The notion that free will does not exist.

"If you, in real life, were there with a person every second of every moment and could read his thoughts and/or mood then you could definitely determine what he would do in that situation." 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? What if, as you suggested, he is rebellious? 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. We get these exact sort of paradoxes when we imagine time-travel or changing the past, and the paradoxes reveal how impossible changing the past really is. Similarly, this paradox shows that it's impossible to completely determine what will happen, even if your information is perfect. "Is there truly such a thing as chaos? Or as is much more logical to accept chaos is simply a point to where there are so many factors that it is no longer worth it to calculate all the different factors and their effects on the system." I heard something or another saying that was the originally chaos's only meaning. Of course that was in the old Greek days, when they believed the gods determined everything... :-) "I read an article that suggests that at the quantum level when you see what you just described 'it literally exists in two forms initially' that the universe is splitting into two universes and that it does this constantly." 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. "I believe morals are completely subjective." 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? "People with tourettes or addictions simply have another cause to determining their decisions. It is a bigger cause than most others but itself falls into the extremely long list of causes that determine our decisions." 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? "To show a direct correlation between two objects is our test for everything. In that way determinism is demonstrable thus meaning that it exists in all of the material world including the human mind and body." Again, very circular. "Causation is what science seeks... therefore all things have causes." That's not an explanation for WHY things must have causes. 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.