Welcome to Gaia! ::

'tis true (and false and meaningless) my dear.

But if you cain't be with the one you love, honeh, love the one you're with. If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice. The words we use are strong, they make reality.

If that's the first law, then the second law should be: even if you don't will it, not pissing will give you kidney stones.

"The law" isn't about willing or not willing. It's about doing what is necessary, and having the upright heart to recognize what that necessity is. There is no escape from the constriction of chains, because the chains of necessity are ever-existant. Freedom is learning how to bear those chains and, like the great saint Jacob Marley, learning to ride with them "On the wings of the wind."

Piss when you've drank to much, love when you feel a connection, hate when you need to sever, kill when you intend to destroy, and f**k when you need to see humanity at its best. There is no other rule, and not even the Goddess prevails.

This has been an unusually pellucid moment, brought to you by the Brethren of the Happy Valley.

Love always,
Longvalley

No, no, ni. The second law must be as follows:
"Free will cannot of itself pass from one body to a freer body"

It shall be called Freeo dynamics, and its why all the free thinkers end up in jail, being so free themselves that no one can confer freedom unto them.

See? All madness makes sense if you squint at it for a while

"Fnord your banknotes today!" - Ambrose Pierce.

You make a murky point, Imber, and I say that as a compliment; all too often the clarity of points made is praised while the opaqueness of other points is demonized.

I call to your attention, however, the alternate view of both Universal and Freedom physics, both of which probably share the same properties. If we are to reject, as some physicists do, a universe of definite entities (usually atoms) that pass their energies to other entities by action or gradient discharge, we can adopt, instead, a Bohm-ian universe. That is, we can accept a universe in which each supposed singular entity contains the sum total of all other entities in that universe, meaning that a single cubic inch of any free matter (or even empty space) can be analyzed as having the same amount of (or more) energy or kineticism than the rest of the universe combined. Put in less eggheady terms, that would be like a single ham sandwich containing more than the sum of all the calories of all the pigs in all the world, combined.

Taken in terms of freedom, then, we can see freedom as a non-localized property that is not measurable in "amounts," but is instead measured in the amount of potential that is actualized. Unlimited freedom is possible, just like the unlimited calories of our Mr. Sandwich, but it takes the kinetic equivalent of "biting into it" to really actualize the potential of the sandwich/freedom.

If we take this as the case, rejecting definition and embracing Madness, as you seem to say, then we find a world and a universe not governed by law, quantity, limit, etc. Instead, we find a multiverse governed by potential and action, the latter of which are determined based on the potential and action of other multiversal receivers (a.k.a. entities, traditionally). So once again, we arrive at a world that has eternal restriction put upon it. Not through arbitrary beauracracy, mind you, but through the actions available and the potential from which they are derived, for it is from a potential based on togetherness (the B-man's notion) rather than aloneness (traditional thermodynamics/universal ideas of causality) that such a potential would itself derive. And so I resubmit my maddened world to you, and reiterate: There are chains everywhere, and not even the Goddess prevails.

Ours is a life of mystery. Look behind the curtain and, instead of Machines, you will see the Magic at work. That's the Madness.

With much confusion,
Longvalley