hey, I stumbled upon this survey.
It was posted on http://www.lifetheory.com/
Is our future already determined?
Yes, definitely 19 votes. (8.09 %)
No, the future is uncertain 15 votes. (6.38 %)
Both determined and not... 192 votes. (81.70 %)
I don't know 9 votes. (3.83 %)
Total votes: 235
People who consider themslves deep thinkers seem to prefer 'the paradox'
Is our future already determined?
-
Cory Duchesne
- Posts: 2320
- Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
- Location: Canada
- Contact:
-
Rask0lnik0v
- Posts: 36
- Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 5:39 am
yes. it is both determined and not. in the macro sense it is determined. all major events are destined to befall our world before they occur, but in the micro sense it is not predetermined. it is how the things will happen where they are not determined, and things may happen in any number of ways.
furthermore, i would say, it can be argued that things are completely undetermined, but it is only a tiny percentage chance that the macro events (such as the coming of Christ, and His successful overcoming of His trials) will not occur as they are intended to from the beginning.
furthermore, i would say, it can be argued that things are completely undetermined, but it is only a tiny percentage chance that the macro events (such as the coming of Christ, and His successful overcoming of His trials) will not occur as they are intended to from the beginning.
-
Dan Rowden
- Posts: 5740
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
- Contact:
-
Rask0lnik0v
- Posts: 36
- Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 5:39 am
.
There is only determinism, and a logician should know that determinism and the concept of non-determinism are mutually exclusive.
.
This doesn't mean much coming from someone that's just waxed on about 'major' and 'minor' events, as if they are in some manner different, and that overall is totally confused about the nature of reality.Rask0lnik0v wrote:i agree, you can rationalize it in that way, but this is an attempt by a logician to rationalize that which is better left without the structure you impose upon it.
There is only determinism, and a logician should know that determinism and the concept of non-determinism are mutually exclusive.
.
-
propellerbeanie
- Posts: 154
- Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 5:06 am
The more people accept the agency of human will the less they believe in God or Fate. The more the agency of human will is run by flunky bureacrates, the more we are left praying to God and chalking it up to fate.
There are many factors which influence our lives, and no proof of Fate. The more we accept the factors that shape our existence as immutable, the more we have willed our fate.
Now, I don't like having a bunch of fossils in Congress who can't even remember what it is to live having a say in what my life will be. And I don't like the way actual dead people who once wrote the constitution control my existence from the grave when the dirtiest bum, if so inclined, could right a more valid document with butt juice on toilet paper. I don't like some prehistoric version of a dictator running things from a throne in Rome, or the baptists and presbyterians dividing every county seat between them all accross america. I know the individual will has an up hill battle toward freedom. That is exactly as it has always been whether the nature one struggled with was natural, or human. If we need to move mountains, then the past is full of examples of mountain movers. Those who accept before hand their inability to change the tenor of their existence are doomed to suffer without the entertainment of the struggle of will against fate, and the notion of fate, and of God. Just because the game is fixed does not mean the loser does not have a chance. Only when the loser accepts that he can not win does he become what he will forever be.
There are many factors which influence our lives, and no proof of Fate. The more we accept the factors that shape our existence as immutable, the more we have willed our fate.
Now, I don't like having a bunch of fossils in Congress who can't even remember what it is to live having a say in what my life will be. And I don't like the way actual dead people who once wrote the constitution control my existence from the grave when the dirtiest bum, if so inclined, could right a more valid document with butt juice on toilet paper. I don't like some prehistoric version of a dictator running things from a throne in Rome, or the baptists and presbyterians dividing every county seat between them all accross america. I know the individual will has an up hill battle toward freedom. That is exactly as it has always been whether the nature one struggled with was natural, or human. If we need to move mountains, then the past is full of examples of mountain movers. Those who accept before hand their inability to change the tenor of their existence are doomed to suffer without the entertainment of the struggle of will against fate, and the notion of fate, and of God. Just because the game is fixed does not mean the loser does not have a chance. Only when the loser accepts that he can not win does he become what he will forever be.
-
Kevin Solway
- Posts: 2766
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Re: Is our future already determined?
