What is quantum philosophy? From this website HERE

Discovering invisible causes behind the visible world

The before-before or Suarez-Scarani experiment demonstrates that these nonlocal correlations cannot be explained in terms of “before” and “after”, by time-ordered nonlocal influences. Giving up the concept of locality is not sufficient to be consistent with quantum experiments, one has to give up nonlocal determinism, i.e. the view that one event occurring before in time can be considered the cause, and the other occurring later in time the effect. The time-notion makes sense only in the domain of the relativistic local phenomena. The nonlocal correlations cannot be explained by any history in spacetime, they come from outside spacetime. This experimental result upholds the Copenhagen or orthodox interpretation of Quantum Mechanics.

And this paper on Quantum randomness can be controlled by free will

From the abstract:

The before-before experiment demonstrates that quantum randomness can be controlled by infuences 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.

The ambiguity of the term “randomness”:

The assumption that human behavior is not completely determined by the past plays a key role in the way we behave in daily life and organize society through law. When I typewrite this article, I assume that I am governing the movements of my fingers through my free will. Accordingly I claim to be the author of the article and to express original thoughts, which are not completely predetermined at the beginning of the Universe. Anyone who claims for the right “to choose how to live his life” should coherently exclude any explanation of his brain using only deterministic causality, be it in terms of genes, chemicals or environmental influences.

In this sense, the principle of freedom conflicts with the deterministic description of classical physics. The philosopher Immanuel Kant vividly experienced this conflict in his own intellectual life, and declared: “it cannot be alleged that, instead of the laws of nature, laws of freedom may be introduced into the causality of the course of nature. For, if freedom were determined according to laws, it would be no longer freedom, but merely nature.” This conclusion was inescapable within the
deterministic science of Kant’s time.

By contrast today’s quantum physics assumes events which are not completely determined by the past, and cannot be explained by means of observable causes alone. In this sense this theory offers a description of the world which does not exclude free-willed agency in principle.

Aim of the paper:

This paper aims to show that quantum physics does not entail the presumed incompatibility of quantum randomness with order and control. Section II argues on the basis of the before-before experiment that quantum randomness can be controlled by unobservable influences from outside spacetime and, therefore, is compatible with freedom in principle: Both quantum randomness and free will, refer to agency which is not exclusively determined by the past. Section III answers a number of other objections. Section IV concludes by stating that one should look at free will as a primitive principle for explaining why the laws of Nature are quantum, instead of looking at the quantum as the model for explaining free will.

Meaning of random:

If by ‘random’ one means events that are not completely determined by the past, one can very well consider that quantum randomness and free will have the same origin. Your free will is for me as unpredictable as the best random number generator.

Conclusions:

The preceding discussion has highlighted that free will is an axiom one can accept, or reject. The way scientists themselves behave overwhelmingly confirms the great acceptance of the axiom of free will: Any scientist will claim to be the conscious and free author of the work he publishes, and not a zombie repeating things already predetermined in the Big-Bang. The scientist is part of the world. If he chooses to be free, then there is free will in the world. Free will, though not permanently conscious, is a primitive principle that implies a world sharing quantum features: If you choose freedom, then you must coherently reject any pure deterministic explanation of the world and in particular of the human brain and body.

sounds confusing.

I myself prefer the woo of fractals

kkwan - 18 April 2011 07:05 PM

The philosopher Immanuel Kant vividly experienced this conflict in his own intellectual life, and declared: “it cannot be alleged that, instead of the laws of nature, laws of freedom may be introduced into the causality of the course of nature. For, if freedom were determined according to laws, it would be no longer freedom, but merely nature.”

Another case of kwanning.

Contrakkwan:

The passage is from the third antinomy of Kant’s pure reason, in which Kant wants to show that certain questions cannot be answered by reason. The third antinomy is about free will and causation. Kant ‘proves’ 2 opposed theses:

Causality according to the laws of nature, is not the only causality operating to originate the phenomena of the world. A causality of freedom is also necessary to account fully for these phenomena.

and:

There is no such thing as freedom, but everything in the world happens solely according to the laws of nature.

to show his point.

