Section 23 (last updated the 1.12.2021
Eternity
The ontological incorporation of one concept onto the other requires acquaintance with the ultimate principles of space and time. Eternity and infinity constitutes the ultimatum of spacetime. It is first important to delve into the logic of eternity as related to infinity in order to understand the following vital forms of spacetime: A), Energy is synthetic of spacetime which B) takes on the organic form of light, and C) light is further the resource enough to constitute any potential form. “Relativistic mass”
One prediction of special relativity is that, the faster an object already is, the more difficult it is to accelerate it even further. Momentum works as a force against speed before it is the force for acceleration. One consequence of this is that it is impossible to accelerate a material object to the speed of light: The faster the object already is, the more force has to be used to increase its speed, and close to the speed of light, this effect becomes so strong that, finally, one would have to use infinite force to effect the final, decisive acceleration. This property of motion is counterintuitive than how motion is viewed under classical mechanics. Motion in the classical sense is an object taking “ a step forward” and change position in space, and therefore occupy a different moment in time, or rather a certain duration of time discloses the motion which happens within it. But this kind of motion is a particular and finite motion, and therefore has a discernible measure. But motion as a limitless or infinite enegry has no discernible measure and therefore any measure is only a negation from its unlimited resource. Motion in the infinite sense is not the objects finite capacity to change position within a discovered boundary of space, but rather it is the formation of all these particularities into their distinct and finite formations. They are limits of the infinite energy into finite states. Infinite energy has no place to go outside itself
When something exists for eternity during that time we say it has gone through every possibility. But the going through all possibilities is disclosed as not just merely present because then its existence is measure of single possibility.
Eternity is entirety
The time of infinity is eternity but it is quite different for eternity to define infinity . (add to law of time- it takes time to do something) Eternity is entirety. Eternity is temporal dimension possesses quality of non decay, meaning that it is not destructible because it does not expire and this is because it is ceaseless in activity, always in motion. Eternity as spatial dimension comes in the form of entirety, completeness. The infinite in this sense is not some repetitive redundancy of some reemerging entity but rather as an entirety it is an acting and willing being whose every determination, every step taken is finite character of its being because its being so far constitutes the entirety of all potential events, is at the same time that particular measure, taking an infinite step is definite determination of something particular. Something finite can only take an infinite step, because if something if infinite, it is either infinite and therefore takes no further steps other than maintaining itself, or it is finite and therefore takes on the step towards infinity.
The particular determinations of the infinite that define it as unit are all part of the entirety of the activity. However This takes on such a finite point that it regresses into singularity distinct from the capacity to encapsulate infinitude encompassed as finite determination. Infinity develops a finite that is distinct as having complete freedom to act without that action being a necessary determination. It develops actions that are completely destructive to each other but not indefinitely so because there indeterminacy makes them also equally supplementary to one another.
Observable universe-
(Add to bubble universe)
Modern science has not been able to detect a boarder or boundary that show the end of the universe. The definition of the so called “observable universe” is the area disclosing a set of cosmic bodies that is observed from earth. The area of the universe observed from earth is labeled as the “observable universe”. The area outside the universe that is not yet measured brings up the paradox of two conflating propositions of what constitutes an unknown factor. First, the unknown area of the universe cannot be measured because light has not had enough time to reach planet earth where the analysis happens, and second this is not to be confused with the fact that humans are not yet developed to see passed this point.
There is a paradox between human limit of observation and whether something is itself limited. Whether these two points constitutes the same phenomenon, is a task to be uncovered by the observer effect. The interesting factor here is that in order to measure the unknown area of the universe, light has to arrive towards the earth from the unknown parts of the universe so that it can be known by observational methods. This has greater implication than merely the mechanical fact of light taking time to arrive at once place coming from another but that the time it takes for light to arrive at the observation is identical with the time duration of the developmental process of the whole universe to the moment it was observed from.
( Add Wormhole) The way by which observation comes to discover the unknown parts of the universe tells us something about the expansion of the universe. If earth is a single micro component in contrast to a vast universe, a measurement of the whole requires a relapse of that information back to the single point from where the measure initiates. The expansion of the whole in this sense is an inward one towards an infinitesimal point, and not away from the point because an area cannot be covered by the perimeters of the point while still being the same point. This means that any extent of the universe is not expanding away from us and therefore we are catching up to it; but rather is coming inwardly towards us, arriving at our observation of it. The phenomenon where an activity goes as furthest as possible away from its source only to return back to it is a prominent mechanics demonstrating quantum entanglement. Quantum entanglement is internal relation of two inverse substances in the universe, mind and body, (Add DNA section, mind intersection with body)
There is a paradox between the observation being limited to the limit of what is observed as opposed to the observation being unlimited as the capacity to observe. On the one hand the capacity to observe is unlimited in the sense that it can observe an infinity of things, which leads to what is observed is limited to being a particular kind of observation but unlimited because there is an infinite amount of observations within any given one observation.
