kaneada said:
Fifaguy360 said:
kaneada said:
Fifaguy360 said:
kaneada said:
Fifaguy360 said:
kaneada said:
Fifaguy360 said:
kaneada said:
Fifaguy360 said:
kaneada said:
Fifaguy360 said:
The poll is wrong. It assumes Fate and choice are separate from each other. |
How, in your estimation, are fate and choice not mutually exclusive?
|
Doesn't require estimation. Just think about it.
Fate is a collection of choices in a time frame known prior to their happening. The fact that they (the choices) are known doesn't prevent them from being independant nor free.
|
Intersting perspective...two assumptions I question:
A) Time exists and is, in and of itself, a real thing.
B) That all choices are known to something or someone making all possible outcomes predicatable.
Neither of those things can be possible without making the assumptions that they exist and then defining those assumptions to highly descriminative criteria where they would loose context, leading me to assumption C:
C) A choice is not a choice if it is known to someone or something, that outcome is absolute through influence of that someone or something, and can't be changed due to the the knowlege and influence of that someone or something. This makes choice an illusion and therefore not real, making both fate and choice mutually exlcusive concepts.
|
A) Time does exist. It is an obserable phenomenon.
B) It doesn't matter if all choices are known to someone or not. You still will perform a string of choices from now until 10 minutes later (unless you died). You don't know what those choices will be until you choose to do them.
C) "A choice is not a choice if it is known to someone or something". False. Knowing something will happen is not the same as forcing that something to happen. Example: Someone knew you were going to respond to my message in these exact words. Was your choice an illusion? Did you want to make it out of your own volition? Or were you forced?
|
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.
|
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.
|
A) I don't know where you are going with this. The original question asked to me was why fate and choice do not conflict. So that's the question I am answering.
B) Ofcourse choice exists. If I want to make a choice, I will and that is observable. You can say I'm forced to make choices without me knowing, fine, I don't want to discuss that because it is not necessary for the question asked to me.
C) I don't need to prove that someone knows the future. My intention is to answer the original question posed to me. And to do that I'm starting with the assumption this person Bob knows the future only to explain why having the knowledge of future events does not negate choice. You're derailing my explanation by asking me to prove that Bob knows the future. That's not necessary for what I'm trying to show.
So to start from scratch:
Bob knows the future. Choices are not controlled.
Bob knowing the future does not control choices. Why?
Because Bob's knowledge is only a mirror of the choices you will make. If you weren't going to make that choice, then Bob would know you weren't.
Think of a mirror. How does the other person on the mirror mimic your actions perfectly? How does he know to copy you without a seconds delay to see your action then copy you? Well it's a mirror not a person, but imagine if that was a real person instead of a reflection with the same affect/result. Does his copying you prevent you from doing what you want? Does his knowledge of what you're going to do next dictate what you will do next? It's the other way round. The choices you will make dictate the knowledge of Bob.
I'll leave you with a more advanced perspective:
You've already made all the choices you will ever choose to make from life to death. As your progress through your timeline, you will discover what those choices are.
|
A) You're original assumption is that time exists, so you made it factor in your argument. I'm not going to explain the principles that question your concept of time and why its innacurate. You can read that on your own.
B) The only thing observable is your action based on stimulus, there is no way to observe or examine that your decision is a choice. However your reasoning will indicate what the stimulus was and why you reacted this way, that does not prove that choice exists; it only indicates that you responded to stimulus. Once again cause and effect is knowable and measurable, choice is a construct that may or may not accurately describe the cause and effect relationship.
C) In order to prove the concept of fate, it counts on the existence of someone or something that already knows all the predetermined outcomes. It doesn't matter if Bob knows those outcomes, or if I know them, or anyone in the current situation knows them or not, but something has to know those things in order for all decisions to be made before thier existence. If all decisions have been made before the existence of the universe then something knows those results. You can't prove that something exists and because you're making an unknowable assertion, the burden of proof is on you to prove its existence. You can't assert that all decisons are predetermined and only provide a contrived story as evidence to the claim. That's recursive logic.
The mirror is a bad analogy, it doesn't explain anything. Bob's existence can influence my decision, he may not influence my decision, and in some way, big or small, be effected by my decision, but he does not reflect that decision. He is simply a witness to it and the outcome, which he may or may not be able to predict through his own observation.
Even at the end of my life when I've made all the decisions I will ever make, I can't look back at them and say that they are the only decisions I could have made, because those possiblities can't be examined. This conclusions is not an indication that choice exists and its not an indication that fate exists, its not an indication of a static or dynamic path, its an indication of something unknowable.
|
B) Action which is based on stimulus in agreement to your conscience. However, we also have situations where stimulus provokes a desired action, but our conscience intervenes and refrains. This clearly proves choice exists. We don't always act on influence/stimulus. Our minds are analytical. If they weren't and we only acted on influence then we would have experienced it.
C) Bob doesn't need to exist to prove our decision making is linear. I can easily say 24 hours from now I will make a whole bunch of decisions. I don't know what they are yet, but they exist and I will make them.
"Even at the end of my life when I've made all the decisions I will ever make, I can't look back at them and say that they are the only decisions I could have made, because those possiblities can't be examined."
The possibilities are not allowed to be examined. That's the whole part of the test religions preach. It would be cheating if you knew all the different paths and chose the best one for yourself. The objective is for you to do the best of your abliity in the present. You won't say those are the only decisions I could have made. You will say those are the decisions I wanted to make based on the information available to me at that time.
|
Before I continue, I just wanted to say this has been fun mate. :)
A) I think we both agree that this point is irrelevant.
B) Conscience is a form of influence. One can influence themsleves to act contrary to ones expected outcome. I will accept that your defintion of choice and my definition of Action and Consquence are largely the same.
C) My argument is that your example is recursive. It uses an arbitrary construct to define itself rather than using linear logic to suggest its existence. However, your last paragraph does touch on one important idea that the number of paths are finite; however that is not evidence in and of itself that the actions I take are predetermined, only that they are finite.
The religous test is irrelevant. The point of examing all outcomes is not to cheat to the best path, the point is to prove that regardless the opportunity to walk that path again that a person would indeed make the same decsions, which would be evidence that fate exists. It's classic scientific method.
1) Form Hypothesis
2) Find control...in this case take a group of people put them in the maze of life and don't make them aware of their previous life so that they can't knowingly avoid outcomes to decisions that they will repeat in this run.
3) Find the variable...another group of people that will be aware that they are walking through a previous life. While they won't be shown their previous life, they will be told that everything they face in this walk through of their life is identical to the a situation they faced in the previous one. They will be explicitly told they can choose different actions.
4) Find the second variable...yet another group of people that will be shown their previous life, told they can change anything they want to...
I would expect the control would make the same exact decisions, the second group would make the same decsions, and the third would change the decisions they did not like. I am not saying this outcome is correct. But if all three groups walk the same exact path, it would indicate that fate exists.
5) Repeat the experiment with completely different groups of people (this step should be repeated to gain accurate quantifiable data)...if the results are the same then publish the experiment to be repeated by other people to confirm the hypothesis as fact.
However, whether it be the simple construct of being human, there is a God, the grandfather at the end of time in Chrono Trigger, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster or a big voice in the Universe yelling ,"NO!!!!!" there is no meaningful way to conduct that experiment (I do realize that the experiment I am proposing is highly simplified and would need heavy refinement) therefore the construct of fate, at the very least is completely unknowable. Absence of evidence is not evidence of abscence is recursive logic which is why the argument in favor fate can only be based on speculation.
|
