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

 

Abstract:

 

Our existence, reality and fundamental physics are examined, the ‘Multiverse’ is identified and the Big Bang is naturally occurring, no concept of ‘inflation’ is needed, our reality consists of space-time and a logic operator which identifies the fifth dimension of Kaluza and Klein, that the universe and quantum mechanics are intimately linked without gravity, shows how light quanta are transmitted in a vacuum, why the speed of light may change with the expansion of the universe and why the Michelson Morley results occurred, that the observer MUST be part of the measurement process, that the speed of light is the maximum that we can measure using light, that the two postulates of Special Relativity are derivable and that Relativity is a simple derivation of logic, and this logic indicates that consciousness co-evolved with the first senses and is very ancient and that the Big Bang’s energy and particles produce both time and space.

 

E=mc2 is a triviality at best and wrong and misleading at worst, that the assumption of the equivalence of matter and energy with respect to gravity may be false, so the Law of Conservation of Energy might be approximate, our world and the universe are shown to follow the force/impulse equation – with different interpretations, similarly force and potential energy, if an experimenter controls the impulse, he is part of the experiment, that curved space-time and potential ‘wells’ are synonymous, that the existence of the universe is indeterminate in time and will end in a Big Blink, that God must be the God of Truth and we are made in his image, the three Laws of Life define the Trinity and the Holy Spirit is identified, that Occam’s Razor is a crucial and basic solution in a mathematics of concepts and Descartes’ statement is refined and derived to ‘we evolved reality out of the possibility of existence’.

 

It is shown that logic is needed to understand that measured by mathematics, and when logic is applied, special relativity, quantum mechanics etc are simple concepts and the example above, draws together cosmology, quantum mechanics and Life and shows how they are interrelated through the three Laws of Life. In conclusion, the above shows that logic, a mathematics of concepts and an understanding of creativity in the mind/brain, provides an over-arching connectivity and simplification of traditional scientific disciplines.

 

postscript: Chaos Theory is embedded into existence, reality and a mathematics of concepts.

 

 

 

 

 

This chapter brings together many of the threads into a picture that is a composite whole and this derivation ‘explains’ some of the problems that

make parts of under-graduate physics difficult to absorb. The derivation is not difficult, it is new, it is ‘subtle’, far reaching and binds everything together, simply.

 

Half a millennium ago, mathematics was used to determine that the earth orbited the sun and so, upset an obvious observation, now, using the Mathematics of the Mind, which is a more general form of mathematics, I have looked at the ancient questions of our existence, reality and fundamental physics with some surprising results. I have tried to keep the context to a minimum and more is supplied at the end.

 

 

The scientific/technology/innovation side of the Philosophers’ stone concept of human endeavour mirrors the Logic of the Half-truth/ Mathematics of the Mind/prediction that applies to the ‘softer’ sciences, as well, and might help explain and remedy some of the world’s problems.

 

postscript: ‘I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details. (The Cosmic View of Albert Einstein, edited by Walt Martin and Magda Ott, p 43) This request will be answered in the following, but the context will change. If we apply Occam’s razor to the creation of the universe, it is simpler that no god exist, and I have shown that everything can be derived from first principles without the need of a God.

 

There can be God if you wish there to be a God. This operator, that brings the universe into ‘being’ is Truth (or God), and is a logic system that is ‘complete’ and ‘real’ and contains elements such as existence, truth, common sense, creativity, consciousness, confabulation etc. When the Mathematics of the Mind is used, this operator, the Half-truth comes to the fore and into its rightful place and ‘pushes’ space-time into the background as the measurement tool that it is. The Half-truth is always there and we use it continually but we don’t recognise it and call it common sense, true, false, consciousness, indecision, changing our mind etc.

 

To complete the quotation, ‘I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details’, ALL of the details, as listed above, are part of a ‘complete and real’ logic that IS God or IS a natural occurrence, and the choice is yours. To show the extent of the change in context, ‘the knowledge of truth as such is wonderful, but it is so little capable of acting as a guide that it cannot prove even the justification and the value of the aspiration toward that very knowledge of truth.’ (p 76)

 

The Logic of the Half-truth can be simplified and applied to a mathematical point:

something at that point could be either: there, not there, there some of the time and not there the rest of the time, both there and not there at the same time.

 

Descartes was both right and wrong in stating that ‘I think, therefore I am’, which makes his remark a half-truth, and perhaps he should have said, that ‘we evolved reality out of the possibility of existence’. That we evolved reality is simple (until we delve into it), but the ‘possibility of existence’ needs explaining.

 

Occam’s Razor states that the simplest explanation is probably the correct one and has been around for centuries. It is not logic because it is imprecise, but it has staying power and must be true to a certain extent. It is actually a solution in the style of the Mathematics of the Mind and is a half-truth and not precise, useful most of the time, but not to be relied upon but should form one pillar of a solution. In other words, ‘that

 

we do not exist’ is the simplest proposition, but we are real, as we know, but we are real in ‘the possibility of existence’! In other words, probability space! To simplify, existence is a half-truth (we may or may not exist), but the probability of existence is a truth because it is continuous and all-embracing.

