Outlandish replies

In my last post, I wanted to see whether determinists would accept outlandish consequences of determinism as I've presented them. The issue is that by definition, any complete description of the state of the world at any time together with laws entails any other complete description of the state of the world at any other time.

I took an example with a thief who supposedly kick-opened the door and used it to explain or illustrate Hume's analysis of causality, but then reused it to talk about determinism, namely to illustrate issues that some determinists are simply not getting. I knew posters would conflate causation and determinism again. I suppose I helped them with that by dedicating half of my post to Hume's assesment, which confused readers in all sorts of ways.

The complete description of the state of the world during which Bill Clinton said "I don't recall", together with laws logically entails the complete description of the state of the world when the door opened. So, what is the reason to say that what really opens the door is a thief who's kicking it, rather than Bill Clinton saying "I don't recall"?

In fact, the complete description of the state of the world when this rando thief made a physical contact with the door together with laws entails any other complete description of the state of the world in the entire history of the universe no matter whether in the distant past or in the near future, or vice versa: in the near past or distant future.

There are some regular determinists here who explicitly denounced determinism defined by, say, Alfred Mele, and there are other determinists who say that Mele is a mistaken irrelevant guy who has no clue on what he's talking about. There are determinists on this sub who say that determinism is a claim about causation. Are regular posters who fall under the broader category of determinists forgetting what incompatibilism v. compatibilism dispute is all about?