Cory Patrick wrote:
Is our future already determined?
Yes, definitely 19 votes. (8.09 %)
No, the future is uncertain 15 votes. (6.38 %)
Both determined and not... 192 votes. (81.70 %)
That's like asking:
"What are the attributes of a normal human being?"
a. Has two legs.
b. Has two arms.
c. Both has two legs and doesn't have two legs.
-
Kevin Solway
- Posts: 2766
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
No, because in the original question the first two options were true, ie, determined and uncertain - since we are uncertain as to what is determined. There is no contradiction between things being determined, and us being uncertain as to what is determined.LooF wrote:more like
a: has two legs
b: does not have two legs
c: both does and does not have two legs
-
MKFaizi
Good way to put the question in perspective, Kevin.
Our futures are predetermined but we do not know the outcome. Thus, the future is uncertain. We do know that we all will die -- just not when or how.
Woo hoo.
Not to get off the subject though I will get off the subject, of course, but the only part that worries me about my impending death is the idea of any sort of funeral.
I am an extremely private person and I want death to be private, too. The thought of leaving behind a carcass just really peeves me. As a living human being, I am subject to all sorts of laws and ordinances. I have a very strong aversion to the idea of leaving behind a worn out body that will still bring someone a profit. I detest the thought of money being made from my burial or cremation. Pisses me off enough that my life is one of labor that yields monetary profit.
I do not yet feel ready to die. I just wonder if I would have guts enough to walk away into the considerable forests here when the time presents itself.
I would much prefer to die in the woods and have my body decay naturally than to have to have it subjected to the funeral business.
I think it's a pisser to have to leave this thing behind. But I can't see a way out of it.
Is it possible that I could instintively know that my time has come and dive into a vat of acid?
Must be a way.
Faizi
Our futures are predetermined but we do not know the outcome. Thus, the future is uncertain. We do know that we all will die -- just not when or how.
Woo hoo.
Not to get off the subject though I will get off the subject, of course, but the only part that worries me about my impending death is the idea of any sort of funeral.
I am an extremely private person and I want death to be private, too. The thought of leaving behind a carcass just really peeves me. As a living human being, I am subject to all sorts of laws and ordinances. I have a very strong aversion to the idea of leaving behind a worn out body that will still bring someone a profit. I detest the thought of money being made from my burial or cremation. Pisses me off enough that my life is one of labor that yields monetary profit.
I do not yet feel ready to die. I just wonder if I would have guts enough to walk away into the considerable forests here when the time presents itself.
I would much prefer to die in the woods and have my body decay naturally than to have to have it subjected to the funeral business.
I think it's a pisser to have to leave this thing behind. But I can't see a way out of it.
Is it possible that I could instintively know that my time has come and dive into a vat of acid?
Must be a way.
Faizi
-
Rask0lnik0v
- Posts: 36
- Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 5:39 am
my friend once told me when she dies, to "let the worms eat me." i can't remember the exact context it was said in, but i remember i was struck by the image she had brought to my mind. i think the best thing to do if you want to commit suicide, is to take a dropper full of acid, and to "fly" off the top of your nearest sky scraper. just my two cents if we are talking suicide.
Dan, we have never discussed much since both of us speak so very little and that there is pretty not much that we would disagree on, but I’m compelled to say that there is a bit more to this…
Cause and effect is so complexly diverse that it can actually “say no†to a given situation, other wise such diversities wouldn’t be possible. If there were no possibilities of diversities, then there would be nothing except one cause producing the same effect over and over again, since the effect would be its own cause, or nothing at all, which also does not seem probable. Freedom in diversities also proves that there was no time when just a single cause existed. Any speck that exists is not a result of innumerable causes, but is cumulatively innumerable causes itself, since from the perspective of Totality all is a single effect, but we just experience it as effect's, for all that there is, is now, and that just is.
My thinking too is governed by cause and effect, but isn’t my thinking itself cause and effect? And it can cause me, which is no more than a cumulative, say a bundle of cause and effect, to say ‘no’. (Unless one believes that “I†am absolutely nothing whatsoever, not even as a form or appearance, which would be absolutely illogical.); thereby creating yet another situation that leads to diversity without breaking its own rhythm or law as such.
