Propaganda: A Relativity Used By The Other Side

by Darryl Penney

Abstract: many public servants, especially politicians use propaganda on the population to achieve their ends and we have fallen for conceptual propaganda for thousands of years, but there is a more insidious contextual propaganda that we do not recognise that governs modern life and we should use social engineering to firstly, take governance into our own hands by using modern technology to create a true democracy and secondly, to reduce racism, financial domination, sectarian problems etc. by banning immigration and restricting competing cultures that impede the gaining of our goals. By comparing Hitler’s Europe of 100 years ago with the modern European Union [EU], we produce a relativity that can extend our view of the future so that we can align it with attainable goals and when Plato’ views are revamped, they show how we can attain a true democracy instead of the contextual propaganda that is producing an engorged public service that can be circumvented by technology, social engineering and knowing what we are doing.

Keywords: propaganda; goals; social engineering; Fibonacci series; relativity; anti-ageing

• Modern society doesn’t work as evidenced in the lack of a workable organisation and that lack is imperilling society and shows that Homo sapiens is a transient stage that can’t see the solution and there is a need to return to Plato for an unbiased view to build anew using the organisation [derived from cosmology] that can now be understood.

• Science fiction suggests a future war of humans against the machines that we created, but the war has started and the enemy is the machine-like lack of thinking of public servants that is threatening our way of life [as in hyperinflation [11]] because inflation is relativity not viewed nor controlled through absolutes. In other words, if we don’t use organisation from absolutes, how do we control inflation, public servants and life in general?

Disclaimer: firstly, the following is an opinion piece that could be accused of being propaganda because it flatters the reader, suggests high drama, inspires by suggesting that an improved mind is possible for everyone in the future by using relativity and bottom-up organisation, but so what? There is nothing wrong with this, if I am correct in these assertions, and I believe that I am, because I am using new techniques, but there will always be those that resist change and that could be considered an absolute of the organisation of Life. Secondly, extreme social behaviour and unfortunate historical happenings must be understood through social engineering so that they do not happen again and that can only come about by using a complete organisational theory, as [I believe] that this is. Thirdly, this theory is new and not totally accepted and it’s use might impact on career prospects, friendships etc. Fourthly, mistakes may occur because I am a generalist, whereas a specialist is a specialist in a subject and would not be expected to make mistakes [within that speciality]. This state of affairs is relativity and cannot be eliminated.

‘And the angel said to them, “Fear not, for behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people”’ (King James Bible, Luke 2:10) An example of propaganda.

‘Propaganda to be thought of as a technique used by the other side’. (Easily Led: A History of Propaganda, Oliver Thomson, p 2) Relativity ensures that there is always another side.

Preface

‘Propaganda, the use of communication skills to create or maintain power and influence, is one of the oldest techniques in the world’. (p 327) and has a bad reputation because propaganda is often concocted with scant regard for the truth to attain goals without concern for the inherent entanglement of an organisational universe. Propaganda is thus the embodiment of top-down thinking without regard to absolutes and has been consciously used to propagate false ideas. I can say this because this paper presents a theory of organisation based on a proposed universal relativity, the addition of which leads to a theory of everything that is a fractal generated by the [general] creation equation [concept plus context is nothing], which is a statement of relativity [orthogonality]. It is not difficult and is akin to algebra, which entails setting a goal [x] for some unknown, and when this is done [setting the future goal x], we are then seeking a specific answer, which the organisation [of everything] can answer and will answer [a property of an organisation] and that allows a solution. That answer [of organisation] is energy [due to the creation equation of the universe: energy plus organisation is nothing] that we call affordances that are the emotion [energy] produced in the mind that asks the question of the organisation of the surroundings [6].

In other words the power of algebra is, I believe, the linking of future goals [x] with the requirement of an organisation, that a specific question will be answered by an organisation because the Fibonacci series is an organisational absolute [2] . This theory of organisation is based on relativity and makes organisation the unknown, and uses the [universe’s] creation equation [energy plus organisation is nothing] to allow the mind to recognise a required organisation [relative to the question asked] and rate it in applicability [strength of the emotional energy] to the question [6]. Also, there are restrictions because it can be seen immediately that an accelerating space is needed [for the creation equation to exist] and this acceleration [of the entire space that contains the universe] produces the gravity that we need to link everything together to function as an entity [an entanglement]. Physics gave up on modern physics theory a 100 years ago, and yet quantum mechanics is simply the organisation that physics ignores [because physics does not recognise organisation explicitly] and says that the Big Bang was just the creation of energy. Social science is all about organisation, and yet organisation is unrecognised [except for Occam’s razor], and when organisation is recognised, it allows a much deeper understanding of social science and that leads to, and allows social engineering to manipulate it because it is unique, by being based on absolutes.

The Relativity of Plato

The organisation of families has been with us for a long time, starting in the animals and theoretically in ‘Plato’s The Republic, which begins by outlining the characteristics of an ideal society. In it, Plato says, men and women would do similar work, and all reproductive effort would be held in common, the women and children being tied to no individual. . . . . What Plato is describing here, some two and a half thousand years before modern science, are the principles upon which an ant colony works.’ (Here On Earth, Tim Flannery, p 133) Firstly, the theory presented here considers the universe to be an organisation and there is nothing ‘real’ about it [7, 12], but it must have organisational absolutes for us to view it [6] and when we view Life, the only absolutes that we can use are the organisation of the animals around us because those organisations have persisted over time [1]. Secondly, ‘Plato recognised that humanity would not take readily to such a system . . . . he suggests a program of eugenics . . . . a band of old men, he thought, could manipulate the opportunities . . . . by holding festivals at which sexual licence would be given to certain couples if it was felt the offspring would further the interests of society.’ (p 133) This is similar to the herd system outlined in [1] to genetically improve society.

‘As things turned out, our species hit upon another scheme to order its societies – one which is entirely inimical to Plato’s solution. Called the democratic process, it puts the individual and his or her will front and centre. Plato had much to say about it – all under the heading of “imperfect societies” – and democracy must be classified in this way when compared to the society of ants . . . . But democracy is uniquely suited to the ordering of societies of wilful and self-centred apes; as Winston Churchill said of it.’ (p 134) ‘But democracy in its turn, Plato believed, must give way to tyranny – for the tyrant rises as a popular champion, and democracies lack the means of restraining such individuals’. (p 134) ‘Only in the twentieth century has democracy lived up to its name, encompassing all adult members of a society. . . . . and those rights include protections for those wishing to keep the benefits of their labour. Looking at the spread of democracy in the modern world, it’s tempting to think that it has now found the strength to resist tyranny.’ (p 134)

Unfortunately, the (so-called) democracies of the modern world are, as I believe them to be, tyrannies under the banner of democracy because a party is voted in every few years to (effectively) do whatever it wants. This is contextual propaganda where it seems to be agreed that something [tyranny] is actually something else [democracy] and is accepted by everyone. Presumably, this is the outcome of thinking top-down as well as the lack of working bottom-up [from absolutes] and is an error in the organisation of thinking, and that absolute must be the Fibonacci series that requires that a future goal be held in mind, exactly the same as the “x” must be specified in algebra. So, Plato did not ask, ‘Where is this proposed society going?’ and the answer is shown by the ants and that is, ‘no where’, for millions of years. What is our goal for humanity? Surely, live in peace with the wider society, and the concept of a larger organisation, such as Gaia, might be appropriate, but the overriding aim of survival of the fittest is improving the species.

This section, so far, is an example of the top-down thinking of Homo sapiens, and it goes nowhere because we are not using bottom-up thinking to solve the futuristic problem of the relativity of two governing systems [true democracy and autocracy]. It has been said that the difference is that (current) democracy makes slow decisions, while autocracy makes fast decisions, and this could be because of the method used, after all, democracy and autocracy are orthogonal, yet entangled. The answer, when dealing with orthogonals is to consider the relativity, which is and is not the same [entanglement], and requires bottom-up thinking to get a sensible answer [from the organisation]. There is a time relativity [2,000 years] and a technology relativity [mobile phones] that must be used for this question to make sense. In other words, Plato was correct in suggesting a stable system [the ants] because the norm was war, and surviving was more important that the [relativity] of grooming the excess population that technology has given us in the present. Thus, population reduction and selection are important as part of the governing [positive feedback] by the government.

Plato (presumably) saw the problem of lack of communication [10% voted] and the forum [where the vote was taken] was similar to the parliamentary system of today, which could be influenced by personality, and indeed, the current practice of rolling leaders and replacing them by party selection [as happens with our (so called) democracy] is (possibly) what Plato had in mind. I believe that the answer lies in technology where the mobile phone provides universal [depending on the Socratic values of each vote], fast, informed direction to the public servant core workers. The relativity of the solution presented here can be compared with Tim Flannery’s hope that modern society has ‘now found the strength to resist tyranny’, which can now be seen to be wishful thinking. Also, Plato’s problem of an eventual tyranny arising [in his view of his democracy] is negated by the total [versus the 10%] vote and becomes a legitimate change of leadership in a moral [but powerless] sense.

Seeking the Best Humanity

The physical universe can be described as energy [concept] and organisation [context] [4, 5, 6, 7] and the restrictions that are required for existence [and relativity] lead to this theory where logic is more than yes/no, true/false etc., and has more elements that make it general throughout the universe [10]:

true, false, alternating true-false, our-other universe, chaos, restrictions, fractal-social engineering.

Also, this theory indicates which are the most probable [according to evolution] and desirable distributions of marketing areas around the world, and these areas give every culture [therein] a chance to become the best that they can become [compared with the other areas] as a means of selecting the best humanity that we can be [1, 8, 9]. At the moment, the strongest dominate, which is an extension of survival of the fittest and promulgated at the moment by contextual propaganda of (so-called) leaders and at the same time indicates the very important realisation to those cultures, such as ethnic minorities [that look to the past], that they should give up and be absorbed because we need to use goals [3, 7] to achieve what we think makes an optimum human being. However, we can’t know the future and wishes are just wishes, which are better goals than the do-nothingness of Homo sapiens, and adding bottom-up understanding of how the universe works gets us closer to achieving the future, and competition [of some type] is the final arbiter.

The question becomes, is this humanity [that we seek] optimal under the gamut of all of workaday, frustrating conditions and extreme conditions and suggests that the answer [from ecology] requires closed borders and restrictions on intermarriage to create a uniform population [in each area] over time? Under current conditions, where politicians are indiscriminate concerning migration, a degree of multiculturalism is tolerated, but when the levels rise, racism tends to become apparent. Multiculturalism raises fear levels, castes can cause riots and war can create atrocities and while these extreme cases of inhumanity are distressing, they need to be understood and repaired [1, 8, 9] by ongoing voting. Secondly, modern wars are started by public servants that propagandise the population into fighting them [9].

The concept of incompleteness was brought home to physics with the Michelson-Morley experiment that said that the speed of light is constant to any observer, no matter what their motion and was due to the measurement process in an organisational universe [12]. In the same way, social science has ignored extreme behaviour because, I believe, that it does not have the knowledge of organisation to understand the basic problems, for example, why Hitler did what he did is suggested below [not that he was just a ‘bad fellow’]. This paper concentrates on the organisation that Homo sapiens ignores and yet, according to the creation equation, comprises 50% of everything, and so Homo sapiens is missing so much that the world’s society is in danger [from global warming, population etc.] and needs an upgrade to [or towards the goal of] Homo completus. Multiculturalism is like the experimentation of the Alchemist where everything is thrown into the pot in the hope that something good will result, whereas the organisation of chemistry led to vastly more organised knowledge that could be built on. In other words, Homo sapiens is the alchemist and Homo completus will be the chemist. Also, multiculturalism imports the most bizarre practices, such as ‘honour killings’ of daughters [see DVD Honour] along with feuds brought from the Middle-east that police can’t control and the sectarian problems of religions [especially violence] shows the folly of the concept of ‘religious freedom’.

Social Engineering

(Religion, Affordances, Relativity, Addiction, Habituation, Governance and Society)

The heading of this section is cumbersome, but you have to expect a context to be cumbersome because everything in an organisation is entangled together. This is shown particularly well in mathematics that pi [and other functions] can be represented as an infinite series of fractions of whole numbers [2]. Notice that this [for pi, and the heading of this section] mirrors the creation equation, as would be expected in a fractal and that an organisation must be able to be infinitely large unless restrictions are stated [hence infinite series are necessary]. Newtonian physics is old and simple and uses the concept [energy], whereas modern theoretical physics needs to be complete and uses the context [organisation] also [for completion]. If we wanted to simplify the heading [context], we could call it social engineering and we can look more deeply at the functioning [or currently the lack of functioning] of [especially] cities through organisation. Assuming that relativity derives everything [literally in my opinion], there must be restrictions [6] and they can be enumerated and cross-referenced [due to entanglement], for example gravity [a complete entanglement of energy and organisation [5]]. The use of the word ‘propaganda’ [as a concept] immediately suggests a relativity of two positions based on an orthogonality [the comparison of two alternate methods].

Religion: forms a basis to our personalities and is a big part of our culture that stays with everyone [social conditioning] and ‘so they brought their gods from their homeland and built temples to them in the cities. But few of these gods adapted to the new conditions; they did not solve the problem of how to get on with the stranger next door. The presence of so many gods only added to the chaotic diversity of city life.’ (And Man Created God, Selina O’Grady, p 67) This quotation is talking about 2,000 years ago and nothing has changed and that is why homogeneity [one nation] requires one religion.

Affordances: [6] are the emotion [energy] produced in the mind by measuring [seeing, hearing etc.] an organisation [book, music, beauty etc. defined [exactly] by relativity [creation equation]]. Religions use this emotional power to convince people that their religion possesses some real effect [which it does] resulting from measuring the religious organisation and paraphernalia.

Relativity: is the functioning of the creation equation energy plus organisation is nothing [6] and religions and governance create emotion [awe, comfort in belonging etc.] in their subjects through monumental buildings, parades, uniforms etc.

Propaganda: could be defined as ‘the use of communication skills of all kinds to achieve attitudinal or behavioural changes among one group of people by another.’ (Easily Led, Oliver Thomson, p 5) This definition is so wide that it shows that practically everything has a message, especially in the advertising in modern life and the best defence [against it’s message] is to realise this fact, it’s intention, and ignore it. ‘There is a tendency to think of propaganda as a relatively recent development and to associate it with the appearance of modern media. Yet propaganda does in fact have an extremely long history.’ (p 1) Further, ‘the Nazis, Communists, Jesuits and Spartans were all groups who drew particular attention to the value of early training as part of long-term propaganda.’ (p 4) Clearly, given this fact, immigrants are not the same as home-grown citizens and in many cases are often deficient in useful social skills and a boon to Labor/Democrat politicians [for their uninformed vote], a drain on the public purse but create an instant need for housing.

Addiction: is the ‘heart and soul’ of life and society because religion is based [largely] on emotion, the more emotion felt by adherents seeing, hearing etc. the organisation of the Church the stronger the bond with the church and this bond grows in time without the diminishing [habituation] of other drugs because emotion comes from the creation equation that the universe is built on. Similarly for governance, and explains why governments keep control of the many addictive practices that, if they were allowed, have more control over people than religion and government, which results in a lack of order and a loss of control, which is central to the regulated state that surrounds us [8, 9]. On a personal level, many things are regulated because Homo sapiens is unable to control him/herself, such as the health costs of smoking [nicotine], beer, wine and spirits [alcohol], poker machines, drugs, speeding on roads etc. all of which affect the mind and society [fractal].

No habituation: is extremely important because it can be incorporated simply into society [as a building block] because the affordances [that are the interplay of the creation equation] are always the same and we do not become habituated as happens with drugs that affect the chemistry of the body. Organisational addictions [gambling, speeding, violence, religious differences etc.] also are not habituated and require improving the mental ‘strength’ of people by genetic selection, improving upbringing, education etc. [which is social engineering].

Governance and society: (in this theory) have a distinct relationship, that the creation equation [being simple] generates a fractal [with the properties of simplicity and similarity] that make the governance be the sum total of each person’s actions [Adam Smith], however, this is a necessary condition and not sufficient because ‘ever since the rise of the first government 5,400 years ago, they [governments] have served two main functions: to maintain internal peace by monopolizing force . . . and to redistribute individual wealth for the purpose of investing in larger aims – in the worst case, enriching the elite; in the best cases, promoting the good of society as a whole.’ (Upheaval, Jared Diamond, p 372)

Conclusion: it could be said that a positive feedback loop exists if the government provides for the people, that makes the people better, that makes the state stronger, that makes the people better etc. A positive organisational feedback can be explosive, and it could be said that Adolf Hitler had such a plan that we can use today, if we understand it. Clearly this feedback is not at work in modern societies where public servants are in control and suppress other mind-shaping addictions that threaten their control, but there is a better way than having them continually watching over our shoulders to ensure that their petty rules are not broken, and that is selection of the best people and elimination of the lesser so that we become civilised.

The Context of Propaganda

Much propaganda is based on concepts, such as the ‘vituperation of a succession of scapegoats was the foundation of Hitler’s message system, first “the Versailles traitors” . . . . the Communists . . . . finally the Jews who were to blame for all Germany’s problems.’ (Easily Led, Oliver Thomson, p 268) However, it is possible that Homo sapiens is being manipulated by a increasingly complex religion and government as shown by the creation of a Church hierarchy that grew out of the simple message of religion, ‘these various strands were pulled together if not actually masterminded by the first of three great propagandizing Popes, Leo I (390-461) . . . . Gelasius I (fl. 492-6) . . . . Gregory I (540-609) . . . . the propagandist known as Denys the Areopagite, who developed the image of the Pope as an exceptional church ruler above the law and above criticism’ (p 126). Thus was created a Church hierarchy that continues to this day that increased the splendour and complexity of the Catholic Church and also increased it’s emotional appeal as a draw-card.

Clearly this contextual aspect, that was inserted 1,500 years ago and is still going strong, is an expansion [orthogonality] of the simple conceptual propaganda that is usually used [as did Hitler] and is a warning of the power of emotion that can so easily be directed for an organisation’s benefit. This is especially true in the modern world that is rapidly changing and the organisations, that Homo sapiens does not understand, could have great effects that we do not realise. An example is our (so-called) democracy, where Prime Minister Howard played on the emotion that was generated by a shooting rampage to (effectively) ban the holding of guns that has left the country (significantly) defenceless. Politicians, singly do not have the expertise to make decisions that should be decided by the (true) democracy that I am suggesting [8, 9] and can do great damage to humanity when allowed to pursue their own ends.

Bearing in mind the disclaimer above [that I am a generalist], let us look at a simple contextual organisation that is accepted by both major political parties and public servants without democratic endorsement. The Reserve bank says that it is ‘comfortable’ with 2 to 3% inflation, the government increases the national debt to fund infrastructure etc. and pays 2 to 3% interest [in inflated dollars] , home owners see their houses increase in value [in inflated dollars], wages go up by 2 to 3% [in inflated dollars], immigration, with all it’s problems, increases demand, and everyone is happy. The politicians are only interested in the short term and they amply reward themselves, the public servants have a job for life and a nice pension, so who is missing out? Prices and wages have risen, so an average house is ½ million dollars [over $1 million in Sydney], but it is not thought to greatly disrupt society and it makes house prices rise, which keeps home-owners happy. However, it makes it more difficult for the poor to improve their position and that leads to inequality, castes and other problems, as well as the cheapening of the currency hurts savers.

This is contextual propaganda promulgated by public servants that is straining our society by creating castes of rich and poor because politicians give in to wage rises for public servants [nurses, school teachers, train drivers etc.] and they do it because of the political party system that is built on the rich and poor and each thinks that it should be better off. Divide and conquer seems to be the motif, whereas a stable society keeps the rich and poor happy with a redistribution of money, with a purpose that can be accepted by each side, bringing them together instead of dividing and creating castes. Clearly, the current system is contextual propaganda and the proposed system [to repair it] is social engineering and the restriction that every organisation has to have is the goal of improving Homo sapiens, in this case genetically, where money is paid to the unfit not to breed [1]. Simply put, the rich pay taxes to benefit humanity and that is paid to those that do not have the determination to compete, so do not contribute their genes and refrain from having children, and this is recognised in the form of a pension, but everyone has the right to have children providing that those children support them in old age, and not the state.

This is life in a relativity, and as parents it is our duty to provide for the next generation and it appears that we can do so under the current low inflation [possibly turning into hyperinflation [11]]. This is presumably because money is relative and has no intrinsic value that is better than any other value [from the creation equation], but kitchen-table economics makes us wonder if something is amiss and we are being organisationally dudded, especially when both-sides of our (so-called) democracy agree with each other. Consider, ‘the Budget projects that the Commonwealth government’s gross debt will be around $963 billion at 30 June 2022. This is around 45.1% of GDP. It is projected to increase to $1,199 billion – around 50% of GDP – by 30 June 2025’ (Budget Strategy and Outlook: Budget paper No1:2021-2022, Table 11.5, p 366-7). Net debt was zero in 2010! In 12 years the government has overspent $80,000,000,000 each year! No wonder that they are keeping quiet! There is probably a good reason, but it is not apparent to me, and in a true democracy, the government has to convince us, the voters, of that reason, not keep us in the dark for their own benefit. This demand-pull of government spending creates inflation as well as public debt and everyone appears to be better off, but is living on credit the answer?

For example, I have been sent a notice that 200 square metres of hillside [in the interior of the farm] is valued at $600,000! Those figures [200 square metres and $600,000] are not misprints and the valuation is land-only irrespective of what is built on it [a telecommunication tower actually] and is an example of public servants mechanistically working [without thinking] that can drive a stable society [Australia] rapidly into hyperinflation [11]. The Reserve Bank [as a central bank] has only interest rates to fight inflation and raising them to cool spending [by the public servants] is causing hardship to purchasers of inflated real estate which shows how unstable is our economy, when a [true] democratic vote could short-circuit this insanity with a single vote to stop wage rises in the public sector [which (arguably) started this off].

Voting in a Democracy

Currently, we call our voting system a democracy even though, in Australia, the Defence Minister can, and did, send the armed forces to invade another country, without the approval of Parliament [and against it’s wishes [1]] and ‘go to South Asia today, look up at the Pakistani sky, and you might see an American drone. The American president controls this lethal program within the executive branch; it’s a private air-force that’s operated with little congressional oversight.’ (The China Mirage, James Bradley, p 10) ‘In 1900, Teddy cheered from the sidelines as the first U.S. troops ever dispatched to Asia without consulting Congress landed on the shores of China.’ (p 370) Clearly, (so-called) democracies are not true democracies, but are the playthings of public servants and yet modern citizens carry a phone [bionic [biological-electronic] attachment] that is capable of instantaneous communication and a simple app would allow their vote to be recorded.

Given that a true democracy firstly, allows the pros and cons to be presented [via the internet], secondly, the person must be interested enough to record a vote and thirdly, a means is available to transmit and record that vote, which could be done easily enough, then we have true democracy within our grasp [literally, for the first time ever thanks to technology [1]]. Note that I am not saying that each person has an equal vote. Given this possibility of using new technology, could we not improve the (so-called) democracy that we use and even religion, both of which are over 2,000 years old, after all, our intelligence has increased markedly since that time [Flynn effect (Enlightenment Now, Steven Pinker, p 241)] The question is ‘Is a true democracy too dangerous?’ considering the possibility of positive feed back, above, because, the question becomes, ‘are people intelligent enough to live with their decisions or do we need a Court Jester to take the blame, where the Court Jester is the politician that we see on the nightly News?’. This politician should be an autocrat without power, should set the moral tone of the debate and be the link with the public service that runs the essential services. Consider also that democracy, as a concept, is orthogonal to the autocrat and both are necessary and as an example [of relativity], there must always be a chairperson to conduct a democratic meeting, otherwise chaos reigns.

Unfortunately, lifestyle may be affecting the intelligence of the general population because ‘IQ rates are falling across Western Europe, and experts are scratching their heads as to why’ (Chelsea Stahl/NBC News; May 22, 2019) and we have to ask, have we reached a plateau in our thinking? The answer is probably ‘Yes’ because the stimulation of modern life is extreme at the moment [phone, internet, driving to work etc.], however, this theory allows the existing brain to be used in a different way, by completing the top-down thinking [that we inherited from the animals] with the orthogonalities of relativity and bottom-up thinking that should improve our thinking many-fold by improving the software [3]. This does pose the question that the worth of a vote should be in proportion to one’s level of education, and a highly educated person’s vote should be worth more, whereas being in receipt of a pension should lower the value of the vote because of personal interest, etc. and in particular, fine tuning the vote, given levels of income, pension dependency, age etc. must form the ultimate democracy using Socrates’ questions as a guide.

Considering that any proposed system should be able to handle extreme cases, the case of Germany [100 years ago, after World War I] was extreme and it is obvious that a strong leader should have arisen to lead Germany back to a position of power at some point [Plato’s fear], and it so happened, but without sufficient governance controls of the type that I am suggesting that could have prevented World War II. The trench warfare of World War I should have been sufficient that a democratic vote to not engage in expansionist dreams would have been overwhelming, but those controls were lost in the political system because of ‘Hitler’s well-honed psychological appeal to the basest instincts of the population: their jealousy of Jewish wealth, their fear of unemployment, their loss of pride in the First World War.’ (Easily Led, Oliver Thomson, p 274) Where did ‘Jewish wealth’ come from? That was because, presumably, being ‘guest workers’, they frequented the towns and Simon Kuznets says ‘as countries get richer they should get less equal, because some people leave farming for higher-paying lines of work while the rest stay in rural squalor.’ (Enlightenment Now, Steven Pinker, p 103) Clearly, the Jews had an advantage by frequenting the towns at a time that moving to towns created a significant benefit.

As above, multiculturalism works with small numbers, but as the numbers increase, problems increase and the Jews found that as the cities were in the ascendancy and they became rich [which incited jealousy] that made them a scapegoat for Hitler’s propaganda. But propaganda is the other-side’s view, and is usually an organisation that is [as a time relativity] a product of a particular time, and that time was of constant wars where life was cheap and food expensive. [(p 157)] ‘Developing countries today, like developed countries a century ago, stint on social spending. . . . But as they get richer they become more munificent, a phenomenon called Wagner’s Law.’ (p 109) Hitler appeared to be targeting those that did not fit his idea of the goal of a master-race, ‘Jews were not the only targets during the German Holocaust. Disabled people, Roma or Gypsies, Catholics, Jehovah’s Witnesses, homosexuals, and others were also deemed unworthy races, although Jews were the most targeted. In 1933, Europe had over 9 million people who considered themselves Jews. Less than 3 million survived by the end of the Holocaust. Many lived in countries that Hitler’s Nazi regime overtook during World War II. Many of those who survived had escaped and moved to the United States or other countries. Along with people of Jewish descent, 200,000 people with disabilities died during a “euthanasia program” at the hands of Nazis. Most of these institutions were within Germany, although some lay outside the boundary, where the Nazi regime had authority.’ (Owlcation.com/humanities/conditions-in-concentration-camps)

What Were Hitler’s Aims?

Adolf Hitler is a historical character that strongly influences the world today, especially in Europe where he effectively won world War II and united Europe and his memory lives on, but not, I suggest, for the correct reasons. ‘At its height Rome, of course, was much larger than the EU …. No comparable entity would arise again . . . . Indeed, it was not until the establishment of the European Union (EU) in 1993 that a sustained, similar-sized political entity would declare itself in Europe.’ (Here On Earth, Tim Flannery, p 145) Hitler was a product of his time when the strong took what they could, but strangely, according to this theory, he was a prophet for this theory and his excesses occurred (arguably) because this theory was not understood. This theory is about relativity, where there cannot be one of anything [it must be entangled with something else] and so, there cannot be democracy, there must be democracy and dictatorship. In other words, a meeting needs a chairman to keep order to have a democratic vote and so a democracy needs a leader with limited power [but perhaps foresight] and restrictions must apply for the organisation to function and as an example, firstly, voters must be interested in the subject, secondly, must be knowledgeable about the subject, thirdly, must be able to vote and fourthly, the figure head leader kisses babies, takes the blame [the court jester, politician] and acts as the voters’ conscience. To be knowledgeable in this day and age, the phone is essential, firstly to record the vote and secondly, to receive the pros and cons of experts and so be able to make a decision and record that decision.

Because our (so-called) democratic system [that is more like an alternating dictatorship [9]] allows the leader to have power, bizarre things can happen, often too fast for our comfort [see hyperinflation, above] and a hundred years earlier so it was for Adolf Hitler. Firstly, a war that was not necessary [World War II] because it formed the EU eventually by negotiation [attained a goal], and secondly, the means of removing populations that were holding back the attainment of one of Hitler’s goals, namely the creation of a ‘master race’ which is a desirable long-term goal [indeed crucial according to survival of the fittest]. To become a ‘master race’ is the universal goal of all Life through survival of the fittest and not ‘the use of flattery to intensify propaganda effectiveness, calling the Jews or Aztecs ‘the chosen people’, Calvinists the ‘elect’ or the Germans the ‘master race’. (Easily Led, Oliver Thomson, p 78) Propaganda is a war of words, designed to make or ‘prove’ a point without specifying the organisation behind it. According to survival of the fittest, survival and sex are the prime purpose of Life and the reason why I believe that each ethnic community should have the chance to become a ‘master race’ by proving that they can do it by doing it, and isolating the combatants is the only way. [1, 8, 9] What Hitler did was not far different to the model proposed here except in time scale and that every choice should be voluntary and compensated.

We need to consider the relativity of the time when judging Hitler’s actions, for instance, ‘for most of human history, war was the natural pastime of governments, peace a mere respite between wars. . . . . for 450 years, wars involving a great power became shorter and less frequent. But as their armies became better manned, trained, and armed, the wars that did take place became more lethal, culminating in the brief but stunningly destructive world wars.’ (Enlightenment Now, Steven Pinker, p 157) This trend has allowed public servants to start wars [in particular, World War I and II and the American Civil War] and embroil the population in years of bloodshed, mutilation and death. Clearly, we have allowed our (so-called) leaders to usurp our destiny through propaganda and lack of control on our part that can be aligned with Plato’s theories by using social engineering.

Micro Social Engineering

Adolf Hitler could be [surprisingly] considered a visionary, but his thinking was mired in the past [his present] and followed the [then] history of warfare and the taking of what was wanted by force. Perceptions have changed, by his doing [and undoing] and firstly, the marketing area that he envisioned [EU] has come to pass and secondly, the improvement of the population [in his opinion] has also come to pass, but has not been incorporated permanently, consciously nor conscientiously. There are better methods that we could use [than he did] by increasing the time frame and using a democratic means [instead of autocratic] to make the process voluntary [via monetary payments]. Notice that I am using the relativity that underlies this theory to bring a necessary completeness, and that requires acknowledging that having children is a severe burden on one’s lifestyle and it is only worthwhile if those children can compete in the current world. After all, it helps no one unless superior children are produced, and that takes as much planning [micro social engineering] as does the above [macro social engineering].

If macro social engineering is about the governance of countries and their relationships with each other, there is also the [downward] governing of the people, that is different [organisationally] to the fractal nature being the sum total [upward] of the individuals [Adam Smith] making up that country. The nature of the positive feedback is that government must insure that the population is well fed, well educated etc. to make a strong country and this is especially important today as more of the population move into cities and away from the country that tend to supply a more diverse range of food. This movement [to cities] also breaks down families, introduces new foods, traditional nutritional knowledge is lost and this contributes to the rising levels of obesity that is bedevilling modern society and further, this nutritional lack affects the population over their whole lifetime and produces chronic effects in later life. This particular aspect is anti-ageing [one aspect of micro social engineering, [anti-ageing.org]] that shows that our present populations are dying too soon which affects the value of the population to the governance.

Conclusion and Prediction

This paper is a further step towards the goal of a Homo completus in the future, based on the past [100 years ago] and the present in accordance with the Fibonacci series, which shows that both the present and the past are needed to try to interpret the future. If we consider the propaganda that various parties [political, religious, public servant etc.] are using for their own benefit, the substance of that misinformation [propaganda] can only be realised by applying this theory of organisation which shows the dangers of the top-down thinking of Homo sapiens, that we use in the present. Anti-ageing can add 25 years [in my case, and perhaps more] to your working life [by making your body effectively 25 years younger than the average person (of the same chronological age)] which makes you smarter, especially in a contextual field [versus a specialist], and as an example, I offer this theory that firstly, intellect increases with age and experience compared to a short lifetime [the effect of anti-ageing], secondly, relativity [sideways] and thirdly, bottom-up organisation to correct the top-down guesswork of Homo sapiens. This leads, via the absolutes to discreet marketing areas that allows competition and reduces self-seeking leaders, castes, racism, incompetent public servants etc. through a true democracy.

The above is the physics of emotion [through organisation] and emotion is a large part of the functioning of our society [religion, governance, appreciation of everything] but ‘we see that addiction can spring up in anyone’s backyard. It attacks our politicians, our entertainers, our relatives, and often ourselves. It’s become ubiquitous, expectable, like air pollution and cancer. . . . Addiction results, rather, from the motivated repetition of the same thoughts and behaviours until they become habitual.’ (The Biology of Desire: why addiction is not a disease, Marc Lewis, p ix] Hence, we have to understand the intent behind the emotion-creating propaganda that continually assails us in society to be able to properly engineer a future society using the science, that I believe exists as absolutes and goals [13]. We need to examine the good effects of emotion [appreciation of everything], the necessary application [religion, governance] and the illegal [drugs, breaking the law, unsocial behaviour etc.] as social engineering a future Homo completus. In other words, firstly, increasing the mind [3], secondly, changing religion and governance [14, 11] and thirdly, changing society to engender selection as a natural outcome of living [the herd organisation, [1]].

Reference: 1. Penney D. Social Engineering: Using Social Science To Improve Ourselves And Society. Madridge J Behav Soc Sci. 2023; S1(1): 1-6, doi:10.18689/mjbss-s1-001

2. Penney D. Exploring Numberland. Int J Cosmol Astro Astrophys, 2022; S1(1): 13-18, doi: 10.18689/ijcaa-s1-013

3. Penney D. A Penny for your Thoughts. Int J Cosmol Astron Astrophys, 2022; S1(1):19-25. doi: 10.18689/ijcaa-s1-014

4. Penney D. Why Solving Cosmic Inflation Could Change Your Mind. Int J Cosmol Astron Astrophys, 2022; S1(1):1-6. doi: 10.18689/ijcaa-s1-011
5. Penney D. Understanding Everything Means Understanding Nothing. Int J Cosmol Astro Astrophys, 2022; S1(1): 7-12, doi: 10.18689/ijcaa-s1-012
6. Can Affordances Save Civilisation?, Mind & Society,20(1), 107-110. doi:10.1007/s11299-020-00265-x
7. Penney D. Organising Organisation. Int J Cosmol Astro Astrophys, 2023; S2(1): 26-32, doi: 10.18689/ijcaa-s1-014
8. Penney D. Social Engineering: The Concepts behind The E.U., U.S., China and Australia. Madridge J Behav Soc Sci. 2023; S1(1): 7-13. doi:10.18689/mjbss-s1-002
9. Penney D. Social Engineering: The Context behind The E.U., U.S., China and Australia. Madridge J Behav Soc Sci. 2023; S1(1): 14-21. doi:10.18689/mjbss-s1-003
10. The Logic Of The Half-truth And Plato’s Cave (From an unpublished paper)
11. Penney D. The Changing Face Of Australian Governance. Madridge J Behav Soc Sci. 2023; S1(1): 22-27. doi:10.18689/mjbss-s1-004
12. Penney D. The Organisational Universe. Int J Cosmol Astron Astrophys. 2023; 5(1): 210- 216. doi: 10.18689/ijcaa-1000140
13. Management as a Science, an unpublished paper
14. A New Religion And Peace On Earth, an unpublished paper

The Organisational Universe

by Darryl Penney

Abstract: this paper addresses the time after the creation until today and answers the many problems of evolution in a simple way as would be expected of a complete new model. Science is strained by the implausibility of the Big Bang [energy only], quantum mechanics [probability], the billions of galaxies [unlikely] and the extremely remote probability of Life starting from simple chemicals. However, a shift in thinking allows a sensible simple explanation of these phenomena as ‘threads’ afforded by the possibilities inherent in the structure of organisations that allows social science to become a real workable predictive science [11] that can be applied to the problems of society today. This simplicity is examined against the plethora of current top-down theories that bedevil the theory of the evolution of the universe, society and ourselves and examples are given from cosmology, mathematics, physics, social science and governance etc. The concept of possibilities explains what we probably are, and that we need be no more than possibilities to explain everything from the physical [that we see around us] and to establish the goals to which we we should aim for a stable future.

