Moving Beyond the Illusion of Free Will in Governance

[BigMike]

Still no rubber on the actual road though. It's just a sign over the door saying "under new management" for a shop selling the same things.

You have no policy outcome at all, it's nothing but slogans.

FlashDangerpants, perhaps the section on "Designing Institutions for Evidence-Based Governance" from Chapter 3 of one of my books would provide a clearer picture of the kind of structural changes I’m advocating. It addresses the practical steps needed to build systems where evidence drives decisions rather than ideology or convenience. It might answer what you’re after. Here’s the section:

---

DESIGNING INSTITUTIONS FOR EVIDENCE-BASED GOVERNANCE
Let’s talk about institutions—the ones that make the decisions shaping our lives every day. From how taxes are levied to where new schools are built, from healthcare policies to infrastructure projects, it’s all the result of decisions made in government institutions. But here’s the thing: the way these institutions are designed often opens the door for political interference. Instead of relying on evidence, many decisions are influenced by ideology, party loyalty, or political expediency. So, how do we fix that? How do we build institutions that put evidence first and keep political agendas out of the decision-making process?

First, we need to recognize that the structure of these institutions matters. It’s not just about who sits in the seats of power; it’s about how those seats are set up and who gets to influence what happens there. If we’re serious about evidence-based governance, the foundation of these institutions has to be designed in a way that minimizes political interference. And that starts with a clear separation between politics and the data-driven processes that guide decision-making.

One approach that’s already proven effective is the creation of independent advisory bodies. Think of these as the experts in the room—the people who understand the data, who have no stake in political games, and whose sole job is to provide objective, fact-based advice. These advisory bodies play a critical role in keeping governance focused on what’s real, what’s measurable, and what works. They can’t be swayed by the latest political trend or what’s most popular in the polls. They’re there to ground policy in evidence.

Take the UK’s Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) as a prime example. This independent body was set up specifically to provide economic forecasts that are free from political bias. Its job is to tell the truth about the state of the economy—whether it’s convenient for the government or not. The OBR doesn’t care about political outcomes; it cares about getting the numbers right. And that makes a huge difference when it comes to making sound policy decisions. Instead of politicians cherry-picking data that supports their agenda, the OBR gives a clear, unbiased picture of the economic landscape. It’s that simple: when decisions are based on real numbers, the policies that come out of those decisions are far more likely to be effective.

But it’s not just about having advisory bodies in place; it’s also about ensuring that these bodies have real power and influence. They can’t just be window dressing—created to make it look like evidence matters when, in reality, they’re being ignored or overridden. These institutions need mechanisms for accountability and transparency. We need to see what’s happening behind the scenes—how decisions are being made, what data is being used, and why certain policies are being chosen over others. When the process is transparent, it becomes a lot harder for political actors to manipulate the system for their own ends.

This is where public reporting comes in. Institutions like the OBR publish regular reports that are accessible to everyone—not just policymakers, but the general public, too. This level of transparency helps keep everyone honest. If a government is going to ignore the advice of an independent body, they’d better have a good reason, and that reason needs to hold up under public scrutiny. When institutions are designed to be transparent, it forces a level of accountability that can’t be brushed aside easily.

We’ve seen time and time again what happens when evidence is sidelined in favor of ideology. The result is bad policy—policies that don’t work, that waste resources, and that often have long-term consequences. We’ve seen it in economic crashes, in failed public health responses, and in environmental disasters. But when institutions are built on a foundation of evidence, the opposite happens. Decisions become smarter, policies become more effective, and the benefits are felt across society.

What’s important to understand is that evidence-based governance isn’t about taking politics out of government altogether. That’s not realistic, and it’s not even desirable—political debate is essential to a healthy democracy. But it’s about ensuring that when decisions are made, they’re made with the best available information, not just what’s politically convenient. By restructuring institutions to prioritize evidence, we can create a system where the data speaks louder than the politics.

And in the end, that’s the goal: a governance model where facts, not ideologies, drive decision-making. When the evidence is front and center, we can move away from short-term, politically motivated policies and start focusing on long-term solutions that actually work. That’s the power of evidence-based governance—institutions designed not to serve political masters, but to serve the truth. And when the truth guides us, we’re all better off.

[accelafine]

When you think about it, psychopathic shit-heads had better hope that humans don't twig that there is no such thing as 'free will'. 'Rehabilitators' would be out of a job, and the only way to deal with these abominations would be death or to permanently lock them up where they can do no more harm apart from to each other.

