Abstract: I have inserted a bottom-up ‘floor’ under science to place the concepts in context by suggesting that our universe is a probability space and using the dimensions of that space to provide context. Examples are given as to why the universe is predominately matter, not anti-matter, the reason that the speed of light is a constant for all energies, why and how light moves in a vacuum and the logic/quantum/gravity description of our universe suggests that inflation occurred due to a simple relativisation of the dimensions that are related through the Lorentz transformation, provides an explanation of why the universe is expanding at a constant rate, how Feynman’s approach to quantum mechanics was right for the wrong reasons and the suggestion that (a+b)=1 is the fifth dimension and the ‘face of God’ and shows the relativisation that is the mechanics behind the working of the universe. The creation of Dark Energy is a natural process and a large quantity of it may be necessary for the continuance of life and the basic equations are given that determine the how and the why of the Law of Conservation of Energy. It is shown that the principle behind quantum mechanics leads to evolution, business, society etc. Our simple probability space universe has a measurement/entanglement duality and Life has created/evolved a concept/context duality super-world of the mind that uses the mathematics of concepts.

I believe that the Michelson-Morley experiment proves that our universe is a probability space and I have defined the multiverse and found that we are ‘abstractions’ that evolved because we could in this universe and that a probability of existence space always exists between 0 and 1 and from its dimensions (three space, time passing and (a +/and b)=1 for measurement/observers a, b, as an illustration) can be seen the mathematics of concepts. A probability space is the basis of quantum mechanics, that everything is possible, if it is possible, and measurement by an iterative process or mind/brain makes it determinant to the measurer. In other words, a probability space must try all combinations, which means that something must be indeterminate until an iteration or mind/brain forces it to be the thing that the measurer requires. That is the reason that a photon is a wave or particle when we measure it, because our mind/brain interprets the outcome of an experiment in one of those ways, and further (a +/and b)=1 has been used to show that the fifth dimension is both a measurement/entanglement or a concept/context duality depending on the measurer.

 

The fifth dimension (a +/and b)=1) shows that CEM (mathematics of concepts/entanglement/measurement) of measurement/observers a and b must have entanglement and no solution except for one absolute, which, from the Michelson-Morley experiment is the speed of light in vacuo because the space/universe relativises all observers to see it as a constant and a maximum speed for energy (logic is infinitely fast). The reason that all of the dimensions of a frame of reference change (length, time, mass etc.) as the frame approaches the speed of light with respect to the observer’s frame is because Occam’s razor (a simple solution of the mathematics of concepts) suggests that a ‘simple’ solution is more likely, and it is simpler (logically) to relativise all of the dimensions, and this appears to be the case, in that the Lorentz transformation is used in space, mass and time relativity. This simplification will be seen to be basic to the inflation process and the constancy of the speed of light. Notice that everything in the universe is energy in various forms/states and ‘over-arches’ the dimensions and is both part of, and not part of the dimensions.

 

In our probability universe, the creation/destruction of particle pairs is continuous (energy of a vacuum) and they have an infinitely small probability of being 1 (certainty), but being so many, occasionally form a certainty of formation of a new possibility of existence universe (Big Bang). Notice that a particle/anti-particle pair is produced that (should) be complementary/identical and lead to the creation of a matter universe and an anti-matter universe, that are separate, but logically linked, and this simplifies the fact of why we live in a matter universe (whilst the anti-matter universe is distinct), except for any ‘splitting’ forced on matter within this universe. This statement may answer the question, ‘the antimatter content is less than a hundredth of a per cent; otherwise one would see gamma rays resulting from matter-antimatter annihilations. The observed universe consists almost exclusively of matter.’ (the infinite cosmos: questions from the frontiers of cosmology, Joseph Silk, p 117)

 

No energy moves into the new universe, only the logic of certainty of the creation of a probability space and the total energy in all universes is zero, and remains so, as do angular momentum and electric charges, and the speed of propagation of logic/entanglement must be instantaneous in a probability space. ‘Inflationary cosmology justifies, and indeed predicts, that the universe has zero energy, but it also tells us something quite new: the universe began when both its gravitational energy and kinetic energy were arbitrarily close to zero.’ (p 136)

 

As a solid basis, the Michelson-Morley experiment’s relativisation indicates/proves that our universe is a probability space and the relativisation of the dimensions shows the reason why the bizarre effects of relativity are not bizarre at all (also see chapter 71). In other words, the effect of the Michelson-Morley experiment trivialises the reasons behind relativity, and we have reached a point, by using a bottom-up approach, where we can answer many of the ‘whys’ of science and life. When it is realized that our universe is a probability space, the fifth dimension (a +/and b)=1 places concept and context at our disposal and provides the ‘why’ because that is the context of the concept.

 

The sum of the values at every point in a mathematical probability space (always) sum to 1, but it could be 0 (to match the above), which is the sum of the energy, angular momentum, electric charge etc. in our (energy) universe. The universe forms at some temperature, that I will call ‘cold’ and when this space forms, logic/context (of entanglement (a+b)) is instantaneously present, because that is a property of a probability space, leaving the measurement/concepts behind because this energy component moves only at a maximum/absolute speed of light. Remember that everything is ‘cold’ and as the logic/context moves ‘out’ infinitely fast from the ‘point’ of creation another ‘effect’ is taking place.

 

I am putting a ‘floor’ to the Big Bang’ and have to move into the current theory, which is, ‘there are now three pieces of evidence for the Big Bang theory that attest to an origin remote in time and emanating from an incredibly dense and hot state’. (p 106) It is not my aim to challenge the theory, only to add to the understanding, and I will carry the above a little further, remembering that the logic is moving out at t=0. Notice that the Big Bang is a property of the space and, within the constraints of the multiverse is a natural occurrence and quantum mechanics starts ‘testing’/doing-its-job and creates energy (‘free’ energy moves away, by necessity, to form a balancing potential) within the ‘point’ of creation.

 

A digression is necessary because ‘for most practical purposes quantum theory does not hold much relevance for the study of the large-scale structure of the universe because quantum theory applies to the description of nature on microscopic scales.’ (The Grand Design, Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, p 131) This would appear to be the general consensus of opinion, but the principle of relativisation appears to be applicable to all scales because it is a function of the field/space. A simple example will show the independence of scale: the Michelson-Morley experiment shows that relativisation of the (macroscopic) observers occurs when investigating the speed of photons and that it is a product of the dimensions/universe (a+b)=1=(a+c), b=c for observers.

 

Another example is the Feynman method of the solution of the double/single slit experiment with light and a rational explanation based on the dimensions of our universe. ‘In the 1940s Richard Feynman had a startling insight regarding the difference between the quantum and Newtonian worlds…. The pattern we find when we fire molecules with both slits open is not the sum of the patterns we find when we run the experiment twice, once with just one slit open, and once with only the other open. Instead, when both slits are open we find a series of light and dark bands, the latter being regions in which no particle lands.’ (p 74)

 

‘Feynman realized … that particles take every possible path connecting those points. This, Feynman asserted, is what makes quantum physics different from Newtonian physics. The situation at both slits matters because, rather than following a single definite path, particles take every path, and they take them all simultaneously…. Feynman formulated a mathematical expression – the Feynman sum over histories – that reflects this idea and reproduces all the laws of quantum physics. In Feyman’s theory the mathematics and physical picture are different from that of the original formulation of quantum physics, but the predictions are the same.’ (p 75)

 

“In the double slit experiment Feynman’s ideas mean the particles take paths that go through only one slit or only the other; paths that thread through the first slit, back out through the second slit, and then through the first again; paths that visit the restaurant that serves that great curried shrimp ….. It might sound nutty, but for the purposes of most fundamental physics done today … Feynman’s formulation has proved more useful than the original one.’  (p 75)

 

Looking at the fifth dimension CEM (mathematics of concepts/entanglement/measurement it is literally obvious that Feynman’s formulation was correct because entanglement (context) links every point, measurement (concept) is available for every point and provides the probability that is necessary in a probability space all instantaneously. Feynman’s formulation is a mathematics of concepts that links probabilities and entanglement of energy together and in doing so, was necessarily correct, even if he didn’t know why. The simplicity, above, of quantum mechanical probabilities is, to my mind a proof that our universe is a probability space.

 

The question of ‘why?’ needs to arise from the concepts and contexts of the fifth dimension (a+b)=1 and given measurement, entanglement, logic, absolute, lack of absolutes, mathematics of concepts, relativisation etc. it becomes a possibility that (a +/and b)=1 is the ‘face’ of God, as the Churches teach that God knows everything and controls everything and (a+b)=1 is a surprising source of knowledge, and, as mentioned before offers (literally) everything in the ‘theatre’ of space-time. In fact, in human history, all knowledge, that is not space-time, has come (top-down) from the fifth dimension and placing the fifth dimension bottom-up will help solve the social problems that we are facing on this planet, and the reason for this is that science, and I should say, our ‘particular’ brand of science, using mathematics is (fortuitously) aligned with the mathematics of concepts and organization.

 

This last sentence is an example of, what I call, chaos, both correct and not correct at the same time, from the Logic of the Half-truth, below, because it gives the impression that mathematics fortuitously gave us the ‘success’/scope of science/technology, but it is not the limitations of mathematics, it is the organizational ‘strength’ of science, derived from their (fortuitous) use of the organizational method that has led to its power and alludes/leads-into the prediction below. The sentence is both correct and not correct, as it stands and needs more attractors/concepts, and it will be seen that every ‘decision’ must present (and retain) the attractors/concepts used to make that decision so that its relevance can be relied upon, and perhaps improved. It will become apparent that the ‘principle’ of quantum mechanics (for example) leads to evolution, organization, society etc. and the context of that concept is relevance/relativity.

 

As an example of the ‘principle’ of quantum mechanics leading to evolution, organization, society etc., ‘’microbes, fungi, and invertebrates in the soil are constantly busy, either by preying on one another, or consuming organic matter.’ (Trees, Truffles, and Beasts: How Forests Function, Maser, Claridge and Trappe, p 43) This is an example of the concept, but what of the context? ‘Bettongs, potoroos, wallabies, and eucalypts; voles, squirrels, deer, and firs – the first groups is Australian, the second North American. Despite their striking differences and locations on opposites of the Earth, each group interacts with truffles and tree-truffle relationships in much the same way.’ (p 75) This is the context, and further, it is parallel evolution, and becomes a ‘proof’, as much as decisional logic can be a proof.

 

This leads in to our definition of democracy that the majority ‘wins’ (concept) is insufficient unless that group is more knowledgeable on the subject of the vote (context) and this leads to Plato’s ‘democracy’ (chapter 67) and we start to realize that Selection of the Best (mathematics) is flawed and is leading us into Armageddon. We must live in a probability space because questing (concept) within context requires an iteration or mind/brain to decide a decision and act on it and I can only make a prediction that this will result in a general theory of organization.

 

In other words, every concept/measurement must have a logic/context/relativity (duality) with every other concept and that relativity can only be expressed as a probability/possibility and is called quantum-mechanics/probability-space. The super-world, of our minds, builds on this and has made mistakes, just as it has done with the Survival of the Best, and uses a time interval and requires that a particular relativity extend over time, and that is a distortion, and secondly, a decision does not (usually) contain the deriving concept/context so that its relevance can be checked as time passes, except in the case of science, where people are continually trying to re-build science to new (assigned) absolutes (the exception ‘proves’ the rule).

 

Now, from before, a small space has been created and perhaps the creation of energy came as a result of probability-‘testing’ uncertainty by quantum mechanics and Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle that says that energy/time and momentum/position form part of inequalities and inequalities ‘shield’ chaos as mentioned in the Logic of the Half-truth, see later, and in this case, the illogic of measurement is shielded because of the finite measuring devices (photons, speed of light etc.) available to us. In world P, (literally) everything is energy from the Big Bang, so the Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle becomes, for simplicity, energy/time and energy/space, but these are the dimensions and there should be another relationship for symmetry and we find that the energy terms cancel and that space divided by time [speed] is a constant for all energies of a photon.

 

This indicates that for all free energies there is a constant (absolute) speed in vacuo, and the use of the dimensions simplifies and completes the uncertainty relationships into two uncertainties and one certainty/absolute. Furthermore, the concept of energy in world P is meaningless because everything is energy and changing all the time so we have had to use world O terms and that requires a mind/brain.

 

The Law of Conservation of Energy allows negative energy to be created as potential energy to balance any creation of positive energy and the two uncertainty principles were the cause of the start of the Big Bang, then relativisation joined in. ‘One requirement any law of nature must satisfy is that it dictates that the energy of an isolated body surrounded by empty space is positive, which means that one has to do work to assemble the body. That’s because if the energy of an isolated body were negative, it could be created in a state of motion so that its negative energy was exactly balanced by the positive energy due to its motion…. Empty space would therefore be unstable.’ (The Grand Design, Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, p 179).

 

A conceptual difference of (negative) gravity and (positive) ‘other’ energies could be thought of as one and the same (a measurement/logic duality), but independent, as has been shown, so, if the five dimensions are linked together, by a common factor, as above, (the Lorentz transformations), the creation of energy by splitting, relativises space and time and that solves the inflation problem. In other words, the Big Whoosh of energy separation creates time and space through the dimensions of the probability space at a rate that depends on the amount of energy created and should not be restricted by the speed of light, which occurs for ‘constant’ energy transfers. This effect would be natural and in a similar manner, provides the means of travel, I believe, for photons/free-energy, and that means of travel is a logical means, and that answers the puzzle of how a photon moves!

