The Universe, The Super-strong Anthropic Principle, Life And Consciousness

by Darryl Penney

Abstract: consciousness can be simply defined as the act of measurement, and completing the law of conservation of energy brings forth social engineering that may allow us to gain a future agreed goal for civilisation instead of squabbling as we are now. Life is necessary to measure the orthogonal fundamental physics and social science and that invokes a super-strong anthropic principle to be, ‘are we the children of the universe, or its parents?’ because the universe does not exist without Life, and further, ‘does Life create its own ‘God’, that is the universe?’, ‘where does ‘God’ live?’, all around us and ‘does ‘God’ know everything that we do and think?’ because the universe must be a party to measurement for uniqueness.

Keywords: anthropic principle; consciousness; fractal universe; relativity; quantum mechanics; social engineering; creation equation

Preface

Social engineering is a new field that only comes into being and our ken when physic’s law of conservation of energy is made complete and that shows that social engineering is as important as technology [materials engineering] and provides a means to understand and control civilisation in its very uncertain future. Social engineering is the ability to change ourselves into a new form, mentally, physically and socially, so that, with materials engineering [technology], we can attain an ultimate agreed goal.

‘The so-called strong anthropic principle, a loose set of ideas which seek to establish that the emergence of life and mind in the universe are somehow predestined and inevitable’ (The Goldilocks Enigma, Paul Davies, p 280) does not involve quantum mechanics but uses, I believe, a much simpler principle that could tie Life into the fabric of the universe. Life and mind are not ‘predestined and inevitable’, but the opportunity always exists ‘if the cards fall the right way’. The universe is a simple place, and, at the moment, humanity could be considered to be a parasite destroying the environment, but, consider the case that we are children that need a new way of thinking that is different to that of the animals so that we can work with the universe through social engineering. Animals are a product of survival of the fittest and a new way of thinking must include goals [relativity] that attain the promise that the universe makes, if we take advantage of it, and the ability to do that is available if we are prepared to reach for it. In other words, instead of being parasites, a change in thinking [concept] and social engineering of ourselves [context] could provide the solution to the dis-organisation that grips civilisation. Religion proved to be a partially successful solution in the past, but we can do better when we understand social engineering.

We seem to be seeing a biological truth at the moment that the old physics, mathematics, philosophy etc. are resisting change and their progeny need to create new species in the form of quantum biology, cosmology etc. and especially the creation of social engineering that is the ‘mirror image’ of the technology that we take for granted in a modern world. Paul Davies’ book contains a comprehensive survey of theories about the construction of the universe and our place in it, but these theories are based on top-down ‘armchair’ thinking following traditional physics and we need a new theory using a new way of thinking.

‘Today’s problems cannot be solved with today’s mind’

Albert Einstein and many great thinkers …

(Fair Food, edited by Nick Rose, p 250)

The Fundamentals

Physics says that the law of conservation of energy is that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, then relativity says that the orthogonal [independent yet entangled] to energy must be called something and I will call it a general ‘organisation’, and thus, I call this simple equation [energy plus organisation equals zero] the creation equation because it generates a fractal that produces the physical universe which functions on relativity and the form of the universe is defined by a lack of relativity that can be described simply by the ratios of relatives and is derived from first principles, below [Form of the Universe]. In other words, when the organisation in the creation equation is ignored, that is, put constant, the law of conservation of energy emerges and that shows that physics could be incomplete. Notice that a ‘law’ in physics is generally agreed to exist, but cannot be proven and that is one of physic’s weaknesses, whereas this paper derives everything from first principles and does not need man-made laws. In addition, a fractal built on words indicates a new type of mathematics that I call the mathematics of concept-context and further, I am assuming that the universe arose out of nothing and this equation is somewhat in line with the Big Bang theory [which is childish as it stands]

