If I write a program that scans for counter example of Fermat-theorem it will run until physics is kind to my machine.
The non-halting property of this setup is caused by the physical arrangements/movements of particles and the laws of nature. Fermat-theorem is an abstraction having no real causal power.
I would say, that for us the proof of Fermat-theorem is the right abstraction level to explain the general behavior of the machine: The machine does not halt because Fermat theorem is true
Similarly "punishment causes less crime" may be the right level of abstraction if the correlation is there, even if it can't be reduced to physical terms. And "Responsibility for action due to free will" may be worse abstraction if agent causation[1] is impossible (I am not saying it is)
So even if increasing/decreasing punishments is determined by low level laws of nature, we still can use the higher level explanation if it suits us better.
>Similarly "punishment causes less crime" may be the right level of abstraction if the correlation is there, even if it can't be reduced to physical terms.
If it can't be reduced to physical terms (and there's no free will) it doesn't matter if its the "right level of abstraction" or not.
We have no other alternative but to think of it at whether level of abstraction we're determined to think of it. We don't have a say in the matter for our thoughts on it to matter at all.
(In fact both our thoughts of it and this comment and your responses will also be pre-determined).
>So the future increasing/decreasing in punishment is depend on elementary particles, also the effect of those, but we still can use the higher level explanation if it suit us better.
This presupposes some "us" that can or cannot use the this or that explanation at will. Which is exactly what we assumed doesn't exist.
If free will doesn't exist, then we don't have any say on whether we "use the higher level explanation if it suit us better". We use it or we don't use it as was predetermined by the causal chain of the universe -- not because it "suits" us.
Ok. I see your point. So I just hope (not actively as a free agent - of course this was determined too) that we are determined to use logically more consistent explanations for our behavior than classical libertarian free will. ;)
The non-halting property of this setup is caused by the physical arrangements/movements of particles and the laws of nature. Fermat-theorem is an abstraction having no real causal power.
I would say, that for us the proof of Fermat-theorem is the right abstraction level to explain the general behavior of the machine: The machine does not halt because Fermat theorem is true
Similarly "punishment causes less crime" may be the right level of abstraction if the correlation is there, even if it can't be reduced to physical terms. And "Responsibility for action due to free will" may be worse abstraction if agent causation[1] is impossible (I am not saying it is)
So even if increasing/decreasing punishments is determined by low level laws of nature, we still can use the higher level explanation if it suits us better.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_causation