Maths is representational of reality or of a perception of reality. It is not reality. By virtue of being representational it is relative and thus may at best deal with relative absolutes.

Furthermore, our maths as it stands today represent a perception, not reality.

Zero, for instance is the only representation of an absolute in maths, since all numbers are measures of the absolute, yet nothing cannot be absolute, it must be relative to something, and a measure of nothing is still nothing, so zero can't be nothing.

In fact Zero actually means the whole, everything, and the following numbers represent divisions or fractions or fractals of that whole, which seems fitting for the representation of a fractal based reality, no?

Allowance by itself does not dis-allow other absolutes or absolute absolutes but, it does allow for their dis-allowance.

Nothing is possible without allowance. Saying for instance"swearing is not allowed" is not necessarily dis-allowing swearing. Dis-allowing swearing is actually preventing it from swearing from occurring. If swearing occurs then you have allowed it.

It is the one Law above all others simply because it necessarily precedes all others.

There can only be one absolute absolute, otherwise one would contradict the other and neither would be absolutely absolute.

It's not just my universe It's the logical universe, as opposed to the rational one, and unlike rationale, being independent of rules, context and purpose logic requires no specification of rules, context or purpose.

Sorry bro, no offence intended but the only shooting I can see is you shooting yourself in the foot.

Semantics certainly is an issue. A big one.

It is my contention that there is actually only one law and all other axioms we call laws are simply rules. Measures.

Because there is a Law which cannot be contradicted by itself or anything else, the principle Allowance, we have one that is distinctly different from all the others. Why don't we at least call them relative laws? Why is there no distinction between the two types of laws? One which cannot be contradicted and all the rest which can be contradicted by a broader, more encompassing "law"

But never mind the language for now. Whatever we call it, there can only be one absolute absolute, right? (As opposed to relative absolutes, such as 1000 is the absolute minimum and maximum number of 10mm cubes that make up a perfect 100mm cube).

There only one possible value that satisfies the aforementioned example. 1000 10mm cubes. So doesn't it follow that there must be one and yet may be only one, absolute absolute?

And if so, how can it be anything but the principle Allowance, or Yes? The only principle that represents infinite potential, for which reason its value is infinite, making it also the only non conclusive absolute?

All other Laws include a specification, a limitation, am exclusive negation of some sort, a conclusion. All relative laws are measures and measures are rules. Allowance neither has nor imposes any such limitation, thus is distinctly different for all other laws.

How about we look at question of whether the principle Allowance can be contradicted. Do you agree that it cannot?

If you believe it can? How and which law contradicts it? Also which known law is not subject to allowance?

How about what constitutes a Law? Do you agree that a Law is a principle that cannot be contradicted?

If so isn't it logically evident that there can only be one and must be one absolute Law?

The thing about Yes is that it's not a conclusion, it's not an ending. It's the beginning.

Dis-investing is not necessarily discounting. It's simply like not putting money on a horse, to not gamble. It doesn't mean I think the horse is going to lose.

By dis-investing in beliefs I'm simply eliminating inherent biases so I can approach situations neutrally. That neutrality is what allows novelty, including novel experiences.

It is not my contention that formal knowledge is wrong, only that there is always going to be more to it than any conclusion can convey and those limitations cause assumptions and errors.

No conclusion is absolute. A conclusion is an ending. All endings are relative. Thus all conclusions are merely rational, not logical.

Yeah pretty much, but while the law cannot be broken, rules are made to be broken. Dis-allowance must be impermanent if it cannot be absolute, which obviously it can't right?

My only other contention is your use of the word creation. But that's really neither here nor there.

I see creation and manifestation as sort of opposites, where creating is the designing and manifesting is the manufacturing of the product. Each requires a different and polar opposite mindset, one being a more fluid and open ended bigger picture mind state the other a more rigid and focused mindset.

It's a yin/yang sort of thing, and I find the distinction very useful.

Yeah. I do like the way you think, and the way you express. How about we take it one step at a time?

