Thinking – The Concept, The Context And The Goal

by Darryl Penney

Abstract: depth of thinking is thought to define humanity but humanity is facing organisational problems in it’s society because it seems to have neither the knowledge nor the will to prevent it, but a new complete way of thinking might ‘save the day’ and allow us to understand where we are going as a civilisation and especially as a symbiote. We can increase the power of our thinking by using software derived from relativity, the physical and Newtonian physics [that does not seem to use the physical], and then we can use rational management to set goals for a stable future. Further, it is ridiculous that we call ourselves Homo sapiens [wise] whilst civilisation is destroying itself and I suggest that it is time for a new humanity [Homo completus] that thinks in a higher number of dimensions, is bionic and contains the goals that we need to ensure a symbiosis with the planet.

Preamble

We think that we are smart and successful with cars, computers, internet, phones etc., and we have reason to be, in some parts of the developed world, but the rest of the world sees problems. We have come from survival of the fittest to create a whole new world based on technology, but we are starting to see ‘cracks’ appearing in this society because we can’t produce the goods needed, nor even able to control the population growth. For example, we lived with the armchair musings of the ancient Greeks for a couple of thousand years, discovered science and one of the absolutes by Galileo [F/m=a, F force, m mass and a is the acceleration due to gravity] and constructed Newtonian physics etc., which sufficed until modern physics came along a hundred years ago, but we found Newtonian physics to be too simple because it ignores organisation [when it can] 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). We need to correct this.

Humanity has left survival of the fittest with it’s innate organisation without providing a new organisation that answers the questions that Socrates asked that have never been answered because their answer needs social engineering, that is the orthogonal [independent yet entangled] of technology that is being hidden by Newtonian Physics. Our success has come from our large brain, that has grown over millions of years, so much so, that we are helpless for years as infants, but, our current failures come from the same source, our thinking. How can we improve our thinking to save humanity in the long term when our brain appears to have ‘maxed out’? The answer is surprisingly simple, I think, and lies in the neglected organisation.

Preface

No one, that I know, seems to have questioned what the universe actually is, except to assume that it is ‘real’ and is what we want it to be for our convenience. I believe that it probably came from nothing and so, is built from relativities that continue to exist under certain restrictions [principally an accelerating space that produces gravity, while an accelerating charge produces magnetism etc., see What If God Does Play Dice? submitted to the International Journal of Theoretical Physics]. The universe is a fractal because it is derived from a simple generator and that makes everything simple, symmetrical and similar, but Newtonian physics does not actually access the physical, even though it suggests that it does, and that complicates matters as well as the well-known fact that modern physics theory has retreated back to its original mode of measurement by saying ‘use quantum mechanics, but don’t try to understand it’. Well, it can be understood using this theory.

Philosophy and mathematics are also ‘closed shops’ that follow the scientific principle, which is to build on past agreed [peer review] views, but what happens if those original propositions were not the correct ones? That is the dilemma that faces this paper, to change the way that we think, and that is not easy, as the proverbs suggest – ‘you can lead a horse to water ……’ or ‘there are none so blind ………’. Further, it is a ‘truth’ from evolution that the established carry-on doing what they do, with their offspring responsible for change. However, as difficult as it may be to change thinking, we already possess a competent mind-brain and only need to upgrade the software. The present software that we use is similar to that which the animals use, that is based on survival of the fittest, and is not what we need now.

This paper is about organisation, which everyone hates, and to make it easy I am going to use mathematics, which most people also hate, to illustrate how the mind-brain works organisationally [socially in literature] and mathematically [as in arithmetic in schools]. In a relativistic universe everything changes and we view [measure] our universe through its permanent form, which are the absolutes [the ratios of dimensions that do not change because the relativity cancels out], and I will use two sets of two books to relativise the discussion as well as the creation equation that is derived in the section Form of the Universe, below. The aim is to show that everything can be put to ‘rights’ by using a double orthogonality of relativity [sideways] and bottom-up with top-down [Newtonian physics] that I call general mathematical physics or, a new way of thinking [context and concept].

