Chapter 107: Filosofy Rewrites Philosophy to Explain Beauty, Music, the Golden Triangle, Emotion etc. and Answers the Gun Control Question and the Riddle of the Mona Lisa

by Darryl Penney

Abstract: filosofy is a re-writing of philosophy signified by ridding it of the ancient Greek ‘ph’s and defining it as a science based on the creation equation, the logic of the half-truth and the fractal/probability space that spawned our universe and equating it to being within general mathematical physics. Organisation, that is orthogonal to energy, is used to derive a structure of top-down/bottom-up and sideways orthogonalities together with the ability to explain the origin of beauty, music and emotion as well as the expansion of a concept into a series of concepts, as required in a fractal/probability space to define common concepts and an example of its use is the question of Gun Control. Organisation has been unappreciated and this oversight has helped cause the problems that the world is now facing, but now filosofy is a new way of looking at organisation and examples are given of religion deriving energy from organisation, the necessity of religion and governance working together, the examination of the question of Gun Control as a part of evolution and the comparison of the organisational and sociological dangers of implementing controls as shown by comparing Australia and the United States of America.

Philosophy is a theory, whereas filosofy is a ‘truth’ because it is based on an orthogonality of the most basic terms and cannot contain the enigmas that bedevil society and science. Filosofy should provide the answers and the means to effect the survival of the best that is probably the next stage of evolution after survival of the fittest and as an example, an explanation, using the elements of filosofy, of why a small painting called the Mona Lisa is so famous. This well-known example allows a bypass of the universities, that are suffering organisational problems, and (possibly) allows the population in general to understand filosofy, what it can do to organise society and propel us into a new era, as was done two thousand years ago through Christianity.

The world is in trouble, which no one will deny, and I believe that it came about because our knowledge is lacking in organisation and especially the physical organisation of the universe. No one appears to realise that our universe is a fractal/probability space but assumes that it is what we want it to be. Physics is based on energy and votes on what organisation it allows [peer review], mathematics ignores organisation and the Law is all about organisation that has to do with the mind/brain and ignores the physical. Everyone seems to assume that the universe runs as they think that it should and no one asks what the universe really is, so how can they understand it? I believe that the universe is based on orthogonality/relativity and I will put the more complicated concepts in bold type for those readers brave enough to face the ‘counter intuitive’ thoughts and those who think that the universe is built on their logic can ignore those paragraphs, for the moment.

The philosophy that we inherited via the armchair from the ancient Greeks has been replaced with filosofy, an orthogonal/relativity system based on the creation equation and sporting top-down/bottom-up and sideways orthogonalities as well as the up to date mathematics of concept/context and organisational physics that generate the unique answers. The basis of the physical evolution of the universe and of Life presents workable ‘choices’ that are (probably) the best that we can access to change our evolution. The ‘probably’ is included in the last sentence because our universe must be viewed through a fractal/probability space and every concept is the complete set, as far as we can access, of every context.

The first orthogonality is the creation of energy (1) and organisation (-1) from nothing (0) [doublet/triplet], the second orthogonality is firstly, the organisation (1+(-1)=0 that is unstable, unless expanding, as our universe is, and this expansion creates the dimensions of space and time [4 dimensions] and secondly, the total energy is both (1) and (-1) with a dimension of 0 [total], 1 [energy] or 2 [energy and organisation]. The creation equation (1+(-1))=0 is a probability/fractal space and the (new) principle of relativity is that everything is relative to something else, except that the ratios of relatives are absolutes that are simply the conservation of total energy [law of conservation of (total) energy, energy/time], the speed of electromagnetic waves in a vacuum [constant speed of light, length/time] and the increase in energy/organisation per unit of newly created space [dark energy, energy/space].

The creation equation describes the structure of the universe and its orthogonal describes the universe’s operation derived from the logic of the half-truth which orthogonates to true/false/shimmer and chaos. Shimmer is the choice driving the logic of the physical world and presents opportunities for either, and both, energy related and organisational reactions. For example, a photon, I believe, (chapter 94) is nothing more than a shimmer between energy [as a wave] and organisation [as a particle] and the wave allows action at a ‘close’ distance. Action at a ‘long’ distance is the property of a probability/measuring space [a+b=1] that has instantaneous accounting and the generality of a and b allows ‘free-thinking’ that is a product of our mind/brain because both are based on the mathematics of concept/context that is immediately apparent from the equation. Thus, the creation equation [(1+(-1))=0] and the logic of the half-truth are the orthogonals that define the general mathematical physics in a sideways sense and top/down in an organisational sense [Occam’s razor].

