Slashdot Mirror
Black Hole Information Loss Paradox Solution Proposed
Anuborn Satirak writes to tell us that Physicists from Case Western Reserve University claim to have cracked the black hole information loss paradox that has puzzled physicists for the past 40 years. "The physicists are quick to assure astronomers and astrophysicists that what is observed in gravity pulling masses together still holds true, but what is controversial about the new finding is that 'from an external viewer's point it takes an infinite amount of time to form an event horizon and that the clock for the objects falling into the black hole appears to slow down to zero,' said Krauss, director of Case's Center for Education and Research in Cosmology."
It's what happens in the physical world when you divide by zero.
This signature is a waste of 42 characters
Ah, esay one, I sloevd tihs one aegs ago, the irofntamion pbalbroy got lsot alnog the way.
Of course that's true, but is it also the case that a black hole can hold a stargate open, slowly sucking all of the surrounding area around the other gate into its time dilation bubble? Really, as a taxpayer funding this research, I want answers.
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
Here's the preprint.
I came here for a good argument
Are they saying black holes are perpetually in the creation phase, or they just don't exist at all unless they formed at the beginning of time?
I'm probably missing something here but from all I've read about black holes I've always read that it would appear to an observer that your clock would slow towards 0 (which is what they say in the article). So hasn't this been proposed in general already? Are they saying that you'd never appear to reach the event horizon?
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
from an external viewer's point it takes an infinite amount of time to form an event horizon
Nothing like an experiment to verify theories. And indeed, a quick trip to the DMV or the social security office confirms that it does seem to take an infinite amount of time for any event to occur, and that the clock seems to stop locally.
See? no need for black holes.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
"...in 0 time at all!"
Ice Cream has no bones.
Anyone know what happened to Hawking's proposal for information loss?
o n_paradox
Basically what Hawking said (in a late essay entry in a science conference) was that Black Holes do 'digest' information and therefore you have information loss, however (and this is where his proposal was a bit controversial) Hawking suggested that the conglomeration of parallel universes will have a particular Black Hole present in one, and the same Black Hole missing in another, therefore the TOTAL information for ALL Universes, is retained.
Here's a link to Hawking's Black Hole Paradox: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_informati
And from the wiki article, here's the line I'm mentioning in my post:
"...On October 28, 2006, The Discovery Channel aired a show called "The Hawking Paradox". The show explained Hawking's conclusion that one must look at the universe as a whole, and that information lost in black holes is saved in parallel universes where no black holes exist."
It seems that this new solution is completely disregarding Hawking's proposal and replacing it with a new, stretched solution.
A black cat crossing your path signifies that the animal is going somewhere. -- Groucho Marx
I looked at the abstract of the actual paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0609024 and it looks like they discuss a case where the black hole does not really form, the domain wall that collapses in their model evaporates and a singularity does not form. This does not quite address the case of dropping an object into an already-formed black hole, but it sounds good for a press release, especially since the neighbors at Fermilab have made a habit of it.
A Slashdotter would realize that if you don't want to see any information, you need to view the event horizon with a threshold of -1.
Not to be a smartass, but isn't that a no-brainer? I always figured that was the case. Objects never cross an event horizon (from perspective of the rest of the universe) in the same way nothing ever accelerates to the speed of light. Time/space distortion stops it from happening.
would be proud.
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
I'm sure it's not that simple, but that sure seems like what the article is saying. Black Holes would take infinitely long to form, so we'll never see one form, so no information will be lost. It sure doesn't seem to add up to me, since I thought there was pretty good evidence for black holes--and the universe hasn't existed for an infinitely long time. Still, when has quantum stuff ever made sense?
"It's complicated and very complex," noted the researchers
What an understatement.
Well, that makes it difficult. If it was just one or the other, maybe I could understand it. But if it's complicated and complex...
We English majors may not know math, but we can spot redundancy at least.
Then everything is complete and the Universe is in harmony. Problem solved.
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
'from an external viewer's point it takes an infinite amount of time to form an event horizon and that the clock for the objects falling into the black hole appears to slow down to zero,' ...so surely if it takes an infinite amount of time to form an event horizon then we shouldn't have seen any yet. But we have.