The definition of Yes is synonymous with that of allowance and unconditional love, since in order to be unconditional it must be by definition absolutely allowing. We can also see that allowing is primarily what the act of loving does. So love is the common factor in all that exists, love is the key and the whole truth, because essentially it just means Yes.

Self discovered. Since I realized over 30 years ago that the limited and limiting nature of rote learning and its application only caused me to make assumptions and mistakes, I've been actively dis investing from beliefs and formal knowledge, and I only realized the significance of the principle Allowance (Yes) about 11 years ago.

That's when all the dots started connecting at hyper-speed and all the puzzle pieces began rapidly falling into place. It's not just logic and self evidence that tells me I'm on the right track but pursuit of this principle has also lead me to experience some incredible hyper-dimensional phenomena that afforded me some normally unavailable points of view and helped expand my perspective even further. After all, that's precisely what allowance, acceptance, inclusion, aka Love, does. Is it not?

The funny thing is, a philosophy will manage to find a way to misinterpret every claim and in order to find a rebuttal, while 5 year old just gets it.

Fair enough. A few paragraphs isn't going to explain a theory that's taken me years to discover the many intricacies of, and what I quickly wrote off the top of my head isn't going to be semantically perfect. The aim was primarily to introduce the principle and provide food for thought. I guess I said too much too soon.

Be cause true is very close. there is nothing truer ie: straighter than the pure principle Yes.

The answer is Yes. AKA Allowance. The most fundamental causal factor, without which nothing is possible.

While all specific causes are negations, ie No or dis-allowing(resisting rejecting, excluding) choices, they still require allowance in order to be able to negate, thus the blanket default cause of everything is the principle allowance or simply, Yes. Be cause Yes. Read my other comments for more explanation. Thanks for responding.

That's not the answer but you seem like to kind of person I'll enjoy discussing it with, so here's the answer.

It is Yes. the principle Allowance. Also known as unconditional love, because for anything to be unconditional, it must by definition be absolutely allowing.

Nothing exits without the necessary allowance to exist, nothing can do without allowance to do, even nothing must be allowed to be nothing.

Allowance is the default. It takes no effort to allow but it takes effort to dis-allow, to resist, to reject, to exclude.

Under the principle Allowance, all including dis-allowance is and must be allowed, thus it governs absolutely everything and so it is the only possible absolute Law, all other Laws being relative laws or rules, mere measures of the absolute.

Time, like everything other than the principle of pure allowance, is a manifestation of the condition dis-allowance, thus also a subject of and is subject to allowance.

The principle Allowance is eternal, timeless. It may have once been the only thing that existed but it must always have existed, because without being allowed to it could never have come into existence.

Allowance and dis-allowance equate to Yes and No and deal with choice. They are options. Yes is neutral, No is negate-ive (to negate).

Position or positive is an inevitable by product of predictive compensation for a negation but that's a later topic.

The most basic function in binary logic is yes and no. A Yes or On switch allows current to flow while a No or off switch blocks current flow. Allowance and dis-allowance works exactly the same way. The fundamental basics of causality, of reality, is binary logic. Yes represents infinite potential. No represents finite impotence (No cannot be eternal. Note double negative = neutral = true)

And that makes things rather simple, no? Rather than reverse engineer the vast complexity and complication of the final products of manifestation and try to remember all that separate knowledge, like memorizing the multiplication table, now we know how it all began we can just use a simple formula to figure out whatever we need to know whenever we like.

A cycle counting continuum.

There are also at least three english words that mean essentially the same thing.

After "be cause" or alternatively "because of", it's a single word.

I'm just breaking it down to emphasize its precise definition and reference to cause, and also to eliminate the need for "of " As in "because of" this or that. By using simply "be cause" I'm just saying "the cause is". Simplicity is after all the whole idea. The fundamental principle must logically be the simplest possible..

Here's another clue. A big one.

It's the one and only possible absolute absolute. In other words the one and only absolute truth and the one and only absolutely unbreakable principle, thus the one and only true Law. It is the universal default, it takes absolutely no effort to perform, unlike it's opposite measure whose extreme state takes maximum effort.