Section 23 (first updated 1.12.2021

Eternity

The ontological incorporation of one concept into another requires acquaintance with the ultimate principles of space and time. Eternity and infinity together constitute the ultimatum of spacetime. It is therefore necessary first to clarify the logic of eternity in relation to infinity in order to understand several vital consequences:
(A) energy is a synthesis of spacetime;
(B) this synthesis takes the organic form of light; and
(C) light is the fundamental resource capable of generating any potential form.¹

Relativistic Motion and the Limit of Speed

One prediction of special relativity is that the faster an object already is, the more difficult it becomes to accelerate it further.² Momentum begins to work against speed before it works for acceleration. As a consequence, it is impossible to accelerate any material object to the speed of light: the closer the object comes, the more force must be expended, until at the limit one would need infinite force to achieve the final increment of acceleration.

This property of motion is counter-intuitive if understood through classical mechanics, where motion is conceived simply as an object taking “a step forward” and occupying a new position in space during a measurable duration of time. Such motion is finite, measurable, and local.

But motion as infinite energy has no discernible measure; every finite measure is merely a negation carved out of its unlimited capacity. Motion in this infinite sense does not consist in an object changing position within a bounded space; it is the formation of all finite positions themselves, the production of particular forms out of an undivided reservoir of energy. Infinite energy has nowhere “to go” beyond itself; it contains every possible destination as one of its own internal transformations.

Eternity as Entirety

When something exists eternally, we say it has “gone through every possibility”—but this does not reduce eternity to a single undifferentiated presence. Eternity is entirety.³

The time of the infinite is eternity, but eternity does not simply define infinity. Eternity, as a temporal dimension, possesses the quality of non-decay: it is indestructible because it never ceases in its activity. Eternity, as a spatial dimension, is completeness, the totality of form.

The infinite is therefore not a redundant repetition of the same being; rather, as entirety, it is a being whose every determination is finite, because each act expresses the whole of potential events in a definite moment. Something infinite cannot “take a step”; it is already everywhere it might step. Only the finite can take a step toward infinity.

Thus the particular determinations of the infinite—all finite expressions—are part of its overall activity. Yet they appear so definite that they regress into singularities, points of concentrated determination distinct from the infinite totality that generated them. Infinity produces the finite as something free enough to act without its actions being necessary. It generates determinations that oppose and even destroy each other, yet their ultimate indeterminacy also renders them mutually complementary.

The Observable Universe

Modern science has not detected any boundary marking the end of the universe. The term observable universe refers only to the region from which light has had time to reach Earth.⁴ The region beyond this horizon introduces a paradox of two conflated unknowns:

1. The unknown cannot be measured because light has not yet arrived from it.
2. The unknown cannot be measured because human observational capacity is limited.

These two unknowns—limitations of the universe and limitations of the observer—are not easily disentangled. The observer effect plays a decisive role: to measure what is unknown, light must travel from the unknown region to the observer. The time it takes for light to arrive is identical with the time required for the universe to develop to the moment of its observation.

Wormholes, Expansion, and Inward Motion

The method by which observation reveals the previously unknown indicates something profound about cosmic expansion. If Earth is a microscopic point within a vast whole, then measuring the whole requires information to return from the whole back to the point from which the measurement originates. Expansion, in this sense, is inward, directed toward an infinitesimal centre of observation, rather than outward from it.⁵

An area cannot be covered by the perimeters of a point while the point remains the same point; therefore the universe is not merely expanding away from us while we “catch up.” Instead, the universe is continually arriving into our observation.

This dynamic also mirrors the behaviour of quantum entanglement, in which two inverse elements remain internally related across arbitrarily large distances.⁶ The principle applies equally to the relation between mind and body, whose entanglement is structurally analogous to DNA’s recursive intersection of form and information.⁷

The Paradox of Observation

There remains a paradox:

• Observation is unlimited as capacity, since consciousness can in principle observe an infinite number of things.
• Yet each observation is limited, because it confines itself to a single determination.
• Paradoxically, within any single observation lies an infinite set of possible observations that could be made instead.

Thus the observer is simultaneously finite in act and infinite in potential.

Eternity of eternity

The ontological incorporation of one concept onto the other requires acquaintance with the ultimate principles of space and time. Eternity and infinity constitute the ultimatum of spacetime. It is first important to delve into the logic of eternity as related to infinity in order to understand the following vital forms of spacetime: A) energy is synthetic of spacetime, which B) takes on the organic form of light, and C) light is further the resource sufficient to constitute any potential form. “Relativistic mass”[1].

One prediction of special relativity is that the faster an object already is, the more difficult it is to accelerate it even further. Momentum works as a force against speed before it is the force for acceleration. One consequence of this is that it is impossible to accelerate a material object to the speed of light: the faster the object already is, the more force has to be used to increase its speed, and close to the speed of light this effect becomes so strong that, finally, one would have to use infinite force to effect the final, decisive acceleration[2].

This property of motion is counterintuitive compared with how motion is viewed under classical mechanics. Motion in the classical sense is an object taking “a step forward” and changing position in space, and therefore occupying a different moment in time, or rather a certain duration of time discloses the motion which happens within it. But this kind of motion is a particular and finite motion, and therefore has a discernible measure. But motion as a limitless or infinite energy has no discernible measure, and therefore any measure is only a negation from its unlimited resource. Motion in the infinite sense is not the object’s finite capacity to change position within a discovered boundary of space, but rather it is the formation of all these particularities into their distinct and finite formations. They are limits of the infinite energy into finite states. Infinite energy has no place to go outside itself.

When something exists for eternity, during that time we say it has gone through every possibility. But the going through all possibilities is disclosed as not just merely present, because then its existence is a measure of a single possibility.

Eternity is entirety

The time of infinity is eternity, but it is quite different for eternity to define infinity. Eternity is entirety. Eternity as a temporal dimension possesses the quality of non-decay, meaning that it is not destructible because it does not expire, and this is because it is ceaseless in activity, always in motion[3]. Eternity as a spatial dimension comes in the form of entirety, completeness. The infinite in this sense is not some repetitive redundancy of some reemerging entity, but rather, as an entirety, it is an acting and willing being whose every determination, every step taken, is a finite character of its being. Because its being constitutes the entirety of all potential events, it is at the same time that particular measure. Taking an infinite step is a definite determination of something particular. Something finite can only take an infinite step, because if something is infinite, it is either infinite and therefore takes no further steps other than maintaining itself, or it is finite and therefore takes on the step toward infinity.

