Moving Beyond the Illusion of Free Will in Governance

[Age]

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.

LOL And, OBVIOUSLY, what the ideology, and BELIEF, that a male gendered creature or being, which this one calls God, created absolutely EVERY thing, has do to the brain within this one is VERY OBVIOUS, here.

This one CLAIMS that another can NOT 'do logic', but this one has, OBVIOUSLY, FAILED TO SEE what it has done, and is NOT doing, here.

[henry quirk]

Pretty sure it's your own phrase Henry

Oh...of course...RMD is RED MAN DEFIANT

[Age]

The mountain of research across physics, neuroscience, and biology confirms one consistent principle: everything is caused.

Yes, Mike, and you're one such cause. You're a free will. Your thinking is yours as are your actions. You are responsible for yourself.

ONCE AGAIN, I will ask 'this one' to EXPLAIN who and/or what is 'this thing', which, supposedly, has 'its thinking', 'its actions', and even 'its self', which it is, supposedly, responsible for?

And, ONCE AGAIN, 'this one' WILL FAIL to PROVIDE ANY ACTUAL REASONABLE ANSWER, and CLARIFICATION, AT ALL.

]The conservation laws—energy, momentum, charge, and others—demand that no atom, neuron, or electron in your brain starts, stops, or changes motion without a cause.

Yes, Mike, and you're the cause.

But, who and/or what IS 'you', EXACTLY?

your previous ABSOLUTELY IDIOTIC and IRRATIONAL CLAIM and ANSWER that 'you' are, or 'I' am, "henry quirk" will NEVER work and NEVER suffices.

I will again suggest that you DEFINE what 'you' are, EXACTLY, FIRST.

You call yourself a "hylomorph," invoking Aristotle’s outdated metaphysics, but that doesn’t solve the problem.

Sure it does. Hylomorphism is just a fancy way of sayin' two are one. There is no causal gap between your soul and your body. You are both, together.

But, what IS the 'you', which you CLAIM OWNS and/or HAS A 'soul' AND A 'body', EXACTLY?

Work 'this' out, FIRST, then 'you' WILL BE ABLE to work out WHEN and WHERE 'you' have been Wrong, in the past.

Quarks aren’t "phantoms"; they’re part of the Standard Model of particle physics, with effects that are measurable and consistent with predictions.

We infer quarks exist. We've never measured one, seen one, isolated one. A model -- which is itself incomplete and doesn't fit neatly -- tells us quarks exist. Seems to me there's a helluva lot more evidence, up here, that each of us is a free will, that we're hylomorphic, that morality is objective, than there is down there for a particle.

Finally, let’s address your notion that Libet’s findings—or any study, for that matter—leave room for free will. They don’t. The data consistently shows that neural processes precede conscious awareness of decisions.

The readiness potential, Mike. That's all that it. It's not the choice or decision. It's activity. Anyone who sez it's a proof mind is bran activity or that there's no (we're not) free will(s) doesn't understand the research, or, is flat-out lyin'.

Which is it, Mike? Are you confused or are you lyin'?

See HOW TOTALLY BAMBOOZLED these human beings would become, "themselves", back in the days when this was being written, when they were 'trying to' FIGHT FOR their OWN BELIEF/S, AGAINST another one's OWN BELIEF/S.

[Age]

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,

REALLY?

and while the volume of caps-lock intensity might give the impression of shouting,

1. AGAIN, there is NO 'caps-lock'.

2. If absolutely ANY one has an 'impression of shouting', then, OBVIOUSLY, they are NOT 'looking' OPENLY, here, and are just 'looking' from their own personal 'past experiences', ONLY.

let’s set that aside and focus on substance.

Well if you STOPPED bring up 'this', then is would have STAYED SET ASIDE, where it WAS, and IS, with me.

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.

ONCE AGAIN, you have ABSOLUTELY COMPLETELY and UTTERLY MISINTERPRETED things, here.

But, you DOING this is the ONLY WAY you can 'try to' ACHIEVE what 'it' is that you WANT TO ACHIEVE, here.

Let me break it down.

When I respond to a point—or don’t—it isn’t evidence of free will.

I KNOW. 'I' have CAUSED 'you' to do or not do what you did or did not do.

By the way, what is ACTUAL PROOF OF and FOR 'free will' IS DIFFERENT.

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.

Are you AWARE that 'you' KEEP REPEATING what 'I' have ALREADY TOLD 'you'?

If yes, then are you AWARE of WHY you KEEP DOING this?

If no, then you REALLY DO NEED TO LEARN, and UNDERSTAND, MORE, here.

Your argument seems to hinge on the belief that "making choices" proves free will,

LOL you are being an IMBECILE, here.

WHAT argument, supposedly, seems to hinge on this, EXACTLY?

but choice itself doesn’t imply freedom in the sense you mean.

In WHAT sense do I mean, EXACTLY?

Let 'us' SEE if you can get just 'this' Right, Accurate, and Correct?

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.

AGAIN, 'you' REPEAT what 'I' have ALREADY INFORMED 'you' OF.

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.

I NEVER said that it was 'an argument' that you made. It WAS JUST SOME thing that you SAID, and CLAIMED.

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.

GREAT. So, 'determinism' HAS CAUSED ALL of the BAD, Wrong, and Incorrect thinking, and doing, that you HAVE, and ARE DOING, here.

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.

LOL WHEN you STOP MAKING the ABSOLUTE RIDICULOUS CLAIMS that you HAVE MADE, like, for example, 'determinism' does NOT cause the 'bad things', 'determinism' ONLY causes the 'good things', then 'we' can FOCUS on ENGAGING on what is ACTUALLY True, and Right, here.

In other words, WHEN you STOP expressing 'your values', 'your beliefs', and 'your presumptions', and STAY FOCUSED ONLY what is ACTUALLY True, here, then 'you' CAN and WILL START TO SEE WHEN and WHERE 'your views' have been MISGUIDED, from which you can THEN LEARN, and UNDERSTAND, what 'the causes' WERE, EXACTLY, of HOW and WHY you had BECOME DISILLUSIONED and DISTORTED, here.

I’m more than willing to continue this discussion, as long as it’s grounded in reason and evidence.

I, INSTEAD, only 'look at' what is ACTUALLY PROVABLE True, ONLY.

As has ALREADY BEEN PROVED 'evidence' is NOT SUFFICIENT for FINDING the ACTUAL Facts, in Life.

[Age]

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 ONLY thing 'at stake', here, is the Falsehoods and the Truths, here, WILL come to light.

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.

WHO CARES?

And, WHY can you, STILL, NOT YET COMPREHEND, SEE, and UNDERSTAND what I have been ACTUALLY SAYING, and MEANING, here?

I will, AGAIN, suggest that you just STOP 'look at' AND 'seeing' 'my words' as though they are IN COMPETITION or AGAINST 'yours', here.

ONCE MORE, you are JUST RE-REPEATING, here, what 'I' have ALREADY IN-FORM-ED 'you' OF.

Now, you’re bringing up the idea of the universe itself “beginning” or being created.

LOL
LOL
LOL

you MUST HAVE MISSED that I ONLY DID to COUNTER and REFUTE "immanuel can" AND "Henry quirk's" ABSOLUTE BELIEFS that a male gendered being created or began the Universe, Itself.

That’s a different conversation entirely, one that delves into cosmology and the nature of existence.

WHO CARES?

ABSOLUTELY EVERY thing is INTERTWINED, and HAS ALREADY BEEN PROVED and VERIFIED True by the G.U.T.O.E. Itself.

