Chapter 94: Why Newtonian Physics Needs Choice

Subtitle: Defining Choice Within a ‘New’ Philosophy, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle Resolved, the Physics of Choice Creates Atoms Through the Wave/particle Duality/shimmer, Mind/thought is the Organizational Orthogonality of the Brain’s Energy Consumption, Orthogonality defines the dimensions, How the Voting System Effects Housing Affordability and How to Fix It Through Rational Choices

by Darryl Penney

Abstract: In mathematics, Zermelo’s Axiom of Choice in set theory is “one of the most controversial axioms in mathematics” and in Newtonian physics the ‘choice’ of a reaction is determined by the energy gradient and ‘everyday’ logic, where ‘everyday’ logic is undefined, but is tacked on when necessary/convenient. This paper defines ‘choice’ as used by Life and also, how ‘choice’ is subsumed in the construction of the physical universe by orthogonality. The ‘new’ mathematics and ‘new’ physics are orthogonal and the latter is a top-down/bottom-up orthogonality of Newtonian physics and organizational physics, where again, the latter is the ‘new’ logic and fully defined from the space and dimensions and, as should be expected, part of the mainstream ‘new’ physics. Choice, for Life, is at a higher level/mathematics where evolution has created an extra dimension that allows [because the fifth dimension (a+b)=1 allows all a and b] concept/context instead of measurement/entanglement that is a property of the probability/fractal universe. Orthogonality divides energy and organization, so the production/use of energy in the brain requires a commensurate generation of organization in the mind, and that is called thought, and thought is organized according to the mathematics of concepts/context, which together with the search axioms produces general/’new’ mathematics and ‘new’ physics, also, orthogonality creates the universe by allowing atoms to form through a ‘shimmer’ of oscillation between the duality/orthogonality of wave/particle. An example of choice is the reinstatement of meaningful evolution toward a symbiosis with our environment through a ‘search for the best’ when constrained by arbitrary restrictions such as compassion, using housing affordability. Also, democracy is derived from the dimensions and shown to match Plato’s ideas and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is resolved to show uncertainty in the physical and logical orthogonality of energy and quantum gravity.

Traditional mathematics has difficulty with choice because Zermelo’s Axiom of Choice in set theory is called by David Darling “one of the most controversial axioms in mathematics” (The Maths Book, Clifford A. Pickover, p 312) ‘Eric Schecter writes “when we accept AC, this means that we are agreeing to the convention that we shall permit ourselves to a hypothetical choice function f in proofs, as though it “’exists”’ in some sense, even in cases where we cannot give an explicit example of it or an explicit algorithm for it.’” (p 312) ‘AC is at the core of many important mathematical theorems in algebra and topology, and most mathematicians today accept AC because it is so useful.’ (p 312)

Clearly, choice needs to be better defined and, I believe, that to do that needs the ‘new’ mathematics and ‘new’ physics to show where it belongs. Firstly, choice is a ‘generalist’ concept that transcends academic borders, just as the ‘new’ mathematical physics that incorporates the ‘new’ mathematics and the ‘new’ physics does. Secondly, choice is an integral part of the physical and also of Life, because Life’s choices must be based on the correct logic, and that is, I believe, organizational physics, and thirdly, choice is on a more fundamental level than even the ‘new’ physics because at the creation, the unanswerable question of faith will always remain as to the initial orthogonality – was it the choice of God, or luck. Fourthly, choice is subsumed in the orthogonality that builds the universe and, in particular, answers the question of not only ‘what is the mind?’ [organization], ‘why the mind?’ [forward-planning] but also ‘how the mind’ [orthogonality and energy consumption].

‘Choice’ is also a strange subject to be discussing in physics, but it has to be understood because it is missing from Newtonian physics. Newtonian physics considers that a reaction proceeds if the resultant energy is lower, and yet choice is the foundation of everything, creates the universe and by not curtailing choice [through general a, b], has allowed Life to form as it has. It will be shown that orthogonality creates choice and in particular, the ‘shimmer’ between the two orthogonalities, such as wave/particle duality, produces the choice of creating atoms. Thus, organizational physics specifies, for Life, the logic used in choosing and the correct logic must be used to make the correct choices.

