>>12750045Yeah I can outline it, but a more formal deduction can be found even in Introduction to the CTMU, from 1998, by Langan, which I will link.
https://cdn.website-editor.net/743d4a58f53348a69dd2535a810a7b68/files/uploaded/CL.pdfOne starts with the concept of the Universal Set, the set that contains all sets, which obviously equals our Universe. In order to avoid Russell's Paradox, this set, let's call it U, has to be a dynamic with two levels through time: the topological level and the descriptive level. Basically in order to contain itself, U needs to have an operator, like a finite mind inside it, therefore topologically, that descriptively contains U. Therefore here we are. Then we look at one of CTMU's axiom, related to closure, Metaphysical Autology Principle, which states there is nothing outside of the Universe, which is true by definition, and which leads to the conclusion that the Universe is therefore self-configured. Self-configuration is how we define free will. Since we defined its descriptors as its elements, as minds able to describe U within their topological containment, and since these descriptors finitely contain U, merely transducing semantics to local syntax, Langan uses the word 'conversive', as opposed to 'aversive' and added to the prefix 'in' meaning towards within, to state that the incoversive distribution of this relationship is the basis of free will. This word incoversive is by the way a pleb filter because it can't be easily googled. But anyway, basically U has free will and therefore its descriptors, we, must also have free will.
