Thinking – The Concept, The Context And The Goal

October 1, 2022 Darryl PenneyLeave a comment

by Darryl Penney

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

Preamble

We think that we are smart and successful with cars, computers, internet, phones etc., and we have reason to be, in some parts of the developed world, but the rest of the world sees problems. We have come from survival of the fittest to create a whole new world based on technology, but we are starting to see ‘cracks’ appearing in this society because we can’t produce the goods needed, nor even able to control the population growth. For example, we lived with the armchair musings of the ancient Greeks for a couple of thousand years, discovered science and one of the absolutes by Galileo [F/m=a, F force, m mass and a is the acceleration due to gravity] and constructed Newtonian physics etc., which sufficed until modern physics came along a hundred years ago, but we found Newtonian physics to be too simple because it ignores organisation [when it can] because ‘information remains bewildering, partly because it crops up in different guises in so many scientific fields. (Chance, ed. Michael Brooks, Paul Davies, p 21). We need to correct this.

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

Preface

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

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

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

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

Thinking and Thought

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

If these books characterise current thinking, how does it look from the bottom-up? ‘Psychologist James J. Gibson developed the concept of affordance over many years, culminating in his final book The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception in 1979. He defined an affordance as what the environment provides or furnishes the animal. . . . The key to understanding affordance is that it is relational and characterizes the suitability of the environment to the observer, and so, depends on their current intentions and their capabilities. . . . This notion of intention/needs is critical to an understanding of affordance, as it explains how the same aspect of the environment can provide different affordances to different people, and even to the same individual at another point in time. ‘(Wikipedia, Affordance)

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

The Mathematical Mind

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

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

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

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

The Mathematical Module

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

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

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

Learning Mathematics

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

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

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

Social Engineering

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

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

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

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

Conclusion and Prediction

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

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

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

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

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

Overview

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

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

The Form Of The Universe

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What If God Does Play Dice?

October 1, 2022 Darryl PenneyLeave a comment

What If God Does Play Dice?

By Darryl Penney

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

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

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

Preamble: this paper seeks to (literally) change our mind [an epiphany] by restructuring the software, that we use in our mind-brains. The present software [top-down] is the one that the animals evolved and have used, with success for 3,000 million years, but, what if there were a better software that we should be using for the journey out of the organisation of survival of the fittest? The civilisation that we have made for ourselves by using technology is not stable and is facing problems that apparently we can not handle and the solution, I believe, lies in ‘fixing’ physics and the first step is to realise that Newtonian physics is convenient but has little to do with the physical and that requires a ‘challenge’ to see how this model and Newtonian physics ‘stack up’ between themselves. If our civilisation has a problem that threatens it’s continuance [as it appears], or if it needs goals that it should aim towards [as it does], surely we should experiment with options because Newtonian physics is preventing us from seeing them because ‘information remains bewildering, partly because it crops up in different guises in so many scientific fields. (Chance, ed. Michael Brooks, Paul Davies, p 21)

We need a challenge for this simple theory to ‘slay’, to show that it works, but physic’s much sought-after Theory of Everything becomes a simple equation [energy plus organisation equals zero] in a fractal universe because it is the generating equation that is so simple that it will not do for the challenge, and organisation is easy and explicit in the creation equation, so, that won’t do. The cosmic inflation of the Big Bang and the acceleration of the universe is a result of the same equation and that is necessarily explained below when singularities are dealt with, so that won’t do. However, consider the four forces that ‘historically, electricity and magnetism were the first to be unified (by Maxwell in the 1850s). Then the electromagnetic force was combined with the weak force in an electroweak theory by Glashow, Salam and Weinberg (GSW theory), and confirmed by experiment. Various grand unified theories (GUTs) have set out ways to unite the strong force with the electroweak force, but so far there is no experimental confirmation. Gravitation is brought into the unification programme as a final step, and is included in fashionable theories such as string theory and M theory.’ (The Goldilocks Enigma, Paul Davies, p 119)

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

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

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

This theory requires that the universe be accelerating [for the creation equation to exist] and also explains cosmic inflation as well as predicting its form because the speed of energy and organisation is constant [an absolute] within the space that is accelerating. This might seem contradictory because it would seem that a constant speed is impossible in an accelerating space, but acceleration is relative because it contains time and so is orthogonal and completely independent of the speed [an absolute]. This means a new way of thinking based on orthogonality. For justification, the Michelson-Morley experiment says that the speed of light is constant to every observer no matter what their motion, and this includes acceleration because the earth is turning etc. The derivation of gravity as quantum gravity is also given below that shows why singularities do not create chaos by being infinite.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another example from the creation equation is that the universe exists with parts that are orthogonal and independent and thus, the universe does not know that it exists until Life, as a measuring tool, creates itself and provides another view [relativity] and this can be seen in the ‘square’ of measurement [the creation equation (energy only for simplicity) on the photon is E=mi(squared), Einstein’s equation off the photon E=mc(squared), form of gravity E=mx(squared), Born’s rule, product of absolutes in the gravity equation etc.]. If the ‘square’ is the reciprocity of relativity, it shows a relationship between Life and the environment [symbiosis] because both come into existence at the same time. Considering that God is the universe answers a lot of questions, but not Socrates’ questions, see The Mind, Society, Socrates, Social Engineering and Symbiosis submitted to the journal Mind and Society. We need the knowledge of social engineering, which is hidden by the incomplete physics, plus determination, to organise society.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Form Of The Universe

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

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

Rationalising Management, Money And The Gifts Of The Ancient Greeks

October 1, 2022 Darryl PenneyLeave a comment

Rationalising Management, Money And The Gifts Of The Ancient Greeks

by Darryl Penney

Abstract: a new mathematical model is suggested that treats the universe as a fractal, derives gravity and quantum mechanics as well as social engineering that quantifies emotional energy and rationalises management. On the other hand, management is a function of life and requires a symbiosis with the environment [context] and a new way of thinking [concept] that includes the physical because, in a fractal, everything is simple, similar and symmetrical, so, it may be possible to use this model to organise our current society that is clearly not working successfully and transform it, by rationalising politics, into the system that we need for a sustainable future. Management is currently considered an art, but it should be a rational and accountable science based on the same principles as physics in a fractal, but unfortunately Newtonian physics does not access the physical and is not complete and this model attempts to rectify this oversight by showing that the oversight is the social engineering that is lacking in the software of the planning needed for a modern world. A set of rules is derived for a rational management which shows that democracy is a political tool and is severely deficient in management and yet it is delusionaly self-lauded as the best system of government. The ancient Greeks put us on the wrong road and it is necessary for us to re-trace our steps because rationalising management shows what is necessary for us to do to succeed as a civilisation.

Keywords: management; democracy; social engineering; fractal universe; rules of management; mathematics of concept-context

Preface

This is a new way of thinking that adds new insights into what we currently believe and also to what we need to believe to become successful and to become symbiotic with our environment, and as an simple example, to show how bottom-up thinking clarifies our thoughts, we have been told that banks create money [top-down] by economists, but we are never told exactly ‘how this comes about?’. The ‘exactly’ is the difference between bottom-up ‘exact’ thinking and the ‘woolly’ thinking that we evolved with. Money is a magnificent human invention, and I want to show that how banks create money [bottom-up] aligns with this new way of thinking. So, where does the money come from? Considering the universe as a fractal that is generated from relativity solves the problem because the creation equation created the universe from nothing to form energy and organisation that must be kept apart, and the banks create money and anti-money in the same way [from nothing] and lend out money and keep the anti-money on their books. Restrictions are necessary and occur in both cases as an accelerating space and fractional reserve banking, and without restrictions, firstly, the universe becomes chaotic and secondly, hyperinflation occurs. Money is not a human invention because, in a fractal, as I believe that our universe is, it is based on the same principles as the physical and the same applies in social engineering, of which, management is a vital part and further, money is a vital part of management because it is the carrot that goes with the proverbial stick. This new model aligns our thinking with the simplicity of a fractal viewpoint to improve our way of thinking, and the software of our thinking must include the management of a symbiosis of the physical and people.

Preamble

Afordances link the organisation of the environment to the mind-brain [as a precursor to thought] with the proviso that the measurement required has to be specified [smell, sight etc.] in order for the measurement to be defined, and this measurement requirement is restricted by the measurer’s abilities. In other words, this determination of management of the mind-brain is a relativity of the organism’s intellect and abilities [concept] and its seeking [context] and this follows from the belief that the universe is a fractal and operates on relativity and the form of the universe is composed of the non-relativities that can be simply derived by considering the divisions of the dimensions, below [the relativities cancel].

Another paper, [but not yet accepted by Mind and Society, The Mind, Society, Socrates, Social Engineering and Symbiosis], 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 is apparent by using a new way of thinking. This new way of thinking consists of concepts and contexts and this paper attempts to outline a rational complete way of thinking, based on the creation equation that allows a double orthogonality of relativity and organisation.

Management seems to be more of an art than a science, at present, but I will try to show how rationality can be applied to management and change that art into a science by a new way of thinking. This might be difficult to believe, considering that management is organisation, but by adding organisation to an incomplete physics a new ‘playing field’ is revealed by the creation equation that I call social engineering and that allows us to use the entanglement of the fractal.

The First Step of Management

In the second paragraph, the measurer defines the scope of measurement, and clearly, the larger the scope, the more information is gained from the measurement. [An example might be the evolution of improved sight produced ‘action at a distance’ that may have increased the scope of the mind-brain and possibly produced the ‘explosion’ of forms in the Cambrian Era] The value of the scope is related to the size, ability and ‘enquiringness’ of the mind and there can be little doubt that a human derives more information, of a different nature, than say, a mosquito does. Hence, this reason is the rationality of why large salary packages are offered to top executives and confounds arguments to the contrary by shareholders [the more money, the better value outcome for them].

Thus rule 1: use appropriate executives to produce the appropriate answers.

But, what is appropriate? Consider paragraph three, should one choose an executive that uses current [top-down] thinking, or should one look for the person that is suggested in this paper, and that is one that uses the sideways relativity, the top-down and bottom up organisational relativity and bearing in mind truths such as that the universe is accelerating in its expansion [creation equation], or that the old are reluctant to change unless given good reason [in ecology, many parents are sessile, whilst the young are motile to seek new opportunities]. This is suggesting that the chairperson should be a generalist, supported by specialists.

Rule 2 might be: select appropriate managers, remembering that there are two types, specialists and generalists, that they think differently [orthogonal] and that the chairperson should be a generalist.

Management is a subject that is not currently well defined analytically and yet it’s use is basic to Life [concept] and ubiquitous [context] in survival of the fittest. For example, survival of the fittest depends on managing measurement, and, in spite of a mountain of technical books spread over 2,500 years, our civilisation is about to collapse through over-population and the cause is clearly mismanagement, but now, using this new model, the problem may become solvable. Consider, from above, that our intellect is not ‘up to the job’, and unfortunately, this could be true because we think like the animals that have thought top-down over 3,000 million years and we are trying to apply this to a new type of civilisation brought about by technology. Thus, this paper is about the determination of management that works for a new society and necessarily needs a new way of thinking to go with a new way of operating. It is not a ‘style of management’ that is needed, but a new way of thinking that increases the ‘thinking power’ of our existing mind by changing the software used in the brain.

This is so important that I will repeat it. Our existing brain can handle survival of the fittest, but technology has moved us out of the restrictions imposed within survival of the fittest that keeps everything in check, into a civilisation of our own making that we cannot control [the proof today is obvious]. This paper endeavours to provide a new way of thinking that may allow us to control our man-made environment, because, if it doesn’t, our civilisation will collapse, and I think that all will agree that we are heading that way. Clearly, to control this new society requires a new way of thinking [concept], a new understanding of processes [context] and a goal to reach.

Rule 3 might be: that no person can be both a specialist and a generalist because of the structure of relativity.

Can a well-rounded board dispense with the generalist? No, because their presence is a logical requirement. ‘In his 1972 classic, Victims of Groupthink, the psychologist Irvin Janis …. explored the decision making that went into both the Bay of Pigs invasion and the Cuban missile crisis …. after the fiasco, Kennedy ordered an enquiry …. recommended changes to the decision making process …. participants were to speak not only as specialists in their area of expertise, but as generalists, with a licence to question anything.’ (The Third Industrial Revolution, Jeremy Rifkin, p 195)

Clearly, as above, specialists cannot act as generalists and the proposed solution was flawed and remains flawed to this day, and the ramifications of this example are appalling because a so-called superpower initiated a fiasco because its decision-making was deficient and the solution to that poor decision-making, that specialists act as generalists, breaks an absolute truth that is in the same league as quantum mechanics and relativity. How can civilisation be repaired if basic truths are misunderstood?

Goals are Necessary

The International Journal of Economics, Finance and Management Sciences was kind enough to show interest in my work and that journal could be a suitable vehicle to effect the above as a goal. This ‘reaching-out’ [measurement] is vital because it is a context that enumerates a concept [affordance] of a goal that I can identify with, and this simple statement is the determination of management. For example, in physical terms relativity says that the present requires a past and a future. [This requirement appears to be used by religion to achieve longevity] In terms of our present society, no goals are apparent or specified and the first requirement of management is the goal for the future. Thus, social engineering requires us to aim for a society with no wars, murders, thievery etc. and that is possible because a fractal is simple, symmetrical and similar and we have to work to that goal through economic and financial means. This also means that the individual, family, state and country all function the same way [as Adam Smith determines in Economics] and it also says that one World government is not stable. Other examples might be that competition is considered healthy, whereas a monopoly is not, and again, civilisations collapse, whereas religions persist with goals.

Thus, rule 4 might be: must have stated goals.

Creation Equation

Management has always seemed be a ‘seat of the pants’ endeavour, but the use of the creation equation allows an ‘anchoring’ of our management ideas, so that we have firstly, a concept of what we wish to do and a context of how we intend doing it. Secondly, two goals are necessary, as above, a past start-up and something to attain in the future [creating a rational space]. Thirdly, the above four rules are simple and could mostly be accessed top-down, but the creation equation, as a description of the physical is strange to us, but then we know that relativity is the most fundamental concept because it’s context is to produce two ‘somethings’ [from nothing] that are stable, and they are stable only if they are continually moving away from each other, and our universe is just that – energy, organisation and acceleration. This can be written as the creation equation [energy plus organisation equals zero with the restriction of being in an accelerating space that adds length, time and gravity] and this is a fractal that generates concepts and contexts and the accelerating space produces an attraction between everything in the field [gravity]. [This requires justification (ignoring organisation for simplicity): E=mi(squared) on the photon, E=mc(squared) off the photon and E=mx(squared) in the field, which is a parabola, E energy, m mass, x position, c is the absolute (speed of light), below, and ‘i’ is the square root of ‘-1’] Notice that in this model, the creation equation defines the form of gravity as well as the absolutes of attraction because gravity is an organisation [parabolic] and its magnitude is determined by the absolute [quantum gravity] that is the ratio of the dimensions, below.

Physics is based on energy with a ‘side-plate’ of organisation that is not really included and this incompleteness adds difficulty and confuses our thinking because it is top-down only, whereas the determinants of management are shown to be physical, above, as well as a basic part of Life because it is illogical to expend energy to produce competitors [offspring] for our living space, but we do it because we want the species to continue, however, we are now producing too many people because of this, and threatening our civilisation’s existence. Do we have the determination of management [concept] to prevent it, and do we have the skills of management [context] to be able to fix it? Obviously not. Problems are the same at every level in a fractal, so, by solving this problem, we solve all problems, and that is the purpose of this paper. So, how do we proceed? Go to the creation equation [energy plus organisation equal zero] and clearly, it is the organisation that is the problem, after all, we can easily (just) affect the energy. If we ignore organisation [put it constant as physics does], energy becomes constant [conserved] and produces the law of conservation of energy in physics. In other words, physics [technology] has been functioning without realising that some necessary measures of control are missing.

Thus, rule 5 might be: always be aware that the real physical always exists [Newtonian physics is not physical, it is a convenience (Force = mass times acceleration approximates to the creation equation, but is not the same and is more complex].

Social Engineering

If physics is based on energy, the accompanying organisation could be called social engineering and is equal in size to all the technology that we use [phones, TV, houses, cars, clothes, agriculture etc.] and yet has been ignored as a discipline. There are, of course, many social disciplines, such as medicine, social housing, schools etc., but no overall concept tying them together, and as above, a goal is paramount if we want to attain something [concept] and if we want to attain something, we have to work towards it [context], but, we have to know how this social engineering works. So, back to the creation equation because in a fractal, that is the original generator.

The first four rules appear a little strange, but could be justified by top-down thinking, but there is an underlying thread of rationality that is made apparent by considering the creation equation, after all, in a fractal, everything is simple, symmetric and similar, and that simplifies this model. The five rules, above, are derivations of the creation equation and are provided because they must be used every time, simply because, for example, no one in their right mind would manage without a goal in mind. However, the point is just that, I believe that people are not in their ‘right’ mind and need a change in the software of their thinking. For example, ‘in 1972, a book, Limits to Growth made headlines and went on to become the best-selling environmental book of all time.’ (The End of Growth, Richard Heinberg, p 4) ‘A recent study by Australian Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) concluded, “[Our] analysis shows that 30 years of historical data compares favorably with key features of [the Limits to Growth] business-as-usual scenario. . . .” ( p 5) and yet ‘instead of more, we must strive for better; rather than promoting increased economic activity for its own sake, we must emphasize that which increases quality of life without stoking consumption. One way to do this is to reinvent and redefine growth itself.’ (p 21)

This quotation points out that an aim of continual growth in population and consumption is unsustainable and so bizarre that there must be a truth along the lines of ‘there is none so blind as will not see’ occurring here and I believe that it could be that universities are not recognising ‘siloing’ [departments of concept without context], are not wishing to change their ways [a truth], or that individuals, families and the population in general [fractal] are not willing to change, or, and that is the reason for this paper, do not understand what they are doing wrong. Fear of change occurs unless goals are set in place that show the way and are agreed upon. Democracy and the market place are dependent on the creation equation [with restrictions] and rationality is a big factor in changing beliefs. In other words, the process behind management is the same manipulation of the mathematics of concept-context that occurs in the mind-brain. [Notice that traditional mathematics is a special case based on counting sheep.]

Thus, rule 6 might be: changing opinion requires demonstrating rationality using the mathematics of concept-context.

The Mathematics of Concept-context

Consider any two concepts, such as energy and organisation, and they must be orthogonal, which is a more technical term for relativity because they must be independent at all times [hence the accelerating space], and yet entangled at the origin [time zero]. This is the familiar Cartesian system of dividing something into independent parts and leads to Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle [position (organisation) and momentum (energy) cannot be measured exactly because doing so, violates the creation equation (that they be independent)], or Einstein’s special theory of relativity [speed of mass (consider organisation) cannot equal the speed of light (consider energy)]. These two examples are indicative of the many restrictions that occur in the form of the universe’s functioning.

To consider organisation, our thinking must change, because for 3,000 million years we have thought like the animals thought, and that is top-down. The fact that physics has done this same thing, by trying to describe modern physics in terms of Newtonian physics, shows that this does not work. Quantum mechanics is simple when described as this model describes it, and as an example, the law of gravitation is derived through the absolutes by this method below, whereas it has never been derived, even by heavyweights like Newton and Einstein because their physics is incomplete. Our thinking must change to include relativity, firstly the sideways relativity of orthogonality and secondly, the vertical orthogonality of top-down and bottom-up organisation.

Over millions of years our brain grew in size and perhaps complexity, until about 50,000 years ago humanity passed a threshold when the mind/brain was presumably able to consume enough energy [glucose] to produce enough organisation [thought] so that there was sufficient left over to produce cave-paintings, religion, ceremonials etc. Further, our civilisation has recently become much more complex, but we seem to be able to handle telephones, computers, social media etc. In other words, our mind/brain has done a good job of coping with modern life by changing the ‘hardware’ of the brain whilst continuing with the archaic thinking that we evolved with. Like a computer, the hardware is the physical structure, which is energy [atoms could be thought of as being the condensation of energy], and the software is the organisation. If our current thinking, as evidenced by physics, mathematics etc. is top-down and can be though of as one dimensional, this new way of thinking could be considered to be four dimensional [top/bottom and sideways] and it is unique because it is based on the creation equation. Note that I am using dimensions as orthogonals, not as coordinates, as physics does.

Symbiosis

A new way of thinking [“New Think”, concept] employs a context where everything is entangled that I call general mathematical physics that employs relativity, but how does it work? When we measure, we necessarily increase the organisation of the surroundings [because the environment recognises us] and the same amount of energy [creation equation] is produced in the mind, because it is being measured [affordances] and that affordance has a value. [For simplicity, think relativity.]Thus, when thinking abstractly, two concepts [retained as a string of action potentials] are considered [measured] that produce two affordances [the measurement] and the two values [emotion] are compared [in intensity], so a decision can be made on which is best, given the parameters of the measurement. This is, I believe, the mechanics of thinking and the comparison is the management of the concepts, that are independent and the affordances must be measured by a third party [Life].

The physics of measurement is contained in the creation equation, but the universe is the ‘set’ that contains the ‘set’ of us and, as Bertram Russel found, an anomaly occurs and a similar situation happens where the universe exists with parts that are orthogonal and independent. 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) 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 [both come into existence at the same time] symbiosis.

‘Gradually, however, “improvement” and “progress” came to mean “growth” in the current economic sense of the term – abstractly, an increase in gross Domestic Product (GDP), but in practical terms, an increase in consumption. A key to this transformation was the gradual deletion by economists of land from the theoretical primary ingredients of the economy . . . . This was one of the refinements that turned classical economic theory into neoclassical economics’. (p 36) This simplification in economics is similar to that which occurred in mathematics and physics and is a possible cause of the problems that have arisen as a result of the top-down thinking that has been used for 3,000 million years [see the third paragraph]. ‘Taking things for granted’ occurred in physics [peer review] as well as ignoring the environment, as above, and in religion where, I believe that the Holy Spirit, in the Trinity was originally the environment.

Thus rule 7 might be: always keep an ‘open’ mind and include the environment [universe].

Whilst the universe requires restrictions to keep it functioning, it does function in a precise and unique way [absolute five], whereas humans include Kant’s apprehensions that are those that our body can measure, our mind can calculate [based on the creation equation] and anything else is fantasy [see the third paragraph]. Hence, Life makes mistakes [as in the Bay of Pigs example above] as well as fantasy and this fact must always be held in mind.

Thus, rule 8 might be: apply Kant’s apprehensions with the physical.

