Fate Vs. Free Will

[purple gelatinous cube o' Doom]

I've seen a number of posts lately where people have been saying that the way things have turned out for him/her is destiny. I personally abhor the notion of fate. I mean can you honestly tell me that you believe that every single decision and action you have made has been planned out form you from the day you were born? And that no matter what the external circumstances, you would make the same choices every single time? The idea of fate precludes free will. I just hate the notion that one doesn't have control over their own decisions. {Scrubbed}

[Moff Chumley]

It doesn't matter. Whatever you do, you were retroactively fated to do. If I were to yell loudly, I would be fated to do it. If I don't, I'm still fated not to. Basically, fate takes credit for free will.

[amuletts]

Hmmmm, I see the future as a great twisty-turny mass of different paths. 'Fate' would be the biggest, clearest path; the one that due to previous actions and personality you are most likely to travel along. Now, you might not like that path so do all you can to get off it, move along a different one; but depending on how much you have invested into building your current path can effect how easy this is.

So I guess I'm saying there is a Fate, but you are responsible for making it.

This is of course taking other people out of the equation. They can effect it too. How much..? Mainly your choice.

Then there are completely random stuff that seem to make some kind of pattern. I guess these are ripples from all the splashing...

[Totally Guy]

Fate was invented by managers of people with dangerous jobs.

"Oh no, poor Harold died at work in an accident, is that in some way your responsibility?"
"No, I'm pretty sure it was fated."


When it comes to industrial safety the opposite view point is far more responsible as it tries to prevent the same accidents occurring again in the future rather than try to pass the blame to a supernatural power.

[pendell]

I don't know an easy way to separate this from religious discussion, but I will try.

I see it as a co-operation.

There are things that are outside human control. If there are supernatural powers that are immortal -- longer-lived than human beings -- and they have an interest in human affairs, it makes sense that they should have plans for individual human beings beyond what those humans had for themselves.

That's often the case in myth. King Arthur takes up the sword Excalibur because he's *meant* to. He has been chosen for that purpose.

But then again, there are things inside human control as well. Otherwise, the whole concept of karma is meaningless. Why should a human being be rewarded for good deeds -- or punished for bad ones -- if they are only fulfilling their destiny? Do we punish a gun because someone pulled it's trigger? Can it help what it was made to be?

If crime, punishment, and karma are to have meaning, human free will must also have meaning.

OTOH, if human will is all there is, that effectively denies the possiblity of supernatural foreknowledge. My particular viewpoint is that destiny is decided because supernatural creatures have foreknowledge of human personality and behavior, and therefore can plan ahead.

Example: If I know that you're going to grow up to be a stubborn, willful jackass, and I know this long before you're born, I can arrange for you to meet the fate of a stubborn, willful jackass. And I can set that up generations before you are even born.

OTOH, if I know you're a kind and gentle person, I can arrange for you to meet the fate of a kind and gentle person , and I can do that a long time before you're even conceived.


So if there's no such thing as destiny, there is either no such thing as supernatural foreknowledge or those that have it choose not to use it to impact the world around them. A hardcore athiest will embrace this idea wholeheartedly. But hardcore athiests are rare.

I believe in a middle ground. I don't believe in an absolute predetermined fate that humans have no power to alter. Nor do I believe in absolute free will, that 'man is the measure of the universe', and no fate is before a man but what a man makes himself.

That second is not true even in purely material terms. No one completely determines their own fate. Our fate is partially determined by our parents (who may be rich or poor, kind or cruel, value education or drunken louts), the environment we grow up in (Kennebunkport or Nigeria), the church and school we go to (very few American children become suicide bombers, too many kids elsewhere in the world do), the values we're taught, the education we receive.

Out of this mix of environmental factors a man has some measure of control, but it's simply not possible for a human being to become whatever they wish to. We can only make the best -- or worst -- of the environment we find ourselves in.

I think of fate the same way.

And here's where I hit the religious wall. I know a number of stories which can illustrate this principle, but unfortunately they're all Bible stories. That's against the rules. All of the mythic stories about Fate I know suggest Fate is an immutable principle, that struggling against one's fate -- like Oedipus -- only makes the fate we struggle to avoid come upon us. And that's simply not the viewpoint or theology that I grew up with.