There is an article about this same thing in new scientistb lack-holes-really-exist.html
http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn12089-do-
It quotes 't Hooft as claiming that "The process he describes can in no way produce enough radiation to make a black hole disappear as quickly as he is suggesting." So I am skeptical.
So we finally have a possible answer to why we see so many dupes. ....
1. They aren't dupes and they don't exist because they never form
2. they are dupes but come from another universe where they have been deleted and saved here....
we haven't (seen any black holes). You can't "see" a black hole (that's why they're named as they are). We have observed the effects of things which match our expectation of the effects a black hole would cause. I assume the authors of this paper explain how their black-hole-like-object-which-isn't-a-black-hole can cause the same effects.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Didnt have any fancy equipment, just a neon glow stick.
Threw it into a couple of normal holes first.
Knew when it had arrived due to the fact i could see it.
The problem with the black hole was that it seemed moving slower and slower as it got closer to the event horizon, not even getting there.
Obviosly you cant throw anything into black holes. Or would you prefer to believe people telling you that light moves slower away from the black the closer you get to the event horizon?
But ive got an information loss problem of my own.
I got this neat random number generator with a lcd display that generates a random number every second.
Ever since i placed in inside a black box i dont know what number it displays.
Anyone know how to find out what number it displays without opening the box?
No. Black holes aren't lopsided
This article is identical to what we covered... in 300 level Modern Physics in college in 1983.
I don't see how this is new or radical, except for the general population, who seem to think that for every "black hole" there is a corresponding "white hole", or that when you "fall into a black hole", you somehow end up somewhere else.
You should read Feynman's lecture series; he has one from the 50's that debunks the idea of a "graviton" or a particulate carrier for gravity because of the need for it to have mass.
-- Terry
If I understand this right, it is saying that from an external frame an object will not cross the event horizon.
But from a local frame of reference you will, except due to the distortion in spacetime time will be running infinitely slow - the upshot being that you will cross the event horizon at the end of (external) time or when the black hole (and event horizon) evaporates.
Is the far side of an event horizon a spacetime disconnected from the external space time? Does it really exist at all? I wonder if the gravitational signature of a black hole is that of a solid sphere or a hollow shell?
they haven't (proven that event horizons exist). I'll paraphrase my earlier response, maybe repetition will help you learn. We have observed objects which exhibit behavior consistent with what we would expect from observing an event horizon. I expect that the paper which is the subject of this discussion explains how their black-hole-like-object-without-an-event-horizon can also exhibit the observed behavior.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
I found this idea about microscopic black holes much more interesting. They are talking about the idea that these things could be rattling around inside the sun, or inside Jupiter and causing it to heat up, or even inside the earth. It was also suggested that the new Large Hadron Collider might be capable of creating microscopic black holes through the collision of particles at relativistic velocities.
I once read a scifi story decades ago about this tiny black hole that revolved around a planet close to the surface, leaving a hole behind whenever it passed through a mountain or whatever. I never forgot that story and was fascinated by the concept.
Over a nice meal.
Reality is fluffy!
That's so obvious I've been wondering for years why anyone thought there was a paradox.
Apparently one of the physicists has just purchased a DVD of Andromeda and watched the first few episodes. It burns me up that sci-fi writers are so darned smart!
Wouldn't that make a blackhole kind of like an iPod for God? Instead of storage for song data, it records the entire history of the universe. Of course we couldn't even read it since its stored in such a way you could never unravel it...
That's an interesting viewpoint, but I don't think you understand physics.
QM lies at the physical border of observable physics. At the QM boundary, concepts we take for granted such as electrons and the speed of light have different meaning. Humanity has nothing to do with it. At a small scale, the behavior of matter changes.
Here's an analogy:
Let's say Newtonian (ordinary) physics involves sitting on the side of the road and tracking how fast people are driving in their cars. From this perspective, you can get a pretty good idea where the cars are going. But there's still some randomness to it, if some driver changes their mind.
In this analogy, QM would be like sitting inside each car tracking who is having what conversation, who is on their cellphone, whether their hands are on the gearshift or on their girlfriend's boob, etc. It's a whole other level that you can't see from the side of the road.
If you could be inside each car, then you would know. But you can't. That's QM, the individual decision-making of each driver on the road.
Each driver==each electron. Whether you choose to track electrons with free will or with robotics, it's still too small and random to keep track of all the time.
