The Ontology of Motion (Omni Bust Out)

The Ontology of Motion, 2014, unedited [originally 0018 – synchronization and reification, 2010]

Abstract

This is an essay driven by motion, and it seeks to render everything and anything comprehensible in terms of motion and the variances between possible pluralities of motions. Motion, I hope to show, is an a priori background for reality—not space and “time” as Kant brilliantly postulated—and it is from the degrees and directions of motion that things appear more synthetically unified and unifiable or, alternatively, analytically separate and non-interactive. As many philosophical works tend to do, this essay deals with the ideas of multiplicity (parts, i.e. particular motions) and singularity (wholes, id est holistic motion), but in so doing it tries to explain ontologically why there appears, and actually can exist, both multiplicity and singularity. In order to do this, theories will be put forth, arising both out of critiques of concepts from physics, as well thought experiments that will serve as examples commonly experienced in our times.

Ending Beginnings

If motion is to be given the eminent role as the determinant of everything—motion preceding space, motion before matter, motion as the forwardness of time, motion as change—then beginning with the question of beginnings sets a trap for any further thoughts on the pre-eminence of motion. It is a trap precisely because if motion is to have an origin, it will be made, at best, on par with the thing that is its beginning point; never greater, and always potentially reducible to it. So we must move beyond and before beginnings, thinking of apparent stoppages and beginning points as only temporary statics.

Importantly, within the questioning of beginnings, there is a salient sub-question that must be no longer made subordinate, but be given its autonomy to live or die on its own accord. The question “in the beginning was there one or multiple?” must now be detached from beginnings and become the open questions “is and will there be a one or a multiple?” and “can reality shift between these two possibilities?” These new questions need not assume that if there has been an eternity of motion it follows necessarily that it is due to a multiple play of forces (to the exclusion of it possibly being the play of a singular force), nor does it assume that one of these two modalities being real necessarily precludes the other from becoming real. With this new questioning, we now have the open possibility of interchange between a singular force and a multiplicity of forces, and with this comes the Nietzschean ethical question: what is the value that unity and separateness provide to the future, and which of these better cultivates dynamic vitality?

The ideas of “the past” and “causality” are symptomatic of the same degenerative logic and anti-force that produces a quest for a beginning, and leaves motion in even more of a conceptual straitjacket. When motion is used to satisfy the formulaic needs of a mental practitioner, a greater understanding of motion is shadowed whilst light is falsely reflected to create the hollow-grams of past and causality. However, once we dismiss motion’s conceptually reified constraints in our own thinking, we can use an unchained understanding of motion to explain why there seems to be a past.a Causality, too, can be endangered when motion is wrested away from ensnarement, and is not stuck as the force for a series of events causing one another.

Energy and Maneuverability**
    **[this section was drawn upon for the bulk of this 2015 post about Energy and the living Universe]

A large way towards reconceiving motion is to imagine it as not solely existing in dimensional space, but manifesting itself in changes in energy amounts, which cause changes in the very texture of space that lay available for our maneuvering. Because of this, energy requires a new understanding which physics has been ambiguous about giving it. It is on and between this platform that this section will dwell, revisiting the salient points on which much of physics basis itself.

Galilean and Newtonian relativity, simply stated, show us that the spatial motion of one body is only relative to other spatial bodies, and there is no way of determining if something is “absolutely” at rest or in motion (there is no absolute background). Einstein’s relativity has elaborated the picture, showing us that space bends due to the motion of bodies, or, alternatively, space bends to determine the motion of bodies, bending more or less based on the mass of the body in motion.

One of the famous thought experiments to rise out of Einstein’s relativity, popularized in the form of the “twins paradox,” shows how the speed at which something moves effects its spatial and temporal situation relative to other entities moving at different speeds. The experiment shows that if one twin stays on earth (the earth twin) and the other (the astronaut twin) is sped away from the earth at a speed close to that of light, two light-years away from earth and two light-years back to earth, that the astronaut twin will come back almost completely un-aged, whilst the earth twin will be over four years older. This is because the motion—physicists call it the “time dimension”1 of spacetime—internal to the astronaut twin is slowed down when things are moving so fast relative to the speed of light. However, if we bring back the arguments of Galilean and Newtonian relativity, we can say that it cannot be the speed that is slowing down the aging process of the astronaut twin; as we have learned, it could be equally said that the earth and the solar system are speeding away and then towards the astronaut twin at close to the speed of light, rather than s/he being the one who is necessarily speeding away. Something must be happening beyond basic spatial motion to change the inertial frame of reference—the name physicists allocate to a particular stable and synchronized region of spacetime—of either the astronaut twin, the earth, or both, so that processes normally at a common rhythm (synchronization) to one another now vary greatly.

