Quora Questions on Causation & Determinism

[Gnomon]

Quora Reply to Pertti Ruismäki, 8/18/2018
How can you demonstrate freedom within determinism mathematically?

“Causal events have a cause in the past, but no purpose in the future.
Random events have no cause in the past and no purpose in the future.
Intentional actions have no cause in the past, but they are done for a purpose in the future.”

I’m beginning to see where your technical terminology differs from the conventional notions of both laymen and pros. I too see Intention as the distinguishing factor of freewill, as contrasted with a discrete chain of causation and a continuous cloud of randomness. Causation is linear & uni-directional, Randomness is non-linear & omni-directional, while Intention involves feedback loops, as-if it visits the future (purpose) in imagination, then loops back to the past in the form of an un-caused cause inserted into the stream of mechanical causation.

Of course, such counter-factual “as-if” scenarios would be lost on most folks, and might infuriate strict determinists.

PS___Thanks for the link to “Ghost”. I had read a Kindle book of Terrence Deacon’s INCOMPLETE NATURE. And I have been using, in my own musings, the term “Self” in place of the baggage-laden notion of “Soul”.
BTW___My peculiar usage of the term “counter-factual” in relation to Causation, comes from Judea Pearl’s : THE BOOK OF WHY, which I just finished.

Neither Ghost Nor Machine: How life happens
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0k-ZV ... Jy6UozU2KA


Addendum :

“Exactly. Except that the choices don’t have to be conscious. Even the simplest of organisms can choose to do *something else *(something random) if the current thing they’re doing is not supporting their survival well enough.”

I would reserve the term “choice” for self-conscious beings. Simple organisms have their “something else” chosen for them by Natural Selection. I refer to human Choice as “Artificial Selection”. Natural Selection seems to be built into the algorithms of evolution. But exactly how that works, I’ll leave for mathematicians to figure out.

[Gnomon]

Quora Reply to Pertti Ruismäki, 8/19/2018
How can you demonstrate freedom within determinism mathematically?


“But I just don't get the idea of directionality in this context. I would think that all events are unidirectional, following the arrow of time. . . . how does causality work in decision making?”

This is getting in over my head :

Physicists have been puzzled by the observation that Time is mathematically reversible, while physically uni-directional. Since I think of mental and mathematical “events” as metaphysical, they seem to be able to go forward & backward in time (sci-fi time machines, or time lords). But physical actions are limited to the direction of the arrow of time.

So physical Causation is one-way change from past to now to future. But metaphysical (mental/mathematical) Choice works both ways, including future to now to past. However, mental events are subjective, and not observable by others. That’s why the only causation we actually see in the world is the billiard ball exchange of energy by direct deterministic contact.

I’m guessing that a freewill Decision first projects (reason, inference, imagination) many possible paths into the future, then chooses the one that best fits the Purposes of the chooser. But in order for that Choice to have a physical consequence, the idea of the imaginary path must be actualized by directing the body to make physical contact with external things, or to communicate the idea to other minds.

So, if I decide to move my fork over to the steak, I first imagine that action, then direct my real hand to execute it. Or, if I’m feeling playful, I could ask my wife to feed me. Either way, the mental Choice transforms into a physical Cause. In my personal worldview, it’s all exchanges of information, some in the form of ideas, and others in the form of energy.

That’s how I envision Acts of Will becoming physical events, hence inserting a metaphysical Cause into the stream of physical Determinism.

T-symmetry - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-symmetry

Is Information Fundamental?
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/phys ... ndamental/


"The mathematics of free will is based on randomness. We need to access a source of randomness, practically any kind of noise will do."

Yes. I think of Randomness as a quantum field of virtual possibilities, or a cloud of Chaos with infinite potential. Randomness is non-linear, omni-directional, and non-discrete (a continuum). But mathematically possible things & events are actualized (realized) when a trigger (mental choice, energy input) causes the “collapse of the waveform” (ideal Platonic Form) resulting in the appearance of a real object or action.
Quite abstruse, but it works for me.

PS__It ain't magic, it's physics + metaphysics.



Quora Reply to Pertti Ruismäki, 8/20/2018
“ I strongly dislike the idea of reversible time.”

The idea of two-way time is indeed counter-intuitive, but then many mathematical concepts are weird : irrational numbers, transcendental numbers, etc. Even more baffling is the notion, used in some explanations of Physics, of Block Time — in which all points in time, past-present-future, exist eternally and simultaneously.

