The choices people present in these so called arguments are really not very clever, or not very much like an argument for or against anything be it free will or the price of bread in a free market economy. It hence seems to me that if you are discussing this question more often than not, you're trying to drive the ball through a narrow goal post. Perhaps amongst the philosopher or philosopher of science Croquet is their national sport, but to me at least it seems to be all balls.
The free market economy is it good, and the free will debate hence will roll on; it's kind of like a standing philosopher joke isn't it, the debate about free will. I mean no offence but even a moron could of made a point by now? Or is that the point...
Suffice to say infinite universes are sophistry unless, and let me make this clear you are just trying to prove that maths is reality and physics at least as it pertains to science and something that is actually anything about actual science, can go take a long walk off a high cliff.
Welcome to the forum though. Try looking up Leplace's Demon that will really bake your noodle.
We may regard the present state of the universe as the effect of its past and the cause of its future. An intellect which at a certain moment would know all forces that set nature in motion, and all positions of all items of which nature is composed, if this intellect were also vast enough to submit these data to analysis, it would embrace in a single formula the movements of the greatest bodies of the universe and those of the tiniest atom; for such an intellect nothing would be uncertain and the future just like the past would be present before its eyes.
—Pierre Simon Laplace, A Philosophical Essay on Probabilities..[]
[]Arguments against Laplace's demon
According to chemical engineer Robert Ulanowicz, in his 1986 book Growth and Development, Laplace's demon met its end with early 19th century developments of the concepts of irreversibility, entropy, and the second law of thermodynamics. In other words, Laplace's demon was based on the premise of reversibility and classical mechanics; however, Ulanowicz points out that many thermodynamic processes are irreversible, so that if thermodynamic quantities are taken to be purely physical then no such demon is possible as one could not reconstruct past positions and momenta from the current state. Maximum entropy thermodynamics takes a very different view, considering thermodynamic variables to have a statistical basis which can be kept separate from the microscopic physics.[4]
Due to its canonical assumption of determinism, Laplace's demon is incompatible with mainstream interpretations of quantum mechanics, that stipulate indeterminacy. Whilst indeterminacy is the majority position amongst physicists, the interpretation of quantum mechanics is still very much open for debate and there are many who take opposing views (such as the de Broglie-Bohm interpretation).[5]
Chaos theory is sometimes pointed out as a contradiction to Laplace's demon: it describes how a deterministic system can nonetheless exhibit behavior that is impossible to predict: as in the butterfly effect, minor variations between the starting conditions of two systems can result in major differences.[6] While this explains unpredictability in practical cases, applying it to Laplace's case is questionable: under the strict demon hypothesis all details are known and therefore variations in starting conditions are non-existent.
In 2008, David Wolpert used Cantor diagonalization to disprove Laplace's demon. He did this by assuming that the demon is a computational device and showing that no two such devices can completely predict each other.[7][8] If the demon were not contained within and computed by the universe, any accurate simulation of the universe would be indistinguishable from the universe to an internal observer, and the argument remains distinct from what is observable....Recent views
There has recently been proposed a limit on the computational power of the universe, i.e. the ability of Laplace's Demon to process an infinite amount of information. The limit is based on the maximum entropy of the universe, the speed of light, and the minimum amount of time taken to move information across the Planck length, and the figure was shown to be about 10120 bits.[9] Accordingly, anything that requires more than this amount of data cannot be computed in the amount of time that has elapsed so far in the universe.
Another theory suggests that if Laplace's demon were to occupy a parallel universe or alternate dimension from which it could determine the implied data and do the necessary calculations on an alternate and greater time line the aforementioned time limitation would not apply. This position is for instance explained in David Deutsch's The Fabric of Reality, who says that realizing a 300-qubit quantum computer would prove the existence of parallel universes carrying the computation.
It's a funny old world.
link from wiki.
You are of course right though, but the consequence of being right just brings up more confusion and consequences, if I am doing something only because that is what I will always do how then am I freely willed, of course the compatibilists say that you are if you are doing something whether you are compelled or not, if and only if the consequence values are unknown by the subject, and this unknown hence means free will can exists in an objective sense at least, but this in itself seems incomplete, and raises even more pertinent questions. It's one of those questions perhaps that if we ever do answer, it will mean we had free will or not, but that we clearly spent so long debating it that we never really used it or didn't.
