Section 30 (last updated 1.26.2021)
Schwarschild radius- how black holes are made.
The discovery of the “black hole” is been one of the most startling concepts conceived in nature. Black holes are “singularities” of space in which space and time are distorted in such a way that nothing, not even light, can escape. It even serves as an end-state for massive stars and inorganic aggregates. Or that anything when compressed enough may turn into a balck hole. This understanding of the black hole indicates how it operates but not what it actually is. Now the quastion remains; what ontological purpose does the black hole serve in nature?
It is proven that when objects enter a black hole they become dismembered at the atomic level; each set of atoms formulating a concrete whole become independent from each other into particulars external from each other. When concrete objects are individualized at the atomic level, they in-turn are universalized in the quantum level. In the universal state one object is every object; everything that it is potentially true is likewise actually true. For example, in the spacetime continuum the past, present and the future all exists at once rather then moment leading into each other. In the universal state objects taking on a specific quantitive form loose themselves into pure quality. The principle of Quality indicates the internal understanding of the universe. The internal workings of the universe spring up the outer result. The quantum state serves as the inner working of the universe, which is governed by Reason and is not fixed in the same way as the laws of nature.
What evidence is there to suggests that the universe consist of the contradiction between the inner and outer reality? The black hole functions as the antithesis in nature bridging the quantum state of the universe with the general laws of nature. It is identified as the “singularity” precisely because it is the finite point taken on infinite value. It is the most explicit characterization of the quantum state in union with the general laws of nature in that it conforms to both synonymously.
The quantum state serves as the inner working of the universe, which is governed by Reason and is not fixed in the same way as the laws of nature. What evidence is there to suggests that the universe consist of the contradiction between the inner and outer reality? The black hole functions as the antithesis in nature bridging the quantum state of the universe with the general laws of nature. It is identified as the “singularity” precisely because it is the finite point taken on infinite value. It is the most explicit characterization of the quantum state in union with the general laws of nature in that it conforms to both synonymously.
Before exploring how the black hole serves as the mediation between explicit and implicit reality, it is first important to understand what is meant by such terms. The unity between implicit and explicit reality is one of the very important distinctions in philosophy. The rendering that something possesses an implicit and explicit reality is a product from the understanding into the particular nature of the object. It is a fact of conception that renders the distinction between implicit and explicit, internal and external reality and so on. The process of achieving reason about any form of truth requires such a disinfection to be made by the understanding. However the distinction never exists outside the mental process of achieving reason about the object.
The distinction is necessary for bringing consciousness into the nature of the object, or rather self-consciousnesses into the universal nature constituting all objects. The distinction serves as the meditation for achieving self-consciousness. External to the process of the understanding there exists no distinction between implicit and explicit reality; the concrete form of the object necessarily involves unity so as to be itself. Prior to the understanding the object is a concrete whole insofar as any distinction between implicit and explicit reality is lost. The bringing forth to consciousness renders the distinction necessary for understanding the initial nature conceived and the more implicit underlying nature achieved. Once Reason is achieved the distinction is once again lost; the mind achieves concrete reality of the object, the same as the predicate but this time as self-consciousness. Let’s take for example objects that are of most familiar to the consciousness used in everyday life. Objects such as cup, chairs, tables, desks, cloths, etc. render no distinction to the consciousness between their purpose, essence, function and their material form, structure and configuration.
Consciousness conceives no difference between their material composition and the purpose they hold; that the cup holding water is entirely determined by the kind of hallow depth in the centre of some material structure, or likewise, the function of it holding water determines the kind of hallow structure associated as the cup. To the consciousness preordained with the nature of the cup, such a distinction is lost, but to someone who lacks any understanding of the cup, say for instance, a member of a lost tribe discovered in the cost of Peru somewhere cut off from any idea of modern life, would see the cup as being a strange kind of composition bearing no function. Eventually with trial and error the member soon realizes it’s function, but the initial conception according to the tribal member is that the material form of the cup exists as foreign to its function. More complex objects such as cars , computers, factories are not as easily given to the consciousness of what they are in the same easy as the less sophisticated objects of composition.
