Chapter 63: The Philosophy of Life, Proof of Probability of Existence, Heidegger, Michelson-Morley, Einstein, Plato and the Fifth Dimension
Intention: I am wondering if the time has come for this Philosophy of Life to be accepted because it is needed to combat the degenerative ‘diseases’ that are common and (literally) save the world from human exploitation. If the time has not come, I will have tried and I’ll try again later, but it is a decision of circumstances and I will send this to random journals to see the response, and they are welcome to do what they like with it.
Abstract: academic disciplines and journals are specialists and there is a need for generalists to link the academic disciplines together to unlock new insights through entanglement leading to the Philosophy of Life from existence to the end aim (Survival of the Best). It will be seen that Heidegger’s question of existence plus the question of a ‘real’ measurement is similar to the experiment of Michelson-Morley, that demolished the ‘ether theory’ of the transmission of light and led Einstein to use that result as a necessary assumption of his Special Theory of Relativity, thus indicating that we live in a probability of existence universe with ‘underlying’ relativity leading to the solution of Plato’s difficulties by the necessity of defining an absolute for the future. Also, the fifth dimension expands Einstein’s space-time and shows that the relativity of measurement is more fundamental than Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity (of observers). The time is overdue to address the modern ‘diseases’ that we have brought on ourselves by lack of variety in food and the necessity to curb population growth and establish an ‘absolute’ goal for the planet to work towards and that is Survival of the Best. This ‘absolute’ goal can be predicted through iteration based on evolutionary practices of herds and primates to bring agreement through the mathematics of concepts, that forms part of a Philosophy of Life.
The Philosophy of Life defines a workable beginning (relativity and existence in a probability space) that makes sense (fifth dimension (CEM)) of the Michelson-Morley experiment and Einstein’s work and a workable end (Survival of the Best) through assigning a goal (Plato’s problem) derived through the mathematics of concepts (for agreement) that aligns with our evolution of a reality. We have caused an Extinction Event over the whole world because we have passed from iteration (Survival of the Fittest) to the use of the mind/brain with mathematics that is unfortunately only a special case of the mathematics of concepts and we need the Mathematics of the Mind to gain agreement of a course of action to put into place agreed concepts to reduce population, such as paying people not to have children.
Also, the mid-Victorians lived as long as we do (on average after adjusting for the first 5 years) without modern medicine because the types of ‘diseases’ have changed and our modern ‘diseases’ are caused by lifestyle. We can overcome this by keeping in mind (MEN) to have a long, useful and healthy life (re-set the death orgene) and our diet needs a very wide range of foods to overcome the modern diseases because it has not been recognised that we evolved over 63 million years to a primates’ particular hunter/gatherer/farmer lifestyle where all edible foods need to be conserved/farmed.
The transition of iteration (Survival of the Fittest) to mind/brain (Survival of the Best, mathematics) in our evolution indicates two extremely worrying problems that are occurring, namely an Extinction Event of animals and possibly of ourselves due to over-population and the health degeneration of the population due to diet change and solutions are suggested using the Mathematics of the Mind and a vastly more varied diet in the manner of our evolution.
Everyone seems to think that we exist, but this chapter indicates that ‘our determination evolved a reality out of the probability of existence’ and that we ‘live’ in a probability universe with certainty only at one extreme, and this means certainty that we exist in a probability universe not anything that could be called ‘really real’.
I personally think that we could be ‘the future playing out’, after all, there is no way of knowing the future unless ‘actors’ play the parts and we may be those actors in probability space because there is the possibility of certainty of existence at 1, which logically means that we must be ready if we need to exist. Indisputable evidence of this is given below and that realization prompted the dissemination of this chapter.
Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity was difficult to understand until it is realized that it is logical ONLY when it is realized that there is a simpler relativity that is fundamental and is being left out (cancels out) of the usual explanation. The mathematics of concepts is also strange until you accept that mathematics is a special case in our world (O) and E=mc2 is a special case, and what it is really saying is that E is a ‘state’ of m and that they are (effectively) the same thing but world O has different units for mass and energy and the c2 is there to make the units correct (steam/water/ice).