 

 

Taking this further, Occam’s Razor is a less precise description of the first Law of Life, which was derived as being necessary, but there is a ‘natural’ progression through the properties of the states of energy/matter that make up our universe and lead to the creation of universes as a natural phenomenon.

 

The Multiverse has been suggested to hold the infinity of universes with all the different combination of ‘natural constants’, and it is considered that ours is one of them because all of the constants are ‘right’ for our existence (in probability space).

 

Whilst this is un-provable, a moment’s reflection suggests that this is possible, and likely, because all of these universes are in probability space and do not exist! But, Life (on earth) has evolved a reality out of this probability space.

 

 

The two conditions of iteration and componantization, together with the condition that time progresses and that two ‘states’ exist, such as energy and particles, I have called, for simplicity, the First Law of Life. To expand this, energy and particles are two states of the same thing and are necessary to produce a logic machine (or system of study) and an example is the ‘atom’, which explains componentization, and it should

be noted that the atom is frictionless because it is manifested in probability space P that is different to our world O where perpetual motion machines do not exist (except atoms, which are world O and P).

 

 

What creates space? The highest point of the probability curve is where we expect a particle to be, and it would look like a normal curve with an infinitely low chance of finding the particle an infinitely long way away. This is a product of having to measure with a finite sized probe (photon or particle) and when particles were created in the Big Bang, space was created through possibilities of position in probability space.

 

 

May I suggest that energy creates time. Why? Energy has no mass and is transmitted by moving particles of water, air etc and in space as a ‘logical something’ that we have no concept of. There must be movement in time for energy to exist, including potential energy!

 

‘A quantum fluctuation is the temporary appearance of energetic particles out of empty space, as allowed by the uncertainty principle. The uncertainty principle states for a pair of conjugate variables such as position/momentum and energy/time, it is impossible to have a precisely determined value of each member of this pair at the same time. For example, a particle pair can pop out of the vacuum during a very short

time interval.’ (Wikipedia, Quantum fluctuations, Quantum fluctuations of a field)

 

This aligns with our theoretical particles above, being created and disappearing. The probability space created is in the particle’s space, not ours, and so it remains a particle to us. Further, time interval is our creation and not the particle’s.

 

 

 

Cosmologists have accepted that ‘about 380,000 years after the Big Bang, the universe had cooled enough to allow the formation of hydrogen atoms’. (http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/db275/Cosmology/Chapter2, p 32)

We observe this event (inflation) where the speed of expansion of the universe for 380,000 years increased by 60 fold in the early part of the expansion that then appears to have suddenly reverted to normal when particles appeared. How strange!

 

 

My simple model, says that time was created by the potential energy of the certainty of a universe being able to be created, and remembering that time is a half-truth, and that velocity is undefined (or alternately, that space did not exist, and speed is a distance interval divided by a time interval, or as length is required to devise a clock, and also, an atomic clock could not be built, because there were no atoms!), how do we know what the expansion speed was, and so the concept of ‘inflation’ is

indeterminate. ‘After thermalisation of at least the baryons, photons and neutrinos is complete, the standard Hot Big Bang era begins.’ (p 41) I think that my ‘explanation’ is simpler and fits the facts better, also it was derived from the ‘first principles’ of logic, and logic exists in all of the universes, considered here.

 

 

Einstein’s view of space-time is a concept of our minds and the Lorentz

transformation is needed to view the universe P in our world O terms, and that is why strange things happen to length and time. Lorentz derived the transformation by looking at an electron circling the atom, if my memory of his paper is accurate. Friction is another factor in man-made machines in O world, but atoms exist, so we live in both O and P worlds.

 

 

Why does the logic of the Half-truth keep appearing? It has been shown that the Half-truth is a simple operator, and that we use it all the time, and we pick up the context from the sentence, so I could say that our civilization has evolved to use the space-time operators (three space and one time dimension) as well as the Half-truth, without realizing that we should apply it rationally and more extensively. It is part of the logic

that defines the universe, including our world and us.

 

 

The Mathematics of the Mind requires a prediction, and that can have some unusual surprises! Many arguments have appeared about whether our universe is speeding up or will be drawn back into a ‘Big Crunch’. The prediction is that we may never know because we could ‘blink’ out of existence at any time, and we would not know it!

 

That scenario, which we have derived from first principles produces the ‘Big Bang’ and the additional information that its duration is indeterminate, simply because of the nature of the Logic of the Half-truth (no time interval in P space).

