The Natural Laws of the Universe - Natural Law (Different to Passio's Take)

[Omni]

Mark Passio is one of the greater minds of our time IMHO. I have supported his work greatly. However I do disagree with his definition of natural law. I think there are better concepts that align to such a term, it's just my opinion... I hope Passio fans on Avalon can read this without somehow disliking me, and actually weigh the information... I love Passio's work, doesn't mean I can't think critically about it.

Curious what other's thoughts are on this(especially curious of Samwise's opinion, as he follows passio and is an atheist as well). What definition for natural law makes the most sense in your view? Passio's(Impeccable Moral Law)? Mine(Universal Mechanics such as gravity)? A different definition to either? I'm sure some will disagree that they are immutable, but I see evidence there are indeed laws that cannot be broken. For example there is a speed limit to how fast technology can fly a ship(much much faster than the speed of light though).

Full Article:


The Natural Laws of the Universe


http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Ko-ToBfeN1g/VRccpjHe7MI/AAAAAAAAA4Y/PWPBf61orZ0/s400/Natural_Law_Universal_Mechanics.jpg

Note: Those who believe in God, I hope you do not judge me or turn off to my blog just because of my lack of belief in God. If atheistic theory/views offend you, simply do not read this blog post. I believe in the value of a diversity of belief systems and think it's right to believe what you want, and respect others beliefs...

I have debated with myself about writing this article... One of my favorite lecturers, Mark Passio speaks of his interpretation of 'natural law' with great intelligence. I had my own idea of what it was when I heard the words that was different than his interpretation. Out of great respect for Mark Passio I have not written an article about it, but I thought it was worth writing about and finally gave in, as I highly value the premise of (my view of) natural law and think it makes a lot of sense..

What I had an instant cognition of when hearing Mark Passio say the words natural law, is universal mechanics. Things like gravity etc, the laws at which the universe is naturally composed. In my view these laws are immutable. Some things are indeed impossible in reality. These laws exist in every dimension I am aware of. In saying they are immutable I don't mean some laws are not open source or can't be broken. Their open sourced/breakable nature would be part of their natural law mechanics...

One thing I have learned is all universal mechanics are as perfect as they could be with all things considered. Some might not make a lot of sense when considering an evolved result(like humans),... When saying they are as perfect as they could be, this is including the creative force of the universe to create life and solar systems. Once these are established some of the mechanics would likely not make as much sense, but still exist.

The invisible mechanics AKA natural laws of the universe are responsible for the existence of life in my view, not a supreme being(as unpopular as that may be). It just resonates a lot more to me that nature would have created everything than some omnipotent conscious being that sits and judges people 100% of the time. I like George Carlin's view of "The Big Electron".



George Carlin; The Big Electron: "It doesn't punish, doesn't reward, it doesn't judge at all, it just is..."

So in a nutshell in my view natural laws are the natural universal mechanics in place, the laws of the universe, that involve the forces of creation ultimately behind all things. These are not like man's laws... The natural laws cannot be broken(unless they are open source, which is part of the natural law that applies to them), it is an inbuilt impossibility in my view to break a natural law. Thus why it makes the most sense to be called a 'natural law' in my view. Mark Passio talks about morals involved in 'natural law'. As much as I love his work I have to disagree there. Morals are relative to each person, or ET race at times(if the race is very similar to each other). For example some people think it is immoral to smoke cannabis, or grow cannabis. Others do not. Many people or ET beings do not operate with morals. So they are not exactly natural law to all beings. This interpretation of natural law is only applicable to the beings who align to it, and might be relative to each being with some differences in opinion. So I do not find the idea of morals being natural law as anywhere near a universal system. Man's law optimally would be aligned to Mark Passio's version of natural law, based on morals. So Mark Passio's version of natural law I think would be more aptly called "The Laws of Morality" and align more to an optimal "Man's Law" or more a 'code of conduct' in my view.

A friend and I brainstormed and figured some natural laws of the universe. Here they are.

