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.

I have often wondered about the logic of common sense, why we have it and how frequently we use it. In fact we use it all the time and often without thinking about it, in a similar way to our use of our gamma nervous system that evolved to continually counter-balance our movements. I hasten to add that formal logic is not being considered because, like mathematics, it is constricting and I will rely on the following quotation:

 

‘If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end in doubts, but if he will be content to begin with doubts, he shall end in certainties.’ Francis Bacon, 1606 (Feral Future, Tim Low, p xiii)

 

By this, I believe that mathematics and formal logic are based (as much as possible) on a definitive simplicity that cannot lead to the larger picture [evidenced by the constraint of Newton on physics for 300 years], and indeed, that simplicity [concept] is part of the problem because there is, by necessity, another simplicity [context] and they are not related, and can be shown [(a+b)=1] to be independent/orthogonal. If we are content with doubts [mathematics of concepts], indeterminism [questing], relativity [relevance], logic [common-sense], entanglement, concepts/context etc., we find, I believe, a different type of elegance to the elegance of mathematics/logic and one that fills in the ‘difficulties’ of physics that we have all encountered, and these difficulties start at the very bottom, with existence.

 

Let’s start with the statement, ‘if mathematics corresponds to the mathematics of concepts, how does formal logic correspond to logic’? This suggests a symmetry and the first step is to quest for the answer and when we have an answer that satisfies us, it becomes determinate to us, and we can do this because that is how our probability space maintains itself and we are part of fields within that space. If that sounds familiar, it is because we live within ‘layers’ of a few basic fields that are based on concepts that have been difficult to understand, such as quantum mechanics, relativity and the fifth dimension (a+b)=1, and yet are simple. In other words, questing the equation (a+b)=1, along with space-time, derives the universe and everything in it, including Life and leads from defined simplicity to simplifying the infinite in the statement, above. [Notice that (a+b)=1 is actually (a+b+c …)=1 and is not simple and the quotation is, I believe, apt]

 

From chapter 73, ‘remember that a probability of existence space has an infinitely small chance of existing [at 1] and likewise, has an infinitely small chance of not existing [at 0], and forms a “twilight zone”’, and whatever we are, we are logic because logic only comes from iteration or a mind/brain. However, the Theory of Everything was used to ascribe consciousness to all things animate and inanimate and so consciousness is another word for logic, and it will be shown later that logic/consciousness is physical in the form of measurement/entanglement that grades through evolution, to the ‘metaphysical’ as concept/context.’

 

As Descartes said, ‘I think, therefore I am’ and that might be the first and simplest attractor in the mathematics of concepts that we are using to examine the statement, above. The mathematics of concepts is ‘natural’ and predates mathematics, and I believe, was responsible for the Trinity of the Bible, so, it is old, forgotten and unfortunately necessary to our civilization because it holds the ‘key’ to the working of everything, and it can be identified in the dimensions of a probability space [space-time and (a+b)=1 for measurement/observers a and b, as an illustration]. Another necessary/important piece of information is that our mind/brain took 3,000 million years to evolve and it evolved using the simplest and most logical principles and that is the mathematics of concepts. The proof of this sentence is simply that conceptually, efficiency is always sought and contextually, otherwise you will be eaten sooner.

 

To repeat, mathematics is a special case of the mathematics of concepts and mathematics is our invention [world (our) O] and the mathematics of concepts is immediately apparent in the dimensions of our probability of existence universe P and is the general basic mathematical relationship that underlies everything. Entanglement is immediately obvious and the ‘+/and’ signifies that the entanglement is both measurement and logic because questing is a necessary property of a probability space and every possibility will be quested/examined [as in quantum mechanics, Life].

 

A requirement of questing is that every possibility must be quested/examined and that statement logically requires that the result be indeterminate until a measurement is made. This determination by measurement makes quantum mechanics seem ‘strange’ but ‘balancing’ has to be done at an infinite speed [a function of the space and to prevent logical singularities] and the measurement [a, b] is accompanied by the entanglement that is both physical (a+b)=1 and logical (a and b)=1 and provides relativisation [(a+b+c …)=1, duality].

