The Mind, Society, Socrates, Social Engineering and Symbiosis

by Darryl Penney

Abstract: civilisations throughout history have all ended badly through social upheaval or inability to handle changes in the environment and it will happen again unless we become symbiotic, and this can be done by social engineering using a new way of thinking derived from the creation equation that generates our fractal universe. We have not even answered the basic questions posed by the ancient Greeks 2,500 years ago, so, is it any wonder that our civilisation is in peril? We need to follow a bottom-up path, instead of the top-down pathway that is causing the blindness and the problems that plague civilisation, to derive the goals of relativity that produce a stable civilisation that is symbiotic with the environment and designed to last forever. An example is given of the church-science schism that was created by Plato and Aristotle, carried through the ages and flawed modern physics to the extent that we do not understand gravity, quantum mechanics etc. on the physical side as well as the energy of emotion and organisation of the mind-brain. This lack of fundamental relativity originated with the pre-Socratic Greeks and our incomplete mind has created a flawed society, but now a better means is apparent by using a new way of thinking, and the main thrust of this paper is to suggest the means used for the concept of thought.

Keywords: thought; society; fractal universe; relativity; social engineering; creation equation

Preamble

I would like to thank the editor for publishing a previous opinion piece that suggested that the creation equation, that generates our fractal universe, showed how the organisation of the environment could be transmitted [as affordances] into the mind-brain of organisms, and in particular, ourselves. The next step is to investigate how the mind-brain might work and I will have to compare my approach with the method used by the ancient Greek philosophers [for relativity] that has led to our society, through lack of organisation, being placed in jeopardy.

Strangely, the organisation of our society has not progressed in 2,500 years and the questions posed by the ancient Greeks have not been answered, although technology [energy] has bounded ahead and created a completely different world. Little progress has been made in understanding the basis of society [top-down] and that must be redressed in taking a new path [bottom-up], but unfortunately, comparisons [relativity] introduce complexity.

This paper is the context of the concept of rational management that can be derived from the creation equation that will be submitted to a Journal of Economics, Finance and Management in due course. Change requires goals [relativity] and this paper shows that top-down thinking has led us to destroy many species on the planet with our uncontrolled population and that the goal for the future is a symbiosis with the environment and an appropriate selection of Humans that form a genuinely civilised race, such that extraterrestrials might be interested in visiting.

Part 1: The Problem

First and foremost, relativity must be considered in everything and I can not describe the mind [concept] without considering what is being thought [context] and that is at the heart of the new way of thinking.

Looking at The Story of Philosophy by Bryan Magee, civilisation is a product of time chronicled by philosophy as a history without relativity because relativity requires a beginning [Garden of Eden, evolution], a present and a future [ Heaven or Hell] and this relativity surfaces as religion and creation myths. The Story of Philosophy 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 it to be complete [it involves established careers], complicates matters.

Technology has changed society, but the control [of society] has been hidden by the incompleteness of physics and finding a new way for a modern world requires following a new path. As an example, Nietzsche says that ‘God is dead’, and that may be true, but social engineering, using the creation equation, can create a God that is alive and well, similar to the existing God, but scientifically credible. In other words, Nietzsche was wrong because he was using top-down thinking that we can improve upon by using the bottom-up creation equation to find God, and God is important because, traditionally, someone has to define ethics. and, the quotation above asks exactly the same questions as Socrates did 2,500 years ago. There is something very wrong with a philosophy of civilisation that has not changed in recorded history and perhaps a new way of thinking about it may provide the answer and perhaps the answer is realising that God and social engineering are very similar.

This paper stops prematurely because it’s message needs decisions, just as Socrates needed decisions, 2,500 years ago and that was done by Plato and Aristotle [creating an orthogonality] concerned about “What is justice?” etc., but now we have social engineering and can do a better job and I think that defining a God [or social engineering] that is acceptable to religion and science is the first step, see below. The greatest problem that Civilisation faces at the moment is the age-old problem of how a parasite interacts with it’s host because a parasite does not have the intellectual equipment to change itself and often damages the host before it attains symbiosis. This is true of us, as we are damaging our environment and we need a new way of interacting with our environment and we need to do this by changing our behaviour as a society.

