Dear Sadaf, I think this an interesting question, but I will restrict myself to some discussion of traditional philosophical concepts. "Destiny" comes to English from old French, though I notice that there is the cognate Italian "destino," related to the Latin "destinare" and "stare," to stand. "Destiny," in common usage, is something to which a person or thing is bound to come--according to my dictionary (Webster's). The meaning is like that of "fate," though it is less negative: people usually speak of wanting to control their own destiny, and would speak less plausibly of wanting to control or determine their own fate. "Fate," is more something that one can't control; and acceptance of fate suggests a more passive relation to the world or events. Still, "destiny" is also thought of as a "predetermined course of events, often [but not always] held to be an irresistible power or agency" (Webster's). Recall though that the old Persian poets speak of our "conspiring with fate." (as the English translation has it.)

For sure, the concept of destiny in English is related to traditional conceptions of law (both natural and moral). These, again, are closely associated with the ancient Greek, "telos," meaning, end or purpose. The telos of a thing, say, an acorn (to take one of Aristotle's examples) suggests a law or regularity of development: the acorn exists "for the sake of the oak," and if it becomes anything, then it will regularly become an oak. Generalizing this idea, one may arrive at the notion that each of us has such a telos, which we are "destined" to fulfill--"always or for the most part," as Aristotle has it. (Aristotle himself was not so individualistic, but the ideas are fairly close.) So, a person's particular talents and abilities, along with much else perhaps, may suggest a direction of development, which will eventuate, at best, in a kind of self-realization.

That notions of law enter into the traditional conceptions shows in ancient Greek tragedy, where violation of the law, nomos, leads on directly to tragic developments. The thought seems to be that the moral law is a species of natural law, if I am not being entirely too anachronistic here, and the results are sure to follow. I'm thinking, for example of the Greek "hubris," meaning excessive pride, and the proverb, "If the gods would destroy a man, they first make him proud." Again, the Hebrew, old testament tells us that "Where there is no wisdom, the people perish, but he who keepth the law, happy if he." Violation of the moral law results in tragedy. Still, knowing and keeping the law allows us to avoid the worse.

Thorough-going determinism in modern thought, drawing on Newton's laws, say, seems to be an attempt at a more precise version of the old notion of destiny or fate, though often less inclined to moral law. Still, even here, the same ambiguity arises, and it seems that in degree, as we understand the laws of nature, then we become able to control outcomes by control of initial conditions, and in consequence, undoubtedly, we become able to do things that we could not do without knowledge of the laws (and/or regularities), and thereby improve human life or conditions. We build the great bridge, or mass produce things of need, cure disease, etc. In that sense, we do indeed seem to be in a position to "conspire with the laws." So, can we control our own destiny? or is the "crooked timber" of humanity so deficient and wanting that failure or self-destruction will eventually come? (Consider the old Calvinist doctrine of "human depravity.")

H.G. Callaway

H.G. Callaway: thank you Sir. I think through a rather ordinary concept. If you take into consideration that TIME is one of the dimensions other than space, that theoretically one can travel through, you shall have to believe there is a FUTURE. Suppose , somebody is displaced through TIME, & has reached the FAR FUTURE. Now, for him the PRESENT & NEAR FUTURE are equivalent to PAST. Then what he shall be definite about is that the PRESENT & NEAR FUTURE shall shape up into where he is at the present(FAR FUTURE). this implies that there is a fixed future or FATE to everybody, irrespective of what he/she does. In fact this logic suggests that the people are not COMPLETELY FREE to do what they believe they can, because finally everything has to shape up into a fixed future(FATE). WHAT YOU SAY?

Dear Sadaf, Well, I would be the last one to recommend fatalism to anyone. So, that is what I say about your question/suggestions. Still, I suppose that you are more interested in the reasoning that may go into this conclusion than in the conclusion itself.

No doubt, whatever will be, will be. This is just a tautology of a sort: whatever is true at time T, ( where T is later than now), will be true at that time. Here we suppose that there is a future, but needn't suppose that the future is fully determined. Again, viewed from a more advanced future, T2, T will be something (or other) definite (so far as quantum mechanics allows). But none of this seems to add up to full determinism, let alone fatalism. If future time T shall have some definite truths about it, I think it doesn't follow that those truths are full determined now. As it seems to me, the question of future truths has really little to do with determinism.

