The Future of Government

[BigMike]

Alright, so here we go. Let’s dive right into “The Future of Government” from a fresh, philosophical angle that might just turn heads. Now, as we all know, traditional governance systems—democracy, autocracy, communism—each carry certain assumptions. But here’s the kicker: they’re all built on a bedrock that assumes individuals have free will, that we’re all out there making choices of our own accord. Yet, as science is starting to reveal, free will might just be a mirage. The result? Whole systems of governance that may not align with the actual dynamics of human behavior.

Imagine a system, though, that instead of punishing or rewarding based on presumed “free choices,” focuses on causes—root causes, determinants of behavior grounded in neuroscience, economics, psychology, and sociology. A government that anticipates, that applies what we know about cause and effect in human behavior to design policies that actually work.

Here’s the starting question for everyone: if we throw out the concept of free will in our governance model, what would change?

[henry quirk]

if we throw out the concept of free will in our governance model, what would change?

Not one damn thing ('cept things will get worse).

It's already largely the societal and governmental default that man is just a meat machine, that free will is an illusion, that morality is subjective, and that *ahem* God is just a fairy tale.

What has all that got us?

Atrocity, that's what. We aren't happier, prosperous, or enlightened. We're becoming cannibal apes.

And you wanna go further, yeah? Make that default total? You wanna obliterate all notions of personhood and autonomy and responsibility and accountability. We're pretty far down that road already, Mike.

[BigMike]

if we throw out the concept of free will in our governance model, what would change?

Not one damn thing ('cept things will get worse).

It's already largely the societal and governmental default that man is just a meat machine, that free will is an illusion, that morality is subjective, and that *ahem* God is just a fairy tale.

What has all that got us?

Atrocity, that's what. We aren't happier, prosperous, or enlightened. We're becoming cannibal apes.

And you wanna go further, yeah? Make that default total? You wanna obliterate all notions of personhood and autonomy and responsibility and accountability. We're pretty far down that road already, Mike.

Alright, Henry, I hear you loud and clear. The idea that moving further in this direction could lead us to lose everything meaningful—the sense of personal accountability, moral grounding, even humanity itself—resonates, and it's a serious concern. But here’s a twist to consider: what if a deterministic framework doesn’t strip us of responsibility and accountability but actually grounds it in something more stable than subjective, free-floating “choices”?

Think about this: if we know that people’s actions are shaped by their environments, biology, upbringing—forces outside of conscious choice—then accountability shifts to addressing those root causes rather than just punishing the behavior. It’s not about seeing people as “meat machines,” but recognizing that behaviors, even harmful ones, are predictable under certain conditions. We’d move away from blame as a moral stance to problem-solving at a deeper level.

Would that make us less responsible? Or could it actually make us more effective at creating the conditions that lead to the outcomes we value as a society? It’s not an easy shift, I’ll give you that. But maybe it’s not a step toward cannibal apes; maybe it’s a step toward understanding and addressing why things go wrong in the first place.

[mickthinks]

they’re all built on a bedrock that assumes individuals have free will

I don’t think there’s any logical or scientific basis for that claim. Once you jetison free will in favour of determinism, everything is the way it is out of necessity rather than purpose. The distinction between autocracy and democracy collapses when the will of neither autocrat nor populace can be manifest in governance, meaning there is no government and everyone is governed by the laws of physics alone. Is that what you mean?

[BigMike]

they’re all built on a bedrock that assumes individuals have free will

I don’t think there’s any logical or scientific basis for that claim. Once you jetison free will in favour of determinism, everything is the way it is out of necessity rather than purpose. The distinction between autocracy and democracy collapses when the will of neither autocrat nor populace can be manifest in governance, meaning there is no government and everyone is governed by the laws of physics alone. Is that what you mean?

Alright, so here’s where things get interesting. If we ditch free will for determinism, it doesn’t erase the need for governance—it just reshapes our approach to it. Even under determinism, we still see distinct social systems emerge, driven by the same physics that guides all events. But those systems don’t need to rest on the belief in individual autonomy; instead, they can leverage our understanding of cause and effect.

In a deterministic framework, governance is about crafting environments that lead to beneficial outcomes, not about enforcing a “will,” whether of the individual or the leader. So yes, laws of physics guide behavior, but we can apply our understanding of those laws to build systems that consistently lead to societal well-being. It’s not about surrendering to fate; it’s about steering outcomes through empirically grounded design. That’s the purpose, if you will, of a government that respects the deterministic nature of human behavior.

[godelian]

Yet, as science is starting to reveal, free will might just be a mirage.

Science does not have the answer to that question. There is nothing that you can test experimentally to that effect. If the hypothesis is not backed by an experimental test report, then it is not science but pseudoscience.

[Dubious]

Free Will can only exist within a deterministic framework and subsumed by it. There are bookends to what free will can or could accomplish. It's horizon, much like our senses is limited. Science as compared to philosophy - which hardly ever truly accomplishes anything - has already renounced free will as anything more than a mirage. Science does not require any overt experimentation to confirm the limits of an organism's etiology or whatever circumscribed range it may be endowed with in terms of free will.

