Moving Beyond the Illusion of Free Will in Governance

[Belinda]

Age wrote:

Instead of working with 'probabilities', why not just work with 'actualities' ONLY?

Because nobody can foretell the future and nobody can be 100% sure about the past.

[BigMike]

Alexis, your critique underscores the philosophical divide we’re navigating. You suggest that my position’s dominance stems from an ideological rigidity or narrow set of predicates. But if my framework is based on evidence and logical consistency, then its dominance isn’t a flaw—it’s a strength. The absence of metaphysical considerations in determinism isn’t a shortcoming; it’s a reflection of their lack of empirical support. Why include notions that fail to withstand scrutiny under the very principles guiding our understanding of causation and reality?

You point to the dystopian potential of my framework as a reason for concern, invoking Huxley’s Brave New World. But critiquing the implications of a system isn’t the same as addressing its validity. Even if determinism leads to troubling realizations about the human condition or societal organization, that doesn’t make it false. Truth doesn’t bend to comfort, and determinism stands as the most consistent explanation for the observable world, regardless of whether we find its implications unsettling.

Ultimately, you seem to be engaging in a broader struggle: Can we live meaningfully in a deterministic universe? That’s an important question but distinct from whether determinism is true. On the latter, my argument holds more water unless you can present a more robust defense of the metaphysical concepts you want to preserve. Until then, questioning determinism based on its emotional or ideological ramifications is like rejecting gravity because we dislike its consequences—it might feel justified, but it’s intellectually unsound.

[Immanuel Can]

LOL

Sorry...still not even remotely interested in you, "Age."

OF COURSE you ARE NOT, ESPECIALLY considering that I have SHOWN and PROVED just how Truly ILLOGICAL and IRRATIONAL your VIEWS and BELIEFS REALLY ARE, here.

Wow. There's no limit to your ego or your delusions.

I'm still convinced you're either mentally ill or a 15 year-old trying to punch above his weight. Either way, you're uninteresting.

[henry quirk]

Anyway, the answers to the questions...

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

...are: it doesn't, and, she has none.

If this...

your brain is a deterministic machine, operating under the same unyielding physical laws as a rock rolling downhill. You don’t control your thoughts, your desires, or your decisions. You are driven by a cascade of external inputs, biological processes, and environmental stimuli—all of which you neither initiated nor directed.

...is, as you say, the brutal truth, there can be no justice or redress.

Oh, and this...

A person's life is his own. He's not a commodity. He ought not be treated as such, no matter the potential benefit to others.

...is the answer you were groping for, the one to the question about sacrificing one to save many. It's not about society, or an oath, or preserving trust.

And you can't...

explain how it is the mass of arranged particles in my head likes my steak rare instead of well-done.

...and you can't...

walk me thru the interactions that allow particles to prefer.

...becuz I'm not just particles.

*

As for all this...

...that glum old Marsh-wiggle had it right...

All you've been saying is quite right, I shouldn't wonder. I'm a chap who always liked to know the worst and then put the best face I can on it. So I won't deny any of what you said. But there's one thing more to be said, even so. Suppose we have only dreamed, or made up, all those things - trees and grass and sun and moon and stars and Aslan himself. Suppose we have. Then all I can say is that, in that case, the made-up things seem a good deal more important than the real ones. Suppose this black pit of a kingdom of yours is the only world. Well, it strikes me as a pretty poor one. And that's a funny thing, when you come to think of it. We're just babies making up a game, if you're right. But four babies playing a game can make a play-world which licks your real world hollow. That's why I'm going to stand by the play-world. I'm on Aslan's side even if there isn't any Aslan to lead it. I'm going to live as like a Narnian as I can even if there isn't any Narnia. So, thanking you kindly for our supper, if these two gentlemen and the young lady are ready, we're leaving your court at once and setting out in the dark to spend our lives looking for Overland. Not that our lives will be very long, I should think; but that's a small loss if the world's as dull a place as you say.

[Alexis Jacobi]

BigMike writes: “Alexis, your critique underscores the philosophical divide we’re navigating.”

I agree with your preposition “underscores”.

