It would be useful to first know why you want to define free will. That is, for what kind of consideration is it necessary to establish whether or not something has or is acting according to free will.

In terms of your actual definitions, what do you understand a "deviation from the principle of least action" to be? The way I understand it, that principle is a law of physics, so any actual physical process will conform to it. It's not strictly possible to will an action that takes a path not in conformity with the principle of least action.

I actually like attempts to define free will, if only because they might end the nonsensical "Do we have free will?" debate, which, in my view, is 99% an issue with the definition itself.
That is to say, the popular idea of free will is self-inconsistent, and can't exist in any reality. Its non-existence tells us nothing about ourselves and our own reality. IMO

However I doubt that you will get many responses while the argument is like a wiki; not merely linking to definitions elsewhere, but linking to other threads where who knows how much needs to be read until a term is finally defined (is reading the OPs sufficient)?

Personally I would prefer a long essay if it is at least self-contained.

Freedom is a vital property of the human psyche, but it does not have it as a perfect and finished gift, but only as a possibility that in a way creates and expands itself as it is assumed and exercised. That is why the famous controversy of determinism and free will has no general theoretical solution: these two factors do not weigh uniformly in all lives, but are distributed unevenly according to a very subtle dialectical game that varies from individual to individual, from situation to situation, from case to case. There is no way to prove freedom except by exercising it, but to put it in doubt is to refrain from exercising it, thus proving its inexistence through a self-fulfilling prophecy.

It would be useful to first know why you want to define free will. That is, for what kind of consideration is it necessary to establish whether or not something has or is acting according to free will. — Echarmion

the goal of all these formative scientific definitions is to apply in any context and only be based upon external observables irrespective of the means the entity employs to achieve the observable functional behavior or expressed property required by my definition. Think of the goal like categorizing a bin of unknown objects as one kind or another (apples or oranges) according to the most simple observable definition that works and is practical to implement.

hope this helps you for context.

There is no way to prove freedom except by exercising it, but to put it in doubt is to refrain from exercising it, thus proving its inexistence through a self-fulfilling prophecy. — Rafaella Leon

I completely disagree with that type of thinking and conclusions. When any matter violates the PLA at any given point then you know it has a type of free will to do so.

The way I understand it, that principle is a law of physics, so any actual physical process will conform to it. It's not strictly possible to will an action that takes a path not in conformity with the principle of least action. — Echarmion

according to my definitions, an object can deviate from PLA if it has at least "primitive free will" and excess PE to spend, at very high cost, to avoid PLA. For example, if you balletically shoot a missile from the ground into the air it must follow the PLA path under the force field of gravity making a parabolic path back down to the ground. However, when you turn on the missile's rocket booster and change the control surfaces to redirect air lift forces to point upward, then the missile has redirected and powered itself to exactly to go completely against PLA, indeed it is taking the path of most action, going directly upward against gravity, and can continue to do so until it burns all of its PE (fuel) to achieve the least KE efficient motion possible. My definition says that no inanimate matter can do this on its own. This behavior is the hallmark of a living being involvement.

Please show me any examples which violate the PLA as I describe and have no living being involved, or how you figure my above is all consistent w/ being dictated by the PLA.

thx.

Personally I would prefer a long essay if it is at least self-contained. — Mijin

these are top level, minimal definitions based on very simple observables. So, no essay needed. PLA was the only concept most will not know, so the Wiki answers that.

No what I meant was your allusions to things like your definitions of action and living matter, for which we're supposed to go and find from other discussions.

Think of the goal like categorizing a bin of unknown objects as one kind or another (apples or oranges) according to the most simple observable definition that works and is practical to implement. — Sir Philo Sophia

Why would I do this if I have no purpose in mind? I don't see how the result could be useful.

according to my definitions, an object can deviate from PLA if it has at least "primitive free will" and excess PE to spend, at very high cost, to avoid PLA. For example, if you balletically shoot a missile from the ground into the air it must follow the PLA path under the force field of gravity making a parabolic path back down to the ground. However, when you turn on the missile's rocket booster and change the control surfaces to redirect air lift forces to point upward, then the missile has redirected and powered itself to exactly to go completely against PLA, indeed it is taking the path of most action, going directly upward against gravity, and can continue to do so until it burns all of its PE (fuel) to achieve the least KE efficient motion possible. — Sir Philo Sophia

But by adding excess kinetic energy, you obviously change the entire flightpath and so rather than violating the PLA, you have simply moved from one path to another, both being the paths of PLA for the given input of kinetic and potential energy.

