If you don't like the thought that there's nothing after death, that's okay. I think that way. I come to terms with it knowing that whatever atoms exist in my body at the moment of my corporeal demise will be reused by the universe at some future point in some way or another. The water in my blood may flow down a river some day. It may end up in an elegantly prepared cocktail. It may be in the paint splashed upon the window of some corporate office in protest thousands of years in the future. It is fantastical thinking, but thinking that I cherish all the same.

I don't know why I feel entitled enough to consider the fact that the atoms that make up my body at the point of now, or the point of the future are somehow "owned by me", when they're not... "me", just whatever makes up the concept I have of "me".

On your belief in free will, I think that it isn't as clear cut as it existing or not. While the universe and its physical laws have predictable inputs and outputs, small changes in the starting conditions of two different, identical experiments can yield vastly different results.

If we examine ourselves as biological machines that just respond to those stimuli and inputs and outputs, are we truly agents of chaos, or are we just the winds of entropy reacting to some sort of cascading, distributed illusion that we are able to truly influence the environment beyond that of our thought?

I love to think on all of these things, and while they may be depressing at times, there's a great deal of satisfaction in completing certain tasks on auto-pilot, and being able to reflect upon the events of the past with a "I had no choice, anyway".

However, I really do want to delve deeper into the research that offers that "free will" (however it is defined) - does exist, but am struggling to move beyond Sapolsky who has so many convincing theses against its existence.