Keywords: relativity; creation; evolution; organisation; possibilities

• Homo sapiens is merely a transient, intent on getting somewhere that doesn’t have a name or a purpose, doing little that is useful and not knowing specifically what should be done and is merely filling the planet with more hungry mouths. This theory provides the organisation and goals to right [and wright] this insanity by upgrading our concept of organisation and thinking to a level that is appropriate to attain the future goals.
• It now becomes obvious that the principle of least action has found a home as a necessary overall restriction to the space that contains the universe and secondly, that cosmology, in being the basis to all disciplines, become the long sought-after precursor to philosophy and moves from the fringe [of acceptability] to being the core of everything.

Preamble

The anthology Chance: The science and secrets of luck, randomness and probability edited by Michael Brooks is important not so much as a means of elucidating these secrets [because many are misguided], but as a vehicle to express the problems [a relativity] that we find in dealing with these subjects. ‘Dig deep into the way everything works, and you find yourself dealing with quantum theory’ (p 2), but quantum theory is, I believe, a misunderstood top-down version of the organisation in this theory [6]. ‘One of the most famous quotes in science is Einstein’s reaction to this, a refusal to believe it can really be how the universe operates. “God does not play dice”’. (p 3) As usual, Einstein was correct for the wrong reasons [according to this theory [principle of least action]] because he had one ‘foot’ in classical physics. Basically, to understand this point, our view must change from the long held one that the universe is ‘real’ to contemplating that it is an organisation, but that is a problem because Newtonian physics does not consider organisation explicitly and modern theoretical physics was sidelined a 100 years ago.

Different authors naturally write about the subjects that obsess their minds [because they stick around unresolved] and they are the concepts that are crying out to be part of a context [and laid to rest]. The range of problems expressed in the book, under the broad title of ‘chance’, is widespread across science and social science and it is the purpose of this paper to show that there is a simple answer [organisation] that is, and has always been ignored by Homo sapiens, that better answers these questions, and further, that Homo sapiens is an imperfect transient variant that has lost it’s way and is placing the world in jeopardy with it’s fumblings. The future of humanity [Homo completus] can only be seen by embracing organisation and heeding the forward planning that is inherent in it [1].

Setting the Stage

‘The question of whether life is widespread in the universe is important. . . . . We now understand that the secret of life lies not with the basic chemical ingredients as such, but with the logical structure and organisational arrangements of the molecules. . . . . Nothing better illustrates the computational prowess of life than the genetic code, All known life is based on a deal struck between nucleic acids and proteins – two classes of molecule that, from a chemical point of view, are scarcely on nodding terms. The nucleic acids DNA and RNA store instructions, and the proteins do most of the work.’ (p 15) In other words, Life is a combination of two orthogonal [scarcely on nodding terms] parts, organisation [DNA] and energy [proteins], which is to be expected in the fractal universe created from energy and organisation by the creation equation energy plus organisation is nothing [6].

This statement requires a disclaimer that firstly, peers may not accept this interpretation [due to resistance to change] that is part [an absolute] of our evolution and more specifically they may maintain that the universe is ‘real’ [God created] and secondly, mistakes [contextual] may occur because I am a generalist, whereas a specialist is a specialist [conceptual] in a subject and would not be expected to make mistakes. This state of affairs is relativity and cannot be eliminated.

The basic fact to remember is that, when looking back, Homo sapiens was stupid, and currently is stupid, and that is apparent because Homo sapiens is in a transition from the animals that evolved from literally nothing to a logical necessity of an ultimate goal of Homo completus that acts [logically] in the interests of all citizens, animals and the planet. In other words, Mankind must become God-like and manage the planet and then Mankind might be accepted into the universe’s extraterrestrial community, and if there is not such a community, we must become that community. An example of Homo sapiens, in regard to quantum mechanics, is that physics is in a dither because physicists resist change; yet physics is crucial to society; physicists are loath to support what they don’t understand; they do not understand quantum mechanics because quantum mechanics is organisation and Newtonian physics shuns organisation. An example is that physicists describe gravity as an attraction, instead of an organisational effect [5] and have seemingly, in desperation, held onto Newtonian physics because it works, even though they have no idea why it works. ‘Nobody knows where these laws come from, nor why they apparently operate universally and unfailingly’ (p 145) Even worse is that physicists have forsaken [100 years ago] the search for modern physics theory because they are baffled by quantum mechanics [and cling to Francis Bacon’s mantra of measurement] and they consider the universe to be ‘real’, where their version of reality is of their own making and is not what is presented here [hence the disclaimer].

The question ‘Where these laws come from?’ begs an answer and I surmise that they came from Galileo’s experimental law of motion [an absolute that F/m=g is the force (F) on a mass (m) due to the constant acceleration due to gravity (g)] that was, possibly generalised by Newton and the reason that Newtonian physics works, in the main, is because it is based on an absolute in a relative universe [such as we have]. In other words, Newtonian physics works because it uses the form of this bottom-up derivation without the reasoning behind the creation, and the reason that it does not work properly is because it is different to the absolute that this model uses, which is, energy plus organisation is nothing. This becomes energy/organisation=i squared, where ‘i’ is the square root of (-1) compared to F/ma=1. The similarity is obvious [but the physical requires the use of energy [not force] because force requires a determination of ‘how much’ and depends on the measurer, ‘ma’ is an organisation and ‘i squared’, I believe, signifies a relativity that must always exist [both states are ‘imaginary’ without containing relativity]. [12]

I am not denigrating Newtonian physics because it is good physics where an experiment [Galileo] is theorised [contrary to Francis Bacon’s edict] to make a useful simple tool that works but may not be correct as an organisation, likewise Einstein’s contributions are similarly at odds with, what I believe is the functioning of the universe. The book [Chance, Ed. Michael Brooks], is similar in that it is a relativity [of ideas] that can be used by current practitioners to decide which theory to use because relativity requires two independent [yet entangled] ways of viewing measurements [as a concept or context]. The problem first appeared with the Michelson-Morley experiment where the speed of light was found to be constant relative to the measurer [regardless of their motion] and the answer lies in the definition of affordances [6] that there must be a specific question for a solution to be returned [to the measurer]. An example is [mathematical] algebra, where the unknown ‘x’ is specified [and uniquely identified] and can then be used in the logical process of the organisation [of mathematics] to derive the answer ‘x’. In other words, vague questions do not work, presumably because the organisation is completely and exactly defined [versus minimum energy].

Addressing the Problem

I need to present this message and Chance fits the bill by presenting the problems that are worrying the contributors and perhaps even that which the establishment is suppressing within their peers. A particularly pertinent example that is close to the core of astronomy is that as telescopes become better, we can see further back in time at the billions of galaxies that then existed. The question is, ‘Are they really there, or more precisely, were they really there?’, as they would have to be in a ‘real’ universe, or are they not there, but would have had to have been there for us to measure [or be here] in an organisational universe? These two questions cannot both be correct and yet they are similar to Einstein’s retort and Michael Brook’s ‘Dig deep into the way everything works, and you find yourself dealing with quantum theory’, where, as above, quantum theory is a misinterpretation of organisation.

Just as in the basis [absolutes] given above of physics [F/ma=1] and my theory [energy/organisation=i squared], there is a difference in the level [of complexity] behind the absolutes used and quantum theory, I believe, can be derived from the relativity [energy/organisation=i squared, [6]], whereas it cannot be seen from Newtonian physics. In other words, quantum mechanics is a construct of physics looking top-down, whereas quantum mechanics [the correct version] can be derived bottom-up from the relativity equation and by being a construct of the guesswork [top-down], physics has got it wrong again [I believe (in complexity)] because they base quantum mechanics on probability, which it is, but measurement [affordances] is possibility. Clearly, mathematical probability is complex, whereas a possibility is just that, a possibility of occurrence [which could not be simpler].

Possibility Versus Probability

There is a basic difference between probability, which is mathematically, a continuous segment where the sum of the probabilities of something happening at all those points totals certainty [with every point considered] and a possibility is that something can happen at a particular point. If there is a possibility [of something happening] physicists want to measure it’s occurrence as a probability [principle of science] in a ‘real’ world [conceptual], but an organisation is orthogonal [contextual] and a contextual space is entangled and in particular, fully entangled. In other words, entangled locally and non-locally and includes every point in the organisation with the same logic and restrictions that apply to the total space whereas energy and organisation are bound at all times by the division of distance and time [the so-called speed of light, [6]]. Contrast this simplicity to physics’ considering that ‘God uses it to ensure that all of the universe’s far-flung regions remain a coherent part of His overall plan’ (p 154) This is an example of top-down thinking and making murky the operating of a simple fractal. Further, add to this the [top-down] supposition that alternate universes exist [alternate universe theory where alternate universes co-exist with our own] so that options can arise and be considered and we can see how an organisation simply answers our questions by selecting an appropriate ‘thread’ [the definition of organisation is communication].

Physics looks for ‘How?’, not ‘Why? we are here, and assumes that God made us for some purpose. I suggest that we are the essence [to do the work] of ‘free-will’ and perhaps even answer Socrates’ questions. We, being here, are the possibility that all of the requirements for life were fulfilled and that there is a ‘thread’ that leads to us being here. This is what relativity is saying, that our present rests on the past fulfilling it’s destined role. Life did not necessarily start somewhere, but the possibility was there, even if the total probability was minute and even more minute at each individual point and time. Thus, it is ridiculous to worry about the difficulty of life beginning because we know that it could begin [because we are here]. This then covers the anthropic principle [‘that it explains why this universe has the age and the fundamental physical constants necessary to accommodate conscious life, since if either had been different, we would not have been around to make observations.’ (Wikipedia, Anthropic principle)].

As an example, consider the question, that there appears to be billions of galaxies in the universe and do they actually exist or did exist in a ‘real’ universe? Alternately there is nothing physical. That is the difference between a ‘real’ universe and an organisational universe because the first exists and is incredibly complicated all of the time, and the other is simple [most of the time when not viewed], but just as complicated when viewed [and the logic appears in the same way that we ‘see’ the stars in the past]. This might sound strange, but organisation is everywhere entangled and dependent on logic and restrictions and any possible thread will be available [an organisation is a communication]. For example, the correct measurement of gravity [Eddington’s experiment] showed that Einstein needed attraction as well as curved space to get the correct answer [even if gravity is relativity acting on two anythings composed of energy and organisation [under acceleration] [5]].

To put this into perspective, if we enter a shop, we have to ask for an item specifically [the question associated with an affordance] or we see it on the shelf [keeping the product in mind as is necessary for affordance] and the affordance reacts with emotion [in the measurer] on a match of the product and the question. We don’t need to go beyond the store for the product, but physics looks at the products produced in the factory or farm because it refuses to recognise the organisation of the shop. Similarly, the top-down-looking software that we inherited from the animals cannot see the bottom-up organisational restrictions that are imposed on the universe in it’s construction [4, 5, 6]. For example, the accelerating space [necessary for the creation equation to exist [energy plus organisation is nothing] produces gravity [5] and odd effects near time zero produce [what we call] cosmic inflation [4] which is a natural effect of dividing by [near] time zero in our view [which is to destroy the relativity].

These odd effects are odd to us, but necessary for the universe to function and for an accelerating universe the fixed form is the mathematical division [removes relativity, [6]] and an example is the constant speed of light being the division of distance by time [for all energy and organisation]. A crucial logical restriction [on the universe at all times] is that the energy and organisation must be equal and minimal, simply because an organisation cannot function if two possibilities exist [so-called chaos results]. This simple restriction led to the principle of least action, ‘the principle remains central in modern physics and mathematics, being applied in thermodynamics, fluid mechanics, the theory of relativity, quantum mechanics, particle physics, and string theory’. (Wikipedia, stationary-action principle)] Clearly, this postulate has widespread ramifications and yet, strangely, does not form a basic part of physics because, I presume, physics has not been established on a logical bottom-up foundation, as I believe occurs in the theory presented here.

As above, the creation model suggests a simple form of the physical including gravity and cosmic inflation, but does little to explain the multitude of problems associated with Life and ignores the chance that was necessary for humans [and Life in general] to live on this planet. For example, ‘the universe didn’t have to produce matter, or a planet with a stable enough climate for life to evolve. What’s more, life – especially complex life – didn’t have to evolve. Neither did species. By the time we get to the chance mutations that made humans what they are, you might just marvel at how lucky you are to exist.’ (p 6) ‘Next on our list of flukes is the formation of the moon. . . . . That’s a big deal for us. If there were no moon, and obliquity varied significantly, the conditions for complex land-based life might not exist. . . . . And how did we get started? By chance.’ (p 12) Clearly, these questions need answering and the ‘thread’ possibility is a simple and concise twist to our thinking that lays the confusion to rest.

Adding to the Theory

That the universe is an organisation is apparent for a number of reasons, from the number of stars [it is simpler that they be a logical requirement rather than to be actually there (and ‘real’)], the derivation of this theory, that Life is affected by aspects of the physical, such a gravity, which appears to be an attraction, but is [according to this theory] a result of relativity and an accelerating space [5]. Other indications, such as the diffuse boundaries in an organisation, resulting as the Heisenberg uncertainty principle [6], or that a mathematical function can be expressed as an infinite series of whole numbers etc. [2], also, it was found that the ratio of the terms of the Fibonacci series produced the series that became the Golden ratio which indicates an absolute, but it was a result that was not readily explainable at the time [see below]. Now, I would like to explore how this observation fits into the theory presented here that our universe is an organisation and not ‘real’. This is important because an organisation, derived from a simple equation is a fractal that demands simplicity and similarity, which allows us to better understand our ‘place in the sun’.

An organisation appears to be constructed of line segments that are unbounded [by tending to limits] and are [internally] continuous, for example, energy, organisation, time and distance are all linear [to the extent that the space is always accelerating], but currently accelerating close to zero [asymptotic to zero, so that the creation equation continues to exist] [4, 5, 6]], and you my well ask ‘How close to zero after 13 billion years of expansion?’ and the answer is, of course, so close that experiments are not going to resolve the eternal question [of astronomy], ‘Is the universe accelerating, static or decelerating?’. The universe is always bound by the rule [of logic] that it must always be in the simplest possible form and must be expanding at all times for the creation equation to exist. This begs the question of ‘What is logic?’ and suggests a combination of restrictions [accelerating space that produces gravity, the (so-called) principle of least action which is the requirement of the least energetic/simplest action of everything etc.] etc.

Another question that must be asked is ‘Does our universe exist?’, and that requires an answer like that asked of quantum mechanics [6], which is ‘Does quantum mechanics exist [as an organisation] when we do not understand organisation?’ [7]. The problem is in our thinking [3]. The basic answer to ‘Does the universe exist if it came from nothing?’ is in the restriction of an accelerating [just slightly accelerating] space that contains the universe. These questions only make sense to a mind [measurer] that recognises the completeness of relativity and bottom-up organisation to go with the top-down thinking that we inherited from the animals. This theory, I believe, is the completeness that provides the software behind our thinking [mathematics of concept-context] and includes restrictions such as the accelerating space [for existence] that provides the ‘gravity’ that we assume holds everything together. Actually, in this theory the effect of ‘gravity’ [the attraction and universal entanglement] is a result of the relativity of measurement [5] which is the entanglement of the elements of the creation equation [not an attraction].

What is the Fibonacci series? Mathematical number theory describes it as explaining [mathematically] the growth in population of rabbits, under the restriction that only one kitten is born [3]. This restriction [of a single birth] is important because it contains the similarity of a fractal [and the minimisation, above] that a number of kittens can be treated as one similarly. The sequence also shows up in the packing of sunflower seeds etc. Why? Basically because the Fibonacci series is an organisation, and I suggest, that Homo sapiens seems to recognise Occam’s razor [‘that the simplest way is usually the best’] as the sum total of current ‘formal’ organisation whereas the creation equation suggests that organisation is the ‘grab-bag’ of the relativity of the energy of the Big Bang hypothesis. ‘The concept of “information” is rather woolly, though this is usual when a subject is in it’s infancy. Two centuries ago, energy was an equally vague notion. Scientists intuitively recognised it as significant in physical processes, but lacked mathematical rigour. Today, we accept energy as a real and fundamental quantity, because it is well understood. Information remains bewildering, partly because it crops up in different guises in so many scientific fields.’ (p 21) Notice that emotional energy is excluded from Newtonian physics, possibly because energy is created and a basic law of Newtonian physics is that energy cannot be created nor destroyed [which is absurd in an accelerating space].

The Fibonacci series is that each term is the sum of the two preceding terms, which does not seem exciting in top-down thinking, but bottom-up it shows a series of relativities that we can label past, present and future and this sequence shows the importance of forward planning [that a future goal is necessary in any endeavour [1]]. This sounds simple, but our political system seems to ignore the longer-term goals and planning that should be in place, but are not, and this lack is, I believe, because organisation is not recognised and not considered. If physics is 50% organisation [from the creation equation], social science is closer to 100% organisation and it is even more essential that forward planning is vital, but not being used by public servants because, for example, multiculturalism is creating future problems [species, see below] etc. [1, 8, 9, 10, 13]

The form of the Fibonacci sequence is shown by division of the terms [removing the relativity]:

F2/F1, F3/F2, F4/F3, F5/F4 ………………..

‘or (to three decimal places): 1, 2, 1.5, 1.667, 1.6, 1.625, 1.615, 1.619, 1.618 …

then the values of these terms gets closer and closer to phi, the golden ratio.’

Thus, the Fibonacci series is a context of the structure of Life and the form is to divide the terms [of the context] that form an infinite series that leads to the concept, and that is phi, the golden ratio. However, in a fractal, we can expect a particular result [because of relativity at least] and indeed we find that this is a general organisational result of any sequence that shows the ‘way of Life’ by using the requirement of relativity [past and future goals]. ‘So, just say we start with 4 and 10, the following term will be 14 and the one after that 24. . . . .

10/4, 14/10. 24/14, 38/24, 62/38, 100/62 . . . .

2.5, 1.4, 1.714, 1,583, 1.632, 1,612, 1.620, 1.617, 1.618 . . . .’ (Alex’s Adventures in Numberland, Alex Bellos, p 291)

The author [Alex Belos] goes on to say ‘I find this a totally enthralling mathematical phenomenon’ (p 291) and this is a typical top-down response because it is, as he says, but from the bottom-up it says a great deal more, that any numbers [say 4 and 10] that are acted upon to give a sum [14] and so on, the lack of relativity converges to an absolute [phi]. Clearly, the Fibonacci series is one series that Life uses for it’s own purposes that is an organisational absolute of profound importance, and that importance is [possibly] the relativity of the creation equation, that says that all time has a past and a future that must always be considered. In other words, the dimensions [energy, organisation, time and space] are saying that energy and organisation [linked together by relativity] are found/applicable in all time and space [as we would expect].

Why are We Here?

‘With all these accidents in place, Earth was ready for life. But that raises another question: did life have to happen? (p 13) ‘Many assume that life should arise inevitably, given Earth-like conditions, a stance known as biological determinism. But it is hard to find any support for it in the known laws of physics, chemistry or biology. If we relied solely on these laws to explain the workings of the universe, it would be reasonable to conclude that life can only have arisen by sheer good luck – and that it is therefore exceedingly unlikely to be found elsewhere.’ (p 13) Remember that in an organisational setting it is the possibility [‘thread’] not an actual occurrence that should be considered and that an organisation is a communication device and if a question is asked, it is answered truthfully and specifically and this is called a physics-experiment, but the questions asked are top-down and meaningless unless asked in terms of bottom-up and we need to change our thinking to understand this [3]. When we consider life, we are offered an answer that could have occurred under the restrictions binding a universe that could have started if two somethings were created out of nothing in an accelerating frame of reference etc. No one is saying that we exist, or that we will ever exist, but there is a possibility, and on the other hand, no one knows what we would do [in given circumstances] until we do it [Socrates’ questions]. In other words, physics wants to know the intimate details of every item in the shop, whereas organisation allows us to ignore what is not necessary [the question in affordances], which rationalises/formalises/directs our intellect. An unwieldy physics results from not having a theory of modern physics [as this hopefully is] and results in a plethora of top-down surmises that has thwarted the understanding of physics and an example is quantum mechanics.

Thus, physical experiments tell us what is possible, not what has been produced [and has some probability] and the same organisation can be used in social science. Consider that ‘speciation still remains one of the biggest mysteries in evolutionary biology’ (p 34) and the answer is to be found, I believe, in this theory as relativity, and because I have done some work on the [possible] bad effects on society of multiculturalism [1, 8, 9], I venture the following. A group of animals, birds, humans etc, that consume the same food tend to split into two groups so that they have an opposition that they can identify when food is scarce, social problems arise or other stresses [of many types] produces an aversion to sharing and relativity [safeguarding breeding stock] comes to the fore. The ‘exponential curve indicates that speciation is triggered by a single accidental event. Best fit for 78% of evolutionary trees’ (p 36) and droughts would seem to be the most likely trigger.

Looking forward is similar to looking back and relativity is necessary [Fibonacci series] and ‘the six evolutionary accidents that made you the person you are today’ (p 45) 1) ‘Jaw dropper . . . . single mutation in MYH16, which encodes a muscle protein’ (p 46), 2) ‘Brain gain .. . . ASPM sequence’ (p 48), 3) ‘Energy upgrade . . . . the brain uses about 20 per cent of our energy at rest, compared with 8 per cent for other primates’ (p 49), 4) ‘Gift of the gab . . . . FOXP2 protein’ (p 51), 5) Helping hand . . . . HACN1′ (p 53), 6) ‘Switch to starch . . . . Humans have much higher levels of amylase in their saliva than chimpanzees’ (p 54). We are here, working well because we evolved the correct way, which is to be successful, and that is the organisational rule of survival of the fittest. Indeed, Darwin’s [organisational] contribution is one of 8 listed as Homo sapiens unrecognised [occurred as a single entity] organisational contributions throughout history [11].

The Scaffold of Organisation

The structure of organisation is fluid because an organisation needs to grow [organically] and this is shown by the representation of operators, such as pi, as an infinite series [2], but embedded are organisational absolutes that do not change [as limits], such as the golden ratio [phi], above, which I interpret as the limit of a segment of emotion from 0 to phi. I do this because emotion [energy] and organisation are related through the creation equation and the maximum organisation of a line segment is, I believe, the golden ratio. Pi, on the other hand, I interpret as the operator linking a circle and a square, but what of ‘e’? Consider that ‘Prussian soldiers all faced a small but finite risk of deaths from horse-kicks . . . . The result is 2.71 – within 1 per cent of e. A fluke? Not at all: it’s to do with the mathematics of what are called Poisson distributions. Probability theory shows the e can be expected to pop up when lots of randomly triggered events are spread over a restricted interval of time. The same is true of events spread over a limited region of space’. (p 110)

This indicates firstly, that restrictions introduce non-randomness into the organisation [e represents simple interest accumulation [number theory]] and secondly, the physics’ notion of space-time [that suggests that time and space are linked] is dodgy because being orthogonal [dimensions] they are independent. The derivation [6] assumes that time and distance are linear, entangled at the origin and orthogonal and a combining into space-time is a top-down assumption that could pose problems [top-down] because it introduces incompleteness by ignoring energy and organisation. Thirdly, length and time are relative and change so that the absolute [removing the relativity by division] is the absolute speed of light [energy and organisation].

Conclusion and Prediction

The parable [the preserve of organisation] of the shop, above, shows physics busily garnering information about all the producers and the minutia of their production, shipment etc., when all that is needed is to visit the shop to experience the products in the shop, yet Homo sapiens is so slow to define organisation and to aim for future goals, above, that it is a menace to the future of civilisation and needs an urgent upgrade in the software that it uses [in the mind] and hopefully that this paper supplies.

Relativity [in demanding a prediction to the conclusion] is the single most important concept and is apparent in Born’s Rule [6] and the propensity to movement that we call gravity due to the [necessary] acceleration [5] that requires the square rule in measuring, for example, Pythagoras’ theorem that uses the squares as relativity and uniqueness [principle of least action] that demands that there is no higher power that satisfies this relationship [Fermat’s last theorem that took a couple of hundred pages to solve using mathematics]. We assume that multiplication is ‘so many lots of something’, but it has a much more important role, I believe, as the agent of relativity, for example as the relativity between two masses or charges [2, 5] that leads to the ubiquitous square that keeps popping up when a comparison is made, which possibly signifies the relativity of our measurement.

If the universe is an organisation, we can influence it, as it influences us [gravity] and this can be felt every time that we recognise [appreciate, measure] beauty, music, Church services, parades etc. in and about society and this effect of affordances [use of the creation equation] is [I believe] the interaction [relativity between measurer and thing measured] whereby the organisation measured creates emotional energy in the measurer and adds to the organisation of the measured [by adding/measuring/recognising the measurer] and the relativity is the product [producing the square]. For example, it is possible that Homo sapiens is being manipulated by a increasingly complex religion [and government] as shown by the creation of a Church hierarchy that grew out of the simple message of religion, ‘these various strands were pulled together if not actually masterminded by the first of three great propagandizing Popes, Leo I (390-461) . . . . Gelasius I (fl. 492-6) . . . . Gregory I (540-609) . . . . the propagandist known as Denys the Areopagite, who developed the image of the Pope as an exceptional church ruler above the law and above criticism’ (Easily Led, Oliver Thomson, p 126). Thus was created a Church hierarchy that continues to this day that increased the splendour and complexity of the Church and also increased it’s emotional appeal as a draw-card. [10].

If I seem to have concentrated on physics examples it is because physics is more conceptual [50%] versus social science that is more organisational [100%] and the above example shows the organisation behind the affordances generated by the creation equation. A very different example of relativity is given in [13] where [hopefully] a class action will succeed against the government valuing 200 square metres of hillside at $600,000 when it is supposed to be the unimproved value of the land. The case is that it is impossible to value anything unless it is in the form that has value to another buyer [which is a relativity] and that the subdivisions [currently 150 and 50 square metres] should be made large enough to be built upon and thus have a value to others [building blocks of one hectare each], which can be simply done by changing the figures.

The prediction is that cosmology is the creation and will be acknowledged to be the basis of everything leading to philosophy, physics, social science and everything that is part of the organisation of Life including the universe and perhaps the Ancients were correct that we are the centre of everything. Also, given that we are possibilities in a relativistic universe, being of zero size is just as likely as any other size, and the simplest case is that we do not exist at all! So, perhaps Occam’s razor becomes the central organisational tenet that we [and the rest of the universe] are possibilities in nothing!

Reference: 1. Penney D. Social Engineering: Using Social Science To Improve Ourselves And Society. Madridge J Behav Soc Sci. 2023; S1(1): 1-6, doi:10.18689/mjbss-s1-001

2. Penney D. Exploring Numberland. Int J Cosmol Astro Astrophys, 2022; S1(1): 13-18, doi: 10.18689/ijcaa-s1-013

3. Penney D. A Penny for your Thoughts. Int J Cosmol Astron Astrophys, 2022; S1(1):19-25. doi: 10.18689/ijcaa-s1-014

4. Penney D. Why Solving Cosmic Inflation Could Change Your Mind. Int J Cosmol Astron Astrophys, 2022; S1(1):1-6. doi: 10.18689/ijcaa-s1-011
5. Penney D. Understanding Everything Means Understanding Nothing. Int J Cosmol Astro Astrophys, 2022; S1(1): 7-12, doi: 10.18689/ijcaa-s1-012
6. Can Affordances Save Civilisation?, Mind & Society,20(1), 107-110. doi:10.1007/s11299-020-00265-x
7. Penney D. Organising Organisation. Int J Cosmol Astro Astrophys, 2023; S2(1): 26-32, doi: 10.18689/ijcaa-s1-014
8. Penney D. Social Engineering: The Concepts behind The E.U., U.S., China and Australia. Madridge J Behav Soc Sci. 2023; S1(1): 7-13. doi:10.18689/mjbss-s1-002
9. Penney D. Social Engineering: The Context behind The E.U., U.S., China and Australia. Madridge J Behav Soc Sci. 2023; S1(1): 14-21. doi:10.18689/mjbss-s1-003
10. Propaganda: A Relativity Used By The Other Side, an unpublished paper
11. Management as a Science, an unpublished paper

12 Why Are Physicists So Mentally Challenged? an unpublished paper

13. Penney D. The Changing Face of Australian Governance. Madridge J Behav Soc Sci. 2023; S1(1): 22-27. doi:10.18689/mjbss-s1-004

The Changing Face Of Australian Governance

by Darryl Penney

Abstract: Homo sapiens is incomplete, reluctant to change and the quotation ‘Whom the Gods would destroy, they first make mad’ seems somewhat appropriate here when looking at a current practical example of what can happen to a modern (so called) first world country that does not understand this new theory of relativity and organisation. For the first time, organisation is understandable by being linked to energy through the creation equation and can be added to physics and social science to provide the social engineering that we need to apply to society relative to the technology that is so useful, but is unrestrained and destroying society and Life on the planet. We are supposed to be a democracy, but are not, and public servants are dud-ding us with mechanistic and possibly deceitful tactics, and yet we have the means to create a real democracy. Hyperinflation is appearing, and yet it is simple to control with a change in the political process, but is indicative of the underlying problem of not using goals and social engineering.

Keyword: governance; forward planning; taxation; management; hyperinflation; asset valuation

• I believe that this paper literally upends social science in it’s entirety because it introduces a function that is on a par with energy and, while physics tends to be heavily discounted in social science, the physical and it’s effects on relativity, bottom-up organisation [through the animals], the working of the mind and the ability of the mind to be enhanced, is what Homo sapiens has been waiting for, to organise society, so that it works. Born in cosmology and quantum mechanics, published as affordances [the link between the environment and the recognition of it in the brain [emotion, [4]], it has been extended through fundamental physics [2, 3, 4, 5,,6] and into social science [1, 7, 8, 9].
• Practitioners are the backbone of the industry and are naturally loath to change [an absolute, [1]] , but this paper shows the absurdity of their position [11] and they must force change otherwise governance will end in the ridiculous position of physics with the scientific method [measurement only] and principle [peer review]. Theoretical modern science has slept for a hundred years waiting for this theory that asks the future [explicitly, like algebra [2]] through the property of the organisation [the organisational universe [4, 5, 7]] needed [to complete physics] and to provide the organisational absolutes [8, 9, 10] that make social science, a science [which it is not at the moment]. Organisation must use both the physical and Life if Homo sapiens is to progress on the path to real civilisation.
• The mind [3] is based on the creation equation [6] and needs this theory to expand [using relativity and bottom-up organisation, [12]] as well as a longer lifetime [13] because it’s capabilities increase factorially […5x4x3x2x1, [2]] with use [concepts], but the house of science is built on sand because measurement [concept] works, but the context [organisation] is missing, and as they say, ‘you can’t have one without the other’ [relativity]. This will not go away, and is the point where the animals must be left behind and we must seek the goal [Homo completus] that is the completion of the Fibonacci series that is an organisational absolute.
• A conclusion must always have a prediction [relativity] and a future-planning [Fibonacci series]. Physics is old, entrenched, misbegotten, wrongish and going nowhere [disclaimer], governance is also old [families, Plato’s philosophers etc.], has no scientific basis and is making mistakes [the example, herein, is valuing 200 square metres of hilltop at $600,000 [land only]], so now is the time to build properly a social engineering, as I suggest [1], civilising people, not the path of more petty laws with more public servant’s incompetent policing [11].

Disclaimer: the subject matter of this paper is new but must be classed as an opinion-piece and cannot be classified as scientific [not based on past peer acceptance] and is theoretical [not based on the scientific method [measurement]] and it’s use may conflict with peer acceptance. Secondly, the paper is, in truth, scientific because (1) it is based on absolutes [as it must for comparisons to be made], and (2) the simplest absolutes [unlike Newtonian physics that is based on the more complicated force equals mass times acceleration]. Thirdly, mistakes [contextual] may occur because I am a generalist, whereas a specialist is a specialist [conceptual] in a subject and would not be expected to make mistakes. This state of affairs is relativity and cannot be eliminated.

Preface

To not change, is an organisational absolute that is basic to the evolution of Life, and in particular, is the hallmark of Homo sapiens [along with incompleteness], but the organisational absolute of the Fibonacci series [past, present and future relativities, [2]] requires goals glimpsed through an organisation [7] that has been derived bottom-up from cosmology [4, 5]. There are many ways to introduce new methods and one of the best is to confront a problem that is becoming apparent but is thought, erroneously, to be confined to third world countries. Hyperinflation is indicative of, and symptomatic of a blighted governance that humanity has been unable to solve for 2,500 years, but is within reach through the technology of a mobile phone connected world. The basic problem is that Homo sapiens is transitional between the animals and a future Homo completus when we will be fully civilised and to do this, we have to increase our capacity to think [3] which requires understanding the way that the mind is a function of the brain through affordances [6].

Current organisation is limited to Occam’s razor [that the simplest organisation is usually the best], which is not definitive and organisation only becomes apparent when we give it a value [concept] and the measuring returns a context. This is a property of an organisation and can be seen [in the fractal universe] as algebra in mathematics where defining [measuring] a future solution [unknown x] forces a context [solution] to be available [property of an organisation] because a question must be asked to initiate a measurement. Once we look for an organisation [concept], the context becomes apparent and we see an organisational affordance that is based on the creation equation [relativity and restrictions, [6]]. Restrictions are that the universe must be accelerating [producing gravity [5]], cosmic inflation [4] etc. as well as the organisational restrictions that are shown by the animals [1, 8, 9] that form the basis to producing a workable society and this paper.

Objection to Notice of Valuation PT 7/1275471

Comprising 66.72 hectares, 150 square metres and 44.8 square metres

Overall Picture

Firstly, one of the major problems facing our society at the moment is cost-push inflation where politicians raise award wages to make themselves popular and the Reserve Bank tries to adjust interest rates to keep inflation at about 2.5% per year.

