The One Elemental Law

[Walker]

Walker

Order is the elemental thread that runs through the subatomic and the galactic. Order is ubiquitous, present in every situation, either known, or to be discovered. True laws such as order can't be broken. A demand for order is not because order has been broken, but rather, because another order is asserting. Order is the basis of life, of movement, of the body, of all structure in all realms. No law is more fundamental. Discovering order in disorder is an advantage of the human realm

.

The question becomes if the elemental law responsible for what you describe is an accident or the result of conscious intent? I maintain that universal laws much less the elemental law cannot arise by accident. If it can’t it just means the elemental law is the initial conscious expression. Of course this suggests the necessity for a conscious source of creation. Do you or Bahman disagree?

Intelligence is perception of order. Both order and intelligence are inseparable from energy. Low entropy requires energy, perception of the resulting order is intelligence, which also requires energy. Because energy precedes the ordering of form and perception of ordering, the question becomes, what is the source of energy? For that matter, what is energy?

Look at any person famous for prolific and even profligate success in any field of endeavor: art, business, politics, military, education, civil service, on and on. All of them are highly energetic, and align the universe within their aligning capacity and reach, into order.

Considering that reality can only exist in the present, then your question is along the lines of, does the thread of ordering that ties reality together trace back to a single, separate source?

Because anything cannot be separate from everything, then the answer to a question so put, must be no.

[Lacewing]

...an accident or the result of conscious intent?

Are these the only two choices?

...a conscious source of creation.

Do you imagine such a thing would have an agenda?

In other words, do you think awareness = agenda?

[Nick_A]

Walker

Considering that reality can only exist in the present, then your question is along the lines of, does the thread of ordering that ties reality together trace back to a single, separate source?

Because anything cannot be separate from everything, then the answer to a question so put, must be no.

The elemental law is the source of all laws which enable the universal process of existence. The process is eternal but results are not. If individual results were eternal than the universe wouldn't serve a purpose. Can an elemental law arise by accident from which all universal laws we know of are a fraction? I don't see how.

[Nick_A]

...an accident or the result of conscious intent?

Are these the only two choices?

...a conscious source of creation.

Do you imagine such a thing would have an agenda?

In other words, do you think awareness = agenda?

As far as I know Creation can only be the result of accident or conscious intent. This is not to say that what takes place within the universe is not a result of both mechanical law and conscious intent appropriate for a given level of reality.

If by agenda you mean a purpose, I would agree. As I understand it the purpose of the universal machine is the transformation of substances taking place within the complimentary processes if involution and evolution. Would you call it an agenda? I wouldn't since the word implies a political goal. The purpose of the universe is found in the process rather than a political result.

For example a socialist axiom reads "The ends justify the means." However for those who appreciate the value of process it is recognition of the process that can result in human as opposed to indoctrinated ends. Since it is now fashionable to value ends above all else, understanding the purpose of the universe as a process we can begin to consciously reflect rather than a goal goes against the grain.

"It's not whether you win or lose but how you play the game that counts" This is an ancient idea that has fallen out of fashion and now appears ridiculous. It has been replaced by "win at all cost. There is nothing else."

[Walker]

The question becomes if the elemental law responsible for what you describe is an accident or the result of conscious intent? I maintain that universal laws much less the elemental law cannot arise by accident. If it can’t it just means the elemental law is the initial conscious expression. Of course this suggests the necessity for a conscious source of creation. Do you or Bahman disagree?

This assumes that accidents have a counter-part in form other than thought. One can just as well realize that there are no accidents, and there are no mistakes, there are only effects caused by conditions.

[Nick_A]

The question becomes if the elemental law responsible for what you describe is an accident or the result of conscious intent? I maintain that universal laws much less the elemental law cannot arise by accident. If it can’t it just means the elemental law is the initial conscious expression. Of course this suggests the necessity for a conscious source of creation. Do you or Bahman disagree?

This assumes that accidents have a counter-part in form other than thought. One can just as well realize that there are no accidents, and there are no mistakes, there are only effects caused by conditions.

As I see it accidents on earth are the normal result of the interaction of lesser natural laws without conscious intent. Look at this famous painting of the Wave. The chaotic movement within it are the results of interacting laws. Even though gravity, resistance, and the force of the wind which creates the wave may be the result of conscious intent necessary for creation, Its expression within interacting lesser laws could be considered accidental

https://www.wikiart.org/en/ivan-aivazovsky/wave-1889

[Lacewing]

As far as I know Creation can only be the result of accident or conscious intent.

So, what about a "mechanical/natural process" that is neither an "accident" nor "conscious intent"? Is that possible?

The purpose of the universe is found in the process rather than a political result.

Then there's no reason for a god to be making up rules according to some master plan, correct? The only "purpose" of creation may be to explore/express/manifest creative potential.

