Chapter 139: Hail! Homo Sapiens Sapiens

by Darryl Penney

Abstract: the form and functioning of the universe can be derived from the fractal generator (1+(-1))=0, where ‘1’ is energy and ‘-1’ is organisation, and in particular, the scope of physics is doubled, quantum mechanics makes sense with new logic, mathematics and physics are formally inducted as mathematical physics and social engineering appears as the orthogonal to materials engineering and is possibly a means of controlling technology and the associated destruction of our environment and heralds a new way of thinking that might create Nietzsche’s superman.

Keywords: relativity; quantum mechanics; quantum computing; quantum gravity; law of gravitation; social engineering; creation equation; fractal universe; Born’s rule; “New Think”; general mathematical physics; Special Theory of Relativity; Nietzsche’s superman; the Bohr atom; logic of the half-truth

Preface: our civilisation is unsustainable and heading towards self-destruction. Everyone knows it, but no one does anything about it, presumably because they do not know the answer, or do not have the will, and the purpose of this paper is to present a solution to both alternatives. This paper suggests a new definition of reality for the universe, firstly as a simple example involving Pythagoras’s theorem, leading to a redefining of mathematical physics, secondly, a complete (possible) description that thirdly, shows that physics is incomplete and when made complete, current enigmas such as the law of gravity, law of conservation of energy, quantum gravity, the inverse square law, quantum mechanics etc. are reassessed and presented in a different form because they are predominately organisational and fourthly, shows social engineering that could possibly generate fifthly, the goal of Nietzsche’s superman that is required by relativity and requires a determination [the personality of determination] that could utilise a new way of thinking by using a new software [“New Think” (concept) and general mathematical physics (context)] in our mind/brain. Finally, the Bohr atom that is taught in school is derived as an example of “New Think’ to show how the logic behind quantum mechanics fits together.

Pythagoras’ theorem

Considering the universe to be a fractal and that every part of a fractal is similar [because it is generated from a simple equation] means that the well-known Pythagoras’ theorem is a simple example of how the universe is constructed [as is Euler’s equation, below], but in saying that, it’s use indicates a relativity that could better our understanding of mathematical physics because Pythagoras’ theorem is organisational, just as physics concentrates on energy. Simplification tends to bring out pertinent points that are hidden in the usual complexity and in this case the conservation equation [energy plus organisation is always zero] is illustrated. In other words, we are considering energy to be the preserve of physics and Pythagoras’ theorem to be organisation in mathematics and mathematical physics is presently a (somewhat) ill-defined subject. If general mathematical physics exists, how does it fit together and what is its scope? By linking energy with organisation through the creation equation, general mathematical physics is defined and this link spills over into every facet of science because general mathematical physics is the context of the concept of “New Think” that shows a new way of thinking that is different to the method that has been used for 3,000 million years and could herald the arrival of Nietzsche’s superman.

It is difficult to believe that the universe, of which we are part, should be defined by such an absurdly simple equation, that I call the creation equation [(1+(-1))=0, where ‘1’ is energy and ‘-1’ is organisation], but it satisfies two criteria, it is simple and it works [to the extent that I have not noticed any enigmas]. The full derivation is given below [The Form of the Universe], but, I believe that the reader should (perhaps) prepare themselves to question the strange situation that Life has lived with for 3,000 million years and even Einstein believed that the universe was ‘real’. Of course it is ‘real’ to us, through evolution, but what is really ‘real’? So, I want to give a simple example that shows what I believe is the basic functioning of the universe that we live in, and the change in thinking that it brings about is completely new and could be the thinking that Nietzsche’s superman must have if our civilisation is to weather the problems that currently beset it. After all is said and done, the current ‘software’ of our mind/brain lacks the ability to solve current problems, but, is the problem lack of knowledge or lack of will? “New Think” considers both parts of this relativity because it is built on relativity and will present the knowledge as social engineering, which in turn, can foster determination [the personality of determination].

Pythagoras’s theorem has a good emotional feel to it because it contains a lot of organisation [emotional energy and organisation are simply related] and the theorem is organisational because it can only exist [concept in the mind/brain] when the sum of the squares equal the square on the hypotenuse and only exists [context] when someone measures it. In other words, there is:

A relativity [between the sides],

B the square of relativity [for measurement of the sides relative to each other, which is what the theorem says, and compares with the inverse square law and Born’s rule],

C organisation of the whole,

D the restriction that it only works with certain lengths, that it has to come from somewhere and that someone wants to measure it etc., and some

E energy to (possibly) bring the sides physically together to compare them and power the mind/brain of the observer etc.

