The interesting thing here is that young wanda is completely defiant of fate and old Wanda completely subservient so she's going to be served up a whole can of painful painful truth to break her down.
In a way this makes me think less of fate and predictomancy. It feels to me that co-incidences of events are going to put Wanda into her new mind set and that the predictomancer now is in her mindset because people love their discipline. Because there's narrative excuse it makes me feel that maybe things aren't actually as the two characters perceive them
Zeku wrote:There's no way to avoid the notion that prescient individuals like Leto II are really just choosing the future. Even in the case of documents like biblical prophecy, the assumption that the prophet (or God) "predicts" the future is arbitrary. From a literary and omnipotence point of view, it's simpler (Occam) to believe that the prophet or God is simply saying 'this is how I intend to do things in the future."
This is an entirely irrelevant rant but Occams razor is the most useless illogical thing in the history of building foundations of cloud.
In fact Occams Razor breaks Occams Razor by assuming there is some magical force that arranges the universe so that simpler things are more likely to be true.
In fact the phrases 'simpler' and 'more likely' have been almost entirely undefined in a logical trues/false statement context.
I was reading Anathem which proved that human beings could manipulate reality according to their will using Occams Razor and it occurred to me that the reason Occams Razor is useless is because the best counter to any Occams Razor argument is. Ah but can't you see it's simpler (Occam) to believe the God is making a statement from a specific point of space/time that occurs than he is making some conditional statement that relies on the creation of an imagination space that holds the possibility that something can and can't happen.
And yes I will make that argument. I will make the argument that for a being who exists at all points in time at once, it's much more complex and irregular to imagine that that being can make statements about things that will 'possibly' happen. (I'm not actually making that argument in the sense of wanting to support it, but trying to show how all you do with Occams Razor is rephrase the question to make it sound simple to you.)
What's more I believe that hasn't been a _single_ historical occurence to date where Occams Razor has led to a conclusion that has turned out to be true. The scientific modelling method is
1. Receive data
2. Create model that fits data (and here you use the Razor to decide which model you choose, which will be the one with the least variables)
3. Make predictions about new data
4. Collect new data, study where old data was wrong.
5. Create new model
And science has followed that pattern. Each time Occams Razor has supported the current model and every time it turns out there is a model with more sophistication behind it and the Razor was wrong.
In fact it isn't a tool for finding out the truth at all, it's the opposite of that. The only reason we even consider the idea that it might possibly be a method of discerning truth is that the Razor will always readjust to the new reality.
The Razor is the equivalent of Which am I thinking of?
A, B, C, D
And the Razor says, it must be the simplest, we pick A (this is an allegory, rather than making the statement that the Razor would pick A). We have no data to suggest A is wrong, the Razor says A is right => A is right and the Razor finds truth.
Oh dear we've just found out the answer is B. Well now the simplest answer is B so the razor suggests B. We have no evidence to suggest B is wrong, the razor suggests B is right => B is right and the razor is right.
Oh dear the answer is C. Oh well the razor means that the answer is C now.
In a practical example. We thought Newtonian gravity was correct, so the razor predicted newtonian gravity. We found new information, so the razor didn't predict newtonian gravity but relative gravity. We found new information so the razor now predicts newtonian gravity and quantum physics.
The Razor has never been right, but it keeps adapting to the new right answer so we think it is right.
It has no affect on discerning the truth of a statement. However it is useful, which is why we don't dismiss it out of hand. What it says is not ' the simplest answer is right' but 'the simplest answer we currently have is the most useful to be working with now' It's not a statement of truth, but practicality.
So yeah end rant.