Did you copy that straight from a book? Any chance you could rewrite it in a way that doesn't give me a headache?
I think I believe in determinism, and I think I'd call myself a materialist, so I'm interested to know what your arguments are. But I can't be bothered to make sense of what you've typed out there... plain english would me nice.
1. Isn't both the red and the molecule on the surface parts of the apple?
2. You determine things. Things couldn't care less.
3. No law anywhere can distinguish one determined object from another. It is all relative, subject to our dualistic understanding and always altering.
I do not believe that determinism, whatever it is in it's entirety, is a useful way to look at things. The things are not important. They are maya. Maya means two things, it means "energy" and "illusion" (in case you did not know).
All in all, I think I agree with you, allthough that post was hard on the head.
To the followers of the empty complexities of materialism- thieves, scoffers and riddle-makers all, and to gentle souls thrown into confusion by their intrigues, I offer three insurmountable arguments against determinism, that I may dash it in its pride to the floor and regain that heritage most assured, most profound, most ancient, most new, most immediate, to confound the makers of the mark.
1. AS, determinism is nothing if not expressed through its objects, yet of these it can point to none. Only a nod born of common understanding confirms a finger points to the red of the apple and not to the molecule that rests on its surface.
2. AS, a determined thing, I can never say 'yes, this is what I am determined by'. If I am a determined thing then I must identify completely with all determined things, small and large, for in determinism there is room for nothing but determined things, and no boundaries can present themselves. And if determinism does not consider that I am, by this reasoning, the whole Universe, then the question remains: of any one object that is determined, whether it is I or the Universe, how does one object, the same object, determine itself - except that the object is itself, determineless?
3. AS, one thing is and another thing is, yet no infernal boundary making machine for marking out things is found in determinism. No law of determinism can distinguish one determined object from another determined object.