Section 51 (last update 02.19.2021)
Modern science conceives of atoms as the bare quantity whereby the composition of some quality is measurable. This is why there are many atoms such as hydrogen, helium, etc. All of which are atoms but differentiated by their complexity in characterizing the quality of the compound or form. On the one hand this characterization of the atom is correct because the atom is the bare primary substrate whereby the qualities of the form are determined. Yet it remains unclear whether modern science sees that bare quantity as being itself a quality, the atom as the quantity of substrate is a quality.
If we take as the atomist do that the atom bares qualities without itself being a quality, then we have before us only a platform of external relations, which excludes the observer as the internal principle wherein these external relation exist relative to. If we say that the observer captures the relation of which its externalities are parts of, then so far as the quality of the atom is its bear capacity for quantitive measure, the atom is adjective of the observers situation. In other words the atom as value is a determination of consciousness. The atom is not merely the quantity whereby quality is measurable, but that the atom so far as it is quantity is identical with the quality of the form it presents. In the Buddhist philosophy they have the
Indra’s net (also called Indra’s jewelsor Indra’s pearls, Sanskrit Indrajāla) is a metaphor used to illustrate the concepts of Śūnyatā (emptiness),[1]pratītyasamutpāda (dependent origination),[2] and interpenetration[3] in Buddhist philosophy.
This is the Buddhist version of the atom which unlike seeing the atom as principle independent of qualities, they saw it as the purely dependent element similarly to the way Aristotle say matter as dependent on form. Aristotle say the purpose of matter is to maintain the value of forms. The Buddhist tradition took the reversed rout of valuing the principle of nothing as what is to be maintained by the thing, it is the most valuable principle of being.
From this tradition, the entire form of some quantity is to maintain the element of “negation”, not-self as its inherent quality. The problem is that this does not explain why the particular nature that some quality takes on has at its inherent value the negation? The negation of some definite entity is the position of its non-being. Hegel explain that the function of the negation is the transition of one kind of thing to an other.
The idea of non-being in Buddhism dispenses with the following paradigm; if the transition from one particular nature to another is void, then the purpose of the negation is instrumental for one particular nature to become another making its value not the inherent aim. If the transition bears the contents of the particularities of one thing changing to the other such that the process of being becomes a stretched and extended medium arriving from nothing and resulting in nothing, than the negation becomes the final result of the process, nothing is the inherent aim being. In this way aim of existence is to go through every single possible state of being only so to arrive at nothing else.
The idea that nothing is the end result and is therefore the beginning is on some level ordained for common experience because of the fact that there is an abstraction of death, that the individual ultimately ascends into nothing. But if nothing is the ultimate negation and this constitute the process for being, being so far as the negation of nothing is becoming that which nothing is not, the content of becoming is what bridges nothing as the being which is not and being which is the non-being of nothing. In other words there is always something going on so long as nothing is not what is happening. Buddhism faces the difficulty that nothing is still something, which from this view the insistence on nothing as that which being is not, is still the doing of something.
Logically there if a conformation of two modes of thinking. First, the option of doing that which everything nothing is not, maintaining nothing in the face of each thing as the negation that each thing is also non itself. This connects to the second, which is the nothing as the not-being of the thing, which is another thing whose not-being is something other and so on and so forth. In either case nothing also proves to be that which nothing is not, nothing is nothing to itself, nothing cannot be not a thing. It therefore almost seems logically obvious that the only route for existing is to become everything that nothing is not. And whether nothing is the drive for this becoming the quality of negation becomes the activity of potentiality which is that of the ideal.
The word idea-l, having the suffix “L” at the end makes it derivative of the word idea. The word ideal is a morpheme of the word idea as it makes it unable to be further divided. The ideal is an absolute idea. The term notion is synthesis of note-ion which aside from its ordinary meaning proposition about something, the notion is the revelation the making clear of a note. Notion has the sounding flavour of motion, brings together that the revelation of idea is a kind of motion, and so far as the idea is absolute it is the non being of nothing. The idea is the potential for becoming.
Atomism sees the atom as the standard by which quality is quantifiable, an atom is for quality like an inch or a millimetre is for size, it is the capacity to be able to differentiate the qualities of the world. But atomism leaves it at this level of vagueness and the atom is reduced to element not needing an explanation. It becomes the means for a methodology one that sees the world as “bites” which is just to perpetuate the notion that qualities are conceivably distinguishable from each other. While an important and fundamental principle to operate on, it leaves open the question of what the difference of qualities are other than the fact that they are different.
