The universe is either deterministic or non-deterministic, order or chaos respectively. In either case or in combination i can't see how freewill can exist. In one case all is predetermined in the other nothing can be determined. How would freewill work in any case?

The real question is, what is the relation between language and things in the world? How did language make understanding possible at the level of existential wonder, that is, inquiry that asks questions that target what is not pragmatic at all, like questions about one's existence, Being, like "why are we born to suffer and die?" — Constance

Like i've stated before, the relationship of language to the world is simply an agreed upon set of symbols that two or more entities can use to affect each other's minds to construct concepts of sufficient similarity (need not be perfect) in order to achieve a certain level of cooperation that confers some advantage in the world for both or at least one of them. Communication should be executed in such a way as to bring focus by expanding a certain idea while at the same time contracting other ideas not pertinent to the question or task at hand.

The point of language is not to understand the world but to understand each other. The brain did not evolve to understand truth.. it evolved to figure out what works in order to increase the chance of survivability and reproduction... a purely pragmatic endeavor. What would be different if you were to figure out the answers to your "non-pragmatic" questions such as about one's existence, Being, etc.?
The question as to "why are we born to suffer and die?" is a purely subjective interpretation of the situation, and signals to me your desire for a pragmatic solution. It's as if you think that the universe or God set everything up just to make you suffer and then kill you. If you want a chance at the right answer then you have to change your questions. Only the right questions yield the right answers.

If you want to understand language then look into and study how language evolves in nature. Look at how cells, ants, plants, etc. communicate. Try to understand how DNA and mRNA work. If you observe nature, and you know how to observe well, and know how to ask the right questions, then she will disrobe before you and expose her sexy secrets. When one becomes familiar with those more basic patterns then one will be better equipped to tackle the more complex forms of language and communication. Look to nature itself to inform your philosophy and not so much old philosophers. You must look at the systems below the one you are looking at to gain insight to "understand" it. Move out and under the human world experience and try to see things from a lower and simpler perspective. The level at which you are trying to analyze the issue is to complex if you don't know the basic forms it's made of. It's like trying to understand biology without knowing about chemistry, or understanding chemistry without understanding first physics.

It has to be understood that we are not merely "things that evolved and act" — Constance

It seems quite obvious to me that nothing is static and everything moves and evolves or changes in this universe. It makes no sense to me to define a thing as simply a thing with no ability to interact with other things in the universe. If it exists for any sufficient amount of time then it implies that it serves some function that keeps it existing. What else would the universe be if it did not evolve and "act"?

A physicist leaves off when basic questions appear; s/he does respond to, say, questions about temporality as a structure of experience that is presupposed by Einstein's theories, not presented in them. — Constance

The questions dealing with physics or how the physical world actually works should not be answered through philosophical thought alone, and questions that can not be answered directly from physics are more properly addressed by philosophy. But philosophy has to constrain itself to the patterns that physics has already discovered so as to keep the whole enterprise coherent.

As to things, and one coming before the other, this has been discussed many times. Take Schopenhauer's claim that the principle of causality is contradictory given that eternity has no beginning. It only gets interesting when you realize that our finitude is embedded in infinity, but there is no line of actual separation, for it is impossible to to say where on ends and the other begins. — Constance

Only energy is infinite in duration.. and at the lowest level of existence there is no pattern or information, only a pure active soup of energetic chaos (randomness). Energy has always been, and it is the cause of information. The inherent chaotic activity of energy is constantly producing random patterns that instantly rise and fall. They fall because they are not viable patterns that are able to "survive" and replicate themselves (first instance of natural selection determined by initial local conditions). As soon as one of these potent patterns arise then we have the seed of a universe. This universe will have it's own unique physics, and logic, and it will have an internal consistency from which meaning and language may evolve. If i were to draw the line of "actual separation" as you say, i would draw it right between energy and stable pattern (above energy but below pattern).

For the sake of brevity i made this description a bit short and simplistic but only to convey the general idea and principle, more can be said about this matter.

