Fate, Free Will, and Sarda being a jackass

[Heresy488]

In this most recent comic 1136, Red Mage makes the point that Sarda was to blame for all the ruin and death caused by the Light Warriors because he put them on the course of their actions.

To which Sarda retorted, "It's my fault you people kill and cheat your way through your miserable lives?" Sarda is putting the responsibility of the consequences of the Light Warrior's actions at their feet - as though they had a choice in the matter. However, as the last several comics have demonstrated - the Light Warriors never had a choice. #434 and all that - everything that happened was going to happen, there were no choices. Fate, determinism, and all that.

How can a person be held responsible for their actions if they had no choice in the matter? The events that happened could have happened in no other way. Holding the Light Warriors responsible for their inevitable actions would be like holding fire responsible for burning something. We know and understand fire, the consequences of fire are predictable and we know it. Sarda knows too what the Light Warriors did, what they had done, what they will do, and he further knows that the actions they take must be taken and they lack the power to do otherwise.

So how rational is it for Sarda to hold the Light Warriors accountable for the atrocities committed against the Onion Kid? The Light Warriors could no more resist their fates than fire could resist burning something. It sounds really dick for Sarda to play the fate-card to justify his own authority, holding back the free will-card for when it'll hurt the LW's case. This looks like a glaring contradiction.



And this is why fate is not a valid perspective with which to view the world. The consequences of absolving yourself of the responsibilites of your actions would be disastrous. Could you imagine someone committing a crime and then using the explanation, "I had to do it, I was compelled by my destiny to murder that person and take their money. I could not resist my fate."

"Well ok buddy, that's your confession. See you in twenty to life."

Sarda is using fate to justify himself, but is holding the Light Warriors accountable to free will. That's not right.

[The Wizard Who Did It]

And this is why fate is not a valid perspective with which to view the world. The consequences of absolving yourself of the responsibilites of your actions would be disastrous. Could you imagine someone committing a crime and then using the explanation, "I had to do it, I was compelled by my destiny to murder that person and take their money. I could not resist my fate."
That's only if you think justice exists to punish people. Just because you're not accountable for your actions doesn't mean you shouldn't be jailed or sent to a clinic for treatment or whatever. The point of those things is to get criminals off the street/cure people so they can be productive members of society (preferably the latter, the former if necessary).

In other words, deterministic thinking is only a really faulty way to view the world if you're stupid enough to believe that not being in control of your actions means that you have no accountability for your actions. There are obvious examples where people are in no control of their actions and because of those specific circumstances can't be held accountable, but those don't apply to the overall deterministic viewpoint.


Also, yes, Sarda is being completely irrational.

[Meister]

So how rational is it for Sarda to hold the Light Warriors accountable for the atrocities committed against the Onion Kid?
Pretty much exactly as rational as it is for the Light Warriors to commit sins agains human-, elf- and dwarfity whereever they go. He's as caught up in this as everyone.

[tacticslion]

Pretty much exactly as rational as it is for the Light Warriors to commit sins agains human-, elf- and dwarfity whereever they go. He's as caught up in this as everyone.

Did they commit sins against elfity? I don't recall that. Well, the lying. Oh! You must mean the dark elves. Yeah, got it, nevermind.

[Neni]

Sarda is just stupid, that's my opinion. I think that there IS a destiny, but that you CAN screw this destiny. So easy. He can't tell me, that his theory was actually working. Because it isn't. On a million levels.

Therefor, in my opinion, Sarda now outranks Fighter as the most naiv character in the comic. -.-

So, and now burn me as a witch for saying what I think.

[Kim]

Well, here's my views on if there were such a thing as Fate, and its relation to free will. Let us say that everything is predetermined. Everything is going to happen a certain way, and there is absolutely no changing that. That includes our thoughts and behaviors. However, it is still possible for free will to exist. Just because what we do is already decided does not change the fact that it is predetermined because we make those decisions that are already decided.

Just because I know you are going to let the cup fall to the ground because that's what is decided to happen does not change the fact that you chose to let the cup fall to the ground. Ya dig?

[Nuklear Waste]

From Sarda's perspective, the Light Warriors were always going to traumatize him just as he was always going to kill them. To him, there's no avoiding either one.

[Fifthfiend]

Nothing about the comic proves or disproves Free Will either relative to reality or the fictional reality of the comic itself.

Sarda is using fate to justify himself, but is holding the Light Warriors accountable to free will. That's not right.

This is correct; Sarda is plainly full of shit here.

[Mirai Gen]

He's spent all of eternity in blinding rage of the Light Warriors for orphaning him twice as a child, so he doesn't care about logic that could possibly steamroll or interrupt his quest for humiliating vengeance.

[tacticslion]

So, and now burn me as a witch for saying what I think.

Or, y'know, let's not and say we didn't?

See the ultimate problem with Fate, or Destiny, or Determinism, or whathaveyou, is that people often use it to justify why they do very, very bad things. It can be as simple as "the devil made me do it"* or "I was just following orders, and thus had no choice" or it can be as complex as "due to the stable, unchanging nature of time, I am absolved of all responsibility of my actions". In either case, the answer is "No, you're wrong." Actions merit responses. Justification fails for evil actions.

Even if** Sarda were correct - that there is nothing he could have done differently - the fact is he chose to do it this way. He may be telling the truth, but the fact that he absolves himself is absolutely wrong. Do the Light Warriors*** deserve death for their overwhelming evil? Absolutely. Buy, hey, so does Sarda. Sucks, eh?

*This statement in and of itself carries an entirely massive amount of world-view assumptions that aren't really bourne out by any religious text. Even when people are indicated to be "possessed of a malicious spirit" the indication is that they were possessed through their own devices in the first place - in other words, they opened themselves up to it. This need not involve satanic rituals... but again, it's a whole other topic of conversation. It's also stupid and against the scriptural devil's MO. Occasionally used for humor.
**I am presuming that Sarda is correct as of Brian's responses. But I guess we never know for sure.
***Excluding Fighter. He's a casualty.

[Ronfar]

Is it just me, or is Sarda starting to sound an awful lot like Nibel from Nuklear Age?

[Heresy488]

Well, here's my views on if there were such a thing as Fate, and its relation to free will. Let us say that everything is predetermined. Everything is going to happen a certain way, and there is absolutely no changing that. That includes our thoughts and behaviors. However, it is still possible for free will to exist. Just because what we do is already decided does not change the fact that it is predetermined because we make those decisions that are already decided.

Just because I know you are going to let the cup fall to the ground because that's what is decided to happen does not change the fact that you chose to let the cup fall to the ground. Ya dig?

No, I can't choose to let the cup fall to the ground. Whatever it was that designed the universe and the sequence of events that would take place within it made that choice and I was only going through the motions, living robotically until I died.

Choice implies that you could have done something different. But if everything that happened was supposed to happen, there is no choice. Conceivably, someone (like Sarda) could know the future completely and watch it unfold, knowing what will happen before it happens. In the context of that outsider, with the advantage of that pre-knowledge, there is no choice. I love fire. The Light Warriors could no more deviate from their actions than a flame could deviate from burning everything around it.

