By |

The age-old debate. The alpha and omega. The quintessential question we yearn to know. We want to know, because, we think in light of this, we’d better live our lives. But, here is a wrench in the proverbial gears:

Let’s assume that,

  • Fate is defined as “not choice”
  • Free Will is defined as “choice”

If you’re not willing to make these assumptions, then you should read no further.

Furthermore, if in saying something like, “I love you,” you would agree that you could insert “choose to” before “love you,” and it should not change the content of that message. Essentially, you can do this with anything as long as it is in the first person. When you say, “I am going to work,” you’re saying, effectively: “I am choosing to go to work”. These two statements mean the same thing. Inserting “choosing to,” or “choose to,” does not change the statement you’re making, it is just redundant because the first person casts possessiveness on the direct object via the verb of the sentence.

Okay. If you say, “I think fate exists,” you have immediately negated your statement. If you add those two words, which we previously agreed do not alter the content of a statement at least in the first person, then you’ve said, “I choose to think fate exists.” And to replace “fate,” with “not choice,” you get: “I choose to think not choice (or choosing) exists.” In an attempt to claim that you believe in fate, you condemn fate. You logically contradict yourself.

So, we’re left with free will. It seems that it is must logically conclude that free will exists. However, this is not the case. Let’s use the same scenario that we have previously agreed to and replace free will with “choice”. If you say, “I think free will exists,” you have immediately negated your statement. The statement becomes “I choose to think free will exists,” or, “I choose to think choice exists.” This seems perfectly congruent with logic, until you recognize that there is no choice but to think choice exists. You cannot “choose,” to think that “not choice,” exists so if your only option is to choose to think choice exists, then you didn’t have an option at all. And, in having no option, you had no choice… that we had earlier agreed is equivalent to fate.

Therefore, in having no choice but to choose free will, because you cannot choose fate, then you must be fated to choose free will. The condition of fate, as we agreed upon earlier, is “not choice.” And, if the very fact that you talking in first person necessitates you to choose then you had no option to have free will, which means you are fated. But, talking in the first person negates fate, because of the ability to choose. This shows that you cannot argue fate or free will exists because in arguing for either side, you negate your argument and agree with the opposite.

By |

I don’t know how familiar you are with the TV series Alphas as it only aired a few series and wasn’t particularly popular. However, the idea of the show is that there are super humans named, “alphas.” Alphas have different heightened senses or neurological deficiencies that usually act in their favor (one of them releases a pheromone when he’s anxious that causes everyone to go into a rage and fight each other, for example, which allows him to flee the scene).

Well, one of the alphas is named Stanton Parish and is the canonical villain of the series. His alpha ability? He never dies. He’s like a wolverine-zombie-without-the-adamantium. He gets shot in the head and a week later rises from the dead. His mission is to eventually wipe out the race of humans and repopulate it with a world of alphas because he believes that they are hyper-efficient human beings. And, he’s obsessed with the fact that he cannot die.

And then, there’s Larry Ellison who is the canonical villain of the technically inclined. His ultimate dream? Longevity. That’s why he drinks so much damned carrot juice. I’d be willing to bet that he has some computer system hooked up to his vital systems to shock him back to life if death were to befall him. His mission is to eventually control everything by being one of the largest conglomerate monopolies in today’s economy because he believes so heavily in Oracle’s mission statement as a company. And, he’s obsessed with his yacht.

If that weren’t enough parallels, then here’s the kicker for the disbelievers:

Image

Same facial hair? Same fucking person.