(Find where you talked about how they misused Aristotle’s cosmological principle)
The cosmological principle is much deeper than it sounds. It states that the “center” on a sphere is any where from which the point is determined. Meaning that when viewed on a sufficiently large scale, the properties of the universe are the same for all observers’. In other words, the conception of the universe at the broadest level is isotopic such that the conception of the universe becomes one and the same observation.
The cosmological principle does not provide the quantitive measure of the center of the universe in the sense of the relative position of bodies to each other. If the universe is taken as a plane, a central body is quantitively evident. The cosmological principle provides the qualitative measure of observing the universe, and in other terms, it is really the model for the nature of consciousness built into to the very object.
The cosmological principles informs to the true form of the universe
The observer is the constant
The total energy of the universe is constant.
The abstract principle simply states that the particular is the point encompassing the magnitude of the universal. The end determined the means, the mind first knows then it proves. The proof works towards the truth. This means that the truth is the most general principle and every particular is internalization of it.
The concrete principle states that the predicate is fundamental to the subsequent in their total relation. Doesn’t that contradict final causation? That in the particular lies universal.
The smallest are the most general
This means that whatever concepts we take to be most abstract are general operations of the particular. Or that the particular is the operations of its abstract principles. For example, if we take the biological function of a nerve, we see that a nerve is present inside a human individual body and it is a transmitting impulse of sensations to the brain. We can say that without the individual body how can there be nerves? The question here is, how is the nerve more fundamental than the animal that contains it.
Quantitively the nerve and the body presuppose each other such that even the nerve itself is a fiber body transmits information. Yet the function of the nerve is more fundamental than the individual body that contains it. The function of transmitting information to some computing source is on some level how the individual body that contains it operates. For the mind, the nerve is more general than the individual and therefore has a prior place
Internal relations, in-turn, is the internalizing process, which operates as the principle of taking turns in logical principles. It is the alteration and the mediation of the negation in the logical contradiction.
(28:13) To “mediate” means to take something as a beginning and to go onwards to a second thing, so that reaching the second thing depends on something else contradistinguishing from it. Internal relation is the activity of generation
Inward process of particularization. The evolution of consciousness is becoming more internal with each progression of its development. In the onset the object only portrays a particular logical structure of thought and so its external and internal are synonymously the same. As consciousness develops and objects particulate and contradict each other, there becomes objects external from each other and the internal relation between them that maintains them. As self consciousness develops, the very object external from another develops internally within itself complex of external relations that are distinct from those of its external object. The external relations are internalized by an external object and therefore an external object becomes now an internal relations for a source of external relations.
In the contradiction the inverse principles are unlike external relations which is the expanding process of the universe. Internal relations explain the abstract principle, which is that the qualitative difference of a concept determines its fundamental place in the universe. In the abstract principles what we take to be the most abstract and infinitesimal concepts in the world actually constitute the broadest structures of the universe.
The quantum properties which are said to be the most microscopic, the “smallest” elements in the world, are actually the most general structures of the universe. Size in this respect is very confusing in the abstract sense small and large are not absolute principles as we think certain objects like stars are. The relative extent of something in the abstract is governed by the fundamental role that its function plays.
(Add this up) Pierce’s law of mind applied to space
We usually come to understand one basic structure of the world in relation to another basic structure. This is a feature of our understanding, that we understand one part of the world by comparing it with another part. Although necessary, this function of the understanding produces confused notion of the world if not checked by reason, that is, every fact about the world has to go through the question; if the fact is actually the way the world is versus us seeing the world in that particular manner? This distinction is only antithetical if not properly reconciled.
When we try to understand one basic part of the world by looking at another, we automatically commit the error of consciousness bias produced by the object. This is when consciousness takes on the identity of one part of the world and sees the other part through that identity of the counterpart. When we conceive the atom as the most basic unit of matter, we begin from the certain macroscopic position we embody, and we look into the state of matter generally, and abstract from that the basic possible form of relations calling that the most basic unit.
In this way the notion of the infinitesimal is often defined as the “externally small” or the smallest state because we abstract from matter the most basic relations and represent that as the smallest unit. This definition of the infinitesimal is only partially true because the idea that an atom is small is only true because it is an abstraction from the total qualities of matter. When we define the atom as the smallest unit what we are really doing is abstracting the nature of matter into qualities. This allows for atoms of different kinds to be categorized- hydrogen, helium etc. However from the perspective of reason universally, there is a developmental accumulation in the qualities of matter. If one asks; how many atoms are in the universe? The answer would surely be uncountable or it is sometimes estimated that there are quadrillions of atoms. In this sense the atom as a totality constitutes the largest unit of matter rightly recognizing in the infinitesimal quantity. From the same point of scale that we define the atom as the smallest unit, recognizing that it is the most numerical, likewise tells us that it is the largest aggregate structure of the universe- or that constitutes the most quantity in the world, if not by each individual atom, the total number of atoms is the greatest, . The quantitive nature of the atom however allows us to understand a very peculiar nature about the way mind works in the universal sense. That for mind the atom is the smallest unit not because of its size but because it is the most general function.
What we take to be the smallest unit is the most general function for mind. What we take to be the most general, like cells, is the most specific for mind.
Atom, molecule, cell. From our infinitesimal standard, smallest to largest. Identifying the distinction between these based on their size sometimes fails to mention that the size being the quantity correlates with the quality. If we take size alone to understand the infinitesimal, the saying the atom is the smallest is erroneous because in aggregation the atom is the largest and the cell the smallest.
The infinitesimal must be informed by their qualitative properties, which is that there is an advancement happening, that in each categorizing we see reason particularizing a universal form. That the atom being the most general is particularized into the molecule and that into the cell.
Pierce proposes the law of mind to explain the way time operates as function of mind. That mind is the future of matter and matter is the past of mind. The idea of mind is the future the form, and the materializing of it is the process of its past, its actualization. The present is simply this process.
If the law of mind is true for time it is also true for space. When mind zooms into matter microscopically, matter for mind becomes macroscopic, the more mind goes in the more matter comes out of mind. The inverse is reverse such that when mind zooms out of matter, goes out macroscopically from matter, matter becomes microscopic, small for mind. This relation illustrates very strange notions about reality that might appear very uncomfortable for the common sense. For example, what we take to be a cell, being the smallest unit of a living organism, is in fact the largest unit of living organism. What we take to be microscopic, that our body contains cell, is in fact oppositely true, that cells contain our bodies. This is not metaphoric but literally such that we take to be our bodies that holds cell, is in fact a cell in a body. The whole of nature we can say, is a cell, only that it is a body and we are cells in it.
We are in the womb of nature like a baby is in the womb of his mother. We are bodies literally in an organ.
After cell comes organs then organism. How can we say that organism are particularizations of cell? Organism are ideas of cells, the quality of cells. Cells acts as quantity. This means that the cells combine into forms of their ideal natures. Cells pixelate together to form organs. Or that we see cells as pixilation. Another way of seeing cells is actually seeing what they form because what they form is at the same time the cell. Skin cell is skin.
Chips
The idea that a method is used to bring about a knowledge that is independently true, is somewhat difficult of an abstraction because in one sense we have in daily experience an instrument that plays a necessary part in the production of a result that becomes independent on its own,
like a computer chip is a circuit of small transistors that process “information”. Process information in this sense means to transport information by altering its physical composition by addition of a unique common dominator that can be communicated to and apprehended by another source. With every other common forms of exchange value there is the physical action of an object being transported between two different spatial positions.
In the realm of technological exchange, electric currents found in the chips of computers are the physical medium and the stream that facilitate the exchange. In this realm except it is not directly observable as the exchange of one person throwing a banana to another person is for instance. We use computers and constantly exchange information but we do not see the actual exchange happening, only see the result that is being received or transferred, like a picture or a text message. The exchange is however still a physical process, in other words, some form of conception is being transferred from one position to another. The difference is that the object being transferred is not being moved positionally but is rather being replicated. Replication is a form of motion at the microscopic level.
The development of computers is the greatest technological achievement in human history because it is the exchange of objects at the micro level. The object at a more micro levels are more abstract than objects at the macro level which are perceivable and touchable. This may perhaps be a relative conception, for example you cannot touch a rock in a picture you can only see it, whereas a real rock is touchable and seen, yet there is some form with matter occupying space and time and this is the most generalist standard of what it means to be physical.
The way a technology like a computer makes a transfer is as follows; there is a capability like a camera or a program like a word file, which allows a specific conception from reality, either an image or a thought, to be abstracted in a universally communicated manner, either perceivable to the senses or communicated via language. This conception like an image that is captured by a function like a camera is stored in the hard drive of the computer.
The information is transferred using code called “encryptions” which assigns distinct codes like 0,1 to the piece of information like an image or a word documents. We know that code is assigned to move information from one chip to another. These languages are programming such as C++, basic and C. The computer chip takes the programming language and translates it into action. But we do not know the extent of this association. For example, computer chip is also called an integrated circuit. Each chip contains many transistors making up a processor. There can be tens of millions of transistors on one chip. These transistors are possible routes of action. Code is the abstract side related to these transistors which are it’s physical side. It is not only that one code is associated with one image for instance, but rather code is a sequence of a distinct number. This means that each variable in the code is assigned to each distinguishable part forming a single conception. For example, a picture is made out of pixels
The word “pixel” means a picture element. They are the smallest unit of information that makes up a picture. Usually round or square, they are typically arranged in a 2-dimensional grid. These pixels are arranged in the kind of order that captures each conceivable part of an object, it is an abstractions of a moment. The more pixels the more the image resembles the original object. The number of pixels in an image is called the “resolution” which defines the quality of the image. The reason for the name has the implicit meaning of a generality, that a series of components are captured in a specific order all sharing some common connection, and their result which is the general image you see, is the resolution; the best possible outcome of their relation. These pixels are assigned a unique code, or rather an image is embedded in these codes to be transferred.
Images and any form of technological information takes up megabytes, which are the space or the matter in the digital realm that a conception is measured by. Megabytes are the substance or rather the substratum of the digital realm. The measure for what a substratum is we are acquainted with is ordinary matter, in the sense that it has weight to it and it is felt. But this form of tangibility is not the overarching measure of substratum generally, even matter at a molecular level is not felt per say but is rationally conceived to exhibit an order.
Likewise the defining feature that make megabytes a substratum is that they exhibit a conceivable mathematical order in the most abstract of senses. Megabytes exhibit the order of absolute derivatives, or they are derivations, how a thing is derived from the same thing. Motion at this level is derivation. For example a megabyte is 106 or 1,000,000 bytes. One megabyte is equal to 1,000 kilobytes and precedes the gigabyte unit of measurement. While a megabyte is technically 1,000,000 bytes, megabytes are often used synonymously with mebibytes, which contain 1,048,576 bytes (220 or 1,024 x 1,024 bytes).
What we learn from the principle of derivative is that you only need a single identifiable conception to define from an infinity quantity of other conceptions, you can derive from 1
How does something generate into being, we say things do not just come “out of thin air” as if to suggest they are unexpected, or their source is unknown. The conception however or to conceive something into being, like whether it be the atom or megabytes, their conception alone necessitates their existence. These things generate out of nowhere other than their conception. However once they are conceived and we have a product before our hand, the explanation that they are conceived out of no where becomes no longer comprehensible because there is now something specifically there which is the standard of deriving other thing, we say where did that object come from, we say it came out of its mother, or it came out of a formation of atoms, but even then there is the implied error when we say a thing is made up of atoms but that’s not to say it came out of an atom, it is a wrong expression to say that a megabyte caused an image, the image consists of megabytes, as if the conception of a picture came out all by itself, but it is measured and made up by all these other factors, like a megabyte, a camera, the real object it is an abstraction of and so on and so forth. But these are all distinct and are not the picture itself, which is a conception all by itself.
the quality of this information being some event in reality like a picture is transported using numbers and electricity, which are very basic elements with less weight or density than the space that a picture or a document occupies. In the same way that air is the lightest substance can carry leafs and move other heavier objects, electric currents can do so with microscopic compounds. For example, even at the ordinary atomic levels of matter electrons transmit protons and neutrons in this way as well.
The point is that there seems to be a feature in reality where the instrument is a means transports a result which takes on an entirely distinct nature. The way an image or a document is transported to other devices is through electric currents via transistors in the chip, but these electrical currents are not a passage of nature like a stream of a river taking one object across to the other side, but rather the document is rather replicated. It is not replicated by being divided per say, like broken in half having now to separate pieces, but rather the object is extended into a wavelength, it is made into a derivative. the continuity of the object as a wavelength constitutes the relation between two distinct systems, and this is the quality of the electric current makes the object into a wavelength that extends it into another chip of another system, which is then seen in its particle state on the monitor.
The transmission of the object through time and space by way of electricity maintains a wavelength state, but it is perceived in a particle state, we do not see the image warped and extended when it arrives to the desktop, we see it as a discrete image one on my phone, one on my computer, because it is now processed by the system into its particle state rather than its wavelength state.
Each pixel is assigned a unique part of the code, or rather each letter in a document is assigned a number, the word “b-a-c-k” 0-b 1-a 0-c 1-k. These numbers are simply to distinguish the letters as distinct parts that require a vehicle to be transported.
. Quantum computers denoted in the concept of “quantum supremacy” now involves the element of uncertainty in nature, in the form of a “qubit”, as an aspect part of a things information. This allows greater capacity to process more possibilities.
hammer brings about a house, and we can say other than the fact that one is used to structure the other, these two objects are otherwise completely different. But what we do no realize is that their relation, being the man, has an end that is identical to both, he views them both as objects for his life and he connects them together. What we take as variables that stand on their own presuppose something that is ignored as forming part of their relation. The point that we take to be so obvious, like the man, is where the method and the knowledge derive through to constitutes the same determination for the two opposing abstractions that hold their own ground as distinct things
The giraffe is the idea of its cells. (connect to cell as mini mind)
Add pic of organs (look to autonomy book with real pics of organs)
To us this seems like an accedence from the smallest to the biggest the reality is that it is the progress from the most general to the particular. The present state of mind is the idea of itself.