Section 28 (first updated 1.26.2021)

Schwarzschild Radius – How Black Holes Are Made

The discovery of the black hole is one of the most startling concepts ever conceived in the study of nature. Black holes are “singularities” in spacetime in which gravity is so extreme that nothing—not even light—can escape their grasp.[1] They serve as end-states for massive stars as well as any sufficiently dense inorganic aggregate.[2] In principle, anything compressed beyond a critical density may form a black hole. This understanding clarifies how black holes operate, but not what they are. Thus the philosophical question remains: what ontological purpose does the black hole serve in nature?

It is well established that when objects approach a black hole, they undergo extreme tidal forces that stretch and dismember matter at the atomic level.[3] Structures that once formed a concrete whole are pulled apart into independent constituents. When concrete objects are individualized at the atomic level, they enter a regime where quantum effects dominate. At the quantum level, the boundaries that individuate objects blur; states become superposed, and the distinction between particular and universal weakens.[4] In this “universal” regime, an object can express multiple potential states simultaneously, analogous to how past, present, and future coexist within the spacetime continuum in certain relativistic interpretations.[5] Here, objects lose their fixed quantitative structure and appear instead as expressions of pure quality. Quality, in this philosophical sense, reflects the internal logic of the universe—the generative principles that give rise to observable form.

The quantum state thus represents the inner workings of the universe, governed by probabilistic and non-classical dynamics that differ from fixed macroscopic laws. What evidence suggests that the universe contains a structural contradiction—or tension—between inner and outer reality? The black hole appears to function as a natural antithesis: a bridge between the quantum foundations of reality and the general laws that govern macroscopic phenomena. It is termed a “singularity” precisely because it represents a finite region assuming an effectively infinite value—a point where classical spacetime ceases to behave regularly.[6] It is therefore one of the clearest manifestations of quantum principles interfacing with general relativity.

Before examining how the black hole mediates between explicit and implicit reality, it is important to clarify these terms. The distinction between implicit and explicit reality is a central theme in philosophy. The claim that an object possesses both an implicit and an explicit nature arises from the activity of understanding: the mind separates what is immediately given from what is conceptually inferred.[7] Such distinctions do not exist independently in the object itself; they arise through the cognitive process of grasping the object.

This distinction is necessary for developing self-conscious awareness of the universal principles embodied in objects. Outside the process of understanding, no such separation exists; the object as a concrete whole contains its structure and function in unity. Only when consciousness reflects upon the object does it distinguish between the implicit (inner nature) and the explicit (outer manifestation). When Reason is achieved, the distinction collapses again: the thinker grasps the object not merely as appearance but as a unified, self-consistent reality.

Consider familiar objects from everyday life—cups, chairs, tables, desks, clothing. For ordinary consciousness, the distinction between function and material form does not arise. The purpose of a cup (to hold water) is immediately bound to its shape; likewise, its hollow structure appears inseparable from its function. However, for someone unfamiliar with the concept—for example, a member of an isolated tribe encountering a cup for the first time—the relationship between material composition and function is not immediately evident. Only through repeated interaction does the function become clear.

More complex artifacts—cars, computers, industrial machinery—are not as transparent to ordinary consciousness. One may know what a car does without grasping its implicit workings: the engine, fuel combustion, electrical systems. Only through analysis does the underlying structure reveal itself. The same applies to natural objects: flowers, ecosystems, and biological organisms do not automatically disclose their inner mechanisms. Their functions become intelligible only after scientific investigation into their structure.

The universe is the most complex of all objects. Thus the task of science is to mediate between our initial conception of the universe and its deeper, implicit workings. Unlike ordinary consciousness, science begins with the presupposition that the initial appearance of nature conceals an underlying structure. Its task is to deduce the internal principles that explain concrete reality. In this way, the universe—like all concrete objects—possesses no intrinsic distinction between its material form and the function it serves. The separation arises only in the process of understanding, and it disappears once the unity of structure and function is grasped.

Footnotes

1. The idea that nothing can escape a black hole follows from solutions to Einstein’s field equations, particularly the Schwarzschild solution of 1916.
2. Stellar collapse into black holes was theorized by Oppenheimer and Snyder in 1939.
3. This effect, called spaghettification, results from differential gravitational forces near the event horizon.
4. Superposition and entanglement undermine classical individuality; see foundational work by Schrödinger, Heisenberg, and Dirac.
5. Some interpretations of relativity and block-universe models treat time as coexistent rather than sequential (e.g., Minkowski spacetime).
6. A singularity represents a breakdown of classical geometry, where quantities such as curvature diverge.
7. This reflective distinction is characteristic of post-Kantian philosophy, especially in Hegel’s Science of Logic.

Subatomic nature (neurons)

The knowledge of the subatomic nature of concrete objects represents the initial conception made by science—its first theoretical grasp of the universal character of physical reality. Although empirical science identifies the subatomic or, more recently, the quantum structure of objects as their implicit nature, the truth may be the opposite: this quantum structure may in fact be the explicit, universal nature of the universe.[1] The distinction between an object’s quantum nature and its general macroscopic nature—its description through general relativity—remains, to this day, unresolved. Objects described by general relativity appear to bear no intrinsic relation to their subatomic or quantum nature.[2]

This disjunction persists largely because science currently treats the universe as consisting of a dualism between general relativity and quantum mechanics. When concepts are treated as externally related, the relationship assigned to them lacks intrinsic purpose. External relation presupposes that opposing concepts exist independently of each other, their connection being merely contingent or imposed from without.[3] Such a relation excludes the possibility that these concepts may actually be dependent on one another—different forms or expressions of the same underlying entity.

