The notion that free will does not exist.

"We return then to the original problem. The flawless calculation (which, incidentally, you say should be able to predict everything that will ever happen because all events are ultimately effects of what exists now) says Bob picks blue (or red). It could predict this weeks in advance so long as it has enough information. Bob then CANNOT choose the opposite, even if he tries? One of the calculation's parameter's can't be "And also, Bob will choose the opposite of what this calculation says he'll pick," because that would be a paradox..." Not really. Since determinism is a constant force you can't make the prediction that far in advance and hope to be accurate. You might know the minute or the second before he makes the decision, but certainly not weeks, too much could change by then. Bob can choose the opposite if he desires it, because desire is a cause that stems from something in his mood/attitude. So, yes he could pick the opposite, that's why I said the calculation would have to know his mood and thoughts constantly in order to accurately find the outcome. Again, in theory it could possibly work (long shot at best), but realistically it's impossible. "If we believe that, that's not just the appearance of randomness, that's absolute randomness. Every action creates multiple universes each with a separate consequence? That means nothing can determine the outcome of a action, becomes both outcomes will occur. Determinism then can't exist." Depends on how you see it. The question would then become what is truly reality? If reality is the sphere of space in which you can experience life then wouldn't this be the exact definition of determinism? That decisions in your reality can't happen any other way. Sure there may be other realities, but they are nonconsequential because you can't experience life there. "Ah. I'm slipping kind of off-topic again, but moral relativism isn't the same as the absence of morality. And you say it's okay to throw some in prison to show them how what they did was wrong. So you say we should only have rehabilitative justice, not punitive?" I believe we create our own ideas of right and wrong, but those are based off of our unique experiences and situations and should in no way be forced on others. So, in effect if everyone didn't believe in a unified list of morals, then wouldn't there be no morals? At least they wouldn't matter. Punitive justice can be rehabilitative because it instills fear in some who need it. But yes I prefer rehabilitative justice. "Yet there is a difference between those with Tourette's and those without, a difference you haven't addressed. They feel a compulsion guiding their actions against their will. If will didn't exist, they would simply interpret this as the desire to twitch (of blink or swear or whatever). Why do they interpret involuntary actions differently from the rest of us, if all our actions are involuntary?" Because they don't live under the same illusions that we do. We have this illusion of choice which makes us think that we have control over our choices and that our mind can control the things around us, when in actuality all of our choices are simply a reactionary element against all things around us with consideration of our life past and present. They don't have that illusion. They are aware that they're ticks are involuntary and that they can't control it. However, another idea here, perhaps it's simply that what happens to them is unfavorable. Whenever our decisions are good we praise ourselves, whenever they are bad we curse luck, God, other people, et cetera. It seems to be human nature to take credit for the good things and dole out blame for the bad. Perhaps this caries over to people with tourettes and because the things that happen to them are undesirable they don't blame themselves, but realize the more realistic thing that this is out of their control. "Again, very circular. "Causation is what science seeks... therefore all things have causes." That's not an explanation for WHY things must have causes." But does not determinism control the material world? That is my argument, because determinism can be seen everywhere in the material universe and governs all relationships in the material universe then humans as part of the material universe must be also controlled by/affected by it. "With all this defense of randomness though, I've veered from my point that people's choice's aren't random but aren't effects either. Multiple causes may influence your choice, and your choice will have an effect, but conscious choice determines WHICH effect happens." I'm just going to pull out that "conscious choice" from this paragraph. Conscious choice though to me is an illusion and is only your past experiences, genetic predispositions, and current mood/attitude. So when a decision comes all of your past experiences, all of your genetic predispositions, all of your current mood/attitude are considered and all these causes are battled against each other until one side tips the balance and you are pushed into that direction. Is that not how decisions happen? Are they not directly determined by all of these aforementioned items? Have you ever been able to put aside these items and use "choice" to make your decision? I know I never have.