Ask yourself, as I do almost daily, how is it that anything out there gets in here (the mind)? Never happen. Just impossible to conceive. The only conclusion: what is here before me, what is there, "ready to hand" stuff of the world is, in my localized mental space, utterly metaphysical. — Constance

Actual things do not enter the mind, just data or information about a perceived thing in the world. The brain tries to recreate it's environment as a neural simulation that we call the conscious mind as opposed to the unconscious mind from the data or information acquired from the sense organs. The brain creates a neural structure in itself that is representative of the object it perceived. The actual neural network pattern constructed is the actual symbol the brain uses to think with, but it is not the thing itself. The brain itself only perceives the output of the neural structure when it's output is active in the conscious mind.

To simplify this issue where do you think information or structure comes from? From where or how did the first element of information or structure manifest? What is the "thing" that comes before the first thing?

But you have to ask the Derridean question: When one says words, how do these stand alone as a reference to something? Does the term 'moon' really refer exclusively, epistemically, to that object in the sky? Or is the matter more complex such that reference itself is called into question? Keep in mind what philosophy's mission is: To address the world at the level of the most basic questions. Prior to this, you are doing no more than speculative science. — Constance

Most words elicit a myriad of associated concepts that will vary in quantity and quality in different people and at different times. The more complex a word is the more it lends itself to varied associations and interpretations (not a fundamental problem of the universe but of human psychology). There is a hierarchy of meaning which of course arbitrary words can be assigned to... but the idea for me is to grasp the most fundamental meanings or patterns which all the other patterns or meanings are made up of (similar to prime numbers).
It's like physics and chemistry in the sense that quarks form subatomic particles, these particles form atoms, molecules, etc.. One can maybe even imagine the possibility of something like a "periodic table" of meaning or pattern. Everything works this way even text. Notice how letters make words, words make sentences, and sentences make paragraphs, etc.. (a fundamental pattern in itself) Once one gets to the most fundamental and simplest patterns or meanings then they become less likely to be interpreted or misinterpreted in many and various ways.

No, that's not it. It is not that certain language is unclear. It is that language itself is problematic, and it is philosophy's job to give this problematic analysis. For the matter is about the presuppositions of science, not science. — Constance

The problem with language is that it is not perfect, but that is not a reason to not use it. Look at what we have accomplished because of language (cars, planes, computers, the internet, philosophy, art, etc..). It may not be perfect but it evidently works and it is still evolving. Whatever the presuppositions in science are at any moment in time is only a temporary and dynamic position until a new paradigm shift occurs.

"The name that can be named is not the eternal name. The nameless is the beginning of heaven and earth. The named is the mother of ten thousand things." The I Ching

Even the Taoists knew that language was imperfect, but they still wrote their books anyway to at least try to explain the Tao. I think they did a good job considering.

A tool? Quite right. But how does a tool's instrumentality possess relationship possibilities 0f the kind you assume? I use pencil, but in that use do I "know' what a pencil is? Does a cow know its teeth are chewing tools? Of course not. — Constance

A word's instrumentality possesses relationship possibilities because it's how the mind works. The mind records sense impressions and compares and contrasts with other prior impressions, making associations and relationships between impressions. The relationships are not in the words, they are in the mind, and words are just used as an attempt to express and reconstruct the relationship in another mind.
I find it better to think of what a thing does rather than what a thing is. I don't need to know what a pencil is, i just need to know what a pencil does or can do. If i need to write something on a piece of paper then i know i can use a pencil. There are different levels and dimensions of knowing a thing such as knowing how to drive a car compared to knowing how to fix a car.

[

You have to ask, why is it that a term has meaning at all? — Constance

A word or term has meaning when it signifies or points to a thing or idea such as when a finger that points to the moon means the moon and not the finger.

Why is language going unexamined with all this language being put forth to make sense of things? — Constance

If the language is unclear then one should just simply ask for clarification of the specific terms or phrases in question. The main goal in this respect is for all parties involved in a discussion to have the same definitions for all the terms being used. The real point is the meanings and not the words... words are merely vessels for moving meaning from one mind to another (communication), for it is meaning and not mere words that bring insight and understanding to the mind. Two heads are not better than one head if the two heads can not communicate.

