Fate or Free will?

[Moogie]

I find these discussions way too tedious to get into... but I figured I\'d leave my opinion here anyway.

This might be a little hard to explain, so bare with me. Think of biochemistry... cause and reaction... you know.  Everything we do is dictated by electrical signals and chemicals in our brains. Okay, so, if you keep that in mind, you can understand the next part.

Free will could never be truely possible, as we ourselves are bound by our own biochemistry in this respect. You\'re not making a decision out of free will... you\'re making it because certain conditions caused your brain to want to choose to do it. Make sense?

If there really was anything like free will, we wouldn\'t survive a week... we would live in absolute chaos in rejection of our instincts and natural reactions.

[Taldor]

Originally posted by Levski
Erhem, the universe always existed in some form or other, so therefore all of the laws always existed in some form or other, therefore quantum theory always existed in some form or other, therefore free will existed in some form or other.

But your \'always\' only existed after the big bang...

But, to go the other way, I think it is perfectly possible to reconstruct past events, since they have already happened.

No it\'s not possible, because of i.e. the uncertainty principle or Heisenberg: \"The more precisely the position is determined, the less precisely the momentum is known.\"
And how can you get ever any information from a black hole (exept the mass and the size)?

[Karyuu]

Originally posted by derwoodly
If you assume the perspective of an all knowing diety without actually knowing everything, then you are only guessing at what that perspective is like.

I don\'t want to turn this thread into a theistic debate - I don\'t think that\'s quite what it was meant for, but bringing a deity into the equation is really asking for it...

Originally posted by derwoodly
Quantum Theory only exist as long as there are humans that believe in it, thus the word \"theory\".

Do you have any idea of the scientific definition of the word \"theory\"? And also, your statement is akin to that of \"The evolutionary theory only exists as long as people believe in it.\" Things don\'t work that way.

Originally posted by derwoodly
Karyuu,
One always sees ones self as more moral and gererous than the \"other guy\".

You\'re assuming things. About me, about my experiences, etc. And I don\'t appreciate that. My morals are based on heavy thought, logic, and reason. They are more humane than those of nearly every devout theist that I have met, as I have stated previously. If you want to challenge that, go right ahead. But do not in any way assume that I\'m filled with self-pride and think myself to be above all.

[Davis]

Originally posted by Mogura
I find these discussions way too tedious to get into... but I figured I\'d leave my opinion here anyway.

This might be a little hard to explain, so bare with me. Think of biochemistry... cause and reaction... you know.  Everything we do is dictated by electrical signals and chemicals in our brains. Okay, so, if you keep that in mind, you can understand the next part.

Free will could never be truely possible, as we ourselves are bound by our own biochemistry in this respect. You\'re not making a decision out of free will... you\'re making it because certain conditions caused your brain to want to choose to do it. Make sense?

If there really was anything like free will, we wouldn\'t survive a week... we would live in absolute chaos in rejection of our instincts and natural reactions.

Why do people seem to think \"free will\" is the ability to supernaturally transcend what is natural? I say that you just described free will.

[Moogie]

Just pointing out that the term \'free will\' is a bit of an oxymoron...


*wonders what oxymoron really means, and assume it means what she wants it to*




(Just incase it doesn\'t... I mean that the word is \'hypocritical of itself\'.)

[Karyuu]

I agree with Mogura on this one

It\'s freewill with limits. There is no such thing as complete freewill, just as there is no such thing as complete omniscience (if you can know \"everything,\" can you know that 2+2=5? Of course not). Nor complete omnipotence, etc.

[rumblebelly]

i just read all the thread\'s on here and i have to say WOW all that from one little theoretical question....as for geligious people being generally better i have to disagree with that for the simple reason that if you look into our past most war\'s were caused in the name of one religion or another. it does not matter if you are religious or not it is the individual person who is good or bad not the religion they follow. religion is a matter of faith not personality...and that\'s my two cent\'s  

[Kuiper7986]

If fate or free-will exists, then luck can\'t exist. Luck is nothing more than someone believing that the odds are on his side. There\'s no such thing as luck if fate exists because it was already pre-deteremined and there\'s no such thing as luck if free-will exists because it wasn\'t your choice to make it just happened which is called coincidence, which brings up to my final question.

Does luck and coincidence exist if fate and free-will exists?

[Olig]

Fate is luck. As in you are lucky to be fated a better life.

Free will leads to coincidences.


(We all need to see the movie Run Lola Run. This thread reminds me of that movie too much.)

[Grakrim]

If you believe in \"fate\" as being predetermined by chaos, then luck must exist, since everything that happens is a random occurance.  If you believe fate is created by some deity, then luck wouldn\'t exist in your envisioned universe...
In a free-will universe, luck would definatly still exist, since inanimate things that would determine if one is lucky or not obviously wouldn\'t have free-will.  In a free-will universe, you\'ll have just as much luck in honest gambling as you would in a \"fated\" one.

Coincidence must exist in free will, since things are far more loosely connected in such a universe.
However, coincidence cannot exist in a fated universe, because everything is directly or indirectly related to each other thing.

[Olig]

I had an interesting thought.

If your fate turns out to be better or more lively compared to an aborted fetus, whom never got a life to live, who has the right to make such a decision? And, if Im not mistaken, isn\'t that decision made possible by the free will of the higher powers or uncontrollable forces?

[Grakrim]

I may be misunderstanding your meaning, Olig, but here goes...

If there is such a thing as fate, the fetus you mentioned would have been fated never to have lived.

I don\'t want to discuss wheter there is a \"higher power\", but I seriously doubt it.  And if there was, I would say they would likely be bound by the same laws as we are, and thus their own \"free will\" would also be fated.  That would be interesting, our own \"fate\" controlled by \"fated\" entities...

*shrugs*

[Olig]

Then what fated our entities? Another higher entity fated to give that a fate? Lets face it, fate doesnt make logical sense.

Sorrry for the bad example. A better example would have been a grocery cart lady instead of an unborn fetus  (Even though it was still alive inside the mother).

[Grakrim]

Ah, I meant \"fate\" as in provided by physics.  You obvliously meant fate as in provided by a deity of some sort, sorry for the misunderstanding there.

Fate by chaos is pretty logical, when you think about it...

[Davis]

Originally posted by Grakrim
I don\'t want to discuss wheter there is a \"higher power\", but I seriously doubt it.  And if there was, I would say they would likely be bound by the same laws as we are, and thus their own \"free will\" would also be fated.  That would be interesting, our own \"fate\" controlled by \"fated\" entities...

*shrugs*

That would only be true if whatever higher power exists within the bounderies of our universe. What if there is some property of our universe or another that allows one to manipulate the other from afar? It\'s a very unclear subject, but there is no ruling out the existance or non-existance of a higher, conciense power.