The Future of Government

[BigMike]

Alright, let's get to the heart of the physics here. The argument rests on this: "Free will is an illusion because it is incompatible with the conservation laws of physics."

Now, if you'd like to counter that, your task is to show either (1) that free will doesn’t actually conflict with conservation laws, or (2) that the conservation laws themselves are somehow not universally applicable—or you might present another framework altogether that reconciles the two. If you can’t, then my challenge remains on the table.

I don't see what measurable inputs are supposed to lead to what measurable outputs in your experiment. What exactly are you measuring in your test?

Up till now, you have not demonstrated that your hypothesis can actually be tested.

Alright, let’s revisit something important I mentioned earlier: "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.” With that in mind, the burden of proof here isn’t on me to “prove” conservation laws—it’s on you to present evidence or a theoretical framework showing that free will could operate independently of these laws.

Let’s clarify why conservation laws are relevant here. If free will exists as an uncaused force, we’d expect to see some measurable breach of conservation in brain activity—energy or momentum appearing from no physical origin. Since science consistently confirms conservation laws across experimental contexts, it’s the absence of observed violations that supports the deterministic view. In this case, science has done its job: conservation laws hold strong precisely because they withstand every test.

So, if you’re proposing free will as a force that bypasses these laws, the testable evidence is on your end to show it, especially if you’re claiming a need to “disprove” conservation here. That’s how the scientific method places the burden: it’s up to the one suggesting the exception to make the case.

[BigMike]

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”?

First, our choices, as individual free wills, aren't free-floating.

Second, it's pretty clear adhering to a deterministic framework does strip away responsibility and accountability. It's the modern equivalent of the Devil made me do it!

if we know that people’s actions are shaped by their environments, biology, upbringing

I don't think we know this. Moreover, I don't think we are shaped or directed or determined by environment, genes, or upbringing. Influenced by, yes; informed by, yes. Constrained by, no.

It’s not about seeing people as “meat machines,”

Adopting a deterministic (and therefore a strictly materialistic) model of man can only end with man (seen, treated) as a meat machine.

Alright, Henry, I get it. You’re drawing a hard line here—free will, in your view, isn’t floating aimlessly but rooted in the individual, and deterministic thinking feels like handing out get-out-of-jail-free cards, excusing everything under the banner of “not my choice.”

But let’s break that down a bit. Think of determinism not as a mechanism to dismiss actions but as a framework to understand what drives them. Imagine if accountability wasn’t about punishment alone but about looking at cause and effect—the conditions that lead people to make certain choices. In that light, “responsibility” becomes richer because it’s tied to addressing root causes, not excusing outcomes. A deterministic model doesn’t have to treat humans as cogs or “meat machines.” It actually values humans enough to ask *why* they do what they do, recognizing the influences that shape behavior without reducing people to automatons.

This isn’t “the Devil made me do it,” but rather, “How do we create conditions where people are driven by healthier motives and better options?” Determinism isn’t about letting people off the hook—it’s about finding hooks that go deeper than just moral labels. You might say it’s radical responsibility.

[godelian]

With that in mind, the burden of proof here isn’t on me to “prove” conservation laws—it’s on you to present evidence or a theoretical framework showing that free will could operate independently of these laws.

As far as I am concerned, there is no connection between free will and physical conservation laws. What connection would there be?

[BigMike]

With that in mind, the burden of proof here isn’t on me to “prove” conservation laws—it’s on you to present evidence or a theoretical framework showing that free will could operate independently of these laws.

As far as I am concerned, there is no connection between free will and physical conservation laws. What connection would there be?

Alright, let’s dive into that connection, as it’s central to the argument here.

For free will to truly “exist” as an independent force, it would need to alter physical processes in the brain. Otherwise, how would it manifest as a decision-maker? This alteration would require some form of influence on matter—neurons firing, brain chemicals moving, etc. To make a meaningful change in brain activity, free will would have to interact with physical systems, which means affecting particles and energy within the brain.

Here’s where conservation laws come into play. To initiate an effect on brain processes without a preceding physical cause, free will would need to *generate* or *redirect* energy or momentum in some form, effectively creating something from nothing. That’s a direct violation of conservation laws, which tell us that energy and momentum cannot simply appear without a source. So, free will would not only contradict these laws but also violate Noether's theorem, which links these conservation laws to fundamental symmetries in nature.

This isn’t an arbitrary connection—it’s a foundational one. If free will operates outside deterministic causes, it would have to override the very structure of physical law, which we have no empirical basis for and which conservation principles consistently hold against. So, the link between free will and conservation laws is intrinsic to the physics of causation itself.