If anyone has a good mythic story illustrating the principle I just described, I'm happy to listen. Or we can take the discussion to PM or another board. But I frankly can't think of a good myth to illustrate the principles I've just outlined. I would welcome the education.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Liffguard]

Quick question: what is free will? The problem as I see it is that I've never heard a good working definition. Imagine a guy named Fred. Fred has to choose between option A or option B. If there is any reliable way of predicting his choice, then he was "fated" or "determined" to do it (whether you attribute it to supernatural destiny or simply physical determinism is irrelevant). If there is absolutely no way of predicting his choice, then it is essentially random. If free will is neither deterministic nor random, then what is it?

The other problem as I see it is that there is no known entity or agent that could operate under free will as it is currently thought of. Human beings are physical bodies acting according to the laws of physics. Whilst we appear to be very complex and unpredictable due to how many billions of individual processes are occurring in each of us at any given time, if you break it down each of those processes are actually very simple and easy to understand. Since we're just a collection of physical processes, where does free will fit into it?

So no, I don't really believe in free will.

[The Neoclassic]

I mean can you honestly tell me that you believe that every single decision and action you have made has been planned out form you from the day you were born? And that no matter what the external circumstances, you would make the same choices every single time?

I find that a ridiculous notion, purely because external circumstances influence who we become and what we do. So, by that definition of fate (one that disregards external circumstances), I'd say fate is nonsense.


Quick question: what is free will?

(Stuff!)

So no, I don't really believe in free will.

I often argue with my friends about free will. It gets very heated and ugly, before we realize that my definition of free will is different from theirs, and we agree on everything but terminology. Free will does not exist in the sense that, if you knew /everything/ about a person- all their biological processes, all the influences that culture and others have had on them, every little detail about their ways of thinking and preferences which has come from their nature (biology) and nurture (what has happened to them) - you can predict 100% accurately what they will do. No one can, of course, get close to doing that. But... well, hard to get into this further without religion or asserting a lack thereof. However, I'm going to say that neither fate nor free will is a very accurate way of looking at people and how they act, though it all boils down to how you define those words.

[Canadian]

Since nobody knows what will happen next does it really matter?

[Innis Cabal]

Since nobody knows what will happen next does it really matter?

Yes, or it wouldn't have been asked.

[Sneak]

I believe that in any given situation, a given person will always react the same way. It's not necessarily that he doesn't have a "choice," but that he will always make the same choice. His specific biological and psychological conditions will ensure that he reacts in a specific way.

So no, I guess I don't believe in "free will". Biology and psychology determines what we do, and we don't really have control over either of those things, although we sometimes like to think we do. I don't believe in "fate" either, though.

[FdL]

I don't believe in fate. I can't.

Fate is a way of explaining why things happen the way they do. It's something people tellthemselves to try to understand something that doesn't have an answer.

[Lupy]

I believe in Fate. I can't explain it here, but I do.

[valadil]

So no, I guess I don't believe in "free will". Biology and psychology determines what we do, and we don't really have control over either of those things, although we sometimes like to think we do. I don't believe in "fate" either, though.

I agree here. The brain is a system. With enough free time you could determine how that system will react to any input. With ridiculous amounts of free time you can determine how every brain will react to everything. In that sense, even if nobody has calculated what anyone else will do, their actions are still predetermined in grey matter chemistry.

The only way around it as far as I can see is the presence of a soul. And that path leads to religious debate.

[The Neoclassic]

I agree here. The brain is a system. With enough free time you could determine how that system will react to any input. With ridiculous amounts of free time you can determine how every brain will react to everything. In that sense, even if nobody has calculated what anyone else will do, their actions are still predetermined in grey matter chemistry.

The only way around it as far as I can see is the presence of a soul. And that path leads to religious debate.

Precisely. Which is why this debate prolly won't get to go too far, since really, that is the crux of the matter's arguability.

[FoE]

I think Fate is the invention of people who would rather believe that it's not all just an accident. I nearly died in that car crash so that I could pick a different path in life, my mother had breast cancer because He works in mysterious ways, it was fate that I should be in the right place to save that girl from drowning, blah blah blah. Our personalities and our actions may be shaped by our experiences, but that doesn't mean there was a grand architect behind the whole thing.