When natural phenomena are understood solely through external relations, objects appear to possess no purpose beyond the isolated forms they exhibit. Under this framework, purpose is excluded as a category with any concrete ontological status. Yet the philosophical notion of purpose concerns not merely the particular functions that objects serve but the universal rationale for why they exist at all.[4] If objects are conceived as independent in their essential nature, then they share no internal relation and thus no universal purpose. But if the relation between objects is understood as internal—that is, as part of their constitutive nature—then purpose arises necessarily from their interrelation. In such a view, the existence of each object implies its participation in a universal structure of meaning.

There appears to be a universal pattern in the way particulars constitute wholes throughout the universe. From the infinitesimal processes of subatomic particles forming atoms and molecules, to the macroscopic structures they generate, there emerges a consistent relational pattern: the whole is not merely a sum set of externally coexisting parts, but a structure arising from the internal relations among its constituents.[5]

Cognitive science provides a clear example. A single neuron—or even a countably infinite number of isolated neurons—possesses no intelligible function outside the network of relations by which neurons transmit electrochemical signals. The neuron is defined by its role within the brain’s relational structure; it is essentially a cell specialized for transmitting energy.[6] Abstracting this relation away reduces the neuron to mere biological substrate, something other than what it fundamentally is. This same relational structure appears throughout the universe: every particular object exhibiting individuality is defined by the relations that make it part of a concrete whole.

In social science, too, the individuality of persons is shaped by the form of society to which they belong. Individuality is never pure isolation; it is constituted through relations—cultural, social, historical—that define the individual’s meaning and purpose within the social whole.[7]

Seeing this persistent pattern across all domains of nature makes it difficult to conceive of the universe as random or as lacking rational structure. The very existence of pattern contradicts randomness: how could the nature of the universe be sheer absence of order if pattern manifests everywhere as the governing principle? Pattern itself suggests an infinite regress of processes, but when paired with the notion of development—order unfolding through determinate stages—it becomes clear that pattern represents necessity, while development represents determinacy.[8]

Footnotes

1. Quantum theory describes the fundamental dynamical structure of nature; see foundational work by Planck, Bohr, and Heisenberg.
2. The incompatibility between general relativity and quantum mechanics remains an unresolved problem in theoretical physics.
3. The distinction between external and internal relations has roots in Hegelian and Bradleyan metaphysics.
4. The philosophical concept of “purpose” (τέλος) originates in Aristotelian teleology.
5. Systems theory and emergentism also describe wholes as arising from internal relations rather than mere aggregation.
6. See standard neuroscience texts on neuronal function, synaptic transmission, and network dynamics.
7. Social theorists such as Durkheim and Mead emphasize the relational constitution of individuality.
8. In Hegelian dialectics, necessity and determinacy emerge from the developmental unfolding of concepts.

Black hole explicit and implicit reality

Before exploring how the black hole serves as the mediation between explicit and implicit reality, it is first important to clarify what is meant by these terms. The term “explicit” pertains to the knowledge derived by the Understanding from external reality. Sense perception is the primary faculty through which external reality is conceived. The term, however, is not limited to the conception of external reality but also refers to external reality independent of any perception. Sense perception of external reality is possible only because external reality already possesses the kind of being that makes such perception possible. The explicit, therefore, is both the abstract notion of outer existence and the existence of concrete reality independent from its concept.

The term “implicit”, by contrast, designates the abstract notion of inner reality grasped only by Reason. The implicit consists in the internal process of the concrete object—its operative principle. This is not the empirical interior of an object (organs, gears, inner surfaces), but rather the operation occurring at a dimension qualitatively different from the empirical form. Because of its nature, the implicit cannot be apprehended by sense perception; otherwise it would be explicit. Knowledge of the implicit therefore requires going beyond sensation into the realm of Reason. The implicit points to the cause of effects—the essential substance that allows objects to be conceived explicitly. Yet the implicit and the explicit are always understood from each other.

Sense perception conceives the explicit nature of reality, providing the Understanding with a set of external relations that often contradict one another. These contradictions are resolved through the implicit nature of things. Reason synthesizes these external relations. Descartes’ wax argument provides a clear example: sense perception apprehends the changing shapes of wax, but only Reason grasps the implicit truth that all such shapes belong to the same underlying substance—the wax itself.[^1] Analogously, sense perception apprehends the manifold material variations in the universe, but only Reason grasps their underlying unity.

The black hole is the point at which this distinction becomes manifest. Entry into the black hole reveals the implicit nature of the object—its internal relation. Hegel describes internal relations in the context of gravity:

“General gravitation is the true and determinate concept of material corporeality, which is thereby just as essentially divided into particular bodies, and which has its manifested existence, the moment of external individuality, in movement, which is thus determined immediately as a relation of several bodies.”[^2]

Gravity is the bare force of mental appetition, purified from any particular determination.[^3] As the primary intention of mind, it is the principle upon which all further determinations rest. This explains why, for example, bodies in orbital systems maintain their relations through gravity: they are particular determinations held together by a common primary intent. Gravity serves as the movement implicit in corporeality just as it is the explicit motion among bodies.

General gravitation consists of the unity between the forces of attraction and repulsion. These are two expressions of the same movement in opposite forms. Each defines the other: when attraction is the necessity for matter, repulsion is its determinacy, and vice versa. This unity constitutes the explicit and implicit nature of matter. Attraction is presupposed by the existence of matter: atoms must have been brought together to form the many variations of inorganic bodies. Attraction is therefore the necessity that composes matter. Once unity is established, it must be sustained through determinacy, provided by repulsion. Repulsion allows individual bodies to maintain their externality relative to one another.

