Moving Beyond the Illusion of Free Will in Governance

[seeds]

emergent properties.

Throwing out a phrase is no explanation.

Precisely, henry.

Especially when that phrase is missing the key word: "weak" as in "weak emergent properties," as opposed to "strong emergent properties."

I tried to point this out to BigMike in an alternate thread, but I think he put me on his "ever-expanding ignore list" before he read my post.

Of course, you're not obliged to fulfill this request, but if you wouldn't mind quoting this post so that BigMike can see it in this thread, then I think we would both like to see how he manages to squirm out of the concept of "strong emergence."

Here's what I said to him in that other thread...

Clearly, you (BigMike) are a hardcore materialist whose deterministic philosophy is deeply rooted in the realm of "weak emergence" which has you completely ignoring the arguments regarding "strong emergence."

So, as one who sees no problem in turning to our AI oracles for definitions of these terms, I asked...ChatGPT the following question (bolding by ChatGPT and me)...

Me:
In philosophy, what is the difference between weak emergence and strong emergence?

ChatGPT:
In philosophy, weak emergence and strong emergence are terms used to describe how complex systems and properties arise from simpler underlying processes, but they differ in how they view the relationship between these levels.

Weak Emergence

Weak emergence occurs when higher-level properties or behaviors of a system arise from lower-level interactions in ways that are often unexpected or novel but can, in principle, be reduced to or explained by those lower-level interactions. This means that while the emergent properties are surprising or unpredictable, they are still theoretically deducible from the system’s underlying rules....

Key points of weak emergence:

• Higher-level properties can be reduced to or explained by lower-level interactions.
  
  Emergent behaviors may be unpredictable in practice but are not fundamentally inexplicable.
  
  Often associated with computational or algorithmic models, where emergent properties are often surprising yet ultimately traceable to underlying rules.

Strong Emergence

Strong emergence posits that certain higher-level properties cannot be reduced to, explained by, or predicted from the lower-level base, even in principle. This implies that there are genuinely new properties or causal powers that come into existence at the higher level that are not present at the lower level. For example, proponents of strong emergence might argue that human consciousness cannot be fully explained by the interactions of neurons, asserting that consciousness has properties that are fundamentally different from those of the brain’s physical parts.

Key points of strong emergence:

• Higher-level properties are irreducible to lower-level processes and cannot be explained fully by them.
  
  These properties may possess novel causal powers that do not exist at the lower levels.
  
  Often linked to phenomena like consciousness or qualia, where emergent properties are seen as fundamentally new and not deducible from physical systems.

In summary,...
...weak emergence is generally seen as compatible with reductionism and naturalism, while strong emergence challenges these frameworks by suggesting that new properties or causal powers can arise in ways that defy explanation from lower levels alone.

And here's a follow-up post that BigMike also ignored...

BigMike doesn't seem to be interested in dealing with actual challenges to determinism.

Nevertheless, as a response to him exercising his "free will" to ignore my earlier post to him - the one regarding "Strong Emergence" - viewtopic.php?p=739298#p739298 - I decided to engage ChatGPT once again with a follow up question...

Me:
Couldn't strong emergence also be seen as challenging hardcore determinism's stance against humans possessing free will? And that's because a human mind (with its accompanying "I Am-ness," which would be the alleged possessor or "agent" of free will) is not readily deducible to the seeming deterministic workings of matter, and therefore is exempt from the implications of hardcore determinism.

ChatGPT:
Yes, you’re right—strong emergence is often seen as a philosophical ally in the argument against hardcore determinism and in support of human free will. This is largely because strong emergence suggests that certain mental or conscious properties, such as the experience of "I Am-ness" or agency, are not reducible to the deterministic, mechanistic properties of matter. This irreducibility implies that, at the level of the mind or consciousness, new forms of causation or influence might emerge that aren’t bound by strict determinism. In other words, if the conscious mind has fundamentally new properties that aren’t predictable or explainable solely by brain activity or physical processes, then it may act with a kind of freedom not constrained by determinism.

