"Options under determinism are imaginary! Under determinism, only one outcome happens! Under determinism, theres a cause to the things you do!"
I hate to break it to ya champ, but you just described reality, not determinism. All those things are equally true under indeterminism.
Its annoying basic stuff like this even needs to be said.
An "option" is just a set of future actions you imagine while being consistent with the laws of physics. Thats it.
"Nooo its a possible thing" is just circular reasoning, kicking the can down the road of literally describing whatever it is youre trying to say.
I can imagine going to the store and buying milk, and it doesnt violate the laws of physics, therefore its an "option". Period.
Libertarians playing semantic games is annoying.
Freedom as a mechanism involves many moving parts. But in a nutshell its the power to imagine the future, simulate relevant future predictions about ones own actions, and come up with a list of options by which to select the best one among. We think of things in terms of "possibilities", but all that is to us is mental imaginations of actions we predict as likely, but not necessary.
Freedom is a mechanism, and the proof of this is that non-intelligent entities do not have "freedom"; We all agree intuitively thatd be a nonsense declaration.
Freedom isnt as issue of some philosophical ontology or first principles thing, its a higher concept thats too complex to be widdled down to the level of fundamental things. Calling freedom fundamental is like calling a person fundamental; no, we are made of particles and stuff.
Which is why compatibilism its correct. Its like libertarianism, but not allergic to explanations existing.
"Being me", and having reliable control of my actions, is a prerequieste to anything useful in the realm of "freedom" i can imagine. If i want to plan an elaborate vacation (example of freedom), i need reliable control over my own actions in a deterministic mental framework like 1) I desire a vacation => 2) I plan a vacation => 3) I buy the ticket for the vacation => 4) i go on vacation, NOT random chance or explanatory gaps.
Because thats what this debate is ultimately about. What do we think empowers freedom and authentic choices? Reliable self-determined control and/or explanatory completeness? Or random chance and/or explanatory gaps?
It doesnt feel more free if i plan my vacation more randomly, or in a way i myself cannot introspect and understand the reason for. If i want to go to the beach, its because i like the beach. If i blurt out i want to go to the Arctic and see some penguins, that random noise is undesirable, because i do not actually want to visit the arctic!
Determinism is just the type of conceptual framework that allows for freedom. Indeterminism isnt better in any way, its just injecting errors and imperfections, or pulling a cloak over the mechanism to hide its internal workings.
So, whats wrong with my set of values? Why do you think i should rather prefer a sprinkle of random chance and/or some lack of explanation for my choices?