Thread: Everything is already decided

Hello everyone, I am Merlijn and I am 15 years old. I come from the Netherlands so im sorry if my English is not that great. (Im calling it "My theory" in this post but it is probably someone else his, but it's hard to write it without it so its not officially my theory.) (So note that this is not my theory and im not trying to get credit of anything else for it)

I came up with a theory which may already excist but I have never heard from before. The theory says that everything that is going to happen in the future has already been decided. Let me give you an example: Its Sunday and you haven't been studying for your test yet. You get to make a decision, study and have a higher chance for a good grade or don't study and have a lower chance for a good grade. My Theory says that your grade has already been decided. That's hard to understand but ill go further in it. Lets say the grade was a 4.9, that's not so good. But how did you get so low? The choice I've set up earlier between study and don't study was already made, you didn't study and you would have never. Because it was decided you woudn't, and no! It wasnt decided by somone like a God type of thing. It was decided by everything around you. Everything was excactly in place on the right spot on the right time to make you decide you won't study for the test, and that "Everything" was again decided by something else. In this loop there is no end and no beginning.

It's really hard to explain but its more likely to be a mindset than a understanding. Lets take another example, you are aware of this theory and you have a test tomorrow. You think about the previous example to not study for the test and get a low grade. Well you say to yourself im not going to study but you are actually going to. It was already decided that you were going to say to yourself yourself you were not going to study but you still did and you got a 7.9, so actually you can't go ahead of the theory because the theory lives in the future. Even if you say to yourself a thousand time's "I am not going to study, no wait I am going to study, no im not going to study, yes im going to study, so on..." its already decided what you are going to do. Maybe you study for the test but you never get your grade, because you got hit by a bus and you are in the hospital now. Than it was decided you where going to be hit by that bus, no matter what you did it was going to happen. But you are still unaware of it.

Again an example of what im trying to tell, your excact date of when you are going to die has already been made. You still don't know it when its going to happen but it is going to happen some day. Maybe that date is in a 1000 years from now because some medicine was found that repairs your stem cells. Maybe that date is tomorrow but it has already been decided it is on a exact date.

And im not saying I am right in this theory, but I am willing to learn why this is right or wrong because it goes around in my head for a long time. Also it was decided that I would write this Thread and it was decide you would read this Thread on this excact second of this day. I'm not trying to say that people don't have a choice in life. Because we all have our own choices. But when you make your OWN choice it was already decided your would make that choice and get that outcome.

Thanks for reading my Thread and I hope I'll get feedback on this Theory.

Moved to Philosophy.

Can you provide any evidence, or even a logical argument, that this "theory" (it's not actually a theory however) is factual?

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Moved to Philosophy.

Can you provide any evidence, or even a logical argument, that this "theory" (it's not actually a theory however) is factual?

Can you provide any evidence that god excists?

This is a non sequitur, can you support YOUR idea or not?

(PS to answer your question there is no evidence that god exists, if there was people wouldn't need a screw loose faith to believe in the idea...

Originally Posted by 15mc

Can you provide any evidence that god excists?

I don't need to: because I haven't claimed that he/ she/ it does.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by 15mc

Can you provide any evidence that god excists?

I don't need to: because I haven't claimed that he/ she/ it does.

I haven't claimed that this theory is correct, its just a theory. I indeed have no evidence but I was curious if there was a possibility this could excist.

What im talking about is the Past Now Future. When something happend you know it happend, when you move your hand up and down you know you moved your hand up and down. Same for the future but you are unaware it is going to happen until it happens. That you are reading this comment has already been decided. Everything humanity does and every movement that is made is decide because its the future that become's the Now.

Originally Posted by PhDemon

This is a non sequitur, can you support YOUR idea or not?

(PS to answer your question there is no evidence that god exists, if there was people wouldn't need a screw loose faith to believe in the idea...

I have no factual evidence, this was made to get people thinking about this. In short it says: Your whole timelime from birth to death, everything you do or have done was already decided how it would go. A line which all people live by, even if you are aware of this line you can't chance it. (Because if you where aware of the line it was decided you would become aware of the line so the outcome of your actions have already been decided)

Ah, but as a scientist I start with the idea that if there is no evidence (or at least a logical argument in its favour) it isn't worth wasting time on. If time is spent on every idea people come up with we'd never get anything done!

Originally Posted by 15mc

I have no factual evidence

You don't need "factual evidence". What you do need is a convincing argument for it to be taken seriously.

this was made to get people thinking about this. In short it says: Your whole timelime from birth to death, everything you do or have done was already decided how it would go. A line which all people live by, even if you are aware of this line you can't chance it. (Because if you where aware of the line it was decided you would become aware of the line so the outcome of your actions have already been decided)

1) Unless there's some argument to support the view then the response can only be "So what?".
2) IF, as you posit, everything IS fixed then it makes no difference whatsoever whether we're aware of "the line" or not: things are still fixed.

Originally Posted by PhDemon

Ah, but as a scientist I start with the idea that if there is no evidence (or at least a logical argument in its favour) it isn't worth wasting time on. If time is spent on every idea people come up with we'd never get anything done!

I know what you mean that you need like evidence, but everything starts with an idea and things about space and time how could I come up with evidence. First you need a group to believe it has a possibility that life is fixed. Than you come up with arguments. If you would go to sleep and think about life that is already fixed from the beginning. Maybe you will think about it more deeper and deeper and than you decide if you believe or not. (But what you are going to decide has already been fixed.)

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by 15mc

I have no factual evidence

You don't need "factual evidence". What you do need is a convincing argument for it to be taken seriously.

this was made to get people thinking about this. In short it says: Your whole timelime from birth to death, everything you do or have done was already decided how it would go. A line which all people live by, even if you are aware of this line you can't chance it. (Because if you where aware of the line it was decided you would become aware of the line so the outcome of your actions have already been decided)

1) Unless there's some argument to support the view then the response can only be "So what?".
2) IF, as you posit, everything IS fixed then it makes no difference whatsoever whether we're aware of "the line" or not: things are still fixed.

My argument is that life is fixed, its hard to explain okay! I can try once again but than you just decide of thinking it through or not.

If you know you are going to get hit by a car tomorrow on exactly this second. There is nothing you can do to stop that from happening. It has been fixed you are going to be hit by a car.

What im trying to say is that you now don't know you are going to be hit by a car. Again there is nothing you can do to stop that from happening. It has been fixed you are going to be hit by a car. The only thing that seperate's us and the car is the knowing and unknowing. You are going to get hit if you know it or not. Thats what I mean by life is fixed. It is going to happen but you are only aware of it after it happend.

I can't explain it better than this, thank you.

Everything starts with an idea, true. But without support that's also where it ends... I'll leave you to it...

Originally Posted by PhDemon

Everything starts with an idea, true. But without support that's also where it ends... I'll leave you to it...

My argument is that life is fixed, its hard to explain okay! I can try once again but than you just decide of thinking it through or not.