[Dubious]

Here’s the starting question for everyone: if we throw out the concept of free will in our governance model, what would change?

Absolutely nothing! Why should anything change by ignoring a concept which conceptually can have any number of definitions. In terms of governance, an autocrat has more free will at his disposal than those he rules whether by force or under the conditions of borrowing from god the human justification of ruling by divine right.

[BigMike]

Yet, as science is starting to reveal, free will might just be a mirage.

Science does not have the answer to that question. There is nothing that you can test experimentally to that effect. If the hypothesis is not backed by an experimental test report, then it is not science but pseudoscience.

If free will exists in a way that lets us consciously alter the natural flow of events, it would have to interfere with physical processes in the brain. And here’s the catch: to truly interfere, free will would need to exert a force—one of the four fundamental interactions we know (gravity, electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force, or the weak nuclear force). Otherwise, how else could it “nudge” neurons into firing in a new direction?

And here’s where the science stacks up: if free will did exert such a force, it would violate the conservation laws—energy or momentum would have to appear out of thin air to influence the brain’s activity. But conservation laws are foundational to everything we know in physics; they’re as solid as it gets. So, the idea of free will as an independent force begins to clash directly with the framework of physical reality.

This doesn’t just make free will hard to define—it pushes it into a territory where it defies what’s actually possible under the laws of nature. So, the deterministic model not only aligns with what we observe but also holds up to fundamental physical principles we can’t just wish away.

Our understanding of free will, or lack thereof, doesn’t come from some fringe, speculative corner of science. It’s emerging from neuroscience, physics, and psychology—fields that are rooted in experiment and evidence, albeit sometimes in ways we’re still wrapping our heads around.

Take neuroscience, for example. Experiments by researchers like Benjamin Libet have shown that brain activity linked to decision-making begins before we’re even aware of our choices. Now, does this outright prove a lack of free will? Maybe not, but it does raise serious questions about the independence of our conscious decisions. And if our decisions are indeed shaped by factors outside our conscious control, then this deterministic perspective might be more than just conjecture—it’s an empirically grounded reconsideration of what “free choice” actually means.

So, we’re not talking pseudoscience here. We’re talking about science being brave enough to question old assumptions and examine human behavior as something intertwined with cause and effect on a very fundamental level.

[BigMike]

Here’s the starting question for everyone: if we throw out the concept of free will in our governance model, what would change?

Absolutely nothing! Why should anything change by ignoring a concept which conceptually can have any number of definitions. In terms of governance, an autocrat has more free will at his disposal than those he rules whether by force or under the conditions of borrowing from god the human justification of ruling by divine right.

Ah, but here’s the twist: if we truly throw out the concept of free will, things actually *would* change. The very structure of governance hinges on assumptions about individual autonomy and choice. An autocrat’s so-called “freedom” to rule or a democratic voter’s “freedom” to choose doesn’t happen in a vacuum; both are products of underlying forces—social, economic, even neurological—that shape every decision.

So, removing free will from the equation isn’t about dismissing a concept; it’s about recognizing that governance should address the real determinants of behavior rather than relying on the illusion of independent choice. That shift would mean moving from a system that punishes or rewards “choices” to one that tackles the root causes driving those choices.

[godelian]

Experiments by researchers like Benjamin Libet have shown that brain activity linked to decision-making begins before we’re even aware of our choices. Now, does this outright prove a lack of free will? Maybe not, but it does raise serious questions about the independence of our conscious decisions. And if our decisions are indeed shaped by factors outside our conscious control, then this deterministic perspective might be more than just conjecture—it’s an empirically grounded reconsideration of what “free choice” actually means.

https://spot.colorado.edu/~tooley/Benjamin%20Libet.pdf

Benjamin Libet
Do We Have Free Will?

I have taken an experimental approach to this question. Freely voluntary acts are preceded by a specific electrical change in the brain (the ‘readiness potential’, RP) that begins 550 ms before the act. Human subjects became aware of intention to act 350–400 ms after RP starts, but 200 ms. before the motor act. The volitional process is therefore initiated unconsciously. But the conscious function could still control the outcome; it can veto the act. Free will is therefore not excluded. These findings put constraints on views of how free will may operate; it would not initiate a voluntary act but it could control performance of the act. The findings also affect views of guilt and responsibility.

But the deeper question still remains: Are freely voluntary acts subject to macro-deterministic laws or can they appear without such constraints, non-determined by natural laws and ‘truly free’? I shall present an experimentalist view about these fundamental philosophical opposites.

I did not read the complete paper because it is obvious that his paper does not answer the question, "Do we have free will?" His measurements clearly do not lend themselves to such conclusion. However, I must admit that his approach is indeed scientific: "I have taken an experimental approach to this question." It is not pseudoscience. Unlike a lot of other authors, Libet is clearly aware of the requirements for a hypothesis to be deemed scientific. He also admits that his experimental research does not answer the question at all. So, he is not trying to mislead anybody.