Now, if you want to CLAIM that ABSOLUTELY EVERY thing was 'caused', then you will just HAVE TO ACCEPT and AGREE WITH the IRREFUTABLE Fact that the Universe did NOT begin, NOR was It created by something ELSE.

But even there, the conservation laws still hold sway.

you would have to be the BIGGEST ABSOLUTE IDIOT, here, if you were even just THINKING that I have been saying absolutely ANY thing AGAINST this.

WHY do you JUMP TO THE CONCLUSION that what I write and say, here, is AGAINST what you say and write, here?

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.

It is ALLUSIONS like this WHY you people, in the days when this is being written, get NOWHERE.

1. you have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA NOR CLUE as to WHAT 'my argument' even is, EXACTLY. And, which you would PROVE IRREFUTABLY True if I ever CHALLENGED and QUESTIONED you on 'this'.

2. Now, what do you BELIEVE 'my argument', of which you are NOT EVEN YET AWARE OF, seems to be misunderstanding, EXACTLY.

3. you ALLUDE TO things, but like the other posters here, you will NEVER CLARIFY what 'they' ARE, EXACTLY.

If we’re going to seriously engage, let’s stick to the core issue: determinism doesn’t require faith.

NO one EVER SAID it did.

So, 'this' is just ANOTHER DISTRACTION, here, BY you.

It’s a logical consequence of the conservation laws and the four fundamental interactions. If you want to challenge determinism,

LOL
LOL
LOL
LOL
LOL
LOL

I NEVER EVER WANTED, or WANT, to challenge 'determinism'.

AGAIN, you are BLIND by the Fact that you BELIEVE that what I have been saying and writing, here, is 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.

This is OBVIOUSLY ALL COMPLETELY MOOT.

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.

LOL

you, even AFTER ALL OF THIS TIME, are, STILL, BELIEVING that I am AGAINST 'determinism'.

Even AFTER I have been SAYING and CLAIMING that 'determinism' is as integral to HOW the Universe works as BOTH evolution AND creation, ARE.

[BigMike]

"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.




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,

REALLY?

and while the volume of caps-lock intensity might give the impression of shouting,

1. AGAIN, there is NO 'caps-lock'.

2. If absolutely ANY one has an 'impression of shouting', then, OBVIOUSLY, they are NOT 'looking' OPENLY, here, and are just 'looking' from their own personal 'past experiences', ONLY.

let’s set that aside and focus on substance.

Well if you STOPPED bring up 'this', then is would have STAYED SET ASIDE, where it WAS, and IS, with me.

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.

ONCE AGAIN, you have ABSOLUTELY COMPLETELY and UTTERLY MISINTERPRETED things, here.

But, you DOING this is the ONLY WAY you can 'try to' ACHIEVE what 'it' is that you WANT TO ACHIEVE, here.

Let me break it down.

When I respond to a point—or don’t—it isn’t evidence of free will.

I KNOW. 'I' have CAUSED 'you' to do or not do what you did or did not do.

By the way, what is ACTUAL PROOF OF and FOR 'free will' IS DIFFERENT.

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.

Are you AWARE that 'you' KEEP REPEATING what 'I' have ALREADY TOLD 'you'?

If yes, then are you AWARE of WHY you KEEP DOING this?

If no, then you REALLY DO NEED TO LEARN, and UNDERSTAND, MORE, here.

Your argument seems to hinge on the belief that "making choices" proves free will,

LOL you are being an IMBECILE, here.

WHAT argument, supposedly, seems to hinge on this, EXACTLY?

but choice itself doesn’t imply freedom in the sense you mean.

In WHAT sense do I mean, EXACTLY?

Let 'us' SEE if you can get just 'this' Right, Accurate, and Correct?

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.

AGAIN, 'you' REPEAT what 'I' have ALREADY INFORMED 'you' OF.

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.

I NEVER said that it was 'an argument' that you made. It WAS JUST SOME thing that you SAID, and CLAIMED.

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.

GREAT. So, 'determinism' HAS CAUSED ALL of the BAD, Wrong, and Incorrect thinking, and doing, that you HAVE, and ARE DOING, here.

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.

LOL WHEN you STOP MAKING the ABSOLUTE RIDICULOUS CLAIMS that you HAVE MADE, like, for example, 'determinism' does NOT cause the 'bad things', 'determinism' ONLY causes the 'good things', then 'we' can FOCUS on ENGAGING on what is ACTUALLY True, and Right, here.

In other words, WHEN you STOP expressing 'your values', 'your beliefs', and 'your presumptions', and STAY FOCUSED ONLY what is ACTUALLY True, here, then 'you' CAN and WILL START TO SEE WHEN and WHERE 'your views' have been MISGUIDED, from which you can THEN LEARN, and UNDERSTAND, what 'the causes' WERE, EXACTLY, of HOW and WHY you had BECOME DISILLUSIONED and DISTORTED, here.

I’m more than willing to continue this discussion, as long as it’s grounded in reason and evidence.

I, INSTEAD, only 'look at' what is ACTUALLY PROVABLE True, ONLY.

As has ALREADY BEEN PROVED 'evidence' is NOT SUFFICIENT for FINDING the ACTUAL Facts, in Life.

Age, I see that you're pouring a lot of energy into this discussion, and while I don’t want to sidestep your points, I think we need to bring this back to the core argument rather than tangling in misunderstandings or mischaracterizations. Let’s clarify a few things.

You’ve suggested that I claim determinism causes only "good" things and not "bad" ones. That’s simply not the case. Determinism isn’t selective—it doesn’t differentiate between good and bad because those are human constructs applied after the fact. Everything—every action, every thought, every event—follows from prior causes governed by the laws of physics. Good and bad outcomes are interpretations based on our values, but the deterministic process itself is neutral.

Now, regarding your assertion that I keep "repeating" what you’ve already said: determinism inherently means that we’re bound by the chain of prior causes, so yes, there’s bound to be overlap in our observations if we’re both engaging with the same logical framework. However, where we diverge is in the interpretation of what constitutes proof of free will. You claim to "cause" me to respond, but causation under determinism doesn’t imply agency in the way you’re suggesting. My response is determined by the interaction of external inputs (like your post), internal states (like my reasoning), and immutable physical laws—not some independent exercise of free will.

As for focusing on what’s provable: I agree entirely. That’s why my argument rests squarely on the conservation laws and the four fundamental interactions. These are empirically verified principles that explain all known phenomena without exception. If you believe determinism is flawed, the only viable challenge is to provide evidence that these principles break down. Until then, discussions about "values" or "interpretations" are interesting but ultimately peripheral to the central argument.

Let’s keep this grounded. If you have an example or a framework that challenges these laws, I’m ready to engage. Otherwise, we’re just circling back to the same fundamental misunderstanding of determinism.

[BigMike]

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?

Age, let’s take a moment to ground this discussion in what’s actually at stake here.

The ONLY thing 'at stake', here, is the Falsehoods and the Truths, here, WILL come to light.

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.

WHO CARES?

And, WHY can you, STILL, NOT YET COMPREHEND, SEE, and UNDERSTAND what I have been ACTUALLY SAYING, and MEANING, here?

I will, AGAIN, suggest that you just STOP 'look at' AND 'seeing' 'my words' as though they are IN COMPETITION or AGAINST 'yours', here.

ONCE MORE, you are JUST RE-REPEATING, here, what 'I' have ALREADY IN-FORM-ED 'you' OF.

Now, you’re bringing up the idea of the universe itself “beginning” or being created.

LOL
LOL
LOL

you MUST HAVE MISSED that I ONLY DID to COUNTER and REFUTE "immanuel can" AND "Henry quirk's" ABSOLUTE BELIEFS that a male gendered being created or began the Universe, Itself.