This time you are a victim of kkwanning (metakwanning): the author did very selective quoting.

The full passage is as follows:

We have, therefore, nothing but nature to which we must look for connection and order in cosmical events. Freedom—independence of the laws of nature—is certainly a deliverance from restraint, but it is also a relinquishing of the guidance of law and rule. For it cannot be alleged that, instead of the laws of nature, laws of freedom may be introduced into the causality of the course of nature. For, if freedom were determined according to laws, it would be no longer freedom, but merely nature. Nature, therefore, and transcendental freedom are distinguishable as conformity to law and lawlessness. The former imposes upon understanding the difficulty of seeking the origin of events ever higher and higher in the series of causes, inasmuch as causality is always conditioned thereby; while it compensates this labour by the guarantee of a unity complete and in conformity with law. The latter, on the contrary, holds out to the understanding the promise of a point of rest in the chain of causes, by conducting it to an unconditioned causality, which professes to have the power of spontaneous origination, but which, in its own utter blindness, deprives it of the guidance of rules, by which alone a completely connected experience is possible.

Kant uses it in his argument against free will.

kkwan, oh kkwan. Googeling quotations that support your standpoint is not doing philosophy…

GdB - 18 April 2011 11:27 PM

We have, therefore, nothing but nature to which we must look for connection and order in cosmical events. Freedom—independence of the laws of nature—is certainly a deliverance from restraint, but it is also a relinquishing of the guidance of law and rule. For it cannot be alleged that, instead of the laws of nature, laws of freedom may be introduced into the causality of the course of nature. For, if freedom were determined according to laws, it would be no longer freedom, but merely nature. Nature, therefore, and transcendental freedom are distinguishable as conformity to law and lawlessness. The former imposes upon understanding the difficulty of seeking the origin of events ever higher and higher in the series of causes, inasmuch as causality is always conditioned thereby; while it compensates this labour by the guarantee of a unity complete and in conformity with law. The latter, on the contrary, holds out to the understanding the promise of a point of rest in the chain of causes, by conducting it to an unconditioned causality, which professes to have the power of spontaneous origination, but which, in its own utter blindness, deprives it of the guidance of rules, by which alone a completely connected experience is possible.

“For it cannot be alleged that, instead of the laws of nature, laws of freedom may be introduced into the causality of the course of nature.” seemed reasonable in Kant’s era of deterministic science and causation.

“Seeking the origin of events ever higher and higher in the series of causes” was Kant’s misconception of causation which led him to the conclusion that LFW free will cannot exist.

With the arrival of QM and it’s implication for causation, Kant’s argument is no longer valid.

GdB, please desist from characterizing my posts as kkwanning this and that.

That is an ad hominem abuse.

From the wiki on ad hominem

Ad hominem abuse (also called personal abuse or personal attacks) usually involves insulting or belittling one’s opponent in order to invalidate his argument, but can also involve pointing out factual but ostensible character flaws or actions which are irrelevant to the opponent’s argument. This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and even true negative facts about the opponent’s personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent’s arguments or assertions.

kkwan - 19 April 2011 09:16 AM

“Seeking the origin of events ever higher and higher in the series of causes” was Kant’s misconception of causation which led him to the conclusion that LFW free will cannot exist.

You do not understand Kant. Stop quoting what you do not understand.

GdB - 19 April 2011 10:22 AM

kkwan - 19 April 2011 09:16 AM

“Seeking the origin of events ever higher and higher in the series of causes” was Kant’s misconception of causation which led him to the conclusion that LFW free will cannot exist.

You do not understand Kant. Stop quoting what you do not understand.

Presumably, only you can understand Kant and quote him?

kkwan - 20 April 2011 01:27 AM

Presumably, only you can understand Kant and quote him?

No. There are many more who can do that. But you show you do not understand Kant.

GdB - 20 April 2011 04:20 AM

kkwan - 20 April 2011 01:27 AM

Presumably, only you can understand Kant and quote him?

No. There are many more who can do that. But you show you do not understand Kant.