Is our fate predetermined or do we truly have free will?

[hypnagogue]

Is it just me, or did the 'fate vs. free will' thread vanish? I know that approximately 7 hours ago I made my last post to that thread, and got a weird error saying that the page couldn't be displayed. After that, I got the same error when I tried entering any specific forum on PF. Now the forums are working fine for me, but I don't see the 'fate vs. free will' thread anywhere. What gives?

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

See this topic:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?threadid=5431

Lets please continue the discussion.

 

[Mentat]

Where did we leave off on that one? I remember having explained why it is illogical to mix free will and predestination (remember the "Time Machine"'s thief) as another member had attempted, and I remember that member's having acknowledged and raised some other questions, but I don't remember what they were...

 

[wuliheron]

Right, and I had argued that whether existence is fated or we have free will appears to be a matter of relative perspective. When studied scientifically existence appears deterministic and when viewed with the heart we like to believe we have free will. Neither perspective disproves fate or free will, and each has compelling evidence for support. Similar to the nature vrs nurture debates, the resolution seems to be to accept it can be seen as fate AND free will rather than fate vrs free will.

The issue then seems to be not so much fate vrs free will, but how useful it is in any given circumstances to adopt one view or the other. A hundred years ago people with Turretts syndrome were locked up as insane, while nowadays we know it is a physical disease and treatable with medications. Conversely, what used to be considered physical diseases are now known to have psychological causes. Thus it appears that which view we might adopt for any given situation is either based on our personal feelings or pragmatic reasoning. To sacrafice either point of view is to throw the baby out with the bathwater for the sake of consistency.

 

[Iacchus32]

To throw a little bit of God into the works which, you can substitute for "fate" if you will, here's what I posted on the Comparative-Religion thread, http://www.comparative-religion.com/forum/showthread.php?t=337 ...

The difference between Divine Will and Free Will is that Divine Will is none other than Divine Providence, which explains how the universe came about and man's relationship with it, which is nothing but common sense really.

As for Free Will, this would be akin to God speaking to man and saying, "Okay, you are free to do as you like but, you are also free to 'suffer' the consequences" -- i.e., for having acting out of accord with the Divine Will.

This would also account for our ability to learn and grow as well. For without freedom it would not be possible.

Also, on my last post I had mentioned "apathy," saying that this was all we could "hope" to cultivate through determinism. And yet, if apathy was all we had, how could we possibly differentiate between that and anything else? Which is to say, it's not possible.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Right, and I had argued that whether existence is fated or we have free will appears to be a matter of relative perspective. When studied scientifically existence appears deterministic and when viewed with the heart we like to believe we have free will. Neither perspective disproves fate or free will, and each has compelling evidence for support. Similar to the nature vrs nurture debates, the resolution seems to be to accept it can be seen as fate AND free will rather than fate vrs free will.

I agree with this, except for where you said that science points toward determinism. This is quite the opposite of the truth, since such theories as Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are completely opposed to a determined/set reality.

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Mentat
I agree with this, except for where you said that science points toward determinism. This is quite the opposite of the truth, since such theories as Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are completely opposed to a determined/set reality.

Relativity is not opposed to fatalism and determinism, but you are correct. I will modify my statement. Pragmatically speaking, science implies a deterministic existence in which we do not have free will. For all practical purposes, science implies we do not possesses free will.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Relativity is not opposed to fatalism and determinism, but you are correct. I will modify my statement. Pragmatically speaking, science implies a deterministic existence in which we do not have free will. For all practical purposes, science implies we do not possesses free will.

How so?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Relativity is not opposed to fatalism and determinism, but you are correct. I will modify my statement. Pragmatically speaking, science implies a deterministic existence in which we do not have free will. For all practical purposes, science implies we do not possesses free will.

And why would anybody wish to argue against the scientific materialistic view? Of course according to science we shouldn't even be endowed with such an ability as arguing.

Like I already said, we wouldn't be able to learn and grow without the "freedom" to learn from our mistakes.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Mentat
Where did we leave off on that one? I remember having explained why it is illogical to mix free will and predestination (remember the "Time Machine"'s thief) as another member had attempted, and I remember that member's having acknowledged and raised some other questions, but I don't remember what they were...