 

 

Another prediction is that our universe is one of infinitely many (Multiverse), that has the ‘correct’ natural constants that produce us, by the fact that we exist, but as there are (probably) only two states of energy and matter, and the Big Bang’ is a natural phenomenon, so it follows that a number of universes should be the same as ours, leaving aside the fact that we can’t possibly know or communicate with them.

 

 

Another prediction is that quantum mechanics has always been considered strange and difficult to understand or even that we can’t comprehend it with our mind. Well, that is not true because the problem has been our lack of understanding. There are two states within the photon and particle, both with varying degrees of wave/particle

duality, because they are two states of the same thing, and it is unreasonable to assume that they are completely independent of each other, and an example is ice and water, different, yet similar, so we see matter waves and light waves. Secondly, the finite size of a measuring stick determines the logic of measurement, which creates uncertainty which IS space creation in probability space. That could be considered strange, but it is logical.

 

 

Another prediction, and that is the fun part, we have shown that the formation of the Big Bang produces particles and the quantum mechanical effects of indeterminacy produces the expansion of the universe. In other words the universe and quantum mechanics are intimately linked. I am tempted to use the words ‘Holy Grail’ of science, but it is fair to say that the aim of the book is to help the mind

clarify its view of the world in order to attain its evolved aim of attaining a rapid confabulation of its surroundings to better survive predation, thus I have tried to present simplicity in the spirit of Occam.

 

 

 

Another prediction. I have shown that the formation of universes is a natural phenomenon, but many people believe that God created the universe. There is a place for God in this derivation, a less complex one perhaps, because of the Half-truth, and such a God would be the God of truth, which is what the Church says, but the Old Testament presents a complex God at odds with this idea. The Church also says that we are made in God’s image, and that fact, I have had trouble absorbing, however, it is true and in line with this derivation because the architecture

of our brain/mind uses iterative learning and that is a truth in line with the idea that God is Truth.

 

 

An explanation of Relativity: ‘Theodor Kaluza and Oskar Klein made their fame among scientists by showing that recognizing the existence of a fifth dimension could solve their problems…. The answer, claim physicists, is that it is very small and curled up in a circle.’ (The Great Ideas That Shaped Our World, Pete Moore, p38) I believe that physicists, from that quotation, have assumed that the universe exists in

 

space-time and also, that a circle having one dimension seems a little suspect even if tiny. The concept of a logic dimension is strange, but is logical in probability space.

 

 

I believe that the fifth dimension is the logic operator Half-truth because the universe is a probability space that supports logic, and the logic that creates the space is the Half-truth and the photon creates its own velocity in that space. Energy and matter are two states of the same thing, because they continually move from one to the other, and using Occam’s Razor and the Mathematics of the Mind, it is simpler for the states

to show ‘togetherness’ to some degree rather than complete independence and, as above, that energy and particles create time and space together and so show movement. What is the speed of the photon? The photon is energy, has no rest mass and needs a carrier, or does it? Because of the dual aspect (energy/mass), the photon makes its own space and time and moves progressively into it.

 

postscript: space and time can be space in time, or time in space and they are both velocities and indeterminate until measured by a mind that creates a reality because they are continuous. There has to be a logical speed of the photons or light energy and that, we call the speed of light and it is dependent on space and time passing. ‘Time passing’ is not the same as ‘time interval’ and it could be indeterminate but greater than 0. Space is generated by uncertainty in a probability space, and generates the universe because the measuring ‘tools’ at our disposal create uncertainty. We know that the universe is increasing with time passing after its creation, so, as the photons create the universe, the speed of light might change over time.

 

I’d like to thank A. K. Dewdney for citing the source for the reference below in his book Beyond Reason: 8 great problems that reveal the limits of science.

‘Analysis of the most accurate atomic data reveals that the trend has a consistent magnitude in all quantities. Lunar orbital data indicate continuing c decay with slowing atomic clocks. A decay in c also manifests as a red-shift of light from distant galaxies. These variations have thus been recorded at three different levels of measurement: the microscopic world of the atom, the intermediate level of the c measurements, and finally on an astronomical scale. Observationally, this implies that the two clocks measuring cosmic time are running at different rates.

Relativity can be shown to be compatible with these results. In addition, gravitational phenomena are demonstrably invariant with changes in c and the atom. Observational evidence also demands consistent atomic behaviour universally at any given time, t. This requires the permeability and metric properties of free space to be changing.’

‘Light is produced by atomic processes and its velocity, c, has been measured for 300 years. The subsequent analysis concentrates on this basic quantity initially. It is found that there is a statistically significant decay when c is measured in dynamical time. All 16 methods of c measurement give a decay both individually and collectively.’

