It all boils down to the same question, as previously asked several times but to no avail: how how was what you posted about the theories of time relevant to the issue. However, you finally have gotten round to trying to express what you see as the relevance. So well done you. And it only took [far too long] for you to do that. But we’ll done. Which theory says that the initial conditions are now, rather than some time previous? None of them do. They only concern themselves with what can be regarded as existing, i.e. whether only the “now” exists, or whether the past and present exist, or whether all of time already exists. You’re going to have to go some to convert any of those ideas into being one of the initial conditions being now. Presenting, for example, has no issue with things having existed in the past, and those things determining the now, and the now determining the future. It is only a question of what can be said to exist, and specifically whether the future, present, past exist can be said to exist. So I ask again, as it is quite clear you have no real idea of what you raised: what is the relevance to the matter of the importance of the initial conditions to the question of free will? Alas, this all stems from your misunderstanding of what you have raised. None of the theories have anything to say about determinism or its lack thereof, or how the past did not exist nor how the future will not exist, only about what can said to exist at this moment. Being set in stone is not the same as saying that they actually exist at this moment, only that when the future does exist it will transpire having been fully determined by any moment in the past, as and when that past moment existed etc. I am simply trying to stay on topic. While you have now, finally, managed to explain why you at least think the theory of time is relevant to the issue, you have actually merely highlighted that you don’t really understand what it is you have raised. Hence your misunderstanding, and insistence, as to its relevance. To make it simple for you: whether I think the past currently can be said to exist or not, there is little dispute that it did exist. Similarly, whether the future currently can be said to exist, there is little dispute that it will come to pass. Determinism straddles all these theories, whatever one’s theory of time. Determinism doesn’t rely on the past currently existing, or the future. It relies solely on the relationship between one moment and another, whether those moments now exist or not, whether one or both is in a yet-to-exist future or a no-longer-existing past or existent notions of both/either. One’s take on the theory of time is simply an irrelevancy to the matter. So, far from not being able to follow your reasoning, it seems it is you who are not able to follow what it is you raise sufficiently to be able to remain relevant. But I’ll wait for you to catch up.