The Democrat Party Hates America

[BigMike]

This thing where every discussion has to be the same thread about Mike and determinism is getting to be as bad as when VA made everything about his fucking FSK thing.

Absolutely—I hear you, and I agree. I'm not the one turning every thread into a determinism debate. I respond when directly challenged—often by the same small group of people recycling the same arguments they've thrown at me for months. If I stayed silent, they'd call that evasive. If I respond, it's "there he goes again." So which is it?

I'm not dragging this topic in; I'm being pulled into it. Every time.

[Immanuel Can]

Once you present your “excellent empirical and logical reasons to reject” determinism, something very simple happens: those reasons—if they truly are empirical and logical—become part of the deterministic framework.

That's a second problem with Determinism: its proponents are so propagandized that they don't realize they've adopted an unfalsifiable delusion. There are actually no terms, no amount of logic, and no facts that they won't simply absorb into that delusion. And no means to falsify their reductional view even exist, so they're utterly unscientific, as well...absent a falsifiability test.

Okay. Let’s take a deep breath and walk into this slowly—because this is important.

When someone says determinism is “unfalsifiable,” what they’re really getting at is this: If everything, including your objections, your logic, your refutations, are just products of prior causes, then how could we ever know if it’s false?

No, that's not what we're saying. It's so much simpler than you're trying to make it. It's that one can say, "Well, X was predetermined..." until the cows come home, and there's never any absolute way of proving it wasn't. But science requires a testing method, and a testing method must have a means of falsification. Unfalsifiable beliefs cannot be tested. Therefore, Determinism is not, despite all its protests, related to science in any way. It's an ideology.

Determinism, as I’ve defined it, isn’t a theory that tries to predict every outcome.

Nobody said it was. You're barking up the wrong tree.

So no, determinism isn't a "delusion immune to falsification."

Prove it. What is the falsification basis for Determinism? Give it specifically. What's the test that would prove Determinism false?

[Immanuel Can]

I'm not dragging this topic in; I'm being pulled into it. Every time.

You came in of your own volition. Nobody made you come here.

[Darkneos]

The difference between pagan gods on the one hand, and the God of Abraham on the other hand is that the pagan gods may be persuaded to change their minds , whereas the God of Abraham on the other hand is Logos.

Yes, that's one important difference...not the only one, but it certainly counts. There were lots of others, not least that pagan gods were always plural, and thus none of them could ever be the Supreme Being. Also, their characters were very different -- not only from the God of the Jews and Christians, but from each other, as well...and there are more differences.

Calvinistic predestination refers to a version of God in which God forever destines the human individual to be a sinner if that is what Gods intends him to be. I hope you can see how cruel and unforgiving this belief is!

I'm not a Calvinist. I'm not any kind of Determinist. But I have better reasons for refusing both than that I merely find them inconvenient or unpalatable aesthetically. I think we have excellent empirical and logical reasons to reject both, as well.

Once you present your “excellent empirical and logical reasons to reject” determinism, something very simple happens: those reasons—if they truly are empirical and logical—become part of the deterministic framework. That’s how science works. It absorbs valid new data. So if you do manage to disprove determinism with empirical and logical rigor, you haven’t escaped determinism—you've expanded its scope. Your rejection folds into the system you rejected, like a river returning to the ocean. Voilà: determinism just swallowed its own negation, and you're now agreeing with what you thought you were opposing.

That's the beauty of a framework grounded in cause and effect—it doesn't fear correction; it grows from it.

What is the difference between determinism and fatalism? I hear them used interchangeably but they often get attributed to meaninglessness.

[Darkneos]

If this...

Here’s the brutal truth: 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 true: you are nada.

Oh Henry, there it is again—your favorite quote from me. I’m flattered, really. You’ve repeated it so many times across so many threads, I’m starting to think you might want it printed on a T-shirt. Or maybe a pillow. You know, something cozy to scream into at night.

But here’s what puzzles me: What exactly is it that upsets you so deeply about it? Let’s walk through it together, sentence by sentence, since you keep circling back to it like it’s haunted you since the day you read it.