Secondly, public servants have been on a spending spree (demand pull inflation), consider, ‘the Budget projects that the Commonwealth government’s gross debt will be around $963 billion at 30 June 2022. This is around 45.1% of GDP. It is projected to increase to $1,199 billion – around 50% of GDP – by 30 June 2025’ (Budget Strategy and Outlook: Budget paper No1:2021-2022, Table 11.5, p 366-7). Net debt was zero in 2010! In 12 years the government has overspent $80,000,000,000 each year! No wonder that they are keeping quiet! There is probably a good reason, but it is not apparent to me, and in a true democracy, the government has to convince us, the voters, of that reason, not keep us in the dark for their own benefit.’ [10] The Reserve Bank is trying to reduce inflation [currently 7 %] by increasing interest rates, and that is causing problems with household mortgage repayments. In other words, an instability is being caused by raising award wages [an inappropriate move].

Thirdly, public servants are using a mechanistic increasing of taxation by using inflated values without relativity or justification. For many years the Valuation of government was about half the real value, but now the zeal of public servants has reached an all time high in taxing the community and must be curtailed because it is causing inflation (cost-push inflation) through inflating values inappropriately. The universe is based on relativity [6] that is not used by Homo sapiens, which uses energy, but not the associated organisation [2, 3]. Likewise, social science does not recognise organisation or social engineering [1] and a small example is the following valuations:

1/7/2019 1/7/22 increase/year % per year

66.72 hectares $642,000 $1,440,000 $266,000 41%

150 square metres $135,968 $341,000 $68,344 50%

44.8 square metres $100,672 $253,000 $50,776 50%

1 hectare subdivision $225,000

with building approval

(for comparison)

Conclusion: inflation is out of control because there is no social engineering [organisation] being applied and the Reserve Bank has only one broad means of controlling inflation [interest rates] and that is a poor weapon when the basic cause is ignorance of organisation.

Hyperinflation

Hyperinflation is common around the world in developing countries and the main reason is due to mismanagement of the economy, so it is surprising to see it occurring in Australia, which is supposed to be a developed country, but is, unfortunately, ignorant of social engineering and organisation in general. This might be hard to believe because Homo sapiens considers itself to be wise, but is far from it. For example, our universe is a fractal based on the possibility of existence of nothing splitting into a relativity of energy and organisation and we use energy in physics [see “Newtonian Physics”, International Journal of Cosmology, Astronomy and Astrophysics] because it is simple. Organisation is simple when derived bottom-up [see Opinion Article – Special Issue Madridge’s Journal of Behavioural and Social Sciences] and is necessary to show the ramifications of using a top-down guesstimate that is our political system.

Consider the problems that come with inflation, ‘the International Accounting Standards Board has issued guidance on accounting rules in a hyperinflationary environment . . . . lists factors that indicate the existence of hyperinflation. . . . the cumulative inflation rate over three years approaches, or exceeds, 100%.’ (Wikipedia, Hyperinflation) clearly, in the example of hyperinflation that is occurring in the valuation of my farm, growth rates exceed the definition of hyperinflation [as used practically], hence this paper is an opportunity to correct this, but must be done using organisation and, in particular, relativity, which is missing in the organisation of Homo sapiens’ thinking. For example, if energy plus organisation equal nothing [above], there must be universal entanglement, an accelerating universe [which causes gravity], cosmic inflation etc., all as physics has found. Relativity means that a tax applied should be related to alternate commercial opportunity on that site and not by some guess, as has been done here. For example, the 50 and 150 square metre subdivisions at the top of a hill [transmission tower] have no alternate use if the tower is removed and cannot be considered to have value [$600,000 as above] to anyone else. If the subdivisions were increased to 1 hectare [as building blocks], this problem would disappear [by creating relativity] and alternate users and buyers.

‘In 1879, Henry George published Progress and Poverty, by which he advocated a flat tax on lands based on the original unimproved value of the latters in their natural state, the “land value tax”. George believed this tax was sufficient to support all government programs, being essentially a “single tax”. . . . . neither land value nor land value tax will affect production behaviour (Hooper 2008).’ (Wikipedia, Ad valorem tax) Clearly, the “single tax” has become a multitude of taxes and it is still true that this tax will not affect production, however it will significantly affect price and contribute to inflation. Obviously, I must increase the price of my production significantly in the light of these monstrous increases in taxation and if I am forced out of business, I have no means of paying the taxes on the land. Also, the huge unjustified increase puts me into the position of paying “Land Tax”, which is completely unwarranted on the little land that I use.

This again brings in the question of relativity about the usability of land and the availability of land. Firstly, I bought the land 40 years ago that was completely forested with large Gum trees and is not worth clearing except for the small amount that I use for plant production and fire protection.

Secondly, as a member of Homo sapiens, public servants do not recognise relativity and are imposing an inappropriate, unconscionable and totally unjustifiable tax by treating my property on the same rating basis as productive farms. Some years ago, I was informed [by public servants] that to grow horticultural stock [plants], I could use no more than 10% of the runoff of the property [to maintain flow in the creek] and this necessitates a large property that is not productive [for me] and should therefore not be taxed as farmland. The South-coast [of NSW] is a hard-leaved rain-forest with large trees in deeply eroded [creek runoff] mud-stone, shale-stone and clay-stone soil that is not worth clearing except for 10 acres for fire-control. The land is not productive and cannot be rated as farmland.

The Quality of Public Servants

It is usually assumed that public servants are above the law and this is unfortunately somewhat true because they appear to have power and little [if any] responsibility and the organisation of which they form part [governance] is the result of hard fighting by the governed over centuries. Consider our (so called) democratic system that is actually an alternate autocracy because even a true democracy did not exist in ancient Greece. ‘Fifth-century [B.C.] was quite different from the society that Plato imagined in The Republic. It was a democracy of sorts, though only about 10 per cent of the population could vote. Women and slaves, for example, were automatically excluded. But citizens were equal before the law, and there was an elaborate lottery system to make sure that everyone had a fair chance of influencing political decisions.’ (A Little History Of Philosophy, Nigel Warburton, p 6)

Clearly, a true democracy must be built on mobile phones and proportional [to various criteria] voting and the form of governance must include organisation that can only come from a complete physics [1 to 10] that uses bottom-up organisation and relativity. Top-down thinking is the hallmark of Homo sapiens and categorises the thinking of public servants [by necessity] and that leads to two possibilities, firstly, public servants are prone to mental problems in carrying out their duties, for example [9] that leaders and public servants are not just empty-headed, limelight seekers, but (possibly) have mental issues as well. ‘About one hundred thousand Americans died in World War II in the Pacific’ (The China Mirage, James Bradley, p 371) ‘The U.S. did not enter World War II to defend Britain or oppose Hitler. On December 8, 1941, the United States declared war on Japan and only Japan. Three long days passed, and the United States did not declare war on Germany to defend England. It was only when Adolf Hitler rashly declared war on the U.S. that Americans went to war in Europe.’ (p 8) Notice that ‘the United States declared war on Japan’ because of an attack on Pearl Harbour, and why did Japan attack the United States?

‘First, the State Department would decide how much oil Japan could purchase . . . State’s decision would move to Treasury, which would calculate how many Japanese-owned dollars had to be unfrozen to meet State’s dictate. Then the Foreign Funds Control Committee (FFCC), a newly created three-man panel, would release the Treasury-approved dollars for the Japanese to use to purchase their State-approved oil. . . . Little did Roosevelt imagine that an obscure committee deep within his bureaucracy would catapult America into World War II.’ (p 268) ‘Acheson and Morgenthau passed the buck back and forth to each other, running the Japanese through a bureaucratic maze. A Treasury official later wrote, “The Japanese tried every conceivable way of getting the precious crude oil, but to each proposal the [FFCC] had an evasive answer ready to camouflage its flat refusal.”’ (p 271) Thus, the Japanese had to invade further southward for oil.

The conclusion is that businesses have power and responsibility [in their own domain], whereas public servants have power and no responsibility. The public servants on the losing sides were executed for crimes against people, but not against the organisation, and most assuredly not the American public servants that caused the U.S. entry into the Pacific War, and also into the European war. Homo sapiens is incompetent because it does not understand organisation, for example, ‘Acheson had just secretly changed Roosevelt’s Asian policy and done the specific thing the president feared would lead to war’. (p 271) ‘Dean Acheson was not the first to attempt to cut Japan’s oil supply. Morgenthau, Ickes, and a number of Washington Warriors within Roosevelt’s helter-skelter administration had all given it a try. In each of those cases, however, Hull, Welles, or Roosevelt had become aware of what was going on and intervened before any serious damage could be done. The only thing that was different about Acheson’s successful exploit was that – supported by Morgenthau, Stimson, and Ickes – he got away with it. ‘ (p273) Obviously the organisation was deficient as were the public servants who were not doing as ordered.

Secondly, consider from above, ‘the Budget projects that the Commonwealth government’s gross debt will be around $963 billion at 30 June 2022. This is around 45.1% of GDP. It is projected to increase to $1,199 billion – around 50% of GDP – by 30 June 2025 (Budget Strategy and Outlook: Budget paper No1:2021-2022, Table 11.5, p 366-7). Net debt was zero in 2010!

A New Social Threat

Even a true democracy needs a leader according to the creation equation because the leader is the concept and the members are the context [the organisation], and the leader has a paramount restriction, that he/she need to be good leaders, but do leaders lead us where we want to go? That decision is democracy, [similar to the working of the mind-brain, fractal] and the problem is, to make the leader take us where we want to go, and if we don’t give direction, the leader will lead where he/she wants to go. This can be seen in the (so-called) democratic system that we use, that is actually an alternating autocracy, that is usually a contest between Labor/Democrats and Liberal/Republicans, that is, the poor and the better off. If we divide the political spectrum simply, it becomes capitalist – socialist – communist and the power switches from one side to the other, which is necessary when choosing between a choice of two different things [orthogonality/relativity]. This is Homo sapiens’ top-down solution and let’s see where this leads in history.

Consider the American Civil War, Abraham ‘Lincoln is remembered as a martyr and a national hero for his wartime leadership and for his efforts to preserve the Union and abolish slavery. Lincoln is often ranked in both popular and scholarly polls as the greatest president in American history.’ (Wikipedia, Abraham Lincoln) Really? Apart from the fact that ‘slaves died during the war from disease, starvation, or exposure and if these deaths are counted in the war’s total, the death toll would exceed 1 million’. (Wikipedia, American Civil War, Casualties) The American Civil War and World War I and II could be classed as modern wars where the public servants used the full resources of the country in the pursuit of the leader’s dream including killing millions of people. Why? Because Lincoln wished to ‘preserve the Union’, when it would have been more sensible for the South to secede, as they wanted to do, because slavery is a conscious choice [orthogonal that toggles yes/no] one side had to win and subdue the other and one million died in the conflict that he supported.

Was he really the ‘greatest president’ or the ‘worst president’? This is the top-down thinking of Homo sapiens with no relativity and the problem is still with the US today because ‘in the summer of 2008, the U.S. Census Bureau announced its projection that, by 2042, for the first time in American history, whites would no longer be the majority in a country that had known of no other configuration, no other way to be.’ (Caste, Isabel Wilkerson, p 6). The gun laws of the U.S., that are enshrined in the Constitution seem to be no longer applicable to the changing demographics and castes caused by preserving the Union. Slavery was dying out and the secession was caused by ‘slave owners controlled politics and the economy, although 75% of white Southern families owned no slaves.’ (Wikipedia) In a short time slavery would become unlawful and, to eliminate the problems of multiculturalism that we see today, the freed slaves could have been given their own country if they couldn’t be sent back.

This theory contains bottom-up organisation and relativity and when applied to these valuations shows them to be guesses, and the concept of a guess contains the context of that guess. The ‘Magna Carta still forms an important symbol of liberty today, often cited by politicians and campaigners, and is held in great respect by the British and American legal communities, Lord Denning describing it as “the greatest constitutional document of all times – the foundation of the freedom of the individual against the arbitrary authority of the despot”. (Wikipedia, Magna carta) Notice that the phrase ‘arbitrary authority of the despot’ is the context and ‘colloquially, the word despot applies pejoratively to those who use their power and authority to oppress their populace, subjects, or subordinates. More specifically, the term often applies to a head of state or government.’ (Wikipedia, Despotism)

Considering that our political system is orthogonal [capitalist leaning versus communist leaning], that public servants may be uncontrollable in orthogonal situations [U.S.A entry into World War II, above], public servants [in a Labor government environment] may be tilting the sympathetic predilection unconscionably too far to the communist side, or they may have picked up the vibes from the Labor government. Whatever, of the above, the valuation lacks the relativity that is ignored by Homo sapiens that there must be an alternate buyer that will pay the commensurate valuation for the property.

According to the Fibonacci series [an organisational absolute] relativity is required in the past and future that impacts on the means and method of valuation in the following way:

A [conceptually]:

1. the (so called) ‘farmland’ is necessary for the business as only 10% of the rain water run-off of the whole property can be used or stored, the land is not suited to any productive enterprise [clearing costs, poor soil, natural erosion etc.] and might be worth $500,000 as a house-block. The relativity is the worth to State Forest for logging or as National Park that borders the property, and that is not much.

2. the 150 and 50 square metre subdivisions are worthless on being on the side of a forested hill and if technical improvements [of satellites etc.] necessitates the tower’s removal no one would be able to use the land and it’s value would be effectively zero. Clearly, the government feels the need to tax the subdivisions to account for the land that is rented for the tower, but why make subdivisions when there is no guarantee that the tower is permanent? It worked for 15 years that I paid income tax on the amount received, but now the public servants wish to impose double taxation. Not only double taxation, but exorbitant taxation that is unjustifiable.

So, the only way to give these two blocks justifiable value is to increase the size to one hectare each so that they can be used as building blocks that have a relative value. The two blocks have power connected, side road access [as at present] and enough surrounding land that is not being used and will never be used by me.

B [contextually]: as relativity always exists, there must be two solutions and to use one is to fall into the incompleteness of Homo sapiens and so, the conceptual is above and the contextual below.

1. the family business on the farm has been to grow and distribute landscaping plants over the South of NSW, but the travel/delivery restrictions have become so onerous [due also to family break-up] that distribution has ceased and is pick-up at farm gate only and grower’s price is offered that is one quarter of that through retail outlets. This is possible and desirable through cheap internet websites and advertising and concentrates on the South Coast and Canberra areas [internet selling]. This is the way of the future and the most efficient means of avoiding public servant restrictions, charges and red tape.

2. The use of the hill-top adjacent to the highway allows the communication tower to monitor a large area, is connected into the Sydney-Melbourne fibre optic network and would be a vital part of the [ground based] communication system. Everything was well and good until the government intruded, made subdivisions, presumably to extract a double taxation, has made hyper-inflationary valuations and red tape and places the tower in jeopardy because it (possibly) becomes uneconomic to allow it to use my land. Hyper inflation of what once was an asset, becomes a liability when the rates increase at 50% per year and income rises at 3% per year and I would be forced to ask that it be taken away at the end of the lease period. Considering the machinations of the public servants, they could have some scheme to take control, nationalise or otherwise take it into public ownership, after all, a Labor government may be targeting landowners as their avowed class-enemies.

Conclusion and Prediction

Homo sapiens is transient and the aim must be Homo completus, where humanity is civilised and that will require knowledge of organisation and the application of social engineering, as in the references, below. In particular, the voting system must be made truly democratic and the leader’s decisions replaced by popular democratic decisions based on experts’ advice [for and against] with phone voting. Also, population growth should be generated from within [no multiculturalism] as well as [as much as possible] production withing marketing areas [maximise employment] so that we can monitor the engineering of society and move toward Homo completus where we can do away with most [intrusive] laws and just be responsible citizens [1].

In particular, hyperinflation and even inflation [over the long-term] is simply a weakness of the political system and is simply fixed by anchoring the award wages that are under government control and it is our misaligned political system that needs fixing and technology has provided the means in the mobile phone. Overall, evolution tells us that the best parents actively monitor the environment and teach their offspring how to survive within it and we are failing humanity by not selecting the population that will do this. Politics is synonymous with evolution [fractal universe] and we are failing both by not increasing our intellect [3] and making humanity better.

Mankind’s [Homo sapiens] greatest problem has been it’s inability to recognise relativity [orthogonality] because it has always assumed that the universe is ‘real’, but it is not ‘real’, but is an organisation [2, 7]. For example, are the billions upon billions of stars actually there [‘real’], or are they what must have existed to have allowed us to ask the question of what is the past? The universe is a fractal [being generated from a simple creation equation] and the equation of the marketplace is product plus money is nothing, but in society relativity is always there with capital the balancing item and money the restriction. A restriction, like the necessity of an accelerating space for the creation equation [energy plus organisation is nothing] to exist, which produces what we call gravity, must be fixed in value for a system to be stable. Inflation is caused by a changing restriction [value of money] and the organisation becomes unstable, and these valuations are showing that very fact. The long-term solution is to change the political system, get rid of public servant appeasers that can’t say ‘no’, put the vote into people’s hands, freeze public service wages and stabilise prices.

Reference: 1. Penney D. Social Engineering: Using Social Science To Improve Ourselves And Society. Madridge J Behav Soc Sci. 2023; S1(1): 1-6, doi:10.18689/mjbss-s1-001

2. Penney D. Exploring Numberland. Int J Cosmol Astro Astrophys, 2022; S1(1): 13-18, doi: 10.18689/ijcaa-s1-013

3. Penney D. A Penny for your Thoughts. Int J Cosmol Astron Astrophys, 2022; S1(1):19-25. doi: 10.18689/ijcaa-s1-014

4. Penney D. Why Solving Cosmic Inflation Could Change Your Mind. Int J Cosmol Astron Astrophys, 2022; S1(1):1-6. doi: 10.18689/ijcaa-s1-011
5. Penney D. Understanding Everything Means Understanding Nothing. Int J Cosmol Astro Astrophys, 2022; S1(1): 7-12, doi: 10.18689/ijcaa-s1-012
6. Can Affordances Save Civilisation?, Mind & Society,20(1), 107-110. doi:10.1007/s11299-020-00265-x
7. Penney D. Organising Organisation. Int J Cosmol Astro Astrophys, 2023; S2(1): 26-32, doi: 10.18689/ijcaa-s1-014
8. Penney D. Social Engineering: The Concepts behind The E.U., U.S., China and Australia. Madridge J Behav Soc Sci. 2023; S1(1): 7-13. doi:10.18689/mjbss-s1-002

9. Penney D. Social Engineering: The Context behind The E.U., U.S., China and Australia. Madridge J Behav Soc Sci. 2023; S1(1): 14-21. doi:10.18689/mjbss-s1-003

1. Propaganda: A Relativity Used By The Other Side, an unpublished paper
2. Management as a Science, an unpublished paper
3. Towards A New Religion And Peace On Earth an unpublished paper

13. Do We Need To Die? an unpublished paper

Social Engineering: The Context Behind The E.U., U.S., China And Australia

by Darryl Penney

Abstract: our civilisation is in danger from Homo sapiens’ lack of control of society brought about by it’s ignorance of organisation and this theory, that commences in cosmology, shows the simplicity and similarity inherent in a fractal universe and suggests a society built on absolutes that will, over time, lead to stability and an improving race with a goal for the future.

Keywords: relativity; organisation; fractal; society; creation equation; thinking

Disclaimer: Homo sapiens broke away from the hunter-gatherer lifestyle 13,000 years ago and due to the incompleteness of it’s thinking has placed the World in danger from global warming, population excess etc.. This theory of organisation seems to work at every level of our fractal universe [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8] and perhaps shows how society should be managed, however, resistance to change is a fundamental driver to success in our evolution and can lead to excessive intolerance to change in co-workers etc. to the detriment of careers etc. Secondly, mistakes [contextual] may occur because I am a generalist, whereas a specialist is a specialist [conceptual] in a subject and would not be expected to make mistakes. This state of affairs is relativity and cannot be eliminated.

Claimer:if the disclaimer is to warn about a possible danger to lifestyle from reading this paper, there is an upside to the suggestions made in this paper that are of general interest, and that is that if marketing areas are created, many of the problems facing the world, such as terrorism, financial bondage, racism etc. are likely to be eliminated and allows alternate uses of the environment to be examined and rated.

Voting Systems

A friend commented that there is a big difference between our system of democracy and a dictatorship, but it could be that he and a lot of people are mistaken and we should look closer into the political system that we think is superior. A true democracy, for the person, is often considered to be the ideal political system and requires an interest in a subject, knowledge of a subject and a vote when required and that can be done using mobile phones, so, a democracy is possible in a modern society, but do we want the hassle? We invest a lot of time, energy and money into children, so, why shouldn’t we give them the best chance in life that we can, especially considering the 3,000 million years of contribution by ancestors. A discussion on voting to change the constitution, perhaps every 10 years might be sensible [8] because original Constitutions were created with top-down thinking and circumstances change as the years pass, but relative to this is the question of whether people are interested? If a citizen is not interested, do they deserve the benefits of society? Should they wish to be excluded from the discussion when the basic driver of Life is to produce offspring at a significant cost to the parent and society? Should it not be their prime interest because that is the environment for their offspring. Producing offspring is a restriction on Life and necessary for life to continue and an interest in the preservation and growth of society is crucial [as would be expected in a fractal]. The relativity of voters is not considered [these days] and our politicians assume that every person over (say) 18 years of age should vote, but is each person’s vote equal to another person’s vote? Top-down thinking suggests ‘no’, with the voter ranked by interest [perhaps a minimum number times of accessing website], education level, age etc. This is a Socratic question where we do not know the answer unless we can find an organisation in the animals that tells us, and the herd system definitely says that everyone does not have the same rights.

It is also no surprise that ‘ever since the rise of the first government 5,400 years ago, they have served two main functions: to maintain internal peace by monopolizing force . . . and to redistribute individual wealth for the purpose of investing in larger aims – in the worst case, enriching the elite; in the best cases, promoting the good of society as a whole.’ (Upheaval, Jared Diamond, p 372) Again a Socratic question because which of the people are better off in these two countries? But there seems to be a very clear message from the animals, and that is to do what most of the animals do, which is to create species that compete. We know that there must be a goal [Fibonacci series] and that goal is Homo completus [or must be, if we are to survive, because Homo sapiens is destroying the environment], but how do we attain that single simple organisational solution? The best answer might be to create a number of new species of humans for comparison and that should not be difficult because we already use a caste system based on where people evolved [around the world] using obvious differences in features. Clearly, we are not creating new species [because that requires an inability to breed together], but artificially creating a barrier to mixing to measure ‘species’ through competition, so this paper primarily considers this solution [of forming species] as an organisational solution to today’s burden of Homo sapiens.

Democracy or What?

Is our political system a democracy? If it were, where do I vote for less public servants and less taxes? I can’t because our system is a dictatorship and we give very handsome remuneration, pensions and free travel if and when politicians step down. Those that are silly enough not to step down, start a war and cause great hardship, because we know what happened to Hitler [and many others], and there are currant leaders that ‘rattle sabres’, even in the face of previous World Wars. Our political system is really between two groups [relativity], the rich and the poor [Labor/Liberal, Republican/Democrat etc.] and always returns to that, unless an exceptional leader emerges. Further, ‘Americans as a whole are becoming polarized and politically uncompromising. . . . our coasts and big cities are now overwhelmingly Democratic, and our interior and rural areas are overwhelmingly Republican. Each political party is becoming increasingly homogeneous and extreme in its ideology.’ (p 347)

We already separate the coasts and big cities from the rural areas by way of electorates of various types with our cumbersome representative system, and in Australia, I won’t drive in the major cities because I don’t have e-tags for crossing bridges and using tollways etc., besides, the population tend to remind me of ‘rats in a maze’. Phone voting naturally isolates voting to the respective residents. The U.S. used caste to combine immigrant Europeans under a generic White banner against the African-Americans, but the efforts of the last century to restrict populations have proven to be in vain because ‘in the summer of 2008, the U.S. Census Bureau announced its projection that, by 2042, for the first time in American history, whites would no longer be the majority in a country that had known of no other configuration, no other way to be.’ (Caste, Isabel Wilkerson, p 6). This shows that ‘no-pass’ borders are needed to restrict the inevitable movement of ‘economic migrants’ from poorer areas into progressive economies so that areas can be quantised (see below).

Marketing Areas

Britain left the E.U., in part because it felt that it was losing it’s identity with an unrestrainable influx of people seeking economic benefit and the same apparently occurred in the U.S. to the extent of the above quotation [White’s becoming outnumbered]. This is multiculturalism where different groups from around the world migrate to form ethnic groups that are often slow (if ever) to integrate, but enjoy a higher standard of living in a safer environment. What happened to Adam Smith’s idea that an individual’s action is the nation’s gain? Or, “Ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country.” (John F. Kennedy). There is a relativity here and only what is good for the country contributes to the most successful marketing area [‘species’] and immigrants with their different cultural ways are inflicting inefficiency. These people are using the nation for their own gain and often do not contribute much, but are, I suspect, beloved of politicians, especially Labor/Democrat for their vote [usually long-term and lifetime.

People in general are xenophobic [fear or dislike of anything that is perceived as being foreign or strange] and it is a natural survival trait when dealing with the unknown. Hence, any group of countries with free travel between them should have similar people with similar customs and if the borders are closed, this will eventuate, but society, for various reasons, such as caste, religious beliefs etc. contain differences which create tensions. Ideally, in any marketing area [with a free flow of people] there should be homogeneity and it is the government’s duty to ensure this in the formation of a strong community. It seems to me that government is failing it’s citizens by allowing religious freedom, immigration etc. for the reason of giving some people what they [selfishly] want. What of strengthening the country? It is much more efficient to use ‘home grown’ children that fit in, than to bring in diverse immigrants and especially (so called) refugees from war-torn areas of the world, and also it is an opportunity to improve the population by genetic selection [1]. This shows that politicians are not leaders, but have an agenda. Is it any wonder that a better system must be found? Immigrants have hidden costs and a better way [of attaining social stability] is to increase the birthrate in a controlled manner by use of monetary compensation, genetic selection and raising the prestige of women.

Leaders, in my opinion, crave the limelight and usually make poor planners and the problem is accentuated with multiple countries, so, a ‘marketing area’ is a group of countries with open borders that act as states and a federal system, much like many countries do today, and other countries, that are not progressing as well, could be [partially or voluntarily] absorbed and gradually mix and become indistinguishable. The rationale is to become part of a marketing area that can compete [with other areas] and eliminate some of the chronic poor countries by raising their standard of living, similar to the European Union, and allow everyone the chance to grow into a successful [species-like] user of an environment. If that is the goal [concept], there must be a way of achieving that goal [context] and every marketing area must have the chance to excel, unlike with today’s “international police” powers [ Monroe Doctrine] of the U.S.

The Personality of the Political Process

There is a class of people that often become politicians and some business people [such as Alan Bond (DVD House of Bond)] that seek the limelight and frequently create problems because being a leader means that they have leadership skills, but not the knowledge of where to lead. Thus, politicians fight elections on the usual orthogonality of the rich and poor, with the middle class swinging from one camp to another. On occasion an important question arises and there is bilateral support, but in the main, a democracy is thought to be augmentative, but we don’t live in a democracy [above], so why should there be argument? Argument is divisive and suggests an orthogonality, so, let’s suggest a different approach, where leaders front the camera and the decisions are made democratically, using a modern device, such as the phone, which is now a part of us [bionic addition].

The current system of voting is out-of-date with the arrival of modern personal phones and is currently based on representatives in a hierarchy of expensive politicians that are supposed to represent us. Surely a simple app that lists two sides of (possibly) 5 or 10 questions with a short explanation of why each side is preferable and a count of the voting for each side, is all that is needed and satisfies democracy [interest, knowledge behind the question and a vote]. Surely a few experts can put the reasoning [for and against] behind a stance succinctly, and provide a useful tool to those wishing to vote.

A Parable of Incompleteness

Long ago in a United Kingdom, that was not completely united, and had one religion [Anglican] and a bit that was left [Ireland] that was Catholic and somewhat forgotten, but it’s population was allowed to grow [8 million versus 4 million now] because of a new food [potatoes] and the population became a cheap source of labour until a disease in the potato caused famine and an exodus occurred. Many were sent to Australia as convicts and in time a call was made to Britain to send women to balance the numbers and a shipload of Irish lasses were duly dispatched that, as religion follows the mother and due to the small population, made Australia significantly Catholic and sectarian problems inevitably followed. Fast forward to today and we see, below, that this multiculturalism may have placed the whole Nation in jeopardy [8].

‘The Aboriginal activists saw Mao’s China as a pot of gold that could help finance social revolution back home. . . . In China Aboriginal people could see themselves. Here too was a nation invaded, occupied and brutalised by foreign powers.’ (The Beijing Bureau, Ed. Trevor Watson & Melissa Roberts, p 290) ‘And the Irish were my people. . . . In Belfast I was home. Mixed with my Indigenous heritage was a deep Irish ancestry. I belong to those called the “shamrock Aborigines”. My great-great-grandfather, John Grant, had been banished from Ireland for trying to kill the landlord’s son. . . . When I arrived in Ireland I felt old John the rebel whispering in my heart. And the Chinese were my people. I felt it from the first time I stepped outside the plane in Hong Kong.’ (p 294) ‘I belonged to a race of people who were expected to die out.’ (p 291) And many have become indistinguishable from the broader community except for culture and the government’s generosity in handouts.

‘Through this program of flattery and royal treatment, involving all-expense trips to China and meetings with top leaders, some of our former prime ministers, foreign ministers and state premiers have been turned into “friends of China”. In addition to Bob Hawke and Paul Keating, Kevin Rudd, Bob Carr and John Brumby are frequent flyers to Beijing. Julia Gillard has resisted the Chinese sirens, probably because she is a more modest individual not driven by money or ego.’ (p 258) Clearly this supports my contention that firstly, politicians are drawn to the limelight ‘by money or ego’, and secondly, (presumably) not from scholarship, knowledge and desire to help the country and thirdly, that they make up a contextual group with disturbing ‘cultural legacies’ [Irish, Catholic[8]] that appear to run counter to Australia’s best interests.

The workers, for a long time, were interested in the material benefits for the working-man that led to the White Australia policy and not the self-seeking and sectarian divisions above, that Labor leaders now seem to be pursuing that tend to be composed predominantly of pro-communist, Irish descended Catholics that appear to have ‘cultural legacies’ that somewhat conflict with Australia’s goals, and these goals are difficult to reconcile presumably because Homo sapiens has no apparent organisational goals. This ‘brotherhood’ of the mindset of (at least) the people referred to above, that are assumed to support the good of their country [but is debatable], can be contrasted [relativity] to Adolf Hitler and ‘his direct, totally uncompromising stance stood out among less decisive colleagues. As he put it typically in late 1922; “The Marxists taught – if you will not be my brother I will bash your skull in. Our motto will be – if you will not be a German I will bash your skull in.”’ (Easily Led, Oliver Thomson, p 269) On the other hand, business is just as self-seeking and the goal of this paper is to create a shared goal through individual voting.

This parable shows, I believe, that the lack of completeness in creating a (truly) United Kingdom [leaving a multiculture, concept] has created problems, over time, that have multiplied and spread around the world, especially to Australia, Britain and the U.S. To restate the obvious, to minimise these effects we should close the borders of a group of countries [marketing area] to travel and business ownership [but not import/export] to isolate ourselves from the past and foreign influences. The object is to create insularity because ‘another prime minister, Alfred Deakin, declared, “Unity of race is an absolute essential to the unity of Australia.” ( Upheaval; How Nations Cope With Crisis and Change, Jarad Diamond, p 268) and ‘when many people of African origins finally did arrive in Britain from Britain’s colonies after World War Two, the eventual result was Britain’s Nottingham and Notting Hill race riots of 1958.’ (p 269)

‘Political polarization to be the most dangerous problem facing us Americans today’ (p 356), tempered by ‘our long history of maintaining the same two political parties – the Democrats since the 1820’s, and the Republicans since 1854 – is actually a sign of flexibility rather than of rigidity.’ (p 377) This might be a sign of flexibility rather than of rigidity, but so what? Setting poor against rich is divisive and an orthogonality where we need agreement. This rich/poor divide is the default position when not much is happening, but this paper is suggesting an organisational re-evaluation using absolutes [1].

The Public Servant Wars

The rise in complexity of modern life, together with poor political organisation, has produced a series of the most disastrous wars in history, including the American civil War and World War I and II. ‘Amid the emergence of increasing virulent and hostile sectional ideologies in national politics . . . the compromise that was reached (the 1854 Kansas-Nebraska Act) outraged many Northerners and led to the formation of the Republican Party, the first major party that was almost entirely Northern-based.’ (Wikipedia, Origins of the American Civil War) This war against the secession of the slave states for an irreconcilable orthogonality [slavery] that cost the lives of about 700,000 soldiers may have been better served by they being allowed to secede and not creating a war. In other words, a democracy is a fallacy in considering an orthogonality and if the orthogonality is important, it is better solved by a split and not a vote. ‘By the mid-19^th century the United States had become a nation of two distinct regions. The free states in New England, the Northeast, and the Midwest had a rapidly growing economy . . . . the South was dominated by a settled plantation system based on slavery . . . . Slave owners controlled politics and the economy, although 75% of white Southern families owned no slaves.’ (Wikipedia)

Thus, slavery, being conscionable, is irreconcilable and led to a war, because relativity was not considered, and similar is suggested for the coast-interior of the U.S., above, in a state-like division. Homo sapiens does not understand the power of organisation, especially when considering questions posed by leaders. ‘Fifth-century [B.C.] was quite different from the society that Plato imagined in The Republic. It was a democracy of sorts, though only about 10 per cent of the population could vote. Women and slaves, for example, were automatically excluded. But citizens were equal before the law, and there was an elaborate lottery system to make sure that everyone had a fair chance of influencing political decisions.’ (A Little History Of Philosophy, Nigel Warburton, p 6) Surely a mobile phone app would be better.

As an example that leaders and public servants are not just empty-headed, limelight seekers, but (possibly) have mental issues as well. ‘About one hundred thousand Americans died in World War II in the Pacific’ (The China Mirage, James Bradley, p 371) ‘The U.S. did not enter World War II to defend Britain or oppose Hitler. On December 8, 1941, the United States declared war on Japan and only Japan. Three long days passed, and the United States did not declare war on Germany to defend England. It was only when Adolf Hitler rashly declared war on the U.S. that Americans went to war in Europe.’ (p 8)

‘First, the State Department would decide how much oil Japan could purchase . . . State’s decision would move to Treasury, which would calculate how many Japanese-owned dollars had to be unfrozen to meet State’s dictate. Then the Foreign Funds Control Committee (FFCC), a newly created three-man panel, would release the Treasury-approved dollars for the Japanese to use to purchase their State-approved oil. . . . Little did Roosevelt imagine that an obscure committee deep within his bureaucracy would catapult America into World War II.’ (p 268) ‘Acheson and Morgenthau passed the buck back and forth to each other, running the Japanese through a bureaucratic maze. A Treasury official later wrote, “The Japanese tried every conceivable way of getting the precious crude oil, but to each proposal the [FFCC] had an evasive answer ready to camouflage its flat refusal.”’ (p 271) Thus, the Japanese had to invade further southward for oil.

