Well I'm a determinist. I'm also a compatibilist. I think free will and causality are not incompatible. Either free will is the manifestation of causality or causality the manifestation of free will. Or both are true or none: they exist parallely. Concept of fate or destiny is another matter, of how we perceive and attempt to explain certain events.
--- In Ushta@yahoogroups.com, Alexander Bard
> Charles Peirce was absolutely and most of logically right: If the world
> would have been DETERMINISTIC (and if it is, it has to be 100%
> deterministic, there can be no such thing as 99% determinism, in which case
> it is no longer determinism at all), then there would have been NO WORLD AT
> ALL. Indeterminism is the very requirement for difference to exist, and
> difference is essential to existence (such as the fundamental difference
> between that which exists and that which does not exist). Zarathushtra
> realised this too, as his starting point was NOT some prophecies transmitted
> by angels, but rather his VERY OWN AWE towards existence. Werner Heisenberg
> then draw the logical conclusions for physics in the 1920s when he
> identified and proved "the uncertainty principle". Any Abrahamic or
> post-Abrahamic idea of determinism is thereby dead. The future is open and
> not pre-programmed, even the so called laws of the universe are not
> necessarily set in stone anymore. Rather, existence is full of contingencies
> and emergences as a consequence of its indeterministic nature.
> 2009/12/28 ardeshir farhmand
> > I agree with DINO here 100%, well written. i will post an article later
> > confirming what u said in a more poetic gathic style.
> > Ardeshir
> > On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 3:26 PM, Special Kain
> >> Dear Daniel and Alexander
> >> It probably was Zarathushtra who introduced contingency and therefore the
> >> basic principle behind existential philosophy 3700 years ago: We could have
> >> chosen other thoughts, words and deeds than the thoughts we actually think,
> >> the words we actually speak and the things we actually do.
> >> The American logician and scientist Charles Sanders Peirce was the first
> >> to propose tychism as the doctrine of absolute chance (and as opposed to
> >> necessarism as the doctrine of necessity) in the 19th century and at a time
> >> when the whole universe seemed to be a well-oiled Newtonian automaton.
> >> Little deviations in measurements don't reveal errors in measurement
> >> techniques only, but they also something about reality's own nature -
> >> remember that Peirce was a realist!
> >> «The only possible way of accounting for the laws of nature and for
> >> uniformity in general is to suppose them results of evolution. This supposes
> >> them not to be absolute, not to be obeyed precisely. It makes an element of
> >> indeterminacy, spontaneity, or absolute chance in nature. Just as, when we
> >> attempt to verify any physical law, we find our observations cannot be
> >> precisely satisfied by it, and rightly attribute the discrepancy to errors
> >> of observation, so we must suppose far more minute discrepancies to exist
> >> owing to the imperfect cogency of the law itself, to a certain swerving of
> >> the facts from any definite formula.»
> >> http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Charles_Sanders_Peirce
> >> My two cents,
> >> Dino