[FlashDangerpants]

Still no rubber on the actual road though. It's just a sign over the door saying "under new management" for a shop selling the same things.

You have no policy outcome at all, it's nothing but slogans.

FlashDangerpants, perhaps the section on "Designing Institutions for Evidence-Based Governance" from Chapter 3 of one of my books would provide a clearer picture of the kind of structural changes I’m advocating. It addresses the practical steps needed to build systems where evidence drives decisions rather than ideology or convenience. It might answer what you’re after. Here’s the section:

It highlights the strangely disjointed thinking you are working with. The UK's OBR is I believe just our version of the Congressional Budget Office, but neither of them has anything really to do with determinism. Is the book you quoted from even about that topic or is it just about your love of the phrase "evidence-based"?

We've been doing evidence-based policymaking since the invention of policies. If we do use determinism to explain that, we don't need any belief in determinism to justify it, the existence of many independent technocratic agencies including the OBR, CBO, Fed and Bank of England, IMR, WMF and so on amply demonstrates this. Surely you understand this objection, it seems very simple to me?

In your hatred of philosophy, perhaps you have not learned about the concept of necessity and sufficiency. You are bumbling around at the moment with a lack of those things. Without them you are arbitrarily linking determinism to technocracy for no actual reason other than that you like both, so you like to think they form some complimentary set. You use no actual mechanism to join them though.

[BigMike]

Still no rubber on the actual road though. It's just a sign over the door saying "under new management" for a shop selling the same things.

You have no policy outcome at all, it's nothing but slogans.

FlashDangerpants, perhaps the section on "Designing Institutions for Evidence-Based Governance" from Chapter 3 of one of my books would provide a clearer picture of the kind of structural changes I’m advocating. It addresses the practical steps needed to build systems where evidence drives decisions rather than ideology or convenience. It might answer what you’re after. Here’s the section:

It highlights the strangely disjointed thinking you are working with. The UK's OBR is I believe just our version of the Congressional Budget Office, but neither of them has anything really to do with determinism. Is the book you quoted from even about that topic or is it just about your love of the phrase "evidence-based"?

We've been doing evidence-based policymaking since the invention of policies. If we do use determinism to explain that, we don't need any belief in determinism to justify it, the existence of many independent technocratic agencies including the OBR, CBO, Fed and Bank of England, IMR, WMF and so on amply demonstrates this. Surely you understand this objection, it seems very simple to me?

In your hatred of philosophy, perhaps you have not learned about the concept of necessity and sufficiency. You are bumbling around at the moment with a lack of those things. Without them you are arbitrarily linking determinism to technocracy for no actual reason other than that you like both, so you like to think they form some complimentary set. You use no actual mechanism to join them though.

FlashDangerpants, it’s amusing that you feel the need to lecture me—a mathematician—in the concept of necessity and sufficiency, considering it is a mathematical concept. I assure you, I’m quite familiar with the rigor those terms demand. What I’m arguing is that determinism provides the underlying framework for understanding why evidence-based systems are necessary, even if not solely sufficient, for good governance.

Your examples of technocratic institutions like the OBR or CBO don’t negate my point; they illustrate it. These institutions operate effectively precisely because they minimize arbitrary, ideologically driven decisions by grounding themselves in empirical data—reflecting the deterministic interplay of cause and effect that governs all actions. Determinism doesn’t replace evidence-based policymaking; it just deepens the understanding of why it works and why we must continually refine it.

The mechanism joining determinism and technocracy is causality itself. If outcomes are caused, then better inputs—evidence-based ones—yield better results. It’s not arbitrary; it’s the essence of why data-driven systems outperform those based on ideology or conjecture. I think you’ll agree that’s hardly a disjointed way of thinking.

[BigMike]

Here are three clear examples where politicians have disregarded advice from scientists and technocrats, often leading to policies at odds with evidence-based recommendations:

1. Climate Change Policies: Efforts to reorganize and cut funding for key scientific agencies like NOAA and the EPA, as proposed under the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, represent a dismissal of decades of climate research. These agencies play a critical role in tracking environmental changes and informing mitigation strategies, yet their work is undermined for ideological reasons.

2. Public Health Leadership: The consideration of appointing Robert F. Kennedy Jr., known for promoting anti-vaccine rhetoric and conspiracy theories, to lead the Department of Health and Human Services showcases a willingness to sideline credible public health expertise. Such a move risks eroding trust in science-based health policies.

