But if nobody can even begin to point out where it is flawed....then surely the only rational thing to do is to accept it is correct?
You mean like everyone accepted Aristotle's elements as correct, even though it was completely wrong? I don't agree with accepting an idea - any
idea - as being correct simply because it's an elegant one.
The whole "argument" behind free will as opposed to determinism is that - given the same circumstances - we have the ability to act differently in a way that is not simply random. All the save-game-universe model does is ask them to explain how that works.....even to try to explain how it would work. And nobody ever even tries.
I think you'd better check your memory. People can and do try to explain it; the fact that they have a hard time of it is no cause to pretend that they don't even attempt to.
Clearly it is impossible to prove the save-game-universe model one way or the other, since we have no way of saving the universe for reload and retry! So all we can do is look at everything we DO know about the way the brain works, and say "yes - this model would accurately portray that".
You think it's impossible? You don't have to reset the whole universe, you just have to make a model of what you're testing. For example, model a human brain (and body, naturally) inside a computer, with an environment to provide stimuli. Pick an arbitrary point to start from, which will be the save state. Let it run for some length of time, then reset and let it run again for the same length of time. Do this a few dozen or hundred times, and see if the actions ever differ in ways that are clearly not random.
It's out of our reach for now, that's true, but it isn't impossible to prove it.
Not - as I so often hear in response - to just say "well, I don't feel determined.....so it must be wrong." I'd be very pleased to see the model given a logical kicking!
I agree that this response is not effective.
I don't know that this would be counted as a "logical kicking", but the uncertainty principle argues against determinism on at least some levels. In order to observe something at a quantum level, we have to bounce energy off of it; thus, the mere fact of observing it changes it slightly so that future predictions of its position will be progressively less and less correct. In other words, the decision to observe it can change its future outcome, in ways that can't be predicted before the observation is made.
In other words, in order to observe the current state of things at the quantum level in your save-state universe (which is what you suggested), you have to perform measurements which affect its future states. Otherwise you can't really be sure that it did indeed proceed along the same path, even though it might have ended up at the same destination.