How Strong Emergence Challenges Determinism and Supports Free Will

• Irreducibility of Consciousness: In strong emergence, consciousness isn’t just an epiphenomenon or byproduct of brain processes. It is, instead, an entirely new phenomenon with its own properties and causal powers, which aren’t reducible to or predictable from physical matter alone.
  
  Genuine Causal Agency: If consciousness (or the "I Am" sense of self) possesses causal powers that arise uniquely at the level of the mind, then actions may not be strictly determined by physical states alone. This can support the notion that human beings are genuine agents with the ability to make choices not strictly bound by the brain’s biochemistry.
  
  Exemption from Determinism: Hardcore determinism implies that every event, including every thought and decision, is causally determined by prior states of matter. If the conscious mind has fundamentally new, emergent properties, it could, in principle, act independently of the deterministic chain of physical events, suggesting a potential space for free will.

A Key Philosophical Debate

Critics of strong emergence argue that it raises questions about how higher-level causal powers could operate in ways fundamentally disconnected from physical causation without violating the laws of physics or invoking dualism. Yet, proponents of strong emergence believe it points to the possibility that new laws or principles of consciousness could emerge at the mental level, potentially allowing for top-down causation (where mental states affect physical states) that does not reduce to determinism.

In this view, strong emergence provides a framework in which the conscious self, or "I Am-ness," may possess a degree of freedom from deterministic physical causation, making it a compelling approach to reconciling free will with a world that includes complex physical processes.

Come on now, BigMike, how about addressing these legitimate arguments against determinism?

Thank you, henry.

(Again, henry, you're not obliged to quote any of this so that BigMike can see it, however, and again, I think we would both like to see how he weasels his way around the issue of "strong emergence." )
_______

[BigMike]

emergent properties.

Throwing out a phrase is no explanation.

Precisely, henry.

Especially when that phrase is missing the key word: "weak" as in "weak emergent properties," as opposed to "strong emergent properties."

I tried to point this out to BigMike in an alternate thread, but I think he put me on his "ever-expanding ignore list" before he read my post.

Of course, you're not obliged to fulfill this request, but if you wouldn't mind quoting this post so that BigMike can see it in this thread, then I think we would both like to see how he manages to squirm out of the concept of "strong emergence."

Here's what I said to him in that other thread...

Clearly, you (BigMike) are a hardcore materialist whose deterministic philosophy is deeply rooted in the realm of "weak emergence" which has you completely ignoring the arguments regarding "strong emergence."

So, as one who sees no problem in turning to our AI oracles for definitions of these terms, I asked...ChatGPT the following question (bolding by ChatGPT and me)...

Me:
In philosophy, what is the difference between weak emergence and strong emergence?

ChatGPT:
In philosophy, weak emergence and strong emergence are terms used to describe how complex systems and properties arise from simpler underlying processes, but they differ in how they view the relationship between these levels.

Weak Emergence

Weak emergence occurs when higher-level properties or behaviors of a system arise from lower-level interactions in ways that are often unexpected or novel but can, in principle, be reduced to or explained by those lower-level interactions. This means that while the emergent properties are surprising or unpredictable, they are still theoretically deducible from the system’s underlying rules....

Key points of weak emergence:

• Higher-level properties can be reduced to or explained by lower-level interactions.
  
  Emergent behaviors may be unpredictable in practice but are not fundamentally inexplicable.
  
  Often associated with computational or algorithmic models, where emergent properties are often surprising yet ultimately traceable to underlying rules.

Strong Emergence

Strong emergence posits that certain higher-level properties cannot be reduced to, explained by, or predicted from the lower-level base, even in principle. This implies that there are genuinely new properties or causal powers that come into existence at the higher level that are not present at the lower level. For example, proponents of strong emergence might argue that human consciousness cannot be fully explained by the interactions of neurons, asserting that consciousness has properties that are fundamentally different from those of the brain’s physical parts.

Key points of strong emergence:

• Higher-level properties are irreducible to lower-level processes and cannot be explained fully by them.
  
  These properties may possess novel causal powers that do not exist at the lower levels.
  