That’s a different conversation entirely, one that delves into cosmology and the nature of existence.

WHO CARES?

ABSOLUTELY EVERY thing is INTERTWINED, and HAS ALREADY BEEN PROVED and VERIFIED True by the G.U.T.O.E. Itself.

Now, if you want to CLAIM that ABSOLUTELY EVERY thing was 'caused', then you will just HAVE TO ACCEPT and AGREE WITH the IRREFUTABLE Fact that the Universe did NOT begin, NOR was It created by something ELSE.

But even there, the conservation laws still hold sway.

you would have to be the BIGGEST ABSOLUTE IDIOT, here, if you were even just THINKING that I have been saying absolutely ANY thing AGAINST this.

WHY do you JUMP TO THE CONCLUSION that what I write and say, here, is AGAINST what you say and write, here?

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.

It is ALLUSIONS like this WHY you people, in the days when this is being written, get NOWHERE.

1. you have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA NOR CLUE as to WHAT 'my argument' even is, EXACTLY. And, which you would PROVE IRREFUTABLY True if I ever CHALLENGED and QUESTIONED you on 'this'.

2. Now, what do you BELIEVE 'my argument', of which you are NOT EVEN YET AWARE OF, seems to be misunderstanding, EXACTLY.

3. you ALLUDE TO things, but like the other posters here, you will NEVER CLARIFY what 'they' ARE, EXACTLY.

If we’re going to seriously engage, let’s stick to the core issue: determinism doesn’t require faith.

NO one EVER SAID it did.

So, 'this' is just ANOTHER DISTRACTION, here, BY you.

It’s a logical consequence of the conservation laws and the four fundamental interactions. If you want to challenge determinism,

LOL
LOL
LOL
LOL
LOL
LOL

I NEVER EVER WANTED, or WANT, to challenge 'determinism'.

AGAIN, you are BLIND by the Fact that you BELIEVE that what I have been saying and writing, here, is 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.

This is OBVIOUSLY ALL COMPLETELY MOOT.

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.

LOL

you, even AFTER ALL OF THIS TIME, are, STILL, BELIEVING that I am AGAINST 'determinism'.

Even AFTER I have been SAYING and CLAIMING that 'determinism' is as integral to HOW the Universe works as BOTH evolution AND creation, ARE.

Age, let’s clear the air a bit because the back-and-forth seems to be spiraling into assumptions about motives and positions rather than engaging on substance. First, I’m not under the impression that you’re "against determinism." What I am responding to is how you approach the topic, particularly the tangents about universal origins and whether they connect meaningfully to the discussion about determinism and the conservation laws.

Your core point, as I now understand it, is to emphasize that everything—from the universe itself to the interactions within it—is causally linked. If that's the case, then we’re actually in agreement on the most fundamental idea: the chain of cause and effect is unbroken, and determinism applies universally. What seems to be creating friction here is a matter of communication, not disagreement.

Now, you’ve brought up the idea that the universe didn’t begin or wasn’t created by “something else.” That’s an intriguing point, but let’s ground it in what we know: the conservation laws don’t comment on why the universe exists or whether it had a beginning—they govern how it operates. What we do know is that energy, momentum, and other conserved quantities persist, transform, and interact in accordance with these laws. If your argument is that the universe didn’t “begin” in the sense of being caused by an external force, then fine—but that’s a metaphysical position rather than one directly tied to determinism.

The crux of determinism is this: the state of the universe at any given moment determines the state at the next. If you agree with that—and I think you do—then there’s no real contention between us. If you feel I’m misunderstanding or misrepresenting your position, let me know where we can refocus. But let’s step away from personal interpretations and stick to what can be clarified with evidence and reasoning. That’s where real progress happens.

[Age]

Age, I see the passion in your comments,

REALLY?

and while the volume of caps-lock intensity might give the impression of shouting,

1. AGAIN, there is NO 'caps-lock'.

2. If absolutely ANY one has an 'impression of shouting', then, OBVIOUSLY, they are NOT 'looking' OPENLY, here, and are just 'looking' from their own personal 'past experiences', ONLY.

let’s set that aside and focus on substance.

Well if you STOPPED bring up 'this', then is would have STAYED SET ASIDE, where it WAS, and IS, with me.

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.

ONCE AGAIN, you have ABSOLUTELY COMPLETELY and UTTERLY MISINTERPRETED things, here.

But, you DOING this is the ONLY WAY you can 'try to' ACHIEVE what 'it' is that you WANT TO ACHIEVE, here.

Let me break it down.

When I respond to a point—or don’t—it isn’t evidence of free will.

I KNOW. 'I' have CAUSED 'you' to do or not do what you did or did not do.

By the way, what is ACTUAL PROOF OF and FOR 'free will' IS DIFFERENT.

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.

Are you AWARE that 'you' KEEP REPEATING what 'I' have ALREADY TOLD 'you'?

If yes, then are you AWARE of WHY you KEEP DOING this?

If no, then you REALLY DO NEED TO LEARN, and UNDERSTAND, MORE, here.

Your argument seems to hinge on the belief that "making choices" proves free will,

LOL you are being an IMBECILE, here.

WHAT argument, supposedly, seems to hinge on this, EXACTLY?

but choice itself doesn’t imply freedom in the sense you mean.

In WHAT sense do I mean, EXACTLY?

Let 'us' SEE if you can get just 'this' Right, Accurate, and Correct?

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.

AGAIN, 'you' REPEAT what 'I' have ALREADY INFORMED 'you' OF.

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.

I NEVER said that it was 'an argument' that you made. It WAS JUST SOME thing that you SAID, and CLAIMED.

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.

GREAT. So, 'determinism' HAS CAUSED ALL of the BAD, Wrong, and Incorrect thinking, and doing, that you HAVE, and ARE DOING, here.

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.

LOL WHEN you STOP MAKING the ABSOLUTE RIDICULOUS CLAIMS that you HAVE MADE, like, for example, 'determinism' does NOT cause the 'bad things', 'determinism' ONLY causes the 'good things', then 'we' can FOCUS on ENGAGING on what is ACTUALLY True, and Right, here.

In other words, WHEN you STOP expressing 'your values', 'your beliefs', and 'your presumptions', and STAY FOCUSED ONLY what is ACTUALLY True, here, then 'you' CAN and WILL START TO SEE WHEN and WHERE 'your views' have been MISGUIDED, from which you can THEN LEARN, and UNDERSTAND, what 'the causes' WERE, EXACTLY, of HOW and WHY you had BECOME DISILLUSIONED and DISTORTED, here.

I’m more than willing to continue this discussion, as long as it’s grounded in reason and evidence.

I, INSTEAD, only 'look at' what is ACTUALLY PROVABLE True, ONLY.

As has ALREADY BEEN PROVED 'evidence' is NOT SUFFICIENT for FINDING the ACTUAL Facts, in Life.

Age, I see that you're pouring a lot of energy into this discussion,

Relatively speaking I have not poured ANY energy AT ALL into this little discussion, here.

and while I don’t want to sidestep your points,

you WILL 'try to' do this anyway, right?

I think we need to bring this back to the core argument rather than tangling in misunderstandings or mischaracterizations.

Okay, if this helps you, here. So, what is YOUR 'core argument', exactly?

And, by the way, why not just present a sound AND valid argument?

If you did, then, obviously, there could be NO one who could refute your argument, and so EVERY one would HAVE TO AGREE and ACCEPT 'that argument'.

Let’s clarify a few things.

Okay.

You’ve suggested that I claim determinism causes only "good" things and not "bad" ones. That’s simply not the case.

I KNOW that 'determinism' does NOT cause only some things. 'Determinism' has OBVIOUSLY caused EVERY thing, at EVERY moment.

