Chapter 120: Saving the World – The Second Step – Forecasting Chaos

by Darryl Penney

Abstract: part one established the creation equation that led to a new way of thinking and the necessity of solving a problem to showcase ‘new think’ and that is to re-establish evolution towards a survival of the best. Part two investigates a means of forecasting the future based on the absolutes that created the universe and the truths derived from the relativity that forms the fractal that we live in to define what is achievable. Forecasting more than five years into the future is unachievable top-down [butterfly effect], but is determinable to some extent, when derived bottom-up.

Overall, our civilisation is in big trouble and if it is to be worth saving it needs to be changed using superior software tools to implement the change (part one), our understanding of the present problems and how a forecast can be made (part two) and a workable plan to attain that forecast (part three) must be made. Organising our presence on this planet, as a beneficial symbiote, can not occur until we understand the organisation of our society with respect to the environment and implement sustainable change (1) relative to us, (2) relative to the physical and (3) us relative to the physical and this cannot be done until we recognise relativity because the universe is defined by the absolutes and driven by relativity as a fractal. We are parasites that evolved to use the resources available and from evolution it is a truth that successful parasites do not kill their host and can even help by becoming symbiotic. Humans, on the other hand are on the verge of killing the environment through global warming and over-population. New technology may convert our energy use to renewables in time, but no acceptable plan is in place to limit population.

Newtonian physics was made too simple and left organisation ‘out in the cold’, and thus our understanding is limited until it is recognised that organisation is as important as energy.

As an example of how neglected is the concept of organisation:

This article may need to be rewritten entirely to comply with Wikipedia’s quality standards. (July 2018)

The current title of this article is disputed. (July 2018)

(Wikipedia, Top-down and bottom-up design)

Firstly, the ‘ article may need to be rewritten entirely’ suggests that organisation is not well understood, so let us define organisation as the orthogonal of energy from the creation equation [(1+(-1))=0, where ‘1’ is energy and ‘-1’ is organisation] and thus energy and organisation are orthogonal [equal, independent and entangled]. This definition is necessary because we do not know if there is a better organisation, but we do know that if the energy is a minimum, the organisation is minimal, and that is all that we need to know to derive a unique organisational solution.

A digression is needed to explain that traditional mathematics is a special case [of general mathematical physics] and the ‘+’, in the creation equation is much more general than is suggested by the ‘plus’ sign. The first fractal is ‘1’ and ‘-1’ that only exists if they are kept apart and that is, I believe, why our universe is expanding [Big Bang]. The creation equation creates the universe as a ‘form’ [see Euler’s equation, part one], but the working of the universe is the orthogonal, which is the logic of the half-truth [true, false, true and false alternately and chaos where true and false occur at the same time]. Further, over a hundred years ago, the question of the wave-particle duality of the photon was never resolved [Einstein suggested, that both are energy, E=mc2], but the creation equation can be written as (a+b)=0, where a and b can be energy and organisation as long as (a+b)=0. This, I believe suggests the probability contained in quantum mechanics because a probability space is (a+b)=1, for all a, b [in traditional mathematics]. Thus the wave-particle duality is (possibly) the sinusoidal movement between energy quanta [particle] and wave [organisation] according to (a+b)=0 which is the restriction of the first absolute. The absolutes are logic plus the removal of relativity by dividing the dimensions created by the expansion restriction [energy, organisation, time and length], which is the logical restriction that [for all] energy and organisation, distance/time is a constant. Thus the speed of light must be constant to each observer, no matter how the observer is moving, which is the result of the Michelson-Morley experiment and the reason for the effects described in Einstein’s special theory of relativity. Notice that all of the dimensions move together, presumably for simplicity, because of Occam’s razor [organisation] and the principle of least action [energy] so that logic is not corrupted because logic is (presumably) necessary for the organisational solution. Further, the form of the quantum has a logical structure, that does not require organisation or energy as part of its form and allows quanta to be infinitely small, which is a necessity for a logical-organisational solution of the working of the universe. In other words, a quantum is nothing more than a shimmer of energy and organisation with the logic that it must travel at a constant speed relative to the measurer in a vacuum with no minimum energy and the ability to form a neutron if it contains enough energy.

Secondly, the ‘current title of this article is disputed’, namely ‘ top-down and bottom-up’ suggests that its importance is not appreciated. I should mention that I completed a Master of Business Administration degree some years ago and I came across a mention that bottom-up was probably better than top-down only once, and that was all that was said. Top-down has been the source and bane of traditional physics and has led to innumerable problems and enigmas because it is simply guesswork that is ‘kept in check’ by voting between reviewers [peer review]. A case of the ‘blind leading the blind’ that has led to a physics that is based on energy, with a little organisation on the sidelines. Clearly, from bottom-up the way becomes clear, as shown by the derivations from the creation equation, above, and further, general mathematical physics pulls all disciplines into one and is the orthogonality of ‘new think’. ‘New think’ [part one] is the concept that uses the general mathematical physics [context] to vastly increase the possibilities of our mind/brain because the software has been expanded (possibly) fourfold because top-down has had bottom-up and sideways orthogonalities added to it. It is interesting that the hardware [energy as atoms] of the mind/brain allows this software [organisation] and the proof is in the understanding of the structure of quanta [above], the derivation of the law of gravity [part one], the quantum gravity equation [above] etc. The simplicity of the organisation of the universe, as shown above as bottom-up, induces me to search for an organisational solution to civilisation.

Logic is so important that I will repeat that the problem with organisation is that there are many methods of using various organisational methods to obtain the same result, so which do we choose? The simplest unique answer is to require the organisation be used that requires the least energy and we call this logic Occam’s razor [organisation] and the principle of least action [energy]. But, how can the universe require this? The answer is that the universe is based on a logic that contains restrictions and on the first absolute that the total energy plus the total organisation must always be equal [creation equation]. If a photon did not take the shortest path between two points, it would violate the first absolute and a logical solution would not be unique and a unique solution is necessary for an organisational solution to exist. As an example, I believe that the neutron is an organisational solution involving quarks that cannot exist alone and that the photon is a wave [energy] and particle [organisation] duality that ‘shimmers’ between the two. In other words, the working of the universe is the logic of the half-truth: true, false, true and false alternately (shimmer) and chaos, where the shimmer allows ‘choice’ by presenting alternate forms to allow a reaction to occur at a distance. Compare this to Newtonian physics where a reaction occurs because of an energy gradient.

This is an important consideration that needs elaboration because it manifests itself as the ‘tunnel effect’ that astounded quantum physicists but has a simple answer based on choice, probability and organisation. Consider an important impact of organisation where in the pre-Cambian era animals were soft-bodied with poor eyesight that had to bump into a prey to find it. The advent of the lensed-eye added a software input that improved thinking and enabled the planning of an attack at a distance and that ‘action at a distance’ stimulated defensive amour, bones to support muscle, teeth for offence and defence etc. that we find today as fossils. Thus my guess is that an organisation changed evolution and that this scenario is a truth and in a fractal, truths repeat. Thus, the wave aspect of shimmer has the same form in reaching out in a probabilistic way to explain the ‘tunnel effect’ and is part of the larger consideration that reactions do not magically appear because of energy gradients [as in traditional physics], but need an ‘action at a distance’ in an organisational sense to see if they will occur, given an energy gradient. In other words, there is a probability that a particle will appear on the other side of an energy gradient, but in its organisational mode it is independent of energy and the problem is the restriction of traditional physics.

Referring to the title, ‘Forecasting Chaos’, it becomes apparent that the chaos, in our thinking, that we live with is apparent in our approach to the problem [and created by us] because everything in our universe is defined uniquely as a constrained solution and further that the whole universe is a fractal that is built on the creation equation [(1+(-1))=0] and is a simple place when looked at it in the correct way. Obviously chaos cannot be defined top-down, hence the name, but it is definable bottom-up, by definition, and that is how I am approaching the ‘saving the world’ problem. We are parasites that must change our ways because we are threatening the environment by our unrestrained actions and this chapter is setting up the concepts that need changing by considering the associated contexts. As an overview, we need to look at the concepts and contexts that make up our civilisation and note the absolutes and truths that we can apply in the next chapter.

As an example, and to restate the importance of the above simple logic, the average person wants civilisation to continue and improve, but it is all too complicated on the surface even to think about changing the system. The physical universe uses the minimum energy as the unique value that it needs and we can do the same by selecting a truth that Life has evolved over billions of years. In other words, we can select a truth from the behaviour of uncountable organisms of Life that are going about their business and so we have described chaos organisationally. It is really that simple! Thus, the aim of part two is to show that there is a solution, which has been done, and describe the contributing factors to allow us to suggest an organisation in part three and show how it could work. This might seem to require the universities with all their knowledge, but they are part of the problem and it is a democratic solution of people’s desire within the truth that is required, and further, it will be shown that the method is (literally) within each person’s reach. To be fair, requirements like democracy are thousands of years old and others that are necessary are only now becoming available through technology.

For 2,500 years scientists have guessed at theories, experimented and created a science that built a world-wide civilisation and then found, to its horror, that it did not work at the extremes and even worse, was destroying Life as we know it by a population explosion caused by technology. The reason is that a top-down application of organisation, as occurred in science, is not necessarily complete and even worse, enigmas, such as the definition of decision in part one are part of the everyday world are incorrect [refer to the Bay of Pigs] and as the Wikipedia entry above shows, our scientific community has little appreciation of organisation and even worse, organisation is actively discouraged, as in physics. Two thousand five hundred years of science [top-down] has brought the world to the brink of disaster, and yet, a simple creation equation [(1+(-1))=0] used bottom-up makes everything [literally] so clear that I will attempt to show how our civilisation can avoid the pitfalls of unrestrained growth.

Forecasting is the obvious first step, but there are two problems, firstly, ‘In my EPJ research, the accuracy of expert predictions declined toward chance five years out.’ (Superforecasting: the Art and Science of Prediction, Philip Tetlock and Dan Gardner, p 244) and secondly, ‘On April 11, 2001, Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld sent a memo to President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. ‘“I ran across this piece on the difficulty of predicting the future” …. looks at the strategic situation at the start of each decade between 1900 and 2000 and shows that, in every case, the reality was a stunning change from ten years earlier.’ (p 242) Clearly, both the concepts and the context change remarkably quickly over time and shows that forecasting is not able to give the solutions that we need and show that we need a new way of looking at the problem and it will be seen that we have to determine truths that remain true for definite periods. Truths must, by definition, always be true and they must always be true from the bottom-up and whilst they can be found top-down, they cannot be proven to be truths. This simple logic is behind the problem with science, that scientists found a powerful toy and rushed off to play with it without amply considering the logic of what they were doing.

The principle of relativity states that everything is relative to something else, except for four absolutes (see box) and thus there must be a method of measurement (concept) and an actual measurement (context) that are independent of each other [orthogonal], yet entangled. Thus, the method of measurement (The First Step) need not be referenced in this letter because it is independent and I wish to derive everything from first principles to keep it simple, and the fact that we cannot measure one thing, on its own, because it has to be measured relative to something else is the basis of general mathematical physics because the creation equation shows the sideways orthogonality [concept/context] and the logic of organisation demands bottom-up. The word ‘general mathematical physics’ is an overarching of everything and includes all knowledge that physics, mathematics, philosophy etc. have determined and decided on for the last 2,500 years plus the physical structure of the universe [from the creation equation]. The statement that ‘economics and philosophy are truths’ [part one] might surprise because it is generally accepted that physics and mathematics are based on ‘unshakeable’ foundations and have an inherent elegance, but they are, in reality, riddled with enigmas that become apparent at the extremes. Even worse, economics and philosophy are considered to be closer to ‘mumbo-jumbo’ than anything physical or sensible and yet they hold the key to understanding organisation because they are based on the organisation [of the mind] that we do not understand well.

This assertion is so outrageous, that I had better explain that all disciplines [at the moment] are top-down guesses based on a voting system of peers [peer review], the universities are organisationally deficient and incapable of solving the world’s problems of over-population, global warming etc. and fundamental physics has been shut down for the last hundred years because Newtonian physics is incomplete. [http://bostonreview.net/science-nature-philosophy-religion/tim-maudlin-defeat-reason] The basic problem is that physics, mathematics, philosophy etc. evolved top-down (only) and no one wants to ‘upset the apple-cart’ by going back to basics and re-configuring (literally) everything. I do not have to worry about an academic career, but a rewriting of everything is not being accepted easily, and that is to be expected because it is a truth (from evolution) that the establishment continues doing what it was doing and the offspring become a new species. However, the physics hierarchy is breaking another truth [in loco parentis] by not helping offspring, and further, physics is built on energy and tries to disassociate itself from organisation, but to actively close down fundamental physics is a ‘step too far’ that this approach can redress. Economics and philosophy have the most ancient lineage [to generate truths] because a fruit tree pays an animal in fruit to distribute its seeds and the mind/brain [of all Life] evolved using the mathematics of concept/context [see box] to generate strategies that enhanced the organism’s competitive ‘edge’.

The aim of this letter, from the title, is to save the world and the only way to do that is with organisation, simply because the alternative [energy] has not worked and the endeavour involves new concepts, so, bear with me. The legend of the Holy Grail is unbelievable, but like democracy [mathematics of concept/context], the Golden rectangle [organisation], the Mona Lisa [organisation] etc. there is an emotion that we feel, but don’t know what it is, so perhaps our mind confabulates a reason and hence the Holy Grail. Similar to the other examples that I have given that can be easily explained by this theory, there may be a simple organisational solution to saving civilisation. Whilst this endeavour may savour of a Boy’s Magazine story, organisation has been placed in the ‘too hard’ basket and if we survive global warming, it will be because of a technology change to renewable energy and not a change to the organisation, in particular, the population explosion, that got us into this mess. The fractal expansion of the creation equation seems to explain so much of physics etc., so why not take it to its logical conclusion? [darrylpenney.com]

The obvious step is to look to the universities so that they can formulate plans using the world’s accumulated knowledge that they undoubtedly contain, but unfortunately, they are part of the problem because it is a truth that the established continue and a new species has to supplant them [evolution]. Thus, the motivation for saving civilisation must lie in the ‘grass roots’. Our civilisation is to blame for the world’s problems and so we need to examine orthogonality which is why economics and philosophy were chosen, however, whatever we do with them, we must always keep in mind the physical through the absolutes as well as the restrictions. The simplest restriction is that the universe is expanding because it needs to expand to exist (see box) for logical reasons, but a more pertinent point, from our point of view is that the universe is a fractal using the creation equation for the form and the logic of the half -truth for the functioning of the universe.

A digression might be in order because people tend to believe that the universe is ‘real’, which it is to every living creature because, if it were not, magic would happen and a predator might appear out of nothing [our point of view] and eat us. Thus a steady-state occurs only when every organism is part of a respect/defence reality. Physically, everything works on logic for the same reason and we call this simplicity either Occam’s razor or the principle of least action, whilst the mind/brain uses elegance, beauty, love etc. which we interpret as the energy that is generated in the measurer by measuring the organisation. Thus, we are the agents of choice and must use the truths of choice (part one) to make the best choices, otherwise we will have problems, and the current state of our civilisation shows this.

The logic of the half -truth is not the fiendish logic of philosophy but simply a choice between the orthogonals because they are the only options open to the physical and this explains the wave/particle duality that Newtonian physics cannot explain. If there are only two choices, and we have to make a choice, the logical way is to physically assume those guises and to see if a reaction occurs in either of those guises [shimmer]. The simplest physical example is, I believe, the photon that is pure energy and pure organisation because it oscillates between a wave and a particle, whereas the mind/brain evolved to compare strategies to evade predators and uses the creation equation in the form of the probability equation (a+b)=1 for all concepts a and b. If we are to make correct choices, those choices must be based firstly, on the physical truths of the creation equation, secondly, on truths that are the result of evolution and thirdly, the logical restrictions that are pertinent. The restrictions such as Occam’s razor and the principle of least action are logical consequences of the conservation of (total) energy from the ratio [non relativity] of the dimensions and the ratios are the same [principle of least action] leading to all of mass/energy, length and time changing in the Einstein’s theory [Occam’s razor].

Important to our civilisation is the making of choices and choice is an orthogonality between being told what to do by a king, dictator, strongman etc. and a democracy. Democracy was used by the ancient Greeks and we still use it today, so it is obviously a form of voting that appeals to us and it should come as no surprise that it is based on the mathematics of concept/context inherent in the creation equation. Further, the reason that we like democracy [fairness] could be that it’s organisation, based on the creation equation, produces [generates] emotion [energy] when we contemplate [measure] it. As an example of the longevity of truths, which labels them as truths, the Christian message of ‘love’ is orthogonal to the savagery of the times and has not only persevered but grown into a mammoth part of society that must be considered in social engineering. The concept of Christianity is appealing, but like many man-made organisations it is flawed and has led to a lack of control of population, which is the cause of the world’s problem. Religion results in an emotion [energy] generated by the organisation of the church, music, the building etc. in the same way that the flag, Anzac Day marches, government buildings etc. create emotion and is amenable in the same way.

Efforts have been made to bring the religions into one by forming new combined religions, but with little success, however the concept of government and of religion are similar in most respects and that is of prime importance in bringing them together. Religions ‘mirror’ governments in many regards, such as conduct, morality, welfare etc. and governments consider their effects to be useful, but they are also pursuing their own aims, often to the detriment of the country, such as the Catholic church prohibiting birth control. Restoring evolution, so that a woman produces the best possible offspring, brought up under ideal emotional conditions is the aim of every mother and in a modern world this is attainable, albeit with a few social changes that benefit everyone. This proposed organisation could be the Holy Grail of our civilisation and is within our grasp thanks to recent technology.

Democracy is important to choice, but the creation equation (1+(-1))=0 imposes physical restrictions on the way that we interpret it. Our democracy has been perverted by politicians seeking favours and a few examples are that those receiving government pensions can vote to raise pensions, voters are fined for not voting even when they are not interested etc. The probability equation (a+b)=1 also has similar physical restrictions and the ancient Greeks had a ‘pure’ form’ of democracy where only those knowledgeable and interested persons voted that actually fought wars or were acknowledged political figures that could participate in arguments and change their minds in discussions. Clearly, the context ‘+’ in the probability equation can be any form [absolute, truth, logic etc.] but it must be there and it must be able to be changed in discussion to give a meaningful decision and is a ‘far-cry’ from modern practices. Perhaps, the current practice of ‘no vote’ under 18 and full voting rights over 18 years of age needs to be changed to some system dependent on the ‘worth’ of an individual’s vote.

The democratic system that we use today has significant flaws, as above, but the governance organisation is better aligned because the triumvirate of judiciary, politics and police is required to be independent of each other. I believe that a better, more precise consideration is that politics and judiciary must be orthogonal and that each is orthogonal to the police and thus, police should not be influenced by politicians [as they often are]. Politicians are self-seeking and represent political parties that are aligned with hardcore groups of the rich and poor and this biases the system. Further, politicians are accused of shortsightedness because their terms in office are short, bias to particular groups and the orthogonality suggests that the judiciary, that is composed of educated mature long-term position-holders should formulate the long-term concepts of governance, assuming a well balanced board as described in part one and leaving the heated day-to-day running of the country to the politicians and the democracy in the parliament. Notice that the judiciary has a (sort-of) veto within it’s orthogonality with politics. World government is a fractal of this local government and it could be implemented in stages, as necessary, but people say that they do not want world government, but want control of their own country and, as we will see below, relativity places a restriction on this choice.

The form of governance over the millennia has been so important that much thought has been given to it and it largely follows what I am saying, as above, but the application of governance relies on the police to enforce laws and the redistribution of money. Apart from the salary, perks and antics of politicians that are always contentious, the government distributes taxes as welfare of various types and, as with the Churches, it is to the government’s ‘image’ to look after the old, disadvantaged, sick, unemployed etc., but if evolution were restarted and these numbers dropped, it would benefit the community with lower taxes, better health and a longer useful life time. I do not think that anyone would disagree that over the last 10,000 years, from the advent of agriculture, evolution has been ‘on hold’, so much so, that 60% of the population are overweight or obese and asthma, diabetes, allergies, Alzheimer’s etc. have become prevalent. Unfortunately, unrestrained population growth, the associated poverty, social and environmental problems benefit the growth of the churches and government in their role of supporting the less fortunate and is orthogonal to, and opposed to the central idea of this theory

A small digression might be in order to examine a question that bothered economists fifty years ago about whether the capitalist market system or the communist system of a managed economy was better and the question was resolved by history with the downfall of the Russian economy. It seems obvious that capitalist markets, democracy, governance, the mathematics of concept/context and the creation equation are all one and the same. No wonder that the capitalist system won! In other words, the capitalist system is that a buyer rate the desirability of a number of products to assign value [context] and make a choice under the restriction of price. Further, it is apparent that the universe is a fractal generated by the creation equation and that the form of our civilisation should include democracy and the capitalist market system in line with the creation equation.

Conclusion: thus, part one was the fundamental restriction that must be overcome by management, part two is setting up the concepts and part three sets up the contexts of a suitable civilisation that will take us into a sustainable future. I am merely using this theory to show that the possibility exists that we can change society to make it work to our advantage by using truths that are grounded in evolution and an example of the power of this approach is the market system, where its organisation, like democracy reflects the fractal generator of the universe. It now becomes clear why philosophy and economics are truths in organisation [evolution, democracy, market] and why, in a fractal, we have to use those truths to define our civilisation, also, that physics is based on ‘how’ and ignores the ‘why’ and is thus orthogonal to philosophy and economics and unsuitable unless we go back to their entanglement which is the creation equation.

Prediction: the evolution of Life has been based on survival of the fittest, and that is a label, that can be replaced by a concept/context of respect/defence that defines evolution. In a fractal universe, respect/defence is a truth, and for example, a politician or footballer that can defend their actions gains respect and if they cannot, they lose respect and are ousted from the game or parliament and in a modern society, the more guns in that society, the more respect and the better able to defend oneself and others. This theory justifies a social experiment on a limited scale in disadvantaged areas to show that it works and provides all of the players with benefits and this is further set up in part three.