[BigMike]

Experiments by researchers like Benjamin Libet have shown that brain activity linked to decision-making begins before we’re even aware of our choices. Now, does this outright prove a lack of free will? Maybe not, but it does raise serious questions about the independence of our conscious decisions. And if our decisions are indeed shaped by factors outside our conscious control, then this deterministic perspective might be more than just conjecture—it’s an empirically grounded reconsideration of what “free choice” actually means.

https://spot.colorado.edu/~tooley/Benjamin%20Libet.pdf

Benjamin Libet
Do We Have Free Will?

I have taken an experimental approach to this question. Freely voluntary acts are preceded by a specific electrical change in the brain (the ‘readiness potential’, RP) that begins 550 ms before the act. Human subjects became aware of intention to act 350–400 ms after RP starts, but 200 ms. before the motor act. The volitional process is therefore initiated unconsciously. But the conscious function could still control the outcome; it can veto the act. Free will is therefore not excluded. These findings put constraints on views of how free will may operate; it would not initiate a voluntary act but it could control performance of the act. The findings also affect views of guilt and responsibility.

But the deeper question still remains: Are freely voluntary acts subject to macro-deterministic laws or can they appear without such constraints, non-determined by natural laws and ‘truly free’? I shall present an experimentalist view about these fundamental philosophical opposites.

I did not read the complete paper because it is obvious that his paper does not answer the question, "Do we have free will?" His measurements clearly do not lend themselves to such conclusion. However, I must admit that his approach is indeed scientific: "I have taken an experimental approach to this question." It is not pseudoscience. Unlike a lot of other authors, Libet is clearly aware of the requirements for a hypothesis to be deemed scientific. He also admits that his experimental research does not answer the question at all. So, he is not trying to mislead anybody.

It seems you edited out the part of my response that tackles what I see as the strongest scientific challenge to free will: the conservation laws. That’s the crux of my argument here. If free will genuinely allows us to alter the natural course of brain activity, it would have to introduce a force from beyond the closed system of the brain—a force that transfers energy or momentum in some way. But if energy or momentum appear without a source, we're suddenly breaking these bedrock laws of physics. That’s not trivial; it’s a fundamental contradiction to the established science that underpins all physical processes.

Libet’s work, as you correctly note, doesn’t claim to *disprove* free will. But what it does show is that decisions arise from processes beyond conscious initiation. And if we dig deeper into the science, any *conscious* override or “veto” of these pre-conscious processes would still need to follow the laws of physics. So, yes, while Libet’s experiments don’t provide the full answer, they reveal a deterministic component. And it’s the conservation laws—energy and momentum specifically—that underscore why a truly independent, free force would clash with what we know about nature’s structure.

[godelian]

It seems you edited out the part of my response that tackles what I see as the strongest scientific challenge to free will: the conservation laws. That’s the crux of my argument here.

Libet’s work, as you correctly note, doesn’t claim to *disprove* free will.

Libet's work is backed by experimental research. You have, however, not provided an experimental test report for "challenge to free will: the conservation laws". Can you provide a reference to such publication?

[BigMike]

It seems you edited out the part of my response that tackles what I see as the strongest scientific challenge to free will: the conservation laws. That’s the crux of my argument here.

Libet’s work, as you correctly note, doesn’t claim to *disprove* free will.

Libet's work is backed by experimental research. You have, however, not provided an experimental test report for "challenge to free will: the conservation laws". Can you provide a reference to such publication?

Alright, let’s focus on the fundamentals of the scientific method here.

Science isn’t actually in the business of proving concepts outright; it’s more about trying to *disprove* or challenge them. Theories stand as long as they withstand attempts to knock them down. When it comes to conservation laws—laws of energy and momentum specifically—every attempt to disprove them has failed. These laws are foundational, consistently observed across experiments and widely regarded as universally applicable because they hold up every time we test them.

So, when we talk about free will requiring the brain to generate or redirect energy in ways that defy conservation laws, we’re up against one of the most rigorously validated aspects of physics. The very fact that conservation laws persist under all scrutiny is itself a powerful experimental testament against any process—like an “independent” free will—that would violate them.

[BigMike]

Furthermore, Noether’s theorem tells us something profound: conservation laws are not arbitrary. They’re directly tied to symmetries in nature. Specifically, the conservation of energy stems from the fact that the laws of physics don’t change over time. This means any influence, like free will, that would disrupt conservation would need to break the symmetry that keeps physical laws consistent and stable.

So, if free will could act independently—creating energy or momentum out of nowhere to alter brain processes—it would not only violate conservation laws but also contradict the very symmetries that Noether’s theorem shows us underlie these laws. In short, for free will to truly “intervene,” it would require a breakdown in the symmetry that makes conservation possible in the first place—something we’ve never observed and have every reason, through physics, to believe cannot happen.

This isn’t a minor detail; Noether’s theorem and conservation laws reinforce each other, making any “freely willed” influence on physical processes virtually impossible under our current understanding of the universe.