Einstein’s search for a Unified Field Theory would have been difficult as he did not recognise the fifth dimension and also that, I believe, that that dimension is logical, so an attempt at a ‘unified theory of life’ is given here. Chapter 29: ‘Spooky’ Action at a Distance and the Logic of Gravitational Fields indicates why he may have had problems. I am by no means demeaning his work, but like the philosophers, he used a top down approach using world O units and couldn’t break into world P that way. I used a bottom up approach and seem to have encountered fewer problems
As far as I can see, philosophy uses human concepts (world O) to look at certain aspects of the universe (world P), and as we have seen they are not the same, so, it is possible that certain parts of philosophy will remain ‘hidden’ until looked at in a different way, and I will give an explanation of Heidigger’s question: “Why are there things that are rather than nothing?” and “How do we know what is real?”. (Travels with Epicurus, Daniel Klein, p 10) The first question is below.
‘ON DARING TO THINK ILLOGICAL THOUGHTS IN OLD AGE ….
I pull Heidegger’s Introduction to Metaphysics out of my shoulder bag. This is the tome that opens with the stupifier, “Why are there things that are rather than nothing? … Martin Heidegger was a twentieth-century German existentialist … is asking us to confront the idea that existence itself can be called into question and this, he believes, is the ultimate philosophical question. (p 113)
‘Heidegger states that the question is “unfathomable”. First he tells us that this question is fundamental to all philosophy, and then he tells us that we are never going to get it anyhow. Something perverse in that.’ (p 114) ‘In old age I do seem to be able to get occasional glimpses that appear to transcend logic. I dare to think illogical thoughts.’ (p 115) ‘Maybe the positivists were right, after all: the reason that I cannot think about this stuff is because it is utter nonsense.’ (p 117) ‘I feel enriched, in part because I have trod where I dared not tread as a young man. The old man has mellowed to metaphysics.’ ( p 118)
The first thing is, I believe, that our mind/brain should get better as we age if we keep in mind MEN (state of mind/exercise/nutrition) and secondly, we have to look outside of logic into chaos through the Logic of the Half-truth (true, false, true some of the time and false the rest of the time, and both true and false at the same time (chaos)). It is immaterial whether we exist or not and we probably do not exist because that is the simpler hypothesis using Occam’s razor. To suggest that we exist requires a place to exist, gods etc. and all sorts of complications, but as will be seen, the probability that we exist, exists, because we MAY exist.
We think that we exist, if for no other reason than Descartes’ ‘I think therefore I am’, but this is incorrect because we evolved a reality and what we think to be existence is actually a reality. The probability of existence is continuous and complete (0 to1) and can form a reality, so, we are logical abstractions in probability space and don’t exist, but may exist (at 1, which is certainty). Now probability space contains 5 dimensions and from previously (in worlds O and P), for simplicity, in my opinion, the fifth dimension is CEM (mathematics of concepts/entanglement/measurement) and entanglement means that the sum of measurement over all points is 1 as is required in a probability space.
It has to be done somewhere and this is as good a place as any to clarify the statement from above that ‘we are logical abstractions in probability space and don’t exist, but may exist (at 1, which is certainty). A measurement creates certainty/existence-in-probability-space (an absolute), as will be shown below, but this is certainty/existence in probability space where a+b=1. The universe that people assume that they live in, a universe that ‘really really’ exists and requires a god to bring it about means a constant speed of light (that we know from experiment) must appear to vary to different observers moving with respect to each other, but in a probability world, the speed of light is the same for observers moving with respect to each other, as found by the Michelson-Morley experiment.
Particle ‘pairs’ can come into existence anywhere that there is the energy because they don’t change the summation (to 1) and don’t exist to the measurer (us) until measured (e.g. electron/positron/gamma-rays). Also, is energy something or nothing? It can be both and is a chaotic question because it needs bounds for an answer (remember that energy and matter are states of the same thing). That answers the question ‘Why are there things that are rather than nothing’. In other words, there is existence (at 1), but only in probability space (multiverse) that allowed us to exist/form-a-reality by measurement that comes about through iteration or a mind/brain. The ‘in the limit’ of iteration is a measurement and the measurement of our mind/brain is also a measurement and measurement is allowed and the sum of all measurements is the measurer’s reality. Put another way, we have a reality in ONE of the probability spaces (multiverse) with the physical constants that would allow us to exist if we did exist.