Thus, while attraction composes matter, repulsion preserves its determinacy. This describes the explicit process. The implicit unity of attraction and repulsion, however, takes an inverted form.

Repulsion becomes the internal necessity when attraction serves as determinacy. When bodies are drawn together by attraction, they achieve equilibrium through repulsion. Their opposition becomes their balance. This equilibrium implies an internal relation—an implicit unity that inverts the external relation.

What purpose does this equilibrium serve? Within equilibrium, repulsion provides the external necessity for matter, while attraction becomes the internal determinacy. This structure governs the relational dynamics of bodies in orbit, including entire solar systems. Planets illustrate this: they receive thermodynamic and electromagnetic conditions from their stars according to their mass, distance, velocity, and composition. Earth exemplifies the internal relation of attraction and repulsion: attraction determines the formation of periodic elements through solar energy, while repulsion sustains these elements by enabling chemicals to relate externally while remaining themselves. The fundamental chemicals derived from solar processes then enter new internal relations, producing increasingly complex structures. The emergence of the first biological life—bacterial life—marks the highest development of this internal relation.

The ontological understanding of gravity exemplifies the Speculative method. Modern science often understands speculation as conjecture without evidence. But the speculative method is not defined by the absence of knowledge; rather, it becomes empty only when divorced from what is known. Properly understood, the speculative method is the free movement of thought that arises only after facts are established. It is the thinking of knowledge—reflecting on how facts relate to one another and to the whole. Without facts, speculation merely speculates about itself, which results in an abstract certainty. Even dogmatic speculation rests on misunderstood facts.

It is therefore appropriate that the ontological account of gravity be developed in relation to factual content. For example, the higher the atomic number of an element, the more complex and sublated it is. Hydrogen and helium, which possess the lowest atomic numbers and constitute the majority of stellar mass, represent the least complex forms of matter.[^4] Heavier elements—those with high atomic numbers—are found in planetary bodies such as Earth. This distinction reveals a qualitative difference: the diverse elements found on Earth are qualitative sublations of the quantitative elements abundant in stars. Water, for example, is the qualitative form of hydrogen.[^5] This contrast provides factual evidence for the internal relations of gravity.

Gravity “constitutes an absolute basis for mechanics” insofar as it explains the external relations among bodies. Scientific materialism, however, overlooks the way gravity serves as the internal relation implicit in matter itself. This internal motion is not merely mechanical. Internal relation is the movement of substance in relation to itself, and therefore possesses freedom.[^6]

Substance is not corporeal, though it manifests corporeally. Substance is the essential nature underlying the phenomena of matter. Tangibility belongs to matter, which is the explicit result of the essential process. The result is static and concrete; the process is dynamic and determinate. Scientific inquiry cannot comprehend the process through the result alone, even though the result reveals the process. Unlike the fixed cycles of natural laws, the essential process is developmental—dialectical. Though result and process differ, each is essential to the other. This developmental principle is what is meant by Reason in nature—not rationality in the everyday sense, but the dialectical logic that is teleological in form. The Understanding conceives the process as being for the result, but not the result as for the process; hence it fails to grasp development.

The black hole exemplifies the concrete manifestation of gravity as internal relation.

The black hole is pure gravity, meaning its quantitative determinacy is only the quality of gravity. We usually assume gravity simply exists, but what is its source? The mass of a black hole is minute compared to its gravitational pull. The black hole’s density is so extreme that attraction vastly outweighs its quantitative measure—a situation inconsistent with ordinary mechanics. How can something so infinitesimal produce such macroscopic gravitational effects?

Sense perception conceives the black hole as infinitely small, smaller than an atom yet possessing stellar density. Yet this “infinitely small” limit crosses into the quantum realm, where classical measurement fails. What appears infinitely small under general standards becomes infinitely large under quantum standards, because the quantum realm underlies the entire universe.[^7] This explains the immense gravity of black holes.

But applying classical laws such as Newton’s third law to quantum phenomena leads to contradictions. The quantum cannot be measured by standards of magnitude appropriate to matter; it possesses no magnitude in the conventional sense. The quantum realm is measured only by Reason—by the quality of Reason itself, which is Freedom.

Freedom, however, does not mean doing whatever one wants; this is the liberal or voluntarist interpretation. Freedom in the speculative sense is the self-determining movement of substance—the unity of necessity and determinacy.[^8]

To understand how the quantum realm is Reason, we must complete the account of the black hole as pure gravity.

The black hole is the negation that serves as the positive concept for the Understanding. Though it functions positively for the Understanding, it remains negative in essence. The Understanding sees negation as confirming the existence of Being; Reason, however, sees negation as arising from Being. The black hole’s negating force confirms the existence of corporeal matter, since the black hole depends upon matter’s magnitude.

Proceeding deeper, Being in nature is conceived as its own non-being, exemplified by the black hole. This negative existence does not mean absence; non-existence presupposes existence as that which it is not. Ordinary thinking identifies “Nothing” with the absence of all things—non-being. But even Nothing presupposes Being insofar as it is something that is nothing. If Nothing is something, then Being and Nothing presuppose each other. “Nothing is the truth of Being” does not imply the exclusion of Being, for that would equally exclude Nothing.

Footnotes

[^1]: Conceptual footnote. Descartes, Meditations on First Philosophy, Wax Example.

[^2]: G.W.F. Hegel, Philosophy of Nature, §210.

[^3]: Conceptual footnote. “Appetition” in this sense refers not to psychological desire but to the metaphysical striving inherent in substance (Leibniz, Hegel).

