The Logic Of The Half-truth And Plato’s Cave

by Darryl Penney

Abstract: science and society have always considered the world to be ‘real’ and so bizarre that it required a God to have created it, but that could be the result of our lack of intelligence and understanding of the physical and a more complete logic might allows us an alternate view that provides a substantial extension of our thinking and thus allow those that use it to realise our proper place in relation to the universe and that we must, through relativity, set concrete goals for the future, if we are to have a future and those goals can only come from understanding the logic that we must use as a first step to finding social engineering, which is currently hidden within Newtonian physics, then applying it to our society. An extension of the current simple logic is suggested that reinvigorates Plato’s ‘allegory of the cave’ by combing the mind with the physical [a relativity] that allows a new way of thinking [with it’s context of general mathematical physics/philosophy] that is needed for us to progress as a species. That Plato’s allegory appears to have eventuated is an indictment of the inadequacy of science.

Keywords: logic; the mind; social engineering; gravity; creation equation; reality; relativity; Plato’s cave

Preamble

Mankind has had technology for 400,000 years [fire, stone tools etc.], farming for about 12,000 years and Newtonian physics for 350 years and, whilst much good has come from these, so has bad effects. Humanity is adolescent and stumbling with a mind-brain mired in the animal world with it’s simple organisation, although religion changed society for the good [love not savagery], religion can retard progress, as Newtonian physics seems to have done to modern physics. Physics comes to the fore because of our use of technology, but technology brings dangers to an adolescent population that lacks the knowledge of organisation and as an example, consider, that ‘information remains bewildering, partly because it crops up in different guises in so many scientific fields. (Chance, ed. Michael Brooks, Paul Davies, p 21)

Western history shows the Greece-Roman empire collapse, then a 1,000 years of the Dark Ages and the Renaissance of our present global conglomeration that is in danger of immanent collapse through lack of effective organisation and, to prevent this occurring, we need a new path [otherwise we cycle], and one path could be that which I suggest, and that is to rebuild the logic of science on a better, more mature footing that could take humanity to a new level. The ancient Greeks ‘mused’, Francis Bacon said measure, but the ‘scientific principle’ has evolved to base progress on a vote of peers’ acceptance [standing on the shoulders ……] and this sounds sensible, but could easily be flawed by incompleteness, locks out change and becomes religion-like. This absurd situation has, I believe, arisen because physics is wedded to Newtonian physics, whilst the offshoots of physics [cosmology, quantum mechanics etc.] that need modern physics, are denied it if they want to stay under the physics umbrella. I am suggesting that physics is incomplete and cannot handle the organisation that it’s progeny needs, as above, and in particular, this is occurring because it is using an incomplete logic that does not align with the physical.

This sorry state can only be broken by a general appreciation that an error has arisen and to do that is the aim of this paper, but that solution requires augmenting the present style of thinking that evolved from the animals [top-down] with the use of relativity that says that bottom-up organisation exists that proves to be much more powerful analytically. So, if we are going to make changes [and we must], let us formulate a new software for our existing brain that meshes with the physical way that our mind works and possibly creates a ‘cutoff point’ from the animals, perhaps even a new species of Homo. Are people [currently] really that stupid? Consider the democracy that we value so highly, so highly that we revere it as a worldwide successful political system, yet it is an argumentative system built on questions of choice where the winners take all and the losers suffer. Even worse, up to 50% of the population have to live with a choice that they oppose! Ours is a modern democracy, where it appears that everyone has a say, whereas the ancient Greeks at least had the sense to restricted the choice to a smaller group, and that may be the reason that it appeared to work, but there is a better way through social engineering [understanding the organisation].

Consider, ‘the Greeks bequeathed us both argument and democracy and we have wanted to keep the two together, since we do not know how to operate democracy without argument.’ (I am Right-You are Wrong, Edward de Bono, p 7) I am proposing that relativity sets goals and social engineering provides agreed goals [and eliminates political parties] and that social engineering is the orthogonal of material engineering [technology] that physics tries to ignore. Organisation only exists [unlike chaos] if restrictions apply and the relativity of restrictions is logic, which we use, but our current logic is, I believe, incomplete, so, I am suggesting a more complicated form of logic that I call the logic of the half-truth. That the addition of this new logic might be thought to cause an upheaval in current science is an example of the logic, because it both will and will not affect science [statement 1], and it’s importance is that this example comes to mind so readily.

