Chapter 101: The Spanners of Creation – Concept and Context, Orthogonality and General Mathematical Physics

by Darryl Penney

Abstract: the Principle of Relativity is the most fundamental law that attracts absolutes depending on how we view our universe. Any universe must be simply defined and fractal because it is derived from a creation but traditional mathematics and Newtonian physics are not based on the simplicity of the creation and this leads to an inability to change the structure of science as new knowledge is gained that would allows us, as parasites, to form a symbiosis with our host, the environment. General mathematical physics is derived that satisfies the Principle of Relativity using orthogonality that builds on the existing traditional mathematics and Newtonian physics and suggests a way to implement it organisationally using a previously successful method based on the modern religions. Further, the general mathematical physics that is derived is unique in form and far more encompassing than traditional mathematical physics and an example is given by comparing the energy-based Newtonian gravity, the inclusion of organisation by Einstein’s general theory of relativity to correct the Newtonian method and the expansion/repair of the Einstein model into a general quantum gravity.

It does not matter where I start [in a fractal, as our universe is], but several hundred years ago, the principle of least action played a big part in trying to understand science [for example, why light travels in a straight line]. Occam’s razor has been around even longer and is still the organisational enigma that it has always been. Newton apparently had a personality that ‘carried the day’ and we ended up with a physics that aligns with the principle of least action that appears in Newton’s laws of motion [for example, momentum is a combination of energy and organisation] and the most pertinent thing, I believe, that can be said of those laws is that they are the units of evolution with which we evolved [speed and distance of attack producing a safe zone]. Traditional mathematics and Newtonian physics are not totally correct, but are the ‘shadows’/special-cases of a another state that I will derive, below

I was recently asked about what organisation I am affiliated with and that reminded me that science is based on a democratic system of who believes what and the resultant general consensus of that belief is so-called ‘science’! Traditional mathematics and Newtonian physics have proven to be resistant to change over hundreds of years and we must ask whether that is because they useful, correct or somehow immune to change. Considering the below, they are useful because they are based on the units that the predator/prey situation has forced on us over evolution, they are far from correct and we have made them immune to change because their structure is incomplete.

This decision-making by scientists, as voters, fails for the same reason that political voting fails to be the democracy that everyone assumes it to be, and that is the disparity in importance given to concept and context [chapter 67]. Basically, the voter has to be knowledgeable about the subject and use it the correct way and the proof of this statement is shown by the composition of the universities that comprise specialists [concepts] with very few generalists [contexts]. Specialists are not competent to vote on generalist matters because specialist and generalist matters are independent and not related to each other [but are entangled] and this is described below. This sounds absurd, but the creation of the independence of two types of matter [a neutron orthogonates to a proton and electron] forms the universe and is a fundamental necessity like the wave/particle duality that is the mechanism of the atom].

It is an ‘urban myth’, that I believe is true in this case, that the most important fundamental advances are made by ‘lone wolves’ because the ‘way out’ subjects do not attract funding, as they should not, because the subjects are too risky. Notice that Newton, Einstein and others could be included in this class, if the study were done. However, that does not mean that ‘lone wolves’ should be neglected because the unusual approach may be extremely valuable and should, I believe be given due consideration and that is the purpose of this paper. I am a generalist, as opposed to the specialists found in universities and as such have been able to explore organisation that is stifled by the academic world because of a lack of understanding of orthogonality.

[Orthogonality is independence combined with entanglement that is incomprehensible to us because we believe that independence means total independence between two things. Just as the wave/particle duality has been inconceivable to physics until it is explained as being a change from wave to particle every half wavelength [chapter 99]. A simple example of orthogonality [independence plus entanglement] is conservation of (total) energy (1+(-1))=0 where energies ‘(1)’ and ‘(-1)’ are independent at every point but entangled overall through ‘(+)’ and ‘0’. Firstly, this is a serious flaw in mathematics and physics and shows that top-down methods are fraught with problems and secondly, this example of conservation of (total) energy describes our universe as a probability/measuring space.]