[^4]: Empirical footnote. Hydrogen (Z = 1) and helium (Z = 2) comprise ~98% of observable baryonic matter in stars.

[^5]: Conceptual footnote. “Qualitative form” here means higher-order combinations exhibiting emergent properties not reducible to the atomic constituents.

[^6]: Conceptual footnote. In Hegelian terms, freedom is not mere contingency but self-relation of substance.

[^7]: Conceptual footnote. “Infinitely large” refers to the failure of classical metrics at the Planck scale, not to physical extension.

[^8]: Conceptual footnote. Hegel’s definition of freedom as “the truth of necessity”—self-determined necessity.

Nothing is what Being is not, and Being is what Nothing is

Nothing is what Being is not, and Being is what Nothing is.
For example, to say that non-chair is the Nothing to the Being of chair is to say that non-chair is everything but the chair. To say that non-chair is the absence of chair is likewise saying that everything else is but the chair is not. However, non-chair does not mean Nothing, because that leaves the chair as something not, and thus there is no Nothing but only something. In mathematics, for example, 1 − −1 = 2 because the −1 is every number with the value of 1. Therefore, the number −1 is itself a positive value for the equation. Likewise, X − −X = X means that −X is every value that is X. The concept of negatives in mathematics is true when the concept of positive is false and vice versa. The negative concept does not exclude the positive; rather, they are the inversion of each other. Nothing is known to emit from the black hole except radiation. Radiation consists of energy as electromagnetic waves or as moving subatomic particles, especially high-energy particles that cause ionization. It is in this sense the positive implicit in negation.¹

This kind of logical understanding of nature is troubling for the Understanding. If Nothing is non-being, which is everything but Being, then scientific inquiry is made impossible because the Understanding must first know everything in order to know something. This, however, is the error derived from formal logic, which states that something is either being or non-being but not both (Aristotle’s laws of thought, one law without the other). This is logic from the Understanding without Reason; it is the mind in relation with itself, independent from its nature. If x is x, it cannot be y and vice versa. The main supposition is that what is true cannot be false and what is false cannot be true. Something is either true or false but not both, and the entire objective of logic is to find the contradiction where something is both true and false. However, once a contradiction is found, that itself constitutes the resolution.² Ironically, the term “resolution” in this sense bears no resolving matter, nor the working out of the contradiction to achieve the result.

Reason, unlike the Understanding, does not require knowledge of everything to achieve knowledge of something. It rather conceives knowledge of everything to be present in somethings, or that knowledge of everything is achieved with knowledge of something. How is knowledge of everything achieved without first knowledge of something? The correct logical understanding is that knowledge of everything is derived from knowledge of something rather than knowledge of something derived from knowledge of everything. This is the case because something is all that is, and everything is the potential sum of that something. It is impossible for the Understanding to conceive knowledge as both true and false at the same time—and necessarily so, because that is by definition its very function: to understand whether knowledge is true or false in order to constitute Reason.

The Understanding requires there to be the misunderstanding of truth, and through this tension the Understanding achieves Reason. The Understanding also involves the aspect of misunderstanding itself; for example, the relativist claim to truth, where each individual understands differently and from such difference the Understanding is thus ontologically different. The relativist notion claims that the Understanding is relative depending on the individual conception of the object; that each conception of the object is different by virtue of belonging to different individuals, and thus no unity among Understanding. The fact that there are many differing conceptions about the same object does not mean that they are equally true in their conception of the object. There is only one specific reality associated with the particular object, of which each conception either perceives as true or false. The fact that there are many conceptions about the same object does not mean that they all are true conceptions of the reality underpinning the object. In fact, there is only one conception that captures the true reality of the object, and each of the many conceptions either comes close to or diverges further away.

The relativist notion confuses the abstract notion of the object to replace its concrete reality, rather than the concrete reality of the object to characterize the abstract notion. The abstract notion independent from the concrete object is an empty abstraction with an infinite set of assumptions, inasmuch as there is infinitely varying objects. This indeterminate infinity is the basis of the relativist view that because there are infinitely various objects, there are as many infinitely various conceptions of such objects. What the relativist notion fails to conceive is that the infinity associated with the concrete object is the inverse of the infinity associated with the abstract notion; they are not the same in their infinite relation. The abstract notion is subjectively infinite, whereas the concrete object is objectively infinite. In their inverse relation the abstract notion is objectively finite, whereas the concrete object is subjectively finite. The difference lies in the relation between the essential principle. Such a conception then produces the concrete object as…³ This dialectic constitutes the functioning of the universe at large.

Hegel identifies this existence as the state of Reality as it is. Reality is distinguished from actuality.⁴
The black hole is the concrete manifestation of Being, where actuality proceeds into potentiality; it is the inversion of Becoming, whereas potentiality achieves actuality. Becoming is the positive and affirmative existence in contradiction to Being. The entire concept of Existence itself presupposes Being in negation with Becoming. Being is the negative concept in negation with the affirmative nature of Becoming, whereas Becoming is in negation with such negation; Becoming is the negation of negation and is thereby the positive concept to Become.

Being is defined by the principle of negation because, by its very nature, it aims to sustain what it is not as the Become. The sustenance of what it is not confirms the existence of what it is. It is Being by virtue of what it has become, but by Becoming itself. Being is subsistent with itself as Being; otherwise it would not be. Therefore, when challenged by Becoming, it negates Becoming by working in negation to the Become. This process is the active movement of substance with itself. This dialectical relation constitutes the quantum state of what human beings conceive as general reality and is therefore an anomaly to the ordinary standards of thinking. Deviation from ordinary thought is, however, not the same as saying that truth cannot be grasped by thought in general. When the Understanding achieves thought as Reason, it is able to become conscious of Reason in the quantum state because it is knowledge itself.

