From Emily Conover at ScienceNews, describing the work of physicist Nicholas Gisin:

Gisin — known for his work on the foundations and applications of quantum mechanics — takes issue with real numbers that consist of a never-ending string of digits with no discernable pattern and that can’t be calculated by a computer. Such numbers (for example, 1.9801545341073… and so on) contain an infinite amount of information: You could imagine encoding in those digits the answers to every fathomable question in the English language — and more.

But to represent the world, real numbers shouldn’t contain unlimited information, Gisin says, because, “in a finite volume of space you will never have an infinite amount of information.”

Instead, Gisin argues March 19 on arXiv.org, only a certain number of digits of real numbers have physical meaning.

And the implications for free will?

But if the world is described by numbers that have randomness baked into them, as Gisin suggests, that would knock classical physics from its deterministic perch. More.

It is fair to ask, at what price? Readers?

Real numbers: A real number is a number that can be found on the number line. These are the numbers that we normally use and apply in real-world applications.

*See also:* Researchers: Neuroscience has not “disproved” free will: “To be clear, we’re not taking a position on free will,” Dubljevic says. “We’re just saying neuroscience hasn’t definitively proven anything one way or the other.”

Can we build a computer with free will?

and

How can we believe in naturalism if we have no choice?