Quantum eraser
dreams
Section 33 (last updated 2.1.2021)
The hypothesis of the so called “quantum eraser” experiment is a slight developed way of operating the famous “double slit experiment”. The quantum eraser aims to demonstrate whether events in time can be adjusted or determined after they have occurred? This challenges the linearity of time and brings into light another function of the observer which has deeper implications than the fact that the observer in some way affects and therefore determines the phenomenon. To say that the observer affects the phenomenon is incomplete because we still have to explain how the observer effects the phenomenon. The quantum eraser shows in what way the observer determines the phenomenon as a duration in time.
The perplexity of the double split experiment is asked by the following question inferred from the experiment; how can the firing of electrons, which are assumed to be tiny bits of matter, through a controlled space like a slit, produce patterns like waves? How can pieces of matter create an interference pattern like a wave. The logic of this seem to contradict how physical objects naturally interact with each other. For example if you shoot a paint ball onto the wall, it makes a round splat similar to the shape of the original pallet, and this we see normal, but in the quantum state, an electron being a piece of matter like a paint ball would shoot out as a ball but when hits the wall makes a line, this would be very strange if it happened before our eyes. The reason why this happens scientists found is due to the influence of the observer on the phenomenon. It seems that the observer affects the phenomenon by playing an opposite role in the phenomenon.
The quantum eraser experiment proves the ontological notion that knowledge of an event which has not yet occurred in time, somehow already makes it occur during a previous moment in time, that has already passed the future moment of it not yet ready to come. If a future event is known prior to occurring, then the knowledge of it renders it a past moment. Knowledge in the framework of a phenomenon constitutes a past for an event even though it is not yet occurred for experience. Hypothesis works in this way, a process is predicated to bear a result, and then the process is carried out to see whether the result follows through or not. the event to have already occurred in the past and the past to be recognized in the future.
The knowledge of something alone makes the event a past moment even though it has not yet occurred because mind is also a substance operating in time. The quantum eraser experiment shows that when you determine an event too particularly by concentrating on it extensively independently from its environment, not merely in terms of visual focus, but conceiving all aspects of its magnitude , the particular object under focus becomes rather a blurred wavelength of an activity disclosing possible variation of that object forming a duration of its future timeframe. The object is a portal or a wormhole to the potential process it will undergo in the future, and this wavelength is built in quantum feature in the object. When you zoom too much into one thing, it opens up a view for a process of possible wave durations of events in time.
Inside a thing there is an “in-between” for the conception of other things.
Imagine a transparent object that you can see through and see the actions it will take, and see those play out as a duration spatially extended in time. (Find earth zooming in, the object is infinitesimally extended)
In between moments
Our ordinary measure of how a one moment changes into another is derived from a change in motion within a spatial extension. This means that if you change your position within a plain, move from point A to point B, then new events take place that are in position B that are not present in position A. For example, if you leave a subway station and enter a cafe, that are events happening in the cafe that were not happening during the subway ride. And so we go about our day based on this ordinary experience of how events change depending on change of location. However there is more of a subtle change in events that we are more unconscious of. For instance within the same present moment in time, how do events change? The answer based on elementary physics is that objects move around and about changing places, orientation and position and that is how events change. For example if I’m watching a car race down the road and all the sudden it makes a wrong turn, too late or a left turn on an upcoming side street, and it gets struck by another oncoming vehicle, the mere change of position of the car, with its certain speed, mass, density and the force of the impact with the other vehicle, all those conjunctions cause the events of a car accident.
We say based on the change in the objects position within the same space causes an interaction that would otherwise be called a collision. However in order for the observer to witness what has happened, I.e., a car collision, he needs to be aware of the variables involved, where he is in relation to them, to must have knowledge of the nature of the interaction, whether it is bad, good, so on and so forth. It is this invariable knowledgeable and awareness that the observer has in relation to the events that happen before him that we take to be an aspect that is a byproduct, a reaction or a result of the events taking place. However this assumption is not as grounded once examined because another observer, say a squirrel on top of a tree nearby the accident, has no idea that the event even took place because they are unaware and lack knowledge of the variables and the nature of their interaction, in other words, they almost are in different world.
Granted the squirrel may have heard some noise that took his attention for a brief moment, but as to what the event is, I.e., as a car accident, the squirrel simply lacks knowledge and awareness of that event altogether, as if it did not even exists, on the other hand, the nut that fell off from the tree is a very real event for the squirrel, but for the man watching the car collisions, he could not care less there are nuts falling off trees, whether they exists or not, does not matter to him, he has more important issue to attend to. The question becomes, if conscious awareness is an implicit and invariable aspect in the way an event is conceived, meaning in the way it happens and ends, then we have to ask whether events have a temporal order in time equivalent to the order in the way they are conceived by an observer.
A lack of conception
Take for example a lack of conception as compared to a conception.
Between every moment there is a lack of conception of a moment. Our ordinary awareness filters in this lack-of-conception too quickly with another moment to be noticed. The mind is therefore constantly perceiving different moments, and is unaware of the lack of conception of them, but we know the mind lacks significantly in conceiving every possible scenario in their environment. As we stated above, the man witnessing the car crash could care less about the nuts falling from the tree that the squirrel so cares about.
Event before it happens
Before an event happens we do not have knowledge of it, but once it happens, we know that it has passed and we now have knowledge of it as the past. It is at this point that a contradiction happens in thinking this way because it is assumed that once an event happens and is past it is no longer anything when taken as an isolated event that is not occurring at the present, but the present is a continuity and is always happening so that when an event happens at the past, the continuity of it has the present which makes it into a potential event in the future. an event becomes the past from a point in the present, that same past event is now a potential event in the future at a different point in the present . The question becomes how can a past event that has already occurred happen in the future time that it has not yet happened. The future is prior to the past at the time where the event has not yet happened, in other words even a past event at one point has a future. From the present a past event has already occurred and can never repeat again. But the present is always limited to a meditating point when the event is always happening and never happening again. At the present a past event can never happen again, but the present is always changing, so that when one point is the present at another point it is not the present, and it is at this point of not the present, a past event is a future one for the present. It is only from a point in the present that a past event never happens and a future event is not yet known.
Once a scene happens, the mind recollects it whether after or before the experience of it. We think that we can only remember something after experiencing it but memory generally is a data system, it stores information. When we define memory as something remembered from the past, but we have shown that an event is only past relative to a moment in the present, now every past is always related to a present, but that does not mean the past is relative to a specific moment in the present. In the latter case the contradiction is that the past being always invariably related to a present presupposes a present is alway a particular moment, but cannot assume that it is this specific moment. So how can a past be related to a particular moment in the present but it cannot be this particular moment of the present because the specific moment now is itself a recollection of some past, or the present is at some point a past, so that yesterday which was my present at that point, the day before that is the past to two presents, now this moment here, and yesterday as a present moment. If I thought of it today or yesterday, the event 3 days ago is equally the past for both days, now likewise, from an enduring substrate, all events are variations of an enduring substrate that partakes in differing conducts of behaviour. all present events are at least recollections of their particular environment or circumstances that a series of experiences will unfold. For example, an individual throughout their lifetime goes through childhood, adulthood and elderly each state are the same man is very different at each stage.
The transition from an object to processes is the main question of inquiry for the science of organicism, also known as “process philosophy”. Organicism questions the ontological presupposition of atomism that the smallest unit of matter takes on the form of an atom, which is a disclosed and localized space of an event, a happening, within which you can separate components into parts different from each other but only as components. For organicism even a system where a set of interlocking actions take form, is still too static of an abstraction. In time for example we associate a process having a beginning and end as a frame where a recognizable activity is carried through until an apparent change takes place into a different recognizable flow of an activity.
The indivisible feature of Time is the quality of being eternal because the atom presuppose that any part of it can be further divisible into an infinity of other recognizable moment, and these moments are discrete in having a beginning and end. The eraser experiment shows that photon particles when further magnified, or when you look through a single photon, it turns into a portal spectrum of other photons.
