Does destiny exist?

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Prax ok, but is everything in our brain's chemical reactions already predetermined? I understand for our bodily functions to work certain chemicals are predetermined to keep things consistent, but what about decision making and communications?

They could easily be neurochemically or electrically based; it's just that we don't yet understand specifically how. Inferring free will seems a little God-of-Gaps-ish to me.

Free will is like saying that the entire future of the universe is determined by animals' actions. It seems bizarre on a scientific level to hold life in such a fundamental class of its own without evidence to support this.

[pahl]

I have to agree with Bacon on this one, either you belive in a soul or something of the like or our actions are pre-determined by the variables that decide their outcome.

As a side note, computers can not acctually generate a perfectly random number, its all "pre-determined".

[bionis23]

I'm wondering if destiny means the entire future is predetermined or if it means that certain things are predetermined.

For instance, I date the girl that is right across from me. We eventually get married. Or, I date the girl that is behind me. Things don't work out and we break up and one day I run into the same girl that was across from me. We eventually get married. Notice how there is one common conclusion.

If this is the nature of destiny then free will does exist. We live our lives day by day doing whatever we decide to do and our day is effected by those choices. We are only snatched by destiny once and a while for certain chosen things.

But who chooses these things to be carried by destiny? Sense I don't believe any natural or artificial force would have the free will to choose a destiny(nor do I believe in destiny itself), the events carried out by destiny would be random. Therefore the amount of destiny in our lives would also be random.

[shunyadragon]

Quote by: nilan3000 I was having an argument with a friend of mine the other day who beleives in destiny. Her main point was that though the small things in life may depend on our independent thoughts and actions, each of us already have a path set out for us which we must invariably travel. I am not sure what the exact accepted definition of destiny is, but would be grateful for anyone who sheds some light on the topic. Personally, I doubt the concept of destiny because that means intelligence does not exist. If all of us are just walking down the path that has already been set out for us, we merely carry out a set of pre planned actions in our brain, we have no independent thoughts of our own. For example, if meeting a person was my destiny, every action that has in some way led up to that point where I meet him/her is not the result of my intelligence/independent thinking, I was merely acting out a set of instructions that have already been inputed into my brain. The basic premise of my argument is that if destiny exists, we all invariably act in ways by which that destiny could be fulfiiled, therefore our actions and thoughts are being controlled by this superior force called 'destiny'. Independent thinking and in many ways intelligence itself, cannot thus exist in its conventional form if destiny exists too. We are in some sense, no different from actors in a play, as the script already exists. The character in the play MUST act as the script demands to propel the plot forward and he is under the total control of the creator of the play. The same goes for us. Hope that makes sense. So what do you guys think?

By destiny, it sounds like your referring to a rather Calvinist predestined nature of existence. This scenario is unlikely, but a form of variable destiny may be a more likely scenario, but we as humans would have a very limited horizon of determining the extent of destiny. The nature of existence does appear to have a predetermined course of existence within certain natural parameters. I believe in a 'Source' ( a very natural 'Source'), and to a certain extent a flexible form of a destiny within which many events occur in natural pattern of variability that is not predetermined specifically. We have some insight into this natural pattern in the concept of the nature of randomness not being truely random, but having an underlying pattern found in non-linear 'fractal' equations. Even where what we percieve what we call the indeterminate nature of true 'randomness' in Quantum Mechanics. This behavior in of itself appears to be a predictable true randomness.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy They could easily be neurochemically or electrically based; it's just that we don't yet understand specifically how. Inferring free will seems a little God-of-Gaps-ish to me. Free will is like saying that the entire future of the universe is determined by animals' actions. It seems bizarre on a scientific level to hold life in such a fundamental class of its own without evidence to support this.

I have a question for you: if you lean towards the quantum instead of the classical, the probabilistic instead of the deterministic, could free will be a name given to the random factor that decides between probabilities? Assuming I'm not misunderstanding the probabilistic universe concept, that is.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Coffee could free will be a name given to the random factor that decides between probabilities?

Free will, if defined as the ability of humans to choose their actions independent of their physical being and surroundings, couldn't be randomness. Something random is, by definition, outwith our control.

[Jack]

But couldn't we perceive randomness as free will?

[The Bacon Guy]

For example?

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy For example?

