Founding Basis

 Everything has Basis. Everything has Foundation. This is because, at the very least, what exists has its existence as its Basis. It has itself as its Basis.

Existence/experience/observation has itself/existence as its Basis of existing/being. A thing exists for that thing, an observer exists for that observer. NOTHING exists for NOTHING. This statement is true and exists, and therefore, is universal rule.

Nothing has no Basis. Nothing has no foundation. Exactly, NOTHING has No Basis, NOTHING has No Foundation.
By the way, here is what Basis is, or what I mean by “Basis”:
Basis is the one that defines that thing of which it is the basis of. It is one that bring that thing into existence. It is that which defines the existence of that thing, of that what exists. Basis is that what defines existence. Basis is existence.

Founding My Basis:
My Basis is NOTHING. Even then it is Something because I exist and I’m Something. I’m experiencer/observer. My experience or observation is Something and exists as it is existence. Experience and Experiencer are the same thing. Because experience is experience/existence, because experiencer is experiencer/existence, they exist.

Therefore, though I consider my Basis, that defines my SPACE of being or existence, as NOTHING, because my Space is space of something, of me, of experiencer/observer, of experience/observation, all I can see, when looking at NOTHING, outside my Space of Something, of experience, is its (NOTHING’s) projection onto the Boundary/Bounding Surface of my Space. This projection is at a Boundary of Something and Nothing. This projection when looked or approached from “Out” of the Space, i.e. from the NOTHING, does not exist as it is the projection of NOTHING and is NOTHING. But as an experiencer or observer or existence or something, I, like any observer or existence, cannot get or approach that projection from “Outside” or from NOTHING, because it’s outside my existence, it’s outside “me”, and it is “Not” of “me”, it is not me, it is NOTHING/NOT-ME. So the projection, like NOTHING, is NOTHING, is Not-me, and so does not exist for “me”, which is Something/existence.

So, I can only approach/observe/experience that projection from within the Space that is my Space, that is me.
The approach to the projection from “Out” of Observer/Existence Space is infinitely separated from the approach or experience of the projection from within the observer-space. Approaching the boundary/border of Something-Nothing is either from within or from without. Observer cannot exist out of itself, out of its existence, i.e. from NOTHING. So, the approach from “without” is impossible, i.e. does not exist. So, the only approach for me, like for any observer or existence, is from within. Now, because this experience of projection of NOTHING is approached or experienced from within my space, i.e. from within me, by me, it is part of or element of this Space of existence or Being. Now because this projection or approach to it, from within, is element of Space of existence/experience or Space of something, it is something, and can, and is, conceived or experienced as Something. This is equivalent to the statement that, NOTHING cannot be experienced. Even experiencing NOTHING, is Something as it involves experience which is not Nothing but is Something. NOTHING does not exist, for something.

So, the creatures that are something and are Space of existence, or are its elements, cannot experience Nothing, as for Nothing, that observer also must get out of existence. And, if it gets out, or rather “out”, of existence, it ceases to exist. Also, one cannot get out of existence, because that’d mean getting out of itself, which means being not itself, or “Not” of itself, which is impossible as it is contradiction. Thing cannot not be it. Observer cannot not exist for itself. Existence cannot be nonexistence.

However, the creature of space of something, i.e. observer, can experience Nothing, but only as and through the lens of something, i.e. as a projection from within, or as experience/approach of that projection from within. This is not just true for NOTHING, but for anything whose observation is made by an observer or existence. Observer observes anything as their projection onto the Boundary surface of that observer, and from within of course.

That is why the projection of NOTHING is always observed or experienced as Something. Therefore, NOTHING can only be conceived or experienced as Something and through the lens of Something.
That is why the projection of NOTHING is always “observed” or “experienced” as Something, by observer. Therefore, NOTHING can only be “conceived” or “experienced” as Something and through the lens of Something, by experiencer. This is because, experience or observation, is “Something” and is the one that defines something, it is what defines something.
So, my Basis though is NOTHING, it is Something, as I experience it through the boundary/lens of my space, which is Something.