"Your brain is a deterministic machine, operating under the same unyielding physical laws as a rock rolling downhill."
Now Henry, is it this part? Is it the comparison to a rock? Too earthy? Too honest? Do you believe your brain is exempt from the laws of physics? That your neurons operate by some fifth force not yet discovered by science—perhaps willium majesticum? I hate to break it to you, but it’s gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces. That’s it. Those are the only forces at play. Your thoughts don't levitate above them by sheer force of personality.

"You don’t control your thoughts, your desires, or your decisions."
Oof—maybe this is the kicker. Does it bruise the ego a little too much? The idea that your sense of authorship is just the latest illusion in the long parade of human self-flattery? Don't shoot the messenger, Henry—I didn’t invent cause and effect. I just acknowledge it.

"You are driven by a cascade of external inputs, biological processes, and environmental stimuli—all of which you neither initiated nor directed."
Now this is just basic neuroscience and physics. Honestly, it's a miracle it sounds so poetic given how straightforward the science is. Are you arguing that you did initiate your genome, your upbringing, your cultural surroundings, and every photon that ever struck your retina?

So help me out, Henry. Which sentence makes you declare “you are nada” like you’re in a spaghetti western having an existential crisis? Because from where I’m sitting, all I did was lay out the physical facts. You’re the one having the philosophical meltdown over it.

Also I don't understand, if determinism is true then what's the point in living life if it's all out of control?

[BigMike]

That's a second problem with Determinism: its proponents are so propagandized that they don't realize they've adopted an unfalsifiable delusion. There are actually no terms, no amount of logic, and no facts that they won't simply absorb into that delusion. And no means to falsify their reductional view even exist, so they're utterly unscientific, as well...absent a falsifiability test.

Okay. Let’s take a deep breath and walk into this slowly—because this is important.

When someone says determinism is “unfalsifiable,” what they’re really getting at is this: If everything, including your objections, your logic, your refutations, are just products of prior causes, then how could we ever know if it’s false?

No, that's not what we're saying. It's so much simpler than you're trying to make it. It's that one can say, "Well, X was predetermined..." until the cows come home, and there's never any absolute way of proving it wasn't. But science requires a testing method, and a testing method must have a means of falsification. Unfalsifiable beliefs cannot be tested. Therefore, Determinism is not, despite all its protests, related to science in any way. It's an ideology.

Determinism, as I’ve defined it, isn’t a theory that tries to predict every outcome.

Nobody said it was. You're barking up the wrong tree.

So no, determinism isn't a "delusion immune to falsification."

Prove it. What is the falsification basis for Determinism? Give it specifically. What's the test that would prove Determinism false?

Sure, Immanuel. Let’s cut to the core, then.

Determinism—as I’m using the term—is not some narrow, localized scientific hypothesis, like “gravity weakens with the inverse square of distance.” It’s not a test-tube claim you can isolate and falsify in a single experiment. It’s a metaphysical framework. A foundational assumption that says: every physical event has a cause, and every cause operates through the four known fundamental interactions—gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces—and always in compliance with the conservation laws of energy, momentum, charge, and so on.

That’s not ideology. That’s the base scaffolding beneath physics as we know it.

Now—if you or anyone else sees an event that violates causality, or that breaks one of those conservation laws, or that acts outside the structure of the four forces—bring it forward. Really. Do that. That’s the falsification. That’s the test. Show us a physical event that arises without cause. Show us a situation where energy disappears or appears from nowhere. Find a force that isn't reducible to those four. If you do that, you're not just disproving determinism. You're rewriting the laws of physics. And I can almost guarantee you’ll walk away with a Nobel Prize and your name permanently etched in the history of science.

So, yes, determinism is falsifiable. Just not in the simplistic way you're demanding—because it’s not a single proposition. It’s a framework built from the most rigorously tested, falsifiable components in the history of science. If even one of those breaks, the whole thing buckles. Until then, it’s not dogma. It’s the best, most honest working model we’ve got for how reality operates.

Got an example that breaks it? I’m listening.

