Section 39 (first updated 1.06.2021)

Law of Mind

The Error of Derived Abstraction

The law of mind operates through time differently than physical objects operate in time. Physical objects only bear a particular kind of relation in time: they proceed through time as an activity and therefore only relate the past to the future. The external relations between material objects bear specific correlations in time.¹

Mind, however, is able to relate the future to the past, and therefore produce the opposite relation relative to the past–future direction. This logical ability—for a reaction plus action response—allows the physical, as an activity, to be directed in taking the form of the idea.² Once this happens, the idea manifests as a general living reality. This is when the idea becomes generalized according to Peirce.³ Once general, the idea remains an intensity of activity at the infinitesimal level, where it challenges itself in time, and this challenge manifests as continuity.⁴

Genetics is the means for transferring its information to itself, and in this transition it is practicing and producing its information as a concrete object. This process has already succeeded in producing its object: the physiological structure of the human being.⁵ That structure holds mind—the organ where knowledge achieves consciousness of itself. This produces a different means for transitioning information, which is necessary for producing itself as the sublated object, the next object in the series of its infinite ideas.⁶

Its future means of transferring is genetics manifest as technology. Technology is the new form genetics takes as the means for transferring information.⁷

Before we understand how technology is the new and more developed form by which consciousness derives its information, we must first understand how genetics formulates together into an organic whole—a living being. Life in this understanding is Being.⁸

The Body as an Organ of Consciousness

The body as a whole operates as an organ of consciousness. The body is engaged in locomotion, investigating its environment. This investigation is a correlation made between mind as abstract logic and environment as concrete logic. Ironically, in this sense, the concrete logic is the process, and the mind is the result. The mind makes the concrete—and this accounts for consciousness.⁹

Each cell harvests a chemical reaction; that chemical reaction is a kind of logical necessity that takes on peculiar functions. Each function is the activity of the idea—it is the concrete bearing of the abstract idea.¹⁰ The cell is the smallest functional unit of the organism, and each set of cells forms a series actualizing a particular function. In relation, it is the kind of operation of the cell that makes up the organism as a whole, not anything else specific about the cell.¹¹

Cells belonging to certain parts of the organism portray a particular aesthetic structure—skin cells need to… (your continuation).¹²

When the organism is constituted as a whole, it becomes a home to the operation of reason where ideas manifest with intensity. This, however, obeys space and time as the system it sets up for itself; yet within space and time it operates freely—or as Peirce puts it—“more chancy.”¹³

There is a greater sense of probability in what mind produces, but that probability is only its thinking of its infinite potentiality and directing that potentiality into a reality. Life as a continuum in space and time has within itself its own limit—death. Death occurs when life has already exhausted the capacity it set for itself so as to achieve its function. It also occurs when that function becomes improbable.¹⁴

The living organism is the metabolization of the idea. Metabolism in the organism is the chemical process for its life, which takes on an inverse relation:

Metabolization involves the synthesis of proteins, the destruction of complex substances, and the consequent production of energy.¹⁵

This is a relation where matter manifests as an apparatus for distinguishing qualities into categories, and such categories into relations of action. Implicit in each organism is an active system of production and destruction—and the constant tension between construction and deconstruction is the activity for producing its ideas. This constant tension is the metabolism for the production of the idea into an object.¹⁶

Inheritance, Mind, and the Dialectic of Genetics

The human being is the collection of synthesized genes—information in logical relation compiled into the formulation of an organic being—whose function is the system where the idea metabolizes into the next. The active process of reproduction in life is not merely the transfer of physical traits into the offspring; reproduction invokes the developmental process of carrying on the development of the idea.¹⁷

Each generation inherits the intellectual traits derived from the consciousness of the previous generation. This is what Lamarck formulated as acquired traits.¹⁸

The double helix describes the molecular shape of a double-stranded DNA molecule. This shape shows the structure of a single-strand DNA but does not tell us what this kind of structure holds. The double helix is a physical form of the dialectic—within itself involving the idea and its contradiction. Each strand is a logical notion with its inverse notion. It is the form of balance. And within this balance persists a tension between positive and negation.¹⁹

Genetics is the active mechanism whereby consciousness acts as the continuity of Reason. It is where Reason bears the infinite relation with its logic. Each logical proposition is literally linked with another to form a node for further reasoning. The sum of connections between each node produces a web of information.²⁰

In this web, each node transfers its logical proposition derived from its specific relation to its neighbouring proposition, and in return it is met with the reaction of its neighbouring node transferring its own logical proposition.²¹

Intensity, Coherence, and Chance

The stage of intensity is not defined by disorder; even Peirce’s notion of chance is not chaos.²² The realm where ideas relate with intensity always bears a coherent and uniform whole in sync. The aspect of chance defines the way ideas exist in the coherent state. The coherent state portrays outward chance as its means for maneuvering its information into another coherent state.²³

Each coherent node of logic is linked by the infinite chain of ideas, which portray a nature of chance—similar to the laws of thermodynamics and entropy.²⁴

Wave–Particle Transformation and Catastrophe Theory in Organic Processes

We can further understand the absorption and emission of energy in organic organisms through the lens of catastrophe theory, developed by René Thom.²⁵ When sunlight enters an organism, it arrives as a continuous wave of energy, carrying potential for multiple outcomes. Upon interacting with the organism, this energy is localized—absorbed, metabolized, and transduced into discrete biological effects, such as heat, chemical reactions, or neural firing. This localization is analogous to a catastrophic bifurcation: the system—here, the organism—undergoes a sudden transition from a smooth, continuous potential to a specific, determinate state.

For example, consider the sensation of warmth as sunlight strikes the skin. The energy of the wave does not gradually become a single discrete effect; rather, the system responds in a nonlinear, threshold-dependent way. When the energy crosses a certain limit, the organism’s tissues and nerves react—a classic cusp catastrophe scenario in Thom’s theory. The continuous input (sunlight waves) transforms into a particle-like, localized event (heat sensation), highlighting the sudden emergence of qualitative difference from quantitative variation.

After internalization, the organism eventually radiates energy outward as heat waves. This re-emission illustrates the wave-like return of energy to its environment, completing a cyclical pattern: potential → actualization → re-expansion. Thom’s catastrophe theory helps formalize this by showing how continuous parameters (like incoming energy) can produce discrete outcomes (localized heat, neural activation) in nonlinear systems, without violating continuity at the underlying level.