The ‘Game-changers’

Currently, a states-person is one who sets a path that benefits everyone, but their thinking [top-down] is currently flawed and their ‘call to arms’ is a gamble, and that is presumably why we see so few long-term effective leaders. However, that situation changes with this new way of thinking and by using this model, we can set goals that everyone can agree with, and the role of finance is to effect change in people by satisfying wants in exchange for goals [money equates to the gaining of wants in the market-place]. However, the relative is also true that wants can be changed by applying money and finance is a means that social engineering can use to change wants to worthwhile goals. Our civilisation is crippled because we lack the goals needed to use social engineering, as Christianity did 2,000 years ago by changing savagery to love, but how do we agree on those goals? The drive has to be generated, and Homo sapiens does that to survive as a species by nurturing offspring, but this has led to problems with population controls and we need a new way of thinking to solve this. Fuel [energy], organisation and finance are ‘game-changers’ and we used energy to get where we are today, but the other two can perhaps fix the problems that it generated, but that will have to be left for the future.

Rule 9 might be: a leader has to have sufficient determination, as well as knowledge, a plan and the means to carry it out.

Conclusion

Management appears to consist of two parts, a rational physical part and a part that allows a symbiotic relationship with nature, and as such, needs a complete understanding to become effective, and if we are to save civilisation, management must work a lot better in the future. Economics should offer hope, by using finance to produce social engineering on all levels, but it must be managed with, I believe, an improved intelligence. In other words, physics is based on energy and is a measuring science and that is what it does by its own choosing [for example,’use quantum mechanics, but don’t try to understand it’], whereas economics and all of the social sciences are organisational and need to derive results from the creation equation that are not applicable to physics [as economics historically found] and, in a fractal, solving society’s problems requires solving the individual’s, the family’s and the country’s problems at the same time.

Thus rule 10 might be: the individual’s, family’s, country’s and world’s problems are related through the properties of a fractal and require similar solutions [so called ‘kitchen-table’ economics].

The Story of Philosophy by Bryan Magee shows how Socrates initiated modern philosophy with questions that have never been answered. ‘We need, from the bottom up, to carry out a radical reappraisal of our morals and our values on the basis of beliefs that we do not genuinely hold. This is a hair-raising challenge, and one of fundamental urgency in an increasingly irreligious world. . . . in the opinion of many it is the most important philosophical question that confronts us today.’ (p 177) Philosophy appears to be incomplete and it is not alone because physics and mathematics are similarly incomplete and the reason, I believe, is that they are being considered top-down, which goes against the relativity of our fractal universe, upon which, everything is based. That these disciplines believe themselves to be complete, and probably wish themselves to be complete [it involves established careers], complicates matters.

Economics is social philosophy, according to Richard Heinberg [not physics as it once tried to emulate], and economists tend to have multiple theories, as would be expected top-down, but they are ignoring relativity and need bottom-up to agree and move forward. Agreement is the context of management [the concept] and is orthogonal to the siloing of the universities and this shows that democracy, that was so lauded by the ancient Greeks that we use it today, is a management farce. How can we manage, when (perhaps) 49% disagree with the proposed goal! That is not management, that is ‘keeping chaos under control’ by calling the result ‘fair and justified’! This, I believe, is a serious allegation to make against a political system used by billions of people that was supposed to have originated with the ancient Greek philosophers, but that will have to wait. We should have been more wary of the ancient Greek’s ideas on democracy and Plato’s and Aristotle’s philosophical ideas that have influenced our society for millennia [see paragraph three].

Thus rule 11 might be: the management team must be unanimous in their agreement that they have found the optimum set of preferences by using the mathematics of concept-context to manage affordances for every person represented by the team.

Firstly, mathematically, optimum presumably means that the sum total of the affordances is maximal and that some people may be worse off, but the symbiosis between the physical and Life allows the use of finance to compensate those that a decision makes ‘worse off’ because the essence of management is to satisfy all parties.

Thus rule 12 might be: money is a balancing tool to ensure that good management occurs.

Secondly, the creation of money, in the example above, is using one side of a relativity [and it is very successful] and the same must be done with planning because the use of both sides, of the relativity, leads to ‘two dogs fighting over a bone’, which is, of course, survival of the fittest. Democracy is the ‘old’ way of survival of the fittest, whereas planning is the new way and requires a states-person, a management panel or a ‘goal-based’ leadership in a fractal universe.

Thus rule 13 might be: democracy is divisive and has no place in management, nor kings, queens, strongmen etc. for different reasons [lack of expertise etc.] and King Arthur’s “round table” is closer to the management proposed here, which is, I believe, (somewhat) rational by using a generalist [the King] and (somewhat) relevant specialists [the knights].

Prediction: ‘when discussion turns to the economy, most of the ensuing talk tends to focus on money – prices, wages, and interest rates. Yet as important as money is to economics, energy is even more basic. Without energy, nothing happens – quite literally. Energy is not just a commodity; it is the prerequisite for any and all activity. No energy, no economy.’ (The End of Growth, Richard Heinberg, p 106)

Thus rule 14 might be: the creation equation underlies everything through entanglement and energy [fuel], organisation and restrictions as well as the symbiosis with the environment must always be kept in mind.

So, what is the likely fate of our global civilisation? A transfer to renewable energy is desirable, but the creation equation says that energy and organisation are linked, so, what are we doing about organisation? The political system is ludicrous as a management system and the ancient Greeks took the wrong path that we have continued on and we have not even answered Socrates’ questions, until, I believe, now, as somewhat contained in this paper. It could be said that just as the universe needed Life to create it, society needs finance [or barter] to be created to control it and fuel [energy], organisation and finance are ‘game-changers’.

‘A few critics (primarily advocates of gold-backed currency) have called fractional reserve banking a kind of Ponzi scheme, and there is some truth to this claim. As long as the real economy of goods and services within a nation is growing, an expanding money supply seems justifiable, arguably necessary.’ (p 33) [Remember that money is an illusion and created from nothing, but the goods and services that it produces, remains.] Growth keeps everyone occupied in gaining wealth and makes for a generally content society, but the creation equation says that looking after oneself [concept] at any level precludes looking after others [context], and given that religion tries to rectify this, there must be organisational changes. For example, survival of the fittest says that the less-fit should be eliminated, religion says to let them breed indiscriminately, whereas social engineering could suggest using finance to change ideas so that we voluntarily reach goals where people’s personalities are changed and police and jails are not needed, nor armies and, even extraterrestrials might want to visit. [A start has been made to close the science-religion divide in the reference in the third paragraph.]

Our bodies have evolved through symbiotic relationships, for example, mitochondria that provide our energy and the bacteria in our gut provide food from the indigestible remains in the colon. ‘We are more microbial than we are human . . . . while the genes associated with these microbes outnumber the human gene count by 100 to one. This realisation has given rise to the idea of the human body as a superorganism possessed of a “distributed intelligence” . . . . exemplifies the notion of collaboration and of putting the interests of the whole above self-interest’. (Eating Ourselves Sick, Louise Stephen, p 103) So, why not become symbiotic with the universe and consider the environment through the software of organisation? This would be a worthwhile goal that is a win for everyone and doesn’t stop offspring doing as they wish and this is the context of a new better thinking human [with a new software], perhaps Homo sapiens sapiens?

Overview: firstly, the above derivation of management from the bottom-up indicates how the use of democracy must be changed if we are to control civilisation so that it has a future, and how easy it is to follow the wrong path top-down. Secondly, The End of Growth suggests that economics is about to need a re-design in a changing world and a new way of thinking might be useful that considers entanglement. Thirdly, in a fractal, entanglement is both physical and part of Life because the personality of the individual determines the functioning of the organisation [of Life] and must be controlled. I have been calling the entanglement ‘general mathematical physics’, but physics does not explain enigmas, such as ‘why the speed of light is constant?’, as this model does, and perhaps the time has come to call the context ‘entanglement’ or ‘general economics’ because finance is the tool of our organisation and we can leave physics to it’s measurement. Fourthly, the above is about rationality, but relativity requires accountability and that must always be kept in mind.

Consider the ‘”sports rorts” affair, also called the McKenzie Scandal, is a scandal named for the many similarities it has to the sports rorts affair that occurred under the Keating Government in 1993-1994. The report had two main conclusions: the award of grant funding was not informed by an appropriate assessment process and sound advice and the successful applications were not those that had been assessed as the most meritorious in terms of the published program guidelines. The outcomes of the report resulted in extensive media coverage due to Senator Bridget McKenzie, the then Minister for Sport in the Morrison Government, using her ministerial discretion to favour marginal or targeted electorates in the allocation of grants in the lead up to 2019 Australian federal election. (Wikipedia, Sports rorts affair (2020))

Rule 15 might be: that rationality and accountability are relative and necessary, and should be recorded [as justification or aberration] as the values of the affordances assigned to each concept that was considered in the management decision.

Rule 16 might be: that we need to work on the individual [if aberration occurs], in both a social sense [teaching, religion, family etc.] as well as a genetic sense [use finance to persuade the less fit to not breed] so as to provide a goal for a truly civilised humanity that is symbiotic with the environment.

However, rationality is a concept that requires completeness as a context because a lack of completeness produces the possibility that magical happenings might occur and that is against absolute five.

Thus rule 17 might be: politicians, organisations and everyone must be ‘state-persons’ that have a stated [over-arching] goal that benefits civilisation, as a whole [through finance, if necessary] in the long-run, is rational, recorded according to the mathematics of concept-context and complete and includes the environment as a symbiosis.

Christianity has Heaven and ‘Nirvana is basically the extinguishing of the fires of greed, hatred, and delusion’ [internet], and forms an important part of Eastern religions and the goal of the personal part of social engineering is ‘anti-ageing’ [that consists of state-of-mind, nutrition and exercise] and is the same for civilisation in general and could preserve humanity’s gains into the far future. The philosopher Thomas Hobbes’ (1588-1679) said that a ‘fundamental political insight is that what populations fear most of all – more even than the most iron-fisted dictatorship – is social chaos, and that they will submit to almost any tyranny in preference to that.’ (The Story of Philosophy, Bryan Magee, p 81) Social chaos is survival of the fittest and civilisation is a new order that has replaced it, but civilisation, at the moment is unstable, and what it needs, I suggest, is goals, a plan and a new way of thinking.

The following important section appeared in the October issue of Mind and Society [Can Affordances Save Civilisation?], but is retained for completeness and also, I currently have no reference for it.

The Form Of The Universe

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 from 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=mi2 on the photon, where I is the square root of -1, and E=mc2 off the photon [absolute three].

The universe is a fractal that is generated by concepts and contexts by life, energy and organisation in the physical from the creation equation to produce unique answers that require a partnership between Life and the universe through the measurement of the physical through a third party [to overcome orthogonality]. 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 x2 [the relativity of the measurer and the universe] which could be viewed as a parabola y= x2, with speed 2x and constant acceleration 2, 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

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

The Mind, Society, Socrates, Social Engineering and Symbiosis

October 1, 2022 Darryl PenneyLeave a comment

The Mind, Society, Socrates, Social Engineering and Symbiosis

by Darryl Penney

Abstract: civilisations throughout history have all ended badly through social upheaval or inability to handle changes in the environment and it will happen again unless we become symbiotic, and this can be done by social engineering using a new way of thinking derived from the creation equation that generates our fractal universe. We have not even answered the basic questions posed by the ancient Greeks 2,500 years ago, so, is it any wonder that our civilisation is in peril? We need to follow a bottom-up path, instead of the top-down pathway that is causing the blindness and the problems that plague civilisation, to derive the goals of relativity that produce a stable civilisation that is symbiotic with the environment and designed to last forever. An example is given of the church-science schism that was created by Plato and Aristotle, carried through the ages and flawed modern physics to the extent that we do not understand gravity, quantum mechanics etc. on the physical side as well as the energy of emotion and organisation of the mind-brain. This lack of fundamental relativity originated with the pre-Socratic Greeks and our incomplete mind has created a flawed society, but now a better means is apparent by using a new way of thinking, and the main thrust of this paper is to suggest the means used for the concept of thought.

Keywords: thought; society; fractal universe; relativity; social engineering; creation equation

Preamble

I would like to thank the editor for publishing a previous opinion piece that suggested that the creation equation, that generates our fractal universe, showed how the organisation of the environment could be transmitted [as affordances] into the mind-brain of organisms, and in particular, ourselves. The next step is to investigate how the mind-brain might work and I will have to compare my approach with the method used by the ancient Greek philosophers [for relativity] that has led to our society, through lack of organisation, being placed in jeopardy.

Strangely, the organisation of our society has not progressed in 2,500 years and the questions posed by the ancient Greeks have not been answered, although technology [energy] has bounded ahead and created a completely different world. Little progress has been made in understanding the basis of society [top-down] and that must be redressed in taking a new path [bottom-up], but unfortunately, comparisons [relativity] introduce complexity.

This paper is the context of the concept of rational management that can be derived from the creation equation that will be submitted to a Journal of Economics, Finance and Management in due course. Change requires goals [relativity] and this paper shows that top-down thinking has led us to destroy many species on the planet with our uncontrolled population and that the goal for the future is a symbiosis with the environment and an appropriate selection of Humans that form a genuinely civilised race, such that extraterrestrials might be interested in visiting.

Part 1: The Problem

First and foremost, relativity must be considered in everything and I can not describe the mind [concept] without considering what is being thought [context] and that is at the heart of the new way of thinking.

Looking at The Story of Philosophy by Bryan Magee, civilisation is a product of time chronicled by philosophy as a history without relativity because relativity requires a beginning [Garden of Eden, evolution], a present and a future [ Heaven or Hell] and this relativity surfaces as religion and creation myths. The Story of Philosophy shows how Socrates initiated modern philosophy with questions that have never been answered. ‘We need, from the bottom up, to carry out a radical reappraisal of our morals and our values on the basis of beliefs that we do not genuinely hold. This is a hair-raising challenge, and one of fundamental urgency in an increasingly irreligious world. . . . in the opinion of many it is the most important philosophical question that confronts us today.’ (p 177) Philosophy appears to be incomplete and it is not alone because physics and mathematics are similarly incomplete and the reason, I believe, is that they are being considered top-down, which goes against the relativity of our fractal universe, upon which, everything is based. That these disciplines believe themselves to be complete, and probably wish it to be complete [it involves established careers], complicates matters.

Technology has changed society, but the control [of society] has been hidden by the incompleteness of physics and finding a new way for a modern world requires following a new path. As an example, Nietzsche says that ‘God is dead’, and that may be true, but social engineering, using the creation equation, can create a God that is alive and well, similar to the existing God, but scientifically credible. In other words, Nietzsche was wrong because he was using top-down thinking that we can improve upon by using the bottom-up creation equation to find God, and God is important because, traditionally, someone has to define ethics. and, the quotation above asks exactly the same questions as Socrates did 2,500 years ago. There is something very wrong with a philosophy of civilisation that has not changed in recorded history and perhaps a new way of thinking about it may provide the answer and perhaps the answer is realising that God and social engineering are very similar.

This paper stops prematurely because it’s message needs decisions, just as Socrates needed decisions, 2,500 years ago and that was done by Plato and Aristotle [creating an orthogonality] concerned about “What is justice?” etc., but now we have social engineering and can do a better job and I think that defining a God [or social engineering] that is acceptable to religion and science is the first step, see below. The greatest problem that Civilisation faces at the moment is the age-old problem of how a parasite interacts with it’s host because a parasite does not have the intellectual equipment to change itself and often damages the host before it attains symbiosis. This is true of us, as we are damaging our environment and we need a new way of interacting with our environment and we need to do this by changing our behaviour as a society.

Democracy and the market place are products of the way that we think and are derived from the creation equation and are actually examples of the mathematics of concept-context which is the way, I believe, that our mind-brain works, and further, in a fractal, it is the way that the individual, the family, governments and religions all operate, and that is because a fractal is generated from a simple [creation] equation. Adam Smith [in economics] recognised this when he said that what is good for the consumer is good for the country. Unfortunately, none of these groups, with the exception of religion considers relativity, so it is small-wonder that all societies have problems, to the extent that they grow and inevitably collapse and with a new way of thinking, that includes relativity, may be able to prevent this collapse. That religion survives tends to prove my point.

Setting the Stage

The purpose of this paper is to show what I believe to be the organisational structure of the mind-brain and the individual, family, society and country are simple, symmetrical and similar organisations in a fractal universe, such as our universe is, and that requires relativity, or, to be more precise, orthogonality, because, I believe, that the universe is structured on the divisions of the dimensions [that eliminate relativity], see Form of the Universe, below. Relativity is a simpler context that nothing [literally nothing] can be broken into two parts that continue to exist as long as those parts continue to move away from each other, and thus the creation equation is energy plus organisation equals zero. I must emphasise that an accelerating [probability] space, as we see in the expansion of our universe, is necessary so that everything is logically always kept apart. Constant expansion is not enough because random walk is possible and also, given acceleration, the creation equation produces the effects of gravity [on everything], see below.

The mind and society are [organisationally] the same because the universe is a fractal, built on a simple generator, and if this is not realised, incompleteness is a very real danger to academic disciplines and an example is physics not being able to access fundamental physics because physics does not access the physical and the proof is given below, but this lack hides social engineering that, I believe, is needed to manage our civilisation. The ‘simple generating equation’ of the fractal is a ‘word’ equation made up of concepts and contexts and forms a new mathematics that I call the mathematics of concept-context and is the way that, I believe that our mind thinks. However, how we think, and what we think, are very different, but both are needed [concept and context].

Early Philosophy

I have to discuss Socrates because, I believe, his approach was correct and he should have his contribution acknowledged, but he was a product of his times, and even more, a product of his philosophical forebears and they had different views. Heraclitus believed in the ‘unity of opposites’ (p 14) akin to relativity and that “Everything is Flux” (p 15), whereas a fractal has similarity. Pythagoras ‘was the first great thinker to bring mathematics to bear on philosophy. This was one of the most fruitful notions that any human being has ever had.’ (p 15) Unfortunately, I believe that mathematics is incomplete and the mathematics of concept-context is the handmaiden of philosophy. ‘Many of the greatest scientists of all, such as Einstein, . . . believe that there must be some sort of intelligence behind the universe, if not necessarily a God in the conventional Judaeo-Christian sense.’ (p 16) There is the possibility that Life, not being orthogonal [to the universe], may have provided a conduit to the universe [being orthogonal] to recognise itself. ‘Parmenides considered it self-contradictory to say of nothing that it exists. There can never, he thought, have been nothing, and therefore it cannot be true to say that everything – or, indeed, anything – came out of nothing.’ (p 17) The creation equation is the creation of an orthogonality from nothing that creates the universe.

Leaving the ‘“pre-Socratic philosophers”, which in their different ways were trying to understand the natural world around us.’ (p 20) ‘What we needed to know was how to conduct our lives and ourselves. For us, the urgent questions were more like: What is good? What is right? What is just? If we knew the answers to those questions it would have a profound effect on the way we lived. Socrates did not think he knew the answers to these questions. But he saw that no-one else knew them either.’ (p 20) This fact led to the life and death of Socrates, and Plato believed that ‘everything, without exception, in this world of ours he regarded as being an ephemeral, decaying copy of something whose ideal form (hence the terms Ideal and Form) has a permanent and indestructible existence outside space and time.’ (p 27). For example mathematics and ‘something that is also us and is non-material, timeless, and indestructible, something that we may refer to as the soul.’ (p 29)

‘Just as Plato had been a pupil of Socrates, so Aristotle was a pupil of Plato.’ (p 32) Aristotle was dismissive of Plato’s Ideal Forms’ (p 32) and ‘the key question from which Aristotle started out was: . . . “What is being?”’ (p 34) ‘and he ends by breaking the concept of “form” down into four different and complementary kinds of “cause”’ (p 36). These causes, in simple terms could be energy, organisation, Life (as a parasite) and spiritual (in the sense of God, or that Life possibly creates a living universe by not being orthogonal) [‘material cause, efficient cause, formal cause and final cause’ (p 36)]. Thus, the creation equation [bottom up] embodies [as general mathematical physics] ancient Greek philosophy [top-down] and may allow us to change present-day [top-down] society by using social engineering [bottom-up] to prevent our destruction.

In other words, the context of the above is that Socrates used a top-down version of affordances to investigate peoples’ thinking, Plato’s version contributed to the magnificent example of social engineering called Christianity that changed the savagery of the times into ‘love’ and Saint ‘Augustine, believing that Platonic philosophy embodied important truths about aspects of reality that the Bible did not concern itself with, wanted Platonism to be absorbed in to the Christian world-view.’ (p 51) Notice that the Western world has created an orthogonality of thinking [Plato and Aristotle] that reverberates into the future and defines the structure of our civilisation.

Firstly, ‘says Aristotle, we should never lose sight of the fact that it is this world that we are trying to understand’ (p 37), and ‘the respective appeals that the two different approaches possess for individuals may have something to do with personal temperament.’ (p 38) However, secondly, ‘the unique genius of the German philosopher Kant, in the late 18^th century, is that he brought the two harmoniously together.’ (p 38) I have to question this statement because Kant’s apprehension [p 133] is what we see from an incomplete physics, religion etc., but the creation equation offers a complete physics, religion etc., and physics, religion etc. must align themselves to it, even if there are parts that remain that cannot be apprehended in unison, such as ‘is the universe alive?’. In other words, the creation equation indicates that God could exist, could be alive, but is in-determinant to us unless it is the universe. Thirdly, Aristotle tries to answer Socrates’ problem of moral concepts by developing ‘his famous doctrine of ‘”the golden mean”, according to which a virtue is the midway point between two extremes, each of which is a vice.’ (p 38) This venturing into context will have to wait.

Socrates

Socrates ‘offered us a way out of two powerful delusions: that we should always or never listen to the dictates of public opinion. To follow his example, we will best be rewarded if we strive instead to listen always to the dictates of reason.’ (The Consolations of Philosophy, Alain De Botton, p 42) This quotation sums up a chapter on the essence of reasoning where Socrates accosted ‘Athenians of every class, age and occupation and bluntly asking them, without worrying whether they would think him eccentric or infuriating, to explain with precision why they held certain commonsense beliefs’. (p 14) Upon being told a subject, Socrates would think of a counter-example and then invite the person to amend their stance. (p 24) This, I believe, is similar to how the mind-brain operates.