If you know you are going to get hit by a car tomorrow on exactly this second. There is nothing you can do to stop that from happening. It has been fixed you are going to be hit by a car.

What im trying to say is that you now don't know you are going to be hit by a car. Again there is nothing you can do to stop that from happening. It has been fixed you are going to be hit by a car. The only thing that seperate's us and the car is the knowing and unknowing. You are going to get hit if you know it or not. Thats what I mean by life is fixed. It is going to happen but you are only aware of it after it happend.

I can't explain it better than this, thank you.

Originally Posted by 15mc

I can try once again but than you just decide of thinking it through or not.

There's nothing to "think through".

If you know you are going to get hit by a car tomorrow on exactly this second. There is nothing you can do to stop that from happening. It has been fixed you are going to be hit by a car.

Exactly.

What im trying to say is that you now don't know you are going to be hit by a car. Again there is nothing you can do to stop that from happening. It has been fixed you are going to be hit by a car. The only thing that seperate's us and the car is the knowing and unknowing. You are going to get hit if you know it or not. Thats what I mean by life is fixed. It is going to happen but you are only aware of it after it happend.

So, as you claim, "knowing" won't make any difference at all (except for worry beforehand): BUT, - and you appear to have ignored or not thought of this - even if we got to know that would mean that that THAT (coming to know) was ALSO fixed - in other words we couldn't choose a path that would lead us to knowing this (if we wanted to) or one that would would stop us learning this (if that was what we wanted) because we can't do anything except what is fixed.
It would mean that, essentially, we're characters in a book: we have no choices, no options.

So, as I said, the response is "So what?".

Without a supporting argument there's no reason to believe this is actually the case...

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by 15mc

I can try once again but than you just decide of thinking it through or not.

There's nothing to "think through".

If you know you are going to get hit by a car tomorrow on exactly this second. There is nothing you can do to stop that from happening. It has been fixed you are going to be hit by a car.

Exactly.

What im trying to say is that you now don't know you are going to be hit by a car. Again there is nothing you can do to stop that from happening. It has been fixed you are going to be hit by a car. The only thing that seperate's us and the car is the knowing and unknowing. You are going to get hit if you know it or not. Thats what I mean by life is fixed. It is going to happen but you are only aware of it after it happend.

So, as you claim, "knowing" won't make any difference at all (except for worry beforehand): BUT, - and you appear to have ignored or not thought of this - even if we got to know that would mean that that THAT (coming to know) was ALSO fixed - in other words we couldn't choose a path that would lead us to knowing this (if we wanted to) or one that would would stop us learning this (if that was what we wanted) because we can't do anything except what is fixed.
It would mean that, essentially, we're characters in a book: we have no choices, no options.

So, as I said, the response is "So what?".

Without a supporting argument there's no reason to believe this is actually the case...

You understand it, there is no reason we could all just live our live's on because everything we get to know about this subject was fixed. It's just that there is a possibility. It wouldn't add anything to society for knowing this exists, it are just small things that you can think about.

My two cents. I've used this before when talking pre determinism and whether it pokes a hole in your 'theory' or not I couldn't tell you.

Let's say drunk drivers kill 100 people on average in a county each year. We would know the names of each victim and we could also easily say it was predetermined their number was up. The county decides to step up and crack down on drunk drivers and lo and behold the fatalities drop to an an average of 25 in the following years. We could still say we knew who were predetermined to be killed but we would have no idea who was predetermined to be saved. If you could give me those names then maybe you have something there but all you can do is say it was predetermined that no one can know.

heard this argument before.
OK


I have my morning coffee. Is it predetermined that I will have a bowel movement or not?

Thank you very much

What does the predetermining anyway? If we could say "everything is predetermined" ,it would only ,at most mean "everything has been theorized to have been predetermined" and will remain so until we observe otherwise.

And even then would that (and previous) observations have also been "predetermined"? (if not then the consequences of that observation might not follow)

For what it is worth, I think the current scientific position is that god (in Einstein's words) does in fact play dice with the universe.

Originally Posted by babe

I have my morning coffee. Is it predetermined that I will have a bowel movement or not?

Its been decided that you will not only drink coffee at Starbucks but will use their post caffeine facilities as well. By order of the Pre-determiner

Originally Posted by 15mc

If you know you are going to get hit by a car tomorrow on exactly this second. There is nothing you can do to stop that from happening. It has been fixed you are going to be hit by a car.

So does that mean that we are wasting our time looking both ways when crossing the road?

Hey Ox, how's things? Not being the sharpest knife in the drawer I just realized the absurdity of 15mc's quote. Of course if I knew all that info then it is going to happen even if I locked myself in the basement for the day, somehow a car will find me. lol Unfortunately, or fortunately, we don't know. Lottery sales would suffer if we knew who wins because if we knew that then why buy a ticket? Or would we still buy a ticket just for the thrill of watching someone else win? I kind of doubt it. Poor winner might be the only guy who buys a ticket.

We were having coffee today at local establishment. Raining outside and my wife spots a moth upside down with its wings stuck to the wet window sill. She just had to go outside and flip it over. Got me thinking about the Butterfly Effect, Homer Simpson and time travelers. I asked her if she was a tt and she looked at me as if I was from another planet. I chuckled inside.

Originally Posted by babe

OK
I have my morning coffee. Is it predetermined that I will have a bowel movement or not?

Absolutely: you WILL have a bowel movement (at some point in your life...)

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by babe

OK
I have my morning coffee. Is it predetermined that I will have a bowel movement or not?

Absolutely: you WILL have a bowel movement (at some point in your life...)

I think you may have squared the circle

Originally Posted by geordief

I think you may have squared the circle

You have to be careful though: many years ago I was (as usual for lunch time) in a friend's shop talking to the usual crowd when someone tried to move me out of the way.
As his hand touched me I shouted "Get your hand off my arse!".
Stunned he looked at me and said "It was your back I touched, not your arse", to which I replied "Yes, it was my back: but I moved my bowels this morning"...

I will.

We aren't even there yet and already the future looks shitty.

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

Originally Posted by babe

I have my morning coffee. Is it predetermined that I will have a bowel movement or not?

Its been decided that you will not only drink coffee at Starbucks but will use their post caffeine facilities as well. By order of the Pre-determiner

EWWw STARBUCKS? NO WAY!

Yeah, friends don't let friends drink Starfucks. It's about Dutch Bros' around here.

I need to know if what happened to me yesterday was predetermined or is there another explanation.
My train was late arriving by 5 minutes. I needed to catch a bus connection but missed it by about 1 minute, so waited for the next bus half hour later. Getting off at my destination I banged my head on the wing mirror of the bus causing a sharp pain.
I have never done this before, ever, ever...
Now I had some potentially bad news about my health earlier in the week which has caused me to drop into a black hole of despair.
Could the events be connected? It does seem to happen that the brain adjusts downwards with bad news and reduced spatial awareness could be a factor.
So if you do get knocked down by a car could it be your brain that is lacking alertness. It takes two to make most accidents happen.

