jamgirl86

Fate...I tend to believe in it, but I think the two co exist in some way.

Fate is real, but your free-will leads to your fate....

Dunno if that makes sense...but that's how I see it.

marmalade

You can go the opposite direction with this logic too. Existentialitsts would say we're fated to be free and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it. And Sartre would add that its a blind freedom where it makes no difference what you choose. You are only free to be free.

Skepticologist

I'm not sure what you mean by "linear". It occurs to me that when there are so many inputs that a point of perturbation is reached, it may be very convenient to characterize the situation as non-linear. But maybe it's completely linear; just too complex for our linear minds to comprehend.

__________________
"I am an agnostic; I do not pretend to know what many ignorant men are sure of."

Clarence Darrow

to_hobbes

Wow, what an interesting thread. I liked especially liked reading the discussion between romansh, marmalade, and skeptologist.

But my views seem to be unique, though similar. So here it goes:

I choose a dual view of the universe, and my theory of fate is a corollary to this dual view.

The first point of view is the "universal" view. I know I exist in a universe. I don't know what it is or how it works, but as a human, I can observe that the universe has some regular behavior. I, like most scientists, describe the behavior of the universe that I observe as "physical laws" using the language of mathematics. I also observe the universe to be completely mechanical. As humans are sub-systems of the universe, we are also 100% mechanical with no free will. Our fate is determined by the state of the universe as it is now Don't get me started on quantum theory. I still think the universe is mechanical and that "god does not play dice" (it's just that quantum theory with it's statistical equations turns out to a good way of describing what we see in the universe).

The second point of view is the "human" point of view. I know I am human. Therefore I have very limited knowledge of the universe. But humans have the ability to observe their universe and make decisions. From a "universal" perspective, our decisions are mechanical and pre-determined. But from the human point of view our decision-making process is our very essence. As humans, we have no choice but to say that we have free will, even if in actuality (from a universal vantage point), we are merely a chemical machine. To say humans have free will is to say humans have a decision-making process.

So I believe in both fate and free will, it just depends on which perspective you choose to assume.

AB517

This is good.

The only part I disagree with is the chemical machine being to closely match to a mechanical machine. They are very similar and many comparisons can de drawn between the two. The mistake I see is that many “theoretical” people make is that they link what we know to what is. You did, however, put in a disclaimer of “I am human and do not know”. So I agree with you.

I would love to hear what you say about quantum mechanic and probability.
I am very interested in this and have many unresolved issues. For example, if my God’s knowledge is infinite than that must mean it can learn more. The only way I see this happing it for there to exist an element of uncertainty in the way of things.

To go a step further, Hinesburg’s idea is based in on “seeing” not knowing. You spoke of the conditions we are in. I will call the “now” as the initial condition. God knows the NOW, he does not have to see it (seeing is a human term or need of a input device). I am not going into what that implies because I am guessing that you know. Back to the topic at hand, because he knows, he can know the final, or intermediate, conditions with relative certainty as time (time used here as “moving through conditions”) moves ahead but is close to t1. But as we move further and further away from the “now” it becomes less certain what will happen.

I am Christian (RC), the time on the cross was not the three hours on it, it is a being so vast and so knowing that it longed for more so it introduced uncertainty. I understand that this is a faith statement. That why I am here and not on a Roman Catholic forum. This God could have been created, to steal a phrase from Og, by a confluence of events also. The “Q” if you will from Star Treck wanting to be a man.

to_hobbes

I am wondering if I should start a new thread on quantom theory and the nature of the universe. I'll hold off for now. This is still on topic because quantom theory says (as I understand it) that fate is probabilistic.

Yeah, I had a very long debate with a friend of mine on quantom theory, and I insist that he was confusing the scientific model of quantom theory, which is a scientific explanation of the universe, not how the universe *actually* is, which is something humans could never know -- he was linking what we know to what actually is.

I really think quantom theory is just a theory and really the universe is completely mechanical with the future completely determined by the present. This could be just because I am not smart enough to bend my mind around the concept of a purely statistical existence.

Quantom theory works well for us humans because we ourselves are large systems that can't see detail fine enough to ever know both the velocity and position of any particle. But we are aware of our limits and therefore can incorporate our inaccuracies into our equations using statistical models.

However, does that mean that all particles actually are just probable regions for energy to exist? No, I agree with Einstein, god does not play dice. Though humans can't observe more than a probability region in which energy can exist, it is still possible that God does know exactly where that particle is and at the same time know where it is going.

But again, maybe I am just being short sited, and the universe really is a cluster of probability regions. Lets say a non-probabilistic universe were a kind of high-dimentional graph (as in an xyz-plot, execpt more than 3 dimensions). A plane in that graph is a 2D set of points, a line is 1D, and a point is Zero-D. All energy in the universe would be Zero-D dots "painted" on each Zero-D node of the graph. However, a probabilistic model would make that graph "blurry", expanding each Zero-D node into infinite space with the highest probability at the center of the node, and so the energy painted at that node would also become an infinite-sized object existing in the space of that node. So really all possible universes exist in parallel, according to quantom theory. (Of course, I could be misunderstanding the theory.)

However, why do we observe a consistent universe with forward moving time at all? To explain this, you could argue that humans are too small to comprehend more than one path through the blurry graph. But to me, this is simply projecting an abstract, infinite-dimensional universe down into an observable, finite-dimensional universe. But then, that's no different than saying that the universe is mechanical and deterministic yet humans can only observe probability regions of energy particles. But that is what I was saying to begin with. So no matter how I look at it, God doesn't play dice.

This got way too long and complicated. I'll try to find a way of illustrating my idea.

romansh

Hi hobbes
when I joined this forum three months ago I would have been a certain as I could have been that free will exists. Just listening to the arguments for and against, the logical side of me is convinced that free will does not exists. It's just that the freewill such a seducing illusion, I will pretend to have it for a while longer. Also the illusion does have practical value....

Regarding fate.... what we interpret as as fate when looking back ...is it just retrospection? Looking forward as to what fate holds in store? I think we would need a calculator, a computer, a god, call it what you will, the size of the universe, to reckon with any accuracy "what must be" ...... this sort ties in with my absolute truth?

__________________
There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened. ........... Douglas Adams

AB517

I did not want to join this thread, but I had to.

Free will does exist, but we are linked into the physical laws of the universe.
Free will does not mean we can do what we want when we want, but it exists, there are clear logical arguments for it. I stay out of this thread because this is stuff that I talk about face to.

I have been reading these threads too and they prove to me that we do not know what we think we do.

AB517

I think so. I would love to hear your thoughts. Like I said, I need help in this area.

romansh

and .....


I'm sorry I just noticed your humour.....

__________________
There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened. ........... Douglas Adams