He has passed away, his years locked into a threshold of work that brought sway
To the needles that needless say
black holes are powerbuilder that may
Knock nothingness into violent mayhem
And nothing has he become in the timeless scramble for infinite sleep that nay
Be broken and he might rest in the cosmic sea undisturbed and silently say
Oh George wake up and walk away as destiny’s child and explore what I bequeathed – the restless universe that you exploreth may
like the spring sunshine or winter eve or fall melodrama or summer’s dream
Mathematics could lead to many ways of solving a theorem rather there could exist infinitely many ways of which only a couple are discovered. So what essentially is the necessity of a mathematical proof? Why there has to be a theorem that serves the way it is and why does it exist in the first place? It is the exploration of the universe in its form that compels the nature to predict a behaviour that is exhibited in mathematical proofs. But there could be an inherent defect in the proof of a theorem that the result might not show a relation to the axiom. The expediency in solving the theorem is lost in the way the theorem manifests itself.
The basic defect in the cognition of mathematical theorem is that the controlling necessity is not evident. What is the purpose behind the proof as Mathematics presupposes space and a magnitude. So inherently a mathematical figure occupies a space and a value describing the space. Why there is a necessity of mathematics in architecture? To make the space feasible I must denote it with a value and cognition of the mathematical proof sans any further necessity but to enclose the bounding space.
Truth as such is fixed fact about an event in reality but that is for a posterori truth that is sentient but apriori truth exists without the necessity of any occurring event. The mathematical proofs fall into the latter. It could not be known outwardly as a rote and something must make the axioms or theorems inwardly. Unlike historical truths that are more contingent having no necessity as compared to the laws of nature which are non-arbitrary and demands necessity as the required condition. Mathematical truths though like laws of nature are not contingent and must demand the essentiality of proof.
A philosophical cognition is based upon both existence and essence while mathematical truths are concerned usually with existence. In mathematical truths, insight is external to the substance and as a result, the truth is altered by it. So when I say the sum of two right angles is 180 degrees, the insight into the idea of right angles is external to the proof of it being 180 degrees and thus the proof is altered by it.
Caught between the true shape and the appearance the substance has, it becomes imperative to know the thing through mathematical cognition. Appearance could be deceptive, it might be illusory to view substance as is perceived. Universe poses such a facade as every star is at a mammoth distance from every other star so that we depend upon constellations to group the stars that are close by when viewed from the earth. It is the world of appearances that we indulge in when confronting such constellations. Now to view the true shape of the stars we need mathematical certainty to its location and position.
So what we have got is true mathematical precision and an appearance that offers approximation to the position of stars in terms of constellations. Such that the two notions offer different essences. The false that is the appearance of the constellation is the negative of the substance, that is stars and galaxies are present in the truth itself that is the mathematical positioning of the stars. Though we cannot say that constellation is the component of the distances between the stars. So we could say that in every falsehood or appearance is a grain of truth. The appearance of constellations indicates there is a grain of truth as to the distances between the stars falling in the same constellations. Thus to say false may not be false as such. As Hegel would say, it is the complete otherness that we confront in the two disparate notions.
I speculate about the existence of the true being , that is that part of the being which hardly falls under the influence of time , put in other words that means the true being does not age . Such speculation forms the basis of what is called logic .
It is exactly in the whatness of substance , that is what is the substance , in essence , I construct my logic . What follows is the logic of the true being or the soul . The whole idea of life is the process of knowing the substance and as a result becoming in oneness with the substance . So as Hegel puts forward , I begin with the ‘I ‘ and moves towards the substance , the distinction between the two forms the negative . So the soul is the first principle from where the movement of the body occurs . Now the negative indicates the disparity between the substance and the object . The first principle that moves the cosmos is the soul of the cosmos likewise the movement of the body in relation to the subject ‘I ‘ is the soul of the ‘I’ .
The goal of the becoming through knowing the substance is to be identical with the essence . So the first principle is the logic of the substance and thus basis of all the speculation . So inherently the substance is the spiritual substance as the object of the self and is the goal of all the speculation .
1. Time is unreal, relative and infinite that it ticks forever maybe it has an end when it begins to tick again like an eternal spirit.
2.There is a possibility when time exists as an independent dimension in another parallel universe where it extends from -infinity to +infinity without any matter hence without any event which could be termed as timelessness, in other words, time is forever existing as a singularity.
3.A discrete quantum state that particle experiences with respect to the previous state, the difference in the two states is passage of matter and hence measure of time, though the previous state does not exist hence there is no past.
Nature is the representation of reality that is the object of any subjective understanding of the Universe. In a matter of perception, the object of nature different from thinking being could be subsumed under nature itself. Then the question arises about human nature which is the instantiation of nature within the thinking being. So nature as being is present within the thinking being as an idea, the object of understanding.
Now is the nature more beautiful than the work of art which is the understanding of reality? So put in other words is the painting of Van Gogh more beautiful than nature as we understand than nature itself? The painting of Van Gogh deals with the meaning lent to nature which in general sense is meaningless. Nature, the study of which is though meaningless so when a Physicist studies nature, he is struggling with meaning, looking for finding meaning. The same is true of Van Gogh who lends meaning to nature. Now is this meaning beautiful than the meaningless nature? Indeed the sunset is beautiful but it is meaningless but when an artist paints the nature he lends meaning to it. Indeed meaning is more desirable than meaninglessness. So nature as painted appears beautiful than the sunset in reality.