To reply with an email, use:


My purpose is to speak into what I see as a surprising deficit in the foundational understanding of basic divisions in “what is science” and the question of “what separate types of causation are there in reality?”.  Every time I see an online discussion of “if determinism is strict and exclusive” then  “do we have any free will”. The following discussion leads to nothing but confusion. There is no excuse for this and a lot of harm. The distinctions may be the most important issue in terms of a humanistic philosophy.


My use of “paradigm” is in the philosophical, logical, and scientific sense is its use at the highest level of abstraction.

I am not overly ambitious in addressing this question from a high level. There are clear answers. There are boundaries to strict, exclusive determinism – The First Paradigm. The exclusive part is false. – follow the science. Of course, there are many proven, physical phenomena – laws that are strictly deterministic. It is just that they are not exclusive.

There is clear, mathematical, physical, and inductive evidence that there is a second science/causality paradigm. part of The Second Paradigm. I define the second paradigm as including both deterministic phenomena and emergence and self-organized phenomena – both. These two causalities are always present and almost always work together for a combined resultant.

The lack of clarity on this distinction is a major gap in education.

I have also thrown in a bonus third paradigm. The failure of the first two sets up a frame. The third paradigm addresses a picture that we can address to fit that frame. To many people this paradigm is the most important.

Three Paradigms

Do you want to know if all the reality of our universe, the past, present and future of the human race and each individual, is causatively bound by the strict, exclusive  determinism of natural laws – exclusively?  If strict determinism is the final causality and the future is determined to every finest detail. The universe and all of us as components are a clockwork machine. Any human decision making, and free will are false illusions.  The most important values: love, family, hope religion, ideology, is false. Strict determinism has been and is – a position of many top people in pure science, philosophy of science, and related fields. It fundamentally effects the foundation of every other belief system – especially religion, the dignity of man, morality, culture, ideology and our political systems. In this view the universe is like a frozen picture; and with the added dimension of time, it is a final, un-editable movie reel. It philosophically forces us  to the logical, but nihilistic conclusion – what does anything matter? This is the poison that kills the human spirit and mocks all morality/ethics.

The source and momentum of Strict Determinism as the only science and causality

Strict, hard determinism has been posed as the only paradigm.  From Wikipedia: In the history of science, Laplace’s conjecture was the first published articulation of  scientific strict determinism – as exclusive – by Pierre-Simon Laplace in 1814. According to strict determinism, if someone – a super intelligence – in his example: “La Place’s demon” captures all information –  knows the precise location and momentum of every atom, energy state, or sub-particle in the universe, and their past and future values for any given time, then the future is trapped, causatively bounded – ie. – rigidly, exactly predictable. Laplace and others were absorbing and extrapolating this universal principle from a  large wave of advances in Classical Mechanics in the 17th and 18th century –  that could, for instance, predict the future movements of all the heavenly bodies indefinitely into the future –  limited only by the knowledge and accuracy of the starting state – of all parameters. The expansion of proven scientific laws just kept coming most notably by Kepler’s Laws of Planetary Motion and Newton’s Laws of Motion . By the extrapolation of present and expected future discovery of all pure science states and processes, the future of everything can be calculated from the laws like classical mechanics. Strict determinism assumes that there is no other causality.


First the Deductive Logic of Determinism has to be defined as separate from the logic of Emergence that is dependent on Inductive Logic.

The first Paradigm is Strict Determinism

Deductive Logic vs Inductive Logic

1. Deductive reasoning, also called deductive logic – Science based on formulas and deductive logic (Physics, Astronomy, Electronics, etc) these have strictly defined and measurable parameters (mass, time, velocity) and formulas that always work precisely with proper input. These sciences are supported by valid, deductive logic.

Deductive logic, is the process of reasoning from one or more general statements regarding what is known to reach a logically certain or sound conclusion. Here is an example. The Distance objects in earth gravity fall per unit time. eg: D=1/2 G x T squared.

Follow this example to see how we use measured observation and Deduction to understand a law of motion formula that determines how far objects will fall in a given time.  

