fundamental question

[Fixed Cross]

Including human consciousness. Unless, of course, as some insist, the only explanation for human consciousness is the existence of God. Their own, for example.

Well I do not consider consciousness to be a law.

And, going all the way back to those fundamental questions of mine, this would also include your views on astrology and value ontology. And my views on dasein, conflicting goods and political economy...in an essentially meaningless world that ends in oblivion.

To be clear, this is your belief? Or someone elses belief?

It's just that "I" seem to recognize this gap -- gaping chasm -- more then others. But then I'm not an objectivist.

What is an "objectivist"? I think Ive seen you use this word before, but I don't know what you mean with it.

And, even here, given a world where I possess some measure of free will in order to conclude something that I have absolutely no capacity at all to actually demonstrate.

I'm afraid I don't understand what you are saying here either.

[Magnus Anderson]

Yes. The uncertainty Principe disallows even such knowledge of a single electron, let alone a whole universe of particles/waves.

Note that the vast majority of the mass we register is not classified in terms of EM - "dark matter" makes up most of our universe. We know nothing about such stuff other than that it gravitates.
The idea that there could be a formula that predicts the state of 90 percent of the universe is thus misguided.

Not even 60% accuracy is possible?

That sounds quite fishy.

Yes, dude, they are. The events directly following the Big Bang violate these law of nature, as does the Big Bang itself.
So, the Big Bang most certainly, this is universally known in physics, preceded the laws of nature.

Couldn't it be the case that they are conflating the laws of nature with their perception of what the laws of nature are?

What we perceive to be the laws of nature can change but the laws of nature themselves, by definition, cannot.

(And what preceded the Big Bang? We are trying to find that out as we speak.)

John J. Bannan will tell you that God did.

Some other folks tell me that the Big Bang theory is in actuality the Big Bullshit theory.

The Big Bang is not generally considered the be part of the universe for that reason. An imperfect but useful metaphor; the event of a birth, including the mothers labour, is not considered part of the human that is being born.

Well, that's strange, considering that by definition the word "universe" refers to the sum of everything, so there can be nothing before, after or otherwise outside of it.

[A]ll existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos

The universe is often defined as "the totality of existence", or everything that exists, everything that has existed, and everything that will exist.

It takes some redefinition of the word "universe" to allow for the possibility of things that precede it (as well as concepts such as that of multiverse.)

[MagsJ]

They say science is about asking questions. ("they" includes me but that doesn't make it a "we") So here's a question.

What is the most fundamental question of science?

What was before the beginning?

[Fixed Cross]

Yes. The uncertainty Principe disallows even such knowledge of a single electron, let alone a whole universe of particles/waves.

Note that the vast majority of the mass we register is not classified in terms of EM - "dark matter" makes up most of our universe. We know nothing about such stuff other than that it gravitates.
The idea that there could be a formula that predicts the state of 90 percent of the universe is thus misguided.

Not even 60% accuracy is possible?

That sounds quite fishy.

Not about the states of every particle. We can know much more about the Newtonean state than we can of the quantum states -
not sure how well versed you are but QM offers a number of truly unlikely truths, such as nonlocal spin entanglement which actually defies newton completely.

Yes, dude, they are. The events directly following the Big Bang violate these law of nature, as does the Big Bang itself.
So, the Big Bang most certainly, this is universally known in physics, preceded the laws of nature.

Couldn't it be the case that they are conflating the laws of nature with their perception of what the laws of nature are?

Not really, to be fair. We know Newton applies in our current cosmos at the atomic scale and above. This is hard to conflate with something that doesn't apply.
What this means is that different laws used to apply. Which shouldnt be that strange, things can change, for example, four dimensions of spacetime are supposed to have come out of zero dimensions.

What we perceive to be the laws of nature can change but the laws of nature themselves, by definition, cannot.

I see what you mean but I don't think thats truly the case.
I would agree if you said that the fundamental principle of being can not change.
But laws can and do change as physics shows.

(And what preceded the Big Bang? We are trying to find that out as we speak.)

John J. Bannan will tell you that God did.

Who dat

Some other folks tell me that the Big Bang theory is in actuality the Big Bullshit theory.

James S Saint suggested that it has been two black holes colliding. I find it highly plausible that black holes would collide and such a collision would in fact explain a lot of what is now attributed to the Big Bang.
Nevertheless, the situation right after the event was marked by different consistencies than those in the world that resulted from it.