Infinitesimally small universe
The microscopic infinitesimal scale of the universe is the abstract part of the universe (Add here where you say the abstract has no size) . The more microscopic we go the more abstract we are conceiving the largest and generalist scale aggregates of the universe.
Empirical science has not been able to detect a boarder or boundary that show the end of the universe, which means that we do not have an idea of how big the universe is. Not knowing how big the universe is does not merely imply that the universe is unlimitedly large because not knowing the size of the universe also means not knowing how small it is. The uncertainty about the size of the universe fundamentally presupposes the universe to be infinite in size which is something different than to say that the universe is unlimitedly large. Infinity is not limited to size but the limit of size is infinity. It is important to explain how infinity is more fundamental than size otherwise we recourse to viewing the feature of infinity to be merely that of extensive size. On the one hand the application of the infinity to finite exhibits an infinite variety of quantities. Again this may be taken as the idea that the universe discloses a variety of objects varying in size but this is not merely so because the universe itself must also be understood as the object which varies in size. The difficulty of this notion arises when the magnitude of the universe is only explained from the realm of spatial extension. This means that the proposition of the universe being infinite is conflated with the fact that the universe is unlimitedly large in size. The temporal extension of the universe must now connect infinity and size to explains the order of a series of particular variations forming together a time span. The association of infinity with size is brought into the realm of time with the other equally viable concept of infinitesimal magnitude.
There are two important implications that requires synthesis when describing the universe as infinitesimal; first any object is divisible into an infinity of universes, and second, each of these universes constitutes an instantaneous time duration of a beginning and end for the event of that object
In the first case divisibility is the measure of size. The claim that any object is divisible into universes simply means that any object is distinguishable by the most general form. The notion of divisibility is intuitively marked off as the case for specialization, by dividing one thing from another we have two smaller parts from a bigger one, but this division characterizes the most generalist form from which the division subtracted two smaller forms because it defines a complete form by having no parts left behind. In mathematics divisibility happens when a number is divided by another number without leaving a reminder. Divisibility from a spatial point of view is the less or shortening of a thing but from a time it is the completing of a thing.
Each universe forming one of the infinite universes making up an object constitute for that object the possibility of a particular event. The object is not one event in a universe, but rather it takes an entire universe to form for one object a particular event. The whole is prior to the part.
To say that the universe is infinitesimally small mean that there is an infinite amount of “mini” microscopic universes that compile together forming the particular object, in modern times we call these atoms, but in no way make the association that these are so called “mini” universes.
.
which goes beyond the universe being small in size but describes the temporal process of the universe going through divisibility. which is a magnitude about its duration during a period of time.
Second, A universe being infinitesimally small means that it would also occupy a duration of time proportional to its size, in other words, an infinitesimally small universe would be rapidly occurring in and out of existence at an incredibly short period of time. A universe rapidly occurring within a small period of time constitutes an event of the object
We operate on the idea that the universe takes a really long time to develop from its initial observed beginning point to its speculated end. But this presupposition of the time of the universe is derived from the equally inconclusive fact of the universe being unlimitedly large in size, that the larger something is, the longer time it appears to take, and the slower it appears to move in space. But if we speculate that the universe is infinitesimally small, then we have the beginning and the end of the universe to be a constantly reoccurring process. The universe is coming in and out of being at a rapidly instantaneous time frame, this phenomenon we call in space is momentum. From an absolute point of view the universe is happening and ending at all times at every moment, and this is what gives any particular point in the meditation from the beginning to the end energy. But to assume that the moment within the duration from a beginning to an end derives it’s energy from the transition of a beginning to an end, makes the moment within this advance outside the relation.
Multiverse
(add where else you talk about this as hypothesis)
The multiverse hypothesis is usually proposed when a hypothetical event is elucidated along side an actual event to compare the likely hood of the same possibility. The doctrine of parallel universe is used to explain the instability underlining order and it is therefore a law of entropy. Parallel universe proposition goes along the following lines: the current event is present because it was the most probable event in this universe, but in an alternative universe perhaps another event is more probable. For example in this current universe I successfully cross the street but in an alternative universe I get hit by a car.