Life is a parasite in the environment, and like all parasites, we should become symbiotic with the environment if we are to survive in the long-term as a civilisation and retain a stable environment. This symbiosis must become a goal that we have to work towards if we want to attain a steady state and progress as a society, which is the evolution [goal] that underlies survival of the fittest. We have evolved for 3,000 million years and that requires giving to future generations [in loco parentis] and this giving could be an increase in our ability to think by increasing the software from one dimension to four dimensions. This simply means that we are using our existing brain in a much better way and possibly create a new species for ourselves, literally overnight.

Thinking and Thought

In a relative fractal space, such as our universe, we can only make sense of our surroundings by using the absolutes, for example, length, time, mass, energy and organisation change to keep the speed of light constant [Einstein’s special theory based on the Michelson-Morley experiment]. In the context of this paper, relativity requires reference points that could be defined by these two books, ‘outraged by the downward spiral of America intellect and culture, Michael R. LeGault offers the flip side of Malcolm Gladwell’s bestselling phenomenon, Blink, which theorized that our best decision-making is done on impulse, without factual knowledge or critical analysis’. (Th!nk, front flap) If space permitted, I would suggest a currently unpublished paper Rationalising Management, Money And The Gifts Of The Ancient Greeks that uses the technique of this paper to rationalise management.

If these books characterise current thinking, how does it look from the bottom-up? ‘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)

Clearly, affordances are related to what Life seeks by way of measurement, whether it be food, shelter etc., and measuring the organisation of the environment raises the awareness of the environment to the measurer’s measurement and that creates a compensating energy in the mind-brain of the measurer through the creation equation [energy plus organisation equal zero]. [The relativity of measurement creates the square as in the inverse square law, which is, I believe, currently wide of the mark, see below.] The value [context] of that (emotional) energy [concept] indicates the suitability of the food, shelter etc. and comparing the levels [of emotion] is thought that then requires a decision. ‘As Antonio Damasio, a pioneering neuroscientist at the University of Southern California, has stated, emotion is involved in almost every single brain activity. It is an integral part of the perception/pattern recognition/decision/action chain, often being triggered instinctively between perception and pattern recognition.’ (Blue Mind,Wallace J. Nichols, p 49)

The Mathematical Mind

As above, I need to set relativities to define the top-down current thinking. ‘The philosopher and psychologist Jerry Fodor divides cognitive abilities into two sorts: the highly specialized, which he calls “cognitive modules”, and the general purpose, which he calls “central processes”.’ (The Mathematical Brain, Brian Butterworth, p 5) ‘I shall try to show that Fodor was wrong in every particular. I shall argue that the human genome – the full set of genes that make us what we are – contains instructions for building specialized circuits of the brain, which I call the Number Module . . . . The job of the Number Module is to categorize the world in terms of numerosities – the number of things in a collection’. (p 6)

I think that it can be seen from the theories put forward by these books that they express positions within a relativity. Some of the ideas are more correct than others, but that can only be seen by setting up an absolute that is always correct and that is the generating equation of the fractal, namely, energy plus organisation equals zero. The first example, of thinking, seems wide of the mark, but then, thinking has been a ‘closed shop’ because it requires organisation to understand it, and we hate dealing with organisation, because until now, we have not had the tools. Affordances make sense as part of measurement, and the latter example of the Number Module leads to interesting theories of the construction of the brain. We use the mathematics of concept-context everyday as speech, literature etc. and it can be seen to be simply a statement of the creation equation, but we create traditional mathematics, with much effort, by using, and perhaps abusing, if you do not like mathematics, a necessary module that we have developed to help survive competition.

Consider this remarkable quotation. ‘I have argued that some avian and mammalian brains, including our own, have gone one further: they have evolved to pick out collections of individuals and to recognize their numerosity. . . . we are able not just to discriminate the numerosity of a collection of four things from a collection of three, we are able to experience the “fourness of four” and to reflect on this conscious experience.’ (p 390) Where does this remarkable ability come from? It was suggested that it is a survival trait, but I think that it goes much deeper than that because mathematics is based on counting sheep and uses a relatively complex number line, whereas numerosity is in continual use in a competitive society, and is much more simple.