It is a matter of energy, not speed at all, that changes the layout of the spatial region in question. Energy is more than just “the ability to do work” that moves something through space; energy is all space and matter and, its relationship with and within itself. The diffusing outward of energy is one and the same as the spreading out of space. On the other hand, the bundling together of increasing energy in a given area is experienced as the collapse of spatial differentiations—an intensification and simplification. The more intense energy is, the greater the gravitational effect is, explaining the slowing of change for the astronaut twin. The energy inerted into the spaceship’s inertial frame is so great that the ship will barely change, relative to the aging taking place in the less energetic galaxy from which the spaceship breaks. This creates a strong energetic division, putting the spaceship out of sync with the galaxy, making a multiplicity where there once was (and again may be) a holistic singularity with common levels of energy dispersion.

Just as objects with higher gravity dominate the maneuverability of the surrounding space, distorting it in a limiting fashion, so too does the energetically accelerated body that cuts through large swaths of space, tearing it and unmaking what has been creatively fashioned out of energy dispersal. A bullet in motion is always breaking, never growing, sending out shards of anti-harmonic sound, breaking organic vibration rhythms, collecting metallic-sameness unto itself. Its relationship with that of the surrounding space is surely a relationship between two multiplicities. Direction does not play a role in determining whether something is at odds with another entity, as elements with differing directions can still be part of a singularity. One of the large finitude of examples is a singular organism with separate cells moving each and every way. Multiplicities are derived when differing directions within a singularity start to greedily pull in more energy, leading to an inability and disregard for synchronization with the rest of space, simplifying the spatial field by cutting into it. This is the bullet that has too much accelerated energy to creatively interact with its environment, it is a moving wall that ensures its dominance over that of the less energetic surroundings.b

Gravity and Energy. It is our own conceptual bias, formed out of a cultural analysis of our own experience, that a particle moving with a certain energy is somehow different than a singularized black hole exerting that same energy amount. Newtonian relativity would show us that each is moving according to the other, and Einstein’s relativity would show us that they are having the same effect on the space in their proximity, the difference is only in the way the surrounding space orients itself to the presence of this gravitational (i.e. energetic) “beast,” by either swooping by it like an undedicated comet, or rotating it like a faithful planet. The differences are in the spatial orientation to the two forces—in the choices the local spatiality make towards the forces—but not in the internal singularized unity that is a black hole or a super fast particle.

Curving out Straightness

The major characteristic of an acceleration is the relative straighteningd of the path that the accelerating body follows. With this higher energy, there is less of an ability, and indeed less space available overall (from its own viewpoint), for the curving away from the straight path the body is set upon—think of how much more distance it takes for a fast moving car to make a full 90 degree turn in direction as it exits a turnpike, than a person walking (this generality is synonymous with the centrifugal force). Sidewalks have right angle change in directions, while turnpikes run straight with as little turning as possible. When turning is necessary, it is very slow. The faster the road is, the more space it takes up, and the less complex (curvacious) it is. If I have explained this correctly, you should have a sense that curving (decelerating) appreciates time while straightness depreciates it; curving creates more space while straightness destroys it. When avoiding the accelerated beast, we cannot outrun it, we can only curve to stay alive!

Organi-city. To give you a down in earth example to chew on to convey this idea of straightness and curving is that of organic food production. In our age, organic produce often takes quite a journey from original growth to its final destination. So although it is grown in a non-chemically intrusive way, the holistic organic process is quickly dissipated when it must be shipped in a straight line, using inorganic additives to its carrier truck or ship. This line can be several thousand miles and cuts through so much organic energy and disturbs continuous space, yet interacting very little and baring no fruit to all its thoroughfares. The road is the toll. For holistic organi-city, all we must do is look at ourselves as an organism. Our cells always interact and curve this way and that in spiraling cycles of interactivity. None are so greedy as to make straight linesj and disconnecting connected bands of cells to do so; they help what they are near and get help from what is near to them.