The Big Bang is not generally considered the be part of the universe for that reason. An imperfect but useful metaphor; the event of a birth, including the mothers labour, is not considered part of the human that is being born.

Well, that's strange, considering that by definition the word "universe" refers to the sum of everything, so there can be nothing before, after or otherwise outside of it.

[A]ll existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos

The universe is often defined as "the totality of existence", or everything that exists, everything that has existed, and everything that will exist.

Thats the etymological definition, but that doesn't amount to a valid scientific premise; universe as applies in physics is a continuum; this is how mathematics is applied to it.
You could say that the word means something different in philosophy than it does in physics.

It takes some redefinition of the word "universe" to allow for the possibility of things that precede it (as well as concepts such as that of multiverse.)

And indeed it has been redefined a number of times since the term was coined. Because, despite that the word for it exists, the idea of A Whole All isn't possible in terms of pure logic. So there is a word for something which cant exist. We still use this word nowadays but mean something slightly different with it; not all that exists in toto, but: the order of being in which we find ourselves.

The notion of the possibility of contradicting worlds is freed up by relinquishing the idea of a whole-all. (universe in the classical sense, and the word for universe in Netherlands - Heelal)

[Fixed Cross]

They say science is about asking questions. ("they" includes me but that doesn't make it a "we") So here's a question.

What is the most fundamental question of science?

What was before the beginning?

An end of sorts, I presume.

[MagsJ]

They say science is about asking questions. ("they" includes me but that doesn't make it a "we") So here's a question.

What is the most fundamental question of science?

What was before the beginning?

An end of sorts, I presume.

An end of sorts.. of what?

What was there before any end of sorts.. so not a circularity, of any sorts?

Origin? What is the origin of all Sorts, of all of existence and pre-existence of the initial status quo of the beginning of all things? Let me ponder some more..

[Magnus Anderson]

But laws can and do change as physics shows.

The thing is, depending on how you define the term, the laws of nature may or may not have the ability to change.

If you say that the laws of nature refer to the formula with which one can predict (with a sufficient degree of accuracy) the state of the universe at one point in time based on the state of the universe at another point in time (e.g. an earlier one), then the laws of nature cannot change.

Do we agree on this?

Suppose the universe is an infinite sequence of numbers such as \((1, 2, 3, \dotso)\). To say that the laws that govern it can be captured by \(f(x) = x + 1\), where \(x\) refers to the the state of the universe at some point in time and \(f(x)\) to the state of the universe at the subsequent point in time, is to describe the universe entirely but concisely. It implies, among many other things, that the next number in the sequence is \(4\) and that the number that came before \(1\) is \(0\). What then would it mean to say that its laws were \(f(x) = x + 1\) at one point in time and \(f(x) = x - 1\) at another? Nothing other than that we were wrong when we said that the laws of the universe can be captured by \(f(x) = x + 1\), and that, instead of admitting this, we projected it onto the universe itself, arguing that it is not us who failed to map the universe correctly but the universe itself "changing behind our backs" that forced us to adopt multiple maps.

[Magnus Anderson]

Thats the etymological definition, but that doesn't amount to a valid scientific premise; universe as applies in physics is a continuum; this is how mathematics is applied to it.
You could say that the word means something different in philosophy than it does in physics.

What makes it invalid?

What was the reason for taking an existing word, with an existing meaning, and changing its meaning?

And indeed it has been redefined a number of times since the term was coined. Because, despite that the word for it exists, the idea of A Whole All isn't possible in terms of pure logic. So there is a word for something which cant exist.

Are you saying that "The set of everything that existed, that exists and that will exist" cannot exist?

[Fixed Cross]

Origin? What is the origin of all Sorts, of all of existence and pre-existence of the initial status quo of the beginning of all things? Let me ponder some more..

Well this is what I discovered in 2011, what value ontology is really all about. Ive written on it a lot and it is extraordinarily complex by normal philosophical and logical standards. It really isn't an easy answer. If it was anywhere near easy to explain Id explain it right away but I don't want to avalanche you with some ultra technical diatribe. I will publish a book on it some day. It really takes a book to bring together all the elements of the model.
I have written a lot on it on beforethelight and some here, too - but scattered and never in the full breadth that is required to have it make sense to someone who isn't already invested in one or several the branches of specialized thought Ive required to resolve the question.

