Chapter 119: Saving the World – The First Step – A New Way of Thinking, the Mechanics of Decision-making and When Economics Embraces Philosophy and Dumps Physics.

by Darryl Penney

Abstract: four necessary basic aims have been accomplished, firstly, that a new way of thinking has been proposed, that allowed secondly, a management board to be properly defined, thirdly, that any conclusion (concept) must state possible predictions (context) and fourthly, the decisions of that board has been shown to be the orthogonality of economics (concept) and philosophy (context).

Economists have traditionally looked to physics to similarly structure economics and that proved to be a mistake because a new principle of relativity shows that economics aligns with philosophy. This is borne out by the notion of democracy that has proved to be resilient over millennia and the structure of democracy is actually the mathematics of concept/context that also defines economic markets. Repositioning both disciplines, as drivers of civilisation, allows us to understand civilisation firstly, as a sideways orthogonality, and secondly, as a bottom-up and top-down organisational orthogonality that considers the absolutes and truths of the physical world along with the mental thoughts of the measurer. This ‘new think’ can add extra dimensions to our current thinking, will finally allow fundamental physics to redefine itself and indicates fundamental changes to the understanding of how to construct management to make decisions so that we can manage our civilisation. Fundamental physics becomes simple using ‘new think’ and quantum gravity, a new definition of relativity, Euler’s equation, general mathematical physics, the law of gravitation and Coulomb’s law of charges etc. are simply derived from the absolutes that are generated from the dimensions of an expanding universe and the creation equation.

A New Way of Thinking

Firstly, the aim of this letter is that throughout history, civilisations have come and gone because they were not engineered to persist and by using the new techniques described below, I believe that we can organise a civilisation that is on-going and is symbiotic with the environment. This technique replaces the organisation that is currently so poorly understood that we are in danger of creating a catastrophic climate change. The first step to controlling ourselves is to define a management board that is capable of managing properly, unlike the Bay of Pigs fiasco, the second step is to improve our ability to forecast the future, from the current 5 years, by using absolutes and other truths and the third step is a possible solution for the future based on bottom-up/top-down and sideways orthogonalities that involve our universe. Overall, evolution must be restarted and the less-fit have to be rewarded for breeding less to stabilise populations and make ‘survival of the best’ our goal. This aim is currently beyond us, but ‘new think’ makes fundamental physics simple by being derived bottom-up and a workable solution to control the population is not difficult.

Examples of bottom-up organisation are more difficult, but the enigmatic expansion of the universe [Big Bang] becomes a logical necessity for the existence of the creation equation, below, when logic is afforded it’s rightful place. A second example is the derivation of the law of gravity that is given for the first time, below, but the events that I will describe ‘closed down’ fundamental physics a hundred years ago and this new method redresses that. The Michelson-Morley experiment showed that the speed of light is constant no matter what the observer is doing, Einstein showed that all of mass, length and time changed together, presumably because Occam’s razor says that it is simpler for all to change than specifying some order of change, and physics was prepared to accept this, but adding curved space [organisation] to get the correct result of twice the Newtonian value was a ‘step too far’ and fundamental physics shut down, presumably because physics does not contain organisation explicitly.[http://bostonreview.net/science-nature-philosophy-religion/tim-maudlin-defeat-reason] This ‘new think’ is not only adding the organisation to physics, it is adding it in a complete manner of top/down and sideways orthogonalities. It is the ‘way of science’ that new theories replace less successful ones and fundamental physics realised that something was missing a hundred years ago and became Sleeping Beauty [without telling anyone – a monumental conspiracy and a monumental arrogance that the answer would not be found outside of physics], but now ‘new think’ provides the answer that is needed by using orthogonalities to add dimensions to our thinking.

Application to Management

The world is entering a new era that is shown by solar panels on roofs, wind farms, solar farms and electric cars, but should we go large or small? Economics determines the pricing and efficiency, but if a new industrial revolution is in the wings, is it what we want and will it help with the problems that the world is facing. To answer these questions we must consider the overall social and physical organisation in the light of relativity. Relativity is usually considered to be the problem that Einstein highlighted in fundamental physics a hundred years ago [by postulating the rest of this sentence], but the paper was actually a consideration of the effects of the Michelson-Morley experiment that showed that the speed of light is constant relative to the consciousness of any observer. Relativity controls everything that happens in the universe and a lack of relativity [the absolutes] allowed the universe to exist, as shown below. I should add that the concept of quantum gravity, derived below, is not necessary to the argument presented here, but the context is necessary and ‘you can’t have one without the other’.

