List of Contents and the Latest Posting!

My daughter and son-in-law are closing the plant production at the farm and moving to separate residences in town, so, soon, I will have a six-bedroom house and a ‘mothballed’ farm in a tourist area on the South Coast of New South Wales (40 Pebbly Beach Road) and I am wondering what to do with it?

 

Why not reach back to Plato’s idea of a community of philosophers with free accommodation in a seaside tourist area between Batemans Bay and Ulladulla. Any topic may be discussed including the chapters on this website

darrylpenney.com

 

A donation would be welcomed, ut no one would be restricted by lack of money, and the tourist sights, beach, fishing, kangaroos at Pebbly Beach etc.  are available, but you will need transport. Reading, discussion or TV/DVDs, Wood fire, A Telstra and Optus tower is on the property and reception/internet access is excellent.

 

All are welcome, but if I don’t know you, I’ll need references and stays are limited to one week, usually. I am trying to encourage companionship in the long term and then re-start plant production. I expect this idea to fund itself, and will depend on demand and income. The business is using three bedrooms, so I have two rooms with single beds for visitors until the end of 2016 when the others will become available.

 

Pre-reading of chapters 19 to 24, 39 to 43, 48, 50 to 54, 59 to 61 on lifestyle and eating would be helpful as they discuss the lowering of the chance of developing the modern diseases that are so prevalent today.

 

Regards, Darryl      email:  darryldarryl1@bigpond.com

Recently Published:

Chapter 75: The Nature of Life and Logic, Newton Laws of Motion, Reflection and Diffraction

Chapter 74: Extending the Unified Field Theory

Chapter 73: The Science of Organization/management, Why Science Got Lucky, Towards a Unified Field Theory, Plato’s Political System Appears Optimal and is a Pathway to Solving the World’s Problems

Chapter 72: The Why and the How of the Big Bang, Why the Universe is ‘Flat’, Inflation and Quanta are Explained, Why Feynman was Correct, Why Matter Predominates over Antimatter, Why the Speed of Light is Constant and an Absolute, Relativisation is the Work-horse of the Universe, the Fifth Dimension, Dark Energy Might be Necessary for Survival, the Super-world of the Mind, Gravity and the Law of Conservation of Energy Unfolded

Chapter 71: The Logic/Quantum/Gravity Description of the Universe Applied to the Why and the How of the Theory of Relativity Leads to the Realization that Relativisation is the Basic Mechanism of Our Universe and Showing Why Science is Successful and Politics is Not

Chapter 70: Unfolding Philosophy Using the Fifth Dimension and Adding Additional Context to the Concept of Philosophy

Chapter 69: The Logic of the Big Bang and an Explanation of Inflation, the Law of Conservation of Energy is Unfolded with Gravity Producing Feedback through the Mathematics of Concepts and Michelson-Morley Type Relativisation Producing a Logic/Quantum/Gravity Description of the Universe that Defines a Solution of Everything that Contains Plato’s Political System

Chapter 68:  The Sixth Dimension, Constant Speed of Light, Michelson-Morley Enigma Solved, Unfolding the Mathematics of Concepts and its Derivation from the Dimensions

Chapter 67: Unfolding Democracy, the Fifth Dimension and Waking Plato to Save our World

Chapter 66: The Theory of Everything, the Philosophers’ Stone and the Second Coming/Chance

Chapter 65: The Continuum of Physics/Consciousness, the Theory of Everything, Empathy and Compassion

Chapter 64: Unfolding Descartes’ ‘I Think, Therefore I Am’ and thus Answering Heidegger’s: “Why are There Things that Are Rather than Nothing?”, Fundamental Relativity, Why the Michelson-Morley Experiment and ‘Of Politicians and Philosophers’.

Chapter 63: The Philosophy of Life, Proof of Probability of Existence, Heidegger, Michelson-Morley, Einstein, Plato and the Fifth Dimension

chapter 62: Immigration’s Star Chamber Unveiled, the Philosophy of Leadership, More on Existence and the Search for Politicians to Implement a New World Order

Chapter 64: Unfolding Descartes’ ‘I Think, Therefore I Am’ and thus Answering Heidegger’s: “Why are There Things that Are Rather than Nothing?”, Fundamental Relativity, Why the Michelson-Morley Experiment and ‘Of Politicians and Philosophers’.

Chapter 61: Choosing a Diet that Works and ‘Suffer Little Children’

Chapter 60: Measurement of Time Dependent Concepts, Extrapolation, Variety in Food and the Nutrition Orgene

Chapter 59: Measurement of Concepts, the Relativity Paradox Explained and Why our Health has Not Improved Over the Last 165 Years

Chapter 58: An ‘Instant Cure’ for Depression, a ‘Do It Yourself’ Personality Change and the Armageddon Corner

Chapter 57: A New Treatment of Depression and the Antibest Syndrome

Chapter 56: A Possible Cure and Prevention of Deppression

Chapter 55: Compassion and Addiction, Synchronicity is a Proverb, the Placebo Effect and the Government’s Responsibility for Compassion

Chapter 54: The Determination Orgene, Selecting the ‘Best’ and a General Solution to ‘Struggle Street’ and the World’s Overpopulation

Chapter 53: The ‘Obesity Epidemic’ as Part of an Extinction Event and its Solution

Chapter 52: The Digestive System and the Palaeolithic Diet Test

Chapter 51: Why We Die, the ‘Death Gene’ and Measurement

Chapter 50: The ‘Death Gene’ and How to reset it, Alzheimer’s Disease and the ‘Placebo Connection’

Chapter 39: Milk, Mathematics and Magazines

Chapter 48: Depression, Fish-stocks, Fatty Acids and Anti Ageing

Chapter 49: Consciousness, Creativity, Decision-making, Artificial Consciousness and Conservation of Energy

Chapter 47: Getting ‘Preferential’ Politics to Work

Chapter 46: The Cambrian Explosion of Life-forms

Chapter 45: The Logic of Blogging

Chapter 44:The Blog and Blogging

Chapter 43: The Dinky Di Lifestyle Planner Diet

Chapter 42: The Second Law of Life with Stress and Placebo

Chapter 41: The Cell to the Placebo Effect

Chapter 40: The Placebo – Nocebo Continuum

Chapter 38: Stopping Terrorism – a General Solution

Chapter 37: ‘Hark, the Herald Angels Sing’

Chapter 36: Reality Defined

Chapter 35: The Matthew Principle

Chapter34: Religion from First Principles

Chapter 33: Reality and Religion

Chapter 32: Reality and the Mathematics of the Social Sciences

Chapter 12: Why the Brain has Two Hemispheres

Chapter 11: Changing your Mind – the Seventh Sense

Chapter 10: Creative Thinking – the Ninth Sense

Chapter 9: The Brain and Mind

Chapter 8: The Brain

Chapter 31: Gravity, Conservation Laws, Entanglement and Decision-making

Chapter 30: Quantum Computing and Schrodinger’s Cat Paradox

Chapter 29: ‘Spooky’ Action at a Distance and the Logic of Force Fields

Chapter 7: A Mathematics of the Mind

Chapter 16: Is It Time for a New religion?

Chapter 6: Dancing, Nutrition, Poker Machines, Philosophy and Quantum Mechanics

Chapter 2: The Philosophers’ Stone

Chapter 24: The Philosophy of Food and Health

Chapter 23: Anti Aging and Mind Health

Chapter 22: Magic, Proverbs, Politics and the Voting System

Chapter 21: Eating ‘Properly’

Chapter 20: The Overweight and Obese

Chapter 19: How to Live Longer

 Chapter 18: Finding God through One Religion

 Chapter 28: Existence, Reality and the Effect on Fundamental Physics

 Chapter 1: The Trinity and the Second Coming

 Disclaimer, Forward and Introduction

 Table of Contents

Why BLOG this Book?

List of Contents and the Latest Posting!

Chapter 75: The Nature of Life and Logic, Newton Laws of Motion, Reflection and Diffraction

Abstract: our mind/brain uses logic continually, but it is a mixture, and I have derived it and place it in context so that we can understand it better and use it properly. Life has evolved a common-sense logic that is a product of its reality and necessary for its continuance and growth, but there are higher levels of logic such as the Golden ratio that is an absolute that we use to underpin an appreciation of beauty/balance/enjoyment etc. with which we can all relate, as is necessary in a reality. Examples are given of the logic of the ’physical’ universe arising out of the fifth dimension and the formation of Everything and its methods applied to relativity, quantum mechanics, inflation, diffraction and reflection of photons etc. as well as indicating a problem with Newton’s laws of motion, and a breakdown in the fundamental basis of science.

submitted to IJTP

Chapter 75: The Nature of Life and Logic, Newton Laws of Motion, Reflection and Diffraction

Chapter 74: Extending the Unified Field Theory

Abstract: the name Unified Field Theory promises a theory that is wide-reaching and includes all fields including the local football field. This derivation does just that, because the theory uses the mathematics of concepts that allows all desired fields with any desired priority to be set for the speciality of fields to be considered.  In other words, the theory presented here ticks all the boxes and is infinitely adaptable to the users’ wants, answers the  ‘why?’ in a deeper way by widening the definitions of the ‘particles of action’, ‘show-cases’ the mathematics of concepts and truly becomes the Unified Field Theory that does away with all assumptions and rests only on the dimensions of a probability space and the associated measurement/entanglement/ecstasy of the physical universe and the concept/context/beauty of Life.

submitted to IJTP

Chapter 74: Extending the Unified Field Theory

Chapter 73: The Science of Organization/management, Why Science Got Lucky, Towards a Unified Field Theory, Plato’s Political System Appears Optimal and is a Pathway to Solving the World’s Problems

 

Abstract: the mind/brain appears to have created an Extinction Event in the Cambrian and it is doing so again, at the present time, and the problem is being caused by our lack of adequate tools of organization/management that we are trying to use top-down and which make more sense when viewed from a bottom-up prospective using the dimensions of a probability space [our universe]. The quantum/evolution – logic/gravity description of the universe produces a range of conditions/understanding that can be applied to every organization/society, and science, as practiced today, struck it lucky in a top-down approach that ‘proves the rule’ and its success shows how effective the application of the science of organization/management can be to solving the world’s problems and re-establishing a meaningful evolution through Plato’s politics. The mathematics of concepts requires relevance/relativity and assigned absolutes and indicates how a Unified Field Theory is derivable.

