Proof of nonexistence of free will

Anything actually nonexistent is just an idea, since it can be nothing else.

Regarding an idea, of course we can take it as being something in itself, like a neuronal pattern in our brains, but in this case we are taking someone else's idea instead of ours, or taking ourselves for someone else. Our own idea of something, as we ourselves experience it, is only that something. And if that something is nothing, then our idea is nothing as well: the only way for us to realize that a unicorn does not actually exist is to realize that our idea is nothing, as our only way of experiencing that nothingness.

Conceiving the idea of a unicorn is the same as conceiving that unicorn, like asserting the truth of a sentence is the same as asserting that sentence.

Although a false idea has indeed an existence, the reason for this existence comes neither from its having a name -- "idea" -- nor from our own objectivity, but rather from its truth as a true falsehood: any false idea must refer to some "elements of reality," like a horn and a horse combined in a unicorn. So it is the same for us to say that unicorns are false or that no horse has a single horn. The truth of something being false depends on our separating the elements of a false combination. However, these elements are truly false as a nonexistent combination of elements, which turns the idea of their combination into the idea of their nothingness, hence -- as directly experienced by us -- into nothing, which is our only way of realizing they are, combined, nothing. Any idea must exist in some way so as to be nothing: it must refer to something actually existent so as to be utterly nonexistent. This results from its dual nature as a truth -- a true falsehood -- by which it exists, and a proper falsehood, by which it is -- as directly experienced by us -- nothing.

2 Replies

@guigus,

Quote:

Anything actually nonexistent is just an idea, since it can be nothing else.

And since thinking about an idea causes it to exist.

But it seems to me that you are still setting physical representation as a criteria for "existing", since you are referring to "neuronal patterns" in our brains. I do not neccesarily disagree with that use of the word, but it does make it so the word isn't aplickable to free will.
It seems to me your view are very similar to those of a materialist. Do you believe that everything is or should be accountable for in terms of physical process?

If so, we are worlds apart, since I am starting with the assumption that existence/reality or universe are phenomena of consciousness first and foremost, not a physical phenomena. I do not wish to go into this with you, merely to say that we may have very different starting points.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
Anything actually nonexistent is just an idea, since it can be nothing else.

And since thinking about an idea causes it to exist.

Originally, we think about objects, and our thinking consists, precisely, in the ideas of those objects. Thinking about ideas, which is called reflection, is a secondary, derived moment, and we can only think about ideas that we already had, hence that already existed in our minds. Thinking about ideas cannot cause them to exist.

Cyracuz wrote:

But it seems to me that you are still setting physical representation as a criteria for "existing", since you are referring to "neuronal patterns" in our brains.

A representation is not something physical, it is the physical that gets represented by us: by "physical representation" you mean physical existence. Your impulse of objectification already contaminated your very language, so you call a representation "physical." That's what I was referring to by pointing out that ideas are not something physical, like neuronal patterns in our brains: ideas are, in the first place, whatever we directly experience by that name, which is a re-presentation of something.

Cyracuz wrote:

I do not neccesarily disagree with that use of the word, but it does make it so the word isn't aplickable to free will.
It seems to me your view are very similar to those of a materialist. Do you believe that everything is or should be accountable for in terms of physical process?

Surely not.

Cyracuz wrote:

If so, we are worlds apart, since I am starting with the assumption that existence/reality or universe are phenomena of consciousness first and foremost, not a physical phenomena. I do not wish to go into this with you, merely to say that we may have very different starting points.

If you are to ever get somewhere, the only assumption you can start with is that you don't know how things really are, then try to understand such things based on your experience of them. If you start by assuming things are this or that way, you are imprisoning yourself from the beginning. So to speak, you are starting from the end, which is obviously a mistake.

1 Reply

@guigus,

Quote:

Originally, we think about objects, and our thinking consists, precisely, in the ideas of those objects. Thinking about ideas, which is called reflection, is a secondary, derived moment, and we can only think about ideas that we already had, hence that already existed in our minds. Thinking about ideas cannot cause them to exist.

And yet I am able to think of a unicorn. If the creature doesn't exist, how can that be, according to the above?