There is an (apparent) enigma that burdens science that is organisational in structure and that is top-down/bottom-up that aligns with Occam’s razor (another enigma) and yet organisation is actively discouraged in physics. As an example, let me come at the problem from another angle. ‘History seems to be repeating itself, since physicists today find themselves in nearly the same situation as their predecessors in 1905: facing the need to reconcile two apparently incompatible theories. Physics awaits a new Einstein who, inspired by a simple insight, will resolve this contradiction.’ (Einstein: Decoding the Universe, Francoise Balibar, p 111) ‘The impossible union of quantum theory and general relativity’ (p 111) refers to quantum gravity that is simply explained when (1+(-1))=0 is considered.

Albert Einstein (1879 – 1955) was so radical a thinker that his brilliance is difficult to grasp. He was not an outstanding student, yet in 1905, at the age of 26, he published groundbreaking studies …’. (back cover) I believe that geniuses are made not born (refer to the earliest chapters), and Einstein was not a genius, but a ‘lone wolf’ that functioned outside of the regulated system. Newton also produced his best work while the university was closed due to plague. What is happening? Possibly it is the complexity of two parts, top-down/bottom-up and the orthogonality that contains independence with entanglement. Organisation is a subject that science and mathematics have shied away from, presumably because it cannot be measured, but there is a way, and that is through a probability space.

I have degrees in mathematical physics and business administration that are an unusual combination but particularly relevant to the (generalist) discussion here and ‘fly in the face’ of the usual academic pursuit of technicality because business studies are studies of organisation and organisation is purposely lacking within mathematics and physics. For example, traditional mathematics uses an internal logic and forgets the four ‘search axioms’ that link the mind/brain to the physical through the properties of the space [chapter 86] and, in particular, where does elegance/beauty that is a big part of mathematics/science come from (chapter 78)? Likewise, physics is based on energy and only uses logic when necessary, and an example is Newton’s laws of motion that are based on organisation and energy, and a little contemplation of the principle of least action will show this. Actually, now that an alternative explanation has been introduced, the statement of the principle of relativity becomes apparent/relevant.

[From chapter 97, ‘in a probability/fractal space, the Principle of Relativity is that everything is relative to something else (1+(-1))=0, except for the conservation of total energy, the speed of electromagnetic waves in a vacuum and the increase in energy/organisation per unit of newly created space [dark energy].’ This organisationally based definition is vastly different to the current version that the ‘principle of relativity states that the same physical laws apply – that is, things occur in the same manner – whether they are observed in a stationary state or within a moving context.’ (p 31)]

The three exceptions/absolutes are a necessary result of the dimensions [space-time] generated by the necessity that the equation (1+(-1))=0 is stable and that only occurs when the system is expanding. An example is that space and time-passing are generated in an expanding universe, such as ours, and the Big Bang is a misnomer for (1+(-1))=0 because Newtonian physics accounts for energy ‘1’ and neglects organisation ‘(-1)’. Clearly, if organisation is ignored, a Big Bang of energy is the only alternative and the explosion suggests an expanding universe, albeit with enigmas. In other words, it has been said that it should have been obvious to scientists, from Newton on, that a non-expanding universe is unstable and collapses (concept) and the equation is the context and the space-time dimensions [with total energy zero] are a product of the expansion.

Repeating the above, science is based on a flawed democracy that favours energy ‘1’ and concept over organisation ‘(-1)’ and context and thus feeding ‘bite-sized’ chunks of science [concepts] to scientists is not the way to proceed and has resulted, I believe, in a top-down mess and a better procedure is to present a bottom-up picture that includes a general mathematical physics that includes the organisational-physics/logic necessary to link the mind/brain with the physical world [context]. This is not a problem because the mind/brain operates on the general mathematical physics that will become obvious from (1+(-1))=0. In fact, it explains why the mind/brain consumes sugar and that consumption of energy [sugar] generates thought/organisation that Life evolved to forward-plan [chapter 95]

In other words, science cannot break out of the constraints of a mathematics based on counting sheep and a physics based on energy in spite of over one hundred years of modern physics because the participants are specialists that cannot see the ‘big picture’. Literally, the ‘big picture’ is context ‘(-1)’ that is equally important as concept ‘1’ and is independent although entangled together, as explained above. I think that specialists need the ‘big picture’ ‘shoved under their noses’ so that they can absorb the organisational physics/logic that the physical world is based on and use it in their concepts of technology. Clearly, the concepts of technology are being given to the population without the context of its use and that has led to overpopulation, over-consumption and all the other problems such as global warming, politics etc.

