Section 21 (first updated 1.9.2021)
Fractals-
Inverse square
(See Event particle)
(See whitehead Cleopatra’s needle)
Pole
This can be viewed in two ways: first from the external point of view we see a set of objects, each moving in space, but each of those objects is taking on a real event from a series of possible events, i.e, if they are here they are not there. Even inanimate objects like a pole, we pass by every day and we do not realize a difference, but everyday something different is happening to that pole, in other words, the pole is a substrate going through a series of changes or going through each possible event that can be associated with a pole. (Cleopatra needle)
Every moment the pole is going through a possible event, or rather, time itself is this series of possible events being realized one moment at a time. When we observer an object we see it at one of those moment, as we commonly say “this is not my best moment” as if “you caught me at a bad time” these elude to the abstraction of catching something at one of its possible moments. We drive by the pole everyday and do not realize any change even though it is changing everyday, until one day we recognize an evident change in the pole, we see rust or it is broken in half, and here we are explicitly seeing one of its potential event as a real moment, but there was a build up to this that we did not notice, that potentiality of one day breaking became a real event, it is “only a matter of time” we say before something like that happens.
Each single object being externally perceived has the series of potential events integrated into itself at the present moment, which is part of a series of any one of its possible moment.
When an object is in motion you see them changing through these events actualizing them at a rapid rate, but the resolution is so good that the same thing appears to be moving as itself, and change seems to be happening to it, but the thing in question undergoing the change has only been identified as one thing and not others. the thing you see as itself is a moment part of an actualizing series. The same asteroid we see in space before it crumbles would not be identified as the same object after it enter the atmosphere and crumbles into smaller bits of rock.
The asteroid that we identify as the same substrate that endures the change is part of many variables, meaning that it becomes many variables. We give something an identity based on its dominating mass. The thing with the bigger mass we identify as the object in question because for one thing it catches our attention. However the mind upon reflection goes further and finds out the qualities of what is being perceived and that what identifies them as subjects of study.
Second , from the internal point of view is the perception of different things at different moments so as to have different experiences. When I turn my head one way I see one thing and is blinded to another, when I sleep one day and wake up I had a different experience than yesterday, when I look at a bunch of different details within the same reference frame I am scanning each part of every object and being ignorant of the others. These changes in instances are the superficialities of what actually determines a possible event into the present moment. When the observer is witnessing their environment and therefore having thoughts about them, an animal for instance would feel or think a certain way and would automatically act on that, which therefore determines an event, when one cat sees another and it becomes angry it lashes out and attacks the other cat, and the once possible event of a cat fight is now a real situation. ordinary thinking views this as a random act, that is, there is no event before it happened, a cat fight is not an event that first exists, it is just a result from a couple of angry cats coming together to make it happen. However we all know of a cat fight even if it is not currently happening in the present. Does a cat fight exist because at one point it has exited, or because there is a possibility of a fight to happen when two cats meet, that makes us have the idea of a cat fight? The latter does not require a real event of a cat fight to be perceived in order for it to qualify as existing, the mere possibility of existing is enough for it to be part of existence. The question becomes; possibility in terms of potentiality of a thing to happen at the present, is an objective criteria for a thing to exist. In reality the potentiality of an event may only occupy one moment at a time, you cannot have two moments simultaneously occurring. However it is exactly the latter that is presupposed by the definition of potentiality, that two or more events are simultaneously occurring, the only difference is, not any one of them occupies more reality than the others, they are all equally possible so they all exists instantaneously. Space requires that two things happen within it at the same time. It is the limitation of space, that discloses it, which limits the number of events that can occur at the same time.
In other words, an event is simply the result of a free body acting in a certain way, a man is a self contained entity, that simply got up and went to the washroom, and the washroom is its own unit built and is readily available for use, and it is the coming together of these two objects that made the event. This is however not the way an event is conceived in the mind because when we think of going to the washroom, we imagine the moment that characterizes the event before any of the pieces come together to form it, we imagine the man using the washroom before we imagine the washroom on its own and the man on his own as separate entities. Moreover there is no real entities that exists on their own without other entities, every object conceived in the mind belongs to a context. But for sensation you can derive a feeling from touching something independent from its context, the sense organ filters out the context and derive the feeling, even though being warm is part of a hot context that is part of iron or whatever.
The external point of view assumes that an object acts in a certain way, said to be its duration, that determines it to act this way, in other words, the object is simply actualizing what is set out by its duration. The internal point of view is a conception of different instances, when I look at one thing, there is a definite picture, when I turn my head, there is a motion of blurry and uncertainty until I land on another certain picture. These determinations of what is conceived determines the path that the sequence will take to determine the particle that goes through each event. The particle is being determined by its duration but in that duration it is determining the direction in which the duration will determined it.
When we see an instance it is layered with an infinity of possible events that all mould and morph into each other, and their morphing into each other is what we perceive as the continuity of a thing in motion. That a car goes into the distance and becomes part of the horizon. But this continuity of a thing is just a sequence being played out at only a moment at a time it is being perceived. the only continuity we really perceive is of different instances concurring through each other. After watching the car go into the distance you see a bird fly close to your head and now the attention is there.
Here we are trying to explain that the reference frame which observes a thing in motion, and the thing in motion are the same continuum
We know when a change takes place in spatial extension because it involves a point changing locations which means that at one time it was at one point and another time it was on a point that is different than the first previous point. But for this transition to happen in space requires that there be the same identity that remains the same. To achieve a different point in space, all one has to do is get to that place. In space what is meant by “different locations” means to “cover space” as we say, you get from one point to another by going through a series of intermediary points. But in time we do not know the moment an event changes to another event because time is responsible for the spontaneous generation of an identity. we cannot capture the exact instance an event changes to a different event because that instance is itself another event that serves as the continuity between the two different events, which still requires an explanation of its arrival, it was just another event that happens before the two other events. the moment of change between one event into the other is is a moment in change in the form, or rather, morphology of the object. For example, in a roller coaster (see image below) the moment of change is when your going down the curve. instead in reality the moment abs the space morph into each other as the same simultaneity.