Democracy and the market place are products of the way that we think and are derived from the creation equation and are actually examples of the mathematics of concept-context which is the way, I believe, that our mind-brain works, and further, in a fractal, it is the way that the individual, the family, governments and religions all operate, and that is because a fractal is generated from a simple [creation] equation. Adam Smith [in economics] recognised this when he said that what is good for the consumer is good for the country. Unfortunately, none of these groups, with the exception of religion considers relativity, so it is small-wonder that all societies have problems, to the extent that they grow and inevitably collapse and with a new way of thinking, that includes relativity, may be able to prevent this collapse. That religion survives tends to prove my point.

Setting the Stage

The purpose of this paper is to show what I believe to be the organisational structure of the mind-brain and the individual, family, society and country are simple, symmetrical and similar organisations in a fractal universe, such as our universe is, and that requires relativity, or, to be more precise, orthogonality, because, I believe, that the universe is structured on the divisions of the dimensions [that eliminate relativity], see Form of the Universe, below. Relativity is a simpler context that nothing [literally nothing] can be broken into two parts that continue to exist as long as those parts continue to move away from each other, and thus the creation equation is energy plus organisation equals zero. I must emphasise that an accelerating [probability] space, as we see in the expansion of our universe, is necessary so that everything is logically always kept apart. Constant expansion is not enough because random walk is possible and also, given acceleration, the creation equation produces the effects of gravity [on everything], see below.

The mind and society are [organisationally] the same because the universe is a fractal, built on a simple generator, and if this is not realised, incompleteness is a very real danger to academic disciplines and an example is physics not being able to access fundamental physics because physics does not access the physical and the proof is given below, but this lack hides social engineering that, I believe, is needed to manage our civilisation. The ‘simple generating equation’ of the fractal is a ‘word’ equation made up of concepts and contexts and forms a new mathematics that I call the mathematics of concept-context and is the way that, I believe that our mind thinks. However, how we think, and what we think, are very different, but both are needed [concept and context].

Early Philosophy

I have to discuss Socrates because, I believe, his approach was correct and he should have his contribution acknowledged, but he was a product of his times, and even more, a product of his philosophical forebears and they had different views. Heraclitus believed in the ‘unity of opposites’ (p 14) akin to relativity and that “Everything is Flux” (p 15), whereas a fractal has similarity. Pythagoras ‘was the first great thinker to bring mathematics to bear on philosophy. This was one of the most fruitful notions that any human being has ever had.’ (p 15) Unfortunately, I believe that mathematics is incomplete and the mathematics of concept-context is the handmaiden of philosophy. ‘Many of the greatest scientists of all, such as Einstein, . . . believe that there must be some sort of intelligence behind the universe, if not necessarily a God in the conventional Judaeo-Christian sense.’ (p 16) There is the possibility that Life, not being orthogonal [to the universe], may have provided a conduit to the universe [being orthogonal] to recognise itself. ‘Parmenides considered it self-contradictory to say of nothing that it exists. There can never, he thought, have been nothing, and therefore it cannot be true to say that everything – or, indeed, anything – came out of nothing.’ (p 17) The creation equation is the creation of an orthogonality from nothing that creates the universe.

Leaving the ‘“pre-Socratic philosophers”, which in their different ways were trying to understand the natural world around us.’ (p 20) ‘What we needed to know was how to conduct our lives and ourselves. For us, the urgent questions were more like: What is good? What is right? What is just? If we knew the answers to those questions it would have a profound effect on the way we lived. Socrates did not think he knew the answers to these questions. But he saw that no-one else knew them either.’ (p 20) This fact led to the life and death of Socrates, and Plato believed that ‘everything, without exception, in this world of ours he regarded as being an ephemeral, decaying copy of something whose ideal form (hence the terms Ideal and Form) has a permanent and indestructible existence outside space and time.’ (p 27). For example mathematics and ‘something that is also us and is non-material, timeless, and indestructible, something that we may refer to as the soul.’ (p 29)