Although governed by cause and effect, the future of no particular thing is actually determined, not more than the immediate cumulative effects, which is actually just a single effect as far as Totality is concerned since there is no future as such for it, although experienced by us as a result of innumerable causes from our perspective.
Unless and until we don’t comprehend this from both the perspectives without any contradictions, since it is all actually only ONE with no without, we can keep discussing free will form either perspective indefinitely.
Just to give a simple example, keeping in mind all the possible and probable uncertainties that I may or may not be aware of, I am also logically aware that I can, and could, and will, not make a single post on this forum for the next 24 hours, and although I am governed by cause and effect, cause and effect can say no although it could do otherwise, that is post within 24 hours. In this, one can see that what it eventually does was not necessarily the only possible result it could achieve, (freedom), showing the capability of its diverse possibilities, but what it did achieve could not have been otherwise, hence not violating its own nature at its core.
If this is not clear enough, it is only my shortcoming at explaining it, but not how I actually comprehend it, without any contradictions. I am never confused as to my responsibilities or morality, cause and effect makes me, responsible and moral, dictated by my logic that is based on cause and effect, and indeed it is that itself.
Cause and effect itself is free by nature, and we are nothing more or less than that.
Your views?
Yes, we can never know for sure, but that does not mean that cause and effect in it self is not free, free to create incalculable diversities, imposed and created by its own nature. It is a very subtle point, but in my opinion the crux of the understanding lies in there.This is not a complicated issue. Yes, our futures are determined but we can never know in exactly what way, so we have fate and mystery all rolled into one.
Cause and effect is so complexly diverse that it can actually “say no†to a given situation, other wise such diversities wouldn’t be possible. If there were no possibilities of diversities, then there would be nothing except one cause producing the same effect over and over again, since the effect would be its own cause, or nothing at all, which also does not seem probable. Freedom in diversities also proves that there was no time when just a single cause existed. Any speck that exists is not a result of innumerable causes, but is cumulatively innumerable causes itself, since from the perspective of Totality all is a single effect, but we just experience it as effect's, for all that there is, is now, and that just is.
My thinking too is governed by cause and effect, but isn’t my thinking itself cause and effect? And it can cause me, which is no more than a cumulative, say a bundle of cause and effect, to say ‘no’. (Unless one believes that “I†am absolutely nothing whatsoever, not even as a form or appearance, which would be absolutely illogical.); thereby creating yet another situation that leads to diversity without breaking its own rhythm or law as such.
Although governed by cause and effect, the future of no particular thing is actually determined, not more than the immediate cumulative effects, which is actually just a single effect as far as Totality is concerned since there is no future as such for it, although experienced by us as a result of innumerable causes from our perspective.
Unless and until we don’t comprehend this from both the perspectives without any contradictions, since it is all actually only ONE with no without, we can keep discussing free will form either perspective indefinitely.
Just to give a simple example, keeping in mind all the possible and probable uncertainties that I may or may not be aware of, I am also logically aware that I can, and could, and will, not make a single post on this forum for the next 24 hours, and although I am governed by cause and effect, cause and effect can say no although it could do otherwise, that is post within 24 hours. In this, one can see that what it eventually does was not necessarily the only possible result it could achieve, (freedom), showing the capability of its diverse possibilities, but what it did achieve could not have been otherwise, hence not violating its own nature at its core.
If this is not clear enough, it is only my shortcoming at explaining it, but not how I actually comprehend it, without any contradictions. I am never confused as to my responsibilities or morality, cause and effect makes me, responsible and moral, dictated by my logic that is based on cause and effect, and indeed it is that itself.
Cause and effect itself is free by nature, and we are nothing more or less than that.
Your views?
-
SBN Charles
- Posts: 25
- Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 8:46 am
- Location: England, U.K
Re: Is our future already determined?
Cory Patrick wrote:hey, I stumbled upon this survey.
It was posted on http://www.lifetheory.com/
Is our future already determined?