In our mind experiment: Build a  256ft tower vacuum chamber where we can observe the distance various objects fall per unit of time. We will observe that their weight or density does not matter.

We will measure mass, accumulated Distance, velocity and acceleration (G)  per unit Time. All these parameters are stricty defined, objective, and are universally accepted.

  • I t is observed that mass does not matter.
  • In the first second it is measured that G is 32ftper sec, per sec. Every second the velocity increases 32ft/sec.
  • The average gain in distance is 16ft which is 1/2 G.
  • After falling  – 1 sec is-16ft ( 16 ft is G/2 the avg speed) , 2 sec is 4 – 16’s, 3 sec is 9 – 16’s and then 4 sec is 16 – 16s.
  • The accumulated distance is proportional to T squared.
  • It is deduced that the  formula is    D = 1/2 G x T squared.
  • This is concurred by all future measurements, anywhere by anyone to the finest granularity.
  • Although it started with conjecture and first observations, once the formula is deduced, no further concurring experiments or observations are necessary.  For example, we knew all the calculations for moon gravity before we got there.

We can DEDUCE that total distance fallen is D=1/2 G x T Squared.

Here are the characteristics of deterministic phenomena.

D, G, and T are completely defined. This result of the formula  is always true. If there was an instance within the defined constraints were it was not true,  then we would question not only that instance but any this instance of the law of gravity. Deductive Logic demands all or nothing. This is strict determinism.

  • Strictly defined and shared elements – time, mass, distance, energy etc
  • After initial observation formulas are deduced and tested.
  • There is concurrence experienced by anyone who test under the stated conditions. The test is no longer necessary.
  • Anyone can use this for other values of G and in combinations of G forces such as in a moon shot calculation.

The Second Paradigm is Strict Determinism and – Emergence and Self Organization

However – scientific findings have proven the limits of strict, exclusive determinism. They have also scientifically proven that additional, separate causality, rooted in emergence and self organization is real.  In this case, the good news is that a Second Paradigm that also includes both strict determinism and – emergence and self organization is the valid view. We now have a science-based view that is more comprehensive and it explains the world we know. Strict Determinism has been successfully challenged as exclusive by experiments with supporting mathematical predictive models. This is an evaluation of three different ways of looking at causality and these ultimate questions – three paradigms. 

2. Inductive Reasoning or Inductive Logic

Deductive Logic supports the causality of strict, exclusive determinism. The deterministic, pure science knowledge of causality depends and is advanced by deductive logic. By contrast, the causality resulting from emergent agency is supported and advanced by inductive logic. We need to understand the difference between  these logical approaches.

Inductive Logic advances sciences seeking knowledge by applying analysis starting with observation. It may be triggered by a guess or a hunch but it starts with “what do I see”. By using inductive logic these sciences help us understand the principles of causality behind emergent phenomena. Here – we use statistics, measurement, correlation, curve-fit and analysis, and where possible, many of the same tools as pure science. This is most obvious in the behavioral and life sciences: Psychology, Biology, Sociology, Ethics etc.). The huge difference is there are no exactly defined variables and no formulas. This is noted and valid as a criticism of evolution by Dr. David Berlinsky on U-Tube. Evolution is supported by inductive reasoning. It is not supported by the Deductive proofs provided by strict definition of measurables and formulas. Yes – there was never any hard deterministic case for the existence of life in all its details.

Inductive reasoning, also called induction or bottom-up logic, constructs or evaluates general propositions that are derived from specific examples. In the end it establishes truth. The certitude and concurrence are often not as obvious but when it is right, the truth is that the causality is from emergence and complexity and not from sole determinism – without directly contradicting deterministic effects.

The revolution of the validity of emergent causality and self-organization came about with the increase in computing power.

The theoretical result of  strict determinism is a complete, unitary view of a universe that is a machine (“clockwork universe”)that progresses from an early state to one outcome down to the smallest particles and energy for all future time .  The outcome cannot be altered. In this view all reality viewed across all time – first to last moment – is one timeline  with no branches – it is like one motion picture and there was never any chance of any outcome or any variation in-between. This universe does not allow choice, real chance or any other agency such as free will or independent causality. Free will, chance, probability are all an illusion caused by our lack of knowledge.

