A Letter To Physics

by Darryl Penney

Abstract: physics has ignored theoretical modern physics for the last 100 years, but now, that social science has become a true predictive science, this same new model can be used to understand the organisation that physics has ignored for 350 years and make a complete physics.

Keywords: Principle of Science; Francis Bacon; relativity; creation equation; gravity; inflation

Physics is in poor shape, and seems incapable of fixing itself, probably through the deficiencies of Homo sapiens itself [as having evolved from the animals and not liking change] and in particular, the definition of science as given by 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) Physics needs theory and is incomplete because absolutes are needed [for relativity] to compare measurements and this statement is the Principle of Science and is not that which Francis Bacon implies. Newtonian physics seemed to work, until it suddenly did not work with modern physics, and physics realised that it didn’t understand how or why things worked as they did. Einstein might be considered the last classical physicist that believed that the universe was ‘real’, but no one has a clue as to what it really is, and physics was in no hurry to question that statement, and closed down modern theoretical physics a hundred years ago with the classic admonition ‘to use quantum mechanics, but don’t try to understand it’

Physics appears incomplete [considers energy only] and lacks explicit mention of organisation, logic [reference 2] and restrictions and is not a real science because it lacks adequate absolutes [the absolute that it uses (acceleration due to gravity) is unnecessarily complex]. How can anything be a science without fixed basic absolutes? [I think that Homo sapiens needs an upgrade to the mind, which is what this letter is also seeking.] Physics rejected this model [reference 1], which was taken up by the social sciences that can (hopefully) now be considered real sciences because they contain absolutes of organisation [reference 3, 4. 5]. So, having shown the value of this approach, I once again offer it to physics. Firstly, we need to consider the scientific principle that must contain absolutes [to destroy relativity] and contain theory [to consider relativity] and secondly, consider a space that derives organisation, logic and restrictions, and the absolute of that space is the creation equation that generates a fractal, thinking, gravity and the universe in general. The overall effect is to change the way that we think, to encompass better concepts [specialist] and apply context [generalist] to them and to realise that they are orthogonal [basically independent].

Technology has created a successful modern world, albeit with social problems, with physics actively feeding the process but physics appears to have become a modern-day religion that dislikes change, and this is understandable, because, in nature it is offspring that seek out new niches whilst the parents continue their success. There are no enigmas in technology, but physics is riddled with them and that is because [materials] engineering follows Francis Bacon’s dictate of measurement, but physics also needs theory. Indeed, like the proverbial frog, physics had one foot in Newtonian physics and one in modern theoretical physics until it became too hot and the latter was sidelined a hundred years ago.

The answer is simple and is that the universe is based on relativity, not just Einstein’s relativity, but a relativity that is basic to everything and this can be found in reference 1. The paper links the organisation of the environment to the emotional energy of the measurer, by the act of measuring, and by remembering scenarios, explains the concept of thinking, and further, relativity requires that social engineering is related [orthogonality] with technology and yet social engineering is derived from social science. But first, social science had to be made a science [references 3, 4, 5] by establishing absolutes of organisation, and organisation is a problem that physics refuses to face, and that is because it’s current absolutes are not sufficiently simple and yet we live in a fractal [reference 2] that requires similarity along with simplicity and this creates enigmas because thinking is limited, and it is limited by using ‘Bacon’s method is an example of the application of inductive reasoning’ (Wikipedia, Baconian method). Inductive reasoning is top-down reasoning and needs the organisation, that physics ignores explicitly, to understand that bottom-up reasoning is necessary as a relativity.

It is a well known proverb and unfortunately appropriate here, ‘that you can lead a horse to water . . . . ‘,so, perhaps a few examples might suffice. If we strip the sameness out of two different things, we will be left with a difference [orthogonality], such as concept-context, for example energy [a concept that is infinitely numerate from zero to infinity] and organisation [a context that is infinitely complex from zero to infinity] that could have come [or been created] from nothing using a creation equation such as energy plus organisation is nothing. 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. For example, Newton required masses to attract each other [law of gravity], Einstein required energy [photons] to be attracted also, and this gave the correct result when he required space to be curved [an organisation]. Clearly, as below, space is linear, thus speed [of light (energy and organisation)]is constant and acceleration is curved [hyperbolic, a constant divided by time].

Everything is changing relative to everything else, so, the classic way [of handling this problem] is to divide one by another to cancel out the relativity [linked variability] and create an absolute. This was Archimedes’ “Eureka” moment where he used density! So, doing similar, the orthogonals [dimensions] of our universe are energy, organisation, time and distance and dividing them creates the absolutes [reference 1], and as an example, distance divided by time is the constant speed of light [energy and organisation] relative to any measurer, no matter how they are moving [Michelson-Morley experiment] and that enigma ushered in modern physics. [It was thought that the speed was constant relative to the environment [aether] and any motion of the observer would naturally change it.] The speed is constant because both time and distance increase linearly [see Occam’s razor] and the universe must be an organisation [not real].

When we divide energy and organisation by time [to eliminate relativity], we see a hyperbola, infinitely large at time zero and positive for all time. This corresponds to the Big Bang with a huge creation of energy [and organisation] initially, and presumably the momentum is currently thought to provide the expansion [though the continued acceleration is an enigma]. Physics has found evidence for this “cosmic inflation”, where the space expanded far faster than the speed of light for no apparent reason, but according to this theory, cosmic inflation was the rapid creation of energy and organisation that was a restriction on the creation equation [ being a hyperbola]. Note the ability for energy to be created [with organisation].

Conclusion and prediction: because relativity always requires goals, the bottom-up goal is the reason behind quantum mechanics, as shown in reference 1 and the top-down goal is that this theory can complement the existing theory. In other words, physics considers quantum mechanics to be a superb theory, without understanding it, because it is built on an organisational basis that is different to the ‘real’ world that we would like the world to be, and so, current thinking is biased and needs an epiphany or flip-flop of the orthogonality of viewpoint. Thinking is a comparison of the affordances presented by measuring the organisation of the measurement overlain by the restrictions required by Life and a generalist is needed to make sense of the work of specialists, and that links into the social sciences. That epiphany demands a new way of thinking [perhaps a new Homo completus] that requires a return to goals to replace that of the animals [survival of the fittest] and complete the innovation that technology started [with farming].

Physics needs to recognise that the Principle of Science requires absolutes and this can be easily done by using Newtonian physics [top-down] in everyday use, along with this model [bottom-up] for the atomic with the recognition of relativity at all times and the following should make this clear.

Why Newtonian Physics is Not Physical [reference 6]

Galileo’s law of motion [an absolute that F/m=a is the force (F) on a mass (m) due to the constant acceleration due to gravity (a)] was, 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 [only the measurement], 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 equals zero. This becomes energy/organisation=i(squared), where ‘i’ is the square root of (-1) compared to F/ma=1. This is the point where Newtonian physics departs from the physical and disregards relativity. 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 (of ‘i’) are ‘imaginary’ without measuring relativity].

Does force [‘F’] have a physical meaning, in spite of the above? Yes it does, because relativity, as above, only exists if the relatives are kept apart [accelerating universe, celestial mechanics], but celestially, relativity acts as a pair of measurers that use the effect of the accelerating space [that we call gravity] to keep two bodies orbiting each other [in a stable state]. Thus ‘F’ is the ‘gravitational attraction’ [of energy and organisation] that causes quantum gravity [the dimensions of energy plus organisation divided by the separation [an absolute]] to be what each measures and so the gravity equation is the multiplicand of the absolutes of each body. Thus, Newtonian physics moves into the non-physical world [no relativity] in considering the motion of a [one] particle [F=ma]. Newton ‘inspire guessed’ [meaning that he could not derive] the law of gravitation and this was ‘corrected’ by Einstein who added organisation to double the effect [of Newton’s equation] by postulating a ‘curvature of space’ [rubber sheet analogy]. That this analogy produced exactly an equal amount of attraction as did the masses [twice the effect of Newton’s equation] did not appear to be questioned, presumably because this was ‘justified’ [gave the correct answer] by experiment [Eddington’s observations] and physics tolerated this, but quantum mechanics was ‘a step too far’. In fact, the ‘rot set in’ when the wave-particle duality was considered to be two forms of energy [which they are not, from the creation equation].

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

1. From an unpublished paper The Logic Of The Half-truth And Plato’s Cave
2. From an unpublished paper Social Engineering: Using Social Science To Improve Ourselves And Society submitted to IJSSS

5. From an unpublished paper A Future Scenario For Common Markets submitted to IJSSS

6. From an unpublished paper The Dysfunctional Family of Newtonian Physics

Why Solving Cosmic Inflation Could Change Your Mind

by Darryl Penney

Abstract: the theory of cosmological inflation is a credit to humanity’s determination to understand the universe, but, it also shows that humanity’s thinking is ‘top-down’ and that we think as the animals have done for 3,000 million years, but a good effort, none the less, especially because physics does not actually access the basic physical. However, a simple model generated from a creation equation of a fractal suggests that cosmic inflation is a natural part of the creation of a universe and, also, the model allows a combination of top-down and bottom-up thinking together with relativity that shows how our thinking might be enlarged, using a new software that actually accesses the physical uniquely. Enlarging our thinking involves combining common usage ideas into similarities that are part of a larger whole and answering questions such as the acceleration of the universe, quantum gravity, singularities, cosmic inflation, dark matter and simply, just what is our universe?

Keywords: cosmic inflation; fractal universe; mathematics of concept-context; the mind-brain; relativity

Preface: this is an opinion piece, written to suggest a new way of thinking that combines the convenience of present-day Newtonian physics with the relativity that defines the physical and also shows that the organisation of our mind-brain is necessarily similar to the organisation of our universe as would be expected from a fractal. The surprise is firstly, how closely the model fits with what physics seeks to explain in cosmic inflation but is incapable of explaining, leaving enigmas, secondly, how poorly our current intellect has performed in the past when viewed from this new perspective and thirdly, how simple is the means of ‘reworking’ our thinking by tweaking the software behind its use.

Preamble: a joke occurs when the jokester ‘leads us up the garden path’ organisationally with a sudden simplification of the organisation, by design, in our mind-brain that creates energy [according to the creation equation] that we expel involuntarily as a laugh. Further, an epiphany is a shocking realisation that our thinking has been wrong, so, an epiphany is a joke that teaches us something new that is of profound importance, and perhaps this paper will change our thinking because it may change the software that we use in our thinking.

The story so far: Galileo’s law of motion of a body in a gravitational field [an absolute that F+(-mg)=0 is the force (F) on a mass (m) due to the acceleration due to gravity (g)] was generalised as Newtonian physics and Newton also ‘inspire guessed’ [meaning that he could not derive] the law of gravitation and this was ‘corrected’ by Einstein who added organisation by doubling the effect [of Newton’s equation] by postulating a ‘curvature of space’ [rubber sheet analogy]. That this analogy produced exactly an equal amount to the attraction of the masses [twice the effect of Newton’s equation] did not appear to be questioned, presumably because this was ‘justified’ [gave the correct answer] by experiment [Eddington’s observations] and physics tolerated this, but quantum mechanics was ‘a step too far’ and physics retreated into it’s original role of measurement by saying ‘use but do not try to understand quantum mechanics’. Firstly, measurement might be Francis Bacon’s edict [the scientific method] but it requires theory [for relativity] and secondly, Einstein’s ‘curved space’ is an organisation and not an acceleration, although, as a guess, it seems to make sense that something has to be non-linear [to create acceleration], but according to the model it is not correct because the space must be accelerating [as a given restriction].

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

The assumption is often made that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, presumably based on Einstein’s special theory of relativity that postulates [uses] the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment that shows that the speed of light [in vaccuo] is always constant to an observer irrespective of the observer’s motion. This is an example of the way that top-down thinking can lead to ‘muddying the water’ of scientific thinking. The speed of light is an absolute to any observer, see below, and it is also a restriction on the functioning of the universe [speed of energy and organisation] because energy and matter are only differentiable by their speed [and organisation] and this effect is the wave-particle duality [and so they can never be the same, for if they do, the universe loses form]. The dimensions [energy, organisation, distance and time, not the coordinates used in physics] are not absolutes and change to preserve the state of the absolutes and it is this simple requirement that caused the consternation a hundred years ago of changing masses, time, length etc. with speed. The space generated by the universe is, as we shall see, a function of time, but I will not spoil a good story.

The state of mind: we are a ‘measuring animal’ and the product of 3,000 million years of measuring everything to stay alive because a mishap in measuring makes us dinner for something else, so we have evolved a way of creating a symbiosis with the environment that allows measuring, and that is top-down thinking. Organisationally, top-down is logically poor [reference 2] and produces a multitude of theories that may or may not be correct, as we shall see, compared to bottom-up thinking that usually produces a clearer understanding. In other words, we use top-down thinking to coexist with the environment in our evolution, but since leaving survival of the fittest, top-down thinking has caused major problems [over-population, global warming etc.] and only when a composite thinking [relativity] is used can it be seen how poorly we function in a new world of our own making. This cosmic inflation problem is a case in point.

Relativity: is everywhere around us [hot/cold, love/hate, open/closed etc.], but it is not sufficiently appreciated that the universe is completely relative and the form of the universe becomes apparent when we remove the relativity, which can be done simply by a division of the dimensions to produce absolutes. The derivation is given in the section Form of the Universe, below, and in particular that the speed of light is an absolute and constant [to any observer], a fact that caused great consternation over a 100 years ago. It was not the constant speed of light that was the problem, it was that the speed was constant to every measurer, no matter what their motion, and it was the intrusion of Life [the mind-brain of the measurer] into the physical that was so shocking, and it still is because Newtonian physics is not based on the physical!

The stage is set: firstly, the Big Bang is unbelievable because it is the creation of energy from nothing, but this is reconcilable when it is realised that the requirement of relativity shows that physics is incomplete and ignores the relative of energy, which I have called organisation, for the want of a better word. Secondly, cosmic inflation suggests speeds greater than the speed of light and this is correct because we are talking about two different things and Einstein’s ‘curvature of space’ does not help because it is the accelerating space that is the explanation and is a necessary condition [restriction] for the existence of the creation equation of the universe. In other words, the ‘accelerating space’ is needed for the creation equation to exist, whereas the speed of light is one of the absolutes necessary to the structural form of the universe.

The current theory is, ‘in physical cosmology, cosmic inflation, cosmological inflation, or just inflation, is a theory of exponential expansion of space in the early universe. The inflationary epoch lasted from 10−36 seconds after the conjectured Big Bang singularity to some time between 10−33 and 10−32 seconds after the singularity. Following the inflationary period, the universe continued to expand, but at a slower rate. The acceleration of this expansion due to dark energy began after the universe was already over 9 billion years old (~4 billion years ago). . . . The detailed particle physics mechanism responsible for inflation is unknown. The basic inflationary paradigm is accepted by most physicists, as a number of inflation model predictions have been confirmed by observation; however, a substantial minority of scientists dissent from this position. The hypothetical field thought to be responsible for inflation is called the inflaton.’ (Wikipedia, Inflation, (cosmology))

‘Sweetening the plot’: technology is so important, so useful to the modern world that it must be correct even if a few inconsistencies occur occasionally in the theory, such as that the universe ‘popped’ into existence as an explosion of energy from nowhere. How can this energy continue to create an accelerating universe [as has been experimentally measured] and ‘explained’ by dark energy, above, when the Big Bang was a one-off occurrence? Further, ‘no physical field has yet been discovered that is responsible for this inflation. . . . The proposed field and its quanta (the subatomic particles related to it) have been named the inflaton. If this field did not exist, scientists would have to propose a different explanation for all the observations that strongly suggest a metric expansion of space has occurred, and is still occurring (much more slowly) today.’ (Wikipedia, Inflation (cosmology)) Cosmic inflation is ‘a big deal’ in cosmology and shows that much time and thought has gone into what appears to be a complicated subject that has been built on Newtonian physics, and yet, according to this model, it must occur as a natural part of the creation of universes and the problem is in the ‘mind of the beholder’.

The punch line: just suppose that the universe started as a ‘whimper’, with nothing [literally nothing] dividing into energy and organisation, as is possible [compare vacuum energy], then the necessary acceleration of the space [from the creation equation] between them must be distance divided by time squared, but the speed of light [distance divided by time is a constant], so the acceleration of the space is inversely proportional to time. Thus, the expansion of space starts at time zero, and dividing by zero makes for big big numbers that rapidly decrease with time [hyperbola]. That could be a simple answer to cosmic inflation and an accelerating universe!

The explanation: a theory of cosmic inflation is appealing because the physical measurement indicates that it happened, and it could [must have according to the model] have happened as a natural result of the expansion [acceleration], but because physics is based on, I believe, incorrect absolutes, our thinking has been ‘muddled’. Muddled is a ‘place-holder’ for the situation that relativity demands a new way of thinking from the one that the animals have used for 3,000 million years and the ‘software’ that we use to create physics and our civilisation. Reading the below will automatically install a new software into our existing brain as we understand it and, considering the state of civilisation at the moment, we sorely need a new way of thinking.

The quotation above gives the impression of exactitude in the time that inflation occurred and ‘dark energy’ operated, whereas, this model predicts a simple continuous shape for both inflation and the effect of ‘dark energy’ is not needed. This should not be too difficult to check, however, a problem occurs that is part of the creation equation. This paper is ‘generalist’ and that makes it possible to incorporate the model into physics, but, a specialist is required to determine the truth of this assertion. Relativity is at the core of the new way of thinking, and, like the wave particle duality, cannot be wished away. In other words, the specialist has delved deeply into the speciality, but the time has come to ‘cross-link’ specialities and this model shows how it can be done. Note that the general creation equation is concept plus context is nothing and thus specialist and generalist are involved, and whilst there is distance and time relativity, time relativity is why previous and future goals are needed in planning.

The epiphany: was that an epiphany? Does it make a complicated theory simple? That is the problem with top-down thinking, it is ‘hit or miss’ and I suggest that physics got it wrong and that is why they have retreated into the safety of measurement and closed down theoretical modern physics.. A new way of thinking is needed, and this may be it, one that requires sideways relativity and bottom-up organisation to go with the top-down organisation that we currently use. I should say that mathematics is built on counting sheep and suffers from the same problems, whereas the working of the mind appears to be based on affordances [reference 1] and a mathematics of concept-context that is apparent from the creation equation.

The section below restructures physics, but the problem is more widespread than physics, another paper [reference 6] shows that a lack of fundamental relativity originated, in our society, with the pre-Socratic Greeks and has been carried forward with top-down musings for 2,500 years and even into Newtonian physics which has been used to try to understand modern physics. In other words, an incomplete mental software has created a flawed society, but now a better means may be apparent by using a new way of thinking. This new way of thinking consists of concepts and contexts that outline a rational complete way of thinking, based on the creation equation that allows a double orthogonality of relativity and organisation.

Conclusion: this paper is about the simplicity and similarity of a fractal that can be followed from bottom-up to re-organise our view of everything around us and the change in our view of cosmic inflation is an example that shows that it is the archaic software that we use in our brain that is hampering civilisation and threatening its demise. So, this paper may bring an epiphany to some and dismissal to others because change can be very difficult for some people unless a strong rational explanation is given as to why it should be effected that may help in this regard, however, physics is ‘littered’ with enigmas, and the following explanation might provide some dining-out conversation for the table as well as an illustration of the on-going cosmic inflation, above.

‘One of the more peculiar jobs of the BIPM [Bureau International des Poids et Mesures] is coddling the International Prototype Kilogram . . . . Alarmingly, scientists noticed during calibrations in the 1990s that, even accounting for atoms that rub off when people touch it, in the past few decades the Kilogram had lost an additional mass equal to that of a fingerprint(!), half a microgram per year. No one knows why.’ (The Disappearing Spoon, Sam Kean, p 315) It could be that, as above, the [overall] strength of gravity is inversely related to time and this would provide a simple reason for the reduction in weight occurring over time.

Prediction: physicists persist in using Newtonian physics that is not based on the [actual] physical, and a mathematics that is not based on the creation equation and that leads to an apparent singularity in the equation [acceleration is inversely proportional to time] at time zero, where the acceleration is apparently infinitely fast. That we are alive and well indicates that no singularity exists, so something occurs close to time equals zero that mathematics cannot describe, which is not surprising because mathematics is a creation of our mind-brain that we try to apply to the physical. An indication might be gained from the symmetry of quantum gravity, below, which has the same form [attraction equals (energy plus organisation) divided by distance], where the attraction is small within galaxies to large within the nucleus [as separation approaches zero]. Notice that the relativity [product of multiplication] of two (or more) anythings is the law of gravitation of masses. In other words, the attraction is small at galactic distances, but progressively larger within the nucleus and possibly explains the nuclear forces at small separations, but possibly the singularity is the organisational aspect of the quarks that are never found alone and it might also be expected that the organisation of nothing into two parts [energy and organisation] takes a finite time that eliminates the singularity aspect [at time zero] at the creation. However, the creation equation is unique and complete and should provide answers at the boundaries.

.

The Form Of Our Universe

Relativity is the functioning of the universe and a lack of relativity is the form of the universe and a lack of relativity is easily created [and our understanding of the universe] by the ratios of the dimensions [energy (E), organisation (O), time (t) and length (l)] created by expansion . The five absolutes are firstly, the sum of energy and organisation is always zero [from the creation equation energy plus organisation equals zero], secondly, energy and organisation are necessarily created as infill to balance the necessary acceleration [relativity for the creation equation to exist] of the universe [E/t+O/t, all volume], thirdly, the constant speed of light [with respect to any measurer] is l/t (all E and O) and fourthly, gravity [so called quantum gravity] is E/l+O/l (all t). See reference 1.

The orthogonality of the general creation equation, above, is very powerful [but simple] and requires a measurer to create the relativity of measurement and this means that the universe cannot know that it, itself existed [being composed of independent orthogonalities] until life existed, and vice versa, we create a God, so, the environment is God to us, and the ‘Greenies’ view would be vindicated. Further, ‘we invented religions to serve two central needs which continue to this day and which secular society has not been able to solve with any particular skill: first, the need to live together in communities in harmony, despite our deeply rooted selfish and violent impulses. And second, the need to cope with terrifying degrees of pain which arise from our vulnerability.’ (Religion for Atheists, Alain de Bono, p 12) Using this model, social science has been made into a science [reference 3,4, 5] with organisational absolutes and which answers the first requirement and the possible finding of a God is the engineering of a religion in the second and needs ‘to examine aspects of religious life which contains concepts that could fruitfully be applied to the problems of secular society.’ (p 19).

The orthogonalities [independent, but entangled] are created that operate similarly to the absolutes, such as that the speed of a particle and the speed of a photon must not be the same [Einstein’s special theory of relativity] and Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, below, that tests the orthogonality of the creation equation and the dimensions. It is also important to note that other entities are products of the space, such as gravity, entanglement and logic [reference 2] from the creation equation and form the organisational solution and do not have speed restrictions such as the speed of light and organisation. The creation equation [energy plus organisation = zero] could be written as E=mi(squared) on the photon, where ‘i’ is the square root of -1, and E=mc(squared) off the photon [Einstein’s equation], and the necessary separation of mass and energy [Einstein’s Special Theory] through the orthogonality of speed [speed of light versus speed of particles], E=mx(squared) is the motion [parabola] of both energy and organisation relative to each other in an accelerating field [Kepler’s laws]. Thus, the reason for the enigma [that gravitational mass and inertial mass are the same] is that all weights fall at the same rate. [Galileo held that two masses with different weights (one dimension, absolute four), when let go, the accelerating space produces the same path for each] is because it is an organisational restriction that E and m must be always minimal [absolute five, below], otherwise two different results might occur for the same situation [which results in chaos].

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

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

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

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

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

Fifthly, the role of Occam’s razor and the principle of least action is crucial to the understanding of the functioning of the universe and the latter asks ‘why does light travel in a straight line?’. Newton’s laws of motion say that a photon must travel in a straight line otherwise the laws do not work and so misses out on vital information and is, again, ‘up in the air’. I believe that the answer is that there has to be a unique answer and the only unique answer in every case is the minimum and the organisation that belongs to the minimum energy is the most efficient organisation. I can say this with conviction because if either energy or organisation were not at a minimum, there would be two solutions at the same time and this would cause chaos [magic] 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? That explanation is surely superior to a ‘real’ physical world supported by God, elephants, tortoises etc.