Those five factors are, what could be called absolutes, in our simple example [no gravity, no electric charge, no particle form of energy etc.] because they stay the same [lack of relativity] in a universe that functions on relativity. If these points appear strange, it is because they are ‘condensations’ from the general case, below, and they (together) constitute a simplification, but indicate the general case.

General Mathematical Physics

Notice also that the example assumes the existence of a general mathematical physics as part of “New Think” and I am combining physics and mathematics formally, whereas, at present, they seem to have been ‘cobbled’ together out of convenience. This answers the question of what the universe is, and for completion, Life, including us, are parasites within it, using it as we wish, ignoring the health of our host and putting our civilisation in danger. It will be shown that when physics is made complete, social engineering emerges that enables us to choose our way of life [concept] and the means to put it into effect [context].

‘The Journal of Mathematical Physics defines the field as “the application of mathematics to problems in physics and the development of mathematical methods suitable for such applications and for the formulation of physical theories”.’ (Wikipedia, Mathematical physics) This is not so much a definition as a statement of hope because physics does not access the physical and mathematics is built on the number-line that is not a simple concept. The easiest way to define a general mathematical physics is to use an orthogonality to join the top-down mind/brain thoughts on each subject to the bottom-up organisation of our universe, relativity as well as the necessary restrictions and these are shown by the creation equation [(1+(-1))=0, where ‘1’ is energy and ‘-1’ is organisation and ‘+’ is any allowable relationship] and [(a+b=0), all a and b and ‘+’ is any relationship] for the mind/brain.

As I have said, physics needs completion and mathematics is a special case of the mathematics of concept-context that can be easily derived from the creation equation [the mind/brain views two orthogonal concepts and assigns values to the context (relative to the measurer) of each to make a decision] . Using the case of Pythagoras’ theorem, it can be seen that the same principles are required for mathematics as can be applied to physics, and that is because physics and mathematics appear to be the same when viewed in the correct manner. I say ‘appear’ because of relativity where everything is composed of two independent parts [orthogonal with two entanglements], and any number can be taken to be a number (of cows, for example) [concept] and part of the number line [context].

‘Wavefunctions generally contain ‘imaginary’ numbers – one involving the square root of -1, which is not something that has a physical meaning’ (Beyond Weird, Phillip Bell, p 53) The physical meaning, I believe, of the square root of ‘-1’ is to be found in quantum gravity and again in Euler’s equation in that it describes the formation of the universe, which is always necessary in a fractal. In other words, the ‘i’ must be there because everything is entangled [relativity] and the entanglement requires the square [of ‘i’] that creates ‘-1’, which is orthogonal to ‘1’ [that in mathematics is everywhere a=ax1]. Another example is the logic of the half-truth [true, false, alternating true/false and chaos] that, I believe, describes the necessity of the wave-particle duality in quantum mechanics, and this can be found in everyday life when we change our mind. Another example is Feynman’s ‘histories’, where every path must be considered, because they are possible and this constitutes organisation, but energy [principle of least action] and organisation [Occam’s razor] are both required to be a minimum [which is different to the law of conservation of energy].

Perhaps a more pertinent definition of general mathematical physics might be that it is the entanglement [ top-down of the mind-brain, bottom-up of the physical, relativity and the various restrictions] necessary to the concepts of all other disciplines and is the context of “New Think” that is a new software that can replace the top-down thinking that we have used for 3,000 million years and could provide the entanglement sought by quantum computing. “New Think” could be taken as a ‘moment of consequence’ [attaining world peace, saving the world, the Holy Grail, the Second Coming etc.] that attains the future goal [‘consequence of relativity’] where we attain ‘survival of the best’ [having moved on from survival of the fittest] and become Homo sapiens sapiens, see below. In other words, general mathematical physics is the fundamental context that entangles every concept [possibly the hope of quantum computing] as “New Think” and, as such, is not currently reaching its potential, in the same way that physics, mathematics, philosophy etc have not reached their potential, nor can they until the physical is included. Physics is assumed to be physical by the other disciplines, but it is based on ‘armchair’ musings and not on the creation equation. Harsh words, but fundamental physics stalled a hundred years ago and it needs a new way of thinking.

‘Today’s problems cannot be solved with today’s mind’

Albert Einstein and many great thinkers …

(Fair Food, edited by Nick Rose, p 250)

Conclusion: it is difficult for the context [general mathematical physics] to progress without the concepts of physics progressing, as outlined in this paper.