The question section:
Now, an interesting and fundamental question is, what is the Basis of everything? What is the Most/Ultimate/Absolute Basis of everything?
The answer to the first question is already discussed above. The Basis of any “thing” is that thing itself. The Basis of “Observer”/”Experiencer” is that observer. We can state this in another way: The Basis of experience/existence is that existence and Nothing else. Any experience is defined by that experience itself. Any experience is defined by that experience itself, and Nothing else. So, nothing defines that, but itself. So, there is no Nothing that defines it, i.e. there is no “not-a-thing” that defines it. There is something that defines it, and that is that thing itself. Here, in this paragraph, “nothing” refers to ordinary Nothing or relative Nothing.

Now, this brings us to what I refer to as ordinary Nothing or Relative Nothing, which I’ll just refer to as ONO or RNO or simply as “Nothing “, and Absolute Nothing, which I’ll refer to as, you guessed it, ANO or as “NOTHING”. Also, i won’t refer to ANO as “it”, it isn’t “it”. In fact, it even is not “is”, it, in fact, “isn’t”. But for convenience, I might refer to it by or as “it”.
ONO or RNO is “Nothing” experienced when there is Nothing else but an observer itself. That is not nothing in absolute terms, because there is still something, namely observer’s experience. That is not Nothing in true sense. So, RNO is not Nothing in true sense. ANO is Nothing in true sense. But, ANO requires and is absence of Observer or experiencer, i.e. of “thing”, of everything. It is and requires, the absence of any Basis. (Here, “experiencer” is arbitrary. It means experiencer but it is used arbitrarily)

(By the way, though we conceive of “everything” as different from a “thing”, and also perceive “thing” different from and not necessarily as “Observer” or “Experiencer”, here, “thing”, “everything”, “Observer”, “experiencer” are the same. This is because, for anything, its experience, its existence, its observation, is “thing” and is everything. Here, observation or experience is not necessarily human experience)
ANO, even gets rid of Observer. ANO gets rid of any observer. ANO gets rid of every Basis, of everything. Now, because it is, and requires, the non-existence of the observer or existence itself, it cannot “exist”, it cannot be experienced or observed. This is why ANO “is not”, i.e. is “NOT” of “IS”. ANO is “Not” of being, of existence. It is not and cannot be, as it is “Not” of “being”. It cannot be because or isn’t because to be “is” or “can”, it must be experience, it must be existence, which it isn’t.

Now, it would be correct to say that RNO is the basis of something. I.e., RNO or simply, nothing, is the basis of “thing”. I.e. not-a-thing defines a “thing” but that thing itself. There is not-a-thing that defines “thing” but that thing itself.
But, what about ANO? Can the same be said about ANO? Can the same thing be said about ANO that’s said for RNO?
[I’ll get to this later]

Now the answer to the second question: What is the Ultimate/Absolute Basis of everything?, is that the Absolute Basis of anything is also that thing itself. So, the Basis and that “thing” or existence are not separate. So, if by asking the above question or, what is the basis of a thing, one implies that it is seeking something separate as the basis of that thing, then the answer to the question is Nothing. So, if one asks the above question, or asks, “what is the basis of a thing? “, and then demands that basis be separate from that thing, then the answer is Nothing. This is because the basis of a thing is that thing itself, and Nothing separate from it is the basis of it. So, the answer to above question(s) is, the basis of thing is that thing itself. So, the only thing that is the basis of thing, and that is not that thing itself, is Nothing. So, the only thing that is its basis, and that is not that thing itself, is Nothing.

So, there is Nothing whose basis isn’t that thing itself. Or, we can rewrite this as: Nothing is not the basis of itself. Or also: “Nothing” is not the basis of itself. Nothing is not the basis of Nothing. “Nothing” is not the basis of “Nothing”. But note that: Here “nothing” is RNO. Also: Everything is the basis of everything. Thing is the basis of that thing itself. Here “nothing” is RNO.
Also, nothing is the basis of a thing, apart from that thing. I.e., Nothing is the basis of thing. Here “nothing” is RNO.