The present moment seems to always be changing into different events, or rather, there is always something different happing at the present. However there always appears to be a fixed reference frame which remains still and captures the present as the happening of different things. On some level space is this constant reference frame which captures the passing moments as a thing changes through time. Also space captures an object in motion changing location, space remains indifferent, while an object changes location in space, there is always a space that captures that change, in other words, an object always fails into space, there is never enough space. The object in space also maintains some recognizable identity and appears to remains the same while it is in motion, however this is somewhat not true, because what perception also conceives is an immediate change exhibited by the object, not that the object changes into something unidentifiable, but the angles and its structural form changes depending on the position and location from which it is observed.
The change exhibited by the object which maintains an identity must be innate in the object, must be a potential of it. Just like for example, when we pick out a fruit and before ingesting it, the fruit is in one form, after ingestion it is in a completely different form, we provide a completely mechanical explanation for this change, we say the stomach simply broke down the structure of the fruit and now it’s a mush of protein for the body. However in order for the body to do this, this form in its structure must be a potential form of the fruit, for example the body cannot break down metal in the same way, there is no potential form of metal for the body, but there is a potential form of metal for fire, if it melts, the form of melting is a potentiality of metal. The body brings out the potential form on the fruit whence it breaks it down. The way a potential form can be compacted within the same form is called the “zero point energy” of the object. All the potential forms are compacted within an object in a very concentrated infinitesimal point, this is known as the “mind” of the object, or rather the abstract point, which is the sequence of time from which any real event can occupy the present frame of reference.
that if the object changes as it is observed the means of observing that object remains unchanged so as to capture that change in the form of the object. However the object must still remain somewhat the same to be identified by the observer, the reason for the latter is that the object is not one thing but a point of view of part of a sequence, an object is a duration maintained as the same by a particle state, any point of that duration.
And so the object is not the static reference point that remains the same in the face of change but rather it must be something else because the object constantly changes to be a different object, and the same object we take to be the static reference frame itself changes configuration. The way we perceive time at a spatial level is things happening and than never not happening after they happened. The conception is the static reference point and is the passage of nature where time is the infinite change of potential events determined in a particular duration. An object from a certain distance or angle does not appear to be the same for the observer although the observer can still identity it as the same object.
This is an outline of objects having an external relations with each other in time being contained by their internal relations. Two objects are external to each other but are internally disclosed by a third, their conception. Internal is the disclosure, the form, and external is the matter, or quantity, the distinction that makes two things separately interact with one another.
Externality is the content within the disclosure of the conception where one object is outside of another object. And this follows from all the kind of relations between objects that maintained their difference against each other and a giant everything else. Objects are disclosed by, or contained within, an internal domain. The disclosure of objects external to each other is called “internal” because it is the extent limit of the relation, or in other words, it is the organization. the objects are outside each other, but they are inside the same dimension. The dimension they are disclosed within is their internal relation, what is “internal” is not inside each object, like the seed inside the plant, but the external relations of the objects outside each other is shared by the same domain that contains them, enters through them, and is in every part in them.
internal is on the outside, the outer most exterior disclosing the external, which is inside within that forming the exterior of objects outside each other.
On a basic fundamental level, space serves as a continuity of things with different dimensions, or is rather the dimension of all dimensions because it allows the activity of one object to enter into the physical composition of another object, given their physical state and the nature of the interaction. For example, sound has an expansive array of dimensional reach. The ear organ on the exterior is shaped like a horn brass instrument but instead of emphasizing sound outwards like the instrument, it takes the sound inwards and twirls in like a whirlpool. In this way the sound travels to the brain. Sound enters through the ear as a macroscopic wavelength and fractals infinitesimally into the brain.
Time is capable of transcending different magnitudes of space, or in other words, an object in time like sound, is capable of coming through a macro-scale into a microscopic magnitude because there is space at every level of a continuum.
In order for sound to travel from the outside of the body through the ear, into the brain, means that there must be space that is through in and all these physical compositions that acts as a medium for one substance to travel through the other.
there are microscopic “holes” between every fibre and atom that makes up a physical structure, even like sound, lighter physical things travel through sound, this is why air, water in the form of rain, distort sound waves for instance. There is space through everything and the thing constitutes an exterior outside of space, and an interior inside of space. The object is disclosed and disclosed space, and this is the complete system.
This division acted in by the object is actually how moments in time constitutes a temporal sequence, an ordered system where one moment instantaneously follows the other. And this is identical with how thoughts themselves spontaneously appear one after another.
Ideas pass through space as events
Ideas pass through space and this is the sequence of events forming a temporal duration of time. We experience time as objects, in the sense that an object is processed by a sense perception. But this does not answer how objects exists in time in the first place. It is presupposed that objects are given to the sense percepts. In order for an object to be received as an object by the sense precept, it must first exists as an object in time, or has a time duration, as we say, ‘everything has its time’ meaning that everything decays with time. But this idea we extrapolate onto the object a duration that anything given a certain length of a duration comes to an end. But we do not say that the experience of a thing is a duration that when finished will come to an end. The duration of a thing ending, and the experience of that thing ending, must be related; for one, the duration of a thing coming to an end is an internal experience, while the experience of a thing coming to an end is an external one.
Ideas unlike objects are not received but are determined as the time where the objects will be received in space by the sense percepts.
The objects stands as a disclosed space within another disclosed space, and this spatial extension is where physical substances can pass through the object as a medium between exterior and interior dimensions. Space therefore is the most ethereal substance, it is which any identifiable substance of physical degree, whether it be a dense and heavy objects or objects with little weight and density, can travel through.
If we take thoughts as events and therefore are identifiable objects in the sense of being occasions, or just by the bare necessity they exist, no matter how close their physical components approaches zero having no weight, mass, density etc., closest to being abstract, or are themselves the ideal of abstract substances, they are still as abstract as space, because space being itself an abstract idea that has the efficient function of disclosed by and discloses any recognizable thing, then it is the medium for that thing to pass through, or rather lading through in space may not be changing position, but dividing an exterior from an interior where one object can pas through another object, while space facilities this possibility. In other words, any identity distinguished from another identity can pass through each other in space.
