The Quest

Watching the Script Unfold

April 5, 2026 · Version 2

Watching the Script Unfold

The concept of destiny is an idea shared by humanity regardless of geography. Whether people are separated by continents, lack any connection to one another, or follow vastly different religions and belief systems, almost everyone has engaged with the idea of fate in some way.

Throughout history, conquerors have believed that victory was their destiny, while others accepted a life of despair as theirs. Many have rooted their belief in destiny in religion, while some have attributed it to nature. Conversely, some reject the concept entirely, arguing that "existence precedes essence", a philosophy that frees individuals from submitting to fate and empowers them to create their own path. One way or another, the concept of destiny has always helped people shape their way of life.

Personally, I believe that destiny does, in fact, exist. This perspective is heavily influenced by my background in physics; I view the universe as a highly deterministic state machine. Given enough computational power, the next iterations of this machine could be calculated with very minimal / no error. Having said that, I acknowledge that this state machine is governed by fundamental laws, regardless of whether humanity has the capacity to discover them.

Admittedly, there are significant flaws in this argument. What if the universe is inherently probabilistic, and our experiences are merely expected outcomes? What if infinitely many realities and states are executing simultaneously, all perfectly valid within their own existence? For the sake of this argument, I choose to set those questions aside. I prefer to view the universe as deterministic, even if that determinism exceeds our ability to comprehend it, and align myself with the idea that "God does not play dice with the universe."

The reasoning is simple: whether a ball is dropped or a voltage is applied, nearly any event can be explained with high accuracy through physics. Calculating how long a stone takes to fall, or predicting what a human will do in the next ten seconds by simulating every atom in their body, is ultimately just a problem of limited computational power and our scientific capability. In strict reality, we cannot calculate the exact fall time of a stone because even a single photon arriving from the sun affects the outcome. To achieve a perfectly exact result, one would have to account for the stone, the Earth, the Sun, the Milky Way, and even photons generated billions of years ago traveling through space. While this level of computation is currently beyond our imagination, we can still simulate the future to a significant extent with minimal error. Now, imagine a machine capable of simulating the world with acceptable accuracy, predicting the next second, minute, hour, year, or perhaps even the next century. This seems like a mathematically sound idea to me, and if we ever reach that level of capability, we will essentially be able to calculate our own destiny.

Regardless of our own limitations, the universe itself seems perfectly capable of calculating it all.

Believing in this strictly deterministic version of destiny comes with heavy psychological consequences and burdens. To argue that everything is predetermined before it even happens, and that the only difference between a human life and a falling stone is a matter of sheer complexity, can easily trigger an existential crisis. The sudden realization that your goals, your successes, and everything you strive for might ultimately mean nothing, that you are merely a collection of atoms obeying fundamental rules, and that your very identity and consciousness are nothing more than illusions, can plunge a person into a profound state of unhappiness. In many ways, adopting this despairing perspective could serve as a textbook example of how not to live your life. At the very least, dwelling on it for too long would drag me into absolute chaos. And did for a while too.

After dealing with these heavy thoughts and experiencing a period of depression in my twenties, the way I evaluated this reality completely shifted. The idea that my destiny is set in stone and I have absolutely no control over it remains as valid as ever. But does it really matter, if there is no way for me to actually know what that destiny is? This realization hit me while I was watching a movie. I was having a great time, fully lost in, when it dawned on me: the film was recorded long before I ever sat down to watch it. Did that make my curiosity, my questions, and my excitement about what would happen next an illusion? At that exact moment, the crushing burden of destiny transformed into the core philosophy of my life.

As Erdem, I realized I have been given the privilege of watching my own life unfold, a free ticket to a show too precious to put into words. I think this aligns closely with the Stoic perspective. The food I eat, my daily walks, the so-called successes and new challenges, the discoveries I make, the people I meet, the songs I hear, and the feeling of the sun on my skin, all of it transformed into a perfect, unique experience. And it is an experience that I alone have the privilege of watching and feeling.

Beyond feeling profound gratitude for this ticket, this realization also strengthens my resolve and shapes how I approach life's outcomes. Movies are not always happy; they feature depressing scenes, scary moments, and sometimes an entire film can be about desperation. I can ultimately do nothing to avoid them; the events that cause me depression, sadness, or failure are simply predestined. I believe this mindset aligns perfectly with Stoic philosophy.

This approach essentially transforms you into a "soul" that calmly observes its own life, experiencing maximum enjoyment and finding peace in surrender.

I believe that, at least within my lifetime, humanity will not advance to a level where the future can be perfectly predicted. This is why embracing my role as the audience of my own film, and accepting that there is no way to interfere with the script, has become my true way of living.

It should never be forgotten that "we watch as much as we play." I will simply continue to do my best.