Let 'me' CLARIFY that it was 'you' who made 'that claim'. As can be CLEARLY SEEN and PROVED True within YOUR WORDS, here, in this forum.

Determinism isn’t selective—it doesn’t differentiate between good and bad because those are human constructs applied after the fact.

So, WHY did you say what you did, here, about this?

Everything—every action, every thought, every event—follows from prior causes governed by the laws of physics.

WHY do you KEEP ON PERSISTING ON JUST REPEATING things like this, which OBVIOUSLY NO one could refute?

Good and bad outcomes are interpretations based on our values, but the deterministic process itself is neutral.

OBVIOUSLY. Now, AGAIN, let 'us' NOT FORGET that it was 'YOU' who made the CLAIM that 'determinism' does NOT cause 'bad things'. Again, as can be SEEN and PROVED True in your previous writings, here, in this forum.

Now, regarding your assertion that I keep "repeating" what you’ve already said: determinism inherently means that we’re bound by the chain of prior causes, so yes, there’s bound to be overlap in our observations if we’re both engaging with the same logical framework. However, where we diverge is in the interpretation of what constitutes proof of free will.

WHY, what is 'your interpretation' of what constitutes PROOF of 'free will'?

And, what do you PRESUME is 'my interpretation' of what constitutes PROOF of 'free will'? OBVIOUSLY I have NEVER presented 'ANY interpretation' of what constitutes PROOF of 'free will'. As can be CLEARLY SEEN and PROVED True in 'my past writings', here, in this forum.

You claim to "cause" me to respond, but causation under determinism doesn’t imply agency in the way you’re suggesting.

1. WHEN have I EVER implied 'agency', AND, in what way have I, SUPPOSEDLY, suggested, EXACTLY?

2. Again, 'we' can CLEARLY SEE HOW often these posters, here, would ALLUDE to some thing or another, without ACTUALLY SAYING what 'it' is, EXACTLY.

3. WHY do you JUMP from one thing to another thing, without EVER backing up and supporting your claim/s?

My response is determined by the interaction of external inputs (like your post), internal states (like my reasoning), and immutable physical laws—not some independent exercise of free will.

'you' USING the words 'your post' AND 'my reasoning' implies 'agency'.

Also, have you FORGOTTEN that there is NO a human being, EVER, who could dispute there is NO 'free will', under your interpretation, characterization, and definition of the term and phrase 'free will', anyway?

As for focusing on what’s provable: I agree entirely. That’s why my argument rests squarely on the conservation laws and the four fundamental interactions.

And, what is your EXACT argument, AGAIN, sorry?

These are empirically verified principles that explain all known phenomena without exception.

Okay. So, the phenomena of having the ABILITY TO CHOOSE, is ALSO explained 'empirically, without exception.

So, thank you for backing up, supporting, and PROVING, what I have been SAYING, and CLAIMING, here.

If you believe determinism is flawed,

you, ONCE MORE, come across as COMPLETELY and UTTERLY BLIND, DEAF, AND STUPID.

ONCE AGAIN, I do NOT BELIEVE 'determinism is flawed'. And, only an ABSOLUTE IMBECILE would have THOUGHT 'this', here.

the only viable challenge is to provide evidence that these principles break down.

MOOT. As I do NOT, and I WILL REPEAT, AGAIN, DO NOT BELIEVE 'determinism is flawed'.

Are you AWARE that I have INFORMED 'you' of 'this', PREVIOUSLY.

Until then, discussions about "values" or "interpretations" are interesting but ultimately peripheral to the central argument.

So, WHY was it 'YOU' who INTRODUCED and BROUGHT UP 'your values and interpretations', here?

Let’s keep this grounded. If you have an example or a framework that challenges these laws, I’m ready to engage. Otherwise, we’re just circling back to the same fundamental misunderstanding of determinism.

LOL
LOL
LOL
LOL
LOL

ONCE AGAIN, I HAVE NOT EVEN BEEN DISAGREEING WITH you, here. Although you OBVIOUSLY KEEP CONSISTENTLY BELIEVING THAT I AM.

[BigMike]

REALLY?



1. AGAIN, there is NO 'caps-lock'.

2. If absolutely ANY one has an 'impression of shouting', then, OBVIOUSLY, they are NOT 'looking' OPENLY, here, and are just 'looking' from their own personal 'past experiences', ONLY.



Well if you STOPPED bring up 'this', then is would have STAYED SET ASIDE, where it WAS, and IS, with me.



ONCE AGAIN, you have ABSOLUTELY COMPLETELY and UTTERLY MISINTERPRETED things, here.

But, you DOING this is the ONLY WAY you can 'try to' ACHIEVE what 'it' is that you WANT TO ACHIEVE, here.



I KNOW. 'I' have CAUSED 'you' to do or not do what you did or did not do.

By the way, what is ACTUAL PROOF OF and FOR 'free will' IS DIFFERENT.



Are you AWARE that 'you' KEEP REPEATING what 'I' have ALREADY TOLD 'you'?

If yes, then are you AWARE of WHY you KEEP DOING this?

If no, then you REALLY DO NEED TO LEARN, and UNDERSTAND, MORE, here.


LOL you are being an IMBECILE, here.

WHAT argument, supposedly, seems to hinge on this, EXACTLY?



In WHAT sense do I mean, EXACTLY?

Let 'us' SEE if you can get just 'this' Right, Accurate, and Correct?



AGAIN, 'you' REPEAT what 'I' have ALREADY INFORMED 'you' OF.


I NEVER said that it was 'an argument' that you made. It WAS JUST SOME thing that you SAID, and CLAIMED.



GREAT. So, 'determinism' HAS CAUSED ALL of the BAD, Wrong, and Incorrect thinking, and doing, that you HAVE, and ARE DOING, here.


LOL WHEN you STOP MAKING the ABSOLUTE RIDICULOUS CLAIMS that you HAVE MADE, like, for example, 'determinism' does NOT cause the 'bad things', 'determinism' ONLY causes the 'good things', then 'we' can FOCUS on ENGAGING on what is ACTUALLY True, and Right, here.

In other words, WHEN you STOP expressing 'your values', 'your beliefs', and 'your presumptions', and STAY FOCUSED ONLY what is ACTUALLY True, here, then 'you' CAN and WILL START TO SEE WHEN and WHERE 'your views' have been MISGUIDED, from which you can THEN LEARN, and UNDERSTAND, what 'the causes' WERE, EXACTLY, of HOW and WHY you had BECOME DISILLUSIONED and DISTORTED, here.



I, INSTEAD, only 'look at' what is ACTUALLY PROVABLE True, ONLY.

As has ALREADY BEEN PROVED 'evidence' is NOT SUFFICIENT for FINDING the ACTUAL Facts, in Life.

Age, I see that you're pouring a lot of energy into this discussion,

Relatively speaking I have not poured ANY energy AT ALL into this little discussion, here.

and while I don’t want to sidestep your points,

you WILL 'try to' do this anyway, right?

I think we need to bring this back to the core argument rather than tangling in misunderstandings or mischaracterizations.

Okay, if this helps you, here. So, what is YOUR 'core argument', exactly?

And, by the way, why not just present a sound AND valid argument?

If you did, then, obviously, there could be NO one who could refute your argument, and so EVERY one would HAVE TO AGREE and ACCEPT 'that argument'.

Let’s clarify a few things.

Okay.

You’ve suggested that I claim determinism causes only "good" things and not "bad" ones. That’s simply not the case.

I KNOW that 'determinism' does NOT cause only some things. 'Determinism' has OBVIOUSLY caused EVERY thing, at EVERY moment.