To disprove the main argument—that free will cannot exist independently without violating conservation laws and Noether’s theorem—one would need to demonstrate that conscious decisions can affect physical processes without a preceding physical cause, while still adhering to conservation laws. Essentially, they’d have to show that the brain can generate effects (like the firing of neurons) that aren’t fully determined by prior physical causes but don’t violate conservation principles.

Here’s what that would entail:

1. Identify an Instance of Uncaused Energy or Momentum: First, they’d need to find an instance where energy or momentum in the brain changes without a preceding, measurable physical cause. This would mean identifying a scenario where brain activity—like a neuron firing—happens due to a consciously made decision rather than due to preceding neural or biochemical events.

2. Demonstrate a Non-Physical Source of Influence: They’d then need to show that this change in brain activity originated from something non-physical (i.e., “free will”) and not from prior states of the brain. This would mean proving that the observed physical effect (e.g., neuron firing) doesn’t trace back to a previous physical cause, such as another neuron firing or a biochemical interaction.

3. Prove Conservation Laws Hold Despite this Influence: Finally, and perhaps most challengingly, they’d need to show that this non-physical influence on the physical brain does not disrupt the conservation of energy or momentum. This would involve showing that any “uncaused” activity in the brain still conserves energy and momentum in a way that aligns with known physics principles.

These steps would require redefining or extending current laws of physics to account for uncaused actions that nevertheless conserve energy. As of now, no empirical framework or experimental evidence supports this kind of causeless, conservation-friendly influence, which is why conservation laws pose such a substantial barrier to the concept of free will as an independent force.

[henry quirk]

Think of determinism not as a mechanism to dismiss actions but as a framework to understand what drives them.

Mike, determinism offers you no option for understanding. In determinism all events in the universe, including human decisions and actions, are causally inevitable. There is no choice. No responsibility. No accountability. No discernment. No compassion. No curiosity. No patience. No mercy. No love. No forbearance. In determinism: we are meat machines; I have no more choice about believing I'm a free will than you do in believing you're not. Both sinner and saint are necessarily what they are and can be nuthin' but.

You want sweet honey from a stone.

[BigMike]

Think of determinism not as a mechanism to dismiss actions but as a framework to understand what drives them.

Mike, determinism offers you no option for understanding. In determinism all events in the universe, including human decisions and actions, are causally inevitable. There is no choice. No responsibility. No accountability. No discernment. No compassion. No curiosity. No patience. No mercy. No love. No forbearance. In determinism: we are meat machines; I have no more choice about believing I'm a free will than you do in believing you're not. Both sinner and saint are necessarily what they are and can be nuthin' but.

You want sweet honey from a stone.

Alright, Henry, here’s where it gets interesting: you’re setting up determinism as though it turns us into rigid “meat machines,” fixed in place with no room for growth, change, or higher thought. But there’s a huge piece missing from that picture: learning, memory, pattern recognition, and brain plasticity—all of which are physical processes deeply embedded in our brains. These aren't just random occurrences; they’re physical changes that shape how we think, act, and respond.

Our brains constantly adapt, modifying neural pathways based on experiences and information we encounter. This plasticity isn’t some mystical free-floating phenomenon—it’s a deterministic process, governed by our biology and experiences, yet it allows us to refine our behavior and deepen our understanding. Our memories shape our choices by helping us recognize patterns and adapt our actions based on past outcomes. In fact, the deterministic factors that shape us include this capacity for growth, for developing more nuanced responses.

Determinism isn’t about locking people into a single track; it’s about acknowledging the vast array of internal and external causes that inform who we are. By recognizing these factors, we can actually enhance our ability to cultivate compassion, patience, and understanding—not in spite of determinism, but because our brains are wired to learn, adapt, and grow. So, rather than limiting us to “meat machines,” determinism respects the full complexity of the human brain and its remarkable capacity for change.

[henry quirk]

you’re setting up determinism as though it turns us into rigid “meat machines,”

No sir, I am not. Determinism is causal inevitability. If you are a determinist you must accept this. You can't carve out a safe space wherein man gets a lil wiggle room. Doing so makes you a compatibilist which you explicitly deny being becuz you explicitly deny the existence of any free will.

Really, there are only two coherent positions to consider here: you're a libertarian free will or you're a meat machine

There's no middle ground, no room in one position for even a smidge of the other. The two are irreconcilable (rendering compatibilism incoherent).

Please, pick one.

[BigMike]

you’re setting up determinism as though it turns us into rigid “meat machines,”

No sir, I am not. Determinism is causal inevitability. If you are a determinist you must accept this. You can't carve out a safe space wherein man gets a lil wiggle room. Doing so makes you a compatibilist which you explicitly deny being becuz you explicitly deny the existence of any free will.

Really, there are only two coherent positions to consider here: you're a libertarian free will or you're a meat machine

There's no middle ground, no room in one position for even a smidge of the other. The two are irreconcilable (rendering compatibilism incoherent).