When you say "conscious intent", do you equate that with the kind of consciousness that humans have? If not, how do we even know what such consciousness would be like? We might pretend that we know such a thing, by guessing that such a consciousness would have "ideas" and "goals" and "desires"... like we do. But that's clearly making a god in our image, yes? And then to hide what we're doing, we say that a god made us in his image! Sneaky!

[HexHammer]

but hopefully you get my point.

Don't think he will I've tried to reason with him, but it seems he has an IQ/RQ around 75 or so.

[HexHammer]

Both order and intelligence are inseparable from energy.

Says who? The Tooth Fairy? What you say is nonsense and babble as always!

[Walker]

Both order and intelligence are inseparable from energy.

Says who? The Tooth Fairy? What you say is utterly stupid nonsense and babble as always!

Something's afoot in the mines when the canary appears.

And here I thought that if Hex could agree with anything, it would be this.

[Nick_A]

Lacewing

So, what about a "mechanical/natural process" that is neither an "accident" nor "conscious intent"? Is that possible?

Sure. Why will it rain tomorrow? It is neither the result of conscious intent nor an accident, it is the result of the mechanical interactions of natural laws.

Then there's no reason for a god to be making up rules according to some master plan, correct? The only "purpose" of creation may be to explore/express/manifest creative potential.

Are you familiar with Plato’s concept of forms? Take the form of justice of example. Is there objective justice? Would you call it a rule? When we secularize justice into man made values is there anything objective about it? So if justice is necessary for the master plan do you see what we lose by arguing over subjective conceptions of justice while avoiding contemplation as to what objective justice actually is? We make rules to satisfy societal aims. Objective justice in contrast applies to universal order. We don’t bother to contemplate what this means because it is more egoistically satisfying to argue over our own subjective conceptions of justice.

When you say "conscious intent", do you equate that with the kind of consciousness that humans have? If not, how do we even know what such consciousness would be like? We might pretend that we know such a thing, by guessing that such a consciousness would have "ideas" and "goals" and "desires"... like we do. But that's clearly making a god in our image, yes? And then to hide what we're doing, we say that a god made us in his image! Sneaky!

We can know that we are incapable of conscious sustained self awareness. We make a god in our image to compensate for what we are incapable of. If that is so we cannot even distinguish between conscious will and reaction to desire. What would it be like to experience the world as a whole as it is happening from a higher perspective? What would it be like to consciously experience eternity? We don’t know. We do sense that we are capable of a much greater conscious experience of inclusion but something prevents it. Have you ever wondered what this is?

[Walker]

As I see it accidents on earth are the normal result of the interaction of lesser natural laws without conscious intent. Look at this famous painting of the Wave. The chaotic movement within it are the results of interacting laws. Even though gravity, resistance, and the force of the wind which creates the wave may be the result of conscious intent necessary for creation, Its expression within interacting lesser laws could be considered accidental

How can science acknowledge the existence of accidents when all change in motion is a logical consequence of force meeting resistance?
To define an event as an accident is to tacitly admit that rationally has run out of road.

[HexHammer]

And here I thought that if Hex could agree with anything, it would be this.[/quote]How can I agree with something that is grabbed out of thin air, maybe in this case, from fairytale land?

[-1-]

How can science acknowledge the existence of accidents when all change in motion is a logical consequence of force meeting resistance?
To define an event as an accident is to tacitly admit that rationally has run out of road.

You are actually right, but from a wrong angle, Walker.

Accidents happen only from points of view. Everything that happens has been caused. Nothing that has not been caused happens.

Accidents are not caused. Accidents don't happen. Accidents are humans' way of saying, "I don't know why that change effected that cause." For instance, a change in DNA structure changes a newborn to grow a fingernail in his bellybutton. We call it accident, but only because we don't understand the connection between molecular changes in the DNA, and the developmental difference in the growing organism.

However, if we change ANY other embrio's DNA the same way, they will all grow a fingernail in their bellybuttons.

So obviously the causation stands, it's only humans who can't grasp the connection between cause and effect.

[Walker]

How can I agree with something that is grabbed out of thin air, maybe in this case, from fairytale land?

Flesh it out, Hex.

Fairy tales persist because the principles that they express, persist.
The tales are expressed as such simple, powerful allegories that they say something to most everyone.
A good aphorism can begin a good allegory.

For instance, The Three Little Pigs demonstrates the value of a proper home. This message is delivered via the harsh, selfless sacrifice of two well-intentioned porkers and a wolf just doing what wolves do.

The adventures of Goldilocks demonstrates the natural attraction of Buddha’s middle-way, finding peace amongst the killer bears.

Chicken Little personifies (or should we say, fowlifies) The Global Warming fanatics.

Stone Soup is about the advantages of community.

However, what principle does The Tooth Fairy express?
She is invisible, and she trades money for human teeth.
Why in God's name* does this entity continue to be invited near the life of the precious?

(In God’s name is a traditional encouragement to elevate thought to the altitude that brings the absolute into sight, i.e., philosophy.)