Destiny, and Butterfly Effect...?

[Kewkky]

Me and a fellow Kirby mainer's casual discussion took a turn to a very deep side of things, when we touched upon the subject of destiny. This may have been argued a lot before, but I would also like to pose this debate to find out what you guys think. I find this fun, AND YOU SHOULD TOO!

Very very very long post though, since it's a collection of quotes from the Brawl Kirby general discussion thread:

Eh, I don't believe in destiny, not even one bit... But there are things that are going to happen regardless of the person wrought with the decision. If we're a lazy civilization and in the year 2100 a meteor is discovered to crash onto our planet and kill us all, and since we're lazy we didn't find a way to stop it from doing so, then I guess our civilization will disappear forever. If we're a hard-working civilization who are ready to progress technologically and socially, once we discover the meteor's there, we can alter the future of the planet by acting upon our urge to preserve life as we know it.

I could be a scientist, I could be a psychologist, I could be a philosopher, or even a musician. If I wasn't here because my parents didn't marry, then seeing as our world is as competitive as it is (with our over-population, there's competition for jobs everywhere), I probably wouldn't become a scientist and somebody else will. Chances are that someone later will discover that which I am bound to discover due to my motivation, but the time wasted between me discovering it, or the next person discovering it, is the only real change.

People are born, grow, and die, and we don't even notice they were alive to begin with. Right now an old man in China is probably dying, and we don't even know about it. Once he dies, the world will be no better or worse than it was when he was alive, even if he was the CEO of a huge company: other CEO's will follow, and the company will run its course and bankrupt soon enough, it's inevitable. If that old man never existed, some other person who was the runner-up for the position would have instead gotten the job, and he could've been the one to start a movement that would speed up the advancement of the company, or he could've destroyed the company altogether... Like I said, the only thing that really changes is the amount of time it takes to reach a goal. It's sorta like manipulating history... Except it's nothing sci-fi, it's actually real.


So in the end, we're just catalysts. People who live a flowcharted way of life, who either increase or decrease the time it takes us to reach a landmark in history. if Albert Einstein never would've existed, the nuke bomb would've been discovered later in time and would've been used for some other conflict besides the war against Japan, but it would've been created nevertheless... The most you can do with your life is be one of those people who affect your civilization's goals in a positive manner: instead of pushing goals further away and/or bringing our doom closer, you should do the total opposite and help strive to reach landmarks in history/assure that our future is safe for years to come (until someone screws up).


Life can be so weird once you think about it this way. Suppose a woman is going to give birth later in life to a child who will grow up and save the world from being destroyed decades after his major landmark. The woman is going to get pregnant during a walk outside of her house by getting violated by a late-night marauder. You're a policeman who foresees this, and you put the marauder in jail before the violation takes place. You're a hero to many many people, but now the world is doomed to destruction.


Man, this should've been in the Debate Hall.

I don't really believe the general flow of history is unchangeable, and I'm going to pull this one from a weird place...Dragon Ball (yea, again).

In case you don't know the backstory, and because I really wanna relive this, I'll give you the story: 4 years after the defeat of Frieza, Goku has died of a radical new heart virus. Future Trunks has been born to Future Bulma and Future Vegeta. A pair of Androids, #17 and #18, created by the evil scientist Dr.Gero, kill all of the Z-Fighters except Gohan. Future Trunks is trained by Gohan, until Gohan is killed by the Androids. F Bulma makes a time machine so F Trunks can go back in time, give Goku the antidote to his virus (which has been discovered since his death), and find a way to destroy the androids. The other timeline branches off considerably into the Androids, Cell, and ultimately Majin Buu Saga.

Let's say that F Trunks wasn't born to Bulma and Vegeta, but to some random people at a time where he would be 17ish when the androids came. His being born changed history. If his parents hadn't procreated, the entire timeline would have shifted drastically.

The point of that (other than to talk about my favorite manga) was to show that there are significant changes an individual can make to history, which no one else can. We are not doomed to discover a set of things, to do a set of things, where the only question is who did them.

Once that old man dies, I won't be affected. But he may have distant affected one of my parents: perhaps he saved my grandfather during the Holocaust, which allowed my mother to be created. It's not clear the impact any of our actions will have on the world. Maybe my grandson will see the meteor zooming towards the Earth.

If you haven't read it, A Sound of Thunder is an interesting story that supports my argument about the Butterfly Effect.

I believe (though I may be wrong) that you believe in some kind of afterlife, which means that my children being or not being born isn't only significant in this world, it affects the next one as well. So, even if someone would've done what my children will do, the world will be different because they didn't exist.

Finally, I have a question for you. If you believe your life is not significant, that whatever you do could and would be done by someone else, why haven't you put a shotgun to your head? If all you personally can really do is delay our race's destruction, why do you live? I don't mean any offense by this.

I agree that this could be better placed in the Debate Hall.

Edit: I am removing myself temporarily from this debate to finish the Fox summary.

I don't really believe the general flow of history is unchangeable, and I'm going to pull this one from a weird place...Dragon Ball (yea, again).

