Deriving The Mind

Abstract: physicists are marvellous at measurement with cyclotrons, telescopes, satellites etc., but are woeful at theory, but this theory of everything is generated bottom-up, seems to have no enigmas and provides a simple explanation, so, perhaps it is the long-awaited extension to Newtonian physics. However, this endeavour necessarily needs examples to show that physics has retreated into a shell of measurement that is hindering its offshoots and examples are given in quantum mechanics, gravity, particle physics, cosmic inflation, emotion, neuroscience and the way that we think. Mankind has successfully used the ‘stepping stones’ of farming, Christianity, Renaissance and now, a new one is needed to change the mind-brain that offers a solution to the problems of the world through the social engineering that has been hidden by physic’s incompleteness. We also need this model to attain the goals of rational management in order to manage society to prevent our civilisation from collapsing, unlike religion, however, the concept of this context is thinking and the construction of the mind is shown to be beyond neuroscience in it’s present form and needs this theory to progress.

Keywords: neuroscience; thought; particle physics; dark matter; relativity; creation equation

Preface

This paper is the continuation of The Standard Particle Physics Model Versus Modern Physics [submitted to IJTP] and builds upon a simplified version of the standard model of the elementary subatomic particles because physics is supposed to simplify and organise the interrelationship of the physical around us. This model is designed to give the average person a way into the complexities of particle physics and leave the specialists to the complications which they seem to enjoy because Newtonian physics does not access the physical, but generalises Galileo’s experiments that use a different creation equation to the first principles that I use. The current top-down view of physics leads to a ‘splitting’ of categories instead of ‘lumping’ them together in an organised way and this can lead to serious errors because the quality of thinking is the number of contexts which are strictly linked to the number of concepts of knowledge through the creation equation that contains organisation explicitly.

The standard model becomes simply:

Concept: everything is relative and energy plus organisation equals zero in everything, so this is a table of operations categorised by the organisation of speed [tier one] and lifetime, energy etc. [tier two], the acceleration of the universe produces ‘gravity’ in everything that affects everything as gravity and internally as quantum gravity [(energy plus organisation) divided by separation relative to something else]

Context: plus [tier 1]: quarks up and down [no speed]

proton, electron [less than light speed]

neutrinos assorted [near light speed]

photon [light speed]

Plus [tier 2]: bosons, muons, taus, neutrons and other quarks etc. [organisation changelings]

The Logic of the Half-truth

Overall, this particle-physics model appears simple because the universe is simple in construction and it has to be simple because of absolute five, below, and this simplicity is obtained by selecting a continuum [see Einstein’s special relativity] of permanent particles in terms of speed that creates an orthogonality [a relativity: independent but entangled] with energy as, I believe, happens in the physical universe that creates it’s functioning. The form of the universe is found by removing the relativity by division, see the section, The Form of the Universe, below.

How does physics consider the universe? ‘Using the wave-particle duality . .,. everything in the universe, including light and gravity, can be described in terms of particles.’ (A Brief History Of Time, Stephen Hawking, p 75) Simplifying in this way, by only using particles, is a very dangerous procedure because information is lost, for example, from the creation equation that I use [energy plus organisation equals zero], if organisation is held constant [ignored], the law of conservation of energy emerges, that is the basis of physics, which is, however, extremely difficult to justify in the accelerating universe that we seem to have. Newtonian physics is a product of the Renaissance and it’s formulation has been made too simple presumably because ‘information remains bewildering, partly because it crops up in different guises in so many scientific fields’. (Chance, ed. Michael Brooks, Paul Davies, p 21) This model uses organisation explicitly.