Wouldn't a predetermined world suggest an infinite number of predeterminations? I mean the predeterminations would
also be predetermined and so on down the line, ad infinitum.

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

Wouldn't a predetermined world suggest an infinite number of predeterminations? I mean the predeterminations would
also be predetermined and so on down the line, ad infinitum.

Yes I thought that was the general idea.But it seems to have been shown that this is not the way things work and the (pre) determinism only works in a probabilistic way .

You might perhaps ask is the probability predetermined and I wouldn't know if there could be an answer to that.

Could determinism and randomness exist somehow "symbiotically" ?

I used to think that it was just our limited physical capabilities that prevented us from foreseeing the future to an indefinite degree but apparently this uncertainty is woven into the structure of the universe.

i'll rather go with free will and living with the consequencies, than the excuse of not being responsible because it was written in the stars.

It was predetermined that I had a nightmare, woke up, had coffee, decided to eat, took a poo poo, and kissed 1000 men today.

I sure love this already decided crap.

Sorry
I am past skeptical! *L*

Originally Posted by babe

It was predetermined that I had a nightmare, woke up, had coffee, decided to eat, took a poo poo, and kissed 1000 men today.

I sure love this already decided crap.

youre old enough to remember these Lovin' Spoonful lyrics:

Did you ever have to make up your mind?
And pick up on one and leave the other behind?
It's not often easy and not often kind.
Did you ever have to make up your mind?
Did you ever have to finally decide?
And say yes to one and let the other one ride?
There's so many changes and tears you must hide.
Did you ever have to finally decide?

If no one actually decides then I guess all crime is ok.

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

Originally Posted by babe

It was predetermined that I had a nightmare, woke up, had coffee, decided to eat, took a poo poo, and kissed 1000 men today.

I sure love this already decided crap.

youre old enough to remember these Lovin' Spoonful lyrics:

Did you ever have to make up your mind?
And pick up on one and leave the other behind?
It's not often easy and not often kind.
Did you ever have to make up your mind?
Did you ever have to finally decide?
And say yes to one and let the other one ride?
There's so many changes and tears you must hide.
Did you ever have to finally decide?

If no one actually decides then I guess all crime is ok.

Well I was in my teens but yes!

The very idea that everything is or implied to be predetermined.. Utter nonsense.
For my negative of the notion I will offer the accident that ended my working career with NEWA NZ.
I was awake early some hours before my shift hours were due.. I decided to go and help the chef with breakfast. I often did this as we got on well. When you are crew of a ocean going ship some times 90 days long trips. You pitch in, all being part of the team. I was crisping the bacon and shelling eggs.. Yes the work boots got a little greasy.. a few mins., later while going up a deck .. whoops and I bumped my head on the top step.. ( Was this predetermined because I got up early..) regardless my small brain had a little bleed that took me off of the ship. Clumsy slippery soul wrecks my idea of a good job. Some years later my mind has sorted it's self out to a standard expectable. I now drive a 24 wheeler from the store to the off site storeroom. Was any of that predetermined.. No.
That things happen and we have no control of what and when is part of being acceptive of life and circumstance.
Being of a age where the past did unfold the way it did because it did.
My own actions and a moments distraction changed my life path for ever.
I can now say that life is better, great even. Determined by me.

To paraphrase Isaac Singer: "I have to believe in free will, what other choice do I have?"

If you believe it is physics all the way down, then its hard to not believe in some form of determinism. Either the clock work of general relativity or the random chaos of Quantum Mechanics but neither leave a lot of space for something as fleeting as free will.

I was in a car wreck. Was it predetermined that the car in front of me would stop for a left turn, and that I would stop and the car that hit me going over 35 MPH wouldn't hit it's brakes till it plowed into me and I got to play ping pong being tossed between two cars?

I don't think so.

I think the plausibility of determinism came about because it seemed that you could have predictable simple chains of events cascading one into the other.

But when two or more such chains of events "bump into" each other the ability of anyone to calculate the outcome would be practically impossible even with all the resources of the Universe at his , her or its disposal.

And since it is probably the case that the Universe is entirely predeterminable or not at all then it must be random to a degree (says me )

Is not probability of an occurrence only the likelihood (odds) of the event happening and the possibility of it either a yay or nay? Simply believimg does not make something likely, thus possibilities cannot be confirmed. Would we not need a known factor to establish likelihood? What would be the known factor(s) for determinism or does it fall strictly under the belief umbrella?

Originally Posted by geordief

I think the plausibility of determinism came about because it seemed that you could have predictable simple chains of events cascading one into the other.

But when two or more such chains of events "bump into" each other the ability of anyone to calculate the outcome would be practically impossible even with all the resources of the Universe at his , her or its disposal.

And since it is probably the case that the Universe is entirely predeterminable or not at all then it must be random to a degree (says me )

In short yes, though "chaotic" which inevitably grows from even absolute deterministic systems is a better word than random.

Originally Posted by 15mc

Hello everyone, I am Merlijn and I am 15 years old. I come from the Netherlands so im sorry if my English is not that great. (Im calling it "My theory" in this post but it is probably someone else his, but it's hard to write it without it so its not officially my theory.) (So note that this is not my theory and im not trying to get credit of anything else for it)

I came up with a theory which may already excist but I have never heard from before. The theory says that everything that is going to happen in the future has already been decided. Let me give you an example: Its Sunday and you haven't been studying for your test yet. You get to make a decision, study and have a higher chance for a good grade or don't study and have a lower chance for a good grade. My Theory says that your grade has already been decided. That's hard to understand but ill go further in it. Lets say the grade was a 4.9, that's not so good. But how did you get so low? The choice I've set up earlier between study and don't study was already made, you didn't study and you would have never. Because it was decided you woudn't, and no! It wasnt decided by somone like a God type of thing. It was decided by everything around you. Everything was excactly in place on the right spot on the right time to make you decide you won't study for the test, and that "Everything" was again decided by something else. In this loop there is no end and no beginning.

It's really hard to explain but its more likely to be a mindset than a understanding. Lets take another example, you are aware of this theory and you have a test tomorrow. You think about the previous example to not study for the test and get a low grade. Well you say to yourself im not going to study but you are actually going to. It was already decided that you were going to say to yourself yourself you were not going to study but you still did and you got a 7.9, so actually you can't go ahead of the theory because the theory lives in the future. Even if you say to yourself a thousand time's "I am not going to study, no wait I am going to study, no im not going to study, yes im going to study, so on..." its already decided what you are going to do. Maybe you study for the test but you never get your grade, because you got hit by a bus and you are in the hospital now. Than it was decided you where going to be hit by that bus, no matter what you did it was going to happen. But you are still unaware of it.

Again an example of what im trying to tell, your excact date of when you are going to die has already been made. You still don't know it when its going to happen but it is going to happen some day. Maybe that date is in a 1000 years from now because some medicine was found that repairs your stem cells. Maybe that date is tomorrow but it has already been decided it is on a exact date.

And im not saying I am right in this theory, but I am willing to learn why this is right or wrong because it goes around in my head for a long time. Also it was decided that I would write this Thread and it was decide you would read this Thread on this excact second of this day. I'm not trying to say that people don't have a choice in life. Because we all have our own choices. But when you make your OWN choice it was already decided your would make that choice and get that outcome.

Thanks for reading my Thread and I hope I'll get feedback on this Theory.

Firstly, This leads to the creation of God and blah blah blah,
But lets keep that aside, If everything we do is already written/chosen, then there should be a system/rule something like that to guide the creation of the activities. If the activities are random, then there would be chaos everywhere. Consider a game of card, if you throw out cards randomly u couldn't win. So, If there is a system, there will be a need for that. That is the existence of our lives is based on a system created by someone. consider the life of dinosaurs, if their life is regulated by a system then the system saw that life form as a threat and destroyed it. Isn't it silly ? Your theory can't be true !! But if you involve religion, that might be a good platform for disscussion !!

Originally Posted by PhDemon

This is a non sequitur, can you support YOUR idea or not?

(PS to answer your question there is no evidence that god exists, if there was people wouldn't need a screw loose faith to believe in the idea...

Faith. Exactly. That word says it all.
It's surprising how many believe in something so readily but refuse to accept facts.

Originally Posted by Aslam

Firstly, This leads to the creation of God and blah blah blah,
But lets keep that aside, If everything we do is already written/chosen, then there should be a system/rule something like that to guide the creation of the activities. If the activities are random, then there would be chaos everywhere. Consider a game of card, if you throw out cards randomly u couldn't win. So, If there is a system, there will be a need for that. That is the existence of our lives is based on a system created by someone. consider the life of dinosaurs, if their life is regulated by a system then the system saw that life form as a threat and destroyed it. Isn't it silly ? Your theory can't be true !! But if you involve religion, that might be a good platform for disscussion !!

Religion isn't required (nor wanted).
You appear to have a lack of knowledge about where systems derive from, how "random" (chaos) works and also appear to have argued against yourself: in a different thread you stated that you don't believe in "god", yet where does your proposed "control" come from?

Originally Posted by hannah40

Originally Posted by PhDemon

This is a non sequitur, can you support YOUR idea or not?

(PS to answer your question there is no evidence that god exists, if there was people wouldn't need a screw loose faith to believe in the idea...

Faith. Exactly. That word says it all.
It's surprising how many believe in something so readily but refuse to accept facts.

I am going to expand on this.


When people say to me that the religion they know of is 'the truth' it kind of says they don't actually understand the concept of religion. Religion only requires you to 'have faith' and we have come a long way off from that.
People often get offended when religion is shunned or talked about in a negative light. You perhaps need to come back to reality and understand that 'actually; your own religion makes no demands on what you should do with it.

Are your comments addressed to me? I don't have a religion, if you think the quoted post is pro religion you have serious comprehension issues...

Originally Posted by hannah40

Religion only requires you to 'have faith'

Except that - historically - this isn't true.
Religions have had, and continue to have, numerous precepts (not to mention strictures) which must be observed for followers to be allowed to remain in that religion.

your own religion makes no demands on what you should do with it.

"Your own religion" (presuming you mean the one that you've invented and subscribe to) is in a pretty small minority.

I don't do religion.

Originally Posted by babe

I don't do religion.

Neither do I. That said, it is a topic I never tire of discussing.

I do politics, can that be classed as a way of life?
After all, Shariah Law is classed as such.

I find it extraordinary how the bible is used to swear on in circumstances like courts.

Wouldn't determining pre-determination require an 3rd party observer outside of the frame of reference of time? Someone who could "see" the future? Humans only experience time in the present, so even if everything was predetermined, what would it matter? We'd never know....unless this outside observer told us. I don't know...maybe he can write us a book to tell us the important bits...and then we could gather together once a week in a building built for this purpose and discuss the writings of this book to better prepare for the future.

Wait...that sounds familiar. Aww...shit! I just created religion.

Originally Posted by MacGyver1968

Wouldn't determining pre-determination require an 3rd party observer outside of the frame of reference of time? Someone who could "see" the future? Humans only experience time in the present, so even if everything was predetermined, what would it matter? We'd never know....unless this outside observer told us. I don't know...maybe he can write us a book to tell us the important bits...and then we could gather together once a week in a building built for this purpose and discuss the writings of this book to better prepare for the future.

Wait...that sounds familiar. Aww...shit! I just created religion.

I don't think so. We do experience everything in the present but we have so many "presents" that we experience (plus their order in time -well there is an order and we call it time order) that we can work out for ourselves if the later "presents" are rigidly attached to the earlier "presents".

Sure ,in our everyday life there are so many variables it is impossible to do this ,but a physicist can attempt to predict the course of a simple physical system in time and ,from what I have heard this cannot be done (and not just because it is bloody difficult but because the universe has this uncertainty built into it from the get go)

So I feel that ,yes things can seem predetermined (some of our decisions are actually made before we are conscious of making them as an example) but complete predeterminism does not exist.

Perhaps we could go even further and note that some (nearly all?) of our decisions are made without a lot of consideration and all these decisions have completely unforeseeable consequences some of which turn out to be important and others are just inconsequential to all intents and purposes.

Perhaps we can distinguish between subjective predeterminism and objective predeterminism (I don't know if that would make any sense)

I wonder why randomness would be predetermined. I'm thinking evolution. However once randomness kicked in then how could anything be predetermined after that?

Edit: Predetermination would mean no such thing as randomness?

Originally Posted by 15mc

I came up with a theory, which may already exist, but I have never heard of it before.

It's not new. The argument for freewill is very old.

Originally Posted by 15mc

I indeed have no evidence but I was curious if there was a possibility this could exist.

Yes, of course.

Libertarian Freewill: The belief that some human actions are freely chosen.

Hard Determinism: The belief that all events are caused by past events such that nothing other than what does occur could occur.

The principle of alternate possibilities says that an action is free only if the agent—that is, the person doing the thing—could have done otherwise.

Determinism by contrast doesn’t allow options. It holds that every event is caused by a previous event. Event causation holds that no previous event can occur without having been caused by a previous physical event.

Most people who believe in libertarian freewill will concede that the physical world itself is deterministic, but that there’s also agent causation, which can start a whole new chain of events that wasn't caused by anything else other than the agent himself. By this account people have the ability to effect the causal chain of the universe, but you have to ask where would these free decisions that launch entirely new causal chains come from?

Are humans and their actions bound by physical laws? If mental states are brain states, and brain states are biological states—biological states are physical states, and everyone has already previously agreed that the physical world is deterministic.



P.S. You might find "The Neural Basis of Free Will" by peter Tse interesting.