In case you don't know the backstory, and because I really wanna relive this, I'll give you the story: 4 years after the defeat of Frieza, Goku has died of a radical new heart virus. Future Trunks has been born to Future Bulma and Future Vegeta. A pair of Androids, #17 and #18, created by the evil scientist Dr.Gero, kill all of the Z-Fighters except Gohan. Future Trunks is trained by Gohan, until Gohan is killed by the Androids. F Bulma makes a time machine so F Trunks can go back in time, give Goku the antidote to his virus (which has been discovered since his death), and find a way to destroy the androids. The other timeline branches off considerably into the Androids, Cell, and ultimately Majin Buu Saga.

Let's say that F Trunks wasn't born to Bulma and Vegeta, but to some random people at a time where he would be 17ish when the androids came. His being born changed history. If his parents hadn't procreated, the entire timeline would have shifted drastically.

The point of that (other than to talk about my favorite manga) was to show that there are significant changes an individual can make to history, which no one else can. We are not doomed to discover a set of things, to do a set of things, where the only question is who did them.

Well to tell you the truth, this is only so assuming that time travel is possible. There are many reasons as to why this isn't possible, but the one that stands to mind is a quantum physics theory (and very interesting, makes sense): a small particle can be in infinite places at the same time, but something of a quantitatively larger mass is bound into a single place by gravity's effect, which is the force that draws together two different masses; the larger the mass, the more gravity has an effect on it, and the less likely it is to appear in more than one place (quick source: http://discovermagazine.com/2005/jun/cover). We as human beings who weight quantitatively much more than subatomic particles are bound to one place in space-time (as we can see by simply looking around... If you look at your computer, you count one computer, because its mass is big enough to be fixed on a single location, else you may have two perfect copies of the same computer and not even know it), so a copy of yourself traveling back in time would be impossible. To travel back in time you have to go through each moment backwards until the desired time-frame, and since you already exist one fraction of a second before, it is impossible to find yourself in any time-line besides your own... It goes against the laws of the universe!

Just like with heliocentrism/geocentrism, as soon as a theory is proven to contradict this (such as one that proves time travel is possible), we will have to re-evaluate lots of theories and change them accordingly. But the way I see it, time travel requires yet another number of dimensions in our four-dimensional universe (three of size (length x heigth x width), and one of time (we only move forward in time), specifically more time dimensions. So, for the few number of dimensions we have, the theory holds strong, and points out that time travel just isn't possible in our universe. Sooo, we can't use Trunks' example (and yeah i watched DB/DBZ/DBGT ), which still leaves us needing an acceptable eccample from your point of view that complies with the present theories (not meaning any disrespect).

Once that old man dies, I won't be affected. But he may have distant affected one of my parents: perhaps he saved my grandfather during the Holocaust, which allowed my mother to be created.

Which still follows my examples, by the way. You may never have existed, or your conscience may have existed in another form... But that last part's just thinking.

It's not clear the impact any of our actions will have on the world.

Yep, which is the basis of speculation, which brings us to forming our opinions on things... Like we're doing right now! For all we know we both are wrong and destiny's actually real, but it seems more logical that time is not fixed, and our actions aren't predetermined.

If you haven't read it, A Sound of Thunder is an interesting story that supports my argument about the Butterfly Effect.

I'll read it in a few minutes.

I believe (though I may be wrong) that you believe in some kind of afterlife, which means that my children being or not being born isn't only significant in this world, it affects the next one as well. So, even if someone would've done what my children will do, the world will be different because they didn't exist.

That's true. It makes me wonder, is your soul created before you enter this world? Is your soul created as soon as you enter this world? Or is it created WHILE you live in this world?

But in the world of science, it is assumed that God doesn't exist, else scientists wouldn't have suggested the Big Bang, multiple universes, sub-atomic particles, and all of those non-biblical discoveries/theories that seem to contradict the thought of an afterlife. Most scientists believe that after they die they will disappear forever (the thought of not existing is perplexing in and of itself... It can't be blackness for eternity because it would mean that we're conscious of our nonexistence, and the thought of nothingness is simply mind-boggling. It really leaves no room for speculation except that of an afterlife), same as how they believe there is no superior being as a God watching over us.

Finally, I have a question for you. If you believe your life is not significant, that whatever you do could and would be done by someone else, why haven't you put a shotgun to your head? If all you personally can really do is delay our race's destruction, why do you live? I don't mean any offense by this.

Well, my main drive is to leave my mark on the world. Like I said before, leaving my name written in the history books just like the famous scientists, musicians, dictators, philosophers, authors... Another reason would be that of procreating; I want to make sure my genes are passed on, whether they are good or bad genes, I want to see my children grow and be better than me in every single way (or at least, in the ways that they wish to be better than me. They might grow up to be muscleheads, who knows!)... And of course, the reason of experiencing that which comes once in a lifetime (as far as we're all aware): living our lives. I wouldn't want to pass up this opportunity!

But if I were to kill myself, I couldn't say that the world would be better or worse off. I've yet to reach that point in life where my influence is large enough to have an effect on our civilization if I lived or died, and I'm still unsure of what my future might hold. I have plans and ambitions, I'm a very ambitious person, but no matter how much motivation I have, I may not fulfill my plans and end up serving in a McDonald's for the rest of my days. There's always the off-chance!

*Wall of text about time travel*

This...kinda misses the point of that tangent. The point wasn't that Trunks went back in time, it was that he had an enormous impact on history. And I proposed that he came from that timeline. If he was some kind of brilliant scientist, he may have found the cure to Goku's heart virus, and saved the timeline. This isn't a great example, but it still is one.

Which still follows my examples, by the way. You may never have existed, or your conscience may have existed in another form... But that last part's just thinking.