Socrates’ life and death shows the foolhardiness of trying to change society and suggests an example of a truth from ecology, where the parent is sessile and the young motile so that they can find better habitats, if they exist. In other words, the young are the risk-takers and social engineering should be applied to them and not the parents. Thus, leaders emerge, and they need training and a plan, and that brings us to the social engineering of Plato and a new way of thinking where the story of Socrates is very important because his method works, ‘Socrates’ method of examining common sense is observable in all Plato’s early and middle dialogues’ (p 23). Firstly, yes, it is top-down, but it is part of the bottom-up case, as we shall see [a possible wormhole], secondly, the technique was apparently lost with the fall of Greece and thirdly, the technique is not ‘comfortably’ applied, as Socrates found. There have to be planners behind the leaders and universities should play this role, but they are more concerned with compartmentalising [siloing] of disciplines [concepts] and not the contextual [generalist] responsibilities that relativity also requires.

The Thinking Process

The creation equation is the basis of everything and provides the affordances that translates the measurement of what is required [the measurement must be defined] into emotion in the measurer commensurate with the knowledge to the environment [universe] that the measurer has measured. This cosmology is pertinent because we, as Life, are ‘breaking into’ the orthogonality that constructs the universe and requires the square for the relativity of the measurement. The creation equation defines the mathematics of concept-context, which is similar to Socrates’ method and is the method, I believe, used in our mind-brain’s thinking. There are many ways that decisions are made, in practice, but only one way emerges from the creation equation and that does foretell the future, but only on ‘truths’ from the physical and the past, especially evolution, history etc.

Concepts cannot be measured because they are independent [but entangled] except by a third party, and that is Life because Life depends on measurement to exist [survival of the fittest] and Life exists by measuring its surroundings and the way that it does this is through affordances [the emotion]. The mathematics of concept-context is assigning a value [compare emotion] to the context of the value [compare affordance] that that concept has to your wants. The next step is to compare [numerically – level of emotion] two values to make a decision on which to choose. That’s it! In terms of cosmology, a symbiosis occurs with the universe and the universe comes alive! Thus, is Life the parent or the child of the universe? This method is precise because all concepts should be considered that produce a range of affordances on which a decision is made, whereas Socrates’ method is limited to counter-examples and the listener’s patience and tolerance.

The Mechanics of Thought

The amygdala is noted as the decision maker on whether an experience, as a set of action potentials from the senses, is to be remembered and that depends on the level of emotion attached to the experience. This emotion is the affordance attached to the measurement of the event and the action potentials, that are relatively slow-moving, must be held in some sort of circular set of cells until their fate is decided compared to other concepts and recorded in long-term storage. Clearly, comparison is at the heart of thought [relativity] and it should be noted that action potentials do not degrade with time and are a form of long-term storage, albeit requiring a continuous input of energy.

The simplest explanation might be to give examples of the uses to which we put emotion, especially as emotional energy is not considered by physics, so, from the creation equation, physics considers energy, but not organisation [if organisation is held constant, then energy cannot be created nor destroyed, which is a fundamental law in physics] and has built materials engineering and technology on energy whereas organisation promises social engineering that should be as important as technology, but based on Life itself. Much has been done in the social sciences, but they have not been brought together as a whole. Consider that affordances underlie many disciplines, such as beauty contests, mathematics, dress shops, architecture, military history etc. and beauty, the golden triangle, elegance, city buildings, the trappings of religion, uniforms etc., are designed to produce emotion, and in particular, the religion-governance that we allow to guide our lives because it is a context that involves everyone. In other words, the concepts that Socrates challenged were necessarily linked to contexts that were not being considered, but must be considered [relativity] and were subsumed in the affordance of annoyance.

Conclusion: the above suggests how thinking occurs, but electing a leader is democracy that also comes from the creation equation and we see, because our mind-brain is connected [nerves or hormones] to every cell in our bodies for the two-way flow of information, that democracy and thinking are intertwined [fractal]. Incompleteness, as in physics, is dangerous because we can take the wrong path and we could be making mistakes that could be destroying civilisation. Just as the universe must be accelerating [through logic] to exist and create gravity, restrictions are necessary in democracy, as in Socrates’ case, that are pertinent to social engineering, but that will have to wait.

Part 2: Modern Science

It started ‘in the 16^th century a Polish churchman called Copernicus . . . instead of assuming that the earth were at the centre, we treated the sun at the centre . . . then the most revered of all authorities were wrong . . . the whole established order was under threat, even the very idea of authority itself.’ (p 64) This shifted the Plato-Aristotle balance of society, and in particular, the ethics of authority, democracy etc. Consider, ‘with the earth no longer seen as the centre of the universe . . . there began that rapid spread of disbelief in the existence of God that conspicuously characterizes the West over the following three centuries’ (p 69). Christianity is a magnificent example of social engineering, and in particular, it’s effect on everyday life and values because, in no small part, of the context of the Church Services that reinforced the Christian values on a weekly basis, so it could be said that science, especially technology, undermined our social values, and further, by using an incomplete Newtonian physics that hid the effect of emotion [organisation].

‘Isaac Newton is generally acknowledged to be the greatest scientist that ever lived’ (p 71), but he could be responsible for the ‘death’ of God and our woes with technology by not incorporating God into physics, but, on the other hand, the church is guilty of erecting ‘truths’ that are not truths, and especially a God that has not been adequately defined. This is a problem that is at the base of what I am saying, that little change has been made to the Bible in 1,500 years. The Church has created a dilemma by using an unchanging organisation on a changing society, and that is unrealistic. This model, below, suggests that Life could create a God, being the universe, that seems to satisfy all requirements of Church, science and society and could change Nietzsche’s cry that ‘God is Dead’ (p 172) to ‘God is Alive’, a much more positive approach. Life must be important to the universe and a symbiosis needs to be created.

This is not a conclusion, but an opportunity to see if this approach is fruitful. The mind is Life’s contribution to the universe and it is an orthogonality of the mechanics [the brain] and the organisation of the cells of the body, as well as the affordances that it receives from the environment. This symbiosis, and it is a true symbiosis because one cannot live [literally] without the other [is Life the parent or the child of the universe?] is the relativity of each within the symbiosis.

Social Engineering

Our civilisation, if not the Earth, is in danger from uncontrolled population growth, so let’s see if this model, the case for relativity, can help in this regard. Since Newton, belief in God has waned to the extent that Nietzsche says that ‘God is Dead’, and if this is so, civilisation, as a whole, loses the relativity of ethics that ‘sets the standard’ of civilisation [as outlined by philosophy and religion]. ‘The central question posed by Nietzsche’s philosophy is how best to do this in a godless, meaningless world.’ (p 172) Multiculturalism is an ‘easy fix’ that would be nice if it worked, but, I do not believe that it does, especially when ‘things get tough’ and people become stressed. If ‘God is Dead’, good! It gives social engineering a chance to design a better one, and it must be admitted that the Christian God, according to the Bible, had personality problems.

The universe makes an excellent God, in that it is visible at night, it is huge [billions upon billions of stars], it could come alive when a non-orthogonal [relative to the universe] Life comes into being, it does take note of every action that we make [the square of measurement that is part of the probability space] and it could have sanctioned the Ten Commandments, the discipline of philosophy and perhaps this paper. Relativity must be everywhere [the creation equation is orthogonal] and we need a God to balance Life and for us to have a goal [concept] for the future [perhaps a civilisation that has a future] and a way of living [context, Ten Commandments and innumerable government laws]. On the other hand, ‘Marx believed that he had put the explanation of historical development on a scientific footing’ (p 164) that led to Russia replacing God with the State, which appeared to be reasonably successful because the downfall was apparently economic.

The model shows that religion and government generate emotional energy through their organisation and they use this to influence their citizens and adherents [and keep them ‘in line’], but now that we realise that this is their ‘stock-in-trade’, we should all be participants in a democracy where we are truly informed, and it will be shown, at a later date, that democracy contains restrictions. Social engineering is academic, but also practical and we need to use it if we are to control populations etc., from the personal to the country, which present similar problems.

Conclusion: social engineering is a large, important, complex subject and we have not gone far before decision-making becomes necessary, as the ancient Greek philosophers found, but the whole of philosophy must be tested for relativity for the civilisation in which we live [as Nietzsche says, p 172], in fact, social engineering involves all of general mathematical physics because it is a context of the concept of living. I have tried to show that our civilisation needs a bottom-up view to make long-term sense and that is an ecological truth of a symbiosis.

Prediction: The Story of Philosophy presumably contains, in simple form, the thinking of all philosophy, but it appears that no conclusion is forthcoming, and this could be because the thinking is top-down. Top-down is the way that Life has thought for 3,000 million years and it is leading to a catastrophe as we exit the survival of the fittest with its innate controls. It is apparent that philosophy has no answers as to whether there is a God or not [Plato and Aristotle], nor ethics [Socrates], but the creation equation shows that a God could exist, and considering that our civilisation is destroying itself perhaps God is ‘stirring the pot’ and is influencing this paper in some way, after all, the survival of Life entails measuring the environment [affordances], so, perhaps the universe influences us, and changes us [the Bible notes instances].

Overview: to manage society and prevent the coming disaster from over-population we have to answer some important questions, and yet we have not even answered the questions posed by the ancient Greeks, and also, is God’s Commandments of 2,500 years ago sufficient to generate a code of living in a modern world? It is scientifically plausible that God [as the universe] exists, but does God wish to be involved in our endeavours?

“it is thoroughly necessary to be convinced of God’s existence, it is not quite so necessary that one should demonstrate it” Immanuel Kant (p 135)

Perhaps social engineering, as a concept, could be God, and social engineering as a context contains everything that we need, and we may never know, but we should assume that God is interested in us to achieve relativity and we do need to heed the creation equation and build a race of people that want to save civilisation by creating goals for the future [concept] and working towards them [context]. Given this goal [relativity], we face the same problems that Jesus’ message [concept] faced, the unavoidable concept-context orthogonality, where disciples [context] were needed to broadcast the message, and that statement answers the enigma, of ‘why disciples?’, so, I will have to leave the decision to the editors , readers etc. [as agents of Life] to decide on the future of civilisation as perhaps being either an unrestrained-population, scarce resources and turmoil, or, a planned civilisation through social engineering, forever.

We have arrived at Socrates’ questions, but now, I believe that we have a scientific basis to answer them through understanding the physical, knowing the working of the mind-brain, relativity and how social engineering works, that allows us to set goals that define a stable symbiotic future as technology has pushed us out of survival of the fittest. Truly, a new beginning is necessary to create a goal, a symbiosis and a new people, but as the last United States of American elections show, deep problems lie below the surface and need discussing.

Prediction to the overview: is there a solution? Plato and Aristotle were generated [in a fractal] from Socrates [being social engineering] and are entangled through the origin [Socrates] and that could be the starting point. ‘Feel good items’ [soul, Heaven etc.] are immaterial apprehensions [Kant] to the discussion, in other words, Kant’s apprehensions are those that our body can measure, our mind can calculate [based on the creation equation] and anything else is fantasy. Already the Catholic Church has given way on contraception and gay union and likewise, perhaps, if required, a God, that made the universe [as against being the universe]. Christianity needs a little tweaking, but the main point is that the historical science-religion divide is unnecessary with the new way of thinking. There is nothing stopping us using this new way of thinking [bottom-up] across all of civilisation, but that might require a new generation and it is the present generation’s duty to foster change [from ecology].

The take-home message is that the above seems complicated, but to those that think fractal-wise, it is very simple and the mind, affordances, God, government, religion, quantum mechanics, gravity etc. fall into place to give a new way of thinking that recognises (literally) everything, but we must specify goals to maintain concept and context and this promises a new software for the existing brain and a transformation of the mind, and the proof will be the attainment of a stable civilisation.

Justification for needing a new software for the brain: Newton’s law of gravity was an ‘inspired guess’ and has never been proven, until this method, and Einstein introduced ‘curved space’ to get the correct answer [twice the value of Newton’s]. Gravity [magnitude, concept] is the product [multiplication] of two absolutes, below, and there must be two [relativity] bodies composed of energy and organisation. Gravity [form, context] is parabolic [general case] given by the creation equation [(E+O)=0], so E=mx2 and O=mx2 [with relativity of measurement], where E is energy, O is organisation, m is mass and x is the position in space, so there is attraction of mass and position in an accelerating space.

Finally, the concept of God is seen to be necessary because every tribe has it’s creation myth, and is the top-down answer to the question behind this paper of ‘what is social engineering?’ because social engineering is the context of attaining a symbiosis between two equally important entities, Life and the universe. One creates the other at the same time and survival of the fittest shows this, but we changed the organisation by using technology and we need to change our thinking to attain a new symbiosis. The first step is to set goals [social engineering] and the second is to implement them [social engineering] to regain a symbiosis of two partners [relativity].

An example that illustrates this is that religions prosper in the long term because they all have a goal for the long-term [the hereafter], and the great civilisations and religions had a goal to ‘civilise the world’ [British, Roman, Catholic empires]. Goals and Gods are a relativity that is fundamental to the universe and the basis of social engineering [concept], whereas survival of the fittest eliminated the sick, stupid, non-functioning members of society, whereas we use jails for the worst offenders and care for the rest, but allow the less fit to breed and vote, even when paying them a pension [context]. I think that this indicates the absurdities of what we are currently doing and that we, perhaps, deserve to die-out, if we can not change.

The following important section appeared in the October issue [Can Affordances Save Civilisation?], but is retained for completeness and also, I currently have no reference for it.

The Form Of The Universe

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 from 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=mi2 on the photon, where I is the square root of -1, and E=mc2 off the photon [absolute three].

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

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

Why The Universe Is Accelerating And What Is Gravity – A New Theory

October 1, 2022 Darryl PenneyLeave a comment

Why The Universe Is Accelerating And What Is Gravity – A New Theory

by Darryl Penney

Abstract: the acceleration of the universe is an enigma to us, but a new model suggests that an accelerating space is necessary for the creation equation of our fractal universe to exist and that the acceleration generates gravity, which shows that we also need a new view of relativity as well as a reappraisal of the dark matter and dark energy that are currently thought to be the major generators of gravity. This view restructures fundamental physics and generates a social engineering that together account for both energy and emotional energy and thus, a complete physics as well as social engineering being the means to control technology. The model also suggests that Life might be necessary for the universe to become aware, that we may have already found extraterrestrial life, unification is just the creation equation and that the ‘speed’ of gravity is a product of the space.

Keywords: unification, gravity, fractal universe; relativity; quantum mechanics; social engineering; creation equation

Preamble

This paper is an opinion piece that has been built up from first principles and is not ‘scientific’ because science has been built over a long time using top-down musings that are accepted by the science community through peer review, but does that agreement make it correct?

‘All science is a search for unification.‘ (The Goldilocks Enigma, Paul Davies, p 118)

Unfortunately ‘top-down’ is an organisationally poor way to unify and in particular, gravity has been a long-time problem in unifying physics, but now gravity is easy to integrate because the need for the universe to accelerate is a restriction on the creation equation and a requirement for existing. So, because our space is accelerating and Galileo’s experiments show that force per unit of mass is a constant, called the acceleration due to gravity, we have a force acting on us, but what do we know about it?

Unification is beckoning, but unification must begin at the bottom to be complete, and science has yet to learn this lesson, for example, fundamental physics was ‘closed down’ a hundred years ago and quantum mechanics became ‘use, but don’t try to understand’. Science has become ‘pockets’ of specialists [concepts], doing their own thing, but the unification [context] that is needed to bring them together is lacking. For example, our civilisation is destroying itself, possibly because social engineering, as part of fundamental physics is ignored and not implemented, and this is because fundamental physics is firstly, neglected, and secondly, incomplete.

The scientific community has a problem that the visible universe is not only expanding, it is accelerating, which has been hard to justify, prior to this paper, and a possible reason behind the acceleration needs our thinking to change, because we think top-down, like the animals, and we have to include bottom-up, because physics is mired in the past and not well suited to a modern world. I can cite the ancient Greeks and the continuation of their influence for millennia, and Newtonian physics imposed the same problems a hundred years ago with the inability of (so called) fundamental physics to describe the physical. Physics measures the physical top-down, but does not understand fundamental physics because it does not access the physical even though it thinks that it does.

Science is big business in a modern technological world, but what if science was created on the wrong basis? Shock! Horror! Many people would have to re-educate themselves and they might find themselves pushed out by younger colleagues versed in the new physics. This happens in nature when the young move into new, more rewarding niches and produce new species and leave the old to linger on, hence it is a ‘truth’ that we often have to live with. Even worse, the incompleteness of fundamental physics hides social science and the opportunity to manage our civilisation, so, we need to ask contextual questions, such as, ‘is Life the parent or the child of the universe?’ because the universe needs Life to become aware of its own existence. The universe could be god-like by using its vast size and entanglement, and both the universe and physics need to pass on the best means for their offspring to succeed because that is a truth behind evolution and could be as simple as a new way of thinking that can be quickly learned. This new model could be the way to a sustainable future for the planet by showing that social engineering can place restraints on technology that is currently blighting civilisation with uncontrolled population growth.

This paper suggests a fresh approach by considering a simple model of the universe [from the bottom-up] and that model explains many current enigmas by deriving fundamental physics and fundamental social engineering from the creation equation of the fractal that generates our universe. In particular, firstly, gravity comes into being as an absolute which defines the strength of it’s action [always one dimensional] that could be called quantum gravity because secondly, it applies from the atomic forces to the gravity in the galaxies, and thirdly, the accelerating space defines its form [in two dimensions] and that the form of the attraction results in Kepler’s laws.

The Problems

Considering the universe, ‘today, according to NASA’s satellite estimates, it consists of the following:

Dark energy:72 per cent.

Dark matter: 23 per cent.

The matter we know (including light): 4.6 per cent.’ (The Universe in Your Hand, Christophe Galfard, p 340)

‘According to Oort, dark matter’s visible effects are only indirect, through gravity: dark matter cannot be seen, but it bends spacetime like ordinary matter, even though ordinary matter it most certainly is not.’ (p 329)

Further, ‘Rubin correctly reasoned that some form of dark matter must lie in these far-out regions, well beyond the visible edge of each spiral galaxy. . . . We now call these mysterious zones “dark matter haloes”. (Astrophysics for People in a Hurry, Neil DeGrasse Tyson, p 81)

Considering dark energy, ‘the universe in recent decades was discovered to wield a mysterious pressure that issues forth from the vacuum of space and that acts opposite cosmic gravity. Not only that, this “negative gravity” will ultimately win the tug-of-war, as it forces the cosmic expansion to accelerate exponentially into the future’. (p 94)

Two problems will occur to the reader, firstly, just as the particle-wave duality is forced on us by the form of the universe, so is the specialist-generalist duality that shows that generalists and specialists must work together because their mind-brains use somewhat different software [orthogonal] that doesn’t ‘mesh’ together. This is a generalist paper that uses an array of disciplines to state it’s case and I can only go so far because I don’t have the depth of knowledge that a specialist has. Secondly, the distinction of top-down versus bottom-up may not be readily apparent, but it is organisationally crucial apart from forming an orthogonality. These two problems come about because fundamental physics and social engineering are entangled in the creation equation of our fractal universe and Life is an integral part, so much so that we have to ask ‘is Life the parent or the child of the universe?’. If this sounds strange, consider that the universe only exists if someone is there to measure it because it is constructed out of orthogonalities [independent dimensions] that must always remain independent and unknowable until Life appears.

Apparently, the gravity equation has never been derived, but was ‘inspire guessed’ by Newton and Einstein used an analogy and that, I believe, forms a tenuous base to define astrophysics. This new model simply derives the gravity equation that equates with experiment, see below, further, “negative gravity” is being used to try to explain the simple fact that our fractal universe can only exist in an accelerating space, energy and matter are intrinsically different [orthogonal through speed, yet entangled] and dark matter possibly arises from the incompleteness of physics [organisation]. Thus, the problem is not the construction of the universe, because it has existed for a long time, but our interpretation of it and this requires a new way of thinking that will become apparent. Consequently, this paper is necessarily generalist, seeking to unify gravity with the other forces, which is a problem that seems to have defied physics, and proposes that our universe is a fractal generated by a simple equation that necessarily unifies everything, see below.

Negative Gravity

‘In 1998, two independent teams studying such distant supernovae published their results. . . . Both teams found out that about 5 billion years ago, after more than 8 billion years of normal behaviour, the universe’s expansion started to accelerate. The scientific community was shocked.’ (The Universe in Your Hand, Christophe Galfard, p 339) There is nothing shocking about this result except that the current theory is somewhat wrong, and in fact, this was discovered a hundred years ago when ‘Hubble and Slipher found that the red shift gets bigger the further away from us a galaxy is located and that, furthermore, the effect is the same in all directions. . . Obviously, if the universe is expanding now it must have been more compressed in the past.’ (The Goldilocks Enigma, Paul Davies, p 22) Unfortunately, the second part of the quotation led to the Big Bang theory, which, I believe is not justified on that evidence and Paul Davies admits to more engaging possibilities and I suggest that ‘the big bang was the explosion of space, not an explosion in space.‘ (p 28) is closer to that which I am suggesting. However, the ‘explosion in space’ is a result of the proposition that ‘energy does not force an expansion, logic requires the expansion’ and is a restriction that is required for the creation equation to exist, see below. Further, whilst I agree with the quotation in principle, I see no theoretical reason for any sudden change in the acceleration, as they state

Thus, the ‘negative gravity’ that is postulated above, is not needed and is merely a symptom of trying to describe fundamental physics [and fundamental social engineering] using concepts from Newtonian physics that do not apply. Einstein was blamed for making assumptions, but he had no alternative as he was ‘grounded’ in Newtonian physics as he tried to describe the effects of this model. For example, ‘curved space’ is, possibly, synonymous with organisation, see below, and the equating of the effects of gravity and ‘curved space’ to twice Newton’s result is (to be generous) audacious, although correct [in experiment]. The real problem is the description used in physics that is not constructed on a base that allows bottom-up surety. For example, the ‘rubber sheet’ analogy of gravitational attraction shows ‘curved space’, but curved space is a form of space that is everywhere distorted by acceleration. This model is constructed from the bottom-up and seems to adequately describe everything.

Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity

To explain orthogonality, and as an example of how easy this model makes understanding, let’s look at Einstein’s special theory of relativity, which is based on the mathematical consequences of the Michelson-Morley experiment [outlined below as the third absolute] that showed that the speed of light is constant to any observer,no matter what their motion. Clearly, if relativity is destroyed by division and the form of the universe is built on the absolutes, everything else, time, length, mass and now organisation must change. This is the point, that the absolutes have to be considered absolute and the value of the dimensions must change, albeit keeping their orthogonality, and so, I repeat, the values of time, length, mass and energy must change. In other words, physics is using dimensions inappropriately, see below. It would have saved a lot of the incredulity if this could have been pointed out, but of course that was not possible until now. Even now, I should point out that the universe only exists because of the absolutes, which are, it must be admitted, decidedly strange [to us] and that is why Newtonian physics cannot be used for the physical

This result is showing that if the speed of a mass equals the speed of light, chaos occurs because of the restriction that the creation equation contains orthogonal elements disappears and they become indistinguishable. In other words, the universe is constructed from orthogonals, and if two things that are supposed to be independent [different], become the same, accountability [absolute five] is lost and chaos reigns. This suggests that the ‘real’ world is not real, but is a mathematical-physical-logical solution built on orthogonalities and as much as we would like the universe to be as we want it to be, it is not. For example, Newtonian physics is a simple convenient version of what I am suggesting below, based on the absolute of force divided by mass is a constant [acceleration due to gravity] and Galileo was thought to have experimented with balls and inclined planes and to have established this proposition, which, I will show, is a restriction on the creation equation..

