kaneada said:
A) False, time is a unit of measure used to quantify the the change in energy over a given plane. It is a created tool, not a real phenomenon. B) Exactly my point. If fate exists, then something or someone has to know the outcomes. If all things are predetermined then there has to be a source of predetermination, presumably an entity at a future point in time, otherwise fate can't be a real phenomenon. You and I as a finite human being can't know that and can't prove that to any reasonable standard. C) Please don't quote the first 14 words of something to frame your argument. If you apply the next two qualifications in that sentence the concept of your entity from the future that knows all outcomes becomes a bit absurd. Sorry to pull the Athiest card here, but when you assert that something unknowable is real, then the burden of proof is on you. So far you've not made a convincing argument. You've not shown evidence that choice is real. You have also failed to provide evidence that fate is real; therefore you can't claim the lack of mutual exclusivity between the two concepts without heavy assumptions that can't be tested. As a matter of fact, I would go so far to say that both are fictious concepts. Action and Consequence (cause and effect) is something that can actually be observed and tested. |
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.