Richard Feynman - Names Don't Constitute Knowledge
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFIYKmos3-s

So the question to you is not what is chaos? but, what is the relation between a term and the world? — Constance

A term or word is just a tool that refers the mind of the listener or receiver to an object in the world or a concept in the mind.

How is it that this needs no analysis to determine if there is not something PRIOR the manifest meanings of empirical science? — Constance

Not sure what you're asking here... perhaps you can rephrase the question.

What, exactly, was there in the beginning such that to utter the words makes beginnings possible at all? In the beginning there was the word? Take this quite literally: How are such things that are "begun" to be conceived prior to their beginning; or, what is presupposed by a beginning? An absolute beginning makes no sense at all, for to begin would have to be ex nihilo and this is a violation of a foundation level intuition, a causeless cause, spontaneously erupting into existence simply is impossible, just as space cannot be conceived to "end". — Constance

In the beginning i believe there was pure Energy (can not be created nor destroyed), chaotic with no stable pattern or information (quantum foam). Energy is the primal and fundamental "substance" in which information (pattern or structure) can be expressed. Within this chaotic energy at the lowest level of the universe, random patterns are constantly emerging and immediately descending back into Chaos (creation and destruction). Sometimes a pattern emerges that is potent enough not only to resist the dissolving influence of the surrounding chaos but can also nucleate and impart it's own pattern or form to the surrounding energy like a growing and expanding crystal (Big Bang and Inflation). This new and potent pattern becomes the template for an entire universe, with a specific logic that is internally self-consistent and specific to it's own structure (The Word or Logos of the Bible).

Ordo ab Chao --> The God of order is Chaos itself for Chaos is the alpha and the omega of all order or possible orders (Logos). Chaos is the full potentiality of infinite possibilities, the true source of creation with no need of any prerequisite. It is unbounded, unlike order which can only express a finite set of possibilities.
Meaning emerges out of the interaction and relationships between the ordered parts of an emergent universe. An atom or a molecule in our universe for example means nothing outside our universe because the underlying fundamental pattern of each universe would be different and incompatible. Think of the difference in pattern for example of Legos and Lincoln Logs construction sets, The Lego universe has it's own structure and logic which is different than the Lincoln Logs universe. Both are viable and meaningful but only in their respective universes.

My current position on the subject:

Nature has structured the brain in such a way as to enable it to dismember a confluence of many different sensory impressions and store or encode these "members" of the whole composite impression in different ways and places in the brain or nervous system (consider synesthesia). It is also able to perceive it's own encoding in part or in whole or in combination with other elements of prior memories. The "purpose" of this is to simulate itself and it's environment within it's own neurology for general problem solving and survival.

The effect of the brain perceiving it's own neural encoding appears to that brain as qualia. In essence.. Neural encoding observing it's own neural encoding.. in a continuous dynamic feedback loop resulting in the "qualia" of a relatively unbroken chain of self-awareness (consciousness and identity).

Because the brain encodes the sense impression of "red" for example in some initially arbitrary but consistent way throughout, then when that encoding is activated again it perceives exactly the neural state that caused the brain structure for that qualia to form in the first place... thus the experience of "red" either in real time or in recall. So for me consciousness and qualia are useful illusions that the brain creates for itself to run it's simulations. We don't actually see "red", we experience what the conscious part of the our brain thinks as "red", for color as we know it in our consciousness may not even exist in the "real" external world. It is merely symbolic and representative to that neural encoding for the purposes of that encoding.

Consider also how experiments have shown that scientists can predict a persons choices seconds or fractions of a second before the person is even aware of the choice at a conscious level (illusion of free will at least at the conscious level). The unconscious brain makes choices the conscious brain does not know or understand, and then after the choice is made unconsciously the conscious mind creates it's own rationalization as to why it did what it did consistent with it's own internal running conscious narrative or inner dialog (which may have nothing to do with the real reason).