(The Atomic Constants, Light, and Time, BARRY SETTERFIELD and TREVOR NORMAN © August 1987 )

Let’s simplify this by assuming that the gravitational attraction of matter-matter, matter-energy and energy-energy are the same (and they may not be), so we have conservation of the Big Bangs’ energy in the closed universe, and that total energy is equal to the kinetic energy plus potential energy. As the potential energy component of the universe increases with time, the kinetic energy component decreases and the speed of light decreases. This might be simple, but it is a step up from saying that ‘light creates its own space and moves into it’, and again shows consistency that quantum mechanics and the universe are intimately linked.

 

What has happened is that I have increased the number of attractorsin the Mathematics of the Mind by one (kinetic energy) that complicates the problem but allows more insight. Previously, I thought it easier to consider potential wells instead of space-time, but this extra attractor provides the link between quantum effects and the universe. Looking at a simple example of red shift allows more understanding of the process than the mathematics does. In other words, I am comparing mathematics with the Mathematics of the Mind to show why both should be used, when possible.

 

From Swinburne Astronomy Online: ‘When astronomers perform this analysis, they note that for most astronomical objects, the observed spectral lines are all shifted to longer (redder) wavelengths. This is known as ‘cosmological redshift’ (or more commonly just ‘redshift’) …. at larger distances (higher redshifts), the theory of special relativity must be taken into account and the ….. expression becomes even more complex at extremely high redshift.

Although cosmological redshift at first appears to be a similar effect to the more familiar Doppler shift, there is a distinction. In Doppler Shift, the wavelength of the emitted radiation depends on the motion of the object at the instant the photons are emitted. If the object is travelling towards us, the wavelength is shifted towards the blue end of the spectrum, if the object is travelling away from us, the wavelength is shifted towards the red end. In cosmological redshift, the wavelength at which the radiation is originally emitted is lengthened as it travels through (expanding) space. Cosmological redshift results from the expansion of space itself and not from the motion of an individual body.

(astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/A/Astronomy)

 

The above is how redshift is viewed mathematically where precision is needed, but how is it viewed conceptually? We don’t need to consider the Doppler effect, just a photon, which in the past came from a much smaller universe, so it decreased in speed to the present (as the size of the universe increased) and increased its potential with respect to the size of the universe, assuming that it moved out with the expansion, so it red shifted by an amount depending how much it moved.

 

The question of transmission speed versus energy (colour) of the photon requires that the different energies have the one speed because using Occam’s Razor and the Mathematics of the Mind ensures simplicity, that is, one speed. Notice that there is, again, no unique solution, and if the speed depended on the colour instead of (say) the bending angle in a prism, we would have evolved our sight differently.

 

 

Considering that I believe that the universe is a logic system, what is the speed of light relative to? The answer is the observer, because there is nothing else, and is otherwise undetermined. If two observers, moving at different speeds, measure the speed of light, they get the same answer. In other words, the observers are part of the experiment and the photon is moving by creating space and time, which is speed, but must be measured by someone and that act of measurement determines a reference point, which is each frame of reference by each observer, as was found by the

Michelson Morley experiment.

 

 

This sounds like that which has been said about quantum mechanical experiments, and is SIMILAR, but in space-time terms, the observer is not part of the experiment, but in logic space the observer IS a part of the experiment. The feeling that the observer is a part of the experiment in quantum mechanics is widespread and the above is the reason that it is true!

 

To illustrate the current scientific thinking: ‘when individual photons are directed at a pair of slits in some otherwise impermeable material. Each slit is equipped with a detector. It has been shown that when the detectors are turned off, the photons pass through both slits simultaneously. But when the detectors are turned on, the photons must “make a choice” about which slit to pass through. This is what is meant by the “collapse” of the photon’s wave function.’ (Beyond Reason, A. K. Dewdney, p 179)

 

This again illustrates the problem when viewing word P phenomenon in the world O view, and this ‘problem’ has been cited for a century! As soon as it is accepted that the universe is a probability space supporting logic and not space-time, the ‘problem’ disappears! There is no problem because nothing is determined until the mind is engaged in the measurement!

 

It is NOT the duality of the particle and wave that is the basis of quantum mechanics (even if that was why it was set up), that is, the physical aspects of the quantum (world O view), it is the logical aspects (of world P) of providing a reference point to DEFINE the logic of measurement in order for it to be possible to determine it in some form. In other words, a duality is needed between the particle and the observer because measurement of length and time is not available in world P, as it is a

probability space.

 

 

If you do the mathematics, the Lorentz transformation results, and time and length do strange things. From a logic point of view, which is world P and O, we are creating a measuring stick out of the speed of light (world P) using world O mathematics. In practical terms, the faster that the frame of reference that we are trying to measure is travelling, the more difficult measurement becomes. The graph of indeterminacy

versus speed is asymptotic at ‘rest’ (minimum) and at the speed of light (maximum). Below the graph is the indeterminacy imposed by using a particle as a probe. This graph is the Lorentz transformation and is based on indeterminacy and bounded by it for the practical reasons that the speed of light is the maximum speed that is generated, above.

