2.2.1 Entropy

Section 18. (first updated 12.30.2020)

Chaos is NOT scattered within an indiscernible area of space. This means that the disconnect between any set of discernible objects does NOT happen within an endless and unlimited area of space, but rather, the idea of “space” is always indivisible from any object disclosed within it. Chaos in other words, is always contained by a rational, meaning a discernible form exhibiting figure. Form is first in this magnitude relation with the opposite of itself, i.,.e an entropic state, being an indeterminable state of forms.

The “unavailability” of a system is simply a lack of observer discerning an infinite state of uncertainty. The question of chaos concerns the number of “possible” set of events or scenarios that may or may-not occur within a confined area of space. The area wherein a chaotic system is confined ‘within’ is NOT the initial condition(s) that are thought to have ‘no’ known discernible origin. Any area of space has an indivisible feature, which is a measure of time. This means that an area of space simultaneously also happens and occurs, while also being absent from existence. How can space NOT be “there”, when it is the initial conditions for a lack of object? This assumption does NOT hold if the object of our question is itself space, which is a lack of object. Within any area of space, there is always something happening. Time allows for space to exists, and space in its lack of existence, allows time to manifest a series of concuring events, each occupying a parallel position in space, such that from a first, second, and third dimensional point of view, they exhibit form for an observer disclosing that process within an object outside itself in space.

Synonym for chaos is the subword ”dis-order” derived from its predicate, order. Any disassociation of a word from its negative follows a hierarchal structuring of one being more fundamental than the other. The question of order, or how things follow each other in a certain particular kind of way, answers to the opposite state, which concerns how this order takes on an indefinite sum of possible ways. The disassociation of order is captured by the wording ”chaos” because

We all have this question, whether the circumstances the individual finds themselves in are accidental or determined? Are the events happ to the observer chosen or given? If we put it in this wording, either way means that some activity is being determined by some “thing”. If an event is chosen, then the observer determined a single event into occupying the present moment out of a spectrum of different other possible events that may occupy either the future or the past.

When an event is given, it still means that same observer has determined something for some other observer who was not the author of the determination but nevertheless the recipient of the experience. The former means they stumbled upon there without intending to do so, or having been placed against their will; while the latter refers to the determination of choosing one circumstance over another. Both of these dual aspects concern the way chaos turns into order, which is exactly the process of how consciousness in an infinite sense finds itself in a particular state.

The answer to free will and determinism is related to the understanding of the proper relation between order and chaos. There are many different kind of accidence, like a car accident, a slipping accident etc., or in other words, every life to some degree is chaotic, whether that be working at a stock market office or being homeless, both are a chosen kind of chaos, the question is, which chaos did the individual choose.

Trembling

There is a psychological state that is rather unexplored by modern philosophy or psychoanalytic. The condition of “trembling”, which everybody experiences to some degree, whether they are conscious or unconscious of, is a mental state rather than only a physiological reaction.

Trembling does NOT have to be “fear” although it could be because what the mind realizes that trigger the physical reaction of trembling, is the following phenomenon in nature. The mind intuitively at an unconscious level recognizes that there is no continuity as it made out its environment seem to appear. The mind evolutionarily developed the capacity to view time as a duration where one moment instantaneously follows the next, they flow together into the same sequence and this sequence appears full, connected and would.

Time and space are both seen in this manner by the ordinary operations of the mind. There is a synonymous simultaneity between the sequence of time where one moment automatically follows the next, and the environment appears to be a continuous solid extension of space, filled with things and having no void or missing parts within it. However this perception is only the evolution of a sector perspective, that an organism developed on an environment on earth, in a certain environment exhibiting a certain size and mass as compared to the total nature of size and mass present in the universe.

The reoccurring examine we will use throughout this inquiry is that the moment you leave the planet earth and embark into outer space, space no longer appears continuous, the universe consists of discrete spherical points of mass generally held together by an implicit, unknown to the sense mass known as gravity. While space appears to be filled from one point of view, it is entirely void, disconnected and discrete from another. Therefore any in-between pause, or void in space is filtered out by the mind evolving in the environment. But the mind intuitively still recognizes a very essential aspects of time, is that moments do NOT continue into each other as a flowing stream of the same mass, they are rather discrete, scattered and disconnected, but they are all simultaneously present, and the conception of the organism meditates between such moments, and determines one over the other. This determining of ‘one’ over the ‘other’ causes what appears to be a duration heading into a definite direction. We think that we are conscious most of the time, but the reality is that we are only conscious on maintaining this liquidity of time flowing onto space forming the specific vision of the environment. We are only consiouse

The reason for this is the evolutionary need to focus on a specific object, e.g., like food, that is necessary for the continued occupancy of consciousness within that body. The process it needs to continue being itself is the same as the process that brought it into being itself. Trembling is the reaction to the recognition that there is no real stability as seems to be presented by the evolutionary adaption of the kind to time and space. But rather the mind is always in constant unisex with the vibrations of spacetime. The body is so in harmony with the vibration of each conception disclosed within the same duration, that reality almost seems still, and moves in a a very controlled and dynamical process, like the heavenly bodies are locked to each other through a gravitational force, so to is our consciousness locked with the present moment.

There are two common assumptions about chaos that are inconclusive; first that chaos is scattered, and second that chaos is too many, innumerable. Both of these consists of an indefinite number of incomprehensible variations so that nothing can be picked out, which is also what “unpredictable”means. The reason why nothing comprehensible can be picked out when things are scattered is because there is too much space between them where an innumerable sets of events can potentially happen so as to make the two separate points unrelated from each other. Second, chaos is also not “too many” things but rather a definite number of things. The reason why chaos is a limited set of number is related to the reasons why chaos is not scattered. In more terms, chaos is not scattered because it is disclosed by the fact that it is not too many but by the fact that it is too little. In other words, any indefinite number of things is disclosed precisely as an indefinite number of things, or that the infinite number of things is precisely limited by itself as infinite, and so the infinite itself discloses itself into a single conception of an infinite of things, the problem is that within that conception there is an infinite of things, each of which take on a single form and are separate from each other as disclosing infinity into a finite number set of things, that being itself. This is the steps to turning chaos into order, which is a misleading claim, because during the transformation one does not cease in place of the other, but rather both become integrated into the same entity component. A primal example is the fish eye lens point of view, or our human 3 dimensional first person point of view. These are integrations of infinity into a finite form, and having an infinity of these finites.

