Free will is an epistemic problem

[Age]

It seems a rather very foolish thing to expect that just because you are NOT accepting what the other is presenting to you, that you would then question them about why are they EVEN presenting it to you.

Is it foolish? I imagine the reason you present me with your reasoning is so that I can give you corrective feedback? So that I can hold you accountable to MY standards for justification?

If you don't want me to to scrutinise your justification then why even bother presenting it to me? Hold yourself accountable to your own standards in the privacy of your own head.

The REASON I am presenting them to you is so that you will re-write them and then explain to ALL of us here WHAT is actually wrong in them.

You, however, do NOT do that. Instead, you just say things like; You have not given any. You can NOT provide any. et cetera.

[TimeSeeker]

But you have said I can NOT provide an answer to this question, therefore rendering an answer as impossible.

So, WHY the continual questioning of some thing that even YOU yourself BELIEVE is an impossibility?

Why do you believe that I believe it's an impossibility? I clearly saw you make a choice. Therefore I believe that a choice was made. It is so obvious that I think you have the ability to make choices. I didn't think it necessary to point out the obvious?

I just chose to scratch my ass. Because free will!

Because ANY human being can MAKE ANY CHOICE that they so choose to make, then WHAT does that mean?

I am not speaking to ANY human being. I am speaking to YOU. YOU can't tell me WHY you made the choice that you made.

So you don't know why? If you don't know WHY you made the choice that you made - do you really have free will?

[Age]

But, as I just explained to you, that was NOT what was in question. What was in question, was what was in YOUR question, and that was: WHY are you even presenting them here?

You really do NOT see what is actually happening here, do you?

I think I have a clue and a strategy

I see it and I recognise that you lack the knowledge to recognise that it is exactly the same question. It is because you are ignorant you think it's a different question.

I am just rephrasing it until you recognise it for what it is... Until (or if) it makes sense to you.

So, again 'I' am the one who is lacking in knowledge and/or 'I' am the one who is ignorant.

That is fair enough considering it was Me who said I am here to LEARN.

[Age]

But you have said I can NOT provide an answer to this question, therefore rendering an answer as impossible.

So, WHY the continual questioning of some thing that even YOU yourself BELIEVE is an impossibility?

Why do you believe that I believe it's an impossibility? I clearly saw you make a choice. Therefore I believe that a choice was made. It is so obvious that I didn't think it necessary to point out?

You are so FAR OFF track I am not sure how to begin to bring you back on.

Because ANY human being can MAKE ANY CHOICE that they so choose to make, then WHAT does that mean?

I am not speaking to ANY human being. I am speaking to YOU. YOU can't tell me WHY you make the choices that you make.

So you don't know why?

And, you have NOT yet answered one question I ask of you.

You are FREE to BELIEVE whatever you like.

YOU will NOT look at the actual issue here.

I have already said that I achieved what I set out to achieve, and that if you want to continue on the way that you wanted to take this, then I would happily oblige. YOU obviously do NOT want to do that. I have also said you will NOT accept My answer so then you are free to provide the answer that you so obviously desperately WANT. But you also will NOT provide that, So I am NOT at all sure WHAT you want here now.

[Age]

If you don't know WHY you made the choice that you made - do you really have free will?

Again, you edit and change, when I am responding.

But I do KNOW WHY I made the choice that I made.

YOU just BELIEVE that I do NOT KNOW WHY.

You also BELIEVE that I can NOT provide the answer.

BELIEFS, literally, prevent and STOP people from seeing the Truth of things.

Therefore, the reason WHY YOU are NOT OPEN and thus ABLE TO SEE that I have already provided AN answer.

[TimeSeeker]

I have already said that I achieved what I set out to achieve, and that if you want to continue on the way that you wanted to take this, then I would happily oblige. YOU obviously do NOT want to do that. I have also said you will NOT accept My answer so then you are free to provide the answer that you so obviously desperately WANT. But you also will NOT provide that, So I am NOT at all sure WHAT you want here now.

What exactly was it that you set out to achieve on my thread? Make a fool of yourself by derailing the discussion? Well done!

Which part of the following is not clear?

1. I presented 2 options (for simplicity). I could have given you 5. Or 50. Or 500000. Or N.
2. You did what I could have done. You presented a 3rd option - which didn't change the challenge in any way (even though you think you did).

Given the N=3 options on the table:

A. 1+1 = 2 (Decimal)
B. 1+1 = 10 (Binary)
C. None of the above.

You selected C.