Species of time- time packet
A time species are packet of events following each other in a duration. The following each other is not that they are necessarily ordered to some end, although there is always some end that events are moving towards, but that they very factor of one event necessarily following right after the other in a rapid instantaneous manner is what makes a series a duration. It’s not that the duration is their end and therefore they follow one another, but it’s because events necessarily follow one another is there a duration.
A species of time is a series of variation concerning the possibilities of what happen within an event. Reason why they are called possibilities is not because they carry no real content but because each is only real at an instant, only at one moment at a time, and when one is not real at the present the others possibilities from that standpoint even though they are realities in an ultimate viewpoint .
Every event in time comes as a packet of possibilities concerning the orientation of that event. These orientations are the are the units of measures, which are the shift in the conception, every change in conception is a unit of measure for the event, and at the same time these are the unites, derivative from “unity”, for the event to be in motion, either in duration and continuity or in locomotion from one position to another.
A time species, or a species of time, means an object identified as a single point in the spatial domain, is actually only one of its possible moments belonging to a group that make up all its possibilities each of which is real by taking up a moment in time. The object we say is going through moments, and it is through this continuity it is identified as a single thing. However as an object goes through moments, it is actually the species of these moments, the object is both the common attribute shared by its moments, and also the common name used to call the duration of the activity it is in.
In time an object is ordinarily viewed as a distinct entity in the sense that it is a single body separate from other bodies continuing in a spatial void and a set of changes are observed to progressively occur to its physical composition. We see “tear and west” over an extended time span. And so from this notion we derive the abstraction that time is an endless span which something can continuously flow within, like space is, while the thing in time is being done by time, in other words, it is slowly changing and eventually corroding away, and time has this continuous effect of change on any object in space. This definition of time is derived from our dominantly defining the universe as fundamentally a spatial domain. For example, in common use we call the universe as “space”, when we say “the rocket is going out into space” to mean that the rocket is going out into the known universe away from earth.
(Whitehead objects)
However this observation of an object through space changing in time does not confer with the way the observational faculties derive their object of knowledge nor does it confer with the way the object presents itself for the perpetual faculties. The way the perceptual faculty derive its object and the way the object presents itself for the faculty agree on the point of the identification, also means identical in Latin “identitas”, that there is a discontinuity in the perceptual faculty itself, that you can only see, hear, smell etc., few things at a time and not all at once, and the object being sought itself only presents certain aspects of itself over other aspects. (Whitehead we never see smell hear anything completely- Jung makes similar point also that we never have a full experience of anything entirely, we only partially see, hear, taste smell etc., ) even if our sensation operate on full capacity, for example, when looking at the horizon with perfect vision it eventually becomes cut off by the earths curvature, moreover if the entire earth is observed from the moon, only one side at a time can be seen. In fact it is in the very nature of geometry to involve this limitation of the figure, which is what allows one figure to be distinguished from other figures. A figure in geometry regales all sides, angles, and measurements of itself, that is the whole point of a geometric model. But geometry does not ask why a figure is different than another but only what differences do each figure exhibit, although in inverse geometry deals with the way one figure transforms into the other.
Squared space
In mathematics, “to square” is used to denote the operation where a square is the result of multiplying a number by itself, in other words, a square is a number multiplied by the amount same as itself. for instance, the square of 3 may be written as 32, which is the number 9, in other words, 3+3+3 = 9, 3 times the amount of itself.
Squaring is the same as raising to the power 2, for example, y2. the reason why the number two is used to symbolize the power of being squared, “raising to the power of 2” is because the number 2 is the first number that gives a different result other than the same number itself. For example
2 to the power of 1
2^1= 2
2^2= 4
Unlike 1 which always just reaffirms the same number, 1^9 =9
If we square any number with the power of 1 it simply gives the same result as the number multiplied by 1.
Raising to the power is denoted by placing a smaller number on top of a bigger number. The reason for this is dimensional because from the geometric meaning of a “square” there is alway some room or space in the angle of a square for there to be placed another square, or that the angle implicit in the square is just another square at a different dimensional framework. A triangle is an abstraction from a square
The illustration of squared with cubes laid out beside each other is actually an abstraction because the cubes are squared inside each other. The more accurate illustration of squared is defined by what it means to be “fractions” in mathematics.
A “fraction” is is a number that represents part of a whole. The function of being squared is the fractal property of fractions. Fractals are patterns that are self-similar across different scales. They are created by repeating a simple process over and over in an ongoing feedback loop.
Fractals are a subset of a Euclidean space for which the fractal dimension strictly exceeds the topological dimension; this simply means that the space a figure is contained in surpasses the form of that figure. Fractals – the same appearance of the object at the at different levels. A fractal is the object appearing the same at different dimensions. The recursion of fractals is infinite but the property here is that some finite form is maintained throughout infinite extension instead of the common opinion in infinity things change loosing their common characteristics.
The idea of a squared where the number is on top of another number is derived from an intuition where there is a multiplication of an event by the number of its possibilities in the mind, the “mind” or rather the abstract element is the square root of a physical thing, or rather the present is square rooted by its possible futures. The mind functions as the simulation of possible events. Possible events form a fractal in the mind and they are squared by the present moment. The present is squared by it’s possible events.
In time possible events form a fractal like sequence that are the square root of the present, in other words, there is a spatial extension at the present moment that is not determined as a definite and distinct event.
Where this fractal process takes fold is in the mind, or rather the mind is the superficial location where the abstract property of a concrete event takes place. This now supplements the idea of a time tube. We have stated that the direction in space is not of quality but of quantity which means that when a change takes place there is not an absolute change in the quality of a thing but there remains a uniform entity and it’s relation, say between the point and the plain, and only the position of the point changes on the plain, but not the point and plain changing into different forms, say a line and a figure, once this change in quality takes fold, it is now a change of time. The direction of time unlike space is change in quality which means that one identity changes to a different identity. The direction of time is change from abstract to concrete, an event moves from a possible state, which is infinite, to a real state, which is particular. The movement of time is not change in location, but rather the differences that vary from one location to another. That when you go to one location one event happens, and when you change locations another event happens.
Every conception of a distinct thing carried with it an infinite series of possible moments that form the duration of it.
