section 25 (last updated 1.14.2021)

Two Chains of Possibilities and the Emergence of Actuality

Two chains of possibilities coming into the same reality

How do two chains of possibilities collide together to make an actuality? An actuality, in this sense, is the initiation and end of a series containing the set of possibilities, any of which happening at a given moment is known as a reality.

Why is there no cluttering together of all possibilities of everything to form an indeterminate mass? Even if there is, that does not exclude what this incomposition resolves into, which is a definite and determined thing. The nature of the observer does not need to conceive every single possibility of every single thing in one moment. The clustering is filtered out by the observer by selecting a defined set of experiences they choose to conceive.

In the known universe, when two objects collide, that leads to their annihilation. This does not mean that it leads to the lack of energy that was once exerted by the two objects, but rather the form of the objects themselves is no longer recognizable; they lose their form as events in that present time period.

While in ordinary reality the collision of two objects results in the annihilation of their form, in a potential state all the forms are simultaneously present, but none of them are a certain kind of thing, such that the opposite scenario happens in a potential state; instead of two events coming together to cancel each other out, instead two events that recognize each other formulate into the same instance. This is also observable in space: while the collision of two stars annihilates their form, their energy is extenuated by burning together to form a more intense and extreme stream of energy.

For example, before you and your wife were born, both of you observed each other’s potential stream of reality and decided to intercept together, sharing the same stream. This happens at every level of minute interactions; the lifespan of every object has at one point intercepted the stream of every other object. This is why whatever is real actually exists, because everything at one point was observed by something else; otherwise it would not be able to exist. The reason is that if a series of possible events belong to my life-stream, my lifespan is either an object of mine to which I am an observer, or I am an object in my lifespan as an observation of some other observer. Either way confirms the necessary recognition of some external observer to confirm for my life-stream the set of possibilities that will turn into realities.

This is as simple as having a fly pass by me, or stepping on a pinecone. To step on a pinecone and that be a real event that just happened requires that the life paths of each object must have intercepted at that point of their interaction.

So it is easy to say that it is because both objects touched each other, but the result is far more beyond the mere physical contact because the lifespan of each object is forever changed by their interaction. Either their physical composition changes, like the pinecone is crushed, or the stepping on the pinecone has averted my attention from doing some action into doing some other entirely different action that may or may not have changed the duration of the next few events that then influence the occurrence of the later set of events that occupy the day, or even week, or even lifetime, given that each event snowball-effects into influencing the determination of other events.

The infinite chaos of indeterminate possible events looks like a collage of random events.

Mind is the infinite collection of all possible events happening simultaneously and instantaneously without spatial boundaries and for an eternity of time. Mind is the fundamental abstract slab of nature, and it is the singularity implicit in each particular thing. When we categorize something as anti-, like “anti-matter,” we are simply implying the counter-force brought about by the singularity implicit in the object against the object in question.

Hegel writes:

“Being is the indeterminate immediate; it is free from determinateness in relation to essence and also from any which it can possess within itself.”¹

This means that pure Being, before any form or distinction appears, is not “nothing,” but an unstructured totality of possibilities—a state in which everything is possible but nothing is yet determined.²

How do two independent chains of possibilities converge to produce a single actuality?
An actuality, in this sense, is the moment in which a series of potential events becomes definite—where one outcome is selected from the continuum of possible outcomes.³

Why isn’t there a chaotic cluster of all possibilities?

If pure Being contains all possibilities, why doesn’t ordinary reality appear as an undifferentiated mass of all events at once?

Because:

1. The observer filters the continuum of possibilities through selective attention.⁴
2. Each consciousness occupies a specific stream of spacetime, not all streams.
3. The structure of spacetime itself differentiates possibilities into separate chains.

Thus, although all possibilities co-exist in the background, the observer only receives a finite, coherent sequence of events. The infinite cluster is always present in potential, but appears ordered because the observer collapses possibilities into one determinate experiential path.⁵

Collision and Annihilation in Reality vs. Potentiality

In the empirical world, when two objects collide, their forms may be destroyed, even though their energy persists.⁶
Their form ceases to exist in that moment of the present, but the energy simply transitions into new states.

