Both Fate and Free Will:

Fate as in that everything, if looked back on, it was predictable if you can follow the logic, and you can use the same logic to predict similar results. Remember, even chaos follows a pattern (as per chaos theory). Furthermore, as proven to some degree by Psychology, Human behavior is nature + nuture, so all human behavior, are to some extent, predetermined by order + chaos (some random elements + some defined elements)

This does not contradict my idea of Free Will, in that essentially, we choose about how we act, we are free in that we act by what we think. Things only seem pre-determined when we look back, but truly, no one can be completely accurate planning for the future, there's always an unknown variable as there is an element of randomness.

Well, that's it, I hope that make sense. If anyone need me to explain something in detail or more clearly, just... reply?

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 notion "Fate" is usually confused and contrasted with Free will, which is not true.

Fate is "the knowledge of an omniscient divine entity that knows everything without regards to time, location or any other limiting factor that constraints creatures (those that are "created"). Fate has nothing to do with the predetermination of all those creatures are gonna do and be affected from the circumstances but is the fact that this divine entity knows all this before and after those things happen. Here is an example...

Assume that the technology has advanced so much that we now can foretell the earthquakes by specific time and location. Does it make us the "creators" of this eartquake just because we can foretell it? Or does it make us responsible for its mere happening? No. Just like this, the divine entity knows what the future holds (which is called FATE), but it doesnt necessarily mean that He/It (not necessarily has a gender) determines it.

FREE WILL is the portion of how much we can decide on our lives and or how much we can affect the circumstances surrounding us. Many things are given and without free will, like where we are born, what kind of family we are born into, many of the circumstances around, accidental incidents, the way that our body and many of our personal aspects. So a person is likely to have only, say, 10% free will upon what is surrounded by (Meaning 90% of our lives are given not predetermined. But this 10% shouldnt be underestimated, you know, even the genetical difference between apes and human are less than 2% (or something like this). Human Free will can be likened to a text adventure or cinematic advanture in which you do NOT choose the content but DO choose between different ways to go and contents. In other words, you dont create your own story, but you shape up your own by combining a vast array of numerous story arcs.

My above words above seems a little bit contradictory on the point that The Divine entity does not predetermine our future while many things are given. So isnt this "given" thing the same as "predetermined". Not necessarily. Yes many things were created the way they are given to us, especially at the beginning (like the world that Adam and Eve were put into) and many other things after then were given due to other human involvement rather than the Divine Entity. They are given because of other circumstances outside of our reach but within the reach of other people or some other "creatures". Does it still mean that the Divine entity has created everything from the scratch and then freed us into oblivion/chaos? No, he/it constantly intervenes in the minimal amounts to keep this going, but also in full scale in a way that things will not affect the free will.

Your stomach or brain or heart keeps working constantly and because its NOT you who works it cos the majority of us dont even have a clue about how it works, there is some "force" out there (or in there!) that makes things work, which is so greatly embedded within the causes that we dont even notice but take if for granted.

Ok, In conclusion, There is a Divine Entity out there, call it God or Some kinda energy or something else, Not bound by time or location, it keeps monitoring the world and every piece of Universe and keeps it on balance. It does not necessarily intervenes the course of the universe in the traditional sense but it fully intervenes everything (even realises everything) through reasons/causes. Its like when you push a button on the computer, when I am typing all those characters here, I "think" I am writing it, but its actually "the electronic equipment" that does it. Likewise, when we do something, we "think" that we do it, but its actually that Divine Entity that does everything. But Still we are the responsible ones, cos the rules are clear.

Ok, enough of this, I guess.

@Shams

So essentially - what we think is free will - is actually fate, determined by a billion minor (and major) variables both within our minds, memory, driven by our external senses - and to a certain extent "randomness".

I think your definition implies a meaningless existence rather than fate. If everything is indeed determined by 'randomness', then you didn't have a choice to come up with and write that point, then your point is meaningless and might as well have never been written. I believe that Human beings are both physical and spiritual creatures, not simply a mess of chemicals comprising an advanced machine. Your definition fits animals, who react in all situations to their basic instincts, but I believe humans do not fit this definition.

