> Just to clarify, we're still talking about a deterministic universe, not a universe with quantum physics.
Indeed.
> I did not invoke any sort of supernatural ability. What I am saying is that just because you do not know (or perhaps cannot know) every property of every particle in the universe, does not mean that those properties do not exist in absolute form. In a deterministic universe, they do.
But do they? They are entirely unknowable and unexpressible. Can they really be said to exist?
Either way, as they cannot be known, and thus the future cannot be predicted except by letting it happen, free will passes the test I set forward in >>6.
I figure the problem here is having a working definition of "free will". What I tried starting in >>6 is putting forward some tests for free will, and working towards a definition that way. Can you suggest some other test that would either confirm or deny free will?
> (In our actual quantum physics universe, they do not.)
This statement shouldn't be put forward as fact - our quantum-mechanical laws of the universe are entirely deterministic, too. Through some process that is not understood (and usually referred to as "waveform collapse"), apparently non-deterministic behaviour sneaks in somehow. It is not yet clear why this is, as far as I know.