purpose would not exist for you

so then in your estimation existence is an illusion as we know it at least...an illusion implies that there is A reality for which that illusion exists.

We experience a different perspective of the same Reality...

I a Universe of 5 variables the difference between 1 and 5 is precisely the perspective...in my view both represent the entire set relations...

well considering experience is part of the illusion as nothing can be "experienced", it seems not to make sense.

Consider this...even if I grant that nothing "exists" in an "as an aware, alive, able to do things entity" this still ignores the fact that it(everything that is) would need a beginning. A Cause for which there is no cause if you will.

I disagree, the strongness of the LAW is precisely in being unavoideble...
...I mean Eternal, not created...ABSOLUTE !

...but yes if you go beyond Time nothing is caused, THINGS\THING are !!!

Well then saying that something IS(ARE) is another way of saying it has no cause.....my whole point is that if anything can exist and have no cause, well then perhaps a soul exists without needing a cause....and if so, perhaps(and this disregards everything I've been granting) that soul interacts with me(for you I'd just have to say the atoms that make up "me") in such a way as to grant me something only granted to those things that interact with a soul. Namely, (at a top level view), the ability to make conditionally free choices.

It may be the language barrier between you and I( though you are doing a good job at getting your points across) or just not knowing the first thing about Taoism but I'm not %100 sure what that means....but what I take that to mean is that the cause(for me The Causer) did nothing more than push the first domino and the rest of the dominos took care of themselves.
If that is what you're saying I can go with that.

You would have had to do it may not be the same as you had to do it, but I'm not sure what your point is. You had to do it (or else suffer)!

If you must turn right (or else suffer), then you will turn right (or else suffer).

The law is a constant compelling force. It compels us (it pressures us) to act in certain ways, and it does so independent of what we want.

To say you have been compelled to do x is not to imply you therefore did X. I can pressure you to do something, and you can overcome that pressure and resist the compulsion that is present independent of what you want. That you don't resist the present force (since you want to do what is required of you) isn't to say it's not a compelling force. It's not compelling you do something other than what you want to do, but that (I would have thought) is a different matter.

Here is an example from John Locke:

A man is in a room. The man likes being in the room. He does not want to leave the room. He is staying in the room voluntarily. However, what he does not know is that the door to the room is locked, and he cannot get out. Is the man being forced to stay in the room? Is the man staying in the room of his own free will?

now that just doesn't make sense. Nothing in the material world can come into motion on it's own. I'm pretty sure that's written

well based on the laws that govern the material world I don't see how you justify that.

Something outside of the material world had to interact in some way IMO

I Think your not getting this time around what I am at...

Motion was not Invented from Nothingness...was allays there...yet it is predicted...so, another "simulation"...It must be a mathematical axis, or something...at this point on I cannot go further...

lol...it's all good brother....you're a smart dude...I admit my entire line of questioning was nothing more than an attempt to see if there was room for what I consider an overriding obligation of mine and what you were saying(IMO there is).....I admit that I have no clue if we truly have free will or not....I hope that we do but I am on thin ice with that IMO

lol.....I admit that I have no clue if we truly have free will or not....I hope that we do but I am on thin ice with that IMO

If your writing this post is not an example of truly having free will, then what would be an example of truly having free will?

It would be like looking at a red fire engine and saying, "I have no clue whether that fire engine is red or not". If that fire engine is not red, then what is red?

By the way: what is supposed to be the difference between truly having free will and just having free will?

And, why would you hope we have free will if you do not believe that when you write the post you just wrote is having free will?

What else would you like free will to be other than what you already identify as free will?