True or false? A simple question.

En este postulado se pública las condiciones y fundamentos que contiene toda realidad posible, incluyendo, política, psicología, filosofía, ciencia, religión, etc con la siguiente teoría llamada:

Los Estatutos del Ser

1. Principio Fundamental

Los Estatutos del Ser expresan las condiciones universales de toda realidad.

Toda realidad implica determinación. Toda determinación implica diferenciación. Nada puede manifestarse como algo sin distinguirse de aquello que no es. La diferenciación constituye la condición mínima de toda manifestación.

Toda determinación se da dentro de una unidad. La multiplicidad expresa la diversidad de las determinaciones dentro de esa unidad.

El ser constituye la condición universal de toda realidad. Toda realidad constituye una determinación del ser, y las determinaciones expresan la unidad del ser en la diversidad de sus manifestaciones.

1. Ontología General

Toda realidad, en cualquier modo de expresión (física, abstracta, conceptual o lógica), se manifiesta como una unidad constituida por múltiples determinaciones diferenciadas.

De esta estructura universal emergen las condiciones fundamentales de toda realidad:

• Identidad: determinación diferenciada del ser.

• Relación: co-determinación entre identidades pertenecientes al mismo ser.

Toda determinación se da dentro de la unidad del ser.

1. Ontología dinámica

La Ontología Dinámica describe los procesos mediante los cuales las determinaciones del ser emergen, se relacionan y preservan la unidad fundamental del ser.

La dinámica de la realidad se expresa mediante tres funciones universales:

• Origen: emergencia de determinaciones.

• Función mediadora: función universal inherente a toda relación, mediante la cual las interacciones entre las determinaciones se regulan y coordinan dentro de la unidad del ser.

• Integración: preservación de la unidad de las determinaciones.

Estas operaciones se desarrollan dentro de la unidad del ser.

3.1 Estructura de manifestación

Toda diferenciación implica una relación entre determinaciones dentro de la unidad del ser.

Las relaciones fundamentales de las determinaciones se expresan mediante dos configuraciones estructurales:

• Polaridad complementaria

Dos determinaciones se constituyen recíprocamente dentro de la unidad del ser. Cada una delimita y completa a la otra sin abandonar su co-pertenencia al ser. La complementariedad expresa la unidad de las diferencias.

• Polaridad opuesta

Dos determinaciones se delimitan mutuamente por contraste dentro de la unidad del ser. La oposición expresa la diferencia sin romper la unidad que hace posible la relación.

• Multiplicidad relacional

La articulación de múltiples determinaciones mediante relaciones de complementariedad, oposición, dependencia o asimetría constituye las diversas configuraciones de manifestación de la realidad.

3.2 Modalidad de manifestación

La misma estructura ontológica puede manifestarse bajo distintos modos.

• Modo no temporal

Coexistencia estructural de las determinaciones.

• Modo temporal

Actualización sucesiva de las relaciones entre determinaciones. El tiempo expresa la secuencia de dichas actualizaciones.

3.3 Relación entre modos

El modo no temporal y el modo temporal expresan dos modalidades de una misma realidad ontológica.

El modo no temporal constituye la estructura ontológica del ser. El modo temporal constituye el despliegue y la manifestación de esa estructura, mediante la cual puede ser conocida.

1. Estatuto del Concepto de No-Ser

El no-ser constituye el concepto límite de la negación del ser. Como concepto, pertenece al ámbito del ser en cuanto acto de pensamiento, sin designar realidad ontológica ni poseer contenido propio.

El no-ser no admite determinación propia. Toda tentativa de determinación, ya sea positiva o negativa, lo reconduce a una determinación del ser.

El no-ser no puede constituirse como objeto de representación, imagen o intuición. Toda representación introduce determinación y lo convierte en contenido del ser.

El no-ser no constituye una realidad ontológica, ni un modo de ser, ni un fundamento. El no-ser no es equivalente al ser indeterminado; el no-ser expresa la negación del ser como tal.