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

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

Measuring organisation such as beauty, music, religion, buildings and parades etc. creates energy that we release as laughter, in extreme cases [good joke], dance energy [foot-tapping] or just feeling emotional energy of appreciation [Mona Lisa painting possibly due to the golden triangle ratios] due to the affordances that convert the organisation of the surroundings [given the measurer’s questioning] to emotional energy in the mind-brain that allows for decision making via the mathematics of concept-context [reference 1]. Thus, social engineering is necessarily orthogonal to material engineering and is the key to controlling our civilisation and preventing a (so far) inevitable break-down. Newtonian physics is convenient for us in our world, but does not consider the physical host that we live within [as parasites], and it behoves all good parasites to understand and consider the health of their host, for to kill their host is to die as well.

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

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

1. From an unpublished paper The Logic Of The Half-truth And Plato’s Cave
2. From an unpublished paper Social Engineering: Using Social Science To Improve Ourselves And Society submitted to IJSSS

5. From an unpublished paper A Future Scenario For Common Markets submitted to IJSSS

6. From an unpublished paper Rationalising Management, Money And The Gifts Of The Ancient Greeks

The Logic Of The Half-truth And Plato’s Cave

by Darryl Penney

Abstract: science and society have always considered the world to be ‘real’ and so bizarre that it required a God to have created it, but that could be the result of our lack of intelligence and understanding of the physical and a more complete logic might allows us an alternate view that provides a substantial extension of our thinking and thus allow those that use it to realise our proper place in relation to the universe and that we must, through relativity, set concrete goals for the future, if we are to have a future and those goals can only come from understanding the logic that we must use as a first step to finding social engineering, which is currently hidden within Newtonian physics, then applying it to our society. An extension of the current simple logic is suggested that reinvigorates Plato’s ‘allegory of the cave’ by combing the mind with the physical [a relativity] that allows a new way of thinking [with it’s context of general mathematical physics/philosophy] that is needed for us to progress as a species. That Plato’s allegory appears to have eventuated is an indictment of the inadequacy of science.

Keywords: logic; the mind; social engineering; gravity; creation equation; reality; relativity; Plato’s cave

Preamble

Mankind has had technology for 400,000 years [fire, stone tools etc.], farming for about 12,000 years and Newtonian physics for 350 years and, whilst much good has come from these, so has bad effects. Humanity is adolescent and stumbling with a mind-brain mired in the animal world with it’s simple organisation, although religion changed society for the good [love not savagery], religion can retard progress, as Newtonian physics seems to have done to modern physics. Physics comes to the fore because of our use of technology, but technology brings dangers to an adolescent population that lacks the knowledge of organisation and as an example, consider, that ‘information remains bewildering, partly because it crops up in different guises in so many scientific fields. (Chance, ed. Michael Brooks, Paul Davies, p 21)

Western history shows the Greece-Roman empire collapse, then a 1,000 years of the Dark Ages and the Renaissance of our present global conglomeration that is in danger of immanent collapse through lack of effective organisation and, to prevent this occurring, we need a new path [otherwise we cycle], and one path could be that which I suggest, and that is to rebuild the logic of science on a better, more mature footing that could take humanity to a new level. The ancient Greeks ‘mused’, Francis Bacon said measure, but the ‘scientific principle’ has evolved to base progress on a vote of peers’ acceptance [standing on the shoulders ……] and this sounds sensible, but could easily be flawed by incompleteness, locks out change and becomes religion-like. This absurd situation has, I believe, arisen because physics is wedded to Newtonian physics, whilst the offshoots of physics [cosmology, quantum mechanics etc.] that need modern physics, are denied it if they want to stay under the physics umbrella. I am suggesting that physics is incomplete and cannot handle the organisation that it’s progeny needs, as above, and in particular, this is occurring because it is using an incomplete logic that does not align with the physical.

This sorry state can only be broken by a general appreciation that an error has arisen and to do that is the aim of this paper, but that solution requires augmenting the present style of thinking that evolved from the animals [top-down] with the use of relativity that says that bottom-up organisation exists that proves to be much more powerful analytically. So, if we are going to make changes [and we must], let us formulate a new software for our existing brain that meshes with the physical way that our mind works and possibly creates a ‘cutoff point’ from the animals, perhaps even a new species of Homo. Are people [currently] really that stupid? Consider the democracy that we value so highly, so highly that we revere it as a worldwide successful political system, yet it is an argumentative system built on questions of choice where the winners take all and the losers suffer. Even worse, up to 50% of the population have to live with a choice that they oppose! Ours is a modern democracy, where it appears that everyone has a say, whereas the ancient Greeks at least had the sense to restricted the choice to a smaller group, and that may be the reason that it appeared to work, but there is a better way through social engineering [understanding the organisation].

Consider, ‘the Greeks bequeathed us both argument and democracy and we have wanted to keep the two together, since we do not know how to operate democracy without argument.’ (I am Right-You are Wrong, Edward de Bono, p 7) I am proposing that relativity sets goals and social engineering provides agreed goals [and eliminates political parties] and that social engineering is the orthogonal of material engineering [technology] that physics tries to ignore. Organisation only exists [unlike chaos] if restrictions apply and the relativity of restrictions is logic, which we use, but our current logic is, I believe, incomplete, so, I am suggesting a more complicated form of logic that I call the logic of the half-truth. That the addition of this new logic might be thought to cause an upheaval in current science is an example of the logic, because it both will and will not affect science [statement 1], and it’s importance is that this example comes to mind so readily.

This last sentence needs expanding because it ‘comes to mind so readily’ suggests an incompleteness that is in common usage and the importance of that usage is unrecognised, which possibly results in Homo sapiens not being able to control society [which is very possibly about to collapse] versus a Homo completus that uses this logic and discovers social engineering and goals and possibly saves civilisation. The phrase ‘both will and will not’ is an orthogonality, much like Cartesian coordinates, that shows independence combined with entanglement that underlies everything where the mind is necessarily used to stand outside of these orthogonalities to make judgements on their suitability to the mind based on affordances that are the effect of the creation equation that thinking uses.

Society is built on a logical base, and that base , I believe, could be true and false as well as something that we do not recognise. This possibly suggests a new way of thinking [concept] that has the context of a complete general mathematical physics/philosophy of the physical and Life, as two separate entities linked orthogonally by measurement [affordances] through our mind that operates on a traditional science [top-down], relativity and the physical [bottom-up]. The organisation, that physics is obscuring is the social engineering [orthogonal to materials engineering (technology)] that is needed to understand society because ‘the world has become too complex and we just cannot cope. Ecology, economics, politics are all now a complex of interacting factors all of which affect each other in direct and indirect ways. We just do not have the systems for dealing with such complexity.’ (p 39) The concept of such a system is social engineering and this paper outlines the context and the necessary logic.

Our argumentative society requires police, armies, lawyers, politicians etc. and that shows immaturity and lack of understanding of social organisation, and a simple example is physics that tries to ignore organisation. This paper expands physics and shows its place in a universe that is totally defined by the creation equation, and this illustrates statement 1, that physics is complete [Newtonian] to the world in general, incomplete and misleading to the offshoot sciences, but can be brought together by the use of the logic of the half-truth. As an illustration, people wonder why no extraterrestrial has visited us, and I suggest that it is because we are uncivilised, uncontrolled and a menace to other lifeforms and would steal their technology and use it for no-good. We have to ‘set our house in order’, engineer our society and ourselves and show that we can live sustainably, but first we have to start with the mind and the logic that it uses in it’s software.

Preface

The world abounds with science and technology and yet it is in danger of collapse from lack of organisation in spite of copious amounts of logic available [see Wikipedia], so, if logic is necessary to organisation, are we not intelligent enough to apply it? There are three factors at play, firstly, is the form of the application of organisation [software] adequate, secondly, is that form too much for our intellect to handle [our level of intelligence is only sightly better than the animals and is of the same form [top-down]] and we don’t know how to proceed, and thirdly, we do not realise that a much more powerful organisation exists bottom-up [relativity] and that our logic is incomplete? This paper puts forward the proposition that all three factors are incomplete because our brain and way of thinking has not changed significantly in the last 10,000 years and needs a ‘quantum leap’ in software that can only come from the application of a new form of logic that is complete. This is a serious accusation that suggests that we are still principally animal in design [physically and mentally], and will continue to be so until we can make this next step in our evolution.

In other words, a new complete form of logic is proposed [the logic of the half-truth] that shows the creation equation of our fractal universe that allows us to understand our thinking process and to use a complete software that enhances our thinking through the relativity of organisation. Thinking [concept] is orthogonal [strictly related] to general mathematical physics [context] which describes the software that we must use that must be of a form that mirrors the creation equation that generates a fractal universe. A section, Why Newtonian Physics is Not Physical, is given below as an illustration of why the modern offshoots of physics [that need this approach] are restricted to Newtonian physics that is too complicated, by a physics that was shocked [into measurement] by modern physics a hundred years ago.

The derivation of the law of gravity is given [for the first time] as well as quantum mechanics and the creation equation [see Form of the Universe, reference 1] and unpublished examples are given [standard model of particle physics and dark matter] to illustrate the simplification that comes with this derivation and a short section on the mind [Intelligence]. These examples augment the evidence for the fractal nature of the universe that the logic is built on and are necessary to show the widespread and divergent nature [context] that contain the fractal entanglement. Notice that physics cannot explain the entanglement of a pair of particles created together, and yet their creation is simply the action of the creation equation and the particles must be bound by it’s restrictions, and restrictions are part of the logic that we must use, and the entanglement of the particles is the entanglement of everything. That the effect is propagated faster than the speed of light bamboozles physicists and shows why this logic is needed and that is because entanglement is logic and it has no speed attached to it [see reference 1].

The Logic of the Half-truth

Leaving aside the question of God, the universe possibly came from nothing when nothing divided into two parts such that part1 plus part2 equals nothing with the restriction that they must never meet [they will annihilate] and this firstly, generates relativity [and entanglement] and secondly, that the relativity of the restriction is logic. For example, in physics, energy plus organisation equals zero seems to work with the restriction that the universe must be accelerating [which it has been found to do] and so, a physical logic must be included in our idea of logic if we are to believe that the universe was generated from the equation [making it fractal] and the property of a fractal is simplicity, symmetry and similarity. For example, the fact [Michelson-Morley experiment] that the speed of light is constant to any measurer threw physics into a ‘tailspin’ [a 100 years ago] that physics has not yet resolved [and is explained in reference 1].

So, if the reality that we use for logic [true, false, chaos (statement 2)] is not correct, what should it be? A property of a fractal is to be the same at every point and is given by the creation equation, so, let’s look at ‘Einstein was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1921 for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect.’ (Wikipedia, Wave-particle duality) As physics is principally based on energy, the explanation was that wave and particle were both energy forms that could be taken by light. This explanation is one that would arise when, and if the only tool available is energy [hammer], then every solution is energy related [nail]. From the creation equation, the wave is energy and the particle is organisation and the distinction in the two views is not negligible because ‘current scientific theory holds that all particles exhibit a wave nature and vice versa. This phenomenon has been verified not only for elementary particles, but also for compound particles like atoms and even molecules. For macroscopic particles, because of their extremely short wavelengths, wave properties usually cannot be detected.’ (Wikipedia) Notice firstly, that the de Broglie wave is a function of the entity [particle] and secondly, that the different functions of particles [organisation] are differentiated by their speed, below, because each particle is the same and composed of energy and an organisation.

Consider, ‘although the use of the wave–particle duality has worked well in physics, the meaning or interpretation has not been satisfactorily resolved’ (Wikipedia). A number of interpretations are given on Wikipedia, but the idea that wave and particle oscillate, so fast that they do not affect anything [absolute 5] is not one of them. Considering the logic above [statement 1], statement 2 needs an extra term, as well as restrictions that create additional logic, so the logic of the half-truth becomes (statement 3):

true, false, alternating true-false, chaos and restrictions.

Thus, I believe that the first four terms ensure completeness, whilst the last term is necessary for any logic, unless we consider the universe to be ‘real’, then we make up our own restrictions as seems to have been done in the past. One restriction is the necessity of an accelerating universe for gravity [Einstein added ‘curved space time, which is an organisation, to get the correct value], another is that water expands when frozen that allows fish to survive, two things cannot occupy the same space [usually] etc. The question of the universe being ‘real’ has occupied philosophers from the ancient Greeks till now, so let’s look at how the completeness of this theory simplifies and possibly solves many existing problems including the search for dark energy, organising particle physics, what quantum mechanics is and how thinking uses the physical.

Ramifications

I can imagine physics saying “What is the significance of the third term [‘alternating true-false’ with the ‘restriction’ that the alternation be too fast to measure] because if something cannot be measured, it does not exist.’? [The answer is simply, that a difference in measurement, which is obviously necessary for measurement, is contrary to absolute five.],I have taken the macroscopic [wave-particle duality] and considered the microscopic to derive the creation equation and that produces a fractal that has the same properties throughout so that the factor [wave-particle duality] becomes a generality. Consider philosophy, ‘Socrates explains how the philosopher is like a prisoner who is freed from the cave and comes to understand that the shadows on the wall are actually not reality at all. A philosopher aims to understand and perceive the higher levels of reality. However, the other inmates of the cave do not even desire to leave their prison, for they know no better life. ‘(Wikipedia, Allegory of the Cave) This story that has come down through 2,000 years and seems to have the point that theoretical knowledge is worth seeking, which physics seems to deny with it’s retreat into measurement.

In other words, there are a great number of effects all around us that are macroscopic, but come from a source that we do not understand and so we cannot truly understand those macroscopic effects, which could be what the allegory is saying [as a relativity]. We are like the prisoners who are seeing the fractal effects yet do not understand relativity and that there must be context to any concept and concept to any context and context has to have restrictions if it is to not be chaos. Like the prisoners, we live in a world of shadows that we do not understand because the source is something that we cannot measure, thus, this model makes clear that organisation can be understood and must be understood for completeness. The restriction [accelerating space] creates gravity that entangles everything and relativity sets the stage with it’s entanglement. Everything is entangled in a special way that requires a minimum [absolute five] that use to be called the principle of least action [causing light to move in a straight line] that is necessary as a restriction if the organisational solution that we see around us is to be unique, and unique it must be, if we are to have a usable organisation. As an example, two different people [or any Life-form] remember the other side of a hill to be the same, not because it is ‘real’ [as we do], but because logic requires it for a unique organisation to exist.

For thousands of years we have considered our world and universe to be ‘real’, but like the story above, we see shadowy enigmas, such as cosmic inflation, which have simple explanations [hyperbolic acceleration of a constant speed of light with time near time zero]. It is the effect that an incomplete logic [statement 2] has on our thinking and is of great concern because we currently think like the animals from which we evolved [top-down] and statement 3 offers the recognition of a new way of thinking that we need to control society [social engineering] that uses the organisation that physics abhors. An example of social engineering is Christianity that turned savagery into love your neighbour, but unfortunately fell short in other areas, presumably because it was not rationally based.

Conclusion and Prediction

Mankind needs the boost in intellect that comes from increasing the power [completeness] of the software [of the mind] coupled with the availability of the internet to become bionic [biological and electronic (internet)] to prosper and organise itself and the environment for the future. In particular, we need the goals [relativity], the social engineering theory and the determination to survive successfully for the future, but it needs a new Homo completus [complete] to do it, because Homo Sapiens has made a mess of it. This paper is, I believe, a necessary and complete extension to the logic that we need to become civilised and solve society’s problems, but our mind has to accept the concept of this new way of thinking that is in lockstep with the context of using it [general mathematical physics] and that is a context [organisation] that humanity fears and the only way to show organisation is through examples, which comprise the vast bulk of this paper, that is an extension to a logic that cannot even be measured and so is beyond physics. Which discipline will take up the mantle that has slipped from physics’ shoulders?

If this logic [statement 3] is to believed, the ‘allegory of the cave’ has been reproduced in the modern world and shows that our thinking must change [by changing the context] and an example is the last sentence of the last paragraph, which is [somewhat] stirring, but nonsense because every academic discipline has a part to play because the context [of thought] is completely entangled and is bounded by the concepts that we have remembered and thus, it is the entangled knowledge of all life that creates the universe. If everything is entangled, as it appears, then Einstein’s space-time [three space and one time dimension] is wrong [too complicated], as are the standard physics’ dimensions, and the dimensions that I have used [energy-organisation and length-time] are themselves orthogonal and ‘do the job’. This suggests that relativity, that is obvious in space [physical volume], is also apparent in time [history] and Plato’s allegory is pertinent to today’s situation of the philosopher’s role in human affairs and further, that universities need to reconsider their ‘siloing’.

The take home message: ‘you can take Mankind out of the jungle, but you can’t take the jungle out of Mankind’ defines Homo sapiens [the wise, really?] because the first law of evolution is ‘fight or flee’ that leads to the use of statement 2, and being incomplete requires a God to make ‘sense’ of everything. In other words, indecisiveness is stupid and increases your chances of being killed, but the option is there in statement 3 for us to understand the universe and our place in it and create a social engineering that allows us to coexist with everything in the future. Statement 3 is ‘fractalising’ the simple orthogonality of true-false into higher levels that produce the alternation of true-false and the creation equation [that is of the same form]. Is this important? The vast majority of people either believe the creation in the Bible, or don’t care about evolution and a situation has developed similar to the parables of Sodom and Gomorrah and Plato’s cave and a bionic Homo completus [complete mankind] has to appear if we are to coexist with the rest of Life [intelligence is limited by context]. In other words, indecisiveness is stupid and increases our chances of wrecking Life on the planet and the option is there [in statement 3] for us to understand the universe and our place in it and create a social engineering that allows us to know what we are doing and to increase the quality of humanity and control it’s effect on others.

A final thought is that it might be difficult to accept this paper because, I believe, that the mind uses statement 3 [not the restrictions] as a matter of course without our realising it to allow the mind to function seamlessly in the same way that the mind changes our vision to conceal the ‘blind spot’ in the eye. In other words, we switch from one orthogonal position to another, allocating an emotional energy [context] to each concept to judge it’s importance, but that, of course, is how the mind-brain works [based on the creation equation]!

Aspects of Organisation

Four examples are given that illustrate the simplicity that comes from a complete model that allows firstly, I believe, a significant simplification to the atomic particle model, secondly, the use of the completeness of the model to understand dark energy and thirdly, a simple explanation of cosmic inflation, gravity and the expanding universe. Fourthly, the universe becomes the simple place of quantum mechanics that the fifth absolute requires and the resultant knowledge increases, not just our intelligence, but our intellect [which includes being correct].

Firstly, energy and organisation are necessarily orthogonal concepts and have contexts and there are names for different types of energy [potential, kinetic etc.], and the same applies to organisation and I would like to mention a simplification from an unpublished paper The Standard Particle Physics Model Versus Modern Physics.

Concept: everything is relative and energy plus organisation equals zero in everything, so this representation is a table of operations categorised by the organisation of speed [tier one] and lifetime, energy etc. [tier two], the acceleration of the universe produces the (so-called) gravity in everything that affects everything as gravity and internally as quantum gravity [(energy plus organisation) divided by separation relative to something else]. In other words, all particles, that we call energy [photon] and what we call mass [neutrinos, protons etc.] are all composed of energy and organisation and the thing that makes them different is their speed and further, each particle is nothing [zero] if the universe stops accelerating.

[It is important to realise that this description and the standard model do not differ substantially (conceptually) from each other, because F/ma=1 is similar to the creation equation, below, but organisationally (contextually) the difference is great because the accelerating universe creates the effects of (what we call) gravity, whereas physics uses a construct that they call gravitons: ‘the gravitational force between the sun and the earth is ascribed to the exchange of gravitons between the particles that make up these two bodies. Although the exchanged particles are virtual, they certainly do produce a measurable effect – they make the earth orbit the sun!’, see below.]

Context: plus [tier 1]: quarks up and down [no speed relative to the particle]

proton, electron [less than light speed]]

neutrinos assorted [less than but extremely close to light speed

photon [light speed]

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

Notice that the speed of the neutrinos occupy the only available speed ‘slot’ that is between the asymptote of the allowable speed of particles and the speed of light, as well as the changing form of the neutrinos being an organisational possibility to minimise any broadening of the speed ‘slot’ [a possibility within the logic of the half-truth that avoids chaos].

Secondly, the following example is a simplification from the unpublished paper Deriving The Mind that shows that the containment of a fractal is completeness that allows closure, as does the postulate of virtual particles. How does physics consider the universe? ‘Using the wave-particle duality . .,. everything in the universe, including light and gravity, can be described in terms of particles.’ (A Brief History Of Time, Stephen Hawking, p 75) Simplifying in this way, by only using particles, is a very dangerous procedure because information is lost. Newtonian physics is a product of the Renaissance and it’s formulation has been made too simple presumably 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) This model uses organisation explicitly.

Consider, ‘the gravitational force between the sun and the earth is ascribed to the exchange of gravitons between the particles that make up these two bodies. Although the exchanged particles are virtual, they certainly do produce a measurable effect – they make the earth orbit the sun!’ (A Brief History Of Time, Stephen Hawking, p 79) Fair go! This shows an overuse of top-down ‘splitting’ to the extent that virtual particles are created to justify an assumption, whereas bottom-up organisation tends to ‘lump’ things together because relationships can be seen. In other words, physics is a top-down creation that does not access the physical and is complicated by being excessively simple and this is shown by the requirement that energy cannot be created nor destroyed..

Consider the enigma, ‘the uncertainty principle means that even “empty” space is filled with pairs of virtual particles and antiparticles. These pairs would have an infinite amount of energy and, therefore, by Einstein’s famous equation E=mc(squared), they would have an infinite amount of mass.’ (A Brief History Of Time, Stephen Hawking, p 189) If we assume that these particles [composed of both energy and organisation] do exist, as they could [and presumably do in the Casimar effect] their sum-total might provide the gravitational effects of dark matter that seems to be driving cosmologists and particle physicists to distraction.

Firstly, the universe is an organisation that physics does not recognise and as such, physics allows limited possibilities and one problem is dark energy that I consider to be the infill energy to balance the acceleration [absolute two], secondly, gravity [due to acceleration] was larger [hyperbola] in earlier times [cosmic inflation] and we are looking back in time at galaxies, thirdly, that organisation leads to gravity [Einstein’s ‘curved space’] and that leaves only one other possibility, that fourthly, virtual particles contribute the necessary gravity, which they can do in this model through the creation equation] and the logic of the half-truth. Thus, the gravity of the so-called virtual particles is the balancing item and the problem disappears. In other words, the number of virtual particles is simply illustrated by the [gravitational] shape of the galaxies. The logic of the half-truth is simply all possibilities: true, false, true and false with restrictions, and chaos. An interesting point is how the universe uses the third term: an accelerating space for the creation equation to exist, wave-particle duality [wave and particle are the same] with speed differentiating, there is no reason that virtual particle cannot be created, but presumably the antimatter component meets an opposite eventually, but in the meantime, both contribute to gravity. [The creation caused cosmic inflation, whereas today ‘random walk’ insures recombination.]

Thirdly, using the third absolute, that the speed of light [energy plus organisation] is a constant, the requirement of acceleration [for the creation equation to exist] is a hyperbola [inverse of time] that requires high accelerations at the beginning [cosmic inflation] and a continuing acceleration dropping towards zero with time.

Fourthly, I believe that with this model we attain an intellect that cannot be surpassed and that is the aim and requirement to the goal of a Homo completus.

