You don't seem to be trying to to provide your own definitions, reasons, or elaborations, and you ignore all my questions. I'm not sure why you are here if you don't want to explore philosophy.

> If you cannot choose to care or not you are not really caring or not caring.

Why not? what is it that you think it means to "care" about something?

I would like it if you stop mentioning puppets because I have a hard time knowing if you're being metaphorical or if I'm expected to explain in what way a literal puppet is not like a human, it would help me understand more clearly what you mean.

>It’s not authentic because it’s forced. I'm still not sure I understand why the unavoidable nature of the feeling makes it inauthentic.

>Do you love me if i tell you with a gun to your head that you must love me? Of course not. Even if you swear YOU LOVE ME : if i forced you to say it : it is not authentic.

That's not a good analogy, because loving and saying you love are two completely different things. A better question would be: if we discovered a drug that would cause a person who takes it to fall in love with the first person they see (a classic love potion), would that person be in love if they took it, and they felt the effects? In this example, the feeling, emotion, everything, is in every way like love that the subject would have felt had they fallen in love without the drug. Are they "really" in love now or not? If not, why? how do you define "love" in a way that excludes what this person is feeling?

And what if we take it the other direction. What if you work out, becoming attractive and behave in such an impressive, kind and likable way that it makes me fall in love with you. Is if inauthentic since it's caused by what you did, therefore you having "forced" me to love you since I would not have had you not done those things?

Puppets cannot care, but we're not literal puppets. We can care, and have meaning.

Saying that caring is fake if it's pre-determined is not self evident.

All it means is that whether we care is dependent on what it is we care (or don't care) about and who we are. We could not be other than we are, and the things we form opinions about could not be other than they are, and therefore we will care (or not).

Why is the care only authentic if we can break the laws of causality? What does your use of "authentic" and "fake" mean in this context?

This seems like an argument motivated by bitterness. The statement was that it's not so bad to be puppets, not that we shouldn't care about any particular things that take place. And how can the universe be a waste of time? Time can only be wasted from the perspectives of those that find value in time, and therefore it can only be wasted if you assign it some value. It has value to humans, so given that we don't exist independently from the universe we must appreciate the universe if we find value in anything at all.