[vidarh]

I consider the notion of free will absolute utter nonsense, but I still don't agree with this.

Determinism does not mean "irrespective of what else happens, X will happen". It means "because of what else happened, X will happen". You can't say ahead of time that X will happen irrespective whether between now and then something else occurs that might affect the next events, such as actions meant to discourage you. You can only make that determination knowing the full chain of events and the full state.

One of the main argument people use against determinism is this notion that X will happen irrespective of what else happens or what you choose to do. But this is nonsense. You can't say that e.g. whether you keep your job and get fired is already determined, so it makes no difference if you stop going to work. If you stop going work you'll eventually get fired, because your failure to go to work will form part of a chain of cause and effect. Determinism, or even a stochastic universe, without free will just means that you did not have a free choice in the decisions involved. But you still took an action, and that action determined the consequences.

A rejection of free will means we should look differently at the past, because it has moral implications; it does not mean we should stop making the best choices we can going forward, even if we believe those choices are illusory and deterministic.

[tchaffee]

The point is not that it makes no difference if you stop going to work. The point is that you had no free will in making that decision.

> Making the best choices we can.

You are not making choices.

[vidarh]

You understood perfectly well what the last part you quoted meant given the part you cut off. You could put quotes around "choices" to make it clear if you like. The point remains.