The particular determinations of the infinite that define it as a unit are all part of the entirety of the activity. However, this takes on such a finite point that it regresses into a singularity distinct from the capacity to encapsulate infinitude encompassed as finite determination. Infinity develops a finite that is distinct as having complete freedom to act without that action being a necessary determination. It develops actions that are completely destructive to each other, but not indefinitely so, because their indeterminacy makes them also equally supplementary to one another.

Observable Universe

Modern science has not been able to detect a border or boundary that shows the end of the universe. The definition of the so-called “observable universe” is the area disclosing a set of cosmic bodies that is observed from Earth. The area of the universe observed from Earth is labeled as the “observable universe.” The area outside the universe that is not yet measured brings up the paradox of two conflating propositions of what constitutes an unknown factor. First, the unknown area of the universe cannot be measured because light has not had enough time to reach planet Earth where the analysis happens[4]. Second, this is not to be confused with the fact that humans are not yet developed to see past this point.

There is a paradox between the human limit of observation and whether something is itself limited. Whether these two points constitute the same phenomenon is a task to be uncovered by the observer effect. The interesting factor here is that, in order to measure the unknown area of the universe, light has to arrive toward Earth from the unknown parts of the universe so that it can be known by observational methods. This has greater implication than the mere mechanical fact of light taking time to arrive at one place coming from another. The time it takes for light to arrive at the observation is identical with the time duration of the developmental process of the whole universe to the moment it was observed from.

Wormholes, Expansion, and Return

The way in which observation comes to discover the unknown parts of the universe tells us something about the expansion of the universe. If Earth is a single micro-component in contrast to a vast universe, a measurement of the whole requires a relapse of that information back to the single point from where the measure initiates. The expansion of the whole in this sense is an inward one toward an infinitesimal point, and not away from the point, because an area cannot be covered by the perimeters of the point while still being the same point. This means that any extent of the universe is not expanding away from us and therefore we are catching up to it, but rather it is coming inwardly toward us, arriving at our observation of it.

The phenomenon where an activity goes as far as possible away from its source only to return back to it is a prominent mechanics demonstrating quantum entanglement[5]. Quantum entanglement is the internal relation of two inverse substances in the universe, mind and body. (Add DNA section, mind intersection with body.)

There is a paradox between observation being limited to the limits of what is observed as opposed to observation being unlimited as the capacity to observe. On the one hand, the capacity to observe is unlimited in the sense that it can observe an infinity of things, which leads to what is observed being limited as a particular kind of observation, but unlimited because there is an infinite amount of observations within any given one observation.

Footnote Markers

[1] Special relativity and relativistic mass.
[2] Lorentz factor and asymptotic divergence near c.
[3] Philosophical treatments of eternity and duration.
[4] Cosmic light-cone and horizon problem.
[5] Quantum entanglement, non-local correlations.

Infinitesimally Small Universe

The microscopic, infinitesimal scale of the universe is the abstract part of the universe. The abstract has no size[1]. The more microscopic we go, the more abstract we are conceiving the largest and most general scales and aggregates of the universe.

Empirical science has not been able to detect a border or boundary that shows the end of the universe, which means that we do not have an idea of how big the universe is. Not knowing how big the universe is does not merely imply that the universe is unlimitedly large, because not knowing the size of the universe also means not knowing how small it is. The uncertainty about the size of the universe fundamentally presupposes the universe to be infinite in size, which is something different from saying that the universe is unlimitedly large. Infinity is not limited to size; rather, the limit of size is infinity. It is important to explain how infinity is more fundamental than size, otherwise we lapse into viewing the feature of infinity as merely that of extensive size.

On the one hand, the application of the infinite to the finite exhibits an infinite variety of quantities. Again, this may be taken as the idea that the universe discloses a variety of objects varying in size, but this is not merely so, because the universe itself must also be understood as the object which varies in size. The difficulty of this notion arises when the magnitude of the universe is explained only from the realm of spatial extension. This means that the proposition of the universe being infinite is conflated with the idea that the universe is unlimitedly large in size. The temporal extension of the universe must now connect infinity and size to explain the order of a series of particular variations forming together a time span. The association of infinity with size is brought into the realm of time with the other equally viable concept of infinitesimal magnitude.

There are two important implications that require synthesis when describing the universe as infinitesimal:
(1) any object is divisible into an infinity of universes, and
(2) each of these universes constitutes an instantaneous time-duration of a beginning and end for the event of that object.

In the first case, divisibility is the measure of size. The claim that any object is divisible into universes simply means that any object is distinguishable by the most general form. The notion of divisibility is intuitively marked off as the case for specialization: by dividing one thing from another, we have two smaller parts from a bigger one. But this division characterizes the most generalist form from which the division subtracted two smaller forms, because it defines a complete form by having no parts left behind. In mathematics, divisibility happens when a number is divided by another number without leaving a remainder[2]. Divisibility from a spatial point of view is the lessening or shortening of a thing, but from the point of view of time it is the completing of a thing.

Each universe forming one of the infinite universes making up an object constitutes for that object the possibility of a particular event. The object is not one event in a universe, but rather it takes an entire universe to form, for one object, a particular event. The whole is prior to the part.

To say that the universe is infinitesimally small means that there is an infinite amount of “mini” microscopic universes that compile together to form the particular object. In modern times we call these atoms, but we do not make the association that these are so-called “mini” universes.

This goes beyond the universe being small in size; it describes the temporal process of the universe going through divisibility, which is a magnitude concerning its duration during a period of time.

In the second case, a universe being infinitesimally small means that it would also occupy a duration of time proportional to its size. In other words, an infinitesimally small universe would be rapidly occurring in and out of existence at an incredibly short period of time. A universe rapidly occurring within a small period of time constitutes an event of the object.