This last sentence needs expanding because it ‘comes to mind so readily’ suggests an incompleteness that is in common usage and the importance of that usage is unrecognised, which possibly results in Homo sapiens not being able to control society [which is very possibly about to collapse] versus a Homo completus that uses this logic and discovers social engineering and goals and possibly saves civilisation. The phrase ‘both will and will not’ is an orthogonality, much like Cartesian coordinates, that shows independence combined with entanglement that underlies everything where the mind is necessarily used to stand outside of these orthogonalities to make judgements on their suitability to the mind based on affordances that are the effect of the creation equation that thinking uses.

Society is built on a logical base, and that base , I believe, could be true and false as well as something that we do not recognise. This possibly suggests a new way of thinking [concept] that has the context of a complete general mathematical physics/philosophy of the physical and Life, as two separate entities linked orthogonally by measurement [affordances] through our mind that operates on a traditional science [top-down], relativity and the physical [bottom-up]. The organisation, that physics is obscuring is the social engineering [orthogonal to materials engineering (technology)] that is needed to understand society because ‘the world has become too complex and we just cannot cope. Ecology, economics, politics are all now a complex of interacting factors all of which affect each other in direct and indirect ways. We just do not have the systems for dealing with such complexity.’ (p 39) The concept of such a system is social engineering and this paper outlines the context and the necessary logic.

Our argumentative society requires police, armies, lawyers, politicians etc. and that shows immaturity and lack of understanding of social organisation, and a simple example is physics that tries to ignore organisation. This paper expands physics and shows its place in a universe that is totally defined by the creation equation, and this illustrates statement 1, that physics is complete [Newtonian] to the world in general, incomplete and misleading to the offshoot sciences, but can be brought together by the use of the logic of the half-truth. As an illustration, people wonder why no extraterrestrial has visited us, and I suggest that it is because we are uncivilised, uncontrolled and a menace to other lifeforms and would steal their technology and use it for no-good. We have to ‘set our house in order’, engineer our society and ourselves and show that we can live sustainably, but first we have to start with the mind and the logic that it uses in it’s software.

Preface

The world abounds with science and technology and yet it is in danger of collapse from lack of organisation in spite of copious amounts of logic available [see Wikipedia], so, if logic is necessary to organisation, are we not intelligent enough to apply it? There are three factors at play, firstly, is the form of the application of organisation [software] adequate, secondly, is that form too much for our intellect to handle [our level of intelligence is only sightly better than the animals and is of the same form [top-down]] and we don’t know how to proceed, and thirdly, we do not realise that a much more powerful organisation exists bottom-up [relativity] and that our logic is incomplete? This paper puts forward the proposition that all three factors are incomplete because our brain and way of thinking has not changed significantly in the last 10,000 years and needs a ‘quantum leap’ in software that can only come from the application of a new form of logic that is complete. This is a serious accusation that suggests that we are still principally animal in design [physically and mentally], and will continue to be so until we can make this next step in our evolution.

In other words, a new complete form of logic is proposed [the logic of the half-truth] that shows the creation equation of our fractal universe that allows us to understand our thinking process and to use a complete software that enhances our thinking through the relativity of organisation. Thinking [concept] is orthogonal [strictly related] to general mathematical physics [context] which describes the software that we must use that must be of a form that mirrors the creation equation that generates a fractal universe. A section, Why Newtonian Physics is Not Physical, is given below as an illustration of why the modern offshoots of physics [that need this approach] are restricted to Newtonian physics that is too complicated, by a physics that was shocked [into measurement] by modern physics a hundred years ago.

The derivation of the law of gravity is given [for the first time] as well as quantum mechanics and the creation equation [see Form of the Universe, reference 1] and unpublished examples are given [standard model of particle physics and dark matter] to illustrate the simplification that comes with this derivation and a short section on the mind [Intelligence]. These examples augment the evidence for the fractal nature of the universe that the logic is built on and are necessary to show the widespread and divergent nature [context] that contain the fractal entanglement. Notice that physics cannot explain the entanglement of a pair of particles created together, and yet their creation is simply the action of the creation equation and the particles must be bound by it’s restrictions, and restrictions are part of the logic that we must use, and the entanglement of the particles is the entanglement of everything. That the effect is propagated faster than the speed of light bamboozles physicists and shows why this logic is needed and that is because entanglement is logic and it has no speed attached to it [see reference 1].

