free will is the way you express your own identity and is thus necessarily deterministic. consider the alternative: > because a specific identity's behavior is not deterministic, it must be either not one to one or not onto > if it is not onto, at any point at which it becomes not onto, that identity loses its will previous to the point at which it rejoins the "branches" it was part of, it being totally indistinguishable from its counterparts. > if it is not one to one, the identity is incoherent and each identity that breaks off from the branch point is different from the break point going onward. the identity from before the break point is gone. you either have an identity and make decisions coherent with it or destroy your identity and remake it anew only for it to be destroyed again whenever a decision is made, making your identity an illusion. there's a little wiggle room here, but not much, and if you're a purist, not at all. it all comes down to how you view continuity, which is more of a perspective than an argument.
United States