And I also believe we recur to philosophical description — always built upon sets of perceptual predicates — in that process of determining what we are, and who we are, in this manifest world. You will surely note that my term “manifest world” certainly allows for far more mystery (the cloud of unknowing) as a sort of predicate, than your absolutist system will allow. I cannot blame you for your option here as it has a certain logical inevitability when the perceptual and analytical system you call “science” is the sole intermediary of our existence.

But if my framework is based on evidence and logical consistency, then its dominance isn’t a flaw—it’s a strength.

I would rather describe your set of predicates as a particular tool-set which, as we know, came on the scene and totally revolutionized technology and a materially-based understanding of reality. There, it is certainly strong.

However, when it comes to a host other levels of perceptual apprehension it has no utility at all. It is not the right tool for the job. And in your case the tool that you are so involved with and committed to could very well, and I think does, cloud and limit your understanding. You reason as a mathematician and because that is your strength you place all emphasis there.

The absence of metaphysical considerations in determinism isn’t a shortcoming

However, it is another, competing metaphysics in the sense that your ideology is a metaphysics. Honestly. You build a type of construct from your predicates similar to that of those metaphysics easier to recognize as such.

(The 25th chapter of my Magnum Opus would key you in to this. Please consider signing up!)

But critiquing the implications of a system isn’t the same as addressing its validity. Even if determinism leads to troubling realizations about the human condition or societal organization, that doesn’t make it false.

Yet if “determinism” is false, and cannot be recognized as such (I would say it is partially true, which is different), then it certainly poses a risk on many different levels. So, definitely, the approach of examining ramifications (“ideas and their consequences)”) in relation to a distorted doctrine is proper intellectual prophylactic.

Ultimately, you seem to be engaging in a broader struggle: Can we live meaningfully in a deterministic universe?

Actually my issue with your ideology is really that meaning cannot survive in it. Meaning (and value) are tied to metaphysical ideas. But you have not accepted the logical consequences of the real reductionism that you propose. Thus you have not really examined consequences.

You must fill out your education, son, and that’s why I am here: to help you over this desert patch. Pay heed!

On the latter, my argument holds more water unless you can present a more robust defense of the metaphysical concepts you want to preserve.

It is right there where you need a Master Metaphysician to help you to see. May I call you Gloucester?

“I stumbled when I saw”

I have been working on this little ditty on my ukelele in the key of f-sharp, tell me what you think:

This life’s dim windows of the soul
Distorts the heavens from pole to pole
And leads you to believe a lie
When you see with, not through, the eye.

Or is the Stratocaster the better tool?!?

[FlashDangerpants]

Still wondering what sort of argument you are actually trying to present?

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.


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.

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.

[BigMike]

BigMike writes: “Alexis, your critique underscores the philosophical divide we’re navigating.”

I agree with your preposition “underscores”.

And I also believe we recur to philosophical description — always built upon sets of perceptual predicates — in that process of determining what we are, and who we are, in this manifest world. You will surely note that my term “manifest world” certainly allows for far more mystery (the cloud of unknowing) as a sort of predicate, than your absolutist system will allow. I cannot blame you for your option here as it has a certain logical inevitability when the perceptual and analytical system you call “science” is the sole intermediary of our existence.

But if my framework is based on evidence and logical consistency, then its dominance isn’t a flaw—it’s a strength.

I would rather describe your set of predicates as a particular tool-set which, as we know, came on the scene and totally revolutionized technology and a materially-based understanding of reality. There, it is certainly strong.

However, when it comes to a host other levels of perceptual apprehension it has no utility at all. It is not the right tool for the job. And in your case the tool that you are so involved with and committed to could very well, and I think does, cloud and limit your understanding. You reason as a mathematician and because that is your strength you place all emphasis there.

The absence of metaphysical considerations in determinism isn’t a shortcoming

However, it is another, competing metaphysics in the sense that your ideology is a metaphysics. Honestly. You build a type of construct from your predicates similar to that of those metaphysics easier to recognize as such.

(The 25th chapter of my Magnum Opus would key you in to this. Please consider signing up!)

But critiquing the implications of a system isn’t the same as addressing its validity. Even if determinism leads to troubling realizations about the human condition or societal organization, that doesn’t make it false.