Note that for a given "path of least action", the start position, end position and the time it takes to get from one to the other are given. So if you're going to add kinetic energy from the outside, one of these variables needs to change.

This is a quote from a lecture from Feynman, available online, on the principle of least action:

In other words, the laws of Newton could be stated not in the form F=ma but in the form: the average kinetic energy less the average potential energy is as little as possible for the path of an object going from one point to another.

From this it seems clear that the principle of least action is a descriptive law of nature, a different way to express the laws of motion.

Why would I do this if I have no purpose in mind? I don't see how the result could be useful. — Echarmion

sorry to break it to you, but that is what all definitions do. Maybe you are not aware, but the human mind is completely structured to define and categorize everything into distinct and distinguished groups whenever it can. If you are not interested in that defining endeavor then philo of mind may not be your strong suit.

But by adding excess kinetic energy, you obviously change the entire flightpath and so rather than violating the PLA, you have simply moved from one path to another, both being the paths of PLA for the given input of kinetic and potential energy. — Echarmion

no. when the ballistic motion turned into motion that defied gravity it required excess PE and free will control of exactly how and where to and when to enact and direct converting PE to KE. And, as pointed out by SophistiCat here:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/9765/scientific-definition-of-an-action

PLA only applies where motion/actions are dictated purely by Lagrangian dynamics as the general mathematical model. So, please explain what dynamics model can account for "turn on the missile's rocket booster and change the control surfaces to redirect air lift forces to point upward, then the missile has redirected and powered itself to exactly to go completely against the downward force of gravity"? There is no Lagrangian model that covers that dyanmic (Sentient) behavior, so PLA is violated, esp. b/c it required inefficiently spending addition KE and intelligence to reconfigure the matter and redirect its own KE against all the natural forces. I'm all ears how anyone explains otherwise...

Note that for a given "path of least action", the start position, end position and the time it takes to get from one to the other are given. So if you're going to add kinetic energy from the outside, one of these variables needs to change. — Echarmion

no. that only works if all the forces on object are a constant field throughout the path, such that a Lagrangian equation can be formed. no dice! violates PLA per my above.

This is a quote from a lecture from Feynman, available online, on the principle of least action:
In other words, the laws of Newton could be stated not in the form F=ma but in the form: the average kinetic energy less the average potential energy is as little as possible for the path of an object going from one point to another. — Echarmion

sure, but does not apply to my example as I mentioned above. Clearly, the goal of changing the missile's trajectory from natural ballistic to instead take the path of most action required spending KE and negentropy not accounted for by PLA as it brings new forces and dynamics to the equation governing the objects motion, for which there is no Lagrangian equation that can be formed to model. Thus, the PLA simply cannot be applied to those non-Lagrangian dynamics (i.e., it is violated) at some point during the path transformation process, when path motion was actively changed from natural ballistic to the new controlled path of most action . I'm all ears, how otherwise...

sorry to break it to you, but that is what all definitions do. — Sir Philo Sophia

What all definitions do is define things in a certain context. That's why you'll generally find multiple meanings for a given word in a dictionary.

Definitions are arbitrary, and can only be judged in how well they capture the essence of a certain idea.

when the ballistic motion turned into motion that defied gravity it required excess PE — Sir Philo Sophia

Obviously changing the motion of anything requires energy. That's the basis of Newtonian mechanics. But employing energy doesn't change the laws of physics.

and free will control of exactly how and where to and when to enact and direct converting PE to KE. — Sir Philo Sophia

Why would any control be necessary? Clearly particles have been subject to the influx of energy from some source, so as to change their paths, before life was around?

Control is only necessary if you intend the eventual part to align with the desired part, which incidentally is how I would describe having a "will". But the principle of least energy only tells you what path an object will actually take, not whether that path conforms to some goal.