Intelligence

From a paper Don’t Do What Your Big Sister Done! submitted to Mind & Society,

Consider Theories of Intelligence in Psychology (Kendra Cherry) ‘while intelligence is one of the most talked about subjects in psychology, there is no standard definition of what exactly constitutes intelligence.’ (Internet) I would like to suggest that intelligence is an exact science based on the creation equation, see Form of the Universe below, and is the application of the concept of the mathematics of concept-context where each concept [fact, experience etc.] that is held in the mind-brain has an affordance attached to it, where affordance is the level of the emotional energy created in the brain relative to the requirements of the measurer each time that the measurement is made. Affordances are the recognition of the organisation of the environment, but also have the same effect with stored memories, and the comparison of which, is thinking [concept] and the context is some general mathematical physics [composed of relativity, Newtonian physics and the physical].

‘Psychologist James J. Gibson developed the concept of affordance over many years, culminating in his final book The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception in 1979. He defined an affordance as what the environment provides or furnishes the animal. . . . The key to understanding affordance is that it is relational and characterizes the suitability of the environment to the observer, and so, depends on their current intentions and their capabilities. . . . This notion of intention/needs is critical to an understanding of affordance, as it explains how the same aspect of the environment can provide different affordances to different people, and even to the same individual at another point in time.’ (Wikipedia, Affordance) So, affordances are the mechanism [creation equation : energy plus organisation equals zero] that measures the organisation of the environment and also the measuring of stored memories and their emotion label. Thinking is making a decision on the emotion levels with reference to tribal mores, creation myths and the physical requirements of the body. Notice that the definition ‘same individual at another point in time’ must be broadened to include ‘mindset’ or ‘capabilities’, which is considered here because ‘garbage in, garbage out’ has occurred. To restate one of the goals of this paper, the universe cannot lie [absolute five] and if we change our mindset [software], the affordance will change, our intellect will change and we might be able to save our civilisation.

Why Newtonian Physics is Not Physical

Galileo’s law of motion [an absolute that F/m=a is the force (F) on a mass (m) due to the constant acceleration due to gravity (a)] was, 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 [only the measurement], 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 equals zero. This becomes energy/organisation=i(squared), where ‘i’ is the square root of (-1) compared to F/ma=1. This is the point where Newtonian physics departs from the physical and disregards relativity. 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 (of ‘i’) are ‘imaginary’ without measuring relativity].

Does force [‘F’] have a physical meaning, in spite of the above? Yes it does, because relativity, as above, only exists if the relatives are kept apart [accelerating universe, celestial mechanics], but celestially, relativity acts as a pair of measurers that use the effect of the accelerating space [that we call gravity] to keep two bodies orbiting each other [in a stable state]. Thus ‘F’ is the ‘gravitational attraction’ [of energy and organisation] that causes quantum gravity [the dimensions of energy plus organisation divided by the separation [an absolute]] to be what each measures and so the gravity equation is the multiplicand of the absolutes of each body. Thus, Newtonian physics moves into the non-physical world [no relativity] in considering the motion of a [one] particle [F=ma]. Newton ‘inspire guessed’ [meaning that he could not derive] the law of gravitation and this was ‘corrected’ by Einstein who added organisation to double the effect [of Newton’s equation] by postulating a ‘curvature of space’ [rubber sheet analogy]. That this analogy produced exactly an equal amount of attraction as did the masses [twice the effect of Newton’s equation] did not appear to be questioned, presumably because this was ‘justified’ [gave the correct answer] by experiment [Eddington’s observations] and physics tolerated this, but quantum mechanics was ‘a step too far’. In fact, the ‘rot set in’ when the wave-particle duality was considered to be two forms of energy [which they are not, from the creation equation].

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

Mathematical Physics Comes In From The Cold

by Darryl Penney

Abstract: mathematics, physics and philosophy are, I believe, old, incomplete and unwilling to change and the new sciences [cosmology, quantum mechanics, particle physics, neuroscience etc.] that are based on the physical are struggling and need a mathematical physics [context] that is the basis of a new way of thinking [concept] that supplies the necessary theory. This theory is possibly presented in this paper, which is new and could be called an opinion piece because it is not based on prior work, but relies on a completely new bottom-up organisation that provides a new and better software for our existing brain and the social engineering that physics has been obscuring. Mathematical physics-organisation is the logical candidate to take over theoretical modern physics that has been lacking for the last 100 years and that ommission puts our society in jeopardy.

Extended abstract: our society is in a bad way and is possibly heading for another Dark Age, unless we come to our senses, literally, due, I believe to piecemeal policies led by technology and a mind mired in the past [of evolution], so, the transition to a successfully managed society has been too difficult for our current mind and we need to reappraise the basics of thinking. Mathematical physics should be the context of this new way of thinking [concept] that deserves more than the cavalier treatment that a senescent physics is affording it’s offshoot disciplines, exampled below, caused by physics’ distaste of organisation, that has suffocated theoretical modern physics for the last 100 years and hidden the social engineering that we need. This model, I believe, provides a new way of thinking and a new context of mathematics and physics etc. by deriving a creation equation that shows that both are orthogonal views of the same thing.

It took mathematics 2,000 years to show that equations were not adequate descriptors of the physical [quintic] and then Galois introduced symmetry, so, let’s consider a fractal, but what is the generator? Clearly it is physical, but physics apparently forswore modern physics a hundred years ago and left it’s offspring without the physical, so, can we find this relationship from mathematics’ ‘skeletons’ that have been ignored for 2,000 years, in particular, the baffling negative roots of equations? This generalised mathematical physics adds a commonality to all disciplines and must include the afeared organisation and the answer is relativity that comes from the exclusion of zero and is the context of thinking, which is currently woefully deficient because it lacks the organisation which allows the social engineering that is behind our endangered civilisation to become visible and this paper suggests a new complete software that can be easily used to improve our thinking.

Newtonian physics is built on gravity and a falling apple, but, ‘the attraction of gravity does not exist, it is the requirement of relativity upon which the accelerating universe is built that affects everything including organisation, energy, mass and virtual particles’.

‘Mathematics and physics are a chimera that is composed of the logic of the possibilities and restrictions within the expansion of the fractal generating equation of everything and not what we think that logic should be’.

[restrictions such as the necessity of probability in quantum mechanics, Born’s rule, constant speed of light, simple proof of Fermat’s last theorem, cosmic inflation, particles are differentiated by speed etc., and possibilities such as the wave-particle duality, virtual particles increasing gravity in galaxies, the Pauli exclusion principle etc.]

Preamble

Both physics and mathematics ignore the physical and it’s contribution to logic. Physics is built on the (so-called) ‘scientific principle’ that arises from only accepting agreed results [peer review] that forms a club that locks science into a common belief [creation myth or religion] that must be believed, or you are ‘not scientific’ and are out of the club. This state of affairs has been obvious for the last hundred years because no plausible theory of modern physics has arisen and no extension of Newtonian physics has been considered even though it is incomplete and inadequately describes the physical. Examples given are the simplification of particle physics, dark matter, cosmic inflation, accelerating universe, quantum mechanics etc., below. Mathematics is similar, but more subtle because it is supposedly built on ‘pure logic’ [Bertram Russell], but perhaps it is an ‘ivory tower’ of the mind that works in the way that Newtonian physics ‘works’, which is, again, incomplete, ‘clubby’ and ignores the physical. Examples below are the number line, zero, relativity, Euler’s equation, Fermat’s last theorem etc.

Further, scientists, and in particular physicists, ‘don’t think so good’ because they ignore organisation, which is the basis of intelligence while mathematics is the epitome of logic, but who’s logic because it ignores it’s physical base. But you say ‘we are not interested in the physical’ and I say ‘what of Galois’ work?, ‘what of the negative solutions [of equations] that you have been ignoring for 2,000 years?’, ‘what does Euler’s equation mean?’ and ‘what is zero really about?’. Are they mathematical or physical? Is everything, including the universe, mathematical, physical or mathematical-physics? So, let’s go back to the very beginning and see what went wrong, bearing in mind that the answer to a measurement depends on the question being asked [see affordances] and are we asking the right questions? For example, if the universe is generated from an equation it becomes a fractal and there is no difference between the mathematical and the physical, except, of course, if we don’t understand it correctly, which is precisely what seems to have happened. The overall problem is that we do not understand organisation, which is not surprising because Life exists in the survival of the fittest and we have not been able to replace it with our own organisation to control technology because we don’t understand how it has to be restricted. For example, Hobbes said that people hate government, but they hate the anarchy that comes with lack of government even more [and that is a restriction].

This paper started by considering the organisation that physics explicitly excludes and mathematics tries to replace with it’s version of logic but there is a relationship that is not appreciated [and so not used] and that is an orthogonality, not an equation, that apparently derives everything as the generator of a fractal universe and physics, by using mathematics, without the physical is unable to see that ‘=’ is not an orthogonality. Physics has built a defensive wall around Newtonian physics and is not prepared to allow challenges even though modern physics is an extension of Newtonian physics, and similarly, mathematics has isolated itself with it’s own logic, but mathematical physics needs to be restructured using the physical and this can be done using orthogonalities. However, after 100 years and a society of the verge of collapse caused by ignoring organisation, is it not time to open the gates to discussion and let mathematical physics do it’s job unimpeded? [see the section below, Why Newtonian Physics is Not Complete]

The major problem is that we have, through technology, created an unstable society that is probably heading for disaster because we lack the knowledge to control it and that knowledge is being withheld, albeit somewhat unknowingly, by the use of Newtonian physics that lacks organisation. Social engineering is the orthogonality of material engineering [technology] and is the knowledge needed to control technology, especially population growth. Organisation at all levels is needed, but we do not understand how to control organisation and that secret lies in imposing restrictions, in the same way that the universe imposes restrictions for itself to exist, for example, an accelerating universe is necessary for the creation equation to logically exist and we need to increase our thinking capacity by improving the software that we use in our existing brain and for that we need the mathematics of concept-context based on relativity.

Neither mathematics nor physics are doing the job that they should and mathematical physics is a ‘pig in a poke’ used by physics and ignored by mathematics, so, I’ll quickly derive Einstein’s equation [E=mc(squared)] to show that it is not an equation, but is, I believe, structural, and thus a triviality [when viewed correctly]. E [energy] is orthogonal to m [organisation] from the creation equation and never equal [‘=’] nor even the same but independent, and do not exist at the same time [wave-particle duality] with the proviso that this occurs on the photon [no relativity with the measurer], whereas off the photon the speed to the measurer is c [speed of light, absolute three] and to relate the experience to both [both being relative] universe and measurer [affordance] requires c (squared) and the mind-brain is necessary to the measurement. The mind is the decision-maker [mathematics of concept-context] and thinks using emotion as generated by measuring and comparing the memories held in the brain and affordances from the environment, see below.

In other words, E=mc(squared) is one end point of the reality [off the photon] and the other end is the creation equation [E=m] on the photon that becomes E=mv(squared) for any speed v [in the reality] and shows the parabolic form. Notice that speed is the factor [in an accelerating space] that defines [separates] the particles, see Aspects of Organisation, below. This is not an inherent attraction [gravitation], but a property of the accelerating space and this relativity is also shown in the negative roots of equations in mathematics that have been ignored for 2,000 years. The magnitude of the apparent attraction is given in absolute four and the overall form of the universe is shown by Euler’s equation, below. Notice that speed differentiates the particles in the [proposed] standard model as is to be expected in a simple fractal [see below].

It is small wonder that physics clings so tenaciously to the simplicity of Newtonian physics and refuses to contemplate modern physics, but organisation can be simply applied by orthogonality when this is understood [Newtonian physics, the bottom-up organisation of the physical and relativity] and there is a need to acknowledge organisation, in the form of social engineering to allow civilisation to succeed into the future. Unfortunately, the problem that Galileo had with the Church springs to mind, and it took hundreds of years for them to apologise, and I doubt that we have that luxury of time because the basic problem is that our thinking is that of the animals from which we evolved and a [software] upgrade is needed [which this model may be] to manage the technology that we have let loose.

Preface

Firstly, the physical is set out as sections: the Form of the Universe describes the creation equation, the expanding universe, cosmic inflation, gravity and quantum mechanics and examples of particle physics and dark energy are given as Aspects of Organisation and Why Newtonian Physics is Not Complete is self evident and should be of concern. Secondly, the mind-brain evolved by using affordances and the mathematics of concept-context so that an animal could measure and interact with its surroundings because the only way to measure and compare two[independent] orthogonals is through a third [not independent] measurer. Thirdly, mathematics is a construct designed to exclude the physical, and the use of the number line, relativity and zero is considered in Entanglement. Fourthly, mathematics and Newtonian physics are doing a great job in supplying the day-to-day counting of sheep etc. and technology of phones, television etc., but the organisation of the physical is beyond them [see Aspects of Organisation] and this simplicity is hiding the organisational skills needed to control population growth, manage genetics and set goals for planning for the future.

Given the above, the aim is to show that currently, mathematical physics suffers from similar problems and it’s importance as the context of the concept of thought demands that it’s relativity to the physical be recognised and understood [for example ‘=’]. In other words, our civilisation is on the verge of collapsing because we think like the animals from which we evolved and need a mental shake-up to include the organisation that we apparently fear.

The Essence of Everything

Mathematics took a couple of thousand years to find general solutions to the quartic equations, a couple of hundred years attacking the quintic without much success, then ‘the revolution that Galois had started grouped together entire domains that were previously unrelated. Fields as far apart as the laws of nature and music suddenly became mysteriously connected.’ (The Equation That Couldn’t Be Solved, Mario Livio, p 273) This slow process was a result of top-down organisation that science has always used 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) and they did not realise that organisation must have restrictions applied to control it and make it useful, and the restrictions on our universe are given below. The top-down ‘flowering’ of mathematics in the field of symmetry is indicative of the results that can be gained when bottom-up organisation is added, see the section Form of the Universe. It could also be considered as the intrusion of physics into mathematics, or, as is suggested here, they complement each other [as a chimera].

Physics and mathematics are old and wrong to the extent that they are placing our civilisation in jeopardy by their structure, not to mention the resultant effect on other species. It is time to increase the quality of our thinking [concept] which is in lockstep with the context of a general mathematical physics and the aim of this paper is to have the same effect on science in general as Galois had on equations, using not just symmetry, but the properties of a fractal [simplicity, symmetry and similarity] that come from a proposed creation equation of our universe. To do this requires that physics, philosophy and mathematics, that developed over thousands of years, be seated in this equation, and this can be done by using relativity [Socrates contribution] and as exemplified for physics, above. Civilisations have been ‘remoulded’ many times in history and are we to be one of them, or can we produce a stable society for the future?

Arithmetic is [for simplicity] currently based on the number line that consists of an infinite number of positive and negative numbers and one solitary zero and this can be replaced by the concept of relativity in the same way that the creation equation is simply constructed for physics. In other words, relativity says that for each sheep counted, there exits a no-sheep somewhere [double entry bookkeeping] and whilst zero is a placeholder in numbers [that took millennia to eventuate], it does not exist except as nothing, or the possibility of the creation of two things that must continue to remain apart to exist [assuming that everything came from nothing]. I am saying that zero is a restriction and does not exist, but you can get as close as you like to it. Alternately, the reality of the dimensions cannot use zero because it has been used in the creation. ‘Used unwisely, zero has the power to destroy logic’ (Zero, Charles Seife, p 219) because, I believe that the square is relativity [consider the product of absolutes in the law of gravity, below] and logical, but, going the other way, zero is not logical because one thing cannot exist on its own [consider the square root of -1]. The square [relativity] is fundamental to the existence of the universe and must only occur uniquely [absolute five] and that is one proof of Fermat’s last theorem. Notice that this trivial [physical] solution requires hundreds of pages in traditional mathematics and shows the possibilities in a complete mathematical physics.

As an example that also belongs with the golden ratio below, why is Pythagoras’ theorem so important that it has been taught for thousands of years as the beauty of mathematics? I think that it illustrates the orthogonality that the universe is built on [and resonates with that organisation] and that organisation is the reason for its effect [beauty] because the squares of the sides that include the right angle [notice the word ‘right’] is the orthogonality that creates the ‘square’, which is the product [multiplication] of the two views of the measurement [by the brain and the universe as relativity]. This is also shown by the product [relativity] of the absolutes in the calculation of gravity, below, and further, the overall gravitational effect is the entanglement of every mass [the sum of both energy and organisation] including the virtual particles that may or may not be present [dark matter].

Notice that ‘this theorem may have more known proofs than any other (the law of quadratic reciprocity being another contender for that distinction); the book The Pythagorean Proposition contains 370 proofs’ (Wikipedia) and is entwined heavily within the fractal nature on the construction of the universe. Given that a measurement must involve the measurer and the universe, the squares must be used and the hypotenuse is the sum of the projections on the orthogonalities, the relationship is obvious and further, Fermat’s last theorem must be true because there must be a unique answer [absolute five] that there is no simpler form.

Whereas arithmetic is a convention, originally using fingers etc. and mathematics is ‘logical’ by convention [scientific method], but not according to the physical, so, mathematics has the creation equation concept plus context equals zero and contains physics because energy is a concept and organisation is a context. Thus thinking is the use of energy and organisation, as affordances within the brain to produce the mind as the decider of the emotion that is produced and answers the question ‘just as it is hard to describe what makes a piece of music or a painting aesthetically pleasing, it’s equally difficult to describe what makes a mathematical theorem or a physical theory beautiful.’ (p 199). On the contrary, beauty is the emotional energy produced by the relativity of the measurement of the organisation. Further, ‘an equation discovered by Euler . . . is the paragon of mathematical beauty’ (p 199) and shows the form of the generator in a fractal. The structure of the universe is derived from the creation equation and can be described by the enigmatic Euler’s equation that determines the form of the universe [(e to the power i times pi +1) = 0 can be written (e to the power i times pi + e to the power 0) = 0, which is an expression of orthogonality and describes an expanding [e, simple interest expansion (note this is possibly the acceleration that

our universe has)] sphere [pi] from 0 symmetrical [i] through the centre]. I have always found Euler’s equation enigmatic because it contains ‘i’ explicitly, but ‘i’ must be there because it represents relativity [through the centre, in this case] and everything, except the absolutes, is relative to something else as stated in the creation equation.

So, everything uses relativity, and that can be considered to be the Cartesian coordinate system where independence disappears at the origin and so, the origin is a restriction that leads to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, below. Notice that relativity requires the entanglement of everything [to the dismay of physicists, as they have measured it’s effects with particles], but the physical surely does not affect mathematics in it’s carefully defined ‘ivory tower’? On the contrary, an example is the negative solutions to quadratics that mathematics has ‘swept under the rug’ for 2,000 years, and in particular, the golden ratio has ‘a value of about 1.618, is positive, thus it is the only one that made sense to the Greeks’ (Zero, Charles Seife, p 223). The solution of the quadratic that the Greeks ignored is (1-square root of 5)/2 whereas the acceptable solution is (1+square root of 5)/2 and whilst mathematics ignores the first solution [and has for 2,000 years], our minds react to recognising the organisation [affordance, through the creation equation] by creating emotional energy in our brain. Thus, the generation of emotion is the reason that the golden ratio has the reputation of elegance, beauty etc., and further, is presumably the reason that the Mona Lisa painting is so famous [reputed to contain golden triangles in its form].

Just as Euler’s equation contains, presumably, the form of the universe, the golden ratio is a line segment that possibly describes relativity of physical structure [architecture], whereas the same segment division defines music [monochord] as simple ratios defining the octave. In other words, concept plus context equals zero is the creation equation that shows relativity, and relativity requires that concept and context be orthogonal [independent] and must be kept apart [accelerating universe restriction] or oscillate so fast that they are effectively separate [wave-particle duality possibility]. There are many restrictions and possibilities that are applicable [above], but the most important is thought [concept] that requires a general mathematical physics-organisation as context, and clearly each is necessary to produce intelligence which is the operation of the mathematics of concept-context where affordances [the creation equation] translate the organisation into emotional energy in the brain through measurement.

Conclusion and Prediction

All civilisations collapse [Roman Empire, British Empire etc.] because of, I believe, lack of organisation and our world-wide civilisation is on the same path and needs change and that is the reason behind this paper. [Note the posturing of USA, China, Russia etc. today.] We need social engineering which is the orthogonality of technology that arose out of a simple Newtonian physics that ignores organisation, so, instead of rebuilding the academic disciplines of physics, mathematics etc., let us leave them in peace with their simple ways and use organisation to fix the problem in a minimalist way. Mathematical physics is especially important as the context of the concept of thinking and it is in that discipline that rigour is necessary and it is young enough to change and become the home of context [of the concept of thinking]. In other words, mathematical physics has always been ‘unowned’ by the major disciplines, presumably because it is contextual, hence the title, but can now take it’s rightful place as context [generalist] to the specialities of the academic disciplines and hold their relevance in theory across the academic ‘board’ [orthogonality of the creation equation]. Perhaps a Cinderella story of rags to riches? Perhaps an ‘action figure’ to save the planet?

Prediction [as the relativity of the conclusion]: we have to add the physical and the mind into the current top-down organisational mess with which humanity has burdened science and that can be done by increasing the quality of thinking [by changing the software] that is determined by the context of the concepts held in the brain [because they are strictly related]. An example of bottom-up thinking could be by Galois inventing ‘an entirely new branch of mathematics and to identify symmetry as the source of the most essential properties of equations.’ (The Equation That Couldn’t Be Solved, Mario Livio, p 172). Further, ‘symmetry sits right at the intersection of science, art, and perceptual psychology. Symmetry represents the stubborn cores of forms, laws, and mathematical objects that remain unchanged under transformations.’ (p 45) I am trying to go a step further and show that the universe is a fractal [see the section Form of the Universe, below] where everything is symmetrical because the universe is derived from the creation equation, and even further, the universe is also simple and similar, and most importantly, everything is entangled, as below.

As above, physicists ‘don’t think so good’ because they ignore organisation as evidenced by the expensive experiments on the entanglement of particles. Einstein’s special theory says that, given the constant speed of light, energy, mass, time and distance are simply related [as this model shows] and it can all be done by considering simple mathematics. A line segments is the simplest entity [that is entangled] and we can destroy relativity by division and this is called an octave [half or twice etc.] and further divisions give music [see chapter 128 on darrylpenney.com]. Another simple ratio leads to the golden ratio, above, and to Cartesian coordinates and in energy, mass, time and distance [four dimensions] generates the universe in which we exist.

We have taken the smallest thing imaginable that can exist [a line segment that is infinitely dividable, but never zero – notice the similarity to a photon] and shown how the important fields of music and architecture are created [by eliminating relativity] and that the mind has evolved due to the creation equation that turns the organisation of our surroundings into energy that we experience as emotion and allows the mind to decide between options [on the level of the energy]. In higher dimensions, the orthogonality is the equivalent to division that eliminates relativity, and hence the importance of Pythagoras’ theorem, which is the lack of relativity at the orthogonality [90 degrees] and shows the ‘square effect’ that I interpret as the relativity of measurement of the mind and the entanglement of the universe. [The energy of emotion is created by the increase in organisation of the environment that henceforth includes the measurer.]

As an example of entanglement [what is essentially a new way of thinking], let’s consider an answer that has been given by religion to the question posed by our view of the universe [of which we are a part], and for the first time, consider an alternative to the consideration that the universe is ‘real’. That everything appears ‘real’ is beyond question and it needs to be ‘real’ [to us] for us to function in it and magic is the result if physical laws are not followed. The fifth absolute says that if and only if the most efficient path is followed does our universe exist [principle of least action] simply because any other situation would give two results for the same occasion, which is chaotic [magic]. Consider, as our knowledge increased, the stars appeared as points of light, fires, suns, galaxies etc. as we examine them more closely and they will continue to show us what they necessarily must have been, in the past, to produce our world as it is today [as a minimisation]. All possibilities are ruled out except for the one that is the most efficient. Similarly, why do two different people see the same view over the other side of a hill? Clearly, everything is entangled [above] and if they saw a different view, chaos would result.

Everything is logical, but mathematics, like physics, must use an orthogonality of traditional man-made science [top-down], relativity [sideways organisation] and the bottom up of the physical [thinking (concept) and general mathematical physics (context)] if it is to consider all options. If we are to move into the future, in any planned way, we must use planning, which is relativity and look at social engineering [the orthogonal (organisation)] that has been hidden by physics.

