Rationalising Management, Money And The Gifts Of The Ancient Greeks

by Darryl Penney

Abstract: a new mathematical model is suggested that treats the universe as a fractal, derives gravity and quantum mechanics as well as social engineering that quantifies emotional energy and rationalises management. On the other hand, management is a function of life and requires a symbiosis with the environment [context] and a new way of thinking [concept] that includes the physical because, in a fractal, everything is simple, similar and symmetrical, so, it may be possible to use this model to organise our current society that is clearly not working successfully and transform it, by rationalising politics, into the system that we need for a sustainable future. Management is currently considered an art, but it should be a rational and accountable science based on the same principles as physics in a fractal, but unfortunately Newtonian physics does not access the physical and is not complete and this model attempts to rectify this oversight by showing that the oversight is the social engineering that is lacking in the software of the planning needed for a modern world. A set of rules is derived for a rational management which shows that democracy is a political tool and is severely deficient in management and yet it is delusionaly self-lauded as the best system of government. The ancient Greeks put us on the wrong road and it is necessary for us to re-trace our steps because rationalising management shows what is necessary for us to do to succeed as a civilisation.

Keywords: management; democracy; social engineering; fractal universe; rules of management; mathematics of concept-context

Preface

This is a new way of thinking that adds new insights into what we currently believe and also to what we need to believe to become successful and to become symbiotic with our environment, and as an simple example, to show how bottom-up thinking clarifies our thoughts, we have been told that banks create money [top-down] by economists, but we are never told exactly ‘how this comes about?’. The ‘exactly’ is the difference between bottom-up ‘exact’ thinking and the ‘woolly’ thinking that we evolved with. Money is a magnificent human invention, and I want to show that how banks create money [bottom-up] aligns with this new way of thinking. So, where does the money come from? Considering the universe as a fractal that is generated from relativity solves the problem because the creation equation created the universe from nothing to form energy and organisation that must be kept apart, and the banks create money and anti-money in the same way [from nothing] and lend out money and keep the anti-money on their books. Restrictions are necessary and occur in both cases as an accelerating space and fractional reserve banking, and without restrictions, firstly, the universe becomes chaotic and secondly, hyperinflation occurs. Money is not a human invention because, in a fractal, as I believe that our universe is, it is based on the same principles as the physical and the same applies in social engineering, of which, management is a vital part and further, money is a vital part of management because it is the carrot that goes with the proverbial stick. This new model aligns our thinking with the simplicity of a fractal viewpoint to improve our way of thinking, and the software of our thinking must include the management of a symbiosis of the physical and people.

Preamble

Afordances link the organisation of the environment to the mind-brain [as a precursor to thought] with the proviso that the measurement required has to be specified [smell, sight etc.] in order for the measurement to be defined, and this measurement requirement is restricted by the measurer’s abilities. In other words, this determination of management of the mind-brain is a relativity of the organism’s intellect and abilities [concept] and its seeking [context] and this follows from the belief that the universe is a fractal and operates on relativity and the form of the universe is composed of the non-relativities that can be simply derived by considering the divisions of the dimensions, below [the relativities cancel].

Another paper, [but not yet accepted by Mind and Society, The Mind, Society, Socrates, Social Engineering and Symbiosis], shows that a lack of fundamental relativity originated, in our society, with the pre-Socratic Greeks and has been carried forward with top-down musings for 2,500 years and even into Newtonian physics which has been used to try to understand modern physics. In other words, an incomplete mental software has created a flawed society, but now a better means is apparent by using a new way of thinking. This new way of thinking consists of concepts and contexts and this paper attempts to outline a rational complete way of thinking, based on the creation equation that allows a double orthogonality of relativity and organisation.

Management seems to be more of an art than a science, at present, but I will try to show how rationality can be applied to management and change that art into a science by a new way of thinking. This might be difficult to believe, considering that management is organisation, but by adding organisation to an incomplete physics a new ‘playing field’ is revealed by the creation equation that I call social engineering and that allows us to use the entanglement of the fractal.