Just like how the Light Warriors can't choose to kill the Onion Kid. The LW's don't have the choice.

He's spent all of eternity in blinding rage of the Light Warriors for orphaning him twice as a child, so he doesn't care about logic that could possibly steamroll or interrupt his quest for humiliating vengeance.

If that were the case, why does he bother monologuing about it? It's like he's insecure and has to validate his actions to himself (not Onion Kid, I mean to himself). Sarda is just acting like a bitch now.

[Solid Snake]

I just don't quite understand how Sarda could willfully engage in activity that will traumatize himself.
Yes, from the chronological perspective of Sarda's life, crap happens to Onion Kid, and then Onion Kid is apparently sent back in time, and grows to become Sarda. But then, Sarda still has to willfully ensure that "the future" occurs exactly as he's seen it. At this point, Sarda is completely in control of himself and his actions, but he chooses to 'go along with what's already happened.'

And, from a certain perspective? I can understand the logic behind Sarda's fatalism. To quote Lost, which indulged in similar time-traveling shenanigans: "Whatever Happened, Happened." What I can't understand is how Sarda can live with himself for taking such actions. Presumably, the time-traveling must have taken Sarda's sanity from him, because any rational human being, no matter how fatalistic, is still going to struggle to indulge in activity that -- directly or indirectly -- harms his past self.

It's interesting to similarly note how emotional Sarda is in regards to his quest for vengeance against the Light Warriors, and yet, how simultaneously matter-of-factual he is in accepting fate and denying the possibility of free will. Either Sarda's near-omnipotent state has revealed a predetermined path he simply must follow, or he's indulging in a strange double standard here. I think the end result is that Sarda is every bit as corrupt as the Light Warriors, and like the Light Warriors, he's completely blind to his own sins. It's that terrible maxim all over again, he's become just like the very enemy he wanted to defeat.

And if you think about it, time-traveling aside, Sarda's chronology fits in very nicely compared to the Light Warriors. He's on the same kind of quest, for the same selfish reasons, with the same destructive attitude towards civilized society as a whole, and he's garnered the same kind of immense power to fulfill his "destiny."

[Kim]

No, I can't choose to let the cup fall to the ground. Whatever it was that designed the universe and the sequence of events that would take place within it made that choice and I was only going through the motions, living robotically until I died.

Choice implies that you could have done something different. But if everything that happened was supposed to happen, there is no choice.

Well, in the case of 8-Bit, it isn't that everything that happened was supposed to happen, but rather that everything that happens has already happened. They still have a choice, it's just that they've already made and acted on those choices, in a matter of speaking.

Another example: You made your post. You have already made and acted upon that choice. You can't change that. That does not mean you don't have free will.

[The Wizard Who Did It]

See the ultimate problem with Fate, or Destiny, or Determinism, or whathaveyou, is that people often use it to justify why they do very, very bad things. It can be as simple as "the devil made me do it"* or "I was just following orders, and thus had no choice" or it can be as complex as "due to the stable, unchanging nature of time, I am absolved of all responsibility of my actions". In either case, the answer is "No, you're wrong." Actions merit responses. Justification fails for evil actions.
Again though, that's stupid people misinterpreting the concept more than a problem with the idea of Fate itself.

It's like people hearing about this great thing called Free Will and saying, "Oh, I can just murder everyone I don't like, because I have Free Will and can do whatever I want!"

That's hyperbole, but you and I both know that many people misinterpret the terms "freedom" and "choice" to giving themselves the ability to do stupid, irresponsible, and harmful things because they can.
Well, in the case of 8-Bit, it isn't that everything that happened was supposed to happen, but rather that everything that happens has already happened. They still have a choice, it's just that they've already made and acted on those choices, in a matter of speaking.

Another example: You made your post. You have already made and acted upon that choice. You can't change that. That does not mean you don't have free will.
I THINK (I'm not entirely sure) that you're mistaking the idea of "proving fate" and "acknowledging how fate works".

You're right that it's impossible to prove Fate. No matter what actions you do, me saying that it's because you were fated to do so has about the same weight as you saying you had the free will to do so. It's impossible to conclusively prove other side.

However, if we assume that there is Fate, there is no Free Will. If everything is going to happen one and only one way, then there is no choice. You can't define a choice with only one option. Fate and Free Will are mutually exclusive concepts, they can't both be completely in effect.

[tacticslion]

Sarda's a jerk.

Sarda's a freak just like the Light Warriors.

Yeah, you're right. I think most everyone agrees now: Sarda is not only in the wrong, he's blatantly so, and doesn't care. He's a hypocrite - and he's ok with that. So... yeah. He's evil too.

No, I can't choose to let the cup fall to the ground. Whatever it was that designed the universe and the sequence of events that would take place within it made that choice and I was only going through the motions, living robotically until I died.

Choice implies that you could have done something different. But if everything that happened was supposed to happen, there is no choice. Conceivably, someone (like Sarda) could know the future completely and watch it unfold, knowing what will happen before it happens. In the context of that outsider, with the advantage of that pre-knowledge, there is no choice. I love fire. The Light Warriors could no more deviate from their actions than a flame could deviate from burning everything around it.

Just like how the Light Warriors can't choose to kill the Onion Kid. The LW's don't have the choice.

Heresy - I'm forced to disagree with you again. Determinism isn't inherently contrary to free will. If you are given a certain number of choices, given your personality, you will probably always choose the same thing (unless you're highly conflicted, in which case you might make a random decision at that point, but we really don't know) because you are who you are. If someone else was given the exact same (insomuch as it was relevant) decision, they would independantly make their own decision, which might end up the same but for fundamentally different reasons, or they might make a different decision for the same reasons you made yours. We don't know.

Ultimately the decision is still made of your will. Whether it was fated to happen or not, you, by your will, are making the decision. You'd always make the same decision, but you're the one doing so, not anyone else. The fated part is made up of all the stuff we can't control combined with the aspect of us being who we are. In such a combined view, our will determines how and why we make the decision, fate or Fate (your choice in this instance) just hands us the decision that we make.

For example, although it's somewhat of a bizarre movie to watch, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind goes through this idea. The same people are making the same decisions again because their memories are erased from making the decisions. It has no time-travel involved. Their core - who they were - fated them to undergo the same choices, in the end. However the results of those choices mature them and allow them (theoretically) to become better people (and ultimately choose something else, later). That's what it means - free will combined with fate.