‘Just as Plato had been a pupil of Socrates, so Aristotle was a pupil of Plato.’ (p 32) Aristotle was dismissive of Plato’s Ideal Forms’ (p 32) and ‘the key question from which Aristotle started out was: . . . “What is being?”’ (p 34) ‘and he ends by breaking the concept of “form” down into four different and complementary kinds of “cause”’ (p 36). These causes, in simple terms could be energy, organisation, Life (as a parasite) and spiritual (in the sense of God, or that Life possibly creates a living universe by not being orthogonal) [‘material cause, efficient cause, formal cause and final cause’ (p 36)]. Thus, the creation equation [bottom up] embodies [as general mathematical physics] ancient Greek philosophy [top-down] and may allow us to change present-day [top-down] society by using social engineering [bottom-up] to prevent our destruction.

In other words, the context of the above is that Socrates used a top-down version of affordances to investigate peoples’ thinking, Plato’s version contributed to the magnificent example of social engineering called Christianity that changed the savagery of the times into ‘love’ and Saint ‘Augustine, believing that Platonic philosophy embodied important truths about aspects of reality that the Bible did not concern itself with, wanted Platonism to be absorbed in to the Christian world-view.’ (p 51) Notice that the Western world has created an orthogonality of thinking [Plato and Aristotle] that reverberates into the future and defines the structure of our civilisation.

Firstly, ‘says Aristotle, we should never lose sight of the fact that it is this world that we are trying to understand’ (p 37), and ‘the respective appeals that the two different approaches possess for individuals may have something to do with personal temperament.’ (p 38) However, secondly, ‘the unique genius of the German philosopher Kant, in the late 18^th century, is that he brought the two harmoniously together.’ (p 38) I have to question this statement because Kant’s apprehension [p 133] is what we see from an incomplete physics, religion etc., but the creation equation offers a complete physics, religion etc., and physics, religion etc. must align themselves to it, even if there are parts that remain that cannot be apprehended in unison, such as ‘is the universe alive?’. In other words, the creation equation indicates that God could exist, could be alive, but is in-determinant to us unless it is the universe. Thirdly, Aristotle tries to answer Socrates’ problem of moral concepts by developing ‘his famous doctrine of ‘”the golden mean”, according to which a virtue is the midway point between two extremes, each of which is a vice.’ (p 38) This venturing into context will have to wait.

Socrates

Socrates ‘offered us a way out of two powerful delusions: that we should always or never listen to the dictates of public opinion. To follow his example, we will best be rewarded if we strive instead to listen always to the dictates of reason.’ (The Consolations of Philosophy, Alain De Botton, p 42) This quotation sums up a chapter on the essence of reasoning where Socrates accosted ‘Athenians of every class, age and occupation and bluntly asking them, without worrying whether they would think him eccentric or infuriating, to explain with precision why they held certain commonsense beliefs’. (p 14) Upon being told a subject, Socrates would think of a counter-example and then invite the person to amend their stance. (p 24) This, I believe, is similar to how the mind-brain operates.

Socrates’ life and death shows the foolhardiness of trying to change society and suggests an example of a truth from ecology, where the parent is sessile and the young motile so that they can find better habitats, if they exist. In other words, the young are the risk-takers and social engineering should be applied to them and not the parents. Thus, leaders emerge, and they need training and a plan, and that brings us to the social engineering of Plato and a new way of thinking where the story of Socrates is very important because his method works, ‘Socrates’ method of examining common sense is observable in all Plato’s early and middle dialogues’ (p 23). Firstly, yes, it is top-down, but it is part of the bottom-up case, as we shall see [a possible wormhole], secondly, the technique was apparently lost with the fall of Greece and thirdly, the technique is not ‘comfortably’ applied, as Socrates found. There have to be planners behind the leaders and universities should play this role, but they are more concerned with compartmentalising [siloing] of disciplines [concepts] and not the contextual [generalist] responsibilities that relativity also requires.

The Thinking Process

The creation equation is the basis of everything and provides the affordances that translates the measurement of what is required [the measurement must be defined] into emotion in the measurer commensurate with the knowledge to the environment [universe] that the measurer has measured. This cosmology is pertinent because we, as Life, are ‘breaking into’ the orthogonality that constructs the universe and requires the square for the relativity of the measurement. The creation equation defines the mathematics of concept-context, which is similar to Socrates’ method and is the method, I believe, used in our mind-brain’s thinking. There are many ways that decisions are made, in practice, but only one way emerges from the creation equation and that does foretell the future, but only on ‘truths’ from the physical and the past, especially evolution, history etc.