Ordinary consciousness conceives the function of a car and applies it, but does not immediately see its implicit working, that it possess an engine, uses fuel etc. Only when one looks into the decomposition of the car its internal workings are revealed. Likewise with natural objects that are not manufactured by human beings, bear no distinction between their function and structure, but like the inner functioning of the car which is only prevalent to an expert in automobiles, natural objects require an analysis into their inner working, and when understood, it becomes clear why flowers possess the kind of shapes they assum, the sepal (leafs) of the flower enclose developing buds, and that is supported by the stalk of the flower which transports vitamins received from the sun and so on. The universe itself is the most complex of objects and thus the task of science must mediate between the initial conceptions of the universe and the inner working of the universe conceived only after the fact. Like the objects of ordinary consciousness, the universe in its concrete whole possess no distinction between its material form and the function it serves. The initial conception made by science is unlike any conception made by ordinary consciousness. Whereas the former presupposes the latter, the initial conception of science consists of knowledge into the fundamental nature of concrete reality.
The knowledge into the subatomic nature of the concrete is the initial conception made by science. It is the initial conception about the universal nature of concrete reality. Whereas empirical science identifies the subatomic nature, or more presently the quantum nature of the object, to be the implicit nature of the object, the matter of fact is that it is in fact the explicit nature of the universe, the universal nature of the universe. The distinction between the quantum nature of the object and its general nature conceived by ordinary consciousness remains to this day with no link. Objects of general relativity bear no relationship to their implicit subatomic and quantum nature. This distinction however is only true because science conceives the actual nature of the universe to consists of the dualism between general relativity and the quantum subatomic level. When concepts are asserted to be externally related their overall relation bear no purpose. External relation is itself the relation that presupposes the mutual existence of opposing concepts independent from each other. It is the relation between two distinct concepts as separate from each other. In this way the actual relation which renders opposing concepts to be dependent on one another, that they are in fact the different forms of the same entity, is not included in the inquiry of external relations. When natural phenomenon is understood only as consisting of external relations, objects bear no purpose other then the kind of distinct form they presuppose. When objects are conceived to be externally related the notion of purpose is disregarded as possessing any concrete reality in the universe. The ontological notion of purpose is meant to explain the reason why something exists. Aside from the kind of particular purpose certain objects suppose, the otonological understanding of purpose is meant to explain how particular objects bear universal purpose. When objects are conceived to be independent from each other in their essential nature, they bear no purpose in relation with each other. However if the relation between objects is conceived to be the internal nature constituting each object, then in relation they only bear purpose.
There seems to be a universal pattern in the scope of how particulars formulate the whole in the universe. The infinitesimal process beginning at the subatomic level leading into the molecular and even into the more macroscopic level seem to suggests a pattern of relation between the particulars that constitute the form of the whole rather then the sum set of particulars coexisting externally from each other. In cognitive science for example, one, two or the countably infinite number of neurones by themselves makes no sense without the kind of transmitting of information they possess in relation with each other to formulate the active nervous system in the brain. The defining nature of the neurone is the kind of relation it presupposes to render the structure of the brain, i.e, the neurone is a cell for transmitting energy, it is nothing else but a specific kind of relation even though it is a individual component on its own. Abstracting the relation away from the neurone makes it something other then itself, it becomes a mere form of substrate. This pattern is true for every particular object that assumes some kind of individuality, that the nature of individuality is determined by the kind of relation it possess to assume a concrete whole. In the field of social science for example the kind of individuality associated with individuals is determined by the kind of society they belong to. When one sees this persistent pattern to be governing all aspect of the universe it is very hard to imagine that the universe itself is either random or that it is not governed by reason. That the very nature of pattern itself contradicts the idea of randomness in the world, for how can the nature of the universe be the lack of sequence when portrays pattern as the governing process. Pattern in itself suggest a kind of process that is an infinite cycle of regress, however when the notion of pattern is understood with the notion of development, then it is easy to see how pattern is the necessity whereas development is the determinacy.
Before exploring how the black hole serves as the mediation between explicit and implicit reality, it is first important to understand what is meant by such terms. The term ‘explicit’ pertains to the knowledge derived from the Understanding about external reality. Sense perception is the main faculty which conceives external reality. The term itself is however not limited to the conception of external reality but also means the external reality independent from any perception. The perception of external reality is in the first place derived from the kind of reality to enable such a conception possible. The explicit is the abstract notion of the outer or external existence of concrete reality and also such external reality independent from its concept.
