Does free will exist?

Thread killer, me :eek:

But I was trying to define a distinction between 'fate' and 'destiny' that's more than just semantic: in the sense that we have a large measure of control over our own personal fate, but very little or none at all over our destiny.

The people born in a certain place and now caught up in war, for instance, can't change the fact. It's destiny.

What you choose to do in any situation, that's what decides your fate. So your own fate becomes the accumulative knock-on effect of the result of your own choices.

But destiny is far more over-reaching?
 
Last edited:
I think that you have to define terms. In popular understanding fate and destiny are very near synonyms. I would believe that without making a precise definition that most people would not see any nuance between them. --- Well maybe "fate" tends to foresee the future in a bit more negative and unchangeable way, while "destiny" tends to foresee the future in a more positive and hopeful way. But either could be used in the opposite sense. There might be a hint of working toward your "destiny," while fate just happens.

So ---- I do think that there are things that we work toward and might or might not achieve, but ultimately I would disagree that we are "masters of our own fate" and would agree that there is a destiny for each human.
 
I'm not sure which came first, but I can see how fate could be seen as negative, and destiny as positive, based upon their one difference (likelihood).

Destiny is something that may happen, should one fight (literally or figuratively) for it:
"Why do you want the throne, My Lord, knowing how many must die for it?"
"It is my Destiny."
​
Fate seems to be something that will** happen: "It was his fate to strive for significance, but be doomed to anonymity."



** - In books, that is. I believe in neither fate nor destiny.
 
The struggle to accept that free will is an illusion is a difficult one for me. But people a whole lot smarter than I am are saying that it is so. Now if it were a person, or a couple of people I wouldn't be too impressed, but the preponderance of physicists and cosmologists seem to agree that free will is indeed illusion.

Of course just because a whole bunch of smart people think something is true; that doesn't necessarily make it so. But if one believes in science and the scientific method, weight has to be given to the majority opinion.

My working solution to this conundrum for now is that I think that the with small scale stuff free will does exist. Deciding what I am going to have for breakfast just isn't complex enough to be driven by the combination of my biology and societal experiences.

As decisions grow more complex, and also requires a larger number of people involved in making that decision, I could see a case made that in that situation that free will takes a back seat to a more social phenomena that can be predicted much more accurately.

As an aside to the above, but very relevant; we all know of a particular situation where free will disappears completely. That is when a crowd becomes a mob. The mob mentality appears to suspend individual choice and becomes a collective driving force all its own.

We know that people have done truly horrific things as part of a mob that they would never have done as an individual. Sure there are horrible individuals. Typically though a mob is a group of "normal" people who have their personal social consciences overridden by the mob mind.

That is most certainly a definite example of the complete loss of free will. Or so it seems to me.
 
Sorry Gord, but there is not a preponderance of physicists and cosmologists that believe this, a majority, yes, a preponderance, no. The future of the universe is not a predictable as they would have you believe.
 
goldhawk said:
To me, that sentence is talking about the past, not the future. As in you can't know someone's fate until they're dead.
Click to expand...
Of course it's talking about the past. Until someone dies, one doesn't know whether their destiny was their fate or not.
 
One has to wonder how many farm boys, on believing the talk about their destiny (sorry, THEIR DESTINY), have perished fruitlessly, probably as part of a diversion which facilitated the overthrow of the Evil One by an even more Evil One.

I also expect their stories mostly remain to be written.
 
goldhawk said:
Sorry Gord, but there is not a preponderance of physicists and cosmologists that believe this, a majority, yes, a preponderance, no. The future of the universe is not a predictable as they would have you believe.
Click to expand...

Ummmm. Methinks you are splitting hairs here. The words mean essentially the same thing!
 
goldhawk said:
... The future of the universe is not a predictable as they would have you believe.
Click to expand...

Most of 'my' electrons are close to 'me'. That's a quantum probability.

But some of my electrons may be in Australia, on Mars, the Moon. That's a quantum possibility.

And a single electron may have a knock-on effect with possibly huge consequences?

It's still astounding that the possibility of sentient life having originated from a few chemicals shaken up together under the right conditions is greater than all the atoms in the universe.
 
The "real" Mr Spock - i.e. not the one who quotes improbable statistics off the top of his head in the TV show - might suggest that we have insufficient information to calculate such odds.
 
Ursa major said:
The "real" Mr Spock - i.e. not the one who quotes improbable statistics off the top of his head in the TV show - might suggest that we have insufficient information to calculate such odds.
Click to expand...



Or simply raise an eyebrow...
 
What a question! It plagues me daily.

I am coming to the conclusion that it does - but it is futile against pre-destination.

There have often been things I have wanted to do and wanted to achieve - but despite great efforts and seeming ability - I haven't managed to do so. It has been like sitting on a dead horse, and trying to make it gallop. But it remains motionless. It will never run.

On the other hand, other people achieve their goals easily, as if they were "meant" to do so. It is as though these people have climbed on a horse that is alive and champing at the bit! They give it a gentle nudge and it gallops for them, effortlessly.

Free will meant that I was able to climb on to the dead horse. The wrong horse for me! Predestination dictated that I would never make that horse gallop.

Has I "chosen" to mount the correct horse - the horse in tune with my predestination - it would have galloped. Unfortunately, I was never told which horse to ride.

Make sense?!?:eek:

Now I have re-read my post, I think I prefer Interference's: "Something is making me say yes". Inspired!!:)
 
Interesting logic Mythmaker. But I'm not buying it! lol. Maybe predestination dictated which horse you would pick. Or maybe a whole lot of other possibilities were involved in which horse you picked.

Or have you considered you picked the right horse, and didn't know how to make it run? Or couldn't make it run for some other reason?

It may come as a shock to some, but my opinion is that whether there is free will or not is irrelevant! If one is to be a fully functioning human being, one who wants to become all they can, it is important to ACT as if there was free will.

Because to accept one has no free will is to stop trying. After all, why bother if you cannot change anything.

No, act like you have control of your life, and let the chips fall where they may.
 
Gordian Knot said:
It may come as a shock to some, but my opinion is that whether there is free will or not is irrelevant! If one is to be a fully functioning human being, one who wants to become all they can, it is important to ACT as if there was free will.
Click to expand...

The last bit is true (and we have little control over it anyway) but as I think i probably said somewhere in the vast wasteland of bandwidth above, it is relevant in the consideration of crime. If we accept that criminals have no free will, surely we must remove the punitive element of sentencing? (Leaving rehabilitation, deterrence and protection of the rest of society.)

OTOH, there are those who would use a perception of lack of free will to excuse their own antisocial behaviour, so it might be important for society to behave as though there is free will, even if it suspects there is not.

in summary: time for dinner.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
pkirk Does a book need to justify being SFF? Writing Discussion 42
Toby Frost How does a Wild West schoolteacher sound? Writing Discussion 20
S What is the most advanced civilization in fiction that does not do FTL travel or backwards time travel? SFF Lounge 23
Vladd67 Does it come with a free tinfoil hat? Technology 10
Hugh Free download of my book available without my permission. How does this work? Book Discussion 43

Similar threads


Back
Top