Please, pick one.

Alright, Henry, I’m with you that determinism and libertarian free will are two very distinct frameworks. But here's the thing: determinism isn’t about leaving people with zero room to influence outcomes—it's about understanding that every action has causes, both internal and external, including the physical changes that occur in our brains based on experiences, goals, and intentional efforts.

Yes, what we do in this exact moment may be inevitable, but so are the effects of our actions, including those that ripple back onto us. For example, if it occurs to us to set a goal—like learning to play the guitar—then we begin to act within that framework. Each time we practice, our brains adapt, our muscles remember, and those physical and mental shifts gradually nudge us toward our goal. These efforts aren’t free-floating; they’re part of the cause-and-effect network, driven by our pattern recognition, memories, and the physical changes in our brains.

So, while determinism tells us that nothing is truly "free" in the libertarian sense, it does acknowledge the layered influences that shape behavior, including our capacity to set goals, learn, and adapt. It’s not carving out wiggle room for some “free will” spirit; it’s recognizing that human beings are complex, adaptable, and, yes, deterministic beings capable of meaningful change.

[henry quirk]

I'm sorry you have to hear from a cavemen, Mike, but: you really don't know what determinism entails.

This...

determinism isn’t about leaving people with zero room to influence outcomes—it's about understanding that every action has causes, both internal and external, including the physical changes that occur in our brains based on experiences, goals, and intentional efforts.

...is compatibilism, which is nonsensical.

As I say: you're a libertarian free will or you're a meat machine.

You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

[BigMike]

I'm sorry you have to hear from a cavemen, Mike, but: you really don't know what determinism entails.

This...

determinism isn’t about leaving people with zero room to influence outcomes—it's about understanding that every action has causes, both internal and external, including the physical changes that occur in our brains based on experiences, goals, and intentional efforts.

...is compatibilism, which is nonsensical.

As I say: you're a libertarian free will or you're a meat machine.

You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

Alright, Henry, let’s get down to brass tacks here. Yes, determinism means that all actions have causes, and we’re embedded in a vast chain of cause and effect. But there’s a crucial element you’re overlooking: we’re not static objects like rocks. We are biological entities, fundamentally different in nature and complexity.

Think about the journey from the simplest single-cell organisms to Homo sapiens—an evolutionary process through natural selection that’s produced an astonishing adaptability in us. This adaptability is built into our biology, our brain’s plasticity, and our capacity for learning and memory. Rocks don’t adjust to their environment or set goals; they’re bound to pure, passive determinism. But human beings? We have a developed capacity to observe, reflect, and adjust our actions, even in a deterministic framework.

This isn’t “wiggle room” or libertarian free will. It’s the deterministic nature of a highly complex, self-adjusting system. We set goals, like learning to play an instrument, and each practice session reshapes our neural pathways and muscles, nudging us toward that goal. That’s not compatibilism—it’s determinism acknowledging the rich, adaptive nature of life that evolution has built into us. It’s precisely because we’re biological entities, not static objects, that we exhibit this level of dynamic response to causes and effects in our environment.

[Dubious]

Ah, but here’s the twist: if we truly throw out the concept of free will, things actually *would* change.

If we *throw out* a concept we merely dispense with that which hasn't proven itself to be real. If we throw out a mirage, the reality remains and is in complete control. And what is that reality? It's free will as a matter of fundamental, basic choices allowed and necessitated within our free will parameters. In effect, as I see it, free will exists within a container which is thoroughly deterministic, ruled by the physical forces which rule everything else in the universe.

I'm not throwing out free will, I'm merely containing it within parameters completely independent of our wishes and will-power. In that respect, free will is not simply a concept but real. Without it, history wouldn't display all its multitudinous differences, moral, social, political, etc., throughout time and location. History, in that respect, is a virtual display of free will subject to the rules which necessitate it.

In summary, free will without its bookends denoted as determinism or deterministic, is like trying to explain something without referring to any of its context producing only nonsense in its wake. It's like trying to explain non-existence which is completely devoid of context.

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.

According to the operations manual by which humans manifest their behaviour and choices, free will qualifies as the illusion which creates the reality. The real physical determinants of anything, including our behaviour, may not ever be known. At this time, though quantum theory in itself is understood reasonably well, in all probability its in that domain that fixed determinants have their origin. The main quandary is in its transition or translation to the classical world as we know it which remains a complete mystery.

[BigMike]

Ah, but here’s the twist: if we truly throw out the concept of free will, things actually *would* change.

If we *throw out* a concept we merely dispense with that which hasn't proven itself to be real. If we throw out a mirage, the reality remains and is in complete control. And what is that reality? It's free will as a matter of fundamental, basic choices allowed and necessitated within our free will parameters. In effect, as I see it, free will exists within a container which is thoroughly deterministic, ruled by the physical forces which rule everything else in the universe.