Okay, I'm going to have a crack at this because I think even this is only haif the story:
The effect of measurement within the car, like, say observing that the driver's hand is in fact on the gearstick, rather than his girlfriends boob. Has collapsed the wave function to the hand on gearstick state. This negates the other possible states, and it does so retro-actively. This is because it takes a finite time to make the observation, during which the observed has to make preparations for the correct state upon collapse. The Best example of this is observing a photon that has (necessarily) gone one way around an intervening galaxy to appear as a spot on your phosphour screen as opposed to the interference pattern observed by a photon interfering with itself as it goes both ways round at once. In this case, the preparation time is millions of years. Demonstrating the paradox rather nicely.
Therefore the observed has to back track in its history, so that it can behave as observed.
The grandparent suggests one way around this absurdity, which is if we had no free-will, then the photon/driver's hand is already fated to be observed in a particular way. But Bell himself, I believe, thought that this was rediculous.
So the problem remains (to most people's opinion). Many of suggested all sorts of solutions that make mockeries of Occam's Razor such as many worlds theorems, but for me, I think the Copenhagen Interpretation is the original and best.
"Laugh while you can a-monkey boy!" - Dr Emilio Lizardo
So is the stuff in black holes is just moved to the /tmp folder or /dev/null?
It depends on how you define detection. If the quantum suicide experiment actually worked, the parallel nature of the universe could be locally discerned (for an arbitrarily sized group of "local" observers, in principle), but it would actually be detecting the loss of parallel branches, rather than their continued presence.
If other reasons we do lack, we swear no one will die when we attack
'from an external viewer's point it takes an infinite amount of time to form an event horizon and that the clock for the objects falling into the black hole appears to slow down to zero,' huh? time doesn't slow down to an external viewer. this doesn't make any sense to me. fine, if *I* get thrown into a black hole, maybe I'll accelerate to close to the speed of light, and so time will slow down in my frame of reference, and so it will seem that I will never reach the ... event horizon, or whatever. But, if I'm outside, far from the effects of the black hole's gravitational field, why would I be affected? Can anyone explain this?
QM lies at the physical border of observable physics. At the QM boundary, concepts we take for granted such as electrons and the speed of light have different meaning. Humanity has nothing to do with it. At a small scale, the behavior of matter changes.
Would it be more correct to say that the behaviour of matter is the same but that our model of that behaviour is insufficient to continue to predict it at that smaller scale?
Would it be more correct to say that the behaviour of matter is the same but that our model of that behaviour is insufficient to continue to predict it at that smaller scale?
Yes, thank you.
However,
If you can cross the distance of an atom, via strong/weak forces, as quickly as you can cross that distance via the speed of light, then you have a new physics.
Entirely predictable, of course. It's just a whole other realm where forces converge. The short distances make speed a different issue.
20721 FTW?
It's so five years ago. Well, to be accurate, more like seven.
wouldn't we need free will to stop pretending we're special?
20721 FTW? Got me there chief, what are you on about?
"Laugh while you can a-monkey boy!" - Dr Emilio Lizardo
This means that the Andromeda would never have come back out of the black hole.
... is whot bwings os tugevza tsuzay.
Has anybody an idea, if this conclusion is valid even for rotating black holes?
Each driver==each electron. Whether you choose to track electrons with free will or with robotics, it's still too small and random to keep track of all the time.
Cool! A car analogy! I think that when you track electrons with free will or with robotics, they're more like cars with sirens on them. You know, cops. Like you see on TV late nights, where they have hot chicks run DNA tests.
Mmmmmm... Hot chicks with big breasts....
Sorry, was I saying something?
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
I don't know as much about relativity as I would like to, but hasn't this been known since forever?
Swedish plasma phys. PhD student; MSc EE; knows maths, programming, electronics; finance interest; seeks opportunities
The article quite sensibly predicts that matter will not reduce to a zero volume, with an infinite density (specifically that it require an infinite time).
This does not mean that black hole-like objects do not exist, as a mass with 1/Inf volume (or whatever), is still going to look the same from a distance.
Commendably, the article does not insist that the existance of black holes in real life has been proven (as it has not been proven). There has merely been a lot of astrophysical speculation (which may be correct, partially correct, or downright wrong, who can tell).