3. COVID-19 Misinformation: During the pandemic, the promotion of unproven treatments like hydroxychloroquine, despite strong opposition from experts like Dr. Anthony Fauci, revealed how political agendas can overshadow scientific consensus. This not only fueled public confusion but also hampered an effective, unified response to a global crisis.

These cases illustrate the tangible consequences of ignoring technocratic advice, highlighting the importance of grounding policies in evidence rather than ideology or convenience.

[FlashDangerpants]

FlashDangerpants, perhaps the section on "Designing Institutions for Evidence-Based Governance" from Chapter 3 of one of my books would provide a clearer picture of the kind of structural changes I’m advocating. It addresses the practical steps needed to build systems where evidence drives decisions rather than ideology or convenience. It might answer what you’re after. Here’s the section:

It highlights the strangely disjointed thinking you are working with. The UK's OBR is I believe just our version of the Congressional Budget Office, but neither of them has anything really to do with determinism. Is the book you quoted from even about that topic or is it just about your love of the phrase "evidence-based"?

We've been doing evidence-based policymaking since the invention of policies. If we do use determinism to explain that, we don't need any belief in determinism to justify it, the existence of many independent technocratic agencies including the OBR, CBO, Fed and Bank of England, IMR, WMF and so on amply demonstrates this. Surely you understand this objection, it seems very simple to me?

In your hatred of philosophy, perhaps you have not learned about the concept of necessity and sufficiency. You are bumbling around at the moment with a lack of those things. Without them you are arbitrarily linking determinism to technocracy for no actual reason other than that you like both, so you like to think they form some complimentary set. You use no actual mechanism to join them though.

FlashDangerpants, it’s amusing that you feel the need to lecture me—a mathematician—in the concept of necessity and sufficiency, considering it is a mathematical concept. I assure you, I’m quite familiar with the rigor those terms demand. What I’m arguing is that determinism provides the underlying framework for understanding why evidence-based systems are necessary, even if not solely sufficient, for good governance.

Excellent. In that case we can now expect your necessary and sufficient argument that links technocracy and this recognition of determinism you insist upon. You must overcome the problem that technocratic institutions are available already in advance of it (rendering it unecessary).

But you also need to show that this belief in determinism is sufficient all by itself to have all these beneficial outcomes without a downside. Scroll up to see what accelafine draws from it and you will see that some other ingredient appears to be required. You are not accounting for this mysterious additional extra, you are simply trying to draw attention away from it. Do better please, and more honestly.

Your examples of technocratic institutions like the OBR or CBO don’t negate my point; they illustrate it. These institutions operate effectively precisely because they minimize arbitrary, ideologically driven decisions by grounding themselves in empirical data—reflecting the deterministic interplay of cause and effect that governs all actions. Determinism doesn’t replace evidence-based policymaking; it just deepens the understanding of why it works and why we must continually refine it.

The problem is that I like those institutions, but I think your clockwork causation theory is inadequate and lacks sophistication. So it seems that we can like these notions without being believers in your civil religion. That is a problem for the quality of your argument. By now I am expecting you to show some understanding of this and to quit trying to hide the problem under layers of boring rhetoric.

You apopear to be assuming that you have some special grasp of evidence-based policy, but you have no mechanism to explain how it has this dependency on your belief system. Your argument is bad and lazy.

The mechanism joining determinism and technocracy is causality itself. If outcomes are caused, then better inputs—evidence-based ones—yield better results. It’s not arbitrary; it’s the essence of why data-driven systems outperform those based on ideology or conjecture. I think you’ll agree that’s hardly a disjointed way of thinking.

That is horribly disjointed,I already accounted for it with the sentence: "If we do use determinism to explain that, we don't need any belief in determinism to justify it". What are you failing to get here?

You can use determinism to explain how these institutions come to exist if you like, I don't care. You cannot predicate their effectiveness or existence on anybody's belief in determinism. Your argument is insufficient for as long as it cannot show that anything we need or want becomes available only when we share your belief in determinism.

[Wizard22]

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.

So you admit that here that 'evidence' only applies to "current limits". Often times those are broken, sometimes severely. This proves that the past "evidence" does not necessarily predict the future, or, how severely the future may change. An asteroid may crash into Earth, despite all "previous evidence". The Sun might explode.

This is a fundamental flaw in your argumentation and reasoning then.

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.