 

 

We can’t measure that which is travelling faster than the probe, which is light, so if something does travel faster, we can’t know of it. Thus the speed of light is not the maximum speed, it is the maximum speed that we can measure! ‘According to special relativity, c is the maximum speed at which all matter and information in the universe can travel’. (Wikipedia, Speed of light) I remember in a lecture in physics that we

 

were told that ‘phase change’ appeared to travel faster than the speed of light, and this is possible in the light of the above, whereas special relativity prohibits it. The reason for this duality is that mathematics is a special case of the Mathematics of the Mind, so that occurrences of this type should be anticipated and mathematics should give the weaker result, as appears to have happened.

 

I would like to give an example to clarify the understanding because ‘relativity’ has had its meaning broadened significantly. We have been taught that the relativity between two frames of reference requires the Lorentz transformation and this is the result of the constant speed of light in each frame. The relativity is actually in the light/experimenter interaction and cancels out when space-time is used in both frames

of reference.

 

 

To put it another way, there is no reference point to measure the speed of light until the experimenter provides one, which is a frame of reference, then the speed exists and the speed can be calculated. The experimenter is part of the experiment. In the other frame of reference the same thing happens and combining the two into one experiment causes the logic of world P to disappear (cancel out) leaving the space-time effects in each, but without the logic, and that produces the enigma of the speed of light being the same in each frame of reference! Simple!

 

 

‘Einstein’s theory of special relativity results from two statements – the two basic postulates of special relativity: 1. The speed of light is the same for all observers, no matter what their relative speeds. 2. The laws of physics are the same in any inertial (that is, non accelerated) frame of reference. This means that the laws of physics observed by a hypothetical observer travelling with a relativistic particle must be the same as those observed by an observer who is stationary in the laboratory.’

((pages.towson.edu/zrerev/conceptual/14.htm)

 

 

It could be said that Einstein’s theory of special relativity is not a theory, but is derivable as above where the speed of light is the same for all observers. Secondly, the second postulate is an expression of uncertainty in knowledge of the observer’s role, but from the above, I have no reason to suspect that there is any change in the laws of physics as the observer in the laboratory is intimately involved in the measurement (and the universe is a probability space that does not support physical

measurement) and thus it would seem that the postulate is superfluous.

 

The above was stated essentially as concepts for brevity, but the Mathematics of the Mind requires context drawn through the Logic of the Half-truth, so I have filled out the situation a little, below, because context is necessary as more predictions are made at the end.

 

 

Firstly, let me state that I am using the word ‘confabulation’ in the way that our mind uses it, to pull a pattern of a predator, rival etc out of the background vegetation as quickly as possible, and that is a survival characteristic and heritable. We have it within our brain, and we call it creativity! I have used it here, and it is the ninth sense and is fundamental to the architecture of the brain of the higher animals, and enables me to easily absorb the contents of this paper into my mind and to use it in the future to extrapolate. I suspect that creativity is also part of the hindbrain, because of its structure and further, is necessary for feeding success, and heritable.

 

 

Carrying this forward into another prediction, a ‘measurer’, from above, has to be part of the measurement process, and this fact redefines the function of the mind/brain into, as discussed previously, within the herd (Law 3) and as a measuring device outside of the herd (Law 2). In this latter case, a desire for a safety margin, and vice versa for a predator will use a sense (of measurement) of time interval, distance and speed. From above, it requires a conscious mind to be part of a measurement and so

‘consciousness’ co-evolved with the senses, the first being a primitive feeling/hearing through the skin that became more refined as consciousness evolved and use could be made of it to refine the senses.

 

 

Creativity (sense 9) is a quantum mechanical interaction (in my opinion) and will occur in as few as two nerves. This is important as there is no theoretical minimum for creativity to occur, and this is, I believe, fundamental to the ‘controlling’ aspect of a mind/brain, which makes consciousness synonymous with creativity. The formation of nerves, and the consequences of their particular architecture has been fundamental

to evolution for a very long time.

 

 

The first Law of Life was stated above and it relates to world P and world O, and defines the creation and progression of life through iteration (survival of the fittest) and componentization (formation of the atoms as well as fitness to breed) and time passing, which is necessary for iteration. The second Law is in the O world and is state of mind, exercise and nutrition, which raises the breeding potential of the organism, which is also componentization, and is related to the first Law. In a modern context, the second Law is needed for anti ageing, environment etc. by

interpreting the body’s need for food and exercise in terms of our genes and the modern world.

 

 

The third Law is teaching within the herd or family, and is universal in the higher animals and again relates to the other laws. So, these laws link organisms in world O with the conditions in world P because all life evolved using what was available in order to compete and they evolved to use time interval and distance to register speed for hunting or evasion of predators. A word of caution, in that these laws contain other, less important factors that have been omitted, and that lack of precision is

inherent in the Mathematics of the Mind as is shown by Occam’s Razor, above.

