The Future of Government

[godelian]

While you argue that a computer’s state changes without changes in energy levels, that’s not the full picture.
The fact that the energy supply is “constant” doesn’t mean conservation laws are irrelevant.

I've asked this question to ChatGPT:

Are the conservation laws relevant to the runtime state of a computer?

Conservation laws, such as the conservation of energy and momentum, do not directly apply to the runtime state of a computer in the same way they govern physical systems in the natural world.

Summary: Conservation laws in the traditional sense (such as the conservation of energy or momentum) are not directly relevant to the runtime state of a computer.

[BigMike]

You’ve laid out some strong points here, so let me engage directly with what you’ve said and steer this back to the original challenge in a way that might clarify things further.

You’re right that governance, as it stands now, often fails because it’s more about maintaining power than about genuine societal improvement. The people in power often prioritize their own interests over meaningful change. That much is clear. But this isn’t just about critiquing the system we have; it’s about rethinking governance entirely—starting from the ground up and building it on what we actually understand about human behavior.

If we agree that all behavior is shaped by causes—be it past experiences, biology, or environmental influences—then the question becomes: how do we create systems that reflect that understanding? You’ve pointed to self-governance as the ultimate solution, and I think there’s a lot of merit in the idea that individual accountability and self-discipline are key. But for self-governance to truly function at scale, doesn’t it require conditions that foster fairness, empathy, and understanding? That’s where a deterministic governance model might still play a role—not as a top-down system of control, but as a way to shape those enabling conditions.

The goal isn’t for governance to dictate behavior but to design environments where individuals are empowered to govern themselves effectively. Think of it like creating fertile soil for a garden: you don’t control how every plant grows, but you create the conditions for them to thrive. That’s what I mean when I talk about shifting from reactive governance to proactive system design. It’s not about managing every detail but about addressing the root causes—poverty, inequality, access to education—that hinder self-governance.

You’re absolutely right that governments today don’t seem interested in this kind of shift. But here’s the thing: even a self-governed society needs some initial structure to dismantle the cycles of harm and inequity perpetuated by the systems we have now. If the system is built on fairness and opportunity, self-governance becomes more achievable because individuals are no longer trapped by the conditions of their past.

As for your point about honesty and openness—yes, these are essential. Governance in a deterministic model would need to start with transparency and a commitment to evidence-based policy. Without that, it’s just another power grab. But even self-governance relies on collective agreement about what’s true and what’s right, which brings us back to the original question: how do we design systems—whether formal or informal—that make fairness and empathy the default, not the exception?

I’d say the path forward is to stop thinking of governance as something imposed from above and instead see it as a tool for creating conditions where people can govern themselves. Do you see a way that self-governance could emerge without first addressing the systemic inequities that limit people’s ability to thrive as individuals?

[Alexis Jacobi]

I asked Chat GPT to comment on BigMike.

And the damned thing said “Hello, Alexis. Good morning.”

This is scary shit!

[BigMike]

While you argue that a computer’s state changes without changes in energy levels, that’s not the full picture.
The fact that the energy supply is “constant” doesn’t mean conservation laws are irrelevant.

I've asked this question to ChatGPT:

Are the conservation laws relevant to the runtime state of a computer?

Conservation laws, such as the conservation of energy and momentum, do not directly apply to the runtime state of a computer in the same way they govern physical systems in the natural world.

Summary: Conservation laws in the traditional sense (such as the conservation of energy or momentum) are not directly relevant to the runtime state of a computer.

Alright, let’s get into this.

ChatGPT’s response focuses on a distinction between the runtime state of a computer, which is an abstraction, and the physical processes that underlie it. The runtime state—a set of 1s and 0s—is a high-level representation of what’s happening within the computer. Conservation laws don’t apply to this abstraction directly, just as they don’t directly govern abstract concepts like software or data. But, critically, the runtime state is entirely dependent on the physical system—the hardware—and that system is bound by conservation laws.

The changes in a computer’s runtime state are realized by the physical movement of electrons and other energy transformations within the hardware. This means the runtime state cannot change without physical processes that are governed by conservation principles. If you separate the abstraction from its physical basis, it might seem as though conservation laws don’t apply, but that’s like saying conservation laws don’t govern the flight path of a bird because you’re only describing its trajectory in terms of coordinates.

When we talk about free will in the brain, we’re not dealing with a purely abstract system like a runtime state. We’re dealing with a physical system—neurons firing, synapses transmitting signals, and energy being transferred. If free will exists as an independent force, it must interact with this physical system to manifest decisions. For it to do so without a physical cause would violate conservation laws. Unlike the abstract runtime state of a computer, the brain’s state changes are fundamentally tied to the physical processes that govern it. Conservation laws are therefore directly relevant to understanding whether free will can act independently of deterministic physical laws.

[Age]

You’ve laid out some strong points here, so let me engage directly with what you’ve said and steer this back to the original challenge in a way that might clarify things further.

Just so 'we' are clear here, what is the 'original challenge', first?

You’re right that governance, as it stands now, often fails because it’s more about maintaining power than about genuine societal improvement. The people in power often prioritize their own interests over meaningful change. That much is clear. But this isn’t just about critiquing the system we have; it’s about rethinking governance entirely—starting from the ground up and building it on what we actually understand about human behavior.

Okay. So, what is 'it', exactly, what you want others to think, or rethink, about 'governance', entirely?

And, what is 'it', exactly, that you actually understand about 'human behavior'?

If we agree that all behavior is shaped by causes—be it past experiences, biology, or environmental influences—then the question becomes: how do we create systems that reflect that understanding?