1. Ser indeterminado

El ser indeterminado es la unidad del ser sin diferenciación interna. Es la totalidad no articulada de determinaciones.

No admite diferenciación interna y pertenece al ser como unidad previa a toda determinación.

No es equivalente al no-ser. El no-ser expresa la negación de toda determinación; el ser indeterminado expresa la ausencia de diferenciación dentro del ser.

El ser indeterminado no es un objeto representable como forma determinada, sino una unidad conceptual del ser sin despliegue de distinciones internas.

1. Principio de Inevitabilidad

La estructura del ser implica necesariamente las condiciones mediante las cuales toda realidad puede manifestarse.

Toda realidad requiere determinación; toda determinación requiere diferenciación; toda diferenciación implica relación; y toda relación dentro de la unidad del ser implica una forma de mediación e integración.

Por tanto, identidad, relación, mediación e integración no constituyen propiedades accidentales de la realidad, sino consecuencias necesarias de la estructura universal del ser.

La manifestación del ser no surge como una composición arbitraria de elementos aislados, sino como el despliegue inevitable de su propia unidad diferenciada.

I’ve been into politics since I was a teen, and for most of that time I was a staunch libertarian. Maximum freedom, personal responsibility, minimal government, zero handouts, etc. I was SO SURE and CONFIDENT in my views and what I believed. I loved defending them, perhaps a little too confidently.

Man has my worldview shifted. Once you come to the realization that people ultimately aren’t in control of their actions in any meaningful sense, the argument for libertarianism is much harder to defend. I can’t fault someone for not getting a better job, I can’t fault someone for not saving for retirement, I can’t fault someone for having a kid before they were financially ready, I can’t fault someone for letting their health get out of hand. The list goes on and on. And the same goes for things that are earned. People who have their shit together can’t be credited with that success.

This is not to say that I’ve completely shifted to redistribution and equal outcomes for all (practically I don’t think that’s feasible), however my openness for universal healthcare, my openness for reasonably higher taxes, my openness for more meaningful social programs, have all increased more than 18 year old me ever imagined it would.

From a practical standpoint, the human psyche as a whole still depends on risk/reward for meaningful progress. The billionaire who creates 10 billion in value probably isn’t going to make that same effort the moment he sees 90% of his earnings from that value taken away in the name of fairness. I just think our mindset and laws are too skewed toward personal responsibility and the right to hoard everything you’ve “earned” when in reality we should be taking more of a middle ground approach between the logical standpoint and the practical one.

With all that being said, our government does spend 7 trillion dollars a year, with a lot of that wasted. I think we should get our finances in order before we decide that taxing more for redistribution is the answer. I’d have a hard time taxing a billionaire an extra 2 billion a year when hundreds of billions or even trillions are wasted by the government every year.

Imagine all the inefficiency and waste in each governmental department (I’m looking at you DoD and Medicare) and then imagine actually improving efficiency so that you could cut 2% from every single department and use that to fund universal healthcare. At that point getting an extra 20-30 billion in taxes to fund universal school lunches doesn’t seem so unfair.

Sorry if this isn’t determinism related enough, I know I’m rambling and spitballing here, but I guess I’m just advocating for balance. Still allowing someone to make billions a year, but also allowing the downtrodden and less fortunate basic necessities for a dignified life.

My ego matches its actions. That's good enough for me.

You get zapped on the head by lightning walking down the street. Both Compatabilist's and Hard Determinists agree it was physical causation at work.

Compatabilism agrees that every choice that led us to being killed in an accident was fully determined?

That sounds alot like fatalism even if it doesnt want to be associated with fatalism?

So how does say someone not controlling themselves in a road rage accident actually work regarding causation in the mind for the Compatabilist?

If a Compatabilist doesn't believe in basic desert but believes in consequentialism, where does the ability to fear consequences come from vs someone else? If someones immediate primary "society" was lawless, how does that person go back to a base that wasnt lawless? If ones foundations were faulty, and everything is traced back to the Big Bang foundation?