Are we justified in assuming that ‘everything in the universe, including light and gravity, can be described in terms of particles’? Consider, ‘the gravitational force between the sun and the earth is ascribed to the exchange of gravitons between the particles that make up these two bodies. Although the exchanged particles are virtual, they certainly do produce a measurable effect – they make the earth orbit the sun!’ (A Brief History Of Time, Stephen Hawking, p 79) Fair go! This shows an overuse of top-down ‘splitting’ to the extent that virtual particles are created to justify an assumption, whereas bottom-up organisation tends to ‘lump’ things together because relationships can be seen [consider the model of the subatomic particles, above]. In other words, physics is a top-down creation that does not access the physical and is complicated by being excessively simple.

Quantum mechanics appears to use probabilities. ‘Einstein never accepted that the universe was governed by chance; his feelings were summed up in his famous statement, “God does not play dice”. (p 64) According to this model probabilities can be used because the creation equation includes a mathematical probability space [a+b=1, all a, b], but it does much more than just assign probabilities because the universe can use every possible opportunity that is offered. In other words, we see probabilities, but they include possibilities. Let’s look at the logic of the half-truth [true, false, true and false at different times, chaos] and that seems to consider all possibilities, but ‘ true and false at the same time’ is not ‘chaos’ if true and false ‘shimmer’ so fast, from one to the other that it makes no difference to the final result. This ‘shimmer’ is, I believe, the wave-particle duality that we see in the macroscopic [Einstein was awarded the Nobel prize for ‘explaining’ the wave particle duality in terms of energy!] and is, I believe, the structure of everything and the source of de Broglie’s waves in matter [similarity in a fractal]. Another example is the acceleration requirement of the creation equation to keep true and false [the concepts energy and organisation] always separate.

Thus, the creation equation is saying that everything contains energy [classic wave] and organisation [classic particle] together, in the same particle, but the particle shimmers between the two independent [orthogonal] states, thus, the only simple way to differentiate a photon from an electron is by its speed. This is a pivotal point in understanding physics from the physical point of view, that physics uses energy/photon and particle/mass to differentiate [using the mind-brain], but physics gets away with this ‘sloppiness’ simply because Newtonian physics is convenient, works but [both] does and does not include the physical because it is based on Galileo’s absolute F/m=g, where g is the acceleration due to gravity, F is force and m is mass, from experiment, hence, Newton’s law F/m=a, a is acceleration that is, I believe, a generalisation of Galileo’s absolute, but is not the creation equation energy/organisation=i(squared), i is the square root of -1, although it works [somewhat] because it has the same form [but lacks relativity]. Relativity is ‘i’ that never exists on its own.

Affording Possibilities

According to this model, a photon consists of energy and organisation, with the energy continuous, bounded by zero and infinity, and the organisation likewise, but organisation is apparent only at discrete levels as a particle [neutron etc.]. In other words, energy is continuous, whereas organisation occurs in discrete steps, as we see around us when a new person has to be hired or fired and the speed [kinetic energy] is the variable. To separate these two concepts [energy and organisation], they have to be orthogonal in intent [creation equation] and must satisfy restrictions [the universe is accelerating for the equation to continue to exist] and also physically. When I say physically, I am referring to the organisational solution that our questing receives because physics has long held that measuring as a wave returns a wave solution and vice versa for particles. Consider, ‘psychologist James J. Gibson developed the concept of affordance over many years, culminating in his final book The Ecological Approach to Visual Perceptionin 1979. He defined an affordance as what the environment provides or furnishes the animal. . . . The key to understanding affordance is that it is relational and characterizes the suitability of the environment to the observer, and so, depends on their current intentions and their capabilities.’ (Wikipedia, Affordance)

Let’s look more closely at ‘depends on their current intentions and their capabilities’, and if you use Newtonian physics, you are living in a ‘safe’ world that works, see above, but is not part of the physical and suits a population of limited purpose. The universe is intellectually challenging because if you ask the wrong question, you get the wrong answer [garbage in, garbage out] because the physical cannot lie [absolute five]. For example, consider the enigma, ‘the uncertainty principle means that even “empty” space is filled with pairs of virtual particles and antiparticles. These pairs would have an infinite amount of energy and, therefore, by Einstein’s famous equation E=mc(squared), they would have an infinite amount of mass.’ (A Brief History Of Time, Stephen Hawking, p 189)