Inverse square law
Gravitational force is the energy from motion derives the total measure of mass inverse squared. The inverse square describes the outcome of a process as its predetermined generality disclosing its particular determination of moving towards that end by a realization of it. the time taken for a journey is inversely proportional to the speed of travel.
Square is number multiplied by itself, the square produces the self being multiplied by itself as the additional
The measure of a singularity can only be indirectly deduced by Measuring the mass of the object
inverse-square law, in physics, is any physical law stating that a specified physical quantity or intensity is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source of that physical quantity
square is the result of multiplying a number by itself. The verb “to square” is used to denote this operation. Squaring is the same as raising to the power 2,
Inverse square law
Locus
The term locus generally deals with the way the activity form a manner that specify exactly the peculiarities of its operations without limiting the operation to such peculiarities. (Add Aristotle on the heavens the infinite limited by being the limit of the finite)
Mathematically the term “locus” means “a curve or figure formed by all the points satisfying a particular equation of the relation between coordinates, or by a point, line, or surface moving accordingly to defined conditions.” In considering this vague definition we have to ask what are “defined conditions”? Are the conditions of a figure defined prior to its form? Curves and figures are characterized as being the whole of relation between distinct points as they consist of the points that make them. Yet the distinct points that make the curve or figure are not limited to the figure they make because they themselves are potentially other figures. The figure as exhibiting some form of distinct points is itself a distinct point in the spectrum of all the possible relations of the points. According to the point as the centre of the sphere, it is not central as taken some particular position in the sphere. Even the point at the centre of the circle to constitute its radius is only figured this way because the sphere assumes an equilateral magnitude so that any place on it can be picked out as the centre point. The point of the radius essentially demonstrates the form of being equilateral. The distinct points implicit in the figure are the coordinates of all its potential relations.
Like a group of birds flocking together in the same patterns of flight, all of their potential positions are known by each individual bird.
The coordinates of a figure are the distinct points of its form having the potential to transform while maintaining the same motion. The locus of the point demonstrates the motion of the relation. Motion here is used in terms of what Aristotle refers to as becoming- the generation of movement and not merely its locomotion. Motion is the kind of becoming where the relations of the parts concerns a distinct whole in terms of the form it determines as the whole of each part. Birds fly together in uniform manners to make shapes that when looked at as the whole of each individual bird, moves differently then each bird in the respective position within it. If the shape is more triangular, birds on an angle move differently than those on the sides yet their relations forms the peculiarities that give the figure of the triangle the one and the same form.
In the fundamental subatomic terms, what is classified as the components of an atom are only understood by the force of their interrelations. The electrically neutral atom contains a single positively charged proton and a single negatively charged electron. The components of the atom are classified because of their bound to the nucleus by what is known as the Coulomb force. The coulombs force is what determines the change of the proton as positive and the change of the electron as negative. The force interacting between particles enable their static electrical charge.
When we speak of alike or opposite charge as they relate to the forces of repulsion and attraction, it is not informed to first suppose the components of the atom as distinct in either being equal or opposite and from this presuppose the force of interaction between them to follow as attractive if the charges are opposite and repulsive if alike. The first qualification is to explain how the forces of attraction and repulsion themselves constitutes the division of equal and opposite charges as distinct components. We must first demonstrate this because it is not quite obvious that the forces of attraction and repulsion are byproducts of the equal and opposite charges. We cannot presuppose such a division unless as being part of the same logical sequence. The reason why alike and opposite charge equates to repulsion and attraction is because when the charge is identical or opposite, this is equivalent to particular kinds of logical determinations. (Find where else you talk about this logical self-identity opposition etc.) the principle of identity informs alike charge.
Equal charge is the determination of self-identity whether that identity be of the opposition, negative and negative. When a charge is equal, the self-identity of this is a determination of repulsion because an exclusion of an “other” of which the principle of opposition arises as imposing the inverse determination of attraction.
If the charge is equal, the electrostatic force is repulsive.
If the charge is opposite, the force is attraction.
When it is self-identical it repulses its identity as an other. The other is attractive as being an opposite identity, which is what in the first place the identity determined away from itself as its opposite.
Coulomb’s inverse-square law,
The (i.e., F is negative) force of interaction between the charges is attractive if the charges have opposite signs like-signed (i.e., F is positive).
The magnitude of the electrostatic force of attraction or repulsion between two point charges is directly proportional to the product of the magnitudes of charges and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.[12]
The force is along the straight line joining them.
(Add below magmatic field is the stalemate relation created by the nature of probability where not being either of the inverse forces is to be both as a relation distinct than each)
The relation that is neither any of its part constitutes the part that is or is not the relation. The not relation is an inherent part of the relation.
The earths magnetic field acts as a repulsive and attractive force that distinguishes and appropriates features for the planet. The planet being a charged object is the positive determination of the magmatic field being its negative. The magmatic field so far is negation of positive leaves a negative, is self negating. The nature of magnetism comes down to the positive determination of negatives negating each other constructing a spectrum of probability where the either/or of attraction and repulsion form the situation whose only certainty is the uncertainty of one force over the other. This field of uncertainty is not merely cancelation of one force by the other but rather becomes the capability for appropriation and differentiation.
Magnetism is physical phenomena for the essential capacity of “choice”. Choice being primary kind of determination is the selection of possibilities. For example, magnetic field serves to deflect most of the solar wind, whose charged particles would otherwise strip away the ozone layer that protects the Earth from harmful ultraviolet radiation. This is how probability manifest as the being of not object for the constitution of the object through its non being.. The not object constitutes the being for the object. But again being and non-being are relation of the same substance, they are not fixed objects of it but constitute the same thing.
How something goes away, becomes an other, while still remaining intact, still bearing an identity. This is what the inverse square law explains.
The logic of the inverse square law goes something like; The fact of going in one direction does not exclude the fact of having came from the other direction. Coming this way does not mean I did not come from the other way. It is a positive motion of going away from an opposite way. But so far as this movement is away it is negation to that which it is moving away from, but that which is being moved away from, is positively identical to the motion moving away because moving away from something has the mutual action of that object being moved away from. What is left as negative is the negation which is the relation between +q1 and +q2 as moving away, the negation is their mutual movement away constitute the same single motion. Any further negation is simply the change in that identical motion. The negation makes both these movements determined in opposite ways but the movements so far as determined in their respective inverted manner are positively the same. In common language for example we say “I do not”, which is the positive determination of negation, I do the not, meaning I am purposely the negative, the “not” is adverb used with an auxiliary verb or “be” to form the negative.
