Modern computers are all based on some degree of parallelism. And weather is a system based on mechanisms rooted in the laws of physics. Wordplay again. Ask yourself sincerely: Why do people feel the need to redefine the word "machine"? Is it for scientific reasons? Really? Honestly? ;)

It is merely a redefinition of a word that doesn't change reality. I could redefine "elephant" as "mouse" and then claim that an elephant is a mouse. People engage in this wordplay for psychological reasons. To avoid the conclusion that we are machines ourselves. So we come up with some fiction.

Why can't a machine have these properties? Also a computer can simulate complex systems with feedback loops. It remains a machine.

The people still have a chance. I hope they won't waste it.

Feedback loops are implemented in lots of machines. This doesn't make them magically less mechanical.

... free will and the nature of determinism itself. If every macroscopic event in the universe is "under-determined" by microscopic quantum indeterminacy, then our conventional notions of causality, which rely on a worldview where a unique cause leads to a unique effect, need to be reconsidered.

... is sensitive to changes and noise at the Planck scale and that these changes become apparent at mesoscopic levels within a minute. While the paper remains technical and does not delve into philosophical details, I believe it is relevant to deeper philosophical questions, such as...

However, this is only a partial truth. Quantum determinism 'percolates up' in a nonlinear chaotic context, where even slight differences can cause the system to behave differently (the famous 'butterfly effect'). I demonstrate that a (not at all complex) system, such as a driven damped pendulum,...

Quantum indeterminism is generally assumed to be limited to the microscopic scale, while Newtonian-Laplacian determinism reigns unchallenged in our everyday experience. Quantum noise and indeterminism are considered negligible and as something that is 'averaged out' due to the law of large numbers.

This looks interesting. I'm going to read the article. It seems to make similar claims to those in my paper here: doi.org/10.53765/205... (the metaphysical speculations can be skipped, as the rationale remains unchanged). The standard argument against free will fails.

Great work! Long awaited review. Thank you for that.
However, I don't understand eq. 25. Isn't what you label as the "collapse" instead the choice of the eigenbasis? Say, for example, spin basis S_x or S_y. While the real collapse being the outcome (the eigenvalue) spin up/down?

An oven in summer and an icebox in Winter?

And by the American people who voted for him.

Unvermeidlich sind 3 Grad.