You might mean me, but I'm not sure. In any case, I'll restate my position:

The decisions you make are based on your character. Your character is the sum total of your experiences and heredity. With good knowledge of one's character, you can predict to a very high degree of accuracy what decisions they will make.

THIS IS NOT FATE

Fate means not having any decisions to make and is different from being able to predict how you will decide. You still have the choice and your choices DO affect your future.

For the religious, the struggle with freewill is often tougher, but its exactly the same: Being omniscient, God knows you so well he knows EXACTLY what decisions you will make in the course of your life. That does NOT mean he has made the decisions for you.

From the Matrix: "There is a difference between knowing the path and walking the path."

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by russ_watters
THIS IS NOT FATE

Having said that, I'm now going to go back on it slightly. "This" is what I would simply call prediction. But so many people call it fate that its almost to the point the definitions have merged. Anyway, with predictions, if you know someone, you can predict what they will do. Similarly, if you know yourself ("Know thyself" - anyone know where that's from?) you can figure out the decisions YOU will make or have made (backwards from knowing someone else - you make the decisions, then you figure them out). Oedipus and The Matrix provide both sides of this coin.

In Oedipus, Oedipus believes in fate, learns of his fate (his parents do), and attempts to change it, thereby triggering a series of events that causes him to fulfil his fate.

The Matrix provides the other side of the coin: Neo does NOT believe in fate, learns of his fate - but incorrectly, thereby triggering a series of events that causes him to fulfill his fate.

The message of both: YOU make your own fate. You have freewill. All you have to do is understand yourself. And "an Oracle cannot tell you who you are."

But what about the vase? Thats just humor. Literally, its Fate (personified) screwing with you. Fate isn't a person and it isn't an Oracle. So it can't really get inside your decision making process like that. But it can be funny to think about it hypothetically.

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
And why would anybody wish to argue against the scientific materialistic view? Of course according to science we shouldn't even be endowed with such an ability as arguing.

Like I already said, we wouldn't be able to learn and grow without the "freedom" to learn from our mistakes.

Is that how crystals do it? I've always wondered...

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by russ_watters

The Matrix provides the other side of the coin: Neo does NOT believe in fate, learns of his fate - but incorrectly, thereby triggering a series of events that causes him to fulfill his fate.

Neo learns of his supposid fate, does not believe in fate, and defies his supposid fate in every way. Supposidly if one dies in the matrix, one dies in reality but he defies this expectation as well. Thus his actions do not contradict the possible existence of fate, but merely the idea of fate. In addition, the oracle herself implies this is precisely the case, that she cannot tell him outright what his fate is because his nature is contentious.

Is it fate or free will? Does it matter either way? The movie never resolves the issue but allows the viewer to decide for themselves as all great art does.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Is it fate or free will? Does it matter either way? The movie never resolves the issue but allows the viewer to decide for themselves as all great art does.

The only problem with this is that people can become resigned to their fate, and then "choose" (hmm ...) not do anything about it (as apathy sets in), like when the doctor tells them they have cancer and they only have a few months to live. When, in all actually they may have had a choice in the matter.

So perhaps we should look at fate in terms of a by-product of free will. Or, at least behave as such, and then we can all feel we are "free to choose."

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Neo learns of his supposid fate, does not believe in fate, and defies his supposid fate in every way. Supposidly if one dies in the matrix, one dies in reality but he defies this expectation as well.

Actually, that's not what I was referring to: The Oracle told him he was not The One but he was (or at least he would be).

The movie never resolves the issue but allows the viewer to decide for themselves as all great art does.

It ain't over yet. I can't wait.

The only problem with this is that people can become resigned to their fate, and then "choose" (hmm ...) not do anything about it (as apathy sets in), like when the doctor tells them they have cancer and they only have a few months to live. When, in all actually they may have had a choice in the matter.

I believe this is the real message behind Oedipus and The Matrix. Live your life as if you have freewill - because you do.

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
The only problem with this is that people can become resigned to their fate, and then "choose" (hmm ...) not do anything about it (as apathy sets in), like when the doctor tells them they have cancer and they only have a few months to live. When, in all actually they may have had a choice in the matter.