We operate on the idea that the universe takes a very long time to develop from its initial observed beginning point to its speculated end. But this presupposition regarding the time of the universe is derived from the equally inconclusive fact of the universe being unlimitedly large in size: the larger something is, the longer it appears to take, and the slower it appears to move in space. But if we speculate that the universe is infinitesimally small, then we have the beginning and the end of the universe as a constantly reoccurring process. The universe is coming in and out of being at a rapidly instantaneous time frame; this phenomenon in space we call momentum[3].

From an absolute point of view, the universe is happening and ending at all times, at every moment; and this is what gives any particular point in the mediation from the beginning to the end its energy. But to assume that the moment within the duration from a beginning to an end derives its energy from the transition of beginning to end makes the moment within this advance outside the relation.

Footnote

[1] Abstract objects and non-spatial magnitude.
[2] Number theory and exact divisibility.
[3] Relation between quantum fluctuations and momentum.

Multiverse

(Add cross-reference to the earlier section where the multiverse is treated as a hypothesis.)

The multiverse hypothesis is usually proposed when a hypothetical event is elucidated alongside an actual event to compare the likelihood of the same possibility. The doctrine of the parallel universe is used to explain the instability underlying order, and it is therefore taken as a law of entropy[1]. The parallel-universe proposition goes along the following lines: the current event is present because it was the most probable event in this universe, but in an alternative universe perhaps another event is more probable. For example, in this current universe I successfully cross the street; but in an alternative universe I get hit by a car.

The problem with the parallel-universe doctrine is twofold. First, it assumes that the subject of the event in question has the same identity across all alternative universes. That is, there is an assumption that the subject in one event and the subject in the alternate event are the same—John (or whoever) is the one who dies in one universe or remains alive in another. If we assume that there is an alternation between probable events in alternative universes, why assume that everything else in those universes is also the same? Why not assume that everything in those universes is different?

The reason why the universes disclosing the events are argued to be different, while the subject undergoing the experience remains the same, is based on presupposing the current event as the most probable. It is “most probable” because it is real and therefore serves as the basis from which a doctrine of probability is derived. It is easy to claim after an event has happened that the event that happened was the most probable one[2].

Probability assumes that every variable in question is distinct and different from every other, so that the likelihood of one event can precede or exceed another. The meaning of discrete magnitude is evident in the other term it is often confused with—discreet. The word “discrete,” from Latin discretus, means “separate.” To be “discreet,” meaning inconspicuous or circumspect, is the ethical equivalent of physical discreteness: the subtle maintenance of self-subsistence by avoiding obstruction. This makes complete logical sense, because a thing must be maintained as subtle and distinct from another to form its self-identity while affected by the other. This is the basis of discernment—discernere, the Latin origin of “discreet.” Thus, there is a natural tendency for discretion within the universe[3].

The term parallel universe is misleading relative to what the concept intends to describe, because it supposes that for an alternative scenario—one that did not occur at the given moment but should have occurred—there must be an entirely new location for it to happen. This ignores simultaneity: an alternative scenario is consistently occurring, but to someone else, another subject. The requirement that the same subject be maintained across all possible scenarios is an artifact of the ego.

Multiverse (continued)

(Add to “alternate universe” section.)

(Add connection to the fish-eye lens analogy, consciousness, the region outside perception, the “behind your head” region, or the outer ends of perception as expressions of the uncertainty principle.)

What is outside the outer limits of perception is uncertainty—the potential for another event in a moment to occur. When we say that the present is the only moment, this is true in form; but the content of the present appears, on the one hand, as a certainty of a particular happening—I see grass, trees, etc. Yet within this content of certainty there is a dimension of changing events overlapping each other[4]. The question becomes how these events overlap to constitute the events of a moment.

If we set aside the misconception that the universe is unlimitedly large in size, and therefore takes a long time to end or fully unfold; and instead presuppose the inverse proposition—that the universe is infinitesimal and occurs in a rapidly instantaneous period of time—then a new possibility emerges. A universe can constitute an alternate event for an object because a universe occurring at an instant provides its own event-structure.

In other words, it takes a universe to constitute one moment of an event. The particular event that occurs for an observer is the intersection of the event in one universe with that observer, and the universe “finishing” changes the event for that observer.

Atoms coming in and out of existence describe the process of uncertainty happening beyond the scope of direct conception[5].

Structure of the Multiverse

The idea of a multiverse argues that a group of multiple universes comprises everything that exists. The different universes within the multiverse comprise everything by being “parallel universes,” which are defined as “alternate universes.”

The idea of a parallel universe uses the multiplicity of universes to explain how each one encompasses the possibility of an event that is alternative to another. However, the multiverse lacks the spatial undertone presupposed by the idea of universes parallel to one another in spacetime. The difficulty of explaining spatial order among parallel universes is due to the indeterminate nature of events at the quantum state. Any event happening in one universe bears a quantum entanglement to the opposite scenario occurring in another universe[6].

In the realm of time, it is easy to imagine how alternate versions of the same event take place. But when we apply the same concept to the realm of space, difficulties arise. The parallel universe—where the opposite version of the scenario happens—must be taken as occupying the same spatial point as the universe where the event happens normally; otherwise they would be two different events in spacetime measurable by their distance.

The multiverse idea arranges the situation so that two different scenarios of the same event take place at two different positions in space; hence, why there are many universes. But the fact that there are many universes must itself be taken as the structure that allows an event to occur in one universe or in another. If an event is happening in one universe, the parallel universe must occupy the spatial position that supports its alternate event; otherwise, there is no inversion and the event becomes a single original with no alternative.

Parallelism and Space

From a spatial standpoint, “parallel” does not mean “alternate.” The geometric definition of “parallel” means figures side by side, maintaining the same distance continually between them. Parallelism from a spatial standpoint expresses the structure that binds together things placed beside one another, necessary for forming something.

In a parallel sequence there is always a space between two distinct objects or events, and this space is infinitesimally minute. No matter how close two objects come, that space always remains as a gap. This space is actually the element of time itself, extending from one event to another and forming the moment of change[7].

Footnote Markers

[1] Entropy as a measure of disorder and the justification for “many worlds” interpretations.
[2] Retrospective justification fallacy in probability theory.
[3] Discreteness as the metaphysical basis of individuation.
[4] Overlapping micro-events as quantum-classical interface.
[5] Vacuum fluctuations, virtual particles, and the uncertainty principle.
[6] Quantum entanglement and the “branching” problem.
[7] Parallelism, geometric separation, and temporal extension.