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
Originally, we think about objects, and our thinking consists, precisely, in the ideas of those objects. Thinking about ideas, which is called reflection, is a secondary, derived moment, and we can only think about ideas that we already had, hence that already existed in our minds. Thinking about ideas cannot cause them to exist.

And yet I am able to think of a unicorn. If the creature doesn't exist, how can that be, according to the above?

A unicorn just combines a horn and a horse in an actually nonexistent creature. The true ideas of a horn and a horse become the false idea of a unicorn. The truth of the combination of a horn and a horse in a unicorn -- a combination of true ideas -- is a true falsehood, so the unicorn -- which is an idea -- exists: it is true as a falsehood. However, the falsity of that combination -- which corresponds to no actually existent creature -- is just a falsehood, so the unicorn -- which is an idea -- does not exist: it is the falsity of a unicorn, on which its true falsity depends. As a true combination -- a combination of true ideas -- the unicorn exists: it is a true falsehood. As a false combination -- one resulting in a false creature -- the unicorn does not exist: it is just a falsehood.

Your question corresponds to the truth of any falsehood, which responds for its origin in true ideas. What you are missing is that a falsehood can only be true by remaining the falsity on which its true falsity depends -- the nonexistent result of an ideal combination. As just a falsehood -- and not a true falsehood -- an idea is the same nothingness by which alone we know it is false.

1 Reply

@guigus,

2+2=bunnies

0 Replies

In other words, what an idea happens to be depends on whatever it happens to be an idea of: in itself, an idea is always nothing. If it is a combination of true ideas, even if resulting in a false idea, then it happens to be something -- a true idea or a truly false one -- by containing the ideas of actually existent objects. If it is just a false idea, despite combining true ideas, then it happens to be nothing, by being a false way of combining true ideas -- or, which is the same, a nonexistent combination result.

This is why both idealism and materialism are mistaken: they both turn an idea into something, one by objectifying it without materializing it (idealism), and the other by objectifying it and materializing it (materialism). Idealism is more fecund, since it is closer to the truth by not materializing ideas, but materialism is more honest by recognizing it must materialize ideas in order to objectify them.

0 Replies

As Martin Heidegger says in “Being and Time”, “In Being-there (Dasein), the way the world is understood is reflected back ontologically upon the way in which Being-there (Dasein) gets interpreted.”

In other words, you live your life as if who you are is the world you live in. You were born into a world that was here long before you (or your parents, parents, parents) got here and along with the 'world' and the 'they' you have reduced Be-ing to the level of memorizing the things that were here before you got here. Things like concepts (a combination of characteristics), animals, opinions, human beings, cars, philosophy, trucks, and anything else that is measurable and definable. You even got to memorize your parents', and their parents', and their parents' attitudes about the predicament you and they are in. “The sins of the father will be visited on the son.” You live your life as if who you are is a measurable, definable thing and you really don't have a choice in the matter.

The world and the opinion of the 'they' defines who you are. The 'world' and the 'they' define your conversations, your agreements, your disagreements, etc. The parameters of the 'things' you agree to define the very conversation you have, so what you're left with is manipulating and being manipulated, no satisfaction. When you disagree, you argue for your point-of-view and when you reach a point of not wanting to think anymore you pull out the 'wild card' and tell the other person that everybody is 'entitled to their own opinion' never noticing that its the things of the world and the 'they' that define your agreements and disagreements, your participation in the conversation, and ultimately who you are. Your only 'free will' in the matter is to apply your particular 'spin' on that which defines you. “Thingdom” doesn't have any room for you to be.

Who you are is the 'My' in 'My finger', you are the 'My' and not the 'finger' which is measurable and definable. Look up 'My' and 'I' in the dictionary. 'My' and 'I' are both defined as “used by a speaker in referring to himself or herself”. That's not a definition, 'My' and 'I' can't be defined by the 'world' or the 'they', that means only you have the power to bring meaning into this meaningless world.

You are the subject and philosophy is an object with no meaning. You have to remove the separation you've artificially created (to protect you), reach into the abyss of who you are, and drag meaning (kicking and scratching) into this world. The world is meaningless. Everybody is looking for meaning in the world and you ain't never gonna find it there. Meaning comes from you. The deeper you go into the abyss, the more meaning you find in the world. I didn't make it this way, it just took me almost 62 years to notice the way it is.

