Predestination exists?

[Tonix777]

A friend of mine recently wrote me the following:

Personally, I've been struggling with the idea of predestination lately. Not in a traditional sense, but I have trouble finding a good defense for the idea of free will; for example, if you think of the universe as a chaotic system, it seems random. As if at any moment any number of things could happen. I think that's a problem of perspective, though. If you break everything down to a series of events, starting with the big bang or whatever you think started the universe, there's really no possibility of randomness. Everything follows certain rules (physics, etc.) that have no exceptions. So, a point of matter explodes, creating stars, planets, and galaxies that are constantly interacting and expanding outward. Then, out of some chain of events certain carbon based compounds started self-replicating by eating certain chemicals around them. As some reproduced successfully and some not so successfully, evolution allows for certain organisms to continue to act in certain ways, and here we are (whew!).

The problem I have is that as a result of that chain of events, my genetic and personal history dictate the choices I will make in any given situation. For instance, if I have to chose between two roads to get to a destination, I'll take the one that I think will be faster, because I know it is from past experience and I think how fast I get somewhere is important. Every decision is dictated by my knowledge and genetic predisposition.

And at this point people always reply "well what if you chose to go against that? You can decide to take the longer road just to avoid doing what you 'would' do."

But, of course, my decision to go "against" my predisposed decision is just another decided decision. I would only go against myself if I was the kind of person that tries to go against what his tendencies are.

So, if I can never act outside myself, how do I have free will?

That's where my thoughts have been lately. Still, I think everyone has to live as if their choices are important and not predetermined. After all, I might as well enjoy my life while I'm here.

My response:

Well... very interesting thoughts

Here they go my opinions:

I am not an expert in quantum physics but I am sure there is nothing really random in the Universe. What we call random are usually chains of cause-effect events too complex or numerous to be tracked but I don't believe that these events were somehow "planned" or predestined

So from now on I can change anything I want " as long as I want it black" paraphrasing the famous statement of Henry Ford about the Ford T :-)

"Wanting it black" in this context means that I should restrain my actions to the mechanical laws of matter and physics: The laws of reality

Any other approach is whims, wishes, fairy-tales, make-believe, etc.

This is the reason why Objectivism is strongly reality-oriented, meaning: Some chain of events made any thing/person the way it is, and the only way to change it is using real-physical methods which implies that of course not everything I would like to change in myself (or in any thing of reality) is really possible to be changed. Or perhaps it "is" possible to be changed but resources, knowledge, time, etc. are not enough

But the topic get far more complex when we talk about the human animal because we are probably the most sophisticated machine ever built

So following "real-physical methods" with ourselves requires an important degree of mastery in several subjects that most of us don't have: Psychology, Brain-chemistry, body mechanics, etc.

What most people seem not to accept is the fact that there is nothing "divine" or supernatural in our nature, we don't scape from the laws of mechanics and physics. What we call our "soul" is just our consciousness product of the mechanics of our brain, memories, emotions, instincts, etc. Ultra-complex mechanics indeed to the point that can take ages to understand, but mechanics in the end...

On the other hand there are other people that tend to simplify too much the human animal (including most orthodox Objectivists) ignoring the essential role that our subconscious, emotions, etc. play in our life and our perception of reality and ourselves inside this reality

If we were to assimilate the human animal to a computer our body is the hardware and our soul is the software. As in any computer the most important part is the software but no software can function without some hardware to run on

And following the same line of analogy all software is influenced and limited by the hardware it runs on, so our genetics greatly influences our behavior choices, etc. This finally meaning that there is some degree of "predestination" in our choices that are limited by our body, genetics, environment, previous experiences, etc.

So our free will is not "unlimited", as nothing in Nature is anyway

But as a last note of hope I am by example a good proof that change is possible I was "predestined" by environment, education, some genetics, etc. to be a stupid and I was for a long time, but slowly thru my childhood, adolescence, youth and a good part of my adult life I learned how to be better than myself, smarter and different from what I was meant to be... And certainly Ayn Rand played a key role in the last stage of learning to be myself

[natdavi]

My opinion:

Predestination does not exist. There is only cause and effect. Your actions are caused by your will. The fact that your will is your own and not an extension of God's will or a mere an illusion is why it's called free will. Your friend could run himself in circles trying to prove he didn't really choose either fork and the road but was predestined to make that choice. However, the fact that he's driving himself crazy over such a simple question proves that he is asking questions and considering their implications: he's engaging in thought. The fact that's it's possible to never choose either road and just stand their babbling to yourself proves that the choice is yours to make: nothing else will choose for you. There's no higher power, there's just you and what you have to choose from.

The fact that you only have a limited number of choices to make is why people get so obsessed with the influence of their environment. It's not that your environment determines what kind of choices you make, your environment determines what you have to choose from.

[A is A]

A friend of mine recently wrote me the following:

Personally, I've been struggling with the idea of predestination lately. Not in a traditional sense, but I have trouble finding a good defense for the idea of free will; for example, if you think of the universe as a chaotic system, it seems random. As if at any moment any number of things could happen. I think that's a problem of perspective, though. If you break everything down to a series of events, starting with the big bang or whatever you think started the universe, there's really no possibility of randomness. Everything follows certain rules (physics, etc.) that have no exceptions. So, a point of matter explodes, creating stars, planets, and galaxies that are constantly interacting and expanding outward. Then, out of some chain of events certain carbon based compounds started self-replicating by eating certain chemicals around them. As some reproduced successfully and some not so successfully, evolution allows for certain organisms to continue to act in certain ways, and here we are (whew!).

The first thing to do is to completely reject the methodology of those who begin by saying: 'if you think of such and such in such and such way.' First, this is an arbitrary starting point. Second, it is a rationalistic method that leads to deduction of reality from arbitrary starting premises. Third, it raises more questions than it answers in that there are so many unknowns that no conclusion can be made for or against anything. Fourth, it requires so much specific scientific knowledge, no one but an astrophysicist could understand and agree with such an argument.

The problem I have is that as a result of that chain of events, my genetic and personal history dictate the choices I will make in any given situation. For instance, if I have to chose between two roads to get to a destination, I'll take the one that I think will be faster, because I know it is from past experience and I think how fast I get somewhere is important. Every decision is dictated by my knowledge and genetic predisposition.

And at this point people always reply "well what if you chose to go against that? You can decide to take the longer road just to avoid doing what you 'would' do."

But, of course, my decision to go "against" my predisposed decision is just another decided decision. I would only go against myself if I was the kind of person that tries to go against what his tendencies are.

So, if I can never act outside myself, how do I have free will?

That's where my thoughts have been lately. Still, I think everyone has to live as if their choices are important and not predetermined. After all, I might as well enjoy my life while I'm here.

If you attempt to deduce free will from physics, you will never find it or grasp it.

My response:

Well... very interesting thoughts

---------------------

Edited May 17, 2010 by A is A

[Vik]

Predestination is the result of failing to apply the Law of Identity to action.

Predestination makes the following argument:

1. Certain things interacted with X.

2. After that, X does action A.

Therefore, the factors caused action A.

First, this is an instance of the post hoc fallacy.

Second, it ignores the thing performing the action.

[A is A]

Predestination is the result of failing to apply the Law of Identity to action.

Predestination makes the following argument:

1. Certain things interacted with X.

2. After that, X does action A.

Therefore, the factors caused action A.

First, this is an instance of the post hoc fallacy.

Second, it ignores the thing performing the action.

If "the thing" you're referring to is human beings, then I agree. But all non-volitional action is predetermined by past actions and the entities that perform them.

[Capitalism Forever]

So, if I can never act outside myself, how do I have free will?

I can't even imagine what "acting outside yourself" would mean--it's clearly a contradiction in terms. Free will does not imply acting outside yourself, only acting independent of external factors, "inside" yourself. And that is something your friend clearly can, and by his nature must do--as natdavi pointed out, in his very act of pondering this issue, he is trying to decide what position to accept and is finding that he is not predestined to believe one way or the other by outside forces but has to make the decision himself.

[Vik]

If "the thing" you're referring to is human beings, then I agree. But all non-volitional action is predetermined by past actions and the entities that perform them.

Predetermination means that every action is causally determined by the past environment.

This view cannot be reconciled with the Objectivist concept of causality, which is identity-based.

[whYNOT]

Some good responses on this evergreen topic.

My own view is that though the entire Universe can be shown to be a product of causation, the rational animal is alone in having the capability to INTERFERE with that 'process' -in his own life, and general existence - and does.

So, actually, we intrude upon Natural predestination, and overturn it, to the extent that we choose to choose.

Each choice opens up more choices, so that one can go a long way towards making oneself, to one's own design. (Rand's "self made soul.")

(Never having put this out in words before, I'm not sure yet how it "flies.")

[A is A]

I'm not quite sure why there seems to be so many definitions of what predestination means. It is typically a religious concept where God determines everyone's lot by his decree. Predestination is not the same as determinism or causality.

[whYNOT]

I'm not quite sure why there seems to be so many definitions of what predestination means. It is typically a religious concept where God determines everyone's lot by his decree. Predestination is not the same as determinism or causality.

Right, A is A, which should have been made clear from the start.

It looks like the OP meant 'determinism' from the substance of his post, and we all took it from there without questioning it.

[Leonid]

A is A and living entities have an identity which is ontologically different from that of the unanimated matter. They are capable to produce the self-initiated action. Therefore they have different type of causation, self-causation. Free will is an ability to initiate an action without proximate cause on conceptual level. Even our genetic make-up is a result of natural selection which is driven by self-initiated action in order to survive and flourish. The organism is driven not by predestination but by anticipation, that is- by the ability to act in order to achieve self-generated goals, projected into the future.

Edited May 21, 2010 by Leonid