So perhaps we should look at fate in terms of a by-product of free will. Or, at least behave as such, and then we can all feel we are "free to choose."

No, there are two sides to every coin. There are fatalists and free will bigots. Between the two extremes lies enlightenment, the real message behind the Matrix.

 

[Royce]

Life is all about choices and we reap the benefits of our good choices and suffer the results of our bad choices. Not choosing is of course a choice too. As Rus says the choices we make are influenced by by our past, personallity, character and genes.

If it is a deterministic universe governed by fate then we are not responsible for what happens or what we do or choose. Thus ther is no guilt or accountability. I don't believe this is true and even if it were neither society, civilization or ourselves would stand much of a chance.

I do tend to be fatalistic as in "our days are numbered" and when it is our time to go, we go wherever in combat or sleeping in bed. Until then we may walk away unharmed from horrible accidents or recover from fatal diseases.

Whatever is the truth of this, I have to agree with all of you that it is best to live our lives as if we have free will.

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Royce
Life is all about choices and we reap the benefits of our good choices and suffer the results of our bad choices. Not choosing is of course a choice too. As Rus says the choices we make are influenced by by our past, personallity, character and genes.

If it is a deterministic universe governed by fate then we are not responsible for what happens or what we do or choose. Thus ther is no guilt or accountability. I don't believe this is true and even if it were neither society, civilization or ourselves would stand much of a chance.

I do tend to be fatalistic as in "our days are numbered" and when it is our time to go, we go wherever in combat or sleeping in bed. Until then we may walk away unharmed from horrible accidents or recover from fatal diseases.

Whatever is the truth of this, I have to agree with all of you that it is best to live our lives as if we have free will.

I for one argue that it is not best to live our lives as if we have free will. Free will verses determinism is nothing less than a Faustian choice, a sucker's bet. The house always wins.

Rather than throw the dice or pretend they don't exist, best to just live in the moment. Ignorance is not the end of life, but what demonstrably makes it both possible and meaningful.

 

[Royce]

But, isn't that too a choice, to live in the moment? But, there are always choices and decisions to be made even in that moment.

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Royce
But, isn't that too a choice, to live in the moment? But, there are always choices and decisions to be made even in that moment.

If it is a choice, then we have no choice but to choose. Either way, whether free will or determinism, we are left to live with the reality of the situation. Obviously we do not have complete and unfetered freedom. By not assuming a biased position to begin with, we allow ourselves to move according to the needs of the situation. One minute we might assume we have free will, the next we might assume we don't, and the next that it doesn't matter. Each position has its distinctive advantages and disadvantages. The practical thing to do is just go with the flow.

 

[Royce]

Amen, my brother. Easy to say. not always so easy to do, especially when the flow is going where we don't want to go. Is it then fate?

I have noticed that so many decisions that I have made in my life have been in and at the moment seemingly innocent whims. They changed my life forever. As an example I was persuaded to go to a party that I didn't really want to go to but allowed myself to be persuaed to go because it was a Saturday night and I didn't have anything else to do. I met my wife there. I've always wondered what would have happened if I'd stayed home or gone somewhere else. Would I have met her somewhere else some other time or would that moment, that one opportunity be gone forever? My children would never have been nor my grandson. If I had had children with someone else they would have been completely different people. All termined by nothing more than a mental toss of a coin. A "AW, what the hell, why not, I've got nothing better to do."

The point, if there is one, is that the choices we do make with so little thought or information can be so life changing. Is it fate, free will or just the roll of the dice that determines the path our lives take? Seems to me we have no real choice but go with the flow and hope for the best or else we are salmon constantly frighting against the flow with nothing but the same destination that is in store for all of us.

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Royce
Amen, my brother. Easy to say. not always so easy to do, especially when the flow is going where we don't want to go. Is it then fate?

The point, if there is one, is that the choices we do make with so little thought or information can be so life changing. Is it fate, free will or just the roll of the dice that determines the path our lives take? Seems to me we have no real choice but go with the flow and hope for the best or else we are salmon constantly frighting against the flow with nothing but the same destination that is in store for all of us.

