Chapter 104: The Family Court and Parental Responsibility

Abstract: just as general mathematical physics is a top-down amalgamation/orthogonality of traditional mathematics and Newtonian physics with the mathematics of concept/context and organisational physics and a sideways orthogonality of mathematics and physics, the same can be done for the organisation of society through governance and in particular, the judicial system. The judicial system can be understood and managed as a higher orthogonality of the parental system that is part of our success in evolution incorporating the orthogonality that is the basis of everything. Our very success in evolution [as a contextual iteration] is proof [of the orthogonal concept] that the organisation [in loco parentis – in the place of the parent] used in our society is capable and robust enough to solve society’s global problems when the mathematics of concept/context is used in a probability space.

In loco parentis: ‘originally derived from English common law, it is applied in two separate areas of the law.
Second, this doctrine can provide a non-biological parent to be given the legal rights and responsibilities of a biological parent if they have held themselves out as the parent.’ (Wikipedia, In loco parentis)

Overall, both Norma and I are prepared to accept the valuer’s valuation of the joint assets, however, Norma wants to convert all of her share to cash and depart to Queensland with her boyfriend. I find this course of action troubling and fear that she is in danger of losing her life’s savings and would like to suggest a better way that contains ‘natural’ justice. At the age of 65 years, her working life is effectively over and she cannot realistically expect to rebound financially if things ‘go wrong’, so I would like to place before the court a new way of looking at the problem that uses the orthogonality and entanglement that is inherent in the construction of the universe and thus a necessary part of any and every organisation Thus, the Family Court appears to have the power under ‘in loco parentis’ if it so declares to ensure a fair outcome.

Equity can now be measured by the use of general mathematical physics and, in particular, by the use of probabilities as required by using the probability space that generates our thinking [organisational physics]. This allows organisational physics/logic to better specify the value [concept] of the equity awarded and to whom [context] it should be awarded and, as should be expected in a simply generated universe, equity can be treated in the same way as quantum mechanics.

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 instability of the equation requires the continual expansion of the universe [which occurs] and that expansion determines the dimensions, and the ratios of the dimensions necessarily become ‘absolutes’.

Firstly [horizontally], the orthogonality of the specialist and generalist necessarily limits the applicability of a judgement and shows that, in a modern world, decisions should involve a team composed of both specialist and generalists. Higher courts currently attempt this by using multiple judges, but this does not solve the inherent orthogonality of specialist and generalist because the judges are all specialists.

Secondly, [vertically], in the context of this court, the trial of Jesus [no equity led to the washing of Pilate’s hands and the giving over of Jesus to the authorities] is relative to a modern court [with equity] where a more equitable decision is available through the court of equity that is part of every court of law [orthogonality]. The ‘fusion’ of law and equity are orthogonal/independent [as can be seen from (1+(-1))=0] but necessarily entangled.

From chapter 103, ‘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 this enables the use of the mathematics of concept/context in the judicial system. 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.’

However, ‘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. The governance system again needs a ‘tweaking’ to bring it into line with a change in community values and this case shows the problem and (possibly) a solution.

My intention is to stress that the Family law court is principally a court of equity, has precedence over law and is largely based on a solid theoretical foundation and that equity is not bounded, and extends to all parties and includes all parties [note that this is exactly the case of quantum mechanics including the suggested extension to probabilities and vertical orthogonality]. There is necessarily an orthogonality/entanglement between parents and children as well as between the state and each and vice versa. In other words everything is relative, as above, and the business of the Family law court is to award equity but there is the question of ‘how it awards equity’, which is an orthogonality of ‘how much’ [concept] and ‘to whom’ [context].

However, the means of allocating the equity forces the court to consider all probabilities [like quantum mechanics] because (1+(-1))=0 also represents a probability space (a+b)=1 for all a, b as well as a fractal space. Parents are generally responsible for bringing up children and the court requires that (about 25% minimum) of a parent’s estate be awarded to children at the parents’ death. I believe that these extremes are precedences that show that children are always the responsibility of parents and protecting them is an ongoing commitment and that parents should not abandon them to become a burden to the state. By using probabilities and the mathematics of concept/context we can allocate the equity between parents and children, state and parents and state and children.

The orthogonality [independence plus entanglement] of Norma and her children, relatives, friends, state etc. contains a fundamental entanglement that is part of the structure of the universe through the equation of creation (1+(-1))=0 and is not the same as our concept of independence [no entanglement]. That is why the court’s judgements must be based on organisational physics because Newtonian physics is based on energy and a subsumed logic that is based on a ‘peer’ vote for acceptance. Further, traditional mathematics is no better and ‘formal logic’ has been left with philosophy so the court is left little formalised guidance, at present and my suggestion of using organisational physics fills that gap.

This is the essential part of my argument and bears repeating. Our logic assumes that two independent things are independent, but the equation of creation (1+(-1))=0 shows that everything in the universe is entangled and unless we define two things as independent, they will always be entangled. This has been verified by experiments on subatomic particles and is as enigmatic (to us) as is the wave/particle duality/orthogonality on which the atom is built.

But, what of the case before the court? Norma’s plans appear to be to liquefy all of her share of the family assets, marry her pensioner boy-friend and put some of the money into a house and seek the aged pension. There is a probability that she will live happily ever after, but there is the probability the she will lose her assets and return as a burden to her children. Selling income-producing assets to get the pension is an investment strategy that is an inequity on the government/people, losing her money is an inequity on her children that has precedent in the requirement of the will, above. Thus, I ask that Norma be required to retain $100,000 equity in the farm that may [probability] be required for future generations that she has brought into the world.

Notice that primogeniture of the English is orthogonal to the European equal-division of assets to beneficiaries and whilst we use English law, I envisage the farm and plant production as jointly owned and run by those that need it. I consider it to be a (monetary) low-return safety net in the future and consider that Norma’s idea of taking all assets condemns future generations to (effectively) starting off without help and that is foreign to the successful evolutionary idea of training offspring. Also, why should I be required to put extra money into a probability position that equally applies to Norma? Norma is apparently abandoning her parental duties, whereas I have to use superannuation money to hold the assets for future generations to the detriment of my living standards in my old age. I must add that at 73 I do not get a pension and am keeping the farm going by growing plants as I started doing 40 years ago, and also providing employment.

Remainder is personal.