Yet if “determinism” is false, and cannot be recognized as such (I would say it is partially true, which is different), then it certainly poses a risk on many different levels. So, definitely, the approach of examining ramifications (“ideas and their consequences)”) in relation to a distorted doctrine is proper intellectual prophylactic.

Ultimately, you seem to be engaging in a broader struggle: Can we live meaningfully in a deterministic universe?

Actually my issue with your ideology is really that meaning cannot survive in it. Meaning (and value) are tied to metaphysical ideas. But you have not accepted the logical consequences of the real reductionism that you propose. Thus you have not really examined consequences.

You must fill out your education, son, and that’s why I am here: to help you over this desert patch. Pay heed!

On the latter, my argument holds more water unless you can present a more robust defense of the metaphysical concepts you want to preserve.

It is right there where you need a Master Metaphysician to help you to see. MaybI call you Gloucester?

I have been working out this little ditty on ny ukelele in the key of f-sharp, tell me what you think:

This life’s dim windows of the soul
Distorts the heavens from pole to pole
And leads you to believe a lie
When you see with, not through, the eye.

I appreciate the poetic flair of your response—it adds a certain theatricality to what is, at its core, a philosophical debate. But let’s not lose sight of the essentials. You suggest that my reliance on science and determinism is a "tool-set" useful for understanding material reality but inadequate for grappling with deeper metaphysical or existential concerns. While colorful, this critique misrepresents the point of my argument. Determinism isn’t just one "tool" among many; it’s the framework that explains why all tools work as they do. It’s not a competing metaphysics—it’s the foundation upon which metaphysical constructs either stand or collapse.

You propose that determinism might be "partially true," but truth doesn’t come in fractions. Either causality governs reality as evidenced by the conservation laws and fundamental interactions, or it doesn’t. If determinism explains the observable universe, as every empirical test suggests, then it isn’t just a theory—it’s the operational reality. Critiquing its implications for human meaning or morality doesn’t make it less valid; it merely highlights the discomfort that comes with confronting such truths.

You claim meaning and value are tied exclusively to metaphysical ideas. But isn’t it possible that meaning emerges from understanding, rather than mysticism? The deterministic universe doesn’t strip life of meaning; it grounds it in causality, making human experiences and values all the more profound because they are the products of intricate, interconnected processes—not arbitrary divine whims.

Your invocation of metaphysics as the supposed savior of meaning doesn’t address the evidence or logic underpinning determinism. Instead, it’s an attempt to reframe the debate around emotional comfort rather than empirical rigor. If metaphysical constructs are to hold their ground, they need more than lyrical musings or metaphoric "dim windows of the soul." They require demonstrable coherence with reality—a coherence your arguments, however poetic, have yet to provide.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Determinism isn’t just one "tool" among many; it’s the framework that explains why all tools work as they do. It’s not a competing metaphysics—it’s the foundation upon which metaphysical constructs either stand or collapse.

What you really are saying is “Reality is Reality”. Whatever goes on in Reality is what goes on. But in your case — a specific reductionism — you reduce everything to physical tangibles.

For you, what is (in my schema) metaphysical is in yours epiphenomenal. Ideas, ideals, concepts and interpretations can only arise in brain-matter. Brain-matter “invents” all of this. And when and if brains cease to exist, what is epiphenomenal definitely collapses (as if it did not exist). In my view, what is metaphysical has an existence, a realness, that preceded our manifestation, and will continue to exist when there is no brain left.

In your system, brains “invent” everything, including the most seemingly metaphysical “things” like concepts, values and also meanings. And when the brain is no longer there, all of “that” goes :::poof::: as if it never existed.

In my view, that whole “world” of meaning & concepts existed prior to manifestation and will exist still when entire worlds collapse or are pulled into black holes.

I appreciate the poetic flair of your response—it adds a certain theatricality to what is, at its core, a philosophical debate. But let’s not lose sight of the essentials.

Thank you for recognizing what really is wonderful and amazing about my Teachings. I don’t intend poetic flair, yet such genius appears alongside my Elevated Thought like doves & songbirds accompany a Saint …

Philosophical debate, you say? No, in fact it is deeper. Its about what we feel Reality to be even if it is not or cannot be expressed to another or even to our self. In a significant sense you believe that your interpretation of Reality is no interpretation at all. As perhaps in some maths the formula you hold to cannot be further reduced. It is “final” and inarguably absolute. But Master gently whispers: “All this is interpretation and as such a metaphysics”.