Final word: firstly, it is obvious that a ‘hole’ has existed in theoretical physics over the last 100 years and that some discipline should delve into theoretical physics and extend it to social engineering as this paper suggests and it is a legitimate way to bring mathematical physics ‘out of the cold’. Secondly, as to the negative roots of equations, that have formed a pivotal point in this paper, what is their role? Everything in an organisation has a role and negative solutions are necessary for organisation and emotion that we can appreciate as necessary to this paper, but do they have a purpose, or are they like neutrinos? Neutrinos are necessary to balance equations, then stay out of the way by being mainly nonreactive, so, negative roots have fulfilled their function in the organisational solution, but to ignore them, as mathematicians have done for 2,000 years shows a lack of complete understanding. Thirdly, if a particle and line segment are chimeric, as above [everything can be derived from a creation equation with four dimensions], it might simplify M-theory considerably, and fourthly, much interest has been generated by ‘black holes’ of energy, and yet the above is concerned with the symmetry that is, according to the creation equation, being produced by physics and mathematics ‘locking up’ organisation and mathematical physics may be the key to fixing the disastrous imbalance that is threatening our civilisation.

Why Newtonian Physics is Not Physical

[this rest of this section is reproduced from an unpublished paper Why Are Physicists So Mentally Challenged?]

Galileo’s law of motion [an absolute that F/m=a is the force (F) on a mass (m) due to the constant acceleration due to gravity (a)] was, 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 [only the measurement], 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 equals zero. This becomes energy/organisation=i(squared), where ‘i’ is the square root of (-1) compared to F/ma=1. This is the point where Newtonian physics departs from the physical and disregards relativity. 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 (of ‘i’) are ‘imaginary’ without measuring relativity].

Does force [‘F’] have a physical meaning, in spite of the above? Yes it does, because relativity, as above, only exists if the relatives are kept apart [accelerating universe, celestial mechanics], but celestially, relativity acts as a pair of measurers that use the effect of the accelerating space [that we call gravity] to keep two bodies orbiting each other [in a stable state]. Thus ‘F’ is the ‘gravitational attraction’ [of energy and organisation] that causes quantum gravity [the dimensions of energy plus organisation divided by the separation [an absolute]] to be what each measures and so the gravity equation is the multiplicand of the absolutes of each body. Thus, Newtonian physics moves into the non-physical world [no relativity] in considering the motion of a [one] particle [F=ma]. Newton ‘inspire guessed’ [meaning that he could not derive] the law of gravitation and this was ‘corrected’ by Einstein who added organisation to double the effect [of Newton’s equation] by postulating a ‘curvature of space’ [rubber sheet analogy]. That this analogy produced exactly an equal amount of attraction as did the masses [twice the effect of Newton’s equation] did not appear to be questioned, presumably because this was ‘justified’ [gave the correct answer] by experiment [Eddington’s observations] and physics tolerated this, but quantum mechanics was ‘a step too far’. In fact, the ‘rot set in’ when the wave-particle duality was considered to be two forms of energy [which they are not, from the creation equation].

Quantum mechanics is simply the application of the creation equation that physics calls the wave-particle duality and examples are given below, but much more importantly Newtonian physics is based on energy with a little organisation thrown in, when necessary, because ‘information remains bewildering, partly because it crops up in different guises in so many scientific fields. (Chance, ed. Michael Brooks, Paul Davies, p 21). Clearly, physics does not understand that organisation is relative [orthogonal] to energy, and with energy, creates the universe. In other words, physics is only considering half [energy] of the form of the universe and only half [top-down] of its operation [organisation]. Thus, if these four possibilities were dimensions, the software of our brain is only using one dimension instead of four dimensions and if we consider mathematics as an example, the difference in scope of point, line, area and volume is similar to what happens to our thinking in this model.

Aspects of Organisation

Four examples are given that illustrate the simplicity that comes from a complete model that allows firstly, I believe, a significant simplification to the atomic particle model, secondly, the use of the completeness of the model to understand dark energy and thirdly, a simple explanation of cosmic inflation, gravity and the expanding universe. Fourthly, the universe becomes the simple place of quantum mechanics that the fifth absolute requires and the resultant knowledge increases, not just our intelligence, but our intellect [which includes being correct].

Firstly, energy and organisation are necessarily orthogonal concepts and have contexts and there are names for different types of energy [potential, kinetic etc.], and the same applies to organisation and I would like to mention a simplification from a paper The Standard Particle Physics Model Versus Modern Physics that has been sent to Scientific Reports that shows the effect of simplification.

Concept: everything is relative and energy plus organisation equals zero in everything, so this representation is a table of operations categorised by the organisation of speed [tier one] and lifetime, energy etc. [tier two], the acceleration of the universe produces the (so-called) gravity in everything that affects everything as gravity and internally as quantum gravity [(energy plus organisation) divided by separation relative to something else]. In other words, all particles, that we call energy [photon] and what we call mass [neutrinos, protons etc.] are all composed of energy and organisation and the thing that makes them different is their speed and further, each particle is nothing [zero] if the universe stops accelerating.

[It is important to realise that this description and the standard model do not differ substantially (conceptually) from each other, because F/ma=1 is similar to the creation equation, below, but organisationally (contextually) the difference is great because the accelerating universe creates the effects of (what we call) gravity, whereas physics uses a construct that they call gravitons: ‘the gravitational force between the sun and the earth is ascribed to the exchange of gravitons between the particles that make up these two bodies. Although the exchanged particles are virtual, they certainly do produce a measurable effect – they make the earth orbit the sun!’, see below.]

Context: plus [tier 1]: quarks up and down [no speed relative to the particle]

proton, electron [less than light speed]]

neutrinos assorted [less than but extremely close to light speed

photon [light speed]

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

Notice that the speed of the neutrinos occupy the only available speed ‘slot’ that is between the asymptote of the allowable speed of particles and the speed of light, as well as the changing form of the neutrinos being an organisational possibility to minimise any broadening of the speed ‘slot’ [a possibility within the logic of the half-truth that avoids chaos].

Secondly, the following example is a simplification from Deriving The Mind submitted to Cognitive Neurodynamics and shows that the containment of a fractal is completeness that allows closure, as does the postulate of virtual particles. How does physics consider the universe? ‘Using the wave-particle duality . .,. everything in the universe, including light and gravity, can be described in terms of particles.’ (A Brief History Of Time, Stephen Hawking, p 75) Simplifying in this way, by only using particles, is a very dangerous procedure because information is lost. Newtonian physics is a product of the Renaissance and it’s formulation has been made too simple presumably 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) This model uses organisation explicitly.

Consider, ‘the gravitational force between the sun and the earth is ascribed to the exchange of gravitons between the particles that make up these two bodies. Although the exchanged particles are virtual, they certainly do produce a measurable effect – they make the earth orbit the sun!’ (A Brief History Of Time, Stephen Hawking, p 79) Fair go! This shows an overuse of top-down ‘splitting’ to the extent that virtual particles are created to justify an assumption, whereas bottom-up organisation tends to ‘lump’ things together because relationships can be seen. In other words, physics is a top-down creation that does not access the physical and is complicated by being excessively simple and this is shown by the requirement that energy cannot be created nor destroyed..

Consider the enigma, ‘the uncertainty principle means that even “empty” space is filled with pairs of virtual particles and antiparticles. These pairs would have an infinite amount of energy and, therefore, by Einstein’s famous equation E=mc(squared), they would have an infinite amount of mass.’ (A Brief History Of Time, Stephen Hawking, p 189) If we assume that these particles [composed of both energy and organisation] do exist, as they could [and presumably do in the Casimar effect] their sum-total might provide the gravitational effects of dark matter that seems to be driving cosmologists and particle physicists to distraction.

Firstly, the universe is an organisation that physics does not recognise and as such, physics allows limited possibilities and one problem is dark energy that I consider to be the infill energy to balance the acceleration [absolute two], secondly, gravity [due to acceleration] was larger [hyperbola] in earlier times [cosmic inflation] and we are looking back in time at galaxies, thirdly, that organisation leads to gravity [Einstein’s ‘curved space’] and that leaves only one other possibility, that fourthly, virtual particles contribute the necessary gravity, which they can do in this model through the creation equation] and the logic of the half-truth. Thus, the gravity of the so-called virtual particles is the balancing item and the problem disappears. In other words, the number of virtual particles is simply illustrated by the [gravitational] shape of the galaxies. The logic of the half-truth is simply all possibilities: true, false, true and false with restrictions, and chaos. An interesting point is how the universe uses the third term: an accelerating space for the creation equation to exist, wave-particle duality [wave and particle are the same] with speed differentiating, there is no reason that virtual particle cannot be created, but presumably the antimatter component meets an opposite eventually, but in the meantime, both contribute to gravity. [The creation caused cosmic inflation, whereas today ‘random walk’ insures recombination.]

Thirdly, using the third absolute, that the speed of light [energy plus organisation] is a constant, the requirement of acceleration [for the creation equation to exist] is a hyperbola [inverse of time] that requires high accelerations at the beginning [cosmic inflation] and a continuing acceleration dropping towards zero with time.

Fourthly, I believe that with this model we attain an intellect that cannot be surpassed and that is the aim and requirement to the goal of a Homo completus.

Intelligence

From a paper Don’t Do What Your Big Sister Done! submitted to Mind & Society,

Consider Theories of Intelligence in Psychology (Kendra Cherry) ‘while intelligence is one of the most talked about subjects in psychology, there is no standard definition of what exactly constitutes intelligence.’ (Internet) I would like to suggest that intelligence is an exact science based on the creation equation, see Form of the Universe below, and is the application of the concept of the mathematics of concept-context where each concept [fact, experience etc.] that is held in the mind-brain has an affordance attached to it, where affordance is the level of the emotional energy created in the brain relative to the requirements of the measurer each time that the measurement is made. Affordances are the recognition of the organisation of the environment, but also have the same effect with stored memories, and the comparison of which, is thinking [concept] and the context is some general mathematical physics [composed of relativity, Newtonian physics and the physical].

‘Psychologist James J. Gibson developed the concept of affordance over many years, culminating in his final book The Ecological Approach to Visual Perceptionin 1979. He defined an affordance as what the environment provides or furnishes the animal. . . . The key to understanding affordance is that it is relational and characterizes the suitability of the environment to the observer, and so, depends on their current intentions and their capabilities. . . . This notion of intention/needs is critical to an understanding of affordance, as it explains how the same aspect of the environment can provide different affordances to different people, and even to the same individual at another point in time.’ (Wikipedia, Affordance) So, affordances are the mechanism [creation equation : energy plus organisation equals zero] that measures the organisation of the environment and also the measuring of stored memories and their emotion label. Thinking is making a decision on the emotion levels with reference to tribal mores, creation myths and the physical requirements of the body. Notice that the definition ‘same individual at another point in time’ must be broadened to include ‘mindset’ or ‘capabilities’, which is considered here because ‘garbage in, garbage out’ has occurred. To restate one of the goals of this paper, the universe cannot lie [absolute five] and if we change our mindset [software], the affordance will change, our intellect will change and we might be able to save our civilisation.

The following important section appeared in the October issue, 2020, of Mind and Society [Can Affordances Save Civilisation?]. It has been expanded, but may not need to be included in the paper.

The Form Of The Universe

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

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

This theory explains cosmic inflation as well as predicting its form because the speed of energy and organisation is constant [an absolute] within the space that is accelerating. This might seem contradictory because it would seem that a constant speed is impossible in an accelerating space, but acceleration is relative because it contains time and so is orthogonal and completely independent of the speed [absolute] even though the universe [space] accelerates as the reciprocal of time with a possible singularity at time zero. Thus the form is hyperbolic explaining cosmic inflation at very small time and the accelerating universe for all time, decreasing, but never zero. The creation equation [energy plus organisation = zero] could be written as E=mi(squared) on the photon, where ‘i’ is the square root of -1, and E=mc(squared) off the photon [absolute three]. Notice that the infill [to balance the necessary acceleration] of the universe [E/t+O/t, all volume] is a constant.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Don’t Do What Your Big Sister Done!

by Darryl Penney

Abstract: it is possible that the new modern offshoots of physics, such as neuroscience, cosmology, particle physics, etc. are being hampered by the actions of physics because physics is littered with enigmas and complications that create complexity, due I believe, to the inability of physics to move beyond Newtonian physics which is necessary because Newtonian physics does not describe the physical. Even worse, an incomplete physics is hiding social engineering that is relative to technology and prevents a proper appreciation of the organisation that might prevent society from collapsing, as has always happened in the past. This model simplifies examples in the above disciplines and shows the simplicity of a universe inherent in a fractal generated by a creation equation, and organisational improvements to the offshoots are suggested. The possibility that the universe is fractal means that errors can be propagated throughout society as an ‘organisational cancer’ and a new general mathematical physics [context] and a new software [concept] is needed for our existing brain that allows us to ask the correct questions to be able to attain the goal of ‘saving’ our civilisation in the long-term, and in particular, provide the goals that are currently missing.

Keywords: physics; thought; relativity; technology; creation equation, organisation

Overview

The title is reasonably apt and short, as a concept should be, but conceptually, it could be that physics is ‘nest clearing’ troubled offspring because neuroscience can’t find the mind, society is killing itself and the planet, cosmology has the riddle of the Big Bang, cosmic inflation and an expanding universe, whilst particle physics has hundreds of particles held together by theoretical gluons, further, the whole problem started a hundred years ago with quantum mechanics and those quotable words: ‘use it, but don’t try to understand it’. Physics has a version [Newtonian physics] that works somewhat, and is adequate for everyday use and physics appears content with it and is obviously leaving it up to the offspring to construct a new theoretical physics for a modern age, and I have a large number of papers rejected by theoretical physics that may help answer those questions and give answers, but it needs a multidisciplinary [contextual] approach. This relativity of generalist and specialist is written in the creation equation and cannot be avoided if the correct questions are to be asked and an example is the wave-particle duality [which is not two forms of energy, an explanation that satisfied the scientific community a hundred years ago].

Preamble

The universe is built out of concepts and contexts that are necessarily independent [through restrictions] and thus requires a mind-brain [a third orthogonality] to access both. Newtonian physics is probably based on Galileo’s experiments, but not understood and the concept [Newtonian physics] became separated from it’s context [relativity] and that is why it is incompatible with the physical and this incompleteness makes it impossible for the off-shoot disciplines to function properly. Society is based on the organisation that Newtonian physics does not consider [see below] and our lack of understanding contributes to the lack of control of today’s society, so, consider Theories of Intelligence in Psychology (Kendra Cherry) ‘while intelligence is one of the most talked about subjects in psychology, there is no standard definition of what exactly constitutes intelligence.’ (Internet) The concept of intelligence, below, is the number of concepts [learned facts, experiences] held in the mind-brain which determine the number of contexts available to consider the concepts and further, ‘intellect refers to and identifies the ability of the mind to reach correct conclusions about what is true and what is false, and about how to solve problems.’ (Internet)

Thus, by continuing to use the thinking within Newtonian physics instead of a theory of modern physics a ‘cancer’ is introduced into the simple symmetry of the fractal [generates a new creation equation], the intellect of the physicist is compromised and physics presents a false model of the physical for the rest of science. An extended version of physics is given in this paper that includes the social engineering that is the organisation that is relative to technology and is it’s control, and it allows the social sciences to have the base that they need to be sciences. The world community provides billions of dollars to fund experiments that may be misdirected in the light of the examples that are highlighted below, and that organisation provides the ability to better manage society. Physics has an obligation to renew itself, because in loco parentis necessarily pervades Life, or, it can pass that responsibility to the new generation.

Preface

Neuroscience (or neurobiology) is the scientific study of the nervous system. It is a multidisciplinary science that combines physiology, anatomy, molecular biology, developmental biology, cytology, computer science and mathematical modelling to understand the fundamental and emergent properties of neurons and neural circuits. (Wikipedia) This multidisciplinary approach is to be applauded, but it will not find it’s goal of the mind because the mind is not scientific, it is organisational which science, as physics, does not recognise explicitly. Hence the title, above, and so, solving the problem of finding the mind is impossible through this approach, but can be found simply from the creation equation.

The purpose of this paper is to try to prevent neuroscience from going down the track that physics went down because physics, as probably the basic science, has found it’s niche in Newtonian physics and resists change and this is the behaviour that we see in evolution where a change in the environment favours part of the gene pool and they form a new species and leave the old one to exist in its niche. The proof of this is, I believe, that physics closed itself off from modern physics a hundred years ago when it could not understand quantum mechanics. Change tends to move in ‘fits and starts’ that generated farming-technology, Newtonian physics in the Renaissance, and Christianity two thousand years ago that turned savagery into ‘love your neighbour’, and then they carry on resisting change. Notice that physics is based on energy, and religion is based on organisation and yet they are similar in effect and that is because they are entangled and the explanation of that entanglement requires the knowledge presented below.

In other words, physics is based on energy, is incomplete and also does not connect with the physical, which is why it cannot handle modern physics. Universities ‘silo’ [conceptualise] into departments and do not generalise, which is a weakness in research [even particle physics, below], whereas neuroscience is contextualising disciplines [becoming multidisciplinary] and that requires new skills. The physical world is unknown to science because Newtonian physics does not use the physical, below, and as the mind-brain relies on the physical, neuroscience cannot proceed in any meaningful way unless it uses a complete theory using chemistry [atoms and energy] and organisation, as is presented below as brain and mind respectively. Clearly the reader will want proof and that is given below in the sections: Why Newtonian Physics is Not Physical, Aspects of Organisation which details a new standard particle physics model, a possible resolution of the dark matter problem in cosmology, cosmic inflation and the accelerating universe, and also, The Form of the Universe which derives quantum mechanics, gravity etc.

Further, this paper shows that the thinking behind the definition of neuroscience, above, is highly biased towards energy in the form of atoms and energy [physiology, anatomy, molecular biology, developmental biology, cytology] and mathematical organisation [computer science and mathematical modelling], whereas, I will describe the physical organisation that cannot be described by any of the above. This is a serious accusation of a science built on Newtonian physics and it is made even worse by, I believe, mathematics being overly complicated [basically designed to count sheep and is not physically based] and is a special case of the mathematics of concept-context, that is the mathematics of literature, society, the mind etc. So, welcome to the physical, as I see it, and the world of affordances that allow us to think using emotion, the very same emotional energy that Newtonian physics ignores. The one virtue of this model that should be kept in mind is that I have yet to find an enigma, and one further point is that relativity [orthogonality] demands that a goal be set, and that goal can only be the creation of a new mind that contains a new software for the existing brain that increases it’s effectiveness. Thus, the disciplines above may not be needed urgently because the brain remains the same, but it is the organisation involving context that is important [but is missing] as the means of understanding society [social engineering] and preventing its collapse, as has always happened throughout history.

A New Way of Thinking

Homo sapiens is a product of the organisation of survival of the fittest and in that context could be considered wise enough to have moved out of that organisation through technology, but not wise enough to move to the next step, which is a stable society. That we are heading for disaster, as a society, is obvious, so what do we do about it? Consider, ‘information remains bewildering, partly because it crops up in different guises in so many scientific fields’ (Chance, ed. Michael Brooks, Paul Davies, p 21) and this thinking led to the development of Newtonian physics 350 years ago that was based on energy and neglected organisation, presumably for the reason above. Newtonian physics is simple, convenient and works, but is incomplete, by design, and that incompleteness is the problem because Newtonian physics is based on Galileo’s absolute that the gravitational force on a particle is proportional to its mass, see the section Why Newtonian Physics is Not Physical, below, compared to the creation equation of the universe [energy plus organisation equals zero] on which I am basing this paper, and further, as every endeavour must have a goal [relativity], we become Homo completus when we have rid ourselves of all the problems that plague civilisation.

Homo sapiens and Newtonian physics are similar to each other because both are transitions without our realising it and the basic problem is our lack in acknowledging relativity, which is, I believe, the working of the universe, see below. Our civilisation is in trouble and if we come out of our problems to attain a stable society, it will be because we are using a new way of thinking and that defines a new Homo classification. I think that this statement is justified because Homo sapiens cannot currently produce a successful transition to a stable society with the intellect that it has, and as an example, firstly, the simplification of the standard particle model that shows how easy it is to understand with the use of explicit organisation [speed] and secondly, using relativity and the bottom-up of the physical together with Newtonian physics [to create general mathematical physics] will increase intelligence [concept] possibly fourfold and create a complete context that is orthogonal [independent yet entangled] to thought.

Clearly, both the concept of thinking and this context [that I call general mathematical physics] must be used because they are relative and relativity allows the universe to function because orthogonalities are independent, but entangled with each other, and that action is thought, a combination of constraint [a restriction], to keep it under control [reach a conclusion], and context to ensure that it contains all possibilities. The creation equation produces a fractal universe that grows and it’s properties [acceleration] creates gravity that is the context that holds it all together and our mind, in a fractal, is similar, simple and symmetric and that makes it easy to understand when we use the correct software. Our mind-brain has grown over the last couple of million years to embrace technology and it now needs a new software [operating system] to control the organisation of that technology and an example is general mathematical physics and the expanded memory [random access] that we now have in the search engines of the internet. That we need a new software, and what it should be, is the subject of this paper.

The paper, [Can Affordances Save Civilisation?] appeared in Mind and Society [20(1), 107-110] and concerned the transfer of organisational affordances as emotion as a relativity between the environment and the mind through the creation equation. A second paper, The Mind, Society, Socrates, Social Engineering and Symbiosis has been submitted and describes my ideas [mathematics of concept-context] on the functioning of the mind, again using affordances and the same equation. This present paper is designed to define the concept of intelligence as the contexts of the concepts that it contains and in doing so, uses social engineering that is the organisation that Newtonian physics has been hiding and is the key to controlling technology that got us into this mess. If it looks a little like religion, it is because religion is social engineering that has lasted for thousands of years and we need a goal [Heaven, Homo completus] and a creation equation or creation myth that allows our civilisation to continue indefinitely without intervening Dark Ages.

Intelligence

Consider Theories of Intelligence in Psychology (Kendra Cherry) ‘while intelligence is one of the most talked about subjects in psychology, there is no standard definition of what exactly constitutes intelligence.’ (Internet) I would like to suggest that intelligence is an exact science based on the creation equation, see Form of the Universe below, and is the application of the concept of the mathematics of concept-context where each concept [fact, experience etc.] that is held in the mind-brain has an affordance attached to it, where affordance is the level of the emotional energy created in the brain relative to the requirements of the measurer each time that the measurement is made. Affordances are the recognition of the organisation of the environment, but also have the same effect with stored memories, and the comparison of which, is thinking [concept] and the context is some general mathematical physics [composed of relativity, Newtonian physics and the physical].

‘Psychologist James J. Gibson developed the concept of affordance over many years, culminating in his final book The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception in 1979. He defined an affordance as what the environment provides or furnishes the animal. . . . The key to understanding affordance is that it is relational and characterizes the suitability of the environment to the observer, and so, depends on their current intentions and their capabilities. . . . This notion of intention/needs is critical to an understanding of affordance, as it explains how the same aspect of the environment can provide different affordances to different people, and even to the same individual at another point in time.’ (Wikipedia, Affordance) So, affordances are the mechanism [creation equation : energy plus organisation equals zero] that measures the organisation of the environment and also the measuring of stored memories and their emotion label. Thinking is making a decision on the emotion levels with reference to tribal mores, creation myths and the physical requirements of the body. Notice that the definition ‘same individual at another point in time’ must be broadened to include ‘mindset’ or ‘capabilities’, which is considered here because ‘garbage in, garbage out’ has occurred. To restate one of the goals of this paper, the universe cannot lie [absolute five] and if we change our mindset [software], the affordance will change, our intellect will change and we might be able to save our civilisation.