submitted to IJTMP

Chapter 73: The Science of Organization/management, Why Science Got Lucky, Towards a Unified Field Theory, Plato’s Political System Appears Optimal and is a Pathway to Solving the World’s Problems

Chapter 72: The Why and the How of the Big Bang, Why the Universe is ‘Flat’, Inflation and Quanta are Explained, Why Feynman was Correct, Why Matter Predominates over Antimatter, Why the Speed of Light is Constant and an Absolute, Relativisation is the Work-horse of the Universe, the Fifth Dimension, Dark Energy Might be Necessary for Survival, the Super-world of the Mind, Gravity and the Law of Conservation of Energy Unfolded

Abstract: I have inserted a bottom-up ‘floor’ under science to place the concepts in context by suggesting that our universe is a probability space and using the dimensions of that space to provide context. Examples are given as to why the universe is predominately matter, not anti-matter, the reason that the speed of light is a constant for all energies, why and how light moves in a vacuum and the logic/quantum/gravity description of our universe suggests that inflation occurred due to a simple relativisation of the dimensions that are related through the Lorentz transformation, provides an explanation of why the universe is expanding at a constant rate, how Feynman’s approach to quantum mechanics was right for the wrong reasons and the suggestion that (a+b)=1 is the fifth dimension and the ‘face of God’ and shows the relativisation that is the mechanics behind the working of the universe. The creation of Dark Energy is a natural process and a large quantity of it may be necessary for the continuance of life and the basic equations are given that determine the how and the why of the Law of Conservation of Energy. It is shown that the principle behind quantum mechanics leads to evolution, business, society etc. Our simple probability space universe has a measurement/entanglement duality and Life has created/evolved a concept/context duality super-world of the mind that uses the mathematics of concepts.

submitted to IJTMP

 

Chapter 72: The Why and the How of the Big Bang, Why the Universe is ‘Flat’, Inflation and Quanta are Explained, Why Feynman was Correct, Why Matter Predominates over Antimatter, Why the Speed of Light is Constant and an Absolute, Relativisation is the Work-horse of the Universe, the Fifth Dimension, Dark Energy Might be Necessary for Survival, the Super-world of the Mind, Gravity and the Law of Conservation of Energy Unfolded

Chapter 71: The Logic/Quantum/Gravity Description of the Universe Applied to the Why and the How of the Theory of Relativity Leads to the Realization that Relativisation is the Basic Mechanism of Our Universe and Showing Why Science is Successful and Politics is Not

Chapter 71: The Logic/Quantum/Gravity Description of the Universe Applied to the Why and the How of the Theory of Relativity Leads to the Realization that Relativisation is the Basic Mechanism of Our Universe and Showing Why Science is Successful and Politics is Not

 

By Darryl Penney

 

Abstract: I have inserted a bottom-up ‘floor’ under science to place its concepts in context. Science uses mathematics and measurement to ‘build’, through experiments, layers of technology and has had monumental success, however, mathematics ‘breaks down’ in certain areas, and requires a mathematics of concepts, to consider the logic/quantum/gravity description of the universe, relativity, quantum mechanics, the social sciences etc. because logic has been, I believe, unappreciated. Reasons are given to why Francis Bacon’s scientific method is so successful and a simple logical explanation of the Special Theory of Relativity and how space-time is bent by energy and the dimensions of the universe are variable with only the speed of light absolute, thus combining the Special and General Theories of Relativity into one simple relativisation, which is a simple property of a probability universe (fifth dimension (a+b+c….)=1 and shows the mechanism behind relativity and conservation of energy and is another indicator that our universe is a probability space.

I believe that the Michelson-Morley experiment proves that our universe is a probability of existence universe and ‘British astronomer Sir Martin Rees defines the multiverse to be the ensemble of all possible universes…. Nevertheless, the many-universe postulate is intellectually challenging, and purports to explain a plethora of unlikely circumstances… Surely there must be some underlying theory, which provides a physical explanation.’ (The Infinite Cosmos: questions from the frontiers of cosmology, Joseph Silk, p 175)

 

There is an explanation and it is that we are ‘abstractions’ that evolved because we could evolve in this probability universe, and maybe in others, but we can never know of the others. Scientists have done a good job explaining ‘how’ things work, but ‘to understand the universe at the deepest level, we need to know not only how the universe behaves, but why….  This is the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe and Everything.’ (The Grand Design, Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, p 9). Mankind is at last realizing its true importance, first the sun circled the earth, then we believe, and still do believe, that we live in a ‘real’ world and now we find that we may not even exist, and if we do, it is as mathematical/logical abstractions in probability space!

 

Its no use considering if we could exist in a ‘real’ world, because our universe is a probability space and that means a fifth dimension (a +/and b)=1 with a and b being measurements/measurers, as an illustration) that gives CEM (mathematics of concepts/entanglement/measurement) and they indicate the basis to the following quotations.  ‘If individual particles interfere with themselves, then the wave nature of light is the property not just of a beam or of a large collection of photons but of the individual particles.’ (p 70) Everything that we are, or surrounds us, is energy, of the Big Bang, in different states (like water, steam, ice) and states have similarities as well as differences, and the wave/particle duality is because we are using world O (our) world units/thinking and the underlying duality is concept/context (or measurement/logic).

 

‘Quantum physics might seem to undermine the idea that nature is governed by laws, but that is not the case. Instead it leads us to accept a new form of determinism: given the state of a system at some time, the laws of nature determine the probabilities of various futures and pasts rather than determining the future and past with certainty.’ (p 72) This quotation aligns with a probability universe, and further, the Law of Conservation of Energy (through entanglement (a+b)=1) is changing every point (of energy, which is everything) in the universe continually (relativisation), so nothing is static.

 

The same equation (a+b)=1 shows the mathematics of concepts where a result is determined ‘exactly’ only when every point in the universe is considered and then only at that instant. In other words, measurement/concepts are linked together by entanglement in a duality and a concept requires a measurement. Another interpretation of the same equation (a+b)=1 is that there is no absolute to a particle, but there is to the speed of a photon (Michelson-Morley experiment, in vaccuo), and that sentence expands into the (apparent) ‘weirdness’ of relativity, below. In a probability space, all probabilities must be considered and that simple equation (a+b)=1 has many ‘faces’ that must be considered, especially logic, because we can write it as (a +/and b)=1.

 

Further, I believe that we are necessary to define/make logical decisions, whether we exist or not and further, that we can use that logic and apply it to our world, so let’s look at the enigmatic relativity. Relativity is reputed to be a ‘difficult’ subject to understand, but applying the mathematics of concepts, that can be derived by observation from the dimensions of our probability space, we can trivialize its effects and form a general theory. In other words, we will combine the Special and General Theories of Relativity into a simple understandable/logical whole without disturbing the mathematics behind them. This can be done by inserting a bottom up context using the dimensions of a probability space that forms part of the logic/quantum/gravity description of the universe.

 

For a probability space, using the simple notation (a+b)=1=(a+c) shows the Michelson-Morley experiment that b=c when we compare the measurement of the speed of light for observers b and c and, and the relation (a+b)=1 shows the fifth dimension. Considering relativity, we find that mass, length and time do strange things. Why do these particular attributes all change? Ours is a simple probability space, so why do we get such horrors as the Lorentz contraction, which is 1/square root (1-v squared/ c squared) affecting time, length and mass? The reason is that there is one absolute (the speed of light) and everything else, being/including the dimensions, relativises to keep the speed of light an absolute/constant in terms of measurement and logic.

 

Relativisation forces two observers moving relative to each other to measure the speed of light (in vacuuo) to be the same and that is a property of a probability space (a +/and b)=1 with interdependence of concepts (a, b) and context (a +/and b) in measurement (concept) and logic (context/entanglement). The speed of light provides the only absolute/solution (unless we provide one) to (a+b)=1 and that is why we will find that the dimensions of the frame of reference and the energy (space-time and the fifth dimension (a+b)=1) of a non-rest-mass particle changes as the speed of light is approached, in order to prevent both a logical (context) and measurement (concept) singularity.

 

This Lorentz contraction is used by mathematics to model what is both a measurement of, and a logical solution to a singularity and I am going to show how this situation is logically sorted out by our universe so that is does not occur. This leads to foreshadowing a statement of relativity that is simple and straight-forward, that ‘as a frame of reference approaches the speed of light (in vaccuo) as viewed from our frame, the dimensions of that frame of reference relativise’. This statement is simple and requires no postulates and shows that the fifth dimension provides a simple answer.

 

It is difficult to believe how important is the fifth dimension, and that it have been neglected for so long, so as an aid to showing the duality of concept and context, let us look at the concept of the Lorentz contraction and its application to Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity, which is the relativity between two observers. There is nothing wrong with the mathematics and the equations have been fully tested, but ‘why’ and ‘how’ do such weird happenings occur? There is a singularity/absolute at the speed of light, and it is both a logical (context) and a measurable (concept) singularity because the measuring stick (speed of light) becomes unavailable. This is a simple situation and can be dealt with simply by relativisation.

 

I believe that a logic component would be lost and chaos would apply if the particle’s frame of reference did not relativise. In other words, the logic that the speed of light exceeds the absolute between two frames of reference is forbidden logically as well, as above, by being physically unmeasurable because the speed of light would be slower. The mathematics of concepts (a +/and b)=1 shows that there are many attractors that contribute to an answer, but the ‘+/and’ shows the concept/measurement and context/logic are a duality and both must be considered independently. The above has for me, answered the fundamental reasons (logic and measurement) of why relativisation must occur without confusing the issue with space/time/energy doing strange things.

 

Relativisation is a fundamental part of the workings of the universe and acts on ‘muons in the cosmic rays because of the phenomenon of time dilation. Produced high in the atmosphere, the muon take milliseconds to reach the earth. They should have decayed: in its rest frame a muon only survives a microsecond before spontaneously decaying… This means that a single cosmic ray proton has the same energy as that of a rock weighing a kilogram dropped from the top of the Eiffel Tower…. These very energetic cosmic rays are rather rare. Only about one per hundred square kilometers per year at the very highest energies impacts the earth. Each impact at the top of the atmosphere produces a shower of energetic particles.’ (The Infinite Cosmos, Joseph Silk, p 54)

 

A reality is needed in an organization/evolution and I used a Logic of the Half-truth as a reality (true, false, true some of the time and false the rest, both true and false at the same time (chaos)) to separate out chaotic statements and limit them. A movement into chaos is non-reality, magic/non-organization happens and we move into non-logic because every point in a probability space is counted continually. In other words, chaos could be viewed as a logic singularity that is just as destroying as the concept/mathematical singularity.

