In my subjective fractal philosophy,
everything that stems from „The Fractal“* (as a possible whole in some way)
or from fractals (as a form of existence)
is resembling (of everything and something).
But never the same.
We’re individuals, units, but composed ones and (for example we could call us) ‚momentary’** ones (a plurality of summarised one.s)/units.
Our in every moment (maybe timeslice or happening or consciousness-blinks or something else) different momentary states or „I“s are self-similar but also not the same. We’re different in every moment, whatever a moment may be (as such) or be to us (appearing).
Similarity in this frame is essential.
Sameness is nonexistent.
Existence is plurality.
Making sameness out of similiarity/resemblance is making us experience a connection which may be grounded in „The Fractal“. But it may also be just a resemblance itself. „The Fractal“ then would be a fractal of every other fractal.
* „The Fractal“ may be everything in this particular (form of the [self-similar] and a) universe or everything that exists at all or only a part of the universe or everything. Or maybe something else we can’t perceive in similarity or difference.
** Whether time exists in a principal or basic way or not.
The essence* of (some) postmodernism is, in the distinction made by ? between ’sceptical‘ and ‚affirmative‘ postmodernism:
sceptical postmodernism (. and non-.)
* It’s nice to write essence in connection to postmodernism. And it may be.
A question (to subjective understanding/interpretation):
Can one be a naturalist when one is assuming than the nature doesn’t change?
If nature doesn’t change, why should it be central to one’s considerations, meditations and contemplations etc.?
There will be general laws. They will hold for some regions of space and time, but they’re not absolute. They’re not immutable. They evolve like everything else. Maybe sometimes slower, maybe sometimes abruptly*.
The mechanisms by which [natural, physical] laws evolve are what we should be really interested in as naturalists.
Just like biologists used to be interested in characterizing the absolute essential properties of species until they realized** that there was the story [!] of evolution that connected all the species together*** and that was the deep structure**** that one really had to understand -> is how the species evolved.
We advocate that cosmology and physics has to make the similar transition.
Quotation from: A New Theory of Time – Lee Smolin (Link to Youtube-video)
* Gradually and/or punctually. Maybe in a dialectical mode (ontologically-naturally true/existing as such) or in this form/way appearing to us and/or more or less correspondingly (re-)constructed by us humans.
** Re-/constructed it.
*** In our minds or ontologically-naturally?
**** The process of evolution as a deep structure, Smolin here bringing process and structure together as in this case/topic: one unified thing.
In my paraphrasing: Lee Smolin/Roberto M. Unger want to change the cosmological metaphysics/meta-concept of cosmos again to a Post-Einsteinian picture/process/etc. Roughly Smolin summarises these three stages (to Smolin: of scientific progress of insight/realization and knowledge):
a) Before relativity in physics and evolution in biology: Absolutes were looked for and found–re-/constructed, invented, narrated.
b) Einstein: Relativity is the mode. Darwin: Evolution is the process as the deep structure (Smolin).
c) Smolin/Unger: Evolution of the laws of physics and nature in general should be the/an important object of study.
A could be British (symbolic) way:
Empirism — at the same time knowing/parallely supposing that „tradition“ is a theory.
Hobbies — more or less serious ones, knowing that life besides surviving (as: life as long as one is living) is a bundle, gathering and parallelity of hobbies.
Tea time — nothing is too serious to have a tea and a time. And tea time–as ‚real’/praxis and metaphor–is a serious thing. Relativism/Openness is a serious thing. The anchorlessness of existence is directed/connected to the phenomenon of the Hobby. As (and interpretable as) references between noncausal (empirism and idiosyncracy) single units (atomism).
Unified philosophy? Unified theory of philosophy?
There are different topics to philosophise about. But is there a monism of philosophy, a basis where all philosophies meet, theoretically — where they would meet if they knew or developed to their final destination?
Human Unification Drive and Pluralisation Drive. Among others conceptualisable (= giving order where there is one or none) in a dialectical re-construction.
Parallels meet at infinity.
This can be interpreted (perceived and processed) as mathematical beauty for its own sake. And maybe it is a formulation connected (substantially or otherwise) to the universe as such. It currently resonates with something in me.
What’s true about dialectics seems to me, is that we, the human being, are a contradictory being in a contradictory existence (according to our own standards and logic [as the human (re-)construction of his and all existence], and maybe to the standard of the universe [ontological setup/character of the universe]).
Some dialectical thinkers try to interprete qualitative change, meaning or progress into these contradictions. Ok.
Is it tautological if a contradiction–here as an upheld/(self-)reproducing tension–is existing/reproducing for a longer time because it co-constitutes itself and it reproduces itself because it exists as constituted by a (similarity-reproducing) stability?
Holism (the abstract, non-fillable, non-completable etc. notion/idea of ‚the whole‘) is tautological and true. Truth (in a holistic sense) is tautological. So if dialectical tension is tautological, then it would be holistically true.