Our deterministic approach (bad or good, right or wrong, heaven or hell, etc.) drive most of us to be deterministic even when we are evaluating future options. There is a reason why most of us wired to think in a deterministic way. It is simple and more comfortable than taking the non-deterministic approach. In the non-deterministic approach, the two deterministic options are two complementary part of the whole. It is easier to take the first approach, it’s is harder to find how two opposites balanced one each other.
The gap between deterministic and non-deterministic approaches is even sharper when we discuss the future. When we consider the past, we can base our deterministic approach on data collected from the past, but when we discuss the future, the data does not exist. Yes, we can take data from the past and try to use it to predict the future. If using the past to predict the future was the approach people followed, we wouldn’t drive cars, communicate over the internet, leverage mobile devices, we wouldn’t enjoy any progress.
I’m taking the current moment (or “now”) out of the equation as this is a momentary event in the spectrum between past and future, or as many believe this is the only time that exists (as past and future are all in our brains). If we take the second approach, it makes the deterministic view even more absurd, as it based on …. well nothing. But since most of the people are more focused on past and future, I’m taking this approach as the leading argument for this post.
One way or another, when you are dealing with the future, when you are trying to find out what is right or wrong, you should use a non-deterministic approach. You can try to predict how the future will look like based on that what is good or bad for you, and you can do the same by finding what the spectrum between good and evil that works for you. While defending the range, you also need to understand what are the conditions that define this spectrum. Determining conditions will enable you to continuously validate your assumptions and refine the optimal spectrum that works for you.
The spectrum approach takes away right or wrong; it creates an acceptance range of options between right and wrong. It’s not deterministic approach. When you have a range of options, you can aim to the good or right side of the spectrum. You must be aware that reaching any point on this spectrum is better than reaching any option outside of it. When you realize that you reached or close to reach any point on the range, move forward! You are in the optimal place according to what you planned. You need to keep in mind that as time progresses on, the environment around you will change and that will require you to rethinking what id your target spectrum.
When using a deterministic approach, you argue between the right and wrong, good and evil. When you are non-deterministic, you are not debating anymore. You reach agreement on the range of options between the two opposites that works for you! This approach turns debated and disagreements into collaboration and cooperation. The result will serve all participant much better than taking the “right” approach.
This post might introduce a paradox for many people, can we take a non-deterministic approach to find out if non-deterministic is better than a deterministic method? If you see the puzzle, you still thinking in a deterministic way.