Two months ago, almost every Liberal-Leftist-Marxist in the Western Hemisphere was saying Donald Trump would lose the 2024 Election badly--none of them believed it possible that Trump would win decisively, the Senate, the House, AND the popular vote! So much for "evidence-based" political theory and "empirical data".

The "Empirical Data" was wrong; you should admit this.

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.

No it doesn't...it counters your main points entirely.

Evidence and Empiricism are not a totality or guarantee about the future. Although they are useful, and can be important, they are not the be-all-end-all solution, to anything, and especially not Politics.

[henry quirk]

it is wrong to harm a person because their actions are the result of influences beyond their control

Who is the their in this sentence? The hurter or the hurtee?

Let's make it concrete...

In 2013: a Texas dad beat his five-year-daughter's rapist to death. The rapist snatched up the girl and was caught in the act of abusing her by the dad who, as I say, beat the man to death.

Let's try and make sense of this using your it's wrong to harm a person because their actions are the result of influences beyond their control.

You say the rapist ought not be harmed becuz his actions were beyond his control.

You say the dad ought not be harmed becuz his actions were beyond his control.

Obviously, the little girl shouldn't have been harmed.

But she was.

Where, in your scheme, does justice enter? Where's her redress?

[BigMike]

It highlights the strangely disjointed thinking you are working with. The UK's OBR is I believe just our version of the Congressional Budget Office, but neither of them has anything really to do with determinism. Is the book you quoted from even about that topic or is it just about your love of the phrase "evidence-based"?

We've been doing evidence-based policymaking since the invention of policies. If we do use determinism to explain that, we don't need any belief in determinism to justify it, the existence of many independent technocratic agencies including the OBR, CBO, Fed and Bank of England, IMR, WMF and so on amply demonstrates this. Surely you understand this objection, it seems very simple to me?

In your hatred of philosophy, perhaps you have not learned about the concept of necessity and sufficiency. You are bumbling around at the moment with a lack of those things. Without them you are arbitrarily linking determinism to technocracy for no actual reason other than that you like both, so you like to think they form some complimentary set. You use no actual mechanism to join them though.

FlashDangerpants, it’s amusing that you feel the need to lecture me—a mathematician—in the concept of necessity and sufficiency, considering it is a mathematical concept. I assure you, I’m quite familiar with the rigor those terms demand. What I’m arguing is that determinism provides the underlying framework for understanding why evidence-based systems are necessary, even if not solely sufficient, for good governance.

Excellent. In that case we can now expect your necessary and sufficient argument that links technocracy and this recognition of determinism you insist upon. You must overcome the problem that technocratic institutions are available already in advance of it (rendering it unecessary).

But you also need to show that this belief in determinism is sufficient all by itself to have all these beneficial outcomes without a downside. Scroll up to see what accelafine draws from it and you will see that some other ingredient appears to be required. You are not accounting for this mysterious additional extra, you are simply trying to draw attention away from it. Do better please, and more honestly.

Your examples of technocratic institutions like the OBR or CBO don’t negate my point; they illustrate it. These institutions operate effectively precisely because they minimize arbitrary, ideologically driven decisions by grounding themselves in empirical data—reflecting the deterministic interplay of cause and effect that governs all actions. Determinism doesn’t replace evidence-based policymaking; it just deepens the understanding of why it works and why we must continually refine it.

The problem is that I like those institutions, but I think your clockwork causation theory is inadequate and lacks sophistication. So it seems that we can like these notions without being believers in your civil religion. That is a problem for the quality of your argument. By now I am expecting you to show some understanding of this and to quit trying to hide the problem under layers of boring rhetoric.

You apopear to be assuming that you have some special grasp of evidence-based policy, but you have no mechanism to explain how it has this dependency on your belief system. Your argument is bad and lazy.

The mechanism joining determinism and technocracy is causality itself. If outcomes are caused, then better inputs—evidence-based ones—yield better results. It’s not arbitrary; it’s the essence of why data-driven systems outperform those based on ideology or conjecture. I think you’ll agree that’s hardly a disjointed way of thinking.

That is horribly disjointed,I already accounted for it with the sentence: "If we do use determinism to explain that, we don't need any belief in determinism to justify it". What are you failing to get here?

You can use determinism to explain how these institutions come to exist if you like, I don't care. You cannot predicate their effectiveness or existence on anybody's belief in determinism. Your argument is insufficient for as long as it cannot show that anything we need or want becomes available only when we share your belief in determinism.