The ex – Prime Minister John Howard is also known as ‘Little Johnny Howard’ to (presumably) show the contempt in which he is held by certain members of society because of the decision of his government to (effectively) restrict the access of guns to police and criminals and so leave the populous unarmed and defenceless. Was this decision political opportunism, to the police force’s advantage or was it in the best interests of the country? In the light of the new ‘filosofy’ that is based on the working of the universe [organisational physics] his decision has placed Australia, the country, in peril and has changed its society for the worse.

I have been drawn into this breakdown of society by the disrespect that is becoming prevalent from the younger members in society and because police are not handling it properly. Basically, the problem is that, I believe, we lack an understanding of the philosophy behind organisation and I am putting forward a modern version of philosophy that I call filosofy and I believe that this is justified because present-day philosophers say that the ancient Greeks could understand present-day philosophy. In other words, philosophy has not progressed in the last few thousand years and filosofy is long over-due.

To return to John Howard’s decision, an orthogonality is being created by the limitations of our ability to know everything that has been discovered and thus there is a propensity for many people to become specialists. This limitation is similar to the problems encountered in quantum mechanics where the size of the measuring stick limits the accuracy of the measurement. This specialisation is a fundamental problem that is obvious here, in limiting an overall view, where I am putting the orthogonal bottom-up view to the current top-down view. This allows for a reasoned filosofical argument to be made using an agreed bottom-up starting point and arriving at an agreed result that can be derived by using organisational physics. In other words, John Howard is a lawyer/politician and we have to ask whether he was competent to decide the questions put here, or was he merely pandering to the popular emotional outcry?

The world has seen the children of the United States cry out for gun control in a message that ‘tugs at the heartstrings’, but it is their lack of respect for their classmates that has driven some children to massacre their peers. It is the children’s own fault and the fault of the teachers (in loco parentis) in not controlling and conditioning children as religion, parents and state are supposed to do. Guns in the community engender respect for the individual and form part of the solution in a social religion based on the organisation of the state.

I believe that filosofy is a ‘great step forward’ for philosophy and allows, for the first time, unique answers to be given that all persons can agree with. It also brings up the problem that we have made for ourselves in leaving survival of the fittest [by using farming] for an undefined seeking of a survival of the best. It is thus timely that filosofy is now available firstly, to be used, and secondly, is the probabilistically best answer to the problems facing the world. The problem is to get it accepted in time. To this end, the Gun Control problem is a good place to start because we can use the current situation in the United States and Australia, that now have opposing/orthogonal views and that have been in place for some time so that the effects are becoming apparent. It is presumably wise that the two countries have a defence agreement, but should Australia not ‘pull its weight’?

It is also apparent from the academic silence on gun control that the complexity of the problem thwarts current philosophy and that using filosofy will indicate many current problems with our governance system. The problem is that many problems have been generated by firstly, using top-down organisational methods, secondly, the orthogonality/independence of specialist and generalist, thirdly, the concept being equal to the sum of every concept, which is a basic property of a probability space. This last point says that a probability space [(a+b)=1] has the same form as the creation equation [(1+(-1))=0] and a fractal generates the universe and the Life within it. Fourthly, the question of religion is neatly solved [chapter 106], and so on.

The younger members of the police force seem to do a good hands-on job, but the philosophy of policing as part of governance is lacking because, I believe, the structure of the universe, and in particular, the resultant organisation, has been ignored in their thinking. As above, the universe was defined by the creation equation (1+(-1))=0 and that everything in the universe grew [fractally] from it. This equation is also that of a probability space [(a+b)=1] and that allows us to evolve a mind/brain that can use/consider all concepts [a, b] and context [+, and]. However, just because we can consider all concepts and contexts, we cannot ignore the physical and this top-down/bottom-up orthogonality is crucial to organisation

General mathematical physics uses top-down/bottom-up and sideways orthogonalities to bring traditional mathematics, physics and governance etc. into a single entity based on the construction of the creation equation [(1+(-1))=0]. This requires organisational physics and the mathematics of concept/context that are derived from this equation to be added to the logic that we have decided to use in our (current) thinking. The basic reason that the world is in trouble with over-population, global warming etc. is not surprising because our thinking ignores the organisation that derives from the physical. For example, a hundred years ago, physics was stunned to find that the measurement of the speed of light was independent of the motion of the observer that was measuring it and apparently no one has ventured a reason, until now, above. Similarly, the (traditional) law of conservation of energy is inappropriate. These are examples of how organisational physics differs from traditional physics and why enigmas occur and cause errors in our thinking. The reason lies in the absolutes, above, that are derived from the fundamentals of the instability of the creation equation requiring expansion that creates the orthogonality of the dimensions and the entanglement of the orthogonalities creates the absolutes.

