Alright. Based on that, I think I can explain my position more clearly. His idea suggested a line interpretation to me, that there would be no divergence possible outside of random permutations, so it will always follow the same path using the same steps. I don't agree with that beyond a certain point. I think that there is divergence made possible through the interconnections between the brain and the mind, so I see it as a cone instead, because I don't think a given choice can be predicted with absolute certainty in something like the human brain, as the save-state idea suggests, even with the absence of random chance. That does not mean that I think any choice is possible. Choices that fall outside that cone will not happen without outside intervention.
Basically, every choice will be made using existing knowledge and experience, so you can get a pretty good idea of how someone will act. I just don't think you can guarantee that they would act in such a way, even barring randomness.