I said that from the outset. Why is it only now surprising you? More surprising is your obvious disdain for the position I hold, clearly wanting to discuss something else, yet always coming back. Your flippancy does you no favours. I'm sorry that my view upsets you so. It is clear you have nothing to offer me that will change my position, and I clearly have nothing to offer you. Yet here you are. If all that floats your boat, set up a thread for it. A "capability" based on future unknown events are only deemed capabilities because of that lack of knowledge. Reality doesn't operate with a lack of knowledge. If you can't keep up...? No muddle. The process of "decision making" is undertaken, there is just no freedom within it, only a perceived freedom due to lack of knowledge. But hey, you haven't got it thus far, so nothing's going to change. There is no such assumption. Never has been. Simply a notion of freedom irrespective of determinism or indeterminism, that when combined as an assumption with the deterministic universe leads to the conclusion that such freedom can not exist in a deterministic universe. But I guess we can all assume Socrates is mortal by calling him a man, eh. So it's the notion that I consider the compatibilist notion of freedom"trivial" that you find upsetting? What word you prefer? I am discussing the reality of freedom. That's the point. Whereas you are discussing the appearance of freedom we have due to our inherent lack of knowledge. And, for hopefully the last time, this thread is regarding QQ's "co-determination". Take your beef with my views to a more relevant thread, please. It will be easier to ignore them without derailing this thread further.