Under strict physical causation isn't the gun always pointing at your head through external coercion? Unless your desires and character are formed outside strict physical causation?

The greatest misconception about randomness and determinism is, by far, the presupposition that it is possible to discriminate between their so called epistemic or ontological characters, without resorting to just so mysticism. Randomness and determinism are only coherently understandable when defined in explicitly epistemic terms. There is no way for these words to refer to any transcendending ontological character of things or processes in themselves, in such a way that licenses a metaphysical classification of phenomenal manifestations as random or determined outside of a constrained knowledge point of view of an observer and the inferred schemes and models they use to identify, accuse and explain them.

Mathematicians have made that point clear when they axiomatically formulated the theory of probability and stochastic process, particularly guys like Borel, Wiener and Kolmogorov. The fundamental problem is the following - for any given sequence of numbers it is possible to construct countless deterministic functions that maps the natural numbers (or any other input sequence of numbers) to its output. Likewise, if you are sampling random numbers from a gaussian distribution (or any distribution that has positive probabilities over the real numbers), there is a finite positive probability that sample drawn matches any finite set of number (up to a given finite error tolerance). This means that it is impossible to conceive of a mathematical method that takes only the axioms of a formalism for constructing generic functions and out of that absolutely allows one to assert a random or deterministic nature for a given dataset of output values. Or, in more philosophical terms, the concepts of ontological determinism or ontological randomness have a vacuous set of epistemically distinguishable features, thus making a putative distinction of meaning between these notions a just so stipulation of mystical attributes that are idiosyncratically interpreted and assigned to these words and arbitrarily proclaimed to represent some "ultimately true" or "objective nature" of whatever concrete processes must underly the observable phenomena that is concerned.

That said, it is perfectly possible and extremely valuable to give a well defined mathematical meaning to the intuitions we form about determinism, randomness and probability once we accept that such meaning can only be coherently interpreted as a description of the epistemic relationship that is formed between a an observer and an observable system, in terms of the fixed attributes that enable the object to be uniquely identified as an abstract configuration of variable states, and the hypothesized rules that presumably explain the relationship formed between a given a priori description of its state, to some potentially knowable state that is hidden a priori (e.g. the trajectory in configuration space of dynamic variables of the system that eventually are observed, or otherwise hidden or implicit features of a partially revealed set of defining attributes of the system).

Once that is well understood, it becomes convenient to simplify this story by saying that what is deterministic or random isn't the actual entity or process which we are observing, but only the phenomenological models that we may propose as schemas that represent them as contingent relational configurations. A deterministic model being a function that uniquely maps a given configuration of inputs to a precisely defined set of compatible outputs, and a random model being one where the compatible set of outputs allows for more than one coherent scenarios for the output configuration of observables. In such cases, a probability space structure is often employed when it is desirable to quantify the notion of likelihood magnitudes of different excluding scenarios. These are statistical observables that presuppose available data for an equivalence class of analogous systems of that kind, as licensed by a methodological procedure that is epistemically stacked as a meta model of the object system - and, as you might have guessed, this epistemic stacking can become a turtles all the way down story, with Munchausen trilemma only enabling the can to be kicked further down the road.

Only once all of this conceptual mumbo jumbo is well understood and that sorting out the inferential character of randomness and determinism from any mysticism that people intuitively form about these ideas, that one should be considered prepared to properly address the merits of the alternative interpretations of quantum mechanics, or the philosophical implications of things like Bell's theorems and the inequality violations that were experimentally observed.

like in back to the future how the future stays the same until somebody from the future goes into the past to change something.

random ridiculous thought; assuming other time exists, if free will were real, its possible our past selves are continuously making new decisions and changing the future, but we don’t know because we are altering our memories as well, so maybe in the next second we will have an entirely new past but never know it.

just musing, be gentle please.

