Is there an absolute Principle?

[mkirkpatrick]

I would like to start this thread with a question,what are principles!Isthere an
absolute one?It would seem to me that there must also be a First-Principle,from
which all the other ones came from!Does a universal principle imply law!What do
we Really know and understand of Principality?I will add more later.would be grateful for other comments,thank you all,



kind regards michael.

[Guille]

I dist¡nguish between human principles and universal principles. Human principles are those that humans have about the universe, but really about themselves, and universal principles are thoe by which the universe works (or we understand them to do so). Inside human principles I divide between knowledgeable principles (factuality hypothesis) and believe principles (ideations with no background apart from uncertainty). Inside the believe principles I divide between relativistic principles (that change as space-time point changes) and mental principles (which depend on each mind that has them). Inside the knowledgeable principles, I divide between relativistic principles (that change in space-time points) and philosophical principles (which are always right, but always wrong). Now, in the universal principles I divide between between scientific principles (like bla energy is interchanged for bla masss (E=mc^2)) (which depend in the space-time point) and philosophical principles (which are about outside but are always right and always wrong).

[mkirkpatrick]

What is the first principle?From which all the others have sprouted from!Logic
would dictate,that there must be a Protyle Principle,from which all were born
from?

kind regards michael.

[Guille]

True, there should be a principle that started all. That is EXISTENCE. I know, it is not the normal kind of principle with which we meet, but it is the reason why we have principles, why there are principles, why there are things from which to dervie principles, and why there "are" anything at all.

[mkirkpatrick]

Universal principles seem to be carriers for an expression of cosmic law
impregnated within.As the principle unfolds,it enables a law to manifest,and
become Active!A First principle, that had within it,all the others,each unfolding
at its appointed spot,and becoming!




kind regardsmichael.

[michellemfry]

A principle is a fundamental truth, a comprehensive law or doctrine from which others are derived or on which others are founded. An obsolete definition is a motive force. The protylality of the principal is a given. It assumes that others will be derived from it. An absolute principle is the One from which all others can unfold logically, each taking it's form from the protyle principal or motive force. It is the One and All you often write about.

[mkirkpatrick]

Yes there is an absolute principle.the first and only REAL principle there is,and that is LIFE itself.ITS TOTAL-SELF,which ==ALL that is was and will ever BE
and of which we know absolutely nothing,to us it is a Dark-Flame/.




kind regards michael.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Hi guys,

"The entire universe, and divine understanding, in unity with that which we are logical, is the essence of truth." Heraclitus

I thought I'd make my first post here as the question interested me. I think Heraclitus came the closest of anyone about first principles. It's just that he's been poorly interpreted, as much of his original writings were in formal symbolic logic. Still, his statements about "logos" and "being" are the most profound. My reading of him, and my own view is that, philosophically speaking, mind is the first principle, and the organizing principle of mind is logic. It takes logic to produce natural laws, so the way I see it is the original principle, or principles, had to be logical.

Although I've stated this, it doesn't mean that mind had to exist in the beginning. Scientifically, it could just as easily have been an infinite necessity of wave formations into matter, through a simple process of infinite perpetual propagation, required to equilibriate itself, by filling the universe with waves and electrons to the point equilibrium became the infinite necessity. This would be the first law of logical necessity, which in turn would produce all the other wave structured matter building processes, we experience as galaxies, suns, planets, moons, and finally us logical beings. The rest of the laws would have evolved with the matter building process.

Just one of the theories,
Lloyd

p.s.
Einstein is wrong if infinity is right. The two are non-corresponding, incompatible and impossible to both exist as certain mathematical truths. I choose infinity.

[mkirkpatrick]

I would choose infinity too my friend,finite is too small for us Humans!

True, there should be a principle that started all. That is EXISTENCE. I know, it is not the normal kind of principle with which we meet, but it is the reason why we have principles, why there are principles, why there are things from which to dervie principles, and why there "are" anything at all.

It would seem then that thisfirst principle is ab-normal then,would you agree!

kind regards michael.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

It would seem then that thisfirst principle is ab-normal then,would you agree!

kind regards michael.

Is the first principle of infinite now time ab-normal? As Poincare clearly stated years ago; "Singularities are required to exhibit paradoxes." These paradoxes of singularities are only resolved by the propagation of pluralities, much the same as the proper formal use of one type of language within another language, resolves other paradoxes. I.e., the singularity paradoxes of infinity can only be resolved by the formalism of dualistic concepts within the one concept, as infinity exhibits nothing but paradoxes by itself. Thus, the solution to the infinite first principle is in the understanding of the dualistic nature of its intrinsic existing absolute reality - even if it's only positive and negative energy producing the speed of light finite equilibrium. Remember, even if you think relatively, there always must be an absolute to measure the relative against, or nothing can exist, and that's impossible.

Guille, add your comment in here also, since the above was addressed to you,
Lloyd