[FlashDangerpants]

This thing where every discussion has to be the same thread about Mike and determinism is getting to be as bad as when VA made everything about his fucking FSK thing.

Absolutely—I hear you, and I agree. I'm not the one turning every thread into a determinism debate. I respond when directly challenged—often by the same small group of people recycling the same arguments they've thrown at me for months. If I stayed silent, they'd call that evasive. If I respond, it's "there he goes again." So which is it?

I'm not dragging this topic in; I'm being pulled into it. Every time.

I get it, this has Belinda's fingerprints all over it.

Just saying, this has been the thread where our far right north American contingent has been justifying the conversion of ICE into a modern Gestapo, and so I can see how they find it useful to switch to your hobby horse.

[Belinda]

If this......is true: you are nada.

Oh Henry, there it is again—your favorite quote from me. I’m flattered, really. You’ve repeated it so many times across so many threads, I’m starting to think you might want it printed on a T-shirt. Or maybe a pillow. You know, something cozy to scream into at night.

But here’s what puzzles me: What exactly is it that upsets you so deeply about it? Let’s walk through it together, sentence by sentence, since you keep circling back to it like it’s haunted you since the day you read it.

"Your brain is a deterministic machine, operating under the same unyielding physical laws as a rock rolling downhill."
Now Henry, is it this part? Is it the comparison to a rock? Too earthy? Too honest? Do you believe your brain is exempt from the laws of physics? That your neurons operate by some fifth force not yet discovered by science—perhaps willium majesticum? I hate to break it to you, but it’s gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces. That’s it. Those are the only forces at play. Your thoughts don't levitate above them by sheer force of personality.

"You don’t control your thoughts, your desires, or your decisions."
Oof—maybe this is the kicker. Does it bruise the ego a little too much? The idea that your sense of authorship is just the latest illusion in the long parade of human self-flattery? Don't shoot the messenger, Henry—I didn’t invent cause and effect. I just acknowledge it.

"You are driven by a cascade of external inputs, biological processes, and environmental stimuli—all of which you neither initiated nor directed."
Now this is just basic neuroscience and physics. Honestly, it's a miracle it sounds so poetic given how straightforward the science is. Are you arguing that you did initiate your genome, your upbringing, your cultural surroundings, and every photon that ever struck your retina?

So help me out, Henry. Which sentence makes you declare “you are nada” like you’re in a spaghetti western having an existential crisis? Because from where I’m sitting, all I did was lay out the physical facts. You’re the one having the philosophical meltdown over it.

Also I don't understand, if determinism is true then what's the point in living life if it's all out of control?

If fatalism is true then what you do is out of your control. If causal determinism is true then you can learn from experience and this gives you a measure of freedom.

Fatalism is unlikely to be true because we learn from experience.

We want children and others to be as free as they can be so we teach them how to estimate future possibilities and probabilities, and the causes of past mistakes. For instance psychoanalysis is deterministic in seeking the historical causes of mental illness.
Teaching about the human past we trust determinism ,in that causes had effects . E.g. the first world war was an effect of causes . Effects are effects of causes e.g. mental illness is an effect of causes : e.g. nicotine is addictive : e.g. if I pull this flower it will wither.
Your will (or intentions ) is not free of mundane causes, however some people are more strong willed than others, and some people have more options than others.

[Darkneos]

Oh Henry, there it is again—your favorite quote from me. I’m flattered, really. You’ve repeated it so many times across so many threads, I’m starting to think you might want it printed on a T-shirt. Or maybe a pillow. You know, something cozy to scream into at night.

But here’s what puzzles me: What exactly is it that upsets you so deeply about it? Let’s walk through it together, sentence by sentence, since you keep circling back to it like it’s haunted you since the day you read it.

"Your brain is a deterministic machine, operating under the same unyielding physical laws as a rock rolling downhill."
Now Henry, is it this part? Is it the comparison to a rock? Too earthy? Too honest? Do you believe your brain is exempt from the laws of physics? That your neurons operate by some fifth force not yet discovered by science—perhaps willium majesticum? I hate to break it to you, but it’s gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces. That’s it. Those are the only forces at play. Your thoughts don't levitate above them by sheer force of personality.