To clarify orthogonalization, the steam engine is the organization that is required to obtain work from steam/energy and yet, the Carnot engine dispenses with the engine in Newtonian physics and perpetuates a false/limited view of the universe. The Carnot cycle follows the energy and ignores the orthogonal organization and gets away with it because energy and organization are independent except when the ‘shimmer’ between the two needs to be considered. The ‘shimmer’ is the property (concept) of independence that links (context) two independent properties, such as wave/particle that forms all of the atoms in the universe. This ‘shimmer’ is the effect that produces atoms from electrons and protons that are themselves an orthogonality derived from neutrons. Indeed, everything, from atom to universe is derived through/by orthogonality because orthogonality (literally) produces space, time and energy, which are the dimensions of our universe and the shimmer of orthogonality presents physical choice. This statement literally defines, as energy, the fifth dimension that physics has sought for 100 years, but then energy orthogonalizes into two parts [energy and organization] and when we view the universe [(1+(-1))=0] as a probability/fractal space, Newtonian energy is taken to be (a+b)=1 for all measurement/records a, b and this orthogonizes into (a+b)=1 [physical energy] and (a and b)=1 [organizational energy].

‘Shimmer’ is necessarily a time indeterminacy somewhat like the inability to measure position/speed because of the finite measuring rods that are at our disposal, notably the photon, electron etc. that inversely affect the position and speed measurement accuracy [Heisenberg uncertainty principle]. The principle also quotes energy/time, but I have always had difficulty picturing energy/time, and as I discounted the idea that quantum mechanics cannot be understood, let’s consider an alternative that makes more sense in organizational physics. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is part of Newtonian physics that treats energy and organization as the same, whereas, it is acceptable, to me, to ascribe the position/speed indeterminacy to energy and the energy/time indeterminacy to organization because organization is the accounting of energy in quantum gravity. In other words, Newtonian physics ignores the word ‘accounting’ when specifying energy and that is the important part that is quantum gravity.

So, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is: the measurement of position/speed is physical, the accounting of energy/time is organization/quantum-gravity from the universe perspective [(1+(-1))=0] and Life’s perspective [(a+b)=1]. The universe perspective [(1+(-1))=0] adds to this principle the uncertainty of whether we are considering 1 or (-1) and the simplest logic is that they are a ‘shimmy’ and both at the same time and we recognise this (conceptually) as the wave/particle duality. So, the ‘shimmy’ is an uncertainty that is part of creation/photon, whereas position/speed uncertainty derives from the necessarily finite size of the photon/particle and energy/time has no uncertainty because it is the law of conservation of energy and is accountable infinitely fast [measuring space].

Energy is the only ‘thing’ in the universe and it does not exist in total [equals zero] and the ‘factors’ that are affected by relativity [length, time passing and energy/mass] all change by the same factor [Lorentz transformation, simplest logic]. Energy/time for all space [dimensions] is constant and equals zero, but change-in-energy/change-in-time [Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle] is applicable to measurement of quantum gravity [organization] only. Quantum gravity is part of the dark energy creation because energy/space is a constant, but both total energy and total organization increase with space, that is the same as time passing because of the constant speed of light [length/time for all energy, Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB)]. Thus, it appears that when the correct division of energy/organization is considered, the fact that organization contains ‘graininess’ is logical. This is saying nothing more or less than, as the ancient Greeks surmised, that there must be a finite minimum size to organization [quark solution] because there is no minimum size to energy [photon]. This is a logical assertion for the existence of the universe because the Cosmic Microwave Background expands space [through speed] as the universe increases in [potential] energy as space expands.

Another view of the concept of the above is that the energy of the particle form is equal to Planck’s constant times the frequency of the waveform and thus this familiar equation is a statement of equivalence of the states of wave and particle and as frequency and time passing are inversely related, this explains why Planck’s constant is universal and is part of the indeterminacy. One could surmise that the only logical way to measure the energy is at those half wavelengths when it is energy and not flashing across the universe in entanglement! Further, the famous equation E=mc2 seems to be another example of equivalency of states and like E=hf, above, are nothing more than two states of orthogonality and an exercise in converting units.

As an example of the traditional thinking, firstly,‘by classical logic, we might expect the two opposite charges to attract each other, leading everything to collapse into a ball of particles. The uncertainty principle explains why this doesn’t happen: if an electron got too close to the nucleus, then its position in space would be precisely known and, therefore, the error in measuring its position would be minuscule. This means that the error in measuring its momentum (and, by inference, its velocity) would be enormous. In that case, the electron could be moving fast enough to fly out of the atom altogether.’ (theguardian.com/science/2013/nov/10) Secondly, the wave/particle duality is traditionally considered to be visualized as a wave that decreases rapidly in amplitude at each end.

In the above paragraph, the uncertainy principle is a result as explained above and not a reason for the formation of atoms and the wave packet may be visually appealing, but does not answer the problem of a wave or a particle, so I want to put forward a theory that fits in with the known and derivable factors of a universe seen through the lens of a probability/fractal space. The fifth dimension is a simplified probability space (a+b)=1 for measurement/record a and b and this orthogonalizes to (a+b)=1 and (a and b)=1 that are the physical and organizational/logic for the mind/brain. [the physical, without life is (1+(-1))=0] and both these equations show measurement/entanglement.

