>>12309989>In the field of logicWhich branch? It doesn't sound like you're talking about determinancy, and my best guess is that you're referring to the way a working mathematician (for example) would speak of something being "determined". But in this case they need not be speaking of exact equality, they could be referring to haecceity "up to (unique) isomorphism", or (homotopy-) equivalence, or firstorder-congruence, or sone other concept that I've missed out (and that's not even getting into the syntactic side of things, with distinctions between intensional vs extensional equality, definitional vs substitutional equality, alpha and eta equivalence...)
Point is, the logical definition of determinism is not as strict as you're making it out to be, so its mutual exclusion with free will cannot be rejected a priori. This would turn on the definition of free will, which would presumably come from the philosophers' side, but I'm less familiar with the sort of definitions they're using. All of the logical concepts I've expressed above can be given a philosophical gloss in terms of Kripke(-Joyal) semantics, so meaningful conversation would be possible at least.