You are yet to justify WHY C. You are yet to justify WHY NOT A or B.

Unless you can present such justification your choice was no different than a dice. Like this:

In [21]: random.choice (['A','B','C'])
Out[21]: 'A'
In [22]: random.choice (['A','B','C'])
Out[22]: 'A'
In [23]: random.choice (['A','B','C'])
Out[23]: 'C'
In [24]: random.choice (['A','B','C'])
Out[24]: 'B'

See! That's how free will works.

[TimeSeeker]

But I do KNOW WHY I made the choice that I made.

OK! Then tell me! That's all I am asking you.

YOU just BELIEVE that I do NOT KNOW WHY.

You also BELIEVE that I can NOT provide the answer.

I don't believe or disbelieve anything. I am only watching you indulge in verbal masturbation instead of providing the answer.

[Eodnhoj7]

Choice, that which occurs between multiple options, is strictly directed movement as the choice which one observes is the direction they physically, emotionally, intellectual move towards.

I am starting to see how you use the phrase "directed movement". It's how I use the word "action". In the Black Box model ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_box ). It is any measurable output. A consequence. An effect on reality.

Yes, like I said before and will probably say again, they major issue we have (as well as all philosophy for that matter), is an entropy in language where one definition inverts to many definitions and vice versa. This nature of inversion, which can be equivocated to nothingness or void synonymous to 0d point space, is inherent within the element of choice.

Now for sake of argument, let's look at the work "action".

From it we see a connection to movement, by any standard (I will explain why the word choice later on down). The question then what is movement? Using the example of me walking from point A to Point B as movement what I observe is a multiplicity of points. There is point A and there is point B.

This multiplicity of points only occurs if I move from one to another, I can only move however if that movement is directed. Without direction movement is without form and merely exists as nothing. So in walking from point A to point B they occur as places of inversion where the directed movement begins/ends with this begin/end (as this itself is relative) as inversion being where a directed movement inverts to another directed movement.

****Inversion is effectively nothingness in form and function, hence observe all structural unity changing to a multiplicity and all multiplicity change to a unity. Inversion can be observed as a dualistic opposition.

Hence points a and b are merely relative centerpoints to other movements which I have, am or will make as they are places of inversion between these movement and exist as nothing in themselves. These points, when projected from one to another gain "limits" (directed movement or in your words "action" considering all limits as continuum are inherently active).

So what we observe as directed movement, occurs through a multiplicity.

Now A paradox occurs in the respect both Point A and Point B exists as extensions of eachother. Point A exists as a cause of point B, point B exists as an effect of Point A with this effect being a cause in itself in the respect The point is a point, regardless of its position. Point A and B are in effect extensions of eachother and as such exist as 1. The walking of me from one point to another effectively connects them.

These points exist as pure movement in themselves in the respect they exist through eachother as eachother by being directed towards eachother. So the walking is merely an approximation of these points existing throug eachother. Point A and B exist as pure movement, with my walking merely being a negative directed movement between them. A negative directed movement effectively is an observation of connection between them where my walking is merely an not a directed movement in themselves but rather an extension of the Points A and B through eachother as points of pure movement.



In summary these points can only be observed as real when given form and function as directed movement. Without movement, there is no direction, without direction there is no movement. In a dual respect they form are pure movement, and any apparent directed movement between this is an approximation of the one point moving through itself under an inherent multiplicity as an approximation of a 1d point of pure movement containing all movement as one infinite movement.

Now the question of choice, being the prime origin of creation in the respect all creation exists through directed movement and all directed movement occurs through pure direction as a 1d point and inversion or nothing as 0d space. All choice as origin of structure is point space.

The issue of using the word "action", is that while you are correct in your assessment is ironically a problem of unity more than anything. If something is unified, that while true, an inherent vagueness occurs in the respect we cannot observe the relations which compose its definition. Under these terms "action" can reflect just about anything while still being true, but this truth value does not eliminate the inherent vagueness within it.

Defintion is dependent upon am inherent dualism, binary nature, considering all definition is premised not just in relation but multiplicity. That is why "directed movement" is chosen as "points" of reference, lol.

Considering choice is premised in an intersection of multiple phenomenon (in this case two symmetrical mathematics languages) with this intersection of these multiple paths/ways/etc. (Direction) meeting at a point, what we understand of choice is a point of origin.

Or a point of deflection.Change. In direction or momentum.