  Often linked to phenomena like consciousness or qualia, where emergent properties are seen as fundamentally new and not deducible from physical systems.

In summary,...
...weak emergence is generally seen as compatible with reductionism and naturalism, while strong emergence challenges these frameworks by suggesting that new properties or causal powers can arise in ways that defy explanation from lower levels alone.

And here's a follow-up post that BigMike also ignored...

BigMike doesn't seem to be interested in dealing with actual challenges to determinism.

Nevertheless, as a response to him exercising his "free will" to ignore my earlier post to him - the one regarding "Strong Emergence" - viewtopic.php?p=739298#p739298 - I decided to engage ChatGPT once again with a follow up question...

Me:
Couldn't strong emergence also be seen as challenging hardcore determinism's stance against humans possessing free will? And that's because a human mind (with its accompanying "I Am-ness," which would be the alleged possessor or "agent" of free will) is not readily deducible to the seeming deterministic workings of matter, and therefore is exempt from the implications of hardcore determinism.

ChatGPT:
Yes, you’re right—strong emergence is often seen as a philosophical ally in the argument against hardcore determinism and in support of human free will. This is largely because strong emergence suggests that certain mental or conscious properties, such as the experience of "I Am-ness" or agency, are not reducible to the deterministic, mechanistic properties of matter. This irreducibility implies that, at the level of the mind or consciousness, new forms of causation or influence might emerge that aren’t bound by strict determinism. In other words, if the conscious mind has fundamentally new properties that aren’t predictable or explainable solely by brain activity or physical processes, then it may act with a kind of freedom not constrained by determinism.

How Strong Emergence Challenges Determinism and Supports Free Will

• Irreducibility of Consciousness: In strong emergence, consciousness isn’t just an epiphenomenon or byproduct of brain processes. It is, instead, an entirely new phenomenon with its own properties and causal powers, which aren’t reducible to or predictable from physical matter alone.
  
  Genuine Causal Agency: If consciousness (or the "I Am" sense of self) possesses causal powers that arise uniquely at the level of the mind, then actions may not be strictly determined by physical states alone. This can support the notion that human beings are genuine agents with the ability to make choices not strictly bound by the brain’s biochemistry.
  
  Exemption from Determinism: Hardcore determinism implies that every event, including every thought and decision, is causally determined by prior states of matter. If the conscious mind has fundamentally new, emergent properties, it could, in principle, act independently of the deterministic chain of physical events, suggesting a potential space for free will.

A Key Philosophical Debate

Critics of strong emergence argue that it raises questions about how higher-level causal powers could operate in ways fundamentally disconnected from physical causation without violating the laws of physics or invoking dualism. Yet, proponents of strong emergence believe it points to the possibility that new laws or principles of consciousness could emerge at the mental level, potentially allowing for top-down causation (where mental states affect physical states) that does not reduce to determinism.

In this view, strong emergence provides a framework in which the conscious self, or "I Am-ness," may possess a degree of freedom from deterministic physical causation, making it a compelling approach to reconciling free will with a world that includes complex physical processes.

Come on now, BigMike, how about addressing these legitimate arguments against determinism?

Thank you, henry.

(Again, henry, you're not obliged to quote any of this so that BigMike can see it, however, and again, I think we would both like to see how he weasels his way around the issue of "strong emergence." )
_______

seeds, I appreciate the effort you’ve put into articulating the concept of strong emergence and its supposed challenge to determinism. However, the notion of strong emergence fundamentally misunderstands the constraints imposed by the conservation laws and the four fundamental interactions of physics, which are the cornerstone of my argument.

The claim that higher-level properties can "emerge" with genuinely new causal powers that are irreducible to the physical processes underneath is not supported by any evidence that reconciles such claims with the unbroken conservation of energy and momentum. These laws dictate that every interaction, regardless of its level of complexity, must ultimately trace back to deterministic processes governed by the four fundamental forces: gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear interactions. There is no room within this framework for the kind of irreducibility that strong emergence posits.

