Fate

But you're arguing ideals. Not all (not even most) thieves are smart, and not every victim is fearful. I agree that attitude has a lot to do with it, but it's not the only factor by far.

I think in a way there is a fate and in a way there is freewill. We will make free choices but what we will choose we WILL choose. There will only be one future. The future is predetermined. Not by God but by us. So, in a way the future is carved in stone but we are the ones carving it.

Indeed, one could say that existence itself is the process of predetermination.

Quote :

I think in a way there is a fate and in a way there is freewill. We will make free choices but what we will choose we WILL choose.
There will only be one future. The future is predetermined.
Not by God but by us. So, in a way the future is carved in stone but we are the ones carving it.

Basically you are saying that we have free will, but the choice we make is precipitated, or should we say predicated, by all that has happened to us, and, thus, is predetermined.

But I say that our free will is merely affected but not inextricably bound by all that has happened to us.

Look at it this way. Lets pretend we can freeze the universe at this very instant. The timeline going backwards is singular. That is, it is set in stone, immutable, unchangeable.

If what you guys are saying is, indeed, true, than the the timeline going forward, from this instant, is also set in stone, immutable and unchangeable, caused by all that has happened.

But I think something different, that, at the the very instant of this moment, that while the past is set in stone, immutable and unchangeable, the forward timeline contains ... choice.

Interestingly, I think one great cause of confusion is that if you look at the timeline only backwards, then what you say is entirely correct. That each moment logically follows the last.

And going forward it also, adheres to what you're saying, until, that is, you get to the very instant, that we've agreed to freeze. At that very moment. At this very moment. The singularity is lost. There IS a choice of multiple futures.

Helium wrote:

And going forward it also, adheres to what you're saying, until, that is, you get to the very instant, that we've agreed to freeze. At that very moment. At this very moment. The singularity is lost. There IS a choice of multiple futures.

I agree and I think the reason for this is the unique makeup of our brains. There is no doubt that our choices are narrowed due to existential conditions and past conditioning but the self referential nature of our brains allows for some fuzziness in the chain of determinism that does allow us "free" choice (even if that choice is limited to very few things).

Well, current multiverse theory stipulates that all possible universes exist. Therefore this universe, the one we are experiencing, is but one of a infinite possible outcomes.

However, it also follows then that this universe - the one we are experiencing is predetermined to be only one of those possible outcomes. Therefore, even our choices in this universe are predetermined.

Uriah wrote:

Well, current multiverse theory stipulates that all possible universes exist. Therefore this universe, the one we are experiencing, is but one of a infinite possible outcomes.

However, it also follows then that this universe - the one we are experiencing is predetermined to be only one of those possible outcomes. Therefore, even our choices in this universe are predetermined.

And I must add: All of what you say can ONLY be true if you choose to believe in multiverse theory!

Quote :

Well, current multiverse theory stipulates that all possible universes exist. Therefore this universe, the one we are experiencing, is but one of a infinite possible outcomes.

However, it also follows then that this universe - the one we are experiencing is predetermined to be only one of those possible outcomes. Therefore, even our choices in this universe are predetermined.

Basically what Uriah is saying is that every possible variation becomes its own universe.
But is he suggesting that that absolves of guilt for our choices because it has become a universe?
Maybe by our positive choices, then, we can create more of a ratio of more positive universes.
Think positive folks.
You maybe, then, creating positive universes!!!

Addendum (is that right spelling)
Also we've had interesting discussions prior to this on this subject.
And Uriah's example also fits into the idea that predestination can occur, I suppose, if God in his/her/its mind knows all possible possibilities.

This kind of predermination I don't mind, particularly from a moral point of view, in that responsibility for our actions still rest entirely within ourselves, notwithstanding that all outcomes could be known to God.
And of course in a deistic view, God would not intervene to influence the outcome. He/she/it has set up the system, so to speak.