 

First, I will repeat a quotation given before that shows how logic bypasses a singularity. ‘I am using five dimensions against spacetime’s four dimensions, and worrying facts like inside a black hole’s horizon “does spacetime come to an end”? (Black Holes and Time Warps: Einstein’s Outrageous Legacy, Kip S. Thorne, p 465)’ Whether space-time exists is of no concern to me because the black hole is still doing its job of providing gravity (fifth dimension) around which stars rotate and being part of the universe’s house-keeping calculations (of energy). In other words, inside a black hole is irrelevant to the discussion.

 

I will start bringing us into the real world by citing Plato’s problem that there are no absolute solutions to (a +/and b) =1 unless we assign one, and this ‘overlaps’ with the (world O sixth dimension) forward-planning. This simple equation is the fifth dimension of our probability of existence universe and knowing that the speed of light is an absolute, that allows a unique solution, and forces the universe to relativise the observers b and c in the experiment (a+b)=(a+c)=1. This would be an enigma in a ‘real’ world, or in a world that thinks it is ‘real’ and it has been annoying me for decades and it is nice to lay it to rest because it is a contextual proof of a probability universe and shows that in our universe, space makes the speed of light an absolute, or perhaps, we should say that the properties of our universe, dictate the speed of light.

 

In other words, firstly, quantum mechanics in a probability space must continually test every possibility, and secondly, no determination/determinant is made until an iteration or mind/brain requests a determination by measuring something and making it determinant. This is a simple logical statement that something is only determined when it is measured, because (literally) everything (energy) is being relativised continually because entanglement (a+b) is necessary for conservation of energy and it must act instantly.

 

Of the five dimensions, three space produce length shortening in the direction of motion, time passing slows down, energy increases, mass increases, perhaps chemical bonds strengthen etc. The effect appears to be to increase the energy inputted and these changes to the dimensions are to ensure that an absolute is never breached and no particle (with rest-mass) can ever reach the speed of light. These results show that space-time relativise, but mass, which is a form of energy changes and this suggests that energy is a dimension, and is, in fact, the fifth dimension.

 

I believe that a breakdown in logic cannot be allowed to happen. This ‘begs the question’ of why logic/organization/repeatability is so important and goes back to the reality (logic of the Half-truth) where the only options are between true/false and chaos (lack of organization). There would be no going back if chaos occurred because ‘the second law of thermodynamics, which may be the most fundamental law in the universe. It applies to absolutely everything, no exceptions. Put simply, it says that in closed systems the total entropy (roughly speaking, disorder) can never decrease.’ (The Eerie Silence, Paul Davies, p 150)

 

All resources are being thrown at this possibility, because (logically) if one particle somewhere in 400 billion galaxies over 14 billion years, exceeded the absolute, its mass would become infinite, its energy infinite and make a mess, so, it is back to the multiverse/biocomputer and the fact that it has not happened nor likely to happen soon, because we are the proof that it has not happened.  So many changes in so many variables reflects that it is logically simpler (Occam’s razor) to change all of the dimensions in a frame of reference than to single out one, which requires extra rules. This last sentence looks simple, but it is profound because Occam’s razor is a simple solution to the general mathematics of concepts and also, that that mathematics is so basic to our universe that it is immediately apparent from (a +/and b)=1 (context and concept). Also, relativisation occurs, simply because (a+b+c…)=1 is a dimension of a probability space, but, also, the fifth dimension CEM (mathematics of concepts/entanglement/measurement) can be derived from it. Also, perhaps the singularity can be thought of as the merging of concept/context which is forbidden in a probability space where (a +/and b)=1 only has a solution with an absolute (or assigned absolute, Plato’s problem).

 

I believe that ‘as a frame of reference of a non-rest-mass particle approaches the speed of light (in vaccuo), the dimensions of that frame of reference are relativised to stop the speed of light being attained’ is a simple and complete explanation of the Special Theory of Relativity. This focuses the mind on the energy that is absorbed by the particle as shown by the Lorentz contraction. Further, it uses the dimensions and the absolute in the same way that is needed to solve Plato’s problem and shows why we must set absolutes and long-term planning for the world. The long-held view that logic/measurement is ‘outside’ consideration (that the observer is distinct from the experiment) must change when it is realized that everything is affected by the dimensions and the fifth and sixth dimensions must be included.

 

We can take this further, by building on the currently accepted space-time curvature that is caused by gravity near large suns etc., and I should stress that the mathematical framework can be used, but the current logic/theory is not correct, in my opinion. I mentioned five dimensions (three space, one time passing and one Consciousness/energy) and that these were relativised as the speed of light is approached by a frame of reference, and further, gravity is a big part of the General Theory of Relativity, but I believe, that gravity is both an energy and a logic.

 

In other words, the Special and General theories are really one simple relativisation of everything as mentioned in the Theory of Everything because everything is energy and every form of energy contains a logic component that is part of the ‘essence’ of a probability space (a +/and b)=1 and concept and context must be separate, and the concept of the Law of Conservation of Energy links with the context of the Theory of Everything.

 

Restating the above, ‘as a frame of reference of a non-rest-mass particle approaches the speed of light (in vaccuo) as viewed from our frame, the dimensions of that frame of reference are relativised to stop the speed of light being attained’ is similar to the Special Theory, but as the energy (concept, including gravity) and gravity (context), is relativised, I believe that the General Theory is contained in it as well. ‘Einstein completed his general theory of relativity in 1916. It is a theory that describes the interaction between matter, space and time, operating through gravity’ (The Universe A Biography, John Gribbin, p 112) In other words, in world O, the force of gravity is used, but gravity is both concept and context in world P units and they are a duality and can never be the same.

 

We now have to return to the concept of the multiverse, and that is the infinite set of probability spaces (universes) that contain all of the variations of the physical constants.  Gravity is an ‘attraction’ that is necessary for us to exist and to hold us on the surface of the planet and is a physical constant that probably changes throughout the multiverse. Notice that, in the simple case of kinetic energy and gravity, as in a star system, if we label the kinetic energy positive, the gravity potential is negative and the total is zero.

 

‘One requirement any law of nature must satisfy is that it dictates that the energy of an isolated body surrounded by empty space is positive, which means that one has to do work to assemble the body. That’s because if the energy of an isolated body were negative, it could be created in a state of motion so that its negative energy was exactly balanced by the positive energy due to its motion…. Empty space would therefore be unstable.’ (The Grand Design, Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, p 179).

 

Thus it is apparent that gravity must have a physical value that allows everything to work, and it is probably true (or workably true) that all forms of energy have an ‘accountable’ proportion of gravity. Occam’s razor would say, as above, that it is simpler if all forms have the same proportion, or a workable proportion, as our universe is still functioning. Further, entanglement ensures that an ‘accounting’ leads to the conservation of energy and the variables (of energy) are relativised through (as one form) the energy of light quanta (Pound-Rebka).

 

In other words, ‘”theoretical physics” does not mean ”having conjectures about physics”. It means establishing an elaborate interlocking system of specific mathematical equations to capture aspects of physical reality that on casual inspection we would never guess are related, and then modeling those relationships quantitatively.’ (The Eerie Silence, Paul Davies, p 75) The book from which this quotation was taken makes the case that we are lucky to have theoretical physics because many other civilizations used ‘conjectures’ etc., and the basis of this method was outlined by Francis Bacon, but, why does the experimental method work so well? The scientific method sets an experiment (ascribes an absolute), experiments, and if successful, makes a theory, but the quotation does not mention logic, except implied in designing the experiment, but the duality of concept/context or measurement/logic is built in to the method. That is why science is so successful and we must do the same with politics if we wish to manage the planet sustainably.

 

In particular, this ‘theory’ provides a logic/quantum/gravity description of the universe that through the concept of conservation of energy and the contextual Theory of Everything as well as the sixth dimension that we derived, that we call forward planning is used to impart success to our day-to-day lives. This all started with the mathematics of concepts that provided the means of questioning our existence and that same mathematics is obvious from the dimensions, albeit, when you know what to look for (from (a+b)=1). I believe that these are the tools that we need to manage our social lives, limit population, decrease emotional damage through a better family-life etc. Even better is, by being bottom-up, it can be ‘slid’ under the current mathematics/technology/whatever without changing that which has gone before. I think that this is shown above, and especially in chapter 70, where the ‘greatest minds’, each, had to initiate a top-down concept instead of the far easier method of following a concept that is already ‘anchored’ in context.

 

The simplicity of the one sentence approach to understanding relativity makes it easier to contemplate and to use as a context for the confabulation that we need in day-to-day life. Relativisation is the ‘key’ and is provided out of the dimensions, and of course, everything must be available through the dimensions and provides another ‘proof’ that we live in a probability universe and we can take this further at a later date.

 

Prediction 1: mathematics is exact and says that the relative speed of two photons leaving opposite sides of the sun is 2 x the speed of light, but Einstein postulated the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment and that is a product of a probability universe, not a ‘real’ universe. Relativisation simplifies the concept of relativity (as above) because relativity is simply a result of the concept/context of a fixed speed of light, further, the mathematics (of concepts) that must be used is also contained in the fifth dimension. The prediction is simplification of so many concepts and the duality of concept/context leads to the use of the mathematics of concepts for the social sciences and better managing the planet. Society will have to adjust to this concept/context that can be ‘slid under’ and make everything so much clearer, just as the fact that the earth revolves around the sun was accepted, albeit, eventually.

 

Prediction 2: this is a good opportunity to consolidate, from the quotation, above, that theoretical physics forms an ‘elaborate interlocking system’, and bringing the above use of the dimensions into the real world, the Feynman diagrams are a good example. Looking at the fifth dimension CEM (mathematics of concepts/entanglement/measurement it is literally obvious that Feynman’s formulation was correct because entanglement (context) links every point, measurement (concept) is available for every point and provides the probability of quantum states in a probability space (a+b+c+d …)=1 and this indicates yet another ‘proof’ that our universe is a probability space.

 

The knowledge/measurement of every possibility, as shown by the Feynman formulation leads to relativisation of the dimensions to prevent concept/context singularities and this process is undoubtedly that which lies behind the Law of Conservation of Energy. When the duality of concept/context is extended to the summation of energy terms, bearing in mind that (literally) everything in the universe is energy, the ‘natural’ place of dark matter and especially dark energy becomes apparent.

