> The idea being that if any part of nature is unpredictable, then that could be a mechanism for where free-will might come from.
Trying to use QM to introduce free will is just another manifestation of the same "mistaking the model for the reality" problem.
We have no reason to believe that quantum probability is the end of the road just because we can't see what causes the probabilistic results. For all anyone knows, Einstein was still correct and there is still no god playing dice, just the same old predictable billiard balls at a plane that we can't readily observe.
Perhaps. There's been some interesting work in showing that any hidden variable theories can't give any better predictions than QM probabilities. It remains to be seen whether their hypotheses are valid, but the inference seems sound.
That's well and good, but "prediction" is an attribute of a representative model, not of reality. Reality doesn't represent or predict itself; it just occurs. The problem of comparing against "hidden variable theories" in this context is that the variables wouldn't be hidden to reality; they'd only be hidden to us. So can we predict better than QM? Maybe not. Does QM describe the truth behind experience? Probably not, and it isn't meant to.
Trying to use QM to introduce free will is just another manifestation of the same "mistaking the model for the reality" problem.
We have no reason to believe that quantum probability is the end of the road just because we can't see what causes the probabilistic results. For all anyone knows, Einstein was still correct and there is still no god playing dice, just the same old predictable billiard balls at a plane that we can't readily observe.