The conclusion is that businesses have power and responsibility [in their own domain], whereas public servants have power and no responsibility. The public servants on the losing sides were hung for crimes against people, but not against the organisation, and most assuredly not the American public servants that caused the U.S. entry into the Pacific War, and also into the European war. Homo sapiens is incompetent because it does not understand organisation, for example, ‘Acheson had just secretly changed Roosevelt’s Asian policy and done the specific thing the president feared would lead to war’. (p 271) ‘Dean Acheson was not the first to attempt to cut Japan’s oil supply. Morgenthau, Ickes, and a number of Washington Warriors within Roosevelt’s helter-skelter administration had all given it a try. In each of those cases, however, Hull,Welles, or Roosevelt had become aware of what was going on and intervened before any serious damage could be done. The only thing that was different about Acheson’s successful exploit was that – supported by Morgenthau, Stimson, and Ickes – he got away with it. ‘ (p273) Obviously the organisation was deficient as were the public servants who were not doing as ordered.

Multiculturalism

Multiculturalism is presumably considered to be the mixing of people of different cultures, with the assumption that they will assimilate, but this does not seem to happen in a few cases and can cause problems. Those that do not assimilate [to form a common people] are different in skin colour, facial features etc. or belong to a group and have difficulty assimilating because they identify with that group and not the country of residence. In particular, the Catholic faith, the Jewish faith, Islam and the nationalism of the Chinese vie with the country or regional groupings. This is why each marketing area should have one religion, one people and a restriction on marrying within the same sub-group to eventually bring people into one group. The purpose is to differentiate ‘species’ [into different marketing areas] so that each can concentrate on being the best ‘species’, and over time the best ‘species’ will takeover the planet and will have been shown to be the best [by being the best].

Organisations and religions, in particular, appear to be addictive, to such a degree that they are immutable, old and cause sectarian difficulties and examples are, as above, Catholic, Protestant, Islam, Jewish and Chinese. ‘One of the earliest examples of innate propaganda skills producing lasting results was the remarkable achievement of the Jews . . . . total contempt for the visual media’. ((Easily Led, Oliver Thomson, p 90) ‘Christ by an extraordinary communications tour de force did achieve what was probably the single most effective example of image projection in human history.’ (p 113) Thus, it could be said that Homo sapiens is immature and a victim of propaganda throughout the ages, and currently with poker machines, video games, fast cars, unconscionable behaviour to others etc. Homo sapiens is too immature to handle multiculturalism and we need separation because there are too many races, and it is too early, to decide which are the best for the future.

Propaganda appears to be based on the creation equation [emotional-energy plus organisation is nothing] and is generated purposefully ‘as with so many early civilizations, the main characteristics of ancient China’s propaganda were myth, monument and ritual.’ (p 95) These organisations are designed to create [literally] emotional energy in the minds of the beholder and the effect of this communal emotion to the viewer etc. is real and grows stronger the more involved the person becomes and the more organisation that they encounter. This is a manifestation of the process that created the universe and is a recipe for addiction, namely emotional highs that increase with the depth of involvement [with the organisation], without the problem with drugs of needing greater amounts for the same level of emotion [habituation]. This is a very potent recipe for addiction that firstly, increases throughout each person’s lifetime and secondly, increases with the ‘past cultural leanings’ of the centuries and millennia, as above. Is it any wonder that religions persist over thousands of years? Physics is possibly an example of this ‘petrification’ [turning to stone] by apparently abandoning the search for modern physics theory [4, 5, 6].

When the creation equation is recognised, the modus operandi of governments and religions becomes obvious [uniforms, huge buildings, parades etc.] and that knowledge allows us to realise that we are being used and brings us a step closer to the mind [mental organisation] of Homo completus. As an example, ‘Australia’s main contribution to World War One was to contribute a huge volunteer force – 400,000 soldiers, constituting more than half of all Australian men eligible to serve, out of a total Australian population under 5 million – to defend British interests half-way round the world from Australia, in France and the Mideast. More than 300,000 were sent overseas, of whom two-thirds ended up wounded or killed.’ (Upheaval, Jared Diamond, p 270) Firstly, this is an example of the homogeneity of population [White Australia policy] and the resultant strength of purpose, secondly, the destruction of the fittest males and thirdly, the power of politicians’ jingoistic posturings.

Consider what would happen today. ‘From the late 1960s . . . . Australia turned it’s back on the White Australia Policy and began to admit . . . . considerable numbers of non-European immigrants, especially from Asia. . . . Rather than being expected to assimilate to a pre-existing Australianised Anglo-Celtic cultural norm, migrants were now officially informed that, as Australia was in fact a multicultural society, they could become fully Australian without first jettisoning their old cultural identities and ethnic ties.’ (The Howard Years, Ed. Robert Manne, p 3) I can only repeat that government by public servants without goals is not governing at all and is a recipe to be left behind.

The Chinese

The quotation of Australia’s behaviour in World War One is telling, in that it would not happen under the multicultural makeup of Australia today that appears to have resulted from the machinations of politicians after World War Two. Homo sapiens has used military might to increase trade and well-being and a new player is emerging due [in large part] to countries outsourcing their own production [8] to take advantage of lower wages overseas. Thus, China has been given a huge boost in confidence, and ‘after he’d been anointed the next president in late 2012, Xi Jinping announced that achieving the China Dream of “the great rejuvenation of the Chinese Nation” would be his grand ambition.’ (Silent Invasion, Clive Hamilton, p 18) Unfortunately, the rest of the world may have made a mistake, according to this model, by off-shoring it’s production and promoting growth in China.

‘Tentatively from the year 2000, and totally since 2011, the party revised its attitude towards overseas Chinese – from distancing itself to the “embracing of every foreigner of Chinese descent as one”’ (p 25) to create ‘”a massive operation involving incorporation and co-option of the Overseas Chinese at every level of society, and managing their behaviour and perceptions through incentives or disincentives to suit the situation and structural circumstances that the Chinese Communist Party desires”’ (p 26) Clearly, this is a form of propaganda, and even worse, an invasion that ‘cashed-up Chinese bidders are taking homes from Australians. The rate of immigration from China is too fast to allow assimilation, so that parts of Sydney no longer feel like Australia. Chinese-heritage (and other Asian) students are monopolising places at highly desirable selective schools’ (p 4) Given that the Chinese do not assimilate well, may be part of an invasion, manipulating the public sector without public servants acknowledging this [8] shows that our social organisation is lacking and our country and way of life is in danger.

The Diaspora and Illegals

Adolf Hitler restricted the employment of Jews in the government and universities [a hundred years ago] and I have always assumed that it was part of his vendetta against the Jews in Germany, but there may be more to this because the Jews appear to owe allegiance to their religion and compatriots and not to the various countries that they inhabit and work within. The question is ‘should they be allowed to take jobs in sensitive area?’. Many Jews [according to Wikipedia] give meritorious service in Australia, U.S. etc., but should they be employed in government and science where secrecy exists? Consider that physics retreated into measurement [concepts, and Newtonian physics] a hundred years ago and abandoned the search for theoretical modern physics [as this theory is, contextual], so, the openness of the practice of physics becomes questionable [with proprietary measurements not published theory] and this information could be important to the Chinese diaspora and passed to a belligerent China to the detriment of our safety.

The concept of closing borders, as an organisation, is becoming increasingly necessary because ‘illegal migrants’ are flooding across borders and into the U.S. and increasingly in Europe etc. where they distort populations, such that, above, ‘for the first time in American history, whites would no longer be the majority’ and yet measures were taken to limit immigration to presumably prevent this happening. ‘In the late nineteenth century, smugglers took Chinese aliens across the Mexican and Canadian borders into the United States. Their methods were later mimicked in the 1920s, by smugglers taking Jews from Eastern Europe into America. These smugglers were operating in contravention of America’s new immigration quota restrictions.’ (Smuggled, Ruth Balint and Julie Kalman, p 2) ‘”Honestly”, he writes,”the people who help asylum-seekers the most are people-smugglers. And these asylum-seekers want to be smuggled.” All of the people whose stories feature in this book are willing participants in illegality.’ (p 7)

There is a relativity [as is everything] that must be borne in mind, namely ‘ asylum-seekers’ from their point of view and ‘illegal-immigrants’ from the point of view of residents and I have to admit that I couldn’t read very far into the book because the book is, in my opinion, amoral and should not have been published by the University of New South Wales. In fact, the title Smuggled: An illegal History of Journeys to Australia seems to state that itself. Considering that ‘amoral meaning is “without morals” or “having or showing no concern about whether behavior is morally right or wrong”’ (Internet), the book is clearly amoral [against the law] and could be inciting illegal acts [hence the strange title]. To my mind, the book is suggesting that people trash my house and periodically return to break windows because the gene pool has been altered by the new arrivals. On the other hand, if determination of the parents produces evolution, the selfish and illegal acts of these people might be a useful addition to the gene-pool [basis of evolution] and a ‘blind-eye’ was used to help them, below. On the other hand, people that commit illegal acts should (perhaps) be discouraged from breeding if we are to become [truly] civilised as a species.

Consider, ‘people smuggling had become the “fastest -growing area of organised crime”, he wrote, “nearly as profitable as illegal drugs”’ (p 5), sanctioned by the people themselves with the aim of bettering themselves at the cost to the present inhabitants, so should we build walls, as Donald Trump has started to do, to try to keep them out, or let them in to make more profit for farms and businesses by creating an underclass and boosting population? These are crude scenarios compared with ‘many journeys lasted years, with false starts, detours and returns, prompting us to rethink the global map of Australian migration as one that has as many back doors and multiple entry points, as it does conventional routes and pathways. . . . Alien smuggling also involved the manufacture of fake passports, identity documents and travel visas. It involved deliberate defiance of ethnic migration sponsorship rules and racist quota restrictions on the part of brave or corrupt officials, by leaving names off lists, or on lists, or simply turning a blind eye.’ (p 9)

‘In February, 1950, Turbayne warned that “there has been a great deal of manipulation and falsification of documents in regard to Landing Permit Holders”. The people involved were practically all Jews from Iron Curtain countries. “They are generally interested in Black Market dealings and are known as Cafe inhabitants”, he wrote. “They are not good types.” They were also problematic from a security point of view.’ (p 33) The opposite view is ‘the fact that many Jewish survivors who wanted to come to Australia after the Second World War had to do so illegally was because Australian immigration policies were decidedly anti-Jewish in this period.’ (p 30) Perhaps this situation is best summed up by ‘Henry (Jo) Gullett told the Australian Parliament in 1946. “Neither should Australia be the dumping ground for people whom Europe itself,in the course of 2,000 years, has not been able to absorb.” (p 30) This shows that the context [absorption] is not understood and that the Jews are pursuing a goal of their own that includes not being absorbed.

Conclusion and Prediction

Australia is currently a country adrift, pushed by the Irish Catholic sectarianism into a multicultural Hodge-podge, and part of a socio-capitalist (so called) Free World centred around the U.S. appetite for profits that uses ‘democracy’ as it’s stance and World’s Policeman as it’s modus operandi. It needs a new vision for the future, perhaps ‘the UK is a member of the “Five Eyes” intelligence-sharing community along with the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. . . . As part of a wider economic policy, the UK would like to broaden Five Eyes into a loose trading partnership’. (The Power Of Geography, Tim Marshall, p 129) The EU is a basket-case of indecision and China is held in the grip of an autocrat that knows what happens if he loses power because ‘his father, his family and Xi himself suffered terribly during the Cultural Revolution, the ten-year eruption of mayhem and violence that Mao Zedong unleashed as a way of shocking society, purging his political enemies and regaining control of the party.’ (Red Zone, Peter Hartcher, p 144)

Clearly, leaders have an agenda that is not that of the populous, who just want to get on with their life in their own small sphere and not fight public servant’s wars which are the contextual outcome of some leaders. A little organisation can prevent many deaths, but the relativity is to reduce the birthrate [selectively] to compensate [and improve] the population and the sooner that we leave Homo sapiens behind the better, but it must be done with the knowledge that this theory contains. Unfortunately, the goal [Homo completus] is a goal and we can never reach it, just get closer because in an organisation there is never closure [as in a ‘real’ world] as shown by every concept being equal to an infinite series of integers on the counting number line [2].

The organisation of a future is written in the Fibonacci series and this theory appears to work all the way from the creation equation [6] through cosmology [4, 5], mathematics [2], the mind [3], organisation [7] and social science [1, 8], but the effect must be world-wide so that every ethnicity can show it’s worth. Marketing areas appear to be the solution to racism, globalisation etc. above, and also to people-smuggling because those at the lower economic end cannot afford to lose the people [that the others don’t want] because they are needed to boost the poorer areas. Our fractal shows the same organisational solution for people movement as for population control that is the carrot/stick solution [1].

This paper is a theory [relativity plus bottom-up addition], but outcomes can be seen in the world around us: the Jewish society; the amalgamation of the EU; the Five Eyes possibility, the Russian EU confrontation; the economic policies of the ‘Free World’ that are destroying it etc., but we go in the wrong direction as long as power resides in leaders and not a democratic vote.

Justification for this Model

The concept of entanglement and organisation is completely new because the only inkling is contained in Occam’s razor [‘that the simplest way is usually the best’], which is hardly rigorous nor particularly useful, so, I will use a historical fact to illustrate the relativity that produces orthogonality, which is the heart of this theory. ‘For many centuries algebra evolved in parallel with geometry, rather than integrated with it. . . . geometry was the more distinguished elder cousin . . . . algebra was the newcomer, a slippery, Arab-inflected symbolism which, for many in the West, carried a hint of the occult. . . . It was Descartes . . . plotted geometrical shapes on perpendicular axes that we still call “Cartesian coordinates” in his honour.’ (Shapeshifters, Gavin Francis, p 169) In this theory, the power of algebra, that it allows the future [the solution ‘x’] to be manipulated is because Life is built on an absolute [2] called the Fibonacci series that links past, present and [an estimate of] the future.

Descartes used orthogonality in, what could only have been a top-down [albeit inspired] guess, to describe the relationship between x and y in an equation, and that showed ‘how the two disciplines were part of the same cosmic continuum’ (p 169). These words [‘same cosmic continuum’] in this quotation become understandable through this theory when derived bottom-up but unfortunately, so much of philosophy contains this meaningless type of description [‘same cosmic continuum’] and that is because it is a top-down description that is not definable and not based on an absolute and so is not reproducible. Science must be based on absolutes, and thus it is all too easy for Homo sapiens’ thinking to allow public servants to obfuscate or ‘muddy the waters’ [for their own benefit, [1]] and create needless complication in world affairs and the above paper is a simplification that rids us of racism, sectarianism, wars etc. around the world, so, as an illustration of the method of the paper above, let us look at Homo sapiens attempt at similar that took hundreds of years.

The unknowns [x and y] must be different and being different means that if we take the sameness out [that part lying on the same axis [x or y] we must be left with quantities that lie on different [orthogonal] axes. This is why Descartes’ coordinates axes work because orthogonality is a restriction on the creation equation [energy plus organisation is nothing], where plus is an orthogonality and is needed for energy and organisation to exist independently of each other [and another restriction becomes necessary, that the space must be accelerating so that energy and organisation never meet [as they would at the origin, and annihilate each other] and this acceleration produces gravity that attracts everything and so on to derive the universe [6]]. This also explains Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle in contextual terms as well as where gravity comes from [the acceleration], the cosmic inflation that was faster than the speed of light [near time zero], the organisation of the mind-brain and the affordances that allows us to see the organisation around us, emotion etc.

The body of this paper hopefully produces a contextual world-wide society built on a theory of relativity of concept and context [energy and organisation] which demands the orthogonality that Descartes used in his coordinate system, and they are the same orthogonality because the universe is a fractal [because both are derived from the simple creation equation]. This comparison is pointing out that [probably] this system [the paper] is workable and uniquely so, because it is based on absolutes, but, Homo sapiens hates change, is selfish, (somewhat) dishonest, personality poor and barely civilised to the extent that extraterrestrials are shy of revealing themselves and we are in dire need of goals, such as this paper, to produce a society that we can take into the future.

Reference: 1. Penney D. Social Engineering: Using Social Science To Improve Ourselves And Society. Madridge J Behav Soc Sci. 2023; S1(1): 1-6, doi:10.18689/mjbss-s1-001

2. Penney D. Exploring Numberland. Int J Cosmol Astro Astrophys, 2022; S1(1): 13-18, doi: 10.18689/ijcaa-s1-013

3. Penney D. A Penny for your Thoughts. Int J Cosmol Astron Astrophys, 2022; S1(1):19-25. doi: 10.18689/ijcaa-s1-014

4. Penney D. Why Solving Cosmic Inflation Could Change Your Mind. Int J Cosmol Astron Astrophys, 2022; S1(1):1-6. doi: 10.18689/ijcaa-s1-011
5. Penney D. Understanding Everything Means Understanding Nothing. Int J Cosmol Astro Astrophys, 2022; S1(1): 7-12, doi: 10.18689/ijcaa-s1-012
6. Can Affordances Save Civilisation?, Mind & Society,20(1), 107-110. doi:10.1007/s11299-020-00265-x
7. Penney D. Organising Organisation. Int J Cosmol Astro Astrophys, 2023; S2(1): 26-32, doi: 10.18689/ijcaa-s1-014
8. Social Engineering: The Concept Behind The E.U., U.S., China and Australia, submitted to Madridge J Behav Soc Sci.

Social Engineering: The Concepts Behind The E.U., U.S., China and Australia

by Darryl Penney

Abstract: currently, physics is based on complex energy absolutes [and excludes organisation] whilst social science contains no organisational absolutes and this new model brings everything together harmoniously. The future direction of the super-powers is considered, because the effects of the second World War are still with us today and will continue to influence the future when we realise the necessity of the relativity of past and future goals [Fibonacci series]. Civilisations come and go throughout history, for a number of reasons, possibly one being that they do not maintain goals, for example the manipulation of a so-called Australian ‘democracy’ using an outmoded constitution. This paper also suggests that Adolf Hitler’s contribution to world affairs was a little heavy handed [present relativity], but prescient and helps present a new theory of organisation that allows social engineering to come into being and be used to mould a modern world, something that we desperately need, but can only be done reliably through the absolutes of this theory.

Keywords: social engineering; relativity; Adolf Hitler; the creation equation; racism; goals

Disclaimer: this paper projects the theory of organisation [7] onto the modern world as a necessary part of the Fibonacci series [that is an organisational absolute of life] and it should be borne in mind that this theory has not been accepted by peer review which is the accepted scientific practice, and understanding it’s derivation changes the thinking of the mind [[3], future goal] and may lead to being shunned by peers that use current thinking [present goal]. In other words,

Homo sapiens is restricted to concepts [energy] whilst our future goal must use concept and context.

Secondly, mistakes [contextual] may occur because I am a generalist, whereas a specialist is a specialist [conceptual] in a subject and would not be expected to make mistakes. This state of affairs is relativity and cannot be eliminated. .

Preamble

Everyone would agree that the world is in a mess and the reason, I believe, is that there are no social engineers that understand society, and that is 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). If physics does not understand organisation then social science is in trouble because social engineering cannot exist in any meaningful way without organisation [because that is what social science is based on, whereas physics is based on energy], and if this base is not understood [relative to an absolute], how can social science be a science? The answer is that it is not a science at present, and will never be a science unless based on a complete logic and absolutes. Newtonian physics is based on the physical, but not on the basic physical, and is misleading everyone [including itself] because it presents itself as complete [by retreating into measurement] and ignoring theoretical modern physics. In consequence, our society has grown largely in technology [materials engineering] with little reference to its orthogonal, which is organisation [social engineering], and, as any engineer can tell you, imbalance leads to problems and imbalance can result from physical or organisational misunderstanding [they are in lock-step in the physical], and both, in this case, are not understood, and as the functioning of our mind-brain is based on the creation equation [as is everything], so, by not understanding organisation, our (so-called) ‘leaders’ can take society into ‘dark’ places without us realising it.

For example, one of the most notorious leaders of the last century was Adolf Hitler, and yet, if he had won, he may have been hailed a great leader and it can be considered that he did win,and that the events that he started are still being played-out in line with his vision! He had flaws, like most leaders, but uniquely, his goal was not only to improve the prospects of the country, but also the quality of the people in it. In fact, throughout history [and prehistory in the animal kingdoms] gaining territory is the successful organisational result of living and breeding and countless battles have been fought for living-room, and this can be seen by watching the wildlife in our backyard. Understanding this allows us to circumvent the horrors of war and the damage caused by the limited views of the participants. The organisation behind evolution is everywhere related to the worth of the participants in it, relative to the environment, and this is shown in the saying ‘use it or lose it’ because the intellect of each participant is no more nor better than that needed to compete successfully in their environment. Leaders are adept at leading [obviously], but are they good at leading where we should go? We need a new way of thinking that leaves survival of the fittest behind and the first step in social engineering is, ‘do we go where they lead?’, or ‘do we let them lead us where we want to go?’. This is an example of the relativity that the universe is built upon and that we must use as goals and guide (so-called) leaders into the direction that we need to go, see [1]. This paper contains the concepts that we can convert to context [2] because we live in an organisational fractal which simplifies understanding.

The two World Wars of the 20th century taught the dangers of massed men fighting [men get killed, maimed and psychologically damaged apart from physical damage, waste of time etc.] and ended involving non-combatants in total warfare, and probably the only lesson that we learned was to distrust government because government [leaders] got us into wars and have the authority to persevere to the extent of disrupting their own country as well as destroying that of the enemy. Now we can do better by using this approach that makes social science into a real science by providing an understanding of organisation and I have selected Adolf Hitler because he and his aims are well-known and provide a reference point 100 years ago. Relativity needs past and future goals to ‘anchor’ them to our time because we live in a fractal universe where everything is relative except for the absolutes [6] that allow us to visualise our surroundings and this forms a new way of looking at the organisation that surrounds us because a fractal has definite properties of simplicity and similarity and so, the purpose of this paper is to simplify our organisation [using similarity [7]] and so bring organisation to ‘heel’.

,

Preface

The circumstances of the second World War are well known, but from the relativity of 80 years it would appear that Hitler won the war because Germany ‘controls’ most of the area that Hitler invaded [at a cost of the loss of 20 million people], and how easily it was accomplished using more sensible [organisational] means. In fact, I have to applaud a nice piece of social engineering on a par with the advent of Christianity 2,000 year ago, but we only recognise (possibly) a lucky guess unless our thinking expands to include general organisation [3]. Notice that our thinking can only expand when we use relativity because an absolute of Life is, ‘if you don’t need it, you lose it’ and this is the trap in which physics finds itself by using Francis Bacon’s scientific method and has waited for 100 years for cosmology’s contribution [4, 5].

Thus, the previous paper [1] sets out the form of the organisation that we need to describe the future relative to the second World War [the past], the present and the future as described by the Fibonacci series and we can generalise to a stable state of the world in the future as a goal. However, relativity is always with us and a byproduct of the second World War is that the population of Europe [post Hitler] has changed in number [20 million] and in makeup [because of Hitler’s efforts] and if we are to influence the future, we need to consider all factors and, I believe that this theory of relativity [sideways] and bottom-up organisation [to complete the top-down sciences] plus restrictions etc. are needed to do a better job [as Homo completus]

In other words, if Hitler’s aims could be accomplished so easily by using organisation, can we use organisation to show what the (so-called) super-powers [of today] are really doing and how they should align to bring about a stable world-wide civilisation that is truly civilised and could be trusted by extraterrestrials.

Talking With The Animals

Homo sapiens evolved from the animals, thinks the same way [top-down] as the animals and functions the same as the animals and that is why we can use the organisation of the animals to describe workable organisation [1] for us. Unfortunately, by using technology Homo sapiens uses new innovations without the organisation that goes with them and that makes them less than successful. For example, the Fibonacci series holds the key to Life, because Life needs relativities, and it is obvious that Homo sapiens is not wise and not civilised and that must be the ultimate goal and that requires changing the way we think, and improving the way we think requires relativity and bottom-up organisation [3]. Homo completus must be that goal that we attain when we are fully civilised and that goal must be that everyone that is born is entitled to a reasonable life and hence the organisation that we can apply, is to convince those that feel inadequate that they should choose not to breed and should be recompensed by society for that foresight.

Homo sapiens crossed into distant lands and created civilisations from the food plants that they found and evolved to the extent that the general area in which they evolved can be seen in posture, skin colour and facial variability. This variability allows castes to be easily recognisable and fosters slavery whereas animals are only concerned with their efficiency at extracting nutrients from the environment and not that less efficient animals suffer starvation. I am assuming that birds and animals are not concerned with out-competing others, but Homo sapiens is different because firstly, Christianity supports helping your neighbour, secondly, according to the creation equation, organisation [beauty, music, helping the sick etc.] translates as emotion in the brain of the observer [affordances, [3, 6]] and presumably contributes to the [‘bleeding heart’] tendency to help others. Thirdly, politicians possibly gain votes and favour [in our current voting system] by fostering the selfish division of multiculturalism over the good that can come from a homogeneous population.

That our population should be similar is shown by the birds and animals that create species with different coloration etc. for just that reason. Whenever people from different areas across the world come together for some reason, there is ‘automatic prejudice’ ‘meaning the degree to which they associate certain ethnic groups with negative stereotypes at the level of the unconscious’. (Caste, Isabel Wilkerson, p 304)] ‘People who face discrimination . . . often build up a layer of unhealthy fat, known as visceral fat, surrounding vital organs, as opposed to subcutaneous fat, just under the skin. It is this visceral fat that raises the risk of diabetes and cardiovascular disease and leads to premature death.’ (p 306) Thus, if the barriers that caused speciation were removed by improved transport, we would [theoretically] become one people, but relativity suggests that that is not stable and that a number of species would occur. Given that the future relativities [Fibonacci series] are unknowable and can only be determined by competition, the ideal is to create artificial barriers and allow races to show their potential [by competing].

The idea that different areas of the Earth’s surface should be left to develop at their own pace was normal until 500 years ago and civilisations came and went around the world, but always broke down and disappeared leaving ruined buildings. This theory aims to provide a blueprint for a stable world community to prevent the return of ‘dark ages’ that has followed the fall of every empire. That this requires a number of improved races to oversee the retention of knowledge is obviously necessary and the animals indicate that artificial barriers need to be set up to do this and we can use the existing racial distinctions to set up a caste system. A caste system has bad connotations because ‘a caste system uses rigid, often arbitrary boundaries to keep the ranked groupings apart, distinct from one another and in their assigned places’ (p 17), but there is nothing wrong with castes that are built on racial discrimination if the races do not intermingle.

Over the last 500 years, trade has burgeoned under Homo sapiens initially using the ‘laissez faire’ [allow to do] system of trade, which is fair, but then greed and religion stepped in and empire building started that enriched European countries and impoverished the rest of the world. The British Empire, for all it’s problems has much to recommend it and does duty as a foil to the European Common Market and other super-power wannabes in that it respects other countries more than some of it’s competitors in the past. So, what should a member of a group do? The animals show that there are dominant groups and niche dwellers that are the remnants of failed species and we see it in the indigenous peoples around the world that cannot compete with the invaders.

For example, the Australian Aborigines had been isolated for about 50,000 years and were successful as hunter-gatherers, but now, 250 years later, after being invaded, enlightened etc., have interbred and are defending their culture, but does their culture have relevance today? The improved [by outcrossing] have the opportunity to prosper, but do they have the determination to excel in a modern world? They can prove this by creating a civilisation somewhere and not just existing on welfare etc. Australia cannot ‘carry’ anyone because everyone must be part of the country that is fighting to exist in a modern world. This is the key to understanding the animals, that every moment they are in danger of being eaten and this applies to us as a member of a species. This rule applies to everyone, if you do not have the determination to compete, your genes should not exist and the country should pay you not to burden the gene pool.

Currently, people seem to believe that if you exist, you have the right to contribute to the gene-pool, and so you do, in survival of the fittest, because something will eat your offspring if they cannot compete in saving themselves, but we inhabit a world of technology and should allow every child the same opportunity to show their worth. For example, ‘the U.S. is losing its former competitive advantage that rested on an educated workforce, and on science and technology. At least three trends are contributing to this decline: the decreasing amount of money that we devote to education, the declining results that we get for the money that we do spend on education, and the large variation among Americans in the quality of education that they receive.’ (Upheaval, Jared Diamond, p 372) Their worth can only be established if they compete on equal terms and clearly, it is the determination of the parents that provides the opportunity and this can be seen in the school results where the immigrant children are over-represented [due presumably to their determination to succeed].

Notice that immigration is often thought to improve the population, for the reason above, but the same effect can be had by allowing the less determined [the major absolute of life is to invest in children] to be paid not to breed [1] and this does away with the problems of multiculturalism. Multiculturalism benefits the individual, but not the nation because the immigrant enters an economically richer environment and the individuals become a caste that is prepared to do the valuable, but dirty work of harvesting food etc. The politicians gain because these people naturally vote Labor/Democrat and eventually skew the voting system [to some extent] that possibly may not be in the interests of the country.

The Macro Economy Through the Fibonacci Series

It is also no surprise that ‘ever since the rise of the first government 5,400 years ago, they have served two main functions: to maintain internal peace by monopolizing force . . . and to redistribute individual wealth for the purpose of investing in larger aims – in the worst case, enriching the elite; in the best cases, promoting the good of society as a whole.’ (p 372) Compare that with the reverse direction which is the simplicity and similarity of a fractal [Adam Smith] where the individual’s action helps the nation and we are in a position to describe how a true leader should function so as to initiate positive feedback. Homo sapiens has allowed a number of governments [kings and queens, dictators, religious leaders, versions of (so-called) democracy etc.] to form because no one knows which is the best. Leaders [with questions of their sanity, knowledge, judgement, personality etc.] do what they will, but, from animal behaviour the less efficient tend to become the prey of the more efficient and countries are no different. Thus we can expect to see, in the future [if we have one], a smallish number of groups, each of which contains one religion, one predominate racial type that is agreed to be the norm, no ownership outside of the group and no migration between the groups except [product] exports and imports. One would hope that each group is fully self-contained, fully employed and left to their own devices just a would happen in the animal kingdom.

If a group feels that it is falling behind it can dissolve and join other groups, taking on their religion and racial characteristics [1] or just realising that they are not good enough and giving in. This goal is not a difficult choice and the success of each group is dependent on themselves and is easily monitored by themselves. The ultimate goal is Homo completus, which cannot be defined, but only found by actors playing out the parts. Indeed, that could be considered to be our universe’s function, to answer Socrates’ questions [7] because an organisation must be completely entangled [otherwise it is not an organisation]. Homo sapiens has changed the organisation [by using technology] and is working through the options [as described in this paper] and putting civilisation at risk in the process, whereas introducing bottom-up organisation could improve the situation.

The Australian Constitution

Consider relativity in the setting up of federation in Australia, ‘the cause failed when it was in the hands of the politicians because they always have their own agenda and a great capacity for obfuscation. They are also stupid and arrogant enough to think they could create a nation without involving the people. But politicians are very thick-skinned. Among the growing chorus criticising the parliamentary approach to nationhood and invoking the people were politicians themselves. Whatever happened, they would not be left out.’ (The Sentimental Nation, John Hirst, p 124) These are strong words and one would hope that the quality of politicians has improved over the last 120 years and that the Constitution has grown in relevance over the years as society grew and modernised, but I fear that nothing has changed and there is a desperate call for a new Constitution that is based on a new way of thinking through social engineering.

‘The Constitution created a single Australian people and turned a continent (and its islands) into a nation. It is amongst the oldest of the world’s functioning constitutions and this is much to its credit. But, being over one hundred years old, it is now out of date (as might be expected), in at least a number of ways.’ (Five Things to Know about the Australian Constitution, Helen Irving, p 5) This quotation begs the question of ‘How does the country operate?’, and the answer is with the help of constitutional lawyers and the High Court and ‘up-dating through interpretation is permitted and is effectively all that is needed’ (p 6). This might provide a good income for lawyers, but are their interpretations adequate, being specialists? It would seem more efficient to update the constitution through social engineering to make governance more efficient because governance is a concept [application by lawyers] and a context [the organisation of governing]. This is a serious problem because the Constitution forces ‘government by lawyers’ who (often) know little about practical organisation and practical subjects, and seem to delight in courtroom arguments.

As an example of governing by lawyers, ‘“the Australian Government has authorised the forward positioning of elements of the Australian Defence Force to the Persian Gulf” . . . parliamentary debate followed the Prime Minister’s announcement, with non-government members questioning the decision and challenging the Government. Indeed, on 5 February, a censure motion was moved against it in both Houses of Parliament. It succeeded in the Senate (where the Government lacks a majority), along with a vote of no confidence in the Prime Minister. This was an unprecedented event in the Commonwealth Parliament’s history. . . . On 20 March, the Senate passed a vote condemning the war and calling for the troops to come home. It was high and newsworthy drama. But it went nowhere. There was never a need for a “mandate”. The matter was not in the Parliament’s hands.’ (p 11)

Clearly, the politicians, and others, thought that the parliament should have been involved in such a momentous decision, but the Prime Minister [John Howard] knew his Law [and had been a lawyer, I believe] and ‘if the meaning of section 68 in the Constitution were really to reflect current practice, it would need to say something like this:* The command in chief of the defence forces of the Commonwealth is vested in the Minister for Defence.’ (p 17). I am flabbergasted that something with the ramifications of sending troops into another country to fight the inhabitants is the preserve of a politician in a country that is supposed to be based on democratic process. Surely the Constitution needs updating using the organisation outlined in this paper.

‘A Constitution needs to be stable. It should not be altered too frequently, and probably not too easily.’ (p 108) What is not being said is that it should be up-to-date and that is the relativity that this paper is suggesting and periodically putting forward a number of proposals could allow a truly democratic vote [perhaps using mobile phone voting] that could upgrade the existing Constitution. ‘The Constitution “is not immutable. It was consciously designed with a mechanism for change, the referendum process.” The mechanism is described in section 128’. (p 108) If it has the capacity for change, why not change it? Notice that referenda and polling-station voting is out-of-date with the universal use of personal phones. Why are we letting these limelight-loving idiots lead us, or perhaps it is we that are to blame and a truly democratic social engineering system is necessary?

In other words, the Constitution is designed to change, but from what? The writers did the best that they could using top-down thinking [that which the animals use] in creating it, but this new model uses relativity and bottom-up organisation [fractal from a creation equation] that challenges the base of the original Constitution by exploring social engineering [simplicity and similarity]. So, ‘if we re-wrote it, we could have the Constitution we really have’ (p 116) and one based on social engineering. A governance fit for a modern nation, and sorely needed.

The U.S.A.

‘To many Americans, it seems only a matter of time before China overtakes us economically and militarily. We increasingly hear claims that the 21^st century will become an Asian century – specifically, a Chinese century.’ (Upheaval, Jared Diamond, p 326) This statement can only be considered as a relativity in a totally entangled worldwide organisation, so, where do I start to consider this defeatist statement? I should start with the Fibonacci series, which is the fundamental statement of Life, and in particular, the restriction that the parent must invest energy in the offspring and that is, that there must be a future goal based on the past and present [Fibonacci series]. The US. seems to revere it’s Founding Fathers, but as shown by the previous section, they were using top-down thinking that was faulty [compared to bottom-up etc.] and Constitutions must change as circumstances change and thus, the real reason behind the defeatist statement, and that it will probably come about, is that no one is forward planning to change that perceived outcome.

The present day answer is:

‘QUESTION: When will the U.S. Take its problems seriously?