You mention that strong emergence allows for "top-down causation," where mental states influence physical states independently of lower-level causation. But this would require the introduction of a new kind of force or interaction that operates outside the known physical laws. If such a force existed, it would have measurable effects, violating the consistency of energy and momentum conservation. Yet, no such effects have ever been observed.

Your invocation of strong emergence as a challenge to determinism, and by extension as a defense of free will, rests on speculative assumptions rather than empirical evidence. Without demonstrating how strong emergence aligns with the physical laws governing all known phenomena, it remains an interesting but unsupported philosophical construct—not a viable argument against determinism.

[Age]

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,

"bigmike",

WHY do you BELIEVE that I am USING 'all caps'?

WHY do you BELIEVE the USE of capital letters MEANS that I am 'trying to shout'?

And, LOL, WHY 'try to' CLAIM, and MISLEAD that it is 'over reason'?

"bigmike" your USE of DECEPTIVE tactics does NOT work against what I showed and proved regarding your False CLAIMS.

Obviously you can NOT counter NOR refute what I have already POINTED OUT, SHOWED, and PROVED, here, regarding your DISTORTED, False and Wrong CLAIMS, here.

If you could have, then you would have. Instead you have 'tried to' USE a DEFLECTIVE tactic, to 'try to' DECEIVE the readers, here, and 'try to' HIDE the Fact of your UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIMS, here.

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.

Now it is just an ABSOLUTELY PLAIN OBVIOUS Fact that you can NOT counter NOR refute your INCONSISTENCIES and CONTRADICTIONS that I and others have POINTED OUT and SHOWN, here, in your CLAIMS.

AND, your ATTEMPT to 'try to' CLAIM that EVERY thing is 'good' is BE-CAUSE OF 'determinism', BUT EVERY thing that is 'bad' is NOT BECAUSE OF 'determinism' just SHOWS and PROVES what DISTORTED and TWISTED lengths you will 'TRY TO' go to to 'TRY TO' HIDE your OBVIOUSLY False and STUPID CLAIMS, here.

[BigMike]

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'


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,

"bigmike",

WHY do you BELIEVE that I am USING 'all caps'?

WHY do you BELIEVE the USE of capital letters MEANS that I am 'trying to shout'?

And, LOL, WHY 'try to' CLAIM, and MISLEAD that it is 'over reason'?

"bigmike" your USE of DECEPTIVE tactics does NOT work against what I showed and proved regarding your False CLAIMS.

Obviously you can NOT counter NOR refute what I have already POINTED OUT, SHOWED, and PROVED, here, regarding your DISTORTED, False and Wrong CLAIMS, here.

If you could have, then you would have. Instead you have 'tried to' USE a DEFLECTIVE tactic, to 'try to' DECEIVE the readers, here, and 'try to' HIDE the Fact of your UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIMS, here.

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.

Now it is just an ABSOLUTELY PLAIN OBVIOUS Fact that you can NOT counter NOR refute your INCONSISTENCIES and CONTRADICTIONS that I and others have POINTED OUT and SHOWN, here, in your CLAIMS.

AND, your ATTEMPT to 'try to' CLAIM that EVERY thing is 'good' is BE-CAUSE OF 'determinism', BUT EVERY thing that is 'bad' is NOT BECAUSE OF 'determinism' just SHOWS and PROVES what DISTORTED and TWISTED lengths you will 'TRY TO' go to to 'TRY TO' HIDE your OBVIOUSLY False and STUPID CLAIMS, here.

Age, I see the passion in your comments, and while the volume of caps-lock intensity might give the impression of shouting, let’s set that aside and focus on substance. What you’re framing as "choice" or "free will"—whether it’s my decision to respond or not, or anyone else's behavior—is precisely what determinism explains. Let me break it down.

When I respond to a point—or don’t—it isn’t evidence of free will. It’s the result of a cascade of prior causes: my past experiences, my knowledge base, the arguments presented, and how they interact with my thought process in this moment. Everything I do or say is determined by these factors and governed by the immutable laws of physics.