Yes, I may never have existed, which shows the impact that old man had on the world.

Yep, which is the basis of speculation, which brings us to forming our opinions on things... Like we're doing right now! For all we know we both re wrong and destiny's actually real, but it seems more logical that time is not fixed, and our actions aren't predetermined.

Yes. However, your opinions are that anything I could've done but didn't do will be done by someone else, so that I'm probably not that influential to this time. Mine are that many of our actions can create ripples that change the world. Let's say I ask out my friend who I think I'm crushing on tomorrow, and we cornily end up married. Our children could do anything with their lives, which could ripple out to many others, which might end up destroying or saving our world.

My opinion of destiny is that it's easy to look back on decisions we've made and say "That was predetermined," but difficult to look forward and say "I know who'll win the 2020 presidential election."

That's true. It makes me wonder, is your soul created before you enter this world? Is your soul created as soon as you enter this world? Or is it created WHILE you live in this world?

But in the world of science, it is assumed that God doesn't exist, else scientists wouldn't have suggested the Big Bang, multiple universes, sub-atomic particles, and all of those non-biblical discoveries/theories that seem to contradict the thought of an afterlife. Most scientists believe that after they die they will disappear forever (the thought of not existing is perplexing in and of itself... It can't be blackness for eternity because it would mean that we're conscious of our nonexistence, and the thought of nothingness is simply mind-boggling. It really leaves no room for speculation except that of an afterlife), same as how they believe there is no superior being as a God watching over us.

The questions are things I've thought about, but it doesn't make sense for us to speculate about things which might not exist.

I'm aware of the science stuff. It makes me wonder if my arguments (that without an afterlife, our lives don't have meaning) are either profound and new or have already been debunked by some person. It seems more likely to be the latter... . I'm sure most scientists aren't stupid, so they've thought about these questions, and I wish I knew the answers they've comforted themselves with.

Well, my main drive is to leave my mark on the world. Like I said before, leaving my name written in the history books just like the famous scientists, musicians, dictators, philosophers, authors... Another reason would be that of procreating; I want to make sure my genes are passed on, whether they are good or bad genes, I want to see my children grow and be better than me in every single way (or at least, in the ways that they wish to be better than me. They might grow up to be muscleheads, who knows!)... And of course, the reason of experiencing that which comes once in a lifetime (as far as we're all aware): living our lives. I wouldn't want to pass up this opportunity!

This is the answer I think I would've said, and that I was hoping to see . The reason I wouldn't kill myself if I believed God didn't exist would be because I knew someone might convince me otherwise.

Leaving my name somewhere is also a goal for me. I once thought I would be a baseball player, then a smasher, and now I'm hoping to be some kind of chess master, but I understand that it's fairly unlikely. I'd like to be a hotshot mathematician, proving new theorems, but I doubt that'll happen. The only impact I'm sure I'll have is making those I love happy, and creating a world where my children can fulfill their dreams. It seems like there's some hope for our race . We seem to always do better than our friends did when they were our age, and our children always outperform us.

Living my life is the best blessing I've ever been given, and I'm glad I never chose to take it. I know I'll be depressed again. But I know I'll be someone's savior, fall in love and do anything for it, buy my children their bikes, and eventually die and find out what the hell happens afterward. All in my future, predetermined or not.

But if I were to kill myself, I couldn't say that the world would be better or worse off. I've yet to reach that point in life where my influence is large enough to have an effect on our civilization if I lived or died, and I'm still unsure of what my future might hold. I have plans and ambitions, I'm a very ambitious person, but no matter how much motivation I have, I may not fulfill my plans and end up serving in a McDonald's for the rest of my days. There's always the off-chance!

Most of us (all of us on SWF, most likely) have yet to reach that point in life where we know what effect we've had. We all have plans and ambitions, and we all hope we don't fail miserably at them. ^_^

Also, you messed up the colors when quoting me.

I'd love to see what the Debate people have to say about our long-winded discussions. :D

Edit: Looking at the thread. I'm you'll need to continue adding these posts xD, and fix the colors (in the second post you quoted) sorry for the inconvenience with them. And now I need to apply for permission to try out for Debate Hall...lol.

This...kinda misses the point of that tangent. The point wasn't that Trunks went back in time, it was that he had an enormous impact on history. And I proposed that he came from that timeline. If he was some kind of brilliant scientist, he may have found the cure to Goku's heart virus, and saved the timeline. This isn't a great example, but it still is one.

If Goku would've died, chances are the world would've been destroyed. Goku lived, so the world wasn't destroyed then and there. After DBGT ends, we see his descendants sparring in a tourney, proving that the world is still there... But who's to say what happens afterward? Maybe a tougher enemy destroys the world again like Buu did, but this time, they won't be able to revive the Earth since they did so once before, which means the world is still ultimately destroyed.

Even if no superpowerful enemy that would one-up Ih Shenron ever appeared, the world would've eventually been destroyed by the sun running out of fuel, and expanding then contracting due to the transformations of hydrogen > helium > carbon. That could be the farthest the planet could live, and so its destruction was still inevitable. Once again, even if a mega-powerful good guy pushed the planet to a new galaxy and now they had a new sun to live from, sooner or later the world would run out of chances and it would ultimately end up being destroyed... So all that the scientist (or Trunks) did was postpone the inevitable, push an event farther down the time-line, which falls in contrast with that which I've been saying.

