From the determinist’s perspective, we are robots. We run software the way a computer runs software. Even from the determinist’s perspective, there may be built-in uncertainty in the world that stems from the fact that the numbers in the world of physical laws are not exact out to infinitely many digits after the decimal point, quite apart from quantum mechanics. In that case, it would not be correct to say “a movie,” because the future would not be known in such a situation.

As for judging, the Torah commands, “Justice, justice shall you pursue,” which is more than the permission given to a physician to heal. It is a command.
And one should not take into account “judging in the deep sense,” for that would involve: “You shall not show partiality.”
And you can see this clearly in the law: “If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son, who does not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and they discipline him, and he will not listen to them”—that is, if the usual techniques do not work (“and they discipline him”), that is enough, and one should not begin bringing in psychological philosophizing.
Because the command is “and they shall judge the people,” not some deep psychology on the level of the individual.

I didn’t understand the remark that for the determinist behaviors are not reason-based. As I understand it, it’s exactly the opposite.

The determinist is precisely the one who can justify behaviors all the way down, by extracting all the causes that led him to behave that way.

In contrast, with the free chooser, in the end he will have to claim, “That’s what came into my mind,” and that’s it. With no justification at all.

Such an unusual message definitely requires a response. Usually you make sweeping declarations (like your nickname), and to that I have nothing to answer. In many cases it’s nonsense, by the way. Certainty is not an argument. But here you suddenly ask, and that already calls for a response.
A justification for behavior is not a cause but a purpose. The computer performs some calculation because that is how it was programmed. That is not a justification for what it is doing; it is a cause. I want to set up a meeting with a friend in order to do something together. One can say that the meeting is why we set the meeting, and that is a cause. And one can say that the meeting is in order to do something together, and that is a justification (or purpose). For a determinist there is no distinction between cause and purpose.

Now you’ve just confused me even more. You introduced the time axis as a distinguishing factor.

You can attribute purpose even to a computer, since in software there are commands meant to bring it to a certain state. (For example, if the web page doesn’t load, then the computer will try again several times until it succeeds, and then those who don’t know what’s going on behind the scenes will say there was a purpose there—to load the web page.)
From a physical standpoint, it’s pretty clear that in these matters everything happens on the basis of the past. (And I haven’t found any need to distinguish between a person planning his steps and a lion planning its steps in order to catch a deer.) Are you actually claiming something different now?

(As for the language, in my understanding, a “justification” is some explanation of an act or statement such that it convinces another person of the “logic” of the matter and puts his mind at ease. And a justification acceptable to one person may be unacceptable to another.)

And instead of resolving my misunderstanding, you only increased it by adding another factor that seemed unrelated to me.

So I’ll ask it this way.

What is the difference between a world in which a person has free choice and a world in which he does not? To illustrate, suppose that from this moment God suddenly removes free choice from everyone. What would change? Would brain researchers discover that something had changed? Would human behavior change? Consciousness? The mode of thinking? What exactly would be the difference.

You’re mixing things up again. A computer has no purposes, because a computer is a physical entity. The purposes are put into it by the programmer, who is a human being with goals and purposes. A computer has only causes. When you ask why the computer does something, what you mean is: why did the programmer program it that way? Because from the computer’s standpoint, it does something because there is a voltage differential that caused electrons to move. That’s all. So this example is actually further proof of my point: justification and purpose exist only for a human being, not for inanimate things.
Something would definitely change. If we had no free choice, we would not act for a purpose but out of a cause. Every movement of an electron would be the result of a prior physical force, and every force would be the result of a prior physical mechanism. And when a person has free choice, there are electrons that begin a causal chain not out of a physical force. I explained this in detail in my book The Science of Freedom, and more briefly also in an article here on the site:

מבט שיטתי על חופש הרצון

I wrote explicitly: “And then those who don’t know what’s going on behind the scenes will say there was a purpose there.”
That is: obviously there is no purpose there. Only those who do not know how things happen attribute purpose to the computer.

And how do things happen? According to physical laws.
And from here, we do not need anything new in the human being either. And with a human being too, one can say exactly as with the computer: the attribution of purposiveness stems from lack of knowledge. Exactly like attributing purposiveness to a computer or to a lion chasing a deer.

And also regarding a computer and whoever wrote its software: there doesn’t have to be a person there to write the software. Such software can develop on its own, evolutionarily. And many programs today are like that.

You can say anything. So what? You asked what the difference is between a cause and a justification, and I explained. You can of course be a determinist. What you cannot do is claim that it is necessary (and in my opinion, not even that it is reasonable). The very concept of a justification in my sense cannot exist in your worldview. Eliminate it, and even if in your opinion it is an illusion, it is itself an argument against you.
But it seems to me that I’ve clarified my position, and the chooser will choose.