This makes Descartes statement true for the higher level of measurement by the brain and we are forced to the realisation that Decartes’ statement is both true and false at the same time and is a chaotic statement. This is not a philosophical disaster, it just means that we have to be careful how we apply it, and apply bounds such as 0<a<1 (logic bounds). Chaos is not formal logic that is always true or false. An example, as given previously is that water is necessary for life, too little will kill you (dehydration) and too much will kill you (drowning). Finally, reality is necessary, but not sufficient to survive and to evolve. Needless to say, the above is in my opinion!
Now the question, “How do we know what is real?”. In the first question we used the concept of reality and what is real is a more fundamental question and I will set the stage by repeating a paragraph from the previous chapter 62. Some of it repeats the above, but reality, and thus the question of what is real is critical to understanding reality.
This all sounds a bit strange and the reason is through the definition of ‘existence’! The Churches teach that we exist because God made the universe, and that means that absolutes exist because the universe is ‘real/exists’, whereas I believe that we exist in a probability of existence space and that there are relatives, but no absolutes, as has been mentioned before. Plato appears to be troubled by this problem: ‘in the first book of the Republic (332-3). If good living is a skill or art, what is it the skill to do? There seems no way of specifying the skill as ”the skill to do x“ without making it also the skill to do the opposite of x’. (Greek Philosophers, R. M. Hare, p 127) In the light of the above, philosophers seem to believe that we are ‘real/exist’, whereas I believe that ‘determination evolved a reality out of the possibility of existence’, noting that this reality contains the certainty of existence (in probability space, at 1) and this belief/derivation came out of the mathematics of concepts. So, if there are no absolutes, we have to define something to be an absolute so that we can measure it and bring it into (our) existence/knowledge/mind/brain.
I will repeat the phrase ‘we have to define something to be an absolute so that we can measure it’, and have used the idea ‘we can measure it and bring it into (our) existence/knowledge/mind/brain’ before, but I now realize that there is a ‘link’ between measuring and defining an absolute. This has come about in writing the previous chapter and I will try to clarify this important point in some examples, firstly simple examples of a lack of the absolute and secondly a re-hash of the Theory of Relativity.
It has been mentioned before that proverbs are simple solutions of the Mathematics of the Mind that we use as a ‘higher’ level of thinking/rationalization. I maintain that the universe in which we live is a probability of existence space, that contains certainty, and has no absolutes (even at certainty), and I will give a simple example, ‘handsome is as handsome does’ obviously depends on personal choice. Another example is the inevitability of death, and it has been mentioned that death is an organisational necessity for evolution (orgene) and works through the mind, and the main purposes of this book is anti ageing, that is, lengthening life, and the amount of lengthening that is possible is unknown. Thirdly, reality requires recycling by organisms, and in the limit, continental drift recycles everything through volcanoes.
Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity is the relativity between observers and is correct, of course, but at a higher level than the relativity between the observer and the measurement. I’m citing this to show the absoluteness that is required, when a measurement is taken, is inserted by the act of measuring and secondly, everyone agrees that the speed of light in a vacuum is constant. Now the Michelson-Morley experiment found that the speed of light was the same in all directions and this was in spite of the motion of the earth and the acceleration of being on the revolving earth’s surface. This led Einstein to use the assumption that the speed of light was the same to two observers, no matter what the speed differential between the observers.
Well, this is it! As mentioned previously, ‘real/true’ existence requires absolutes and speed is an absolute so the speed of light should be different between observers (moving with respect to each other), and that is what we expect, but we see a paradox that made Einstein change to a non-absolute (relative) view of the universe by putting in the assumption, above, in the Special Theory. In other words, by that assumption, Einstein assumed a relative universe! If Galileo got into so much trouble with the thought of the earth going around the sun, Einstein is assuming a probability of existence world, and that is not what the Churches’ teach, but perhaps didn’t understand/worry about the ramifications of the assumption.
In a simple probability space measurements a and b have the relation a+b=1 which has no unique solution (relativity) and measurements by two observers b and c (a+b=a+c) means that b=c (Michelson-Morley experiment), and that means that measurements/observers for b and c are equivalent, whilst the relation between b and c require a (Lorentz) transformation, as Einstein found (the measurements cancel out).