"You don’t control your thoughts, your desires, or your decisions."
Oof—maybe this is the kicker. Does it bruise the ego a little too much? The idea that your sense of authorship is just the latest illusion in the long parade of human self-flattery? Don't shoot the messenger, Henry—I didn’t invent cause and effect. I just acknowledge it.

"You are driven by a cascade of external inputs, biological processes, and environmental stimuli—all of which you neither initiated nor directed."
Now this is just basic neuroscience and physics. Honestly, it's a miracle it sounds so poetic given how straightforward the science is. Are you arguing that you did initiate your genome, your upbringing, your cultural surroundings, and every photon that ever struck your retina?

So help me out, Henry. Which sentence makes you declare “you are nada” like you’re in a spaghetti western having an existential crisis? Because from where I’m sitting, all I did was lay out the physical facts. You’re the one having the philosophical meltdown over it.

Also I don't understand, if determinism is true then what's the point in living life if it's all out of control?

If fatalism is true then what you do is out of your control. If causal determinism is true then you can learn from experience and this gives you a measure of freedom.

Fatalism is unlikely to be true because we learn from experience.

We want children and others to be as free as they can be so we teach them how to estimate future possibilities and probabilities, and the causes of past mistakes. For instance psychoanalysis is deterministic in seeking the historical causes of mental illness.
Teaching about the human past we trust determinism ,in that causes had effects . E.g. the first world war was an effect of causes . Effects are effects of causes e.g. mental illness is an effect of causes : e.g. nicotine is addictive : e.g. if I pull this flower it will wither.
Your will (or intentions ) is not free of mundane causes, however some people are more strong willed than others, and some people have more options than others.

I guess I get it. I guess in my mind it means I'm trapped and there's no point in living because you can't change things.

[Belinda]

Also I don't understand, if determinism is true then what's the point in living life if it's all out of control?

If fatalism is true then what you do is out of your control. If causal determinism is true then you can learn from experience and this gives you a measure of freedom.

Fatalism is unlikely to be true because we learn from experience.

We want children and others to be as free as they can be so we teach them how to estimate future possibilities and probabilities, and the causes of past mistakes. For instance psychoanalysis is deterministic in seeking the historical causes of mental illness.
Teaching about the human past we trust determinism ,in that causes had effects . E.g. the first world war was an effect of causes . Effects are effects of causes e.g. mental illness is an effect of causes : e.g. nicotine is addictive : e.g. if I pull this flower it will wither.
Your will (or intentions ) is not free of mundane causes, however some people are more strong willed than others, and some people have more options than others.

I guess I get it. I guess in my mind it means I'm trapped and there's no point in living because you can't change things.

I am sorry for you that you choose to be a fatalist.

[Darkneos]

If fatalism is true then what you do is out of your control. If causal determinism is true then you can learn from experience and this gives you a measure of freedom.

Fatalism is unlikely to be true because we learn from experience.

We want children and others to be as free as they can be so we teach them how to estimate future possibilities and probabilities, and the causes of past mistakes. For instance psychoanalysis is deterministic in seeking the historical causes of mental illness.
Teaching about the human past we trust determinism ,in that causes had effects . E.g. the first world war was an effect of causes . Effects are effects of causes e.g. mental illness is an effect of causes : e.g. nicotine is addictive : e.g. if I pull this flower it will wither.
Your will (or intentions ) is not free of mundane causes, however some people are more strong willed than others, and some people have more options than others.

I guess I get it. I guess in my mind it means I'm trapped and there's no point in living because you can't change things.

I am sorry for you that you choose to be a fatalist.

I don't want to be one, but I find it hard to see determinism otherwise.

[Belinda]

I guess I get it. I guess in my mind it means I'm trapped and there's no point in living because you can't change things.

I am sorry for you that you choose to be a fatalist.

I don't want to be one, but I find it hard to see determinism otherwise.

Even after my careful explanation? Did you not read it? Maybe you're so much a fatalist it's not worth while listening to what anyone else thinks.