PLA only applies where motion/actions are dictated purely by Lagrangian dynamics as the general mathematical model. So, please explain what dynamics model can account for "turn on the missile's rocket booster and change the control surfaces to redirect air lift forces to point upward, then the missile has redirected and powered itself to exactly to go completely against the downward force of gravity"? — Sir Philo Sophia

Are you under the impression that a missile cannot be explained by physics? All of the things you named can be physically described, and each step conforms (presumably) to the known laws to a large extent. The fuel in a rocket is just another source of energy that, if activated, will naturally affect the path it takes.

The only thing that's missing from a purely materialistic take would be the internal act of choosing.

no. that only works if all the forces on object are a constant field throughout the path, such that a Lagrangian equation can be formed. no dice! violates PLA per my above. — Sir Philo Sophia

Which would imply any change of conditions would violate the PLA, but as I noted outside energy doesn't need to come from a sentient source.

sure, but does not apply to my example as I mentioned above. — Sir Philo Sophia

Again, the laws of physics don't apply?

Clearly, the goal of changing the missile's trajectory from natural ballistic to instead take the path of most action required spending KE and negentropy not accounted for by PLA as it brings new forces and dynamics to the equation governing the objects motion, for which there is no Lagrangian equation that can be formed to model. Thus, PLA violated at some point during the transformation process, from natural ballistic to controlled path of most action . I'm all ears, how otherwise... — Sir Philo Sophia

You seem to be seriously misunderstanding how descriptive models work. The PLA is a description of the world given certain parameters. It's a tool to better predict outcomes. If a situation falls outside a model, it does not violate it. It's like saying the laws of thermodynamics are wrong because a forming planet clearly lowers entropy by pressing particles into a sphere.

Why would any control be necessary? Clearly particles have been subject to the influx of energy from some source, so as to change their paths, before life was around? — Echarmion

dead particles have no choice but to flow with the forces and energy that completely dictate their motion under PLA. please explain exactly why a virus particle behaves and achieves its goal compared to a dust particle which blows aimlessly in the wind, and you'll start seeing what I mean. PLA completely predicts where the dust particle will end up once you know all the forces and fields acting on it. You can never know, not even statistically, where a virus particle will end up even if you know all the forces and fields acting on it. See what I mean???

Control is only necessary if you intend the eventual part to align with the desired part, which incidentally is how I would describe having a "will". But the principle of least energy only tells you what path an object will actually take, not whether that path conforms to some goal. — Echarmion

so see above. You can never know, not even statistically, where a virus particle will end up even if you know all the forces and fields acting on it, so PLA obviously does not apply to predicting the path of a virus, but does perfectly for a dust particle. Thus, among satisfying other requirements, my definition says a virus is alive, and a dust particle is inanimate.

Which would imply any change of conditions would violate the PLA, but as I noted outside energy doesn't need to come from a sentient source. — Echarmion

no. only changes where the matter inefficiently spends addition KE and employs intelligence to reconfigure its own matter and redirect its own KE against all the natural forces, and resist giving up its PE when PLA would otherwise dictate it. I say no inanimate matter can do that combo. Please give me your best example of inanimate matter can do that combo. thx.

Again, the laws of physics don't apply? — Echarmion

sure. why does that hurt your head? what laws of physics apply to intelligence or consciousness???

Are you under the impression that a missile cannot be explained by physics? All of the things you named can be physically described, and each step conforms (presumably) to the known laws to a large extent. The fuel in a rocket is just another source of energy that, if activated, will naturally affect the path it takes.

The only thing that's missing from a purely materialistic take would be the internal act of choosing. — Echarmion

nope. see my above. physics does not apply to contextual algorithms under self control that have the ability to gain and not spend PE when PLA would ask for it (efficiently) back. those can manipulate physics and environment to serve their needs/goals, not be completely controlled/limited by local physical dynamics, can shift physics limits to other parts of the (dead) system. locally alive using physics to beat/avoid physics in achieving its goals, which goals are greater than what PLA would have dictated otherwise.

If a situation falls outside a model, it does not violate it. It's — Echarmion

if you think something always applies to everything possible (as said for PLA) then that expectation is violated and the scope of (PLA) applicability become much more limited (e.g., not to control under algorithmic intelligence). that is what I mean.

It's like saying the laws of thermodynamics are wrong because a forming planet clearly lowers entropy by pressing particles into a sphere. — Echarmion

bad example. 2nd law covers that by saying the entropy had to shift to outside of the lowered entropy system. my virus example is not shifting PLA anywhere. PLA completely does not apply to predict the virus path or behavior or future potential energy.

You can never know, not even statistically, where a virus particle will end up even if you know all the forces and fields acting on it. — Sir Philo Sophia

Why not? Clearly we can predict how viruses act generally to for medical purposes. From a physical perspective, a virus is of course very complex, but why would it be unpredictable?

only changes where the matter inefficiently spends addition KE and employs intelligence to reconfigure its own matter and redirect its own KE against all the natural forces, and resist giving up its PE when PLA would otherwise dictate it. I say no inanimate matter can do that combo. Please give me your best example of inanimate matter can do that combo. thx. — Sir Philo Sophia

Obviously inanimate matter cannot employ "intelligence", whatever that means. But of course the PLA doesn't "dictate" anything. Like all physical laws, it's descriptive, not prescriptive.

sure. why does that hurt your head? what laws of physics apply to intelligence or consciousness??? — Sir Philo Sophia

All of them, when intelligence and consciousness are considered as part of a physical world.

nope. see my above. physics does not apply to contextual algorithms under self control that have the ability to gain and not spend PE when PLA would ask for it (efficiently) back. those can manipulate physics and environment to serve their needs/goals, not be completely controlled/limited by local physical dynamics, can shift physics limits to other parts of the (dead) system. locally alive using physics to beat/avoid physics in achieving its goals, which goals are greater than what PLA would have dictated otherwise. — Sir Philo Sophia

Ok, so objects made by humans are literally outside physics. Guess we're done here.

bad example. 2nd law covers that by saying the entropy had to shift to outside of the lowered entropy system. my virus example is not shifting PLA anywhere. PLA completely does not apply to predict the virus path or behavior or future potential energy. — Sir Philo Sophia

Obviously it does apply, or else PLA is simply wrong as a description of the physical world, of which viruses are a part.

Why not? Clearly we can predict how viruses act generally to for medical purposes. From a physical perspective, a virus is of course very complex, but why would it be unpredictable? — Echarmion

b/c how it behavior depends on the context of its environment, and then its matter configuration and behavior continually and purposefully changes all along that generally random/chaotic path. See my glider analogy in my virus post I pointed you to.

PLA is not about "predict how viruses act generally to for medical purposes". PLA prescribes the exact path the object has to take if you know the starting and ending locations and a constant force field that acts on it. So, I'll give you a simpler example: You can never predict where a human piloted glider will end up landing, even though it expends no KE and is motion is completely determined by PLA at each moment, but PLA does not apply (i.e., becomes useless as a predictive equation) when the matter purposefully reconfigures itself to change forces acting on it (e.g., changing glider control surfaces) towards its goal (e.g., gaining more PE), hence no Lagrangian dynamics equation is possible, so no PLA application is possible. Moreover, it is impossible to know the path the piloted glider took even if you knew the starting and ending locations and every molecule of air flow information, b/c the configuration and "intelligent" program control of the control surfaces at every point along the true path are never knowable ex-post facto. Thus, PLA can never apply to modeling such "intelligent control" situation.

