2.1 Principles
In this section, we’ll be covering “principles”, which are at the heart of many of the core qualities (TCQs). The closest current definition of “principles,” in the way we’re using the term, is: “a basic truth that explains or controls how something happens or works.” ~Cambridge dictionary
PRINCIPLES AND TCQs
The original epiphany that led to The Big Answer was that everything we considered “bad” led to the deterioration or destruction of something. (Read more about this in the origin story.)
This then led to the question: what, exactly, is deteriorating or being destroyed? This led to the answer that it was the core elements that made something “what it was”, which I called “principles”.
That led to the next question: how can principles deteriorate or be destroyed? Answering this question is what led me to discover most of The Core Qualities (TCQs).
Briefly, as these are all covered in their own Shallow Dive, principles could deteriorate in quantity (Complexity) or quality (Order). If two things had equal Order and Complexity, but a calamity decreased or destroyed one thing’s principles and not the other’s, the one that came through unscathed was “better” and I called this “Stability”. Most things' principles required their “parts” to interact in a certain way, which I called their “Dynamics”. And when that dynamic needed resources, it led to the qualities of “Resourcefulness” and “Efficiency”.
In this way, the concept of things having principles, as well as an understanding of what principles are, is foundational for understanding The Core Qualities and, by extension, The Big Answer.
WHAT ARE PRINCIPLES? (TBA DEFINITION)
A “principle” can be thought of as the objective reason things are what they are and why they do what they do. Principles “define what something is or can be, as well as what it does or can do”.
Principles give rise to something’s features, characteristics, properties, behaviours, etc. But while we say something “has” features, characteristics, properties and behaviours, something “is” its principles. You, yourself, are a unique collection of principles that make you who you are.
You can think of principles like computer code. When you’re playing a video game, what you see are characters, vehicles, the ground, walls, furniture, lighting, etc., and they operate within the physics engine of the game. Every element of the game is defined by its underlying computer code. The game that you see is just that code in action. Similarly, in real life, everything we see and experience is merely a manifestation of objective principles in action, including people, furniture, animals, plants, ecosystems, and physics.
For example, a principle of water molecules is that they are polar - the hydrogen atoms go to one side of the oxygen atom, creating a slight positive charge on the hydrogen side and a slight negative charge on the side opposite the hydrogen atoms.
Furthermore, principles are emergent - one thing’s principles can combine with another thing’s principles to create entirely new principles. The principle of water molecules having polarity leads to the emergent principle of surface tension when many water molecules come together. This new principle leads to the emergent property of “wetness,” which leads to the emergent behaviour of coating a surface. This effect can only emerge from multiple molecules - one water molecule on its own can’t have surface tension and can't make something wet.
As another example, the letter ‘T’ has a set of principles (yes, we can create things with principles, too, such as language, culture, and economies), from the shape of the letter itself to the sound it makes. However, it lacks any principles of meaning or expression. If we combine it with other letters, such as T-R-E-A-T, it creates a word with the emergent principles of its definition and the emergent property of conveying meaning. If we combine that with another word, “tasty treat”, we now have the emergent principles of grammar and the emergent property of expressing a whole concept. This could interact with our own innate principles to cause the automatic, subconscious behaviour of salivating.
(Note: If you’re wondering how to distinguish between a principle and a property, characteristic, behaviour, feature, etc., I would say not to worry about it at this level. Since principles give rise to something’s properties, behaviours, characteristics, etc., when those start to break down, its principles are likely breaking down as well.)
ARE RULES PRINCIPLES?
If the rules of spelling and grammar are principles, does that mean we create principles by creating rules? Not quite. Principles arise from our actions in reality. Only when rules are followed in reality do they become principles, and only because people are doing it, not because it’s a rule. A rule on paper that no one followed wouldn’t be a principle. Conversely, there are many “unspoken rules" that we follow, and it’s because we follow them in reality that they are principles.
DOESN'T REFUSING TO FOLLOW RULES RESULT IN DISORDER?
The most defining strength of TBA is its applicability to both objective reality and our subjective interpretation of it. If we subjectively think there’s a rule, and it’s not being followed, we subjectively think that’s disorderly. But it may or may not be in reality.
Here’s a question for you: What if there was a rule that caused disorder? Is following it disorderly or orderly? Objective reality always takes precedence! For more clarity, check out the deep dive on rules vs principles.
DO PRINCIPLES REALLY EXIST IN REALITY?
Do principles actually exist, or are they just concepts? If there were nothing conscious in the universe, the universe would still operate as it currently does, according to the principles of gravity, electromagnetism, the fusion of stars, the creation of black holes, and the clumping of asteroids and planets, among others. Earth without conscious beings on it would still have waves and tides, mountains and valleys, earthquakes and volcanoes, seasons, and so on. No subjective, aware being needs to recognize principles for them to exist.
As conscious beings, we can perceive principles, describe them, and have a conceptual understanding of them, but that’s true of everything that exists. When you look at a rock, that rock actually exists in reality, as do the principles that define it. The fact that we can perceive, investigate, describe, and have a concept of that rock doesn’t mean the rock is “just a concept”. It’s the same with the rock’s principles.
To really hammer this home, even conscious beings with subjective awareness have objective principles that give rise to that conscious, subjective awareness. You are a product of the wiring of your brain, even if you’re not conscious of that wiring.
For example, the objective “principles” of our neural wiring and firing give rise to our conscious, subjective “principles” (our moral, ethical, and value frameworks). This neural wiring and firing is also the objective “reason” we consciously “reason” the way we do (or don’t!). They’re why we like The Beatles or chocolate chip cookie dough ice cream.