On a personal not I find the entire argument that gravity is the root cause of all cosmological activity, rather odd, as gravity is the weakest force, and the sparse matter in space has been verified to be partially electrically charged (plasma).
Gravity does not explain behaviour such as the observed "stringiness" of space, or phenomenon such as spiral galaxies clearly ejecting matter at right angles to the plane of rotation.
That doesn't mean that gravity being the cause for many phenomenon is wrong, however it is often used as a The Meaning of Life type explanantion of everything; whereas including other forces/effects may produce a simpler or better answer (Occam's razor), particularly as EM forces are some 10^39 (I think) times stronger, and even a small charge imbalance can override gravity in certain situations.
There is no psychiatrist in the world like a puppy licking your face - Ben Williams
What is the problem with a small nucleus? Well, if you believed in point charges then you would have light electrons orbiting a heavy nucleus like a small solar system. With a simple hydrogen atom, you would have a proton and an electron as a rotating dipole. With classical electrodynamics, this ought to radiate waves with the frequency of the orbit, and the electron should spiral into the nucleus, with the frequency rising as it goes. The pair of particules is not losing angular momentum, so it should get faster and faster untill some new force - perhaps the actual 'size' of the nucleus, stops it, or it collapses forever. We know this does not happen - there is no 'ultraviolet catastrophe', and the electron can radiate only a few discrete wavelengths, rather than a continuous, rising chirp. And thank goodness this is so, because the universe would be a very dull place, though we would not be around to complain about it.
We now have quantum electrodynamics, which predicts what these particles do very nicely and to enormous precision. Many people find QED unsatisfactory because it seems to involve switching between looking at things as particules and as waves apparently at random, and it seems to need some faster than light magic to make it work, though we can never catch the universe doing it. Many popular science articles love dwelling on this 'mystic' aspect', but it doesn't help. Basically (a) small things are not like big things, and (b) the equations work, so we trust them in as far as scientists trust anything.
With QED we can imagine what happens when we overcome the weak nuclear forces. We get neutron stars, where everything goes to one big squash of condensed matter. With black holes, we are squishing even harder, and then gravity (an inverse square force like electrostatic attraction) ought to run away, and all the particules ought to radiate gravitational waves and vanish towards a dimensionless dot. Only it can't do because there are other things like the angular momentum which must be preserved but cannot exist at a dot (okay, there are ways around this), and the entropy of the original particles, which ought to still be preserved somehow. Sound familiar? Yes - if we allow the particules to fall inwards forever then we get a paradox. Probably something else happens. What? We don't know.
The logical place to look is something like string theory. If you look closely enough, particles may not be dots but lines or surfaces or all sorts of things. Nice idea, but not much help unless it actually predicts something.
We think we can see black holes. We may know from observation about as much about the insides of black holes as was known about the structure of the nucleus back in 1920. Ask again in ninety years or so.
I had high hopes that when CERN switched on the LHC in November of this year, they would inadvertently create a black hole, thus increasing the sales of my book, 'The Ancient Order of Moridura' (with a related theme of a nascent singularity created by a meteorite impact in Extremadura). But then I realised that the extinction of the planet - and probably the solar system - would prevent me from collecting my royalties. Life can be unfair sometimes! However, doomsday has been postponed until April/May of 2008 because of problems with magnets. The Higgs boson must be chuckling quietly in interstellar space, its anonymity preserved for a little longer. http://moridura.blogspot.com/ regards Peter Curran Edinburgh, Scotland
Your own assumptions about the universe is just a belief mind you.
You would like the universe to be like our models, of mathematics, that we created in order to understand and predict this universe. This mathematics is *within* the universe, so how this ever can be capable of holding all the parameters / the absolute truth, now *that* is irrational!
So the whole premise, although very tempting, is just impossible. The universe does not exist out of mathematics, mathematics exists because of this universe! To think any differently is perverse, and will only cloud your own judgement and mind. We must always be open to new stuff in order to advance true science, and not dogma.
Free-will or not, has nothing to do with it. The quantum-level is so low a level, that when we observe something, we irrevocably change the state. If we measure it a different way, we change the state in a different way. So wether we have free will or not, we can measure things differently, and the way we do it, will affect the result differently.