The First Step of Management

In the second paragraph, the measurer defines the scope of measurement, and clearly, the larger the scope, the more information is gained from the measurement. [An example might be the evolution of improved sight produced ‘action at a distance’ that may have increased the scope of the mind-brain and possibly produced the ‘explosion’ of forms in the Cambrian Era] The value of the scope is related to the size, ability and ‘enquiringness’ of the mind and there can be little doubt that a human derives more information, of a different nature, than say, a mosquito does. Hence, this reason is the rationality of why large salary packages are offered to top executives and confounds arguments to the contrary by shareholders [the more money, the better value outcome for them].

Thus rule 1: use appropriate executives to produce the appropriate answers.

But, what is appropriate? Consider paragraph three, should one choose an executive that uses current [top-down] thinking, or should one look for the person that is suggested in this paper, and that is one that uses the sideways relativity, the top-down and bottom up organisational relativity and bearing in mind truths such as that the universe is accelerating in its expansion [creation equation], or that the old are reluctant to change unless given good reason [in ecology, many parents are sessile, whilst the young are motile to seek new opportunities]. This is suggesting that the chairperson should be a generalist, supported by specialists.

Rule 2 might be: select appropriate managers, remembering that there are two types, specialists and generalists, that they think differently [orthogonal] and that the chairperson should be a generalist.

Management is a subject that is not currently well defined analytically and yet it’s use is basic to Life [concept] and ubiquitous [context] in survival of the fittest. For example, survival of the fittest depends on managing measurement, and, in spite of a mountain of technical books spread over 2,500 years, our civilisation is about to collapse through over-population and the cause is clearly mismanagement, but now, using this new model, the problem may become solvable. Consider, from above, that our intellect is not ‘up to the job’, and unfortunately, this could be true because we think like the animals that have thought top-down over 3,000 million years and we are trying to apply this to a new type of civilisation brought about by technology. Thus, this paper is about the determination of management that works for a new society and necessarily needs a new way of thinking to go with a new way of operating. It is not a ‘style of management’ that is needed, but a new way of thinking that increases the ‘thinking power’ of our existing mind by changing the software used in the brain.

This is so important that I will repeat it. Our existing brain can handle survival of the fittest, but technology has moved us out of the restrictions imposed within survival of the fittest that keeps everything in check, into a civilisation of our own making that we cannot control [the proof today is obvious]. This paper endeavours to provide a new way of thinking that may allow us to control our man-made environment, because, if it doesn’t, our civilisation will collapse, and I think that all will agree that we are heading that way. Clearly, to control this new society requires a new way of thinking [concept], a new understanding of processes [context] and a goal to reach.

Rule 3 might be: that no person can be both a specialist and a generalist because of the structure of relativity.

Can a well-rounded board dispense with the generalist? No, because their presence is a logical requirement. ‘In his 1972 classic, Victims of Groupthink, the psychologist Irvin Janis …. explored the decision making that went into both the Bay of Pigs invasion and the Cuban missile crisis …. after the fiasco, Kennedy ordered an enquiry …. recommended changes to the decision making process …. participants were to speak not only as specialists in their area of expertise, but as generalists, with a licence to question anything.’ (The Third Industrial Revolution, Jeremy Rifkin, p 195)

Clearly, as above, specialists cannot act as generalists and the proposed solution was flawed and remains flawed to this day, and the ramifications of this example are appalling because a so-called superpower initiated a fiasco because its decision-making was deficient and the solution to that poor decision-making, that specialists act as generalists, breaks an absolute truth that is in the same league as quantum mechanics and relativity. How can civilisation be repaired if basic truths are misunderstood?

Goals are Necessary

The International Journal of Economics, Finance and Management Sciences was kind enough to show interest in my work and that journal could be a suitable vehicle to effect the above as a goal. This ‘reaching-out’ [measurement] is vital because it is a context that enumerates a concept [affordance] of a goal that I can identify with, and this simple statement is the determination of management. For example, in physical terms relativity says that the present requires a past and a future. [This requirement appears to be used by religion to achieve longevity] In terms of our present society, no goals are apparent or specified and the first requirement of management is the goal for the future. Thus, social engineering requires us to aim for a society with no wars, murders, thievery etc. and that is possible because a fractal is simple, symmetrical and similar and we have to work to that goal through economic and financial means. This also means that the individual, family, state and country all function the same way [as Adam Smith determines in Economics] and it also says that one World government is not stable. Other examples might be that competition is considered healthy, whereas a monopoly is not, and again, civilisations collapse, whereas religions persist with goals.

