Freewill and fatalism are very different concepts. The crux of the difference lies within your word "accurately". Given the proper data, one can calculate a probable result of free will -- and that probability (especially if the calculated event is not too far out in time from the present moment) may sometimes be almost equal to 1 -- but only almost. In general, the further into the future one tries to calculate a free will event based on the probable choices a set of interactive entities will most likely make, the lower is the probability of that specific event actually being actualized. With really good data and reasonably predictable choice makers, it may appear that fatalism is being approximated, but it is only an approximation -- it just seems that way to a small and limited perspective over a relative short time. Freewill and fatalism are incompatible. Free will and a limited appearance of a faux fatalism over a relative (from Big Picture view) short timeline is common.
That’s OK, randomness provides the lubrication that keeps our reality and our free will working smoothly. There is only a problem when we get caught up in concepts of pure, absolute, perfect randomness — which is unnecessary to lubricate real processes. Cite error: Closing
</ref> missing for
There have even been statues built in the name of the weevil. Roadsideamerica.com writes, "The official story is that a bad swarm of boll weevils came and destroyed the cotton crop one year and the towns people decided to grow other crops and thus avoid another economic disaster.
The better story is that in 1919 they were building the new main street in Enterprise and had the road all torn up, and were putting in a Statue of Lady Liberty or some other overdone statuary. Local folks got tired of answering the same question all the time, "Whatcha gonna put there?" One wit started saying it would be a monument to the boll weevil, and some traveling salesman got told this and went back to Montgomery and told a newspaper editor that this little hick town was putting up a monument to a boll weevil. So they did a big write-up, and of course the town couldn't back down, so they but up a nice monument to the boll weevil. The bronze plaque reads, "In profound appreciation of the Boll Weevil and what it has done as the herald of prosperity, this monument is erected by the citizens of Enterprise -- December 11, 1919. [THX1138, 10/11/1997]
[RA: This story may be true, since the "Boll Weevil Monument" was just a lady statue and a fountain for the first 30 years of its life. It didn't get its bug until 1949.]"
This is an example of multiple references to the same footnote.
Such references are particularly useful when citing sources, if different statements come from the same source.
A concise way to make multiple references is to use empty ref tags, which have a slash at the end. Although this may reduce redundant work, please be aware that if a future editor removes the first reference, this will result in the loss of all references using the empty ref tags.
- My Big TOE Forum - Free will or non-determinism?
- RoadsideAmerica.com - Enterprise, Alabama - Boll Weevil Monument
- Remember that when you refer to the same footnote multiple times, the text from the first reference is used. Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; name "multiple" defined multiple times with different content