The general form can be seen by the Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle [that position and speed cannot be measured exactly] is given below and is the attempt to violate the restriction that organisation [position] and energy [speed] must remain independent. This is important because it is the logical construction of the universe, and further, energy and time are two of the dimensions and all dimensions must be orthogonal [independent yet entangled], below. Physics appears to have great difficulty with dimensions because ‘in physics and mathematics, the dimension of a mathematical space (or object) is informally [my emphasis] defined as the minimum number of coordinates needed to specify any point within it.’ (Wikipedia, Dimensions) Notice that firstly, I am using two sets of dimensions [space-time and energy-organisation] and secondly, the use of ‘coordinates’ in the quotation assumes orthogonality and thirdly, the measurer stands outside of the structure of the universe [that is, not orthogonal]. The definition that I am using might be that ‘ the dimensions of an organisation are the minimum number of components of the orthogonalities needed to describe it. For example, the dimensions of our universe are energy, organisation, length, time, speed [of matter versus light], acceleration [of the space] and other restrictions to the physical, such as Occam’s razor and the principle of least action..

The Creation Equation

Physics says that the law of conservation of energy is that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, then relativity says that the orthogonal [independent yet entangled] to energy must be called something and I will call it a general ‘organisation’, and thus, I call this simple equation [energy plus organisation equals zero] the creation equation because it generates a fractal that produces the physical universe which functions on relativity and the form of the universe is defined by a lack of relativity that can be described simply by the ratios of relatives and is derived from first principles, below [Form of the Universe]. In other words, when the organisation in the creation equation is ignored, that is, put constant, the law of conservation of energy emerges and that shows that physics could be incomplete. Notice that a ‘law’ in physics is generally agreed to exist, but cannot be proven and that is one of physic’s weaknesses, whereas this paper derives everything from first principles and does not need man-made laws. In addition, a fractal built on words indicates a new type of mathematics that I call the mathematics of concept-context and further, I am assuming that the universe arose out of nothing and this equation is somewhat in line with the Big Bang theory.

Notice that the creation equation only exists under the restriction that all space is expanding to keep the two parts separate, and this does not include constantly expanding, but requires acceleration becausethe radials must also accelerate. In other words, the space that is created by the fractal ‘word’ creation equation is one that requires everything to be accelerating with respect to everything else, that is, the energy and organisation must be kept separate in the photon, subatomic particles, atoms etc. in a logical sense. This does not mean that particles cannot meet and interact, as they clearly do, but that the logic [the orthogonal of a restriction] is appeased by the space accelerating. It should be remembered, from above, that the universe exists based on the division of the dimensions and not on the dimensions as we tend to assume, further, Newtonian physics is actually built on a contrived absolute [force divided by mass is a constant, for both gravitational and inertial masses] and that is why it works! Force is a measurer’s concept, not a physical property.

Gravity

I have always realised the truth of the thought experiment by Einstein that inside a lift, when the rope breaks, gravity disappears, but I have never seen the relevance of it till now, and only when it is acknowledged that everything is based on relativity does it make sense, because it could be that relativity [the converse or corollary] demands that if gravity disappears under acceleration in the lift-elevator, then the acceleration of the space produces gravity in the universe. This is important because physics seems to assume the existence of forces etc. and measures them, whereas, I believe that we should try to understand what causes these forces and this is the rationality behind “New Think” [concept] and general mathematical physics [context]. Hence, does the acceleration of the universe create the attraction of gravity between energy and organisation?

This seems to be an absurd proposition that energy and organisation should have an attraction between themselves, simply because I have difficulty in visualising how the universe calculates the amount. But, we are considering concepts and contexts and an entanglement between them and the answer [that they both have an attraction] is solved in a surprising way. Notice that Einstein assumed that energy in the form of a photon was affected by gravity and that was a ‘step too far’ because it requires answering the question above. So, let’s see.

Let’s look at calculus. I have always thought that calculus seemed too simple to be true, and that something is making it simple if I only knew what it was. Similarly, the motion of the planets seems contrived because it is so simple, but then, everything to do with the universe is simple [absolute five]. [Possibly these are wormholes to the physical.] The universe is built on orthogonalities that are independent, so no part acknowledges any other part, until Life occurs because Life is not orthogonal and the concept of the universe evolves with Life. So, it could be asked, ‘is Life the parent or the child of the universe?’. The universe could be the all-seeing, all-knowing God of the Old Testament, it could be a super-computer that knows everything because an organisational solution requires knowing everything, or perhaps it is mechanistic. The property of a fractal is similarity, simplicity and symmetry, so it is small wonder that cosmology and religion are similar.

Using cosmology is necessary because measurement requires a ‘square’ for the relativity of the measurer and the universe to effect a measurement at all times. Examples are: the gravity equation and Born’s rule, below, Pythagoras’ theorem, E=mc2, Fermat’s last theorem is a triviality that takes number theory 200 pages of modern mathematics to prove. As an example, E=mi2 on the photon [the creation equation] where E is energy, m is mass and i is the square root of -1, and using the third absolute that the measurement of the speed of a photon is c [the speed of light], E=mc2 off the photon. The square, I believe, is the portion that the universe registers as an increase in the organisation of the surroundings due to the measurement and relative to the measurement.

Physics has been pursued top-down throughout history and it’s results are like a starry sky with points of light that are unconnected because they were derived top-down and not bottom-up. Consider Einstein’s equation [E=mc2] that is usually taken to be the relation between energy and mass, even though they are (effectively) the same thing, so, it appears to be a ‘units converter’. By that I mean that a bit of missing mass can be converted from mass units to energy units, which is useful, but what does the equation mean? Firstly, it is not an equation, but a statement of orthogonality. Secondly, consider the creation equation [E=mi2], which is the wave-particle shimmer on the photon, and E=mc2 off the photon because the photon has speed c to the observer [always] and c2 because the universe has to be taken into account for the measurement. The creation equation is important, so, what does the rest of the equation [E=mx2] mean, given that speed [c] and position [x] are orthogonal [Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle]? Being orthogonal, they can be put to different uses, so consider the following analysis of E=mx2. Thirdly, the equation ‘=’ is used for simplicity, and, as Einstein’s special theory shows, the magnitude of the dimensions change, but not the orthogonality.

The measurement of a position somewhere in the universe is x and measuring that position is x2 and the acceleration is constant [2 being the second derivative], so a description of the measurement of that point is E=mx2, which is what that point will do in space-time [x, y, z, t] under measurement. Notice that this is the equation of a parabola, and given the necessity of the relativity of another mass at some other point, when measured, our point x will orbit the other mass [and vice versa]. This is Newton’s or Kepler’s laws of motion in two or three spacial dimensions. The attraction is given in one dimension as the law of gravity [product of the absolutes of mass divided by separation plus the product of the absolutes of organization divided by separation], see below.

In other words, if we measure a point in space, it will try to orbit something, or, at least be attracted to something, according to absolute four [quantum gravity]. Gravity is both an attraction, in one dimension, and an expression of the acceleration of being [at a position] in an accelerating universe. In other words, if you are in an accelerating universe, you experience gravity and the effect of the lift-elevator is weightlessness when your position’s acceleration matches the universe’s acceleration. Then why does this effect happen anywhere around the earth and not just in the direction of expansion? Presumably because the closeness of the earth overrides other factors, bearing in mind that the required acceleration starts off very small, but, by continual acceleration over billions of years, it may become noticeable. Notice also, that absolute two is the infill energy to (presumably) balance the acceleration and is the source of a ‘steady state’ production of matter etc.

Further, Newton considered that gravity affected mass, Einstein included energy [photon] and I am using organisation instead of ‘curved space’, but the simple derivation includes anything [concept] that is at the position x. Such simplicity! Is this true? Well it does answer the enigma of why a more dense object hits the ground at the same time as a less dense object and that answers the question of why gravitational mass is identical to inertial mass. Possibly there is no such thing as gravitational mass, but only one mass [inertial] because what we call gravitational mass is a position! This explains why the stars, planets etc. seek to be attracted to each other, to attempt to move to effect E=mx2 for the measurement, also, it explains why Einstein’s ‘curved space’ turned out to be exactly equal to Newton’s gravitation [and so be twice the value], whereas I say that it is due to the energy plus organisation at a point [two concepts]. Notice also, that the speed of gravity is instantaneous and is a property of the space [as are logic, Occam’s razor and the principle of least action] and does not travel at the speed of light, and further, if there are gravity waves, gravitons or anything else that potters along at the speed of light they must be energy-organisation.

This last sentence needs justifying. Given that energy and organisation are not simple to calculate, Newton considered mass, Einstein added the photon and I am suggesting organisation, the measurement of a point shows celestial mechanics, then the sum of all points is needed to define the universe and that needs to be done instantaneously for absolute five to always be correct. Consider the space E=mx2 that acts everywhere, has two restrictions, firstly E=mi2 [creation equation, and Heisenberg’s uncertainty restriction] which already acts under the restriction of constant acceleration, and E=mc2, which represents the orthogonality shown in Einstein’s special theory of relativity, that mass and energy [photon] are orthogonal as to speed. Then the space that we need, for instantaneous change of the internals at each point, similar to the effects found in energy [mass], length and time [and organisation] is a probability space with the general equation [(a+b)=1], which is part of the set of [the orthogonality] the creation equation [energy plus organisation equals zero] QED. This also explains why quantum mechanics is similar to probability theory.

The Living Universe

Life is presumably very important to the universe because Life might bring life to the universe by producing a third-party that can measure the orthogonalities that are the form of the universe. In fact, ‘are we the children of the universe, or its parents?’ because we share every measurement with the universe, by necessity, because the organisation of the measurement becomes an affordance that inserts an equivalent amount of energy into the measurer as is added to the environment. In other words, the universe comes alive because Life is a ‘channel’ out of orthogonality for the universe. If survival of the fittest lies behind evolution, a ‘truth’ is that parents try to make their progeny the fittest that they can to succeed and not abandon them as physics appears to have done, however, it is important that evolution shows that most parents assist their offspring [truth], but some do not.

Evolution can be viewed as survival of the fittest, but it’s orthogonal is equally true that the less fit find a niche and stay there. Physics appears to want to pursue a measuring niche by saying ‘use quantum mechanics, but don’t try to understand it’. I believe that this paper shows that quantum mechanics is simple, and further, that gravity is simple, but it requires a new way of thinking that includes the actual physical, not a top-down attempt using Newtonian physics. I call this new way of thinking “New Think” as a concept and general mathematical physics as a context that uses Newtonian physics [top-down], this theory [bottom-up] with relativity and the logic containing the restrictions, with general truths from evolution.

Conclusion: given NASA’s breakdown of gravitational effects, organisation could be dark matter and the infill energy aligns with dark energy, but if the acceleration is the effect of gravity, I think that a re-think is needed. So, perhaps I should let the ‘dust settle’ and see what develops over time with gravity and what cosmology wants to do with the possibility that the universe is God, super-computer or mechanistic. However, it is interesting that this model predicts an accelerating universe [as a restriction], that the magnitude of gravity is a result of the lack of relativity [absolute] and is constant, as are the orthogonalities, no matter how the dimensions change in value [absolute], the model derives Kepler’s laws of planetary motion, and gravity affects whatever is at the point measured, further, the creation equation generates a probability space in the mathematics of concept-context that proves that gravity is a property of the space.

Prediction: physics is clearly not wanting to engage in fundamental physics and, as this theory shows, it is even less likely to be interested in social engineering because, I think, the basis behind fundamental physics can be ignored and still function, as it has been for the last hundred years, but social science, is definitely a ‘spanner in the works’ of this thinking because it is a necessary control on technology that is destroying our civilisation by it’s absence. Hence the mantle may have to pass to astrophysics that seems to contain a substantial dollop of cosmology. The size and age of the universe, together with the question that this model poses through orthogonality [‘is Life the parent or the child of the universe?’] possibly means that history, in the eyes of religion, may have had a helping hand by an extraterrestrial in the form of God [as the universe]. Considering the precarious state of the world at the moment, a belief in relativity means a goal is necessary and this model supplies the social engineering and a new way of thinking to perhaps attain that goal.

Unification

Given that ‘All science is a search for unification.‘ it must be appreciated that if science is to be broken up into specialties for ease of working, it creates a need for context and this is shown at the lowest level in the creation equation as the mathematics of concept-context. The same could be said of physics, that only someone outside of physics can recognise the dimensions within physics, bearing in mind that it does not access the physical, and it is only through the creation equation that the dimensions can be fully recognised as orthogonalities, not coordinates. Thus, the creation equation is the unification of everything, and being a fractal, everything that it generates must be simple, symmetric and similar.

An appreciation of orthogonality in the dimensions leads to the mathematics of concept-context to determine relativity because considering gravity, firstly the magnitude [of gravity] from the absolute [a lack of relativity], secondly the form [celestial mechanics] due to the acceleration of space [a restriction] and thirdly, the quantum-gravity [extreme] aspect of the creation equation. The quarks are not found alone and this could be because they are an organisation [an entity], whilst, on the other hand, in the galaxies, they are [what we see as] energy. The mathematics of concept-context assigns affordances [energy associated with the organisation measured] and that is how, I believe that the mind-brain operates, using the creation equation and a new way of thinking is afforded by a complete physics.

A complete physics is the convenience of Newtonian physics coupled with the completeness of this derivation, recognising restrictions and the resulting logic to build a mind-brain [by changing the software] capable of using the social engineering [within the creation equation] on our society and ourselves to create a future that is symbiotic with the planet. This has been done before in Christianity that changed the savagery of the times into a ‘softer’ modern society. However, is the universe helping by playing God? A God that Life created? Relativity demands a plan that is similar to religion, and religion is the context of the concept of ethics and social engineering is the means to make it happen. We have the duty to make it happen [in loco parentis], but we have to make it happen and soon.

The Form Of The Universe

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 from the organisational solution and do not have speed restrictions such as the speed of light and organisation.

The universe is a ‘word’ equation that is generated by concepts and contexts by life, energy and organisation in the physical from the creation equation to produce unique answers that require a partnership between Life and the universe through the measurement of the physical through a third party [to overcome orthogonality]. 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 x2 [the relativity of the measurer and the universe] which could be viewed as a parabola y= x2, with speed 2x and constant acceleration 2, 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

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

The Universe, The Super-strong Anthropic Principle, Life And Consciousness

October 1, 2022 Darryl PenneyLeave a comment

The Universe, The Super-strong Anthropic Principle, Life And Consciousness

by Darryl Penney

Abstract: consciousness can be simply defined as the act of measurement, and completing the law of conservation of energy brings forth social engineering that may allow us to gain a future agreed goal for civilisation instead of squabbling as we are now. Life is necessary to measure the orthogonal fundamental physics and social science and that invokes a super-strong anthropic principle to be, ‘are we the children of the universe, or its parents?’ because the universe does not exist without Life, and further, ‘does Life create its own ‘God’, that is the universe?’, ‘where does ‘God’ live?’, all around us and ‘does ‘God’ know everything that we do and think?’ because the universe must be a party to measurement for uniqueness.

Keywords: anthropic principle; consciousness; fractal universe; relativity; quantum mechanics; social engineering; creation equation

Preface

Social engineering is a new field that only comes into being and our ken when physic’s law of conservation of energy is made complete and that shows that social engineering is as important as technology [materials engineering] and provides a means to understand and control civilisation in its very uncertain future. Social engineering is the ability to change ourselves into a new form, mentally, physically and socially, so that, with materials engineering [technology], we can attain an ultimate agreed goal.

‘The so-called strong anthropic principle, a loose set of ideas which seek to establish that the emergence of life and mind in the universe are somehow predestined and inevitable’ (The Goldilocks Enigma, Paul Davies, p 280) does not involve quantum mechanics but uses, I believe, a much simpler principle that could tie Life into the fabric of the universe. Life and mind are not ‘predestined and inevitable’, but the opportunity always exists ‘if the cards fall the right way’. The universe is a simple place, and, at the moment, humanity could be considered to be a parasite destroying the environment, but, consider the case that we are children that need a new way of thinking that is different to that of the animals so that we can work with the universe through social engineering. Animals are a product of survival of the fittest and a new way of thinking must include goals [relativity] that attain the promise that the universe makes, if we take advantage of it, and the ability to do that is available if we are prepared to reach for it. In other words, instead of being parasites, a change in thinking [concept] and social engineering of ourselves [context] could provide the solution to the dis-organisation that grips civilisation. Religion proved to be a partially successful solution in the past, but we can do better when we understand social engineering.

‘Today’s problems cannot be solved with today’s mind’

Albert Einstein and many great thinkers …

(Fair Food, edited by Nick Rose, p 250)

The Fundamentals

Physics appears to have great difficulty with dimensions because ‘in physics and mathematics, the dimension of a mathematical space (or object) is informally [my emphasis] defined as the minimum number of coordinates needed to specify any point within it.’ (Wikipedia, Dimensions) Notice that I am using two sets [space-time and energy-organisation] of dimensions, whereas the trend in physics is to use numerous dimensions to try to describe everything. If I were to define my idea of dimensions, they would be something like ‘the orthogonalities that define the form of an organisation’, which is similar, with organisation replacing ‘space’. An example is the sequence: Michelson-Morley experiment, Einstein’s special theory of relativity, Kaluza’s five dimensions up to ‘the picture that has emerged over the past decade is thus of an eleven-dimensional universe, with four extant, or large, dimensions (three of space and one of time), and seven microscopic space dimensions all rolled up into some tiny geometric form’. (The Pearly Gates Of Cyberspace, Margaret Wertheim, p 211)

“New Think”

The main message of this paper is, I believe, that only one type of universe exists, ‘they are convinced that a unique theory describing a unique world, with all laws and parameters completely fixed by the theory, will eventually emerge – maybe one day soon.’ (The Goldilocks Enigma, Paul Davies, p 233) This could be that theory because universes are created continually [on a personal, family, business, country basis etc.] as one would expect in a fractal, as noticed by Adam Smith [what is good for the individual is good for the economy]. Hence I will ignore the multitude of theories presented as ‘ultimate explanations’ in The Goldilocks Enigma because they are specialist theories and I am a generalist [it will be shown below that both are needed].

The creation equation [energy plus organisation equals zero] contains two parts that can be described as fundamental physics plus fundamental social science, where physics is based on energy and social engineering is based on emotional energy and is derived from Life [as affordances]. If no Life exists, the universe is physical, energy and organisation are orthogonal, independent, but entangled at the origin and are oblivious to each other. Energy and organisation are related by the complexity of Life because a mind-brain can reference both at the same time by using a mathematics of concept-context that is apparent from the creation equation. Thus, measurement is the context of this mathematics [concept] and is assigning a context [the affordance] that the measurer requires from the environment. The value of the contexts allows a decision to be made on which concept is chosen. In simpler words, the creation of Life fulfils the universe’s potential by making it become alive.

“New Think” is the concept, with general mathematical physics as the context that must be used because physics does not access the physical and how can I discuss the universe in terms that preclude the universe? We have to combine the top-down of traditional physics with the bottom-up of the physical [see the section Form of the Universe, below], the relativity that affects everything, the restrictions and its orthogonal, the logic that we use everyday. An example is that most people believe that a heavy weight falls faster than a lighter weight when dropped ,and again, physics considers energy, but not the energy of emotion that is produced by the measurement of organisation [affordances] by Life, which is a huge part of modern life: religion, music, speech, parades etc. Another example, if technology is so useful, why is the world destroying itself with over-population? I believe that fundamental physics has neglected organisation which leads to social engineering that is the changing of ourselves and the way we need to act as a society.

Cosmology

Paul Davies wants a simple, non-mathematical universe with fixed values for the natural constants and that describes a fractal that is generated by a simple equation that means that it is always similar, within itself, no matter how large it gets. The complexity has, I believe, been added by ourselves using top-down thinking and unification requires simplification.

‘All science is a search for unification.‘ (p 118)

The fractal generator is energy plus organisation equals zero, which is a word equation, and that concept has a context that I call the equation of everything, and they are orthogonal. Orthogonality is a concept and relativity is the context, and they are the drivers of everything as well as the structure of everything and form a fractal because energy contains organisation [potential energy, chemical energy etc.] and vice versa [for potential, how high, what extension of a spring etc.] .

As an example of the dangers of using mathematics, which is also incomplete, the most well known equation is probably E=mc2. There are stories that Einstein imagined riding on a photon, so, the creation equation becomes E/m=i2, on the photon, where ‘i’ is the square root of ‘-1’, E is the energy and m is the organisational form of that energy. Outside of the photon, the third absolute says that the speed of a photon must be ‘c’ to the measurer, so the measurement is ‘c squared’, and, E=mc2. Clearly, Einstein’s derivation becomes obvious from the creation equation because mass is the organisation of energy, but what is not so obvious is that the universe measures our measuring [relativity], and knows everything so as to give a unique organisational solution. In other words, when we measure, the universe has to know and so, like quantum gravity [below] in the gravity equation, the square is required.

This example raises two problems, firstly that this is similar to a very real problem that a specialist knows a lot about a small field [concept], whereas a generalist knows a little about a lot of subjects [context] and as knowledge grows, both are needed. This duality is as valid as the wave-particle duality that underpins the photon. Secondly, that ‘the universe measures our measuring [relativity]’ is broaching the subject that Paul Davies raises on how Life interacts with the universe. The, I believe, fact that the universe measures everything that we do, as part of the organisational solution renders the universe as an all-seeing ‘God’ that knows everything that we do, hears our prayers, makes us “in ‘His’ image” and could form part of a religion. Notice that religion is social engineering because it produces emotion in its adherents, along with feelings from music, monumental buildings, uniforms, churches etc. and further, I believe that the most breathtakingly audacious social experiment occurred two thousand years ago when Christianity turned the savagery of the times into ‘love your neighbour’.