In broader terms, the organism functions as a mediator between wave-like potentials and particle-like actualities, with the internalization of energy serving as a nonlinear transformation that gives rise to observable events. Just as in quantum systems, this interplay demonstrates a universal principle: continuous potential, under suitable conditions, collapses into determinate events, which can then again unfold into distributed potentials.²⁵

Footnote

25. René Thom, Structural Stability and Morphogenesis (1975). Catastrophe theory studies how small changes in continuous parameters can lead to sudden qualitative changes in the system’s state. In biological systems, this formalism models how continuous inputs (energy, chemical gradients, etc.) can produce discrete, localized effects, such as neural firing, enzyme activation, or thermal sensation.

FOOTNOTE

¹ Physical correlation in time.
² Action/reaction logic of mind.
³ Peirce on generalization.
⁴ Idea as intensity.
⁵–⁷ Genetics as informational mechanism → technology.
⁸ Life as Being (ontology).
⁹ Mind–environment relation.
¹⁰ ¹² Cellular logic.
¹³ Peirce: chance.
¹⁴ Limit of life.
¹⁵ Metabolism.
¹⁶ Dialectic of construction/destruction.
¹⁷–¹⁸ Inheritance and Lamarck.
¹⁹ DNA as dialectical form.
²⁰–²¹ Logical web analogy.
²²–²⁴ Coherence and chance; thermodynamics.
²⁵ Thom (catastrophe theory).

3.5. Mind in Time

According to Aristotle, thought and matter are inverse properties of each other. Matter, in modern terms, is understood through gravity, whereas thought is understood through reason. Gravity consists of the force of attraction; matter possesses this force in virtue of its tendency toward a central point.¹ It is essentially composite, consisting of parts that seek to attract one another. Matter therefore exhibits itself as self-destructive because it seeks to merge.²

Reason is different from matter because it is not determined in any particular direction. Reason has its center in itself and therefore does not have its unity outside itself; rather, it has already found this unity in and with itself.³ Reason contains the principle of negation within itself and takes this inherent contradiction as its central point. It is identical with itself and therefore exhibits the determination to always go beyond itself. It reaffirms its essential nature by continually contradicting itself.⁴

The claim that reason possesses the means for self-contradiction is not foreign to science. Modern quantum mechanics introduces the notions of spin, entanglement, and nonlocality.⁵ These concepts show that objects that appear separate are intimately connected at the infinitesimal level. Nonlocality occurs because particles that interact become permanently correlated, such that they depend on one another’s properties to the extent that they lose their individuality and behave as a single entity.⁶

Peirce explains that mind operates in space and time differently than matter. He writes:

“One of the most marked features about the law of mind is that it makes time have a definite direction of flow from past to future… This makes one of the great contrasts between the law of mind and the law of physical force, where there is no more distinction between the two opposite directions in time than between moving northward and moving southward.”⁷

Matter is determined in space and time because it is their synthesis, whereas mind determines matter because space and time are only determinations of mind. Matter therefore exhibits itself as the past—because it is determined—whereas mind is the future—because it is determining.⁸

When mind thinks an idea, the idea takes on logical structure. This logical form is the final cause, because it fulfills the capacity of matter. For form to be the final cause, it requires an efficient cause for its actualization. The efficient cause of final causation is matter, the potential through which form becomes actual. Matter is logically necessary because it is the capacity through which form becomes actualized.⁹

Peirce says that matter and mind exert mutual insistency upon one another. Form bears the direction of insistency onto matter from the future to the past.¹⁰ This means that when form is logically conceived, it insists on the capacity for its fulfillment. Peirce calls this the intensity stage, where forms are intimately related and continuously spreading.¹¹ The relations between forms call upon their actualization. Once a form is actualized, it becomes generalized, and its ability to affect other forms becomes radically reduced, though its intrinsic quality remains the same.¹² Peirce calls this stage generality. In this stage, the form is materialized and bears the direction of insistency onto mind from the past to the future. Matter insists that mind process forms so that potential remains the capacity for the actual.¹³

The present is where form and matter constitute the object. It is defined by the intensity between forms and the generality that form assumes as matter. When forms constitute a generality, there is implicitly a level of intensity between them. The present is the abstraction that captures generality in relation to intensity.¹⁴ The present is always a stage of insistency, where forms are general yet remain in intensive interaction.

According to Peirce, mind is not subject to “law” in the rigid manner that matter is. Thus mind is less mechanical and fundamentally exhibits uncertainty and spontaneity. This does not mean mind is random; rather, it is probabilistic.¹⁵ The probabilistic nature of mind defines its mechanism for continuous thinking because it enables mind to explore every possible logical form.¹⁶ Uncertainty and spontaneity, however, are efficient properties and should not be confused with the final causation of mind. The ultimate determination of thinking is an ethical principle.¹⁷ This point diverges from Peirce, who overlooks the ethical nature of mind; a fuller discussion would require a separate inquiry.

This is similar to Peirce’s understanding of Chance. His notion of absolute chance is not the claim that the world is chaotic. Chance is a logically necessary principle and an operative mechanism.¹⁸ He writes that “diversification, specificalness, and irregularity of things” constitutes chance. For example, throwing a die and getting a six more than once is regularity, yet this regularity is irregular as to the number of throws required. The number of throws is specificalness, because the process must continuously occur for numbers to appear.¹⁹

Entropy in the laws of thermodynamics also demonstrates the role of chance in energy transfer. Entropy represents the degree of disorder or randomness in a system.²⁰ Within a macroscopic system exist multiple microstates or molecular configurations, and randomness is the efficient movement between coherent states. Furthermore, energy transfer is irreversible: bodies giving up heat cannot regain it from colder bodies.²¹ This contradicts the classical laws of mechanics, which assume reversibility and reduce energy to mechanical regularity.²²

For Peirce, chance is the efficient cause enabling mind to operate. But this does not mean the coherence that mind produces is the product of chance. Chance is the instrument, not the end.²³ Claiming the world is chaotic becomes an excuse for arbitrary explanations. Viewing the world only as randomness results when the Understanding fails to reach Reason. When the Understanding separates idea from matter, it is left with scattered ideas and unrelated objects. If it stops here, it constructs a chaotic world devoid of rationality.²⁴