 

Relativisation needs to be defined and it is composed of two parts, firstly a concept where two observes moving relative to each other measure the speed of light to be the same, which is an enigma, and secondly, as a context that the sum of energy at every point in the universe is zero, which also strains belief. Relativisation comes about because there is one solution/absolute to the equation (a+b)=1, and that is, that the speed of every photon is constant for all free energy. A photon is an energy concept/measurement of potential [Pound-Rebka] and an energy context/kinetic-energy/logic that requires motion and this is the ‘static’ mode of ‘free’ energy. The ‘dynamic’ mode is the creation of energy [separation into negative potential and positive other energies] creates space and time through the dimensions and produces, in extreme cases, inflation [of the Big Bang].

 

An example of questing the fifth dimension [(a+b)=1] comes to mind because the total energy of the Big-Bang/Big-Whoosh is zero at all times, and yet, from chapter 72: ‘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). This is logical, but is it really logic or mathematics, which is mathematics of concepts that is apparent from the dimensions?

 

In a simple planetary system, the total energy equation zero = (p+q) where p and q are kinetic energy and potential energy and mirrors the fifth dimension in context [measuring each other continuously and instantaneously] to the concept of ‘Newton’s inverse square law of gravity explained in one equation the orbits of all the planets as described in the three laws of Johannes Kepler’. (50 physics ideas, Joanne Baker, p 17) Notice that I mentioned concept and context, but Newton used world O thinking of the force of attraction between the planets and this invokes a determination and subsumes the logic/context.

 

Further, both positive and negative energy exits because, the equation (a+b)=1 must contain both [questing, simplicity] and from chapter 72:

 

‘Concept/measurement: 0 = kinetic (energy)+ gravity (energy) + mass + dark matter + dark energy + photon energy + chemical etc. acting at the speed of photons in vacuo as a maximum.

 

Context/logic: 0 = kinetic + gravity (logic) + mass + dark matter + dark energy + photon energy + chemical etc. acting at an infinite speed.

 

where gravity is always negative and all the other energies are positive. It is a commonly held idea that ‘all objects in the universe may exert a tiny gravitational pull that might subtly affect our movement’ (p 6) and they cannot do that unless gravity [logic] is propagated instantaneously.

 

Notice that different states of energy have different properties (as would be expected), and in particular, that the speed of logic/gravity is instantaneous as it must be in a probability space to prevent logical singularities and further, that the context/logic equation needs an infinite speed of gravity to keep track of the other contexts to satisfy (a+b)=1. In other words, the dimension (a+b+c…..)=1 cannot be simplified (logically) because any omission could cause a singularity as can be seen from the mathematics of concepts and Feynman’s formulations. In other words, the logic of gravity ‘flashes’ around keeping track of the logic components of all the states of energy and relativises them.’

 

The above example answered the question for me that positive and negative energies exist, from the dimensions, and not from supposition [Ockam’s razor, a simple solution of the mathematics of concepts] and further that logic is just as important as the mass/energy in the universe. Another example is that I mentioned a singularity field in chapter 74 and one has to acknowledge that our universe is logically capable of protecting itself against logical singularities, see below. I will foreshadow that the simple concept/word of logic will change below because logic is different in the physical world [P] and the mental world [O].

 

From chapter 72, ‘I believe that the Big Bang or perhaps more accurately, a Big Whoosh, was a runaway creation or splitting of nothing into a positive part and a negative part of (only) the energy concepts over a very small period of time and I will quote, and compare to ‘the universe begins to expand at an exponential rate. Indeed, the universe continued to expand exponentially as long as the inflation field was the dominant source of energy density. This phase of inflation began when the universe was about 10x-36 seconds old. This energy eventually decays away (by design) and inflation ends by about 10x-35 seconds. This enormous kinetic energy turns into heat, and we are now again in the conventional hot Big Bang phase, initially dominated by radiation and relativistic particles.’ (The Infinite Cosmos, Joseph Silk, p 116) This quotation, according to the above, is a little strange, as there is no ‘inflation field’, only creation of space/time in a perfectly natural way by the creation of energy (balanced by potential energy) and this depends on the rate of creation of energy and ‘exponential’ is not an apt term. Inflation could be thought of as a ‘normal curve’ and slowed when energy creation slowed, but it is a natural process whenever energy is created (not transferred).’