Constancy enervates and depresses, while change curves lips to smiles and is the basis for laughter and joy. I hope that the next section’s ontology is so unconstant and unnerving that you are affected in ways I can’t enclose or predict.

Presentism With A Twist***
    ***[this section is an unofficial prelude to the Uinverse Series: Part 1; Part 2; and Part 3]

The present is haunted by something—a harrowing, lifeless thing. This thing shades real doubt into our minds if we have any control over the course of our lives, or are just determined by forces as unalive as we must then be. Do you think it is the past, as is commonly thought to control us? No, only through analysis—the tool of this thing—do we get to the conclusion that the past is a causal force, making the present a mere effect in the chain.s It is the power of this ominousity [an ominous thing] that wards us back and away from the real danger, making us react to a phantom that is its effect. This is the malicious method by which it unmakes us, by which it unmakes the present—it is the future!

Among other things, the future is gravity, and it wants to pull us as directly as it can into a predetermined, collapsible logical structure. The future is perfectly efficient, forever wanting to get rid of all the mess it sees through its high focus lens, as its stares at all the subtleties and free willing curves and ceaselessly thinks of reifying them. The future is the uinverse of the universe, and if left to its devices it will bring us all the way down to nothing. If we do nothing, we get (to) nothing, letting the forces of determination bring us back to the void that they are teleologically set upon. The future will always be there to decree new rules, “henceforth this, henceforth that,” pushing the present up to a wall, using it as a mirror to view and affirm its reflection in an image named the pastrror [neologism of past + mirror], its self-affirming reflection being the past. We (the present) must not be a mirror, we must become the dominating force in the duel, escaping the dictates that gravity thrusts on us and dealing it nu blows from every possible angle that its position of eternal limit has kept it from seeing. We must twist (henceforth curve) a-way to greener pastures, to live life by adding new colors to that which already exists. We should never assume life’s underpinning existence, but defend its fragility by continuing to grow it, in new ways not contained in the future, but curving out of the present.

Math/gravity/future/science don’t disenchant the world because they reveal and discover new knowledge, they disenchant it by narrowing the ways in which we are able to continue and deepen its enchantment. As we curve we frustrate the future, making it revise its plan to destroy existence, and it reacts immediatelyj with a new structure. The future is the condition of the present, and the past does not exist. In analogy to Kant’s deontological notion that “when justice leaves this earth, it is no longer worth living upon,” we can say ontologically that when lifeq stops breathing freedom, it is no longer possible for the world to exist.

Parting, with words****
    ****[this penultimate section “Parting, with words” (a pun intended) and the final “Syncopacing not synchronization” become too much of an outline and are being omitted from this 2016 posting; document 0018 – synchronization and reification will have these sections and will be included in the next Urge to Purge, Batch 10 (#4), coming soon]

NOTES

a Continuous motion should constantly be erasing a past, but somehow something seemingly continues to linger on long enough for us to get the feeling that there is a past, and what follows is the impetus to then search for beginnings. This is the role that memory plays, as it is our connection with what wasn’t erased “from the past,” though not existing in the past, just a estranged part of the present. When memory exists, in our brains our in the larger world, the reason is that the motional totality is not actively synchronizing with itself (then not a totality), not entirely engaged in creating newness in the present to beget a fully different future, so the memorable is whats left over, separated from the more active motion.

1 The debate over whether time is something extended, like the normal understanding of a dimension, and pre-existing to our perception of it, or rather just an imposed form on what is essentially the motion of matter (and space), is comparable to the debate in the philosophy of time between eternalism and presentism. Eternalism, as I understand it, is what most Einsteinian physicists believe is true, except in addition to the past always existing (what eternalism proper sets down), for the physicists the future does too, and simply has to be “moved into.” Presentism contends that there is no time “dimension,” that the future has to be created out of the present, without any metaphysical or extra-spatial access to “the past.” Both of these philosophically different understandings of reality can be made to agree with all the empirical findings of Einsteinian relativity, though this essay contends that presentism, after a consideration of other arguments, is the actual ontological situation that reality exists in (see the section “Presentism With A Twist”. Thinking of time as extended is just another conceptual mistake that occurs when misconceiving motion.

b However, it is the less energetic surroundings that have more curvability to creatively limit the bullet’s negative impact on their synchronizing differentiating culture. Why this is so will hopefully be explained next.