So, if Nothing (i.e. RNO) is not the basis of itself, what about ANO?. Is it its basis? We know (from my video discussion on Nothing titled “NOTHING (1)”) that NOTHING (i.e. ANO) exists for itself. So it must be its basis, like any thing or observer, right?
Ok, I’ll talk about this later…
So, concluding this “question” section by stating: The basis of thing is Nothing. Nothing here being RNO, that exists separate or beyond that thing.
The other interesting question is: Is NOTHING, i.e. ANO, Basis of or Absolute/Ultimate Basis of thing or of everything??
This will be dealt later.

Arbitrariness of Basis and of thing or existence:
As we dig deeper and deeper through the layers of logic and reasoning, we come to an end to logic and the further deeper layers don’t exist or cease to exist. This end is in the form of axiom(s). Axiom is the ultimate reason or definition that defines all in the space it defines/founds. These axiom(s) is nothing but Basis of the space or thing or existence it defines. One might and can question, why the Basis exists, why the Basis or axiom(s) is true? The only reason they are true is that they exist and are true. Because axiom(s) is axiom(s), there is no further layer of reasoning. They’re the end of reasoning and ground and basis of reasoning and of that space. Because axiom(s) is axiom(s), there is no reason why they are. Axioms are basis, they are because they are. It exists because of itself and for itself.

It may also be the case that the layers run infinitely deep. I.e. there is no end layer or axiom. I.e. they are at infinity. Even then, one might seek, and not seek, but also find, the ultimate layer. One may ask why the layers run all the way to infinity? Or, why is there reason or logic for everything or every layer of “thing”? Why are there infinite layers of reasoning or logic? Why is there no end? Why is there no end, one might and can ask. Why the reason or fact that there are infinite layers if reasoning exists? Why is the axiom(s) or Basis at infinity? Why don’t they exist? In asking this one finds the basis, one finds the axiom(s). The answer or reason that it is the way it is, is, simply, because they are. The basis is; the fact that it is such. The basis is the existence of such. They are so because they are so. They exist because they exist.

The basis of anything/existence is that thing/existence itself. Thing/observer exists for itself, therefore, they exist. Basis and its space of existence exists because they exist, and exist for themselves.
So, in both or any case, the reason or axiom or basis for thing/observer/existence is that observer itself. The axiom/basis/reason for existence is Nothing (here RNO). This can be understood by rephrasing: There is no reason why axiom/basis exists. There is no underlying reason for their existence, or, the only reason/axiom/basis they exist is themselves.
So, it is all arbitrary. Reason/logic/axiom/Basis/Existence/observer/experience is arbitrary.

Now because the basis of everything is that thing itself, i.e. because the basis of everything is nothing (RNO), and thus, and because, the existence/basis is arbitrary, it doesn’t matter, in fundamental sense, what it is. It doesn’t matter even if the basis is NOTHING. There is nothing “more fundamental” than one or the other. They are equally treated. But even there are no terms and notions like “equally “and “differently”. Nothing is “special”.

Now, Nothing is special. “NOTHING”, is special. Even though this is, I as something will experience Nothing and conceive of it as something. And even though NOTHING is my basis, the actual thing is “something”, that is the projection of NOTHING on the boundary surface of my space of something, is my basis. So, something is my basis though I claim it to be NOTHING. (The detailed discussion is done already above) Now, since it’s something, it’s not special. Because, Nothing is special. “Nothing” is the thing that’s special. But again it’s not-a-thing. Anyway, “Nothing” is special.

So, my basis is not special, even if it’s NOTHING, because in actuality it’s not NOTHING, it’s something. And like any basis or something, it’s arbitrary.
Though arbitrary or arbitrariness may imply “no-favourites”, and may seem totally impossible and improbable in deciding or decision-making, it is the one that decides everything. So, it decides nothing, and everything. Because it decides Nothing, it decides everything. And because it decides everything, it decides Nothing. Deciding Nothing and deciding everything is the one and the same.