The problem with the parallel universe doctrine is twofold: it first assumes that the subject of the event in question has the same identity across all alternative universes, i.e. There is assumption that the subject in the event and the alternate event are same, john or who ever is the one who dies in one universe or remains alive in another. If we assume that there is an alternation between probable events in alternative universes why not assume that everything in those universes also different? The reason why the universes disclosing the events are argued to be different but the subject undergoing the experience of the event remains the same is based on presuppose the current event as the most probable, that it being the most probable event How convenient that the current event is the one most probable because it is real in the sense that it is the event from which a doctrine of probability is discerned. It is easy to claim after the event has happened that the event that happened was the most probable one. Probability assumes that every variable in question be distinct and different from every other so that the likelihood of event can precede or exceed another. The meaning of Discrete magnitude is evident in the other name it is often confused with, discreet, it is the feature of a particular to be distinct from Latin “discretus” means ‘separate’. To be discrete means to be inconspicuous is a circumspection of action to avoid obstruction to maintain self subsistence. To be discreet is the ethical equivalent of discreteness which is used to explain physical magnitude is the reason why objects are separable, there is an inherent subtleness maintained by things that constitutes their particularity and it makes complete logical sense because a thing must be maintained as subtle from an other it shares relation with so as to form its self identity affected by the other and this is basis for the ability to discern, of which ‘discernere’ is the Latin origin of discreet. There is a natural tendency for discretion in the universe.
The term “parallel universe” is misleading in terms of what the concepts aims to describe because it makes the supposition that in order for an alternative scenario that did not occur at the given moment it was stated to should of occurred, requires an entirely new location for it to happen. However this ignores the idea of simultaneity that an alternative scenario is consistently occurring but to someone else, another subject, because the requirement for a subject to be maintained the same across all possible alternative scenarios is a ego
Multiverse (Add to alternate universe section)
(Also add to fish eye lens, consciousness, outside the perception, behind your head, or what is outside the outer ends of perception is the uncertainty principle, is the potential for another event in a moment to occur. When we say that the present is the only moment, that is true in form, but the content of the present appears on the one hand as a certainty of a particular happening, I see grass, trees etc. But in this content of certainty there is a dimension of changing events overlapping each other. We are asking how these events overlap each to constitutes the events of the moments. If we lay aside the misconception that the universe is unlimitedly large in size and therefore takes a long time to end and has occurred, and we presuppose the inverse proposition that the universe is infinitesimal and occurs in a rapidly instantaneous period of time, then we can see how a universe can constitutes an alternate event for an object, that a universe having the same circumstances but happening in an alternative version makes sense if the universe is assumed to occurs at an instance, or in other words it takes a universe to constitutes one moment for an event. Or rather the particular event that occurred for an observer is the intersection of that event in one universe with that observer, and the universe finishing changed the event for that observer. Atoms are coming in and out of existence is the process to of uncertainty happening beyond the scope of the conception.)
The idea of a multiverse argues that a group of multiple universe comprises everything that exists. The different universe within the multiverse comprise everything by being “parallel universe” which is defined as “alternate universe”. The idea of a parallel universe utilizes the number of many universes to explain how each encompass the possibility of an event alternative to another. However the multiverse lacks in the spatial undertone that is presupposed by the idea of universes parallel to each other in spacetime. The difficulty of explaining the order of parallel universes in space is due to the indeterminate nature of events at quantum state. any event happening at one universe bears a quantum entanglement to the complete opposite scenario concurring at a different universe. In the realm of time it is easy to imagine how a alternate version of the same event can take place, but when we employ the exact same concept in the realm of space, the following difficulties arises; namely that the parallel universe which is where the opposite version of a scenario happens must be adopted as occupying the same spatial point as the one universe where the event happens normally because otherwise they would be two different events in spacetime measurable by their distance.
The multiverse idea makes the situation where two different scenarios of the same event takes place at two different position in space, hence why there is many universes, but the fact that there are many universe must itself be taken as the structure for the an event to take place either in one universe or the other. If one event is happening at one universe, the parallel universe must occupy the other position in space which can support the occurrence of its alternate event, otherwise it would have no inversion, and it would be the original version of the event having no alternative.
Parallel universe from a spatial standpoint does not mean alternate but the term “parallel” from a geometric definition means figures side by side having the same distance continually between them. Parallel from a spatial standpoint means the structure, binding together things placed aside each other, necessary to form something. In a parallel sequence there is always a space between two distinct objects or even events, and this space is infinitesimally minute, meaning that no matter how close two object come together, that space always remains some gap. This space is actually the element of time itself that extends from one event to another and forms the moment of change.