Consciousness squeezes all the objects within the same finite discloser, but that discloser is finite in being one of the many objects disclosed within the discloser of another conception limited to its finite discloser within an object. So there is an equal infinity of conception disclosing an infinity of objects, this is the wormhole within the wormhole,

Within my conception there is an infinite of things, within the conception of the other I am one of the many things.

Topic of entropy

How chaos is involved in forming order is the main topic of entropy. The main principle of entropy is that in the transition of energy exchange between any two ordered systems external from each other involves an element of chaos — which is informed by the idea of randomness that defines being unpredictable. Disorder in this sense means that there is an aspect in the relation between two things that is irrelevant, or that is not relevant to both; which is to shows how both components in the relation may not be exactly relevant to each other. What it means to be “irrelevant” generally is addressed by the element of unpredictability in the relation between two things. For example, if I am scrolling through the pictures on my smart phone looking for an item like a suitcase or a shoe, but in the process I stumble upon a picture of my girlfriend, the picture of her grasps my attention because she is giving me a leering look as if she is really looking at me through that image, but this is not relevant to my initial aim of looking for an item.

I can say that the image is a dead still figure capturing a past moment in time that is no longer relevant to the present. However the relevancy is obvious in the cases when the person in the image and my girlfriend in real life both represent the same thing, the same undergoing entity we identify as a person that involves the same looks and emotions, the image is based on the person which is assumed to act, behave, appear, in a certain way agreeable with the observer. Moreover the image and my girlfriend in real life also share the similarity of coexisting within the same time, this means that there is always a general movement more fundamental than any two or more numbers of opposing determinations grouped within it.

The ordinary measure of time conforms with this definition because time is generally viewed as a non-resting movement heading in one direction nonstop. Clocks for example conform to this measure by seconds leading into minutes, and minutes leading into hours, and hours leading into days and days leading into weeks, and weeks leading into months and months leading into years etc., time never stops moving forward. It is by this standard of measure why you can never have the same moment twice, you can have two moments after one another, but never the same exact one two times. As the famous ancient Heraclitus says “no man ever steps in the same river twice, for it’s not the same river and he’s not the same man”. This means that every passing moment is never repeated but a slightly different one is newly conceived because there is an infinity of potential moments and to go through every single one of them requires not having repeating any one of them. However this linear measure of time as always moving forward, never stopping, and constantly passing away and coming into being, is an abstraction from the other and opposite determination of time.

This general movement is itself the infinite continuum of all possible events orbiting around any singly conceived point within that continuum. This latter explanation is a reiteration of the common “cosmological principle” which states that the centre of a sphere is always any point picked out on its surface. In other words, the position of a centre point is determined by an observer. The observer is the event disclosing around all possible motions of infinity and capturing that only an aspect of one of its particular moments. Keep in mind, just because a particular moment is picked out from an indeterminable infinite amount of possible moments, it does not mean that it is randomly picked out from the bunch. The infinite bundle Heraclitus call “flux”, that “All is flux, nothing stays still” can nevertheless have a general direction forming a pattern constituting a sequence exhibiting a narrative.

It is this moment we call the “present”, which is an abstracted particular section, or a duration limited by the two discernibly – distance points- that form an unrelated relation. This form can only be achieved when a small section from all the infinite fabric of space time, is made to stretch and warp around the space where the infinite flux of all possibilities does NOT lie, which is itself only an infinitely minute point. The form of the conception takes on the objective point-of-view where ‘near’ is bigger, and farther away is ‘smaller’. These relative variations in size extend to form the first person point of view. It is like a cone where the larger part is furthest away from the centre observer, and the smallest point is the inner part closest to the observer.

Infinity is internally compact within each object compiling it, this is the internal point of view as opposed to the external mediated by the observer as the centre point where infinity expands outwards towards larger magnitude as opposed to inwards for small minute magnitude.

constitutes a fixed central point for which the rotation of all possible objects carry out a general trend simultaneously rotating around it. This fixed centre point is not a position in space because any position in space carries out with it a simultaneous co-existing of opposite other ways of going about occupying a different position, left, right, up, down, 360 degrees tilt to the side from a 180 degree rotation to the left etc., these are all random possible directional determinations of an observer within 3-dimensional spacetime. However to the disclosing two different objects acting in opposing motions. and if she felt that way at that point in time she may feel the same way at a later point in time. However it still remains unclear as to her relevancy with my initial motive of looking for an item. Her image just happened to catch my attention while I was scrolling through the images.

this so called random instance is not so very random by its very entropic nature because for one thing, all these instances captured by the images, which appear to be irrelevant to each other, share in the relation of being randomly distributed amongst each other. But this random distribution although consists of things not relative to each other, are all relevant to the observer. Although the shoe I’m looking for to buy for my self is not relevant to my girlfriend, both are relevant to me, and in being relevant to me, both are relevant to each other, for instance my girlfriend would be looking at the she if I buy it. While the image I randomly stumbled upon is not relevant to me at the moment it is observed, it is still ultimately relevant to me either in a future moment or accords a series of other moments that complies my life.

Every actions bring about with it a number of other actions

The relation between different moments in time intimately define how objects are dispersed across relative points in space. For example, when we look out into the sun, from a purely physical explanation, the sun is a high concentration density of energy, light, heat, etc., elements that can be sensed abs observed. More implicitly the sun is ultimately the combustion of an infinite amount of particles collapsing onto each other.

If we alter the ordinary rate at which time appears to move for an observer, notice there is an increased rate of entropy, meaning that the energy state at which it exists changes. Altering the rate of time can be done by infinitely zooming out of a planet such that it is the size of a particle, and speeding up the rate at which it orbits around a sun into an infinite speed so that it is no longer a particle point of energy but a wave length, than changing its position around its star into every possible position so that over all periods of time it can occupy all positions around its star. If all this is done instantaneously, the particle point changes into a sphere of energy. Now imagine an infinite number of particle points all simultaneously occupying all positions at the same time. This is exactly the condition that the sun is in.

Earths magnetic field resembles only one of the many magnetic currents on the surface of the sun.

An organism of form- all the forms contained within one energy ball and than assimilated into a distribution of other forms, I.e., planets containing the further possibilities for the forms to evolve, as Pierce says, Plato‘s Forms “evolve” and are not static

In an ultimate state of time, the earth is just one of the many infinite collapsed particle points. It is the destruction of all the particles in the future that necessitates and maintains the existence of them as each individual particles in the past.

