Chapter 140: Can Affordances Save Civilisation?

by

This paper is an ‘opinion’ piece and is not scientific because it does not have a bibliography and does not build on the peer-reviewed work of others, and that is because it is new and fills a ‘hole’ in our thinking that currently lacks relativity by being top-down only. This paper has arisen out of the application of relativity to fundamental physics and I have chosen this journal because Mind and Society is social engineering in a fractal and changing the mind changes society and vice versa, also, the mind and social engineering arise from fundamental physics and they have not been available because physics does not access the physical [only Newton’s laws]. Mathematically, the universe is a fractal [Adam Smith (economics) agrees by saying the what is good for the individual is good for the economy] derived from the creation equation [energy plus organisation equals zero] and is simple in form.

Consider the quotation, ‘the basic idea is that the perceptual systems of any organism are designed to “pick up” the information relevant to its survival and ignore the rest. The relevant information is about opportunities “afforded” by the furnishings of the world: Holes afford hiding in, cups afford drinking out of, trees afford climbing …. Affordances are what the environment “offers the animal either for good or ill,” according to Gibson, and “the information is in the light.” (This Idea Is Brilliant, edited by John Brockman, Daniel C. Dennett, p 147) ‘The huge gap in Gibson’s perspective was his refusal even to entertain the question of how this “direct pickup” of information was accomplished by the brain.’ (p 148) The ‘gap’ is the relativity of the creation equation converting the organisation of the surroundings into emotion [energy] that is generated by the measurement and the level of emotional energy signifies the importance of the affordance to the animal’s requirements. This, I call the mathematics of concept-context and is the basis of thought.

Social engineering does not (effectively) exist according to Wikipedia, but I believe that it is equal in scale to technology and is the bringing together of all the social ‘sciences’ into a whole, based on the physical properties of emotion which arise through the use of affordances in society and are completely outside the realm of current physics. To gauge the importance of social engineering consider that it is the ‘mirror image’ [orthogonality] of technology applied to ourselves. As an example, Christianity is a breathtakingly successful social engineering experiment that turned the savagery of the times into a world changing organisation [context] with a message of ‘love your neighbour’ with an ethics [concept] of ten Commandments, where we came from [God, Garden of Eden] and where we go [Heaven] as a goal.

Unfortunately, it needs a little ‘tweaking’ in a modern age, and that needs social engineering, but, if we understand social engineering, we can ‘tweak’ knowing that we are doing things for the ‘best’, but, what is the best? For example, I believe that the Trinity was originally the Father, Son and environment, which makes more sense. Consider the relativity:

Forward relativity: from another paper: ‘at that point we gain a new consciousness, perhaps become Homo sapiens sapiens and live happily ever after regaling each other with tales of the bumbling Homo sapiens with their out of control population, global warming, wars, murder, jails etc.’

Present relativity: physics and material engineering are the study of energy with a side-dish of organisation whilst physics and social engineering are the study of organisation with a side-dish of energy in the form of emotion. Both are derived from the creation equation [energy plus organisation equal zero].

Conclusion: below is the Form of the Universe for those that require a formal base and notice that the law of gravity is derived, for the first time ever and that gives legitimacy to this approach. Literally everything is derived from the creation equation and everything that we need to assure a future is at hand and available if we seek it out.

Prediction (as a relativity to the conclusion): social engineering is a scientific design for a future world and if it looks like a religion that is because everything in a fractal is similar, and as religions started with small groups, so can this one. I hope that this paper will produce a favourable reader’s response and that is using democratic principles that come from the mathematics of concept-context that comes from the creation equation. Considering the problems that civilisation and the environment face, the future is in our hands to make the proverbial Heaven on Earth.

Form of the Universe

Relativity is the functioning of the universe and a lack of relativity is the form of the universe and a lack of relativity is easily created [and our understanding of the universe] by the ratios of the dimensions [energy (E), organisation (O), time (t) and length (l)] created by expansion. The five absolutes are firstly, the sum of energy and organisation is always zero [from the creation equation energy plus organisation equals zero], secondly, energy and organisation [dark energy] are necessarily created to balance the necessary expansion [for the creation equation to exist] of the universe [E/t+O/t, all volume], thirdly, the constant speed of light [with respect to any measurer] is l/t (all E and O) and fourthly, gravity [so called quantum gravity] is E/l+O/l (all t). The law of gravitation is:

E(mass1)/l times (for relativity) E(mass2)/l plus O(mass1)/l times (for relativity) O(mass2)/l