On the other hand, I certainly agree that people are never "completely free" to do what they want or "what they believe they can." Our powers to do what we will are always limited, but real. They couldn't be limited, if they weren't real. We may increase those powers by understanding the laws of nature, say, thus becoming able to do what we could not do before, but other limitations will still obtain. Freedom is a matter of being able to sometimes do what you want, and I think it important to add that we can also sometimes even change what we want. If freedom were not a power to do what you want, then I think no one would want it. If "knowledge is power,' then the increase of knowledge increases our power to do what we want. We can become freer, and that is part of the ideal of the enlightenment.

The question of what we are able and free to do is always partly an experimental question, and that is part of the argument against fatalism --as a passive attitude toward the world and events. Surely, what we never try to do we will never accomplish. To convince the common people of fatalism, then, strikes me as social control parading as metaphysics.

H.G. Callaway

H.G. Callaway Sir: thank you for your kind contribution. But what I meant to say is that for someone at present things may seem like a lot in control for e.g. if I want to pick up a cup, yes I can. But, if anyhow you take yourself sometime forward in future, there you would know what happened i.e. whether I could actually pick up the cup or not. So, for me, at present it may seem that more laws of nature would be discovered giving me more opportunities to control my life, but I believe that the fact that a definite future exists(so far as quantum mechanics allows) would allow the discoveries to unfold in a sequence & magnitude such that the 'LAW of a Definite Future' holds good.

This restriction may be the reason why all the discoveries were not made together. Rather they were made at different point of time to affect different civilizations. For Example: discovery of Oil Feilds in the Gulfs caused a sea change in the economy of Middle East affecting the lifestyle, governments & industrialization.

Quite contrary to that the world has been searching for alternative of fossil fuels, but still no breakthrough has been made.

So, I mean to say that if we go forward say 5 years & find there that the gulf countries have gone very poor, one may infer that within next 5 years from now somebody would discover a cheaper alternative of fossil fuel(although a generation of scientists have already died with this desire).

Dear Sadaf, There is no reason to doubt that more laws can be discovered, whether determinism is true or not. Still, this does not imply that just the laws we may expect, at any given time, or in a given state of knowledge, will be discovered. There is no need to postulate strict determinism or even determinism up to quantum indeterminacy to assure ourselves that more laws will be discovered.

Science creates hypotheses and experiments upon them in order to test them. That is the way forward, and it has always been the way forward, but I have no doubt that some events are simply accidents or coincidental. Beyond that, or perhaps even exemplifying it, there is quantum indeterminacy. How far does this reach into the macro-world? Does anyone know? Might the quantum indeterminacy be playing the role of the "butterfly effect?" --now and again?

If you flip a fair coin ten times, then on average you will get 5 heads and 5 tails, but on any given run of 10, there is no predicting the exact outcome. So, does the evidence support strict determinism or something else? It is a definite, and empirically certified, fact that we are able to construct devices, say a roulette wheel, where any given trial is essentially unpredictable. You are free to craft hypotheses which might predict the apparently random outcomes. But even if you were successful, we might still be able to craft a further device which eludes predictions --or at least, I suppose this is a reasonable counter-hypothesis, given quantum indeterminacy. It seems we would need only amplify the quantum indeterminacy by some sort of measurement.

It is not, however, that freedom need be tied to indeterminacy.

H.G. Callaway

Sir, I am not saying that whether future can be determined or not. I just want to say that whatever the future is, it is. hence whatever paths anybody can choose at present are not infinite (that however can't be determined) rather constrained so that the Future shapes up as (whatever) it is supposed to. just like a Thermodynamic State function that has a starting point & an end point that can be reached through any path, but that path HAS to end at the end point. Without bothering you any more I would close the discussion here.

Dear Sadaf, Many thanks for the interesting exchanges. I would merely suggest that the lack of predictability in particular systems, as with the roulette wheel, etc., is evidence that the future is open.

H.G. Callaway

thank you Sir