The mathematics of thinking [mathematics of concept and context] can be seen from the creation equation and contributes to the organisation of thought because the context is the emotional energy attached to each concept by a measurer and a decision is made depending on the magnitude of that emotional energy. The numerosity module is simply a comparator of two levels of emotional energy that, being energy can be measured by simple means such as sound level, colour, temperature etc. A macroscopic example would be, what we call a joke, where the jokester leads us [the organisation of the joke in our mind] ‘up the garden path’ with the aim of simplifying the organisation in the conclusion and generating a laugh. The magnitude of the laugh is a measure of the success of the joke and the greater the simplification [of the organisation in our mind] at the punch-line, the more energy is generated [via the creation equation], which must be disposed-of, and that disposal becomes the laugh, which can only be described as a crude expulsion of energy.

The Mathematical Module

One definition of Life is ‘one who measures’ because there is no point in developing senses without a purpose [chicken and the egg situation] and thus bacteria [and perhaps viruses] could be called life-forms. The first sensor [or brain] must have been a comparator to gauge the level of emotion produced by measuring the environment and produced such responses as touch, taste, hearing and sight etc. and as complexity grew it would seem desirable to increase the comparators so that there was one for each sense. That is top-down thinking that increases complexity, whereas the universe is a fractal with symmetry and similarity as well as the requirement of simplicity [absolute five] and a better example that uses these attributes might be the personal computer. Thus a fractal means that a simple computer is organisationally similar to the mind-brain and consists of random memory, a single comparator and input/output, so why should the mind-brain be different in essence?

The need for intense competition is that each sense should activate as quickly as possible, for example, we have nerve circuitry where we react to touching a hot object as quickly as possible and that reaction is activated without involving the brain. Hence, this situation could be handled by one central comparator with short-term working memory being of the same magnitude as the ability to subitize, where subitizing is ‘the ability to take in the numerosity of a visual array of objects at a glance,and without counting. Even in adults, the limit is about 4.’ (p 116) Notice that many people over history have suggested various numbers of senses, but we commonly use four: sight, touch, taste/smell and hearing.

Consider ‘Gamm was not born with exceptional mathematical ability . . . . By the time he was twenty-six, he had become a calculating genius, able to make his living by performing on television . . . . rely on long-term memory to help them solve mathematical problems when others rely on short-term memory . . . . and they have immediate access to them, as though they were in short-term memory. This use of long-term memory for problem solving is typical of experts in most fields, and Ericsson found that becoming an expert in most fields usually takes about a decade of concentrated effort.’ (The Brain that Changes Itself, Norman Doige, p 203)

Learning Mathematics

The aim of this paper is to show that organisation [context] is just as important as concept, and yet society always seems to accentuate concepts and eliminate contexts, and physics is a prime example. Any general mathematics must be composed of the sideways relativity [as above] with the physical [below] and physics, mathematics etc. for convenience. In particular, the mind-brain is a super-computer that can do whatever is needed if we are prepared to put the work in, even to the extent of becoming phenomenal calculators. If this can be done using mathematics, what can be done when organisation is added, and the answer is all of: ‘how we think?’ [mathematics of concept-context], ‘what are affordances?’, ‘why is the Mona Lisa famous?’ and ‘why do we laugh?’ [organisation converts to emotional energy] etc.

Do we have a mathematical brain? The answer is complicated, because the usual software is based on the number line [counting sheep] because it is useful, but the brain is actually a ‘literiturial’ brain because it deals in concepts and context that are found in the mathematics of concept-context [creation equation]. Hence, mathematics is a software that we force on the mind-brain because it is useful to count everything from house numbers to giving change. People have used body-parts to count for thousands of years before our civilisation forced rote learning on students. For example, ‘the Yupno people, like many of their neighbours in Papua New Guinea, have no special words for numbers, but use body parts and body-part names to count. It is thought that even modern European number words were derived from body-part names.’ (The Mathematical Brain, Brian Butterworth, p 57)

