"Total boundlessness cannot exist. If you define freedom as total boundlesness, anything combined with the word becomes a contradiction.

Like deadliving mouse, deadliving cat, deadliving people, deadliving birds."

yes and that is a problem with the semantics of such a discussion. The way that most people in daily life use the term "free will" makes it sound as if they think they can just jump up and fly away over the rainbow on they're purple magical unicorn if they will it. This is why I made the distinction between that sort of "free will" and the ability to make an informed choice.

I still think that anytime you lean towards having free will, or not having free will you have have just collapsed into a dualisitc mindgame and missed the whole point. The reality of the situation is probabily far far more complicated that that and requires extra dimensions of thought to properly grasp.

Think of it this way. If you believe that you are one with the rest of the universe on some level, that everything is connected than you must agree that you do not have limitless movement as an individual within that whole. The only thing that could possibly have that sort of ability would be the whole itself..which again brings about another paradox becasue you have to ask at what level do we concider something whole if you believe in infinity..are we as individuals objectivly whole in one sense?..it just goes on and on. There is always paradox.

When I concider the paradox I tend to think ANYTHING is possible though, so every point I make I try to leave conclusionless, which seems impossible to do with language so I feel hopeless when it comes to conveying how I really feel about such things.