des·ti·ny
n. pl. des·ti·nies
1. The inevitable or necessary fate to which a particular person or thing is destined; one's lot.
2. A predetermined course of events considered as something beyond human power or control:
3. The power or agency thought to predetermine events:
The question is, is destiny for real? Are we to believe that our actions and their outcomes are orchestrated by some unknown force and all that we are doing here right now is merely playing a role in a drama that is being enacted along a certain predetermined line?
Different people have different views on destiny – at one extreme there are the proponents of destiny and on the other there are those who peg their allegiance to the belief that destiny is merely the outcome of what we do in the present thus we make out own destinies and somewhere in the middle are those who believe in a bit of both.
The very reasons why destiny has earned its candidature as a subject worth discussing or pondering over are due to the existence of two ideas that find themselves on the opposing extreme ends of the scale, the first being the idea that we are mechanically performing our predetermine tasks is least convincing and the second , on the contrary, being that of the existence of events that leaves one without doubt that there are things on which we have no control over and the only (rather the most convincing) explanation that seems to be able to explain these events is the existence of destiny.
My attempt here is to arrive at an explanation that will include the rationality from both the camps. The objective however is not to ‘cook up’ something with intent to cajole the opposing camps. As ever the reliance on reasoning will be paramount.
Let’s first try first to understand why the concept of destiny exists. One of the fundamental reasons why we cannot disprove the existence of destiny is because we cannot turn back time – if we could then it would only be question of going back in time and changing the course of destiny.
Let me try explaining my view using a very simple example. If I was given an option to eat either an apple or an orange and I ate the apple, then it would be said that I was destined to eat the apple. Now, if we had a provision to turn back time by which I could ‘go’ back in time (for the purpose of disproving the existence of destiny) and eat the orange instead (of the apple) then it would prove that destiny does not exist as we would be able to perform an (any) act as per our liking.
Of course the hard core proponents of destiny can claim that the entire sequence of events – me eating the apple first then performing a time travel and then consuming the orange, was destined and thus it happened. Their version of destiny can be defined as “Whatever has happened was as per destiny”. This is the fact that the proponents of destiny always harp onto, once an event has happened they will always have a case of saying “That was the way it was destined” and it so happens, obviously, that no one will ever be able to prove them wrong.
The underlying principle for this situation (inability to disprove the existence of destiny), I believe, is that when this kind of argument (of shifting the version of destiny from time to time) is placed then there is no reference against which a deviation can be shown.
Mathematically speaking
Assume that we (somehow) figure out the way an event is supposed to take place in time T, where T is an instance in the future. Let this event be represented by E0(T).
This can only be done by having somehow accurately predicting the future event.
Now that we know what is destined, we have an option to demonstrate that the event can be carried out in a manner that is different from E0(T). Let us represent the way the event will be differently carried out by E1(T). The existence of destiny can be disproved if we can objectively demonstrate any difference between E0(T) and E1(T).
The apparent simplicity of this proposition is, well, deceptive. The problem lies in the fact that there is no way of ‘accurately’ knowing or fixing E0(T) before it actually takes place, it will be known only once it has actually taken place but by that ‘time’ the instance would have elapsed and the only way to carryout E1(T) is by going back in time since we now will be in an instance (T+n) [where n is non zero]. Sadly time travel continues to be a fancy idea limited to the material churned out by Hollywood.
Randomness – The Silver Bullet: This is one agent that can ‘kill’ destiny singlehandedly. The theory of destiny primarily proposes that the way things are going to happen is in a predetermined way. If we can show that if the way an event is going to take place has certain randomness associated with it then destiny cannot exist as it will be impossible to know the outcome of a random action. Considering this proposition makes one believe that destiny must be dead for sure. There is so much of randomness all around that it makes one wonder if there exists anything that is not random. So how does destiny manage to survive in this difficult world – let’s find out.
Now let’s ponder over the criteria of randomness – what can be classified as random? At the simplest level a system can be classified to be random if it cannot perform an act in a repeatable manner. Let me give an example, the outcome of tossing of a coin can be considered as random with the either of the results having 50% probability - assuming an unbiased coin being used. Now the question is – is the coin the only thing that matters here – obviously not.
Randomness – KIA [End of Hope]: For the sake of simplicity I shall consider the case involving the tossing of a coin, letting it land on a solid surface and immediately acquire its final resting position without rolling. The final result of the toss will involve the following.