The Logic of the Half-truth

Leaving aside the question of God, the universe possibly came from nothing when nothing divided into two parts such that part1 plus part2 equals nothing with the restriction that they must never meet [they will annihilate] and this firstly, generates relativity [and entanglement] and secondly, that the relativity of the restriction is logic. For example, in physics, energy plus organisation equals zero seems to work with the restriction that the universe must be accelerating [which it has been found to do] and so, a physical logic must be included in our idea of logic if we are to believe that the universe was generated from the equation [making it fractal] and the property of a fractal is simplicity, symmetry and similarity. For example, the fact [Michelson-Morley experiment] that the speed of light is constant to any measurer threw physics into a ‘tailspin’ [a 100 years ago] that physics has not yet resolved [and is explained in reference 1].

So, if the reality that we use for logic [true, false, chaos (statement 2)] is not correct, what should it be? A property of a fractal is to be the same at every point and is given by the creation equation, so, let’s look at ‘Einstein was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1921 for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect.’ (Wikipedia, Wave-particle duality) As physics is principally based on energy, the explanation was that wave and particle were both energy forms that could be taken by light. This explanation is one that would arise when, and if the only tool available is energy [hammer], then every solution is energy related [nail]. From the creation equation, the wave is energy and the particle is organisation and the distinction in the two views is not negligible because ‘current scientific theory holds that all particles exhibit a wave nature and vice versa. This phenomenon has been verified not only for elementary particles, but also for compound particles like atoms and even molecules. For macroscopic particles, because of their extremely short wavelengths, wave properties usually cannot be detected.’ (Wikipedia) Notice firstly, that the de Broglie wave is a function of the entity [particle] and secondly, that the different functions of particles [organisation] are differentiated by their speed, below, because each particle is the same and composed of energy and an organisation.

Consider, ‘although the use of the wave–particle duality has worked well in physics, the meaning or interpretation has not been satisfactorily resolved’ (Wikipedia). A number of interpretations are given on Wikipedia, but the idea that wave and particle oscillate, so fast that they do not affect anything [absolute 5] is not one of them. Considering the logic above [statement 1], statement 2 needs an extra term, as well as restrictions that create additional logic, so the logic of the half-truth becomes (statement 3):

true, false, alternating true-false, chaos and restrictions.

Thus, I believe that the first four terms ensure completeness, whilst the last term is necessary for any logic, unless we consider the universe to be ‘real’, then we make up our own restrictions as seems to have been done in the past. One restriction is the necessity of an accelerating universe for gravity [Einstein added ‘curved space time, which is an organisation, to get the correct value], another is that water expands when frozen that allows fish to survive, two things cannot occupy the same space [usually] etc. The question of the universe being ‘real’ has occupied philosophers from the ancient Greeks till now, so let’s look at how the completeness of this theory simplifies and possibly solves many existing problems including the search for dark energy, organising particle physics, what quantum mechanics is and how thinking uses the physical.

Ramifications

I can imagine physics saying “What is the significance of the third term [‘alternating true-false’ with the ‘restriction’ that the alternation be too fast to measure] because if something cannot be measured, it does not exist.’? [The answer is simply, that a difference in measurement, which is obviously necessary for measurement, is contrary to absolute five.],I have taken the macroscopic [wave-particle duality] and considered the microscopic to derive the creation equation and that produces a fractal that has the same properties throughout so that the factor [wave-particle duality] becomes a generality. Consider philosophy, ‘Socrates explains how the philosopher is like a prisoner who is freed from the cave and comes to understand that the shadows on the wall are actually not reality at all. A philosopher aims to understand and perceive the higher levels of reality. However, the other inmates of the cave do not even desire to leave their prison, for they know no better life. ‘(Wikipedia, Allegory of the Cave) This story that has come down through 2,000 years and seems to have the point that theoretical knowledge is worth seeking, which physics seems to deny with it’s retreat into measurement.

In other words, there are a great number of effects all around us that are macroscopic, but come from a source that we do not understand and so we cannot truly understand those macroscopic effects, which could be what the allegory is saying [as a relativity]. We are like the prisoners who are seeing the fractal effects yet do not understand relativity and that there must be context to any concept and concept to any context and context has to have restrictions if it is to not be chaos. Like the prisoners, we live in a world of shadows that we do not understand because the source is something that we cannot measure, thus, this model makes clear that organisation can be understood and must be understood for completeness. The restriction [accelerating space] creates gravity that entangles everything and relativity sets the stage with it’s entanglement. Everything is entangled in a special way that requires a minimum [absolute five] that use to be called the principle of least action [causing light to move in a straight line] that is necessary as a restriction if the organisational solution that we see around us is to be unique, and unique it must be, if we are to have a usable organisation. As an example, two different people [or any Life-form] remember the other side of a hill to be the same, not because it is ‘real’ [as we do], but because logic requires it for a unique organisation to exist.