In my personal worldview, I think of Block Time simply as “Eternity” or “timelessness”, which does not exist “on a physical level”. It explains some philosophical paradoxes, but I won’t go into that here.

I have come to terms with the notion of Aristotelian Metaphysics, but in a different sense from the common religious notion of a separate Spiritual realm. But that’s another long story.


Afterthought : here's a detailed discussion of Determinism & Freedom on Quora :
https://www.quora.com/What-is-determinism-1

[Gnomon]

FREE WILL, DETERMINISM, QUANTUM THEORY AND STATISTICAL FLUCTUATIONS: A PHYSICIST'S TAKE
https://www.edge.org/conversation/carlo ... tuations-a

Any attempt to link this discussion to moral, ethical or legal issues, as is often been done, is pure nonsense. The fact that it is possible to say that a criminal has been driven to kill because of the ways in which Newton's laws have acted on the molecules of his body has nothing to do either with the opportunity of punishment, nor with the moral condemnation. It is respecting those same laws by Newton that putting criminals in jail reduces the murders, and it is respecting those same laws by Newton that society as a whole functions, including its moral structure, which in turn determines behavior. There is no contradiction between saying that a stone flew into the sky because a force pushed it, or because a volcano exploded. In the same manner, there is no contradiction in saying we do not commit murder because something is encoded in the decision-making structure of our brain or because we are bound by a moral belief.

Free will has nothing to do with quantum mechanics. We are deeply unpredictable beings, like most macroscopic systems. There is no incompatibility between free will and microscopic determinism. The significance of free will is that behavior is not determined by external constraints, not by the psychological description of our neural states to which we access. The idea that free will may have to do with the ability to make different choices on equal internal states is an absurdity, as the ideal experiment I have described above shows. The issue has no bearing on questions of a moral or legal nature. Our idea of being free is correct, but it is just a way to say that we are ignorant on why we make choices.

CARLO ROVELLI is a theoretical physicist

NOTE :
My contention is that humans do have the "ability to make different choices on equal internal states". Metaphysical Will-Power (motivation + direction) is an internal causal force, just as relevant as physical forces, but not as easy to measure. We know its effects when we see them, but we remain "ignorant" of the exact causal inputs that led to the observed output. Such subjective "forces" are of no concern to physicists. but should be relevant to psychiatrists.
Today's headline : "Shooting suspect was twice hospitalized for mental illness". His lack of willpower allowed physical emotions to override his reason.

[Gnomon]

Given that there are alternative math/logic systems, could alternative universes be structured according to those systems?
https://www.quora.com/Given-that-there- ... se-systems


I’m hardly an expert regarding Math or Multiple Universes, so I probably shouldn’t add my two cents worth, but . . .

I’m not sure what you mean by “alternative math/logic systems’, but there are various ways of approaching math/logic problems that have more to do with the human mind and needs than with any multiple “systems” out there in the great beyond.

In my view, Math/Logic are not physical things, and are not subject to physical laws. Both are capable of dealing with infinities, irrationalities, and imaginary values, that don’t compute in physical reality. Pi is an irrational number associated with circles, but its existence, apart from round objects, is as a metaphysical concept : ideal, not real.

Math tricks can accommodate such unreal phenomena as statistical Wave Functions and virtual Superposition. So I assume that an infinite array of Multiple Universes is indeed possible in imagination. And their math/logic structures can be anything you can envision. But only one Universe can be physically real : accessible to the five senses.

PS__Another Quora question seems to be related to this one :
If math logically exists independently from the universe, does this mean all possible universes will be mathematically describable?

[Gnomon]

Why do many historians and biographers call Robespierre a deist when he was always invoking Providence? Isn’t that a characteristic of theism?
https://www.quora.com/Why-do-many-histo ... -of-theism

My reply, 09-04-2018

FWIW, here's another take on theistic-versus-deistic terminology after the French Revolution : the new state religion was primarily political, not philosophical in purpose.

Background : Deism, like Protestantism, was originally a reaction to A> the revival of ancient Greek secular philosophy, and B> the corruption & weakening of the Medieval Catholic Church as a religious & political power. Its declining moral & civil authority left a vacuum to be filled by a new political & religious paradigm of some kind. The age-old centralized bureaucracy of the Holy Roman Church began a long process of decay, and decentralization of secular & sacred government. The early stages merely shifted from Imperial to State religions, each with its own interpretation of dogma : Lutheran Germany, Anglican England, Calvinist France. Eventually, Christianity fragmented further into self-governing local churches.

