Before approaching 'absolutes', here are some of my concerns: If you don't mind, I would rather go with scientific gradation. Law is usually a special case of something more general. For example, if you read the article on principle of least action (POLA) that I have linked above, Newton's Second Law of Dynamics is less general than principle of least action. And POLA itself is a background for more general theories, in this case it would be path integration. Basically laws can't be contradicted only under their own paradigm. Which means that in general they absolutely can be contradicted. In case of physical theories however, theories can be subsets of more general ones. Newton's theory of gravity is a subset of general relativity, which is 'simply' a broader description and can be applied for more cases than the former. It does not mean that one contradicts another or makes it invalid, but one operates under many restrictions (i.e. no time-space as you need separate time and space, space can't be any other than Euclidean. Different cases to both, and many others, are absolutely valid under GR). Here's a thought: are you familiar with Euclid's Axioms? The idea is, in the simplest form, that these are the 'building blocks' for any theorem or proof and only they (or in more complex cases, only axioms along with lemmas which are smaller theorems that result from axioms and are pretty much just shortcuts for more complex reasonings) can be used to formulate them (theorems/proofs). Axioms can't be strictly contradicted, but operating without one or more can be absolutely valid to see for different pictures. In this case non-Euclidean geometries are just as valid for any case where you would use Euclidean geometry, provided that constructions or theorems you want to use don't follow in any way from Euclid's 5th Axiom, the Parallel Postulate. Now the absolutes part. Excuse me if it would seem like I'm making fun of you, because I don't but it might sound like that. That said, I can now also say: "An absolute law is an existence of exactly one absolute law, and it cannot be contradicted or changed". Kind of a bummer, even assuming that I agree with propositions from which this question follows. ___________________________________________ While the first part of my post was largely about semantics, I would strongly recommend going for axioms approach as it seems to be the one that would suit your needs the best. On a side-note, I can wholeheartedly recommend reading Euclid's Elements. I'm on same bandwagon as Abraham Lincoln when it comes to understanding what it means to demonstrate. ;)How about what constitutes a Law? Do you agree that a Law is a principle that cannot be contradicted?
If so isn't it logically evident that there can only be one and must be one absolute Law?
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?
Why? Possible self-consistent list of absolute absolutes: - 0 is a natural number. - Each natural number is equal to itself, so for any natural n, n = n. - For any natural numbers n and m, if n = m then m = n. - For any natural numbers m, n, o if m = n and o = n then m = o. - Every natural number n has its successor succ(n) and the successor is itself a natural number. - For all natural numbers n and m, m = n if and only if S(m) = S(n) - There is no natural number n with a successor succ(n) = 0. You can't bend these, all of them are absolutes and I have never even mentioned what exactly natural number is. But with the above guidelines you can always check if a given number is a natural number. It's a minimal set of rules to make them exist, they don't contradict one another and you can be damn certain that they are not in any way relative to each other as far as 'laws' or 'absolutes' go. None of them is more or less important for that matter, but because they are all equally 'absolute', if one of the criteria is not met you are not using it for natural numbers, yet it does not negate the possibility of existence of integers in general. So you have something that does not interfere with other mathematical structures while giving you a complete recipe for any valid natural number. Banach-Tarski Paradox would beg to differ. For out physical universe and under assumption that I can't meld, solder, change shape or apply sufficient ammount of hammer strikes… you are correct. In a purely theoretical/consistent with mathematics approach, you are not. There's actually a whole branch of modern mathematics that deals precisely with this issue and it is called measure theory. No, as shown by contradiction above. Look, you seem to have a conclusion and reasoning that you share here, but I'm getting more and more convinced that it works only under your own paradigm that you didn't share. Let's get further, because I can actually buy your reasoning under a properly defined paradigm where it can be applied. For what I care, you can simply say that you now create a universe where exists one and only one absolute, and this will be your paradigm but you'll have to show me how and why it should result in anything even close to our universe. If the internal logic of such construct is sound, it works and I will have nothing but praise for you. If you want to apply concept of one absolute law to our physical universe then it's subjective (example: I can't agree as almost every counterexample that I gave, each of which working without assuming any will, sentience, sapience, capability for making decision and existence of set direction seems to exist perfectly without any allowance. As in it did not need to be allowed and nothing seems to suggest that it had to be in the first place), and even if true… how would existence of one absolute absolute explain the fact that there is only one? That's an open question that can go either: a) Allowance is infinite, and this is the only absolute truth, hence anything that follows from this fact does not have to depend on something being allowed, since by definition everything is allowed. Here I would pose a question "why exactly do we need allowance as the one law above all others?" or "If allowance is infinite, why can it allow for more absolutes?"… which was my original question. Answer that results with a possibility of asking same question again, without any change to the form of the question, is not an answer. So we have to assume… b) Allowance for one and only one absolute that is not Allowance itself implies that Allowance is not infinite, thus theory is false. Don't ask me if I can agree for X or Y, present paradigm you want to work with before you will go further or I'll end up looking like a complete douchebag who uses freshman mathematics to shot it down before it began to fly. ;) I can work with abstraction that you create, but as long as I have to assume that you talk about our physical universe, we'll be in an infinite loop where you are reformulating your bit and I'm shooting it down. And believe me, I don't take any pleasure from it. Far from it, I feel kinda bad now to be honest. If it's philosophy, define your grounds/paradigm properly. If it's about our universe… you get my point, right?Whatever we call it, there can only be one absolute absolute, right?
