[Guest]

This is a spin-off from rookie1ja's Lazy-Bones Paradox (if there is a destiny, why bother going to the doctor's when ill?). A belief in destiny may lead to bad decision making, but that's not to say the belief itself is incorrect.

I'd like to get some thoughts on the Destiny vs Free Will subject, but first let's get a few things out of the way:

The question of destiny doesn't depend on some quasi-religious notion of a "master plan". Destiny may simply exist without anyone knowing what the "plan" is, perhaps just as a consequence of physics. If the current state of the universe and the laws of physics acting upon it dictate all that happens, then this determines the future regardless of whether we can predict it. In my opinion destiny simply requires there to be just one possible future.

Clarification of "possible": "Possible" is often taken to mean "something we do not know to be untrue (or impossible)". If I bought a ticket for last night's lottery but haven't checked the results yet, and you ask me "Did you win the lottery?", I might answer "It's possible, I don't know yet". In reality, the outcome is already determined, so my winning the lottery is only possible if it actually happened. I either won or I didn't, I just don't know which it is, so I used the word "possible" to indicate a lack of knowledge in this case. But that's not what I mean when I say "one possible future". I mean only one future which may happen (regardless of knowledge).

Picture a hypothetical observer standing outside of time. Would they see time as a line, as a single sequence of events from the distant past to the distant future? If so, however unpredictable the future may be, destiny is a reality. In this case, the notion of "free will" may be a useful one, but it is an illusion (caused by our inability to keep track of the underlying mechanics, the cause and effect which dictates our every thought). You might say that those who believe in destiny and make bad decisions because of it were destined to do so, and those who believe in free will and make good decisions because of it were equally destined to do so.

You might argue that Free Will can exist alongside Destiny. Consider this example:

You've been kidnapped and locked in a room with a red door and a green one. You are told "You have the freedom to leave the room by whichever door you choose, and accept the consequences". So you choose (say) the green door, which leads to a reward and an exit. Later you find out that the red door was a fake door with just a wall behind it. The maker of this room (having studied the way you think in infinite detail) knew that you were certain to choose the green door and therefore didn't bother building a second exit. It's true that you had "the freedom to leave the room by whichever door you choose", since you would only ever have chosen the green door, regardless of how "free" you thought your choice was. Freedom doesn't necessarily mean that there is more than one possible outcome.

For the purposes of this debate, however, I would like to define "Free Will" as the ability to make more than one possible choice. Which makes it utterly incompatible with Destiny.

So it's a fight to the death. And I propose that the deciding factor is whether or not we have more than one possible future.

Let battle commence!

[Guest]

The tiny-idea was that choosing is done at the precise moment where you choose one outcome out of many possible outcomes bounded by a set of non-deterministic rules.

It's the "you choose" bit that's at the heart of what I'm asking. Choose how? Is it random, or guided by something? What is the "you" that is doing the choosing?

That's why I'm bringing up souls or non-physical minds or similar supernatural stuff. I don't see how you can see a "choice" as being something other than a random outcome without bringing that into it.

[Guest]

You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice.

If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.

You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill;

I will choose a path that's clear

I will choose freewill

[Guest]

Well, the idea is that, calculable or not, it is that way. Just says its impossible to determine that

[Izzy]

UR's point is that if we can never know everything about a system, we can never predict the future. Back in the day, determinism actually meant what it sounds like: determining the future. Which.. was shown impossible by science way back (which I've stated?).

Determinism roughly translates to "lack of free will" in this thread.

[Guest]

First of all, we can prove free will exists. If you bet me a dollar that I will raise my right hand instead of my left or vice versa, I can always win the bet, because I can make a choice after you tell me what you are betting on. However, there are many unpredictable events that are predetermined by physical laws. If a large meteor is headed for a collision with Earth 5 years from now, that outcome is predetermined and we certainly will not be able to change it.

One definition of randomness is lack of knowledge of the outcome. In statistics, we have ways of expressing the limited extent of our knowledge even though the outcome is unknown. This is called odds, probability, etc. It is mostly in the point of view of each individual person. For example, Mark Twain in his book Roughing It, tell us that telegraph operators in Nevada and Utah and other points between the Coasts were not allowed to tell anyone news from the East Coast until it had reached San Francisco. So, say an election had been held in New York, and that news of the outcome had traveled as far as Nevada. A telegraph operator in Nevada who was in the process of relaying the news to San Francisco would know the outcome, but the two guys in the saloon down the street could be fairly betting on the outcome of that election because neither had any knowledge of the outcome. From their point of view, the outcome is random, but from the telegraph operator's point of view the outcome is known.

[gvg]

What i think the argument is is that, with your example, it was determined that the bet would be made and that you would raise the opposite hand. It seems like you have free will, but in truth your choice is sealed.

Randomness, on the other hand, is something completely random. It just happens. I don't know if we can, or will, ever observe something truly random. Maybe at the microscopic level, but then, I am not a quantum physicist.

[Guest]

First of all, we can prove free will exists. If you bet me a dollar that I will raise my right hand instead of my left or vice versa, I can always win the bet, because I can make a choice after you tell me what you are betting on.