However, I’ll now found/describe my Basis, that is based/centred on NOTHING:
Before doing that, I’ll summarize above discussion as and with my story or experience:
I wanted to have no basis. I didn’t want to cling to certain way of being or existence. I didn’t want to base my life and daily life or doings on anything. But again, here’s a thing: I knew I wasn’t doing anything. I argue for no free-will. I’m not the one who “does” or “acts”. But also, after thinking about ‘free-will-no-free-will’ subject, I found, like in case of many things, many pair of things, and not necessarily pair of things as well, and maybe of everything, that there is no “thick line/border” between things. (Maybe this also extends between things and non-things)

On free-will or no free-will, there is actually no thick line, there is fine line. This is because there is no “thick line” between what we refer to as “I” and that what is not “I”. The line is a “fine line”. Of course, I argue that, “I” is what the experience or conscious experience is. “I” is our conscious experience, and that which is “not” our conscious experience, or that which is “not” of our conscious experience, is not “I” or “not” of what is called “I”.

So, one might say, there is conscious experience, or simply experience, and there is the “non-experience”. Non-experience is that which is not the part of or experience of, or that is, “I”. It is “not” of experience. Hence, non-experience. So, there is experience and non-experience. But, we may ask, non-experience, being non-experience, is it even “is”, is it even “being”. By its definition or name, non-experience is “non-experience”, i.e. non-existence. It does not exist, it is “non-existence”. Non-experience cannot be experienced.
So, all there exists or “is”, is experience. So, there are no two things, there is only one. There can be no non-experience. There can be no non-existence, speaking of “non-existence” generally. Of course, if one crushes a water bottle or melts it, for example, the thing that’s referred to as “bottle” has become non-existent. But, this bottle has become non-existent with respect to the observer observing its demise. It has gone “out of existence/experience” with respect to that observer, out of existence/experience of the experience or existence of that observer. Out of existence/experience of the experience or existence that is defined as experience/existence for, or with respect to, that observer. The bottle hasn’t gone out of experience with respect to itself. The bottle cannot go out of existence with respect to that bottle itself.

Now the bottle “isn’t” for that observer. But, for the bottle-self, one cannot define anything. For or in the bottle frame of reference, Nothing can be defined. There is no bottle reference or basis now. But that’s for the other observer, not for observer that the bottle. Existence is relative. We cannot say that bottle has gone out of existence for or with respect to bottle. There must be a bottle-reference to define the nonexistence of bottle with respect to the bottle. If bottle reference “isn’t”, how can Something be defined with respect to that frame, which isn’t? So, if there is no bottle reference frame or basis, one cannot measure/experience anything in that or with respect to that basis.

The observer that is the bottle, is now not. It doesn’t exist. So there is now no “with respect to bottle”. So, “bottle doesn’t exist with respect to that bottle itself” is stating that, “thing doesn’t exist for itself”, or that, “observer does not exist for that observer itself”, or that “Nothing does not exist for Nothing”. This is not true and violation of the universal truth (universal truth at least for the space that we generally are in and is our reality or part of experience or experience) that states, “thing exists for that thing itself”, or that, “observer exists for that observer itself”, or equivalently, “Nothing exists for Nothing”
So, now the bottle reference doesn’t exist. For the statement that, “bottle has gone out of existence with respect to itself”, to be true, bottle must exist in the first place, as this bottle frame/basis must “be” in the first place to imply “with respect to bottle-self” phrase, and thus to imply the statement, “bottle has gone out of existence with respect to itself”. But again, the same statement implies, this bottle frame doesn’t exist, or bottle now does not exist. So basically it’s stating that, “bottle does not exist for itself”.