Into the Future

Consider the quotation:

‘Man is a rope stretched between the animal and the superman – a rope over an abyss’.

Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra

(Superhuman, Rowan Hooper, p 305)

It says that the future must contain a goal because that is relativity and everything is relative, and in survival of the fittest the goal may have been something like ‘to live out the day’ because of restrictions to population by predators, infections etc. that we have done away with over the last 10,000 years. Life is safer in modern times and not setting goals means not setting restrictions and the present population growth is endangering the planet. The form of the universe is the ratios of common things that can’t change and modern physics started, I believe, with the Michelson-Morley experiment that showed that the speed of light [distance divided by time for all energy and its associated organisation (photon)] is constant to the mind of the measurer no matter what they are doing. That is why mass, length and time changed in Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity, but length divided by time [speed of light] did not change. If you divide two relatives, you get an absolute! Believe me of not, but Einstein’s theory [Special Theory of Relativity] has just been expanded to completeness because another dimension [organisation] has been added to mass, length and time that changes, as they all change in the same relative amount. This clearly shows that Newtonian physics is incomplete and it was only after considerable time that Einstein added curved space [an organisation] to correct Newton’s law of gravitation. Now, using the below, the correct Newton’s law of gravitation is derived in one line.

Descartes said ‘I think, therefore I am’, or in the light of the above, ‘I measure, therefore I am entangled with the universe’, which is one of the restrictions [D], so, entangled with the universe means considering organisation C and energy E, so let’s call then equal and opposite and have them come from nothing [to make it simple] which means that organisation and energy must be independent [orthogonal, which means that they are independent, but entangled at zero, which could be a problem if something called quantum mechanics wanted to measure them exactly when extremely small (Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle) because it cannot be done (restriction)]. This equation defines a fractal [(1+(-1))=0, where ‘1’ is energy and ‘-1’ is organisation] and, to repeat, I chose organisation C and energy E to be equal and opposite to create everything from nothing for simplicity because the universe is simple in concept with the widest context and the fewest restrictions [any restrictions complicate matters, simply because they must be noted].

The example of Pythagoras’ theorem is simple and does not contain gravity, particles, electric charges etc., and in particular, not much energy, which is strange because I said that it was highly organised. So, where is the energy, because energy and organisation are linked? The energy appears in the observer’s mind when they do the comparison [measure the organisation] and it might show itself as laughter [good joke], foot-tapping [music], or emotion [frustration, pleasure, awe etc.] from the results and these emotions [energy], being surplus to the body’s needs must be used up and are used up in some strange ways by the body. [Laughter appears so inexplicable or enigmatic that it requires an explanation, and is essentially the same, but the purpose of a joke is to lead our conception ‘up the garden path’ and the realisation (of the outcome) is, I believe, a change (simplification) in the organisation in our mind/brain that generates energy that must be consumed, and that is laughter.] This shows that physics, which is based on energy, is too simple and tends to ignore the other factors that are organisational, but it does show that energy and organisation are linked and provides a new conservation relationship [not a law because it is from first principles] instead of the law of conservation of energy. Notice that quantum mechanics has difficulty with the observer being part of the experiment, but that is entanglement and an organisational solution links everything together, as above. This relationship shows that thought [organisation of the mind] is generated by burning a simple sugar [glucose] in the brain to create our mind and, vice versa, that an art-critic judges art by the emotional energy produced [in the judge’s mind] by the organisation inserted by the artist into the work [rhyming in poetry and song]. This relativity effectively doubles the scope of physics and allows social organisation to emerge. Just as materials engineering [technology] has changed the world, social engineering can change our civilisation so it can peaceably coexist with itself and the planet.

Physics contains ‘laws’, such as the law of conservation of energy and they are ‘laws’ because physicists have decided that they are ‘laws’ [peer review], but they cannot prove them because physics is the top-down view of a physical universe that is hidden from them. “New Think” [concept] and general mathematical physics [context] use relativity [orthogonality] to bring the mind/brain and the physical together. Above, I mentioned that relativity suggests that the statement that energy plus organisation equals zero is the operator that is determined from first principles and this leads to the question of which view of energy is correct. The answer is that both are correct, but physics is based on energy and tries to ignore organisation, and if organisation is ignored, the law of conservation of energy appears [organisation necessarily becomes a constant]. Thus, physics is too simple and misses the effect of organisation that is as important as energy, as can be seen below, where Newton’s law of gravity is wrong because it does not take organisation into account.

