Chapter 103: Understanding Governance Through Orthogonality

by Darryl Penney

Abstract: it is often considered that the law and governance are relics of the past and somewhat ‘out of touch’ with modern life and that mathematics and physics are leading technology. Nothing could be further from the truth because law and governance are based on general mathematical physics whilst traditional mathematics and Newtonian physics are mere special cases of the general form and are creating, to a large extent, the world’s problems, or at the least, their limitations are not providing solutions. Using a simple example, in real life, and showing the fractal nature of our universe, the court of equity is shown to be orthogonal to the court of law [fusion] and thus the mathematics of concept/context can be used to provide any solution, and does so for the storage of firearms. However, because no one person knows everything in modern times the use of a team of two judges sitting in the court, a specialist and a generalist, is a necessary step in the correct direction and will be increasingly be so in the future.

Senior constable Craig Barlow has brought two charges (1) not kept firearm safely, and (2) not having approved storage, against me and I will show that those charges have no relevance to me and that I am being used, necessarily, for him to gain entrance into a Court that excludes him in his official capacity. In other words, it is possible that senior constable Craig Barlow is using me as an excuse to gain entrance to a court to ‘whistle blow’ a police matter and I have been warned to get a solicitor and hope for a good behaviour bond. If this is normal behaviour, there is something very wrong with the system.

‘In 1972 NSW also adopted one of the essential sections of the Judicature reforms, which emphasised that where there was a conflict between the common law and equity, equity would always prevail.’ (Wikipedia, Equity (law)) Our system of governance is the orthogonality [independence with entanglement] of the government, police and judicial system that protect the rights of the citizens [‘To no man will we sell, or deny, or delay, right or justice.’ – Magna Carta, 1215, clause 40 (Denny Day, Terry Smyth, frontispiece)] and to do this, the English produced a system of government that aligns with general mathematical physics by using the organisational physics that is the logic of our universe [note that traditional mathematics and Newtonian physics use a different system] and thus enables the use of the mathematics of concept/context. Concept/context is the well-used ‘lifeblood’ of the governing system and we should not be surprised that it is based on a solid foundation. This is a major triumph as Newtonian physics and traditional mathematics are only special cases and littered with enigmas.

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]. The requirement of the continual separation of “(1)” and “(-1)” requires an expanding universe and the production/definition of the dimensions of space and time passing are a result of that expansion as well as the creation of two types of energies and a simple ratio of the dimensions leads to the “absolute” restrictions above.’

‘Everything is relative to something else’ and in this case I can sight the judicial injustice that led to the formation of the Christian religion where Pontius Pilate washed his hands of the matter by giving Jesus to the establishment. ‘Christianity did play a role in creating Common Law, however it does not have any control or power in the court of law.’ (Wikipedia, Equity (law), origins of common law) Over the centuries the English legal system added a court of equity to the court of law to protect the citizens from outrageous demands of officialdom, as above. Notice that the mathematics of concept/context has been used to rank the orthogonalities [law/equity] so that equity is higher. This choice/entanglement is necessary to create the orthogonality in the same way that an expanding universe creates the universe [orthogonality is independence with entanglement].

In this case, senior constable Barlow’s accusations against me may be legitimate in law, but under the court of equity, that apparently take precedence, his assertion that I have broken the law is incorrect. His demand is that I have to answer charges that I did not keep an old rabbit gun in a 150 kilogram safe even though Batemans Bay police instructed me to use a lockable tool-box and viewed it on several occasions. Senior constable Barlow’s assumption that the heavier the safe, the less chance of the gun (and safe) being carried off is, of course true, but not ‘user friendly’ and ignores the type of gun.

The ‘fusion’ of the two courts [law and equity] should not disguise the necessary orthogonality that is the mathematical representation of the principle of relativity and that orthogonality also applies to the three orthogonalities/arms of government, police and judiciary. In other words, our system of government is that the citizenry obey the three orthogonalities/arms of governance and is protected from excessively harsh orders and if they are thought to be inappropriate can apply to the court of equity. It is a surprise to me that the law, often thought of as archaic and mired in tradition is so ‘modern’ whilst the seemingly progressive technical subject of mathematical physics is so limited in scope and stuck in tradition. In particular, the orthogonality appears to mean that an instruction issued to me by one arm of governance is independent of the other two, except in equity, and as I was acting under the advice of the Batemans Bay police, I cannot be held accountable.

It should be noted that (1+(-1))=0 is also the equation of a fractal space, and further, that the burning of energy (1) [glucose] in the brain produces an organisational logic [that we call thought] (-1) and (a+b)=1 defines a probability space for all a and b that defines the mathematics of concept/context and is the basis of the mind/brain. This probability/mind/brain equation (a+b)=1 leads to the (apparent) enigma that specialists and generalist think orthogonally and thus ‘differently’ because of the type and depth of their knowledge. This is a simple statement of orthogonality/independence and confounds the current workings of democracy and this reason [that specialist’s and generalist’s thinking is orthogonally/essentially-different] shows why I am not ‘digging deeply’ into the law. Ideally, a team containing specialists and generalists should be used (chapter 102) to ameliorate the effect of this requirement of the limited amount and type of knowledge.

An organisational chart shows senior constable Barlow on the court of law side and the Batemans Bay police on the court of equity side shielding me because I did as they requested, namely used a steel box that was inspected by them on a number of occasions. However, the Batemans Bay police have apparently usurped the authority of the court and presumably senior constable Barlow is ‘whistle-blowing’ that they are not adhering to the law that requires a 150 kilogram safe to house a rabbit rifle.

Clearly, senior constable Barlow has a problem [in bringing this action] that needs to be legitimised and I appear to have been used as a means of bringing this problem to the place where a proper decision can be made that necessarily affects all three sections of governance because a decision being given by this court, becomes a precedent. This case is not simple because this paper is based on unpublished research that enlightens the orthogonality of the three arms of governance, and as this governance is built on orthogonality, the general mathematical physics can be used to provide a solution.

The solution in this case is not difficult and is readily accessible in a top-down manner, but traditional mathematics and Newtonian physics are rife with enigmas and creaking dangerously by using top-down guesswork. A simple example is the Michelson-Morley experiment that shows that the speed of light is the same to each observer, irrespective of their movements [a postulate in the special theory of relativity] and easily answered from the principle of relativity through the requirement that the universe must expand. In mathematics, 0=1 [an enigma], ‘written like this (1-1)+(1-1)+(1-1)+… the sum is clearly 0. On the other hand 1-(1-1)–(1-1)- … is clearly 1. So 0=1, and the whole of mathematics collapses in a contradiction.’ (The Problems of Mathematics, Ian Stewart, p 56). These examples [chapter 102] clearly show absoluteness and orthogonality that are the basis of everything.

Using the mathematics of concept/context, the guns themselves are the concept and their ‘dangerousness’ to the public etc. of each are the concepts and the type of storage etc. varies with the context and clearly a ‘rabbit gun’ should not require the same method of storage as a larger gun and senior constable Barlow’s case evaporates, Batemans Bay police are vindicated and the decision becomes a precedent and further, a precedent based on ‘first principles’.

Conclusion: this has been an exercise in organisation (context, generalist) and I have been careful to distance myself from the law/equity (concept, specialist) because it takes ‘two to tango’ [(1+(-1))=0] and necessarily those persons need to have (literally) orthogonal outlooks. The sequence above is completely general and applicable to governance, but mathematical physics needs to ‘put its house in order’, which it can do quite simply, when the desire is there and it must do so in the near future to have any hope of saving the planet. In other words, technology is the work of the specialists without the organisation/context applied by the generalist and is unbalanced and apparently unworkable. This point is the failing of the governance system, as pointed out above, in spite of the organisation being so close to that required by a probability/measuring space.

Ideally, law and equity are orthogonal and equity is judged more important than law and this requires two judges, specialist and generalist to satisfy the basic constraints of the probability space. Thus, the recommendation is that two or more classes of gun storage be used and that a non-legal judge should preside or co-chair the equity [orthogonal] cases.

This is inline with the current thoughts that ‘the Judicature Reforms in the 1870s effected a procedural fusion of the two bodies of law, ending their institutional separation. The reforms did not effect any substantive fusion, however. Judicial or academic reasoning which assumes the contrary has been described as a “fusion fallacy”.’ (Wikipedia, Equity (law))

The above explanation, whether it is justified in law or equity, is organisationally important because it explains the “fusion fallacy” that is enigmatic unless described in terms of the principle of relativity and its underlying orthogonality. Further, the whole of goverance is now an ‘open book’ from bottom-up and we can examine solutions to the world’s problems through equity and law [perhaps class actions] instead of relying on politicians and universities that have organizational problems of their own [chapter 102].

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

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

Chapter 102: To the Vice-chancellor