# | Parameter | Description | Repeatable |
1. | Coin’s initial position | The location at which the coin shall rest on the index finger (or any other finger) which forms the fulcrum. | Yes |
2. | The initial locking position of the thumb | This is the position of the thumb at which it is locked prior to its release to flip the coin. | Yes |
3. | Thumb Locking force | This force will be the trigger force required to release the thumb from its locking position and initiate the flipping of the coin. | No |
4. | The flipping force | The flipping force that is applied will depend on the locking position and the force applied to lock the thumb with the finger acting as the fulcrum. It is this force that will provide the impetus for the coin to be flipped into air. | No |
Tracing the source of randomness - If you would notice, the last two parameters have been marked as non-repeatable and it is these parameters/factors that provide the randomness to the result of a coin flip. If we delve in further we can find out the reason why these parameters are random.
The thumb, for providing the flipping action, is operated by two muscle groups (this information is an educated guess and these numbers are not critical). The muscles provide the flipping force but what determines the force would depend on the excitation voltage the muscle fibers receive from the brain. We can safely assume that if the same excitation voltage is applied to the same set of fibers then the force generated by the muscles will almost be the same (the deviation will be too small to cause any change in the result of the coin flip). So the randomness is not generated in the muscle fibers, rather it is traceable to the random voltage that is generated by the brain. Now the question is – what decides the voltage that brain generates at each coin flipping instance? We all accept the fact that brain is a supremely complex piece if machinery. The excitation voltage must be a function that is affected by a combination of several involuntary and voluntary aspects as well as the person’s mood. The change in mood can however be discounted if we are to assume that the there will not be any substantial change in the mood between successive coin flipping events. Even if we are to discount the effect of the involuntary factors, the question remains “Are we capable of repeating an action in a precise manner?” The answer to this question is a ‘No’. It might probably be because of the fact that our conscious mind neither perceives senses by absolute measurement rather goes by relative ‘feel’, say for example the temperature of an object is not perceived in any actuarial manner rather a relative term such as cold, warm or hot is used to describe it. The similar goes for the things we do with our motor system – our muscular actions too go by subjective descriptions soft touch, hard kick, slow pace etc and not by absolute scales in terms of pressure or force or acceleration etc. In this specific case (of flipping the coin) I can apply a force that will be an approximate of the force that I had applied earlier because there is no way for my brain to record the quantitative details of the action performed, even if it did there is no I can access and utilize it.
The conclusion being that our brains perceive senses and operate the muscular system on an approximation basis and it is this approximation that gets manifested in the form of randomness.
But the above explanation does not rule out randomness, rather I feel that randomness too becomes relative. As far as I (the entity engaging in the act of tossing) am concerned the result of a coin toss is random because it meets the requirement of being classified as random – the result of the toss is always probabilistic and never certain.
But is the act of tossing the coin random at all. Well, within the purview of the human body’s capabilities to faithfully repeat an action, the results of a coin flip are random indeed but if we are to look at the human body at a higher level it can be seen that the brain generaes the excitation voltage not on a random basis but on certain, however complex, underlying neuro-chemical reactions. It is the complexity of these underlying bases that makes it convincing that the operation is random but it is not.
Now if we had an advanced imaging system which could record the state of every neuron in my nervous system and accurately calculate the excitation voltage that would be generated by the system then, as far as the machine is concerned, the result of the coin toss will no longer remain random, it would indeed be a certainty.
What I can infer from the above mentioned points is that randomness of a system (in a given context) is a function of its capability to parametrically elucidate and manipulate parameters in manner so as to create the desired/predicted outcome.
So as go back to what we originally set upon (the concept of destiny), we will have to frame the above said proposition in a cognitive context. What goes into making something predictable is the completeness and complexity of the information required to fully understand it along with any associated implications. It should be noted that the idea of completeness of information is objective; however complexity is subjective and depends on the perceiver how they rate the complexity. Based on the level of information available and its perceived complexity a perceived phenomenon will find an appropriate place on the following chart.