 

Further, dark energy is a vital part of us being here (multiverse) and ‘vacuum/dark energy is there alright, with a density of a little less than a joule per cubic kilometer’ of space. (The Eerie Silence, Paul Davies, p 150) Relativisation is a basic property of a probability space (a+b+c..….)=1 and its use in energy conservation also, shows why dark energy is necessary and why it needs to be such a large quantity.

 

References: (1) this chapter (71) follows and adds to chapter 69: The Logic of the Big Bang and an Explanation of Inflation, the Law of Conservation of Energy is Unfolded with Gravity Producing Feedback through the Mathematics of Concepts and Michelson-Morley Type Relativisation Producing a Logic/Quantum/Gravity Description of the Universe that Defines a Solution of Everything that Contains Plato’s Political System

 

(2) all quotations are fully referenced in the body and earlier chapters can be found on   http://darrylpenney.com  if required.

 

 

 

 

Link

Chapter 70: Unfolding Philosophy Using the Fifth Dimension and Adding Additional Context to the Concept of Philosophy

Chapter 70: Unfolding Philosophy Using the Fifth Dimension and Adding Additional Context to the Concept of Philosophy

 

By Darryl Penney

 

Abstract: philosophy has been struggling for 3,000 years because it often does not have enough context to marry with the concepts of philosophy, for example, Plato’s problem of a lack of an absolute of justice is a property of our probability universe, and cannot be adequately grasped from top-down examination, and so the fifth dimension is used to place a ‘floor’ under the theories of the well-known philosophers, throughout history, by using a bottom-up technique to enhance their work so that only the understanding is increased, without unduly changing the concepts.

‘Perhaps the right answer to the question: “What is philosophy?” is that philosophy is what Wittgenstein calls a family resemblance concept. If we look at a variety of different philosophers, we will find overlapping similarities, but there need not be any common, defining feature that makes them all philosophers.’ (p 6) On the contrary, I believe that there is a deeper level that defines the features that makes them all philosophers and yet won’t change the status of philosophy because philosophy has evolved in a top-down manner and I believe that (a bottom-up) ‘floor’ can be easily inserted. The reason is, that (literally) everything is defined by the dimensions of the universe that we live in and they require concept and context and the definition is saying just that – that philosophy has not adequate context! In other words, I intend adding extra context between the philosophers’ concepts by using the fifth dimension.

 

On a personal note, philosophy is a ‘closed book’ to me, but I can still ‘unfold’ it by treating philosophers as concepts and applying the mathematics of concepts to them and this is made possible by the excellent analyses in the book ‘The Great Philosophers: the lives and ideas of history’s greatest thinkers’ by Stephen Law. ‘Unfolding’ is the investigation of the context and concepts and fitting the concepts (philosophers) into an array and mapping their contexts onto a fixed/unchanging basis that no one can dispute, that are the dimensions of our (probability of existence) universe.

 

From chapter 69, the fifth dimension is a complicated dimension that contains within it, the definition of the mathematics of concepts because concepts (a, b) are measurement, and context is (a+b=1) and that shows that the entanglement/context and measurement/concept must always be present, together (duality). Further, the equation (a+b)=1 shows that there are no unique solutions (absolutes) except for the speed of light and (the logic component of gravity leading to the) conservation of energy/Consciousness, and we found that we had to assign an absolute to concepts for them to be measurable and useful.

 

The equation (a+b)=1=(a+c) is obviously (mathematically) true for the measurement of the speed of light a, and observers b and c, or the same observer at different times, speeds etc., but this is the statement of the Michelson-Morley experiment and the obvious answer, that b=c, is the answer that the experiment found that resolves the apparent enigma that the speed of light is the same to observers moving relatively to each other. The realization is that the speed of light is an absolute and that forces our universe to relativise the observers b and c. and proves that our universe is a probability (of existence) space and that (a+b)=1 applies.

 

The dimensions define our universe with the total dimensions being: x, y, z, time passing, (a+b+c+…..)=1 and future time, and the above equation is for a simple two-point space and can be written more accurately as (a +/and b)=1 to show the physical/logical attributes. The equation has yielded valuable insights, in particular, the proof of the existence of the mathematics of concepts, that context and concept are intimately related, that no absolutes exist (Plato’s problem except light/gravity), that an absolute must be set for the equation to have a particular solution (that (set-absoute +/and b)=1 has a solution) and the need to set an absolute will be used time and time again. In fact, these requirements should be taken as a major part of the mathematics of concepts and leads into its inherant iterative nature.

 

‘According to Plato, those objects that we seem to see around us – chairs and tables, trees and mountains, ants and planets – are not what is ultimately real. They are mere shadows or reflections of the truly real objects – the forms.’ (p 23) We have created a (world O) set of units that we use for our convenience, but they may not apply to the probability universe (P) and in particular, we acknowledge many types of energy, such as potential, kinetic, chemical etc., but to simplify, I will call the conservation of energy to be a context and the concepts are the energy terms (potential, kinetic, chemical etc). These energy terms that we think to be different are the same in certain respects, such as gravity (logic, Theory of Everything). The units of speed and force (world O) evolved with us in the predator/prey situation over evolutionary time and we evolved a reality out of the probability of existence and that reality was to help us survive and see things ‘better’, but as Plato said world O and P have to be viewed through different paradigms.

 

‘A categorical imperative, by contrast, does not say, “If you want to achieve P, do A”. It simply says “do A’. According to Kant, genuinely moral principles have this categorical character. Our moral duty is: don’t steal, period. Its not: don’t steal if you don’t want to get caught. So genuinely moral imperatives tell us what we should do irrespective of what outcome or consequences we might desire.” (p 104)

 

Further, ‘According to Kant, we can establish what our moral duty is by testing our maxims against one basic categorical imperative: Act only according to maxims which you can will also be universal laws.  In other words, for an action to be moral, the underlying principle on which you act must be universalizational: it must be a maxim that everyone can adopt. (p 104) Note that “always lie”, fails the test of universalizability. By contrast, “Always tell the truth” passes the test. This is a maxim on which we can all act.’ (p 105) Note that absolutes are being set.

 

‘This brings us to Kant’s second key moral principle: Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in yourself or in another, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end.’ (p 105) Now, I will skip to ‘a third worry raised about Kant’s moral philosophy … Kant is clear that, if we act solely out of, say, a feeling of compassion, we are not acting morally. But is this true? Suppose a hospital patient has two visitors.  Each visitor arrives every day, bringing flowers, fruit and gifts. Each does their best to lift the patient’s spirits. One of the visitors, Sally, visits out of sympathy for the patient. … The other visitor, Sue, has a rather different motive. … simply because she thinks it is her moral duty to do so. She believes reason dictates that she should behave in this way – so that is what she does.’ (p 107)

 

‘Yet Kant would insist that Sally is acting wholly amorally…. In Kant’s view, only Sue does the right thing for the right reason. Again, this is counter-intuitive, to say the least’. (p 107) On the contrary, the statement only appears counter-intuitive because we have assumed that compassion is good, and have taken too few concepts into the discussion (lack of context). The context of compassion is, I believe, an addiction that we have retained because we never had the opportunity to use it, nor lose it, simply because Survival of the Fittest is a system that weeds out the unfit! This problem is two-fold, firstly, the context is not wide enough, and secondly, the lack of experimentation that compassion is good.

 

The mathematics of concepts is part of the fifth dimension and deals with concepts and measurement, but whilst it is easiest to sit in an armchair and ponder Aristotle, as Bacon points out, we could run expensive social experiments, but I believe that we can use a social experiment that has been running for 3,000 million years and the results are there for the taking. I am referring to a biocomputer (evolution) and I believe that it is mathematically a Truth because of the iteration. In other words, I am saying, in the light of the paragraph above, that philosophy should use the mathematics of concepts and social-experimenting/measuring using (say) the biocomputer as a concept.  To compare, science/technology uses mathematics and experimentation/measuring and has been successful.

 

According to the Theory of Everything/Consciousness (context, and the Law of Conservation of Energy is the concept), evolution of ‘players’ (us) are ‘playing out logical decisions’ in a probability of existence space for 3,000 million years and we evolved under Survival of the Fittest where the weakest/unsuitable were eaten. Evolution is a measurement (iteration) and forms a biocomputer of decisions that we can use. When farming started, we used Survival of the Best (mathematics) and mathematics (a special case of the mathematics of concepts) has led us to Armageddon with over-population, over-use of resources, global warming etc.

 

We are destroying our world because compassion is something that we have lived with for only 10,000 years and we do not realize how it is affecting us genetically, morally, politically etc. One simple example is that in politics, those that benefit from the state vote in elections, but the proverb (a simple solution of the mathematics of concepts) ‘forbids’ anyone that benefits from the vote, from voting. This contextual proof is mathematical and easy to understand, but for a philosophical proof we need to determine an absolute (Plato’s problem) and for that we need the (ultimate) absolute to be Survival of the Best (mathematics of concepts). If a ‘proof’ is required, the Survival of the Best (mathematics) that we have used for 10,000 years has led us to Armageddon.

 

I was tempted to end the last paragraph with ‘“QED” (quod erat demonstrandum: which was the thing to be proved)’ because ‘Spinoza’s Ethics, is not, as the title might suggest, just about ethics. It develops an entire theory concerning the nature of reality. One of the most striking things about the book is its structure, which mirrors that of a geometrical proof – indeed, the full title of the book is Ethics Demonstrated in a Geometrical Manner.’ (p 78) ‘Spinoza rejects Decartes’s dualism of substances. He insists that there is only one substance. That substance is the spatio-temporal world. Of course, the world appears to us to be composed of many discrete and separable items or substances: houses, tables, humans, ants, and so on. But appearances are deceptive. What we consider to be separate things are, in truth, not separate entities or substances in their own right, but, like ripples on a lake, mere temporary undulations in the one great substance.’ (p 78)

 

This is very like (chapters 66, 68 and 69) the Theory of Everything, where the Big Bang is a naturally occurring logic creation that starts with logic speed (infinite), creating inflation until energy is ‘split’ and slows to light speed and matter condenses, electric charge and angular momentum ‘split’. The Everything is physics, chemistry, biology, consciousness leading to Survival of the Fittest, Survival of the Best (mathematics) and in the future, Survival of the Best (mathematics of concepts). The concept side is Conservation of Energy and the (associated) context is the Theory of Everything/Consciousness. This is important because concept/context can be derived from the dimensions, whereas other comparisons such as ice, water, steam, mass, energy, positive, negative are all states of energy/logic.