The term ‘implicit’ defines the abstract notion of inner reality that is only conceived by Reason. The implicit is the internal process in the concrete object, it is the working processes in the object. This is not the inner workings happening inside a thing, like it’s organs or gears, but rather the operations happening at a dimension differently than it. The very nature of the implicit cannot be grasped by sense perception but only by Reason; otherwise it would be explicit if it is to be grasped initially. The process of knowledge whereby the implicit is derived involves going beyond sensation and into the realm of reason. The implicit also points to the cause of effects, the essential substance whereby objects can be conceived explicitly. The implicit and the explicit however are only grasped from each other; sense perception conceives the explicit nature of reality which is external in projection and in relation. Perception into the explicit nature of reality provides the Understanding with a set of external relations which contradict each other. Such external relations are resolved from the implicit nature. Reason synthesizes the external relations. The most obvious example is descartes wax argument; sense perception conceives the external shapes the wax manifests in, but only Reason can grasp its implicit nature, that all such shapes pertain to the same substance, that is, the wax. Analogously, sense perception conceives the many material variations in the universe, but only Reason grasps their underlining substance.
The black hole is the point. Entrance upon the black hole portrays the implicit nature of the object, that is, the internal relation. The notion of internal relations defines the concept of gravity. General gravitation, according to Hegel, 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” (nature 210).
Gravity is the bare force of mental appetition pure from any particular determination. Gravity as the basic appetiton of mind means that it is the primairy intent whereby any further determination is predicated by that basic intent. This is why for example plants are held in their oribit by gravity, they are particular determiantions held togather bythe common primairy intent. It serves as the movement implicit in corporeality as much as it is the explicit motion between the individual bodies of matter.
General gravitation consists of the unity between the forces of attraction and repulsion. Both forces are the same movement of gravity in its opposite form. Both forces define each other in relation; when the forces of attraction serves as the necessity for matter the force of repulsion serves as determinacy and when the force of repulsion serves as the necessity the force of attraction serves as determinacy. This unity constitutes the explicit and the implicit nature of matter. The force of attraction is already presupposed by the existence of matter, I,e. Atoms must have been attracted together to formulate the many variations of inorganic matter. The force of attraction is the ‘necessity’ conceived as matter; for any object must have unity implicit in it so as to be composite. Once this unity is achieved in the formulation of matter, it requires the kind of determinacy so as to sustain the unity. The same repulsion which serves as the internal necessity for attraction, also serves as the determinacy for its external relation. How the individual bodies of matter interact with each other, while remaining themselves, is the process of repulsion. The force of repulsion is the determinacy in which the necessity of concrete matter be maintained. The force of attraction constitutes the composition of matter but in order for such composition to remain itself it requires the force of repulsion. This constitutes the explicit process of how the unity of attraction and repulsion constitute matter. The implicit unity between attraction and repulsion however takes on an inverted toll.
The forces of repulsion and attraction are intertwined in unity. Repulsion is equally the force of necessity when the force of attraction acts as the determinacy. When the individual objects of matter are necessitated as the inorganic aggregates by the force of attraction, they involve the determinacy of repulsion to sustain their externality from each other. The explicit process of how individual bodies of matter interact indicates that when the force of attraction is the external determinacy the force of repulsion is the internal necessity. This means that when two equally sizeable objects of mass come close to each other by the force of attraction they reach a state of equilibrium by the force of repulsion. The equilibrium is the persistence for each opposing concept to be in unity with the other; their very opposition constitutes their balance. In this persistence there exists an implicit working of their unity, an internal relation that acts as the inversion to the external relation.
The equilibrium does in the first place serve a purpose? In their intertwined relation; repulsion acts as the external necessity for matter whereas attraction is the internal determinacy. This means that within the gravitational equilibrium constituting the orbits between the individual bodies of matter, this includes the equilibrium of entire solar systems; attraction serves as the internal determinacy whereas repulsion acts as the external necessity. This for example explains how planets operate in relation with their stars; how they make use of the thermodynamics and electromagnetism derived from the sun given their distance, size, mass, zone etc. The earth exemplifies the internal relation of attraction and repulsion; attraction serves as the determinacy in the formulation of all periodic elements derived from the sun’s energy, and repulsion sustains such elements by enabling each chemical to act externally in relation with each other while remaining themselves. The fundamental chemicals harnessed from the sun are then internally related with each other by the determinacy of attraction to formulate particular complex variations. This development in the chemical variations formulated by the process of the internal relation between attraction and repulsion results in the biological beginning of life, the first forms of bacterial life. This serves as the beginning of life, which is the highest achievement from the internal relation of attraction and repulsion.