Thus, rule 4 might be: must have stated goals.

Creation Equation

Management has always seemed be a ‘seat of the pants’ endeavour, but the use of the creation equation allows an ‘anchoring’ of our management ideas, so that we have firstly, a concept of what we wish to do and a context of how we intend doing it. Secondly, two goals are necessary, as above, a past start-up and something to attain in the future [creating a rational space]. Thirdly, the above four rules are simple and could mostly be accessed top-down, but the creation equation, as a description of the physical is strange to us, but then we know that relativity is the most fundamental concept because it’s context is to produce two ‘somethings’ [from nothing] that are stable, and they are stable only if they are continually moving away from each other, and our universe is just that – energy, organisation and acceleration. This can be written as the creation equation [energy plus organisation equals zero with the restriction of being in an accelerating space that adds length, time and gravity] and this is a fractal that generates concepts and contexts and the accelerating space produces an attraction between everything in the field [gravity]. [This requires justification (ignoring organisation for simplicity): E=mi(squared) on the photon, E=mc(squared) off the photon and E=mx(squared) in the field, which is a parabola, E energy, m mass, x position, c is the absolute (speed of light), below, and ‘i’ is the square root of ‘-1’] Notice that in this model, the creation equation defines the form of gravity as well as the absolutes of attraction because gravity is an organisation [parabolic] and its magnitude is determined by the absolute [quantum gravity] that is the ratio of the dimensions, below.

Physics is based on energy with a ‘side-plate’ of organisation that is not really included and this incompleteness adds difficulty and confuses our thinking because it is top-down only, whereas the determinants of management are shown to be physical, above, as well as a basic part of Life because it is illogical to expend energy to produce competitors [offspring] for our living space, but we do it because we want the species to continue, however, we are now producing too many people because of this, and threatening our civilisation’s existence. Do we have the determination of management [concept] to prevent it, and do we have the skills of management [context] to be able to fix it? Obviously not. Problems are the same at every level in a fractal, so, by solving this problem, we solve all problems, and that is the purpose of this paper. So, how do we proceed? Go to the creation equation [energy plus organisation equal zero] and clearly, it is the organisation that is the problem, after all, we can easily (just) affect the energy. If we ignore organisation [put it constant as physics does], energy becomes constant [conserved] and produces the law of conservation of energy in physics. In other words, physics [technology] has been functioning without realising that some necessary measures of control are missing.

Thus, rule 5 might be: always be aware that the real physical always exists [Newtonian physics is not physical, it is a convenience (Force = mass times acceleration approximates to the creation equation, but is not the same and is more complex].

Social Engineering

If physics is based on energy, the accompanying organisation could be called social engineering and is equal in size to all the technology that we use [phones, TV, houses, cars, clothes, agriculture etc.] and yet has been ignored as a discipline. There are, of course, many social disciplines, such as medicine, social housing, schools etc., but no overall concept tying them together, and as above, a goal is paramount if we want to attain something [concept] and if we want to attain something, we have to work towards it [context], but, we have to know how this social engineering works. So, back to the creation equation because in a fractal, that is the original generator.

The first four rules appear a little strange, but could be justified by top-down thinking, but there is an underlying thread of rationality that is made apparent by considering the creation equation, after all, in a fractal, everything is simple, symmetric and similar, and that simplifies this model. The five rules, above, are derivations of the creation equation and are provided because they must be used every time, simply because, for example, no one in their right mind would manage without a goal in mind. However, the point is just that, I believe that people are not in their ‘right’ mind and need a change in the software of their thinking. For example, ‘in 1972, a book, Limits to Growth made headlines and went on to become the best-selling environmental book of all time.’ (The End of Growth, Richard Heinberg, p 4) ‘A recent study by Australian Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) concluded, “[Our] analysis shows that 30 years of historical data compares favorably with key features of [the Limits to Growth] business-as-usual scenario. . . .” ( p 5) and yet ‘instead of more, we must strive for better; rather than promoting increased economic activity for its own sake, we must emphasize that which increases quality of life without stoking consumption. One way to do this is to reinvent and redefine growth itself.’ (p 21)

