Finally, there are (further) conclusions for the nature of laws, and of space and time; in what follows it will be interesting to note the parallels between law and god; such thoughts shouldn’t be taken too seriously for both concepts are shown to have similarity and divergence from received opinion (opinions) about their nature. Clearly, as noted, there can be no universal laws and no space and time or space-time that is universal and absolute. However, it is possible for one phase of being to impose a law on another or to set up a space and time for another, and for some phases of being to co-evolve with laws and space and time. Thus, the questions of whether laws in a given cosmological system are immanent or imposed and whether the cosmological space-time is pre-existing (which includes the case where it may appear to be absolute) or relative has no universal answer. I.e., different situations obtain in different cosmological systems. In this (our) cosmological system, such questions must be answered, at least in part, empirically

Immediately, the reader will recognize the following difficulties with the foregoing logic. 1. Many assertions appear to contradict both science and common sense. 2. Is the logic valid? 3. Even if the assertions are true, what significance or meaning could they have? I.e. what does it mean, and what value may there be when an individual asserts, in the atemporal sense, ‘I am all,’ especially if he or she is not normally aware of the identity. Particularly, what does this mean for the endeavors and strivings of an individual under the reign of the realities of this temporal world? There is an additional concern that if all is realized, then ‘good’ and ‘evil’ are realized equally. 4. The logic does not show what realizations are feasible or how to realize any particular goal. I will now consider responses to these possible and significant criticisms. It will be effective to start with a consideration of the possible contradictions of science and common sense. The number at the head of a paragraph is the number of the criticism being addressed. A paragraph that is not headed by a number continues with the general issue of the previous paragraph

1. It is well known and easily seen that the ‘necessities’ of science and common sense are not actual necessities but are regularities that have become culturally accepted and psychologically imprinted as necessities. That the regularities are taken as necessary is practical: without doing so individuals would be reduced to neurotic inactivity; however, practical necessity is neither absolute nor actual necessity. A perhaps over-simple example is the usually non-conscious acceptance that common regularities prevail, e.g., ‘the sun will rise tomorrow’ that results from the experience of its having risen every day; however, there will come a ‘day’ when the sun will not rise. The example may be over-simple for are not the laws of science universal regularities or forms? In fact, the standard philosophies of science do not hold the laws to be universal. This is also born out by the history of science in which all of the great theories until the present generation (of theories) have been overturned or found to have limits, despite the fact that the theories were held by most scientists to be absolute in their own day. Thus a a simple version of a standard philosophy of science holds that a scientific theory encapsulates the data so far but is overturned when invalidating data is found and this is the occasion of a new theory. The old scientists hold to the old theories, not because they are final or universal, but because they have become psychologically ‘imprinted’ as universal and new theories must sometimes wait until the old scientists die and a new generation of scientists accepts the new theory. Although this is often thought to be a criticism of the ‘older’ scientists, it is also normal and practical though not necessary human behavior to which even the new scientists are generally subject. Thus, even today (c.2000 AD) there are positivistic scientists who hold of the modern theories (the quantum theory and the relativistic theories of matter and fields) that reality is at least implicitly identical to what is described by the theories… continue