A bit of advice that may help you: why did you choose to get up this morning, or did you actually get out of bed? Are you so much a fatalist it's not worth your while making a cup of coffee?

[Belinda]

This thing where every discussion has to be the same thread about Mike and determinism is getting to be as bad as when VA made everything about his fucking FSK thing.

Absolutely—I hear you, and I agree. I'm not the one turning every thread into a determinism debate. I respond when directly challenged—often by the same small group of people recycling the same arguments they've thrown at me for months. If I stayed silent, they'd call that evasive. If I respond, it's "there he goes again." So which is it?

I'm not dragging this topic in; I'm being pulled into it. Every time.

I get it, this has Belinda's fingerprints all over it.

Just saying, this has been the thread where our far right north American contingent has been justifying the conversion of ICE into a modern Gestapo, and so I can see how they find it useful to switch to your hobby horse.

Flash, I hope you are right that this small special interest group can make a difference in the big city. I will try please count me in.

[BigMike]

Also I don't understand, if determinism is true then what's the point in living life if it's all out of control?

If fatalism is true then what you do is out of your control. If causal determinism is true then you can learn from experience and this gives you a measure of freedom.

Fatalism is unlikely to be true because we learn from experience.

We want children and others to be as free as they can be so we teach them how to estimate future possibilities and probabilities, and the causes of past mistakes. For instance psychoanalysis is deterministic in seeking the historical causes of mental illness.
Teaching about the human past we trust determinism ,in that causes had effects . E.g. the first world war was an effect of causes . Effects are effects of causes e.g. mental illness is an effect of causes : e.g. nicotine is addictive : e.g. if I pull this flower it will wither.
Your will (or intentions ) is not free of mundane causes, however some people are more strong willed than others, and some people have more options than others.

I guess I get it. I guess in my mind it means I'm trapped and there's no point in living because you can't change things.

Totally fair question, and you're not alone in feeling that way when first bumping into this idea. It can feel like a gut punch. But the key is this: what you're describing isn't determinism—it's fatalism. And they are not the same thing.

Fatalism says: “What will happen will happen, no matter what you do.” Picture an arrow flying toward you. Whether you jump left or right, it hits you anyway—because that was “meant to happen.” There’s usually some implied will behind it, divine or cosmic or otherwise—some outcome that's already decided.

Determinism, on the other hand, says: that arrow’s path, and your response, and the outcome, are all the results of prior causes. It doesn’t mean your actions don’t matter—it means they do, precisely because they are part of the cause-and-effect chain. In this moment, your choices aren’t “free” in the supernatural sense—but they’re still real, and they still have consequences that ripple forward.

And as Belinda said, beautifully, what you learn right now matters. It won’t give you “freedom” in the mystical sense. But it will cause changes—in your mind, your behavior, your future. It’s not that nothing can change. It’s that change itself happens through causes.

So no, you’re not trapped in some helpless loop. You’re part of the system that moves things forward. Your pain, your growth, your decisions—they’re all part of what causes what comes next. And even though you didn’t choose your past, what happens next will depend on who you are right now. That matters. Big time.

[FlashDangerpants]

Absolutely—I hear you, and I agree. I'm not the one turning every thread into a determinism debate. I respond when directly challenged—often by the same small group of people recycling the same arguments they've thrown at me for months. If I stayed silent, they'd call that evasive. If I respond, it's "there he goes again." So which is it?

I'm not dragging this topic in; I'm being pulled into it. Every time.

I get it, this has Belinda's fingerprints all over it.

Just saying, this has been the thread where our far right north American contingent has been justifying the conversion of ICE into a modern Gestapo, and so I can see how they find it useful to switch to your hobby horse.

Flash, I hope you are right that this small special interest group can make a difference in the big city. I will try please count me in.

Don't get carried away, I am bemoaning that every time Mike sets foot in any conversation you guys have to turn that into the greatest hits from his first thread. Argue about determinism there please. You fuck stuff up by removing all the variety from this place.

Similarly, stop turning every conversation that IC is in into a boring discussion about God please, go to the religion sub for that.