Sideways orthogonality is the result of creating two independent ‘somethings’ out of nothing, such as the brick walls and the no-brick interior of a house. Top-down is like fishing where you drop your line in the water and hope that the fish are hungry, that the bait is acceptable, that the fish is edible etc. versus the bottom-up choice of spear-fishing and selecting what you want without problems. Organisationally, bottom-up gives a unique answer to the problem and provides a ‘power’ that cannot be accessed from top-down. That is why traditional physics that has been studied for thousands of years, was thrown into turmoil when the Michelson-Morley experiment showed that the speed of light is the same to every measurer, and yet the answer is simple, from bottom-up, above.

An enigma in mathematics is that the constants [e, i, pi etc.] can be expressed as infinite series of simple ratios, but this [orthogonality] is to be expected in the fractal/probability space that we use to view the universe and is another view/type of orthogonality and that everything is entangled. It is saying that a concept is the same as the sum of every concept and this is the reason behind Feynman’s histories in quantum mechanics, that only if every possibility is included do we get certainty. This is to be expected in a probability space [such as our universe] because the sum of every point must equal unity and the conservation of (total) energy is an example, as above, even though potential energy [organisation] is continually increasing [in an expanding universe] and balances the dark energy [energy] created per unit of space created by the expansion. This last sentence shows how traditional physics tries to ‘lump’ the independent energy (1) and organisation (-1) into a common ‘energy’. This attempt at simplification goes against the (new) principle of relativity [that everything is relative to something else, except the absolutes], whereas organisational physics includes and answers those irritating concepts that do not seem to ‘fit’ into traditional physics, such as Occam’s razor and the principle of least action [traditional physics is incomplete].

A concept, such as evolution is equivalent to the multitude of contexts created by the fight for life by Life and this is the ‘choice’ that we are able to use in filosofy to determine outcomes because the ‘choice’ becomes a ‘physical reality’ and can be used bottom-up. This view of the universe as possibilities that are probabilities have to be generated by choices and actions and the success/possibility of them happening can only be assessed by their happening. This enables us to ‘condense’ a multitude of contexts that tend to confuse the issue into a concept that is definite and can be studied as to a particular result and to decide if we want that result in a survival of the best [chapter 105]. Similarly, the fractal layering opens up more layers/levels of happenings that we can consider as workable.

Top-down concepts are fraught with possible problems and should be used with care, such as happened to the ancients in considering that the sun revolves around the earth. The decision on which version/model to use becomes apparent as higher fractals are considered and it took closer study and examination to answer the question [Kepler and Newton]. To put it simply, we are looking at an organisation that works in the physical world over a significant time frame to gauge its success and clearly, we should not be using an organisation that is not running successfully to predict the future. In embarking on farming and technology, we have left the steady-state of survival of the fittest and are moving into new organisation without adequate tools and filosofy should provide the ability to extrapolate based on proven successful organisation Our eventual aim is (presumably) to genetically select stable people and provide them with a stable upbringing that can work towards some end that satisfies everyone. This end will probably be no prisons, no wars, stable population, respect for others, maintaining the environment and fisheries etc.

To define filosify: the concept is the top-down traditional philosophy with the orthogonal bottom-up of organisational physics that describes the physics of the universe, together with the sideways orthogonality inherent in the mathematics of concept/context that depends on the creation equation (1+(-1))=0 for the physical and (a+b)=1, that is a probability space for all concepts a and b. and is the basis of the functioning of the mind/brain. The context is the entanglement, as required in a probability space where the value/sum of every particle in the universe remains constant. Each concept must contain one element that is orthogonal/different to every other concept and is equivalent to the sum of every context that defines the concept and the values assigned by the mind/brain to the major contexts define the structure of the concept and lay it open for examination [mathematics of concept/context].

This definition leads to two means of understanding the world around us, firstly, using the logic of the universe [organisational physic] to understand ‘beauty’. In chapter 78, I found that beauty was a ‘resonance’ with the universe, but now, it is obvious that the ‘beauty’ of a Golden triangle is an emotion orthogonal/produced-by the organisation [of the lengths] as defined by the creation equation [energy (+1), organisation (-1)]. Clearly, many other concepts of emotion [energy], such as appreciation of music, appreciation of architecture etc. are generated by the measurement of the organisation inherent in the work. Secondly, the complexity of a concept like the Gun Control problem can be managed by breaking it up into a string of concepts/contexts, as above.