For thousands of years we have considered our world and universe to be ‘real’, but like the story above, we see shadowy enigmas, such as cosmic inflation, which have simple explanations [hyperbolic acceleration of a constant speed of light with time near time zero]. It is the effect that an incomplete logic [statement 2] has on our thinking and is of great concern because we currently think like the animals from which we evolved [top-down] and statement 3 offers the recognition of a new way of thinking that we need to control society [social engineering] that uses the organisation that physics abhors. An example of social engineering is Christianity that turned savagery into love your neighbour, but unfortunately fell short in other areas, presumably because it was not rationally based.

Conclusion and Prediction

Mankind needs the boost in intellect that comes from increasing the power [completeness] of the software [of the mind] coupled with the availability of the internet to become bionic [biological and electronic (internet)] to prosper and organise itself and the environment for the future. In particular, we need the goals [relativity], the social engineering theory and the determination to survive successfully for the future, but it needs a new Homo completus [complete] to do it, because Homo Sapiens has made a mess of it. This paper is, I believe, a necessary and complete extension to the logic that we need to become civilised and solve society’s problems, but our mind has to accept the concept of this new way of thinking that is in lockstep with the context of using it [general mathematical physics] and that is a context [organisation] that humanity fears and the only way to show organisation is through examples, which comprise the vast bulk of this paper, that is an extension to a logic that cannot even be measured and so is beyond physics. Which discipline will take up the mantle that has slipped from physics’ shoulders?

If this logic [statement 3] is to believed, the ‘allegory of the cave’ has been reproduced in the modern world and shows that our thinking must change [by changing the context] and an example is the last sentence of the last paragraph, which is [somewhat] stirring, but nonsense because every academic discipline has a part to play because the context [of thought] is completely entangled and is bounded by the concepts that we have remembered and thus, it is the entangled knowledge of all life that creates the universe. If everything is entangled, as it appears, then Einstein’s space-time [three space and one time dimension] is wrong [too complicated], as are the standard physics’ dimensions, and the dimensions that I have used [energy-organisation and length-time] are themselves orthogonal and ‘do the job’. This suggests that relativity, that is obvious in space [physical volume], is also apparent in time [history] and Plato’s allegory is pertinent to today’s situation of the philosopher’s role in human affairs and further, that universities need to reconsider their ‘siloing’.

The take home message: ‘you can take Mankind out of the jungle, but you can’t take the jungle out of Mankind’ defines Homo sapiens [the wise, really?] because the first law of evolution is ‘fight or flee’ that leads to the use of statement 2, and being incomplete requires a God to make ‘sense’ of everything. In other words, indecisiveness is stupid and increases your chances of being killed, but the option is there in statement 3 for us to understand the universe and our place in it and create a social engineering that allows us to coexist with everything in the future. Statement 3 is ‘fractalising’ the simple orthogonality of true-false into higher levels that produce the alternation of true-false and the creation equation [that is of the same form]. Is this important? The vast majority of people either believe the creation in the Bible, or don’t care about evolution and a situation has developed similar to the parables of Sodom and Gomorrah and Plato’s cave and a bionic Homo completus [complete mankind] has to appear if we are to coexist with the rest of Life [intelligence is limited by context]. In other words, indecisiveness is stupid and increases our chances of wrecking Life on the planet and the option is there [in statement 3] for us to understand the universe and our place in it and create a social engineering that allows us to know what we are doing and to increase the quality of humanity and control it’s effect on others.

A final thought is that it might be difficult to accept this paper because, I believe, that the mind uses statement 3 [not the restrictions] as a matter of course without our realising it to allow the mind to function seamlessly in the same way that the mind changes our vision to conceal the ‘blind spot’ in the eye. In other words, we switch from one orthogonal position to another, allocating an emotional energy [context] to each concept to judge it’s importance, but that, of course, is how the mind-brain works [based on the creation equation]!

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 [which includes being correct].

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 an unpublished paper The Standard Particle Physics Model Versus Modern Physics.

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 the unpublished paper Deriving The Mind that 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 ‘random walk’ insures recombination.]

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 an intellect that cannot be surpassed and that is the aim and requirement to the goal of a Homo completus.

Intelligence

From a paper Don’t Do What Your Big Sister Done! submitted to Mind & Society,

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.

Why Newtonian Physics is Not Physical

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].

References: 1. Form of the Universe, Can Affordances Save Civilisation, Mind & Society,20(1), 107-110