In context, yes, everything is 'free', but I ask "what is everything"? — opt-ae

Perhaps everything is absolute freedom, absolute potentiality and fulfillment of that potential. Take freedom to the max, no limits, no holds.

The struggle for freedom is something many can relate to; even young people who've never experienced slavery or oppressions of other kinds get it. — TheMadFool

I view freedom as being an absolute characteristic of the world. Everything is absolute free, just as I am absolutely free. I don't struggle to be free. I know I am absolutely free because I am part of an absolutely free world.

The quintessential oppressor(s) is one whose freedom is absolute and unbridled and it is against his/her/their freedom to do whatever they like that people rise up against. — TheMadFool

That's a good analysis of oppressors, usually they are acting more freely and trying to suppress other's freedoms. But ultimately, everything is absolutely free. We are even free to take to the freedoms away from other people, although all attempts would ultimately fail.

The freedom of a paralyzed person is real. I have wanted to sit in a chair or bed for 24 hours a day and watch news, just to get paralyzed with fear and blow up with anxiety. Free to feel anxious I suppose. But then again.

Freedom without limits has too much symmetry. — apokrisis

Good response. It is interesting trying to explain the missing anti-matter. Maybe it's tucked away somewhere we can't detect yet. I mean, have we truly explored the whole cosmos yet?

Here's a question though about freedom having too much symmetry. Absolute freedom would have a dynamic symmetry. Think about it, just as soon as a system gets balanced out, a new area pops out freely. And despite all attempts at achieving perfect, static symmetry, absolute freedom would prevail and push out in a new direction. So our ground would always be shifting in an absolutely free world. This could also explain the missing anti-matter.

THere are some things I would like to learn - like backflipping and front flipping without landing on my head and paralyzing myself - but beyond that, pretty mobile. And yes would like to fly, but can't do that. But it's not about my freedom, it's about the freedom of everything - that allows for all things.

If everything is free to happen in one way, it is also free to happen in the other. — apokrisis

If freedom were merely binary, then it would cancel itself out, yes. But what if freedom had no limits, was far more than binary? Would it still cancel out?

Arguably the only absolute rule being, there are no absolute rules.

such as the laws of nature. — Pfhorrest

Laws of nature - or observations? What laws of nature have stood up across all time and space fully? Why are we continuously writing and rewriting laws of nature?

I don’t think it makes sense to induce that ‘our reason for existence is to be whole’ from the belief that ‘anything exists in the universe’. — Possibility

Maybe what I'm going for is: All is an infinite, complete whole; All acts as an infinite complete, whole, thus acting as one. So it is in our nature, our inherent calling to act as a whole both internally within ourselves and externally with the world.

So if I’m striving for adventure in nature and you’re striving for lots of money, then how do you and I relate to each other in achieving a ‘wholeness’ inclusive of each other and our ‘different’ objectives? — Possibility

The dude who likes to make money creates a company that sells travel packages for the dude who like nature.

What most commonly occurs is that we strive to ignore, isolate and exclude those with ‘different objectives’ so that we can achieve this sense of ‘being whole’. — Possibility

That is true, many people have a narrow world perspective. But that doesn't mean it is the true world perspective.

If you have a finite set of say cars, and then an infinite set of all cars, the infinite set is more full, complete, rich than the finite set of cars.

I am skeptical as to whether the idea of complete/incomplete has any discernable meaning applied to either the world or the universe. — Arne

Well, if our universe is infinitely complete, then it be fully inclusive of all things. It would also mean that it acts as an infinite whole would act. Basically our universe would both be one, and act as one.

If our universe is finite and full of boundaries that cannot be crossed, then it is more difficult to describe it as a whole. It would act like a bunch of fragments of stuff interacting with each other - more difficult to have scientific universal forces like gravity to exist.

I think this affects us, because if we think the world is an infinite one, and acts as an infinite one, then we can more easily become one with the world. Otherwise in our finite universe model, we are easily to fall into isolation/fragmentation from the world.

I see your name is Possibility. Does that reflect on your philosophical worldview?