Concepts cannot be measured because they are independent [but entangled] except by a third party, and that is Life because Life depends on measurement to exist [survival of the fittest] and Life exists by measuring its surroundings and the way that it does this is through affordances [the emotion]. The mathematics of concept-context is assigning a value [compare emotion] to the context of the value [compare affordance] that that concept has to your wants. The next step is to compare [numerically – level of emotion] two values to make a decision on which to choose. That’s it! In terms of cosmology, a symbiosis occurs with the universe and the universe comes alive! Thus, is Life the parent or the child of the universe? This method is precise because all concepts should be considered that produce a range of affordances on which a decision is made, whereas Socrates’ method is limited to counter-examples and the listener’s patience and tolerance.

The Mechanics of Thought

The amygdala is noted as the decision maker on whether an experience, as a set of action potentials from the senses, is to be remembered and that depends on the level of emotion attached to the experience. This emotion is the affordance attached to the measurement of the event and the action potentials, that are relatively slow-moving, must be held in some sort of circular set of cells until their fate is decided compared to other concepts and recorded in long-term storage. Clearly, comparison is at the heart of thought [relativity] and it should be noted that action potentials do not degrade with time and are a form of long-term storage, albeit requiring a continuous input of energy.

The simplest explanation might be to give examples of the uses to which we put emotion, especially as emotional energy is not considered by physics, so, from the creation equation, physics considers energy, but not organisation [if organisation is held constant, then energy cannot be created nor destroyed, which is a fundamental law in physics] and has built materials engineering and technology on energy whereas organisation promises social engineering that should be as important as technology, but based on Life itself. Much has been done in the social sciences, but they have not been brought together as a whole. Consider that affordances underlie many disciplines, such as beauty contests, mathematics, dress shops, architecture, military history etc. and beauty, the golden triangle, elegance, city buildings, the trappings of religion, uniforms etc., are designed to produce emotion, and in particular, the religion-governance that we allow to guide our lives because it is a context that involves everyone. In other words, the concepts that Socrates challenged were necessarily linked to contexts that were not being considered, but must be considered [relativity] and were subsumed in the affordance of annoyance.

Conclusion: the above suggests how thinking occurs, but electing a leader is democracy that also comes from the creation equation and we see, because our mind-brain is connected [nerves or hormones] to every cell in our bodies for the two-way flow of information, that democracy and thinking are intertwined [fractal]. Incompleteness, as in physics, is dangerous because we can take the wrong path and we could be making mistakes that could be destroying civilisation. Just as the universe must be accelerating [through logic] to exist and create gravity, restrictions are necessary in democracy, as in Socrates’ case, that are pertinent to social engineering, but that will have to wait.

Part 2: Modern Science

It started ‘in the 16^th century a Polish churchman called Copernicus . . . instead of assuming that the earth were at the centre, we treated the sun at the centre . . . then the most revered of all authorities were wrong . . . the whole established order was under threat, even the very idea of authority itself.’ (p 64) This shifted the Plato-Aristotle balance of society, and in particular, the ethics of authority, democracy etc. Consider, ‘with the earth no longer seen as the centre of the universe . . . there began that rapid spread of disbelief in the existence of God that conspicuously characterizes the West over the following three centuries’ (p 69). Christianity is a magnificent example of social engineering, and in particular, it’s effect on everyday life and values because, in no small part, of the context of the Church Services that reinforced the Christian values on a weekly basis, so it could be said that science, especially technology, undermined our social values, and further, by using an incomplete Newtonian physics that hid the effect of emotion [organisation].