Finally, no references are cited because everything can be derived simply from the first principles and the examples given above. However, it is pointless ‘reinventing the wheel’ and most of it will be on my website darrylpenney.com when required.

Chapter 119: Saving the World – The First Step – A New Way of Thinking, the Mechanics of Decision-making and When Economics Embraces Philosophy and Dumps Physics.

by Darryl Penney

Abstract: four necessary basic aims have been accomplished, firstly, that a new way of thinking has been proposed, that allowed secondly, a management board to be properly defined, thirdly, that any conclusion (concept) must state possible predictions (context) and fourthly, the decisions of that board has been shown to be the orthogonality of economics (concept) and philosophy (context).

Economists have traditionally looked to physics to similarly structure economics and that proved to be a mistake because a new principle of relativity shows that economics aligns with philosophy. This is borne out by the notion of democracy that has proved to be resilient over millennia and the structure of democracy is actually the mathematics of concept/context that also defines economic markets. Repositioning both disciplines, as drivers of civilisation, allows us to understand civilisation firstly, as a sideways orthogonality, and secondly, as a bottom-up and top-down organisational orthogonality that considers the absolutes and truths of the physical world along with the mental thoughts of the measurer. This ‘new think’ can add extra dimensions to our current thinking, will finally allow fundamental physics to redefine itself and indicates fundamental changes to the understanding of how to construct management to make decisions so that we can manage our civilisation. Fundamental physics becomes simple using ‘new think’ and quantum gravity, a new definition of relativity, Euler’s equation, general mathematical physics, the law of gravitation and Coulomb’s law of charges etc. are simply derived from the absolutes that are generated from the dimensions of an expanding universe and the creation equation.

A New Way of Thinking

Firstly, the aim of this letter is that throughout history, civilisations have come and gone because they were not engineered to persist and by using the new techniques described below, I believe that we can organise a civilisation that is on-going and is symbiotic with the environment. This technique replaces the organisation that is currently so poorly understood that we are in danger of creating a catastrophic climate change. The first step to controlling ourselves is to define a management board that is capable of managing properly, unlike the Bay of Pigs fiasco, the second step is to improve our ability to forecast the future, from the current 5 years, by using absolutes and other truths and the third step is a possible solution for the future based on bottom-up/top-down and sideways orthogonalities that involve our universe. Overall, evolution must be restarted and the less-fit have to be rewarded for breeding less to stabilise populations and make ‘survival of the best’ our goal. This aim is currently beyond us, but ‘new think’ makes fundamental physics simple by being derived bottom-up and a workable solution to control the population is not difficult.

Examples of bottom-up organisation are more difficult, but the enigmatic expansion of the universe [Big Bang] becomes a logical necessity for the existence of the creation equation, below, when logic is afforded it’s rightful place. A second example is the derivation of the law of gravity that is given for the first time, below, but the events that I will describe ‘closed down’ fundamental physics a hundred years ago and this new method redresses that. The Michelson-Morley experiment showed that the speed of light is constant no matter what the observer is doing, Einstein showed that all of mass, length and time changed together, presumably because Occam’s razor says that it is simpler for all to change than specifying some order of change, and physics was prepared to accept this, but adding curved space [organisation] to get the correct result of twice the Newtonian value was a ‘step too far’ and fundamental physics shut down, presumably because physics does not contain organisation explicitly.[http://bostonreview.net/science-nature-philosophy-religion/tim-maudlin-defeat-reason] This ‘new think’ is not only adding the organisation to physics, it is adding it in a complete manner of top/down and sideways orthogonalities. It is the ‘way of science’ that new theories replace less successful ones and fundamental physics realised that something was missing a hundred years ago and became Sleeping Beauty [without telling anyone – a monumental conspiracy and a monumental arrogance that the answer would not be found outside of physics], but now ‘new think’ provides the answer that is needed by using orthogonalities to add dimensions to our thinking.

Application to Management

The world is entering a new era that is shown by solar panels on roofs, wind farms, solar farms and electric cars, but should we go large or small? Economics determines the pricing and efficiency, but if a new industrial revolution is in the wings, is it what we want and will it help with the problems that the world is facing. To answer these questions we must consider the overall social and physical organisation in the light of relativity. Relativity is usually considered to be the problem that Einstein highlighted in fundamental physics a hundred years ago [by postulating the rest of this sentence], but the paper was actually a consideration of the effects of the Michelson-Morley experiment that showed that the speed of light is constant relative to the consciousness of any observer. Relativity controls everything that happens in the universe and a lack of relativity [the absolutes] allowed the universe to exist, as shown below. I should add that the concept of quantum gravity, derived below, is not necessary to the argument presented here, but the context is necessary and ‘you can’t have one without the other’.

Starting at the beginning, two independent things [(+1) energy and (-1) organisation] can be created from nothing and this situation is stable forever if they are kept apart [the reason that the universe is expanding] and the form [fractal] that is produced is (1+(-1))=0 and it functions according to true, false, true and false at different times and chaos (true and false at the same time) [logic of the half-truth]. This shows that everything (+1) is relative to something else (-1) and the only absolutes [non-relatives] are the ratios of the dimensions that are created from an expanding space [energy, organisation, length and time] and these absolutes produce the universe: total energy (+1) plus total organisation (-1) always equal zero for all time and space (the conservation of the sum), distance divided by time is constant for all energy and organisation (the speed of light is constant to the measurer [measurer is due to relativity that explains the Michelson Morley experiment and Einstein’s postulate]), energy and organisation divided by volume (dark energy creation to create continuity as the universe expands, for all time) and energy and organisation divided by distance (gravity) for all time. This relativity replaces the existing, that the laws of physics are the same in constantly moving frames (Galilean invariance or Galilean relativity) and note that quantum gravity is the last absolute that explains the relation between organisation, energy and distance, together with the first absolute that says that the sum is constant [quarks are principally organisation and galaxies are principally energy].

This organisation/energy solution with logical restrictions and the absolutes force a relationship called Euler’s equation that determine 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. A sphere [of energy and organisation] can only expand if energy and organisation appear as dark energy/organisation [per unit of volume] to produce continuity. The law of gravity and Coulomb’s law of charges show relativity as the product of the two absolutes (energy of one mass/separation times the other mass/separation and the organisation/separation times the other organisation/separation) that are then summed to give double the Newtonian effect as Einstein predicted [twice (because of curved space, surely a guess!) the product of the masses divided by the square of the separation (Newton’s guess!)]. The universe becomes a dynamic organisational system defined by choice as evidenced by the ‘shimmer’ of the wave/particle duality required by relativity as the (constant) sum of two varying terms.

Science has been left in a ‘muddle’ for the last hundred years with fundamental research ‘shut down’, universities incapable of basic (fundamental) research and the hierarchy not wanting change. The last is a truth from evolution because the young seek new niches whilst the old persevere, the first is true because physics is based on energy and tries to exclude organisation and the remainder is true because of the nature of decision-making, below. Last century much effort was made to use the mathematical structure of physics as a means of structuring economics, but this structure is illusory and incorrect, as above. The market system and democracy are actually the mathematics of concept/context and are based on the structure behind the universe and, I believe, this accounts for their ‘staying power’. Traditional mathematics is a creation of the mind and great care was taken to base it on first principles and that is the correct intention, but it is still only one dimensional and that becomes the problem. For example, (1+(-1))=0 is meaningless in mathematics, whereas it is the creation equation that created the universe [in physics], so, something is wrong, and the point is that mathematics and physics are entangled as an orthogonality and each is a special case of the general mathematical physics. General mathematical physics is the top-down/bottom-up and sideways orthogonalities as mentioned above, but it is similar to what I call ‘new think’, though different because the former is a concept and the latter is the context [orthogonal thus independent yet entangled], but it does show the relativity mentioned above.

Now that relativity has been considered, the problem is simply that the third industrial revolution must be considered (1) relative to us, (2) relative to the physical and (3) us relative to the physical. This is how the absolutes were derived and literally, in a fractal, there is nothing new because everything is derived from the generator, which is simply (1+(-1))=0 that I call the creation equation, and further, I call ‘1’ energy and ‘(-1)’ organisation. The reason that three relatives must be used is because the mind/brain [of all Life] uses a probability space [to simplify our comprehension] and not a (simple) measuring space because Life is a parasite and the mind/brain enhances survival through the relativity of respect/defence [survival of the fittest – respect is being left alone because you can defend yourself and as a example, the more guns in the community, the safer it probably is, contrary to common thinking that is pandered to by politicians and police].

Consider ‘relative to us, relative to the physical and us relative to the physical’, the first is covered by economics, the second by survival of the fittest and the third is the world’s problems of overpopulation, global warming, mass extinction etc. Hence, ‘the great economic revolutions in history occur when new communication technologies converge with new energy systems.’ (The Third Industrial Revolution, Jeremy Rifkin, p 1) Is this surprising in the light of the above? In other words, the surprising point is that they are not only linked, but each generates the other! Relativity says that you have not created energy until it is used because ‘forward time’ does not exist except in our mind/brain. Thus, in a fractal universe everything is derived from a simple generator and the creation of energy produces organisation and the creation [measurement] of organisation produces energy. Consider that burning a simple sugar [glucose] creates thought in the mind/brain and judging art is possible through the [emotional] energy generated by measuring [seeing] the organisation included in the object by the skill of the artist [an example is the Mona Lisa and the smile is irrelevant]. Laughter is the explosive release of energy as the organisation of the joke is realised and rearranged in the mind/brain.

The first industrial revolution was powered by coal, the second by oil and they required large inputs of capital to bring their benefits to the consumer. The third industrial revolution contains both large scale wind and solar farms but has an alternate choice of individual houses putting energy back into the grid system. The use of rooftop solar generators is an economic choice albeit influenced by political pricing and turning to renewable energy might save the world from global warming but it does nothing for the increase in population and evolution. Clearly, economics is concepts [products] that needs context and philosophy is ideally suited to fill this role when it understands that democracy is a mathematics [of concept/context]. Economics is a product of the mind and has no relativity to the physical, and that shows why physics was a poor choice to follow even though there are similarities as found in a fractal. For example, in the environment, food is taken by force, whereas in economics, barter is used and the medium of exchange is money, which is a measuring rod, as is the energy of the photon in quantum mechanics.

Solar farms hark back to the hierarchical structure of church and government, whereas the ‘flat’ structure of rooftop energy production de-emphasises their influence because large inputs of capital are not necessary as in the first two industrial revolutions involving coal and oil. The ramifications of the possible shift are too widespread to be discussed here but show where philosophy is needed and as an example, ‘this feeling of foreboding took on a very public face in 2009 with the rise of the Tea Party movement, a grassroots rebellion against big government, pork barrel politics, and exorbitant taxes. (p 30) Taking this statement to it’s logical conclusion, the general voter can vote ‘with their wallets’ in an economic sense to influence the philosophical views that they hold dear, if the organisation is available. In other words, by understanding the mathematics of concept/context the working of civilisation [markets and democracy] becomes transparent and able to be influenced by the consumer every day and not just at the polls every few years.

Conclusion: firstly, I should point out that the above does not follow the convention of concept ‘a’ leads to concept ‘b’ etc., but uses the context of the entanglement of everything and I can start at any point and end with the generator of the fractal, as I did. Secondly, the philosophy/economics orthogonality using money as a measurement is similar in form to the energy/organisation orthogonality using energy and not without reason because even our mental concepts must conform to the physical universe [if we want to implement them]. The importance of this relationship, I believe, cannot be overstated if we are looking to solve humanity’s problems and science, as it stands, cannot handle the physical even though it was specifically formulated to do just that.

Thirdly, ‘ the philosophy/economics orthogonality using money’ is a ‘fact of Life’ (excuse the pun) because it separates an apple tree from a pine tree, in that an apple tree pays an animal to distribute its seeds by providing the energy of the apple whereas pine-nuts are stolen and so economics, like philosophy are environmental truths developed over millions of years. Fourthly, this same orthogonality is a bottom-up description of economics (concept, to buy an item) and philosophy (context, of finding an item), and thus the two aspects are vital to our understanding of our civilisation [the principle of relativity is universal, see the next sentence]. Fifthly, writing a conclusion [concept] necessarily creates a context that is just as important and I call this context a ‘prediction’. Physics is based on the ‘theory of theories’ where a new theory generates predictions that are tested before the theory is accepted [top-down necessity] and, to be consistent with the above, a prediction must always be made. Surely, this derivation shows how poorly science has been constructed, how easy it is add ‘new think’ and how far-reaching is the result.

Prediction: I will use the universities as an example of being on the wrong track and wasting huge amounts of money of money and time because the churches and governance have over the ages not tolerated criticism well. The waste occurs from the current practices, and I believe that the universities should have their funding cut until they decide to teach students a complete [general mathematical physics] course that includes generalists. The universities are the repositories of knowledge but are conspicuously absent in giving advice on how to cure the world’s problems, fundamental physics has ‘shut down’ for the last hundred years, journals are designed for specialists in spite of the fact that relativity shows the imbalance and that context is the key to using concepts and yet physics is using Newtonian physics that tries to ignore organisation. There are very good financial and career reasons (in the short term) for an individual to keep the status quo in academia, but that won’t save the planet.

The above is a necessary groundwork to being able to control ourselves and our effect on the rest of the planet and the over-riding criterion is completeness of management and thus management meetings need at least an economist, as is present at most meetings, a philosopher, as an orthogonal to safeguard community and environmental rights and a generalist as well as lawyers, financiers etc. 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.’ (p 195)

Clearly, as above, specialists cannot act as generalists and the proposed solution was flawed and remains flawed. 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? Thus, part one needed to be cleared up before we can look at the structure (part two) of civilisation and a possible solution (part three).

Overview: thus, four necessary basic aims have been accomplished, firstly, that a new way of thinking has been proposed, that allowed secondly, a management board to be properly defined, thirdly, that any conclusion (concept) must state possible predictions (context) and fourthly, the decisions of that board has been shown to be the orthogonality of economics (concept) and philosophy (context).

Finally, no references are cited because everything can be derived simply from the first principles and the examples given above. However, it is pointless ‘reinventing the wheel’ and most of it will be on my website darrylpenney.com when required.

Chapter 118: The Philosophy Fairytale – the New Prince Charming to Save the World.

Abstract: ‘World Peace’ is a joke about unattainability and logic implies that we should search for a solution in the forgotten places, and that is what this paper turns out to be about.

For 2,500 years philosophy has withered as it hived off the spectacularly successful sciences that have brought civilization to its ‘knees’ with overpopulation destroying the world. To cure civilization, we need organization of a new kind to restart evolution in a new form and the required organization can be found in a new theory of relativity. This new theory contains the mathematics of concept and context that, I believe will revitalize philosophy, manage civilization and provide the solution that we desperately need.

‘We have also arranged things so almost nobody understands science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces’. Carl Sagan (The Geek Manifesto, Mark Henderson, frontispiece) This state is already with us because fundamental physics ‘shut down’ 100 years ago and universities have progressively worsened their ‘siloing’ over 2,500 years and are incapable of fundamental research. The solution is simple when orthogonality and relativity is used.

Evidence is presented that suggests that philosophy has always been a science with its own mathematics and rules of concept and context that we have completely missed for 2,500 years and consequently, that all of science and mathematics is likewise incomplete. Organization has, by necessity, been considered top-down and it’s orthogonal has not been recognised as ‘bottom-up’ that is infinitely more powerful as a number of examples attest. These examples are not trivial and range across different aspects of science because the universe is fractal and based on a simple generator that I call orthogonality.

This is a serious quest with serious ramifications and I am using a simple letterform to generate comment. Philosophy would be the least likely candidate to be called a science because it has been said that all of the useful parts have been stripped out of it, it is said to have adherents that don’t seek answers because it doesn’t have answers to give and that philosophy has changed so little over time that the ancient Greeks could follow modern arguments. Philosophy has been pushed into the ‘wings’ over 2,500 years and yet, I believe that like Prince Charming, philosophy can emerge to solve mankind’s global excesses, such as overpopulation, global warming, wars etc. because this new mathematics is what philosophy needed, but never (properly) had.

If I am correct, then philosophy and everything in the universe is a science because everything can be uniquely derived at any time, anywhere from anything because we live in a fractal universe and every part of a fractal generates new space from a simple generator. As an example, philosophy would, in a fractal universe, have the same story as the fairy stories that we are familiar with, such as Cinderella, Prince Charming, the Ugly Duckling, Snow White etc. where philosophy is the frog, the duckling, Cinderella etc. and a transformation occurs. The aim, for the child and for civilization is the hope of something better and the problem is to use the correct means and mindset. We have to change the way that we have thought for 2,500 years, so, as an example, in the case of our universe, we say that it started [from nothing] with a Big Bang because the universe is expanding, but a more logical explanation lies in the creation equation that contains a restriction that the universe must expand for it to exist.

These examples look like ‘parables’ because we are using a new type of mathematics [concept/context] that operates on society. The orthogonality is apparent everywhere: philosophy is about organization and religion is about emotional energy [derived from the organization of religion] and they have been allowed to get ‘out of step because philosophy has faltered whilst religion has bloomed. Unfortunately, the Catholic religion especially, with its with its desire for more adherents is actively imposing restriction on birth control that is increasing (economic) misery [and endangering the planet] along with population. If not philosophy, perhaps economics will ‘step up’ because economics needs the same absolute truths that are presented here to anchor its organization to the physical to provide solutions that are truths and can be relied upon.

The form of this letter is to use general terms and present the more analytical part as a ‘box’ at the end for those interested. I will present three examples to show the breath of the problem and its solution. Firstly Euler’s equation [from mathematics] that is an enigma because no one knows what it means, and I will show, in simple terms that Euler’s equation, like everything in a fractal space ‘reflects’ the generator of the fractal. The second example [from physics] is the derivation of Newton’s law of gravitation that has never been derived before, even though it is so simple, neither by Newton nor Einstein, and the third example [from philosophy] is to show that ‘democracy’ [with its restrictions] is the long-running mainstay of the fairness in governance and is a direct statement of the underlying mathematics [of concept/context] that defines philosophy. These examples show the existence of a science that I call general mathematical physics that underlies traditional science that we have not recognized [from top-down] over the last 2,500 years, but now become obvious from bottom-up.

If we are to solve mankind’s immediate problem of overpopulation and it’s effect on the planet and it’s resources we need the correct method to do so, and further, we need to, not only reinvent evolution, we need to implement it, and that requires the organization that this letter presents. Just as it was (literally) impossible for Newton and Einstein to derive the law of gravitation, and they tried in vain, it (literally) ‘falls out’, below. It would be nice to say that we can ‘muddle’ through, but we cannot, as has become apparent [Newton and Einstein’s lack of success] and a new philosophy is needed, and this presentation is the unique, one and only method that will ‘see us through’ because it is (literally) written in the creation.

The first example is that if the universe is a fractal, everything in it reflects the creation equation and Euler’s equation is no exception. ‘Euler’s formula is ubiquitous in mathematics, physics, and engineering. The physicist Richard Feynman called the equation “our jewel” and “the most remarkable formula in mathematics”.’ (Wikipedia) In Euler’s equation [e power i times pi plus 1 = 0] when rearranged and e power 0 replaces 1, the equation becomes an orthogonality equation that could be thought of as a fractal entangled with the creation equation. “Pi” is a circle/sphere operator and logically a mathematical construction like a point or circle could not exist, but the surface of a sphere could exist [Big Bang] and that the creation equation only exists if the sphere is expanding. The “e” is given in elementary textbooks as the growth of money under compound interest and this aptly describes the necessary [constant] expansion of the universe from the creation equation with time and compounding rate. The “i” is an unexpected term that makes Euler’s equation so fearsome, and yet it has a logical simplicity as an orthogonality that must be there. The question is often asked ‘what happened before the Big Bang?’. The “i” provides the answer and it must be there to add completeness [relativity] to the equation because the opposite [orthogonality] to the universe is imaginary and if it is to be explored further, it must be a ‘mirror image’ orthogonality through the centre [because everything is relative].

To further indicate the fractal nature of the universe and the organizational absolutes that produced it, the four absolutes were simply derived from the dimensions of an expanding sphere as ratios that define our universe [see box], but the mathematical interpretation of ‘e’ and ‘pi’ is that they are infinite series that are shown to be exact in Euler’s equation and this indicates a relationship that must occur three dimensionally in a sphere under a constant influence [speed of light]. In other words, firstly, everything in the universe is an organizational solution that includes traditional mathematics and physics as special cases, and secondly, this solved a question that I asked myself, that the universe is expanding at a set rate [presumably the speed of light] irrespective of whether energy is present. This settles for all time, the question of the universe.

The essence of a science is ‘truth’ because a truth can be reproduced at will [repeatable experiments], and as an example I will use ‘democracy’. Democracy has had its adherents for thousands of years and it is simply, in general terms, that everyone over the age of 18 years has a vote, but there must be restrictions. Democracy is the cornerstone of our system of governance, but the politicians, with their propensity to seek favours along with votes have eroded the restrictions of democracy that applied to the ancient Greeks. Given that a city/state must defend itself, the defence lay firstly, in the hands of those actually defending the city-state, and secondly, only those interested, involved and informed made the decision to fight, bargain or surrender. Clearly, these restrictions eliminated the young, elderly, sick, obese, women [too valuable and ill-equipped], slaves [not committed] and mercenaries and allies [less committed].

Thirdly, the politicians and police are currently undermining democracy by pandering to these ineffectual voters and stripping the potential defenders of guns for their own ends. Defence [and its orthogonality, respect] are truths implicit in nature and lead to survival of the fittest for animals with a mind/brain. Given that Life’s mind/brain is capable of choice, based on concept and context [all a, b in (a+b)=1], there comes a point where survival of the fittest is abandoned and we must decide on a survival of the best if we are to regain evolution. Civilization reached that point with the invention of agriculture, and we have yet to formulate a replacement policy. Obviously, this letter is a first step and a solution is only possible using the mathematics of concept/context. The proof of this statement is firstly, that the world is presently in a mess, secondly, that the mathematics of concept/context has not been appreciated by philosophy [and others], and thirdly, the universities, which house our knowledge refuse to acknowledge the generalist.