Yes, I may never have existed, which shows the impact that old man had on the world.

It only really impacted an isolated scenario, which is your existence (not meaning disrespect). You wouldnt've existed, but in the same way that a parent chooses to have 2 children instead of 3/4/5, your existence can be destroyed by a simple action, no one would ever know that you would've existed, and that which you might have accomplished will probably be done by someone else farther down the time-line (provided the world doesn't get destroyed before then).

Yes. However, your opinions are that anything I could've done but didn't do will be done by someone else, so that I'm probably not that influential to this time. Mine are that many of our actions can create ripples that change the world. Let's say I ask out my friend who I think I'm crushing on tomorrow, and we cornily end up married. Our children could do anything with their lives, which could ripple out to many others, which might end up destroying or saving our world.

My opinion of destiny is that it's easy to look back on decisions we've made and say "That was predetermined," but difficult to look forward and say "I know who'll win the 2020 presidential election."

In a sense, that's the same thing as I'm saying. The existence on one person can branch off into many more people's existences once he and his descendants procreate, which is an entire pedigree chart's worth of generations... But whether you existed or not, someone else's existence would most likely reach the same goals as you or your descendants did, whether or not it's faster or takes more time.

I'm aware of the science stuff. It makes me wonder if my arguments (that without an afterlife, our lives don't have meaning) are either profound and new or have already been debunked by some person. It seems more likely to be the latter... . I'm sure most scientists aren't stupid, so they've thought about these questions, and I wish I knew the answers they've comforted themselves with.

Aww, come on man, don't get all down like that! Think of it as something to strive for... Make it one of your goals to find out as much as you can about it, live and grow to pursuit the answers!

Spoiler

scientists rule

This is the answer I think I would've said, and that I was hoping to see . The reason I wouldn't kill myself if I believed God didn't exist would be because I knew someone might convince me otherwise.

Leaving my name somewhere is also a goal for me. I once thought I would be a baseball player, then a smasher, and now I'm hoping to be some kind of chess master, but I understand that it's fairly unlikely. I'd like to be a hotshot mathematician, proving new theorems, but I doubt that'll happen. The only impact I'm sure I'll have is making those I love happy, and creating a world where my children can fulfill their dreams. It seems like there's some hope for our race . We seem to always do better than our friends did when they were our age, and our children always outperform us.

Living my life is the best blessing I've ever been given, and I'm glad I never chose to take it. I know I'll be depressed again. But I know I'll be someone's savior, fall in love and do anything for it, buy my children their bikes, and eventually die and find out what the hell happens afterward. All in my future, predetermined or not.

That's the spirit!

Most of us (all of us on SWF, most likely) have yet to reach that point in life where we know what effect we've had. We all have plans and ambitions, and we all hope we don't fail miserably at them. ^_^

If we do, someone else will complete them in our stead. get it? hoooo, i'm awesome

Also, you messed up the colors when quoting me.

I tried fixing them, but SWF never lets me fix it!

Edit: Looking at the thread. I'm you'll need to continue adding these posts xD, and fix the colors sorry for the inconvenience with them lol. I can't post in that thread though...do I need special status to try out for the Debate Hall? O_o

Yep, you need to be at least a temp-debater to post there. Apply for it in the User CP's "User groups" tab. if you apply and they accept you as a debater, you get a name color change to KIRBY PINK!

So... What do you think? Any input in what we have discussed?

EDIT: Added two more posts, I think we'll probably end it there since copy-pasting everything here in a neat and pretty way is pretty tiring.

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

I do not have an opinion on the subject other then I think A1lion835 should come over to the proving grounds so he/she can become a debate hall member (I think he/she will make it to debate hall status a lot faster than me .)

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

To be honest, choosing to start a thread in the PG using a previous discussion with someone else is inconsiderate to the intended audience. Especially when Dragon Ball Z references are being used as illustrative examples. The PG deserves more respect than this.

 

[Kewkky]

To be honest, choosing to start a thread in the PG using a previous discussion with someone else is inconsiderate to the intended audience.

Not really. I am bringing a fresh-from-the-oven discussion which I thought was very interesting to the Debate Hall Proving Grounds for the sake of adding more people into it. What else would you have me do, condense all of that into a single post? Lots of content would go missing, and I'd rather have you all read every detail to stay up-to-date with what we were discussing.

If anything, I feel it's considerate to the intended audience.



As for the Dragon Ball Z example... Just replace it with a more mundane example and done. The way the example is done still portrays what he wanted to get across: one person was to be the savior of a world in the near future but dies before he saves it and the world is in turn destroyed, but instead of this happening, a doctor saves his life so that he fulfills his goal of saving the world. Don't blame the example, the point still goes through. Would it have been more acceptable if instead of that, we used an example of a woman aborting the world's future savior, but alternatively a doctor stops her from aborting and the son is born to later hatch a plan to move an incoming meteor from smashing the planet?

Would you rather me delete the OP and simply link the thread and have you look for the posts? They were made recently, only an hour or two ago... Does that immediately invalidate the discussion? If so, then fellow Proving Grounds member, tell me... What is the criteria for a topic? I mean, I read the thread and it said nothing about using a recent debate as charcoal for some Proving Grounds barbecue.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

You could have cut down on many things. The conversation in the beginning about love was irrelevant. The same goes for you mentioning that you want to be famous and leave a mark on the world. Very tear jerking stuff, but it really is not important to the main topic you were trying to discuss. You post a lot of personal opinions and don't really bother to try substantiating it. The conversation lends itself to mass speculation and opinion-driven statements. It looks like a great conversation. But I just feel that you could have done a better job of presenting it in the Proving Ground.