The ontological understanding of gravity in the working of matter characterizes the Speculative method. Modern science understands the Speculative method from its ordinary meaning; that it is the conjecture of truth without concrete knowledge. Accordingly empirical evidence does not follow from the speculative method, that it is the thinking with the absence of information. The Speculative method is however not inherently defined as such insofar as the absence of concrete evidence is the failure of its discourse. Modern science defines the Speculative method from its failed form. The Speculative method is the free thinking form of knowledge, that only once knowledge is derived from the formal method, that speculation is the process of knowledge about knowledge, knowing what is known. It is no surprise why the speculative method is the very task of philosophy. Once the set of external facts about reality are deduced, speculation is the process of understanding how such facts pertain to each other, and how they pertain to everything else. The Speculative method is therefore done after the facts are produced to challenge them, in other words, without some facts, speculation would just be speculating itself, and that ironically leads to some certainty, it is only from the route certainty that we can challenge it.
Even dogmatic speculation is based on the misapprehension of some already preconceived facts. It is then only appropriate that the ontological understanding of gravity is provided with the facts for its speculation. Facts are moreover not the supporting validation for speculation but rather render it as truth. Explain how the more atomic number a periodic element possess, the more complex and sublated it is, e,g that hydrogen and helium make up the majority of the suns mass and they are the main predominate element in the universe, each of which possess the lowest atomic number in its pure self meaning that it constitutes the least mass. Elements only found on earth portray the greatest of atomic number in the periodic table. The distinction between the elements found on planets versus those abundant in stars indicates a qualitative difference. The diverse elements found on earth are the qualitative sublation of the quantitive elements abundant on stars. Water for example is the qualitative form of hydrogen. The contrast between the qualitative elements found on earth versus their quantitive form on stars indicates the very factual evidence for the internal relations of gravity.
Gravity “constitutes an absolute basis for mechanics” insofar as to explain the external relations between the individual forms of matter; however, scientific materialism overlooks how gravity serves as the internal relation implicated generally in matter so as to serve the basis for motion. There is the inner movement of gravity implicit beyond the atomic level in the constitution of matter. This internal motion is not merely mechanical like the motion of external relations. Internal relations is the movement of substance in relation with it self and therefore possess freedom.
The inner relation of substance is not corporeal although it serves as the determinacy for material manifestation. Substance is the essential nature underlying the phenomena of matter and thus takes on its concrete form. The very tangibility of substance is already given in matter. The tangibility that is immediately given portrays the explicit nature, the end result from the working out of the matter. The result by definition is static and concrete otherwise it would be the process. It is by its essential nature persistent in Being what it has Become. From this logic scientific inquiry cannot understand the process by the mere result even though the result serves as the understanding for the process. Rather then being fixed in cycle like the laws of nature, the essential process is determinate in the progressive manner; such development is characterized by the dialectic. Though the result and the process differ in their essential nature, they each serve as the essential nature for the other. The term that defines such a concept in nature is the notion of Reason. Reason as the developmental concept in nature is not anything like our ordinary understanding of the rational. It is defined by the dialectic which involves the kind of logic contrary to the formal Understanding. The distinctive feature of the dialectic for instance is that it is teleological in determination; whether what end purpose is achieved is the further question. The Understanding for example conceives how the process is for the result while at the same time exluding how the result is for the process, which the produces the kind of ontology that sees no process after the result. In our scientific inquisition the dialectic is the necessity and determinacy to what is understood by the laws of attraction and repulsion in motion between the individual bodies of matter. The black hole exemplifies the concrete bearing of gravity as internal relations.