To assume fate, most people assume there is a larger force that sets that fate. I believe that fate and free will are intermixed. If there is a god that sets fate for certain purposes, He would have to live outside of time. Many people will say this is impossible by using reasoning from their own limited perspective on the universe (I can't rationalize a world without time, therefore it cannot exist). The problem with this is, we can't fully understand something we have no way of rationalizing due to limited experience. For example, the light spectrum expands far beyond what we can see with our eyes, down to infrared and up to ultraviolet, there are some animals who can see in these light spectrums and therefore see colors that we cannot. Now try to imagine a color you've never seen before... It's impossible to do, because you have no experience to back that up, but that doesn't mean there aren't more colors than what our eyes can see. The same principle applies when we as time-limited beings try to discuss and rationalize a God that is not limited by time.

Now back to fate. I personally believe that fate and free will coexist together. We see life as a parade watched through a peephole in a fence; only able to see what is right in front of us. God, on the other hand, sees life as though he is sitting in the NBC blimp watching the parade. He can see all of the performers, from beginning to end, as well as the twists and turns life is going to throw at them. We cannot explain this with our human understanding, because we have never experienced this perspective. Because God sees from beginning to end and knows the choices we will be presented, he can insert people and circumstances into our path to help point us in the right direction- It's our choice to listen or not.

One question I've been asked as a Christian (I'm not a big fan of the label, I feel it's been grossly mis-represented by 'religious' people) is- "The Bible says, you did not choose me, but I chose you. Doesn't that mean God condemned some people to Hell without giving them a choice since they weren't chosen?". The best explaination I've ever heard for this is: "To choose us, God looked into the future and saw that we would choose him, so he went back and chose us first by writing our names down in a book that was authored before we were born." It's something that cannot be fully understood by my limited mental capacity. 

That's my personal take on the subject.

Timmah! said: @Shams So essentially - what we think is free will - is actually fate, determined by a billion minor (and major) variables both within our minds, memory, driven by our external senses - and to a certain extent "randomness". I think your definition implies a meaningless existence rather than fate. If everything is indeed determined by 'randomness', then you didn't have a choice to come up with and write that point, then your point is meaningless and might as well have never been written. I believe that Human beings are both physical and spiritual creatures, not simply a mess of chemicals comprising an advanced machine. Your definition fits animals, who react in all situations to their basic instincts, but I believe humans do not fit this definition.

I never said *everything* was random. Since we are effectively analog machines, there is almost going to be some "randomness" in the analog signals that bounce around our minds (a little like a bit of static on TV reception). In 99.9999% of cases it will make no difference to a "digital" outcome (i.e. do you buy something or not), but in a large enough population, and over a long enough time - it can create differences in outcomes.

I guess this comes to the core of the matter (and I have this exact discussion with my 'spiritual' partner all the time):

 - I do NOT believe in souls, spirits or anything else that follows those principles/ideas. (I am also an Athiest - born jewish - but that has minimal impact on this question).

 - I do believe that we ARE animals (and that we have evolved from them). We have just been lucky enough to make such significant advances over the last 100-1000 years, that we consider ourselves significantly above them these days (and we have evolved far beyond them).

My argument is simple: if you could have a time machine, and go back in time even... 2000 years - the "people" you see then would be effectively unrecognisable to us these days. They would appear to be completely primitive, and we WOULD consider them animals (and ourselves above them). Even though that they are the same as us.

The further back you go, the more pronounced the difference - until you basically can't recognise humanity in any form at all.

Evolution is a wonderful thing ;)

I'll be up for having a serious discussion re: evolution if anyone else wants to (i.e. go and create another thread...).

 

 

I don't know, people 2000 years ago where actually pretty similar to us. They lived in cities, went to school (well, the rich ones anyway), etc.

Sure, they had less technology, but they basically where the same creatures we are.

Edit: Besides, consider the 'native tribes' in parts of South America (and maybe Africa). I would not consider them anything but human and they are in some ways rather less 'advanced' than some of the civilizations two thousand years where.

Now, if we where to go back 100.000 years that picture might change, but I think we'd still see the people of then as humans. Maybe it's because I see progress as a bonus to human society and not the defining characteristic ;)

The more we understand about the way our minds work, the more it seems our actions are soley determined by our genetic and environmental inputs. That free will is largely an illusion.

I'm not sure if that's the same thing as saying life's driven by fate. There are so many random, unknowable factors driving life, that 'fate' seems a poor description.

