Fate v 4.1
Posted: Tue Mar 21, 2017 8:17 amI can't remember what version of the thread we left off at, but this is another chapter in the Free Will vs Determinism debate series. Forgive me if the numbering is wrong but now we can debate whether or not I had any control over the thread.
So many years ago, determinism was generally viewed in terms of a Divine Presence which was both omniscient and omnipotent. The omniscience of future events led to determinism, with the omnipotence being used to corral the straggling wills. A more modern view (except obviously also held by the ancient Stoics) is that the world is mechanically determined, that everything is physical and nothing is left to chance. The problem with both deterministic viewpoints is that nobody actually lives like that. If everything was due to happen anyway, why not randomize everything you do or even better do nothing at all? What evidence is there for free will or for chance events?
The idea of free will seems like the harder of these two to accept. First, one must prove that there is such a thing as a will at all, or a mind that is capable of thought. In several years of probing my own "mind", I have found no evidence that it actually exists.
The randomness argument can't be taken to explain the real world because all mathematical assumptions around randomness happen only in mathematical reality, not in any form of reality we can experience as of yet.
In short, it seems determinism is the only way, but I yearn for a proof against it. That yearning is possibly the human condition. The human condition can be defined as follows:
1) there being no proof or reasoning that our own lives should be extended other than our own opinion on the matter;
2) our own opinion on the matter generally being in favor of extending our life;
3) therefore using false rationality to provide evidences in favor of extending our lives when none can be furnished
The fear of death would therefore be the fear of being proven wrong.
So many years ago, determinism was generally viewed in terms of a Divine Presence which was both omniscient and omnipotent. The omniscience of future events led to determinism, with the omnipotence being used to corral the straggling wills. A more modern view (except obviously also held by the ancient Stoics) is that the world is mechanically determined, that everything is physical and nothing is left to chance. The problem with both deterministic viewpoints is that nobody actually lives like that. If everything was due to happen anyway, why not randomize everything you do or even better do nothing at all? What evidence is there for free will or for chance events?
The idea of free will seems like the harder of these two to accept. First, one must prove that there is such a thing as a will at all, or a mind that is capable of thought. In several years of probing my own "mind", I have found no evidence that it actually exists.
The randomness argument can't be taken to explain the real world because all mathematical assumptions around randomness happen only in mathematical reality, not in any form of reality we can experience as of yet.
In short, it seems determinism is the only way, but I yearn for a proof against it. That yearning is possibly the human condition. The human condition can be defined as follows:
1) there being no proof or reasoning that our own lives should be extended other than our own opinion on the matter;
2) our own opinion on the matter generally being in favor of extending our life;
3) therefore using false rationality to provide evidences in favor of extending our lives when none can be furnished
The fear of death would therefore be the fear of being proven wrong.