So you're saying that if you include "telling the opponent what he was going to do" in the set of circumstances then you could predict the outcome? How could that be? Wouldn't you wind up with a kind of infinite progression - everytime you tell him what he's going to do, he's equally free each time to do it or not - which is my point - he's choosing every time.
At some point, you have to stop, or you won't have a "decision". So there is no infinite progression.
In theory it does (quantum mechanics aside). Although QM may be the way will works. I've heard weirder interpretations.
Well, yes, in theory is says that you could predict the outcome.
But I assert that, in order to correctly predict the outcome of a complex and chaotic system, you need the complete amount of information that the original system contains.
As the only way to do this is to be equal or greater than the original system, it is not possible for anything within the original system (e.g. a human being) to do that.
A belief in only physical nature has to lead to determinism. Our brains are made of atoms which follow physical laws, and don't make decisions, therefore we cannot make decisions.
That is incorrect. A complex system is more than the sum of its parts. Don't assume that everyone else thinks as reductionist as you do.
Take, for example, a simple sieve. A sieve is made of atoms, atoms cannot measure, atoms cannot decide... but still a sieve let pass only grains under a certain size.
How does it do that? How does it know? It's magic! Or supernatural! Or divine!
It isn't. It is an emergent property of the
system of atoms making up the sieve.
In a similar way, the more complex system of the atoms that make up "the human being" is capable of making more complex decisions.
