Do I have a choice? (determinism vs libertarianism vs compatibilism)

Of course they can. That's subjective. Nope. You're right -- it doesn't make much sense to imagine that, since such assumes that you can change the past. No. "Entirely free" is self-contradictory; as, "that which is locked to nothing," wouldn't be locked to being 'entirely free'.
Oh, and it wouldn't be locked to that logic, either. Nor that logic. Nor that.Ain't violations of the law of noncontradiction grand? Is there some entry of true randomness? If not, then yes.Edited by DominionSeraph, : No reason given.Edited by DominionSeraph, : No reason given.

But the way in which we work only makes us more so. We learn automatically -- our programming changes on-the-fly. For the things normally referred to as 'automatons', this is not automatic. If it is nothing but a conglomeration of immediate stimulus-response mechanisms, why make a distinction? The only difference between a single-step and multiple-step is that the increased complexity of the multiple-step can result in you losing track of exactly what's going on in the middle, so you'd fill the middle in with a question mark -- which gives the concept wiggle room. But your concept of the system including wiggle room doesn't mean the real system has any.

In my next viewing of Episode IV, the Rebels will blow up the Death Star. If I un-blow-up it using the << button, the Rebels will just blow it up again.Edit: Did it 6 times. (It's chapter 47, BTW.) Rebels done blown it up every time.Edited by DominionSeraph, : No reason given.

The problem is that your random component isn't anywhere in the driver's mental system (which consists of inputs and configuration.) Change it so that it is, and watch what happens:One of the drunk driver's inputs is changed. Instead of the driver being sent an input consistent with that of light reflecting off a child, the universe randomly outputs the image of a school bus in his path. He swerves to miss it (something that wouldn't have happened if the universe wasn't fucking around with his inputs), and he hits the child.If the universe sent him bad data, is he responsible for the result?Edited by DominionSeraph, : No reason given.

Sorry, but your actions conflict with your assertion that you're sure that I'm not arguing that.Try again, and say what you mean.

You asked a question. That would be an action. "Surely not." Which means it would be an assertion.
Tack on the, "surely not," and now we have you disagreeing with yourself. Think things through, and then read my point again.
Delirium would be a configuration problem -- not a problem with inputs.

Actually, that's independent of determinism. The question is, are you your own creator? If you are, you're responsible. If not, you're not. Nothing else needs to be considered.Oh, and someone please take care of that Fundie claptrap.

By what formula? Like the formula, perhaps?

So it's random? There really is no method to your madness? If it ain't random, there is one.Edited by DominionSeraph, : No reason given.

No you don't, as you didn't create your will. Whatever is at the beginning of the chain of creating/fiddling is responsible for your will being the way it is.

So you're saying that there's a nonrandom set that cannot be described by an equation? It would be a conclusion.
So, can you reconcile 'nonrandom' with 'follows no formula'?

The one who gave you the ability to choose + the one who determined what you would choose. You can't use freedom.And please keep your religious nonsense out of the science forums.

It's the expression of nonrandomness. To model the moon's orbit at 100% complexity, you'd have to take into account every piece of matter's effect on every other piece of matter within a sphere 27.4 billion ly across. The fact that we can't do this doesn't mean the universe can't.

Unsupported assertion. Nor do I need to. Burden of proof's on the one who asserts that the Rebels (or anyone else) have freedom. Over and over again, with no mechanism in sight that would allow for change. I did. It is inevitable that the Rebels will blow up the Death Star.

Ugh. Try this:Effects are locked to their causes. Thus, the state of future things is locked to the state of past things.
Everything in the past is in a set state; therefore, everything in the future is in a set state.
Set = locked into immobility. Anything locked into immobility isn't free.