Let me say now that it is not purely a matter of (contemporary) physics, but of physics integrated completely with logic.

[Fixed Cross]

But laws can and do change as physics shows.

The thing is, depending on how you define the term, the laws of nature may or may not have the ability to change.

If you say that the laws of nature refer to the formula with which one can predict (with a sufficient degree of accuracy) the state of the universe at one point in time based on the state of the universe at another point in time (e.g. an earlier one), then the laws of nature cannot change.

Do we agree on this?

For several reasons I do not; one of them is that there is no such straightforward time in the universe - relativity forbids universal points in time.
(Another reason being one I already gave, that the laws we know now have not always existed and yet, we consider these to be immutable now and I have no reason to hypothesize a perfectly immutable set. I need a solid reason to use a hypothesis as a premise for an argument)

Suppose the universe is an infinite sequence of numbers such as \((1, 2, 3, \dotso)\). To say that the laws that govern it can be captured by \(f(x) = x + 1\), where \(x\) refers to the the state of the universe at some point in time and \(f(x)\) to the state of the universe at the subsequent point in time, is to describe the universe entirely but concisely. It implies, among many other things, that the next number in the sequence is \(4\) and that the number that came before \(1\) is \(0\). What then would it mean to say that its laws were \(f(x) = x + 1\) at one point in time and \(f(x) = x - 1\) at another? Nothing other than that we were wrong when we said that the laws of the universe can be captured by \(f(x) = x + 1\), and that, instead of admitting this, we projected it onto the universe itself, arguing that it is not us who failed to map the universe correctly but the universe itself "changing behind our backs" that forced us to adopt multiple maps.

Again, this is not accurate to physics. The universe is not merely a basic mathematical set of orderly arranged moments. Which brings me to your next question.

Thats the etymological definition, but that doesn't amount to a valid scientific premise; universe as applies in physics is a continuum; this is how mathematics is applied to it.
You could say that the word means something different in philosophy than it does in physics.

What makes it invalid?

What was the reason for taking an existing word, with an existing meaning, and changing its meaning?

Because the nature of being was discovered to be more complex and interesting than just a set of objects. More fundamental to our understanding now than the objects are the relations between these objects, and the ultimate object of study now is the relations between these relations.

And indeed it has been redefined a number of times since the term was coined. Because, despite that the word for it exists, the idea of A Whole All isn't possible in terms of pure logic. So there is a word for something which cant exist.

Are you saying that "The set of everything that existed, that exists and that will exist" cannot exist?

No what Im saying is that if you are content to regard all of existence as a set, and call that "universe" you are free to do so but it holds no b earring on current physics. The coherence of our world is not due to that it is a set, if you know what I mean - the analytical property of their existence has little or no value in terms of understanding what they are. The quest after knowledge of the synthetic coherence of existence in terms of physics leads to redefinition of the whole notion of "object"; we now know that there is no such thing as an independent and stable object, rather there are events in which so called objects are transmuted indifferent so called objects.
This whole transformation of understanding extends to undermining the notion of the universe-as-object (a set being an object); you could see it more as an event but more so than that perhaps a kind of template. It is at this point where we see that our perception of existence must be included in our notion of all-of-existence, which disallows it from being resolved into a straightforward analytic equation such as you present. QM's observation wave-particle conundrum is one way in which this issue comes to light.

[iambiguous]

Including human consciousness. Unless, of course, as some insist, the only explanation for human consciousness is the existence of God. Their own, for example.

Well I do not consider consciousness to be a law.

Okay, given something in particular that you have become conscious of today, if not a law, than what? If not God, than what? The distinction I make is between consciousness in the either/or world and consciousness in the is/ought world. Things we're conscious of that we are able to demonstrate to others and things that we are not -- the subjective/subjunctive self rooted in dasein. In what "I" presume to be a No God world

And, going all the way back to those fundamental questions of mine, this would also include your views on astrology and value ontology. And my views on dasein, conflicting goods and political economy...in an essentially meaningless world that ends in oblivion.

To be clear, this is your belief? Or someone elses belief?