Life itself is a miracle, a gift apparently from out of the blue, where it might lead any of us in the next moment is anyone's guess. Because we are ignorant we may learn, and because we may learn we can appreciate it all the more. Thus both intellectually and emotionally, not making assumptions is the more rewarding path.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by russ_watters
You might mean me, but I'm not sure. In any case, I'll restate my position:

The decisions you make are based on your character. Your character is the sum total of your experiences and heredity. With good knowledge of one's character, you can predict to a very high degree of accuracy what decisions they will make.

THIS IS NOT FATE

Fate means not having any decisions to make and is different from being able to predict how you will decide. You still have the choice and your choices DO affect your future.

For the religious, the struggle with freewill is often tougher, but its exactly the same: Being omniscient, God knows you so well he knows EXACTLY what decisions you will make in the course of your life. That does NOT mean he has made the decisions for you.

From the Matrix: "There is a difference between knowing the path and walking the path."

You've stated it rather succinctly, and I completely agree (for the time being; I always retain the right to play devil's advocate ). I'm pretty sure that the poster that I was referring/responding to was Gale17, but I'm not positive, which is why I didn't name him/her in the first post.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Life itself is a miracle, a gift apparently from out of the blue, where it might lead any of us in the next moment is anyone's guess. Because we are ignorant we may learn, and because we may learn we can appreciate it all the more. Thus both intellectually and emotionally, not making assumptions is the more rewarding path.

Though this is an assumption in itself (that not making assumptions is the more rewarding path) I still think you make a good point. I would slightly reword it and say that we should make as little assumptions as possible, thus leaving open the possibility of taking this meta-assumption for granted, but yours has a more inspiring feel to it anyway .

 

[Iacchus32]

Okay, here's the deal ... You have the intellectual or thinking aspect (left side of brain), which in and of itself is highly deterministic, and so constitutes form. And you have the emotional or feeling aspect (right side of brain), which in and of itself is highly volitile, and so constitutes essence.

So, what does this mean? So long as we keep our emotions in context with our thoughts -- and so exhibit "self control" -- we are at "liberty" to have a life and, from the standpoint of "free will," enjoy it.

Once again, it's all about the "functionality" of the mind as a whole.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Okay, here's the deal ... You have the intellectual or thinking aspect (left side of brain), which in and of itself is highly deterministic, and so constitutes form. And you have the emotional or feeling aspect (right side of brain), which in and of itself is highly volitile, and so constitutes essence.

So, what does this mean? So long as we keep our emotions in context with our thoughts -- and so exhibit "self control" -- we are at "liberty" to have a life and, from the standpoint of "free will," enjoy it.

Once again, it's all about the "functionality" of the mind as a whole.

This works fine in a "free will" paradigm, but even emotion would be predetermined in a "predestination" paradigm.

 

[prizm]

I just joined the board today so please forgive me if my point is a repeat of one already made...I read most posts on this topic but not all...

I believe that predestinty and freewill do coexist.



There is one principle that comes to mind in arguing my support of the coexistence. It is the H. Uncertainty principle: "...the more you can define the position of a 'quantum' particle the less you can define its momentum and vice versa..."

But note that the reference here to defining the particle is an observer, NOT the particle. So the observer can only define the particle by an 'if' function. Example: If the particle has x momentum at this time we can only define an area of a probable position; or If the particle is at y position at this time, we can only define a range of its probable momentum.

Similarly we can say as the observer: IF I make x choice at this time we can only define at this time a probable future y result ; or IF I define at this time a future y result I could not at the same time determine the exact choice that would bring about y result in future.

One significant function here I believe is Time.

However, suppose the reference in the defining the particle is at 'the particle'. The particle could define its position and momentum simulateously. Similarly, in the analogy, if the choice and it's future result was being observed from a REFERENCE OF TIME then BOTH could be defined simultaneously also.

But I go further, if it were observed from the reference of time ALL CHOICES AND THERE CORRESPONDING RESULTS can be defined simultaneously and idependently. And so they coexist.

However man can only observe from present time where choices may be defined and results largley unknown, hence man is free to make choices but not define destiny.

This forms the basis (very simplified) of my argument in supporting that both choice and predestiny do coexist.

