Don’t Do What Your Big Sister Done!

by Darryl Penney

Abstract: it is possible that the new modern offshoots of physics, such as neuroscience, cosmology, particle physics, etc. are being hampered by the actions of physics because physics is littered with enigmas and complications that create complexity, due I believe, to the inability of physics to move beyond Newtonian physics which is necessary because Newtonian physics does not describe the physical. Even worse, an incomplete physics is hiding social engineering that is relative to technology and prevents a proper appreciation of the organisation that might prevent society from collapsing, as has always happened in the past. This model simplifies examples in the above disciplines and shows the simplicity of a universe inherent in a fractal generated by a creation equation, and organisational improvements to the offshoots are suggested. The possibility that the universe is fractal means that errors can be propagated throughout society as an ‘organisational cancer’ and a new general mathematical physics [context] and a new software [concept] is needed for our existing brain that allows us to ask the correct questions to be able to attain the goal of ‘saving’ our civilisation in the long-term, and in particular, provide the goals that are currently missing.

Keywords: physics; thought; relativity; technology; creation equation, organisation

Overview

The title is reasonably apt and short, as a concept should be, but conceptually, it could be that physics is ‘nest clearing’ troubled offspring because neuroscience can’t find the mind, society is killing itself and the planet, cosmology has the riddle of the Big Bang, cosmic inflation and an expanding universe, whilst particle physics has hundreds of particles held together by theoretical gluons, further, the whole problem started a hundred years ago with quantum mechanics and those quotable words: ‘use it, but don’t try to understand it’. Physics has a version [Newtonian physics] that works somewhat, and is adequate for everyday use and physics appears content with it and is obviously leaving it up to the offspring to construct a new theoretical physics for a modern age, and I have a large number of papers rejected by theoretical physics that may help answer those questions and give answers, but it needs a multidisciplinary [contextual] approach. This relativity of generalist and specialist is written in the creation equation and cannot be avoided if the correct questions are to be asked and an example is the wave-particle duality [which is not two forms of energy, an explanation that satisfied the scientific community a hundred years ago].

Preamble

The universe is built out of concepts and contexts that are necessarily independent [through restrictions] and thus requires a mind-brain [a third orthogonality] to access both. Newtonian physics is probably based on Galileo’s experiments, but not understood and the concept [Newtonian physics] became separated from it’s context [relativity] and that is why it is incompatible with the physical and this incompleteness makes it impossible for the off-shoot disciplines to function properly. Society is based on the organisation that Newtonian physics does not consider [see below] and our lack of understanding contributes to the lack of control of today’s society, 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, below, is the number of concepts [learned facts, experiences] held in the mind-brain which determine the number of contexts available to consider the concepts and further, ‘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)

Thus, by continuing to use the thinking within Newtonian physics instead of a theory of modern physics a ‘cancer’ is introduced into the simple symmetry of the fractal [generates a new creation equation], the intellect of the physicist is compromised and physics presents a false model of the physical for the rest of science. An extended version of physics is given in this paper that includes the social engineering that is the organisation that is relative to technology and is it’s control, and it allows the social sciences to have the base that they need to be sciences. The world community provides billions of dollars to fund experiments that may be misdirected in the light of the examples that are highlighted below, and that organisation provides the ability to better manage society. Physics has an obligation to renew itself, because in loco parentis necessarily pervades Life, or, it can pass that responsibility to the new generation.

Preface

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 multidisciplinary approach is to be applauded, but it will not find it’s goal of the mind because the mind is not scientific, it is organisational which science, as physics, does not recognise explicitly. Hence the title, above, and so, solving the problem of finding the mind is impossible through this approach, but can be found simply from the creation equation.

The purpose of this paper is to try to prevent neuroscience from going down the track that physics went down because physics, as probably the basic science, has found it’s niche in Newtonian physics and resists change and this is the behaviour that we see in evolution where a change in the environment favours part of the gene pool and they form a new species and leave the old one to exist in its niche. The proof of this is, I believe, that physics closed itself off from modern physics a hundred years ago when it could not understand quantum mechanics. Change tends to move in ‘fits and starts’ that generated farming-technology, Newtonian physics in the Renaissance, and Christianity two thousand years ago that turned savagery into ‘love your neighbour’, and then they carry on resisting change. Notice that physics is based on energy, and religion is based on organisation and yet they are similar in effect and that is because they are entangled and the explanation of that entanglement requires the knowledge presented below.