 

From chapter 72, ‘an interesting point is that it is commonly considered that the galaxies are moving outward due to the momentum imparted by the Big-Bang/Big-Whoosh, but an alternative explanation is more ‘definitive’, and by that I mean that the outward momentum tells us little and leads to questions, such as ‘is the universe speeding up, remaining constant or slowing down its rate of expansion?’. However, if we use the above, that the dimensions show that the speed of light is constant and that there are no restrictions placed on the energy of the photons, then as the original photons, from the Big-Bang/Big-Whoosh spread out, and are still doing so at considerably lower energy [cosmological red-shift], they are creating space at a constant rate/speed. This increase in space forces the galaxies to move outward to preserve the Law of Conservation of Energy, and is not the residual momentum imparted by the Big Bang, as it is commonly considered to be. In other words, space increases to hold energy and that forces the other dimensions (and energy) to increase by the same amount [Lorentz factor] and as the speed of electromagnetic waves is constant, the expansion of the galaxies should be constant.

 

To explain Newton’s view from chapter 74 ‘as we now know, his faith in forces was justified to such an extent that it is widely regarded as Newton’s most important scientific innovation.’ (Let Newton be!, edited by John Fauvel, p 128) ‘A slightly naughty thought can come to one’s mind here. Is it due to the nature of physics that the mathematical tools started by Newton are so essential for many parts of physics through the centuries? Or is our selection of worked-on parts of physics still largely Newtonian? (p 244) The question posed in the last two sentences was answered at the end of chapter 74, and again here, that ‘physics is still largely Newtonian’ because it does not use the fifth dimension in its entirety, but ‘dips’ into it when convenient/necessary.

 

Logic is just as important as the physical, and, as they are independent/orthogonal, both explanations/proofs should be given. Logic and measurement are independent and it is meaningless to say that either is more important or assign percentages (with any exactitude). If we take the Cartesian system of the X-Y plane, we can say that some point is composed of two independent variables (x, y), and the mathematics of concepts can be handled similarly, bearing in mind that an iteration or mind/brain initiates a measurement and we are dealing with world O and world P. A little foreshadowing will make it easier to understand, that world P is a probability space and only has iteration, whereas Life has made world O into a ‘determinate’/non-entanglement world because of the necessity of creating a reality as part of questing/Survival-of-the-Fittest.

 

So, taking the easy case of world P, questing is: X-Y axes with the concepts to be examined spread equally spaced along the X axis, and a curve/^ is drawn between each concept and every other concept with a height ^ equal to its probability and the sum of all the ‘heights’ is 1. This comes straight from the entanglement/measurement of the probabilities in a probability space. To move it into world O in order to automate or use a mind/brain, move the concepts and the ^ to make a ‘normal’ curve and read off the best concepts and their context. If this looks simple, ask yourself ‘why should it be complicated?’, when the universe requires only 5 dimensions and life six dimensions.

 

A small digression in that the two ‘toughest’ problems in physics are generally considered to be quantum mechanics [questing, entanglement,  measuring ‘sticks’] and relativity [relevance, entanglement, measuring ‘sticks’] and yet they are simple properties immediately apparent from the dimensions of a probability space, as can also be seen the general mathematics of concepts. Common-sense logic is much more complicated because we have taken the ‘logic’ that must exist for us to be here and used it along with the mathematics of concepts, questing and relevance to produce Life with a mind/brain that changes the field in which it lives and leaves us with the interaction of worlds O and P.