Earth one of its possible forms that took on another dimension of the forms themselves developing into self determining organisms.

When we look out into a star like the sun we are not just seeing a concentrated high density object of energy, but we are actually seeing the universe at a late stage in time, i.e., at a later time period. A star like the sun is the universe in a later time because it is also one of the oldest objects. The sun being among the oldest objects in the universe is equivalent to it being the universe at the later time period. This perpetuates our ontological presupposition that the universe is not only a spatial place but it is also a place of time. In other words, every possible moment is already out there in the universe, it just has to be arrived at by the observer.

The star is one of an infinite illustration of the universe. In other words, a star is one universe of an infinity of other universes. The processes happening in a star is the implicit process that is universally happening among total reality generally. A star is a final stages of time because it is also the beginning, the Big Bang theory suggests that in the beginning there is an infinitely dense singularity that exploded, and it is the explosion that initiated all known matter that comprises the universe. Even if this is true, we can speculate, in purely physical terms, the moments before the explosion of the dense singularity is when the singularity reached the highest densest point. Of course this talk is inconsistent with a true definition of a singularity because an infinity cannot not have a change in degree of itself otherwise those differences in its measure would constitutes it as undergoing finite stages of a process, if it was hotter at a later point than an earlier point for example, that means it’s energy was less finite at one point than another, therefore it is not infinite for all time, but something not infinite for all time reaffirms the fact that it is finite if it is only a certain state at one point and ceases to be that state in another point.

It is for these reasons that the idea of a Big Bang where everything is a transition out of nothing, or that finitude comes out of infinitude, does not provide a proper outline of the relation between nothing and being, or infinity and finiteness. Finitude does not come out of infinity because infinity is an unchanged, constant, impenetrable, unalterable process and so finitude must therefore belong to a different element adjacent to infinity, or that some element must have escaped infinity to be the finite aspect in relation to it, and this finite aspect is the conception of infinity into abstractions.

What we understand as finite are the limited conception of infinity into particular moments occupying a limited duration of time. This works in the following way: At an infinite state there cannot be a conception of a finite component because a finite object would need to occupy a particular position in space. However if a finite object is infinite it’s number would be uncountable and there would be innumerable amount of itself, each of which would be trying to occupy a position in space. This means that there would be an infinite positions of space that must be occupied by an infinite amount of objects. The issue of infinity is that if there is an infinite amount of objects trying to occupy an infinite amount of places in space, each single object in the infinite number of objects must occupy each single position in the infinite number of positions, but this must be done an infinite number of times. This means that each single object must occupy However each object in the infinite number of object

All objects are trying to occupy all positions, but in order to do that, all objects must occupy the first same position

An infinity of objects all occupying the same position is impossible because they would be occupying the position of where the other one is, they would be occupying each other, collapsing into each other

The light from star reflecting on its solar system, is reflecting moments of time, the events happening on the planet, are moments of time, all leading to the end state, which is the star, the past of the star are the events happening on the planet.

Each star has a solar system, and there is an infinity of stars each with solar system, imagine the star being the particle state and the moments between there impact, or rather, the moments after the impacted the flashes resulted from the impact, are the moments of time making up the life duration of an entire solar system and its history.

Unspecialized knowledge in space often stops short at only seeing planets revolving around stars, but often forgets that solar systems also revolve around other solar systems.

The compilation of all these solar systems orbiting around other solar systems is called a “galaxy”. The millions of stars and billions of planets moving in unisons, held together by gravitational attraction, forms a system that looks like each and every single or solar system that is contained within it.

The distance between any 2 stars is mediated by first, in the general sense, relations between other states, and second, in the particular sense, is meditated by the relation of planets. All energy of planets is directly derived from the star they orbit, however they indirectly also derive energy from a planet the planets are not orbiting, but that the star they orbit is orbiting.

This means that the relationship between stars is meditated by their planets. Planets on an infinite scale of time, are the moments, like sparks from a fire, of the stars coming closer to each other and their energies merging causing a clash of a reaction. The planets are on some level the content filling in the flash between the energies of interacting stars, like when two photons collide, their flash reveals the extent of other randomly distributed potential photons.

In spacetime works backwards than how time is assumed to be moving forward based on our observation. When we observe a phenomena in space, like planets moving around a star, we see the planets at a particular moment in a process, they are present in time and moving forward in time, say they are aging. However this process towards the inevitable annihilation of a planet and the eventual death of a star, is viewed as a certain direction of time without the view of the cause of the star and planets originating into being, which is another direction of time, that contradicts the first.

The assumption is that of course it came into being, in order for it to enter into death, and so from this view one pint leads into the other, they transition into each forming the same continuous stream. However in their meaning the beginning of a process and the end by nature contradict each other by coming from opposing direction towards the same point, I.e., when a thing ends it is not beginning and when a thing begins it is not ending, these are opposite determinations.

The two points coming together to form a circle are coming from opposite directions. However it is also true that when a thing ends this assumes a new beginning and when a thing begins it’s process is now one towards ending. The vJew from the observation that a process is heading towards some end point, fails to see that this process is an actualization of a process that was set out to do this. The process that is set out to do something is the beginning, abs the process that actually goes through by setting it out is the end.

Chance

The concept of chance is generally understood as meaning disorder and randomness. These mean that chance is the development of events in the absence of design and or the occurrence of events by accident. This also means that chance is the negation of reason, which has the semantic meaning of purpose, aim and or goal, which requires that there be order, structure for the process towards the actualization of the goal, which requires steps that presuppose and build on each other. Chance however also has the semantic meaning of opportunity or rather, the probability of something happening. And from this meaning, chance presupposes and supplements the meaning of reason.

The first meaning of chance we stated is actually the efficient meaning in relation to the first, because the idea of disorder and randomness is precisely the state whereby opportunity and probability are found because in a perfect state of structure or order, there is no other probability than the state itself, and thus reason requires a state beyond itself that lacks order and this constitutes the purpose that defines reason as the structuring and ordering of it. 