But not until man can observe existence from the reference of time that he will also be able to define his destiny... and so his destiny is predetermined and set since the beginning of time, but he sure chooses how he will get there.

the truth is still out there, somewhere!

 

[Mentat]

Welcome to the Physics Forums, prizm!

Originally posted by prizm
I just joined the board today so please forgive me if my point is a repeat of one already made...I read most posts on this topic but not all...

I believe that predestinty and freewill do coexist.



There is one principle that comes to mind in arguing my support of the coexistence. It is the H. Uncertainty principle: "...the more you can define the position of a 'quantum' particle the less you can define its momentum and vice versa..."

But note that the reference here to defining the particle is an observer, NOT the particle. So the observer can only define the particle by an 'if' function. Example: If the particle has x momentum at this time we can only define an area of a probable position; or If the particle is at y position at this time, we can only define a range of its probable momentum.

Similarly we can say as the observer: IF I make x choice at this time we can only define at this time a probable future y result ; or IF I define at this time a future y result I could not at the same time determine the exact choice that would bring about y result in future.

One significant function here I believe is Time.

However, suppose the reference in the defining the particle is at 'the particle'. The particle could define its position and momentum simulateously. Similarly, in the analogy, if the choice and it's future result was being observed from a REFERENCE OF TIME then BOTH could be defined simultaneously also.

But I go further, if it were observed from the reference of time ALL CHOICES AND THERE CORRESPONDING RESULTS can be defined simultaneously and idependently. And so they coexist.

However man can only observe from present time where choices may be defined and results largley unknown, hence man is free to make choices but not define destiny.

This forms the basis (very simplified) of my argument in supporting that both choice and predestiny do coexist.

But not until man can observe existence from the reference of time that he will also be able to define his destiny... and so his destiny is predetermined and set since the beginning of time, but he sure chooses how he will get there.

You speak of observing "from the reference of time". Could you expound on this, so that I can more clearly understand your meaning?

Also, I don't quite understand how you can apply the (well-written) point about the fact that the photon (were it conscious) could know both it's position and it's momentum, to the (more obscure) point of seeing "from the reference of time".

 

[prizm]

Thanks for the welcome

Just a little clarification.

The analogy I was trying to make between the two is this:

particle = time
momentum = choice
position = future result

Not because we cannot define the position of the particle if we have defined its momentum does not mean that the particle does not have a postion (because it exists). In the same way not because we cannot define (accurately/absolutely predict) the future result of a choice does not mean the future result does not exist at some time...because the future result must happen hence it exists at the moment of the choice is made...therefore choice exists and it is predetermined.

Note that choice is also the future result of a previous choice and it goes to way back infinity...hence future result has been determined (predetermined)

It is a very long argument but I think this is the simplest that I can put it at this time, but of course, that was already predetermined.

Suppose a long road was time. but every inch on this road was a deep corner. driving on the road you could not see very far infront of you so you can not determine what's around the corner. You could see signs etc... but you cannot prove for sure what's around there until you get there. But around the corner is there and it exists. Thats our current frame of reference.

but suppose you went in a plane and observed the road from above, then you can determine what is around every corner. Hence if the road was time, you would see what happens at every moment in time. Thats what I mean by observing from the refence of time...kinda anyway...

So if you choose freewillingly to stop the car and i was observing the road (time) from above i would have seen that your choice was also predetermined...

I hope I have not confused myself further

 

[C0mmie]

hi everyone, I'm back

Not because we cannot define the position of the particle if we have defined its momentum does not mean that the particle does not have a postion (because it exists).

prizm, specifically what Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle states is that an unobserved particle does not have a position. It only takes on a position when light is shined upon it, and the certainty of the position/speed depends on the frequency of light.

but suppose you went in a plane and observed the road from above, then you can determine what is around every corner. Hence if the road was time, you would see what happens at every moment in time. Thats what I mean by observing from the refence of time...kinda anyway...

Assuming you could look at the road from above and would see your own fate, you would then have the choice to change it. For example if you saw that you were going to get into a car accident and die the following day, you would choose not to go anywhere and stay at home. Thus life can't be predetermined.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by C0mmie
hi everyone, I'm back

A belated W[/color]E[/color]L[/color]C[/color]O[/color]M[/color]E[/color] (I hadn't gotten back to this thread in some time).

