scientific proof of fate?

[goodhabits]

I do not belive in god in any way shape or form, and im fascinated by biology, so u can imagine my curiosity when an old english professor was explaining to me that fate (or destiny) can be explained scientifically.

He said that one's state at any given point in time is dependant on the chemical makeup of his brain in that instant, which in turn is a result of the chemical reactions which took place a split second earlier, and so on, tracing the squillions of reactions back to the time of conception. Since chemical reactions obey rules of chemistry then the future of a being is decided by the very first reactions which take place... essentially giving him/her a fate.

I was wondering if anyone here (with a bit more knowledge of chemistry) could help me out on this one.. or at least clarify

[tecoyah]

Chemical reactions rely heavily on a catalyst. If indeed the theory proposed above is to be taken seriously, it will need to take these catalyst reactions into account, and the pre-ordained fate aspect will be destroyed. With the introduction of an outside influence(catalyst/environment) said fate will change as chemicals are introduced into the brain in reaction to life situations.

The issues associated with this topic are being discussed here: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=67875 in the 'Chemical Interactions' thread - just read 'determinism' to be the same thing as your 'fate'

I'd say that, in the old, Victorian image of how the world works, there is definately strong evidence to suggest that there is a cosmic 'plan', and that all of our lives are following predetermined paths, dictated by the biological clockwork of our minds.

This viewpoint believes that the world is simple, logical, rational, traditional and predictable.

However, that viewpoint is no-longer widely believed in since the advent of relativity, quantum mechanics and notions of things like chaos theory, complexity theory and the study of emergent properties of complex systems.

[CSflim]

This is the same confused argument that so many people thought "profound" from Matrix Reloaded; the Merrovengian(sp?) confuses 'fate' with 'determinism'. (and ignores the fact that determinism is probably false)

(p.s. I loved the Matrix Trilogy, it's just that I found that they were entertaining in spite of, rather than because of, the long winded pseudo-philosophical speeches)

What's confused about it? There really isn't much difference between Fate and Determinism; They do have one vital difference. Fate requires some omnipotence to have the ability, the power and the inclination to pre-ordain events so as to lead to some goal.

Now since I'm in no position to convince you of the existance (or lack) of The Almighty, I think it's reasonable to assume that the terms fate and determinism can be used to describe the same thing from two opposing viewpoints.

What other differences are there? (And please don't bring The Matrix into it, it's condescending)

[goodhabits]

With the introduction of an outside influence(catalyst/environment) said fate will change as chemicals are introduced into the brain in reaction to life situations.

Isn't every action or life situation (a stress inducing arguement, smoking a cigarette, an injury,etc) a direct result of a highly ordered list of actions, and therefore even the seemingly random, would be pre-determined?

[CoachAlan]

I think it would be predetermined, goodhabits. That's the conclusion drawn in the two other threads on this board about this topic. You should check them out. If this topic interests you, you will find them fascinating.

[CSflim]

Originally Posted by zen_tom

What's confused about it? There really isn't much difference between Fate and Determinism; They do have one vital difference. Fate requires some omnipotence to have the ability, the power and the inclination to pre-ordain events so as to lead to some goal.

Now since I'm in no position to convince you of the existance (or lack) of The Almighty, I think it's reasonable to assume that the terms fate and determinism can be used to describe the same thing from two opposing viewpoints.

What other differences are there? (And please don't bring The Matrix into it, it's condescending)

Fate assumes purpose.
i.e. Two lovers look at some set of elaborate conincidences that led to their meeting and come to the conclusion that they were "meant to be together", that the universe couldn't stand two people who were so perfect for each other not meeting.
Fate has connotations of some force somehow influencing the universe, bending it in order to allow some set of events to take place. In a way this is the very antithesis of determinism, which just goes with the flow.

[badong]

I discussed that problem a few weeks ago with a friend. for me the interesting thing about this question is, if we have a free will.
imagine a situation, where you stand at a crossroad and you can move left or right. now you have made your decission and you have taken one direction. now from this situation go back to the point of your decision and ask yourselve: when i would make the same decision again. under the same circumstances, wouldn't I make the same decision again. in my opinion you would every time make the same decision, because circumstances are allways the same. so you never had a real opportunity to take the other direction. the same is for every situation in your life. you never can make a real decision. you always have only one alternative. you just think that you have more.
it is not very important, if the world ist deterministic or porbabilistic like in quantum theory. if the last is true, than the chance for going left could be 70% and for going right 30%. but again, no free will. the odds are always the same and not depending on your will.

[Ustwo]

The variables are so complex the the concept is really meaningless.