The mind brain burns a simple sugar [glucose] to generate thought [organization] and the corollary is that organization, such as architecture, Church services, flags, songs etc. create emotion in the beholder/measurer. Thus, our mind/brain uses a probability space and the physical uses a measuring space and a new mathematic can be derived from the creation equation that concepts a, b [in the mind/brain] must be orthogonal and the context between them are measured by the mind/brain as choices and the degree of choice [measurement] assigns a value to the contexts. I call this the mathematics of concept/context, but I could equally well call it ‘democracy’.

In other words, democracy, that has been considered important [in the context of fairness] over thousands of years, is actually a truth because it (literally) is the creation equation and fundamental to everything. Thus, everything in a fractal can be traced back to the generator and that fact makes philosophy, as well as everything else, into a science and continuing this line of thought, “when are ‘thought’ experiments useful?”. The operator “+” in the creation equation means addition, logic, truths [from experiment] and absolute truths [from the creation equation], so clearly, thought experiments should not be permitted unless they are based on repeatable experiments [truths] or traceable to the absolute truths. This has not happened in philosophy, especially from its onset and has misled for thousands of years. As another example, the traditional law of conservation of energy is wrong, yet it is taught to everyone, whereas only the law of conservation of (total) energy and organization is an absolute [zero].

Conclusion: all of science is incomplete, as it stands, but completion can be obtained by recognizing a general mathematics that combines the existing top-down with the bottom-up organization of the creation equation [orthogonality] as well as the sideways orthogonality of relativity within the creation equation. This is simply a recognition of the relativity that must be contained in everything and there is nothing difficult in what I have said, but the cause of the problem, over 2,500 years, was not starting simply enough, allowing ‘siloing’ and specialization and not appreciating the strength of the generalist, as can be seen in the problems inherent in universities. This theory brings everything together because a fractal universe is based on a simple generator that allows only truths to be perpetuated and the time has come to repair the mistakes of our past and go forward.

Prediction: [relativity demands a prediction to a thought] given that philosophy has had a poor reputation that was likely earned because philosophers are (mainly) specialists and it is obvious that there are two aspects to the creation equation [concepts and context], so specialists are not the same as generalists. In fact, this letter, with examples from philosophy, physics and mathematics is generalist and shows that specialist and generalists are relative to each other [literally are orthogonal, in the limit]. Further, in loco parentis is a truth that offspring are disinclined to help the parent [and not vice versa] and so, philosophy has been left isolated as science embraces technology by limiting science to their own needs and bypassing the mathematics of concept/context and the truths. As the parent of the sciences, it behoves philosophy to correct itself and pass it on to its offspring.

By completing science, we can see what has been missing from philosophy and so, philosophy must admit that generalists are necessary and embrace their contribution. As an example, the local (Australian) philosophy journal only allows two submissions a year and my submissions were rejected for ‘style’! How is a generalist supposed to know the specialist’s style? That is the purpose of the specialist! This simple example shows the mindset that has caused philosophy to isolate itself, when it could be a science by stepping out of the shadows. This truth [specialist/generalist orthogonality] explains why universities are incapable of [effective] fundamental [generalist] research and that admission distorts academia and wastes time, careers and money. As an example, fundamental physics has been a ‘no-go’ area for a hundred years because Einstein and Bohr could not agree on the space we live in, and both were wrong! [http://bostonreview.net/science-nature-philosophy-religion/tim-maudlin-defeat-reason].

Finally, no references are cited because everything can be derived simply from the first principles and the examples given above. However, it is pointless ‘reinventing the wheel’ and most of it will be on my website darrylpenney.com when required.

Post prediction: The New Philosopher

The measuring space [that our universe is] explains why the universe is expanding, why the speed of light is constant to any observer, why conservation of energy is overall and not local, gravity and why it must be there [to create potential] and why gravity must be logical [organizational solution]. Likewise, quantum mechanics has never been defined because it is the logic of the difficulty of measurement [non-infinitely small measuring devices], the logic of the half-truth that creates choice in the form of shimmer [wave/particle duality] and this is made more complicated because our mind/brain uses a probability space [to access the general concepts that are non-physical].

Mankind has used electrons, from atoms, to generate electricity, the organization of electric and magnetic fields, from a measuring space, for electric motors, we have used organization where quantum mechanics is the combination of three factors on the atomic scale and we turned it into an electronics industry, nuclear physics to generate power etc. So, what can the proper application of organization, from bottom-up, and our ingenuity do with a direct truth from the creation equation, especially when it is a macroscopic problem? The specialist/generalist orthogonality is real, will not go away and is costing us dearly through mismanagement in the universities. The universities should encourage ‘lone wolves’ and generalists to promote ‘new niches’ instead of only reproducing what they themselves have learned.

[Darryl Penney, 16/11/2018, dwpenney2@bigpond.com 0410668511]

In the beginning there was nothing (0) and it is a property of orthogonality to make two independent things, but entangled [at the origin], such as (1) and (-1) [first fractal] and that forces the second fractal (1+(-1))=0 [this equation I call the creation equation because it yields the form of the universe] and it’s orthogonal is the logic of the half-truth [true, false, both true and false simultaneously] that yields ‘physical choice’ [shimmer presents opportunities for a reaction through the wave/particle duality] that leads to the working of the universe [‘a single particle could seemingly span a field as would a wave, a paradox still eluding satisfactory explanation’ Wikipedia, Elementary particle]. Life employs a mind/brain to make better choices based on the structure of the probability equation [mathematics of concept/context] in the brain as well as thought [(-1), organization] from the burning of a simple sugar [(1), glucose]. That is the answer to the above, but with a ‘twist’ because Life uses a probability space [(a+b)=1] that is similar to the measuring space [(1+(-1))=0], but allows all concepts a, b to be considered.

Notice that the creation equation exits only if (1) and (-1) are kept apart and this logic requires an expanding universe, which we have [Big Bang], and this expansion produces the dimensions of space-time, energy and organization. The equation also says that everything is relative to something else, with no exceptions, except that ratios naturally become absolutes and they are the conservation of (total) energy/organization [energy/time], constant speed of light [distance/time], dark energy [energy/space] and gravity [energy/separation] and this becomes the principle of relativity in a measuring space [and replaces the present one that the laws of physics are the same in constantly moving frames]. The absolutes produce stability – the first leads to Occam’s razor and the principle of least action, the second to the constant [to the measurer, Michelson-Morley] speed of light, the third to the infill energy/organization [dark energy] to balance the expanding energy/organization of the universe and the fourth to gravity.

The limitations of Newtonian physics have made gravity an enigma for a long time and I believe, it is not an attraction [Newton], not ‘bent’ space that introduced organization and shut down modern physics for a hundred years [Einstein, deflection of a photon by a solar mass], but simply an absolute [energy-organization/distance], where all matter is composed of energy and organization and the doubling effect that Einstein (eventually) found is due to relativity where:

Attraction equals E(1)/d times E(2)/d plus O(1)/d times O(2)/d where E is energy, O is organization and d is the separation of two masses (1) and (2).

This leads to twice the Newtonian value where only energy is considered and is in line with Einstein’s finding. Notice that this is the first time that Newton’s law of gravitation has been derived because Newton used an ‘inspired reasoning’ [Robert Hooke maintained that it was stolen from him] and Einstein used an ‘analogy’. Clearly, this explanation shows that the inverse-square law has nothing to do with it!

We now understand gravity completely in that it’s effect has and will always be constant, it cannot exist except between two objects [relativity], its value depends only on the total amount of energy/organization and the separation and shimmer [from particle to wave] has no effect because two terms are involved as a sum. Also, the equation E=mc2 is misleading because mass and energy are the same thing and the equation is a conversion of the units that we have assigned, but what is not so obvious is that all of energy/mass and all of organization contribute equally [relativity]. It was accepted in Newton’s time that mass had an attraction and in Einstein’s time that energy [photon] had the same attraction, but the fact that organization had an attraction [curved space] and gave the correct experimental answer was a ‘step too far’ and fundamental physics closed down.

This enigma is a result of the short-comings of Newtonian physics, and it is not an enigma when it is realized that energy and organization are ‘two sides of the same coin’ and further, that this complexity is a mathematical physics solution because the first orthogonality [energy/organization] produces a second where, in part, organization gives gravity [organization] and energy [of gravity] through the absolute. To maintain the condition that universe is expanding [(1) and (-1) kept separate] gravity must be a solution and be non-zero because a zero gravity produces random walk, which, in the limit, is not stable. The “e” in Euler’s equation determines a constantly growing universe [“e” is the driver in compounded interest].

From above, the statement that ‘the absolutes produce stability’ needs expansion, firstly, ‘the absolutes produce stability’ is, of course, true because they define the structure of the universe, secondly, ‘Occam’s razor and the principle of least action’ are an organizational requirement that only the simplest and least energetic response is possible if the organization is to have unique answers. In other words, the universe does measures organization and the measurement requires that the lowest energy be used [first absolute]. Thirdly, the requirement that all of energy/mass, length and time obey the Lorentz contraction together is an organizational requirement in that it is simpler that all change proportionately than to list an order of change.

Fourthly, compare the treatment of organization in Newtonian physics where organization is allowed upon experiment or peer review. The English philosopher, Francis Bacon was correct that physics must be based on experiment because [repeatable] experiment is a truth, but we can also use the long-term effects of evolution as truths [an experiment] and ‘thought’ experiments based on the absolutes and their logic. ‘The general idea of the importance and possibility of a sceptical methodology makes Bacon the father of the scientific method’. (Wikipedia) For example, ‘in loco parentis’ passes from parent to offspring and not visa versa as the major religions demand. Peer review is a half-truth that is true only for specialist subjects and false for general subjects because specialists think differently to generalists [relativity] plus two truths are violated [relativity, and evolution (the established resist change)]. Notice the ‘thread’ that I am using is not the usual [ancient Greeks to Newton to Einstein to the Snow White effect], but a different successful thread [ancient Greeks to Bacon (experimental truth) to this theory (absolutes, experimental truths and evolutionary truths)]

Fifthly, the principle of relativity, stated above could also be called the principle of orthogonality because they are relative to each other and everything contains elements that are either the same or independent to something else and it is the orthogonals that form the basis of the mathematics of concept/context that is immediately apparent from the probability equation.

Coulomb’s law for charges is similar in form to Newton’ law, and many people must have, like I, wondered about this, and both are, [inappropriately as it turns out] associated with the inverse square law [a single mass, charge or magnetic pole cannot exit]. A simple explanation is to use the fractalness that the neutron [mass] is a special case of energy [photon] and orthogonates to a proton, electron and a neutrino and that Newton’s law describes the mass attraction, whilst Coulomb’s law describes the charge attraction. Obviously they must be equivalent, apart from sign and magnitude.

Chapter 117: Economics From First Principles

Abstract: organization and economics have never been comfortable within science, but a new and expanded definition of relativity shows that they actually hold a prime position and can be derived from first principles. The expanded definition also shows that bottom-up organization is the key to completing philosophy, Newtonian physics and traditional mathematics and that allows us to explain long-standing enigmas as well as enabling new insights through the amalgamation.

Context: I am writing this letter because I believe that there are problems in economics and business that need widespread discussion and this has now become possible through a new definition of relativity obtained from first principles. This letter-form was chosen to reach as many readers as possible, and especially those that normally ‘throw up their hands in horror’ at words like relativity, quantum gravity, gravity, quarks etc. that are other specialists’ areas that show the problems within Newtonian physics. Economists are supposed to be generalists according to John Maynard Keynes … “the master-economist must possess a rare combination of gifts,” he wrote. “He must be a mathematician, historian, statesman, philosopher … He must study the present in the light of the past for the purposes of the future. No part of man’s nature or his institutions must be entirely outside his regard.” (Doughnut Economics: Seven Ways to Think Like a 21^st-Century Economist, Kate Raworth, p 288) This quotation, from a specialist economist lauding the generalist, highlights the core problem, and that problem has come about because we do not understand relativity. The quotation is wrong in that it asks for an impossibility because a specialist and generalist are (literally) orthogonal and independent and, in the limit, cannot understand each other, but both are needed. This is a fundamental problem like the wave/particle duality of quantum mechanics and we must accept it.

Economics has always been like a ship in deep water with only its experiments for truths and no anchor and relativity says that I can only describe economics relative to physics because physics describes the universe and our planet, but Newtonian physics is incomplete and lacks organization, so we have to add completeness. Also, traditional mathematics is woefully incomplete and to make economics accountable, we have to find economic and organizational solutions, and to do that, we need a new mathematic that I call the mathematics of concept/context. To make this understandable to specialists [as economists are not supposed to be, but are] and not have a multitude of references, I am going to start from first principles. It is important that the reader is comfortable with this, so I have included a ‘side-box’ that could be read later and, to show its usefulness, it contains derivations of Newton’s law of gravity that has never been derived before.

Concept: Doughnut Economics presents a planet with certain defined limits on its resources and defined wants of the population and I am taking this to be the upper limit or upper bound on economic thought, though, I am more interested in restarting evolution by controlling population than allocating resources to infinite wants, they lie on the same path. The lower limit is the creation equation that generates the universe and also shows the mathematics that we can use [truth]. To be more precise, the creation equation generates a measuring space [(1+(-1))=0], whilst Life has evolved to use a probability space [(a+b)=1] for all concepts a, b and you will notice that both are orthogonal equations that show relativity [1 and (-1), a and b].

‘If only – just before that apple fell – young Isaac had also marvelled at how it grew: in a fascinating, ever-evolving interplay of trees and bees, sun and leaves, roots and rain, blossom and seeds’. (p 129) This request leads into the answer in the box, and it is exactly what was sought because organization is on an equal footing with energy.

In the beginning there was nothing (0) and it is a property of orthogonality to make two independent things, but entangled [at the origin], such as (1) and (-1) [first fractal] and that forces the second fractal (1+(-1))=0 [this equation I call the creation equation because it yields the form of the universe] and it’s orthogonal is the logic of the half-truth [true, false, both true and false simultaneously] that yields ‘physical choice’ [shimmer presents opportunities for a reaction through the wave/particle duality] that leads to the working of the universe [‘a single particle could seemingly span a field as would a wave, a paradox still eluding satisfactory explanation’ Wikipedia, Elementary particle]. Life employs a mind/brain to make better choices based on the structure of the probability equation [mathematics of concept/context] in the brain as well as thought [(-1), organization] from the burning of a simple sugar [(1), glucose]. That is the answer to the above, but with a ‘twist’ because Life uses a probability space [(a+b)=1] that is similar to the measuring space [(1+(-1))=0], but allows all concepts a, b to be considered.

Notice that the creation equation exits only if (1) and (-1) are kept apart and this logic requires an expanding universe, which we have [Big Bang], and this expansion produces the dimensions of space-time, energy and organization. The equation also says that everything is relative to something else, with no exceptions, except that ratios naturally become absolutes and they are the conservation of (total) energy/organization [energy/time], constant speed of light [distance/time], dark energy [energy/space] and gravity [energy/separation] and this becomes the principle of relativity in a measuring space [and replaces the present one that the laws of physics are the same in constantly moving frames]. The absolutes produce stability – the first leads to Occam’s razor and the principle of least action, the second to the constant [to the measurer, Michelson-Morley] speed of light, the third to the infill energy/organization [dark energy] to balance the expanding energy/organization of the universe and the fourth to gravity.

The limitations of Newtonian physics have made gravity an enigma for a long time and I believe, it is not an attraction [Newton], not ‘bent’ space that introduced organization and shut down modern physics for a hundred years [Einstein, deflection of a photon by a solar mass], but simply an absolute [energy-organization/distance], where all matter is composed of energy and organization and the doubling effect that Einstein (eventually) found is due to relativity where:

Attraction equals E(1)/d times E(2)/d plus O(1)/d times O(2)/d where E is energy, O is organization and d is the separation of two masses (1) and (2).

This leads to twice the Newtonian value where only energy is considered and is in line with Einstein’s finding. Notice that this is the first time that Newton’s law of gravitation has been derived because Newton used an ‘inspired reasoning’ [Robert Hooke maintained that it was stolen from him] and Einstein used an ‘analogy’. Clearly, this explanation shows that the inverse-square law has nothing to do with it!

We now understand gravity completely in that it’s effect has and will always be constant, it cannot exist except between two objects [relativity], its value depends only on the total amount of energy/organization and the separation and shimmer [from particle to wave] has no effect because two terms are involved as a sum. Also, the equation E=mc2 is misleading because mass and energy are the same thing and the equation is a conversion of the units that we have assigned, but what is not so obvious is that all of energy/mass and all of organization contribute equally [relativity]. It was accepted in Newton’s time that mass had an attraction and in Einstein’s time that energy [photon] had the same attraction, but the fact that organization had an attraction [curved space] and gave the correct experimental answer was a ‘step too far’ and fundamental physics closed down.

This enigma is a result of the short-comings of Newtonian physics, and it is not an enigma when it is realized that energy and organization are ‘two sides of the same coin’ and further, that this complexity is a mathematical physics solution because the first orthogonality [energy/organization] produces a second where, in part, organization gives gravity [organization] and energy [of gravity] through the absolute. To maintain the condition that the universe is expanding [(1) and (-1) kept separate] gravity must be a solution and be non-zero because a zero gravity produces random walk, which, in the limit, is not stable. The “e” in Euler’s equation determines a constantly growing universe [“e” is the driver in compounded interest].

From above, the statement that ‘the absolutes produce stability’ needs expansion, firstly, ‘the absolutes produce stability’ is, of course, true because they define the structure of the universe, secondly, ‘Occam’s razor and the principle of least action’ are an organizational requirement that only the simplest and least energetic response is possible if the organization is to have unique answers. In other words, the universe does measures organization and the measurement requires that the lowest energy be used [first absolute]. Thirdly, the requirement that all of energy/mass, length and time obey the Lorentz contraction together is an organizational requirement in that it is simpler that all change proportionately than to list an order of change.

Fourthly, compare the treatment of organization in Newtonian physics where organization is allowed upon experiment or peer review. The English philosopher, Francis Bacon was correct that physics must be based on experiment because [repeatable] experiment is a truth and we can also use the long-term effects of evolution as truths. ‘The general idea of the importance and possibility of a sceptical methodology makes Bacon the father of the scientific method’. (Wikipedia) For example, ‘in loco parentis’ passes from parent to offspring and not visa versa as the major religions demand. Peer review is a half-truth that is true only for specialist subjects and false for general subjects because specialists think differently to generalists [relativity] plus two truths are violated [relativity, and evolution (the established resist change)]. Notice the ‘thread’ that I am using is not the usual [ancient Greeks to Newton to Einstein to the Snow White effect], but a different successful thread [ancient Greeks to Bacon (experimental truth) to this theory (absolutes, experimental truths and evolutionary truths)]

Fifthly, the principle of relativity, stated above could also be called the principle of orthogonality because they are relative to each other and everything contains elements that are either the same or independent to something else and it is the orthogonals that form the basis of the mathematics of concept/context that is immediately apparent from the probability equation.

Coulomb’s law for charges is similar in form to Newton’ law, and many people must have, like I, wondered about this, and both are, [inappropriately as it turns out] associated with the inverse square law. A simple explanation is to use the fractalness that the neutron [mass] is a special case of energy [photon] and orthogonates to a proton, electron and a neutrino and that Newton’s law describes the mass attraction, whilst Coulomb’s law describes the charge attraction. Obviously they must be equivalent, apart from sign and magnitude.

Consider the orthogonality of the creation equation [shape of everything] and the logic of the half-truth [functioning of everything]. The latter term allows shimmer to present choices in the physical and the same thing happens in our mind/brain when we make a choice. In other words, we compare two orthogonals and rate them and as an example, choosing between two new cars of different colours is an orthogonal choice on colour [because everything else is the same]. This can be seen from the equation of a probability space [(a+b)=1] where a and b can be any concept and “+” can be any correspondence operator [add, logic, truth from experiment, absolute truth], unlike mathematics that is restricted (mainly) to the number line.

The mathematics of concept/context is simply that the mind/brain allocates numbers/feelings ranking the desirability of alternates [a and b] and thus makes a choice. This process could be called ‘democracy’ because it requires interested, active participants to vote their choices to make an accumulated choice and a decision. Notice that we have defined democracy from bottom-up and it shows the shortcomings of our voting system. Clearly, to implement a democracy requires those that are interested [and knowledgeable] to vote referenda of social issues and is the key to promoting the limits that are needed for the planet’s protection and the implementation of Kate Raworth’s ideas. Notice that publicising this process results in a more transparent operation than at present.

Conclusion: this letter is an attempt to ‘anchor’ economics in truths so that it can become not only a science, but a complete science that include the present economics allied to the physical [bottom-up] and recognizing the sideways orthogonalities [creation equation]. I believe that this theory will prevail, eventually, and I cite the importance of the space that is used. Einstein and Bohr’s difference of opinion on the type of space that we inhabit has held up fundamental physics for a hundred years and made it a ‘no go’ zone.

[http://bostonreview.net/science-nature-philosophy-religion/tim-maudlin-defeat-reason]

Both were wrong because the space, above, is a measuring space [physical] and a probability space [mind/brain].

There are some things that may need fixing in the light of the above. Firstly, Kate Raworth mentions problems of organized complexity (p 136), “the universe is messy. It is non-linear, turbulent, and chaotic.’ (p 141) and ‘theirs is one among several promising complexity approaches to understanding the effects of financial markets on the macroeconomy’ (p 147) On the contrary, the universe is a simple place built on the simple creation equation and that makes the space a fractal, which means that everything describes the creation equation and the explanation of Euler’s equation, below, is an example.