 

[Kewkky]

You could have cut down on many things. The conversation in the beginning about love was irrelevant. The same goes for you mentioning that you want to be famous and leave a mark on the world. Very tear jerking stuff, but it really is not important to the main topic you were trying to discuss. You post a lot of personal opinions and don't really bother to try substantiating it. The conversation lends itself to mass speculation and opinion-driven statements. It looks like a great conversation. But I just feel that you could have done a better job of presenting it in the Proving Ground.

I brought the raw versions of the replies. Literally quoted them and put them here so as to not mess with anything. Is it so hard to skim through that until you find out that you're reading about the topic at hand? And even the tear-jerking stuff is part of the conversation, albeit a bit off-topic, but still on it. He asked me that if I really believed in what I did (if you refuse to do something, someone else will do it in your stead in due time), then why didn't I just put a gun to my head and pull the trigger, since every goal I could achieve would otherwise be achieved by someone else?

And how would you propose I substantiate it? Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is the PROVING GROUNDS, not the DEBATE HALL. This is where Debate Hall future debaters come to learn to properly debate, then take the final test in the Center Stage. Or am I wrong and I should leave until I learn on my own accord, then come and try to do better than everyone who's had previous experiences here?

if anything, your replies are completely off-topic, derail the thread, and don't contribute to my posting better as a debater. If you feel that the way I presented it is wrong, instead of using a sentence with neat words to victimize the readers, why don't you take a good step forward and help me fix my bad habit? Maybe make me a better debater, so that I may help you in return? You didn't even give me your opinion on the topic at hand, which is what I asked for at the bottom of the thread.



Seriously.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

I don't quite understand how anyone can remain so sure that replacing any individual with another would lead to the same result. It seems like such a brazen act of ingratitude to simply argue that the existence of Benjamin Franklin and Adolf Hitler could be easily substituted by any other individual without leading to serious implications on our modern society. Hitler had fierce oratory skills and was able to sway the public. It is likely the result of his family dying before he became an adult, living in charity and soup kitchens, and becoming temporarily blind due to fighting in the battlefield. The traumatic experiences he was forced to withstand as a growing child probably had significant influences on his psychology and his success as a leader. If another individual replaced Hitler, then it is possible that the course of history could have been significantly altered. As with Albert Einstein and Benjamin Franklin. Arguing that people could easily be replaced or that the same results would exist somewhere along the road without bothering to familiarize yourself with the struggles they encountered, their fellow compatriots, their actual work (I can't even grasp the mathematical proofs involved in deriving E = mc2), and their individual personalities lead me to be incredibly upset that you could discredit their significant individuality to the history of the world at large as something that could be substituted down the road by some other guy.

 

[Kewkky]

Those are circumstances that brought them to their actual events. Saying that it is impossible to reach the same conclusion by other means, or that other people can't get to the same point if Einstein or Hitler didn't exist, is simply fallacious.

Circumstances vary per person, but in the end, the rough outline of an event can be revived by any other person. It is not farfetched at all to think of someone else being the one who discovered E=mc^2. Albert Einstein had his circumstances and he got to that conclusion through those, and i can tell you, other people could've gotten to the same conclusion (defining E=mc^2) through different circumstances... Same with Hitler: the rough outline of what the war was could've been achieved by someone else had Hitler died beforehand. It could've been a worse war, it could've only just been a skirmish. But in reality, any anti-jew with an influential-enough voice and a resolve as powerful as Hitler's could've created a similar war.

The most obvious example of what I'm trying to point out is Benjamin's existence in his discoveries regarding electricity. Whether or not he existed, someone would eventually discover electricity as well, be it earlier or later, and we would eventually reach the same technologically advanced civilization we live in today. His circumstances are cosmetic in that they only acted as catalysts for him to speed up his research, much like an abused child grows up to leave his house faster than other children his age due to his circumstances, or how some musicians come up with names for their bands due to present events at the time of the naming.


I'm not saying that with Hitler's disappearance from existence, a newer Hitler would come up and do his same horrors, instead I'm saying eventually some act that would be similar to that of Hitler's (bigger or smaller) would come up later on, and it would be inevitable, but it would surface due to different circumstances (it could very well be a devout catholic who holds a hatred for the jews' treatment towards Jesus Christ, who knows).

 

[Namaste]

But, why? What's so important about Hitler in the general sense of the universe that something related to his acts would have to occur if he himself didn't do them?

The reason I say "the universe" and not "human history" is because to argue for a sort of destiny would argue that the universe has certain things that it's sure will do. Which is sort of correct, in that it's basically just a fancy way to label "cause and effect", but outside of saying a ball falling has a "destiny" of hitting something doesn't really mean anything.

Also, if souls exist (different discussion), they can't be some sort of "immovable and permanent" thing. Everything in the universe is subject to cause and effect. Which means nothing stays the same, things always change, and so would any person's soul, meaning they can't have a hard written "destiny" to follow

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

Those are circumstances that brought them to their actual events. Saying that it is impossible to reach the same conclusion by other means, or that other people can't get to the same point if Einstein or Hitler didn't exist, is simply fallacious. Circumstances vary per person, but in the end, the rough outline of an event can be revived by any other person.