A bit more for explanitory purposes: we didn't choose the laws of the universe or our biology. We didn't choose to need food to live. We didn't choose to grow old and die* or to make birth such a traumatic, painful experience*. We didn't set up the patterns of weather or even its existance. We didn't choose to need the sun, or air. We are handed these things. But, we choose what to do with it. Everything else is fated to occur one way or another. We will always make the same decisions given the same circumstances based off of who we are. We just don't get to choose the circumstances. Brian's loop is more 'depressing' than it would otherwise be, because its someone like Sarda who was set up in the loop, and said loop sucked big time anyway. Effectively the problem and robotic outlook presented by the 8-Bit universe is just that - the 8-Bit Universe itself. Given the appropriate outlook, fate isn't depressing or robotic at all, just automatic. Our choices are already limited by the rules of reality. We could be viewed as free agents placed in a regimented reality.

Another way of looking at it is to think of a chemistry reaction. A certain chemical, given a certain situation will always react the same way because of what it is. It's based on the nature of that chemical. A different chemical put in that situation would react differently. In our case, however, it's not a different chemical or person - it's us. Thus, our choice and our will. The outcome will always be the same, but it's because it always was that way.

This help?

Note 1: pardon me talking way, way too much. I do that.
Note 2: I'm also not saying that's the way it is, but rather that it's the most logical-looking to me, for time-travel purposes.
*This is, of course, dependant upon your view whether or not we made the choice that led to such a state, but even in such recollections no one chose to grow old and die, so much as it was a result of other choices. /digression.

[The Wizard Who Did It]

Tactics, that isn't Fate you're talking about, that's Free Will.

Okay, here's the definitions that I (and most people talking about Fate) are working under.

Fate: There is one and only one way that all events will occur. By some outside mechanism (God, The Laws of Physics, whatever) people WILL (without fail) choose one option (which is by definition the only option, because it is the only one that will be chosen) because they are fated to do so.

Without parenthesis: By some outside mechanism people WILL choose on option because they are fated to so.


Free Will: People are given a set of options in life, and by some mechanism are able to choose between the options.


The definitions of these two concepts are mutually distinct, therefore the concepts are mutually distinct.


I guess I should link to the "Free Will or Fate? (http://forum.nuklearpower.com/showthread.php?t=34429)" thread as it might help a little, although to be honest it isn't a very good debate at all.

Also, posting this image from that thread.
http://www.boasas.com/boasas/1103.gif

[Heresy488]

Another example: You made your post. You have already made and acted upon that choice. You can't change that. That does not mean you don't have free will.

But it's improper to look at it from a past-tense perspective. Sarda was looking at it from a future-tense perspective. The Light Warriors don't have free will because Sarda was shaping events that intentionally concerned them ever before they acted against Sarda.

The Light Warriors don't have free will if Sarda is going to judge them by actions they haven't undertaken and furthermore, act to ensure that they do in fact take those acts.



And again, you're ignoring that the LW's were incapable of doing anything different than what they had done. I've brought up the possibility that by having knowledge of the future, the LW are still incapable of acting in any way they weren't supposed to act. They never had a choice.

Sarda is coercing them to be the monsters Sarda will punish them for being. Sarda is Dr. Frankenstein, and he's punishing the Monster for being the Monster, ignoring the part where he made the Monster what it is.


tacticslion: I'm saying that if the Light Warriors had the benefit of knowledge of the future, they would have acted differently. However, the author has pointed out that however they would have acted is how it was supposed to have been. So no, free will is not a choice of 1 option. Even with the benefit of future knowledge, the grand charade of reality would still have played out exactly as it had. More information, less information, the same actions would have been undertaken. That's not a choice, that's a machine that operates by rote uncaring unfeeling until it runs out of fuel.

[tacticslion]

Tactics, that isn't Fate you're talking about, that's Free Will.

Okay, here's the definitions that I (and most people talking about Fate) are working under.

Fate: There is one and only one way that all events will occur. By some outside mechanism (God, The Laws of Physics, whatever) people WILL (without fail) choose one option (which is by definition the only option, because it is the only one that will be chosen) because they are fated to do so.

Without parenthesis: By some outside mechanism people WILL choose on option because they are fated to so.

Free Will: People are given a set of options in life, and by some mechanism are able to choose between the options.

Nah. I'm talking about both. Yes, someone does have free will, but the set of options are "fated" for or destined to them. Further, them being who they are they will ALWAYS choose the one option. IF things were different, they would be different... but they aren't. They aren't mutually exclusive, the just seem that way because we aren't used to looking at them. See, the thing is, because things aren't different, only the option chosen will ever be chosen, ergo "fate". But the option is chosen, not forced, ergo "will" (though the other "options" would never be considered or accepted by the particular entity in the particular situation). It's both, working together. Someone else sets up the experiment and injects the chemical compound. It's actually the chemical compound doing the work, but it's the only work the chemical compound will ever do. Every time.

tacticslion: I'm saying that if the Light Warriors had the benefit of knowledge of the future, they would have acted differently. However, the author has pointed out that however they would have acted is how it was supposed to have been. So no, free will is not a choice of 1 option. Even with the benefit of future knowledge, the grand charade of reality would still have played out exactly as it had. More information, less information, the same actions would have been undertaken. That's not a choice, that's a machine that operates by rote uncaring unfeeling until it runs out of fuel.

But the problem is: they didn't. Further, they aren't Sarda. Sure, in Sarda's place they would have acted differently... but they were not and never will be in Sarda's place. Because they aren't Sarda. Sarda's choices in a fated universe created the world as it is. He chose, but it's the only way he'd ever choose.

See, the thing is, we tend to think that human capability to differentiate and make decisions are all that seperates us from an "unfeeling" and "uncaring" machine. That, however, would be "emotionless" not "decisionless". An "unfeeling" machine doesn't care about it's decision. The strange thing about machines and emotions: emotions are impulses for acting. Sadness makes you feel a certain way and thus demands that you behave sadly. Oddly it is a most mechanical form of humanity, surrendering to emotions - base, unthinking impulses driving behavior, removing any thought from the equation. Crying for joy. Crying for happiness. Acting on adrinaline. Letting the emotions work for you.

An "unthinking" machine doesn't make a choice... but computers do. They do all the time. It's how they work. They're trained by programmers, given a set of instructions to follow, and follow them to the best of their ability (though they fail sometimes... ok, often). They say "yes" to this and "no" to that - the very definition of a choice. They accept input sometimes and refuse input at other times. Yet they can't make independent choices and have no chemical or biological life in them. They don't think very well, and are unable to gain information out of direct input - no imagination, so to speak.

Living animals have both (chemical) emotions and mental thought in terms of biological life. Still, there is limited capacity for them to escape their base instincts. They have a set of parameters (primary: survival, secondary: procreation, tertiary: pleasant survival and procreation) and they act on those emotional impulses and make decisions based solely upon them. They think, just not on 'higher' levels than their base, daily impulses. Long-term thought seems to not exist, nor any concept that can't be broken down into emotional impulses (behavior -> reward, ergo, do the behavior, get the reward). Note this does not preclude learning, thought, or social behavior. All of these are done with the 'thinking' part. It's the 'imagination' that animals seem to have a problem with... or at least imagination enough to forcibly create change.