 

Bear in mind that the above [normal form, solution] is a ‘snapshot’ and must be recorded with the decision to give relevance/relativity so that as time passes, and circumstances change, it is easy to rearrange the attractors and context, add different attractors and update or challenge the decision. This is crucial and can be seen from chapter 73, ‘thus, given that relativisation (1), the mathematics of concepts (2) and setting out the concepts/attractors and setting the context (3), the use of an absolute (4) [forward-planning] chosen by the universities (5) [the ‘best’ absolute] are derived above’.

 

‘Further, (6) is experimentation/trials/measurement etc., as suggested by Francis Bacon to bring about a ‘scientific method’ that has proved spectacularly successful in science/technology and this could be considered a ‘break-through’ because most ‘science’ was derived by ‘thought’ for thousands of years. However, the duality of concept/context and measurement/logic means that theorists (7) should be included and it is apparent that a mathematics of concepts has been set up [(1) to (7) in total] where more factors produce a better organization, but what is the purpose of an organization? An organization is set up for a number of reasons, but basically it is to satisfy a need and/or to evolve (8), and I should stress that these eight points are (possibly) the most important of many more that may need to be considered.’

 

Again, in chapter 73, I point out that science fortuitously/luckily uses this organizational derivation, but most organizations do not use as many attractors and their performance is so inadequate as to have caused, I believe, an Extinction event. These themes keep appearing because they are attractors that are relevant and cannot be ignored as they (somewhat) have been ignored using the Newtonian system. As a specific example, Newton’s laws of motion have not been challenged in 300 years, and I believe that they need rewriting, as I have done, but will have to wait till a later date. To foreshadow, with a simple example, a photon keeps the same speed irrespective of the energy in contradiction of the first law.

 

World O is our world and not important in the universe [400 billion galaxies], but it is to us, although in 10,000 years we have brought it to its ‘knees’ and I doubt that many would deny that, but it can be turned around, I believe, when we have the correct tools [as shown above]. Mathematics is a special case of the mathematics of concepts and chapter 74 showed how a Unified Field Theory needed a new general mathematics to describe it, and as well as a new mathematics, we need a new logic because the logic that science uses is ‘catch as catch can’ instead of a legitimate theory, that is consistent  (50/50) with concepts/measurement. Two simple examples are unassailable. Firstly, in Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity, an assumption/postulate is made of relativisation [constancy of the speed of light, Michelson-Morley] of the speed of light to two different observers, and secondly, Feynman’s History.

 

From chapter 72, another example is the Feynman method of the solution of the double/single slit experiment with light and a rational explanation based on the dimensions of our universe. ‘In the 1940s Richard Feynman had a startling insight regarding the difference between the quantum and Newtonian worlds…. The pattern we find when we fire molecules with both slits open is not the sum of the patterns we find when we run the experiment twice, once with just one slit open, and once with only the other open. Instead, when both slits are open we find a series of light and dark bands, the latter being regions in which no particle lands.’ (The Grand Design, Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, p 74)

 

‘Feynman realized … that particles take every possible path connecting those points. This, Feynman asserted, is what makes quantum physics different from Newtonian physics. The situation at both slits matters because, rather than following a single definite path, particles take every path, and they take them all simultaneously…. Feynman formulated a mathematical expression – the Feynman sum over histories – that reflects this idea and reproduces all the laws of quantum physics. In Feyman’s theory the mathematics and physical picture are different from that of the original formulation of quantum physics, but the predictions are the same.’ (p 75)

 

“In the double slit experiment Feynman’s ideas mean the particles take paths that go through only one slit or only the other; paths that thread through the first slit, back out through the second slit, and then through the first again; paths that visit the restaurant that serves that great curried shrimp ….. It might sound nutty, but for the purposes of most fundamental physics done today … Feynman’s formulation has proved more useful than the original one.’  (p 75)

 

‘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 that is necessary in a probability space all instantaneously. Feynman’s formulation is a mathematics of concepts that links probabilities and entanglement of energy together and in doing so, was necessarily correct, even if he didn’t know why. The simplicity, above, of quantum mechanical probabilities is, to my mind a proof that our universe must be a probability space.’