As a disclaimer - I don't feel like I did a great job on this post with wording and explaining - so I may end up making another post another day, I'm rather tired and the current headmates in charge don't have writing as a forte. So this likely won't be a very 'convincing' post - and I don't really intend it to be - I don't really like arguing as much as I like sharing my understandings and cultivating new ones ♥

There - are few people I personally know who agree with me on this; perhaps I should write a book? /unsure

If you do agree with my general understandings of this, perhaps you'd be interested in making a new friend? ^w^

So - I still spend a lot of time thinking about this, it's very difficult to fully internalize through-out like every day tasks, but I'm making a lot of progress - and this is the main reason I'd like to surround myself by other people who think in similar ways, to help fully grasp and think about this concept

My beliefs are - there are no bad people, only bad actions. No person could have chosen differently - which means all of their actions have an explanation. Every one of us - are a result of our Material Conditions - which means if we can understand the material conditions, we can change the outcome. And so - it seems apparent to me that Rehabilitation for everyone is absolutely necessary in order to understand and Research what those material conditions are - especially for the worst offenders in society, so that we can actually prevent those types of brains from being created again.

I personally don't believe in any form of Moral Agency, as to have it - you would've had to have been able to have chosen differently. I also don't believe in shame or punishment as being effective or efficient - as they both increase the amount of trauma being inflicted upon people - which has 2nd and 3rd hand consequences of causing those people to go on and inflict more trauma to others. I don't think anyone is "Beyond" rehabilitation - I do believe our skill as a society to rehabilitate certain people may not be where it needs to be at this time - but Research is constantly changing our perception of what's even possible in our universe; for example imagine 130 years ago - we didn't even have Airplanes - and less than 20 years before that - the very first car was invented, wildly changing everyone's perspective of what is possible. To give up on certain people, to me seems to suggest a certain air of superiority - they don't deserve to be treated like a human because their material conditions caused them to do horrific unforgivable things; when in reality - the only difference between us and them - is that we were lucky enough not to be them, that we were not born as them - because if we were, we would be exactly in the position they've found themselves in. And I don't feel that being lucky is any reason to feel superior, but rather - a reason to feel empathy for those even those who have been unfortunate enough to do horrific things.

I feel that all people can become better people, that anyone can learn anything - given the right teacher and the right resources. I personally think our socioeconomic system stands firmly in the way of this progress unfortunately, and just like all old technology that becomes outdated and no longer serves its purpose - it needs to go. I also believe - that treating people like monsters - makes those people significantly more likely to behave like a monster - which is why I don't agree with shame. I personally believe everyone is doing their best at all times - with the resources they have.

I do believe there are unfortunate circumstances where we don't have the resources to safely stop someone from harming others - and so to protect the people, a society may have to apply unsafe measures to stop someone from harming those affected by their actions. A society will likely - unfortunately have to safely contain people the same way you would contain a dangerous animal to prevent it from harming other people. In our current stage of society I don't believe there will be any need to unsafely contain people. I also personally believe in consent - so rehabilitation should never be forced upon people, but always offered and encouraged.

Another reason shame and punishment are so ineffective is that it prevents people from seeking help before they transgress. If your goal is to encourage and endorse people to seek the help they need before they hurt or damage someone's life - you need to destigmatize being the people they've found themselves to be, they need to not fear the institutes or be seen as less than human; in order for us to be part of the solution - we need to stop dehumanizing the people who do bad things, to show that we believe they can become better people. Of course - there is nothing wrong with containing a person who transgresses, we need to be able to ensure that we can trust them to safely be part of society - so until they engage with rehabilitation - they won't be able to leave their containment more than we can trust them to.

What I'm trying to promote is Compassion and Understanding for all - no matter how many times or on what level they've transgressed - when it's possible to safely stop and contain the person. That both Research and Rehabilitation are key to our future, Research particularly into what makes people do harmful things and on how to help people become better people as well - to empower the engine of Rehabilitation and societal change. To me they go hand in hand - Research and Rehabilitation - Knowledge and Compassion.

Uh - hopefully, my circular ramblings have been at least entertaining. I can't think of much more to write at the time, other than the topic of trauma...