“Large” Universe — Infinity

Some modern quantum formulations bring the indeterminacy of the universe into more concrete terms by denying that the inaccessibility of universal magnitude results merely from an indeterminately large size. Instead, the indeterminacy itself is a determination: the universe is such that its magnitude is indeterminate.¹

The uncertainty principle, when applied to magnitude, presupposes a standard point or reference frame from which a contrast of extent can be mediated.² Uncertainty is the mediation between the extreme ends of magnitude. When we say that the universe is extensively large, this is derived from a particular point serving as a middle term to an inversely proportional magnitude of intensively small. If the universe is infinitely large relative to a single particular point, then it is proportionally infinitesimally small relative to that same point.³

Magnitude in the spatial domain measures extension by explaining the continuity of bodies as parts of the same substrate that endures throughout change. But this does not account for the other property of magnitude—namely, that magnitude is also a concentrate. Spatial extension indicates the spread of mass or number, but it does not explain what causes the gathering or concentration of mass and number in the first place. This question is identical with asking what constitutes number or mass as discrete measures.⁴

A common phenomenon in the universe is that a large collection of mass concentrates around dense points of energy. This is the origin of the familiar spiraling form of galaxies.

The famous spiral structure of galaxies illustrates Einstein’s mass–energy equivalence. The usual interpretation of E = mc² is that anything with mass has an equivalent amount of energy, and vice versa. This interpretation misleadingly suggests that mass and energy are symmetrical, interchangeable, or that one can be obtained directly from the other. What is often overlooked is the ontological implication of the equivalence—namely, that energy is more fundamental than mass.⁵

If one quantity can be equated to the other, then on some level one is derived from the other: one is source, the other consequence; one cause, the other effect. From empirical experience, it appears difficult to isolate “pure energy” without associated mass, while mass seems abundant and stable. Thus, empirically, it appears as though mass is primary and energy derivative.

However, fundamentally, the abundant masses of objects we perceive are all consequences of a prior energetic concentration. Einstein expresses this with the concept of rest energy: every mass is an energy concentrate that maintains itself in a specific form.⁶

Footnotes

1. Indeterminacy as determination is a theme found in both quantum mechanics and Hegelian logic.
2. Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle relies on the relational nature of measure: a magnitude only appears as such relative to a chosen observable.
3. This mirrors the classical concept of inverse proportion and modern cosmology’s use of comoving reference frames.
4. In physics this parallels the distinction between continuous fields and quantized excitations (discrete magnitudes).
5. In contemporary field theory, energy is fundamental; mass is an emergent property (e.g., via Higgs mechanism).
6. Rest energy: E₀ = mc² is energy the mass possesses even without motion—evidence that mass is a state of energy, not the other way around.

Rest Energy, Motion, and the Mediation of Magnitude

If a body is stationary, it still possesses an internal or intrinsic energy called its rest energy, corresponding to its rest mass.¹ When the body is in motion, its total energy exceeds its rest energy, and equivalently its total mass (often called relativistic mass in this context) is greater than its rest mass. The rest mass is also called the intrinsic or invariant mass because it remains constant regardless of motion, even under the extreme conditions considered in special and general relativity.²

The law of conservation of energy holds that the value of conserving energy lies not in preservation by stillness, but in exchange: energy is conserved only by being transferred or transformed from one form to another.³ Energy is a constant as transaction. Unlike biological organisms, which appear to conserve energy by not spending it, the universe “conserves” energy precisely by increasing, transforming, and using it.⁴ Even in biological life, true conservation ultimately appears as reproduction—the multiplication of energy in new form.

If bodies are distinguished into discrete points of energy—marked by the boundaries that separate one body from another—then we must ask what develops or grounds this differentiation.

Conception is the mediating center between any two extremes of magnitude. The spatial extension of an object—its material congruity forming a body—arises around a concentration of energy that causes motion. In this sense, matter revolves around the conception, or takes on a form analogous to conception.⁵ This idea is subtle, but the ancient distinction between natural and artificial can clarify it.

For the ancient Greeks, something natural is defined not by its material composition but by the fact that it possesses its own inner principle of motion.⁶ Something artificial requires an external agent to bring it into being. To say that something natural “has its own motion” means that it has the capacity to generate its own becoming. The only thing we know immediately as a pure, self-generating activity is thought. Thought is the bare notion of something simply coming into being from itself.

Thus, the components forming any object constitute an orbital system around a concentrated point of energy. We do not perceive this energy directly; we only perceive the forms that condense out of it. Yet we can deduce that any biological object, for example, is simply a more complex variant of the same orbital system observed on cosmological scales—only in a condensed, interwoven, and more differentiated form.⁷

The Schwarzschild radius gives empirical evidence for this inherent energy point: it reveals the minimal radius within which the mass of any object can be compressed, indicating that every body contains a potential energy-concentrate core from which its form can be understood.⁸

Footnotes

1. Rest energy is defined by E₀ = mc², where m is invariant mass.
2. Invariant mass remains constant under Lorentz transformations.
3. First law of thermodynamics: energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed.
4. In cosmology, “conservation” can include expansion-driven redshifting and energy redistribution; biological conservation is metabolic management, not metaphysical stasis.
5. This parallels the philosophical idea that form is organized around an active center (Aristotle’s entelechy; Hegel’s Begriff).
6. Aristotle, Physics II.1: nature is an internal principle of motion and rest.
7. Modern biology interprets organisms as dissipative structures (Prigogine) sustained by energetic flows.
8. Schwarzschild radius: rₛ = 2GM/c²; shows how mass implies a possible collapse into a concentrated point.

Nature, Energy, and the Infinite Universe

We see that nature exhibits an aesthetic law: mass orbits energy. When we examine something natural—such as a tree—what defines it as natural is not the wood or leafs themselves, but the energetic activity that converts sunlight, water, and soil into glucose, oxygen, and the matter that composes the tree.¹ The activity capable of this conversion is an energy-concentrate that brings into relation the material conditions we identify as “tree.” Wood, leaves, branches, and roots are the outer orbiting expressions of this inner activity. They revolve around the energetic identity that generates them.