Local reactions occur when the reactants are close by or touching and this is the requirement for energy accounting, such as an electron and proton forming a neutron, whereas entanglement is quantum gravity and has instantaneous speed and is universe-wide. Thus the picture of energy, whether a photon or particle is an orthogonality of an energy/organization that shimmers from a particle to something that entangles with every other particle in the universe [quantum gravity] and back again. This entanglement increases [in strength] as separation decreases because entanglement is also the binding energy within the nucleus , and an atom forms when conditions of energy/frequency in the wave mode are correct for a Bohr orbit to form. This organizational solution that atoms form, must occur for Life to have formed.

Traditionally, extra energy becomes heat energy, but the law of conservation of energy is not what it seems, and neither is energy because, I believe that there are two forms of energy as a result of orthogonality, not one form as assumed in Newtonian physics. It comes down to the question of, ‘did the Big Bang create all the energy at one instant?’ and thus, everything is slowing with the expansion of the universe, or ‘did the Big Whoosh create two types of energy in a controlled manner from nothing and the constant expansion of the universe is necessary and is enabled by the relatively slow speed of light?’? Notice that the Cosmic Microwave Background is applicable to both theories, but not inflation because entanglement in a probability space is instantaneous.

Orthogonality defines and produces the Big Whoosh and is central to the concept of choice in the physical world and the primary orthogonality is the creation of energy and organization and this concept is inherent in every piece of energy in the universe through the conservation of energy. Dark energy is positive energy to balance/create the increase in potential energy with the creation of space, but further orthogonalities form both types of energy. In particular, in Life, choice is the reason that the mind/brain evolved and we will see how Life accomplished this and how the universe allowed thought to come into being because a measuring space allows measurements of all types.

Measurement and choice are basic to the physics of the universe as well as to Life and as an example, magnetism is appropriate to be considered to be the agent of measurement and choice and for that reason is mentioned here, but I will have to postulate the following definition that will not be derived for another half a dozen chapters. Magnetism is the organizational energy created orthogonally with the energy change necessitated by two charged particles moving in two different frames of reference, also, magnetism is the ‘speedometer’ that allows logic to regulate the speed of light and prevent frames of reference exceeding that speed.

This shows firstly, what magnetism is [organization], secondly, how it is generated [relativistically] and thirdly, that that generation provides a measurement [speedometer] of the relativity between two frames of reference and this measurement can be used [physical logical choice] to change the dimensions to avert a singularity [exceeding the speed of light] possibility. Fourthly, I have always wondered how the universe kept track of the speed of every [charged] particle at every instant and, this, together with the instantaneous accounting of a probability space seems to provide the answer. Fifthly, the mechanism of the change in the dimensions is logically simple in that it is simpler to change all of the dimensions than to select one [energy is the fifth dimension]. Sixthly, the value of the change is the Lorentz transformation and changing the energy changes the length, time and mass and that creates the enigma of relativity. Seventhly, these strange effects occur because we are forced [lack of choice] to use a probability space as a lens.

To understand this, we need a ‘new’ physics and a ‘new’ mathematics and indeed, this paper forms an example of why they are needed and shows how boundaries between disciplines have broken down and how both specialists and generalists are needed, equally, to do justice to each academic discipline. All this grows from the choice that Newtonian physics appears to ignore or treats with indifference and this ‘one-eyed’ view has restricted physics (and mathematics) for 350 years and especially over the last 100 years, has been ‘cracking’ under the strain of trying to accommodate modern physics.

Two areas are missing from traditional physics that must be included, firstly, the four search axioms linking the mind/brain to the physical. ‘The Math Book, p 284) gives the five Peano Axioms as a basis of arithmetic, and certain things appeared to be missing, such as the mind/brain to determine elegance of content, forward planning, the measurement of each numeral (questing) and the relationship between numerals (relevance)’ (chapter 81). These search axioms were derived from our space and dimensions and join the mental organization of Life with the physical surroundings in an orthogonality that must be part of any ‘new’ (complete) discipline.

Secondly, the bottom-up joining of organizational-physics/logic with Newtonian physics is an orthogonality. This has been described previously (chapter 92), but examples are needed to illustrate the process because of the nature of the change in thinking that has to be made. Newtonian physics is a ‘simplistic’ approach that works most of the time, but breaks down at the edges and leaves the occasional enigma lying around in the main stream. I believe, that the time has come to correct this approach, and as space/opportunity permits, I will refine the appreciation of Mind/thought, general relativity, Euler’s equation and the Big Bang in this new format, as well as the current example of choice in housing affordability to show the scope and universality of the ‘new’ mathematical physics.