From the logic of the half-truth it can be seen that ‘“empty” space may well be filled ‘with pairs of virtual particles and antiparticles’ because any possibility is possible that works logically and also, energy and organisation can be created together, if necessary, in this model. Further, if organisation is ignored, as occurs in physics, the creation equation reduces to the law of conservation of energy that underlies physics [that energy cannot be created nor destroyed] and that leads to the problem of an ‘infinite amount of energy’ and an ‘infinite amount of mass’, however, the use of the concept of ‘infinite’ does ‘muddy the waters’ to some extent. If we assume that these particles [composed of both energy and organisation] do exist, as they could [and presumably do in the Casimar effect] their sum-total might provide the gravitational effects of dark matter that seems to be driving cosmologists and particle physicists to distraction and to writing thick books, such as Dark Matter and the Dinosaurs by Lisa Randall.

Dark Matter

Dark matter is the gravitational source that cannot be found, but is necessarily postulated to hold the galaxies together as the ‘light’ matter in the stars is not calculated to be sufficient. For example, ‘in physics, a virtual particle is a transient quantum fluctuation that exhibits some of the characteristics of an ordinary particle . . . . where interactions between ordinary particles are described in terms of exchanges of virtual particles. . . . Virtual particles do not necessarily carry the same mass as the corresponding real particle, although they always conserve energy and momentum. The closer its characteristics come to those of ordinary particles, the longer the virtual particle exists. They are important in the physics of many processes. The term is somewhat loose and vaguely defined. . . . The accuracy and use of virtual particles in calculations is firmly established, but as they cannot be detected in experiments, deciding how to precisely describe them is a topic of debate.’ (Wikipedia, Virtual particle)

From above, virtual particles seem to be a ‘place-holder’ for the organisation that physics denies but in this case are actually available to increase the gravity within galaxies because anything within an accelerating frame exhibits, what we call, gravity. In other words, anything that ‘appears’ at a place in an accelerating space, such as our universe, acts as a gravity source independent of being virtual, of limited duration or permanent as well as being energy or organisation, so, let’s look at the problem of dark matter as an example of bottom-up organisation and the process of thinking. Gravity has two forms, firstly, that due to the necessary expansion [acceleration for the creation equation to exist] produces [what we call] gravity and secondly, quantum gravity as the magnitude, below.

Firstly, the universe is an organisation that physics does not recognise and as such, physics allows limited possibilities and one problem is dark energy that I consider to be the infill energy to balance the acceleration [absolute two], secondly, gravity [due to acceleration] was larger [hyperbola] in earlier times [cosmic inflation] and we are looking back in time at galaxies, thirdly, that organisation adds to gravity [Einstein’s ‘curved space’] and that leaves only one other possibility, that fourthly, virtual particles contribute the necessary gravity, which they can do in this model through the creation equation and the logic of the half-truth. Thus, the gravity of the so-called virtual particles is the balancing item and the problem disappears. [From an unpublished paper Why The Universe Is Accelerating And What Is Gravity – A New Complementary Theory that suggests that an accelerating space creates gravity in whatever is at a position]. In other words, firstly, gravity is an illusion that affects both energy and organisation due to accelerating space that makes things want to move in a parabola around another thing [there must be a second thing because of relativity] and secondly, the magnitude is given by quantum gravity [absolute four, below], thirdly, the universe is closed by the fractal generating creation equation, so, the observed shape of the galaxies is determined by the amount of energy and organisation that remains, on average as infill [a constant with volume, below] plus virtual particles that come and go and are the balancing item to the organisation. In other words, the number of virtual particles is simply determined by the shape of the galaxies. This model uses absolutes that force a unique solution [absolute five], so there cannot be an infinite effect, as the quotation expects, there must be a unique number that balances the organisation. This is impossible using a top-down, non-physical Newtonian physics. Notice that this explanation also explains the fact that Eddington found the deviation of a photon to be twice the value of Newton without resorting to the postulated ‘curved space’ of Einstein.