 

However, the ‘spatio-temporal world’ quoted above, is space-time that is four dimensions and as derived above, the fifth dimension is CEM (mathematics of concepts/entanglement (a+b=1)/measurement (a, b) where a and b are measurements/observers in a simple probability space). Further, the sixth dimension (world O) is future-time that leads to the very important concept of ‘forward planning’. From chapter 69, ‘the dimensions define the universe and everything in it (principally) by, (a+/and b)=1 that shows the mathematics of concepts and the need for concept, context and absolute, as derived above, and if this seems strange, it is because the derivatives are not obviously related until viewed through the Logic/Quantum/Gravity description of the universe’, and from chapter 67: ‘the Theory of Everything/Consciousness could be considered the scenery/back-drop/players to the “play” in the theatre of space-time.’ This shows the interrelatedness of the dimensions and the necessity to consider them all, at all times, and in doing this, leads to the Solution to Everything to denote that (literally) everything is defined by the dimensions, including the solutions.’

 

I needed to justify to myself that what I thought that I saw, was, in fact there, and that philosophy could benefit from placing a bottom-up ‘floor’ under the philosophers, and now the rest of the chapter expands the above to the later philosophers. The definition of philosophy says that it is a family resemblance concept (top-down) and I have used the dimensions of the universe to derive the Theory of Everything/Consciousness (bottom-up) and I am ‘marrying’ the two paradigms. Plato’s absolute and ‘shadows’, Spinoza’s spatio-temporal world expanded to five/six dimensions and Kant’s belief that Sally’s compassion is wrong, fit with the bottom-up view. Remember that I know very little philosophy and am selecting the philosophers that illustrate my ideas.

 

‘Hegel is a philosopher of history. Few other philosophers have had much interest in developing such a philosophy, so why does Hegel consider it important? … Hegel’s key idea is that history is never static, but always moving forward in a particular direction. This constant change is driven by an engine – the ‘dialectical process’. … Geist is the ultimate reality. It is not the mind of an individual – such as your particular human mind, or mine. Nor is it the sum of such individual minds. Rather, it is a sort of overarching mind of which everything that exists is a manifestation.’ (p 113) This sounds very similar to the Theory of Everything/Consciousness where consciousness is defined as repetition of physics, chemistry, biology, Survival of the Best etc. Further, ‘Geist arrives at what Hegel calls absolute knowledge.’ (p 114) as we will have when we attain the Survival of the Best (mathematics of concepts).

 

‘Perhaps the easiest route into Schopenhauer’s philosophy is to begin with Kant, whose philosophy Schopenhauer develops. … As, according to Kant the noumenal world is a world without time or space, it seems to follow, therefore, that it is a world lacking particular things. … for Schopenhauer, the noumenal world is not the remote cause of our experiences, but the ‘inside’ of the world as it appears to us. … So, for Schopenhauser, at its deepest level the world is a sort of vast, undifferentiated cosmic will  – a kind of ceaseless striving for life and existence. … Even an inanimate rock is a manifestation of will. … When we look around us, we see appalling suffering and torment caused by the ceaseless striving of man and, of course, nature.’ (p 116)

 

From this paragraph, firstly, Schopenhauser is talking about the fifth dimension that could be thought of as the scenery, players and conversation without the space-time of the theatre. Secondly, the noumenal world is inside us and is the product of our mind. Thirdly, the cosmic will is the Theory of Everything/Consciousness where even a rock has a consciousness because it has a logic associated with its physical form that makes it repeat its straight line motion. Fourthly, there is appalling suffering because evolution is an iteration of growing/food/breeding and is ‘powered’ by ‘determination and pain evolving a reality out of the probability of existence’. We have the chance to change this by the application of Survival of the Best (mathematics of concepts) using the mind/brain and organization. It must come with the application of the mathematics of concepts because mathematics has led to Armageddon.

 

‘The consensus theory of truth. What do we actually mean by truth and reality? These questions lie close to the heart of philosophy. … Peirce defines truth in the following way: what those who investigate a matter will all eventually agree on.’ (p 130) This contrasts with Kant’s ‘”always telling the truth” passes the test. This is a maxim on which we can all act.’ (p 105) Looking at these two quotations suggests that the concept of ‘truth’ is not simple, so let’s set up these two concepts as attractors and clearly we need more information.

 

Above, I mentioned the mathematics of concepts as being obvious from the dimensions, and so it is when you know what you are looking for, and it took a lot of work to find the initial concept. Initially, I used Truth, in the form of an operator and applied it to chaos to derive the three Laws of Life that, I believe, mirror the Trinity and the Trinity was set up to show the three ‘faces’ of God. God the Father (componentization (a logic machine such as an atom or evolution), mathematical iteration, time passing, etc.), the Holy Spirit (state of mind, exercise and nutrition) and God the Son (family teaching, love etc.), bearing in mind that the three laws are inter-related and only the major factors have been quoted because of the iteration of the mathematics of concepts.

 

Further, it was commonly acknowledged by Aristotle and the Church that ‘the ultimate end to which everything is, finally, directed, according to Aristotle, is man – “nature has made all things specifically for the sake of man”’ (p 44) and the hunter/gatherer’s reverence (of living/gathering space) was down-played to such an extent that the Holy Spirit was ‘lost’ and we are in the (environmental) predicament that we are today. So, I am going to list the Truth in descending order: (1) an all-knowing God, (2) mathematics, (3) a God of Truth, (4) the operator Truth (mathematical iteration), (5) the mathematics of concepts and so on.

 

An all-knowing God is defined, mathematics is defined to be exact, a God of Truth has a place if you desire a god, the operator Truth is less important (presumably), the mathematics of concepts uses those concepts and contexts that we consider/measure etc. Truth requires knowledge and our universe is based on the fifth dimension (a+b)=1 (CEM: mathematics of concepts/entanglement/measurement) and that is all about knowledge/measurement and what is not measured does not exist (to us).

 

Peirce’s thinking is that ‘he’s not defining “truth” in terms of agreement or consensus after all, but in terms of correspondence with how things stand in this mind-independent reality’. (p 131) The mathematics of concepts produces agreement because anyone can add more attractors and the context will show bias and bias will produce ridicule unless the offending concept/attractor is withdrawn.

 

Secondly, ‘as Peirce puts it: My social theory of reality, namely, that the real is the idea in which the community settles down. … One tension in Peirce’s thinking is that … it is no longer clear how it can force us to agree about it. How can it force us to agree, if it’s not there to force us until we agree?’ (p 131) To digress, ‘Bacon was instrumental in developing the modern, experimental scientific method. … The scholastics’ approach made scientific enquiry largely an armchair enterprise. They spent the majority of their time pondering the works of Aristotle and constructing syllogistic arguments, and put little effort into actually observing the world around them.’ (p 57)

 

I am not accusing Peirce of this, but to draw a distinction from the fifth dimension, Peirce has a ‘theory of reality’, but I believe that we could go to a deeper level and prove a reality by looking at evolution because evolution is a Truth through iteration of countless generations of organisms. In fact, Peirce’s theory of reality is the same, to a certain extent as the reality that I will prove, when ‘the community settles down’, and if we take a community of fish in an aquarium, they will live happily together. However in a real community there will be predators and the prey will only escape because of skills that the successful have.

 

An extinction event occurred in the Cambrian, I believe, due to a reality change from when predators had to bump into a prey to attack it. As size increased, lensed eyes rapidly evolved, along with the mind/brain and (increased) consciousness that allowed targeted attacks and (forward) planned escapes. In other words, a sixth dimension was created in world O. Now, our community is usually/generally going about their business provided that they can stay out of the way of predators until they can breed. In other words, a reality has to be continuous over a space so that the organism is relatively safe, until it can breed, and if that reality is not continuous, magic happens and something unseen eats the organism. That is my definition of reality and is provable through our evolution’s biocomputer of life. A little thought will show that our police and judiciary have a reality, but politics does not, and I believe that politics should use the 3-way method of Plato (chapter 67 and 69) to help bring about the absolute of the Survival of the Best (mathematics of concepts).

 

‘Husserl’s philosophical focus is on the conscious subject. He wants to investigate consciousness. But how should such an investigation proceed? Consciousness awareness, Husserl notes, is always directed towards an object. You are never merely conscious of something: a book, a tree or a headache, for example. Husserl’s original approach to the study of consciousness is to try to investigate it by studying the objects of conscious awareness. He calls this discipline phenomenology.’ (p 145)

 

The Michelson-Morley experiment shows that if two observers measure an absolute, in this case the speed of light, they will get the same answer irrespective of their relative motions to each other and have been relativised. In other words (a+b)=(a+c) for speed of light a and observers b and c and this is the form of a measurement of a by b in a probability of existence universe. This is the explanation of why ‘Husserl notes, is always directed towards an object’ and this is because, I believe, that every point in a probability space is entangled and measurement defines/determines its existence to a process/mind.

 

‘An interesting feature of intentional states is that they can be directed towards things that do not exist. Perhaps there is no God. In which case I have been thinking about something that doesn’t exist.’ (p 145) The paragraph above outlines the measurement process, but the quotation above is different because it involves creative thought. Now, from the Theory of Everything, I defined Consciousness to be everything that has the logic of repeatability, whilst consciousness (little c) is the ability of a brain, of a certain size, to create a mind/brain, along with the ability to see or use other senses for hunting, migrating etc. This consciousness, in a rudimentary form evolved a long time ago and it needs a (world O, sixth) dimension of future time to allow us to ‘forward-plan’.

 

 

In other words, forward planning is creative thought! Our mind/brain evolved to confabulate by recognising an ambushing predator from a partial ‘portion’ of the predator’s anatomy (colour, shape, smell etc.) and to do that, we needed to be able to remember a general stylised shape/smell/colour for comparison and that is heritable. I believe that the organisms in our biocomputer (iteration/Truth) have, through selection, been able to use measurement/confabulation (a+b)=1 to store/remember and forward plan to create thought possibilities and move away from a predator to prevent them from getting within attack (world O units) distance/speed. Survivability (concept) is the key to the workings of the mind/brain and if we use its ‘powers’ outside of the context of Survival of the Fittest, we must make sure that we use adequate organizational constraints else we end up in a non-reality (a movement from one stable reality to another), as our world now is, heading towards Armageddon.