In the Buddhist tradition the atom is the way in which events are enclosed. The Atom is the outline of the quality of the event determined by the particular form it takes against the congruence of events generally. According to Buddhism atoms are not the components parts constituting the make up of the object, objects are rather events disclosed by an outline emphasized their form as distinct gushed from other things. Now of course Buddhism claim is also incomplete preceding because it does not realize that the disclosure of something does not merely intact it by outlining its form but is rather implicit in every part of it. This is why the notion that atoms are the component bites constituting every part of the object is on some level more empirically accurate because it does explain that at the very bottom root of objects are also atomic objects. This suggests that within the explicit form of objects there are infinite multitudes of different qualities of forms that also as their components atoms, they are also disclosed by atoms. In other words, forms along an infinitesimal spectrum share the same material nature as being atomically bound. The difference between different kinds of atoms is only recently rightly being answered by quantum mechanics.
Quantum entanglement is very interesting because it challenges the fact that atoms constitute for events their disclosure. So far as atoms are normally taken to determine the quantities of forms like size by subjecting the quality of the atom to an infinitesimal standard, that atoms measure the smallest unit of matter of that quality. Quantum entanglement questions the extent of that measurement. It is unclear in what sense the atom is used as measurement of the extent of a quality other than the fact to state that the extent of a quality is how fundamental it can go, which is to say that the infinitesimal is measured by how foundational something, which determines its the extent of quality.
Atomism makes the former claim without acknowledging the latter. where the extent of the quality of form determines the smallest unit of a quality in size because it is clearly evident that qualities in relativity to each other do possess an objectively greater or less extent of magnitude. The extent of hydrogen is greater in magnitude than that of helium atoms because of their relative place in being fundamental elements. Yet atomism says there is a size difference but what they really mean and miss is that this size difference is governed by the fundamental difference. Quantum Entanglement challenges the atom as standard of size by stating that there is an exchange of the content qualities of the atom that is not governed by the size of the atom. The qualities of atoms can be exchanged without effecting the objective nature of their atomic structure. Hydrogen can be entangled with helium without there be a change and affect on the atomic structure of hydrogen and helium.
Atom is matrix. Atom is determined by the extent of the quality. Say the cube is the quality it’s atomic nature would be its infinitesimal extent which is how fundamental it is.
Why one side of reality is internal while the other is external is for no other reason than for the logical necessity of one determining the other. The fact that there is an internal relation is one of those self-evident principles. In our common experience we are aware of what is happening around us, for example there is a presentation going on, yet we also say “I wonder what everyone is thinking about it”.
The atom is external relation whereas the form, the activity the concur within the atom, are the internal relations.
Quantum entanglement states that events occurring in the atoms can be exchanged with each other without affecting the composition of the atomic structure.
(add to spacetime curvature)
4 dimensional
Like a 4 dimensional cube you can go infinitely inside each cube inside the other and the structure that they are all inside each does not change as such. The information that the atoms disclose can extend passage beyond the atom that discloses them. Which makes one wonder, is the atomist got it in reverse and it is in fact the form or information that is dynamical and Tha atomic structures conforms to that change of a change is to be produced by the exchange of information.
This ancient intuition captures the notion that the content of the atom being its quality is interchangeable between atomic structures without immediate affecting the integrity of the atomic structure that the information of form is expressible. The information of atoms are exchangeable between atomic structures. Implicit in each object is the capacity for its form to be communicated with and across all other forms without immediately changing the integrity of the particular composition that form manifest as the object, unless a change is governed by the transaction of information.
This precisely relates to the idea that everything is in each thing.
• Cook, Francis H. (1977), Hua-Yen Buddhism: The Jewel Net of Indra, Penn State Press,
Implicit in every object is the process of information exchange, consciousness self communicating knowledge of its becoming. Matter on some level is what connects everything together as every natural entity is material. Yet matter so far as only existing to exhibit the nature of form, the idea, information so far as constitutes for matter its form, is the real activity of interconnectedness. Each material object trails on the rational composition of some other objects so as to give its own nature nourishment, this is the case because the rational principle in the material objects are individual forms of communication, dialectic.
The true nature of universal interconnectedness is dialectic. Self-dialogue.
this metaphor, Indra’s net has a multifaceted jewel at each vertex, and each jewel is reflected in all of the other jewels. “Indra’s net” is used to describe the interconnectedness of the universe
CITATION [11] Fox, Alan. The Practice of Huayan Buddhism, http://www.fgu.edu.tw/~cbs/pdf/2013%E8%AB%96%E6%96%87%E9%9B%86/q16.pdf
“The manner in which all dharmas interpenetrate is like an imperial net of celestial jewels extending in all directions infinitely, without limit. … As for the imperial net of heavenly jewels, it is known as Indra’s Net, a net which is made entirely of jewels. Because of the clarity of the jewels, they are all reflected in and enter into each other, ad infinitum. Within each jewel, simultaneously, is reflected the whole net. Ultimately, nothing comes or goes. If we now turn to the southwest, we can pick one particular jewel and examine it closely. This individual jewel can immediately reflect the image of every other jewel.