#38- Negation of negation (the dialectical movement of inversion)

The difference between reason residing in the Understanding in contrast to Reason as a general principle in the world, is based on the nature of the activity- Energeia- act or actuality. Aristotle distinguished between two kinds of phases associated with the activity. There is the passive and the active. Energeia is the actual nature of reason- or as the Greeks called it- Logos. Reason according to the Greeks is activity- it’s very nature is an act- an energetic force and movement. Energeia is compart-mental-ized as capability or a capacity. Activity understood as a capacity for action assumes a passive process of deriving something, or rather a place where this activity can happen or equally something receptive to the act, this place is in one sense called “mind” as in the case of classical psychology, mind as a blank slat, gets filled with the object, or in the case of natural science, environment and mind form an indivisible bond by sense precepts, nature therefore is the place where activities happen. In both these instances the rational principle is made passive to an activity explained independently or therefore distinctively. In philosophy however it is this activity that comes out of nowhere and to which the mind is inept of predicting that is ascribed as the fundamental form of the mind itself. In other words, philosophically speaking mind is an active agent that initiated an activity into being, then becomes unconscious of initiating the activity, but then develops consciousness of the presence of the activity and that this activity is fundamentally rational, the mind returns to itself after upon ignorance of itself. This logic is based on the assumption that any passive capacity that allows something to happen is enabling it to happen.

One generic definition defines the activity as that which is occurring or being done. From this definition we can reduce activity to two kinds of occurrences: first, any activity occurs with order and intent. This understanding of the activity possess a teleological notion- that any activity aims at achieving some purpose and the process towards purpose involves a kind of order and organization to make the achievement of the purpose possible, or that the purpose itself necessities some kind of order to achieve it. For example, the purpose of building a house requires a structural organization of roof on top of the head to stop the rain, walls to keep out the wind and Nancy other nature.

Second, activities occur with randomness and by chance. This understanding suggest that activities are inherently chancy and random. The way scientific materialist see the relationship between order and disorder or purpose and chance, is that from disorder there occurs order but than it is strange to say from chance you derive purpose. The materialist separate the mental aspect of disorder from the physical. This is fine simply for the reason that mental existence of chaos, disorder in the mental sense is just ignorance, or lack of knowing something, something unknown, so to admit this introduces into the theory the aspect of its lack of knowledge, which then contradicts the theory altogether since it’s sole purpose is to propose a definite, concise and clear demonstration of an unknown phenomenon, while in the physical domain the idea of disorder is more clearer because it is a disoriented system that is exhibited for the mind such that the chaos is not found in the sensible faculty but is therefore present for it in the object. This notion however makes one implication that the object being received has no mental aspect of its own because what is conceiving it has one. For example if I am looking at a rock, a tree, any lifeless object before me, I claim these are inanimate things without mind and I am an animate being with a mind. However this incapacity into the description of things is claimed by virtue of lacking nuance. Rocks have small life forms living on their surface.

They say that generally speaking any purpose is in fact derived from chance therefore cancelling out any notion of any ultimate purpose, h. This understanding occurring to Aristotle is false. For Aristotle (find Peirce talking about chance) chance is a result from order or that disorder is itself a rational principle because it is set out that way, to mix the pot per say (about chance, metaphysics 5;39;02). That the nature of order is chancy but that does not exclude any absolute end, and it also means that chance only exists with some underlining order, otherwise there would be nothing to subsists disorder. For example, in the universe, space and time are elements of order that necessitate the disordered annihilation of matter and antimatter. 

An example that points to the difference of the understanding to reason concerns the concept of time.

For the understanding time is made into an abstracted cycle- the clock for example demonstrates a 12 interval times 2. Each 12 hour interval captures the natural cycle of sunrise and sunset. Our understanding o time is based on that particular aspect of reason- that there is a cycle of sunrise and sunset. But this is a very particular activity of time that the understanding makes into an abstractions, stripes it away from its content, replaces it with 24 hour numerical scale, so as to allow that as a mark for our basic activities, sleep and wake up and everything in-between. Time understood universally is however the emegeria in nature. It is active because it is enteral, passive because it is devoid of any content. 

The negation of negation begins as passive because it has potentiality of being but that being is not yet actual, and so that passive activity externalizes it’s potentiality as an object that is actual, but that object is only actually potential and so it is still passive because it still requires actualization. In this negation of negation we have the active element where the object as a potential receives the potential that is actual- and that is the actuality. 

(See Descartes stick in water)

Those who think they have the most concrete proof for things, when the demonstrations they point to are closely examined, we can see that their so called concrete “facts” exhibit as much of an abstract nature as the most abstract of all principles in metaphysics. The materialist reference matter as their indubitable proof for being, but to point at matter does not more than to state the obvious that something clearly exists. The question is what is the nature of this existence? When we ask ‘well what is this object that we call matter’ the empiricist references the atomic structure at the base of it because these atoms they say can be seen when we change the magnitude by magnifying the object to its most extreme degree. However it is a naive proposition to suggests that just because we can see something that itself explains what it is. In fact sometimes seeing something might exhibit the opposite of what it is, or rather provide a skewed conception of what it is; like we see in the crude materialist sense, they see the atoms as little components that connect together to form the object. And so atoms are understood as blocks that fit together like pieces of a puzzle and are said themselves to be objects. In a sense to say that objects are made out of atoms is in a crude way to say that objects are made out of more objects, which is crude because even if things are made out of more things it does not explain what fundamentally is a thing, which is what the proper science as also a philosophical system seeks to answer.

If we deconstruct further what an atom is, an atom is said to consists of the following: a proton which is a positive electrical charge, this means that an proton is always stable enough to be present for observation. A neutron which is without an electric charge is unstable enough to never be perceived but is deduced to be there by indirectly influencing proton interaction with election, it keeps them together and not repulsing apart, in other words it is like a membrane of the atom. An electron is negatively charged which means it’s presence and non-presence is unpredictable such that when it will be present for observation and when it will not be present cannot be pinned down. The atom which is the basic block, or the basic thing, is meant to be the totality of these forces, but these so called independent forces that form the components of the atom are actually compartmentalizations of different moments of the same substance proving different results of itself. For example, a proton being positively charged emits the most heat out of the atom and since it is the heaviest constitutes most of the mass, the electron however has greater velocity and is faster than the proton.