Wether we choose it by "free will", or by magic, or by rolling a dice, is just philosophy and has nothing to do with physics. You can always say this was predetermined, but the argument is that if we do it the other way, it will have different effects, that we *can* measure in experiments.
Said in a different way: Whatever we do, or dont do, we irrevocably are part of the dynamics of the universe. We would maybe like to be totally impartial observers, but when the observing itself changes the universe, how can we ever separate us from the rest of the entire universe? If you follow this logic, which yourself started, you will come to conclusions that borders on the religious, wether you like it or not. That were responsible for what we do, or dont do, even if its just observing.
So wether we have free-will or not, which is just a matter of frame of reference, where information comes from or not (we really do not know). But we have proof that we are irrevocably part of this universe and influencing everything in it, even just by observing.
So to have hope to understand such a changing system logically and reasonably, we first have to understand our self.
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
A black hole does not mean matter vanishes...if it did, the law of physics that states 'energy is never lost or created, it simply changes shape' would be violated. So where is the paradox? the matter that falls into a black hole is crushed and compressed due to the enormous gravity...but it is not lost, it stays there forever.
This story was published in 1968.
Slashbots these days. Boring, boring, boring. No hot grits, no Natalie Portman naked and petrified, no goatse links.
Oh, for the halcyon days of OGG THE OPEN SOURCE CAVEMAN!
Best Slashdot Co
I have not read that short story, but there may be some confusion about what is actually new in the article and what specific idea the short story was employing. The summary states an old concept and a new concept in the same sentence so there has been some confusion here concerning this. Time dilation effects have been known about since General Relativity was first formulated.
Read over some of the posts above, particulary the "I'm Confused" thread for a better explanation about what part is the new part.
The description:
W
-------------------
This is my SIG. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
In this analogy, QM would be like sitting inside each car tracking who is having what conversation, who is on their cellphone, whether their hands are on the gearshift or on their girlfriend's boob, etc. It's a whole other level that you can't see from the side of the road.
Almost. It'd be a little more like trying to measure whether the driver's hand is on the gearshift or his girlfriend's boob or the steering wheel-- except that you're blind and the only way to know is to grab the guy and see where his hands are, and every time you touch him he gets freaked out and moves his hand. You can tell where is hand was, but measuring the location of his hands move them so you can't really know where they are or where they'll be at any given moment.
It really isn't an issue of "free will". Whether we have "free will" or not, the act of our measuring changes things. Perhaps a better way of showing the problem is to point out that the way we measure things is always to hit it with something. Imagine measuring the location of a puck on an air-hockey table, but doing this in the dark with an air-hockey paddle. When you hit it, you know where it is, but now you've knocked it someplace else.
Now, instead you can use a flashlight and look on the air-hockey table, and but you aren't really doing something different. You're still hitting it with something, but this time light. The light bounces off, and since the light has no mass, the energy transfered to the puck isn't enough to move it. However, if the puck were very small and had very little mass, even the light could move the puck. If the puck were small enough, anything you could bounce off the puck (including light) to see where it is would move the puck enough that any attempt to measure the puck would necessarily move the puck. This would put a lot of restrictions on how you could measure the puck, and once you've measured it, what you could say about it.
That's kind of (sort of) the problem with quantum mechanics. If you get small enough, there's no way to measure things without changing them, and it isn't even clear what you're measuring anymore. It may even be that putting the energy in to measure something creates the thing you've measured. The particle might not even be in the location you're measuring if not for the fact that you've measured.
I'm sorry, what does "truth" have to do with "I don't like it".
Which is what you're proposing.
I wouldn't want to take away personal responsibility due to the absence of free will. However, without any evidence of true free will, I can't say I find it valid.
Actually, I understand this quite well. And I find it absurd that you missed my point entirely went off on a meaningless tangent, and got +5 for it.
And you could have easily done the search for Bell's word, not mine, who I doubt you would say doesn't understand physics.
The assumption of true free will, the belief that the human observer is of course free from determinism, is used as evidence for a non-deterministic view of the rest of the universe. That was exactly's Bell point in this. And this is exactly the relevancy of the observer.
In other words, humans assumed themselves differently then the rest of the universe, and thus showed that the results show the universe itself is non-deterministic.