Governance is an orthogonality of government/politicians and judiciary and the police are orthogonal to each. The judiciary should be interested in what I am saying because philosophy and lately, sociology, are basic to the law and derive the jurisprudence that defines law. Filosofy greatly expands jurisprudence and in chapter 105 it was derived that all three orthogonalities must be in agreement [in loco parentis] also that the judiciary contain a stability of tenure, specialist knowledge and the wisdom of age that makes them a steadying and controlling influence [through precedence]. Comparing these attributes to the political system shows the orthogonality and I believe that we are placing far too much trust in the ability of government to rule adequately and in particular, the propensity of countries to form trading and power ‘blocs’ limits the possibility of a real world government.

The ability of filosofy, as a basis for law, arises from an orthogonality that requires the specialist of the law to work with the generalist [of filosofy] acting as a team and this arises from the need for the specialist to have ‘in-depth’ knowledge. It was shown in chapter 106 that religion and government are created orthogonally from the energy of Life [organisation from energy] and a further example is the burning of a simple sugar in the brain to create thought/thinking in the mind. The reverse effect of the creation of emotion/energy in the brain is apparently the reason behind the organisation of religion and the government. ‘It is obvious that the emotions and experiences of men and women are the food on which the other dimensions of religion feed: ritual without feeling is cold, doctrines without awe of compassion are dry, and myths which do not move hearers are feeble…. One of the main reasons why music is so potent in religion is that it has mysterious powers to express and engender emotions’ (The World’s Religions, second edition, Ninian Smart, p 14) These ‘mysterious powers’ are, I believe, the energy/organisation of the creation equation that occurs each time that music is played. That is, that the organisation inherent in the music produces energy/emotion [to the listener] when it is played, and this is similar to the effect that the Golden triangle has [for the mathematician] in appreciating/measuring its mathematical organisation

In other words, from the creation equation (1+(-1))=0, where energy (1) and organisation (-1) are orthogonal, entangled but not equal because they are different things, burning sugar produces energy that creates thought, the energy of Life produces religion, the organisation of religion produces the energy of emotion found in religion, the organisation of music produces emotion and so on. Further, ‘the nation-state has many of the appurtenances of a religion…. rituals… emotional… narrative… doctrines… ethical… social and institutional… Finally, there is of course much material embodiment of the nation in its great buildings and memorials, its flag, its great art, its sacred land, its powerful military hardware.’ (p 24)

Thus, religion and governance are similar and could be considered to be the same. ‘In ancient Greece religion and politics were often combined. At Athens the acropolis was both the fortified heart of the city and the site of its sacred buildings’ (p 206). Also, religion is used as an aid to governance. ‘Emperor Shi Huangdi (Shih Huangti, reigned 221 – 210 B.C.E.), there were greater attractions for a ruler in taking up Confucian thought – partly its traditionalism, which was important in the legitimation of rule; partly its ritualism, which could be taken up into the practices of the central government; and partly for its moralism’ (p 121)

Thus religion and state should work together and further, religion, police, judiciary and government become in loco parentis and that involves what I call an organisational ‘gene’ [orgene] because it is illogical from the (in loco parentis) parent because it actively works against the parents’ interests except that it is necessary for the preservation of the species, which makes child abuse by the clergy etc. and religious terrorism particularly heinous and against nature. [Notice that the penal/judicial system are extending the detention times for these crimes.] We should go further so that religion and state complement each other in loco parentis to present a united front and I will show below, that the inability of religion to actively change is causing problems, such as the massacres occurring at schools in the USA.

Religions have changed in the past, for example, for Christianity, ‘at councils, such as the Council at Nicaea in 324, the more abstract doctrinal formulae of Christian orthodoxy were formulated and affirmed’ (p 258) and for Islam ‘Uthman ordered a fast turnaround on the Holy Book. Memorised revelations would be written down and scattered parchments of scripture would be assembled, all to be distributed as one version of the Koran. The “imperfect” or unofficial copies were to be destroyed’ (The Trouble With Islam, Irshad Manji, p 142) In other words, these major religions and others throughout history changed when needed, but today, both have become ‘solidified’ and unchanging. Another example is the Catholic Church that is opposed to population restriction ‘most American Catholics do not heed Papal pronouncements on birth control’ (The World’s Religions, Ninian Smart, p 396).

Religion evolves over time and its complexity generates its alluring emotion so that it produces a change in peoples’ emotions when attending a religious event, but religions tend to ossify/fundamentalize with the centuries. Many new variants of religion split-off as life and time change and the state should try to compensate with religious instruction and ethical instruction in schools. This teaching is not enough for everybody because organisational physics tells us that only a few offspring make it to adulthood and it is fear of death that engenders respect for living within an organisation Thus, the presence of guns in society produces the respect for people that is the basis of civilisation and it is the fault of governance [in loco parentis] that this respect is not fostered sufficiently.