Paul Anthony wrote:

Uriah wrote:

Well, current multiverse theory stipulates that all possible universes exist. Therefore this universe, the one we are experiencing, is but one of a infinite possible outcomes.

However, it also follows then that this universe - the one we are experiencing is predetermined to be only one of those possible outcomes. Therefore, even our choices in this universe are predetermined.

And I must add: All of what you say can ONLY be true if you choose to believe in multiverse theory!

Well, look at it this way: Believing in this theory is an either/or, yes/no, proposition - therefore the law of probability dictates there are just as many universes where did choose to believe in it, as where you did not.

Helium wrote:

But I think something different, that, at the the very instant of this moment, that while the past is set in stone, immutable and unchangeable, the forward timeline contains ... choice.

Interestingly, I think one great cause of confusion is that if you look at the timeline only backwards, then what you say is entirely correct. That each moment logically follows the last.

And going forward it also, adheres to what you're saying, until, that is, you get to the very instant, that we've agreed to freeze. At that very moment. At this very moment. The singularity is lost. There IS a choice of multiple futures.

In my attempts to make sense of the freewill/determinism paradox, I have proceeded on the basis that both are true, depending on your relative point-of-view. I have found that most paradoxes can be resolved by a change of perspective. Apparent paradoxes usually arise when things in different logical, or hierarchical, categories are viewed as if they belong in the same category.

If this universe was created as a temporary project with a finite beginning and end, then the totality of the project was, without question, pre-determined. But if the evolutionary process of the project was designed to be propelled by the combustible mixture of rigid laws and dynamic randomness, then an element of un-predictability is unavoidable, and presumably intentional. Viewed from the outside by a perfectly objective Observer, the destiny of the universe may be an unopposed slam-dunk. Yet from a viewpoint on the inside of the unfolding universe, the ultimate end may not be so obvious.

Modern Science was founded on the assumption that the physical universe is lawful, predictable, and deterministic. But if that were so, the progress of Science would be unimpeded by such obstacles-to-understanding as the fog of open-ended complexity. So it seems that we must accept as a fact of life that the uni-verse is actually a dual-verse : both orderly & disorderly, both predictable & unpredictable, both determined & free.

Hence I must agree with the quote above. As the scroll of evolution unrolls, the mysterious Future becomes the real Present, and then fades into the vaults of Past experiences. One way to envision that process is to think of the Future as an eternal multiverse of unlimited potential. In the fluid future, anything is possible. But once the unbounded Future has been experienced (chosen) by a conscious human mind, possibility instantly freezes into Present actuality, and is recorded in memory as Past history. In the process, zillions of un-experienced alternative universes vanish into the never-never-land of unrealized potential.

In this hypothetical scenario, it seems that each human mind experiences (chooses) its own, private universe. And the only way I can see to avoid the well-known paradox of Solipsism, is to expand our narrowly-focused perspective to a broader and higher, logical, categorical circle. From an omniscient perch on high, we can see that it's the Universal Mind, plugged-into all particular Earth-minds, that experiences the totality of what we call the absolute, all-encompassing, Omniverse---Past, Present, and Future.

Helium wrote:

Quote :

I think in a way there is a fate and in a way there is freewill. We will make free choices but what we will choose we WILL choose.
There will only be one future. The future is predetermined.
Not by God but by us. So, in a way the future is carved in stone but we are the ones carving it.

Basically you are saying that we have free will, but the choice we make is precipitated, or should we say predicated, by all that has happened to us, and, thus, is predetermined.

But I say that our free will is merely affected but not inextricably bound by all that has happened to us.

Look at it this way. Lets pretend we can freeze the universe at this very instant. The timeline going backwards is singular. That is, it is set in stone, immutable, unchangeable.

If what you guys are saying is, indeed, true, than the the timeline going forward, from this instant, is also set in stone, immutable and unchangeable, caused by all that has happened.

But I think something different, that, at the the very instant of this moment, that while the past is set in stone, immutable and unchangeable, the forward timeline contains ... choice.

