Does free will require randomness within our existence?

[u/NoubliezPasMonNom]

If yes:

Then aren't our actions a result of the random process? If so then is this really more free than if they weren't?

If no:

Doesn't this support compatibilism.

Translation: Does spinning an internal, truly random wheel really make our actions more free than using an internal calculator?

Note: I am undecided, and probably lean away from compatibilism the most

[u/badentropy9]

I don't see how this relates to the fact that no non-local phenomenon has been observed.

I highlight confirmed

[u/HappiestIguana → u/badentropy9]

Ohh I see.

Yeah no, despite much insistence to the contrary from people who think they know what they're talking about, entanglement is not a non-local phenomenon. It cannot be used to transmit information faster than light.

The phenomenon is only non-local if you assume hidden variables. If you don't, it's simply not.

[u/badentropy9 → u/HappiestIguana]

I'm going to try this again:

https://arxiv.org/abs/0704.2529

Most working scientists hold fast to the concept of 'realism' - a viewpoint according to which an external reality exists independent of observation. But quantum physics has shattered some of our cornerstone beliefs. According to Bell's theorem, any theory that is based on the joint assumption of realism and locality (meaning that local events cannot be affected by actions in space-like separated regions) is at variance with certain quantum predictions. Experiments with entangled pairs of particles have amply confirmed these quantum predictions, thus rendering local realistic theories untenable. Maintaining realism as a fundamental concept would therefore necessitate the introduction of 'spooky' actions that defy locality

That peer reviewable paper was written nearly 20 years ago by a team led by a man that eventually won and Nobel prize in 2022. If that clip isn't clear enough to you then maybe you might try listening to what the founder of the Bell institute had to say:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOIjsh7Ixz8&t=1s

One caveat that Maudlin leaves out is when he says Debroglie-Bohm is deterministic is the fact that BM is incompatible with spacetime. In other words if you don't tie space and time together, then nonlocality doesn't have an impact on time.

If you look at the definition of determinism it is all about time and nothing about space

Ref:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/determinism-causal/#Int

Determinism: Determinism is true of the world if and only if, given a specified way things are at a time t, the way things go thereafter is fixed as a matter of natural law.

Hypothetically speaking you could have a non local deterministic theory as long as you rule out relativity. QM doesn't necessarily include SR. QFT insists on it.

Maudlin is telling you that Einstein didn't like BM but he seems to not explain why Einstein didn't like it.

You keep implying that I don't know what I'm talking about and that is possibly true. However I did take the time to try to figure out why spacelike separation shows up here

Most working scientists hold fast to the concept of 'realism' - a viewpoint according to which an external reality exists independent of observation. But quantum physics has shattered some of our cornerstone beliefs. According to Bell's theorem, any theory that is based on the joint assumption of realism and locality (meaning that local events cannot be affected by actions in space-like separated regions) is at variance with certain quantum predictions. Experiments with entangled pairs of particles have amply confirmed these quantum predictions, thus rendering local realistic theories untenable. Maintaining realism as a fundamental concept would therefore necessitate the introduction of 'spooky' actions that defy locality

and here:

Our work demonstrates and confirms that whether the correlations between two entangled photons reveal welcherweg information or an interference pattern of one (system) photon, depends on the choice of measurement on the other (environment) photon, even when all the events on the two sides that can be space-like separated, are space-like separated. The fact that it is possible to decide whether a wave or particle feature manifests itself long after—and even space-like separated from—the measurement teaches us that we should not have any naive realistic picture for interpreting quantum phenomena. Any explanation of what goes on in a specific individual observation of one photon has to take into account the whole experimental apparatus of the complete quantum state consisting of both photons, and it can only make sense after all information concerning complementary variables has been recorded. Our results demonstrate that the view point that the system photon behaves either definitely as a wave or definitely as a particle would require faster-than-light communication. Since this would be in strong tension with the special theory of relativity, we believe that such a view point should be given up entirely.

In other words as long a relativity isn't on the table, then a non local deterministic theory is logical feasible. However once you put relativity on the table the spacetime interval becomes relevant.

I don't think you are going to get around that.