The black hole is the pure quality that is gravity; this means that its quantitive determination is only the quality of gravity. We usually just assume that gravity simply exists, but what source does it exist from? The mass of the black hole is minute in contrast to its gravitational pull. The black hole is so dense in size when compared to its gravitational power that the force of attraction out weighs its quantitive measure. This nature is inconsistent with ordinary mechanics. How can something so infinitesimal produce such macroscopic levels of gravity? This contradicts Newton’s third law: which states that for every force there is a reaction force that is equal in size. Sense perception associated with Newton’s third law conceives the black hole to be infinitely small, that black hole takes on the size smaller then an atom but with the same density as stars. The same sense perception however does not see that this “infinitely small” size enters a quantum limit which is not measurable by standard observation physics. Upon entrance into the quantum realm, what is conceived as infinitely small is actually infinitely large. It is infinitely small by general standards, but it is universally infinite by quantum standard. In this sense, it is no enigma that the black hole produces the kind of gravity it is associated with. There is however a complication because the quantum realm is so difficult to measure. It is understood that the size of the black hole is so infinitesimally small that it breaks through into the quantum realm, which because it is the universal realm underlining the universe, it produces the significant amount of gravity.
The black hole then is the infinitely small “singularity” by general standards but is infinitely large universality by quantum standards; this however must mean that if it is infinitely large in the quantum sense, then the gravity it produces must equally be as infinitely large that it will consume the entire general universe, including all stars, planets, nebulas etc. This however implements general standards of measurement onto the quantum realm, which as stated earlier; Newton’s third law cannot be used as the standard measurement that conceives the black holes’s gravity in ratio to its size because it takes on the quantum measure. The question remains; what standard of measurement can be used to conceive the quantum realms size in ratio to the gravity produced by the black hole. What in the specific region of the quantum realm that produces the differing gravitational pull associated with each black hole? Or how does the quantum realm influence the kind of gravity associated with the black hole? The following question is innately inconsistent with the kind of answer it presupposes. The quantum realm cannot be measured by any standard forms of measurement because it is by very nature does not possess the kind of magnitude associated with matter. The quantum realm is only measured by Reason, moreover it is measured by the quality of Reason, I.e, Freedom. Freedom is the governing law of Reason, however it is not the same meaning as it s usually understood. (Explain how freedom isn’t doing anything you want, liberal definition of it). But in order to understand how quantum is Reason, it is first valuable to complete the understanding of the black hole, more specifically; how is the black hole pure gravity?
The black hole in its natural concourse is extorted as the negation; this negating force in nature serves as the positive concept for the Understanding. It still however remains the negative concept in its essential nature. The Understanding perceives negation as the confirmation to the existence of Being; the positive concept is conceived from the negative. For Reason however the negative concept is derived from the positive. The negating force of gravity subsumed by the black hole serves as certainty for the existence of corporeal matter. The very nature of the black hole depends on the magnitude of matter. While this is an obvious predisposition necessarily adopted by scientific inquiry, especially elementary physics; it is the preliminary point in opposition to vulgar skepticism. Proceeding into the more primary truth; the existence of Being in nature is conceived as non-existence, I.e, the black hole. The negative concept of existence does not mean the absence of existence; because non-existence presupposes existence as not itself so as to be itself. The concept of Nothing is usually used to identify non-existence, which is then contrasted with Being; but what is meant by Nothing is the literal absence of everything, that is, non-being. This is the concept of Nothing understood by ordinary thinking which does not take into consideration the logical necessity for Nothing to be so; for even Nothing itself presupposes the aspect of Being so as to be the something that is nothing; that Nothing is itself the something that is the nothing. But if Nothing invariably is also something, then the concept of Nothing always presupposes itself as Being. Whether Being is the predicate for Nothing or vice versa, it only matters as much as they are both true for each other. If Being is the truth of Nothing inasmuch as Nothing is the truth of Being, then the latter form of existence nevertheless exists even though its existence is negative of itself. It must be noted that ‘Nothing is the truth of Being’ does not mean the exclusion of Being for that also means the exclusion Nothing.
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 the other. Nothing is known to omit 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.
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 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. 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 then knowledge of something is 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 it’s very function, to understand whether knowledge is true or false in order to constitute Reason.
The Understanding requires there to be the misunderstanding of the 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. 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 the 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 conceptions either perceive as true or false. The fact that there are many conceptions about the same object does not mean that they all are true conception of the reality underpinning the object. In fact there is only to be one conception that captures the true reality of the object, of which each of the many conceptions either come close to or diverge further away. The relativist notion confuses the abstract notion of the object to replace its concrete reality, rather then 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 infinitely set of assumptions inasmuch as there is infinitely varying objects.
