I do understand the description, but it doesn't provide a rationale for why free will is possible in with our physics.
you are one scary smart dude. Indeed, free will is not possible with "our" small
Saying free will and consciousness require each other to exist and that "this is the second level of the model where the exercise of free will is necessary to the functioning and resulting value of the VR" still does not explain how choices here are possible.
indeed it does not. The QoC which informs the Intent/Motivation behind the apparent PMR choices are not made here, in PMR.
I understand the model, but if I observe the colors green and blue, that doesn't tell me why they are green and blue. Saying free will is necessary operator of all consciousness and "computing reality" (which I don't dispute) doesn't explain why free will is possible.
indeed, free will is not possible if you do not take into account that it occurs outside of physical material reality (PMR).
if you missed when I edited my post I added this:
Edit: To be clear about what my goal here is: I've been trying to figure out a way to break causality of physics as expressed in our neurobiology.
PMR is one local physical VR of many that is being interfered with by intentionally baked in randomness to keep things interesting and free will awareness units (all AUM/NPMR-based sentient entities) guiding the sensor platforms.
I don't know why I haven't seen it before, but applying Tom's psi uncertainty to our brains allows a rationale to exist to let go of a deterministic point of view that our neuroscience supports.
like AUM tracing through every possible experience vector, rationales can be made and followed to their natural terminus... perhaps you could elaborate on your thinking here. Why are you trying so hard to pack all this meat into little Einsteinian physics? Do you not accept as valid data that you have a persistent and non-physical existence that may operate with or without a brain?
The reason neuroscience supports determinism is because it has to measure causal events or else it has created inconsistencies.
yes, when a sphere passes through flatland, you have one hell of an inconsistency - flatlanders are well practised in averting their eyes