On freedom of choice

Yes, I saw that, I thought you could expand on why you see the uncertainty principle as probabilities only and that it does not go beyond the general scientific determinism.
Thanks!

It departs from the deterministic category on small scales, but even there it expresses randomness rather than choice. These things are explained in the books of the science of freedom and in articles on the subject on the website here: https://mikyab.net/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%91%D7%98-%D7%A9%D7%99%D7%98%D7%AA%D7%99-%D7%A2%D7%9C-%D7%97%D7%95%D7%A4%D7%A9-%D7%94%D7%A8%D7%A6%D7%95%D7%9F/
I must comment (also because this is not the first time, and I have already commented to you about this more than once), that the wording of your question is impudent and inappropriate. You send me a link and ask me in a terse manner what my opinion is (when it is clearly stated in the article). With all due respect, if you want an answer to something, go ahead and specify exactly what you are asking and don't send me to do my homework and guess what you want. You don't invest a gram of energy in formulating and focusing your question and expect me to bother and lay out for you the main points of my opinion regarding the entire universe and its wife.

Forgive me, Your Honor, you probably meant someone else, this is the first or second question I ask here.
In the first question I sent and then I wanted to correct it but there was no possibility to write a response or correct it. I will take it upon myself in the future not to rush and to check the question carefully before.

Thank you very much for the interesting site and again sorry.

Continuing with this question, regarding small scales, Rabbi Pixler wrote about this:
“Although the principle itself concerns sizes below the de Broglie wave length, which is ten to the minus eight power, it is not at all a problem to create a coupling between what happens in these small particles and larger objects, such as those that can be seen and discerned in the world of the senses. Such a coupling already exists today. There are computers today whose job it is, so that at the end of the day I get a classical result – at sizes that are not tiny, that can be detected by the senses – and not a quantum one”. And he also wrote:
“It is easy to create a coupling between quantum systems and classical systems. For example, in neuronal networks in the brain that are affected by the action of microparticles that operate according to quantum principles, and affect classical systems of various human choices and actions. Thus, a person has more than one possible path to follow. This is what we call free choice.”

In other words, there is seemingly no reason why this should be translated to large scales. Isn't that so?

In addition, regarding your reference to the issue of choice probabilities (“I don't really have the freedom to choose in a way that goes beyond the limits of those probabilities”). I remember that in one of your last lessons you argued exactly the opposite and said that there is indeed a fixed probability for our choices, which God has determined, and we can only act within this probability. Beyond that, even if we say that the probability was determined for us, why doesn't this go beyond the framework of determinism? After all, under the same initial conditions, there is some chance that we will choose for good or evil, and if we repeat the same experiment under the same conditions, there is a chance that the choice will be different from the first choice.

b, I apologize. I identified you with someone with the same name who has already written to me in this way before. In any case, after the apology, my comments remain the same. In the future, please elaborate on the question and clarify what you mean.

Oren Shalom.
His words are wrong. Of course there is no problem in creating a coupling, but it is artificial. There are no such couplings in nature (that is why classical physics is different from quantum and therefore Schrödinger's cat is a paradox and not just a natural phenomenon). There are two exceptions, for liquids and conductors, and even there it is only at very low temperatures. Exceptions to the laws of nature are always possible of course (what a wonder), but this should not be included in the laws of nature.

I do not see the contradiction regarding probability. Indeed, we do not have the ability to exceed the limits of probability, but within it freedom is given to us. But true probability exists only in quantum, and as mentioned, it is only on very small scales and at very low temperatures. It does not concern our world, and certainly not choice.

Continuing this discussion, I happened to think of an example of a classical non-deterministic reality on large scales. In the two-slit experiment, if there is an observer, two crack patterns appear on the screen, and if there is no observer, more crack patterns appear on the screen (depending on the interference pattern). Ostensibly, here is an experiment with identical physical starting conditions, and a different physical result (assuming that observation is not a physical action). This contradicts determinism even on large scales. Moreover, according to this, it seems that consciousness is the factor that creates the non-determinism and perhaps this is also evidence that there is freedom of choice.

The two-slit experiment (not with light – Young's experiment, but with electrons) is in the micro and not in the macro. It involves individual electrons. That is why it is so difficult to perform it. To say that in reality this phenomenon happens every day everywhere is clearly implausible.
Incidentally, observation is indeed a physical action. In my books on free science I referred to an article that reports on a two-slit experiment without a consciousness observing the experiment but rather a recording of the results on a computer where no one saw what was recorded (until after some time). In this case too, a classical pattern was created.

Why would we define observation as a physical action? After all, it does not operate through any of the four fundamental forces of nature. Perhaps we should define a fifth fundamental force through which observation can affect electrons.

This is one of the foundations that is considered a discovery of quantum theory. When you observe something, you inevitably create a physical interaction with it. If it did not affect you, and therefore you also affect it, then you would not feel its existence. Photons hit your eye and your eye hits the photon (in the electromagnetic field). Certainly, viewing devices through which we usually see things in physics are physical devices that create a physical interaction with the system being measured.

It is true that the body I am observing affects me physically (by photons). But I am not supposed to affect it because it is possible to observe without affecting the observed body by photons. For example, let's assume for the sake of this matter that we observe an electron through a one-way mirror through which photons can pass from one side to the other but not from the other. In such a situation, would we still see the observer effect?

In quantum theory, the argument is that there is an effect even then (if only because your brain state has changed, which is a physical change, and therefore it can physically affect the physical world). The question of whether it is actually a human observer (with consciousness) is controversial. Today, people tend to think not.