 

The above, on the Feynman example quotes ‘Feynman asserted, is what makes quantum physics different from Newtonian physics’ and this is incorrect because Feynman is, inadvertently, using world P and Newton used world O thinking and the difference is that world O necessarily contains measurement/concepts measured/determined by a mind/brain because force has to be determined.

 

In other words, neither Feynman nor Newton mentions logic and logic is 50% of the scene and is independent/orthogonal and is hidden in the above, but definitely still there. Newton thought that the force was between the centres of the masses, and so it is, if thought of in the simple terms considered [world O thinking], but if we use the Feynman example, gravity must be calculated over every possibility and that is the logic of entanglement. Again, in other words, world P is a measurement/entanglement and in world O, it is concept/context. Bearing this in mind, a quotation from chapter 74 should make it clearer.

 

‘A Unified Field Theory, to unify everything cannot be simple [because it has to include everything], but it is simple when the mathematics of concepts is used, because the mathematics of concepts is immediately apparent from the fifth dimension and the dimensions embrace everything. The existing theory contains four fields ranging from sub-atomic to universe-wide, so this extension of the theory is simply filling in the ‘bits’ in between. The ability of the mathematics of concepts to include mathematics and physics is ‘complex elegant’ [but the ‘opposite/different to ‘simple elegant’ because the concept is simple, but the context is infinite] and allows the areas of interest to be prioritised in a way that mathematics cannot do [without a mind/brain selecting them with some context in mind, which is, of course, the mathematics of concepts].

 

Newton’s treatment of gravity was elegant in its simplicity [forces act through the centres, proportional to the masses and inversely proportional to the square of the separation] and it is small wonder that it was applauded, lauded and became the ‘hallmark’ of good science and science has used the same basic methods ever since. The conservation of energy/matter requires that the energy of gravity balance all of the other energies. Conservative fields, such as gravitation require inversely proportionality to the square of the separation. ‘In physics, an inverse-square law is any physical law stating that a specified physical quantity or intensity is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source of that physical quantity. The fundamental cause for this can be understood as geometric dilution corresponding to point-source radiation into three-dimensional space.’ (Wikipedia, Inverse-square law) It will be shown at a later date that ‘geometric dilution’ is an entanglement phenomonen.

 

The force acting through the centres is a simplification that mirrors the difference between Newton’s simplified experiment and Feynman’s approach to quantum probabilities that is in line with a probability space where every possibility has to be considered. The logical part of gravity is a relativisation that is an integral part of a probability space and requires questing throughout the space at an infinite speed. Thus the conservation of energy requires questing the logical part of gravity at every point in the universe.

 

However, a thought experiment, simplifies the situation by deleting context, and that can be serious because a measurement is a snapshot in context and similar to a photograph album with no dates or explanations attached to the pictures, so as time passes they lose relevance unless annotated. Another problem is that Newton, Einstein and Feynman thought in world O terms, but their theories relied on postulates that are expressible only in world P. The latter two are direct ‘steals’, but Newton took the ‘action to completion’ [impulse equals change in momentum] and applied a measurement [by a mind/brain] to gain the concept of force [incomplete action] instead of energy.

 

Further, the existing [unified field] theory/thoughts uses logic that assumes that a ‘particle’ affects the ‘object of interest’, presumably because there has to be something (logically) to effect the change. We ‘know’ that there has to be something, so we use the logic of the fifth dimension intuitively, but there is another field, and it is measurement with a ‘particle of logic’ subsumed within the fifth dimension. In other words, this extension of context fills out the theory and gets rid of assumptions and replaces them with the dimensions, and unifies everything.

 

The one thing that the greatest minds through out history have done is to reach into the fifth dimension for ideas as can be seen in chapter 70. ‘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, and that is the dimensions of our (probability of existence) universe.’

