I do not believe in fate/destiny. I’ve no background in philosophy (so I’ll happy concede that I have no idea what I’m talking about), but I do not believe in it simply because all things occur within the law of probability. For example, if event X only has a 1% chance of occurring but still does end up happening, this is still perfectly sound; just because the odds are low doesn’t mean that it was predetermined despite overwhelming unlikelihood.
When I hear this question, I picture discussions of it in the context of who we are as people. My position is that each of us is the product of some function of our experiences. I’ve experienced X, Y, and Z, so who I am is some reflection of these moments. Here’s a question for the determinists: is not the reality of determinism challenged if two identically-programmed machines exposed to the same stimuli react differently? Can the determinist so easily handwave that away by countering that the machines responding differently was pre-determined? At that point, in a human context, would there functionally be any difference between determinism and free will?
Anyway, there’s a fixed-points trope in media blending free will and determinism. It works like this: only if a character exercises free will to do X, then Y must happen. For example, only if Frodo manages to get the Ring to the Cracks of Doom will it be destroyed; it was not guaranteed that Frodo would get there, but since he does, fate steps in to do the rest. I think it’s an intriguing concept! Maybe that’s how it works in real life.
The AM Intrigue 
Leave a comment