FlashDangerpants, the core of your critique seems to hinge on a misunderstanding of what I’m asserting. The argument isn’t that belief in determinism is a prerequisite for technocracy or evidence-based policymaking to exist or function. These institutions already operate effectively, as you correctly point out. The point is that determinism offers a deeper explanatory framework for why evidence-based methods are superior—they align with the causal nature of reality, allowing for interventions that produce predictable and beneficial outcomes.

You’re asking for necessity and sufficiency, so let’s clarify: belief in determinism isn’t necessary for technocratic success, nor is it sufficient on its own to guarantee it. The claim is that recognizing determinism refines our understanding of cause and effect, enhancing the development and operation of evidence-based institutions. Determinism isn’t the sole engine of technocracy—it’s the conceptual bedrock that explains why better inputs (data and evidence) lead to better outcomes.

You also suggest that this "civil religion" of determinism has no special relevance here. But consider the alternative: when ideologies that deny causality—such as unfounded notions of free will—inform policy, the results are often disastrous. Determinism isn’t about demanding belief; it’s about structuring systems that inherently respect causality, improving their efficacy in addressing real-world problems.

So, the mechanism isn’t just clockwork causation as you frame it—it’s the application of this understanding to systems that optimize outcomes by working with, not against, the deterministic nature of reality. Whether or not you personally subscribe to determinism doesn’t invalidate its explanatory or practical value in shaping better governance.

[accelafine]

It means doing what we are 'determined' to do, which is exactly what we do...

It means doing what we are 'caused' to do, by external influences (including how we cause each other's thoughts and actions) and internal ones, which is exactly what we do...

So not deterministic at all. Ok.

[FlashDangerpants]

FlashDangerpants, it’s amusing that you feel the need to lecture me—a mathematician—in the concept of necessity and sufficiency, considering it is a mathematical concept. I assure you, I’m quite familiar with the rigor those terms demand. What I’m arguing is that determinism provides the underlying framework for understanding why evidence-based systems are necessary, even if not solely sufficient, for good governance.

Excellent. In that case we can now expect your necessary and sufficient argument that links technocracy and this recognition of determinism you insist upon. You must overcome the problem that technocratic institutions are available already in advance of it (rendering it unecessary).

But you also need to show that this belief in determinism is sufficient all by itself to have all these beneficial outcomes without a downside. Scroll up to see what accelafine draws from it and you will see that some other ingredient appears to be required. You are not accounting for this mysterious additional extra, you are simply trying to draw attention away from it. Do better please, and more honestly.

Your examples of technocratic institutions like the OBR or CBO don’t negate my point; they illustrate it. These institutions operate effectively precisely because they minimize arbitrary, ideologically driven decisions by grounding themselves in empirical data—reflecting the deterministic interplay of cause and effect that governs all actions. Determinism doesn’t replace evidence-based policymaking; it just deepens the understanding of why it works and why we must continually refine it.

The problem is that I like those institutions, but I think your clockwork causation theory is inadequate and lacks sophistication. So it seems that we can like these notions without being believers in your civil religion. That is a problem for the quality of your argument. By now I am expecting you to show some understanding of this and to quit trying to hide the problem under layers of boring rhetoric.

You apopear to be assuming that you have some special grasp of evidence-based policy, but you have no mechanism to explain how it has this dependency on your belief system. Your argument is bad and lazy.

The mechanism joining determinism and technocracy is causality itself. If outcomes are caused, then better inputs—evidence-based ones—yield better results. It’s not arbitrary; it’s the essence of why data-driven systems outperform those based on ideology or conjecture. I think you’ll agree that’s hardly a disjointed way of thinking.

That is horribly disjointed,I already accounted for it with the sentence: "If we do use determinism to explain that, we don't need any belief in determinism to justify it". What are you failing to get here?

You can use determinism to explain how these institutions come to exist if you like, I don't care. You cannot predicate their effectiveness or existence on anybody's belief in determinism. Your argument is insufficient for as long as it cannot show that anything we need or want becomes available only when we share your belief in determinism.

FlashDangerpants, the core of your critique seems to hinge on a misunderstanding of what I’m asserting. The argument isn’t that belief in determinism is a prerequisite for technocracy or evidence-based policymaking to exist or function. These institutions already operate effectively, as you correctly point out. The point is that determinism offers a deeper explanatory framework for why evidence-based methods are superior—they align with the causal nature of reality, allowing for interventions that produce predictable and beneficial outcomes.

