Fate, Random chance, or Synchronicity?

[Zero]

How does constrained free will work?

Would it be like randomly plotted points (free will) but eventually looks like a linear line on best fit graph? (fate)

But if we give small amt of free will on how we can plot these points and we conciously choose to take the most radical value all the time, wouldnt the graph eveantually look different?

[tinyp3nis]

Originally posted by Zero
How does constrained free will work?

Would it be like randomly plotted points (free will) but eventually looks like a linear line on best fit graph? (fate)

But if we give small amt of free will on how we can plot these points and we conciously choose to take the most radical value all the time, wouldnt the graph eveantually look different?

It's like any romantic movie. They eventually get eachother no matter what and live happily ever after. It's not supposed to be rational, just something to think that makes you feel happy inside.

[Zero]

but if u have free will, even small amount of freedom can be exploited to alter grand master plan of fate by radically deciding agst fate each time.

if every character in the movie has free will, they can conciously choose to not live happily ever after. Even the couple could pitch in and make this possible. Eventually, fate could be challeneged if all the small factors snowball into contradicting fate.

PS movies are example of fate, not synchorinity or whatever. No matter how many times you watch the movie, its same result. There is no free will in the movie.

[Zero]

theres 2 ways i can imagine both free will and fate to exist.

One is the one Ive been talking about, where fate is a ideal line and free will represents real data. You have some freedome to sway from the ideal line, but general best fit line represents fate. So for example, ideally on graph of future, fate predicts numerical value to be 100 on where X-axis is at 5, but real life data is 100.000001. (where there was possibility of being in between anywhere from 99.9999999999 to 100.00001)

The other way I can think of is that you have free will, but you have absolutely no control whatso ever of ur end result. So for example, you have choices to enter 5 doors, but you have no control of where you end up... which is the same place for all five doors. Should you even tempt fate by not entering, midgets will come and push you into one of the door so that you do end up in the same place at the same time.

either way, those 2 systems cant exist IMO

[tinyp3nis]

The other way I can think of is that you have free will, but you have absolutely no control whatso ever of ur end result. So for example, you have choices to enter 5 doors, but you have no control of where you end up... which is the same place for all five doors. Should you even tempt fate by not entering, midgets will come and push you into one of the door so that you do end up in the same place at the same time.

This is exactly what I was talking about. People believe they can live their lives and make decision but sooner or later something that was meant to be happens. Sounds like fate? It is, they just add the free will so they wouldn't feel like they are in bondage imo.

PS movies are example of fate, not synchorinity or whatever. No matter how many times you watch the movie, its same result. There is no free will in the movie.

Actually movies can be any of the 3. Even romantic movies can be any of the 3, I just said "take any" because so many of them are like that. Do you honestly think that this "No matter how many times you watch the movie, its same result." has anything to do with what story the movie tells? I don't.

[Maniac]

Drogue:

and since we are all merely a product of our genes and our experience, I believe there is no such thing as free will, as neither of those two things are in our control.

IIRC you said once that you called yourself a utilitarian, meaning you want the biggest happiness for the biggest possible group of people, and that you saw having freedom as being happy. Thus you strived for the biggest possible freedom for the biggest possible group of people. Isn't that kind of in contradiction with not believing in free will??

"Freedom for all" isn't on my "wishlist of political goals" exactly because I don't really believe in free will, thus making freedom irrelevant. Not that I'm determinist however. My opinion lies very close to what Zero describes: fate as the "best fitting regression line" and our free will actions as semi-random dots in the neighbourhood of that line.

But if we give small amt of free will on how we can plot these points and we conciously choose to take the most radical value all the time, wouldnt the graph eveantually look different?

Zero:

One must first know what's the formula of the "fate best fitting regression line" before one can take actions to deviate from it. That's the problem. We don't have full knowledge or consciousness of the universe and probably never will, thus making it impossible to know if your actions are leading you to or away from "fate".

[SlowwHand]

I'm glad this question was asked.
The concept of fate, or 6 of one a half dozen of the other is absurd, for someone to have the thought that because this event is happening we can't do this.

Examples, to make myself more clear.

I can leave my driveway to go to point "B", and go by 2 routes, both the same distance.
If I go one way, I'll encounter diferent circumstances than had I gone the other.

6 of one a half dozen of the other, but 1 egg has 2 yolks, so...you tell me. Is it the same? I say not.