Starting at the beginning, two independent things [(+1) energy and (-1) organisation] can be created from nothing and this situation is stable forever if they are kept apart [the reason that the universe is expanding] and the form [fractal] that is produced is (1+(-1))=0 and it functions according to true, false, true and false at different times and chaos (true and false at the same time) [logic of the half-truth]. This shows that everything (+1) is relative to something else (-1) and the only absolutes [non-relatives] are the ratios of the dimensions that are created from an expanding space [energy, organisation, length and time] and these absolutes produce the universe: total energy (+1) plus total organisation (-1) always equal zero for all time and space (the conservation of the sum), distance divided by time is constant for all energy and organisation (the speed of light is constant to the measurer [measurer is due to relativity that explains the Michelson Morley experiment and Einstein’s postulate]), energy and organisation divided by volume (dark energy creation to create continuity as the universe expands, for all time) and energy and organisation divided by distance (gravity) for all time. This relativity replaces the existing, that the laws of physics are the same in constantly moving frames (Galilean invariance or Galilean relativity) and note that quantum gravity is the last absolute that explains the relation between organisation, energy and distance, together with the first absolute that says that the sum is constant [quarks are principally organisation and galaxies are principally energy].

This organisation/energy solution with logical restrictions and the absolutes force a relationship called Euler’s equation that determine the form of the universe [(e to the power i times pi +1) = 0 can be written (e to the power i times pi + e to the power 0) = 0, which is an expression of orthogonality and describes an expanding [e, simple interest expansion] sphere [pi] from 0 symmetrical [i] through the centre. A sphere [of energy and organisation] can only expand if energy and organisation appear as dark energy/organisation [per unit of volume] to produce continuity. The law of gravity and Coulomb’s law of charges show relativity as the product of the two absolutes (energy of one mass/separation times the other mass/separation and the organisation/separation times the other organisation/separation) that are then summed to give double the Newtonian effect as Einstein predicted [twice (because of curved space, surely a guess!) the product of the masses divided by the square of the separation (Newton’s guess!)]. The universe becomes a dynamic organisational system defined by choice as evidenced by the ‘shimmer’ of the wave/particle duality required by relativity as the (constant) sum of two varying terms.

Science has been left in a ‘muddle’ for the last hundred years with fundamental research ‘shut down’, universities incapable of basic (fundamental) research and the hierarchy not wanting change. The last is a truth from evolution because the young seek new niches whilst the old persevere, the first is true because physics is based on energy and tries to exclude organisation and the remainder is true because of the nature of decision-making, below. Last century much effort was made to use the mathematical structure of physics as a means of structuring economics, but this structure is illusory and incorrect, as above. The market system and democracy are actually the mathematics of concept/context and are based on the structure behind the universe and, I believe, this accounts for their ‘staying power’. Traditional mathematics is a creation of the mind and great care was taken to base it on first principles and that is the correct intention, but it is still only one dimensional and that becomes the problem. For example, (1+(-1))=0 is meaningless in mathematics, whereas it is the creation equation that created the universe [in physics], so, something is wrong, and the point is that mathematics and physics are entangled as an orthogonality and each is a special case of the general mathematical physics. General mathematical physics is the top-down/bottom-up and sideways orthogonalities as mentioned above, but it is similar to what I call ‘new think’, though different because the former is a concept and the latter is the context [orthogonal thus independent yet entangled], but it does show the relativity mentioned above.

Now that relativity has been considered, the problem is simply that the third industrial revolution must be considered (1) relative to us, (2) relative to the physical and (3) us relative to the physical. This is how the absolutes were derived and literally, in a fractal, there is nothing new because everything is derived from the generator, which is simply (1+(-1))=0 that I call the creation equation, and further, I call ‘1’ energy and ‘(-1)’ organisation. The reason that three relatives must be used is because the mind/brain [of all Life] uses a probability space [to simplify our comprehension] and not a (simple) measuring space because Life is a parasite and the mind/brain enhances survival through the relativity of respect/defence [survival of the fittest – respect is being left alone because you can defend yourself and as a example, the more guns in the community, the safer it probably is, contrary to common thinking that is pandered to by politicians and police].

Consider ‘relative to us, relative to the physical and us relative to the physical’, the first is covered by economics, the second by survival of the fittest and the third is the world’s problems of overpopulation, global warming, mass extinction etc. Hence, ‘the great economic revolutions in history occur when new communication technologies converge with new energy systems.’ (The Third Industrial Revolution, Jeremy Rifkin, p 1) Is this surprising in the light of the above? In other words, the surprising point is that they are not only linked, but each generates the other! Relativity says that you have not created energy until it is used because ‘forward time’ does not exist except in our mind/brain. Thus, in a fractal universe everything is derived from a simple generator and the creation of energy produces organisation and the creation [measurement] of organisation produces energy. Consider that burning a simple sugar [glucose] creates thought in the mind/brain and judging art is possible through the [emotional] energy generated by measuring [seeing] the organisation included in the object by the skill of the artist [an example is the Mona Lisa and the smile is irrelevant]. Laughter is the explosive release of energy as the organisation of the joke is realised and rearranged in the mind/brain.

The first industrial revolution was powered by coal, the second by oil and they required large inputs of capital to bring their benefits to the consumer. The third industrial revolution contains both large scale wind and solar farms but has an alternate choice of individual houses putting energy back into the grid system. The use of rooftop solar generators is an economic choice albeit influenced by political pricing and turning to renewable energy might save the world from global warming but it does nothing for the increase in population and evolution. Clearly, economics is concepts [products] that needs context and philosophy is ideally suited to fill this role when it understands that democracy is a mathematics [of concept/context]. Economics is a product of the mind and has no relativity to the physical, and that shows why physics was a poor choice to follow even though there are similarities as found in a fractal. For example, in the environment, food is taken by force, whereas in economics, barter is used and the medium of exchange is money, which is a measuring rod, as is the energy of the photon in quantum mechanics.

