The Fatalism Trap - #10

Reality is that which ultimately exists, and whose nature we do not know.

In Chapter 3 (“The Should Story”), it says: “Since reality at time Tx+1 cannot materialize from nothing, it is entirely determined by reality at time Tx, and thus Reality is simply a temporal sequence.

Bear in mind that this model would apply only if space-time were the basis of ultimate Reality. If space-time were not the basis of ultimate Reality, the conclusion in the previous paragraph would not be true.

If space-time is at the foundation of everything, Reality would be just a big, temporal sequence.

If we think of Reality as a movie – a sequence of frames – each entire frame is the cause of the entire next frame, and each entire frame is the effect of the entire previous frame. Let’s say that in the movie, a child kicks a ball through a window and the window breaks. The viewer says, “A ha! I see cause and effect!” But that’s not right. Neither the cause nor the effect was anything that happened in the frame. The cause was the previous frame itself, and the effect was the next frame itself – which causes the entire next frame, and the entire frame after that, and so on.

Since we don’t know the nature of ultimate Reality, we cannot determine which of the various models describing it — such as determinism or free will — is true.

Even without knowing the ultimate nature of Reality, we can still say, as mentioned in Chapter 3, that even if free will exists, there can be no alternative realities, because we always make what we believe is the best move.

Even if free will were to exist, alternative realities would not be possible because, as we explored in Chapter 2 (“The Four Categories of Story”), people will always make what they believe is the single best move from the set of moves they know, which leads to alternative realities not being possible.

Even if we assume the existence of free will, ex post (meaning “after the fact”) we realize that alternative realities are impossible, because the person always made the move they considered best in that moment — and there is only one best move. It is therefore intuitively and logically clear that ex post, no alternative realities could have existed.

Someone might conclude that since we always decide on what we believe is the best move, there is no advantage in spending time and energy evaluating different options. Failing to invest time and energy in evaluating different options amounts to mental laziness. This, in turn, leads to putting little effort into decision-making and thus choosing almost at random. The brain’s primary function is to evaluate different options carefully and attentively; only by doing so do we make healthy use of our mental resources. However, if we fail to make an effort to evaluate the options, we will make suboptimal choices, which will have suboptimal consequences.

Since ex post (meaning “after the fact”), no alternative realities could have existed, someone might conclude that everything was already predetermined ex ante (meaning “before something happens”).

Alternative realities are not possible because even if free will exists, people will always make what they believe is the “best move.” This could lead someone to believe that everything is predetermined.

Intuition, however, would suggest that there is some degree of freedom ex ante (meaning “before something happens”), even though ex post (meaning “after the fact”) we realize that no alternative realities are possible.

Before things happen, we really feel that there is such a thing as free will that can produce alternative realities. But after the fact we don’t feel that alternative realities would be possible.

Ex ante (meaning “before something happens”), there is a conflict between intuition, which gives the impression of free choice, and logic, which denies the existence of alternative realities. Since we do not know the nature of ultimate Reality, it would be risky to rely solely on logic, given that it conflicts with intuition.

Since we do not understand the nature of ultimate Reality, meaning that we do not know, at the most fundamental level, the functioning of every basic thing that exists in all its complexity–it would be very risky just to blindly follow logic and assume that everything is predetermined. You can follow logic when something is simple and you know it well, as with basic arithmetic. But logic is useless when the situation is highly complex and/or you lack information–also for example, as with forecasting the stock market.

If the conclusion based on logic was aligned with the conclusion based on intuition, then it would be reasonable to trust it. But because the conclusion derived with logic conflicts with the conclusion based on intuition, it is more prudent not to reach any overall conclusion.

Ex post (meaning “after the fact”), however, intuition and logic are in complete agreement that no alternative realities exist.

After the fact, there is no difference between the conclusion you would reach by intuition and the conclusion you would reach by logic. However, this is not true before something happens.

Since this alignment between logic and intuition does not exist ex ante (meaning “before something happens”), we need to be careful when drawing conclusions, especially because we do not know the ultimate nature of Reality.

We cannot assume that our intuition of the existence of free will or logical conclusions about determinism accurately reflect the nature of ultimate Reality.

Given what we have said, a fatalistic stance ex ante (meaning “before something happens”) may look logical, but it is very risky. So it’s always advisable to take an approach based on personal agency, acting as if we had free will ex ante.

