You seem to suggest some kind of hidden variable theory for free will: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden-variable_theory. As far as I know they're not particularly popular among physicists, although we haven't (completely) ruled out such an explanation.

Newton and Einstein both seem to be on the side of hidden variables, so I'm not sure if it's unpopular among the elites.

I have a lot of trouble imagining any experiment which could completely rule out every other influencing factor. There are silly thought experiments such as what if the world has been objective for the last x00 years - prior to that and after, the laws we've observed during the period would bend; things will become inconsistent.

It's silly and I don't even believe it, but it does show that science is incapable of completely ruling out everything.

The truth could be endemic mystery. Endemic insanely and terrifyingly simple endless levels of understanding. In a way science is nothing unless that's the reality.

> I have a lot of trouble imagining any experiment which could completely rule out every other influencing factor

It's called Bell's theorem and it can even be tested at home[4]. There are no local hidden variables in quantum mechanics.[1][2][3]

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox

3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden-variable_theory

4a. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcqZHYo7ONs

4b. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzRCDLre1b4

Thanks for this, hidden variable theories are very seductive but Bell's Theorem is definitive.

It's definitive that you have to give up locality (Bohmian mechanics), counterfactual definiteness (Copenhagen and others), or statistical independence (Superdeterminism). It's not definitive at all about local hidden variables.

> It's not definitive at all about local hidden variables.

What?

> To date, Bell tests have found that the hypothesis of local hidden variables is inconsistent with the way that physical systems do, in fact, behave.

Bell's theorem assumes statistical independence in its proof that local hidden variables can't reproduce QM. Superdeterminism violates statistical independence, therefore Bell's theorem does not rule out a superdeterministic local hidden variables theory, like this one:

https://arxiv.org/abs/2010.01327v5

Oh, thank you. I've been meaning to check her blog on this.

> Newton and Einstein both seem to be on the side of hidden variables, so I'm not sure if it's unpopular among the elites.

Everyday posters on this website amaze me. I should really stop coming here...

Yes you can never rule out the unknown, even the supernatural is in this category. Nevertheless it is just speculation until some evidence that it exists comes about. That being said, even if what I said is true, it does not really effect anything since we still live as if free will exists and I don't think we have the ability to choose differently :)

I object to the term "supernatural". It means more like "supermaterial" or "super-harnessable-in-an-experiment-by-humans". It has well known limitations.

Regarding speculation, that assumes there isn't steps to knowledge about other things which physicists do not take. Any scientist will easily change their mind with the right evidence. The only issue is that the evidence takes place in one's subjective experience. It may take place specifically in contexts where it cannot be convincingly demonstrated to the general population.

It sounds silly, but if that's the nature of the object of investigation, it's necessary.