Yes, keep in mind intersection/deflection are directions in themselves and in these respects are relative observations of time.

2) and simultaneously a means of inversion where the choice necessitates an inversion of one path to many paths with these many paths being inverted to one path. Choice, as inversive, is without form in these respects and observes a dual subjective nature.

If I am starting to understand your language then a "point" is any significant event. A point in spacetime?
A directed movement is a "choice" or "action". And the "directed through a line" is the direction. In one picture:

directed movement.png



Yes, as well as strucuture. If I form a structure from a choice this structure exists as choice in itself. Creation and free will through choice are one and the same in many respects.

The point is origin of all and is pure choice but is not limited to it. The point, as nothing, inverting to another point through directed movement, observes all choice as directed movement. We can observe this intuitively with words such as "finishing the race" (a form of proejction) equating choice as a form of will with choice being embodied through will.

The directed movement is composed of infinite points or infinite choice as will, between two points.

3) Choice is dually a point of origin and point of inversion with this origin/inversive nature of consciousness existing as a third neutral element of the point strictly for what it is (I may have to elaborate further).

It is the process of:
1. Recognising that a choice exists.
2. Making the choice e.g directing your movement.

In my language that's a decision. The entity making the decision (directing their movement) is an agent. Or consciousness. Whatever - it's a whole.

Yes, the choice is merely a point of awareness projecting to further structure with the structure being composed of point space being the embodiment of choice.

As to the correct choice between the Maths? What is correct, hence true, in regards to use leamds itself a symmetry where the choice is symmetrical to the goal one wishes to take. There is no correct choice if no goal is kept, hence choice is merely a form of structuring or creation.

Agreed. Without criteria for success or failure (e.g values) there is no such thing as "correct choice". This is straight out of decision theory.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_theory

In simpler terms, in respect to your argument, choice is a means of creation and the structure created from that choice is determined as true or false based upon its ability to maintain itself.

Not to maintain itself. To increase the likelihood of reaching the goal. It is akin to Dijkstra' shortest path algorithms.

Yes, we are on symmetrical pages. The difference is language, and the inherent diversity in it due to prior choices. We are composed of and exist through the choices of others (in this case the micro choices involved with the diversity to language) with are choices existing through theres.

It all breaks down to directed movement with directedd movement existing through the line point and circle.

[TimeSeeker]

Yes, we are on symmetrical pages. The difference is language, and the inherent diversity in it due to prior choices. We are composed of and exist through the choices of others (in this case the micro choices involved with the diversity to language) with are choices existing through theres.

It all breaks down to directed movement with directedd movement existing through the line point and circle.

You will find that the structure you observe underneath the language is the same structure pretty much everybody else observes too.
The rest of the back-and-forth arguing is everybody trying to impose their language on others while talking about the same damn things (phenomenologists know this! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomeno ... hilosophy) ). It's a game of many losers, so I decided to figure out how to solve the problem. Turns out it's the same damn problem as this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus ... r_science)

So, having invented my own internally-consistent language/narrative about the world which works pretty damn well for me (as you have) I eventually had to cross the bridge of talking to others. And so a translation step was necessary. I still think in my own head-language, but now I pause and translate into common English.

And in the last 2-3 years I have been forced to learn to communicate with the rest of society. Finding wikipedia references for my thoughts has proven very useful in building a bridge between my head-language and English.

Just read the wikipedia links - you will find that most of this ground has been covered already. Or you will find that you are onto newer soil!

Either way - new ideas need to be communicated so the bridge needs to be built.

[TimeSeeker]

The REASON I am presenting them to you is so that you will re-write them and then explain to ALL of us here WHAT is actually wrong in them.

You, however, do NOT do that. Instead, you just say things like; You have not given any. You can NOT provide any. et cetera.

It's as simple as this: You are using your choice as evidence for "free will". When I ask you to justify your choices you point to back to free will. You are using the one to justify the other in a circular fashion. It's a fallacy: https://grammarist.com/rhetoric/begging ... n-fallacy/

If you can't justify your choice with anything but appeal to "free will", how can you tell that you aren't simply choosing what society has programmed you to choose? You didn't demonstrate "free will" to me. Only mediocre contrarianism - like every rebellious teenager.

[Eodnhoj7]

Yes, we are on symmetrical pages. The difference is language, and the inherent diversity in it due to prior choices. We are composed of and exist through the choices of others (in this case the micro choices involved with the diversity to language) with are choices existing through theres.