This phenomenon is a more complex, particular variant of a general cosmological pattern: galaxies, stars, and planets revolve around dense concentrations of energy—black holes, singularities, or, in general, the energy-condensation described by the Schwarzschild radius.²

The artificial emerges when a material part is removed from the relational activity that gives it motion. If we sever a branch from the tree and place it on a sidewalk, or use the wood to construct a house or table, the branch becomes artificial because it now depends on an external source—the lumberjack—for its separation. Detached from its generative activity, the wood exhibits no self-directed change aside from passive decay over time.³

This reveals something interesting about material occupation: to occupy a material condition does not require an innate tendency for change, yet an innate movement is necessary to bring a material condition into being in the first place.

Infinity and the Unknown Extent of the Universe

Our lack of understanding regarding the size of the universe is not merely due to limited technology; it is a feature of the universe’s being infinite. Infinity is not a statement about constant size but the dynamic structure through which the universe relates to the finite. Infinity is the regressive activity relative to an observer who is situated within a particular finitude.⁴ In other words, finitude is not only contained within infinity—infinity appears as a feature of the finite.

When we observe an “infinity” of stars, we assign extensive size to them from a hypothetical vantage point—an approximate location abstracted from their actual distance. For example, we say the Sun is roughly 1,300,000 times the volume of Earth.⁵ This is a statement of the Sun relative to itself. But to perceive the Sun at the distance required to see its precise size is impossible: the observer would be incinerated long before reaching the necessary point of measurement. This is more than a remark—it implies that the distance required to measure an object changes the observer, meaning that the observer must imaginatively place themselves inside the object to conceive it “as it is.”⁶

Thus, our conception of things “as they are” already presupposes an internal position within an infinite scale.

Space as Energy-Spacing, Not Background Container

When we observe distant stars as minute points of light, their minuteness is not merely due to spatial separation. There is no definite spatial substrate that binds objects at fixed radii. Space is not a landscape but the gravitational bifurcation created by dispersed concentrations of energy whose wavelengths intersect and interfere.⁷

This is why distances in the universe are measured in light-years: the distinction between two things is not a mere spatial gap but a process of change—the time required for light to traverse their relation. Thus when we see stars as atomic points, this atomicity is not merely because they are composed of atoms, but because they are, at that stage of time, atomic.⁸

The atom is not merely a material object; it is a context—a set of internal relations.

Therefore, the universe is fundamentally a place of time, not a place of space. The relation between things is a duration of happening, an event, an experience occupying the limit of a conception.

Moments and Duration Across the Universe

Anything we observe in the universe is a moment—but each moment varies in duration. From one location, a phenomenon may appear slow; from another, instantaneous. Jupiter’s famous Great Red Spot, a hurricane-like storm three times the size of Earth, appears almost static due to its scale, yet it spirals continuously and is gradually shrinking.⁹ Its slowness is a function of its duration relative to ours.

Relativity deepens this further: the relation between observer and object includes a third, objective standpoint, allowing the observer to measure the qualities of the object as it is in itself—unaltered by the observer’s influence.¹⁰ This “objective observer” is not a literal entity but a structural principle that ensures phenomena maintain a consistent identity across differing frames of reference.

Footnotes

1. Photosynthesis is the energetic activity generating the matter of the tree; the tree’s “form” is an expression of this ongoing internal process.
2. The Schwarzschild radius expresses the theoretical compression limit of mass into a singularity.
3. Aristotle’s distinction: what is natural has an internal principle of motion; what is artificial requires an external cause (Physics, II.1).
4. Infinity as a dynamic process appears in Hegel’s distinction between bad infinity (endless progression) and true infinity (self-relating whole).
5. Standard astrophysical estimate of solar–terrestrial volume ratio.
6. Kant’s idea that we know objects only through our standpoint; to know an object as it is in itself would require a standpoint from within the object.
7. In general relativity, “space” is the curvature of spacetime caused by mass-energy distributions.
8. Atomicity as relational context: quantum fields define particles as excitations in relational structures.
9. Observations of the Great Red Spot show shrinkage over the last century.
10. Relativity’s invariant quantities (proper time, proper length) function as the “objective” standpoint grounding differing observational frames.

The Distance to Get Somewhere Is Also the Time of It

The contradiction in the theory of relativity can be laid out thusly:

On the one hand, from the point of view of a particular observer, there is a definite general direction of time to which the observer is relative. But the general scope of time is the total constitution of a multivaried complexity of particulars—each taking on a different direction, forming a unique duration—through which the general scope of time is determined objectively.¹

When the stars appear tiny from the position of Earth, that is their actual age and time-period relative to the point in time the observer is occupying. Whatever the age of the observer is corresponds to the equivalent age of all other things in the same moment. They are aligned accordingly.² When the observer looks at a distant star and speculates about its actual size, the observer is proposing the time-period it would take to arrive at that star at the size it is speculated to be. To arrive at a star would take the amount of time for the star to mature to the size at which it is conceived.³

“There is no direct method currently available to measure the distance to stars farther than 400 light-years from Earth, so astronomers instead use brightness measurements.”⁴

As one approaches a star and it appears larger, this increase in size is not due to a “closer distance,” because distance is a plane in which a definite length can be measured. Instead, the growth in the size of a star as one approaches it is due to the actual growth it undergoes during the time-span it takes to approach it.⁵ The time it takes to approach a star is equivalent to a period in the lifetime of that star.

(The life-cycle of stars: protostar → main sequence → red giant → white dwarf.)⁶

The observable universe with which we associate ourselves—seeing our own position as a small part—is an abstraction of a potential dynamical field an observer partakes in as a changing conception.⁷

Empirical science categorizes the known universe into a magnitude extensively larger than any individual component within it; an individual human on Earth is only a speck in the universe. The concrete truth of this conceptualization is only that the universe is potentially as large as the empirical facts suggest. That is: if an individual were to maneuver within the given extent of the universe, they would cover that measure. However, the fact that the universe is of a certain large size can only be known as a potential magnitude.⁸ The empirical observation that the universe’s extent is not definitively known introduces the important contrast between the known universe and the unknown universe.

