>>514169838
>Free will means being free from determinism/causality
Made up nonsense.
First of all, determinism is the opposite of free will so you're just claiming free will is the opposite of NOT free will.
Brainlet take
Secondly, free will is not free from causality. You completely made that up out of nowhere and it's totally illogical. If choice is detached from posterior effects (which is the 2nd half of causality) then choice is an illusion. It's like "choosing" Cheerios for breakfast but you get [insert random breakfast food] every time. That is not choice at all. That's chaos.
>Think of it this way - if you were transported back in time with absolutely no knowledge of the future, would you have been able to make different choices than the ones you already made? Absolutely not
Your hypothetical is incomplete, which is a clear sign of being a brainlet. Does the time traveler know he was transported back in time? His choices absolutely could be different if he has new experiences/memories of a possible future. It's basically the butterfly effect.
>Everything about your choices was predicated on what happened before you made them.
That's an unproven claim and you're making the classic brainlet mistake of using the word "choices" while trying to deboonk free will. You can't use the word "choice" if you think free will doesn't' exist because there would literally be no choices by definition. Your claim collapses on itself.
MAYBE if you instead said "everything about your **path** was predicated on what happened prior" you could have made a point. But that results in a probable question begging fallacy where we're stuck asking who or what is directing the path one takes. If you automatically assume the person is not directing their own path based on what happened prior then you are a priori dictating free will cannot exist before the argument is even made.... which is a question begging fallacy by definition.