I ways anticipated that this way of restricted thinking could not explain all  causative reality. This limitation of strict, deterministic causality gives me an image of a picture and the limitation is a frame for another picture.

The Second Paradigm is Determinism  – co-existent with – emergence and self organization 


Complexity Theory: the theory that processes having a large number of seemingly independent agents can spontaneously order themselves into a coherent system or structure or even entirely new platforms. (see Platforms below). The starting deterministic causality may be on the molecular level and the emergence of a structure may be on an immense level – 100’s of miles. A dripping faucet may drip deterministically in an exact period. Driven by a higher input a random, unpredictable  output may emerge. Some forms of emergence are always present like the thermodynamic structures in weather patterns. Some are like a one in a octillion long shot when some mix of organic proteins evolved both gradually  – over billions of years and this was punctuated by sudden, quantum jumps into a fully coded replication process – RNA DNA, multi-cellular.

Examples of structures: whirligig, tornado, hurricane, ocean wave system, DNA, life, consciousness.

The mixing of many causative factors with a resultant outcome applies to factors that are strictly deterministic with factors that are emergent because of emergence – complexity.  The more we find out about emergence, the more we discover that the two (determinism and emergence -operating at the same time is more common. (Maybe always).

I am having a problem explaining the relationship of Emergence and Self-Organization to the surprising – without exaggeration -astounding  – discoveries of the mathematical foundations of the mechanism of emergence. The logistics map, the Mandelbrot set. So I cheated and asked Chat GPT. I repeated my writing before this point and added this:

Chat GPT entry:

I am writing a blog to explain the that there are 3 ways (paradigms) that explain causality. The first paradigm is exclusive, strict determinism. The second paradigm is determinism along with emergence – self organization. The third paradigm is what is left when we the first two do not explain everything. That is “Why does anything exist”. I will finish that later. Please clarify and continue at the end of this submission under emergence (below at the end of this submission). Explain how the theory of emergence is mathematically based after computer advances allowed exploration of the logistics map and the Mandelbrot set. Explain how scientist also supported this by science. This was a shocking and totally unexpected outcome and the mathematics and science supports observation of many real life examples of emergence leading from weather up to life itself.

Where do we see emergence that is not deterministic by using deductive logic processes or standards.

Chat GPT answer:

Emergence is a fascinating concept in science that explains how complex systems and structures can arise from simpler components and interactions. The theory of emergence is mathematically based after computer advances allowed exploration of the logistics map and the Mandelbrot set. These explorations revealed that even very simple systems can exhibit complex, unpredictable behavior. This was a shocking and totally unexpected outcome, as it demonstrated that complex systems could arise from simple rules, without the need for complex external factors or design.

Scientists also supported the theory of emergence through observation of many real-life examples, from weather patterns to the emergence of life itself. For example, in the study of complex systems like ecosystems or the brain, we see that the interactions of individual components give rise to emergent properties that are not predictable from the properties of the components alone.

Mathematically, the theory of emergence is based on the idea of nonlinearity. Linear systems are those in which the output is proportional to the input, whereas nonlinear systems exhibit more complex behaviors that cannot be predicted from their inputs. Emergent behaviors arise in nonlinear systems because the interactions between the components amplify or dampen each other, leading to behaviors that are not present in linear systems.

One of the most famous examples of emergent behavior in mathematics is the logistic map, which describes how a population grows or shrinks over time based on a simple set of rules. When the growth rate is low, the population remains stable, but as the growth rate increases, the population begins to oscillate, and eventually exhibits chaotic behavior. The behavior of the logistic map is unpredictable and seemingly random, but it arises from a simple set of rules.

In conclusion, the theory of emergence is an important concept in science that explains how complex systems can arise from simple components and interactions. This theory is mathematically based on the principles of nonlinearity, and has been observed in many real-life examples, from the growth of populations to the emergence of life itself.