The structure of the universe is given below as The Form of the Universe and it will change your thinking because it accesses the physical and the mind-brain uses this information as a ‘software’ on which to base decisions. As an example, the derivation of the law of gravity is given for the first time because it has never been proven, not by Newton, Einstein or anyone else because physics is incomplete. Einstein used ‘curved space’, as organisation in his general theory as an ‘analogy’ because both gravity attraction and curved space have the same effect [a bold assertion!] and this led to doubling the result, that turned out to be correct! Notice that an analogy is an inspired guess not just plain luck, Newton ‘inspire guessed’ the gravity equation and Einstein doubled its effect. Another example is that quantum mechanics is currently suspected of being involved in the functioning of the mind-brain, but quantum mechanics is just the physics of the small, and it is primarily, I believe, the creation equation and the equation of everything that is involved and is the precursor of physics.

Consciousness

Consciousness is both a concept and a context, and contexts are interconnected [entangled] with everything and the subject is too complicated to address properly here, but one aspect is important and needs explanation, and that is measurement. The form of the universe is built out of orthogonalities that only exist by being independent [somewhat like the Cartesian axes] and cannot measure one another except by a third party, such as a mind-brain, that is a parasite, but is part of the organisation of the universe. The mind-brain [consciousness] uses the creation equation to create a mathematics of concept-context that measures two concepts and assigns a ‘tag’ [affordance] on the context to each according to the value to the organism [the measurement sought] and a decision is made on the relative value of the affordance. I call this the mathematics of concept-context and it describes thinking [context], consciousness, the structure of the mind-brain [concept], and even democracy and the market-place, as is to be expected in a fractal.

It seems logical that when the environment is measured, with respect to the organism’s requirement, the organisation of the environment is increased to include the measurer, and that requires that a compensating amount of energy to be given to the measurer, so, energy appears in the mind-brain of the observer and constitutes the energy of the measurement and we call it emotion and it happens whenever we view organisation in music, art, religion, parades etc. Newtonian physics is based on energy, but emotion is an energy that physics neglects, presumably because it is difficult to take into account.

The Mind-brain

I have always considered that Life to be a parasite that evolved because it could evolve, but that is not so if the universe is a fractal, because everything is linked together, and in particular, Life and the universe are intimately connected. They are connected through the creation equation that created the universe and Life to the extent that every measurement made by an organism uses the creation equation through affordances to make a decision and has to be taken into account by the universe to derive an organisational solution. Making a decision evolved into a mind-brain that works on the only principle available, which is the mathematics of concept-context. This mathematics is obvious from the creation equation and the affordance is the value placed on the importance of the context between the mind-brain and a number of concepts so that a decision can be made.

Clearly the set of action potentials from the senses represents the organisation that was experienced and these are held in the brain in temporary storage with an affordance attached that determines its importance and through evolution, abstract thought evolved. The importance of thought in survival of the fittest can be gauged by the fact that 20% of the body’s energy is consumed in the brain that consists of only 2% of the body-weight. The important point is that all life-forms measure their environment and so have consciousness and in a fractal, this is the same mechanism that the universe uses, that is, that it measures what life measures. Hence, if life measures and so is conscious, the universe necessarily notes that measurement and so must be conscious and with entanglement, below, is probably fully conscious!

Religion

Thus, a measurement that Life makes, is, through relativity, available to the universe, and hence the c squared in E=mc2. This is logical because the universe is an entity as much as we are entities complete to ourselves, but contained in a greater entity. Consider the relativity in the derivation of the gravity equation below, or why does the proof of Pythagoras’ theorem involve the squares of the sides. Notice that we are made ‘in the universe’s image’, the universe knows everything that we think or do, our thoughts [prayers] can influence the universe [measurement] and the universe is looking like the God in Christianity. Further, the Trinity seems strange with God, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit and there is the thought that the predecessor of the Holy Spirit was lost in antiquity and was originally the environment. Notice that social engineering is needed to protect the environment because Churches have not.

Religion is a vital expression of social engineering and was [possibly] formulated to change society [which it did over a large part of civilisation] and must remain a necessary part of a modern society. Consider that religion is the context of the concept of ethics and much work is done, ideally every Sunday at services, to instil Christian Principles. Indeed, religion is carefully formulated, but it is losing it’s hold as the world changes [and it does not]. If the Church’s teachings were to change to accommodate a modern world, and I believe that they need tweaking, an obvious one might be to replace the Holy Spirit with the environment because the Church has a reputation for saying that the environment is for Man’s use and we are destroying it.

Social Engineering

Social engineering is clearly necessary if we are to control civilisation to prevent over-population, over-consumption etc. as Malthus predicted, but on Wikipedia, it barely exists. I believe that it is the organisation in the creation equation because it is the energy that we feel as emotion when confronted with the organisation of daily life. Our emotions are manipulated everyday through music, city centre buildings, art, beauty, parades, church services etc. and especially food marketeers that tempt us into eating ‘junk’ food, to the detriment of our health. Sixty per cent of adults in the developed world are overweight or obese, people and society have no agreed goals for themselves or the environment and could be classed as children, and this is understandable because they think like the animals with imposed goals through survival of the fittest.

When we mature, we set goals and change our thinking to help others and continue civilisation by having children. In a fractal, taking this to its logical conclusion, we need to use social engineering to change national behaviour to prevent wars, genocide etc., and on a personal level, robbery, murder, gambling etc. and the many antisocial activities of the young. Social engineering is planning the organisation of society to voluntarily select the best organisation, as shown by evolution according to an agreed plan, and that plan is, I believe, a new way of thinking [“New Think”]

Conclusion

Newtonian physics is too convenient to disturb and it is not necessary to do so, because we can ‘slide’ the physical underneath it for those that need the physical. All that we need to do is use the relative nature of the universe to make “New Think” the concept, and a context consisting of Newtonian physics top-down, the physical bottom-up, relativity, restrictions [such as the universe must expand to allow the creation equation to exist] and the orthogonal that is the daily logic.

Prediction

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the anthropic principle and it has turned out to be more bizarre than I suspected because of it’s fractal nature, so, ‘it is no more than a necessary statistical procedure, usually referred to as the weak anthropic principle’ (p 251) In the strong anthropic principle ‘the laws of physics and the evolution of the universe are in some unspecified manner destined to bring forth life and mind. The strong anthropic principle does not forbid a multiplicity of universes, but it stipulates that universes without life and observers don’t exist.’ (p 251) The ‘unspecified manner’ is suggested below.

Thus, it would appear that multiverses are not hived off like pages in a book, but more like a ‘tree’ structure where a fractal produces new fractals as a matter of course and minute universes appear all the time in individuals, couples, families etc. All universes are similar, symmetric and simple and all parts are orthogonal and independent, and it could be considered, from a religious perspective that we form the awakening of the universe by being it’s senses because it needs our input to create itself through measurement. The question becomes ‘are we the children of the universe, or its parents?’. In other words, Life brings the universe to life by providing a means of accessing the orthogonals and the entanglement includes the universe in Life.

I use to think that we are parasites because we could be parasites, but clearly we have a duty to become symbiotic and to have a goal that is relative. It does not really matter what we do because we are restricted to a small part of the universe by the speed of light and organisation and we have little influence, however, consider the following quotation because information as organisation is limited to the speed of light as shown by the creation equation, but ‘quantum entangled particles . . . can remain correlated irrespective of the distance between them. This bizarre feature of the quantum world seems not to respect Einstein’s cosmic speed limit, for a particle in one place can instantaneously influence another, however far apart the two may be.’ (Life on the Edge, Jim Al-Khalili and Johnjoe McFadden, p 251) Notice that physics does not understand quantum mechanics nor recognise the creation equation, and there appear to be two types of entanglement, firstly from the creation equation, and secondly that logic, restrictions, gravity, Occam’s razor and the principle of least action appear to affect the universe instantaneously as is necessary in an organisational solution.

Looking further into the question ‘are we the children of the universe, or its parents?’, shows a symbiosis that occurs when the first measurement is made, because the barren universe is constructed of orthogonals that cannot be accessed until a third party evolves and the organisational solution must include the measurer’s action. Given that the mind and brain are constructed on the mathematics of concept-context, it is clear that all life is conscious because it measures, but it was a surprise to see that Life was needed to give a reality to the universe, but in hindsight, if nothing is measured, it does not have a relativity and does not exist. There is no way to resolve the question other than that consciousness and a recognisable universe occurred simultaneously and we should try to act as symbiotes and not parasites because the universe is part of us, and further, I believe that we should make a place for the other lifeforms that we share the planet with, and place controls on population.

The question of consciousness is clear because a mobile phone measures and tells when it is low on battery charge, likewise a car with the fuel gauge, so, they could be considered conscious, likewise the question behind The Goldilocks Enigma. Paul Davies suggests three alternatives ‘why the universe is so unexpectedly suited to life’: ‘an exceedingly lucky fluke’, ‘there exists a multiverse’ or ‘an intelligent creator’ (p 215), but I believe that the above occurs because it is a derivation and the universe is so big that (effectively) life will form eventually somewhere in any universe, so the strong anthropic principle appears to win out.

Conclusion: in a fractal, everything is the same, so, consider that a decision is made by comparing the affordances of two [necessarily orthogonal] concepts [as action potentials] in the mind-brain, also, a computer compares two orthogonals [0 and 1] and makes a decision, so, Life is necessary to compare two physical concepts and that perhaps brings the universe to life. I have already pointed out that the universe could be the ‘God’ of the Scriptures, and that fits with the fractal and could be classed as the super-strong anthropic principle. This answers the questions: ‘is there a ‘God?”, ‘where does ‘God’ live?’, ‘does ‘God’ know everything that we do and think?’ and even perhaps, can ‘God’ answer prayers?’. The universe uses the many facets of the logic of the half-truth, but true and false suggests that the universe itself could be a mind-brain-computer that is turned on by Life and uses [the two possible] entanglement to communicate instantaneously throughout itself.

In other words, the weak anthropic principle allows Life to form, the strong anthropic principle says that Life will form, whereas the super-strong anthropic principle says that the possibility of Life measuring creates the universe as the necessary logic behind the measurement.

The Form Of The Universe

The creation: 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], secondly, energy and organisation are necessarily created to balance the necessary expansion [for the creation equation to exist] of the universe [E/t+O/t, all volume], thirdly, the constant speed of light [with respect to any measurer] is l/t (all E and O) and fourthly, gravity [so called quantum gravity] is E/l+O/l (all t). The law of gravitation is:

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

Notice 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. Further, ‘today physicists feel confident that this set – gravity, electromagnetism, the weak force, and the strong force – represent the full complement of our physical universe. But what really began to excite them was the idea that all four might be just different aspects of a single overarching force – a kind of unifying super-force.’ (The Pearly Gates Of Cyberspace, Margaret Wertheim, p 211) This refers to the quantum gravity above, which is a single absolute, not a force and, I believe, explains everything from quarks to gravity. Electromagnetism is similar to the macroscopic wave-particle duality expressed as wave [energy] and particle [organisation] alternating.

‘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, as quantum gravity [absolute (4)] varies inversely as the separation, relativity requires the inverse square law [or the square law, in this case] and there is obviously relativity between the wave and particle.

So, Newtonian physics is a creation of the mind and has nothing to do with the physical 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. Newton’s laws of motion, Einstein’s theory and Maxwell’s equations all hide organisation and that obscures the picture, for example, magnetism is an organisation that registers the relativity between a charged particle and the measurer as can be seen by its odd behaviour [sign depends on direction, magnitude on speed]. 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]. 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. This is a truth that we should seriously consider acting upon because “new Think” is based on truths.

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

The Unification Of Symmetry, Simplicity And Similarity In A Fractal Universe

October 1, 2022 Darryl PenneyLeave a comment

The Unification Of Symmetry, Simplicity And Similarity In A Fractal Universe

Abstract: Newtonian physics is a fractal that seems to be created in the same way that the universe was created and they lived happily apart until fundamental physics tried to access the physical, then the problems started. This paper shows how they can be brought together harmoniously and at the same time shows that fundamental physics is incomplete and when completed, shows a new social engineering as a relativity to technology [materials engineering] that may supply the tools to prevent the impending social disaster of over-population etc. As an aid to understanding the scope of the new way of thinking, wormholes are suggested as a means of anchoring the convenience of Newtonian physics to the reality of the universe and the equation E=mc2 and Fermat’s last theorem, become self-evident examples of this new method as well as that Pythagoras’s theorem can be used as a means of finding the wormholes.

Keywords: symmetry; quantum gravity; fractal universe; relativity; quantum mechanics; wormholes; law of gravitation; social engineering; creation equation; “New Think”; general mathematical physics

‘All science is a search for unification.’ (The Goldilocks Enigma, Paul Davies, p 118)

Preamble

Science began with the ‘armchair musings’ of the ancient Greeks, Roger Bacon suggested experimentation, the physicists measured and the theorists built theories on those measurements that became ‘armchair musings’ because they called them ‘the laws of physics’ that did not access the physical and fundamental physics gave up trying a hundred years ago by saying of quantum mechanics, ‘use, but don’t try to understand’.

This paper is about unification and the symmetry, simplification and similarity as found in a fractal:

first, that everything is relative to something else [creation equation, not Einstein’s relativity that examines the effect of the Michelson-Morley experiment],

second, the top-down of science versus the bottom-up of the physical which it does not currently access,

third, the law of conservation of energy is replaced by the creation equation that considers energy and organisation,

fourth, physics [energy] leads to materials engineering and is symmetrical with physics [organisation] that leads to social engineering that may allow us to control civilisation,

fifth, the fractal universe contains inherent symmetry from the simple creation equation,

sixth, the mind is forced into a higher state [similar to the Cambrian when vision may have improved] by an updated software that may allow us to control ourselves, society and science,

seventh, relativity requires a goal for the future of civilisation, that we do not currently have, that comes through organisation [religion, ethics etc.],

eighth, the orthogonality of the dimensions [two sets] requires a mind-brain to measure, and receive as emotional energy, the increased organisation that is part of the measurement.

ninth, the equation of everything [context] of the creation equation [concept] may be the long sought-after ‘unified theory’ via two sets of dimensions.

Preface

‘Unifying quantum mechanics and general relativity to construct a quantum theory of gravity remains one of the greatest challenges confronting physics.’ (Life on the Edge, Jim Al-Khalili and Johnjoe McFadden)

A quantum theory of gravity remains one of the greatest challenges confronting physics because firstly, physics does not understand how quantum mechanics works and secondly, general relativity is based on ‘guesstimates’ as well as, that the law of gravitation has never been derived [Newton’s ‘inspired guess’] because physics measures and tries to understand with top-down ‘armchair musings’, similar to the ancient Greeks. This paper suggests that relativity underwrites the universe and physicists must reprogram the software of their mind-brains using the bottom-up organisation of a complete fundamental physics that shows that quantum gravity is simple, and as an example, at the same time as deriving quantum gravity, the speed of light is shown to be constant to the measurer, no matter how they are moving, and we know of the effects that that ‘little gem’ had on physics a hundred years ago.

The Aim

Theoretical physics is a top-down organisational conglomeration of measurements assembled into a monumental whole that lacks structure with a disturbing number of enigmas when it is extended from the everyday Newtonian physics. The aim is to show that the existing physics is similarly constructed, using absolutes, to a bottom-up organisation using the absolutes from the creation equation, and to create a complete physics that is a composite that is constructed orthogonally to use both physics and the physical. In other words, physics does not consider the physical, although it gives the impression that it does, and when it does try to access the physical as in quantum mechanics, it finds that it does not have the understanding.“New Think” [concept] with its context of general mathematical physics allows a new way of thinking about the physical and at the same time releases a scientific basis for the social sciences [social engineering] that is orthogonal to technology [materials engineering] and may provide the tools to control our civilisation.

The context of general mathematical physics shows a new approach that combines aspects of mathematics, physics etc. as shown by the simple derivations of E=mc2 and Fermat’s last theorem, as well as as a discussion of gravity and quantum gravity that shows the wormholes between the physical and what has been built into Newtonian physics. Newtonian physics is very similar to the generation of the universe through absolutes, as one would expect in a fractal, and it is this property of a fractal that creates the wormholes, so, why doesn’t physics (and mathematics etc.) take the easy way by recognising the physical? At the same time, the energy of emotion, that physics ignores, creates social engineering which our civilisation desperately needs. In other words, this paper uses the organisation, that physics has always tried to avoid.

Do Physicists Really Understand Physics?

I do not believe that physicists understand physics, because physics is an empirical science, built on measurement, but, do physicists even understand measurement and the logic behind it? I don’t think that they do, because they don’t understand the importance of relativity and further, that Einstein’s special theory of relativity was about the constant speed of light to the observer’s mind-brain, not about relativity in general. Fundamental physics tried to incorporate physics and the workings of the universe, but the search was abandoned a hundred years ago, because both they and I believe that it needs a new way of thinking.

‘Today’s problems cannot be solved with today’s mind’

Albert Einstein and many great thinkers …

(Fair Food, edited by Nick Rose, p 250)

Finding fundamental physics will answer a lot of enigmas and will surprise in its simplicity, but will come with several problems, firstly, I am reminded of the problems of overturning the geocentric theory [where the sun revolved around the earth] and Darwin’s evolution of humans and wonder whether people will accept a universe different to their assumed ‘real’ world. Secondly, not only will the physical ‘real’ world be challenged, the mental world will also, and will require a new way of thinking [“New Think”], and thirdly, relativity requires not only a fundamental physics based on energy [as physics is], but a new social science based on organisation that will produce the relative [social engineering] to materials engineering [technology] and is, I believe, a chance to solve our civilisation’s problems.

Relativity

Physics is based on energy and the law of conservation of energy is that energy cannot be created or destroyed, but what is this one thing called energy? Don’t say the Big Bang, for that is for children and if physics wants to bypass the workings of God, it has to acknowledge that energy has to have a relativity if it is to be created from nothing. That relativity I will call organisation, so that energy plus organisation equals zero and that is the fractal equation that, I believe, generates the universe. Notice that this ‘word’ equation generates a fractal and a new mathematics, that I call the mathematics of concept-context because energy and organisation are concepts, but they can be contexts and they can create a fractal composed of concepts and contexts and the generation of the fractal uses this new mathematics. In the creation equation [energy plus organisation equals zero], energy and organisation can be considered concepts and the ‘plus’ is the context, which is anything that can be considered, but in a measurement it will be given a value, because that is the purpose of measurement and the act of measurement is an organisation that creates an equal amount of energy in the mind of the measurer. It is important to remember that in the physical, energy and organisation cannot be measured because they are orthogonal [ninety degrees in Cartesian coordinates, independent but entangled at the origin] and can only be measured through a third entity, such as our mind-brain.

Affordances

Physics has been ‘doing its own thing’ completely separate to the physical, and when fundamental physics was needed, it found that it could not understand the physical. An example is the Michelson-Morley experiment that found that the speed of light was the same to the measurer’s mind-brain no matter how the measurer was moving. This was an enigma in peoples’ perception of a ‘real’ world and was used as a postulate by Einstein in his special theory of relativity that described the effects of measurement. However, the logic of the creation equation means that many postulates can be understood, such as how the mind functions [affordances] and when physics is expanded from merely measuring to be able to consider logic and organisation, the mathematics of concept-context shows the structure of the mind-brain etc.

‘Affordances are what the environment “offers the animal …. either for good or ill,” according to Gibson”. (This Idea Is Brilliant, edited by John Brockman, Daniel C. Dennett, p 147) ‘The huge gap in Gibson’s perspective was his refusal even to entertain the question of how this “direct pickup” of information was accomplished by the brain.’ (p 148) This “direct pickup” was answered above, where energy appears in the mind-brain of the observer and constitutes the energy of the measurement and we call it emotion and it happens whenever we view organisation in music, art, religion, parades etc. Another important issue is how the brain thinks, again using the creation equation, because a simple sugar [glucose] is burnt to supply energy and at the same time organisation [thinking] is created and the mind-brain, weighing 2% of body-weight consumes 20% of the body’s energy consumption, in the form of glucose. and thought is determined by a different equation a+b=0, where a, b and ‘+’ are whatever we want them to be because we are parasites and can do what we please.

Logic is a formidable working hypothesis, but it must be rooted in the physical, and is derived in the section Form of the Universe, but we are still left with the question of measurement and the last that I heard was the argument over ‘did the observer affect the experiment?’ in quantum mechanics. That question is answered in the aforementioned section because everything is entangled in, I believe, two ways, the first being the creation equation and the second in the context of the dimensions. The dimensions are orthogonal and independent [concepts], but overall, in the organisational solution, they must be connected [context]. Physics appears to have great difficulty with dimensions because ‘in physics and mathematics, the dimension of a mathematical space (or object) is informally [my emphasis] defined as the minimum number of coordinates needed to specify any point within it.’ (Wikipedia, Dimensions) [Notice that I am using two sets of dimensions.]

Logic, Restrictions and Proverbs

A small digression to clarify entanglement, ‘two ways, the first being the creation equation and the second in the context of the dimensions’. Firstly, in a fractal, everything is similar [because of the simple generator]: the creation equation, orthogonality, the structure of the photon [shimmer of energy and organisation], mass [deBroglie waves, organisation], wave-particle duality etc. Secondly, the dimensions are orthogonal, as is everything in the form of the universe, as shown by Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, thirdly, by the restrictions [such as that the universe must be expanding so that the creation equation exists], fourthly, that the usage of Life over time produces ‘truths’, such as that everyone has an unbroken chain of ancestors over 3,000 million years, or, survival of the fittest etc.

Physics combines these necessities, measures them and says that such-and-such happens, but that is not the fundamental physics that explains ‘why things happen’. Physics is the concept of measurement and fundamental physics is the context of measurement, and as these are orthogonal, it is small wonder that physics cannot comprehend fundamental physics. Truly, a new way of thinking is needed to measure orthogonals, and that is what the mind-brain does. “New Think” uses the orthogonals of the physical, physics, relativity, logic and restrictions. Logic is not in the creation equation, but is the relativity of the restrictions and has infinite speed and this is a requirement for the universe to exist [Occam’s razor and the principle of least action must always be minima]. In other words, restrictions and its orthogonal, logic, have infinite speed because the universe can not exist unless they are always present [as minima] and while we may not easily recognise restrictions, this explains why the logic that we use daily, works for us. For example, quantum mechanics is measurement [context], but we cannot measure measurement unless we stand outside measurement and the creation equation makes that possible because it contains energy and organisation and our mind-brain can measure these orthogonals at the same time.