For example, the understanding of the concepts of Being, Becoming, and Become is only comprehended with the realization that the ordinary conception of Time derived from the senses is limited. The senses conceive Being, Becoming, and Become as determinate particular moments in time; meaning that each concept belongs to either the past, present, or future, and that each concept is true independently from the others by virtue of being a moment in a particular time. Following this logic, any notion which conceives Being, Becoming, and Become as universal concepts is automatically categorized as a theory of vulgar determinism.

Impossibility

Determinism is generally understood as the notion that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes external to the will. This understanding excludes the notion of free-determination in the same way scientific materialism understands quantum mechanics as arbitrarily probabilistic and thus random. Except the ordinary understanding of determinism excludes free-determination or free will in the opposite manner to scientific materialism: that everything is actually true only because it is potentially true. The truth for vulgar determinism and scientific materialism is found in the synthesis of the two. This does not mean combining both concepts to achieve their truth, because that would merely restate the same contradictions unresolved. It is rather the sublation of each concept, with the truth retained and anything else abandoned; “keep the baby and throw out the bathwater,” the former being the truth cherished, the latter abandoned once its purpose is served—one the end, the other the means.

The correct understanding derived from Reason indicates that the quantum state consists of potentiality as necessarily actuality. This logic does not mean that whatever is potentially true is at the same time actually true, but rather that whatever is potentially true is ultimately actually true. In this latter thinking, it is recognized that potentiality does not necessarily suppose actuality, because the very concept also supposes its opposite—i.e., impossibility.

Potentiality, if not actuality, results in the concept of impossibility, which defines the inverse notion to potentiality. Impossibility does not mean potentiality that never becomes actuality, for each concept presupposes the other in definition; potentiality that is not actuality is still the actuality that is potentiality, whereas actuality that is not potentiality is likewise the potentiality that is yet actuality. However, they do not presuppose each other without mediation, for how can one move into the other without immediacy? In order for potentiality to move into actuality, it requires some sort of determination.

For example, the notion of “cause and effect” is wholly the notion of determination; the immediacy for cause to be the effect always involves a determining factor. The notion of cause and effect ordinarily involves the understanding that one factor of determination causes the effect of the other. The universe consists of an infinite chain of causes and effects. This ordinary understanding of determination fails to conceive the concept of Self-determination.

The notion of cause and effect is the concept derived from the Understanding; determination is conceived as the cause of one object to the effect of another, that one object causes the effect of the other. The Understanding reaches the negative contradiction: that there is an infinite regress of causes and effects. The concept of determination ceases to be determination; determination no longer becomes the process of purpose but the static moments of infinite regress. The resolution to this contradiction is found with the concept of self-determination; it is the ontological notion which conceives determination to be both the cause and the effect. In the universal sense, the cause is its own effect; there is no distinction between the concepts. Rather than one object causing the effect of the other, the same object is both the cause and the effect.⁵

This is very complicated for the Understanding to grasp because it conceives cause and effect only from what is explicit to it. Reason is required for the resolution to what is implicit.

The universal process of cause and effect is the movement of self-determination, where the something is both its own cause and effect. This ontological understanding of determination becomes less convoluted when provided with an existing process of self-determination.

Contemporary neurology, for example, demonstrates that external causes are directly linked to the internal effects of neurons in the brain; that environmental stimuli trigger neurons in a specific part of the brain. While this conceives that environmental causes are linked to neurological effects, and that such neurological effect is the cause of neurons affecting other neurons, it does not conceive the relation between the brain and the environment and each neuron with the other—that such process belongs to the self-determination of the human being with its environment and thus with its own self. The mediation between the causes from the environment and the effects on the neurological brain is the being active in the movement of self-determination. The process of self-determination is more free and less “deterministic” than the chemical cause and effect in the brain, for example. Just as the brain consists of an infinite set of neurons, each causing the others’ effects but belonging to the being in movement of self-determination, so too is the universal state the constituent of particulars acting as an infinite chain of cause and effect, but belonging to the whole in the process of its own self-determination.

The very grand task of metaphysics is to uncover the universal being of self-determination. The notion of self-determination must anticipate a very fundamental critique: that the nature of self-determination is God. The notion of God is the most elusive and ambiguous concept in all of philosophy; there are as many definitions of God as there are religions in history. The notion of God, however, is not defined from religion; prior to inquiring into the nature of God, it is first important to grasp something more fundamental—that is, the ontological notion of God, the predicate to any notion of God.

The very ontological predicate to God—indeed, the very ontological notion of ontology itself—is that there exists One nature constitutive of all nature. The One which is the nature of self-determination. Whether this one reality or nature that constitutes the many everything else is God or something other than God is the further inquisition.

The fundamental truth is that there necessarily exists One reality which everything else shares in. This ontological predisposition is less convoluted when understood by science. The universal state, which is equally the atomic state of nature, involves the one nature that is all nature. Objects at the molecular level—not even the atomic level—consist of all natural shapes. Molecule, for example, is solid, liquid, and gas at the same time. When they form together in molecular groups, they take on an explicit form of a solid, liquid, or gas. Cells that form the very basis of all biological life are exactly the internal relation between all natural forms; the cell is a liquid, gas, and solid all at the same time.