Technology has changed civilisation, presumably for the better, but the unrestrained population increases have strained resources and eventually a survival of the best must become the over-riding goal. The two concepts of religion and government, considered above, are necessary in setting up a single worldwide religion/government as a move towards a survival of the best for the whole world because firstly, control must be central to be effective (see chapter 106) and secondly, they are very similar in effect, as above. If we consider these to be major concepts in survival of the best, how do the contexts align? The contexts of living in a society operating under survival of the best are not greatly different to those when living under survival of the fittest and both require a ‘respect’ for other people as a model of survival. Respect for physical laws, family relationships, tribal structure, government laws are the aim of religions and organisations and accrue punishments, harm or death if not obeyed.

The above is setting the stage to derive the contexts behind the concept of ‘gun control’, but first, what is gun control? John Howard and his cabinet obviously thought that getting rid of guns through a ‘buy-back’ scheme would increase the safety of the populous However, if a concept is expressible as an array of contexts that add up to unity [probability space], lowering the possibility of interaction of people with a gun, something else must increase to compensate [to remain unity]. Notice that cars/trucks are being used in countries with tighter gun controls. To keep it simple, I have taken only one context in this case, respect, and the more respect shown to others, the less the chance of them becoming upset with co-workers and at school. Thus, guns are part of the state’s teaching of respect [to others] that religion is not teaching adequately. Also, respect [of country] is generated by the defences of the country/population through the widespread possession of guns. Australia is lacking personal guns and consequently, I believe, respect for the country, as evidenced by the number of flags adorning houses in the two countries. In other words, the USA has many household flags flying, possibly because that household can interact with the defence of the country by having guns.

In listing the world’s religions, it is not usual to consider atheism, but as contexts, the list of religions must include it because (arguably) 50% of the world’s population believe in a ‘state religion’ based on the organisation of the state, instead of a recognised religion. Thus, a (arguably) major proportion of the world’s population look to the structure of government and not to religion and governments are falling down in not sufficiently catering/caring in this respect and that contributes to the cause of the massacres that are occurring in the USA.

The reason behind writing this was because I was attacked by a group of (basically) sociopathic New Zealander/Islanders that had been staying in the next unit on mattresses spread around the lounge room, possibly ejected from a house because their garage was full of furniture. The police decided to not take the matter further and refused to give me their names for me to take civil action for damages and further, expected me to accept blame when they parked across my garage and opened my car door to attack me. If they had suspected that I might be armed with a gun, they may have shown more respect and not parked in front of my garage. I was, and still am, disturbed by the thought that the police just wanted it to go away and, I believe that this shows the moral degeneration that has occurred by the lack of guns in vehicles etc.

Thus, it is the responsibility of religion, police, state and teachers to act in loco parentis to the general population and this includes defence, both internally from the sociopaths and externally from other countries and yet, Australia is increasingly being stripped of guns by John Howard’s lead. I believe that this shows that the political side of government is inept because a group of politicians are not the type of people to formulate far-reaching policy and its orthogonal, the judiciary, has not taken the stand that it should in regulating contentious and long-term policy. The orthogonality of government and judiciary means each are equally important and yet entangled and that entanglement is the power of the precedent, where the judiciary can amend or block legislation if it considers it to be unlawful, unconscionable or not in the public interest. The public have access to both paths, via the ballot box, and via the ‘class action’. Further, I believe that the judiciary is more suited to guiding the long-term direction of the country because of the nature, age, educational standard etc. of the judiciary [albeit with a specialist/generalist fix].

The government of the day panders to the wishes of the populous, but the judiciary has the role of securing and maintaining civilisation in all its forms for the populous and I believe that it is ‘falling down on the job’ because of the growing unrecognised orthogonality between the specialist [at law] and the generalist [of everything]. The original concept of democracy in ancient Greece involved only concerned influential philosophers/warriors and is a ‘far cry’ from the vote of the general population today. The judiciary could be an important ‘safeguard’ in John Howard’s attempts to restrict guns that are, I believe, every person’s right to protect themselves and their country. To put it simply, a gunsmith/gun-shop-owner told me not to even consider defence in purchasing a rifle!

The above indicates that conceptually, the more guns in the community, the more respect that people use in their day to day life, but what of a contextual proof? The concept of evolution is equivalent to the contextual interactions of Life, and in particular, survival of the fittest. Survival of the fittest ensures that the sick, stupid, old, incompetent members are eliminated as food for predators, but enough members can defend themselves and are left alone to breed [shown respect]. This is the important point of the shootings in the USA, that they target the children and workers that do not respect them, and this is part of the survival of the best that has occurred naturally. The important word is ‘naturally’, because if we do not apply the organisation, nature will do so, and blaming guns for shootings is misleading.