Secondly, Kate Raworth bemoans the fact that economics is out-of-date, but that is the result of academia because universities tend to ‘silo’ the departments and smother original research as stated above. The mathematics of concept/context shows that both concept [specialist] and context [generalist] are independent and (literally, in the limit) cannot understand the other. They must work together, literally, and this letter is an attempt by me, and Kate Raworth’s book to show that economics, as well as science in general, needs to get its act together. The reader [as a specialist] has the opposite problem in trying to understand this letter, but the problem of specialist/generalist is as fundamental as the wave/particle duality in quantum mechanics, so get use to it! The probability, I believe, comes about because our mind/brain is based on a probability space and the solution is forced on us that each specialist must consult with a generalist to achieve balance because we live in a measuring space and every measurement requires relativity.

Prediction (due to relativity): to further illustrate the ubiquity of organization I would like to explain the amazing success of the Mona Lisa, and as an example of the interdependency of the disciplines, Euler’s equation, the meaning of which has been an enigma in mathematics for centuries.

Another example of orthogonality in the real world is the painting of Mona Lisa that is small [77 cm x 53 cm (30 “ x 21 “)], but is the most famous painting in the world because, I believe, that Leonardo da Vinci was conversant with mathematical organization [golden triangle, golden rectangle etc.], incorporated them into the paintings and the measurement [by looking] created energy [emotion] in the viewer. The production of emotion is common in art, music, church buildings and services, flags etc. and the more and better the organization inserted by song-writers, authors etc., the greater their success. Thus, the judgement of the worth of a piece of art, architecture or the golden triangle is simply the amount of emotion that it produces in the judges and viewers. This is obvious when pointed out, but important contextually.

The second enigma carries on from the last paragraph, and if the universe is a fractal, everything in it reflects the creation equation and Euler’s equation is no exception. In Euler’s equation [e power i times pi plus 1 = 0] when rearranged and e power 0 replaces 1, the equation becomes an orthogonality equation that could be thought of as a fractal entangled with the creation equation. “Pi” is a circle/sphere operator and logically a mathematical construction like a point or circle could not exist, but the surface of a sphere could exist and that the creation equation only exists if the sphere is expanding [Big Bang]. The “e” is given in elementary textbooks as the growth of money under compound interest and this aptly describes the necessary [constant] expansion of the universe from the creation equation with time and compounding rate [speed of light] as absolutes. The “i” is an unexpected term that makes Euler’s equation so fearsome, and yet it has a logical simplicity as an orthogonality that must be there. The question is often asked ‘what happened before the Big Bang?’. The “i” provides the answer and it must be there to add completeness [relativity] to the equation because the opposite [orthogonality] to the universe is imaginary and if it is to be explored further, it must be a ‘mirror image’ orthogonality through the centre [because everything is relative]. ‘Euler’s formula is ubiquitous in mathematics, physics, and engineering. The physicist Richard Feynman called the equation “our jewel” and “the most remarkable formula in mathematics”.’ (Wikipedia)

Finally, no references are cited because everything can be derived simply from the first principles and the examples given above. However, it is pointless ‘reinventing the wheel’ and most of it will be on my website darrylpenney.com when required.

[Darryl Penney, 20/11/2018, dwpenney2@bigpond.com 0410668511]

Chapter 116: Getting Rid of Enigmas

Energy Organization Entanglement

1. (1) (-1) relativity

Results: the operator “+” may be any that can be thought of: +, and, true etc. because our mind/brain uses a probability space (a+b)=1 that allows all a, b as long as they total 1. I call (1+(-1))=0 the creation equation because it allows two independent quantities to be created from nothing and in the physical sense there are only energy and organization at this level.

2. (1+(-1))=0 logic of the half-truth orthogonality

Results: relativity is the basic, all pervading concept that everything is relative to something else and this shows why, I believe that basic mathematics books show the operators i, e, pi, log etc. as sums of infinite series. In other words, I believe that they show that a concept [i, e, pi, log etc.] must equate to the entanglement with everything in accordance with the general statement of relativity.

The logic of the half-truth is true, false, both true and false at the same time and, whilst it is never true in the physical sense, it is very true in our mind/brain A simple example is that ‘it is not raining today’, but this is (probably) false because it is (probably) raining somewhere. This opens the way to the question of choice and how to choose if we, or any physical thing, shall do something and, of course, the mind/brain evolved for us to make better choices because a measuring space is a ‘choice’ space [+, and, true etc.]. Taking this to its logical conclusion, it could be said that we are ‘the most likely result of an infinity of choices since the universe began’ and this could be the definition of evolution [as a truth].

Whatever we do, Newtonian physics, philosophy and traditional mathematics cannot be ‘done away with’ in any sense [too useful, widespread use, single communication etc.], but must be built into a new general mathematical physics and, at least for the generalist, the present distinctions [physics, philosophy and mathematics] must be ignored. In general, the academic divisions, and especially inside universities [of ‘siloing’ departments] has slowed research for thousands of years. In other words, as I am hoping to prove, and as shown by the creation equation, generalists are as important as specialists and both are needed to progress. Generalists and specialists are orthogonal, independent in their contribution and both are necessary to research. This is hard to contemplate, but, in the limit, the specialist knows everything about nothing and the generalist knows nothing about everything.

3. energy inertia action at a distance

principle of least action

conservation of energy

the Big Bang

relativity

Newtonian physics and traditional mathematics will always be used because they align with the way that we see the world and the mathematics of concept/context should transform philosophy by linking it to the practical. However, there are problems because Newtonian physics is not based on the physical, but is a theory developed in our minds and, now that bottom-up is realized, there are apparent problems. For example, there is no reason given for action at a distance, whereas the theory presented here shows that every point is entangled,

Another enigma carries on from the last paragraph, and if the universe is a fractal, everything in it reflects the creation equation and Euler’s equation is no exception. In Euler’s equation [e power i times pi plus 1 = 0], when rearranged and e power 0 replaces 1, the equation becomes an orthogonality equation that could be thought of as a fractal entangled with the creation equation. “Pi” is a circle/sphere operator and logically a mathematical construction like a point or circle could not exist [infinitely small/thin], but the surface of a sphere could exist [Big Bang] and that the creation equation only exists if the sphere is expanding. The “e” is given in elementary textbooks as the growth of money under compound interest and this aptly describes the necessary [constant] expansion of the universe from the creation equation with time and compounding rate as absolutes. The “i” is an unexpected term that makes Euler’s equation so fearsome, and yet it has a logical simplicity as an orthogonality that must be there. The question is often asked ‘what happened before the Big Bang?’. The “i” provides the answer and it must be there to add completeness [relativity] to the equation because the opposite [orthogonality] to the universe is imaginary and if it is to be explored further, it must be a ‘mirror image’ orthogonality through the centre [because everything is relative]. Euler derived the equation mathematically, so it must be true, but the explanation of its form has not been explained until now.

Firstly, action at a distance is possible in a measuring space because every point in the space is accountable

The above is a taste of bottom-up organization together with the sideways orthogonality that can be combined with traditional top-down science to make a general mathematical physics [that includes philosophy through the mathematics of concept/context]. In other words, general mathematical physics must be of this form because the sideways orthogonality is written in the creation equation and the vertical is marrying the mind/brain [probability space, Newtonian physics] with the organizational physics that describes the universe [measuring space]

The most obvious enigma is the night sky with its myriad of suns that we call stars and we explain them by the enigma of a gigantic explosion of energy that suddenly appeared. It’s a nice creation myth

It would be nice if my derivation of everything, below, was generally accepted by the major aspects of Academia, namely as general mathematical physics by philosophy. mathematics and physics, but acceptance is a slow process. However, what would acceptance mean to the questions bandied about ‘are new universes continually being hived off?, with or without different physical constants. The difference of opinion between Einstein and Bohr of what type of space we live in, that shut down fundamental modern physics

[http://bostonreview.net/science-nature-philosophy-religion/tim-maudlin-defeat-reason]

for a hundred years. Newtonian physics was a theory that Newton knew was incomplete because he studied diffraction and could not account for its effect, but from bottom-up a theory is transformed into a reality that answers every question.

In the beginning there was nothing (0) and it is a property of orthogonality to make two independent things, but entangled [at the origin], such as (1) and (-1) [first fractal] and that forces the second fractal (1+(-1))=0 [this equation I call the creation equation because it yields the form of the universe] and it’s orthogonal is the logic of the half-truth [true, false, both true and false simultaneously] that yields ‘physical choice’ [shimmer presents opportunities for a reaction through the wave/particle duality] that leads to the working of the universe. Life employs a mind/brain to make better choices based on the structure of the probability equation [mathematics of concept/context] in the brain as well as thought [(-1), organization] from the burning of a simple sugar [(1), glucose]. That is the answer to the quotation, above, but with a ‘twist’ because Life uses a probability space [(a+b)=1] that is similar to the measuring space [(1+(-1))=0], but allows all concepts a, b to be considered.

Notice that the creation equation exits only if (1) and (-1) are kept apart and this logic requires an expanding universe, which we have [Big Bang], and this expansion produces the dimensions of space-time, energy and organization. The equation also says that everything is relative to something else, with no exceptions, except that ratios naturally become absolutes and they are the conservation of (total) energy/organization [energy/time], constant speed of light [distance/time], dark energy [energy/space] and gravity [energy/separation] and this becomes the principle of relativity in a measuring space [and replaces the present one that the laws of physics are the same in constantly moving frames]. The absolutes produce stability – the first leads to Occam’s razor and the principle of least action, the second to the constant [to the measurer, Michelson-Morley] speed of light, the third to the infill energy/organization [dark energy] to balance the expanding energy/organization of the universe and the fourth to gravity.

The limitations of Newtonian physics have made gravity an enigma for a long time and I believe, it is not an attraction [Newton], not ‘bent’ space that introduced organization and shut down modern physics for a hundred years [Einstein, deflection of a photon by a solar mass], but simply an absolute [energy-organization/distance], where all matter is composed of energy and organization and the doubling effect that Einstein (eventually) found is due to relativity where:

E(1)/d times E(2)/d plus O(1)/d times O(2)/d where E is energy, O is organization and d is the separation of two masses (1) and (2).

This leads to twice the Newtonian value where only energy is considered and is in line with Einstein’s finding. Notice that this is the first time that Newton’s law of gravitation has been derived because Newton used an ‘inspired guess’ and Einstein used an ‘analogy’. This statement is too simple to be called a derivation, it is a result of relativity and the equation only exist because of relativity.

To the Editor of the Journal of the Australian Mathematical Society

I am writing this letter because your journal has a duty to notify readers, but the establishment is resistant to change and will tend to ignore it [two opposing truths]. This theory is completely new but one example that is well known is Newton’s law of gravitation [inspired guess], corrected by Einstein [by analogy] and is given as a simple derivation, below. This result is usually ascribed to physics, but the derivation is mathematical showing the necessity [and means] of bringing physics and mathematics together. A couple of mathematical enigmas are also linked to physics. The following letter outlines enough to show that the existing philosophy, mathematics, physics etc. are woefully incomplete and how to mend and use them properly.

Mathematics From First Principles – The New Renaissance

Abstract: the mind/brain is considered complex, but viewing it in a new way makes it simple and similar happens when the method is applied to the subject of mathematics where it is found that mathematics and physics are related [orthogonal] and must be brought together via a common truth [creation equation]. A new principle of relativity is derived that defines the basis of the universe and, in particular the properties of gravity and Newton’s law of gravitation, (in its correct form) is immediately apparent from the absolute truths of the creation equation as well as the type of spaces in which Life and the universe exist, the lack of knowledge of which has stalled fundamental modern physics for a century. Traditional mathematics does not change, but its relativity to everything does and it becomes part of a general mathematical physics that must be based on the creation equation. Two examples of enigmas [the series defining the mathematical constants and Euler’s equation] are explained and shown to lie in the (erstwhile) realm of physics.

“I was told by my professor that ‘If the brain were so simple that we could understand it, we would be so simple that we couldn’t.'” (Unthinkable, Helen Thomson, p 264) The reason for this letter is to refute this suggestion that the mind/brain, the universe and (fundamental) science are too complicated to understand, and to show that they only appear complicated because of our lack of understanding and appreciation of organization. The consequence of this lack places our civilization in danger from global warming etc. and stifles evolution, so we need to rewrite science from the bottom-up and combine it with the top-down that we have been using. In particular, traditional mathematics is not ‘the handmaiden of the sciences’, but an intrinsic part of a whole. Newtonian physics has been found wanting and fundamental modern physics has been curtailed for the last century because it does not adequately describe relativity and so, a new approach is needed. Einstein and Bohr’s difference of opinion on the type of space that we inhabit has held up fundamental physics for a hundred years and made it a ‘no go’ zone.

[http://bostonreview.net/science-nature-philosophy-religion/tim-maudlin-defeat-reason]

Both were wrong and this letter will hopefully renew interest, not only to revitalize fundamental physics, but also show how traditional mathematics has common ‘roots’ with physics when ‘adjusted’ fundamentally.

Traditional mathematics has gone to great lengths to define itself as a ‘statement of the mind’ and divorce mathematics from reality, but Life has evolved the mind/brain [(a+b)=1, all a, b] as a probability space, instead of the measuring space [(1+(-1))=0)] that defines the physical universe. In other words, traditional mathematics is relative to the axioms that many books have defined over thousands of years and so they do not align with the relativity of the creation equation [(1+(-1))=0] that, I believe, formed the universe. This is serious because traditional mathematics is used in the real world, so I will derive the universe from bottom-up and that allows me to derive Newton’s law of gravitation for the first time.

In the beginning there was nothing (0) and it is a property of orthogonality to make two independent things, but entangled [at the origin], such as (1) and (-1) [first fractal] and that forces the second fractal (1+(-1))=0 [this equation I call the creation equation because it yields the form of the universe] and it’s orthogonal is the logic of the half-truth [true, false, both true and false simultaneously] that yields ‘physical choice’ [shimmer presents opportunities for a reaction through the wave/particle duality] that leads to the working of the universe. Life employs a mind/brain to make better choices based on the structure of the probability equation [mathematics of concept/context] in the brain as well as thought [(-1), organization] from the burning of a simple sugar [(1), glucose]. That is the answer to the quotation, above, but with a ‘twist’ because Life uses a probability space [(a+b)=1] that is similar to the measuring space [(1+(-1))=0], but allows different concepts a, b to be considered.

Notice that the creation equation exits only if (1) and (-1) are kept apart and this logic requires an expanding universe, which we have [Big Bang], and this expansion produces the dimensions of space-time, energy and organization. The equation also says that everything is relative to something else, with no exceptions, except that ratios naturally become absolutes and they are the conservation of (total) energy/organization [energy/time], constant speed of light [distance/time], dark energy [energy/space] and gravity [energy/separation] and this becomes the principle of relativity [and replaces the present one that the laws of physics are the same in constantly moving frames]. The absolutes produce stability – the first leads to Occam’s razor and the principle of least action, the second to the constant [to the measurer, Michelson-Morley] speed of light, the third to the infill energy/organization [dark energy] to balance the expanding energy/organization of the universe and the fourth to gravity that measures energy.

The limitations of Newtonian physics have made gravity an enigma for a long time and I believe, it is not an attraction [Newton], not ‘bent’ space that introduced organization and shut down modern physics for a hundred years [Einstein, deflection of a photon by a solar mass], but simply an absolute [energy-organization/distance], where all matter is composed of energy and organization and the doubling effect that Einstein (eventually) found is due to relativity where:

E(1)/d times E(2)/d plus O(1)/d times O(2)/d where E is energy, O is organization and d is the separation of two masses (1) and (2).

This leads to twice the Newtonian value where only energy is considered and is in line with Einstein’s finding. Notice that this is the first time that Newton’s law of gravitation has been derived because Newton used an ‘inspired guess’ and Einstein used an ‘analogy’ and this derivation is a result of relativity and the equation only exist because of relativity.

Traditional mathematics grew out of counting sheep using the number line and it is obvious that the number line is (literally) infinitely more complex than the creation equation [(1+(-1))=0] and yet mathematics must be able to be derived from this equation which means that mathematics has unexplored possibilities at its base. In other words, in spite of the multitude of books defining mathematics, it is a fractal and the (simple) generator (1+(-1))=0 has been ignored. Thus, when physics and mathematics use the same base [(1+(-1))=0], they are not the same but orthogonal and entangled. No references are cited because everything can be derived simply from the first principles and the examples given above. However, it is pointless ‘reinventing the wheel’ and most of it will be on my website, when required.

The first enigma is that the concepts of the mathematical constants [pi, e, i etc.] can be expressed as infinite series and this can be explained through the concept of ‘orthogonality’ shown in the orthogonality equation [(1+(-1))=0] where Life uses a variant (a+b)=1 that describes a probability space for all concepts a, b, … as above. The entanglement “+” represents all possibilities, such as plus, minus, and, or, truths derived from experiment, evolution, creation equation etc., and clearly, this shows the restrictions placed on traditional mathematics. Tut, tut, enough said!

The second enigma carries on from the last paragraph, and if the universe is a fractal, everything in it reflects the creation equation and Euler’s equation is no exception. In Euler’s equation [e power i times pi plus 1 = 0] when rearranged and e power 0 replaces 1, the equation becomes an orthogonality equation that could be thought of as a fractal entangled with the creation equation. “Pi” is a circle/sphere operator and logically a mathematical construction like a point or circle could not exist, but the surface of a sphere could exist [Big Bang] and that the creation equation only exists if the sphere is expanding. The “e” is given in elementary textbooks as the growth of money under compound interest and this aptly describes the necessary [constant] expansion of the universe from the creation equation with time and compounding rate as absolutes. The “i” is an unexpected term that makes Euler’s equation so fearsome, and yet it has a logical simplicity as an orthogonality that must be there. The question is often asked ‘what happened before the Big Bang?’. The “i” provides the answer and it must be there to add completeness [relativity] to the equation because the opposite [orthogonality] to the universe is imaginary and if it is to be explored further, it must be a ‘mirror image’ orthogonality through the centre [because everything is relative]. Clearly, the equation should be able to be derived from the creation equation when mathematics is ‘realized’.

Conclusion: the simple message of this letter is that everything is relative. The absolutes are the ‘taming’ of relativity and show that the same basic truths must be used for physics and mathematics. The above is a taste of bottom-up organization together with the sideways orthogonality that can be combined with traditional top-down science to make a general mathematical physics [that includes philosophy through the mathematics of concept/context]. Have fun!

[Darryl Penney, 13/10/2018, dwpenney2@bigpond.com]

Post script: why mathematicians like or find beauty/interest/emotion/energy in mathematics is an oft asked question and ‘have fun!’ is literally true, so as an explanation, I am including the following [“1” is energy, “(-1)” is organization]: another example of orthogonality in the real world is the painting of Mona Lisa that is small [77 cm x 53 cm (30 “ x 21 “)], but is the most famous painting in the world because, I believe, that Leonardo da Vinci was conversant with mathematical organization [golden triangle, golden rectangle etc.], incorporated them into the paintings and the measurement [by looking] created energy [emotion] in the viewer. The production of emotion is common in art, music, church buildings and services, flags etc. and the more and better the organization inserted by song-writers, authors etc., the greater their success. Thus, the judgement of the worth of a piece of art, architecture or the golden triangle is simply the amount of emotion that it produces in the judges and viewers. This is obvious when pointed out, but it proves the point of this letter.

Post post script: it occurred to me that even the concept of momentum is an exercise in relativity and that solves a personal question of what is the momentum that Newtonian physics is built on? Clearly, momentum is not an absolute truth [energy times distance divided by time], but it does work [at low speed] as a basis for physics and Newton’s three laws of motion are all expressions of relativity. The obvious point is that neither traditional mathematics nor Newtonian physics are based on the simplest, nor on the same base, and that the base should be the creation equation.

Chapter 114

Preamble [the necessary context to the concept below]: I am writing this letter because I believe that there are problems in science that need widespread discussion and this has now become possible because of a new definition of relativity. This ‘letter-form’ was chosen to reach as many readers as possible, and especially those that normally ‘throw up their hands in horror’ at words like relativity, quantum gravity, gravity, quarks etc. but these are the areas that show the problems with Newtonian physics. Einstein said (along the lines of) ‘that we should be able to explain the universe so simply that a child could understand it’ and I intend doing just that, but the basic problem is, I believe that Newtonian physics, especially, has been pushed past its limits and needs fixing.

This letter shows that fundamental physics is exceedingly easy when looked at in the correct way, and that there are fundamental differences in the conception of ‘specialists’ and ‘generalists’ as well as [the truth from evolution] that the ‘establishment’ resists change. Thus, ‘peer review’ is deeply flawed and the simplicity of this approach shows that any interested person, such as your readers, can judge the merits of this approach. Nothing is changed, just expanded and mathematics, physics and philosophy are brought into a general mathematical physics based on relativity and everything is made clear through the dimensions and the type of space.

Does anyone seriously believe that there are only four dimensions [space-time]? The answer is that there are more and, I believe, five [energy] and six [organization] but entangled so that they disappear if we are not careful. Newtonian physics is based on energy and its organization is voted upon [peer review] and is kept separate when possible, presumably because organization is dangerous stuff probably because it cannot be measured. Or can it be sufficiently measured? Einstein introduced organization [curved space] into physics, was supported by experiment [photon/solar-mass] and thus created a ‘no-go’ zone in fundamental modern physics for 100 years. The universe measures organization in a very simple way [Occam’s razor, principle of least action] and we can create an expanded physics bottom-up from first principles [organizational physics] and end up showing that mathematics, physics, philosophy etc. are not only all linked together, but are parts of a whole. A special treat will be to have Newton’s law of gravitation ‘drop out’ before ‘our very eyes’ – a feat that neither Newton [‘inspired reasoning’] nor Einstein [analogy] could do, and as a bonus, Coulomb’s law is shown to be a restatement of Newton’s law. More practical to everyday life is how the mind/brain works, how to judge an art show, enjoy dancing, understand classical music and much more. Science really is simple!