Physics appears to have great difficulty with dimensions because ‘in physics and mathematics, the dimension of a mathematical space (or object) is informally [my emphasis] defined as the minimum number of coordinates needed to specify any point within it.’ (Wikipedia, Dimensions) Notice that I am using two sets [space-time and energy-organisation] of dimensions, whereas the trend in physics is to use numerous dimensions to try to describe everything. If I were to define my idea of dimensions, they would be something like ‘the orthogonalities that define the form of an organisation’, which is similar, with organisation replacing ‘space’. An example is the sequence: Michelson-Morley experiment, Einstein’s special theory of relativity, Kaluza’s five dimensions up to ‘the picture that has emerged over the past decade is thus of an eleven-dimensional universe, with four extant, or large, dimensions (three of space and one of time), and seven microscopic space dimensions all rolled up into some tiny geometric form’. (The Pearly Gates Of Cyberspace, Margaret Wertheim, p 211)

“New Think”

The main message of this paper is, I believe, that only one type of universe exists, ‘they are convinced that a unique theory describing a unique world, with all laws and parameters completely fixed by the theory, will eventually emerge – maybe one day soon.’ (The Goldilocks Enigma, Paul Davies, p 233) This could be that theory because universes are created continually [on a personal, family, business, country basis etc.] as one would expect in a fractal, as noticed by Adam Smith [what is good for the individual is good for the economy]. Hence I will ignore the multitude of theories presented as ‘ultimate explanations’ in The Goldilocks Enigma because they are specialist theories and I am a generalist [it will be shown below that both are needed].

The creation equation [energy plus organisation equals zero] contains two parts that can be described as fundamental physics plus fundamental social science, where physics is based on energy and social engineering is based on emotional energy and is derived from Life [as affordances]. If no Life exists, the universe is physical, energy and organisation are orthogonal, independent, but entangled at the origin and are oblivious to each other. Energy and organisation are related by the complexity of Life because a mind-brain can reference both at the same time by using a mathematics of concept-context that is apparent from the creation equation. Thus, measurement is the context of this mathematics [concept] and is assigning a context [the affordance] that the measurer requires from the environment. The value of the contexts allows a decision to be made on which concept is chosen. In simpler words, the creation of Life fulfils the universe’s potential by making it become alive.

“New Think” is the concept, with general mathematical physics as the context that must be used because physics does not access the physical and how can I discuss the universe in terms that preclude the universe? We have to combine the top-down of traditional physics with the bottom-up of the physical [see the section Form of the Universe, below], the relativity that affects everything, the restrictions and its orthogonal, the logic that we use everyday. An example is that most people believe that a heavy weight falls faster than a lighter weight when dropped ,and again, physics considers energy, but not the energy of emotion that is produced by the measurement of organisation [affordances] by Life, which is a huge part of modern life: religion, music, speech, parades etc. Another example, if technology is so useful, why is the world destroying itself with over-population? I believe that fundamental physics has neglected organisation which leads to social engineering that is the changing of ourselves and the way we need to act as a society.

Cosmology

Paul Davies wants a simple, non-mathematical universe with fixed values for the natural constants and that describes a fractal that is generated by a simple equation that means that it is always similar, within itself, no matter how large it gets. The complexity has, I believe, been added by ourselves using top-down thinking and unification requires simplification.

‘All science is a search for unification.‘ (p 118)

The fractal generator is energy plus organisation equals zero, which is a word equation, and that concept has a context that I call the equation of everything, and they are orthogonal. Orthogonality is a concept and relativity is the context, and they are the drivers of everything as well as the structure of everything and form a fractal because energy contains organisation [potential energy, chemical energy etc.] and vice versa [for potential, how high, what extension of a spring etc.] .

As an example of the dangers of using mathematics, which is also incomplete, the most well known equation is probably E=mc2. There are stories that Einstein imagined riding on a photon, so, the creation equation becomes E/m=i2, on the photon, where ‘i’ is the square root of ‘-1’, E is the energy and m is the organisational form of that energy. Outside of the photon, the third absolute says that the speed of a photon must be ‘c’ to the measurer, so the measurement is ‘c squared’, and, E=mc2. Clearly, Einstein’s derivation becomes obvious from the creation equation because mass is the organisation of energy, but what is not so obvious is that the universe measures our measuring [relativity], and knows everything so as to give a unique organisational solution. In other words, when we measure, the universe has to know and so, like quantum gravity [below] in the gravity equation, the square is required.

