Because you appear to want to deny causality, and I'm trying to understand the basis for that claim.And what led you to the conclusion that I "appear to want to deny causality"? Not only that, but when you say that my argument is because I appear to want something, you make it about me, personally, instead of about the subject at hand. I really don't appreciate that sort of thing, and I'll ask you to refrain from such things in the future, unless you can point to specific statements to back up your assertions. If there is some "personal want" of mine involved, it's not something I'm conscious of. So it is in your interests to clarify the things that led you to that conclusion.
My apologies - the wording was clumsy.
My point, which I think is worth re-stating, is this:
That given absolutely
identical situations, there will be no change in the outcome, aside from those caused by random interventions.
The "absolutely identical" refers to - heh - absolutely everything. Every single object is in the same place, every single neuron is at the same electrical charge, every memory is identical, every preference, every thought to that point....every aspect of history from the grandest scale of events to the unnoticed half-step to the right to avoid the snail on the path 30 years previously, all these aspects adding up to the situation, the environment, the person that there is. And as mentioned I extend this "absolutely identical" beyond the material, if need be, to cover the soul, the spiriit, or whatever.
I don't think it is particularly contentious to say that with EVERYTHING completely the same, we could expect the same thing to happen next. This was my point about causality that I made rather poorly, that "from A follows B" from moment to moment....certainly in a randomless universe.
So the options, as I see them, are these:
1) NOTHING is random. Causality is all. B follows from A each and every time. No free will possible.
2) There is randomness in the universe. B may follow A, or C may, but it is a random process that is undirected and unpredictable. No free will exists that is worthy of the name, since I won't accept that "random" is the same as "willed"!
3) There is randomness in the universe. B may follow A, or C may, and which one does is the result of a stochastic process: given a person's likes or dislikes, their history, and so on, there is (say) an 80% chance of B, and 20% chance of C. Gross predictions are possible, but the actual outcome that happens is again at base subject to a random factor that "chooses" between B and C. Again, no free will, for the reasons in (2). This is the universe I believe we live in, BTW.
4) The free will universe, where a specific decision can be somehow made that is not random: is not stochastic: but which can still overrule causality by allowing C or D to follow from utterly identical As.
The reason why I reject (4) is that I have been offered no model to show how this would work - how two identical persons can go different ways.
Aside from that, we're getting nowhere except to restate our positions, because we're both speculating. So tell you what. Show me how your assertion is not pure speculation based on your idea of how things might work, in other words give me results I can actually see and work with, and I'll be happy to concede the argument assuming the results agree with what you're saying.
I guess restating is all I did! Perhaps if you let me know if my four options have covered everything.....given that (4) can include elements of random or stochastic process as well if required (with the caveats in (2) and (3) about definition of "free will"). If I've covered all the possible options, we could then examine them and work on establishing which one "works".