You propose that determinism might be "partially true," but truth doesn’t come in fractions.

No truer reductionism has even been stated by an absolutist!

Your doctrinal system, wee one, is definitely “partially true” but I will agree with your dolled-up circularity that, yes, Reality is Reality. Your “doctrines held as absolute, irreducible facts” are certainly partially accurate. But “true”? That is another arena.

You claim meaning and value are tied exclusively to metaphysical ideas. But isn’t it possible that meaning emerges from understanding, rather than mysticism?

An intelligent crow, dog or elephant definitely “thinks” and “understands” within (apparently) limited frames. So I see what you are getting at. I cannot deny the notion of emergent intelligence, and cannot therefore deny your framing. But I operate with the sense that there is more.

And what “proofs” I have (of say the intervention or the operation of metaphysical or supernatural potency) are personal and subjective, and I am aware of being incapable of communicating “that” to you in either crass prose — or lofty, supernal, glorifying poetic utterances (though as I say, these escape no matter what and present themselves).

Instead, it’s an attempt to reframe the debate around emotional comfort rather than empirical rigor. If metaphysical constructs are to hold their ground, they need more than lyrical musings or metaphoric "dim windows of the soul." They require demonstrable coherence with reality—a coherence your arguments, however poetic, have yet to provide.

Actually that is an imposition of your interpretation. I admit that there are empirical truths (facts more properly) but I discern you do not have a solid grasp on an infinite array of true things that are not empirical in your laboratory-bound sense.

One knows what one knows in that domain. Everyone writing here has such a field.

…they need more than lyrical musings or metaphoric "dim windows of the soul."

You mean of course in order to make sense to you. But I already get that you cannot accept any of what I say, or reduce it to lyricism because of the interposition of your rigid predicates.

[BigMike]

Determinism isn’t just one "tool" among many; it’s the framework that explains why all tools work as they do. It’s not a competing metaphysics—it’s the foundation upon which metaphysical constructs either stand or collapse.

What you really are saying is “Reality is Reality”. Whatever goes on in Reality is what goes on. But in your case — a specific reductionism — you reduce everything to physical tangibles.

For you, what is (in my schema) metaphysical is in yours epiphenomenal. Ideas, ideals, concepts and interpretations can only arise in brain-matter. Brain-matter “invents” all of this. And when and if brains cease to exist, what is epiphenomenal definitely collapses (as if it did not exist). In my view, what is metaphysical has an existence, a realness, that preceded our manifestation, and will continue to exist when there is no brain left.

In your system, brains “invent” everything, including the most seemingly metaphysical “things” like concepts, values and also meanings. And when the brain is no longer there, all of “that” goes :::poof::: as if it never existed.

In my view, that whole “world” of meaning & concepts existed prior to manifestation and will exist still when entire worlds collapse or are pulled into black holes.

I appreciate the poetic flair of your response—it adds a certain theatricality to what is, at its core, a philosophical debate. But let’s not lose sight of the essentials.

Thank you for recognizing what really is wonderful and amazing about my Teachings. I don’t intend poetic flair, yet such genius appears alongside my Elevated Thought like doves & songbirds accompany a Saint …

Philosophical debate, you say? No, in fact it is deeper. Its about what we feel Reality to be even if it is not or cannot be expressed to another or even to our self. In a significant sense you believe that your interpretation of Reality is no interpretation at all. As perhaps in some maths the formula you hold to cannot be further reduced. It is “final” and inarguably absolute. But Master gently whispers: “All this is interpretation and as such a metaphysics”.

You propose that determinism might be "partially true," but truth doesn’t come in fractions.

No truer reductionism has even been stated by an absolutist!

Your doctrinal system, wee one, is definitely “partially true” but I will agree with your dolled-up circularity that, yes, Reality is Reality. Your “doctrines held as absolute, irreducible facts” are certainly partially accurate. But “true”? That is another arena.

You claim meaning and value are tied exclusively to metaphysical ideas. But isn’t it possible that meaning emerges from understanding, rather than mysticism?