Information as organisation is limited to the speed of light as shown by the creation equation, but ‘quantum entangled particles . . . can remain correlated irrespective of the distance between them. This bizarre feature of the quantum world seems not to respect Einstein’s cosmic speed limit, for a particle in one place can instantaneously influence another, however far apart the two may be.’ (Life on the Edge, Jim Al-Khalili and Johnjoe McFadden, p 251) Notice that gravity is a concept but also a logical context of entanglement [non-local] as well as a local context of attraction.

Dimensions

The dimensions are the structure of the universe and yet they are ‘ informally [my emphasis] defined’ in physics, which suggests that physics may contain misconceptions, and one misconception is that physics actually considers the physical, because it does not. Newtonian physics, which is convenient to use, is an ‘armchair’ attempt to produce a useful tool to describe the visible world, but we are parasites that, at the moment, are little concerned with our treatment of our host, the environment, which has led to the world’s current problems. Physics must do more than measure, it must reengage the physical, as it tried to do a hundred years ago because within the creation equation is the ability to control ourselves, and that I call social engineering.

As an example, ‘Einstein’s . . . . E=mc2, which expresses the idea that energy and mass are equivalent (with c being the speed of light)’ (The Man Who Loved Only Numbers, Paul Hoffman, p 122) contains the view that ‘energy and mass are equivalent’, whereas they are, I believe, the opposite, independent yet entangled and the ‘=’ sign is misleading because we are trying to use mathematics. In the language of Cartesian coordinates, they are on different axes and are independent, and entangled at the origin. [E=mi2 is equivalence on the particle and E=mc2 is the view off the particle, see below.] In a fractal, everything is similar because the generating equation is simple, so, the wave-particle duality, in the macroscopic, becomes a ‘shimmer’ of possibilities [of particle and wave] in the photon and an expression of the creation equation [energy plus organisation equals zero]. These are concepts, not numbers, and need a new type of mathematics to express them, which I call the mathematics of concept-context that is evident from the creation equation.

However, I maintain that the universe is a fractal and a property of a fractal is that everything is similar, so, the ‘armchair musings’ of Newtonian physics must be similar to the derivation of the universe, and if this is true, it shows the same context, even if dissimilar concepts. So, relativity is all around us, and we can remove the relativity of energy and mass by a simple transformation, E/m=i2, which is a constant and this class of constants I call an ‘absolute’. Where E is energy and m is the organisation of energy in a condensed form, such as a neutron and c is a constant called the speed of light that is itself an absolute and i is the square root of -1 and is the creation equation, above [E=mi2 on the photon, and E=mc2 measured off the photon]. Other simple equations in physics are E=Fs, where E is energy, F is force and s is distance, E=hf, where f is frequency of a wave and h is Plank’s constant, F=kx, where F is force, x is extension and k is the spring constant, F=ma, where a is acceleration from Newton’s laws of motion and F=Gm1m2/R2 is the law of gravitation between two masses m1 and m2 separated by distance R and G is the gravitational constant.

Thus, physics takes (literally) nothing and divides it into two parts [a relativity] and creates the working of physics from those parts and the structure and form of physics comes from the ‘lack of relativity’ [a constant] created by the division of the relatives, and that should be clear from the examples [h,k, s etc.]. In other words, physics uses absolutes in the same way that the universe does, as is shown below. This is not surprising because a property of a fractal is that everything is similar. The numerous examples, that I have given, create the aura of elegance and good feeling that makes physics so appealing and I can prove this statement because measuring the organisation of physics generates emotion [energy] in the mind-brain according to the creation equation, for example, the satisfaction of knowing the physical bottom-up verses guessing top-down.

As above, the fractal is created from a concept becoming a concept and context and a context becoming a concept and a context and an example is energy as a concept and all the different types of energy as a context, and further, potential energy is a concept and a context of how high the mass is, extension of the spring, gravity at various points etc. Thus, a fractal is created, not of numbers, but of words and in particular, concepts and contexts that are the result of creating two entities from nothing and imposing the restriction that they be kept apart and the simplest way to do that is to require an expanding universe, which we have. More explicitly, this suggests that the knowable universe is moving out at the speed of light [third absolute] and the infill energy and organisation is presumably being created [second absolute] to balance. In other words, the universe is physical and mathematical, but overall, it is philosophical and described by concepts and contexts.

Measurement

The ‘Devil is in the detail’ and it is easy to not understand the complexity behind measurement because even Einstein believed that the universe is ‘real’ and pushed into modern physics using Newtonian physics by postulating ‘seeming absurdities’ that are part of the universe in which we live. His viewpoint was ‘top-down’, like everyone before him and he had no option but to postulate, such as the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment [the speed of light is constant to the mind-brain of the observer, no matter how they are moving] and other examples are the curvature of space by mass, the equivalence principle of gravitational and inertial mass and the wave-particle duality and relativity itself. If we measure something, the universe is cognisant of it also, which is a necessity because an organisational solution, as our universe is, is relative to the measurer.

Looking at these examples from physics, there is a pattern, and that pattern is of energy or force divided by an organisation which might be frequency of a wave, extension of a spring, the acceleration of a mass or the more complicated organisation of the centre of gravity of the earth and the diameter. In other words, physics in general has been simplified to a number of absolutes, and this occurs because, I believe, that the universe is a fractal based on the equation that energy plus organisation equals zero. This creation equation firstly, generates a fractal that must include generating physics because every part of a fractal is similar [Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” in economics that what is good for the individual is good for the economy], and secondly, requires a new mathematics of concept-context, of which mathematics is a special case.

Quantum Gravity

Newton apparently ‘inspire guessed’ the law of gravitation, and he might have done that using absolutes because it is well known that Galileo experimented with inclined planes and suggested that all masses fall at the same rate, a proposal that was counter-intuitive, and still is, but shows the simplicity behind the universe. This simplicity is shown by the gravitational constant g and F/m is acceleration a and must be the same, otherwise two solutions are possible, which could cause chaos [Occam’s razor must be minimal at all times, as must the principle of least action]. Thus, all masses fall at the same rate and the Equivalence principle is necessarily true that inertial and gravitational masses are equivalent.

In other words, Galileo established an absolute of gravitational force divided by the mass is a constant [the acceleration due to gravity], secondly, ‘by 1679, Hooke thought gravitation had inverse square dependence and communicated this in a letter to Isaac Newton my supposition is that the attraction always is in duplicate proportion to the distance from the center reciprocall.’ (Wikipedia) Notice the trials and tribulations of top-down thinking: ‘Hooke remained bitter about Newton claiming the invention of this principle, even though Newton’s 1686 Principia acknowledged that Hooke, along with Wren and Halley, had separately appreciated the inverse square law in the solar system, as well as giving some credit to Bullialdus’ (Wikipedia). Thus, Newtonian physics says that the absolute [force/mass] is proportional to the mass of the earth and the inverse square law. The inverse square law might be applicable to the radiation from a hot body, but there is relativity between the masses in this case and it needs the absolutes of the universe to sort it out. The law of gravitation is thus, that the attraction between two bodies is proportional to the product of the masses divided by the square of the separation. Compare this to the explanation below, that the attraction is the product [relativity] of two constants [(energy plus organisation) divided by the separation] from quantum gravity, below.

Firstly, the above shows the importance of absolutes in physics, secondly, that the inverse square law was a guess and is, see below, a product of the measurement of the absolutes [quantum gravity]. Thirdly, it was only after a number of years that Einstein doubled the gravitational effect by also attributing it to the curvature of space, whereas, I maintain that it is the effect of the organisation and that space is simple, not curved. Fourthly, energy plus organisation is zero and requires an expanding universe, whereas, in the constants [energy divided by the separation plus organisation divided by the separation] give twice the value of Newton’s equation because both exist, but the shimmer of the logic of the wave-particle duopoly means that only one [of the two possibilities] exists at one time.

“New Think”

Bringing the physical, Newtonian physics and fundamental physics together is not difficult if we use relativity, which is preferable to the edict of quantum mechanics that appears to be ‘use it, but don’t question it’. Similar applies at wormholes in physics in general and explanations can be attached to cases such as the equation of gravity, which is no longer a law because it is derived from first principles, and the same could be said of the creation equation, formally known as the law of conservation of energy. A correct interpretation for fundamental physics is important, but the orthogonality of organisation allows a complete social science which leads to social engineering of ourselves and our society. It brings together the ‘softer’ sciences and gives them the rigour of a physical base through the creation equation, and allows us to attempt to structure society as we did with stone tools, farming, governance, religion etc.

Life is a parasite on the environment and can do as it pleases and I am suggesting a new way of thinking that accesses the physical [“New Think”], but this concept must have a context, and I call this context general mathematical physics that includes everything. In other words, I am using the entanglement of everything and calling it general mathematical physics. This amalgamation appears to be sought, according to the following quotation. ‘For scholars and intellectuals it also promises to provide a scientific holy grail that has eluded us for centuries: a single overarching theory that unifies all the scientific disciplines from musicology through economics to biology. . . . It gives all scientists a common language, builds bridges over academic rifts and easily exports insights across disciplinary borders.’ (Homo Deus, Yuval Noah Harari, p 428) The quotation was actually about ‘Data Religion’, but I hijacked it because I believe that the analytical linking of disciplines is inclusive of the data and it shows the inadvisability of silo-ing in universities.

As an example, music, like physics and the universe is created the same way [by absolutes] and in particular, an infinite set of vibration [like energy and organisation] of a string is divided , or multiplied by two, three etc. to give the octave, thirds etc. with the restriction that middle C must be specified [as a frequency] for musicians to play together. In economics, the mathematics of concept-context describes the market [and democracy in philosophy] and in biology, relativity says that the genes [atoms, energy] have an organisation that I call orgenes [organisational genes] that equates to epigenetics.

Social Engineering

Physics forms the basis of materials engineering and technology which produces a marvellous lifestyle for many people, but if we move into fundamental physics, we find difficulties because physics, and thus fundamental physics, at present, do not access the physical. The change from the passive energy cannot be created or destroyed to the equation energy plus organisation equals zero generates a fractal that we call the universe and unlocks a discipline called social science that leads to social engineering and that is the ‘mirror image’ [orthogonal] to technology. At the moment, social science exists as a scattering of disciplines that suffer from the same problem as fundamental physics in not accessing the physical. For example, emotion [energy] is generated in the mind-brain when the organisation behind religion, art, music etc. is appreciated. However, it is crucial that the social sciences should access the physical because they depend on emotion in their dealings and emotional energy is generated by organisation. Social engineering hardly exists at the moment, and needs to access the physical to provide a base from which to operate and further, we need to know what we are doing. Negative examples abound, as in wartime, ethic cleansing and genocide etc. and on the personal level, murder, robberies etc.

The purpose of social engineering is, for us, similar to materials engineering and that is to engineer people voluntarily, genetically and mentally to become better citizens and to set attainable goals because relativity says that there must be a goal. Religion has an emotional effect on a lot of people because of the Bible stories, churches, robes, hymns etc., as does the state’s monumental buildings, parades, uniforms etc. and this is a reaction to measuring the organisation. Relativity requires us to set goals or we follow unsustainable aims like trying to feed an ever-growing population and thereby endangering civilisation

The Universe That We Live In

I now understand why Newtonian physics [F/m=a] works, because it uses the absolutes that align with the fractal, but it does not access the actual physical absolutes [F/m=a versus E/m=i2] and that needs to happen as in the section “New Think”, but first consider how easy fundamental physics becomes when considered bottom-up. The gravitational force on two masses is the product of their absolutes [mass/separation and organisation/separation], which are constants, but when released, to in-fall, the absolute [attraction F/m] is the same, because it is a constant. ‘Albert Einstein developed his general theory of relativity starting with the assumption of the intentionality of correspondence between inertial and passive gravitational mass, and that no experiment will ever detect a difference between them, in essence the equivalence principle.’ (Wikipedia) The Equivalence principle wonders whether the gravitational and moving inertia are the same and, of course they are the same because everything is unchanged and everything is described by constants and those constants must be minima [Occam’s razor]. That is the simplicity of the physical.

Let’s look at measurement and in the gravity equation it is the product [multiplication] of two constants, which means one mass is measuring the other and vice versa. This does not happen in a ‘real’ world that we have considered our world to be, up until this point. The universe that we live in is an organisation where everything is entangled and the universe is involved in every measurement. It is somewhat like Christianity says, that God knows everything, every action, every thought. This is the reason for the squares in Pythagoras’ theorem: we measure the length of a side and the side measures being measured through relativity and ‘tells’ the universe of the measurement by increasing the organisation, that now contains the measurer, that corresponds to the energy that appears as emotion in the measurer’s mind.

If this is hard to believe, let’s take another simple example, that of E=mc2. It is pretty obvious that mass is a condensation [organisation] of energy, but why the c [speed of light] and the square? The wave-particle duality is that there is no basic difference between the energy of a wave and a particle, and they show relativity and in a fractal, all levels exhibit this form. Thus the photon is the ‘shimmer’ of wave [energy] and particle [organisation] that is so frequent that it doesn’t affect the workings and adds variation [Occam’s razor and the principle of least action must be minimal and both must be represented]. The absolute of the dimensions says that the photon travels at ‘c’ when measured, so the measurement that I make is ‘c’ and the relativity to the universe is ‘c’ and the absolute E/m is c squared. As above, E=mi2 on the photon and E=mc2 off the photon, but the mind-brain must measure because E and m are independent, but entangled [at zero, which generates Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle by testing an orthogonality].

Quantum Gravity Continued

Consider the quotation, ‘it is widely hoped that a theory of quantum gravity would allow us to understand problems of very high energy and very small dimensions of space, such as the behavior of black holes, and the origin of the universe.’ (Wikipedia, Quantum gravity) Much work is being done in this area, but in a fractal everything is simple and that I have indicated above, and what I call quantum gravity is shown above in the derivation of the gravity equation. It is interesting that Newton’s Universal law of gravitation has never been derived from first principle, until now [‘This is a general physical law derived from empirical observations by what Isaac Newton called inductive reasoning.’ (Wikipedia, Newton’s Universal law of gravitation)], nor can it ever be proven unless an extra term is included. Einstein doubled the effect by postulating the effect of ‘curved space’. Notice that curved space is an organisation that exactly matches the organisation that I am proposing, but which comes from understanding the fundamental effect of relativity in the latter.

Complicated subatomic and relational theories abound in physics with a multitude of dimensions whereas I am using two sets of dimensions. Physics is, I believe, incomplete and the quantum gravity that I propose is the only complete solution, no matter how the variables of energy, organisation [including gravity], distance and time change. If these complicated theories cannot even derive the simple gravity equation, what good are they? Further, these complicated theories neglect relativity [sideways] and the bottom-up and top-down organisation [vertical] that I am proposing in “New Think” [concept] and general mathematical physics [concept] that brings together all of the academic disciplines through wormholes is indicated below.

Wormholes

Wormholes in space are a favourite with science fiction writers who want to ‘get around’ the absolutes of the speed of light and the simple space-time, but it may be possible in other areas and I believe that they are all around us and link the physical with physics. This is to realise that physics does not actually use the physical, but uses an ‘armchair’ version called Newtonian physics and the concept of wormholes, that I am using, is where the physical, behind the creation of the universe, meets, and is used by physics. I am not going to try to force the physical on the reader, but the wormholes show the underlying principles of measurement and measurement is enigmatic in physics, but necessary in the physical.

A Test Run

Continuing with quantum gravity, the attraction is a constant at extreme distance [gravity] and at very short distances the attractions become huge in the nucleus and exhibit organisational solutions through the quarks, which explains why they are not found on their own. If the universe is a fractal, derived from the creation equation, everything is simple and could well be as I say, but if my theory is correct, there will be no enigmas, and one enigma haunted Newton and no explanation appears to have been put forward since, so, I will present a simple explanation for diffraction. The bending of a light beam is, like a flower, more severe at the edges of the hole and is caused by quantum gravity, just as a photon is bent by passing a massive object, such as a star.

There are stories that Einstein imagined riding on a photon, so, the creation equation becomes E/m=i2, on the photon, where ‘i’ is the square root of -1, and outside of the photon, the third absolute says that the speed of a photon is ‘c’, so the measurement is ‘c squared’, and, E=mc2. This derivation could be called Einstein’s triviality, but it ties in nicely with what I am saying. I mean no disrespect of Einstein’s work, ‘he took as his starting point what Poincare, Lorentz, and other leading physicists had, earlier in the game, been working painstakingly to prove.’ (Einstein’s Clocks, Poincare’ Maps, Peter Galison, p 294) Einstein ‘stood’ in Newtonian physics and pushed against the boundaries of modern physics, but I believe that it needs a new approach and the one that I am suggesting seems appropriate.

I, like everyone else was baffled by the thought of mass, time and length changing, in Einstein’s special theory of relativity, but in using absolutes [that cannot change, such as the speed of light], they must change, the equation E=mc2 becomes a triviality, gravity is the product [relativity] of absolutes and Born’s rule, Pythagoras’ theorem etc. are the relativity of measurement [the square rule]. It is easy when a simpler way is found, however, the social engineering that arises from the creation equation gives us a chance to make a ‘new’ world for ourselves and that is the important and potentially massive innovation that should equate with technology.

There remains the problem of ‘how powerful is “New Think”?’. As in religion, where belief underlies acceptance, do we believe? Are the rewards of religion and “New Think” great enough? How do we measure the benefit? Consider, ‘in number theory, Fermat’s Last Theorem (sometimes called Fermat‘s conjecture, especially in older texts) states that no three positive integers a, b, and c satisfy the equation a n + b n = c n for any integer value of n greater than 2.’ (Internet) If this is true for n=2, a right angle exists and the above derivation of measurement becomes true that a single unique minimum is required for both energy and organisation [Occam’s razor and the principle of least action] and that proves that Fermat’s Last Theorem is true and also shows why a general interconnected mathematical physics is necessary. That is a physics solution, using “New Think” that possibly equates to Andrew Wiles 200 page mathematics proof ‘which threw the entire kitchen sink of complex twentieth-century techniques at the problem’ (The Man Who Loved Only Numbers, Paul Hoffman, p 199)

Conclusion and Prediction

Consider the importance of Pythagoras’ theorem in modern mathematics, ‘the theorem has been given numerous proofs – possibly the most for any mathematical theorem. They are very diverse, including both geometric proofs and algebraic proofs, with some dating back thousands of years. The theorem can be generalized in various ways, including higher-dimensional spaces, to spaces that are not Euclidean, to objects that are not right triangles, and indeed, to objects that are not triangles at all, but n-dimensional solids. The Pythagorean theorem has attracted interest outside mathematics as a symbol of mathematical abstruseness, mystique, or intellectual power; popular references in literature, plays, musicals, songs, stamps and cartoons abound.’ (Wikipedia, Pythagorean theorem)

Wormholes are created at numerous points according to the quotation, and this is why it is necessary to use “New Think” and general mathematical physics to find the easy solutions that lie in the physical that solve the problems that are occurring in other top-down disciplines.

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], secondly, energy and organisation are necessarily created to balance the necessary expansion [for the creation equation to exist] of the universe [E/t+O/t, all volume], thirdly, the constant speed of light [with respect to any measurer] is l/t (all E and O) and fourthly, gravity [so called quantum gravity] is E/l+O/l (all t). The law of gravitation is:

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

‘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, as quantum gravity [absolute (4)] varies inversely as the separation, relativity requires the inverse square law [or the square law, in this case] and there is obviously relativity between the wave and particle.

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]. 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.

Conclusion: saving our civilisation would be a great feat because it would be the first in history to do so, and social engineering is the key, but it needs “New Think” and the romance of an Indiana Jones to put it into effect before it is too late. It is not hard because in a fractal, as Adam Smith [“invisible hand” in economics] found, the individual, family, business, country etc. all work the same way, but people hate change, and the reason is that, I believe, at the moment, it is a ‘leap of faith’, whereas with social engineering, it is logical.

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

Pythagoras’ Theorem, Worm-holes, The Universe And Why Fermat’s Last Theorem Must Be True

October 1, 2022 Darryl PenneyLeave a comment

Pythagoras’ Theorem, Worm-holes, The Universe And Why Fermat’s Last Theorem Must Be True

Abstract: understanding Pythagoras’ theorem is to understand the universe because it is a statement of the relativity that must occur for the universe to exist, the mode of measurement that we need to use as parasites and is a point where the musings of science meets the bottom-up organisation of the physical universe and this allows fundamental physics to be restarted and social engineering to emerge that we may be able to use to save civilisation. Two sets of dimensions, with the relativity of the square in Pythagoras’ theorem, the gravity equation and Born’s rule suggests a universe that knows our every thought and action and creates us as we create the universe.

Keywords: Pythagoras’ theorem; fractal universe; relativity; quantum mechanics; law of gravitation; social engineering; creation equation; Born’s rule; “New Think”; general mathematical physics

Preface

Pythagoras’ theorem is taught in schools as an example of the elegance of geometry and mathematics and yet it contains features that are not, I believe, being realised. Firstly, there is an emotion in Pythagoras’ theorem, similar to that found in the golden triangle, the Mona Lisa painting, religion, parades, buildings etc. because of the organisation attached to it. Secondly, understanding the theorem allows us to understand the construction of the universe because everything is similar in a fractal and thirdly, Pythagoras’ theorem is a linchpin, where the ‘armchair musings’ of science actually joins the physical structure of the universe. We evolved from the animals and have the same limited consciousness that puts our environment in danger and we need an improved consciousness that transforms the mind and allows us to properly view the universe, our place in it and to manage our civilisation sensibly forever. This new view has been hidden because physics is incomplete and it shows that technology has a ‘mirror image’ [orthogonality] that I call social engineering that we could use to control civilisation and perhaps save the planet from our excesses.

The Aim

Pythagoras’ theorem is that the square on the hypotenuse equals the sum of the squares on the other two sides containing a right angle and there are many ways to prove this, but I want to answer the question of ‘why squares?’ and the answer, I believe shows the basis of the universe, which is relativity and measurement. Currently the answer to ‘why squares?’ is to say ‘that’s the way it is’, but that is top-down thinking. Relativity creates an equation that creates a fractal and we, as parasites, use the resulting universe and environment as a host, but using the consciousness of the animals, we are killing the host and ourselves and we need to change our way of thinking to include the host. The ‘why squares?’ is the point where our top-down scientific ‘armchair musings’ meet the physical and, if we answer that question, we understand literally everything: how the mind-brain works, what is emotion, understanding quantum mechanics, finding quantum gravity, discovering that social engineering exists and how to access it, and maybe using it to save civilisation etc. At that point we gain a new consciousness, perhaps become Homo sapiens sapiens and live happily ever after regaling each other with tales of the bumbling Homo sapiens with their out of control population, global warming, wars, murder, jails etc..

