https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/events/gamergate

GamerGate is the movement that proclaimed gamers are dead. Yes, gamers, you and me, were are dead, D-E-D dead! This is all afterlife type of shit like in the movie Jacob's Ladder. So don't be surprised if you suddenly wake up in a bathtub full of ice and your son is Macaulay McGulkin (or whatever his name was) and he is DEAD too!

(Actually it was the anti-GG movement that told that, but who cares... Just watch the movie and suddenly it all makes sense.)

We're d-e-d? Like as in not alive any more? Well cover me in honey, spank my bottom and call me Susie.

But if sitting here spewing arguments and jokes on the gog forum is the afterlife, then this is pretty much H-E-double hockey sticks.

Are you sure you consent to this, Susie?

Been playing NOLF lately ?

Not Online Lives Fuckers?

I'm currently emailing the consent form to myself.

It's not that simple. I've seen it often enough that women who grew up with an abusive father often end up in abusive relationship themselves, and also that men who grew up with Uber-mothers end up with women who are mother-replacements...
There are also neurologists who claim that there is no "free will" at all, that choice is an illusion created by out brain, and in fact that all decisions are already made subconsciously and the conscience just comes up with justifications. While I don't believe that, these scientists and their theory have yet to be disproved.

I kind of agree with that. On the other hand it's sometimes really important to realize where our own harmful behaviour comes from - for the purpose of introspection and healing. That's of course not the same as "blaming" and has nothing to with pointing fingers at all.
In the end there is the one truth of all psychotherapists: "You can't change the others, you can only change yourself.". This wisdom seems to have gotten lost though, since all I see is people demanding of other people to change while never ever looking into the mirror.
Well... what I can do is to try to make it better.

I suspect that this claim might be like the parallel postulate of geometry (or, alternatively, the continuum hypothesis of set theory, if you prefer). In other words, I suspect that the answer is that the theory can't be disproved, but that it can't be proved either.

Of course, for this to work, you need a rigorous definition of "free will", and it's not clear (to me, at least) that there is such a thing.

Well to disprove it, you would need to recreate the exact same choice situation several times (probably down to the last molecule regarding the brain). Then, if in any one of these exact same situations the test person makes a different decision - that would be free will and the theory disproved. Pretty unrealistic...

Scientific theories can't be "proven" as such. Every observation that confirms the theory substantiate, but a single failure either means it needs adjustment or it's bullshit altogether.

Actually, even if you could recreate the exact same situation, that still wouldn't be enough. If we assume the claim to be true (and if my claim is true, this doesn't lead to a contradiction), then it's reasonable to conclude that quantum mechanics is relevant to explaining the brain and the choices we make. It turns out, however, that quantum mechanics isn't deterministic; it only predicts probabilities of different outcomes. Hence, iven if you did recreate the exact same choice situation, it might still give different results, even if free will doesn't exist.

Hence, getting different results from the same situation is not enough to prove that free will exists.

IIRC, we typically accept unfalsifiable claims as false on premise that they can't be tested. I would argue that nurture plays a bigger part than nature (genetics vs upbringing debate), but i'm plenty willing to accept that just because we make choices doesn't mean we are more likely to make different ones. I have a pretty interesting study that i'd be happy to exchange with you in private, if you want, as well as my own theory on why the results could be nurture instead of exclusively nature, but we can't really prove this without someone with alot of money being willing to make a huge study on a majorly controversial subject, that's so controversial that people even the new york times backs off of the results when it supports lefty causes. Precisely. I think the message is intentionally lost, though: when i try to point it out i instantly become the devil. How many women i've met with daddy issues, and i ask the question "if you never talked to your father about this, how do you know your mother was telling the truth?" And, on top of that, i can list reasons why a father would intentionally make himself out to appear to be the bad guy. But dare say as much, and you're evil and can't possibly know anything on the topic, despite their admission that they don't know anything that you don't, and you might have more experiences with such cases, but they can't admit that, for their worldview would be crushed as well as their reasoning for man hating, father hating, or whatever, thus making themselves bad people, too.
Honestly, i think quantum physics is a method of goalpost moving for both the religious and secular to explain why we just haven't solved the debate yet. I'm still waiting to see practical application of quantum mechanics, outside of proposed applications and "we did it, but we ain't showin' you our device" applications.
Basically, people were outraged over the woman's game as well as it getting positive reviews simply because she slept with the guy, so these shitposters went into a frenzy harassing game news sources as well as Zoe herself. Some feminist opportunists took advantage of the controversy to try to focus on proving that video games are a source of toxic masculinity (Anita Sarkesian). Eventually people like Sargon of Akkad got into this and, largely, it became a proxy war over sex-negative feminism, even though it was really about gamers trusting certain promoters who made their opinion on special interest rather than actually properly reviewing games which they were expected to do.

Actually, much electronics, including transistors, relies on quantum mechanics.

If it weren't for quantum mechanics, computers, and hence the internet and this forum, would not exist; therefore, in making this comment, you are indeed using a practical application of quantum mechanics.

(In case you're using a smartphone, such a device really is a computer, and works on the same principles, including quantum mechanics.)

Diodes and transistors still function in the realm of atomic theory, without any necessity of quantum mechanics explanations, and they usually are explained in this fashion (atoms prefer to have 8 valence electrons, and failure to have 8 means they have "holes" and depending on charge of an overall compound we can use the exchange of electrons to fill these holes temporarily, where as if the electrons are flowing the wrong way, these holes don't present themselves). Just because you can explain it with quantum mechanics does not mean the technology came about as a result of quantum theory, as it did not.