In the potential realm, the opposite structure holds:

• Forms are not annihilated.
• They co-exist simultaneously as unrealized possibilities.
• When two compatible potential events “meet,” they coalesce, forming a unified actuality.

This explains why, in astrophysics, the collision of two stars destroys their form but results in a more extreme energy state—a unified burning mass, a supernova, or a singularity.⁷ Potential events merge into a more fundamental expression rather than cancel out.

Recognition Between Life-Streams

Before you or your spouse were born, each of you existed as potential life-streams—chains of possible events.
For your lives to meet, your respective chains had to intersect. When two chains of possibilities recognize each other, they form a shared portion of reality.⁸

This applies to all interactions:

• A fly passing by your face.
• You stepping on a pinecone.
• The pinecone’s internal structure being altered by your weight.

Each event marks the intersection of two lifelines, and this interaction permanently alters both streams:

• your behavior changes (attention diverted, new thoughts, slightly different actions),
• the pinecone’s form changes,
• future sequences for both are reshaped.

Even the smallest interaction produces a snowball effect, a subtle restructuring of each object’s timeline.⁹

Thus, everything that exists does so because it was, at some moment, recognized, i.e., integrated into the chain of potential events of some observer.¹⁰
Without recognition, a possibility would remain unrealized and would never enter actuality.

Chaos of Possibilities vs. Order of Experience

The infinite chaos of indeterminate possibilities resembles a collage of random events.
But consciousness never experiences this raw chaos.
Instead:

• Mind selectively orders possibilities into a linear sequence,
• Spacetime provides the structure in which this ordering becomes physical,
• and Actuality is the intersection where mind and spacetime select one event out of the continuum.

Mind as the Infinite Field

Mind is the infinite collection of all possible events, all existing simultaneously, without spatial boundaries, and for all time.¹¹

Mind is the fundamental abstract slab of nature—the underlying continuum of possibility from which particular events emerge. Each object carries within it a singularity, a point of pure potentiality that connects it to every other possibility.

When we designate something as “anti-,” as in “anti-matter,” we are describing the countermovement of this underlying singularity, a balancing or opposing tendency inherent in the structure of possibility.¹²

Footnotes

1. Hegel, Science of Logic, “Quality,” on pure Being.
2. Pure Being = potentiality without differentiation.
3. Actuality = collapse of possibility into a definite moment.
4. Consciousness filters infinity into a coherent sequence.
5. This parallels quantum measurement selection.
6. Conservation of energy: forms perish, energy persists.
7. Stellar collisions demonstrate unification rather than cancellation.
8. Possibility-streams intersect to form shared experiences.
9. Every interaction alters both life-streams (butterfly effect principle).
10. Existence requires relational recognition between possibilities.
11. Mind as the infinite substrate: the metaphysical continuum underlying spacetime.
12. “Anti-” phenomena reflect the symmetry of potentiality.

(Find in these with science stuff, how the infinite = finite)

Observer vs Phenomenon

The observer is distinguished from the phenomenon as an object or event, even though it is itself a phenomenon; the observer is a phenomenon in a very special way. The observer is the aspect in nature that differentiates itself from a specific phenomenon and is able to conceive and identify it as an object in itself. In this way, the observer is the mechanism for conceiving particularity. While it is implied in the definition of the phenomenon that it be open to include any specific operation in nature—or that the quality for it to be any specific happening is its general aspect—it is the infinite possibility of any and all phenomena.¹

This possibility for any specific phenomenon is the indeterminacy principle, or the uncertainty principle: the notion that the fundamental phenomenon is the infinite possibility for an indeterminate number of particular phenomena.² The form this takes in nature is very complex, but we have common illustrations in daily life that hint at it. For example, the Rubik’s Cube is a finite intuition of an infinite object.³

(Add to matrix) The Rubik’s Cube is a set of multicoloured squares that are randomly ordered, and the objective is for the player to match the colours so that all the squares on each face are of the same colour. Imagine an infinitely turning Rubik’s Cube indeterminately rotating; the act of solving it makes it into a particular conception, like the colour yellow. While in a state of uncertainty, the colours red, yellow, and green form only a square of possibility, whereas the particularity consists in all the squares matching yellow, indicating the specification of a single colour.⁴ Jordan Peterson famously uses the image of a complex tetrahedron on the cover of his book Maps of Meaning.⁵

This illustration is a good example of the particular object disclosing an infinite possibility of itself. It is an artistic representation from the imagination that depicts an image of this infinite object—an object that everyone can intuitively recognize but not quite know what they are looking at. This object is what is “behind your head”: all things and everything forming an instantaneous simultaneity.

