Proof of nonexistence of free will

Are you referring to the existence of its none existence?

You seem to make sense that time!

I am referring to the reasoning according to which in order to negate something you need that something, otherwise you end up negating its negation, hence asserting what you intended to negate. If you don't understand this, then it is useless trying to go further.

This must be formal logic which I have never studied!

I did add to the one you commented on

Do you see any fancy symbols? It's just English. Don't you understand what I said?

Did you see where I reread and added {You seem to make sense that time!}

Let me try another way.

We know squared circles are nonexistent. However, their nonexistence is the negation of their existence: they do not exist (we are negating their existence). Notice how the negation refers to the very existence it negates. Now remember: squared circles do not exist. So the existence we are negating is impossible, it shouldn't be there for us to negate it! Let's remove it. Now our negation refers to what? To the nonexistence of squared circles. In other words, we are saying that their nonexistence does not exist, which means they exist! So in order to say that squared circles do not exist, we must refer to their existence, even if we know it is impossible. You can try to overlook that contradiction, or to ignore or forget it, but no matter what you do, you cannot eliminate it: it is always there looking at you.

No, sorry, could you point it again?

Can you give me a real world example of where this would be useful to know?
How could this profit you in any way?

Here

Sure, it is the existence of a nonexistence. But what is really important is the reasoning that arrives at an assertion by radicalizing negation. Please read my last post at http://able2know.org/topic/138901-59#post-4691645 and tell me if it is more from a "layman."

It is only there as a subject or concept or an idea but it is only in our minds and not in the real world in any form or am I wrong? Negation is not layman in my opinion!

just tell me RL how could such concept truly be in your mind ?
To have a concept you need more then a name a word...describe such idea of such object...

An object that contradicts it self as being two things a circle and a square which can not exist as one is the concept! but who am I to know?

...you see RL, describing the components does not equal to assemble the components... that is why I am always so emphatically preaching upon the importance of dynamically assembling the functions...there are no things without functions without dynamic behaviour...a car is not just the sum of its separate parts they all have to match and be able to be assembled together and work of course...

If the nonexistence of squared circles were only within our minds, then squared circles could exist outside of our minds, which they don't: for their nonexistence to remain true it must apply outside of our minds just as well---a negation that only exists within our minds is precisely a false negation.

Also, to holding to your argument requires recognizing that there are no circles or squares in the physical world: geometrical figures only exist within our minds, just like negation---it is within our minds that circles exist and squared circles don't. Therefore, you cannot invoke utter nonexistence outside our minds against negation without invoking it against regular circles as well, by which any contrast between circles and squared circles regarding existence just vanishes.

Also, your argument requires recognizing that neither there are any circles or squares in the physical world: geometrical figures only exist within our minds, just like negation---it is within our minds that circles exist and squared circles don't. Therefore, you cannot invoke utter nonexistence outside our minds against negation without invoking it against regular circles as well, by which any contrast between circles and squared circles regarding existence just vanishes.

There is no valid proof or disprove for the existence or non-existence of free will although I will admit that if there such a thing in and of itself we are self-alienated from it by default.

I think you are trying to say that our past thoughts and actions constantly have a grip over us which never allow us true free will but only give us an illusion of their being free will.

In part you are right but just because free will is an illusion of the cognitive powers does not disprove it. You have to first prove that our instincts and habits cause us to become enslaved to a certain mode of freely willing ourselves ineffably and that is not possible.

Isn't all that the result of our environment, biology, culture, language, education, and our family and friends? When and where does free will occur?