Here’s one thing that I’ll point out: So, bottle does not exist now. So, event “now” is “no bottle”. Event “then” is “is bottle”, or simply “bottle”. Now if to say bottle does not exist with respect to itself, is equivalently stating that, “now” does not exist for “then”, then there is no problem, there is no contradiction. If to say bottle does not exist with respect to itself, implied “no bottle” does not exist with respect to “bottle”, then it’s ok. But if to say bottle does not exist with respect to itself, implied “bottle” does not exist with respect to “bottle”, then that is contradiction and violates the universal rule that I just mentioned earlier. But how can stating, “bottle does not exist with respect to itself”, imply “no bottle” does not exist with respect to “bottle”? To state, bottle does not exist with respect to itself, implies that, “bottle” does not exist with respect to “bottle”. To state, bottle does not exist with respect to itself, is equivalently stating that, “now” does not exist with respect to “now”, or, “then” does not exist with respect to “then”.

This violates and is the “Not” statement of the universally true statement, at least for our reality or experience, that states, Observer or thing or existence or experience or Nothing exists for observer itself or thing itself or existence itself or experience itself.

So, observer exists for itself, and cannot not exist for that observer itself. So, experience is all there, and non-experience isn’t or cannot “be”/exist. So, all there “is” is “I” or experience called “I”.

Now about free-will-no-free-will, all one can say is, there is no defined line. This is because there is no defined thick line between “I”/ “experience” and “no I”/”non-experience”. In fact there is no “no I” or “no experience”. So one can say that the line separating the “I/experience” and “no I/no experience” is at infinity.
(Note that here, non-experience or non-existence or non-being is referred and mentioned in general and absolute sense. Here, terms like these, which also includes terms like existence, experience, being, are mentioned in absolute sense and are absolute. For example : when I say existence, it is absolute existence, experience is absolute experience, and so on….)
So, about whether I’m exercising my free-will or have no free-will, whether I’m “doing/acting” or not, is undefined or undefinable.

But isn’t it that if, “I/experience/existence” is the only what exists or “is”, then isn’t the “I” that’s “doing/acting”? Well, “acting” involves exerting something external to oneself. It is exerting something or ourself external to ourself. It is about influence/influencing “beyond” our influence or existence or experience. It is about existing/experiencing “beyond” our existence or experience. But if we reach out to the “beyond” our existence, our existence “is” there or is still there.
And so again, there is no beyond. The “I”, or we, isn’t beyond the “I” or ourself or oneself. The “I” is still within “I”, it’s not beyond “I”, or in the beyond of “I/existence”. If we get to the beyond, our existence is there, “I” is there, and so we cannot get to the beyond. We cannot get beyond our existence. This is again like stating, observer does not exist for that observer itself. This violates the universal principle, and is contradiction.

So, action or motion does not exist.
(The detailed discussion about this is presented somewhere else, or maybe later)
So, the “I” or existence can only “be”, or can only be itself. So is there no free-will?
Well, as I said earlier, it cannot be defined.
To say there is no free will is to imply there is no choice. But what if there is no notion of “choice” itself? What if there is no notion of the “other” and “beyond” and “external”. The only thing that exists is “I/existence/experience”, there is no beyond, there is no other. Well, one can imagine multiple possibilities in their head, but those possibilities are not real, they’re no reality, they cannot be experienced or realized. The “other” or the “beyond” does not exist. They can only be realized or experienced within what state that is real, for example; like in our heads. It cannot be realized as real state that’s beyond the real state. The notion of realized or experienced “beyond” does not exist. For that one most be in or realize or experience two different realized/experienced state(s). This is like saying state A is state B. It’s like saying this realized state is that realized state. It’s like saying this eigenstate is that eigenstate. It’s like saying that states (eigenstates), that are orthogonal to or with respect to each other, are same. It’s like saying that two real/ realized/experienced states, i.e. eigenstates, are same states. It’s like saying that two real/ realized/experienced states, i.e. eigenstates, are real and exist for, or with respect to each states, or with respect to each other.

