Moving Beyond the Illusion of Free Will in Governance

[Age]

Age, Free Will is not caused and that's why it's called "free", because it is free of causation.

This is what you CLAIM, right?

And, is EVERY thing you CLAIM IRREFUTABLY True, Right, Accurate, AND Correct?

'Free will' being cause or not caused has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL to do with WHY 'free will' is, supposedly and allegedly, called 'free'.

Now, if there is some thing that is 'free of causation', then those who say, believe, or claim that there is some thing 'free of causation', then just TELL 'us' WHAT 'that thing' is, exactly.

The only alternative to being free of causation is randomness.

If 'randomness' is the ONLY alternative to being 'free of causation', then just TELL 'us' of one 'random' event, which was supposedly ABSOLUTELY 'free of causation', then ALLOW 'us' to have a 'look at' 'that', and then ALLOW 'us' to DISCUSS 'that'. And, let 'us' SEE if there is ACTUAL 'randomness' and ABSOLUTE 'free of causation', or NOT.

I found there is NO, REAL, USE in making CLAIMS, here, without providing ACTUAL EXAMPLES.

By the way, 'free will' was CAUSED, EXACTLY LIKE ABSOLUTELY EVERY thing ELSE was CAUSED.

you human beings did NOT evolve to just 'one day' JUST SUDDENLY HAVE 'free will'. you were created to evolve to HAVE 'free will', from JUST CAUSES.

you would NOT LEARN HOW TO CHANGE 'your ways', for the better, if you could NOT LEARN FROM 'your MISTAKES', and it is 'your ABILITY' to 'make CHOICES' HOW you ALL can and do become BETTER. The ABILITY TO CHANGE is just what the 'free will' words have been meaning, and referring to, EXACTLY.

[Age]

Age, you're proving the point beautifully: every response, every belief, and every action is part of the deterministic system. Whether you're holding onto beliefs or challenging them, it's all causally connected. Letting go of outdated ideas doesn’t happen by magic—it’s driven by new evidence and perspectives. That’s exactly how we create the world we all want to live in—by engaging, learning, and evolving within the system. Let’s move forward, not in circles.

GREAT IDEA.

So, WHEN are 'you' GOING TO LET GO OF, and GET RID OF, those BELIEFS, which ARE TURNING 'you' IN CIRCLES, and STOPPING and PREVENTING 'you' FROM MOVING FORWARD in FINDING and SEEING what the ACTUAL Truths ARE, here, EXACTLY?

Age, let me know when clinging to incoherent ramblings becomes evidence-based reasoning.

See HOW these people WILL just REFUSE to ENGAGE AFTER their views and beliefs have been SHOWN to be FAULTY, False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect.

This one CHOOSES WHEN to INTERACT and WHEN NOT TO. This ABILITY TO MAKE CHOICES is PROOF of this ones 'FREE WILL'

Until then, I’ll stick to science—a framework that actually builds rockets, cures diseases, and explains the universe. Your philosophical merry-go-round isn’t moving forward; it’s just spinning.

ONCE AGAIN, this one can provide ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL to counter nor refute what I have just POINTED OUT and PROVED ABSOLUTELY True, above here.

LOL This one CLAIMS that it will 'stick to science', YET, and as others have SAID, it has SHOWN NOTHING, here, regarding ACTUAL 'science', and it is "bigmike" who is going around in circles REFUSING that it has the COMPLETE INABILITY TO MAKE DECISIONS.

LOL "bigmike" will most likely AGAIN CHOOSE to NOT interact WITH 'me', here. Thus, proving its CLAIM False, and Wrong, AGAIN.

And, what 'it' does NOT YET REALIZE is that it has ABSOLUTELY NO CHOICE AT ALL in what 'I' am MAKING 'it' DO, here.

[BigMike]

GREAT IDEA.

So, WHEN are 'you' GOING TO LET GO OF, and GET RID OF, those BELIEFS, which ARE TURNING 'you' IN CIRCLES, and STOPPING and PREVENTING 'you' FROM MOVING FORWARD in FINDING and SEEING what the ACTUAL Truths ARE, here, EXACTLY?

Age, let me know when clinging to incoherent ramblings becomes evidence-based reasoning.

See HOW these people WILL just REFUSE to ENGAGE AFTER their views and beliefs have been SHOWN to be FAULTY, False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect.

This one CHOOSES WHEN to INTERACT and WHEN NOT TO. This ABILITY TO MAKE CHOICES is PROOF of this ones 'FREE WILL'

Until then, I’ll stick to science—a framework that actually builds rockets, cures diseases, and explains the universe. Your philosophical merry-go-round isn’t moving forward; it’s just spinning.