Physics From First Principles – The New Renaissance

Abstract: the mind/brain is considered complex, but viewing it in a new way makes it simple and similar happens when the method is applied to the subject of physics. A new principle of relativity is derived that defines the basis of the universe and, in particular, the properties of gravity and Newton’s law of gravitation (in its correct form) is immediately apparent from the absolute truths of the creation equation as well as the type of spaces in which Life and the universe exist, the lack of knowledge of which has stalled fundamental modern physics for a century. For the first time, ever, science is shown to be the orthogonalities of space [mind/physical], organization [up/down] and relativity that brings everything together, and yet does not change the existing experimental results [truths]. Coulomb’s law for charges is simply derived and the inverse square law that is associated with the two laws is shown to be inappropriate and is a combination of relativity and the absolute of gravitational attraction diminishing with separation.

“I was told by my professor that ‘If the brain were so simple that we could understand it, we would be so simple that we couldn’t.'” (Unthinkable, Helen Thomson, p 264) The reason for this letter is to refute this suggestion that the mind/brain, the universe and (fundamental) science are too complicated to understand, and to show that they only appear complicated because of our lack of understanding and appreciation of organization. The consequence of this lack places our civilization in danger from global warming etc. and stifles evolution, so we need to rewrite science from the bottom-up and combine it with the top-down that we have been using. In particular, Newtonian physics has been found wanting and fundamental modern physics has been curtailed for the last century because it doe not adequately describe relativity and so, a new approach is needed. Einstein and Bohr’s difference of opinion on the type of space that we inhabit has held up fundamental physics for a hundred years and made it a ‘no go’ zone.

[http://bostonreview.net/science-nature-philosophy-religion/tim-maudlin-defeat-reason]

Both were wrong and this letter will hopefully renew interest.

Newtonian physics is a top-down ‘guess’ that uses the relativity of the momentum of particles [laws of motion] to create truths on which we can base decisions. Unfortunately, the momentum, on which his laws of motion are based is not an absolute and, as shown below, is at odds with the physical world [relativity]. ‘Peer review’ is supposed to keep the organization of physics ‘pure and correct’ by building one acceptance [by peers] on another and match experiment [a truth]. This system worked and we call it Newtonian physics, but it was found to be inadequate in modern fundamental physics and sensibly, an embargo was placed on research in that area for a hundred years [Snow White effect]. I believe that this letter provides the correct definition of relativity that will allow us to determine absolute truths on which correct decisions can be made.

The problems surfaced with the Michelson-Morley experiment that showed that the measurement of the speed of light gave the same value irrespective of the speed of the observer and this led to Einstein’s theory of relativity and its oddities. These oddities [change in all of mass, length and time] indicate the type of space of the universe and show that it is not a probability space [Bohr], which our mind/brain is based on, not a ‘common sense’ space [Einstein], but a measuring space. The universe is a measuring space because the speed of light must remain constant to any observer, but to investigate the space in which we live, we need to start at the beginning.

In the beginning there was nothing (0) and it is a property of orthogonality to make two independent things, but entangled [at the origin], such as (1) and (-1) [first fractal] and that forces the second fractal (1+(-1))=0 [this equation I call the creation equation because it yields the form of the universe] and it’s orthogonal is the logic of the half-truth [true, false, both true and false simultaneously] that yields ‘physical choice’ [shimmer presents opportunities for a reaction through the wave/particle duality] that leads to the working of the universe [‘a single particle could seemingly span a field as would a wave, a paradox still eluding satisfactory explanation’ Wikipedia, Elementary particle]. Life employs a mind/brain to make better choices based on the structure of the probability equation [mathematics of concept/context] in the brain as well as thought [(-1), organization] from the burning of a simple sugar [(1), glucose]. That is the answer to the quotation, above, but with a ‘twist’ because Life uses a probability space [(a+b)=1] that is similar to the measuring space [(1+(-1))=0], but allows all concepts a, b to be considered.

Notice that the creation equation exits only if (1) and (-1) are kept apart and this logic requires an expanding universe, which we have [Big Bang], and this expansion produces the dimensions of space-time, energy and organization. The equation also says that everything is relative to something else, with no exceptions, except that ratios naturally become absolutes and they are the conservation of (total) energy/organization [energy/time], constant speed of light [distance/time], dark energy [energy/space] and gravity [energy/separation] and this becomes the principle of relativity in a measuring space [and replaces the present one that the laws of physics are the same in constantly moving frames]. The absolutes produce stability – the first leads to Occam’s razor and the principle of least action, the second to the constant [to the measurer, Michelson-Morley] speed of light, the third to the infill energy/organization [dark energy] to balance the expanding energy/organization of the universe and the fourth to gravity.

The limitations of Newtonian physics have made gravity an enigma for a long time and I believe, it is not an attraction [Newton], not ‘bent’ space that introduced organization and shut down modern physics for a hundred years [Einstein, deflection of a photon by a solar mass], but simply an absolute [energy-organization/distance], where all matter is composed of energy and organization and the doubling effect that Einstein (eventually) found is due to relativity where:

Attraction equals E(1)/d times E(2)/d plus O(1)/d times O(2)/d where E is energy, O is organization and d is the separation of two masses (1) and (2).

This leads to twice the Newtonian value where only energy is considered and is in line with Einstein’s finding. Notice that this is the first time that Newton’s law of gravitation has been derived because Newton used an ‘inspired reasoning’ [Robert Hooke maintained that it was stolen from him] and Einstein used an ‘analogy’. Clearly, this explanation shows that the inverse-square law has nothing to do with it!

We now understand gravity completely in that it’s effect has and will always be constant, it cannot exist except between two objects [relativity], its value depends only on the total amount of energy/organization and the separation and shimmer [from particle to wave] has no effect because two terms are involved as a sum. Also, the equation E=mc2 is misleading because mass and energy are the same thing and the equation is a conversion of the units that we have assigned, but what is not so obvious is that all of energy/mass and all of organization contribute equally [relativity]. It was accepted in Newton’s time that mass had an attraction and in Einstein’s time that energy [photon] had the same attraction, but the fact that organization had an attraction [curved space] and gave the correct experimental answer was a ‘step too far’ and fundamental physics closed down.

This enigma is a result of the short-comings of Newtonian physics, and it is not an enigma when it is realized that energy and organization are ‘two sides of the same coin’ and further, that this complexity is a mathematical physics solution because the first orthogonality [energy/organization] produces a second where, in part, organization gives gravity [organization] and energy [of gravity] through the absolute. To maintain the condition that universe is expanding [(1) and (-1) kept separate] gravity must be a solution and be non-zero because a zero gravity produces random walk, which, in the limit, is not stable. The “e” in Euler’s equation determines a constantly growing universe [“e” is the driver in compounded interest].

From above, the statement that ‘the absolutes produce stability’ needs expansion, firstly, ‘the absolutes produce stability’ is, of course, true because they define the structure of the universe, secondly, ‘Occam’s razor and the principle of least action’ are an organizational requirement that only the simplest and least energetic response is possible if the organization is to have unique answers. In other words, the universe does measures organization and the measurement requires that the lowest energy be used [first absolute]. Thirdly, the requirement that all of energy/mass, length and time obey the Lorentz contraction together is an organizational requirement in that it is simpler that all change proportionately than to list an order of change.

Fourthly, compare the treatment of organization in Newtonian physics where organization is allowed upon experiment or peer review. The English philosopher, Francis Bacon was correct that physics must be based on experiment because [repeatable] experiment is a truth and we can also use the long-term effects of evolution as truths. ‘The general idea of the importance and possibility of a sceptical methodology makes Bacon the father of the scientific method’. (Wikipedia) For example, ‘in loco parentis’ passes from parent to offspring and not visa versa as the major religions demand. Peer review is a half-truth that is true only for specialist subjects and false for general subjects because specialists think differently to generalists [relativity] plus two truths are violated [relativity, and evolution (the established resist change)]. Notice the ‘thread’ that I am using is not the usual [ancient Greeks to Newton to Einstein to the Snow White effect], but a different successful thread [ancient Greeks to Bacon (experimental truth) to this theory (absolutes, experimental truths and evolutionary truths)]

Fifthly, the principle of relativity, stated above could also be called the principle of orthogonality because they are relative to each other and everything contains elements that are either the same or independent to something else and it is the orthogonals that form the basis of the mathematics of concept/context that is immediately apparent from the probability equation.

Coulomb’s law for charges is similar in form to Newton’ law, and many must have, like I, wondered about this, and both are, [inappropriately as it turns out] associated with the inverse square law. A simple explanation is to use the fractalness that the neutron [mass] is a special case of energy [photon] and orthogonates to a proton, electron and a neutrino and that Newton’s law describes the mass attraction, whilst Coulomb’s law describes the charge attraction. Obviously they must be equivalent, apart from sign and magnitude. Clearly, the inverse square law is a top down complication of the relativity and the products of the absolute of mass/charge to distance.

Another example of orthogonality in the real world is the painting of Mona Lisa that is small [77 cm x 53 cm (30 “ x 21 “)], but is the most famous painting in the world because, I believe, that Leonardo da Vinci was conversant with mathematical organization [golden triangle, golden rectangle etc.], incorporated them into the paintings and the measurement [by looking] created energy [emotion] in the viewer. The production of emotion is common in art, music, church buildings and services, flags etc. and the more and better the organization inserted by song-writers, authors etc., the greater their success. Thus, the judgement of the worth of a piece of art, architecture or the golden triangle is simply the amount of emotion that it produces in the judges and viewers. This is obvious when pointed out, but important contextually.

Having come this far, I should point out the simple form of the oft sought quantum gravity in physics which is a hyperbola of organization with gravity at one end [between the stars] and the organizational solution of the quarks in the subatomic particles [and why they cannot exist as separate entities] that forms the asymptotes at each end. Quantum gravity is organizational and does not form part of Newtonian physics, so general mathematical physics [this theory] needs to be used. The interrelationship of electric charges and magnetism is another example of organization because electric charges allow the possibility of particles being able to exceed the absolute speed limit and magnetism is, I believe, the organizational measuring device to stop this occurring.

In conclusion, the above is a taste of bottom-up organization together with the sideways orthogonality that can be combined with traditional top-down science to make a general mathematical physics [that includes philosophy through the mathematics of concept/context] and joins the probability with the measuring space. The universe is simple when viewed in the correct manner as shown by the ease with which the (correct) derivation of Newton’s formula for gravity was obtained and that gravity is a necessary condition for an expanding universe. No one could follow Einstein because he introduced organization from top-down, but with this method, gravity is immediately apparent from the absolutes of the dimensions, logic and relativity.

Prediction: I have on occasion read of suggestions that multiple universes are ‘hived-off’ at each instant and that different universes use different physical constants, but the ‘strength’ of this theory is that the absolutes demand that only one type of universe with the same physical constants be generated. This is a major simplification. Also, it can be seen that the universe that is generated is not a probability space, as such, but a measuring space that produces the most likely scenarios – a major simplification to the exactness of a probability space. In effect, the universe is a mathematic, but using the mathematics of concept/context to derive the most likely scenarios.

Finally, no references are cited because everything can be derived simply from the first principles and the examples given above. However, it is pointless ‘reinventing the wheel’ and most of it will be on my website darrylpenney.com when required.

Chapter 110: Modern Physics, Snow White and Choice

By Darryl Penney

Abstract: the fundamental theory of modern physics has not progressed significantly for a hundred years [Snow White’s sleeping] because, I believe, that Einstein introduced organisation [in the form of gravity] into a physics based on energy and forces [including gravity] and no one since has been able to reconcile this [top-down guess], presumably because, if Einstein could not define gravity, who could? The concept of gravity requires a restatement of Newtonian physics derived from a bottom-up derivation and not from the organisationally poor top-down traditional method. By using a simple theoretical construction of the universe, using orthogonality, a simple solution of all forces of attraction [quantum gravity] becomes available as a consequence of the absolutes. The three absolutes, derived from the dimensions, form the basis of the universe. The time has come to dislodge the poisoned apple of Newton’s and Einstein’s physics that has frustrated fundamental physics for a hundred years and embrace a reality that is based on the creation equation [leading to organisational physics] and not armchair musings.

Forward: ‘As the ingenious twentieth-century inventor Buckminster Fuller once said, “You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.” (Doughnut Economics, Kate Raworth, p 4) This statement is not always correct and the basics of the construction of the universe [logic of the half-truth and orthogonality] allow us to construct a general mathematical physics that incorporates the pre-existing Newtonian physics as it stands. This is crucial because the scientific community is the bulwark of modern society and reluctant/resistant to change. However, orthogonality leads into the (new) principle of relativity that requires a specialist and generalist approach. ‘It draws on diverse schools of thought, such as complexity, ecological, feminist, institutional and behavioural economics. They are all rich with insight but there is still a risk that they will remain separate in silos, each school of thought nestled in its own journals, conferences, blogs, textbooks and teaching posts, cultivating its niche critique of last century’s thinking. The real breakthrough lies, of course, in combining what each has to offer’. (p 11) The previous sentence is only part of the solution [sideways context] because there must be the concepts that are orthogonal top-down [existing theories] and the theory of reality [bottom-up] that defines the mathematics of concept/context that is needed to make decisions by assigning values to choices.

Preamble: this might be better understood at a second reading: the first orthogonality is the creation of energy (1) and organisation (-1) from nothing (0) [doublet/triplet], the second orthogonality is firstly, the organisation (1+(-1)=0 that is unstable, unless expanding, as our universe is, and this expansion creates the dimensions of space and time [4 dimensions] and secondly, the total energy is both (1) and (-1) with a dimension of 0 [total], 1 [energy] or 2 [energy and organisation]. The creation equation (1+(-1))=0 is similar to a probability/fractal space and the principle of relativity is that everything is relative to something else, except that the ratios of relatives are absolutes that are simply the conservation of total energy [law of conservation of (total) energy, energy/time], the speed of electromagnetic waves in a vacuum [constant speed of light, length/time] and the increase in energy/organisation per unit of newly created space [dark energy, energy/space].

The creation equation describes the structure of the universe and its orthogonal describes the universe’s operation derived from the logic of the half-truth which orthogonates to true/false/shimmer and chaos. Shimmer is the choice driving the logic of the physical world and presents opportunities for either, and both, energy related and organisational reactions. For example, a photon, I believe, (chapter 94) is nothing more than a shimmer between energy [as a wave] and organisation [as a particle] and the wave allows action at a ‘close’ distance. Action at a ‘long’ distance is the property of a probability/measuring space [a+b=1] that has instantaneous accounting and the generality of a and b allows ‘free-thinking’ that is a product of our mind/brain because both are based on the mathematics of concept/context that is immediately apparent from the equation. Thus, the creation equation [(1+(-1))=0] and the logic of the half-truth are the orthogonals that define the general mathematical physics in a sideways sense and top/down in an organisational sense [Occam’s razor].

The above at least satisfies Einstein’s requirement that ‘all physical theories… ought to lend themselves to so simple a description that even a child could understand them’. (Einstein In His Own Words, Anne Rooney, p 32)

The problem with modern physics reminds me of the fairy tale Snow White, where Einstein, with his huge reputation, is the wicked witch that places physics into a hundred year sleep by presenting theories to physicists that are outstanding, but misleading in context. Einstein (somewhat) anticipated general mathematical physics (chapter 100) by introducing organisation into a physics that is (supposedly) based on energy but doing it from top-down, which has led to odd statements. There are two ways to approach organisation, top-down and bottom-up and in science top-down is little more than guessing. For example, ‘Difficult though it is to comprehend, matter creates at once both space and time’ (p 65) is correct and incorrect [logic of the half-truth] as can be seen when comparing this statement with the above where energy [mass] and organisation are created from nothing with the requirement that the universe that is created must expand and that expansion creates the dimensions that define the universe. The first statement is incomplete and misleading, but partially correct, whereas the second statement leads to the absolutes and a workable universe.

‘The general theory of relativity replaces Newton’s concept of gravity as a force with a completely new analogy. Instead of an attraction between objects, a distortion of the space-time continuum impels one object to move towards another.’ (p 74) Firstly, notice the phrase ‘completely new analogy’, and given the preamble above, surely we can do better than analogies that are possibly based on erroneous ideas. Secondly, I believe that the key to understanding gravity lies in the absolutes above and is an effect derived from the absolutes. The creation equation is only viable/exists if the universe is expanding [as ours is], the third absolute provides the energy [dark energy] to balance the expansion [quantum gravity] and thus the universe expands for this logical [organisational physics] reason, not some Big Bang.

To return to the Snow White analogy, physics has been in a deep sleep for a hundred years and this (may have) occurred because two heavyweights in physics could not agree on the type of universe that we inhabit, Einstein maintained a ‘real’ [our common sense] universe in spite of postulating the results of Michelson-Morley in his special theory of relativity and being the ‘father’ of quantum mechanics, however, ‘Einstein is also the last of the classical physicists in the sense that he never truly accepted quantum theory and its dependence on the concept of probability’. (p 101). That the speed of light is the same to all measurers is enigmatic unless the universe is a measuring space and has an absolute that the speed of energy is constant, as above. In other words, the quantum world (1+(-1))=0 is a measuring/orthogonality space that is similar to a probability space (a+b)=1, but they are obviously not the same in form. A probability space is not an orthogonality space, which forms the basic logic of the universe, and was used to describe quantum mechanics because (presumably) we are familiar with it and it seems to fit, in a top-down sense.

If it is true, as it appears, that scientists have ‘shut down’ discussion of fundamental physics, they have done it for a very good reason, and that reason is, simply, ‘which view is correct?’. The resolution of the argument requires tying one, or both views to an absolute and we know that there are only three absolutes that come into being as the logic that allows the creation equation to exist and that is that the universe must continually expand. The first absolute [that the (total) energy and organisation is constant and zero] produces the logic of Occam’s razor and the principle of least action to provide a unique requirement at all times that (total) energy and organisation are the same at all times [organisational physics].

It would be presumptuous of me to declare either Einstein or Bohr correct, but this division, presumably led to a ban on the development of fundamental physics, even to the extent of forcing people out of career paths.

[http://bostonreview.net/science-nature-philosophy-religion/tim-maudlin-defeat-reason]

I believe that the null space can only be viewed through a fractal/probability space because only that space has the requisite properties [absolutes] to describe the logic and (nearly) everything becomes a probability. One way out of this dilemma is to offer a convincing decision that (from top-down) convinces the scientific community, as Einstein did, see below. This method is not based on absolutes and, though accepted at the time, led science, I believe, ‘up the garden path’.

I believe that we must view our universe as a fractal/probability space and starting with Life, a probability space (a+b)=1 is a measuring space for all a, b [concepts a, b and contexts +, ‘and’] and explains the results obtained by the Michelson-Morley experiment as well as the functioning and organisational structure of the mind/brain: (a) abstract thought, all a, b, (b) the structure of thought [mathematics of concept/context that is obvious from (a+b)=1] and (c) also the construction of the brain. The reason why the brain requires a disproportionate amount of energy from the body is explained further below and it is that the more physical/energy that is burnt, the more logical/organisational thought is generated in the mind and the better that we can cope with our surroundings.

To digress, it is well known that mankind’s brain has increased over the last couple of million years and that the Neanderthal’s brain was bigger than ours. It is possible that the later Cro-Magnon’s [of Europe] brain, as well as other cave-painters around the world had enough mental complexity to allow excessive organisation to become art, social organisation on a larger scale, buildings, sculptures etc. and led to modern mankind that seems to have no trouble with complexity such as computers, telephones, timetables etc.

The Big Bang theory and its onetime rival, the Steady State theory are creation myths rather than scientific principles because there is no rational explanation for their beginning. The creation equation is a legitimate scientific theory because everything in the universe, I believe, can be derived from that equation. The orthogonality [independence with entanglement] that physically (‘+’) and logically (‘and’) separates ‘1’ and ‘-1’ is all around us in the form of buildings (bricks and non-bricks) to create living space, the atom (neutrons forming protons and electrons) to create atoms that create opportunities for building etc. In common terms ‘1’ and ‘-1’ are energy and organisation Newtonian physics is an attempt to describe the workings of the universe in terms of energy and modern physics has carried on the process and has basically ‘ground to a halt’ because energy is only half the story.

The reason that life was able to evolve a mind from the physical creation equation is because they are similar in form [(1+(-1)=0 and a probability space a+b=1], but (1+(-1))=0 is not the same as 1=1 that mathematics would have us believe. As an example, the enigmatic Euler’s equation that links the mathematical constants together is, I believe, an orthogonal equation (see chapter 98), and this is to be expected because everything is orthogonal. Given that the relationship between energy and organisation is so fundamental, the burning of simple sugars [glucose] produces organisation [thinking mind] in the brain and organisation, inherent in music, golden ratio triangle, church services etc. create emotion (chapter 106 and 107). This last sentence derives the mind and emotion from the creation equation together with the three absolutes, above, and these provide, I believe, undeniable proof that the universe is constructed on the creation equation and that choice is provided, physically, by shimmer and for life, by the choices decided by our mind. After all, the only way to define choice is to have something, whether it is us [evolution] or a computer program, act out the alternatives, and considering the use of the mind, only the rational alternatives are considered and this imparts efficiency to survival.

‘In the first years of the 20^th century, physics was in crisis.’ (Einstein: Decoding the Universe, Francoise Balibar, p 30) Two problems are mentioned, firstly, that a fixed ether was needed for the transmission of light and this conflicted with the principle of relativity that the laws of physics were the same in a stationary or constantly moving frame of reference. Notice that the creation equation derives the principle of relativity, above, and replaces the postulate in the last sentence. Secondly, ‘continuity and discontinuity are two totally opposite qualities, a thing cannot be both discontinuous and continuous, or change from a continuous to a discontinuous state.’ (p 36) Einstein demonstrated that the perceived opposition between continuity and discontinuity does not exist, for both light and matter are composed of particles. This was called the quantum hypothesis of light.’ (p 40) Also, ‘he presented a theory of light, called the special theory of relativity, that dispensed with the idea that light must travel through a medium such as an ether’. (p 40)

Unfortunately, these two problems were not answered and ‘history seems to be repeating itself, since physicists today find themselves in nearly the same situation as their predecessors in 1905: facing the need to reconcile two apparently incompatible theories.’ (p 111) All of these problems, including the third, that needs to reconcile quantum mechanics and gravity referred to in the last sentence, are answered simply by the creation equation and the orthogonality that it necessarily contains. A simple thought experiment shows that orthogonality is the perfect building block because from nothing you can create two independent things, that by definition are independent, such as energy/matter, photon/neutron, a neutron produces a proton and electron, bricks and air etc. The proof is all around us.