In other words, physics is based on energy, is incomplete and also does not connect with the physical, which is why it cannot handle modern physics. Universities ‘silo’ [conceptualise] into departments and do not generalise, which is a weakness in research [even particle physics, below], whereas neuroscience is contextualising disciplines [becoming multidisciplinary] and that requires new skills. The physical world is unknown to science because Newtonian physics does not use the physical, below, and as the mind-brain relies on the physical, neuroscience cannot proceed in any meaningful way unless it uses a complete theory using chemistry [atoms and energy] and organisation, as is presented below as brain and mind respectively. Clearly the reader will want proof and that is given below in the sections: Why Newtonian Physics is Not Physical, Aspects of Organisation which details a new standard particle physics model, a possible resolution of the dark matter problem in cosmology, cosmic inflation and the accelerating universe, and also, The Form of the Universe which derives quantum mechanics, gravity etc.

Further, this paper shows that the thinking behind the definition of neuroscience, above, is highly biased towards energy in the form of atoms and energy [physiology, anatomy, molecular biology, developmental biology, cytology] and mathematical organisation [computer science and mathematical modelling], whereas, I will describe the physical organisation that cannot be described by any of the above. This is a serious accusation of a science built on Newtonian physics and it is made even worse by, I believe, mathematics being overly complicated [basically designed to count sheep and is not physically based] and is a special case of the mathematics of concept-context, that is the mathematics of literature, society, the mind etc. So, welcome to the physical, as I see it, and the world of affordances that allow us to think using emotion, the very same emotional energy that Newtonian physics ignores. The one virtue of this model that should be kept in mind is that I have yet to find an enigma, and one further point is that relativity [orthogonality] demands that a goal be set, and that goal can only be the creation of a new mind that contains a new software for the existing brain that increases it’s effectiveness. Thus, the disciplines above may not be needed urgently because the brain remains the same, but it is the organisation involving context that is important [but is missing] as the means of understanding society [social engineering] and preventing its collapse, as has always happened throughout history.

A New Way of Thinking

Homo sapiens is a product of the organisation of survival of the fittest and in that context could be considered wise enough to have moved out of that organisation through technology, but not wise enough to move to the next step, which is a stable society. That we are heading for disaster, as a society, is obvious, so what do we do about it? Consider, ‘information remains bewildering, partly because it crops up in different guises in so many scientific fields’ (Chance, ed. Michael Brooks, Paul Davies, p 21) and this thinking led to the development of Newtonian physics 350 years ago that was based on energy and neglected organisation, presumably for the reason above. Newtonian physics is simple, convenient and works, but is incomplete, by design, and that incompleteness is the problem because Newtonian physics is based on Galileo’s absolute that the gravitational force on a particle is proportional to its mass, see the section Why Newtonian Physics is Not Physical, below, compared to the creation equation of the universe [energy plus organisation equals zero] on which I am basing this paper, and further, as every endeavour must have a goal [relativity], we become Homo completus when we have rid ourselves of all the problems that plague civilisation.

Homo sapiens and Newtonian physics are similar to each other because both are transitions without our realising it and the basic problem is our lack in acknowledging relativity, which is, I believe, the working of the universe, see below. Our civilisation is in trouble and if we come out of our problems to attain a stable society, it will be because we are using a new way of thinking and that defines a new Homo classification. I think that this statement is justified because Homo sapiens cannot currently produce a successful transition to a stable society with the intellect that it has, and as an example, firstly, the simplification of the standard particle model that shows how easy it is to understand with the use of explicit organisation [speed] and secondly, using relativity and the bottom-up of the physical together with Newtonian physics [to create general mathematical physics] will increase intelligence [concept] possibly fourfold and create a complete context that is orthogonal [independent yet entangled] to thought.

Clearly, both the concept of thinking and this context [that I call general mathematical physics] must be used because they are relative and relativity allows the universe to function because orthogonalities are independent, but entangled with each other, and that action is thought, a combination of constraint [a restriction], to keep it under control [reach a conclusion], and context to ensure that it contains all possibilities. The creation equation produces a fractal universe that grows and it’s properties [acceleration] creates gravity that is the context that holds it all together and our mind, in a fractal, is similar, simple and symmetric and that makes it easy to understand when we use the correct software. Our mind-brain has grown over the last couple of million years to embrace technology and it now needs a new software [operating system] to control the organisation of that technology and an example is general mathematical physics and the expanded memory [random access] that we now have in the search engines of the internet. That we need a new software, and what it should be, is the subject of this paper.

