I added the additional point that seeing someone eating breakfast in the future has no affect on that person making that decision. I don’t think Askold mentioned that.
That was exactly his point in the first place, Einstein. Jesus fucking Christ, you are so brain dead, it's nothing short of a miracle that you can even work a computer at all.
How does that work? Just because the result is known in advance by a separate entity that doesn't mean that the entity that is the subject in this scenario isn't making the choices out of their free will. They have their own motivations and aspirations. And this is the philosophical difference that we have. You argue that knowing the next step that a person does is the same as that person not having a choice to do anything else. I argue that the fundamental difference is that the person does that choice out of their free will because nothing is forcing them to make that choice. They could have done something different and the only thing changing in the scenario is that the omnipresent observer would have seen them doing that other thing.
Someone or something being able to know a choice in advance would prove that choices are completely predictable, which in turn would prove that our choices are just as much a result of simple causality, incredibly complex as the specific mechanics may be, as anything else. It's all ultimately just a matter of if x input, then y output. Though I've already said all this, so no need to repeat myself.