Conclusion: the creation equation that describes the separation of energy and organisation explains the emotion/energy that is gained by listening to music, looking at monumental buildings, praying in church for the believers of religion and likewise the emotion/energy of nationalistic feelings. Further, that the state organisation and religion are basically the same and have the same ends that are (arguably) the subjugation of the populous by kings/politicians, when they should be looking after the population’s interests [in loco parentis]. This shows that filosofy better describes the philosophy of history and further, shows that concept is equal to and composed of contexts that can be used to unravel complicated concepts, such as Gun Control.

On a personal note, at a Club, for the first time in decades of dancing, a very young ‘lady’ took my chair while the table was unattended and threw my coat onto an adjoining chair. The respect shown by young people appears to be declining, the police are at a loss to combat it and I now fear for my safety. I had to go to court to face charges of improperly housing a rifle when the police told me how to house it and inspected the housing on several occasions over a decade. The case was dismissed with the words that the police sometimes ‘get it wrong’! I refrained from heartily agreeing! My defence was to have been that police, government and judiciary were in loco parentis and had to agree both conceptually [the law] and contextually [the application of the law] (chapter 105).

It has been said that philosophy does not do anything that is useful, and that the useful bits have been hived off, but filosofy is useful and in good working order and is unique in being bottom-up. The court case was dismissed, instead of the good behaviour bond that police told me that I should expect, so, I’m happy that filosofy has had its first win! In fact, the prosecutor [at Batemans Bay Courthouse] presented my case [chapter 105] and the magistrate noted that it was the first time that he had ever heard the prosecution present the defence case! Filosofy is a ‘truth’ because it is the simplest [bottom-up] description of everything and the action of the prosecutor indicates a ‘mature concern’ [in the judiciary] that could be fostered to use filosofy to solve the problem of organising society so that society ‘works’ [survival of the best]. This problem is not difficult, but requires eugenics that has been badly handled in the past. However, it can be handled positively as shown in chapter 54.

Prediction: concepts like ‘respect’ and ‘in loco parentis’, and many other concepts are not just words or man-made laws, but are (literally) representing a string of contexts that Life has shown to comprise a reality through evolutionary processes. In other words, these concepts, like evolution, become ‘truths’ [logic of the half-truth] with definition supplied by physical and Life contexts and can be used to hone choices. In a simple fractal/probability universe [derived from (1+(-1))=0], as is ours’, these ‘organisational words’ have as much validity as the energy of traditional physics because energy is (1) and organisation is (-1) and they are independent yet entangled. This neglect of organisation occurred, I believe, because energy [concept] can be measured exactly, but organisation is a series of contexts and this is shown in the mathematical constants pi, e, i etc. that are infinite series. Just as there has to be an overall general mathematical physics, the ‘concept words’, such as ‘respect’ and ‘in loco parentis’ are part of the English language and the judicial language as well as being part of general mathematical physics, and as such, can be scientifically examined, as I have done.

It should be stressed that prior to deriving the above, I had no opinion on how gun control should be exercised, but I now find that John Howard was wrong and his views dangerous. Further, this example, whilst far-reaching in its importance in deciding gun control, possibly the simplicity [of only using respect in a number of forms, such as personal, flag, country etc.] overshadowed the fact that I used the mathematics of concept/context that weighted my mind’s choice to that single concept [respect] in pursuing the derivation. Finally, all these concepts represent and define the most important concept, namely, survival of the best.

That many offspring are produced and that few are successful is the result of ‘choice’ in survival of the fittest and is the only way that choice in a physical sense can be made. That is, opportunities have to be offered and tested to determine which are viable. In our move from survival of the fittest, we have allowed all choices to exist and, in a normal curve sense, we have allowed more variation to exist and we are reaping the effects. Some young people are killing themselves because of their behaviour in driving cars, binge drinking, taking untested ‘street’ drugs, anti-social behaviour etc. and it is pointless trying to stop a natural process by rules that do not have reality behind them. Children must be taught respect, in all its forms before being allowed into society and this respect should be taught by members of in loco parentis [police, religion, teachers, parents and the organisation behind governance]. Governance evolves just like survival of the fittest [fractal universe], but now filosofy can be used to construct a better form of governance [see chapter 54].