A hundred years ago, modern physics apparently ‘shut down’ because it was realised that Newtonian physics was inadequate, but, I believe that this model holds the key to the physical and the examples of a particle physics model and dark energy show what can be done with a change in viewpoint, but the problem is the thinking apart from the organisation of physics, so let’s look at the physics of thinking.

The Science of Thought

Neuroscience (or neurobiology) is the scientific study of the nervous system. It is a multidisciplinary science that combines physiology, anatomy, molecular biology, developmental biology, cytology, computer science and mathematical modelling to understand the fundamental and emergent properties of neurons and neural circuits. (Wikipedia)

This definition is multidisciplinary and uses the contexts of disciplines, and the most important context between them is undoubtedly mathematical modelling because it is the over-arching organisation of thought and I can say this because this new model allows me to point to the creation equation and show how it all seems to fit together. An important part of the creation equation is relativity and the relativity of what I am saying is to point to the problems of physics where wrong choices were made in setting up modern physics and this knowledge might save neuroscience some heartache that may be avoided through using this new model.

This overarching mathematical modelling of thinking [concept] is the organisation of thought that has a context composed of firstly, affordances [from the creation equation] to read the organisation of the environment, stored thoughts etc. as emotional energy and also the action potentials of stored memories, secondly, the use of the mathematics of concept-context from the creation equation to compare the levels of emotional energy that comes with measuring concepts, and thirdly, filtering the mathematics with the societal software of the tribe’s mores and creation myth etc. The concept is to increase the safety of the individual and tribe and this has the context of in loco parentis [in the place of the parent], hence, each of us has the responsibility to ensure the safety of civilisation and future generations and that requires social engineering [the management of technology] that is, in part, the organisation that physics actively ignores. Thinking is not based on quantum mechanics, as has been surmised, but both are manifestations of the creation equation.

What is in this for neuroscience? Firstly, affordances and their derivation appeared in the October issue, 2020, of Mind and Society [Can Affordances Save Civilisation?], secondly, the mathematics of concept-context is obvious from the creation equation and is the comparison of values of affordances and thirdly, intellect is shown by the creation equation to be a strict relationship between concepts and their context. Fourthly, consider ‘Intellect refers to and identifies the ability of the mind to reach correct conclusions about what is true and what is false, and about how to solve problems.’ (Internet) This definition is concerned with ‘correct conclusions’ and that is my foremost aim and presumably is the goal of neuroscience and this model shows that it is derived from learning and experience and the creation equation is the only way that it can be derived bottom-up. This extension of thinking has been submitted to the journal Mind and Society as The Mind, Society, Socrates, Social Engineering and Symbiosis, so, consider Theories of Intelligence in Psychology (Kendra Cherry) ‘while intelligence is one of the most talked about subjects in psychology, there is no standard definition of what exactly constitutes intelligence.’ (Internet) The concept of intelligence, as above, is the number of concepts [learned facts, experiences] held in the mind-brain which determine the number of contexts available to consider the concepts. Thus, by limiting the scope of physics, the intellect of the physicist is compromised, which is the case that I am presenting and unfortunately, physics is supposed to present a usable model of the physical for the rest of science, but it is proving less than helpful.

Given the creation equation, thinking is a science because it becomes understandable and obeys rules that are simple, symmetric and similar and our ‘parasitic’ relationship with the universe is via the logic of the Half-truth because the universe always answers and the problem is to ask the correct questions. We cannot ask the correct questions if our theory is incorrect, as appears to have happened to physics, whereas, I believe, a correct theory produces results that allow us to add to the concepts in our mind-brain and increase intelligence by learning new concepts, but a concept is useless without context and that is measurement and a statement of relativity. Relativity is a simplified statement of orthogonality that is the creation equation and we must recognise a goal to aim towards, and for humanity, Homo completus is the successful future of mankind that leaves behind the muddled thinking of Homo sapiens who is not wise or intelligent enough to control population, wars, murder etc. To understand and manage society we need the social engineering that physics, in it’s present form is hiding, that is orthogonal to technology.

