Did JKR cheat with the prophecy? No Cigar

[lupinlore]

No: HPFGUIDX 124896



> 
> Well, I might be persuade to yield if this were a discussion about
> Prophecies vs Predictions, or example vs illustration, but it's not.
> It's about choices vs no choices, freewill vs no freewill, fixed
> destiny vs malleable destiny. Exactly what is the /fixed/ destiny
> stated by The Prophecy? Everything about it is based on assumptions
> and interpretations which are all a form of choices. 
> 
> So, back to the basic premise, how is the future fixed, and how are
> our choices limited beyond the way that they are always normally
limited?
> 
> Choices ...effected-yes; dictated-no.
> 


Because you simply can't have a prophecy if the future ISN'T fixed
into a particular pattern (which may include branch points, however as
the branch points are themselves fixed it does, by certain of the
rules of formal and symbolic logic, boil down to the same thing. Even
quantum indeterminacy is actually more formally known as quantum
determinacy in certain kinds of discussions). I'm afraid a discussion
about prophecies vs. predictions IS a discussion about fixed future
vs. free will.  Predictions are based on calculation made from a
certain point in time given certain assumptions that have to be worked
into your equations.  Prophecies are based on direct perceptions of a
future that is fixed and will come to be (or more formally a certain
pattern of branchpoints which is fixed, with certain branches
disappearing as further perceptions of the future reveal which
branches will become actual) - that is the very definition of a
prophecy (or of a true prophecy, anyway, which is what DD, anyway,
thinks he's dealing with).  Another way of putting it is that if true
prophecies exist the branches that become actual don't depend on free
choices made at those branches.  Rather the pattern of branches itself
arises due to the fact that the prophet doesn't have a clear enough
vision to percieve which branches WILL become actual.

Actually, we are steering VERY close to Frank Herbert here, as the
entire metaphysics of the DUNE series is based on the difference
between calculation of the future (i.e. prediction) and direct
perception of the future (i.e. prophecy) and what that means for
choice and free will.  Herbert, in turn, based a lot of his
metaphysics on the discussions of predestination found in in the
writings of formal theologians such as Augustine, Aquinas, and Edwards.

But, at his point, I think the discussion is exhausted.  This is the
type of thing that ends up going round and round in arguments of ever
greater complexity until everybody ends up with a migraine.

You think she hasn't cheated because free will and prophecy can exist
together (prophecy and prediction are rather similar).  I think there
is no way she can't have cheated very badly because prophecy and
prediction are qualitatively different things and true prophecy by
definition rules out the existance of free will as it is commonly
understood.  Fair enough.  Let's shake hands and move along.


Lupinlore