d Straightness needn’t always be an acceleration, and an acceleration needn’t be necessarily straight. As for the first, a straightness that neither attracts more energy nor is multiplying into complex curving away. This straightness in its constancy is a sameness in direction that adds no value to present experience. It is a predictability that fails to wow the rest to that which it is at the same energy with. It doesn’t cut up, but it doesn’t inspiral (inspire). It does face a problem though, at some point, it will reach the outer boundaries of the particular immanency that has founded it, and it will have to curve, becoming something different, or remain true to its nature, and leave the immanency straight behind. In so doing, it enters another singularity (or creates it own), but it enters with a different energization than this singularity because it keeps the energy from its former immanency. It is now cutting through, threatening the inner integrity of this other energization, making it regard the whole of the first immanency, the producer of such a straight part, with anger and avoidance. This is the loud scream of one person (the first immanency), leaving their body and entering straight through the ear of another person, shocking their system with dischord and throwing of any syncopation that might have formerly existed. This violent internal consistency puts off the person, and makes them regard not just the violent sound but the whole of its producer, the other person, with anger and avoidance.

This is the car that goes straight on the road, having little dynamic interaction along the way. The person who repeatedly commutes, cutting straight through a bunch of commodified materials (the highway, the box stores). The person can’t remember one day from another, there is no memory because there was little or no change. Nothing dynamic, just a straight cut, at the expense of experience, the whole purpose of existing. The obsession of getting “to” a place, but never actually making something of the place that one is at. The straight cut to a new destination is what makes the first place so undesirable that it repels to begin with.

j The cells that do make the longest journeys—the blood cells—are the closest thing to our straight line economy such as ours we have today, and they are in many ways making the most simple and direct contact with the outside world, bringing the undifferentiated element oxygen to cells.

s One of the most noteworthy social phenomena rising out of this presumption that the past determines the present is that of ageism. Those who exist deeper into the past are thought to have a relatively higher ratio of being “causal” to being an “effect,” or at least thought of as part of the cause, viewed as an under-girding pillar. This undue privileging of the elderly is what brings us into a situation where “the traditions of the dead weigh like a nightmare on the living” as Karl Marx put it. This is because eternalism is the philosophy newly born with civilization—it is the mental framework and furniture that civilizes and steadies what was a dynamic nomadic mind. The mind devolves to become a thing that can only work within a limited range of experience and makes things fit into its realm of predictability. Youth are born ready to deal with the unpredictable but are quickly chained into habit, and their value to the living universe recedes as they age, but their value to civilization grows as they become expert idiots.

j[2] The future is always reactionary—never creationary—tweaking its structure of collapse to perfectly fit any new developments the free universe makes. It is so because of its teleological nature: it wants to get to that end point, also known as singularity, or really the equivalent of nothing, a negative circle, absence.

q Life “undefined” as the act of curving.

 

Advertisement

The uinverse Part 3: Moving Past the Future

tattoo it to the walls of public bathroom stalls

**Preface** The tedious and laborious process of reifying something so large, so epic, and so beautiful as the indefinite Universe in to representative language has been painful, and quite probably itself an ally to the logical uinverse, which this work is in spirit, at least, against. The images displayed are an effort to remedy some of the difficulties in conveyance, but themselves are subject to succumbing to the problems of a representationalism, something this work is in spirit, also, against. This essay should be treated partially as an amalgamation of theories that are not all ontologically reconcilable (i.e. several are mutually exclusive of others); the purpose here is to offer a plethora of non-causal explanations of the Universe’s development and potentials.

 

If we look into the uinverse—the phenomenally causally determined future option that offers itself metaphysically as the logical path of least resistance—we see little hope of any freedom for the developing of unknown deeper beauties outside the bounds of a finite present. We seem fated, by logical necessity, to fall in to this hole (which is a hole both literally and figuratively as such, if we consider the completed, gravitated singularity to truly be a hole) and have a dying and dead Universe as our post-destination; logic moves us slavishly from A to no longer A, canceling A out, and then without any wits about the Universe, logic collapses it further from B to not B, and then next C is put on the chopping block, and so on. The uinverse seeks out the straightest line, the purest and shortest line, the quantum leap from one present to the next, crunching us forth towards singularity. This possibility, however, need not be accepted as the only one, for we do not need to look at and listen to the uinverse. Many other options contrary to this uinversal pessimism are worth mentioning; they will help build an optimistic view of the Universe’s ability to freely elaborate itself without law-abiding temporal and spatial bounds. Indeed, the unbounded nature of space and the non-existence of time are essential to appreciating how the Universe’s existence came to be at all.