Footnotes

1. Aristotle, Physics, IV.1–5.
2. G.W.F. Hegel, Philosophy of Nature, §262.
3. G.W.F. Hegel, Philosophy of History, Introduction, p. 31 (Sibree trans.).
4. Ibid.; see also Science of Logic, “The Doctrine of Being.”
5. J. S. Bell, “On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen Paradox,” Physics 1, 1964.
6. Nick Herbert, Quantum Reality (Anchor Books, 1985), ch. 7.
7. C. S. Peirce, “The Law of Mind,” The Monist 2 (1892): 536–559, p. 546.
8. Hegel, Science of Logic, “Being–Nothing–Becoming.”
9. Aristotle, Metaphysics, Book Θ (Theta) on potentiality and actuality.
10. Peirce, “The Law of Mind,” p. 549.
11. Ibid., p. 547.
12. Ibid., pp. 548–549.
13. Ibid.
14. Ibid., p. 535.
15. Peirce, Collected Papers, 6.53–6.57.
16. Ibid., 6.58–6.59.
17. For the ethical grounding of thought, see Hegel, Philosophy of Spirit, Part III.
18. Peirce, Collected Papers, 6.36–6.41.
19. Peirce, Collected Papers, 6.53.
20. Rudolf Clausius, “On the Moving Force of Heat,” Annalen der Physik, 1850.
21. Peirce, Collected Papers, 6.72.
22. Ludwig Boltzmann, Lectures on Gas Theory, 1896.
23. Peirce, Collected Papers, 6.36.
24. Hegel, Phenomenology of Spirit, “Understanding” and “Force and the Understanding.”

24. Mind in Time

Mind in time seeks to diversify itself because it already exists as unified with itself—its unity is the contradiction. One peculiar aspect of mind is that it presupposes its principles prior to demonstration. Mind must do this because the proof is merely the extension of the principle: the principle is the form, and the proof is the content. The idea is the form of knowledge, and mind is the pure logic that produces this form into its object.

Matter, by contrast, is the past of mind. It already consists of diversity from the onset and therefore exhibits itself as emerging into unity. Matter is the condition in which diversity consolidates into homogeneity.¹

Mind and matter bear an inverse reflection of each other. Mind makes matter—so matter is the nature of mind—yet matter is also the object of mind and the location where mind resides. Thus the essential nature of matter is mind or reason. Reason seeks to merge with itself, but in its pure form it is already complete. Matter, inversely, lacks reason and therefore seeks reason in order to become concrete. Mind needs matter to make thought actual, and matter needs mind to be coherent.²

The Present as the Level of Insistency

Throughout this inquiry, we have said that form is particular because it takes on a definite nature, whereas matter is universal because it receives form without being anything specific. Form and matter, in relation, reveal each other’s natures.

The particular form is infinite because there is an infinity of particular forms. Matter, however, is finite because it is where form becomes concrete as a determinate thing. Thus matter tends toward merging into unity, while form tends toward diversifying into plurality. These together constitute the law of matter (emergence into homogeneity) and the law of mind (diversification).³

When mind diversifies itself into many particular forms, these forms—because they are material—tend to come together and merge. This is how the substrate remains a universal whole. Mind, however, must continually diversify in order to remain particular.

Future Events Revolve Around You

The fabric of spacetime is the medium through which an electron or event is transmitted, but it is equally the medium of the observer’s conception.⁴ The ideal limit is what the conception of the observer aims toward. “Ideal” does not mean “best”; it means that which is logically presupposed so that relative values may arise.

The first presupposition is always the distinction between nothing and being. Hegel sublates the rigid Greek categories of non-being and being into an active unity mediated by negation.⁵ Nothing and being form a contradiction that yields two outcomes: negative reason and positive reason.

Nothing is something and therefore is a form of being; but this alone is negative reason because the being of nothing is that it is no-thing. Yet this negation becomes the advance toward positive reason, for when being is understood as nothing, we have pure possibility, or becoming.⁶

It is incorrect to say “something comes out of nothing,” because that treats both as equivalent objects. It is correct to say “nothing is also being,” because both terms belong to one category. Nothing becomes the dimension through which becoming unfolds.

The Physical Substrate

The physical substrate is the self-evident proof for a hypothesis. The abstract substance presents multiple possible outcomes, but the physical substrate determines which outcome is actual.

For example, abstractly there are two possibilities: touching or not touching a tree. Both outcomes are equally viable in abstraction. But the physical manifestation of the tree in contact with the hand provides undeniable evidence of which outcome occurs.⁷

Yet abstraction persists behind the scene, because it contains both outcomes simultaneously as an ideal limit. While one hand touches the tree, the other does not; and even within the touching itself, the distinction between “hand” and “tree” is determined by the limit at which sensory differentiation begins.

Approaching the Object

The ideal limit is what the observer aims at. As the observer approaches the object that the conception aims toward, the conception simultaneously moves away from the object from the inverse side, opening an entirely new field of objects. As you move closer to an object, you also reveal the new backgrounds from which its meaning emerges.

Every motion toward an object implies a counter-motion away from a different horizon.

Positive and Negative in Past and Future

Positive and negative relate to future and past. When negation subtracts from the present—where infinite abundance stands—it becomes past. The past is therefore the negative position relative to the present, while the future is the positive, since it is the present extended beyond itself.

This means matter degenerates, and this is the meaning of entropy at both micro and macro scales: when things degenerate, their internal variables no longer cooperate to sustain a form. The rational structure dissolves as variables enter new states inconsistent with the prior unity.⁸

Footnotes

1. Aristotle, Physics, I.7; Hegel, Philosophy of Nature, §251–§262.
2. G.W.F. Hegel, Science of Logic, “The Doctrine of Being”; see also Encyclopedia Logic, §§193–213.
3. C.S. Peirce, “The Law of Mind,” The Monist 2 (1892): 536–559, especially pp. 546–550.
4. Albert Einstein, “Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper,” Annalen der Physik 17 (1905).
5. Hegel, Science of Logic, “Quality,” especially the section on Being–Nothing–Becoming.
6. Ibid.
7. Edmund Husserl, Ideas I, §44–§49 on the constitution of sensuous objects.
8. Rudolf Clausius, “On the Moving Force of Heat,” Annalen der Physik (1850); Ludwig Boltzmann, Lectures on Gas Theory (1896).

Events as Objects in Nature

The subject under discussion concerns the nature of events as objects in nature.

The Doppler effect describes the change in the frequency of waves caused by the relative motion between the source of the wave and the observer. The source of the wave is simply another potential object disclosed within the conception of the observer, and the observer is itself an object. Their similarity derives from their difference: they are both discrete forms—particle-like determinate entities—yet they are not the same object because they do not occupy the same position in space at the same time. This difference makes them part of the same wavelength-relation. They are “the same” only at the level of the wave, which is precisely the relation claimed to change when their relative motion changes. We are therefore working from the reverse side of the relation to understand its inverse structure.