When the observer predicts a photon to exhibit a certain behaviour based on a natural physical interaction, the photon spontaneously changes the logic of what is assumed to be ordinary physical interaction and takes on an inverse determination and makes a new and unpredictable physical condition unknown to the observer.
(light from eyes moves the atom)
when you watch the photons, they behave in way opposite to what you intend them to do, as if they take on the capacity of opposite to your intention. The quality of the generative principle is novelty. Science is already acquainted with this type of physical interaction in the elementary forces of attraction and repulsion, action and reaction, cause and effect etc. except these opposite forces do not directly hint at the function of consciousness and it would be a stretch to say that one force is doing the opposite of the other based on a primordial conception of the other. But with the quantum experiments we now have direct knowledge that the phenomenon is actively reacting to the conscious efforts of the observers actions. As to whether this is a purely physical interaction between the photons from the eyes affecting the atoms, this mechanical process is still mediated by a conscious observer and what appears to be counter effects of their predications, call that whatever, it is still indivisible from the observer. Findings show that it does not matter whether the observation is done by a physicist or whether it be done by a detective device in collapsing a wave functions.
This fact does not bring into question the quality of consciousness having a self-conscious elements, moreover it does not suggest that consciousness is not really alive or is only a chemical or technical feature that does not belong fundamentally in nature but this fact only supports the idea of entanglement, the conception is not localized to the subjective composition of the object, but that the observer is always related no matter of the context, or that they share a more fundamental context in the abstract that preceded any circumstantial conditions we call an environment. The notion of the observer and environmental are entangled fundamentally beyond a particular environment they share is a perplexing discovery in the study of nature but it is a mere common fact about how the mind normally thinks. The mind does not need to be in direct contact or within a certain distance from the object in order to think about it, whereas perception for example needs to be at a certain distance from its object and with a certain degree of contact. Thought can think about any object independently of context. For example you can be thinking about some girl while at the doctors office, be concerned with work while on vacation etc. These we think are just ideas about real objects, as if the objects that are not here are real and the ideas in our head are illusions because they are based on things other than themselves. What is “real” in this sense depends on matter of definition because relations that we identify as real as the objects we think about, like the distance between the objects, their position, etc. when altered changes the object while the conception about it can remain the same.
For example, the distance from point to plain is the geometric concept that explains how thought conceives an object independently of context. If you move further away from a plain, more of the plain is conceived at a single point, or that the size of the plain becomes condensed into a single point. For example, plane traveling relays on this to travel across vast distances at shorter times, the plane goes high up vertically at a certain distance into the sky and it crosses a certain distance horizontally and than goes down. The equivalent distance up in the sky from Europe to North America is much shorter than the distance on the ground.
The non locality
but In other words a detective device and a physicist having the same result in collapsing a wave does not mean that both of their consciousness is the same in qualitative measure, but that where ever the intent may lie will still be translated in the effect it produces in the final effect of phenomenon that is the object of its conception.
Consciousness therefore is not a thing or an object and the quality of its conception can not be pinned as occupying a place because it does not matter from where it intended to do a certain thing but only that the intention has a certain character relating to an effect. For example in the court of law, intent alone or even lack of intent is punishable, in the former case whether you hire a hitman or go after the victim yourself has about the same consequences, in the latter case negligence is punishable as well. This means that in our social contract we operate on the idea that intent is not localized to a specific action but that actions always involve intent directly or indirectly. Intent determines actions it is not limited to.
and take on the opposite logical determination. This has a simple technical explanation if we understand the essence of light, light is fundamentally a reflective substance, that it multiplies or reproduces (Add here light as the principle of preproduction. When we examine light at its most fundamental level, what we see is really just its natural behaviour, that it discloses a quality identical with itself, for light is self-identical, and reflects the quality in an inverse manner and opposite to itself. This is why we have colours, they are just variety of reflection of the same energy, Black to white. When consciousness observers light at its fundamental level, it really begins to observer itself in a fundamental manner, consciousness always tricks itself, or challenges itself to be aware that it has deceived itself.
There is an unknown space, or an uncertainty principle between the generation of an atom and its conception, both of which are within the same unknown conception of distinguishing them as antithetical. The Copenhagen interpretation tells us that in the space constituting the uncertainty of a single photon, is the conception divided in time by a conception outside of it, where the there is no knowledge of the particles location or path, meaning that a particle in an indeterminate space is the function of a wave as a distribution of a possible properties. A determination happens when an observation, which is a direct knowledge of a thing, thinking it into possibility, forces the wavelength of possibility to pick a reality for which the conception of it happens to be in it.
Coherence
The conception is always an invariable quality of a possible wavelengths because it exhibits the wave of forms into peaks and valleys which stays consistently going forward in the meditation of the one from the other.
No matter of the form of the wave, it always stays consistent as it goes along a line. When you zoom into a photon it becomes a wormhole of possibility of other photons.
Each photon is the wavelength of other photons.
This phenomenon in the world where the many are implicit in the one making up the many is a common theme in the universe. For example each fibre making up a rope has the same general pattern of smaller fibres.
The understanding makes the common occurrence of displacing ontological principles in the logical order resulting in a negative contradiction. For example we can only arrive at an infinity through finites by assuming that finites can be infinitely arrived at, that is, there are always more finites beyond a set of finites. But this conclusion although true can only be assumed as true because whenever a set of objects is conceived no matter how many, the limit of those is that they are finite. On the other side, how do we arrive at a finite through an infinity? The answer cannot be the same as having an indefinite number of finite objects because the presupposition is that there is always more, i.e, an infinity. The answer is that an infinity arrives at a finite by being itself a finite. The sun is infinite energy, until it runs out, just because there is a given time duration in which something can be infinite, it does not mean that having a limited moment negates that disclosed in that is an infinity. It is important to explain how an infinity constitutes a moment in time, or rather a duration in time and therefore a spatial one. The sun for example given its length in time has infinite potential in the use of its energy, also this infinite energy of the sun is a concentrate of energy at a finite point in space, but at that point it is infinitesimal, the sun has an infinitesimal microscopic gradient of photons.
(Add the function of black hole disperses the object into its possible actions with each action now being a different object)
When you blur an object it becomes a wave spectrum. Every object is part of a process, but this claim has a whole new fundamental meaning in quantum mechanics. That during a fundamental process the object is not necessarily picked out as a definite kind of thing holding its own ground, but is merely a detail in a scene of possibilities for a conception.
Delayed choice
The wave is inherent in the particle
Mind organ of internal relations
For example most of our organs are internal and produce internal operations that only after altering the dimension of the spatial extension from the observer to the phenomenon, then the internal operations of the organs which are only theoretical process once to our abstract thinking of things, now becomes concerted for the sensation of perception that shows a more minute state of external operations acting under a common aim. What the organs do behind their static physical structure, is to filter and select the variabilities of the environment into a certain passage of nature, the organs are a sorting mechanism.
The link between internal and external relations is one that is implicit in both, and is their form of subsistence is the conception into being that has been already determined by mind at a different moment of time from when it was observed. The feeling of deja vu, which is such a bad term but the only way we can have a common understanding of the way our minds determine the phenomenon in reality where a past event that already occurred is preexisting. Peirce presents a proper understanding to the way mind determines matter into being outlined in his “law of mind”. The mind operates under a law which puts forth a hypothesis that becomes its presuppositions for every next steps it takes from now on. In order for matter to continue since we know that all matter is corruptible, we know that it subsists by being maintained.
The way mind continues into being is almost like an economy of ordering a primarily indeterminate activity, an uncertaint state of events that are muddled into each other forming the basis concreteness of matter as a substrate that has its first quality of not a clear and distinct thing, is still at least there and exists. . So mind imagines a set of life events, and those become the events for experience. This is not imagination by our basic understanding of it, but is the image the mind imposes on a set of purely abstract relations that take on the physical forms. For example motion is a distinction in meditation between two indifferently distinct variables, for example when ever any object moves it leaves behind its location and acquires a new one, the leaving behind a position and acquiring a new one is the act of motion, and not merely that a single object is covering space . The question becomes what is the part of the variable that makes it capable of being distinguished as the principle of light in nature which is invariably also energy, heat, and electricity.
