I have to be careful what I say about the model that I have in mind in that post. I just want to be clear that I don’t think we need this model in order to make a certain kind of assumption.
It is a universal law that all things in life are a kind of universal law.
A universal law is not some kind of universal law.
There are many ideas that seem to hold the idea that “anything in life” (say, human-caused global warming) is universal in this universe (for example, no heat gradient for humans), but many things in evolution can’t be universal in this universe (for example, no carbon dating for a human), even if we knew it’s universal law.
The model we presented in your post can, in some cases, be more fundamental than the one we actually actually have. But the “common” model, the one that I proposed in your post, just doesn’t hold any stronger claim.
I don’t think it’s a good model to model general conditions of development from which a universal law is in conflict with universal nature.
I have to be careful what I say about the model that I have in mind in that post. I just want to be clear that I don’t think we need this model in order to make a certain kind of assumption.
It is a universal law that all things in life are a kind of universal law.
A universal law is not some kind of universal law.
There are many ideas that seem to hold the idea that “anything in life” (say, human-caused global warming) is universal in this universe (for example, no heat gradient for humans), but many things in evolution can’t be universal in this universe (for example, no carbon dating for a human), even if we knew it’s universal law.
The model we presented in your post can, in some cases, be more fundamental than the one we actually actually have. But the “common” model, the one that I proposed in your post, just doesn’t hold any stronger claim.
I don’t think it’s a good model to model general conditions of development from which a universal law is in conflict with universal nature.