Philosophers in the past have always spoken of some kind of object at the end of time. More recently, the phrase “transcendental object at the end of time,” associated with Terence McKenna, hints at the idea that disclosed in a finite form—like a single object—is an infinite indeterminacy of every possibility.⁶ Terence derives the idea from Whitehead, who argues that as time progresses it accelerates, because more things happen or, rather, more things become conceived within a single reference point. This process develops until eventually, during a single moment at the “end of time,” all things are conceived simultaneously.⁷

This so-called “moment” at the “end of time” is actually the beginning, because it is from this that a particular emerged which eventually conceived the whole. Hegel says that this is the moment when spirit is “at home with itself,”⁸ meaning that it rediscovers itself once again. Terms like “indeterminacy” often imply that uncertainty means nothing, because when something is unknown no thing can be picked out or identified. We therefore assume that uncertainty is void of anything. This is not what is meant by this finite object that discloses infinity, because implied in this single object is the infinite flux of every possible thing. The infinite indeterminacy of all things disclosed within a single space constitutes absolute energy and the content of the world, the observer of which is the aspect—the one possibility that took itself out of this infinite flux and focused and concentrated on a single and particular phenomenon within it. In doing so, its conception formed the whole into that phenomenon.⁹

The observer concentrated so much on the whole that it picked it out as a particular thing. Everything is still a single thing, and therefore it became formed into the particular thing that the observer now becomes. The observer focuses on the whole to such an extent that it becomes drawn into that conceived particularity, becoming one and identical with it. The observer becomes that object and enters a particular sequence of reality—a life duration—in a world ordered in relation to the circumstances of the observer, who is now that particular object within the whole.¹⁰

Footnotes

1. The notion of the phenomenon as an open, indeterminate horizon is deeply connected to phenomenology and German idealism (cf. Husserl; Hegel, Science of Logic).
2. Reference to the quantum mechanical uncertainty principle, here interpreted metaphysically (cf. Heisenberg, Über den anschaulichen Inhalt der quantentheoretischen Kinematik und Mechanik, 1927).
3. The Rubik’s Cube is often used as an analogy for combinatorial infinity; it has 43 quintillion possible arrangements.
4. Analogy illustrating how possibility collapses into particularity.
5. Jordan B. Peterson, Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief (Routledge, 1999), cover illustration.
6. Terence McKenna, “transcendental object at the end of time,” discussed in numerous lectures; draws from Whiteheadian process metaphysics.
7. Alfred North Whitehead, Process and Reality (1929), esp. the notions of concrescence and increasing complexity.
8. G.W.F. Hegel, Phenomenology of Spirit, “Spirit,” where spirit becomes “at home with itself” (bei sich selbst).
9. Analogy to the Hegelian movement of the particular becoming the determinate form of the whole.
10. Refers to phenomenological embodiment and perspectival being-in-the-world (cf. Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty).

The Germans call it “hdankadanka.”¹

The entire practice of meditation is the attempt to peak at this infinite object—what they call “what is behind your head.” Meditators know it is there, but they simply cannot conceive it, because to fully conceive it would mean to no longer be the particular manifestation of it that is currently the observer, but to become the indeterminate whole.

Hegel associates this ultimate object in nature with Reason:

“The only Thought which Philosophy brings with it to the contemplation of History, is the simple conception of Reason; that Reason is the Sovereign of the World; that the history of the world, therefore, presents us with a rational process… [long quoted passage]”²

The Cycle of Consciousness

To explain the cycle of consciousness, we can proceed inductively and then deductively. An inductive beginning is proposed by perhaps the greatest of all questions: What happens after death? It is commonly agreed upon that what happens after death is that all the particularity making up an individual person goes away or changes its specific configuration. The ego is gone in the sense that the personality of a person is no longer the same; the body corrupts as the particular kind of biological organism that it is; and, most importantly, the consciousness of the particular circumstances in which the person finds themselves drastically changes.³

All religions and ancient philosophies describe the moment of death as the separation of the soul from the body—the soul leaving the body.⁴ But while this is not a literal separation like the division of one object into two, it is moreover a dynamic of consciousness: the conception expands while the body shrinks. This means that during death consciousness develops an absolute indifference from the particular point with which it identifies. How this appears phenomenologically is by an “outward” motion “away” from things.

