Yes, I saw that. I thought you might be able to elaborate on why you see the uncertainty principle as probabilities alone, and not as something that breaks out of the general scientific deterministic framework.
Thank you!

It breaks out of the deterministic framework at very small scales, but even there it expresses randomness, not choice. These things are explained in my book The Science of Freedom and in my article on the topic here on the site: 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 have to note as well (also because this isn’t the first time, and I’ve already pointed this out to you more than once) that the way you phrased your question is rude and inappropriate. You send me a link and ask laconically what I think about it (when my view appears there explicitly in the article). With all due respect, if you want an answer about something, make the effort and specify exactly what you’re asking, and don’t send me off to do homework and guess what you want. You don’t invest an ounce of energy in formulating and focusing your question, and expect me to trouble myself and lay out for you the main points of my whole worldview about everything under the sun.

Forgive me, Rabbi; apparently you meant someone else. This is the first or second question I’ve asked here.
In the first question I sent it and afterwards wanted to correct it, but there was no option to write a comment or fix it. I accept upon myself for the future not to rush and to check the question carefully beforehand.

Thank you very much for the interesting site, and again I’m sorry.

Following up on this question, regarding the small scales, Rabbi Pixler wrote about this:
“True, the principle itself concerns quantities below the de Broglie wavelength, which is ten to the minus eighth power, but this is not at all a problem for creating a coupling between what happens in those tiny particles and larger objects, ones that can be seen and perceived in the sensory world. Such coupling already exists today. There are computers today whose function is exactly this, so that at the end of the day I get a classical result—not on tiny scales that cannot be identified by the senses, but on scales that can be identified by the senses—and not a quantum one.” And he also wrote:
“One can easily create a coupling between quantum systems and classical systems. For example, in neural networks in the brain that are affected by the action of microparticles operating according to quantum principles, and that affect classical systems of various human choices and actions. Thus, a person has more than one possible path to walk in. This is what we call free choice.”

That is, seemingly there is no obstacle to this being translated into the larger scales as well. Isn’t that so?

In addition, regarding your reference to the probabilities of choice (“I don’t really have the freedom to choose in a way that goes beyond the boundaries of those probabilities”), I remember that in one of your recent lectures you argued exactly the opposite and said that there is indeed a fixed probability for our choices, that the Holy One, blessed be He, determined it, and we can act only within that probability. Beyond that, even if we say that the probability was imposed on us, why doesn’t that break out of the framework of determinism? After all, in the same initial conditions, there is some chance that we will choose good or evil, and if we repeat the same experiment under the same conditions there is some chance that the choice will differ from the first choice.

b, I apologize. I confused you with someone else with the same name who had already written to me in this way in the past. In any case, after the apology, my comments still stand. In the future, please spell out the question and clarify what you mean.

Hello Oren.
What he says is mistaken. Of course there is no problem creating a coupling, but that is artificial. In nature there are no such couplings (which is why classical physics differs from quantum physics, and why Schrödinger’s cat is a paradox and not just an ordinary natural phenomenon). There are two exceptions, involving liquids and conductors, and even there it is only at very low temperatures. Exceptions to the laws of nature are always possible, of course (“Is anything too wondrous for the Lord?”), but one should not build that into the laws of nature.

I don’t see the contradiction regarding probability. Indeed, we have no ability to deviate beyond the boundaries of probability, but within them freedom is given to us. But genuine probability exists only in quanta, and as stated, that is only on very small scales and at very low temperatures. It has nothing to do with our world, and certainly not with choice.

Continuing this discussion, I happened to think of an example of a classical non-deterministic reality on large scales. In the double-slit experiment, if there is an observer, two slit traces appear on the screen, and if there is no observer, more slit traces appear on the screen (according to the interference pattern). Seemingly, we have here an experiment with identical physical initial conditions and a different physical result (assuming observation is not a physical action). That contradicts determinism even on large scales. And more than that, according to this it seems that consciousness is the factor that creates the non-determinism, and maybe that is also evidence that there is free choice.

The double-slit experiment (not with light—Young’s experiment—but with electrons) is at the micro level, not the macro level. We are talking about single electrons. That’s why it is so difficult to perform. To say that this phenomenon happens in reality every day everywhere is plainly unreasonable.
By the way, observation is indeed a physical action. In my book The Science of Freedom I referred to an article reporting a double-slit experiment without a conscious observer watching the experiment, but only a recording of the results on a computer that nobody looked at until later. In that case too a classical pattern was formed.

Why should we define observation as a physical action? After all, it doesn’t operate through any of the four fundamental forces of nature. Maybe we need to define a fifth fundamental force through which observation can affect the electrons.

That is one of the fundamentals considered a discovery of quantum theory. When you observe something, you necessarily create a physical interaction with it. If it did not affect you, and therefore you it, then you would not sense its existence. Photons hit your eye and the eye affects the photon (through the electromagnetic field). Certainly observation devices, through which one usually sees things in physics, are physical devices that create a physical interaction with the measured system.

It’s true that the object I’m observing affects me physically (by means of photons). But I’m not supposed to affect it, since one can also observe without affecting the observed object by means of photons. For example, suppose for the sake of argument that we observe an electron through a one-way mirror through which photons can pass from side A to side B but not from side B to side A. In such a case, would we still find the observer effect?

In quantum theory the claim is that even then there is an effect (if only because your brain state has changed, and that is a physical change, and therefore it can physically affect the physical world). The question whether it must specifically be a human observer (with consciousness) is disputed. Today the tendency is to think not.