Free will and humans

[Angrboda]

Lol.
You're using time traveling to disprove free will, you can't ' suppose we.. ' with time traveling, a concept that has never been practically implemented.

No, I'm using counterfactuals a la David Lewis to illustrate a hypothetical. No time traveling involved. But even if I were suggesting time travel, that aspect of the hypothetical would be irrelevant as the actual time travel involved doesn't affect the outcome of the thought experiment.

But I'll play your game anyway,

The algorithm is deterministic, it hasn't changed.  And our values and the facts about cars haven't changed.  So how could we come to a different decision?

You missed a serious variable in that equitation of yours - emotions of the human mind.

Are our emotions determined by our experiences, or are they an unconstrained element? Unless they are not likewise constrained by the past, then they would change nothing if you were to replay your past. Your emotions would be the same as they were the first time through, and indeed on the hundred thousandth time through, as nothing in your experience has changed and so nothing in your emotions would have changed.

Because I could look at the best car there which is black in color then look at the second best there which is red in color and then choose the red car because my grandfather had a red car too, ie, I could overload the logical analysis with emotional interference and then arrive at different conclusions.

You could "overload the logical analysis" -- is that geek speak for "I could magically have different emotions each time the scenario is replayed"? Whatever, let's assume your emotions are part of the analysis; I did say 'values' did I not? How would replaying the scenario from the start result in a change in our emotional response?

BTW, I hope, in your time travel example you aren't giving this example out under the impression that the future is set. In which case you'd be setting me up for failure. Because basically you would be saying ' only this can happen' beforehand and then asking me how anything else can happen.

Determinism states that the future is a consequence of the past. You're telling me that from the same past, at the classical level, you could have a different future. That is contrary to the postulate of determinism. If you have "some way other that the world could be" then I suggest you present it. Indications are that our brains are classically described physical systems. If you have an alternative to determinism, I suggest you present it, because by no other route will you avoid the conclusion of determinism as it applies to your brain and your thinking.

In which case you would be making a baseless assertion that the future is set(not to mention time traveling is practically implemented) , then I'd want to see evidence for that claim.

That classical mechanics leads to a determined outcome is not the matter of dispute here. The question is not "are our brain processes physically determined," but rather what is the alternative? Until you can provide an answer to that question, the hypothetical remains unchallenged by anything substantial. And bleating about time travel and shifting the burden of proof will avail you not. You proposed that you have free will, now you've been given a hypothetical in which you can show this freedom of will which you claim you have. Asking me to demonstrate determinism is true is not the route to that goal.

Your attempt to shift the burden of proof is denied.