The negation constitutes for motions a matrix differentiating their determinations.
The notion of Matrix is interesting when it comes to the inverse square law because the term is defined as the “material in which something develops; a surrounding medium or structure.” In mathematics it means “a rectangular array of quantities or expressions in rows and columns that is treated as a single entity and manipulated according to particular rules”
The 90 degree angles of the square take on the shape of the square. The square is the dimension of its angles. Yet the angle so far as it is a square is a dimension. This is another instance of the implicit shape in form.
The angles are inherently internal dimensions.
the sides of the square are actually the relation between the inner 90 degree squares. The square is the relation between the angles, the shape of the angles being itself the form of their relation – squares. Geometry being the science of form takes the shape as the relation between its angles, where the angles characterize the shape of their form, their relation. A shape is not an object it is rather the species of its angles, the angles themselves are the objects. The angles of a triangle are triangular, the angles individually takes on the same shape as the relation between them.
(Add to the principle of uncertainty)
The inverse square law explains how in each dimension is other dimensions. (Add here form implicit in geometry) A dimension is in some part explained by how the quantity of the form conforms to its quality.
A dimension is the content of a matrix. A matrix is the outline of the dimension which concerning the qualities that describes its form.
(Add uncertainty principle)
Flux theorem- the way externality is contained by internal from the inside out- is the way the idea contains the matter- how we are contained by thought.
The idea of the matrix ultimately states that the dimension you are in is maintained by the dimension you are not. The matrix is our ideas, we live in our ideas. This is physically true.
The idea here is that the alike relation being identical having no differentiation is the simple magnitude producing the inverse a repulsion, the repulsion itself takes on an opposite now a point is inversely bounded by the opposite force
The self identity being and other now being that the other has an other identity of which has an other. The quality of quantity. In economics, more quantity (money) can buy more variations of quality. But having a certain quality only produces a proportionate quantity. With a lot of money you can buy cheap middle and expensive goods. Whereas if you only have enough for medium good you can get low but can’t get expensive.
Inverse square law describes pierces law of generality and intensity
The more magnitude the less intense. This physical law states that the more general energy gets the less intense it becomes. From this we see that intensity is the original source and generality is after that. But in mind we have the generality proceeding into the intensity. The intensity is the present. Not general coming out from intensity, but intensity coming out of generality. Or from generality going into intensity.
Now the idea of evolutionary divergence concerns the question of how higher life forms developed from more primitive ones ones? The answer is that development occurs when the individual appropriates the idea of the species and determining it in a particular manner therefore forming a new line of decent (explain how). This explains that what it means for something to possess motion is relatedness in terms of significance- the particular is the the emphasis on one side of the relation. The locus is the condition that insinuates the structure of some form by demonstrating the process as a kind of logical relation. But in what sense are the conditions known to illustrate the form are not known by virtue of being illustrative. The illustration is an abstractive set of the form of the activity.
(Whitehead abstractive set) the concept of Coordinate is for example an application of the abstractive set to elucidate the potential extensive and temporal locus of form. The conditions that conceives distinct points as so simultaneously in motion to form a single figure are instantaneously contained in the abstractive set that discloses them as possible forms. Coordination is the idea that to be in motion is to take on the locus of potential forms. The organization of distinct points moving in perfect relation to form a single figure, really means that the single figure formed by their relations exists as the abstractive set of each point. The abstractive set is the capacity of for actual idea, like a platonic form, in each point of the relation that form some figure. The locus of something is the activity where all the points form the whole of its part.
Consciousness as degree
Breathing regulates consciousness
Where does one body begin and another end? Is a question explained by how consciousness is the continuity of relations. On the one hand the physical composition of one body distinguishes it from another. For example the digestives systems metabolizes vitamins by matching the composition of the nutrient with that of the organ, that organs require a certain composition akin to their own composition should not be a surprise. For example vitamin C crystal takes on the appearance of feathered bronze shield.
The molecular structures of these nutrients are taken by organs similar in molecular composition. The organism is sublated form of the environment, just like a virus is sublated form from the organism (add to virus as life, viruses and bacteria is the experimentation of nature to advance cellular evolution). For example, Vitamin d is appropriated by bones. The size density etc. also plays a role in distinguishing similar bodies. At the fundamental level the distinction between bodies as separate individual entities becomes ambiguous.
Components classified by their species
All individual components are scientifically classified by their species. The species informs the nature of its individual components by assigning common attribute as common name. The truth of this fact is even more idiomatic at the atomic level. At the macroscopic level perception evolves to pick out the individual from the species And reason then derives the species in the individual. At the microscopic level however the discrepancy between individual components and the species is an elusive distinction. An Individual atom is an abstraction from a species of atoms. Hydrogen consists of billion of hydrogen atoms. The category of a hydrogen atom is meant to classify the quality of hydrogen generally (find where you talk about this hydrogen atom) in our empirical observation perception picks out the species of chimpanzees as individual monkeys. Yet in thought, there is no such thing as an individual chimp without the idea that encompasses all chimpanzees.
