But the message is part of the future, therefor we can't write the message only once. We would have to write the message and account for the events that he message itself has every moment onward. We can't write a message about the future in such a way that the message itself isn't part of it. Ok, fair enough. The future is 'known' but not written as a message that can be read by us. Yes, I'm with you on this. As long as you shoot exactly as you predicted then the effects are going to be what you predicted (assuming that you followed each trajectory without error and also made no errors in the prediction). I know, IF a prediction could be made THEN it would be accurate, but my argument is that the prediction can't be made in the first place. We could predict all the events in another solar system, but as soon as we give them the message, then that message has to be predicted as well. If we didn't give them the message then everything would play out as predicted, but as soon as the prediction has any influence on their future then it can't be predicted because we would have to have the full message before it was completed (as the message is only a part of the future). Yes, so we would need to factor in the prediction before it was fully made. The prediction that we predicted would only be as completed as it is at the moment we need it. This is a real consequence that can't be escaped. We would have to have a full prediction in order to accurately describe the prediction itself. We can complicate things and talk about trajectories and other such things, but knowledge about if the message can be completed doesn't have to include all those trajectories, we need only one example where such a message can't be created and that is that it can't predict itself and how it influences the events. It could never be reached as the fully predicted message would have to be done in order to describe itself. Determinism doesn't say that we can know the future, it simply says that there is a future which is already determinant - it doesn't say that we can actually know it, because of that it is still relevant to determinism and doesn't contradict it. If the names are accurate to the physical then it can describe the physical. Otherwise the physical couldn't be described at all if we never would be allowed to use names for physical entities. Yay! I have the last word (for a while at least)!