You can always win the bet, but aren't I determining which hand you raise?

[Quag]

yeah the hand raise bet doesnt really prove anything. But if you can somehow prove that even one truly random event can or does exist than free will wins out over destiny.

Dont ask me how to prove something is truly random though i have no clue

[Guest]

Check it out! Now your computer can have free will as well!

http://www.idquantique.com/true-random-number-generator/products-overview.html

[gvg]

Huh... Pretty cool! =)

[Izzy]

Contrary to classical physics, quantum physics is fundamentally random.

[Quag]

Izzy dont remember much about quantum physics but seems to me something may just appear random because we do not understand it fully yet. If you can show me proof of randomness id love to see it. and if it does exist then free will has won out.

fyi i am on the free will side. I like to think i have some control over my future and that it isnt set beforehand.

[gvg]

I don't understand... how does proving raandomness also prove free will? If everything is random, then we still have no control, no? Things just "happen."

[Guest]

I don't understand... how does proving raandomness also prove free will? If everything is random, then we still have no control, no? Things just "happen."

I was joking, in reference to the quantum random number generator link. The point I was making is that this is indistinct from "free will".

Let's say you ask a computer to generate a single bit using this device and it comes up with "0".

There is no physical reason why it had to generate "0". It could have generated "1" instead. It was free to do either, but it chose "0".

I don't (seriously) call that free will, but I'd like somebody to tell me how it differs.

[Quag]

gvg:

If an event is truly random then it cannot have been destined to happen, otherwise it wouldn’t have been random. If even one event is random nothing can be predetermined thus nothing can be destined to happen as that one random event can cause a veritable tsunami of unpredicted/unpredictable results. thus killing off any hope of destiny to exist. Now if destiny doesn’t exist than that means our actions are not predetermined and we can make choices that, not being predetermined, affect the outcomes of events. Also known as free will.

Hope that’s not too confusing, but ill try to summarize. random event means no destiny, no destiny means free will.

[gvg]

Gotcha.

Edited December 14, 2010 by gvg

[gvg]

I was joking, in reference to the quantum random number generator link. The point I was making is that this is indistinct from "free will".

Let's say you ask a computer to generate a single bit using this device and it comes up with "0".

There is no physical reason why it had to generate "0". It could have generated "1" instead. It was free to do either, but it chose "0".

I don't (seriously) call that free will, but I'd like somebody to tell me how it differs.

Understood. =)

[Izzy]

Bro what are you talking about? I was quoting the website and rolling my eyes, not agreeing with it.

See thread. I agree with you.

[Guest]

UR's point is that if we can never know everything about a system, we can never predict the future. Back in the day, determinism actually meant what it sounds like: determining the future. Which.. was shown impossible by science way back (which I've stated?).

Determinism roughly translates to "lack of free will" in this thread.

Just because we can't know it doesn't mean it isn't so

[Izzy]

...So you're saying because we can't know what's going on, we CAN predict the future?

[gvg]

Izzy:: I know. I was asking the others why they felt the way they did. i know you agree with me =)

[OmegaScales]

Here's what I think.

Everyone is born with an infinite amount of possible futures, yet the choices they make narrow down the infinite amount to a less infinite amount, and so on, while other versions of them in different timelines make other choices. It may be confusing at first, so I'll use the die roll example. You go into the future and know the exact result, but when you go back to your time, you get it wrong. Why? You went into ONE POSSIBLE future. Make sense now?

[Guest]

One of the more pleasing aspects of the many worlds interpretation of quantum physics is the inevitable existence of troll universes.

Like the one in which the Quantis RNG works perfectly, but its designers think it doesn't because it only outputs a never ending sequence of zeros.

Or the one where they used it to generate a random sequence of ASCII characters and it generated the following:

"Wassup? It's Jehovah, comin' atcha thru the medium of quantum randomness. This is how I communicate and it only took you guys six thousand years to figure it out. Seriously, wtf people, wasn't it obvious?"

They say prayers at the Quantis RNG and then get it to generate another random sequence. Every time it is something appropriate.

[gvg]

Omega: That sounds like me a little =)

Octo: Actually, if such a message appeared, I would probably laugh =) Why? I dunno. I just have a feeling i would. =)

[unreality]

One of the more pleasing aspects of the many worlds interpretation of quantum physics is the inevitable existence of troll universes.

Like the one in which the Quantis RNG works perfectly, but its designers think it doesn't because it only outputs a never ending sequence of zeros.

Or the one where they used it to generate a random sequence of ASCII characters and it generated the following:

"Wassup? It's Jehovah, comin' atcha thru the medium of quantum randomness. This is how I communicate and it only took you guys six thousand years to figure it out. Seriously, wtf people, wasn't it obvious?"

They say prayers at the Quantis RNG and then get it to generate another random sequence. Every time it is something appropriate.

Not only would that happen, but it would happen an infinity of times. That's what I've always struggled with - how you measure probability with infinities? Some probabilities are inf/inf but "infinitely likely" while others are inf/inf but only "infinitesimally likely". Is there a formulaic way to use limits to take probabilities to infinity, or are we just BSing our way through that stuff?