“Large” universe- infinity
Some modern quantum formulations bring the indeterminacy of the universe into more concrete terms by not viewing the inaccessibility of universal magnitude as a result of an indeterminate large size, but that the indeterminacy is itself a determination for the universe to be a way in which it is indeterminate.
The uncertainty principle in regards to magnitude suggest a standard point, or a reference frame, from which a contrast of extent can be mediated. Uncertainty is the mediation between end extremes of magnitude. When we say that the universe is extensively large that is derived from a particular point which is a middle point to a proportionally inverse magnitude of intensively small. If the universe is infinitely large relative to a single particular point, then the universe is proportionally infinitesimally small relative to that point.
magnitude in the spatial domains measures extension by explaining the continuity of bodies as part of the same substrate that endures throughout change, but it does not explain the other property of magnitude , that it is also a concentrate. Magnitude as a spatial extension simply recalls that there is a spread of mass and number but it does not explain what omits the gathering and collection of mass and numbers, which is identical with asking what constitutes number or mass into a discrete measure in the first place.
A common phenomenon perceived in the universe is that a large collection of mass concentrates around dense points of energy. This characterizes the common form of galaxies distributed throughout the universe.
The famous spiral form of galaxies demonstrates Einstein’s mass-energy equivalence. Commonly the E=mc2 equation is defined to mean that anything having mass has an equivalent amount of energy and vice versa. This definition makes it seem that mass and energy are equal in the sense they are same or they you can derive one from the other. But what is often overlooked is the ontological significance of what the mass-energy equivalence implies, namely that energy is taken to be more fundamental than mass.
Whether we can have an amount of energy equal to the mass it was derived from suggests one some level one is derived from another, or that one is the source and the other is the consequence, or one the cause, the other the effect. From purely empirical terms it is very difficult to have pure energy without mass but mass as it is appears abundant, and so it seems that we have first mass and from that derive an equivalent amount of energy. However fundamentally speaking the abundant mass belonging to objects we perceive are all a result of a fundamental energy concentrate. Einstein shows this with the concept of “rest energy”
if a body is stationary, it still has some internal or intrinsic energy, called its rest energy, corresponding to its rest mass.
When the body is in motion, its total energy is greater than its rest energy, and equivalently its total mass(also called relativistic mass in this context) is greater than its rest mass. This rest mass is also called the intrinsic or invariant mass because it remains the same regardless of this motion, even for the extreme speeds or gravity considered in special and general relativity.
The law of conservation of energy holds that the value of conserving energy is in an exchange value, energy is conserved only by being transferred or transformed from one form to another, and so energy is a constant as a transaction (Add here were you say unlike biological organism think we conserve energy by not spending it, the universe conserves energy by increasing and using it, of course even in biological life, energy is conserved by reproduction.)
distinction of body into discrete points of energy, where one body begins and where an other ends, then we have to ask what develops this differentiation.
The conception is at the centre, or the mediating point, between any two extremes of magnitude. In fact the spatial extension of an object, or its material congruity that form the landscape of a body is formed around the energy concentration that cause motion, revolves around the consciousness, or takes on the form of the conception. This is perhaps a difficult notion to understand but the ancient distinction between natural and artificial definitions can clarify. The ancient Greeks define something natural as having its own innate tendency to cause motion and change. This means that something natural can produce its own duration of movement. Whereas something artificial requires an external cause in order to be brought into being, what determines something natural is not its physical or material constitution but rather its motion, and motion in this context means the capacity to generate into being which is taken to mean the capacity to conceive thoughts into being. Thought is the only thing we know as the bear notion of simply coming into being.
The components forming any object constitute an orbital system around a concentrate point of energy. Of course we do not perceive the energy of any object that complied together it’s physical proprieties but we can deduce that any biological object for example is a more complex variant of the same orbital system we see out in the universe, except condensed in such a manner it is operating as them some undifferentiated form. (schwarzschild radius is our evidence for an inherent energy point in which the mass of any object can be condensed within.)
We see that nature exhibits the aesthetic value of how mass orbits energy.
When we look at something natural like a tree for example, what defines it as “natural” is not the wood, or leafs that make it up, but rather the energy of the activity that combines sunlight, water, earth, etc. And convert that into glucose and oxygen etc. which provide the form of the wood, leafs etc. The activity that is capable of this conversion is an energy concentrate that brings into relation the material circumstances that we normally identify as a tree, it’s wood, the leafs etc. These material properties revolve around the energy forming the identity of the activity that we know as a tree. This is a more complex and particular version of the general phenomenon we see in the universe where all galaxies, stars, planets revolve around a high density concentrate of energy known as black holes, or a singularity which is the more general version prevalent across any object, Schwarzschild radius) . The definition of artificial comes in when a material part is excluded out from the relations that provide it with movement. For example, if we take the same tree that is converting light into energy and remove a part from it like a branch or it’s wood and see that branch in the context of a sidewalk or use the wood to make a house or a table, we identity that wood as now artificial because it required an external source, say the lumberjack, to remove it from the active agency of the tree, and the wood on its own exhibit no self tendency for change other than the degeneration it may experience as a result of enduring through time.