Notice that the ‘inverse square law’ is inappropriate [one mass, charge etc. can not exist] and is actually derived from the absolutes and relativity and the ‘+’ in the creation equation stands for all relationships [physical, logical, restrictive, use etc.] between two entities. Further, ‘as with the Schrodinger equation itself, we still have no fundamental way of deriving Born’s rule.’ (Beyond Weird, Phillip Ball, p 41) This is not surprising because Born’s rule requires the same derivation as the law of gravitation. ‘If the amplitude of an electron wavefunction at x is 1 (in some units), and at y it is 2, then repeated experiments to determine the electron’s position will find it at y four times (2×2) more often than at x…. How did Born know this? He didn’t. Again, he “guessed”’. (p 41). In every oscillation between a wave and particle [wave-particle duality], the particle has to reappear somewhere, and it appears with a probability dependant on the square of the amplitude of the wave because, as quantum gravity [absolute (4)] varies inversely as the separation, relativity requires the inverse square law [or the square law, in this case] and there is obviously relativity between the wave and particle.

‘Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle…. This restriction on precise knowledge does not apply to all pairs of quantum properties. It applies only to some, which are said to be “conjugate variables”. Position and momentum are conjugate variables, and so are energy and time (although the uncertainty relationship between them is subtly different from that between position and momentum) … I have never found an intuitive explanation of what makes two variables conjugate’. (p 150) The universe is created from an orthogonality [independent, but entangled at the origin] of energy [momentum] and organisation [position] and trying to measure an orthogonality [measuring each exactly is the same as between the two] is logically impossible because it is a restriction on the creation equation [independence]. Energy and time, along with organisation, volume and length are dimensions and must be orthogonal so that ratios can uniquely define absolutes.

Fifthly, the role of Occam’s razor and the principle of least action is crucial to the understanding of the functioning of the universe and the latter asks ‘why does light travel in a straight line?’. Newton’s laws of motion say that a photon must travel in a straight line otherwise the laws do not work and so misses out on vital information and is, again, ‘up in the air’. I believe that the answer is that there has to be a unique answer and the only unique answer in every case is the minimum and the organisation that belongs to the minimum energy is the most efficient organisation. I can say this with conviction because if either energy or organisation were not at a minimum, there would be two solutions at the same time and this would cause chaos in the functioning of the universe. This last sentence questions whether our universe is “real”, although derived from nothing is a bit of a difficulty, but then, what or where do we expect it to come from and suggests that it is an organisational solution based on possibilities created by measurement [such as Pythagoras’ theorem]?

If there is a creation equation, as I propose, the universe must be a fractal and everything in it must conform to certain simple rules. Adam Smith was the first to realise this in Economics, where an ‘invisible hand’ works so that what is good for the individual, is good for the economy. Clearly everything shows this form of the universe in its use and as an example, let’s look at Euler’s equation, which is claimed by Mathematics as the enigmatic relationship between the fundamental mathematical quantities pi, e, i, 1 and 0, though what 1 has to do with the others appears a little strange. However, as a description of the physical universe, it makes more sense because it determines 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]. This ‘subsuming’ is the expected result in a fractal and Euler’s equation appears enigmatic because of the appearance of ‘i’ [the square root of ‘-1’], but it’s appearance becomes obvious due to relativity. Consider the quotation “wavefunctions generally contain ‘imaginary’ numbers – one involving the square root of -1, which is not something that has a physical meaning” (p 53). I am drawing attention to it because it shows the current confused thinking of physics, in that ‘i’ is an operator from quantum gravity [E/l+O/l for all t] because relativity is shown by ‘1’ and ‘-1’ from the inverse square and that must be generated by ‘i’ and that is why “wavefunctions generally contain ‘imaginary’ numbers” because ‘i’ [and every number] is not only a number [concept], but also an organisation [context] and quantum gravity is the ‘spread’ from the atom [quarks] to gravity [in galaxies].

So, Newtonian physics is a creation of the mind and has nothing to do with the physical until general mathematical physics is used and then it can be seen that additional information is created from measuring organisation. For example Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity shows that there is a simple relationship between mass, length and time, but this is incomplete because the above says that energy, organisation, length and time are simply related through the ratios that destroy relativity. Einstein was looking at the relativistic changes, whereas the above looks at the things that don’t change [invariants of the universe]. There are stories that Einstein imagined riding on a photon, so, the creation equation becomes E/m=i squared, on the photon, where ‘i’ is the square root of ‘-1’, E is the energy and m is the organisational form of that energy. Outside of the photon, the third absolute says that the speed of a photon must be ‘c’ to the measurer, so the measurement is ‘c squared’, and, E=m times c squared. Clearly, Einstein’s derivation becomes obvious from the creation equation, but what is not so obvious is that the universe measures our measuring [relativity], and knows everything so as to give a unique organisational solution. The general form [E=m times x squared] generates Kepler’s laws of planetary motion in an accelerating space to go with the attraction, above.