Electromagnetism deals with the way motion maintains a source of identity in its forms of differentiation, as light for example because light has always a connectivity with itself that forms a wave spectrum, but it also has the elasticity of electricity, which defines the electron as the ability of its material to resume a normal shape, or pattern, after being stretched or compressed, or changed in some formal manner. What is being manipulated in this manner are light particles known as photons which we only know the form but never capture the content because their content is just pure firms, we assume that they all share the same content, which because is not conceived directly, must mean that the content is any arbitrary object we can abstract. But light as studied by thermodynamics exhibits the first order of light into colour and density of that colour into weight and solidity. Light is for one thing colour and functions as differences of weight and density compacts. When two atoms collide this is the first instant of physical contact because there is an energy change.
Strings therefore examines the warp and woof, the elasticity of the substrates that warps a conceivable image for itself, and operates in that object the determinations for change. If we examine an anthill we realize that it is localized not specific to a certain landscapes, meaning it can appear anywhere, on grass, on concrete etc., and unlike other insects, there is no specific environment which is required to nourish its operations. Nature is therefore a set of determinations claiming to fundamental relations which are abstracted into mathematics. Ants come out one by one out of the anthill, and enter into the anthill one by one, and they do this process simultaneously as one components going in and the other instantaneously goes out. This is a principle of a fundamental geometric model of reality, which defines the kind of operations prevalent even among the greatest masses in the universe. Ants geometric relations operates under the logical claim that if each particular takes its turn in time to do one function at a time, then the culmination of these actions made by each will create a simultaneous order that is the expression of each individual distinguishing itself from the other.
Mind Indirectly foresees
The mind during sleep can only indirectly foresee what the mind in waking life directly perceives. It is easy to confuse what the mind sees in dreams as what will happen at some moment in real walking life. However there are many instances where you dream of something but that event in the dream never happens in real waking life. however that does not mean the dream is not real, because it could be what the mind had experienced internally about what is externally happening. For example I could have foreseen in a dream what I thought about at one moment in waking life, but we can confuse that as a foresight of what externally happened. But because the mind at waking life is perceiving what is happening externally in front of it, then a dream can rightly capture a thought that conforms with the outside event, since the thought is about the object after all.
Observe-phenomena philosophy
The effect of the observer on the phenomenon observed in quantum mechanics hints at what is described as “rational” basis of the universe, which also means substance because something rational is cause or explanation of something. . Aristotle says;
“Irrational potencies are singles, rational potencies are two-fold”
Rational and irrational potencies are simultaneous because they are a thing itself considered as other.
A rational formula is defined by its function of being capable in producing opposite effects while non-rational power produces only one effect. Science is a rational formula because it explains a thing and it’s privation, only not in the same way. For example, In geometry, one thing is or is not the power of another by virtue of the present or absence of some relation between them.
The energy of potentiality is called potency which is a capability, or the capacity to do some thing. Aristotle used this to show that the relation is prior to its parts and how that is the positive principle is prior to the negation, there must be something which is negated. The positive principle of science is based on the relation that the power of denial or removal of a thing exhibits its contrary. (Ch.86 01:51)
This is logically true because there is no such thing as lack of action since that itself is an act, for example in ethics a fundamental way of conduct is to refrain from acting as explained by the virtue of temperance. Lack of action is therefore the mechanism of alternative action, or contrary action. Aristotle always places the ethical principle as fundamentally indispensable from the intellectual and aesthetical. As Hegel says “Education is the art of making man ethical”. The tripartite union of love, truth and beauty are foundational forms of time because each encapture a particular period of time to constitutes the sequence involved in making an activity a duration. The ethical principle is the logical constituent of the future moment in time because it bears the possibility or potency of action. In order to act you need the possibility to be capable of acting, and to have already acted in the past presupposes the action already made in the future supposing the present capacity to act.
The intellectual principle logically defines the past because every form of learning is the recollection of historical accounts in the most generalist sense. Even the most objective truths of science elucidate factors that form the early universe or if they are eternal still constitute the past of the moment they are elicited from. Scientific objects like atoms and galaxies constitutes the earliest moments of time while the more abstract factors like number or notion are eternal in time. The asethical principle forms the present moment because any action being done bears a form that represents its nature. Beauty is the conception or the experience of a necessary action being made.
Primary potency is the originative source of a thing in another thing or the thing itself qua the other. One kind is power of being acted on, being changed passively by the other thing or by itself through the other thing, or the other kind, privation means 1) something not having a quality or two something that can have it but does not have it, when it might have it but not completely or when it does not have it at all.
“He who does a thing well must do it, but he who does it merely, does not need to do it well” doing it well is predicate of doing it at all, it is only when doing it the possibility of not doing well comes in.
(Find source) Something is mythical when there is an actual curiosity about something that is not observed or known yet. Pandas years ago were known as a mythical creature because it was known that a vegetarian bear existed in the forest but was never seen. Once pandas were discovered now we have a population of them. There is this rain deer that is mention in native cultures that possess such strong sense that it can know a man is approaching it at a distance where it would be impossible for the man to have even the possibility of coming close to it. This makes the rain deer never perceived. The distance where the deer is unperceivable from the view of people makes it not exist in the same reality.
“The true shape of truth is conceptual and notional” (phenom of spirit ch.51 2:50)
“The true absolute must not merely be thought of as a substance, I.e, something immediately there whether this be a knower or something known. It must be thought of as a subject.” Being a subject is the activity of substance because a substance is Hegel calls it the “undifferentiated universality”, but the subject is the aspect of substance that recognizes the undifferentiated part of itself and therefore stands different from that. (Fix quote) “True substance is a being who is truly a subject, I.e, which only is itself insofar as it alienates itself from itself and is then above to posit in and through what is this alien. It cannot exist as a simple positive point but only as a set departing self returning movement, which then negates itself in different external otherness and then reassert itself as the negation of all such otherness” (phenom of sprit ch.51.18)
This element of consciousness constitutes the element of spontaneity and surprise for the process of being because it has to rediscover itself to prove to itself that it is itself. And therefore in this process
Psychedelics
The mechanics of nature appears evidently clear to the natural functioning of the sense faculties, but say for instance when the mind is altered by psychedelics and receives more reality from nature than it is accustomed to, then the distinction between nature and the reality beyond becomes more evident and the connection between reality and mind becomes stronger, which makes the reader wonder whether nature is a subset from the interaction between mind and reality.
“For example, if we could imagine some lowly type of organic being thinking and aware of our thoughts, it would wonder at the abstract subtleties in which we indulge as we think of stones and bricks and drops of water and plants. It only knows of vague undifferentiated feelings in nature. It would consider us as given over to the play of excessively abstract intellects. But then if it could think, it would anticipate; and if it anticipated, it would soon perceive for itself.” (objects 163)
Life live present
Intelligence is commonly equated with problem solving. Contemporary psychologist address the nature of problems as an involuntarily situation brought upon the observer and one which the observer must deal with . This relates to a common error plaguing modern logic, the subject and object are held to be antagonist to each other such that the observer is said to find themselves in circumstances they have no initial part in and that the subject is a victim to their situation. In the ancient and monotheistic realms, the body was the problematic object for the subject of the soul. In modern times the body is less burden to the soul because physical conditions are healthier and more comfortable, yet the problem of existentialism persists. Pro-blems are however the positive communicative aspect of in-telli-gence because they are not the involuntary circumstances an observer finds themselves which they must come out of or change, but rather can be seen as a “task” something that is identical with the situation of the subject. A task defining a problem is a piece of work to be undertaken and therefore is a voluntary determination and not circumstances unaligned with the will of the observer.
A problem
A problem is defined by what Hegel calls a “contradiction”. The duality between the observer and phenomenon is a unique development in the universe and this difference is introduced by the element of “death” in the world. Life taken more generally beyond its application to biological living forms has its active form of ‘being alive’ or a-live, all terms predicate by “live”, simply means something happening in real time, during the present, for example, a live show. A live event is the state of a living organism because the quality of a life form is to conceive an event during the present. There is no present outside a particular perspective. The present is only part of a living conception. To be a-live is to be in the present, something happening in alignment with its conception. But outside the observer, the present is merely a potential event, from an uncertainty principle, the present is potentially past or future. Even if we call that potential of past and future the present, it must belong to an observer determining it, to be present is to be there, but what if your not there? There is no present. The present is a factor of real time, like a live event. But real time is a linear aspect of time. Time as an uncertainty of events has no present but only potential moments. This idea may perhaps be applied to the spatial extension of objects. When a set of objects is conceived by an observer, object appear to form the same continuity, like the relation of all the rocks form the ground. However from an uncertainty position wherein a set of object do not occupy a continuity, there is no reason why each individual object is discrete from other objects, that objects are discrete in themselves, so far they belong discrete in their own conception and not part of something else’s conception, each object is floating in its own conception
Death is not generally applicable to all states of being in the universe. There are eternal and incorruptible substances like time and space, but time and space are principles indistinguishable from an observer which is subject to change which death is a factor.
This is the state of pure potentiality where the present is a potentially past or future moment. It is only from the point of a particular organism conceiving a live event, there is conception of a present.
Historically the notion of death, or the general idea that matter is corruptible, brings into question whether there is a mind more fundamental than body, which is different then to say mind exists without body. The idea that mind or reason is more primary than body legitimately question the diverse different kinds of matter. Objects are not limited to what we conceive as dense, impenetrable things with weight and mass but these quantitative measures strictly depends on size, distance, speed, etc. All of which are physical not in the measure of being felt, for example someone flying within a jet experience speed differently than someone in the ground watching that jet fly by. Size, speed, and distance for example cannot be directly felt like lifting an object with certain weight yet they govern the density and mass of an object.
The sensibly untangle quantitative measures of objects are therefore themselves the reference frame of the conception disclosing them. The frame of reference an observer uses to perceive the object is not altogether distinct from the form of the object itself within that reference frame, only that the reference frame is a conjunction of a relation of objects. (Add to states of matter, some states of matter are penetrable by other state, like gas for example is penetrable by solid, I can walk through gas but not the wall, however at a certain size, if I would be reduced to the size smaller than the molecules forming the wall, there would be enough space between them for something at that size to penetrate through.
The proposition of quantum mechanics that the observer changes the phenomenon means that the conception reveals aspects within an event not previously known. To determine a phenomenon in quantum mechanics is to conceive new dimensions within it.
Mind efficient principle
Mind is the subject matter of pragmatism because it is the most efficient principle in nature and we especially see this in its evolutionary functioning exhibited by the brain organ. Mind is the most efficient principle because it does not start at the beginning but makes the end as the starting point and advances to the beginning as one of its premises. The beginning is the first axiom in the proof of the result. If the beginning is an absolute point for mind, then it is assumed that something is not known by mind, the conclusion, but by definition the first aspect of mind is that it knows. The end is the beginning point for mind because that constitutes the extent of its knowing. Mind begins at the extent of its capacity and works backwards from that towards the point furthest away from it. The extent constitutes a valid end because that is a limit
The past- After it has happened (quantum eraser problem)
Before a present event happens we do not know why it happens in the sense that we lack knowledge of it even existing at all, but after the event has passed we know it is the past and now we have certain knowledge of it. We can only infer an event is past after it has happened, and it is in this interesting dynamic, the “after” it has happened, only once an event has passed it can be a possible event in the future, otherwise being a future event alone has no basis for happening. This phenomenon relates to the fact that you can know something but not able to explain it. Science requires that knowing is identical with demonstration, to know something is to explain it.
Everything is already determined from the past, this means that in the past the observer has already determined the situations they will find themselves in the future, but the contradiction arises that it is in this duration of going through the experience that a future is determined. On the one hand in the past the future is determined but it is only during the going through the event that the past happens. Somehow it is compatible
We go through an event, and then say it is past but once it is past, it is at that moment that can be the future because it is not happening at the present and is therefore a potential moment.
( dejavu)
Event has already happened- Dejavu- event before it happens
From the present moment how is it possible to conceive an event prior to it already happening? The reality of a potential event actually happening is not limited to it happening at the present moment. The present moment only confirms that a potential event happens but an event is a real happening so far it is already a potential. (So we have for example in dreams the phenomena of déjà vu, where an event is roughly conceived prior to it happening at the present, and then after an indeterminate finite amount of time actually happens during the present moment. The potentiality of an event happening into a present moment can not be understood independently from the physical conditions that suscitates the continuity of present moment into a potential one.
Potential events form the physical conditions and the environment for a present moment to be a real instance. In fact what we mean by the present as the only real moment is derived from a limited capacity to disclose the whole minute details forming the entire environment where a present moment resides. The present moment is reducible to only conceivable slab of nature, an aspect that paves the avenue for time to move onwards. The present moment is always the limit to the kind of arrangement a set of relation can configure to form the conditions for a set of events. The unity between potential events and a real present instance is a result from a preconceived complex geometric form and the infinite possibilities of its rearrangement. In other words a potential event exists in the possibility of a complex systems ability to rearrange itself.
The present moment consciousness finds itself in, already presupposes a certain kind of symmetrical structure, or likewise the lack of structure in the ultimate position of nothing. From the point of view of the present, the real occurrence of a potential event is found in the possibility of rearranging the set of relations forming the structure of the environment harbouring the present, the environment is the space to the time, the present. For example if my present moment is sitting at home watching television, my potential moment is to be at a coffee shop, for that moment to be real, the physical arrangement of my environment has to be changed, I have to get up, leave my house, walk down the street, catch the bus, and arrive at the coffee shop. These changes constitutes a structural change in my environment such that the once potential event of being at a coffee shop is met with a certain degree of change in the arrangement of the relation forming the environment making it the real situation of the present..
The reality for potential events to be the present moment is subsumed in the very potential arrangement of the physical conditions of the event. The model of the electron shows the structure of how a present moment, which physically holds the possible arrangement that meets the depends for any potential event to occur, and how the potentiality of particular events demands for the present moment a change for their actualization.
The present moment is where a single event is real which is identical with its physical conditions whether that be a man dog or a tree. That forms the centre point which is being orbited by the sum set of all possible events. The rearrangement depends on the relation the single present moment changes into.
It is very counter intuitive to talk about moment of time as if they are objects of space, but it is precisely this characterization which determines the corruptibility of an object. It is a common demeanour to say that time determines how long a material object maintains composition, I.e, the lifespan of an object. In this way the object is assumed to be what subsists against the time that leads to its degeneration. But it is less so common to express that the coming into being of the physical composition, or the becoming of the form, is also determined by the activity involved in the duration of time. For example the body of a man is determined by his age, the physicality of a baby drastically differs from a man in his thirties. A flash of light has the physical composition that last for a few seconds, a mayfly last only 24 hours. The lifespan of a substance on some level determines the form of its physical composition because the duration depends on the nature of the activity.
“Also location in the timeless space of some time-system is a relation derivative from location in instantaneous spaces of the same time-system.” (Particle event, discrete spherical forms)
Dreams
#67- (April.30.2015) What are dreams and what do they indicate? The unconsciouses formulation of reality is indicated in dreams. Such unconscious formulations turn out to be rationally structured when psychoanalyzed. The unconsciouses understanding of reality is derived from the Id. Now the latter is the unconsciouses aspect of the mind. This unconsciouses aspect is actually the immediate nature of the human being. This human nature is also not human. What is human nature that is human is the ego. The latter in the general sense is the consciouses understanding of reality. Which is actually the ascertainment of truth in the implicate sense. The unconsciouses indicates the ascertainment of truth in its explicit sense. This contradiction exists initially in each other before it exists between each other. Consciousness contradicts itself and unconsciouses contradicts it self. Together they resolve each other.
How is this contradiction not an aspect of the relation but rather the aspect of dualism? First. The unconsciouses mind indicates our immediate nature, that is, the natural world consisting the human being. The psychoanalysis of the unconsciouses indicates that the contradiction, that is the struggle, the human being possess in relation with nature. How the human being relates to the nature that sustains its being, yet results in its non-being, is the contradiction underpinning the unconsciouses. The human being emancipated its immediate nature, in that it is no longer only determined by the laws of nature, that is, the laws of evolution. The human being does not seek reproduction, survivor, etc.. as the primary function. This emancipation of this immediate nature comes in the form of suppression: that this immediate nature becomes implicit as the unconsciouses aspect of the mind. While such an immediate nature becomes implicit, it’s sublation becomes explicit. The latter is the higher nature of consciousness, which is truly the explicit nature that determines the implicit. Consciousness makes explicit what is implicit, and thus is implicit in its explicit nature.
The way the human being relates with nature is the rigidity of reality. In the process of evolution, the homosapian is the stage in the human being where this explicit contradiction between the species and nature become an implicit contradiction. The rigidity in how the species relate with nature becomes a contradiction between the unconsciouses and the consciouses mind manifesting each particular entity constituting the species as a universal. The struggle between the human being and nature is emancipated in sublation as the contradiction between the consciouses and the unconsciouses.
With this contradiction, the human being develops universality in individuality. This contradiction in the psyche indicates a higher nature associated as human nature. Human nature is then not only the immediate nature, but rather the sublation of such immediate nature. The latter comes in form of consciousness, but consciousness itself is only rational in relation to the unconsciouses. The consciousness of the unconsciouses is developmental towards human nature as rational. How? There seems to be always a paradox between our unconsciouses mind of immediate nature and the consciouses mind of the rational nature. This poises a contradiction that is the human being. In the psyche that is immediate nature contradicts the rational, e,g. Sexual instinct contradict love, sociality contradicts individuality etc.
In the explicit nature of the human being, such paradoxes seem to produce a negative dialectic. However, this is why consciousness is the implicit nature of the unconsciouses, while the unconsciouses is the explicit nature of the consciouses. This tension however is no negative dialectic. In fact it is a positive dialectic. The explicate contradiction with external nature becomes internalized as the implicit process in the human nature. The natural world is internalized in the psyche. The next stage in the emancipation of nature occurs in the mind, for outside the mind. I.e, quantum operates the same way as the mind, but for the laws of nature.
Dreams is reality in the unconsciouses. There also exists non-reality in the consciousness. The latter is identified as illusion…
Freud fails to see the unconsciouses as being a developmental process. He took this immediate nature to be that true nature…
Explain how rational instincts, and habitués is this positive dialectic. How sex is resolved as love, but still remain as it is. Look at Teds work on how to make the instincts rational.
Art is objective because it develops the subject. An eye for beauty.
Dreams- future events (add to deja vu)
The organ of the mind, the brain, has evolved to be an analytical tool in relation to the environment, it examines the environment for food source, dangers, mates prospects etc. These analytical functions are mostly predominant among the class of all Mammalia. Sleep is particularly interesting when it relates to the particular function of the mind as an analytical tool because what happens during sleep is negation of the environment, goes dark so that the perceptual faculties reduces in operation and the mind at this point either stops being analytical tool or turns its analytical capacities away from the environment and onto something else. During nighttime the mind does not ceases to be analytical but stops being analytical towards the environment. The mind continues to be analytical by turning its attention away from the environment and onto itself, during sleep the mind becomes self-analytical.
The hypothesize is that during sleep rather than awake the development of self awareness found in human beings began . Human being no longer only become analytical in relation to the environment such that they become fully consumed by their necessity for living, but rather they began to be analytical towards how they feel about their mind analyzing the environment. Self-reflection, thinking about their thinking about the environment. Or rather reflecting on dreams relationship to events during waking life. When the mind picks out a potential mate, whereas most animals simply pursue that mate, humans reflect on their own mind reflecting on that potential mate. This capacity did not develop mainly from waking life but rather during sleep. (Add here REM sleep, the eyes turn up onto the nerves connected to the prefrontal cortex that deals with abstract thinking and analyzes the events of the mind, and the images are what we have as dreams)
When the mind analyzes itself during sleep, it is not simply coming in terms with that fraud explained as manifestations of one’s deepest desires and anxieties, often relating to repressed childhood memories and obsession. Jung challenges fraud , Dream are not just wish fulfillment especially in the cases of reoccurring nightmares found in those with post-traumatic-stress-disorder, but rather Jung described dreams as message or revelations to the dreamer and argued that dreamers should pay attention. He came to believe that dreams present the dreamer with revelations that can uncover and help to resolve emotional or religious problems and fears.
We find both in Freud and Jung an indirect relation of the dream to a time period, whether during childhood in Freud sense or for Jung what he called “compensation”, reoccurring dreams for example show up repeatedly to demand attention, suggesting that the dreamer is neglecting an issue related to the dream.
The issue of time in dreams is difficult because the nature of time during sleep is not the same as during awake. Dreaming is the process of the mind recollecting future events calibrate the present towards the future using the past. During sleep there is not division of past present future as there is during waking life. Rather there is a simultaneity of all events. When the mind is analyzing dreams it is really analyzing events in different dimensions.
Complexity rolatum
The term “freedom” is loosely defined and does not have any specific meaning of its own, it is used as a general scope to encompass a set of ideas all discussing the more specific meaning characterizing action known as “determination” (add example of liberal freedom- doing whatever you want). With the concept of determination, the idea of freedom takes on the specific meaning of actualization.
The capacity of freedom is determination, the content of it. Freedom as not restrained assuming something acting independently of other things, however it does not explain how a thing can act as a thing, how it used something to act, we say the soul does not act independently of the body it acts in accordance with it
Unconscious and conscious time
Difference between unconscious and conscious, we determine events in the unconscious, and it happens at the conscious. After an event happens you know it has happened and it becomes the past, but before an event happens there is no way of knowing it can happen, unless the moment where the event did not happened has already happened before the event happens. This means that the present event where the future event did not happen, has already happened
In other words in the present moment there is no way of knowing a future event that did not happen, unless that future event somehow happened in a past moment, in other words, the past and future happen simultaneously in relation to the present, in the sense that, the past and future are not happening in the present, the past already happened and is therefore not present, and the future did not happen yet and is therefore not present. Past and future concur on the fact that they do not occupy the present. The idea where the past is before the present and the future is after, is only an abstraction;
For example, if I am looking out into the road, and all the sudden I witness a car crash, before the car crash there is no way of knowing it could of happened, but after the crash, there is now no way of imagining it not happening because it just did. From both these sides the opposite of what happened cannot be known. But what if the car crash has already happened before the moment I witnessed it happening?
What if the car crash happened before me knowing it happened, can the car crash happen before it happened at the present moment, where I could of not predicated it happened, and now after it happen cannot imagine it not happening as it surely just did? What if the car crash happened in a dream months ago, in what sense was it a mere happening in my mind if it did than actually happen months later; when it happened in my dream was it not real up until it actually happened, but after it happened, was it real all along but only after it’s happening I confirmed it’s reality? Before the crash happened at the present, it was not real when it happened in my dream, even though it is real in being a dream, but after it happened the dream
What is more real, car crash in my dream or at the present moment in front of me, because the dream happened before, does it mean it is more original having been confirmed by the reality, is not the dream more real having now been confirmed by the present?
and therefore could not imagine it happening. Or rather what if the car crash happens before me witnessing the car crash, which means the moment where I witnessed the car crash happened before the moment I did not witness the car crash and therefore could not have known of such an event to exist. If this reverse of events takes place at an inverse timeline, let’s say internally time is reverse in contrast to externally. Externally times goes one way, and internally times goes the opposite way, but in either case they meet at the middle, which is where time is not a duration in a certain direction but is a sequence of events recorded down onto an eternal plain, analogously like ascribed on a plain.
The event has already happened
At the unconscious level an event has already happened. So the event happening at the present for the conscious is a past event for the unconscious. This is why you can not know of an event before it happens, because from the present it might not have happened, but in the future it did happened. Consciously the event can only happen in the present, however unconsciously it happened in the past, and there may be unconscious memory of that, in most cases of post traumatic stress disorder, the processes of memory are unconscious, or unconsciously events happen in the future, as in the case with intuition, you have an unconscious intuition of something, like a “gut-feeling” that only later you come to realize has meaning.
This explains dejavu
The space is the hollow void taking on the form of the event, space takes the outline of the event and gives it dimension, to look through it into the entering of different possibilities of it.
Problems of dejavu- ‘the feeling of having been here before’
On some level we are at the present moment doing something at a particular place and all the sudden get the feeling that we have been here before and the present moment of being here feels like a memory from a previous experience that is only being remembered by being at the present moment. Critique of this can say, chances of being at the same place at different is high as there is only so many different places that a person can go to and most people develop habit of going to certain places. In this sense you have been at this place before and imagined doing something, and the next time you come across it again or see something that reminds you of it, you think of that previous time you thought of doing something in a later time. If I’m at a super market and see a snow hill and decide to climb to the top of it, and all the sudden I get this memory of having visioned exactly the moment I’m in now, this can be a product of the last time I was at this exact super market and I thought of climbing that snow hill that was there, and actually doing it this time triggered that last memory. So the idea of dejavu is simply a confirmation bias of past memories that are triggered by a present moment, and mistakenly taking that past memory as a vision of ‘having lived this moment before’. However this critique fails to explain a phenomena the term dejavu is suppose to hint at but fails because it is a naive word used to elucidate a fundamental notion that does not have a concept yet, which shows still the level of lack of understanding into the following of past and future in relation to the present. The idea that a mental recollection triggered at the moment is merely a past memory does not explain, if every recollection is a memory of a past experience, how about recollection of events that
A memory is always based on something witnessed in experiences, whether the individual came across at one point, been to, seen, overheard, unconsciously conceived etc. But how can you have recollection that has never been conceived or came across before in the past? We can say that the person is not unconscious of what they conceives yet nevertheless unconsciously conceived in the past event, but now in the present had a conscious memory of that unconscious experience, which is a fair assessment, however to have an unconscious recognition of something just reaffirms the concern, which is how to know if the individual came into contact at some point in the last time of what they recollect? Can you recollect of something never have been in contact with?
The idea of general graviton that everything has a gravitational effect on everything else, or rather a single object taken out from the relation of wholes affect the whole, means that the way space is warped around the form of the event determines the distance and therefore time something revolves around another. When we say it takes a certain amount of time to revolve around a planet means the space is equally proportional to the form of that planet m. The form of the object are all the possible events or reiterations taken on a limited and single moment as one of those possibilities at one time.
History conforms to the moment.
History conforms to a moment because a moment is more fundamental, in other words, more elementary. history is but a series of moments.
The idea that the gravitation of a single thing affects the whole has a deeper meaning when taken in conjunction with the idea that time is malleable, that is, time as not just going in one direction but is curved and determined into many different directions and ways each having their own time span and timeline. This idea means that when an individual dies, time does not continue after them like their children came after them and grand children in the same way they came after their ancestors. In order for a timeline to continue after a certain period it requires that there be another period relative to that continuity of time. For hitler to die and history continues after ww2 requires that there are people relative to that timeline which history continues through, which because there is always, there is a general time line in this sense. But if we can pick any point in this absolute timeline going “forward” per say, whatever happening at the general timeline must conform and be limited to the present point it is pointed in relation to, so that if we pick the time of Newton, there is no time where there is a computer in this timeline, the entire development of history culminates at that end and nothing after, until we do go after and see the further development of history. The point is that the entire history of time from the individual point of view, is entirely determined by the limitation of time to the present moment . The present, meaning being there, means the experience of time by being on a place in it. Being “somewhere” in time
We think that life continues after the individual and we assume that, and it is true, in the sense that other people will have further experiences in history that the individual did not reach to. But to the actual experience of the present is really all there is, meaning that when an individual dies, there is no limit to where a limitation can be imposed on absolute time, absolute time can be limited at any one of its points, from an absolute frame of time, to impose a limitation on time, you can go back or forward in time because everything has already happened, because you can pick anywhere to manifest on the timeline of absolute time, you can pick to be at the ancients time or the future time, as both times simultaneously exists absolutely. The problem with absolute time is that it only contend what has happened and what could happen, but it does not cover no happening, or nothing, which is the element that introduces uncertainty to time, that keeps it going.
For everything to happen, means it can never be enough as there is never enough of everything.
And when an individual spirit manifest at a particular time in history, the entire timeline of time conforms to that present, meaning if humans did it go to that moon during the time someone manifest, it really means that humans did not go to the moon, that event becomes absolutely not happened in the year 1897, and so if you manifest that year, the entire history of the world confirms to what is going on that year, perhaps some stars that become later on destroyed still exists that year, while in the year 2007, the same star comes to its end and dies. But in an absolute time frame both these events happen and not happen, in this sense that before 2007 the star was there after it was not there, we have this mediation by that year.
Motion of going forward in time
moment seems to always be apparent at the present, and we have a sense of going “forward” through time but there is no motion as in the case of going forward in space. The motion of time is the dynamical process of event change, or event transition, which defines motion more as a generation rather than a duration, motion is the coming in and out of being rather than maintaining a continuum in being against nothing. Time is the dimension of quality, this means that it is the realm where being exists, what type of being, where all type of potential being exists. Space is the opposite dimension where nothing exists, it is always the quality of self-externality, where ever there is a being, a something, there is a non-something equal to the space covered by the something. Space is the square root of time. This means if you have one cube full with mass, space is the corresponding cube inept of empty, or empty of mass. But this difference does not take space as of it is side by side the other, both cubes are not beside each other where one is full and the other empty, but one is in the place of the other as different from the other. Where space locks time compliments by filling in the void with an event. In this event presupposes a set of fixed relations where any one of them can be picked out as a distinct component, the relation itself is picked out as distinct.
The law of mind-
past idea future event- temporal and spatial extension of the abstract to the concrete.
what does it mean for an event to have already happened. How do we have knowledge of past event? Normally we assume that there is some kind of body that endures the experience by remaining the same after going through the duration of the changing event, and the event is passed when it is changed and becomes a memory. We relay on memory to confirm an event has happened and once it occurs there is a sense that the event was meant to happen because we cannot imagine it not occurring otherwise. But so far as the body was a part in the happening of the past event, its enduring out of the event once it changes to another event, the body does not belong in the past even once it has passed but only as an abstraction. (Jordan Peterson explains pragmatic function of memory is to inform us about things yet still to come)
There are a few difficulties in the temporal concretization of the law of mind, primarily the the mind is said by Pierce to always be in the future sets the idea in the future for the body is always in the past in relation to it, and the duration of the body catching up to the idea and actualizing the abstract by going through experience of it. The notion that an idea first occurs in the abstract than is carried out in the concrete experience is met with the following difficulties: the further away the abstract in time is away from the actualizing of it by the body the harder it is to understand the connection between the concrete and abstract, Pierce calls this the losing of efficacy, lost of strength of efficacy, but this loss of efficacy is not in the actual effect of the abstract on the concrete as they form the same continuity of reality because the former is the form for the latter, the reason for the activity, and the concrete is way which the abstract occurs; but the loss is rather in the understanding of the concept of efficacy how the connection between an idea far out in time long term idea, is harder to discern as causing the reason for the bodies activities, simply because there is greater time in between the occurrence of the abstract idea and when the body actually goes through with experiencing it. Inversely however the more events the body goes through towards reaching an idea it understood as having conceived, the more concrete the abstract idea is understood as being the cause for the bodies events. For example imagine having as a long term goal of being a lawyer, early on in the endeavours of law school you find hurdles that make the ultimate goal of being a lawyer hopeless but the longer the student persists the more they understand that every obstacle was precisely necessary for their current progression. In the former case For example, we do not think much when we think of something and than we immediately do it, like you envision your self needing to use the washroom and you find yourself a moment later actually in the washroom using it, the abstract idea of being in the washroom when immediately followed by the concrete occurrence of yourself in the washroom is taken as a logically self evident concourse of action. You think of something then you do it. On the other hand when you dream of some kind of event and than months later actually find your self in a Déjà vu actually experiencing it. Deja vu is a feeling of familiarity and déjà vécu (the feeling of having “already lived through” something) is a feeling of recollection. Modern neuroscience reject the explanation of déjà vu as “precognition” or “prophecy,” but rather explain it as an anomaly of memory, since despite the strong sense of recollection, the time, place, and practical context of the “previous” experience are uncertain or believed to be impossible. Stating that it is an anomaly of memory does not explain the phenomenon but only retains its aberration by locating it in the brain. The phenomena of precognition by displacing it in a location in the brain.
On the other hand the magnitude of spatial extension also constitutes a very interesting relation between the abstract and the concrete. Conceiving an event from a certain distance where no other senses but sight is involved whether exhibit the happenings in the event more abstract as thier is lack of personal feeling involved in it, analogous to watching a show on a computer screen appears more abstract as opposed to being involved in it. Watching soccer is very different experience than actually playing it.
The spatial approximation of the observation to the event determines a degree in more or less feeling of abstract. Ok Whereas being actively involved in the event feels much more concrete than merely witnessing it from a far. Watching a fight and being involved in one are very different experiences of abstract and concrete.
Because there is all time
But because there is all time, eternity, every possibility is present, both good and bad, then there is no distinction and an infinity is present. The problem with having an infinity is that there is no limit to the motion across all these possible events. Having no limit means there is no capacity to determine the motion of infinity, there is no qualitative system of choosing one event over the other as both are a simultaneity. The universe in order to remedy this problem draws a limit to infinity. The way it does so is by forming events that can occupy any reference frame and capture it into one reference frame where one event is experienced at a time. And the motion of this reference frame which is the form of the conception is the sense of moving “forward” across these events as they pass. The reason why this particularity if the conception developed as a remedy to infinity is so there can be a choice made between choosing good events over bad events, or a different outcome over another outcome in the possibility of all events. The particular conception can pick good events moreover bad ones or bad events moreover good ones, but at least there is the capacity to now experience a series of alike events rather than all events not alike.
There is reason for it to happen
The question becomes why some events and not other? A potential event happens over other potential events if there is reason for it to happen. If there is no reason for an event to happen it does not happen even if it is a potential. This is what it means for time to be rational, that is, ordered or temporal, which relates to “tempo” there is a rhythm in time, a pattern or a habit. Otherwise if there is no reason for an event to happen, and everything would just be happening at once, this is what we identify as random which is opposite to rational. An event happens when there is reason for it to happen, for example if your walking down the street an bypass another man, there is sometimes the thought of the potential event of bashing him on the head as hard as possible, but that thought quickly goes over and you just continue on your path and he continues on his. That potential event which came in the form of a fleeting thought did not occur because there was no reason for it to happen, so it does not, there is is however reason for walking peacefully by the man because the end purpose of that action is going home and having a nice shower and sleeping. If there was a reason to hit the man than that event would occur over just peacefully walk by him. This is what it means for something to be rational is for it to have a reason for its occurrence, that is, done for a purpose, it is the reason for something that makes it happen. Moreover the reason for something makes it rational is because it than belongs to an order, time as a tempo or a series of ordered events following each other. The next question is how does the observer determine a sequence of events, how did they choose that order from the chaos of all events happening at once? They did not choose per say but they are that order of time
The difficulty with proposing that something happens because there is reason for it to happen still brings the problem that there is an infinity of reasons why any single thing can happen. The reason why I chose to walk by the person rather than fight him involves an infinity of reasons like I would rather take a shower and sleep, it could be that fear stopped the attack against the man, but in some cases the rage is more important than these things and therefore it happens.
Ultimately in metaphysics the ancient idea that things are done for their own sake, and modern interpretations, that things are done for no reason at all, on first sight seems to go against the idea that there is reason for things to happen. If there is no reason why something should happen and therefore this is the reason why it happens, in order words, it is done for its own sake, means there is no compulsion for it to happen. The idea that there is reason supports this notion and defines it. If we mean by the claim there is no reason why something should happen, that there is no external necessity for something to be done, then it is a mistake to think that having a reason for something to happen means that it is forced. Having a reason for something to be done defines what it means to do something for its own sake.
-It does not need to unless it has reason to
why we use the term “reason” as the definition for something to be rational, explainable, because the reason why it happens is the same as the cause of it happening, these reasons explain why the thing is the way it is, reason means there is a necessity for the thing to be the way it is, and this is identical with what the thing is, it’s determinacy. why something heavy goes down is because there is reason for it to go down, change that reason and the thing now goes up, and the reason is because it is light now. In other words, the thing is the way it is because of its reasons to be. Depending on the reason if the thing determines the nature of its reality. However the reason is not a compulsion, it is not a means but rather the end, it is identical with its reasons. For example, we ask ‘why are you going to that party?’ And some answer ‘they want to talk to girls’ or ‘want to get drunk’ and therefore the party is a means for those reasons’ however ultimately including all these reasons, your going to that party for its own sake, in other words, the party is the sum of these ends that you take to be the reason why you went. The reason of something is the reality for why it is the way it is.
The reason why this reality is the way it is because it has reasons for being this way, this opens the possibility for other relatives to be different given their different reason.
Environment organism
Originative source
All productive forms of knowledge, like art and science, are potencies because they are originative sources of change in an other thing. This feature of being the origin is what it means to be rational because an origin does not require explanation or some external reason to come into being but is rather self-evident, it has its own self for its reason, or rather its own coming into being is its explanation. (Metaphysics Aristotle ch. 86, 00:86)
In modern times we are uncomfortable with this notion that something comes about by its own will because we require an explanation for how it comes into being but assume that because an explanation is required, something else must also be required to bring into being the object in question. The idea that an activity is always grounded in some substrate, namely a material one, is not the same to say that one object causes another because what we are explaining as material is itself a form of being that is not grounded in anything else other than its being. We assume that because a material substrate is the grounds from which an activity originates, it is therefore the original cause of that activity. What scientific materialism does is take a material substrate as a necessity in any explanation of process but then by virtue of doing that exclude the activity as bearing a necessary existence so long as there is substrate, but then leaves us with a substrate without explanation of its origination, only that it is an origination. Their binary logic makes the proposition that one or the other can exists without the other while beginning from the presupposition that both exist, and therefore one does not while the other does. Aristotle critiques this kind of thinking still prevalent today back in the ancient melgaic school
Potency is the energy of potential-
the event implicit in an event-
law of mind body unity- quantum state of event is mind in time
Time is the dimension for apperception where multiple possible events unfold onto each other occupying a moment as a reality. The law of mind by Peirce states that there is always a distinction between mind and body in time but unlike the mind-body dualism of Descartes, the distinction between mind and body is not a physical separation nor is it a difference where they bear absolutely no relation to each other. Whitehead takes the dualism between mind and body as a distinction for a simple unity in the sense that they approach each other as ideal limits and therefore are only approximately distinct, or bear an approximate distinction.
Peirce finds that the unity of mind body is in space but their distinction is in time, but he does not properly complete this thought (find source). There distinction is not a spatial magnitude but a temporal one means that mind and body are spatially occupying the same dimension and therefore are the same object, not separate from each other, but they bear a distinction in time, in that they are separated by the possibility of alternative events forming a happening of a duration. The body occupies the present event, but mind recalls past events and conceived future ones. The body is always alien from past and future events but only indirectly receives these by virtue of the mind, but as for the mind, the body serves as the approximate space where a distinction between possible events can unfold in one way or another, in other words, the body is the space from where reality can be one event or another. What we do not directly perceive is the implicate possibilities of other events in any given event occupying the present moment. In one moment there is the gap between one event happening in one way or in another.