‘Isaac Newton is generally acknowledged to be the greatest scientist that ever lived’ (p 71), but he could be responsible for the ‘death’ of God and our woes with technology by not incorporating God into physics, but, on the other hand, the church is guilty of erecting ‘truths’ that are not truths, and especially a God that has not been adequately defined. This is a problem that is at the base of what I am saying, that little change has been made to the Bible in 1,500 years. The Church has created a dilemma by using an unchanging organisation on a changing society, and that is unrealistic. This model, below, suggests that Life could create a God, being the universe, that seems to satisfy all requirements of Church, science and society and could change Nietzsche’s cry that ‘God is Dead’ (p 172) to ‘God is Alive’, a much more positive approach. Life must be important to the universe and a symbiosis needs to be created.

This is not a conclusion, but an opportunity to see if this approach is fruitful. The mind is Life’s contribution to the universe and it is an orthogonality of the mechanics [the brain] and the organisation of the cells of the body, as well as the affordances that it receives from the environment. This symbiosis, and it is a true symbiosis because one cannot live [literally] without the other [is Life the parent or the child of the universe?] is the relativity of each within the symbiosis.

Social Engineering

Our civilisation, if not the Earth, is in danger from uncontrolled population growth, so let’s see if this model, the case for relativity, can help in this regard. Since Newton, belief in God has waned to the extent that Nietzsche says that ‘God is Dead’, and if this is so, civilisation, as a whole, loses the relativity of ethics that ‘sets the standard’ of civilisation [as outlined by philosophy and religion]. ‘The central question posed by Nietzsche’s philosophy is how best to do this in a godless, meaningless world.’ (p 172) Multiculturalism is an ‘easy fix’ that would be nice if it worked, but, I do not believe that it does, especially when ‘things get tough’ and people become stressed. If ‘God is Dead’, good! It gives social engineering a chance to design a better one, and it must be admitted that the Christian God, according to the Bible, had personality problems.

The universe makes an excellent God, in that it is visible at night, it is huge [billions upon billions of stars], it could come alive when a non-orthogonal [relative to the universe] Life comes into being, it does take note of every action that we make [the square of measurement that is part of the probability space] and it could have sanctioned the Ten Commandments, the discipline of philosophy and perhaps this paper. Relativity must be everywhere [the creation equation is orthogonal] and we need a God to balance Life and for us to have a goal [concept] for the future [perhaps a civilisation that has a future] and a way of living [context, Ten Commandments and innumerable government laws]. On the other hand, ‘Marx believed that he had put the explanation of historical development on a scientific footing’ (p 164) that led to Russia replacing God with the State, which appeared to be reasonably successful because the downfall was apparently economic.

The model shows that religion and government generate emotional energy through their organisation and they use this to influence their citizens and adherents [and keep them ‘in line’], but now that we realise that this is their ‘stock-in-trade’, we should all be participants in a democracy where we are truly informed, and it will be shown, at a later date, that democracy contains restrictions. Social engineering is academic, but also practical and we need to use it if we are to control populations etc., from the personal to the country, which present similar problems.

Conclusion: social engineering is a large, important, complex subject and we have not gone far before decision-making becomes necessary, as the ancient Greek philosophers found, but the whole of philosophy must be tested for relativity for the civilisation in which we live [as Nietzsche says, p 172], in fact, social engineering involves all of general mathematical physics because it is a context of the concept of living. I have tried to show that our civilisation needs a bottom-up view to make long-term sense and that is an ecological truth of a symbiosis.

Prediction: The Story of Philosophy presumably contains, in simple form, the thinking of all philosophy, but it appears that no conclusion is forthcoming, and this could be because the thinking is top-down. Top-down is the way that Life has thought for 3,000 million years and it is leading to a catastrophe as we exit the survival of the fittest with its innate controls. It is apparent that philosophy has no answers as to whether there is a God or not [Plato and Aristotle], nor ethics [Socrates], but the creation equation shows that a God could exist, and considering that our civilisation is destroying itself perhaps God is ‘stirring the pot’ and is influencing this paper in some way, after all, the survival of Life entails measuring the environment [affordances], so, perhaps the universe influences us, and changes us [the Bible notes instances].

Overview: to manage society and prevent the coming disaster from over-population we have to answer some important questions, and yet we have not even answered the questions posed by the ancient Greeks, and also, is God’s Commandments of 2,500 years ago sufficient to generate a code of living in a modern world? It is scientifically plausible that God [as the universe] exists, but does God wish to be involved in our endeavours?