Let 'me' CLARIFY that it was 'you' who made 'that claim'. As can be CLEARLY SEEN and PROVED True within YOUR WORDS, here, in this forum.

Determinism isn’t selective—it doesn’t differentiate between good and bad because those are human constructs applied after the fact.

So, WHY did you say what you did, here, about this?

Everything—every action, every thought, every event—follows from prior causes governed by the laws of physics.

WHY do you KEEP ON PERSISTING ON JUST REPEATING things like this, which OBVIOUSLY NO one could refute?

Good and bad outcomes are interpretations based on our values, but the deterministic process itself is neutral.

OBVIOUSLY. Now, AGAIN, let 'us' NOT FORGET that it was 'YOU' who made the CLAIM that 'determinism' does NOT cause 'bad things'. Again, as can be SEEN and PROVED True in your previous writings, here, in this forum.

Now, regarding your assertion that I keep "repeating" what you’ve already said: determinism inherently means that we’re bound by the chain of prior causes, so yes, there’s bound to be overlap in our observations if we’re both engaging with the same logical framework. However, where we diverge is in the interpretation of what constitutes proof of free will.

WHY, what is 'your interpretation' of what constitutes PROOF of 'free will'?

And, what do you PRESUME is 'my interpretation' of what constitutes PROOF of 'free will'? OBVIOUSLY I have NEVER presented 'ANY interpretation' of what constitutes PROOF of 'free will'. As can be CLEARLY SEEN and PROVED True in 'my past writings', here, in this forum.

You claim to "cause" me to respond, but causation under determinism doesn’t imply agency in the way you’re suggesting.

1. WHEN have I EVER implied 'agency', AND, in what way have I, SUPPOSEDLY, suggested, EXACTLY?

2. Again, 'we' can CLEARLY SEE HOW often these posters, here, would ALLUDE to some thing or another, without ACTUALLY SAYING what 'it' is, EXACTLY.

3. WHY do you JUMP from one thing to another thing, without EVER backing up and supporting your claim/s?

My response is determined by the interaction of external inputs (like your post), internal states (like my reasoning), and immutable physical laws—not some independent exercise of free will.

'you' USING the words 'your post' AND 'my reasoning' implies 'agency'.

Also, have you FORGOTTEN that there is NO a human being, EVER, who could dispute there is NO 'free will', under your interpretation, characterization, and definition of the term and phrase 'free will', anyway?

As for focusing on what’s provable: I agree entirely. That’s why my argument rests squarely on the conservation laws and the four fundamental interactions.

And, what is your EXACT argument, AGAIN, sorry?

These are empirically verified principles that explain all known phenomena without exception.

Okay. So, the phenomena of having the ABILITY TO CHOOSE, is ALSO explained 'empirically, without exception.

So, thank you for backing up, supporting, and PROVING, what I have been SAYING, and CLAIMING, here.

If you believe determinism is flawed,

you, ONCE MORE, come across as COMPLETELY and UTTERLY BLIND, DEAF, AND STUPID.

ONCE AGAIN, I do NOT BELIEVE 'determinism is flawed'. And, only an ABSOLUTE IMBECILE would have THOUGHT 'this', here.

the only viable challenge is to provide evidence that these principles break down.

MOOT. As I do NOT, and I WILL REPEAT, AGAIN, DO NOT BELIEVE 'determinism is flawed'.

Are you AWARE that I have INFORMED 'you' of 'this', PREVIOUSLY.

Until then, discussions about "values" or "interpretations" are interesting but ultimately peripheral to the central argument.

So, WHY was it 'YOU' who INTRODUCED and BROUGHT UP 'your values and interpretations', here?

Let’s keep this grounded. If you have an example or a framework that challenges these laws, I’m ready to engage. Otherwise, we’re just circling back to the same fundamental misunderstanding of determinism.

LOL
LOL
LOL
LOL
LOL

ONCE AGAIN, I HAVE NOT EVEN BEEN DISAGREEING WITH you, here. Although you OBVIOUSLY KEEP CONSISTENTLY BELIEVING THAT I AM.

Age, I think we’ve reached a point where we’re not so much debating determinism itself but rather untangling layers of misunderstanding about each other’s intentions and arguments. Let’s take a step back and find some common ground to move forward.

First, I’m fully aware that you’re not rejecting determinism. You’ve made that abundantly clear. The issue seems to be more about clarifying how determinism accounts for everything—including the concept of making choices—without assuming any contradiction in terms like "free will." I understand that you view "the ability to choose" as something entirely compatible with deterministic principles, and that’s fine. Determinism absolutely allows for apparent "choices" in the sense that actions arise as necessary outcomes of prior causes.

Where I may have muddied the waters is by interpreting your points as challenges, when instead, it seems you’re reinforcing the idea that determinism underpins all phenomena, including the process of reasoning or decision-making. If that’s the case, we’re not in conflict at all—our perspectives align.

Now, let’s clarify something important: when I emphasize the conservation laws and deterministic processes, it’s not to argue against you, but to frame the discussion for others who might misinterpret the idea of determinism. Your critiques about repeating points or misinterpreting your position are fair, and I’ll work to ensure we’re not circling the same ground unnecessarily.

If you believe there’s a specific misunderstanding or a point you’d like me to address differently, let’s focus on that. Otherwise, I’m happy to continue engaging productively, keeping the discussion centered on the deterministic framework that we both seem to recognize as foundational.

[Wizard22]

If you're skeptical about how deterministic governance could work better than current systems, I’d invite you to start with the introduction to Chapter 3 of one of my books. It lays out the case for evidence-based decision-making and highlights why empirical validation is crucial for effective governance. Rather than relying on ideology or tradition, deterministic governance builds policies rooted in tested, proven approaches, ensuring decisions serve long-term societal benefit. Here’s the relevant excerpt:

---

Is this your true angle and motivation then--book sales??

You remind me of another I dealt with 2 or 3 years ago. Her name was/is peacegirl. She too was selling and shilling a book, on online philosophy forums, hers more to the point: about denying Free-Will completely.

