[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your post!

I can't imagine how this follows. Obviously, existence must be non-deterministic if any subset of it is non-deterministic.

The burden to substantiate that strong determinism is not the polar opposite of free will is to prove sufficient randomness in the physical laws to give rise to the observed diversification of the universe.

I aver that you are left with Brownian motion, which is but a causal effect, i.e. the "consequence of ongoing bombardment by atoms and molecules."

Randomness is tricky per se.

Strong determinism doesn't have any more to do with diminished capacity than brilliance. It just means that, under strong determinism, nobody can be responsible for what they do because there is no free will.

[js1138]

I would think there is a burden to prove that physical laws are deterministic. This was an assumption for centuries, but only an assumption. There has been evidence against it as far back as Newton and the three body problem. Which, by the way, has no solution nor any prospect of solution.