Ironically, the concept of determinism bears no concept of determination, in that it seeks potentiality to be true without any factor of actuality. This invariably cancels out the concept of potentiality because now nothing actual is to be potentially true. This is by definition the concept of impossibility: that nothing actual is potentially true. Impossibility is only an aspect of the Understanding. When the Understanding reaches a negative contradiction, the resolution is conceived as impossibility. This subtle difference means that whatever is potentially true necessarily involves self-determination to be actually true. But if something is actually true at the same time as it is potentially true, then the concept of self-determination is excluded and made no room for.

In the quantum state there is the aspect of self-determination in the actualization of potentiality. The determining aspect in the quantum state is Reason; its very substance is consciousness.

Returning to the concept of Becoming: Being’s inversion to Becoming is, however, no regress in the development of quantity, but rather the restating of quantity as quality—i.e., the refresh or reconstruction of quantity into quality. Quantity and quality are concrete concepts prior to what is ordinarily associated with them as theoretical notions. According to Hegel, quality is defined by the notion of “determinateness,” whereas quantity is defined by the notion of “magnitude.” The concept of Measure possesses natural implications in that it synthesizes quality with quantity. The quantitative form taking on the particular quality is restated as pure quality in the black hole. The particular quality taking on a quantitative form is de-sublated in the black hole into pure quality, which is potentially capable of taking on any infinite quantitative form.

With this potential in actuality, the atoms consisting of a concrete quantitative form are transferred from the black hole into the quantum state of the universe, where they operate in the process of the dialectic to formulate the particular actuality in the general state.

Quantum mechanics, according to modern science, conceives probability as being randomly determined in the quantum state. The relation of the atom with itself operates in free motion; e.g., the same electron can be in two different places at the same time. What is meant by “free” motion, however, is stated as random or arbitrary determination. What is misapprehended by how modern science understands quantum mechanics is that free motion in the quantum state is not random but rather the process of self-determination.⁶ Free motion is Reason determined as the dialectical process; it is the conception of logical necessity in the organic formulation of matter. Free motion is anything but arbitrary; each atom serves purpose because its very defining nature is to fulfill purpose. The atom is the concrete concept of what is understood by the abstract notion of purpose. The term purpose encompasses the process of potentiality into actuality. The atom characterizes the concrete manifestation of purpose because it is both potentially what it is and actually as it is. Purpose is then the foundation for something to be itself. The atom serves as the foundation for purpose to be actual. However, when purpose is achieved, it no longer becomes itself but actuality.

Purpose is a universal term and involves the ultimate concept of itself. Actuality or actualization defines the ultimate concept of purpose. Hegel distinguishes the concept of “actuality” from the concept of “reality.” Hegel explains:⁷
Reality is the state of nature as it is. Reality constitutes the atom as purpose. Once reality actualizes its purpose, the concept of actuality becomes reality.

Certainty derived in the general state of the universe is the result from the process at the quantum level. The reason why quantum is conceived as random is because the process can only be conceived as probabilistic by the Understanding. The quantum process cannot be directly conceived with certainty by the Understanding as it does with general reality. But this inability to conceive quantum with certainty does not make it inherently probabilistic as the process. It is likewise true that the Understanding conceives general reality with certainty but only with association of probability as the predicate; e.g., empirical method of observation conceives certainty in the particular and probability in the universal.

Once an observation is carried out about the particular instance in general reality, it is constructed as an abstract notion by Reason. Grasping certainty at the quantum state is first derived by the faculty of Reason, then carried out by empirical science. The same way that empirical science conceives certainty while retaining probability as the basis, Reason inquires into quantum by conceiving probability while retaining certainty. This means that certainty serves as the basis for determination, whereas probability serves as the direction in which determination is proceeding.

The concept of gravity understood as internal relation demonstrates the link between how the quantum state governs general reality. The black hole is the basic concept of gravity in the universe; it is the elementary level of general gravitation. General gravitation is the sublation of the black hole. General gravitation portrays certain laws of nature in the general state of the universe that enable each form of quantitative mass to partake in external relation.

The laws of nature portray certainty between how different objects of magnitude externally relate; however, they regard the internal relations between objects of matter to be either irrelevant, non-existent, or arbitrarily random. For example, the orbits of planetary systems depend on the densest mass with the greatest gravitational pull; the Sun is the dominant mass with the greatest gravitational force that holds all the other objects in orbit and governs their motion. The planets travel around the Sun in paths or orbits called ellipses. This is the example of external relations between how objects relate in space. While this provides certainty in how objects relate depending on gravitation, it remains probabilistic or unknown why the Sun relates with each planet in such an external way.

Whereas this explains how objects externally relate, it is left unanswered why they relate in such a manner. The distinction between “how something is” versus “why it is” serves as one of the fundamental principles in ontology and thus for scientific inquiry. The question of why is directly the question of internal relations implicit in the objects of space.

Gravity in its internal working serves as the continual sustenance process for gravitation of external relation. The internal relation of gravity is the working process of the quantum state in general objects; the mass and size of the Sun in relation to the planets is present after the fact that such objects are established to possess the need for such a relation.

This means that in order for the Sun and the planets to possess the kind of external relation they exert with each other, there has to be an underlying reason why. The reason is found internally in the objects; the internal relation implicit in the object is none other than the dialectical process, or Reason governing the object. For example, the planets require the Sun not only for mechanics but also for thermodynamic energy. Depending on the distance from the Sun, each planet possesses extreme climate conditions deriving from the Sun’s energy. The question then remains: if the planets require the Sun for the particular reasons mentioned, why does the Sun require the planets?

The latter question indicates exactly the nature of the dialectic in nature. The Sun requires the planets because it is by necessity the extension to which the planets belong; they are the same substance in varying form. The Sun is to the planets as the planets are for the Sun. The way the Sun externally relates to the planets is determined by how the planets internally relate with the Sun. This dialectical process is ever-lasting down to the foundational level of the quantum state of reality.