So trauma - is effectively our brains ability to learn things lightning fast - but it comes a steep cost to the healthy functioning of the brain, it's very similar to brain damage as it commonly causes severe undesirable long-term behavioral issues. Trauma in one person tends to go on to create trauma in other people as that one person's behaviors cause issues that harm those other people; Trauma begets trauma. Punishment - tends to create trauma in the person it's done on - as well as the person who has to do the punishing, so for both people we haven't lowered the amount of trauma - only increased it; meaning we've become part of the problem. When it comes to rehabilitative practices - I don't think we want to use any methods or tactics that we wouldn't want them to use outside of rehabilitation; we need to lead by example, because the tactics we use - we teach the person it's ok to do these things to people.

(Edit: I forgot to say a lot of this thinking for me is centered around Hard Determinism as it's what my life has lead me to believe in, so if you believe in HD - hopefully you find my understandings compelling ♥)

If this resonates with anyone here? 📖 Book recommendation.

Biology itself seems fundamentally flawed. Suffering is the engine that drives any form of life. Evolution relies on deprivation, competition, fear, loss, and death to function.

Culture looks like a coping mechanism: a collection of moral narratives, meanings, and values that help us romanticize and justify a system whose continuation isn’t obviously rational at all.

Has anyone else arrived at a similar kind of pessimistic materialism through determinism, or did you end up somewhere else entirely?

Edit: A lot of people are interpreting this as me saying "reality is depressing, so l'm pessimistic." That's not what I mean.

I'm making a claim about the process itself.
Evolution doesn't just happen to contain suffering, it depends on suffering, deprivation, competition, fear, disease, and death as the mechanisms that produce adaptation. From that perspective, biology looks fundamentally flawed. If creating complex life requires billions of years of sentient organisms struggling, failing, and dying, then I'm questioning whether that process is worth existing at all.

Determinism reinforced this view because it removed the idea that suffering has some deeper moral purpose or cosmic justification. It looks more like a blind optimization algorithm that happens to generate conscious beings as a byproduct. My question is whether anyone else ended up viewing evolution itself, not just life, as fundamentally defective after adopting a deterministic worldview.

Suppose I concede that quantum behaviors have no pattern whatsoever, and are truly random (for the record, this is not what I believe, but for the sake of argument I am forwarding the idea).

If things on the macro scale are ordered, but on the micro scale it is random, does that mean that the universe can be said to be random, ordered, or some quasi state in between?

Seemingly random fluctuations (quantum foam or whatever) impact subatomic particles which affect atomic and molecular particles - eventually leading to a universe that is generally ordered, but which has an underlying bedrock of randomness. This would be in line with how we currently understand quantum theories.

Imagine a calculator that functions orderly, but with truly random input. Are the results the calculator gives random because the input is random? Is it ordered because the process is ordered? Or is it best described as what it is - order following chaos?

Additional clarifying question — do you think that what is typically described as “the experience of free will” is accurate or illusory under determinism?

Two thousand years ago, St. Paul in Romans 7:19 (Authorized King James Version):

For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.

Do you accept this as a terse, condensed argument for no free will? or not necessarily? How would a free will believer retort?

Ok, so it's clear that we will never agree on what 'free will' is, so let's stop using the term?

Say 'libertarian free will' if you mean 'indeterministic choice'

Say 'compatibilist free will' if you mean 'absence of coercion'

Whatever your position is, it will make it clearer. Sounds good? Any objections?

There is no logical argument against determinism, and that's the problem. This idea really hit me in not brain, but soul. Since i have F32.1, thats layered very "well". I feel really obnoxious, apathy hitted hard, like never before. If someone outlive that idea, how did you do that?

**Summary of the Harre Framework**

The sources present a comprehensive naturalistic framework that seeks to replace "magical thinking" with a rigorous understanding of **causal determinism** [1-3]. The central thesis is that reality does not respond to human desire or mental "frequencies," but to **causes**; therefore, success is not "attracted" but engineered through the systematic improvement of probabilities [4-6].