Pythagoras. Theorem

‘The theorem has been given numerous proofs – possibly the most for any mathematical theorem. They are very diverse, including both geometric proofs and algebraic proofs, with some dating back thousands of years. The theorem can be generalized in various ways, including higher-dimensional spaces, to spaces that are not Euclidean, to objects that are not right triangles, and indeed, to objects that are not triangles at all, but n-dimensional solids. The Pythagorean theorem has attracted interest outside mathematics as a symbol of mathematical abstruseness, mystique, or intellectual power; popular references in literature, plays, musicals, songs, stamps and cartoons abound.’ (Wikipedia, Pythagorean theorem) Clearly, this theorem is fundamental in some way, and the ‘squares’ are the mechanism of measurement that is fundamental to the workings of the universe, and the right angle generates an orthogonality that is the basis of the generation of the universe.

‘This theorem may have more known proofs than any other . . . the book The Pythagorean Proposition contains 370 proofs.’ (Internet) With having so many proofs and being so general, is there more to the theorem than we suspect? I believe that it shows the entanglement of the fundamental building blocks of the universe, describes what the universe really is, and the section Form of the Universe, below, derives fundamental physics, the orthogonality behind Pythagoras’ equation and also derives social engineering that brings together all of the social sciences and will hopefully help with today’s problems of over-population. Fundamental physics never ‘got off the ground’ before being ‘shut down’ a hundred years ago because it could not explain quantum mechanics, gravity etc. that are described in the aforementioned section, and that was, I believe, because physics does not access the physical. This new approach explains, I believe, all of the enigmas that abound in Newtonian physics because it considers the physical, at the most fundamental level.

The universe is based on relativity because it originated from nothing, and if it did not and was created from energy [Big Bang] or by God, then logic would ‘fly out the window’ and this paper would be pointless. Physics says that the law of conservation of energy is that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, then relativity says that the orthogonal [independent yet entangled] to energy must be called something and I will call it a general ‘organisation’, and thus, I call this simple equation [energy plus organisation equals zero] the creation equation because it generates a fractal that produces the physical universe which functions on relativity and the form of the universe is defined by a lack of relativity that can be described simply by the ratios of relatives and is derived from first principles, below. In other words, when the organisation in the creation equation is ignored, that is, put constant, the law of conservation of energy emerges and that shows that physics is incomplete. Notice that a ‘law’ in physics is generally agreed to exist, but cannot be proven and that is one of physic’s weaknesses, whereas this paper derives everything from first principles and doesn’t need man-made laws. In addition, a fractal built on words indicates a new type of mathematics that I call the mathematics of concept-context.

Life in a Fractal Universe

The creation equation [energy plus organisation equals zero] only exists if the two parts do not meet, and this requirement is met with an expanding universe, which we have. In other words, energy and organisation are independent, orthogonal and entangled, which also means that they are at right angles in the Cartesian coordinate system, and further are entangled [together] at the origin. To measure two things that are independent requires a ‘third party’ and we can measure with our mind-brain to provide that ‘third party’. The physical universe only exists when both energy and organisation are minima, otherwise logic disappears [becomes magic], and that situation we call Occam’s razor for organisation and the principle of least action for energy. Our mind-brain is the ‘third party’ and we use mathematics to measure orthogonals because mathematics is a special case of the mathematics of concept-context. Notice that, in the physical, there is entanglement at the origin [Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle describes the problems associated with this case] whereas a measurement by the mind-brain forces a relativity on the independent entities, in this case, the sides of the triangle containing the right angle.

Hence, if we wish to measure orthogonals, we can, but only through the mind-brain and this leads to the ‘square law’ for Born’s rule and the ‘inverse square law’ for gravity. In other words, measuring creates a relativity between the thing being measured and the measurer. This created a furore in physics over a hundred years ago, not the fact that the speed of light was found to be constant [Michelson-Morley experiment], but that it was constant to the mind/brain of the measurer at all times, no matter how they were moving. Further, this showed that the universe was not the ‘real’ concept that fitted man’s notion but this problem can be handled by creating the relativity of an everyday top-down view and a bottom-up view that is needed by the specialist fundamental physics researcher. This is the new way of thinking that must be used [“New Think”] if we want to retain Newtonian physics and add the physical.

The question of the type of universe in which we live incites a remembrance of the problems with the question of the earth being the centre of the solar system, or Darwin’s proposal that we evolved from the animals, a surmise that is still being rejected by some people, so a little easing into the explanation might be warranted. The creation equation above, generates a fractal and a property of a fractal is that everything is similar, simply because the equation is simple and the construction of the universe is thus, the same as the construction of Pythagoras’ theorem, as are the families, businesses and governments in the world around us. However, “New Think” allows traditional top-down thinkers to think what is convenient, but the physical has to be based on a different set of rules and a relativity joins the two. Pythagoras’ theorem is a linchpin that joins the two and can be a bridge of understanding, but consider that ‘coalition-mindedness makes everyone, including scientists, far stupider in coalition collectives than as individuals. . . . Forming coalitions around scientific or factual questions is disastrous, because it pits our urge for scientific truth-seeking against the nearly insuperable human desire to be a good coalition member. Once scientific propositions are moralized, the scientific process is wounded, often fatally. No one is behaving either ethically or scientifically who doesn’t make the best case possible for rival theories with which one disagrees.’ (This Idea Is Brilliant, Editor John Brockman, John Tooby, p 499)

So, in addition to this problem, ‘most of the misunderstandings regarding science and religion result from faulty definitions of religions’ (Homo Deus, Yuval Noah Harari, p 210) is the common view and both share the view that the universe is ‘real’, which I maintain is incorrect and that religion is actually based on the physical. Both religions and governments create emotion in their adherents by using organisation in the form of uniforms, parades, monumental buildings, laws, bibles, hymns etc. to produce emotion in the mind-brain of the general public. Hence, and for other reasons, religions, governments, science etc. do not take kindly to drastic changes of view and the construction of the universe is one of them. Einstein believed in a ‘real’ world and used constructions [curved space] and postulates [Michelson-Morley experiment] to try to ‘bend’ Newtonian physics into modern physics. I believe that it can only be done as I suggest in this paper.

The Linchpin of Science and the Physical

A fractal is simple and is the expansion of the creation equation [energy plus organisation equals zero] that leads to the absolutes, but we must use, what I call, the mathematics of concept-context, below. A simple example of the generation of a fractal is the concept of “New Think”, which is a new way of thinking, and that consists of a concept [“New Think”] and a context of general mathematical physics. A difficulty is that I am using a word equation instead of numbers, as in traditional mathematics, which suggests that the mathematics of concept-context is more general. This also highlights the incompleteness of the elements of science [mathematics, physics, philosophy etc.] and suggests that there is a need for “New Think”.

However, I’m not interested in the theorem and its 130 plus proofs because I want to concentrate on the two sides that contain the right angle. In Cartesian coordinates these lines are independent and the value [length] of the lines is the minimum, in the physical, according to Occam’s razor [organisation] and the principle of least action [energy] and that they must be minimal for a simple unique answer to the operation of the universe. Now, if I measure those lines, one at a time, there is a correspondence [context] between my mind and the line and between the line and my mind that forms two relativities, that is the same, in a fractal, as we find in the physical in the law of gravitation. This is saying that the line has an ability to comprehend that my mind is measuring it, which is a little strange, so, lets digress to examine this.

The Michelson-Morley experiment says that the speed of light is the same to a measurer, no matter what the measurer is doing, whether they be moving at a constant velocity or accelerating. In other words, to the measurer’s mind. The speed [an absolute that has no relativity because its a ratio] of light is entangled with my mind-brain, just as the line is entangled with the measurer’s mind-brain. Similarly, consider the explanation and derivation of the law of gravity that two masses [energy] attract each other and they attract each other with a force given by the absolute [energy/length plus organisation/length]. In other words, each mass measures the effect of the other mass. This is the reason for the square, that every measurment must have a relativity and if we measure something, it measures that it has been measured, and that contributes to the overall system’s solution of what is happening within the system. The fact that the distance apart (of the masses) is part of the absolute [the ratio destroys relativity] produces the inverse square law. As an example of how physics views the above, bearing in mind that physics has never derived the law of gravity, its contribution is that ‘it turns out that in anything other than three dimensions, problems quickly arise with inverse square forces.’ (The Pearly Gates Of Cyberspace, Margaret Wertheim, p 210)

Thus, a measurement, both physically and by the mind requires a reciprocity [relativity] and, I believe that that is why the squares appear in Pythagoras’ theorem, but they only appear on the hypotenuse when the angle is a right angle, which is Pythagoras’ theorem. The squares express the fact that a measurement is the product [relativity] of the measurement by the mind-brain and that of the line, mass etc. that is being measured. In other words, the organisation, that is the universe records every measurement made by a person [the thought] and absorbs it into the organisation of itself, and that could be though of as, that God is the universe!

Worm-holes and Dimensions

Mankind likes to dream ‘impossible dreams’ such as worm-holes in space that get around the speed of light and allow fast communication between galaxies, but worm-holes in a non-absolute [the speed of light is an absolute] are possible and Pythagoras’ theorem is one of them in mathematics. In other words, energy, organisation, distance and time are relatives, but speed is not, so, as the speed that is being measured increases, the relatives must change so that the speed of light is never exceeded [Einstein’s special theory of relativity]. That people had to change their concept of a ‘real’ world was the basic problem and “New Think” attempts to salve this problem. Relativity is prevalent in literature and most stories are built on love and hate, good and evil etc., but physics has difficulty with the idea. Another worm-hole might be the work of Kaluza who ‘rewrote Einstein’s equations of general relativity in five dimensions . . . contained within them the regular four-dimensional equations of relativity, plus an extra bit which turned out to be precisely the equations of electromagnetism.’ ( p 206) ‘With this seeming science fiction fantasy begins one of the most curious episodes in the history of space.’ (p 206) Curious, yes, with lots of curled up dimensions, but has physics got it wrong again?

Being in an association with other people distorts things so that there is often a tendency for agreement with other members that leads to the detriment of the examination of the subject, as above. An example is the brain that forms an organisation with every cell in the body, but evolution controls the efficiency of the mind-brain through survival of the fittest, whereas physics is a product of the mind and has been able to ignore reality. An example is that fundamental physics ‘shut down’ a hundred years ago whilst technology and materials engineering blossomed, albeit without the controls of the social science that I am proposing is part of fundamental physics. An example is the sequence: Michelson-Morley experiment, Einstein’s special theory of relativity, Kaluza’ five dimensions up to ‘the picture that has emerged over the past decade is thus of an eleven-dimensional universe, with four extant, or large, dimensions (three of space and one of time), and seven microscopic space dimensions all rolled up into some tiny geometric form’. ( p 211)

Physics seems to think that using dimensions will explain the universe and they are correct, but I suggest that they have the wrong dimensions. But firstly I have to say that I believe that the derivation that I am giving is correct and I cite the derivation of the law of gravity and Born’s rule as two supporting examples that have perplexed physics and that the derivation of them uses the dimensions. Physics has great trouble with dimensions because it appears that it took much discussion before the amalgamation of four dimensions was recognised. Here is another wormhole to the physical, in that a dimension is an orthogonality, where an orthogonality is the creation of two entities entangled at the origin and those entities are independent and only exist with a restriction that keeps them independent if they are physical, such as an expanding universe. In other words, I equate dimensions with orthogonality and they can be time, distance, energy, organisation etc.

The derivation [Form of the Universe] below uses two sets of dimensions that have been somewhat recognised by physics, but have been left as an an enigma. “‘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’. (see below) The universe is created from an orthogonality 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.”

Further, energy and organisation [of energy as a particle] satisfy the wave-particle duality that in a fractal, shows the construction of the photon [shimmer of wave and particle]. If physics can accept ‘curled up’ dimensions that are too small to be measured, then I believe that the photon consist of the wave-particle shimmer of the logic that both energy and organisation [particle] are possible and necessarily too rapid to be measured [otherwise they might disturb the minimum]. Also, the equation E=mc2 can be used to convert energy to mass, but physically it shows another wormhole because mass is the organisation of energy, and it thus becomes obvious why quarks are not found singly. I believe that quarks are an organisational solution of entities that produce particles and that is why they are not found alone. Science has been the refuge of the specialist, who naturally has an interest in certain subjects, but the orthogonality of generalists and specialists is real and important and underlies this paper. As an example, Fermat’s last theorem is grounded in the physical.

Finally, I repeat from above, ‘with this seeming science fiction fantasy begins one of the most curious episodes in the history of space’ (p 206), why do Kaluza’s equations fit so well in five dimensions? Considering that if organisation is ignored, the law of conservation of energy appears from the creation equation, so, ignoring organisation, as a relativity and including energy as a dimension, Kaluza’s equations might make sense!

Conclusion: Pythagoras’ theorem shows that science is built on the creation equation, but science is restricted because it does not understand relativity and uses top-down ‘armchair’ thinking that produces ‘laws’ by popular appeal [peer review] that are only ‘aspects’ of the creation equation. When the creation equation is believed, in a religious sense, fundamental physics ‘falls into place’, social engineering appears that can make social studies into a science, and religion [concept] takes its place in civilisation as a necessary context of ethics .

Prediction (relative to the conclusion): if we use the creation equation we can derive everything because everything came from the creation equation. If we use part of it, we are like children playing, and we are children! We have inherited 3,000 million years of evolution and think like the animals, because we are animal-like, only a little better as time passes. Farming caused us to lose the control organisation of survival of the fittest and we need to find a new set of controls that work because we are killing our host, the environment. The necessary control is to be found in the organisation of the creation equation, obviously, and when physics has been made complete, social engineering appears, which is the orthogonal and the control to technology and brings the social sciences under the umbrella of science.

Overview: humanity is like the proverbial lemmings heading for destruction through over-population. This is the behaviour of animals that are controlled by the organisation of the food supply and we are no different because we are destroying our civilisation and environment by over-population. We need a new way of thinking and doing, and I suggest “New Think” that uses the sideways relativity as well as the vertical relativity of organisation and the various restrictions and truths that Life indicates. In other words, “New Think” is the concept and general mathematical physics is the context and can be used in our existing brain simply by understanding it, then we have a different consciousness to the animals and stand a chance of attaining a ‘Heaven on Earth’ by ourselves.

‘In number theory, Fermat’s Last Theorem (sometimes called Fermat‘s conjecture, especially in older texts) states that no three positive integers a, b, and c satisfy the equation a n + b n = c n for any integer value of n greater than 2.’ (Internet) If it is true for n=2, a right angle exists and the above becomes true that a single unique minimum is required for both energy and organisation [Occam’s razor and the principle of least action] and that proves that Fermat’s Last Theorem is true and also shows why a general interconnected mathematical physics is necessary.

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, (1+(-1))=0], secondly, energy and organisation are necessarily created to balance the necessary expansion [for the creation equation to exist] of the universe [E/t+O/t, all volume], thirdly, the constant speed of light [with respect to any measurer] is l/t (all E and O) and fourthly, gravity [so called quantum gravity] is E/l+O/l (all t). The law of gravitation is:

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

‘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, as quantum gravity [absolute (4)] varies inversely as the separation, relativity requires the inverse square law [or the square law, in this case] and there is obviously relativity between the wave and particle.

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]. 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. This is a truth that we should seriously consider acting upon because “new Think” is based on truths.

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

Consciousness – The Final Word?

February 17, 2021 Darryl PenneyLeave a comment

Chapter 144: Consciousness – The Final Word?

Abstract: everyone speculates about consciousness, but all Life is conscious because the mind-brain of all Life functions by using the conservation equation that generates our fractal universe, and further, humans think top-down, as do the animals, so there is no relativity on which to base a decision, but there is a new software, that I call “New Think” that can be used in our existing brains that corrects our thinking by using the bottom-up physical that physics missed, that opens up social engineering that should allow us to control our civilisation, avert the looming catastrophe and create a new type of person.

Keywords: consciousness; the mind-brain; religion; fractal universe; relativity; quantum mechanics; law of gravitation; social engineering; creation equation; Born’s rule; “New Think”; general mathematical physics

Consciousness and the Mind

The universe is based on relativity because it originated from nothing, and if it did not and was created from energy [Big Bang] or by God, then logic would ‘fly out the window’ and this paper would be pointless. Physics says the the law of conservation of energy is that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, then relativity says that the orthogonal [independent yet entangled] to energy must be called something and I will call it a general ‘organisation’, and thus, energy plus organisation equals zero. I call this simple equation, the creation equation because it generates a fractal that produces the physical universe which functions on relativity and the form of the universe is defined by a lack of relativity that can be described simply by the ratios of relatives and is derived from first principles in the section Form of the Universe. In other words, when the organisation in the creation equation is ignored, that is, put constant, the law of conservation of energy emerges. Notice that a ‘law’ in physics is generally agreed to exist, but cannot be proven and that will be shown to be one of physic’s woes, whereas this paper derives everything from first principles and doesn’t need man-made laws.

The question of consciousness is generally regarded to be that some higher animals have it and some lower animals do not and the question is, how large does the brain have to be to allow consciousness? The question, consciousness or not-consciousness is allowable, but it is the relativity of Life and not-Life, that is, the relativity of Life, as a parasite, and the physical. Physics does not, and can not access the physical because it is based on the interaction of two balls [Newton’s laws of motion], which satisfy our requirement for everyday usefulness [top-down], but fundamental physics requires the actual physical [bottom-up] to make sense and this fact caused fundamental physics to ‘close down’ a hundred years ago. This may sound bizarre, but quantum mechanics is treated as ‘use, but don’t try to understand’, the law of gravity has not been derived, the speed of light is the same to any measurer, which is inexplicable, and so on. Even worse, and far worse, is that physics is based on energy and ignores the organisation that leads to social engineering that is the orthogonal to technology [materials engineering], the lack of which means that our civilisation is uncontrolled and is destroying itself and the environment through population growth.

Consciousness or not-consciousness is allowable, as above, but it is a relativity of Life and not-Life because only one relativity exists from the simple creation equation, so the concept of consciousness has to be found elsewhere. In other words, consciousness is a property of life, and having used up that concept, we need to approach from another direction, and, as the creation equation generates everything, that is the place to begin. If we tell a joke, the reorganisation of the organisation of the joke at the ‘punch-line’ produces a burst of energy that has to be absorbed or expended, and if it is too great to be absorbed, then it is called laughter. Likewise, a joke cannot raise a laugh twice because we know the proper organisation of the punchline. The organisation of religion, civic buildings, parades etc. produces emotion in the mind of the participant and this also explains something that everyone must have wondered about at sometime, how does a judge judge art? Simply by the emotional energy produced in the brain of the judge by the organisation within the art when each piece is viewed. That explains, beauty, harmony, the golden triangle etc. and in particular, we have created music in the same way that the universe was created [by applying organisation to a continuum of energy in a string].

The mind-brain works by using the creation equation because viewing [measuring] the surroundings [organisation], represented by a steam of senses [sight, hearing etc.] ‘affords’ [James J. Gibson, This Idea Is Brilliant, edited by John Brockman, p 147] the energy in the mind [just like the art judge] registers what is being sought [hiding place, food for the future etc] and the emotional ‘tag’ [as in the amygdala] provides a reason [level of energy] to remember. Thought is the next step because it is a comparison of the situation presented to the animal, by its senses, and the memory of a similar situation, or, more involved, two memories for abstract thought. The physics of the brain uses the mathematics of concept-context that is obvious from the creation equation [the concepts of energy and organisation are entangled by the ‘plus’ and the measurement by the observer affords an energy (emotion) that labels the context of each and a decision can be made based on the value of the context] and thus thought is produced whenever a measurement is made, no matter how small. The fact that the range of energy is continuous and infinite means that organisation [thought] is likewise and that all Life has consciousness. As an example, firstly, thinking is the internal burning of glucose [energy] that creates organisation that we call thought and it does not come cheaply because 20 % of all of the human body’s energy is consumed in the brain that weighs 2 % of the body. Secondly, as an example of the creation, the ‘%’ destroys the relativity to unfold the form.

It might be useful to compare the literature’s concept of the brain to the above to show that it is not dissimilar. ‘Although neurons may differ in shape and size, they are essentially the same from the most primitive animal life to the most advanced.’ ( The River of Consciousness, Oliver Sacks, p 65) ‘The box jellyfish (Cubomedusae) – one of the most primitive animals to have fully developed image forming eyes, not so different from our own . . . The jellyfish nervous system . . . has every right to be considered a brain, generating as it does complex adaptive behaviours . . . Whether we can speak of a “mind” here (as Darwin does in regard to earthworms) depends on how one defines “mind”. (p 67) ‘Nature has employed at least two very different ways of making a brain – indeed, there are almost as many ways as there are phyla in the animal kingdom’ (p 76) ‘Whether one can use the c word -”consciousness” – in regard to cephalopods can be argued all ways.’ (p 76)

I believe that there is no room for argument as the creation equation is at the basis of the functioning of every mind-brain, whether it be evolved or constructed as, so called, artificial intelligence and evolution has carried the same construction on to us and we are stuck with the brain that we have evolved. However, it is a truth that our brain [hardware] functions satisfactorily because it has evolved over 3,000 million years, but we can change the software by learning and that learning changes the mind-brain.

“New Think”

We can change the software of our mind-brain easily, because our brain incorporates ‘plasticity’ by forgetting, over-writing and ‘numericalising’ memories using the above mathematics of concept-context that uses the energy ‘tag’ created by the affordances to compare memories, so, by understanding this paper, we learn by increasing our understanding. Do we need to improve our thinking and understanding? Most assuredly because we are destroying our civilisation, like all the other civilisations throughout history that have disintegrated and, I believe, it is simply because of our inability to organise society to continue. To put our civilisation into perspective, would an extraterrestrial want to know or visit a species that has wars, murder, uncontrolled population growth, jails, can’t even derive the simple law of gravity [a one-liner below] and so on? We are uncivilised, dangerous and think like the simplest animals because we are the products of survival of the fittest.

The derivation of consciousness above shows that animals lack the bottom-up view of the physical to go with the top-down of science, as well as the lack of the sideways relativity of energy and organisation and if we generalise these, we get a new way of thinking. “New Think” is the concept that has general mathematical physics as its context and uses the mathematics of concept-context along with certain restrictions listed below, for example, the creation equation can only exist if the universe is expanding [so-called Big Bang]. The logical requirement for the creation equation to exist is that the universe must expand, and that might seem odd, but if it did not expand, there would not be room for us and the expansion creates new energy that forms the billions of suns etc.