I believe that in any given situation, a given person will always react the same way. It's not necessarily that he doesn't have a "choice," but that he will always make the same choice. His specific biological and psychological conditions will ensure that he reacts in a specific way.

But that is in fact the essence of free will, Sneak. You're separating biology from consciousness, but they're the same.

[FdL]

I agree here. The brain is a system. With enough free time you could determine how that system will react to any input. With ridiculous amounts of free time you can determine how every brain will react to everything. In that sense, even if nobody has calculated what anyone else will do, their actions are still predetermined in grey matter chemistry.

The explanation that refutes this point is based on the incredible amount of variables in both stimuli and how you process them, that is, both external and internal, and their interactions. They are just too complex to simulate.

[Maxymiuk]

Judge: Mr. Maxymiuk, you stand accused of stealing a male hippo from the town's zoo, painting it red, and throwing it down a hill, causing it to crash into a schoolbus full of paraplegic nuns. How do you plead?
Maxymiuk: Not guilty, Your Honor.
Judge: On what grounds?
Maxymiuk: Cosmic inevitability, Your Honor. The circumstances which you describe have been preordained long before my birth. I had as much control over my actions, as I do over the trajectory of the Moon. Finding me guilty of this act would be the equivalent of punishing a hurricane.

:smalltongue:


On a more serious note, I find it somewhat amusing that most of our world's societies are capable of engaging in this curious doublethink: on some level we believe in fate, on another, our social mores and justice system is firmly rooted in the belief that any person has a clear choice between doing right and doing wrong*. We say that someone's been "blessed by the <insert local deity>" or "leads a cursed life", but we recognize, adulate, or downright worship skill, intelligence, and fame, and condemn lack of morals and aberrant behavior.

Here's the thing: most of the instances when I've heard the word "fate" uttered, it was used either to mean "this person got what they deserved for acting wrong" (the person speaking, of course, being by definition "right") or, curiously, to mean "this person didn't deserve what happened to them, so what gives?"

Of course, what this proves is that emotions, motivations, and the limitations of human vocabulary only serve to confuse the issue. So my take on Fate vs. Free Will, as best as I can define the problem: Whether I'm about to press "Submit Reply" of my own volition, or because someone up there has taken the time and effort to ensure this set of circumstances came about right here and right now is beyond my ability to determine with any degree of certainty. Therefore, I'm not going to worry about it too much.


* For a give value of "right" and "wrong".

[Mushroom Ninja]

It could be argued that, since all of one's thoughts are influenced by their environment[1] and all of their actions are direct products of their thoughts, that all outcomes are simply functions of one's environment. Were this true, it could be easily argued that there is no such thing as free will.

The big problem with this approach is that it does little to define free will.

Personally, I tend to suspend judgment on the whole issue since I've never really gotten a good definition of fate or free will.

[1]: I am defining environment as the sum of all external influences on a person

[Athaniar]

I believe in free will, and I do think it's going to be hard to keep this non-religious for an extended period of time.

[Telonius]

The idea of fate precludes free will.

A couple thoughts on that ...

Objectively, there may or may not be predestination. But subjectively, most (if not all) people perceive that they have the opportunity to choose one option as opposed to another.

Is free will really an on/off switch, or a continuum? How many causes and consequences of an action do you have to know, before a choice you make is free? My personal opinion is that free will is a continuum. The more knowledge about the causes and consequences of an action, the freer the choice is. The only way for a choice to be completely, totally free would be for it to be made by an omniscient being.

EDIT: Another, related thought ... if there is anything in the world that is well and truly random, then the idea of total predestination (within the observable universe at least) flies out the window. You can't predetermine with 100% accuracy the end state of anything if there are any random variables involved.

[Innis Cabal]

Having traveled a good deal of places, and seeing the world outside of my own town, my own country, and my own personal ideas. We are only shaped so much by the area we are born. There is a saturation point.

Is fate real? Maybe. Are you certain that you weren't born to a place that would make certain that you'd arrive to the location your at now? You can't prove it. Was it just chance you were born in City A during 19--. Maybe. But no one here has any proof either way.

[Sneak]

But that is in fact the essence of free will, Sneak. You're separating biology from consciousness, but they're the same.

Er, how so?