End of first question

My next question:

The Mandelbrot set seems to be deterministic because a computer generated set with specific starting parameters, if repeated,  will generate the exact same output. The environment of the computer forces input to be entered in a limited length of digits. Comment on these two limitations. Most input parameters are on a continuum and can not be input. Also the are many artifacts in real life that variegate output such a thermal factors and other background artifacts. In real life with complex parameters, many on a continuum and when artifacts are always present – under these circumstances repeated submissions are not deterministic. These artifacts are not marginal in a system where starting factors though infinitesimal, will multiply variance in output. In fact some systems of emergence such as evolution thrive on computational causality with a little artifact effects mixed in. Another example is a computer simulation of a coin flip may always compute to landing on age but in real life artifacts will almost always not allow that output.

Chat GPT answer:

You are correct that the deterministic nature of the Mandelbrot set is limited by the precision and constraints of computer input. Some input parameters, such as those on a continuum, cannot be precisely inputted due to the limited precision of computer input. Additionally, real-world artifacts and variations can cause variance in output, making repeated submissions non-deterministic.

In complex systems with emergent behavior, such as evolution, computational causality can be mixed with artifact effects to produce unpredictable outputs. Similarly, in simulations of events with random elements, such as coin flips, real-world artifacts can cause variance in output that is not present in a purely deterministic simulation.

Overall, while the Mandelbrot set may be deterministic in a computer-generated context, real-world limitations and variations can cause non-deterministic outputs. It is important to keep these limitations in mind when interpreting the results of computational simulations and models.

end of Chat GPT.

First – I have to admit. I am impressed by Chat GPT.

Note that my intuition that emergence as revealed by the Mandelbrot set is never deterministic in real life is ratified. My conclusion is that exclusive determinism is very rare or never present in an absolute sense.

The fact that the First and/or Second Paradigms can not explain why anything exists  sets up another “frame”.

The Third Paradigm

The universe is proposed/defined as everything. It includes all of space, and all the matter and energy that space contains. It even includes time itself.

If we consider the first paradigm as a picture, the inability of the first paradigm to explain all causality creates an empty frame.

The addition of the causality of emergence and self organization fills out the picture of the second paradigm.

The inability of either the first or second paradigm to explain the biggest question – why does anything – the Universe –  exist – sets the “frame” for the Third Paradigm. What do we put in this picture.?

The attempt to explain why anything exists is a complete failure.

What is the one very big thing that neither of these can even begin to explain?

Oh- the Universe. Its existence, Its causality.

There is nothing in the second paradigm that can help because it is not emergent. A Universe emergent …??? wait -from what resources, process or supported by what logic? Any precursor is just an additional something we forgot to add to our definition of the universe. Then  our first use of the word Universe was wrong. Put it back in and we are back to square one.

I watched a segment of the TV Curiosity series that offered to show how they can explain the existence of the universe without a prior cause – without God. Of course, they did not mention God, (unfashionable) the Law of Conservation of Energy or The First Law of Thermodynamics. They did recruit a moderator with peak credibility: Morgan Freeman who has often played God and is a nice man. I am not being sarcastic (for once); he probably is.

At the risk of being perceived as not open minded, I immediately braced for SHAZAM ! I started my timer. Alright – I was a know-it-all and mentally tapped my mental foot.  This magic word does not answer to any analysis or any type of logic or causality. It is how Captain Marvel exploded into his superhero form. A cheap form of Superman’s high gravity evolution story. Just say the word – SHAZAM -. That’s it.

Also, at the set up, as I have seen in similar attempts before, they quickly liquidated the inconvenient existence of time. This is an attempt to foil the obvious, (unavoidable?) question: “what came before?”  They flat-out stated that in this original state – there was no time! How sublime – no minimal tickso no change – no next moment –so no trigger for next moment –  Frozen – alright it is a strain for me to conceive but I will go with it.  This elimination foils any inquisitive mind to wonder the obvious, annoying  repeating question –  “what came before?” So there was only a condition of no time. Got it – no tick – no change – don’t you understand – it’s frozen. Stop asking!: “and before that?…”.