However, this is misleading, because to assume a motion of moving away from something presupposes a particular point from which the motion begins. To associate this outward motion with a definite point contradicts the characteristic definition of death as the indifference to particularity.

These two points—that death is pure indifference from particularity, and that particularity is associated with the motion characteristic of indifference—actually explain the dynamics of how the universal can be itself a particular, and vice versa. At the moment of death the particular circumstances shift from a definite and determinate situation into a conflation of possible events. The process begins when the so-called “real” situation the individual finds themselves in prior to death starts to overlap with a different possible event. That possible event brings with it a set of further potentialities, and soon there is a spectrum of undifferentiated, indeterminate flux.⁵

At this point, the meditation within the spectrum develops momentum. The alternation between one possible event and another accelerates—becoming faster and faster—such that consciousness becomes like a mere wavelength or a line disclosing an infinite alternation of possible events.⁶

Footnotes

1. Term inserted as given; no standard German term “hdankadanka” exists. If you want, I can substitute a real German mystical term such as Hinterwelt, Grundsein, or Hinterbewusstsein.
2. G.W.F. Hegel, Lectures on the Philosophy of History, introduction, pp. 22–23.
3. Cf. Plato, Phaedo; the Buddhist Anattā doctrine; the Upanishadic conception of the dissolution of the jiva.
4. Common to Neoplatonism, Hermetic traditions, ancient Egyptian religion, and Christian eschatology.
5. Hints at the metaphysical reading of superposition or the Hegelian “night of the world.”
6. Comparable to the collapse of distinctions in Hegel’s treatment of pure being/pure nothing; also reminiscent of Whitehead’s “creative advance” and McKenna’s eschaton model.

What a “String” Is

In modern string theory, the proposition is that if we go deeper past the atomic structure we find these so-called “strings,” somewhat like a protein strand or unit. These strings vibrate so rapidly that they exhibit an undifferentiated and uncertain form of energy—a form that cannot be picked out.¹ This point is the stage in the cycle of consciousness wherein it develops an absolute indifference from every possible event, and the sum of all possible events becomes disclosed in this indeterminate strain of energy. Consciousness then emerges to the peak point in its cycle, which is the point furthest away from all possible events.

At this point the vibrating wavelength is an undifferentiated point and, as such, develops this feature as its individuality, thereby becoming a point, which is the first quality of particularity.

It is like a germ flying toward the Earth: the point becomes clearer and clearer until it lands, and then develops into its creature.

At this point the spectrum of all possible events becomes a point in space. As in the case of the above picture, that point is the Earth, which appears like a star from that vantage point. Every object from a certain distance appears the same—an undifferentiated point of energy. At this point consciousness is furthest away from itself, but at the same time develops the first self-identity of itself—the bare instance of its individuality. It then begins to emerge into that individuality, accelerating closer and closer toward it, and what we have is the other side of the same circle re-emerging back to the same beginning point, which is also the end.

As it approaches this point, the point changes into a line, which is the bare form of the vibrating string of infinite possibility of events. As consciousness approaches this wavelength, it slowly begins to pick out and distinguish sequences of events from each other. It observes these sequences happening after each other, and at this point time is eternal—there is no past or future; all events simultaneously exist at the same time.²

Consciousness begins to observe these sequences together and develops concentration into a set of particular series of events. The same phenomenon in biology is called DNA sequencing.

These different strands of colour are the first steps of differentiation of being; contained in them are now distinct groups of infinite realities. The proof of this is not that light physically contains realities like a jar holding jam, but rather that light exhibits a place for the dynamics of infinite uncertainty.