The only 'free will' you have is whether or not you are going to extract your 'self' from the entanglement of the meaningless 'world' and the 'they'. As Emerson said it in the 1800's this is “the plot of ground you've been given to work” and nothing else will give you any joy or satisfaction.

1 Reply

@Dasein,

Dasein wrote:

As Martin Heidegger says in “Being and Time”, “In Being-there (Dasein), the way the world is understood is reflected back ontologically upon the way in which Being-there (Dasein) gets interpreted.”

Fortunately, Marx, long before Heidegger, already showed we also produce the world we live in: "being-there" is also "working-there," as thus changing whatever "there" means.

Dasein wrote:

In other words, you live your life as if who you are is the world you live in.

And the world itself gets changed by your activity, by which you change yourself.

Dasein wrote:

You were born into a world that was here long before you (or your parents, parents, parents) got here and along with the 'world' and the 'they' you have reduced Be-ing to the level of memorizing the things that were here before you got here. Things like concepts (a combination of characteristics), animals, opinions, human beings, cars, philosophy, trucks, and anything else that is measurable and definable. You even got to memorize your parents', and their parents', and their parents' attitudes about the predicament you and they are in. “The sins of the father will be visited on the son.” You live your life as if who you are is a measurable, definable thing and you really don't have a choice in the matter.

We are not measurable things: consciousness is unmeasurable, it rather measures things. There are measurable and unmeasurable things, and we ourselves, in which we have that is fundamentally different from objectivity, are unmeasurable.

Dasein wrote:

The world and the opinion of the 'they' defines who you are.

The world only partially defines who I am, as also does history: I myself do the rest of the work. We are not "reflections" of the world, we are active makers (and lately destroyers) of it.

Dasein wrote:

The 'world' and the 'they' define your conversations, your agreements, your disagreements, etc. The parameters of the 'things' you agree to define the very conversation you have, so what you're left with is manipulating and being manipulated, no satisfaction. When you disagree, you argue for your point-of-view and when you reach a point of not wanting to think anymore you pull out the 'wild card' and tell the other person that everybody is 'entitled to their own opinion' never noticing that its the things of the world and the 'they' that define your agreements and disagreements, your participation in the conversation, and ultimately who you are. Your only 'free will' in the matter is to apply your particular 'spin' on that which defines you. “Thingdom” doesn't have any room for you to be.

There is always room for you to be, and if you chose not to, then that is your choice, and you are the only one to blame, no matter how much history you have on your back as an excuse. That's what's missing in your philosophy: responsibility.

Dasein wrote:

Who you are is the 'My' in 'My finger', you are the 'My' and not the 'finger' which is measurable and definable. Look up 'My' and 'I' in the dictionary. 'My' and 'I' are both defined as “used by a speaker in referring to himself or herself”. That's not a definition, 'My' and 'I' can't be defined by the 'world' or the 'they', that means only you have the power to bring meaning into this meaningless world.

Meaning depends both on you and on the world: you cannot produce any meaning without the world, but the world has many people in it, which can produce meaning without you. And your contribution to meaning in a social scale is usually minimal. Besides, mankind has already produced plenty of meaning, actually much more than one single person can deal with. Our problem is not the lack of meaning: it is the lack of consistent meaning -- meaning capable of solving our present many conundrums, some deadly for even our entire species.

Dasein wrote:

You are the subject and philosophy is an object with no meaning.

Philosophy is our thinking, it is not an object. Books are objects, not ideas. And without meaning, there is no philosophy. Neither literature, nor mathematics, and so on.

Dasein wrote:

You have to remove the separation you've artificially created (to protect you), reach into the abyss of who you are, and drag meaning (kicking and scratching) into this world.

If you dig into yourself in this way, you will only find one thing: madness. The world already produces meaning: you are not alone, and you are not an abyss. An abyss is what is in front of us right now, and we will fall if we keep listening to people like Heidegger, someone who's intellect was so great that he couldn't see that Hitler was a monster.

Dasein wrote:

The world is meaningless. Everybody is looking for meaning in the world and you ain't never gonna find it there.

Unless you consider the world as including other people.

Dasein wrote:

Meaning comes from you.

Meaning comes from our interaction with the world and other people, including our productive life ("by the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground," remember?). You are not a brain in a vase on the desk.