 

I have read that inflation was an increase in space and not an increase in the speed of light, as some writers promote, but using the Lorentz transformation (equally) affecting energy, time and space, it is still a leap of faith (from top-down) and does answer ‘how it occurred’, whereas the above, using the dimensions, including the fifth dimension, tells ‘how and why it occurred’. I believe that this again supports my insistence that our universe is a probability space.

 

It seems strange that a speed should be an absolute in a probability space that has ‘time passing’ as the time dimension and we know that energy must relativise continually. Time interval is world (our) O unit and books have been written over millennia trying to measure it, so looking more closely at energy/distance/time-passing, all are linked by a common relationship of the Lorentz transformation, and it becomes apparent that the speed of electromagnetic radiation is a ratio of the dimensions, not distance travelled divided by a time interval, and I believe that that forms the basis of the absolute speed that is always independent of the energy of the photon and is the ‘why’.

 

‘The puzzle that baffled a previous generation of astronomers, of why the universe should be flat, exactly balanced on the knife-edge between runaway expansion and precipitate collapse. The resolution of that puzzle turned out to be a completely new idea, the idea of inflation.’ (The Universe a Biography, John Gribbin, p 124) The idea/theory of inflation was necessary to explain the data, but the basis and reason why inflation is natural is simply explained above, and results in the relativisation by a common factor (Lorentz, through the requirement of simplicity).

 

An interesting point is that it is commonly considered that the galaxies are moving outward due to the momentum imparted by the Big-Bang/Big-Whoosh, but an alternative explanation is more ‘definitive’, and by that I mean that the outward momentum tells us little and leads to questions, such as ‘is the universe speeding up, remaining constant or slowing down its rate of expansion?’. However, if we use the above, that the dimensions show that the speed of light is constant and that there is no reason that a lower restriction should be placed on the energy of the photons because their motion is a logic of the space and the spread of energy can be infinitesimally small.  In other words, logic produces the motion and there is no limit to how small the quantum can get.

 

This ‘no minimum’ is logically important because there can be no singularity that, as the original photons, from the Big-Bang/Big-Whoosh spread out, and are still doing so at considerably lower energy [cosmological red-shift], they are creating space at a constant rate. This increase in space forces the galaxies to move outward to preserve the Law of Conservation of Energy. In other words, space increases and that forces the other dimensions (and energy) to increase by the same amount [Lorentz factor] and as the speed of electromagnetic radiation is constant, the expansion of the massive galaxies should be constant. However, the other factor, energy has to increase as well, by the same proportion, and, as below, dark energy, as a component of space, might be necessary for balance within the system.

 

This derivation shows that there is more information available using the dimensions, but on the other hand, as we saw with Newton’s world O units, they provided simplicity at a ‘price’, and, as above, another form of simplicity can be seen from the dimensions that I have called the mathematics of concepts. The quotation continues ‘I expect that a resolution of the puzzle of the cosmological constant will also turn out to be something completely new, that nobody has yet imagined’ (p 124) The cosmological constant, for completeness, may turn out be too ‘simple’, as is shown for the gravity/kinetic energy relationships, as given below, and the expansion above, and concepts cannot be simplified without losing logic/context and, for example, dark energy is probably necessary for survival (for at least two reasons) [stability and balance]. In other words, simplicity/exactitude is ‘nice’ and is the ‘reason’ that we invented mathematics, but the ‘real’ world contains the indeterminacy of quantum-mechanics/probability-space and we have to accept that any simplification of logic invites a singularity. The logic of a probability space must be instantaneous, but we can approximate using the mathematics of concepts because the super-world of the mind is not a probability space, although it is based on a probability space, reality and evolution.

 

In a probability space P, the value at any point is indeterminate until measured, but when measured, that point becomes determinate [to the measurer at that time] because the possibility/probability is known (at that point), whilst the super-world O is different and it is different because it contains our reality, and our reality is that we, or more precisely, Life has survived with that reality. World O units are space-time, where time is an interval, and that interval is essential to work out speed because we need to keep a ‘buffer zone’ between ourselves and a predator. We use to have to (literally) run into something for a predator/prey situation to occur, but in the Cambrian, we evolved lensed eyes and an enlarged mind/brain developed/evolved the sixth dimension of forward-planning that is vital in these situations.

 

The basis of the sixth dimension (forward-planning) is the Mathematics-of-the-Mind/mathematics-of-concepts and we have limited entanglement (limited to our reality, what we know and what we have learned from other organisms) and not universal entanglement as in a probability space. For example, we have a common reality with everything around us that we can experience, and a separate reality in the immune system for bacteria etc. that we cannot see/feel.

 

To repeat, I believe that the Big Bang or perhaps more accurately, a Big Whoosh, was a runaway creation or splitting of nothing into a positive part and a negative part of (only) the energy concepts over a very small period of time and I will quote, and compare to ‘the universe begins to expand at an exponential rate. Indeed, the universe continued to expand exponentially as long as the inflation field was the dominant source of energy density. This phase of inflation began when the universe was about 10x-36 seconds old. This energy eventually decays away (by design) and inflation ends by about 10x-35 seconds. This enormous kinetic energy turns into heat, and we are now again in the conventional hot Big Bang phase, initially dominated by radiation and relativistic particles.’ (The Infinite Cosmos, Joseph Silk, p 116) This quotation, according to the above, is a little strange, as there is no ‘inflation field’, only creation of space/time in a perfectly natural way by the creation of energy (balanced by potential energy) and this depends on the rate of creation of energy and ‘exponential’ is not an apt term. Inflation could be thought of as a ‘normal curve’ and slowed when energy creation slowed, but it is a natural process whenever energy is created (not transferred). Also, the momentum of the galaxies is due to the creation of space.

 

This opens the thought (again) that quantum mechanics is thought of as a factor of the very small, but if we consider the measurement/logic of quantum mechanics, it is the same as the concept/context of evolution (or business, or society etc.), and it is the ‘questing’ that lies behind each that is the basic principle, and I have said before that it is simpler/more-probable to have one principle than two (Occam’s razor) and thus the same principle lies behind organizations of all types. The ‘inflation field’, above, is not something that applies between 10x-36 and 10x-35 seconds to explain the effects of the Big-Bang/Big-Whoosh, I believe that relativisation is also quantum mechanical, universe-wide, maintains the conservation of energy and allows/makes photons move because logically they have to move (kinetic energy) and conceptually/measurementally, energy creates space/time, and thus creates a constant speed, as above.

 

The Big-Bang/Big-Whoosh is a natural outcome of relativisation acting with the licence of quantum mechanics to explore possibilities, and this answers some of the question, ‘why and how the Big Bang occurred!’, but we again/always run into the multiverse question that if the Big Bang wasn’t big enough, there would not be a big enough universe and we wouldn’t be here. In fact, we are here because we can be here and make a living out of being here and the Life around us answers the question of whether this particular universe can support life. However, the simplicity of the ratio of the dimensions suggests that the speed of light might be a ‘true’ absolute in every universe.

 

This leads to another digression, ‘at the same time, in science we have to be particularly cautious about “why” questions. When we ask, ‘Why?’ we usually mean “How?” …. “Why” implicitly suggests purpose, and when we try to understand the solar system in scientific terms, we do not generally ascribe purpose to it. (a universe from nothing, Lawrence M. Krauss, p143) However, the above does ‘ascribe purpose’ because a probability of existence space does just that! It ‘ascribes purpose/probability’ and only ‘actors’ such as we, can answer the questions of logic, and logic is part of a probability space, and in particular, a super-world O. It would be a poor probability space that doesn’t examine every possible possibility and this leads to the ‘why’ of quantum mechanics because ‘as long as no one is watching, anything goes’ (a universe from nothing, Lawrence M. Krauss, p 153) This is the contextual ‘proof’ to the Michelson-Morley’s conceptual proof that we live in a probability of existence universe with the possibility of change and Life evolved through making changes (Theory of Everything).

 

A (simple mathematical) probability space answers the question ‘what is the probability of something (singular) happening at each point (measurement, a and b), and entanglement ((a+b)=1)?’. Our super-world O is not a simple mathematical probability space and I have wondered many times about measurement/entanglement, singular, as above, and concept/context as the ‘plural’/mathematics-of-concepts and this jibes/agrees with the description of the fifth dimension CEM (mathematics of concepts/entanglement/measurement) and that there is an ‘intermingling’ of two distinct ‘worlds’ (O and P).

 

In other words, I wondered whether the three parts of CEM were necessary, and I now realize that ‘yes’, they are necessary because the mathematics of concepts is a ‘plural’/more-complicated use of the probability space and requires not just a measurement at each point, but the measurement of concepts at each point, and requires a mind-brain to formulate/’hold’ those concepts in a new space that is far more than a simple mathematical probability space. Iteration is the measurement process in a simple probability space. It will be shown in the future that the terms ‘one-dimensional’ and ‘two-dimensional’ can be used.

 

Again, in other words, just as the cells of organisms are limited in size by the strength (and that evolution cannot ‘go back’ (Rule of Life)) of the cellular membrane, they entered into an agreement to become multi-cellular organisms (placebo/nocebo contract) to produce an iteration-producing mind/brain where the mind is a new ‘space’/concept where the context is the mathematics of concepts. This makes sense (to me) because for years I called the mathematics of concepts, the Mathematics of the Mind and derived it, not from the dimensions, but by using the Logic of the Half-truth (true, false, true some of the time and false the rest of the time and true and false at the same time) to isolate chaos. Once I examined the fifth dimension, I could ‘see’/recognise the mathematics of concepts within (a +/and b)=1.

 

When humans took control (Survival of the Best (mathematics (a special case of the mathematics of concepts)), 10,000 years ago, they lost reality [we are still moving to a new reality] and we now find that the world is heading for Armageddon and, I believe, requires Survival of the Best (mathematics of concepts) to be able to ‘(hopefully) fix it’. This sequence is the Theory of Everything and shows the progression of the logic-of-repetition/mind-brain/consciousness/ mathematics/mathematics-of-concepts and each stage becomes part of the evolution of the bio-computer/evolution. This answers the question ‘why are we here?’ and that answer is (1) that we can evolve out of the multiverse, and (2) that we evolved through iteration to the mind/brain because we could, and we have done just that, but (3) we (life and the predator/prey situation) set up our own sixth dimension of forward planning and evolved a super-world (O).

 

We can ‘slide’ the fifth dimension under science as a bottom-up context because science has been discovered and reported in a top-down manner, mainly because, I believe, we think that we exist. A simple example was the thought that the sun rotated around the earth, and was found to be wrong, and a current one is that we actually exist because it is ‘obvious’ that we exist (I think, therefore I am). In a universe that ‘exists’, or that we think exists, the Michelson-Morley experiment would create an enigma and yet that enigma is the principal postulate of the Special Theory of Relativity and people tolerate that postulate! Taking this to its logical conclusion, both the Special Theory of Relativity and Fynman’s view of quantum mechanics are regularly used, but are based on ‘crazy stuff’ unless our universe is viewed/acknowledged as a probability space containing a super-probability-world O.

 

The world has got itself into an Armageddon situation by using concepts without (sufficient) context being applied and not assigning absolutes in the ‘best’ way, and our world is starting to appear as a closed system that cannot absorb our excesses and we are being forced to find a better way. In other words, we evolved with Survival of the Fittest, used Survival of the Best (mathematics) to bring on Armageddon and we need to use the absolute (setting limits) of Survival of the Best (mathematics of concepts) to help get out of it. Note that an absolute (from dimension five) must be set (Plato’s problem) to give us a ‘target’ through forward-planning (sixth dimension) to try to avert Armageddon. Science does this, but politics does not. This abrupt change from cosmology to politics etc. is possible because, as above, I am using the dimensions and they, literally, define (and include) everything.

 

The above paragraph demands a prediction, and it is, that all of the above, based on the dimensions will allow us to define a general-form/science-of-organization, based on the mathematics of concepts, that we can apply, as suggested above, that will be able to solve the world’s problems, and if we so wish, stabilise population and put evolution ‘back on track’. That is the ‘how’/concept and the answer to the ‘how’/context is that all organizations/systems are based on the dimensions of the space that contains them, and we are using the most fundamental dimensions. The ‘why’ is, if we don’t set absolutes, and adhere to them, chaos will/is-coming in the form of global warming, over-population etc.

 

It has just been announced that two research establishments recorded the ‘gravity waves’ from the collision/coalescence of two black holes over a billion years ago and they concluded that transmission occurred at the speed of light. This ‘gravity wave’ is a change in the gravity energy, as recorded in the ‘concept/measurement’ equation (below) that is propagated at the speed of light and supports the above derivations. The much more interesting conjecture of the ‘context/logic’ equation (below) and its effect on the conservation of energy came and went (instantaneously) over a billion years ago. I will repeat that science is satisfied to discover the ‘gravity wave energy’, and being an energy, travels at the speed of light and have ignored the logic of gravity.