This theory seems to fall under the umbrella of determinism, the opposite to of course idealism.
If everything is predetermined, then that would pose some questions as it relates to 'cause and effect.'
Though you may think you made the independent choice to post this thread, maybe an external force, energy or being acting upon you to make that decision.
Of course such a theory would mean that we are living in a fixed timeline, like (for argument's sake) read only memory.
All decision were already made at the beginning of the universe, is basically what it implies.

Originally Posted by geordief

Originally Posted by MacGyver1968

Wouldn't determining pre-determination require an 3rd party observer outside of the frame of reference of time? Someone who could "see" the future? Humans only experience time in the present, so even if everything was predetermined, what would it matter? We'd never know....unless this outside observer told us. I don't know...maybe he can write us a book to tell us the important bits...and then we could gather together once a week in a building built for this purpose and discuss the writings of this book to better prepare for the future.

Wait...that sounds familiar. Aww...shit! I just created religion.

I don't think so. We do experience everything in the present but we have so many "presents" that we experience (plus their order in time -well there is an order and we call it time order) that we can work out for ourselves if the later "presents" are rigidly attached to the earlier "presents".

Sure ,in our everyday life there are so many variables it is impossible to do this ,but a physicist can attempt to predict the course of a simple physical system in time and ,from what I have heard this cannot be done (and not just because it is bloody difficult but because the universe has this uncertainty built into it from the get go)

So I feel that ,yes things can seem predetermined (some of our decisions are actually made before we are conscious of making them as an example) but complete predeterminism does not exist.

Perhaps we could go even further and note that some (nearly all?) of our decisions are made without a lot of consideration and all these decisions have completely unforeseeable consequences some of which turn out to be important and others are just inconsequential to all intents and purposes.

Perhaps we can distinguish between subjective predeterminism and objective predeterminism (I don't know if that would make any sense)

Well said.

Originally Posted by geordief

Originally Posted by MacGyver1968

Wouldn't determining pre-determination require an 3rd party observer outside of the frame of reference of time? Someone who could "see" the future? Humans only experience time in the present, so even if everything was predetermined, what would it matter? We'd never know....unless this outside observer told us. I don't know...maybe he can write us a book to tell us the important bits...and then we could gather together once a week in a building built for this purpose and discuss the writings of this book to better prepare for the future.

Wait...that sounds familiar. Aww...shit! I just created religion.

I don't think so. We do experience everything in the present but we have so many "presents" that we experience (plus their order in time -well there is an order and we call it time order) that we can work out for ourselves if the later "presents" are rigidly attached to the earlier "presents".

Sure ,in our everyday life there are so many variables it is impossible to do this ,but a physicist can attempt to predict the course of a simple physical system in time and ,from what I have heard this cannot be done (and not just because it is bloody difficult but because the universe has this uncertainty built into it from the get go)

So I feel that ,yes things can seem predetermined (some of our decisions are actually made before we are conscious of making them as an example) but complete predeterminism does not exist.

Perhaps we could go even further and note that some (nearly all?) of our decisions are made without a lot of consideration and all these decisions have completely unforeseeable consequences some of which turn out to be important and others are just inconsequential to all intents and purposes.

Perhaps we can distinguish between subjective predeterminism and objective predeterminism (I don't know if that would make any sense)

Internet is fun: I have had this idea of predetermination for a while now, came to find if someone had thought about the same thing and found this forum. Hello everyone, glad to join!
(I of course know this question has been asked before, but I think I may just have a new point of view for it...)



First of all: during this answer I don't mean in any way on any point that this "predetermination" subject is something spiritual. I indeed have the idea of purely science-based predetermination.

I don't believe in randomness in real life situations (of course math etc. is a different deal with it's hypothetical situations). Instead I do believe in butterfly effect, or in other words chain reaction.
I think that everything, the whole universe and existence, is just one big blob of matter, bumping into each other, making chin reactions again and again and again forever. It is probable that after the big bang there was only gas that pulled on itself because of gravity: well now these such things as organisms, animals and plants, life. We are still that same gas - just that gas after countless of chain reactions within itself.

When thinking about the universe like this, if you could (in theory of course: in real life of course this would be rationally impossible) go back in time to f.e. the big bang, stop the movement of time somehow and then analyze every single bit of the universe, properties of every single particle, after that you could (again, hypothetically) calculate the following chain reactions. And the following ones, and the following ones etc.
After billions and billions of analyzed years of data, wouldn't you end up here no matter what? After all those chain reactions you would end up here, reading this post.
Wouldn't this mean some kind of scientific predetermination?

One could say that the direction of a particle after it has collided is random. I think that it's just chain reaction at so small scale that humans can't (atm at least) understand it. Of course if it is random (which somehow feels irrational to me) my theory will be ruined and you just wasted your time.

Read a bit about quantum mechanics, probability is built in, there is no determinism as you describe it.

Originally Posted by Akarri

When thinking about the universe like this, if you could (in theory of course: in real life of course this would be rationally impossible) go back in time to f.e. the big bang, stop the movement of time somehow and then analyze every single bit of the universe, properties of every single particle, after that you could (again, hypothetically) calculate the following chain reactions. And the following ones, and the following ones etc.
After billions and billions of analyzed years of data, wouldn't you end up here no matter what? After all those chain reactions you would end up here, reading this post.
Wouldn't this mean some kind of scientific predetermination?

This was suggested by Pierre-Simon Laplace in 1814: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laplace%27s_demon

The trouble is, he didn't know about chaos theory or quantum theory. The first tells us that we need to be increasingly precise to predict further into the future. The latter tells us that we can't do that because things are inherently random (or, to be strictly accurate, probabilistic).

Originally Posted by Strange

This was suggested by Pierre-Simon Laplace in 1814

The trouble is, he didn't know about chaos theory or quantum theory. The first tells us that we need to be increasingly precise to predict further into the future. The latter tells us that we can't do that because things are inherently random (or, to be strictly accurate, probabilistic).

Well, looked up basics of quantum mechanics and it crashes my theory. It was cool while it lasted
Kind of a relief at the same time to be honest.

When it comes to some kind of spiritual predetermined future (and kind of everything of religion and superstition): I believe it when I have a reason to. At the moment I don't have one.

Originally Posted by Akarri

Originally Posted by Strange

This was suggested by Pierre-Simon Laplace in 1814

The trouble is, he didn't know about chaos theory or quantum theory. The first tells us that we need to be increasingly precise to predict further into the future. The latter tells us that we can't do that because things are inherently random (or, to be strictly accurate, probabilistic).

Well, looked up basics of quantum mechanics and it crashes my theory. It was cool while it lasted
Kind of a relief at the same time to be honest.

When it comes to some kind of spiritual predetermined future (and kind of everything of religion and superstition): I believe it when I have a reason to. At the moment I don't have one.

