Für Irene

In a random hospital crammed with coughing strangers, another life is spawned. Behind the blinking eyes of the plump newborn is a small conscious brain that will elaborate, analyse and react to the events that will upcomingly interfere with his existence. This axiom of "consciousness" is older than the world itself; conducting to a laxist question flowing through the human race for centuries: Is the course of these events predetermined? Is the chaos theory linked with a complex matrix of organized equations named fate? No.

Such a concept might be considered as true by partial philosophers, yet this text will attempt to convince you that the former is erroneous. Three points will be considered: the context in time, the mythic interpretation, and the notion of choice.

First, time time is the first irrationnal constant that cannot match with the primacy of fate over life, since it is considered as a fourth dimension. Acting as a gradated axis that silently follows the course of events happenning to all beings, that said "dimension" must absolutely limit itself to the present, otherwise its continuum is broken and nothing can be considered as potentially "true". Therefore, believing in destiny cancels the established limits of the fourth dimension by setting a projected corollar known as "future". As said before, such an addition will neutralize all possible forms of existence, creating a time paradox. This is why fate cannot be considered as rationnaly credible, thus beign a nonsense in itself.

Second, the concept of fate cannot rule over life and liberty since it has a mythic field of beliefs. Worshippers of destiny use it to explain the cause and finality of the universe, two concerns observed by the chaos theory. Yet, that said theory is neither able to explain the beginning of the universe (it denies the existence of antimatter, thus black holes, thus the big bang) nor its end (since every cause is followed by causality and a cause cannot be its own finality). Considering as true the works of Albert Einstein on relativity and modern physics, the universe has a proven year of birth and a time-based evolution, shrining or expanding, conducting to a cyclic stellar movement. The theories of destiny become inacceptable in this case, as they cannot explain why the universe exist and they can only argue on their validity from a macroscopic scale.

Third, many philosophers valid the primauty of fate over life because every choice is motivated by a stimulus which is not governed by reason. In this case, fate is implicated since this position does not consider liberty in human actions. Therefore, confronting a conscious being to a neutral choice (abstracting any predilection) will conduct to a result, determining the existence of its liberty. As a visual example, consider an human being standing in front of two identical doors. The "stimuli stillness" cannot identify any motivated reason to choose one of the doors if no predilection determines an evidence, the left or the right side in this special case. Thus, such a choice is not ruled by fate, but by another abstract concept named random causality. The existence of this other mean of determination interfere as an induction proof over a time-defined course of events (fate), thus this concern cannot be considered true.

To conclude, since the theories of destiny were proven to be false within scientific, sociologic and philosophic arguments, there is no doubt that liberty rules over life and that there is no apparent force that determines our existence. Well, this is also proven to be false, since in this case life becomes absurd, a potent nonsense. So where is the answer? In God? In science? Somewhere in the cosmos? Wherever and whenever it is, beign conscious is the only evidence that a human brain can affirm. If thinking is proven, then asking ourselves questions is the only proven mean to exist.

---

R.I.P. Irene, j'avais promis que je transcrirais ce texte ailleurs que dans mon cahier, voilà, c'est fait.