The ‘search for the best’ is not a simple task because we have to choose an organization that links the parasite (Life) with the physical world along with arbitrary restrictions such as compassion for those members/people that cannot adequately look after themselves. Firstly, I believe that the major reason why we have moved from an effective symbiosis through the survival of the fittest to our recent failing to become symbiotic with our planet is because we have allowed compassion to lead to excess population that has adversely affected the planet and caused an extinction event and led to the loss of many species. Secondly, the manipulation and ignorance of the design of social organizations has also impacted greatly, however, the tools to combat this are now available in organizational physics/logic, the mathematics of concept/context and a better voting system, also, we now realize that decision/orthogonality is fundamental and must be included.

Whereas the ‘survival of the fittest’ removed the unfit as food for predators, we need to include a solution in the ‘search for the best’ that allows us the comfort of the addiction of empathy. This yearning for compassion is possibly a reaction to the stark reality and brutality of the selection process of the ‘survival of the fittest’ and the strength of this yearning is shown by the growth of the Christian Church and social security in government. The problem is not caused by empathy/love, but by the planning of the organization that leads to less than desirable organizational solutions. When we understand the optimum organizational solution for the universe, as, I believe, is shown in the ‘new’ physics and the ‘new’ mathematics, we will have the means of repairing/improving our manmade organizations. It could be said that the ‘search for the best’ would automatically include symbiosis with our planet, organizational harmony and a better personal relationship all round.

Decision/orthogonality created our universe and it is the fundamental driver of the universe’s expansion, but from chapter 93, ‘logic evolves as we use orthogonality to view the null space as/through a fractal/probability space’, and ”the ‘new physics’ is based on orthogonality, not energy, and that is a much more fundamental concept. Likewise, the mathematics of concept/context where each of concept and context is independent and equally important (with a name change to reflect this) must become the “new mathematics”’. Notice that the above two paragraphs might appear difficult to comprehend, but become obvious when we consider the simplicity of orthogonality, organization and energy as general states on which to base physics, but orthogonality is much more fundamental and this is reflected in the amalgamation of the trio in the ‘new’ physics.”

Further, ‘the contexts [through a mind/brain] are always open to discussion and this is Life’s right, and in the same way that the “new” physics was cobbled from the up/down orthogonality of Newtonian and organizational-physics/”new” logic, so we can do the same with philosophy and the “new” mathematical physics to make a “new” philosophy, which was where it all started several thousand years ago. This is not an unexpected result considering chapter 76 (When Philosophy Meets Mathematical Physics), but now, I consider it proven, and, proven through the use of the orthogonals [up/down].’

Decision/orthogonality is true throughout the universe, but Life has evolved a new sixth dimension that uses the plane between the orthogonalities and that enables infinitely more complex thoughts in the mind/brain of Life. In other words, the shimmer of the opposites has been upgraded to use the plane between the opposites as well [sixth dimension of forward-planning], also, to cater for the mind/brain, we require, between the propositions of decision and orthogonality, a complex consideration, as above, that is called ‘choice’. In the case of Life, it is a necessity of reality that we have physical ‘choice’ because we have to place bounds on distance and speed of attack by predators in order to relax and know that we are safe.

The orthogonalization of nothing into positive and negative energy is necessary for something to happen to nothing and this splitting determines/requires that a reaction proceed on two fronts and that the positive and negative parts always sum to zero. The reason for this splitting into the orthogonal is either intentional [God’s choice] or a natural occurrence [physical choice]. This accounting (to zero) is logical if it occurs in a probability space because a probability space contains entanglement, as also occurs in the case of a null space, so the statement ‘logic evolves as we use orthogonality to view the null space as/through a fractal/probability space’ is logical and it follows that if the energy (positive) is reduced, the organization (negative) is reduced because that energy can do less. This simple statement requires a fractal space that allows possibilities/orthogonal-particles to exist as choices.

As an example, the creation of protons and electrons from neutrons (an orthogonalization) requires that the elementary particles of electron and protons cannot be broken down and the organizational solution is that only quark/antiquark pairs exist and cannot be separated. Another example is that electrons oscillate/shimmer between particle and wave (orthogonate) to create atoms [and Life] instead of recombining to neutrons. A third example is that the possibilities, in the form of orthogonal particles, actually appear in a measuring space [shimmer] and, I believe, orthogonate/fractalize in increasing energies as the physical choices are presented. Notice that this is the ‘essence’ of choice in that fractalization provides a lower energy possibility before a higher energy and answers the question of why the lowest energy tends to be used. Newtonian physics uses an ‘invisible hand’ in reactions by postulating [ignoring choice] that the lowest energy case be used, and for a similar reason in economics. A fourth (counter) example is quantum gravity that is simply a result, being a hyperbola of the form y=1/x that describes the attraction between matter (binding energy to gravitation) arising from the entanglement of the accounting/measurability of a probability space. This is a counter example because all of quantum gravity is an organizational/anti-energy, whereas, in the above, orthogonality always produces two independent parts.

