Section 79 (last updated 6.9.2021)
(After objects- magnitude)
we are confronted with a difficulty here . When we take in conjunction the quantitive fact that, the mental organ characterizing a particular stage in the advancement of reason, as simply an object in the environment among many other objects; whereas in comparison to it being a quality, the mind discloses the entire trigtory of evolutionary direction. In what sense can the most qualitative point exhibits a least quantitive measure? This question is to some degree a wrong question because implied by it is the following fixed distinction between the quality of numeracy, versus that numeracy forming the quality of of some totality.
It is logically true that the existence of an activity must happen somewhere, this instance is measured by time, and this moment is is measured by space, or rather having a location relative to some other occurrence. However, by virtue of being measured by space, does not mean that time is limited to space. On the one hand, the neurological complexity of the brain does not quantitively contain the quantity of the universe, but is rather a quantity within it with the computational quality to address the qualities of the universe, such as the mind is aware of space and time. On the other hand, the qualities derived from the world by the mind constitute the mind as some quantity in the world indistinguishable from the world itself. That a true concept aligns perfectly with its physical phenomena.
That the mind can only quantitively comprehend the only specified parts of the world to which the mind finds itself existing within as a quantity. Yet in theory, the mind computes the totality of the qualities that makes up the world and constitutes an entire theory about the make up of the world. Whether that theory is accurate or not is precisely answered by the difficult question concerning how the physical matter takes on the form of its concept, and the concept being more fundamental in this way finds its way back to conceptualize itself in that physicality.
The concept connects the idea of conception as the generation of things because it proposes that the active nature of the idea of them is in part what is meant by their consideration. If by physical we mean something in motion, then the motion of that the conception is the consideration. This means that knowledge is predicate of observation such that knowing is the discovery of the indivisible relation between phenomenon and consciousness. Know-ledge is arguably that very relation. To “know” from the Latin origin (g)noscere, and Greek gignoskien, can or ken. Old English cunnan “know”. For to know is to ‘be able’ to.
Knowledge as the basis of the phenomena in consciousness relates to what it means for substance to be capable of. Capability as principle is the whole of that which is no part. Take for example Aristotle’s old inclination concerning the natural motions of elements like fire, air, water and earth. Today we refer to their molecular nature, yet the essence of such activities remains the same. It is an unfortunate modern failure that Aristotle’s cosmology is abandoned due to the shift in the ontology of science from seeing the world as the works of reason to the works of the unknown, i.e., chance. The principle of reason is demoted from its fundamental place to being an aspect of some unknown substance. That we have primarily an unknown substance and from that, reason arises as the light of knowledge. This is done without the realization that the unknown, as a principle, is itself a factor of reason. -Socrates old proclamation- I know that I know nothing).
When reason is delegated to the rank of the unknown, it looses the function of being the standard by which every physical course of action is determined, it looses itself as the standard by which things are in reference to. Reason is the reference that determines, judges, the laws of nature.
For example, Whether air goes up and earth goes down looses their reference to mind that justifies their operations. (Aristotle away from centre and towards it, this is the principle whereby motion is judged as related to consciousness) Excluding mind as the reason why these elements operate in their rational manner explained by Aristotle makes them seem as if they are arbitrarily said to be the locus of up and down. That air goes up and earth down is not because one is light while the other is heavy, but that they possess the features of being light and heavy is because these features correspond to their functions as parts of a geometric relation for consciousness. That air goes up and earth goes down relate to the relation as ends of the straight line. the nature of these elements determined as a straight line is true for mind. Take for example the way the raspitory system breathes and how it consumes air.
We take for granted how our bodies breath, air does not enter the lungs like a person entering a doorway. Instead the raspitory muscles produce force that compulses air to enter into the lungs, and the way air enters into the body is on accordance with its natural motion. The body uses theprinciple of least resistance in causing the most efficient velocity of gravity to allow air to enter. Unlike swimming against a wave, the body operates naturally to swims with the wave, operate with the laws of gravity, this is what we mean by the natural operations of organism. Our breathing muscles breaths upwards to cause enough force air to be compulsed downwards into the lungs and upon entering the lungs shoots upwards into the brain where the oxygen is distributed by the cardiovascular system to the entirety of organs. (Google how the body breathes) when you take a breath, it follows that you swallow. Swallowing is always down to the stomach as it is of solid food from earth. The physics of these elements are parts of the Biological operations of the mind.