Comparison

Physics is like a tribe with a ‘creation myth’ that everything was created as energy in a Big Bang and as the energy cooled it condensed into matter until today they say that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, which is difficult to believe as the universe is expanding under some force [postulated dark energy]. Newtonian physics considers energy and matter and guesses [cannot derive] the law of gravity, Einstein tried to extend this law by saying E=mc(squared) [where E is energy, m is mass and c is the speed of light] and that acceleration produces gravity. The Michelson-Morley experiment [the speed of light is constant to any measurer] allowed Einstein to show that the dimensions moved together to prevent the speed of a particle reaching the speed of energy [photon]. The importance of this has been overlooked and is the basis of restructuring the standard particle model above, and understanding the role of neutrinos, because, I believe that Newtonian physics is fundamentally too simple.

This model suggests that the universe is a fractal derived from the creation equation, which is the relativity of energy and organisation that produces dimensions that, when stripped of relativity show absolutes that describe the form of the universe that uses energy, organisation and speed as orthogonalities that describe the working of the universe. Relativity is a necessary logic that allows gravitation, quantum mechanics, quantum gravity, cosmic inflation and an accelerating universe to be derived, whereas physics lacks relativity. This model extends Newtonian physics [top-down] with the bottom-up of the physical and relativity and is the context of the concept of thinking. Hence neuroscience is necessary to link Life with the universe and turn a parasitic relationship into a symbiotic one that is the goal that any rational management must pursue for civilisation to last.

The Ages of Mankind

Consider that Mankind left the natural organisation of survival of the fittest via technology, produced empires and those empires periodically crashed, whereas Christianity is a magnificent example of a social engineering goal that outlasted the Roman empire and a 1,000 years of the Dark Ages, and the Renaissance was a conscious goal to re-establish the finer points of Roman life. There is a difference between these two organisational situations where the first [civilisation] does not understand organisation and the second [religion] does, and for that simple reason empires crash. The end of the Renaissance era is apparent and is epitomised by physics retreating into measurement a hundred years ago and abandoning theoretical modern physics, and an example is, ‘use quantum mechanics, but don’t try to understand it’. Civilisation is riven by problems for which it does not have answers and I believe that that state of affairs comes from lacking goals that are necessary for social engineering to occur, but social engineering is the organisation that is hidden in Newtonian physics.

Notice that Newton was an Alchemist, a speciality that developed into chemistry and would he have expected that his simple laws of motion, that were applicable to a closed planetary system, would be used to try to describe the physical universe for the next 350 years? Are physicists mentally challenged? The answer must be yes, on three counts, firstly the poor quality of the social engineering of the physics ‘club’ or ‘creation myth’ that was required of physicists and secondly, the reduction of intelligence that comes with a restriction of concepts and thirdly, the problems of the generalisation of the laws of motion into the non-physical [relativity was lost when acceleration replaced the acceleration of gravity, another body, in Galileo’s absolute]. No wonder that modern physics was ‘shut down’ a hundred years ago! Physics possibly needs the ‘grass-roots’ help of the ‘spin-off’ disciplines, just as Christianity was the vehicle of change that converted the savagery of the time to ‘love your neighbour’.

Why did I send the first part of this paper that contained an example of particle physics to a theoretical physics journal [IJTP], and this paper that considers cosmology to a neuroscience journal, and the next paper [Don’t Do What Your Big Sister Done!] that shows why neuroscience will never understand the mind [in its present form] to Mind and Society? I am doing this because, except for the latter, all the journals are based on Newtonian physics and the only way to extend their thinking is to increase their concepts and context that are the successful resolution of problems outside of their thinking. Mind and Society is not based on Newtonian physics, but on the social engineering that is hidden from physics [by its incompleteness] as is the form, but not function, of the mind that is hidden from neuroscience [again by the incompleteness of modern physics]. Physics, based on Newtonian physics, and Christianity, based on the Bible, are enduring organisations that will have to be changed by the ‘grass-roots’ of social engineering, and the offshoots of physics must become the disciples of this new model if they want to attain the goal of saving society. I say this because every civilisation throughout history has collapsed and ours is beset by problems.