This quotation points out that an aim of continual growth in population and consumption is unsustainable and so bizarre that there must be a truth along the lines of ‘there is none so blind as will not see’ occurring here and I believe that it could be that universities are not recognising ‘siloing’ [departments of concept without context], are not wishing to change their ways [a truth], or that individuals, families and the population in general [fractal] are not willing to change, or, and that is the reason for this paper, do not understand what they are doing wrong. Fear of change occurs unless goals are set in place that show the way and are agreed upon. Democracy and the market place are dependent on the creation equation [with restrictions] and rationality is a big factor in changing beliefs. In other words, the process behind management is the same manipulation of the mathematics of concept-context that occurs in the mind-brain. [Notice that traditional mathematics is a special case based on counting sheep.]

Thus, rule 6 might be: changing opinion requires demonstrating rationality using the mathematics of concept-context.

The Mathematics of Concept-context

Consider any two concepts, such as energy and organisation, and they must be orthogonal, which is a more technical term for relativity because they must be independent at all times [hence the accelerating space], and yet entangled at the origin [time zero]. This is the familiar Cartesian system of dividing something into independent parts and leads to Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle [position (organisation) and momentum (energy) cannot be measured exactly because doing so, violates the creation equation (that they be independent)], or Einstein’s special theory of relativity [speed of mass (consider organisation) cannot equal the speed of light (consider energy)]. These two examples are indicative of the many restrictions that occur in the form of the universe’s functioning.

To consider organisation, our thinking must change, because for 3,000 million years we have thought like the animals thought, and that is top-down. The fact that physics has done this same thing, by trying to describe modern physics in terms of Newtonian physics, shows that this does not work. Quantum mechanics is simple when described as this model describes it, and as an example, the law of gravitation is derived through the absolutes by this method below, whereas it has never been derived, even by heavyweights like Newton and Einstein because their physics is incomplete. Our thinking must change to include relativity, firstly the sideways relativity of orthogonality and secondly, the vertical orthogonality of top-down and bottom-up organisation.

Over millions of years our brain grew in size and perhaps complexity, until about 50,000 years ago humanity passed a threshold when the mind/brain was presumably able to consume enough energy [glucose] to produce enough organisation [thought] so that there was sufficient left over to produce cave-paintings, religion, ceremonials etc. Further, our civilisation has recently become much more complex, but we seem to be able to handle telephones, computers, social media etc. In other words, our mind/brain has done a good job of coping with modern life by changing the ‘hardware’ of the brain whilst continuing with the archaic thinking that we evolved with. Like a computer, the hardware is the physical structure, which is energy [atoms could be thought of as being the condensation of energy], and the software is the organisation. If our current thinking, as evidenced by physics, mathematics etc. is top-down and can be though of as one dimensional, this new way of thinking could be considered to be four dimensional [top/bottom and sideways] and it is unique because it is based on the creation equation. Note that I am using dimensions as orthogonals, not as coordinates, as physics does.

Symbiosis

A new way of thinking [“New Think”, concept] employs a context where everything is entangled that I call general mathematical physics that employs relativity, but how does it work? When we measure, we necessarily increase the organisation of the surroundings [because the environment recognises us] and the same amount of energy [creation equation] is produced in the mind, because it is being measured [affordances] and that affordance has a value. [For simplicity, think relativity.]Thus, when thinking abstractly, two concepts [retained as a string of action potentials] are considered [measured] that produce two affordances [the measurement] and the two values [emotion] are compared [in intensity], so a decision can be made on which is best, given the parameters of the measurement. This is, I believe, the mechanics of thinking and the comparison is the management of the concepts, that are independent and the affordances must be measured by a third party [Life].

The physics of measurement is contained in the creation equation, but the universe is the ‘set’ that contains the ‘set’ of us and, as Bertram Russel found, an anomaly occurs and a similar situation happens where the universe exists with parts that are orthogonal and independent. 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) 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 [both come into existence at the same time] symbiosis.