Yet, where Protestants rejected Rome's sole authority, and relied on man-made Holy Scriptures as a "revelation" of God's Will, Deists rejected those artificial sources of information, and turned to god-given Reason as the interpreter of God's Will, as revealed in the miracle of creation *ex nihilo**. The first became a communal religion bound by a single "supernatural" source of Propaganda. The latter was a personal philosophy based on a singular natural source of information. The idea was to bypass as many intermediate interpreters as possible, hence avoiding the kind of conflicts & contradictions found throughout the Bible.

As Christianity continued to fragment into hundreds of sects, individuals gradually gained more power over their own beliefs, accelerated by printed Bibles in the local vernacular, so the "priesthood of believers" no longer depended on certified centralized authority for their understanding of God's Will. Meanwhile, a minority of protestants, calling themselves Deists, went even further, and looked to the creation itself as the only revealed "Word" of God.

Conclusion : In my humble opinion, Robespierre's *Cult of The Supreme Being* was a step back from the trend toward decentralization & individualization. It preached the Liberal gospel of Greek & Deist philosophy, but practiced the old ways of state religion and political sanction. It eventually became as totalitarian & brutal as the Roman Church. And it also used some of the old propaganda, such as the notion of "Providence" -- God as benevolent provider (miracle-worker), instead of omniscient Creator who planned for all future contingencies from the beginning -- to instill hope & dependency in the populace. The Cult was an artificial religion devised by politically motivated intellectuals, instead of a natural philosophy driven by each individual’s love of wisdom.

So, the answer is Yes : the French cult was Deist only superficially, in order to appeal to radicals & free-thinkers, but Theistic fundamentally, to appeal to the common people; those willing to be faithful followers of authoritarian leaders. Deism, in the purest sense, doesn't have the "right stuff" to serve as a religion for the masses. But, we can hope that, at least, some of its basic principles will rub-off on popular religions as time goes by; becoming less superficial, and more essential to human cultural evolution.


Note : Theist “providence” implies that prayers will be answered like a letter to Santa Claus. Deist “providence” implies that everything necessary for the world to evolve as intended by the Creator was provided in the initial program, including allowance for human freewill to direct Cultural Evolution toward human goals.

* ex nihilo : Creation of something from nothing. Originally a philosophical assumption, but lately corroborated by the Big Bang theory.

[Gnomon]

Quora question :
If the universe is expanding, then what does it expand into? What do we call that space which accommodates the expanding universe?
https://www.quora.com/If-the-universe-i ... g-universe

My Reply, 09-05-2018 :

Like the Multiverse postulate, this is not an empirical question that can be answered by objective means. Instead, it's a philosophical thought experiment, to be answered by extrapolating logically from what little we know about the universe, in terms of a general worldview, such as Materialism or Spiritualism or Enformationism.

There are two typical proposals to explain the empirically confirmed fact of expansion, in which a fixed amount of matter/energy is being spread out over a greater volume. See previous Everhart post :
1> There is nothing outside the universe, so the apparent inflation is either a local loop of space-time, or merely an optical/cognitive illusion, to be accepted as an artifact from inherent limitations of the primate mind.
2> Our universe is just one of zillions of Miniverses inside an infinite Multiverse. In which case, our little bubble of stuff is simply expanding into the unlimited somethingness of eternal cycles of matter & energy. It's turtles all the way down.

But, as a non-scientist, I prefer to imagine what's beyond (meta-) the immensity of the knowable universe in terms of Metaphor and Metaphysics :
3> The physical universe we know & love began like an embryo from a seed of non-physical Information*, the essential substance of both matter & energy. We measure the physical world in terms of Space & Time, which exist only as ideas about Matter & Energy.

If so, then whatever fertilized the singularity/egg was a source of Enformation (energy + form), that was matterless & energyless and spaceless & timeless, yet full of creative potential. In other words, Eternity & Infinity, or as I like to call it : *“Enfernity”*. You can think of that nothingness as an enforming womb. So the Big Bang was actually a quickening, and we are still inside the womb, expanding from single cell to blastula to fetus, and so on. If that is the case, to continue the metaphor, our world has yet to be born into whatever lies beyond. Our reality is all we know for sure, and ideas about Before & After remain an insoluble mystery.

