Quote: Loopey @ April 4 2009, 2:41 AM BSTInteresting but as no-one has been back in time to be faced with the same choice, we don't know.
True. It's only an idea. I used to believe in a singular universe that become a multiverse over time, depending on whether a coin lands heads, or someone says "yes," instead of "no." But the idea of infinite different universes seems (this is just my opinion) too messy. It would imply the total amount of matter is forever mushrooming at an exponential rate, as child universes bud off from parents. At the very least, it means there would be universes where Hitler becomes a saint and not a beast.
Quote: Loopey @ April 4 2009, 2:41 AM BSTIf your fiance died, you would no longer have the choice of marriage.
Quote: Dolly Dagger @ April 4 2009, 11:31 AM BSTNearly all the bad things that happened to me were out of my control and nothing to do with decisions I made.
Agreed. Life does hand out fait accomplis, where there is only a single path, not a choice. Given such a crisis, different people will react in different ways, but I would always react in a predetermined way to that crisis, because of who I am. My personality determines my reaction, even in Hobson's Choice.
And what appears to be a fait accompli is often already predetermined by somebody else's choice. Two scenarios: It's raining as a girl waits for a lift, she crosses the road to shelter in a bus stop as she doesn't want to ruin her hairdo. She's killed by a car. Or, she isn't worried about her hair, she's not that type (does that kinda girl exist though?), so she stays where she is. Here, it's not a case of one person flipping a coin and the appearance of two new universes: it's two different choices made by two different personality types. The one will always cross the road to protect her hairdo, the other won't. The boyfriend's crisis / non-crisis predetermined by someone else.
If you imagine yourself back at a past life-changing decision, given the same knowledge and personal experience you had then (with no knowledge of consequence), I think it's possible to imagine you're going to make the same choice, no matter how often you're presented with it. Eisenhower will (for me) always launch D-Day on the 6th, not the 5th. Whereas Patton would have gone on the 5th.
Quote: Loopey @ April 4 2009, 2:41 AM BSTYour choice could be determined by who it would affect and how you feel about that person.
Yep, all part of modifying the decision-making process but the eventual decision is still (in my mind) determined by who we are. But this situation is maybe deceptive. For example, "I care for X therefore I'll do this" or "I don't care for X therefore I'll do that" seem to be reasonable alternative choices a person could make. But, to me, they aren't. They're the views of two different people. If someone cares about X, they are not the same person as the one that doesn't care. So the end result will be different.
Quote: Loopey @ April 4 2009, 2:41 AM BSTIf these things are pre-determined then who is in control? Choice is one of the annoying words in counselling (IMO) as it indicates control and an informed decision whereas the reality is you actually have no choice, or rather the options available to you are not ones you would take if you truly did have a choice.
Totally agree. Who's in control? Ultimately us, even in addiction scenarios, the initial choice was ours. But, you know me Loop, this is not a heartless attitude, although it reads as such. I'm just trying to be as concise as poss, so my words lose a touch of humanity. I think the cycle starts in a different place. Our decisions don't make us who we are but, more likely, who we are makes our decisions.
