Free Will is incompatible with Foreknowledge

I will address Pro's second argument first.Response to second rebuttal:This argument is basically a rejection of the notion that mind and foreknowledge exist in different universes of discourse. In order to defend this position, I need to prove three things:1. Choice can exist only in Muod and not Wuod.2. Objective states can exist only in Wuod and not Muod.3. Foreknowledge refers to objective states.Proof of 1: Choice is something that is experienced by a mind. Without the experience of choice, choice does not exist. Furthermore, I cannot be mistaken about whether or not I made a choice. It would be nonsnse to say that I believe that I am making a choice but am mistaken or vice versa. At any time, when I believe that I am making a choice, I am indeed making a choice and if I believe that I am not making a choice, I am not making one. Outside of the mind, there is nothing to have the experience of choice making and therefore there is no choice. Choice is an experience and only minds can have experiences. In order to argue against this, Pro would have to demonstrate some way in which a choice can be made by something that is not a mind.Proof of 2: An objective state is a state that can be independantly verified. For example, if I tell you that I am happy, this is a statement about a subjective state. You cannot disagree with me that I am happy and indeed my believing that I am happy proves that it is true. On the other hand, if I were to tell you that the Earth is round, this is a statement about an objective state. You can agree or disagree with me based on evidence you are able to perceive and my belief that it is true has no bearing on whether or not it is true or false. When speaking in Muod, my belief that something is true actually makes it true. Because of this, there can be no objective statements made about Muod. Objective states can therefore only exist in Wuod. In order to argue with this, Pro would have to demonstrate some way in which I can be mistaken about my own experience as I am experiencing it (part of the the criteria for objectivity being the ability to be mistaken).Proof of 3: In order for a belief to qualify as knowledge, there must be possibility that I am mistaken. It is absurd to claim that I have knowledge about something when that something is true simply by virtue of the fact that I believe it. This is not something that can correctly be called knowledge. So knowledge (and by extension foreknowledge) can only pertain to objective states which are the only states I can be mistaken in my beliefs about.Lastly, to address Pro's arguments about choices interacting with the real world, keep in mind that we are discussing universes of discourse, not other dimensions or something. A universe of discourse is only the types of things that are able to be discussed in a certain context. There are things in Wuod which affect actions (functionings of the brain) which are described as the experience of the choice in Muod and affect the world of Wuod. This is precisely how it is possble for all things in Wuod to be predetermined and yet for free will to still exist within Muod.Response to second rebuttal:Pro changes the premises to be in line with what he believes my argument to be. I'd like to point out first of all that these premises were not introduced by me as Pro seems to imply when he references them as "Con's premises." I did not introduce any premises. I only eliminited one (P1).I don't see why Pro feels he has to eliminate P3. He states that he does so because "it no longer has a place in this conversation" which I assume to mean that he can no longer use it to deduce the two contradictory premises. In that case, all of Pro's new premises should be eliminated because none of them can any longer be used to prove Pro's point. Indeed, Pro's argument is dead regardless of whether we accept my proposed premises (P2-P5 from Pro's original argument) or Pro's new premises from last round.Pro contends that my arguments also result in a reductio ad absurdum but has not given an argument to demonstrate this. I simply contended that Pro's P1 was meaningless. I did not argue that it was absurd because in order for something to be absurd, all the terms within it must have meaning. For example, "all elephants are mice" is absurd while "All elephants are jkwehdkjhwed" is simply meaningless. I argued that P1 was meaningless because not all of the terms used within it were in the same universe of discourse so at least one term would not have a meaning within a single universe of discourse.