Destiny, Law & Probability — Why “Unpredictable” Often Means “Unmeasured”

on

 

Destiny, Law & Probability — Predictable in Principle, Surprising in Practice

Introduction — Ask the skeptic to be honest

You tell the non-believers to be frank: How did you get here, right now? Did you choose your parents? The street you grew up on? The exact classroom where a seed of your future was planted? Did you engineer that one minute when your future partner walked past the same coffee shop? Be honest — you didn’t. Yet you stand where you stand. That chain of precise coincidences and conditions didn’t happen in a void.
Think of destiny as a river. Is it the riverbed (the laws and initial conditions), the flowing water (events unfolding), or the source (creation’s initial spark)? We’ll argue: laws and structure set the riverbed; probability describes how water flows within it; and the apparent randomness of single events is usually an admission of human limits, not of cosmic lawlessness.


This follow-up takes the previous, wider "destiny" post to a concrete, scientific level. We’ll challenge skeptics with evidence, experiments, and a demand: scientists, if you disagree, test this — don’t handwave it away.
💡 FACT: Experiments and modeling (Diaconis et al.) show that a coin toss’s outcome is determined by its initial conditions and dynamics — coin‑toss randomness is largely epistemic, not proof of lawlessness.

1. Cut the fluff: law ≠ determinism-only — probability is lawful too

Hook: Saying "probability kills law" is like saying "rain proves there are no clouds."
Explanation: Laws in science come in different flavors:
Probability is not the absence of law. It is often the law’s language when single-case precision is impossible or unnecessary. You can have strict lawful constraints that nonetheless produce a distribution of possible outcomes — and that distribution is governed by law.
Practical tip: When someone says “it’s only probability,” ask them whether they can write down the governing distribution or the set of constraints. If they cannot, demand the math.
Statistic/Evidence: Law of Large Numbers (LLN) — repeated trials converge to expected probabilities; that’s a proven law controlling aggregate behavior.
Quote: “Probability isn’t the death of law — it’s law in ensemble form.” — paraphrase of statistical mechanics thinking

2. The coin toss: epistemic unpredictability with a deterministic spine

Hook: Toss a coin and call it magic — then meet Persi Diaconis and his high‑speed cameras.
Explanation: A coin toss is often presented as the archetype of randomness. But Diaconis and colleagues showed that if you control and measure initial spin, velocity, and release, you bias outcomes predictably. In principle, classical mechanics determines the result. In practice, we call it “random” because we don’t measure and model at the needed fidelity.
Practical tip: For macroscopic systems, push the experiment: instrument the toss. High‑speed motion capture + precise initial-state measurement increases predictability. That’s a testable challenge to skeptics.
Statistic/Evidence: Diaconis et al., "Dynamical Bias in the Coin Toss" (2007) — empirical work showing deterministic dependencies in toss outcomes.
Quote: “The coin doesn’t lie — our ignorance does.” — sharp aphorism for the lab bench

3. Sensitivity & chaos — deterministic laws, exploding ignorance

Hook: The universe can be lawful and still surprise you; tiny errors explode.
Explanation: Chaotic systems follow deterministic laws but show extreme sensitivity to initial conditions (the butterfly effect). Weather obeys Navier–Stokes and is lawful; yet predictability collapses after a horizon because tiny uncertainties amplify. That’s not metaphysical randomness — it’s exponential amplification of measurement error.
Practical tip: Distinguish systems by their Lyapunov exponents (measure of sensitivity). If you want to claim lawlessness, first show the system’s dynamics are not just sensitive but literally not governed by underlying lawful constraints.
Statistic/Evidence: Edward Lorenz’s deterministic nonperiodic flow work (1963) — the origin of chaos theory.
Quote: “Determinism plus sensitivity = practical unpredictability, not metaphysical anarchy.” — crisp summary