Human beings are similar. We have those same impulses, but we also strive (as a whole, not as individuals, necessarily) for more. We seek knowledge, to tame it and utilize it. When we forget something... we miss the once-gathered information from it. There is a sense of loss and frusteration. We hold data itself and the act of acquiring it through scientific discovery, social interactions, and more, as survival, procreation, and pleasant survival and procreation. It's part of us. We imagine what things might be, but more than that we act on that imagination. Further, we don't act on that imagination. The very act of choosing not to behave in a certain way, even when we feel like it (I'm unhappy with my husband not doing the dishes... but I'll talk to him anyway, and treat him normally; I don't want to do the laundery... but I will, because my wife needs it; I want to watch tv... but I'll talk to my dad instead) means that we aren't driven by base impulses alone, but also by choosing the decisions we make.

Here's the kicker, though: we each react differently to the same situation. Put twenty people in any of the situations above, you might have only two or three outcomes (your only actual choice: answer the phone or don't), but tons of emotional and mental reasons will be involved. Each person makes their own choice.

Now the other shoe: each person is only in their own situation and not anyone else's. If I were suddenly dropped into Heresy's life... well, ok, I'd be confused, and have no idea what was going on. But if I were given all of the base impirical data that Heresy had (all his basic memories, knowledge of the people in his life, etc) I'd (probably) make choices very differently. The thing is - I'm not in his life. I haven't made decisions differently.

"Fate" never allowed that, nor did it allow him into my place. We're different people and in different situations, and we always will be. So - we will always have made the choices we have made and the choices we will make are 'destined' because of the choices we've already made as well as the events that are happening beyond our control would be setting up the situation such that the choices that are presented are the only ones we will ever make.

People are able to make choices. However, they will only ever make the choice that they will make - it's already been made, because of their nature. IF things were different, than the choice would be different. But things aren't so it's not. There are mechanisms and outside forces that set up situations to which (to us) there is only one, true outcome - the one we would always choose given the same set of personal circumstances. We will, without fail, always choose the same option. It's still our choice, we've just already made it.

[The Wizard Who Did It]

Nah. I'm talking about both. Yes, someone does have free will, but the set of options are "fated" for or destined to them. Further, them being who they are they will ALWAYS choose the one option. IF things were different, they would be different... but they aren't. They aren't mutually exclusive, the just seem that way because we aren't used to looking at them. See, the thing is, because things aren't different, only the option chosen will ever be chosen, ergo "fate". But the option is chosen, not forced, ergo "will" (though the other "options" would never be considered or accepted by the particular entity in the particular situation). It's both, working together. Someone else sets up the experiment and injects the chemical compound. It's actually the chemical compound doing the work, but it's the only work the chemical compound will ever do. Every time.
... I'm not sure how exactly I can make this more clear.

You're saying they have only one option that they're going to choose, and yet somehow that equals Free Will?

I want you to walk up to somebody, and tell them they can either choose to shoot themselves or, y'know what, hey, nevermind that's the only thing that's going to happen. They're going to shoot themselves in the foot, and that's the end of it! Then, y'know, after they shoot themselves in the foot, ask them how much Free Will they had.

This is why people have been referring to this as the "illusion of a choice". It feels like a choice, it feels like you're choosing, but in reality you're not. And because you're not actually choosing among a variety of choices, and instead following a set path with no real level of input, you actually have no input in your fate. Therefore, there is no Free Will.

Let's look at it this way. Pretend you're playing a video game. The game asks your character (which is you in this example) whether you want to fight or flee. However, the game doesn't actually ask for any input on your part, and instead has your character say that he wants to fight. How much free will or choice did you have in that matter?

Come on man, you're usually pretty logically consistent.

[Grognor]

I will side with The Wizard Who Did It, because he is the one who is right.

Instead of arguing, I will just link to this effective Cracked article: http://beta.cracked.com/article_15746_embrace-horror.html Make sure you read the entire thing.

You'll get over the infinitely depressing epiphany eventually. Even though that's impossible, Screw Destiny. The reason we are able to cope with this knowledge is our inability to completely understand it.~

~Sweet Dreams~

[Fifthfiend]

You're saying they have only one option that they're going to choose, and yet somehow that equals Free Will?

I cannot even imagine what logical inconsistency you are seeing in that statement.

To have free will he would have to... choose both options simultaneously? Anti-choose an option? Spontaneously combust? Honestly, what?

How does free will get any free-willier if you're just randomly shooting down any set of options which are all as likely as any other? If free will didn't allow you to reliably narrow your options down to a single best choice based on observed circumstances and previous experience, what on Earth good would it be?

You're saying there's no such thing as choice because people narrow their options down to one alternative which they then do. That's what choice is. You're trying to say a thing doesn't exist because it exists exactly as defined.

[The Wizard Who Did It]

Instead of arguing, I will just link to this effective Cracked article: http://beta.cracked.com/article_1574...ce-horror.html Make sure you read the entire thing.
HAHAHA!

Cracked is awesome. It's based on iffy logic and science, but in a way that still makes you love it.
To have free will he would have to... choose both options simultaneously! Anti-choose an option? Spontaneously combust? Seriously, what?
Have more than one option that he had the ability to choose.

It's quite simple, he just needs the choice of option A or option B, and the possibility of choosing either as determined by his free will.

Yes, the entire thing is wholly unprovable.

EDIT: It's a debate that's entirely about process. The point isn't that the options are being shot down, the point is under what influence they're being shot down. If they're being shot down by a brain that is entirely under the influence of physical and chemical laws with no input from a person's "self", as in any self that they can actually have control over, then it's "Fate". If there's some level of self that allows control beyond what would normally be allowed by physical or chemical laws acting inside our brain, and therefore allows us to have an "actual" or probable choice in the matter, then it's "Free Will".

[tacticslion]

Come on man, you're usually pretty logically consistent.

Thanks! I like to think so, and I try pretty hard to make sure of that, but it's really quite nice to hear that from someone else! Also, the same to you! I suppose you'd have to be, since you keep doing it! :)

... I'm not sure how exactly I can make this more clear.

You're saying they have only one option that they're going to choose, and yet somehow that equals Free Will?

I want you to walk up to somebody, and tell them they can either choose to shoot themselves or, y'know what, hey, nevermind that's the only thing that's going to happen. They're going to shoot themselves in the foot, and that's the end of it! Then, y'know, after they shoot themselves in the foot, ask them how much Free Will they had.

This is why people have been referring to this as the "illusion of a choice". It feels like a choice, it feels like you're choosing, but in reality you're not. And because you're not actually choosing among a variety of choices, and instead following a set path with no real level of input, you actually have no input in your fate. Therefore, there is no Free Will.

Let's look at it this way. Pretend you're playing a video game. The game asks your character (which is you in this example) whether you want to fight or flee. However, the game doesn't actually ask for any input on your part, and instead has your character say that he wants to fight. How much free will or choice did you have in that matter?