This tells us something interesting about occupying a material aspect, that it is not special to occupy a material condition in the sense that something does not require an innate or internal tendency to be occupying a material condition, yet it is necessary for there to be an innate movement that brings into being a material condition.
This lack of understanding about the exact size of the universe is not due to lack of technological advancement but is a feature of the universe being infinite. The notion that the universe is infinite is not a fact about the universe being a constant in size, but the infinite is the dynamical quality of the universe and it is relative to the finite. The infinite as a general activity of regression is relative to an observer whom is situated in a particular finitude of an infinity. In other words, finitude is not only a part of the infinite but rather the infinite is a feature of the finite. When we look out into the universe and observe infinity of stars, we only deduce that all these stars exhibit the certain extensive size they assume in themselves by assuming a hypothetical place at a given approximate distance away from them. For example the size of the sun being the equivalent of 1,300,000 planet earths, is a calculation of the suns size in itself, the sun relative to itself. The distance required to actually perceive the sun in its true accurate size to the decimal point degree can only be abstractly calculated and never actually experienced as the observer would long be burned before they can witness the sun in its true size. This is not just a smirk remark but is an insinuation that the distance covered to reach the size of the sun which is 1 million earths would literally change the observer also.
The observer assumes an internal position from within the object to which he is measuring, and therefore assumes being one with that object, to conceive quantitive measures of the object as the object is approximate to itself. Our conception of things as they are by our sensation and normal faculties of the understanding already assumes an internal position within an infinite scale. When we look out into the universe and observe an infinity of stars that appear to be minute, this is not merely because of spatial distance because there is no definite spatial extension that ground things together as separate from each other within a certain mile radius or whatever, but space in the universe is not itself a landscape but is the gravitational bifurcation from a set of dispersed concentration of energy points whose extensive process, their wavelengths, infringes on each other.
This is why in the universe the distance between objects is measured by light years, meaning that the distinction between two things is a process of change. This means that when we look out into the universe and see stars as minute points of energy this is not a factor of space but also of time, we are also seeing them at that particular stage of a timeframe. In other words, they are also atomic and this is not merely that they are complied out of atomic structures but that they are at that point in time atomic. The atom is not merely an object in the sensible sense but is moreover a context, it is a set of internal relations. The universe is fundamentally a place of time and not space meaning that the relation between things is a duration of a happening, an event, an experience occupying a limit of a conception.
Whatever we observe in the universe is a moment, except every moment in the universe has a different duration of time, so that from one position in space, or the duration of a moment appears to be slow but at another position appears instantaneous. The famous “storm” of Jupiter for example is a hurricane life phenomenon, the storm is however is large, 3 times bigger than earth, that it appears to be happening on Jupiter for a long time and almost appears static, however it is still spiralling and we know that it is shrinking,
The theory of relativity look at the relation between observer and object ascribes to the object being observed its own third observer that maintains an objective fact for the initial observer , so that the observer can merely measure what the quality of the object in itself unalterable by the influence of the observer and there is an object basis by which an object maintains itself the same.
The distance to get somewhere is also the time of it
The contradiction in the theory of relativity is laid out thusly;
On the one hand, from the point of view of a particular observer there is a definite general direction of time of which the observer is relative to; but the general scope of time is the total constitution of multi varied complexity of particulars taking on a different direction in forming a unique duration from which the general scope of time is determined objective.
When the stars appear tiny from the position of earth, that is their actual age and time period relative to the point in time the observer is occupying. What ever the age of the observer is corresponds to the equivalent age of all other things in the same moment. They are aligned accordingly. When the observer looks at a star and speculates it’s actual size, the observer is proposing that time period it takes to arrive at that star at the proposed size. To arrive at a star would take the amount of time for the star to mature to the size
“There is no direct method currently available to measure the distance to stars farther than 400 light years from Earth, so astronomers instead use brightness measurements.”
As you approach a star and it gets bigger, the increase in its size is not due a closer distance because distance is determined by a plain in which a definite length can be measured, instead the growth in the size of a star as you approach it in space is due to the actual growth it undergoes during the time span it takes to approach it. The time it takes to approach a star is equivalent to a time in the lifetime of a star.