To repeat, ‘mathematics is a software that we force on the mind-brain’ because numeracy is so important in a modern society, for example, ‘in England, the Government’s Numeracy Task Force recommends lots of drill and practice, so that children “know by heart number facts such as number bonds, multiplication tables, doubles and halves”.’ (p 350) Clearly, there are organisational subroutines that we use because they are convenient in a modern world, but like in physics, there could be an overall organisation that is being missed. As an example, Norman Doige, above, suggests that the mathematical module is the short-term memory, whilst Brian Butterworth suggests that ‘the current best guess is that a relatively small part, the inferior lobule, is the core of our numerical abilities’ (p 215) However, this theory of mine suggests that short-term memory is linked to the comparator that is in the brain of all organisms and thus would be found in the brain stem. Norman Doige also suggests that excess learning memory storage [of times table etc.] occurs in the fore brain.

Social Engineering

Having reached this point that society is using a ‘ragbag’ of organisation for a few important tasks, we should ask ‘are we missing the big picture and if so, what is it?’, and further, ‘where do we find it?’ and ‘what can we do with it?’ The first question is answered by the need to present this paper, and the second is that, as the creation shows, the organisation is now explicitly shown to be orthogonal to energy, and for doubters, I would like to suggest that if organisation is ignored [put constant], the creation equation becomes the basis of physics, that energy cannot be created or destroyed. Clearly, physics is incomplete.

The third question is contextual and as everything is entangled [orthogonal], we can do whatever we like with organisation, and as the quotation above says, that has been the trouble. I think that an example should suffice, that our society is based on technology that has grown out of materials engineering [ energy], whereas organisation allows a social engineering of ourselves that rivals the scope of technology. We have ‘one foot’ in survival of the fittest and that shows as opposition to society’ values and necessitates police, jails etc. to control murders, stealing etc. Simply, we are not civilised. In my opinion, the greatest social engineering experiment was Christianity that changed the savagery of the times into ‘love your neighbour’ that led to excess population.

It is often thought that the social sciences are ‘soft’, but this is not true using this model. Consider the quotation above, ‘information remains bewildering, partly because it crops up in different guises in so many scientific fields’. It sounds scary, but it is hiding two important facts, firstly, that in a fractal everything is simple, symmetrical and similar because everything is generated from the creation equation and secondly, it is a half-truth.

The logic of the half-truth is that something can be true, false, both true and false at the same time, or chaos and there are no other options, but the third option could be chaos, unless the switching is so fast that it does not affect the result and I believe that the photon switches between energy [wave] and organisation [particle] so fast that it does not upset absolute five and as an example, Einstein was awarded the Nobel Prize in recognition of the wave-particle duality. Thus the quotation is a half-truth because it ignores the underlying properties of a fractal and social engineering uses the same principles for the individual, family and country etc. In other words, organisation is simple! Concept and context are orthogonal [independent but entangled] and form the building blocks of everything in our fractal universe and this paper, I believe, shows that a clearer and better way of thinking is possible using this technique.

Conclusion and Prediction

The conclusion is that we need a new way of thinking to fix society’s problems and that it is better to attain a symbiosis that helps everyone than to ‘crash and burn’ uncontrollably, as seems likely as populations grow. It is fortuitous that populations are stabilising in the developed world, but that is not management, and the situation is not stable, and the answer is, I believe, to use rational management that includes setting goals. We have to complete the movement out of survival of the fittest in a planned rational way so as to attain a desired goal.

The prediction is the relativity to the conclusion and incorporates a goal, and a goal is always necessary. The above shows the form of the new thinking [concept] and the general mathematics, that is the context [by showing current thinking as top-down and the physical as the bottom-up relativities], and all that is needed to know everything about thinking is the creation equation, as would be expected in a fractal. However, a human thinks [concept], but what does he or she think about? Homo sapiens is a smug appellation that we are wise and presumably we are wiser than the animals that are trapped in survival of the fittest, but leaving the organisation of survival of the fittest has shown that we cannot control our society and we have broken away from our symbiosis. Thus, we are certainly not wise and need to ‘get back on track’ and change ourselves by including organisation.

