Free Will as a "Radiant Void"

[Eodnhoj7]

Free will is meta-relativistic by nature, as meta relativity is context through context as context.

Free will is a context of definition intrinsically empty in itself, as one definition leads to another then another...etc.

Thus when observing "free will", in any symbolic manner whether through a defined set of words or experiences (which act as "symbols" through the memory), we are left with a continual circularity:

a) "Free will is 'x' because 'x' is free will" or
b) a simple loop of a memory where we are left within an indefinite state of pure self-expression is repeated and contains all other memories within it as a sort of "apex" or singular moment where "truth is revealed".
c) but considering the nature of all definitions in language exist as symbols which are connected to an inherent experience (ie; counting a set of objects ingrains the symbols of arithmetic within us) points A and B are simultaneous.

It is this inherent "looping" within in the expression of free will that necessitates it as assumed strictly both as a form, but simultaneously because its inherent "emptiness" necessitates it instrinsically tied within the empty nature of "assumption itself" considering "emptiness" is an ever present medium that is inexpressible except through an observation of relations.

It is the inherent emptiness of assumption, and the looping nature of free will inherent within its very nature of trying to define it, which necessiates free will expressed as a process of contextualizing reality through the natural movement of "assuming". This contextualization, where we assume a phenomenon and repeat it as an inherent loop with this context further looping itself through further phenomenon, necessitates free will as the formation of context.

This formation of context, where "synthesis" of experiences and symbols, is recipiprocally a symbol in and of itself through the loop. Thus the nature of looping is a formation of perspective where we filter how we assume through the inherent looping of preassumed values that act as a lens which gives inherent perspective. The looping of an experience of "joy" or a memorized methodology of "analysis" acts as a means in which we contain all potential assumptions within a given context...we interpret our assumptions (ie give them definition) in accords with the inherent loops we preassumed.

In these respects perspective is merely a self maintained cycle of assumptions grounded in its own self-referencing in the midst of "voidness" as a means to give form to any potential experiences whether they be a future event or the reinterpretation of some dark facet of the unconsciousness or a forgotten memory.

In simpler terms we form perspective to contain our assumptions, with this perspective acting as a "way".

This inherently empty nature of the unconsciousness, reflects the inherently empty nature of the "assuming" with which we naturally flow in the course of everyday life as well as our private reflections and meditations. Assumption is thus grounded in unconsciousness, but precisely is individualistic potential because of this same nature. All assumptions, as intrinsically empty, are intrinsically potential forms as these assumptions act as projections of the self in how we interpret the world. Our definitions of the world, as grounded within the individual's awareness, are merely projections of our own awareness; hence is grounded in our own identity thus acting as a self-judgement through a self-referentiality.

It is these forms, which project from and back into the nature of the "void" of assumption that expresses a contradiction grounded within the psyche of man: A luminous void where the continual expansion and contraction of forms/archetypes/perspectives as methods/etc. necessitate an intrinsic radiance to the empty of the psyche.

This "radiance", where all phenomenon as "given definition" exist intuitively under some form of "light" considering we observe definition through an inherent "light" unfrt the senses or a sense of touch, smell or sound that gives light to a "form" within the psyche. It is this awareness of definition that inherently necessitates an expression of "being". Radiance is the emission of being from inherent "nothingness", as that which radiates "emits" itself thus is grounded in a projective nature subject to underlying spatial axioms.

In these respects, under these terms, reason exists fundamentally as a "light" as its grounding in the relation of parts (whether they be abstract or physical) as ratios, from which all rationality stems, radiates intrinsics forms through an inherent expansion and contraction from the "void" that inherently lies at the core of individual psyche yet underlies the empirical nature of reality as observed with physics experiments in which parts "come and go" out of a vacuum.

This vacuum state is further reflected within the nature of perspective as constituting a "sphere" of reasoning in which we maintian not just personal relationships but inherently a means of influence under the cycle of our repeated actions as habits. This state of emptiness, within the assumptive nature of man, as constituting a dynamically changing circle reflects itself within the base nature of the particles in which we are formed as they, being "forms" of a sphere, are 99.99999.... empty.