I'm not throwing out free will, I'm merely containing it within parameters completely independent of our wishes and will-power. In that respect, free will is not simply a concept but real. Without it, history wouldn't display all its multitudinous differences, moral, social, political, etc., throughout time and location. History, in that respect, is a virtual display of free will subject to the rules which necessitate it.

In summary, free will without its bookends denoted as determinism or deterministic, is like trying to explain something without referring to any of its context producing only nonsense in its wake. It's like trying to explain non-existence which is completely devoid of context.

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.

According to the operations manual by which humans manifest their behaviour and choices, free will qualifies as the illusion which creates the reality. The real physical determinants of anything, including our behaviour, may not ever be known. At this time, though quantum theory in itself is understood reasonably well, in all probability its in that domain that fixed determinants have their origin. The main quandary is in its transition or translation to the classical world as we know it which remains a complete mystery.

You’ve pinpointed an essential tension here: that free will, even if we acknowledge it as limited, operates within deterministic boundaries, forming a sort of “container,” as you put it. But here’s a thought: maybe this isn’t about seeing free will as an illusion that somehow *creates* reality; rather, it’s about understanding free will as an interpretive layer. In this sense, free will becomes a perceived freedom, a way we navigate deterministic forces without necessarily escaping them.

Consider governance through that lens. When we recognize that individual choices are, at their core, influenced by countless physical and social determinants, we’re prompted to move past systems that hinge on “rewarding” or “punishing” choices. Instead, governance could shift to address the influences shaping those choices—things like socioeconomic conditions, education, and health. By shifting our focus to those underlying causes, we move toward a system that supports outcomes and well-being without relying on the presumption of boundless free choice.

[mickthinks]

In this analogy, we aren’t talking about an engineer with ultimate authority …

I think you mean “In reality we aren’t talking about an autocrat/supreme leader”. In the analogy, an engineer with ultimate authority is exactly what you’ve outlined.

It’s less about a single agent imposing will and more about harnessing predictable dynamics to build a more stable, equitable society.

You keep returning to verbs of agency (“harnessing”, “building”) while, at the same time and often in the same sentence, denying agency to everyone involved. Do you really believe that stable and equitable societies build themselves?

[BigMike]

In this analogy, we aren’t talking about an engineer with ultimate authority …

I think you mean “In reality we aren’t talking about an autocrat/supreme leader”. In the analogy, an engineer with ultimate authority is exactly what you’ve outlined.

It’s less about a single agent imposing will and more about harnessing predictable dynamics to build a more stable, equitable society.

You keep returning to verbs of agency (“harnessing”, “building”) while, at the same time and often in the same sentence, denying agency to everyone involved. Do you really believe that stable and equitable societies build themselves?

Good catch on the nuance here—let’s clarify! When we talk about "harnessing" or "building" in a deterministic framework, it’s not about societies magically organizing themselves, nor is it about a single authority orchestrating everything. Instead, think of these verbs as shorthand for processes that align with human behavior and social dynamics.

Stable societies emerge from systems that don’t rely on individual agency alone but are designed with an understanding of collective influences—social, economic, biological. The “building” happens through a framework where governance policies are structured based on the predictable patterns of how people tend to act under certain conditions. It’s collaborative, emergent, and science-driven.

So, no, societies don’t “build themselves,” but when systems are well-aligned with the forces shaping human behavior, stability becomes more achievable—not through sheer will or top-down control but through frameworks that naturally support constructive, reliable outcomes.

[Age]

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.

Where is this convoluted assertion that the term 'free will' refers to, 'making choices of our own accord', coming from, exactly?

If you human beings cannot 'make choices of your own accord', then WHY even mention it?

Again, when, and if, you come to find out the 'root cause' of WHY you do EVERY thing you do, then you WILL KNOW WHY you are mentioning some thing that does not even exist to begin with, and so you will be ABLE TO answer the clarifying question that I just posed, and asked, you, here.

Imagine a system, though, that instead of punishing or rewarding based on presumed “free choices,”

What are so-called 'free choices', exactly?

And, do 'they' even exist, to begin with?

If no, then, again, WHY talk about and mention them?

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.

WHY 'wait' for so-called 'governments'?

Some of the human adult population, in the days when this was being written, were so 'irresponsible' that they wanted, and expected, 'governments' to do just about every thing for them.

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

Which definition are 'we' using in the 'concept of free will' here, exactly?

For example would 'you' like to use a definition that actually exists, or a definition that could not actually exist?

Obviously 'we' would NEED TO KNOW this FIRST before 'we' could answer 'your question' Accurately, and Correctly.

By the way, how many 'concepts of free will' are there, exactly?