Semantics certainly is an issue. A big one.

It is my contention that there is actually only one law and all other axioms we call laws are simply rules. Measures.

Because there is a Law which cannot be contradicted by itself or anything else, the principle Allowance, we have one that is distinctly different from all the others. Why don't we at least call them relative laws? Why is there no distinction between the two types of laws? One which cannot be contradicted and all the rest which can be contradicted by a broader, more encompassing "law"

But never mind the language for now. Whatever we call it, there can only be one absolute absolute, right? (As opposed to relative absolutes, such as 1000 is the absolute minimum and maximum number of 10mm cubes that make up a perfect 100mm cube).

There only one possible value that satisfies the aforementioned example. 1000 10mm cubes. So doesn't it follow that there must be one and yet may be only one, absolute absolute?

And if so, how can it be anything but the principle Allowance, or Yes? The only principle that represents infinite potential, for which reason its value is infinite, making it also the only non conclusive absolute?

All other Laws include a specification, a limitation, am exclusive negation of some sort, a conclusion. All relative laws are measures and measures are rules. Allowance neither has nor imposes any such limitation, thus is distinctly different for all other laws.

How about we look at question of whether the principle Allowance can be contradicted. Do you agree that it cannot?

If you believe it can? How and which law contradicts it? Also which known law is not subject to allowance?