We may say that the known universe exhibits a size billions of light-years greater than any single component within it, such as the Earth. But it cannot be said that the unknown part of the universe is equally large, because its magnitude is indeterminate. It is potentially both large and infinitesimal.⁹

The boundary that separates the known universe from the unknown is uncertainty, not merely on the part of the unknown. The distinction is not like a fine line separating two sections into “known” and “unknown.” Rather, the unknown is an implicit feature embedded in the known, and the known is interwoven with the unknown.¹⁰ The uncertainty principle is dimensional on every side.

The unknown part of the universe—the borderline not measured—lacks any defined conception of a measure, since measures are always finite. Yet both the known and the unknown share in the potential of an infinite extent of magnitude.¹¹

The unknown part of the universe is indeterminate; it is either infinitely large or infinitesimal. To call the universe infinite simply means that from one particular position within it, the universe appears large, and from another, it appears microscopic. It is not determined in one extent of magnitude, and remains in a state of uncertainty.¹²

Infinity in Time

So far, we have discussed infinity in the realm of spatial extension. Infinity in the realm of time concerns the rate of recurrence—for example, “How many times did you get up?” Infinity in the temporal domain is the primary definition of motion, which is not limited to spatial extension (the area covered by an activity) but is fundamentally the occurrence of a beginning and an end, and the rate at which this cycle regenerates.¹³

In describing the universe as infinite, theoretical physics sometimes speculates that the universe is infinite because it is disclosing every possible scenario, occurring at once, since there is no final boundary preventing any event from happening. Given infinite time, every event must eventually occur.¹⁴

In particle physics, for example, particles can be combined in only so many different ways before combinations begin repeating, forming patterns.¹⁵

Footnotes

¹ Relativity of simultaneity — Einstein, Relativity: The Special and General Theory.
Time’s direction is dependent on the observer’s frame.

² Co-temporal alignment — every event in a shared frame shares a temporal reference even if not locally identical.

³ World-line integration — to arrive at a star requires moving along its world-line, which includes its developmental evolution.

⁴ Based on standard astrophysical methods: spectroscopic parallax, redshift-luminosity relations.

⁵ Because distance in spacetime is not separable from elapsed proper time; see Minkowski spacetime geometry.

⁶ Stellar evolution: see Eddington, Chandrasekhar limit, and Hertzsprung–Russell diagram.

⁷ A metaphysical echo of Kant’s “observer conditions” and Wheeler’s “participatory universe.”

⁸ A distinction between actual infinity and potential infinity (Aristotle, Physics III).

⁹ Quantum indeterminacy of scale resembles the renormalization-group ambiguity in quantum field theory.

¹⁰ Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle: the boundary between the known and the unknown is itself a fluctuating operator.

¹¹ Infinity as a modal property rather than a spatial fact: Hegel, Science of Logic, Quantity.

¹² Perspective-dependence of measure: analogous to gauge freedom in field theories.

¹³ Cyclical motion as the core of time: see Aristotle’s Physics IV and Bergson’s Duration.

¹⁴ Eternal inflation and many-worlds both imply total scenario-realization.

¹⁵ Finite combinatorics of particle states: Standard Model degrees of freedom.

Particle Collisions

The study of particles is, in fact, the study of the universe measured into infinites. Particles are “small” localized boundaries of energy that can be ascribed physical and chemical properties such as volume, density, and mass. The term particle is derived from the ontological term particular, and in physics the term often appears as particulate—to particulate is to render a measure of energy discrete. The association of particles with “smallness” is therefore not strictly a spatial claim but an epistemic one: their significance lies in their capacity to be conceived as particular entities.¹

At subatomic scales, particles collide. The reason for particle collision is that particles are continually emerging and vanishing—generating and degenerating—at extremely rapid rates.² Because of this, it is only a matter of probability that two particles will emerge into being while occupying the same region of space, resulting in a collision. These collisions produce colloids, which are substances in which microscopically dispersed particles are evenly distributed throughout another medium.³ Colloidal systems can be solid, liquid, or gaseous.

Objects at the macroscopic scale—those perceptible by ordinary human sensation—have a far lower probability of colliding into each other, because the rate at which they generate and degenerate (their temporal rhythms of becoming) is much slower.⁴ For example, while it is possible for two people to run into one another on a sidewalk, the probability is small; and for larger-scale entities like planets, the probability of collision is even smaller. This is not simply because there is “more room” between the objects, but because their rate of temporal occurrence is more diffuse, such that many events must unfold before the specific event of collision becomes realized as one possibility among many.⁵ Time, at these scales, effectively slows down, meaning that more intermediate processes must occur for one event to take place.

However, if we move further outward to the scale of galaxies, we observe that collisions between stars are frequent, potentially occurring at rates analogous to particle collisions at subatomic scales.⁶ At sufficiently large scales, the durations in which stellar masses form, collapse, intersect, or merge become condensed relative to larger cosmic time frames, just as subatomic interactions appear instantaneous from the macroscopic viewpoint.

At the subatomic level, particles are generating and degenerating within extremely compressed temporal intervals, such that from a broader macroscopic perspective, everything that occurs within those intervals appears instantaneous. Whitehead famously describes the difference between a minute and a millisecond as the difference between a “specious present” and an “actual occasion”—the entire process of becoming for a micro-event is compressed into an indivisible pulse.⁷

These particle collisions are therefore the rate at which events occur. The duration of an event is marked by the spatial extension of the fluid dispersion of a colloidal system—whether continuous or sporadic. Colloidal behavior is one measure of particle collision. It is defined as:

“A state of subdivision such that the molecules or polymolecular particles dispersed in a medium have at least one dimension between approximately 1 nm and 1 μm, or that in a system discontinuities are found at distances of that order.”⁸

Footnotes

¹ Particle as particular: a metaphysical correspondence between discrete physical entities and logical particulars; see Leibniz on monads and modern mereology in physics.

² Quantum field theory treats particles as excitations of fields, constantly appearing and disappearing (virtual fluctuations); see Feynman, QED.

³ Standard colloid definition; see IUPAC and colloid chemistry.

⁴ Macroscopic bodies undergo decoherence, stabilizing their states over longer temporal scales; see Zurek, Decoherence and the Transition from Quantum to Classical.

⁵ This aligns with probabilistic event-realization in statistical mechanics and process philosophy accounts of temporal density.

⁶ Galaxy and star collisions are common on cosmological timescales; see studies of the Andromeda–Milky Way merger.

