# Is There Only One Absolute in a Coherent Universe?

• Russell E. Rierson
In summary: That doesn't seem to falsify anything much to me. Greater size does not equate to greater temperature or greater mass. Ice cubes float on water. It also seems fair to qualify the rule given by "since we know that mass and energy are one and the same (e.g., E = Mc^2)", which is that Greater Mass Comes From Lesser Mass.

#### Russell E. Rierson

[1.] A true absolute cannot be contingent.

[2.] In a coherent[and cohesively connected] universe of ostensible absolutes, there can be only one truly non-contingent absolute. All other principles[abstract and physical] in the coherent universe, are contingent.

[3.] The non-contingent absolute is necessarily the basis, and the standard for a structured hierarchy of inter-related contingent principles.

[4.]Greater cannot come from lesser. Contingent existence can only come from a greater non-contingent existence. Therefore the one true absolute is necessarily greater than the contingent-coherent universe.

[5.] Human intelligence, is also a contingent property of existence.

[6.]The emergence of a contingent intelligence can only come from a greater non-contingent intelligence.

[7.] For all intents and purposes, the non-contingent intelligence is a God-like entity.

Russell E. Rierson said:
[4.]Greater cannot come from lesser. Contingent existence can only come from a greater non-contingent existence.
This is logically false. In physics, the greater (molecules) comes from the lesser (atoms), which come from the even lesser (quarks). In biology, you (the greater) came from and egg and sperm (the lesser). The known universe (the greater) came from the lesser (quantum probability change in the zero point vacumn), does not the list go on and on ? Thus, since you seem to have some sort of sequential argument where proposition # 2 requires #1 to be a true statement, and 3-2, etc., and you are falsified at step 4 of 8, well it just all falls apart well before I can agree that you have logically proven that god exists.

This is logically false. In physics, the greater (molecules) comes from the lesser (atoms), which come from the even lesser (quarks). In biology, you (the greater) came from and egg and sperm (the lesser). The known universe (the greater) came from the lesser (quantum probability change in the zero point vacumn), does not the list go on and on ? Thus, since you seem to have some sort of sequential argument where proposition # 2 requires #1 to be a true statement, and 3-2, etc., and you are falsified at step 4 of 8, well it just all falls apart well before I can agree that you have logically proven that god exists.

5 > 3

5-2 = 3

Greater cannot come from lesser but lesser is a fractional part of greater.

The fundamental building blocks of matter/ energy are hypothesized to be basically the same. For example the strings of string theory are fundamental units, corresponding to numerical quantities.

Last edited:
4/3 is not an integer, but is "made out of" integers.

arildno said:
4/3 is not an integer, but is "made out of" integers.

Energy cannot be created or destroyed but only changes form. Energy is a causality preserving transformation. So it is not possible to generate more than what initially exists, it is only possible to transform the system from condition A to condition B. So when some simple organism becomes greater from a few initial cells, it required added energy from outside itself.

Greater cannot come from lesser.

Disregarding other objections, why is intelligence "greater"?
Do you for example imply that Mr. and Mrs Newton must have been more intelligent than their son?

Last edited:
Most of your argument seems correct to me. But when you get to intelligence and God (nos. 6 & 7) it seems to fall down. How do you define 'intelligence' and 'God-like'?

Russell E. Rierson said:
Energy cannot be created or destroyed but only changes form. Energy is a causality preserving transformation. So it is not possible to generate more than what initially exists, it is only possible to transform the system from condition A to condition B. So when some simple organism becomes greater from a few initial cells, it required added energy from outside itself. Greater cannot come from lesser.
OK, now you put a "condition" on your logic--that is, Greater may come from Lesser but only in an "open system".

Yes, but Second Law of Thermodynamics says that Greater Disorder (entropy) always comes from Lesser Disorder. Thus your argument is falsified.

Another example (-2) * (-2) = (+ 4), clearly the "Greater" (+4) comes from the interaction of the Lesser (-2) --you are falsified.

Another example, Greater size of water in ice cube tray when frozen comes from Lesser temperature after frozen than before. Thus, Greater Mass Comes From Lesser Energy, and since we know that mass and energy are one and the same (e.g., E = Mc^2) we can hold that Greater Mass Comes From Lesser Mass--you are falsified.