The subatomic level seems to exhibit the nature synonymous with that of abstract thought rather than sensation. At the quantum level the harmony between the individual atoms are so perfect that there is no distinction between one and many, they appear as the very as-ethical composition of the element. The deeper we go into the fundamental composition of matter, the less there is a distinction between the individual component and the species. Whether one individual cell is said to operate separately than the whole of cells comprising the organ is only a question of maintaining the quality the species of cell promote. In our perception we can gain an approximate distinction between an individual zebra and the species of zebras. But even less developed life forms if we separate an individual ant from its colony its life span is short (check)
Consciousness is the locus of spectrum. The term “spectrum” is the concept used to classify an activity in terms of its position on a scale between two extreme or opposite points. The proposition of a logical principle brings with the inverse presupposition. Nothing presupposes being. Their inverse relation forms a positive contradiction, which having as its extremes the two inverse principles, constitutes the spectrum where all the possible relation between being and nothing possess a position relative to the extreme points. The middle point between being and nothing which constitutes the range of the spectrum is their synthesis, becoming. The principle of becoming is the transition of being into nothing and nothing into being, both of which are inverse relations having opposite position relative to each other. This is why being comes out of nothing, it is the same as to say nothing comes out of being, their becoming is the activity where they are the same moment. The concept of “range” is defined as “the distance within which something can be reached or perceived”. Becoming as the range of nothing and being, is evaluative. In other words, becoming is the activity that sets an aim and determines the validity of the process towards actualizing that aim. For example, electromagnetic radiation is the arrangement of components as progressive series according to wavelength. Color is exactly the bare quantitative notion of a qualitative distribution. It does not state why the distribution is but that there is a distribution of differentiation.
• a band of colors, as seen in a rainbow, produced by separation of the components of light by their different degrees of refraction according to wavelength.
the entire range of wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation. noun: the spectrum
an image or distribution of components of any arranged in a progressive series according to wavelength.
an image or distribution of components of sound, particles, etc., arranged according to such characteristics as frequency, charge, and energy.
• the area or extent covered by or included in something.”an introductory guide to the range of debate this issue has generated”
• MATHEMATICS the set of values that a given function can take as its argument varies.
1. 2. a set of different things of the same general type.
Degree
the amount, level, or extent to which something happens or is present.
• a unit of measurement of angles, one three-hundred-and-sixtieth of the circumference of a circle.”set at an angle of 45 degrees”
There are degrees of physicality, there are degrees of being present, like contrast of colour.
• 3. a stage in a scale or series, in particular.
• a unit in any of various scales of temperature, intensity, or hardness.”water boils at 100 degrees Celsius”
• MATHEMATICS the class into which an equation falls according to the highest power of unknowns or variables present.”an equation of the second degree”
When sensory deprived ones looses the distinction their consciousness and the consciousness of some other thing (Alan watts took, off mask and gave it to a fish under water)
The angles of degrees characterize the range of physical composition of the consciousness
When we ask what has happened for eternity, the answer to the general question, we have to look into the objective psychological condition of the world given that substance is rational. The foundational psychoanalytical method for treatment of phobias is not to run away from them or ignore their affect. Instead treatment of fear is to directly confront the object where the phobia is present (Peterson). The truth of this fact spans beyond the psychological nature of human mind because human complexes are based on internal self conflicts when left unresolved develop into pathological neurosis. What human nature shares with nature generally is the fact of self-contradiction. Except in the universal case the progress of self-contradiction has been ongoing for eternity. Therefore the complex level of self-contradiction has reached such a minute condition of variability, that there arose proportional strength ability of dealing with that. The process of evolution is precisely the production of the ideal specimen that is capable of dispensing with the complexity of the world. (Explain how the really nature of things in the quantum according to string theory vibration that all things are light waves. The motion of anything extends it into light spectrum and that is the physical composition of the object in quantum. Our senses however does not see the world in this way because is it did, all objects would appear to be jumbled up waves of light, given the movements of them crisscrossing each other, the world would just be one big undifferentiated slab. (Add pre-Socratic where they say without void world would just be one big object) The limitation of Sensation is efficient because it picks out objects as particles not as waves distinguishing features between them. For example someone deaf does not consists of the absence of sound, instead they constantly hear sound uninterrupted by silence therefore they loose the capacity to distinguish between sounds as they lack the void whereby one thing can be another (Alan watts). A magnetic field is essentially the probabilistic relation of attraction and repulsion, not being either both, but the void whereby both contradict each other forming a stalemate force )
(Add to whitehead place significance) An object’s position is its location relative to a reference point (or origin of a coordinate system). Position is distinguished from a vector on the grounds that it does not necessarily tend towards some direction, yet it is a vector quantity because it is the location of some direction. The vector is the direction of some location towards a definite point but the location is also at the same time that which towards which action is directed. Direction is not merely as we say some position insofar as having location, but position is the direction of some shifting point that itself is the location.
Time tube
The idea of a time tube describes how mind ascends from the microscopic to the macroscopic. The distinction between micro and macro in the realm of time is not merely defined by size but it is rather defined by where the present conception of a moment is on a temporal sequence. All the potential events form a microscopic scale that reaches back into the mind, from a concrete moment, and likewise they stand out from the concrete moment to a more abstract state of possibilities. These directions in time form a sphere loop
At the end of each tube is a particular event. how consciousness proceeds in time is proceeding through each layer that is an event
What we observe as the present is the end of a time tube. In an absolute framework of time where a moment is not passing over while another takes its place, there is no distinction between the conception of one moment as opposed to the other. events can be outlined by the following two theoretical models of spacetime; first, we can think of an object as it goes through the experiences of events as a position in space that changes over time. Like an unchanging spiral shape in spacetime. We do not directly observer an orbit in space we just infer it from the object occupying the same positions at a pattern. When we notice everyday that there is a sunrise we infer from that the the earth is rotating with respect to the sun. We also measure that the moon is rising and setting everyday and we infer it is orbiting around the earth. We only see an abstraction of the orbit, the orbit however is at every point filled by every moment of the moon, or the moon as an object in a particle state fills this every moment of its orbit around the earth.
The changes of an object through time we witness as a series of differences exhibited by the same object, for example we notice a change at one moment and than a different change at another moment, but we do not observer the actual sequence that maintains a continuity of one change to the other. The object maintains some stability as it goes through these changes. This stability we pick out as a particle state of an object, the form making the object a self contained free body in motion, however the direction by which the way this object moves involves an identity of a length, like moving straight, and so far is the particle state going through this length of the duration, it is being maintained at every part of it. We think that moving straight is just an inference from the object moving in a random direction, that it moves then we infer straightness, however to move straight there has to be a passage in nature or the concept
To conceive the object moving straight. whether it is moving forward back side ways in or out these maintain the identity of that duration. The duration is simply the abstraction for the capacity which captures all the discernible difference that a particle state can take, and this capacity now becomes the direction or the movement which the particle state moves along. The quality for the length of a duration to maintain an identity and not be broken into discrete pieces is an abstraction of a conception maintaining itself as it goes through and recognizes differences of experiences and therefore recording each conception of a change as a position of possibility for the event, or a possible outcome.