Although I stated that I don't believe in fate, what I do believe in and stated so is still a form of determinism. Yes, our consciousness is ultimately the same as our biology. I don't deny that. But my point is, we, or our biology, don't really have a "choice," or rather that we will always make the same choice in any given situation based on the conditions of our consciousness/biology.

Are determinism and free will compatible? If humans have choices but there is no real possibility of any choice save one being chosen, is that free will? Or is it only free will if there are really multiple possible outcomes when a given person is placed in a given situation?

If that makes sense.

Anyway, basically what I'm trying to say is that I believe in determinism, but I can't really talk about free will until I know the definition of free will and whether or not determinism precludes free will. It's a very vaguely defined term, really.

[purple gelatinous cube o' Doom]

by definition, you can't have fate and free will (definition of fate is here (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fate)). fate means that every decision you have ever made, and ever will make has already been decided. That means your decision to go to Subway instead of Burger King for lunch today was decided the day you were born. You cannot have both free will and fate, since fate takes any choice you make out of your hands, and thus out of the equation. Free will on the other hand, always gives you a choice, it puts your actions in your control. For instance, if fate were indeed the way things were, then you would believe that when a murder takes place, the murderer was predestined to murder the victim from the beginning, and has no choice in the matter. That, quite frankly is BS. The person made a conscience decision to do what he did, and had a choice, not to but did anyway. With free will, you will always have a choice, with fate, you never have or ever will.

[pendell]

by definition, you can't have fate and free will (definition of fate is here). fate means that every decision you have ever made, and ever will make has already been decided.


That's not the definition of fate; that's definition 2a in the dictionary you cite, and IMO an excessively narrow reading of definition 2a.

My definition is a modified version of definition 1:

"the will or principle or determining cause by which things in general are believed to come to be as they are or events to happen as they do "

I modify the definition thus:

"the will(s) or principle(s) or determining cause(s) by which things in general are believed to come to be as they are or events to happen as they do "

from which we lead directly to definition 3a-c in the dictionary:

"3 a: final outcome b: the expected result of normal development <prospective fate of embryonic cells> c: the circumstances that befall someone or something <did not know the fate of her former classmates>"

Drawing me to my colloquial definition: That combination of wills and causes that result in an outcome. *one* of those wills and causes is the will of the humans involved, but only one.

So it is perfectly permissible to believe in both free will and fate, by the dictionary definition you cite.

Your witness, counsellor.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Innis Cabal]

Don't you think its a little narrow minded to tell someone what they beleive? And to go so far as to say its "wrong" simply because you disagree...is the very worst form of bigotry.

You can't prove your stance. They can't prove theirs. Fate and free will has more to it then simply biological impulses. It really treds the line of faith and religion.

Shouldn't you be happy that you think that ever action you preform is chosen by you at the moment? Rather then grow irrate because there are people who believe that you are destined to think you have free will?

[Canadian]

Innis - It isn't narrow minded to tell someone what they believe if you're right.

[Pyrian]

I believe in neither "fate" nor this "free will" construct. I see no evidence that either exists. At best, certains events are probable to the point of certainty, and internal perceptions of our choices are of course "free" precisely because we're the ones making those choices. However, chaos and indeterminacy quickly take over the various possible futures, and intelligences make decisions based on (presumably pre-set in various fashions) priorities and (presumably chaotic) whims.

There is no necessity for these "magics" of fate and free will. They are of no use for modeling behavior, nor the consequences thereof.

[pendell]

Innis,



Don't you think its a little narrow minded to tell someone what they beleive? And to go so far as to say its "wrong" simply because you disagree...is the very worst form of bigotry.


Are you addressing myself, the Purple Cube, or someone else entirely? Without quotes it's hard to tell.

Canadian,



Innis - It isn't narrow minded to tell someone what they believe if you're right.


Whether or not it's narrow minded it can certainly be rude.

That's why rather than saying to a person 'you believe such and such' it's wiser to say 'I hear you saying such-and-such' or 'I heard such and such, is that what you meant?'

By reflecting back what the person said, you are able to demonstrate your comprehension of their ideals in a less threatening way than by baldly and directly stating what someone believes. And if you are even 1% wrong -- and I usually am at *least* that wrong listening to someone else -- it gives them the opportunity to gently correct you rather than simply boiling with rage because you've misrepresented them.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Innis Cabal]

Free will on the other hand, always gives you a choice, it puts your actions in your control. For instance, if fate were indeed the way things were, then you would believe that when a murder takes place, the murderer was predestined to murder the victim from the beginning, and has no choice in the matter. That, quite frankly is BS. The person made a conscience decision to do what he did, and had a choice, not to but did anyway. With free will, you will always have a choice, with fate, you never have or ever will.

