What If God Does Play Dice?

By Darryl Penney

Abstract: to ask the question ‘what if ?’ makes us (somewhat) unique among the animals, but we are still animals and need a new software in our thinking to fix our problems on a personal through government level because leaving survival of the fittest and using technology has resulted in organisational problems that threaten the existence of society. Physics has fallen behind and is hiding the organisation, such as social engineering, rational management and bottom-up symmetries that we need to function effectively in a modern world. When physics is made to embrace the physical it shows that the organisational form behind the working of the universe is a fractal within an accelerating form of the classical probability space used in mathematics. This realisation shows that the symmetry of organisation repeats throughout our fractal universe and is the key to attaining a symbiosis between ourselves and our host, the environment, but symbiosis means restructuring physics so that we understand the physical and that will bring surprises, a new way of thinking and the realisation of how simple things really are, and the creation, accelerating universe and cosmic inflation are derived.

Keywords: fractal universe; relativity; gravity; symmetry; the mind; creation equation

Preface: this paper presents a model that completes Newtonian physics that generalised Galileo’s absolute [F/m=a] by the addition of two orthogonalities [relativity and top-down and bottom-up organisation] to the simplistic consideration of energy. The model presents the physical side of a general mathematical model based on a fractal generated by the creation equation because physics does not, and never has, accessed the physical. The much sought-after Theory of Everything is simply the creation equation, from which the absolutes generate quantum gravity and a constant speed of light, answer Occam’s razor and the Principle of Least Action etc., shows that the Grand Unified Field Theory can be derived from the creation equation that shows that gravity and magnetism are not concepts, but effects. Further, the creation equation creates affordances and shows the workings of the mind-brain, why laughter occurs, how art can be judged, why cosmic inflation and why an accelerating universe occurs naturally, why social engineering has been hidden and so on? Unless new theories are discussed, Newtonian physics become obstructive, as was the Church in Galileo’s day, and Newtonian physics works, albeit incompletely, because it is built on a more complicated creation equation, but physics is exciting and doesn’t deserve to be forced into measurement, as it was a 100 years ago. I believe that this theory can improve our thinking by using a new software in the mind-brain to leave the present animal-thinking behind and fix the problems that we have created in society with our reluctance to embrace organisation. If this model is so easy, why does physics not embrace it? Could it be that it contains the organisation that we have taken for granted as a parasite in survival of the fittest for 3,000 million years that physics cannot handle? Is it time to leave the animals behind?

Preamble: this paper seeks to (literally) change our mind [an epiphany] by restructuring the software, that we use in our mind-brains. The present software [top-down] is the one that the animals evolved and have used, with success for 3,000 million years, but, what if there were a better software that we should be using for the journey out of the organisation of survival of the fittest? The civilisation that we have made for ourselves by using technology is not stable and is facing problems that apparently we can not handle and the solution, I believe, lies in ‘fixing’ physics and the first step is to realise that Newtonian physics is convenient but has little to do with the physical and that requires a ‘challenge’ to see how this model and Newtonian physics ‘stack up’ between themselves. If our civilisation has a problem that threatens it’s continuance [as it appears], or if it needs goals that it should aim towards [as it does], surely we should experiment with options because Newtonian physics is preventing us from seeing them 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 a challenge for this simple theory to ‘slay’, to show that it works, but physic’s much sought-after Theory of Everything becomes a simple equation [energy plus organisation equals zero] in a fractal universe because it is the generating equation that is so simple that it will not do for the challenge, and organisation is easy and explicit in the creation equation, so, that won’t do. The cosmic inflation of the Big Bang and the acceleration of the universe is a result of the same equation and that is necessarily explained below when singularities are dealt with, so that won’t do. However, consider the four forces that ‘historically, electricity and magnetism were the first to be unified (by Maxwell in the 1850s). Then the electromagnetic force was combined with the weak force in an electroweak theory by Glashow, Salam and Weinberg (GSW theory), and confirmed by experiment. Various grand unified theories (GUTs) have set out ways to unite the strong force with the electroweak force, but so far there is no experimental confirmation. Gravitation is brought into the unification programme as a final step, and is included in fashionable theories such as string theory and M theory.’ (The Goldilocks Enigma, Paul Davies, p 119)