 

Dark energy is a property of ‘space’, and so, ‘our suggestion of a flat universe, 70 percent of the energy of which should be contained in empty space. Recall that such energy would produce a cosmological constant, leading to a repulsive force that would then exist throughout all space and that would dominate the expansion of the universe, causing its expansion to speed up, not slow down.’ (a universe from nothing, Lawrence M. Krauss, p 80) As above, this may be a little simplistic/strange because the ‘driver’ is not the dark energy, but is a product of space and needed for balancing energy.

 

‘Because the cosmological constant is a property of space itself, the amount of this kind of dark energy in every cubic centimetre of space stays the same as the universe expands, whereas the density of matter (light and dark) goes down as the universe expands.’ The Universe: a biography, John Gribbin, p 118) ‘It is mostly dark energy that holds the universe together today; but, seemingly paradoxically, if the acceleration of the expansion continues, it is also dark energy that will ultimately blow the universe apart.’ (p 123) Again, I cannot agree.

 

Bearing in mind that all (or a workable amount of) energy has a gravity/logic component and I am assuming that relativisation is controlled by the conservation of energy that must remain constant (at zero), it means that there has to be continual adjustments to the total energy and that can be done through changing the energy of the photons (Pound-Rebka). However, a much larger ‘sink’ of energy is available through the dark energy (70%) and that would serve as a more ‘secure’ organizational-choice/requirement because there could be abrupt changes to the energy of light that may lead to the extinction of life, especially when bacteria evolved in a reducing atmosphere and their ability to repair damage caused by high energy light/particles to DNA is still with us today. The multiverse and the size of this factor suggest that a much larger dark matter sink would be preferable/probable/necessary.

 

Conclusion: our universe is a natural progression of a particular (out of the multiverse) probability space defined by space-time and (a+b)=1 that defines/evolved the mathematics of concepts (when life evolved), shows the duality of measurement/logic and concept/context (in the universe and in the super-world O) and the lack of an absolute except for the speed of light that relativises the dimensions as a particle approaches that speed, and also for the conservation of energy etc. In other words, relativisation and inflation are the same thing and going on around us continually as energy creates time and space in order to prevent a logical and physical singularity. The Theory of Everything describes everything in the universe as context/concept of energy (from our point of view, relativity) that formed from space in the Big-Bang/Big-Whoosh and its context marries the concept of Conservation of Energy, which is:

 

Concept/measurement: 0 = kinetic (energy)+ gravity (energy) + mass + dark matter + dark energy + photon energy + chemical etc. acting at the speed of photons in vacuo as a maximum.

 

Context/logic: 0 = kinetic + gravity (logic) + mass + dark matter + dark energy + photon energy + chemical etc. acting at an infinite speed.

 

where gravity is always negative and all the other energies are positive.

 

The logic of gravity ‘flashes’ around keeping track of the logic components of all the states of energy and relativises them. However, in practice we simplify and we make mistakes by not taking enough terms into consideration (the opposite of the aim of mathematics/physics) and that is leading the world into Armageddon. I have addressed Plato’s problem of defining an absolute previously and, hopefully, the ideas above show how necessary is the mathematics of concepts to the social sciences.

 

References: (1) this chapter (72) follows and adds to chapter (71): The Logic/Quantum/Gravity Description of the Universe Applied to the Why and the How of the Theory of Relativity Leads to the Realization that Relativisation is the Basic Mechanism of Our Universe and Showing Why Science is Successful and Politics is Not

 

(2) all quotations are fully referenced in the body and earlier chapters can be found on   http://darrylpenney.com  if required.

 

Chapter 70: Unfolding Philosophy Using the Fifth Dimension and Adding Additional Context to the Concept of Philosophy

 

By Darryl Penney

 

Abstract: philosophy has been struggling for 3,000 years because it often does not have enough context to marry with the concepts of philosophy, for example, Plato’s problem of a lack of an absolute of justice is a property of our probability universe, and cannot be adequately grasped from top-down examination, and so the fifth dimension is used to place a ‘floor’ under the theories of the well-known philosophers, throughout history, by using a bottom-up technique to enhance their work so that only the understanding is increased, without unduly changing the concepts.

‘Perhaps the right answer to the question: “What is philosophy?” is that philosophy is what Wittgenstein calls a family resemblance concept. If we look at a variety of different philosophers, we will find overlapping similarities, but there need not be any common, defining feature that makes them all philosophers.’ (p 6) On the contrary, I believe that there is a deeper level that defines the features that makes them all philosophers and yet won’t change the status of philosophy because philosophy has evolved in a top-down manner and I believe that (a bottom-up) ‘floor’ can be easily inserted. The reason is, that (literally) everything is defined by the dimensions of the universe that we live in and they require concept and context and the definition is saying just that – that philosophy has not adequate context! In other words, I intend adding extra context between the philosophers’ concepts by using the fifth dimension.

 

On a personal note, philosophy is a ‘closed book’ to me, but I can still ‘unfold’ it by treating philosophers as concepts and applying the mathematics of concepts to them and this is made possible by the excellent analyses in the book ‘The Great Philosophers: the lives and ideas of history’s greatest thinkers’ by Stephen Law. ‘Unfolding’ is the investigation of the context and concepts and fitting the concepts (philosophers) into an array and mapping their contexts onto a fixed/unchanging basis that no one can dispute, that are the dimensions of our (probability of existence) universe.

 

From chapter 69, the fifth dimension is a complicated dimension that contains within it, the definition of the mathematics of concepts because concepts (a, b) are measurement, and context is (a+b=1) and that shows that the entanglement/context and measurement/concept must always be present, together (duality). Further, the equation (a+b)=1 shows that there are no unique solutions (absolutes) except for the speed of light and (the logic component of gravity leading to the) conservation of energy/Consciousness, and we found that we had to assign an absolute to concepts for them to be measurable and useful.

 

The equation (a+b)=1=(a+c) is obviously (mathematically) true for the measurement of the speed of light a, and observers b and c, or the same observer at different times, speeds etc., but this is the statement of the Michelson-Morley experiment and the obvious answer, that b=c, is the answer that the experiment found that resolves the apparent enigma that the speed of light is the same to observers moving relatively to each other. The realization is that the speed of light is an absolute and that forces our universe to relativise the observers b and c. and proves that our universe is a probability (of existence) space and that (a+b)=1 applies.

 

The dimensions define our universe with the total dimensions being: x, y, z, time passing, (a+b+c+…..)=1 and future time, and the above equation is for a simple two-point space and can be written more accurately as (a +/and b)=1 to show the physical/logical attributes. The equation has yielded valuable insights, in particular, the proof of the existence of the mathematics of concepts, that context and concept are intimately related, that no absolutes exist (Plato’s problem except light/gravity), that an absolute must be set for the equation to have a particular solution (that (set-absoute +/and b)=1 has a solution) and the need to set an absolute will be used time and time again. In fact, these requirements should be taken as a major part of the mathematics of concepts and leads into its inherant iterative nature.

 

‘According to Plato, those objects that we seem to see around us – chairs and tables, trees and mountains, ants and planets – are not what is ultimately real. They are mere shadows or reflections of the truly real objects – the forms.’ (p 23) We have created a (world O) set of units that we use for our convenience, but they may not apply to the probability universe (P) and in particular, we acknowledge many types of energy, such as potential, kinetic, chemical etc., but to simplify, I will call the conservation of energy to be a context and the concepts are the energy terms (potential, kinetic, chemical etc). These energy terms that we think to be different are the same in certain respects, such as gravity (logic, Theory of Everything). The units of speed and force (world O) evolved with us in the predator/prey situation over evolutionary time and we evolved a reality out of the probability of existence and that reality was to help us survive and see things ‘better’, but as Plato said world O and P have to be viewed through different paradigms.

 

‘A categorical imperative, by contrast, does not say, “If you want to achieve P, do A”. It simply says “do A’. According to Kant, genuinely moral principles have this categorical character. Our moral duty is: don’t steal, period. Its not: don’t steal if you don’t want to get caught. So genuinely moral imperatives tell us what we should do irrespective of what outcome or consequences we might desire.” (p 104)

 

Further, ‘According to Kant, we can establish what our moral duty is by testing our maxims against one basic categorical imperative: Act only according to maxims which you can will also be universal laws.  In other words, for an action to be moral, the underlying principle on which you act must be universalizational: it must be a maxim that everyone can adopt. (p 104) Note that “always lie”, fails the test of universalizability. By contrast, “Always tell the truth” passes the test. This is a maxim on which we can all act.’ (p 105) Note that absolutes are being set.

 

‘This brings us to Kant’s second key moral principle: Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in yourself or in another, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end.’ (p 105) Now, I will skip to ‘a third worry raised about Kant’s moral philosophy … Kant is clear that, if we act solely out of, say, a feeling of compassion, we are not acting morally. But is this true? Suppose a hospital patient has two visitors.  Each visitor arrives every day, bringing flowers, fruit and gifts. Each does their best to lift the patient’s spirits. One of the visitors, Sally, visits out of sympathy for the patient. … The other visitor, Sue, has a rather different motive. … simply because she thinks it is her moral duty to do so. She believes reason dictates that she should behave in this way – so that is what she does.’ (p 107)

 

‘Yet Kant would insist that Sally is acting wholly amorally…. In Kant’s view, only Sue does the right thing for the right reason. Again, this is counter-intuitive, to say the least’. (p 107) On the contrary, the statement only appears counter-intuitive because we have assumed that compassion is good, and have taken too few concepts into the discussion (lack of context). The context of compassion is, I believe, an addiction that we have retained because we never had the opportunity to use it, nor lose it, simply because Survival of the Fittest is a system that weeds out the unfit! This problem is two-fold, firstly, the context is not wide enough, and secondly, the lack of experimentation that compassion is good.

 

The mathematics of concepts is part of the fifth dimension and deals with concepts and measurement, but whilst it is easiest to sit in an armchair and ponder Aristotle, as Bacon points out, we could run expensive social experiments, but I believe that we can use a social experiment that has been running for 3,000 million years and the results are there for the taking. I am referring to a biocomputer (evolution) and I believe that it is mathematically a Truth because of the iteration. In other words, I am saying, in the light of the paragraph above, that philosophy should use the mathematics of concepts and social-experimenting/measuring using (say) the biocomputer as a concept.  To compare, science/technology uses mathematics and experimentation/measuring and has been successful.

 

According to the Theory of Everything/Consciousness (context, and the Law of Conservation of Energy is the concept), evolution of ‘players’ (us) are ‘playing out logical decisions’ in a probability of existence space for 3,000 million years and we evolved under Survival of the Fittest where the weakest/unsuitable were eaten. Evolution is a measurement (iteration) and forms a biocomputer of decisions that we can use. When farming started, we used Survival of the Best (mathematics) and mathematics (a special case of the mathematics of concepts) has led us to Armageddon with over-population, over-use of resources, global warming etc.

 

We are destroying our world because compassion is something that we have lived with for only 10,000 years and we do not realize how it is affecting us genetically, morally, politically etc. One simple example is that in politics, those that benefit from the state vote in elections, but the proverb (a simple solution of the mathematics of concepts) ‘forbids’ anyone that benefits from the vote, from voting. This contextual proof is mathematical and easy to understand, but for a philosophical proof we need to determine an absolute (Plato’s problem) and for that we need the (ultimate) absolute to be Survival of the Best (mathematics of concepts). If a ‘proof’ is required, the Survival of the Best (mathematics) that we have used for 10,000 years has led us to Armageddon.

 

I was tempted to end the last paragraph with ‘“QED” (quod erat demonstrandum: which was the thing to be proved)’ because ‘Spinoza’s Ethics, is not, as the title might suggest, just about ethics. It develops an entire theory concerning the nature of reality. One of the most striking things about the book is its structure, which mirrors that of a geometrical proof – indeed, the full title of the book is Ethics Demonstrated in a Geometrical Manner.’ (p 78) ‘Spinoza rejects Decartes’s dualism of substances. He insists that there is only one substance. That substance is the spatio-temporal world. Of course, the world appears to us to be composed of many discrete and separable items or substances: houses, tables, humans, ants, and so on. But appearances are deceptive. What we consider to be separate things are, in truth, not separate entities or substances in their own right, but, like ripples on a lake, mere temporary undulations in the one great substance.’ (p 78)

 

This is very like (chapters 66, 68 and 69) the Theory of Everything, where the Big Bang is a naturally occurring logic creation that starts with logic speed (infinite), creating inflation until energy is ‘split’ and slows to light speed and matter condenses, electric charge and angular momentum ‘split’. The Everything is physics, chemistry, biology, consciousness leading to Survival of the Fittest, Survival of the Best (mathematics) and in the future, Survival of the Best (mathematics of concepts). The concept side is Conservation of Energy and the (associated) context is the Theory of Everything/Consciousness. This is important because concept/context can be derived from the dimensions, whereas other comparisons such as ice, water, steam, mass, energy, positive, negative are all states of energy/logic.