As I pointed out to you earlier, 'we' have understood that all behavior is shaped by what you call 'causes' but what 'we' just call 'past events/experiences'.

And, obviously, how you create systems that reflect 'that understanding' is by the very 'thing', itself. That is; causes, or past events/experiences.

All human being created systems were created by human behavior, and, all human behavior comes about, or is shaped, by 'causes', or 'past events/experiences'.

I am not sure why you would want to create 'systems' that reflect that you have, finally, also come to understand that ALL behavior, Right and Wrong, was 'shaped', or 'caused' by 'past experiences', or by 'past events'.

Why do you want to create 'a system' that reflects 'this understanding' for, exactly?

You’ve pointed to self-governance as the ultimate solution, and I think there’s a lot of merit in the idea that individual accountability and self-discipline are key. But for self-governance to truly function at scale, doesn’t it require conditions that foster fairness, empathy, and understanding?

Is this a 'trick' question?

It is 'self-discipline' that leads to learning fairness, empathy, and understanding, which goes 'hand-in-hand', as some would say, in 'self-governance', without judgement nor punishment.

Also, what 'conditions' are you referring to, exactly, that foster fairness, empathy, and understanding?

That’s where a deterministic governance model might still play a role—not as a top-down system of control, but as a way to shape those enabling conditions.

1. What are 'the conditions', exactly?

2. What is 'a deterministic governance model', exactly?

The goal isn’t for governance to dictate behavior but to design environments where individuals are empowered to govern themselves effectively.

And what are those 'environments', exactly?

Think of it like creating fertile soil for a garden: you don’t control how every plant grows, but you create the conditions for them to thrive.

If 'you' want 'me' to 'think' of things, here, then think of 'it' like a tree will 'grow' without attention, but the more loving and caring 'you' give 'a tree', then the more 'the tree' will 'grow', and 'flourish'. And, this can happen with making more 'models' nor without designing more 'environments'.

Just provide the Right kind of love, care, protection, and guidance, then 'the thing' will 'grow up', and 'prosper', properly.

That’s what I mean when I talk about shifting from reactive governance to proactive system design.

Which is what I mean when I say, 'this all just sounds way too complicated and like way too much work'.

Life, and living, is absolutely simple, and easy.

It’s not about managing every detail but about addressing the root causes—poverty, inequality, access to education—that hinder self-governance.

But, those things are NOT the 'root causes'.

AGAIN, find the 'root cause', and then START from 'there'.

You’re absolutely right that governments today don’t seem interested in this kind of shift. But here’s the thing: even a self-governed society needs some initial structure to dismantle the cycles of harm and inequity perpetuated by the systems we have now.

AGAIN, the cycles of harm and inequity are caused by and perpetuated BY you adult human beings, ALONE. Absolutely NOTHING ELSE causes nor perpetuates ABUSE. Which is THE CAUSE of harm and inequity.

ALSO, 'trying to' BLAME some thing/one else for what you adult human beings do is just another form of the harm and damage caused by ABUSE, and what IS perpetuating the CYCLE OF ABUSE, further, or more so.

I suggest STOP 'trying to' BLAME other things/ones for what you adult human beings do "yourselves", and START 'accepting' and 'taking' RESPONSIBILITY for your own Wrong doings and MISBEHAVIOR.

If the system is built on fairness and opportunity, self-governance becomes more achievable because individuals are no longer trapped by the conditions of their past.

What 'system' are you actually referring to here, exactly?

And, define the word 'system' here, exactly.

Just so you become AWARE absolutely EVERY 'system' you are referring to here was CREATED by adult human beings. So, if there is an 'unfair' or 'inequitable' system, then BLAME "yourselves" for CREATING, CAUSING, and CONTINUING them. '

ONCE MORE, obviously 'those systems' are not going to CHANGE until you adult human beings ADMIT that 'they' are what you CAUSED and CREATED. Which, AGAIN, takes OPENNESS and Honesty to ADMIT TO.

As for your point about honesty and openness—yes, these are essential. Governance in a deterministic model would need to start with transparency and a commitment to evidence-based policy. Without that, it’s just another power grab. But even self-governance relies on collective agreement about what’s true and what’s right, which brings us back to the original question: how do we design systems—whether formal or informal—that make fairness and empathy the default, not the exception?

Which I will ANSWER, AGAIN.

How you adult human beings CAN and WILL create 'a system' that IS fair and empathetic to EACH and EVERY one, EQUALLY, and as One is VERY SIMPLE and EASY.

AGAIN, the only REAL question in Life is; How can we find the solution to ALL of our problems?

And, the ANSWER is through Honesty, Openness, and a serious Want to CHANGE, for the better. Once more, that is through H.O.W. By being Honest, Open, and Wanting to CHANGE, for the better, ALWAYS, then 'the system', or 'the world', in which you WANT and DESIRE here CAN and WILL come-about.

Only WHEN you adult human beings START CHANGING, then this is WHEN the CHANGE, which you ALL WANT and DESIRE, BEGINS.

I’d say the path forward is to stop thinking of governance as something imposed from above and instead see it as a tool for creating conditions where people can govern themselves. Do you see a way that self-governance could emerge without first addressing the systemic inequities that limit people’s ability to thrive as individuals?

Yes. By just ACCEPTING and TAKING FULL and ABSOLUTE 'responsibility' for absolutely EVERY thing one does.

Which, AGAIN, applies SOLELY to you adult human beings, ONLY.

[henry quirk]

That’s not compatibilism

Yeah, it is. You dress it up and give it a different, inaccurate, name, but it's compatibilism just the same, which, as I say, is nonsensical.

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

You need to pick one.