We'd have to look at the macro, not the micro, as I don't think anyone would argue that a quark's motion to the left instead of the right (or what have you) represents human free will.

But if enough of these random events accrue that a larger, still random, chance occurs one way rather than another, could that be perceived as free will? If I have a certain probability of becoming an English teacher, and another probability of becoming, say, a janitor, and after calculating all of the variables and forces that influence that decision I still find myself with a remainder; even if that remaining variable, that unknown or random variable, is nothing but purest chance, could its very incomprehensibility give rise to a reasonable (if misguided) belief in human free will? Could we even make the argument that, since there is no defined force that pushes that remainder into one specific probability, that there might be such a thing as human free will that chooses between probabilities when there is no other influence on events?

That's what I was thinking of. I don't know if Ish had a different idea.

[Jack]

I agree, CoffeeSaint.
In the Schrodinger's Cat Paradox, could we say that the cat is exercising free will to exist or not, or is it our free will which determines its fate? (just thinking out loud here, as it were.)

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Coffee even if that remaining variable, that unknown or random variable, is nothing but purest chance, could its very incomprehensibility give rise to a reasonable (if misguided) belief in human free will?

I wouldn’t call it a reasonable belief, but I can see how it would arise from not understanding the causal factors, or lack thereof, behind an event. A God of Gaps sort of idea. Although, even without randomness and hidden variables, belief in free will still arises from the lack of understanding of the complexity of the human brain, coupled with the natural prejudice which comes with self appraisal: few people want to think of themselves as nothing more than chemical reactions.

Quote by: Coffee Could we even make the argument that, since there is no defined force that pushes that remainder into one specific probability, that there might be such a thing as human free will that chooses between probabilities when there is no other influence on events?

Now we move from Quantum back to Classical with a hidden variable theory, the variable being free will. It is of course not impossible, but I see no reason to subscribe to the belief without evidence for it. It seems arrogant to believe that humans are, in an absolute sense, so important in the universe. I mean, what happens when we all die out? What then chooses between the probabilities?

[Jack]

What then chooses between the probabilities?

Going back to the cat for a moment, this would be why quantum theorists would say that both possibilities (the cat dies, the cat lives) exist until the observer causes one to become what we perceive as reality. Without an observer, I suppose both possibilities either continue on as separate realities or potential realities.
Free will, as I understand it, can only function in the current reality, if it exists at all. If there are no observers, there would be no possibility of free will.

[Osborn F Enready]

Nothing is destined to happen, in my opinion, when speaking of individual destiny.

Destiny can be formulated and hypothesized based on "data" that is relevant, and human nature, but, I love to meet people who speak clearly of a destiny they have yet to reach, but claim they are "destined" to reach.

Once they tell me that, I say, "so, if you were to walk in front of my car when leaving, and I accidentally killed you, would that still be destiny?" "If so, why didn't it match your belief before I brought up the possibility?"

I can see general destiny being a possibility, but only when based on obvious data, that is relevant.
(example: If I claim my destiny is to die by car accident, and accept it to the subconscious level, chances are my carelessness in relation to driving, or my OVER-cautious paranoia of driving would be the CAUSE of my accident, that may have a high chance of killing me.)

Some people create their own destinies by making a fetish of their worst fears, or greatest desires, they just don't realize it and attribute it to other things, in my opinion.

[shunyadragon]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy Free will, if defined as the ability of humans to choose their actions independent of their physical being and surroundings, couldn't be randomness. Something random is, by definition, outwith our control.

Something called random is not defined as something (outwith?) outside human control.

First, you have to realize that most randomness is not true randomness unless your referring to the indeterminacy of observations in Quantum Mechanics. Randomness in our everyday world consists of the pattern of events that have fractal non-linear relationships of the occurance of what was called randomness inthe past.

The human free will decision making process can be simple or complex and have many variables, some determined and some indeterminate. Many everyday decisions by humans involve choices that may or may not show patterns, like what cloths to wear or buy, what food to eat, or where to go on vaction. Many occurances in our world that involve human decisions show fractal non-linear patterns like prices on commodity exchanges when thre are many variables. The complexity of the fractal relationships depends on the number of variables.

[Fonceai]

I'm not a fan of destiny.

I do believe in Karma, however.

