Your thinking here depends on the assumption that the universe can properly be thought of as "One body", as some sort of holistic whole. Why should I believe the universe is "One body?"
I remember Kant talked about the faliciousness of the idea of thinking of the universe as a holistic body. When I get home I'll try finding my Kant notes and figure out exactly what he says on this subject.
I have many reasons why the universe should be considered one body. But I didn't expect to find disagreement on that, so in all probability there may be rebuttals that I don't expect either.
For one thing, the universe is literally categorized as one. "The Universe" includes everything in spacetime and lumps it all into one category.
1) If you agree that everything consists of atoms, then what more is the universe except for atoms? Same can apply for anything, including energy. If there is a similar substance that everything composes of, doesn't that insist there is a single structure/object?
2) If you agree that the universe starts off as a singularity, and that the big bang isn't the creation of spacetime but rather the expansion of it, then the universe still is a singularity, except larger. In fact, if you go as far as to say that every bit of matter moving in the expanding spacetime, the universe is still the same exact singularity that it always has been, but only rearranging and spreading out.
3) If the entire universe, and thus everything that exists within it, are from the same source, that must mean it is all the same entity.
4) If you agree that the universe consists of energy and that all matter within it is condensed energy, and that all things are compounded by matter and matter alone then this energy must be shared with all of the universe.
5) If you agree that everything in existence is interdependent and that cause and effect applies to all of the universe, meaning that the entire universe responds to itself, that indicates that we are all part of the same flow and thus there is the One Flow that pertains to the Universe. We experience bits and pieces of this flow, which seem to be multiple flows, but the fact that this flow moves through all of the universe and causes "other" flows, proves that there is only one Flow, and from our perspective one flow consisting of many. From the entirety's perspective one flow bouncing off of the edges of the universe (non-literal). One flow that is constantly flowing and effecting itself in the process. There is only one Way that nature acts in, and we all are apart of its actions.
6) Wouldn't the fact that all of existence abides the same laws of physics mean that we are all One Thing, considering we're all bound to the same thing in the same way? That's one of my lesser arguments, because I can see how one might think not.
7) Similar to the One Flow, but this has less to do with the way the universe moves and more to do with how the universe shares itself. We are constantly losing particles and gaining particles. When we touch something this happens, when wind blows this happens, when we are hot and enter a cool room this happens, when we breath this happens. We all consist of elements FROM nature, that are constantly returning to nature. Everything that we compose of is IN the flow still, every single element that builds compounds we call objects. There isn't a separation, there aren't any 'objects', it's all illusion, there are only elements in constant motion, and there are patterns that we as conscious beings find, but there patterns are no more legit than finding shapes in the clouds.
I have many more ideas, but those are some off of the top of my head.
How is a Mother's love and a nuclear bomb supposed to be similar? lol
What you're saying is really interesting here.. but again it depends on the assumption that the universe is indeed some sort of holistic body, and I vaguely remember Kant explaining why this is problematic.
It's not really similar in an obvious scale. They are two entirely different things. I was speaking more on the ethical level. You were speaking of a mother's love as revealing that the Ultimate Reality is personal, but the wickedness around us as revealing it to be impersonal. It seems that you are suggesting that a mother's love is more objectively preferred than wickedness (and I enlisted a nuclear bomb as an example of wickedness). But that is illusion that comes with perception. With consciousness comes comparison between two different experiences, and preference is included. But this preference is illusion, there is no reason why a mother's love truly should be more preferred than a nuclear missile, at least to the eye of nature (or Ultimate Reality).