I'll copy key parts here below:
-----------------------------------------------------------
That is, if we consider a virus organism as an example, it appears to be an inanimate grouping of molecules until it is in the presence of an environment which activates its complex molecular action to be attracted to and mate with living cells that are hijacked to make copies of itself, whereby the virus is leveraging the potential energy gained by the living cell to carry out all the kinetic energy mechanisms necessary to move and replicate the virus. Once a copy or version of the virus is made the virus as a unique entity has effectively increased its potential energy at the expense of the living organisms reduction of its potential energy. In this way, the virus has a complex context dependent molecular potential energy program which is capable of redirecting natural path of least action forces present in certain environments towards path and destination which makes its molecular program with another organism’s molecular program replication machinery that is powered by the other organisms potential energy. Because the virus has no means to consume energy producing matter (i.e., cannot eat something to increase its potential energy so that it can produce its own goal-directed kinetic energy) it must instead systematically and smartly redirect environmental least action forces through a sequential molecular program that manipulates and redirects those forces like a gliding plane with no engines that glides to and safely lands on its target by simply dynamically adjusting its control services to create its own path of least action towards meeting its target destination which completely diverges from the path of least action which nature (i.e. gravity) would have forced the agent to take had the agent not had any such control surfaces or context dependent controlling program. In this way, according to the foregoing definition, the virus particle is indeed alive and the minimal form of life that can exist because anything less would not be able to acquire and redirect potential energy from its environment to increase its own potential energy. I posit that a virus using a cell’s machinery and PE as a tool to make copies of itself is an increase in the virus’ PE because all the viral copies share a common meaning a purpose of the original virus organism thus it has amplified itself and its kinetic action potential to affect its environment according to effective implied purpose of the common molecular program, much like any social/pack animals increase their PE by cooperating with each other in common purpose and behavioral (re)action.

...
I do not expect that any complete and accurate broad B/W definition to classify a living system will be based on entropy. Generally, IMHO, the problem with all entropy based definitions of life is that it is possible for matter to gain potential energy during PLA dynamics without changing or increasing environmental entropy. Thus, matter can have the ability to gain future action potential w/ no change of entropy, and because all living system must gain future action potential to have the ability to create the excess KE to afford to deviate from PLA. So, if your measure is entropy change then such matter could selectively take a deviant path from nature's PLA, yet your entropy based definition would never detect it is actually alive. A virus is a great example of what I mean. Throughout the virus' whole existence "life" at no point is it increasing the entropy of the environment, even while morphing itself to attack and evade all the host's defenses, even while guiding and morphing itself to break through the cell wall, even while it guides and morphs itself to get into the nucleus (etc.), even while it is hijacking the replication machinery (thus all hidden from entropy based definition ), and not until it actually starts making copies of itself does it even potentially show up on the entropy based definition radar, but even then it is arguable that making copies of itself does not increase entropy because there are deletion of (molecular) bits, just rearrangement of existing ones that make its kind vs the host's kind (thus neutral entropy).

Obviously inanimate matter cannot employ "intelligence", whatever that means. — Echarmion

I disagree with that in general terms. That is, an example of "intelligence" includes the molecular program of the virus, which is otherwise inanimate matter but for that molecular program.

Obviously it does apply, or else PLA is simply wrong as a description of the physical world, of which viruses are a part. — Echarmion

PLA simply does not always apply. So, it is wrong as a universal principle as it can never apply to predicting or modeling "intelligent control" situations.

PLA prescribes the exact path the object has to take if you know the starting and ending locations and a constant force field that acts on it. So, I'll give you a simpler example: You can never predict where a human piloted glider will end up landing, even though it expends no KE beyond that which PLA proscribes and is motion is completely determined by PLA at each moment, but PLA does not apply (i.e., becomes useless as a predictive equation) when the matter purposefully reconfigures itself to change forces acting on it (e.g., changing glider control surfaces) towards its goal (e.g., gaining more PE or choosing where to land), hence no Lagrangian dynamics equation is possible, so no PLA application is possible. Moreover, it is impossible to know the path the piloted glider took even if you knew the starting and ending locations and every molecule of air flow information, b/c the configuration and "intelligent" program control and configuration of the control surfaces at every point along the true path are never knowable ex-post facto. Thus, PLA can never apply to modeling such "intelligent control" situation.

So, please propose the type of Lagrangian mathematical object that would model such "intelligent control" situations which otherwise render the PLA useless in those situations?

Let me make it more simple for you: there are no laws of motion which govern the motion of a particle under contextual algorithmic/programmatic (i.e., "intelligent") control. So, it is nonsense to say PLA (or any physics laws of motion) describes the path which any living matter must take. Hence, the soundness of my definition!!!