 

A ‘guess’ is a strong word to apply to the greatest thinkers, but they got away with delving into logic for a good reason, and that is that ‘logic’ is a world O concept/context that is heritable and derived from our success at survival over 3,000 million years and we all have the same common sense because that is the ‘herd mentality’/reality. We all have to have a reality to exist and we must see the same things and react to them in the same way otherwise something will ‘track us down’ [sixth dimension] and eat us.

 

A second type of logic lies within world P that produces an anti-singularity field that is complex and works well, such as relativisation to preserve the logic that no particle (with rest mass) can exceed the speed of light in a vacuum. It could be that our universe, out of the multiverse contains the appropriate values that make relativisation work.  In other words, the ‘twilight zone’ scenario, above, necessitates a questing within the probabilities that reflect, I believe, differing values of the physical constants, except the speed of light that must be an absolute [together with the Golden ratio because we have entered mathematics].

 

These two types of logic are not difficult to understand because the second is automatic (world P) and in the first, our mind/brain evolved to link into the probability space for measurement, as we do with all the senses. The Cambrian, I believe, evolved a change (via lensed eyes) to the mind/brain that allowed the mind/brain to quest a new way that requires different ‘machinery’ to extend a physical measurement (line) into both a logic measurement and/or a physical measurement (plane). Perhaps the questing of the logic side that became available through the evolution of eyes and mind/brain is the start of the consciousness that philosophers’ appear to be seeking, and that could be when our thinking went two-dimensional.

 

Thus, a definition of logic is a recipe and is a co-mingling of world P measurement/entanglement [duality] and world O concept/context [duality] using that part of the mathematics of concepts [(a+b)=1] that is chosen with the assigning/recognition of the attractors used [snapshot, to acknowledge relativity] to gain a solution [proverbs are simple solutions, forming a normal curve of attractor’s desirability] that fits the quest that has evolved/survived Life’s reality.

 

Plato’s problem is a lack of absolutes, and this is necessary and they must be assigned and has been dealt with before in chapter 67, however, there is another absolute from the solution of the interval (a+b) [Golden ratio] that has traditionally been associated with beauty/pleasure/contentment/ecstasy and provides an answer to why we have been able to use these properties and agree on them amongst ourselves. I have included this field for completeness, but its derivation will have to wait, but notice that it is an exception to Plato’s lack of absolutes.

 

A prediction/example might clarify the overall picture because statistical mechanics takes a concept, such as photons leaving a point source and assumes that enough photons are leaving so that there is an even distribution. I am saying that an independent/orthogonal entanglement ensures that there is an even distribution (context) and further, in more complicated cases, such as diffraction, a specific sequence occurs that becomes an enigma and unexplainable according to our present laws of physics.

 

. Consider abeam of light passing through a small hole [comparable to the wavelength] and Newton’s laws of motion says that the beam passes through as it entered because no force acts on it, however, I am saying that entanglement provides a logical reason for the photon to change direction without a force. [Newton’s law is a simplification with no context as will become apparent]. The beam is diffracted and spreads out according to Huygens’ principle, where Huygen’s ‘wavelets’, generated at each instant are, I believe, probabilities and the photon changes direction in accordance with the logic/entanglement to make a new total semicircular wavefront, and this derivation will have to be left for later.

 

To simplify, a photon has a measurement/entanglement duality, a constant speed/energy (concept), but direction is a context, and in the same way that a vector has force and direction, the photon has energy/speed and a direction and obeys Newton’s law ‘unless acted upon by a force or entanglement’ [my addition]. Force is a world O concept and in world P we have to use energy/logic, or more accurately, energy-measurement/entanglement. Whilst my derivation is more complicated, it predicts and explains independent/orthogonal outcomes, and as an example, ‘one unrealistic prediction of Huygens’ principle is that if all these new wavelets are sources of wave energy then they should generate a reverse wave as well as a forward wave. So why does a wave propagate only forwards? Huygens did not have an answer’. (50 physics ideas, Joanne Baker, p63)

 

If the wavelets are considered probability fronts, the probability of the photon reversing is zero given the simple thought experiment and that solves that problem. If we bring the real world into the picture by introducing a dust mote, the probability front increases behind because of the entanglement of photon and dust mote as they approach and at some point the probability becomes unity and reflection occurs as a logical effect. Notice that if the photon energy is sufficient, the probabilities include the photoelectric effect and it can be seen that the iteration inherent in the mathematics of concepts is becoming apparent. This interpretation makes more sense/logic than photons ‘bouncing off’, which is nonsensical as it is an entanglement, as will be shown at a later date.

 

The above answers, to my satisfaction the question of what is the ‘common-sense’ logic [two-dimensional] that we use daily and why it works [a product of our reality], the question of formal logic has been side-stepped and the logic of the physical world [one-dimensional] along with the associated dualities of measurement/entanglement and concept/context have been considered as part of the fifth dimension of a probability space.

 

We have taken the logic that must exist for us to be here [out of the multiverse] and used it along with the mathematics of concepts, questing/entanglement and relevance/entanglement to produce Life. We have done this because we could do it, and have demonstrated logical decisions, but these decisions are not based on logic, only possibilities that work because we live in a probability space and what we call logic exists as a complex ‘recipe’ that works. In other words, what we think of as measurement/logic [thinking], really is measurement/entanglement/multiverse/questing/relevance/mathematics of concepts, and the word ‘logic’ is only a convenient word for a complex interplay of physical/mental/sociological/environmental effects.

 

In a ‘nutshell’:

(1) We are the selection out of the multiverse because we are here.

(2) The one ‘dimensional’ use of the properties of world P that are properties of the space and could be called logical [as a machine is logical], but most important is Occams’ razor because simplicity is paramount.

(3) The two ‘dimensional’ use of worlds O and P by Life, and concept/context can perhaps be replaced by concept/quest/relevance/entanglement, where the concept evolved through forward-planning by the mind/brain and measurement by the eyes etc.

(4) Formal logic.

(5) Proverbs are a ‘higher’ logic/thinking that uses the mathematics of concepts to provide quick responses.

(6) The solution of (a +/and b)=1 is an absolute [Michelson-Morley] that the speed of light is a constant and all other measurements must have an assigned absolute [Plato’s problem] except for (7).

(7) The solution of the interval (a +/and b) is an absolute [Golden ratio] that makes beauty/appreciation/enjoyment logical/repeatable/relatable.

 

Conclusion: a photon is ‘pure’ energy that must move at a constant speed in vacuo and is whatever the measurer wants it to be [a quest] and is relativised continually and this motion, I believe, creates the expanding universe without which, we wouldn’t be here. The conservation of [no] energy means that ALL energy must be accounted for, even the infinitely infinitesimal that could occur in photons and there is no ‘machinery’/carrier in the motion. It is important to realize that the photon is energy transference AND has to move as a kinetic energy AND has to be relativised continuously AND has to create space, time and the splitting of energy.

 

Logic is a quest that ties everything together and is based on the factors above that can be derived from the dimensions, but the dimensions provide the tools, such as mathematics, mathematics of concepts, the computer of evolution, the proverbs, what we are taught etc. So, how do the great thinkers get away with enigmas, such as Huygens, Newton, Einstein, Feynman etc? I think that we have a great capacity to change ‘creation myths’ when we change tribes and can ignore inconsistencies when necessary, but it is interesting that, if a probability space is assumed, these enigmas, I believe, disappear.

 

As a justification of this statement, evolution [questing] is composed of Survival of the Fittest and sexual selection and the latter is obvious from our experience and bird’s plumage. But, is it [top down concept, Newtonian] obvious? I say that the absolute [Golden rule, interval (a+b), bottom up] evokes a concept of facial beauty or plumage and a context of all agreeing that that beauty/colour evokes a feeling/logic across the reality. [Aristotelian is a guess, Bacon supports experiments such as Newton did for some of his ideas (concept), whereas I advocate concept and context] I believe that the second [bottom up] explanation is not only superior, but is correct. Q.E.D.

 

References: (1) all quotations are fully referenced in the body and earlier chapters can be found on   http://darrylpenney.com  if required.