Challenging local realism with human choices

It's interesting because - again if I understand correctly - the arcane loophole would have involved apparently random physical processes not being truly random, and the experiment uses random numbers generated by the human mind to get around this possibility.

I don't see how the use of humans solves anything. If apparently random physical processes are not truly random, then how would we justify anything done by a human - a physical being made of those particles and processes, somehow bypassing the issue?

It could work I suppose if we assume that there is something 'supernatural' (or choose another word if it suits better) about ordinary human existence. But isn't there a circular argument here? Isn't the nature of human consciousness and its relation to this physical existence a large part of the core topic under investigation, rather than something which is already known and understood?

Max - am I understanding that for you "spooky action at a distance" is a reference to hidden variables a la superdeterminism,?

Chris - am I understanding that for you the phrase means causation in the Present that is different from how we usually think of cause-effect relationships?

Well, it looks rather like causation, if you observe one particle and measure something, and if someone else measures the other particle and measures something which correlates with the first measurement, despite the fact that there wouldn't be time for light to travel between the two measurement sites. The question is, how does the second particle "know" about the result of the measurement made on the first particle? That's the spookiness.

I'm also curious about what's in Max's mind, to make him think there's nothing strange about the phenomenon. It does sound almost as though he is thinking in terms of hidden variables, but at the same time acknowledging that Einstein was wrong in suggesting that approach.

I don't see how the use of humans solves anything. If apparently random physical processes are not truly random, then how would we justify anything done by a human - a physical being made of those particles and processes, somehow bypassing the issue?

It could work I suppose if we assume that there is something 'supernatural' (or choose another word if it suits better) about ordinary human existence. But isn't there a circular argument here? Isn't the nature of human consciousness and its relation to this physical existence a large part of the core topic under investigation, rather than something which is already known and understood?

Yes - there seems to be an implicit assumption that the human mind isn't deterministic even if apparently random physical processes are. I'd have expected that to be a minority view among "mainstream" scientists.

This article from MIT Technology Review has a fairly clear description of the issues involved in the Big Bell Test:
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/61115...echnology/

On the question of free will, the author in fact makes a pretty uncompromising statement that s/he thinks determinism of physical systems would also imply determinism of human decisions:

Of course, this Big Bell Test isn’t perfect. Humans are governed by the laws of physics in the same way as all other objects. Indeed, we are simply complex machines, no different in principle from any other machine that can twiddle dials and change experimental settings.

So human free will has no special status in the universe, and if hidden variable theory governs the universe, it must also govern our free will too. In that case, human will would not be free but ultimately governed by a deterministic system of hidden variables.

So the Big Bell Test doesn’t close all the loopholes. But it does suggest that if there is a deeper reality beneath quantum mechanics, it will not be accessible to us.

Which makes me wonder a bit what the point of it all was. And come to think of it, is there any reason why, from this point of view, random physical processes in the brain should give rise to "free will" any more than deterministic ones?

But anyway, the article quotes the paper as concluding "If human will is free, there are physical events with no causes." Or in other words, there can be correlations between two quantities that not only don't reflect a causal link between the two, but also don't reflect any common causal link at all. Put like that, it sounds very like Jung's concept of synchronicity.

One other quite separate message from this study is that it's possible to recruit 100,000 volunteers to participate in a scientific experiment on a single day, by "gamifying" their contribution. If a parapsychology experiment could recruit even a tenth of that number, its results might be statistically conclusive, provided the protocol was bulletproof.

Humans are governed by the laws of physics in the same way as all other objects. Indeed, we are simply complex machines, no different in principle from any other machine that can twiddle dials and change experimental settings.

So human free will has no special status in the universe, and if hidden variable theory governs the universe, it must also govern our free will too. In that case, human will would not be free but ultimately governed by a deterministic system of hidden variables.

Is any of this actual science?  Sorry, that's a rhetorical question.  The author is simply postulating here without a proper evidential basis to make such statements.

Drives me crazy that the scientific community allows this to happen and doesn't self regulate on this point.  That would get in the way of funding, tenure, promotion, and fame I guess.  Humans being human and all.

Is any of this actual science?  Sorry, that's a rhetorical question.  The author is simply postulating here without a proper evidential basis to make such statements.

Yes, I agree - it's just begging the question. But it is the assumption I'd expect from mainstream physicists. It puzzled me that the rationale behind the experiment seemed to imply something different. It still does puzzle me.

On the question of free will, the author in fact makes a pretty uncompromising statement that s/he thinks determinism of physical systems would also imply determinism of human decisions:

But anyway, the article quotes the paper as concluding "If human will is free, there are physical events with no causes." Or in other words, there can be correlations between two quantities that not only don't reflect a causal link between the two, but also don't reflect any common causal link at all. Put like that, it sounds very like Jung's concept of synchronicity.

This article is still strictly in the metaphysical framework of Physicalism.  Mind is still being viewed as outside causal physical laws - rather than corresponding to the the overwhelming evidence that mind is processing information, as well as detecting meaning and opportunity in an informational environment.  

I find the comment that - "if human will is free, there are physical events without cause".  Isn't that the definition of random?  

Chris - I am not sure I understand your comment about Jung's synchronicity.  Can you explain?  A governing dynamic sounds like a something that can be quantified to me.

 Synchronicity is a word coined by the Swiss psychologist Carl Jung to describe the temporally coincident occurrences of acausal events. It was a principle that he felt compassed his concept of the collective unconscious, in that it was descriptive of a governing dynamic that underlay the whole of human experience.  

http://www.thinking-minds.net/carl-jung-synchronicity/