(Explain life cycle of star, from smaller gets bigger than turns into white dwarf)
The observable universe we associate our selfs with as occupying a small part in is an abstraction of a potential dynamics that an observer can partake as part of a changing conception.
Empirical science categorizes the known universe into a magnitude extensively larger than any single component constituting it, like an individual on earth is only a speck in the universe. The concrete truth of this conceptualization is only that it is potentially as large as the facts show, meaning that if an individual would manoeuvre within the given extent of the universe, they would cover that measure. However as to the fact that the universe is a certain large size can only be known as a potential magnitude. Empirical observation that lack a definite extent of the universe brings up the important contrast between the known universe and the unknown universe. We can say that the known universe exhibits a size billion and billion light years greater than any single component within it like a single planet earth, but it cannot be said that the unknown part of the universe is equally as large because it is indeterminate in size, it is potentially both large and infinitesimal.
The boundary that separates the known universe from the unknown is the uncertainty not merely on the part of the unknown because the distinction is not like a fine line separating two section from each other, one into “known” and the other into “unknown”, but rather the unknown is the implicit feature impeded in the known and the known is interwoven on the unknown. The uncertainty principle is dimensional on every side.
The unknown part of the universe, the borderline not measured, unlike the known in that there is no defined conceptions n of a measure, which is always finite, but both the known and unknown share in the fact that they exhibit a potential of an infinite extent of of magnitude.
our self being only a small part in,. The unknown part of the universe is indeterminate, it is infinitely large or infinitesimal. The universe being infinite simply means that from one particular position within it, the universe appears large, and from another the universe is microscopic and it is not determined in one extent of magnitude in a state of uncertainty.
So far we have been discussing infinity in the realm of spatial extension. Infinity in the realm of time is the rate of reoccurrence, for example how many times did you get up? Infinity in the temporal domain actually defines the primary definition of motion, which is not limited to spatial extension, the area covered by an extend of the activity but primarily when the activity exhibits a beginning and an end and the rate of that cycle re-generating. In describing the universe as infinite, theoretical physics speculate that the universe is infinite because it is disclosing every possible scenario in existence taking place at once since there is no way any event could not have happened because the universe has no end so every event has to have eventually happened. In particle physics for example particles can only be put together in so many different ways before they start repeating forming patterns.
Particle collisions
The study of particle is in fact the measure of the universe into infinites. Particles are a “small” localized boundary of energy which can be ascribed several physical and chemical properties like volume, density, mass etc. The term particle is a derivative of the ontological term particular, and often the term particle may also be referred to in physics as “particulate”- to particulate a measure of energy. The association of particles with being “small” is simply their capacity to be conceived as a particular entity.
In subatomic terms particles collide. The reason for particle collision is that particles are repeating in and out of being at an infinite rate, therefore it is only a matter of probability that two different particles emerge into being occupying the same space and therefore they collide, which results in “colloid” which is ultimately a substance microscopically dispersed evenly throughout another substance. Colloidal system can be solid, liquid, or gaseous. Objects at the more macro-scale perceivable by ordinary perception have a less tendency to collide into each other because the rate at which they generate and degenerate in and out of existence is much slower in time. For example, the chances someone will run into someone else walking on the side walk is less probable, and as we go up into larger macro-scale objects like planets, it is even more less probable that planets collide with each other. There is more room between the objects, or the objects have more of a tendency to deviate from each other, and the rate at which they are occurring as a duration where the possibility of collision is just one of many probabilities that will take its turn after a set of other potentialities that are occurring in a certain order. The reason for this is that time literally slows down at a certain scale, by that is meant more things need to happen for one of them to happen. However if we go out further into the scale of galaxies, we find that collisions between stars is frequent and perhaps at an infinite rate, is as frequent as the collision between particles at the subatomic microscopic scale.
At the subatomic level, particles are generating and degenerating at such condensed capsules of time durations, that from a different more macroscopic expansive time frame, everything that needs to occur at that duration happens at an instance. (Add white head at one minute and millisecond). These particle collision are in fact the rate at which events occur, the duration of an event is marked by the spatial extension of the fluidity of the colloidal system being a kind of continuous or sporadic dispersion. Colloidal is one measure of particle collision: “State of subdivision such that the molecules or polymolecular particles dispersed in a medium have at least one dimension between approximately 1 nm and 1 μm, or that in a system discontinuities are found at distances of that order.” (Wiki)
Milk is an emulsified colloid of liquid butterfat globules dispersed within a water-based solution
Milk for example we see as an object but really it is an event from the point of view of a certain molecular interaction point of view. When particle collide they form what appears to be an object from our macroscopic point of view but really is an event from the instant of the collision.