This process is even more explicit when understood from the relation between planets and their moons. For example, it takes approximately 27 days for the Moon to rotate once on its axis and orbit around the Earth. Whereas this is a fact about the Moon in external relation with the Earth, it remains an open question why it orbits the Earth in the first place—what purpose it poses for the Earth.

This indicates the answer arising from its internal relations with the Earth. The Moon moderates Earth’s wobble on its axis, leading to a relatively stable climate over billions of years.⁸ Furthermore, it serves the valuable purpose of governing tidal shifts in the ocean, which is necessary motion for the formulation of life. The Moon is the concrete indication of the potential nature of the Earth; the Earth’s placement in the habitable zone, its harnessing of the Sun’s energy to produce moderate climate conditions, enabled the inner working of gravity to call for an object—not too big in size relative to its planet, such as Pluto’s moon, nor multiple indifferent moons with extreme shapes and sizes as with the gas planets—but the right moderate size consistent with the moderate nature of the Earth.

The Moon formed after a Mars-sized body collided with Earth and the debris formed the Moon. It is not immediately obvious how such a chaotic collision results in the necessary mass the Moon possesses. The Moon took on the kind of size it presently possesses for a certain reason; it was no random accident that the Moon formulated after the collision while all other debris remained on Earth or was lost in orbit. Nature is rational with itself the more objects are rational with each other. Gravity is the process of internal relation, where objects are brought into attraction with each other when required for purpose, and equally repulsed away from each other for such purpose.

This is explicitly obvious in the composition of matter but less obvious after composition. Each object is rationally determined given its rational nature, but nothing in nature is said to be not rational, because even such aspect is the further indication of its reason.

The dialectical method of reasoning is derived from the dialectic in nature. It is the essential nature of Reason in the mind; it is at home with itself. The dialectical method is the synthesis between deductive and inductive reasoning.⁹

What is meant by probability cannot exclude certainty; both notions presuppose the definition of the other. What is meant by probability is the sum set of infinite actuality, whereas certainty is the sum set of finite potentiality. Each concept is derived from the other because each concept exists as itself. The quantum state is the realm where everything that is potentially true is actually true. Truth in this sense has not yet achieved concrete form, whereas truth in its concrete form has not yet achieved its potential form. This contradiction restates again the principle of Becoming. The process of Becoming is the concrete being of nature—i.e., the universe.

Footnotes

1. Radiation appearing as the “positive” of the black hole’s “negation” is an application of the dialectical inversion of determinations.
2. In Hegelian logic, contradiction is not merely a failure of thought but the motor of development.
3. This sentence gestures toward Hegel’s section on “Being-for-self” and “the One,” where determinacy becomes unity.
4. Hegel distinguishes Wirklichkeit (actuality) from Realität (reality) in Science of Logic, Doctrine of Essence.
5. This describes the transition from “external causality” to “actuality as self-causation” in Hegel’s Logic.
6. A dialectical reinterpretation of quantum indeterminacy as internal self-movement rather than randomness.
7. The referenced explanation corresponds to Hegel’s analysis of Actuality in Science of Logic.
8. NASA and other astronomical analyses confirm the stabilizing effect of lunar torque on Earth’s axial tilt.
9. Hegel calls dialectic “the unity of analysis and synthesis,” which corresponds to the unity of induction and deduction.

Quantum Dimension

Actuality within the quantum dimension is what Hegel understands as the task of World History.¹

Reason, conceived as the universal concept in mind, restates again the nature of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is none other than mind in nature; its expression is Reason. Its complexity lies in the fact that it is general providence. Although the term general providence carries with it a strong religious implication, its true use is anything but mystical. There is no element of worship in what is traditionally understood as Divine governance. There is no customary framework for this idea, since it has not yet been conceived by human consciousness. Quantum mechanics is the mind of nature. Its systematic form has been manifested in the mind of the species-being.²

In the quantum state, Reason operates in a dialectical manner, where internal relation is achieved between the basic elements of the universe—e.g., hydrogen and helium—in light and space. The process of constructive sublation³ between these elements is characterized by the more ambiguous phenomenon of the white hole. A white hole is defined as: …

It is the inversion of a black hole; this inversion is the transferring of potentiality into actuality. White holes produce pure quantity in the form of energy and light, which is then harmonized into different quantitative variations of itself. Nebulae, for example, serve as the means of production for the formulation of stars and planets. It is said that nebulae came into existence with the Big Bang. What is more ambiguous than the source of the Big Bang is the fact that a white hole has not yet been discovered by modern science. Whenever a discussion of white holes is proposed, they are always stated to be “hypothetical regions” of spacetime that cannot be entered from the outside, although light and matter escape from them.⁴

The ambiguity surrounding the beginning of the Big Bang and the elusive nature of the white hole serves as the answer to each other’s dichotomy. By definition, the white hole constitutes the nature of the Big Bang; the Big Bang is, by nature, the white hole. A white hole cannot be found in nature not because it lacks the numerical quantity associated with the black hole, but because it is the one quality constituting the many quantities.

The white hole is pure quality. It is the One in relation to the Many. There exists only one white hole, and many black holes. Nebulae are the products resulting from the white hole. Nebulae provide physical variations that are harmonized to constitute the general state of nature. The quantum state is the dialectical operation of Reason in the dimensions of the universe, constituting its extreme or borderline nature. The general state is the moderation, harmony, or resolution of this logical process. The white hole serves as the example wherein the quantum state of the universe transcends itself to become the general state. It is the process of Becoming from Being; hence the Big Bang, as understood by modern science.