This example raises two problems, firstly that this is similar to a very real problem that a specialist knows a lot about a small field [concept], whereas a generalist knows a little about a lot of subjects [context] and as knowledge grows, both are needed. This duality is as valid as the wave-particle duality that underpins the photon. Secondly, that ‘the universe measures our measuring [relativity]’ is broaching the subject that Paul Davies raises on how Life interacts with the universe. The, I believe, fact that the universe measures everything that we do, as part of the organisational solution renders the universe as an all-seeing ‘God’ that knows everything that we do, hears our prayers, makes us “in ‘His’ image” and could form part of a religion. Notice that religion is social engineering because it produces emotion in its adherents, along with feelings from music, monumental buildings, uniforms, churches etc. and further, I believe that the most breathtakingly audacious social experiment occurred two thousand years ago when Christianity turned the savagery of the times into ‘love your neighbour’.

The structure of the universe is given below as The Form of the Universe and it will change your thinking because it accesses the physical and the mind-brain uses this information as a ‘software’ on which to base decisions. As an example, the derivation of the law of gravity is given for the first time because it has never been proven, not by Newton, Einstein or anyone else because physics is incomplete. Einstein used ‘curved space’, as organisation in his general theory as an ‘analogy’ because both gravity attraction and curved space have the same effect [a bold assertion!] and this led to doubling the result, that turned out to be correct! Notice that an analogy is an inspired guess not just plain luck, Newton ‘inspire guessed’ the gravity equation and Einstein doubled its effect. Another example is that quantum mechanics is currently suspected of being involved in the functioning of the mind-brain, but quantum mechanics is just the physics of the small, and it is primarily, I believe, the creation equation and the equation of everything that is involved and is the precursor of physics.

Consciousness

‘Affordances are what the environment “offers the animal …. either for good or ill,” according to Gibson”. (This Idea Is Brilliant, edited by John Brockman, Daniel C. Dennett, p 147) ‘The huge gap in Gibson’s perspective was his refusal even to entertain the question of how this “direct pickup” of information was accomplished by the brain.’ (p 148) This “direct pickup” is not quantum mechanical, I believe, but comes through the creation equation, as above.

Consciousness is both a concept and a context, and contexts are interconnected [entangled] with everything and the subject is too complicated to address properly here, but one aspect is important and needs explanation, and that is measurement. The form of the universe is built out of orthogonalities that only exist by being independent [somewhat like the Cartesian axes] and cannot measure one another except by a third party, such as a mind-brain, that is a parasite, but is part of the organisation of the universe. The mind-brain [consciousness] uses the creation equation to create a mathematics of concept-context that measures two concepts and assigns a ‘tag’ [affordance] on the context to each according to the value to the organism [the measurement sought] and a decision is made on the relative value of the affordance. I call this the mathematics of concept-context and it describes thinking [context], consciousness, the structure of the mind-brain [concept], and even democracy and the market-place, as is to be expected in a fractal.

It seems logical that when the environment is measured, with respect to the organism’s requirement, the organisation of the environment is increased to include the measurer, and that requires that a compensating amount of energy to be given to the measurer, so, energy appears in the mind-brain of the observer and constitutes the energy of the measurement and we call it emotion and it happens whenever we view organisation in music, art, religion, parades etc. Newtonian physics is based on energy, but emotion is an energy that physics neglects, presumably because it is difficult to take into account.

The Mind-brain

I have always considered that Life to be a parasite that evolved because it could evolve, but that is not so if the universe is a fractal, because everything is linked together, and in particular, Life and the universe are intimately connected. They are connected through the creation equation that created the universe and Life to the extent that every measurement made by an organism uses the creation equation through affordances to make a decision and has to be taken into account by the universe to derive an organisational solution. Making a decision evolved into a mind-brain that works on the only principle available, which is the mathematics of concept-context. This mathematics is obvious from the creation equation and the affordance is the value placed on the importance of the context between the mind-brain and a number of concepts so that a decision can be made.

Clearly the set of action potentials from the senses represents the organisation that was experienced and these are held in the brain in temporary storage with an affordance attached that determines its importance and through evolution, abstract thought evolved. The importance of thought in survival of the fittest can be gauged by the fact that 20% of the body’s energy is consumed in the brain that consists of only 2% of the body-weight. The important point is that all life-forms measure their environment and so have consciousness and in a fractal, this is the same mechanism that the universe uses, that is, that it measures what life measures. Hence, if life measures and so is conscious, the universe necessarily notes that measurement and so must be conscious and with entanglement, below, is probably fully conscious!