Assuming you could look at the road from above and would see your own fate, you would then have the choice to change it. For example if you saw that you were going to get into a car accident and die the following day, you would choose not to go anywhere and stay at home. Thus life can't be predetermined.

I beg to differ (since my position is that you cannot prove free will or predestination) since you could have been predestined to "look back", and believe that you are changing something.

 

[Royce]

There have been many SF stories of a person seeing that if he did something that he would die or someone else would; and, so he did something else which of course led to his or the other persons death anyway. The question was always raised that If the person hadn't known or hadn't changed his plans would he still have died.

Can we ever know one way or the other? If we could know would we want to? Knowing, would it change anything or could it change anything?

Referring back to Wu Li's posts and thoughts, I have found in my life that if somethng that I want to do or plan to do becomes very difficult or if I start having bad feelings about it; it is ussually wrong or "not meant to be." If I go ahead and force it to happen it turns out to be a mistake or not worth the effort and I end up paying for it somehow, paying the consequences of making a mistake. If things go easily and everything falls into place as if "it were meant to happen" then all is well and I reap the benefits or pleasures.

In short, to put it in a Zen way, if its hard your doing it wrong (or it is wrong to do it). If its easy then your doing it right (or it is right to do it). This goes along with going with the flow and limited "free" will. We have coices. If we make bad choices we pay the consequences. If we make good choices we reap the benitfits. If we are awake and in tune with our environment and reality then we usually will know or have feelings about whether a given choice is "right" or "wrong." Sometimes it doesn't matter either way.

Going with the flow means in this sense taking the easy, right, way, the path of least resistance.
That makes sense to me.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Royce
There have been many SF stories of a person seeing that if he did something that he would die or someone else would; and, so he did something else which of course led to his or the other persons death anyway. The question was always raised that If the person hadn't known or hadn't changed his plans would he still have died.

Can we ever know one way or the other? If we could know would we want to? Knowing, would it change anything or could it change anything?

The questions only arise in the "free will" paradigm. In the "predestination" paradigm they don't really make sense, since there is no such thing as "if".

Referring back to Wu Li's posts and thoughts, I have found in my life that if somethng that I want to do or plan to do becomes very difficult or if I start having bad feelings about it; it is ussually wrong or "not meant to be." If I go ahead and force it to happen it turns out to be a mistake or not worth the effort and I end up paying for it somehow, paying the consequences of making a mistake. If things go easily and everything falls into place as if "it were meant to happen" then all is well and I reap the benefits or pleasures.

In short, to put it in a Zen way, if its hard your doing it wrong (or it is wrong to do it). If its easy then your doing it right (or it is right to do it). This goes along with going with the flow and limited "free" will. We have coices. If we make bad choices we pay the consequences. If we make good choices we reap the benitfits. If we are awake and in tune with our environment and reality then we usually will know or have feelings about whether a given choice is "right" or "wrong." Sometimes it doesn't matter either way.

Interesting enough. However, this doesn't fit in the "predestination" paradigm. If your future is predetermined then there is no path of least resistance, there is only "the path". There are no other paths, and you cannot change the way you are doing things, unless you were predestined to do so.

It is rather unfortunate that we cannot prove or disprove either side.

Going with the flow means in this sense taking the easy, right, way, the path of least resistance.
That makes sense to me.

Well, sure, and that's a natural tendency. However, I would be careful of who I mention this philosophy to since it can be construed as an excuse for laziness.

 

[Royce]

Since when does Laziness need an excuse or justification? Did some one change the rules while I was napping? [zz)]

Actually, mentat, it is often harder to follow the path of least resistance than to go against the flow as paradoxical as that sounds.
We often want or think that we need something or to do something that is counter-flow or as often happens our pals are going counterflow and for us to do otherwise would be going against them. Believe it or not learning to know what the flow is, the path of least resistance, and to go with it takes a lot of self discipline and self awareness.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Royce
Since when does Laziness need an excuse or justification? Did some one change the rules while I was napping? [zz)]

Actually, mentat, it is often harder to follow the path of least resistance than to go against the flow as paradoxical as that sounds.
We often want or think that we need something or to do something that is counter-flow or as often happens our pals are going counterflow and for us to do otherwise would be going against them. Believe it or not learning to know what the flow is, the path of least resistance, and to go with it takes a lot of self discipline and self awareness.