For example, as the source of a wave and the observer move toward or away from one another, the frequency of sound, light, or other waves increases or decreases. Before unpacking this definition, it is important to ask: What is a wavelength other than its apparent change in frequency?
Answering this reveals that the wavelength-property provides insight into what it means for the observer and the object to be internally related, rather than externally separated as ordinary experience suggests. Ordinary experience portrays an observer occupying one location, an object occupying another, and an environment separating the two. The wavelength instead reveals a continuity: the observer and object are disclosed within a single event.

Empirical science classifies phenomena such as light and sound as waves because they exhibit a certain duration in time and extension in space. But these phenomena are, fundamentally, events, because they exist as experiences relative to an observer. Measuring duration and length attributes to a happening an extension in space and persistence in time. The duration of a wavelength is essentially the measured activity of “a thing that happens,” which is what we call an event—an instant in time, the discrete manifestation of an activity.ⁱ

Because wavelengths describe the duration of events, we may ask: How does an event originate?
Quantum explanations of origination always begin from the relation to an observer—just as wavelength in classical physics derives from a particle. Every quantum phenomenon originates relative to an observer. Concepts like the Doppler effect or Schrödinger’s cat presuppose the observer as that factor which determines when a quantum system ceases to exist as a superposition and becomes a definite state.²

The philosophical difficulty is that the observer is not the cause of the event, as if events originated out of the observer’s whims. Rather, so long as the observer is a fact within the relation, they are simply another logical component of the event. The observer has the quality of generating events into being because it is the determinant of the duration—the locus where the event becomes definite. The observer is the component of a superposition that collapses the multiplicity of states into one concrete actuality. This empirical fact mirrors the logical function of synthesis in dialectics.³

To explain how superposition is characterized by the observer, we can examine the presuppositions behind the Doppler effect when wavelengths are treated as descriptions of events. First, the observer and the phenomenon form an indivisible relation—just as a particle determines the frequency of the wavelengths it emits. Second, the observer and the phenomenon have a relative or asymmetrical relation, which determines the frequency of the wavelength. Frequency here is the rate at which the event occurs in time and the distance it covers in space. Third, this asymmetry depends on the dimensional spectrum we call the macroscopic and microscopic scales. In this context asymmetry refers to the fundamental difference between mind and matter, following Peirce’s “Law of Mind”—objects are here and now, whereas ideas are there and later.⁴
These three factors describe the direction of cosmological motion in terms of the generation of events relative to the experience of the observer.

The change in frequency depends on a pointlike particle emitting wavelengths—a potential object such as a star emitting light or a duck producing water ripples. Inversely, wavelengths are potential events of the particle. The waves—ripples, light, sound—are the unfolding of the particle’s determinate conditions. The particle is simply the concentration of its wavelengths. The duration expresses itself in a particular determination, and that particularity becomes the governing point of the duration.

Motion, in terms of generating events, is not merely locomotion but qualitative alteration. The frequency of light, for example, corresponds to changes in color. This is observed as redshift: stars change color depending on their relative motion to an observer.⁵ Astronomers use redshift to determine whether celestial bodies are approaching or receding from Earth, and nearly everything appears to be receding rapidly. Empirical scientists inferred from this that the universe is expanding. But this does not necessarily mean the universe itself is expanding; rather, the events disclosed to the observer are unfolding in the same way that light alters its color relative to the observer.⁶

As time moves forward, potential objects condense to form the present, while what has already occurred separates away and becomes more abstract.

In the direction the particle is moving, wavelengths “bunch up” and become condensed; in the direction away from the motion, the wavefronts spread out. The center need not be stationary—motion itself can be the center. This describes microscopic and macroscopic magnitudes. The motion toward the center generates the condensation of potential events into the present. The motion away does not leave events “behind,” but rather edits them into the past even as the particle continues toward future potentials. Wavelengths are never linear; their linear depiction is an abstraction of their curvature. Waves emanate. The distant wavefronts are connected to the near ones. Their linear relation measures the distance between the potential event and the actual one.

The microscopic dimension is not a place but a form of motion: the condensation of potential events into the present. The macroscopic dimension is the prospect, the horizon of potential events toward which the object moves.

When an object moves toward an observer, the bunched-up waves appear at a higher frequency—the pitch grows louder as the sound source approaches and as the wavefronts condense. When the object moves away, the frequency decreases—the pitch fades as the wavefronts expand.

But this apparent change occurs only relative to the observer occupying a position in another object. From the first-person perspective of the source itself, no change occurs. The driver of a car whose horn blares hears no shift in pitch, while a stationary observer hears a rising and falling pitch. This is because the observer, when identical with the source, always experiences only the present. This explains why we witness other people aging, but not ourselves; why we see flowers bloom and decay, suns rise and set. Relative to another object, the wavelength manifests the duration of its life process. Relative to oneself, duration is always the present transitioning into new potential presents, the process we call “moving into the future.”

The idea in this context is the actual force generating events into reality. The idea is the conception of reality—whether infinity is eternally present and the observer merely determines a particular manifestation, or whether the observer actually generates these possibilities and pushes them into being. The latter is equivalent to the former: the observer is the singularity within which the infinite exists as possibility. Potentialities do not exist as realities do; a reality exists because it previously was not. A potentiality always exists by never existing at a particular time—it is not present.

Footnotes

1. Edmund Husserl, Logical Investigations, Investigation V; Alfred North Whitehead, Process and Reality, Part II.
2. Erwin Schrödinger, “Die gegenwärtige Situation in der Quantenmechanik,” Naturwissenschaften 23 (1935).
3. G.W.F. Hegel, Science of Logic, “The Doctrine of Essence,” especially the section on synthesis and contradiction.
4. Charles Sanders Peirce, “The Law of Mind,” The Monist 2 (1892): 536–559.
5. Vesto Slipher, “Spectrographic Observations of Nebulae,” Lowell Observatory Bulletin 2 (1917).
6. Edwin Hubble, “A Relation Between Distance and Radial Velocity among Extra-Galactic Nebulae,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 15, no. 3 (1929): 168–173.