For example, the mind-brain uses the same process with regard to food in infancy, but with a time level. For about two years, the food intake is classed as ‘food’, whereas after that period, when all normal food varieties have been established, the decision is made to ‘close the books’ and other chemicals are treated as ‘foreign’ and require a reaction. This works well in the Palaeolithic when people did not move far in a lifetime and retained the ability to ‘open the books’ to new additions to the diet, such as increasing the tolerance to peanuts. So, the problem is that in our limited intellect, where Homo sapiens does what Homo sapiens wants to do, regardless of consequences, leads to the problems of allergies and other modern ‘diseases’ as well as excess population etc. Relativity requires a goal in management that must be suitable and attainable. That is why social engineering is so important, because we must ask the correct questions [otherwise, we get garbage in, garbage out], so, consider ‘intellect refers to and identifies the ability of the mind to reach correct conclusions about what is true and what is false, and about how to solve problems.’ (dictionary, Internet)

An example is Newtonian physics that appears to be based on Galileo’s experiments that force/mass equals acceleration of gravity that is generalised [and in so doing made non-physical] as Newton’s laws of motion, compared to the creation equation discussed here. In other words, by ignoring relativity Newtonian physics does not describe the physical, just as Homo sapiens has lost sight of the fact that our bodies and mind-brain evolved, but still require the conditions of the Palaeolithic, and like a snail is attached to it’s shell, we carry our evolution always within us. Physics ignores organisation as the price of it’s formulation having been made too simple presumably 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) . This model uses organisation explicitly in the creation equation, and if it is ignored [put constant, as above], the equation becomes the familiar basis of Newtonian physics that energy cannot be created or destroyed [a constant]. This model extends Newtonian physics, and in so doing, shows how our intelligence can be increased fourfold and we need it desperately to plan a viable future.

Social Engineering

Examples of social engineering are everywhere, such as schools, hospitals, public busses etc., so what is new? What is new is that these services supply a need and that is their goal, but it is the goal of the individual, not the overall goal of humanity. Satisfying the goal of one part, the individual, separate to the rest of the community [above] is possibly as bad as the incompleteness of physics and leads to extreme results, such as the standard particle model below or the uncontrolled population growth that is destroying the environment. However, we are fortunate that in a fractal, the different levels [person, group, country] work the same way [Adam Smith], but without completeness, how do we know what is occurring? This is the problem with top-down thinking and the same result happened with modern physics, a general paralysis of not knowing what to do leading to a 100 years of doing nothing, and it needs bottom-up, as this model is, to introduce overall perspective [relativity].

If social engineering is the concept, an overall perspective [context] requires that social engineering be firstly, equally important as technology because they must be in ‘lockstep’ [according to the creation equation], secondly, we must ask the correct questions to get the correct answers [using top-down and bottom-up], thirdly, we need intellect [the ability of the mind to reach correct conclusions about what is true and what is false] and fourthly, a goal to aim for [for relativity]. If the goal is the concept, we find ourselves in the same position that Socrates found himself in, but now society cannot solve the problem by ‘shooting the messenger’, as the ancient Greeks did [Socrates] because we have an organisational problem of over-population and requires an organisational solution that can only come from understanding social engineering.

Conclusion, Prediction and Perspective

It is difficult to consider the above to not be a present day movie script involving an Indiana Jones [as representing the 1930s action heroes] foiling a bumbling misguided conspiracy that endangers civilisation’s existence, but, even if we repair the ‘conspiracy’, we cannot go back to the ‘old’ way because we have a population explosion that is being held in check by agricultural technology and we need the orthogonality of social engineering to solve the problem of population growth. This is not without precedent in social engineering when one considers the birth of Christianity and like Christianity, the answer may have to come from the ‘grass root’ disciplines and that is why these papers have been configured to cross-reference each other. The concepts of academic disciplines might work together [general mathematical physics] to complete the organisation behind civilisation [just as the mind works], but the story must be told across current disciplines, that have the knowledge, if we are to hope for a complete and competent future.

The story so far: in Can Affordances Save Civilisation?, affordances were shown, via the creation equation, to provide an emotional response in the mind-brain to the organisational questioning of the environment, and in The Mind, Society, Socrates, Social Engineering and Symbiosis [submitted to Mind and Society] the working of the mind is considered as the hunt for the answer to Socrates’ questions [“What is loyalty?” etc.], which are not based on the physical, but are organisational and need social engineering which itself is the relativity of technology. The mind, as a third party, is the only way to consider orthogonal (independent) entities [as everything is, in the universe]. This current paper suggests that a ‘conspiracy’ has warped what we experience through the fractal nature of our society because Newtonian physics is incomplete and cannot ask the correct questions. The title ‘Don’t Do What Your Big Sister Done!’ refers to a plea that the semi-organisational disciplines, such as neuroscience do not follow a science that is incomplete and that does not access the physical and to develop a theory of modern physics perhaps based on this theory. The ‘lopsidedness’ is apparent when it is considered that social engineering is as important as technology and the examples [below] of the simplification that accrue with using a complete general mathematical physics.

The next episode: Plato suggested that rulers should be philosophers, but the personality of thinkers and doers seems to contain the same orthogonality as generalists and specialists and suggests the idea [behind the mind, mathematics of concept-context] of the Roman Consuls [each with orthogonal credentials and veto] may allow us to best attain a generally agreed goal that evolves a humanity such that extraterrestrials might want to visit us. However, the so-called ‘free world’ says that a Democracy is the best system, but are they manipulating us, or simply misguided?

Afterview: organisation is complicated unless the correct creation equation is used and I have cited the simplicity of the physical creation equation, but the creation equation of physics is too complicated and is causing our society to come to grief and, I believe, that social engineering, based on a new way of thinking is necessary to avoid another Dark Age created by unrestrained population growth.

Why Newtonian Physics is Not Physical

[this rest of this section is reproduced from an unpublished paper Why Are Physicists So Mentally Challenged?]

Galileo’s law of motion [an absolute that F/m=a is the force (F) on a mass (m) due to the constant acceleration due to gravity (a)] was, 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 [only the measurement], 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 equals zero. This becomes energy/organisation=i(squared), where ‘i’ is the square root of (-1) compared to F/ma=1. This is the point where Newtonian physics departs from the physical and disregards relativity. 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 (of ‘i’) are ‘imaginary’ without measuring relativity].

Does force [‘F’] have a physical meaning, in spite of the above? Yes it does, because relativity, as above, only exists if the relatives are kept apart [accelerating universe, celestial mechanics], but celestially, relativity acts as a pair of measurers that use the effect of the accelerating space [that we call gravity] to keep two bodies orbiting each other [in a stable state]. Thus ‘F’ is the ‘gravitational attraction’ [of energy and organisation] that causes quantum gravity [the dimensions of energy plus organisation divided by the separation [an absolute]] to be what each measures and so the gravity equation is the multiplicand of the absolutes of each body. Thus, Newtonian physics moves into the non-physical world [no relativity] in considering the motion of a [one] particle [F=ma]. Newton ‘inspire guessed’ [meaning that he could not derive] the law of gravitation and this was ‘corrected’ by Einstein who added organisation to double the effect [of Newton’s equation] by postulating a ‘curvature of space’ [rubber sheet analogy]. That this analogy produced exactly an equal amount of attraction as did the masses [twice the effect of Newton’s equation] did not appear to be questioned, presumably because this was ‘justified’ [gave the correct answer] by experiment [Eddington’s observations] and physics tolerated this, but quantum mechanics was ‘a step too far’. In fact, the ‘rot set in’ when the wave-particle duality was considered to be two forms of energy [which they are not, from the creation equation].

Quantum mechanics is simply the application of the creation equation that physics calls the wave-particle duality and examples are given below, but much more importantly Newtonian physics is based on energy with a little organisation thrown in, when necessary, because ‘information remains bewildering, partly because it crops up in different guises in so many scientific fields. (Chance, ed. Michael Brooks, Paul Davies, p 21). Clearly, physics does not understand that organisation is relative [orthogonal] to energy, and with energy, creates the universe. In other words, physics is only considering half [energy] of the form of the universe and only half [top-down] of its operation [organisation]. Thus, if these four possibilities were dimensions, the software of our brain is only using one dimension instead of four dimensions and if we consider mathematics as an example, the difference in scope of point, line, area and volume is similar to what happens to our thinking in this model.

Aspects of Organisation

Four examples are given that illustrate the simplicity that comes from a complete model that allows firstly, I believe, a significant simplification to the atomic particle model, secondly, the use of the completeness of the model to understand dark energy and thirdly, a simple explanation of cosmic inflation, gravity and the expanding universe. Fourthly, the universe becomes the simple place of quantum mechanics that the fifth absolute requires and the resultant knowledge increases, not just our intelligence, but our intellect.

Firstly, energy and organisation are necessarily orthogonal concepts and have contexts and there are names for different types of energy [potential, kinetic etc.], and the same applies to organisation and I would like to mention a simplification from a paper The Standard Particle Physics Model Versus Modern Physics that has been sent to IJTP that shows the effect of simplification.

Concept: everything is relative and energy plus organisation equals zero in everything, so this representation is a table of operations categorised by the organisation of speed [tier one] and lifetime, energy etc. [tier two], the acceleration of the universe produces the (so-called) gravity in everything that affects everything as gravity and internally as quantum gravity [(energy plus organisation) divided by separation relative to something else]. In other words, all particles, that we call energy [photon] and what we call mass [neutrinos, protons etc.] are all composed of energy and organisation and the thing that makes them different is their speed and further, each particle is nothing [zero] if the universe stops accelerating.

[It is important to realise that this description and the standard model do not differ substantially (conceptually) from each other, because F/ma=1 is similar to the creation equation, below, but organisationally (contextually) the difference is great because the accelerating universe creates the effects of (what we call) gravity, whereas physics uses a construct that they call gravitons: ‘the gravitational force between the sun and the earth is ascribed to the exchange of gravitons between the particles that make up these two bodies. Although the exchanged particles are virtual, they certainly do produce a measurable effect – they make the earth orbit the sun!’, see below.]

Context: plus [tier 1]: quarks up and down [no speed relative to the particle]

proton, electron [less than light speed]]

neutrinos assorted [less than but extremely close to light speed

photon [light speed]

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

Notice that the speed of the neutrinos occupy the only available speed ‘slot’ that is between the asymptote of the allowable speed of particles and the speed of light, as well as the changing form of the neutrinos being an organisational possibility to minimise any broadening of the speed ‘slot’ [a possibility within the logic of the half-truth that avoids chaos].

Secondly, the following example is a simplification from an unpublished Deriving The Mind and shows that the containment of a fractal is completeness that allows closure, as does the postulate of virtual particles. How does physics consider the universe? ‘Using the wave-particle duality . .,. everything in the universe, including light and gravity, can be described in terms of particles.’ (A Brief History Of Time, Stephen Hawking, p 75) Simplifying in this way, by only using particles, is a very dangerous procedure because information is lost. Newtonian physics is a product of the Renaissance and it’s formulation has been made too simple presumably 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) This model uses organisation explicitly.

Consider, ‘the gravitational force between the sun and the earth is ascribed to the exchange of gravitons between the particles that make up these two bodies. Although the exchanged particles are virtual, they certainly do produce a measurable effect – they make the earth orbit the sun!’ (A Brief History Of Time, Stephen Hawking, p 79) Fair go! This shows an overuse of top-down ‘splitting’ to the extent that virtual particles are created to justify an assumption, whereas bottom-up organisation tends to ‘lump’ things together because relationships can be seen. In other words, physics is a top-down creation that does not access the physical and is complicated by being excessively simple and this is shown by the requirement that energy cannot be created nor destroyed..

Consider the enigma, ‘the uncertainty principle means that even “empty” space is filled with pairs of virtual particles and antiparticles. These pairs would have an infinite amount of energy and, therefore, by Einstein’s famous equation E=mc(squared), they would have an infinite amount of mass.’ (A Brief History Of Time, Stephen Hawking, p 189) If we assume that these particles [composed of both energy and organisation] do exist, as they could [and presumably do in the Casimar effect] their sum-total might provide the gravitational effects of dark matter that seems to be driving cosmologists and particle physicists to distraction.

Firstly, the universe is an organisation that physics does not recognise and as such, physics allows limited possibilities and one problem is dark energy that I consider to be the infill energy to balance the acceleration [absolute two], secondly, gravity [due to acceleration] was larger [hyperbola] in earlier times [cosmic inflation] and we are looking back in time at galaxies, thirdly, that organisation leads to gravity [Einstein’s ‘curved space’] and that leaves only one other possibility, that fourthly, virtual particles contribute the necessary gravity, which they can do in this model through the creation equation] and the logic of the half-truth. Thus, the gravity of the so-called virtual particles is the balancing item and the problem disappears. In other words, the number of virtual particles is simply illustrated by the [gravitational] shape of the galaxies. The logic of the half-truth is simply all possibilities: true, false, true and false with restrictions, and chaos. An interesting point is how the universe uses the third term: an accelerating space for the creation equation to exist, wave-particle duality [wave and particle are the same] with speed differentiating, there is no reason that virtual particle cannot be created, but presumably the antimatter component meets an opposite eventually, but in the meantime, both contribute to gravity. [The creation caused cosmic inflation, whereas today with existing gravity, ‘random walk’ insures recombination (another restriction).]

Thirdly, using the third absolute, that the speed of light [energy plus organisation] is a constant, the requirement of acceleration [for the creation equation to exist] is a hyperbola [inverse of time] that requires high accelerations at the beginning [cosmic inflation] and a continuing acceleration dropping towards zero with time.

Fourthly, I believe that with this model we attain a human intellect that cannot be surpassed and that is the aim and requirement to the goal of a Homo completus.

The following important section appeared in the October issue, 2020, of Mind and Society [Can Affordances Save Civilisation?]. It has been expanded, but may not need to be included in the paper.

The Form Of The Universe

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

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

This theory explains cosmic inflation as well as predicting its form because the speed of energy and organisation is constant [an absolute] within the space that is accelerating. This might seem contradictory because it would seem that a constant speed is impossible in an accelerating space, but acceleration is relative because it contains time and so is orthogonal and completely independent of the speed [absolute] even though the universe [space] accelerates as the reciprocal of time with a possible singularity at time zero. Thus the form is hyperbolic explaining cosmic inflation at very small time and the accelerating universe for all time, decreasing, but never zero. The creation equation [energy plus organisation = zero] could be written as E=mi(squared) on the photon, where ‘i’ is the square root of -1, and E=mc(squared) off the photon [absolute three]. Notice that the infill [to balance the necessary acceleration] of the universe [E/t+O/t, all volume] is a constant.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Deriving The Mind

Abstract: physicists are marvellous at measurement with cyclotrons, telescopes, satellites etc., but are woeful at theory, but this theory of everything is generated bottom-up, seems to have no enigmas and provides a simple explanation, so, perhaps it is the long-awaited extension to Newtonian physics. However, this endeavour necessarily needs examples to show that physics has retreated into a shell of measurement that is hindering its offshoots and examples are given in quantum mechanics, gravity, particle physics, cosmic inflation, emotion, neuroscience and the way that we think. Mankind has successfully used the ‘stepping stones’ of farming, Christianity, Renaissance and now, a new one is needed to change the mind-brain that offers a solution to the problems of the world through the social engineering that has been hidden by physic’s incompleteness. We also need this model to attain the goals of rational management in order to manage society to prevent our civilisation from collapsing, unlike religion, however, the concept of this context is thinking and the construction of the mind is shown to be beyond neuroscience in it’s present form and needs this theory to progress.

Keywords: neuroscience; thought; particle physics; dark matter; relativity; creation equation

Preface

This paper is the continuation of The Standard Particle Physics Model Versus Modern Physics [submitted to IJTP] and builds upon a simplified version of the standard model of the elementary subatomic particles because physics is supposed to simplify and organise the interrelationship of the physical around us. This model is designed to give the average person a way into the complexities of particle physics and leave the specialists to the complications which they seem to enjoy because Newtonian physics does not access the physical, but generalises Galileo’s experiments that use a different creation equation to the first principles that I use. The current top-down view of physics leads to a ‘splitting’ of categories instead of ‘lumping’ them together in an organised way and this can lead to serious errors because the quality of thinking is the number of contexts which are strictly linked to the number of concepts of knowledge through the creation equation that contains organisation explicitly.

The standard model becomes simply:

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, energy etc. [tier two], the acceleration of the universe produces ‘gravity’ in everything that affects everything as 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 etc. [organisation changelings]

The Logic of the Half-truth

Overall, this particle-physics model appears simple because the universe is simple in construction and it has to be simple because of absolute five, below, and this simplicity is obtained by selecting a continuum [see Einstein’s special relativity] of permanent particles in terms of speed that creates an orthogonality [a relativity: independent but entangled] with energy as, I believe, happens in the physical universe that creates it’s functioning. The form of the universe is found by removing the relativity by division, see the section, The Form of the Universe, below.

How does physics consider the universe? ‘Using the wave-particle duality . .,. everything in the universe, including light and gravity, can be described in terms of particles.’ (A Brief History Of Time, Stephen Hawking, p 75) Simplifying in this way, by only using particles, is a very dangerous procedure because information is lost, for example, from the creation equation that I use [energy plus organisation equals zero], if organisation is held constant [ignored], the law of conservation of energy emerges, that is the basis of physics, which is, however, extremely difficult to justify in the accelerating universe that we seem to have. Newtonian physics is a product of the Renaissance and it’s formulation has been made too simple presumably 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) This model uses organisation explicitly.

Are we justified in assuming that ‘everything in the universe, including light and gravity, can be described in terms of particles’? Consider, ‘the gravitational force between the sun and the earth is ascribed to the exchange of gravitons between the particles that make up these two bodies. Although the exchanged particles are virtual, they certainly do produce a measurable effect – they make the earth orbit the sun!’ (A Brief History Of Time, Stephen Hawking, p 79) Fair go! This shows an overuse of top-down ‘splitting’ to the extent that virtual particles are created to justify an assumption, whereas bottom-up organisation tends to ‘lump’ things together because relationships can be seen [consider the model of the subatomic particles, above]. In other words, physics is a top-down creation that does not access the physical and is complicated by being excessively simple.

Quantum mechanics appears to use probabilities. ‘Einstein never accepted that the universe was governed by chance; his feelings were summed up in his famous statement, “God does not play dice”. (p 64) According to this model probabilities can be used because the creation equation includes a mathematical probability space [a+b=1, all a, b], but it does much more than just assign probabilities because the universe can use every possible opportunity that is offered. In other words, we see probabilities, but they include possibilities. Let’s look at the logic of the half-truth [true, false, true and false at different times, chaos] and that seems to consider all possibilities, but ‘ true and false at the same time’ is not ‘chaos’ if true and false ‘shimmer’ so fast, from one to the other that it makes no difference to the final result. This ‘shimmer’ is, I believe, the wave-particle duality that we see in the macroscopic [Einstein was awarded the Nobel prize for ‘explaining’ the wave particle duality in terms of energy!] and is, I believe, the structure of everything and the source of de Broglie’s waves in matter [similarity in a fractal]. Another example is the acceleration requirement of the creation equation to keep true and false [the concepts energy and organisation] always separate.

Thus, the creation equation is saying that everything contains energy [classic wave] and organisation [classic particle] together, in the same particle, but the particle shimmers between the two independent [orthogonal] states, thus, the only simple way to differentiate a photon from an electron is by its speed. This is a pivotal point in understanding physics from the physical point of view, that physics uses energy/photon and particle/mass to differentiate [using the mind-brain], but physics gets away with this ‘sloppiness’ simply because Newtonian physics is convenient, works but [both] does and does not include the physical because it is based on Galileo’s absolute F/m=g, where g is the acceleration due to gravity, F is force and m is mass, from experiment, hence, Newton’s law F/m=a, a is acceleration that is, I believe, a generalisation of Galileo’s absolute, but is not the creation equation energy/organisation=i(squared), i is the square root of -1, although it works [somewhat] because it has the same form [but lacks relativity]. Relativity is ‘i’ that never exists on its own.

Affording Possibilities

According to this model, a photon consists of energy and organisation, with the energy continuous, bounded by zero and infinity, and the organisation likewise, but organisation is apparent only at discrete levels as a particle [neutron etc.]. In other words, energy is continuous, whereas organisation occurs in discrete steps, as we see around us when a new person has to be hired or fired and the speed [kinetic energy] is the variable. To separate these two concepts [energy and organisation], they have to be orthogonal in intent [creation equation] and must satisfy restrictions [the universe is accelerating for the equation to continue to exist] and also physically. When I say physically, I am referring to the organisational solution that our questing receives because physics has long held that measuring as a wave returns a wave solution and vice versa for particles. Consider, ‘psychologist James J. Gibson developed the concept of affordance over many years, culminating in his final book The Ecological Approach to Visual Perceptionin 1979. He defined an affordance as what the environment provides or furnishes the animal. . . . The key to understanding affordance is that it is relational and characterizes the suitability of the environment to the observer, and so, depends on their current intentions and their capabilities.’ (Wikipedia, Affordance)

Let’s look more closely at ‘depends on their current intentions and their capabilities’, and if you use Newtonian physics, you are living in a ‘safe’ world that works, see above, but is not part of the physical and suits a population of limited purpose. The universe is intellectually challenging because if you ask the wrong question, you get the wrong answer [garbage in, garbage out] because the physical cannot lie [absolute five]. For example, consider the enigma, ‘the uncertainty principle means that even “empty” space is filled with pairs of virtual particles and antiparticles. These pairs would have an infinite amount of energy and, therefore, by Einstein’s famous equation E=mc(squared), they would have an infinite amount of mass.’ (A Brief History Of Time, Stephen Hawking, p 189)

From the logic of the half-truth it can be seen that ‘“empty” space may well be filled ‘with pairs of virtual particles and antiparticles’ because any possibility is possible that works logically and also, energy and organisation can be created together, if necessary, in this model. Further, if organisation is ignored, as occurs in physics, the creation equation reduces to the law of conservation of energy that underlies physics [that energy cannot be created nor destroyed] and that leads to the problem of an ‘infinite amount of energy’ and an ‘infinite amount of mass’, however, the use of the concept of ‘infinite’ does ‘muddy the waters’ to some extent. If we assume that these particles [composed of both energy and organisation] do exist, as they could [and presumably do in the Casimar effect] their sum-total might provide the gravitational effects of dark matter that seems to be driving cosmologists and particle physicists to distraction and to writing thick books, such as Dark Matter and the Dinosaurs by Lisa Randall.

Dark Matter

Dark matter is the gravitational source that cannot be found, but is necessarily postulated to hold the galaxies together as the ‘light’ matter in the stars is not calculated to be sufficient. For example, ‘in physics, a virtual particle is a transient quantum fluctuation that exhibits some of the characteristics of an ordinary particle . . . . where interactions between ordinary particles are described in terms of exchanges of virtual particles. . . . Virtual particles do not necessarily carry the same mass as the corresponding real particle, although they always conserve energy and momentum. The closer its characteristics come to those of ordinary particles, the longer the virtual particle exists. They are important in the physics of many processes. The term is somewhat loose and vaguely defined. . . . The accuracy and use of virtual particles in calculations is firmly established, but as they cannot be detected in experiments, deciding how to precisely describe them is a topic of debate.’ (Wikipedia, Virtual particle)

From above, virtual particles seem to be a ‘place-holder’ for the organisation that physics denies but in this case are actually available to increase the gravity within galaxies because anything within an accelerating frame exhibits, what we call, gravity. In other words, anything that ‘appears’ at a place in an accelerating space, such as our universe, acts as a gravity source independent of being virtual, of limited duration or permanent as well as being energy or organisation, so, let’s look at the problem of dark matter as an example of bottom-up organisation and the process of thinking. Gravity has two forms, firstly, that due to the necessary expansion [acceleration for the creation equation to exist] produces [what we call] gravity and secondly, quantum gravity as the magnitude, below.

