WILLFULLY IMAGINING AND PLAYING WITH TRIVIAL ASSUMPTIONS

WILLFULLY IMAGINING AND PLAYING WITH TRIVIAL ASSUMPTIONS:
.

Have you ever repeated the idea that everything that is possible is in some world inevitable? When it comes to ontological world views, are you aware of any that are not based on tail-chasing assumptions? Some people take the view that we have no real capacity for making choices of will. To me, the absurdity seems to be that we have no choice not to effect choices of will. Is it possible not to implicate ontological assumptions? Is it possible to engage in pursuits or devote oneself to a worldview that is not tail-chasing? Doesn't the scientific process itself tend to abide in respect of an ontological assumption that "the truth is out there" (and that we can find it)?  When I think about materialism, I tend also to think of dialectical materialism (Marxism). Am I wrong that collectivist societies based mainly on political philosophies of materialism often find it easier to be indifferent to the elimination of millions in pursuit of ideals of materialistic perfectionism?

.
. I don't expect that the First Cause should have need or means to refer to subordinate "causes" in order to prove the certitude of IT's causality. I expect Godel apprehended that. I suspect that's why Lewis staked more on "inside knowledge than on empirical proof. But what is this "inside" knowledge inside of? I suspect it is "inside" an illusion. Free will and soul are not demonstrable inside a body or material brain because the measurements of such materials are artifactual of the rules and math that have been laid down to present and conserve the universe that avails our communications. However, that does not implicate that a Reconciler of perspectives of Will is irrelevant to purposeful choice making among presentations of possible alternatives. I think religions, beliefs, and philosophies that reduce a Guidng Reconcer to moral irrelevancy tend more readily to substitute loyalty and worship for an inhuman, collectivist concept over individuals. I doubt you find many societies that promote a general ideal of freedom for all individuals being carefree about slaughtering millions in order to entertain their dreams.
.
**************
.
If one assumes nothing is possible to manifest except that which manifests in this universe, then, to be consistent and coherent, one must assume there abides only this universe and that freedom of choice, true randomness, and self will are nothing but illusions.  Tautologically and trivially, if one could establish that a situation is not ever going to occur, then one could reasonably say that it is not possible for it to occur.  However, what mortal can "know" such a thing?  Thus, it seems incoherent to speak in terms that assume one can know, or even logically postulate, how to separate that which is possible from that which is impossible.  Why?  Because, in Will and Math, all that can be imaged (imagined) seems potentially possible, even though Will may "choose" never to make it manifest to any mortal perspective, beyond the imagination (and imaginary numbers) of the Holism.  Unless Will (beyond logic and science) has meta-capacity to affect "choices" from among that which is potential, in order to affect the determination of that which is made manifest, then it would not make consistent and coherent sense to refer to anything as being "possible" ... unless it were (in some world) inevitable.
.
If one assumes that Will in all cases SHOULD be assumed to be mere illusion, then, by tautologically trivial definition, that which is assumed to be beyond potential of being signified or expressed into the manifest (or in-form-ed into the chronological vector) of any world may be assumed to be impossible to be signified or informed in any world.  More simply put, that which is impossible (assuming any thing is impossible) ... is impossible.  So then, does this sort of "imaginative assumptive-ness" mean that that which is possible must, in some time and place in some world, be made manifest?  Stated differently, does it implicate that that which is Not Impossible of being expressed or made Possible in every world must, at some loci of space-time in some world, be made manifest?  More simplistically put, must that which is possible be inevitable, at some locus of space-time?  Must all that is possible eventually, inevitably, find expression in some world (monkeys typing out the works of Shakespeare)?
.
Such "reasoning" seems flawed.  Intuitively, not all that is possible is inevitable.  So, how may some foundational reasoning in physics be flawed?  What assumption do physicists often found their reasoning on, which may not quite be true?  Well, they tend to assume that conscious will is at every level inferior to physically measurable signification and manifestation.  However, what if all physically measurable significations are instead inferior to qualitatively interfunctioning sequences and iterations of a conscious, signifying, and reconciling Will?
.
Hamlet:
And therefore as a stranger give it welcome.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
.