Can we just agree that you are falsified and move on to another thread, or must we continue ?

That doesn't seem to falsify anything much to me. Greater size does not equate to greater temperature or greater mass. Ice cubes float on water. It also seems fair to qualify the rule given by saying that it does not apply to open systems. In closed systems total energy does not change with transformations, so greater cannot come from lesser in respect of energy, nor lesser from greater.

Yes, but Second Law of Thermodynamics says that Greater Disorder (entropy) always comes from Lesser Disorder. Thus your argument is falsified.

This is misleading. The second law says that in a closed system the entropy will be nondecreasing; it will either increase or stay the same. Notice the "closed system" stipulation. Now it is true that entropy is often described for the innumerate as a measure of disorder, but is not true that the entropy at one moment in a closed system, the "lesser disorder", brings on the increase to "greater disorder". The nature of closed systems, which cannot exchange matter or energy with their environments, is what does this.

Russell E. Rierson said:
[1.] A true absolute cannot be contingent.

[2.] In a coherent[and cohesively connected] universe of ostensible absolutes, there can be only one truly non-contingent absolute. All other principles[abstract and physical] in the coherent universe, are contingent.

[3.] The non-contingent absolute is necessarily the basis, and the standard for a structured hierarchy of inter-related contingent principles.

[4.]Greater cannot come from lesser. Contingent existence can only come from a greater non-contingent existence. Therefore the one true absolute is necessarily greater than the contingent-coherent universe.

[5.] Human intelligence, is also a contingent property of existence.

[6.]The emergence of a contingent intelligence can only come from a greater non-contingent intelligence.

[7.] For all intents and purposes, the non-contingent intelligence is a God-like entity.

You should re-examine your Logic. As ask yourself this: How will my logic behave under each of the following fundamental metaphysical categories?:

1) OPEN SYSTEM where laws (if any) behave almost unpredictably (where some form of intelligent force may be needed to kick-start things and keep them going, let alone structurally and functionally perfecting them!)

2) SEMI-CLOSED SYSTEM where internal consistency of any governing laws (if any) depends on outward consistency of laws outside it.

3) CLOSED SYSTEM where every law is presumably internally consistent - a self-sufficient system.

Nearly every known discipline I know tends to fatally neglect these three fundamental mephysical categories in their attempted explanation of reality. I have drawn the attention of mathematicians and logicians to the analytical and explanatory implications of this elsewhere on this PF. Perhaps, you should do a search of this for more details. My standard argument is that any negligence of this by any dscipline in their explanation of reality must inevitably manifest into a fundamental 'Category Error'. The so-called "Untruth" that we all talk about would be due to this error, and this error alone.

LESSON TO LEARN: An Explanation of a logical and quantitative kind behaves differently under each of the above metaphysical categories, therefore each discipline must adjust its project of explanation to this very important fact.

Last edited:
Canute said:
That doesn't seem to falsify anything much to me. Greater size does not equate to greater temperature or greater mass. Ice cubes float on water. It also seems fair to qualify the rule given by saying that it does not apply to open systems. In closed systems total energy does not change with transformations, so greater cannot come from lesser in respect of energy, nor lesser from greater.
OK, suppose I agree with what you say in bold above, in which case "you" have falsified the initial argument because the argument of Rierson holds that "Greater never comes from Lesser", and as you state, neither can "Greater come from Lesser", nor "Lesser from Greater" (e.g., it is a non-issue), and thus you nicely fasify the initial argument of Rierson, it seems to me.

Also, I note that no-one finds fault with my argument from mathematics, e.g., (-2) * (-2) = (+4), where clearly Greater does come from Lesser. Since it only takes one example to falsify Rierson's argument, I hold that this is it until I am convinced otherwise.

I'm afraid I don't see your argument. What I said about greater and lesser in no way contradicts Russell's original proposition, and -2 is just +2 with the sign reversed. If I take two apples from a bowl then there are -2 apples in the bowl and +2 apples in my hand. But the amount of apples is 2 in both cases. If the bowl and me are in the same system nothing has changed, if they are not then the example does not relate to Russell's proposition.