Initial Problematizations

Firstly, if we were fated to fall in to a causally determined hole, two fair questions to consider are: how did we ever get to this particular present (me writing, or you reading), and how did we presumably escape other causal chains in a past time which ultimately began at the Big Bang? In other words, how did past causal chains get derailed to the point that we are now at the imminent brink of another sequence, but not already consumed by one? Against this pointed questioning, one could argue that we’ve never been free of a causal chain (a paradox/deiteration itself?), and that we are just consciousnesses along for the ride on this leg of the causal rollercoaster. I would counter this counter—based on what philosophy, physics and other disciplines have deduced/induced at various times—that logic has an end to which it is determined (and a causally determined universe would be no different, and thus comparable to the mechanics of logic); that we are not at that end is “proof in the pudding” that there is something more than mere causal determinism at work. Again, as said earlier (in part 2), appeal to quantum mechanics can be here invoked to sprinkle in a non-free indeterminacy, but such an appeal seems very facile. Whether or not we appeal to quantum randomness, it must be faced that any one body in space is not entirely dependent upon other bodies in space for all of its motion or changes in motion, nor dependent on its constituent parts as Western metaphysics and some mereologists would have us think; thus crude cause-and-effect is not the totality of motion. This non-causal reality is innate to the Big Bang story itself, which has at the outset that there is something internal to a given space that can be active without need of an external cause (unless brane cosmology is invoked, but I will here stick to the case for gravity being made in these meditations). The burden, then, is on the causal determinists, who need to answer the following question: how and why has the Universe’s obvious ability of causa sui—assuming the Big Bang story—been vanquished? Perhaps causa sui‘s visibility has just been severely dampened by the high volume of amplified noise from various other movements that are taken for granted; as for scientific experimentation, self-causing is precluded from emerging perchance due to the controlling environments established.

Secondly, it is not too much of a digression to say, too, that the role of consciousness has not been explained either, including what role it would serve to a completely causally determined universe. Is consciousness always a reaction that never has any “Darwinian” utility? Some think it suffices to call it “epiphenomenal” and thus bracket it there in after-ness. If we take consciousness as some ephiphenomenal “after thought perception”, it might indeed be understood as an effect, but I would theorize that it is in particular an epiphenomenal effect that emerges only when not caused by a determination (thus consciousness exists only when something free of causality emerges). Such a reality that I am micro-theorizing, would be akin—though not to be confused with—a reward system, whereby all instances of the present producing difference rather than logicality, it receives spurts of consciousness precisely matching the degree and subtlety of the free motions evolved/involved. Not necessarily in corroboration with this theorizing would be the location of consciousness, which could be in between the Planck spaces, perhaps in the Planck time, whereby the stretched present between the two states is itself the only duration, the ontological becoming that fills the gaps/voids; this stretching of the present between the Planck time(s) does not invalidate this as a theory of presentism, it is rather a clarification of how presentism itself exists. To avert further digression, it is not necessary to tease out the links between consciousness and motion (which I believe are two words for a monism) at this juncture, nor to pigeonhole my thoughts in some unproductive linguistically contrived dualism. Per your interest, the question of consciousness is taken up in a section of The Eternal Difference: A-way from Singularity entitled “Consciousness (in/out of) a nutshell”.

Thirdly, a somewhat Marxian social critique of classical physics should be considered. Whether it be one of Newton’s laws or the conservation of energy, the foundations of how we are taught about objects larger than the electro—magnetic dominant chemical level were all devised in the social context of a growing imperialism that was, whatever else, an anti-subsistence economic model. Galileo, Newton, and certainly Clausius (ironically) were academics who probably overlooked the fact that their countries’ economic modes presupposed that there was not enough energy or space available right where they were, that they had to accept/exploit imports from outside lands and play a role in exporting too (whether it be exporting goods or military conquests). So naturally it might have been that their economies structured their physics’ thinking to look for outside causes, whether from outside spaces or outside times (namely the past). Classical physics emerged precisely in a historical moment when people became interdependent with other peoples that they would never meet and have no other relationship with than the economic exchanges that were filtered through a long trading of “actions” (paying money) and “equal reactions” (a good/service of the same value, supposedly). Less and less of their worlds were now to be focused on what was immanently/imminently present, but rather on what was happening abroad, for that was now, somehow, brought into a contrived relationship with them.