Your argument seems to hinge on the belief that "making choices" proves free will, but choice itself doesn’t imply freedom in the sense you mean. It only means that given a set of conditions—prior knowledge, context, and the situation at hand—a specific outcome will unfold. That outcome isn’t random or uncaused; it’s determined by the chain of events that led up to it.

Now, let’s address your claim that I’m somehow avoiding refuting your points. The idea that determinism only applies to “good” things and not “bad” ones isn’t an argument I’ve made. Determinism applies universally—it’s not selective or moralistic. Good, bad, right, or wrong are labels we apply after the fact, based on outcomes that resonate with our values, but the underlying causes of all events remain deterministic.

If we’re going to have a productive conversation, let’s focus on engaging with the science behind determinism rather than assuming motives or twisting the argument into something it’s not. I’m more than willing to continue this discussion, as long as it’s grounded in reason and evidence.

[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.

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 have said before that, to me, 'free will' is just the 'ability to choose', but what the 'ability to choose' FROM is limited because of 'pre-determining factors', or 'determinism', itself.

I do agree that ability to change makes us free.

The Fact, by the way, is that EVERY one IS, always continually, 'changing' no matter what. However, it is from the 'ability to CHOOSE' to either 'change' for the better, or for the worse, is what makes 'us' Truly FREE.

The 'ability to CHOOSE' is what makes 'this world' become better, or become worse. For just one, in just about a countless number of examples, if 'you', 'i', or 'we', CHOOSE to clean up one beach of rubbish/pollution, then 'we' have CHOSEN to make 'the world' a better place in one tiny little way. And, this 'ability to CHOOSE', absolutely FREELY, is just what the 'free will' term or phrase has been referring to, exactly. However, and again, 'we' ALL can only CHOOSE FROM the 'pre-existing knowledge', existing within, which has been acquired FROM each of our own personal 'past experiences'. Which is the very thing, and very reason, WHY 'we' ALL 'look at', and 'see', things/'the world' DIFFERENTLY.

'Determinism' is just a term or phrase that refers to HOW our own personal 'past experiences' is 'the cause' of our own personal 'pre-existing' thoughts, views, presumptions, beliefs, values, et cetera, which ULTIMATELY influence what 'we' WILL CHOOSE, to do, in the future, which in turn 'determines', or 'pre-determines', how 'we' WILL behave, or misbehave, which is, EXACTLY, HOW 'the world' BECOMES, and IS, 'the way' it is, exactly.

However we may also ask how free we are in view of events that we have little or no control over.

Will you provide ANY examples of so-called events that 'we' have little or no control over so 'we' have SOME thing for 'us' to 'look at', 'see', and discuss?

Now,

1. human beings are ABSOLUTELY FREE to 'MAKE CHOICES'. There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING stopping human beings from just 'making choices'.

2. OF COURSE, in the days when this is being written anyway, human beings have NO control over events like stopping asteroids hitting earth, stopping volcanoes from occurring, nor stopping lightening strike fires. Which because of these things occurring, in the past, is what led to human beings coming into and evolving into Existence, Itself, some events, obviously, human beings are NOT 'free' or have very little or NO control over. However, even in ANY and EVERY situation or event human beings are ABSOLUTE FREE to 'make choices', even if it is only in regards to HOW they 'look at' and 'see' things, when 'the body' is ABSOLUTELY stuck or trapped.

But, I will await your examples of 'the actual events' that you were thinking of and talking about, here.

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".

I did NOT address 'this definition' of 'free will' because I am completely UNAWARE of absolutely ANY 'chance happening' and completely UNAWARE of HOW absolutely ANY thing could just happen and/or occur by 'chance', or by 'randomness'.

Would you like to provide some examples of chance or random happenings?

Would you also like to explain HOW such happenings could even ACTUALLY occur, exactly?

Reviewing what you wrote, I now think that 'chance ' would be the better word for me to have used.

Okay, but what is 'it', exactly, you are meaning by and with the 'chance' word, here?

See, 'by chance' human bodies might just happen to 'bump into' each other, on the street. But, to me, there were always a series of 'causes', which led up to that so-called 'chance happening' and occurrence.