If we look at the components of an atom purely by their behavioural characteristics, we see that they are different moments of the same timeline, and an atom discloses this timeline into an entity, or a uni-verse. when an electron is in a rest state it is a proton, when a proton is in an unstable state it is a neutron, and when a neutron is in a certain state it is an electron. They glide or rather transition into each other, but because they are in a quantum state, or rather where time and space are quantified as simultaneously the exact same instantaneity, every moment has a spatial extension, and there is no sense of what we ordinarily have of things passing by or away.

atom is taken as the solid foundation for proving that ‘things are material and nothing else’,

The process of Reason involves the negation of negation. What this means is that in potentiality Reason exists as the infinite- it is the possibility for anything to be true. The process whereby its potentiality turns into actuality is done through a negation of itself. The negation of the infinity is a finite, the problem is that infinity is uncertain because it is indeterminately everything and not a single thing, it therefore exhibits an unclear conception for perception in the sense that perception always reaches a limit when looking at a defined set of finite things, either something too far is unclear, or something too close and small within is unclear. From the limited point of view, the world already exhibits a finite principle, everything is particular and limited, however it seems as if to arrive at infinity from the finite point of view is impossible. Inversely if we ask how did an infinite world get to become finite, it also seems equally impossible.

Reason as potentiality is first off a negation because it is not yet something actual – so reason as potentiality is negative truth. In order to make that potentiality into actuality it negates itself. The negation of itself is the move for bringing its potentiality into reality, how? Because when it negates itself that negation takes on a concrete form inversely to what it is as potentiality, so it’s negation becomes its actuality- but that negation as actuality is itself negative and so is not actually what it is, but rather the negation is its potentiality that is actuality. When it’s negation is actual, Reason as the negative potential of itself is negation for that negation which is now the potential that is actual. And so there is now a negation of negation between what reason as potentially true (which is negative because it is not yet actual) and reason as the negation of that potentiality which is now actual (the negation of potentiality is true but because it is the negation of that negation it is negatively actual) the negation of negation produced positive which still has inherently in it the negation of itself. Each negation is infinitely true to what reason is as potentiality which is also infinitely true. The negation of negation is equally infinity in negation with infinity, which produces the finite. The finite is the limit that the infinite reaches, that limit of the infinite is itself. The finite is the limit where the infinite nature of reason becomes the object.

The object is the external idea to the Reason- and the object is this negation of negation- which in relation produce a positive nature. That positive nature is the self-identity of reason with its thought. Reason is whole with its idea in the object, but only so far as that object is a finite actuality of its infinite potentiality. In the finite actuality it still has within itself the negation of negation of infinite potentiality culminating into the self-identity of itself as the infinity. It’s telos is to self-identify with its infinity. But this process itself takes on a finite nature and so it looks like a result that is at the same time a process. 

——–

(After series of events)

(Add matter hyle-)

(Add string theory)

The symbol for chaos for example is a figure of arrows pointing in every direction. This is meant to show that chaos is a set of contradictory determinations all happening at once, or in the most ultimate sense it is all things happening all at once. Chaos is not the lack of happening as in the case when chaos is associated with destruction, I.e, the annihilation of a thing. chaos is the hyper acceleration of everything happening all at once.

Chaos is derivative from the principle of potentiality because not having a definite aim renders an element of the unknown from which the possibilities of what may happen supposes that there is lack of control of destiny. We say potentiality is chaos because it exhibits an unknown principle, uncertainty is a fundamental aspect of the universe, I.e., nature itself does not know, not because it lacks information, as in the case when a human lacks knowledge, but to the contrary, it is the place that contains infinity of information, all information at once, and so it is for this reason the aspect of infinity poises a challenge for itself, it can only know itself in a limited manner, not only because there is ‘too much” and it’s not-knowing is knowing too little, but because this ‘too much’ is itself the limit, it has already reached the full capacity, the full extent of what is to know, and so therefore its knowing itself is a reductionism of itself, nature breaks down itself into components that can only derive a limited understanding, a specialized field of knowing per say, knowing a small part of itself, and it takes the collective knowledge derived from all things, their experiences and conceptions, as the totality of infinite knowledge, this collective knowledge of all life forms is evolution itself; the representation of itself through time.

the symbol of chaos has a fundamentally ordered principle, that the relation of all possible directions is itself the dictation from which a particular aim is picked out. We see for instance that when one side of the earths continent is facing the light of the sun, the other face of the continent is facing away from the light. This distinction is abstraction from spherical motion which encompasses both sides as potentially facing the light and potentially away from the light. A sphere attenuated to a spectrum its proper form constituting it as a self relation of potential distinctions encompassed by their potential capacity to be differentiated. The motion is spherical because it encompasses every side of the surface. The centre is therefore not some particular position but the spectrum of all possible relations encompassed as a route or passage of determining activity.

There are a few things to notice when having an ordinary view of how things appear, as opposed to how they actually are. while the two points do not conflate they are not necessarily in conflict, or that their conflict makes sense why one view is so drastically different than the other. Science must explain how the appearance of things is demonstrated by how they actually are. Here we are speaking about two different views about the present moment at any given time, that things appear one way external to the observer and at the same time they are conceived internally different, or in other words, when you look internally into any thing it exhibits an entirely different nature than how it looks from the view external to it.

From the outside there is extensive order, from the inside there is chaos.

Chaos in this sense is not disorder in the sense there is no discernible form or a thing cannot be picked out, that there is a mess of matter with no structure. This definition of chaos is derived from the idea of randomness meaning that a structure lacks pattern, organization, it’s behaviours are also unpredictable, and that the source of how these come about is unknown: chaos in the sense of entropy does not involve lack of structure in the system itself, because the system is always assumed clear and distinct, this is what defines it as a system, but that the transaction value between systems involve an element of “disorder”- or order in a way different than the order external to the thing.

The type of order or the way of order involves restlessness in the second law of thermodynamics, energy always “increases”, in other words, a natural order will evolve in the way that it is determined unless otherwise changed. A system has a relation with what is called it’s “surrounding”. A “system” has a loose definition defined as a quantity of matter which is itself a region in space chosen for study. Of course to be studied it must be a relation of other components converging into a common theme or form. The boundary and surrounding are both the limit in the extension of a thing that is abstracted and picked out as the end of one system and the beginning of some other or lack of other system. In this way it is important it to take the surrounding of a system as a literal and absolutely distinct element, however it must be adopted as such for study. The importance of this significance becomes later on evident when we explore that relations an object has with what appears to be its external companions are in fact the internal relations which are where the processes of energy exchange involve the element of entropy, or rather disorder. disorder –lack of order– or ordered in a way that is not understood, is a property of the relation of a thing and not the thing itself, or because the thing itself is a characterization of defined set of relations. Disorder in this context is associated with infinity, which is the fundamental relation that all particulars share.

