If you claim that your hypothetical classical domain doesn't even include classical wave dynamics, you're so far in the weeds that you're not making any point at all about our reality. Just pointless navel-gazing. Hell, you're even essentially denying contributing factors. Good luck with your little fantasy argument. No, physical, causal determinism allows for probabilistic and distributed causes. You're trying to have it both ways. Weasel your way out of begging the question while retaining every element that make it begging the question. No dice. Again, causal determinism allows for probabilistic causation, just as smoking does not always cause death in a deterministic sense. You keep arguing that you definitely don't want to hear arguments about probabilistic/indeterministic causes, but apparently you want to make unchallenged stabs at it anyway. That's intellectually dishonest. If you want that argument, we'll finally have it. If not, don't try to have it both ways, where you argue against something you demand no one can support. The only practical difference between philosophical and causal determinism is the former presuming free will cannot exist and the latter not excluding real-world dynamics like probability. If A must always cause B, smoking and war do not cause death. That's the fantasy world your arguing, and it can only exist by presuming philosophical determinism. You've yet to show how your disingenuous avoidance of philosophical determinism avoids the elements that beg the question. Probabilistic causation is entailed in deterministic causality. Wow, you didn't even get that simple syllogism right. It's: Socrates is a man Men are mortal Thus Socrates is mortal Two premises that work to test the conclusion, where either being false makes the conclusion false. You only propose one premise, with no test of the conclusion whereby a false premise would allow a false conclusion. You simply assert determinism, which by definition precludes your pretense of a second, testing premise, and conclude determinism. And? Every honest person should be able to agree which is more genuinely free, and which is an explicit concession to the presumption of determinism. Yep, begging the question to arrive at a foregone conclusion. Yawn. I have, but you must have missed it. The "ability to do otherwise" being defined in such a way that it is illusory or cannot "will what is wills" means that the first premise is nothing but a superficial pretense to make the syllogism seem valid. Compatibilists agree with philosophical determinism. Otherwise they wouldn't try so hard to make concessions for it. And it's dishonest to allow for the redefinition of the first premise, to suit the second, but not allow the inverse. That literally means the second premise is privileged...because you insist on arriving at your preferred conclusion.