Whatever you do ripples the water of all the people in your life's lake.
Fate? No. You make choices on which fork in the road, and sure, if you pick one it goes to one place and the other fork goes to another, but that's not fate.


I fear I'm clear as mud in what I'm trying to convey.

[Immortal Wombat]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Fate? No. You make choices on which fork in the road, and sure, if you pick one it goes to one place and the other fork goes to another, but that's not fate.

Is it fate if the choice you make is predetermined?

[Dauphin]

I don't believe in a fate regression line as described. First of all I would say that the line would not be a 2-D affair, but multi-dimensional. I would then say that the 'fate' points are only fixed along some of these dimensions. As such various results life routes are possible even though certain events are unavoidable.

[SlowwHand]

And who says it's predetermined?
I don't think it is. I think the result of the choice leads to a preordained outcome, but the choice is free.

[Drogue]

Or even if something that knows exactly how you think, could tell which one you are going to choose. I mean that knows the exact impulses in your brain, and is thus both telepathic, and knows you better than yourself, 'perfect knowledge'. That thing could then foretell which path you would choose. Now that fact that you believe you are choosing it doesn't make any difference fromthe fact that you, put in that position, would choose to do that thing.

Originally posted by Maniac
IIRC you said once that you called yourself a utilitarian, meaning you want the biggest happiness for the biggest possible group of people, and that you saw having freedom as being happy. Thus you strived for the biggest possible freedom for the biggest possible group of people. Isn't that kind of in contradiction with not believing in free will??

The logic isn't quite right. I am a Utilitarian in the most part, and I believe that freedom generally brings happiness. I don't want the most freedom, but I do believe it is generally good. With regards to determinism, I am not good at explaining, but will try here:

I believe that one person, put in exactly the same situation (obviously impossible, due to time, but anyway) would always choose the same option. I believe that choice is determined by the impulses in their brain, by the genes and experience of that person. However when talkign about freedom with regards to Utilitarianism, with regards to politics, I am talking about not having contraints on what that person is going to do. For example, someone who is in a certain situation, and would do action A. The fact that action A is illegal, means that they do action B instead. Some may see this as free will, by which they choose not to commit an illegal act. Whether or not it is free or not is irrelevant to me, the fact is that since a person does not have control over who they are, means that they cannot stop themselves choosing what they would choose. Some people would not commit an illegal act, that they otherwise would, and thus would change. Some people would still commit action A, even though it is illegal. We cannot choose which of these catagories we fall into, and that is why I believe in determinism when it comes to responsibility and predeterminism. Given that there is that law, that person would do this. If there was not that law, they may do something different, and to predict, you would therefore not only have to have 'perfect knowledge' about that person, but also about the laws, and everything else around them. I am for the removing of many of these laws, as I believe it makes people more able to do what they would 'naturally' do, and thus am for freedom, and believe that freedom, to a great degree, creates the most happiness.

Originally posted by Maniac
"Freedom for all" isn't on my "wishlist of political goals" exactly because I don't really believe in free will, thus making freedom irrelevant.

I agree, however they are different levels of freedom. I believe that even though we cannot change what we would do in certain circumstances, I believe in having fewer laws to impede what a person would do naturally.

[Whaleboy]

Taken from an MSN conversation with Drogue:

Ben Elijah says:
agathon put it perfectly a while back by saying "phenomenological liberty"

Ben Elijah says:
free will may be down to us, or environmental factors, but as far as the individual is concerned, he has liberty, and he has a free will

Ben Elijah says:
to me, the origins of that will (be it free or not) is irrelevant

[Drogue] says:
i agree with most of that

Ben Elijah says:
i am inclined to side with the argument that (transdimensionally speaking to eliminate the problem of uncertainty principle and schrodingers thesis) free will does not exist, and everything is pre-determined, although 4-d speaking, the level of determinism decreases exponentially as one moves back in time from the actual event

Ben Elijah says:
but like i said, phenomenological liberty, in the context of a society and the individual, liberty and free will does exist, but ultimately and out of context, it does not

[Dauphin]

I'm trying to remember where the quote "You can't change the past, why do you think you can change the future" came from. Anyone remember?

[Whaleboy]

Try googling it? (I cant because for someone reason, NTL doesnt like me at the moment... starts off in "computers are evil" mode )

[SlowwHand]

But to think as I do, one has to accept the existence of a merciful God, who made Man capable of reason and decision making.