(Add here Aristotle on the heavens, cosmology)
Aristotle- infinity as finite
(Aristotle cosmology, questions of the infinite)
Aristotle only talks about the infinite in terms of what it is “not” because he never directly says what it is like the other discussed principles because it seems that infinity defines the concept of nothing, not as the lack of something, but as the whole of which the particulars relate, which is something different from the particulars, the question to what the whole is dominates the course of our inquiry. It is what allows the relation. This means that what the infinite is not, is what the finite is. This relates to what Hegel says as the universal in the individual. That the idea of man, his mind, is his universal force governing his particular existence.
The universal sets right his particular relations as experience by a particular point in its. The idea of the infinite as the nothing of what the finite is describes precisely the principle of generation. (Add here Aristotle generation and indestructible explain eternity). The infinite is the place where the finite ought to be, the finite is the idea of the infinite. (Imagine as you walk and think you generate the reality in front of you. Quantum tunnelling. DNA is very simple molecule because it is the building block making the reality generated from the neurological activity of mind. The particular lives the idea of its predecessors, the predecessor being the universal of because they are now nothing, only left the idea of that is the reality of the present.
http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node35.html
“Note the strange idea that all celestial bodies are perfect, yet they must circle the imperfect Earth. ” this is because the earth is the place of what pierce calls insistency whereas the rest is of generality. The insistency level, the present state of the universe is the point of potentiality. Earth is the centre because it is the tunnels for the future potentiality. Time here for whitehead is getting faster, accelerating) the insistency relation to generality is the duration of the attempt to cramp the infinite into a finite point.
point in a circle falls to the centre.
(Add to fish eye conception) ( and add to Mexican hat potential- why the ball falls because it creates its own edge, and therefore goes down the experience of falling down it)
on the heavens (24:22)
Aristotle takes the proposition 1) that every body is either simple or compost, to be the premise for the conclusion 2) the infinite body must either be simple or composite, the presupposition is 3) the infinite is a body. If the infinite is classified as composite because it is complex, and the composite is predicated by simple bodies which are finite, then the compost being a complexity of simple bodies is also finite.
Aristotle argues:
“that if the simple bodies are finite, the composite must also be finite, since that which is composed of bodies finite both in number and in magnitude is itself finite in respect of number and magnitude: its quantity is in fact the same as that of the bodies which compose it.” (Heavens 1358)
The proposition “finite in respect of number and magnitude” has the positive meaning of defining the infinite as that without boundaries, which is an explanation of infinity not limited to how many distinct objects there are nor how big or small each of them appear to be. The idea of the infinite can only be understood from a finite scope yet must not be understood in the same way as how a finite is understood. If the finite principle is applicable to infinity by asking how infinity is not a finite, then the question of understanding infinity is found in asking how the infinite is inversely applicable to the finite, namely how the finite is infinite?
The complication is that in order to apply infinity to the finite we have to already presuppose a meaning of the concept put into question. This is where speculative thinking comes in, we have to presuppose a meaning of the infinite before a proper definition of it, and we can only presuppose from what we know, the finite, by negating it and associating with its inverse, the infinite, what is contrary to the finite. What we realize is that the capacity to negate the finite is itself infinite. There is an infinite redundancy in the application of one finite thing to another, namely you can continue to apply one finite to another an infinite of times. This is like the “affirmative contradiction” – confirm the proposition by affirming its opposite.
Aristotle makes use of what we know to derive what we do not know- namely there is direct knowledge of such things as finite, that things are limited by the extent of other things or that where something begins is where something else ends. We only however intuitively know that there is an infinity beyond a collection of any known finites. The principle of infinity conflates with what we mean by indeterminacy. Infinity is an indeterminate amount of finite things and not to be confused with many or a lot of particular things because the number of how much things there are, no matter how large, is still calculable as a finite measure. (find also where you say infinity is indeterminacy or uncertainty, Islam heaven) Aristotle in order to understand infinity applies the only known principle to itself and the result is evidence for what is unlimited, the infinite. When the finite is applied to itself, we see that it is finite in respect to magnitude, namely that it does not have magnitude, which can be properly said particular objects only encompass a limited magnitude while their magnitude which does not belong exclusively to any object can always be increased and decreased without a definite extent. We see this interplay between known and unknown explicitly in the empirical attempt to understand the size of the universe.