Now that is a challenge that really needs to be sorted out and I am not going to attack these theories ‘head-on’, but I am going to shift the ‘sand’ on which these theories are built and try to show how top-down thinking over the last 2,500 years was a poor way to construct a civilisation. Why do this? Because the incompleteness of physics hides social engineering that we need in order to manage the population that is destroying our civilisation through it’s numbers, that we cannot seem to control. Social engineering is that part of the organisation that Newtonian physics is ignoring and it is needed to align ourselves with the physical so as to effect a symbiosis with the environment. However, it is heartening that gravity is contained in ‘fashionable theories’ because it is an absolute and is immediately obvious when using this theory.

The story so far: Galileo’s law of motion [an absolute that F/m=a is the force (F) on a mass (m) due to the constant acceleration due to gravity (a)] was generalised as Newtonian physics and Newton ‘inspire guessed’ [meaning that he could not derive] the law of gravitation and this was ‘corrected’ by Einstein who added organisation to double the effect [of Newton’s equation] by postulating a ‘curvature of space’ [rubber sheet analogy]. That this analogy produced exactly an equal amount of attraction as did the masses [twice the effect of Newton’s equation] did not appear to be questioned, presumably because this was ‘justified’ [gave the correct answer] by experiment [Eddington’s observations] and physics tolerated this, but quantum mechanics was ‘a step too far’ and physics retreated into it’s original role of measurement by saying ‘use but do not try to understand quantum mechanics’.

Cosmology evolved and Hubble showed that everything was moving away from us and the Big Bang Theory was born that prompted the theory of cosmic inflation to explain certain measurements. Notice that ‘everything was moving away from us’ is a key factor [Hubble’s law] and indicates an accelerating space [as required by the creation equation] that produces a strange effect that we call gravity. Usually this is illustrated as points [suns, galaxies etc.] on the surface of a balloon separating as the balloon expands which leads to the assumption that the radii are constantly expanding and this assumption supports the momentum of the expansion in the theory of the Big Bang. However, Hubble’s law says that experimentally the space between galaxies is expanding, which means that the radii of the expansion are accelerating and now physics suggests that this is due to an increasing Dark Energy, but what is it and why is it suddenly increasing? No one knows, but it is an intrinsic part of this model.

This theory requires that the universe be accelerating [for the creation equation to exist] and also 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 [an absolute]. This means a new way of thinking based on orthogonality. For justification, the Michelson-Morley experiment says that the speed of light is constant to every observer no matter what their motion, and this includes acceleration because the earth is turning etc. The derivation of gravity as quantum gravity is also given below that shows why singularities do not create chaos by being infinite.

What if?: is a delightful game because it involves a perfect [20/20] foresight which is a version of bottom-up organisation which forms a new way of thinking with the bulwark of relativity that is all around us, in space and, as I am using here, in time. In fact, I am using a much used, but unappreciated, mathematics that is used extensively in literature that I call the mathematics of concept-context and further, I believe that it is how our mind-brain works based on the creation equation. [Measurement of organisation in the environment affords emotional energy in the mind-brain that allows comparison, which is thought.]

Newtonian physics is the quest that a parasite [Life] has made to try to understand the host [environment], but parasites are notoriously stupid [their brains degenerate] because their wants are supplied by the host and survival of the fittest supplied those wants to us organisationally. However, we invented technology, made our own rules and have placed civilisation in jeopardy with our lack of control. The means of control [organisation] has been hidden from us because Newton’s laws are too complicated. Galileo’s absolute [F/m=a under gravity] becomes Newton’s rule [F=ma generalised] which is a complicated form of the creation equation [energy plus organisation equals zero], but is of the same form, which is probably why physics works [to a limited extent]. To give a simple [but profound] example, physics uses energy, ignores organisation [puts it constant] which changes the creation equation to the basic rule of physics that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, and that is where all the trouble begins. Thus, if physics admits that energy [together with organisation] can be created, it becomes liberated, becomes part of the physical and a new way of thinking becomes apparent. In other words, to state what should be obvious, physics, at the moment, does not include the physical [in spite of it’s name!], so, where does the energy come from for an accelerating universe?