4. Gambling: a laboratory of concealed determinism

Hook: Casinos roar because they understand probability-law — not because the universe is frivolous.
Explanation: Gambling is engineered around statistical law and obfuscation of microconditions. Card counters exploit structure (predictability) when information is available; dice/coin advantage players exploit imperfections when measurable. Modern electronic slots often use PRNGs (deterministic algorithms) or hardware RNGs (sampling physical noise). If predictability is possible, casinos will patch it, hide it, or legal‑lock it away.
Practical tip: To test predictability claims, replicate advantage-play experiments in controlled labs: measure initial states (ball speed in roulette, dice spin), see when you can beat house expectation.
Statistic/Evidence: Card counting (Thorp), Diaconis on dice/coins — empirical wins when microstates are known.
Quote: “Gambling shows how law + hidden info = profit or ruin — pick your side.” — (applied economist)

5. Observer effect and the consciousness question — not a proof, but a crack

Hook: The observer matters — but does the observer’s being there have its own story?
Explanation: Quantum measurements influence outcomes; interpretations differ (Copenhagen, Many‑Worlds, QBism). You raise a provocative twist: if the observer’s presence is itself part of the causal chain — dictated by prior conditions — then the measurement outcome’s dependence on observation might be co‑determined by the same ordered narrative that placed the observer there. That is a metaphysical opening, not a proof: physics shows measurement matters; your philosophical move reframes that as a reason to look for deeper patterning.
Practical tip: Frame the observer argument as an interpretive research program: propose experiments where observer-state correlations are testable (e.g., delayed-choice setups, correlated observer conditions), and invite physicists to test for higher-order correlation structures.
Statistic/Evidence: Heisenberg uncertainty principle (1927) and double-slit experiments show measurements affect outcomes; interpretations are unsettled.
Quote: “What we observe is not nature untouched, but nature in a conversation with observation.” — paraphrase of Heisenberg-style reflection

6. Neuroscience, agency & destiny — compatibilist leverage

Hook: The brain may prep decisions before we narrate them — but narration matters.
Explanation: Libet’s readiness-potential studies showed unconscious precursors to reported conscious decisions. Some claim this kills free will; others propose compatibilist frameworks: constraints and structures (destiny’s riverbed) can coexist with meaningful agency. The key for destiny is to show structure guides tendencies; conscious reflection still shapes trajectories.
Practical tip: Advocate for “decision rituals” and small experiments — compatible with your view of destiny as constraint + human agency. That’s how one bridges structural inevitability and personal responsibility.
Statistic/Evidence: Libet (1980s) — neuroscientific data on readiness potentials; many subsequent studies nuance or challenge initial interpretations.
Quote: “Agency is the hand steering a boat within a channel — the channel is not the boat’s maker, but it shapes its course.” — compatibilist metaphor

Conclusion — Destroying the lazy skeptic (with evidence and method)

Let’s be blunt: saying “things are random, therefore there is no structure” is lazy thinking. The evidence shows a better story:
  • Laws and probability are partners: laws often prescribe distributions; probability describes ensembles shaped by constraints.
  • Many apparent “random” events are deterministic in principle: the unpredictability is epistemic — a statement about our measurement, modeling, and computational limits.
  • Gambling, coin tosses, and engineered systems show that when you measure and model more, predictability increases. Casinos hide microstates because predictability would be fatal to their business model — not because the world is lawless.
  • The observer effect in quantum physics opens philosophical space — not proof — for deeper patterns; that possibility demands empirical study, not dogmatic dismissal.
If you’re a scientist and you scoff: excellent. Here’s the testable challenge — instrument the toss, instrument the roll, instrument the slot, measure correlation curves, quantify prediction accuracy as measurement fidelity grows. Publish the curves. That is how we shift a philosophy from plausible to persuasive.
We’re not claiming a pre-written script that removes human responsibility. We’re arguing: structure exists; constraints and initial conditions shape probabilities; destiny can be usefully reframed as the lawful architecture (the riverbed) within which agency flows. That reframing is testable, pragmatic, and rich with empirical possibilities.
Written by Dr. C.A.E. ILLIS

references:
  • Diaconis, P., Holmes, S., & Montgomery, R. (2007). Dynamical Bias in the Coin Toss. SIAM Review.
  • Lorenz, E. N. (1963). Deterministic Nonperiodic Flow. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences.
  • Heisenberg, W. (1927). The Uncertainty Principle.
  • Libet, B. (1983). Time of conscious intention to act in relation to onset of cerebral activity (readiness‑potential). Brain.

Comments

Post a Comment