The concept of "choice" contradicts determinism and causality

This is going to be first time at debate.org so let me apologize in advance for all the mistakes I make which result in convenience to Chameleon. Where I would like to start with is the notion of ergodic vs. stable systems. Most of the systems we encounter in life are relatively stable. For example if I'm driving my car, at 30 mph and decide to start braking exactly what billionth of a second I choose to stop breaking will only move my car at most millionths of a meter. A system like this where small changes in cause lead to small changes in effect, I will call a stable system. Most of the systems we experience in life are stable. This is what makes it so easy for to think in terms of cause/effect as being relatively simple. There are alternatives which (with a slight abuse of language) I will call ergodic. For these systems small changes in cause lead to massive changes in effect. To start with the 6 dice analogy imagine these were being rolled together in a cup and were distinguished by color. The exact outcome would be determined by microscopic movements of the hand, the slightest changes in angle. Rolling motions that appeared in every way indistinguishable would produce outcomes that were identical to rolls where no care was taken at all to maintain consistency. Another example where the math is both known and trivial is a password hashing algorithm[1]. A small change in a password, any letter what-so-ever, completely alters the underlying hash value, which makes this system effectively impossible to reverse. So let me repeat, even though it is completely deterministic, the cause is well known and simple (the typed in password) and the relationship between cause and effect is not too complicated it is still effectively unpredictable so much so that even with heavy computing power reverse engineering it has been unsuccessful. Another computer example of ergodics is a computer random number generator where the smallest change in random seed can feel completely random, even though the relationship between the seed and the sequence of pseudo-random numbers is completely deterministic. Ergodic models turn out to describe many of the phenomena that we experience. Fluid dynamics for large systems, so effectively wind turbulence are ergodic. The expression "a butterfly flaps it wings in Kansas and 6 weeks later a hurricane hits Japan" comes from the ergodic nature of weather systems. Magnetic fields, specific stock actions during heavy market turbulence, ecological population growth are all ergodic. Once one ergodic system is feeding into another ergodic system, the level of unpredictability squares. An important example is the magnetic field of the earth (ergodic in action) determining the point and degree of impact of various solar events which then feeds into the ergodic weather system. So even if everything were causal and completely determined the effect of these ergodic chains, on any kind of finite being would be effective non-causality of major events. And this distinction between effective and actual non-causality is key. A system can be caused in a specific sense but so unstable as to act like there were no causes. And this is what we experience with weather, our ability to predict specifics drops off geometrically as we look forward in time. That is to get the kind of determinism that Chameleon in the affirmative case is really looking for one needs an additional assumption beyond causality and determinism he also needs stable systems only. And let me point in the argument the ergodics feeding into one another have only created effective randomness, not actual randomness; that is events that are permanently unknowable by finite beings but not actually random. Now in reality, of course, we have quantum events that are genuinely random. These quantum events can feed into ergodic systems to create genuine randomness. For example, we mentioned above the relationship between a computer's random seed and its random number sequence is ergodic. The generation of the random seed makes use of quantum randomness inside the computer creating a non-deterministic cause which for computer control systems which make use of randomness can have observable macro effects. Again this violates the causal assumption in the debate but I wanted to point out the actual case: a) Most systems being stable however some being ergodic b) Minor variations on even stable system are caused by randomness c) The combination of non causal and ergodics creating effective macro randomness with time. That still doesn't really address the question of free agency though. We could easily envision a world as we have which has macro randomness as causes to the living agents while they themselves respond in deterministic ways. Let's take an analogy of the computer random number generator passing cards out to 5 computer bots playing each other in poker. The reaction of the bots to the hands they are dealt is completely deterministic, even though the underlying events are at least effectively random. A view of humanity like that is still unsatisfying. However ergodics continue to give us freedom. Consider the human brain for a moment. We have brain structures formed ergodicly by experience. Within these structures we have amine reactions which are themselves ergodic. An ergodic structure feeding into an ergodic structure, the very definition of something that is so essentially unstable as to make long term prediction impossible. Humans are not bots, we can never know how they would play would poker. Let me repeat so this is clear. Assume we have a person living a 1000 years from now when modeling of behavior is far better, Lee. Assume we take a genetic sample of Lee, so we have perfect knowledge of the initial state of nature for Lee and a perfect recording of every event that ever occurred to Lee. His actual choices in complex areas, that is those things were Lee is making a "hard decision", would be unmodelable since how he decides to act is based on an ergodic brain structure being influence by ergodic amine firing events. Lee retains free agency. That is in this model, Lee is in some vague and absolute sense, completely determined. But the effect is that he lives his life in a way that empirically indistinguishable from a theoretic Lee who has genuine freewill. And of course we have huge chains of ergodic systems: ergodic reactions in the center of the sun feed into ergodic systems on the surface feed into the sun's ergodic magnetic system feeds into the earth's ergodic magnetic system feeds into the ergodic weather system feeds into future weather which creates events which in an ergodic way influenced the nerve structures in Lee's brain which feed into Lee's ergodic decision making system given a fixed initial brain. That is to say every possible observer would experience a universe indistinguishable from one in which Lee has choice, which is what it means to say Lee has choice. Hence Lee's experience of choice is fully justified. Notes: [1] See wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org...) for more on cryptographic hazing and the connection. A sample implementation of cryptographic hazing used for passwords (http://www.ecst.csuchico.edu...).