Firstly, ‘a thing cannot be both discontinuous and continuous, or change from a continuous to a discontinuous state’ is actually a true statement, I believe, because it is a statement of shimmer, above, which is the agent of choice in the physical world. Secondly, light energy is propagated organisationally because of the requirement of an absolute speed [second absolute], and thus answers the question of how energy is propagated without ether in a vacuum. ‘Thrilled as he was at having found even a partial solution to the problems that had plagued physicists of the preceding generation, Einstein could not foresee that this question of the true nature of light – of the “reality” of light quanta – would haunt him all his life.’ (p 45) Clearly, Einstein was using Newtonian physics and forcing everything to be energy, whereas gravity, potential energy, the speed of light etc. are organisational and products of logic [organisational physics].

The true nature of light, as I believe it is, is given in chapter 88 and is a fundamental orthogonality of energy and organisation We could expect that the energy is held in an organised way and this seems to be how the neutron would form, but light, I believe is different because a neutron is a discrete energy and has set properties, whereas light quanta have to be infinitely variable in terms of energy. This raises the questions that define organisational physics and makes it different to physics. If light quanta contain all energies and are continuous, as is required for a reality, then, in what form is energy held, unless the organisation of energy is commensurate with the amount of energy? Energy cannot exist on its own [principle of relativity] and is defined by the two absolutes [first and third], which is the second orthogonality.

Physics is the result of thousands of years of top-down guessing and thus often contains enigmas. One enigma was the requirement of the ether to enable a wave structure, because the ether provided the reserve of energy when the wave became zero, as it does every half-wavelength. Why not consider the same mechanism taken inside the photon and the wave becomes a particle in a progressive shimmer? Organisationally, top-down is a poor way to investigate the unknown compared to bottom-up and thus organisational physics is the way that the universe works and not how we would like it to work. This theory of the quantum energy also provides choice in the shimmer because the quantum is always a wave and a particle at all times [except for infinitely small occasions].

In an expanding universe, as must occur to keep (1+(-1))=0 in existence, energy (1) is expanding and creating an associated potential energy (-1), and so, potential energy is an organisation not an energy, unlike as Newtonian physics teaches us and likewise, gravity is the manifestation of potential energy that is required by the law of conservation of (total) energy. The organisation of the subatomic particles, and in particular the distribution of quarks is the other end of gravity (see chapter 89). It appears that the subatomic organisational solution is not quite perfect and the release of a neutrino in the orthogonality of neutron to a proton and electron presents a problem that appears to be mitigated by the low absorption of the neutrino.

Newton’s force of gravity could be considered to act locally, Einstein’s view of a ‘distortion of the space-time continuum’ is a somewhat-local view, whereas the view that I am offering is a total universe wide interpretation. This latter view allows us to understand that gravity is organisational, orthogonal to energy, but organisation is composed of both energy and organisation and likewise, energy is composed of energy and organisation and it is the level of the fractal splitting that must be considered. The principle of relativity, together with the three absolutes that are derived from the necessary expansion that generate the dimensions [4, 5 or 6] determine the overall structure of the universe, whereas choice is logical [logic of the half-truth] and provides the mechanism of the universe.

Quantum gravity (-1) is simply the organisation that is the first orthogonal with energy (1) and is a hyperbolic function from the unbreakable solution of the quarks to what we call gravity. It is not a force or acceleration [Newton], nor a curvature of space [Einstein], but is the result of the conservation of (total) energy [first absolute] that forces dark energy [third absolute] to be created to balance the increasing organisation of the [necessarily constant (second absolute)] expansion of the universe.

Einstein used the addition of the curvature of space [organisation] to double the effect of Newtonian gravity to give the correct answer for the displacement of light passing a stellar mass. Clearly, from the creation equation, both organisation and energy must have equal effects and so Einstein was correct in his answer, but not correct in his reasoning. ‘Put simply: matter tells space how to curve; space tells matter how to move’ (p 60) is a little simplistic, but it is organisational and gives a reason, if obscure, that the deflection of a photon was twice that given by Newton’s attraction. My interpretation is that space is always simple and the accounting in a measuring space must always follow the law of conservation of (total) energy is zero and that both energy and organisation contribute equally.

The probability equation (a+b)=1 has more to tell us, because the a and b must be orthogonal, both physically and logically, and thus, if we define a, then b needs to be orthogonal and that brings us back to the ‘ban’ on research on fundamental physics. Universities are composed of departments [silos] that are orthogonal to other departments with little, if any, communication between departments, and this system represents the creation equation. Universities are only using the concepts a, b and not the context of ‘+’ and ‘and’, so are not using the mathematics of concept/context. It appears that universities have ‘shot themselves in the foot’ and are not providing the guidance and fundamental research that they should (chapter 102). Break-throughs, as physics has been waiting for, for a hundred years come from ‘lone wolves’ outside of the university system, and I can sight Newton, Einstein, and perhaps myself as being outside of the system at times, and as an example, ‘throughout his life Einstein was a man alone’ (p100)

Back to the fairy story, and it is obvious that physics has to remove the poisoned apple that the genius of Einstein provided with intrusions into quantum gravity that no one could extend, presumably because Newtonian physics is energy based. The universe is a simple place when viewed bottom-up, but full of problems when viewed top-down as has been happening for thousands of years. All disciplines are contained in a general mathematical physics (chapter 101) that contains top/down and sideways orthogonalities and brings everything together. In particular, general mathematical physics is anchored in the creation equation [bottom-up] and traditional mathematical physics is similar to the often used word ‘reality’ that is top-down and un-anchored, so care should be used because it is not unique.

Returning to the disagreement between Einstein and Bohr, the mind is capable of all concepts [a and b of the space (a+b)=1] that may or may not align with the physical universe and a probability/measuring space makes physics more difficult, but it is organisationally imperative that the (total) energy/organisation remain constant to allow the logic of accounting to create [when we measure it] the organisation that we call the universe. Science has to realise that organisation must occur in a proper manner to allow logic to operate and that opinions must be anchored in the absolutes, or a specified relativity. This can perhaps best be explained by the logic of the half-truth that in its most general form [true, false, both true and false at the same time] is a logical nonsense, but can generate shimmer as the agent of physical choice [true, false, shimmer, chaos].

The mind is the agent of Life’s choices and that is instigated by a measurement because there is nothing else in a measuring space. Shimmer physically tries the options of particle and wave, at contact and close by, but the mind operates by concepts [a, b, …] and context [+/and] initiated through measurement of some description [hearing, sight etc.] of the external world.

An alternate choice [true, false] is the question here and this choice can be used at different situations such as the subatomic is probabilistic because we view the happenings through a probability space [organisational physics], but in the macroscopic, out everyday logic suffices. Similarly, relativity exists because it is a requirement of a probability/measurement space that the speed of light is constant, whereas in the null space, the speed is infinite.

Conclusion: ‘Einstein is also the last of the classical physicists in the sense that he never truly accepted quantum theory’. (p 101) This statement, together with the prestige of Einstein, along with the message of the creation equation [that Newtonian physics can not be applied to modern physics and that universities are suffering under the specialist/generalist orthogonality] is (possibly) the reason behind the reluctance of physicists to support argument into fundamental physics, above. How do you judge concept if your context is uncertain? How do you judge concepts without absolutes? These two questions show the lack of relativity inherent in the creation equation, and yet that is what the universities are doing. The question of ‘peer review’ of papers [the blind leading the blind] is responsible for the snow white effect. General mathematical physics is outside of Newtonian physics and outside of common sense, but contains them top-down, and stands alone based on the simplicity of the creation equation and the logic of the half-truth and its structure delineates the various realities that abound and places them in perspective.

I am (somewhat) a generalist and [following the creation equation] this fact has allowed me to ‘flit’ around and link together many areas of science so that they make sense as a whole (to me). The universities will have to change their tactics and actively pursue the generalist approach to improve their performance, but they must realise that there is a world outside of their hierarchy that can add value and must be actively sought as part of the context of life.

The above is a mess/miss-mash of concepts such as probability, gravity, top-down, bottom-up, Newtonian physics etc. and Academia had no option but to suspend discussion on fundamental physics until a simple theory was put in place. This theory will attempt to do that, but it should be realised that this is not a theory, but a ‘truth’ because it is simple, logical, bottom-up and starts at the beginning of everything.

Prediction: The creation equation generates a system where gravity is the orthogonality of the energy that is continually being produced by the system. In other words, gravity is an ‘organisational reflection’ of the energy of the universe. A mathematical probability space [(a+b+c ….)=1] has a similar form to the creation equation, but it is not the same and thus quantum mechanics appears to be probabilistic, but the universe is a measuring space and much different. A measuring space supports the principle of relativity [that everything is relative to something else, including that the absolutes are relative between themselves] and the absolutes impose logic to the organisation in the form of Occam’s razor and principle of least action. This explains two enigmatic experiments, firstly, that the wave equation collapses when a measurement is made, which has nothing to do with probabilities and secondly, the Michelson-Morley experiment where the speed of light is constant to measurers no matter what their motion might be, and again has nothing to do with probabilities. Thus, quantum mechanics is not probabilistic physically [(1+(-1))=0], but appears probabilistic to us because our mind [the measurer] is built on a special case [(a+b)=1] that is supported by the creation equation. Thus neither Einstein nor Bohr was correct and its time to resume fundamental modern physics.

The scientific community uses top-down organisation that is checked and accepted by a vote of peers [peer review]. Clearly, top-down is organisationally primitive and prone to huge organisational errors and general mathematical physics is a sensible fix that combines the thousands of years of research with the mathematics [mathematics of concept/context] and physics [organisational physics] that powers the universe. Thus, I believe that it is time for the universities to remake themselves in accordance with the creation equation.

References: all quotations are fully referenced in the body and earlier chapters can be found on darrylpenney.com or from the author on darryldarryl1@bigpond.com

Chapter 100: The Equation of Everything, a General Mathematical Physics Developed and Used to Resolve ‘How Species Form?’

Chapter 98: The Principle of Relativity, the Creation and Euler’s Equation Explained

Chapter 106: Philosophy and Global Religious Pluralism (draft)

Chapter 107: Filosofy Rewrites Philosophy to Explain Beauty, Music, the Golden Triangle, Emotion etc. and Answers the Gun Control Question and the Riddle of the Mona Lisa

Chapter 88: Inside the Photon, the Law of Conservation of Energy, the Big Whoosh, Our Universe Viewed as a Probability Space, Unifying the Photon with Gravity, the Quark Confinement and the Grand Unified Theory (GUT)

Chapter 89: The Universe as an Orthogonality, the Quark/antiquark Bond, the Universe is Fractal as are the Subatomic Particles, Quantum ChromoDynamics and the Unified Field Theory Simplified, the Role of Quarks, the Three Fundamental Operators and Inside the Nucleus,

Chapter 102: To the Vice-chancellor

Chapter 101: The Spanners of Creation – Concept and Context, Orthogonality and General Mathematical Physics

Chapter 107: Filosofy Rewrites Philosophy to Explain Beauty, Music, the Golden Triangle, Emotion etc. and Answers the Gun Control Question and the Riddle of the Mona Lisa

by Darryl Penney

Abstract: filosofy is a re-writing of philosophy signified by ridding it of the ancient Greek ‘ph’s and defining it as a science based on the creation equation, the logic of the half-truth and the fractal/probability space that spawned our universe and equating it to being within general mathematical physics. Organisation, that is orthogonal to energy, is used to derive a structure of top-down/bottom-up and sideways orthogonalities together with the ability to explain the origin of beauty, music and emotion as well as the expansion of a concept into a series of concepts, as required in a fractal/probability space to define common concepts and an example of its use is the question of Gun Control. Organisation has been unappreciated and this oversight has helped cause the problems that the world is now facing, but now filosofy is a new way of looking at organisation and examples are given of religion deriving energy from organisation, the necessity of religion and governance working together, the examination of the question of Gun Control as a part of evolution and the comparison of the organisational and sociological dangers of implementing controls as shown by comparing Australia and the United States of America.

Philosophy is a theory, whereas filosofy is a ‘truth’ because it is based on an orthogonality of the most basic terms and cannot contain the enigmas that bedevil society and science. Filosofy should provide the answers and the means to effect the survival of the best that is probably the next stage of evolution after survival of the fittest and as an example, an explanation, using the elements of filosofy, of why a small painting called the Mona Lisa is so famous. This well-known example allows a bypass of the universities, that are suffering organisational problems, and (possibly) allows the population in general to understand filosofy, what it can do to organise society and propel us into a new era, as was done two thousand years ago through Christianity.

The world is in trouble, which no one will deny, and I believe that it came about because our knowledge is lacking in organisation and especially the physical organisation of the universe. No one appears to realise that our universe is a fractal/probability space but assumes that it is what we want it to be. Physics is based on energy and votes on what organisation it allows [peer review], mathematics ignores organisation and the Law is all about organisation that has to do with the mind/brain and ignores the physical. Everyone seems to assume that the universe runs as they think that it should and no one asks what the universe really is, so how can they understand it? I believe that the universe is based on orthogonality/relativity and I will put the more complicated concepts in bold type for those readers brave enough to face the ‘counter intuitive’ thoughts and those who think that the universe is built on their logic can ignore those paragraphs, for the moment.

The philosophy that we inherited via the armchair from the ancient Greeks has been replaced with filosofy, an orthogonal/relativity system based on the creation equation and sporting top-down/bottom-up and sideways orthogonalities as well as the up to date mathematics of concept/context and organisational physics that generate the unique answers. The basis of the physical evolution of the universe and of Life presents workable ‘choices’ that are (probably) the best that we can access to change our evolution. The ‘probably’ is included in the last sentence because our universe must be viewed through a fractal/probability space and every concept is the complete set, as far as we can access, of every context.

The first orthogonality is the creation of energy (1) and organisation (-1) from nothing (0) [doublet/triplet], the second orthogonality is firstly, the organisation (1+(-1)=0 that is unstable, unless expanding, as our universe is, and this expansion creates the dimensions of space and time [4 dimensions] and secondly, the total energy is both (1) and (-1) with a dimension of 0 [total], 1 [energy] or 2 [energy and organisation]. The creation equation (1+(-1))=0 is a probability/fractal space and the (new) principle of relativity is that everything is relative to something else, except that the ratios of relatives are absolutes that are simply the conservation of total energy [law of conservation of (total) energy, energy/time], the speed of electromagnetic waves in a vacuum [constant speed of light, length/time] and the increase in energy/organisation per unit of newly created space [dark energy, energy/space].

The creation equation describes the structure of the universe and its orthogonal describes the universe’s operation derived from the logic of the half-truth which orthogonates to true/false/shimmer and chaos. Shimmer is the choice driving the logic of the physical world and presents opportunities for either, and both, energy related and organisational reactions. For example, a photon, I believe, (chapter 94) is nothing more than a shimmer between energy [as a wave] and organisation [as a particle] and the wave allows action at a ‘close’ distance. Action at a ‘long’ distance is the property of a probability/measuring space [a+b=1] that has instantaneous accounting and the generality of a and b allows ‘free-thinking’ that is a product of our mind/brain because both are based on the mathematics of concept/context that is immediately apparent from the equation. Thus, the creation equation [(1+(-1))=0] and the logic of the half-truth are the orthogonals that define the general mathematical physics in a sideways sense and top/down in an organisational sense [Occam’s razor].

The ex – Prime Minister John Howard is also known as ‘Little Johnny Howard’ to (presumably) show the contempt in which he is held by certain members of society because of the decision of his government to (effectively) restrict the access of guns to police and criminals and so leave the populous unarmed and defenceless. Was this decision political opportunism, to the police force’s advantage or was it in the best interests of the country? In the light of the new ‘filosofy’ that is based on the working of the universe [organisational physics] his decision has placed Australia, the country, in peril and has changed its society for the worse.

I have been drawn into this breakdown of society by the disrespect that is becoming prevalent from the younger members in society and because police are not handling it properly. Basically, the problem is that, I believe, we lack an understanding of the philosophy behind organisation and I am putting forward a modern version of philosophy that I call filosofy and I believe that this is justified because present-day philosophers say that the ancient Greeks could understand present-day philosophy. In other words, philosophy has not progressed in the last few thousand years and filosofy is long over-due.

To return to John Howard’s decision, an orthogonality is being created by the limitations of our ability to know everything that has been discovered and thus there is a propensity for many people to become specialists. This limitation is similar to the problems encountered in quantum mechanics where the size of the measuring stick limits the accuracy of the measurement. This specialisation is a fundamental problem that is obvious here, in limiting an overall view, where I am putting the orthogonal bottom-up view to the current top-down view. This allows for a reasoned filosofical argument to be made using an agreed bottom-up starting point and arriving at an agreed result that can be derived by using organisational physics. In other words, John Howard is a lawyer/politician and we have to ask whether he was competent to decide the questions put here, or was he merely pandering to the popular emotional outcry?

The world has seen the children of the United States cry out for gun control in a message that ‘tugs at the heartstrings’, but it is their lack of respect for their classmates that has driven some children to massacre their peers. It is the children’s own fault and the fault of the teachers (in loco parentis) in not controlling and conditioning children as religion, parents and state are supposed to do. Guns in the community engender respect for the individual and form part of the solution in a social religion based on the organisation of the state.

I believe that filosofy is a ‘great step forward’ for philosophy and allows, for the first time, unique answers to be given that all persons can agree with. It also brings up the problem that we have made for ourselves in leaving survival of the fittest [by using farming] for an undefined seeking of a survival of the best. It is thus timely that filosofy is now available firstly, to be used, and secondly, is the probabilistically best answer to the problems facing the world. The problem is to get it accepted in time. To this end, the Gun Control problem is a good place to start because we can use the current situation in the United States and Australia, that now have opposing/orthogonal views and that have been in place for some time so that the effects are becoming apparent. It is presumably wise that the two countries have a defence agreement, but should Australia not ‘pull its weight’?

It is also apparent from the academic silence on gun control that the complexity of the problem thwarts current philosophy and that using filosofy will indicate many current problems with our governance system. The problem is that many problems have been generated by firstly, using top-down organisational methods, secondly, the orthogonality/independence of specialist and generalist, thirdly, the concept being equal to the sum of every concept, which is a basic property of a probability space. This last point says that a probability space [(a+b)=1] has the same form as the creation equation [(1+(-1))=0] and a fractal generates the universe and the Life within it. Fourthly, the question of religion is neatly solved [chapter 106], and so on.

The younger members of the police force seem to do a good hands-on job, but the philosophy of policing as part of governance is lacking because, I believe, the structure of the universe, and in particular, the resultant organisation, has been ignored in their thinking. As above, the universe was defined by the creation equation (1+(-1))=0 and that everything in the universe grew [fractally] from it. This equation is also that of a probability space [(a+b)=1] and that allows us to evolve a mind/brain that can use/consider all concepts [a, b] and context [+, and]. However, just because we can consider all concepts and contexts, we cannot ignore the physical and this top-down/bottom-up orthogonality is crucial to organisation

General mathematical physics uses top-down/bottom-up and sideways orthogonalities to bring traditional mathematics, physics and governance etc. into a single entity based on the construction of the creation equation [(1+(-1))=0]. This requires organisational physics and the mathematics of concept/context that are derived from this equation to be added to the logic that we have decided to use in our (current) thinking. The basic reason that the world is in trouble with over-population, global warming etc. is not surprising because our thinking ignores the organisation that derives from the physical. For example, a hundred years ago, physics was stunned to find that the measurement of the speed of light was independent of the motion of the observer that was measuring it and apparently no one has ventured a reason, until now, above. Similarly, the (traditional) law of conservation of energy is inappropriate. These are examples of how organisational physics differs from traditional physics and why enigmas occur and cause errors in our thinking. The reason lies in the absolutes, above, that are derived from the fundamentals of the instability of the creation equation requiring expansion that creates the orthogonality of the dimensions and the entanglement of the orthogonalities creates the absolutes.

Sideways orthogonality is the result of creating two independent ‘somethings’ out of nothing, such as the brick walls and the no-brick interior of a house. Top-down is like fishing where you drop your line in the water and hope that the fish are hungry, that the bait is acceptable, that the fish is edible etc. versus the bottom-up choice of spear-fishing and selecting what you want without problems. Organisationally, bottom-up gives a unique answer to the problem and provides a ‘power’ that cannot be accessed from top-down. That is why traditional physics that has been studied for thousands of years, was thrown into turmoil when the Michelson-Morley experiment showed that the speed of light is the same to every measurer, and yet the answer is simple, from bottom-up, above.

An enigma in mathematics is that the constants [e, i, pi etc.] can be expressed as infinite series of simple ratios, but this [orthogonality] is to be expected in the fractal/probability space that we use to view the universe and is another view/type of orthogonality and that everything is entangled. It is saying that a concept is the same as the sum of every concept and this is the reason behind Feynman’s histories in quantum mechanics, that only if every possibility is included do we get certainty. This is to be expected in a probability space [such as our universe] because the sum of every point must equal unity and the conservation of (total) energy is an example, as above, even though potential energy [organisation] is continually increasing [in an expanding universe] and balances the dark energy [energy] created per unit of space created by the expansion. This last sentence shows how traditional physics tries to ‘lump’ the independent energy (1) and organisation (-1) into a common ‘energy’. This attempt at simplification goes against the (new) principle of relativity [that everything is relative to something else, except the absolutes], whereas organisational physics includes and answers those irritating concepts that do not seem to ‘fit’ into traditional physics, such as Occam’s razor and the principle of least action [traditional physics is incomplete].

