This isn't, of course, a new idea (I have no doubt), very few are. But it occurred to me that whilst fate is generally considered to be an archaic and superstitious idea, far removed from a scientific outlook, it really isn't.
Look at the evidence; without going into detail, since this is after all just a quick note, there is no (direct) scientific evidence for the existence of free will. Well, one could say "but I am choosing to do what I do now". But one particularly fascinating example I came across was an experiment whereby - if I remember correctly - subjects could be made to move their heads through direct neural stimulation. The amazing thing is this: the subjects would rationalise these movements. They would refuse to believe that it wasn't themselves initiating the movements, and would claim to have been, say, looking around for their shoe. This was patently rubbish; a press of a button would give a head movement, whether the subject intended to or not. So their brain was effectively acting as a sophisticated bullshitting machine, convincing itself if not others. Split-brain experiments have given results with the same theme (apologies for the "off the cuff" nature of this, but I've stuff to do and don't really want to spend too much time rereading the material I got this from - but it was from very reliable authors). So, given that and given that all other things in the universe are believed to be either (a) deterministic or (b) random (quantum events). Hence we are left with Hume's Fork:
"Either our actions are deterministic, in which case we are not responsible for them, or they are random, in which case we are not responsible for them."
So either way we have no way of influencing our own actions, and hence our own futures - and a better definition of "fate" would be difficult to come by. It's not quite the same, since random events at the quantum level mean that the future is not predetermined
per se, but inasmuch as we humans are concerned, the difference is pretty unimportant.
I'm not convinced this all goes to mean very much; I wouldn't be terribly impressed by someone in a court of law who made a plea that their crime was the workings of fate. It may be, but the crime must still be punished. Even if we accept that the person could have done nothing else, there are still other reasons for punishing crime; as a means of limiting vengeance and preventing anarchy, as a deterrent, as a way of keeping dangerous individuals out of the way, as a means of rehabilitation, as a way of imparting a social stigma to unacceptable acts. Though the "my genes made me do it" argument has already been used... as if genetic predisposition or even determinism were any more of a tyrant than environmental determinism. And an argument could be made that such a plea could be made
if the defendant had not yet given rise to any offspring and
if they agreed to sterilisation... I'm no supporter of eugenics, but that idea does have a nicely ironic edge of poetic justice to it...
Though the idea that we have no influence over our own actions is in itself a datum which could affect our actions. And
that fact is, too. And so on and so forth, until the sheer numbing recursiveness leaves you dazed and confused (had to include a Zeppelin reference, of course).
Interesting concept, I thought.
C.E.M.
Facebook me!