The assumption is often made that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, presumably based on Einstein’s special theory of relativity that postulates [uses] the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment that shows that the speed of light [in a vacuum] is always constant to an observer irrespective of the observer’s motion, but this is not a correct interpretation. The dimensions [energy, organisation, distance and time, not the coordinates used in physics] are not absolutes and change to preserve the state of the absolutes [that have no relativity] and this is necessary for us to measure the non-relativistic form of the universe. It is this simple requirement that caused the consternation a hundred years ago that masses, time, length etc. had to change with speed. It was not the constant speed of light that was the problem, it was that the speed was constant to every measurer, no matter what their motion, and it was the intrusion of Life [the mind-brain of the measurer] into the physical that was so shocking.

The problem is that Newtonian physics is incomplete and assumes that we live in a ‘real’ universe, and that is one that we presumably consider to be appropriate, but no one has ever defined it. The Michelson-Morley experiment shows that the speed of light [in a vacuum] is always constant to an observer irrespective of the observer’s motion and this is explained below as a restriction that allows us to view [measure] a relative universe. The space that contains the universe has its own restrictions in order for the organisational solution to be sensible and that is, that it must be accelerating hyperbolically [This is explained in Why Solving Cosmic Inflation Could Change Your Mind that is currently unpublished] and this produces the effects of cosmic inflation, acceleration and gravity.

The problem: stated above is only a problem when viewed through an incomplete physics and resolves itself, I think, using this model but the basic problem is philosophical, in that physics has organised itself to combat the ‘armchair’ musings of the ancient Greeks by turning to the rigour of measurement. Unfortunately, physic’s lack of ability to handle organisation, above, is reflected in the democracy [peer review] that it has introduced at the basic level because democracy is divisive and asks dissenters to ‘fall into line’ ‘for the common good’, hence physics is like an up-turned cone that is balanced on the initial conditions. But, what if those initial conditions [top-down thinking] were wrong and may have led to our unstable society [non-symbiotic parasite] that is a danger to itself and the host [environment]. Clearly, the answer is to change the way that we think and that will require changing the software that we use in a brain that has developed over million of years. This is easily done, as is shown below, by adding a new software built on orthogonalities [for rigour] that uses the physical with Newtonian physics, relativity and bottom-up organisation.

Newtonian physics [of motion] and Maxwell’s equations [describing electromagnetic phenomena] appeared to work well until ‘modern’ physics emerged out of the Michelson-Morley experiment and physics retreated into measurement presumably because it did not have the theoretical tools to understand the physical. This statement is true, to the extent that physics is not built on the physical, but is our interpretation [top-down] of how we think that the universe should work. The theory presented here, I believe, provides the necessary tools and amalgamates traditional physics with the physical through the organisation of relativity that allows simplifications to be seen that are used by the workings of the universe. No results has been changed in physics, only the way that we think of physics because this theory is aligning our mind-brain with the environment so that we achieve a necessary symbiosis.

The electromagnetic theory of light: is a ‘theory of electromagnetism, known as classical electromagnetism, was developed by various physicists during the period between 1820 and 1873 when it culminated in the publication of a treatise by James Clerk Maxwell, which unified the preceding developments into a single theory and discovered the electromagnetic nature of light.’ (Wikipedia, Electromagnetism) On the other hand, Einstein received the Nobel prize for the wave-particle duality shown by the photoelectric effect of an electromagnetic wave. These two theories, the electromagnetic wave and that the wave acts as a particle is still used today in spite of there being no common explanation for this enigma. To explain this, as this model does, we have to go to the very beginning and involve organisation. Yes, the very same organisation that physics cannot handle, above, but by using bottom-up organisational techniques, it will sort itself out.

The wave-particle duality implies that there is literally a wave-particle duality, because there is nothing else in the creation equation and the creation equation has to come from somewhere, so, let’s call it nowhere [nothing] for simplicity, and so relativity creates energy and organisation that can come together and become nothing again. However, if the space is accelerating, they will be swept apart, the dimensions are then created [energy, organisation, time and distance], cosmic inflation occurs because the acceleration [constant speed of light and organisation divided by time] is inversely proportional to time [starts near zero] and drops off [hyperbolically, so never zero] to give the accelerating universe that we see today. If something is generated by a simple equation, that something becomes simple, symmetrical and similar [fractal] and everything shows the same form of wave-particle duality.