Thus, in the physical world, we have seen that there are two different types of energy/organization so that their sum is always zero. In Newtonian physics, the two different energies are considered to be the same and this ‘clouds’ the issue and leads to enigmas and the general rule in Newtonian physics is that a reaction proceeds if it results in a lower energy state and the mechanism is ignored. These two extremes are bottom-up and top-down thinking and they have to be made compatible if we are to design organizations that involve Life and the physical world. This is difficult because Newtonian physics is based on the units of speed of attack, acceleration and safe-distance that Life derived from ‘survival of the fittest’.

However, the ‘new’ physics is based on orthogonality and that same orthogonality can be used to combine the top-down/bottom-up orthogonality of Newtonian physics and organizational physics, and the latter is actually ‘commonsense’ logic [by necessity] and the ‘new’ physics is the concept to the context of the mathematics of concept/context. Using this top-down/bottom-up view as orthogonal/independent to the fractal/probability view of the null space [(1+(-1))=0], we have the tools that will provide a solution to our problem of ‘search for the best’ when we insert our requirements for empathy, love and other emotions. Notice that organizational physics is equivalent to logic because our thinking process uses the mathematics of concept/context and the logic that it uses must be correct and based on the dimensions, otherwise our thoughts/reasoning could be in error.

To return to the core problem that choice lies between decision and orthogonality, and choice will be orthogonal, as is everything, Newtonian physics says that a reaction proceeds if the energy is reduced, but I believe that also, the organization has to provide the means. Thus, every point in the universe must create [shimmer] orthogonal particles that increase in energy/organization in the same way that the universe started [Big Whoosh] in order to provide opportunity and if not used, recombine to nothing. This roiling/shimmer of virtual/orthogonal particles is a demonstration of organizational physics and everyday logic. We are accustomed to the concept of energy and its effect of moving things around, but we do not recognise nor appreciate the organizational requirements that are bound up with energy.

To illustrate, orthogonality produces, firstly, energy that Newtonian physics says drives the reaction, and secondly, the organization that produces complex (to us) effects, such as the particle/wave duality of electrons that produces atoms, the orthogonality of electrons and protons from neutrons to produce atoms and it can be seen that orthogonality produces choice through the concept of orthogonality. Thus, there is orthogonality/choice and the consummated orthogonality/decision and Life applies concept/context to the physical measurement/entanglement.

Considering the top-down case, the mind/brain uses the plane between the orthogonals of the physical [positive and negative] and allows a much wider array of choices that is defined by the mathematics of concept/context. The orthogonality in the mathematics of concept/context is firstly, the creation of the concepts and secondly the decision on the contexts, or equivalently, the ranking of pairs of contexts dependant on a concept. An example is the brain, that is the physical/energy part and the mind is the organizational part making an orthogonality and that is why they always go together as mind/brain. In other words, the energy and organization is orthogonal and based on the fifth dimension [(a+b)=1] and the fifth dimension is firstly, a statement of orthogonality of measurement/recorder [concept, a, b] and secondly, the entanglement of measurement/recorder [context, a and b] [for all a, b].

To simplify a concept of a mind, to a mind, is that a mind is the organization generated by the physical consumption (context) of energy in the brain caused by orthogonality and the physical consumption (concept) is the context of nerve impulses that generate the thoughts. In other words, it is commonly considered that the mind/brain as a whole, has the mind arising out of the structure of the physical brain and the orthogonality of the mind and brain is another example of the fundamental orthogonality of everything and also, creating energy necessarily creates the opportunity for organization. The mind/brain is a function of Life and can be considered as the orthogonalization of energy/organization, whereas it has no meaning in the physical universe and the brain is just a set of nerves doing a job and this shows the higher dimensional level of thought that our mind/brain can achieve. Note that without the concept of orthogonality, Newtonian physics cannot understand the functioning of the mind/brain and the mind becomes an unexplainable enigma.

Considering the mind as organization and the brain as the supplier of energy, the brain is reputed to use twenty per cent of the body’s energy. This figure of twenty per cent is often quoted as being a huge power requirement for such a small organ, but considering the brain to be a supplier of energy for the organizational ability of the mind makes sense as an overall concept. In other words, as an orthogonality, maximizing the thought requires maximising the energy inputted into the organization that produces the thought. Further, ‘the blood–brain barrier allows the passage of water, some gases, and lipid-soluble molecules by passive diffusion, as well as the selective transport of molecules such as glucose and amino acids that are crucial to neural function’ (Wikipedia, Blood-brain barrier) ‘In contrast to suggestions of an immature barrier in young animals, these studies indicate that a sophisticated, selective BBB is operative at birth’ (Wikipedia, Blood-brain barrier, Development) It would seem that the brain only needs energy in the simplest form and glucose is used in the energy series to produce ATP to power the nerve impulses. The same thing could be said of the whole body, that it is a combination of energy and organization, in other words, an orthogonality.

In contrast, consider the following quotation ‘there are also some biochemical poisons that are made up of large molecules that are too big to pass through the blood–brain barrier. This was especially important in more primitive times when people often ate contaminated food. Neurotoxins such as botulinum in the food might affect peripheral nerves, but the blood–brain barrier can often prevent such toxins from reaching the central nervous system, where they could cause serious or fatal damage.’ (Wikipedia, Blood-brain barrier, Function) Strangely, this is the only specific reason given for the highly sophisticated BBB in the brain, and yet certain parts of the brain are excluded, so, I believe that my explanation of building a wall and only letting in the energy requirements as the primary reason behind the structure of the brain makes sense. In other words, the quantity/quality of thought in the mind depends on the energy produced/consumed in the brain, and the maximization of both is the result of competition.

There are a multitude of examples that I could use that show that top-down structuring of organizations is fraught with problems/dangers, but one problem is currently causing angst in ‘new/first home’ buyers that are being priced out of the housing market and when they do get into a house or unit, may become lifelong slaves to the sellers/banks through paying too much. The price paid for anything always equals the sum of income received by those involved and so, if an excessive amount is paid, someone is receiving ‘excess’ profits. The ‘new’ philosophy is perhaps a shorthand way of describing the orthogonality of the ‘new’ physics and the ‘new’ mathematics and I will use that term because they are related and based on the dimensions. In fact, everything is related in a simple manner and the organizational problems/enigmas of Newtonian physics, social organizations, politics and so on, are only difficult to solve because we are currently applying half (concept) to these problems without adequately using the other half (context). The context of this last sentence is a combination of not understanding, but also that people manipulate positions, relationships and organizations through greed, compassion etc. because they can get away with it under the traditional system/organizational-solution.

This last paragraph is showing the need for the mathematics of concept/context and the contextual relationship between the concepts mentioned above with the addition of love/compassion. Our society already has the provision of social security that protects the weak and allows us to feel love/compassion and this forms an orthogonality that is constrained by the funds voted for the scheme by the voters. This allows us to recognise two classes of society and that is the ‘keepers’ and the ‘kept’ on social security and clearly that is the first selection. In a similar vein, the rich and the poor create a second level of selection because it somewhat divides the successful and the not successful and our aim is to concentrate our attention on the successful and encourage them to breed. This is simply using, firstly, orthogonality for concept of choice, and secondly, ‘survival of the fittest’ in the herd sense where the most successful males are shown in the society to be successful in some positive/useful sense (context).

On the other hand/orthogonality, our aim is to dissuade the less successful from breeding and the solution is immediately apparent in paying social security that reduces as they breed more children (chapter 54). This is a general principle that the more children, the better able those children are to support their parents later in life and the aged pension should be reduced. This is little different to losing the aged pension if you have sufficient assets. Inline with this, there are reports in the media that artificial intelligence is about to take jobs and a redistribution of wealth in the form of a universal wage should be made to each person.

The present assumption that society should fund peoples’ retirement is firstly, a perversion of the voting system that allows pensioners to vote for schemes to increase the pension (chapter 22), secondly, encourages people in family homes to not downsize, thirdly, allows pensioners to receive the pension and live in multi-million dollar real estate. No one is forcing them to sell, but surely descendents should fund the pension for the owner, especially as the court requires all descendents to be given substantial assets at the death of the parents. It is difficult to imagine a bigger ‘rip-off’ than that taxpayers fund a pension, various subsidies for travel and utilities, not taxing capital gains and under-utilizing the family home for the benefit of descendents! Surely descendents should be contributing to what they receive? If this state of affairs [contexts] is so bad/skewed in the market place it must be apparent, and it is, and it is called lack of ‘housing affordability’ [concept]. Clearly, if houses are becoming unaffordable, it is because their benefits include capital gains and other incomes that are separate to providing shelter and the organizational solution is at fault.

Clearly, there are basic problems with our organizational solutions and a fundamental revamp of the voting system is necessary and a modern system using Plato’s ideas is given in chapter 67. This system reflects the mind/brain’s energy/organization, as above, as having vastly more organizing/choice possibilities in the universities than in a politician’s head or their party. Our voting system is not based on the same democracy that existed at the time of Plato (chapter 93) and there is a need to amend the voting system in a modern world that requires changes that include the use of the media, that did not exist in Plato’s time.

Creating change makes use of the mathematics of concept/context and its ability to ‘un-muddy’ discussion and promote choice by ranking and separating the contexts of each concept so that spurious context cannot intrude and each context can be ranked. Ranking into true and false is the strength of traditional mathematics and it is a special case of the mathematics of concept/context but it is better to use the strength of the mathematics of concept/context that leads to general mathematics and that always contains the answer because it is based on the dimensions. It should not be forgotten that a top-down approach may be deficient in choice and can be used to hide self-interest and in contrast, the strength/uniqueness of the general mathematics allows ranking of any number of concepts and is essential for proper voting and planning. This is saying no more than all contexts must be considered and appraised [(a+b)=1] if there is to be certainty, and is the reason behind Fynman’s History’s enigmatic calculation that must include every path that can possibly be taken by the subatomic particle.

In other words, a probability space contains the orthogonality of measurement (a+b)=1 and entanglement (a and b)=1 of every point in the space and leaves little room for arguing that our universe should not be viewed as a probability space, nor that we must consider and measure every point in the universe. That is the statement of the mathematics of concept/context. I want to repeat this proof, or negation of an enigma, that Fynman’s History must consider every possible path because, as above, only if every path is pursued does an answer [Truth] exist (chapter 3) in a probability space.

The ‘housing affordability’ example gave a simple result that housing affordability is skewed because the policies of the government are skewed because the intention and choice is skewed. The ‘new’ philosophy will give answers, and this is quite an accomplishment because philosophy has been accused of having no answers to the questions left to it! Further, the ‘new’ philosophy can answer all questions because it is fractally derived and by going in reverse, as we did with subatomic particles, until we reach a singularity and everything is laid open as an organizational solution. For example, constant speed of light (relativity), finite measuring stick (quantum mechanics), quarks (finite particle), physics (orthogonality (1+(-1))), mathematics of concept/context from a probability space ((a+b)=1), beauty/elegance (Golden ratio (a+b)), wave/particle duality (orthogonality), probabilistic elements in quantum mechanics (viewing through a probability space) and so on.

The organizational solution of choice requires a democracy, and especially a ‘true’ democracy like that of the Ancient Greeks because everyone must be knowledgeable, mathematically/logically trained, interested/concerned and able to vote. Further, anyone of the voters can challenge the speaker and accuse them of self-interest and that the proposal is not in the public interest. Within each voter’s person, their mind/brain is setting up a hierarchy of the contexts between the concepts of the discussion so as to vote on the subject. This procedure can be simplified into the fifth dimension (a+b)=1 which shows the fractal expansion (a+b)=1 of concepts (a and b) and context (a and b)=1, and so on. Further, it is now clear to me that Plato’s insistence on mathematical training for rulers has been misinterpreted, to some extent, and refers to logic, that is organizational physics, which at that time was represented by mathematical training.

This previous paragraph shows that the ancient Greek democracy is based on the fifth dimension and its beauty/elegance has reverberated throughout history even to the extent that we call our system a democracy when plainly, given the above, it is not. The Members of Parliament are not as knowledgeable as the universities and so their ability to make choices is limited as well as a ‘party line’ interest that also affects their choices. Both of these choices are better aligned in Plato’s modern system (chapter 67).

Why has a democracy been considered so elegant that it has been so revered over the ages? Why does it strike a ‘chord’ with us? Why do we have a concept of beauty, elegance, sexual selection, the Golden triangle etc? I believe that the golden ratio (a+b) is a relationship that has a feeling of beauty/elegance about it through the entanglement of everything and of its association with the fifth dimension (a+b)=1 that is a representation of the fractal leading to the above, and the discussion is continued in chapter 78. I am suggesting that we feel a feeling/reverberation that we assign as beauty, elegance etc., after all, we are parasites and use whatever we can for our own advantage.

The world that we live in treats the successful person as having a responsible job, education, looking after family and not spending time in jail and who has the ability to change and be a superior person that is not led by the major parties into doing their bidding. I, personally vote for the Independents because they have a reason that they think is worth fighting for in a local setting and put the major parties last in the order that I feel makes sense, as outlined in chapter 62. Further, viewing the world-at-large through the newspapers shows that the prison system is barely coping and we need a fundamental improvement to our social systems to improve family life that, in the main, dictates adult personality.

The world is looking for a Statesman/woman that knows what needs to be done and is prepared to push an agenda that is above party politics. Unfortunately, history has proven that Statesmen/women are few and far between because they have used a top-down message and that message, to become accepted and to spread, has to become (similar to) a religion. We already have the means to create a direction from the bottom-up [using the ‘new’ philosophy], a means of promoting it [Plato’s system, chapter 67] and an organization to carry it forward [police/judicial system, chapter 37]. However, we need a leader to carry it out.