Yes, definitely 19 votes. (8.09 %)
No, the future is uncertain 15 votes. (6.38 %)
Both determined and not... 192 votes. (81.70 %)
I don't know 9 votes. (3.83 %)
Total votes: 235
People who consider themslves deep thinkers seem to prefer 'the paradox'
This is where cause and effect can be put into good use, what ever happens before a moment determines that moment, i dont see why the same paragon cant be extended to lengthy periods of time, the two happen in very much a similar fashion.
.
Sapius, I'm grateful to you. I just got back in here this morning and thought I had perhaps not posted words on determinism as I thought I had! Been having sporadic connection-difficulties to theabsolute.net, too, as Kevin is mentioning above.
Here it is (and thanks again):
Our futures will be determined, just as with every convergent moment of the present they are determined now. A misapplication/misunderstanding of determinism, from my point of view, is that determinism is somehow already determined, so to speak, when clearly this is not so. Determinism -- like causation -- when fully perceived, leads inevitably to the thought of infinity.
What is determined is determined in every moment of every convergence, and every convergence is living in time, rather than living out its time. And every convergence will never fully equal every other one, ad infinitum.
Our smallest slices of cause/effect awareness also tell us of this infinity, too. Predictability, probability, do not rule it out either. They also point the way.
.
Sapius, I'm grateful to you. I just got back in here this morning and thought I had perhaps not posted words on determinism as I thought I had! Been having sporadic connection-difficulties to theabsolute.net, too, as Kevin is mentioning above.
Here it is (and thanks again):
Our futures will be determined, just as with every convergent moment of the present they are determined now. A misapplication/misunderstanding of determinism, from my point of view, is that determinism is somehow already determined, so to speak, when clearly this is not so. Determinism -- like causation -- when fully perceived, leads inevitably to the thought of infinity.
What is determined is determined in every moment of every convergence, and every convergence is living in time, rather than living out its time. And every convergence will never fully equal every other one, ad infinitum.
Our smallest slices of cause/effect awareness also tell us of this infinity, too. Predictability, probability, do not rule it out either. They also point the way.
.
-
propellerbeanie
- Posts: 154
- Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 5:06 am
This is not true. We reason that we will die because everyone else, almost, has. Life is a denial of death, and the success of religion in this world stands upon this denial: the belief in an eternal spirit, that is our lives without substance. And even the physical death of the body do we deny. As the soldiers in the great war used to sing; The bells of hell go ting a ling a ling for you but not for me...MKFaizi wrote: We do know that we all will die
Faizi
-
Kevin Solway
- Posts: 2766
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
That's not the reason.propellerbeanie wrote:This is not true. We reason that we will die because everyone else, almost, has.MKFaizi wrote: We do know that we all will die
The reason is that finite things are subject to change.
It doesn't mean anything that people deny death. Why do you mention it?Life is a denial of death, and the success of religion in this world stands upon this denial: the belief in an eternal spirit, that is our lives without substance. And even the physical death of the body do we deny. As the soldiers in the great war used to sing; The bells of hell go ting a ling a ling for you but not for me...
-
propellerbeanie
- Posts: 154
- Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 5:06 am
[
You say we know we are going to die. People do not deny what they know because to know would remove all doubt and all reason to doubt. Being something insubstantially and remarkably alive we cannot concieve of being dead; and being something, and being something conscious of being we cannot concieve of being something without being. I am not saying death does not happen. I am saying that we cannot concieve of death and so can hardly know it. We presume it, and believe it and we deny it.
This is an analytical statement, having to do with why we might reason that we are going to die, and having nothing to do with our actual knowing. We rather believe we are going to die, and know otherwise. If we knew we were going to die, fully and finally, I doubt many people would choose to continue living out of recognition of its total futility. We know only life and this feeling, sense, or consciousness, however described has spirited nature from the dawn of human kind. We have transfered our eternal (feeling) lives and intelligence to whole classes of supernatural beings. Shall their lives be denied with one word: Knowledge?quote="ksolway"]That's not the reason.propellerbeanie wrote:This is not true. We reason that we will die because everyone else, almost, has.MKFaizi wrote: We do know that we all will die
The reason is that finite things are subject to change.