Interestingly, I think one great cause of confusion is that if you look at the timeline only backwards, then what you say is entirely correct. That each moment logically follows the last.

And going forward it also, adheres to what you're saying, until, that is, you get to the very instant, that we've agreed to freeze. At that very moment. At this very moment. The singularity is lost. There IS a choice of multiple futures.

I'm not exactly saying that. If the people in the past had freewill but the past is "set in stone" then why can't it be the same with us? We are the future's past. The people in the past can't change their future and we can't change ours. We can learn from our pasts to better our future but we can't learn from the future to change it. We will make our choices and may regret them but once we learn where we went wrong we can't change it. It becomes set in stone.

To put it another way. If time somehow reversed back to the beginning of your life you would still make the same choices because you will have the exact same knowledge, environment, and desires. Nothing would change to effect your choices. You have freewill but you only have one future that will be set in stone and since it will be set in stone you might as well already say it is set in stone.

I'm not saying that you have only one possible future and one possible set of choices. I'm saying that because of freewill you have an infinite amount of possible futures and an infinite amount of possible sets of choices but you will only have one future and one set of choices. There are many things you could choose to do tomorrow but there is only one set of choices you will make.

Quote :

I'm not saying that you have only one possible future and one possible set of choices. I'm saying that because of freewill you have an infinite amount of possible futures and an infinite amount of possible sets of choices but you will only have one future and one set of choices. There are many things you could choose to do tomorrow but there is only one set of choices you will make.

This is one reason we need the God concept: to provide a single, ultimate, objective observer who is not blinded by ignorance or confused by paradoxes. From the subjective, human point of view, the infinite possibilities of the future are viewed through myopic eyes. Hence we can only see a few blurry options at a time. Yet, from the divine perspective, the opportunities are endless. If we were gods, we could choose from a plethora of possibilities. But, in reality, our choices are meager. In fact, as I see it, our practical choices are essentially limited to an occasional veto over the options pre-selected for us by Fate.

Well I think Schtizo we actually agree on quite a lot: that the past is unalterable; that the future will eventually become the past and therefore unalterable; and that we only can have one future (although I understand in the quantam world you can sometimes have your cake and eat it too).

So actually the only point in contention is the very instant that is the present.

Now Gnomon, for instance, has said that with all the baggage we carry around, the society we born in, the family we were born in, even the hard drives of our species so to speak, etc., that our "free will" at the very moment of the present is very limited, and it's definitely an arguable case.

But the potential for free will is there, I believe. We have the capability somewhat to emancipate ourselves from circumstances.

It is that capacity which makes us responsible for our actions.

I don't understand what we are disagreeing with about the present because I do think we have freewill and are responsible for our actions but I also think we have a fate. We just haven't chosen it yet. To put it another way, if we didn't have freewill God would predetermine our future. Since we do have freewill it is us who predetermines our future. Both ways the future is predetermined. Either God chooses our future or we do. The free choices we make today predetermine what consequences we will have tomorrow.

Quote :

I don't understand what we are disagreeing with about the present because I do think we have freewill and are responsible for our actions ...

It would appear we are on the same page, I guess, our disagreement was just in semantics - words, how we defined them, the metaphors we used. Because if you believe the above then we're completely on the same page.

No worries, I find these deep conversations about love and free will and god, etc. to eventually need clarifications, precise definitions and metaphors meticulously explained.
Guess Socrates made a whole career on asking just such questions.
Cheers!

Here are some comments from the Freethought Forum on the topic of Calvinist Predestination. It gave me the opportunity to explore further some of the questions and concepts raised in this thread on Fate :

Quote :

However, beyond those confines isn't EVERYTHING a matter of choice and free will? (I realize I'm opening a lovely door for you to talk about memes... You're welcome! )

Thanks for opening Pandora's box again. ;-)
Here's an excerpt from a previous dialogue on the topic of Freewill versus Determinism. Memetic beliefs and illusions are implicit in all discussions of subjective freedom versus objective determinism. But that might be too off-topic for this thread. Believe it or not, I also have a freewill essay that gets into "in-puts", and "out-puts", but that could be misinterpreted as dirty-old-man stuff, and cause this thread to lose its PG rating.

