Proposition 1.
The universe is the singularity.
Inasmuch as the universe is comprised of many things which are different from each other in space and time, a point in the universe of no difference in space and time cannot be said to exist in the universe. There can be no such condition in the universe as ‘an absolute singularity’.
However, if ‘space and time’ were not the measure of difference, but rather a means of understanding, then the actuality of a singular state cannot be ruled out – a singular state which manifests as difference.
Singularity is said to be the state of black holes which exist at the centres of galaxies – singularity can also be implied by quantum entanglement. Therefore, provisionally, as the universe, singularity and plurality must be correlated. If this entanglement cannot simply be a property of the universe, and if the nature of their being entangled is that one is merely a condition of the other’s state; and if singularity cannot be a condition of the universe, then the universe must be a condition of singularity. In other words, if singularity cannot be a condition of plurality, then plurality must be a condition of singularity.
Proposition 2.
Singularity as the pure and absolute extension of under-standing.
If the state of the one thing is singular, there can be no ‘other’ things which are exterior to, and therefore different from the one thing.
Nevertheless, we sense ourselves to be in spacetime surrounded by other things which appear to be different from each other and from us; therefore there must be a means for the singularity to appear to be different to itself while not actually being different from itself.
Pure extendedness is the characterising property of singularity, which extends in a way that maintains its singularity and allows it to appear to be different from the others that surround it. The mode of pure extendedness is under–standing – literally each standing under the others as the constitution of the others.
Proposition 3.
Inasmuch as under–standing as the actual state of the one thing, neither ‘space’ nor ‘time’ as such are part of its constitution. In other words, there is actually no such thing as spacetime, there is only under-standing – which we infinitely various ‘other things’ that are the constitution of the universe, understand as the we are different from each other.
‘Difference’ is a purely existential term.
Proposition 4.
For the singular state of under-standing, under-standing under-stands under-standing.
But as far as we that exist in time and space are concerned, we have to try and grasp how under-standing as pure extension can extend spatiotemporally as ‘difference differentiates difference’. How does, and why should under-standing differentiate? What is the otherness of the other that constitutes the universe?
Proposition 5.
Under-standing as the only means of resolving the measurement paradox.
The double-slit experiment explains the nature of the problem for physicists. But this paradox is not able to be explained by space and time-based solutions. It requires to be looked at from an actual – not a real perspective. In other words it must be resolved in terms of under-standing.
The question is, how are spacetime events actually quantified?
Proposition 6.
Let us try to describe the one thing: let us try to describe the mechanics of under-standing. What actually is absolute extension?
Under-standing is not the extendedness of space and time that we sense around us. Absolute extendedness is simply the principle that the singular one thing is absolutely as the otherness of the others, and nothing else. In other words, singularity is constituted as the under-standing of itself as the under-standing of itself, and nothing else.
But under-standing is not the kind of thing that we would understand to comprise something like ‘reality’. Under-standing has no substance whatsoever. It is the way rather than the means of the universe becoming real.
Proposition 7.
Means is a strange term. It signifies that which the one singular thing is not. Singularity is not the meaning of another thing – the accepted mean. – an average correlation of an object in the context of objects. (That which appears before the gaze is reduced to its average meaning in a linguistic system, thus the system proceeds as a panoply of meaning.) This is what the singularity is not; rather the singularity of understanding is the way.
Way is a strange term. If under-standing is the way, then, as absolute extendedness, it must be the building blocks for all possible patterns – all possible means. But to be sure, we are here many degrees of magnitude prior to mere language. So what does it mean to absolutely extend?
The absolute extension of under-standing is as the singularity of under-standing. There is no other which is ‘under-stood’. Under-standing is the only mode of singularity, for which each stands under that which under-stands – which is the one thing.
Proposition 8.
Under-standing under-stands under-standing, and in so doing is that under-standing. Under-standing is now not under-standing, but rather the under-standing, which is its under-standing of that which was under-stood. Which is the one thing. This is the basis of every thing that exists.
[But here we have relied on the tenseness of existential thought to describe that which has no tenses. And as a proviso that is as acceptable as it is necessary, for otherwise we could only repeat the term Under-standing forever. Our task is gradually to open up the singularity of under-standing to being described in spacetime.]
Proposition 9.
So let us consider how pure under-standing extends – it extends absolutely, totally and without measure. It is the singularity of standing under under-standing which is the way, the pattern, of spacetime, but not the means.
Nevertheless, spacetime is the meaningful evolution of singularity on the basis of difference. Granted that the singularity of under-standing is just that – the one state that never changes, so how does something like differential existence work, as a factor of singularity.
It seems that the only way for spacetime to be the basis of existence is if existence is a deficiency, under-standing limited to linear quantification. It is up or down, left or right, black or white.
Under-standing must under-stand under-standing as the way for which under-stands under-standing as being different. And the only way that this can happen is if under-standing is changed in some way.
Under-standing must experience a change by under-standing under-standing, and that change must be registrable as common spacetime for evolved under-standing that we call comprehension. But we are not at that stage of comprehension.
Proposition 10.
The way of the one thing is the absolute extendedness of pure under-standing, for which all we can say is that under-standing under-stands under-standing without measure. This is the way.
Having said that, time passes for spatial existence, unhindered and without limit. Which means that for an infinite complexity of pure understanding, there must be an infinite complexity of moments of understanding, each of which is capable of developing into a universe – a thing which seems to exists for itself in space and time.
Inasmuch as a thing exists, it experiences itself as being different from the others – which are actually itself – the one thing. But this is just a moment of difference produced when, within the infinite complexity of the one thing, change is registered as ‘a moment in spacetime.’
This is the means whereby the singularity of the one thing, is comprehended as ‘things in space and time’ – by those things. But those things are simply the spatiotemporal evolution of singularity. For them to comprehend this, they must be able to register that evolution in space and time. In other words, they must have a brain.