 

 

The concept of the Trinity is important in a contextual sense with the above. The first Law is God the Father and creation, the third Law is God the Son and the immediate family and Community, and the second Law is the Holy Spirit and is about the environment and about our place within it. I mention this because the concept of the Holy Spirit has been effectively ‘lost’ and yet millions of people invoke It daily.

 

 

The above may feel a little strange but familiar, because I used the Mathematics of the Mind that is a more general form of mathematics based on concepts and includes mathematics as a special case. Likewise, the Logic of the Half-truth was a necessary extension of the familiar logic. This approach yielded some insights that are clearly a little different to the norm by being based on a mathematics that has been

used intuitively for thousands of years and enables a more ‘sensible’ approach to social problems, by allowing a more rational base that all parties can agree with.

 

 

 

People have naturally wanted to view the universe or quantum mechanics using their everyday methods, but have run into problems because the universe and quantum mechanics are interlinked, and require a world P view to understand their functioning. Mathematics for measurement and the Mathematics of the Mind for understanding the

situation. Hopefully, the above provides a simple explanation, as one would expect from Occam’s Razor.

 

 

Finally, the above simple derivation has yielded interesting, perhaps spectacular predictions that have not been derived using conventional mathematics and logic, so the ’trial run’ of this Mathematics of the Mind appears to have been a success. However, this chapter is a part of a wider concept that is a mirror image of the hugely successful technology in the modern world, but is skewed to the social sciences and the general case is usually more powerful. The contexts available to this concept, are population control, preventing global warming, one religion, restarting

evolution, environment protection etc. and could make the world into a happier and more prosperous place through this ‘Second Coming’.

 

 

Another prediction is what is the difference between our world O and the universe P? The universe consists of two STATES, what we call energy and matter, and they change frictionlessly between the two, and the reason that they change frictionlessly is because there is no particle to take something away. Logic is the operator in world P and we know there is no particle because the universe and every atom would grind to

a halt, if there were.

.

 

To repeat, the universe consists of two states that makes Einstein’s equation E=mc2 a triviality and the c2 is there so the dimensions are the same on both sides (ml2t-2) and states do not require an equality because they are the same thing in different guises (eg steam, water, ice). The equality is misleading because it has lead to the assumption that they are the same, whereas matter and energy may, and probably do, differ in important ways. Just as ice, water and steam have the same chemical

properties, matter and energy are two states of the same thing, so how do we know what differences there are between them.? Just as the speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all energies, the speed in glass varies with energy (refraction).

 

 

 

According to Occam’s razor, the simplest solution is the most usual, so mass and energy in a ‘cold’ (undetectable) state are just as likely as in a number of hot states. ‘Could there be more mass in the universe than we are aware of, or is the theory of gravity itself wrong? The consensus now is that the missing mass is “cold dark matter”, but that consensus was only reached after trying alternatives to general relativity and some physicists still believe that alternate models of gravity might hold

the answer.’ (Wikipedia, Alternatives to general relativity, Modern theories 1980s to present, Motivations)

 

 

World P is a simple world but contains ‘solid’ matter that ‘bounces’ off each other, and there is an impulse that is force times (impulse) time equals change in momentum. Notice no time interval. In world O, we use the expression force equals change in momentum divided by the time interval. I remember wondering in school, how you could use the first (impulse) equation when the time interval was undefined? So, we could say that in world P, there is no ‘force’, only potential energy, which means that force requires interaction with the mind of the experimenter to determine how much of the potential is used and when to make it a force.

 

 

A Big Bang without gravity means that the particles move out into space and never coalesce into suns etc. Clearly we are only here, in universes (out of the Multiverse) that allow us to exist and a certain ‘value’ of gravity is necessary to produce the conditions for life. Gravity is too small to affect world P on the atomic scale, but obviously is of concern as the matter moves out from the big Bang and coalesces, which means a hybrid world H that is different to O, until life develops. This world is

hypothetical and indeterminate unless we recognise it, and then it turns into world O.

 

 

We think of the force of gravity as due to the acceleration (force equals mass times acceleration) of gravity, but world P sees it as an impulse, which is a change in momentum. Our ‘weight’ might appear to be a force (world O), but it is a ‘potential’ in world P and that is how we walk, ‘with a spring in our step’! I might seem to be ‘splitting hairs’, but I am trying to show that the result is the same, but the viewpoint is different in the two worlds according to which method is used. The same equation

 

is used, but the impulse equation does not use a time or length interval only change in momentum. If an experimenter controls the impulse, he is part of the experiment and the impulse becomes a force because it is being controlled or allocated.

 

 

It is widely considered that an object that falls to earth loses potential energy that is turned to heat that raises the temperature of the surroundings by increasing the motion within the bonds in the surrounding material. Also, ‘Pound-Rebka set up an experiment to measure the blueshift of light travelling straight down. They emitted the

light at the top of a four story building and caught it in the basement.’