Hence, a wave is energy and organisation is the ‘particle’, but why is a magnetic field associated with a moving electric field [Maxwell’s equations], so much so that light etc. is called an electromagnetic effect? One difference between energy and organisation is speed and the effects are shown in Einstein’s special theory of relativity that shows what will happen, given that the speed of light is constant to the observer [absolute, Michelson-Morley experiment], and this shows that the dimensions change to preserve the absolutes, see below. [It may be shocking, to us, that the dimensions change, but they must change to effect a measurement, so, perhaps think ‘windows’ of measurable solutions occurring in an array of chaos or solutions to a polynomial equation] Thinking top-down, magnetism is possibly the speedometer that measures the speed of a charged particle relative to the measurer and is used by the universe to ensure that the measurement can be effected by not letting the charged particle exceed the speed of light. In other words, the speed of energy and organisation determines their difference [wave-particle duality] and a measurement becomes invalid if there is no difference and so, magnetism is the mechanism that keeps track of this difference.

Magnetism results from a moving [accelerating to the observer] charge and relativity requires that if magnetism is generated by a moving charge then magnetism affects a charged particle and so magnetism looks like a field. Thus, is magnetism a speedometer or, is it a field? A charged particle can exceed the speed of light which must be avoided because a measurer cannot see a solution to the organisation if the organisation disintegrates into chaos [the form of the universe, to the measurer, is defined by the absolutes, one of which is that energy and organisation (wave-particle duality) have different speeds]. Magnetism, it appears [viewed top-down], acts as a speedometer that changes the dimensions [the only things that can change] to prevent this happening and top-down physics has confused this correlation and assumes it to be causal. Notice that a similar problem generates Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle concerning position [organisation] and momentum [energy].

In summary, notice that an electromagnetic wave is energy, and that magnetism is an organisation [not a wave] which fits with the wave-particle duality of the creation equation, also, it is unfortunate, though indicative of top-down thinking that the vehicle and the speedometer have been linked together, presumably because both the car and speedometer move in unison. It is necessary that there be a physical means of keeping the speed of a charged particle distinct to the speed of a wave to the measurer and the dimensions change to accomplish this. In other words, the universe, as an organisation, can only be measured in certain configurations that are internally compatible and we have to accept this. More problems with the ‘four forces’ above, is firstly, that ‘force’ is our concept [the physical is energy] because it contains ‘intent’ and secondly, the ‘four forces’ are not forces, but organisations that are strange, as should be expected when viewed top-down.

Magnetism: was poorly explained above, because I was trying to use top-down thinking on a subject that needs bottom-up thinking, and I suggested that some kind of speedometer was needed and magnetism seemed to fit, but the universe is much simpler than we realise and here is an example that shows that gravity, as we have been taught, is not an attraction between masses [Newton], nor is it an attraction between masses, energy and the organisation of ‘curved space’ [Einstein], it is the relativity between two positions in an accelerating space. What I am saying is [top-down] that organisation, as well as mass and energy are affected by gravity, and bottom-up, I am saying that everything is affected by gravity, but combining the two [top-down and bottom up], I am saying that gravity does not exist because it is a function of the accelerating space. Below is an extract from an unpublished paper Why The Universe Is Accelerating And What Is Gravity – A New Complementary Theory that suggests that an accelerating space creates gravity in whatever is at a position. In other words, there is no gravity, just different positions in an accelerating space that makes things want to move in a parabola.

‘Physics has been pursued top-down throughout history and it’s results are like a starry sky with points of light that are unconnected because they were derived top-down and not bottom-up. Consider Einstein’s equation [E=mc(squared)] that is usually taken to be the relation between energy and mass, even though they are (effectively) the same thing, so, it appears to be a ‘units converter’. By that I mean that a bit of missing mass can be converted from mass units to energy units, which is useful, but what does the equation mean? Firstly, it is not an equation, but a statement of orthogonality. Secondly, consider the creation equation [E=mi(squared)], which is the wave-particle shimmer on the photon, and E=mc(squared) off the photon because the photon has speed c to the observer [always] and c(squared) because the universe has to be taken into account for the measurement. The creation equation is important, so, what does the rest of the equation [E=mx(squared)] mean, given that speed [c] and position [x] are orthogonal [c and x can never be the same, above, and explains Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle]? Being orthogonal, they can be put to different uses, so consider the following analysis of E=mx(squared). Thirdly, the equation ‘=’ is used for simplicity, and, as Einstein’s special theory shows, the magnitude of the dimensions change together, but not the orthogonality.’