This undetterminate infinity is the basis to the relativist view that because there is infinite various objects, there is as much infinite various conceptions of such objects. What the relativist notion fails to conceive is that the infinity associated with the concrete object is the inverse to 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. When the concrete object is objectively infinite, the abstract notion is objectively finite; whereas when the abstract notion is objectively finite, the concrete object is subjectively infinite. The difference lies in the relation between the essential principle. Such a conception then produces the concrete object as 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…
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; thereby 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 dialectal relation constitutes the quantum state to 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 to say that truth cannot be grasped by thought in general. When the Understanding achieves thought as Reason, it is able to make conscious of Reason in the quantum state because it is knowledge itself. For example, the understanding into 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 conceives Being, Becoming and Become determinate as particular moments in time; meaning that each concepts belongs to either the past, present or future and that each concept is true independently from the other by virtue of being a moment in a particular time. Following this logic any notion which conceives Being, Becoming and Become as the 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 understand quantum mechanics as arbitrarily probabilistic and thus random. Except the ordinary understanding of determinism excludes free-determination or free will in the opposite manner in contrast 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 to combine both concepts to achieve their truth because that would just be the same contradictions restated without resolved. It is rather the sublation of each concept with the truth retained and anything else abandoned; keep the baby and throw out the bath water is the analogy, the former being the truth cherished the latter abandoned once it’s purpose is served; one the end the other the means. The correct understanding derived from Reason indicates that the quantum state consist of potentiality as necessarily actuality. The latter logic does not mean that what ever is potentially true is at the same time actually true, but rather that what ever is potentially true is ultimately actually true. In the latter thinking it is recognized that potentiality does not necessarily suppose actuality because the very concept also supposes the 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 presuppose 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 meditation; 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 the other, 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; that 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 both the cause and the effect. In the universal sense the cause is its own effect; that there is no distinction between both concepts. Rather then one object causing the effect of the other, the same object is both the cause and the effect. This is very complicated for the understanding to grasp because it only conceives cause and effect from what is explicit to it. Reason is required for the resolution to what is implicit. Te 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 neurones in the brain; that environmental stimulus trigger off neurones 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 neurones effecting other neurones, it does not conceive the relation between the brain and the environment and each neurones with the other, that such process belongs to the self determination of the human being with its environment and thus with its own self. That 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” as the chemical cause and effect in the brain for example. Just like the brain consists of an infinite set of neurones each causing the others effect but such process belongs to the being in movement of self determination; so to is the universal state the constituent of particulars acting as an infinite chain of cause and effect but belonging to the whole in process of its own self-determination. The very grand task of metaphysics is to uncover the universal being of self-dettemination. 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; that there are as much definition of God as there are religions in history. The notion of God is however not defined from religion, but 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 predicted to any notion of God. The very ontological predicate to God, in fact, the very ontological notion of ontology itself, is that there exists One nature constituent 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 then 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, consists 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 to 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 what is potentially true neceassalry 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, it’s very substance is consciousness.
Returning to the concept of Becoming; Being 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 the quantity is defined by the notion of “magnitude”. The concept of Measure possesses natural implications in that it synthesizes quality with quantity. The quantitive form taking on the particular quality is restated as pure quality in the black hole. The particular quality taking on a quantitive form is de-sublated in the black hole into pure quality which is potentially capable of taking on any infinite quantitive form. With this potential in actuality the atoms consisting of a concrete quantitive 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. That 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 understands quantum mechanics is that free motion in the quantum state is not random but rather the process of self determination (find in teds work). 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 it’s 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 to which something is 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 its self. Actuality or actualization defines the ultimate concept of purpose. Hegel distinguishes the concept of “actuality” from the concept of “reality”. Hegel explains: (quote)
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. The latter method conceives general reality with certainty but the same method is unable to do so at the quantum level precisely because it cannot not conceive certainty in the universal. The universal by dentition is inconsistent with the kind of certainty associated with the particular. This inability for the scientific method to conceive quantum with certainty does not exclude the quantum state to ever be conceived with certainty nor does it exclude the truth that quantum is itself certain. By which means can quantum be conceived with certainty? Deriving certainty at the quantum level is carried out in the same way as the empirical method of observation but by the different faculty of the mind. The difference in the intellectual faculties operates distinctively in unity.