‘Gradually, however, “improvement” and “progress” came to mean “growth” in the current economic sense of the term – abstractly, an increase in gross Domestic Product (GDP), but in practical terms, an increase in consumption. A key to this transformation was the gradual deletion by economists of land from the theoretical primary ingredients of the economy . . . . This was one of the refinements that turned classical economic theory into neoclassical economics’. (p 36) This simplification in economics is similar to that which occurred in mathematics and physics and is a possible cause of the problems that have arisen as a result of the top-down thinking that has been used for 3,000 million years [see the third paragraph]. ‘Taking things for granted’ occurred in physics [peer review] as well as ignoring the environment, as above, and in religion where, I believe that the Holy Spirit, in the Trinity was originally the environment.

Thus rule 7 might be: always keep an ‘open’ mind and include the environment [universe].

Whilst the universe requires restrictions to keep it functioning, it does function in a precise and unique way [absolute five], whereas humans include Kant’s apprehensions that are those that our body can measure, our mind can calculate [based on the creation equation] and anything else is fantasy [see the third paragraph]. Hence, Life makes mistakes [as in the Bay of Pigs example above] as well as fantasy and this fact must always be held in mind.

Thus, rule 8 might be: apply Kant’s apprehensions with the physical.

The ‘Game-changers’

Currently, a states-person is one who sets a path that benefits everyone, but their thinking [top-down] is currently flawed and their ‘call to arms’ is a gamble, and that is presumably why we see so few long-term effective leaders. However, that situation changes with this new way of thinking and by using this model, we can set goals that everyone can agree with, and the role of finance is to effect change in people by satisfying wants in exchange for goals [money equates to the gaining of wants in the market-place]. However, the relative is also true that wants can be changed by applying money and finance is a means that social engineering can use to change wants to worthwhile goals. Our civilisation is crippled because we lack the goals needed to use social engineering, as Christianity did 2,000 years ago by changing savagery to love, but how do we agree on those goals? The drive has to be generated, and Homo sapiens does that to survive as a species by nurturing offspring, but this has led to problems with population controls and we need a new way of thinking to solve this. Fuel [energy], organisation and finance are ‘game-changers’ and we used energy to get where we are today, but the other two can perhaps fix the problems that it generated, but that will have to be left for the future.

Rule 9 might be: a leader has to have sufficient determination, as well as knowledge, a plan and the means to carry it out.

Conclusion

Management appears to consist of two parts, a rational physical part and a part that allows a symbiotic relationship with nature, and as such, needs a complete understanding to become effective, and if we are to save civilisation, management must work a lot better in the future. Economics should offer hope, by using finance to produce social engineering on all levels, but it must be managed with, I believe, an improved intelligence. In other words, physics is based on energy and is a measuring science and that is what it does by its own choosing [for example,’use quantum mechanics, but don’t try to understand it’], whereas economics and all of the social sciences are organisational and need to derive results from the creation equation that are not applicable to physics [as economics historically found] and, in a fractal, solving society’s problems requires solving the individual’s, the family’s and the country’s problems at the same time.

Thus rule 10 might be: the individual’s, family’s, country’s and world’s problems are related through the properties of a fractal and require similar solutions [so called ‘kitchen-table’ economics].

The Story of Philosophy by Bryan Magee shows how Socrates initiated modern philosophy with questions that have never been answered. ‘We need, from the bottom up, to carry out a radical reappraisal of our morals and our values on the basis of beliefs that we do not genuinely hold. This is a hair-raising challenge, and one of fundamental urgency in an increasingly irreligious world. . . . in the opinion of many it is the most important philosophical question that confronts us today.’ (p 177) Philosophy appears to be incomplete and it is not alone because physics and mathematics are similarly incomplete and the reason, I believe, is that they are being considered top-down, which goes against the relativity of our fractal universe, upon which, everything is based. That these disciplines believe themselves to be complete, and probably wish themselves to be complete [it involves established careers], complicates matters.