I'm sorry, but the path of least resistance always has the least resistance. Sure, someone can mistake a path of greater resistance for the actual path of least resistance, but that is just an error on their part.

 

[Zantra]

Predeterminism and free will shall always be at odds. One will never overtake the other one, and here's why.

For each situation presentend as free will, or as being able to introduce a change, predeterminism says "I knew about that change and figured it into the equation, so I still knew the outcome"
For every predetermined path that is chosen, free choices can be introduced that would change the path.

It's a viscious never-ending cycle of permutations that cannot be resolved. It's like an infinite number of perfectly played tic tac toe games that results in an infinite stalemate. Mentat's right, this puzzle has no real solution.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Zantra
It's a viscious never-ending cycle of permutations that cannot be resolved.

Which is why I dropped out of the discussions. I made my point, I think you understood it and I think you understood mine. Not much left to say. Some philisophical discussions just come down to that - a difference in worldview.

 

[THANOS]

It's a viscious never-ending cycle of permutations that cannot be resolved.

It is possible to resolve this. But cannot be solved soon. The answer lies in the question if our universe is by chance or created.
If by chance then free will is most likely to be the effect. If our universe is created then fate is most likely to be in effect.
There is also the middle of both conclusions. That the beginning and the end is predetermined and free will exist in the middle for it doesn't matter how messy the middle is the end result will be the same. Like a squirt gun, the beginning being the water in the squirt gun and the end is the water that evaporates. So it doesn't matter who you shoot or where you shoot the ending is ultimately the same.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Zantra
Predeterminism and free will shall always be at odds. One will never overtake the other one, and here's why.

For each situation presentend as free will, or as being able to introduce a change, predeterminism says "I knew about that change and figured it into the equation, so I still knew the outcome"
For every predetermined path that is chosen, free choices can be introduced that would change the path.

It's a viscious never-ending cycle of permutations that cannot be resolved. It's like an infinite number of perfectly played tic tac toe games that results in an infinite stalemate. Mentat's right, this puzzle has no real solution.

Listen to my man Zantra here, he knows these things .

Seriously, this is what I've been saying for quite some time (way back when I was 'bout your age, Zantra, in the old PF2 ), and I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one who gets it.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by THANOS
It is possible to resolve this. But cannot be solved soon. The answer lies in the question if our universe is by chance or created.
If by chance then free will is most likely to be the effect. If our universe is created then fate is most likely to be in effect.
There is also the middle of both conclusions. That the beginning and the end is predetermined and free will exist in the middle for it doesn't matter how messy the middle is the end result will be the same. Like a squirt gun, the beginning being the water in the squirt gun and the end is the water that evaporates. So it doesn't matter who you shoot or where you shoot the ending is ultimately the same.

Actually, THANOS, the question of whether our Universe came about by chance or was predestined is merely another incarnation of the exact same question: is reality predestined or does "free will" exist? It is as impossible to determine whether the Universe came about by chance or was predestined as it is to determine that of any other occurance.

As to the "middle ground" that you propose, I disagree. If you read Zantra's previous posts, you see that every factor about what we may choose to do (in the free will paradigm of course) must be discernable in order to predict the outcome; thus, if the end is predestined, then everything in between must also occur a certain way.

 

[THANOS]

lets say that our beginning is only 2 things. Matter and Anti-matter now let's say its doesn't matter what this matter does. Because ultimately in the end the matter will end. It doesn't matter how long it takes to end for our universe has patience. Perhaps this way when the universe starts again it might not be a limbo. But then again this is one out of many possible infinite answers.
like the dirt that makes foundation it will ultimately go back into dirt.

of course this thread is about free will and fate so let's not go too deep in space.

 

[MpJ!3Fr33]

Science only explains the behavior of the universe in which we live in, and attempts of deciphering human actions via mathematics have all failed.
There might be a simple way to see ourselves as predestined. For example if I drop a ball on the floor, there was a 100% chance of me dropping it because I did.

