The Universe is deterministic

RebuttalsFirstly, I have to point out that the first part of Con's argument is totally invalid. Using different definitions for the same concept is a fallacy. Con stated that "There is no room for free will under determinism", but, as you can read in round 1: "concerning determinism and free will, technically denoted as compatibilistic (allowing the two to coexist) ". This means that proving free will doesn't disproves determinism. Anyway, as I said before free will is " the capacity for an agent to make choices in which the outcome has not been determined by past events.". That being said, if you can only choose between A or B you don't have free will. If you can only choose between two option, the outcome of that choice is already determined: It would be A or B, thus free will wouldn't exist. The real and complete free will would exist if the choice you do couldn't be prior determined in any way. Also, the possibility that a deterministic Universe could have been determined to end up "bad" doesn't disprove that It could have been determined to end up like this. Proving that X could cause Y doesn't mean that X couldn't cause Z. This doesn't negate the causal relationship between Z and X. You can't say that X could just cause one thing. However, It is possible to say that Z couldn't be caused by anything else than X, this is what my argument says, and that's why it's correct. So, by now, all the Cons arguments where unsuccessful to show my arguments are incorrect or invalid.Quantum MechanicsFirst of all, the whole quantum mechanics has been already rebutted by Con himself. Later in his argument He says that the neurological approach to prove that free will doesn't exist is invalid because neurology is an incomplete field. As far as I'm concerned, quantum mechanics is as an incomplete field as neurology, maybe even more incomplete and uncertain. This means that the whole quantum mechanics argument against determinism is invalid, thus Con unsuccessful to disprove determinism.Anyway, quoting Daniel Miessler :"Quantum randomness leading to an alternative outcome does not count because humans don’t willfully influence quantum randomness."Free willAs I said earlier, free will doesn't make determinism invalid. So if you prove free will you are not disproving my claim that the universe is deterministic.Nevertheless, I can give arguments disproving free will. "Experience teaches us no less clearly than reason, that men believe themselves free, simply because they are conscious of their actions, and unconscious of the causes whereby those actions are determined." B. de Spinoza Ethics .Yyou say that the proof of free will is that we experience choice making, but as Spinoza explained, being conscious of your actions doesn't mean you have free will. You are indeed conscious of your actions, but unconscious of the causes of such actions, thus you feel like you have free will but you don't.As you can observe, Con can negate the resolution, and provided that I can prove it, the resolution is affirmed.More arguments in favour of determinismDeterminism is the base of scienceQuoting Bertrand Russell: "The law of causation, according to which later events can theoretically be predicted by means of earlier events(determinism), has often been held to be a priori, a necessity of thought, a category without which science would not be possible."The base of all scientific knowledge is determinism. The statement that events are determined by prior events is what makes science possible. So if we say that the Universe is not deterministic, we are saying that science is invalid. That would be absurd, because all of our arguments are based in science, and if science is invalid, both opinions, pro and con, are invalid too.Causation is undeniableThe law of causation is indeed undeniable. Every event has a cause. You can't think of an event that happened without a cause. That being said, if all events have a cause, all events are determined, ergo, the universe itself is determined.Libet's experimentsLibet asked people connected to EEG to move their hand in arbitrary moments. The results showed that there was brain activity before the actual decision-making moment occurred. This proves that decisions we feel we make are actually the result of neuronal activity which occurs before conscious decision making.Quantum TheoryMany people think that QT is non deterministic, but It isn't. Instead it is very deterministic. Many people make the mistake of thinking that Heisenberg was talking about how particles were. He was actually talking about how we measure them. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle tells us that we can't precisely measure 2 quantities, that's it.When statistical mechanics come to play, QT becomes deterministic. A particle's path can't be fully described, but it can anyway be predicted. As a matter of fact, as far as prediction goes, the quantum motion is as predictable as the classical motion, but the key is that it describes wave functions that cannot be easily expressed in ordinary language. This probabilities, are determined, thus proving determinism. Also, the Schrödinger equation makes the QT a perfectly deterministic theory, having systems described by a wave function which develops based on the previous states of the wave, all this ruled by an equation. As I see it, very deterministic.