In more detail, that is, I say there are no Lagrangian mathematical descriptors that are possible b/c Lagrangian mechanics requires variables that are functions depending on time and requires a constraint equation and only applies be applied to systems whose constraints are all holonomic. Clearly, there are no holonomic constraint equations possible for particles under "intelligent control" as I've explained it (e.g., when the matter purposefully reconfigures itself to contextually change forces and KE acting on it), which means their equations of motion are not functions depending of time, but functions of context. Hence, PLA can never apply to modeling such systems under "intelligent control". Seems obvious to me, but if you can evidence otherwise, I'm all ears...


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian_mechanics
One or more of the particles may each be subject to one or more holonomic constraints; such a constraint is described by an equation of the form f(r, t) = 0. If the number of constraints in the system is C, then each constraint has an equation, f1(r, t) = 0, f2(r, t) = 0, ... fC(r, t) = 0, each of which could apply to any of the particles. If particle k is subject to constraint i, then fi(rk, t) = 0. At any instant of time, the coordinates of a constrained particle are linked together and not independent. The constraint equations determine the allowed paths the particles can move along, but not where they are or how fast they go at every instant of time. Nonholonomic constraints depend on the particle velocities, accelerations, or higher derivatives of position. Lagrangian mechanics can only be applied to systems whose constraints, if any, are all holonomic. Three examples of nonholonomic constraints are:[11]when the constraint equations are nonintegrable, when the constraints have inequalities, or with complicated non-conservative forces like friction. Nonholonomic constraints require special treatment, and one may have to revert to Newtonian mechanics, or use other methods.

What seems to be missing from your view is that - at least according to a materialistic view - what you describe as "intelligence", be it in a virus or a human, can also be described in physical terms. The action of molecules, the firing of nerves, the movement of muscles. Your definitions simply sidestep the core problem, which is how do we know what happens inside the intelligent system is not just another physical process, following the standard laws?

In your glider example, one could easily replace the human pilot with a robot that operates the gliders to land at a random, suitable point, the randomness provided by some form of random number generator.

This would also be unpredictable in practice. The question is whether both the robot and the human are fundamentally predictable, but very hard to practically predict, or whether there is something about life that's fundamentally unpredictable.

You assert the latter, but your argument doesn't actually support that conclusion.

Your definitions simply sidestep the core problem — Echarmion

excellent point, and where I was hoping discussions would start with, instead of the big PLA distraction. I just added this to my OP (re living) to help explain what my PLA criterion for 'living' (and thus start of free will) means in more plain English:
NOTE: the intuitive gist of what I'm saying above wrt PLA is that the physical laws of motion drive, and thus predict, the motion of inanimate matter, whereas animate (i.e., living) matter, in contrast, is the driver's seat manipulating and controlling the physical laws of motion towards a self-determined, unpredictable, path for which there are no physical laws of motion which can predict where or what state of configuration the living matter will end up in even if you perfectly know all the environmental forces and dynamic conditions in its phase/configuration/action space/time. In this way, any matter which deviates from that predicted by PLA exhibits an act of living primitive free will for which no inanimate matter is capable of. Also, note that this act of living primitive free will conceptual could come before the matter attains the rest of the requirements to be sustainable, living matter, which may be how (dead) matter explores paths towards sustainable (e.g., sentient & reproducing) living configurations and processes, thereby bootstrapping the path from dead to living matter.
=============

, which is how do we know what happens inside the intelligent system is not just another physical process, following the standard laws? — Echarmion

Now, back to answering your question: My above proves that the state of configuration and path of motion of living matter are completely self-determined and unpredictable as there are no physical laws of motion which can predict where or what state of external configuration, or what 'actions' the living matter will end up in. Thus, it naturally follows that there are, likewise, no physical laws of motion that can govern or predict what internal state of motion or configuration or behavior, or what resulting 'actions'[/b] the living matter will end up making to itself and/or the environment for similar reasons as the external motion/action case. More specifically, for example, because the living matter's internal (behavioral) states completely, chaotically, randomly, non-monotonically, etc., depend, in a very degenerate manner, on the external configuration/conditions/path, which I've already proven no physical laws of motion or interactions can govern or predict, then it is impossible for those same physical laws of motion physical laws of motion/interactions to predict the internal states/function/behavior from what they unpredictably depend upon. QED!