In other words, science and organisation are concepts that are independent but entangled [orthogonal] and the measurer is the mind and the mind measures the affordances of both, but if it asks questions that are wrongly based, as Newtonian physics does, it gets the wrong answers. [Physics has often wondered why experiments return a particle or waveform result depending on the experimental setup.] This model is complete and corrects Newtonian physics by extending it and that allows us to ask questions that return answers that do not [so far] have enigmas. Everything to do with the mind is based on context [affordances] and the creation equation [concepts and context] as the mathematics of concept-context, which is the language of speech and literature. Thus, neuroscience is mind and science and Mind and Society is mind and organisation, and affordances, through the mind, via the creation equation, bring them together, and further, the mind is the organisation of the energies created by the affordances from the organisation of each.

Homo sapiens is wise only in it’s own opinion and is destroying civilisation with it’s shortcomings, so, our goal [concept] is a capable Homo completus that has the attributes to attain a stable long-term civilisation [context] and that requires a better way of thinking [concept] and a general mathematical physics [context] built on this model. Thinking can be increased by multiple factors or dimensions [relativity and the bottom-up physical to augment the top-down current physics], but a goal is necessary, as outlined in an unpublished paper [Rationalising Management, Money And The Gifts Of The Ancient Greeks]. Saving civilisation means changing ourselves [in a fractal all levels are similar] and we need goals [Homo completus] and rational management if we are to have a future. The handling of the pandemic shows the incompetence of various governments and the simplicity of the medical solution of isolation is extremely disruptive which a modicum of organisation [such as quarantine] could prevent.

Conclusion

It is important to remember that whilst concepts and contexts are orthogonal, so are generalists and specialists and it could be said that specialists know practically everything about practically nothing, whereas generalists know practically nothing about practically everything and the examples, above, are indicative of that comment as is the siloing in universities and it can now be seen how important it is to not let siloing happen. I believe that our aim as a society is to improve ourselves and not let our civilisation be destroyed, as has always happened in the past and this requires organisation and could spell the difference between Homo sapiens and the goal of Homo completus. If the present hierarchy will not change, as is natural in nature, they will be side-lined.

Prediction

I know little of neuroscience, but I do know that it will not succeed in understanding the mind without this theory and I will give a final example using religion [social engineering, which is the organisation that is too difficult for Newtonian physics] because science is set in it’s unhelpful ways [like Sodom and Gomorrah] and this model gives the opportunity to leave [don’t look back] before civilisation, as we know it, is destroyed. Homo sapiens is mentally deficient and needs a goal [heaven] for everyone to work towards [social engineering of religion]. If you follow instructions [this model] you will find paradise [everything will become clear, Homo completus], but you must believe [this model] to ask the correct questions [affordances] to get the truth [the correct answers]. Religion [organisation] changed the savagery of the times [our society is destroying the planet] into ‘love your neighbour’ [compare today’s wars, murders etc.], but needs updating after 2,000 years. Christianity was so successful [especially with its weekly services] that it changed most of the world and is built on social engineering principles that is apparent using this model, starting with only a few disciples. Academic disciplines, working together could change the world!

The following important section appeared in the October issue, 2020, of Mind and Society [Can Affordances Save Civilisation?]. It has been expanded, but may not need to be included in the paper.

The 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 are necessarily created as infill to balance the necessary acceleration [relativity 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).