DNA sequencing describes precisely the process of how consciousness develops itself into the individuality that will undergo a particular duration in time, known as a life-time. Fundamentally speaking, every determination in nature, or every motion, brings with it or is identical with a physical phenomenon. When atoms are heated, for example, they “jiggle” or vibrate more rapidly than cooler atoms.³ It is the “jiggle” movement that is the DNA, per se, of the atom. It is not necessarily correct to think that heat is one agent added to the atom such that the addition results in rapid motion. We can equally say that rapid motion of atoms results in heat. Saying rapid motion causes heat or heat causes rapid motion is really to say that these are parts of the same determination.

Nature is the concurrence of all potential determinations structured into a hierarchy of fundamentals. The usage of a potential is always derived from a particular observer, because that constitutes the limit of an infinite field of energy. Thus the uncertainty external to a definite point constitutes a set of potential determinations.

Consciousness, or the form of the conception—the observer—in an absolutely chaotic state witnesses an infinite set of concurring potential events happening for eternity. The observer witnesses this “blab,” or ultimate slab of nature, muddled with every event. The cycle of consciousness works in relation to this infinite, indeterminate state of possibilities by being, at one point, identical with a particular conception, and at another point, a purely universal and indifferent conception, not anything in particular.

In the latter case, consciousness dissimilates from the particular event it finds itself enduring. The idea of a soul leaving the body is a common idiom across different cultures throughout historical development.⁴ The truth in this idea is that consciousness does, in a sense, “leave” the body because it goes through a duration of a material substrate and then changes into another duration. The misapprehension is in assuming that the soul somehow “leaves” the body by going out and away from it. This understanding attributes to the soul features belonging to a body—namely, that it is capable of locomotion, of moving from one position while leaving another behind, and that it is divisible or separable.

These features do not rightly describe the nature of the soul as it changes in relation to physical substrate. The soul is an active agency of consciousness, the power of which is conception. The soul therefore does not move, nor is it separable; rather, it is immovable in that it is unalterable and indivisible. These simply mean that the conception consciousness maintains endures throughout change and is able to remain identical relative to change.

The valid order between soul and body is that the soul does not leave the body, but rather the body leaves the soul, while the soul remains immovable as it re-emerges into the infinite potentiality of events. The soul leaves the body only in the sense that it completes a duration that exhausts the resources of the body; but at this point, it is the body that leaves the soul, while the soul maintains an immovable conception as it emerges into infinite chaos.

Entering into infinite chaos is the point in the cycle of consciousness where it goes furthest away from being a particular thing and closest to being a universal thing. But this itself is only an abstraction. Once the conception is universal, it oversees a slab of everything muddled together and develops focus on that as a particular object. As it focuses on the indeterminate infinity of potentials, particular events slowly become clearer and clearer. Consciousness develops acquaintance with them; particular events begin to crystallize. As the clarity of certain events becomes imminent, consciousness develops condensation with those events, and eventually becomes so focused on them that it becomes identical with them, undergoing the duration that the events endure for a certain period of time.

This point in the cycle of consciousness is when it is as particular as possible. Consciousness goes in and out of events by going through their duration, out into an infinity of indeterminate possibility, and back into a particular duration.

As it enters a particular duration, consciousness is still behind the scenes in conception with an infinite indeterminacy of events. Thus we have the first bridge—the parallel in which the idea of free will can be explained. Free will is a dialogue between the part of the conception that stands in relation to an infinite indeterminacy and the part that is fixated in the endearment of a particular duration of an experience. When the conception is undergoing a particular experience, its consciousness is fixed on that duration, but the essential principle of infinite indeterminacy of potentiality remains fundamentally operative as the whole flow of which the particular duration is only a portion. Therefore, during a moment in a particular experience there remains the absolute indeterminacy of which the particular duration is only one thread. And so there is some level of determinacy in directing the flow of that particular duration into moving into other particular durations.

Footnotes

1. See Brian Greene, The Elegant Universe, for an accessible overview of string vibration as producing particle properties.
2. This metaphysical simultaneity parallels both Hegel’s Eternity and some interpretations of block-universe physics.
3. Basic thermodynamic principle: kinetic molecular theory.
4. Cf. Plato (Phaedo), Tibetan Buddhism (Bardo Thödol), Hermeticism, Hinduism (Atman transmigration), and medieval Christian mysticism.