ANSWER: When powerful rich Americans begin to feel physically unsafe.’ (p 379)

‘With increasing inequality, persisting racial discrimination, and decreasing socio-economic mobility, poorer Americans will perceive correctly that the vast majority of their children have low chances of achieving a good income or even just of modestly improving their economic status.’ (p 369) Looking at the role of government above, the U.S. is clearly deficient in it’s governing, has limited future goals and is operated by and for Homo sapiens and has little hope of retaining it’s leadership in the future. Even worse, the U.S. treats the rest of the world in the same way because of it’s business model that is principally, that the capitalist system is laissez fair [allow to happen] with the aim of extracting the maximum profit from each business ultimately for the stockholders [principally in the U.S.]. Of course the ‘ powerful rich Americans’ twiddle their thumbs as the money rolls in, but for how much longer and they are dragging-down most of the world with them.

‘In a 2006 survey of American economists (83 responders), “87.5% agree that the U.S. should eliminate remaining tariffs and other barriers to trade “ and “90.1% disagree with the suggestion that the U.S. should restrict employers from outsourcing work to foreign countries”’ (Wikipedia, Free trade, Economist opinions) This is what economists say, but it is top-down thinking without relativity, and as such is meaningless and dangerous. Economists behave as specialists [concepts] and have no interest in the context of their selfish conclusions on the rest of the world. Compare the relativity of this quotation with the quotation at the start of this section and of course the Chinese will move into first place because the U.S. is doing what the second quotation is saying and buying cheap products from China at the expense of their own industry and to the benefit of China’s industry [and U.S. business owners]. Who makes these decisions? It is public servants and politicians, who are, arguably, the least fit to make these decisions and especially without the relativity and organisation of this paper and the [truly democratic] will of the people, who want jobs.

In the U.S. and other first world economies, approximately 60% of adults are overweight or obese which shows that they are not suited to living in a modern marketing society where companies are allowed to present (so-called) foods to people that do not have the education, money or sense to make choices that suit their health and this state of affairs is affecting longevity, chronic illnesses, depression etc. and is part of anti-ageing and micro social engineering of society that feeds through to the state of the nation [fractal] and is the responsibility of government [macro social engineering] to educate people [who’s level of health feeds into the state, positive feedback]. That this state of affairs should happen when many in the world are hungry is a sad indictment of the (so-called) Free World, but then again, if no effort is made to curb populations, what can be done? [1] Where is the forward planning?

I feel that I have not adequately accentuated the problems that the U.S. has inflicted on itself and the rest of the [(so called) ‘Free’] world and a more in-depth study is suggested by the quotation, ‘the so-called Free World has problems with the U.S. that considers itself to be the leader and yet it is riven by so many problems within itself and it is no surprise that the five internal problems are all organisational that surface when physics ignores organisation and that lack is carried into the social sciences that are the foundation of society, and now, haunts our very existence.’ [1]

China

‘In late 2012, Xi Jinping announced that achieving the China Dream of “the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation” would be his great ambition. China would no longer hide and bide but assert the nation’s newfound power for all to see.’ (Silent Invasion, Clive Hamilton, p 18) I can imagine that this course of action was precipitated by the (so-called) Free World’s decision to send production to the offshore low-cost producers, such as China, as above. ‘His China Dream singles out a “strong army dream”. The influence of the hawks is seriously underestimated in the West.’ (p 18) The problem with ‘nationalist “super-hawks” in the Chinese military’ is that they are specialists that see invasion as their forte, in the same way that WW2 threw up Hitler, Mussolini and the Japanese military, and China uses ‘sabre-rattling’ to a large degree firstly, over Taiwan, the South China Sea, the ‘islands in the East China Sea claimed by Japan’ (p 84), secondly, the long-term goals of a larger area including Australia. ‘It all began in the middle of August 2004 when China brought together its envoys from around the world for a conclave in Beijing. Communist Party Secretary Hu Jintao told the gathering that the party’s all-powerful Central Committee had decided that henceforth Australia should be included in China’s “overall periphery”. . . . China has always devoted special attention to the countries that have a land border with it – its “overall periphery” – in order to neutralise them.’ (p 1)

Thirdly, a very real problem is raised by allowing a caste ‘of over one million people of Chinese heritage in Australia’ (p 280) and on the other hand, why does Australia allow them to settle here? “Overseas Chinese Affairs” [OC] ‘can be described as “a massive operation involving incorporation and cooptation of the OC at every level of society, and managing their behaviour and perceptions through incentives or disincentives to suit the situation and structural circumstances that the CCP [Chinese Communist Party] desires” . . . . to use the diaspora to transform Australian society in a way that makes us all sympathetic to China and easy for Beijing to control. . . . the influence of wealthy Chinese businessmen in our political system through donations and networking . . . . involves mobilising ethnic Chinese as voting blocs and placing Chinese candidates loyal to the PRC [People’s Republic of China] in parliaments and senior public positions’ (p 26)

Fourthly, using politicians that seem extraordinarily friendly to China in their speeches. ‘Through this program of flattery and royal treatment, involving all-expense trips to China and meetings with top leaders, some of our former prime ministers, foreign ministers and state premiers have been turned into “friends of China”. In addition to Bob Hawke and Paul Keating, Kevin Rudd, Bob Carr and John Brumby are frequent flyers to Beijing. Julia Gillard has resisted the Chinese sirens, probably because she is a more modest individual not driven by money or ego.’ (p 258) Clearly this supports my contention that firstly, politicians are drawn to the limelight by “money or ego”, and secondly, not from scholarship, knowledge and desire to help the country and thirdly, that they make up a contextual group with disturbing ‘cultural legacies’ [see below and especially [8]] that appear to run counter to Australia’s best interests.

Fifthly, ‘Bob Hawke’s gift . . . When Prime Minister Bob Hawke, deeply shaken by the images of brutality, tearfully told Chinese students in Australia that they would not be sent home, his decision led to 42,000 Chinese obtaining permanent residence rights and, with close members following, some 100,000 Chinese immigrants. . . . The reality was not as it appeared. Hawke’s unilateral decision, taken against strong advice from officials, continues to reverberate through the nation.’ (p 27)

Sixth, a friend emailed me saying ‘the Australian Constitution, how dry, dusty and boring, I would rather watch paint dry’, but that attitude might be responsible for the loss of Australia to China after only 250 years, but that is, unfortunately, what we deserve unless we increase our intellect and interest along the lines of this paper. ‘So we must ask the question: What is Australian sovereignty worth? What price do we put on our independence as a nation? In practice, it’s a question we are answering every day, and the answer is “not much”’ (p 3) This is unfortunately a trend of incompleteness that is a factor of Homo sapiens and needs the completeness of the goal of Homo completus to upgrade our thinking to overcome our multitude of problems.

The E.U.

The European Common Market [ECM] has brought Europe into a modern marketing setting not unlike Hitler’s dream of a Third Reich where Germany is preeminent in production and this is obvious by comparing the number, size and sophistication of the products of their motor industry. Consider ‘cultural legacies are powerful forces. They have deep roots and long lives. They persist, generation after generation, virtually intact, even as the economic and social and demographic conditions that spawned them have vanished, and they play such a role in directing attitudes and behavior that we cannot make sense of our world without them.’ (Outliers, Malcolm Gladwell, p 175) Notice that this quotation is using previous goals to understand the future, as I am, and as an example of this effect on the success of areas of the ECM and future strengths that can be brought to bear by understanding this social engineering, consider a study that ‘compared German and French manufacturing plants that were in the same industry and were roughly the same size. The French plants had, on average, 26 percent of their employees in management and specialist positions; the Germans, 16 percent. The French, furthermore, paid their top management substantially more than the Germans did. (p 205) Clearly, a Pax Germanica?

We have to ask ourselves whether a citizen should be interested in the State [as currently], or be content with being a member of the fractal [Adam Smith] as survival of the fittest, or, be part of a democracy that controls and is the State. This is the enhanced goal oriented democracy that I am suggesting, much like Hitler’s Germany, where this paper is suggesting a new version of survival of the fittest that has goals. This is the basic difference between Homo sapiens and striving towards Homo completus and, as Homo sapiens has proven to have made a mess of society, we must turn to Homo completus before it is too late. The E.U. seems to have taken the amalgamation on trust, a realisation of Hitler’s dream or an inkling of this theory. How much of Hitler’s dream was worthwhile? Does he warrant the seemingly universal condemnation that he seems to have gained, or is the version being manipulated by the ‘bleeding hearts’, the Church, the Jews or others? This is why this theory is so important to understand where we are going and we should not rely on luck in the future. The E.U. affects millions that deserve the best advice that can be found.

Conclusion and Prediction

We can understand China’s actions by considering the herd example [1] because China’s thinking is aligned with the animals in survival of the fittest and firstly, it works because the organisation is proven and secondly, can be appraised by the organisation in this paper. [This is relative to the organisation used by the U.S. that is firstly, complex, secondly, from top-down thinking and thirdly, does not work well for the majority of the world.] Given that the herd system works, but does not work perfectly and like the logic of the half truth, there are other possibilities that can work [in the literature], such as other males seeking sex at opportune [for them] times and even males that are similar to females and go unrecognised. There is nothing wrong with China’s approach and should be considered as alternatives, but relative to myself, I am being tested and my survival [and my family’s future] is at risk and it is my duty to sound the alarm. So, is this an invasion [of the diaspora] by stealth, are the Chinese superior [to us], are the emigrants putting themselves at risk as the Jews do etc.? Theses are questions that should be considered in the light of the above.

This paper is a call to arms that specialists cannot be specialists [only] and ignore the world because that is incompleteness [the trademark of Homo sapiens] and we need context [8] for completeness. In other words, trying to mix concept and context together leads to the problems of Homo sapiens, so, the context is in the next paper and the prediction is that one [worldwide] people is a goal too far at the moment and, to keep it as simple as possible, I suggest a solution that requires only three changes, and that is that firstly, borders must be closed to people and secondly, only one type of religion, culture etc. be permitted [over time] within each [complete] area and thirdly, the maximum amount of processing of product is done in each country. This is the proven solution of the animals and the benefits are seen in the health of all of society, not profit for a few. We cannot afford to allow castes that do not subscribe to the agreed ethnicity and religion to be part of the voting public because our very existence depends on our performance relative to other countries.

Unfortunately, China is following one man’s dream, just as Germany did a hundred years ago, that might unite the country behind him and even strengthen the country, but it is too easy to take military action. This result has parallels in a history that we don’t want to see repeated, and it will repeat itself, as must be expected in a fractal unless we circumvent it. We need to learn from history, because history is simple and similar and we need to plan ahead to counteract (so-called) leaders that try to take us into places that we don’t want to go, because we must understand where we need to go to reach a goal of Homo completus, not empire building.

The concepts above are (somewhat) meaningless without the context [to come later] because that balance is the working of the brain [to provide context to the measurement of the concepts in order to make a decision [6]], but we can make a limited finding and that is that we are losing control of our society because our governance allows users [people that crave the limelight for their own sake] without the organisation that makes them useful, to lead us. We need leaders [figureheads that we can rally behind] that are guided by a number of experts to allow us to make decisions for ourselves, not leaders that crave attention, enjoy baby-kissing, dressing-up and generally acting like royalty for the news reporters. As it stands at the moment, we are letting these fools [and they are fools unless they know what they are doing] indiscriminately bring immigrants into the country that tend to create problems [as reported on the nightly news] instead of increasing the existing population and they are like children playing [without understanding] with the economy to get elected. For example, this new premier promised to lift the wage-rise ceiling on public servants if elected and I was told by a family member that this influenced their voting. One has to despair of Homo sapiens and we must create and install a sensible society.

Reference: 1. Penney D. Social Engineering: Using Social Science To Improve Ourselves And Society. Madridge J Behav Soc Sci. 2023; S1(1): 1-6, doi:10.18689/mjbss-s1-001

2. Penney D. Exploring Numberland. Int J Cosmol Astro Astrophys, 2022; S1(1): 13-18, doi: 10.18689/ijcaa-s1-013

3. Penney D. A Penny for your Thoughts. Int J Cosmol Astron Astrophys, 2022; S1(1):19-25. doi: 10.18689/ijcaa-s1-014

4. Penney D. Why Solving Cosmic Inflation Could Change Your Mind. Int J Cosmol Astron Astrophys, 2022; S1(1):1-6. doi: 10.18689/ijcaa-s1-011
5. Penney D. Understanding Everything Means Understanding Nothing. Int J Cosmol Astro Astrophys, 2022; S1(1): 7-12, doi: 10.18689/ijcaa-s1-012
6. Can Affordances Save Civilisation?, Mind & Society,20(1), 107-110. doi:10.1007/s11299-020-00265-x
7. Penney D. Organising Organisation. Int J Cosmol Astro Astrophys, 2023; S2(1): 26-32, doi: 10.18689/ijcaa-s1-014

8. Social Engineering: The Context Behind The E.U., U.S., China and Australia (From an unpublished paper)

Social Engineering: Using Social Science To Improve Ourselves And Society

by Darryl Penney

Abstract: social engineering is almost non-existent because firstly, organisation is shunned and not understood, secondly, governance is crude and argumentative [democracy] or by fiat [Kings, Gods etc.] and governed by laws, police, fines, jail etc., thirdly, civilisation has extremely few overarching goals and fourthly, people can be socially irresponsible. The effects of religion are diminishing, governments are becoming increasingly intrusive, multiculturalism is divisive, opportunistic politicians are pandering to emotion and we are in danger of destroying life on the planet. A new model is derived that shows how a new way of thinking, using our existing brain, could solve these problems and produce the goal of a stable society [Homo completus] and leave the thinking of the animals, of which we are currently a part.

Keywords: social engineering; relativity; creation equation; organisation

‘Social engineering is the use of centralized planning in an attempt to manage social change and regulate the future development and behaviour of a society’. [definition internet]

The scientific theory expressed by German sociologist Ferdinand Tonnes in his 1905 study The Present Problems of Social Structure, proposes that society can no longer operate successfully using outmoded methods of social management.’ (Wikipedia, Social engineering (political science))

Disclaimer: the organisation behind survival of the fittest has been discussed [6] and contains a major organisational absolute that is, that the successful keep doing what they are doing and their offspring radiate into available niches to test their suitability. Whilst this is workable in a given organisation such as survival of the fittest, Homo sapiens left the security of this organisation 13,000 years ago to use technology to set out on it’s own without understanding the basic rules of organisation [6], but retained the right to impose harsh penalties on those seeking to change the system that they set up [dissidents]. Secondly, this lack of understanding of organisation appears to have hardened into a caste system whereby much misery has been meted out to various sections of society, and in particular, the U.S. declares itself to be the leader of the free world, whereas it appears to hold one of the worst records of abuse to it’s own and allied peoples in it’s way of leading and this paper attempts to correct this lapse. Thirdly, mistakes [contextual] may occur because I am a generalist, whereas a specialist is a specialist [conceptual] in a subject and would not be expected to make mistakes. This state of affairs is relativity and cannot be eliminated.

Preface

The need for social engineering: over the last 118 years, we have seen income taxes rise, World Wars fought, [so-called] democracy lauded, eugenics scorned, newspapers, radio and television used for mass indoctrination, and now the theft of information from computers and the internet. We have seen government become increasing obtrusive and only somewhat commensurately with maintaining the increased communal infrastructure that a modern community requires, such as schools, libraries, hospitals etc. and have seen local council rates rise and the imposition of new charges and fines to fund a bloated government that is trying to manipulate us through adverting and using [so called] democracy to benefit political parties and politicians etc. The increased population and higher expectations are causing problems at all levels from traffic congestion to global warming and yet social engineering is practically non-existent at all levels from families to government because there are no experts in the field and there are no experts because we do not understand organisation and our thinking is that of the animals [from which we evolved] that existed under the social organisation of survival of the fittest. Clearly there is an urgent need to better understand our society, to prevent wars, to eliminate castes, to prevent excess population, to improve genetics etc. as well as the overbearing actions of police and politicians in everyday life. If it were true that 118 years ago ‘that society can no longer operate successfully using outmoded methods of social management’, it is even more true today.

What is social engineering?: we need a new appreciation of how the mind, society and the physical come together, and to do that requires starting at the beginning because our universe is, I believe, a fractal generated by a creation equation [3] with a logic that derives from that equation that affects our behaviour and is not the same as what we currently use [4]. Logic is simply the recognition of the restrictions imposed on the universe [and us] for the universe to exist caused by the relativity upon which the creation equation is built, and further, the way that we think is also based on the creation equation and organisation [8], with which physics admits that it has difficulty 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)

The ‘nuts and bolts’ of social engineering: this paper presents the context [of thinking] as a sideways relativity and a similarity derived from the creation equation of a fractal universe that forms the basis of thinking [concept] and a general mathematical physics [context] that entangles everything into a single organisation [via the mathematics of concept-context]. It winkles out the organisation that Newtonian physics ignores and presents an extension into theoretical modern physics [1, 5] that physics has side-stepped for the last 100 years and that organisation is the orthogonal of the technology upon which modern society is built. Further, I believe that this organisation is the social engineering that we need to organise society and, in particular, prevent the catastrophe that excess population is causing to Life in general on the planet.

Keeping it simple: uses the logic of the half-truth that everything is simple [4] and we must increase our intellect by adding bottom-up organisation to the top-down that we inherited from the animals, and that is why the emphasis on the mind. This paper does not attempt to sway social science, but outlines a new approach that makes social science [and all of science] into a complete workable whole that allow us to see society realistically [2] as the relationships within the Fibonacci series [past, present and future relativities].

The ‘blue sky’ of social engineering: Darwin’s survival of the fittest shows the way of social engineering, and that way is racism, in spite of governments passing laws against racism. Our so-called leaders lead through opportunism [a former Australian politician played on emotion to restrict guns and left Australia defenceless] because the current knowledge and use of organisation is flawed and this paper shows that relativity is the ‘fire behind the fire’ of Plato’s allegory and is the message behind Darwin’s organisation of Life.

Finding Organisation

Starting at the beginning requires firstly, extending Newtonian physics to include the physical and that requires looking at how we think, secondly, how we think is built on the mind which uses the creation equation as it’s base [affordances [3]] and thirdly, we have to look at the organisation that is hidden by the simplicity/complexity [half-truth] of Newtonian physics. Social science is about measuring society, just as physics has been doing with the physical, but social science cannot understand social engineering because it has been hidden by a physics that cannot comprehend organisation explicitly and has allowed technology to greatly affect society’s living standards without understanding the effects. Logic is the relativity of the restrictions that allow our universe to exist and we are trying to use the logic of a ‘real’ world, where we think the world should do what we think that it should [and not what it actually does do] [6]. Newtonian physics worked [in our understanding] until the Michelson-Morley experiment found that the speed of light was constant to the mind of every observer, no matter what speed they were travelling and this insight shook physics to the core because the universe was communicating with every mind! This interaction is measurement, which is entanglement generated by the creation equation.

This [constant speed of light] led to strange findings [Einstein] that mass, length and time change with the speed relative to the observer and strangely, there was a simple relationship between mass, length and time, [1, 3, 5] which derives the restrictions [from these dimensions], and thus the logic that must be used. Using Plato’s Allegory of the Cave, citizens see the shadows of the fire that philosophers [were supposed to] understand, but they, using Newtonian physics [that does not access the physical] are not seeing the fractal that depends on the physical and pervades all space because the creation equation generates a fractal [making everything simple and similar] . Taking this a step further, philosophy is not the seeker of the beginning, as has been believed for 2,500 years, but is mankind’s top-down guess that, according to this theory requires the bottom-up relativity of cosmology [6]. An example is that the universe is accelerating for the creation equation to exist [1], and that acceleration provides gravity and the simple dimensions [organisation, energy (mass), length and time] require a constant speed of light [3], cosmic inflation [5] etc. The problem is that we must use the physical logic that is the universe in which we live because thinking that the world is ‘real’ gives the wrong answers [6] and we cannot understand our mind.

Conclusion: this shows that physics, philosophy, mathematics [2], and to a lesser extent, the rest of science, are incomplete without organisation as well as thinking [8] and the interaction between the mind and the physical [affordances [3]] that so shocked physics, above.

Using Organisation

The ancient Greeks ‘arm-chair mused’ science, Francis ‘Bacon’s influence led to a focus on practical experimentation in science. He was, however, criticized for neglecting the importance of the imaginative leaps that drive all scientific progress.’ (The Little Book Of Philosophy, p 57) Physics thrived on ‘imaginative leaps’ until 100 years ago when it was found that Newtonian physics could not explain modern physics and physics appears to have retreated into measurement to the extent that it has left it’s offspring [cosmology [1, 5], particle physics [7] etc. that need modern physics] necessarily forced, to remain under the physics umbrella, to try to use Newtonian physics even though without much success. [These opinion papers are alternate [orthogonal] to current physics, see disclaimer] and I should justify this by saying that Newton ‘inspire guessed’ the law of gravitation, was wrong by 50% that was ‘corrected’ by adding the organisation of ‘curved space’ [Einstein] and accepted because it agreed with experiment [Eddington]. The, I believe, better derivation is given in reference [3], and this illustrates the reasoning why theoretical modern physics was shut down 100 years ago.

Newtonian physics only uses half of the creation equation [energy plus organisation equals zero], ignores organisation [thus says that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, which is ridiculous in an accelerating universe [as found by experiment]] and has fostered materials engineering [technology] and ignored the organisation [social engineering] that must accompany technology [to be organisationally effective] because our universe is fractal in being derived from a simple equation [and so is simple and similar]. Just as Newtonian physics has caused problems [in being incomplete, but still useful], our thinking has been incomplete because we use it top-down, whereas bottom-up is ignored and universal relativity is the key to seeing it. Unfortunately, a clearer view of organisation means that we have a clearer view of our deficiencies and no one least of all Homo sapiens likes to be shown to be deficient and consequently, stupid.

The general form of the creation equation [concept plus context is nothing] shows that every concept can be replaced [orthogonality] by an infinitely entangled context [2] and the organisational description of a concept must be a parable as we find in the Bible. Hence using the complete organisational description, above, I will attempt to use examples to indicate a few points of interest.

Social Engineering Examples

Consider that democracy is presented as the ‘best’ political system and yet it is inherently argumentative, divisive by nature, concentrates on extremely short-term goals, politicians are self-seeking, political parties are manipulative etc. and that may have worked for the ancient Greeks [that used a very restricted form], but not now. Not only is multiculturalism divisive in culture, colour and religion etc. but is potentially explosive and can lead to long-term problems of caste. The resultant effect [that governments are seeking] appears to be a mixing or ‘melting pot’ of differences with it being illegal to consider a person’s race to be anything other than solely human, but how can people be differentiated if the law says that we are all the same and we must be differentiated if we are to be selected? If we cannot be differentiated, how can we be judged with a view to improving society? How intelligent are we, as a species, when a significant percentage of people do not believe in Darwin’s theories that lead to evolution of the ‘best’ in every species? Homo sapiens is not good enough and we need Homo completus that uses the goals of the Fibonacci series that aligns with the physical organisation [2].

The above is the basis of a science because it is based on absolutes, and absolutes are a necessary base in order to compare and the scientific principle [of being built on previous work] is flawed if the original assumptions are untrue [as they are likely to be when ‘discovered’ top-down].

The Explosion of Public Servants

Consider ‘the conclusions drawn from this experiment were that when all available space is taken and all social roles filled, competition and the stresses experienced by the individuals will result in a total breakdown in complex social behaviors, ultimately resulting in the demise of the population. Calhoun saw the fate of the population of mice as a metaphor for the potential fate of man.’ (Wikipedia, John B. Calhoun, Mouse experiments) In our social-capitalist system we have to have (somewhat) full employment and public servants are that part that are, I believe, barely employable and they will always be with us as long as we allow unfettered breeding. We have to start somewhere and this point of entry is my choice. Technology has fuelled the population explosion and we can use technology to (literally) save civilisation, but it requires an understanding of organisation, the ability to use organisation and the determination to implement it.

The only outcome that we can be sure of comes from experiment [current scientific principle] or evolution [this theory], so, I will use a personal example. I spent 20 years in Canberra when my daughter’s family took over the farm that distributed landscaping plants over the southern half of New South Wales. When they split up, I returned to the farm and had to make a reappraisal of the business structure, considering that the public servant requirements had recently become so onerous [on fitness to drive, registration checks etc] that I reduced the quantity grown, advertised electronically for free and required pick-up at the farm-gate. This meant that I could offer advanced plants for $6 to everyone, and not go through high priced resellers [retailing at $22-$30], no GST, less employment, could recycle the growing pots and rely on the irrigation dam.

Firstly, it is my belief that public servants are a general nuisance, though probably necessary for a society that is degrading [no selection for breeding], by continually ‘looking over our shoulder’ to ensure that our behaviour is within their petty laws, and not allow us the common courtesy of being responsible citizens. Secondly, are they effective workers or just government’s attempt to provide employment to the least capable? Last year I paid the annual $200 fee to WaterNSW a few days late and found that they wanted $400 because on an inside page they charged an excess fee of $200 if payment was late. I had to write to my local Member of Parliament accusing unconscionable behaviour to get the extra $200 back. This year I have written a letter cancelling my water irrigation licence, enduring all sorts of threats and paper-filling typical of public service form-pushing. Thirdly, after 40 years the council has now instigated a scheme called ‘approval to operate a sewage management facility’ at a cost of $300 every few years [previously called a septic tank, and free], fourthly, the police confiscated my rabbit rifle because they claimed it was not housed properly, even though it had been inspected three times over 20 years [the law changed, but no one told me]. The Magistrate apologised [for the police] but I didn’t get the gun back. Fifth, I have just received a letter from the Compliance and Regulation Officer, Biodiversity Conservation Division that said ‘based on observed clearing through high-quality aerial imagery, I have decided to issue a formal warning in this instance and advise that the Department of Planning and Environment will not take any further action in response to this matter.’ When I complained that I hadn’t cleared anything [for the second time] the person answering the call said that the reference number was for another property! A formal warning without adequate investigation shows that public servants are out of control.

Is the (so called) public service a blight on business and life in general? Shouldn’t we have the maturity to police ourselves with common sense? Isn’t that the definition of being civilised in a civilisation? Is the quality of public servants too low and we are scraping the ‘bottom of the barrel’ because our population is degenerating due to our inability to place limits on breeding stock? Not only is the public service currently inept, as above, I believe, are we seeing the prediction of John B. Calhoun, above, that life has become chaotic. There may be another factor at work, that the academic Karl Marx devised a system called communism that is very close to the methods of the public service and was popular enough to support a rebellion but was quickly taken over by ‘strong-men’ [Russia]. Our political system is a Hodgepodge [that we call social-capitalism], an orthogonality that works because of the preponderance of productive workers to non-productive workers [public servants, the sick etc.] that now appears to have tipped too far and we see over-regulation [10].

The problem appears to lie in the lack of organisation that society uses, so, what does this theory suggest? Firstly, controlling the numbers, the make-up, incentive and personality of the population in a given country and secondly, deciding which countries should combine populations. The aim is for people to feel comfortable with those around them, with all having similar religion, colour, physical type, opportunities etc. to concentrate on the aim of improving themselves and their humanity. Clearly, this must be a choice between energy and organisation [creation equation], but as Homo sapiens does not recognise organisation, it is left with energy, which is completely independent of organisation and so, Homo sapiens clearly lacks control. To regain control in a fractal is easy, but it needs to come from the bottom-up organisation and clearly this is missing in human affairs.

Controlling Population [Micro]

The traditional way of controlling population is, if you need more land, to take it from a nearby group, where the resulting war achieved the aim, but Christianity and kingdoms offered an element of stability over large areas and that stability led to greater population pressure which was one reason for the World Wars of the 20th century. The results of which tempered the actions of our (so called) leaders that are now allowing mass migrations that are destabilising the established populations because they do not understand how to deal with it. So, to understand [9, 10] consider that we need energy [food], organisation [creation equation], the Fibonacci absolute [planning] and the need to look at the animals [because energy and organisation are not [strictly] related in their case]. The Fibonacci series [past, present and future relativities] is needed to improve the species, hence, from nature, the herd system seems to fit the bill where a dominant male [having survival characteristics] looks after a herd of females providing protection, access to food etc. in return for passing on his genes, an organisation that benefits all concerned. The public servants are creating more laws to combat domestic violence etc. and involving police in domestic situations without fixing the basic organisation [genetic and personality problems].

Technology is a marvellous invention, but it must be combined with organisation, otherwise there is no planning [relativity] and no targeted result and so we must relate the organisation to the modern setting. The herd system seems to work [but not perfectly], is reasonably widespread in use, that proves that it contributes to the success of survival of the fittest and that should be our aim when contrasted to the present system. In a modern setting, the natural desire to produce the best offspring must be afforded by the system and that is through technology [in vitro fertilisation (IVF) is now available], incentive [money], safety and sustenance for a highly evolved offspring. At present roughly 50% of teenage pregnancies are to unmarried mothers that the state supports, whereas, with a little planning, these mothers could use IVF of successful older males thus providing a selection mechanism that enhances the child’s genes and future. Of course the normal system is available to the majority, but lifelong payment to these teenage mothers would tend to drive the system in the correct direction. This allows young mothers to be useful, respected, gain a lifetime pension, receive the state protection [against domestic violence], and still enter into normal relationships for the rest of their lives.

Consider ‘despite our growing population, state funding of higher education has grown at only 1/25^th of the rate of state funding for prisons, to the point where a dozen U.S. States now spend more on their prison systems than they do on their systems of higher education.’ (Upheaval, Jared Diamond, p 373) Clearly, this organisation motivates an at-risk group [unwed mothers], improves nature and nurture of future generations, is funded by reducing prisons, and redirects that money to education. If prison inmates have a higher propensity to antisocial behaviour, which is probable, it becomes imperative that their influence be lessened [genetically] in future generations and this incentive could be a motivation to stay out of prison [a cheaper alternative].

The Fibonacci series [2] is such an important organisational absolute that I will repeat that it says that the only [philosophical] way to gain a goal is to base that goal on the past and the present. The worth of the father can only be seen by comparing future attained goals and that is why successful, healthy, accomplished men should be available for selection as well as for cosmetic reasons, such as less body-hair, more head-hair, as well as a distribution of wealth etc. Women have always been considered as personal and family property and not as a means to improve the species as shown by the animals and it is the government’s job to ensure that the micro [family] and the macro [species] have both necessary and sufficient inputs. Notice that Adam Smith’s observation [that what benefits the person, benefits the market] is necessary, but not sufficient and shows the necessary role of government and the true meaning of democracy. Our (so called) leaders are leaders because they have leadership skills, that they often use for personal and monetary gains and do not use a theory such as this paper does. In essence, I believe that politicians are a reincarnation of the ‘Snake-oil Universal Elixir’ salesmen of the past in a new guise that have leadership skills [concept] without the context that is the relativity and it is the organisation that is missing to guide and control (so-called) leaders. Ask yourself, which leader has produced lasting benefits and not chaos throughout history because our planet is (literally) in danger of a global catastrophe at the moment. (So-called) leaders need expert advice [not a caucus of would-be leaders] and the ‘will of the people’, and that is the definition of democracy and can be done with modern technology [10].

The above section is an example of micro social engineering, that as pointed out [Adam Smith], is a fractal and thus the above is a general form where women are empowered by the state to produce superior offspring and protected whilst doing so. Women should contrast this care with their own selection of older [proven] men who can supply financial stability to offspring aiming toward a general feeling of sameness in appearance, culture and religion. Clearly, this is the opposite to the multiculturalism beloved by politicians in general.

Controlling Population [Macro]

Caste creates artificial boundaries to certain populations within a country according to Caste: the lies that divide us by Isabel Wilkerson. The most extreme example is India with thousands of divisions that create livelihoods for everyone without undue competition that has been in use for hundreds of years. The USA used caste to combine Europeans under a generic White banner against the African-Americans, but the efforts of the last century to restrict populations have proven to be in vain because ‘in the summer of 2008, the U.S. Census Bureau announced its projection that, by 2042, for the first time in American history, whites would no longer be the majority in a country that had known of no other configuration, no other way to be.’ (p 6). In other words, the U.S. seems to have lost it’s way as it says that it is the leader of the Free World and yet it’s economy is caste-ridden to the extreme. According to Jarad Diamond [Upheaval; How Nations Cope With Crisis and Change] the major problems are ‘political polarization to be the most dangerous problem facing us Americans today’ (p 356), tempered by ‘our long history of maintaining the same two political parties – the Democrats since the 1820’s, and the Republicans since 1854 – is actually a sign of flexibility rather than of rigidity.’ (p 377) This might be a sign of flexibility rather than of rigidity, but so what? Setting poor against rich is divisive and an orthogonality where we need agreement.

Secondly, ‘among affluent democracies (so-called OECD nations), the U.S. Ranks at the bottom in voter turnout . . . their commonest answers are that they don’t trust our government, they have no faith in the value of voting, or aren’t interested in politics.’ (p 359) The ‘average turnouts of registered voters in elections in other democratic countries are 93% in Australia, where voting is compulsory by law’ which again shows the intrusiveness of public servants in that country. The basic law to Life is the Fibonacci series with it’s goals and is written into survival of the fittest [the improved tend to survive]. Thirdly, ‘voter turnout is over 80% for Americans with incomes exceeding $150,000, but under 50% for Americans with incomes under $20,000.’ (p 362) ‘No country approaches the U.S. in the expense and uninterrupted operation of our political campaigning. In contrast, in the United Kingdom election campaigning is restricted by law’. (p 363)

Fourthly, ‘the result is that the U.S. is losing its former competitive advantage that rested on an educated workforce, and on science and technology’ (p 372), not to mention the glaring deficiencies of neglecting organisation that is indicated by ‘despite our growing population, state funding of higher education has grown at only 1/25^th of the rate of state funding for prisons, to the point where a dozen U.S. States now spend more on their prison systems than they do on their systems of higher education.’ (p 373) Clearly, selecting the personality of the father and providing for the mother should reduce the prison population. Fifthly is the problem of race relations and the entrenched caste system and the only long-term solution is to divide the country and allow people to choose in which country they live and the physical and religious ideals that they wish to follow.

Conclusion and Prediction

The so-called Free World has problems with the U.S., that considers itself to be the leader, and yet it is riven by so many problems within itself, and it is no surprise that the five internal problems listed above are all organisational that surface when physics ignores organisation and that lack is carried into the social sciences that are the foundation of society, and now, haunts our very existence. The answer is to build from the bottom-up to create a civilisation that works for everyone, with no one being exploited and each entitled to show their worth in the survival of the fittest that is the modus operandi of evolution based on the Fibonacci series that underlies Life. This requires competition between distinct groups to find the best and allow ‘underdogs’ to align [contribute genetically] with the better, to benefit all, without the traditional invasion by the better and this comes by assigning goals [Fibonacci series].

It is also no surprise that ‘ever since the rise of the first government 5,400 years ago, they have served two main functions: to maintain internal peace by monopolizing force . . . and to redistribute individual wealth for the purpose of investing in larger aims – in the worst case, enriching the elite; in the best cases, promoting the good of society as a whole.’ (p 372) Compare that with the reverse direction [orthogonality] which is the simplicity and similarity of a fractal [Adam Smith], then we are in a position to describe how a true leader of the Free World should function compared [relativity] to other contenders [9, 10] The leaders [two for relativity] have to show the way and the rest of the world can compare themselves with them. Due to the [I believe the mistake of, from the point of view of the U.S. and other countries] outsourcing of production to low-wage countries, China has gained confidence and is challenging the U.S. That China appears to be stealing the technology of the West shows that in evolution, like love and war, everything is fair and that logic is more complicated [11] than the yes/no traditionally used and to understand world affairs, we have to use the creation equation [concept plus context is nothing]. This is done in [9, 10] the same way that the mind functions, by measuring [affordances] the relationship between [concepts of] marketing areas.