 

‘Like Husserl, Heidegger is a phenomenologist – he also offers a descriptive philosophy of experience. However, Heidegger’s version of phenomenology differs markedly from that of Husserl. … Like Husserl, Heidegger believes that consciousness is essentially ‘intentional’ – it is about, or, if you like, directed towards objects.’ (p 164) There seems to be a level of agreement and I want to unfold a question posed by Heidegger, “Why are there things that are rather than nothing?” because it brings in the concept of the ‘multiverse’ that carries on from a probability universe.

 

For thousands of years it has been assumed that our universe exists and that a Creator was necessary to bring it into existence, however, a probability of existence space has an infinite number of probabilities on the number line between 0 and 1, with certainty of existence occurring at 1. It is also my view that a probability of existence of a Big Bang occurs at any point in any probability space and this does away with the necessity of requiring an infinite number of universes to (actually) exist somewhere. To keep it short, we are the logic engines of decision and evolution is the flow of logical decisions.

 

The short answer to Heidegger’s question is ‘because we have to be here to ask the question’! This is also a serious answer because logic knows no bounds (Occam’s razor) nor a limit in its speed of action (chapter 69) and our probability space would throw up all combinations of natural constants that can occur at each (theoretical) Big Bang. Notice that the Big Bang is logic that expands infinitely fast (inflation) until energy is formed to give us the universe we see, and the logic component (of gravity) provides the concept part (Conservation of Energy) to match the context part (Theory of Everything).

 

If this sounds strange, is the concept of a god easier to imagine? We are here in the particular universe (of the multiverse) that has the physical constants to allow us to exist and we are evolving using the things around us. The short answer will do for the concept but the longer answer to Heidegger’s question can be given, but it is contextual and that is that everything is joined together (entanglement) and for us to be here we have to have the correct physical constants (approximately) and they influence/influenced our evolution.

 

Our evolution is part of the context (Theory of Everything) and that contains the concept (Solution to Everything) and that is why we are here – because we can, but we must eat what our bodies evolved to eat, and that is fresh food of wide variety (primates consume 150 plus species of leaves, insects, fruit etc). In fact, the second Law of Life requires state of mind, sufficient exercise and proper nutrition and the third law requires that we teach our offspring to survive. These are all part of the (context) of living in harmony (until eaten, reality) that in total, makes up the concept of evolution. Evolution is a compete ‘package’ and ‘playing with it’ has downsides such as the modern degenerative diseases, over-population, Armageddon etc. unless we embrace a better absolute.

 

The proof comes from the biocomputer of our past that we are carrying on the evolution but, unfortunately, humans have changed from Survival of the Fittest to Survival of the Best (mathematics) which is clearly not working and must use the absolute Survival of the Best (mathematics of concepts). The best that I can do at the moment is to try to get the world to consider Plato’s absolute as a stepping-stone before it is too late.

 

It seems appropriate at this point to consider Karl Popper’s ‘falsification’ ‘in so far as a statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable: insofar as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality.’ (p 170) Notice that the word ‘falsifiable’ is used in a special sense, ‘in Popper’s view, a properly scientific statement makes a positive claim about how things stand in the world, and so runs the risk of being false’. (p 173) I believe that the second quotation is true, whereas the first is misleading and refers to theories that are ‘unscientific’ and accommodate all possibilities, in particular, theories of Freud and Marx. (p 173) ‘One of the most commonly raised concerns about Popper’s falsificationism is that it requires that we simply accept Hume’s conclusion that no scientific theory is ever confirmed – not even to a small degree.’ (p 175)

 

The quotation from the last sentence ‘we simply accept Hume’s conclusion that no scientific theory is ever confirmed’ is quite true because from the fifth dimension (a+b)=1 the derivation of the mathematics of concepts is iterative and you can’t be sure what will be found around the next corner. This is in line with ‘Hume’s problem of induction’ and that the example is that black swans are found in Australia (p 172) (likewise Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem (p 200)).

 

‘Sartre is one of the best-known existentialist philosophers. The existentialists place human freedom at the centre of their philosophy. For Sartre, that we are free is not just a, but the, fundamental truth about human beings. He expresses this point by saying that, for human beings, “existence precedes essence”’ (p 177) From above, not only humans, but everything in the universe exists because it can and is a manifestation of being able to exist and make logical decision, as in the Theory of Everything. ‘An obvious contrast here is with Aquinas … “essence precedes existence” … have a God-given purpose that it is their moral duty not to thwart.” (p 177)

 

‘Sartre insists that we are free. But how can he be so sure? If human beings are physical objects then they are governed by the same laws of nature that govern all other physical objects. So, then surely they are not free – they merely think they are.’ (p 178) The Theory of Everything is a continuum of our evolution through physical, logical and mental states, and is literally everything that arose out of the Big Bang and everything is restricted to/by physical laws and logical decisions, including us.

 

Conclusion: the ‘map’ that I placed over philosophy above, fits together like a jigsaw puzzle, and the scientific/mathematical/philosophical part that I introduced, does not disturb the science/mathematics/philosophy, as it stands, but helps with the understanding. I believe that I have explained the context that the philosophers’ concepts reside in, and now we can look for new concepts out of that context. The absolute, mathematics of concepts, the setting of absolutes, context and concepts, conservation of energy (concept), Theory of Everything (context), the Solution of Everything (concept) and the Survival of the Best (mathematics of concepts) as an absolute form a necessary ‘floor’ to certain aspects of philosophy and can only benefit them, if included.

 

References: all quotations are fully referenced in the body and earlier chapters can be found on   http://darrylpenney.com  if required, unless  being reviewed.

 

Chapter 70: Unfolding Philosophy Using the Fifth Dimension and Adding Additional Context to the Concept of Philosophy

Chapter 69: The Logic of the Big Bang and an Explanation of Inflation, the Law of Conservation of Energy is Unfolded with Gravity Producing Feedback through the Mathematics of Concepts and Michelson-Morley Type Relativisation Producing a Logic/Quantum/Gravity Description of the Universe that Defines a Solution of Everything that Contains Plato’s Political System

Chapter 69: The Logic of the Big Bang and an Explanation of Inflation, the Law of Conservation of Energy is Unfolded with Gravity Producing Feedback through the Mathematics of Concepts and Michelson-Morley Type Relativisation Producing a Logic/Quantum/Gravity Description of the Universe that Defines a Solution of Everything that Contains Plato’s Political System

 

By Darryl Penney

 

Abstract: gravity is a potential energy (concept) because it can do work, but conservation of energy contains gravity (context) and the energy summation must act instantaneously over the whole (possibility of existence) universe and that is not possible for any forms of energy except for the gravity (logic) component. If total energy is conserved, it must be an absolute, so it (probably) behaves in the same way as the speed of light (also an absolute) as shown by the Michelson-Morley experiment and the probability space relativises the gravity component of the total energy. The gravity component is used because only the logical gravity component acts instantaneously to preserve the contextual logic (a and b)=1. This obviously requires the different types of energy and mass to be states (concepts) and be derived from the Big Bang (context), and that all energy/mass has an (adequate) gravity ‘component’/’value’ that the universe can relativise. The Big Bang (concept) appears to be composed (initially) of logic and the time to ‘splitting’ of energy, angular momentum and electric charge could be classed as ‘inflation’ as the infinite speed of (the initial) logic is reduced to energy speed. This measurement/control is consistent with and parallels the Michelson-Morley experimental result and produces a general logic/quantum/gravity description of the universe that within the Theory of Everything (context) provides a Solution of Everything (concept) and this is used, as an example, to show the desirability of using Plato’s political system to reorganize control of our world.

The fifth dimension is CEM (mathematics of concepts/entanglement (a+b=1)/measurement (a, b) where a and b are measurements/observers in a simple probability space) and in chapter 68, we derived certain attributes of (a, b) and (a+b=1). Note that the equation (a+b)=1 is used for visual simplicity and I will use a bottom-up approach to unfold the fifth dimension (a+b)=1 to see where each part leads and some of these aspects were dealt with previously and will be repeated, below.

 

The fifth dimension is a complicated and widely encompassing dimension that contains within it, the definition of the mathematics of concepts because concepts (a, b) are measurement, and context is (a+b=1) and that shows the entanglement/context and measurement/concept must always be present, together. However, the mechanics of the mathematics of concepts is the aligning of the concepts and investigating the contexts, and this formalization is particularly important for agreement.

 

Further, the equation (a+b)=1 shows that there are no unique solutions (absolutes, except for the speed of light and conservation of energy/Consciousness) and we found that we had to assign an absolute to concepts for them to be measurable and useful. I used Plato’s problem of a lack of absolutes as an example of the necessity of assigning absolutes to improve the political situation, referred to again, below.

 

The equation (a+b)=1=(a+c) is obviously (mathematically) true for the measurement of the speed of light a, and observers b and c, or the same observer at different times, speeds etc., but this is the statement of the Michelson-Morley experiment and the obvious answer, that b=c, is the answer that the experiment found that resolves the apparent enigma that the speed of light is the same to observers moving relatively to each other. The realization is that the speed of light is an absolute and that forces our universe to relativise the observers b and c.

 

We have created a (world O) set of units that we use for our convenience, but they may not apply to the probability universe (P) and in particular, we acknowledge many types of energy, such as potential, kinetic, chemical etc., but to simplify, I will call the conservation of energy to be a context (Consciousness) and the concepts are the energy terms (potential, kinetic, chemical etc). In other words, there is only one conservation of energy (a+b=1), which is a context, but it contains concepts that we see as different forms (potential, kinetic, chemical etc.), so we should work in world P units to simplify things. Note that gravity has been discussed in this way, previously, and ‘spooky action at a distance’ and other ‘force fields’ can be thought of as logic/contexts of (a+b)=1 (chapter 29). This discussion will be continued below. Note that our universe is really a simple space and the velocity of propagation of the logic of (a+b)=1 must necessarily be infinite (otherwise local issues occur) and that defines the speed of gravity (light has a finite speed).

 

The above was derived in a top-down sense as described in chapter 68 and suggests that a bottom-up approach might pay dividends if we unfold (a simple space) (a+b)=1, that is one of the dimensions of the probability of existence universe that we live in, with the total dimensions being: x, y, z, time passing, (a+b+c+…..)=1 and future time. We have described a and b as observers/measurements linked together as (a+b)=1 which is the way that mathematicians write the relationship in a two-point probability space, but our universe is not a mathematical construction, but is real to us (because we evolved that way) and there may be differences that might become apparent as we unfold it. From above, we have noted that mathematics is a special case (and doesn’t ordinarily contain logic) of the mathematics of concepts which is a general mathematics and the sum of two values (a, b) could also be the sum of two logics (a, b) because as mentioned above, concepts and contexts are (intimately) related.