A concept, such as evolution is equivalent to the multitude of contexts created by the fight for life by Life and this is the ‘choice’ that we are able to use in filosofy to determine outcomes because the ‘choice’ becomes a ‘physical reality’ and can be used bottom-up. This view of the universe as possibilities that are probabilities have to be generated by choices and actions and the success/possibility of them happening can only be assessed by their happening. This enables us to ‘condense’ a multitude of contexts that tend to confuse the issue into a concept that is definite and can be studied as to a particular result and to decide if we want that result in a survival of the best [chapter 105]. Similarly, the fractal layering opens up more layers/levels of happenings that we can consider as workable.

Top-down concepts are fraught with possible problems and should be used with care, such as happened to the ancients in considering that the sun revolves around the earth. The decision on which version/model to use becomes apparent as higher fractals are considered and it took closer study and examination to answer the question [Kepler and Newton]. To put it simply, we are looking at an organisation that works in the physical world over a significant time frame to gauge its success and clearly, we should not be using an organisation that is not running successfully to predict the future. In embarking on farming and technology, we have left the steady-state of survival of the fittest and are moving into new organisation without adequate tools and filosofy should provide the ability to extrapolate based on proven successful organisation Our eventual aim is (presumably) to genetically select stable people and provide them with a stable upbringing that can work towards some end that satisfies everyone. This end will probably be no prisons, no wars, stable population, respect for others, maintaining the environment and fisheries etc.

To define filosify: the concept is the top-down traditional philosophy with the orthogonal bottom-up of organisational physics that describes the physics of the universe, together with the sideways orthogonality inherent in the mathematics of concept/context that depends on the creation equation (1+(-1))=0 for the physical and (a+b)=1, that is a probability space for all concepts a and b. and is the basis of the functioning of the mind/brain. The context is the entanglement, as required in a probability space where the value/sum of every particle in the universe remains constant. Each concept must contain one element that is orthogonal/different to every other concept and is equivalent to the sum of every context that defines the concept and the values assigned by the mind/brain to the major contexts define the structure of the concept and lay it open for examination [mathematics of concept/context].

This definition leads to two means of understanding the world around us, firstly, using the logic of the universe [organisational physic] to understand ‘beauty’. In chapter 78, I found that beauty was a ‘resonance’ with the universe, but now, it is obvious that the ‘beauty’ of a Golden triangle is an emotion orthogonal/produced-by the organisation [of the lengths] as defined by the creation equation [energy (+1), organisation (-1)]. Clearly, many other concepts of emotion [energy], such as appreciation of music, appreciation of architecture etc. are generated by the measurement of the organisation inherent in the work. Secondly, the complexity of a concept like the Gun Control problem can be managed by breaking it up into a string of concepts/contexts, as above.

Governance is an orthogonality of government/politicians and judiciary and the police are orthogonal to each. The judiciary should be interested in what I am saying because philosophy and lately, sociology, are basic to the law and derive the jurisprudence that defines law. Filosofy greatly expands jurisprudence and in chapter 105 it was derived that all three orthogonalities must be in agreement [in loco parentis] also that the judiciary contain a stability of tenure, specialist knowledge and the wisdom of age that makes them a steadying and controlling influence [through precedence]. Comparing these attributes to the political system shows the orthogonality and I believe that we are placing far too much trust in the ability of government to rule adequately and in particular, the propensity of countries to form trading and power ‘blocs’ limits the possibility of a real world government.

The ability of filosofy, as a basis for law, arises from an orthogonality that requires the specialist of the law to work with the generalist [of filosofy] acting as a team and this arises from the need for the specialist to have ‘in-depth’ knowledge. It was shown in chapter 106 that religion and government are created orthogonally from the energy of Life [organisation from energy] and a further example is the burning of a simple sugar in the brain to create thought/thinking in the mind. The reverse effect of the creation of emotion/energy in the brain is apparently the reason behind the organisation of religion and the government. ‘It is obvious that the emotions and experiences of men and women are the food on which the other dimensions of religion feed: ritual without feeling is cold, doctrines without awe of compassion are dry, and myths which do not move hearers are feeble…. One of the main reasons why music is so potent in religion is that it has mysterious powers to express and engender emotions’ (The World’s Religions, second edition, Ninian Smart, p 14) These ‘mysterious powers’ are, I believe, the energy/organisation of the creation equation that occurs each time that music is played. That is, that the organisation inherent in the music produces energy/emotion [to the listener] when it is played, and this is similar to the effect that the Golden triangle has [for the mathematician] in appreciating/measuring its mathematical organisation

In other words, from the creation equation (1+(-1))=0, where energy (1) and organisation (-1) are orthogonal, entangled but not equal because they are different things, burning sugar produces energy that creates thought, the energy of Life produces religion, the organisation of religion produces the energy of emotion found in religion, the organisation of music produces emotion and so on. Further, ‘the nation-state has many of the appurtenances of a religion…. rituals… emotional… narrative… doctrines… ethical… social and institutional… Finally, there is of course much material embodiment of the nation in its great buildings and memorials, its flag, its great art, its sacred land, its powerful military hardware.’ (p 24)

Thus, religion and governance are similar and could be considered to be the same. ‘In ancient Greece religion and politics were often combined. At Athens the acropolis was both the fortified heart of the city and the site of its sacred buildings’ (p 206). Also, religion is used as an aid to governance. ‘Emperor Shi Huangdi (Shih Huangti, reigned 221 – 210 B.C.E.), there were greater attractions for a ruler in taking up Confucian thought – partly its traditionalism, which was important in the legitimation of rule; partly its ritualism, which could be taken up into the practices of the central government; and partly for its moralism’ (p 121)

Thus religion and state should work together and further, religion, police, judiciary and government become in loco parentis and that involves what I call an organisational ‘gene’ [orgene] because it is illogical from the (in loco parentis) parent because it actively works against the parents’ interests except that it is necessary for the preservation of the species, which makes child abuse by the clergy etc. and religious terrorism particularly heinous and against nature. [Notice that the penal/judicial system are extending the detention times for these crimes.] We should go further so that religion and state complement each other in loco parentis to present a united front and I will show below, that the inability of religion to actively change is causing problems, such as the massacres occurring at schools in the USA.

Religions have changed in the past, for example, for Christianity, ‘at councils, such as the Council at Nicaea in 324, the more abstract doctrinal formulae of Christian orthodoxy were formulated and affirmed’ (p 258) and for Islam ‘Uthman ordered a fast turnaround on the Holy Book. Memorised revelations would be written down and scattered parchments of scripture would be assembled, all to be distributed as one version of the Koran. The “imperfect” or unofficial copies were to be destroyed’ (The Trouble With Islam, Irshad Manji, p 142) In other words, these major religions and others throughout history changed when needed, but today, both have become ‘solidified’ and unchanging. Another example is the Catholic Church that is opposed to population restriction ‘most American Catholics do not heed Papal pronouncements on birth control’ (The World’s Religions, Ninian Smart, p 396).

Religion evolves over time and its complexity generates its alluring emotion so that it produces a change in peoples’ emotions when attending a religious event, but religions tend to ossify/fundamentalize with the centuries. Many new variants of religion split-off as life and time change and the state should try to compensate with religious instruction and ethical instruction in schools. This teaching is not enough for everybody because organisational physics tells us that only a few offspring make it to adulthood and it is fear of death that engenders respect for living within an organisation Thus, the presence of guns in society produces the respect for people that is the basis of civilisation and it is the fault of governance [in loco parentis] that this respect is not fostered sufficiently.

Technology has changed civilisation, presumably for the better, but the unrestrained population increases have strained resources and eventually a survival of the best must become the over-riding goal. The two concepts of religion and government, considered above, are necessary in setting up a single worldwide religion/government as a move towards a survival of the best for the whole world because firstly, control must be central to be effective (see chapter 106) and secondly, they are very similar in effect, as above. If we consider these to be major concepts in survival of the best, how do the contexts align? The contexts of living in a society operating under survival of the best are not greatly different to those when living under survival of the fittest and both require a ‘respect’ for other people as a model of survival. Respect for physical laws, family relationships, tribal structure, government laws are the aim of religions and organisations and accrue punishments, harm or death if not obeyed.

The above is setting the stage to derive the contexts behind the concept of ‘gun control’, but first, what is gun control? John Howard and his cabinet obviously thought that getting rid of guns through a ‘buy-back’ scheme would increase the safety of the populous However, if a concept is expressible as an array of contexts that add up to unity [probability space], lowering the possibility of interaction of people with a gun, something else must increase to compensate [to remain unity]. Notice that cars/trucks are being used in countries with tighter gun controls. To keep it simple, I have taken only one context in this case, respect, and the more respect shown to others, the less the chance of them becoming upset with co-workers and at school. Thus, guns are part of the state’s teaching of respect [to others] that religion is not teaching adequately. Also, respect [of country] is generated by the defences of the country/population through the widespread possession of guns. Australia is lacking personal guns and consequently, I believe, respect for the country, as evidenced by the number of flags adorning houses in the two countries. In other words, the USA has many household flags flying, possibly because that household can interact with the defence of the country by having guns.

In listing the world’s religions, it is not usual to consider atheism, but as contexts, the list of religions must include it because (arguably) 50% of the world’s population believe in a ‘state religion’ based on the organisation of the state, instead of a recognised religion. Thus, a (arguably) major proportion of the world’s population look to the structure of government and not to religion and governments are falling down in not sufficiently catering/caring in this respect and that contributes to the cause of the massacres that are occurring in the USA.

The reason behind writing this was because I was attacked by a group of (basically) sociopathic New Zealander/Islanders that had been staying in the next unit on mattresses spread around the lounge room, possibly ejected from a house because their garage was full of furniture. The police decided to not take the matter further and refused to give me their names for me to take civil action for damages and further, expected me to accept blame when they parked across my garage and opened my car door to attack me. If they had suspected that I might be armed with a gun, they may have shown more respect and not parked in front of my garage. I was, and still am, disturbed by the thought that the police just wanted it to go away and, I believe that this shows the moral degeneration that has occurred by the lack of guns in vehicles etc.

Thus, it is the responsibility of religion, police, state and teachers to act in loco parentis to the general population and this includes defence, both internally from the sociopaths and externally from other countries and yet, Australia is increasingly being stripped of guns by John Howard’s lead. I believe that this shows that the political side of government is inept because a group of politicians are not the type of people to formulate far-reaching policy and its orthogonal, the judiciary, has not taken the stand that it should in regulating contentious and long-term policy. The orthogonality of government and judiciary means each are equally important and yet entangled and that entanglement is the power of the precedent, where the judiciary can amend or block legislation if it considers it to be unlawful, unconscionable or not in the public interest. The public have access to both paths, via the ballot box, and via the ‘class action’. Further, I believe that the judiciary is more suited to guiding the long-term direction of the country because of the nature, age, educational standard etc. of the judiciary [albeit with a specialist/generalist fix].

The government of the day panders to the wishes of the populous, but the judiciary has the role of securing and maintaining civilisation in all its forms for the populous and I believe that it is ‘falling down on the job’ because of the growing unrecognised orthogonality between the specialist [at law] and the generalist [of everything]. The original concept of democracy in ancient Greece involved only concerned influential philosophers/warriors and is a ‘far cry’ from the vote of the general population today. The judiciary could be an important ‘safeguard’ in John Howard’s attempts to restrict guns that are, I believe, every person’s right to protect themselves and their country. To put it simply, a gunsmith/gun-shop-owner told me not to even consider defence in purchasing a rifle!

The above indicates that conceptually, the more guns in the community, the more respect that people use in their day to day life, but what of a contextual proof? The concept of evolution is equivalent to the contextual interactions of Life, and in particular, survival of the fittest. Survival of the fittest ensures that the sick, stupid, old, incompetent members are eliminated as food for predators, but enough members can defend themselves and are left alone to breed [shown respect]. This is the important point of the shootings in the USA, that they target the children and workers that do not respect them, and this is part of the survival of the best that has occurred naturally. The important word is ‘naturally’, because if we do not apply the organisation, nature will do so, and blaming guns for shootings is misleading.

Conclusion: the creation equation that describes the separation of energy and organisation explains the emotion/energy that is gained by listening to music, looking at monumental buildings, praying in church for the believers of religion and likewise the emotion/energy of nationalistic feelings. Further, that the state organisation and religion are basically the same and have the same ends that are (arguably) the subjugation of the populous by kings/politicians, when they should be looking after the population’s interests [in loco parentis]. This shows that filosofy better describes the philosophy of history and further, shows that concept is equal to and composed of contexts that can be used to unravel complicated concepts, such as Gun Control.

On a personal note, at a Club, for the first time in decades of dancing, a very young ‘lady’ took my chair while the table was unattended and threw my coat onto an adjoining chair. The respect shown by young people appears to be declining, the police are at a loss to combat it and I now fear for my safety. I had to go to court to face charges of improperly housing a rifle when the police told me how to house it and inspected the housing on several occasions over a decade. The case was dismissed with the words that the police sometimes ‘get it wrong’! I refrained from heartily agreeing! My defence was to have been that police, government and judiciary were in loco parentis and had to agree both conceptually [the law] and contextually [the application of the law] (chapter 105).

It has been said that philosophy does not do anything that is useful, and that the useful bits have been hived off, but filosofy is useful and in good working order and is unique in being bottom-up. The court case was dismissed, instead of the good behaviour bond that police told me that I should expect, so, I’m happy that filosofy has had its first win! In fact, the prosecutor [at Batemans Bay Courthouse] presented my case [chapter 105] and the magistrate noted that it was the first time that he had ever heard the prosecution present the defence case! Filosofy is a ‘truth’ because it is the simplest [bottom-up] description of everything and the action of the prosecutor indicates a ‘mature concern’ [in the judiciary] that could be fostered to use filosofy to solve the problem of organising society so that society ‘works’ [survival of the best]. This problem is not difficult, but requires eugenics that has been badly handled in the past. However, it can be handled positively as shown in chapter 54.

Prediction: concepts like ‘respect’ and ‘in loco parentis’, and many other concepts are not just words or man-made laws, but are (literally) representing a string of contexts that Life has shown to comprise a reality through evolutionary processes. In other words, these concepts, like evolution, become ‘truths’ [logic of the half-truth] with definition supplied by physical and Life contexts and can be used to hone choices. In a simple fractal/probability universe [derived from (1+(-1))=0], as is ours’, these ‘organisational words’ have as much validity as the energy of traditional physics because energy is (1) and organisation is (-1) and they are independent yet entangled. This neglect of organisation occurred, I believe, because energy [concept] can be measured exactly, but organisation is a series of contexts and this is shown in the mathematical constants pi, e, i etc. that are infinite series. Just as there has to be an overall general mathematical physics, the ‘concept words’, such as ‘respect’ and ‘in loco parentis’ are part of the English language and the judicial language as well as being part of general mathematical physics, and as such, can be scientifically examined, as I have done.

It should be stressed that prior to deriving the above, I had no opinion on how gun control should be exercised, but I now find that John Howard was wrong and his views dangerous. Further, this example, whilst far-reaching in its importance in deciding gun control, possibly the simplicity [of only using respect in a number of forms, such as personal, flag, country etc.] overshadowed the fact that I used the mathematics of concept/context that weighted my mind’s choice to that single concept [respect] in pursuing the derivation. Finally, all these concepts represent and define the most important concept, namely, survival of the best.

That many offspring are produced and that few are successful is the result of ‘choice’ in survival of the fittest and is the only way that choice in a physical sense can be made. That is, opportunities have to be offered and tested to determine which are viable. In our move from survival of the fittest, we have allowed all choices to exist and, in a normal curve sense, we have allowed more variation to exist and we are reaping the effects. Some young people are killing themselves because of their behaviour in driving cars, binge drinking, taking untested ‘street’ drugs, anti-social behaviour etc. and it is pointless trying to stop a natural process by rules that do not have reality behind them. Children must be taught respect, in all its forms before being allowed into society and this respect should be taught by members of in loco parentis [police, religion, teachers, parents and the organisation behind governance]. Governance evolves just like survival of the fittest [fractal universe], but now filosofy can be used to construct a better form of governance [see chapter 54].

Filosofy is not merely a major addition to philosophy, it redesigns it and is the only complete philosophy because it is bottom-up. The first example describes the source of all emotions as an energy created by organisation, such as beauty in all its forms [Golden triangle, facial forms], music [musical note relationship, harmonics], religious experience [cathedrals], pomp and ceremony [the Royal Family] etc. The second example shows how the USA system with a legal gun in every handbag and pocket will stop crime, and if it does not stop crime, sexual harassment on trains etc. it will make them think twice. If people are incapable of thinking twice, the world is better off without them and jail is the current method, Defence, in all its forms is part of survival of the fittest and guns are necessary until we fully attain a survival of the best and can put them aside.

The Secret of the Mona Lisa

‘The humanists …. had been at work since the mid-1300s searching dusty libraries all over Europe for Latin manuscripts from the almost forgotten Roman past. This Renaissance, or “rebirth”, of the classical past eventually gave its name to the era.’ (Leonardo’s Universe, Bulent Atalay and Keith Wamsley, p 16) We have been swept along with the Renaissance for centuries, but it is not working for us now and the world needs a ‘new rebirth’ and I believe that filosofy can provide the blueprint for a ‘new rebirth’. Philosophy has the reputation of not producing answers and modern physics has been in a ‘coma’ for the last hundred years (chapter 110) and the reason is, I believe that fundamental science is flawed (as above). Filosofy is a rebirth that is applicable to the modern world, but given the entrenchment of scientist’s careers, how likely is it that a change in thinking will occur before our world changes catastrophically?

Filosofy is not a theory as philosophy is, because it is based on the simplest concepts of the creation equation and the logic of the half-truth and is thus a ‘truth’ and can be used to solve humanity’s problems, simply because enigmas do not and cannot exist in its use. Considering the problems with the universities (chapter 102), a faster method of ‘take-up’/acceptance by the general public might be advantageous and considering the reputation of the Mona Lisa painting, explaining that ‘the painting is a universal and enduring statement about the feminine mystique …. It is no wonder that Mona Lisa’s countenance, with the partial smile, has launched more wild speculation than any other work of art.’ (p 211) ‘The subject’s expression, which is frequently described as enigmatic, the monumentality of the composition, the subtle modelling of forms, and the atmospheric illusionism were novel qualities that have contributed to the continuing fascination and study of the work.’ (Wikipedia, Mona Lisa)

I will agree that something is enigmatic in a small 77 cm x 53 cm (30 “ x 21 “) painting that it affects so many people who have no specialised knowledge of painting, but I believe that emotion/energy that is generated each time that the picture is looked-at/measured because it contains organisation that is hidden within the painting in accordance with filosofy, described above. So what is the organisation? It is not just the smile, and I believe that the answer has been recognised for thousands of years, but has not been able to be explained by traditional science and it has remained an enigma and because it could not be understood, it has not become part of general knowledge.

‘Leonardo, who would later in his life collaborate with Luca Pacioli on a mathematical treatise, De Devina Proportione, was familiar with the golden rectangle, as well as with regular and semiregular polyhedral figures that he depicted in rough sketches in his notebooks and presented formally in the treatise. In his unfinished “St. Jerome”, the figure of the ascetic is framed exactly by the superimposed golden rectangle….. he also imbued the portraits of young women, including the “Mona Lisa”, with elements of the mathematics of aesthetics.’ (p 87) So, Leonardo’s trick/discovery was to add organisation to his paintings so that the underlying organisation, when seen/measured by the viewer produced an emotional energy in the viewer.

The following two quotations are from a search of the mathematics of aesthetics on the internet and show the modern interpretation. ‘Mathematical beauty describes the notion that some mathematicians may derive aesthetic pleasure from their work, and from mathematics in general. They express this pleasure by describing mathematics (or, at least, some aspect of mathematics) as beautiful. Mathematicians describe mathematics as an art form or, at a minimum, as a creative activity. Comparisons are often made with music and poetry. (Wikipedia) The second quotation shows that the organisation behind the workings of universe are still not appreciated in modern times. ‘Paul Erdős expressed his views on the ineffability of mathematics when he said, “Why are numbers beautiful? It’s like asking why is Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony beautiful. If you don’t see why, someone can’t tell you. I know numbers are beautiful. If they aren’t beautiful, nothing is”.’ (Wikipedia)

The above does tell why mathematics, music etc. is beautiful and that is because organisation produces emotional energy [the feeling of beauty]. The measurement of organisation, such as Occam’s’ razor, principle of least action, art, music etc. can be measured by the emotional energy that they produce, and that is how elegance is measured [peer review]. However, the total effect, I believe, is the sideways orthogonality of the creation equation and especially the top/down organisational orthogonality that is part of organisational physics. Clearly, this elegance [emotional energy] appears even when the organisation is not realised nor understood by the viewer and is what makes organisational physics different from traditional physics. The inherent organisation in an object can be ‘read’ as the amount of emotional energy that it produces in the viewer regardless of whether we label it art, beauty, elegance, pomp and ceremony etc. and becomes a ‘truth’ because it always exists.

Specialists [universities] and generalists [Wikipedia] are orthogonal and distort the true picture [requiring relativity] as shown by the four quotations above, To add relativity, consider that the first orthogonality of energy/organisation that fractals into all the types of energy that we learn about at school, but there is only one organisation We find it difficult to measure infinite series [such as mathematical constants], so, let us look deeper into the tricks/trade of the great painters. ‘In the 15th century, painters were applying progressively paler colours on receding objects to create a sense of distance. They introduced the techniques of chiaroscuro (meaning “light and dark”), using light and shade subtly along the edges of a form to give it definition, and sfumato (from the Latin root fumus, meaning “smoke”), blurring the edges of distant objects to blend them seamlessly into their surroundings.’ (p 40)

Further, ‘the “Mona Lisa” shares with the “Ginevra de’ Benci” and the “Cecilia Gallerani” some mathematical symmetries and geometric constructions well worth noting….. Was all this all a coincidence for Leonardo – just a manifestation of his painterly eye, as it most likely is in the majority of works through the ages where it appears – or was it a conscious exercise? …. Brunelleschi had developed the principles of one-point perspective early in the 15th century. Leonardo introduced two-point perspective … Towards the close of the 20th century …. Centreline principle, which states that a preponderance of great single-subject portraits a vertical line drawn to bisect the painting passes through (or very close to) one eye of the subject…’ (p 215)

These are the organisational tools for survival of the best art over the centuries and I believe that understanding them will produce a new renaissance based on organisation and this will probably have to come from a general outcry of the public using the internet and bypassing the universities with their internal problems of generalist/specialist. Specialists have a place in society, but an equal part must go to generalists according to the creation equation [notice that equality is required plus Occam’s razor]. This generalist approach of the master painters, sculptors, architects etc. can be seen throughout history, ‘typical of Leonardo. Methods used in one place are applied unexpectedly in another with startling results.’ ( p 136) Filosofy is simple and eliminates the enigmas that have always plagued humanity by simply explaining them and when explained allow us to finally mould humanity humanly using choice (chapter 54).