‘The measurement of a position somewhere in the universe is x and measuring that position is x(squared) and the acceleration is constant, so a description of the measurement of that point is E=mx(squared), which is what that point will do in space-time [x, y, z, t] under measurement. Notice that this is the equation of a parabola, and given the necessity of the relativity of another mass at some other point, when measured, our point x will orbit the other mass [and vice versa]. This is Newton’s or Kepler’s laws of motion in two or three spacial dimensions.’ This quotation points out that what we call gravity is the effect of position and an accelerating space and I will show that the same simple mechanism produces magnetism.

The creation of the orthogonality of the positive and negative charge [from the neutron, as a relativity] is the same process as the creation equation, as would be expected in a fractal and the relative acceleration of charges produces a magnet field analogous to gravity. This explains the similarity between the equations used for gravity and charges, which has intrigued many students, including me, and this can be extended [attraction] to explain why the simple atom resembles the solar system [Bohr atom]. The accelerating space keeps the creation equation viable, but what keeps the atoms as ‘atoms’ and not neutrons? Presumably because firstly, the neutrino, that was also created, is not very reactive, and secondly, the separation is energy-stable, so the electrons are forced to orbit the protons with similar sets of forces as the planets around the sun. For example, ‘however, protons are known to transform into neutrons through the process of electron capture (also called inverse beta decay). For free protons, this process does not occur spontaneously but only when energy is supplied. (Wikipedia, Proton)

The ‘weak force’: consider, ‘in nuclear physics and particle physics, the weak interaction, which is also often called the weak force or weak nuclear force, is the mechanism of interaction between subatomic particles that is responsible for the radioactive decay of atoms.’ (Wikipedia, Weak interaction) Clearly, it is an organisation that induces radioactive decay and ‘the mechanism of interaction between subatomic particles’ seems to be a strange way to envisage Born’s rule that simply explains radioactive decay, below, because the wave-particle duality requires the particle to be produced somewhere [the wave is everywhere, relativity] and it forms according to the square of the probability [of the wave, see below].

The same effect occurs in the ‘tunnel effect’ where particles can find themselves reforming on the other side of a barrier that classical physics assumes cannot be breached. The degree of radioactivity is clearly linked to how often the particle finds itself outside of the nucleus and also, Born’s rule underlies the probabilistic effects attributed to quantum mechanics. The logic of reality behind an organisational solution is that there must be a reason for something to be at a specific place, otherwise magic prevails. In other words, God does play dice just as we play ‘board’ games [with a dice] in a fractal universe because there has to be a reason to put the appearing particle, which is the relative of the (everywhere) wave, somewhere and the simplest method is necessarily used [absolute five] to determine that somewhere. ‘Squaring’ is presumably the simplest way of ‘handling’ the changing ‘sign’ [positive and negative] of a wave and we use it as the ‘root mean square’ to find the mean.

Another example from the creation equation is that the universe exists with parts that are orthogonal and independent and 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.]. If the ‘square’ is the reciprocity of relativity, it shows a relationship between Life and the environment [symbiosis] because both come into existence at the same time. Considering that God is the universe answers a lot of questions, but not Socrates’ questions, see The Mind, Society, Socrates, Social Engineering and Symbiosis submitted to the journal Mind and Society. We need the knowledge of social engineering, which is hidden by the incomplete physics, plus determination, to organise society.