In fact, the indeterminate nature of quantum theory has troubled a lot of scientists. If you look up "Hidden Variable Theories" you will find some attempts have been made to treat the apparent quantum level uncertainties as governed by some deeper process that we have not yet uncovered. At present however, none of these hidden variable theories has been successful. So for the present, most people tend to think the universe is indeed not predetermined.

From a philosophical point of view, science is always moving, so whatever our models tell us today may not remain entirely unchanged in the future.

Originally Posted by exchemist

In fact, the indeterminate nature of quantum theory has troubled a lot of scientists. If you look up "Hidden Variable Theories" you will find some attempts have been made to treat the apparent quantum level uncertainties as governed by some deeper process that we have not yet uncovered. At present however, none of these hidden variable theories has been successful. So for the present, most people tend to think the universe is indeed not predetermined.

From a philosophical point of view, science is always moving, so whatever our models tell us today may not remain entirely unchanged in the future.

Yeah, been thinking about this all day today! So there is not actual proof that there is randomness (in quantum physics that is)?

Cause if there's not, well...tbh a non-random universe seems more rational to me than a random one. I can honestly not wrap my head around how there even could be randomness, just feels wrong.
Of course this is just what feels rational on the lack of evidence.

Science doesn't do proof, all we can say is that our current best model has this probability behaviour in it, and despite a lot of trying no one has found a better theory without it...

Also, what makes sense to you is not the best way of thinking about how the universe operates, you are using a brain that evolved to deal with things much bigger than atoms, but smaller than mountains that don't move very fast. You are also using a language that evolved to tell other monkeys where the food is. Appeals to what makes sense usually give the wrong answer when talking about atoms or universes

Originally Posted by Akarri

Originally Posted by exchemist

In fact, the indeterminate nature of quantum theory has troubled a lot of scientists. If you look up "Hidden Variable Theories" you will find some attempts have been made to treat the apparent quantum level uncertainties as governed by some deeper process that we have not yet uncovered. At present however, none of these hidden variable theories has been successful. So for the present, most people tend to think the universe is indeed not predetermined.

From a philosophical point of view, science is always moving, so whatever our models tell us today may not remain entirely unchanged in the future.

Yeah, been thinking about this all day today! So there is not actual proof that there is randomness (in quantum physics that is)?

Cause if there's not, well...tbh a non-random universe seems more rational to me than a random one. I can honestly not wrap my head around how there even could be randomness, just feels wrong.
Of course this is just what feels rational on the lack of evidence.

It's a personal thing of course, but I have always found the inability to know everything exactly rather comforting. It appeals to my sense of the imperfection and untidiness of the world we see around us. Einstein however, hated the idea, famously saying "God does not play dice." But the evidence to date is that Einstein was wrong about that and that God DOES play dice!

But either position is a subjective philosophical or aesthetic preference, not science. It's fine to have philosophical or aesthetic beliefs or preferences (it must be, if Einstein had them!) but in science one has to set them to one side and look at what the observations tell us.

Originally Posted by exchemist

It's a personal thing of course, but I have always found the inability to know everything exactly rather comforting. It appeals to my sense of the imperfection and untidiness of the world we see around us. Einstein however, hated the idea, famously saying "God does not play dice." But the evidence to date is that Einstein was wrong about that and that God DOES play dice!

But either position is a subjective philosophical or aesthetic preference, not science. It's fine to have philosophical or aesthetic beliefs or preferences (it must be, if Einstein had them!) but in science one has to set them to one side and look at what the observations tell us.

You're right of course, my point wasn't at all to be a scientific point.

My only concern about predetermination is that there is an unknown quantity or grey area attached to it. Briefly, and I've used this example before, if a law is passed that results in a reduction of fatalities, then who were saved? I can name the predetermined(?) victims but not the saved.

IMHO......If predetermination works for one then it should work for an entire group. I think that possibly life itself is the proverbial monkey wrench in the predetermined equation. We can make decisions that affect known individuals but at the same time decide for a group without really knowing who is individually affected. If predetermination is reality then it gets back to knowing everything, especially what's coming and who will be affected. "It's predetermined", a cheap but effective answer to why anything happens at all.

Originally Posted by river_rat

To paraphrase Isaac Singer: "I have to believe in free will, what other choice do I have?"

If you believe it is physics all the way down, then its hard to not believe in some form of determinism. Either the clock work of general relativity or the random chaos of Quantum Mechanics but neither leave a lot of space for something as fleeting as free will.

Surprisingly no-one has mentioned advanced/retarded waves on this thread. Time travels (using that term loosely) from past to future and future to past concurrently. That's a scientifically accepted fact. So if the past is fixed, the argument that the future is also fixed has some validity, based on the evidence of advanced/retarded wave behaviour. As Exchemist has pointed out, Einstein was proved erronous in believing that "God does not play dice," so there is room, always, for a new mind-set to create a new theory that turns out to overturn previous belief systems. This issue has nothing to do with religion, politics or Starbucks, but a lot to do with the mechanics at work in the dimensional/spacetime fields. If we do have free will, then surely everyone would be exactly what they wanted to be and life would be as we wish, which evidence suggests is not the case. Some do better than others, and we certainly have no choice (in this dimension at least) as to the place or circumstance of our birth. Or death, for that matter. To what degree we have to simply deal with the flux of chaos as we go along, with no choice in the matter, has yet to be determined, but at least the questions are being asked. That's a start.

Originally Posted by Quantumologist

That's a scientifically accepted fact.

Really? Citation needed.

Even if this is true, we only have our own consciousness to guide us. Is our consciousness an illusion? If it is, it still feels like we have the ability to be aware of what's happening around us, and that our choices are the reasons why our lives look like they do. If everything is already decided, then we should empty all the prisons, since none of those people had any choice in their crimes. So, when you start unraveling this 'theory,' you can't get around the fact that we live our lives under the impression that things are not a product of determinism.

Originally Posted by Quantumologist

but a lot to do with the mechanics at work in the dimensional/spacetime fields.

How so? What do you mean by "dimensional/spacetime fields"?

If we do have free will, then surely everyone would be exactly what they wanted to be and life would be as we wish

That would depend upon how one defines "free will".

Some do better than others, and we certainly have no choice (in this dimension at least) as to the place or circumstance of our birth.

Your (mis)use of the word "dimension" here seems to accord more with the "woo-crowd's "definition" rather than the scientific one. Could you elucidate further please?

Originally Posted by wegs

If everything is already decided, then we should empty all the prisons, since none of those people had any choice in their crimes.

disagree. They had a choice, it was their brain and no other factor, they were just destined to make the wrong one--an unacceptable one to society. Where your point matters more is how we view those enevitable decisions and how society can help individuals reach better inevitable choices by changing the environment. I think overall we'd be better for it as well instead of cycles of trying to pile negative on top of the original environment without changing that underlying environment.

Originally Posted by wegs

If everything is already decided, then we should empty all the prisons, since none of those people had any choice in their crimes.

