The Farce of Universal Law
-
- Posts: 6
- Joined: July 22nd, 2008, 9:25 pm
The Farce of Universal Law
The imagination is an amazing thing. Within the mutable halls of the mind, anything is possible. One can live a million lives in one lifetime, pass a year in an hour, die and live at once, construct a life in the wilderness while dwelling in the city. One can build a phasing patchwork of mental realities in which water can burn, up can be down, two places can be held in one, and time can shatter. In short, with imagination one can create an existence in which there are no rules, and our universe’s governing ‘laws’ of reality are as mist in the air. But have they ever been more than that? Why should it be that our universe’s laws are unbreakable, when within our own minds we snap them with ease? The truth is that these laws can be broken, just as the rules of chess can be broken. The truth is that the universe, and the rules that create and govern it, are made of nothing.
Think of the rules of our existence; gravity, the spatial grid, time. These are the laws of our existence as we know them, but in truth they are much more complex than this, and much simpler. These rules do not operate on a scale that we can observe; they delve far deeper than we strain our minds to plumb. Their jurisdiction reigns on the level of principal particles; that is, on the level of particles that can truly be split no smaller. It is these principal particles, these building blocks of reality, that are governed by the mandates of the universe; nothing more complex. The world that we know is created through the increasingly intricate interaction of these particles; from quark to atom, atom to molecule, molecule to compound, compound to cell, cell to animal, animal to human, human to society, society to nations. The never ceasing dance and duel of principal particles, as dictated by the essence of existence, is of such complexity to shatter the mind.
But where is it that these intensely convoluted rules of existence originated? There are three possible answers here. One, the universe spawned itself spontaneously. Two, the universe has simply always existed, with no beginning or end to time or space. And thirdly, some form of deity created the universe and its laws. Of these, the only one that has any form of sustained idealogical support is that of divine creation. There is simply too much claim, from every culture that has ever been, of a creation deity for there not to be some manifestation of truth to the matter. Humanity is a logical species; we would not invent outright something completely false.
But what exactly did that creation entail? What essential rules define our existence? There are but three things that together create, define and maintain the universe; space, time, and the governing of principle particles. Space created an orderly basis for the movement of principal particles, time an orderly speed. Together, these two general laws influence and direct the numerous strictures guiding the movement of principal particles. It is these three things that are the essence of our universe’s existence. Without any one of them, logic as we know it would shatter.
If a deity created time and space, that implies that that deity existed prior to time and space. But if there was a ‘before’ to time and space, what would it entail? What could it entail? What would you get if you stripped the universe of the rules that make up its existence, if you took away rules? The absence of rules? A lack of prohibition. And if nothing is forbidden, if there are no rules to follow…then anything is possible. Anything, absolutely anything can be done. One can be in two places at once, for there is no space. One can spend eternity and not grow old, for there is no time. One can stop the spinning of the earth with an ear, raise the dead with a coconut, anything at all, for there are no rules!
And if one exists ‘within’ a void of rules, as the deity who created our universe obviously did, where one could do anything…then would it not be within one’s unlimited power to create rules? To implement time and space, to create principal particles? It is exactly how our universe was created; not through logic, but through illogic. But this deity, the master of illogic, would yet be unbound by the rules it created, as would any other beings who existed prior to the universe. And the only differences such beings would have from ourselves is that they know that the rules are of nothing, whereas we take for granted the impregnability of universal laws. Thus, the rules of the universe are not the unbreakable bonds we have thought for so long. In fact, they are made of nothing more than a decision. They are made of nothing at all, and yet they still exist. Paradox, but there are, in truth, no rules to forbid it. The universe’s rules bind us only because we, too, are made of nothing, made of rules, and due to their own interactive complexity do not implicitly understand these rules. Remember, though, that these are not truly rules at all. They are nothing! All it takes to be free from them is to know and truly believe their falsity. At that point, one will have slain impossibility.