Further, as stated in the definition, principles not only define what things are and do, they also define what things “can be” or “can do”. Purple paint in complete darkness isn't reflecting the colour purple, but it's still purple paint because it “can be” purple when the light comes on. You may not know how you’d react in a certain situation, like a helicopter crash in the mountains, or you may not know that, actually, your favourite music would be bikutsi, you’ve just never heard it, but the principles that would determine that are still objectively there, present within you without your subjective, conscious awareness of them.
HOW DO WE DISCOVER PRINCIPLES?
First, our understanding of something’s principles can be wrong. Even about ourselves! We may think we’re someone we’re not. Even the most unreasonable person thinks they’re reasonable, right? When trying to understand the external world, we can make mistakes as well. We once thought things were flammable when they contained phlogiston, which was used up as it burned, and the flame went out when there was no phlogiston left. This was, of course, entirely wrong, but things continued to burn according to the actual principles of combustion, unaffected by our flawed thinking.
The more TCQs something has, the better it works, and this is no different for proposed “truths”. TBA explains that “true” concepts embody and enhance TCQs. This is talked about in the “Application” section. Generally, our subjective concept of reality tends to work more effectively the more aligned it is with objective reality. A subjective view that isn’t accurate but nevertheless increases the seven qualities can still be good, just probably not as good as a more accurate world model.
The times when a more accurate model of reality doesn't work are always due to us still missing some key piece of information. If someone thinks washing your hands makes the water spirits fight off disease-causing spirits, and you think they're wrong, your model of reality is closer to real reality. However, if you stop washing your hands, you might become sick. This negative outcome doesn't mean it's better to believe in spirits; rather, it highlights the need for more information about how reality works (viruses and bacteria in this case).
Addressing the question “How do we recognize a principle is present?” - the seven qualities themselves point to principles being present. Many people instantly think of order as a hallmark of principles, but that order could be the result of random chance. If, however, that order is also creating something complex, if it's stable, if it arises consistently and repeatedly as the result of a particular dynamic interplay, etc., then that makes it more and more likely that a principle is behind it. So, principles are evident through the observable increase in the seven qualities. There is much more on this in the "Application” section.
ARE PRINCIPLES POINTLESS?
Some people counter that literally everything must be principles, and therefore, it’s a pointless concept. Not quite. A rock tumbling down a hill will follow all the principles of gravity and friction, and conservation of energy, etc., which means that where it ends up at the bottom of the hill is entirely and totally consistent with principles, right?
Well, yes, but there’s no overarching reason it ended up where it did beyond its starting point and the terrain. Conversely, grains of sand in the desert being blown by the wind will spontaneously form ripples, some atoms will spontaneously form crystals, etc., these are orderly because they do have principles that guide the process and lead to a non-random outcome.
Imagine a Pachinko machine that you drop six numbered balls into (numbered 1 through 6). They would follow all their principles as they knocked and bounced their way down, but you would expect them to be in a random order at the bottom, with some stacked, some slots empty, etc. For example, they might reach the bottom like this:
|3|2|5|1|6|4|
You wouldn’t expect to see:
|1|2|3|4|5|6|
Because there’s no reason, no principle guiding them to fall in that order. What if they did? Would that mean there’s a principle?
If they just randomly happened to fall that way, then no. If something randomly and spontaneously occurs that we subjectively interpret as order, but there's no reason behind it, then there's no principle. Of course, if we repeated the experiment and the balls landed in order every time, over and over, then we could start to expect that there is a principle or two involved!
WHY ARE "PRINCIPLES" NOT A TCQ?
For one, principles aren't qualities of something; they're what something is.
Two, principles themselves are not automatically good or bad. They, themselves, are judged based on whether or not they lead to an overall, broader increase or decrease of TCQs.
For example, arsenic has principles that, if ingested by an organism, will cause rapid deterioration and eventual “destruction” (death) of that organism. So arsenic’s principles are “bad” for you because they lead to a decrease in TCQs. A person who is a compulsive liar, or a government that siphons money from the country into the pockets of oligarchs, are further examples of principles that are “bad” because they decrease TCQs on a broader scale.
That's why TCQs are separated from the principles themselves. If a principle undermines TCQs, it’s a “bad” principle. Conversely, a “good” principle will generally increase TCQs.
Three, when TCQs change, they do so simply by increasing or decreasing, signalling improvement or deterioration. But something's principles can change drastically without there being any change in TCQs - no improvement or deterioration/destruction at all.
When we see a change in something, that could be because different principles are being brought out, (such as a mean person turning to mush around puppies), or something could be changing in accordance with its principles, (like a baby growing), or the principles could actually have changed, (like a major life event changing someone's personality for better or worse).
So, principles changing doesn’t necessarily signal deterioration. It’s only bad if the new principles aren’t followed as well (decreased order), or there are fewer principles overall (decreased complexity), or the new principles undermine stability, or otherwise undermine TCQs. If the principles changed in ways that increased all these, then that would be good. If there’s no change in TCQs, it’s simply neutral.
Of course, this is speaking objectively. But, as with other areas we can apply TBA to, it also explains our subjective perception of good and bad.
If you subjectively understood the old principles but not the new ones, you might subjectively see the change as bad. This could be social progress, or it could be a new version of your favourite video game that changes a bunch of things, or your romantic partner could do a bunch of self-improvement that baffles you, and you prefer the “old” version of them. TBA is objective, so your subjective view would be objectively wrong, though this may not be entirely comforting to you.
This is why principles, themselves, while being at the root of TCQs, are not actually one of them.
CONCLUSION
Understanding principles is crucial, not only for grasping TCQs, but also for applying this understanding in real-world contexts.