Firstly, the universe is an organisation that physics does not recognise and as such, physics allows limited possibilities and one problem is dark energy that I consider to be the infill energy to balance the acceleration [absolute two], secondly, gravity [due to acceleration] was larger [hyperbola] in earlier times [cosmic inflation] and we are looking back in time at galaxies, thirdly, that organisation adds to gravity [Einstein’s ‘curved space’] and that leaves only one other possibility, that fourthly, virtual particles contribute the necessary gravity, which they can do in this model through the creation equation and the logic of the half-truth. Thus, the gravity of the so-called virtual particles is the balancing item and the problem disappears. [From an unpublished paper Why The Universe Is Accelerating And What Is Gravity – A New Complementary Theory that suggests that an accelerating space creates gravity in whatever is at a position]. In other words, firstly, gravity is an illusion that affects both energy and organisation due to accelerating space that makes things want to move in a parabola around another thing [there must be a second thing because of relativity] and secondly, the magnitude is given by quantum gravity [absolute four, below], thirdly, the universe is closed by the fractal generating creation equation, so, the observed shape of the galaxies is determined by the amount of energy and organisation that remains, on average as infill [a constant with volume, below] plus virtual particles that come and go and are the balancing item to the organisation. In other words, the number of virtual particles is simply determined by the shape of the galaxies. This model uses absolutes that force a unique solution [absolute five], so there cannot be an infinite effect, as the quotation expects, there must be a unique number that balances the organisation. This is impossible using a top-down, non-physical Newtonian physics. Notice that this explanation also explains the fact that Eddington found the deviation of a photon to be twice the value of Newton without resorting to the postulated ‘curved space’ of Einstein.

A hundred years ago, modern physics apparently ‘shut down’ because it was realised that Newtonian physics was inadequate, but, I believe that this model holds the key to the physical and the examples of a particle physics model and dark energy show what can be done with a change in viewpoint, but the problem is the thinking apart from the organisation of physics, so let’s look at the physics of thinking.

The Science of Thought

Neuroscience (or neurobiology) is the scientific study of the nervous system. It is a multidisciplinary science that combines physiology, anatomy, molecular biology, developmental biology, cytology, computer science and mathematical modelling to understand the fundamental and emergent properties of neurons and neural circuits. (Wikipedia)

This definition is multidisciplinary and uses the contexts of disciplines, and the most important context between them is undoubtedly mathematical modelling because it is the over-arching organisation of thought and I can say this because this new model allows me to point to the creation equation and show how it all seems to fit together. An important part of the creation equation is relativity and the relativity of what I am saying is to point to the problems of physics where wrong choices were made in setting up modern physics and this knowledge might save neuroscience some heartache that may be avoided through using this new model.

This overarching mathematical modelling of thinking [concept] is the organisation of thought that has a context composed of firstly, affordances [from the creation equation] to read the organisation of the environment, stored thoughts etc. as emotional energy and also the action potentials of stored memories, secondly, the use of the mathematics of concept-context from the creation equation to compare the levels of emotional energy that comes with measuring concepts, and thirdly, filtering the mathematics with the societal software of the tribe’s mores and creation myth etc. The concept is to increase the safety of the individual and tribe and this has the context of in loco parentis [in the place of the parent], hence, each of us has the responsibility to ensure the safety of civilisation and future generations and that requires social engineering [the management of technology] that is, in part, the organisation that physics actively ignores. Thinking is not based on quantum mechanics, as has been surmised, but both are manifestations of the creation equation.

What is in this for neuroscience? Firstly, affordances and their derivation appeared in the October issue, 2020, of Mind and Society [Can Affordances Save Civilisation?], secondly, the mathematics of concept-context is obvious from the creation equation and is the comparison of values of affordances and thirdly, intellect is shown by the creation equation to be a strict relationship between concepts and their context. Fourthly, consider ‘Intellect refers to and identifies the ability of the mind to reach correct conclusions about what is true and what is false, and about how to solve problems.’ (Internet) This definition is concerned with ‘correct conclusions’ and that is my foremost aim and presumably is the goal of neuroscience and this model shows that it is derived from learning and experience and the creation equation is the only way that it can be derived bottom-up. This extension of thinking has been submitted to the journal Mind and Society as The Mind, Society, Socrates, Social Engineering and Symbiosis, so, consider Theories of Intelligence in Psychology (Kendra Cherry) ‘while intelligence is one of the most talked about subjects in psychology, there is no standard definition of what exactly constitutes intelligence.’ (Internet) The concept of intelligence, as above, is the number of concepts [learned facts, experiences] held in the mind-brain which determine the number of contexts available to consider the concepts. Thus, by limiting the scope of physics, the intellect of the physicist is compromised, which is the case that I am presenting and unfortunately, physics is supposed to present a usable model of the physical for the rest of science, but it is proving less than helpful.

Given the creation equation, thinking is a science because it becomes understandable and obeys rules that are simple, symmetric and similar and our ‘parasitic’ relationship with the universe is via the logic of the Half-truth because the universe always answers and the problem is to ask the correct questions. We cannot ask the correct questions if our theory is incorrect, as appears to have happened to physics, whereas, I believe, a correct theory produces results that allow us to add to the concepts in our mind-brain and increase intelligence by learning new concepts, but a concept is useless without context and that is measurement and a statement of relativity. Relativity is a simplified statement of orthogonality that is the creation equation and we must recognise a goal to aim towards, and for humanity, Homo completus is the successful future of mankind that leaves behind the muddled thinking of Homo sapiens who is not wise or intelligent enough to control population, wars, murder etc. To understand and manage society we need the social engineering that physics, in it’s present form is hiding, that is orthogonal to technology.

Comparison

Physics is like a tribe with a ‘creation myth’ that everything was created as energy in a Big Bang and as the energy cooled it condensed into matter until today they say that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, which is difficult to believe as the universe is expanding under some force [postulated dark energy]. Newtonian physics considers energy and matter and guesses [cannot derive] the law of gravity, Einstein tried to extend this law by saying E=mc(squared) [where E is energy, m is mass and c is the speed of light] and that acceleration produces gravity. The Michelson-Morley experiment [the speed of light is constant to any measurer] allowed Einstein to show that the dimensions moved together to prevent the speed of a particle reaching the speed of energy [photon]. The importance of this has been overlooked and is the basis of restructuring the standard particle model above, and understanding the role of neutrinos, because, I believe that Newtonian physics is fundamentally too simple.

This model suggests that the universe is a fractal derived from the creation equation, which is the relativity of energy and organisation that produces dimensions that, when stripped of relativity show absolutes that describe the form of the universe that uses energy, organisation and speed as orthogonalities that describe the working of the universe. Relativity is a necessary logic that allows gravitation, quantum mechanics, quantum gravity, cosmic inflation and an accelerating universe to be derived, whereas physics lacks relativity. This model extends Newtonian physics [top-down] with the bottom-up of the physical and relativity and is the context of the concept of thinking. Hence neuroscience is necessary to link Life with the universe and turn a parasitic relationship into a symbiotic one that is the goal that any rational management must pursue for civilisation to last.

The Ages of Mankind

Consider that Mankind left the natural organisation of survival of the fittest via technology, produced empires and those empires periodically crashed, whereas Christianity is a magnificent example of a social engineering goal that outlasted the Roman empire and a 1,000 years of the Dark Ages, and the Renaissance was a conscious goal to re-establish the finer points of Roman life. There is a difference between these two organisational situations where the first [civilisation] does not understand organisation and the second [religion] does, and for that simple reason empires crash. The end of the Renaissance era is apparent and is epitomised by physics retreating into measurement a hundred years ago and abandoning theoretical modern physics, and an example is, ‘use quantum mechanics, but don’t try to understand it’. Civilisation is riven by problems for which it does not have answers and I believe that that state of affairs comes from lacking goals that are necessary for social engineering to occur, but social engineering is the organisation that is hidden in Newtonian physics.

Notice that Newton was an Alchemist, a speciality that developed into chemistry and would he have expected that his simple laws of motion, that were applicable to a closed planetary system, would be used to try to describe the physical universe for the next 350 years? Are physicists mentally challenged? The answer must be yes, on three counts, firstly the poor quality of the social engineering of the physics ‘club’ or ‘creation myth’ that was required of physicists and secondly, the reduction of intelligence that comes with a restriction of concepts and thirdly, the problems of the generalisation of the laws of motion into the non-physical [relativity was lost when acceleration replaced the acceleration of gravity, another body, in Galileo’s absolute]. No wonder that modern physics was ‘shut down’ a hundred years ago! Physics possibly needs the ‘grass-roots’ help of the ‘spin-off’ disciplines, just as Christianity was the vehicle of change that converted the savagery of the time to ‘love your neighbour’.

Why did I send the first part of this paper that contained an example of particle physics to a theoretical physics journal [IJTP], and this paper that considers cosmology to a neuroscience journal, and the next paper [Don’t Do What Your Big Sister Done!] that shows why neuroscience will never understand the mind [in its present form] to Mind and Society? I am doing this because, except for the latter, all the journals are based on Newtonian physics and the only way to extend their thinking is to increase their concepts and context that are the successful resolution of problems outside of their thinking. Mind and Society is not based on Newtonian physics, but on the social engineering that is hidden from physics [by its incompleteness] as is the form, but not function, of the mind that is hidden from neuroscience [again by the incompleteness of modern physics]. Physics, based on Newtonian physics, and Christianity, based on the Bible, are enduring organisations that will have to be changed by the ‘grass-roots’ of social engineering, and the offshoots of physics must become the disciples of this new model if they want to attain the goal of saving society. I say this because every civilisation throughout history has collapsed and ours is beset by problems.

In other words, science and organisation are concepts that are independent but entangled [orthogonal] and the measurer is the mind and the mind measures the affordances of both, but if it asks questions that are wrongly based, as Newtonian physics does, it gets the wrong answers. [Physics has often wondered why experiments return a particle or waveform result depending on the experimental setup.] This model is complete and corrects Newtonian physics by extending it and that allows us to ask questions that return answers that do not [so far] have enigmas. Everything to do with the mind is based on context [affordances] and the creation equation [concepts and context] as the mathematics of concept-context, which is the language of speech and literature. Thus, neuroscience is mind and science and Mind and Society is mind and organisation, and affordances, through the mind, via the creation equation, bring them together, and further, the mind is the organisation of the energies created by the affordances from the organisation of each.

Homo sapiens is wise only in it’s own opinion and is destroying civilisation with it’s shortcomings, so, our goal [concept] is a capable Homo completus that has the attributes to attain a stable long-term civilisation [context] and that requires a better way of thinking [concept] and a general mathematical physics [context] built on this model. Thinking can be increased by multiple factors or dimensions [relativity and the bottom-up physical to augment the top-down current physics], but a goal is necessary, as outlined in an unpublished paper [Rationalising Management, Money And The Gifts Of The Ancient Greeks]. Saving civilisation means changing ourselves [in a fractal all levels are similar] and we need goals [Homo completus] and rational management if we are to have a future. The handling of the pandemic shows the incompetence of various governments and the simplicity of the medical solution of isolation is extremely disruptive which a modicum of organisation [such as quarantine] could prevent.

Conclusion

It is important to remember that whilst concepts and contexts are orthogonal, so are generalists and specialists and it could be said that specialists know practically everything about practically nothing, whereas generalists know practically nothing about practically everything and the examples, above, are indicative of that comment as is the siloing in universities and it can now be seen how important it is to not let siloing happen. I believe that our aim as a society is to improve ourselves and not let our civilisation be destroyed, as has always happened in the past and this requires organisation and could spell the difference between Homo sapiens and the goal of Homo completus. If the present hierarchy will not change, as is natural in nature, they will be side-lined.

Prediction

I know little of neuroscience, but I do know that it will not succeed in understanding the mind without this theory and I will give a final example using religion [social engineering, which is the organisation that is too difficult for Newtonian physics] because science is set in it’s unhelpful ways [like Sodom and Gomorrah] and this model gives the opportunity to leave [don’t look back] before civilisation, as we know it, is destroyed. Homo sapiens is mentally deficient and needs a goal [heaven] for everyone to work towards [social engineering of religion]. If you follow instructions [this model] you will find paradise [everything will become clear, Homo completus], but you must believe [this model] to ask the correct questions [affordances] to get the truth [the correct answers]. Religion [organisation] changed the savagery of the times [our society is destroying the planet] into ‘love your neighbour’ [compare today’s wars, murders etc.], but needs updating after 2,000 years. Christianity was so successful [especially with its weekly services] that it changed most of the world and is built on social engineering principles that is apparent using this model, starting with only a few disciples. Academic disciplines, working together could change the world!

The following important section appeared in the October issue, 2020, of Mind and Society [Can Affordances Save Civilisation?]. It has been expanded, but may not need to be included in the paper.

The Form Of The Universe

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

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

This theory explains cosmic inflation as well as predicting its form because the speed of energy and organisation is constant [an absolute] within the space that is accelerating. This might seem contradictory because it would seem that a constant speed is impossible in an accelerating space, but acceleration is relative because it contains time and so is orthogonal and completely independent of the speed [absolute] even though the universe [space] accelerates as the reciprocal of time with a possible singularity at time zero. Thus the form is hyperbolic explaining cosmic inflation at very small time and the accelerating universe for all time, decreasing, but never zero. The creation equation [energy plus organisation = zero] could be written as E=mi(squared) on the photon, where ‘i’ is the square root of -1, and E=mc(squared) off the photon [absolute three]. Notice that the infill [to balance the necessary acceleration] of the universe [E/t+O/t, all volume] is a constant.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Deriving The Mind

Abstract: physicists are marvellous at measurement with cyclotrons, telescopes, satellites etc., but are woeful at theory, but this theory of everything is generated bottom-up, seems to have no enigmas and provides a simple explanation, so, perhaps it is the long-awaited extension to Newtonian physics. However, this endeavour necessarily needs examples to show that physics has retreated into a shell of measurement that is hindering its offshoots and examples are given in quantum mechanics, gravity, particle physics, cosmic inflation, emotion, neuroscience and the way that we think. Mankind has successfully used the ‘stepping stones’ of farming, Christianity, Renaissance and now, a new one is needed to change the mind-brain that offers a solution to the problems of the world through the social engineering that has been hidden by physic’s incompleteness. We also need this model to attain the goals of rational management in order to manage society to prevent our civilisation from collapsing, unlike religion, however, the concept of this context is thinking and the construction of the mind is shown to be beyond neuroscience in it’s present form and needs this theory to progress.

Keywords: neuroscience; thought; particle physics; dark matter; relativity; creation equation

Preface

This paper is the continuation of The Standard Particle Physics Model Versus Modern Physics [submitted to IJTP] and builds upon a simplified version of the standard model of the elementary subatomic particles because physics is supposed to simplify and organise the interrelationship of the physical around us. This model is designed to give the average person a way into the complexities of particle physics and leave the specialists to the complications which they seem to enjoy because Newtonian physics does not access the physical, but generalises Galileo’s experiments that use a different creation equation to the first principles that I use. The current top-down view of physics leads to a ‘splitting’ of categories instead of ‘lumping’ them together in an organised way and this can lead to serious errors because the quality of thinking is the number of contexts which are strictly linked to the number of concepts of knowledge through the creation equation that contains organisation explicitly.

The standard model becomes simply:

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, energy etc. [tier two], the acceleration of the universe produces ‘gravity’ in everything that affects everything as 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 etc. [organisation changelings]

The Logic of the Half-truth

Overall, this particle-physics model appears simple because the universe is simple in construction and it has to be simple because of absolute five, below, and this simplicity is obtained by selecting a continuum [see Einstein’s special relativity] of permanent particles in terms of speed that creates an orthogonality [a relativity: independent but entangled] with energy as, I believe, happens in the physical universe that creates it’s functioning. The form of the universe is found by removing the relativity by division, see the section, The Form of the Universe, below.

How does physics consider the universe? ‘Using the wave-particle duality . .,. everything in the universe, including light and gravity, can be described in terms of particles.’ (A Brief History Of Time, Stephen Hawking, p 75) Simplifying in this way, by only using particles, is a very dangerous procedure because information is lost, for example, from the creation equation that I use [energy plus organisation equals zero], if organisation is held constant [ignored], the law of conservation of energy emerges, that is the basis of physics, which is, however, extremely difficult to justify in the accelerating universe that we seem to have. Newtonian physics is a product of the Renaissance and it’s formulation has been made too simple presumably 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) This model uses organisation explicitly.

Are we justified in assuming that ‘everything in the universe, including light and gravity, can be described in terms of particles’? Consider, ‘the gravitational force between the sun and the earth is ascribed to the exchange of gravitons between the particles that make up these two bodies. Although the exchanged particles are virtual, they certainly do produce a measurable effect – they make the earth orbit the sun!’ (A Brief History Of Time, Stephen Hawking, p 79) Fair go! This shows an overuse of top-down ‘splitting’ to the extent that virtual particles are created to justify an assumption, whereas bottom-up organisation tends to ‘lump’ things together because relationships can be seen [consider the model of the subatomic particles, above]. In other words, physics is a top-down creation that does not access the physical and is complicated by being excessively simple.

Quantum mechanics appears to use probabilities. ‘Einstein never accepted that the universe was governed by chance; his feelings were summed up in his famous statement, “God does not play dice”. (p 64) According to this model probabilities can be used because the creation equation includes a mathematical probability space [a+b=1, all a, b], but it does much more than just assign probabilities because the universe can use every possible opportunity that is offered. In other words, we see probabilities, but they include possibilities. Let’s look at the logic of the half-truth [true, false, true and false at different times, chaos] and that seems to consider all possibilities, but ‘ true and false at the same time’ is not ‘chaos’ if true and false ‘shimmer’ so fast, from one to the other that it makes no difference to the final result. This ‘shimmer’ is, I believe, the wave-particle duality that we see in the macroscopic [Einstein was awarded the Nobel prize for ‘explaining’ the wave particle duality in terms of energy!] and is, I believe, the structure of everything and the source of de Broglie’s waves in matter [similarity in a fractal]. Another example is the acceleration requirement of the creation equation to keep true and false [the concepts energy and organisation] always separate.

Thus, the creation equation is saying that everything contains energy [classic wave] and organisation [classic particle] together, in the same particle, but the particle shimmers between the two independent [orthogonal] states, thus, the only simple way to differentiate a photon from an electron is by its speed. This is a pivotal point in understanding physics from the physical point of view, that physics uses energy/photon and particle/mass to differentiate [using the mind-brain], but physics gets away with this ‘sloppiness’ simply because Newtonian physics is convenient, works but [both] does and does not include the physical because it is based on Galileo’s absolute F/m=g, where g is the acceleration due to gravity, F is force and m is mass, from experiment, hence, Newton’s law F/m=a, a is acceleration that is, I believe, a generalisation of Galileo’s absolute, but is not the creation equation energy/organisation=i(squared), i is the square root of -1, although it works [somewhat] because it has the same form [but lacks relativity]. Relativity is ‘i’ that never exists on its own.

Affording Possibilities

According to this model, a photon consists of energy and organisation, with the energy continuous, bounded by zero and infinity, and the organisation likewise, but organisation is apparent only at discrete levels as a particle [neutron etc.]. In other words, energy is continuous, whereas organisation occurs in discrete steps, as we see around us when a new person has to be hired or fired and the speed [kinetic energy] is the variable. To separate these two concepts [energy and organisation], they have to be orthogonal in intent [creation equation] and must satisfy restrictions [the universe is accelerating for the equation to continue to exist] and also physically. When I say physically, I am referring to the organisational solution that our questing receives because physics has long held that measuring as a wave returns a wave solution and vice versa for particles. Consider, ‘psychologist James J. Gibson developed the concept of affordance over many years, culminating in his final book The Ecological Approach to Visual Perceptionin 1979. He defined an affordance as what the environment provides or furnishes the animal. . . . The key to understanding affordance is that it is relational and characterizes the suitability of the environment to the observer, and so, depends on their current intentions and their capabilities.’ (Wikipedia, Affordance)

Let’s look more closely at ‘depends on their current intentions and their capabilities’, and if you use Newtonian physics, you are living in a ‘safe’ world that works, see above, but is not part of the physical and suits a population of limited purpose. The universe is intellectually challenging because if you ask the wrong question, you get the wrong answer [garbage in, garbage out] because the physical cannot lie [absolute five]. For example, consider the enigma, ‘the uncertainty principle means that even “empty” space is filled with pairs of virtual particles and antiparticles. These pairs would have an infinite amount of energy and, therefore, by Einstein’s famous equation E=mc(squared), they would have an infinite amount of mass.’ (A Brief History Of Time, Stephen Hawking, p 189)

From the logic of the half-truth it can be seen that ‘“empty” space may well be filled ‘with pairs of virtual particles and antiparticles’ because any possibility is possible that works logically and also, energy and organisation can be created together, if necessary, in this model. Further, if organisation is ignored, as occurs in physics, the creation equation reduces to the law of conservation of energy that underlies physics [that energy cannot be created nor destroyed] and that leads to the problem of an ‘infinite amount of energy’ and an ‘infinite amount of mass’, however, the use of the concept of ‘infinite’ does ‘muddy the waters’ to some extent. If we assume that these particles [composed of both energy and organisation] do exist, as they could [and presumably do in the Casimar effect] their sum-total might provide the gravitational effects of dark matter that seems to be driving cosmologists and particle physicists to distraction and to writing thick books, such as Dark Matter and the Dinosaurs by Lisa Randall.

Dark Matter

Dark matter is the gravitational source that cannot be found, but is necessarily postulated to hold the galaxies together as the ‘light’ matter in the stars is not calculated to be sufficient. For example, ‘in physics, a virtual particle is a transient quantum fluctuation that exhibits some of the characteristics of an ordinary particle . . . . where interactions between ordinary particles are described in terms of exchanges of virtual particles. . . . Virtual particles do not necessarily carry the same mass as the corresponding real particle, although they always conserve energy and momentum. The closer its characteristics come to those of ordinary particles, the longer the virtual particle exists. They are important in the physics of many processes. The term is somewhat loose and vaguely defined. . . . The accuracy and use of virtual particles in calculations is firmly established, but as they cannot be detected in experiments, deciding how to precisely describe them is a topic of debate.’ (Wikipedia, Virtual particle)

From above, virtual particles seem to be a ‘place-holder’ for the organisation that physics denies but in this case are actually available to increase the gravity within galaxies because anything within an accelerating frame exhibits, what we call, gravity. In other words, anything that ‘appears’ at a place in an accelerating space, such as our universe, acts as a gravity source independent of being virtual, of limited duration or permanent as well as being energy or organisation, so, let’s look at the problem of dark matter as an example of bottom-up organisation and the process of thinking. Gravity has two forms, firstly, that due to the necessary expansion [acceleration for the creation equation to exist] produces [what we call] gravity and secondly, quantum gravity as the magnitude, below.

Firstly, the universe is an organisation that physics does not recognise and as such, physics allows limited possibilities and one problem is dark energy that I consider to be the infill energy to balance the acceleration [absolute two], secondly, gravity [due to acceleration] was larger [hyperbola] in earlier times [cosmic inflation] and we are looking back in time at galaxies, thirdly, that organisation adds to gravity [Einstein’s ‘curved space’] and that leaves only one other possibility, that fourthly, virtual particles contribute the necessary gravity, which they can do in this model through the creation equation and the logic of the half-truth. Thus, the gravity of the so-called virtual particles is the balancing item and the problem disappears. [From an unpublished paper Why The Universe Is Accelerating And What Is Gravity – A New Complementary Theory that suggests that an accelerating space creates gravity in whatever is at a position]. In other words, firstly, gravity is an illusion that affects both energy and organisation due to accelerating space that makes things want to move in a parabola around another thing [there must be a second thing because of relativity] and secondly, the magnitude is given by quantum gravity [absolute four, below], thirdly, the universe is closed by the fractal generating creation equation, so, the observed shape of the galaxies is determined by the amount of energy and organisation that remains, on average as infill [a constant with volume, below] plus virtual particles that come and go and are the balancing item to the organisation. In other words, the number of virtual particles is simply determined by the shape of the galaxies. This model uses absolutes that force a unique solution [absolute five], so there cannot be an infinite effect, as the quotation expects, there must be a unique number that balances the organisation. This is impossible using a top-down, non-physical Newtonian physics. Notice that this explanation also explains the fact that Eddington found the deviation of a photon to be twice the value of Newton without resorting to the postulated ‘curved space’ of Einstein.