It all breaks down to directed movement with directedd movement existing through the line point and circle.

You will find that the structure you observe underneath the language is the same structure pretty much everybody else observes too.
The rest of the back-and-forth arguing is everybody trying to impose their language on others while talking about the same damn things (phenomenologists know this! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomeno ... hilosophy) ). It's a game of many losers, so I decided to figure out how to solve the problem. Turns out it's the same damn problem as this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus ... r_science)

So, having invented my own internally-consistent language/narrative about the world which works pretty damn well for me (as you have) I eventually had to cross the bridge of talking to others. And so a translation step was necessary. I still think in my own head-language, but now I pause and translate into common English.

And in the last 2-3 years I have been forced to learn to communicate with the rest of society. Finding wikipedia references for my thoughts has proven very useful in building a bridge between my head-language and English.

Just read the wikipedia links - you will find that most of this ground has been covered already. Or you will find that you are onto newer soil!

Either way - new ideas need to be communicated so the bridge needs to be built.

Agree to the above.

But we are left with the question of unified foundational axioms, in language and all that is entails for language is a set of limits in itself leading to further limits.

The question of language, and it's inherent problems (or maybe better observed as "distortions"), leads not to just observing that entropy (inversion of one to many and many to one) is not limited to the framework of buts but can be observed in:

1. The aforementioned nature of language.
2. Perspective
3. Standard biology
4. Chemistry
5. Linear progression in mathematics/logic
6. Philosophical Schools.
7. Empirical structures such as a house or car.
8. Etc.

Now each of these premise axioms in turn are built upon there inherent structure, as the foundation is bulit through the structure in which it exists. A foundation stone exists through the house built through it.

And vice versa of course considering the progressive nature of creation is premised in time. So the foundation leading to the house, or the house leading to the foundation are strictly relativistic duals and observe a progression in time as one part to another.

Now one, within the application language write some "deep" epistemological statement about the nature of the foundation and house using a variety of philosophical terms, create new terms, quote x philosopher under a myriad of thousands philosophers, etc. but this will do little good because of the trappings of language.

Ironically, however we are still left with language in giving order to the distortion. So in understanding the nature of language, as while distortive due to its localization leaving polar "positive/existing" and "negative/absent of existing" values with all localization leaving a dual nature of clarity in one persception and ambiguity in another, we are left with the same paradox in defining language itself...one and many definitions to it.

Now this paradox of language, as well as all fields of practical and abstract study, at first seems unsolvable due to the problem of the axioms as having a common bond. The question of the common bond in these axioms, for most seems like an exercise in futility, until we look at the nature of these various systems for what they are: continually moving.

This nature of movement, in both reason of the mind and the intuition of emotion, is without any contradiction in the face of a society whose values and means of behaving are premised in a relativism. The problem occurs in the respect that this hyper relativism not only leads to a void of philosophical nihilism, this relativism and nihilism cannot sustain themselves as axioms under there own weight.

Perpetual relativism is a constant, hence we understand there is both absolute and relativistic truth. The same applies towards nihilism as it cancels itself out in both form and function to one of meaning.

So we are left with not just dualism of absolute/relativistic truth and meaning/nihilism but there premises based upon the directions these definitions are argue: linear and circular.

This act of argument/dialectic/preaching/questioning/whatever you want to call it as moving is formed through the directions of these movements. Under these terms language, and the phenomena they entail, are directed movements in themselves.

Now the defintion of directed movement, as still subject to the distortions of language, is subject to a variety of definitions however these movements are still premised in linear and circular foundations and we can observe a form of possibility in these directed movements as they form further complex directed movements, which act as simple directed movements...So on and so forth.

Under these terms the common bond of all abstract and physical being is one of limit with limit being directed movement with these three words cycling through eachother.

Now the paradox of this directed movement synthesized under the term limit, reflects back to the base dualism of absolute/relative truth and meaning/nihilism as having a problem of contradiction due to there opposition.

This opposition observes an absence of structure, or an absence of balance, where this opposition as contradictory(absent of truth)/paradoxical(mystery of truth) observes no common bond as mediation. This common bond, necessitates all structure existing through a center point of balance through which all being extends. This medial point, as a unified, necessitates a triad form at the base of all being as a center point from which all extremes/duals/even symmetry (in the Pythagorean sense of even)/etc. Extend from and go back to.

In these respects we are necessitated in understanding reality from a perceptive of a triad where absolute/relative truth and meaning/nihilism are joined. Synthesis is this triadic nature, where the dualism of the absolute and relative exists through a triad of absolute/relative/synthetic. Meaning/Nihilism, in turn, existing through Being as synthetic in itself.

This synthetic nature, being the triadic foundation of directed movement as linear/circular, results in point space.

Language as directed movement, is reflective of base geometric principles of the point, Line and circle, and provides a common foundation to all through space as pure being.

[Age]

The REASON I am presenting them to you is so that you will re-write them and then explain to ALL of us here WHAT is actually wrong in them.

You, however, do NOT do that. Instead, you just say things like; You have not given any. You can NOT provide any. et cetera.

It's as simple as this: You are using your choice as evidence for "free will".

Well if, as you say, I am using My choice as EVIDENCE, for 'free will', then I have succeeded in what I set out to do, in your thread of all things. Go figure.

So, that is settled.

When I ask you to justify your choices you point to back to free will. You are using the one to justify the other in a circular fashion. It's a fallacy: https://grammarist.com/rhetoric/begging ... n-fallacy/

Call it whatever you like.

If you can't justify your choice with anything but appeal to "free will", how can you tell that you aren't simply choosing what society has programmed you to choose?

If, LOL, "society" has programmed Me to choose what I did, and as you suggest, I am using some thing as EVIDENCE for free will, then that means that, that "society" predetermined this, free willed, outcome. Therefore, determinism is True, Right, and Correct, just as I have said and agreed with ALL along here. Die you MISS that part, also?

Are you at all aware of what has been happening here?

Also, If you BELIEVE "society" has programmed Me to choose what I did, then WHAT programmed "society" prior to that? And, WHAT exactly programmed THAT prior to THAT? And, so on.

If you WANT to continue down the 'determinism' route, then be prepared to go ALL the way. I am, are you?

I have already gone that route that eternity and infinity route AND returned the FULL CIRCLE. What I FOUND and DISCOVERED was the resolution to ALL of Life's so called "problems". Now if you WOULD like to go on THIS journey also, and become less wrong, then let us continue.

However, if you just WANT to "prove" that only determinism is RIGHT, then please go ahead, like you have been, and keep continually TRYING.

You didn't demonstrate "free will" to me.

Of course I did NOT. I KNOW I did NOT.

I also KNOW that I NEVER will, as long as you maintain the BELIEF that you have RIGHT NOW.

Do you WANT to KNOW WHY I could NEVER demonstrate 'free will' to YOU?

The reason I did not and never could demonstrate free will, to YOU, is because you BELIEVE the opposite is TRUE. You BELIEVE free will is an impossibility, correct?

As I have explained, in this forum, MANY times ALREADY, It is IMPOSSIBLE to demonstrate the opposite of THAT BELIEF, of what a person HOLDS as being already TRUE.

I have tried just about every thing to get past and through a BELIEF, when it is being held onto by a human being.

Even THEE actual TRUTH of some thing can NOT get through a BELIEF, that the opposite is true.

For evidence of THIS, find an adult human being, any adult human being will do for this, with a BELIEF, which you KNOW, for sure, is WRONG. Now, put THEE actual TRUTH in front of that person, and you will FIND OUT if they can SEE the truth or not.

If you are to lazy to try this yourself or if you just do not want to do it, then you CAN go back through My writings here, in this forum, and you WILL see many examples of this taking place.

In fact you only have to go back through this thread alone to FIND and SEE many examples of WHAT I am talking about now.

I have been USING your words also here as just another example of this. Your words alone ARE sufficient EVIDENCE that is needed to PROVE this very FACT. You were aware that that is WHAT has been happening here, right?

However, If you think that it is possible to get past or through A BELIEF within a human being, or you just find a way to do it, then please let me KNOW HOW, also. It would be much appreciated.

Only mediocre contrarianism - like every rebellious teenager.

If I am a "rebellious" teenager to you, then so be it.

Going against society's wrong doings is my fortitude.

'You', who make society, what it is, just do not like this nor even like to look at this.

[TimeSeeker]

The REASON I am presenting them to you is so that you will re-write them and then explain to ALL of us here WHAT is actually wrong in them.

You, however, do NOT do that. Instead, you just say things like; You have not given any. You can NOT provide any. et cetera.

It's as simple as this: You are using your choice as evidence for "free will".

Well if, as you say, I am using My choice as EVIDENCE, for 'free will', then I have succeeded in what I set out to do, in your thread of all things. Go figure.