It was in response to this mostly, but also his careful pick of a definition of fate that supports his view as you pointed out.

[Mx.Silver]

Neither concept is particularly grounded in reality. Free will is, as has already been stated, pretty much de facto vetoed since we live in a deterministic universe (i.e. one with an established pattern of cause and effect). The only way you could truly have 'free' will is if the decision-making part of the mind (aka consciousness) wasn't effected and influenced by biological and environmental factors, which it is.

On the subject that fate excuses bad actions, what exactly is to stop the judge in that situation from going 'well it's fated that the murderer should be punished for his/her crime'? That is the main problem with fate, it is impossible to show that anything ever could not be the result of it. It is basically unfalsifiable. When a fortune teller, or anyone who claims to be able to predict it, makes a prediction that fails that is also 'fated to be'. What this means in essence is that saying something was 'fated' just becomes a fancy way of saying it happened and so the whole concept loses any real meaning and is better off just being ignored.

Besides which, the idea of a pre-ordained order for everything is also at-odds with reality, specifically Chaos. Put very simply at some aspects of the quantum spectrum you get things that do behave/appear entirely at random. They simply can't be pre-ordained because otherwise they wouldn't actually be (this, coupled with the Uncertainty Principle is why we can never create a 'Laplace's Demon').

EDIT: and Pyrian's gone and said basically the same thing in a much more succinct way. :smallsigh:

[pendell]

One last concept before I do something productive ... perhaps what I believe is more closely related to Wyrd (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyrd) then it is to Purple Cube's 'fate'.



In a simple sense, Wyrd refers to how past actions continually affect and condition the future, but also how the future affects the past. The concept of Wyrd highlights the interconnected nature of all actions and how they influence each other. Wyrd, though conceptually related, is not congruent with predestination. Unlike predestination, the concept of Wyrd allows for one's wyrd or agency: albeit agency 'constrained' (Proto-Germanic: Naudiz) by the wyrds (the intentions and activities) of others, but nevertheless capable of weaving reality. This view is also prominent in the concept of Karma, as used in Indian religions. Wyrd is "inexorable"[2] and "goes as she shall"[3], the fate (Norse ørlǫg) woven or scored by the Norns.


So 'wyrd' -- the norse version of 'fate' -- is on the one hand inexorable, but is on the other hand the result of actions past, present and future -- yours, other peoples, other things.

The broader point being that not everything is decided at or before birth. Some things are, yes. But we all participate in the weaving of the tapestry that is our shared lives. Some things we can change, others not.

I think this bears a closer relation to what actually happens in life than to simply insist 'we have total control over our futures' or 'we are all simple pawns in the hand of outside agencies (be they environment, gods, or society) and can do nothing to alter our futures'. The first is a recipe for hubris and disaster, as many Utopians have found to their sorrow. The second is quite unpalatable to, say, a veteran of alcoholics anonymous, who has often had to work quite hard to overcome his/her circumstances and succeeded in large measure in doing so.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[LurkerInPlayground]

Fate and free will are not mutually exclusive.

Fate and free will are artificial abstractions made by humans. But people tend to let their assumptions about their larger cosmological implications get the better of them.

Freedom is merely the idea that humans ought to have social autonomy. It is no guarantee of unlimited power. Do not confuse a social obligation or value with metaphysical law.

Fate is merely the idea that events will resolve and progress down a casual chain from an originating event. A being sufficiently advanced enough might know enough to predict your future.

Fate, as an idea, is merely a byproduct of the necessary mental "illusion" that humans hold for themselves that time is continuous. It gives us a rationalization that there are causes to events, which is necessary for problem-solving. Simply put, the more I know about you, the more information I have, the more accurately I can predict the outcome of events relating to you.

For example, I can predict that you will die, does it diminish the value of your life?

Why would it be any different if I could predict the exact circumstances that lead up to your death?

Why would it be any different if I could accurately predict who you will become or what you would accomplish?