The quote I used from the story was on the role of the observer. And that interpretation *is* 100% a result of assumed free-will of the human observer.
In quantum physics, there are certain questions about the physical universe which are in principle unanswerable - it's not just a matter of needing better equipment or experimental methods, you just cannot, in principle, ever get that information - and in such cases, it's held that said information in fact does not exist at all. Take radioactive decay, a prime example: supposedly it is a truly random process, such that even if you knew the complete state of the universe right now, ever bit of information about it, you could not deduce whether any given atom of Carbon-14 will decay into Carbon-12 in the next second or not, so it must not yet be a fact about the universe that that atom will (or will not) decay, since by hypothesis you know all the information there is to know, but you don't know that. As such, the unobserved future is in "superposition" - the atom both will and will not decay (or neither; both phrasings are somewhat loose and innacurate from what I'm told), until that time comes to pass and we can see whether or not it does, at which point there is some fact about the matter.
This applies equally well to unobserved things in the present, as demonstrated by double-slit experiments demonstrating wave-particle duality and its relation to observation. Because of things like this, you get some weird results like the Schrodinger's Cat thought experiment, where an unobserved cat whose possible death is tied to the decay of an unobserved radioisotope is simultaneously alive and dead (or, again, neither; it's in a state of quantum superposition). Another present fact you cannot possibly determine (which information, thus, does not in fact exist) is the precise position and velocity of any given particle; the more determined the position, the less determined the velocity, and vice versa.
Thus, as past events outside our light cone (things which occurred far enough away and recently enough that there's been no chance for their light to reach us) are in principle unobservable right now (until such a time as they come to be observable, just like the possible future decay of our Carbon 14 atom), then right now there is no fact of the matter, no information in the universe, about whether such events occurred, and it's just as much a matter of chance which past will turn out to have occurred as it is a matter of chance which future will occur.
As this relates to black holes, if information really is destroyed when things fall into one, then that black hole has, in effect, a very random past, i.e. it does not follow from the present state of the black hole (and the rest of the universe it's in) that it has any particular history, precisely as it does not follow from the present state of a given Carbon-14 atom (and the rest of the universe it's in) that it will or will not decay at any given moment. That information about the past does not exist anywhere in the universe (it's not just a matter of it not existing in our minds), and so there is no fact of the matter at all about which past actually occurred.
Just as relativity was a huge push for eternalism (a.k.a. "block time"; the position that the past and future are just as real as the present), quantum theory is a big push for presentism (the position that there really are no true statements about the past or the future at all; only the present is real), and I for one am quite eager to see how these two are eventually reconciled, for I find myself thinking sometimes as an eternalist and sometimes as a presentist and they seem, despite the apparent contradictions, somehow reconcilable, if only someone could manage to articulate how...
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
And that's the best they can come up with as a way to prove Many-Worlds? Russian Roulette with a quantum trigger?
Actually, yes it is. There's a reason it's called MW(Interpretation) and not MW(Theory), you know. A theory admits evidence. This is just an interesting edge case of what you can rightly consider evidence, related to the concepts in question.
If other reasons we do lack, we swear no one will die when we attack
In other words, humans assumed themselves differently then the rest of the universe, and thus showed that the results show the universe itself is non-deterministic.
OK, so the universe is deterministic.
Want to count quarks? All 10^80 of them? Plus whatever sub-quantum physics havent been discovered yet?
I'm perfectly willing to believe that the univese is deterministic. It doesn't mean we're smart enough to keep track of it all.
I don't think we are either. Maybe never will be. Who knows?
But it amazes me that so many people are willing to jump through hoops to try and explain the world through QM assuming our true free-will, when an easier explanation is right in front of them. But the latter requires one to give up something that is so dearly wanted yet never proven.
In fact, everything from chemicals altering choices to reaction tests are evidence against hard free-will. But it won't go away because of the desire for it.
You're still missing my original point, QM and "free will" have nothing to do with each other.
Let's imagine that humans cease to exist. Does QM go away? No, it does not. QM is a scientific theory, it describes everything, human or not.
Do apples fall upwards in a world where Newton never lived? Is gravity based on Newton's life, or does gravity just exist, waiting to be observed?
If you want to get into "a tree falling in the forest", well...now you're the one who is being anthropomorphic.