The organisation of society is the result of social engineering which is based on social science, which is a real science [based on organisational absolutes, restrictions, logic etc.] that is the mirror image [orthogonality] of physics and materials engineering [technology, that like physics currently does not contain organisation] and both are needed to build an optimum leadership role for future civilisations that must use the goals required by relativity and the Fibonacci series. For example, the public servants have held sway for [especially the last] 150 years and have lost the confidence of the people through creating so many catastrophic wars [at great cost to ordinary people, [10]] and currently, many countries [the public servants] have contributed weapons to help the Ukraine [without creating total war] in it’s fight against invasion by Russia. A new way of governing is needed and a method is suggested based on the bottom-up organisation of this theory that combines technology [mobile phones] with real democracy that encourages the betterment of society through goals [9, 10]. By closing borders, the public servants have very much less possibility of meddling and creating problems, and as an example, the DVD [Homeland] is entertainment, but shows the machinations of seriously disturbed public servants creating a game-like scenario overlaying society that creates the unrest that society does not need and that sealing borders does away with.

References:

1. Penney D. Understanding Everything Means Understanding Nothing. Int J Cosmol Astro Astrophys, 2022; S1(1): 7-12, doi: 10.18689/ijcaa-s1-012
   2. Penney D. Exploring Numberland. Int J Cosmol Astro Astrophys, 2022; S1(1): 13-18, doi: 10.18689/ijcaa-s1-013
   3. Can Affordances Save Civilisation, Mind & Society,20(1), 107-110. doi:10.1007/s11299- 020-00265-x
   4. The Logic Of The Half-truth And Plato’s Cave (From an unpublished paper)
   5. Penney D. Why Solving Cosmic Inflation Could Change Your Mind. Int J Cosmol Astron Astrophys, 2022; S1(1):1-6. doi: 10.18689/ijcaa-s1-011
      6. Penney D. Organising Organisation. Int J Cosmol Astro Astrophys, 2023; S2(1): 26-32, doi: 10.18689/ijcaa-s1-014
      7. The Standard Particle Physics Model Versus Modern Physics (From an unpublished paper)
      8. Penney D. A Penny for your Thoughts. Int J Cosmol Astron Astrophys, 2022; S1(1):19-25. doi: 10.18689/ijcaa-s1-014
      9. Social Engineering: The Concept Behind The E.U., U.S., China and Australia (From an unpublished paper)
      10. Social Engineering: The Context Behind The E.U., U.S., China and Australia (From an unpublished paper)
      11. The Logic Of The Half-truth And Plato’s Cave. (From an unpublished paper)

Organising Organisation

by Darryl Penney

Abstract: we measure, and we accept what we find and call that the scientific method [Francis Bacon] but we don’t ask ‘Why?’ and because we do not ask ‘Why?’, we do not seek suitable organisational goals, so, we could be accepting a second-rate society and indeed, one that seems to be destroying itself. Unfortunately, we inherited our thinking from the organisation of the survival of the fittest and we need a new software for a modern age that can only come from using a different organising of our mind. That goal, as shown by relativity and the Fibonacci series, I call Homo completus. In nature, the offspring seek change, but that is too slow and cumbersome in a modern world and we need to use knowledge to enhance the software of the brain to change thinking so that the mind can organise humanity into a new selected form with a vision for the future. This paper presents that field of organisation in the form of a fractal built on relativity and examples are given that shows how modern life is being put in jeopardy because we don’t know how to, or are unwilling to change the past.

Keywords: organisation; relativity; creation equation; goals; Fibonacci series; the mind

Disclaimer: ‘the Neolithic revolution, which began in Southwest Asia around 13,000 years ago (and separately in a few other places), saw the emergence of agriculture and permanent human settlement. . . . Humans have continued to expand, with a global population of over 7.9 billion as at 2022.’ (Wikipedia, Human) Homo sapiens went from a hunter-gatherer to potentially destroying the world [global warming etc.] in 13,000 years and this paper shows how it possibly went wrong by ignoring organisation and that the knowledge of organisation could, and should, change our thinking, putting us at odds with present society, a society that resists change because resisting change is the source of our success throughout our evolution. Secondly, physics retreated into measurement a hundred years ago and, by default, has passed theoretical progress to cosmology because cosmology contains the simplicity that we need to progress and understand society to make it work. Thirdly, mistakes [contextual] may occur because I am a generalist, whereas a specialist is a specialist [conceptual] in a subject and would not be expected to make mistakes. This state of affairs is relativity and cannot be eliminated.

The Model

Several years ago I wrote a paper on organisation [6] that was rejected because it was considered too complicated, and rightly so because context is infinitely complex, or is it? The model presented here is extremely compact because it uses the property of a fractal and this paper will unpack it’s various parts to show the simplicity and similarity that a fractal promises. Because science does not use organisation explicitly, and yet organisation apparently comprises 50% of everything, it is important that the effort be made to understand organisation because our ignorance is literally killing us, both in the state of the world [global warming etc.] and the health aspects [obesity] and the personality [stupidity, criminality etc.] of people that needs to be addressed by social engineering. The form and functioning of this model is given below, but the majority of the paper is to try to upgrade the mind to understand it, namely to change from Homo sapiens to the goal of Homo completus. This upgrade does not change the brain, but adds goals [as relativity] and bottom-up organisation to the mind for completeness [8].

The simplest organisation is that of the universe, simply because it must be the simplest to exist [there cannot be two answers for any situation because that would create magic, absolute 5 [3]], so, finding organisation gives a basis [social science] that could lead to social engineering that might show us how to create a worthwhile society that lasts. In other words, I will try to explain the organisation that physics ignores, not to progress physics [which will happen anyway after reluctance] but to fix social science which does not contain the organisation that is needed to avoid the social problems that have been caused by an incomplete physics [that has led to materials engineering, technology and a world that is out of control].

We start at the beginning [cosmology] with:

A the creation of concept-context [a relativity] as the language of organisation [creation equation [3], thinking [8], social engineering [9, 10, 11]],

B a relativity of reality [that we see as speed [7]] inside of the interval 0 [in particle organisation] to c, the speed of light [energy and organisation] that contains speed v inside [particles] and i, the square root of -1, outside,

C the relativity of B., that the organisation and the measurer must interconnect [by the square [1] because each must recognise the other] that is produced by the creation equation [affordances],

D an expanded logic [[4] because true-false is not adequate] and is a function of the expanding space, and

E sundry restrictions, such as that the space [containing the universe] must be accelerating to allow A to exist, and that creates [what we call] gravity [1] which is also a function of the space [no gravity waves or gravitons].

F Life must do the best that it can in any circumstances [if it is to exist] and successful instances exhibit successful outcomes in similar conditions throughout evolution [and these outcomes become organisational absolutes that we can use to plan ourselves [9, 10, 11]].

G Questions in our society [Socrates-like] that can only be answered by democracy, fiat etc.

If this looks complicated, it is, but also, it is not [logic of the half-truth] because every thing is entangled within the universe just as the simplest purchase at a shop has a complicated supply-chain behind it, that we do not appreciate [unless we think about it]. A well run organisation appears ‘real’ and we have accepted a simple reality [continuous and constrained] for society, which has crashed at times, but now our run-away population problems are threatening the whole world [global warming] and it is time to do better, and better we can do, because organisation begets social engineering and a better life for all.

The Philosophy of Organisation [Section A]

The concept of pi has a context that is an infinite series because concepts and contexts must be orthogonal [independent yet entangled] and the opposite to a single concept is an infinite series of forms, where each form is the mathematical division of the number line organisation. This is explained in Exploring Numberland [2] and is a product of our fractal universe where concept and context are entangled in such a way that must contain logic and in this case [of the square and circle] they are orthogonal [basically different] and the closer that we look, the more exact must be our view [infinite series], but we can never actually see the difference [being independent]. [Notice that calculus makes the switch from context to concept.] If we could see the difference, we would have to live in a ‘real’ universe. A similar explanation suffices for the Heisenberg uncertainty problem [3]. This is Zeno’s dichotomy paradox, ‘if 0.999. . . is a different number from 1, then there must be space between them on the number line. . . Counter-intuitive though it is, 0.9999. . . =1’ (Alex’s Adventures in Numberland, Alex Bellos, p 276) This counter-intuitiveness is the difference between an organisation [fractal] and the ‘real’ world that we assume that we live in, and this dichotomy creates quantum mechanics in our minds, which can not be understood until we accept organisation.

In other words, there are parameters that stretch from zero to infinity, like energy or complexity, but then there is an enforced segment, such as velocity, there must be a way of containing the organisation within those limits. In the physical that is done by changing the values as the limits are approached and this is accomplished by changing the relativity so that certain absolutes remain unchanged, An example is easy to see, although difficult to comprehend because the energy, mass, length, time and organisation change to ensure that the speed [of a particle] does not reach the speed of energy and organisation [the photon]. Also, it seems that neutrinos [logically] ‘piggyback’ the photons. Clearly, this cannot happen in a ‘real’ world where everything is fixed, and is a sign of a moving, accommodating organisation. Thus, there are only two options [orthogonality] to belief, a fixed universe and a variable universe that is part of the software in the mind-brain and the mind must be included because everything is based on measurement.

We would like to live in a ‘real’ world and have even assumed that we do [live in a ‘real’ world], even if it means believing that a God had made the universe, continually looks after us and even listen to our prayers. Surely organisation is not that terrifying, or is it? Are we even intelligent enough to understand it? Considering that it has taken us only 13,000 years to potentially destroy 3,000 million years of evolution, so we need to embrace organisation, and as our minds are built on organisation, understanding organisation will change the software of our thinking. The first thing that relativity teaches is that we must have goals and this is shown in the Fibonacci series in mathematics [2] and this necessary goal I call Homo completus because Homo sapiens is the present that is in the process of destroying itself.

The scientific principle must change to establish absolutes [that do not change] because we need reference points for comparison, but currently, the scientific principle is peer review where there is general agreement that a process should be called a ‘law’ and an example is the law of gravitation that was ‘inspire’ guessed by Newton 400 years ago and has never been derived. This is a chilling accusation to make against physics and needs the simple explanation [derivation] below. Absolutes are easy to find in a relativistic universe because the relativity in the creation equation [energy plus organisation is nothing [3]] can be easily removed by mathematical division. The four operatives of mathematics [multiplication, division, addition and subtraction] can be better expressed as form [division] and function [multiplication] [2] as well as addition and subtraction [with their own restrictions, such as orthogonality]. If not using absolutes is indicative of the poor state of physics, how bad is mathematics [or mathematical physics] that does not understand the significance of the basic operations of multiplication [functioning], division [form] and the limitations of addition and subtraction [orthogonality]. Homo sapiens is just not good enough to survive and that is playing out at the present time [population, global warming etc.].

Section C

The creation equation [section A] could be called a given [3], so from [1], [section B] the form of the creation equation is [division] E/O=i(squared) where E is energy, O is organisation and i is the square root of -1, denoting relativity. Off the particle, we can only measure with a photon [whose speed is c] the measurement is E/O=c(squared), with the relativity of measurement [between the measurer and organisation (of the universe)] being c(squared) [Einstein’s equation] and within this interval [0 and c] is the realm of energy and organisation E/O=v(squared), where v is the speed of the particle, which is the equation of movement due to gravity. The functioning is the multiplication of the absolutes [of the dimensions, E, O, time and distance d that are required in a necessarily accelerating universe [for the creation equation to exist]] of E/d and O/d, for two masses 1 and 2, such that:

apparent attraction is (E1 times E2)/d(squared) addition of (O1 times O2)/d(squared).

Note that firstly, addition is mathematical adding and secondly, this is a doubling of Newton’s equation that Einstein attributed to the addition of ‘curved’ space, which is an organisation and verified by Eddington’s experiment.

Thinking organisationally is a little different to demanding the safety of a ‘real’ world, but our thinking must change because we are, I believe, deluding ourselves and the price might be the destruction of our society, as has always happened throughout history. For example, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle that wants to measure things exactly is ‘real’ world thinking because position [organisation] and speed [energy] are orthogonal [from the creation equation energy plus organisation is nothing] and you cannot measure two independent things simultaneously. [as above, calculus or pi [conversion of context to concept [2]] is our way of ignoring relativity.] Quantum mechanics does not exist except in our incomplete way of thinking and is a misunderstanding of organisation. No wonder physics is so baffled in trying to understand the physical without organisation! So, be prepared that organisation is not a small thing [except in the start with the creation equation], but expands as part of the cosmic inflation that is a result of the form of the universe [(energy plus organisation) divided by time] when time starts at zero and things go off with a Big Bang [5].

Section B

The real battle is to change the desire for a simplistic ‘real’ world to an organisational society which only becomes apparent at the boundaries because organisation requires segments with bounds and the bounds are usually zero and infinity [concepts are infinitely defined numerically while contexts are infinitely defined complexly], but an important exception is from 0 to c, the speed of light. Also, it is apparent that the segment 0 to c also [relativity] shows the division of particles by speed [7], which drastically simplifies the organisation of the sub-atomic particles from hundreds in the current physics model to: the standard model could do with a little revision and I suggest the following:

Concept: everything is relative and energy plus organisation equals zero in everything, so this is a table of operations categorised by the organisation of speed [tier one] and lifetime [tier two], the acceleration of the universe affects everything as a gravity and internally as quantum gravity [(energy plus organisation) divided by separation relative to something else]

Context: plus [tier 1]: quarks up and down [no speed]

proton, electron [less than light speed]

neutrinos assorted [near light speed]

photon [light speed]

Plus [tier 2]: bosons, muons, taus, neutrons and other quarks [organisation changelings] [7].

Section D and E

True-false is the only option of common logic, because we cannot comprehend a logic that is different, even though we use it everyday in speech, writing and communication in general that selects the correct meaning. For example ‘The sun is shining’ is true on the sun, off the sun [photons], on that part of the planet turned towards the sun, above the clouds etc. and our mind toggles these to assume that the narrator is speaking logically, but it includes an implied relativity. True-false is an orthogonality, but is a concept to the context of logic that I call the logic of the half-truth and a complete logic is [4]:

true, false, alternating true-false, our-other universe, chaos, restrictions, fractal-social engineering.

If true and false have their normal [orthogonal] meanings, there is then room for a context to this concept. A hundred years ago the answer to the question of the wave-particle duality of light was apparently solved by Einstein saying that they were both forms of energy, whereas I believe that they are better expressed as energy-organisation where the wave is energy and the particle is organisation and the photon shows both features [as states] oscillating too rapidly to be measured individually. This assumption is reasonable because logic is all-pervasive and has no speed or inertia. Our-other universe is the relativity of black holes leaving our universe except for gravitational effects, Chaos is the relativity to the other terms, whereas restrictions are those things that resist chaos [such as an accelerating universe that provides gravity, absolute 5 etc.]

Section F

Section F is completely different, but necessary because we are parasites on A to E, and form a subset or sub-organisation that is interconnected. We may consider the world to be ‘real’, but we cannot escape the relationship between the two [‘real’ and an organisation], even if we ignore it. We accept gravity and use it without understanding it because according to this theory it is a result of the necessity of our universe requiring an accelerating space [for the creation equation to exist in the long term [1]]. Section F is our society and if we ignore the physical or do not understand it, it will return to haunt us, as has happened with global warming, poverty, hunger etc. How much better could everyone’s life be if our numbers were controlled, no one was hungry or mistreated, caught up in wars and other peoples’ plans etc. This is the last term [fractal-social engineering in the logic] which suggests the concept of the simplicity and similarity with the context of the effects of social engineering that is the using of a social science that contains organisation.

Science requires the use of absolutes so that comparisons can be made [relativity], mathematics has organisational absolutes [golden ratio, logarithmic spiral etc. [8]] but what are the absolutes of organisation for us? Clearly, in the physical, it is the creation equation that states that organisation must always be equal and orthogonal to energy, but once we get away from the physical, such as Life, what organisational absolutes should we use? Evolution is the key, where the reproduction of a species in a niche [under survival of the fittest] ensures that only the fittest survive to reproduce. The organisation [of the fittest to survive], with a subtle change [from animal to human], provides the best indicator to the best organisation that we can imagine [that is rooted in practice]. I should point out that recent human history is useless because we have had few goals and restrictions placed upon us and this is why it is so important to have a goal [relativity] that is the superior being [Homo completus] that we can work together to attain.

Whilst the physical has the constraint of minimum energy and organisation, a different distinction must be made in human affairs, firstly, those that have an underlying organisation, above, that pertain to all animals including us [with the restriction of the previous paragraph], and secondly, those below [section G] that are personalised to ourselves in a modern world. Humanity seems to try to dissociate itself from the animals, but there are many similarities that give guidance to outcomes that we can use as predictable goals and setting goals that work for the animals increases the chances that they work for us. For example, it is well known that animals kept in close proximity become deranged, and that is happening in cities as population pressures mount and personality changes, crime increases etc. This is the realm of social engineering [9, 10, 11].

Section G

There is a class of organisation that I call Socrates-like, that like him, can be exceedingly annoying because there is no simple answer [no absolute] that we can see from Life. Socrates’ questions have to do with aspects of human behaviour that are not (totally) reflected in animal behaviour and are usually decided by someone [Kings, Queens, Dictators, laws or some sort of democracy etc]. Our current idea of (so-called) democracy is a far-cry from that practised by the ancient Greeks, and is often a choice between two major parties that are aligned [usually behind the rich and the poor] and tend to look after their own members’ interests. In terms of organisation, it is a replay of the parable of Sodom and Gomorrah where Homo completus [the goal] is drawn out of the destruction of a people with no goals and no effective social organisation that is destroying itself [genetically and morally]. Again, this is the realm of social engineering [9, 10, 11] and we need to answer ‘What are the properties of this Homo completus?’ and ‘How must we work towards them?’ and these questions need the organisation outlined here..

Organisation has been considered bottom-up, but what of the relativity of top-down organisation, where the question is, ‘What is the relativity of our thinking?’ before and after reading this paper? Looking at the universe, it was clear [to current thought] that someone made it, and we called that person God, but an organisation has the property [similar to a God] that it must answer a query [measurement], otherwise it does not exist [to the enquirer] and further, it must answer uniquely every time, and that is [the basis of] physics with it’s measuring experiments. Thus, religion offers a God, that cannot be questioned, physics questions [measurement] without direction [no organisation], and traditionally philosophy has investigated the rest [of top-down thinking], but now, if this theory is accepted, cosmology [A to E] underlies philosophy [F, G]. Cosmology has ‘waited in the wings’ after physics withdrew back into measurement and Newtonian physics, and promulgated theories that are alien to this model which stresses simplicity, similarity and a theory that is understandable to everyone. After all, a concise theory that does not contain enigmas is preferable to a correct theory that is not understood, even by scientists themselves. Consider the quotations:

‘If we do discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable in broad principle by everyone, not just a few scientists’ ( A Brief History Of Time, Stephen Hawking, p 209)

‘People distrust science because they don’t understand how it works. It seems as if we are now living in a time in which science and scientists are in danger of being held in low, and decreasing esteem.’ (Brief Answers To the Big Questions, Stephen Hawking, p 241)

There are very real problems with a measuring physics [without theory] and the [working] intellect of physicists that lack relativity that have been discussed previously [8]. Madridge publishers are to be applauded for their Opinion Article-Special Issue ‘Newtonian Physics’ that offers this option to it’s readers for comment, however, being so basic [like this theory] it presents problems of demarcation of subject matter [concepts] and faces the problem of context, which this model requires from relativity. Hence, the organisation [of cosmology] intrudes into mathematics [2], social science [9, 10, 11] and literally everything because of the fractal nature of the universe and, are included, initially in cosmology [5, 1]. Theoretically, increasing the concepts and contexts that form the software of our thinking [8] should move us toward the goal of Homo completus and leave the tumultuous reign of Homo sapiens behind.

Section F Example

Trying to run a civilisation without adequate organisation is a recipe for failure, so, is Homo sapiens capable of getting itself out of this mess? Consider the question ‘what are the chances that we will encounter some alien form of life as we explore the galaxy?’ (Brief Answers To the Big Questions, Stephen Hawking, p 83). He says ‘I prefer a fourth possibility: that there are other forms of intelligent life out there, but that we have been overlooked’ (p 85) [8]. Really! As an example of unpacking the (intentional) complexity of the organisation, above, consider unpacking F, that says look at the animal’s organisation, so, how should we approach a wild animal that you might like to befriend. Direct confrontation would be acting like a predator and provoke a defence mechanism of flight or fight, so, raising an orphan or slowly domesticating it by feeding it and letting it see you occasionally would be the sensible option, as we undoubtedly did in the past.

Homo sapiens is a wild animal that survived by forming groups [species] and attacking opponents [other species] if they threatened their existence and our society is built on groups, such as religions, physics, a form of democracy that benefits distinct groups [a moneyed class, worker class, the old, the sick etc.], a military class and various police and secret groups that seem to have their own agenda, so, how does society control these various groups? Kings, Queens, Dictators and democracy are the usual means, but our use of democracy is flawed in that it appears to be a democracy of groups which is another name for survival of the fittest in which we evolved.

What do we do with a dangerous wild animal? We observe at a distance with showing ourselves a little at a time to see if the animal accepts us, or not. Some animals can be domesticated [horses] and some not so well [zebra]. We might think that it would be best that the animal join our community, but not if it displays dangerous behaviour towards us. Consider what is happening with unidentified flying objects [UFOs] where it could be that we are the dangerous animal because the military tell us to ignore them as we [the public] are subject to hallucinations while the military presumably seek new technology from anything that they can shoot down. Possibly, our social organisation is similar to that of ants that have the soldier ants and the worker ants and are incapable of change and have been doing the same thing for countless aeons. Is that what we want? We do find it very difficult to change, because it is a basic evolutionary strategy that the successful continue and the offspring seek new niches.

This UFO question has reached the ludicrous stalemate that lengthy books [such as In Plain Sight, Ross Coulthart, 344 pages] have been written on the subject trying to prove that UFOs exist and that the very existence of UFOs has been ignored by government. It seems to be the government’s position that the general public could not handle the idea that there are more advanced civilisations out there. As far as this model is concerned, it is irrelevant to worry about observers watching our progress because we cannot do anything about it, and they appear more interested in nuclear storage and test sites, presumably ‘because they have our best interests at heart’.(p 155) and possibly our sociability is so poor that we apparently remain too dangerous to confront openly.

Where will this UFO question end? Apparently never because they appear to be concerned with our planet-destroying nuclear weapons that could wipe out 3,000 million years of evolution. Consider that God may have created the universe, but there are many universes and our own cannot know itself [being built on orthogonalities], until life provides the affordances [relativity] and so, we could consider the universe to be a God, but on the other hand [relativity], we could consider the UFO civilisation to be God, or perhaps a goal [Homo completus] to aim for, but unless we understand organisation [bottom-up] we will not get to our goal. We need a better form of government that can change our direction.

Section G Example

Socrates seems to have asked questions of a particular type, those that pertain to humans and have no organisational absolutes upon which can be built a definitive argument and a definite answer, hence they require a separate section. If Socrates were alive today and asked the same questions, he would receive the same perplexed answers because philosophy has not progressed in organisation in that time. Forcing [he could have fled] a (so called) democracy to kill him [by verdict] for a triviality [of asking questions] is such a potent political accusation of the failure of democracy that it has come down to us over 2,500 years, and yet today we laud a democracy that did not even work for the ancient Greeks. That problem is for another day, but we do need to understand how Socrates’ class of organisation fits into the structure of social engineering.

It is well known [on the internet] that you cannot add apples and oranges, which is both true and false [logic of the half-truth] because you can add properties associated with them [numbers] because apples and oranges have similarities and also differences that are orthogonal, so, adding oranges and apples is the sum [mathematical] of the sameness and the context of the differences [orthogonalities]. This could be called organisational addition and subtraction and we see it as speciation, races, tribes, countries etc. Governments, religions, Kings etc. much prefer to rule a country with a homogeneous population that have similar goals to make for a strong peaceful society, but multiculturalism is an easy way out for politicians looking after their own benefits in the short term. Multiculturalism creates division, disharmony and problems for future generations. Such is our present democracy, that is as flawed as the democracy was of the ancient Greeks.

Simply put, the harmony of a population is increased by homogeneity and this can be seen in animals that create species by excluding outsiders and can be seen in groups in our own populations that purposely segregate themselves [religion, cultural etc.] and for this reason we have to be careful in looking to the animals. Socrates asked ‘What is loyalty?’ and ‘What is courage?’ and they have to be taught and multiple standards set, because standards are contextual and need concepts to be applied to them [affordances]. Religions have attempted this role using top-down guesswork and need this organisation, especially as religions are old and set in another time. Consider the Church’s stance on no killing, versus soldiers needing to kill to defend or take over another country.

The above organisation is intentionally compact and as an illustration of it’s power to answer questions, I have selected two occurrences that have been enigmas for 80 years and are so shocking that they have been ignored in the interests of cobbling together a fractured world organisation to achieve (so-called) world peace. These examples foreshadow social engineering in [10, 11], but are being used here as an example of social engineering that is relevant to today and to give simple answers to national problems that have been swept under the carpet. Two and a half thousand years ago, the Old Testament was laid down as an organisation to live-by that incorporated the dietary and legal strictures that made a particular society work, but a radically new idea [Christianity] erupted two thousand years ago that humanised people into a supposedly anti-savagery group. It was bold and successful, to an extent, but did not change with the times and is becoming less relevant today and needs social engineering to incorporate it [or certain aspects] into a modern world.

Yes, Christianity was a magnificent example of social engineering, but not well understood, and needs the organisation above. The first and second World Wars changed politicians and (so-called) leaders’ ability to create mischief and cause wars and examples of that mischief are in full force today, 80 years after the events unfolded. Politicians do not have the right to apologise on behalf of a nation for previous wrongs perpetrated by previous leaders because we do not have true democracies and the reason why atrocities occurred is not understood nor are they being corrected. Social engineering is about understanding [present] why something happened [past] and doing something about it [future goal] that is the absolute of the Fibonacci series. An apology is suspect unless the cause is fixed and being contextual, the ripples extend far and wide.

‘In the view of Chinese and Koreans, Japan hasn’t adequately acknowledged, apologised for, or expressed regret for its wartime atrocities.’ (Upheaval, Jarad Diamond, p 313) ‘About 22,000 Australian troops captured by the Japanese during the war were subjected to unspeakably brutal conditions in Japanese prison-of-war camps, where 36% of the Australian prisoners died: a far higher percentage than the 1% death toll of American and British soldiers in German prisoner-of-war camps . . . . Especially shocking to Australians was the Sandakan Death March’. (p 275) ‘One cause for optimism is Japan’s history of success at resolving crises . . . . Twice in modern times, Japan has provided outstanding national success stories of re-appraisal and selective change.’ (p 320) but unfortunately not in religion, where Shinto is an indigenous spirit religion and not a neighbour-loving religion like Christianity is supposed to be, and a possible cause of their soldiers’ behaviour.

What of German atrocities against the Jews and others in the second World War? This is apparently the exception that proves the rule because Hitler was following the Church in it’s traditional treatment of the Jews, that are, of course, not Christian. ‘Hitler biographer John Toland offers the opinion that “Hitler carried within him its teaching that the Jew was the killer of God. The extermination, therefore, could be done without a twinge of conscience since he was merely acting as the avenging hand of God . . .”’ (Wikipedia, Religious views of Adolf Hitler) The above gives insight into the problems of religion and the governing of the State that has had troubling consequences in the past, such as killing in the name of religion [Crusades, Hitler, South America etc.] versus invading and defending armies and the relativity of religion and state that seem to be closely aligned. Consider ‘Nobiscum Deus in Latin, Meth hemon ho Theos in Ancient Greek, was a battle cry of the Later Roman Empire and of the Byzantine Empire.’ (Wikipedia, Gott mit uns) and their use blurs the orthogonality of state and Christianity. This is more fully considered in [10, 11], but it does indicate that it is time to remodel religions, that are a form of social engineering, with a complete organisation.

Conclusion and Prediction

I am not suggesting that this idea of a fractal universe is the correct one, but I believe it to be a much better description of reality than the hodgepodge that we have at the moment and brings the disciplines [concepts] that have been hived off from philosophy together again [context] in a sensible orthogonality [horizontal relativity] with the vertical organisation [top-down and bottom up] with the aid of absolutes that make a mockery of the scientific principle and completes the scientific method [theory with measurement]. The stakes are high with the choice between an organised future, or the chaos that we are heading towards with unrestrained breeding and movement around the world. These problems need organisational solutions [9, 10, 11] to restrain breeding and direct it into an improved genetic base for society in marketing areas that allow unbiased comparison of the ability of people to prosper and thereby indicate the races that should inherit the Earth. The relativity of what I suggest [bottom-up], can be married to the top-down method proposed by Jared Diamond in Upheaval: How Nations Cope with Crisis and Change.

References:

1. Penney D. Understanding Everything Means Understanding Nothing. Int J Cosmol Astro Astrophys, 2022; S1(1): 7-12, doi: 10.18689/ijcaa-s1-012

2. Penney D. Exploring Numberland. Int J Cosmol Astro Astrophys, 2022; S1(1): 13-18, doi: 10.18689/ijcaa-s1-013

3. Can Affordances Save Civilisation, Mind & Society,20(1), 107-110. doi:10.1007/s11299-020-00265-x

4. The Logic Of The Half-truth And Plato’s Cave (From an unpublished paper)

5. Penney D. Why Solving Cosmic Inflation Could Change Your Mind. Int J Cosmol Astron Astrophys, 2022; S1(1):1-6. doi: 10.18689/ijcaa-s1-011

6. The Unification Of Symmetry, Simplicity And Similarity In A Fractal Universe (From an unpublished paper)

7. The Standard Particle Physics Model Versus Modern Physics (From an unpublished paper)

1. Penney D. A Penny for your Thoughts. Int J Cosmol Astron Astrophys, 2022; S1(1):19-25. doi: 10.18689/ijcaa-s1-014
2. Social Engineering: Using Social Science To Improve Ourselves And Society ( From an unpublished paper)

10. Social Engineering: The European Common Market (From an unpublished paper)

11. A Future Scenario For Common Markets (From an unpublished paper)

A Penny For Your Thoughts

by Darryl Penney

Abstract: what if we could suddenly increase our intellect, would that solve the world’s problems? Probably not, because that does not appear to be difficult to do if you believe this paper, and we still need social engineering to know what we need to do and how to do it, so let’s look at the ‘big’ questions of Stephen Hawking in the light of this paper, and in particular the enigmas of the golden ratio, emotion, art and beauty etc., as well as why the mathematical concepts appear to be all expressible as infinite series of simple fractions? The answers are surprising and lead to the possibility of not only increasing our intellect, but also making mathematical physics a proper force in describing nature by completing our understanding of physics and mathematics. This incompleteness is due to our inability to understand the organisation and relativity that our universe is built upon and so we necessarily present a complicated view of science, to the consternation of people in general. This paper presents a simple view of the physical that is understandable, logical and seems to align with the physical and that is the context to the concept of the intellect that we need to improve to solve the big problems of society.

Keywords: relativity; creation equation; the mind; fractal universe; social engineering

‘If we do discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable in broad principle by everyone, not just a few scientists’ ( A Brief History Of Time, Stephen Hawking, p 209)

‘People distrust science because they don’t understand how it works. It seems as if we are now living in a time in which science and scientists are in danger of being held in low, and decreasing esteem.’ (Brief Answers To the Big Questions, Stephen Hawking, p 241)

Preamble

Stephen Hawking suffered from motor neurone disease ‘as someone who at the age of twenty-one was told by their doctors that they had only five years to live, and who turned seventy-six in 2018’ (Brief Answers To the Big Questions, Stephen Hawking, p 146), he certainly showed the determination that is necessary to Life. After all, everyone of us came from an unbroken chain of ancestors over three thousand million years that invested their energy into having offspring. He ‘was always attracted to big questions, whether they were deeply rooted in his science of not’ (p xxiii) and this provides the relativity that defines the information space that we need to consider to provide answers for today’s problems. The first quotation shows that there are problems in physics, that firstly, that there is no existing complete theory and secondly, that if one is discovered, it may not be understandable to everyone. On the other hand, this paper shows that physics is simple, but humans don’t think well enough to understand it.

The second quotation suggests that ordinary people do not understand science because scientists are unable to explain things simply, which suggests that scientists are not very intelligent and/or do not understand science because, I believe that the universe is simple. Unfortunately, it seems that scientists are: child-like, not sufficiently intelligent, and do not understand science well enough to make explanation simple. These claims are symptomatic of Homo sapiens in general: that evolved from the animals, is still predominantly animal, uses top-down thinking and are primarily specialists. Hence this paper aims to increase the intelligence of scientists by defining the software possibly used by the mind and upgrading that software by including the organisation behind the enigmas that have been ignored by scientists and so showing that science is simple. That scientists, as specialists, tend to be child-like is undeniable, but ignoring organisation is an omission that has cost humanity dearly [global warming, population growth etc.] and is a symptom of our immaturity as scientists, and in particular as social scientists.

Physics Revisited (Necessary for Relativity)

‘In 1980 I said I thought there was a 50-50 chance that we would discover a complete unified theory in the next twenty years. We have made some remarkable progress in the period since then, but the final theory seems about the same distance away. Will the Holy grail of physics be always just beyond our reach?’ (p 155) Now, 40 years later the situation has not changed because, I suspect, the ‘business’ of science does not want change and especially the journals that have rejected this approach, that is, my submissions. It is only now that Open Access has become available that allows new thinking to challenge the ‘club-like’ nature of the peer review system of determining acceptable scientific laws and this is shown by the necessity to include a disclaimer.

Disclaimer: this paper is an ‘opinion piece’ and not scientific because the scientific method [as stipulated by Francis Bacon] contains measurement only and lacks relativity between two measurements [the theory], and secondly, the scientific principle is flawed because it relies on peer review of previous work and I believe that Newtonian physics is correct, but too complicated to allow modern theoretical physics to be seen. Because this approach is so new, it does not build on the peer reviewed work of others [energy plus organisation is nothing versus force equals mass times acceleration] and fills a hole in our thinking that currently lacks relativity by being top-down only. Thirdly, physics retreated back into Newtonian physics and measurement a 100 years ago and is possibly resistant to change, and on understanding this paper, your mind may be changed [irrevocably] and that may jeopardise your standing in the physics’ community because physics does not include organisation explicitly. Fourthly, mathematics is considered to be a product of the mind, but the mind is shown to be a product of the same organisation that produces the universe and that should be recognised and appreciated, and it does answer the enigma that mathematical operators [concepts like pi etc.] equal an infinite series [entanglement] of fractions [destroying relativity] of numbers [organisation]. Fifthly, mistakes [contextual] may occur because I am a generalist, whereas a specialist is a specialist [conceptual] in a subject and would not be expected to make mistakes. This state of affairs is relativity and cannot be eliminated.