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?
So doesn't it follow that there must be one and yet may be only one, absolute absolute?
Maths is representational of reality or of a perception of reality. It is not reality. By virtue of being representational it is relative and thus may at best deal with relative absolutes. Furthermore, our maths as it stands today represent a perception, not reality. Zero, for instance is the only representation of an absolute in maths, since all numbers are measures of the absolute, yet nothing cannot be absolute, it must be relative to something, and a measure of nothing is still nothing, so zero can't be nothing. In fact Zero actually means the whole, everything, and the following numbers represent divisions or fractions or fractals of that whole, which seems fitting for the representation of a fractal based reality, no? Allowance by itself does not dis-allow other absolutes or absolute absolutes but, it does allow for their dis-allowance. Nothing is possible without allowance. Saying for instance"swearing is not allowed" is not necessarily dis-allowing swearing. Dis-allowing swearing is actually preventing it from swearing from occurring. If swearing occurs then you have allowed it. It is the one Law above all others simply because it necessarily precedes all others. There can only be one absolute absolute, otherwise one would contradict the other and neither would be absolutely absolute. It's not just my universe It's the logical universe, as opposed to the rational one, and unlike rationale, being independent of rules, context and purpose logic requires no specification of rules, context or purpose. Sorry bro, no offence intended but the only shooting I can see is you shooting yourself in the foot.
No, mathematics is an abstraction. It's not a matter of perception, but operating within strict paradigm and expanding upon it. If particular abstraction can be applied, it does not mean that reality is mathematical, but possesses an aspect that acts within certain set of rules described by mathematics. I do make this distinction. No, that's an interpretation of an abstract notion. One that can exist without introducing comparison other than "equals". Although I can agree that zero does not have to mean "nothing", that's just one of possible interpretations. One that is valid only when you count things. That sounds like an element of the paradigm that I was talking about, valid only upon accepting that allowance itself exists, is necessary and conforms to the other doodad properties that you were talking about. and If allowance of action is p and ¬p does not mean its disallowance, you are not operating under the binary logic that you postulated few post above. Logic itself is just a set of rules, an abstraction. I was not the one to spend years thinking up a theory that can't be clearly formulated in a formal manner. Furthermore, I don't see how you have reached a conclusion that there is some principle of allowance. In fact, you talk about it like its an axiom from which other things in our reality should follow, but don't provide any reasoning above "because it happens, it must have been allowed". That's almost a textbook example of post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. In theories like yours, you have to either assume a set of laws and explain processes in reality by using said laws in a manner that is not self-referential, or take phenomena in reality and show how they can happen and what set of laws must be behind it. You have done neither and your only rebuttal to my counterexamples was boiling down to "because it's allowed". This is not how logic or theory formulation works. Read Elements. Read Mathematics of Meta-mathematics by Helena Rasiowa. Read up about logical fallacies and calculus of predicates. Read almost anything by Ludwig Wittgenstein or Georg Henrik von Wright. That's how you follow with reasoning in maths, science or philosophy. Not by making an assumption about something being a necessary property for stuff you want to explain to even happen in the first place and doing what you have accused me of: applying a purely logical paradigm separated from reality, to answer questions about reality. So what, that's OK but applying mathematical reasoning to rebuke it is not? Get your purview straight. Oh, and I'm not your bro.Furthermore, our maths as it stands today represent a perception, not reality.
Zero, for instance is the only representation of an absolute in maths, since all numbers are measures of the absolute, yet nothing cannot be absolute, it must be relative to something, and a measure of nothing is still nothing, so zero can't be nothing.
Allowance by itself does not dis-allow other absolutes or absolute absolutes but, it does allow for their dis-allowance.
Nothing is possible without allowance. Saying for instance"swearing is not allowed" is not necessarily dis-allowing swearing. Dis-allowing swearing is actually preventing it from swearing from occurring. If swearing occurs then you have allowed it.
It's not just my universe It's the logical universe, as opposed to the rational one, and unlike rationale, being independent of rules, context and purpose logic requires no specification of rules, context or purpose.
Sorry bro, no offence intended but the only shooting I can see is you shooting yourself in the foot.