It is this recursion of contexts within context, as they expand and contract in accords to our perceptions inherent ability to penetrate their inherently passive states, that necessitates the void of assumption is an underlying universal medium of "nothingness" that connects reality through an entangled set of loops...all of which are intrinsically empty yet ever present in infinite variation. This entanglement itself, fundamentally chaotic due to its infinite directionality, is but a loop itself.

Free will is thus a loop, through a loop, as the expression of a cycle of "being" that effectively contains "voidness" through its inherently empty nature.

[Age]

'Free will' just means that there is freedom to choose. Every human being has free will.

Nothing more, nothing less.

[Walker]

Every action is a reaction.

[Age]

Every action is a reaction.

Very True, and that is why both evolution and creation play equal parts. Every reaction is a new thing, which evolves creating actions, through inter-acting with other things, which causes reactions, which are just another action or another re-action. This ever evolving-reacting process is just Creation, in action. Creation just being a One Reaction, forever and always.

Just like free will and determinism play equal parts, and also nature and nurture play equal parts.

Contrary to popular BELIEF there is NO actual ' "one" OR "an other" side ' in all of the philosophical "disputed and debated" issues. Truthfully there is NOTHING to dispute and debate. As the Truth and the Falsehoods in "both sides" can be clearly seen and recognized.

For the free will AND determinism supposed "issue", human beings have the free will to choose whatever they want to choose. However, they can ONLY choose based on the thoughts that they already have. For example, a human being, when this is written, can not YET choose to just create a 'time-traveling transporter' and choose to use it, YET. But IF they had the thoughts on how to build one and use it, then they could choose what to do it with that knowledge.

The thoughts that one already has, have come from past experiences alone.

Therefore, a human being has the free will to choose whatever they want, BUT, they only have a limited selection to choose from. This limited selection, which has come from past experiences is therefore pre-determined. Thus, what WILL happen, is in this sense, deterministic or already has been pre-determined.

For example, If 'God' (yet to be revealed and explained) wants 'us', ALL, to live in heaven, which is just HERE on earth in the one and ONLY forever Universe, eternally ever-after, then AFTER human beings CHOOSE to change their wrong ways and thus be able to gain the knowledge or the thoughts of HOW to live together peacefully, forever more, then as it is said: 'your' (God's) kingdom come, WILL be done, (or will come) ON earth as it is in heaven. If this WILL has already been pre-determine, then it WILL come to fruition.

BOTH deterministic AND free will play equal parts, on the stage that is Life.

When adults are continually passing on the correct and right knowledge onto their off-spring, then the thoughts that those human beings can choose from become more and more only of the correct and right ones. Free will still remains, it is just the choices that can be chosen, and are WANTED to be chosen anyway, are different, AND much better.

[Eodnhoj7]

'Free will' just means that there is freedom to choose. Every human being has free will.

Nothing more, nothing less.

And what is "freedom"?

What is "choice"?

What are you reasons for equating will with "choice"?

How do you know if human beings have free will?

Are you sure your answer was not determined by the post?

Are you sure that your answer was spontaneous?

Can freewill and non free will both exist?

How can you make the above claim without being subject to infinite regress?

Should I ask more questions?

[Eodnhoj7]

Every action is a reaction.

Can the action occur without a possible reaction?

If I made the decision that I would walk down the street and to the store, without knowing how the future plays out, but from a seperate time line I already walked across the street and went to the store (thus necessitating that me arriving at the store necessitated me walking down the street)...does "reaction" determine "action"?

[Age]

'Free will' just means that there is freedom to choose. Every human being has free will.

Nothing more, nothing less.

And what is "freedom"?

To be able to think and do as one wants.

What is "choice"?

An act of deciding or choosing between possibilities

What are you reasons for equating will with "choice"?

I did not.

How do you know if human beings have free will?

I observe it EVERY day.

Are you sure your answer was not determined by the post?

But it was determined by this post, OBVIOUSLY.

Are you sure that your answer was spontaneous?

I NEVER said it was.

Can freewill and non free will both exist?

YES, and OBVIOUSLY they BOTH do.

How can you make the above claim without being subject to infinite regress?

Very easily, and already done.

Should I ask more questions?

Sure, if you like.

Feel FREE, to ask as many as you like. some might say.

