The axiom proposed in the previous entry, that nothing exists outside of nature, must apply even to theoretical realms, regions of space, materials, phenomena, etc., that lie somewhat outside the scope of current theory or have so far not been directly observed, like parallel universes, hidden dimensions, heretofore undetected particles, dark matter and dark energy; provided, of course, their existence can be conclusively demonstrated.

In actuality it makes little sense to apply such attributes as "parallel", "alternate", "dark", or "multiple" in relation to the various proposed extentions to the portion of the observed universe already described to the general satisfaction of scientists, as any such extension would apply only to the human understanding of the thing, and not to the thing understood.  

However exotic or strange a phenomenon we might encounter, each new discovery is necessarily contiguous or coexstensive with aspects of the universe already known and understood, even if a discovery should radically alter the theoretical basis of that understanding. Otherwise, we would have no choice but to consider that the universe (or "nature", in the sense I have been using the term) is only as extensive as our limited conception of it presently allows!

Only one absolute

Although nature, as I have maintained, does not traffic in absolutes, the entirety of nature is itself absolute, existing in relation to itself only, for there is nothing that exists outside of nature. Therefore, if there is to be any absolute, there is only one, and it is to be identified with the whole (ὅλος), and not with any of its parts (μέλη). 

Hammer heads

Regarding the question of intelligence, commenting on what I said earlier, I should also note that it would be just as wrongheaded to think of sharks as being the pinnacle of evolution, or in some way more advanced than another species, simply on the basis of their evolutionary longevity, or indeed any other characteristic, as it would be to think of humans as the apex of evolutionary sophistication on the basis of intelligence. 

Nature does not traffic in absolutes, and while the characteristics of one species are necessarily entangled with those of others, their ultimate value is always accounted for at the level of the individual. For this reason, it's actually possible that intelligence could be a "desirable" characteristic, but if this be so, it is only because we ourselves desire it! And since the object of this desire is something that can only be known and understood by means of its own operation, by way of its very existence, it follows that this desire is at root, in actuality, a reflection of the natural regard and affection we have for ourselves and creatures that resemble us. 

It is not, although it appears this way out of a total necessity, a universal quality or characteristic having any substantive existence outside our own peculiar assessment, somewhat akin to the persistent illusion that the sun travels around the earth -- rather than the reverse.   

The principle referred to in the previous entry is also at play in the sphere of education and learning in general. A teacher, for instance, cannot directly "cause" a student to learn (no external force could accomplish this), they can only engender conditions favorable to the student furnishing their own comprehension of the material, guiding them to take their own steps toward understanding. Genuine knowledge cannot be implanted in another mind, or simply imitated; the work is always done by the learner themselves, despite the process occuring optimally (in the majority of cases) in the presence of suggestion, demonstration, illustration, guidance, etc., provided by an instructor or by works of reference.