Singularities: physicists persist in using Newtonian physics that is not based on the physical, and a mathematics that is not based on the creation equation and that leads to an apparent singularity in the equation [acceleration of the universe is inversely proportional to time] at time zero, where the acceleration is apparently infinitely fast, as above. That we are alive and well indicates that no singularity exists, so something occurs close to time equals zero that mathematics cannot describe, which is not surprising because mathematics is a creation of our mind-brain that we try to apply to the physical. An indication might be gained from the symmetry of quantum gravity, below, which has the same form [attraction equals (energy plus organisation) divided by distance], where the attraction is small within galaxies to large within the nucleus. This possibly explains the nuclear forces at small separations where the singularity becomes the organisational aspect of the quarks that are never found alone [fractional charges] and it might also be expected that the organisation of nothing into two parts [energy and organisation] takes a finite time that eliminates the singularity aspect [at time zero] at the creation. Whatever occurs, the creation equation is unique and should provide answers everywhere [including the boundaries] and, in particular, the plethora of unstable subatomic particles, in a fractal, will not contain new secrets nor insight [fractal].

While the ‘cards’ above are ‘face-up’, let us see what happens when we rearrange them, remembering that in a fractal, the creation and a card-game are similar in many respects. Using Mark Buchanan’s contribution in Chance, edited by Michael Brooks (p 153) to set the stage, he investigates the relationship between entanglement and constant speed of light [Michelson-Morley experiment] that shows that entanglement is a property of the space [non-local] whereas the speed of light is local and the above shows that entanglement exists as long as the same ‘nothing’ continues to exist. Simply, if one part of the orthogonality ceases to exist, the other must also cease to exist at the same instant [entangled], and/or it is the common origin [Cartesian coordinates] where neither exist but are joined [in entanglement]. An organisation is a logical solution where every part [concept] contributes [context] to every other part [entanglement is the relativity] and our society is no different to the creation in a fractal.

Conclusion: this paper has been an exercise of shifting the ‘sand’ foundations on which Newtonian physics has been built, and a picture of a fractal emerges where everything is entangled and similar, from the universe, the country, the family to the personal and the four ‘forces’ seem to have disappeared into the organisation that Newtonian physics admits that it cannot handle.

This paper exposes physics as incomplete and a ‘halfway-house of convenience’ because gravity does not cause the apple to drop, it is the acceleration of the universe and magnetism is not part of energy in the photon but is the acceleration of charge and many other oddities that show that the software that we use in our mind-brain is also a ‘halfway-house of convenience’ that threatens the world because we have left the controlled organisation of survival of the fittest for a technology driven journey into the unknown without the mental powers that are needed to succeed. That our organisational powers are poor is shown by the state of civilisation, and I believe that we need a new software organisation in our thinking that is based on the social engineering that physics is hiding.

Prediction: the lack of direction shown by modern physics indicates that our mind-brain needs a new software to understand the goal that society must have for itself [see Rationalising Management, Money And The Gifts Of The Ancient Greeks currently unpublished that may help in this regard] because goals are necessary (relativity)], before we can progress and this general mathematical physics that I have outlined above, is necessary. The answer to Mark Buchanan’s contribution is simple with this new model because the creation equation [a+b=0] is similar [fractal again] to a space that we use every day [a+b=1] that we call a probability space that instantaneously recalculates all spaces when one space changes [entanglement] and looks very like the probability space that we find in quantum mechanics, and further, an accelerating space creates gravity, so, we could be considered to be parasites in an accelerating fractal probability space!

Overview: I believe that the above is important because it gives a simple explanation to modern physics and shows that there is an organisation that has been hidden from us that we need to use to organise ourselves and our civilisation. This organisation that has been winkled out of a complete physics is a social engineering that is necessary to civilise humanity and rid it of the anti-social behaviour that is a hold-over from survival of the fittest and so prevalent today that we need a police force and jails. The first step in rational management is to set agreed goals based on the best organisation available and, what we call democracy, I believe, is not a suitable method because it is confrontational and is a ‘hold-over’ from survival of the fittest. That is why we need social engineering and a mind, that uses a new software for a modern society [as above].

Hence, firstly, this paper [concept] may be of interest to physicists because, I believe that it allows us to understand modern physics, secondly, the width of understanding [context] involves physics and the mind [organisation] based on the brain [energy], and, as can be seen from the creation equation, concept and context are orthogonal [independent and entangled], and so, generalists and specialists do not think the same way and research papers should go to at least two different journals at the same time to allow for this, but journals have evolved around specialities and may need to change their format to retain relevance in a changing world.

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.