The message above is the same one that Leonardo promoted “It is important to be curious, and important to explore different intellectual worlds, but it is essential to seek their connections” (p 277) and even today’s universities that are storehouses of knowledge are not powerhouses using that knowledge because connections/context has been unappreciated. The two examples used above [gun control and the Mona Lisa] were quoted for different reasons, but are linked together [entangled] because everything is entangled [orthogonality] and come together as the fractal is reduced until the basic orthogonality is attained [creation equation and shimmer]. Filosofy arises from the simplicity of the universe, contains the top-down philosophy of the last few millennia, the sideways orthogonality of the creation equation and thus is a ‘truth’.

Prediction: firstly, to understand the above requires a change in our thinking from the simple logical progression [B is uniquely derived from A] of traditional mathematics/physics/philosophy to the totally entangled world of organisational physics and this is reflected in the difficulty that I have in completing this paper. Secondly, the above explains why emotion [energy] is such a big and important part of life [derived from organisation], such as a shaman/medicine-man’s headdress, architecture, massed parades, churches, the shows of organised dance personalities and further, the enigmatic industry of women’s cosmetics and makeup. Everything becomes explainable when viewed through this new paradigm.

Thirdly, the gun control example, above, was explained (mainly) in a top-down manner for simplicity and the concept of ‘respect’ was chosen because it is a ‘truth’ and a derivation from the iteration of evolution. However, it should be noted that in evolution [organisational physics] offspring do not respect the parents [in loco parentis] (chapter 105), whereas the major religions do require that the offspring respect the parents. The word ‘respect’, as a ‘truth’, is a relationship between members of society/herd/group and is roughly equivalent to the concept of survival of the fittest, but as Hitler showed, ‘respect’ has an importance that lies at the base of changing survival of the fittest into survival of the best in a manner befitting our maturity and the intellectual maturity that requires organisational physics.

Fourthly, I maintain that there are no enigmas in filosofy because it is based on ‘truths’ and that everything is entangled, and entangled in a simple way that even a child should be able to understand the workings of the universe [Einstein]. Chapter 110 explains that fundamental modern physics was shut down because of a disagreement a hundred years ago between Einstein and Bohr. How does filosofy answer this dispute?

References: all quotations are fully referenced in the body and earlier chapters can be found on darrylpenney.com or from the author on darryldarryl1@bigpond.com

Chapter 102: To the Vice-chancellor

Chapter 78: Love, Beauty, Ecstasy, the Golden Ratio and the Reason that Sexual Selection Works

Chapter 105: The Basis of Jurisprudence

Chapter 54: The Determination Orgene, Selecting the ‘Best’ and a General Solution to ‘Struggle Street’ and the World’s Overpopulation.

Chapter 106: Global Religious Pluralism (draft)

Chapter 110: Modern Physics and Snow White (draft)

Chapter 94: Why Newtonian Physics Needs Choice

Subtitle: Defining Choice Within a ‘New’ Philosophy, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle Resolved, the Physics of Choice Creates Atoms Through the Wave/particle Duality/shimmer, Mind/thought is the Organisational Orthogonality of the Brain’s Energy Consumption, Orthogonality Defines the Dimensions, How the Voting System Effects Housing Affordability and How to Fix It Through Rational Choices

Chapter 106: Philosophy and Global Religious Pluralism

Abstract: the question of bringing together all the gods and religions has proved fruitless to date, but a new approach through an expanded philosophy shows how it can be done. This view puts all religions into a fractal perspective [with evolution] and shows how religions evolved, and that all religions fulfilled their purpose and are merely various views of one supreme being [that defies relativity] at different stages of our development. In other words, God is not only a Trinity [of concepts], but is a summation of all the possible forms [contexts] that have been worshipped throughout evolution. Further, religion, the state organisation, social intercourse, art etc. arose as the energy consumed by our brain rose as our lives became more complicated over evolutionary time.

The question of the generality over time and the specifics of a time [an orthogonality] is an integral part of the historical landscape of civilisation, and, I believe, history increases our understanding of why decisions were made and even more importantly how we can make the proper decisions in the future. I have never been greatly interested in history, but given the simplicity of the creation equation, historical events could/would be motivated in an underlying similar way. This view is especially relevant where enigmas and unexplainable occurrences occur in different countries over the whole world and there does appear to be conclusions that can be drawn using organisational physics and in particular orthogonality. If, as I believe, orthogonality/relativity is so basic to the physical universe, it should be apparent and explain the oddities of civilisation

These oddities are enigmatic as they stand alone, but make sense when taken as a concept converted to all contexts. It is obvious that an organisation is only an organisation if every minute part is entangled and in communication and that is why our universe appears as a probability space [1=(a+b), sum of all concepts] and as concepts are orthogonal, but equal, a concept is equal to the sum of all contexts. This might seem trivial, but it could be thought of as a theorem in the mathematics of concept/context because this explains the current enigma of why the mathematical constants [pi, i, e etc.] can be expressed as infinite series. It also says that a piece of energy [photon, value of energy etc.] can be used in an infinite/all ways and that an organisation can be considered as the sum of all organisations.

From the creation equation [(1+(-1))=0] energy and organisation are necessarily equivalent [but opposite/independent yet entangled and only exist in time if they are kept separate, which means an expanding universe, for simplicity] and we see this in the organisation of leader/governor/king and the hierarchy of citizens of the tribe/city/state that matches the energy of living by the populous It is a strange/enigmatic thought that in the physical world, the organisation of an organism’s body and its necessarily organised way of life provide the energy to give it life and make it Life, and conversely, the brain burns glucose to create the organisation that we call thought [chapter 95].

Thus, it is naturally part of the organisation of the tribe that questions are asked about where the tribe came from and where is it going and these questions are orthogonalities [independent but entangled] of the energy of ‘fighting for existence’. As these questions are orthogonal to the present life of the tribe, they require a statement in the past and in the future and those statements are the ‘creation myth’ where a story of the creation of the tribe comes into being and in the future is ‘where do we go when we die?’.

This makes the creation myth and a religion mandatory because the universe is constructed on orthogonalities and a tribe is part of the universe. I have heard it said that the brain contains a section that generates religion, but it seems far simpler to consider religion to be a function of the space that we live in, through an orthogonality of our presence. This explains the enigma of why every tribe throughout the world has a creation myth that ranges from ‘dream time’ of the Australian aboriginals to the Greek gods of mount Olympus. Further, and in particular, orthogonality explains why we have the modern religions. As the complexity of our lifestyle increases, so does the complexity of the religion. I can cite as a simple progression the stories of the Australian aborigines, the ancient Greeks and modern religions.

This is a bold statement, but, I believe, not a ‘step too far’ because the modern religions of Christianity and Islam are more complex than the families of the Greek gods in that they are orthogonalities of the time, and the concept of religion is the sum of the contexts of each believer and the concept of a universal religion is the sum of the beliefs of every tribe. In fact, the point of this paper it to show that organisation is the sum of all organisations and that they are interchangeable [as a, b, c, …. are interchangeable, but total 1] and allow us to manage organisation

A digression to consider the effects of thought as the function of the mind might be appropriate. It is generally believed that the ‘rise of man’ occurred because his brain became larger, but this statement may not be accurate because the Neanderthal’s brain was thought to be larger than ours and thus his mental capacity should have been greater. ‘Unlike the Neanderthals, the ancestors of modern humans were accomplished artists, as the cave paintings and sculptures of France and Spain show.’ (The Archaeology of the Afterlife, Tony Allan, p 71) ‘Neanderthals underwent a long period of evolutionary divergence over as much as 500,000 years.’ (Discovery!, Brian M. Fagan ed., p 229)

Thus, the Neanderthal brain could be considered to be similar to the brains of our ancestors and different to our brain and that a mutation occurred that increased its energy consumption and organisational efficiency. Given that each neuron in the brain has approximately 10,000 dendrites joining the neurons, which form the memories in the brain, a small increase in efficiency of consuming energy and/or growing dendrites could provide the explanation for the change in mental ability between the Cro-Magnons and Neanderthals

‘The Chauvet Cave, discovered in December 1994 by cavers …. Is one of the most important and remarkable sites of Palaeolithic art…. dated more than 50 times …. between 32,000 and 30,000 years ago …. Their sophisticated nature and elaborate aesthetic shows that during the Upper Palaeolithic, art did not develop in a linear way, as was once believed, but the art of the first European Cro-Magnons – the Aurignacians – had already reached its peak.’ (p 118)

What is this saying? I believe that the mind/brain grew over time to produce the organisation/thought needed to comprehend the organisation of our ancestors’ lives until it reached a level in homo sapiens where the energy consumed [about 20% of the total] produced excess that required expression in art and later in religion, the state etc. The growth of the ‘power of the mind’ is a facet of evolution that is still going on today where our mind is still able to comprehend the massive increase needed to cope with today’s modern world. A countervailing influence is the simplification that I am advocating through the simplified generality of philosophy, physics, mathematics etc.

I hasten to add that I know little about the comparative structure of religion in general, and am a generalist in that regard, however, it is apparent that a more primitive view, that giant snakes created rivers can be compared to the more advanced notions of the family of Greek gods etc. It appears that we prefer our gods to be divine [orthogonal to us] and different to us, but not significantly different that imagining them strains the imagination. I cite the Bible that ‘we are made in God’s image’ or that the Middle Eastern deities are human-like with strange ‘heads/faces’ and/or wings sprouting from their backs.

Also, I find it interesting that there is a need for members of small tribes to move between tribes to prevent in-breeding and that the transferees apparently have no problem believing in a new creation myth at another tribe, so apparently, it is the need to believe in something [orthogonality] and a lesser need for what is believed. ‘A creation myth (or creation story) is a cultural, traditional or religious myth which describes the earliest beginnings of the present world. Creation myths are the most common form of myth, usually developing first in oral traditions, and are found throughout human culture. A creation myth is usually regarded by those who subscribe to it as conveying profound truths, although not necessarily in a historical or literal sense.’ (List of Creation Myths, Wikipedia)

This need for religion and the ability to change the face of religion can be seen when viewing religion over the whole of history. In spite of efforts to keep religion unchanging over the millennia, the above shows that a change can be set in motion when the general populous find a religion more in line with their desire. This is a sweeping statement that will be addressed below, but there is no doubt that religions are constrained [inquisition, Jewish faith] over time and it is welcome news that change can be effected easily, when required. In other words, it is the worshippers that decide whether to believe and support a particular religion.

This ‘sweeping statement’ is only ‘sweeping’ because of the complexity in the number of religions that are ‘hived off’. ‘Estimates of the number of new religions vary, but probably there are about 10,000, spread over such regions as Nigeria, Ghana, central Kenya, Zaire and South Africa’. (The World’s Religions, Second Edition, Ninian Smart, p 546) The growth/change in religion parallels evolution where the species continues and supports variation until a distinct species/religion evolves. This should not be surprising because the universe is based on a simple fractal/probability space produced by the creation equation and the fractalness generates the apparent complexity that we see, but given that evolution is based on survival of the fittest, the same process could apply to religion. All religions, in the limit, accept a creator, even if not expressly stated, and I can say that because the universe had to come into being/creation then God must have invoked the creation equation [(1+(-1))=0]. It is possible that it occurred spontaneously, but no one knows for sure whether God or chance produced the creation.

It is apparent that our civilisation is heading for problems with over-population and yet current religions are ignoring or even seeking more population growth. The basic problem is that we have interfered with survival of the fittest by using agriculture to increase the food supply and have yet to formulate or enact a survival of the best. The concept of survival of the best is simply another word for evolution and we must decide what form the ‘best’ will be, but certainly it must contain population control. Someone, some how, will have to use the mathematics of concepts/context and line up the concepts required for the future, assign a worth to each entanglement and devise a method to achieve their success in the future. Survival of the fittest is the fallback situation. This might appear difficult at first sight, but it can be done in a number of ways and not all of them are abhorrent to modern thought. Survival of the fittest uses the less-fit as a food source, genocides have been with us for millions of years, but a little thought can effect the same ends by other means and in particular, Chapter 54: The Determination Orgene, Selecting the ‘Best’ and a General Solution to ‘Struggle Street’ and the World’s Overpopulation.

Let us take a moment to consider the problem at hand, which is to condense the fractal complication of daily living to its essence using the creation equation and I will be using the up/down and sideways orthogonalities that are the general mathematical physics. This is the generalist’s view and we are pulling together religion and the future of the human race that is in jeopardy through lack of organisation In other words, from the creation equation (1+(-1))=0, where energy (1) and organisation (-1) are orthogonal, entangled but not equal because they are different things, burning sugar produces energy that creates thought [organisation], the energy of Life produces religion [organisation], the organisation of religion produces the energy of emotion found in religion, the organisation of music produces emotion and so on. Further, ‘the nation-state has many of the appurtenances of a religion…. rituals… emotional… narrative… doctrines… ethical… social and institutional… Finally, there is of course much material embodiment of the nation in its great buildings and memorials, its flag, its great art, its sacred land, its powerful military hardware.’ (p 24)

As mentioned above, religion is described as the sum/context of the concepts/terms above [rituals… emotional… narrative… doctrines… ethical… social … institutional and material] and each of these concepts can be expanded into contexts and this can be continued until everything in the universe is considered and taken into account. This statement is exactly the conditions found in a probability space [(a+b+c …)=1], for all a, b, c …, and, we can consider all concepts a, b, c …. because a probability space allows all a, b, c ….

Religion and governance are similar and could be considered to be the same. ‘In ancient Greece religion and politics were often combined. At Athens the acropolis was both the fortified heart of the city and the site of its sacred buildings’ (p 206). Also, religion is used as an aid to governance. ‘Emperor Shi Huangdi (Shih Huangti, reigned 221 – 210 B.C.E.), there were greater attractions for a ruler in taking up Confucian thought – partly its traditionalism, which was important in the legitimation of rule; partly its ritualism, which could be taken up into the practices of the central government; and partly for its moralism’ (p 121)

Thus religion and state should work together and further, religion, police, judiciary and government become in loco parentis and that involves what I call an organisational ‘gene’ [orgene] because it is illogical from the (in loco parentis) parent because it actively works against the parents’ interests except that it is necessary for the preservation of the species, which makes child abuse by the clergy etc. and religious terrorism particularly heinous and against nature. [Notice that the penal/judicial system are extending the detention times for these crimes.] We should go further so that religion and state complement each other in loco parentis to present a united front and I will show below, that the inability of religion to actively change, as against hiving off new religions is causing problems, such as the massacres occurring at schools in the USA.

For example, for Christianity, ‘at councils, such as the Council at Nicaea in 324, the more abstract doctrinal formulae of Christian orthodoxy were formulated and affirmed’ (p 258) and for Islam ‘Uthman ordered a fast turnaround on the Holy Book. Memorised revelations would be written down and scattered parchments of scripture would be assembled, all to be distributed as one version of the Koran. The “imperfect” or unofficial copies were to be destroyed’ (The Trouble With Islam, Irshad Manji, p 142) In other words, these major religions and others throughout history changed when needed, but today, both have become ‘solidified’ and unchanging. Another example is the Catholic Church that is opposed to population restriction and ‘most American Catholics do not heed Papal pronouncements on birth control’ (The World’s Religions, Second Edition, Ninian Smart, p 396).

Religion evolves over time [in a species way that new religions are hived off] and its complexity generates its alluring emotion so that it produces a change in peoples’ emotions by attending a religious event, but religions tend to ossify/fundamentalise as the centuries progress and many new variants of religion split-off as life and time change and the state should try to compensate for this lack of change in religious instruction and ethical instruction in schools. This teaching is not enough for everybody because organisational physics tells us that only a few offspring make it to adulthood and it is fear of death that engenders respect for living within an organisation Thus, the presence of guns in society produces the respect for people that is the basis of civilisation and it is the fault of governance [in loco parentis] that this respect is not fostered sufficiently (see chapter 107).

‘The recovery of Assyrian reliefs, such as this relief from Nimrud which depicts soldiers in the foreground and hanged men in the background, seemed to confirm a biblical image of Assyrian cruelty. These scenes of violence were positioned in audience halls as stark reminders to vassals and allies of the very real penalties for disloyalty.’ (The Middle East, Chief Consultant Dr Stephen Bourke, p 174) The violence of life in the ancient world may have generated an orthogonal religion such as Christianity and later Islam based on love, not violence. Given that the accounts [bible] were written down long after the events happened, it is possible that Christianity was ‘forced’ into its form as an orthogonality to the brutality of the period.

In other words, Christianity and Islam could have been designed in an attempt to change society and inadvertently chose an orthogonality and ‘locked’ (perhaps ‘lucked’) into a fundamental organisational mode that ensured its successful spread. It appears that an orthogonality occurred from hunter-gatherer to agriculture and survival of the fittest was left behind and civilisation progressed without a ‘chosen’ path. The parable of Sodom and Gomorrah suggests that the organisation of civilisation was not going well.

Given the closeness of religion and state, ‘the ancient Jewish tradition of the Temple, before it was destroyed in 70 C.E., was preoccupied with the rituals of sacrifice …. sacrificial rituals are important among Brahmin forms of the Hindu tradition.’ (The World’s Religions, Second edition, Ninian Smart, p 13) Sacrifice of animals may have contributed to the organisation of religion, but human sacrifice took it to a higher level, as seen in South America with children ‘the Ice Maiden had been ritually sacrificed …. the Inca believed that such a sacrifice brought honour on the parents and a blissful afterlife for the victim.’ (Discovery, Ed. Brian M. Fagan, p 101) Major monuments at Teotihuacan were actively rebuilt or enlarged throughout their history and that sacrificial burials were often integrated into the nucleus of the pyramids during construction…. They represent a range of social status, from high ranking dignitaries to the lowest social classes or ethnic groups humiliated with extreme violence during the consecration ceremonies.’ (p 194)

Further, ‘the Scythian’s’ elaborate burial rites …. Grave goods, including magnificent Greek goldware, were placed around the corpse, along with bodies of sacrificial victims, both human and animal.’ (The Archaeology of the Afterlife, Tony Allan, p 132) The earliest burials yet discovered hark back to the Shang dynasty, traditionally dated to the Bronze Age years from 1766 to 1027 BCE…. The killings were on a huge scale. In one case, the bodies of 24 women lined the ramp on one side of a burial pit, and 17 men on the other…. A group of 17 mass graves located close to the burial site yielded 160 decapitated skeletons.’ (p 136) Even the ancient Greeks may have participated because ‘the body in the antechamber turned out to be that of a woman between 25 and 27 years old…. Philip III Arrhidaeus, Alexander’s stepbrother and eventual heir as ruler of Macedon , who died in 317 BCE.’ (p 120)

‘This sacrificial context has generated much scholarly debate.’ (p 199) Clearly, no consensus of opinion exists and I could throw in another reason, and that is the simple reason that it works! The ‘extreme violence’, especially as it could be anticipated, would generate emotional energy that creates an organisation, of some description, around the building, at least at the time. This effect is also noted as ghosts around the site of murdered victims that have not been ‘laid to rest’ and sacrificed children may have affected the rain [organisation of weather by their emotional energy] because everything is entangled in a probability space that, I believe, is our universe.

To return to the problem of bringing all the religions together, the problem is in our minds and is a product of our minds because there are only two things in this universe, namely energy and organisation Our minds are free to roam as they wish [all a, b, c …], but the physical rules are those that were laid down by the creation equation [organisational physics]. Organisation, as the counterpart of energy can be expressed as the sum of all organisations, including individual religions, the monumental works of the state, families and so on. This is similar to ‘Vivekananda’s views were as follows. The Divine exists at two levels. At the higher level it is without qualities; it is not to be described… But at a lower level God has qualities and takes on form: she is Kali or he is Siva or Visnu … or Ramakrishna.’ (The World’s Religions, Second edition, Ninian Smart, p 410)

Given that organisation is the sum of all organisations, that people need to believe in proportion to their energy output, that the belief may take many forms, there is scope to manage the population in ways that contribute to bettering the individuals in that population. Survival of the fittest is a physical solution and in its overall conceptual form is the fallback organisation and if we want to change that system, as we have with technology, a different system must be put into operation and that solution can only come from the application of the mind/brain based on downward requirements of what we need and that is only attainable using the bottom-up physical possibilities that the universe has to offer [organisational physics].

Conclusion: there is nothing difficult in what has been said above, but we have been guilty of only using top-down thinking and mistakes have been made that threaten the planet [global warming, excess population etc.]. It is obvious that thinking [organisation] comes from the burning of sugar in the brain and that the organisation of a tree can be converted to heat/energy when burnt and the basic problem is the inability to recognise this interdependence and that it is the basis of creation.

Our brain had to evolve to use energy to create a mind of sufficient power to produce the organisation of technology and now we have to develop the organisational power to direct technology and that can only come through modifying traditional mathematical physics to a general mathematical physics.

References: all quotations are fully referenced in the body and earlier chapters can be found on darrylpenney.com or from the author on darryldarryl1@bigpond.com

Chapter 95: The Organisation and Software behind the Mind and Abstract Thought

Chapter 54: The Determination Orgene, Selecting the ‘Best’ and a General Solution to ‘Struggle Street’ and the World’s Overpopulation.

Chapter 107: Filosofy Rewrites Philosophy to be Able to Explain Beauty, Music, the Golden Triangle, Emotion etc. and How to Approach the Gun Question