“it is thoroughly necessary to be convinced of God’s existence, it is not quite so necessary that one should demonstrate it” Immanuel Kant (p 135)

Perhaps social engineering, as a concept, could be God, and social engineering as a context contains everything that we need, and we may never know, but we should assume that God is interested in us to achieve relativity and we do need to heed the creation equation and build a race of people that want to save civilisation by creating goals for the future [concept] and working towards them [context]. Given this goal [relativity], we face the same problems that Jesus’ message [concept] faced, the unavoidable concept-context orthogonality, where disciples [context] were needed to broadcast the message, and that statement answers the enigma, of ‘why disciples?’, so, I will have to leave the decision to the editors , readers etc. [as agents of Life] to decide on the future of civilisation as perhaps being either an unrestrained-population, scarce resources and turmoil, or, a planned civilisation through social engineering, forever.

We have arrived at Socrates’ questions, but now, I believe that we have a scientific basis to answer them through understanding the physical, knowing the working of the mind-brain, relativity and how social engineering works, that allows us to set goals that define a stable symbiotic future as technology has pushed us out of survival of the fittest. Truly, a new beginning is necessary to create a goal, a symbiosis and a new people, but as the last United States of American elections show, deep problems lie below the surface and need discussing.

Prediction to the overview: is there a solution? Plato and Aristotle were generated [in a fractal] from Socrates [being social engineering] and are entangled through the origin [Socrates] and that could be the starting point. ‘Feel good items’ [soul, Heaven etc.] are immaterial apprehensions [Kant] to the discussion, in other words, Kant’s apprehensions are those that our body can measure, our mind can calculate [based on the creation equation] and anything else is fantasy. Already the Catholic Church has given way on contraception and gay union and likewise, perhaps, if required, a God, that made the universe [as against being the universe]. Christianity needs a little tweaking, but the main point is that the historical science-religion divide is unnecessary with the new way of thinking. There is nothing stopping us using this new way of thinking [bottom-up] across all of civilisation, but that might require a new generation and it is the present generation’s duty to foster change [from ecology].

The take-home message is that the above seems complicated, but to those that think fractal-wise, it is very simple and the mind, affordances, God, government, religion, quantum mechanics, gravity etc. fall into place to give a new way of thinking that recognises (literally) everything, but we must specify goals to maintain concept and context and this promises a new software for the existing brain and a transformation of the mind, and the proof will be the attainment of a stable civilisation.

Justification for needing a new software for the brain: Newton’s law of gravity was an ‘inspired guess’ and has never been proven, until this method, and Einstein introduced ‘curved space’ to get the correct answer [twice the value of Newton’s]. Gravity [magnitude, concept] is the product [multiplication] of two absolutes, below, and there must be two [relativity] bodies composed of energy and organisation. Gravity [form, context] is parabolic [general case] given by the creation equation [(E+O)=0], so E=mx2 and O=mx2 [with relativity of measurement], where E is energy, O is organisation, m is mass and x is the position in space, so there is attraction of mass and position in an accelerating space.

Finally, the concept of God is seen to be necessary because every tribe has it’s creation myth, and is the top-down answer to the question behind this paper of ‘what is social engineering?’ because social engineering is the context of attaining a symbiosis between two equally important entities, Life and the universe. One creates the other at the same time and survival of the fittest shows this, but we changed the organisation by using technology and we need to change our thinking to attain a new symbiosis. The first step is to set goals [social engineering] and the second is to implement them [social engineering] to regain a symbiosis of two partners [relativity].

An example that illustrates this is that religions prosper in the long term because they all have a goal for the long-term [the hereafter], and the great civilisations and religions had a goal to ‘civilise the world’ [British, Roman, Catholic empires]. Goals and Gods are a relativity that is fundamental to the universe and the basis of social engineering [concept], whereas survival of the fittest eliminated the sick, stupid, non-functioning members of society, whereas we use jails for the worst offenders and care for the rest, but allow the less fit to breed and vote, even when paying them a pension [context]. I think that this indicates the absurdities of what we are currently doing and that we, perhaps, deserve to die-out, if we can not change.

The following important section appeared in the October issue [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.