The problem is that in the same way it is imprecise to ask how many bodies there are within a given form, it is equally difficult to ask if there is an infinite amount of forms disclosing a single body. The reason for this is because if there is an infinite amount of forms disclosing one body, the body would be the point by which every form relates, their point of relation, and therefore we would still have one form disclosing an infinity number of quantities. The form of body is therefore not the amount of bodies but one quantity that discloses a conception of an indeterminate amount of bodies, a potential of a body. The question becomes the quality or what is the way the form looks that discloses an infinite amount of separate bodies.
The form of the conception that discloses an infinite amount of body is always held to be primarily circular. But Aristotle holds that it is impossible for a body to go in circular motion because a circle is an ideal in nature of which the interaction of two points can never fully realize. A point is a dense two-dimensional sphere has an unrecognizable diameter running through it, which is a potential line.
The line in the point is unrecognizable because it is indistinguishable from the density of the point because the line is indeterminately anywhere on the surface of the point.
The operation of dividing a circle into 12 equal parts can be look at in two ways; first, the circumference can be seen as the point of intersection between a set of lines, the circle in this way is the conception of lines
In this model a circle is a bifurcation of a set of lines congruent together.
Or Second, a circle can be seen as the circumference disclosing a set of intersecting lines. lines can be equal division of the circle, which in this model the lines are a conception of the circle.
A spiral form exhibits exactly how a point can never connect to itself to form a complete circle, but that a circle is an ideal for the point, which always falls inside itself.
Aristotle explains
“The body which moves in a circle must necessarily be finite in every respect, for the following reasons. If the body so moving is infinite, the radii drawn from the [30] centre will be infinite. But the space between infinite radii is infinite—by the space between the lines I mean the area outside which no magnitude which is in contact with the lines can be found. This, I say, will be infinite; for in the case of finite radii it is always finite; and again one can always go on to take more than the given [272a1] quantity, so that just as we say that number is infinite, because there is no greatest, the same argument applies also to the space between the radii. Now the infinite cannot be traversed, and if the body is infinite the interval between the radii is [5] necessarily infinite: circular motion therefore is an impossibility. Yet we see that the heavens revolve in a circle, and by argument also we have determined that there is something to which circular movement belongs.” (on the heavens 1359)
Aristotle applies a circle as something finite in every infinite respect. This means that a circle is finite because it exhibits a finite set of determinations and maintains them throughout an infinity of changes. Aristotle argues that it is impossible for a body to go in complete circular motion because the beginning point of a circle can never exactly be reconnected back to an end point forming a complete circle. The reason for this is because a curvature is fundamentally a line, and a line is always the extension one point moving further away from another, so that every time one point is trying to reconnect back to another forming a circle, it also simultaneously extends as a line away from the point it is suppose to be connected to and now there is a fundamental space where the two points are not the same point on the line, only that they are the same end points of the line
The same point that express outside itself collapses into a straight line away from the point required to connect to form a circle. Furthermore the reason why one point can not reconnect to form a circle is because the moment one points extends outside another, there is an infinite plain between the two points. There connection is alway meditated by a gab.
Aristotle says the Radius of the circle is infinite because it is the relation between a line extending infinitely in an infinitely extensive plain. (Add line segment section here). This fact alone however does not explain why the line segment of a radius is disclosed by a circumference that is a curvature of a line reattached to the same point adjacent to the centre. To explain this the function of a line is taken as a separation, or a distinction, which is the function of a segment. Adjacent angles for example are separated by a line segment.
The line is a segment distinguishes a point from itself in every way; a radius is the separation of a point connected to itself forming a circumference, and a point disconnected from itself enclosing a plain. For example,
The edge of the ring dx is the point connected with itself, it is the ring, while the centre of the point is the space disconnected from the point and from itself as the space outside and inside the ring. The space outside and inside the ring is connected with itself through the ring. Aristotle argues that the space disclosed within a circle and outside a circle are equally the same infinite space, and therefore constitutes a dimension, or the area of a radius infinitely continues to be finite segment distinguishing infinite plain into finite plains from itself. When Aristotle says that circular movement is impossible he means that a circle is an abstraction of an infinite motion.
The way a point falls through the centre of a sphere. The circle goes to the centre tracing a line connecting it with the circle, that line itself than falls in the space disclosed by the circle, but the point still bears the function of going around the circle, and so it circles down never connecting with the circle, but still maintaining circular motion as it falls away from the centre of the circle.
There is no exact “centre” per say but an approximate aim to maintain in motion in a definite manner.
Nothing can go in a perfect circle first means “nothing” as a thing is capable of going in a perfect circle because it is not any specific thing, otherwise it would be something,
nothing can go in a perfect circle because a circle is fundamentally finite to itself, it is a line always falling into a particular form and the form falling infinitely in a finite area that is infinitely limited to its finite self. There is “always a greater number” is the limit of any given number, is the same as the space between a line segment is equally infinite. The area outside a point is infinite such that if the point is an infinite body, it cannot traverse an equally infinite area, and so circular motion defined as on point traversing a given amount of area to connect with another area is impossible as there is always more area ever separating the point from itself.
This process develops particular determining on any given point on the circumference of a circle.
In inversive geometry circles and lines are considered the same. The inverse of a circle which passes through the center of the inversion is a line which does not pass through the center and vice-versa. The inverse of a line which passes through the origin is the line itself.
In the following image, the red and green circles are inverses with respect to the grey circle. Notice that when the red circle passes through the center of the inversion, the green circle becomes a line
The reason for this is because as one circle approach’s the centre of another, the magnitude increases, and at the moment of approach, the circle becomes a line to indicate infinite intensive extension.
( Add the shell picture fractals, Fibonacci spiral
This is how an object in nature develops momentum in the energy of motion. It mimics an approach to the centre, which is not a place between two points or a line, but rather that indicates to pick any point and enter into a straight line into it.
A circle is an ideal of a spiral. Aristotle explains there is no circle in nature but only in closest approximation a spiral.
The way to go straight into a point cannot be done facing front into it because that conception is already the point itself, if we add length and make it a 2-dimensional straight line, then that alone does not show going infinitely into it, but only abstract a definite length of extension. The line must therefore go in spiral circles because that begins with the circumference closes to the observer, with the largest circumference, and then away from that getting smaller and smaller approaching an entrance into the point. A spiral is the only way the motion of entering a point can be demonstrated.
one point connecting to the other forming a line is an abstraction of a duration having a beginning and an end. Consciousness begins in an abstract sense, in the realm of pure chaos of independency from finite events, it develops focus on the indeterminacy, that focus slowly develops the distinction of events within the indeterminacy. Consciousness at this point develops condensation which is defined in chemistry as “ a reaction in which two molecules combine to form a larger molecule” or in psychology is “the fusion of two or more images, ideas, or symbolic meanings into a single composite or new image” . Condensation is a concise version of something.
Consciousness focuses on the infinity of indeterminate flow of chaos and picks out events as instantaneous moments of happening. When it distinguishes a set of instantaneous events simultaneously, it develops condensation by synthesizing the events in the order of a duration. This duration has a beginning and an end, which is abstractly put together as a line.
Consciousness conceives a duration, a point connecting to the other forming a line, and the discloses that line with a circle. The disclosure of a line with a circle making a radius, changes its perceptive to actually enter into the experience of that duration.
A line through a tunnel
When a line is disclosed by a circle, it becomes a tunnel. It turns into a first persons point of view. line through a circle becomes a line through a tunnel.
When a duration from A to B forming a line, and you disclose that line with a circle, the space disclosed by the circle between the sides of the line is infinite, this causes the line to fall into the infinite area disclosed by the circle, making a line infinitely extending into a tunnel. This is how a tunnel is constructed by the relation of the radius to the circumference. Consciousness witnessed a duration which is a line, and then disclosed it with a circle by actually going through it. The circle disclosing the radius, or the duration, takes on the form of the event becoming an object.
the space in between that is infinite, it is an infinite continuum going inwardly
A circle is the duration of an infinite derivative (Add infinite regress problem)
The radius of a circle is a finite line leading from one point at the center to the other point at the diameter. The construction of a circle really only requires two points. As long as there is two points in the relation where one takes the conception of the center point and the other takes the conception of the other point, then we have a construction of a circle no matter of the chaotic variations one point has relative to the other. (Add picture of one point bouncing around a center one eventually making a circle.) that is as long as the distance between one point from another is determined in a particular length of a diameter, the radius, half of that diameter, is the center of it, moves simultaneously away from the two end points forming the line, such that to cause one point at the end to take on a leading motion of curvature while the other a static and center intra.)