"then you didn't have a choice to come up with and write that point, then your point is meaningless and might as well have never been written"

This is where you're confused. People can still be intelligent and informed, making careful judgements. The fact those judgements stem from their brain chemistry doesn't make them any less valid than if they were formed in a soul, floating arround some where.

shams said: Timmah! said: @Shams So essentially - what we think is free will - is actually fate, determined by a billion minor (and major) variables both within our minds, memory, driven by our external senses - and to a certain extent "randomness". I think your definition implies a meaningless existence rather than fate. If everything is indeed determined by 'randomness', then you didn't have a choice to come up with and write that point, then your point is meaningless and might as well have never been written. I believe that Human beings are both physical and spiritual creatures, not simply a mess of chemicals comprising an advanced machine. Your definition fits animals, who react in all situations to their basic instincts, but I believe humans do not fit this definition. I never said *everything* was random. Since we are effectively analog machines, there is almost going to be some "randomness" in the analog signals that bounce around our minds (a little like a bit of static on TV reception). In 99.9999% of cases it will make no difference to a "digital" outcome (i.e. do you buy something or not), but in a large enough population, and over a long enough time - it can create differences in outcomes. I guess this comes to the core of the matter (and I have this exact discussion with my 'spiritual' partner all the time):  - I do NOT believe in souls, spirits or anything else that follows those principles/ideas. (I am also an Athiest - born jewish - but that has minimal impact on this question).  - I do believe that we ARE animals (and that we have evolved from them). We have just been lucky enough to make such significant advances over the last 100-1000 years, that we consider ourselves significantly above them these days (and we have evolved far beyond them). My argument is simple: if you could have a time machine, and go back in time even... 2000 years - the "people" you see then would be effectively unrecognisable to us these days. They would appear to be completely primitive, and we WOULD consider them animals (and ourselves above them). Even though that they are the same as us. The further back you go, the more pronounced the difference - until you basically can't recognise humanity in any form at all. Evolution is a wonderful thing ;) I'll be up for having a serious discussion re: evolution if anyone else wants to (i.e. go and create another thread...).

Sure thing... I really don't have that much time to keep up with all these debates, but I'd definitely put in my 2 cents in an evolution debate.

I understand your point that not everything is 'randomness'. That is in fact a very significant fact pointing to the existance of a God.

And the only real difference between people thousands of years ago and today is technology, intelligence was the same.

I find it fascinating when individuals use a collection of vague and rather unscientific observations to support or refute a philosophical concept such as free will. Unlike most people here, I won’t profess to have any adamant inclination in either direction, but I think it would be wise to establish the difference between fatalism and determinism.

All of the previously stated scientific arguments are indicative of determinism, i.e. causality. The best way I have discovered to differentiate determinism and fatalism is the following: The present is merely the accumulation of all prior events. Determinism states that if you went back in time and changed these events, the future would change accordingly. Fatalism contends that even if past events changed, the future would remain the same. So, if determinism exists, it still allows for free will, just not absolute free will.

Conversely, the most cogent argument for fatalism I’ve encountered is the following: All human actions are inherently selfish. Helping others, i.e. virtue, is an arbitrary and irrelevant designation. We need both good and bad, ideally in equal quantities, and therefore one is neither more important nor better than the other [see: Taoism]. Since human beings can only make selfish decisions, it’s only logical that they will always make the most selfish decision. In other words, the strongest desire always dominates. Therefore, we have no control over our decisions.

This argument sustained me for a short while until I was reminded of Cicero’s brief and elegant philosophy of humanity. The human animal, he argued, is unique among all animals in that it can think beyond the present to concerns other than momentary satisfaction. Only by this action are human beings genuinely fulfilled. In all other instances, they are destructive and frightened like the animals of the field. This would seem to suggest that fatalism exists only for those who remain shackled to the natural forces of instinct and emotion. By evolving into rational, enlightened beings, humans escape the bonds of fate and embrace the special talents of their species.

wow that's a lot of responses.

let me add a corollary into the thread. This basically will screw up and mess with our minds even more:

If you chose fate, then would we be responsible for our actions? Would it be fair to convict someone of murder if the person couldn't do anything to prevent his murdering someone else, and it just happened to be the murdered person's time to go?

This gets even messier if you put God in the equation and assumed that he set the fates of everything. But lets not get that far just yet