An intelligent crow, dog or elephant definitely “thinks” and “understands” within (apparently) limited frames. So I see what you are getting at. I cannot deny the notion of emergent intelligence, and cannot therefore deny your framing. But I operate with the sense that there is more.

And what “proofs” I have (of say the intervention or the operation of metaphysical or supernatural potency) are personal and subjective, and I am aware of being incapable of communicating “that” to you in either crass prose — or lofty, supernal, glorifying poetic utterances (though as I say, these escape no matter what and present themselves).

Instead, it’s an attempt to reframe the debate around emotional comfort rather than empirical rigor. If metaphysical constructs are to hold their ground, they need more than lyrical musings or metaphoric "dim windows of the soul." They require demonstrable coherence with reality—a coherence your arguments, however poetic, have yet to provide.

Actually that is an imposition of your interpretation. I admit that there are empirical truths (facts more properly) but I discern you do not have a solid grasp on an infinite array of true things that are not empirical in your laboratory-bound sense.

One knows what one knows in that domain. Everyone writing here has such a field.

…they need more than lyrical musings or metaphoric "dim windows of the soul."

You mean of course in order to make sense to you. But I already get that you cannot accept any of what I say, or reduce it to lyricism because of the interposition of your rigid predicates.

Alexis, let’s be absolutely clear: I have repeatedly stated that my commitment to determinism and the principles derived from it—like the conservation laws and the fundamental interactions—is not born of rigidity or dogma. It’s a framework grounded in evidence and logical consistency. And, crucially, it’s one I would willingly abandon or revise if new evidence emerged to contradict it.

If a phenomenon were observed that challenged these foundational principles, I wouldn’t dismiss it or cling defensively to my current understanding. Instead, I’d dedicate myself to reconciling the new evidence, striving for a unified theory that incorporates these discoveries. The scientific method demands that openness to challenge. Far from being rigid, this approach thrives on inquiry and adaptation. To me, nothing would be more exciting than finding that kind of revolutionary evidence.

This commitment isn’t a limitation; it’s a strength. Unlike metaphysical frameworks that rely on interpretation or subjective experience, determinism insists on coherence with observable reality. If something cannot be empirically tested or shown to interact with the physical universe, it remains speculative. That’s not an attempt to undermine its potential significance but a recognition of its limited utility in shaping a consistent, shared understanding of the world.

You critique determinism for potentially reducing meaning, as if its truth is diminished by its implications. But troubling implications don’t make an idea false. Meaning doesn’t vanish in a deterministic framework—it’s reframed. Rather than looking to metaphysical realms, meaning is understood as an emergent property of complex systems, including human consciousness. That shift doesn’t negate value or depth; it grounds them in the richness of cause and effect.

So I’ll repeat: if evidence emerges that challenges my framework, I would embrace the opportunity to refine it. Until then, I’ll continue to advocate for a worldview rooted in evidence, coherence, and adaptability—qualities that, ironically, seem to resonate with the very idea of an ever-evolving universe.

[seeds]

...This deterministic framework extends seamlessly into the biological realm. Life itself is the result of physical processes: chemical reactions that led to the first replicating molecules, driven by specific environmental conditions and interactions. Evolution by natural selection is an inherently deterministic process, where traits that increase an organism's chances of survival and reproduction persist and proliferate over generations. Random mutations introduce variation, but even these arise from deterministic biochemical processes. The environment, in turn, deterministically selects for or against these variations, shaping the path of evolution.

None of which would have been possible were it not for the "pre-existence" of this unthinkably stable system and setting,...



...which, apparently, the nebulous phenomenon (or process) called "Determinism," not only created initially, but was also able to meticulously equip the setting with absolutely every possible ingredient the pre-created setting and system would need for evolution to do its thing.

Nothing remarkable about that, right?

To repeat the proposal I presented to you in this post - viewtopic.php?p=746273#p746273 (the post you ignored)...

...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.

Come on now, BigMike, you're an articulate and eloquent apologist for your materialistic view of reality,...