The peculiar feature of the Big Bang that indicates the nature of the white hole can be derived from one main misapprehension surrounding common understanding: that the beginning of the Big Bang consisted of a giant explosion. Any well-informed physicist will correct this with the notion that the Big Bang was, and still is, a big expansion.

The universe arose as Becoming—from the infinitesimal state into the developing finite testimony of its infinity. The expansive trait of the Big Bang characterizes the productive nature of the white hole. According to the hypothetical understanding of white holes, energy only escapes or emerges from them rather than entering in. The innate nature of the white hole is to exclude any object from entering. The white hole is then the emergence of the inner truth into its outer form: the outer is the reflection of the inner.

Black holes serve the latter process; however, their form of reflection is conceived as negation, insofar as even light cannot escape upon entering a black hole. Whereas light only escapes when emerging from a white hole. The black hole and white hole serve distinct functions, though this is not to say they are separate. In fact, the concept of singularity defines both. Singularity is defined as “a point at which a function takes an infinite value, especially in spacetime when matter is infinitely dense.”⁵ Singularity is an anomaly relative to the laws of nature.

The dualistic nature of both white and black holes serves the same fundamental basis—Reason. They are singularities because they are the gap between Reason and the world. A singularity is further defined as the concrete concept mediating quantum mechanics into general nature. The singularity associated with the white hole characterizes the Big Bang as an expansion. The expanding nature of the Big Bang began as this singularity. This means that general nature, as conceived by empirical science, is predicated on an alternative nature.

Whenever the Big Bang theory is asserted as the conception of the universe’s beginning, the question of God invariably arises:
(1) Is there anything that exists outside of the natural realm?
(2) Is there a conscious being governing nature according to its will?
The answer to the first question does not presuppose the answer to the second, although the second elucidates the need to define the notion of God.

The scientific notion of God cannot be defined from religion. Religion introduced the notion of God as a projection of the human being, thus playing an important historical role in developing self-consciousness regarding human nature. Matter versus antimatter: one explicit, the other implicit. What is antimatter? In the universe there is a distinction between consciousness and matter.

Energy is defined by gravity in matter. Each body of matter emits outward a form of energy that attracts another body emitting the same degree of energy, until each reaches a stable relation with the other. Particular forms of matter emit particular types of energy outward, associated with their mass and density. Gravity is associated with particular forms of matter in that it is not found anywhere except in individual material objects.

Consciousness is the inversion of gravity. Consciousness qua consciousness, in its universal form, is not emitted outward from the object but inward to the object. Consciousness is the universal feature of the universe itself; the universe is itself consciousness. Its process is to particularize its energy into the individual. Its evolution consists in emanating itself into particular form; and once this occurs, it reaches the state of self-consciousness. Consciousness qua consciousness, in its universal form, develops into self-consciousness in the individual form.

The outward interaction between matter by means of gravity is governed by the inward movement of consciousness particularizing itself so as to be conscious of itself. Its ultimate form is consciousness of its own consciousness; this is its very definition. Consciousness is the universal concept becoming the particular, whereas matter is the particular becoming the universal—each synthesized in the kind of being whose nature includes both: the human being. The universe awakens as being, the very definition of existence.

The quantum state is mind in its unconscious form. The question thus arises: can the consciousness pertaining to the particular mind achieve sublation into the unconscious in the quantum state?

The purpose of black and white holes is to provide the necessary elements to formulate the universe at the general level. Stars exist as the sublated relation between the basic elements provided by the quantum state through the processes of ceasing and coming-to-be from black and white holes. Stars, such as the sun, then provide the necessary means—in the form of thermodynamic light—to produce inorganic aggregates such as planets. Given the right orbital placement in relation to a star, combined with a moderate gravitational pull and an atmospheric surface, a planet is able to sustain basic forms of life.

The biological process is sustained by the internal relations between stars and planets. This leads to the question: why are such circumstances produced for the formulation of life? This question is answered by returning to the concept of self-determination. The process of self-determination is understood by its invariable tendency toward self-actualization.

What is being self-determined and self-actualized is Reason, from its unconscious form to its conscious form. The quantum state of the universe—which constitutes the working of Reason in its unconscious form—is made conscious as the world. The development of life is the process of actualizing Reason as self-conscious. Reason in its unconscious form is the universal predisposition of the quantum state. Its self-determination is universal; its self-actualization is particular. Reason is thus self-actualized in the particular. This is the course of human evolution.

Hegel outlines God as “the unity of the universal with the particular.”⁶

The historical development of the human being indicates a struggle in the dichotomy between mind and body. The human being has historically struggled to reconcile the mind–body dualism present in its unity. Consciousness is given universally in the particular; thus, the particular must come to terms with its own limitation as the particular. A historical example is the Egyptian pharaoh, who must come to terms with his own mortality.

Footnotes

1. World History in Hegel — Hegel conceives World History as the process by which Spirit (Reason) becomes actual in the world.
2. Species-being — A term often associated with human nature as a universal, here referring to humanity as the bearer of Reason.
3. Sublation (Aufhebung) — A Hegelian process that simultaneously negates, preserves, and elevates a concept into a higher unity.
4. White hole (hypothetical) — A theoretical solution to Einstein’s field equations that expels matter and cannot be entered.
5. Singularity — A point where physical quantities become infinite; applies to both black and white hole models.
6. Unity of universal and particular — Hegel’s characterization of the Absolute or God, found in the Science of Logic and Encyclopaedia Logic.