The reason why at the subatomic level particles reoccur at an instantaneous rate is because all possibilities of a single event are occupying all spatial positions at all times. This forms a wavelength, or in chemical terms a colloidal. This means that everything has already happened
The ontological task is to define terms like the “infinite”, but we must relay on their usage to make the definition. Language brings the interesting predicament in the realm of ontology that requires the use of the very same words in their definition, we must define the word using the very same word itself. This is because language is not reducible to a word with ridged meanings but is rather a valid logical structure because the way words are placed together exhibit the flow of a thought process.
The point of ontology is to provide a logical exercise of deriving meaning from the same word put into different contexts, and so the idea is not to look at a given word and fixate a ridge meaning associated with it , because words in themselves are dynamical because they involve multiple related meanings dependent on the context they are used in and so a word is a spectrum disclosing a field of related meanings grouped together under the same reference point, the word is a pecan of a notion, the notion being the flow of an idea.
If infinity is an object of logic, it has to be viewed as having a valid structure, which automatically makes it finite because it is apprehensible, and so the validity of infinity initiates with it as having an invariable relation to finitude, or that finitude is our beginning position from which an infinity is derived. The answer is in the way the contradiction between the two relations- finite to infinite or infinite to finite- that tells us about where to begin in finding the missing link of the relation.
If the infinite is applied to the finite then we find that there is an indeterminacy in the number of finite bodies. Now invariably the application of finite to infinity makes this indeterminacy itself a finite, a disclosure from within which a selected amount of finite bodies can be picked out as each particular thing. Induction for instance is the kind of knowledge which first views the world as limited to a set of particular objects and then goes on to conclude that there is an infinity of these limited set of particular bodies because there is an indeterminacy in conceiving them all at once. A body itself being a finite sets a limit on the conception it is disclosed within such that to conceive an object that is finite is to be limited to the finitude of that object. In fact what it means for an object to be finite and picked out so as to be conceived are the same thing for the conception to be limited to the focus of that object and not any other object.
For Aristotle, “quantity” is the general measure of an indeterminate amount of particular bodies. Quantity associates the infinite with an absolute indeterminacy concerning the amount of objects and this indeterminacy is itself taken as particular form because it is defined as an innumerable amount of things, and made into a finite limit, the infinite is the indeterminacy of finite bodies means that it is the potentiality of a finite body, it is every body means that it is any body, or that in order to be everything it has to be something, and something is any thing. the infinite indeterminacy itself is made into a single variable permanent across all other variables as the function which allows them to be a distinct variable. Infinity is the distinction between every particular body. Between each body is an infinity. The indeterminacy of the amount of things is itself taken as the variable which can distinguish things into separate individual objects. This uncertainty of how many bodies there are in a given area becomes itself a rule, a disclosure of an uncertain amount of bodies, the disclosure of which is itself the form of a single body. A “quantity is the same as that of the bodies that composite it”. Quantity is the form used to disclose an indeterminate amount of bodies.
If the infinite is simply the form disclosing a set of uncertain quantity of bodies, then we have therefore the form, being the quantity, is itself finite. The question of quantity is not the amount of how many separate bodies because that is infinite, but as to the form disclosing an infinity of bodies, that is obviously finite, that is, any particular finite form of a body discloses an infinity of separate component.
For example, when we look out into space our empirical inclination is that there is more darkness than light, but the empirical reality is that light is the most abundant substance in the universe. The fact about light being a constant is actually very interesting because on the one hand nothing can go faster than light presupposed that light is in constant motion such that to maintain the highest speed, while on the other hand, light to itself reaches a stalemate and becomes the material constant disclosing within it all forms of other motions. Light therefore encapsulates the entire form of the universe.
The science of thermodynamics, which is the study of how light ultimately moves and in its motion converts energy into heat, tells us very paradoxical insights about composition itself. Light forms the first basis of how a substance can be in motion while maintaining a static consistent form. When we look at a star for example, we see a localized sphere of energy, yet we also notice that stars are in constant orbits. From a minute position relative to the size of the star, we see that the motion of stars are very slow and take million of years, yet they are still moving. Increase the speed of the stars orbit into an infinite rate and we see that the once sphere star is now a circle of light, in the same way as in fire dancing for example when the stick holding fire is moved so fast it forms a circle of fire.
