lifegazer said:
What questions? I'll answer any serious questions.
Unfortunately, you only consider a question serious if it has an answer that makes sense in context of your philosophy. I look for questions that meet the exact opposite requirements.
"But QM isn't just about indetrminism, there is still excating probability within it. You wouldn't be able to predict free-will like that. It would be like postulating, without ever seeing you eat ice cream, that exactly 65.43202093820% of the time, you will choose chocolate. And then observing your ice cream choices millions of times, and seeing it match. Doesn't sound like free will to me.
(Determining the probabilities of events occuring without seeing them is a fairly straightforward process in QM.)"
This is a "dilemma"? 
My point is that you cannot predict free will like that. So QM is clearly not related to free will.
In my philosophy, God's indeterminate nature is the cause of perceived existence.
Not determinate; not certain or fixed; indefinite; not precise; as, an indeterminate number of years.
This conflicts with other statements in your philosophy. As you claimed that god does not exist within time or space, and being indeterminate would require change, which would require time.
So, God's energy is essentially indeterminate.
God doesn't have energy, god exists outside of time and space, energy is a part of time and space, which in your philosophy, is part of god's imagination. (also, you could replace this statement with energy is essentially indeterminate, and the whole thing would make as much sense).
However, since this energy is responsible for the order perceived within our existence, it would be expected (in my philosophy) that a general ordering of that energy were to be observable at the base-particle level.
By orderable, I'll assume you mean TLOP. Matter an energy is "ordered" as according to TLOP. However, in your philosophy, TLOP is all part of god's perception/imagination, whatever.
There should be a probability that fundamental-particles do conform towards an expected order.
This is where it gets down to the issue. If you view a classical TLOP, then everything works like clockwork, and then where is god? He would not be able to make any decisions, and according to you, god is "indeterminate", ie, he can make change. So like you said before, you would have never gone a long with the clockwork TLOP, and predicted that particles would behave in ways we would not be able to predict.
[Side note: the actual necessity for the universe not being clockwork in your philosophy is unclear to me, since god is playing out a scenerio, to see the result, which I do everyday, with computer programs, which I expect to behave like clockwork]
So it is your philosophy, that random QM events are due to God's "change" ability, "God" is making the decision. However, conscious free will desicions do not fit any rubrik, they happen as they happen, and the results certainly cannot be predicted (especially if you are under the assumptions that free will is a) not simply random and b) not a process that can be traced out and followed step by step through logic). TLOP does not fit this description, there a huge number of rules that cannot be bent or broken, ever, ie, charge conservation, not even for units of time under a plank. Also, even for things that can be violated in a classical sense, the change is still predicted, and exacting numerial limitations are placed on them, such as conservation of energy. Also, no matter what the quantum interaction, we can predict with exacting probability what the results will be. With free will, you cannot, otherwise you are admitting that it is simply a random function, like rolling a die.
So, God has free-will. God's energy is essentially indeterminate. God's energy produces perceived order. Therefore, God's energy, though indeterminate, should be observed to conform to a general order.
QM is not a "general order", TLOP of physics are very excacting. All your argument comes down to is that there must be someone enforcing TLOP, and by our current knowledge of TLOP, there is no requirement of "free will" on that enforcer, the ice cream example points this out perfectly. (Your argument on intent being seperate from this one).
Your icecream has melted away.
Nope, I have shown with the ice cream that QM and TLOP have no need of free will, and in fact, they do not conform to what would be expected if they were being driven by free will.