Well, most of us are social beings. Where does "we" end and "I" begin? We were indoctrinated as children to believe certain things. Then, assuming some measure of autonomy, we sustain those beliefs all the way to the grave. Or, given the nature of the modern world, with so many more options, we have a particular sequence of experiences, relationships and access to ideas which predispose us to certain moral, political and religious prejudices. On the other hand, given the existence of contingency, chance and change we are also moving into a future in which new experiences, new relationships and new ideas can reconfigure "I" in any number of directions.

Or, rather, that's how I have come to view it. All I can then do is to come into places like this and note the reactions of others who do not view their own self like that at all. What are their arguments?

It's just that "I" seem to recognize this gap -- gaping chasm -- more then others. But then I'm not an objectivist.

What is an "objectivist"? I think Ive seen you use this word before, but I don't know what you mean with it.

Well, assuming I can take you seriously here, my understanding of it is just another existential contraption rooted in dasein. It is only what seems reasonable to me here and now: someone who believes that their own moral and political values are rooted in the "real me" in sync with the "right thing to do". And, thus, they come to divide the world into those who are "one of us" [the good guys] and "one of them" [the bad guys]. Rooted in either, God or political ideology or deontology or nature.

And, even here, given a world where I possess some measure of free will in order to conclude something that I have absolutely no capacity at all to actually demonstrate.

I'm afraid I don't understand what you are saying here either.

Not to worry. Going back to a complete understanding of existence itself, neither do I.

Oh, and just in case this is all just tongue in cheek:

[Magnus Anderson]

For several reasons I do not; one of them is that there is no such straightforward time in the universe - relativity forbids universal points in time.

You did not answer the question that I asked. But let's put that aside and focus on what you actually said.

You seem to be saying that "a formula that allows us to predict (with sufficient degree of accuracy) the state of the universe at one point in time based on the state of the universe at another point in time" does not exist because "relativity forbids universal points in time".

If that's the case, I have a question: does empirical data that we have forbid universal points in time? If so, how?

Since relativity is a theory, and that means an interpretation of empirical data, what relativity says is not as important as what empirical data says. This is why I want to know whether it is the totality of empirical data that we have, and not merely theory of relativity, that is inconsistent with the idea of objective time.

For any given set of observations (that do not cover the entire world) there is more than one hypothesis that can fit it. There is NEVER only one hypothesis that fits the data. So if a hypothesis that posits that there is no objective time can fit the data, it does not necessarily follow that there is no hypothesis that makes no such assumption and yet fits the data.

Anyways, suppose we did an experiment involving two clocks. The two clocks tick at the same rate when they move at the same speed. However, when they move at different speeds, we find out that they tick at different rates e.g. the one moving faster ticks slower. This is the result of our experiment -- that two clocks moving at different speeds tick at different rates. The question is: does that mean that there is no objective time? I don't see how. It simply means that the internal processes of things that are moving at different speeds operate at different speeds.

Am I missing something? If so, what exactly?

Because the nature of being was discovered to be more complex and interesting than just a set of objects. More fundamental to our understanding now than the objects are the relations between these objects, and the ultimate object of study now is the relations between these relations.

The laws of nature are an example of a relation. Indeed, \(f(x) = x + 1\) is also an example of relation; it's a type of relation known to the world as "mathematical function".

[Magnus Anderson]

Let's suppose that the relation between the state of the universe at one point in time and the state of the universe at another point in time is considerably weak. In such a case, you'd be right that it wouldn't make much sense to pursue "the laws that govern everything" as I've defined the term. (Well, it would still make some kind of sense, since otherwise you won't be able to know that the relation is weak.) Still, one could purse something different but nonetheless related -- the relation between what happened before and what will happen after any given point in time. But given your position on time, I wouldn't be surprised if you consider such a pursuit to be just as futile.

EDIT:

So let me revise my earlier statement.

The ultimate goal of science is to map the universe 1) entirely, 2) with the highest degree of accuracy, and 3) in the most concise manner.

Of course, if it's not possible to achieve 100% comprehensiveness, 100% accuracy and 100% conciseness, one simply aims for the maximum that is possible.

The fundamental question of science then is "What map of reality has the highest degree of comprehensiveness, the highest degree of accuracy and the highest degree of conciseness?"

(If you don't care about conciseness, it is theoretically possible to describe the entire universe without general, highly abstract, notions such as "causality", "law", "relation" and so on. You can just say that the entire universe is a sequence -- perhaps one that is bi-infinite and infinitely divisible -- of things. Thus, mapping the universe in terms of "things" isn't false, it's merely an approach -- one that is quite close to being phenomenalistic -- that may be less optimal, since it can easily end up consuming too much memory.)