Insert Freedom Here: Bowing the Arrows

Arrow Causality

What does causality’s lack of omnipotence leave open to the rest of reality? What force exactly is there now (and forever) room for, to accompany this newly explained/limited causative force? There naturally isn’t an exact answer I can offer (given the opportunities), nor room already existing for this force to always dwell. No, this force has to make it’s own room, its own naked space, tract, land, or moor. It has to wrench open reality, breaking through the chains, to include itself. This free force inserts itself before effects, between causal links, deranging the prefigured future lineages; tangents wonderfully skew the whole future causal nexus, watering down causality’s immediate logical potency by way of adding enchantment—expressions of reality so new that there is no paradigm yet devised to minimize and explain them away. With these insertions between effect and cause, even between insertions, the singularity is displaced ever farther from our present by a widening gap of metaphysical logic that it would need to conquer/calculate, “go through the motions of”, to be realized; it is the job of life to not allow this end realization! There’s no need to ever end, only a choice to do so.

FREE BOWING ARROW CAUSALITY

As for how these free “insertions” (a reified terming for an entity that defies reification) happen spatially, it is probably most accurate to imagine curving motions that pile curvaceousness within curvaceousness—diving in to a kaleidoscopic fractal that is paradoxically never self-similar. Depending on the intensity of the motions and the dynamics of the surrounding environs, it is not unlikely that the conjoined space to the motion(s) is itself expanding in dimensions, ushering in one or more spatial extensions to allow the particular motion(s) the spatial possibility to effectively curve away to continue in its free act (it is quite likely that point-extensive spatial dimensions are where and how dreams can become so intense and temporally lengthy—more temporary Big Bangs elongating and deepening the perceptions of our dreams). The cadre of straight moving arrows are gravitationally accelerating towards a distant-but-known-convergence (i.e. the uinverse logically collapsing towards singularity); a decelerational curving bow must be inserted between these arrow-adynamic chains to waylay them. The Universe must flex itself and show that arrows are ultimately fated towards nothingness without the bows that keep them from reaching their end point.

Difference and Deferrence

temporal stretching

A different iteration to convey the power that is the living Universe to the westernized mind is to focus on the Universe’s ability to infinitely defer, i.e. infinitely insert (not to be confused with inserting infinity), between the in vivo present and any “future” time that seems to be fated. This is a style of deceleration that perhaps is most akin and best put in the phraseology of Zeno’s paradox of motion: before a future becomes the present, the Universe “half way between” can insert a different present, and then again “half way” before, and then “half way” again, again, again, deeper and deeper in to a new microcosmological. One needn’t be concerned with the logical perversion of this diversionary Universal use of Zeno’s paradoxical “halving” in what Newton and Leibniz think they have conquered with the tools of differentiation/integration; the two founders of calculus are just offering an epistemological facade to crude motion, overlaying what really may be the ontological emergence of a deeper and deepening spatiality. Regardless, the result of this temporal fracturization utilized by the Universe is that the naturalized time is relatively slowed, and slowed, so that any awful future event—for example the volatility of the Sun in it’s late stages—can be deferred to a very large degree. Keeping with the example of our Sun leaving its main sequence, it would now in the slowed condition be more proper to think of it happening in terms of 1,000,000,000,000,000,000s of years (or higher, depending on how radical the degree of deceleration) rather than 4,500,000,000 years, by a proper slowing and expanding of consciousness that results in a slower perceptual norm. The concomitant thermal realities during these decelerations and perceptual expansions would be the jumping down by many orders of magnitude, in terms of the Kelvin scale, towards absolute zero (though the thermometers themselves, evolving, might not be available to show it—they might rather be more likely to show that the Universe at the Big Bang was many orders of magnitude hotter than we previously would label it, correlating with the orders of magnitude decelerated). In this greatly colder environment, life, not death, will evolve and flourish with this lower energy (diffused energy), making a mockery of antiquated notions of heat deaths and big freezes. This is truly making the most of the least, which is after all the morality carried on through from the Big Bang itself. As this perpetual deferring of the future occurs, the whole regime of standard model particles and quantities of energy, speed of light and all, adjust to this new speed of reality; the deepening of spatiality inextricably alters everything spatial, including the supposed laws and proofs of physics. There is an “imperceptible perceptual temporal stretching” that is tautological, meaning that there is no outside criterion available to judge the natural shifting; a lack of a temporal past precludes a deep memory to record the vastness/subtleness of the change.