A hundred years ago, modern physics apparently ‘shut down’ because it was realised that Newtonian physics was inadequate, but, I believe that this model holds the key to the physical and the examples of a particle physics model and dark energy show what can be done with a change in viewpoint, but the problem is the thinking apart from the organisation of physics, so let’s look at the physics of thinking.

The Science of Thought

Neuroscience (or neurobiology) is the scientific study of the nervous system. It is a multidisciplinary science that combines physiology, anatomy, molecular biology, developmental biology, cytology, computer science and mathematical modelling to understand the fundamental and emergent properties of neurons and neural circuits. (Wikipedia)

This definition is multidisciplinary and uses the contexts of disciplines, and the most important context between them is undoubtedly mathematical modelling because it is the over-arching organisation of thought and I can say this because this new model allows me to point to the creation equation and show how it all seems to fit together. An important part of the creation equation is relativity and the relativity of what I am saying is to point to the problems of physics where wrong choices were made in setting up modern physics and this knowledge might save neuroscience some heartache that may be avoided through using this new model.

This overarching mathematical modelling of thinking [concept] is the organisation of thought that has a context composed of firstly, affordances [from the creation equation] to read the organisation of the environment, stored thoughts etc. as emotional energy and also the action potentials of stored memories, secondly, the use of the mathematics of concept-context from the creation equation to compare the levels of emotional energy that comes with measuring concepts, and thirdly, filtering the mathematics with the societal software of the tribe’s mores and creation myth etc. The concept is to increase the safety of the individual and tribe and this has the context of in loco parentis [in the place of the parent], hence, each of us has the responsibility to ensure the safety of civilisation and future generations and that requires social engineering [the management of technology] that is, in part, the organisation that physics actively ignores. Thinking is not based on quantum mechanics, as has been surmised, but both are manifestations of the creation equation.

What is in this for neuroscience? Firstly, affordances and their derivation appeared in the October issue, 2020, of Mind and Society [Can Affordances Save Civilisation?], secondly, the mathematics of concept-context is obvious from the creation equation and is the comparison of values of affordances and thirdly, intellect is shown by the creation equation to be a strict relationship between concepts and their context. Fourthly, consider ‘Intellect refers to and identifies the ability of the mind to reach correct conclusions about what is true and what is false, and about how to solve problems.’ (Internet) This definition is concerned with ‘correct conclusions’ and that is my foremost aim and presumably is the goal of neuroscience and this model shows that it is derived from learning and experience and the creation equation is the only way that it can be derived bottom-up. This extension of thinking has been submitted to the journal Mind and Society as The Mind, Society, Socrates, Social Engineering and Symbiosis, so, consider Theories of Intelligence in Psychology (Kendra Cherry) ‘while intelligence is one of the most talked about subjects in psychology, there is no standard definition of what exactly constitutes intelligence.’ (Internet) The concept of intelligence, as above, is the number of concepts [learned facts, experiences] held in the mind-brain which determine the number of contexts available to consider the concepts. Thus, by limiting the scope of physics, the intellect of the physicist is compromised, which is the case that I am presenting and unfortunately, physics is supposed to present a usable model of the physical for the rest of science, but it is proving less than helpful.

Given the creation equation, thinking is a science because it becomes understandable and obeys rules that are simple, symmetric and similar and our ‘parasitic’ relationship with the universe is via the logic of the Half-truth because the universe always answers and the problem is to ask the correct questions. We cannot ask the correct questions if our theory is incorrect, as appears to have happened to physics, whereas, I believe, a correct theory produces results that allow us to add to the concepts in our mind-brain and increase intelligence by learning new concepts, but a concept is useless without context and that is measurement and a statement of relativity. Relativity is a simplified statement of orthogonality that is the creation equation and we must recognise a goal to aim towards, and for humanity, Homo completus is the successful future of mankind that leaves behind the muddled thinking of Homo sapiens who is not wise or intelligent enough to control population, wars, murder etc. To understand and manage society we need the social engineering that physics, in it’s present form is hiding, that is orthogonal to technology.

Comparison

Physics is like a tribe with a ‘creation myth’ that everything was created as energy in a Big Bang and as the energy cooled it condensed into matter until today they say that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, which is difficult to believe as the universe is expanding under some force [postulated dark energy]. Newtonian physics considers energy and matter and guesses [cannot derive] the law of gravity, Einstein tried to extend this law by saying E=mc(squared) [where E is energy, m is mass and c is the speed of light] and that acceleration produces gravity. The Michelson-Morley experiment [the speed of light is constant to any measurer] allowed Einstein to show that the dimensions moved together to prevent the speed of a particle reaching the speed of energy [photon]. The importance of this has been overlooked and is the basis of restructuring the standard particle model above, and understanding the role of neutrinos, because, I believe that Newtonian physics is fundamentally too simple.

This model suggests that the universe is a fractal derived from the creation equation, which is the relativity of energy and organisation that produces dimensions that, when stripped of relativity show absolutes that describe the form of the universe that uses energy, organisation and speed as orthogonalities that describe the working of the universe. Relativity is a necessary logic that allows gravitation, quantum mechanics, quantum gravity, cosmic inflation and an accelerating universe to be derived, whereas physics lacks relativity. This model extends Newtonian physics [top-down] with the bottom-up of the physical and relativity and is the context of the concept of thinking. Hence neuroscience is necessary to link Life with the universe and turn a parasitic relationship into a symbiotic one that is the goal that any rational management must pursue for civilisation to last.

The Ages of Mankind

Consider that Mankind left the natural organisation of survival of the fittest via technology, produced empires and those empires periodically crashed, whereas Christianity is a magnificent example of a social engineering goal that outlasted the Roman empire and a 1,000 years of the Dark Ages, and the Renaissance was a conscious goal to re-establish the finer points of Roman life. There is a difference between these two organisational situations where the first [civilisation] does not understand organisation and the second [religion] does, and for that simple reason empires crash. The end of the Renaissance era is apparent and is epitomised by physics retreating into measurement a hundred years ago and abandoning theoretical modern physics, and an example is, ‘use quantum mechanics, but don’t try to understand it’. Civilisation is riven by problems for which it does not have answers and I believe that that state of affairs comes from lacking goals that are necessary for social engineering to occur, but social engineering is the organisation that is hidden in Newtonian physics.

Notice that Newton was an Alchemist, a speciality that developed into chemistry and would he have expected that his simple laws of motion, that were applicable to a closed planetary system, would be used to try to describe the physical universe for the next 350 years? Are physicists mentally challenged? The answer must be yes, on three counts, firstly the poor quality of the social engineering of the physics ‘club’ or ‘creation myth’ that was required of physicists and secondly, the reduction of intelligence that comes with a restriction of concepts and thirdly, the problems of the generalisation of the laws of motion into the non-physical [relativity was lost when acceleration replaced the acceleration of gravity, another body, in Galileo’s absolute]. No wonder that modern physics was ‘shut down’ a hundred years ago! Physics possibly needs the ‘grass-roots’ help of the ‘spin-off’ disciplines, just as Christianity was the vehicle of change that converted the savagery of the time to ‘love your neighbour’.

Why did I send the first part of this paper that contained an example of particle physics to a theoretical physics journal [IJTP], and this paper that considers cosmology to a neuroscience journal, and the next paper [Don’t Do What Your Big Sister Done!] that shows why neuroscience will never understand the mind [in its present form] to Mind and Society? I am doing this because, except for the latter, all the journals are based on Newtonian physics and the only way to extend their thinking is to increase their concepts and context that are the successful resolution of problems outside of their thinking. Mind and Society is not based on Newtonian physics, but on the social engineering that is hidden from physics [by its incompleteness] as is the form, but not function, of the mind that is hidden from neuroscience [again by the incompleteness of modern physics]. Physics, based on Newtonian physics, and Christianity, based on the Bible, are enduring organisations that will have to be changed by the ‘grass-roots’ of social engineering, and the offshoots of physics must become the disciples of this new model if they want to attain the goal of saving society. I say this because every civilisation throughout history has collapsed and ours is beset by problems.

In other words, science and organisation are concepts that are independent but entangled [orthogonal] and the measurer is the mind and the mind measures the affordances of both, but if it asks questions that are wrongly based, as Newtonian physics does, it gets the wrong answers. [Physics has often wondered why experiments return a particle or waveform result depending on the experimental setup.] This model is complete and corrects Newtonian physics by extending it and that allows us to ask questions that return answers that do not [so far] have enigmas. Everything to do with the mind is based on context [affordances] and the creation equation [concepts and context] as the mathematics of concept-context, which is the language of speech and literature. Thus, neuroscience is mind and science and Mind and Society is mind and organisation, and affordances, through the mind, via the creation equation, bring them together, and further, the mind is the organisation of the energies created by the affordances from the organisation of each.

Homo sapiens is wise only in it’s own opinion and is destroying civilisation with it’s shortcomings, so, our goal [concept] is a capable Homo completus that has the attributes to attain a stable long-term civilisation [context] and that requires a better way of thinking [concept] and a general mathematical physics [context] built on this model. Thinking can be increased by multiple factors or dimensions [relativity and the bottom-up physical to augment the top-down current physics], but a goal is necessary, as outlined in an unpublished paper [Rationalising Management, Money And The Gifts Of The Ancient Greeks]. Saving civilisation means changing ourselves [in a fractal all levels are similar] and we need goals [Homo completus] and rational management if we are to have a future. The handling of the pandemic shows the incompetence of various governments and the simplicity of the medical solution of isolation is extremely disruptive which a modicum of organisation [such as quarantine] could prevent.

Conclusion

It is important to remember that whilst concepts and contexts are orthogonal, so are generalists and specialists and it could be said that specialists know practically everything about practically nothing, whereas generalists know practically nothing about practically everything and the examples, above, are indicative of that comment as is the siloing in universities and it can now be seen how important it is to not let siloing happen. I believe that our aim as a society is to improve ourselves and not let our civilisation be destroyed, as has always happened in the past and this requires organisation and could spell the difference between Homo sapiens and the goal of Homo completus. If the present hierarchy will not change, as is natural in nature, they will be side-lined.

Prediction

I know little of neuroscience, but I do know that it will not succeed in understanding the mind without this theory and I will give a final example using religion [social engineering, which is the organisation that is too difficult for Newtonian physics] because science is set in it’s unhelpful ways [like Sodom and Gomorrah] and this model gives the opportunity to leave [don’t look back] before civilisation, as we know it, is destroyed. Homo sapiens is mentally deficient and needs a goal [heaven] for everyone to work towards [social engineering of religion]. If you follow instructions [this model] you will find paradise [everything will become clear, Homo completus], but you must believe [this model] to ask the correct questions [affordances] to get the truth [the correct answers]. Religion [organisation] changed the savagery of the times [our society is destroying the planet] into ‘love your neighbour’ [compare today’s wars, murders etc.], but needs updating after 2,000 years. Christianity was so successful [especially with its weekly services] that it changed most of the world and is built on social engineering principles that is apparent using this model, starting with only a few disciples. Academic disciplines, working together could change the world!

The following important section appeared in the October issue, 2020, of Mind and Society [Can Affordances Save Civilisation?]. It has been expanded, but may not need to be included in the paper.

The Form Of The Universe

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

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

This theory explains cosmic inflation as well as predicting its form because the speed of energy and organisation is constant [an absolute] within the space that is accelerating. This might seem contradictory because it would seem that a constant speed is impossible in an accelerating space, but acceleration is relative because it contains time and so is orthogonal and completely independent of the speed [absolute] even though the universe [space] accelerates as the reciprocal of time with a possible singularity at time zero. Thus the form is hyperbolic explaining cosmic inflation at very small time and the accelerating universe for all time, decreasing, but never zero. The creation equation [energy plus organisation = zero] could be written as E=mi(squared) on the photon, where ‘i’ is the square root of -1, and E=mc(squared) off the photon [absolute three]. Notice that the infill [to balance the necessary acceleration] of the universe [E/t+O/t, all volume] is a constant.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Illuminating The Dark Ages

by Darryl Penney

Abstract: ‘definition of renaissance . . . expressed in a flowering of the arts and literature and by the beginnings of modern science’ (Wikipedia) , but we do not understand art, the mind-brain or quantum mechanics unless we use the creation equation of everything to understand that organisation produces emotion, thinking, quantum mechanics and even gravity. Physics is part of the Dark Ages and does not consider the physical, which is modern science, but clings to a crippled version that this model points out so that everything becomes clear in an enhanced mind and produces social engineering that may allows us to control society and ourselves and thus avoid the failures of all societies before us.

Keywords: gravity; creation equation; relativity; dark matter; mind-brain; social engineering

‘Given the dominance of dark energy and dark matter, and even the mystery of why so much ordinary matter has survived to today, physicists also joke that we live in the dark ages.’ (Dark Matter And The Dinosaurs, Lisa Randall, p 9)

Preamble

Civilisation has ‘reached the end of its tether’ and needs a new way of thinking to overcome it’s problems [population numbers, over-consumption, lack of goals etc.] if it wants to survive into the future intact. Our mind-brain is mired in the organisation of survival of the fittest and we need a new way of thinking to match the technology that we have developed and to provide the necessary controls and guidance to use that technology properly. The quotation suggests that physics has not completed the renaissance that takes us from the constraints of survival of the fittest to a new Homo completus that overcomes the stupidity of Homo sapiens [more conceited than wise] by increasing our mental capacity to control the technology that we have developed and can at last truly enter a new renaissance. The so called Renaissance was built on the Greek-Roman civilisation that collapsed and our task will not be complete until we understand art, understand science and understand how to control civilisation so that is does not collapse again. Physics is not part of modern science because it does not include the physical, uses an incomplete vision of hundreds of years ago, cannot expand Newtonian physics and is holding up progress by hiding organisation. This paper aims to help correct that state of affairs by completing physics [context] and necessarily creating a new way of thinking [concept].

Preface

There are two types of mind-brain, the specialists and the generalists where the specialists know everything about (nearly) nothing and generalists know (nearly) nothing about everything and this difference is written into the fabric of the universe [creation equation, wave-particle duality, concept-context etc.]. This paper requires that I create a third [universe, Homo sapiens, Homo completus] person that can realise [measure] the orthogonality [independent, but entangled] between two concepts and this can be done using the creation equation [mathematics of concept-context] to develop the theory of everything because it creates the fractal universe in which we are parasite-players. In other words, I need to create a Homo completus in order to stand outside and measure [affordances] the interplay of Homo sapiens and the environment. This is a statement of relativity and is more profound than it first appears because firstly, Homo completus is the goal that we must recognise to examine Homo sapiens and secondly, that is how we think.

Lisa Randall wrote a book about dark matter as befits a specialist seeking answers to longstanding problems within a speciality, looking for clarification [context] that will change the software of her mind-brain to produce a new way of thinking that creates answers [concept] and this change is the moving towards Homo completus, who has the potential to use a much [one dimension to four dimensions] increased mind-brain software along with bionic [biological and electronic] parts by using the internet. The internet allows up to date, complete [in the main], immediate access to all knowledge via the computer and forms another dimension of thought. This explanation of organisation is the context of a problem that Homo sapiens has been unable to comprehend 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)

Lisa Randall’s book Dark Matter And The Dinosaurs seems to have an undertone of railing against her inability to understand dark energy, cosmic inflation and dark matter. This is a logical reaction to physics’ ‘shutting-down’ the theory of modern physics a hundred years ago when it could not understand quantum mechanics and the reason that modern physics cannot be understood is because physics is not based on the physical. When our thinking changes to include the physical, modern physics becomes simple and understandable. The secret is to account for organisation because the universe is built on relativity.

Introduction

As above, I believe that the Renaissance needs to be updated and repaired because it is experiencing world-wide problems due to the lack of understanding of the physical that has led physics to ‘hide’ the organisation needed to fix the problem of creating a stable civilisation as well as the understanding of art, the working of the mind, modern physics etc. The energy upon which physics is built is orthogonal to the organisation that it ignores, and yet the two are related in a simple manner. In particular, physics aligns with material engineering, whilst the relativity is social engineering, that has been ignored by physics, and it is the part that allows us to understand ourselves, the family and the country and to possibly prevent the hitherto inevitable collapse into another dark age.

Further, could it be believed that, what physics calls dark matter, is simply that which physics has hidden, that makes up half the universe and helps provides the gravity that holds everything together? Absolute five, below, says that the universe cannot contain ‘bits’ that do not have a designated purpose, so, what is dark matter’s role? To accept this theory, that I am putting forward, I believe, requires a significant change in viewpoint and ultimately a moving from the viewpoint of Homo sapiens to Homo completus so that we can understand our present short-comings. So, an example might help, that Newton believed masses attract through gravity, Einstein believed that masses and energy [photons] attract each other and that ‘curved space’ provided the other half [a version of scceleration], but found to be correct [in result] by Eddington. I propose to include the gravity of organisation [both physical and the importance of] to the concept of ‘curved space’, which is an attempt [misguided, but correct] to include acceleration and if relativity is accepted, the creation equation becomes energy plus organisation equals zero, and below, is the explanation of why Newtonian physics works whilst being incorrect [in the bigger picture]. If this is hard to believe, consider that if organisation is ignored [held constant], the equation becomes the bedrock of Newtonian physics [energy cannot be created nor destroyed] which is clearly ‘rubbish’ in an accelerating universe. We desperately need simplification to our understanding of these basic concepts.

Dark Matter Disappears

Firstly, let’s get rid of ‘matter-antimatter asymmetry’ (that is a consequence of assuming that energy is the only consequence of the Big Bang) that produces ‘the mystery of why so much ordinary matter has survived to today’. The expansion of a fractal generates similarity, so the initial creation equation generates matter of only one type which is carried on forever. Very tiny amounts of antimatter have been created in the laboratory, but it is expensive and difficult to handle.

Secondly, ‘why should all matter interact with light? Dark matter can simply be matter that has different or no fundamental charges. . . . Dark matter is not dark – it is transparent.’ (p 5/6) The simplest explanation could be to not introduce a new form of matter, but to realise that dark matter might be organisation. Matter [energy] and organisation are orthogonal [independent yet entangled] because a universe, house, car etc. cannot be built unless different things stay different, that is, independent, yet entangled in the car etc. and, the simplest explanation is that the universe came from nothing with the restriction that the space has to be accelerating to keep the ‘bits’ apart.

Finding dark matter is a serious business because ‘dedicated probes are searching . . . but so far dark matter remains invisible. Its effects haven’t influenced detectors at their current level of sensitivity . . . even though it is unseen and unfelt, dark matter played a pivotal role in forming the Universe’s structure.’ (p 3) It really is difficult to consider [with a ‘straight face’] that the dark matter that physics is trying to find is the organisation that physics refuses to consider!

The Gravity of the Situation, Part 1

[this section is reproduced from a paper Why Are Physicists So Mentally Challenged? Submitted to the IJTP]

Galileo’s law of motion [an absolute that F/m=a is the force (F) on a mass (m) due to the constant acceleration due to gravity (a)] was, 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 [only the measurement], 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 equals zero. This becomes energy/organisation=i squared, where ‘i’ is the square root of (-1) compared to F/ma=1. This is the point that Newtonian physics departs from the physical and disregards relativity. 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 (of ‘i’) are ‘imaginary’ without measuring relativity].

Does force [‘F’] have a physical meaning, in spite of the above? Yes it does, because relativity, as above, only exists if the relatives are kept apart [accelerating universe, celestial mechanics], but celestially, relativity acts as a pair of measurers that use the effect of the accelerating space [that we call gravity] to keep two bodies orbiting each other [in a stable state]. Thus ‘F’ is the ‘gravitational attraction’ [of energy and organisation] that causes quantum gravity [the dimensions of energy plus organisation divided by the separation [an absolute]] to be what each measures and so the gravity equation is the multiplicand of the absolutes of each body. Thus, Newtonian physics moves into the non-physical world [no relativity] in considering the motion of a [one] particle [F=ma]. Newton ‘inspire guessed’ [meaning that he could not derive] the law of gravitation and this was ‘corrected’ by Einstein who added organisation to double the effect [of Newton’s equation] by postulating a ‘curvature of space’ [rubber sheet analogy]. That this analogy produced exactly an equal amount of attraction as did the masses [twice the effect of Newton’s equation] did not appear to be questioned, presumably because this was ‘justified’ [gave the correct answer] by experiment [Eddington’s observations] and physics tolerated this, but quantum mechanics was ‘a step too far’. In fact, the ‘rot set in’ when the wave-particle duality was considered to be two forms of energy [Copenhagen interpretation, which they are not, from the creation equation].

Quantum mechanics is simply the application of the creation equation that physics calls the wave-particle duality and examples are given below, but much more importantly Newtonian physics is based on energy with a little organisation thrown in, when necessary, because ‘information remains bewildering, partly because it crops up in different guises in so many scientific fields. (Chance, ed. Michael Brooks, Paul Davies, p 21). Clearly, physics does not understand that organisation is relative [orthogonal] to energy, and with energy, creates the universe. In other words, physics is only considering half [energy] of the form of the universe and only half [top-down] of its operation [organisation]. Thus, if these four possibilities were dimensions, the software of our brain is only using one dimension instead of four dimensions and if we consider mathematics as an example, the difference in scope of point, line, area and volume is similar to what happens to our thinking in this model.

The Gravity of the Situation, Part 2

This model is the extension that completes Newtonian physics by adding the two orthogonalities [relativity and top-bottom organisation] and is the context of thinking, where the mind-brain is the concept, and this relativity leads to the necessary existence of generalists using context versus specialists using concepts and it can be seen how this situation evolved in physics. Specialists should not make mistakes, as they seem to have done in this case, because they cannot see the bigger picture, whereas generalists need to make mistakes and be corrected by specialists who are the ‘number crunchers’. A better method is for both to work together because they think differently as would be expected from the creation equation.

Consider ‘asymmetric dark matter. Models that contain dark matter of this type address another remarkable coincidence that might be accidental or might give us an insight into the nature of dark matter: the amount of dark matter and the amount of ordinary matter are surprisingly comparable.’ (p 278) Asymmetric dark matter has been dealt with above and is not relevant, but what is relevant is that the two matters are comparable, and, as this model suggests, are orthogonal and need the inclusion of energy to make them, the matters, equal [essentially]. It is important to realise that many things that we call ‘equal’ are actually orthogonal, which means independent yet entangled and Cartesian coordinates are an example, where x and y in (x, y) are independent except at (0,0) where they are equal. This has ramifications for the creation equation and leads to the Heisenberg uncertainty problem, ‘the mathematical framework of quantum physics does not support the notion of simultaneously well-defined conjugate properties expressed by a single value’ (Wikipedia) The ‘ conjugate properties’ in this case are position [organisation] and momentum [energy] and they can never be non-orthogonal [equal], which occurs at (0, 0), see below.

Another well-known example is E=mc(squared) that is equal, as far as the unit conversion is concerned, but clearly orthogonal in this model because energy and matter are orthogonal with organisation, but it should be noted that the equation ‘works’ for physics because, as above, for F-ma=0 is the same form as E-mc(squared)=0 and the creation equation energy plus organisation equals zero. Generalising the form of these equations [as I believe Newton did], what is the meaning of E=mx(squared)? Clearly, it is the equation of a parabola where x is one coordinate and the square indicates relativity with another [hypothetical] mass m. I apologise for taking liberties with the mathematics, but that seems to have been what physics has done. This shows the form of the motion of celestial objects, while the magnitude of the attraction is given by the absolutes creating the law of gravity, below.

I should point out firstly, that mathematics is complicated because, for counting, it is based on the number line, whereas the mathematics of concept-context is much simpler and obvious from the creation equation and forms the basis of literature. Secondly, gravity acts on the position and what is at that position [energy, mass, organisation] and the introduction of dark matter creates more problems, such as, ‘a dark matter particle with mass about one hundred times heavier than the proton – a commonly assumed value for dark matter masses’ (p 328). Gravity is not a simple attraction that is fixed by postulating a bit more mass, but is, I believe an organisation that is an intimate part of the working of the universe as quantum gravity shows.