The reason that scientists cannot explain science is simply because physics, in particular, does not contain reasoning [theory or organisation that explains measurement] and that is because the scientific principle is based on Francis Bacon’s edict of measurement only. Newtonian physics started 400 years ago based on energy only and that thinking led to picturing the origin of the universe as the Big Bang hypothesis where energy was created [from nothing], cosmic inflation occurred, then stopped, all about 14 billion years ago. This is a typical creation myth that we are asked to believe, even though it is ridiculous [negative energy is a postulate that foreshadows organisation]. Let’s put some reason [which is organisation] into the discussion and say that nothing split into two things, a concept and a context [energy and organisation] that has the equation energy plus organisation equals nothing, which is a fractal because every concept must be related to every other concept in an organisation through contexts. For example, it is an enigma in mathematics that every operator [such as pi] is equal to an infinite sum of fractions, but this is an example of concept-context [1] and further, a fractal is simple and similar [because it is derived from a simple equation] and that requires everything to be simple.

Notice that energy and organisation have a relationship in the proposed creation equation that I call relativity, and multiplication is the functioning [of the relativity] and division shows the form [of the functioning] in a fractal. This is completely different to the normal use of multiplication [axb= a lots of b, or b lots of a] and division is just division and it is a property of relativity that emerges from the necessity of two things being created at the same time [one cannot exist alone]. Organisation also requires that a space be bounded and continuous and that everything in that space be entangled, and further, that energy and organisation must always be minimal in the physical [absolute 5 [1,2, 3], principle of least action]. With organisation being infinitely complex [context], it is small wonder that physicists chose to consider the energy [concept] on it’s own, but unfortunately, they still do ignore organisation for a number of reasons as well as the top-down child-like thinking that homo sapiens inherited from the animals [8].

So [3], the form of the creation equation is E/O=i(squared) where E is energy, O is organisation and i is the square root of -1, denoting relativity. Off the particle, we can only measure with a photon [whose speed is c] the measurement is E/O=c(squared), with the relativity of measurement [between the measurer and organisation] being c(squared) [Einstein’s equation] and within this interval [0 and c] is the realm of energy and organisation E/O=v(squared), where v is the speed of the particle, which is the equation of movement due to gravity. Thus, there is no need for gravitons, gravity waves or attraction, just the movement that is required by relativity [on both energy and organisation]. If it seems strange that organisation has gravity, Einstein suggested that space is curved [organisation] to double Newton’s attraction to get the correct answer [Eddington’s experiment].

The creation equation only exists in an accelerating space [otherwise it would self-annihilate[1]] and it has been found that our universe is accelerating, much to the dismay of physicists [Hoyle]. An expanding universe requires distance and time to begin, so, looking at the form of the creation equation [the equation is the functioning] by dividing the orthogonals [the independent dimensions of energy, organisation, time and distance] gives the speed of energy and organisation to be constant to the measurer, which happens to be the result of the Michelson-Morley experiment [much to the consternation of physics]. Energy and organisation divided by time is hyperbolic and is extremely large at small time creating cosmic inflation [another enigma of physics] as well as the everlasting acceleration [of the universe] that tends to zero [2]. The form of energy and organisation with respect to separation [division] is another hyperbola [3] [quantum gravity], with gravity decreasing with distance and increasing to an organisational state at very small separation [quarks]. These absolutes [forms that remain constant] of particles [(E plus O)/separation] can be multiplied [for relativity] and this multiplied form is the law of gravity, which was ‘inspire guessed’ by Newton 400 years ago and has not been derived by physics over this time in spite of it’s use in astronomy, satellites etc. [1]. Physics gave away theoretical modern physics a 100 years ago and retreated back to Newtonian physics, and used the absolute F/m=a, where F is force, m is mass and a is acceleration, which is probably a generalisation of Galileo’s absolute [F/m=g, where g is the acceleration due to the earth’s gravity] that is valid, but too complicated, but what else could it do?

This theory is possibly the one that is needed [as an orthogonality with Newtonian physics] to satisfy the wants of the quotation because it is simple, and for that reason is probably correct [Occam’s razor] and it can be understood by a logical mind. Further, it shows the magnitude [50%] that is the present incompleteness that hides the organisation behind social science and the possible means of controlling our present society and it’s disastrous effect on the environment [4, 5, 6].

Mathematics and Measurements

If physics is about natural processes, mathematics is about counting them, and it is not surprising that in a fractal [exhibiting simplicity and similarity], mathematics is based on the creation equation [concept plus context equals nothing] and the equation of mathematics is a number plus the organisation to every number on the number-line equals zero [7]. The Fibonacci series is well known to underlie Life, in particular in the packing of sunflower seed, reproduction of rabbits etc., but more importantly, it is recurrent and shows that the future is built on the sum of the present and past. This simple statement underlies all planning organisation and is written into every evolution and could define evolution because in evolution, the future is either better of worse than the past. If the future is better, the species improves, if not, the future is extinction and this is known mathematically as differences.

In terms of relativity, it is saying that our present is based on the past [a past goal] and that we must have a future goal, otherwise our presence is merely random-walk. This is a profound organisational statement that underlies our evolution because survival of the fittest says that we are the fittest, but the current lack of an organisational selection criterion is degrading us [as a species], as is obvious from the news reports [increasing allergies, diabetes etc.]. This presumably was the concern of Stephen Hawking in proposing the questions and these questions hinge on whether the universe is considered to be ‘real’ or an organisation, and that requires looking at it’s makeup. The theory above, suggests that the universe is an organisation that is built on goals and requires goals [Fibonacci series] and that those goals require social engineering to be used.

The question becomes, ‘is the universe “real” as religion teaches us and physics appears to agree with?’, and we are stuck with that ‘realness’, or ‘is the universe an organisation?’ and we can influence ourselves by using goals? The enigma that I choose, to enter this question, is that all of the operatives [concepts] in mathematics appear to be represented by an infinite series of fractions, such as pi [equals an infinite sum of simple fractions [pi = 4-4/3+4/5-4/7+4/9 …. (Alex’s Adventures In Numberland, Alex Bellos, p 153)], and these fractions [divisions] represent the form [used in the sense of division] of the number-line that must be infinite [completely entangled], and further, the form of the Fibonacci series [dividing the Fibonacci series by itself] tends to the golden ratio [p 290]. The golden ratio was found to be a continued fraction that provides ‘mathematicians with a way of rating how irrational a number might be. Since the expression for phi contains only 1s, it is the “purest” continued fraction that there is, and hence is considered the “most irrational” number.’ (p 423)

Hence, given that phi is the ‘most irrational number’, any affordance [1] associated with viewing an artwork should provide the commensurate [large] emotional response and any refusal to accept this means that art has no worth [or basis in fact, which might anger art-lovers], thus our universe would appear to be an organisation [8]. Traditionally, the golden ratio has been associated with increased emotion that, I believe, is generated [affordances] from the presence of increased organisation [such as golden ratios, colour relationships etc.] placed in the work of art, elegance, beauty etc. and seems to firstly, justify the assertion that the universe is an organisation based on the creation equation and our thinking. Secondly, we can change the organisation by using social engineering and, thirdly, recognise a superior organisation by listening to our emotion. Thus, there is a way to manipulate organisation within our society that is vastly superior to the set organisation of a ‘real’ world.

An organisation [that contains us] must be fully bounded and continuous within those bounds and must answer our questions [measurement] uniquely [absolute 5] with a relativity, such as that pi is the relation between a radius and a circle [concept] as well as being an infinite series [context]. If we ask ‘Why an infinite series?’, the answer is that it must be irrational [not rational] to be infinite, and if we ask is it transcendental, the answer should be yes because there must not be repeats. In other words, we must get an answer if we seek it, and that answer must be to the question that we propose and it must be unique [the closer that we look, the more accurate that it becomes, but never gets there [compare the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, where you can’t know two physical properties exactly [1]]]. For example, if we use a more powerful telescope, we can see further back in time and see more detail, but there is a relationship between time and space with a form that we call the speed of light that prevents us from influencing things possibly because the stars that we see are those that must have occurred to give the present day to us. In other words, what we see is what had to have occurred to produce the present using absolute 5 [8]. This does not make it ‘real’ in the sense of having existed. This is time travel, with the proviso that nothing can be changed because it is unreachable due to the speed of light.

Consider the question ‘what are the chances that we will encounter some alien form of life as we explore the galaxy?’ (Brief Answers To the Big Questions, Stephen Hawking, p 83). This would be a worry if the universe were ‘real’, but consider the answer ‘I prefer a fourth possibility: that there are other forms of intelligent life out there, but that we have been overlooked’ (p 85). I prefer the explanation that this universe is our Life’s creation until we meet some other life-form and our universes combine. In other words, the universe is built on our measuring, which is our requirement and expands and contracts as we require it. The concept of a ‘real’ universe with billion upon billions of galaxies is simply unbelievable [and unnecessary because we are doing the measuring] and a product of the limited top-down thinking of Homo sapiens.

Thinking and Emotion

It is surprising that the creation equation is, I believe, the basis to thought, but then, over three thousand million years, we should expect that the simplest, most efficient thinking would have evolved, and what is simpler than the creation equation? We think in concepts and contexts [the mathematics of concept-context] and use affordances [the creation equation] to transfer the organisation of our surroundings into our mind, using a criterion [that the universe can answer] and recording the string of action potentials in the brain for comparison [1]. The comparison is presumably made between the levels of emotion [energy] that the recorded concepts evoke, and that is the thinking [top-down] that the Life around us uses [including the animals and Homo sapiens].

Stephen Hawking suggests that ‘there is no time to wait for Darwinian evolution to make us more intelligent and better natured . . . . other qualities, such as intelligence, are probably controlled by a large number of genes . . . . once such superhumans appear, there are going to be major political problems with the unimproved humans, who won’t be able to compete.’ (p 80) In other words, Stephen Hawking realises that Homo sapiens cannot control society in the present [world wars, global warming, fuel and food shortages etc.], nor has been able to, in the past, and that changing genes requires a long time-frame [that we don’t have]. However, there is one notable exception that has been slowly dying over the last 2,000 years, and that is the magnificent social engineering that we call Christianity that grew out of a general need for security [a basic trait]. This sentence is saying firstly, that change can be made rapidly by changing the software of thinking, secondly, it has been done before, but neglected recently, and thirdly, is available through understanding social engineering.

The answer to saving civilisation is, I believe, understanding social engineering and the papers [4, 5, 6] are being held back until later in the sequence, but we can look at another aspect that does not involve social organisation, but uses physical organisation. The brain consists of a large number of concepts that have a number of contexts between them on one level [top-down] and as we learn more facts [concepts], the linkages [contexts] are linear [between the concepts]. If we consider that the possible affordances of say 5 concepts is factorial 5 [5x4x3x2x1 = 120] and 6 concepts is factorial 6 [6x5x4x3x2x1x = 720, then if we use relativity and bottom-up as well, the contexts become roughly three times as great and the number of contexts become factorial 15, which is 1,307,674,368,000! This comparison is simplistic, but indicative of the scope that increasing the software of thinking can have. This process uses the existing brain and can be implemented in one generation with none of the problems envisaged by Stephen Hawking, especially as social engineering handles the implementation [4, 5, 6].

In other words, changing the software is how to change the mind quickly and easily, and that requires believing this method., but it needs social engineering to control the change, and control comes from the goals that must be in place [for relativity].The knowledge of how to proceed [in general] is to consider the orthogonality [as a parable because we are using organisation] of technology that has given many of us a much improved lifestyle. Technology [composed of energy] is based on physics and materials engineering without regard to the effect [organisation] on society, whereas social engineering is based on social science and then on the social engineering of society. Unfortunately, social science [based on organisation] presently is based on physics that does not consider organisation explicitly and could be in error with respect to this model.

The Dummy-spit (Quantum Mechanics and Fermat’s Last Theorem)

It is against nature [and thus, against social engineering] that the old and experienced should change roles [it is the offspring that should move into new niches while the parent remains successful in the old niche], so, let us work around this omission by considering the problems that have caused physics so much grief [quantum mechanics] and mathematics [they appear to be little aware of the significance of the golden ratio], which links the mind [mathematics] to the creation equation [physical]. The golden ratio is being used as a means to an end [in this paper] and it obviously can not be used as an example, so, I’ll use quantum mechanics and Fermat’s last theorem as well as the the two examples of the hyperbolae of time and distance in cosmology [1, 2, 3].

Because of relativity [orthogonality] there exists the necessity of a conceptual and contextual proof being available and because physics and mathematics are incomplete, they make life difficult for themselves because quantum mechanic is simple [1] and Fermat’s last theorem, that took 200 pages of mathematical proof is obvious [physical, absolute 5] from the requirement of absolute 5 [‘no three positive integers a, b and c satisfy the equation a(power n) +b (power n) = c (power n) for any integer power of n greater than two (Wikipedia, Fermat’s Last Theorem)]. By an obvious proof, I mean a sufficient proof, in the spirit of the quotation, that Pythagoras’ theorem has a unique answer, because absolute 5 is a prerequisite for the existence of an organisation, and I am assuming that the universe is an organisation and not ‘real’, a situation that is indeterminate except to measurement. So, the mathematical proof is valuable because it helps suggest that our universe is an organisation and that mathematics is rooted in the physical.

Consider Euler’s equation (see below) that is enigmatic to mathematics by showing the relationship of concepts that shows the formation of the fractal that forms the universe [1, 2, 3]. Likewise, I believe that the golden ratio provides the maximum emotional energy of the spread [from zero to the affordance of the golden ratio] that is the segment of organisation that controls the mathematics of the mind-brain [mathematics of concept-context] and is the maximum link to mathematics [7], see below. Homo sapiens has been happily cruising, but now it is time to understand what is making the social problems, which Homo sapiens seem unable to control. Physics ran into it 100 years ago, called it quantum mechanics, and said ‘use it, but don’t try to understand it’, and went back to Newtonian physics. Physics does not want to look at itself because it’s mental attitude is based on specialists [concepts], whereas this paper is built on context [which are orthogonal and independent to concepts] and quantum mechanics is simply the ramifications of the creation equation [1, 8].

Mathematics has it’s own problems, which it ignores and says that mathematics is a product of the mind [only] and that subsets are independent of the set that contains them and just like physics [that came up against restrictions [of the creation equation]], mathematics has just motored on oblivious to the enigmas that it uncovers and then conveniently forgets. This behaviour, with it’s short attention span is typical of specialists that can put aside the hard problems and seek the pleasure of solving the easy ones and basking in the praise of peers [peer review]. [Notice that the pleasure in playing with mathematics is possibly the emotional energy produced in the brain by the organisation of an excessively complicated mathematical organisation [affordances]]. Physics has it’s Newtonian physics, that works, but is too complicated to show the modern physics that came from the Michelson-Morley experiment [a very large pothole that the speed of light was constant to every measurer]. How can pi [concept] be equal to a series of numbers [context]? Equals is actually an orthogonality seen by y=x on the two axes.

Consider ‘whatever two numbers you start with, the ratio of consecutive terms always converges to phi. I find this a totally enthralling mathematical phenomenon’ (p 291). Alex Bellos’s book is excellent, especially for an author that is not a practising mathematician [and is an example from the previous paragraph of a generalist] and the book is best summed up on the back-cover that ‘Alex Bellos explodes the myth that maths is best left to the geeks’. Indeed, this is a tidy summation, but it does not go far enough because what it should be saying is that generalists are needed to insert mathematics into the rest of science with more intelligence than mathematical physics combines mathematics and physics [compare multiplication and division, orthogonality etc.]. Alex Bellos still has one foot in the geek’s world with the comment ‘I find this a totally enthralling mathematical phenomenon’. The golden ratio might be a phenomenon, but it needs understanding, and it is not solely mathematical, but also physical [see Euler’s equation, below, and Fermat’s last theorem, above], and while totally enthralling, it needs a goal of what it is and what to do with it. This is why we need to use the goal of Homo completus and that goals [themselves] come from relativity. We need a new way of thinking because stupidity is not an endearing trait to find in anyone, especially in leadership, but that is wandering into social science, so, this is where mathematics gets ‘under the car and gets dirty’ and leaves it’s ivory tower.

The Nuts and Bolts of Mathematics

The aim: is to show that mathematics cannot escape from the construction of the universe and shows the relativity of the creation that produces the basis of life, namely that goals are the basis of Life. In other words, the Fibonacci series [mathematical concept] shows the form [by division] of an infinite series [context] that equates to an absolute [unchanging] concept [golden ratio] of Life that shows that goals [past, present and future] are the drivers of evolution. Or simply, the pursuit of mathematics is a fractal equivalent of evolution and we need to recognise goals for it to become useful in a field.

Firstly, the form of the concept [division of Fibonacci series by itself (p 290)] produces an infinite series of fractions [forms of the number line] that are the organisation of the number line which converges to a constant [phi] the golden ratio (p 291).

Secondly, the form of the Fibonacci series contains the context of past and future goals (p 285) relative to the present that is, I believe, the driving force of evolution for our species [at least] and is our organisational driver.

Thirdly, the golden ratio is the maximum organisation that equates [creation equation] to the maximum emotional energy that, through affordances, regulates our thinking [segment 0 to phi].

Fourthly, physics, mathematics and mathematical physics need to recognise the relativity [orthogonals] and bottom-up organisation to produce a truly descriptive theory.

‘The form of the Fibonacci sequence is shown by division of the terms:

F2/F1, F3/F2, F4/F3, F5/F4 ………………..

‘or (to three decimal places): 1, 2, 1.5, 1.667, 1.6, 1.625, 1.615, 1.619, 1.618 …

then the values of these terms gets closer and closer to phi, the golden ratio.’ (p 291) If we apply relativity to the sequence, such that:

F1/F2, F2/F3, F3/F4, F4/F5 ………………..

‘or (to three decimal places): 1, .5, .67, .6, .625, .63, .62 …

Thus the form of the Fibonacci sequence shows the relativity, and further, ‘the angle of 137.5 is known as the golden angle. It is the angle we get when we divide the full rotation of a circle according to the golden ratio.’ (p 296) thus, the form of the reciprocals are :

222.5/137.5 =1.62 and 137.5/222.5=.62

The golden rectangle ‘has the convenient property that if we were to cut it vertically so that one side is a square the other side is also a golden rectangle. . . . . we can continue this process to create granddaughters, great-granddaughters, ad infinitum. . . . A true logarithmic spiral will pass through the same corners of the same squares . . . the logarithmic spiral is one of the most bewitching curves in maths. In the seventeenth century Jacob Bernoulli . . . called it the spira mirabilis, the wonderful spiral . . . The fundamental property of the logarithmic spiral is that it never changes shape the more it grows. Bernoulli expressed this on his tombstone with the epitaph: Eadem mutata resurgo, or “Although changed, I shall arise the same”'(p 293) In other words, the concept of the logarithmic spiral is a mathematical absolute [does not change] and absolutes are the basis of organisation and the key to understanding the structure [form] of an organisation. For example, a business makes a product and in top-down thinking, that is it, but a business has a place that is a part of a bottom-up organisation.

Bringing it Together

The derivation of the physical universe was included, above, for a reason, just as the golden ratio, rectangle, angle and logarithmic spiral have been discussed. The former to show the organisation of gravity, which arises from the restriction to the existence of the creation equation, that builds a fractal universe from absolutes, the latter to do the same for mathematics and to show the bottom-up interaction that is supposedly shown by the top-down logic that mathematics is a creation of the mind. This is a dementia every bit as ludicrous as Newtonian physics’ attempt to represent modern physics and also mathematical physics to describe physics in mathematical terms [without orthogonality] . This is a dementia, not from a failing of the mind-brain, but because the mind-brain is incapable of understanding this model until it is pointed out [measured] and the software of the brain [that we use] is made complete and is synchronised with the construction of the brain [the bottom-up organisation of the physical]. This is the same building on measurement that created the universe and mathematics is apparently a universe with the creation equation a number plus the organisation to every number on the number-line equals zero [7]. The point of the logarithmic spiral is that it is an organisational absolute and it reminds us that there is a restriction that we assume in the organisation of the number-line, and that is that the organisational separation between all numbers is the same, namely 1.

Hence, considering Euler’s equation [9] from a physics point of view, 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 [as a fractal], it makes more sense because it reflects 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 (reflecting the lack of relativity)]. 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. Now, from a mathematical point of view, the 1 does have importance as the separation of the numbers on the number-line, which is a basic restriction that must be observed.

Conclusion and Prediction

Homo sapiens has evolved from the animals by the use of intelligence that has grown with an increasingly larger brain over millions of years, but the process is coming to an end through physical limitations and our intelligence is not sufficient to prevent us from wrecking Life on this planet. Clearly we need a new type of software that increases our intelligence without demanding a bigger brain, and this can be done because some birds are surprisingly intelligent with a brain the size of a walnut, due presumably to the limitations of weight for flying, and we need to bow to similar limitations. Instead of genetically changing the brain, we can improve the software that we use. We need more responsible people that have better personalities that don’t need a horde of public servants that try to control our every move by petty laws etc. We need to mature our personalities and our way of life for the future by genetic selection based on a rational brain to make Homo completus and that requires social engineering built on organisational absolutes.

That aim [for the future] needs a relativity in the present and, it has been said that pure research is justified in the future, so, when do we fix the miss-direction of past research if not as soon as possible? Consider that ‘the Journal of Mathematical Physics defines the field as “the application of mathematics to problems in physics and the development of mathematical methods suitable for such applications and for the formulation of physical theories”.’ (Wikipedia, Mathematical physics) This definition assumes that physics and mathematics are complete, reliable and useful and the above shows that this statement is possibly wrong. Even worse is the lack of organisation that we need to describe a complete mathematics and physics that is also crucial to a properly functioning society.

As a generalist I can say that the way to future goals is the recognition of relativity [the goals] and orthogonality in the the present top-down disciplines coupled with the bottom-up organisation offered here. Generalists are necessarily orthogonal to specialists and both are needed because they represent different aspects [concept and context] of any problem. A proper mathematical physics must be constructed without these artificial boundaries of history because we live in a fractal with simplicity and similarity underlying the whole [not particular divisions]. In the light of this, I think that we need a goal of Homo completus with relativity and bottom-up organisation as well as the historical advances.

Reference: 1. Penney D. Can Affordances Save Civilisation. Mind & Society. 2021; 20(1): 107-110, doi:10,1007/s11299-020-00265-x

2. Penney D. Why Solving Cosmic Inflation Could Change Your Mind. Int J Cosmol Astron Astrophys, 2022; S1(1):1-6, doi: 10.18689/ijcaa-s1-011

3. Penney D. Understanding Everything Means Understanding Nothing. Int J Cosmol Astro Astrophys, 2022; S1(1): 7-12, doi: 10.18689/ijcaa-s1-012

4. Social Engineering: Using Social Science To Improve Ourselves And Society ( From an unpublished paper)

5. Social Engineering: The European Common Market (From an unpublished paper)

6. A Future Scenario For Common Markets (From an unpublished paper)

7. Penney D. Exploring Numberland. Int J Cosmol Astro Astrophys, 2022; S1(1): 13-18, doi: 10.18689/ijcaa-s1-013

8. Getting Down And Dirty With Organisation. (From an unpublished paper

9. The Unification Of Symmetry, Simplicity And Similarity In A Fractal Universe. (From an unpublished paper)

Exploring Numberland

by Darryl Penney

Disclaimer: this paper is an ‘opinion piece’ and not scientific because the scientific method [as stipulated by Francis Bacon] contains measurement only and lacks relativity between two measurements [the theory], and secondly, the scientific principle is flawed because it relies on peer review of previous work and I believe that Newtonian physics is correct, but too complicated to allow modern theoretical physics to be seen. Because this approach is so new, it does not build on the peer reviewed work of others [energy plus organisation is nothing versus force equals mass times acceleration] and fills a hole in our thinking that currently lacks relativity by being top-down only. Thirdly, physics retreated back into Newtonian physics and measurement a 100 years ago and is possibly resistant to change, and on understanding this paper, your mind may be changed [irrevocably] and that may jeopardise your standing in the physics’ community because physics does not include organisation explicitly. Fourthly, mathematics is considered to be a product of the mind, but the mind is shown to be a product of the same organisation that produces the universe and that should be recognised and appreciated, and it does answer the enigma that mathematical operators [concepts like pi etc.] equal an infinite series [entanglement] of fractions [destroying relativity] of numbers [organisation]. Fifthly, mistakes [contextual] may occur because I am a generalist, whereas a specialist is a specialist [conceptual] in a subject and would not be expected to make mistakes. This state of affairs is relativity and cannot be eliminated.

Abstract: to be a science requires an absolute unchanging base for comparison, especially when everything about us is an organisation and not ‘real’ as has been believed for thousands of years, and both physics and social science need attention in that regard. Mathematics has always prided itself as being solely a product of the mind and independent of the ‘real’ world, but what if the mind is based on the same organisation as the sciences then mathematics may not be what we think it is? Mathematics can be seen to be an organisation built on the same creation equation but using numbers instead of energy and the number-line for organisation and this can be seen as pi [concept] equals an infinite [entangled] summation [organisation] of alternating and reducing divisions [eliminating relativity from the number line] that are fractions of whole numbers [the number line]. This view is mind-changing and provides a base to reconsider mathematical physics’ use of mathematics because the Fibonacci series, representing the physical, is linked to the mind through the golden ratio [intensity of emotion] and shows a requirement of relativity that requires a future Homo completus to align with the Fibonacci series that depicts Life that arises from the creation equation.

Keywords: the golden ratio; Fibonacci series; creation equation; fractal universe; the mind; organisation

Preface

Homo sapiens is proving to be a disaster to itself and the environment by thinking top-down like the animals, from which it evolved, and the necessary goal [for relativity], a future Homo completus, can be easily created by changing the software of our thinking by understanding organisation. What is not easy to change are the existing disciplines of physics, mathematics and social science etc. that have been built up over thousands of years without the benefits of organisation. The creation equation [energy plus organisation is nothing [1]] shows the relativity in everything and, in particular, allows us to realise that multiplication is the forming of relativity [context] and division is the removal of relativity [concept] and this shows, I believe, the true meaning of multiplication and division [2]. That multiplication is not just ‘a lots of b’, or ‘b lots of a’ should send a sense of apprehension through mathematicians because it signals a possible fundamental flaw, indeed, it signals the relativity of summing, subtracting, multiplication and division and it also signals a bottom-up organisational relativity that is relative to the top-down thinking that we inherited from the animals.

Looking at the form [division of the dimensions] of the universe produces absolutes [that do not change] that are the basis of every science, whereas physics uses [in everyday life] F=ma, where F is force, m is mass and a is acceleration. Unfortunately, this complex absolute obscures theoretical modern physics and so that theory has been discouraged for the last 100 years. Mathematics has tried to insulate itself from the physical, by ignoring it, and social science has never had a theoretical base because no organisational absolutes have been recognised until now [3, 4, 5].

In other words, the best that Homo sapiens can do in referring to organisation is Occam’s razor that says that ‘the simplest organisation is usually the best’, and, considering that organisation makes up 50% of the creation equation in our fractal universe, we may have to revise our thinking. But first, we must set goals to include relativity in everything that we do. This requirement may sound trivial, but goals cannot be made with top-down thinking because top-down thinking is guessing and it requires bottom-up thinking with regard to a different logic, which is, I believe [6]:

true, false, alternating true-false, our-other universe, chaos, restrictions, fractal-social engineering

The Physical

Firstly, the functioning of the universe is due to the fractal generated by the creation equation [energy plus organisation is nothing] and using the division of the dimensions [energy, organisation, time and length] we find a hyperbola of time [leading to the big Bang, cosmic inflation, accelerating universe etc.] [7] and of distance [law of gravitation, quantum gravity] [2]. Touching base with experiment [Michelson-Morley], we find that the division of length by time is the speed of light that is constant to every measurer no matter what their speed. Physics accepts this reluctantly and will not entertain the obvious that the universe is not ‘real’, but an organisation, probably because physics does not contain organisation explicitly. If we look at the relationship [entanglement] of the form [division] of the creation equation [E/O= i(squared), where E is energy, O is organisation and i is the square root of -1 and like one thing [of a relativity] does not exist], and accept that this is on the particle, Einstein’s equation [E/O=c(squared)] is measuring off the particle using a photon that travels at c with the relativity also measured by the organisation, and this relativity being c(squared) [2]. These two end points [i and c] must contain a reality [for particles with speed v] and within that reality E/O=v(squared), which is the form of gravity [parabola] that comes from the acceleration of the universe and the requirement of relativity.

Unfortunately, physics is having trouble in coming to terms with this theory of modern physics and clings to an incomplete scientific measurement [Francis Bacon] that requires theory [for relativity] and a disastrous principle of science that tries to legitimise physical laws by acclimation built on prior published work. I believe that this theory is that which physics needs and has waited for, for a hundred years, in fact, physics has waited 350 years to have the law of gravity derived as the relativity [multiplication] of the absolutes [(E+O)/l, where l is the separation of two particles] because Newton ‘inspire guessed’ it [1].

Social Science

The universe is an organisation that contains organisation explicitly in the fractal generating creation equation and any organisation must form a reality [continuous and bounded] in every part, and in particular, that includes the physical, the environment, Life and our society. The physical environment must always have the form and functioning that is minimal [absolute 5] for the organisation to uniquely exist [as above] and the environment impacted by animals, and the animals themselves generally operate efficiently because they have evolved [over a long time] in that environment under the pressure of survival of the fittest. Thus, the organisational behaviour of the animals is usually close to the best for that environment and we can use that organisation confidently in a similar situation. However, our society has, what I call Socrates’ questions, such as ‘How much valour should we expect?’, or, ‘Do we agree on this line of action?’ etc. These are question that are answered by a command [Kings, Queens, dictators etc.], voting, custom etc. that depends on the political system in use. Some people think that the best course of action is to elect a leader, or a group of politicians and let them run the country, some are content with hereditary Kings and Queens and some are resigned to living under dictators, and then there is religion that is often the handmaiden of governance and offers personal values. However, these organisations often seek to benefit themselves with generous pensions, wages, luxury goods etc. at the same time that they pay lip-service to democracy and public good.

Social science [with appropriate absolutes] leads to social engineering which is the control of the functioning of technology, and is also the setting of goals [relativity] and the use of absolutes to derive organisation to achieve those goals using a basic form of democracy, which is voting by people that are informed, interested and prepared to vote. Clearly, ‘informed’ requires the pros and cons to be available, presented by recognised experts, perhaps on a website, so that the ‘interested’ can access it and vote by phone or similar in real time prior to the decision [3, 4, 5]. We can use modern technology and organisation to bring our governance system closer to the idealised ancient Greek system that we appear to desire. Governance, including religion, has, up until now, required agents, but mobile phones now allow us to take part in a true democracy. Homo completus is a goal that we can obtain by using modern technology, organisation and improving the mind of Homo sapiens.

The present system of electing one of two political parties that has (somewhat) unfettered rights is a sham and perversion of democracy that belongs in a bygone era [of Homo sapiens and predating the internet and mobile phones] and can lead to corruption, and I will give two examples that affected me. Firstly, I received a demand for money [presumably to business people and in my case for $1,700] for ‘Council’s contribution to the NSW Government Emergency Services Levy’ without any regard to my expectations as a citizen , and secondly, it appears that a previous Prime Minister took it upon himself to take over five portfolios of government ministers with the knowledge of the Governor General, who did not make this fact public [apparently it was not his job to do so, whereas I believe that it was, as an agent]. Parliamentarians are our (so-called) leaders, and yet our present system does not protect voters from the ‘limelight’ seekers that wish to strut the political stage. Compare the nineteenth century’s Sir Henry Parkes, ‘to him, it was an honour to serve the people. . . This was a time when neither parliamentarians nor government ministers were paid a penny’ (Pasteur’s Gambit, Stephen Dando-Collins, p 47). Are we more enlightened, or being conned?

Mathematics

It is crucial to realise that the creation equation [energy plus organisation is nothing] is not E+O=0, as would be expected using mathematics or mathematical-physics because energy and organisation are orthogonal and so different that they are independent. This leads to the question of entanglement because every part of an organisation must be entangled with every other part and also, every organisation has a unique energy [because of absolute 5 in the physical]. Thus, if the universe is an organisation, then entanglement is necessary and physicists have measured the existence of entanglement of particles [created together] and the relativity [orthogonality] that quarks cannot be separated. Notice that relativity is the form of the creation equation [which is the functioning of the universe] and an example is the Heisenberg uncertainty principle that seeks to destroy the form of the universe [that momentum (energy) and position (organisation) cannot be measured precisely] and the relativity that quarks cannot be separated [because they would become a particle with non-zero speed]. Orthogonality is like the Cartesian axes [completely independent (but entangled) except at the origin] and the dependency [functioning] is apparent at the origin, where the form is E/O.

I have divided zero by zero [E/O], which is frowned on in mathematics, but mathematics uses numbers and thinks in terms of similar things, such as sheep, whereas, I am using concepts and context that are independent, but logically entangled through the creation equation. The dimensions of time and distance are linear and dividing by them leads to hyperbolae of firstly, the Big bang, cosmic inflation and accelerating universe, with time [2], and secondly, with distance, quantum gravity [7]. In other words, the form of E/O is different because of the restriction of absolute 5. As a reality check, consider the quotation ‘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’. (Beyond Weird, Phillip Ball, 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 and length are dimensions and must be orthogonal so that ratios can uniquely define absolutes. This suggests that the current use of mathematics does not include the means to handle the bottom-up concepts and contexts that emerge from the creation equation and to provide an inclusive mathematics requires a relativity similar to that proposed for physics [a relativity of top-down and bottom-up organisation]. This requires adding the current mathematics to that derived from the creation equation as well as changing the software that our brain currently uses. Changing the way we think is the reason for the disclaimer, above, because the scientific principle requires everyone to thing the same way [peer review] and this is a threat to careers, promotion etc. So, let’s start at the beginning with how we think.

The Mathematics of Concept-context

Mathematics was derived from the need to count sheep etc., but a mathematics of thought would come from the creation equation and be simple and similar [in a fractal]. It starts with measurement because the universe [organisation] must return a unique answer [absolute 5] and that answer is called an affordance [1] and is the working of the creation equation. Posing a question increases the organisation of the subject [to include the questioner] and that raises the energy [via the creation equation] in the mind of the questioner that we call emotion and provides a measurement of the worth of the question to the questioner. The string of action potentials [representing the thought] is possibly held [as action potentials contained in a circular path] that can be re-read to compare it’s affordance to new insights and this could be the mechanism of the mind.

Mathematics is just as basic [as the creation equation] and [possibly] uses numbers [concept] and their relationship to other numbers [context], which must be similar [in a fractal]. The concepts [held as strings or permanent storage in the brain] are remembered [read] and produce affordances [emotion], the magnitude of which is the decision maker, and the amygdala is triggered by the level of the emotion to record concepts [experiences]. The more concepts that you remember, the more intelligent you are and that is the reason for academic learning and the experience that comes with age. In other words the number of concepts increases arithmetically, but the context [between the concepts] could [possibly] increase factorially! In other words, if you had 5 concepts then the context could be 5x4x3x2x1, which is 120, so, increasing the context is our main aim and this requires logical organisation .

Home sapiens has done well in some areas [technology], but has been unable to secure an ordered world that is stable and not in danger of collapsing. We need Homo completus with a mind that must be more competent than it is currently and the secret is to increase the concepts, but much more importantly, the contexts by using relativity and bottom-up organisation. As an example of how context is holding us back, consider the scientific method of Francis Bacon that stresses measurement-only and that physics has restricted theoretical modern physics for the last 100 years and hence the necessity of the disclaimer, above.