We see this phenomenon where motion changes the physical composition of a substance more explicitly in liquids like water. (Give the example where the water droplets can “walk” on a surface of water that is vibrating)
When the speed of a star is increased to an infinite rate in its orbital position the star appears as a circle of energy, and a circle moving in all directions is also a sphere, so that the star moving in infinite speed would just look exactly the same as it does when we perceive it as appearing static. When you look at something static and wholesome, like a particle like state, we are seeing the result of an eternal ongoing process, your seeing an abstraction of a motion at an infinite rate. The first law is simply the presupposition that the process and result are identical, it does so by first, assuming that when ever there is heat, there is invariably evidence of work at play. And the so called conservation of energy is not the lack of work but rather is what it means to be continuous work. Conservation in the universe seems to take an inverse role than how we normally understand the conserving of energy by organic organisms as an evolutionary role. Lifeforms conserve energy by saving it and spending it cautiously on select activities. The universe seems to exhibit the opposite process and rather spends energy almost recklessly and with stronger and stronger intensity, maintaining a thorough duration of intensity.
One primary principle of thermodynamics is that not only does it extend light to occupy an infinite position, infinite speed, etc, light also occupies infinite shapes and forms.
(M theory)
(Add to picture below of multi verse, cosmic bruising, add to the conception disclosing an infinite of object)
This is more of a practical approach to infinity because instead of infinity being only extensive, greater and greater in magnitude, infinity is also intensive, it is lesser and lesser in extent. Aristotle introduces among the first notions of infinitesimal magnitude. The greatest extent of a magnitude is not in size because the minutest factor can also be greater in limit of finitude. A smaller magnitude can be greater in minuteness. A smaller magnitude is greater in being smaller because it can be made smaller, meaning that the capacity of reducing something or increasing something itself is the measure for a thing to be greater.
Magnitude is that which continually falls into more minute limit.
Finite is self-applicable- the finitude of a body is it’s limit. This means that the limit of a body is that it cannot be infinite, the infinite is the borderline the body does not cross. what the finite body is not, is every other possibility of another finite body, which is every body simultaneously, is the uncertainty of the finite body.
So where does every body exists if it is always uncertain from the point of view of each and single body?
Every body belongs each to itself, and the collection is their uncertainty to each other and their existence is proclaimed by themselves against this uncertainty against each other.
#27-It takes energy to think- thinking energy
It is easy to say that the world is chaotic and random. This excuses any real need for an explanation, as conjuring up any notion can explain any phenomena, any complex phenomena can be said to be a result out of randomness, in the same way the religion grant every complexity to a complex god, it is like answering the question with the question, I.e., the cause of this complex object is something complex. Viewing the world as random and chaotic is a result from the understanding failing to achieve reason- failing to make the connection. When the understanding separates the idea of object into parts, if it leaves them separated without connecting them, everything seems unrelated bearing no purpose or reason. The notion of absolute chance as proposed by Peirce in no way makes the claim that the world is only chaotic. For peirce, chance is simply a necessary part of reason. It is in and of itself a rational mechanism operative in the world. If we look at the concept of entropy for example in the laws of thermodynamic, we see that chance plays an important role when heat enegry is transferred from one source to another.
The term “infinite” whenever is used presupposes limitless substance. The infinite means that there exists endless potentiality- which means that something infinite has within itself the means to produce itself in every possible way. If then we attribute the nature of mind with the infinite, then it necessarily follows that substance is the limitless possibility of reason.
#25-Each finite is an abstraction from the infinite.
Abstraction is the physical motion of separation
The infinite is the activity of which the limit beyond that is itself the infinite. Beyond the infinite is nothing but the infinite itself, and so the limit of the infinite is itself, this is the finitude of infinity, that it is unlimited, it has to keep going; so the question becomes, how does it keep going? The infinite keeps going by taking this relentless nature, which is its limitation, and goes beyond it, beyond its limit, towards the opposite end by making the opposite nature of an unending activity, the infinite turns into a true finite, finite in every infinite respect.
The finite form is just the abstraction from the infinite activity. Each limit of the infinite is a finite abstraction of itself. Once set as a finite abstraction it perceives the infinite activity from the point of view of its finitude, so that now infinity is viewed in every finite respect, and it is viewed in this finite respect for an infinity. that this one finite abstractions contradicts the whole infinite activity. The limit always beyond the finite is the infinite itself manifesting itself into a finite, in an infinity of times. Each time the finite is connected in a way where the latter finite is greater and former finite is least. Each finite is a sublation of the previous and the limit for the next.
The finite as an abstraction is the contradiction taking on form. The contradiction consist of inverse relations.
To a point b having a gap from B to a third point c and thence extending to a final limit
The infinitesimal is the equalbirum between the inverse relation.
In any finite interval there are infinite happenings. Meaning that in this very moment, me and 100 other people are eating food.
(Add discrete and extensive)