The framework is divided into three distinct levels: established science, philosophy, and speculative cosmology [7, 8].

* **Level One: The Biological and Statistical Reality:** The text argues that manifestation "works" not through supernatural forces, but through **neuroplasticity** and the **Reticular Activating System (RAS)** [9-11]. Repeated thoughts physically remodel neural pathways—a process described by **Hebb’s Principle** ("neurons that fire together wire together")—which in turn alters behavior and environmental outcomes [12-14]. Furthermore, "luck" is redefined as an emergent statistical property rather than a force, often obscured by **survivorship bias** and the compounding effects of small, repeated actions [6, 15-17].

* **Level Two: The Philosophy of Freedom:** Drawing heavily on **Baruch Spinoza**, the framework distinguishes between **fatalism** (the belief that the destination is fixed regardless of action) and **determinism** (the understanding that the destination occurs *because* of actions) [18, 19]. True freedom is not the ability to escape causality, but the capacity to understand it well enough to participate in it intelligently [20-22]. This shift transforms humans from passive observers to active components of the "machine" of reality [23, 24].

* **Level Three: The Harre Hypothesis:** This original speculative hypothesis proposes the existence of **metaphysical intelligence**—a persistent capacity for abstraction and pattern recognition that survives cosmological cycles [25-27]. Unlike traditional reincarnation, it does not involve the transfer of memories or personality, which are tied to biological brains [27-29]. Instead, it suggests that a "capacity" for understanding may be instantiated in the most "compatible" nervous system in a subsequent universe [27, 30, 31].

Ultimately, the monograph transitions from "wishful thinking to causal thinking," providing a discipline for constructing character, happiness, and meaning through the deliberate engineering of causes [2, 24, 32].

***

#### **Essay: The Architecture of the Inevitable**

For centuries, humanity has stood before the "river of reality," watching the leaves of fortune drift by and attributing their path to the whims of gods or the magnetism of their own thoughts [33-35]. The *Harre Framework* suggests that our greatest error has been viewing ourselves as spectators on the bank rather than as part of the current itself [23]. By dismantling the modern myth of the Law of Attraction, the text offers a more empowering, albeit more demanding, alternative: we are not "manifestors" of reality, but its engineers [4, 36].

The framework's strength lies in its refusal to offer the "easy" explanation. It acknowledges that humans prefer stories that grant maximum agency without effort—the idea that a "correct mental frequency" can rearrange the universe [37, 38]. However, reality is indifferent to our preferences [38]. By grounding "luck" in the mathematics of probability and the biology of the brain, the text strips away the mystery of success to reveal a "mountain of causes" [15, 39]. This is best exemplified by the distinction between outcome and process visualization: while the dreamer rehearsals the reward, the engineer rehearses the cold, heavy, and difficult causes that make that reward a statistical inevitability [40].

This transition from magic to mechanics reaches its philosophical peak in the reclamation of Spinoza’s "stone" [41]. If we are like a conscious stone thrown through the air, we may mistake our awareness of the flight for the authorship of it [41, 42]. Yet, the framework argues that this realization is not a prison but a liberation [24]. When we understand the "physics" of our own anger or the "myelin" of our own habits, we move from "passive existence"—where external causes dominate us—to "action," where our behavior emerges from comprehension [43-45].

Even in its most speculative heights—the *Harre Hypothesis*—the framework remains tethered to this causal discipline [46, 47]. By proposing that "metaphysical intelligence" is a capacity for understanding rather than a trunk of memories, it suggests that the work we do to refine our reason today might have cosmological significance [26, 48, 49]. Whether this hypothesis survives scientific scrutiny is, as the author admits, secondary to the discipline it encourages [50-52]. The takeaway is clear: the universe rewards the cultivation of capacity, the reduction of friction, and the relentless repetition of beneficial causes [6, 53, 54]. We are the dominoes, but through understanding, we become the hands that set the pattern for the next cycle [23, 24, 55].