Oh no they can’t say what I think is coming. Yep – – – “AND THEN”   and then?   did you just say “and then” = SHAZAM! “and then” means in the next or later moment in time. You insisted there is no time in your frozen state, not mine. That is what you specified to avoid any “before” questions . Did you think we forgot?  Is this “and then” a teeny tiny tick of no consequence. Well, actually your final claim, if true, would be the biggest tick ever. It is cheaper than SHAZAM and that was ridiculous.

They even have another word that can excuse anything  – “singularity” as if the use of a word, in itself,  is logic. This eliminates all previous science, logic  and causality. Well – not to me. A word like this is just a transparent diversion.  “How did the vase get broken Brian?”, “only you were  here” – precocious four year old : “It was a singularity” checkmate – there is no more reason to consider – no agency – no  causality. No validity. Is this cheaper than SHAZAM? It does not matter.

No time? An inconceivable amount of condensed energy in the timeless state waiting to release our Universe of energy:

Kinetic Energy K.E.=1/2×m×v2 –       v   See v (velocity – displacement per unit time) needs time.

Potential Energy P.E.=m×g×h          See g is acceleration and needs time – twice.

No time = no energy.

It occurs to me that all this is quite unworthy of scientists. It almost seems like they started with a conclusion and worked (desperately?) backwards. I feel I am challenging someone’s religion.

I will not sum up this presentation. It would bring out an unseemly sarcasm and I strictly avoid that.



Progress in Understanding the Causality of Emergent Processes.

As an example: Historical precursor steps in the development of the theory of Evolution – all based on the study of emergent phenomena.

  • The first Geologists see gradual changes such as sediment layers. The realized they are a record over time.
  • Matching known layers and other materials to discovered layers eg charcoal builds a consensus of shared dating.
  • They now observe drastic upheavals over eons that raised mountains including sediment that is now 90 degrees turned and deeply buried. Continents shifted over hundreds of millions of years.
  • All signs of life are limited to later layers!
  • The earth is ancient. Fossils are time and species categorized, Comparative anatomy must conclude giant sloths in some old strata must have existed millions of years ago and are now extinct. Previously it was thought that the spectrum of species was fixed.
  • Taxonomy charts merge views of extinct and present species.
  • Darwin sees current evidence of gradual changes. He uses inductive reasoning to posit his theory linking past to present.
  • This is all based on the scientific studies of  what is emergent. There are no deduced formulas and no standard measurements. None of the conclusions could have been predicted by the causality we know by deductive logic. there is no formula to precisely predict that when life would evolve.


The mechanisms developed by emergence have a higher level of design: Once a planform emerges – there is often another, new range, processes and menu of causality available. Life has its own laws. Look at what new sets of processes became available after life emerged on earth:  RNA,  DNA ( a code set!), first cells, multi-cell simple organisms, plants, animals, memory, association, decision, culture, religion, philosophy, political systems.  Each of these is a construct with new causality. Often they are step-like and each step increases possibilities of new functions.  The elements affecting causality do not have distinct definition or measurable units – mass, displacement, velocity – vs  – good, bad, gods message, innate rights, the “right” philosophy or rules. We can use measurables by making them up and hoping for a good correlation. The  exact, predictive  outcomes can not be explained by the principles of deductive logic. A system of deductive logic for future prediction can not be verified.

Consider, more closely,  what it means to say life is a platform that has it own rules – “Life has its own laws. Look at what new sets of processes became available after life emerged on earth:  RNA,  DNA ( a code set!)” –  Our DNA/RNA has a code set of four proteins and most do not correspond to the resultant output proteins and other chemicals structures and process control – some of which are expressed in puberty and beyond 12 yrs later. They are a coded formula and have many processes controllers. As a programmer I see how profound and intelligence-like this is. As a systems analyst and programmer, I know a system when I see it. I now see evolution as a system. I know, it uses randomness, but so does a casino and yet there is a system ” the house always wins.” Randomness is exploited within bounds. Recent experiments show a gene pool of organisms keeps continuously improving adaptation and optimization to exploit its environment and it is not an asymptote that somewhat levels but keeps improving. – A system. The intrinsic properties of this system is at a way higher level of abstraction then it’s component deterministic causality. Sometimes the changes are marginal. Other times they are revolutionary. A primitive algae oxygenated the entire earth. Life conquered multi-cell complexity, and developed nerve control and eventually consciousness by deterministic limits.