This scenario will offend both Materialists and Spiritualists, in that it implies a god-like creative power, but describes it in agnostic & impersonal terms, with no attempt to define it beyond what we can know via our observations of the world, and our innate ability to expand on what we know by means of Reason & Imagination. This answer, of course, is not factual. But then, no other conjecture about the Great Beyond is any more true. If you think you know better, prove it.

Note 1 : Cosmology falls under the philosophical heading of Metaphysics, not Physics.
Metaphysics - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics)

Note 2 : Generic Enformation is like Mathematics : it has no extension in space or time. It just is. Hence, it's meta-physical in the original sense of ideas *about* the non-physical aspects of reality, such as Ideals & Ethics. It is also metaphysical in the modern sense of transcending the physical reality known via the 5 senses. We know Metaphysics only via the 6th sense of Reason : inference from what-is to what-might-be.

* Is Information Fundamental? (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/phys ... ndamental/)

[Gnomon]

Quora reply to Dmitri Popov :
If matter is energy and energy is information, then what is information?
https://www.quora.com/If-matter-is-ener ... nformation

“Both information and energy are not physical, not something you can put in a box.”

I agree. Both Information and Energy are metaphysical, in the sense that they are not objects or things, but actions. Energy is a specific kind/form of a more general change agent, that I call “EnFormAction” : the power to cause change in form. Energy is characterized by mathematical ratios & relationships, such as the difference between Hot & Cold. An act of Energy is physical causation (momentum), but an act of Enformation is metaphysical causation (motivation)*.

Information : in-form-ation
En = energy, causation, change, motion, direction;
Form = design, structure, pattern;
Action = the difference that makes a meaning.

We measure information by assigning value to difference. In your example, the assertion about the name of our planet makes no difference in my mind, because that knowledge is already stored in my brain. Hence the novelty value is zero. But if you said that the mass of our planet is 7 trillion gigatons, that would be news to me, so the value would be at least one bit – depending of course on whether it can be confirmed. (I just made-up that number)


*__"To Enform" is a verb of action. "Information" is a noun, the object of an act of enforming. So Enformation is like a metaphysical form of Energy & Matter.



Quora reply to Michael McGinnis, 9-14-2018
If matter is energy and energy is information, then what is information?
https://www.quora.com/If-matter-is-ener ... nformation

"A non-causal condition, a Chaos, could provide a background of boundless information… enough to instantiate every possible observation by every possible observer."

I too use the ancient concept of random Chaos, from which emerged organized Cosmos, as a metaphor for what existed before the Big Bang. As I imagine it, that timeless un-formed state was not just a random pattern, like the static on a TV screen without an enforming signal. It possessed potential energy, like the battery in your cell phone, ready to respond to the On command with a myriad of meaningful patterns. Like Plato’s eternal Forms, it contained the pent-up Probability (ideas, designs + power) for an infinite array of things that could be actualized in Reality.

If so, the question arises : who or what turned-on the switch to convert non-causal information into causal en-form-action? Does the infinite Megaverse inherently cycle between On & Off for no reason? Or is there a cosmic Observer, who flips the switch to collapse the humming waveform of holistic potential into a space-time capsule of evolving atomistic matter-energy? We may never know the answer to the First Cause conundrum.


Who flips the switch of the Big Bang?

[Gnomon]

reply to Bruce Silverstein, 9-06-2018
What is determinism?
https://www.quora.com/What-is-determinism-1


“As I see it, Determinism provides a consistent explanation for everything, and can neither be proven true nor false. Like beliefs in religion, science, and other putative explanations of how the universe works, Determinism can be accepted or rejected only on faith.”

Yes. Causal Determinism is an axiom (unproven assumption) that makes empirical science possible. Yet, any event that does not have an identifiable determinant is inaccessible to the scientific method.

Quantum Entanglement seems to be acausal, in the sense that the causal link is unknown. That means the very foundation of our scientific paradigm is beyond the grasp of physical Science*. Like Consciousness, it falls into the province of Philosophical speculation. Which irks scientists, because it leaves the door open to many serious or fanciful interpretations, and no way to lock the door with hard facts.


* Ironically, for millennia, philosophical Materialism has been chasing the holy grail of an end-of-story Atom. But each candidate so far, has opened a new door to further exploration into the unknown.

