Proof of nonexistence of free will

This video is saying exactly what I have been saying upon nothingness, as expected guigus did not understood it properly...

you see the only application we have for nothingness which is emptiness goes attached to space and time not true nothingness which of course it can´t be...

therefore the only practical meaning on nothingness addresses the absence of things that are possible like this cigar or that chair that may or may not be here...

which in turn excludes non possible non conceivable things like squared circles which are meaningless once the word alone does not point to anything...

..."Squared circles" are not affirmed nor negated one simply does n´t know what the hack the expression is talking about...

what is negated in fact is that to such expression there is anything that corresponds...

the expression which exists in English,"squared circles" does not correspond to any meaningful thing that we can conceive off...guigus of course confused the word with the thing, but that is no surprise coming from someone who states what he states...

This problem further develops into a psychological problem upon the working of human mind which originates the apparent paradox...that is when we have an expression that fails to correspond to anything we falsely contrast it with a temporal and spatial void when in fact there is nothing to contrast with...

that is we say that a supposed something is absent when truthfully there is no such something nor to be absent or present in the first place...

nothingness it is so self contradictory as a concept that we immediately feel the compulsory need to make it something which we then call the void...

but if we are capable of some reasoning

we easily can understand

that such void is far from being nothingness once it corresponds to space and time...

1 - Something is contrasted with space which is not nothing guigus...
2 - A meaningless expression is not to be contrasted, we do it out of a compulsory need to make some sense out of it...
3 - Who said there is nothing to contrast something with...so far I said there is space a void to contrast stuff not nothing...
4 - it is not a spatial temporal void it is a spatial and temporal reality which we call a void...a spatial and temporal void would be the absence of space and time, learn to read !
5 - Something, very obviously, is either present or absent, it is not the case that a squared circle corresponds to any something ! (I don´t understand what "squared circles" even means, nor do you)
6 - Nothingness it is nothing, how much more contradictory do you want it to be ?

Finally I seriously suggest before you post your next reply you actually take the time to read what I am saying instead of making a straw man at every evidence I present you with...(otherwise you will be left talking to yourself as usual)

Being, pure being, without any further determination. In its indeterminate immediacy it is equal only to itself. It is also not unequal relatively to an other; it has no diversity within itself nor any with a reference outwards. It would not be held fast in its purity if it contained any determination or content which could be distinguished in it or by which it could be distinguished from an other. It is pure indeterminateness and emptiness. There is nothing to be intuited in it, if one can speak here of intuiting; or, it is only this pure intuiting itself. Just as little is anything to be thought in it, or it is equally only this empty thinking. Being, the indeterminate immediate, is in fact nothing, and neither more nor less than nothing.

Nothing, pure nothing: it is simply equality with itself, complete emptiness, absence of all determination and content---undifferentiatedness in itself. In so far as intuiting or thinking can be mentioned here, it counts as a distinction whether something or nothing is intuited or thought. To intuit or think nothing has, therefore, a meaning; both are distinguished and thus nothing is (exists) in our intuiting or thinking; or rather it is empty intuition and thought itself, and the same empty intuition or thought as pure being. Nothing is, therefore, the same determination, or rather absence of determination, and thus altogether the same as, pure being.

So where is the confusion up there ?
As I said we can contrast stuff, existent things with space and through time and even with other stuff while a meaningless expression although it obviously can´t refer to anything we compulsively tend to contrast it with the void (space) to assert that somehow it refers...we say that the expression is on/about a thing which does n´t exist in our Universe, but bottom line we just have an empty expression nothing else...so what is it that you did n´t understood in there ?
Do you have any other joke to brag about ?
I wonder what that anarchist mind of yours will bring up next ? oh boy...

sure, nothingness is everything, and black is white, and up is down, what nonsense

It really is hard for allot of us to understand this! I only understand a degree of what you all are talking about.

One of the problems that I see is a square circle. Guigus says that a square circle has to be a being if I understand him correctly but from my view point they are two separate objects that have two different meanings and are defined by their shapes which makes them impossible to be one.

Maybe I misunderstand what he was saying!

Is there any way that you two can put your differences in laymen s terms?

Not trying to be mean but could you use this logic with say a camel and a tree, lets call it a camel tree would it also have to exist?

That is a camel-tree must exist?

I thought I did but you seemed as if you may have had something that I was not aware of.
See what being open minded can do at times, "get you thinking about things that you all ready know. but I did learn something that you were talking about and that was nothingness is something or at least something like that!