Aristotle shows how a circle cannot be infinite in amount but has to be finite, that is, there is no separate circles disclosing a set of indeterminate groups of bodies, but that the circle is infinite because it continues to be finite, finite continues infinitely, it is infinite in the amount of numbers of bodies it can disclose in a finite conception, what is the infinite number of bodies it can fit in a single finite conception? The circle remains the same finite form in an infinite of scenarios. What is infinite about the circle is therefore it’s capacity not its quantity, it’s quantity is simply the finite conception it can disclose an infinite amount of bodies, whom is uncertain, are not any one single body but is the potential of bodies.
(Add to circle is infinite extension)
Curvature of time
On the heavens beginning
All motion in time are subject to circle and straight motion are simple movements
In a curvature, if the past point is placed before the future point on the linear of the curve, the past point is equidistant to a point after the future point.
For example imagine 1 is the past point and 2 and 3 are the future, 1 is equidistant to point 3 which is future point of 2 as 2 is the future of 1.
According to the tangent function each point has an equidistant relation to every other point on the curve but the equidistant of point 1 and 3 is closer to the centre of the circle than the equidistant of 1 and 2 or 2 and 3. If we say that Point 2 is the present because it is disclosed somewhere between point 1 as past and point 3 as future, then 2 so far as the line extended from to 3 is the relation where 1 is the past of 3 and 3 is the future of 1. (Add to how ideas determine matter law of mind) When you have an idea of going to the mall, that idea so far as it is thought comes from the past but its passing is not of going away but becomes the future point which now determines the duration of the present to towards fulfilling. When you actually arrive at the mall later on the day the past idea proves itself as the past idea once it is passed in the future.
(Add to cosmological principle the universe is heading into the abstract state of mind)
The present is proven in the future means how the surpassing abstractive activity produces the means that creates the continuity, what in the future produces the continuity for the present. The idea that thought is at the same time the object is the fact that the end is found in the beginning. This means that the process as object and thought are differentiated are only for the result where they are identical which is what in the first place constitutes their differentiation.
No perfect circles in nature because science abstracts the motion away from the object, keeps the movement and throws away the object, because the movement is relevant similarities to numerous different objects. Circle as an object does not exists in nature, but circular movements are abundant in the universe.
(Add to conceiving each other)
No perfect circle in nature
Plato proposed the idea that there are no “perfect circles” in nature to demonstrate his theory of Forms, circles in nature only approach an ideal limit of the form of a circle, the form of the circle is the ideal being represented by things that cannot fully attain it. the idea of a perfect circle is the Form of a circle, which is to say, it’s a representation of a perfect circle. Geometrically speaking a perfect circle involves every point on its circumference is exactly the same distance from its centre point. In nature this is difficult to achieve, for example when you draw a circle the ink from the pen does not make perfect lines but tiny “wiggly” lines that have peaks deviating unequally from the centre.
Nature does not consist of straight perfect lines, a perfect line is also itself a form things in nature only represent. Nature is made of rudimentary building blocks like molecules and atoms. Objects that appear to show seeming perfection and smoothness, like glass for example, at macro scale shows imperfection and roughness.
Glass through a microscope appears rough rather than smooth.
This same phenomenon in the domain of vision when applied to contact, the sensation of which is “feeling”, the results are likewise interesting. If the space between my foot in contact with the ground is infinitely magnified, there is a minute distance between the foot and the ground. This is not a vertical or a horizontal one, it is an infinitely intensive one, it goes infinitely inside itself. If we inverted this intensive magnitude into an extensive distance, it would theoretically be the size of the observable universe.
The ground appears straight from a certain distance, as well, an object with a certain size, density, weight etc., all the quantitive measures, it would have a certain contact with the ground, like a human foot has close contact with the ground in that it rests on it, carries a certain weight, it does not flow off, it maintains mass closely in contact with it, whereas something else with greater size but no comparable density and weight, like wind, is never in contact with the ground, we say, wind is always above the ground.
The point is that if the space between the foot and the ground which constitute contact from one angle of a degree, is magnified, the contact would no longer appear as closely knit as it does from a further distance, the foot from a very microscopic view would almost seem floating above the ground, this is especially true if the ground is made up of numerous tiny little bump and stones, that elevate a surface in close approximation to it unequally, in the same way that glass from a much closer look appears to exhibit ridges and bridges unseen from a further distance. The result we observe as part of a concrete make up a the object is in fact the abstract conception from a different concrete state.
Contact while it seems concrete from one scale is abstract from another. (Add to matter hyle)
(Add to contact)