"Rules" is not the same as "Dynamics."

It is often said that Nature has its own rules.

Well, this is due to a process of the mind: Sacralization.

Something is observed.

Dynamics are understood.

The consequences of the dynamics are observed.

They are labeled as rules.

This observed Something is endowed with sacredness, because these rules must not be varied.

Let us take the example of Nature.

Now I look out into a jungle.

There I will see thousands of living beings interacting.

There are some established dynamics caused by the climate, the billions of years of interaction, the type of species that inhabit it, etc...

Obviously, I'm going to see a lot of things happening assiduously.

These are the behavioral dynamics.

The big cats will try to hunt.

Primates will try to escape.

Insects will escape from birds.

Spiders will catch insects.

Viruses will attack cells.

Plants will try to grow toward the sun and seek water and nutrients underground.

These are behavioral dynamics.

Every Identity pursues a clear objective: survival.

If that Identity is immersed in an advanced Perception Transfer process, then it will pursue the survival of the Entity.

The anthill will seek to survive as a single being.

But it is the same in all of them.

Survival at all costs.

That dynamic does not respond to desirable behavior.

The desirability of a behavior can be deduced in a very simple way.

If it were me who was about to be devoured by a predator? would I justify it?

Would I desire it?

Would I prefer someone to prevent the predator from devouring me?

Surely, with a sincere exercise of empathy, I would recognize that the dynamics of behavior in a jungle without intervention are not desirable.

On the contrary, what we observe in that jungle will disgust us to the point of being cruel and terrible.

We will look away.

Behavioral dynamics are not rules.

Rules are based on a previous intention.

Let's see, in Nature there is no prior intention.

There is a consequence.

We must differentiate between Cause (Rules) and Consequence.

The consequence is, for example, that herbivores eat plants.

And predators eat herbivores.

The scavengers eat the carcasses of the predators.

Thus in an eternal cycle of suffering.

The balance we observe is not such.

That is, if there are fewer herbivores, there will be more plants and, therefore, there will be more food.

Therefore, the herbivores will reproduce.

So, the predators will do the same, they will reproduce because there will be more food.

Until there is no more food. Then thousands or millions die of starvation.

And you go back to the previous point.

More plants grow again because there are fewer herbivores.

As there are fewer herbivores (prey), many predators die until there are enough to feed on the remaining herbivores.

More herbivores are born again as there are fewer predators.

A never-ending cycle of suffering.

A cycle that has been repeating itself since the dawn of life.

Now comes the moment of the main error of understanding.

We cause the consequence.

That is, we say that dynamics are rules.

Thus, we think that Nature has its own rules.

Because we have observed that this is what happens.

But it is a consequence that happens because of the non-intervention of moral Rules.

In fact, if we intervened, then the consequences would be different.

The dynamics of behavior would change.

But now comes the most interesting point.

We deny the possibility of intervention because we claim that the dynamics resulting from Not Intervening are Rules.

And we sacralize those Rules.

Thus, the dynamics become the cause by endowing them with an Intention.

And we call them Rules.

And then they become Sacred.

Immovable, because Nature has an Intention that we have assigned to it.

And that intention manifests itself in the Rules we have defined.

The wisdom of Nature becomes unquestionable, for it has always been so.

Then Nature attains the status of a God.

We personalize it.

Nature is a God with certain desires and characteristics.

Being a God something immovable and dogmatic because we consider it Sacred.

Most of the Identities that exist are, therefore, condemned to the cycle of suffering because Nature is Sacred.

And who dares to attempt against this God called Nature?

When I propose to create Paradise, the New Eden, it is interpreted as an attack on the Sacredness of Nature.

When Nature is nothing.

That is to say, Nature is the result of behavioral dynamics when no one intervenes to establish moral rules.

It is nothing.

It is a name we have invented to refer to what we observe happening when nobody does anything to prevent it.

Nature is the sum of behavioral dynamics to which we have personalized.

Some Rules respond to a previous Intention.

And that is where we must be alert.

Without confusing the consequence with the cause.

And, above all, without sacralizing that consequence.

That is to say, Nature is not a God that existed before life manifested itself.

It is not a God that has dictated how living beings should behave.

No.

Rather, living beings have been interacting with each other since the beginning of the universe.

And, as a result of this interaction, behavioral dynamics have been created.

We can observe and define them.

So far, so good.

But that's all.

We can call it Nature.

But Nature is a consequence, not a cause.

And, therefore, it does not possess any kind of rules.

Because that would mean endowing it with a personality, with ideas and values.

It would be to turn Nature into a God.

And no, it is not a God.

In fact, it would be more accurate to say that Nature is what happens when there is no God to prevent it.