| alpha_dk said: Fate. Take the double slit experiment. When a stream of electrons is passed through these double slits (one at a time), a diffraction pattern is seen (with enough iterations). This pattern is consistent with a wave passing through two slits. However, we don't know which slit it went through to get there. So, we set up an experiment to test it by observing one of the slits to see if the electron passes through that one. All of a sudden, the diffraction pattern disappears! Nothing else in the experiment was changed; only an observation of one of the slits! Yet once this is done, the results have changed. Now look at this from the point of view of the electron. It is 'free' when unobserved. That is, it has the freedom to go through either slit, and somehow (although we do not yet know the why of this) it ends up behaving like a wave. But as soon as it is observed, it loses its freedom. The act of observation *removes* the freedom of the electron. Likewise, the fact that we live in an observable universe means that the constituents of the universe are not free; there is a rule to their behavior. When there are rules that govern the behavior of the matter of the universe, that means that everything that happens in the universe is caused by what happened before it.  Applied to biological creatures, us, that means that everything that we do is a function of some large number of variables, including previous state of the system, stimuli on the sensory organs, chemical (in)balance, etc. However, the large number of variables does not make it less of a function; the same input begets the same output. |
the analogy with quantum states and free will and how quantum states collapse upon measurement and fate goes only so far; some physicists it a lot but the main critique is that physics gives a dscription but not an explanation. thus, "free will" as in the sensation feeled by humans is not something that's addressed.
i like to think that the question is likely ill-defined. meaning, our notions of "free will" and "fate" are not clear enough to warrant such a question. you could have both; you could hae neither. also possible that it's a question along the line of questions proveable to not have an answer like the incompletenes theorem. although for that the question first needs to be meaningful.
that's what i think. i don't know how much more i can say... it's very exhausting to find the right words for this kind of stuff.
the Wii is an epidemic.