 

‘In mathematics and mathematical logic, Boolean algebra is the branch of algebra in which the values of the variables are the truth values true and false, usually denoted 1 and 0 respectively. Instead of elementary algebra where the values of the variables are numbers, and the main operations are addition and multiplication, the main operations of Boolean algebra are the conjunction and, denoted ∧, the disjunction or, denoted ∨, and the negation not, denoted ¬. It is thus a formalism for describing logical relations in the same way that ordinary algebra describes numeric relations.’ (Wikipedia, Boolean algebra)

 

The Michelson-Morley experiment shows that we live in a probability of existence world and we are presumably mathematical/logical ‘abstractions’ that ‘play out’ logical/mathematical decisions in order to devise a future and that future is evolution with untold generations testing every concept and context. We could consider that we are a part of a mathematical fractal where there are always ‘smaller’ universes and that an infinite logical speed must occur at each level. Our evolution could also be considered to be a biocomputer that produces the logic of the Rule of Life that describes the multitude of iterations/lives to define a mathematical iteration/Truth, with the proviso that we can’t ‘go back’ and rectify previous evolution. In other words, we can use ourselves to examine the situation of ourselves (the universe does the same thing as conservation of energy feed-back) and thus, as we create a future (sixth dimension), future planning becomes possible. Note that the sixth dimension is created by us to improve our reality (through forward planning) and could be considered as world O (our) units/dimension. So, we can consider mathematics to be both numerical and logical and use the equation (a +/and b)=1 to show that a and b are both measurements and measurers in a numerical and logical sense.

 

‘In physics, a conservation law states that a particular measurable property of an isolated physical system does not change as the system evolves over time. Exact conservation laws include conservation of energy, conservation of linear momentum, conservation of angular momentum, and conservation of electric charge. There are also many approximate conservation laws, which apply to such quantities as mass, parity, lepton number, baryon number, strangeness, hypercharge, etc.’ (Wikipedia, Conservation laws) Looking at the ‘exact’ conservation laws and converting to world P units, we have conservation of energy, conservation of angular momentum and conservation of electric charge.

 

Now (a +/and b)=1 is a dimension of our universe and I have referred to the Theory of Everything/Consciousness that is the overarching of a continuum of Consciousness that includes physics, chemistry, biology etc. and all these disciplines contain conservation of energy, angular momentum and electric charge. Now consider the quotation: ‘perhaps the greatest surprise to emerge from the Golden Age [of black hole research] was general relativity’s insistence that all the properties of a black hole are precisely predictable from just three numbers: the hole’s mass, its rate of spin, and its electric charge. From those three numbers, if one is sufficiently clever at mathematics, one should be able to compute, for example, the shape of the hole’s horizon, the strength of its gravitational pull, the details of the swirl of spacetime around it, and its frequencies of pulsation.’ (Black Holes and Time Warps: Einstein’s Outrageous Legacy, Kip S. Thorne, p 259),

 

Looking at the two paragraphs above, it appears that the ‘exact’ conservation laws are all that are necessary to define our universe and converting to world P units, we have conservation of energy, angular momentum and electric charge and our equation becomes: (x+b)=1=(y+b)=(z+b) where x, y, and z are the three exact conservation laws and b is the measurer/observer. Further, I have mentioned that mathematics and logic are intimately related through context and concept, as in the mathematics of concepts, where mathematics and Boolean algebra are special cases that strip out the interdependence. The ‘=1’ could be replaced by ‘=1/true’ and so forth as the mathematics of concepts requires both.

 

The equation has yielded valuable insights, in particular, the proof of the existence of the mathematics of concepts, that context and concept are intimately related, that no absolutes exist (Plato’s problem), that an absolute must be set for the equation to have a particular solution (that (set-absoute +/and b)=1 has a solution) and that the equation needs an absolute (to be set) will be used time and time again. In fact, these requirements should be taken as a major part of the mathematics of concepts and leads into its inherant iterative nature. Its strength in science is to provide entanglement/context to technology and in the social sciences to link concepts and context together in a more formal way as discussed in chapter 2 and the example here. Included in this general mathematic is the realization that the speed of electromagnetic radiation is constant, in a vacuum, throught the two proofs (concept and context) given earlier based on uncertainty and the Michelson-Morley experiment. Likewise, the three exact conservations, energy, angular momentum and charge, would be absolutes and it would not surprise me if angular momentum and charge totalled zero across the universe, given that the Big Bang contained only energy (in fact, logic, as below). In other words, charges, angular momentum, mass, chemical energy etc. are states of energy in the Theory of Everything/Consciousness.

 

I have mentioned world O and world P units, and as above that future time is a world O dimension, but perhaps the time has come for a digression that may ‘clear the muddied waters’. ‘The curved spacetime paradigm is based on three sets  of mathematically formulated laws: Einstein’s field equation, which describes how matter generates the curvature of spacetime; the laws which tell us that perfect rulers and perfect clocks measure the lengths and the times of Einstein’s curved spacetime; and the laws which tell us how matter and fields move through curved spacetime, for example, that freely moving bodies travel along straight lines (geodesics)’. (p 401)

 

‘The flat spacetime paradigm is also based on three sets of laws: a law describing how matter, in flat spacetime, generates the gravitational field; laws describing how that field controls the shrinkage of perfect rulers and the dilation of the ticking rates of perfect clocks; and the laws describing how the gravitational fields also controls the motions of particles and fields through flat spacetime.’ (p 401)

 

The two paragraphs, above, describe curved and flat spacetime and I would like to say that I have no problem with whatever paradigm is used to measure the effects, but I do have a few words that may bring a better understanding. Curved spacetime describes the motion of a particle/photon through space as it is attracted to local potential wells (stars, planets etc.) also, there are no rulers or clocks because they are world O inventions that animals used to catch prey and to avoid capture. In space, there is no such thing as local conservation of momentum because in a probability space, every point is entangled with every other. There are no gravitons or gravity waves, as Einstein and others postulated to account for ‘spooky action at a distance’ because (a +/and b)=1/true) does that in a probability space using logic.

 

Note that nothing has changed in a mathematical/computational sense, but our perspective, by using the fifth dimension has been simplified. This is shown by the following quotation: ‘the flat spacetime paradigm’s laws of physics can be derived, mathematically, from the curved spacetime paradigm’s laws, and conversely. This means that the two sets of laws are different mathematical representations of the same physical phenomona’. (p 402) This quotation is not surprising because mathematics is a special case of the mathematics of concepts and as our example will show, below, the Survival of the Best (mathematics) is deeply flawed for this very reason. The mathematics of concepts, with context and concept, provides/forces a unique (but converging) answer/measurement when we assign an absolute, but if we wish to measure in world O units, complications will occur, especially if we ignore the logic, or attempt to stand outside of the experiment.

 

I had trouble developing the concept/context relationship, but it is immediately apparent from (a+b)=1 that energy/mass comes in many forms, each with a context part and a concept part, but this is not surprising when it is considered that a feedback is necessary for the conservation of energy to remain constant. In other words, there has to be something that is part of every type of energy (concept) AND be part of the summation (context). Notice that gravity must be instantaneously transmitted to preserve local logic, and that (probably) all energy forms contain gravity because it is necessary for life to exist.

 

Gravity waves MAY exist because ‘gravitational waves have already been proved to exist by astronomical observations for which Joseph Taylor and Russel Hulse of Princeton University won the 1993 Nobel Prize…. Nothing else, only tiny gravitational-wave kicks, can explain the stars’ inspiral.’ (p 392) The final sentence, should perhaps read ‘nothing else, that we know of at the moment’ might be more logical, but there is no reason that the waves should not exist, but only the logic (infinite speed) part is relevant to this discussion.

 

Now, I read in Kip Thorne’s book that ‘all energy contains gravity’ and Franklin Potter and Christopher Jargodski’s book (p 264) says that ‘the general theory of relativity (GTR) tells us that all forms of energy are affected by a gravitational field’ and it  is probably is true, but as the mathematics of concepts is iterative, we can never be certain, but in a logical sense it has to be (effectively) true. However, the uncertainty principle could be applied in the mathematics of concepts as well as the duality of concept and context that opens up a logical proof from the biocomputer of life that should allow us to do away with the postulate. The universe has existed/worked for 14 billion years with a gravity proportion adequate to regulate the conservation of energy, so do we really need to know whether every form of energy has the same proportion of gravity context? Surely it is enough to know that it works! In other words, it would be difficult to know/measure the proportions (concept), and logic tells us not to worry (context).

 

So, we can write the total sum of the gravity context G (effectively an absolute) of the forms of energy in the same way that we wrote the relationship of the speed of light being an absolute. Thus, (absolute G +/and b) =1/true, the probability space relativises b and this requires that (enough) energy and mass has a gravity ‘component’/’value’ that the universe can relativise. ‘Relativising’ gravity means that (like the Michelson-Morley experiment) that at any two points, in the universe, G will be the same to observers at those points, and that is the Law of Conservation of Energy.

 

Is the universe measuring/monitoring itself (context) or is the total energy truly constant or sufficiently constant (concept)? Both might be true at the same time as shown by the two proofs that the speed of light is constant and that (a+b)=1. Assuming that the universe can monitor itself, so can we, and the question of monitoring ourselves is used as an example. The question is whether conservation of energy is strictly true, or adequately true and that is the difference between mathematics and the mathematics of concepts. The question of exactitude and logic has caused problems for a long time. ‘Einstein simply postulates what we have deduced, with some difficulty and not altogether satisfactorily, from the fundamental equations of the electromagnetic field.’ (H. A. Lorentz, 1906, Quoted in Albrecht Folsing, Albert Einstein: a Biography, Mad about Modern Physics, Franklin Potter and Christopher Jargodzhi, p 45)

 

My aim has been to simplify our understanding/view of the world and as our mind/brain evolved to confabulate and present a decision/view of a partly hidden prey/predator, so I believe that simplicity of concepts with contexts aids our way through life. So, what of the effects of gravity in the past? I can only suggest that we evolved for 3,000 million years in water, and that ameliorates the effect of gravity on our evolution and that we evolved and are here now, to tell the story. This concept might be simplistic, but strange things may have occurred over time because, whilst total energy is constant, gravity is a potential energy as well and that is increasing as the Big Bang progresses and eventually, most energy will be potential and presumably chemical bonds will weaken, electromagnetic radiation will redshift etc.

