How Universal Is The Universe?
There is one thing which we must say about our philosophy which is going to hurt a little bit but it will be a compliment to the complexity and immensity of universe and yet also hurt the universe some but not much. That is our philosophy of Emotive Essence is not all inclusive, not everything in the Universe is an emotive representation nor just hundreds of thousands of time remove from emotive essence, there are many things in the universe that have no need of an emotive essence or philosophy of such, so that there are more non emotive things in their entirety that have no interest or concept of an emotive realm nor have it in themselves that there should or ought be such thing.
This however hurtful implies of course that not only is our emotive essence not universal but in a very large sense localize by nature, as much as something that may in principle exist anywhere in the universe and in infinite dimensions can be local, we are that. But we ought not feel badly about such as all things in the universal context are primarily local and only the Universe is Universal and at that only contextually so. That is to say and we do not mean to mince words here that the Universe, as the collector of things that it comprises is the only universal thing and only so because of what it comprises not because it is in and of itself anything particularly Universal. The logical meaningful extension of that conclusion is that: You will not find the end of the universe no matter how far and wide or within you look, and the dimensions of within become themselves infinite too.
To clarify that simply note this, the universe as a thing is contextually all of the things in it to include for instance space and time as principals but not necessarily so within every aspect of universe though they are perhaps the most vocal. So that what we mean here is that all things in the context of universe have a sort of sum quantifiable essence in such context and that such context does not in any sense demarcate the whole of universe, the universe is then all of its parts but none of its parts equal universe, nor can universe be defined without many of its parts but it doesn’t either take all of its parts to define universe so that quantifiably it could become a monotone-endless.
The universe is then universal meaning infinite for us at our extreme perception as we would have it be were it not for a number of its parts which somehow mount a stage of limitations within our own context so that we are not necessarily everywhere in our universes universality. But as empathy would have it other things by themselves or even a good bunch of them do not hold a universe within their constrains either. It is then correct to imply that universe is universal but there is no absolute definition of that as it remains contextual to observer, but that there is some fundamental element to universe which does indeed differentiate the things within it though it might not have the ability to differentiate itself and this is an inherent aspect of this or any and all universes, if such were possible.
The essences of things which occupy universe will invariably not be in themselves universal, sorry helium and sorry hydrogen and more sorry for empty space which still thinks itself grandest of us all but if it serves space any consolable, pity us for emotive essence is less and any philosophy that attempts to explain such essence infinitesimally far less.
There is far more diversity in the universe than that which we observe or can acknowledge, so much diversity indeed that there are a lot of things that are not like us, and the only thing that we have in common with them is that none of them are universal in stature either and the one that is, the universe, is not even detectable as such by us or any other observer for that matter including Universe as a possible observer; and that is a critical factor because Universe is fundamentally different from us in that it does not have to acknowledge or observe its own existence, that is it does not have to will its existence and it doesn’t even posses the desire to exist.
Ricardo ©
This however hurtful implies of course that not only is our emotive essence not universal but in a very large sense localize by nature, as much as something that may in principle exist anywhere in the universe and in infinite dimensions can be local, we are that. But we ought not feel badly about such as all things in the universal context are primarily local and only the Universe is Universal and at that only contextually so. That is to say and we do not mean to mince words here that the Universe, as the collector of things that it comprises is the only universal thing and only so because of what it comprises not because it is in and of itself anything particularly Universal. The logical meaningful extension of that conclusion is that: You will not find the end of the universe no matter how far and wide or within you look, and the dimensions of within become themselves infinite too.
To clarify that simply note this, the universe as a thing is contextually all of the things in it to include for instance space and time as principals but not necessarily so within every aspect of universe though they are perhaps the most vocal. So that what we mean here is that all things in the context of universe have a sort of sum quantifiable essence in such context and that such context does not in any sense demarcate the whole of universe, the universe is then all of its parts but none of its parts equal universe, nor can universe be defined without many of its parts but it doesn’t either take all of its parts to define universe so that quantifiably it could become a monotone-endless.
The universe is then universal meaning infinite for us at our extreme perception as we would have it be were it not for a number of its parts which somehow mount a stage of limitations within our own context so that we are not necessarily everywhere in our universes universality. But as empathy would have it other things by themselves or even a good bunch of them do not hold a universe within their constrains either. It is then correct to imply that universe is universal but there is no absolute definition of that as it remains contextual to observer, but that there is some fundamental element to universe which does indeed differentiate the things within it though it might not have the ability to differentiate itself and this is an inherent aspect of this or any and all universes, if such were possible.
The essences of things which occupy universe will invariably not be in themselves universal, sorry helium and sorry hydrogen and more sorry for empty space which still thinks itself grandest of us all but if it serves space any consolable, pity us for emotive essence is less and any philosophy that attempts to explain such essence infinitesimally far less.
There is far more diversity in the universe than that which we observe or can acknowledge, so much diversity indeed that there are a lot of things that are not like us, and the only thing that we have in common with them is that none of them are universal in stature either and the one that is, the universe, is not even detectable as such by us or any other observer for that matter including Universe as a possible observer; and that is a critical factor because Universe is fundamentally different from us in that it does not have to acknowledge or observe its own existence, that is it does not have to will its existence and it doesn’t even posses the desire to exist.
Ricardo ©
posted by Ricardo Correa at 5:02 PM
<< Home