<< From my personal subjective point-of-view, of course my decisions are freely made. But from an objective, scientific perspective, my decisions are merely links in a long chain of cause and effect.

It would be absurd to deny that effects reliably follow causes; but as I mentioned above, the relation between a force and its resultant is statistical, not absolute (99.99%, not 100%). Hence, I conclude that self-conscious humans are like professional gamblers, who take advantage of the slight uncertainty in the laws of Chance to turn the odds in their own favor.

By virtue of our ability to foresee consequences, we are able to choose one statistically-possible future over another. In effect, we have become tiny nodes of "cause" (i.e. control) in the cosmic cybernetic system of information flow. That conclusion is not based on Faith, but on my emerging understanding of how the objective world works. In another post I may get into the way that "quantum superposition" may be involved in our freedom from predestination. >>


Here's a old essay on the same contentious topic, but from a slightly different perspective.
http://home.mindspring.com/~johne84570/Spontandeity.pdf

Quote :

Is there another name for a paradox when it goes beyond being merely confusing, and gets into the area of flat-out ridiculous? evil

Yes. Contradiction. ;-)

Quote :

This would indicate to me that there is no such thing as "chance".

Ironically, until recently, the Scientific definition of Determinism would leave no room for Chance. Every event after the Big Bang was absolutely predetermined by the initial conditions of the original Singularity (First Cause). Effect inevitably followed Cause with no gaps for serendipity.

But the 21st century sciences of Chaos and Complexity Theory have discovered that ultimate effects are not always precisely predestined by initial conditions. By that I mean, even though every step of the system is guided by rigid deterministic laws, the outcome (or "put-out" if you prefer) is inherently unpredictable, even with the most advanced computers. It seems that one of Nature's laws is the Fuzzy Logic of Probability. A single event is destined to turn-out with a single result. But the collective outcome of a multitude of events will fall somewhere in the range depicted by the Normal Distribution Curve of Las Vegas oddsmakers. That's why I believe there is a small degree of Freedom within Determinism.

That blurry space between Cause and Effect is where I see a small gap for Chance, and Choice, and FreeWill. Scientists don't like the imperfection and imprecision of Fuzzy Probability messing up their calculations, but they are learning to deal with it. Gamblers, of course, have always loved it. :p



Wiki:
In mathematics, chaos theory describes the behaviour of certain dynamical systems – that is, systems whose states evolve with time – that may exhibit dynamics that are highly sensitive to initial conditions (popularly referred to as the butterfly effect). As a result of this sensitivity, which manifests itself as an exponential growth of perturbations in the initial conditions, the behavior of chaotic systems appears to be random. This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future dynamics are fully defined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved.
PS---the randomizing element is not an add-on, it's built into the system of mathematics as what we call Probability, of which the inverse is The Law of Large Numbers .

Quote :

If I take the phrase "absolute determinism" literally, it just doesn't sound right to me at all!!!! The notion that each and every action of everyone and everything was laid out in stone from the moment of the Big Bang just simply does not compute for me!

One reason "absolute determinism" doesn't compute with you is that you are familiar with the concept of Contingency. The examples you gave illustrate that, for a given system, external contingencies interrupt and complicate the direct Cause & Effect chain from Initial Conditions to Final State.

But when we are talking about divine Predestination, the system in question is the whole universe. So the Contingencies are just as much a part of the System as the chain or web of Cause & Effect. Christians believe that God can reach into the orderly system, and change the inevitable with miraculous contingencies. That way God can make adjustments to a malfunctioning world system. Animists attributed all contingencies to mischievous natural spirits, disrupting the orderly unfolding of events just for the h*ll of it.