(milesmathis.com/pound.html)

 

 

Thus, both matter and energy appear to able to infinitesimally adjust to potential energy gradients as they move through space with each keeping track of its own changes in potential energy through internal structures, and that is the basis of the Law of Conservation of Energy, and so that law appears to be correct if gravity is the same for energy and matter. E=mc2 assumes that they are, but are they?

 

 

Thinking about the whole universe in terms of potential, and gravity to coalesce matter, does gravity have to be the same for each of the interactions matter-matter, matter-energy and energy-energy? Energy and matter are two states that define the universe and the other properties may or may not be the same. So, if the interactions are not equal, the total energy of the universe continually changes and the Law of Conservation of Energy may not be true, but does it matter? However, after the Big Bang, if there are differences in the gravity interaction, the preponderance of energy may have changed the effects of gravity significantly, not over time, but conversion.

 

In our world O, the preponderance of matter overwhelms the other effects, but on a galactic scale, who knows? Further, it may be that the universe is best thought of in terms of potential ‘wells’ instead of curved space-time. Curved space-time might be more useful in calculations based on world O, but potential ‘wells’ are easier to visualize and are part of world P.

 

postscript: if the universe is probability space and has certain natural constants that enable life to evolve, then our universe must be one of those that is suitable for life as we know it (one out of the multiverse), and one of those constants is gravity. Gravity is an attraction between matter-matter, matter-energy and energy-energy, and as above, may or may not be the same in each case. But gravity is a logical necessity for life (to hold things together) and creates potential wells. As shown above, energy, as photons (and matter) continually register a potential as they travel around the universe.

 

A ‘field’ is merely a measure of the potential that exists at a point and as such requires a mind to measure or plot it. This ‘action at a distance’ is the same as measuring relativity, above. Our minds measure a charge (as an instance) at one point, measure it at another point, the mind cancels out and there appears to be an attraction or repulsion between the two when the result is a difference in potential.

 

It appears that the problems in understanding quantum mechanics and relativity etc. arose from the fact that understanding required the use of the duality between the worlds O and P. The basis to world P is existence with no ‘motivation’, whereas in world O, existence is based on the organism’s desire to exist and the key to that is measurement of speed of attack or defence by the organisms, which enables ‘motivation’ through the experimenter. This takes us back to ‘reality’, which we, as organisms have created , a long time ago, and the architecture of the brain ensures

the same reality for everyone (Theory of Mind).

 

 

To expand, measurement must is linked to the mind, but logic has two parts, firstly formal logic and secondly, the logic of the mind. Formal logic is a Truth because it is designed that way, but the second type needs to be continuous, and this can only occur if it is constrained by the Theory of Theories that says that the most apt theory applies at every point.. The mind uses this Truth to construct a reality for itself that applies in all circumstances (otherwise it is not a reality) and is the basis of the concept of survival of the fittest. In other words, the mind has to always find an acceptable plan, given any confabulation that may occur, as quickly as possible, and this is heritable.

 

 

So, a little more context might be appropriate. The first ‘brain’ came into being when the dendrites of two nerves were in close (both being positively charged) contact and allowed ‘induction’ and creative thoughts. Memory came about through the low speed of the ‘action potentials’ circulating through nerves, Insulation (and transmission

speed) of nerves depends on the myelin sheath and ‘thinking’ depends on the lack of insulation.

 

 

The cortex uses a different system of long-term storage, but the same creativity mechanism applies to the mass of dendrites that contain memories, remembering that ‘togetherness’ into certain areas produces context. Thus is born a mind that is a creative computer that holds approximate data and can be modelled as concepts as attractors in Chaos Theory and the Mathematics of the mind is the method of cross-linking the attractors to find (non-unique) solutions.

 

 

So, evolution is driven partly by the increase in consciousness and creativity of the mind as well as the body under survival of the fittest regime, thus creating a seamless reality for life. The brain/mind combines the input to the eyes so that the view that we see is ‘seamless’ (and leaves out the nose etc), so we can say that we have produced, by necessity, a reality and a reality that we share with others by virtue of the architecture of the brain that creates measurement in our mind/brain leading to

communication by watching others and so, the Theory of Mind, We appreciate Theory of Mind at a young age when we realize that we are the same, but independent. Thus we say that ‘we have evolved reality from the possibility of existence’.

 

 

 

Conclusion: if you want to measure something, use the mathematical side of the Philosophers’ stone (concept/measurement), but if you want to understand it, use the Mathematics of the Mind side (concept/context), and better still, use both!!

 

 

Secondly, the above shows that we have neglected logic, and I hope that I have shown how necessary it is to include it to bring context to the fore to understand our place in the world. Mathematics is a special case of the Mathematics of the Mind, which is a special case of General Mathematics and results in different viewpoints of the same thing.