The Gravity of the Situation, Part 3

(Cosmic inflation is explained in the currently unpublished paper Why Solving Cosmic Inflation Could Change Your Mind)

‘Just suppose that the universe started as a ‘whimper’, with nothing [literally nothing] dividing into energy and organisation, as is possible for relativity [compare vacuum energy], then the necessary acceleration of the space [from the creation equation] between them must be distance divided by time squared, but the speed of light [distance divided by time is a constant], so the acceleration of the space is inversely proportional to time. Thus, the expansion of space starts at time zero, and dividing by zero makes for big big numbers that rapidly decrease with time [hyperbola]. That could be a simple answer to cosmic inflation and an accelerating universe!’

Thus this model predicts the necessity of both cosmic inflation and an accelerating [albeit decreasing with time, but never zero] space, which is desirable as our universe appears to act in this way. Further, a hyperbolic form is continuous everywhere and unending in both axes making it a candidate for reality [which must be everywhere continuous, else magic happens]. Similarly, the same form is found in quantum gravity, below, ranging from organisation [quarks are never found alone] and the inverse of infinity of gravitational attraction. Physics treats gravity as a force, which is akin to an energy, whereas, I consider it to be an organisation, and this presents an orthogonality that illustrate the problem with the wave-particle duality that is usually considered to be two forms of energy by physics. However, I consider a wave to be pure energy and a particle as organisation [as a first approximation] then a fractal is the expansion of an orthogonality that oscillates between the two, but each generates the other, and that is the reason, I believe, that physics is able to consider them as only one form. Indeed, the requirement of their magnitudes being equal makes dealing with organisation more simple.

Physics seems to be comfortable with the idea that the space can expand [practically] infinitely fast [cosmic inflation] and I believe that gravity is not an energy, nor an organisation, but a property of the space. The justification is simply that if it is allowed at [small] time, it should be allowed at all time as it is the same curve. In other words, gravity has no speed [is infinitely fast] and is a property of the space, and this is necessary if all parts of the universe are to be continually accountable. This is simply assuring that local effects and universal effects must be treated as one, as generated interest in cosmic inflation. Thus gravity has local effects given by the law of gravity, below, but it must be extended to include the acceleration of the universe because gravity is acceleration, as Einstein postulated.

As a generalist, I have no idea of the magnitude of the three influences: relativity of matter, relativity of the organisation or the acceleration of the universe. My aim is to try to elucidate the concepts of the three and leave the context to the physicists because, according to the creation equation, that is all that is necessary and sufficient for the task. Notice the fractal generation of the switching of generalist-specialist, concept-context, wave-particle, energy-organisation, plot and story-line etc.

Dark Energy and Dark Matter Revisited

‘Two teams of supernova researchers used this insight to discover dark energy in 1998, when they measured the redshifts of the galaxies in which the Type 1a supernovae reside . . . In fact, this picture – though widely accepted – is currently disputed by experts’ (p 22) ‘Their observations led to the remarkable conclusion that some unanticipated energy source was accelerating the rate of the Universe’s expansion. Dark energy fits the bill, since its gravitational influence makes the Universe expand at an increasingly rapid rate over time.’ (p 23) This quotation makes me think of the proverb that ‘when the only tool that you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail’ and that an accelerating universe requires a new source of energy to push it. Physics needs completeness and that means recognising the organisation that civilisation needs to produce and maintain aims.

This model, by expanding the base to include energy and organisation produces a logical restriction that allows an explanation for both cosmic inflation and an accelerating space, which is also necessary to create gravity. ‘Zwicky calculated that the amount of mass required for the cluster to have sufficient gravitational pull was 400 times greater than the contribution of the measured luminous mass – the matter that emits light. . . . Lundmark, like Oort, hadn’t made the more daring suggestion of an entirely new form of matter . . . the true value, which we now know to be about five.’ (p12) ‘Measurements of gravitational lensing also play a role in what is perhaps the most compelling evidence for dark matter, which comes from clusters of galaxies that have merged – as happened with the now-famous (among physicists at least) Bullet Cluster.(p 16) The lensing appears as a ‘halo’ around the clusters that have passed through each other and that the so-called dark-matter follows the light emitting matter, as would be expected if both light emitting matter and it’s organisation contributed.

This quotation shows the propensity to introduce new concepts [splitters] top-down, whereas it appears that bottom-up produces consistency [lumpers] and also shows the necessity of specialists and generalists being different. In essence, Newtonian physics is a ‘sacred cow’ because it uses a ‘wormhole’ into the physical and works, in a limited way, but now that its limitations are understood, surely it is time to fix it and complete the Renaissance.

Conclusion and Prediction

If the above is true, and I have yet to find inconsistencies, a serious situation has developed through not using organisation, and far more, the damage that the ‘shutting’ down of physics has done to enthusiasm and careers, such as for Lisa Randall. Humankind must use organisation in a necessary way by assigning goals, but organisation is a context and requires a better software and the time for unpublished papers, such as Rationalising Management, Money And The Gifts Of The Ancient Greeks has yet to come.

The above is a ‘stuff up’, not because it is not ‘true’, because it is [not true] according to the model that I am suggesting, but because top-down theories have been ‘stuffed’ into it to fill a need, for example, dark matter is created to provide gravitational ‘pull’, but gravitation does not ‘pull’ because it is the result of ‘curved space’, or an accelerating universe. Dark energy expands to create the accelerating universe whereas I believe that it is the infill energy for the acceleration, cosmic inflation is postulated as separate to the sudden influx of energy from a supposed Big Bang. Fair go! The ‘stuff up’ is creating concepts without contexts and is explained in the paper Why Are Physicists So Mentally Challenged? submitted to the IJTP. This theory seems to answer all of the enigmas satisfactorily, such as ‘What is emotion?’, ‘What is thought?’, ‘What is laughter?’, ‘What does the Mona Lisa painting have that makes it special?’ etc.

Physics as a concept is great, but it does not access the physical and its context is troubling, as I have shown. Physics needs to think better and as thinking is the context linked to thought [everything is relative], if context is poor, so thinking must be poor. Einstein was awarded a Nobel Prize for the wave-particle duality, but that is like E=mc(squared), not quite correct because this theory says that energy-organisation is an orthogonality [independent, but entangled] which explains entanglement of particles in particular. Consider affordances, ‘psychologist James J. Gibson developed the concept of affordance over many years, culminating in his final book The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception in 1979. He defined an affordance as what the environment provides or furnishes the animal. . . . The key to understanding affordance is that it is relational and characterizes the suitability of the environment to the observer, and so, depends on their current intentions and their capabilities. . . . This notion of intention/needs is critical to an understanding of affordance, as it explains how the same aspect of the environment can provide different affordances to different people, and even to the same individual at another point in time. ‘(Wikipedia, Affordance)

This is saying, among other things, that we receive answers to the questions that we ask, there are no free lunches, for if we ask the wrong questions from the wrong theory, we get misleading information [rubbish in, rubbish out], as above. Top-down thinking is what the animals do because they exist in an organisation [survival of the fittest], but technology has disturbed the status quo and we need to find a new organisation [social engineering] to constrain society and fix the current mess. In other words, using the creation equation doubles the present scope and allows social engineering to control the use of technology [materials engineering] and thus control society. In loco parentis is mankind’s greatest driving force, but it withers away without selection of the fittest [a goal] and without an organisation that supports it and further, we need to create Homo completus as a goal to see Homo sapiens as a conceited has-been.

The following important section appeared in the October issue, 2020, of Mind and Society [Can Affordances Save Civilisation?]. It has been expanded, but may not need to be included in the paper.

The Form Of The Universe

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

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

This theory explains cosmic inflation as well as predicting its form because the speed of energy and organisation is constant [an absolute] within the space that is accelerating. This might seem contradictory because it would seem that a constant speed is impossible in an accelerating space, but acceleration is relative because it contains time and so is orthogonal and completely independent of the speed [absolute] even though the universe [space] accelerates as the reciprocal of time with a possible singularity at time zero. Thus the form is hyperbolic explaining cosmic inflation at very small time and the accelerating universe for all time, decreasing, but never zero. The creation equation [energy plus organisation = zero] could be written as E=mi(squared) on the photon, where ‘i’ is the square root of -1, and E=mc(squared) off the photon [absolute three]. Notice that the infill [to balance the necessary acceleration] of the universe [E/t+O/t, all volume] is a constant.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why Are Physicists So Mentally Challenged?

by Darryl Penney

Abstract:: society and the environment are being endangered by our lack of ability to understand organisation, the same lack that physics is living with by not accessing the physical and so being unable to progress with ‘modern’ physics theory. Physics appears to have stifled research into these areas for the last hundred years, but now a new extension to physics is proposed that includes the physical and organisation that makes sense of thinking, emotion, gravitational attraction, magnetism and all the other enigmas that Newtonian physics has caused. As a result of this inability to progress, it seems sensible to propose a new complete bionic Homo completus in place of the Homo sapiens [more vain than wise] that is unable to understand society, how to fix it or make it symbiotic with the environment.

Preface

The traditional way of ‘dumbing-down’ a section of the community is to restrict information and it is difficult to believe that the ‘cutting-edge’ of research has been ‘blunted’ in this way at huge cost to society. Whether this ‘dumbing-down’ was done by a few for their own benefit, the result of the lack of intelligence of Homo sapiens in general, or the bureaucratic carrying on with the ‘shutting-down’ of modern physics that was started a hundred years ago is debatable. Probably, in fairness, the physics bureaucracy is waiting for a new approach to physics and realises that it can not come from the teaching of the universities, or from someone with a career in physics, or indeed, from any physicist because physics is built on voting what to accept, not on the physical, and physics needs to be re-built from the bottom up [concept] but dovetailing [context] with society in general. This is a big ask, but possible because I am not a practising physicist and am outside of the influences of the discipline.

The pity is that physics is incomplete and hiding organisation that is sorely needed to rationally organise our society and the so-called ‘softer’ sciences and the only reason that they are ‘softer’ is because physics is [inadvertently] hiding rational management. Physics is ‘bathing in the glory’ that rightfully belongs to technology, because the theoretical base of physics is suspect and physics cannot fix it from within because it’s management [organisation] is not rational, so, using the rational management [context] that comes from this ‘new’ physics to ‘create an orthogonality’, progress can be made, if physics will accept it. To do this, I need to point out that the concept of thinking is being held back by the problems in the structure of physics because the construction of physics is withholding the context of thinking.

Thinking involves measurements that operate under the same restrictions as the physical construct of the wave-particle duality because we can only separate concept and context, being orthogonal [independent but entangled], if the measurer is cognisant of both. Both are always present because that is the form of the fractal that the universe is built upon [the creation equation] and the fractal that is generated shows that intelligence and knowledge obey the creation equation. In other words, intelligence and knowledge are ‘lock-stepped together and restricting knowledge restricts intelligence and at the same time, a small brain [or poor software] cannot use a wide field of knowledge. This may seem trivial, but is profound because it is the creation equation and science is supposed to simplify.

The ancient Greeks produced a science that lasted for 2,000 years, but, sadly, could not produce a civilisation that continued for very long before being destroyed. The Renaissance sought to build on the Greek-Roman empire and reintroduced art whilst science was rebuilt as Newtonian physics and that civilisation has continued until today, but it is unstable and is destroying itself through lack of control of it’s population and resources. Unfortunately, we still do not understand art, Newtonian physics does not access the physical and we have not answered Socrates’ questions, and further, our [world-wide] civilisation is threatened by over-population, over-consumption and a complete lack of knowing what to do about it.

The problem starts with calling ourselves Homo sapiens [wise man] that is ludicrously conceited because technology is not wisdom, indeed, the concept of wisdom is meaningless without the context of wisdom and that relativity is the very beginning of what I am putting forward here.. Relativity requires that whatever we do, it must be be relative to a goal and we must use the physical, not the comfortable view of a universe that we have built in our ignorance, so, expect surprises.

Introduction

It all started with technology [farming] that moved us out of the organisation of survival of the fittest and into our own organisation using technology. Firstly the ancient Greeks, then the Renaissance and Newtonian physics allowed us to think that we understand nature, which worked so well that no one dared tinker with it, even though it does not access the physical and is so simple that it cannot describe many common conditions, such as ‘what is emotion?’, ‘how do we think?’, ‘what is laughter?’ and so on.

Einstein used Newtonian physics and tried to extend it with the wave-particle duality and ‘curved space’, which encompasses an acceleration that produces gravity, but is a long way from the accelerating universe, see below. Quantum mechanics was the ‘final straw’ and physics had to say ‘use quantum mechanics, but don’t try to understand it’ and discouraged research, presumably because the tools needed for understanding were not available. The model below, is, I believe, what physics needs to rebuild itself on a new foundation, and that foundation produces a new way of thinking because it adds more dimensions to the software that we use in the brain.

Intelligence is a concept of thinking, together with the context of knowledge. This is not a simple statement [see Form of the Universe, below] because, for a universe to be constructed from nothing, two concepts must be created that are orthogonal and remain existing [which requires an accelerating separation] and can only be measured [recognised] by a second measurer that is outside of the universe [Life is a possible parasite or symbiote on the universe] and measures those concepts [affordances]. To explain affordances, ‘psychologist James J. Gibson developed the concept of affordance over many years, culminating in his final book The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception in 1979. He defined an affordance as what the environment provides or furnishes the animal. . . . The key to understanding affordance is that it is relational and characterizes the suitability of the environment to the observer, and so, depends on their current intentions and their capabilities. . . . This notion of intention/needs is critical to an understanding of affordance, as it explains how the same aspect of the environment can provide different affordances to different people, and even to the same individual at another point in time. ‘(Wikipedia, Affordance)

The multiple needs of affordances are met by considering the fractal created from nothing using orthogonality [independence with entanglement] where the organisation [concept] sought by the measurer appears as an energy in the measurer’s mind-brain because the measurer has intruded into the scope of the environment and changed it’s organisation to include the measurer [This is the answer to whether the observer influences the experiment.]. Also, the questions above, “such as ‘what is emotion?’, ‘how do we think?’, ‘what is laughter?’ and so on” are answered because emotion is the energy produced by measuring the organisation of art, music etc. How we think is [simply] to compare the emotion attached to each of the measures of concepts and laughter is the release of energy when the punch-line reorganises the organisation of the content of the joke. Affordances, like everything, are the product of the creation equation energy plus organisation equals zero with the restriction that the space must be accelerating to keep the two concepts from meeting. This is the theory or equation of everything because it creates a fractal universe and generates everything within it, and in particular a complete physics because it contains organisation explicitly.

A New Physics

Galileo’s law of motion [an absolute that F/m=a is the force (F) on a mass (m) due to the constant acceleration due to gravity (a)] was, 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 equals zero. 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 measuring relativity].

Does force [‘F’] have a physical meaning, in spite of the above? Yes it does, because relativity, as above, only exists if the relatives are kept apart [accelerating universe, celestial mechanics], but celestially, relativity acts as a pair of measurers that use the effect of the accelerating space [that we call gravity] to keep two bodies orbiting each other [in a stable state]. Thus ‘F’ is the ‘gravitational attraction’ [of energy and organisation] that causes quantum gravity [the dimensions of energy plus organisation divided by the separation [an absolute]] to be what each measures and so the gravity equation is the multiplicand of the absolutes of each body. Thus, Newtonian physics moves into the non-physical world [no relativity] in considering the motion of a [one] particle [F=ma]. Newton ‘inspire guessed’ [meaning that he could not derive] the law of gravitation and this was ‘corrected’ by Einstein who added organisation to double the effect [of Newton’s equation] by postulating a ‘curvature of space’ [rubber sheet analogy]. That this analogy produced exactly an equal amount of attraction as did the masses [twice the effect of Newton’s equation] did not appear to be questioned, presumably because this was ‘justified’ [gave the correct answer] by experiment [Eddington’s observations] and physics tolerated this, but quantum mechanics was ‘a step too far’. In fact, the ‘rot set in’ when the wave-particle duality was considered to be two forms of energy [which they are not, from the creation equation].

Quantum mechanics is simply the application of the creation equation that physics calls the wave-particle duality and examples are given below, but much more importantly Newtonian physics is based on energy with a little organisation thrown in, when necessary, because ‘information remains bewildering, partly because it crops up in different guises in so many scientific fields. (Chance, ed. Michael Brooks, Paul Davies, p 21). Clearly, physics does not understand that organisation is relative [orthogonal] to energy, and with energy, creates the universe. In other words, physics is only considering half [energy] of the form of the universe and only half [top-down] of its operation [organisation]. Thus, if these four possibilities are dimensions, the software of our brain is only using one dimension instead of four dimensions and if we consider mathematics as an example, the difference in scope of line, area, volume and hyper-volume is similar to what happens to our thinking in this model.

What is Thinking?

Thinking is very simple and is based on relativity, which should not surprise because everything is based on relativity through the creation equation. The definition of affordance above, is the top-down description of relativity as afforded by the creation equation and the physics of thinking is simply the comparisons of the energy generated by measuring two concepts and deciding which is larger. Thus, thinking involves the comparison of concepts and I call this process the mathematics of concept-context that is simply derived from the creation equation and reflects the relativity that is found everywhere.

Conclusion

To define the thinking of a Homo completus we need to consider an orthogonality of relativities, firstly, relativity itself [sideways] as comparison or goals and secondly, logical relativity as top-down and bottom-up organisation. Thus physics, with it’s top-down organisation and little relativity could be compared to Homo sapiens, whilst Homo completus uses organisation that extends physics to general mathematical physics which is the context of the concept of a new way of thinking. Further, a general mathematical physics is the entanglement of everything including the relativity of materials engineering [technology] and social engineering that shows that both are ‘hard’ sciences based on the creation equation. In particular, social engineering has been hidden and is what we need to use to understand the working of society and is the means of control that we currently lack that is jeopardising our future civilisation.

An Example

Consider the quotation ‘despite the fact that we have yet to determine the theoretical underpinnings of inflation, and that inflation happened a long time ago, it leads to testable predictions, which have convinced most of us that inflation, or something very similar to inflation, has occurred.’ (Dark Matter And The Dinosaurs, Lisa Randell, p 51) Clearly, there is a demand for a model that explains that inflation is still going on and will always ‘go on’ ,forever, and that ‘dark energy fits the bill’ (p 23) is possibly far wide of the mark, so, I will use this new model, below, to try to give a simpler explanation of [a couple of aspects of] cosmology’s version of the creation of the universe as outlined in Dark Matter And The Dinosaurs.

Cosmology found that ‘the standard Big Bang theory of an expanding, cooling, aging Universe. . . is remarkably successful, but it’s not the whole story. Cosmological inflation occurred before the standard Big Bang evolution took over. . . . Once inflation ended – also only a fraction of a second into the Universe’s evolution – it left behind a large, smooth, flat homogeneous Universe whose later evolution is predicted by the traditional Big Bang theory.’ (p 47) ‘Inflation diluted away the initial matter and radiation as the rapid cooling sent the temperature very close to zero. Hot matter was reintroduced only when inflation ended and the energy driving inflation was converted to a tremendous number of elementary particles’ (p 48) These elementary particles are assumed to be composed of matter and antimatter and leads to ‘matter-antimatter asymmetry’ (p 29), ‘we are left with matter – that five percent of the Universe’s energy’ (p 28) ‘Dark energy also remains constant over time’ (p 8), but, ‘observations led to the remarkable conclusion that some unanticipated energy source was accelerating the rate of the Universe’s expansion. Dark energy fits the bill’. (p 23) Add to this that the law of gravitation is only a guess and it becomes apparent that a new theory is needed.

From below, both the magnitude and form of [what we call] gravity is the effect of the acceleration of the space in which the universe is contained and it applies to every concept at a point, that is, mass, energy and organisation. The reason why the the universe has to expand is a restriction on the existence of the creation equation and the form of the acceleration is dictated by the absolutes, one being that the speed of light is constant [see below] and the acceleration is a hyperbola of a constant divided by time. Clearly, near the creation [time zero], the expansion is infinite dropping down, but never reaching zero, with time. This satisfies cosmic inflation and the slowing, but never zero acceleration of the universe. [see the currently unpublished paper Why Solving Cosmic Inflation Could Change Your Mind]

I should point out the similarities derived from measurement: inflation is necessary, energy suddenly appears, ‘energy driving inflation’ is undefined, ‘tremendous number of elementary particles’ is the fractal growth, ‘matter and antimatter’ is unjustified because a fractal creates simplicity and similarity in growth, ‘dark energy also remains constant over time’ but now ‘some unanticipated energy source’ is increasing the acceleration of the universe, and so on with gravity etc. Clearly, this is an example of top-down organisation using unrelated elements to create a system.

Overview: clearly physics, in restricting itself to energy, has neglected organisation and logic, and in the latter is, I believe, the explanation of the wave-particle duality [the logic of the half-truth is true, false, true and false at the same time and chaos] and the orthogonality of which uses the same logic as concept-context as well as energy-organisation. This says that a generalist and specialist do not think the same way and that is why I have to reference [as a relativity] Lisa Randall’s book. This new way of thinking requires specialists and generalists to collaborate because, if they do not, this paper becomes necessary [to put it in the nicest possible terms, things go awry].

Clearly, physics, mathematics, philosophy etc. need rebuilding and a new Homo completus must be the aim and outcome to produce a truly stable civilised culture that extraterrestrials might want to visit. Further, I cannot reference the current situation of Homo sapiens without introducing a Homo completus [relativity] that could become a goal, especially considering that the internet adds another dimension [bionic; biology and electronic] to the mathematics, above.

The following important section appeared in the October issue, 2020, of Mind and Society [Can Affordances Save Civilisation?]. It has been expanded, but may not need to be included in the paper.

The Form Of The Universe

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

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

This theory explains cosmic inflation as well as predicting its form because the speed of energy and organisation is constant [an absolute] within the space that is accelerating. This might seem contradictory because it would seem that a constant speed is impossible in an accelerating space, but acceleration is relative because it contains time and so is orthogonal and completely independent of the speed [absolute] even though the universe [space] accelerates as the reciprocal of time with a possible singularity at time zero. Thus the form is hyperbolic explaining cosmic inflation at very small time and the accelerating universe for all time, decreasing, but never zero. The creation equation [energy plus organisation = zero] could be written as E=mi(squared) on the photon, where ‘i’ is the square root of -1, and E=mc(squared) off the photon [absolute three]. Notice that the infill [to balance the necessary acceleration] of the universe [E/t+O/t, all volume] is a constant.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

by Darryl Penney

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

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

Science, and in particular, Newtonian physics is based on energy with a little organisation thrown in, when necessary, because ‘information remains bewildering, partly because it crops up in different guises in so many scientific fields. (Chance, ed. Michael Brooks, Paul Davies, p 21). Clearly, we don’t understand that organisation, including information, is relative [orthogonal] to energy, and with energy, creates the universe.

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

Another example would be, what we call a joke, where the jokester leads us [the organisation of the joke in our mind] ‘up the garden path’ with the aim of simplifying the organisation in the conclusion and generating a laugh. The magnitude of the laugh is a measure of the success of the joke and the greater the simplification [of the organisation in our mind] at the punch-line, the more energy is generated [via the creation equation], which must be disposed-of, and that disposal becomes the laugh, which can only be described as a crude expulsion of unwanted energy. Similarly,goal-kickers in football do something energetic with joy after the goal is made, music produces dancing etc.

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

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

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

The organisation of what we read [measure] creates energy in the form of emotional energy in the reader’ mind-brain [affordances] via the creation equation, which is the link between science and art, when we add organisation to Newtonian physics. To explain affordances, ‘psychologist James J. Gibson developed the concept of affordance over many years, culminating in his final book The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception in 1979. He defined an affordance as what the environment provides or furnishes the animal. . . . The key to understanding affordance is that it is relational and characterizes the suitability of the environment to the observer, and so, depends on their current intentions and their capabilities. . . . This notion of intention/needs is critical to an understanding of affordance, as it explains how the same aspect of the environment can provide different affordances to different people, and even to the same individual at another point in time. ‘(Wikipedia, Affordance)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Form Of The Universe

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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