[MagsJ]

Origin? What is the origin of all Sorts, of all of existence and pre-existence of the initial status quo of the beginning of all things? Let me ponder some more..

Well this is what I discovered in 2011, what value ontology is really all about. Ive written on it a lot and it is extraordinarily complex by normal philosophical and logical standards. It really isn't an easy answer. If it was anywhere near easy to explain Id explain it right away but I don't want to avalanche you with some ultra technical diatribe. I will publish a book on it some day. It really takes a book to bring together all the elements of the model.
I have written a lot on it on beforethelight and some here, too - but scattered and never in the full breadth that is required to have it make sense to someone who isn't already invested in one or several the branches of specialized thought Ive required to resolve the question.

Let me say now that it is not purely a matter of (contemporary) physics, but of physics integrated completely with logic.

I’m happy to hear the short version..

[Fixed Cross]

You did not answer the question that I asked. But let's put that aside and focus on what you actually said.

Yes I did answer. No need to lie.

You seem to be saying that "a formula that allows us to predict (with sufficient degree of accuracy) the state of the universe at one point in time based on the state of the universe at another point in time" does not exist because "relativity forbids universal points in time".

If that's the case, I have a question: does empirical data that we have forbid universal points in time? If so, how?

Yes, by Relativity.
All I can say is: do your best to understand Einsteins theorem. I have a strong suspicion one wont ever be able to find you in its vicinity though.
Its a logic which even Einstein himself had some trouble understanding and extrapolating.
But the formula works with perfection.
(Of course Ive deciphered the underlying Logick as anyone with half a brain here knows by now)

Since relativity is a theory, and that means an interpretation of empirical data, what relativity says is not as important as what empirical data says. This is why I want to know whether it is the totality of empirical data that we have, and not merely theory of relativity, that is inconsistent with the idea of objective time.

???? That is nowhere near how science works. What, do you imagine "empirical data" is without a context?
You're talking about some kind of hypothetical pile of experiences untranslated into words or something.
Do you know of the existence of the scientific method?

When we follow this method, Relativity proves true. Consistency in protocol. Ring a bell?

For any given set of observations (that do not cover the entire world) there is more than one hypothesis that can fit it. There is NEVER only one hypothesis that fits the data. So if a hypothesis that posits that there is no objective time can fit the data, it does not necessarily follow that there is no hypothesis that makes no such assumption and yet fits the data.

Anyways, suppose we did an experiment involving two clocks. The two clocks tick at the same rate when they move at the same speed. However, when they move at different speeds, we find out that they tick at different rates e.g. the one moving faster ticks slower. This is the result of our experiment -- that two clocks moving at different speeds tick at different rates. The question is: does that mean that there is no objective time? I don't see how. It simply means that the internal processes of things that are moving at different speeds operate at different speeds.

You are free to assume an objective clock working outside of time-space.



MagsJ - you should be grateful for the opportunity to learn it in this early early stage. I'm not very fond of lazy thinkers, as you might know.

[Magnus Anderson]

Yes I did answer. No need to lie.

No, you didn't. You didn't understand my question.

[Magnus Anderson]

Since relativity is a theory, and that means an interpretation of empirical data, what relativity says is not as important as what empirical data says. This is why I want to know whether it is the totality of empirical data that we have, and not merely theory of relativity, that is inconsistent with the idea of objective time.

???? That is nowhere near how science works. What, do you imagine "empirical data" is without a context?
You're talking about some kind of hypothetical pile of experiences untranslated into words or something.
Do you know of the existence of the scientific method?

When we follow this method, Relativity proves true. Consistency in protocol. Ring a bell?

You have a sequence of observations such as \((1, 2, 3, 4)\). The number of hypotheses that fit this sequence is greater than one. You may discover one but that does not mean it's the only one. That's my entire point. You may discover that "The difference between any two adjacent numbers in the sequence is exactly 1" fits the data but it's not the only hypothesis that does so. In other words, the next number in the sequence might be \(5\) but it also might be \(1\).

More important than that is the fact that in order to say anything about the universe you must pick a vantage point. But the number of vantage points to pick from is greater than one. So which one are you going to pick? There are no "true" and "false" vantage points. They are just vantage points. Sure, they might have pros and cons but these have nothing to do with veracity i.e. you can't say that an advantage of a vantage point is that it's more true or that its disadvantage is that it's less true.