Natural Law/Universal Mechanics:
•Balance is applied to all things
•All physicality is impermanent
•All of physicality is in Motion
•Time is Relative
•If it has a Consciousness it has a Soul
•Every Known Physical and Metaphysical Reality is Energy
•Everything has or is related to Vibration and is Part of the Universal "Song"
•Travel an amount of space in one dimension, you are traveling that amount of space in all connected dimensions
•Energy is in a constant state of change
•The universe is macro/microcosmic in ways
•Math applies to all things

As you can see I include some things related to thought/philosophy (such as balance) in my version of natural law. Some of what we listed there could be wrong too. I am not saying I am an authority on what natural law is or isn't. I do have my own perceptions about it though.

I have gotten a negative backlash of Mark Passio "fans" when posting I disagree with him on what natural law is best defined as in my humble opinion. I personally love Mark Passio and support his work. I have donated to his website, personally sent him a gift(nothing too expensive but pretty cool I think, and he seemed to like it), uploaded/playlisted lectures of his to my youtube, linked his videos on this blog, and linked his website on this blog. Not many people like him more than I do. So writing this article was hard, but I feel it is of value for this version of natural law to be heard. I hope people do not hate me for opposing one of the greater minds of our time's interpretation of natural law.... One could call what I describe "cosmic law". But I think "natural law" fits what I describe perfectly...

Source Link: http://omnisense.blogspot.com/2015/03/the-natural-laws-of-universe.html

[Zanshin]

Omni, could you provide a link to Mark Passio's version for comparison?

I see no immediate flaws in your list but would like to compare the two versions for balance.

[Omni]

Omni, could you provide a link to Mark Passio's version for comparison?

I see no immediate flaws in your list but would like to compare the two versions for balance.

I don't think he has anywhere where he defines it on his site or anything, but I have 10 of his videos including his natural law seminar on this playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL8up8DrT9HYfjWsTEpMEZrabNoR4Xjx6F

I had a hard time finding a short definition of natural law from Mark. I remember I think he defined it once in a video I saw but I don't remember which video...

[Zanshin]

More study:)

Thanks - I'll get back to you.

[drneglector]

Morals are relative to each person, or ET race at times(if the race is very similar to each other). For example some people think it is immoral to smoke cannabis, or grow cannabis. Others do not. Many people or ET beings do not operate with morals. So they are not exactly natural law to all beings. This interpretation of natural law is only applicable to the beings who align to it, and might be relative to each being with some differences in opinion. So I do not find the idea of morals being natural law as anywhere near a universal system. Man's law optimally would be aligned to Mark Passio's version of natural law, based on morals. So Mark Passio's version of natural law I think would be more aptly called "The Laws of Morality" and align more to an optimal "Man's Law" or more a 'code of conduct' in my view.

I appreciate many of the opinions expressed here, but I don't believe that morals are relative to each person, that would make me a moral relativist, which essentially is one who doesn't believe in a objective truth. Believing that smoking cannabis, which is a herb growing in nature, is immoral, is wrong in my opinion. Using mushrooms and ayahuasca, which people have done for thousands of years, is not immoral either. What I do to my own body is my decision alone, I own my own body.

I believe natural law and moral applies for all beings, its not relative. But whether you choose to align to it or not is a matter of free will.

Mans law is based on moral relativism and tries to rule free will, that why different laws apply to different places/countries. Some countries/states takes away your freedom and puts you in a cage just for smoking a herb growing in nature, that's immoral.

That's my humble opinion.

[Earthlink]

Natural vs Man Made. I applaud you for distancing "law" from "man" Omniverse, I do, and if anything, I would only say you didn't put enough distance between the two.

"Natural Law is the universal, non-manmade, binding or immutable conditions, that govern the consequences of behavior for beings with the capacity to understand the difference between right and wrong."

Well, therein lies the problem with Man Made laws. It implies consequences and right and wrong: all Man Made concepts. Without this right and wrong, no religion could ever have existed.

I think in Nature there is only, naturally, wrong. An example, a pair of Wolves has a litter, and one of the biggest ones of those pups decides, upon discovering his voice, to use it and use it loudly. His mother, seeing that this is disturbing to the rest of the pack (they are still children to the pack, and they still need defending at this size) bites the loud one once really hard. This gives that new member pause for thought, and, it ceases the loud tirade and returns to the fold in quiet contemplation of what just happened.