So, there is no “other”, there is no “beyond”. All there is “is”. All there is, is what “is”, or what exists, or what’s real/realized, namely the realized/experienced state. So there is no notion of the other, of the realized beyond/other. It’s inconceivable, it’s unrealizable, it’s unexperiencable/unexperienced.

So then that means, there is no choice? Well, there is no notion of choice. What does that mean?
Well, one, i.e. the state that exists or “is”, all it can do is be itself. There is notion of possibilities. There is no notion of possibilities of actions or “doings”. Everything, the entirety of universe for that state is that state, and within that state.

For example, consider this: Consider that you are a state in which you have in your head a picture of the possibility other that this state of being. Now, you might say well there is a possibility. Now, what I meant by the statement that the “other” or other state is inconceivable is this: Though you have in your head the possibility other that that state of being that defines you there, that is a part of that real/realized state. Being that state, you, or being that state that defines or that is you, you cannot experience for example say, a state in which the “you”, are experiencing say, five other possibilities.
You cannot experience for example say, a state in which the “you”, are experiencing say, the “you-state”, that’s experiencing five other possibilities instead of one.

The you-state that’s experiencing one possibility cannot experience the you-state that’s experiencing five possibilities. This is because, the you-state that is the experience of one possibility in head is not, or is the “Not” state of or “Not” statement of, the you-state that is the experience of five possibilities in the head.
Now, there is a very interesting thing here, look what I just discovered: When one is picturing the alternate possibilities to the “realized state”, the state, to which or whose alternate unrealized states one is considering, is not the complete “realized state”. It’s not the “realized state” or the “state” being realized at all. In fact, one cannot consider the state whose alternate states are being considered, provided that that state is being realized.

[One cannot consider the state being realized. One cannot consider the state whose alternate states are being considered, and realize that state. One cannot consider the real state and consider its alternate stat(s), and realize the state. One cannot consider the state and consider its alternate stat(s), and realize the state. One cannot realize the state whose alternate states are being considered, provided that that state is being considered. So, a state cannot be both realized/real and also considered to have its alternate state(s). A state cannot be both realized/real and also considered along with its alternate state(s), or consideration of alternate state(s).

It cannot be the case that a state is real, or being realized, and also the case that its consideration or awareness of that state is also being realized. It cannot be the case that a state is real, or being realized, and also the case that the state of its consideration or the state of awareness of that state is also being realized.]

In other words, one cannot consider the alternate possibility or possibilities of state that is being realized, i.e. of state that is real, i.e. of “realized state”. In other words, one cannot consider the alternate states of real states, i.e. of realized state i.e. of state being realized. (By real or realized state or state being realized, I mean the present state) The state whose alternate state(s) are being considered, or can be considered, in the real state, is not the, or is not that, real/realized/experienced state. It is not the state of existence or being. That state corresponding to the alternate(s) is not the real state. One cannot realize the realization of state. State cannot be its own substate/subset. (For reference, the state whose alternate states are being imagined, and those alternate states are the substates of the state that is being realized/experienced)

In other words, one cannot be aware of the awareness that one is experiencing or being aware of, when one is realizing/experiencing that awareness. Equivalently, one cannot realize or experience the awareness when one is realizing the awareness of that awareness. One can be in state of “awareness” or in state of “awareness of awareness”. (Here, the term ‘awareness’ is not being used arbitrarily. Therefore though ‘awareness of awareness’ is also awareness and ‘awareness’ is also awareness, ‘awareness of awareness’ and ‘awareness’ are meant different states) One cannot be in both the states. Both states cannot be realized. Or rather, both states cannot be real, these states cannot be the same state. They are not the same and one state. They’re orthogonal states.