How I read this: Assuming that the resultant influence of Einstein and Hitler would not exist without Einstein and Hitler is fallacious. Anyone could have replaced them.

It is not farfetched at all to think of someone else being the one who discovered E=mc^2. Albert Einstein had his circumstances and he got to that conclusion through those, and i can tell you, other people could've gotten to the same conclusion (defining E=mc^2) through different circumstances...

A vast majority of scientists were satisfied with the special principle of relativity established by Galileo Galilei in 1632 in conjunction with Newtonian mechanics that added unto this theory by supplementing it with laws dictating motion, gravitation, and an assumption for absolute time. Even though Lorentz's theories on covariance and transformations were the fundamental foundation for Einstein piercing together one aspect of the mass-energy equivalence equation, namely the constancy of the speed of light which is represented as "c" in the E=mc^2 equation, it still remains questionable whether anyone could piece together Lorentz's work to defy the foundational theory on relativity and eventually go on to use that theory to formulate another novel formula. Einstein simply didn't solve single physics problems, he solved several and had the bravery to defy accepted objective ideology and continue on with his work as a brilliant physicist.

Same with Hitler: the rough outline of what the war was could've been achieved by someone else had Hitler died beforehand. It could've been a worse war, it could've only just been a skirmish. But in reality, any anti-jew with an influential-enough voice and a resolve as powerful as Hitler's could've created a similar war... I'm not saying that with Hitler's disappearance from existence, a newer Hitler would come up and do his same horrors, instead I'm saying eventually some act that would be similar to that of Hitler's (bigger or smaller) would come up later on, and it would be inevitable, but it would surface due to different circumstances (it could very well be a devout catholic who holds a hatred for the jews' treatment towards Jesus Christ, who knows).

If Hitler didn't exist, then who would be the replacement candidate? Paul von Hindenberg prematurely died in 1934 leading to Adolf Hitler assuming power. If Adolf Hitler didn't exist, then it is possible that Ernst Thälmann, the next candidate would have assumed power. Thälmann hated Hitler and was a communist. In comparison, Nazi ideology mocked communism, liberalism, and democracy.

The most obvious example of what I'm trying to point out is Benjamin's existence in his discoveries regarding electricity. Whether or not he existed, someone would eventually discover electricity as well, be it earlier or later, and we would eventually reach the same technologically advanced civilization we live in today. His circumstances are cosmetic in that they only acted as catalysts for him to speed up his research, much like an abused child grows up to leave his house faster than other children his age due to his circumstances, or how some musicians come up with names for their bands due to present events at the time of the naming.

It only seems cosmetic because you take existing innovations for granted. Much like how our current generation take vaccines and modern medical advancement without much consideration when fifty years ago you have perfectly individuals turn into cripples after being diagnosed for polio. Not any individual can simply do research, much less perform the ground-breaking research necessary to defy precedent and establish new axioms for science. Attempting to generalize Einstein's accomplishments & Hitler's influence to an abused child leaving home & musicians naming their bands is... as you put it, fallacious.

 

[Sieguest]

But, why? What's so important about Hitler in the general sense of the universe that something related to his acts would have to occur if he himself didn't do them?

None of the previous posts have said that the events attributed to Hitler have to happen whether it was the work of Hitler or not. Rather, the posts address the topic on whether the actions attributed to Hitler could have been done by another person if Hitler himself did not do it.

Those are circumstances that brought them to their actual events. Saying that it is impossible to reach the same conclusion by other means, or that other people can't get to the same point if Einstein or Hitler didn't exist, is simply fallacious.

Circumstances vary per person, but in the end, the rough outline of an event can be revived by any other person. It is not farfetched at all to think of someone else being the one who discovered E=mc^2. Albert Einstein had his circumstances and he got to that conclusion through those, and i can tell you, other people could've gotten to the same conclusion (defining E=mc^2) through different circumstances... Same with Hitler: the rough outline of what the war was could've been achieved by someone else had Hitler died beforehand. It could've been a worse war, it could've only just been a skirmish. But in reality, any anti-jew with an influential-enough voice and a resolve as powerful as Hitler's could've created a similar war.

The most obvious example of what I'm trying to point out is Benjamin's existence in his discoveries regarding electricity. Whether or not he existed, someone would eventually discover electricity as well, be it earlier or later, and we would eventually reach the same technologically advanced civilization we live in today. His circumstances are cosmetic in that they only acted as catalysts for him to speed up his research, much like an abused child grows up to leave his house faster than other children his age due to his circumstances, or how some musicians come up with names for their bands due to present events at the time of the naming.


I'm not saying that with Hitler's disappearance from existence, a newer Hitler would come up and do his same horrors, instead I'm saying eventually some act that would be similar to that of Hitler's (bigger or smaller) would come up later on, and it would be inevitable, but it would surface due to different circumstances (it could very well be a devout catholic who holds a hatred for the jews' treatment towards Jesus Christ, who knows).

Following the idea that if I don't do it, someone else will at some point falls short in terms of how this idea would affect history. Hitler's ideology of persecuting the Jews was derived from the circumstances in which he grew up in. Due to this someone without the same circumstances may or may not derive the same ideologies. Due to the degree of uncertainty in predicting future human events, we can't be sure that such an act can be done in his stead. Especially given the idea that in more modern times there developed the interdependence upon other countries in the world spectrum, it would be suicide for someone to do what Hitler did in their lifetime if Hitler himself had not done it during his lifetime.

