Determinism as a real thing

Thanks for the speedy response, Con.Con's rebuttal against my case for determinism is essentially an appeal to the unreliability of human cognition and perception, claiming that our natural psychological tendency to seek out patterns in things can result in us believing in false ideas. It is true that this tendency makes it possible for us to see patterns where there aren't any; however, just pointing out the possibility of that happening doesn't logically lead to the conclusion that all the patterns we do see are false... In addition, we are not necessarily bound to the tendencies of our brain. Take the example of of "fake face" in Pro's second Wikipedia link; it is true that we see a face there upon first sight, but upon closer inspection, we are able to also see that it could just be nothing more than a random arrangement of geometric figures. In other words, humans are capable of objectively analyzing perceived patterns to see if they're actually legitimate. This is an essential part of scientific methodology (the main source of evidence for determinism), as seen by the fact scientists do actively try to avoid allowing correlation/causation fallacy, hasty generalizations, confirmation bias, and other things of the like to interfere in their research.Thus, the evidence supporting determinism is sufficiently reliable; given that and its philosophical soundness, it is safe to assume that it is true. It is Con's job, now, to give us sufficient reason to disbelieve in it. Moving onto rebuttals...1. Quantum MechanicsMy original rebuttal to Con's argument from QM was that it relies on the Copenhagen interpretation, and that other deterministic interpretations are favored by Occam's Razor. Con's only response to that is a denial of Occam's Razor... it is true that it is not always right, as Con points out; however, even in the forum that Con cites, it says "much of science draws on Occam's razor, and mostly it stands up to scrutiny". And, anyways, in this case, there is virtually no other option in deciding which interpretation is superior, as they are all experimentally equivalent. In other words, all of QM's interpretations are based off of the same raw data about particle behavior; they are simply different ways of explaining those behaviors. Therefore, Occam's Razor is the only indicator we have of truth value among them, and it favors deterministic interpretations like Bohmian Mechanics and the MWI. 2. Random NumbersCon claims that computers can generate numbers which are completely random. But getting into the technical details of the process, we see that 'randomly generated numbers' are actually completely deterministic:"You can program a machine to generate what can be called random numbers, but the machine is always at the mercy of its programming. 'On a completely deterministic machine you can't generate anything you could really call a random sequence of numbers...because the machine is following the same algorithm to generate them. Typically, that means it starts with a common 'seed' number and then follows a pattern.' The results may be sufficiently complex to make the pattern difficult to identify, but because it is ruled by a carefully defined and consistently repeated algorithm, the numbers it produces are not truly random. 'They are what we call 'pseudo-random numbers,'" [1]3. EntropyThis is a new argument put forth by Con, which claims that since entropy is a measure of disorder, and disorder is random, determinism is false. However, this is basically a semantics argument. Entropy is actually just "a thermodynamic quantity representing the unavailability of a system's thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work". It is simply called 'a measure of disorder' for the purposes of simplicity. In reality there is nothing remotely non-deterministic about it.In conclusion, I have successfully defended my case for determinism and refuted Cons counter-examples.The resolution is affirmed. [1] http://engineering.mit.edu...