Matter always appears to be impenetrable from the present. To penetrate matter means to change its form into something else

In the ordinary view of perception, particular objects appear to be certain things with a certain kind of relation to each other in a specific kind of arrangement within a limited disclosed spatial extension. Matter always appears to be impenetrable, so that in order for the to be different or change, either it’s physical structure is broken by rearrangement, or that it is altogether taken away and a different objects comes to be, the conception changes. Either you break a tree down which now becomes a broken tree, or that you change the magnitude and now a different substance that it’s place, say the microbes that makes the tree up it. In either case the tree as a physical embodiment of an idea remains what it is. This tells us that objects in an event are only changeable upon changing the event itself, they are its content and otherwise their change is likewise a change of the event, and vice versa, the change of the event is change of their physicality.

(Add phosphenes)

When you go at the speed of light, objects become condensed and spacetime appears solid. This is our ordinary experience of matter. When you walk on the surface, matter appears to be solid, or in other words, the conception is disclosed within its surrounding matter as much as it discloses it’s objects.

(Add to penetrability of matter- hyle, after matter is not itself)

And so from this standpoint, infinity is an abstract concept in the sense that it goes beyond the scope of the limited view of things that makes them particular. However the penetrability of matter is identical with the change of energy in a system: the relations between particular things must be sought out as being internal meaning not between the objects themselves, but between any one object and the shared more fundamental relation to all other objects, that makes objects have external relations, this is infinitesimal, having a localized yet inwardly infinite extension filled with each possibility of a moment, found in each particular thing, and this infinite extension goes in the object far enough where if we begin from any set of definite kind of thing, and go in any of them, we end up in a shared spectrum where each of them can be picked out as a real and single possibility.

Chaos is an internal form of energy meaning that it is the infinite indeterminate possibilities while order is a particular instance of that picked out as the real moment. For example psychologically speaking, I may appear composed on the outside, but in my thoughts there is flux of every scenario being played out, and as I proceed in time, I find that each present moment is one of these possibilities happening at a certain moment. Likewise The tree on the one hand appears to be a certain kind of thing but change the magnitude and it becomes a cluster of microstructures that although make it up are entirely distinct and different on their own. These microstructures for example are the fundamental relations of all discernible trees on the surface. The exchange is the moment one tree pops into existence, dies, or changes in any way, any change is a possibility being made into the real moment.

However common observation paints a picture where the relation between things precisely exhibits some kind of order. For example the trees occupy the same regions with certain patterns, and animals live there, and houses are layered in a vertical manner along a horizontal plain etc., this is however because we understand the relations and therefore see it as a certain kind of order. Something relations not conceived properly seems to exhibit no order. From an external point of view where a certain kind of order is established and a certain understanding of that is derived, relations are ordered in a certain way. Entropy however concerns how a system came to be ordered in a certain way.

The idea of chaos portrays two different nature’s in the spatial domain versus the temporal. In other words, when time is not space and where space is not time, defines the differentiation between the two concepts. Space and time are not different because they are about the same phenomenon, there difference however is based on how phenomenon is presented from a difference in conceptual point of view, from the point of view of the other, the other is not, what space lacks in conception is what time has and vice versa. Space and time are principles in nature concerting whether the system is examined internally or externally and the relations between these two dimensions. From a spatial sense, there is no chaos in the way things are ordered both in structure and in time, things appear with a definite form, and events follow each other in a definite manner. However the randomness is in the uncertainty of what will happen next, if when or what kind of event will happen, there is always an element of uncertainty of what kind of event will happen and when it will happen. From a purely spatial domain, there is no direct conception of time, changes other than locomotion, like generation and degeneration, being and non-being etc., are not observed directly, change is only noticed after a “period of time”, you do not see thing ageing, or transitioning from its infant state to its mature state in an instance, this change is noted after a period of time. Time seems at the present like it is still, I.e, not moving, yet it is moving over many instances.

While from the vantage of time, spatial extension does not seems to exhibit the same boundaries and kind of physical interactions we observer. We can say the laws of physics in dreams and thoughts operate differently than the laws of physics in waking life. Moreover the kind of physicality sensations and the understanding is adapted to in any given environment on earth has drastically different physical interactions when compared to say the interaction of objects in outer space. At a certain scale outside of earth, planets and stars exhibit far distances from each other when compared to objects on earth which are close to each other form compact and direct contact, like a monkey swinging on a tree and then going on the ground, the organism has a close-knit community of interactions and is tightly in contact with their surrounding. While in space objects are distant from each other, and only come in within a proximity in distance before they form orbital formations. The physical contact in outer space is not as direct, it is more indirect. However alter the scale further, and this can be done by increasing the speed of the object, of an object goes at the speed of light, the universe begins to become a close and dense environment, in other words, the universe becomes smaller, and at the level of the observable universe at the speed of light, we start seeing clusters and the close-knit contact of things in space like galaxies merging, stars colliding, black holes consuming etc.,

When looking at the observable universe, in essence we are seeing the past simply because it is has been actualized and is present at a given distance from the observer, the future is what remains the abstract in each thing, the potential for it to continue, change, etc., just like in my body my mind is the abstract and it holds the potential for the future idea, in each object in the universe, the future is the abstract in each thing.

In the realm of time, there is no uncertainty in which event will happen when, all events happen simultaneously and have an equal footing in time. The disorder in time happens in the order of which might come prior to or after the other. In both space and time the particular, or whatever is picked out as particular, always exhibits order, and this is what it means to be a system, this means that there can be an infinite of particular kind of things, each with an order. Time is the many possible ways an object can be, in this way it is the order of possible events. While space is the single and one way an object is, it is one of these possibilities pick out constituting what is present in time. It is not that time determines the object to be as in the case of the present determines the object to be here and now, but rather it is one of these possibilities picked out as the present that makes the moment in time the here and now, and these here makes the bodily measures of the thing likes it’s location in space and the position in how the shape is orientated, make the present the way it is, they are not determined by some preordained idea of time, the thing is determined in the sense that the presence of the object brought out a possibility of it which made it the way it appears spatially.

Chaos is therefore an undefined kind of order between define particular order. relations of objects in the

Internal point-of-view corresponds to external change

The first law of thermodynamics says that there are two kinds of processes, heat and work, that can lead to a change in the internal energy of a system. Since both heat and work can be measured and quantified, this is the same as saying that any change in the energy of a system must result in a corresponding change in the energy of the surroundings outside the system.