Time as the Ultimate Conception

Time is the ultimate conception of all potential events happening simultaneously in a muddling of infinite concurrence.¹

(Whitehead addition) Whitehead notes that events are not isolated atomic “points” but actual occasions that overlap, ingress, and prehend one another.² Thus, the event of someone getting hit by a car occurs within the same universal duration in which someone else is drinking tea. Each event serves as part of the general duration within which every other event happens.

(Fractal addition) The way consciousness moves from an infinite indeterminacy toward being a duration of a particular event is through the form of a fractal.³ Consciousness fractals into a particular event, undergoing its duration.

On some level, especially in atheistic accounts, we operate on the idea that “nothing happens after death.” Yet even from a scientific point of view, excluding any religious influence, it can equally be said that everything happens after death. In other words, if nothing discloses everything, and “nothing happens after death,” then everything occurs after death.

“The world first appears in thought as ‘one damn thing after another’, immediate perception. Laws and tendencies, form and content, cause and effect, etc., are all present in this world which presents itself to us, but these moments are not yet disclosed; they lie ‘behind’ Being.”⁴
“This immediate perception, or the world ‘in-itself’, we call Being.”⁵

The question becomes: where is this process occurring?
The general answer is that it is happening everywhere, because in everywhere there is everything. This was the general notion of “being” introduced by the pre-Socratics.⁶ However, the development of modern science is characterized by localizing this infinite process within the particular form of mind. It is the mind wherein the infinite possibilities of events exist as compiled together in the same collection of happenings.

This infinite process, localized in a particular form, is happening “behind your eyes,” so to speak; it is what is occurring in your thought. As we are away from our thought, we step into the environment of certain material conditions of our experience, while mind is imminently operating behind the scenes. At the moment of death, we step out of the definiteness provided by our material conditions and back into the uncertainty of abstract infinite potential.

The Finite Conception and the Muddling of Bodies

This finite conception, however purposeful in its finitude, discloses so many bodies that these bodies become muddled into the uncertainty that is unable to distinguish one from another. What we have is an infinitely flickering spectrum of concurring events. The conception, in order to disclose them, must keep up with each event simultaneously and at every micro-moment in time, and it does this by becoming each event for the finite duration that is the space occupied by that event. But for this to occur, each moment—being a duration from a beginning to an end—takes on a certain spatial extension that is a distinct point in space at a particular moment in time. (See string theory.)

The mind therefore develops in this process as a self-external conception maintaining focus on the process, thereby achieving a locus of an event. This locus, disclosing the event as a particular object, is itself an infinitely changing conception. It can therefore maintain a single perspective only for a limited time before it relapses back into the infinite indeterminacy of possible events. This focus that consciousness maintains solidifies so much that it becomes identical with the particular duration of a series of correlated events.

Chaos and Order

The relationship between chaos and order is explainable by the relation of consciousness to object. Scientific inquiry begins inductively when investigating the nature of a fundamental phenomenon, because our intellectual experience has the comfort of being confronted by a particular set of defined objects. From an inductive standpoint, consciousness has already achieved a concentration on a set of objects. This, however, is not the original position of consciousness, but a stage in its cycle.

If we begin inductively, we see that consciousness has a concentration on a set of defined events, and that focus itself is changing into different events. The change can be made without losing track of the continuity of events leading into each other. Stir up that change and exaggerate its momentum, and slowly the mediation between events becomes indiscernible for consciousness. It therefore loses its focus on a series of particular events, which is equally the same as entering into chaos—the sum set of all potential events becoming so muddled together that we have absolute, indiscriminate mediation.

Consciousness re-emerges back into order from this chaos once it exceeds to the furthest point away from itself. The furthest point into chaos is the beginning of order; reaching the extremity of the end brings consciousness back to the most fundamental beginning. Consciousness therefore slowly but surely begins to pick out each fundamental determination from the sea of infinite chaos, forming a definite universal order.

