Is there an absolute Principle?

[Dewd]

Hi gatum,

Holy feces! You do impress. I’ve never even considered such gargantuan hypot, (that’s short for hypotheca, not hypotheses or hypothesis). Furthermore, I choose di-hydrogen monoxide for the "not more than one constituent" to order my universe. Even though, yuk! believe it or not, some folks actually bathe in it, like taking a milk bath or something equally silly.

As for my, "not more than one principle to interpret and understand in various ways," I choose Inductive Reactance. It’s a hellava principle. I laughed and laughed when it blowed me up. Ha ha ha ha ha. THAR SHE BLOWS! It was sooo funny. I looked at her, she looked at me, and we both looked at each other in various ways.

Afterwards, I went home and climbed into bed. (By the way, I use the masculine, hand-over-hand climbing method for getting into bed (sometimes down on all-fours.) But I don’t think she went home. I think she just climbed into bed.

However, because of the Uncertainty Principle, I can’t be too sure. What I mean is; when I knew where she was, I didn’t know her velocity. Then, when I went to check her velocity, I couldn’t do it because I didn’t know where she was. After all, she’s a late sleeper, and she enjoys McDonalds oatmeal cookies for breakfast. I always have the sturgeon ribs. It’s brain food, you know.

Anyway, Bro gatum, stay sane as long as you can, and keep on thankin.’

[Stephen]

If we had the specification of how everything is constructed and functions and evolves then it would be the absolute principle of the Universe.

Come to think of it, we do have the absolute principle. The materialist paradigm, which specifies how everything is constructed and functions and evolves.

See http://members.westnet.com.au/paradigm/essay1.pdf

Stephen

[Dewd]

Hi Stephen, Nice to hear from you, and I do hope that David "The Important One" approves.

This writ of anemic synapses references your observation that we do, in fact, have the "Absolute Principle" governing the universe, which you studiously defined as the "Materialistic Paradigm."

I agree, Stephen. Matter of fact, I’ve seen it, and I quote from it's brilliant pages. "Insert tab A into slot B, while wiping sweat with a trembling hand, and chanting in momotone, "you :*&%^$@)* mother of slimemold, I be gonna kill somebody!

Again, and all nonsense aside, please come back and chat with me. I like your fresh wit and humor.

Your new friend (I hope) DammitDewd of Light Through a Glass, Darkly.

[mkirkpatrick]

All universal laws are principles of willed intention,made manifest in order to objectify
existance and ultimately raise consciousness to the self aware stage,via the process of
evolution.

Prior to this evolutionary process,the infolding process of involution occured,and the
priciples,which "were" to become universal laws,as the embryonic universe was brought
into play.

And the end of this vast cycle of involution,there was a momentary pause,then the mighty
tide turned,and evolution began,and from the absolute principle (law) which contained all
of the "yet to be born" universal laws within itself,folded up,and awaiting the "quickening"
as the invitation to "unwrap" and expand into the void.


regards michael.

[Eric]

The ability to change and the desire for change, comes from beyond the void.

The void is non-existent so there's no separation, between that which is changed and that which does the changing.

The lesser "I" (including the universe) is eternally coming to meet the greater "I", but never actually arrives.

It can seem to be going towards or away, but that is just an illusion. The greater "I" is all around and beyond, so we're always coming towards it.

The reason we never actually arrive, is because the Absolute can not meet itself. If it met itself there would be two of them, and the Absolute would then become relative.

The universal "principle" is beyond the universe and there isn't anything whatsoever beyond it.

What we perceive as a "substance" within the Absolute, is never more than "something relative" and never less than "relatively nothing".

Something relative is why it takes matter and energy to equal mass, and why mass can not be "located".

Relatively nothing is why space isn't empty, and mass can't be created or destroyed.

All we are when we're coming to the Absolute, is something relative and relatively nothing.

All we have to do is recognize this and accept all else as a misunderstanding.

[Dewd]

Well . . ., uh . . ., okay, Eric.

[Eric]

Michelle,

Whenever you color the light red or black, it will always turn to white.

What happens is we that give-up too soon, and run away and hide.

I do it all the time, I know.

[Dewd]

But, I think you lost all of us.

[Eric]

Well, uh, whatever Dewd. Have an opinion one way or another, and take your sarcasm to a chatroom on MySpace.

I see you posted again.

If I lost you, then I did, but "all of us" might be assuming too much.

In essence, understanding the universe is not about what constitutes the universe, but what the universe is contained within. What constitutes the universe is secondary. And the universe itself or the stuff it is "made of" never arrives at a "something or a nothing".

An absolute, however it is described, can not have an outside. Science keeps looking for something that doesn't have an inside.

"Reality (the universe) is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." – Einstein

[dleviwing]

Hi Eric;
Maybe a less cryptic explanation would allow the lesser gods to comprehend you better. Do you view the void as eternal and infinite? Do you view substance as eternal and finite? Do you believe that there is some form of existence controlling the essence of these two fundamental entities? I hope you realize that when you start hypothesizing this far back in time, there is no supporting evidence (as yet) and thus all that any of us say is purely conjecture and belief. It does however, help to be somewhat logical.