Young Know-it-alls

Yes, this logic is flawless but incomplete because 2 +2 also = 1 modulo 3. (And it equals 0 modulo 2, as in binary arithmetic.) I'm not just trying to be a smart-ass here. This bears directly on your OP. You will find as time goes by that a lot of your views don't change, but get imbedded in a greater context with more options. The indeterminentcy (sp.?) of quantum mechanics that fully describes nuclear decay without invoking strict deterministic causal mechanisms averages out for large scale objects (like us) to give the appearance of strict determinism. So, your belief in strict determinism is perfectly fine for you and your experiences.For over a century now physicists have used a beautiful and powerful tool for advancing knowledge called The Correspondence Principal. This principal simply states that a new theory that describes new phenomena should reduce to the previously held theory(s) that was (were) very successful in describing previously understood phenomena in the limit where those older phenomena predominate. Einstein used this principal to determine which of many possible forms of general relative to use by finding the one that reduced to Newton's laws in the limit of low speeds and low mass densities.I think this principal applies to a lot of what happens to a person during their intellectual growth. We don't reject old 'truths'. We just understand them in a broader context with additional meanings, nuances, and limits. I've always been fascinated, in studying art history, how the progress of art seems to occur as a form of punctuated equilibrium, a sequence of fairly well defined art movements, each of which originates as a reaction or rebellion against the previous genre but still encompassing most of the key elements of that genre.