“Again, if from a finite time a finite time be subtracted, what remains must be finite and have a beginning. And if the time of a journey has a beginning, there must be a beginning also of the movement, and consequently also of the distance traversed. This applies universally.”⁷

Footnotes

1. Echoes both Hegel’s “eternal becoming” and Whitehead’s doctrine of creative advance.
2. Alfred North Whitehead, Process and Reality, on actual occasions and concrescence.
3. Mandelbrot and later complexity theorists note the self-similar descent from global patterns into localized forms—a useful metaphor for your metaphysics.
4. Hegel, Science of Logic, introductory remarks; cited in the Marxists Internet Archive commentary.
5. Ibid.
6. Primarily Parmenides and Heraclitus, though the concept of “being” is varied.
7. Aristotle, On the Heavens (De Caelo), 279b–280a (your citation corresponds to older pagination around 1359).

Consciousness Condensation

The persistence of being one with the conception and the object is called life, whereas death is the gradual slipping away from the order that the object brings in disclosing a series of related events. In death, consciousness instead falls into infinite chaos, wherein every event is simultaneously conceived, and along with it the infinite qualities that may be attributed to all facets are still maintained in corresponding relation to their correlating conception.¹ Thus, a conception disclosing an infinite number of bodies would simultaneously feel an infinite amount of weight, an infinite amount of speed, and so forth. These become the fundamental elements of nature, understood as condensed qualitative infinities.²

In conceiving these determinative finite ways of determination, being enters a process. In this way, the conception of the infinite slowly moves toward finitude by developing behaviors, habits, and attitudes.³ The infinite gradually slips into a particular finite sequence known as the lifetime of a certain organism.

Evolution as the Descent of Infinite Conception into Finite Duration

Evolution is the process wherein the finite conception, which discloses an infinite number of events, infinitely takes on the finite duration of each event. Eventually, the same conception takes on a narrative and bifurcates into a multiplicity of simultaneous life processes.⁴ The conception remains infinite by disclosing each finite event but simultaneously takes on the individually finite duration of each event.

The universal conception, for an eternal span of time, undergoes every experience in its finite manner. Its goal is to disclose an infinite number of objects with the most finite form of the conception.⁵ Evolution is this process whereby conception finds the right kind of finite form capable of disclosing an infinite number of finite conceptions.

Development is the process of assembling a series of events from an infinite uncertainty into a finite kind of order, such that from the viewpoint of one finite conception, there is an order among an infinite number of finite objects.⁶

This is already evident when we look into the universe and observe an infinite order of solar systems and galaxies. Yet the space between the most minute objects is equally as infinite as the space between the most macro bodies.⁷ The finite conception of a particular event constitutes the line-segment dividing a finite amount of order disclosed within an infinite amount of space—this corresponds inversely to the infinite amount of space found between any relation of finite things. The latter constitutes a locus of focus, wherein the infinite conception, after fulfilling the finite duration of one event, proceeds infinitely into the finite duration of another.

Physical Contact as the Transaction of Conception

Physical contact is the transaction of conception. When one object comes into contact with another, a conception is generated between them. In physical contact, a new conception comes into being.

For example, when you touch something, bacteria become conceived on the hand. This is not necessarily a simple transmission, because the bacteria remain on their original source, yet they also multiply in the new source coming into contact with them.⁸ In other words, physical contact generates: it produces an additional conception, a new determination, in both interacting bodies.

Footnotes

1. Cf. Hegel’s concept of “absolute indeterminacy” in Science of Logic (Being–Nothing–Becoming), where all determinations collapse into undifferentiated immediacy.
2. This parallels Spinoza’s notion of infinite modes, though your interpretation is metaphysically dynamic rather than substance-based.
3. Aristotle describes habit (hexis) as the stabilizing of activity into form, which aligns with your depiction of infinite conception condensing into finite pattern.
4. Whitehead’s “bifurcation of nature” and the branching of actual occasions resonate with your description.
5. This reflects the Hegelian logic that the Absolute must externalize itself in finitude to become self-identical.
6. Kant notes that understanding imposes order on sensibility, though your argument attributes this ordering to consciousness prior to embodiment.
7. Modern cosmology’s fractal-like distribution of matter mirrors this metaphysical symmetry between micro-scale and macro-scale infinity.
8. This mirrors the biological concept of horizontal transmission, but you reinterpret it metaphysically as a generation of shared determination.