You can pick the vantage point of a dichromat to describe the universe. Nothing wrong about it as far as veracity is concerned. In the same exact way, you can pick the vantage point of any clock you want in order to describe the universe. As far as veracity is concerned, nothing wrong about it.

But here you are arguing that some vantage points are truer than others.

That's . . . nonsense.

[Fixed Cross]

You are thinking in a very peculiar linear and basic way and not at all in accordance with several breakthroughs which have happened in the 20th century.
Maybe it is not so peculiar at all and your thinking is just baroque.
But seriously, there is one paradigm we have that responds to our empirical testing and this paradigm has two theories which predict slightly different things on vastly different scales.

The reason for this difference is however the same logic from which the two theories are derived.
the slight discrepancy between the two theories about the one paradigm is result of the truth which gives rise to both of them. Philosophy has been the quest after this truth even before the scientific question arose.

The fundamental principle gives rise to different fundamental laws which differ and apply do different zones, scales, regions of existence.
This is why RM fails, to my own understanding, to predict reality in the moment; it fails to account for the discrepancy between laws that the enforcement of principles necessitates.

"Contextualism" - you should try to gain wisdom with Faust.

[MagsJ]

MagsJ - you should be grateful for the opportunity to learn it in this early early stage. I'm not very fond of lazy thinkers, as you might know.

No short version, then? Ok..

..it’s not that I’m a lazy thinker, but more that concepts and theories come and go, and many I learnt when young have been rendered useless.. with the testing and passing of time, so I prefer to see whether things are worth my while or not.. so more a tired thinker, than a lazy one.

A few days back, I near-aced a trial AFs Airman’s cognitive/intelligence test, so not that lazy (or slow) a thinker, after-all.. I did a lot better than I thought I would, too. lol

[WendyDarling]

Fixed wrote

Well I do not consider consciousness to be a law.

Could it be though through a new way of approaching it?

[iambiguous]

Fixed wrote

Well I do not consider consciousness to be a law.

Could it be though through a new way of approaching it?

And then after he answers that, he can take it back to the points I raised with him above:

Well I do not consider consciousness to be a law.

Okay, given something in particular that you have become conscious of today, if not a law, than what? If not God, than what? The distinction I make is between consciousness in the either/or world and consciousness in the is/ought world. Things we're conscious of that we are able to demonstrate to others and things that we are not -- the subjective/subjunctive self rooted in dasein. In what "I" presume to be a No God world

And, going all the way back to those fundamental questions of mine, this would also include your views on astrology and value ontology. And my views on dasein, conflicting goods and political economy...in an essentially meaningless world that ends in oblivion.

To be clear, this is your belief? Or someone elses belief?

Well, most of us are social beings. Where does "we" end and "I" begin? We were indoctrinated as children to believe certain things. Then, assuming some measure of autonomy, we sustain those beliefs all the way to the grave. Or, given the nature of the modern world, with so many more options, we have a particular sequence of experiences, relationships and access to ideas which predispose us to certain moral, political and religious prejudices. On the other hand, given the existence of contingency, chance and change we are also moving into a future in which new experiences, new relationships and new ideas can reconfigure "I" in any number of directions.

Or, rather, that's how I have come to view it. All I can then do is to come into places like this and note the reactions of others who do not view their own self like that at all. What are their arguments?

It's just that "I" seem to recognize this gap -- gaping chasm -- more then others. But then I'm not an objectivist.

What is an "objectivist"? I think Ive seen you use this word before, but I don't know what you mean with it.

Well, assuming I can take you seriously here, my understanding of it is just another existential contraption rooted in dasein. It is only what seems reasonable to me here and now: someone who believes that their own moral and political values are rooted in the "real me" in sync with the "right thing to do". And, thus, they come to divide the world into those who are "one of us" [the good guys] and "one of them" [the bad guys]. Rooted in either, God or political ideology or deontology or nature.

And, even here, given a world where I possess some measure of free will in order to conclude something that I have absolutely no capacity at all to actually demonstrate.

I'm afraid I don't understand what you are saying here either.

Not to worry. Going back to a complete understanding of existence itself, neither do I.

Oh, and just in case this is all just tongue in cheek:

Or, sure, maybe you would like to take a crack at it.