[/quote]It doesn't mean anything that people deny death. Why do you mention it?Life is a denial of death, and the success of religion in this world stands upon this denial: the belief in an eternal spirit, that is our lives without substance. And even the physical death of the body do we deny. As the soldiers in the great war used to sing; The bells of hell go ting a ling a ling for you but not for me...
You say we know we are going to die. People do not deny what they know because to know would remove all doubt and all reason to doubt. Being something insubstantially and remarkably alive we cannot concieve of being dead; and being something, and being something conscious of being we cannot concieve of being something without being. I am not saying death does not happen. I am saying that we cannot concieve of death and so can hardly know it. We presume it, and believe it and we deny it.
-
Kevin Solway
- Posts: 2766
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Most people believe we are going to die - even Christians - which is why they are afraid of death and put it off as long as possible.propellerbeanie wrote:If we knew we were going to die, fully and finally, I doubt many people would choose to continue living out of recognition of its total futility.
Wise people do not think life is futile, even though death is guaranteed.
Anyone can conceive of being dead if they want to. You only have to conceive of not being - which is easy.Being something insubstantially and remarkably alive we cannot concieve of being dead . . . and being something conscious of being we cannot concieve of being something without being.
-
MKFaizi
I mean, damn.
We are all going to die physicially.
That is easy. No thing of flesh and blood lives forever. We die. Plain and simple. To delude oneself otherwise, is ridiculous.
Human beings are finite things and subject to change.
I don't fear death. I do fear the circumstances of death. I am not Christian and I do not believe in an afterlife. If I was religious, I would be Muslim because in Islam, there is no Son O' God. The relationship between God and Muslim is a relationship with the mean old man -- not the sweet redeemer. I don't believe in redemption. I pay for my sins. I don't expect anyone else to atone for the negative things I have done in my life. I would never have killed Jesus and I cannot think of him or anyone else dying for me. The very idea of that is sick.
Ironically, I have distaste for the martyrdom of Christ.
I have distaste for martyrdom in general. Complete fallacy.
I cannot be Muslim because I do not believe in an afterlife of any kind.
Death is not just a change. Believing that death is just a change is not different from belief in an afterlife.
When you die, you are dead. That's all.
Hardest thing in the world to accept.
Faizi
We are all going to die physicially.
That is easy. No thing of flesh and blood lives forever. We die. Plain and simple. To delude oneself otherwise, is ridiculous.
Human beings are finite things and subject to change.
I don't fear death. I do fear the circumstances of death. I am not Christian and I do not believe in an afterlife. If I was religious, I would be Muslim because in Islam, there is no Son O' God. The relationship between God and Muslim is a relationship with the mean old man -- not the sweet redeemer. I don't believe in redemption. I pay for my sins. I don't expect anyone else to atone for the negative things I have done in my life. I would never have killed Jesus and I cannot think of him or anyone else dying for me. The very idea of that is sick.
Ironically, I have distaste for the martyrdom of Christ.
I have distaste for martyrdom in general. Complete fallacy.
I cannot be Muslim because I do not believe in an afterlife of any kind.
Death is not just a change. Believing that death is just a change is not different from belief in an afterlife.
When you die, you are dead. That's all.
Hardest thing in the world to accept.
Faizi
-
MKFaizi
It is easy to imagine "not being."
I have watched many physical deaths over many years. Some deaths are easier than others, I reckon, but none are easy. You don't just wake up one day not being. Not being is not a big deal. It is the physical manifestations of whatever malady that are painful. Ultimately, there is nothing Buddhist or poetic or romantic about the dying of flesh.
Even a sudden decapitation hurts.
Faizi
I have watched many physical deaths over many years. Some deaths are easier than others, I reckon, but none are easy. You don't just wake up one day not being. Not being is not a big deal. It is the physical manifestations of whatever malady that are painful. Ultimately, there is nothing Buddhist or poetic or romantic about the dying of flesh.
Even a sudden decapitation hurts.
Faizi
-
MKFaizi
-
MKFaizi
-
Lennyrizzo
- Posts: 121
- Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 11:35 am
Thanks Pye. Please don’t mind, but generally I do not remember who said what, but what was said if it made sense to me, hence I was kind of doubtful if it was actually you who posted it and hence those question marks against your name, my apologies.