By internal energy of a system, we mean here the set of possible events disclosed by the spatial extension of one of them being their reality. For example, if we have a solid structure, the solidity is composed of closely packed together molecules, the short distance between the molecules keep the shape compact. If we introduce any form of “work” into this system, like motion approaching the speed of light, or moreover if we introduce heat into a solid structure, this causes the molecules to separate, and the macro conception of the result makes the once solid structure now liquid. Liquidity was a simple potential form in the orientation of solidity

From the external view, each objects appears to be in a definite way and these objects occupy a definite position in space. Motion is therefore occupying volume by changing positions, “covering grounds”, bypassing a set of objects on the way of changing location, which just means new things are coming into the view. Motion is objects changing within the view conceiving or the view changing the objects it is conceiving. In this external picture, there is an exhibition of a certain type of order and chias seems to come out of an unknown source causing a change in the order

-Law of entropy that – the exchange between any two systems involve an element of disorder is their fundamental shared relation of possibilities of which, both of them are definite moments in.

Chaos in entropy is the energy in the thing which it is a real moment from an infinite possibility of moments. The world has already reached its maximum increase in energy because it has already been left to its natural affairs for eternity. And so it’s increase in time is therefore the limiting of this infinite potentiality to real and particular moments of it that in the first place, the sum total of all numbers make it up in the first place.

All possibilities are in the thing so that the thing can be only but one of its possibilities.

(Add Doppler effect)

 (Add to ball down the bill)

“Initial condition” in some contexts called a seed value, is a value of an evolving variable at some point in time designated as the initial time.

a dynamical system is a system in which a function describes the time dependence of a point in a geometrical space. a dynamical system has a state given by a tuple of real numbers (a vector) that can be represented by a point in an appropriate state space.

a state space is the set of all possible configurations of a system.

a manifold is a topological space that locally resembles Euclidean space near each point. More precisely, each point of an n-dimensional manifold has a neighbourhood that is homeomorphicto the Euclidean space of dimension n.

One-dimensional manifolds include lines and circles, but not figure eights(because they have crossing points that are not locally homeomorphic to Euclidean 1-space). Two-dimensional manifolds are also called surfaces. Examples include the plane, the sphere, and the torus, which can all be embedded (formed without self-intersections) in three dimensional real space, but also the Klein bottle and real projective plane, which will always self-intersect when immersed in three-dimensional real space.

A dynamical system is a manifold Mcalled the phase (or state) space endowed with a family of smooth evolution functions Φt that for any element of t ∈ T, the time, map a point of the phase space back into the phase space. a phase space is a space in which all possible states of a system are represented, with each possible state corresponding to one unique point in the phase space.

In physics a dynamical system is described as a “particle or ensemble of particles whose state varies over time and thus obeys differential equations involving time derivatives.

Derivative measures the sensitivity to change of the function value (output value) with respect to a change in its argument (input value).

The graph of a function, drawn in black, and a tangent line to that function, drawn in red. The slope of the tangent line is equal to the derivative of the function at the marked point.”

The red line intersects the same point in the inverted shape. (The guy as the external force is the red line to the function of the ball bouncing off the ground)

For example, the derivative of the position of a moving object with respect to time is the object’s velocity: this measures how quickly the position of the object changes when time advances.

Differentiation is the action of finding a derivative. The derivative of a function y = f(x) of a variable x is a measure of the rate at which the value y of the function changes with respect to the change of the variable x. It is called the derivative of f with respect to x. If x and y are real numbers, and if the graph of f is plotted against x, the derivative is the slope of this graph at each point.

the slope or gradient of a line is a number that describes both the direction and the steepness of the line. Slope is often denoted by the letter m; there is no clear answer to the question why the letter m is used for slope, but it might be from the “m for multiple” in the equation of a straight line “y = mx + b” or “y = mx + c”

The derivative of a function of a single variable at a chosen input value, when it exists, is the slope of the tangent line to the graph of the function at that point. The tangent line is the best linear approximation of the function near that input value. For this reason, the derivative is often described as the “instantaneous rate of change”, the ratio of the instantaneous change in the dependent variable to that of the independent variable.

The initial condition concerns the  inverse determinations constituting the same object, in our case the rod with one end remain still as the centre and is therefore certainty; and the other end moves unpredictably in any manner. What is observed by these initial conditions is that no matter of the lines random determination, the line always ultimately form its ideal relation, i.e, a sphere. (Add to the arbitrary principle) the randomly moving end point of the line is proving the centred point.

The law of entropy states that between any two ordered systems is an exchange value involving uncertainty, is only one half of the equation. The other half and the resolution to the antithesis of entropy is the inverse proposition: that within an uncertain system, the relation between two known factors is also itself a known factor.

Law of logical equivalence

Ball down the hill example;

the initial condition of entropy are two ordered systems whose energy exchange from one to the other is said to involve an element of chaos, but this chaos so far as being indeterminate constitutes the utility principle for maintaining one principe as ordered in relation to the other as ordered in the inverse way. This is explainable by demonstrating how entanglement  defines motion and graviton. In classical mechanics, the notion of graviton is always presupposed as the principle for relative motion. the initial conditions for a motion relative to an other involving general graviton begins first with an causal force excreted on the one object in question causing the motion. For example throwing the ball on the ground causes the bounce to occur.

The presupposition for an external force causing a motion faces difficulty when it becomes a subject of general graviton because the external force does not initiate the graviton between the two objects it causes into relative motion. The semblance of gravity between the ground and the ball preexists the force to throw it. In classical mechanics gravity is simply the force of the balls mass, weight, density, in contact with the grounds hardness, size, and surface texture, that govern the bounce. But graviton in a quantum state cannot assume motion as the result from the contact of two objects compelled by an external force because the initial conditions of causal force itself must be outlined from the distinction between the two objects outlined by general graviton including the force. General graviton suggests that both objects are at a different rate of motion, the rate of motion of the ball in time is faster relative to the rate of motion of the ground belonging to earth as it orbits the sun. So far both are in different rates of motion in time, the compulsion from an external source causing one object to move relative to the other does not answer how the motion of the force is generated. Where did my muscles derive the energy to throw the ball on the ground?