Mathematics

‘Most mathematical activity involves the use of pure reason to discover or prove the properties of abstract objects, which consist of either abstractions from nature or – in modern mathematics – entities that are stipulated with certain properties, called axioms.’ (Mathematics, Wikipedia) This reminds me of Bertrand Russell’s attempt to define mathematics and his paradox on subsets because mathematics ‘ involves the use of pure reason’ where mathematics is a subset of a mind that is built on a fractal that is simple and similar, as the universe, above. This situation occurs with top-down thinking without considering the restrictions imposed by the creation equation including relativity and bottom-up organisation.

I have often wondered why pi and other mathematical concepts are equal to an infinite series:

pi/4=1-1/3+1/5-1/7+1/9 ………. (Alex’s Adventures in Numberland, Alex Bellos, p 152)

and further that ‘eventually, calculus provided other infinite series for pi that were less pretty’ (p 153). This is an enigma on which mathematics has been silent, presumably because mathematicians have no answer, even though many readers must have wondered why so many mathematical operators are infinite series? This is not a negligible question when even the uninformed, like myself, wonder why this should be? The answer does not greatly affect mathematics, as it stands, but it challenges the common assertion that mathematics ‘ involves the use of pure reason’ because this paper shows that the creation equation that generates mathematics is of the same form as the creation equation that presumably produced the universe [as would be expected in a fractal]. The general equation [concept plus context equals nothing] becomes the creation equation [energy plus organisation equals nothing] for the universe and for number theory is something like a number plus the organisation of every number on the number-line equals zero which shows the relativity of the numbers.

So, division destroys the relativity between numbers and shows the form [a value], multiplication restores the relativity and produces function and addition and subtraction complete the sideways relativity and top-down and bottom-up relativity [of organisation]. This can be seen in the summation of values that converge to pi, and also in the Fibonacci series, that a distinct amount is added with each term and is an alternative to the decimal notation, but it is the only way that the restrictions can be accommodated, which are total entanglement [the series] and relativity of operator [concept] with the organisation [number-line]. This must be, because a fractal is simple and similar. It has often been said that the universe is mathematical, but this theory says that both [the universe and mathematics] are the result of a fractal derived from relativity and we should expect similarity with the added restriction on the universe of simplicity [absolute 5], gravity [from accelerating space] etc.

From the supposition, that I propose, it is obvious that every concept [mathematical or otherwise] has an infinitely entangled context and that there is effectively no difference between physics, mathematics, social science etc. except for our convenience and the creation equation allows this change in thinking [compare ‘involves the use of pure reason’]. Thus, a lot of mathematics is based on the physical [compare as above ‘in modern mathematics – entities that are stipulated with certain properties, called axioms.’] and a further example is ‘the Fibonacci sequence is so called because the terms appear in Fibonacci’s Liber Abica, in a problem about rabbits (p 286). ‘An important feature of the Fibonacci sequence is that it is recurrent, which means that each new term is generated by the values of previous terms (p 287).

Consider that Johannes Kepler, and later, Scottish mathematician Robert Simpson saw something even more incredible. ‘If you take the ratios of consecutive F-numbers and put them in a sequence . . . . then the values of the these terms get closer and closer to phi, the golden ratio.’ (p 290) And further, ‘the Fibonacci recurrence algorithm of adding two consecutive terms in a sequence to make the next one is so powerful that whatever two numbers you start with, the ratio of consecutive terms always converges to phi. I find this a totally enthralling mathematical phenomenon.’ (p 291). I believe that organisation plays a big part [50%] in the affairs of the universe and that this organisation that effects numbers does so for a reason that is discussed below [past and future relativities].

Relativity

Relativity is the primary feature of the creation equation and is the relativity of each of two things that split from nothing and secondly, each thing is relative to every thing else [entangled] because that is a requirement of an organisation, and these two effects are relative to each other. For example, from above:

firstly, pi [concept] is equal to an infinite entanglement of numbers that are unique forms by virtue of their division, and

secondly, ‘the Fibonacci recurrence algorithm of adding two consecutive terms in a sequence to make the next one is so powerful that whatever two numbers you start with, the ratio of consecutive terms always converges to phi’ (p 291) is a general organisation [context] that produces phi [a concept]. Note below that the Fibonacci series is a general statement of relativity [past and future].

These two examples show, I believe, that there must be two [for relativity] examples, firstly, an infinite series for phi, and secondly, an organisation that creates phi. In other words, everything has a relativity and as those relativities are independent then two proofs [at least] are available, a concept one and a context one. Thus physics has been working with ‘one hand tied behind it’s back’ and social science has both hands immobilised because of their lack of understanding organisation.

Relativity is not just to be found in esoteric places as above, but in everyday life. We live with affordances continually because every time that we measure something [look, hear, feel etc.], the creation equation converts the organisation of whatever we measure [with a purpose in mind] into emotional energy in the mind-brain in the measurer [presumably where the question originated]. An organisation has to react with anyone questioning the organisation because firstly, that is the nature of an organisation, and secondly, all parts of the larger organisation containing the measurer are entangled. Thus the square is always involved and examples are E=mi(squared), E=mc(squared) and for particles E=mv(squared), which acts like gravity, as above, as well as Pythagoras’ theorem, Born’s rule etc. that each require the square because the absolute [E/O] is registered by each party as a relativity [multiplication]. Note also that gravity affects everything and that it could be thought of as a relativity not a force, as above.

Relativity produces affordances that our brain uses to produce a mind [a comparison of emotions], as above, and is used by Churches and government with robes, uniforms, large buildings, parades, state funerals etc., as well as in mundane articles of art, poetry, beauty etc. to influence our emotions. It is the organisation within the article, such as the Mona Lisa painting that is reputed to contain the golden ratio, that was inserted by the artist Leonardo da Vinci. ‘The major work on the golden ratio was Luca Pacioli’s The Divine Proportion in 1509, which listed the appearance of the number in many geometric constructions, and was illustrated by Leonardo da Vinci’ (p 284). The most common representation of the golden ratio is to divide a line segment a, b into two segments (a+b)/a and a/b and when these are equal, they form the golden ratio (p 284). The division produces the forms [out of the entanglement] on the line that has the most organisation, and the most important organisation is presumably equality.

If something, in an organisational sense, is to have the most organisation, when measured [affordance], the energy produced is maximal [from the creation equation] when these two things are equal and absolute 5 [that it must be a minimum in the physical] must be obeyed. From the two points above, there is the organisation [context] of the Fibonacci sequence and the golden ratio [concept] we have to add the relativity that is the Fibonacci series. The relativity of distance and time is in the Fibonacci series because the present must have a past and a future [relativity] and the future is generated by the past as a fractal. This is the problem with our present society, that it does not have goals and has lost the betterment of survival of the fittest and this goal is important because without goals, we lose relativity. In fact, Life is the Fibonacci series because the future is built on the past.

‘An important feature of the Fibonacci series is that it is recurrent, which means that each new term is generated by the values of previous terms. This helps explain why the Fibonacci numbers are so prevalent in natural systems. . . . one of my favourites concerns the reproductive patterns of bees.’ (p 287) I could go further by saying that the Fibonacci series is the basis of Life, that two parents produce offspring and that the rationale behind the living of life is the previous and the future goals that must be in place for a society [macro] or individual [micro] to be optimally able to function. In a fractal, the social attributes are shown mathematically to be similar and the form of the Fibonacci sequence is shown by division of the terms:

F2/F1, F3/F2, F4/F3, F5/F4 ………………..

‘or (to three decimal places): 1, 2, 1.5, 1.667, 1.6, 1.625, 1.615, 1.619, 1.618 …

then the values of these terms gets closer and closer to phi, the golden ratio.’ (p 291)

Thus, the Fibonacci series is a context of the structure of Life and the form is to divide the terms [of the context] that form an infinite series that leads to the concept, and that is phi, the golden ratio. However, in a fractal, we can expect a particular result [because of relativity at least] and indeed we find that this is a general organisational result of any sequence that shows the ‘way of Life’ by using the requirement of relativity [past and future goals]. ‘So, just say we start with 4 and 10, the following term will be 14 and the one after that 24. . . . .

10/4, 14/10. 24/14, 38/24, 62/38, 100/62 . . . .

2.5, 1.4, 1.714, 1,583, 1.632, 1,612, 1.620, 1.617, 1.618 . . . . (p 291)

The author [Alex Belos] goes on to say ‘I find this a totally enthralling mathematical phenomenon’ (p 291) and this is a typical top-down response because it is as he says, but the bottom-up organisational logic that I am using asks why is phi the weird number ‘1.61803 39887 49894 84820 . . . .’ (p 284)? This excellent book gives the answer [that is tucked away in the appendix] because, I believe, bottom-up reasons show that much more insight is available than is recognised by Homo sapiens. If the universe were ‘real’, as has been believed for thousands of years, we accept what we get, but if the universe is an organisation, we expect a logical construction that is well ordered and obeys absolute 5 [principle of least action]. So, why is phi an irrational number? Not that being an irrational number is important, the important point is where it fits into an organisation where it has a significance [an organisation is built on and around important points]. Indeed, if the [organisational] concept of phi is rational, the value can be irrational [context], just as pi and many other concepts are, but it proves that the universe is organisational [on concepts] and that any other non-unique universe could not exist [absolute 5], so, is phi significant?

‘The continued fraction is a strange type of fraction constructed by an infinite process of additions and divisions’ (p 423) and is historically important [see Wikipedia, Continued fractions, History]. To understand how this works, let’s take the fraction line by line and see that it closes in on phi:

1, 1+1=2, 1+1/(1+1)=1.5, 1+1/(1+(1/(1+1)))=1.66, . . . . .

‘Continued fractions provide mathematicians with a way of rating how irrational a number might be. Since the expression for phi contains only 1s, it is the “purest” continued fraction that there is, and hence is considered the “most irrational” number.’ (p 423) Hence, given that an organisation is a set of important points, our universe would appear to be an organisation.

Conclusion and Prediction

I think that it has become obvious that everything can be considered to be based on the creation equation, even if we, or the universe create new universes, such as black holes, modern mathematics [built on axioms] or the weird world of modern physics [built on Newtonian physics]. Relativity requires setting past and future goals and that is largely missing in the affairs of Homo sapiens and is probably the reason, along with the lack of organisation that has contributed to the poor performance and problems besetting society and this is a direct result of the quality of our thought which needs relativity and especially bottom-up organisation to produce a Homo completus that we can rally around and finally separate us from the animals and then use social engineering to improve society in a macro and micro sense [3, 4, 5].

Generalists are different to specialists according to the creation equation and both are needed in a modern complex world, especially in the social sciences with social engineering having micro and macro distinctions in governance and religion. If a functioning society is our goal, what of past experiences that are impeding it? Physics is mired in Newtonian physics and has been unable to progress with theoretical modern physics for 100 years, and indeed has apparently become religion-like and unchanging to the extent that it retreated into measurement [Francis Bacon]. Mathematics has insisted that it is a function of the mind and logic [Bertrand Russell] in spite of it’s basis in everyday life, and appears to seek an ivory tower. Well, ivory towers and sanctuaries exist for specialists, but the above shows the need for generalists to bring everything together and create an orthogonality, entanglement and relativity with all other disciplines.

In particular mathematical physics needs a proper base and that base could be an orthogonality between the creation equation of the physical and mathematics [a number plus the organisation to every number on the number-line equals zero], after all, how do we explain the Fibonacci series that is the mathematical representation of Life with a mathematics that ignores Life? [This is similar to that which Newtonian physics tries to do.] The enigmas of the Fibonacci series and the golden ratio are laid to rest by a complete mathematical physics where the Fibonacci series [function] divided by itself [for form] sums to a series that converges to the golden ratio [the maximum organisation and energy] that produces the maximum emotional effect on our mind, and possibly the best form.

There must always be a prediction [goal], and for the higher forms of Life, it is the Fibonacci series that shows the prediction [of future generations], and we see it in today’s uncontrolled population increase. The introduction of rabbits into Australia led to a plague and attempts were made to find a biological weapon and Louis Pasteur proposed chicken-cholera (Pasteur’s Gambit, Stephen Dando-Collins), but the attempt failed because of the self-seeking attitude of the participants and was accomplished decades later with the introduction of myxomatosis. Today, people are the pests, just as the rabbits were because we think like the animals with no goal for the future and we are waiting for the next [post COVID] plague to eventuate. The Fibonacci series and relativity are goal-seekers and we must set our sights on Homo completus and predictive social science [3, 4, 5] if we wish to come to terms with a new society.

Reference: 1. Can Affordances Save Civilisation, Mind & Society,20(1), 107-110. doi:10.1007/s11299-020-00265-x

2. Understanding Everything Means Understanding Nothing. Int J Cosmol Astro Astrophys, 2022; S1(1): 7-12, doi: 10.18689/ijcaa-s1-012

3. Social Engineering: Using Social Science To Improve Ourselves And Society, IJSSS. (From an unpublished paper)
4. Social Engineering The European Common Market. IJSSS. (From an unpublished paper)

5. A Future Scenario For Common Markets. IJSSS. (From an unpublished paper)

7. Why Solving Cosmic Inflation Could Change Your Mind. Int J Cosmol Astron Astrophys, 2022; S1(1):1-6, doi: 10.18689/ijcaa-s1-011

Understanding Everything Means Understanding Nothing

by Darryl Penney

Disclaimer: this paper is an ‘opinion piece’ and not scientific because the scientific method [as stipulated by Francis Bacon] contains measurement only and lacks relativity between two measurements [the theory], and secondly, the scientific principle is flawed because it relies on peer review of previous work and I believe that Newtonian physics is correct, but too complicated to allow modern theoretical physics to be seen. Because this approach is so new, it does not build on the peer reviewed work of others [energy plus organisation is nothing versus force equals mass times acceleration] and fills a hole in our thinking that currently lacks relativity by being top-down only. And, just what does ‘times’ mean? Surely not mass lots of acceleration or acceleration lots of mass! This paper shows that multiplication and division have physical properties [mathematical physics is obviously flawed] that are not understood and lead to the hyperbola of distance [quantum gravity] that complements the previous paper [reference 10] that considered the hyperbola of time [Big Bang, cosmic inflation, accelerating universe etc.]. Thirdly, physics retreated back into Newtonian physics and measurement a 100 years ago and is possibly resistant to change, and on understanding this paper, your mind may be changed [irrevocably] and that may jeopardise your standing in the physics’ community because physics does not include organisation explicitly. Fourthly, mistakes [contextual] may occur because I am a generalist, whereas a specialist is a specialist [conceptual] in a subject and would not be expected to make mistakes. This state of affairs is relativity.

Abstract: physics is riddled with enigmas because it (literally) ‘does not know nothing’, and nothing, relativity, restrictions, logic and organisation are the key to that understanding. What is the true (according to this model) meaning of (mathematical) multiplication, the Big Bang, quantum gravity, the law of gravity, quantum mechanics, the speed of neutrinos and the structure of the universe, and for mathematics, what does Euler’s equation mean, and that multiplication and division are manipulating relativity? Nothing can produce an accelerating universe [in an organisational sense] that forces a motion on everything that we believe is an attraction that we call gravity – silly us! No gravity waves or gravitons, just a new way of thinking. This paper suggests that we live in an organisational universe composed of nothings that are held apart as energy and organisation by an accelerating space that our universe has been found to be experimentally [Hoyle] and it’s form, as atoms, by the lack of reactivity of neutrinos. Science and [it’s orthogonal] social science are incomplete due to an incorrect use of science [lack of absolutes] and that lack is destroying civilisation and needs this model to show how understanding organisation can put us on a better path.

Keywords: Principle of Science; Big Bang; gravity; relativity; Euler’s equation; neutrinos; multiplication

The Aim

This paper follows the form of the universe through the hyperbola created by the division of the fractal generating creation equation by distance to create absolutes that show the form [of gravity, quantum gravity, law of gravitation etc.] of the construction of the organisation that is our universe. This follows the first paper [reference 10] that showed the hyperbola created by time [functioning as the Big Bang, cosmic inflation, accelerating universe etc.] because distance and time are created by the restriction of an accelerating space that is required for the creation equation to exist. These relativities [energy, organisation, time and distance] describe the form and function of everything in the universe and show that Francis Bacon’s measurement [form] needs theory [function] as well [as a relativity].The purpose of science, as commonly thought, is to simplify, which allows our mind to improve it’s software to allow us to understand social science [reference 7, 8, 9] and social engineering to control the technology that evolved from science. and thereby save civilisation from the incompetence of Homo sapiens.

Multiplication as a Concept

Homo sapiens thinks that it is pretty smart, and even wise [sapiens], but sadly, it harbours many delusions and one such is the multiplication of numbers that took so much effort to learn in school. Mathematics knows it as the number axb = a counted b times, or b counted a times and ‘one of the main properties of multiplication is the commutative property’ (Wikipedia, Multiplication) This very restricted view is the result of only using the top-down approach and not understanding the basic [bottom-up] organisation of multiplication and so, it is the way of thinking [software] that may be the problem. Another example [reference 3] is Newtonian physics that uses an absolute of F=ma [where F is force, m is mass and a is acceleration] that was probably generalised from Galileo’s F=mg where g is the acceleration due to gravity] instead of the simpler creation equation [energy plus organisation is nothing], below. The muddled thinking of the above two cases is the problem that is resolved by realising that the creation equation produces a fractal which has relativity as it’s base and that the space created is orthogonal and entangled [reference 4]. A fractal is derived from a simple expression and the space exhibits simplicity and similarity which is shown in the creation equation.

Multiplication works for us [as a counted b times, or b counted a times] in a simple and similar space [fractal] because the universe uses it in some way that we do not realise, and that is as a product [not multiplication] of the creation equation [concept plus concept is nothing] and the requirement of absolutes. ‘Bacon’s method is an example of the application of inductive reasoning’ (Wikipedia, Baconian method), is organisationally top-down and leads to (effectively) guessing, whereas to properly theorise, we need a science that is predictive relative to absolutes. Francis ‘Bacon’s influence led to a focus on practical experimentation in science. He was, however, criticized for neglecting the importance of the imaginative leaps that drive all scientific progress.’ [Scientific Revolution] (The Little Book Of Philosophy, p 57) Organisation is a context and is more difficult to understand than concepts, so I will use examples, such as that physics is based on energy [concept] for simplicity because energy is a quantity that is a linear variable [continuous from zero to infinity], whereas organisation is equally variable in the sense of complexity, and they could be called orthogonal because each is totally independent [but entangled] of the other [reference 2].

If we use a creation equation such as energy plus organisation is nothing to describe the physical, then obviously these two things must be kept apart to exist and that can only logically be done in an accelerating frame of reference, and this was verified by Hoyle [all stars are accelerating away from us]. Note that there must be acceleration in the radii, and it is pretty obvious when you think about it because gravity comes from the acceleration of the space, and even F=ma suggests that. If the universe started with the Big Bang, the creation equation came into effect, time and distance started and with energy and organisation became the dimensions, where the dimensions are orthogonal, and entangled. Notice that entangled specifies an organisation and everything must be entangled through the creation equation and that brings the concept of a ‘real’ universe into question.

The celestial scene makes for good experimentation because it is (effectively) a closed system with limited relativity, which is important because relativity is not like Einstein’s relativity because this model says that everything is relative, and in particular, considering a sun and it’s planet, the relationship between the two, the so called law of gravitation, had never been derived, but was an ‘inspired’ guess on the part of Newton. Is it true, that after 350 years with satellites, cosmology and astronomy being rampant, the basic equation has never been derived? Could this be taking Bacon’s requirement of measurement-only to extremes? I would hazard a guess that we do not understand the multiplication and division that is used in the equation F=mg, but first an example of the fractal that we live in and how multiplication [and later division] are really forms of relativity that arise out of the creation equation.

Let’s look at Euler’s equation [reference 5], 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 [as a fractal], it makes more sense because it reflects 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 (reflecting the lack of relativity)]. 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” (Beyond Weird, Phillip Ball, 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 because relativity is shown by ‘1’ and ‘-1’ 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, having deconstructed Euler’s equation back to the creation equation, let us construct the law of gravitation from the creation equation because it shows that multiplication is adding relativity and division is removing relativity. Finally, it can be realised that addition, subtraction, multiplication and division are the relativity [context] of a number [concept] that parallels the top-bottom organisation and sideways relativity of thinking in this new theory. 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). The fifth absolute is that the universe has to always contain minimum energy and organisation (principle of least action) [reference 1].

Thus, the variability of the fractal has been eliminated by considering the absolutes [of the dimensions] that construct our universe and we will see that it is the acceleration of the universe [a restriction] that creates gravity [what we call the ‘attraction’ of everything to everything else], and in particular, the ‘attraction’ to both concepts and context, being energy and organisation in the physical. The word ‘attraction’ is used by us (because that is what it appears to be), but it is an effect of the acceleration [of the universe, and a restriction], as we shall see. Einstein postulated ‘curved space’ to double the effect of the attraction of matter [which he equated to energy [gravity waves]] and gain the correct answer [Eddington’s experiment], whereas this theory says that length, time, energy and organisation are linear with the acceleration a logical restriction. Consider the following, where a distinction is noted between ‘position and momentum’ [effectively energy and the organisation (that physics explicitly ignores) from the creation equation] and ‘energy and time’ [between the creation equation and a dimension that is a restriction]

‘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 and length are dimensions and must be orthogonal so that ratios can uniquely define absolutes.

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?

As above, Newton ‘inspire’ guessed the law of gravitation and Einstein corrected the law by doubling the result by postulating ‘curved space’ and predicting gravity waves. However, ‘according to recent theory, the reason that mass is proportional to gravity is because everything with mass emits tiny particles called gravitons. These gravitons are responsible for gravitational attractions. The more mass, the more gravitons. Graviton theory also accounts for differences in gravitational attraction over distance. Most gravitons exist in a cloud around the object. As distance from the object increases, the density of the graviton cloud goes down, so there is less gravitational attraction.’ (www.qrg.northwestern.edu) I have to point out that waves are energy and that gravitational waves are top-down thinking, and similarly with gravitons, although they do possess organisation [as particles], but don’t mesh contextually with the form of the universe. The explanation in this theory is that gravity is (possibly) an illusion and is a product of the acceleration restriction on the universe, and that that is the form of gravity whereas the function is the communication that must exist in an organisation as a logic [and necessary for it to be defined as an organisation].

This paper also describes the software that I believe is used in the brain that is built on this model because the mathematics of concept-context is assigning a value [compare emotion] to the context of the value [compare affordance] that that concept has to your wants. The next step is to compare [numerically – level of emotion] two values to make a decision on which to choose [reference 11]. This suggests that a principle of science that has been built on measurement [Francis Bacon] without theory [relativity between measurement] with laws agreed to by peer review is ridiculous. Compare the thinking that comes about by using the mathematics of concept-context based on the creation equation as used in this paper with the thinking that postulates gravitons, gravity waves and just plain attraction of masses [as has occurred through history]. The more that we organise our thinking, the better that we think.

Multiplication as a Context

‘The implication is clear (or at least, it was clear to Einstein): Gravity causes acceleration, and acceleration causes gravity. They are absolutely identical.’ (www.space.com) This statement is true to the extent that gravity (apparently) changes in a lift and there is a recognised acceleration due to gravity on falling objects, but it does not tell us what gravity is, or where is comes from. This model suggests firstly, that the restriction of an accelerating space on the creation equation produces gravity that is overall [across the universe] which is similar [in effect] to the graviton theory. Secondly, quantum gravity is simple and well defined by the absolute [E/l plus O/l, as above] and acts as faint at large distance and organisational [quarks] within the atom [hyperbolic with separation]. Thirdly, the law of gravitation, in this theory, is as simple as can be and is the product [multiplication] of the absolutes of each body, bearing in mind that both energy and organisation are included [reference 1, and that (E+O)/l]. Notice that the result is achieved without postulating ‘curved space’ [plus attraction] and simplifies to an overall effect.

Fourthly, looking at the creation equation, there is a relativity between energy and the organisation of a particle that must always be a minimum and we can destroy that relativity [by division] and we find that E/O is i(squared) on the particle, but what if we measure off the particle? Our universe is a very simple place with particles that have the form delineated into four types, below, by their speed and if we wish to investigate them, we have to specify the particle, in the same way that we must ask a specific question with affordances [because our universe is an organisation and must return a unique answer]. The question is what are we using to measure and the most obvious is the photon that has speed c [the alternative is to be on the particle, which is E/O=i(squared) that shows the relativity only [i(squared)]], thus the communication speed is c and only c [and that is why the organisation is so simple]. Thus the form is E/O and the function is c, hence adding [actually a multiplication] relativity [the organisation must record the measurement] the form of the creation equation becomes E/O=c(squared) and this is Einstein’s equation. Thus, in the correct context, E=mc(squared) becomes a triviality and shows that this derivation is on track.

Fifthly, an organisation requires communication [as a restriction] and our universe uses four speeds to delineate the components, rest, moving, squeezed into the asymptote and the speed of light. Physics seems to not recognise this organisational restriction that simplifies the hundreds of atomic particles that have been found, and also, that neutrinos are elegantly handled [in the asymptote] and that illustrates the restriction of continuity [reality] that must occur in an organisation [absolute 5].

The standard model could do with a little revision and I suggest the following:

Concept: everything is relative and energy plus organisation equals zero in everything, so this is a table of operations categorised by the organisation of speed [tier one] and lifetime [tier two], the acceleration of the universe affects everything as a gravity and internally as quantum gravity [(energy plus organisation) divided by separation relative to something else]

Context: plus [tier 1]: quarks up and down [no speed]

proton, electron [less than light speed]

neutrinos assorted [near light speed]

photon [light speed]

Plus [tier 2]: bosons, muons, taus, neutrons and other quarks [organisation changelings] Reference 6.

Sixth, the restriction of reality is vital to an organisation, otherwise magic can occur and magic is the possibility of two different outcomes at the same time, which is why absolute 5 is necessary. Reality can be unbounded and continuous like energy and organisation, above, or four discrete steps, as speed, above, but those steps can be bounded and speed can be zero, greater than 0 and less than c, just under c, and c. We have found the forms for the extremes [E/O=i(squared) and E/O=c(squared)], but what of the particles [having speed v] themselves relative to the universe because the reality affects them by necessity? In other words, what is the form of the creation equation because we have only been looking at it’s functioning? That would be E/O=v(squared), which is parabolic, so, in a celestial setting with a sun and planet [for relativity] (effectively) isolated, this equation would suggest that they would affect each other as if they were attracted to each other with an attraction according to the law of gravity above. This is as expected, where the [independent] parts of relativity would be expected to produce the same effect. Indeed, orthogonality suggests that both a conceptual proof and a contextual proof is available throughout an organisation [at the same time] and how this is another problem with physics [relativity links two independent things together to simplify].

I have read that Einstein was the last of the classical physicists, and he seems to have put forward a hybrid model that seemed to accept the attraction of mass-energy as well as the inclusion of the generation of gravity by acceleration by postulating ‘curved’ space. This guess gave the correct answer [Eddington’s experiments] and that quieted physics, but this model uses simple space and time and the acceleration of the universe supplies all of the [albeit decreasing] gravity. Notice the point that was raised in the last paragraph that, is it the restriction to the creation equation, and the ‘square’ of relativity that produces a ‘curved’ space and produces gravity, or are we seeing two co-joining effects as seen in the derivation of the law of gravity, in effect a relativity that cannot be avoided? At least it is comforting to realise that the necessary decrease in acceleration will never reach zero [asymptote].

Notice that a hundred years ago, it was not the constant speed of light that was the problem, it was that the speed was constant relative to every observer, no matter how they were moving and physics ‘shut down’ theoretical modern physics in the face of this, because the physical apparently interacted with the mind of individual people. This fact [Michelson-Morley experiment], swept away the very basis of physics, that was the unchanging ‘realness’ of the universe that had been assumed for thousands of years. The scientific principle that research was built up by succeeding generations was thus suspect, and the edict of measurement [Francis Bacon] was also suspect [as man-made rules], but if the universe was not ‘real’ and [basically] unchangeable, physics no longer had a basis in science [no absolutes]. In other words, firstly, the [man-made] laws of physics were suspect when extended to theoretical modern physics, and secondly, if the universe interacted with people directly, it must be an organisation and physics was literally unfounded [because it did not contain organisation explicitly]. No wonder that there was a shut-down of theoretical modern physics’ theory and a concentration on measurement for the last hundred years until the situation clarified itself. In essence, a possible conspiracy may have come into being that altered career paths and the amount of money allocated to research that may have been redirected. I believe that this theory easily resolves the problem because this theory is more basic and does not affect Newtonian physics except at the extremes. In other words, we can use relativity to simply separate the two systems to make a complete [relativistic] system [everyday Newtonian physics and modern physics].

Seventh, it could be considered that every particle is composed of energy and it’s associated organisation [wave-particle duality in a fractal that switch between the two and so are held apart [concept and context]] and that what we see as different particles are actually the same particles delineated by speed only, with all moving under parabolic paths. Now that is simplicity, and a necessary simplicity according to absolute 5. There is no logical reason why two views of the organisation cannot alternate [as long as it is too fast to be measured] as the wave-particle theory hints, and I believe that Einstein was awarded the Nobel prize for suggesting that the wave particle duality was two forms of energy, whereas the creation equation considers them to be energy and organisation [not a subtle distinction]. Remember that the inertia of the Newtonian concept of mass is localised, whereas this theory considers the overall interaction within an organisation and shows the relativity expected between the universe and Life.

Eight, a restriction is apparent, that come from the formation of charges and neutrinos that result from the decomposition of the unstable neutrons. Clearly, if a proton approaches an electron they should attract and [if the neutrino were available and reactive, it should form the unstable neutron] resulting in a loss of information when the neutron disintegrates randomly. However, atoms necessarily follow the same form as gravity and form minute planetary systems. Is it any wonder that the law of charges emulates the law of gravity and that both have not been derived. In other words, although the results are similar and simple as required in a fractal, the mode of gravity and charge attraction are fundamentally different, a supposition that is not apparent in current physics, indeed the opposite is assumed [attraction of masses and (opposite) charges]. Further, the restriction of the necessity of the unavailability of neutrinos to react ensures that atoms form and provide the continuity of existence necessary for the universe and us to have evolved.

Ninth, the above is based on the simplicity of bottom-up organisation and is foreign to the top-down thinking of Homo sapiens and therein lies the problem that affordances to the measurer [the conversion of organisation to emotional energy in the brain] requires a [unambiguous question with only one answer (absolute 5)] question by the measurer and the question that needs to be asked is unavailable to Homo sapiens because the physical [organisation and energy] uses a logic that we don’t recognise. A complete logic, I believe is [reference 4]:

true, false, alternating true-false, our-other universe, chaos, restrictions, fractal-social engineering

and Homo sapiens uses the first two terms only [in science] the remainder referencing the physical and social science. As an example of not being able to ask the necessary questions, physics does not recognise organisation explicitly and the last term [social engineering] is lacking in our organisation of our society to the extent that social science is not a science because it does not recognise organisational absolutes and this lack is responsible for the present social problems that we face worldwide.

Tenth, relativity is part of everything and is the reason for goals and viewpoint [Homo sapiens versus Homo completus] and I could continue with the entanglement of organisation, but particularly pertinent is to replace the historical ‘real’ universe with an organisation of possibilities, and yet we maintain traditions of religion and governance that are 2,500 years old and flawed. This can be seen in the form of Pythagoras’ theorem that shows the ‘squares’ that occur when we consider orthogonality [the form of the universe]. Life and the universe [the organisation] communicate when a ‘right’ angle is involved and this 2-way communication is similar to that considered to be the preserve of some of the Gods. The social engineering behind religion needs updating because we now know that the universe is large enough to be God and this realisation should bring science and religion closer together.

Conclusion and Prediction

This paper redefines multiplication and division in terms of relativity, shows the form of the universe through the dimensions [energy, organisation, time and distance] as well as the form of the creation equation [energy, organisation] that shows the relativity that produces an organisation that must be entangled with the energy and that “you can’t have one without the other”. In other words, our thinking has been incomplete [without organisation] that has created the problems of science and especially for the social sciences because, while physics has an absolute [albeit complicated], the social sciences have no organisational absolutes.

If our modern technological society came from [materials] engineering built on physics, there exists a social engineering based on social science [for relativity] that we need to organise and manage our society and the state of the world. [Consider ‘a stitch in time saves nine’]. I have written a predictive social science [reference 7, 8, 9] that is based on the creation equation that should allow a transmission from Homo sapiens to Homo completus by changing the software used in our brain. This has been the goal for thousands of years and, in many forms, by all the religions, and, in particular, the Second Coming that can be effected by ourselves.

This paper is about simplicity, from first principles and defies Homo sapiens’ propensity to complicate things, such as masses attract each other, gravitational waves and now gravitons, whereas this theory says that there is no gravity, but the effect is simply the result of restrictions [acceleration, relativity etc.] required to define an organisation for the universe to exist. Of particular importance is the suggestion of a revised table of subatomic particles based on speed and lifetime which shows the additional restrictions of charge and the neutrino’s lack of availability that allows for the organisation that is Life. It is also difficult to overstate the simplicity of the derivation of the law of gravity as the sum of the product of absolutes [of energy and organisation], but simplicity and similarity is a product of the creation equation [producing a fractal]. A consideration of relativity shows that goals [time and place] are necessary and Bacon’s requirement of measurement must have a reason behind the measurement [a requirement of all affordances], and that question is the theory that must be associated with measurement. In other words, Bacon’s idea is incomplete, the critics are correct and organisation must be used explicitly in the method of science, particularly absolutes in a fractal universe composed of relativity. Given this situation it is obvious that multiplication is relativity and division creates the necessary absolutes that must be used to create a science and not the abomination that is the principle of science [peer review built on published work].

The universe is simple when the brain [that we inherited from the animals] has it’s software changed, and that changing is ‘part and parcel’ of this paper, but physics has, I believe, become a religion secure in the knowledge that Newtonian physics works [in the everyday], although it is excessively complex [shown in reference 3]. After the debacle of the last 100 years [typified by ‘use quantum mechanics, but don’t try to understand it’], this theory could be what physics needs. Needs, but not wants, might be the case because a safe unchanging ‘religion’ is presumably what physics wants, but the organisation can be applied to social science and has been submitted [reference 7, 8, 9] and must be considered eventually for inclusion in physics.

This leads to the necessity of expanding Bacon’s requirement [measurement] to include relativity [theory], organisation [creation equation] and embrace the generalist [context] because relativity says that specialists and generalists don’t think the same way. In other words, Newton and Einstein [and me] were outside of the scholasticism of the mainstream and did not follow Bacon’s edict, made guesses and mistakes, but perhaps this model is a better fit, and obviously simpler, when our thinking changes, and change it must because we tend to ride ‘roughshod’ over everything we touch and it needs understanding if we, and the environment, are to have a secure future. When we look at the present science and social sciences, with it’s enigmas and lack of organisation in the new light of this model, it must be apparent that the time has come to sweep away the old and use a new software for an old brain to make a Homo completus that has a future.

Reference: 1. Form of the Universe, Can Affordances Save Civilisation, Mind & Society,20(1), 107-110

1. From an unpublished paper What Is Economics?

3. From an unpublished paper A Letter To Physics

1. From an unpublished paper The Logic Of The Half-truth And Plato’s Cave

5. From an unpublished paper The Unification Of Symmetry, Simplicity And Similarity In A Fractal Universe

1. From an unpublished paper Tweaking The Standard Particle Physics Model Versus Modern Physics