Wait!
If everything is already decided then "we" had no choice in whether to incarcerate them or not.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by Quantumologist

but a lot to do with the mechanics at work in the dimensional/spacetime fields.

How so? What do you mean by "dimensional/spacetime fields"?

If we do have free will, then surely everyone would be exactly what they wanted to be and life would be as we wish

That would depend upon how one defines "free will".

Some do better than others, and we certainly have no choice (in this dimension at least) as to the place or circumstance of our birth.

Your (mis)use of the word "dimension" here seems to accord more with the "woo-crowd's "definition" rather than the scientific one. Could you elucidate further please?

Sure, I can elucidate further. I don't know what you mean by the "woo-crowd's definition rather than the scientific one" but I'm guessing that you determine the use of the term "dimension" to be exclusive to one sector. I take use of the word 'dimension' to refer also to branes, i.e. those areas of existence in the multiversal context, and if this is "not science", then we could argue the parameters. As I explained when I joined this forum, I have no wish to antagonise anyone, indeed I was making the point (to answer your first point as quoted) that this topic has more to do with science than with religion, politics, or coffee, and if my terminology offends anyone then I respectfully apologise, without feeling any remorse at all in using it, for we are all subject to the elements of free will we suppose ourselves to possess, whether it is an illusion or not (the whole point of the debate, I believe), and my use of the term 'dimension' in this context will be acceptable, I'm sure, to many, while it may, understandably, be anathema to a few.

Originally Posted by Quantumologist

Sure, I can elucidate further. I don't know what you mean by the "woo-crowd's definition rather than the scientific one" but I'm guessing that you determine the use of the term "dimension" to be exclusive to one sector.

This IS science forum. One tends to expect the scientific usage of words...

I take use of the word 'dimension' to refer also to branes, i.e. those areas of existence in the multiversal context, and if this is "not science", then we could argue the parameters.

Three words: Not. Even. Close.
The central idea is that the visible, three-dimensionaluniverse is restricted to a brane inside a higher-dimensional space (this the cosmological version, not the string/ supergravity one). Admittedly it does go on to state that "In the bulk model [i.e. only one possible option - my note] , at least some of the extra dimensions are extensive (possibly infinite), and other branes may be moving through this bulk" (i.e. other "universes") but: "As of now, no experimental or observational evidence ... has been reported" which sorta puts the kibosh on your "we certainly have no choice (in this dimension at least)" i.e. there is no evidence and nothing (in science) to suggest that there's any "other dimensions" for us to be born in - with the choice to have done so or not.

As I explained when I joined this forum, I have no wish to antagonise anyone, indeed I was making the point (to answer your first point as quoted) that this topic has more to do with science than with religion, politics, or coffee

And yet science is somewhat lacking in your posts/ claims.
Along with responses to the other queries I raised...

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

This IS science forum. One tends to expect the scientific usage of words...

I take use of the word 'dimension' to refer also to branes, i.e. those areas of existence in the multiversal context, and if this is "not science", then we could argue the parameters.

Three words: Not. Even. Close.
The central idea is that the visible, three-dimensionaluniverse is restricted to a brane inside a higher-dimensional space (this the cosmological version, not the string/ supergravity one). Admittedly it does go on to state that "In the bulk model [i.e. only one possible option - my note] , at least some of the extra dimensions are extensive (possibly infinite), and other branes may be moving through this bulk" (i.e. other "universes") but: "As of now, no experimental or observational evidence ... has been reported" which sorta puts the kibosh on your "we certainly have no choice (in this dimension at least)" i.e. there is no evidence and nothing (in science) to suggest that there's any "other dimensions" for us to be born in - with the choice to have done so or not.

As I explained when I joined this forum, I have no wish to antagonise anyone, indeed I was making the point (to answer your first point as quoted) that this topic has more to do with science than with religion, politics, or coffee

And yet science is somewhat lacking in your posts/ claims.
Along with responses to the other queries I raised...

Many of the posts on this thread have no relationship with science whatsoever. And this is the Philosophy section, in which the original post suggests, "Everything is already decided," which as a concept is a little difficult to shoe-horn into a Positivist box.

The use of words in context as understood by many - if not all - laypeople, includes the word 'dimension' when applied to other versions of existence (per se) beyond 3D reality. The Multiverse (or Everett Interpretation) appears to be the most widely accepted model (currently) whether we are talking Cosmology or quantum mechanics, so the argument "Different science," which has been levelled at me before, doesn't really apply here, does it? There is less "lack of science", I would suggest, (judging by other Forum posts as cited above) than lack of agreement with your personal viewpoints on the acceptable content of scientific discussion. And in response to a comment you have made regarding my post on the Implications of Double Slit thread in the Physics section, my research has covered a lot of ground but I make no claim for it to have covered exactly the kind of ground you would personally like it to have covered. It has been as in-depth as my personal timeline has decided should be entailed. Nor am I under any obligation, as far as I am aware, to answer anybody's posts on demand.

My observations are as valid as any other personal observations and as an observer, I am within my rights to grant the powers of observation on any level I choose, without necessarily disturbing the status quo unless another observer decrees that my observations are erroneous, in which case he or she has every right to opinionate their observation but will find it hard to bully me into silence (unless, of course, they throw me out altogether and since you are a Moderator, you are of course at liberty to do just that). I understand from another Moderator that most of the people here on this Forum are laypeople, just like myself, so it's hard to comprehend exactly what levels of perfection you are seeking in the contents of posts here, but I would go so far as to suggest that a freer discussion (which would be of great interest to laypeople) on threads which might naturally seem to invite comments of a more - er - esoteric nature than you might like, could be advantageous to the scientific 'cause' which at the moment seems to desire more public appreciation? This is indeed a Science Forum, and will attract people who are interested in Science, who may not necessarily be content to toe the Positivist line, either.

Addendum - what about segregated sections for people who would like to freely discuss horrid esoteric things that might even include words like Metaphysics so that we don't upset anybody?

Originally Posted by Quantumologist

Many of the posts on this forum's threads have no relationship with science whatsoever.

Yup, but (excluding Politics, General Discussion and the like) we do try to maintain some semblance of "scientificness". You did notice the multiple requests for evidence and/ or supporting argument from numerous posters, didn't you?

And this is the Philosophy section, in which the original post suggests, "Everything is already decided," which as a concept is a little difficult to shoe-horn into a Positivist box.

Doesn't excuse misusing a word (unless you've actually laid out how you're using it).

The use of words in context as understood by many - if not all - laypeople, includes the word 'dimension' when applied to other versions of existence (per se) beyond 3D reality.

QED: the woo (meaningless) "use".

The Multiverse (or Everett Interpretation) appears to be the most widely accepted model

Citation needed. IOW I doubt - by a long way - that it is in fact "the most widely accepted": e.g. "Stenger thinks it's fair to say that most physicists dismiss the many-world interpretation as too extreme" and ""Many Worlds (and decoherence)" to be the least favored [interpretation]". (Both quotes from here).

my research has covered a lot of ground but I make no claim for it to have covered exactly the kind of ground you would personally like it to have covered.