For example, a person could say, “Everything is predetermined, so I’m just going to sit on my couch and do nothing.”

However, deciding to do nothing is still a decision–a decision to do nothing.

In response, that person could say, “I’m going to do the least effort to stay alive. I will do a little bit, but only minimal things like eating or using the toilet–I’ll take the path of least resistance, since everything is predetermined.”

However, everyone is always going to do the least effort relative to what they want.

The concept of least effort is not absolute, but is relative to what you want. If what you want is to stay alive, then you will just eat and go to the toilet–the minimum effort to stay alive. But you may want other things, like a family, or a Ferrari. To get those things, you will also do the minimum effort it takes to get them. If I want a private jet, I’ll do the minimum effort it takes to get it–and that will be very different from the minimum effort if all I want is a bowl of noodles.

Regardless of the amount of effort one is willing to do, we must also be aware that we do not understand the inner workings of ultimate Reality. It would be very risky to assume that the logical conclusion of determinism is correct. Therefore it would be more prudent to assume the possibility that intuition could also be right, and that free will might exist.

In that case, that person might say, “Since I do not understand how Reality ultimately works, I will assume out of prudence that free will exists. Acting as if free will exists is a kind of insurance policy. Since I can’t be sure that either determinism or free will is the correct description of how Reality ultimately works, it is safer to assume that free will exists.”

Why is this a safer choice? Because by doing more than the absolute minimum, there could be a chance that my life could be better–and the “cost” of that extra effort could be minimal compared to the potential rewards.

This is the same kind of prudent decision we make when we say, “I don’t know if I will have a car crash or not, so I will get an auto insurance policy, just in case I have an accident. It doesn’t cost much, anyway.”

If we understood everything about ultimate Reality, we could trust the conclusion we have reached with logic, which is determinism. But if we do not have complete information, logic is not helpful. We do not understand everything about ultimate Reality, so we will prudently assume that free will may exist, and we will behave as if we have personal agency.

Ex post (meaning “after the fact”), the idea of the “best move” eliminates both the possibility of alternative realities and of regret.

Even If there was free will, you always made what you believed was the “best move” at that point in time, so in the end things could not have gone differently. Therefore in the end there cannot be any regret.

Ex ante (meaning “before something happens”), when we make a mistake, we realize it cannot be avoided, because the potential for it was already in us.

Before we do something that turns out to be a mistake in hindsight, the potential for that mistake was already present within us. Because of that, we could argue that it could not have been avoided.

For example, if we get scammed, the scammer is only the initial stimulus that “triggers” our naivety, and thus our latent potential to get scammed. If that fraudster hadn’t deceived us, another one would have triggered our naivety sooner or later.

If we are foolish or careless, someone will eventually scam us. Perhaps we could have avoided getting scammed this time, but we might get scammed the next time. The issue is not this particular scammer, because another scammer will always come along. To avoid getting scammed, we have to fix our foolishness and carelessness.

As our potential mistakes are triggered by external stimuli, they gradually diminish until they disappear.

As things happen to us that trigger our potential mistakes, we learn to recognize that we must change ourselves to fix those mistakes–to diminish them until they no longer occur.

The fact that the model we use ex post (meaning “after the fact”) seems incompatible or contradictory with the one we use ex ante (meaning “before something happens”) is not necessarily a problem, and it does not mean that there is anything wrong with reality. They are simply models we use to understand reality, but they are not reality itself. The contradiction between these two models simply shows our lack of understanding of the ultimate Reality. It is a bit like how quantum mechanics is not compatible with the theory of relativity, and no unified theory exists. This does not mean that there is anything wrong or contradictory in either reality or the models. It simply shows that our understanding of reality is limited, and that the models themselves are limited to specific domains. In this case, we use different models for different domains—one for ex ante and another for ex post—and we still do not have a “unified theory.”

In physics, we use quantum mechanics to explain things that happen at the atomic level. We use general relativity to explain what happens with massive objects. Each model works very well in its own domain. What we lack is complete understanding, which could yield a theory that unifies both models.

Similarly, we have no unified theory that combines free will and determinism. We have two models, one for determinism and one for free will. They are incompatible. This doesn’t necessarily mean there is anything wrong with either model. It means only that our understanding of how they fit together is incomplete. We lack a unified model.