Free Will is incompatible with Foreknowledge

It seems that Pro's only remaining objection to my arguments is that the UOD's must be able to be bridged because free will affects the objective world. I will address this at the end. First, I'll make a few clarifications."This argument enters the unresolved philosophical, psychological, and neurological debate of mind-brain duality."I agree with Pro that this is an unresolved issue at least to some extent. However, my contention is merely that foreknowledge and free will are compatible, not that either one is necessarily true in the world in which we live. If it is possible that the mind is caused entirely by the brain, then I have presented a situation in which this could be the case even if it turns out not to be a representation of the way the world really is in reality."I don't understand why the possibility of being mistaken makes something objective."This is because a person is incapable of being mistaken about one's subjective beliefs. By the very nature of a subjective belief, the belief itself makes it true. Since a belief that I can be mistaken about cannot be subjective, it must be objective."Con is confused about my inclusion of his arguments in the formal logical framework I have used. I was hoping that my opponent would be using the same order of logic and for this to be an argument in these terms."I understood Pro's intentions but was just clarifying for the record that the additional premises had not been added by me. I would have been happy to engage in a debate in these terms if the situation had presented itself. However, I already agreed that Pro's arguments were logically valid and only contended that one of his premises was not true. Pro's new premises did not fix this problem.Now to the issue of a "bridge" between Muod and Wuod:Pro argues that because the decisions made using free will affect the real world that this is a sort of bridge between the two universes of discourse. I contend that this is a misunderstanding of the issue. I will give an analogous and more simplistic example which might clarify the situation:For this example, I will be discussing the following::-)What is represented above can be talked about in two different ways. It can be a smiley face or it can be a colon followed by a dash followed by a close parenthesis. Each of these two things is correct but only in its own universe of discourse. I will coin the following terms:Euod: The universe of discourse containing emoticonsCuod: The universe of discourse containing characters typable on a computer keyboardin Euod, it can be correctly stated that I have typed a smiley face. It cannot be said that I typed colon-dash-closed parenthesis because colons, dashes, and closed parentheses do not exist in Euod. When we are talking in Cuod, I cannot have typed a smiley face because smiley faces do not exist in that universe of discourse.If I am talking about what is in this text box within Cuod, there is a colon, a dash, and a closed parenthesis there. It cleary has an effect in the UOD. There is no smiley face in Cuod. There is no concept of a smiley face possible in Cuod, yet my typing of a smiley face within Euod had an affect on Cuod. There does not need to be a bridge between Euod and Cuod because there is no material difference, only a difference in the universe of discourse.If the resolution was whether or not a smiley face was compatible with the letter H the answer would be yes it is. This is because when we are talking about smiley faces we are always talking in Euod and when we are talking about the letter H we are always talking in Cuod. Something that exists in only one universe of discourse cannot be incompatible with something that exists only in a different universe of discourse.http://en.wikipedia.org...(philosophy)