 

[Nicholas I. Hosein]

The following is an argument for partial determinism:

There is a marked difference between absolute freedom and a sense of freedom in the perceptual processing of reality in human beings. The existence of absolute freedom as opposed to the mere concept of freedom is as abstract as perfection in its ideal form. Perfection is the condition whose symmetry cannot be broken and which exists at the end of an infinite number of operations (e.g. PI at its infinith decimal place represents a perfect circle). Absolute freedom can only exist in the absence of choice because choice... can only exist within a system of constraint. That is because human beings make choices based on the interest of self or others for the most part. The act of making a decision is analogous to solving a problem and problems are solved by algorithms. Human beings run their list of choices through some mental construct that functions as an algorithmic basis for determination. The consequent freedom in the outcome of choice is based solely on maximizing utility or best interest. However, there exists an alternate standard measure by which to determine a choice based on two other properties - right and wrong which themselves, are the products of a more universal algorithm that is totally independent of oneself yet, exists within oneself. This algorithm implies a far higher level of complexity and hence intelligence.

The "BEST" choice is supposed to be the one that allows escape from a given system of constraints and hence, freedom. But, the choice itself is based on some kind of interest be it self or other. To give rise to absolute freedom an infinite number of operations need be taken. Whereas, on a finite or limited mental algorithm the outcome is but a sense of freedom. Since perfection is the condition of absolute freedom that would mean that absolute freedom from constraint can only exist at the end of an infinitely complex algorithmic proceedure. Thus, freedom is abstract and independent of the physical self. However, when one's choices are run through the universal algorithm a consequent solution it measured upon the inner conscience of oneself and worldly interests may be placed aside or not depending on whether one chooses right or wrong.

 

[Tigron-X]

We are affected by fate, and we have free will.

Fate is simply the consequences we experience for the choices we make. We have the free will to decide how we will deal with the consequences that we are confronted with, and that will be our fate becuase we cannot control the consequences of our choices and the rules that apply to choices. The only way we are able to choose our fate is if we know the rules that will be applied in a given situation and the consequences of the choices we derive through our own imagination or predesposed beliefs that is better defined as instinct.

 

[Yank]

Look back on anything you've ever done when you felt you could have done something differently in the exact same situation. That would imply that two identical situations could have different outcomes, which would imply that the universe isn't deterministic. The only alternative to determinism is randomness. You still wouldn't have free will then, because in a random universe nothing could control anything (if true randomness can even exist, which I doubt).

 

[Tigron-X]

No, the universe is still deterministic. Recognize that you're an acting force in a situation and you'll see what I mean. If you do something differently than before, then you changed the situation from the way it was when you made your initial decision. Thus, you have a different outcome. Your decisions aren't determined by the universe, and that's what free will is all about. You have the ability to determine your experiences by chosing from a predetermined set of consequences that you may or may not see in a given situation at a given time. And even then, you still have the ability to decide how you will deal with the outcome of your decision(s) as life goes on with or without you.

It's similar to this. In the game of poker, you can't choose the cards you're dealt, but you can choose the way you'll play those cards, and that will determine whether you'll win or lose. Again, your CHOICES are the determining factor, NOT YOU even though the choice was made by you.

There's a fine line between God and Man, and we can walk it any way we choose.

 

[tluong13]

Sorry to tell you that we have no free will at all about our fate!

By some way and some how our life was programed (likes a very complex computer program) when we was born.

And there is two parts of our mind: Concious part and unconscious part, and that un- conscious part (sixth scence) is the program, it controls every of your thoughts, your actions, your reactions, your words..., it knows everything that will be happened in our life time, and it controls every steps of our life to make sure these thing will happen as it was programed, it is our destiny.

That explains a lot of things that we observed in the course of our life, why some body do this, why another boby do that so they escaped the death or walk in the death by themseves etc...

It looks like we have the free will but actually that free will is the product of our un-conscious part, the one we call our fate, our destiny.

So we just enjoy our life, it does not matter what our life turn out, just enjoy it as long as we still alive and thanks God for all the things He made for us, a human being.