Given the natures of determinism and emergence there is no chance to deny the existence of free will. PS. we use it every day.

Memory to Consciousness

Since the basis of emergence is a negative,  determinism has no solution to go forward  – chaos is a negative to determinism – chaos is an opportunity for emergence. Determinism, while not contradicted, does not continue with a deductively logical foundation for emergence. In order to progress as scientifically as possible you typically have to start in the middle. Inductive logic starts with observation – simply of what we see. Then you use inductive logic applying all the scientific and mathematical tools you can, to describe source causality and resultant causality. As an example: As a physics student, when I was immersed in  determinism, I thought that no one would ever be able to scientifically define consciousness nor its causative source. I was both right – you can not use deterministic logic – and wrong – use deductive logic and start in the middle.

  • Start with the fact that the first life forms do exist. – Emergence.
  • Primitive life forms, in order to increase in capability needed to store information – memory.
  • Memory enables association.
  • Association links past input, to outcome.
  • A mechanism to change DNA in the direction of better outcome even if it is as crude as discovery by constant changes. This tendency is a fact that is now being studied and measured.
  • Association is needed for survival: to avoid or approach.
  • Reaction behavior is changed
  • Success of new reaction patterns reinforces.
  • For any animal some level of association needs to understand a mental construct such as the physical ability, behavior and, later the personality of a predator.
  • For social animals. there is a need for a level of association to develop a complex mental construct of each of our social group’s individual peers.
  • The construct of each peer needs  our internal model of their uniqueness, generally, or how they react in any situation in order to progress in our relationship or optimize their pecking order or to interact safely or maximize access to food, sex etc.
  • We need to maximize our relationship to them, – to manage how they see us – manipulate?
  • At a higher level of using a construct such as the recognition of a unique personality –  in our planning, we can include an internal model of ourselves.  We see the uniqueness and pattern of ourselves – a self aware and self referential level of consciousness.

Once we had the precursor of the ability to recognize the mind model of our primary relationship we can manage our image and planning by having a construct of ourselves. At this point we can examine our consciousness. Consciousness includes the central command of all the brain’s resources both automatic but, uniquely directed – problem solving and at the highest level – improving image and self improvement.

I am going to post this now because I just keep delaying while I work on it. 

I will continue edits and add conclusions below.

Further Insights and Conclusions – I will add to this ongoing

This is an example of the visible failure of a simple (non-complex) deterministic solution and an emergent solution in the direction of minimizing energy loss in achieving a new equilibrium.

Emergence also consist of the appearance of Structures that are not relatable to the molecule by molecule deterministic forces


  • Mathematics as a “permission”  – not cause – for a physical process to happen as a mechanism of strict, exclusive determinism – eg: The laws of motion. The math and the simple, direct determinism are functionable. Always exact, always dependable. eg: planning a lander on Mars.
  • Mathematics as a limit and a barrier to a physical process to take place as a strict, exclusive, simple deterministic causality.
  • Physical system with a large number of agents as  a mathematical  – Analog and AI-like – computer for a solution to emerge that is not deterministic. A structure may emerge – eg: waves, Gulf Stream, tornado, El Nino.
  • A platform – life
  • A platform  – with the addition of an evolutionary System . The progression has been both gradual with many small, marginal improvements punctuated by major jumps separated by millions of years. It has a new expansive set of rules/causality.
  • Startling improvements emerge – DNA code stores information, provides variance,  sets up future, developmental store and processes  – in the manor of a enhanced mathematical computer with a code scheme. It is a system for continuous improvement, exploitation of further ecological niches. At this  point evolution is a system and later, at a higher level of abstraction, it has a DNA based function system where the evolutionary system is improving.

To reply with an email, use: