Why is it that logic—along with its elaboration in what we call math—has long appeared and reappeared to humans across vast spaces and times? Rationality and reason, which are really just spawns and/or colloquially vague terms used as synonyms, are also beholden to a basal binarial logic. These manifold appearances of logic are not some creation of the human imagination—logic is intrinsic to reality itself, and I hope to here unveil logic’s devices by sharing some common empirical observations.
Formally speaking, many notable systems of thought have been devised where logic was the single deep tap root that served as a foundation to the thinker’s curious elaborations. The infamous triad of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle all grounded themselves with logic; older Greek thinker’s such as Pythagoras, and then Parmenides and Zeno, gave logic the legs with which to walk at the expense of paralyzing and paradoxicalizing motion itself; more recent western canonical thinkers such as William of Ockham, Descartes, Hegel, and Russell, among others, bow down to an innate logic; surely there are also many non-western thinkers who have a sort of steadfast logic informing their thoughts, though I cannot list them because of unfamiliarity. However, one needn’t be taught logic in an educational system to access its teachings, proof of this being that many uneducated peoples still devise “reasonable” ways of thinking and acting, to “deduce” decisions for their daily existence. Where do they learn this? It could be argued that the infrastructure and organization of society teaches logic (and surely it does), but at some point these artifices did not exist to inform people—people had to create them. That still begs the question: from where did we receive the inspiration to create these logical patterns? In this case the “we” is extrapolatable far beyond just humans—it includes our fellow earthly lifeforms, but most especially also “non-living” matter that will here serves as the logical pupils of distinction. We were all taught by something very immediate that devised in us the logical pathway of which we ought to follow and those “illogics” which we ought not to. Indeed, the teacher that learns us of these dependent and determined ways of moving is the uinverse, the metaphysic of pure negation.
The “uinverse” is a metaphysical postulate that exists immanently within every region of the Universe’s differentiated expanse. The uinverse evolves precisely in reaction to all the freely evolving actions of the Universe, lurking as a metaphysical opportunist that is always posturing itself to be the most relevant, “logical” choice. It whispers in to the the ontological spatiality, impressing upon all active spatiality, offering it the reactive option. When “He” gets stuck in his philosophical writing, the uinverse offers the “gel”, so that he can become “Hegel”. Such philosophers get swayed by it and it is to their philosophy’s detriment; logic is the signature of a loser. Logic incentivizes identity-completion to the “incomplete” open particulars so that they will close their outward interactions and become a micro-whole that goes on to lose its value and autonomy; logic turns 4 kings in to one pawn (via Ockham’s razor). As the Universe musically spatializes itself into more complex and beautiful emanations, the logical driven uinverse is obsessed with organizing, analyzing, and destroying all of the Universe’s creative progress, through patterned rigid motions that succumb to reduction and simplification (again Ockham’s razor at work).
Though I may have painted an image of this metaphysic as being this insidious demonic entity, the uinverse is in actuality a very banal evil, and expresses in a much broader sense some of the particular human actions that we easily fall into as theorized by Hannah Arendt. This metaphysical entity I call the uinverse—the only actual metaphysical entity that I posit in this theory of everything—enters in to the ontology when and where the present spatiality is weakened, and the choice is made to follow the logical path faute de mieux. This metaphysic, through its seductive, divisive reasoning, is often able to enter our ontological world through it’s power of logical negation; it offers itself through opportunistic posturing of some knowable outcome. It is very fitting that something logical, as logic is by its own definition, would be metaphysical which stands as a negative to the physical. If this seems tautological, it’s because it absolutely is tautological. However it is not merely a linguistic tautology, nor a fallacy of our thoughts (for our thoughts are very physical and real besides). Nay, it points to the larger tautology of which we are all members, that is the all-inclusive whole of the Universe. The Universe, when given as a whole, is the only real perpetual motion machine that can be found and need be sought after. It could induce perpetual and deepening motion—of which organic life is an excellent example—so long as it’s not treating itself “mechanically” at logic’s command.
Some intuitable specifics of how the uinverse “whispers to us” are important to show how something that is metaphysical can concretize itself. On the human thought level, uinversal logic expresses itself most crudely as “either it will, or it won’t” or “either it exists, or it doesn’t” or “there are two sides to every argument”, and so forth. In terms of cosmological theories, the Uinverse is the reactive force that would impel the Universe to recede from it’s expansions (or inflations, so long as that theory was made commensurate) and fulfill the predictions of a Big Crunch, negating all material gains back in to a single point for a singularity. Because of it’s binarily deductive, reductive modality of negation, it could be said that the uinverse wants to half-life the Universe away until it is no more. Spatial distinctions that provide unique and deepening experiences are indeed destroyed when matter is compacted and purified by some necessitating force.
Math Speaks Gravity (a working hypothesis) The widespread assertion that math is the universal language is never paired with the question: for whom does it speak? Gravity indeed uses math, logic, and the like to give itself voice, but it is not the Universe’s language at all, but the uinversal languish. Of the fundamental forces of nature, gravity is the one that displays most clearly the machinations of the uinverse; it is the first fundamental force to split off from the super-unified force immediately following the Big Bang, and has at the heart of its effort—then and now—that of restricting and flattening all spatiality it encounters. Often the living Universe turns a deaf ear to such uinversal restrictions, but when it stops to listen, it becomes overwhelmingly clear that gravity speaks logic/mathematics. Mistakenly, a narrow and generalized algebraic equation describing the situation would put mathematics as the independent variable and the Universe as the dependent variable (with spatiality serving as a variable and embedded coefficient), whereas the truth is really that all of our math is a perfunctory and fickle dependent variable that haunts the intrinsic independence of the Universe; this is an example of the aforementioned negation in action, with the all too familiar inversion/perversion—here math is the u-inverse. Gravity is a negating energy falsely represented as a scientifically determinable feeble energy at the micro-spatial levels (and powerful at larger levels when matter is bundled), a position that if taken reductio ad absurdum has forming against it the expanding dark energy to be one of the positive hopes for a differentiating Universe. All the forces existing do add up (subtract down) to zero, but to say such a zeroing in would be equivalent to their all being equal—as mathematics would be enticed to do—would be a false representation of what formed the Universal tautology to begin with, which is really a unified differentiating force. The forces now existing are not equal and need not ever be equaled in a singularity, though math speaks of such a symmetry and reconcilement. On the terming of gravity/logic as a force, it is debatable if it even is at all; its very machinations allow it to be reified in to existence and represented as such, but it seems to exist most prominently where other forces are lacking.
Einstein gets deceived by his great openness to such a primary force at work in developing his general relativity and mistakenly he attaches a deterministic duration to spatiality known as “spacetime”. Einstein was right to elucidate in gravity the force that distorted spatiality, perhaps by its oscillating of space to interpose a lame fabric where a brilliant tapestry was previously. The uinverse would work such a logic into the postulation of such a mind as Einstein’s, where it might possess the legitimacy to be a determining element via a temporalized past; however, gravity is effective, not causal, in that it is the duration that eats itself when successful and destroys itself when not. In a potential unwritten future post will I speak more of this metaphysical post-u-later.