Past and Future as Energy States of Time

The observer is the particular force within the universal that functions as the variable completing the realization of an event. When an observer conceives an idea into a real occurrence, the observer stands at the present. If one thinks of a house, the thought is never of “every house,” because each actual house differs in detail. The imagined house is given particulars—white and yellow walls, a slightly sloped roof, etc. This instantaneous specification, arising together with the thought of “house,” corresponds to some real configuration of a house, whether remembered from childhood, encountered recently, or never consciously perceived at all. The origin of such specific content may remain vague, yet its presence is a fact: a determinate image has been conceived. It is entirely possible that a house of this description exists somewhere.

This conception of a house in the present is the thought of a potentiality, a future event toward which time may move. Yet this is only one thought among innumerably many others, each conceived at some point and many of which already inhabit the present without our awareness, since attention is occupied elsewhere. In this sense the mind lives more in the future and the past than in the present. The present is always filled with events that pass by—often events that were once anticipated—yet they are unnoticed at the moment they occur.

Going Out of the Past Into the Future

The observer acts as a field of consciousness for time, analogous to an electric field. A positive charge radiates outward, while a negative charge attracts inward. Likewise:

• The observer radiates the future and attracts the past.
• The past radiates the present, and the future attracts the present.

Thus there are two simultaneous directions in which past and future serve as positive and negative determinants that together constitute the continuous flow of the present.

We speak of “points in time” because time is experienced through discrete conceptions of events—for example, “I went to the park,” “I had a fight,” “I ate a sandwich.” Time is measured first by the character of these events and then by their order. One may recall “going to the park” before remembering “having a fight,” even though the latter occurred earlier. Memory therefore requires reordering.

More obscure phenomena also occur. One may dream of an event and remember the dream before the corresponding event happens later in waking life. The sequence might be: I dream → I later recall the dream → the event then occurs. In such cases memory may appear to refer to something before it has happened, or perhaps the mind constructs a sequence incorrectly out of imperfect recollection.

The important point is that we experience time as moving in a single direction, meaning there must be a necessary order of events. But why do events come in the order they do? The difference between past and future is not simply that one comes before the other, but that they are inversely ordered relative to the present. The past provides necessity for a definite order—for example, it is necessarily true that the Treaty of Versailles came after World War I, and that World War II came after that. The past is the point toward which events are attracted into a fixed sequence.

The future, by contrast, is the point from which events emerge as possibilities. In the present, the observer confronts a set of potential directions in which the flow of time may proceed. These possibilities radiate outward from the present as multiplicities of potential determinations.

Once the present “ascends” into one of these possibilities, it does so one at a time. Each realized event then becomes part of the past, entering the ordered chain based on its occurrence. Possibilities become actualities, and actualities settle into necessity. Notice that every future event, once realized, becomes the past; in other words, the past is the future from the standpoint of the future’s own former present. Likewise, the past is the future from the standpoint of the present, insofar as the present was expelled from the past.

The future is thus the point toward which the duration of time is attracted, while the past is the point from which duration is expelled. The present is the locus where the observer stands between these opposite movements. Before an event occurs, the observer’s thought about it is unsettled—its happening is indistinguishable from its not happening. After it occurs, the same thought becomes settled: the event has happened and is now no longer happening. The present delineates these two transitions.

The observer is therefore the synthesis of the negative and positive determinations—of past and future. When the past is the positive determination, the present emerges from it; time “continues” out of the past. When the future plays the negative determination, it moves toward the present, or the present moves toward it. Inversely, the past is negative when it recedes from the present, and the future is positive when potential events move toward realization.

Footnotes

1. Edmund Husserl, The Phenomenology of Internal Time-Consciousness, trans. J. Churchill (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1964).
2. Henri Bergson, Time and Free Will: An Essay on the Immediate Data of Consciousness (New York: Dover, 2001).
3. G.W.F. Hegel, Science of Logic, trans. A.V. Miller (London: Allen & Unwin, 1969), esp. “Quality” and “The Becoming.”
4. Charles S. Peirce, “The Law of Mind,” The Monist 2, no. 4 (1892): 536–559.
5. Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, A182/B224–A218/B265 (on the schematism of time and succession).
6. Albert Einstein, “Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper,” Annalen der Physik 17 (1905): 891–921 (special relativity and temporal ordering).
7. David Bohm, Wholeness and the Implicate Order (London: Routledge, 1980), on the enfolding of past and future potentials.
8. Julian Barbour, The End of Time (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), on the ordering of events and the timeless configuration space.

Receiving and Giving

Every organic system of generation involves a circuitry-like form of receiving and giving.¹

Once an idea is conceived in the present, time moves toward it in a manner resembling an orbital motion: one planet bypassing another, eventually reaching an intersection point where the potential idea becomes the actual present moment. As time continues to move, that present moment—once the future—passes and becomes the past.

An event intersects consciousness at the present in a kind of Doppler-effect manner: it approaches, comes closer, and then recedes. The future event moves toward the observer and then passes away.²

From the standpoint of the present, an idea that has not yet occurred is a potential future. As time approaches and then passes it, the event becomes the past: something that has happened, yet no longer exists as an actuality. It returns to a potential state. The potential still exists—and is real in that sense—but it has not “happened.” The potential contains both sides of temporal structure:

• future: an event not yet realized but conceived as possible,
• past: an event that has occurred and been surpassed, and therefore no longer exists, yet exists in having once existed.³

The past is the ground allowing a potential event to be conceivable as a future event. Past and future form one continuous duration, and this duration is circular; the present is the point that connects the two together.

The circles at the end of each cone connect into the same circle; every circle is ultimately one circle. The outer circle in the illustration signifies conception moving through time, disclosing both the individual and the event, and the moment they share.

The observer is a point moving through the fabric of spacetime, and spacetime consists of all possible events. The observer passes through these events—approaching some (future) and leaving behind others (past).

In this sense, the past and future are two expressions of the same structure of becoming. Every event occurs once.⁴

The indeterminacy of potential events finds its moment in actual occurrence, where each possible event is a real instance. Real, here, means that the event is an external relation, an entity independent of the observer’s conception.⁵

Time has one dimension because of instance: everything happens once. This relates to the mathematical series 1, 10, 100, 1000, 10000, 100000, etc.—each number is unique and occurs once.⁶ Every occurrence is a different “one,” even if it appears as a repetition of the same activity. “1000” happens once. An event being eternal is not the same as its quality of happening once; something can happen once eternally.

