Part the Second... Premise 1, but yes. Yes. I have no issue with that. If you want to raise issue with premise 1 then no problem at all. If someone has different view then it is a case of (as has been pointed out on many occasions): different notions, different conclusions. Yet iceaura has always denied that his notion of "ability to do otherwise" is just based on observation / sensation etc of the entity in question. If he accepts that it is then we're all in agreement. But he has pushed back on that time and time again. The human is just another train on another track, imagining pathways ahead, all but one of which are not actually there, as the exact path was predetermined from the outset of time. That we can't see which path is the one already set down is a matter of how things appear to us. But again, if someone wants to judge "ability to do otherwise" from this appearance, not an issue. Whether conclusions mangle language really isn't a consideration for me, JamesR, as that is an appeal to consequence. So you're judging "ability to do otherwise" by how it appears to the person. Not a problem. These last 40 pages could have been wrapped up so much sooner if only some others are so accepting that that is what they are doing. Premise 2 (or whichever one is already in the original formulation). Different notions, different conclusions. If P1 and P2 are accepted, and the argument considered valid, then if the conclusion is disputed it only leaves P3 as being the disputed area.