Filosofy is not merely a major addition to philosophy, it redesigns it and is the only complete philosophy because it is bottom-up. The first example describes the source of all emotions as an energy created by organisation, such as beauty in all its forms [Golden triangle, facial forms], music [musical note relationship, harmonics], religious experience [cathedrals], pomp and ceremony [the Royal Family] etc. The second example shows how the USA system with a legal gun in every handbag and pocket will stop crime, and if it does not stop crime, sexual harassment on trains etc. it will make them think twice. If people are incapable of thinking twice, the world is better off without them and jail is the current method, Defence, in all its forms is part of survival of the fittest and guns are necessary until we fully attain a survival of the best and can put them aside.

The Secret of the Mona Lisa

‘The humanists …. had been at work since the mid-1300s searching dusty libraries all over Europe for Latin manuscripts from the almost forgotten Roman past. This Renaissance, or “rebirth”, of the classical past eventually gave its name to the era.’ (Leonardo’s Universe, Bulent Atalay and Keith Wamsley, p 16) We have been swept along with the Renaissance for centuries, but it is not working for us now and the world needs a ‘new rebirth’ and I believe that filosofy can provide the blueprint for a ‘new rebirth’. Philosophy has the reputation of not producing answers and modern physics has been in a ‘coma’ for the last hundred years (chapter 110) and the reason is, I believe that fundamental science is flawed (as above). Filosofy is a rebirth that is applicable to the modern world, but given the entrenchment of scientist’s careers, how likely is it that a change in thinking will occur before our world changes catastrophically?

Filosofy is not a theory as philosophy is, because it is based on the simplest concepts of the creation equation and the logic of the half-truth and is thus a ‘truth’ and can be used to solve humanity’s problems, simply because enigmas do not and cannot exist in its use. Considering the problems with the universities (chapter 102), a faster method of ‘take-up’/acceptance by the general public might be advantageous and considering the reputation of the Mona Lisa painting, explaining that ‘the painting is a universal and enduring statement about the feminine mystique …. It is no wonder that Mona Lisa’s countenance, with the partial smile, has launched more wild speculation than any other work of art.’ (p 211) ‘The subject’s expression, which is frequently described as enigmatic, the monumentality of the composition, the subtle modelling of forms, and the atmospheric illusionism were novel qualities that have contributed to the continuing fascination and study of the work.’ (Wikipedia, Mona Lisa)

I will agree that something is enigmatic in a small 77 cm x 53 cm (30 “ x 21 “) painting that it affects so many people who have no specialised knowledge of painting, but I believe that emotion/energy that is generated each time that the picture is looked-at/measured because it contains organisation that is hidden within the painting in accordance with filosofy, described above. So what is the organisation? It is not just the smile, and I believe that the answer has been recognised for thousands of years, but has not been able to be explained by traditional science and it has remained an enigma and because it could not be understood, it has not become part of general knowledge.

‘Leonardo, who would later in his life collaborate with Luca Pacioli on a mathematical treatise, De Devina Proportione, was familiar with the golden rectangle, as well as with regular and semiregular polyhedral figures that he depicted in rough sketches in his notebooks and presented formally in the treatise. In his unfinished “St. Jerome”, the figure of the ascetic is framed exactly by the superimposed golden rectangle….. he also imbued the portraits of young women, including the “Mona Lisa”, with elements of the mathematics of aesthetics.’ (p 87) So, Leonardo’s trick/discovery was to add organisation to his paintings so that the underlying organisation, when seen/measured by the viewer produced an emotional energy in the viewer.

The following two quotations are from a search of the mathematics of aesthetics on the internet and show the modern interpretation. ‘Mathematical beauty describes the notion that some mathematicians may derive aesthetic pleasure from their work, and from mathematics in general. They express this pleasure by describing mathematics (or, at least, some aspect of mathematics) as beautiful. Mathematicians describe mathematics as an art form or, at a minimum, as a creative activity. Comparisons are often made with music and poetry. (Wikipedia) The second quotation shows that the organisation behind the workings of universe are still not appreciated in modern times. ‘Paul Erdős expressed his views on the ineffability of mathematics when he said, “Why are numbers beautiful? It’s like asking why is Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony beautiful. If you don’t see why, someone can’t tell you. I know numbers are beautiful. If they aren’t beautiful, nothing is”.’ (Wikipedia)

The above does tell why mathematics, music etc. is beautiful and that is because organisation produces emotional energy [the feeling of beauty]. The measurement of organisation, such as Occam’s’ razor, principle of least action, art, music etc. can be measured by the emotional energy that they produce, and that is how elegance is measured [peer review]. However, the total effect, I believe, is the sideways orthogonality of the creation equation and especially the top/down organisational orthogonality that is part of organisational physics. Clearly, this elegance [emotional energy] appears even when the organisation is not realised nor understood by the viewer and is what makes organisational physics different from traditional physics. The inherent organisation in an object can be ‘read’ as the amount of emotional energy that it produces in the viewer regardless of whether we label it art, beauty, elegance, pomp and ceremony etc. and becomes a ‘truth’ because it always exists.

