No such thing as spontaneous action. " Spontaneous" has scope within your perception of time passing by. In my opinion all time frames are now so using coinage as "spontaneous" or "caused" are processes in perception within time and not metaphysical insights about reality.
if you want to deny certain words over others, that is your choice. the word spontaneous is defined by google's top result as a sudden impulse without an external stimulus. this implies that there is no specific point in time which can be said to have caused the spontaneous event. i agree that a 'caused' event does only fit in with time, but a spontaneous event, by definition, is beyond time.
i never claimed spontaneity to be a metaphysical insight into reality. my point is that there is no reality, and the whole idea of philosphy and metaphysics is just another human, mind-made concept, another science.
Minds are sub sets bound to incompleteness or uncertainty when trying to make judgements about the final nature of the world.
why try to make judgments about the final nature of the world. this is coming from assumptions that a 'world' exists. my point is that, whatever 'mind' is, it can never be verified by anything other than itself. therefore, its own reality is questionable.
Those very judgements are not spontaneous and are bound into the greater scheme of Reality for what it is throughout all time frames, minds are sub sets unfolding within a final set where space time itself is described n fixed with all its processes with all there is.
the judgments the mind makes are always spontaneous. the illusion comes from the concept of preference. preference is a feeling we have which differentiates between different things. but this process is also involuntary, even though it feels like it is voluntary. you can't actually control whether you like or dislike something, you can tell yourself various lies and try to change preference but it is essentially already as it is.
you are saying that the judgments of the mind are not spontaneous, but are 'bound into the greater scheme of Reality'. all i am saying is that this greater scheme is something your mind made up, nothing else. it is not verifiable. for all we know, the mind's judgments are in fact spontaneous.
you describe a 'final set where space time itself is described and fixed with all its processes with all there is'. this is a mind-made creation of yours, nothing more. why should there be a final set where space time is described and fixed? do you experience this final set? how is everything described, as you say? it seems to me you are just conceptualising some final set, and insisting on its 'Reality' as some ultimate truth. seems like mind-made conceptualising to me.
In this context "Existence" can be reduced to the acknowledgement not of our experience as final but from our experience to the idea of a final place holder of all experiences. Existing is unity in Reality not its denial.
ok so you want to define existence as 'from our experience to the idea of a final place holder of all experiences'.
you are still taking 'experience' as a solid 'reality', and not questioning it. you are expanding the word existence to even more than just the current 'experience'. but i am questioning the experience itself. what is this 'reality' that the current experience seems to have. i am questioning that 'reality' itself, and saying perhaps it is just a vast nothingness, eternally at peace, and all this so-called 'reality' is an illusion which comes and goes. if it is just nothingness, then to even say anything 'exists' or has 'reality' is counter-intuitive.
also, if you look at 'experience' close enough, its reality comes and goes on a daily basis. every time you fall into deep sleep, there is a complete lack of experience. if there is any awareness or experience, it means you are not in complete deep sleep. so any time you do fall into deep sleep, you actually experience the nothingness. but that is a paradoxical statement, because nobody can experience the nothingness, it actually is nothingness.