The quantization of “1” is not primarily a characteristic of a single isolated object, because an entity is a complex relation between a conception and its object—always mediated by another object. An entity is therefore relational: horse emerges from horse, bird from bird, etc., before there is a single bird or single horse. The quantitative “1” corresponds to the conception that discloses a set of relations. To count anything as one—one chair, one house, one person—is to attribute a conception to an experience.⁷

Electron events

It turns out that the universe operates in a manner analogous to the individual process of self-consciousness, but on a vast and effectively infinite scale. Every possibility has already, in its predicate, been actualized as a potentiality. This forms the foundational environment of nature. Following the actualization of every possibility, a particle-like concentration of energy emerged as a self-determining unit whose activity is to conceive each possibility individually. This process produced an infinity of self-determined free bodies corresponding to the infinity of pre-actualized potentialities. Thus every possibility is accompanied by its own self-confirming conception.⁸

Complexity arises when the free body corresponding to one phenomenon undertakes the self-determination to break through to another phenomenon. Here we find the process of development: the internal energy experiences each potential phenomenon, breaks through to the next, and maintains a single self-identity throughout this sequence. Development is the progression of a self-determining body preserving its identity while passing through the reality of each potential event.⁹

Instantaneous event particle

An action that is simultaneously an object is a specific type of conception in which the action does not produce external physical effects identical to the action’s own form. Normally, we perceive objects acting on other objects, producing consequences different from the form of the action. For example, a meteorite’s impact produces a crater: an external relation between two objects affecting each other’s structure.

Here, however, the concern is how an action can constitute the internal structuring of an object and simultaneously produce it as an external, independent entity.¹⁰

Matter is the stability that maintains indivisibility; it is the substrate of possibility because it is receptive to change while also durable enough to endure the duration of change. Form is the abstract content that fills this substrate with qualities and generates motion—motion understood as the unfolding of different experiences.¹¹

Quantum entanglement is an interaction between particles, but particles are not objects in the conventional sense: they have mass yet no physical size. Thus particles are quantities of events—forms that disclose occurrences rather than miniature solid bodies. Entanglement concerns the interaction between the dimensions of events, not merely between physical objects. This relationship can be loosely illustrated by the way magnetic fields operate: as patterns of interaction between spatially distributed intensities rather than collisions of objects.¹²

Footnotes

1. Circuitry of generation: a metaphoric description of reciprocal processes in organic and conceptual systems.
2. Temporal Doppler effect: a useful metaphor, though not a physical Doppler effect.
3. Potentiality having past and future aspects aligns with Aristotle’s and Bergson’s structures of becoming.
4. Event uniqueness echoes Leibniz’s principle of the identity of indiscernibles.
5. “External relation” here resembles Russell’s external relation theory.
6. Uniqueness of numerical values as analogy for irreducible event-instances.
7. Quantization of one parallels phenomenological accounts of object constitution.
8. This describes a form of pan-experientialism or pre-structured potentiality, reminiscent of Whitehead.
9. The progression of self-determinate energy resembles process philosophy.
10. The concept parallels the emergence of objects from actions in dynamic ontology or field theory.
11. Classical metaphysical distinction between matter (substrate) and form (active structure).
12. Entanglement as an interaction between event-dimensions is consistent with relational quantum mechanics.

Magnetic Fields

The law of mind is not detached from ordinary experience, because consciousness—specifically in the form of the understanding—always stands in retrospect to its experience. Self-reflection stands one step ahead in time as the ideal limit of experience, such that the duration of an event is always leading toward its conception. Yet one step ahead in time is simultaneously one step behind in space. As duration extends toward its conception, the conception remains embedded within the unfolding of the experience itself.¹

The instantaneous point is the environment in which two events interact. A being in a future event has the capacity to determine a set of already-occurred events in the past, while a being in the past has these same events as possible outcomes. Both exist as objects of conception, but they are arrived at from opposite, inverted directions of temporal relation.²

Whitehead extends mind–body unity to a more general mind–matter unity.³ The dynamics of this unity echo Peirce’s law of mind, which describes how mental processes exhibit continuity, tendency, and the growth of habits. The way mind forms the basis of matter involves a basic form of communication between them. By communication we mean not only linguistic exchange but the broader way in which two different orders of being unfold into the same conception.

Communication is a passage of nature in which an exchange occurs between two inverse variables so that the flow of duration is directed in a single consistent direction. In human understanding, language keeps people oriented toward the same subject matter. Analogously, events function as the language of mind: they are the means through which mind communicates with matter to generate the experiences of the observer. Spatially, communication takes the form of objects, while temporally it takes the form of events.⁴

Mind communicates with matter by way of events; events are the medium through which the body receives the mind’s determinations. The mind proposes a hypothesis, and the body either confirms or disconfirms it through action. This is the logic of possibility.

Peirce’s Hypothesis

Peirce’s law states that the fact of a false proposition is itself a truth: it is true that something is false. Formally:

  ((P → Q) → P) → P

This means that P must be true if there exists some Q such that P follows from the truth of “if P then Q.” When Q is taken as false, the law asserts that if P would have to be true whenever it implies a falsehood, then P is true. Peirce’s law therefore implies the law of excluded middle, a principle essential to classical logic.⁵

Error of Derived Abstraction

The human understanding has an anticipatory property. It reacts not only to uncertainties in the environment (instinct, external relations) but also to the compulsion of thought itself. Will, in this sense, is a reaction to internal relations—to the determining forces that shape who you are even before birth, as a natural idea or impulse.⁶

Scientific knowledge aims at accuracy by grounding the value of facts only on what is known or can be known. It cannot treat inherent indeterminacy as belonging to a fact. We know that a potential event is real insofar as it is a possibility, but science cannot call this a “fact,” because a potential event gives opposite information until its actual order in time is fixed by duration.⁷

A potential future event can be anticipated, but it only becomes a scientific fact after it occurs. Even if all logical possibilities about it can be listed, its reality as a specific sequence of determinations cannot be known until it has passed. For example, we can speak factually about human civilization for the last ~6000 years. We also know humans may persist for millions of years, just as our ancestors existed for ~6 million years. Yet science cannot treat these future potentials as facts. They are anticipated possibilities, not determinate realities.

This does not mean they are false or unreal. Potential events do occur, but not necessarily in the exact form anticipated. And even when they occur as anticipated, they only become facts after the duration has taken place.⁸ Science handles potential events through hypothesis and proof, recreating natural conditions so as to predict outcomes. Experimental manipulation is simply the repetition of a natural event; the proof is the anticipation of a particular outcome.

Universal and Particular

Universal and particular are not different objects. No object is a pure universal, nor is any object a purely particular. Every particular belongs to a universal class, and every universal manifests in particulars. Their unity is always a relation.⁹

For example, the sun is a localized mass and therefore particular. Yet its light spreads throughout its environment, exhibiting a universal extension. Thus the sun is both localized and distributed, particular and general.

This fundamental relation applies most appropriately to the relation between mind and body. The body is localization; the mind is generalization. Hence locomotion belongs to bodies, not to abstract notions.

Interaction of Future and Past

The interaction of future and past mirrors the relationship between mind and body. The mind already knows the events the body will encounter; the body goes through these events. The mind determines the event; the body confirms it. Their interaction forms the present as a simultaneous inverse relation.

For the mind, the event occurs as an instantaneous flash—a packet of information. Physically this is a quantum; mentally it is an idea. The total duration of an event is compressed into an instantaneous conception. The mind does not traverse the duration; it knows the whole in an instant.¹⁰

For the body, this instant conception constitutes the very plane in which duration is enacted. Terrestrial bodies operate within an environment.

The environment is not merely geographic. It is fundamentally the setting for a particular activity, including abstract activity. The human misunderstanding that the abstract is separate from the concrete obscures how abstraction is internally projected into its physical substrate. Yet in ordinary, unconscious experience, this is never ambiguous: all experience involves physical contact as the medium by which form is transmitted. Through intuition we receive sense; through perception we receive image.¹¹

Footnotes

1. Temporal–spatial inversion resembles Husserl’s retention–protention structure and Bergson’s durée.
2. Conceptual “instantaneous point” parallels Whitehead’s “actual occasion” in Process and Reality.
3. Whitehead’s panexperientialist metaphysics conceives both matter and mind as forms of process.
4. This idea parallels semiotics: events = signs bridging mind and physical processes.
5. Peirce’s law is central to classical propositional logic and underlies the principle of bivalence.
6. “Internal relations” echo Leibniz and process philosophy: identity shaped by internal determination.
7. Reflects the difference between epistemic indeterminacy and ontological potentiality.
8. Explains why science treats possibilities as hypotheses rather than facts.
9. Hegel’s doctrine of universality and particularity as mutually dependent moments.
10. Instantaneous knowing resembles Whitehead’s notion of prehension and the collapse of duration.
11. Reinforces that abstraction emerges in and through embodied perception.

Why a Thought Is Not Instantaneously an Object

A thought is not instantaneously an object because potentiality requires temporal and spatial mediation before becoming actual. Although the mind can form an idea immediately, the world of objects is governed by the pragmatic principle of time: it takes time for something to come into being.¹

A potential state is conceived as an object through time, not outside it. The further a potential state lies in the future relative to the present of the individual, the more determinable it becomes. This span of determinability is proportional to the lifespan and transformation of the object itself. An object that is particular—such as a person, a dog, or a star—has a definite temporal span during which it changes into another form.

The closer the conception is to the object, the weaker the compulsion of thought is to produce it. For example, if I think of wanting a dog right now, it is unlikely that a dog appears instantaneously. But if I hold that thought genuinely over a span of six months, it is quite likely that a dog will eventually appear in my life through ordinary processes.²

Thus, the reason a thought does not instantly become an object is that temporal and spatial conditions must be fulfilled. If something is eternal—existing outside alteration—then it does not require time. But any particular, finite determination requires a sequence of steps, a mediation from thought to actuality. The longer the span between the beginning and end of this process, the stronger the power of thought to condition the appearance of the object.

Spatial conditions must also be elucidated—where, how, out of what material, with what structure, etc. These conditions apply to the formation of the object regardless of human thought.³

Spatial and Temporal Extension

Our observation of the macroscopic universe through telescopes illustrates these principles. The spatial extension involved in perceiving a distant star is not simply a matter of physical distance. Telescopes partially negate distance, allowing us to perceive objects millions of miles away. What matters is the apparent size (angular diameter) of the object, not the raw distance.

However, concerning temporal extension, any image of a distant object is never a real-time image. The object perceived does not share the same moment as the observer because light requires time to travel. Some astrophysicists note that many distant stars or galaxies may have already passed their lifespan and no longer exist in their present state, yet their light continues traveling toward us.⁴

Thus, for the observer, an object that no longer exists as a particle-state still exists as a wave-function state extended in spacetime.

Spatial Temporal Extension of Future Past

The future is the wave-like extension of potential; the past is the contraction into particle-like actuality.⁵ As light enters the observer—as a wavelength—it is perceived by the mind as a particle, but it emerges again as a wavelength. In other words, as light enters the mind, it is contracted into a discrete particle-state, yet as it leaves the mind, it expands again into a wave-state.⁶

This outward expansion is an abstraction, because the activity occurring within the mind happens at a rate of discrete quanta appearing and disappearing so quickly that it cannot be determinably measured. This rapid alternation constitutes the particle-state of consciousness: within the mind, light becomes a particle, a compact sphere of experience.

Outwardly, this sphere expresses itself as a set of externally related objects; inwardly, it is disclosed as a single act of conception that apprehends the event in real time.⁷

Light enters the mind as past, because the light-wave carries information from an earlier moment. It leaves the mind as future, because the cognitive act restructures the incoming wave-form into a new outgoing wave-form—an intention, a projection, or a possibility.⁸

The intermediary state—what we ordinarily call the “particle-state of light in the mind”—is the transformation of one wave-function into another. Light enters in one form and exits in another. This transformation is the mind’s synthesis: a contraction of the wave into a particle (perception) and a re-expansion of the particle into a wave (meaning, inference, anticipation).⁹

Footnotes

5. This parallels the wave–particle duality interpreted through temporal ontology: waves correspond to distributed potentials (future), particles to localized actualities (past).
6. This reflects the perceptual collapse of the wave-function into a determinate state, akin to the role of measurement in quantum mechanics.
7. Consistent with phenomenological accounts of perception (Husserl) and process philosophy (Whitehead): the many external relations become one internal act.
8. Cognitive science often describes perception as backward-looking (receiving past signals), whereas intentionality is forward-looking (projecting into the future).
9. Philosophically, this resembles the Kantian synthesis of intuition and concept, and physically it mirrors the quantum transformation of states (input wave → collapsed particle → output wave).