...however, you need to take the blinders off and stop avoiding the tougher philosophical questions that accompany a concept that has the mindless processes of chance as its foundational premise.
_______

[BigMike]

...This deterministic framework extends seamlessly into the biological realm. Life itself is the result of physical processes: chemical reactions that led to the first replicating molecules, driven by specific environmental conditions and interactions. Evolution by natural selection is an inherently deterministic process, where traits that increase an organism's chances of survival and reproduction persist and proliferate over generations. Random mutations introduce variation, but even these arise from deterministic biochemical processes. The environment, in turn, deterministically selects for or against these variations, shaping the path of evolution.

None of which would have been possible were it not for the "pre-existence" of this unthinkably stable system and setting,...



...which, apparently, the nebulous phenomenon (or process) called "Determinism," not only created initially, but was also able to meticulously equip the setting with absolutely every possible ingredient the pre-created setting and system would need for evolution to do its thing.

Nothing remarkable about that, right?

To repeat the proposal I presented to you in this post - viewtopic.php?p=746273#p746273 (the post you ignored)...

...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.

Come on now, BigMike, you're an articulate and eloquent apologist for your materialistic view of reality,...

...however, you need to take the blinders off and stop avoiding the tougher philosophical questions that accompany a concept that has the mindless processes of chance as its foundational premise.
_______

Seeds, let’s dive into the heart of your critique. You seem to conflate determinism with a sort of mystical, intentional "preparation" of the universe—a misunderstanding that warrants some clarification. Determinism, as a framework, isn’t about "creating" or "equipping" anything with purpose or intention. It’s about the consistent operation of natural laws that govern the interactions of matter and energy. These laws, as far as we can tell, are universal and unchanging, not teleological or goal-oriented.

The "stable system and setting" you reference—the universe as we observe it—emerges not from a conscious design but from the fundamental physical laws that underpin reality. The apparent order isn’t imposed from above; it’s a natural consequence of these laws interacting over time. The stability we see isn’t mysterious when viewed through the lens of physics. For instance:

• The forces that govern atomic and molecular structures (electromagnetism, nuclear forces) naturally lead to the formation of complex matter.
• The laws of thermodynamics explain the processes that drive energy transfer and transformation.
• Gravitation organizes matter on cosmic scales, giving rise to stars, planets, and galaxies.

Evolution, as I mentioned earlier, is similarly grounded in these deterministic processes. Mutations, while random in origin, occur within a framework governed by biochemical laws. The environment deterministically influences which traits persist, steering the trajectory of life without any teleological intent.

Your proposal for a "truly plausible and logical explanation" of determinism’s "teleological impetus" assumes that such impetus exists. But determinism doesn’t claim a purpose—it describes causality. If you're asking for an explanation of why the universe's laws exist as they do, that’s a deeper metaphysical question, one that lies outside the scope of science and within the domain of philosophical speculation. It’s not something I’ve ignored; it’s simply a category error to demand that determinism explain what it doesn’t propose to address.

So, let’s strip away the romanticized "blind chance" narrative and look at the universe for what it is: a system governed by consistent, discoverable principles. If there’s something beyond these principles, it hasn’t yet revealed itself in a way that demands revision of the framework. Until that evidence appears, determinism provides a coherent, empirically supported way to understand the unfathomable complexity you admire.

[Age]

Sorry...still not even remotely interested in you, "Age."

OF COURSE you ARE NOT, ESPECIALLY considering that I have SHOWN and PROVED just how Truly ILLOGICAL and IRRATIONAL your VIEWS and BELIEFS REALLY ARE, here.

Wow. There's no limit to your ego or your delusions.

LOOK AT this one. This is ALL it can say and CLAIM, here.

ABSOLUTELY NO indication of what and where the CLAIMED 'delusion' is, exactly.l, just A CLAIM there is one.

It was like people like this one had NO CLUE NOR IDEA, AT ALL, of HOW TO ACTUALLY ARGUE, and DISCUSS.

They are, literally, BLINDED, by their OWN BELIEFS that they can NOT SEE HOW Truly STUPID and IDIOTIC they are being.

I'm still convinced you're either mentally ill or a 15 year-old trying to punch above his weight. Either way, you're uninteresting.