[Gnomon]

Quora Reply to Laih Laih Tv, 9-12-2018
Who Set and Order the Laws of Physics?
https://www.quora.com/Who-set-and-order ... -Earwood-3


Modern science is based on the assumption that there was no "Who" to command that physical processes behave themselves in an orderly & predictable manner. Instead, an eternal struggle between Order & Disorder (thermodynamics) is essential to the ceaseless cycles of the natural world. In that case, any regularities in natural mechanisms are accidental, like a sequence of heads when flipping coins. However, unless the coin is biased, the next toss should be unpredictable. So a long run of reliable repetition implies that the system is rigged -- i.e. non-random.

Physical "laws" are simply observed patterns in natural events — sequences of stable repetitive relationships within dynamic systems — that we can depend on to remain constant as we attempt to assert human control over the vagaries of nature that ignore our preferences. Early philosophers called those implicit rules-of-order "laws", by analogy to the royal mandates of a wise king, which impose order upon an unruly populace. Consequently, regulations in the domain of Nature were attributed to imaginary supernatural agents, who imposed their will on the passive substance of the material world.

Yet, just as human rulers can be both benevolent & tyrannical, Mother Nature can turn from harmonious & nurturing to disorderly & destructive overnight. An ominous whirling tornado suddenly emerges from the midst of ordinary wind & rain, and dashes our precious little lives into rubble. So, the demi-gods in charge of the various departments of Nature were both awesome & fearsome, to be praised & appeased. However, as humans gained a broader understanding of how those agencies are interrelated, they could imagine that a single omnipotent deity could operate the whole system from a central command center.

Over time though, some independent thinkers realized that the “rewards” & “punishments” dealt by natural forces were haphazard rather than aimed, fortuitous instead of providential (1). So, they saw no reason to view those indiscriminate forces as intentional. Eventually, impersonal thermodynamic laws took over the ancient role of capricious gods -- who work in mysterious ways -- as an explanation for why Nature often seems oblivious or antagonistic to the needs & desires of puny humans. The same balmy sun that feels so good on a fall day, will bake & blister on another day. The delightful breezes that caress our faces, can also whip-up whirlwinds that blow down our houses. The spring rains that nurture our crops, may swell into deluges that wash away our livelihood. Despite impassioned prayers and personal sacrifices, the old gods were not respecters of persons, but arbitrary & impersonal in the administration of their offices.

Ironically, religious worldviews still interpret those ups & downs of life in personal terms of fatherly love & righteous wrath, despite the obvious random distribution of divine providence. By contrast, the scientific paradigm of natural events is completely impersonal and accidental. The former view emphasizes intentional Laws, and ignores their indiscriminate enforcement, while the latter perspective focuses on random events (Entropy), and regards the consistent constants as mere happenstance. Yet in fact, the universe is characterized by both Order and Disorder. Nature blows both hot and cold. So the immutable law of thermodynamics — like a thermostat — seems to oscillate between upper & lower set-points, in order to keep the life-giving cycles of energy rolling smoothly along.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics has been called the supreme principle of Nature (2). Sadly, it is a disorganizing force; leading toward a cold & dissolute end. So any enduring organization in the world must be attributed to a counter-force to the death & decay of Entropy. Traditional religions have called that seemingly super-natural power by the names of gods. But there is another term, “Enformy” (3), to convey the notion of direction in evolution. That “theory” is not “against” the second law, but complementary. Alone, Entropy would be like rust, eating away at the structure of the world, and Enformy would arrange matter into the inert crystaline rigidity of a diamond. Together, Entropy & Enformy are like Yin & Yang, they balance each other to maintain a dynamic harmony in the symphony of Nature.

Since such organic cooperation, not to mention creative complexity, is not to be expected from an unconstrained Big Bang explosion, I assume that there was law-like Intention (inclination, enformation, will, teleology) behind the sudden eruption of something from nothing. You may call that lawgiver “God” — but since a cosmos creating force would be so superior to the human mind, in both power & knowledge, and because it applies its power fairly and dispassionately — the biblical portrayal of a personal-but-flawed humanoid tyrant-in-the-sky seems insulting. So, I tend to use impersonal terms like “Enformer” or “Programmer” or even ambiguous “G*D”. Whatever the “Who” might be, that set & ordered the sublime laws of nature, it could not be a mercurial male king on a heavenly throne, whose wrath is appeased by bloody sacrifices, and who arbitrarily suspends those same laws to impress the natives with his super-powers(4). Instead, s/he is more like a cosmic force of Nature that is above and beyond Good & Evil. IMHO

1. Indiscrimate providence :

That ye may be the children of your

Father which is in heaven: for he maketh

his sun to rise on the evil and on the good,

and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

____Matthew 5:45

2. Nature’s Compensation: Entropy
“The [second] law that entropy always increases, holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. . . . if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.”
― Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington; 20th century astronomer & physicist

3. Enformy :
Enformy (energy + information) is a hypothetical, holistic, metaphysical, natural trend or force, that counteracts Entropy & Randomness to produce complexity & progress. "Entropy" and "Enformy" are scientific/technical terms that are analogous to the religious/moralistic terms "Evil" and "Good". So, while those forces are completely natural, the ultimate source of the power behind them may be supernatural, in the sense that the First Cause logically existed before the First Effect : the so-called “Big Bang”.