Your idea of "if one doesn't do it now, someone will later" and your defense of it asserts that history would be roughly the same if key people we know in history didn't do what they do and some other people at some other time did it, and that just isn't true. Your idea completely ignores the degree of uncertainty that comes with predicting future events and disregards the fact that one's circumstances plays a part in developing their ideology. It also disregards the relation to more modern events as well as the relation to past events that were only applicable at the time that may have come to be a trigger to the event in question.

 

[Namaste]

None of the previous posts have said that the events attributed to Hitler have to happen whether it was the work of Hitler or not. Rather, the posts address the topic on whether the actions attributed to Hitler could have been done by another person if Hitler himself did not do it.

I'm not saying that with Hitler's disappearance from existence, a newer Hitler would come up and do his same horrors, instead I'm saying eventually some act that would be similar to that of Hitler's (bigger or smaller) would come up later on, and it would be inevitable, but it would surface due to different circumstances (it could very well be a devout catholic who holds a hatred for the jews' treatment towards Jesus Christ, who knows).

While he does start out by saying what you said, he then goes on to claim that something similar to the holocaust was inevitable, whether Hitler did it or not. Which is what I was referring to. Maybe I did misunderstand his post, but honestly I agree with Acrostic and didn't read the first post's conversations.

 

[Sage JoWii]

I'm not saying that with Hitler's disappearance from existence, a newer Hitler would come up and do his same horrors, instead I'm saying eventually some act that would be similar to that of Hitler's (bigger or smaller) would come up later on, and it would be inevitable, but it would surface due to different circumstances (it could very well be a devout catholic who holds a hatred for the jews' treatment towards Jesus Christ, who knows).

+_+ This post sparked my interest.

I'm in agreement though with the opinions that circumstance and environment create an individual and only by over-generalization could an individual, especially one of such high profile, be created twice. With that being said I find highly improbable that if, against odds an individual WAS born to similar circumstances in that era, said individual would follow a similar path leading to an eventual holocaust (or an equal to, lesser, or greater than event of similarity).

With the odds of unique individuals recurring twice covered, I'd also like to point out how you'd have to over-generalize greatly just to meet the "If he didn't, someone else would" idea. If Hitler didn't exist you could relate any number of anti-jewish hate crimes, that were bigger than one on one acts of harassment (up to and including murder), as being the 'replacement' of Hitler's Holocaust. That's the most flamboyant over-generalization if I ever saw one put in words.

 

[Sucumbio]

tl:dr nothing we do matters, someone else will eventually do it anyway

right? I think that's the gist of this thread.

of course no one else would have painted the Mona Lisa but Leonardo da Vinci. The same can be said of all arts and art forms. They are unique to their creator (as unique as you can be given all the influences you receive in life, and not counting copypastas.)

but what does this have to do with the butterfly effect? isn't that the theory that if a butterfly flaps its wings in Africa it'll make a tornado in Kansas or something?

And this isn't really about destiny, either. Destiny is a simple way of understanding how a fixed timeline works, nothing more nothing less. It's not that WWII would have always happened regardless if Hitler lived or not. It's that Hitler was always going to live and start WWII.

 

[rvkevin]

but what does this have to do with the butterfly effect? isn't that the theory that if a butterfly flaps its wings in Africa it'll make a tornado in Kansas or something?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTDs0lvFuMc

The butterfly effect refers to chaos theory. Had the initial conditions been slightly different, the end result would have been entirely different.

 

[Sucumbio]

oic. there was a movie called the butterfly effect that was pretty much not that, lol.

but that clip makes me wanna see that movie now... benjamin button, that is.

but yeah, even at the end he admits "out of our control" I mean, is theory even the right word? obviously if things don't unfold as they do the end result could be totally different, why call it anything other than wishful thinking? or daydreaming? or something... chaos theory Oooo like it's supposed to be this deep meaningful revelation or something lol.

thanks for the clarification nonetheless, but now I'm really curious as to how that even relates to the OP which is saying something almost completely different. his premise was that changing things slightly would have the same end result, which I still find difficult to believe, at least this chaos theory makes sense.

 

[A1lion835]

My argument was that we couldn't know how the future would turn out based on our actions because of how hopelessly intertwined our lives are. Like the butterfly effect.

I'd also like to point out that something WWII-like would probably have happened without Hitler. The Germans were oppressed and forced to pay unfair reparations simply because they lost (the winners write history). I believe it was inevitable that a German would come up and tell the German public a story that they'd rather hear, like that they were better than the other countries. The War would probably be dramatically different (different alliances, motivations, and results), but it still would've happened.

 

[Sucumbio]

My argument was that we couldn't know how the future would turn out based on our actions because of how hopelessly intertwined our lives are. Like the butterfly effect.

I'll buy this. It's sort of a given. There's no point in trying to predict the future at all, really, though bookies would have you believe in the fate of score cards. You can never tell when someone's gonna end up on the injury list, changing the game, and the end result. Business can be much ado about prospects. In fact there's an entire category of trading known as "Futures trading" which basically is the buying and selling of agreements to buy or sell shares of stock. : /

I'd also like to point out that something WWII-like would probably have happened without Hitler. The Germans were oppressed and forced to pay unfair reparations simply because they lost (the winners write history). I believe it was inevitable that a German would come up and tell the German public a story that they'd rather hear, like that they were better than the other countries. The War would probably be dramatically different (different alliances, motivations, and results), but it still would've happened.

