The concept of chance, and its existence, becomes subjective during the course of interpretation. If chance were to be defined as what we as humans can't control absolutely, such as the roll of a die, then it most certainly must exist. However, physics would be able to determine the direction and outcome of a die with the knowledge of the physical factors with which it was originally thrown and what obstacles and surfaces it will meet, in which case chance can not exist, as all action and reaction is dictated by the laws of physics. Except in the question of why was the die thrown where it was and why did it meet the obstacles and surfaces it did, and with the constant displacement of atoms within these objects and surfaces, will the action ever be able to be repeated? Heraclitus (c. 540 BC - 480 BC) once stated that it is impossible to step into the same river twice, as water is constantly being replaced, and mud from the side and floor of the river is being collected and swept away. It might also be said that it is impossible to perfectly repeat the action of touching the surface of stationary water in a bowl. If something were to touch the surface of the water, would it be probable (or possible) that the exact same water atoms would be in the exact same position at a latter stage when the surface of the water is touched by something else? And even if they were, would everything composing the atom - the nucleus and the electrons - be in the position they were before?

Tangible events as they occur may be governed by physics, however physics cannot determine the intentions of conscious thought, if there is such a thing. Perhaps, then, chance exists before certain events take place, as there are always an indefinite number of outside influences that could alter or prevent the physical nature of an event, or persuade an individual or manipulate an object to take an alternate course of action. For example if I shake my head I do so deliberately, whether for a purpose or according to my own wishes and not because I have been compelled to do so by alien sources or any instance of physical nature. The hair that was displaced in my doing so was beyond my control, and I could therefore say it is because of chance that each individual strand of hair fell out the way it did. Physics would say that each strand of hair became as it is now because of the initial action I took of shaking my head, although my choice to do so was beyond the control of physics - I might have chosen to do something else, or nothing at all. Physically, therefore, this action, as it is owed to my intentions, would have occurred at the time and place it did by accident, rather than by cause and effect. Nonetheless each action, whether by intentional thought or by physics, is accounted for (although by the same token I could say that neither action nor outcome is accounted for by an ultimate principle).

Although both action and outcome is determined by these facilities, it is as yet undetermined as to whether or not there is such a thing as Fate, and a degree to which our thoughts and intentions are determined for us. And, if from prior arguments it had been decided that there is no such thing as chance, would these deductions be undermined because they adopted the concept of free will and gave way to the possibility that another course of action can always be pursued? The notion of Fate, while being more complete as a potential argument against the existence of chance, cannot be proven itself. Neither, however, can thoughts. Materialists theorise that the human brain is nothing but a well programmed machine, and that everything in the universe can be traced back to something basically material, in some cases leaving no space for thought or consciousness. As I can neither prove nor disprove this hypothesis, am I still able to state definitely that action, in all incidents where it is a living thing that causes it, can be explained by physics? Probably not - but then again I'm not unable to state it either.

Back