Despite this, questions of the nature of free will remain unanswered. How do we define it? How do we test whether we have it? Today, the question is largely divorced from scientific inquiry and is left for the philosophers.

But should that be the case? In previous xo discussions about free will, I've provided a simple framework to explain what free will is: it's undetermined but not random behavior.

Is there a fitting analogue in modern science? Yes, and that's the connection I've made, but one that I haven't seen mentioned. And it's not obscure: it's the classic double slit experiment. In particular, consider the case of individual photons or other particles being shot one-by-one, sequentially through the two slits: the classic interference pattern still emerges. What does this experiment show us? That identical particles with seemingly identical paths nonetheless end up in different locations, slowly building up the interference pattern.

Is the connection obvious? What does the experiment show us? The behavior of each particle is undetermined because, despite apparently identical initial conditions of each particle shot through the slits, the final location will nonetheless be different for each particle. We've met the first criteria of my definition of free will, which is undetermined behavior. And we've also met the second condition: the behavior is nonetheless not random: it follows the structured interference pattern.

My realization is that the first scientific clue to the underpinnings of free will may already be right in front of us: modern incarnations of the double slit experiment using individual particles being shot through the slits sequentially may demonstrate the foundation upon which free will emerges.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5882440&forum_id=2E#49997708)