In other words you've - apparently - looked "deep enough" to "confirm" what you wanted to believe without casting your net very far (the view given - that you said you hadn't come across - is hardly novel or obscure. In fact, to the best of my memory, it was espoused by by none other than Feynman).

It has been as in-depth as my personal timeline has decided should be entailed.

Right... see comment preceding.

Nor am I under any obligation, as far as I am aware, to answer anybody's posts on demand. My observations are as valid as any other personal observations and as an observer, I am within my rights to grant the powers of observation on any level I choose, without necessarily disturbing the status quo unless another observer decrees that my observations are erroneous, in which case he or she, whether or not they are a self-professed genius...

Ah! Now I understand. You want to post unsupported opinion. (Something which is neither science nor philosophy). The more claims/ statements that you fail to support the less credible you become.

has every right to opinionate their observation

Actually not really. This isn't an "Uninformed Opinion" forum.

so it's hard to understand exactly what levels of perfection you are seeking in the contents of posts here

Not perfection: supported argument.

but I would go so far as to suggest that in the absence of such aggressive tactics as you have exercised on me, there may perhaps be a freer, more energetic tendency to discussion (which would be of great interest to laypeople) on threads which might naturally seem to invite comments of a more - er - esoteric nature than you might like. This is indeed a Science Forum, and will attract people who are interested in Science, who may not necessarily be content to toe the Positivist line, either.

In other words you're looking for (and wanting to post) unsupported speculation/ claims/ opinions? How does that help (let alone qualify as - again - science or philosophy)?

Addendum - what about segregated sections for people who would like to freely discuss horrid esoteric things that might even include words like Metaphysics so that we don't upset anybody?

Oh wait... What does (for example) Wiki say?
Here: Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy. (Which, weirdly enough) we DO have a sub-forum for.
And what's philosophy? Oh look: Philosophy ... is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language.... Philosophical methods include questioning, critical discussion, rational argument and systematic presentation...
See that bit about "rational argument"? (I can't find anything about unsupported opinion being included however).

Originally Posted by wegs

Even if this is true, we only have our own consciousness to guide us. Is our consciousness an illusion? If it is, it still feels like we have the ability to be aware of what's happening around us, and that our choices are the reasons why our lives look like they do. If everything is already decided, then we should empty all the prisons, since none of those people had any choice in their crimes. So, when you start unraveling this 'theory,' you can't get around the fact that we live our lives under the impression that things are not a product of determinism.

Exactly. What would then be meant by "we should" empty the prisons. That would be implying that "we" had a choice whether or not we did that. And yet, if these prisoners had no choice then neither do "we".

So I agree. It seems to me that even if it were possible to show everything is determined (which there are good reasons for thinking cannot be done) , there is in practice no way we can avoid our attempts to think for ourselves. And that goes for the prisoners, too.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by wegs

If everything is already decided, then we should empty all the prisons, since none of those people had any choice in their crimes.

disagree. They had a choice, it was their brain and no other factor, they were just destined to make the wrong one--an unacceptable one to society. Where your point matters more is how we view those enevitable decisions and how society can help individuals reach better inevitable choices by changing the environment. I think overall we'd be better for it as well instead of cycles of trying to pile negative on top of the original environment without changing that underlying environment.

How could their choices be inevitable?

Originally Posted by wegs

How could their choices be inevitable?

Easy...they could perceive decisions either at the time or in retrospect and made the wrong one. It doesn't matter whether they were destined to make it or not.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by wegs

How could their choices be inevitable?

Easy...they could perceive decisions either at the time or in retrospect and made the wrong one. It doesn't matter whether they were destined to make it or not.

wait, are you arguing for or against determinism? I'm really not ''for'' it, but I suppose it could exist. But, I believe that the results in our lives, are largely due to choices. Of course, if a meteor hits the earth, and causes us to perish, that wouldn't be our choice. But, even if everything is pre-determined...we would still believe in our minds, that we have the ability to affect change, through our choices. Where we sit, we wouldn't know the difference between it being an illusion or not.

It is interesting that we are constantly under the impression that we 'think for ourselves' and that free will/freedom of choice is considered an absolute, while having to take account of the fact that past and future time arrive simultaneously and therefore it could be said that one is no more nor less 'fixed' than the other. Wheeler-Feynman theory expands on this https://physics.fullerton.edu/~jimw/general/ and having read Schroedingers Kittens as cited in this article I can say that John Gribben caused me to consider the matter of choice versus destiny (woo term, yes, and I must write a post on that sometime) with this in mind. We feel that results are due to choices, but in the bigger picture many things transpire to make the situation about which we are then making the choice, and of course other people's choices are part of the parcel. There is much to be said for going with the flow while we are all guilty in varying degrees of worrying about the past and the future, as if it were an inbuilt default, but acceptance of the deterministic theory on some level (which again is variable for everyone) does help to alleviate the worry factor, while acceptance of responsibility can't be taken out of the equation - here perhaps it could be said that karmic values (whoops - careful Kath) have a place.

We are free to change our perspective on the past, and doing so could affect our future trrajectory. In reconsidering an event which has happened, we may change our view from a starting point of resentment, for instance, to one of gratitude for it having happened, and that shift in itself can affect the outcome to be determined. Imagine standing in a field with a compass. Your position is changed by simply shifting your feet on the same spot, and the compass moves accordingly, so whichever direction you choose to take is determined not by a change in the field, but by a change in the co-ordinates you choose to move towards.

In the Iraq war an Italian ,Fabrizio Quattrocchi was taken hostage by Al Qaeda (or related) forces.
His fate was of course being used (despicably) for propaganda purposes

His final words to camera ,tormentors and executioners was,after removing his hood "this is how an Italian dies"

Whilst admirable (and shaming) the question might arise as to whether he transcended the fate|freewill dilemma at that moment.

Originally Posted by wegs

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by wegs

How could their choices be inevitable?

Easy...they could perceive decisions either at the time or in retrospect and made the wrong one. It doesn't matter whether they were destined to make it or not.

wait, are you arguing for or against determinism?

I'm not arguing for either, because the science is VERY clear.... to a very close approximation, particularly with regard to large things and time scales like our decisions, we live in a deterministic universe. The tiny tiny bit of non-deterministic effects at the scale of our brains would be impossible to control or influence anyhow. We also know that completely deterministic systems that are complex such as the incredible structures in our brains are also non-linear, often chaotic and for all practical purposes (since we can't accurately have perfect knowlege of every state of every molecule) less than entirely predictable. (aka similar to a long-term weather forecast)

The bit of frustration for me is why people think it matters. A choice is a choice...is matters not one whit whether it's choice after a complex process of millions of electrical and chemical interactions will inevitably reach only one of them--the brain still had choices--the brain still had to grind through that process.