Determinism does not mean you have to know every reason why you know what you know, therefore the rest of your proof doesn’t fly. I never heard of such a definition. I don’t think this is proof of free will at all although it is fine to say you acted freely, which only means you chose without external constraint. I am not even sure what you think free will is.
That’s why I used the word hypothetically!!
I’m showing the LIMIT!!
It’s a thought experiment.
Now!
In that absence of a limit proof, you have to use something called an inferential proof (which is what you’re asserting)
Limit proofs are much more powerful than inferential proofs.
An example of an inferential proof is that the counting numbers are all in what’s called a well ordered (sequential) set.
1,2,3,4,5,6… etc
Now this actually doesn’t have a limit proof because we can’t get to the end.
It’s called an inferential proof, because we know it’s true, but we can’t prove it, and we know we can’t prove it.
The proof I’m giving you is much more powerful than an inferential proof (which you are attempting but haven’t proven (that you really have an inferential proof))
I’m giving a limit proof. Those are incontrovertible
One of us is wrong. Your attempt to prove determinism impossible because of a limit proof based on an invalid premise, does not in any way prove freedom of the will. But if you believe you’re right, the more power to you.
According to you, the solution to world peace is finding our true nature, but then you further argue that we have no choice.
So… my question to you, from the perspective of an absolute determinist, why bother making this thread if you are correct? It’s illogical from your argument, to make a thread that tries to teach people what you’ve proven (even if you don’t post the thread) all of them will learn what you posted (by your proof)???
You are your own argument against determinism.
Even if you don’t listen to me…
Listen to you !!!
Huh? What does my desire to make a thread discussing how world peace can be achieved by sharing the proof illogical?
My argument, according to you, is against determinism because I created a thread about determinism? 
It’s illogical because nobody has a choice according to your proof, so, you sharing the proof suggests that people do have a choice. In contradicting yourself, by virtue of at a minimum, parsimony, you proved that you don’t even believe your own proof.
Of course people have a choice otherwise what would be the point of deliberation? But the choice, once it’s decided upon, could not have been otherwise since we can only move in one direction.
That’s one of the most classic freewill arguments that exists !!
Honestly, I think you are very confused!!
You say a person can make a choice (that’s not determinism but the way !!!')
Then you say that once they make a choice, it couldn’t have been any other way!!
Well yeah!! No shit!!
If we travel back in time to our exact past, we will just be us in our exact past.
This argument you’re presenting is a CLASSIC freewill argument!!! Whoa!?! Like seriously, this is …
Umm never mind …
So here’s the deal.
Yes, when a choice (freewill) is made, a singularity occurs at that decision point and makes it so that AFTER that point, that no other decision COULD have been made.!!!
deep sigh
Sorry but being able to make choices does not make them free.
Yeah, that’s true, every choice is bound by restraints.
If I like smoking cigarettes while taking a walk, I need an able body, with good lungs, cigarettes and a lighter. There is no such thing as a choice without restriction. It’s impossible.
That doesn’t mean that you are using the term absolute determinism correctly. Quite the contrary, you’re defining a modicum of freewill as absolute determinism, and thus, this whole thread is absurd.
I’m not talking about the conditions that are required for a choice to be made.
That is true because the conditions necessary have not been met. How can you smoke a cigarette if you don’t have a cigarette? This has nothing to do with what I’m talking about and I think you know it. By the way, you don’t need an able body or good lungs to smoke. 
Just because we can make choices without external restraint does not grant us free will. There is no modicum of free will and please don’t misrepresent what I’m saying just because you don’t understand yet.
We are not interested in
opinions and theories regardless of where they originate, just in the
truth, so let’s proceed to the next step and prove conclusively, beyond
a shadow of doubt, that what we do of our own free will (of our own
desire because we want to) is done absolutely and positively not of our
own free will. Remember, by proving that determinism, as the
opposite of free will, is true, we also establish undeniable proof that
free will is false. So without any further ado, let us begin.”
Ahh… you had trouble with the quote function before (I just noticed it!)
That’s why I never try embedded quotes. I’m horrible at it.
So basically, you’re stating that determinism can only go in one direction.
Yet, its self evident that people make mutually exclusive choices for satisfaction constantly.
That’s a contradiction right there.
Care to clear that one up?
Double post
Only on my iphone.
It’s only a contradiction if you are defining determinism the way you are, which is not completely accurate. Scroll up. That’s why a definition that clarifies certain things is so important to reconcile this longstanding conflict.
No. This has nothing to do with how I’m defining determinism. I’m using your definition and showing it to be irreconcilably false.
If you like hurting others and work really hard at this to gain more satisfaction.
And I like preventing harm and work really hard at this to gain more satisfaction.
We have mutually exclusive satisfactions
There is no one direction for greater satisfaction
Another example:
Lots of people want cigarettes banned worldwide because they think cigarettes are gross, and people who smoke them are stupid
Lots of people need cigarettes to self medicate psychotic disorders
The list goes on and on…
There is no “one direction towards greater satisfaction”
This is easy to demonstrate and is self evident.
Your conditions and definition doesn’t work.
Show me the goods.
I already did show you the goods, you just wave your hands and say I didn’t show you the goods.
Determinism is when one thing is caused (determined) by something else. Absolute determinism is when there is zero percent autonomy.
You’re arguing absolute determinism.
Using the definition of absolute determinism I gave you the limit proof, which shows that some level of autonomy (freewill) must exist.
Next, all I have to do to crumble your entire house of cards is show that your own definitions are internally inconsistent, and to do that, all I have to do is show only ONE example of a mutually exclusive satisfaction, which I did.
Your idea is false.
You are arguing against a false definition around the word “cause”. Absolute determinism does not negate autonomy. This discussion has understandably become something irreconcilable the way it’s framed.
Agreed, but it’s not what you think it is. We can have autonomy and our choices be fully determined. Do you see why words can cause logical contraptions that have no basis in reality?
You did not Ecmandu. You would have to show that you can choose a dissatisfying option when a more satisfying option is available to you.
Can you at least preface this with “in my humble opinion”. That would go a long way. 
You’re saying that (in saying we have autonomy that ultimately determined), that we can choose anything that we want, but it’s all just determined in an ultimate sense. What if I choose not to have everything determined in an ultimate sense?
Oh! You’re saying I don’t have autonomy there and only there, but I have autonomy everywhere else.
You’re argument is that no matter what any or everybeing does, nobody has a choice but for it all to be for the greater good (as you proved) You’re the one wearing rose colored glasses not me.
That’s exactly what your arguing!
It’s not true.
Read the above post as well!
Let me give a concrete example:
I’d feel horrible for punching a random person walking down the sidewalk in the face. So for greater satisfaction, I will not do it.
Not everyone is like me!!
Not everyone is like you!!
But you assume that they are.
You assume that it’s a universal law, that no matter what anyone does, that we have (ultimately), NO CHOICE but to make the best decision!!
That’s actually REALLY offensive !!