 

However, the ‘spatio-temporal world’ quoted above, is space-time that is four dimensions and as derived above, the fifth dimension is CEM (mathematics of concepts/entanglement (a+b=1)/measurement (a, b) where a and b are measurements/observers in a simple probability space). Further, the sixth dimension (world O) is future-time that leads to the very important concept of ‘forward planning’. From chapter 69, ‘the dimensions define the universe and everything in it (principally) by, (a+/and b)=1 that shows the mathematics of concepts and the need for concept, context and absolute, as derived above, and if this seems strange, it is because the derivatives are not obviously related until viewed through the Logic/Quantum/Gravity description of the universe’, and from chapter 67: ‘the Theory of Everything/Consciousness could be considered the scenery/back-drop/players to the “play” in the theatre of space-time.’ This shows the interrelatedness of the dimensions and the necessity to consider them all, at all times, and in doing this, leads to the Solution to Everything to denote that (literally) everything is defined by the dimensions, including the solutions.’

 

I needed to justify to myself that what I thought that I saw, was, in fact there, and that philosophy could benefit from placing a bottom-up ‘floor’ under the philosophers, and now the rest of the chapter expands the above to the later philosophers. The definition of philosophy says that it is a family resemblance concept (top-down) and I have used the dimensions of the universe to derive the Theory of Everything/Consciousness (bottom-up) and I am ‘marrying’ the two paradigms. Plato’s absolute and ‘shadows’, Spinoza’s spatio-temporal world expanded to five/six dimensions and Kant’s belief that Sally’s compassion is wrong, fit with the bottom-up view. Remember that I know very little philosophy and am selecting the philosophers that illustrate my ideas.

 

‘Hegel is a philosopher of history. Few other philosophers have had much interest in developing such a philosophy, so why does Hegel consider it important? … Hegel’s key idea is that history is never static, but always moving forward in a particular direction. This constant change is driven by an engine – the ‘dialectical process’. … Geist is the ultimate reality. It is not the mind of an individual – such as your particular human mind, or mine. Nor is it the sum of such individual minds. Rather, it is a sort of overarching mind of which everything that exists is a manifestation.’ (p 113) This sounds very similar to the Theory of Everything/Consciousness where consciousness is defined as repetition of physics, chemistry, biology, Survival of the Best etc. Further, ‘Geist arrives at what Hegel calls absolute knowledge.’ (p 114) as we will have when we attain the Survival of the Best (mathematics of concepts).

 

‘Perhaps the easiest route into Schopenhauer’s philosophy is to begin with Kant, whose philosophy Schopenhauer develops. … As, according to Kant the noumenal world is a world without time or space, it seems to follow, therefore, that it is a world lacking particular things. … for Schopenhauer, the noumenal world is not the remote cause of our experiences, but the ‘inside’ of the world as it appears to us. … So, for Schopenhauser, at its deepest level the world is a sort of vast, undifferentiated cosmic will  – a kind of ceaseless striving for life and existence. … Even an inanimate rock is a manifestation of will. … When we look around us, we see appalling suffering and torment caused by the ceaseless striving of man and, of course, nature.’ (p 116)

 

From this paragraph, firstly, Schopenhauser is talking about the fifth dimension that could be thought of as the scenery, players and conversation without the space-time of the theatre. Secondly, the noumenal world is inside us and is the product of our mind. Thirdly, the cosmic will is the Theory of Everything/Consciousness where even a rock has a consciousness because it has a logic associated with its physical form that makes it repeat its straight line motion. Fourthly, there is appalling suffering because evolution is an iteration of growing/food/breeding and is ‘powered’ by ‘determination and pain evolving a reality out of the probability of existence’. We have the chance to change this by the application of Survival of the Best (mathematics of concepts) using the mind/brain and organization. It must come with the application of the mathematics of concepts because mathematics has led to Armageddon.

 

‘The consensus theory of truth. What do we actually mean by truth and reality? These questions lie close to the heart of philosophy. … Peirce defines truth in the following way: what those who investigate a matter will all eventually agree on.’ (p 130) This contrasts with Kant’s ‘”always telling the truth” passes the test. This is a maxim on which we can all act.’ (p 105) Looking at these two quotations suggests that the concept of ‘truth’ is not simple, so let’s set up these two concepts as attractors and clearly we need more information.

 

Above, I mentioned the mathematics of concepts as being obvious from the dimensions, and so it is when you know what you are looking for, and it took a lot of work to find the initial concept. Initially, I used Truth, in the form of an operator and applied it to chaos to derive the three Laws of Life that, I believe, mirror the Trinity and the Trinity was set up to show the three ‘faces’ of God. God the Father (componentization (a logic machine such as an atom or evolution), mathematical iteration, time passing, etc.), the Holy Spirit (state of mind, exercise and nutrition) and God the Son (family teaching, love etc.), bearing in mind that the three laws are inter-related and only the major factors have been quoted because of the iteration of the mathematics of concepts.

 

Further, it was commonly acknowledged by Aristotle and the Church that ‘the ultimate end to which everything is, finally, directed, according to Aristotle, is man – “nature has made all things specifically for the sake of man”’ (p 44) and the hunter/gatherer’s reverence (of living/gathering space) was down-played to such an extent that the Holy Spirit was ‘lost’ and we are in the (environmental) predicament that we are today. So, I am going to list the Truth in descending order: (1) an all-knowing God, (2) mathematics, (3) a God of Truth, (4) the operator Truth (mathematical iteration), (5) the mathematics of concepts and so on.

 

An all-knowing God is defined, mathematics is defined to be exact, a God of Truth has a place if you desire a god, the operator Truth is less important (presumably), the mathematics of concepts uses those concepts and contexts that we consider/measure etc. Truth requires knowledge and our universe is based on the fifth dimension (a+b)=1 (CEM: mathematics of concepts/entanglement/measurement) and that is all about knowledge/measurement and what is not measured does not exist (to us).

 

Peirce’s thinking is that ‘he’s not defining “truth” in terms of agreement or consensus after all, but in terms of correspondence with how things stand in this mind-independent reality’. (p 131) The mathematics of concepts produces agreement because anyone can add more attractors and the context will show bias and bias will produce ridicule unless the offending concept/attractor is withdrawn.

 

Secondly, ‘as Peirce puts it: My social theory of reality, namely, that the real is the idea in which the community settles down. … One tension in Peirce’s thinking is that … it is no longer clear how it can force us to agree about it. How can it force us to agree, if it’s not there to force us until we agree?’ (p 131) To digress, ‘Bacon was instrumental in developing the modern, experimental scientific method. … The scholastics’ approach made scientific enquiry largely an armchair enterprise. They spent the majority of their time pondering the works of Aristotle and constructing syllogistic arguments, and put little effort into actually observing the world around them.’ (p 57)

 

I am not accusing Peirce of this, but to draw a distinction from the fifth dimension, Peirce has a ‘theory of reality’, but I believe that we could go to a deeper level and prove a reality by looking at evolution because evolution is a Truth through iteration of countless generations of organisms. In fact, Peirce’s theory of reality is the same, to a certain extent as the reality that I will prove, when ‘the community settles down’, and if we take a community of fish in an aquarium, they will live happily together. However in a real community there will be predators and the prey will only escape because of skills that the successful have.

 

An extinction event occurred in the Cambrian, I believe, due to a reality change from when predators had to bump into a prey to attack it. As size increased, lensed eyes rapidly evolved, along with the mind/brain and (increased) consciousness that allowed targeted attacks and (forward) planned escapes. In other words, a sixth dimension was created in world O. Now, our community is usually/generally going about their business provided that they can stay out of the way of predators until they can breed. In other words, a reality has to be continuous over a space so that the organism is relatively safe, until it can breed, and if that reality is not continuous, magic happens and something unseen eats the organism. That is my definition of reality and is provable through our evolution’s biocomputer of life. A little thought will show that our police and judiciary have a reality, but politics does not, and I believe that politics should use the 3-way method of Plato (chapter 67 and 69) to help bring about the absolute of the Survival of the Best (mathematics of concepts).

 

‘Husserl’s philosophical focus is on the conscious subject. He wants to investigate consciousness. But how should such an investigation proceed? Consciousness awareness, Husserl notes, is always directed towards an object. You are never merely conscious of something: a book, a tree or a headache, for example. Husserl’s original approach to the study of consciousness is to try to investigate it by studying the objects of conscious awareness. He calls this discipline phenomenology.’ (p 145)

 

The Michelson-Morley experiment shows that if two observers measure an absolute, in this case the speed of light, they will get the same answer irrespective of their relative motions to each other and have been relativised. In other words (a+b)=(a+c) for speed of light a and observers b and c and this is the form of a measurement of a by b in a probability of existence universe. This is the explanation of why ‘Husserl notes, is always directed towards an object’ and this is because, I believe, that every point in a probability space is entangled and measurement defines/determines its existence to a process/mind.

 

‘An interesting feature of intentional states is that they can be directed towards things that do not exist. Perhaps there is no God. In which case I have been thinking about something that doesn’t exist.’ (p 145) The paragraph above outlines the measurement process, but the quotation above is different because it involves creative thought. Now, from the Theory of Everything, I defined Consciousness to be everything that has the logic of repeatability, whilst consciousness (little c) is the ability of a brain, of a certain size, to create a mind/brain, along with the ability to see or use other senses for hunting, migrating etc. This consciousness, in a rudimentary form evolved a long time ago and it needs a (world O, sixth) dimension of future time to allow us to ‘forward-plan’.

 

 

In other words, forward planning is creative thought! Our mind/brain evolved to confabulate by recognising an ambushing predator from a partial ‘portion’ of the predator’s anatomy (colour, shape, smell etc.) and to do that, we needed to be able to remember a general stylised shape/smell/colour for comparison and that is heritable. I believe that the organisms in our biocomputer (iteration/Truth) have, through selection, been able to use measurement/confabulation (a+b)=1 to store/remember and forward plan to create thought possibilities and move away from a predator to prevent them from getting within attack (world O units) distance/speed. Survivability (concept) is the key to the workings of the mind/brain and if we use its ‘powers’ outside of the context of Survival of the Fittest, we must make sure that we use adequate organizational constraints else we end up in a non-reality (a movement from one stable reality to another), as our world now is, heading towards Armageddon.

 

‘Like Husserl, Heidegger is a phenomenologist – he also offers a descriptive philosophy of experience. However, Heidegger’s version of phenomenology differs markedly from that of Husserl. … Like Husserl, Heidegger believes that consciousness is essentially ‘intentional’ – it is about, or, if you like, directed towards objects.’ (p 164) There seems to be a level of agreement and I want to unfold a question posed by Heidegger, “Why are there things that are rather than nothing?” because it brings in the concept of the ‘multiverse’ that carries on from a probability universe.

 

For thousands of years it has been assumed that our universe exists and that a Creator was necessary to bring it into existence, however, a probability of existence space has an infinite number of probabilities on the number line between 0 and 1, with certainty of existence occurring at 1. It is also my view that a probability of existence of a Big Bang occurs at any point in any probability space and this does away with the necessity of requiring an infinite number of universes to (actually) exist somewhere. To keep it short, we are the logic engines of decision and evolution is the flow of logical decisions.

 

The short answer to Heidegger’s question is ‘because we have to be here to ask the question’! This is also a serious answer because logic knows no bounds (Occam’s razor) nor a limit in its speed of action (chapter 69) and our probability space would throw up all combinations of natural constants that can occur at each (theoretical) Big Bang. Notice that the Big Bang is logic that expands infinitely fast (inflation) until energy is formed to give us the universe we see, and the logic component (of gravity) provides the concept part (Conservation of Energy) to match the context part (Theory of Everything).

 

If this sounds strange, is the concept of a god easier to imagine? We are here in the particular universe (of the multiverse) that has the physical constants to allow us to exist and we are evolving using the things around us. The short answer will do for the concept but the longer answer to Heidegger’s question can be given, but it is contextual and that is that everything is joined together (entanglement) and for us to be here we have to have the correct physical constants (approximately) and they influence/influenced our evolution.

 

Our evolution is part of the context (Theory of Everything) and that contains the concept (Solution to Everything) and that is why we are here – because we can, but we must eat what our bodies evolved to eat, and that is fresh food of wide variety (primates consume 150 plus species of leaves, insects, fruit etc). In fact, the second Law of Life requires state of mind, sufficient exercise and proper nutrition and the third law requires that we teach our offspring to survive. These are all part of the (context) of living in harmony (until eaten, reality) that in total, makes up the concept of evolution. Evolution is a compete ‘package’ and ‘playing with it’ has downsides such as the modern degenerative diseases, over-population, Armageddon etc. unless we embrace a better absolute.

 

The proof comes from the biocomputer of our past that we are carrying on the evolution but, unfortunately, humans have changed from Survival of the Fittest to Survival of the Best (mathematics) which is clearly not working and must use the absolute Survival of the Best (mathematics of concepts). The best that I can do at the moment is to try to get the world to consider Plato’s absolute as a stepping-stone before it is too late.

