Instead, you could talk about the general case, from a low-level (physical) point of view to show that free will as a concept in itself is flawed
this is what i tried to do in the post - hence the many examples. I said the assumption of free will is false. it has no basis other than a religious one.
This intuition comes when one is able to grasp the deterministic (purposely avoiding talking about quantum mechanics for now because it will take much more than a comment to expound on why 'randomness' of quantum mechanics doesn't mean free will) nature of reality.
even in quantum mechanics the observer can alter the experiment. lol
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/02/980227055013.htm
that's a pop science literature obfuscation, "observer" really means any particle that is interacting with another particle, it doesn't need any human interference, but anyways, the inherent 'randomness' present in QM is far from free will.
You mind if I turn parts of your post and comments and my comments into a blog post? Some thought provoking stuff.
fair enough. try this one
https://phys.org/news/2015-10-zeno-effect-verifiedatoms-wont.html
it will be my pleasure. let's keep this thing going. :D