See the problem with how you and I are looking at it is that we see "choice" as a different value. In the instance where both will and "fate" exist, the person's character itself is the automatic self-fulfilling choice. We are the choice that is made, that is our character expressing itself in action. The choice has long since been made by us because of our nature. I'm not saying it's intuitive... it's not. In fact, I'm saying that a balance between the two is the hardest to look at and find. I'm just implying that they aren't mutually exclusive. In such a system, "will" isn't truly "free" in that it has a large number of rules that it must conform to. The difference is, the rules don't force the choice, but limit the options so that the will makes the only one it ever would make.

To use your examples... ok, I can't because those situations would exist outside of a system like the one I'm describing. Your presuming a dissonance between the character and the choice being made for the character. Whether they will it or not. In my scenario, it happens because they will it.

You're presuming a seperation of will and fate. Most people presume fate is some outside force that forces a cog (us) to turn. For this to work, I'm presuming that will is the cog that makes fate turn. Insert the cog and fate happens. If a different cog was inserted a different fate happens. What makes people unique is that we are a self-aware, self-making, automotive cog, capable of rationalization of what it is that we are doing and making it happen, as opposed to a result pumped out solely by fate, the other. Or, to put it another way, fate is the cog that goes in our machine. Without fate, we'd not do anything either. Insert one fate, because of what we are, you'd get one output. Insert another, you'd get another.

Another example, that I've used before, is the chemical reaction (this one very simple and able to be tested at home, if you want). Suppose that all the world was a sea of vinegar. Injected into that sea is: oil of all different kinds. Those oil bubbles float, remaining seperate from the sea of vinegar. Also in that sea are bubbles of soap. Some oil will come into contact with that soap and - due to a new situation arising - will adapt itself and conjoin with the soap. Some will adapt itself and conjoin with both soap and vinegar. Some will completely pass through the soap because it's the wrong kind of soap or oil. It's the character of the oil itself that determines the reaction, not the events, nonetheless, any given oil's innate character will always react the same way - it's inherent in the traits of the oil.

I understand your point - I'm not saying you have to agree that fate and free will do work together. In fact, you don't have to agree at all. If you're fated not to you can't. If you have free will, it's totally your choice. In my proposed dual system, you've already chosen what the ultimate response will be in every situation based on who and what you are, but it hasn't come to light yet because there's not yet been a final situation for it.

I'm using words "fate" and "will" because there isn't another word for it. I used the examples to make the concept simplistic, but that's kind of like equating the solar system to a gyroscope - it doesn't really work. Sure they both work off of centripital force and gravity, but they have nothing else in common, really. Calling the idea of any kind of "fate" (forces beyond our control that limit our choices) antithetical to any kind of "will" (the ability to make our own personalized choices) reduces everything to purely random chance. The opposite view presumes that we are nothing to this incredible "fate" force that exists out there, and our presence is meaningless and uninteresting. I posit that our presence is inherently necessarry and meaningful because without it, fate wouldn't work. Yes there is fate, but we're the ones who make it by virtue of being what we are and who we are. Equating each element of "fate" (the forces handing limited choices to us) with a machine would be kind of like equating the ocean with a glass of water... they both deal with water, and why it isn't all over your floor right now, and that's about it. More to the point, it would be like comparing a glass of water the entire ecological and geodic system we live on called earth. Technically there's more water (liquid) than solid there! The similarities abound!*

Not so much asking for people to accept this is the way things are as presenting a way of looking at things differently. I really and totally understand why it looks exclusive. And hey, perhaps I'm way, way off base. But I suggest our difficulty with accepting both is that we look at it the wrong way. Kind of like Neutonian physics. Yeah, it works for every day things. Heck, it might even get that missle across the ocean. But it breaks down if you look at it too closely or on too large a scale.

So! Sorry for dragging this on so long. If you agree, cool. If not, ok! I'm actually cool with that. I guess I like teaching and talking too much (especially on theoretical things). My wife says I should become one, so I can talk all day and maybe notsomuch at home sometimes. 'Couse, she also says she likes to listen to my "sermons"... hm. ;)

*I kid. The differences are much, much, much bigger. You have the whole universe to consider in the workings of fate. To get the idea of that, try counting to a google**. It's too big a number to really get so we go with base abstractions.
**Not the search engine. Single value-increases only. Feel free to ignore fractions, but if we're really taking this really seriously, they should be included too.

Note: I guess I was a little vague with the machine-emotion analogy. My point - machines don't have emotions as we know them only because they lack the complexity of chemical interactions that we have. If you looked at it on a purely physical level, reducing it to impulses via chemical reaction, however, all machines operate solely based on emotion - a chemical impulse that says this physical thing should happen. Not one of my solid moments, but there you go.
Note Further: I'm pretty much done. It's fun, don't get me wrong, but I think we've hit an impasse, for now. I'm pretty set in my ways, as are you guys. That doesn't mean you can't respond, just that I can't see us getting past this based on the fact that we're viewing things very differently as a base. Unless something I've said here (unlikely) or something you'll say soon (also unlikely, given that we're now repeating ourselves) will give each other a different view, it's unlikely we're going to change the other's opinion. Non? :)
Note the Third: As another personal insight into myself, the pre-decision-decision concept requires that a character is preformed. This can go back to purely natural causes or, as I tend to think, spiritual forms. So, for example, if an eternal spirit is incarnated, the nature of that spirit determines the choices it will make. In physical terms, your brain might have stored information that it recieved due to prior physical events (fate) that built and organized your thoughts according to your genes (again, fate) "ensuring" (even though there is no omni-present guidance in a purely physical outlook, thus the implied mentality behind "ensuring" is wrong) that you will utilize it in such a way as to make the decisions you make (will) along the way. It is, however, your unique character that allows you to make those decisions. In a purely physical world, it is solidly machine-like. Save, you know, with emotions attached. In us. Which are purely physical. Go figure. :)

Edit: Huh, you know, if you wanted to ninja'd me, you could have, at least, I dunno called me to let me know I didn't have to read this long. Oh, except for the part about you not knowing my phone number. NEVERMIND CARRY ON!

[Krylo]

Might I ask what the point of this discussion really is?

If there is no free will then everything is pointless, because it is all predetermined. Ok, but acting on that is even MORE pointless than acting as though free will exists even if it doesn't.

The existence of free will doesn't matter at all so long as the illusion of free will persists.

[Mondt]

Not to mention that this debate can't actually go anywhere without delving into religion, so...

yeah!

[Fifthfiend]

It's a debate that's entirely about process. The point isn't that the options are being shot down, the point is under what influence they're being shot down. If they're being shot down by a brain that is entirely under the influence of physical and chemical laws with no input from a person's "self", as in any self that they can actually have control over, then it's "Fate". If there's some level of self that allows control beyond what would normally be allowed by physical or chemical laws acting inside our brain, and therefore allows us to have an "actual" or probable choice in the matter, then it's "Free Will".