State cannot realize/experience itself, and also consider or be aware of itself, i.e. be aware of the state it is realizing. It cannot involve itself as a sub-part of itself. It cannot involve itself as a sub-part of itself, as sub-part of its experience. That’s like state/experience involving the whole of it within itself. That’s like state/experience involving the whole of it within itself, as smaller part of itself. It’s like state/experience involving the whole of itself as not whole of itself. How can something contain itself within itself and not as entirety of itself? A thing cannot be outside itself or inside itself. It cannot be greater than or smaller than itself. A set cannot be its smaller subset. It cannot be greater than itself. [However, it can be both and neither. By the way, it is both means it is neither, and vice-versa]. For state or experience or observer, its experience is the universe. It consists of the entirety. There is Nothing beyond it. There is no “beyond” it. Now the state itself cannot be beyond itself. The notion of beyond is broken here and doesn’t exist. The notion of it being greater than itself is also broken. It is contradiction. Also, the entirety or whole of it is “it”. So, there is no notion of smaller than it. The notion of it being smaller than itself is contradiction.

A state cannot be broken into smaller pieces. An experience/state is a chunk that “is” as a whole or entirety, that is experienced or that exists as a whole or entirety. It is quantized. There can be nothing smaller than an experience/state of being.

What does it even mean to say that there is something smaller than experience? Everything is experience or existence. So if there “is” or exists something smaller than experience, then for that to exist, that must be experiencable, that must be the experience. But if that “smaller than experience” is the experience, then “smaller than experience” would mean experience is smaller than itself. This is contradiction. Also, that thing that we referred to as experience earlier, which is greater than this “smaller than experience” thing, cannot be experience if this “smaller” is the experience. Now, there can be no multiple experiences or real states.

There can be no multiple states being realized, classically, and more precisely observationally, speaking. Two or multiple eigenstates, that are orthogonal to or with respect to each other, cannot be real. You might say they cannot be real at the same time, but can be realized at different times. But then that’s the thing; two or multiple times are not real. They are not real with respect to each other. They are real for themselves. They exist for themselves. To say two or multiple orthogonal states/eigenstates cannot be real, is what means they can be real/realized at different times.
However, the former, that is the orthogonality of states, does not necessarily imply the later, that is; state being realized/real at different times. The orthogonality of states does not necessarily imply that the states are real at different times/temporal points. But the vice-versa is not true. The two or multiple states or two or multiple temporal points, if real at different times/temporal-points, does necessarily imply that these multiple temporal-points or states at different temporal-points are orthogonal.

Actually, I argue that the states are what define time, not the other way around. The orthogonality of these states, and these states, is what makes different times non-existent to each other. Different times are just an example and are orthogonal states that form a subset or small part or case of universe (state-verse or statement-verse) of orthogonal states. States are what defines events and thus define time, not the other way around. Temporal events are small group of universe of events, that are defined by states in the universe of states.
Temporal-points are events, and events are subsets of set or universe of orthogonal states or states.
So, multiple states cannot be real, for any state. For any state, only that state exists and is real.
Now, the notion of smaller than experience and greater than experience does not exist, because smaller than and greater than experience, they don’t exist.
So, an experience/state is quantized.

So, there is no alternatives or alternate state(s) to real state, or to state that exists, to the state that is the state of existence.
Also, for any state, that state itself is the real state with respect to itself.
Therefore, since there can be no alternatives to the real/realized state, and because any state is real for, or with respect to, that state itself, there is no alternative(s) to any state for that state itself.
Also, any state cannot

So, returning back to the topic of “free-will-no-free-will”: There is no notion of choice, because there is no notion of the “other” or the “beyond”. There is no notion or question about dual or multiple, and no notion or question of the “one”. So, one cannot imply that there is only one choice or option. State being that state itself, observer being that observer itself, is not compulsion. It is not the absence of multiple options or question of single option. The thing is; that state or observer cannot conceive of the other state(s) or observer(s), or experience(s). It cannot become the “other” state(s). It cannot become not, or “Not” of or “Not” state of, itself. It cannot be not it, it cannot not be it. It cannot experience the “other” experience/realize other than itself.