4. Miraculous Overkill :
The Sun, which circled around the flat Earth, stood still to prolong the slaughter of the outnumbered Amorites -- a race of giants -- whose land God's personal army was invading, bent on ethnic cleansing. ___Joshua 10:12

[Gnomon]

Quora reply to Christopher Pulkowski
Does the law of karma necessitate an omniscient (and mathematically calibrated) being or is it considered to be built in the the laws of physics?
https://www.quora.com/Does-the-law-of-k ... opic_bio=1

I don’t think Karma is a law of Physics, or of God. It is instead a typically ego-centric utopian concept of how the world should work if Nature/God was better at his job as Creator. In actuality, Good & Evil tend to balance out statistically to a moderate Goldilocks state we call “Normal”. In reality, “bad things happen to good people”. Since it’s obvious to most folks that Nature, like Lady Justice, is blind(1), the theories of Heaven and of Karma place the resolution of life’s injustices in a future spiritual life, or a different physical body. In those alternative realities, a person wronged in this life will either be rewarded in the next life, or a person who does wrong today, will get a chance for a do-over tomorrow.

All such Utopias exist only in the imaginations of men, not in the Mind of God, or in the mechanics of Physics. If there is a cosmos-creating G*D, and I think there well might be, we should assume that s/he was smart enough to get it right the first time. So why would a supernatural designer produce a world dominated by destructive Entropy, and fashion humans in the image of God, only to banish them from Paradise for the sin of knowing too much for their own good? Most religions give their dud of a deity a mulligan to try again to make the world perfect. Some say that God destroyed his first mistake in a worldwide flood, but then admit that imperfect humans have screwed it up again, requiring another “new world” after this one is destroyed by fire. Such myths are insulting to the intelligence of the World Maker.

Why not assume that whatever or whoever caused our awesome universe to pop out of a pinpoint of potential, was smart enough to get it right the first time? What if the world was not intended to be a Garden of Eden, but a laboratory for evolution? What if God planted a seed, and then watched to see what it would grow into? For example, if our world is an experiment in growing little godlings, then making mistakes is inherent in the process of maturation. With no leeway to go wrong, how could they learn what’s right?

At first, Adam & Eve were like instinctual animals, grazing contentedly without a care in the world. But as soon as they evolved into rational creatures, they became freewill agents, whose knowledge of Good & Evil forced them to make moral choices, and to live with the consequences. Karma would allow them to practice over many lifetimes, yet without a memory of what they did wrong in the past, there is no learning and no moral progress. Heaven would give weak willed humans an escape route to Paradise, but only if they renounce the rationality that made them human in the first place. Like dumb placid animals, they must unquestioningly follow the crowd into the darkness that may lead toward green pastures, or to the slaughterhouse.

There is no law of Karma. But there is a law of Thermodynamics, which allows freewill agents to use their intelligence, character & morality to choose a path through life that is neither too Hot nor too Cold, but in the moderate zone of Just Right. That natural law does not guarantee justice, but it allows peace of mind (2). Justice is how we treat each other, not how nature treats us.



1. Lotus Sutra :
“Upon all I ever look Everywhere impartially, Without distinction of persons, Or mind of love or hate. I have no predilections Nor any limitations; Ever to all beings I preach the Law equally; As I preach to one person, So I preach to all. Ever I proclaim the Law, Engaged in naught else; Going, coming, sitting, standing, Never am I weary of Pouring it copious on the world, Like the all-enriching rain. On honored and humble, high and low, Law-keepers and law-breakers, Those of perfect character, And those of imperfect, Orthodox and heterodox, Quick-witted and dull-witted, Equally I rain the Law-rain Unwearyingly.” "As rain falls equally on the just and unjust, do not burden your heart with judgments but rain your kindness equally upon all." - Fake Buddha Quotes
2. Ataraxia
Ataraxia - Wikipedia