Specialists [universities] and generalists [Wikipedia] are orthogonal and distort the true picture [requiring relativity] as shown by the four quotations above, To add relativity, consider that the first orthogonality of energy/organisation that fractals into all the types of energy that we learn about at school, but there is only one organisation We find it difficult to measure infinite series [such as mathematical constants], so, let us look deeper into the tricks/trade of the great painters. ‘In the 15th century, painters were applying progressively paler colours on receding objects to create a sense of distance. They introduced the techniques of chiaroscuro (meaning “light and dark”), using light and shade subtly along the edges of a form to give it definition, and sfumato (from the Latin root fumus, meaning “smoke”), blurring the edges of distant objects to blend them seamlessly into their surroundings.’ (p 40)

Further, ‘the “Mona Lisa” shares with the “Ginevra de’ Benci” and the “Cecilia Gallerani” some mathematical symmetries and geometric constructions well worth noting….. Was all this all a coincidence for Leonardo – just a manifestation of his painterly eye, as it most likely is in the majority of works through the ages where it appears – or was it a conscious exercise? …. Brunelleschi had developed the principles of one-point perspective early in the 15th century. Leonardo introduced two-point perspective … Towards the close of the 20th century …. Centreline principle, which states that a preponderance of great single-subject portraits a vertical line drawn to bisect the painting passes through (or very close to) one eye of the subject…’ (p 215)

These are the organisational tools for survival of the best art over the centuries and I believe that understanding them will produce a new renaissance based on organisation and this will probably have to come from a general outcry of the public using the internet and bypassing the universities with their internal problems of generalist/specialist. Specialists have a place in society, but an equal part must go to generalists according to the creation equation [notice that equality is required plus Occam’s razor]. This generalist approach of the master painters, sculptors, architects etc. can be seen throughout history, ‘typical of Leonardo. Methods used in one place are applied unexpectedly in another with startling results.’ ( p 136) Filosofy is simple and eliminates the enigmas that have always plagued humanity by simply explaining them and when explained allow us to finally mould humanity humanly using choice (chapter 54).

The message above is the same one that Leonardo promoted “It is important to be curious, and important to explore different intellectual worlds, but it is essential to seek their connections” (p 277) and even today’s universities that are storehouses of knowledge are not powerhouses using that knowledge because connections/context has been unappreciated. The two examples used above [gun control and the Mona Lisa] were quoted for different reasons, but are linked together [entangled] because everything is entangled [orthogonality] and come together as the fractal is reduced until the basic orthogonality is attained [creation equation and shimmer]. Filosofy arises from the simplicity of the universe, contains the top-down philosophy of the last few millennia, the sideways orthogonality of the creation equation and thus is a ‘truth’.

Prediction: firstly, to understand the above requires a change in our thinking from the simple logical progression [B is uniquely derived from A] of traditional mathematics/physics/philosophy to the totally entangled world of organisational physics and this is reflected in the difficulty that I have in completing this paper. Secondly, the above explains why emotion [energy] is such a big and important part of life [derived from organisation], such as a shaman/medicine-man’s headdress, architecture, massed parades, churches, the shows of organised dance personalities and further, the enigmatic industry of women’s cosmetics and makeup. Everything becomes explainable when viewed through this new paradigm.

Thirdly, the gun control example, above, was explained (mainly) in a top-down manner for simplicity and the concept of ‘respect’ was chosen because it is a ‘truth’ and a derivation from the iteration of evolution. However, it should be noted that in evolution [organisational physics] offspring do not respect the parents [in loco parentis] (chapter 105), whereas the major religions do require that the offspring respect the parents. The word ‘respect’, as a ‘truth’, is a relationship between members of society/herd/group and is roughly equivalent to the concept of survival of the fittest, but as Hitler showed, ‘respect’ has an importance that lies at the base of changing survival of the fittest into survival of the best in a manner befitting our maturity and the intellectual maturity that requires organisational physics.

Fourthly, I maintain that there are no enigmas in filosofy because it is based on ‘truths’ and that everything is entangled, and entangled in a simple way that even a child should be able to understand the workings of the universe [Einstein]. Chapter 110 explains that fundamental modern physics was shut down because of a disagreement a hundred years ago between Einstein and Bohr. How does filosofy answer this dispute?

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 102: To the Vice-chancellor

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

Chapter 105: The Basis of Jurisprudence

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

Chapter 106: Global Religious Pluralism (draft)

Chapter 110: Modern Physics and Snow White (draft)

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