Would you feel any less joy or sorrow as a result of those events?

If you were granted enough rights in society to make your decisions without undue transgressions from others into your autonomy, then you have as much "freedom" as is humanly possible or desirable. That I can predict your future or that natural laws influence your decisions is wholly irrelevant.

[Assassin89]

To paraphrase a certain Final Fantasy game,

Fate is a series of paths that one's choices shapes. If any choices lead back to the same path, then it is fate.

In other words, free will shapes fate, but fate itself cannot be predicted.

[FdL]

To paraphrase a certain Final Fantasy game,

Fate is a series of paths that one's choices shapes. If any choices lead back to the same path, then it is fate.

In other words, free will shapes fate, but fate itself cannot be predicted.

Put this way, fate seems to be simply an interpretation of life's uncertainty and chaos.

[LurkerInPlayground]

To paraphrase a certain Final Fantasy game,

Fate is a series of paths that one's choices shapes. If any choices lead back to the same path, then it is fate.

In other words, free will shapes fate, but fate itself cannot be predicted.
Incorrect. I just stated that it was possible to reasonably predict the outcome of events provided enough information.

You are letting New Agey ideas of the sacredness of human life to get in the way of understanding simple semantics.

I can reasonably predict you will die. That is your fate. I know this likely because:
1) I don't reasonably expect technology that makes immortality possible in this lifetime.
2) I don't reasonably think you are a supernatural creature.
3) Humans are animals. Every animal I've seen will eventually die.
4) Assassin is probably a human. Therefore, Assassin will die.

If I knew more about your risk-taking behaviors and personality traits, I might have a good shot at correctly predicting how you would die. The more information I get, the more accurate and probable my prediction becomes.

[FdL]

Incorrect. I just stated that it was possible to reasonably predict the outcome of events provided enough information.

I can reasonably predict you will die. That is your fate. I know this likely because:

So you're equating fate with reasonably predictability? What if you're leaving out any variable in your analysis for the prediction?

Also seems to be a different interpretation of fate. One stemming from an analysis of the current circumstances, unlike the others who speak of predestination or just taking a step back from volitional implications.

[FoE]

Neither concept is particularly grounded in reality. Free will is, as has already been stated, pretty much de facto vetoed since we live in a deterministic universe (i.e. one with an established pattern of cause and effect). The only way you could truly have 'free' will is if the decision-making part of the mind (aka consciousness) wasn't effected and influenced by biological and environmental factors, which it is.

But if consciousness is just a function of biology, then maybe everything we do is free will. Maybe we are not the sum of our parts, but rather the function.

[LurkerInPlayground]

So you're equating fate with reasonably predictability? What if you're leaving out any variable in your analysis for the prediction?

Also seems to be a different interpretation of fate. One stemming from an analysis of the current circumstances, unlike the others who speak of predestination or just taking a step back from volitional implications.

Fate is just the outcome of your life. Whether I can predict it at all is completely seperate from what it is by definition.

I won't claim that I can do it with 100% accuracy. And you'd be right to be skeptical of anybody who would claim that they could. What I can do is make very generalised statements about your life and have a chance of being right.

In other words, everybody has the ability to predict their fate to some limited degree. If you don't study for a mid-term, you're going to be screwed and your grades probably won't turn out very well.

Most people seem miffed less at the idea of predetermination itself than they are at the idea that anybody could know every private and intimate detail of their lives. And moreover, some people don't want the surprise ruined, since it kills any romance of the process alltogether.

[snoopy13a]

Are determinism and free will compatible?

I thought by definition they aren't. Philosophers who believe in determinism don't believe in free will.

[LurkerInPlayground]

I thought by definition they aren't. Philosophers who believe in determinism don't believe in free will.
I say that they aren't and that it is really a tiresome and unoriginal semantical quibble -- a false dichotomy.

Part of it has to do with the fact that people assign all sorts of magical qualities to "will." There is no magic to it.

"Will" is just a byproduct of your "mind," which in turn, is something an engine called a "brain" does as a part of its functions.

If the body that this engine is stuck to is socially recognized as "free" within a society, then your will is a "free will."

But I've already written enough on that.

[snoopy13a]

Free will is, as has already been stated, pretty much de facto vetoed since we live in a deterministic universe.



By what proofs do we live in a deterministic universe?