[Age]

Every action is a reaction.

Can the action occur without a possible reaction?

No.

EVERY action causes a reaction, and, EVERY re-action is just an (other) action, which causes another re-action.

If I made the decision that I would walk down the street and to the store, without knowing how the future plays out,

But EVERY decision you make is done without knowing how the future plays out anyway.

but from a seperate time line I already walked across the street and went to the store (thus necessitating that me arriving at the store necessitated me walking down the street)...does "reaction" determine "action"?

IS a 'separate time line' even a possible thing?

It appears to me that you are 'trying to' make complex or confuse that which really is not, just because you BELIEVE some thing else ALREADY to be true.

[Eodnhoj7]

'Free will' just means that there is freedom to choose. Every human being has free will.

Nothing more, nothing less.

And what is "freedom"?

To be able to think and do as one wants.

And are you really thinking or doing as you want if you are responding to this question?

What is "choice"?

An act of deciding or choosing between possibilities

And does one choose the possibilities?

What are you reasons for equating will with "choice"?

I did not.

So "free" cannot equate itself to "choice" under "free will?"

How do you know if human beings have free will?

I observe it EVERY day.

Do you have a choice in that?

Are you sure your answer was not determined by the post?

But it was determined by this post, OBVIOUSLY.

So is the will totally free?

Are you sure that your answer was spontaneous?

I NEVER said it was.

So "freedom" does not necessitate spontaneity?

Can freewill and non free will both exist?

YES, and OBVIOUSLY they BOTH do.

So neither can exist as well?

How can you make the above claim without being subject to infinite regress?

Very easily, and already done.

Are you sure this claim is not merely an empty assertion?

Should I ask more questions?

Sure, if you like.

Feel FREE, to ask as many as you like. some might say.

So you have answers for all of these questions?

[Eodnhoj7]

Every action is a reaction.

Can the action occur without a possible reaction?

No.

EVERY action causes a reaction, and, EVERY re-action is just an (other) action, which causes another re-action.

So if an action cannot exist without a reaction, how can you say that a reaction (given a number of possibilities) does not determine the reaction? If I have a question, with a specific number of answers, the possible answers do not form the question by allowing the question to exist?

If I made the decision that I would walk down the street and to the store, without knowing how the future plays out,

But EVERY decision you make is done without knowing how the future plays out anyway.

Are you sure? If I make a decision, based upon a pre select quantity and quality of patterns, no matter what choice I make certain patterns effectively replicate. I may not understand the decision of walking across a street, but certain underlying patterns will be predicted (continued walking, moving through the street, the replication of movements on the other side of the streat (ie the tree will continue existing, people on the other side will continue movements, etc.)). If I choose to eat, and decide to order a glass of water instead...but an ice tea is presented, certain patterns will replicate regardeless (glass placed on a table, looking at it, talking to waiter/waitress).

but from a seperate time line I already walked across the street and went to the store (thus necessitating that me arriving at the store necessitated me walking down the street)...does "reaction" determine "action"?

IS a 'separate time line' even a possible thing?

Observing a set of movements within a set of movements (ie watching the water drip down a glass, while ignoring the clock) as a localization of some phenomena.

It appears to me that you are 'trying to' make complex or confuse that which really is not, just because you BELIEVE some thing else ALREADY to be true.

Observing movements within movements, necessitates complexity and simplicity to be simultaneous.

[Eodnhoj7]

Every action is a reaction.

If every reaction, grounded in an action, is a replication of that action through a diverse form...are actions (as reactions) effectively self-referential...thus empty loops?

[Walker]

Every action is a reaction.

If every reaction, grounded in an action, is a replication of that action through a diverse form...are actions (as reactions) effectively self-referential...thus empty loops?

Although conditions are in perpetual flux due to the constantly changing combination of elements comprising a condition, and although the variety of combined elements that comprise a condition may seem infinite, the variety is not infinite within the range of human perception, which is far. The inevitable combination of elements comprising a condition and resulting from a long string of causes and effects is theoretically possible to know although beyond the capacity of man or computer to know. Too many variables.

What would make the future a certainty? Certain knowledge of all elements that comprise every possible condition.

