Fifaguy360 said:
A) However you want to describe it doesn't matter. Fact is it exists. No need to be all technical about it. We can describe it as: events that happened, that are happening and will happen. B) Fate is a collection of your choices. They are tied together. Your choices of buying a computer, getting internet access, signing up on vgchartz, finding this thread are a series of causes and affects (actions and consequences) which have culminated to meeting me. That's fate. If fate doesn't exist then choices don't exist. If someone knew all this doesn't change anything. C) The first 14 words were the most important. I've heard this argument before. "If someone knows I will choose Action A, then this means I have no choice of choosing action B therfore I have no choice.". Lol, this is such an amateur argument. The simplest of minds can find the mistake here which I will explain now in story mode. Me: Hi, would you like to drink some pepsi? [Bob's interruption] (skip this on the first read thru) You: Yes, I would love that! [drinks pepsi] Bob: I knew you were going to say yes and drink pepsi. You: Omg, I you denied me from choosing not to drink pepsi because you knew I was going to. Bob: No, you said you would like to drink some. You: Yes, because I did want to drink Bob: Did you drink? You: Yes. Bob: Did you want to decline drinking the pepsi? You: No. Bob: Then what's the problem? So what's the key to this argument? 1) You cannot do action A and not do action A at the same time. That's meaningless. 2) The choice you make is the knowledge that is known to Bob so it doesn't make a difference which choice it was going to be. This doesn't prevent it being your choice and acting on your volition. 3) If Bob interrupted and told you you will drink pepsi and then you chose not to drink pepsi. What happens? This just means Bob knew if he ever told you you will drink it, you would not so therefore Bob still knew the outcome. And you still made the choice you wanted to make. Therefore, fate's DNA are choices and none of these choices are controlled. Quite simple really. |
A) No time does not exist...only change in energy...time is how we perceive these things, its a unit of measure. Your assumption that all outcomes are predetermined is based souly on the illusion of time and not on the change in energy itself. There is no means for you or I to predict that change in energy through anything other than assumption.
B) You fail to provide any real evidence that choice exists, therefore if fate is tied to that series of choices and you can't provide valid evidence that choice exits then you fail to provide context for fate.
C) I'm the ametur in this arguement? Last I checked you don't strip context from a persons arugument and only address the few words that frame your counter argument. That's like quoting a statement "God Exists" and saying "See I was right, God really does exist," without mentioning the rest of the sentence which might read something like ,"God Exists, only in the minds of people who believe such an entity to be real." It's dishonest to frame your arguments based on incomplete samples of someone else's words.
Your example is weak and based purely on a contrived anecdote. Neither person, has the foresight to know that either person A will drink Pepsi, or that person B knows that person A wants Pepsi. That's power or persuasion (point 3 demonstrates this) and or entertaining a lie in conversation for the purpose of conversation. The only thing that you determined is that Person B was not wrong about the drink prefence of person A. However, you did at least (kind of) demonstrate influence.
This is not to say that person B does not know person A and through process of observing the behavior of Person A they can come to undserstand Person A's bias in favor of Pepsi. Hell I know bartenders that know exactly what I want, because I have a strong bias for rum and coke. Point 3 reinforces this concept. Bob either knows person A and knows how to influence their bias, or is a really quick study of Person A and in either case is capable of effecting the same result.
1) So to end this debate, choice is still loosely defined according to your predetermined anecote which demonstrates your thoughts, but no observable evidence of the existence of choice.
2) You failed to, once again, demonstrate any observable evidence that fate exists. This goes into the real implications of point A) in which case you might want to use some actual science to discern the difference between the measurement of time and space.
3) All you've done is shown action and consquence and that people can and do influence the action and consquence of others. You can define that as choice, but choice carries the connotation that all responses to stimuli are indeed completely at the discreation of the indivdual and therefore can't be influenced or biased by the stimulation itself in any manner other than a predetermined action. Beacause of this you can't reobserve that same incident to test for different results and as a result you can't be the time keeper which can assert beyond any reasonable doubt that you know all possible outcomes nor can you prove the existence of one.
As a result the only people you will convince that you are right are either poorly educated or prepubescent.
-- Nothing is nicer than seeing your PS3 on an HDTV through an HDMI cable for the first time.