This point is necessarily important to solving the enigma of technology that is ruining the world through lack of control/organisation of its products, especially in allowing the population to increase. The same basis necessarily underlies all problems because of the fractal nature of a universe derived from (1+(-1))=0 and the problems of the planet are reflected in the problems of changing the basis of science. I repeat that the universities etc. are filled with specialists/technicians that are independent/orthogonal in their pursuits, but are entangled because they are part of the world that is in trouble because of their technologies. I believe that they are not competent to judge organisation/context and neither are the journals that are their means of communication. [I have had chapters 71 to chapter 99 rejected by an international journal specialising in theoretical physics without peer review] A possible solution to this enigma is taken up in the conclusion.

The basic problem, apart from that mentioned above is the reluctance/inertia of scientists to relearning the basis of their ‘craft’, but it is necessary, and will probably need a generational change, because, in deriving this, I have sought out the enigmas that litter Newtonian physics. As an example, the Michelson-Morley experiment shows that every observer/measurer, no matter what their motion, measures the speed of light to be a constant and Einstein used this as a postulate in his Special Theory of Relativity. From above, a constant speed is immediately derivable from the dimensions [principle of relativity] and the real (apparent) problem with the Special Theory of Relativity is that (all of) mass/energy, length and time should vary together [by the Lorentz contraction]. These are the dimensions and they vary firstly, because both energy and organisation must change together, secondly, that there is nothing else that can change and thirdly they change together because, I believe that it is organisationally simpler to do this than to differentiate and this leads us into the principle of least action and Occam’s razor that describe a more general mathematical physics.

Notice that Einstein’s special theory of relativity is correct because it is based on the Michelson-Morley experiment that I believe shows the existence of a probability/fractal space, whilst the General Theory uses the traditional view of our universe with a little organisation added and is thus not very rewarding. The following is an example that shows that Einstein’s fame, rested on overturning Newton’s ideas, but that those new ideas were organisational and used the methods that I am proposing, albeit in a ‘confused’ manner. That was the secret of his success. The setting was ‘a new opportunity for some British astronomers to look for the deflection of stellar light as it passed the sun. An expedition led by Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington (1882 – 1944) to the equatorial island of Principe … On his return to England, the photos were analysed: the star was indeed just where Einstein said it would be.’ (p 69).

‘In 1911 Einstein predicted … precisely the degree of displacement predicted by classical Newtonian mechanics … published in 1804 by the German astronomer Johann George von Soldner, following similar suggestions by Henry Cavendish in 1784…. In 1916 Einstein calculated the total deflection at the limb of the sun would be twice the Newtonian value.’ (History’s Greatest Discoveries, Joel Levy, p 201) ‘When the results of the experiment were announced in November 1919, they generated extraordinary headlines.’ (p 203)

‘Einstein realised that space and time are stitched together into a fabric, which is warped by the presence of matter, and that gravity is the consequence of this warping of spacetime. Light would still travel the shortest distance between two points, but on a curved surface this is not a straight line but a geodesic; thus the hypothetical beam of starlight passing close to the Sun would be additionally deflected by the curvature of spacetime.’ (p 202)

Einstein was correct in his calculations, but he has added a complication of an organisational effect of curved spacetime. Firstly, from above, the dimensions derived from the necessary expansion are simple [not parabolic] dimensions of space and time unlike what Einstein seems to be suggesting. Secondly, the principle of equivalence, one of the tenets of Einstein’s theory of relativity, which states that acceleration and gravity are equivalent’ (p 201) is a statement of the equivalence of mass and inertia. Galileo’s law of falling bodies is true [one dimension] where a heavy and light ball fall at the same rate [no friction], but in two dimensions the statement is only partially true and this can be seen in a simple planetary system that gravitational mass [line of centres] balances inertial mass [tangential]. The simplest explanation is that everything [(1+(-1))=0] is the same or orthogonal and in one dimension they are the same and in two dimensions they are orthogonal, so, they must always be equal in magnitude, but can be independent/entangled.

Thirdly, the curved spacetime concept is organisational and as Newtonian physics contains only energy, their figures differ by a factor of two. From above, (1+(-1))=0 says that energy (1) is only half of the equation and the organisation (-1) must be added to the system, as Einstein did, but without introducing unnecessary complications. Fourthly, ‘thus not only space but also time disappears if the world is emptied of matter. Difficult though it is to comprehend, matter creates at once both space and time.’ (Einstein: Decoding the Universe, p 65) This statement is of course correct, but it is so much easier to understand that the creation of matter (1+(-1))=0 is only stable if it is expanding and expansion generates space, time and energy/organisation [=0].

Fifthly, and again to illustrate how much easier it is from bottom-up, consider an orange on a stretched canvas sheet to represent the Earth and marbles rolling down the incline. ‘Newton said that the marble (the stone) is attracted by the orange (the Earth); but it is equally possible to state, with Einstein and all physicists since, that the orange (the Earth) has modified space – it has deformed space by inscribing a dent – and that the marble (or stone), without anyone having touched it, rolls naturally along the line of greatest incline … as Galileo had stated.’ (p 64) I have included this quotation ‘to get the ball rolling’ and am not convinced that it offers a convincing explanation of why all masses are equally attracted to the centre of the earth and I believe that the explanation of the orthogonality of inertial and gravitational mass holds the key. But as everything is orthogonal, or the same, there is another explanation and that is that inertia is a measure of energy and gravitational mass is an orthogonal organisational explanation, because (1+(-1))=0.

The equation (1+(-1))=0 is a probability space in which the sum of something over every point remains constant and, in this case, that is total energy [=0] but that does not stop local differences of energy and organisation and the probability space has infinitely fast accounting and that accounting is quantum gravity and there is the same attraction for all the energies as well as all the organisations (as above). Thus the attraction/accounting of every mass to every other mass is proportional to their masses [energy] QED. Quantum gravity is simply that the attraction of all energy to every other piece of energy is dependent on the separation and is true from the binding attraction in the nucleus to the gravitational attraction of the stars (chapter 96).

From the principle of relativity, the potential energy (-1) is balanced by the creation of dark energy (1) as the expansion of everything necessarily proceeds. There is a simple Newtonian attraction between all energy because the accounting balances/records the energy, but Einstein introduced organisation albeit in a not very constructive way and the above, with organisation supplying quantum gravity makes for a simple explanation of literally everything. The one addition is the importance of Occam’s razor [principle of least action] that has always joined energy and organisation and becomes a ‘hard and fast’ rule in the limit in the physical world tying everything together, eventually at the lowest energy.

The conservation of (total) energy in an expanding universe requires an infinitely fast accounting of energy [a product of a probability/fractal space] and it cannot be energy ‘(1)’ because of the principle of relativity, so the conservation of (total) energy must be organisational ‘(-1)’ and that leads into quantum gravity. Newtonian physics cannot recognise quantum gravity, magnetism and other organisational ‘necessities’ because of the way that it has been constructed. For example, magnetism, I believe, is the mechanism that is necessary to make the principle of relativity workable because the measurement of the relative speeds of two frames of reference cannot exceed the speed of light and there must be a mechanism to measure the speed difference logically [chapter 99].

Clearly, my aim, as mentioned above, is to present a complete ‘package’ of general mathematical physics to the specialist that is rigorous and complete and to do that, I need to show that there are top/bottom as well as sideways orthogonalities, as would be expected because everything in the universe is an orthogonality and the principle of relativity also says that there are always two independent ways to view a problem and they are related/entangled [(1+(-1))=0] and must be kept apart, and as above, mathematics and physics are such an orthogonality. In mathematical physics, mathematics and physics must be kept apart to a degree that allows each to exist and yet they cannot be considered separately because they are entangled as (1+(-1))=0.

It should be noted that the equation (1+(-1))=0 is also the equation that generates a probability space and a fractal space and thus we would expect our universe to accommodate both spaces and this is apparent in the generation of subatomic particles and stars. In particular, the neutron is one orthogonal of energy/organisation and it fractalizes/orthogonates to an electron and proton that is necessary to create the atoms [through the wave/particle duality, chapter 94)]. A probability space is more complicated because it is generated by (a+b)=1 where a and b are undefined/general ‘things’ [but still contains the form (1+(-1))=0)] that Life has used to create concept and context and ‘fill in’ the space between the orthogonal axes [chapter 95].

Further, from chapter 86. ‘The Math Book, (by Clifford A. Pickover, 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 (dimension 7), the measurement of each numeral (questing) and the relationship between numerals (relevance)’.

‘If we unfold (a+b)=1 in a probability space, as above, including Life, we get:
concept/forward-planning/quest/relevance/beauty/context.

If we unfold (a+b)=1 in a probability space, as above, excluding Life, we get:
measurement/quest/relevance/entanglement.

Notice that forward-planning is a dimension specific to Life and necessary for the predator/prey basis of iteration and the four axioms are immediately obvious in the above.’

As an example, from chapter 100, ‘the physical search for the cause of speciation was akin to quantum gravity with all the problems that unfolding a probability space entails, but including Life, as is necessary, shows, in the paragraph above that the probability space allows concept/forward-planning/quest/relevance/beauty/context and these are in the mind of the beholder and connect the mind/brain with the physical universe. Thus, there are both physical and mental reasons contributing to speciation and beauty [golden triangle (a+b)] is an unexpected player (chapter 78).’ This paragraph considers the similarity of the cause of speciation with quantum gravity to highlight the fractal nature based on the equation (1+(-1))=0 as well as the (apparent) enigma of beauty/elegance arising in a physical universe and shows that the golden triangle is mathematical and appears in mathematical textbooks.

Another (apparent) enigma that also appears in mathematical textbooks is the sum of infinite series that generates the concept/context of ‘pi’, ‘e’, ‘i’, ‘1’, ‘0’ etc. No reason, that I have seen accounts for this enigma and especially for Euler’s equation that shows that there are exact relationships between infinite series. It is often admitted that no one knows what Euler’s equation means and with the universe being a fractal, all of these series above have a place that is defined by Euler’s equation and this is shown in chapter 98 and describes the creation and the relation, in exact terms, of infinite series. I believe that we are seeing the expression of an orthogonality that is exact as in traditional mathematics and iterative as in the mathematics of concept/context.

As an example of ‘bringing everything to a “focus”’ or ‘considering the fractal relationship’, the fact that ‘pi’ or ‘e’ etc. can be described by an infinite series is enigmatic, but considering the series as an orthogonality supplies more information as was shown in the discussion of Euler’s equation (chapter 98). The constant “pi’, ‘e’ etc. plus the negative of the infinite series equals zero says, through the principle of relativity that the constant and the series are equivalent and represent two independent (but entangled) views of the same thing. This is not a surprising revelation, but expanding this concept leads to general mathematics [not complete] and into general mathematical physics [complete] by incorporating the mathematics of concept/context and organisational-physics/logic.

The mathematics of concept/context is shown by (a+b)=1, and is, as above, applicable to Life and is the comparison of (independent) concepts through their context [entanglement] and is (part of) general mathematical physics and is applicable to the social sciences. This was the original challenge and reference can be made to the initial chapters. To keep it simple, the top/bottom orthogonality is exact [traditional mathematics, top/down] and iterative [the mathematics of concept/context, bottom-up] and the necessity of this [mathematics, concept] must always be considered with its orthogonality [organisational physics/logic, context].

At this point I should point out that as ‘1’ is energy and ‘(-1)’ is organisation [to use common terms], the equation of these terms orthogonates to (1+(-1))=0 and (1 and (-1))=0 where ‘+’ is mathematical and ‘and’ is logical and this latter expression is forbidden in traditional mathematics and very suspect in Newtonian physics [an exception is Dirac’s prediction of the positron]. This shows where traditional mathematics and Newtonian physics is lacking compared to the general mathematical physics.

To return to the infinite series, they are included in the general mathematical physics quite naturally because everything is probabilistic because we are looking at a null space through a probability space [the problem of the perception of quantum mechanics], the special theory of relativity is obvious when given the necessarily constant speed of light and the general theory of relativity has little appeal and can be replaced by quantum gravity [with the proviso that energy and organisation are equal and opposite and we must double the Newtonian effect, as Einstein did, above]. As mentioned previously, I have sought the enigmas in traditional mathematics and Newtonian physics and have generated a (hopefully) functional general mathematical physics. Notice that these are specific common terms that are a lesser/lower orthogonality and include (literally) everything as the ‘tools of creation’ [(1+(-1))=0]. An example is that it is the step/end in evolution for humanity and is an example of ‘explosive evolution’, if this theory is taken up.

The question of diffraction is an enigma that as been studied from Newton’s time and its cause has not been understood because it is part of quantum gravity and quantum gravity is the hyperbolic attraction from the nuclear forces to the gravity of the stars and as Einstein eventually concluded, gravity is not a force. Diffraction must be considered to be equivalent to the bending of light by the sun, above, because of the simplicity of a fractal universe and in the case of water waves, the effect appears in the macroscopic. In other words, diffraction is a property of a quantum gravity attraction between the wave and the mass and scales with distance from the nuclear to the stars as is expected, with water waves in between.

Conclusion: there is no conclusion to evolution/time-passing because the universe is a fractal and necessarily expanding and I believe that this general mathematical physics is the medicine that we need to regain sanity as a species. There is much wrong with the planet, such as global warming, over-population, wars etc. that needs organisation to balance technology and thus, we as a species, are unbalanced and so, are, at the moment, without a complete understanding and the use of context, literally insane.

Survival of the fittest was workable, but we are currently in transition in changing to a Survival of the Best and general mathematical physics is the tool of creation that can allow us to navigate an evolutionary explosion of organisation/culture that we have seen previously as Stone Age, Bronze Age, Iron Age etc. Literally, this coming age, if we are to be successful, needs general mathematical physics to link us [the parasite] to the physical universe so that we can continue to ‘grow’/evolve without hurting our environment [as a symbiote].

Our mind/brain is built on the mathematics of concept/context, but the logic of the organisational physics must be derived, as we have done, in part, but how to proceed in the face of the enigma of the ‘stuck in the mud’ specialists needs to be addressed. There are fundamental reasons [independence without sufficient entanglement] in the organisational ‘feedback’ mechanism that causes mathematics and physics to be resistant to change, but as a fractal, the answer is in history and evolution.

Given that the above is a new paradigm that needs to be born, networking [context] must be supplied to the birth [concept], so, in the light of the previous chapter, affiliation with the few available generalists becomes necessary and one of the few generalists in a university would be the vice-chancellor [wise man, overseer]. The vice-chancellors of the universities that I have attended [University of Adelaide, University of Canberra and Australian National University] might be three wise men that could attend the birth [Second Coming perhaps] and perhaps inspire some believers that might spread the word. In a fractal, there is nothing new, and I have always wondered why the three wise men were present and it could be for elegance [golden ratio] or the concept/context of storytelling and another example is the orthogonality of ‘it was the best of times, it was the worst of times ….’. However, as a fractal, there is a need to balance the importance of the birth with the importance of the attendees, and this seems to explain the enigma of the story of the birth of Jesus.

Clearly, our [parasitic] thinking is unbalanced with respect to [principle of relativity] the environment [the host] and we need to change our way of life/thinking [as above] before we damage it irrevocably and cause future generations unnecessary pain. The general mathematical physics, above, is simplicity itself, as is the universe, and can be ignored by the vast majority of scientists, but the organisational-physics/logic that lies behind thinking/logic cannot be ignored.

It is generally thought that the modern view of the world of physics is to ‘fine-tune’ the ‘edges’ of the physics that has been in use for a long time, but I am suggesting that the fundamental basis of mathematical physics is in error and this error has been built-in and unrecognised from the beginning. The basic reason is, possibly, because we are naturally selfish, as we need to be to survive, except for a strange (apparently) enigmatic orgene [organisational gene] that manifests as context in the form of love, children etc. and has even created the religions. However, the implementation and present use of religion has contributed to the problems of the planet, but knowledge of concept/context could right the situation by indicating direction.

References: all quotations are fully referenced in the body and earlier chapters can be found on darrylpenney.com or from the author on darryldarryl1@bigpond.com if required.

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

Chapter 99: The Principle of Relativity, the Role and Importance of Magnetism, the Amplitude of Electromagnetic Waves and Unfolding the Photon

Chapter 86: How the Mind Works, Evolution in Mind-space, the Placebo/nocebo Effect Has Two Parts, Combating Chronic Pain, Why Eastern and Western Medicine are Similar, Unfolding Mind-space from the Fifth Dimension and the Law of Conservation of Minimum Energy

Chapter 97: You Asked For A Simple Theory, Stephen Hawking, So, Enjoy It!

Chapter 95: The Organisation and Software behind the Mind and Abstract Thought

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 Organisational 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

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

Chapter 100: The Equation of Everything, a General Mathematical Physics Developed and Used to Resolve ‘How Species Form?’

Chapter 98: The Principle of Relativity, the Creation and Euler’s Equation Explained

Chapter 96: The Unification of Top-down and Bottom-up and the Theory of Everything