 

It is interesting, that like angular momentum and electric charge, ‘the total energy in the observable universe can be shown to be zero by adding the total mass energy in matter and radiation to the total gravitational potential energy.’ (p 115) The Michelson-Morley relativisation proves that our universe is a probability (of existence) space and we know that that space contains one infinitely small possibility of certainty (of existence) at 1, and thus, I suspect, a big Bang in another universe is occasionally created, and as the total energy is zero, it seems that the Big Bang is a purely logical phenomenon and that fact might justify ‘inflation’ as logic starts off with infinite speed before energy, angular momentum and electric charge ‘split’.

 

I have not commented on existing books/theories because I am using six/five dimensions (plus logic contexts) against spacetime’s four dimensions, and worrying facts like inside a black hole’s horizon ‘does spacetime come to an end’? (Black Holes and Time Warps: Einstein’s Outrageous Legacy, Kip S. Thorne, p 465) This is of no concern to me because the black hole is still doing its job of providing gravity around which stars rotate and being part of the universe’s house-keeping calculations.

 

‘Throughout this book, I shall adopt, without appology, the view that there does exist an ultimate set of physical laws (which we do not as yet know which might be quantum gravity), and that those laws truly do govern the Universe around us, everywhere. They force the Universe to behave the way it does.’ (p 86) Thus, the derivation above could be called a logic/quantum/gravity description of the universe, which is similar to the quantum gravity quoted, but with the logic of the mathematics of concepts included that is neglected (to some extent) in mathematics as well as also taking into account the effects of logic on the Big Bang and uncertainty on the constant speed of light, that locks into the logic through the absolute. Note the dualism that logic forces the universe to conserve energy and the universe forces us to accept it through relativisation.

 

These chapters necessarily build on each other and a more concise description of our universe might be as follows. An uncertainty event in another universe produced a Big Bang that created our universe (notice that it could only be a logic ‘condition’ as no energy, angular momentum or electric charge was created (absolute=zero), started expanding at infinite speed, the duality of logic/energy produced energy (creates time) and mass (creates space) slowing expansion that is overlain by the (measuring and logic) of the mathematics of concepts similar (but with logic included) to the summation (a+b)=1 of a mathematician’s probability space (bearing in mind that mathematics is traditionally (somewhat) separate to logic). Uncertainty requires a fixed (absolute) speed of light and the Michelson-Morley experiment proves that the universe is a probability space because constant/absolute speed of light relativises the (apparent) enigma that all observers see the speed of light as the same (including other proofs). This same requirement, I believe, acts on the (total) gravity proportion of energy (G) (light, mass, chemical, gravity etc.) and G becomes an absolute with gravity necessarily (because it acts instantly due to localized logic (a+b)=1)) forcing (G +/and b)=1 and the means of providing negative feedback (logically), relativising G, so that G=G-part-of-Energy at all times and places within the universe. Notice that the speed of light is relativised to us, but is too slow for the logic of the universe, and the universe apparently uses the same method on the gravity proportion of the total energy for its own house-keeping.

 

The mathematics of concepts has been used above, to show its power and place as an integral and intimate part of the workings of the universe ((a +/and b)=1), and I am saying this because I need to build confidence that this same mathematics can be used to manage ourselves. In certain ways, it is already being used by us for our own good, but unfortunately, the effect is mixed because it is not being applied with the knowledge to make it work properly, and the planet is heading towards Armageddon. We need to do something before it is too late from global warming, over-population, overuse of resources etc. and a (modernized) Plato’s solution would be a start in the correct direction.

 

In general, our universe does not have absolutes (except those mentioned above) and we have to assign an absolute that is simply a reference point, both numerically and logically as required. Unfolding the universe, above, and unfolding democracy uses the same method and in chapter 67, we ‘woke’ Plato and found that his ideas used the universities for overall knowledge and an absolute (virtue) as a concept and context that could help us , eventually, to gain the ultimate absolute of Survival of the Best (mathematics of concepts) in the future.

 

The most important question is how to repair the world’s political system, and we used the above, to derive a better political solution and I will use four factors (forward planning, personal interest in outcomes, knowledge and representational problems) to look at the present system, and to foreshadow the result, all four factors are (effectively) misused or neglected in today’s politics and (surprise!) they are catered for in Plato’s plan. Remember that the mathematics of concepts tends to give better answers as more concepts are included, as is sensible, but I have chosen (only) those four to make my point.

 

Firstly, forward planning was discussed in chapter 68, where we found that a sixth dimension (future time) was created by the evolution of life together with an absolute of planning and found that ‘future planning’ has been used for thousands of millions of years by organisms, also, universities are knowledge repositories and should be involved in future planning, simply because you need knowledge to plan. Politicians ‘promises’ are not future planning, and even worse, when an investigation/Royal-Commission is sought, it is a legal person that is chosen to lead it.

 

Secondly, politicians should be statesmen/stateswomen acting in everyone’s interest, not playing party politics and should act in the best interests of the country and population and an absolute/aim of virtue could do that, if virtue is expected/demanded by the voters. Thirdly, knowledge is necessary, whether biased or not, to be used by a mathematics of concepts that contains numerical as well as the all-important logic that shows up bias, as bias. Politicians, in general, cannot be compared to universities in the knowledge at their disposal. Fourthly, politicians are elected by voters that receive money from the government and neither seem to be worried by this abuse, yet it is (apart from politics) universally accepted that if you receive a benefit from a vote, you shouldn’t get a vote! In chapter 22, I put forward a proportional voting system where the value of a vote is reduced, as the dependence of the voter on wefare increases.

 

In all these cases, the present political (two factor) system is deficient when compared to a three factor system as put forward by Plato, 2,500 years ago, where the absolute is the aim/supported by the universities. Notice that Plato used a mathematics of concepts because mathematics (without the attending logic) had not been discovered, and if the universe is based on the mathematics of concept, so should our organization and further, the dimensions define the universe and everything in it (principally) by, (a+/and b)=1 that shows the mathematics of concepts and the need for concept, context and absolute, as derived above, and if this seems strange, it is because the derivatives are not obviously related until viewed through the Logic/Quantum/Gravity description of the universe, and from chapter 67: ‘the Theory of Everything/Consciousness could be considered the scenery/back-drop/players to the “play” in the theatre of space-time.’ This shows the interrelatedness of the dimensions and the necessity to consider them all, at all times, and in doing this, leads to the Solution to Everything to denote that (literally) everything is defined by the dimensions, including the solutions. I had to define the fifth (and to a lesser extent the sixth) dimension because there were things that we could do that were outside space-time and the solution to the example above is non-intuitive, but necessarily comes out of the dimensions and to define it needs a concept and context. The context is above, so looking at the concept.

 

The Solution to Everything (concept) arises out of the fact that the dimensions must allow for all solutions that we are capable of formulating, and using the mathematics of concepts acting on the knowledge/concepts that we bring to the problem, it is obvious that the more information considered, the better the result. The mathematics of concepts sets up the relationships between concepts for all to see and makes bias visible and discourages argument so that a decision/iteration/measurement can be made through the contexts. The aim is to set an absolute that can be worked towards and this concept is simple, but shows/proves why politics manages so poorly and why the universities MUST be used for their knowledge and also shows why our economic system of welfare/laissez-faire (to let go) ‘works’ (to a limited extent) because it is an iterational (Survival of the Fittest) solution arising out of Aristotle’s ‘nature has made all things specifically for the sake of man’ (The Great Philosophers, Stephan Law, p 44)

 

The Solution of Everything is important because we are faced with problems for which our present system does not have the answers, and I will restate the sequence: the fifth/sixth dimensions (1) include everything (except space-time) and the equation (a +/and b)=1 (2) derives the mathematics of concepts (3) that gives better answers as more (relevant) concepts (4) are included, which means that wide knowledge is necessary (5). The contexts (a and b)=1 (6) are examined for relevance and an absolute (7) is chosen (because the mathematics of concepts disallows arguments by exposing bias) and the absolute is a ‘forward plan’ (8) that everyone can work towards. The example given is simply that universities provide the widest knowledge bank and the absolute/aim is virtue (according to Plato) and not the current ‘greed is good’.

 

Conclusion: the Big Bang was the creation of energy, and everything in the universe is energy in different forms/concepts, but energy and logic are linked (a+/and b)=1 and the logic description is the Theory of Everything/Consciousness whilst the Law of Conservation of Energy is physical. Light has a speed defined by uncertainty and logic must be instantaneous and they are absolutes as shown by the Michelson-Morley experiment (for light) and the logic component of energy G relativises the universe (logically) to create the Law of Conservation of Energy which we bind (physically) constant by postulate.

 

In the organisation of ourselves, we are constrained by what we can do physically, by police and laws, but we need the logic side of living together and this has been done by Churches and governments, but we are on the verge of Armageddon because they are not organized sufficiently well, through lack of knowledge (concept), and using an inapprpriate  absolute (love). Plato’s organization (three-way, context) must be used (because the present two-way is not working) to try to eventually bring about the use of the absolute of Survival of the Best (mathematics of concepts). The Solution of Everything (concept) is contained within the dimensions of our probability space and in particular, within the Theory of Everything/Consciousness (context) by using the steps provided.

 

‘”In physics, the newest discoveries like relativity and the uncertainty relation, uncover new modes of thought. They really open new perspectives.” A sudden sad look passed over his face. “And I thought that, say, fifty years ago, that this would happen, that those revolutions and advances in science would have an effect on mankind – on morals, on sociology, whatever. It hasn’t happened. We’re still up to the same things, or, well, I think, regressed in values.”’ (from an interview with the American physicist Isidor Isaac Rabi, Robert P. Crease and Charles C. Mann, The Second Creation: makers of the revolution in 20th-century physics, from Mad About Modern Physics, p 81) This Solution of Everything is the key to social change, but, who will effect that change?

 

References: (1) this chapter (69) follows and adds to chapter 68: The Sixth Dimension, Constant Speed of Light, Michelson-Morley Enigma Solved, Unfolding the Mathematics of Concepts and its Derivation from the Dimensions.

 

(2) all quotations are fully referenced in the body and earlier chapters can be found on   http://darrylpenney.com  if required.

 

 

Chapter 69: The Logic of the Big Bang and an Explanation of Inflation, the Law of Conservation of Energy is Unfolded with Gravity Producing Feedback through the Mathematics of Concepts and Michelson-Morley Type Relativisation Producing a Logic/Quantum/Gravity Description of the Universe that Defines a Solution of Everything that Contains Plato’s Political System