The paper, [Can Affordances Save Civilisation?] appeared in Mind and Society [20(1), 107-110] and concerned the transfer of organisational affordances as emotion as a relativity between the environment and the mind through the creation equation. A second paper, The Mind, Society, Socrates, Social Engineering and Symbiosis has been submitted and describes my ideas [mathematics of concept-context] on the functioning of the mind, again using affordances and the same equation. This present paper is designed to define the concept of intelligence as the contexts of the concepts that it contains and in doing so, uses social engineering that is the organisation that Newtonian physics has been hiding and is the key to controlling technology that got us into this mess. If it looks a little like religion, it is because religion is social engineering that has lasted for thousands of years and we need a goal [Heaven, Homo completus] and a creation equation or creation myth that allows our civilisation to continue indefinitely without intervening Dark Ages.

Intelligence

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) I would like to suggest that intelligence is an exact science based on the creation equation, see Form of the Universe below, and is the application of the concept of the mathematics of concept-context where each concept [fact, experience etc.] that is held in the mind-brain has an affordance attached to it, where affordance is the level of the emotional energy created in the brain relative to the requirements of the measurer each time that the measurement is made. Affordances are the recognition of the organisation of the environment, but also have the same effect with stored memories, and the comparison of which, is thinking [concept] and the context is some general mathematical physics [composed of relativity, Newtonian physics and the physical].

‘Psychologist James J. Gibson developed the concept of affordance over many years, culminating in his final book The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception in 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. . . . This notion of intention/needs is critical to an understanding of affordance, as it explains how the same aspect of the environment can provide different affordances to different people, and even to the same individual at another point in time.’ (Wikipedia, Affordance) So, affordances are the mechanism [creation equation : energy plus organisation equals zero] that measures the organisation of the environment and also the measuring of stored memories and their emotion label. Thinking is making a decision on the emotion levels with reference to tribal mores, creation myths and the physical requirements of the body. Notice that the definition ‘same individual at another point in time’ must be broadened to include ‘mindset’ or ‘capabilities’, which is considered here because ‘garbage in, garbage out’ has occurred. To restate one of the goals of this paper, the universe cannot lie [absolute five] and if we change our mindset [software], the affordance will change, our intellect will change and we might be able to save our civilisation.

For example, the mind-brain uses the same process with regard to food in infancy, but with a time level. For about two years, the food intake is classed as ‘food’, whereas after that period, when all normal food varieties have been established, the decision is made to ‘close the books’ and other chemicals are treated as ‘foreign’ and require a reaction. This works well in the Palaeolithic when people did not move far in a lifetime and retained the ability to ‘open the books’ to new additions to the diet, such as increasing the tolerance to peanuts. So, the problem is that in our limited intellect, where Homo sapiens does what Homo sapiens wants to do, regardless of consequences, leads to the problems of allergies and other modern ‘diseases’ as well as excess population etc. Relativity requires a goal in management that must be suitable and attainable. That is why social engineering is so important, because we must ask the correct questions [otherwise, we get garbage in, garbage out], so, 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.’ (dictionary, Internet)

An example is Newtonian physics that appears to be based on Galileo’s experiments that force/mass equals acceleration of gravity that is generalised [and in so doing made non-physical] as Newton’s laws of motion, compared to the creation equation discussed here. In other words, by ignoring relativity Newtonian physics does not describe the physical, just as Homo sapiens has lost sight of the fact that our bodies and mind-brain evolved, but still require the conditions of the Palaeolithic, and like a snail is attached to it’s shell, we carry our evolution always within us. Physics ignores organisation as the price of it’s formulation having 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 in the creation equation, and if it is ignored [put constant, as above], the equation becomes the familiar basis of Newtonian physics that energy cannot be created or destroyed [a constant]. This model extends Newtonian physics, and in so doing, shows how our intelligence can be increased fourfold and we need it desperately to plan a viable future.

Social Engineering

Examples of social engineering are everywhere, such as schools, hospitals, public busses etc., so what is new? What is new is that these services supply a need and that is their goal, but it is the goal of the individual, not the overall goal of humanity. Satisfying the goal of one part, the individual, separate to the rest of the community [above] is possibly as bad as the incompleteness of physics and leads to extreme results, such as the standard particle model below or the uncontrolled population growth that is destroying the environment. However, we are fortunate that in a fractal, the different levels [person, group, country] work the same way [Adam Smith], but without completeness, how do we know what is occurring? This is the problem with top-down thinking and the same result happened with modern physics, a general paralysis of not knowing what to do leading to a 100 years of doing nothing, and it needs bottom-up, as this model is, to introduce overall perspective [relativity].

If social engineering is the concept, an overall perspective [context] requires that social engineering be firstly, equally important as technology because they must be in ‘lockstep’ [according to the creation equation], secondly, we must ask the correct questions to get the correct answers [using top-down and bottom-up], thirdly, we need intellect [the ability of the mind to reach correct conclusions about what is true and what is false] and fourthly, a goal to aim for [for relativity]. If the goal is the concept, we find ourselves in the same position that Socrates found himself in, but now society cannot solve the problem by ‘shooting the messenger’, as the ancient Greeks did [Socrates] because we have an organisational problem of over-population and requires an organisational solution that can only come from understanding social engineering.