ONCE AGAIN, this one can provide ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL to counter nor refute what I have just POINTED OUT and PROVED ABSOLUTELY True, above here.

LOL This one CLAIMS that it will 'stick to science', YET, and as others have SAID, it has SHOWN NOTHING, here, regarding ACTUAL 'science', and it is "bigmike" who is going around in circles REFUSING that it has the COMPLETE INABILITY TO MAKE DECISIONS.

LOL "bigmike" will most likely AGAIN CHOOSE to NOT interact WITH 'me', here. Thus, proving its CLAIM False, and Wrong, AGAIN.

And, what 'it' does NOT YET REALIZE is that it has ABSOLUTELY NO CHOICE AT ALL in what 'I' am MAKING 'it' DO, here.

Age, your ALL CAPS might be trying to shout over reason, but it just echoes Trumpian flair without the irony. If caps-lock philosophy is all you've got, I’ll wait for a coherent thought not dressed in campaign slogans.

[Immanuel Can]

...you're clearly grappling with something deeper here—a recognition, perhaps, that the principles underpinning determinism

Don't be silly. Determinism isn't sponsored by "principles." It's a totally assumptive position, and absolutely unfalsifiable and hence, not even open to being scientifically tested. This, you already know.

...the undeniable reality of ...the deterministic framework

Just another stone-cold bluff. It's very "deniable," and I'm doing it right now.

It’s not a threat to meaning, morality, or humanity

Threat? No: it's the absolute end of all three. And you'd be forced to realize that, if you ever took your Determinism to its logical and inevitable conclusion. But you won't, it seems.

Your rhetoric is useless. Your understanding of Determinism is inauthentic and inconsistent. You're an ideologue, not a philosopher, because you won't even follow the logic of your own claims to their inevitable conclusion.

You'll have to find somebody who will buy your lines. It's certainly not me.

[Belinda]

Age, Free Will is not caused and that's why it's called "free", because it is free of causation.

This is what you CLAIM, right?

And, is EVERY thing you CLAIM IRREFUTABLY True, Right, Accurate, AND Correct?

'Free will' being cause or not caused has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL to do with WHY 'free will' is, supposedly and allegedly, called 'free'.

Now, if there is some thing that is 'free of causation', then those who say, believe, or claim that there is some thing 'free of causation', then just TELL 'us' WHAT 'that thing' is, exactly.

The only alternative to being free of causation is randomness.

If 'randomness' is the ONLY alternative to being 'free of causation', then just TELL 'us' of one 'random' event, which was supposedly ABSOLUTELY 'free of causation', then ALLOW 'us' to have a 'look at' 'that', and then ALLOW 'us' to DISCUSS 'that'. And, let 'us' SEE if there is ACTUAL 'randomness' and ABSOLUTE 'free of causation', or NOT.

I found there is NO, REAL, USE in making CLAIMS, here, without providing ACTUAL EXAMPLES.

By the way, 'free will' was CAUSED, EXACTLY LIKE ABSOLUTELY EVERY thing ELSE was CAUSED.

you human beings did NOT evolve to just 'one day' JUST SUDDENLY HAVE 'free will'. you were created to evolve to HAVE 'free will', from JUST CAUSES.

you would NOT LEARN HOW TO CHANGE 'your ways', for the better, if you could NOT LEARN FROM 'your MISTAKES', and it is 'your ABILITY' to 'make CHOICES' HOW you ALL can and do become BETTER. The ABILITY TO CHANGE is just what the 'free will' words have been meaning, and referring to, EXACTLY.

I think we take it for granted that when we claim we can't ever 100% know what is the case. It would be tedious and unnecessary to explain this each time we post.

I understand now what it is you mean by free will.You mean "ability to change". I do agree that ability to change makes us free. However we may also ask how free we are in view of events that we have little or no control over.

If Free Will is caused just like everything else was caused then that matches your definition of free will, with which I happen to agree. However there is another definition of Free Will which you are not addressing, and which is the one I say is actually chance or "randomness". Reviewing what you wrote, I now think that 'chance ' would be the better word for me to have used.

I cannot provide an example of a chance event as there is no such event. Every event is caused including when we can't explain the causes.

[BigMike]

...you're clearly grappling with something deeper here—a recognition, perhaps, that the principles underpinning determinism

Don't be silly. Determinism isn't sponsored by "principles." It's a totally assumptive position, and absolutely unfalsifiable and hence, not even open to being scientifically tested. This, you already know.

...the undeniable reality of ...the deterministic framework

Just another stone-cold bluff. It's very "deniable," and I'm doing it right now.