I think these clues you mention point out not that there is ‘wholeness’ existing in the observable universe but that there isn’t - that wholeness is ONLY achievable AS this possible imagination of an infinite All. — Possibility

I agree that it isn't possible to prove that everything/universe/cosmos is absolutely whole. It really is a matter of "faith." In the back of my mind, I feel that there is something unreasonable with a universe that excludes anything from existing. I believe anything - to the point of infinity - exists in the universe. But on top of that, I think that belief implies that our reason for existence is to be whole. The infinite oneness/wholeness that we are a part of has an automatic switch for everything in it to strive towards being whole. If the world is truly one/whole/infinite, we would sense that oneness/wholeness/infinite nature, and at the same time strive to whole and one with things around us. And being whole has a relative perspective for different parts of All, I think different parts of the All - like you are me - have different objectives when striving for wholeness. For one, it might be adventure in nature, or good relationships with people, or lots of money etc. But I think in general striving towards being whole means having an infinite or oneness connection with the world around you. Infinite as in unbounded - you have merged, passed the boundary, and become one with many things that you care about in the world around you. By that I mean, you have a oneness with your passions, whether it be studying something, friendships, career, etc. The more you become one with the world around you (and the world in you, let's face it, our minds are in essence a complex world), the more whole you are.


Khaled, hope this answers your question too. What does whole mean to you?

Thanks for the reply, Possibility.

But in order to become this whole, one needs to integrate how one connects and collaborates with ALL possible relations that could constitute this wholeness, as well as how those relations possibly connect and collaborate with each other — Possibility

I think you are right, connecting with this whole in this manner where everything is explicitly laid out - is impossible.

This is more of a subliminal connection - a visualization. Imagine a vast panorama of All - it's literally got everything, nothing is missing, it is ripe, rich, complete, it has no end, and somehow it acts as a singular whole. We can never be that whole, but we could strive to be whole in the unique way we were called to be - with the shining example of wholeness being the infinite whole All. This whole all has left clues of wholeness in the world around us - a whole person, a whole animal or plant, a whole nation, a whole ocean, a whole earth, a whole solar system, whole galaxy, whole universe......and a whole infinite All (that last one is more of a leap of faith).

Space and time emerge from a underlying membrane where neither space and time exist — flummoxed

The seething quantum membrane from a which a Big Bang might have spontaneously emerged.

The membrane itself occupies zero space but connects everything to a certain extent, it allows only information flow. How does anyone feel about this — flummoxed

Feel pretty good about it, thanks for the post.

What connects all of them is their understanding of how social and historical we are as human beings. We aren't trapped in our heads like pieces of 'mind' mysteriously stapled to pieces of 'matter.' — softwhere

Thanks for your perspective, softwhere. Sorry for late reply. Wife got a job, and kids are still young and suck up lots of attention.

I got another question for you all. Instead of focusing on the possible infinite nature of the world, what if the world is whole/complete and always moving towards wholeness, completion? And thus a fully whole world would have to contain everything up to infinity. And when we seek to be whole individually, we are doing something very natural and in the flow of the cosmos. Indeed if we have a worldview in which the world is whole, we are more easily able to be whole ourselves.

I'm gonna open up a new discussion on this "whole world, whole person." No need to reply to this post.

white hole-like Q-tunneling from a higher (false?) vacuum — 180 Proof

What does that mean?

To me philosophy at its best is the opposite of merely going along on the surface of things, which is our ordinary mode in daily life. — softwhere

That's the enjoyment of philosophy, to take some basic assumptions, and then test them out. See where they play out, even if not conventional.

Philosophy asks questions like where did we come from, where are we going, what is our purpose within the cosmos? Even if someone is way out there, it is still interesting to discuss.

When did you get interested in philosophy?

Again, this wasn’t/isn’t an issue for tribal life because they didn’t house time in clocks or space in buildings - their world s a lost world of the ‘infinite’ in the sense of being experienced without demarcations of time or space in anything like our modern comprehension. — I like sushi

Their perspective of the infinite seems to be clearer than simple modern infinite spacetime. It's interesting that Einstein himself thought spacetime was finite. But then again, his specialty was big stuff, not the weird quantum world.

Thanks for the suggestion on the book for kids.

For me studying Heidegger further illuminated Hegel and Feuerbach and Wittgenstein — softwhere

Were those guys all living about the same time in Germany? Similar philosophical bents?

In exploring the universe we’ve moved from an infinite self in a finite world to a finite self in an infinite world. — I like sushi

Here's a thought. What about an infinite self in an infinite world? In fact, if one could divide a human body infinitely, essentially a human being a small infinity.

Guys what a fantastic discussion. I got to read more philosophy when my 3 and 4 year old kids get older. You guys are motivating me to do that.

This is certainly quasi-philosophy, science, religion stuff. I've always been interested in the biggest picture possible. And when I propose an infinite world, i mean its infinite in respects to all potential ways to characterize it - quantity of matter, variety of matter, time, dimensions, etc. I think that yes, it may seem there are boundaries between things, and yes these boundaries may seem important in making sense of things. But I think those boundaries are temporary and ultimately fade away in a sense over time. Think about any animal making boundaries of its territory - it's temporary. The map of the boundaries of human civilizations has changed so much that it is unrecognizable over a thousand year time span.