As is the case with this jewel, this is furthermore the case with all the rest of the jewels–each and every jewel simultaneously and immediately reflects each and every other jewel, ad infinitum. The image of each of these limitless jewels is within one jewel, appearing brilliantly. None of the other jewels interfere with this. When one sits within one jewel, one is simultaneously sitting in all the infinite jewels in all ten directions. How is this so? Because within each jewel are present all jewels. If all jewels are present within each jewel, it is also the case that if you sit in one jewel you sit in all jewels at the same time. The inverse is also understood in the same way. Just as one goes into one jewel and thus enters every other jewel while never leaving this one jewel, so too one enters any jewel while never leaving this particular jewel.[11]”
The quality is the internal nature of the quantity.
Cleary. The Flower Ornament Scripture A Translation of the Avatamsaka Sutra, 1993, page 891-92
“If untold buddha-lands are reduced to atoms,
In one atom are untold lands, And as in one, So in each these atoms contain lands unspeakably many, And the atoms in these lands are even harder to tell of.[6]”
Perception picking out the position of some natural object being in some specific location is the impetus of that object bearing direction towards the sensible faculty, and the sensible faculty is the point of the impetus having the position of the direction the location it was initiated towards. The action being directed at some point and the point from where the action is directed, are the same locus. Locus is the general description of the relation which informs how something in motion maintains a static form. How something in change remains constant is a fundamental issue of quantum mechanics because this must be understood in terms of how the very change itself is a self imposing unity. The development of string theory aims to answer the connection.
The general fact is the trying to maintain the infinity in the finite
In accordance with the general fact proposed by whitehead- that there is a happening, there is an occurrence- we may pose the follow up question; what is being attempted in this happening? In other terms, what is trying to happen in this occurrence? This is a different question then asking what is the point of what is happening because whether there is a point or not is disclosed in the evident fact there is something happening. Aristotle shows that infinity cannot possess any kind of motion and therefore has no features (on the heavens ch.5).
Even the most fundamental and simplest of motions, the circular, which is the closes approximate characterization of the infinite, is a particular form of generation. This is one of those passages in Aristotle that is very complex to interpret exactly what he is trying to demonstrate. In any case, if the finite does not come out of the infinite and vice versa as Aristotle inclines (heavens ch.7) then what we have before us is a gap, void, a place of non-being where a division is made between the infinite as a limit of itself, that being the finite, and the finite being itself a limit by virtue of being limited. The infinite being a limit to the finite, finites into multiplicity.
The void is not the space as space in the sense that it is a location where the multiplicity of finite things are presented in relations to each other. But since the nature of the void is the fundamental motion of non-being, it concerns the generation of finite things, it concerns the question of finitude. The void is the abstract form of the object. It is when all the details of the objects are striped away, the motion of the object remains. It is the rational movement of the object abstracted from all its details. It is for example when thought makes the movement of the circle, the circular movement alone has no details in thought before it.
The spherical movement is the infinite because it is universal, however the second it takes on the details of say a planet, it being the limit of that is limited to that finite because it is that object. The abstract is the motion in thought, the form in reason of the thing.
The abstract in the object
This is how holograms works, they abstract the form of the object and digitally express it alone without the actual object. Thought does this naturally except the abstract is the form the motion of the object.
When Aristotle criticizes the circular motion of the “heavens”, he is negating the idea that the direction of the universe is a circular movement. (Radii section) the movement of the universe is not circular even though circular motion is fundamental movement in it, the motion of the universe is indeterminate. And Aristotle shows that circular motion is determinate.
Infinity is possibility, indeterminate. But the motion of indeterminacy is still a determination, so that the perils of indeterminacy is that each determination is determinate. And this goes on to an indeterminate manner, which is the true motion of the universe.
infinite exhibits a void where the whole of all finite objects are present- singularity
If the infinite does not generate directly but only through a finite which about it we have an infinite of finites, makes sense because this exhibits the fact that Particulars possess the infinite insofar as they are relations between the infinity of particulars. That each particular possess the most fundamental form shared by all particulars, circular motion, even if that itself is particular in contrast to nothing itself, it is still universal in relation to all other particular motions. The infinite following Aristotle’s account is the exhibition of all particular forms and their relations, each form itself being a relation of all other forms. What is generally happening can be understood by the contradictory nature of the fundamental logic between infinity and finite.