It seems absurd to question the rules of reality, mere common sense that they should be unbreakable. Yet, think to yourself of a time when you felt an odd grinding, awesome slowness, as though the entire universe paused, and past and present seemed to flow together. Think of a treasured memory and notice how tantalizingly near at hand it seems, as though it occurs even as you remember it. Think about your surroundings, your body, and realize how supremely odd it is that you should exist. That you should be there in flesh and blood and bone, the air a comfortable weight on your body, a warm pounding regularity in your chest, and all this an inexplicable fact bearing the frustrating confounding perplexity of the question that has no answer. Think. Think, and ponder whether those are tricks of your mind, or instead its unconscious observations. In your power to believe and realize, you hold the key to reality. You live in a lock made of nothing. The only thing left is to turn the key.
*Disclaimer:
1. Ignore the style. It was written for a class, and it was supposed to be persuasion. Treat it as conjecture.
2. I don't know if there's a god.
3. I don't know if space is grid style or something else.
-
- Posts: 175
- Joined: July 19th, 2008, 8:12 am
-
- Posts: 6
- Joined: July 22nd, 2008, 9:25 pm
Code: Select all
Is this your opinion, an assignment, or both? If you were forced to defend the position: 'universal law is a farce' then it's quite a good response to a difficult/impossible position, emphasizing subjectivity, religious superstition and quantum phenomena that can detract from the universiality of laws operating in the classical realm. However, if you are advancing this as an opinion, or even a conjecture, it doesn't seem to me you've got to grips with what universal laws are. If it's rhetoric, of course you wouldn't want to, but if it's advanced as an opinion then you must identify, analyse and show the inadequacy of that which is held to be true, that you would dismiss.
It's just a possibility. So, are you saying that I haven't adequately defined what a universal law is, or that my definitions are inaccurate?
-
- Posts: 175
- Joined: July 19th, 2008, 8:12 am
As a persuasive essay it's understandable that you don't go into specifics - given that you are attempting to persuade us of a position that's bascially untenable.
It wouldn't serve your purposes to give examples: gravitation, conservation of energy, cause and effect, to explain how these function and then present your evidence against, not least because you can't have any.
I am quite sure the position your essay seeks to persuade us of is wrong, but if this is an example of rhetoric, that's not the point, it's a good essay. Indeed, it may be that making a good argument for a bad position is what got you the good grade.
-
- Posts: 6
- Joined: July 22nd, 2008, 9:25 pm
If you are so certain that it is wrong, would you mind stating your reasons for such an opinion?
-
- Posts: 175
- Joined: July 19th, 2008, 8:12 am
-
- Posts: 6
- Joined: July 22nd, 2008, 9:25 pm
I see. I don't see why it's a reason that the essay's point is wrong, however. The essay is not saying that universal laws do not exist; they do. What it says is that they both exist and do not exist. That they are binding, but not unbreakably so.
Also, I'd like to add that the equation itself is not a law. It's a description of a law, but that's a side note.
-
- Posts: 175
- Joined: July 19th, 2008, 8:12 am
If these laws are breakable then they are not, by definition, universal - but I'm as sure as I can be that you can't have evidence of this position. What you have there is a well made rhetorical argument that employs circumstantial evidence, but which must fail if real evidence - dropping melons from the roof type evidence, is adduced.
We may experience a slowing of time, for example, but this is not due to time actaully slowing down. Reality is objective and independent of our understanding of it - and furthermore, is whole and consistent - which is to say, every aspect of reality is consistent with every other. This is where universal laws come in: cause and effect, gravitation, the conservation of energy.
Clearly, conditions change, the weather for instance - one day it's sunny the next cloudy, but that isn't due to a fluctuation in the laws of physics. You can throw a ball up into the air - and declare, there you are, gravity is a myth, but you must walk away before the ball comes down again. This is what your essay does.
regards, mark.
-
- Posts: 6
- Joined: July 22nd, 2008, 9:25 pm
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023