Why does it matter? Because if we think finite, then our perspective is finite. We pigeonhole ourselves and others in these closed off finite positions - for example politics where we assume the other political side believe only in xyz, and we believe in abc, so there's so compromise. In science, if we think finite, we stop asking questions and just assume we have reached as far back as we go with the Big Bang. Those physicists pushing the envelope and peering into infinity to develop theories for what caused the Big Bang truly have a large perspective. If we think finite, well I guess we'll stop digging smaller in quantum world. I suppose the quark and those other subatomic particles are really the smallest building blocks of matter. After all, if the world is finite, there is a theoretical fundamental particle building block beyond which we cannot go smaller. If we think finite, we see only 3 or possibly 4 moves with our careers. If we think infinite, we are aware of those 3 or 4 moves and are open to the infinity of possibilities that could happen to our career.

What do you mean that an infinite extent cannot be extant?
Thanks for the response. I don't fully understand the physics of the Big Bang, but you seem to think it was not an infinitely small point of infinite energy? What do you think it was?

I agree with you. If the world is unbounded, then why do you think humans focus on boundaries? I wonder if there is a fear of the infinite. For instance, in physics, they say something has gone wrong when infinities are shown, such as in the infinite gravity of black holes, or some people say in the infinitely small point of the Big Bang.

Good video, looks like an interesting movie.

That seems like a true assessment. Why do you find it unattractive that there might be somebody far away that is just like you?

I like your definition of a system, Metaphysician Undercover. And maybe what I was going for was once a systems loses stability or balance, it might lose its status as a system.


Here's another question, guys. Take an infinite, eternal system. Basically infinite spacetime. If that exists and we are part of it, is it necessarily perfectly balanced? Remember, with all the examples of seeming imbalance in the world around us, we are looking at short time frames in small spaces. Imagine expanding our view to maximum time and space. Does the universe become perfectly balanced?

Help me understand entropy better. If it is a movement from order to disorder, then how does a seemingly disorderly event like the Big Bang turn into the order around us. In that case, the universe goes from high entropy to lower entropy now.

Also, on the quantum level, it seems like entropy is defined as the number of possible states matter can take. The higher energy, the more potential states, and the higher entropy. So also in that case, the universe moving towards less entropy.

Unstable systems exist. But are much less likely to last than stable systems.

I think that many times, the movement is from instability to stability, such as the Big Bang explosion, where little to none of our current laws of physics work, to our current more stable universe.

But I think you have a point. In some instances, things devolve into instability. A country's politics, a person's health, etc. But I think those instabilities, or imbalances, are wrapped up in a higher, broader picture of a movement towards balance. Take someone getting sick and dying. I think the fact that every living creature dies someone is amazing display of balance. All humans - all known life in fact - have the same fate - death. What an equalizer, a balancer. So if a single person dies, it is imbalanced for them, but for the broader picture of the cosmos, it is a movement towards balance towards all life.

Similar to string theory. That the building blocks of the universe are strings.

Do you think the universe, just like us, is always moving towards and seeking equilibrium?

Thanks for the comments. Perhaps we can talk about a definition of balance. What about balance containing stability, moderation, and diversity?

In that case, a balanced distribution of people in the same population above - types of bridges, differently-fed children, and movies - tend to show a standard bell curve - in other moderation - in distributions. In other words, most bridges perform the way they are designed, to last x number of years, and some outliers last way longer and way shorter. Same with how well children are fed - most are fed decently well and the outliers are too well fed and too little fed.

Here's a question. If this is not a balanced world, then why is a fundamental force of nature such as gravity always seem to be so constant and stable? Have you experienced random zones of non-gravity on earth where the stable laws of nature break down?

Love the analogy about the battery. Yes, it shows a starting point of imbalance, and a movement towards balance. I think, and can't prove it, but with the examples in my first entry - the tendency for balance across the universe is far stronger than the tendency for imbalance - i.e. a relatively even spread of matter across the universe, the even applicability of the fundamental laws of nature across all positions in the universe, etc. What do you think of that point?

Here's also another thought on the imbalanced battery starting point. A battery with a negative and positive side is very balanced in the sense that it has two different sides to it, one that has lots of electrons and one that doesn't. A hallmark of balance is diversity, this battery has lots of balance because it contains differences.

But if everything moves to balance, shouldn't everything have balanced out by now, all imbalances have ceased to exist, and our universe come to standstill? I think that might be one of your next points, so let me answer.