 

 

Thirdly, this example, that draws together cosmology, quantum mechanics and mankind indicates what might be done for humanity and its place in the world, Philosophy’s ultimate ‘trolleyology’.

 

 

Fourthly, I have seen predictions that a ‘pulling together’ of the scientific disciplines through an ‘over-arching view’ is necessary and overdue. Apparently this has arisen because there is too much knowledge for one person to pull together. Three factors might have contributed to this chapter and to helping solve that problem, A new Mathematics of the Mind, a necessary extension of the Logic of the Half-truth and the

realization that the mind/brain is a component that contains the ability to improve hugely with longevity and when treated ‘properly’.

 

 

Fifthly, this derivation ‘answers’ a lot (perhaps all) of the (for me, unresolved) problems the have remained from a science degree that I took many years ago, but unfortunately, further problems must remain (for me) indeterminate, because of lack of knowledge, and I look forward to comments and extensions by specialists in various fields.

 

 

Sixthly, I have tried to derive the above to be ‘true’ in the sense of continuity to produce a reality to enable confabulation to happen easily, and starting with a ‘first principles’, I have shown how a reality can be attained, and this is in line with the Theory of Theories and Occam’s razor.

 

postscript: I have often wondered why Chaos Theory and Fractals are considered together and the derivation, above, provides a way into the problem. (A. K. Dewdney has kindly informed me that fractals are ‘frozen chaos’ and I can see the association, but in light of the following, there appears to be a fundamental difference in the nature of the two). Fractals are a time independent computation, but Chaos is very different and much more interesting. I mentioned above that we have created a reality out of the probability of existence which makes it necessary to use a logic operator in probability space (P world) and I have called that, the Half-truth.

 

The form of General Mathematics that we use, I have called the Mathematics of the Mind and it is part of our (O) world, but we are a combination of O and P worlds, so the Mathematics of (our) Mind must contain the Logic of the Half-truth (and we use it in every day speech, and is shown below to form a fundamental part of our thinking that we call ‘common sense’). The Logic of the half-truth is complete and allows a reality and contains the fourth term ‘both true and false at the same time’, and that is logically ‘chaos’.

 

The Mathematics of the Mind is a means of navigating between ‘attractors’ which only exist in our mind, because our mind is necessary for EVERY measurement, so it could be said that Chaos Theory is a special case of the Mathematics of the Mind (as is mathematics) with the Logic of the Half-truth providing the ‘bridge’ between the worlds O and P.

 

Conclusion: I always thought that existence and reality were subjects that had little to do with everyday life, but this little derivation shows the inter-connectiveness of existence, reality, God and mathematics. This is carried further in the postscript in chapter 2.

 

postscript: I would like to offer a quotation for comment, simply because it offers a view different to the one that I hold. ‘In this Alice In Wonderland-like universe, time is no longer an unalterable absolute measure. In motion, every body has its own time that elapses more slowly as the body moves more rapidly. The ultimate barrier is the speed of light. No material object can go as fast; for as speed increases so does mass until – at the speed of light – mass becomes infinite and time stands still’ (The Cosmic View of Albert Einstein: writings on art, science, and peace, edited by Walt Martin and Magda Ott, p xix)

 

The universe, I believe is a probability space and exceedingly ‘simple’ and contains only a logic operator (the Half-truth) and the Alice In Wonderland aspects come because we view the universe through space-time. Space-time is mathematical and contains no logic operators so non-logic creeps in. Time intervals don’t exist, the speed of light is the fastest that we can measure because we are restricted to using light as a measuring stick, the speed of light need not be an ultimate barrier and has never been reached because we are still here, and no mass has become infinite!

 

 

If we apply logic, or perhaps call it common sense, there is no way that matter can reach the speed of light, after all, it never has in our universe in 14 billion years. This represents a logic of the measuring mind that we call ‘common sense’. The Mathematics of the Mind links our minds with measurement (space-time) and logic (the Half-truth or common sense logic) to get measurement AND concept. It’s the ‘horse and buggy’ problem, you can’t have one without the other, otherwise conceptual problems occur!

 

I have used the words creativity, consciousness and confabulation as being heritable and vitally important to the organism, but the same result could be termed ‘common sense’ and be an amalgamation of a number of other attributes that help the organism to survive. Given that common sense forms a reality and is complete, so at no time is the organism without a sense of what to do in an emergency, it becomes apparent that common sense aligns with the Half-truth.

 

Thus the organism can do the sensible thing (true), do the non-sensible thing (false), do sensible things some of the time and non-sensible things the rest of the time, and indecision. Hence it could be that logic (of this nature) describes common sense and common sense is a form of logic in the sense of the Mathematics of the mind and is imprecise, but becomes better when more attractors are used, where wider (not more) thought to given to an action).

 

 

 

‘