I don't like the idea of ​​a state without a constitution. — Astorre

Why do we need a state?

Nature isn't a hive mind. It has no central command. Nature itself is not an entity. Nature is the collective body of scattered elements. These elements follow the principle of causality. Similar causes yield similar responses. These patterned responses are called the laws of nature.

The universe does not tolerate deviation.
A proton has a precise charge of +1. An electron orbits in fixed quantized shells.
Water always freezes at 0°C under standard conditions. These are not arbitrary
properties—they are fixed, consistent, and inescapable.

This cosmic selectivity creates coherence: without it, there would be no chemistry, no
biology, no consciousness. If nitrogen had three electrons “once in a while,” the
periodic table would collapse; the fabric of reality would disintegrate.

Thus, the rigidity of law is the condition for existence.
Without selection, there is no identity. Without constraint, there is no form. The
universe is selective because only selectivity can sustain being.

Alam, T. B. (2025). The Selective Universe: Order, Entropy, and the Philosophical Paradox of Natural Rigidity [Zenodo]. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17341242

And I asked YOU why do you need to know? — apokrisis

Because they're connected. Every element of the universe is an image of the universe itself. Elements project the universe, the universe projects its elements.

you said there is no pure chaos. From that argument, the universe will never lose control.

So I asked YOU on what you conclude as the fate of the cosmos.

I asked, what does cosmology say about dualism?

are you saying the universe will forever last?

to see if the basis needs change.

there is also the cosmological argument which demonstrates that there is necessarily an immaterial actuality which is prior to all material existence. — Metaphysician Undercover

Continue.

Explain — apokrisis

Take away all laws of physics or the natural order. That's true chaos.

Can you think of a test that would detect sapience or consciousness? — bert1

Yes. You see if your synthetic being goes beyond its programmed capacity or scope and does something on its own that wasn't predicted (in machine learning). Something novel, something that is attributed to the body.

Not just sexes, pretty much everything is being stereotyped. — baker

Modern moral thought seeks to dissolve rigid patterns—arguing that social identities and roles should be fluid, inclusive, and adaptive. But the question arises: if the cosmos thrives on patterned predictability, are we defying natural order when we reject all categorization?

Perhaps political correctness is not a rebellion against truth but against the misuse of truth.
Where the laws of physics are descriptive (they describe how matter behaves), human “laws” and social codes are often prescriptive (they dictate how people should behave).
Confusing these two is the origin of moral error.

Thus, it is not that rigidity is wrong or that fluidity is right—but that cosmic rigidity serves being, while social rigidity often serves power.

If the universe’s consistency ensures existence, and its entropy ensures change, then perhaps human liberty is the social form of cosmic entropy.
Too much rigidity yields tyranny. Too much fluidity yields chaos.
Thus, just as the cosmos balances order and disorder, civilization must balance law and liberty.

Racism and sexism are not “natural laws” but misapplications of pattern recognition.
They emerge when humans mistake statistical or biological tendencies for moral truths.
The difference between physics and prejudice is the difference between observation and judgment.

Alam, T. B. (2025). The Selective Universe: Order, Entropy, and the Philosophical Paradox of Natural Rigidity [Zenodo]. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17341242

You take materialism to be true — Metaphysician Undercover

Well, you must have a basis for other arguments to circle around.

simple unboxed freedom. — apokrisis

That's entropy. Any large-scale or permanent chaos would doom the universe.

What about hydrogen and oxygen? — RogueAI

Every element is crucial in its own place. But carbon was the building block of life and organic chemistry.

ummm.... Elementary biology and chemistry?

I think the main topic got sidelined here.

Rather than dissection entropy, we should examine what makes carbon the heart of consciousness.

According to me of course. — punos

And what is your argument for that?

Indeed it is. — punos

So the universe (space) managing itself (entropy) for sustainability? Yes, my point too.

But it does leave a question:

Why is the universe, a scattered body without any central command, hellbent on sustainability and manages to do so uniformly without direct communication between the elements?

Not to mention, non-living matters don't have sapience to communicate. Signal interpretation should be seen as sapience. Does that mean non-living matters are alive in their own sense (Panpsychism)?

Which is easier to prove? That it is or that it isn't? — punos

Empirical data says chaos exists. You argue otherwise.

If something appears anomalous or miraculous, it is because we do not yet understand its natural nature. — punos

So in true sense, nothing is unnatural or supernatural? That's what my thesis argues, though.

Chaos is just hidden order. — punos

So entropy is orderly?

space — punos

Isn't space part of the universe?

the universe is always certain about what it will do in the next moment in time. — punos

Can you prove it?

cell is widely accepted as the precondition for living matter (i.e., those who have free will and mind). machines lack cells.

How would you prove or observe machine consciousness? — RogueAI

one of the outcomes of consciousness is free will. — Copernicus

Supernatural? — punos

What is the definition of supernatural?

If there is any "anomaly" to the natural law, is it unnatural? Does that make entropy or other chemical reaction exceptions unnatural?

Why would a universe that values order also permit chaos?
Perhaps because rigidity without decay would yield stagnation. Entropy ensures transformation.
If the laws are the skeleton of the cosmos, entropy is its pulse—its motion through time. The two are not contradictions but complements: order defines the possible, entropy defines the dynamic.

The cosmos, then, is not a tyrant of predictability, but a governor of structured uncertainty.

Alam, T. B. (2025). The Selective Universe: Order, Entropy, and the Philosophical Paradox of Natural Rigidity [Zenodo]. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17341242

Is it possible some machines are conscious? — RogueAI

It was never proved or observed. And one of the outcomes of consciousness is free will. But what is "will" exactly? A person in a coma or paralysis has consciousness, but physical inability to execute will. Does he lack free will? If not, how do you know he has free will? Just because he was born with it?

Why is that? — Harry Hindu

I think I've equated it with the eye's inability to see itself.

If we can reproduce intelligence "artificially" then why not cells? — Harry Hindu

Will that cell generate consciousness?

Test them for what? What would that show? — bert1

To see if their "artificial" body can generate sapience or consciousness.

@Banno@Metaphysician Undercover

I'm sorry if I had been unwelcoming in my arguments.

I'd ask you to bring all your arsenal and attack me reasonably so that I can see if I have any fault.

I'm working on a book, so I want a proper review and feedback beforehand.

Your point being?

There is conceptual work to be done before we can assess the value of any related science. — bert1

Test synthetic beings. Things would likely go south — the price we pay for discovery.

When AI achieves consciousness — punos

When or If?

Your desire to be convinced is the problematic attitude. It's an attitude which rejects possibilities opting only for that which one is convinced of. And that is what you take for granted. — Metaphysician Undercover

I welcome any counterargument. But they need to be convincing enough.

Whom am I stereotyping when I say the distinction between male and female is biological, but the distinction between man and woman is social and linguistic. — T Clark

I didn't say it's your fault. I just reacted to the facts you presented.

thanks.

Nope, i have no objections — punos

What about AI consciousness?

you couldn't convince otherwise.

no, I used it to denote stereotyping.

Wow. No objections. Looks like finally everyone agreed.

If you're a monist, you might have inputs on this.

I don't see where I got it wrong.

I don't see why.

That's not the argument he was making. — Philosophim

I didn't counter him. I responded to the fact he presented.