So, that is settled.

When I ask you to justify your choices you point to back to free will. You are using the one to justify the other in a circular fashion. It's a fallacy: https://grammarist.com/rhetoric/begging ... n-fallacy/

Call it whatever you like.

If you can't justify your choice with anything but appeal to "free will", how can you tell that you aren't simply choosing what society has programmed you to choose?

If, LOL, "society" has programmed Me to choose what I did, and as you suggest, I am using some thing as EVIDENCE for free will, then that means that, that "society" predetermined this, free willed, outcome. Therefore, determinism is True, Right, and Correct, just as I have said and agreed with ALL along here. Die you MISS that part, also?

Are you at all aware of what has been happening here?

Also, If you BELIEVE "society" has programmed Me to choose what I did, then WHAT programmed "society" prior to that? And, WHAT exactly programmed THAT prior to THAT? And, so on.

If you WANT to continue down the 'determinism' route, then be prepared to go ALL the way. I am, are you?

I have already gone that route that eternity and infinity route AND returned the FULL CIRCLE. What I FOUND and DISCOVERED was the resolution to ALL of Life's so called "problems". Now if you WOULD like to go on THIS journey also, and become less wrong, then let us continue.

However, if you just WANT to "prove" that only determinism is RIGHT, then please go ahead, like you have been, and keep continually TRYING.

You didn't demonstrate "free will" to me.

Of course I did NOT. I KNOW I did NOT.

I also KNOW that I NEVER will, as long as you maintain the BELIEF that you have RIGHT NOW.

Do you WANT to KNOW WHY I could NEVER demonstrate 'free will' to YOU?

The reason I did not and never could demonstrate free will, to YOU, is because you BELIEVE the opposite is TRUE. You BELIEVE free will is an impossibility, correct?

INCORRECT. I believe in free will. Because I know I have it. I can justify ALL of my choices THEREFORE I have free will. It is because you can't justify your choices is why I am doubting whether you have free will. It doesn't look like you have found it and claimed it yet.

As I have explained, in this forum, MANY times ALREADY, It is IMPOSSIBLE to demonstrate the opposite of THAT BELIEF, of what a person HOLDS as being already TRUE.

Since this is just a strawman and I don't believe the "opposite" of what you think I believe - you should be able to demonstrate...

I have tried just about every thing to get past and through a BELIEF, when it is being held onto by a human being.

Even THEE actual TRUTH of some thing can NOT get through a BELIEF, that the opposite is true.

For evidence of THIS, find an adult human being, any adult human being will do for this, with a BELIEF, which you KNOW, for sure, is WRONG. Now, put THEE actual TRUTH in front of that person, and you will FIND OUT if they can SEE the truth or not.

If you are to lazy to try this yourself or if you just do not want to do it, then you CAN go back through My writings here, in this forum, and you WILL see many examples of this taking place.

In fact you only have to go back through this thread alone to FIND and SEE many examples of WHAT I am talking about now.

I have been USING your words also here as just another example of this. Your words alone ARE sufficient EVIDENCE that is needed to PROVE this very FACT. You were aware that that is WHAT has been happening here, right?

However, If you think that it is possible to get past or through A BELIEF within a human being, or you just find a way to do it, then please let me KNOW HOW, also. It would be much appreciated.

Only mediocre contrarianism - like every rebellious teenager.

If I am a "rebellious" teenager to you, then so be it.

Going against society's wrong doings is my fortitude.

'You', who make society, what it is, just do not like this nor even like to look at this.

Your ADD and selective answering of posts is getting in the way our discussion. Focus here:

But I do KNOW WHY I made the choice that I made.

OK! Then tell me why! That's all I am asking you.

YOU just BELIEVE that I do NOT KNOW WHY.

You also BELIEVE that I can NOT provide the answer.

I don't believe or disbelieve anything. I am only watching you indulge in verbal masturbation instead of providing the answer.

[henry quirk]

Given the CHOICE between two options...

A. 1+1 = 2 (Decimal)
B. 1+1 = 10 (Binary)

...HOW do you CHOOSE one over the other and why? Justify.

I (passively) choose 1 + 1 = 2 cuz it's the system I grew up with, it works, and I have no good reason to change horses right now.

Not exactly the most profound exercise of myself as a free will, but it is what it is.

[Age]

I believe in free will.

I don't believe or disbelieve anything.

Speaks for its self.