Solar farms hark back to the hierarchical structure of church and government, whereas the ‘flat’ structure of rooftop energy production de-emphasises their influence because large inputs of capital are not necessary as in the first two industrial revolutions involving coal and oil. The ramifications of the possible shift are too widespread to be discussed here but show where philosophy is needed and as an example, ‘this feeling of foreboding took on a very public face in 2009 with the rise of the Tea Party movement, a grassroots rebellion against big government, pork barrel politics, and exorbitant taxes. (p 30) Taking this statement to it’s logical conclusion, the general voter can vote ‘with their wallets’ in an economic sense to influence the philosophical views that they hold dear, if the organisation is available. In other words, by understanding the mathematics of concept/context the working of civilisation [markets and democracy] becomes transparent and able to be influenced by the consumer every day and not just at the polls every few years.

Conclusion: firstly, I should point out that the above does not follow the convention of concept ‘a’ leads to concept ‘b’ etc., but uses the context of the entanglement of everything and I can start at any point and end with the generator of the fractal, as I did. Secondly, the philosophy/economics orthogonality using money as a measurement is similar in form to the energy/organisation orthogonality using energy and not without reason because even our mental concepts must conform to the physical universe [if we want to implement them]. The importance of this relationship, I believe, cannot be overstated if we are looking to solve humanity’s problems and science, as it stands, cannot handle the physical even though it was specifically formulated to do just that.

Thirdly, ‘ the philosophy/economics orthogonality using money’ is a ‘fact of Life’ (excuse the pun) because it separates an apple tree from a pine tree, in that an apple tree pays an animal to distribute its seeds by providing the energy of the apple whereas pine-nuts are stolen and so economics, like philosophy are environmental truths developed over millions of years. Fourthly, this same orthogonality is a bottom-up description of economics (concept, to buy an item) and philosophy (context, of finding an item), and thus the two aspects are vital to our understanding of our civilisation [the principle of relativity is universal, see the next sentence]. Fifthly, writing a conclusion [concept] necessarily creates a context that is just as important and I call this context a ‘prediction’. Physics is based on the ‘theory of theories’ where a new theory generates predictions that are tested before the theory is accepted [top-down necessity] and, to be consistent with the above, a prediction must always be made. Surely, this derivation shows how poorly science has been constructed, how easy it is add ‘new think’ and how far-reaching is the result.

Prediction: I will use the universities as an example of being on the wrong track and wasting huge amounts of money of money and time because the churches and governance have over the ages not tolerated criticism well. The waste occurs from the current practices, and I believe that the universities should have their funding cut until they decide to teach students a complete [general mathematical physics] course that includes generalists. The universities are the repositories of knowledge but are conspicuously absent in giving advice on how to cure the world’s problems, fundamental physics has ‘shut down’ for the last hundred years, journals are designed for specialists in spite of the fact that relativity shows the imbalance and that context is the key to using concepts and yet physics is using Newtonian physics that tries to ignore organisation. There are very good financial and career reasons (in the short term) for an individual to keep the status quo in academia, but that won’t save the planet.

The above is a necessary groundwork to being able to control ourselves and our effect on the rest of the planet and the over-riding criterion is completeness of management and thus management meetings need at least an economist, as is present at most meetings, a philosopher, as an orthogonal to safeguard community and environmental rights and a generalist as well as lawyers, financiers etc. Can a well-rounded board dispense with the generalist? No, because their presence is a logical requirement. ‘In his 1972 classic, Victims of Groupthink, the psychologist Irvin Janis …. explored the decision making that went into both the Bay of Pigs invasion and the Cuban missile crisis …. after the fiasco, Kennedy ordered an enquiry …. recommended changes to the decision making process …. participants were to speak not only as specialists in their area of expertise, but as generalists, with a licence to question anything.’ (p 195)

Clearly, as above, specialists cannot act as generalists and the proposed solution was flawed and remains flawed. The ramifications of this example are appalling because a so-called superpower initiated a fiasco because its decision-making was deficient and the solution to that poor decision-making, that specialists act as generalists, breaks an absolute truth that is in the same league as quantum mechanics and relativity. How can civilisation be repaired if basic truths are misunderstood? Thus, part one needed to be cleared up before we can look at the structure (part two) of civilisation and a possible solution (part three).

Overview: thus, four necessary basic aims have been accomplished, firstly, that a new way of thinking has been proposed, that allowed secondly, a management board to be properly defined, thirdly, that any conclusion (concept) must state possible predictions (context) and fourthly, the decisions of that board has been shown to be the orthogonality of economics (concept) and philosophy (context).

Finally, no references are cited because everything can be derived simply from the first principles and the examples given above. However, it is pointless ‘reinventing the wheel’ and most of it will be on my website darrylpenney.com when required.