Free Will is incompatible with Foreknowledge

Review:Con has contended that the concept of Free Will vis-a-vis choice and that of Foreknowledge exist in separate universes of discourse (UOD). For the purposes of argument, I will try to incorporate this concept in previously established formal framework.Based on Con's representation, what is true in one UOD has no meaning in the other. We can link this to the previously introduced fundamental concept of the "state" defined in the previous round. To do this, we designate which UOD each state belongs to. For example, for states within Moud, we can designate them as m_i; for states within Wuod, we can designate them as w_i.Con asserts an inability to combine these states. This means that C(a,b) can only exist within m_i; and F(q) can only exist within w_i; and there can be no transition (either (m_i, w_j) or (w_i, m_j)) between the two. We must rewrite the premises.P1, P2, and P5 can be rewritten using this new nomenclature:http://tinyurl.com...P1 and P2 are rewritten to be applicable only to Muod and P5 is rewritten to be applicable only to Wuod.P4 is unchanged, since it is valid regardless of the UOD (and retains the generic "s" variable for any state in any UOD).P3, however, is tossed out. While it can be rewritten in terms of Wuod, it no longer has a place in this conversation as the results of Free Will Choices can no longer exist in states in which we can have Foreknowledge of the outcome.Rebuttal, the first:It may seem, on the surface, that, by accepting Con's refutations, I am conceding that his premises are superior to my own. However, the resolution is that: Free Will is incompatible with foreknowledge. That is my ultimate conclusion. The refutation of the premises, rather than Con's goal, should be a means to the end of showing that Free Will is not incompatible with Foreknowledge. (For example, this debate is not a debate about which methods are better at demonstrating incompatibility.)Con has not done this. His separation of the discussion into UOD has eliminated the third premise. The third premise is the premise that links Free Will and Foreknowledge. Even Con admits that "Foreknowledge, however, is referencing future states of the objective world which are firmly within Wuod. Therefore we cannot discouse them along with the concept of choice. To do so would be to render a meaningless statement." Combining Free Will and Foreknowledge outputs meainginless statements. In essence, a reductio ad absurdum. It seems that Con has reached the same conclusion as me, simply through different means.Rebuttal, the second:However, I need not accept Con's response to my premises. There is a lack of justification for why Con's premises are superior to mine. I have engaged in the hypothetical, seeing how those premises affect the argument (they lead to the same conclusion through different means) but I do not see why we should accept that choice is limited to one domain while foreknowledge is limited to another. Having established the groundwork for the argument in R1, it would seem that an unstated premise was the inclusion of all defined concepts as being within the same UOD.I contend that choice is not merely something that exists in the mind. Indeed there is the perception of choice, our internal point-of-view that does the choosing, but this is not the end all, be all of free will choices. Choices have some affect on the real world. What I do affects the objective world around me. To suggest otherwise would be to suggest that I am completely detached from the objective world, unable to interact with it.Since my choices lead to actions which affect the objective world (Wuod) then the outcome of those actions are within the scope of Foreknowledge, meaning that my premises, and the subsequent argument, stands.