Principle of Dynamic Non-Absoluteness

This document is a working scientific-philosophical checkpoint.

It does not present the idea as a proven physical law. It records a hypothesis, checks its possible overlap with existing intellectual traditions, and defines a possible niche for further development.

Working names:

My thought is that the observable universe cannot contain one single, absolute, constant, and fully dominant driving force as an ordinary physical reality.

If such a force existed in an absolute sense, it would not merely be one force among others. It would become a limiting background against which all other influences would lose independent dynamic significance. Any other finite force would be unable to meaningfully change the course of events, because the entire dynamic field would already be suppressed or predetermined by that absolute dominant factor.

Therefore, I should not formulate this as a crude claim that an absolute force would simply “stop all motion.”

A more careful formulation is:

The second part of my thought concerns the impossibility of two absolutely identical driving forces across an ordered evolution.

Two forces, impulses, factors, or processes may appear identical at a single moment of observation. However, during extended observation, their absolute identity should eventually break down because they do not exist in a vacuum. They exist within different relations, different contexts, different perturbations, different fluctuations, and different external or internal influences.

Therefore, my thought is not simply:

A more precise formulation is:

I can formulate this as the Principle of Dynamic Non-Absoluteness:

A narrower version may be called the Principle of Dynamic Non-Identity:

At this checkpoint, I do not see my thought as a direct copy of one known theory.

However, almost every part of it intersects with existing fields:

This is important.

My task is not to naively claim that I have discovered a completely new physical law. My task is to determine whether there is a real conceptual niche where the idea can be developed responsibly.

Preliminary conclusion:

Modern physics is not built around one single absolute force. It describes several fundamental interactions, usually classified as gravitational, electromagnetic, strong, and weak interactions.

In that sense, my thought that there is no single absolute observable force does not directly conflict with the modern physical picture. Physics itself does not ordinarily describe reality as being governed by one visible mechanical force that suppresses all others.

However, I must be careful.

In physics, the word “force” is not merely a philosophical metaphor. It may refer to a concrete interaction, a field effect, a resulting influence, or a mathematically described quantity.

Therefore, if I use the word “force” too broadly, a physicist may reasonably object.

For a stricter version, it may be better to speak not only about “force,” but also about:

This makes the hypothesis more stable and less vulnerable to naive physical objections.

A strong intersection of my thought is the topic of symmetry.

In physics, symmetry may exist at the level of laws, while a concrete state of a system may break that symmetry. This is important for my idea: two forces or two processes may be symmetrical in an abstract model, but in a real open system, the symmetry of conditions almost never remains absolute.

My possible niche here is the following:

This does not reject symmetry. It makes symmetry a condition.

Here the risk of “this has already been said” is especially high.

Chaos theory and the theory of dynamic systems already show that small differences in initial conditions can produce large differences in later system behavior. This is close to my thought: two forces or two processes may begin as equal, but their trajectories can diverge across an ordered evolution.

However, my thought is broader than sensitivity to initial conditions.

I am not only saying that similar trajectories may diverge. I am making a more general claim:

Chaos theory may therefore be one scientific neighbor of this hypothesis, but it does not necessarily exhaust it.

My thought is also close to process philosophy, where reality is understood not primarily as a collection of static entities, but as becoming, change, and interaction.

However, my idea should not be reduced to the general statement that “everything flows” or “everything changes.”

I want to formulate a more specific thesis:

This gives the idea a more precise structure:

This is no longer only a philosophical intuition. It can become a framework for a scientific-philosophical hypothesis.

It is easy to draw a parallel between my thought and Heraclitus: everything flows, everything changes, and one cannot step into the same river twice.

However, I should not reduce the hypothesis to an ancient aphorism.

My thought is narrower and more modern:

Heraclitus may be a philosophical ancestor of this intuition.

But my possible niche is not the repetition of “everything changes.” My possible niche is the attempt to connect change with dynamic force, symmetry, open systems, and the impossibility of absolute identity.

Another important philosophical intersection is the principle of the identity of indiscernibles, often associated with Leibniz.

In a simplified form, this principle raises the question: if two things are absolutely indistinguishable in all properties, are they truly two different things?

My thought touches a similar issue but moves it into dynamics.

I am not asking only:

I am asking:

This is a different question.

Here, identity is not only identity of properties. It is identity of trajectories, influences, conditions, relations, and future changes.

Therefore, my thought may be framed as a dynamic version of the problem of identity:

The most dangerous mistake would be to formulate the idea too crudely.

I should not claim:

That statement is physically vulnerable. In mechanics, force does not necessarily stop motion. It may cause acceleration, change direction, produce deformation, or modify the state of a system in other ways.

A stronger version is:

I should also avoid saying too simply:

A more careful version is:

The most promising niche is not the declaration of a new physical force or a new fundamental law of nature.

A stronger niche is this:

Even shorter:

The isolated elements already exist:

The possible originality is in the combination.

In other words, my thought is not merely that “everything changes.”

It is that:

My intermediate conclusion is:

The strongest current formulation is:

At this stage, I record the idea not as a proven law, but as a working hypothesis.

It should be developed in three layers.

My thought may be summarized as follows:

This draft should later be checked against authoritative literature in at least the following areas:

This document is a first checkpoint.

The idea should be treated as a candidate authorial principle, not as a finished discovery.

The next useful step is to build a stricter version with definitions: