Matter matters
(the portal that marks the development of thought becomes so complex that it is not the merely one dimensional tunnel. This is only abstraction of the form of consciousness, but takes on the dimensional complexity of every shrine of the biological evolutionary system specimen, (see diagram of the cardiovascular system) that is the developmental process of reason. Currently the neurological system of the brain is the system of universal evolution at the present, where the activity results into possible objects of itself scenario. The nature of this portal is not quantitive, like we have the image of a tunnel in space, but it is qualitative like taking on the specific form, like physical form of the biological body, it has a character, a man and a being.)
The experiences of that body as it externally interacts with others is internally processed in the thought that serves as the whole of each body, reality is transformed and shaped by the change in each individual body revising the form of the whole species. The pattern that characterizes all species in nature is that their evolution is toward forming the individual members of the species in an ideal harmony with each other, that the whole activity becomes a quality altogether the shared nature in each of the parts interacting in the group.
Matter verb
The physical world matters; the term “matter” possess an ethical implication about the phenomenon, that is, the physical body is the achievement of reason, and that is why it “matters”, in terms of being a verb. The ethical predisposition in the development of human culture is the recognition that killing for example is bad because it distorts the natural achievement of reason, a crime against the creation of God. Irregardless of the subjective personality of the individual, murder of their body alone constitutes a crime because it is against natures creation. Now of-course the reason for the murder is also important, for example killing in war times is not prosecuted. Matter is therefore not this empty suggestion of some quantity over “ there”. Scientific materialism assumes that matter, in its very definition, points to something that is empty, a mere substrate, or a platform, that qualities can be imputed onto in order to define. This methodological way of measuring the world is also assumed to be an ontological one. The way materialism measures nature is by confining whatever The object of measure may be, into a vacuum, and then seeing how that object, be it an energy source interacts by itself as a pure element. There are other ways of measuring also, e.g., seeing how things interact with each other within a vacuum. The ontological assumption that matter is this devoid substrate, which is only defined by a quality external from it, is derived from this way of measuring nature. When we isolate a bacteria under a microscope, we are placing it onto a clear glass plate independent from it host or ecosystem.
The quality of the idea manifest as the object to behold for the the mind implicit in it.
Matter as empty
Scientific materialism abstracts the activities that form matter into the kind of quality that makes the object, and leave into separate categories of the understanding, a) an empty substrate that points to the suggestion that there is some quality without stating what the quality is, and b) demonstrate the quality as a special kind of activity without attributing that to any specific object. Physics applies these two together in an external formate, the method of physics is to presuppose some given object and place that object into the hypothetical application of universal laws of nature. For example, the throwing of an apple involves a curve starting from up and going down due to the laws of gravity etc.( real example is the apple- what goes up must go down).
When we say that “gravity” causes the Apple to fall, or causes the curvature arch in the ball being thrown, this means that the ball takes on that fundamental form implicit in the spacetime continuum. Theoretical physics so far as applying quantum mechanics only began to show how the abstractions of the universal laws of motion not only apply to the external interactions between natural objects, but they are what constitutes the very objects to bear the kind of interactions that they exhibit.
Theoretical physics however comes to a halt in respect to its application of quantum mechanics because what it found was that the internal relations that form the necessity for what we perceive as the stable external relations of nature, is by no means stable, but has a very unstable internal interactions. However, the interactions of particles at the quantum level are only “unstable” from the standard of our own presumptions about certainty. The rudimentary laws of nature, the cycles of the heavenly bodies, only exhibit a certain order, because they are perceived by the senses according to a timeframe, or a certain speed of time. For example, day/night cycles take once every 24 hours for the Earth to turn— or rotates on its axis, it takes 360 days or a year for the earth to go around the sun etc., these measures are calendar registrations of reoccurring cycles for an indefinite amount of time.
The occurrence of these cycles are indefinite either a) because by “indefinite” we mean it goes forever and is therefore permanent, and because of this feature we say it is objectively true, or always true, or b) by “indefinite” we mean it is uncertain into the future, we just do not have an idea when it will change into something else. If the latter Is true, then quantum mechanics explains the operations of the universe at a different level of spacetime, one which is parallel, and as a result, therefore fundamentally governs our own timeframe of the universe. The universe is not just space, but it consists of parallel time frames that each depend on each other by governing each other.
The timeframe disclosing our own rudimentary cycles of the universe that seem to go on forever, might be more spontaneous and less predictable as the one we are accustomed to. The prolonged cycles of the universe that go on for millions and millions of years may in fact be disclosed by instantaneous flash points of discrete measures of enegry points that happen at rapidly fast rates relative to each other, but within each one of those flash points may be an eternity. The discrete points of energy we observe happening at the microscopic levels may be light reflections resonating throughout all space of the entire process. quantum mechanics deals with the most microscopic components in the universe, which is also applicable to the most macroscopic aggregates of space as well.
The problem with Theoretical physics of today is that it relays on the understanding to produce objective facts, but their objectivity is misplaced. Modern Physics falls victim to the fallacy of “misplaced concreteness” when applying universal laws of nature to ordinary physical operations. The misplaced application follows from the method of positing an abstract universal principle, like for example entropy, and observing a physical occurrence of it, like for example there is unpredictability when a flash point particle will manifest and when it will dissipate. From the observation, we then conclude that because the physical occurrence is constantly observed at different points in time, that these occurrences prove the universality of the abstract fact.
the that both events validated the same continuity. This subjects the principles of reason to laws. But reason is not law in the sense of being “the statement of fact, deduced from observation, to the effect that a particular natural or scientific phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions are present.
“the second law of thermodynamics”
• a generalization based on a fact or event perceived to be recurrent.”
The principles of reason are universal not in being reoccurring as confirmed by observation , but are universal because they are the logical determinations of the necessary generative force for physical phenomena to exhibit pattern in behaviour for observation. Their proof is that they make the object. Theoretical physics relay on static abstractions called law of creative forces of the productive activities of reason.
The principles of reason are universal and eternal because they are logically necessary in the way they are, they cannot be otherwise. But this quality of reason is itself an ideal motion of the activity, the principle for the determinacy of reason that shapes the content of its production. But what is being shaped as the content created by reason takes on infinite possibilities of as-ethical values. This is why theoretical physics at the quantum realm cannot predict any physical pattern among universally logical principles, because the universally logical principles are literally in the process of creating the physical standard that constitutes “law” for observation.
dominate the external relations between natural objects are the internal awareness are physically structured by the internal forms that conceptualize them. The internal relations aroused by the external relations between objects are the very forms that maintains such relations. The logical connections in the mind that arise from perceiving the mechanics of nature are the very forms that constitute the operations of nature.
We arrive at this fact inductively but there is a danger in doing so. Namely, to deduce from the external relations between objects the internal factors that constitute each whole object as part of the external relation, we run into the problem, the external operations between objects are not simultaneously operative with the internal relations that sustain each objects as the kind of factor in the relation. (Whitehead durations). If this was the case, there would be no difference between what the object does in relation to another object and what the object does in relation to itself.
But there is this obvious discrepancy that we have to contend with when positing the conjunction of external and internal relations. However the discrepancy does not initiate by the induction that categorizes first the observation of the external relations between objects and then conclude from this category that the internal follows the same logical activity but instead of between each, internal is the same activity in each. The conception of the internal does not follow after the conception of the internal because the notice of the external relations is derived from an internal intuition that shares the same form.
#51 antimatter section
Matter “mother”
The obvious substance constituting the universe is said to be matter, from Latin “mater” meaning “mother”, which means matter is from which we come out and it is from which we can have a conception of a beginning. Empirical science perceives the kind of explicit visual matter, I.e., earth, and from this we take the initial instance where knowledge is given by nature, I.e, sensation and perception is confronted with something it cannot doubt but only does not fully understand. It feels but does not know. The very immediate and crude type of the truth is the conception of matter derived by the intuition from experience.
The immediate knowledge of matter serves as the beginning to philosophy, but it is not the end. In the initial stages science is confronted with matter, but ultimately it ends up with a concept. It is in this way the phenomenology of matter undergoes the kind ontological examination necessary for its understanding. Science in its ontological form does not take lightly the deriving of concepts from physical objects as a mere theoretical process because that concept describes the structure in the object which is rationally conceivable independently of whether the object is directly perceived or not.
It is a presupposition of any science that all objects must be rational in their nature because they exhibits a structure that can be conceived by a rational mind, can be understood, and that structure itself performs a function and therefore is made with intent to do something which in itself is rational. The misapprehension into what the nature of matter is also is a contributing aspect to its understanding, not however without difficulty. Religion’s view on “matter” Religious thinking for instance excludes the nature of matter during the understanding of it.
They looked at the condition of matter and saw it always in a state of corruptibility and therefore excluded as anything pure or fundamental. This was a defence mechanism against the material condition involving the element of flux or change in the world. One can have an absolute form in the universe that stands forever like the ideal of “Beauty” for instance, but in the condition of matter you have beautiful things that are simultaneously ugly, either by way of something beautiful eventually turning ugly, or that something beautiful having within it an ugly element, or vice versa an ugly thing having within it beauty.
The concept of consciousness is abstracted away, and made independent, from its material counter-form because the material side of the world consists of all sides of the consciousness instantaneously, the ideas are in flux within the matter. For example, you can have a beautiful flower in the process of decay. Religion attempted to purify matter by separating it from the pure ideals it took to be more real aspects of reality. Within the same person there is evil, goodness, beauty, ugly etc., the religious dogma abstracted those prosperities and made them ultimate concepts that characterizes the forces that govern people, they say your are “possessed” by a demon when someone acts wrong. The reality might very well be that we are governed by these abstraction we took out of ourselves, and so they might be forces more ultimate and greater than the individual variable they are meant to be attributes from.
In the case of Carl Jung’s psychology, the “archetypes” in the unconscious mind are real forces that the individual acts on as their own character, like the “hero” is in everyone, just like the “villain” is also a side of the hLeto they do not want to be. If something is in the mind, this means it can control you. But what religion did when they abstracted these properties and made them into pure abstractions independently from each other, like pure evil or pure goodness; they looked into the state of chaos, in science known as the uncertainty principle, and formulated that disorder into order by formalizing aspects that are identifiably different from one another. Goodness became a category separated from evilness. But with these identifiable measures they also convolute them as not being part of the same mess.
The subjective form of consciousness is made independent from the individual and idealized as universal consciousness. The idealization of the subjective consciousness is done with the aim to understand it, to ‘understand thou self’. consciousness is abstracted away from the individual so as to provide a nature the individual is part of. Religion achieves its scientific purpose with this abstraction, however such an abstraction cut shorts the achievement of reason like all abstraction fall short since the pre-Socratics.
The term God is made to render ultimate self-consciousness but by being independent from its concrete form. The term “God” is meant to characterize the universal consciousness but by being attributed with the subjective consciousness, and because the subjective consciousness excludes the nature of the material so as to understand its underlying nature, so too is God independent from the universe so as to govern it. This duality is argued to be the actual natural order; that consciousness exists apart from matter. This however is done in order to understand the very essential aspect of matter, that is, it’s consciousness; but this understanding is the process of the mind achieving self-consciousness and thus does not operate in the same way as the external reality that predicates it.
The religious understanding of self-consciousness conceives no distinction between concrete reality and abstract thinking. Excluding their distinction excludes their very unity. The consequence is that the concrete nature of matter is abandoned and consciousness is left as a mere abstraction; an abstraction that is potentially attributed with any form of the imagination. This leads to the kind of understanding which claims consciousness to be subjective; belonging distinctly to each individual. This is an instance where the concept is alike to its concrete notion; the concept of consciousness is of the individual and left open to the individual. This reality between the concept and its notion does not indicate the complete understanding of consciousness, nor its actual nature, even though the true form of consciousness consists of the concept and the notion both of which pertain to the individual. Conceiving the concept of consciousness as an abstraction excludes its essential notion, that is, it’s universality; the aspect of the individual that is universal, or rather, the subjective that is objective.
The Individual renders all subjective, likewise with the concept of the Particular rendering every form of the particular as the universal. by the capability of thought, and thought as Reason. The Christian idea of Jesus for example is one of the religious doctrines which unified the objective nature of God with the subjective will of the individual by bringing the abstract notion of God to the concrete reality of man. The knowledge of God became a divine duty for the human being, and the actualization into the divine wisdom of God, or the Reason of God, is the closest attainment of the divine possessed by the human being.
“Man with a white beard”
The negative aspect emerging out of the understanding that, consciousness is a universal, is the idea of superstition; which is nothing else but the belief in the unjustified supernatural idea of God or some other all encompassing being. The key term here is “unjustified” because the belief in a supernatural being is not wrong by virtue of being a belief of a supernatural being but it is wrong when it cannot transition into the fact that it can give true reasons for its explanation. And because such a belief renders no justification, God is attributed with any subjective form from the imagination, like a “man with a white beard”, provides an image of God. This image characterizes a specific kind of person at a specific stage in their development.
The image of God as man with white beard is aiming to capture the ideal of man as a wise and fully developed rational being, and this happens to be at a later age in life, after the individual underwent some life experiences. This imagery of god appropriates the age of man, assuming that the man maximized fully on his own personal and ethical development, whereby he reaches his peak in intellectual developments. On the one hand it is somewhat subjective understanding of God to make him a man with a white beard because it does not describe the essetinal substance of the universe and therefore it cannot be taken as a scientific basis, in other words, a man with a white beard did not make everything in the universe.
On the other hand it is still somewhat objective because it is held by many individuals or rather they see the idea as representing them, their common feature. There is something common in all these different people that is objective. We can take this imagery literally and implied in this notion of god that the full capacity of man is to make everything, and that time is working backwards, as Aristotle puts it, “man is only when fully developed”, that the end determines the means when there is confusion into what component comes first in the sequence of the law. It may very well be the case that “man begets man”, which is a strange way of saying “women gives birth”, but this is not what this claim means.
The notion that “Man begets man” means that man now at the present is somehow made by man in the future, to which we are the past of them. This idea seems confusing but it makes logical sense; a man from the future makes the present man from the past. First, what makes the future of the man is that he is the potential of the present man. Second, the present man has a potential future because the past proves that the present leads to the future.
However it is precisely this negativity that arose the task of science to discover the concrete form of the abstract. It is however of profound importance not to confuse superstition with ontological thinking; whereas the former is the negative of the latter, the latter is the positive for scientific truth. The task of science flourishes during the ontological inquisition into the truth; each universal question is met with the duration of empirical facts, each of which aim to satisfy the abstract with the concrete. Now because knowledge of matter is immediately given by nature, there must be something not given that is the subject-matter for science.
Ontological thinking indicates that the immediate knowledge of the material serves as the initial basis for self-consciousness; the material composition of self-consciousness is aware of itself as material. The notion of matter possess the seed for its own self-knowledge insofar as the material possess the implicit capability of bringing awareness of itself. One nevertheless wonders whether this bringing to consciousness is produced from matter or from some other underlining substance.
The relationship between Matter and Consciousness remains as one of the great unsolved mysteries in modern science (****ontological terms are capitalized to emphasis them as universals, that each particular form of term is encompassed by it). Is matter the driving substance of the universe or is it the mere content that takes on some kind of substantial form? The substance of matter is something other then itself; but this very other by virtue of being the substance is itself. How can something be both the same but different?
This inner contradiction constitutes the the Universal form for the Particular content; which excludes itself as the other but with the very opposition belonging to itself. This very antithesis in nature is where science flourishes; the contradiction is the erotic drive for science to achieve self-consciousness of that aspect not conscious; that aspect not of itself. The same erotic love Plato identifies as the desire for truth is the driving force of science. The love of truth is distinguished from actual truth, but only when the former becomes the latter, science actualizes Self-consciousness. Hegel says “when the love of truth becomes actual truth”
Antimatter
The scientific materialisms inquiry into what is understood by matter provides only an incomplete understanding about the substance in the universe. The less obvious and inconclusive concept of matter is the notion of antimatter. Scientific materialism understands antimatter to be material composed of antiparticles; which have the same mass as particles of ordinary matter but have opposite charge and other particle properties such as lepton and baryon number, quantum spin, etc. Collisions between particles and antiparticles lead to the annihilation of both, giving rise to variable proportions of intense photons(gamma rays), neutrinos, and less massive particle–antiparticle pairs.
The total consequence of annihilation is a release of energy available for work, proportional to the total matter and antimatter mass, in accord with the mass–energy equivalence equation, E = mc2. Antiparticles bind with each other to form antimatter, just as ordinary particles bind to form normal matter. For example, a positron (the antiparticle of the electron) and an antiproton can form an antihydrogen atom.
Physical principles indicate that complex antimatter atomic nuclei are possible, as well as anti-atoms corresponding to the known chemical elements. Studies of cosmic rays have identified both positrons and antiprotons, presumably produced by collisions between particles of ordinary matter.
this scientific picture of matter and antimatter explains that particles, which are smallest pieces of “matter”, bind together to form a material structure that we can sense, yet these processes of matter are objective meaning they happen independently of any sensation of them, while at the same time they can only be discovered factual by means of a observer faculty. This scientific picture leaves out the problem of how a thing can be in and of itself true independently of an observer. So we have to accept that there are these little particles that form together to make an object that would exists anyways without my perception of it, yet I can only ever come to know that to be true from the perspective of being an observer of it. It cannot be true that a lifeless substance is said to maintain some other lifeless object we call matter because then this leave no room for a living observer to be a necessary ingredient in this compilation.
A living observer becomes a precursor coming after a relation that cannot be explained to exists in the way it is said to exists, it is by definition carries no reason for its existence, yet we have on the one side these dead pieces of matter that combine together to form other lifeless pieces of matter, and all the sudden on the other side, a fully living conscious functioning observer that consequently comes after that also without any reasons, yet has all the reasons in the world to exist and observer and so on.
The only way the picture of particles combing together to make an object can be true if the particles themselves are disclosed by some other unknown observer or that these particles are themselves observers, and these objects we take to exists independently of our perception of them are conceptions of them not just by being caused by them but also by being maintained as their thoughts.
For antimatter to be deduced as physical by indirectly supporting normal matter, this means that it is a matter from the other side, that from our side antimatter is abstract while normal matter is concrete l, but flip the dimensions, and our ordinary matter is abstract while the antimatter is concrete. This just means that from an inverse dimension, the matter we feel and sense we take to be the most concrete may very well be abstract as our thoughts and images in our dream seems abstract. Antimatter is the concrete form of consciousness, it is the material form of consciousness.
Antimatter is the concrete indication to the abstract concept of consciousness. Antimatter is just its material form, it’s actual content, the concrete to the abstract. Matter and consciousness operate inversely. When one is explicit the other is implicit; the understanding for instances conceives the explicit nature of matter but because the ability to understand is derived from sensations, the understanding of itself is implicit; understanding itself is unlike understanding matter. In other words, consciousness aims to understand matter so as to understand itself, but understanding itself is different once it understands matter, even matter is of itself.
Understanding its place is not the same as understanding itself. To demonstrate the validity of the process between matter and consciousness; one must merely look at the relation between matter and antimatter. In particle physics, antimatter is composed of antiparticles which possess the same mass as particles of ordinary matter but with the opposite charge and quantum properties such as “quantum spin”. The term “fermion” explains the nature of subatomic particles; can be an elementary particle, such as the electron, or it can be a composite particle, such as the proton.
The best known of all leptons is the electron, which is directly tied to all chemical properties. Two main classes of leptons exist: charged leptons (also known as the electron-likeleptons), and neutral leptons (better known as neutrinos). Charged leptons can combine with other particles to form various composite particles such as atoms and positronium, while neutrinos rarely interact with anything, and are consequently rarely observed.
Charged leptons characterize the nature of matter, how inorganic matter is composed out of chemical compounds, and even more primarily, how the chemical compounds themselves are made in relation to the very fundamental form of matter, photons (light), radiations, gamma Rays. All such particles are in constant movement, photons especially possess zero rest mass. The neutrinos is however neutral in its activity, and their antiparticle, antineutrino, is identical to it because it’s nature is neutral, it’s very reaction is itself, any other nature makes it something other then neutral.
It is however neutral from the stand point of the construction of matter; however it possess an implicit nature beyond the explicit material, the neutrinos for example possess quantum properties that operate in a whole different process, I,e the process of consciousness. Neutrinos are the only identified form of dark matter, especially hot dark matter. Dark matter operates in accord with the quantum realm. Neutrinos from the Big Bang effectively travel forever and interact with particles. Neutrinos are the concrete form of consciousness taking its place in matter. It’s neutral nature is not arbitrary but renders the task of relation with charged particles.
In the early universe after the immediate aftermath of the Big Bang, matter and energy were compressed and particles and antiparticles bashed into each other at higher energies than can ever be conceived presently. As the universe expanded it started to cool off much like gases turn into liquid and liquid into solid. This early relation bears the synthesis; particles form the first atomic neclei, which later transformed from hot plasma into stable atoms.
During this process neutrinos underwent a process of “decoupling”. This took place when the density of matter dropped enough that neutrinos stopped colliding with particles regularly. This took place seconds prior to the universe, prior to the formulation of protons. Decoupling enables neutrinos to effectively travel forever, some however remained interacting with particles. Neutrinos effect on ordinary matter…
Explain how Being is Thought (phil of mind p.21) hegel writes; When I say Quality, I state simple determinateness; by means of its quality one existence is distinguished from another or is an “existence”; it is for itself, something on its own account, or subsists with itself because of this simple characteristic. But by doing so it is essentially Thought.
antimatter is more akin to the indeterminate side of matter and therefore involves more freedom. Antimatter involves more freedom than normal matter not in locomotion, not in the sense that it can move in any direction it is set out to move, this freedom in determination is a feature of ordinary matter. Ordinary matter we perceive maintains its shape and form to some degree, or rather has a fixated identity in order to be differentiated from another object maintaining its own identity and in that self identity it partakes in varying degrees of movements. In this way the element of unpredictability or the uncertainty principle is moreover outside the object in the potential movements it can take or can be taken by, and less so in the objects ability to shape shift and transform into something different altogether. Whereas if we take ideas and thought as objects in the abstract realm, which is what characterizes antimatter, they do not have location, an idea does not move from one location to another, nor does an antimatter particle have location.
Theoretically, scientist believe that with every particle there is an anti-particle and their collision is what makes the energy in the universe, in other words, there should be equal amounts of matter and anti-matter. However, if we look out into the visible universe we see ordinary matter everywhere and anti-matter no where. antimatter is not seen or found but only indirectly, and theoretically, deduced. This asymmetry between matter and antimatter remains as one of the unsolved questions in science. However this basic asymmetry is not necessarily an enigma as science makes it out to be because we begin our approach to finding antimatter from an asymmetrical position in the first place and assume that in the onset there is an equal amount of matter and antimatter yet we do not have a total amount of how much matter there is overall anyways.
If we look at the primary way ordinary matter is composed, outlined by the famous E=MC2, it shows that energy is equal to matter and vice versa matter is equal to energy, this means that matter is simply energy, so the question is in what sense is energy matter? Energy is matter in terms of proportionality. It takes a lot of energy to make a small piece of matter because energy is by its nature more unpredictable, this means that it is always active, unable to be honed downed and controlled. This is why it is energy because it is animate, vibrant, bouncy, vital, unstoppable, all words describe energy as an activity. Matter on the other hand is a certain type of enegry, energy in a static, still, concentrated and dense state.
“Flies over fece”
Empirical science says that matter is made-up by taking a large amount of energy and concentrating it into a small space, and within the area of that space develops density of energy. The density of energy is disclosed within a circumference of a boundary, if which the energy escapes that area, then that matter looses mass. In other words, to retain energy within a certain space is to quantify it, or rather measure it into a quantity. This is why quantity is the measure of matter. The next question becomes what kind of matter is being measured by quantity and this is where the invariable element of “quality”comes into play.
Quality is the kind of matter that quantity measures but how does quantity measure quality. In one sense it is the conjunction of size in relation to mass, size being the outer most extent that something reaches out in space, and mass is the quantity of the similar kind of stuff to which a body contains, or rather discloses within its form as being part of its identity. Asking why does quantity measure quality is like asking why do flies hover over a piece of turd and eat it. The answer can be summed up with the common expression “one man’s garbage is another man’s treasure”. In other words, fece is dangerous for humans to consume because our immune system has already extracted all the quality nutrients that at one point made it food, but now it is merely the left over waste matter. It is interesting because fece has proportional amount of mass as food, the only thing changes is the colour, smell, taste, texture etc., all the qualities change but the mass remains about the same size, weight, density etc., for humans fece is simply too much quantity without enough quality, but for flies which are smaller creatures, they can pick out the remaining quality in the fece that the human body could no longer pick out. So for the fly which is smaller, can huddle over a greater piece of mass and pick out the remaining quality within it, which for its size is more than enough nutrients. For a human being the amount of quantity in fece is not proportional to the amount of quality within it, but for flies the amount of quantity is proportional and even more proportional for microscopic bacteria on the fece. In other words the fece which came to be a low grade piece of matter is a dimension of quantity and quality Thought is the element with the “least” quantity If quantity is the Principle in the measure of anything, then we have to say what is least in quantity and what is most, and quality in this way determines this range. When we say that thought is with the least quantity that still implies it being a quantity which is not correct if what we mean by quantity implies being a material object. Matter which consists of “physical” objects, the word physical in Latin means “things operating within nature”, is taken to be the standard of quantity because it provides the most tangible measure of things. The overall concept of quantity however is more fundamental than only relating to physical objects because it primarily is a measure of quality, which encompasses anything that bears an existence whether it be physical operating under what we take to be nature, or not. Nature is ordered, mechanical, determined etc., all these are synonymous with an understanding of nature, but there is also a different kind of nature that does not conform to our understanding of physics that we take to define nature. Quantum mechanics deals with this realm of nature but it does not identify what this nature is because it does not understand what it is identifying, it just knows that it is there and it’s providing some characteristics. The idea is that if ordinary matter is formed by the concentration of the largest amount of energy into the smallest space, than antimatter is formed by the lowest form of energy into the largest space. These magnitudes are at odds with each other such that if the entire visible universe is made up of ordinary matter, than it occupies the smallest space in the amount of space that it can possibly exists within and can be observed within. It is important to ask, what is the lowest form of energy, which is equally asking what can possess the least amount of matter. We know that certain elements possess more mass, density, weight than others, we know that the basic elements earth is the heavier than liquid and air, liquid is more dense than air, air being the lightest of the elements aside from what they called ether, but that may just be another ancient word for what we are describing as antimatter, so it does not help to use it as an explanation. If we ask what is more fundamental quantity wise than the elements, we can go into their elements, such as, the periodic table shows that helium is lighter than lithium and hydrogen is light than all of them. We have to ask what is the one thing that exists in the universe but is even lighter than the lightest matter?., or more appropriately, what is one thing that is present but possess the least quantity in the world? The answer is that thought, abstract reason is the only thing that exists in the universe but does not have a quantity, a pure quality, in the sense that it is identifiable as one thought over another, but without a quantity, they do not exists anywhere, somewhere, has no weight, size, density etc., thought is the element in the world that has the least energy in the sense the least amount of mass but can occupy the largest amount of space, because thought can always disclose the maximum quantity of any discernible amount of matter we can recognize as ordinary. The problem is that this notion cannot be empirically proven because you cannot prove something without matter by using the stuff with matter. In other words you cannot test to see if thought exists as a piece of matter within another piece of matter because it is not matter, so the standard of measurement is flawed in trying to discern it as something it is not. This does not mean that it does not exists nor that it does not have any effect on matter. In fact if we do say that thought is the element in the world which requires the lowest amount of energy to occupy largest amount of space, this means that instead of bringing a lot of energy and packing it within a small space, bringing from out towards in, the opposite is true for thought, it starts within than goes all the way out, which is what we characterize is the initial way the universe came to be created, in the Big Bang, the universe started from a dense tiny location and exploded outwards to the outermost extent exterminates of space. The fundamental aspect of freedom, the very trait of freedom, is Reason, and the activity is consciousness. Freedom is not the same as the liberal sense, that it is arbitrary or open to the will to do whatever, it is rather in accord with Reason. This asymtray between antimatter and matter only exists in the visible universe, the truth is that antimatter is the form of dark matter conceived by science. And dark matter consist of the majority of the universe, along with dark energy. Antiparticles possess neutrinos, which are the only identified form of dark matter. The antiparticle also possess quantum properties, which means that quantum mechanics apply in the most general, universal state. Antimatter operates like matter but in the negative sense, the antiproton for example has the opposite charge from the proton, which is symbolized with the negative connotation: p for the antiproton and P for the proton. The negative indicates the kind of determinacy associated with the concept. The negative in this sense does not mean that antimatter is inconsistent with matter in opposition to it, nor that antimatter itself is inherently negative. It is merely negative from the point of view of the positive. But from the point of view of the negative, which is itself, it is positive. The mathematical correspondence to this logic is found in the following elementary equations; 1) x+x=x, 2) x+-x= -x, 3) -x+-x=x: (1) The positive in relation to the positive presupposes no other alternative but the positive; the operative addition itself constitutes the positive. (2) The positive in relation to the negative results in the negative; this means that the negative serves as negation to the positive because the positive is lacking in virtue of relating with the negative. In other words, the positive in addition to the negative is the negative of the positive; the positive is not itself if it is something other then itself. (3) The negative in relation with the negative only presuppose the alternative, which is, the positive. The absence of the positive invariably presupposes the positive, or in other words, there is nothing is itself something, the lack of a thing is itself a thing, the fact there is no truth is itself a truth etc. The negative in addition with the negative is left with the addition, which is itself positive. The addition of nothing presupposes addition. This is the formalization of the organic Logic which presupposes the mutual existence of both the positive and negative concept, including the concrete notions of matter in relation to antimatter. The distinction between the positive and the negative portrays the kind of determinacy associated with each matter and antimatter. The difference between the mathematics and ontology is that the former treats each variable of logic as independent; that each numerical equation relates externally to the other; the results bears no relationship other then the name. Ontological thinking on the other hand conceives each variable of logic as leading into the other, or rather, each presuppose the other in relation; the results of one is the result of the other. While mathematics conceives X+-X=-X to be of different result from -X+-X=X; X represents any value of quantity. Ontological thinking conceives X+-X=-X to be the result of X+-X=X; X represents the value of quality. While mathematics separates each equation for the analytical purpose of understanding them as components, ontological thinking synthesis the equation with Reason to achieve consciousness into the overall nature of the object. While quantity supposes the parts of the whole, quality supposes the whole of the parts. The main difference between mathematics and ontology lies in what is attributed with each equation. That ontology attributes the concrete with the abstract whereas mathematics attributes the abstract with the concrete. Geometry in its mathematical application for instance attributes shapes to objects, whereas in the ontological form, objects are attributed to shapes. Mathematics without ontology however does not conceive the initial truth that objects are shapes, it after the fact applies the shape to object. Whereas in its ontological form, objects are conceived as shapes, the shapes then produced as concepts from their concrete notion. Once applied however it requires the application itself to be applied. Apply the circle to the rock requires applying the rock to the circle. This means that in the ontological sense, the resolution is to apply the concrete to the abstract, the return to itself, or rather, self consciousness of itself. Science achieves self consciousness, the concept to the notion. The relation between matter and antimatter constitutes the substance of the universe. Their unity serves as the opposing forces of substance; consciousness being the internal relation while matter being the external relation. Such terms do not exist as separate faces on each side of the coin; they are rather the essential embodiment of each other. Such concepts are the forces of substance underpinning every natural phenomenon. Matter and antimatter (consciousness) are however distinct in unity; that in each other they are different. Matter in relation with itself is wholly positive in that it serves as the necessity for any conception to be identified as the negative. Matter is positive with itself in that it possess the quality of existence rather then the lack of it; and even the notion of non-existence is only true in that it is the negation from the existence matter presupposes. Matter is however negative in relation to antimatter; first, antimatter is negative because matter conceives the positive for itself. Antimatter is left with the concept of the negative which means that it possess nothing but the negation of something; the contradiction antimatter possess with itself is that it is left with the negative and is therefore poised as the Negation. Second, this produces the double negative in the relation; that antimatter is left with negative and as such serves as the negation. Third, antimatter is therefore positive in its determinacy in that it seeks to obtain something because it already possess nothing. The aspect of Negation is the positive nature of antimatter and the negative nature of matter. Antimatter serves as negation to matter resulting in the inversion of the concept; antimatter is positive in relation to matter and matter is negative in relation to antimatter. Antimatter (consciousness) assumes the nature of the conscious in that it is positive from the negative; it took upon itself the movement of determinacy by allowing the positive as the necessity. Consciousness is positive from itself. Matter in its relation with antimatter is negative because it already affirmed the positive for itself and is therefore contradicted by the negation of antimatter. Matter is positive from other then itself, it is positive relative to the negative, while the negative is positive relative to itself. Antimatter (consciousness) possesses the determinacy to obtain the positive belonging to matter whereas matter works to maintain the positive as the necessity.
Matter aims to become universal and consciousness aims to become particular because one is already the opposite of the other
In the internal relation, matter and antimatter operate differently to attain their purpose for each other. Their influence on each other determines their movement. Matter in its fundamental movement exists as the particular that aims to become the universal; it is somewhere but aims to be everywhere. This it does in hopes to maintain the positive essential nature, the necessity for existence. Matter is hyperactive in maintaining its nature. Consciousness operates inversely in its movement; it exists as the universal which aims to become the particular.
Consciousness is already present everywhere but aims to be limited to somewhere. By existing everywhere, consciousness, unlike matter, is nowhere; it is everything as nothing, it is not at home with itself. Consciousness by virtue of possessing the negative in the predicate allows matter to actualize its presence; matter is produced everywhere. The Particular quantity of matter is akin for the Universality; the opposite concept it lacks is the aim for its attainment. The great expansion of the universe unfolds; the infinitesimal prior to the “Big Bang” is universalized after it. While this process of expansion is occurring, consciousness is working to actualize its essence, it is finding its place in the particular. The aim for the particular does not exclude the universal nature of consciousness because consciousness is present in every particular, but because the nature of the particular is distinguished from itself so to be universal, the universal distinguishes the particular to be itself. Consciousness is the very substance constituting the particular forms of matter in the universe because it took on the task of determination; it begins as nothing to become something. Every form of matter possess consciousness as its seed, as its implicit nature; and consciousness always takes the material form. The very form consciousness aims to conceive is its universality as particularity. They are always challenged by each other. The very tension with each other produces the notion of development, the process of evolution. To understand the relation between matter and antimatter, one must first understand their contradiction in explicit reality, which poses a paradox to the understanding. As part of thought being the most basic form of matter, two conclusions arise; first, being “basic” or a basic substance does not mean clear, pure, or empty as that and only that particular substance independently from all other substances. like if we take the periodic table, what we see is that all the elements are categorized based on the degree of being pure from each other. The most basic elements like nitrogen, helium and hydrogen are categorized as “reactive non metals”. The standard of the periodic tables is based on whether a more fundamental element is part or not part of a less fundamental element. Hydrogen is more fundamental than (TI) titanium but it is defined as non “metal” as the negative of, either lacking of or operating differently than the appearance metal assumes which reflects light well, meaning it can conducts energy, solid, hard, etc., while a non metal has low melting point, and is less dense. When we say a substance does not involve another substance, this is an indication for just another substance not mentioned by the two under question. Some substances are not purely a distinct kind of thing independently from other substances. All the elements in the periodic table are not pure elements because they each do some function for some other element, there is no element that has a function done to itself without itself doing some function to an other. There are elements called “transition metals” An event passes fast in reality, but an idea remains imprinted in the brain. The speculative method is a fundamental aspect of scientific inquiry. The concept of baryogenesis is in its infancy. There is considerable speculation as to why the observable universe is composed almost entirely of ordinary matter, as opposed to a more even mixture of matter and antimatter. This asymmetry of matter and antimatter in the visible universe is one of the great unsolved problems in physics.[2] The process by which this inequality between particles and antiparticles developed is called baryogenesis; baryogenesis is the term applied by physical cosmology to understand the physical processes that produced an asymmetry (imbalance) between baryons and antibaryons produced in the very early universe, prior to the “Big Bang”.The baryonic matter that remains today, following the baryonic-antibaryonic matter annihilation, makes up the universe. What created this asymmetry in physical properties is a process not physical. As the universe expands its begins to get cooler and slower in speed; matter is only able to reproduce so much of itself, there can only be so much countably infinite particulars of matter. Or that once quantitive infinity is reached, matter actualizes its purpose in maintaining its positive existence. The infinite serves as the limit in ontological thinking. The mathematical understanding of the “limit”, especially it’s practical application in calculus, is used as the value that a function or sequence approaches as the input or index reaches some value. The limit in calculus is itself infinite in that when ever a particular kind of limit is reached there is a further limit beyond it, it is never static. The result is the infinite regress of measurements into the limits pertaining to particular functions. This infinite regress is however necessary for the kind of task associated with calculus; the limit understood as the infinite is used to define continuity, derivatives, and integrals, all of which pertain to the nature of understanding the external relations between the particular kinds of matter, of which there is infinity. The understanding of the limit as applied by calculus is not the same understanding of the limit in the ontological sense. Rather then the limit be the infinite, the infinite is itself the limit in the ontological sense. The infinite is itself the form which something reaches its limit, but similarly to calculus, the limit in the ontological sense is never a dead end or a stop, it is rather the grounds for the next stage in the progressive process of development. Once something reaches the infinite, the limit is that it takes on form. Although the limit is never a dead end in ontological thinking, it however aims at some result. Unlike calculus, the ontological limit is teleological. The concept of development is the prerequisite for the ontological understanding of consciousness. Just like the understanding into matter indicate that inorganic matter and organic matter are made up of the same content but possess differing compositions and properties, so to is consciousness at the beginning differs in its level of actuality in contrast to its more developed stage. Consciousness like matter at the beginning is purely abstract, primitive, and general. Dark matter and energy are the basic concrete composition of consciousness, antimatter is its relation with matter. Explain how dark matter and energy are the working of consciousness. Consciousness possess mass, and mass has gravity, that’s why dark energy holds everything matter together. As the outer process of the universe reaches its result, the inner process of life takes its beginning. That once infinity is reached in quantity, consciousness finds its particular. However because the particular is itself the universal, or that the finite is itself the infinite, consciousness finds its home in the finite that is the infinite, the particular which is the culmination of the universal. Matter and consciousness meet in the concept of self-consciousness. Self consciousness possess the nature of both matter and consciousness. Self consciousness is the subsistence for both matter and consciousness. By being the necessity it enables their determinacy. Matter achieves the universal from its essential nature, that is, the particular is the universal. The essential nature still remains as particularity, with onset of the resolution, the particular becomes the universal. The becoming of the universal is consciousness achieving its essential nature. Consciousness actualizes the universal in the particular nature of matter. Self- consciousness consists of; first, the self which is the particular nature of matter, second, consciousness is the universal quality in the particular, it always extends beyond any limited form it occupies, either by the particular form conceiving outwards the environment that is greater than itself, or that the particular belongs to a lineage of consciousness that extends throughout a greater period of time. Matter as the particular is initially given by the positive nature of matter; that there is the infinite particular variations of matter. Consciousness shapes the kind of particular that is to be the universal so as to find its place. The process of development in the universe takes this form. Once consciousness finds its home in the material, self-consciousness is achieved. Self-consciousness is the very defining nature of Reason; it is the essence of Reason. The nature of self-consciousness consist of both the determinacy of matter and consciousness. Explain the movement of self consciousness. It must be understood that the universal or the infinite is not measured by quantity but rather by quality. Consciousness achieves its place, it finds its home in life. Life however like the quantitive expansion of matter in the universe reaches an infinite in quality, of which all again culminate in one particular quality. Consciousness becomes self-consciousness. The understanding into this latter process is especially difficult for it has not yet achieved its resolution. Self-consciousness is the unity between matter and consciousness. Explain how antiheulim anti hydrogen and all of such negation to properties is consciousness challenging such particular forms of matter to operate with their purpose, such purpose is consciousSelf- consciousness is the unity between matter and consciousness. It is their result but not the This process may be referred to as spiritual evolution, but by a very different use of the term spiritual. The ancient Greeks did not refer to the concept of “spirit” in the same way as ordinarily used today. It is not defined with the religious connotation which excludes the material. The ancient Greeks defined it as the character underpinning the distinctive nature of the object. Aristotle for instance did not see spirit as a transcendental soul which proceeds the body, it is rather the very characteristic of the body, it’s very essential nature or essence. Hegel elaborates this use of the term to mean the kind of consciousness characterized by the object, in other words, consciousness is the field of all objects exhibiting some rational form. associated with culture pertaining to certain peoples. The spirit of the people is the application of consciousness; the application of science to understand existence. (Phem of mind page 13…) the spirit of the world, the nature of matter, is the dialectic. The dialectic is no God nor any traditional use of the divine; it is purely the working of Reason in the world. The worship of it is merely the recognition that it is the universal concept but with the lack of understanding of what it is as the universal. This is why there are as much as gods as their are religions and as much religion as their are peoples. But each understanding into the universal is not equal in truth. There is a range in the consciousness Reason in the world; and the only way Reason is made consciousness of is by the system of science. That science is the spirit of reason, it is the movement of its self consciousness. Now the most fundamental question remains; why this Reason in the world, what is its purpose? The ultimate Why, the end to the long chain of whys asked by the child, and like to the child, the answer is unsatisfactory. But no one said the truth is meant to satisfactory, the satisfaction comes from its understanding of it, from the exploration into it. galilo anticipated the spices and riches he will obtain from the discovery of the new world, but when arrived, the truth is otherwise, but brought the kind of satisfaction beyond his subjective will. Brought the beginning of the new world, the future of the species. Explain how science can’t adopted the answer of the end in itself, because that would make it comfortable and no longer does its function. One must not idealize this process, that what happened with the notion of God in religion.