Light, Heat, and Particle Wave Transformation in Organic Organisms

We observe the same phenomenon of wave-to-particle and particle-to-wave transformation occurring in all natural processes, including in organic organisms. Consider sunlight entering an animal. The sunlight arrives in the form of electromagnetic waves, carrying energy across space. Upon interacting with the organism, this energy is absorbed, producing discrete, localized effects: the sensation or manifestation of heat in tissues, the triggering of chemical reactions, or metabolic activity.⁵

At this moment, the wave-like energy of sunlight is contracted into a particle-like state within the organism. This particle-like state is analogous to the discrete quanta of perception in the mind: the continuous wave becomes specific, localized, and determinate in its effect. For example, the skin may feel warmth, a molecule may be energized, or a nerve may fire—all events are particle-like manifestations of the previously distributed wave.⁶

However, the process does not stop here. Energy does not remain confined; it is eventually re-emitted or radiated outward from the organism. The animal’s body radiates heat back into the environment, releasing it in a wave-like form. The particle-like internalization has now transformed again into a wave-like extension of energy in space. The organism, in this sense, mediates between the incoming potential (sunlight waves) and outgoing potential (radiated heat waves), with the particle-like internalization being the transient, determinate state.⁷

Thus, the animal functions as a converter of waves into particles and back into waves. The incoming energy represents a future potential; its absorption and internalization constitute a localized past event; its outward radiation represents a re-expansion into the wave-like future. This cyclical interplay of contraction and expansion illustrates a universal pattern of wave–particle duality, observable in both physical and biological systems.⁸

Footnotes

5. Sunlight as an electromagnetic wave carries energy that interacts with matter according to Maxwell’s equations and quantum electrodynamics.
6. The contraction into a particle-like state mirrors the quantum measurement problem: energy is localized and manifested discretely, similar to quanta collapse.
7. The re-emission as wave-like energy can be understood through thermodynamics and blackbody radiation, where absorbed energy is later radiated as infrared waves.
8. This principle generalizes the wave–particle duality beyond photons to energy flows in organic systems, aligning with Whitehead’s process philosophy: events are actualized potentialities.

Hegel on Ratio and Determinacy

Hegel describes quantum (amount) as self-external: it is external to itself yet maintains itself through this very externality. This unity of self-relation and externality forms its quality. Thus quantum is both an immediate magnitude and a mediating relation between magnitudes—a ratio.⁶

“In its determinacy of being on its own account, quantum is external to itself. This self-externality constitutes its quality… Posited upon itself in this way, quantum is quantitative relation or ratio….”⁷

In Hegel’s account, quantitative infinite progression (e.g., endlessly adding numbers) ultimately returns to itself as ratio: the relation of number to number. The ratio 2:4 has significance not in the numbers themselves but in the exponent or internal relation (in this case, 1:2). The ratio remains the same even when the terms change (3:6, 10:20), because what matters is the internal determinacy.

From this principle, the indeterminacy of vibrations can resolve into a particular definite form: determining any location on an indeterminate spectrum produces a specific state. This parallels how quantum vibrations may condense into particle states.⁸

Oscillation, String Theory, and Inflation

The universe oscillates in this manner from the inside out to derive concentrations of matter. This is why string theory is used to approach quantum gravity: infinitesimal strings oscillate, and their modes of vibration generate particle properties.

In cosmology, the universe expands from a small dense state outward, and after cooling, energy condenses into matter. However, matter is not uniformly distributed; instead, clusters and structures appear. The traditional explanation is that higher concentrations of mass produce stronger curvature in spacetime. But string theory suggests that properties implicit within spacetime itself also contribute to matter condensation, because matter emerges from spacetime’s fundamental structure.

Physicists often say spacetime and gravity create the universe’s structure, but this does not explain the origin of the particularity of forms—not only why matter clusters, but why it clusters in these specific ratios. Gravity is viewed as a general law, yet its own nature as a self-evident principle of being is left unexplained.⁹

Doppler Effect and Observer Related Reality

The Doppler effect is the change in wave frequency perceived by an observer moving relative to a wave source.¹⁰ The frequency is determined by the relation between observer and source. As the observer moves toward the source, the pitch increases; moving away decreases it. The effect applies to all waves, including light.

Edwin Hubble used the Doppler shift to discover that the universe is expanding. Distant galaxies exhibit redshift, meaning their light is shifted to lower frequencies. Traditionally, this is interpreted as galaxies moving away in space.

However, the deeper implication is that distance is tied to time: the farther away the galaxy appears, the older the light. Thus, distant galaxies are not farther in space but farther in time relative to the observer.¹¹ Their apparent dimming is tied to the rate of their temporal decay relative to the observer’s present.

If time determines space (as relativity implies), then the present observer governs the lifespan of phenomena as they appear.

The Observer and the Singularity

The observer is not merely a finite point but participates in the cosmological singularity, the absolute present containing all mass–energy in potential form. This singularity is not located in a particular region of space; rather, its “position” is determined by its moment in time—the present.¹²

The universe fills itself from the outside inward. The earliest ideas—those farthest from the observer—form the past. The center is the present moment, the point of self-consciousness. Expansion is not away from the observer but into the observer. Consciousness is the center.

This aligns with the cosmological principle understood metaphysically: the center is wherever the observer is, because the present moment of consciousness is the center of appearance. The question of how a black hole, which seems like “nothing,” aligns with consciousness as the center is resolved by noting that the center is the potential of consciousness—the present idea.

The present idea constitutes the centre of the universe.

Footnotes

1. Corresponds to Peirce’s pragmatic maxim: meaning is found in practical effects and temporal consequences.
2. This illustrates the difference between mental immediacy and physical mediation.
3. Aristotelian hylomorphism: form (idea) must actualize through matter (substrate).
4. Standard cosmological light-travel-time effect; deep-time delay in electromagnetic propagation.
5. Relationship between wave (future) and particle (past) parallels Wheeler’s delayed-choice principle.
6. Hegel, Science of Logic, Doctrine of Being, “Quantum.”
7. Citation paraphrased from Hegel’s Science of Logic, Miller translation.
8. Echoes the quantization of normal modes in string theory and the collapse from uncertainty to definite state.
9. Reflects metaphysical critiques of GR’s interpretive neutrality about “what gravity is.”
10. Standard physics of Doppler effect; applicable to sound, light, and all propagating waves.
11. Cosmological redshift as temporal distance; alternative framing emphasizing relativity’s coupling of space and time.
12. Philosophically consistent with Wheeler–DeWitt timelessness and cosmological observer-centric models.

last updated.12.13.2025