Fatalism

I. Human FallibilityIt is true that we are unable to determine or predict certain aspects of quantum mechanics, but consider human determinism from a historical perspective. Just a few hundred years ago, we once considered natural disaster to be unpredictable and random. Wind was considered to be a magical force, and sometimes even used to justify the existence of supernatural forces. Today, we know that natural disasters occur as a result of various climate and environmental factors. We know that rain results from condensation. We know that volcanic explosions result from reactions within the ground that build up massive amounts of air pressure We know that wind is created by the movement of air pressures (hot/cold) throughout the globe.If we go back a few thousand years, our civilization devolves further into indeterminism. The Sun appears to be a divine being in the sky, never to be reached. The moon is just as mysterious, and many lores depict these entities as Gods or Goddesses (Helios, Appollo, Ra, etc.)Today, we know the Sun to be an astronomical entity in space. We know its composition and its origins. We can even predict its death all with relative certainty.The point to take away from these examples is that regardless of whether or not humans are capable of determining the various aspects of the universe and the world around them, those aspects continue to be what they are. Even when we didn't know how wind came to be, the Earth ignores our fallibility and continues to moderate and control global weather through the ocean, the air, etc.For example, while we fallible humans don't know why probability distirbution patterns occur, we do know that there is a pattern. Even if we don't know how sub-atomic particles interact in whatever ways they do so, those interactions are still preset to be what they are (tautology).We've historically been ignorant of our physical world, but ur physical world continues to operate on whatever laws they operate on without concern to the human's ability to understand it.There are rules, and we do not have an exhaustive or even necessarily accurate database of these rules. What we do know is that we have seen that certain rules exist, and the further we delve, the more rules we encounter. We can reasonably conclude that the universe operates on these set rules.In any case, I refer back to Lemma 1 as further refutation of my opponents critique. The interactions between particles are predetermined.Human indeterminism is irrelevant to the equation.II. Reliance on PhysicsMy opponent states that my case depends on physical particles and that the inability to account for qualia harms the case. This statement is untrue. My case depends on the assumption that all particles interact in preset ways. Finally, determinism is not constrained to physical features, merely that my proof uses a physically reacting particle as an example. We are unable to determine whatever non-physical elements, properties and interactions that any and all physical particles might have, but I argue that based on empirical consistency of these particles, these interactions are also consistent. Moreover, qualia may in fact actually be built on physical features. Once again, I refer to the fact that the human's ability to explain factors outside of his comprehension is inconsequential. Even if qualia weren't a physical thing, the fact remains that every human being is consisted of physical particles and that his actions - based on what we now know - are controlled by hormones, brain signals, and the environment around him (which are also made of particles). Everything the human has done or is doing is a direct result of the culmination of the physical presence of all the particles' movements in the universe since the start of their existence. Qualia, its existence and our inability to explain it, does not affect the fate of the particles that control us and everything around us.On to CON.