Since there can be no alternatives to the real/realized state, and because any state is real for, or with respect to, that state itself, there is no alternative(s) to any state for that state itself.
Consider for example the choice experiment :

Experiment 1: In which there are three colors to choose from, Red, Blue, Green. So, there are only three choices one would say. Because, in this case, it is generally possible to picture or conceive of other choices, for example: other colors or choice to not choose any color among three or choice to not choose at all, one would say that there are or could be other possibilities as well. And that “other” possibilities are conceivable.
But, if you really see, the other colors, other than RBG present in the experiment, are not truly conceivable or experiencable, in a sense the RGB in the experiment is.
But, anyway, let’s say and accept that because other colors has been experienced and is the part of present experience, though not of this experiment, one can conceive the other than this three choices, in some sense of present state experience. Let’s give it that.
So, to make the point clear, lets consider another experiment, which truly presents the point that I’m trying to make.

Experiment 2: Consider a person dying : You can help him and save him. So, there are two choices; One to go and help the guy, the other flee the scene, i. e. Not help. Now, one can say, what about just staying there, and not fleeing or helping. The thing is, even just staying and not helping, is not helping. So, there are no choices that can be conceived of other than helping and not helping.
One might say there are only two choices. But here, the other choices are not even conceivable. So, the “other” than these/this ‘helping-not-helping’ state don’t even exist. So what’s the meaning then of the term ‘only’, or ‘ only two’? What else could there be, right? Here, Beyond these ‘helping-not-helping’ state or situation or condition or condition of choices, or choices, there is no notion of choice. All there is and can be is this ‘helping-not-helping’ choices or state. It’s all there is. Even the notion of “choice” itself ceases to exist or be defined or have any sense beyond that. One cannot even comprehend the “beyond” these/this ‘helping-not-helping’.

Similarly, just imagine the same type of experiment but now with only one state of being – the state of existence or of now. One may or may not conceive the “other” in a sense of imagination or experience within/as the present state but not in a sense of experience of another real state that is the “other”/”not” of or that is not the present real state.
Now, this stems from a fact that, “thing exists for that thing itself, and not for the other or ‘the orthogonal other’” This is by definition of itself or by the universal law of, “thing/experiencer for the thing/experiencer itself”
So, one cannot even conceive of anything/option/choice beyond that state of existence. There is no notion of choice.
For six sided die, the conceivable choices or options are six. There is nothing beyond. For a two sided coin, one would agree that the choices are two, and beyond that is not even conceivable. There is nothing beyond. However, in both these cases and in such cases in general, we agree that there is no choice beyond these, and not even the notion of choice.

Similar is true for one/single choice or conceivable choice. That is, Similar is true for any real state, which is the only thing that exists.
Also, I’d argue that in case of such single existence, and the only existence or possible existence or whole existence or wholeness, the notion of counting it as “one” or “just one” is also senseless and meaningless. There is no such notion as “one” or “two” or such, because there is notion of the “other” or “other than”, as that state of existence, that present state, is complete, and whole. It is all there is. It is the universe, it is everything, it is the whole of existence. Nothing is beyond it or apart or separate from it. Exactly, there is ‘Nothing’/’non-existence’ beyond it, or separate from it.
So, there is no notion of the ‘separate’ or the “other”. So, there is no notion of “single” or “one” or “two” or so on.
So, there is no notion of choice beyond this present state or the only choice or possibility or existence. So, there is notion of choice.

So, if there is no notion of choice, choice cannot be defined. So, the statement that, “there is no choice” cannot be denied or confirmed, such cannot be defined. Such notions cannot be defined because such notions does not exist.
So, free-will-no-free-will, cannot be defined, there is “fine-line”, not a thick well-defined line.

So, I tried to have no basis, but even no basis is basis. This stems from the fact that thing or observer experiences or observers anything, even ‘Nothing’ as something. So, though my basis was ‘Nothing’, it was something, as Nothing is comprehensive and conceivable only as something, to a thing/observer/experience/existence.