplete space have correspondence with a causal theory in a dimensionally complete space. The theorem is used to question the fundamentally probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics through an implicit assumption that is made about the number of dimensions in spacetime for the development of Bell's theorem.

•Dec 31, 2022•0 citations

A quantum mechanical look at time travel and free will

Daniel M. Greenberger, Karl Svozil

Consequences of the basic and most evident consistency requirement|that measured events cannot happen and not happen at the same time|are reviewed. Particular emphasis is given to event forecast and event control. As a consequence, particular, very general bounds on the forecast and control of events within the known laws of physics result. These bounds are of a global, statistical nature and need not aect singular events or groups of events. We also present a quantum mechanical model of time travel and discuss chronology protection schemes. Such models impose restrictions upon certain capacities of event control.

•Jan 1, 2001•3 citations

Quantum Determinism Does Not Preclude Free Will

Serge Dolgikh

We analyze the relationship between quantum determinism and free will from the position of the computational theory, with the conclusion that a fully deterministic on a quantum level Universe does not preclude the existence of free will agents.

•Mar 8, 2022•0 citations
The before-before experiment demonstrates that quantum randomness can be controlled by influences from outside spacetime, and therefore by immaterial free will. Rather than looking at quantum physics as the model for explaining free will, one should look at free will as a primitive principle for explaining why the laws of Nature are quantum.
Both deterministic and indeterministic physical laws are incompatible with control by genuine (non-illusory) free will. We propose that an indeterministic dynamics can be weaklyweaklyweakly compatible with free will (FW), whereby the latter acts by altering the probability distribution over allowed outcomes. In the quantum physical world, such a FW can collapse the wave function, introducing deviations from the Born rule. In principle, this deviation would stand in conflict with both special relativity and (a variant of) the Strong Church-Turing thesis, implying that the brain may be an arena of exotic, non-standard physics. However, in practice, these deviations would not be directly or easily observable, because they occur in sub-neuronal superpositions in the brain, where they would be shrouded in random measurement errors, noise and statistical fluctuations. Our result elucidates the difference between the FW of human observers and that of observed particles in the Free Will Theorem. This difference is a basic reason for why FW (and, in general, consciousness) cannot be recreated by standard artificial intelligence (AI) technology. We propose various neurobiological experiments to test our proposed theory. We speculate that for observers to be aware of a physical theory such as quantum mechanics, FW is necessary and that the theory must therefore not be universal. We suggest that FW may be regarded as a primitive principle in Nature for explaining quantum indeterminism.
There is still no scientific consensus on the existence of ontic randomness. Understanding it is especially important for physics, as the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics is believed to be irreducible. This theory aims to explain how the existence of true randomness is possible for the referential of a non-omniscient observer.The theory is built on a toy model in two thought experiments. We propose the concept of invisible and inaccessible laws as explanation for the occurrence of unpredictability and states that it represents the physical reification of Gödel's incompleteness theorem.The article proposes that the geometry of spacetime is able to explain several physical phenomena in the set of dimensional random events. Among these are the event horizon in black holes, the hypersensitivity to initial conditions, and the Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. We develope the theorem of dimensional randomness for proving that a non-causal theory in a dimensionally incomplete space have correspondence with a causal theory in a dimensionally complete space. The theorem is used to question the fundamentally probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics through an implicit assumption that is made about the number of dimensions in spacetime for the development of Bell's theorem.
Consequences of the basic and most evident consistency requirement|that measured events cannot happen and not happen at the same time|are reviewed. Particular emphasis is given to event forecast and event control. As a consequence, particular, very general bounds on the forecast and control of events within the known laws of physics result. These bounds are of a global, statistical nature and need not aect singular events or groups of events. We also present a quantum mechanical model of time travel and discuss chronology protection schemes. Such models impose restrictions upon certain capacities of event control.