Dasein wrote:

The deeper you go into the abyss, [...]

The closer you get to the madhouse.

Dasein wrote:

[...] the more meaning you find in the world. I didn't make it this way, it just took me almost 62 years to notice the way it is.

I suspect you will need another 62 years...

Dasein wrote:

The only 'free will' you have is whether or not you are going to extract your 'self' from the entanglement of the meaningless 'world' and the 'they'.

How did you get so deadly sad? Don't you do anything meaningful, productive or positive in your life? Jesus.

Dasein wrote:

As Emerson said it in the 1800's this is “the plot of ground you've been given to work” and nothing else will give you any joy or satisfaction.

You remembered me of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EToJ4lRq0xk

1 Reply

@guigus,

Congratulations! You just provided us with a perfect example of what was said in my post. There will be people who get what I am saying and they will see the possibility and then there will be those who are not ready to here what I'm saying and they will be a walking argument against what I said. I can't do anything about either one.

1 Reply

@guigus,

Guigus wrote:
"Anything actually nonexistent is just an idea, since it can be nothing else."

This is an example of how hard it is to say anything meaningful about nonexistence, as Russell and others found.

"AnyTHING": what makes a thing a thing, and isn't it obviously self-contradictory to talk about "a nonexistent thing"?

"Anything ACTUALLY": doesn't actual mean "real"?

"Anything actually nonexistent IS": in other words, "Anything actually nonexistent EXISTS."

"Anything actually nonexistent is ... AN IDEA": This predicates something of "a nonexistent thing." But a nonexistent, by definition, can have no properties and, in fact, cannot be perceived or known or in any way experienced. So you might as well say, "A nonexistent thing is purple."

The bottom line, in my opinion, is that it's impossible to say anything at all about a true nonexistent; and as a corollary, anything that can be talked about cannot be nonexistent. What remains, then, is to figure out what KIND of existence it has.

2 Replies

@Amphiclea,

"Existence" relates only to the physical representation of objects. That is what the word means. It is real if it is empirically knowable or percievable. It's that simple.
Used beyond that the word quickly becomes void of meaning, since anything known within consciousness neccesarily exists.
So that which exists is conceptual and physical. That which doesn't exist is conceptual only. This is the distinction the word is designed to allow, as I see it. The distinction existent/non-existence has to relate to the physical world either now, once upon a time or sometime in the future.

Therefore, since the concept of free will has no physical representation, when we apply the word "existence" to it, it tells us nothing. You may as well ask what color free will is for the sense it will make.

As I see it, what we should be asking is wether or not the idea of free will can explain to our satisfaction the relationships between choice, freedom and deterministic notions such as god and environment in the human experience.

2 Replies

@Dasein,

Dasein wrote:

Congratulations! You just provided us with a perfect example of what was said in my post. There will be people who get what I am saying and they will see the possibility and then there will be those who are not ready to here what I'm saying and they will be a walking argument against what I said. I can't do anything about either one.

It would be so intellectually polite of you to explain how I happen to be an illustration of your point... Or are you leaving this to the abyss?

0 Replies

@Amphiclea,

Amphiclea wrote:

guigus wrote:

"Anything actually nonexistent is just an idea, since it can be nothing else."

This is an example of how hard it is to say anything meaningful about nonexistence, as Russell and others found.

That's because nothing is also something, as I said before: as a combination of true ideas, it is a true falsehood, which is nothing as a being, and as the nonexistent result of that combination, it is just a falsehood, which is nothing as properly nothing. However, there is no "pure" nothing, as there is no "pure" being: one is always leading us to the other.

Amphiclea wrote:

"AnyTHING": what makes a thing a thing, and isn't it obviously self-contradictory to talk about "a nonexistent thing"?

That "self-contradiction" is the best clue you have of what you are talking about. Instead of rejecting it, follow it. Philosophy lost a lot of time judging contradictions, much like moralists judge other people's behavior, when it should first understand them, so as to learn from them.

Amphiclea wrote:

"Anything ACTUALLY": doesn't actual mean "real"?

No, since possibilities are as much real as actualities.

Amphiclea wrote:

"Anything actually nonexistent IS": in other words, "Anything actually nonexistent EXISTS."

That's right. As I told you just above, being and nothingness constantly become each other. This is not a language mistake: language is just showing you what it is made of.

