First of all, I would like to apologize for my title's awkward formulation. English is not my mother-tongue.
I am looking at the word "absolute", which, according to Dictionary.com, has the definition
(4) free from restriction or limitation; not limited in any way: absolute command; absolute freedom.
(5) unrestrained or unlimited by a constitution, counterbalancing group, etc., in the exercise of governmental power, especially when arbitrary or despotic: an absolute monarch.
Origin: 1350–1400; Middle English < Latin absolūtus free, unrestricted, unconditioned (past participle of absolvere to absolve), equivalent to ab- ab- + solū- loosen + -tus past participle suffix
I understand that the Latin prefix abs- means "away from" or "opposite to". However, when abs- is combined with solū, or "loosen", the meaning seems to become "away from being loose" or "restricted" -- the opposite of being free.
I also understand that words like absolutism or absolute power imply the object has ultimate freedom to rule even though its subjects are restrained, but then, say, if we describe the "law of conservation of energy" as an absolute principle of physics, then there is neither freedom for interpretation nor an "absolute ruler" who possess the "freedom" to legislate. (After all, it is commonly regarded as the universal truth and none "arbitrarily made up" the law.)
Then where does the freedom in "absolute" go, since there is no recipient to the freedom and everyone else is subject to the restriction? I am still confused about whether absolute conveys freedom or its opposite.