 

It seems appropriate at this point to consider Karl Popper’s ‘falsification’ ‘in so far as a statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable: insofar as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality.’ (p 170) Notice that the word ‘falsifiable’ is used in a special sense, ‘in Popper’s view, a properly scientific statement makes a positive claim about how things stand in the world, and so runs the risk of being false’. (p 173) I believe that the second quotation is true, whereas the first is misleading and refers to theories that are ‘unscientific’ and accommodate all possibilities, in particular, theories of Freud and Marx. (p 173) ‘One of the most commonly raised concerns about Popper’s falsificationism is that it requires that we simply accept Hume’s conclusion that no scientific theory is ever confirmed – not even to a small degree.’ (p 175)

 

The quotation from the last sentence ‘we simply accept Hume’s conclusion that no scientific theory is ever confirmed’ is quite true because from the fifth dimension (a+b)=1 the derivation of the mathematics of concepts is iterative and you can’t be sure what will be found around the next corner. This is in line with ‘Hume’s problem of induction’ and that the example is that black swans are found in Australia (p 172) (likewise Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem (p 200)).

 

‘Sartre is one of the best-known existentialist philosophers. The existentialists place human freedom at the centre of their philosophy. For Sartre, that we are free is not just a, but the, fundamental truth about human beings. He expresses this point by saying that, for human beings, “existence precedes essence”’ (p 177) From above, not only humans, but everything in the universe exists because it can and is a manifestation of being able to exist and make logical decision, as in the Theory of Everything. ‘An obvious contrast here is with Aquinas … “essence precedes existence” … have a God-given purpose that it is their moral duty not to thwart.” (p 177)

 

‘Sartre insists that we are free. But how can he be so sure? If human beings are physical objects then they are governed by the same laws of nature that govern all other physical objects. So, then surely they are not free – they merely think they are.’ (p 178) The Theory of Everything is a continuum of our evolution through physical, logical and mental states, and is literally everything that arose out of the Big Bang and everything is restricted to/by physical laws and logical decisions, including us.

 

Conclusion: the ‘map’ that I placed over philosophy above, fits together like a jigsaw puzzle, and the scientific/mathematical/philosophical part that I introduced, does not disturb the science/mathematics/philosophy, as it stands, but helps with the understanding. I believe that I have explained the context that the philosophers’ concepts reside in, and now we can look for new concepts out of that context. The absolute, mathematics of concepts, the setting of absolutes, context and concepts, conservation of energy (concept), Theory of Everything (context), the Solution of Everything (concept) and the Survival of the Best (mathematics of concepts) as an absolute form a necessary ‘floor’ to certain aspects of philosophy and can only benefit them, if included.

 

References: all quotations are fully referenced in the body and earlier chapters can be found on   http://darrylpenney.com  if required, unless  being reviewed.

 

Chapter 69: The Logic of the Big Bang and an Explanation of Inflation, the Law of Conservation of Energy is Unfolded with Gravity Producing Feedback through the Mathematics of Concepts and Michelson-Morley Type Relativisation Producing a Logic/Quantum/Gravity Description of the Universe that Defines a Solution of Everything that Contains Plato’s Political System

 

By Darryl Penney

 

Abstract: gravity is a potential energy (concept) because it can do work, but conservation of energy contains gravity (context) and the energy summation must act instantaneously over the whole (possibility of existence) universe and that is not possible for any forms of energy except for the gravity (logic) component. If total energy is conserved, it must be an absolute, so it (probably) behaves in the same way as the speed of light (also an absolute) as shown by the Michelson-Morley experiment and the probability space relativises the gravity component of the total energy. The gravity component is used because only the logical gravity component acts instantaneously to preserve the contextual logic (a and b)=1. This obviously requires the different types of energy and mass to be states (concepts) and be derived from the Big Bang (context), and that all energy/mass has an (adequate) gravity ‘component’/’value’ that the universe can relativise. The Big Bang (concept) appears to be composed (initially) of logic and the time to ‘splitting’ of energy, angular momentum and electric charge could be classed as ‘inflation’ as the infinite speed of (the initial) logic is reduced to energy speed. This measurement/control is consistent with and parallels the Michelson-Morley experimental result and produces a general logic/quantum/gravity description of the universe that within the Theory of Everything (context) provides a Solution of Everything (concept) and this is used, as an example, to show the desirability of using Plato’s political system to reorganize control of our world.

The fifth dimension is CEM (mathematics of concepts/entanglement (a+b=1)/measurement (a, b) where a and b are measurements/observers in a simple probability space) and in chapter 68, we derived certain attributes of (a, b) and (a+b=1). Note that the equation (a+b)=1 is used for visual simplicity and I will use a bottom-up approach to unfold the fifth dimension (a+b)=1 to see where each part leads and some of these aspects were dealt with previously and will be repeated, below.

 

The fifth dimension is a complicated and widely encompassing dimension that contains within it, the definition of the mathematics of concepts because concepts (a, b) are measurement, and context is (a+b=1) and that shows the entanglement/context and measurement/concept must always be present, together. However, the mechanics of the mathematics of concepts is the aligning of the concepts and investigating the contexts, and this formalization is particularly important for agreement.

 

Further, the equation (a+b)=1 shows that there are no unique solutions (absolutes, except for the speed of light and conservation of energy/Consciousness) and we found that we had to assign an absolute to concepts for them to be measurable and useful. I used Plato’s problem of a lack of absolutes as an example of the necessity of assigning absolutes to improve the political situation, referred to again, below.

 

The equation (a+b)=1=(a+c) is obviously (mathematically) true for the measurement of the speed of light a, and observers b and c, or the same observer at different times, speeds etc., but this is the statement of the Michelson-Morley experiment and the obvious answer, that b=c, is the answer that the experiment found that resolves the apparent enigma that the speed of light is the same to observers moving relatively to each other. The realization is that the speed of light is an absolute and that forces our universe to relativise the observers b and c.

 

We have created a (world O) set of units that we use for our convenience, but they may not apply to the probability universe (P) and in particular, we acknowledge many types of energy, such as potential, kinetic, chemical etc., but to simplify, I will call the conservation of energy to be a context (Consciousness) and the concepts are the energy terms (potential, kinetic, chemical etc). In other words, there is only one conservation of energy (a+b=1), which is a context, but it contains concepts that we see as different forms (potential, kinetic, chemical etc.), so we should work in world P units to simplify things. Note that gravity has been discussed in this way, previously, and ‘spooky action at a distance’ and other ‘force fields’ can be thought of as logic/contexts of (a+b)=1 (chapter 29). This discussion will be continued below. Note that our universe is really a simple space and the velocity of propagation of the logic of (a+b)=1 must necessarily be infinite (otherwise local issues occur) and that defines the speed of gravity (light has a finite speed).

 

The above was derived in a top-down sense as described in chapter 68 and suggests that a bottom-up approach might pay dividends if we unfold (a simple space) (a+b)=1, that is one of the dimensions of the probability of existence universe that we live in, with the total dimensions being: x, y, z, time passing, (a+b+c+…..)=1 and future time. We have described a and b as observers/measurements linked together as (a+b)=1 which is the way that mathematicians write the relationship in a two-point probability space, but our universe is not a mathematical construction, but is real to us (because we evolved that way) and there may be differences that might become apparent as we unfold it. From above, we have noted that mathematics is a special case (and doesn’t ordinarily contain logic) of the mathematics of concepts which is a general mathematics and the sum of two values (a, b) could also be the sum of two logics (a, b) because as mentioned above, concepts and contexts are (intimately) related.

 

‘In mathematics and mathematical logic, Boolean algebra is the branch of algebra in which the values of the variables are the truth values true and false, usually denoted 1 and 0 respectively. Instead of elementary algebra where the values of the variables are numbers, and the main operations are addition and multiplication, the main operations of Boolean algebra are the conjunction and, denoted ∧, the disjunction or, denoted ∨, and the negation not, denoted ¬. It is thus a formalism for describing logical relations in the same way that ordinary algebra describes numeric relations.’ (Wikipedia, Boolean algebra)

 

The Michelson-Morley experiment shows that we live in a probability of existence world and we are presumably mathematical/logical ‘abstractions’ that ‘play out’ logical/mathematical decisions in order to devise a future and that future is evolution with untold generations testing every concept and context. We could consider that we are a part of a mathematical fractal where there are always ‘smaller’ universes and that an infinite logical speed must occur at each level. Our evolution could also be considered to be a biocomputer that produces the logic of the Rule of Life that describes the multitude of iterations/lives to define a mathematical iteration/Truth, with the proviso that we can’t ‘go back’ and rectify previous evolution. In other words, we can use ourselves to examine the situation of ourselves (the universe does the same thing as conservation of energy feed-back) and thus, as we create a future (sixth dimension), future planning becomes possible. Note that the sixth dimension is created by us to improve our reality (through forward planning) and could be considered as world O (our) units/dimension. So, we can consider mathematics to be both numerical and logical and use the equation (a +/and b)=1 to show that a and b are both measurements and measurers in a numerical and logical sense.

 

‘In physics, a conservation law states that a particular measurable property of an isolated physical system does not change as the system evolves over time. Exact conservation laws include conservation of energy, conservation of linear momentum, conservation of angular momentum, and conservation of electric charge. There are also many approximate conservation laws, which apply to such quantities as mass, parity, lepton number, baryon number, strangeness, hypercharge, etc.’ (Wikipedia, Conservation laws) Looking at the ‘exact’ conservation laws and converting to world P units, we have conservation of energy, conservation of angular momentum and conservation of electric charge.

 

Now (a +/and b)=1 is a dimension of our universe and I have referred to the Theory of Everything/Consciousness that is the overarching of a continuum of Consciousness that includes physics, chemistry, biology etc. and all these disciplines contain conservation of energy, angular momentum and electric charge. Now consider the quotation: ‘perhaps the greatest surprise to emerge from the Golden Age [of black hole research] was general relativity’s insistence that all the properties of a black hole are precisely predictable from just three numbers: the hole’s mass, its rate of spin, and its electric charge. From those three numbers, if one is sufficiently clever at mathematics, one should be able to compute, for example, the shape of the hole’s horizon, the strength of its gravitational pull, the details of the swirl of spacetime around it, and its frequencies of pulsation.’ (Black Holes and Time Warps: Einstein’s Outrageous Legacy, Kip S. Thorne, p 259),

 

Looking at the two paragraphs above, it appears that the ‘exact’ conservation laws are all that are necessary to define our universe and converting to world P units, we have conservation of energy, angular momentum and electric charge and our equation becomes: (x+b)=1=(y+b)=(z+b) where x, y, and z are the three exact conservation laws and b is the measurer/observer. Further, I have mentioned that mathematics and logic are intimately related through context and concept, as in the mathematics of concepts, where mathematics and Boolean algebra are special cases that strip out the interdependence. The ‘=1’ could be replaced by ‘=1/true’ and so forth as the mathematics of concepts requires both.

 

The equation has yielded valuable insights, in particular, the proof of the existence of the mathematics of concepts, that context and concept are intimately related, that no absolutes exist (Plato’s problem), that an absolute must be set for the equation to have a particular solution (that (set-absoute +/and b)=1 has a solution) and that the equation needs an absolute (to be set) will be used time and time again. In fact, these requirements should be taken as a major part of the mathematics of concepts and leads into its inherant iterative nature. Its strength in science is to provide entanglement/context to technology and in the social sciences to link concepts and context together in a more formal way as discussed in chapter 2 and the example here. Included in this general mathematic is the realization that the speed of electromagnetic radiation is constant, in a vacuum, throught the two proofs (concept and context) given earlier based on uncertainty and the Michelson-Morley experiment. Likewise, the three exact conservations, energy, angular momentum and charge, would be absolutes and it would not surprise me if angular momentum and charge totalled zero across the universe, given that the Big Bang contained only energy (in fact, logic, as below). In other words, charges, angular momentum, mass, chemical energy etc. are states of energy in the Theory of Everything/Consciousness.

 

I have mentioned world O and world P units, and as above that future time is a world O dimension, but perhaps the time has come for a digression that may ‘clear the muddied waters’. ‘The curved spacetime paradigm is based on three sets  of mathematically formulated laws: Einstein’s field equation, which describes how matter generates the curvature of spacetime; the laws which tell us that perfect rulers and perfect clocks measure the lengths and the times of Einstein’s curved spacetime; and the laws which tell us how matter and fields move through curved spacetime, for example, that freely moving bodies travel along straight lines (geodesics)’. (p 401)

 

‘The flat spacetime paradigm is also based on three sets of laws: a law describing how matter, in flat spacetime, generates the gravitational field; laws describing how that field controls the shrinkage of perfect rulers and the dilation of the ticking rates of perfect clocks; and the laws describing how the gravitational fields also controls the motions of particles and fields through flat spacetime.’ (p 401)

 

The two paragraphs, above, describe curved and flat spacetime and I would like to say that I have no problem with whatever paradigm is used to measure the effects, but I do have a few words that may bring a better understanding. Curved spacetime describes the motion of a particle/photon through space as it is attracted to local potential wells (stars, planets etc.) also, there are no rulers or clocks because they are world O inventions that animals used to catch prey and to avoid capture. In space, there is no such thing as local conservation of momentum because in a probability space, every point is entangled with every other. There are no gravitons or gravity waves, as Einstein and others postulated to account for ‘spooky action at a distance’ because (a +/and b)=1/true) does that in a probability space using logic.