3 THE ROLE OF EVIDENCE-BASED DECISION-MAKING
EMPIRICAL VALIDATION IN POLICY-MAKING
Let’s take a step back and think about how decisions are usually made in government. Often, policy-making is portrayed as this grand process where leaders weigh facts, look at data, and then make choices based on what’s best for the people. But we know it doesn’t always happen like that. In fact, more often than not, decisions are driven by ideology, political agendas, and, frankly, a lot of guesswork. What we need—and what’s been lacking—is a system that’s rooted in empirical validation. A system that leans on evidence, not rhetoric, to make decisions that truly benefit society in the long term.
Now, imagine a scenario where every major policy decision was grounded in hard evidence. Picture lawmakers who, instead of pontificating about moral beliefs or party loyalties, turned to scientific data and factual analysis to guide their choices. That’s what empirical validation means. It’s the idea that policy should be tested and proven, just like scientific hypotheses, before it ever gets put into practice. If a policy works, it should be because the evidence shows it will work, not because it sounds good in a stump speech.
We saw a stark contrast in this kind of decision-making during the COVID-19 pandemic. Different countries took vastly different approaches to handling the virus, and the outcomes were just as varied. On one side, we had nations like South Korea, which took a data-driven, methodical approach. They leaned on the science—on testing, contact tracing, and strict quarantine measures. Everything they did was backed by solid, empirical evidence. And what happened? South Korea managed to keep its infection rates and death tolls remarkably low, even when much of the world was struggling.
On the other side of the spectrum, we saw countries that let political agendas and ideological positions dictate their responses. Think of the rhetoric around mask mandates, for example. In many places, it wasn’t about the data showing masks slow the spread of the virus. Instead, it became a political football. Leaders downplayed the seriousness of the pandemic, not because the facts supported their claims, but because it fit a certain political narrative. The results were disastrous—higher infection rates, overwhelmed healthcare systems, and far more deaths than necessary.
This brings us to the core issue: when policy-making is driven by ideology or moral beliefs, it’s detached from reality. Ideology is about what should be, not necessarily what is. It’s aspirational, sometimes even utopian. But when you’re governing a society—when you’re making decisions that affect millions of lives—you can’t afford to work in the realm of ideals alone. You have to ground yourself in what we know to be true, and that means relying on empirical evidence.
Now, let’s be clear: empirical validation doesn’t mean stripping away all values or morals from governance. It’s not about being robotic or indifferent. It’s about using evidence to check our biases and assumptions, to make sure that what we think should work actually does work. And that’s the key difference between evidence-based policy and ideologically driven policy: the former is rooted in reality; the latter is rooted in belief.
One of the best examples of how empirical validation can improve long-term outcomes in governance is the use of randomized control trials (RCTs) in social policy. These are the same types of trials used in medicine to test the effectiveness of new drugs. By applying the same rigor to social programs—whether it’s housing, education, or healthcare—we can actually see what works and what doesn’t before rolling out policies on a large scale. In places where RCTs have been used, governments have been able to avoid costly mistakes and direct resources where they’ll have the most impact. It’s a simple concept: test it, validate it, and then implement it.
So, what’s stopping us from doing this more often? Well, the answer is, in part, politics. Empirical evidence doesn’t always align neatly with political agendas. Data can be inconvenient. It can reveal flaws in long-standing policies or challenge deeply held beliefs. That’s why we often see evidence get pushed to the side when it conflicts with the narrative that politicians want to sell. But the truth is, in the long run, ignoring evidence only leads to bad policy—and bad policy has real consequences. People get hurt, resources get wasted, and trust in government erodes.
The COVID-19 pandemic was a harsh reminder of what happens when evidence is sidelined for the sake of political expediency. Countries that ignored the science suffered the most, while those that followed the data fared far better. It’s a lesson that extends beyond public health and into every area of governance. From climate change to criminal justice reform, we can’t afford to ignore the facts.
In the end, what we need is a cultural shift in how we approach policy-making. We need to embrace empirical validation as the standard, not the exception. Imagine a world where every major policy was subjected to the same rigorous testing as a new vaccine or a safety protocol in engineering. It sounds simple, but it would require a massive change in how governments operate—a shift away from ideology and toward a governance model that’s driven by evidence, reason, and a commitment to reality.
The benefits of such a system are clear. Not only would it lead to more effective policies, but it would also restore faith in government institutions. When people see that decisions are being made based on facts, not politics, they’re more likely to trust those decisions. And trust, as we’ve learned, is one of the most important ingredients in any functioning democracy. It’s time we make evidence the foundation of governance, and leave ideology where it belongs—in the realm of personal belief, not public policy.

---

You don't know much about politics, do you? You're a Theoritician. In real life, in reality, people do not operate 'rationally' or "empirically forward". The masses don't care much about results, rather or before the rhetorical promises. The masses are sold on Ideals, and Charisma. They want leaders who represent Authority, if they-themselves are not the true nor real Authority.

Your entire premise is shoddy. First you attacked Free-Will. Then you argued on behalf of 'empirically based results in politics and policies'. You're just so far off-base that I don't know where yet to begin refuting you.

If we genuinely want systems that work, we need governance aligned with reality—where evidence, not conjecture, drives outcomes. If you’re serious about exploring better options, let’s start with the data.

Outcomes based on whom?

Me? My kind? My people? Who are 'We' appealing to? Humanity? Let's begin there. If you think Western Civilization appeals to 'All Humanity' then you're deeply flawed in yet another area.

[BigMike]

If you're skeptical about how deterministic governance could work better than current systems, I’d invite you to start with the introduction to Chapter 3 of one of my books. It lays out the case for evidence-based decision-making and highlights why empirical validation is crucial for effective governance. Rather than relying on ideology or tradition, deterministic governance builds policies rooted in tested, proven approaches, ensuring decisions serve long-term societal benefit. Here’s the relevant excerpt:

---

Is this your true angle and motivation then--book sales??

You remind me of another I dealt with 2 or 3 years ago. Her name was/is peacegirl. She too was selling and shilling a book, on online philosophy forums, hers more to the point: about denying Free-Will completely.

3 THE ROLE OF EVIDENCE-BASED DECISION-MAKING
EMPIRICAL VALIDATION IN POLICY-MAKING
Let’s take a step back and think about how decisions are usually made in government. Often, policy-making is portrayed as this grand process where leaders weigh facts, look at data, and then make choices based on what’s best for the people. But we know it doesn’t always happen like that. In fact, more often than not, decisions are driven by ideology, political agendas, and, frankly, a lot of guesswork. What we need—and what’s been lacking—is a system that’s rooted in empirical validation. A system that leans on evidence, not rhetoric, to make decisions that truly benefit society in the long term.
Now, imagine a scenario where every major policy decision was grounded in hard evidence. Picture lawmakers who, instead of pontificating about moral beliefs or party loyalties, turned to scientific data and factual analysis to guide their choices. That’s what empirical validation means. It’s the idea that policy should be tested and proven, just like scientific hypotheses, before it ever gets put into practice. If a policy works, it should be because the evidence shows it will work, not because it sounds good in a stump speech.
We saw a stark contrast in this kind of decision-making during the COVID-19 pandemic. Different countries took vastly different approaches to handling the virus, and the outcomes were just as varied. On one side, we had nations like South Korea, which took a data-driven, methodical approach. They leaned on the science—on testing, contact tracing, and strict quarantine measures. Everything they did was backed by solid, empirical evidence. And what happened? South Korea managed to keep its infection rates and death tolls remarkably low, even when much of the world was struggling.
On the other side of the spectrum, we saw countries that let political agendas and ideological positions dictate their responses. Think of the rhetoric around mask mandates, for example. In many places, it wasn’t about the data showing masks slow the spread of the virus. Instead, it became a political football. Leaders downplayed the seriousness of the pandemic, not because the facts supported their claims, but because it fit a certain political narrative. The results were disastrous—higher infection rates, overwhelmed healthcare systems, and far more deaths than necessary.
This brings us to the core issue: when policy-making is driven by ideology or moral beliefs, it’s detached from reality. Ideology is about what should be, not necessarily what is. It’s aspirational, sometimes even utopian. But when you’re governing a society—when you’re making decisions that affect millions of lives—you can’t afford to work in the realm of ideals alone. You have to ground yourself in what we know to be true, and that means relying on empirical evidence.
Now, let’s be clear: empirical validation doesn’t mean stripping away all values or morals from governance. It’s not about being robotic or indifferent. It’s about using evidence to check our biases and assumptions, to make sure that what we think should work actually does work. And that’s the key difference between evidence-based policy and ideologically driven policy: the former is rooted in reality; the latter is rooted in belief.
One of the best examples of how empirical validation can improve long-term outcomes in governance is the use of randomized control trials (RCTs) in social policy. These are the same types of trials used in medicine to test the effectiveness of new drugs. By applying the same rigor to social programs—whether it’s housing, education, or healthcare—we can actually see what works and what doesn’t before rolling out policies on a large scale. In places where RCTs have been used, governments have been able to avoid costly mistakes and direct resources where they’ll have the most impact. It’s a simple concept: test it, validate it, and then implement it.
So, what’s stopping us from doing this more often? Well, the answer is, in part, politics. Empirical evidence doesn’t always align neatly with political agendas. Data can be inconvenient. It can reveal flaws in long-standing policies or challenge deeply held beliefs. That’s why we often see evidence get pushed to the side when it conflicts with the narrative that politicians want to sell. But the truth is, in the long run, ignoring evidence only leads to bad policy—and bad policy has real consequences. People get hurt, resources get wasted, and trust in government erodes.
The COVID-19 pandemic was a harsh reminder of what happens when evidence is sidelined for the sake of political expediency. Countries that ignored the science suffered the most, while those that followed the data fared far better. It’s a lesson that extends beyond public health and into every area of governance. From climate change to criminal justice reform, we can’t afford to ignore the facts.
In the end, what we need is a cultural shift in how we approach policy-making. We need to embrace empirical validation as the standard, not the exception. Imagine a world where every major policy was subjected to the same rigorous testing as a new vaccine or a safety protocol in engineering. It sounds simple, but it would require a massive change in how governments operate—a shift away from ideology and toward a governance model that’s driven by evidence, reason, and a commitment to reality.
The benefits of such a system are clear. Not only would it lead to more effective policies, but it would also restore faith in government institutions. When people see that decisions are being made based on facts, not politics, they’re more likely to trust those decisions. And trust, as we’ve learned, is one of the most important ingredients in any functioning democracy. It’s time we make evidence the foundation of governance, and leave ideology where it belongs—in the realm of personal belief, not public policy.