Other orthogonalities [independent, but entangled] are created that operate similarly to the absolutes, such as that the speed of a particle and the speed of a photon must not be the same [Einstein’s special theory of relativity] and Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, below, that tests the orthogonality of the creation equation and the dimensions. It is also important to note that other entities are products of the space, such as gravity, entanglement and logic from the creation equation and do not have speed restrictions such as the speed of light and organisation.

This theory explains cosmic inflation as well as predicting its form because the speed of energy and organisation is constant [an absolute] within the space that is accelerating. This might seem contradictory because it would seem that a constant speed is impossible in an accelerating space, but acceleration is relative because it contains time and so is orthogonal and completely independent of the speed [absolute] even though the universe [space] accelerates as the reciprocal of time with a possible singularity at time zero. Thus the form is hyperbolic explaining cosmic inflation at very small time and the accelerating universe for all time, decreasing, but never zero. The creation equation [energy plus organisation = zero] could be written as E=mi(squared) on the photon, where ‘i’ is the square root of -1, and E=mc(squared) off the photon [absolute three]. Notice that the infill [to balance the necessary acceleration] of the universe [E/t+O/t, all volume] is a constant.

Thus, the universe does not know that it exists until Life, as a measuring tool, creates itself and provides another view [relativity] and this can be seen in the ‘square’ of measurement [the creation equation (energy only for simplicity) on the photon is E=mi(squared), Einstein’s equation off the photon E=mc(squared), form of gravity E=mx(squared), Born’s rule, product of absolutes in the gravity equation etc.]. I believe that the ‘square’ is the reciprocity of relativity and shows a relationship between Life and the environment that is a true symbiosis because both come into existence at the same time. Thus, in an accelerating space [needed for the creation equation to logically exist], gravity is generated and in two or more dimensions, any point x, is measured as x(squared) [the relativity of the measurer and the universe] which could be viewed as a parabola y= x(squared), with constant acceleration, which shows that anything [energy or organisation] at x will orbit another anything [for relativity, Kepler’s laws]. Notice that everything at that point attracts [energy and organisation] and is the reason for the enigma that all weights fall at the same rate. [Galileo held that two masses with different weights (one dimension, absolute four), when let go, the accelerating space produces the same path for each]

Gravitation [in one dimension] is the product of the two absolutes:

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

Notice the product of the absolutes, so that the universe records our measurement, and that the ‘inverse square law’, as it is usually described, 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.

‘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 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?

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]. In other words, ‘i’ is imaginary, and does not exist, because relativity always exists and not because it does not make sense in mathematics.

So, Newtonian physics is a creation of the mind and has nothing to do with the physical [except that it uses the absolute force/mass = acceleration] 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, and clearly, organisation must be included, whereas the absolutes looks at the things that don’t change [invariants of the universe]. Notice that we have just extended Einstein’s special theory of relativity and also that information [concept] is necessarily constrained to the speed of light, something that has been a conjecture, also, Einstein’s theory shows the orthogonality of the speed of light and mass and what happens as in Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle when challenges to the fundamental structure of the universe are attempted. 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] due to the affordances that convert the organisation of the surroundings [given the measurer’s questioning] to emotional energy in the mind-brain that allows for decision making via the mathematics of concept-context. 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. 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.

“New Think” [concept] is a new complete way of thinking that uses the simplicity and ease of use of top-down traditional Newtonian physics with the bottom-up of the creation equation, relativity and the restrictions and a general mathematical physics [context] that creates a description of everything. This is not the ‘law’ of everything that requires peer review, it is literally everything and raises our thinking to a new level because a complete physics generates a social engineering [orthogonal to technology] that, in a fractal, offers improvements in personal, group and country involvement.

It is a property of a fractal that everything is simple, symmetrical and similar and Life enables the universe that is built on orthogonalities to discover itself through Life and be similar to the Christian God that is everywhere and knows everything because the universe has to be part of every measurement, but we need social engineering to determine the ethics [concept] to be used in religion [context] to derive an aim for civilisation.

References: no references are given as everything has been derived from first principles.