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.

Okay.

But, 'we' can ALWAYS explain 'the causes', up to a particular point/cause that is.

Which, by the way, 'we' can ALWAYS explain 'the causes' of the Universe, Itself, but, and again, up to a particular point/cause, as well.

Which, again, leads 'us' TO, and thus SHOWS and PROVES, the 'first cause', itself.

Once more, EVERY thing I discuss, here, in this forum can be, and will be, EXPLAINED, FULLY, or to a point of IRREFUTABLE proof and/or IRREFUTABLE verification, which leads to IRREFUTABLE Facts, and, again, VERY EASILY and VERY SIMPLY.

[Age]

...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.

Which leads to the question, 'Why do those who have or HOLD faith and/or BELIEF in scientific and theologian religions BELIEVE, absolutely, that the Universe, Itself, BEGUN?

Just imagine how Truly ILLOGICAL and IRRATIONAL it would be to BELIEVE that the Universe, Itself, which, by definition, means 'all there is': 'totality': 'Everything' was created by, or from, something ELSE?

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.

[BigMike]

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.


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


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.

Which leads to the question, 'Why do those who have or HOLD faith and/or BELIEF in scientific and theologian religions BELIEVE, absolutely, that the Universe, Itself, BEGUN?

Just imagine how Truly ILLOGICAL and IRRATIONAL it would be to BELIEVE that the Universe, Itself, which, by definition, means 'all there is': 'totality': 'Everything' was created by, or from, something ELSE?

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.

Age, let’s take a moment to ground this discussion in what’s actually at stake here. The conservation laws of physics—energy, momentum, charge, spin—are not matters of belief or faith. They’re empirically verified principles that have stood up to every experimental test humanity has thrown at them. These aren’t philosophical guesses; they are the framework through which the universe operates.

Now, you’re bringing up the idea of the universe itself “beginning” or being created. That’s a different conversation entirely, one that delves into cosmology and the nature of existence. But even there, the conservation laws still hold sway. Whether we’re discussing quantum fields, the Big Bang, or the nature of spacetime, there’s no evidence that these principles ever falter. They persist, unbroken, through every theory and observation.

The crux of your argument seems to be a misunderstanding. If we’re going to seriously engage, let’s stick to the core issue: determinism doesn’t require faith. It’s a logical consequence of the conservation laws and the four fundamental interactions. If you want to challenge determinism, then the path forward is clear: provide a concrete example where these laws fail. Absent that, we’re left with speculation, not argument.

Denial of these principles isn’t a counterargument. It’s a rhetorical distraction. The burden of proof lies on anyone claiming these laws don’t apply, and so far, there’s been no evidence to support that claim. Until then, determinism remains the best explanation for the way the universe unfolds.

[henry quirk]

I have to say: I'm impressed. Never woulda thought you'd have dealings with a RED MAN DEFIANT voter. Took a lot, I think, for you to ask me for a favor.

A little *humility, a lot of *honor. As I say: I'm impressed.

Anyway, you, apparently, aren't in Mike's penalty box any more (none of us are) so my intercession isn't needed.




*two more intangibles Mike's determinism can't account for...he sez he's a mathematician...if true, it explains a lot...leaves me wonderin': what exactly did Mike get from supporting that Romanian cancer patient for five years? The equation must balance, don't ya know.

[Age]

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.

And, 'we' know for certain, that 'we' have NO presumption that an infinite chain of causes every HAS TO START.

Also, 'we' ALREADY KNOW FOR CERTAIN, what the 'first cause' words are referring to, exactly, in this One and ONLY eternal Universe.

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.

Therefore, the CLAIM that God, outside of the Universe, created/caused EVERY thing is just plain old False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect, and EVERY one who can do the most basic maths recognizes and KNOWS this irrefutable Fact.

This entails that at some point, the causal chains of which we are a part must have had an absolute start.

Here 'we' can notice and see HOW these people WITH BELIEFS will 'try to' find and use words, in the hope that those words will somehow back up and support their 'current' BELIEF.