Amphiclea wrote:

"Anything actually nonexistent is ... AN IDEA": This predicates something of "a nonexistent thing." But a nonexistent, by definition, can have no properties and, in fact, cannot be perceived or known or in any way experienced. So you might as well say, "A nonexistent thing is purple."

A nonexistent purple thing is indeed purple: as you already noticed, anything must exist (as an idea) in order to be nonexistent. It is like the horn of the unicorn: it would exist if it were not in the forehead of a horse, in which case it becomes nothing. But it must be something (a horn) so as to become a nonexistent horn.

Amphiclea wrote:

The bottom line, in my opinion, is that it's impossible to say anything at all about a true nonexistent; and as a corollary, anything that can be talked about cannot be nonexistent. What remains, then, is to figure out what KIND of existence it has.

If it were so, then we would have unicorns flying around, and if we wanted to make anything actually true, then it would suffice to just mention it. This would be magic... This absurdities result from denying the contradiction in the heart of being, by which it is both being and nothingness. The true fallacy consists in believing in an absolute being: being already has nothingness in its heart.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

"Existence" relates only to the physical representation of objects. That is what the word means.

Sorry but "physical representation of objects" means that objects represent objects, hence omitting any proper act of representation.

Cyracuz wrote:

It is real if it is empirically knowable or percievable. It's that simple.

You are confusing "real" with "physical." Here is a lesson we should learn from idealists: if there is one thing they know is to distinguish reality from the physical.

Cyracuz wrote:

Used beyond that the word quickly becomes void of meaning, since anything known within consciousness neccesarily exists.
So that which exists is conceptual and physical. That which doesn't exist is conceptual only. This is the distinction the word is designed to allow, as I see it. The distinction existent/non-existence has to relate to the physical world either now, once upon a time or sometime in the future.

When NASA created the first rocket to the moon, it existed only in the minds of the people at NASA. Then, they built it, and it became physically real. But it was real in their minds before that, thanks to which they could build it. At first, it was a possibility: a real possibility. Then, it became an actuality. Abstractions are not physical, but they are real, and our world is in great debt to them.

Cyracuz wrote:

Therefore, since the concept of free will has no physical representation, when we apply the word "existence" to it, it tells us nothing. You may as well ask what color free will is for the sense it will make.

The concept of free will has no physical representation, since there is no such thing as a physical representation. Free will is not a physical object, if is that what you are trying to say. Your constitutional rights are also not physical objects, but I guess you will not like if someone deny you those rights.

Cyracuz wrote:

As I see it, what we should be asking is wether or not the idea of free will can explain to our satisfaction the relationships between choice, freedom and deterministic notions such as god and environment in the human experience.

Haven't you just discarded free will as nonexistent? Then how could it explain anything? And from where could come "choice" and "freedom"? In which way are they physical objects?

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

"'Existence' relates only to the physical representation of objects. That is what the word means. It is real if it is empirically knowable or perceivable. It's that simple."

I'm very curious indeed to know where you obtained this definition. I would argue very strenuously that physical existence is only one "kind of existence" (as I suggested in my previous comment) among many (or at least several). Does the square of the hypoteneuse of a right triangle equal the sum of the squares of the other two sides only if we're looking at a physical representation of a right triangle? Plato certainly wouldn't have thought so, and neither do I.

"As I see it, what we should be asking is whether or not the idea of free will can explain to our satisfaction the relationships between choice, freedom and deterministic notions such as god and environment in the human experience."

God is a deterministic notion only in some religions, not all, and environment (or genetics, for that matter) is deterministic only according to some materialist perspectives. What I think tends to get left out is the fact that the individual object or being is fully determined (it is itself and no other object or being), so the question really is what degrees of freedom are left to the fully determined individual. I would say that even if it's just a binary (to be or not to be, for example), if it offers a genuine distinction (moral or ethical, for instance), it's still a real choice - unlike the fake choice between, say, 32 varieties of breakfast cereal.

1 Reply

@guigus,

"Philosophy lost a lot of time judging contradictions, much like moralists judge other people's behavior, when it should first understand them, so as to learn from them."