Secondly the differences making up the possibilities of events must occupy space for their occurrence. We observer an object at one point in space at a given time, and when it changes its at a different point, it is always at one point but it is never at every point.
In this model every single change in the objects position takes up a whole new dimension, or is characterized by a different dimension in space. We ordinarily perceive the world as a single dimension containing objects that are three dimensional if not more multidimensional. The world does not appear as a series of distinct dimensions layered simultaneously on each other that are slightly different reiteration of the same thing. The world is conceived not in a static manner although things appear to be static and in motion, an organism rather conceives the environment dynamically. On some level this means that the organism is moving, turning, and the environment is changing, displacing etc., these we think is the result of a set of free bodies moving about within the same space. However this so called same space exhibits a series of different configurations that if these differences were to be taking as different moments and placed onto each other, they would exhibit an overlapping of each other that actually can be taken to be the very ingredient to view a new object.
The wavelength is every singe possibility of a particle state.
Reality is the mechanism of revealing the truth, this is why it’s called reality. What we observe as “reality” is an abstraction of reality, or rather what really is at this moment is an instance of reality. The meaning of “Instance” in this sense does not mean merely a fast occurrence, or rather a moment that occurs fast, as we say ‘it only takes an instance’ but rather an instance also means a single or particular case, the moment that is a still and static conception. An instance is the still conception of an event, it is identical with the conception of a single set of things, an instance is only a measure for how long a single set of things are conceived before the conception changes to a set of other things. In other words the conception itself not moving irregardless of anything being conceived moving. Reality is not the sum of these instances but it is rather the mechanism of revealing the actuality of these instances.
The true meaning of an event is not merely what it means or signifies but rather what potential came out of it. Potential in this context is not necessarily good, as there is an idealistic element associated with potentials, that it is the ideal of the real, it is ideal in the sense that it has not happened, or is rather not an abstraction or a limited conception, but the possibility for an instance to be more than itself. However the function of a potential is part of this mechanism of reality where the truth of an event is brought out and revealed.
To explain what we mean by the actuality of an event as the truth reality mechanizes to bring out, take for example the following example. Imagine a situation where there has been a book store in the same plaza for 20 plus years. In this book there is a large selection of books for purchase and a little cafe people can order coffee and sit down and read. The cafe in the book store is usually always busy with people reading. One day all the sudden the entire book store is closed down and is rather replaced by a liquor store, equally as large and with as much as variety in selection except in alcohols. A psychoanalytical analysis of this social change can indicate that people in society generally are moving towards the activity of drinking rather than reading, and a more philosophical analysis can suggest that current culture is interested in numbing the mind instead of replenishing it.
Chapter turns into lcbo because lcbo was the true expression happening.
Fractals-
a single thing is whole things- used to describe all possible events instantaneously present
Fractal (Add to zooming inside rock)
“a curve or geometric figure, each part of which has the same statistical character as the whole.”
Having the “same statistical character” means that any part within a whole can be taken as the point from which the whole can be considered.
Fractals are structures “in which similar patterns recur at progressively smaller scales.”
The function of the fractal describes the relation between how a single component undertakes the extent of a full duration and inversely how the duration involving the sum set of possible events is considered from the viewpoint of a single component.
(Doppler effect) the geometric form of an activity constituting the life of an object is fractal. We see many objects structured as fractals, trees, sea shells, add (Fibonacci numbers). Objects that do not evidently exhibit a fractal like structure also do when magnified, like skin for example from a distance appears homogeneous but when magnified shows a fractal like cellular structure. When we see objects in nature exhibiting a fractal nature, what we are witnessing is an abstraction of a preexisting duration in time.
that is objectified into the form of the experience. When we see a tree for example we say it is an individual tree, but the so called individual tree is at the same time the whole possibilities of the experience of a tree. The object that is the tree is at the same time the experience of tree. The object however is only a limited scope of the experience and the limit of the object is where the conception of the duration ends. This means that any single object insofar as being a fractal is infinitesimally exponential. To answer why an object is conceived as not an infinitesimal duration but rather a finite boundary of form
The Doppler effect assumes a definite kind of directionality the point like particle is heading towards as its wavefront become condensed. Our conception of what the Doppler effect is explaining makes the directionality of a particle move in a linear way from side to side, for example left to right. But this two-dimensional figure of the motion when conceived three-dimensionally becomes more of a outwards-inwards motion, motion heading infinitesimally onwards. The motion demonstrated by a fractal is characteristic of change, motion as change occurs as being first a general macro-scale, and transforms inwardly in an infinitesimal exponential manner as the same form of the object progressively becomes smaller and smaller.
When we witness an object that is a fractal we already see the totality of all possible events that happens to a particular being which underwent those experience at a different rate of time than the point of view it was conceived from.
Motion by way of change behaves in terms of fractals.
Fractal is the form by which a series of events complicate together to form the spatial extension of an object, so that the object can experience the duration of series of events. A fractal is simply the conception of a series of potential like events disclosed within the same spacetime manifold.
The leafs are the events of the plant.
The physical substrate is simply the pure conception that undergoes the experience of its presupposed duration the content of which is warped and moulded by the form of the activity.
For example, depending on the activity your body looks a certain way, when
From an external observer, the duration of a fractal simply seems to exhibit the particular character that is identified as the object, but the reality is that there is an internal observer also impeded in the very structure of the object that is undergoing the duration of the experience.
The motion of the observer is identical with the change of the object being conceived undergoes in time. This includes the extension of both the object from which the conception is derived and the object being conceived. As the observer is heading in the direction approaching a potential event, the potential event rises like a sunrise from the horizon meeting the observer.
In the grand scheme of the universe there is no single centre point because every point is potentially the centre, the factor of indeterminacy itself is a certainty, the potential avenues of the future events, are other beings. What we have as the structure of a single being is the total of all potential beings. The universe is not a place of object but moreover is a place of beings. Objects are abstractions of beings conceived from the limited scope of a particular observer external from them.