See I have no idea how this even theoretically supposed to work. You're saying it's not free will if the brain decides things, it's only free will if the brain hands everything off to some metaphysical homunculus brain-pilot, and then he decides things. Assuming we're still talking about a system where input goes in, gets filtered through experience and personality, and a reliable result gets spit out, how is any of that more or less free-willed or fated or whatever if it's my invisible brain-pilot doing all the heavy lifting instead of me? What's he doing from his metaphysical pilot's seat that makes his decisions any more valid than mine?

EDIT: It's a debate that's entirely about process. The point isn't that the options are being shot down, the point is under what influence they're being shot down. If they're being shot down by a brain that is entirely under the influence of physical and chemical laws with no input from a person's "self", as in any self that they can actually have control over, then it's "Fate". If there's some level of self that allows control beyond what would normally be allowed by physical or chemical laws acting inside our brain, and therefore allows us to have an "actual" or probable choice in the matter, then it's "Free Will".

What I'm getting at here is process is irrelevant because whatever the process is, that's self. If that's your brain taking in sensory input, gathering reactions from an assorted shit-ton of neurons and hormones and chemicals and whatever all else is in there variously representing instinct, appetites, needs, reflexes, consciousness, beliefs, morals, and whatever, then that's what self is. If the brain takes in sensory input, runs it through all that other shit the brain has chugging along in there, and then hands that off to the brain-pilot who does whatever it is he does with it and then comes to the same conclusion that is whatever thing I ultimately end up doing, then that's what self is.

[The Wizard Who Did It]

Yeah Tactics, I see where you're coming from and it seems that we've been having a debate about semantics. So on that note I think our debate has come to a close!

It was fun!:)
Might I ask what the point of this discussion really is?
The debate is entirely pointless and unprovable. It's more of an intellectual exercise than anything else.
I am talking about stuff.
I LOVE YOU!<3

[tacticslion]

See I have no idea how this even theoretically supposed to work. You're saying it's not free will if the brain decides things, it's only free will if the brain hands everything off to some metaphysical homunculus brain-pilot, and then he decides things. Assuming we're still talking about a system where input goes in, gets filtered through experience and personality, and a reliable result gets spit out, how is any of that more or less free-willed or fated or whatever if it's my invisible brain-pilot doing all the heavy lifting instead of me? What's he doing from his metaphysical pilot's seat that makes his decisions any more valid than mine?

The issue with all of this, Fifth, is distinction. Your distinguishing your metaphysical from your physical in this case. If the two are, instead, one, than no distinguishing is necesarry. It's a very, very murky area in many ways, because of the emotional attatchments people have to the nature of physical and metaphysical. The question is, whether or not without a metaphysical addendum, or an extra non-physical 'part' the "decisions" one would go through would be the same. Further, if the decisions are the same, do they have the same weight as if they wouldn't? Yeah, it's all non-intuitive at this point. Dang it! I thought I was out! You pulled me back in Fifth, YOU PULLED ME BACK IN! THIS IS ALL YOUR FAULT*!

*See, this is an ironic statement**, given that in my will-with-fate model, nothing can force the choice, but the inherent nature of the entity making the choice. So it's my fault. That suxx0rs. :( :)
**Not purposeful irony, but situational. Grognor might be proud.

Edit: Agreed!
Yeah Tactics, I see where you're coming from and it seems that we've been having a debate about semantics. So on that note I think our debate has come to a close!

It was fun!:)

The debate is entirely pointless and unprovable. It's more of an intellectual exercise than anything else.

I LOVE YOU!<3

I agree with that. All of it! Without equivocation! Except given this: a very large range of meaning both for "all of it" and "without equivocation"! :D

[Primalmoon]

Is it just me, or is Sarda starting to sound an awful lot like Nihel from Nuklear Age?
Yeah, where is Arel when you need him to get you away from this Fate crap?

Are Clevinger's works starting to show some Author Tract (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AuthorTract) about the role of fate and free will in our lives?

[The Wizard Who Did It]

What I'm getting at here is process is irrelevant because whatever the process is, that's self. If that's your brain taking in sensory input, gathering reactions from an assorted shit-ton of neurons and hormones and chemicals and whatever all else is in there variously representing instinct, appetites, needs, reflexes, consciousness, beliefs, morals, and whatever, then that's what self is. If the brain takes in sensory input, runs it through all that other shit the brain has chugging along in there, and then hands that off to the brain-pilot who does whatever it is he does with it and then comes to the same conclusion that is whatever thing I ultimately end up doing, then that's what self is.
What I'm getting at here is that I'm defining self as something which can make choices beyond physical and chemical laws, and by extension our choices are not by products of some ball of mass exploding trillions of years ago.

Because to me, there's no free will if what you do is the by product of concrete physical laws. It's almost exactly the same as mentioning that there's no free will if some God or whatever forces you to do some action.

Actually, I guess that's a decent example to my overall point. Let's say Aphrodite puts a spell on Medea to fall in love with Jason. Now whenever she has a choice to help Jason get the Golden Fleece or to not help him at all, there are certain processes that go on in her brain, and are indeed a part of her "self". However, those processes are being regulated by an outside force, specifically the spell put on Medea. Because of this spell, Medea decides to help Jason, leave her father, dice up her brother, and in the end gets royally screwed over.

Does she have free will? I say no, because even though the choices got passed by her self, there was some external force that had complete control over what decision she made. To me, the laws of physics are an external force to this choice-making system. You seem to disagree, and that's fine.

[Grognor]

Free will, as it is commonly defined, does imply random chance. Since "random" scientifically means "impossible by any means [even theoretical] to predict with 100% accuracy", and it is established that free will implies multiple possibilities, each of which has a chance of happening, it can be logically deduced that randomness factors into the concept of free will. Tacticslion, don't think this assumption means that I'm ignoring everything you said - merely disagreeing, and by extension agreeing with The Wizard up there.

He actually said everything I wanted to say by now, which is why I've said so little. I might have been able to put it better myself, to subvert the old saying, but it wouldn't have been easy.

[Mirai Gen]

I'm just curious at what point, exactly, does Onion Kid gain complete and utter control and knowledge over the universe to begin this quest of screwing himself over by putting White Mage in a pocket dimension and sending the LWs on a quest to kill his parents three times?

[Rejected Again]

Some time after he decided that he was not going to turn out like Sardia so he would study and discover a way to not become an omnipotent prick, thus becoming one against his will.

[The Wizard Who Did It]

I'm just curious at what point, exactly, does Onion Kid gain complete and utter control and knowledge over the universe to begin this quest of screwing himself over by putting White Mage in a pocket dimension and sending the LWs on a quest to kill his parents three times?
Y'know... I have a slight feeling that maybe Sarda does die in this blast. Thus, the OK believes that all this crock and bull about Fate really is shit, and that his grown up self is just stupid. Then after he gains infinite power to try and set things right (because after all, Sarda was an idiot and fate doesn't exist), he turns into Sarda.

[Mirai Gen]

I don't buy the 'tries to not be Sarda and ends up being Sarda,' because if you are omnipotent with a nasty streak of revenge against the Light Warriors you don't just forget what the LWs (or White Mage for that matter) look like.