I think that there is a certain balance to things and that when that balance is upset then it needs to be restored.

As far as a long-spanning destiny is concerned, I only think of destiny in regards to a life being generally "blessed" by Karma... always good... or general "cursed" by Karma... always low.

[Praxius]

They could easily be neurochemically or electrically based; it's just that we don't yet understand specifically how. Inferring free will seems a little God-of-Gaps-ish to me. Free will is like saying that the entire future of the universe is determined by animals' actions. It seems bizarre on a scientific level to hold life in such a fundamental class of its own without evidence to support this.

If all the chemicals in our brain and their reactions were all predetermined and "neurochemically or electrically based" then what explains each person having a different opinion on matters, different tastes and hates, personality, traits, etc? Wouldn't they all be the same if not similar to one another if this was the case? What makes us different from each other?

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: shunyadragon Something called random is not defined as something (outwith?) outside human control. First, you have to realize that most randomness is not true randomness unless your referring to the indeterminacy of observations in Quantum Mechanics.

I was referring to quantum indeterminacy.

Quote by: sunyadragon The human free will decision making process can be simple or complex and have many variables, some determined and some indeterminate. Many everyday decisions by humans involve choices that may or may not show patterns, like what cloths to wear or buy, what food to eat, or where to go on vaction. Many occurances in our world that involve human decisions show fractal non-linear patterns like prices on commodity exchanges when thre are many variables. The complexity of the fractal relationships depends on the number of variables.

The determinate factors in human decisions are really a given, but it's the quantum indeterminacy which I'm unsure about. The question of whether it is true randomness, or simply a hidden variable still seems to be up in the air. Either way, I agree with what Os said: Anyone who claims to actually know their destiny is kidding themselves.

Quote by: Prax If all the chemicals in our brain and their reactions were all predetermined and "neurochemically or electrically based" then what explains each person having a different opinion on matters, different tastes and hates, personality, traits, etc? Wouldn't they all be the same if not similar to one another if this was the case? What makes us different from each other?

Different genetics, different environments, different experiences.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Ish Going back to the cat for a moment, this would be why quantum theorists would say that both possibilities (the cat dies, the cat lives) exist until the observer causes one to become what we perceive as reality. Without an observer, I suppose both possibilities either continue on as separate realities or potential realities. Free will, as I understand it, can only function in the current reality, if it exists at all. If there are no observers, there would be no possibility of free will.

Hmmm, I see your point. Still, no one really knows enough about that aspect of quantum theory to reach any meaningful conclusion on the matter of free will.

One thing I don't understand about the free will argument is how it would work logically. Even if humans, when they are alive, determine their futures by some sort of hidden variable (a soul, a consciousness, whatever you want to call it), it doesn't constitute free will beyond a superficial level. After all, decisions controlled by humans themselves is just another form of determinism: a hidden variable theory. You have to then ask what decides who you are as a person. Whether you believe it is genetics or a soul, it's still determined by a factor outwith your control.

[Jack]

To even determine, had you had chosen another path would the outcome have been different, requires another outcome to compare the one that did happen to. With only one reality to deal with, we're hard put to say if another result could have ever occurred, let alone whether or not we had any control over the outcome.

[shunyadragon]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy I was referring to quantum indeterminacy.

The actual randomness of indeterminacy observed in the behavior of particles of matter in Quantum Mechanics has not been observed in the macro-world. Free will decisions would not be inflenced by Quantum randomness.

The determinate factors in human decisions are really a given, but it's the quantum indeterminacy which I'm unsure about.

A great deal is known about some factors that influence our decision making process, and the conclusion is free will exists, but not all the factors are known yet.

The question of whether it is true randomness, or simply a hidden variable still seems to be up in the air. Either way, I agree with what Os said: Anyone who claims to actually know their destiny is kidding themselves.

I am pretty sure true quantum randomness is ruled out. It is true, the answers to all the questions of destiny are not all known, but the variables in destiny are presently best explained by fractal non-linear relationships, which is now coined 'chaos'. Patterns of destiny can be tracted and observed and the future is to a certain extent predictable within certain perameters, even in Quantum Mechanics.

Different genetics, different environments, different experiences.

These are better measurable variables, but they're outcomes are influence by fractal non-linear relationships with other variables.