Everything else that goes on in Nature is just ... normal. Not good, just, normal. Nature is MASSIVE and includes all species, even crystals, planets, and suns, and only man has these types of concepts at all. We are extremely puzzling to most of the other species here, and it is because of these very un-natural man made laws that this is the case. Again, right and wrong are constructs that enabled the control system known as religion to be created and then applied as a "way" for other Humans to congregate around, but alas, it has only ever been a type of control system. People do not naturally flock to religious institutions, they have to be talked to about them first, and repeatedly and consistently.

A cursory glance of Nature reveals a many species integrated co-op. There is a type of flowering plant in this remote valley which has long flower pedals that only the one species of bat living near by has a tongue long enough to reach into, and therefore that bat both feeds from this plant, and fertilizes it so that it can have children of its' own. This just repeats all over the world in examples too numerous to print in anything short of an encyclopedia.

[Omni]

Morals are relative to each person, or ET race at times(if the race is very similar to each other). For example some people think it is immoral to smoke cannabis, or grow cannabis. Others do not. Many people or ET beings do not operate with morals. So they are not exactly natural law to all beings. This interpretation of natural law is only applicable to the beings who align to it, and might be relative to each being with some differences in opinion. So I do not find the idea of morals being natural law as anywhere near a universal system. Man's law optimally would be aligned to Mark Passio's version of natural law, based on morals. So Mark Passio's version of natural law I think would be more aptly called "The Laws of Morality" and align more to an optimal "Man's Law" or more a 'code of conduct' in my view.

I appreciate many of the opinions expressed here, but I don't believe that morals are relative to each person, that would make me a moral relativist, which essentially is one who doesn't believe in a objective truth. Believing that smoking cannabis, which is a herb growing in nature, is immoral, is wrong in my opinion. Using mushrooms and ayahuasca, which people have done for thousands of years, is not immoral either. What I do to my own body is my decision alone, I own my own body.

I believe natural law and moral applies for all beings, its not relative. But whether you choose to align to it or not is a matter of free will.

Mans law is based on moral relativism and tries to rule free will, that why different laws apply to different places/countries. Some countries/states takes away your freedom and puts you in a cage just for smoking a herb growing in nature, that's immoral.

That's my humble opinion.

Moral relativism is often an excuse to not have morals IMO, to reason away their validity. I am not a moral relativist by the meanings applied to the term. But morals themselves differ from person to person. That is all I meant by they are relative. Getting into ET races it gets a whole lot more clear that morals are relative. Morals to certain reptilian races would be not betraying your 'tribe', and have nothing to do with killing or creating suffering ...

Morals(from google definitions):
2. a person's standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do.

What is acceptable and what is unacceptable is very subjective, and relative to the person. I can agree there are methods to objectively weigh right and wrong(or better termed, good and bad), simply based on objective assessment of the results. But there are a set number of things that could be considered objectively in a gray area. For example abortion seems to be in somewhat of a gray area, at least in terms it is a widely split issue.

I can agree in a way that there are objective ways to judge morality. A certain set of guidelines one could philosophically follow to define morality. For example creating suffering(unless an extenuating circumstance) is immoral. But once you get into the grey area of morality it becomes more subjective in nature. For example some races have sex at very young ages, and with young ones of their kind. To a human that is very destructive and immoral. To another race it might just be normal, and not have any negative effect on the young ones..

I don't think moral relativism explains what i meant by saying that. The argument of moral relativist is there is no right and wrong. In my view there is objective 'good' and 'bad'(which sometimes bleed into one another), but also a gray area that is more subjective. And what I label right and wrong another race would see it quite inverted. So right and wrong are not universally accepted labels.

[Earthlink]

Well, it does take many hands to run our ship, of this there are no doubts. Before a ship can even leave a harbour, it has to have had assembled many skilled hands. Big beams and logs that go into building a wooden ship are different skills than those that do the decorative scroll work and carvings that also can go into it. Then there's the onboard kitchen, the food storage, the metallurgy and knowledge to make functioning sextants, and the looms to press the sails, are all needed before it even hits the water.

And, I suppose, depending on the length of the voyage, there'd also be a ships counsellor and perhaps even an entertainment co-ordinator.

In any event, many hands was the point, and in this group, I'm in applied engineering, and while these words morality and good and bad have been in literature for a long time now, I just see them as imaginary constructs. And thanks for having this conversation, by the way, I've not had reason to look at my own views here for a while, and this has just helped me form into better words they way I do view these things. There is either normal, or, abnormal. That's as far down this road as I'll ever need to go. Subjective, yeah, to a point, but if you just live your life leaning more towards the calm and serene, as all life does, abnormality will make itself apparent when it happens, rest assured.