Economics is social philosophy, according to Richard Heinberg [not physics as it once tried to emulate], and economists tend to have multiple theories, as would be expected top-down, but they are ignoring relativity and need bottom-up to agree and move forward. Agreement is the context of management [the concept] and is orthogonal to the siloing of the universities and this shows that democracy, that was so lauded by the ancient Greeks that we use it today, is a management farce. How can we manage, when (perhaps) 49% disagree with the proposed goal! That is not management, that is ‘keeping chaos under control’ by calling the result ‘fair and justified’! This, I believe, is a serious allegation to make against a political system used by billions of people that was supposed to have originated with the ancient Greek philosophers, but that will have to wait. We should have been more wary of the ancient Greek’s ideas on democracy and Plato’s and Aristotle’s philosophical ideas that have influenced our society for millennia [see paragraph three].

Thus rule 11 might be: the management team must be unanimous in their agreement that they have found the optimum set of preferences by using the mathematics of concept-context to manage affordances for every person represented by the team.

Firstly, mathematically, optimum presumably means that the sum total of the affordances is maximal and that some people may be worse off, but the symbiosis between the physical and Life allows the use of finance to compensate those that a decision makes ‘worse off’ because the essence of management is to satisfy all parties.

Thus rule 12 might be: money is a balancing tool to ensure that good management occurs.

Secondly, the creation of money, in the example above, is using one side of a relativity [and it is very successful] and the same must be done with planning because the use of both sides, of the relativity, leads to ‘two dogs fighting over a bone’, which is, of course, survival of the fittest. Democracy is the ‘old’ way of survival of the fittest, whereas planning is the new way and requires a states-person, a management panel or a ‘goal-based’ leadership in a fractal universe.

Thus rule 13 might be: democracy is divisive and has no place in management, nor kings, queens, strongmen etc. for different reasons [lack of expertise etc.] and King Arthur’s “round table” is closer to the management proposed here, which is, I believe, (somewhat) rational by using a generalist [the King] and (somewhat) relevant specialists [the knights].

Prediction: ‘when discussion turns to the economy, most of the ensuing talk tends to focus on money – prices, wages, and interest rates. Yet as important as money is to economics, energy is even more basic. Without energy, nothing happens – quite literally. Energy is not just a commodity; it is the prerequisite for any and all activity. No energy, no economy.’ (The End of Growth, Richard Heinberg, p 106)

Thus rule 14 might be: the creation equation underlies everything through entanglement and energy [fuel], organisation and restrictions as well as the symbiosis with the environment must always be kept in mind.

So, what is the likely fate of our global civilisation? A transfer to renewable energy is desirable, but the creation equation says that energy and organisation are linked, so, what are we doing about organisation? The political system is ludicrous as a management system and the ancient Greeks took the wrong path that we have continued on and we have not even answered Socrates’ questions, until, I believe, now, as somewhat contained in this paper. It could be said that just as the universe needed Life to create it, society needs finance [or barter] to be created to control it and fuel [energy], organisation and finance are ‘game-changers’.

‘A few critics (primarily advocates of gold-backed currency) have called fractional reserve banking a kind of Ponzi scheme, and there is some truth to this claim. As long as the real economy of goods and services within a nation is growing, an expanding money supply seems justifiable, arguably necessary.’ (p 33) [Remember that money is an illusion and created from nothing, but the goods and services that it produces, remains.] Growth keeps everyone occupied in gaining wealth and makes for a generally content society, but the creation equation says that looking after oneself [concept] at any level precludes looking after others [context], and given that religion tries to rectify this, there must be organisational changes. For example, survival of the fittest says that the less-fit should be eliminated, religion says to let them breed indiscriminately, whereas social engineering could suggest using finance to change ideas so that we voluntarily reach goals where people’s personalities are changed and police and jails are not needed, nor armies and, even extraterrestrials might want to visit. [A start has been made to close the science-religion divide in the reference in the third paragraph.]

Our bodies have evolved through symbiotic relationships, for example, mitochondria that provide our energy and the bacteria in our gut provide food from the indigestible remains in the colon. ‘We are more microbial than we are human . . . . while the genes associated with these microbes outnumber the human gene count by 100 to one. This realisation has given rise to the idea of the human body as a superorganism possessed of a “distributed intelligence” . . . . exemplifies the notion of collaboration and of putting the interests of the whole above self-interest’. (Eating Ourselves Sick, Louise Stephen, p 103) So, why not become symbiotic with the universe and consider the environment through the software of organisation? This would be a worthwhile goal that is a win for everyone and doesn’t stop offspring doing as they wish and this is the context of a new better thinking human [with a new software], perhaps Homo sapiens sapiens?