It’s not a threat to meaning, morality, or humanity

Threat? No: it's the absolute end of all three. And you'd be forced to realize that, if you ever took your Determinism to its logical and inevitable conclusion. But you won't, it seems.

Your rhetoric is useless. Your understanding of Determinism is inauthentic and inconsistent. You're an ideologue, not a philosopher, because you won't even follow the logic of your own claims to their inevitable conclusion.

You'll have to find somebody who will buy your lines. It's certainly not me.

Immanuel, determinism is falsifiable—just show us a single instance where conservation laws break down. One example where energy, momentum, charge, or spin vanishes into nothing or is created out of nowhere. You can’t, because these laws are the backbone of physics, underpinning everything we understand about the universe. Your denial of this basic reality isn’t just baffling—it’s lazy. If you have evidence that these fundamental principles are false, present it. Otherwise, stop pretending denial is an argument.

[Immanuel Can]

Immanuel, determinism is falsifiable—just show us a single instance where conservation laws break down.

Which "law of conservation" do you imagine requires Determinism? Be very specific.

One example where energy, momentum, charge, or spin vanishes into nothing or is created out of nowhere. You can’t...

I can.

We know for certain, if we can do the most basic maths, that an infinite chain of causes NEVER STARTS. That's because every stage always lacks the prerequisite stage, because it recedes infinitely into the past. So the causal conditions for any phase to commence are never met.

This entails that at some point, the causal chains of which we are a part must have had an absolute start. At some point, the conditions of causality came into being without themselves being part of that same causal chain. And maths proves beyond a shadow of any reasonable doubt that that is what had to happen.

Can you do basic maths? If you can't, then do it empirically, by hand, for yourself. Take a pencil. Write on the right hand side of a piece of paper the digit "0." Let the "0" point represent our present moment.

But wait. Just before you right "0," you must write "-1" a centimeter to the left of the "0" point, to signify whatever it was that was the cause of the effect in the present moment. Can you do that?

Wait. Before you do, you have to write "-2" one centimeter to the left of the "-1" point, to represent the cause of the cause of the effect in the present moment, the "0" point.

But wait...continue this backward sequence infinitely, representing how each effect requires a prior cause. Because each integer represents the prior causal conditions for the next one, you cannot write a subsequent integer until the previous one has been already written. That models infinite backward or regressive causality, you see.

Call me when you write the first number.

QED.

[BigMike]

Immanuel, determinism is falsifiable—just show us a single instance where conservation laws break down.

Which "law of conservation" do you imagine requires Determinism? Be very specific.

One example where energy, momentum, charge, or spin vanishes into nothing or is created out of nowhere. You can’t...

I can.

We know for certain, if we can do the most basic maths, that an infinite chain of causes NEVER STARTS. That's because every stage always lacks the prerequisite stage, because it recedes infinitely into the past. So the causal conditions for any phase to commence are never met.

This entails that at some point, the causal chains of which we are a part must have had an absolute start. At some point, the conditions of causality came into being without themselves being part of that same causal chain. And maths proves beyond a shadow of any reasonable doubt that that is what had to happen.

Can you do basic maths? If you can't, then do it empirically, by hand, for yourself. Take a pencil. Write on the right hand side of a piece of paper the digit "0." Let the "0" point represent our present moment.

But wait. Just before you right "0," you must write "-1" a centimeter to the left of the "0" point, to signify whatever it was that was the cause of the effect in the present moment. Can you do that?

Wait. Before you do, you have to write "-2" one centimeter to the left of the "-1" point, to represent the cause of the cause of the effect in the present moment, the "0" point.

But wait...continue this backward sequence infinitely, representing how each effect requires a prior cause. Because each integer represents the prior causal conditions for the next one, you cannot write a subsequent integer until the previous one has been already written. That models infinite backward or regressive causality, you see.

Call me when you write the first number.

QED.

Immanuel, maybe you’re unaware, but I’m a mathematician. Don’t try to bamboozle me with your pseudo-mathematical nonsense.

Your argument against an infinite regress is a philosophical exercise, not a challenge to the validity of conservation laws or determinism. The conservation laws of physics don’t depend on an “absolute start” for the causal chain; they operate within the system we observe. These laws hold everywhere and every time we’ve tested them. They’re not contingent on metaphysical speculation about the universe’s origins.

If you think you’ve disproven determinism with your pencil-and-paper thought experiment, you’re in for a rude awakening. Actual science doesn’t crumble under hand-waving or poorly conceived analogies. Try again—this time without assuming your conclusion before you start.

[Immanuel Can]

Immanuel, maybe you’re unaware, but I’m a mathematician.