[The Wizard Who Did It]

I don't buy the 'tries to not be Sarda and ends up being Sarda,' because if you are omnipotent with a nasty streak of revenge against the Light Warriors you don't just forget what the LWs (or White Mage for that matter) look like.
I've been wondering, has OK seen WM in any comic other than the ones in the double digits?

And he doesn't ever need to forget what the LWs look like.

Also, he doesn't start to really hate them until he's trapped while the universe is forming for billions of years (what with the hate turning into perfect clarity line).


It sounds like he had the intention of going back and making everything alright, met WM for the first time in AGES at the beginning of time, sits there for billions of years becoming spiteful toward the LWs, WM, and the world, then starts sending the LWs on nonsense quests to exact revenge, and then stupidly puts WM into an unknown pocket dimension, and then events continue until the current set of comics.

To me, I don't actually see him remembering WM all that distinctly before he goes back in time, what with the trauma being centered around BM and the other LWs. It should be noted that it's trauma, so his memory could have been fucking with him as to specific details.

[Mirai Gen]

And he doesn't ever need to forget what the LWs look like.
...Twiddy he can't plan on not being Sarda, go back to the beginning of the universe, stew on his hatred of the Light Warriors, then get the totally great idea of sending them on meaningless quests so he can humiliate and kill them. It just doesn't work.

That's like saying if I got up and ate breakfast and decided that I wanted to switch to soy milk, threw out all my milk, planned on a shopping trip to replace my food, then went and just bought regular milk anyway.

If, according to your theory, the entire point of his trip to the beginning of the universe was to try to be a good guy why would he then turn into Sarda and put all these events into motion and suddenly forget, oh shit, I'm becoming Sarda?

[The Wizard Who Did It]

If, according to your theory, the entire point of his trip to the beginning of the universe was to try to be a good guy why would he then turn into Sarda and put all these events into motion and suddenly forget, oh shit, I'm becoming Sarda?
Because he had no magical power left to go anywhere once he was at the beginning of the universe. Once he was thwarted by himself (or more specifically WM), he was stuck. After that, he sat and stewed on all the shit that came to pass in his life, which probably made him very, VERY bitter and hateful.

There are two significant time periods, from what I see. The time before those billions of years, where he just tried to make the world a better place, and the time after. He became Sarda because during those billions of years he stopped caring about not becoming Sarda. All he cared to do was take his hatred out on the little shits that killed his parents and "started it all."*

To fit your example, he got up and ate breakfast and decided he wanted to switch to soy milk, threw out all of his milk, planned on a shopping trip to replace his food, got sidetracked for 10 years on an abandoned island, and then when he got back to civilization decided that he might as well get the goddamn milk.

*I mean, that's been his attitude in the comics. The LWs are saying "hey, it's actually you who caused your parents to be killed!" And his response is, "Yeah, I don't care, I'm going back to killing and torturing you evil shits."


EDIT: Oh hey, this comic is relevant as well: http://www.nuklearpower.com/2005/05/26/episode-555-a-brief-history-of-time/

Sarda: "I'm hardly insane at all from the aeons of isolation and blind, seething rage."

[Dracorion]

I'm just curious at what point, exactly, does Onion Kid gain complete and utter control and knowledge over the universe to begin this quest of screwing himself over by putting White Mage in a pocket dimension and sending the LWs on a quest to kill his parents three times?

Probably after he becomes an adult and his anger has stewed for a few years while he studied to become Sage. Or gets empowered by the Orbs.

In a more immediate sense, after he gets sent away from the battle between Sarda and the Light Warriors.

[stick93]

You are forgetting something. If Sarda stops the LW from killing his parents OK won't be traumatized and wont become Sarda thus Sarda will be erase from realty.

Also this circle couldn't exist from the dawn of times. Something made OK become Sarda and start this never ending circle. I mean before the first Sarda to sent the LW after the 4 orbs something or someone other then the LW made OK become Sarda.

[Heresy488]

No, this IS one of those loops where there is no continuity between beginning and end.

Very much so, the end pre-dates the beginning. Onion Kid becomes Sarda to punish the LW's before the LW's horrified Onion Kid. If you look at it on a timeline:
Beginning, Sarda grows old and crazy, Light Warriors harm Onion Kid, Sarda punishes LW's, OK becomes Sarda.

I don't think it makes sense either. I guess you have to look at all reality and time as a single entity, a closed ecosystem, a metaphysical sandbox where a clean and logical flow from beginning to end is not only optional but completely abhorrent to the system.

[Primalmoon]

I've been wondering, has OK seen WM in any comic other than the ones in the double digits?
She was the one that left him with the crazy ol' sage named Sarda in the first place. Episode 1005 (http://www.nuklearpower.com/2008/06/14/episode-1005-of-hardships/).

[Sean Renaud]

A couple things are bugging me in this Free Will vs Fate debate.

1. The debate seems to be focused around the concept that you need to have legit alternative choices for their to be a choice. That in a video game where you can say no to a question three hundred times and get caught in a loop is fate. Of course that isn't really true because you could shut down the system.

However there is more to the world than me. I think the best examples of this (though fictional) are Greek Myths or Shakespearean plays. Pick out any king ever who was fated to die. He was going to die. PEriod end discussion. Almost without acception these kings take actions to prevent their deaths that eventually lead to their deaths. What isn't examined is had they gone about it the opposite way. What if they had found the child destined to kill them and raised them with love in their own houses? Would the fate have been averted? I doubt it. It would have happened in a different way. PErhaps the "son" would prevent his father from being captured, or put an end to his suffering from some disease.

I think what I'm getting at is Fate and Free Will can co-exist particuarly if Fate is made up by milestones, not the entire story. Much like how Bryan wrote this story. He knew that Sarda was going to be an advesary early on. He didn't know that a unit called the MARTANS were going to make a statement about dying in the shade.

2. Free Will in this debate again is spoken about in the first person as if an individual has considerable control over things. Take Onion Kid for example, at what point has he had ANY choice in anything?

On the comic which has been sorely neglected. I really really hope that in a rare unfathomable moment of inteligence, humility, rationality and team work that the next comic starts with Black Mage shouting "Quick RM do that mimic thing! I want this jerk double dead!"

[Yozul]

I just want to say that if you define free will as a world in which cause does not reliably lead to effect, I'll take fate.

I mean, I'm all in favor of surprises and unpredictability in my life, but I like that stuff because it allows me to further my understanding of how things work. If people could just go around altering the universe at random with their magical free will beams, how could we ever really understand it?

