fate (lower case intentional) in the traditional usage necessitates an acceptance of religion. The idea that there is some ‘force’ guiding/controlling/determining all events in the universe is equivalent to the existence of some god, Fates (not fates- that’s different), Gamesters of Triskelion, etc. This is altogether a separate debate.
Thus, if this ‘God surrogate’ does not exist, then fate does not exist.
If this is the case, then we are all individuals suspended in the universe, unaffected by some controlling force. We are essentially dories on the ocean of this universe. We are bouyed, buffeted and at times beleaguered by the events/forces of this universe, but can row/sail/drift (I see them as entirely different analogical elements) as we see fit. We are fragile, but free.
However, if we consider all the cases, then there are usages other than the traditional for ‘fate’.
If we consider, rather than fate being a predestination of events by some ‘Controller’, that it is the inalterable course of events of their own accord, then fate requires further consideration.
With a layman’s understanding of physics-chemistry, we can reach particular conclusions.
Since the large-scale systems studied by astronomers (planetary orbits, galactic movement, etc.) seem independant of anything other than their inherent forces (gravitation, EM, etc.- the forces that make the systems work), they can be thought of as fated. For example: Nothing anyone seems capable of (at the present time- T’Kon excluded, ha-ha) can affect/change/halt/prevent/initiate the movement of stars in a galaxy. This is underligned by the fact that models exist which allow us to predict the motion of the heavenly bodies, and such things as eclipses.
Smaller systems more familiar to us also often seem fated. If a system dictates that a rock has been vaulted into the air (The cause doesn’t matter- a volcano, if it must be- work with me here), it seems definite that the rock will follow a path describing motion in easily calculated quadratic equation. It will be affected by things such as wind, gravity waves (if there are any ask Dr. Hawking, not me), etc. but these are symply part of the system. We can, given knowledge of all elements affecting the rock, predict the outcome of the system. We could say “The rock will land There, Then, after These things happen”. Anything not initiated by a living entity seems fated. (Recall, this is based on the earlier assuption that there is no Controller acting on the universe- this is the non-traditional usage of ‘fate’.) A rock is predictable in this manner- a chameleon is not.
Then, we must consider if things living are fated, for they are the only exception to the above rule.
Living things seem more predictable the more complex they are. A bacterium is predictable nine times out of ten (my expression- not validly-obtained statistics). It works on a simple ‘stimulus, response’ principal. Stick food next to a bacterium with sufficiently low concentrations of food within its cytosol, and the bacterium will engulf the food.
Higher life forms seem less predictable (more capable of decisions, less controlled by fate) than bacterial feasting. The aforementioned chameleon, for example, is expected to blend in with its surroundings, and such. But it is more difficult to predict if it will feed given the opportunity. If confronted with some threat, a dog may fight or flee. It is difficult to predict which. If the dog is not predictable, it is capable of decisions, and it is uncontrolled by fate.
Moving up a step (by some arguments), a man is not predictable. Significant knowledge of the past and tendencies can allow us to guess, however. After years of gathering information through observation and inquiry, I can say of my best friend: “He’ll be here around this time; he’s likely to sit down in a certain manner; he’ll have difficulty with that task; he’d like that movie.” Nonetheless, I cannot accurately predict him, for he is capable of making decisions regarding his own course, more than any chameleon. He is not controlled by fate.
Or is he?
A man is, as biologists understand it, the sum of an organised collection of tissues, and in turn of cells.
(An english doctor-the name escapes me- once said something to the effect that "i've been poking around inside many a man, but have never run into anything I could identify as a 'soul'." Keep this in mind for later.)
These cells are, as biologists understand it, the sum of an organised collection of organelles, and in turn of molecules.
If molecules interact in predictable patterns (and chemistry, molecular ‘fluid dynamics’ and stoichiometry tell us they do), then there is no way of changing their courses. They will interact as nuclear forces, magnetism, etc. Tell them to. Like the galaxies discussed above, they are locked into definite fates. Thus, as the actions of a solar system with many planets are predictable and can be modeled, so are those of a man- a large, complex system of molecules behaving in fixed manners (used for illustration, not proof).
So, at this point, MAN IS SUBJECT TO FATE. We are not dories on the ocean, but molecules of water, intrinsic and integral to the universe itself. We cannot affect the system, but we ARE the system, or at least part of it. We are organised collections of the elements of the universe, and that makes us part of the great machine. We are subject to its motions, its time dilations, its laws and its entropy, just as much as the widshield is subject to the motions, licensing, and collisions of a motor car.
There is no dishonor in being a component of the universe. A water molecule need not be ashamed to contribute to the ocean. Each fusing Hydrogen atom contributes to the brilliance of a star (and prolongs the time before its collapse).
The above argument that man is subject to fate like the clouds are to the atmosphere is dependant on these presumptions:
-
That molecules behave in a predictable manner.
-
That the human mind and soul (should any exist) are, as the body, reducible to complex interactions of molecules.
*** I choose at this point to again remind the reader of the earlier presumption that this discussion is outside the context of religion, and immune to the influences of god. We are, as before, assuming that the universe is neither god’s arena, his beaker, his ant farm, or his greenhouse.***
-
Molecules behave in a wholly predictable manner iff atoms behave in a wholly predictable manner. (Universe is to stars as Man is to cells as Molecule is to atoms.)
It seems that there was developed by physicists over the years fairly predictable ways of describing atomic behaviours. But what of electrons? What of mesons and gluons and tachyons and all the other gremlins that are said to inhabit the intra-atomic realm? Some of them seem to be either defined by undefinableness or unpredictable. If this is due to our own lack of knowledge, fine. If their nature is to exist as creatures only of probability, then perhaps at least part of the universe’s future is not determined by its present. This could extend up to the higher echelons of the system (but now we’re just getting speculative). Likely, it only affects the atomic realm and so has no randomizing effect on the galaxies or the men of the universe.
-
The human mind and soul. Here there are arguments to each effect. There are chemical determinants for memory, and theories on how the chain of connections work in the mind to produce thought and reason. As well, the existence of brainwaves and measureable electrical action representing cerebral activity strongly argues that thought is a pysical process of matter and energy. Aguably, these are just symptoms of thought, and not thought itself. As well, we quite simply haven’t accounted for everything. WE can’t predict thought. This may be due to our lack of knowledge, or the fact that it is not coposed of things we can measure and quantify- matter/energy. After all, who has ever observed thought? It’s like asking who has seen the wind? We can see it’s effects: family planning, electric light, war, the Golden Gate Bridge. We cannot see it, quantify it. It can be qualified (divided into types) but only from within itself. This semms the most likely determinant: Do I have a soul*? If so, I am independant of fate. (Remember, we’re keeping god-surrogates out of this.)
*By which I mean, a mind/soul as described: not composed of the matter/energy physical stuff of the predictable universe.
So, this long chain of reason leads one to ask two questions:
Mine: Is the human mind/soul reducible to chemistry and physics?
and that posted early on by Arthur: Is there anything in the Universe which is truly random?
By which I believe he is asking if the universe is indeed as absolutely predictable (given absolute knowledge) as I have described it to be above.
I have found it most logical to live by assuming that I have control over my actions and their consequences (just in case) and choosing my actions as that dictates, but realizing that it is entirely possible that I am just one water molecule in the ocean of the universe, and even less distinguishable from it than the chameleon from the foliage.
Of course, if religion is brought into this, all bets are off.
I suppose some religious fundamentalist is now going to make me his target.
