Prior factors constrain parameters, they don't specify outcome

Honestly, I don't know much about quantum mechanics- It's an enigma to me how most of it works, which to my understanding is the general consensus anyways.

However, I remember a video of a guy using some quantum mechanics to make a random number generator that was truly random- not determined by a combination of physical or electrical properties. I think it used a similar principle to Schrodinger's Cat- Where a given objects exists in several states until observed, at which it collapses into a random singular state, but it was a while since I saw it. This is of course a YouTube video and though it was definitely a scientific channel it should still probably be taken with a grain of salt, but oh well.

I think the inherent randomness the device showed, along with the theorized quantum mechanics at play within the human brain, proves that at some level our thoughts and actions are not set into motion by physics or electricity but by this ultimate "randomness"- And since I cannot think of a way consciousness can arise from throwing together non-conscious elements and electrons, I think that whatever defines this random property and what defines consciousness are likely intertwined, dependent on another- Thus, we have a degree of control, self-will over that randomness, and therefore we do truly have control over our resulting actions.

Hopefully that mess of theories and possibly misunderstood quantum mechanics made sense to somebody.

Your comment fxcking rocks. It's not about making sense, it's about the process of engaging your mind, which you have done. Kudos! Statistically speaking that makes you a modern day superhero! I'm having difficulty connecting the dots that the randomness inherent to quantum mechanics is necessarily interdependent on whatever defines consciousness, but I also don't believe there needs to be a "ghost in the machine" to explain consciousness--it's satisfying enough to me that a sufficiently complex system can and will produce emergent phenomena that appear to exceed the sum of the parts. (I could totally be wrong, I'm a fxcking articulate layman.) Regardless of how you arrived there, the supposition that "self-will" is rooted in the very randomness over which it grants us a measure of control is godamed glorious.

And you're absolutely right that quantum mechanics is an enigma--even to the foremost "experts" in the field. That point is precisely what makes any claim that determinism is provable, much less proven, so stupefyingly preposterous. Yet many people claim free-will is a myth, discussion over, case closed, deal with it, and then point to a chain of flawed, circular logic to prove their assertion, all the while acting as though quantum mechanics is either fully understood or of no relevance to their argument. Meh, even the scientific-minded can be irrational and myopic.

"I'm having difficulty connecting the dots that the randomness inherent to quantum mechanics is necessarily interdependent on whatever defines consciousness"
That is fair enough, as the theory I wrote here simply doesn't have the evidence to back that claim up just because we do not know enough about the nature of quantum mechanics nor of consequence. Both comes from an "unknown" area of our understanding. It's merely the theory. I could be entirely inaccurate, but until I actually have evidence to prove or disprove the theory it's still one step ahead of shrugging and saying "I don't know."

*consciousness, not consequence.

The hypothesis may lack clear evidence, but it still holds together at least as well as most arguments concerning the relationship between quantum mechanics and free will. Heck, I expect someone somewhere is putting together a PhD thesis on this very topic as we speak.

what do you know, I just read an article on an emerging philosophical theory that, while difficult to read as it's quantum mechanics after all, seems to put forth almost the same exact idea I did here.

You're ahead of the curve! You've intuited a concept that's still largely within the purview of visionaries.

"but it still holds together at least as well as most arguments concerning the relationship between quantum mechanics and free will."
Granted, that's not necessarily a very high bar.

True, but the published theories are put forth by people with graduate degrees, which means you're doing as much with less...assuming higher-education actually helps people reach their intellectual potential. From what I've seen, that's also highly debatable.