The universe is either finite in regards to spacetime, or infinite. Let's assume it is infinite. Now imagine an infinite universe filled with an infinite variety and quantity of "things" operating within an infinite time frame. Let's say this infinite spacetime tends towards balance like our universe appears to. This universe will always have local imbalances, because once a certain system has balanced out, then something from outside that system from the broader infinity comes in, a local imbalance is created, and then balance is re-established, only to have it happen over and over again. So that's the theory on why imbalances still occur in an infinite, eternal universe, but still the arrow of balance irons things out.

Caldwell, it seems that uncertainty would be imbalanced. But is it possible that an uncertain world is more balanced than a certain world? A certain world has the deck stacked in favor of certain things, whereas the probabilistic, uncertain world of quantum mechanics means that the world is not skewed in a certain direction - all directions are possible, thus a balanced world.

Thank you for the reply, very informative answer. That makes two of us non-astrophysicists talking about astrophysics.

Perhaps a better way to think about balance than my earlier phrasing of believing in balance - is to say everything tends towards balance. So yes the Big Bang seems like a very imbalanced event. And there being no cause and nothing before it would be very imbalanced. Then I would agree, this is an imbalanced universe. But many people have come up with theories that posit causes for Big Bangs, and precedents. Take quantum loop theory (again, i'm not a astrophysicist, so bear with me) - basically space is filled with seething quantum energy that has local positives and negatives, and one gigantic negative could have set off a Big Bang. Another is the Big Bounce before a Big Bang - basically the universe is expanding until it starts to contract into an infinitely dense point, until another Big Bang occurs. Another is multiple membranes in a higher dimension oscillating and hitting each other causing a Big Bang. None of these are proven, but all seem to reflect a good degree a balance.

With your good example of disequilibrium causing energy transfer, you make a good point that imbalances always exist. Possibly one way to view balance's role in this, is that things tend towards balance. When lightning strikes, it balances out electron imbalances between the ground and the cloud. Chemistry I know nothing about, but do chemical reactions tend towards balance?

So you may ask, why if balance is the force guiding the universe towards equilibrium, then why do obvious disequilibriums exist? I think the universe is infinite, and different parts are always moving towards balance. Its infinite nature means it cannot stand still, and as different parts of this infinite spacetime co-mingle with each other, they create local imbalances, but are eventually overcome by the force of balance.

Thank you for correcting me on the law of thermodynamics. I'm clearly not a physicist, but I enjoy trying to learn about that subject. Some physicists are trying to find a way around the infinitely dense point of the universe starting. So do you think the observable universe started with an infinitely dense point? What about before that, do you think there was something like the Big Bounce, or the membranes in a higher dimension that hit each other and cause Big Bangs every several billions of years?

Mark, I agree that the implications of balance in Western philosophy might lead to greater balance between us and other life on earth. If ever we needed more balance in the public sphere, now is the time. When you mention the flow of the universe, how would you describe it? I haven't read the Tao te Ching, what does that chapter say about Yin and Yang?

Thank you for the explanation. I know of Kant but haven't read a lot of his work. When you say our sense of wonder is a priori, innate, and unrelated to experience, do you ever question that? Do you think that when we discover and explore things, two things are going on - we are curious and filled with wonder, and the universe is wanting us to discover things about it? If light did not bring us information about stars and galaxies far beyond us, we would not be asking questions about those stars and galaxies.

I agree, I view the world as an infinite version of Yin/Yang, with infinite faces all bound together by balancing with each other.

How did you come up with your BothAnd principle?

What are the major tenets of Daoism/Taoism and how does balance fit in there?

What is synthetic a priori?

Very nice. Do you think one reason that consciousness appears to be irrational is that the universe cannot be defined solely by logic, and requires or other tools to describe it?


Like the quote. Maybe the cosmos is on a sliding scale between imbalance and balance. Do you think it is? And if so, where on the sliding scale would the whole cosmos appear to be?

Did you reach any conclusion or conclusions from your post on balance and opposites?

Interesting question on consciousness and subconsciousness, I haven't thought much about them. What's your perspective on them?
On the good vs bad bacteria, I think with such a big universe balancing out, I think there are many bacteria that are many different shades of good and bad to us, depending on the situation, and also depending on how they interact with our environment. We have more bacterial cells in our intestines than total cells in our human bodies usually, so we could almost view the bacteria as using us as hosts to propagate themselves on planet earth.

Also, homeostasis in medicine is a great example of balance. Another one: our guts have around 7 trillion bacteria living in it. And massive variety of bacteria that help us derive nutrition from food, and "balance" each other out. C Diff is a bacteria that can dominate the other bacteria and prevent others flourishing. Basically, a balanced gut with a wide variety of bacteria is the norm, and when we get unhealthy or imbalanced, certain bacteria dominate at the expense of others.