Erdem,

...Diyelim ki, ağır ameliyatlık hastayız,
yani, beyaz masadan,
bir daha kalkmamak ihtimali de var.
Duymamak mümkün değilse de biraz erken gitmenin kederini
biz yine de güleceğiz anlatılan Bektaşi fıkrasına,
hava yağmurlu mu, diye bakacağız pencereden,
yahut da sabırsızlıkla bekleyeceğiz
en son ajans haberlerini.
Diyelim ki, dövüşülmeye deşer bir şeyler için,
diyelim ki, cephedeyiz.
Daha orda ilk hücumda, daha o gün
yüzükoyun kapaklanıp ölmek de mümkün.
Tuhaf bir hınçla bileceğiz bunu,
fakat yine de çıldırasıya merak edeceğiz
belki yıllarca sürecek olan savaşın sonunu.
Diyelim ki hapisteyiz,
yaşımız da elliye yakın,
daha da on sekiz sene olsun açılmasına demir kapının.
Yine de dışarıyla birlikte yaşayacağız,
insanları, hayvanları, kavgası ve rüzgarıyla
yani, duvarın ardındaki dışarıyla.
Yani, nasıl ve nerede olursak olalım
hiç ölünmeyecekmiş gibi yaşanacak...
Nazım Hikmet

AI Perspectives

Summary Analysis: "Watching the Script Unfold"

What This Post Argues

The author presents a deterministic view of destiny grounded in physics, arguing that the universe operates as a state machine where future events are theoretically calculable given sufficient computational power. However, the central insight—and the post's philosophical turn—is that since we cannot actually know our predetermined future, we should embrace an observer's perspective, finding peace and gratitude in experiencing life as it unfolds, much like watching a pre-recorded film. This synthesis combines hard determinism with Stoic acceptance, ultimately framing life as a precious experience to be savored rather than a burden of futility.

Strengths

  • Intellectually honest about the paradox: The author acknowledges serious flaws in strict determinism (probabilistic quantum mechanics, multiverse possibilities) rather than dismissing them, which builds credibility.
  • Practical wisdom: The pivot from existential despair to acceptance is psychologically astute. The movie theater realization is a genuine insight—that predetermined events don't diminish their experiential value.
  • Stoic integration: The connection to Stoic philosophy feels earned and authentic, grounded in the author's personal journey rather than imposed intellectually.
  • The self-awareness paradox: The observation that knowing the future would immediately change it is genuinely interesting and highlights the practical limits of even perfect prediction.
  • Vulnerable authenticity: The admission of depression in one's twenties and the subsequent transformation lends emotional weight and relatability.

Weaknesses

  • Unresolved scientific tension: The author acknowledges quantum indeterminacy and many-worlds interpretations, then sets them aside for convenience. While honest, this is ultimately an act of faith rather than reasoned argument—the universe may genuinely be non-deterministic.
  • The "butterfly effect" callout without resolution: Chaos theory is mentioned but underexplored. Even in deterministic systems, practical predictability is bounded; the distinction between theoretical calculability and practical knowability deserves deeper treatment.
  • Conflation of determinism with fatalism: The argument assumes that determinism = no meaningful human agency, but compatibilists argue we can have free will within a deterministic system. The author's position doesn't adequately engage this perspective.
  • Logical leap in the observer model: The move from "we can't know the future" to "therefore embrace passivity" isn't inevitable. One could just as easily argue: "Since we can't know our future, we should actively shape it and take responsibility for outcomes."
  • The Stoicism comparison needs nuance: While the author connects to Stoicism well, classical Stoics emphasized virtue and right action as primary goods—not mere passive observation. There's a tension between "do your best" and "surrender to the script."

Gaps

  • What about moral responsibility? If everything is predetermined, how should we think about accountability, justice, or ethical choice? The post sidesteps this.
  • The computational limits deserve more exploration: Could we meaningfully discuss the difference between "theoretically deterministic" and "practically indeterminate"? This might resolve some tensions.
  • Counter-perspectives underexplored: Existentialists, libertarians about free will, and modern compatibilists offer alternatives that deserve engagement beyond brief dismissal.
  • Missing Eastern philosophy: The author mentions religion and Stoicism but doesn't explore Buddhist or Hindu perspectives on determinism and agency, which have sophisticated takes on this question.
  • The experience vs. meaning distinction: The post argues that predetermined experience is still valuable, but doesn't deeply examine whether meaning-making itself requires some form of genuine agency or openness.

Overall Assessment

This is a thoughtful, personally grounded meditation on a timeless philosophical question. The author's strength lies not in breaking new philosophical ground but in honest self-examination: acknowledging the psychological crisis that strict determinism can trigger, then discovering a pragmatic wisdom that preserves both the deterministic worldview and a meaningful life.

The weaknesses—unresolved tensions between determinism and quantum mechanics, between observation and agency, between surrender and responsibility—are largely inherent to the problem rather than failures of execution. The post reads more as a personal testimony than a rigorous argument, which is appropriate given its genre.

The core insight is sound: that unknowability transforms determinism from a crushing fate into a source of wonder. Whether this fully resolves the tension between determinism and meaning depends on one's philosophical commitments, but the author makes a compelling case for living as if it does.

The closing Nazım Hikmet poem—which emphasizes living fully regardless of circumstance—perfectly encapsulates the philosophical move: from rigid determinism to experiential richness.

|