Fate, And The Complications Therin

[Seil]

So a while back, we talked about the movie Stranger Than Fiction, about an author dictating the life of Will Ferrel. People talked about disliking the principal of the film because

Originally Posted by Door Mat

I absolutely loathe the idea of predestination in the mystical, incomprehensible universal plot sense where if I can predict that I'll choke on some food and decide not to eat that food, a bridge promptly falls on me because the very fabric of creation wants me to die. If you can predict the future and see your own death, you can take measures to prevent it (unless it's completely out of your power to prevent, like an uncruable disease or old age). The concept of not being able to prevent a predicted death through disease, or old age, or overwhelming power isn't exactly new territory within philosophy, nor are its ramifications.

If a lot of people dislike the idea of pre-destination, what do you think of the new movie coming out, The Readjustment Bureau?

Now, the dictionary defines fate as

1.
something that unavoidably befalls a person; fortune; lot: It is always his fate to be left behind.
2.
the universal principle or ultimate agency by which the order of things is presumably prescribed; the decreed cause of events; time: Fate decreed that they would never meet again.
3.
that which is inevitably predetermined; destiny: Death is our ineluctable fate.
4.
a prophetic declaration of what must be: The oracle pronounced their fate.

And some people don't like the idea that they're not in control of what goes on in their lives. Other people might call those in the first group "control-freaks." I, myself, don't really care. Whether there's something laid out for me or whether I'm walking blind, it doesn't matter.

While it is unlikely that a group of individuals control the lives of billions of people, and that they've got a plan for each and every person, the underlying premise of the The Readjustment Bureau is still the same as Stranger Than Fiction; they're controlling lives.

Is that really a bad thing, that we're not in control of our destinies?

[Ravashak]

If there was a preset destiny for everyone, it takes away the responsibility someone has.
"Why would I care about the things I do, I'm meant to do it anyway, or I wouldn't be doing it" is a very silly/stupid way of thinking, but it'd justify all actions in the minds of those that are... less stable.

Even if there was a being / group of beings that controlled the fates of every being, unless they want to screw things up worse than they already are at places, it's important that we at least have the illusion of choice, which would also bring a feeling of responsibility, because it was their own choice (or so they think).

[Toast]

I see things both ways. There are a number of 'givens' including, but not limited to, being born in this particular place, time, and family as opposed to some other place, time, or family. Everything that's not a given is left up to you, and at the very least you can choose your attitude or reaction towards your givens.

So overall, I don't think it's so bad that we're not in control of our givens. As for our destiny, I think it is composed of equal parts given and free will, so I think it's no worse than anything else, really.

[Seil]

So...

All men and women are born, live suffer and die; what distinguishes us one from another is our dreams, whether they be dreams about worldly or unworldly things, and what we do to make them come about... We do not choose to be born. We do not choose our parents. We do not choose our historical epoch, the country of our birth, or the immediate circumstances of our upbringing. We do not, most of us, choose to die; nor do we choose the time and conditions of our death. But within this realm of choicelessness, we do choose how we live.

?

[Toast]

Basically, except the part about dreams and less fatalistic. I would also re-emphasize choosing your attitude towards the givens and the indifference of the universe. Whatever your life situation, you can choose to respond with spite, scorn, and anything else up to and including a full on embrace of your givens. Growth can occur even in suffering.

[Nique]

I think Door Mat's point was not that they find the concept distasteful or fearsome, but that it is a ridiculous notion that is used to excuse what would otherwise be a massive plot-hole in fiction. At least that's what it sounded like. This doesn't really have anything to do with your discussion, it's just I'm not sure you're interpreting his post completly accuratley.

[Mareth]

There can be no observational evidence for or against total predestination (I mean what would it look like?), so an argument about it will almost certainly fail and do nothing but drive everyone insane. Case in point:

Originally Posted by Ravashak

If there was a preset destiny for everyone, it takes away the responsibility someone has.
"Why would I care about the things I do, I'm meant to do it anyway, or I wouldn't be doing it" is a very silly/stupid way of thinking, but it'd justify all actions in the minds of those that are... less stable.

Even if there was a being / group of beings that controlled the fates of every being, unless they want to screw things up worse than they already are at places, it's important that we at least have the illusion of choice, which would also bring a feeling of responsibility, because it was their own choice (or so they think).

That would only work if free will actually exists but people think it doesn't; reality isn't swayed by arguments from consequences. If there were a set fate for all things, every belief and every action would be powerless to change it, or do anything at all except be it. After all, there isn't always a consistent causal chain leading from beliefs to actions. (see also: hypocrisy, doublethink)

Really, the only difference between free will and predestination is that the former seems to be true. So most people will believe in free will, but if you want to be all skeptical and doubt everything that isn't certain, which is everything, you can always go for predestination.

[bluestarultor]

Honestly, I see no reason why the entirety of time would be mapped out. History is defined in retrospect, but a look at quantum experiments shows that the presence of an observer changes the behavior of the universe, in some cases even retroactively. That indicates that time is a lot more fluid than we normally give it credit for, for one, and says outright that it can't possibly be fixed, or else there would have been no change.

You could argue, I suppose, that it was always meant to have the result an observer imposes on it, but there are other arguments to be made, which SMB is more qualified to talk about than I am.

[katiuska]

Originally Posted by Nique

I think Door Mat's point was not that they find the concept distasteful or fearsome, but that it is a ridiculous notion that is used to excuse what would otherwise be a massive plot-hole in fiction. At least that's what it sounded like. This doesn't really have anything to do with your discussion, it's just I'm not sure you're interpreting his post completly accuratley.

This.

Like, given the logic of a stable time loop, it follows that if you travel back in time, you won't kill your grandfather before he fathers your parent, because then there would never be a you to go back in time. It's not quite the same as saying that you can't do it, but you won't, even if for some weird reason you're really, really determined to make it happen. From a narrative standpoint, it would be possible to look back and see a series of arbitrary coincidences that lead to events being what they are, but intuitively it doesn't seem like a person should categorically fail attempting to do something they're physically capable of doing. In fiction, it tends to highlight the fact that the writer is invested in a certain outcome; in discussions of time travel as a legitimate possibility, it comes up as a criticism of Stable Time Loops, because if real-life events played out in that fashion, it would be hard to ignore the suspicion that the universe is also invested in certain outcomes.

[The Argent Lord]

Originally Posted by bluestarultor

Honestly, I see no reason why the entirety of time would be mapped out. History is defined in retrospect, but a look at quantum experiments shows that the presence of an observer changes the behavior of the universe, in some cases even retroactively. That indicates that time is a lot more fluid than we normally give it credit for, for one, and says outright that it can't possibly be fixed, or else there would have been no change.

Okay, so I'm curious as to what you mean by this. Specifically, how you could possibly know whether observing something changes it retroactively, when obviously you weren't observing it at any point before that. Even if you could know, for any meaningful definition of "changing it retroactively" it would for all intents and purposes appear that it changes, and then the reason for the change occurs, which if anything SUPPORTS the idea of time being mapped out.

Or I'm misunderstanding and making an ass of myself. Feel free to point that out if I am.