More generally, in my framework, you are jumping way too far down the chain to talk about 'intentionality' of the living matter. in my framework, you have to break 'free will' down to a continuous hierarchy from clear zero free will (inanimate matter) to increasing stages/categories of 'free will' which one builds-on and simultaneously may coexist as part of a final decision to make an 'action' on the 'free will'. Thus, I am breaking it all down horizontally and vertically in all functional terms and functional constituents. I believe most of what humans consider as actions arising from their qualia of 'free will' is in my highest 'Conscious Free Will"; however, you will never be able to categorize all (not even most!) human actions in that category b/c the vast majority of human actions are very pragmatic and based on scripts and habits which mostly reside in my "Sentient Free Will" category, and most of our unconscious actions/behaviors likely are governed by my "Primitive Free Will" category. They all occur in parallel and as an interference pattern in superposition as the 'collapse' to form a final 'action' for which we have to do even do personal CSI type of introspection investigations to figure out where, why, and what was the 'intention' and 'purpose' and 'meaning' of an 'action' we 'decided' to make.

So, in my framework, most philosophical and neurosciences accounts, models, and discussions of 'free will' are mostly non-sense, and only out of context, (very) partial truths at best.

I'm hoping the strong philo types will find real logical flaws or strong counter-examples to my proposed 'free will' framework, which, BTW, I ground all the way down to the molecular level and physics!

BTW, for the sake of completeness, I added a new type of 'free will' to my OP.
Quantum Free Will: the freedom for pure quantum systems to probe all possible valid paths and/or states of energy in space and time, but no freedom to act on any of them except for that prescribed by the Principle of least action (PLA).

In your glider example, one could easily replace the human pilot with a robot that operates the gliders to land at a random, suitable point, the randomness provided by some form of random number generator. — Echarmion

a "random number generator" does affect the impossibility of motion prediction, IMHO, b/c, while it would increase the range of uncertainty about where the glider would land you could still get a reasonable estimate based on knowing, figuring out, the probability density function (PDF) of the random distribution the random number generator is sampling from. With that you could get a mean and variance of "actions" the robot will take, and most 'actions' would average out to zero over the whole gliding path to the ground. whereas, a human has purposeful goals which are completely unpredictable; e.g., if the human wanted to stay in the air for maximum time he'd behave like vultures looking for and riding thermals keeping them in the air forever and taking them to ever new spatial locations. Zero chance of predicted where that living glider system will ever end up on the ground, or when. whereas if you kill the human in the glider, you know pretty well by the physical laws of motion where and when that (dead) glider will end up on the ground if you know the atmospheric dynamics around the (dead) glider.

make sense???

This would also be unpredictable in practice. The question is whether both the robot and the human are fundamentally predictable, but very hard to practically predict, or whether there is something about life that's fundamentally unpredictable.

You assert the latter, but your argument doesn't actually support that conclusion. — Echarmion

I think I've supported the "fundamentally unpredictable" conclusion above. That said, you do get more predictability when the living being acts on 'Primitive Free Will' if you know it set of 'goals' (e.g., always seeks food/energy) and Degrees of freedom of their physical capabilities (e.g., types/nature of locomotion, control/effector surfaces, etc.), b/c their range of PLA deviant paths will be much more limited and far less dynamic.

let me know otherwise...

cheers,
:wink:

To me free will is the claimed ability to take a decision without this decision being the result of the interactions between the fundamental constituents the brain is made of or whatever makes the thought possible.

“

1. Quantum Free Will: the freedom for pure quantum systems to probe all possible valid paths and/or states of energy in space and time, but no freedom to make an action on any of them except for the actions prescribed by the Principle of least action (PLA).“

A quantum can take any path except the path with the minimum action has the highest probability.
The system is in a superposition of going through all paths until the path is determined. Why calling this quantum free will?
Any particle can deviate from the minimum action path, so everything has what you call primitive free will. The deviation is random