New thinking and general mathematical physics are orthogonal, but what is a complete human orthogonal to? Presumably we are orthogonal to our symbiote, the universe, and we become a new person [concept], but a concept needs a context of what we are about and that is supplied by the internet. In other words, our relativity is with a personage that we create [God the universe] and we know everything [bottom-up] conceptually [complete physics], but what do we know contextually? Clearly all information is at our fingertips through the internet and as an example I entered ‘Latin, word for complete’ and up popped the answer: complete (v.) late 14c., “make complete, bring to an end, supply what is lacking; fulfill, accomplish,” from complete (adj.) and probably in part from Latin completus.

Yes, I think that Homo completus is an apt name for a new entity that knows everything contextually [internet] and knows how everything works [creation equation] and contains the obligatory goal of mankind that must be a symbiosis, and further, is bionic. ‘The word bionic was coined by Jack E. Steele in August 1958, being formed as a portmanteau from biology and electronics. It was popularized by the 1970s U.S. television series The Six Million Dollar Man and The Bionic Woman, both based upon the novel Cyborg by Martin Caidin. All feature humans given various superhuman powers by the electromechanical implants.’ (Wikipedia, Bionics)

Unfortunately, whilst a fractal is simple, symmetrical and similar, it is also self-generating and unstable. We still have not answered Socrates’ questions, but they have been somewhat answered by the Ten Commandments of Christianity with God making the decisions. According to the philosopher Hobbes (1588-1679), people dislike government, but even more do they dislike the problems that occur with no government, such as “and which is worst of all, continual fear, and the danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” (Leviathan (1651)). If ‘nurture’ and ‘nature’ are orthogonal, as they appear to be, they have generated our society and thus, social engineering also covers the genetic component that has been neglected, but vital to the concept of civilised.

Overview

Homo sapiens arose with technology and is destroying the word’s environment because it is incomplete and lacks organisation. Car-makers offer seven years free servicing of their vehicle to stop ‘crazies’ [in their opinion] wrecking them with ‘home-servicing’. Homo completus is a bionic goal, and yet we let ‘crazies’ indiscriminately have children that are a threat to our children that we put so much work and money into. Social engineering is needed to protect the safety of our children and ourselves, also, we could produce even better children with planning and social engineering, and that is what evolution is all about.

The following important section appeared in the October issue, 2020, of Mind and Society [Can Affordances Save Civilisation?], but has been expanded.

The Form Of The Universe

Relativity is the functioning of the universe and a lack of relativity is the form of the universe and a lack of relativity is easily created [and our understanding of the universe] by the ratios of the dimensions [energy (E), organisation (O), time (t) and length (l)] created by expansion . The five absolutes are firstly, the sum of energy and organisation is always zero [from the creation equation energy plus organisation equals zero], secondly, energy and organisation are necessarily created as infill to balance the necessary acceleration [relativity for the creation equation to exist] of the universe [E/t+O/t, all volume], thirdly, the constant speed of light [with respect to any measurer] is l/t (all E and O) and fourthly, gravity [so called quantum gravity] is E/l+O/l (all t).

Other orthogonalities [independent, but entangled] are created that operate similarly to the absolutes, such as that the speed of a particle and the speed of a photon must not be the same [Einstein’s special theory of relativity] and Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, below, that tests the orthogonality of the creation equation and the dimensions. It is also important to note that other entities are products of the space, such as gravity, entanglement and logic from the creation equation and do not have speed restrictions such as the speed of light and organisation.

This theory explains cosmic inflation as well as predicting its form because the speed of energy and organisation is constant [an absolute] within the space that is accelerating. This might seem contradictory because it would seem that a constant speed is impossible in an accelerating space, but acceleration is relative because it contains time and so is orthogonal and completely independent of the speed [absolute] even though the universe [space] accelerates as the reciprocal of time with a possible singularity at time zero.