Yet you KEEP writing TO me.

you do NOT even 'try to' counter or refute what I SAY and SHOW ABOUT you, because you are COMPLETELY INCAPABLE of doing so, but you will speak and write in the HOPE that you will somehow belittle, humiliate, or ridicule me, which obviously you could NOT.

Let 'us' NOT FORGET that it is "immanuel can", a supposed mature adult human being, who laughingly BELIEVES, ABSOLUTELY, that a male gendered THING created the whole Universe. And, it is POINTED OUT and SHOWN just how Truly ILLOGICAL, NONSENSICAL, and IRRATIONAL this BELIEF REALLY IS, "immanuel can" can do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL to counter or refute this. All "immanuel can" can do is just 'try to' make out that it is more superior than an one who is alleged to be 'mentally ill' or a 'child'. Which just makes "immanuel can" MORE OF an IDIOT and LESS of a mature person. Fancy 'trying to' make out that just because a human being is if a lesser age then this MEANS that that one would NOT know as much as an older one or does NOT have as much correct knowledge as the older one does. And, this one being CONVINCED of some thing, here, just PROVES how BLIND and STUPID people can really become FROM BELIEF, itself.

BELIEVING things to be true, which are BLATANTLY IMPOSSIBLE, like "immanuel can" does, here, IS IRREFUTABLE PROOF of A MENTAL DISORDER. And, BELIEVING, ABSOLUTELY, the same thing is OBVIOUSLY A FURTHER MENTAL DISORDER.

Can you SEE the DIFFERENCE in POINTING OUT and SHOWING where, EXACTLY, the MENTAL DISORDER LIES, like I do, FROM what you do, which is just CLAIM there is one, SOMEWHERE.

[Immanuel Can]

I'm still convinced you're either mentally ill or a 15 year-old trying to punch above his weight. Either way, you're uninteresting.

Yet you KEEP writing TO me.

I keep writing you off. That's quite different.

And now, I'm done with you again.

[Age]

I'm still convinced you're either mentally ill or a 15 year-old trying to punch above his weight. Either way, you're uninteresting.

Yet you KEEP writing TO me.

I keep writing you off. That's quite different.

LOL So, ONCE MORE you write, AGAIN.

you also only so call 'write me off', or in other words, do NOT respond to my accusations and claims ABOUT you because you are TOTALLY INCAPABLE OF doing so without coming across MORE WRONG, MORE INCONSISTENT, MORE OF A LIAR, and/or MORE FOOLISH.

And now, I'm done with you again.

LOL you have SAID and WRITTEN this before.

[Belinda]

...This deterministic framework extends seamlessly into the biological realm. Life itself is the result of physical processes: chemical reactions that led to the first replicating molecules, driven by specific environmental conditions and interactions. Evolution by natural selection is an inherently deterministic process, where traits that increase an organism's chances of survival and reproduction persist and proliferate over generations. Random mutations introduce variation, but even these arise from deterministic biochemical processes. The environment, in turn, deterministically selects for or against these variations, shaping the path of evolution.

None of which would have been possible were it not for the "pre-existence" of this unthinkably stable system and setting,...



...which, apparently, the nebulous phenomenon (or process) called "Determinism," not only created initially, but was also able to meticulously equip the setting with absolutely every possible ingredient the pre-created setting and system would need for evolution to do its thing.

Nothing remarkable about that, right?

To repeat the proposal I presented to you in this post - viewtopic.php?p=746273#p746273 (the post you ignored)...

...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.

Come on now, BigMike, you're an articulate and eloquent apologist for your materialistic view of reality,...

...however, you need to take the blinders off and stop avoiding the tougher philosophical questions that accompany a concept that has the mindless processes of chance as its foundational premise.
_______

If I may interrupt please let me explain that God is system and is not concerned with any "process of chance". Jesus himself is the Cosmic Christ and as the Cosmic Christ he is embedded in the system . Cosmos is system, which is sometimes inaccurately named "the universe" .
God/system did not make Cosmos ex nihilo but is Cosmos , whatever else He may be besides.


We humans conceptualise the force of causality ,and our name for whole and total causality is 'determinism'.
I recommend you read David Hume on causality; in short causality can be known by nothing other than constant conjunction of events. Then please note that constant enough conjunction always has been actually the case.