Laws of physics? Or laws of structure? Can we speak of laws of physics, or should we speak of laws of structure? There are ontological differences that are escaping the “computo” of the physicists. Systems and subsystems that are not being considered, rhythms that are ignored. The laws of physics can change? And how could they not change?
In philosophical terms, the Good (Bene) is postulated as a coincidence between the being and the “to must be” (obligation, imperative) and, thus, the good (bene) of a thing is the coincidence between what that thing is and what it must be (necessity), as synchronized resonating rotative coincidence of itself, or, in other words, individuated identity.
Linked to the notion of Good (Bene) is the notion of perfection, from the Latin perfectio, with origin in per+facere and whose prefix indicates a finished action. The notion of perfection synthesizes, thus, an idea of completion.
Any living structure, because of the fact that it is and, as such, exists, it also, necessarily, “must be” (obligation, imperative) and, thus, it is good (bene).
Any living sucture is necessarily complete, and, thus, perfect.
Any living structure: cell, virus, stone, ant, plant, rat, human, star, black hole, etc… is good (bene) and, thus, it is perfect.
It is reasonably legitimate to postulate the holography as a “systemic property”, but it is not legitimate to reduce the system to its holographic record. The holography is systemic, but it is not the system.
The hologram, like the holography, is systemic but it is not the system. The hologram is the output of the system’s identity, computed in a strange loop and that includes the whole data of the system, including its initial conditions.
In a statement, the fundament is the ratio/reason prior and interior to the statement of which it is the fundament.
If the fundament of an event is unknown, then, the nature of the event in what regards its fundamental causality remains unknown.