Don’t let the uture F you, for F’ing the uture is F’ing yourself

The uture is written, but we can burn that book, and all the libraries containing such determined utures, before we succumb to passively reading in to our f-utures. The “uture”—the term I am using ephemerally to connote the uinverse as it exists ontologically metaphysical—is always lingering in front, waiting for the Universe to “F” itself. The present is where the Universe chooses whether or not to add an “F” to link us with a solid, capitally punishing “F-uture”, or where it adds any number of possibilities, “n”, to replace the back-end, making “u-turn”. Usually, by the lure of logic, we put an “f” because “it belongs there” by some law of spelling or language more largely; really the spell is checking on us, the metaphysic is continuing to haunt us. Are we for ourselves, or for the structures we mistakenly created? What can we do? We can accept these choice(s), or we can build yet other words—reconfiguring and adding the decapitated “e” and taking the blamed other, “u”, out of it to make “refute”—or we can stop reading this gobbledygook. We can smash this screen which seems to have more agency than we! Many possibilities, approaching the infinite!

The First Unlaw Of Thermodynamics: Energy As The Unlawful Principal Of The Living Universe

In a moment I will draw upon a lengthy excerpt from an unpublished essay which was one follow up to The Eternal Difference. The excerpt centers around an Einsteinian-informed thought experiment and the conclusions that one can draw about the fundamental nature of energy, and thus the Universe as a whole. I find it hard to believe the thought experiment extension and implications that I attempt to elucidate have not been drawn by others, but maybe there exists a gap in the discourse, or I am an island with this. Hopefully this paper can move forward our understanding of energy, either by it’s refutation or acceptance, but it is something that has not had enough brain power devoted on something so important. We might retreat from trying to create black holes in laboratories (one of the craziest most cavalier and dangerous things that pass for “scientific inquiry”), we might make so many different daily choices, such as driving in cars… but I digress. It’s relevant to put here, I think, that in many ways Hendrik Lorentz might have had the more honest view of spatial reality than Einstein; he did not build the artifices out of the Lorentz contractions that Einstein went on to do with his relativity theories. Not to deny that Einstein’s theories aren’t useful tools and have stood the test of a century so far (but was it the most rational century, one that saw two world wars and countless preventable deaths and species extinctions?). Still, there is no unified field theory, and maybe the reason for that is there is too much clutter within physics, historical and current, in the way, rather than the supposition that we just haven’t found it yet; maybe we are precluding our finding it because we look to the wrong places—we create the wrong places. There is too much taken for granted, too much dependence on the tools of math, too much hope that machines will interpret our complex reality for us, but I think we are belittling our imaginary powers—imaginary powers that conjured the beautiful non-scientific ideas of Poincare, Lorentz, Einstein, Bohr, and others. Ideas outside of science that then were “verified” by science, but we must remember not created by science. I could drivel on and on, but let me return to the introduction.

With regards to the title “The First Unlaw of Thermodynamics”, I hope to show how the first law of thermodynamics is technically true, but also highly deceptive because the experience of energy tells a very different story than “neither created nor destroyed, just changed from one form to another”. The word “form” and what it entails can be highly misleading to a fragile/sensitive imagination (my own at the least) that has high hopes that are shattered in the face of a supposed wal-law of the Universe. The excerpt is long, and I let it ramble on for the possibility of meeting your interests, and to flesh out some of the ontological percussions of mis-acting in the world, and how the fragility of a beautiful living space can be torn down by concentrated mass/energy. Minor additions for clarity that I insert are [put in brackets in a grayed font], but as usual language—mathematical, logical, colloquial, symbolic, and other realms that language torments—is generally inadequate to take on the task of explaining the reality in which we inhabit.

A large way towards re-conceiving motion is to imagine it as not solely existing in dimensional space, but manifesting itself in changes in energy amounts, which cause changes in the very texture of space that lay available for our maneuvering. Because of this, energy requires a new understanding which physics has been ambiguous about giving it. It is on and between this platform that this section will dwell, revisiting the salient points on which much of physics basis itself.