The simplicity of a fractal produces a similarity that simplifies everything, but that simplicity is apparent only from bottom-up. Bottom-up is an organisational concept and some idea of its effectiveness can be gained by this paper when compared to the result of several thousand years of top-down physics that culminated in fundamental physics effectively ‘shutting down’ for the last hundred years. Consider the quotation, ‘this book aims to give a sense of the current best guesses about what that real quantum theory might look like, if it existed’. (Beyond Weird, Phillip Bell, p 9) I could say that quantum mechanics does exist, but Newtonian physics will never find it because it is within the creation equation [(1+(-1))=0] and the extension to the mind/brain [(a+b)=0, where a and b are concepts, real or imagined] hides it. Quantum mechanics is the organisational ‘flip-flop’ from ‘1’ to’-1′ and back again and is an extension of logic, that I call the logic of the half-truth [true, false, alternating true/false and chaos]. I believe that the photon is an alternating wave-particle [duality] because it is more complicated to specify one form only [and it doesn’t matter because it cannot affect anything (due to Occam’s razor and the principle of least action)]. The Bohr orbits are quantised by standing waves and ‘spin’, standing waves and the Pauli Exclusion Principle etc. are all organisational concepts that Newtonian physics has difficulty with because it mixes the energy and organisation from the start in the laws of motion. I have included a section on the Bohr atom to show how the Bohr atom is similar to Pythagoras’s theorem, but more complicated and yet, is part of the overall theory.

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 (1+(-1))=0], 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 in Pythagoras’ theorem] 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 law 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]. Newton’s laws of motion, Einstein’s theory and Maxwell’s equations all hide organisation and that obscures the picture, for example, magnetism is an organisation that registers the relativity between a charged particle and the measurer as can be seen by its odd behaviour [sign depends on direction, magnitude on speed]. It is also important to realise that the dimensions are independent, but entangled organisationally.

Measuring organisation such as beauty, music, religion, buildings and parades etc. creates energy that we release as laughter, in extreme cases [good joke], dance energy [foot-tapping] or just feeling emotional energy of appreciation [Mona Lisa painting possibly due to the golden triangle ratios]. Thus, social engineering is necessarily orthogonal to material engineering and is the key to controlling our civilisation and preventing a (so far) inevitable break-down. The difficulty with the question of energy shows that Newtonian physics is convenient for us in our world, but does not consider the physical host that we live within [as parasites], and it behoves all good parasites to understand and consider the health of their host, for to kill their host is to die as well. This is a truth that we should seriously consider acting upon because “new Think” is based on truths.

The Bohr Atom in terms of “New Think”

We are all familiar with the Bohr atom from school, and the below, I think, is historically interesting because the scientific ‘cowboys’ ran the show [they were exciting times] leaving Newtonian physics behind, and no one could follow. Now, “New Think” contains, I believe, the physical base that fundamental physics needs to understand itself and to progress.

(G) ‘In 1924 …. Louis de Broglie proposed that quantum particles … might display wavelike properties.’ (p 39) This is justified because in a fractal, the wave-particle duality exists at all levels and this has been found experimentally, and even measured in the macroscopic.

(H) ‘Schrodinger’s wave equation, which is now a part of the core conceptual machinery of quantum mechanics, was built partly by intuition and imagination’. (p 40) Schrodinger wrote down a generalised wave equation as a measure of the energy whereas the creation equation says that energy and the organisation are equal and opposite and thus we could imagine that the wave and particle are both found alternately, which links in with Born’s rule, below.

(I) ‘As with the Schrodinger equation itself, we still have no fundamental way of deriving Born’s rule.’ (p 41) ‘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) According to (G), every component oscillates between a wave and particle and the particle reappears with a probability dependant on the amplitude of the wave [that it was]. Quantum gravity [absolute four] varies inversely as the separation, but relativity requires the square law between two entities and it should, in a fractal, be appropriate that the interaction between a point in a wave and the reappearance of the particle should depend on the square of the energy at that point. In other words, in the physical, there must be a restriction on where the particle reforms, if it is to reform, then the relation between the point [organisation] and energy, should follow a square law of relativity [the ‘i’ of quantum gravity gives ‘-1’ under a squaring and ‘1’ is contained in everything in mathematics].