Some interactions may truely be random.

[badong]

you are right, for daily life totally meaningless, but nevertheless an important concept with interesting consequences. for instance, can you morally condemn someone for an action, if he had no choice?

[Ustwo]

Originally Posted by badong

you are right, for daily life totally meaningless, but nevertheless an important concept with interesting consequences. for instance, can you morally condemn someone for an action, if he had no choice?

Yes, because I have no choice

[goodhabits]

can you morally condemn someone for an action, if he had no choice?

this reminds me of a movie with tom cruise and colin farrel.....

As ridiculous as Minority Report is, it really does infact bring up the same ideas discussed here.
You know someone is going to commit murder, but if they havent actually commited the crime yet, are they still guilty? can you be 100% that the crime would have still gone through, and if u arrest them before they commit murder, then surely they can only be charged with attempted murder...

This may become an a political and ethical issue in the future if science becomes advanced enough to predict someones actions. Not so ridiculous when u consider that we can already tell during childhood whether someone has a pre-disposition to specific diseases, or mental defects including those that can lead to acts of violence.

[mdrop]

It call comes down on the issue of realism and idealism, in a way. In realism/positivism you agree that there are set and solid laws that run the whole show and that they can be determined. In idelism/anti-positivism/neo-humanism you do not believe in such solid and unchangeable laws.

Now, as for predicting someone's actions by the states of their neurochemical states, you forget one important thing, the context. The neurochemical actions only ready or trigger you, but the actual actions or the outcome is always largely affected by your surroundings and the people around you. And, atleast with our current capabilities and understanding, it is impossible to calculate a framework of every single action taken in the world at a given timescale to predict one man's actions. And applying chaos theory into the equation, it becomes nearly impossible with even unlimited calculating power. Even with the most sophisticated quantum computers, you could only calculate a set of possibilities.

A preferrable Minority Report setup - rather than barging in arresting everyone, they stop murders in more subtle ways, like ringing the doorbell at just the right moment, or playing that feelgood song on the radio etc - Or even just talking to the guy and explaining that he might want to chill out a bit.

[badong]

very nice idea, but some of you have already said it, whether the world is deterministic or not, we will never be able to "calculate" the future, no matter how fast our computers will be. the world is to compex.

[thefictionweliv]

Computer were also never going to be less than room size, even in the first Star Trek nobs, quirks, and blips, aligned the ship, the screen you are looking at right now would conjure disbelief in the early computer pioneers.

[thefictionweliv]

Computer were also never going to be less than room size, even in the first Star Trek nobs, quirks, and blips, aligned the ship, the screen you are looking at right now would conjure disbelief in the early computer pioneers.

[thefictionweliv]

Originally Posted by goodhabits

this reminds me of a movie with tom cruise and colin farrel.....

As ridiculous as Minority Report is, it really does infact bring up the same ideas discussed here.
You know someone is going to commit murder, but if they havent actually commited the crime yet, are they still guilty? can you be 100% that the crime would have still gone through, and if u arrest them before they commit murder, then surely they can only be charged with attempted murder...

This may become an a political and ethical issue in the future if science becomes advanced enough to predict someones actions. Not so ridiculous when u consider that we can already tell during childhood whether someone has a pre-disposition to specific diseases, or mental defects including those that can lead to acts of violence.

You then wonder if those charging the person of the crime could be held accountable for the ethics they would be violating by punishing a person who is still innocent if they were predestined to do so.

[Ustwo]

The concept of pre-determination is not new, nor does it obsolve people of guilt.

Fate may make you a murderer, but you are still a murderer, and your fait is to be punished for it as well.

[roachboy]

fate is a metphysical concept.
pre-determination is a weak and/or directed variant.
they rely upon religious assumptions to be coherent.
if you find some kind of "proof" for the functioning of either, you should simply assume that the "researchers" who carried out the stude built their methodology around their religious convictions, at one level or another.

or maybe they used regression analysis to correlate otherwise unrelated variables.
with regression analysis, i can establish the relative importance of levels of orange juice consumption as over against, say, volkswagen ownership in determining the causes of the vietnam war.
which is important.
like this question is.

[adysav]

The whole point of this thread is non-religious.
What he's saying is that particle A collided with particle B, which went on to collide with particle C and so on.
The question is, could particle B ever have interacted with particle C in a different way, given that it collided with A first. Is it possible that particle B could have missed C altogether and struck F, leading to a whole new sequence of events.

This does rely on our intuitive view of causality, as well as all interactions following some kind of Newtonian interaction. As far as I know quantum mechanics and relativity preclude the sort of causality that we assume must be in place.