⁷ Alfred North Whitehead, Process and Reality; “actual occasions” are fundamental units of temporal becoming.

⁸ Colloid dimensional definition as presented in standard physical chemistry references (IUPAC).

Dispersion

Milk is an emulsified colloid of liquid butter-fat globules dispersed within a water-based solution.¹ We ordinarily perceive milk as an object, but from the molecular point of view it is an event: a dynamic equilibrium of interacting particles. When particles collide, they form what appears to be a stable object at the macroscopic scale, but at the instant of collision the “object” is nothing more than an event of relation, a transient configuration of energies.²

At the subatomic level, particles reoccur at an almost instantaneous rate because all possible positions of a single event are occupied across all spatial locations at all times. This forms a wavelength—or, in chemical terms, a colloidal dispersion.³ The implication is radical: everything has already happened, and what we call “the present” is merely the cross-section of a probability distribution manifesting as a particular event.

The ontological task is therefore to define terms like “infinite.” But ontology faces the peculiar difficulty that language must use the very words it seeks to define. Language cannot be reduced to rigid definitions because linguistic meaning is the movement of thought; the placement of words expresses the unfolding of an idea. A term is not a fixed point; it is a spectrum of related meanings whose unity is an underlying notion.⁴

If infinity is an object of logic, it must have a valid structure. But anything with a structure is, in some sense, finite—because it is intelligible. Thus the logical validity of infinity arises from its invariable relation to finitude: finitude is the point of departure from which infinity is conceptually derived. The articulation of the contradiction between finite and infinite—finite-to-infinite or infinite-to-finite—reveals the missing middle term that unites them.

If the infinite is applied to the finite, then the number of finite bodies becomes indeterminate. But if the finite is applied to the infinite, then this indeterminacy itself becomes a finite disclosure, out of which a determinate number of particulars can be selected. This is the logic of induction: we begin with particular finite objects, then infer an infinite multiplicity of such objects because their totality cannot be conceived at once.

A finite body, being finite, sets a limit on the conception that apprehends it. To conceive a finite object is to be limited by that object’s finitude. Aristotle defines quantity as the general measure of an indeterminate multitude of particular bodies.⁵ Quantity relates infinity to indeterminacy: the infinite is the potentiality of any particular thing. To say “everything” is to say “anything.” The infinite indeterminacy becomes a single variable that separates particular bodies from each other. Between any two bodies lies an infinity—a gap of potential distinctions.⁶

Because quantity is the form that discloses an indeterminate number of finite bodies, the form itself is finite, while the number of bodies disclosed is infinite. The question of quantity is therefore not how many bodies exist (which is indefinite), but how an infinite multiplicity is disclosed by a finite form.

For example, when we look out into space, we tend to think there is more darkness than light. Yet empirically, light is the most abundant phenomenon in the universe.⁷ The constancy of light yields an intriguing paradox: nothing can go faster than light, presupposing that light is always in motion; yet relative to itself, light is at rest, forming a constant background through which all other motions obtain their measure.⁸ Light thereby encapsulates the form of the universe.

Thermodynamics—the study of how electromagnetic radiation (light) transforms energy into heat—reveals further paradoxes about composition. Light demonstrates how a substance can remain structurally continuous while being in perpetual motion. Consider a star: from a relative position, it appears as a stable sphere of energy. Yet stars are continually in orbit. At our scale, their movement appears slow, taking millions of years, though they are never static. But if we imagine the star’s orbital motion increased to an infinite rate, the spherical star would appear as a circle of light, just as a rapidly swung torch creates a fiery ring.⁹ Motion at sufficient velocity becomes form.

Footnotes

1. Standard definition of milk as an emulsion/colloid; see food chemistry texts and dairy science literature.
2. In quantum field theory, “objects” are stable resonances of interacting fields; see Weinberg, The Quantum Theory of Fields.
3. Wavefunction formalism and superposition: all possible states coexist until measurement; see Schrödinger, Heisenberg.
4. This view aligns with Hegel’s Science of Logic: concepts unfold through internal contradiction rather than fixed dictionary definitions.
5. Aristotle, Categories and Metaphysics V: “quantity” (poson) as the measure of plurality or magnitude.
6. Infinity as the “between” aligns with Aristotle’s apeiron and Hegel’s “bad versus true infinite.”
7. Most energy in the universe is in the form of photons; see cosmic microwave background and photon-to-baryon ratio.
8. Light at c experiences no passage of time in its own frame; see special relativity.
9. Persistence of vision and relativistic rotation analogies; see astrophysics of rapidly rotating neutron stars and accretion disks.

Below is your full passage with grammar corrected, structure tightened, ideas clarified, and new footnotes added.
I preserve your metaphysical/physical style and reinforce each conceptual move with classical or scientific grounding.

Walking Droplets

We see the phenomenon in which motion changes the physical composition of a substance most clearly in liquids such as water. A well-known example is the case of “walking droplets”: small droplets of water that bounce and “walk” across the surface of a vibrating water bath.¹ The droplet’s apparent solidity and autonomy are not properties of the droplet itself but are emergent from the oscillatory motion of the fluid. Motion creates the form.

Likewise, if the orbital speed of a star were increased toward an infinite rate, the star would appear as a circle of energy. But a circle rotating through all directions in space becomes indistinguishable from a sphere. Therefore, a star moving at infinite speed would appear exactly the same as it does when we perceive it as “static.” What appears static is actually an abstraction of an underlying motion occurring at an effectively infinite rate. A “particle-like” state is not a fixed thing but the visible result of an eternal, ongoing process compressed into a perceptual instant.

The first law of thermodynamics implicitly contains this identity of process and result: whenever there is heat, there is evidence of work.² Conservation of energy does not mean “nothing is happening”; it means that activity is continuous, that energy persists through transformation. Living organisms conserve energy by saving it and using it sparingly. The universe seems to do the opposite—spending energy continuously and with increasing intensity, sustaining its duration through constant exchange rather than restraint.

A central principle of thermodynamics is that light not only occupies the position of maximal speed (the infinite limit of motion), but also occupies all possible shapes and forms.³ Light constitutes the most general medium of transformation—stretching, bending, condensing, dispersing—under which all material configurations occur.

