This is Determinism, which is a very old idea (not to say it's wrong - just that this is a philosophical debate that rages on). There are lots of interesting works written on it versus Free Will.

My main issue with it is it seems to discount random events - and at a quantum level, it seems like there are genuinely random events, like radioactive decay. So it's not really accurate to say there are only two variables, there are really countless ones, and even small changes (like a few atoms splitting here and there) could lead to something like cancer in a friend or relative, having a serious impact on one's life. Still isn't an argument for the existence of free will though.

You're getting unfairly voted down rather than responded to.

A reasonable disagreement is pointing out you're assuming zero randomness in the universe (which includes in your head, and everyone elses head, I'm not a mind-body dualist) so no development of unique new ideas, or having unique new experiences or perceptions, both of which feed on each other to generate new echos of randomness long after something interesting happens. Also it assumes no social interaction with others however distantly linked to "interesting random people" even if the individual and their direct contacts are in fact really boring (aka effect of arts in general).

That is a much more productive form of disagreement than hitting the down button.

(Edited to add I think you're getting downvoted because of a cultural-linguistic meme or bug that whenever someone in the USA spins a story with "can't or don't judge" that usually means its a known and obvious statement of fact that they did something they and everyone else knows is wrong, and they have no better spin option. Last (modern) refuge of a scoundrel. Thus the downvotes)

Are there truly random events at the sub-atomic level? Or could it be simply that we don't understand yet what's happening but everything is deterministic? If it's the former, then there is no destiny, it is not determined.

The effect of these tiny random events would propagate upwards and perhaps cause an apple to fall from a tree. A sub-atomic particle vibrating randomly in a certain way could fire a neuron, giving you a new thought.

Even if life isn't determined, can you really say there is free will? You can't control the way that sub-atomic particles will behave, you may have the illusion of control in your head but at the end of the day it would come down to physics and randomness.

Personally, I don't find this opinion a healthy one, so I tend not to dwell on it much.

I like the idea of seeing life as deterministic or not. It's definitely a matter of "belief" when you put it that way. Although my scientific mind tells me nothing would exist if true random didn't exist. Thus the universe is not deterministic. But that's a question we'll never be able to answer anyway.

This is why I downvoted the parents by the way. I feel like there is no safe discussion when it starts with strong opinions ("which is completely untrue"). There is no right or wrong here so better be open minded.

> you're assuming zero randomness in the universe

No, actually not. The current state of research in quantum physics makes it look like there is randomness. But the thing about randomness is: Nobody has any control over it. So again, life (and the universe) may not be fully deterministic, but we have no absolute responsibility for whatever happens (only a relative one, relative to our culture, that is).

> Also it assumes no social interaction with others

No, of course we have social interactions, which influence us. But they are themselves a function of 1) our genes (i.e. whom we approach or not) and 2) our initial location (with all its properties).

> But the thing about randomness is: Nobody has any control over it.

Again, you're stating things as facts that there's no reason to believe are actually true. There are models in which quantum randomness does allow for free will, and no one knows whether they're right.

There are models in which one controls random events?

The multiverse theory, in case you're unfamiliar, says that each time there are different ways a quantum event could go, the universe splits into multiple universes, one in which it went each way. There is an extension to this in which free will is manifested by your consciousness following a given universe in each split.

This has the strange consequence that only you have free will, as perceived by your own consciousness. I don't think this makes any less sense than anything else related to quantum physics, but it is definitely weird.

> This implies that you have some sort of control between the start and the end - which is completely untrue.

You're just saying you believing in destiny.

I believe the inverse. And we will never know the truth so please don't start with a "which is completely untrue" when it's just an opinion.

Causality (in which most people believe, even though they never abstracted it far enough to realize the implications)

Causality doesn't imply you have no control at all in your life.

This completely ignores that you have choice.

You can go get another beer, as would be expected given you had three previously and chose to come to a bar, or you can choose to go home and sleep, or get in your car and drive, or swear off drinking forever.

The fact that options are present to you because of your previous choices (causality) is irrelevant to the fact that you still have full control over what option you select (free will).

Yes, but to speak in video games term, you can still move the arrow of your character. Of course your decision are the product of your previous experience + a lot of other factors. But I believe there is a random factor, when we make a decision, we do choose one over the other.

We'll never know anyway, but I feel like there would be nothing, no universe, no life, no space etc... if there was not this "random" thing.

Randomness isn't exactly how most people would define control either.

Nevertheless, I agree with your critique of determinism. Think outside the "system". Nobody knows why stuff exists or why it behaves the way it does, it's all just observation and ideas.

Well, I'm at the opposite scale of thinking.

I think that inherited genes and location only plays a smaller part - but it depends on the person. For a normal western person my personal belief is that it is less than 10%.

I am a strong believer in free will and it's what makes us so different than animals. Animals have insticts and very little free will.

The thing is that if you believe in free will you have more free will as you will change your way of thinking. At least I believe that.

Back in 2007 I wrote an essay "Life As a Game of Chess": http://www.jimwestergren.com/life-as-a-game-of-chess/

> I am a strong believer in free will and it's what makes us so different than animals. Animals have instincts and very little free will.

Let me give you a friendly advice. Belief in free will has a purpose on it's own, just like belief in God. But if you choose to believe, stay away from attempts to explain it scientifically. You will only waste everyone's time and energy. Just assume free will as a fact and move on.

And keep animals out of it. They have as much free will as you.

As if science wasn't a belief system as well. As long as the source of your ideas is observation (as in all sciences) you have nothing but belief.

The advantage of science isn't that it can proof stuff (which it can't) but that it is open for change instead of being dogmatic.

Actually, the advantage of science is that it can predict the future in an accurate fashion.

Ergo: I know x will happen because when all the variables are the same in the past, x has always happened.

The accuracy of the prediction is what changes in science, which is why it is a better system to use for predicting future events than other dogma based systems.

Ergo: Recently discovered factor y can be changed as a variable, and this accounts for x sometimes not happening the same way. We must account for this as a variable too.

>> but it depends on the person

And what makes the person? A Person is an amalgamation of inherited genes and collated personal experiences. Most of the personal experiences are a direct result of your location.

I think it is very important for us to go easy on someone who has gone astray or in our opinion is not living a life the way we think it is ought to be lived.

A Person who is a firm believer in free will would not judge anyone or for that matter force his/her view on anyone else.

If we can never be judged then you cannot judge those who support our current system of inequality of rights and wealth - they are just acting according to their two variables.

Wrong. When I say "you cannot judge", I mean "moral" judgment. Which is not to be confused with "sanctions" (like a criminal must sometimes be separated from society to protect the latter, via a prison sentence).

You are still making a value judgement.

That is, why shouldn't people with genes more suited to the environment they live in enjoy more success?

To answer that question, you have to assign some values to things, which is not a strictly logical process.

I've been looking for a book or other source that makes a case for this worldview in a straightforward, logical way that is as simple as possible (but no simpler).

Can you recommend one?

haven't read it, but i believe Sam Harris has written a book that attempts to do that