This was explored by Frank Herbert in the Dune series of sci-fi novels. Although without eyes, Paul Atreides’ mind sense could track the inevitability of cause and effect in real time, enabling him to function and interact precisely because everyone and everything was always where it had to be, given the inevitability of causation and his heightened mind sense. This capacity for certainty based on perception of the inevitable extends into certainty of future events.

Outside of science fiction, many have tasted a bit of this* with doubt, which may turn into strong intuition which only has existence via action. A being perpetually tasting this would be like Bobby Fischer to an infinite power, perceiving the inevitability of not only every chess move for both players, but every movement in the universe within his range of consciousness. One of Herbert’s books is titled, God Emperor of Dune and indeed, moving within perceived inevitability that is verified by unfolding events gives a glimpse of creating not just one’s own reality, but the only one reality ... i.e., expansion of consciousness.

* An existence where day and night compresses into one and the three times meld into one.

[Age]

And what is "freedom"?

To be able to think and do as one wants.

And are you really thinking or doing as you want if you are responding to this question?

What is "choice"?

An act of deciding or choosing between possibilities

And does one choose the possibilities?

What are you reasons for equating will with "choice"?

I did not.

So "free" cannot equate itself to "choice" under "free will?"

How do you know if human beings have free will?

I observe it EVERY day.

Do you have a choice in that?

Are you sure your answer was not determined by the post?

But it was determined by this post, OBVIOUSLY.

So is the will totally free?

Are you sure that your answer was spontaneous?

I NEVER said it was.

So "freedom" does not necessitate spontaneity?

Can freewill and non free will both exist?

YES, and OBVIOUSLY they BOTH do.

So neither can exist as well?

How can you make the above claim without being subject to infinite regress?

Very easily, and already done.

Are you sure this claim is not merely an empty assertion?

Should I ask more questions?

Sure, if you like.

Feel FREE, to ask as many as you like. some might say.

So you have answers for all of these questions?

Yes.

No.

I did not say that nor even suggest that.

Yes.

What is the 'will', which you talk about here?

No.

No.

Yes, and

Yes.

[Age]

Can the action occur without a possible reaction?

No.

EVERY action causes a reaction, and, EVERY re-action is just an (other) action, which causes another re-action.

So if an action cannot exist without a reaction, how can you say that a reaction (given a number of possibilities) does not determine the reaction?

But I NEVER did say that.

If I have a question, with a specific number of answers, the possible answers do not form the question by allowing the question to exist?

If you say so.

If I made the decision that I would walk down the street and to the store, without knowing how the future plays out,

But EVERY decision you make is done without knowing how the future plays out anyway.

Are you sure?

Yes because you do NOT know, for sure, IF what you think or believe about what will happen, WILL actually happen.

If I make a decision, based upon a pre select quantity and quality of patterns, no matter what choice I make certain patterns effectively replicate. I may not understand the decision of walking across a street, but certain underlying patterns will be predicted (continued walking, moving through the street, the replication of movements on the other side of the streat (ie the tree will continue existing, people on the other side will continue movements, etc.)). If I choose to eat, and decide to order a glass of water instead...but an ice tea is presented, certain patterns will replicate regardeless (glass placed on a table, looking at it, talking to waiter/waitress).

So what?

You STILL do NOT know, for sure, what WILL ACTUALLY happen.

You can predict all you want, but you will NEVER KNOW, for sure.

but from a seperate time line I already walked across the street and went to the store (thus necessitating that me arriving at the store necessitated me walking down the street)...does "reaction" determine "action"?

IS a 'separate time line' even a possible thing?

Observing a set of movements within a set of movements (ie watching the water drip down a glass, while ignoring the clock) as a localization of some phenomena.

It appears to me that you are 'trying to' make complex or confuse that which really is not, just because you BELIEVE some thing else ALREADY to be true.

Observing movements within movements, necessitates complexity and simplicity to be simultaneous.

If you say so, and if things APPEAR complex, to you, then so be it.

But from what I observe It ALL looks very simple and easy, to me

[Age]

Every action is a reaction.

If every reaction, grounded in an action, is a replication of that action through a diverse form...are actions (as reactions) effectively self-referential...thus empty loops?

That would all depend on what do you mean by 'empty loops'?