WWII was the direct result of the invasion of Poland. "In 1933, the National-Socialist German Workers' Party, under its leader Adolf Hitler, came to power in Germany. Germany sought to gain hegemony in Europe, and to take over Soviet Union territory, acquiring "Living Space" (Lebensraum) and expanding "Greater Germany" (Großdeutschland), to be eventually surrounded by a ring of allied states, satellite or puppet states." -source

See I get what you're saying but unfortunately we can never know that Hitler's involvement wasn't "necessary" to start WWII, or anything remotely WWII-like. Sure maybe under someone else's leadership the German Workers' Party could have sought the same ends... but perhaps not. It's pure theory-craft, and basically boils down to an exercise in imagination at best.

Add to this the fact that we live on fixed time-line. There's literally no way to deviate from what we've done, are doing, or will do.

This begs the question of the century: how then are we supposed to feel compelled to do "the right thing" if there's no choice in the matter. Well, that's just it. It's our choices that are in play along this time line. If we all choose to be jerks, then time will move on accordingly, and history will be filled with jerks. Better to live a good life, then, and fill history will good things. Many cite this as the reason for religion, as it guides us on our path, keeping us from evil, etc. Religion or not, morality or not, making choices is all we can do in life, and despite the fact that the choice has already technically been made, because we cannot see into the future, we still must make the choice based on little more than intuition, and our collective foreknowledge of the facts at hand. Do I go left? or Right? Do I take the long road today or the short? We're always going to take the road we take, but why we take it is what we have control over. They said it better in the Matrix, but I just watched them for the epic kung fu.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

The devil is in the details.

 

[A1lion835]

WWII was the direct result of the invasion of Poland. "In 1933, the National-Socialist German Workers' Party, under its leader Adolf Hitler, came to power in Germany. Germany sought to gain hegemony in Europe, and to take over Soviet Union territory, acquiring "Living Space" (Lebensraum) and expanding "Greater Germany" (Großdeutschland), to be eventually surrounded by a ring of allied states, satellite or puppet states." -source

See I get what you're saying but unfortunately we can never know that Hitler's involvement wasn't "necessary" to start WWII, or anything remotely WWII-like. Sure maybe under someone else's leadership the German Workers' Party could have sought the same ends... but perhaps not. It's pure theory-craft, and basically boils down to an exercise in imagination at best.

Perhaps I'm a bit stupid for trying to predict alternate pasts, but the tension was there since the end of WWI. The Germans just needed someone to yell a potential future at them and give them power.

I would agree though, this is mostly me arguing my imagination.

Add to this the fact that we live on fixed time-line. There's literally no way to deviate from what we've done, are doing, or will do.

*Long paragraph about destiny*

It's pure theory-craft, and basically boils down to an exercise in imagination at best.

My opinion of destiny is that it's easy to look back on decisions we've made and say "That was predetermined," but difficult to look forward and say "I know who'll win the 2020 presidential election."

These 3 quotes aren't in response to each other, but I think they look good compared side-by-side.

I take it, from the first of those 3, that you believe in destiny (I can't imagine what else it could mean, but if I'm wrong, tell me). Can you offer me any solid arguments on the subject of destiny that aren't just

pure theory-craft.

?

 

[Sucumbio]

That's actually the whole point. "Destiny" has this... connotation of being either mystical or somehow other-worldly, when in reality all it means is "the inevitable future." You can take any point in history, then go back a set amount of time from that, and see how the events that transpired led to that point. A super-simple way of looking at it is a line of whole numbers.

1 precedes 5 which precedes 10. In going from 1 to 10 you will encounter 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9

If 10 represents the invasion of Poland by Hitler's army, and 5 represents the birth of Hitler... 6, 7, 8 and 9 could represent 4 key events in his life that led him from being an aspiring painter to becoming the notorious leader.

The important thing to understand in this analogy is that no one can actually change those events. You cannot for instance, substitute the event in 6 where his art teacher took a giant **** on his art for, I dunno, his father giving him a puppy. The events that unfold in life are determined in the moment of their determination and are forever set in stone from that point forward.

You were always going to ask me this question. I was always going to post this response. Though 3 months ago I may not have been able to predict having this very conversation, we're having it nonetheless, and 10 years from now I can of course look back and understand that this conversation came to pass because I joined smashboards, became a member of the debate hall, and so did A1lion835, and we conversed about Destiny.

As you may have guessed this does mean I do not believe in parallel universes, or multi-verses. Just because I -can- choose to take a left instead of a right, does NOT mean that all of a sudden when the choice comes a separate and real universe is suddenly created in which the opposite of my choice is made. This to me would require way too much power on our behalf. Universes are huge, contain massive amounts of matter and energy, and cannot simply be willed into existence by making a simple choice. No... it's far easier for me to understand Time as being a single fixed line of events.

-source

And though you may not find it relevant, the reason I wrote so much about destiny is because my view of it would preclude morality. It means free will is an illusion. Right? Wrong. We still have the power to make choices. What saves us from being amoral is the fact that we cannot see the future, so we still have to make the choices with the best interests of all in mind.