So you reject non-contradiction as a criterion. In that case, it will be impossible for anyone to prove (or disprove) anything at all to you, in a formal sense. Because non-contradiction is, of course, the most fundamental criterion in logic: ~(A Ʌ ~A).

I'll happily acknowledge that some contradictions are more apparent than real, though I do think this applies mainly in casual talk. But there's no contradiction more real than that between a thing and its negation, viz., existence and nonexistence. A thing cannot have a property and the negation of that property at the same time; an existent cannot be nonexistent, or vice versa.

1 Reply

@Amphiclea,

Quote:

I'm very curious indeed to know where you obtained this definition.

I thought about the word. It doesn't seem to have any other meaningful distinctions.
Any abstract concept exists if there is knowledge about it, and if not, then it is not and cannot be subject to a discussion about it's existence. You would have to form the concept before you could determine if it existed, so "it exists" obviously doesn't shed more light on it.
Which leaves us with concepts that refer to physical objects and entities, where a meaningful distinction can be made between the things that are represented physically and the things that aren't. Horses and unicorns, for instance. When you say "unicorns do not exist" it means that the creature has no physical representation, it is not to be found in the physical world. Horses are, and so they exist.

1 Reply

@Amphiclea,

Amphiclea wrote:

guigus wrote:
Philosophy lost a lot of time judging contradictions, much like moralists judge other people's behavior, when it should first understand them, so as to learn from them.

So you reject non-contradiction as a criterion. In that case, it will be impossible for anyone to prove (or disprove) anything at all to you, in a formal sense. Because non-contradiction is, of course, the most fundamental criterion in logic: ~(A Ʌ ~A).

Today there are many logical formalisms, and some do not endorse the principle of non-contradiction, while others do not endorse the principle of the excluded middle. But I am no logical formalist, so I neither reject the principle of non-contradiction nor endorse it -- I do both, by treating it as relative: contradictions are inadmissible only subjectively, that is, just in our minds. However, objectively, they still defy us (denying contradictions is just trying to isolate oneself from the outside world). Our task is to reconcile the logic that is valid in our immaculate minds with the one that is valid in the objective world. In other words, we must at the same time endorse and abandon the principle of non-contradiction, by using contradictions to gain knowledge at the same time of ourselves and of the world. There is a very good example in Marx's Capital:

Quote:

For instance, it is a contradiction to depict one body as constantly falling towards another, and as, at the same time, constantly flying away from it. The ellipse is a form of motion which, while allowing this contradiction to go on, at the same time reconciles it.

And whatever you prove by making the principle of non-contradiction relative in this way will be much more compelling -- and vital -- that any logically formal proof.

Amphiclea wrote:

I'll happily acknowledge that some contradictions are more apparent than real, though I do think this applies mainly in casual talk. But there's no contradiction more real than that between a thing and its negation, viz., existence and nonexistence. A thing cannot have a property and the negation of that property at the same time; an existent cannot be nonexistent, or vice versa.

You are the same person you were yesterday, right? But you are also another person, since your body has changed. Then, you are both the same and not the same. That's called change. We live in a world that's constantly changing, so it violates the principle of non-contradiction much more times in a minute than you can think of in that same period of time. Of course that does not change the fact that you mind cannot conceive of contradiction: you cannot possibly conceive of A and not A at the same time. But that is your mind -- and mine -- not the world. Whenever you try to cope with objective reality, you must face contradiction, as quantum physicists have known too well for decades.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
I'm very curious indeed to know where you obtained this definition.

I thought about the word. It doesn't seem to have any other meaningful distinctions.
Any abstract concept exists if there is knowledge about it, and if not, then it is not and cannot be subject to a discussion about it's existence. You would have to form the concept before you could determine if it existed, so "it exists" obviously doesn't shed more light on it.
Which leaves us with concepts that refer to physical objects and entities, where a meaningful distinction can be made between the things that are represented physically and the things that aren't. Horses and unicorns, for instance. When you say "unicorns do not exist" it means that the creature has no physical representation, it is not to be found in the physical world. Horses are, and so they exist.

Unicorns also exist, as possibilities -- or in your mind, if you prefer. If unicorns were just nothing, then they would be identical to the Kraken, which also does not physically exist -- plain nothingness cannot be different from plain nothingness. However, a unicorn is different from the Kraken.

0 Replies

Proof of nonexistence of free will

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know