 

Note that nothing has changed in a mathematical/computational sense, but our perspective, by using the fifth dimension has been simplified. This is shown by the following quotation: ‘the flat spacetime paradigm’s laws of physics can be derived, mathematically, from the curved spacetime paradigm’s laws, and conversely. This means that the two sets of laws are different mathematical representations of the same physical phenomona’. (p 402) This quotation is not surprising because mathematics is a special case of the mathematics of concepts and as our example will show, below, the Survival of the Best (mathematics) is deeply flawed for this very reason. The mathematics of concepts, with context and concept, provides/forces a unique (but converging) answer/measurement when we assign an absolute, but if we wish to measure in world O units, complications will occur, especially if we ignore the logic, or attempt to stand outside of the experiment.

 

I had trouble developing the concept/context relationship, but it is immediately apparent from (a+b)=1 that energy/mass comes in many forms, each with a context part and a concept part, but this is not surprising when it is considered that a feedback is necessary for the conservation of energy to remain constant. In other words, there has to be something that is part of every type of energy (concept) AND be part of the summation (context). Notice that gravity must be instantaneously transmitted to preserve local logic, and that (probably) all energy forms contain gravity because it is necessary for life to exist.

 

Gravity waves MAY exist because ‘gravitational waves have already been proved to exist by astronomical observations for which Joseph Taylor and Russel Hulse of Princeton University won the 1993 Nobel Prize…. Nothing else, only tiny gravitational-wave kicks, can explain the stars’ inspiral.’ (p 392) The final sentence, should perhaps read ‘nothing else, that we know of at the moment’ might be more logical, but there is no reason that the waves should not exist, but only the logic (infinite speed) part is relevant to this discussion.

 

Now, I read in Kip Thorne’s book that ‘all energy contains gravity’ and Franklin Potter and Christopher Jargodski’s book (p 264) says that ‘the general theory of relativity (GTR) tells us that all forms of energy are affected by a gravitational field’ and it  is probably is true, but as the mathematics of concepts is iterative, we can never be certain, but in a logical sense it has to be (effectively) true. However, the uncertainty principle could be applied in the mathematics of concepts as well as the duality of concept and context that opens up a logical proof from the biocomputer of life that should allow us to do away with the postulate. The universe has existed/worked for 14 billion years with a gravity proportion adequate to regulate the conservation of energy, so do we really need to know whether every form of energy has the same proportion of gravity context? Surely it is enough to know that it works! In other words, it would be difficult to know/measure the proportions (concept), and logic tells us not to worry (context).

 

So, we can write the total sum of the gravity context G (effectively an absolute) of the forms of energy in the same way that we wrote the relationship of the speed of light being an absolute. Thus, (absolute G +/and b) =1/true, the probability space relativises b and this requires that (enough) energy and mass has a gravity ‘component’/’value’ that the universe can relativise. ‘Relativising’ gravity means that (like the Michelson-Morley experiment) that at any two points, in the universe, G will be the same to observers at those points, and that is the Law of Conservation of Energy.

 

Is the universe measuring/monitoring itself (context) or is the total energy truly constant or sufficiently constant (concept)? Both might be true at the same time as shown by the two proofs that the speed of light is constant and that (a+b)=1. Assuming that the universe can monitor itself, so can we, and the question of monitoring ourselves is used as an example. The question is whether conservation of energy is strictly true, or adequately true and that is the difference between mathematics and the mathematics of concepts. The question of exactitude and logic has caused problems for a long time. ‘Einstein simply postulates what we have deduced, with some difficulty and not altogether satisfactorily, from the fundamental equations of the electromagnetic field.’ (H. A. Lorentz, 1906, Quoted in Albrecht Folsing, Albert Einstein: a Biography, Mad about Modern Physics, Franklin Potter and Christopher Jargodzhi, p 45)

 

My aim has been to simplify our understanding/view of the world and as our mind/brain evolved to confabulate and present a decision/view of a partly hidden prey/predator, so I believe that simplicity of concepts with contexts aids our way through life. So, what of the effects of gravity in the past? I can only suggest that we evolved for 3,000 million years in water, and that ameliorates the effect of gravity on our evolution and that we evolved and are here now, to tell the story. This concept might be simplistic, but strange things may have occurred over time because, whilst total energy is constant, gravity is a potential energy as well and that is increasing as the Big Bang progresses and eventually, most energy will be potential and presumably chemical bonds will weaken, electromagnetic radiation will redshift etc.

 

It is interesting, that like angular momentum and electric charge, ‘the total energy in the observable universe can be shown to be zero by adding the total mass energy in matter and radiation to the total gravitational potential energy.’ (p 115) The Michelson-Morley relativisation proves that our universe is a probability (of existence) space and we know that that space contains one infinitely small possibility of certainty (of existence) at 1, and thus, I suspect, a big Bang in another universe is occasionally created, and as the total energy is zero, it seems that the Big Bang is a purely logical phenomenon and that fact might justify ‘inflation’ as logic starts off with infinite speed before energy, angular momentum and electric charge ‘split’.

 

I have not commented on existing books/theories because I am using six/five dimensions (plus logic contexts) against spacetime’s four dimensions, and worrying facts like inside a black hole’s horizon ‘does spacetime come to an end’? (Black Holes and Time Warps: Einstein’s Outrageous Legacy, Kip S. Thorne, p 465) This is of no concern to me because the black hole is still doing its job of providing gravity around which stars rotate and being part of the universe’s house-keeping calculations.

 

‘Throughout this book, I shall adopt, without appology, the view that there does exist an ultimate set of physical laws (which we do not as yet know which might be quantum gravity), and that those laws truly do govern the Universe around us, everywhere. They force the Universe to behave the way it does.’ (p 86) Thus, the derivation above could be called a logic/quantum/gravity description of the universe, which is similar to the quantum gravity quoted, but with the logic of the mathematics of concepts included that is neglected (to some extent) in mathematics as well as also taking into account the effects of logic on the Big Bang and uncertainty on the constant speed of light, that locks into the logic through the absolute. Note the dualism that logic forces the universe to conserve energy and the universe forces us to accept it through relativisation.

 

These chapters necessarily build on each other and a more concise description of our universe might be as follows. An uncertainty event in another universe produced a Big Bang that created our universe (notice that it could only be a logic ‘condition’ as no energy, angular momentum or electric charge was created (absolute=zero), started expanding at infinite speed, the duality of logic/energy produced energy (creates time) and mass (creates space) slowing expansion that is overlain by the (measuring and logic) of the mathematics of concepts similar (but with logic included) to the summation (a+b)=1 of a mathematician’s probability space (bearing in mind that mathematics is traditionally (somewhat) separate to logic). Uncertainty requires a fixed (absolute) speed of light and the Michelson-Morley experiment proves that the universe is a probability space because constant/absolute speed of light relativises the (apparent) enigma that all observers see the speed of light as the same (including other proofs). This same requirement, I believe, acts on the (total) gravity proportion of energy (G) (light, mass, chemical, gravity etc.) and G becomes an absolute with gravity necessarily (because it acts instantly due to localized logic (a+b)=1)) forcing (G +/and b)=1 and the means of providing negative feedback (logically), relativising G, so that G=G-part-of-Energy at all times and places within the universe. Notice that the speed of light is relativised to us, but is too slow for the logic of the universe, and the universe apparently uses the same method on the gravity proportion of the total energy for its own house-keeping.

 

The mathematics of concepts has been used above, to show its power and place as an integral and intimate part of the workings of the universe ((a +/and b)=1), and I am saying this because I need to build confidence that this same mathematics can be used to manage ourselves. In certain ways, it is already being used by us for our own good, but unfortunately, the effect is mixed because it is not being applied with the knowledge to make it work properly, and the planet is heading towards Armageddon. We need to do something before it is too late from global warming, over-population, overuse of resources etc. and a (modernized) Plato’s solution would be a start in the correct direction.

 

In general, our universe does not have absolutes (except those mentioned above) and we have to assign an absolute that is simply a reference point, both numerically and logically as required. Unfolding the universe, above, and unfolding democracy uses the same method and in chapter 67, we ‘woke’ Plato and found that his ideas used the universities for overall knowledge and an absolute (virtue) as a concept and context that could help us , eventually, to gain the ultimate absolute of Survival of the Best (mathematics of concepts) in the future.

 

The most important question is how to repair the world’s political system, and we used the above, to derive a better political solution and I will use four factors (forward planning, personal interest in outcomes, knowledge and representational problems) to look at the present system, and to foreshadow the result, all four factors are (effectively) misused or neglected in today’s politics and (surprise!) they are catered for in Plato’s plan. Remember that the mathematics of concepts tends to give better answers as more concepts are included, as is sensible, but I have chosen (only) those four to make my point.

 

Firstly, forward planning was discussed in chapter 68, where we found that a sixth dimension (future time) was created by the evolution of life together with an absolute of planning and found that ‘future planning’ has been used for thousands of millions of years by organisms, also, universities are knowledge repositories and should be involved in future planning, simply because you need knowledge to plan. Politicians ‘promises’ are not future planning, and even worse, when an investigation/Royal-Commission is sought, it is a legal person that is chosen to lead it.

 

Secondly, politicians should be statesmen/stateswomen acting in everyone’s interest, not playing party politics and should act in the best interests of the country and population and an absolute/aim of virtue could do that, if virtue is expected/demanded by the voters. Thirdly, knowledge is necessary, whether biased or not, to be used by a mathematics of concepts that contains numerical as well as the all-important logic that shows up bias, as bias. Politicians, in general, cannot be compared to universities in the knowledge at their disposal. Fourthly, politicians are elected by voters that receive money from the government and neither seem to be worried by this abuse, yet it is (apart from politics) universally accepted that if you receive a benefit from a vote, you shouldn’t get a vote! In chapter 22, I put forward a proportional voting system where the value of a vote is reduced, as the dependence of the voter on wefare increases.

 

In all these cases, the present political (two factor) system is deficient when compared to a three factor system as put forward by Plato, 2,500 years ago, where the absolute is the aim/supported by the universities. Notice that Plato used a mathematics of concepts because mathematics (without the attending logic) had not been discovered, and if the universe is based on the mathematics of concept, so should our organization and further, the dimensions define the universe and everything in it (principally) by, (a+/and b)=1 that shows the mathematics of concepts and the need for concept, context and absolute, as derived above, and if this seems strange, it is because the derivatives are not obviously related until viewed through the Logic/Quantum/Gravity description of the universe, and from chapter 67: ‘the Theory of Everything/Consciousness could be considered the scenery/back-drop/players to the “play” in the theatre of space-time.’ This shows the interrelatedness of the dimensions and the necessity to consider them all, at all times, and in doing this, leads to the Solution to Everything to denote that (literally) everything is defined by the dimensions, including the solutions. I had to define the fifth (and to a lesser extent the sixth) dimension because there were things that we could do that were outside space-time and the solution to the example above is non-intuitive, but necessarily comes out of the dimensions and to define it needs a concept and context. The context is above, so looking at the concept.

 

The Solution to Everything (concept) arises out of the fact that the dimensions must allow for all solutions that we are capable of formulating, and using the mathematics of concepts acting on the knowledge/concepts that we bring to the problem, it is obvious that the more information considered, the better the result. The mathematics of concepts sets up the relationships between concepts for all to see and makes bias visible and discourages argument so that a decision/iteration/measurement can be made through the contexts. The aim is to set an absolute that can be worked towards and this concept is simple, but shows/proves why politics manages so poorly and why the universities MUST be used for their knowledge and also shows why our economic system of welfare/laissez-faire (to let go) ‘works’ (to a limited extent) because it is an iterational (Survival of the Fittest) solution arising out of Aristotle’s ‘nature has made all things specifically for the sake of man’ (The Great Philosophers, Stephan Law, p 44)

 

The Solution of Everything is important because we are faced with problems for which our present system does not have the answers, and I will restate the sequence: the fifth/sixth dimensions (1) include everything (except space-time) and the equation (a +/and b)=1 (2) derives the mathematics of concepts (3) that gives better answers as more (relevant) concepts (4) are included, which means that wide knowledge is necessary (5). The contexts (a and b)=1 (6) are examined for relevance and an absolute (7) is chosen (because the mathematics of concepts disallows arguments by exposing bias) and the absolute is a ‘forward plan’ (8) that everyone can work towards. The example given is simply that universities provide the widest knowledge bank and the absolute/aim is virtue (according to Plato) and not the current ‘greed is good’.

 

Conclusion: the Big Bang was the creation of energy, and everything in the universe is energy in different forms/concepts, but energy and logic are linked (a+/and b)=1 and the logic description is the Theory of Everything/Consciousness whilst the Law of Conservation of Energy is physical. Light has a speed defined by uncertainty and logic must be instantaneous and they are absolutes as shown by the Michelson-Morley experiment (for light) and the logic component of energy G relativises the universe (logically) to create the Law of Conservation of Energy which we bind (physically) constant by postulate.

 

In the organisation of ourselves, we are constrained by what we can do physically, by police and laws, but we need the logic side of living together and this has been done by Churches and governments, but we are on the verge of Armageddon because they are not organized sufficiently well, through lack of knowledge (concept), and using an inapprpriate  absolute (love). Plato’s organization (three-way, context) must be used (because the present two-way is not working) to try to eventually bring about the use of the absolute of Survival of the Best (mathematics of concepts). The Solution of Everything (concept) is contained within the dimensions of our probability space and in particular, within the Theory of Everything/Consciousness (context) by using the steps provided.