Empirical science depends on the senses in the analytical attainment of truth; this process is carried out by the Understanding. The empirical method of observation conceives certainty in the general level by observing a particular instances in general reality as certain while everything outside the specific observation is thereto held as probabilistic. (Give example from elementary physics) Once an observation is carried 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 facially of Reason, then carried out by empirical science. The same way that empirical science conceives certainty while retaining probabilistic 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 to 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 enables each form of quantitive mass to partake in external relation. The laws of nature portray certainty between how different objects of magnitude externally relate, however it regards the internal relations between objects of matter to be either irrelevant, non-existent or arbitrarily random. For example, the orbits of planetary systems is dependent 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 to ‘why’ the sun relates with each planet in such an external way. Whereas this is how objects externally relate, it is left unanswered why they relate in such a manner. The same answer that explains how planets operate is not the same answer to why they operate; 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 the general objects; the mass and size of the sun in relation to the planets is hereto 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 underlining reason to why. The reason is found internally in the objects; the internal relation implicit in the object is none other then the dialectical process, or Reason governing the object. For example, the planets require the sun not only for mechanics but for thermodynamic energy. Depending on the distance from the sun each planet possess extreme climate conditions deriving from the sun’s energy. The question then remains; if the planets require the sun, at least for the particular reasons mentioned, why does the sun require the planets? The latter question hints at exactly the nature of the dialectic in nature. The sun requires the planets because it is by necessity the extension in which the planets belong to, that they are the same substance in varying form. The sun is to the planets as the planets is 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 other inorganic bodies, namely planets in relation with their moons. For example it takes approximately 27 days for the moon to rotate once on its axis and around the earth. Whereas this is a fact about the moon in external relation with the earth, it remains open question to why it is orbiting the earth in the first place; what purpose does it poise for the earth? This indicates the answer aching 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 (NASA). Furthermore it serves the valuable purpose for tidal shifts in the ocean, of which is the necessary motion for the formulation of life. The moon is the concrete indication to potential nature of the earth; the earth’s placement in the habitable zone, it’s harnessing of the sun’s energy to produce moderate climate conditions, which enabled the inner working of gravity to call for an object, not to big in size in relation to its planet, such as plato’s moon, or multiple indifferent moons with extreme shapes and sizes, likewise belonging to the gas planets, but the right moderate size consistent with the moderate nature of the earth. The moon is formed after a Mars-sized body collided with Earth and the debris formed the moon. It is not initially obvious how such a chaotic collision results in the necessary mass the moon proposes. The moon took on the kind of size it presently possess for a certain reason, that it was no random accident that the moon formulated after the collision while all other debris remained on earth or 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 in 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. Define…
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 potentially. 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.
Actuality into the quantum dimension is what Hegel understands as the task of World History.
Reason conceived as the universal concept in mind restates again the nature of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is none other then mind in nature, it’s expression is Reason. It’s complexity lies in the fact that it is general providence. Although the term general providence carries with it a strong religious implication, it’s true use is in fact anything but mystical. There is no aspect of worship for what is traditionally understood as Divine governance. There is no custom for this idea since it has not yet been conceived by human consciousness. Quantum mechanics is the mind of nature. It’s systematic form has been manifested in the mind of the species being.