Conclusion: as mentioned above, physics needs to access the physical, mathematics is a special case of the mathematics of concept-context that uses the number-line instead of orthogonality and philosophy needs the mathematics of concept-context because, among other things, it simply explains two long-term concepts, namely democracy and the market place and why they work. That is a nice way of saying that all of science is incomplete and as examples, the fractal nature of the universe explains Adam Smith’s “invisible Hand” that works on both the individual and the total economy. Music [and family, business etc.] is a creation of ours that mimics the creation of the universe from the energy and organisation of vibrations in a string with the absolute being the octave and a restriction of a middle C if two musicians want to play together. The derivation of the law of gravity, quantum gravity, Pythagoras’ theorem, Born’s rule etc. require relativity, as does consciousness.

Prediction (as a relativity to the conclusion): relativity produces the mathematics of concept-context that literally underlies everything, and this paper does what it sets out to do, and that is to show that consciousness is a synonym for Life, which ranges from bacteria to humans and thus contains no relativity. All Life uses top-down thinking because we do, but “New Think” is different because it creates a new type of universe [to us] because it introduces relativity and those that use “New Think” could be considered a new step-up for humanity, perhaps Homo sapiens sapiens?

Creating a New Consciousness

Consider that (the present) humanity is in danger of ruining its environment [host] because, I believe, physics is incomplete [as is philosophy and mathematics] and misses the fundamental relationship of energy and organisation that results in social engineering that draws together and gives structure to social science. The best way to visualise this, I think, is to consider social engineering as orthogonal to technology [materials engineering] and that gives a glimmer of the scope of the changes that are possible to the population and its functioning. Consider the technology that we use compared to that which animals use, and it gives some idea of how we can change ourselves and the way that we live together. We should have a safe, stable and controlled civilisation that an extraterrestrial would want to visit and it can be done when we understand what we are doing.

It is a truth in evolution that the old linger and change is wrought by the offspring and in a long-lived species, as humans are, we might expect resistance and even conspiracies to restrict change. Resistance to change shows that social engineering is needed to help make changes by rationalising the change and that separates us from the animals, but our present thinking is like that of the animals. As an example, the argument over consciousness is futile because it does not contain relativity, but seems be a means of entrance into a club of philosophical initiates and as a means of discussion, argument and social bonding. If we are to save the world we must create a consciousness that is different to that of the animals simply because the present consciousness is not working.

‘Today’s problems cannot be solved with today’s mind’

Albert Einstein and many great thinkers …

(Fair Food, edited by Nick Rose, p 250)

“New Think” brings new dimensions to our thinking and says that the mathematics of concept-context shows that we must measure between concepts and assign a value to the contexts in order to make decisions. In particular, university departments are concepts and they must have communication [contexts] to bring in new ideas between the disciplines [which they seem to resist – siloing], and further, the concept of universities that teach is a good one, but only someone outside of the system can see that what is being taught is appropriate, and that is the reason behind this paper. An example is physics, where fundamental physics ‘shut down’ a hundred years ago when Newtonian physics was found to be inadequate and needed a new approach. Well, I believe that “New Think” is that approach, but more important is the social engineering that is revealed that could possibly save our civilisation.

“New Think” creates a new consciousness that is different to ‘animal’ consciousness and this creates wider ramifications, and one obvious one is that we become different to the animals and may perhaps call ourselves: Nietzsche’s superman, Homo sapiens sapiens, The Second Coming, the Philosopher’s Stone or Saving the World, if we do save it. If we do not save civilisation, we will be back with the animals again. This is very like a religion that says ‘believe and you will go to Heaven’, and that is how it should be because religions are social engineering and the basis of some religions is very like the proverb [Golden Rule] that you should ‘do unto others as you would have them do to you’. In case this seems a little ‘far fetched’, remember that the emotion attached to religion, state buildings, singing etc. come from the organisation of the religion, architecture, music, poetry etc. and further, the practicality of religion is social engineering by providing an ethics that underpins society.

Religion is a form of social engineering and is necessary to a society, just as it forms the basis of our society and the question of its relevance in the future means change for religion, and it can change when it is considered as a social experiment that was orthogonal to the savagery of 2,000 years ago. There is much to do, but it requires a new type of thinking for a new world.

Overview: why have we made such a complete mess of civilisation that it may collapse? I think that it is because we are parasites in the environment and not subject to the laws of the physical which contain a restriction that Occam’s razor [organisation] and the principle of least action [energy] must be at a minimum for logic to work. Parasites do what they can do, short of killing the host [which we are in the process of doing], and are not restricted by logic and currently we use a mish-mash of concepts [physics, religion, social science etc.] that are not linked together by context, which goes against the relativity of the universe [relativity requires specialists and generalists to work together and that is a reason to heed this paper]. Homo sapiens is the product of this mish-mash and is killing it’s host and it requires an epiphany [context] to bring the concepts together similar to the physical principles behind Christianity. The end result should be Homo sapiens sapiens, The Second Coming, Nitzsche’s superman etc. all ‘rolled’ into one, and then we can seek to invite extraterrestrials to visit. In other words, we must get our house in order with social engineering first.

The ‘take-home’ message is that the traditional concept of consciousness does not work and requires a concept of consciousness that recognises contexts as above, just as the bumbling, animalistic Homo sapiens must finally give-way to an enduring Homo sapiens sapiens that can ‘put the world to rights’.

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, (1+(-1))=0], secondly, energy and organisation are necessarily created to balance the necessary expansion [for the creation equation to exist] of the universe [E/t+O/t, all volume], thirdly, the constant speed of light [with respect to any measurer] is l/t (all E and O) and fourthly, gravity [so called quantum gravity] is E/l+O/l (all t). The law of gravitation is:

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

Notice that the ‘inverse square law’ 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. Further, ‘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, as quantum gravity [absolute (4)] varies inversely as the separation, relativity requires the inverse square law [or the square law, in this case] and there is obviously relativity between the wave and particle.

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]. 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. This is a truth that we should seriously consider acting upon because “new Think” is based on truths.

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

Affordances, the Equation of Everything and Consciousness

February 16, 2021 Darryl PenneyLeave a comment

Chapter 143: Affordances, the Equation of Everything and Consciousness

by Darryl Penney

Abstract: affordances are the impact of the environment on the consciousness of the measurer and it requires the equation of everything, which is ‘similar’ to the creation equation of the universe, to understand the transition. This process does not involve quantum mechanics, which currently is considered a likely contender, as will be seen when fundamental physics is derived bottom-up and offers a new view.

Keywords: affordances; conservation of energy; fractal universe; creation equation; social engineering

Preface

We seem to be seeing a biological truth at the moment that the old physics, mathematics, philosophy etc. are resisting change and their progeny need to create new species in the form of quantum biology, ecological psychology etc. and especially the creation of social engineering that is the ‘mirror image’ of the technology that we take for granted in a modern world. Quantum biology, ecological psychology etc. seem to be forging ahead with questions that science can not answer and a new scenario is needed, because religion was the first, and ‘science was the second great attempt to explain the world’ (The Goldilocks Enigma, Paul Davies, p 16) and we need a new vision to replace survival of the fittest and provide a goal for society. Science used energy and top-down organisation to give us technology and an unsustainable population growth, and now is the time for ecology and biology to use bottom-up organisation as social engineering to provide the goal that relativity demands, to replace survival of the fittest with new controls for society, if it is to continue indefinitely.

We are entering a new world of the generalist, as opposed to the specialist and recognising this might offer some insights that might be of value because the generalist and the specialist think differently, as shown by the creation equation, that, I believe, produces consciousness and is completely different to quantum mechanics. Also, the old disciplines are not doing the new disciplines any favours because quantum mechanics is ‘used, but not understood’, and fundamental physics ‘shut down’ a hundred years ago when Newtonian physics could not handle ‘modern physics’. The section, Form of the Universe, below, derives quantum mechanics and modern physics from first principles [bottom-up] and shows how Einstein’s and Newton’s ‘inspire guesses’ resulted in Newtonian physics and the present ‘hoge-poge’.

‘Today’s problems cannot be solved with today’s mind’

Albert Einstein and many great thinkers …

(Fair Food, edited by Nick Rose, p 250)

requires a new way of thinking and the long established disciplines are, I believe, incapable of change, and we should look to their offspring to trial new advances in new niches. In particular, consciousness is an enigma and is principally a product of the creation equation and introducing a new way of thinking might possibly create a new species [Homo sapiens sapiens] that is part of social engineering that appears as something that physics overlooked. Does a better mind create a new species? Arguably the Cambrian was the explosion of life-forms due to improved sight and its effect on the mind-brain increasing potential abilities that produced teeth, armour, speed and planning and the situation is similar here that a new way of thinking [bottom-up] that might produce the organisation that society requires to become a symbiote on the environment and not the parasite that it is currently.

This is not idle speculation, but an addition to science in two ways, that relativity requires a goal [which society does not have] to replace survival of the fittest as an over-arching goal [concept], and secondly, the means of attaining that goal [context] because social engineering emerges that uses the creation equation [concept] and the equation of everything [context] to show that another form of energy [affordances] can be used to attain the goal that changes the way that we think, in a similar way to the Cambrian explosion.

The Problem

Quoting from Life at the Edge: the Coming of Age of Quantum Biology, Jim Al-Khalili and Johnjoe McFadden, p 17, ‘this presents a puzzle: for the earth’s magnetic field to be detected by an animal it must somehow influence a chemical reaction somewhere in the animal’s body – this is, after all, how all living creatures, ourselves included, sense any external signal. But the amount of energy supplied by the interaction of the earth’s magnetic field with the molecules within living cells is less than a billionth of the energy needed to break or make a chemical bond. How, then, can that magnetic field be perceptible to the robin?’ (p 17)

Quantum tunnelling has been suggested as a means of lowering the barriers to chemical reactions, but there is a more subtle way and that is the general one of ‘how are affordances transmitted to the consciousness’ and it does not involve quantum mechanics but uses the simplicity of the relativity that underlies the creation of the universe. The book discusses many other cases where quantum mechanics is involved in chemical processes, and that may well be the case, especially as the reasons behind quantum mechanics are not well understood, and yet they are simple because quantum tunnelling is the effect, I believe, behind Born’s rule and ‘shimmer’, whilst the rule is empirical [derived from measurement], it can be derived from the gravity equation, below. Indeed, it is common knowledge that practitioners should use quantum mechanics, but not try to understand it! This has come about because science is top-down organisationally, which is similar to the ‘armchair musing’ of the ancient Greeks, and we know the problems that that caused. I am going to attempt to answer the above question, not by using quantum mechanics, but an even more basic means that explains the title, Affordances, the Equation of Everything and Consciousness.

Quantum Mechanics

Quantum Mechanics does not exist except as an arbitrary division of physics, and where physics is macroscopic, we use Newtonian physics, based on the laws of motion, that have nothing to do with the physical, but is convenient to use. Quantum mechanics is simply the physics of the small based on the creation equation of the fractal that we call the universe [that is derived by the equation of everything] and must be derived bottom-up. This leads to a new way of thinking [“New Think’, concept] that uses general mathematical physics as a context that combines the top-down of Newtonian physics [for convenience] with the bottom-up of quantum mechanics, the relativity that includes everything, the restrictions imposed on the universe [such as that the universe must expand], the everyday logic [based on the physical] and the truths that arise from evolution, such as the above [that the established continue, the progeny seek new niches].

This is derived in the section, Form of the Universe, below, that is necessary here as part of the derivation, further, the creation equation could be considered the same as the equation of everything, but one must be careful because the former is a concept and the latter is a context and they are definitely not the same, but are orthogonal and independent. This is similar to a very real problem that a specialist knows a lot about a small field [concept], whereas a generalist knows a little about a lot of subjects [context] and as knowledge grows, both are needed. This duality is as valid as the wave-particle duality that underpins the photon.

This paper contains the derivation of quantum mechanics, but does not use it, because it is there to establish the playing-field, so that it is believable that the universe is a fractal based on the word equation energy plus organisation equals zero and two sets of dimensions. Physics appears to have great difficulty with dimensions because ‘in physics and mathematics, the dimension of a mathematical space (or object) is informally [my emphasis] defined as the minimum number of coordinates needed to specify any point within it.’ (Wikipedia, Dimensions) Notice that I am using two sets [types] of dimensions, whereas the trend in physics is to use numerous dimensions to try to describe everything. If I were to define my idea of dimensions, they would be something like ‘the orthogonalities that define the form of an organisation’.

Affordances

Assuming that the law of conservation of energy is the bed-rock of physics [energy cannot be created nor destroyed], so, energy must be ‘something’ and considering that our universe was created out of nothing [the simplest surmise], there must be a relativity to energy that I could call organisation, and thus, energy plus organisation equals zero and describes a fractal. Fractals are very common and have the property that they are similar at all levels and they are apparent in individuals, groups, businesses, organisations and, countries. Adam Smith saw it when he said that what is good for the person is good for the economy.

‘Affordances are what the environment “offers the animal”’, so, what does physics offer? ‘It was clear in the 1970s that some very basic features of the universe remained completely unexplained – indeed, they were positively mysterious. First and the most obvious, was the problem of what actually caused the big bang. A related question was why the big bang was just that big . . . . Then there was the puzzle of why the large-scale geometry of the universe is flat, and the related mystery of why the total mass-energy of the universe is indistinguishable from zero.’ (The Goldilocks Enigma, Paul Davies, p 61) I think that this approach answers the fundamental problems of physics.

Consciousness and Measurement

Consciousness is both a concept and a context, and contexts are interconnected [entangled] with everything and the subject is too complicated to address properly here, but one aspect is important and needs explanation, and that is measurement. The form of the universe is built out of orthogonalities that only exist by being independent [somewhat like the Cartesian axes] and cannot measure one another except by a third party, such as a mind-brain, that is a parasite, but is part of the organisation of the universe. The mind-brain [consciousness] uses the creation equation to create a mathematics of concept-context that measures two concepts [let’s say energy and organisation] and assigns a ‘tag’ [affordance] on the context to each according to the value to the organism and a decision is made on the relative value of the affordance. I call this the mathematics of concept-context and it describes thinking [context], consciousness and the structure of the mind-brain [concept].

It seems logical that when the environment is measured, with respect to the organism’s requirement, the organisation of the environment is increased to include the measurer, and that requires that a compensating amount of energy to be given to the measurer’s mind-brain. So, energy appears in the mind-brain of the observer and constitutes the energy of the measurement and we call it emotion and it happens whenever we view organisation in music, art, religion, parades etc. Newtonian physics is based on energy, but emotion is an energy that physics neglects, presumably because it is difficult to account for, thus, the answer to the problem of the robin and the magnetic lines of force it that the robin is measuring the emotion produced by aligning with the magnetic field.

Whether this is the correct explanation, I do not know, but it entangles well with that which we already use as a theory and simplifies our understanding, and as an example, the most well known equation is probably E=mc2. There are stories that Einstein imagined riding on a photon, so, the creation equation becomes E/m=i2, on the photon, where ‘i’ is the square root of ‘-1’, E is the energy and m is the organisational form of that energy. Outside of the photon, the third absolute says that the speed of a photon must be ‘c’ to the measurer, so the measurement is ‘c squared’, and, E=mc2. Clearly, Einstein’s derivation becomes obvious from the creation equation because mass is the organisation of energy, but what is not so obvious is that the universe measures our measuring [relativity], and knows everything so as to give a unique organisational solution. Consider the relativity in deriving the gravity equation, below.

Having reached this point, another important issue is how the brain thinks, again using the creation equation, because a simple sugar [glucose] is burnt to supply energy and at the same time organisation [thinking] is created and the mind-brain, weighing 2% of body-weight consumes 20% of the body’s energy consumption, in the form of glucose. and thought is determined by a different equation a+b=0, where a, b and ‘+’ are whatever we want them to be because we are parasites and can do what we please. Notice that I am using concepts to describe the functioning of the mind-brain, and if quantum mechanics is involved, as it may be, it is a context and independent of the discussion.

Proof of the Pudding

Quantum tunnelling reduces the energy barriers to reactions, but the affordances do not afford any energy barrier and the organisation that the mind seeks, appears as energy in the consciousness, after all, that is why the mind-brain evolved, and it evolved because it could, and it did because that is a truth generated by countless generations of offspring of the existing moribund parents and by considering the universe as a fractal, everything becomes simple because the simple [word] equation creates similarity [fractal].

Consider literature with its concepts and contexts, consider language that we use all the time and these are the creation equation. Consider music that we listen to throughout the day. It is the taking of an infinite set of vibrations of a string, creating an absolute of half or double, that we call an octave, adding thirds, fifths etc. to give it body and a restriction of middle C to allow extra musicians to tune their instruments and play in unison. Of course, in history it was not done this way, but by trial of what sounded good, which is the emotion [energy] of the organisation of the notes within the consciousness.

Laughter is enigmatic, but when the jokester ‘leads us up the garden path’ organisationally, as is his intention, the simplification of the organisation at the end of the joke produces energy that the body has to get rid of and how does the body do that, by the enigma that we call laughter? Tapping one’s foot to music, dancing or listening to classical music, attending a Church service with hymns, costumes, parades etc., all produce emotion as they are designed to do. We have all wondered how a judge judges art? The more experienced art lover views a piece of art and the organisation within the piece is measured [affordance] relative to the experience of the judge and creates an emotional ‘tag’ that is his ‘value’ of the piece in the judging. This relativity to the software of the mind-brain [experience] is why “New Think” changes the way that we think.

This leads to the mathematics of concept-context that is apparent from the concepts [energy and organisation] and the ‘plus’ in the creation equation. Energy and organisation are orthogonal – independent, but entangled at the origin, and can only be measured by the mind-brain by establishing an affordance with each [via a ‘plus’] and the level of the ‘tag’ makes the decision on which is better. This is the affordance behind the market-place [economics] and democracy [governance] and we use them every day including listening and playing music, reading, talking, seeing the sights, religion etc.

Conclusion: we use the creation equation [concept] everyday in our daily life as a context [equation of everything] without realising what we are doing and that is what happens in a fractal because everything is similar, due to the simple generating equation. Have I answered the problem above? I don’t know because I am not a specialist, but I have done what a specialist cannot do, which is to provide a context for the specialist to operate within, so, let’s see what happens.

Prediction (as a relative [context] to the conclusion): physics, as it currently stands [law of conservation of energy that energy cannot be created or destroyed] hides the organisation [social engineering] needed to control and guide civilisation and religion [context], ethics [concept], governance etc. and ethics plus religion is vital social engineering to provide society with values. Notice that if organisation is ignored [ held constant], the creation equation reverts to the current law of conservation of energy, also, social engineering is orthogonal to technology and of equal size and importance. As an example, Christianity was a breathtakingly bold social engineering experiment that changed the savagery of the times into ‘love your neighbour, but it needs tweaking for a modern world.

Are there only a few cells that record emotion, or is it spread throughout the organism, and that is the point of the problem cited at the beginning of this paper? Simplicity suggests the latter because the organism is an organisational solution to survival, even though that thought is foreign to a ‘real’ mechanistic universe, but then, logic [as opposed to entanglement] proves that Einstein’s ‘spooky action at a distance’ exists everywhere. Just as, with a good joke, a ‘belly-laugh’ is too large for a few cells, I consider that the organisation [of the robin] as a whole feels the magnetic lines of force, and that answers the problem cited at the beginning of this paper.

Form of the Universe

In traditional mathematics, a fractal can be created from a simple mathematical expression, but energy plus organisation equals zero is a word equation and energy and organisation are concepts and ‘plus’ is the context [not just plus] with the restriction that energy and organisation be kept apart. The mind-brain uses the mathematics of concept-context [from the creation equation] in it’s operation because the organisation [concept] is measured [affordances are stream of sensations] by the mind-brain to produce energy which is an emotional ‘tag’ in the mind-brain [such as the amygdala]. Note that energy and organisation are created by the process of measurement because the organisation is increased, due to the impact of the measurer’s measurement on the environment and this increase in energy appears in the measurer’s mind-brain as emotion and differs from the usual interpretation of the law of conservation of energy that says that ‘energy cannot be created nor destroyed’, and this has two ramifications, firstly, that a law in physics is decided by peer acceptance, not derivation as I am using and secondly, that if organisation is ignored, the statement that energy plus organisation equals zero becomes energy is a constant, which is what the law is effectively saying, so, energy and organisation can be created or destroyed, but both must change by the same amount.

‘Affordances are what the environment “offers the animal …. either for good or ill,” according to Gibson”. (This Idea Is Brilliant, edited by John Brockman, Daniel C. Dennett, p 147) ‘The huge gap in Gibson’s perspective was his refusal even to entertain the question of how this “direct pickup” of information was accomplished by the brain.’ (p 148) This was answered above, but another important issue is how the brain thinks, again using the creation equation, because a simple sugar [glucose] is burnt to supply energy and at the same time organisation [thinking] is created and the mind-brain, weighing 2% of body-weight consumes 20% of the body’s energy consumption, in the form of glucose. and thought is determined by a different equation a+b=0, where a, b and + are whatever we want them to be because we are parasites and can do what we please. However, doing what we please means that technology is putting the world at risk and we need to apply social engineering to control it, see below.

Thus, 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 (1+(-1))=0], secondly, energy and organisation [dark energy] are necessarily created to balance the necessary expansion [for the creation equation to exist] of the universe [E/t+O/t, all volume], thirdly, the constant speed of light [with respect to any measurer] is l/t (all E and O) and fourthly, gravity [so called quantum gravity] is E/l+O/l (all t). The law of gravitation is:

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

So, Newtonian physics is a creation of the mind and has nothing to do with the physical 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 above 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 that information is necessarily constrained to the speed of light, something that was a conjecture. Newton’s laws of motion, Einstein’s theory and Maxwell’s equations all hide organisation and that obscures the picture, for example, magnetism is an organisation that registers the relativity between a charged particle and the measurer as can be seen by its odd behaviour [sign depends on direction, magnitude on speed]. 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]. 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. The difficulty with the question of energy shows that 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. This is a truth that we should seriously consider acting upon because “new Think” is based on truths.

“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.

References: no references were used, everything was derived from first principles.

darrylpenney

Author: Darryl Penney

Thinking – The Concept, The Context And The Goal

What If God Does Play Dice?

Rationalising Management, Money And The Gifts Of The Ancient Greeks

The Mind, Society, Socrates, Social Engineering and Symbiosis

Why The Universe Is Accelerating And What Is Gravity – A New Theory

The Universe, The Super-strong Anthropic Principle, Life And Consciousness

The Unification Of Symmetry, Simplicity And Similarity In A Fractal Universe

Pythagoras’ Theorem, Worm-holes, The Universe And Why Fermat’s Last Theorem Must Be True

Consciousness – The Final Word?

Affordances, the Equation of Everything and Consciousness