The fundamental rule of everything

The fundamental rule of everything

Philosophical singularity; Is it possible to find a single law which governs everything?

I think we can break all things down to certain fundamental concepts, as essentially all things are a kind of ‘it’ [x,y,z] or all things are not ‘it’s, or not things. So here’s my universal personality disorder…

It is what it is
Or
‘It’ is not what it is

Where ‘it’ is the metaphysical integer of any and all things, and that which denotes identity/thingness.

There are either classes of things, or ultimately no classes of things and no law.

We could say ‘things’ are things, and that reality is composed of things. ‘It is what it is’, and everything is distinct, an apple is still an apple even though it is composed of atoms which are not ‘apple’. In turn atoms are what they are, and their components are not atoms, although they are all composed of particles throughout.

Or we could say that ‘all things are not what they are’, the universe is not truly universal because it doesn’t encompass the whole of reality. Particles are not particles because they ultimately have no mass [hence not ‘part’icles]. Then we can add all the wierd quantum and relativistic effects, and the whole thing is too fluid to be considered fundamentally in parts.

Which is it?

_

The universe is absent of rules. Human beings beffudle through self constructed ideals of rules in order to legitimate the illusions of control, order, and the existential insecurity of understanding.

A pitiful child trying to understand why it exists and has been layed barren at reality’s doorstep orphaned.

The only general rule that exists is the will to survive and the inevitable conflicting interests manifesting itself in survival.

True, though most of how the world is, is not there for that reason.

There are ultimately no rules to demend that doesnt happen, so why complain at air? Most such things can be resolved, it’s up to us to do something about it.

Perhaps we are mostly past survivalism. We are masters of the world and conflict is caused by us, no point blaming and complaining to a reality beyond God/anything/everything.

The universe only exists because of the Impossible.

The universe is ruled by the one rule:
Always try to achieve the impossible.

That is why men of most significant achievement keep trying to be God.
… And also why they always fail.
… Round and round we go.

Sounds like an existence of the absurd.

A giant circle jerking circus. grabs popcorn and a cigarette

:laughing:

An electro cigarette? * Giggles in the background *

It really, really IS. The only sense to make of it, is the sense you CAN and WISH TO make of it.

Everything exists.

There’s a rule for you.

In whatever convoluted form, everything exists.

After it’s existence has been established, then the details of it’s existence can be considered.

The base: I think, therefore, I am.

I agree with James here.

People often confuse arbitrariness with falsehood or illusion.

If I say: there are two groups of numbers–those that are less than 2.5 and those that are equal or greater than 2.5, am I wrong just because I chose an arbitrary dividing point?

Yes, everything in nature reduces to fundamental particles (so it seems according to modern science), but is the human mind wrong to call certain collections/patterns of such particles “atoms”? Is it true or is it not true that such collections/patterns of particles come together to form what we call “atoms”? I think it’s true–but just because it’s us (or some involuntary mechanism of the mind) that identifies this collection/pattern as an “atom” in contrast to any of the myriad other collections/patterns that we could have identified, does that mean we are looking at an illusion? I don’t think so. I just think that a lot of how the universe can be classified or dissected or categorized (or whatever) is simply up to us rather than an illusion.

OMG …
… perhaps the universe really is coming to an end after all … :open_mouth:

C’mon James, we’re not that different in our views :wink:

james

If you envision that it would be completely different to what is! If i were to say the opposite then that would be much nearer to what is or indeed absolutely WHAT IS.
Name something in reality where the impossible has been achieved or is, in any context?

Ya, because the impossible is the hardest thing to arrive at. Does anyone really try to be God? We try to reach things that will make the seemingly impossible happen, but that’s only things that are possible but we just haven’t thought of yet.

Ben js

The things i will do a few moments from now, do not exist. The idea one may think of - doesn’t exist yet, that’s the whole fun of it. I see what you mean though, that which can exist now, exists. There are no impossible existences.

Gib

Yes, everything in nature reduces to fundamental particles (so it seems according to modern science), but is the human mind wrong to call certain collections/patterns of such particles “atoms”?

‘everything’ in nature reduces to the thing prior to particles, surely? …to the indefinable reality which is reality.

_

Hi, gib

Here is a restatement of what you just wisely pointed out:

The universe is undifferentiated. Each individual comes along and differentiates it in his or her own way.

You offered us some fine illustrations and examples.

…Perhaps, though, for human purposes, the way we cut things up - the categories we construct [such as the R. S. Hartman theory of Ethics maybe…)
are not (entirely) arbitrary… :question: :exclamation:

(To say it informally, that theory posits that when we look at individuals as precious treasures we have entered the field of Ethics.) For details refer to the first two links below.

It may not be arbitrary. We differentiate fruits from the trees they grow on in order to find food, and this is very likely to be hardwired. But the point, it is we and our genetics which are doing it, not something inherent to the universe itself–as if the fruit “really is” a separate entity from the tree.

You are calling attention, gib, to what I have called, in earlier writings, “the web of the universe” and this includes, and is thus related to, The Web of Life.

In my Ethical theory The Principal of Inclusivity gets its evidential support from the web of life - about which Ecologists teach us.

If you have any interest in Moral Philosophy I’d like to ask you, gib, what did you think of my ETHICS FOR THE 21st-CENTURY paper?

Does it hit the mark?

I’ll have to take the time to read it. I’ll get back to you if/when I do so.