Let us continue the Lacanian interpretation of Erik Verlinde’s emergent gravity [1]. We associated the time of emergence (not yet emerged part of time) with S(Ⱥ) and the time of attraction (already emerged time) with S₁. In other Lacanian terms, they correspond to the impossible and the necessary [2]:

0) The time of emergence is impossible in the sense that we can never detect it in practice. Just like the infamous “dark matter”, the time of emergence has a merely symptomatic existence. The emergence of the universe “never stops not writing itself”.

1) The time of attraction is necessary in the sense that it’s all that we experience in practice: Matter always attracts matter, things always fall down on the floor, the Moon always orbits the Earth, etc. The universal attraction “never stops writing itself”.

On the other hand, they also correspond to “Nothing is exempt from castration” and “One thing is exempt from castration”:

0) The time of emergence castrates each and every thing in the universe without exception, in the sense that no single thing in the universe can claim an independent existence. The observed macrocosmic existence of each and every thing is dependent on its invisible microcosmic emergence. This is an issue and an occasion to converse.

1) Yet the time of attraction claims exemption from this universal castration, and everything in Physics depends on making macrocosmic observations and explaining them in mathematical terms. If we wouldn’t be able to conserve this exemption, we would lose everything there is to know about the universe. No conservation means no conversation.

These two aspects substantiate the notions of Entropy and Energy. The Conservation Law of Energy is based on keeping one thing exempt from castration, but this does not stop Entropy Law (second law of thermodynamics) from snatching a part of that Energy and dissipating it as heat, revealing that in fact nothing is exempt from castration.

Now let’s go on to define two parts of space by examining the following figure [3]:

The volume inside the blobby surface is the space of emergence (not yet emerged part of space), the space around the blob is the space of attraction (already emerged space). It’s fortuitous that Erik Verlinde denoted the surface-supposed-to-know that delimits those two spaces by the letter Φ, because we will identify this holographic screen with the “phallic function” (Lacan) that is responsible for the castration that subjects nature to its “ontological incompleteness” (Žižek).

Now let’s associate these two spaces with the remaining two terms:

2) The space of attraction is the All that is enabled by the conservation of energy. All existing particles dwell in this space of possibilities determined by the knowledge S₂. This is where you make the physical measurement that “stops writing itself”. This is the place of concertion.

3) The space of emergence is the Not-All as the universal subjection to entropy. It attracts the existing particles by playing the contingent role of objet petit a. This is where surprises, accidents and crises “stop not writing itself”. In other words, this is where symptoms manifest. This is the place of conversion.

This lets us reach a definition and two conclusions: The subject $ is the time of emergence S(Ⱥ) embedded into the time of attraction S₁ [4]. The time of attraction S₁ represents the subject $ for the space of attraction S₂; but the occurrence of the subject $ is actually caused by the space of emergence (objet a).

(Turkish)

Işık Barış Fidaner is a computer scientist with a PhD from Boğaziçi University, İstanbul. Admin of Yersiz Şeyler, Editor of Žižekian Analysis, Curator of Görce Writings. Twitter: @BarisFidaner

Notes:

[1] See “Ideology is grave matter indeed!”, “Double time theory and the surface-supposed-to-know”

[2] About these correspondences: “Resolving the Žižekian Indecision by Settling the Location of the Fantasy”, “Turing Machine and Lacan: Writing and Stopping”

[3] Verlinde, E. (2011). On the origin of gravity and the laws of Newton. Journal of High Energy Physics, 2011(4).

[4] See “The combinatorial ground of spatiality”