Well that puts us back to square one. It's just a sign over the door saying "under new management" for a shop selling the same things again.

You’re asking for necessity and sufficiency, so let’s clarify: belief in determinism isn’t necessary for technocratic success, nor is it sufficient on its own to guarantee it. The claim is that recognizing determinism refines our understanding of cause and effect, enhancing the development and operation of evidence-based institutions. Determinism isn’t the sole engine of technocracy—it’s the conceptual bedrock that explains why better inputs (data and evidence) lead to better outcomes.

Ho-hum. The thing that makes necessity and sufficiency desirable is that they help us to know which arguments people can just ignore and deny versus those which we would actually be mistaken to ignore or deny. You've been swinging it around like you are toting one of the good arguments, but you never stick the landing.

You also suggest that this "civil religion" of determinism has no special relevance here. But consider the alternative: when ideologies that deny causality—such as unfounded notions of free will—inform policy, the results are often disastrous. Determinism isn’t about demanding belief; it’s about structuring systems that inherently respect causality, improving their efficacy in addressing real-world problems.

The point of the belief in determinism is to be duly respectful to determinism, that's not up to much, it's just circular. Then you have your unsupported assertion that it is extra efficient at real world problem solving even though you don't have a necessary and sufficient argument for that, it's just an assumption you like so you can't let go of it.

So, the mechanism isn’t just clockwork causation as you frame it—it’s the application of this understanding to systems that optimize outcomes by working with, not against, the deterministic nature of reality. Whether or not you personally subscribe to determinism doesn’t invalidate its explanatory or practical value in shaping better governance.

It is just clockwork causation. The rest is just sales patter. You don't have an argument.

[Alexiev]

Alexiev, let’s tackle this head-on because your critique zeroes in on one of the most challenging aspects of determinism: how it intersects with moral responsibility and societal norms. The heart of your argument seems to hinge on the idea that determinism undermines the utility of moral blame and sanctions. Let me clarify why that’s not the case.

First, let’s revisit your interpretation of my logic:

1. Yes, our actions are predetermined by the laws of physics and environmental factors. This is a deterministic framework.
2. No, this does not mean we abandon all notions of responsibility; it means we rethink what responsibility is and how it functions in a deterministic context.

When we talk about "moral blame," we’re addressing a system that has evolved to regulate behavior. In a deterministic framework, the point isn’t to eliminate consequences or accountability—it’s to align them with the actual causes of behavior. When someone commits a harmful act, determinism doesn’t excuse them; it explains why they acted the way they did. This understanding enables society to target the underlying causes—be they psychological, environmental, or systemic—rather than focusing on punitive measures that often fail to address the root of the issue.

Your concern about societal improvement is valid. Would refusing to ascribe moral blame improve society? Not if it’s simply replaced with permissiveness or chaos. However, determinism advocates for a shift from blame as a moral condemnation to responsibility as a tool for shaping future outcomes. Instead of saying, "You’re evil, so we punish you," we’d say, "This behavior arose from specific causes, so we address those causes to prevent recurrence."

For instance, consider the criminal justice system. The deterministic approach wouldn’t mean letting murderers and embezzlers go free. Instead, it would mean creating evidence-based interventions—rehabilitation programs, social reforms, and educational initiatives—that reduce the likelihood of such crimes occurring in the first place. This is not utopian idealism; it’s grounded in empirical evidence from societies that have successfully implemented restorative justice models and preventative measures.

You also suggest that moral rules and sanctions contribute to human happiness and prevent mayhem. That’s true to an extent, but those rules must evolve as we learn more about human behavior. Determinism doesn’t discard moral rules; it refines them, ensuring they’re based on causality and evidence rather than retribution or superstition.

Finally, the idea that acceptance of determinism won’t or shouldn’t change society misses the transformative potential of understanding causality. Determinism compels us to stop asking "Who deserves blame?" and start asking, "What caused this, and how can we fix it?" It’s not about removing accountability; it’s about making accountability more effective and just.

The shift may seem radical, but it’s no different than the transition from medieval punitive justice to modern systems that incorporate psychological and sociological insights. Determinism is simply the next step in that evolution, rooted in the same desire to create a safer, more compassionate society.