 

‘”In physics, the newest discoveries like relativity and the uncertainty relation, uncover new modes of thought. They really open new perspectives.” A sudden sad look passed over his face. “And I thought that, say, fifty years ago, that this would happen, that those revolutions and advances in science would have an effect on mankind – on morals, on sociology, whatever. It hasn’t happened. We’re still up to the same things, or, well, I think, regressed in values.”’ (from an interview with the American physicist Isidor Isaac Rabi, Robert P. Crease and Charles C. Mann, The Second Creation: makers of the revolution in 20^th-century physics, from Mad About Modern Physics, p 81) This Solution of Everything is the key to social change, but, who will effect that change?

 

References: (1) this chapter (69) follows and adds to chapter 68: The Sixth Dimension, Constant Speed of Light, Michelson-Morley Enigma Solved, Unfolding the Mathematics of Concepts and its Derivation from the Dimensions.

 

(2) all quotations are fully referenced in the body and earlier chapters can be found on   http://darrylpenney.com  if required.

 

 

Chapter 68:  The Sixth Dimension, Constant Speed of Light, Michelson-Morley Enigma Solved, Unfolding the Mathematics of Concepts and its Derivation from the Dimensions

 

http://darrylpenney.com

 

Abstract: the fifth dimension is explored, but when life appeared, a new sixth dimension is created, two ‘proofs’ are given that the speed of light is a constant and is an absolute, the Michelson-Morley experiment presents an apparent enigma that is explained and the distinction between Consciousness, consciousness and thinking in concepts/context is discussed and shows why a new dimension is necessary.  The entanglement/context term a+b=1 (in a probability of existence universe) shows that measurement/concept (a, b) and entanglement are related and that is the proof of existence of the mathematics of concepts, also the equation a+b=1 shows that only one absolute is possible and a concept is only useful if we assign an absolute to it. When the six dimensions are considered together, a ‘mathematics’ appears that (conceptually (a, b) and contextually (a+b=1)) produces the Theory of Everything.

I have said several times previously that matter and energy are (at least) two states of something that (in chapter 66) I defined as Consciousness which is, at its simplest, a repeatable state and gave the example that the gravity equations of Isaac Newton (F=mg, force equals mass times the acceleration due to gravity) led us into the use of world O (our) units, and I suggested that it makes more sense to use world P (universe) units that gravity is a potential energy. In other words, it may make more sense to use world O units to measure (concept), but world P to understand the logic (context), also I suggested that the repeatability of the dropping apple leads into the fifth dimension, and this repeatability is a logic (context) not a measurement (concept).

 

We found in the previous chapter (67) that the use of concepts and context could be thought of as a sixth dimension. This is applying a ‘quality’ to consciousness, because everything ‘thinks’, but only Man (presumably) thinks in (advanced) concepts. Now, I have (previously) defined the fifth dimension as CEM (mathematics of concepts/entanglement (a+b=1)/measurement (a,b)) where I have included a and b, that are measurements/observers in a simple probability space. This shows that a and b ALWAYS show a duality of measurement (concept) and logic (entanglement/context) simply because a and b occur in two different ‘settings’, and that supports the idea that a concept and context are inseparable because a concept is really a measurement and context is an entanglement. Relationships become clearer as we move our thinking from world O to world P.

 

I believe that the time has come to accept the idea that the experiment/observation must involve the experimenter/measurer. This is usually hidden but will become clear when the Michelson-Morley experiment is considered, below. What appears to be an (apparent) enigma often lead to insights of a fundamental nature that we ‘gloss over’ in everyday life and dimensions are just such an example because if we can do something, in the biocomputer sense, there must be a dimension that allows it because evolution should have (without certainty) provided opportunity for its use.

 

I thought that something was (possibly) wrong with the fifth dimension through a quotation that I will reproduce from chapter 67. ‘Virtue’, I believe, demands care of the planet, and with this derivation, do we finally understand how everything works? The Theory of Everything/Consciousness could be considered the scenery/back-drop/players to the ‘play’ in the theatre of space-time and Plato’s (modernized) works could be interpreted as the interpersonal interaction/concepts between the players. The answer may be no! The interaction/dialogue ‘between the players’ may form a sixth dimension!’

 

It becomes more apparent when the CEM is written as: mathematics-of-concepts(dimension6(possibly))/entanglement(dimension5)(a+b=1)(context)/measurement(dimension5)(a, b)(concept) because the last two terms (of three) describe the probability space and the first term clearly describes doing something with the concepts and contexts that is the mathematics of concepts. Further, these concepts and contexts clearly lie in the continuum of Consciousness and the ‘classical’ question of what ‘level’ of evolution determines consciousness is thus not available.

 

Why are absolutes so important? It will be seen below that absolutes are only a problem when concepts (measurement) are used (the universe can look after itself), and in the vein of the above, the absolute sets a ‘level’ of mind/brain that cannot be got from the continuum of Consciousness, and if we use the biocomputer model, Survival of the Fittest ‘works’, but Survival of the Best (mathematics) does not because we and our planet are in a movement towards Armageddon. I have said it before that we need an absolute goal to measure where we are going, and the poor state of the world proves that mathematics is not good enough and that we must use the Survival of the Best (mathematics of concepts). The assigning of an absolute is part of the fifth dimension and is a necessary condition for success, from above, and whilst the universe provides for absolutes (speed of light, measurement), the pre-setting of an absolute/goal is usually outside the ability of a probability space.

 

The concept of planning, such as engineers’ drawings, is a crucial part of technology and has (necessarily) been used as the basis of technology for thousands of years and it is not a surprise that planning/absolute is so important, but its not the concepts of planning, but the ‘future’ aspect that is causing the problem because a (mathematical) probability space is defined with time passing (world P) and that was adequate until life evolved. At that point, consciousness appeared as part of the continuum of Consciousness and, I believe that consciousness surged in the Cambrian as increased size of organisms led to lensed eyes, a larger brain, an increase in consciousness to plan and execute prey/predator interactions made possible by the more efficient eyes, and efficient eyes allowed measurement (concept), which brought in world O units of time interval  (for velocity etc.) and forward-planning (concept/context) of attacks of predators and evasion of prey.

 

However, in other words, something new has been added to our universe at this instant when the (mathematical) ‘time passing’, which is present tense, requires forward-planning, which entails the future, but there is no future in a (mathematical) probability space until it arrives. Life has evolved a new dimension that is very important and it is a distinct dimension that can only be called the sixth dimension and it is ‘future time’. Previously we said that we evolved a reality out of the possibility of existence, and ‘future time’ evolved as part of our reality in order to improve our chances of survival.

 

So, reconsidering Plato’s dialogues, above, whenever a future tense is quoted or referred to, the sixth dimension is used, but all of the rest of his work falls into the fifth dimension. The fifth dimension is a complicated and widely encompassing dimension that contains within it the definition of the mathematics of concepts because concept (a, b) is measurement, and context is a+b=1 that shows the entanglement, and that same equation a+b=1 also shows measurement (a, b). In other words the entanglement/context term a+b=1 shows measurement (a, b) and entanglement a+b=1, and that is the mathematics of concepts! So, the fifth dimension remains as CEM (mathematics of concepts/entanglement (a+b=1)/measurement (a, b) where a and b are measurements/observers in a simple probability space.

 

Further, from a later paragraph ‘the equation a+b=1 shows that there are no unique solutions (absolutes) and this observation was heavily used in chapter 67 to unfold democracy’.  So much from such a small equation when applied to logic! We can go further, the equation (a+b)=1=(a+c) is obviously true for the measurement of the speed of light a, and observers b and c (assuming that b and c are the same observer at different times, speeds etc. for simplicity), but this is the statement of the Michelson-Morley experiment and the obvious answer that b=c is the answer that the experiment found! To repeat the answer, the absolute speed of light has forced our universe to relativise the observers b and c to measure the speed of light as the same, irrespective of their motion at each measuring.

 

However, the biocomputer, that is the Rule of Life (enough iterations and evolution can’t go backwards) uses/tests every opportunity available to life. Many times I wondered if the Mathematics of the Mind really existed, and the answer is contained so simply that it does exist and the proof is simple. I have said elsewhere that simple equations often indicate ‘states’, not relationships, and this equation is stating that everything is related as stated in the mathematics of concepts and Theory of Everything/Consciousness.

 

Further, the equation a+b=1 shows that there are no unique solutions (absolutes), however, I had a suspicion that there is one absolute, and that is the speed of electromagnetic waves in a vacuum, but, in the light of the above, how can that be? The answer, I believe, is quite simple and lies in our thinking and comprehension that we are the instigators/measurers of experiments in a probability universe, but first let’s look at the speed of light.

In chapter 66, a speculative theory for the Big Bang and the speed of light was put forward simply to show that the Theory of Everything/Consciousness could contain that theory. It suggested that the Big Bang and the motion of a photon could be considered to be similar (in being the result of uncertainty) and suggested that the logic was supplied by the uncertainty inequalities. ‘In physics, complementarity is both a theoretical and an experimental result of quantum mechanics, also referred as principle of complementarity, closely associated with the Copenhagen interpretation. It holds that objects have complementary properties which cannot be measured accurately at the same time. The more accurately one property is measured, the less accurately the complementary property is measured, according to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Further, a full description of a particular type of phenomenon can only be achieved through measurements made in each of the various possible bases — which are thus complementary. The complementarity principle was formulated by Niels Bohr, a leading founder of quantum mechanics. Examples of complementary properties:

• Position and momentum
• Energy and duration’ (Wikipedia, Complementarity (physics))

In particular, the uncertainty between position and momentum (delta x times delta p is greater than or equal to h bar/2) and Heisenberg’s time uncertainty principle (delta E times delta t is greater than or equal to h bar). Where x is position, p is momentum, h is Plank’s constant, h bar is Plank’s constant divided by 2pi, E is energy and t is time interval. These are world O units and I’m going to ‘adjust’ things a little.

 

We have created a world O set of units that we use for our convenience, but they don’t apply to the probability universe and that will allow us to simplify our thinking. We acknowledge many types of energy, such as potential, kinetic, chemical etc., but to simplify, can we call the Conservation of Consciousness/Energy to be a context (Consciousness) and concepts (potential, kinetic, chemical etc)? In other words, there is only one Conservation of Consciousness/Energy (a+b=1), but it contains concepts that we see as different forms (potential, kinetic, chemical etc.), so we should work in world P units to simplify things. Note that gravity has been discussed in this way, above, and ‘spooky action at a distance’ and other ‘force fields’ can be thought of as contexts of (a+b)=1 (Conservation of Consciousness/Energy) (chapter 29). Our universe is really a simple space (a+b)=1 and the velocity of propagation of the logic of (a+b)=1 is infinite (otherwise local issues occur).

 

The first relationship could be written as: delta x is inversely proportional to delta E over some period by changing world P (energy) for world O (momentum) and from the second, delta E is inversely proportional to delta t, and putting them together, delta x divided by delta t is a constant, which could mean that the velocity of electromagnetic radiation is constant (in a vacuum). In other words, we could say that the velocity is constant (concept), but the energy (proportional to the frequency) is the context that changes with respect to the Conservation of Consciousness/Energy.

 

It should be noted that as we have ‘described’ the Big Bang and its subsequent expansion, why should the physics differ in different parts of the universe when (a+b)=1 applies at all points, and so, Einstein’s assumptions can be relaxed:

• ‘The Principle of Relativity – The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change are not affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the one or the other of two systems in uniform translatory motion relative to each other.
• The Principle of Invariant Light Speed – “… light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity [speed] c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body” (from the preface). That is, light in vacuum propagates with the speed c (a fixed constant, independent of direction) in at least one system of inertial coordinates (the “stationary system”), regardless of the state of motion of the light source.

The derivation of special relativity depends not only on these two explicit postulates, but also on several tacit assumptions (made in almost all theories of physics), including the isotropy and homogeneity of space and the independence of measuring rods and clocks from their past history.’ (Wikipedia, Special relativity, Postulates) Notice that clocks and measuring rods are not used in world P, and are only part of world O, and again, given the Theory of Everything/Consciousness, why should anything different happen anywhere?

A digression appears necessary here because the speed of light is only assumed to be constant and, in fact is defined to be constant and is used to define the metre. ‘The speed of light in vacuum, commonly denoted c, is a universal physical constant important in many areas of physics. Its value is exactly 7008299792458000000♠299792458 metres per second (≈7008300000000000000♠3.00×10⁸ m/s), as the length of the metre is defined from this constant and the international standard for time.’ (Wikipedia, Speed of light) Now, the above derivation of the speed of light is possibly a little ‘rough and ready’, but the universe is simple when looked at in the correct (world P) way and there has to be a reason for the Big Bang and the speed of light and there must be a logical context to them because it is a logical space. If that ‘conceptual proof’ is not good enough, then the fact that the speed of light is constant/absolute forces the observers to be relative, as we find below and constitutes an experimental proof from the Michelson-Morley experiment. In other words, conceptual and contextual proofs are given.