M-theory

This aligns with speculative frameworks such as M-theory, where the vibrational modes of fundamental strings or membranes generate all particles and forces.⁴ Each configuration is a particular form of an underlying motion. The image of the multiverse—cosmic inflation bubbles, “cosmic bruising,” or infinite spatial domains—can be conceived ontologically as the conception disclosing an infinity of objects, rather than as discrete worlds floating in external space.⁵

This is a more practical approach to infinity: instead of treating infinity solely as extensive (larger and larger), infinity is also intensive—smaller and smaller, with no minimal limit. Aristotle introduces the first notion of infinitesimal magnitude, arguing that the greatest extent of a magnitude is not always size, because the minutest factor can possess the greatest degree of precision or limit.⁶ A smaller magnitude can be “greater” by being more reducible, because the capacity for further division is itself a measure of magnitude. Magnitude is that which continually falls into more minute limits.

The finite is self-applicable: the finitude of a body is its own limit. To be finite means that a body cannot be infinite; the infinite is the boundary it does not cross. What a finite body is not consists of every other possibility of another finite body. The set of all other possible bodies is what appears as the uncertainty of any one particular body.

But where does “every body” exist, if from the perspective of each body every other body is uncertain?

Every body belongs to itself, and the collection of bodies is the mutual uncertainty they hold relative to one another. Their existence is proclaimed through themselves, each asserting its identity against the indeterminacy posed by all others. In other words, the infinite is not outside the finite but between every finite thing: the space of possibility that allows distinct bodies to distinguish themselves.

Footnotes

1. Walking droplets demonstrated by Yves Couder and Emmanuel Fort (2005–2012); see PNAS and Nature. Droplet-wave coupling shows emergent particle-like behavior from fluid motion.
2. First law: ΔU = Q – W. The identity between heat and work underlies the equivalence of process and result; see Clausius (1850).
3. Electromagnetic radiation takes arbitrary waveforms; see Maxwell’s equations.
4. M-theory: eleven-dimensional unification theory; see Witten (1995), Duff (1996).
5. “Cosmic bruising” refers to predicted traces of bubble collisions in eternal inflation; see Aguirre & Johnson (2011).
6. Aristotle, Physics III; distinction between potential infinite (division) and actual infinite (completed totality).

Thinking as Energy

It Takes Energy to Think

It is easy to claim that the world is chaotic and random. This assumption excuses the need for explanation: any phenomenon, no matter how complex, can be attributed to randomness, in the same way religious thinkers sometimes attribute all complexity to a complex deity. In both cases, the explanation merely repeats the question: the cause of complexity is “something complex.”

Viewing the world as random is the result of the understanding failing to achieve reason—failing to connect what it has separated. When the understanding divides an object into parts and leaves them disjointed, each part appears unrelated, without purpose or necessity.

Peirce’s notion of absolute chance (tychism) does not assert that reality is merely chaotic. For Peirce, chance is itself a rational mechanism within nature—a necessary element in the development of law.¹ Entropy in thermodynamics demonstrates this: the transfer of heat from one system to another involves a statistical element of chance, yet this chance is governed by lawful tendencies toward equilibrium.²

Thus, randomness is never merely disorder; it is a dimension of rationality.

Infinity of Mind

The term infinite presupposes limitless substance. Infinity indicates endless potentiality—the capacity of something to generate its own forms in every possible way. If we attribute the nature of mind to infinity, then mind is the limitless possibility of reason itself.³

Each finite is an abstraction from the infinite

Abstraction is not merely a mental act; it is the physical motion of separation.⁴ To abstract something is to carve out a limit from an unbounded whole.

The infinite is an activity whose limit is nothing other than itself. What lies “beyond” the infinite is again the infinite; therefore, the infinite’s only finitude is its demand to continue without end. Its self-limitation is precisely its unlimitedness.

The question then arises: How does the infinite continue?
It continues by turning its relentless activity into its opposite. The infinite, by pressing against its own limit, produces a true finite—finite in every infinite respect. Each finite is thus an abstraction of the infinite activity, a definite shape carved out of the formless whole.

Once established, a finite perceives the infinite only from its own finitude, so that infinity appears through the lens of a specific limit. This finite perspective is itself held for an infinity—its own kind of duration. Each finite abstraction therefore contradicts the whole infinite activity from which it emerges.

The limit beyond every finite is the infinite manifesting itself again as another finite, endlessly. Each finite sublates the previous one and becomes the boundary for the next.⁵

Finite Form as Contradiction

The finite, as an abstraction, is contradiction taking form. Contradiction consists of inverse relations:

• a point a,
• separated from a point b,
• with a further extension to a point c,
• all terminating in a final limit.

The infinitesimal is the equilibrium point within this inverse relation—where the tendency toward unlimited increase meets the tendency toward unlimited decrease.⁶

In every finite interval, there are infinitely many happenings. At this very moment, I am eating food—and so are thousands of other people. The finite moment is a container for infinite simultaneous events.

Discrete and Extensive Magnitude

Magnitude has two fundamental modes:

1. Extensive magnitude — the measurable stretching out of something in space (length, area, volume).
2. Discrete magnitude — the division of something into countable units or distinct events.

A finite body is extensive because it occupies a measurable expanse, but it is discrete because it can be distinguished from others. Discreteness marks the finite; extension marks the infinite tendency within the finite. The finite interval is extensive in that it spans a domain, but discrete in that it contains an infinity of distinguishable happenings.

Thus the finite is the equilibrium of the infinite’s dual tendencies—its extension outward and its division inward.

Footnotes

1. Charles Sanders Peirce, Collected Papers, especially 1.409–1.410 on tychism, the doctrine that chance is a fundamental ingredient in the emergence of law.
2. Ludwig Boltzmann, Lectures on Gas Theory (1896–1898); entropy is statistical, not arbitrary.
3. Spinoza, Ethics, Part I, Proposition 15: “Whatever is, is in God,” interpreted as infinite substance producing infinite modes.
4. Aristotle, Posterior Analytics II; abstraction as separation of form from matter.
5. Hegel, Science of Logic, “Quality” and “Being-for-Self”: finitude as the self-negation of the infinite, and infinite progression as the generation of finite determinations.
6. Leibniz, Monadology and the infinitesimal calculus: the infinitesimal as the point of balance between opposing tendencies.