# | Type | Description |
1. | Obvious | These are class of phenomenon whose results are so predictable that we are certain about their occurrence or results. For example the idea that sun will rise tomorrow is an obvious thing. The reason for its certainty is that we have been observing this phenomenon take place with such regularity and we know of no reason that can cause a deviation in the act of sun rising daily, even if there were reasons their probability of occurrence is so small then they will be considered to be impossible. For example the possibility of a comet appearing out of nowhere and destroying earth and thus cause the sun not to rise tomorrow seems impossible. |
2. | Probable | These are class of phenomenon whose occurrence or result are not as predictable to be classified as certain and neither are that unpredictable so as to term as random. For example the case of the forecast of the weather for the next day can be considered to be probable. The forecast is made based on details available from many sources however the exact nature of the weather will depend on many aspects which may have not been considered. Even if the parameters have been considered there exists the possibility of these parameters behaving differently from the predicted way. Then again it is unlikely that the forecast will deviate substantially from the actual. |
3. | Random | The occurrence or results of these phenomenons are completely unpredictable because the states of parameters that decide the outcome are unknown. For example the final resting place of a golf ball after teeing off is random because the topology of the golf course and the direction and speed with the wind might be blowing are more or less unknown. Although a rough estimate of the balls final location may be predicted, the probability of it actually happening is so low that it can be considered to be random, |
I will not be incorrect in saying that to classify if something (the subject) is random or not depends the thing itself and the entity/perceiver making the judgment.
In a way what we though to be the killer of destiny now seems to be the key factor that creates the illusion of destiny – randomness itself is a perception. When things become unpredictable due to lack of information and/or degree of complexity due to the involvement of large number of parameters and dynamic entities it becomes difficult (to the extent of being impossible in certain cases) to resolve them. Our minds find it easier to classify the outcomes of these situations as probable and as the situation worsens they get classified as random. The borders between things that are perceived as obvious, probable and random are hazy.
I feel that the lack of clear demarcation between three categories is again because the whole idea is subjective – the classification is based on a ‘feel’ and not on any absolute numbers (if there are any) and finally the entire act of classifying depends on the perceiver. Since there is nothing what can be considered to be the reference classifier the problem becomes all the more obvious (rather subjective).
Simply put, to which category a phenomenon gets classified depends on the perceiver’s cognitive capabilities and perspective.
Now look at this world as a large system, a system comprising of countless subsystems/entities interacting with each other. Each of these entities has set of input parameters and a set of rules/formulas associated with these parameters which determine the nature of the output parameters. Say for example I as a person have numerous parameters based on which my nature/behavior/reaction is based on. The society can be seen as a set of similar entities who are interacting with each other.
Of Prediction and likes: It’s always nice to think to have a the capability to predict the future and take appropriate actions for a desired outcome. Well it will indeed be a great thing to have but it’s not that simple we need to understand that this world (also) comprises of entities whose action depends on the actions that you take. For example take the case of an auction and I have this magic orb in which I can see the future. For the sake of simplicity I will consider only one competitor - let call him Competitor (PJ ladies & Gentle men, an extreme PJ). If the orb tells me that Competitor is going to buy the goods for 100 bucks then I could pitch in for 101 bucks and think of winning the bid. Well that’s where the sweet dream ends, Competitor’s actions are based on the actions that I take – the rule that Competitor follows it “bid more than the other guy” so we cannot go purely by what the orb has to tell – because the orb tell us of a version of the future that would have the outcome of action taken by me and Competitor. Whiteout beating around the bush I will say what I intend to say – the future is the outcome of the way the present is acted upon. There is no clearly defined future, actually there is nothing called as the future. Future is the projection that we create inside our heads based on our experience. There are components in the future that can be classified under one of the three categories we had earlier defined, but where each component finds itself will depend on the perceiver which in turn will depend on the availability of information that will help the perceiver ‘feel’ things better and the and ability combined with the perspective of the perceiver.
So, the million dollar question – is there anything called destiny. The answer that I can think of is in the form of another question – Is there anything called night? Just as the way the existence of day does not, in any way, prove the non existence of night the existence of predictable things does not rule out the existence of things that ‘seem’ to be random and acts of destiny. It all depends on how one wants to look at it.
There is no clear cut border between day and night and in the same way there is no clear demarcation between the obvious and random.
If I was to consider the case where night is the situation involving compromised visibility and thus unsuitable for doing work and day the other way around then it depends on the individual when they want to stop working. Those who leave things on destiny call it quits at the onset of evening but those who believe in their actions carry on, armed with torches they wade their way though darkness. Not that they have cat like eyes (some of them actually do) their threshold of considering something to be dark is much higher – these are the leaders, the real trailblazers, the masters of their own destiny.