Religion

Thus, a measurement that Life makes, is, through relativity, available to the universe, and hence the c squared in E=mc2. This is logical because the universe is an entity as much as we are entities complete to ourselves, but contained in a greater entity. Consider the relativity in the derivation of the gravity equation below, or why does the proof of Pythagoras’ theorem involve the squares of the sides. Notice that we are made ‘in the universe’s image’, the universe knows everything that we think or do, our thoughts [prayers] can influence the universe [measurement] and the universe is looking like the God in Christianity. Further, the Trinity seems strange with God, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit and there is the thought that the predecessor of the Holy Spirit was lost in antiquity and was originally the environment. Notice that social engineering is needed to protect the environment because Churches have not.

Religion is a vital expression of social engineering and was [possibly] formulated to change society [which it did over a large part of civilisation] and must remain a necessary part of a modern society. Consider that religion is the context of the concept of ethics and much work is done, ideally every Sunday at services, to instil Christian Principles. Indeed, religion is carefully formulated, but it is losing it’s hold as the world changes [and it does not]. If the Church’s teachings were to change to accommodate a modern world, and I believe that they need tweaking, an obvious one might be to replace the Holy Spirit with the environment because the Church has a reputation for saying that the environment is for Man’s use and we are destroying it.

Social Engineering

Social engineering is clearly necessary if we are to control civilisation to prevent over-population, over-consumption etc. as Malthus predicted, but on Wikipedia, it barely exists. I believe that it is the organisation in the creation equation because it is the energy that we feel as emotion when confronted with the organisation of daily life. Our emotions are manipulated everyday through music, city centre buildings, art, beauty, parades, church services etc. and especially food marketeers that tempt us into eating ‘junk’ food, to the detriment of our health. Sixty per cent of adults in the developed world are overweight or obese, people and society have no agreed goals for themselves or the environment and could be classed as children, and this is understandable because they think like the animals with imposed goals through survival of the fittest.

When we mature, we set goals and change our thinking to help others and continue civilisation by having children. In a fractal, taking this to its logical conclusion, we need to use social engineering to change national behaviour to prevent wars, genocide etc., and on a personal level, robbery, murder, gambling etc. and the many antisocial activities of the young. Social engineering is planning the organisation of society to voluntarily select the best organisation, as shown by evolution according to an agreed plan, and that plan is, I believe, a new way of thinking [“New Think”]

Conclusion

Newtonian physics is too convenient to disturb and it is not necessary to do so, because we can ‘slide’ the physical underneath it for those that need the physical. All that we need to do is use the relative nature of the universe to make “New Think” the concept, and a context consisting of Newtonian physics top-down, the physical bottom-up, relativity, restrictions [such as the universe must expand to allow the creation equation to exist] and the orthogonal that is the daily logic.

Prediction

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the anthropic principle and it has turned out to be more bizarre than I suspected because of it’s fractal nature, so, ‘it is no more than a necessary statistical procedure, usually referred to as the weak anthropic principle’ (p 251) In the strong anthropic principle ‘the laws of physics and the evolution of the universe are in some unspecified manner destined to bring forth life and mind. The strong anthropic principle does not forbid a multiplicity of universes, but it stipulates that universes without life and observers don’t exist.’ (p 251) The ‘unspecified manner’ is suggested below.

Thus, it would appear that multiverses are not hived off like pages in a book, but more like a ‘tree’ structure where a fractal produces new fractals as a matter of course and minute universes appear all the time in individuals, couples, families etc. All universes are similar, symmetric and simple and all parts are orthogonal and independent, and it could be considered, from a religious perspective that we form the awakening of the universe by being it’s senses because it needs our input to create itself through measurement. The question becomes ‘are we the children of the universe, or its parents?’. In other words, Life brings the universe to life by providing a means of accessing the orthogonals and the entanglement includes the universe in Life.