Add to instantaneous point flash
When the extension is restricted so much is identical with a duration infinitesimally going onwards, at a point whitehead says when an activity is infinitely limited occurs an “instantaneous point flash” whereby the duration itself
This flash point is not the whole of an activity by capturing all its events simultaneously at an instant but when it occurs means that the duration reached the ideal limit wherein there is determination for experiencing each event in a definite order in time. This is when a particular point is reached
Proceeding onwards so much at a certain point inverts inwards and that becomes the point from which the whole is disclosed from.
All possible events are instantaneously present forms fractal. This idea is understood in the following two ways. One way is that when all possibilities are present, we are contending with what is readily available. the picture that comes to mind are a bunch of objects scattered on a plain and each of these is a possibility. In this sense possibility as an idea of instantaneity is whatever is readily available at the present, or in other words whatever is present is readily available. But this can only be a conception of a finite set of objects, and so the second way of understanding possibility is not what is present but extends beyond what is readily available at the moment, or what is directly presented before the observer, in the sense, possibility involves ability of being present but not yet within the reference frame of the observer, or that it is present but that the reference does not capture it.
With perception for instance every object appears to partially block off or be blocked off by some other object. The mind sees where the eyes does not. In other words logic fills in the blind spots with the object. For example perception does not see the water running underneath the bridge however logic makes it certain that it continues down there so that we do not have to always look to confirm, we can logically assume the presence of something unobserved and that is equal to actually seeing it. In other words you do not have to fully see it to know it’s there you can partially see it and then rationally deduce it is there. Most of the empirical facts of science are partially observation completed with logical deduction.
Instantaneity in the spatial domain entirely operates on the idea that possibility is within what is readily present and is found in both the intention of having a certain set of objects and not others, and the limitation of those objects imposing on each other. In the domain of time however possibility as an instantaneity involves both what is present and what is not present, both of these states are simultaneous. In other words every single possible iteration of a single thing is present within the same space, along with the iteration of all things in every possible way. And so in this plain there would be such an overlap between things and a cluster in action that nothing can be picked out entirely as a thing independent from other things, nor can anything move at all because the moment there is an empty space that is filled with infinity possibilities.
However it is in the nature of space and time to impose a limitation on infinity and therefore characterize an order. Space for example cannot be infinite as being an empty plain that goes on and on without end because in order for that to happen space must be disclosed by a conception that maintains it as going on and on, and therefore is disclosed within that conception, or space must be moving infinitely relative to a finite object as a reference point otherwise space itself would be a still unmoving object and that becomes itself a limited conception reference to a moving infinity. And so a finite conception serves as a reference point that keeps space moving infinitely, and therefore the limitation to infinity is a natural element of it that develops to order it.
The mind remedies the unlimited scale of all possibilities instantaneously present in time to the limitation of a few things present within space. The observer conceives an infinite because it is that part within it that is naturally a limit. Infinity is conceived as the undifferentiated make up of everything, and that makes up the first distinct and finite conception. Infinity is not the onset, or rather, everything present is not the beginning, it is rather an ideal and the energy for work. This means that to begin at all, the beginning is presented as the most finite and simplest of all conceptions, whether that be nothing as the lack of all things, or the first and foremost simplest of all things, the beginning is the most finite condition because it is the conception of infinity as nothing that can be differentiated at all, and therefore it is just the pure conception.
However this beginning conception is empty and void of any qualities and therefore it develops the first quality in the recognition that the lack of all qualities is not a feature of the conditions it identifies as identical with itself, but it is rather a limitation of itself as identifying those conditions as the lack of everything. And therefore everything already exists but it has blinded itself from all that just to recuperate itself the capacity to pick out anything at all. And this participle occurs in every unique way every single thing is picked out that makes up infinity.
Infinity as no thing at all is picked out as the identity to first pick out anything at all, and now it can look behind this limitation it has imposed on everything to find identity with itself and it begins to pick out a single thing from all things. Upon picking out anything it all, it develops the first conception of a particular thing, and then a second conception, and then a third, and so on and so forth, and those conception it picks out become identical with what it is as a being, so if it picks out a plant cell, it becomes that cell, and that cell picks out the plant, and it becomes that plant etc., these conceptions develop a series and since the ability is infinite, the observer picks out an arbitrary part in that infinity, even if that means the infinite itself as an arbitrary part, and makes that part the disclosed form wherein an infinity is initiated. And so if it picks out a plant, that plant is the reference frame which discloses the cells that make it up, the molecules that make up those cells, the atoms that make up those molecules, and inversely at that level, the atoms surpass beyond the conception used to arrive at it to make up the grounds for many other objects for the conception, atoms in the plant make up all the elements that harbour the plant and it makes up the time and space where the universe exists for those elements etc.
If we abstract any part that makes up the whole of this fractal we realize each part is the same as the whole. This can be understood in more mathematical terms with simple definitions.
In mathematics a “series” is a set of quantities constituting a progression determined by a common relation. Whether this common relation is the order, I.e, coming right after another, or the form, as in Latin literally means ‘row, chain’, from serere ‘join, connect”. The term “infinite” is the common relation in the sense that it is the limit of any series, it means greater than any assignable quantity or countable number — in Latin infinite literally translates to not-finished, means infinitus, from in- ‘not’ + finitus ‘finished, finite’. Finite means finished, to be la finite means to be finished. Whether this means the limit arriving at the greatest number of all quantities and therefore nothing more, or whether it is the negative of any single quantity and therefore a limit in reductionism. When we have any definite series, what discloses that is the ‘greater’ quantity. For this reason the value of ‘infinity’ is to be an ‘exponent’, which means ‘ a quantity representing the power to which a given number is to be raised, usually expressed as a raised symbol beside the number or expression (e.g. 3 in 23 = 2 × 2 × 2). The exponent is the determination for the number like in the case of being multiplied. In other usage in language an exponent is a unit that realizes another, more abstract unit. For example person who believes in and promotes the truth of an idea or theory, e.g., an early exponent of Jesus Christ.
A ‘set’ means a collection of distinct entities regarded as a unit, being either individually specified or satisfying specified conditions. In Latin set translates to ‘sect’ like in the word sect-ion.