In that I mean, existence, Totality, itself fluctuates between a higher degree of comprehension and the least degree of consciousness, which is an ever existing driving force of cause and effect itself, inter-reliantly dependant on things, giving rise to a living Now, comprehensible or otherwise from our perspective, but not Totality as such, and the Now existing infinitely, with no plus or minus in either direction, for there is no direction in any sense at all.
Infinity cannot be a one-way flat street, for it would then need a beginning, but it is actually only this swaying from one extreme to another, and that the either extents of the extremes cannot stick around for long since cause and effect will not allow it, that makes existence an infinite swaying.
I don’t think it is unreasonable to thing why cause and effect itself, not why it exists, since we already know that it could not possibly be otherwise, but what drives it? Simply saying it is self-driven is not enough, although that is ultimately true, but it does need something there to make its nature know, and is not actually a thing in itself, other than being an apparent process.
Having said that, in no way does Totality do anything willfully or intellectually, or actually comprehend any thing at all, or that it is actually doing any thing at all, since it is not an “itâ€, simply that the Now is helplessly the Now, infinitely.
I think that closes a tiny chapter, at least for me, for ultimately I find nothing profound in comprehending that either, for comprehension is not “meâ€, but yet here I am, simply an inter-twined tool in and of all that there is, and at the same time, I am humbled to the greatest extant to simply know that I exist, however temporal that may be, and not arrogant enough to equate a thing like me to be “actually†something else, whatever that may be poetically expressed or philosophically thought of, or even that I am Not "I" in some sense.
This has gone a bit off the thread topic, but you know how it is.
In my opinion, just the very first sentence itself, if actually comprehended, eliminates the so-called “mysteries†of existence. If all thoughts flow through this understanding, (I don’t know how else to say it), then there is nothing one cannot comprehend about existence at its core, and the best part is, if “I†do not inherently exist, then all that remains is comprehension, and that too will not exist indefinitely due to the balancing act of Totality through the flow of cause and effect.Our futures will be determined, just as with every convergent moment of the present they are determined now. A misapplication/misunderstanding of determinism, from my point of view, is that determinism is somehow already determined, so to speak, when clearly this is not so. Determinism -- like causation -- when fully perceived, leads inevitably to the thought of infinity.
What is determined is determined in every moment of every convergence, and every convergence is living in time, rather than living out its time. And every convergence will never fully equal every other one, ad infinitum.
Our smallest slices of cause/effect awareness also tell us of this infinity, too. Predictability, probability, do not rule it out either. They also point the way.
In that I mean, existence, Totality, itself fluctuates between a higher degree of comprehension and the least degree of consciousness, which is an ever existing driving force of cause and effect itself, inter-reliantly dependant on things, giving rise to a living Now, comprehensible or otherwise from our perspective, but not Totality as such, and the Now existing infinitely, with no plus or minus in either direction, for there is no direction in any sense at all.
Infinity cannot be a one-way flat street, for it would then need a beginning, but it is actually only this swaying from one extreme to another, and that the either extents of the extremes cannot stick around for long since cause and effect will not allow it, that makes existence an infinite swaying.
I don’t think it is unreasonable to thing why cause and effect itself, not why it exists, since we already know that it could not possibly be otherwise, but what drives it? Simply saying it is self-driven is not enough, although that is ultimately true, but it does need something there to make its nature know, and is not actually a thing in itself, other than being an apparent process.
Having said that, in no way does Totality do anything willfully or intellectually, or actually comprehend any thing at all, or that it is actually doing any thing at all, since it is not an “itâ€, simply that the Now is helplessly the Now, infinitely.
I think that closes a tiny chapter, at least for me, for ultimately I find nothing profound in comprehending that either, for comprehension is not “meâ€, but yet here I am, simply an inter-twined tool in and of all that there is, and at the same time, I am humbled to the greatest extant to simply know that I exist, however temporal that may be, and not arrogant enough to equate a thing like me to be “actually†something else, whatever that may be poetically expressed or philosophically thought of, or even that I am Not "I" in some sense.
This has gone a bit off the thread topic, but you know how it is.