In the quantum state, Reason operates in the dialectical manner where internal relation is achieved between the basic elements of the universe, e,g, hydrogen, helium in light and space. The process of constructive sublation between the elements is characterized by the even more ambiguous phenomenon of the “white hole”. The white hole is defined as: …
It is the inversion of black holes and this is the transferring of potentiality into actuality. White holes produce pure quantity in the form of energy, light, and that is then harmonized into different quantitive variations of itself. Nebulas for example serve as the means of production for the formulations of stars, planets etc. it is stated then that nebulas came to existence with the Big Bang. What is more ambiguous then the source of the Big Bang is that a White hole has not yet been discovered by modern science. When ever a discussion about a white hole is purposed, it is always stated as the “hypothetical region” in spacetime which cannot be entered from the outside although light and matter escapes from it. The ambiguity to the beginning of the Big Bang and the elusive nature of the white hole serves the answer for 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 One in relation to the Many. There exists only One white whole, and Many black holes. Nubilias are the product resulted from the white hole. Nubilias provide physical variations which are harmonized to constitute the general state of nature. The quantum state is the dialectal operation of Reason in the dimensions of the universe constituting it’s borderline or extreme nature. The general state is the moderation, harmony or the resolution of such logical process. The white hole serves as the example where 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 the general understanding of the Big Bang; that the beginning of the Big Bang consisted of a giant explosion. Any well informed physicists will correct such a misapprehension with the notion that the beginning to 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 expansion trait of the Big Bang characterizes the productionary nature of the white hole. According to the hypothetical understand of the white hole; energy only escapes or emerges from the white hole rather then enter. The innate nature of the white hole is to exclude any object from entering in. White hole is then the emergence of the inner truth into its outer form; and that the outer is the reflection of the inner. Black holes serve as the latter process, however reflection is conceived as negation; that even light cannot escape upon entering the black hole. Whereas light only escapes when emerging from the white hole. The black hole in relation to the white hole serve distinct functions however that is not the same to say that they are separate. In fact the concept of singularity defines both the black hole and white hole. Singularity is defined as “a point at which a function takes an infinite value, especially in space-time when matter is infinitely dense”. The singularity is an anomaly relative to the laws of nature. The dualistic nature of both the white and black hole serve the same fundamental basis, that is, Reason. They are singularities because they are the gap between Reason and the world. A singularity is further defined as the concrete concept pertaining quantum mechanics into general nature. The concept of singularity associated with the white hole characterizes the Big Bang as an expansion. The expanding nature of the Big Bang started as the singularity. This means that general nature conceived by empirical science is predicated by an alternative nature.
When ever the Big Bang theory is asserted as the concept to the beginning of the universe, the questions of God is invariably asked; (1) Is there anything else which exists outside of the natural realm? (2) Is there a consciouses being governing nature according to its will? The answer to the first question does not presuppose the answer for the second question; although the second question 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 the projection of the human being. It thus played the important historical roll of developing self consciousness about 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 outwards energy which attracts another body emitting the same degree of energy, to which each reach a stable position in relation with each other. Particular forms of matter emit a certain kind of energy outwards associated with their mass, density etc, gravity is only associated with particular forms of matter in that it is not found anywhere but in individual material object. Consciousness is the inversion of gravity. Consciousness qua consciousness, in its universal form, is not emitted outwards from the object but rather inwards to the object. Consciousness is the universal feature of the universe itself, the universe is itself consciousness, it’s very process is to particularized its energy into the individual. It’s process of evolution is to emit itself in the particular form of itself, of which once happens, it reaches the state of self consciouses. Consciousness qua consciousness in its universal form develops into self consciousness in the individual form. The outwards interaction between matter by means of gravity is governed by the inner movement of consciousness particularizing itself so as to be consciouses of itself. It’s vey ultimate form is consciousness of its own consciousness, that is it’s very definition. Consciousness is the universal concept becoming the particular whereas matter is the particular becoming the universal, each of which are synthesized with each other in the kind of being with each as their nature, the human being. The universe awakened as being, the very definition of existence.
The quantum state is mind in the unconsciouses form. The question arises; if the consciousness pertaining to the particular mind can achieve sublation into unconsciousness in the quantum state?
The purpose of black and white holes are the means of providing the necessary elements to formulate the universe at the general level. Stars exists as the sublated relation between the basic elements provided by the quantum state through the process 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 and placement of the planet in relation to its nearest star, and a moderate form of gravitational pull and atmospheric surface, the planet is then able to sustain basic forms of life. The biological process then is sustained in circumstances met by the internal relations between stars and planets. This question arises; why are such circumstances produced for the formulation of life? This question is answered with the return to the concept of “self-determination”. The process of self determination is understood by its invariable process of self actualization.
What is being self determined and thus self actualized is Reason from its unconsciouses form to its consciouses. The quantum state of the universe, which constitutes the working of Reason in the world in its unconsciouses form, to be made conscious as the world. The development of life is solely the process of Actualizing Reason as self-conscious. Reason in its unconsciouses form is the universal predisposition to the quantum state. It’s self determination is universal, it’s self actualization is however only particular. Reason is then self actualized in the particular. This is understood as the course of Human evolution.
Hegel outlines God to be the “unity of the universal with the particular”.
The historical development of the human being indicates a struggle in the dichotomy between mind and body. The human being historically struggles to come in terms with the mind body dualism present in unity. Consciousness is given universally in the particular, and thus the particular must come in terms with its own limitation as the particular. A historical example is the Egyptian pharo who must come in terms with his own mortality.