[yelik]

Interesting thread Omni.

I think it is perfectly logical to categories Universal Laws / Universal Mechanics in the the way you have, although I believe they are linked. Morality is a useful word but often meaningless.

There's nothing wrong with having a set of fundamental laws that ought to apply to all beings, but other advanced beings may not align with our views.

It seems Pasio is very broadly referring to the capacity / intention of intelligent beings to purposely destroy or creat / preserve life. I tend to agree, all intelligent beings should know that it is fundamentally wrong to cause harm or suffering to another intelligent being.

If our house was infested with cock roaches, rats or ants would we think twice about annihilating them? Is it ok to destroy life that is not as intelligent as ourselves? How do the Draco's view humans, are we just a less evolved food source?

Humans are not brought up or educated equally so have different experiences and hence understanding of the world. Governments and the people know war is wrong yet they justify death and destruction based on their own laws (Illuminati) and understanding of right and wrong. In my view humanity is not yet capable or ready to follow any Universal rules or laws unless they are forced to do so.

Do ET species lie, deceive, torture and kill their own for power and greed? At the same time some ET's appear to crave certain human traits such as love and compassion.

[drneglector]

Morals are relative to each person, or ET race at times(if the race is very similar to each other). For example some people think it is immoral to smoke cannabis, or grow cannabis. Others do not. Many people or ET beings do not operate with morals. So they are not exactly natural law to all beings. This interpretation of natural law is only applicable to the beings who align to it, and might be relative to each being with some differences in opinion. So I do not find the idea of morals being natural law as anywhere near a universal system. Man's law optimally would be aligned to Mark Passio's version of natural law, based on morals. So Mark Passio's version of natural law I think would be more aptly called "The Laws of Morality" and align more to an optimal "Man's Law" or more a 'code of conduct' in my view.

I appreciate many of the opinions expressed here, but I don't believe that morals are relative to each person, that would make me a moral relativist, which essentially is one who doesn't believe in a objective truth. Believing that smoking cannabis, which is a herb growing in nature, is immoral, is wrong in my opinion. Using mushrooms and ayahuasca, which people have done for thousands of years, is not immoral either. What I do to my own body is my decision alone, I own my own body.

I believe natural law and moral applies for all beings, its not relative. But whether you choose to align to it or not is a matter of free will.

Mans law is based on moral relativism and tries to rule free will, that why different laws apply to different places/countries. Some countries/states takes away your freedom and puts you in a cage just for smoking a herb growing in nature, that's immoral.

That's my humble opinion.

Moral relativism is often an excuse to not have morals IMO, to reason away their validity. I am not a moral relativist by the meanings applied to the term. But morals themselves differ from person to person. That is all I meant by they are relative. Getting into ET races it gets a whole lot more clear that morals are relative. Morals to certain reptilian races would be not betraying your 'tribe', and have nothing to do with killing or creating suffering ...

Morals(from google definitions):
2. a person's standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do.

What is acceptable and what is unacceptable is very subjective, and relative to the person. I can agree there are methods to objectively weigh right and wrong(or better termed, good and bad), simply based on objective assessment of the results. But there are a set number of things that could be considered objectively in a gray area. For example abortion seems to be in somewhat of a gray area, at least in terms it is a widely split issue.

I can agree in a way that there are objective ways to judge morality. A certain set of guidelines one could philosophically follow to define morality. For example creating suffering(unless an extenuating circumstance) is immoral. But once you get into the grey area of morality it becomes more subjective in nature. For example some races have sex at very young ages, and with young ones of their kind. To a human that is very destructive and immoral. To another race it might just be normal, and not have any negative effect on the young ones..

I don't think moral relativism explains what i meant by saying that. The argument of moral relativist is there is no right and wrong. In my view there is objective 'good' and 'bad'(which sometimes bleed into one another), but also a gray area that is more subjective. And what I label right and wrong another race would see it quite inverted. So right and wrong are not universally accepted labels.

Thanks for taking the time to clear that up for me. I do agree with you now and appreciate your thoughts!