The creation equation [energy plus organisation = zero] could be written as E=mi(squared) on the photon, where ‘i’ is the square root of -1, and E=mc(squared) off the photon [absolute three]. Notice that the infill [to balance the necessary acceleration] of the universe [E/t+O/t, all volume] is a constant but the acceleration of space behaves as a hyperbola [speed of energy and organisation is constant divided by time] with cosmic inflation near time zero, which inflates space enormously and falls off asymptotically towards zero with time. This simplifies the current theory of cosmic inflation and the accelerating universe.

Thus, the universe does not know that it exists until Life, as a measuring tool, creates itself and provides another view [relativity] and this can be seen in the ‘square’ of measurement [the creation equation (energy only for simplicity) on the photon is E=mi(squared), Einstein’s equation off the photon E=mc(squared), form of gravity E=mx(squared), Born’s rule, product of absolutes in the gravity equation etc.]. I believe that the ‘square’ is the reciprocity of relativity and shows a relationship between Life and the environment that is a true symbiosis because both come into existence at the same time. Thus, in an accelerating space [needed for the creation equation to logically exist], gravity is generated and in two or more dimensions, any point x, is measured as x(squared) [the relativity of the measurer and the universe] which could be viewed as a parabola y= x(squared), with constant acceleration, which shows that anything [energy or organisation] at x will orbit another anything [for relativity, Kepler’s laws]. Notice that everything at that point attracts [energy and organisation] and is the reason for the enigma that all weights fall at the same rate. [Galileo held that two masses with different weights (one dimension, absolute four), when let go, the accelerating space produces the same path for each]

Gravitation [in one dimension] is the product of the two absolutes:

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

Notice the product of the absolutes, so that the universe records our measurement, and that the ‘inverse square law’, as it is usually described, is inappropriate [one mass, charge etc. can not exist] and is actually derived from the absolutes and relativity and the ‘+’ in the creation equation stands for all relationships [physical, logical, restrictive, use etc.] between two entities.

‘As with the Schrodinger equation itself, we still have no fundamental way of deriving Born’s rule.’ (Beyond Weird, Phillip Ball, p 41) This is not surprising because Born’s rule requires the same derivation as the law of gravitation. ‘If the amplitude of an electron wavefunction at x is 1 (in some units), and at y it is 2, then repeated experiments to determine the electron’s position will find it at y four times (2×2) more often than at x…. How did Born know this? He didn’t. Again, he “guessed”’. (p 41). In every oscillation between a wave and particle [wave-particle duality], the particle has to reappear somewhere, and it appears with a probability dependant on the square of the amplitude of the wave because there is obviously relativity between the wave and particle.

‘Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle…. This restriction on precise knowledge does not apply to all pairs of quantum properties. It applies only to some, which are said to be “conjugate variables”. Position and momentum are conjugate variables, and so are energy and time (although the uncertainty relationship between them is subtly different from that between position and momentum) … I have never found an intuitive explanation of what makes two variables conjugate’. (p 150) The universe is created from an orthogonality [independent, but entangled at the origin] of energy [momentum] and organisation [position] and trying to measure an orthogonality [measuring each exactly is the same as between the two] is logically impossible because it is a restriction on the creation equation [independence]. Energy and time, along with organisation, volume and length are dimensions and must be orthogonal so that ratios can uniquely define absolutes.

Fifthly, the role of Occam’s razor and the principle of least action is crucial to the understanding of the functioning of the universe and the latter asks ‘why does light travel in a straight line?’. Newton’s laws of motion say that a photon must travel in a straight line otherwise the laws do not work and so misses out on vital information and is, again, ‘up in the air’. I believe that the answer is that there has to be a unique answer and the only unique answer in every case is the minimum and the organisation that belongs to the minimum energy is the most efficient organisation. I can say this with conviction because if either energy or organisation were not at a minimum, there would be two solutions at the same time and this would cause chaos in the functioning of the universe. This last sentence questions whether our universe is “real”, although derived from nothing is a bit of a difficulty, but then, what or where do we expect it to come from and suggests that it is an organisational solution based on possibilities created by measurement?