---

You don't know much about politics, do you? You're a Theoritician. In real life, in reality, people do not operate 'rationally' or "empirically forward". The masses don't care much about results, rather or before the rhetorical promises. The masses are sold on Ideals, and Charisma. They want leaders who represent Authority, if they-themselves are not the true nor real Authority.

Your entire premise is shoddy. First you attacked Free-Will. Then you argued on behalf of 'empirically based results in politics and policies'. You're just so far off-base that I don't know where yet to begin refuting you.

If we genuinely want systems that work, we need governance aligned with reality—where evidence, not conjecture, drives outcomes. If you’re serious about exploring better options, let’s start with the data.

Outcomes based on whom?

Me? My kind? My people? Who are 'We' appealing to? Humanity? Let's begin there. If you think Western Civilization appeals to 'All Humanity' then you're deeply flawed in yet another area.

Wizard22, let’s start by untangling a few things because it seems like your critique of evidence-based decision-making is less about its substance and more about its feasibility in a messy, politically driven world. I get it—politics isn’t exactly known for its rationality or its commitment to facts. But let’s not mistake the challenges of implementation for flaws in the idea itself.

You’re right that people are often swayed by ideals, charisma, and authority rather than data or results. That’s precisely why governance built on empirical validation is so important. It’s not about ignoring human behavior—it’s about counterbalancing its flaws. Ideology and promises may win elections, but they don’t fix broken systems. Evidence does. When governance aligns with what works—not what sounds good—it benefits everyone, whether or not they were sold on the rhetoric.

As for your point about outcomes: outcomes serve society best when they’re based on universal human needs—health, safety, education, sustainability. These aren’t Western ideals; they’re the basics that transcend culture. A model like this doesn’t cater to any one group or region—it’s designed to address shared realities. If your argument is that Western systems have failed to account for the diversity of human experience, you’re not wrong. But that’s not an argument against evidence-based policy—it’s an argument for refining and expanding it.

Now, your criticism of determinism and my supposed "attack" on free will feels like a sidestep. Determinism isn’t a value judgment or an attack—it’s a framework that explains how outcomes, whether in governance or human behavior, are shaped by causes. It complements the argument for evidence-based governance because it reinforces the idea that policies need to be grounded in reality, not assumptions or wishful thinking.

If you want to refute this, start where it matters: show how ignoring evidence leads to better outcomes. Or explain how ideological decision-making can outperform data-driven approaches in real-world governance. Otherwise, we’re left with a critique of human behavior, not the principles I’m defending. And while it’s fair to point out that people are flawed, it’s not a reason to abandon systems that aim to minimize those flaws. It’s a reason to embrace them.

[Age]

Age, let’s take a moment to ground this discussion in what’s actually at stake here.

The ONLY thing 'at stake', here, is the Falsehoods and the Truths, here, WILL come to light.

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.

WHO CARES?

And, WHY can you, STILL, NOT YET COMPREHEND, SEE, and UNDERSTAND what I have been ACTUALLY SAYING, and MEANING, here?

I will, AGAIN, suggest that you just STOP 'look at' AND 'seeing' 'my words' as though they are IN COMPETITION or AGAINST 'yours', here.

ONCE MORE, you are JUST RE-REPEATING, here, what 'I' have ALREADY IN-FORM-ED 'you' OF.

Now, you’re bringing up the idea of the universe itself “beginning” or being created.

LOL
LOL
LOL

you MUST HAVE MISSED that I ONLY DID to COUNTER and REFUTE "immanuel can" AND "Henry quirk's" ABSOLUTE BELIEFS that a male gendered being created or began the Universe, Itself.

That’s a different conversation entirely, one that delves into cosmology and the nature of existence.

WHO CARES?

ABSOLUTELY EVERY thing is INTERTWINED, and HAS ALREADY BEEN PROVED and VERIFIED True by the G.U.T.O.E. Itself.

Now, if you want to CLAIM that ABSOLUTELY EVERY thing was 'caused', then you will just HAVE TO ACCEPT and AGREE WITH the IRREFUTABLE Fact that the Universe did NOT begin, NOR was It created by something ELSE.

But even there, the conservation laws still hold sway.

you would have to be the BIGGEST ABSOLUTE IDIOT, here, if you were even just THINKING that I have been saying absolutely ANY thing AGAINST this.

WHY do you JUMP TO THE CONCLUSION that what I write and say, here, is AGAINST what you say and write, here?

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.

It is ALLUSIONS like this WHY you people, in the days when this is being written, get NOWHERE.

1. you have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA NOR CLUE as to WHAT 'my argument' even is, EXACTLY. And, which you would PROVE IRREFUTABLY True if I ever CHALLENGED and QUESTIONED you on 'this'.

2. Now, what do you BELIEVE 'my argument', of which you are NOT EVEN YET AWARE OF, seems to be misunderstanding, EXACTLY.

3. you ALLUDE TO things, but like the other posters here, you will NEVER CLARIFY what 'they' ARE, EXACTLY.

If we’re going to seriously engage, let’s stick to the core issue: determinism doesn’t require faith.

NO one EVER SAID it did.

So, 'this' is just ANOTHER DISTRACTION, here, BY you.

It’s a logical consequence of the conservation laws and the four fundamental interactions. If you want to challenge determinism,

LOL
LOL
LOL
LOL
LOL
LOL

I NEVER EVER WANTED, or WANT, to challenge 'determinism'.

AGAIN, you are BLIND by the Fact that you BELIEVE that what I have been saying and writing, here, is 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.

This is OBVIOUSLY ALL COMPLETELY MOOT.

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.

LOL

you, even AFTER ALL OF THIS TIME, are, STILL, BELIEVING that I am AGAINST 'determinism'.

Even AFTER I have been SAYING and CLAIMING that 'determinism' is as integral to HOW the Universe works as BOTH evolution AND creation, ARE.

Age, let’s clear the air a bit because the back-and-forth seems to be spiraling into assumptions about motives and positions rather than engaging on substance.

YES you have been spiraling into ASSUMPTIONS about a lot of things in what I have said and written, here, as well as about 'my motives and positions', here.

Whereas, 'your position' is there is ONLY 'determinism' and absolutely NO 'free will' AT ALL, and, your motive' is to make sure others BELIEVE the EXACT SAME as you and have and hold the EXACT SAME position as you do, right?