So, the question: “How do we know what is real?” is again a relativity, in that it only becomes real to an iteration or a mind/brain when it is measured in world O, and if not measured it is indeterminate and goes about its business in world P. There are five dimensions, as recognised by science: “‘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.” (Chapter 27: Existence, Reality and the Effect on Fundamental Physics) The other four are space-time and the 5th dimension is, I believe, CEM (Mathematics of concepts/entanglement/measurement).
It should be noted that reality is the (continuous) continuum of measurements of the surroundings so that animals share the same reality, otherwise magic happens and a predator strikes unseen/unheard etc. Reality is necessary for our survival and the body tries to make our environment real to us, as can be seen that the nose comes into focus when we touch it. In other words, the sight of your nose is not necessary to your reality until it is needed to be part of the picture! This occurs through the Rule of Life, because evolution is ‘one-way’.
The Philosophy of Life
From above, by experiment (Michelson-Morley) and theory (Einstein), we live in a probability of existence universe that only contains relatives (a+b=1) and we need to set an absolute to measure (Plato). To measure, we must create a reality for ourselves and that may be iteration or a mind/brain because it is the ‘intention/ability/determination’ to measure that allows us to use this particular probability space (Multiverse). Our particular universe must have gravity to allow planets to coalesce and is a basic part of the conservation of energy and leads to potential ‘wells’ in world P, whereas we use different units (time interval) in world O i.e.. Impulse Ft=mv-mu versus force F=(mv-mu)/t and time interval t is world O derived from predator/prey interactions and is used in velocity and acceleration. In other words, a measurement occurs when an impulse is changed to a force because it needs an intention by a mind/brain, or, put another way, when a momentum is changed by a photon or particle that is recorded and can later be known/accessed (a function of logic).
If the physical parameters did not allow us to evolve as we are, we wouldn’t be here in this form (multiverse), and our universe is made out of one substance that has at least two states (matter and energy) and that is conserved (a+b=1, conservation of mass/energy) and matter has a number of stable (and partially stable) states (particles) and the future can only exist if it is ‘played out’ by something that is logical and that is the fifth dimension CEM (mathematics of concepts/entanglement/measurement). Entanglement is a property of probability space and measurement is obviously possible between points (sum = 1) and measurement produces reality of measurement that leads to a reality for living. Chapter 29: ‘Spooky’ Action at a Distance and the Logic of Gravitational Fields is a realisation of the logical fifth dimension.
Competition ensures reality is common in a niche, whether by sight (to avoid others), feeling, hearing etc. or subconscious defences such as an immune system. A hunter/gather/farmer category is introduced that suggests that for 63 million years, primates enjoyed a luxurious variety of types of foods by necessity (of a type of farming) and the reduction in variety in modern living has resulted in the modern degenerative ‘diseases’ showing that we are bound to an environment that we evolved in, but can overcome these limitations by MEN (state of mind/exercise/nutrition) when we understand the bounds, because life is chaotic.
The mathematics of concepts leads to the Mathematics of the Mind that was used to create consciousness in (larger) multi-celled animals (in the Cambrian) and provided a two-way interchange with individual cells (placebo/nocebo continuum), and the food supply (with Survival of the Fittest) allowed the animals to evolve, except that humans eventually used technology (mathematics is a special case of the mathematics of concepts) and using a special case (instead of the general case) mismanaged (practically) everything and has placed the planet and our evolution/existence into jeopardy. This sad state of affairs came about because humans have no agreed goals that align with life, and this can be remedied (in a relative universe) by assigning an absolute (Plato’s problem) that can only be done through the use of a mathematics of concepts. I have suggested Survival of the Best to be the absolute and have suggested methods of attaining this ultimate evolution.
The use of the Mathematics of the Mind is crucial and I have suggested the use of philosophers/politicians as providing a necessary mix of learning/salesmanship to present solutions and use ridicule as the ‘stick’ to creating a world of lower population and harmony with the food supply (all the animals that share our world) and end this current extinction event. I believe that the three Laws of Life define our reality and show how the major religions are not well balanced (in total) and have demeaned the importance of the environment/world by ‘losing’ the Holy Spirit for the last 2000 years.