Then you should be able to run the experiment. Go ahead.

[BigMike]

Immanuel, maybe you’re unaware, but I’m a mathematician.

Then you should be able to run the experiment. Go ahead.

Immanuel, let me remind you that science isn’t validated by your pencil doodles or half-baked thought experiments. The universe doesn’t care about your inability to grasp infinite regress or causality—it operates according to tested, observed, and confirmed principles like conservation laws.

The "experiment" you propose isn’t science; it’s a distraction. If you think scribbling on paper disproves determinism, then by all means, keep at it. The rest of us will rely on the actual tools of mathematics and science to describe reality—tools that don’t collapse under the weight of bad analogies.

[Immanuel Can]

Immanuel, maybe you’re unaware, but I’m a mathematician.

Then you should be able to run the experiment. Go ahead.

Immanuel, let me remind you that science isn’t validated by your pencil doodles...

You're scared. You know you're wrong. And you can see it.

Call me when you've done the experiment. Go ahead, ya chicken.

[BigMike]

Then you should be able to run the experiment. Go ahead.

Immanuel, let me remind you that science isn’t validated by your pencil doodles...

You're scared. You know you're wrong. And you can see it.

Call me when you've done the experiment. Go ahead, ya chicken.

Immanuel, let me remind you what infinite actually means—it’s a sequence with no starting or ending point. There is no “first number” in infinity. Your attempt to make an infinite regress into a physical task is a nonsensical strawman, ignoring the mathematical and logical definition of infinity itself.

If your grasp of the concept is so weak that you think I’m “scared” of scribbling on a piece of paper, then I suggest you put down the pencil and pick up a textbook. You’re debating concepts you clearly don’t understand, and it’s embarrassing to watch.

[Immanuel Can]

Immanuel, let me remind you that science isn’t validated by your pencil doodles...

You're scared. You know you're wrong. And you can see it.

Call me when you've done the experiment. Go ahead, ya chicken.

Immanuel, let me remind you what infinite actually means—it’s a sequence with no starting or ending point.

Hooray! He's seen it.

So causality is not infinite, because an infinite-regressive causal chain NEVER STARTS.

So here's the reasoning:

Premise 1: There are such things as physical-causal chains. (Let's just call that "Mike's Demand." But it also happens to be true.)
Premise 2: But no physical-causal chain can be infinitely regressive. (Mathematically certain and admitted in your last message, as well, though failure to have done so would not have altered the fact.)

Now, with those two premises, what's the conclusion that inevitably follows? (Let's see how good your logic is.)

[BigMike]

You're scared. You know you're wrong. And you can see it.

Call me when you've done the experiment. Go ahead, ya chicken.

Immanuel, let me remind you what infinite actually means—it’s a sequence with no starting or ending point.

Hooray! He's seen it.

So causality is not infinite, because an infinite-regressive causal chain NEVER STARTS.

So here's the reasoning:

Premise 1: There are such things as physical-causal chains. (Let's just call that "Mike's Demand." But it also happens to be true.)
Premise 2: But no physical-causal chain can be infinitely regressive. (Mathematically certain and admitted in your last message, as well, though failure to have done so would not have altered the fact.)

Now, with those two premises, what's the conclusion that inevitably follows? (Let's see how good your logic is.)

Immanuel, your reasoning is fundamentally flawed. Infinite regress doesn’t imply that causality “never starts” because it doesn’t require a starting point—it simply is. An infinite sequence exists as a complete set without needing a first cause. That’s the entire point of infinity.

Your conclusion assumes that causality must operate like dominoes falling in a finite line, which betrays a lack of understanding of both infinity and the nature of causality within a deterministic framework. Instead of jumping to your preordained conclusion, try grappling with the actual implications of infinity—it doesn’t care about your desire for a neat, tidy starting point.

[Immanuel Can]

Immanuel, let me remind you what infinite actually means—it’s a sequence with no starting or ending point.

Hooray! He's seen it.

So causality is not infinite, because an infinite-regressive causal chain NEVER STARTS.

So here's the reasoning:

Premise 1: There are such things as physical-causal chains. (Let's just call that "Mike's Demand." But it also happens to be true.)
Premise 2: But no physical-causal chain can be infinitely regressive. (Mathematically certain and admitted in your last message, as well, though failure to have done so would not have altered the fact.)

Now, with those two premises, what's the conclusion that inevitably follows? (Let's see how good your logic is.)

Infinite regress doesn’t imply that causality “never starts” because it doesn’t require a starting point—it simply is.

Oh. So you can't do logic.

That's what ideology will do to a brain.