As the mind is distinct in time from these possible events, or occupies a past moment further out from the future, possible events appear muddled together so as to happen simultaneously. We see this phenomenon most direct in psychoanalysis of dream. In a dream state a set of possible events different from each other appear to occupy the same moment so that the dream either appears as a discombobulated moment of events that do not follow from each other, or that a definite outcome is picked out that does not occur in the actual presence of that moment later in a future time. It does however happen that a dream can capture a possible moment occupying a present moment, and actually have that same possible event to occur in a present moment in a future time. This phenomenon is a small glimpse of how events generally unfold in time. When mind makes a decision, or a conception, it is at that moment that one of these possible events active at a quantum state actually unfold into a real event. The mind-body relation explained as a law of mind properly demonstrates quantum entanglement. Quantum entanglement is relation irrespective of space, and even time, for it is the universal condition where the form and object, mind and body exists instantaneously and simultaneously operate inverse to each other.
The relation of mind and body is fully explained by the notion of consciousness but in modern times the term “consciousness” developed the same elusiveness as the notion of God has throughout history. Except consciousness provides a more specific and particular understanding than the idea of god does because consciousness is the notion of the particular as an absolute. God on the other hand is an absolute in the pure sense of being exempt from anything because in every definition of god is that which always transcends a finite or a limit. consciousness is an absolute in the inverse sense by precisely defining a particular, it is the conception by which a particular bears relations. But it is however exactly this function of particularity that the concept of consciousness remains limited for the understanding. When the understanding takes consciousness as that which conceives a set of relations derived from a particular point, as this is the case in human consciousness for example, the understanding is only portraying a very particular form of consciousness known as self-consciousness, and takes this capacity, as characteristic of consciousness generally. Hegel distinguishes between two forms of consciousness, he says “The immediate existence of Spirit, consciousness, contains the two moments of knowing and the objectivity negative to knowing.” (36) the difference between knowledge and objectivity constitutes two forms of consciousness known as self-conscious and non-conscious.
Self- consciousness is the quality that took itself out as a variable from which a set of relations are disclosed within its conception. Consciousness itself is a concordance of infinite possibilities but it cannot differentiate itself in that infinite way And so it appears to itself as a muddling of pure possibility. Consciousness in order to differentiate itself takes on the inverse condition than what it is ultimately, it a abstracts itself into a particular point from what it is as an infinite state, but because it cannot due away with itself as infinity possibility, it makes this particular abstraction an infinity of times. Non-consciousness is the content being conceived and therefore is the limit of the conception manifested as is only an object for the observer, or is identical with what the observer is as an object. consciousness is the general determination, the pure energy of action itself that constitutes the interplay between self-consciousness and non-consciousness. In a purely materialistic standpoint, we have a matter meditated by an internal consciousness and an external non-consciousness to be considered
Consciousness is the in between
(Add vision here, the image of a picture upside down seen by retina)
When my mind is in here and it is looking out at an object out there, the conditions of this reality, the mediation, is the distinction between mind and body, where one is in the other, the mind is in the body, but also the mind is somewhere in conceiving all the objects in the surrounding.
(Add to perception)
Knowledge Recollection and knowledge experience
Plato’s idea that knowledge is a process of recollection is difficult to grasp because we have it disconnected from experience. We confuse recollection to mean memory, but memory is a recollection of a past event. The difficulty in the idea that knowledge is recollection is due to it presumed to be incompatible with the idea that knowledge is experience. On their own the idea that knowledge is recollection and knowledge is experience contradict each other, and when taken separately they are incomplete. Recollection is said to propose a crude determinism where all the knowledge of event have already occurred and the process of going through them verifies their presupposition. This general notion is somewhat correct because time nears itself in every dimension of space. For example, the single dimension of time is present in each of the 3 dimensions of space, and this forms a single 4 dimensional continuum. The 4th dimension is the presence of the 1 dimension of time at each single dimension of the three dimensions of space. This appears to operate in this manner; the past relative to the present, or towards it, constitutes the future relative to the present, from the past the present and the future are the same point. Vice versa from the future the present and past are the same point. (Add 4th dimension diagram)
The empiricist idea that knowledge is only what is directly experienced is only true on a very narrow scale because it does not include as part of definition of experience all the indirect indirect phenomenons like unconscious processes or more abstract infinitesimal operations that occurs at periods of time not during the present because although they are not directly occurring here and now, they are in a different dimension of potentially happening.
When we ask are there aliens on other planets, the question seems nebulous because we are assuming they are present right now but at a far away distance, it is this very distance in space that constitutes a difference in time. If we ask the similar question of ‘was there living being thousands of years ago, the answer is not so alien because we do not think of them as somewhere else. However the motion of the heavenly bodies makes an interesting point because the position of where the earth stands right now, if we reverse the time back million of years would be a position where a completely different planet stands. This is due to the simple fact that the star the earth is revolving around is also revolving around a bigger star, such that the position of the star changes the position of the earth it is dragging around over millions of years.
Every determination is a being
We operate on the misconception that life is scarce in the universe but the opposite is true, that being is the most abundant form of individual existence. (Add from thesis Darwin’s divide between universe and earth, one lifeless and the other alive)
Darwinian evolution makes it difficult to view how life on earth is part of the universe. The idea that life is merely an adaptive strategy that arose out of its particular environment requires that life be only relevant to the close proximity of its environment, and therefore the outer exterminates of these conditions for life are rendered lifeless. Under Darwinian evolution life must be only limited to the earthly conditions it is empirically observed on, while on the other hand, it is also an empirical fact that the earth itself is a living entity part of a solar system within a greater system of terrestrial bodies.
The quality of being is the event quality of an object. Monotheistic versus many gods, every determination takes on its own being, and is its own observer. There are as many as living entities as there are determinations, except what it means for “living” in this context is so general to include all degrees of what it means to be Animate, activate. The old metaphysics teach us that being is the universal principle by being shared by all things. The limit of the old metaphysics is that they took the principle of being as the general principle disclosing everything without applying it to each particular being. When we apply what it means to be a being to a particular object, we have being in terms of what Aristotle calls substance, activity. Being is animate and active and therefore exhibits a behaviour and is not merely a general principle including the scope of existence. Nevertheless the pre-Socratic ascertainment of being as the state of existence was the scientific step of man because it opened up the view of nature as an active and animate subject whose behaviour can be studied and apprehended.
, every particular thing is a being, which does not mean they are equally the same being, all men are equal in that they are men but not all men are equally the same man. A being is universal because it is the feature shared by every determination but every determination is its own particular being. We still maintain with the latter claim that every particular being shares in the complex of exhibiting the behaviour of the universal quality of being.
Building present
Activities in the non linearity of time
When we say that the idea of a building is present in the mind but there is no actual structure of a building present, in what sense does the idea of a building determine the physical construction of it? This question brings up the fundamental relation of how the particular is determined by the universal. The universal is never found as a single object because it is the abstract idea in the form of indivisible logical relations presupposing each other and so a single object is an abstraction of a particular relation of the logical presupposition of indeterminable multitude of determinations. The particular by contrast is always found as a single entity individuate from a class of versions like it maintaining the abstract idea of their shared activity and their specific role in it. There seems to be a time lapse between how the universal abstract idea operates in each single objects.
In other terms the expression of the universal at the level of the species is distinguishable from how each individual member expresses its role in the species. Does an object ceases to exist if it is not partaking in the activity of its function? In what sense is a single knife not used to cut continue to exists as a knife? The answer can be something like; even if a single knife is not cutting, there is always another knife at a different place that is cutting. That is, the activity is always being done somewhere. If the activity stops, like in the case no body uses certain technologies like the flip phone, the composition of each individual flip phone slowly either is reused for other things, or decays as any other inanimate object does by the conditions of its not use in the environment. This means that even if a single entity does not fulfil its function, the species is fulfilling it. If the species stop fulfilling it, that function changes and this is seen when the physical composition of the components change over time given their disuse. In spacetime, a single entity not doing its function is being sustained by its species doing the function, and the species continues the function as a fractal of individuals taking different points in space acting on the function in different ways. For example in the market some people are buying certain things, and the things that are not being bought still remain on display based on the fact that they will be potentially bought, what determines the presence of the object is whether it is potentially able to act, be bought of whatever, not whether it is or not, however for it to be potentially there must be based on the presupposition that it will be, that is why it is potentially there, the question of potentiality is therefore a matter of time, when will it be bought, when will it happen, not whether it will or not.