Galilean and Newtonian relativity, simply stated, show us that the spatial motion of one body is only relative to other spatial bodies, and there is no way of determining if something is “absolutely” at rest or in motion (there is no absolute background). Einstein’s relativity has elaborated the picture, showing us that space bends due to the motion of bodies, or, alternatively, space bends to determine the motion of bodies, bending more or less based on the mass of the body in motion.

One of the famous thought experiments to rise out of Einstein’s relativity, popularized in the form of the “twins paradox,” shows how the speed at which something moves effects its spatial and temporal situation relative to other entities moving at different speeds. The experiment shows that if one twin stays on earth (the earth twin) and the other (the astronaut twin) is sped away from the earth at a speed close to that of light, two light-years away from earth and two light-years back to earth, that the astronaut twin will come back almost completely un-aged, whilst the earth twin will be over four years older. This is because the motion—physicists call it the “time dimension”1 of spacetime—internal to the astronaut twin is slowed down when things are moving so fast relative to the speed of light. However, if we bring back the arguments of Galilean and Newtonian relativity, we can say that it cannot be the speed that is slowing down the aging process of the astronaut twin; as we have learned, it could be equally said that the earth and the solar system are speeding away and then towards the astronaut twin at close to the speed of light, rather than s/he being the one who is necessarily speeding away. Something must be happening beyond basic spatial motion to change the inertial frame of reference—the name physicists allocate to a particular stable and synchronized region of spacetime—of either the astronaut twin, the earth, or both, so that processes normally at a common rhythm (synchronization) to one another now vary greatly.

It is a matter of energy, not speed at all, that changes the layout of the spatial region in question. Energy is more than just “the ability to do work” that moves something through space; energy is all space and matter and, its relationship with and within itself. The diffusing outward of energy is one and the same as the spreading out of space. On the other hand, the bundling together of increasing energy in a given area is experienced as the collapse of spatial differentiations—an intensification and simplification. The more intense energy is, the greater the gravitational effect is, explaining the slowing of change for the astronaut twin. The energy inerted into the spaceship’s inertial frame is so great that the ship will barely change, relative to the aging taking place in the less energetic galaxy from which the spaceship breaks. This creates a strong energetic division, putting the spaceship out of sync with the [rest of the] galaxy, making a multiplicity where there once was (and again may be) a holistic singularity [singularity as opposed to multiplicity, not to be confused with the singularity that is posited as the original bundled cosmological origin of the Universe] with common levels of energy dispersion.

Just as objects with higher gravity dominate the maneuverability of the surrounding space, distorting it in a limiting fashion, so too does the energetically accelerated body that cuts through large swaths of space, tearing it and unmaking what has been creatively fashioned out of energy dispersal. A bullet in motion is always breaking, never growing, sending out shards of anti-harmonic sound, breaking organic vibration rhythms, collecting metallic-sameness unto itself. Its relationship with that of the surrounding space is surely a relationship between two multiplicities. Direction does not play a role in determining whether something is at odds with another entity, as elements with differing directions can still be part of a singularity. One of the large finitude of examples is a singular organism with separate cells moving each and every way. [Rather,] multiplicities are derived when differing directions within a singularity start to greedily pull in more energy, leading to an inability and disregard for synchronization with the rest of space, simplifying the spatial field by cutting into it. This is the bullet that has too much accelerated energy to creatively interact with its environment, it is a moving wall that ensures its dominance over that of the less energetic surroundings.b

1The debate over whether time is something extended, like the normal understanding of a dimension, and pre-existing to our perception of it, or rather just an imposed form on what is essentially the motion of matter (and space), is comparable to the debate in the philosophy of time between eternalism and presentism. Eternalism, as I understand it, is what most Einsteinian physicists believe is true, except in addition to the past always existing (what eternalism proper sets down), for the physicists the future does too, and simply has to be “moved into.” Presentism contends that there is no time “dimension,” that the future has to be created out of the present, without any metaphysical or extra-spatial access to “the past.” Both of these philosophically different understandings of reality can be made to agree with all the empirical findings of Einsteinian relativity, though this essay contends that presentism, after a consideration of other arguments, is the actual ontological situation that reality exists in (see the section “Presentism With A Twist”. Thinking of time as extended is just another conceptual mistake that occurs when misconceiving motion.

bHowever, it is the less energetic surroundings that have more curvability to creatively limit the bullet’s negative impact on their synchronizing differentiating culture. Why this is so will hopefully be explained next.