I believe that the universe, including us is built on the dimensions of x, y, z, time passing and (1+(-1))=0 and this leads to a simple choice, and that is that the ‘new’ philosophy is transparent and thus transcends all the foibles of humanity. We need a true democracy that will make this happen and that the ‘best’ eventually allows everyone a fair share of the planet and, at the same time, gradually eliminates the rogues, shysters, criminals etc. that fill the news stories. Eventually, it could be a ‘Heaven on Earth’, but only if we agree to the terms that a ‘new’ philosophy requires and put them into practice. In other words, its time to ‘grow up’ and use the dimensions of the space, as a symbiotic parasite should, to choose the direction that, at least, does not hurt the host.

Conclusion: we seem to have rambled high and low, far and wide because choice is so basic. Firstly, choice is not liked by traditional mathematics as evidenced by the problems with Zermelo’s Axiom of Choice and small wonder, because we can now recognise that it is not mathematical. By this statement, I mean that it is not part of the fifth dimension (a +/and b)=1, nor is it physical or logical, nor is it totally fractal, but it is part of orthogonality that precedes all of these and is truly fundamental.

To be more specific, I have always considered that the dimensions form the basic description of a space, but orthogonality derives the dimensions and the sequence appears to be:

orthogonality à choice à organizational physics à decision à dimensions.

Secondly, the equation (1+(-1))=0 suggests that the physical requires that the space continually expand, as we find with our universe, and logically that the organizational physics be employed in the construction of the universe. Thus, organizational physics appears to be the logic behind the functioning of the universe with the derivable necessity that the minimum energy and simplest organization [Occam’s razor] be used and is part of the ‘new’ physics.

Thirdly, in being subsumed in orthogonality, we are always presented with the triplet of ‘do this’ AND ‘do that’ or ‘do nothing’, which is the typical fractal and explains the enigmatic doublets and triplets of subatomic particles.

Fourthly, viewing our universe through a fractal/probability space explains the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics, the weirdness of relativity, the fractal nature of the stars and subatomic particles, the nature of the mind, how the atom is produced, quantum gravity and so on.

Fifthly, shimmer offers choice in the physical world and provides the means to test independent alternatives and is just as important when considered as virtual/orthogonal particles in providing/presenting necessary alternatives. Notice that the concept of shimmer brings together the wave/particle duality, the virtual/orthogonal particles and choice in an organizational sense that is ignored in the energy sense of Newtonian physics.

Choice defines the universe as well as our social system, outlined above, but we have made mistakes by using top-down methods and now the time has come to base our society on a firmer, more sensible footing and orthogonality allows us to update mathematics, science and organization easily and apply it to the world’s problems. Problems always sort themselves out, but with foresight we can choose a way that causes the least disruption. People have rights, as do families and countries (concept), but there are relations between them (contexts) and the above suggests that choices can be openly discussed and openly implemented using a democratic system that rewards the ‘best’ and compensates the ‘less-best’ through a reward/compensation system based on having, or not having their genes passed to their children.

Having children is as fundamental to Life as orthogonality is to building the universe because everyone of us has an unbroken chain of ancestors that stretches back 3,000 million years. This is illogical [orgene] from the perspective of the organism, but obviously powerful for the species and should be used in social engineering [Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs].

I believe that the necessary building blocks are available, and the need is apparent, so, why don’t the universities use it, and in particular, admit that context/generalists are not only necessary, but part of the method of the mathematics of concept/context? Acceptance of the above is (relatively) easy because orthogonality is coexistence of the old with the new and does not impinge on the specialist, and is part of the job description for the newly created generalists.

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

Chapter 81: Parasites in Probability Space, General Mathematics, Logic, Measurement, Organization, the Four Axioms of Measurement that Link the Mind/brain to Mathematics and the Dimensions of a Probability Space, Life as a Possible Sixth Dimension, the Why of Godel’s Incompleteness Theorems and the Goal of Explaining Everything by a Single, Elegant, Unified Equation is Attained.

Chapter 92: The ‘New Physics’: the Orthogonality of Organizational and Newtonian Physics, Quantum Gravity, the Covalent Chemical Bond, the Enigmatic Pauli Exclusion Principle, Superconductivity, Logic Defined and the Mathematics of Concept/context

Chapter 93: ‘Searching for the Best’ – Re-establishing Evolution Using the ‘New’ Physics and the ‘New’ Mathematics

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

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

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

Chapter 76: When Philosophy Meets Mathematical Physics

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

Chapter 78: Love, Beauty, Ecstasy, the Golden Ratio and the Reason that Sexual Selection Works

Chapter 37: ‘Hark, the Herald Angels Sing’

Chapter 3 The Logic of the Half-Truth