Canute said:
If I take two apples from a bowl then there are -2 apples in the bowl and +2 apples in my hand. But the amount of apples is 2 in both cases. If the bowl and me are in the same system nothing has changed, if they are not then the example does not relate to Russell's proposition.
But, suppose two bowls and one hand. Then you have (-2) apples in bowl # 1, and (-2) apples in bowl # 2, thus each bowl has -2 contingent objects. Now, when you put the contents of both bowls into your hand the hand has + 4 contingent objects. Thus Greater number of contingent objects in hand (+4) has come from two lesser numbers in bowls (-2) * (-2) and Russell is falsified.

Another example, on my calculator if I hit (+9) key, and a contingent object emerges on the display, then perform the * operation, then hit (+8) key, a separate contingent object emerges. Now when I perform = operation the contingent object (+72) emerges on the display. Thus, a Greater image (+72) emerges from operations on two Lessers images (+9) and (+8), and Russell is again falsified.

But if the two bowls and the four apples and the one hand are all part of the same system, as they must be for the example to be relevant, then nothing changes however the apples are arranged. There were four at the start and four at the end.

Canute said:
But if the two bowls and the four apples and the one hand are all part of the same system, as they must be for the example to be relevant...
But, this is the problem with the argument presented, Russell never restricted "his" logical argument in this manner, that the hand and bowl are part of the same system--he only makes corrections to his argument about open and closed systems after his argument has been shown by others NOT to apply under all such conditions. This is the important point made in the post by Philocrat, Russell does not consider that his argument, for it to be valid, must be valid in all types of systems, open, closed, semi-closed, semi-open. And this is why his argument fails--because he just makes the grand statement: "Greater never comes from lesser", (he applies the term "never", which, well, means "never", not under any type of system). Now, as you have just shown, this is a false statement if the bowl and hand are not part of the same system--so, once again--thank you for falsifying Russell's argument.

But, this issue of Greater-Lesser is only one point where his argument fails, he also indicates that there can be only "one" true non-contingent absolute--but why ?--this makes no logical sense--why cannot a system have two non-contingent absolutes. And, why must a contingent entity only come from a non-contingent entity as Russell argues, why cannot a contingent entity give rise to a different contingent entity ? And why must intelligence as a contingent entity rise only from some mystical greater non-contingent intelligence (it may, but why "must" it ?). Why cannot human intelligence arise as a contingent entity from another contingent entity(s) during a process of human development--but no, never, imposssible, is what Russell claims--but the claim is not a universally valid claim (it may be true, but it may not be true), thus it cannot form the basis of a logical argument that it is in fact true under all types of systems.

I'm sorry, if someone is to propose an argument that they have logically proved that god exists as a non-contingent intelligence, they will have to do better than this. Otherwise, Russell has then in eight steps done what no philosopher in history has been able to accomplish--logically prove that a god-like entity exists in what he calls a "coherent universe" (is there such a thing as an "uncoherent universe" ?) (ps/ and what is a god-like entity ?-- is it like, god ?, and if so, why does he not just call it god. God is not god-like, god is god).

## What does "Only One Absolute" mean?

"Only One Absolute" refers to the idea that there is one fundamental truth or principle that governs all aspects of the universe. It suggests that everything in existence is ultimately connected and can be understood through this one absolute concept.

## How is "Only One Absolute" relevant to science?

In science, the pursuit of understanding the natural world is based on the belief that there are underlying laws and principles that govern the universe. "Only One Absolute" aligns with this concept, as it suggests that there is one ultimate truth that can be discovered through scientific inquiry.

## Is "Only One Absolute" a scientific theory?

No, "Only One Absolute" is not a scientific theory in the traditional sense. It is more of a philosophical concept that has been debated and discussed by many thinkers throughout history. However, it can be seen as a foundational belief that underlies scientific exploration and discovery.

## Can "Only One Absolute" be proven or disproven?

As a philosophical concept, "Only One Absolute" cannot be proven or disproven in the same way that scientific theories can. It is a belief that is open to interpretation and debate. However, some may argue that scientific discoveries and advancements can support or challenge the idea of "Only One Absolute."

## How does "Only One Absolute" impact our understanding of the world?

"Only One Absolute" challenges us to think beyond surface-level explanations and seek a deeper understanding of the universe. It encourages us to see the interconnectedness of all things and to continuously question and explore the complexities of the world around us.