Becoming is interpreted by various sciences. The exact sciences, physics, and chemistry, interpret this universal becoming or change of all things on the model of mathematical equations. In such an equation of quantities or magnitudes, one side always balances the other. We call such a process “circular”. Numbers may be subdivided or contracted, they may change their places or positions, but the sum total of the whole equation remains immutably the same. In this manner mechanics constructs change as a change (...) of positions of unchanging particles in a continuous but divisible space and in a continuous but divisible time. Chemistry constructs qualitative change as a change of unchanging elements in such a fashion that the sum total of the elements involved in such transactions is always completely accounted for. But in the twentieth century becoming entered these closed systems. There are no unchanging atoms now, and no unchanging chemical elements. Both the physical atom and the chemical element, thought immutable before, are now seen to disintegrate, to radiate, to change their character according to their position in the “field” of energy in which they occur. (shrink)

If we define the ontological value of X as "given-in-experience," we attain the concept of object-experience. If this experientially given is a sensuous, external image we have "physics." If we interpret such images in terms of psychical functions as their apparent expressions we have psychology. Both together comprise the whole of natural-historical object-experience. Its truth lies in the agreement of those who investigate. We call this scientific kind of knowledge immanent.