"
If you are unable to comprehend the meaning of the words you actually wrote, that is not my problem. How is""when anything not forbidden is mandatory"" (the words I cited you as saying) any different from the phrase ""Anything not forbidden is mandatory."" (the words you just now cite yourself as having said? I see no difference. And further, how is ""anything not forbidden is allowed"" (the phrase I cited you as saying) any different from "" anything not forbidden is allowed (the words you now cite yourself as having said)? I see no difference. I have quoted you exactly. Your continued assertion that I have repeatedly misquoted is slanderous. If you continue in this vein, I will be resorting to Wikipedia conflict resolution efforts. 
Your equation of ""allowed"" with ""mandatory is implied in the question: isn't ""A"" another way of saying ""B"". ""When you then add (only more so; it is inevitable!)"" as a further clarification of ""B""; and your clarification of ""B"" is an exact meaning of ""A"", you are in fact equating ""A"" (mandatory) with ""B"" (inevitable). It is a logical error of equivocation when a word which can, under some circumstances and under some conditions, mean the the same as some other specified word, is arbitrarily employed as a substitute for that other specified word. This is an equivocation you continue to make with the word ""try"", which has validity when applied to natural phenomena only in a metaphoric sense, which is a usage disallowed in logic and science. I provided you with a dictionary definition of the word ""try"" which includes ""volition"", which ""Nature"" clearly does not have. Your statement that ""I also suspect the scenario was presented to us students just to make us think"" implies an awareness on your part that the case was hypothetical, which indicates that the uses of the word ""try"" (and effort with an implication of volition) was not meant literally. Need I remind you that half remembered arguments from long forgotten books (and/or lectures) does not count for evidence? The fact that the word ""try"" includes the meaning ""effort"" does not mean that these two words can be arbitrarily substituted one for the other. To make such substitution without providing a case for its validity in the specific case at hand is to commit the logical fallacy of equivocation, especially when the equivocation is being employed as a means of proving that something which can be true is true. In these cases, equivocation is also the logical fallacy of question begging. As previously mentioned, the concept ""Anything not forbidden is allowed"" has a long pedigree in various legal fields, such as - but not limited to and without prejudice - Judaism and English common law. I suggest you familiarize yourself with these arguments before continuing our current discussion.
I have no need to address your blastocyst example, as it is a subset of ""Nature"". (i would not go down this road if i were you. If the blastocyst can be shown to have volition, it can be shown to have personhood) It is therefore covered under the general declaration ""Nature"" has no volition"", variants of which I have repeatedly made, and therefore does not ""try'. Unless you are going to try to prove that a blastocyst has volition, your example has been dealt with. I will not address each and every example of natural phenomena ""trying"" anything, except to the extent that naturally occurring sentient beings have volition. The salient feature of naturally occurring reasonable sentient beings is the fact that we are able to self-consciously intervene directly in the chain of cause and effect which governs the existence of all other natural phenomena. That is why man made laws exist in a category discrete from natural laws, and why applying laws found in natural philosophy (now known as science) to man made laws such as rights is a category error. Feynman himself, upon whose argument you rely, recognizes this. When he states that social science is pseudo-science and not science, he is placing the two phenomena into different, largely irreconcilable, categories. He denies outright that social sciences have discovered any testable laws. Your entire case rests on this category error, on your equivocation error in your use of the word ""try"", and in your equivocation error in your uses of the words ""mandatory"" and ""allowed"". You have no case; and, at this point, you are beginning to look like a troll rather than a good faith debater. i will not go round this mulberry bush with you much longer.
The fact that we have a general ""right to make an effort"" does not mean we have a right to build a perpetual-motion machine. A case could be made that the term ""perpetual-motion machine"" is meaningless, as it has such little relation to reality as to be meaningless. I have no knowledge of the technicalities on this point, and am trusting prev