But I believe that Contingencies are merely the accidental crash of one Cause & Effect chain into another. Randomizing Chance is an essential and integral force in the evolution of the universe. Without those accidental complications (i.e. random mutations) nothing new would ever arise. And the Big Bang would be nothing more than a cosmic explosion, destroying any order in the original Singularity. In other words, Destruction rather than Creation.

Instead, like a divine thermostat, the automatic adjustments were built-into the system from the beginning---not an afterthought. Contingency is necessary for Creativity.

Quote :

Whether or not one attaches a religious slant to it or not, I do believe in "Kharma". Yes, tragedies and good fortune do occur that seem beyond our control... That's what I call "fate". But under normal conditions I think what we put out is often what returns to us.

The Hindu concept of Karma only makes sense to me in the context of Reincarnation. The lower caste Hindus were poignantly aware that this life is not fair. We don't always get what we deserve. Good deeds are sometimes rewarded with evil consequences, and vice-versa. So the justification for all the injustice in this life is that it will even-out in future lives.

Unfortunately, if you don't believe in reincarnation, then Karma is more of a wishful-thinking vision of how-it-ought-to-be. Mother Nature is fair in the sense of impartial and dispassionate, not in the sense of rewarding good out-put with good in-put. As the Bible says, "the rain falls on the just and the unjust".

On the other hand, social justice is an idealistic, un-natural concept. So, as you indicated, we must act as-if the social system is fair and balanced. Our moral systems are based on the ideal of social justice, where we all practice the Golden Rule. But our legal systems are based on a reality where Karmic justice is enforced by the Police, rather than by Nature.

Under "normal" conditions we "cast our bread upon the waters", and if we are lucky, a few crumbs will return to us---not because of our faith in God, but because of our faith in the artificial, social systems that humans have designed to make-up for the deficiencies of Human Nature. Instead of seeking personal retribution for wrongs, we tolerantly wait for the system to do its work of balancing the scales of Justice.

Aaron wrote:

What do you think about fate? Does it exist? How does it relate to the concept of "free-will"?

I have recently come to believe that Chance may be the natural force that permits FreeWill to emerge from the predestined forces of Fate. Here's a new entry in my Glossary of Technical Terms from the Intelligent Evolution essay:

Chance
Chance is the cause of Change. No chance, no change. But it is an unreliable agent of change, subject to serendipity and whimsy. However its anomalous effects emerge from a little-known natural law called Fuzzy Logic, which is locally unpredictable, but still ultimately deterministic. In the logic of Mathematics it goes by the name of Statistics or Probability. ~ Chance is a randomizing, maverick "force" in Evolution opposing the orderly, but rigid, cause & effect laws of Determinism. In ancient cultures it was often personified as a trickster god or demon, who disrupted orderly processes just for the fun of it. Sometimes it was thought to even change the course of Fate or the Will of God. ~ But in the Intelligent Evolution theory, Chance is a necessary component of a progressive evolutionary process. Pure Determinism leaves no opportunity for change or novelty. For the purposes of IE, Chance might be defined as deliberately adulterated Determinism, which opens the door to unplanned possibilities and fortuitous contingencies. Hence, random Chance is not necessarily a sign of poor planning, but instead a sign of a cleverly designed, automatic creative process. It allows for an element of freedom within determinism. ~ See Fuzzy Logic. ~See FreeWill. ~ See Contingency. ~ See Clinamen.

What do you think? Am I off-base here?

For those not familiar with the obscure term "Clinamen", here's a related entry in the glossary of IE.