Conclusion, Prediction and Perspective

It is difficult to consider the above to not be a present day movie script involving an Indiana Jones [as representing the 1930s action heroes] foiling a bumbling misguided conspiracy that endangers civilisation’s existence, but, even if we repair the ‘conspiracy’, we cannot go back to the ‘old’ way because we have a population explosion that is being held in check by agricultural technology and we need the orthogonality of social engineering to solve the problem of population growth. This is not without precedent in social engineering when one considers the birth of Christianity and like Christianity, the answer may have to come from the ‘grass root’ disciplines and that is why these papers have been configured to cross-reference each other. The concepts of academic disciplines might work together [general mathematical physics] to complete the organisation behind civilisation [just as the mind works], but the story must be told across current disciplines, that have the knowledge, if we are to hope for a complete and competent future.

The story so far: in Can Affordances Save Civilisation?, affordances were shown, via the creation equation, to provide an emotional response in the mind-brain to the organisational questioning of the environment, and in The Mind, Society, Socrates, Social Engineering and Symbiosis [submitted to Mind and Society] the working of the mind is considered as the hunt for the answer to Socrates’ questions [“What is loyalty?” etc.], which are not based on the physical, but are organisational and need social engineering which itself is the relativity of technology. The mind, as a third party, is the only way to consider orthogonal (independent) entities [as everything is, in the universe]. This current paper suggests that a ‘conspiracy’ has warped what we experience through the fractal nature of our society because Newtonian physics is incomplete and cannot ask the correct questions. The title ‘Don’t Do What Your Big Sister Done!’ refers to a plea that the semi-organisational disciplines, such as neuroscience do not follow a science that is incomplete and that does not access the physical and to develop a theory of modern physics perhaps based on this theory. The ‘lopsidedness’ is apparent when it is considered that social engineering is as important as technology and the examples [below] of the simplification that accrue with using a complete general mathematical physics.

The next episode: Plato suggested that rulers should be philosophers, but the personality of thinkers and doers seems to contain the same orthogonality as generalists and specialists and suggests the idea [behind the mind, mathematics of concept-context] of the Roman Consuls [each with orthogonal credentials and veto] may allow us to best attain a generally agreed goal that evolves a humanity such that extraterrestrials might want to visit us. However, the so-called ‘free world’ says that a Democracy is the best system, but are they manipulating us, or simply misguided?

Afterview: organisation is complicated unless the correct creation equation is used and I have cited the simplicity of the physical creation equation, but the creation equation of physics is too complicated and is causing our society to come to grief and, I believe, that social engineering, based on a new way of thinking is necessary to avoid another Dark Age created by unrestrained population growth.

Why Newtonian Physics is Not Physical

[this rest of this section is reproduced from an unpublished paper Why Are Physicists So Mentally Challenged?]

Galileo’s law of motion [an absolute that F/m=a is the force (F) on a mass (m) due to the constant acceleration due to gravity (a)] was, possibly generalised by Newton and the reason that Newtonian physics works, in the main, is because it is based on an absolute in a relative universe, such as we have. In other words, Newtonian physics works because it uses the form of this bottom-up derivation without the reasoning behind the creation [only the measurement], and the reason that it does not work properly is because it is different to the absolute that this model uses, which is, energy plus organisation equals zero. This becomes energy/organisation=i(squared), where ‘i’ is the square root of (-1) compared to F/ma=1. This is the point where Newtonian physics departs from the physical and disregards relativity. The similarity is obvious, but the physical requires the use of energy [not force] because force requires a determination of ‘how much’ and depends on the measurer, ‘ma’ is an organisation and ‘i squared’, I believe, signifies a relativity that must always exist [both states (of ‘i’) are ‘imaginary’ without measuring relativity].