If the only limitation of the infinite is that it is unlimited, then every possible form and all possible relations already exists as a totality, that totality being a finitude, contradicts the nature of the infinite as unlimited for it is limited to the totality of all things. Yet the infinite is even beyond that because it is the resolving of this very contradiction also. Therefore the feature of the infinite, having already beginning from a contradiction, is essentially to resolve the impossible. For once again, if we take the notion of an impossibility, the concept renders a logical contradiction, the possibility of impossibility. The task of the infinite is to make the impossible possible for it already does this by exhibiting the principle of self-contradiction as the inherent logical structure which proves to be itself the resolution of which the nature of the infinite is derived.
If there is the possibility of impossibility, then impossibility is the passage of possibility that negation must mean that impossibility is impossible, another impossibility for it is possible to be impossible. This infinite regress here means the inherent beginning of the self-contradiction as being itself the resolution. What is trying to happen as the general fact is for the infinite to be exhibited as a finite, which is already the fundamental starting point. This is why the primary motion is circle. A return to itself. the general fact is as whiteheads philosophy suggest, is that the occurrence is process.
There is a reason for everything means that every action relation of objects at some point will bear a more specified relation. For example, I buy cast for a small strain, along the line it will serve as more important role for someone else’s more serious bone break.
Ultimately
A principle is not only persistent as presupposition but is also present as a rule in every particular scenario of a phenomenon, in other words; everything is ultimately something. This means both that every single thing is something more than what it is, and all things taken all together are a single and specific thing.
When we speak of infinity and eternity as principles we take them as absolute or ultimate principles due to their permanent presence in all aspects of being. But when something is taken as the ultimate principle there is often the confusion that it is not found at the foundation of the universe or rather its relevancy throughout the duration of the world is not carried out through the process of the universe but is a result. For example when we say in language “she ultimately did not get the job” as her not getting the job was an ultimate event that happened at the end of the process of her trying to get it. If permanency is derived from the inability to be corrupted, incorporeality, we have to also ask how this feature is at the beginning , the foundation of the universe, the origination of corporality and what it means to be corporal as not excluding matter.
The following conclusions arise when we subject eternity as a function of time to infinity as a function of space; first, the principle of eternity constitutes the concept of continuity in time, second, infinity constitutes the concept of discreteness in space. This means that eternity becomes discrete into infinity of distinct objects, and infinity becomes continuous as having a duration whose past and future exhibit position and place and not mere moment passing by.
in a quantum state not only is the past and future not fleeting moments but are permanent features of a duration to be continuous, every possible events takes on its own discrete measure simultaneously. The infinity of possible events taking on a discrete measure is exactly what is beyond the conception, outside the frame of reference. The conception is the internal experience
you are disclosed within the discreetness of one possible event and the continuity of all possible events are disclosed by forming the very structure of you experiencing them. you are the duration of the events, and the events are the discreetness of you.
Every moment is eternal in that it is continuous, maintains that it has happened, that it will happen etc. in this eternity feature of a moment, it is divided into another possibility which is also eternal, this division is infinite. The meditation from one moment to another is due to the fact that it is infinitely divided into many possibilities so that an experience meditating from one moment to another maintains one as the past and the other as the present and the next as the future, these forms of time are maintained by the meditation which is the eternal feature of each discrete event.
the form of form, the smallest circle in the center interacts with the largest circle at the circumference. Super symmetry, every possible event having a discrete measure is interacting and that is their continuity.
For example, the philosophical notion of the self constitutes a rigidity between what is considered to be universal and a particular because the self on the one hand is contained within the particularity of the thing but on the other hand this self containment is the universal principle in all things distinct. In the extreme forms the notion of the self is conflated with the idea of solipsism wherein anything outside is still considered part of the mind identifying them.
The error of Solipsism is when the nature of the conception taken as the self from the particular view of one vantage point is assumed to be the same universal one in all other things from different vantage points. This gives the negative connotation to the idea of solipsism wherein no other self is omitted individuality independent of ones own. The positive intension of solipsism, if there is one , is that the conception is the nature disclosing many distinctions is a principle implied in each of the things disclosed by it. This is difficult because Disclosed within the conception of the same mind are a set of objects identified as different selfs because they exhibit capacity for self subsistence, yet from the particular vantage point of each object disclosed within a conception, is the centre locus point of the conception, which is any given object in the conception is the point for attention and so that when an object is directly perceived, that objects is the centre point of the conception disclosing it.
All possible events instantaneously present
We can also assume that possible events are layered like an iTunes library. (Add to hyperbola)
Just like you can see all points covering a spatial dimension, time has this effect but in all possible events.
This is the event horizon