(J) ‘In a crude picture of Bohr’s quantum atom, electron energies are fixed by the requirements that the whole numbers of waves in their wavefunctions must fit around the orbits.’ (p 50) ‘Bohr could offer no justification for why the orbits were quantized.’ (p 49) Firstly, this is a restatement of the first absolute, that if only certain organisations [standing waves] are possible, so the energy must be commensurate, and secondly, the energy and organisation [together] change to allow a quantum to be absorbed or ejected, and other energy is transferred to the atom itself, raising or lowering its temperature [that the energy is a minimum explains the photoelectric effect]. The quantisation is explained because a standing wave is organisationally simplest [Occam’s razor] and the (possible) reason for the Pauli Exclusion Principle is that a standing wave is the same for one or two waves [organisationally] apart from amplitude and explains ‘spin’ [to some extent].

(K) Quantum tunnelling (p 52) is simply explained in (I) where the particle reforms from the wave at a place dependent on Born’s rule and can reappear on the other side of an energy barrier and similarly for radioactivity (p 55), where appearing outside of the nucleus constitutes decay.

(L) ‘Wavefunctions generally contain ‘imaginary’ numbers – one involving the square root of -1, which is not something that has a physical meaning’ (p 53) The physical meaning, I believe, of the square root of ‘-1’ is to be found in quantum gravity and again in Euler’s equation in that it describes the formation of the universe, which is always necessary in a fractal. In other words, the ‘i’ must be there because everything is entangled [relativity] and the entanglement requires the square [of ‘i’] that creates ‘-1’, which is orthogonal to ‘1’ [that in mathematics is everywhere a=ax1].

Conclusion: the universe is apparently ‘Steady State’ and expands at a constant rate as shown by Euler’s equation above. ‘The first stars switched on only about 180 million years after the Big Bang. This is surprisingly early, but ties in with other measurements of youthful galaxies in the infant Universe. An even more surprising discovery is that the background gas was much colder than expected.’ (Cosmic Chronicles, Fred Watson, p 54) The Big Bang was one way to explain the expanding universe, but I prefer the logical restriction, above, with lower temperatures.

Prediction (to the conclusion, for relativity): for 3,000 million years organisms have unselfishly imposed hardship on themselves to propagate to continue evolution, but now, on the brink of the destruction of civilisation there must be a change in thinking. For 3,000 million years the individual held the decision to evolve [by producing offspring under the umbrella of survival of the fittest], but now, in the technology that we have allowed to blossom, we must find the balance that is social engineering, that has been hidden by Newtonian physics, and apply it to the question of ‘where are we going?’. In other words, we have left the organisation of survival of the fittest [that works] and embraced technology without the relativity of knowing where we are going.

With the extension of physics and the creation of social organisation, a new way of thinking emerges that I call “New Think” [concept] and general mathematical physics [context] that challenges the trend of specialisation in the universities by re-establishing entanglement between the disciplines and acknowledges that generalists and specialists are relative [orthogonal] and both are required to make sensible decisions. An investigation into the Bay of Pigs fiasco suggested that specialists should act as generalists outside of their speciality, but that does not go far enough. This suggests a workable alternative to quantum computing where the hardware is available [mind/brain] and the software is the above. “New Think” is a new software that can be loaded into the mind/brain easily [by understanding the above], social engineering improves both the personal [anti-ageing] and the group [world peace] lifestyle [property of a fractal] and can be passed on to future generations in schooling.

If the social technology, arising from “New Think” can manage today’s problems of over-population, produce world-peace, allow a good life to a smaller population, leave space for wildlife etc., would that classify a new type of human [Homo sapiens sapiens]? After all, Homo sapiens is in big trouble and does not know how to fix the present social organisation, or does not have the will, at the moment. It is clearly necessary [for relativity] to assign a goal to our superman, but what attributes should he have? This is the ‘micro’ social engineering [that is somewhat similar to the ‘macro’ above] and will have to wait, but whilst there exist the classic decision tools [the market and democracy] available from the creation equation, the defining attribute is the same as in survival of the fittest, and that is determination to breed, but with controls that we have to determine through social engineering.

Overview: firstly, mathematical physics has to change. It has seen itself as the ‘hand-maiden’ to physics [according to the definition], however, the situation appears to have now reversed itself [if I am correct], in that general mathematical physics is the context [to “New Think”] and as such subsumes physics, mathematics, philosophy etc., and added to that, mathematics, physics etc. are incomplete and this shows that there are vast opportunities for mathematical physics to expand to fill the void. Secondly, I suspect that there may be further opportunities because the limitations of mathematics have been replaced by the mathematics of concept-context. Exciting times!

References: traditional science is built on references to previous work that are considered an ‘absolute’, and therein is the problem that this paper points out, that there are no references because science ‘got it wrong’ and the true absolutes are as above. More information can be found on darrylpenney.com if needed.