It would be great if you CLEARED 'this' UP, completely.

First, I’m not under the impression that you’re "against determinism."

FINALLY. That did take some time to CLEAR UP.

What I am responding to is how you approach the topic, particularly the tangents about universal origins and whether they connect meaningfully to the discussion about determinism and the conservation laws.

But there is NO so-called 'universal origin'. As the Universe, Itself, NEVER began, and NEVER could have begun, because of 'determinism', itself.

It is BECAUSE OF 'determinism' WHERE the PROOF LIES, in regards to this.

Your core point, as I now understand it, is to emphasize that everything—from the universe itself to the interactions within it—is causally linked.

Yes, OF COURSE because there can NOT be ANY OTHER WAY.

If that's the case, then we’re actually in agreement on the most fundamental idea: the chain of cause and effect is unbroken, and determinism applies universally.

I have been TELLING you this in your other threads, as well.

Anyway, notice how this one does NOT seek out, and obtain, CLARIFICATION. Which, AGAIN, was a very popular trait of older human beings, back when this was being written.

What seems to be creating friction here is a matter of communication, not disagreement.

EVERY friction among you human beings can, fundamentally, come down to communication, or better words MISCOMMUNICATION.

See, VERY RARELY do older human beings SEEK OUT, and OBTAIN and GAIN, ACTUAL CLARIFICATION, from 'the other'. Usually just ASSUMPTIONS are made on what 'the other' is saying, and MEANING, and from there this is WHERE misunderstanding, disagreeing, bickering, arguing, fighting, and even killing each other COMES FROM, EXACTLY.

Now, you’ve brought up the idea that the universe didn’t begin or wasn’t created by “something else.”

Well considering that you have created a thread in which you talk about 'cause and effect' and 'determinism' somewhat, it is because of 'cause and effect' and 'determinism', themselves, which led to the conclusion, which can NOT be refuted by ANY one, that the Universe, Itself, IS and HAS TO BE eternal.

That’s an intriguing point, but let’s ground it in what we know: the conservation laws don’t comment on why the universe exists or whether it had a beginning—they govern how it operates.

Well considering that NO one has mentioned A WORD NOR made A COMMENT about WHY the Universe exists, WHY you brought this up ONLY you would KNOW, right?

HOW the Universe, ACTUALLY, operates is JUST the two FUNDAMENTAL things of the Universe just ALWAYS CO-EXIST, with one ALLOWING the other to move about ABSOLUTELY FREELY.

As for 'conversation laws' they PROVE, IRREFUTABLY, that the Universe NEVER 'began', in the way you human beings, here, ENVISION 'beginning'.

What we do know is that energy, momentum, and other conserved quantities persist, transform, and interact in accordance with these laws.

Which NEVER end NOR begin. They have just ALWAYS BEEN.

As has ALREADY BEEN PROVED IRREFUTABLY True, Right, Accurate, and Correct.

If your argument is that the universe didn’t “begin” in the sense of being caused by an external force, then fine—but that’s a metaphysical position rather than one directly tied to determinism.

That is NOT 'my argument'. So, your ASSUMPTION, here, is ALSO MOOT like your OTHER ONES WERE.

Have you noticed how frequently you say things like, 'If your argument is ...', 'If that is the case, then ...', or 'If you are saying, then ...'?

Are you AWARE WHY you do NOT just seek out and obtain ACTUAL CLARIFICATION, and CLARITY?

The crux of determinism is this: the state of the universe at any given moment determines the state at the next. If you agree with that—and I think you do—then there’s no real contention between us.

There NEVER WAS, and even in the OTHER THREADS AS WELL.

LOL Even with your own personal definition of 'free will' there is NO contention between 'us', NOR with ANY one else AND you. As your own personal definition of 'free will' is an IMPOSSIBILITY to exist. As I KEEP TELLING you. So, there is NO one who could refute 'your CLAIM' that 'that free will' does NOT exist.

If you feel I’m misunderstanding or misrepresenting your position, let me know where we can refocus.

Have you EVER considered just asking me some CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, instead?

But let’s step away from personal interpretations and stick to what can be clarified with evidence and reasoning.

But HOW you EVER going to KNOW what can be CLARIFIED if you NEVER SEEK OUT CLARIFICATION?

That’s where real progress happens.

ONCE AGAIN, for the VERY SLOW OF LEARNING, to me, 'evidence' is NOT useful in 'progressing' AT ALL. For example, the earth is flat, the sun revolves around the earth, the Universe began and is expanding, was FOUGHT FOR for centuries, if not longer, BECAUSE OF so-called 'evidence'.
However, what speeds 'progress' up to ALMOST INSTANTANEOUS KNOWING, and UNDERSTANDING, is PROOF, ITSELF. The PROOF HAS ALWAYS EXISTED for the not flat earth, the earth revolving around the sun, the Universe being eternal, and infinite. But, because of people's pre-existing BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS these things would NOT ALLOW these people to FIND and SEE the PROOF/S, in Life.

And, as for 'reasoning', itself, have you noticed that just as 'you reason' 'your BELIEFS', to you, and to you only sometimes, others ALSO 'reason' 'their BELIEFS, to them, and to "themselves" only sometimes, AS WELL?

LOL Just about ANY thing can be 'reasoned' to some of you. However, only what is IRREFUTABLE True and Factual is ABLE TO be 'reasoned' to absolutely EVERY one. Which, AGAIN, is WHERE the Truth LIES.

[Wizard22]

If you want to refute this, start where it matters: show how ignoring evidence leads to better outcomes.

Evidence shows how fast humans can run.

Yet every single time a world record is broken, that runner ignores all previous evidence.

[Belinda]

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.


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.

As I said before there is no such thing as a chance event. For instance think of the roulette wheel which is a standard example of what people often cite to illustrate a chance event . Where the roulette wheel stops is not really a chance event, it's an event that we don't know the causes of.
If I were having a casual conversation in the pub for instance I'd agree that roulette is a game of chance , but we are not simply being sociable here , we are doing philosophy trying to establish if there is actually such a thing as a chance event .

Nobody can control that they are born or that they will die. There was not much of freedom to choose for the person imprisoned in Assad's concentration camp. A diagnosis of terminal cancer may limit his freedom to choose what the sufferer will be doing do six months hence.

'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.

For sure.

[BigMike]

If you want to refute this, start where it matters: show how ignoring evidence leads to better outcomes.

Evidence shows how fast humans can run.

Yet every single time a world record is broken, that runner ignores all previous evidence.

Wizard22, that’s an interesting analogy, but it misses the point of what evidence is and how it operates. When a runner breaks a world record, they aren’t "ignoring" evidence—they’re building on it. The evidence tells us what the current limits are, and every new record expands those limits. The runner doesn’t defy the evidence; they redefine it through improved training methods, nutrition, and understanding of biomechanics—all of which are guided by evidence.

In the context of governance, the equivalent would be using data to understand the limits of current policies and then designing improvements that push those limits. Evidence isn’t a ceiling; it’s a foundation. Ignoring it doesn’t lead to progress—it leads to stagnation, or worse, failure. The runner who disregards training science or ignores their own physical capacity won’t win races. Similarly, governments that disregard evidence in favor of ideology or guesswork end up with disastrous policies.

Your analogy actually reinforces my point: progress happens not by rejecting evidence but by working within its framework to push boundaries. Governance, like athletics, thrives when it’s grounded in reality and open to improvement based on new discoveries. If you’ve got a better example of where ignoring evidence genuinely leads to better outcomes, I’m all ears. But until then, evidence-based decision-making remains the most reliable way to achieve progress.