I use to think that we are parasites because we could be parasites, but clearly we have a duty to become symbiotic and to have a goal that is relative. It does not really matter what we do because we are restricted to a small part of the universe by the speed of light and organisation and we have little influence, however, consider the following quotation because information as organisation is limited to the speed of light as shown by the creation equation, but ‘quantum entangled particles . . . can remain correlated irrespective of the distance between them. This bizarre feature of the quantum world seems not to respect Einstein’s cosmic speed limit, for a particle in one place can instantaneously influence another, however far apart the two may be.’ (Life on the Edge, Jim Al-Khalili and Johnjoe McFadden, p 251) Notice that physics does not understand quantum mechanics nor recognise the creation equation, and there appear to be two types of entanglement, firstly from the creation equation, and secondly that logic, restrictions, gravity, Occam’s razor and the principle of least action appear to affect the universe instantaneously as is necessary in an organisational solution.

Looking further into the question ‘are we the children of the universe, or its parents?’, shows a symbiosis that occurs when the first measurement is made, because the barren universe is constructed of orthogonals that cannot be accessed until a third party evolves and the organisational solution must include the measurer’s action. Given that the mind and brain are constructed on the mathematics of concept-context, it is clear that all life is conscious because it measures, but it was a surprise to see that Life was needed to give a reality to the universe, but in hindsight, if nothing is measured, it does not have a relativity and does not exist. There is no way to resolve the question other than that consciousness and a recognisable universe occurred simultaneously and we should try to act as symbiotes and not parasites because the universe is part of us, and further, I believe that we should make a place for the other lifeforms that we share the planet with, and place controls on population.

The question of consciousness is clear because a mobile phone measures and tells when it is low on battery charge, likewise a car with the fuel gauge, so, they could be considered conscious, likewise the question behind The Goldilocks Enigma. Paul Davies suggests three alternatives ‘why the universe is so unexpectedly suited to life’: ‘an exceedingly lucky fluke’, ‘there exists a multiverse’ or ‘an intelligent creator’ (p 215), but I believe that the above occurs because it is a derivation and the universe is so big that (effectively) life will form eventually somewhere in any universe, so the strong anthropic principle appears to win out.

Conclusion: in a fractal, everything is the same, so, consider that a decision is made by comparing the affordances of two [necessarily orthogonal] concepts [as action potentials] in the mind-brain, also, a computer compares two orthogonals [0 and 1] and makes a decision, so, Life is necessary to compare two physical concepts and that perhaps brings the universe to life. I have already pointed out that the universe could be the ‘God’ of the Scriptures, and that fits with the fractal and could be classed as the super-strong anthropic principle. This answers the questions: ‘is there a ‘God?”, ‘where does ‘God’ live?’, ‘does ‘God’ know everything that we do and think?’ and even perhaps, can ‘God’ answer prayers?’. The universe uses the many facets of the logic of the half-truth, but true and false suggests that the universe itself could be a mind-brain-computer that is turned on by Life and uses [the two possible] entanglement to communicate instantaneously throughout itself.

In other words, the weak anthropic principle allows Life to form, the strong anthropic principle says that Life will form, whereas the super-strong anthropic principle says that the possibility of Life measuring creates the universe as the necessary logic behind the measurement.

The Form Of The Universe

The creation: 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], secondly, energy and organisation are necessarily created to balance the necessary expansion [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). The law of gravitation is:

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

Notice 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. Further, ‘today physicists feel confident that this set – gravity, electromagnetism, the weak force, and the strong force – represent the full complement of our physical universe. But what really began to excite them was the idea that all four might be just different aspects of a single overarching force – a kind of unifying super-force.’ (The Pearly Gates Of Cyberspace, Margaret Wertheim, p 211) This refers to the quantum gravity above, which is a single absolute, not a force and, I believe, explains everything from quarks to gravity. Electromagnetism is similar to the macroscopic wave-particle duality expressed as wave [energy] and particle [organisation] alternating.

‘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, as quantum gravity [absolute (4)] varies inversely as the separation, relativity requires the inverse square law [or the square law, in this case] and 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 [such as Pythagoras’ theorem]?

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 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. Newton’s laws of motion, Einstein’s theory and Maxwell’s equations all hide organisation and that obscures the picture, for example, magnetism is an organisation that registers the relativity between a charged particle and the measurer as can be seen by its odd behaviour [sign depends on direction, magnitude on speed]. 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]. 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. This is a truth that we should seriously consider acting upon because “new Think” is based on truths.

“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.

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