Dependent Choices

The debate of free will verses predestiny is as old as civilization itself. But the debate is a distraction from the truth of the matter all together. “Free will” is a silly human invention that has no correlating concepts in the natural universe. And “predestiny” is likewise a mute argument in the light of a little simple introspection that anyone can do. But the debate persists for the same reason that all debates persist; because both sides contain truths, and both sides contain deception. Only because there are any “sides” at all does the solution remain a mystery. The solution I am refering to in this case is one I like to call “dependent choices”. It completely ignores the concepts of “free will” and “predestiny” and instead simply observes the obvious without trying to turn it into something “devine”.
The dividing question in the aforementioned debate is, “Do we have the ability to make our own choices, or are our choices predetermined?” If you consider this question without prejudice then it can seem rather silly.
First of all, the terms are not even clearly defined, and because of this most actual debates on the issues digress quickly into pointless arguments over what “choice” means, or what “freedom” is. If both sides ever did actually manage to rephrase the debated question in terms that both sides agreed to then there would be nothing to debate! The arguments are all semantics and definitions, not conceptual at all.
For example, what exactly is choice? If we agree that it is a machine-like function that any computer can demonstrate, then the predestiners win. But if it is an indeterminable “spiritual” event, then the advocates of free will have the best argument. But what if we define “choice” as, “the finite result of infinite causes?” I'm only suggesting one possible definition that the antagonists in this case might agree on. You can plainly see that if they were to agree to some such definition, then the question could almost answer itself. So lets consider that question again, and see how silly it becomes using the definition for “choice” that I suggest above.
“Do we have the ability to control the infinite causes that result in a finite choice?”
It should be clear that this question has no answer. Or, if it did have an answer, it would be both yes and no. We can only control a finite number of causes, not infinite. So it's a silly question after all, as is the original version of this heavily debated paradox, when it is so carefully considered.
The question we might actually be trying to ask could be, “How can we make better choices?” So let's apply my definition for “choice” to this question and see what comes out:
“How can we improve the finite result of infinite choices?”
Ah! Now there's a worthy question that we might actually be able to answer. But, I'll leave the answer to that question up to the “experts”, if they ever stop arguing over semantics. Besides, I've already found my own personal answer to that question about five years ago. :)
The only remaining point I'd like to make for now is my own definition of “dependent choice”. Like I've already said, it sidesteps the silly ideas and comes straight to the point: “Every choice we make is the result of infinite causes and has infinite results” (note, I am no longer using my earlier definition of “choice” here, but I am proposing a completely new definition and concept).
With this definition I have stated only the obvious. And yet, it gives us a different way at looking at the “choices” we make that I think can spur whole new realizations, and perhaps even an authentic “paradigm shift” in social consciousness. Or maybe I'm just dreaming. Who knows.