At some point, the conditions of causality came into being without themselves being part of that same causal chain.

LOL Another example of 'confirmation bias' at work, and at play.

And maths proves beyond a shadow of any reasonable doubt that that is what had to happen.

LOL This one is, REALLY, 'trying to' CLAIM that maths, itself, proves that God, which this one BELIEVES, absolutely, is male gendered, created absolutely EVERY thing, (except itself of course, as it, and its male genitalia, are eternal).

Can you do basic maths?

Obviously "immanuel can" can NOT.

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.

LOL you are asking a temporal being to do this, which obviously one who is NOT eternal could NOT do. However, your male being that you call and label God, who you BELIEVE and CLAIM is eternal, could OBVIOUSLY ACTUALLY do 'this'. Therefore, it is POSSIBLE, and even DOABLE.

So, this MUST MEAN that the Universe, or Everything, IS ETERNAL. So, THANK YOU for PROVIDING ANOTHER ACTUAL example that PROVES, IRREFUTABLY, then the Universe, which MUST CONTAIN God, (if God is real and true), IS ETERNAL.

Call me when you write the first number.

QED.

LOL you IMBECILE. Ask God to do 'this'. Can God do 'this'?

If yes, then 'it' IS POSSIBLE. And, DOES EXIST.

LOL "immanuel can" you have just PROVED your OWN BELIEF and CLAIM, here, False, AND Wrong.

[seeds]

I have to say: I'm impressed. Never woulda thought you'd have dealings with a RED MAN DEFIANT voter. Took a lot, I think, for you to ask me for a favor.

Hey, just because we get into heated tussles here in the PM asylum doesn't mean we can't join forces now and then to deal with someone whom we both disagree with (you know, the ol' "enemy of my enemy is my friend" sort of thing).

Besides, my bestest friend in the whole world is a R.M.D. voter (we just avoid talking politics ).

Anyway, I am tentatively assuming that you would have performed the intercession for me, so thanks for that.

And, as expected, BigMike tried his best to repel my assault.

Unfortunately for him, he unwittingly (as in "Dunning-Krugerly") used an argument based on "weak emergence" to counter an argument based on "strong emergence."
_______

[henry quirk]

Hey, just because we get into heated tussles here in the PM asylum doesn't mean we can't join forces now and then to deal with someone whom we both disagree with (you know, the ol' "enemy of my enemy is my friend" sort of thing).

Besides, my bestest friend in the whole world is a R.M.D. voter (we just avoid talking politics ).

RMD?

Anyway, I am tentatively assuming that you would have performed the intercession for me, so thanks for that.

Absolutely I would have...you're welcome!

[FlashDangerpants]

RED MAN DEFIANT

R.M.D. voter

RMD?

Pretty sure it's your own phrase Henry

[Age]

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

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

LOL What a Truly IDIOTIC thing to say and suggest. Because one is a so-called "mathematician", then they 'should' be 'able to' write numbers down, infinitely.

It is like these people, here, are COMPLETELY BLIND sometimes. But this is, again, just because of the 'current' BELIEFS that they are HOLDING ONTO.

[Age]

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.

This, REALLY, was just how IMMATURE some adults could be when 'trying to' fight FOR their BELIEFS.

[Age]

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.

LOL So, just because this one could NOT find a 'starting point', then this MEANS, to this one, that a male gendered being MUST OF 'started' and/or created Everything.

Also, it is just PURE ILLOGICAL to come to the conclusion that if some thing NEVER STARTS, then it is NOT infinite, NOR eternal. By definition, when there is an infinite thing, like the Universe, Itself, or causality, then there is NO 'starting point', other than OF COURSE the One and ONLY one, which, by the way, can be VERY EASILY SHOWN, and ILLUSTRATED.

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.)

you are BEYOND being AN IDIOT, here, "immanuel can".

Causality, cause and effect, and/or action-reaction can be nothing OTHER THAN infinite or eternal. To ASSUME otherwise is BEYOND ABSURDITY.