Clinamen
According to Roman poet/philosopher Lucretius, it's a cosmological principle of creation, denoted as a random "swerve" from a predestined original course. ~ In IE the term is used to refer to a slight eccentricity or asymmetry in initial conditions that resulted in all subsequent novelties as the creative process unfolded along a slightly erratic path. What originally happened seemingly by Chance (the swerve) is the source of unpredictable random Changes within an otherwise orderly and reliable process of increasing organization. ~ But in IE the Clinamen was a deliberate divine design decision: a Choice to allow Chance and Change, in order to permit a bit of freedom within a process governed by Natural Laws. Hence, Chance is not a corruption of the Will of God, but a necessary imperfection in the design of a temporal world that introduces the possibility of Change over time (Evolution), as opposed to the unchanging perfection of timeless Eternity. ~ See Chance. ~See Butterfly Effect. ~See Chaos Theory.


As I mentioned before, I think of Chance as an accidental collision between two different lineages of deterministic Cause and Effect. The result of that crash is novelty and creativity, and an opportunity for a human will to assert its freedom as an unpredictable agent of causation.

I'm not really sure how to put this but, what about the idea of tapping into the infinite within finite boundaries.

How does determinism deal with infinity?

Aaron wrote:

I'm not really sure how to put this but, what about the idea of tapping into the infinite within finite boundaries.

How does determinism deal with infinity?

In what sense?

Because as I see it, "infinite" is just an abstraction. Anything that it is greater than human perception can be called infinite, but there is no thing, no state, no essence, that is infinite. Accept maybe change, I suppose change is infinite in that it never stops. However, if Hawking has it right even that process will cease one day.

Aaron wrote:

I'm not really sure how to put this but, what about the idea of tapping into the infinite within finite boundaries.

How does determinism deal with infinity?

It has long been a dream of dreamers frustrated by the limits of finite reality to go beyond the boundaries of this bounded universe. Some try meditation, others use drugs, but most tap into the infinite through mundane imagination, or celestial speculation. For example, several artists have portrayed a philosopher or scientist poking his head behind the star-studded curtain at the edge of the knowable cosmos to see what lies beyond the limitations of ordinary knowledge.


Since Infinity/Eternity includes all possibilities within its unbounded space, I suppose you could call it ultimate Determinism. But as a scientific concept, I suspect that cause & effect determinism has nothing to do with infinity, where everything just IS, period. Determinism is about Becoming, while Infinity is about Being.

The book I referred to in another thread, Learning to See Timelessness, has a lot to say about infinity and determinism. The only way to reach Infinity is to go to the end of this deterministic world---and then jump off into the abyss of timeless spacelessness.

Quote :

I suppose change is infinite in that it never stops.

Change is impossible in Infinity. Every possibility is already there. Infinity is inherently static. You can't explore infinity, because there's no place to go---there's no there there. So people who like a little novelty in their lives would quickly get bored with an eternity of infinity. Maybe that's why the eternal deity creates finite worlds to play with.

My mantra on this topic is : Eternity is not a long, long time---it's the absence of time. Infinity is not a far, far distance---it's the absence of space.

Gnomon wrote:

Quote :

I suppose change is infinite in that it never stops.

Change is impossible in Infinity. Every possibility is already there. Infinity is inherently static. You can't explore infinity, because there's no place to go---there's no there there. So people who like a little novelty in their lives would quickly get bored with an eternity of infinity. Maybe that's why the eternal deity creates finite worlds to play with.

My mantra on this topic is : Eternity is not a long, long time---it's the absence of time. Infinity is not a far, far distance---it's the absence of space.

That's a very good point!

Gnomon wrote:

Quote :

I suppose change is infinite in that it never stops.

Change is impossible in Infinity. Every possibility is already there. Infinity is inherently static. You can't explore infinity, because there's no place to go---there's no there there. So people who like a little novelty in their lives would quickly get bored with an eternity of infinity. Maybe that's why the eternal deity creates finite worlds to play with.

My mantra on this topic is : Eternity is not a long, long time---it's the absence of time. Infinity is not a far, far distance---it's the absence of space.

It strikes me that your description of infinity is very similar, almost identical in fact, to the Tao.

I don't have the time for an involved post right now but the surface of a sphere is an example of something that is infinite but also finite at the same time.