If there is a creation equation, as I propose, the universe must be a fractal and everything in it must conform to certain simple rules. Adam Smith was the first to realise this in Economics, where an ‘invisible hand’ works so that what is good for the individual, is good for the economy. Clearly everything shows this form of the universe in its use and as an example, let’s look at Euler’s equation, which is claimed by Mathematics as the enigmatic relationship between the fundamental mathematical quantities pi, e, i, 1 and 0, though what 1 has to do with the others appears a little strange. However, as a description of the physical universe, it makes more sense because it determines the form of the universe [(e to the power i times pi +1) = 0 can be written (e to the power i times pi + e to the power 0) = 0, which is an expression of orthogonality and describes an expanding [e, simple interest expansion] sphere [pi] from 0 symmetrical [i] through the centre]. This ‘subsuming’ is the expected result in a fractal and Euler’s equation appears enigmatic because of the appearance of ‘i’ [the square root of ‘-1’], but it’s appearance becomes obvious due to relativity. Consider the quotation “wavefunctions generally contain ‘imaginary’ numbers – one involving the square root of -1, which is not something that has a physical meaning” (p 53). I am drawing attention to it because it shows the current confused thinking of physics, in that ‘i’ is an operator from quantum gravity [E/l+O/l for all t] because relativity is shown by ‘1’ and ‘-1’ from the inverse square law and that must be generated by ‘i’ and that is why “wavefunctions generally contain ‘imaginary’ numbers” because ‘i’ [and every number] is not only a number [concept], but also an organisation [context] and quantum gravity is the ‘spread’ from the atom [quarks] to gravity [in galaxies]. In other words, ‘i’ is imaginary, and does not exist, because relativity always exists and not because it does not make sense in mathematics.

So, Newtonian physics is a creation of the mind and has nothing to do with the physical [except that it uses the absolute force/mass = acceleration] until general mathematical physics is used and then it can be seen that additional information is created from measuring organisation. For example Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity shows that there is a simple relationship between mass, length and time, but this is incomplete because the above says that energy, organisation, length and time are simply related through the ratios that destroy relativity. Einstein was looking at the relativistic changes, and clearly, organisation must be included, whereas the absolutes looks at the things that don’t change [invariants of the universe]. Notice that we have just extended Einstein’s special theory of relativity and also that information [concept] is necessarily constrained to the speed of light, something that has been a conjecture, also, Einstein’s theory shows the orthogonality of the speed of light and mass and what happens as in Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle when challenges to the fundamental structure of the universe are attempted. It is also important to realise that the dimensions are independent, but entangled organisationally.

Measuring organisation such as beauty, music, religion, buildings and parades etc. creates energy that we release as laughter, in extreme cases [good joke], dance energy [foot-tapping] or just feeling emotional energy of appreciation [Mona Lisa painting possibly due to the golden triangle ratios] due to the affordances that convert the organisation of the surroundings [given the measurer’s questioning] to emotional energy in the mind-brain that allows for decision making via the mathematics of concept-context. Thus, social engineering is necessarily orthogonal to material engineering and is the key to controlling our civilisation and preventing a (so far) inevitable break-down. Newtonian physics is convenient for us in our world, but does not consider the physical host that we live within [as parasites], and it behoves all good parasites to understand and consider the health of their host, for to kill their host is to die as well.

“New Think” [concept] is a new complete way of thinking that uses the simplicity and ease of use of top-down traditional Newtonian physics with the bottom-up of the creation equation, relativity and the restrictions and a general mathematical physics [context] that creates a description of everything. This is not the ‘law’ of everything that requires peer review, it is literally everything and raises our thinking to a new level because a complete physics generates a social engineering [orthogonal to technology] that, in a fractal, offers improvements in personal, group and country involvement.

It is a property of a fractal that everything is simple, symmetrical and similar and Life enables the universe that is built on orthogonalities to discover itself through Life and be similar to the Christian God that is everywhere and knows everything because the universe has to be part of every measurement, but we need social engineering to determine the ethics [concept] to be used in religion [context] to derive an aim for civilisation.

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