Overview: firstly, the above derivation of management from the bottom-up indicates how the use of democracy must be changed if we are to control civilisation so that it has a future, and how easy it is to follow the wrong path top-down. Secondly, The End of Growth suggests that economics is about to need a re-design in a changing world and a new way of thinking might be useful that considers entanglement. Thirdly, in a fractal, entanglement is both physical and part of Life because the personality of the individual determines the functioning of the organisation [of Life] and must be controlled. I have been calling the entanglement ‘general mathematical physics’, but physics does not explain enigmas, such as ‘why the speed of light is constant?’, as this model does, and perhaps the time has come to call the context ‘entanglement’ or ‘general economics’ because finance is the tool of our organisation and we can leave physics to it’s measurement. Fourthly, the above is about rationality, but relativity requires accountability and that must always be kept in mind.

Consider the ‘”sports rorts” affair, also called the McKenzie Scandal, is a scandal named for the many similarities it has to the sports rorts affair that occurred under the Keating Government in 1993-1994. The report had two main conclusions: the award of grant funding was not informed by an appropriate assessment process and sound advice and the successful applications were not those that had been assessed as the most meritorious in terms of the published program guidelines. The outcomes of the report resulted in extensive media coverage due to Senator Bridget McKenzie, the then Minister for Sport in the Morrison Government, using her ministerial discretion to favour marginal or targeted electorates in the allocation of grants in the lead up to 2019 Australian federal election. (Wikipedia, Sports rorts affair (2020))

Rule 15 might be: that rationality and accountability are relative and necessary, and should be recorded [as justification or aberration] as the values of the affordances assigned to each concept that was considered in the management decision.

Rule 16 might be: that we need to work on the individual [if aberration occurs], in both a social sense [teaching, religion, family etc.] as well as a genetic sense [use finance to persuade the less fit to not breed] so as to provide a goal for a truly civilised humanity that is symbiotic with the environment.

However, rationality is a concept that requires completeness as a context because a lack of completeness produces the possibility that magical happenings might occur and that is against absolute five.

Thus rule 17 might be: politicians, organisations and everyone must be ‘state-persons’ that have a stated [over-arching] goal that benefits civilisation, as a whole [through finance, if necessary] in the long-run, is rational, recorded according to the mathematics of concept-context and complete and includes the environment as a symbiosis.

Christianity has Heaven and ‘Nirvana is basically the extinguishing of the fires of greed, hatred, and delusion’ [internet], and forms an important part of Eastern religions and the goal of the personal part of social engineering is ‘anti-ageing’ [that consists of state-of-mind, nutrition and exercise] and is the same for civilisation in general and could preserve humanity’s gains into the far future. The philosopher Thomas Hobbes’ (1588-1679) said that a ‘fundamental political insight is that what populations fear most of all – more even than the most iron-fisted dictatorship – is social chaos, and that they will submit to almost any tyranny in preference to that.’ (The Story of Philosophy, Bryan Magee, p 81) Social chaos is survival of the fittest and civilisation is a new order that has replaced it, but civilisation, at the moment is unstable, and what it needs, I suggest, is goals, a plan and a new way of thinking.

The following important section appeared in the October issue of Mind and Society [Can Affordances Save Civilisation?], but is retained for completeness and also, I currently have no reference for it.

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 from the organisational solution and do not have speed restrictions such as the speed of light and organisation. The creation equation [energy plus organisation = zero] could be written as E=mi2 on the photon, where I is the square root of -1, and E=mc2 off the photon [absolute three].

The universe is a fractal that is generated by concepts and contexts by life, energy and organisation in the physical from the creation equation to produce unique answers that require a partnership between Life and the universe through the measurement of the physical through a third party [to overcome orthogonality]. 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 x2 [the relativity of the measurer and the universe] which could be viewed as a parabola y= x2, with speed 2x and constant acceleration 2, 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.