Entanglement answers how the distribution of energy distinguishes the motion of one object from the other. From one reference point the ball makes contact with the ground forcing it upwards, but equally instantaneous is the opposite reference point from the inverse position, the ground made contact with the ball to expert it downwards. Our observable capacity only witnesses the ball going down making contact with the ground, then sprouting upwards. And then we assume that it is the ground that caused the ball to come up. Whereas it is true that the ball bounces up because it went down to hit the ground, the inverse of this relation, the ground is the initial cause for the ball to be up then down. Classical mechanics assumes that it is the middle man, the boy who threw the ball downwards is the cause of it hitting the ground then up, but what is missed is the fact that the boy is also grounded and therefore is part of the grounds motion, and is therefore not an external force operating outside the relation ball and ground but is part of the ground relative to the ball. From the perspective of the ball it goes down hitting the ground than up, but from the perspective of the ground, the ball simply operates away from and towards the ground.

Motion is the changing energy from one thing to the other as causing them both as distinct form of certainties.

(see law of irreversibility)

The duration which approximates in the approach to the ideal limit of moment in time is precisely answered by the nature of time as being one dimensional. The one dimensional aspect of time characterizes Dollo’s law of irreversibility “an organism never returns exactly to a former state, even if it finds itself placed in conditions of existence identical to those in which it has previously lived … it always keeps some trace of the intermediate stages through which it has passed.” Whereas this fact is directly derived from the observations of biological organism, the hypothesis of Organicism extends the term “organism” to include the universe at large and the general application is also true for phenomenons whose nature is taken as expression of the universe, in other words this fact is true for the character of the universe generally just like the “grin on the cats face” is true for the cat.

Uniform object “It is not every object which can be located in a moment. An object which can be located in every moment of some duration will be called a ‘uniform’ object throughout that duration. Ordinary physical objects appear to us to be uniform objects, and we habitually assume that scientific objects such as electrons are uniform. But some sense-objects certainly are not uniform. A tune is an example of a non-uniform object. We have perceived it as a whole in a certain duration; but the tune as a tune is not at any moment of that duration though one of the individual notes may be located there.” (Objects 162)

The ideal limit in which a duration is approaching is not one in the future because there is no ground found in the future that alone can necessitate an approach for an event to be initiated in the first place. The future being the fact of a later event coming after a previous event does not sufficiently explain why one event follows another. If the reason why one event follows another is because they form a duration for a particular observer, then we have to question the role of the observer in the causal relation of one even with another, why does one event come after another for the observer at the present? The initial conditions must therefore be self-determinate, which posits a tricky dilemma because the initial action must first be made before a series of other events unfold, yet the events that presupposes the initial action are true independently of their cause when their initial condition is taken as another event in the series. What it means to have a causal action does not mean to bring into being the consequences such that prior to the initial action the consequences where not true possibilities. The fact that consequences exists as possibilities prior to their initiating conditions brings into question what it means to come into being.

The natural consequences that follow from an initial action puts it in scenarios different than initially known. For example, throwing a ball off a cliff is the initial action that causes the ball to fall down the cliff, but the falling of the ball off a cliff is a wholly independent event from the throwing of the ball that causes it, because the falling of the ball from the cliff is an event that can be abstracted independently from the throwing of it and does not necessarily presuppose it when adopted as itself the initial condition. For instance from the view of a person down the hill, all the see is the ball falling, they do not know whether it was kicked, thrown, or the cause etc., If we take the event of the ball in mid air falling down a cliff as the initial event without knowing it’s cause, then the knowing of causes derived after the ball falling no longer become initial but potential events, it could be any sun set of possibilities that cause the ball to be falling down the cliff from the view of the person down the hill looking up at it falling. instead from the person down there the coming across a ball falling mid air would be the initial event, e.g. , it could be caused by someone throwing it, a strong burst of wind, someone accidentally over kicking the ball etc.

These potential events are all equally possible causes but completely different events, even if the act is the same, being thrown by a child learning how to move as opposed to a baseball player practicing his throw are not the same events. If we reverse the initial condition of the ball being thrown into the ball midway in flight down a cliff, then we have a confusion into the order of what it means for an event to be the initial conditions, as opposed to the potentialities that follow from that as the cause of it being initial for the observer. How does an event become the initial one for the observer? The paradox is that there is no event inheriting the order of being the initial condition, because from an absolute point of view, in a vacuum, any event can be extrapolated as the initial condition for a set of possible events that derive from it. In the universal sense there is an infinite possibilities why the ball is falling down the cliff simultaneous and not in any particular order. It is events entering a potential or real state that determines their place as the initial condition for an observer. The order of events is therefore derived from a particular relation of events, a duration, wherein if the series of events unfolded such that the throwing of a ball leads to the ball falling off a cliff, and then the ball falls to the ground so on and so forth, we have this order of events derived from an avenue of a particular experience.

(Add soccer ball in vacuum)

There is however one proposition outlined earlier which can constitute an absolute initial condition for a universal order of events, and this begins primarily with the extrapolation that to be in a vacuum, or in an absolute inertial state, is not a state wholly independent from any particular sequence of events, but is the actual initial condition for object to be in motion. If there is no necessity from an absolute point of view for any particular event to be the initial conditions for other possible events, or in other terms there is no necessary order in time wherein an event is inherently a future or a past one,

The ball falling down a cliff as the initial condition is the ideal limit for any of its possible causes to approach closest approximately to. This means that you can abstract any event from an infinite spectrum of possible events and make it the initial condition, the centre of conception, and that will be the ideal limit for the possibilities to approach. The ball falling down a cliff is an ideal limit for Throwing of the ball, the burst of wind making it fall, or kick of the ball, all of which are events that approach it. the moment of approximation is the entire duration wherein the throw of the ball continues to the ball falling down a cliff, which is a discreteness because the limit of the event of throwing the ball is the change of it falling down a cliff, in other words if the ball is falling down a cliff it is not being thrown, and when the ball is being thrown it is not at the moment falling down a cliff.

The instance having already passed constitutes an ideal limit for a duration of time to repeat in closest proximity. Every moment being passed necessities for the next moment the ideal to approximate in occurrence. For example, every last winter is an ideal for the next upcoming winter. The past moment is the ideal to which the present moment is approaching towards in the future. When an event already passed, the future is the present where that event is replicated closest to in the exact same manner.

(Add, when you magnify the cells on your arm, you are making the arm smaller, these are not the same objects because they are delineated by different dimensions)

(Add to Doppler effect law of mind)