[Cicero]

A point which I think has sort of been neglected--even if we agree that determinism in no way negates free, Sarda's argument still isn't very good--in fact it's worse, as the Light Warriors (mostly) did not choose to do the things that ended up traumatising the Onion Kid. The vast majority were accidents. Admittedly, many of these accidents stem from recklessness on the Warriors' parts (such as BM throwing the old man out the window over what happened to be Onion Kid's house), so they do bear some responsibility from a criminal neglect standpoint, but these events also would have never occured had Sarda not sent them off on the very quests wherein he knew they would occur (an act he, on the other hand, very much deliberately chose to perform). In this respect I sort of have to side with the Light Warriors on this one--while their crimes are many and terrible, it doesn't really seem fair for Sarda to call them to account solely for one which A) they didn't really do on purpose and B) which Sarda himself played a far more active (and knowing) role in causing to occur in the first place.

In short, despite all odds and some very stiff competition, Sarda still manages to do things in such a way that he comes out the biggest jackass of them all.

[The Wizard Who Did It]

1. The debate seems to be focused around the concept that you need to have legit alternative choices for their to be a choice. That in a video game where you can say no to a question three hundred times and get caught in a loop is fate. Of course that isn't really true because you could shut down the system.
Yes, you can turn off the game when we're using an example where you're inside the game, more specifically a part of the game, and more specifically that wasn't an option given.

It's an incomplete analogy, but it was used because it should have been recognizable to the people here. Fate is that bit of code that you can't work around and can't change while you're in the game. It's the 0s and 1s that force everything to happen beyond the person in the game's control.
I think what I'm getting at is Fate and Free Will can co-exist particuarly if Fate is made up by milestones, not the entire story.
This is true. Unfortunately, fate being made up of milestones is not the pure deterministic way of thinking. You can always half-ass something's definition and come up with a compromise. You can take bits and pieces of two contradictory ideas and form a cohesive idea out of them, but that doesn't mean the pure ideas aren't mutually exclusive.

Also, I guess your interpretation is possibly a form that could keep a stable time loop going, but again, that wasn't the point of this branch of discussion.
2. Free Will in this debate again is spoken about in the first person as if an individual has considerable control over things. Take Onion Kid for example, at what point has he had ANY choice in anything?
Replace "considerable" with "any" and you're more correct. Under free will, the OK always had the choice to kill himself or whatever. Or to run away from his soon-to-be-dead foster parents. Under fate, he had absolutely no choice.

A point which I think has sort of been neglected
Nah, it was pretty well established on the first page that everyone thinks Sarda is being completely irrational and is in the wrong. Dude's too blinded by rage, hate, and crazy to actually care though.

[Exerci]

... I'm not sure how exactly I can make this more clear.

You're saying they have only one option that they're going to choose, and yet somehow that equals Free Will?

I want you to walk up to somebody, and tell them they can either choose to shoot themselves or, y'know what, hey, nevermind that's the only thing that's going to happen. They're going to shoot themselves in the foot, and that's the end of it! Then, y'know, after they shoot themselves in the foot, ask them how much Free Will they had.



Come on man, you're usually pretty logically consistent.

He's still logically consistent. People are not just given one choice as your horrible horrible analogy shows. People are given plenty of choices. But if someone went up to me, while I was hanging off the edge of a mountain and went: "Yo man, want one of these", followed by him showing me a rope, a rattlesnake, and a fork then even though I have a choice, me being who I am, in the situation I'm in, will unfailingly choose the same, no matter how many times people rewind time and ask me again. Now, the world being as complex as it is still makes it impossible to predict the future, as it would be like solving a massive, difficult equation, while only being privy to a very small part of the numbers involved in solving it, having to guesstimate the rest.

In this world there isn't necessarily any such thing as free will, the only piece of evidence we have for the existence of free will is that it feels like we have it.

[deimon]

I'm really tired of this fate vs. free will thing mostly because not only does it have nothing to do with this comic but it also has nothing to do with any kind of time loop

since this is mostly because people thing a stable time loop cant have free will ill start there

lets say for the sake of the arguement that OK gets sent back again and does exactly what this sarda did and everyone has free will. now since nothing has changed why would the LW do anything besides what they did last time, they dont have any new information so I ask WHY would they do something different because they have no idea what they did durring the last loop.

and for those who are confused by the stable time loop theory there are also stable time loops that develop with the other theory as well they just have to start without someone frome the past and after the loop repeating it self hundreds of times it eventualy "stabalizes."

ill give an example for this since its kind of weird...

lets say you go back in time to kill someone you hate before they screw with you and you also convince yourself to go back in time to kill him (so now you havent experianced this guy doing anything wrong to you in anyway) so you go back in time again kill again and convince yourself again... evenualy everything happens the same way (whether any version of yourself remebers why or not) and it becomes stable

of course as brian has said (I believe) this is the actual stable time line theory hes working with but if this helps you comprehend this a little better think of it from this prespective and this is like the 8 millionth time the loop has happend or something....

*if anything is unclear let me know and ill clarify im not going to bother to review this

[tacticslion]

No, this IS one of those loops where there is no continuity between beginning and end.

Very much so, the end pre-dates the beginning. Onion Kid becomes Sarda to punish the LW's before the LW's horrified Onion Kid. If you look at it on a timeline:
Beginning, Sarda grows old and crazy, Light Warriors harm Onion Kid, Sarda punishes LW's, OK becomes Sarda.

I don't think it makes sense either. I guess you have to look at all reality and time as a single entity, a closed ecosystem, a metaphysical sandbox where a clean and logical flow from beginning to end is not only optional but completely abhorrent to the system.

I'm... not entirely certain what you mean by "no continuity between beginning and end". I mean, it's entirely continuity. That's kind of the point of such a loop. Continuity is ironclad in such a case. "The end predates the beginning" also doesn't make sense to me. It's a loop. There is no beginning or end of a loop. Think of a ring - a perfect circle. Find the starting point of that. There isn't one, and so it is with this.

But, if you mean that time ceases just so time can begin, I also think that's not necessarily the case. Take that "perfect circle" analogy I just made and alter it slightly by adding a straight length of metal to one side. While the loop itself is completely stable and perfectly self-satisfying, the line can continue past the loop as well. Given that there was an infintesimal speck when White Mage arrived, there was probably a time before the loop, so add at least a small line on the other side. I'm really bad at IRC art, but it would look kind of like this:
___O___
Meh, it's not perfect (the "O" isn't exactly touching the line) but it's as close as I can get, as I don't have a picture of a ring welded to two small sticks of metal. Just to cement the idea, make the entire thing a magnet. All of the magnetic lines flow in one direction (which gives you your poles) but the loop actually flows backwards for a short time before joining the main line and flowing normally again. The flow of magnetism from one point to the next is automatic. In fact because magnetism is introduced into one end of the item, it will eventually flow through to the end. It causes itself and thus, starting at one end of the flow will follow the 'blue print' of the metal itself (to a point - yes, I'm really, really over-simplifying, but hey it's a board, not an actual physics class). Maybe this helps clear up how it could work?

Also, keep in mind that this example is solely for the fictional world, and not a suggested model for the real world. I'm just pointing out a semi-logical quasi-precedent for the whole thing. Sure it doesn't work on every concievable level, by any means, but that's why it's metaphorically speaking!

And Exerci: I'm glad I have one person who gets it! Yay! :)