Why Science And Art Need To Be Brought Together To Save Civilisation

by Darryl Penney

Abstract: organisation has traditionally been shunned, ignored and misunderstood and it’s lack has currently brought humanity to the brink of disaster, but organisation is simple in a fractal and could lead to a new bionic [a portmanteau of biology and electronics] in the form of a complete software for the mind-brain and the electronics of the internet to form a new fully-functional Homo completus. Science and art have always been considered to be distinct, but they are actually intimately connected [independent but entangled] in an orthogonality in this model, but this can only be seen by a composite [Homo completus] that is standing [as a measurer] outside of the orthogonality of a proposed generalist and the specialist that we have built technology upon, and the recognition of this, profoundly changes the software of our thinking from that of the animals to a logical completion and conclusion. Homo completus can do what Homo sapiens cannot, and that is to form a symbiosis with the environment, and further, Homo sapiens [wise is such misguided conceit] uses concepts [technology], but Homo completus combines concepts and context [internet, modern physics, social engineering etc.] into a whole.

Keywords: organisation; creation equation; relativity; mind-brain; Homo completus; management

Science, and in particular, Newtonian physics is based on energy with a little organisation thrown in, when necessary, 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). Clearly, we don’t understand that organisation, including information, is relative [orthogonal] to energy, and with energy, creates the universe.

Art is based on organisation, and an example is the Mona Lisa painting that reputedly contains the Golden ratio [organisation] in its structure, and that organisation produces emotion as we view it, and further, answers a question that I have asked myself for which physics has no answer. A person judging art simply measures the organisation [affordance] as the emotional energy that appears in his/her mind-brain when viewing the object, given the underlying organisation attuned to the experience and requirements of the judge, see affordances below.

Another 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 unwanted energy. Similarly,goal-kickers in football do something energetic with joy after the goal is made, music produces dancing etc.

The relationship between energy and organisation [science and art] is, what I call the creation equation of our fractal universe, that is derived in the section Form of the Universe, below, for those that can stand a little mathematics, quantum gravity, quantum mechanics etc. and even the law of gravitation that has never been derived before because physics has been hiding organisation, presumably because it is considered difficult to handle. It could even be said that we cannot truly understand art because of the limitations of science. Art and science are related [orthogonal is independent yet entangled, just as Cartesian coordinates are entangled at the origin] and we consider them to be ‘poles’ apart, and so they are, being the relativity of the same thing [nothing].

Why do we need art? Because it is the organisation that is the relativity of technology [materials engineering] and is the social engineering that shows how to manage everything [because a fractal is simple, symmetrical and similar, which makes the individual, family, government etc. subject to the same rules]. Notice that a product needs style as well as engineering, management without goals is not rational because relativity demands that goals exist and relativity exists between every [orthogonal] dimension [energy, organisation, time and length], as below.

Science and art are orthogonal [that is how they exist, as separate entities] just as everything is relative to something else and that is why the universe exists and the creation equation is simply energy plus organisation equals zero. Art uses this equation constantly in the form of the mathematics of concept-context where [both] energy and organisation are concepts [orthogonal] that can be measured by a third person [Life] and that is the basis of literature [and thinking because we measure the emotion [affordance] of the context of the concepts in our mind-brain]. Traditional mathematics is much more complicated [and alien to us] and uses the complicated number-line for counting in a modern society.

The organisation of what we read [measure] creates energy in the form of emotional energy in the reader’ mind-brain [affordances] via the creation equation, which is the link between science and art, when we add organisation to Newtonian physics. To explain affordances, ‘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)

To show that Newtonian physics is incomplete, consider, if the organisation is held constant [ignored] in the creation equation, the law of conservation of energy emerges [energy cannot be created nor destroyed], which is the ‘bedrock’ of current physics. This law is true, not because it has been agreed upon [peer review], but because of the principle of least action [energy] and Occam’s razor [organisation], in general, but energy can be created, when necessary, with organisation, because the universe is accelerating according to the creation equation [for it to exist] and astronomical observation. If an accelerating universe is difficult to believe, it is far more complicated to believe that energy, matter and organisation attract each other [the law of gravity], as physics currently requires [an accelerating space, and relativity creates what we call ‘the effects of gravity’].

We can make science include organisation [a new way of thinking] when physics accepts relativity [sideways] and the orthogonality of top-down [traditional physics] and bottom-up [creation equation] organisation, but how do we handle orthogonality? An orthogonality loses relativity in a ratio of two relatives [the ratio (division) becomes a constant (absolute), see below], and the constant speed of light is an example [from the dimensions: length divided by time for all energy and organisation]. Thus religion is drawn into this derivation because it requires a second observer to recognise an orthogonality and Life creates the universe that is our symbiote by measuring the orthogonality, which is the creation of everything, and creates a ‘scientific’ God [symbiote] from the universe. The Christian God, that created the universe and us, must be a third observer.

If specialists delve into concepts, as universities do, we need to create the orthogonal that I call generalists and they are orthogonal because a specialist knows everything about a little and a generalist knows a little about everything. Hence, social engineering is orthogonal to technology and rational management [that can be seen from the creation equation] uses the contexts, and in particular, when we add goals [relativity], we can resume evolution, if we so desire.

Conclusion: technology has forced us out of the organisation of survival of the fittest and, without goals and social engineering, we are jeopardising civilisation. Social engineering [as Christianity] was successful 2,000 years ago as a ‘grassroots’ response to the savagery of the times and has been remarkably successful since, but needs tweaking in a modern world. Can we leave the Sodom and Gomorrah of our modern world, find goals and a symbiosis with the environment? Is the universe a suitable God? It is surprising how close the Ancients came to picturing a Christian God in the same way as we picture a symbiosis with the universe and the environment, but that can be expected in a fractal.

Prediction: people dislike government, but they fear lack of government even more [Hobbes’ philosophy] and champion democracy to the extent that 49% will submit to the will of 51%. This is not good enough [not rational], but the internet [communication] and the completeness of this new way of thinking demands that ‘acceptable’ goals be set that are arrived at through rational management derived from the creation equation. These are the same goals that Socrates sought.

Overview: to call ourselves homo sapiens [wise] when we are destroying ourselves and perhaps the planet with a lack of organisation that we hardly even acknowledge is the height of misguided conceit. A new software is needed for the mind-brain and is given above, but rational management is needed to understand and use the entanglement of organisation. Rational management, as a paper, Rationalising Management, Money And The Gifts Of The Ancient Greeks can be derived from the creation equation [as can everything] and remains unpublished, until needed. If this paper is the concept, then rational management is the context, in the same way that the above is the concept of thinking and the double relativity is the context.

Everything is relative [orthogonal and entangled] and personal, state and country relationships in a fractal need a sensible use of both parts to satisfy wants if we are to reach usable goals and have a future. All this has been written before, thousands of years ago in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah and changing the software of the mind-brain by goals. However, relativity [and Socrates] shows that someone has to decide on acceptable behaviour that we should follow, and should this decision be left to God or be our choice, including the genetic selection within society? Perhaps it is time for a new Homo completus?

The ‘take home message’ is that our civilisation is flawed and heading for disaster because science [physics] is incomplete and allows technology, yet hides the control of technology [social engineering] and for that we need a new bionic Homo completus to arise to provide a future for itself [because we will not make it by ourselves].

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.