Does force [‘F’] have a physical meaning, in spite of the above? Yes it does, because relativity, as above, only exists if the relatives are kept apart [accelerating universe, celestial mechanics], but celestially, relativity acts as a pair of measurers that use the effect of the accelerating space [that we call gravity] to keep two bodies orbiting each other [in a stable state]. Thus ‘F’ is the ‘gravitational attraction’ [of energy and organisation] that causes quantum gravity [the dimensions of energy plus organisation divided by the separation [an absolute]] to be what each measures and so the gravity equation is the multiplicand of the absolutes of each body. Thus, Newtonian physics moves into the non-physical world [no relativity] in considering the motion of a [one] particle [F=ma]. Newton ‘inspire guessed’ [meaning that he could not derive] the law of gravitation and this was ‘corrected’ by Einstein who added organisation to double the effect [of Newton’s equation] by postulating a ‘curvature of space’ [rubber sheet analogy]. That this analogy produced exactly an equal amount of attraction as did the masses [twice the effect of Newton’s equation] did not appear to be questioned, presumably because this was ‘justified’ [gave the correct answer] by experiment [Eddington’s observations] and physics tolerated this, but quantum mechanics was ‘a step too far’. In fact, the ‘rot set in’ when the wave-particle duality was considered to be two forms of energy [which they are not, from the creation equation].

Quantum mechanics is simply the application of the creation equation that physics calls the wave-particle duality and examples are given below, but much more importantly Newtonian physics is based on energy with a little organisation thrown in, when necessary, 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). Clearly, physics does not understand that organisation is relative [orthogonal] to energy, and with energy, creates the universe. In other words, physics is only considering half [energy] of the form of the universe and only half [top-down] of its operation [organisation]. Thus, if these four possibilities were dimensions, the software of our brain is only using one dimension instead of four dimensions and if we consider mathematics as an example, the difference in scope of point, line, area and volume is similar to what happens to our thinking in this model.

Aspects of Organisation

Four examples are given that illustrate the simplicity that comes from a complete model that allows firstly, I believe, a significant simplification to the atomic particle model, secondly, the use of the completeness of the model to understand dark energy and thirdly, a simple explanation of cosmic inflation, gravity and the expanding universe. Fourthly, the universe becomes the simple place of quantum mechanics that the fifth absolute requires and the resultant knowledge increases, not just our intelligence, but our intellect.

Firstly, energy and organisation are necessarily orthogonal concepts and have contexts and there are names for different types of energy [potential, kinetic etc.], and the same applies to organisation and I would like to mention a simplification from a paper The Standard Particle Physics Model Versus Modern Physics that has been sent to IJTP that shows the effect of simplification.

Concept: everything is relative and energy plus organisation equals zero in everything, so this representation 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 the (so-called) gravity in everything that affects everything as gravity and internally as quantum gravity [(energy plus organisation) divided by separation relative to something else]. In other words, all particles, that we call energy [photon] and what we call mass [neutrinos, protons etc.] are all composed of energy and organisation and the thing that makes them different is their speed and further, each particle is nothing [zero] if the universe stops accelerating.

[It is important to realise that this description and the standard model do not differ substantially (conceptually) from each other, because F/ma=1 is similar to the creation equation, below, but organisationally (contextually) the difference is great because the accelerating universe creates the effects of (what we call) gravity, whereas physics uses a construct that they call gravitons: ‘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!’, see below.]

Context: plus [tier 1]: quarks up and down [no speed relative to the particle]

proton, electron [less than light speed]]

neutrinos assorted [less than but extremely close to light speed

photon [light speed]

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

Notice that the speed of the neutrinos occupy the only available speed ‘slot’ that is between the asymptote of the allowable speed of particles and the speed of light, as well as the changing form of the neutrinos being an organisational possibility to minimise any broadening of the speed ‘slot’ [a possibility within the logic of the half-truth that avoids chaos].

Secondly, the following example is a simplification from an unpublished Deriving The Mind and shows that the containment of a fractal is completeness that allows closure, as does the postulate of virtual particles. 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. 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.

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. In other words, physics is a top-down creation that does not access the physical and is complicated by being excessively simple and this is shown by the requirement that energy cannot be created nor destroyed..

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) 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.

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 leads 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. In other words, the number of virtual particles is simply illustrated by the [gravitational] shape of the galaxies. The logic of the half-truth is simply all possibilities: true, false, true and false with restrictions, and chaos. An interesting point is how the universe uses the third term: an accelerating space for the creation equation to exist, wave-particle duality [wave and particle are the same] with speed differentiating, there is no reason that virtual particle cannot be created, but presumably the antimatter component meets an opposite eventually, but in the meantime, both contribute to gravity. [The creation caused cosmic inflation, whereas today with existing gravity, ‘random walk’ insures recombination (another restriction).]

Thirdly, using the third absolute, that the speed of light [energy plus organisation] is a constant, the requirement of acceleration [for the creation equation to exist] is a hyperbola [inverse of time] that requires high accelerations at the beginning [cosmic inflation] and a continuing acceleration dropping towards zero with time.

Fourthly, I believe that with this model we attain a human intellect that cannot be surpassed and that is the aim and requirement to the goal of a Homo completus.

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.