We are not talking about software engineering. The subject is the question of free will.
That seems quite the assertion, that a free will is somehow distinct in a meaningful way from a program unobstructed from the conditions that lead it to a clean exit code.
I strongly suggest you study signal processing so you can at least understand your ignorance about the topic.
I didn't ask you about software development or noise versus signal, but the validity of these claims
And herein lies the problem: you and Bruce have both already validated that you cannot find an internal contradiction in any of it; that the view is entirely coherent.
In the assembly of frameworks, the standard is not "true" or "false" and trying to think of it that way is incorrect. Godel's Incompleteness would be violated in such a situation as any axiom declares truth of any other axiom or even as the system does so.
The standard for frameworks is that they do not contain contradictions, first, and then secondly that the framework matches the observations and that it continues to do so for all observations.
Demands for "proving" the framework rather than merely demonstrating internal consistency and being unable to invalidate the language against observation, are inappropriate.
You have already admitted, however, that the framework I have submitted IS internally consistent to the best of your knowledge, and that you cannot find any way that it might contain a or claim the existence of a contradiction.
All that matters after that is if it seems to successfully describes some phenomena of nature.
To understand this particular topic, because it pertains to the nature of what consciousness is, how behavior arises from mechanical structures, and whether signals are overcoming some manner of noise, there are a number of hard topics one should really be expected to learn first before weighing in, or at least attempt to study as soon as they realize it is important.
The result is that while I have held up a syntax error, a violation of basic axioms of logic standing central in your framework, you have exposed no flaw in my own; and you admit that the framework is entirely applicable to observations.
Literally the only complaint you can offer is repeated retreat to the syntax error contained in "the ability for (singleton/instance/place) to do otherwise".
Until you have encountered a number of syntax errors and understand why NO language admits such constructions, you will continue to fail to understand this specific syntax error.
To do that, you must practice some task or learn some skill wherein syntax errors are detected and rejected due to such differences between reference values, immediate values, and types.
The problem is that this particular lecture also trips up many aspiring software engineers; in fact if I was teaching a major, I would make sure that lecture happens in the first 2 weeks just so everyone who is going to fail it has a chance to drop the course first.
Anyway, I recommend that you go and learn the topic and then maybe write a trivial program where you manipulate and play around with the differences between values and types.
As it is, I get the sneaking suspicion that the folks who couldn't pass that lecture, however, are exactly the radical fatalists and libertarians I run into in the world. It would make sense that this failing seen among software engineers will see expression in other fields of discussion, because it involves a difficulty that most people have with abstraction.
But until you can understand why you have to be strict with modal language, you need to learn more about why modal language rules are sound and expected.