I have used the words Philosophy of Life because from start (existence) to finish (Survival of the Best) everything has played out with iteration (Survival of the Fittest) until our mind/brain took over (Survival of the Best, mathematics) and has caused problems because we need a well thought out goal (Plato’s problem) to reach so that we can measure our progress (Survival of the Best, Mathematics of the Mind) towards a goal.
I don’t have a reputation to make or uphold and am bypassing peer review and other slow steps in the dissemination of knowledge (such as books) in favour of the weblog on the internet. Secondly, all this is new and the best way might be to ask your readers to peer review it (they are just as qualified), also, the world doesn’t have time to examine this system in an old-fashioned way before implementing it, and I am not expecting the established scholars to embrace change and I feel that this is an opportunity for the young or young at heart. The book is a working journal that increases in difficulty as the work was put down, so it is easy to understand and the order of chapters, as written, is indicated. If anyone has improvements, they can be added and not all the chapters are up on the internet because the writing has progressed so rapidly and across so many fields, presumably, because it is so fundamental and new. The above is the ‘distillation’ of 500 pages into a few pages, and the book may need to be consulted.
Why do I call this a Philosophy of Life?
Effectively it defines a workable beginning (relativity) that makes sense (fifth dimension (CEM)) of the Michelson-Morley experiment and Einstein’s work and a workable end (Survival of the Best) through assigning a goal (Plato’s problem) derived through the mathematics of concepts (for agreement) that aligns with our evolution of a reality. We have caused an Extinction Event over the whole world because we have changed reality and whilst an extinction event is re-establishing reality across all life-forms, the question is, who decides what the new balance is to be in a relative universe?
Occam’s razor suggests the simplest system is the most likely (mathematics of concepts) and an actual existence, as suggested by the Churches leads to an absolute world, with a Maker, gods etc. and is more complicated than a relative universe that probably comes about naturally as a consequence of a probability of existence and doesn’t need to exist (except as a possibility).
I believe that we live in a probability of existence universe and that we are a logical future playing out, and this is why an iteration or mind/brain ‘works’ in this space, firstly because it can ‘work’ (multiverse/we-wouldn’t-be-here), and secondly, it is the only way to predict a future, in the same way that attractors ‘build’ a concept (limited in scope), ‘players’ are needed to determine the likelihood/possibility of the concept occurring, remembering that a measurement is needed to produce a reality (CEM).
Consciousness evolved in the Cambrian, but then evolved to the primate hunter/gatherer/farmer (60 million years ago) to the farmer/mathematics (10,000 years later) to (hopefully) Survival of the Best/mathematics-of-concepts. After that, anything goes! The key words are ‘Consciousness evolved’ and after that, evolved a greater ‘say’ in evolution, and that will have to wait for chapter 65.
We have passed from iteration (Survival of the Fittest) to the use of the mind/brain with mathematics (Survival of the Best, mathematics) that is unfortunately only a special case of the mathematics of concepts and we need the Mathematics of the Mind to gain agreement to a course of action to put into place agreed concepts to manage all of the factors that used to be managed by the predator/prey relationship. One suggestion to reduce population is to pay people not to have children because those that do have children, can be supported by those children, and that can be compared with the current practice of giving welfare to everyone except the rich and by doing that, we lose a ‘goal’ of selection.
Also, the mid-Victorians lived as long as we do (on average after adjusting for the first 5 years) without modern medicine because the types of ‘diseases’ have changed and our modern ‘diseases’ are caused by lifestyle. The solution is simple, but the death orgene is inbuilt into us to be lazy and eat what we want/like to eat (the seventh sense has been ‘hijacked’ by food marketeers and growers). We can overcome this by keeping in mind (MEN) to have a long, useful and healthy life (re-set the death orgene) and our diet needs a very wide range of foods to overcome the modern diseases because it has not been recognised that we evolved over 63 million years to a primates’ particular hunter/gatherer/farmer lifestyle.
‘East African chimps use the same medicinal plants as humans in that region. When the chimps eat leaves as food, they usually stuff their mouths as fast as they can, eating leaves of 150 to 200 species in this way. But they behave differently on the rare occasions when they eat the leaves of Aspilia, a member of the sunflower family …. The chimps test leaves by ‘mouthing’ them, and either reject the leaf, or swallow it whole. … Research has shown that the leaves contain a powerful antibiotic called thiarubrine-A, which kills worms and some bacteria.’ (100 Discoveries, Peter Macinnis, p 24)
This quotation is an example of the hunter/gatherer/farmer that we evolved to be because it was necessary to ‘farm’ edible vegetation to keep the ‘balance’ that was required, and this practice led to a wide range of phytochemicals available to the body and, I believe that reducing the availability of phytochemicals in the modern diet has caused the components of the body to be ‘running’ outside their ‘design limits’ to which they evolved and are showing this as ‘sickness’.
The transition of iteration to mind/brain in our evolution took us into farming that used technology to remove the restrictions that had been imposed on us by the hunter/gatherer/farmer and allowed us to plan what we wanted to eat. We made mistakes and have ended up with the modern health degeneration of the population due, I believe, to a restricted modern diet as indicated above and the solution is suggested of using MEN and a vastly more varied diet in the manner described above.
Mistakes were made in governing the rising population and have resulted in the Extinction Event that we find across the world. Technology is not suited to this problem (and in fact, created it) and I feel that it requires the Mathematics of the Mind to find acceptable concepts that can be agreed upon and put into action through the police, justice and political system, but, as has been mentioned before, the political system needs the Mathematics of the Mind to set goals that align with an absolute, such as the Survival of the Best. In other words, we have the means to ‘guide’ the future course of our evolution by agreeing to a course of events and putting it into motion (Survival of the Best, Mathematics of the Mind), and, we have to decide the goal because our universe is relative.
I have given one example that determination to breed is an orgene, in that it is illogical, but necessary for evolution and we want successful people to breed, so less determined people with very few children get welfare or tax relief in their old age, whereas people with more children can be supported by their children in old age. This example shows how an absolute goal (population reduction and fostering the Best) can influence politics and voters will vote for a higher aim, and the statesman suggesting it (Philosophy of Leadership). It should be noted that a re-balancing of the value of votes to those receiving money from the government is crucial and obvious, as mentioned previously.
If the reader is to take one thought away from this chapter, I hope that they will realise that for 50 years the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment (that the speed of light was the same to observers moving with respect to each other) has been totally inexplicable to me. I am pleased that I have laid that enigma to rest, to my satisfaction and the short answer is that the universe is a probability space and the enigma is a necessary logic of that space!
If a second thought is to be taken away, it is that ‘the enigma is a necessary logic of that space’, and that is the fifth dimension CEM (mathematics of concepts/entanglement/measurement)!
Thirdly, the modern ‘diseases’ show that we are linked to our evolution, and in particular, the large variety of the foods that we evolved to use and require to keep us healthy and we need to carry this into our modern diets etc. through MEN (state of mind/exercise/nutrition).
Fourthly, in using technology (mathematics) we have used a special case and not the general case (Mathematics of the Mind) and have created an extinction event and lost control of our local and global environment through over-population of humans without proper controls placed upon them.
Fifthly, we found that an agreed goal must be assigned (Plato) that we can all aim towards, and that a rational scheme can only come from a formal mathematics of concepts for agreement to contain the extinction event.
Sixthly, three interdependent Laws of Life define the interaction between our world (O) and the universe (P) (first law), the environment (second law) and the family (third law). The third law emphasises the success of teaching offspring and forces the use of a programmed death in the longer-lives species that can be reset by MEN (death orgene).
Seventhly, reality underlies life across the planet and requires that we coexist for long enough to breed and then be recycled. Everything must be recycled (by organisms and eventually continental drift and the associated volcanoes).
Eighthly, the above points are a whole/system/life that might be some sort of assemblage of probabilities that arose/evolved where it could in probability space because it could arise under the physical properties of our world (out of the multiverse) and we may be likened to a computer program’s result running in a ‘computer of life possibilities’. This equates to evolution being an iterative Truth/god that is used in this book to derive the Mathematics of the Mind, as mentioned in the first Law of Life. In other words, I have used the iteration of evolution as a type of ‘bio-computer’ to generate this philosophy and suspect that some of the above is a little repetitive, but its a complex system and many attractors are involved and as we look at slightly different problems, different attractors predominate.
darrylpenney 