The conflation of possibility with actuality.
You “could have been” an astronaut, a musician, a writer - and yet you weren’t. Why not?
There will have been reasons that determined you not to choose them.
If you choose them in future, there will be a reason that determines it.
Options are “theoretically” limitless, but in practice some things will simply never occur to you. Would an Ancient Greek have been considering what social media apps to use? Would the first humans be considering the fluid dynamics that are necessary to successfully propel a rocket to the moon? They didn’t even know what the moon was. Even today we won’t in our wildest dreams be considering the everyday options available to people far enough into the future.
The “freest” of people do not have infinite options available to them in reality whether I “tell you” this is the case or not - the most basic reason being that we are finite beings with finite brains and memories with finite (although huge numbers of) connections, thoughts take finite time to flit recognisably in our consciousness, and we have a finite life span - mathematically options are limited.
Are you under the impression that anyone is a slave to mathematics? Are you suggesting that 2+2 could equal 5 to the non-slave?
You already make the concession “I can do just about whatever I want to do within the universal laws”, which in themselves are limits. Are you saying that if you remove those limits, free any slavelike tendencies in your mind, the effects described by gravity can cease to apply to you and things around you? Magnets could cease to operate to one who frees their mind from Determinism? By your admission I don’t think you are, and yet in the same sentence you argue that you are. This is your contradiction. Funnily enough the stability of your entire being would cease in an instant if you freed yourself from universal laws.
By all means, be in awe of the large number of options that do occur to you, the uncommon ideas that do occur to you, and the unique paths that you actually do choose as a result of these things, but in reality there are limits you simply can’t shake whether I “tell you” or not. It’s not like I’m ordering you to reduce your thinking, you’re reduced whether I say anything or not… I’m sorry you don’t like this, but by the above arguments and all the other ones I’ve said, and more no doubt, life is a limit and this is reality. I feel like a parent telling their kid Santa isn’t real. I’ve already pointed out the irony that it’s quite possible that my mind is “more free” than yours for being able to abandon the romance of unlimited Free Will - I wonder if you’ve given this any serious thought yet - and by serious I don’t mean assuming it’s wrong before you even consider it. You have all your free thinking ahead of you - call me a slave all you like and it’s still psychological projection.
From what I can tell, Free Will advocates can’t square the fact that they have a large imagination that seems not to be contained, with the reality that it all can be and is contained. Funnily enough, your concession of “I can do just about whatever I want to do within the universal laws” sums up every single limit there is on both action and thought. Outer space, the earth, animals - even the human brain operates exactly how it does exactly because of these universal laws alone. Nothing more is needed, which is why the “four fundamental forces” are so named. Saying this is actually an admission that you are an entirely deterministic being whether you can accept this or not.
Add it to the pile of made up wishful thinking if you want…
Formal fallacies are the most explicit of fallacies, e.g. (P->Q, Q) → P
Contrast this with a contradiction: ¬P ^ P where there is mutual exclusivity.
A clear difference. Now, the way you think is to reduce things to very specific circumstances where the difference is no longer clear, in order to justify False Equivalence - this is a logical fallacy.
You don’t like logical fallacies since your arguments rely on them, so you try to explain them away by the same means.
And you get frustrated with people who call you out on your bullshit…
I appreciate the effort to try and create, but it doesn’t mean you’ll be any good at it. Sure, keep trying, learn from the mistakes people teach you and move on to new things but you’re obsessed with a small number of terrible, flawed ideas that you just won’t move on from - like a song-writer insisting they have written the greatest song of all time and trying to perform it better and better their whole life, without anyone else liking it. There’s clearly something psychologically amiss with you, which is my greatest worry - it feels like your entire identity and emotional sense of self-worth is grounded in bad ideas. Fortunately one of humanity’s greatest strengths is denial, but that just makes me sad for you. Not your problem, I guess - religious fanatics can spend their whole lives in echo chambers without ever admitting fault in their nonsense, I’m sure you can do it too.
FYI, I said identity has existence in terms of utility, just not in terms of truth. You say I argue “that identity doesn’t exist in any way”.
Continue to misunderstand and misrepresent me to yourself and others if it makes you feel better, but you’re a liar if you do.
You complain that I use identity, when I plainly said I do and why, and it’s still a Tu Quoque fallacy to criticise this. The fact that you don’t understand fallacies doesn’t excuse you here (which ironically is the personal incredulity fallacy).
You know, it’s funny. You try and equate logical fallacy and logical contradiction, whilst also saying logical fallacies always have holes where proofs using logical contradiction never have holes.
I mean… come on Have your cake or eat it - you can’t have both.
Consider for the first time in your life that you might be wrong.