Hard Determinism and the Falian’s Causal Seed Model
Do you believe that everything is predetermined?
If the endpoint is inevitable, does that really mean the process contains no choice?
In recent years, Hard Determinism has resurfaced in both technological and philosophical discourse. Its position often sounds calm, rational, and even carries a certain air of “having seen through everything.”
From the moment of the Big Bang, all states of the universe were fixed.
If one possessed complete knowledge of the universe at any given moment, together with the laws of nature, the future could unfold in only one possible way.
From this, the conclusion is drawn: human beings possess no genuine free will.
I do not deny the internal coherence of this theory when it comes to describing causal chains in the universe.
What I do not accept is the conclusion it draws about human action.
The issue is not whether causality exists.
The issue is whether we are conflating levels that should not be collapsed into one another.
I. Final Inevitability Does Not Mean the Absence of Choice in the Process
We can begin by acknowledging a simple truth:
in the phenomenal world, final inevitability does exist.
Human beings age, fall ill, and die.
All things undergo formation, stability, decay, and dissolution.
Planets, civilizations, and cosmic structures eventually collapse.
These facts are visible and require no denial.
But the question is this:
does the inevitability of an endpoint imply that the process itself contains no choice?
The statement “everyone will die” does not logically entail “how one lives makes no difference.”
The absence of immunity from death does not imply the absence of agency.
The most common mistake of hard determinism occurs precisely here:
it takes the inevitability of the final outcome and directly infers the meaninglessness of action in the present.
This inference is not dictated by physical law.
It is the result of a philosophical shift in levels.
II. The Definitional Trap of Hard Determinism
Hard determinism typically denies free will by adopting a very specific definition of it:
Free will must mean that, under exactly identical conditions, one could have chosen otherwise.
In a strictly causal universe, such freedom indeed does not exist.
But this definition quietly equates freedom with the violation of causal law and then concludes that because such violation is impossible, freedom does not exist.
The problem here is not the formal logic.
The problem is that this definition bears little resemblance to how human beings actually operate.
Human action never occurs in an identical universe-state.
It occurs in time, under conditions that are irreversible and continuously unfolding.
III. How Human Freedom Actually Operates: The 0/1 Branch
Human freedom is not a cosmic ability to step outside causality.
It operates at a much more concrete level: decision points within time.
Do or do not.
Speak or remain silent.
Endure or erupt.
Stay or leave.
In a moment of conflict, one may restrain oneself (0) or explode (1).
This is not a metaphysical fantasy—it is an everyday reality.
The same is true in countless mundane situations:
Which restaurant to enter.
What to order.
Whether to take another sip of water.
Whether to return a cutting remark.
These choices may not alter the fate of the universe,
but they undeniably alter the trajectory of a human life.
IV. The Falian’s Causal Seed Model: Re-centering the Timeline
To avoid discussing destiny solely from the perspective of outcomes,
I use a process-based framework to describe causality:
Choice → Karma → Cause → Karmic System (good-karma dimension / bad-karma dimension / causality dimension / collective-karma dimension) → Destiny → Result
These are not six independent systems.
They are six positions through which a single seed unfolds in time.
Many fatalistic interpretations focus only on the latter half: destiny → result
and mistakenly conclude that everything was fixed from the very beginning.
In fact, destiny is not the starting point.
It is the later-stage manifestation of accumulated choices.
V. Why Change Feels So Difficult
When someone feels that:
- “No matter what I choose, it makes little difference,”
- “Everything seems locked in,”
- “There is no way back from here,”
this is usually not because they never had freedom.
It is because past choices have accumulated into powerful inertia, and the available path has begun to narrow.
What feels inevitable in the present is often the visible unfolding of earlier decisions.
Yet the appearance of consequences does not eliminate choice.
Every result becomes the starting point of the next decision.
VI. Why Hard Determinism Lacks Practical Explanatory Power
Hard determinism has a critical weakness: it can label any outcome as “inevitable.”
If you succeed, it was inevitable.
If you fail, it was inevitable.
If you repent, that too was inevitable.
Such explanations are always correct after the fact but they add no new understanding to life.
They cannot explain why, under similar circumstances, some individuals change direction while others collapse.
Nor do they leave any meaningful entry point for cultivation, education, reflection, or responsibility.
My concern is not how outcomes are named afterward, but whether a framework genuinely preserves an entry point for transformation and accountability.
VII. Even If Predictable, Choice Remains an Intervention Point
One might object:
even these 0/1 branches could be predicted by neural states in advance.
Others may argue that accepting determinism brings peace and thus has value.
I do not deny that acceptance can produce psychological calm.
But this does not justify the conclusion that no choice exists within the process.
My position is simple:
even if a particular decision is biologically predictable, that decision still produces observable consequences and reshapes the conditions of subsequent possibilities.
The issue is not whether humans possess an absolute freedom that violates causality.
The issue is whether we acknowledge that human beings possess intervention points within time.
Choices function as nodes.
They generate traceable differences in life trajectories.
This is the core the Falian’s Causal Seed Model preserves:
freedom is not immunity from consequence; it is the entry point of responsibility.
Even if determinism brings peace, peace alone does not constitute explanatory power.
Explanatory power depends on whether a framework offers actionable distinctions and genuine points of intervention.
In my usage, the “karmic system” includes both observable consequences habits, relationships, resources and deeper causal structures.
Even if one accepts only the former, the model remains fully operational.
Conclusion: Freedom Is Not Immunity, but the Beginning of Responsibility
I do not deny the inevitabilities of the phenomenal world: birth, aging, illness, death; formation and dissolution; path convergence.
What I reject is the move that treats these inevitabilities as proof that the subject does not exist
or that destiny is the starting point.
The core of the Falian’s Causal Seed Model can be stated in a single sentence:
Freedom determines how you choose.
Causality determines how you bear the consequences.
You are not the master of the universe.
But you are always the one who plants the next seed.
If you disagree, point to the exact step where you think I’m mixing levels or making an invalid inference.