Everyone wants social reforms. One need not be a determinist. However, many of us want to limit mandatory rehabilitation programs to those who have forfeited their right to voluntarily avoid them by breaking the law and being convicted. If determinists think (incorrectly, given our current knowledge) they can predict which individuals should be forced into rehab, I can't go along with it. But isn't that the logical direction in which a deterministic world view will push justice?

WE know some of the social and economic conditions that seem to conduce criminality and violence. But correlation is not causation. Plenty of poor, disadvantaged individuals lead non-violent lives. So what does "cause" criminal behavior? The causes are infinite. Indeed, in your deterministic universe, everything is correlated to everything else -- and can thus be said to "cause" it. If, instead and as I propose, a "cause' is a handle that we humans can manipulate -- a variable in an experiment, for example -- then we don't need a deterministic world view to add the salt peter to the sulphur and carbon to create gun powder.

[seeds]

seeds, I appreciate the effort you’ve put into articulating the concept of strong emergence and its supposed challenge to determinism.

Thanks for the pat on the back, but the praise for effort goes to ChatGPT, not me. I merely asked Chat a few basic questions and the AI did the heavy lifting.

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.

It doesn't misunderstand the cornerstone of your argument; no, it simply suggests that the conditions of strong emergence supersede and invalidate your argument.

You do not seem to understand what strong emergence truly entails, for it crosses over into the unresolved area of the "mind/body problem."

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.

Is that so?

Well then, can you show me where the form and status of the lucid dreamers depicted in one of my illustrations...



...can be traced back to something measurable within the constituent properties of the brain?

And, no, the firing of neurons in the brain simply cannot account for the strongly emergent manifestation of the self-aware "agent"/"I Am-ness" depicted in the illustration who...

(of her own free will)

...decided to create a tropical island paradise out of an infinitely malleable substance (mental imaging energy) within a context of reality (the autonomous "arena" of her own mind) that is completely beyond the reach of human measuring devices.

For example, present me with a plausible suggestion as to how one could reach into the mind of the depicted lucid dreamer and measure the length and breadth of one of the palm fronds on one of the palm trees.

You can't, and that's because what is taking place within that dream world represents a sort of "parallel" dimension of reality...

(something akin to a disconnected "parallel universe")

...that exist above and outside of,...

"...the constraints imposed by the conservation laws and the four fundamental interactions of physics..."

...that may indeed be inextricably entangled with the constituent properties of the dreamer's body, but not with that of the dreamer's mind (the above-mentioned "parallel universe") that the physical universe is a parallel of.

In other words, the "cornerstone" of your argument only applies to the dreamer's physical body, and not to her mind.

You mention that strong emergence allows for "top-down causation,"...

Again, it wasn't me that mentioned that, no, it was ChatGPT.

...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.

Yes, and that is precisely what "strong emergence" is suggesting.

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.

Baloney, BigMike.

We've been over this before. Let me refresh your memory.

This...



...is the "observation" of how something non-material...

(the free will of a strongly emergent, self-aware agent of an unmeasurable dimension of mind)

...interacts with physical matter without violating any laws of physics.

Easy-peasy.

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.

Nah, my invocation of strong emergence doesn't even begin to challenge determinism to the degree to which determinism is challenged by its own foundational premise.

In other words, the fact that determinism implies that this...



...this...



...and this...



...are all products of the blind and mindless processes of chance, is utterly ridiculous!!!

However, if you can give me a truly plausible and logical explanation as to how determinism was imbued with the teleological impetus to bring about the unfathomable order of the universe, then you'll have my attention.
_______

[Atla]

Mike, you said that people who believe in free will are intrinsically evil. Would you say that this is the worst form of evil for humanity as a whole?

[Age]

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.

This is not true obvious, and if 'we' are doing 'philosophy', then expressing what is actually True is very important, correct?

There was not much of freedom to choose for the person imprisoned in Assad's concentration camp.

But it does not matter one iota, here, about how much, or how little, freedom one has in one or another particular situation, the Truth still holds that one ALWAYS HAS ABSOLUTELY FREEDOM, TO CHOOSE.

A diagnosis of terminal cancer may limit his freedom to choose what the sufferer will be doing do six months hence.

Considering the irrefutable Fact that every one of you human beings is going to, what some of you people call, 'die', then this means that this diagnosis of terminal Truth may limit your and every other one of you human being's 'freedom to choose' what any one of you will be doing six months hence, right?

Either way you ALL, still, have the ABILITY TO CHOOSE, correct?

'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.

So, do you also agree that EVERY so-called 'chance' came about because of the 'cause and effect event'?