 

The question that I now ask myself is ‘is there anything wrong with these proofs?’. Light quanta are fundamental/quantum-mechanical and so is ‘uncertainty’ and likewise, so is existence (or probability of existence) leading to light being an absolute and throwing the observers into relativity. That sounds logical, but in the macroscopic the interesting/startling part is that technology, that we have devised, has been both so successful and so unsuccessful (causing Armageddon) at the same time. I have said before that our only hope of correcting this is the mathematics of concepts, but there is an extra dimension, and that is the simple necessity of requiring the assigning of an absolute in the future and that has been known for a long time as ‘forward planning’. Forward planning fits everything together like a jigsaw puzzle when the ‘forward’ draws ‘planning’ into the sixth dimension and makes the absolute useful. In simple term, there is no one ‘forward planning’ our planet!

 

The equation E = hf, where E is energy, h is Plank’s constant and f is frequency is simple and I suspect ‘hides’ an identity that the energy of a photon is contained in its frequency and has no rest mass, in the same way that E = mc2 ‘hides’ the context that E and m are states of Consciousness. In the same way, E=hf is a concept/measure and E and f are contexts of Consciousness in world P that are under the ‘umbrella’ of entanglement, and that simplifies the context. This has been mentioned before as an experiment by Pound-Rebka that the colour/frequency/energy of light changes as it moves towards the earth’s centre (potential well). ‘But if the emitting atom moves with just the right speed relative to the receiving atom the resulting doppler shift cancels out the gravitational shift and the receiving atom can now absorb the photon. The “right” relative speed of the atoms is therefore a measure of the gravitational shift. The frequency of a photon “falling” towards the earth is blueshifted.’  (Wikipedia, Pound-Rebka experiment)

 

We found that the speed of light was a natural outcome of uncertainty and, from above, that simple relationships ‘hide’ identities, so it appears to be a fundamental fact/requirement that matter/energy requires an inherent speed/velocity so it must be true for particles as well, so, as we cool something, the Brownian’ movement decreases but must have a motion/temperature at Absolute Zero. In other words (contextually), (a+b)=1 cannot have one of its terms at zero, because that would make a certainty/absolute.  It is interesting to note that uncertainty (concept) means that we can’t measure if something is at zero energy because we have to use a photon, but the logic (context) of the certainty/absolute in the last sentence says the same, and that is the mathematics of concepts, that there is a (necessary) relation between concept and context.

 

If the speed of light in a vacuum is constant then it is an absolute, but the Michelson-Morley experiment says that the speed of light is the same to two observers moving with respect to each other, and this presents a problem that we can now solve. We are use to being the measurers that set up an absolute when we measure something and we force the universe to accommodate us. We can have one absolute in probability space, but not two and we define an absolute when we measure. A ‘real’ space could have two, but we only have one because we live in a probability space/universe and when we measure the speed of light (an absolute) we, the measurers become the relatives. In other words, the speed of light is an absolute, but the measurers are not and the conundrum is solved by the logic that allows the enigma that two different observers moving with respect to each other record the same speed of light. To repeat, as experimenters/measurers, we are use to defining the absolute and letting logic look after itself and it is a shock when the observer, us, becomes the relative.

 

Concepts depend on measuring/knowing and the mathematics of concepts is arranging the concepts in order to study the resulting contexts (between the concepts) and everything is about measuring/knowing, so there are no unique/absolute answers/things (except, presumably, the speed of light) unless we set the absolute. This concept is carried into the mathematics of concepts because we can never know an answer perfectly because that would be an absolute, but can only iterate (a measurement) towards it. There is room for a God of Truth, but not an all-knowing God!

 

I have tried to formalize CEM, and the fifth dimensions shows how it fits into the Theory of Everything/Consciousness, so, as above Consciousness is the measurement/repeatability of atoms, molecules, life, consciousness (of animals) and the use of the mathematics of concepts from the Big Bang to the Big Blink (when our universe disappears). The formation of the brain in organisms produces consciousness and then in us, the mathematics of concepts. The sixth dimension of planning/setting-an-absolute has been used by organisms as part of consciousness (for 3,000 million years) for planning prey/predator interactions, but it contains time/future and so must be a separate dimension that we have defined, and this is another reason why world O units are different to world P because they contain the future, which is a necessary part of planning.

 

But, linked in, is evolution, and that brings another set of attractors into the mathematics of concepts, when iteration produces Survival of the Fittest, when we start to control the environment (Survival of the Best, mathematics) that has led us to Armageddon, and our hope for the future (Survival of the Best, mathematics of concepts). I have to stop somewhere because everything is linked, but particularly interesting is a new style of government (chapter 67) for the world using Plato’s ideas (of future-planning) and especially how to avoid the modern diseases (chapter 59) by recognising our body’s dependence on evolution.

 

Concepts have been used for hundreds of thousands of years (throw mud into a stream to bring fish to the surface, clubs, stone axes, cave painting etc.), entanglement has always been with us (tribes, families, relationships etc.) as has measurement (groceries, petrol etc.), but we can’t escape the fact that the world is not being managed properly and there has to be a reason and that reason is a lack of ‘forward planning’ that is forward (dimension 6), planning (dimension 5) using knowledge (mathematics of concepts and Plato’s ideas).

 

If forward planning is so important, why is our world not using it? Are politicians’ promises a degree of forward planning? I think not! Plato’s idea was to establish an absolute using the best available information from the universities and I showed how it could be done using a three-

way relationship instead of the two-way currently used. This forces the present-day laissez-faire/social-security political system that has no forward planning into virtue/laissez-faire/social-security political system with forward-planning by the universities, and notice that the latter system has an over-arching virtue with the laissez-faire/social-security political system remaining the same. In other words, it can be simply implemented/augmented into the current system.

 

Conclusion/prediction. This chapter seems to be a bit of a ‘dog’s breakfast’, but that is inevitable in a top-down approach, however, so much has ‘opened up’ that the next chapter will build on (a+b)=1 with (hopefully) surprising results. Also, there are more observations that should be made.

 

I think that academic specialists will have to have a greater appreciation of the ‘over-arching’ AND to the opposite, which is the ‘under-arching’ as the basis of their work, and described by the dimensions: x, y, z, time passing, (a+b)=1 and future time. The ‘riches’ that come from unfolding (a+b)=1 lead into literally everything (mathematics, physics, language, concepts etc.) and the dangers of not doing so are indicated in the following. ‘Einstein relied on his own innate intuition as to how things ought to behave. After much reflection, it became intuitively obvious to him that the speed of light must be a universal constant’ (Black Holes and Time Warps: Einstein’s Outrageous Legacy, Kip S. Thorne, p 79), Intuition is dangerous because ‘at first sight, black holes seemed to be permitted; then Einstein, Eddington, and others gave (incorrect) arguments that they are forbidden.’ (p 138). These quotations point out the problems/opportunities of intuition and further that ‘”the explanation must be that Laplacian dark stars [black holes] posed no threat to our cherished faith in the permanence and stability of matter.  By contrast, twentieth-century black holes are a great threat to that faith”’ (p 138) Hence, there is an argument for a Theory of Everything/Consciousness built up from first principles to consider every possibility and not rely on the politics of science.

Chapter 67: Unfolding Democracy, the Fifth Dimension and Waking Plato to Save our World

 

http://darrylpenney.com

 

Abstract: The political parties freely admit that they are self-seeking and biased and, I believe that greed/misallocations/manipulations are ruining our world through the ‘Tragedy of the Commons’ and a better system is put forward. Democracy and voting is found to be a much deeper and complex relationship that can only be ‘anchored’ by assigning an absolute value, and without an absolute, factional fighting occurs at every level. Plato used the mathematics of concepts to derive the Republic, which is (possibly) part of the sixth dimension, and others, in the ‘flowering’ of Greek philosophy, derived mathematics and 2,500 years later the world is in danger of Armageddon because of the ineptitude of our political/governing-system. The voting system is deeply flawed by ignoring the logic/measurement duality and the necessity of defining an absolute and the compulsory voting system exacerbates this flaw. Using the mathematics of concepts, the lack of absolutes in our probability of existence universe makes Plato’s work relevant to today and modernizing it leads to a political system far superior to ours (which has brought us to the brink of Armageddon) and is (possibly) our only hope for a ‘soft landing’ for the planet. Everything that we measure has a logic (of Consciousness) coupled with it, that must be considered, and Plato’s idea of governing/ruling/managing (when modernized) produces a logical ‘completeness’ with no more complexity, little cost and huge advantages for the people, politicians and universities. Plato’s reputation may be decisive in having this system installed/accepted, before it is too late, and frees the modern political leader from responsibility and the constant danger of being ‘rolled’/replaced. An optimal political system reduces bias/rorting, improves the organizational/logical framework and gives control by applying logical aims supplied by those best suited to supply them within an overall absolute goal and produces an absolute of ‘virtue’ as the Churches used ‘love’ and knights, ‘chivalry’.

 

 Allowing the use of biased/self-seeking political parties to form governments promotes/encourages greed and over-use of the planet’s resources, and whilst it is natural that common resources are over-used as their costs are often lower, the only sensible step is to reduce population, but it requires agreement as a first-step and the formality of the mathematics of concepts should allow agreement on many issues, as well as an absolute of ‘virtue’ and monitoring by philosophers as was suggested by Plato, 2500 years ago.

 

In the previous chapter (66), it was shown that we evolved a reality out of the possibility of existence and that no absolutes exist, which was Plato’s problem (defining an absolute justice etc.), and from chapter 63, ‘in the first book of the Republic (332-3). If good living is a skill or art, what is it the skill to do? There seems no way of specifying the skill as ”the skill to do x“ without making it also the skill to do the opposite of x’. (Greek Philosophers, R. M. Hare, p 127) In general, we assume that people’s wants are more important than their needs, and that assumption has brought our world to the verge of collapse from over-population, over-consumption etc. Politicians tend to pander to voters to try to given them their wants irrespective of the harm that is caused to (principally) the environment/commons, and are effectively, ‘buying’ their votes.

 

I, like most people assumed that democracy was ‘fair’ and that the majority should have a greater say than the minority, but with the knowledge that there are no absolutes available in our universe, how do we know if the majority view is ‘better’ than the minority view? Notice that mechanistic measuring and logical measuring both apply at the same time and the answer is, simply, that we don’t know which viewpoint is better/more-correct, and even worse, there is no way to decide unless we make a decision on what is to be an absolute and so the majority versus minority is only an illusion (of a physical measurement) of an absolute. Notice that this duality is only for our convenience/comprehension and it should be considered as two ‘faces’ of a probability space, see below. Even worse is the practice of forcing, under the threat of a fine, people that are not only uninformed, but also disinterested in the hope/view that having everyone vote will make the vote better/fairer. Perhaps forcing a high turnout by fining non-attendance is an attempt to boost the (apparent) legitimacy of the vote. It will be seen later that ancient Greek democracies used only concerned/participating male citizens in their voting/juries, and those not interested did not attend.

 

It is important to realize that the police system provides a reality by the threat of fining and locking-up offenders and the judicial system is based on the mathematics of concepts, and they are both based on the absolute of (written down) law. The political system is logically inept and even allows voters and politicians to have a say in how much they are paid out of the public purse. This ineptitude, lack of proper goals and an inadequate ‘stick’/force/control is, in my opinion, the basic reason that the world is experiencing global warming, overpopulation etc. and also why the world is experiencing the modern ‘diseases’ of lifestyle (cancer, heart disease etc.). Put simply, we need a political system that has reality, like the police that forces us to do the right thing, and a mathematics of concepts, like a judiciary, that enables us to define an absolute so that rightness/police/universities can guide us into it. Sadly our political system is a mess (and has placed the world in a mess), but I will show that we can impose a reality (through voters) and a goal (generalists/universities) on the politicians for everyone’s benefit.

 

To right these ineptitudes requires a re-thinking of the politicians’ role in a modern society and, in essence, I am going to ‘map’ the concepts of Plato’s time into the modern world using the attractors/concepts of the mathematics of concepts, but first we have to start somewhere, so, I’m going to show what is, I believe, wrong with present-day politics, and how they are based on flawed assumptions. I mentioned the voting system in chapters 22 and 47 and in the latter described how voting for Independents provided a Citizen Initiated Referendum which is particularly valuable, as the major parties are increasingly side-lined by being recognised as being manipulative and self-interested. The realization that there are no absolutes, changes the federal situation drastically and necessitates a re-think because we share the world, as in the case of the over-use of the ‘common’, and especially considering the antics of the political leaders over the last couple of years.

 

Traditionally, the Labour Party is supported by the trade unions whilst the Liberal/National party represents the self-employed/farmers, but is it time to modernize our view of party politics, especially with the realization that there are no absolutes and that that fact leads to factional fighting? Without absolute goals, it is inevitable that factions will fight for supremacy and as an example, Malcolm Turnbull told a Liberal Party meeting that there were no factions, no stress/favouritism on Big business and no back-room deals under his leadership, and there was general laughter. This can be taken many ways, whether in jest or naivety etc., and shows the need for a formal mathematics of concepts where a solution/statement cannot have ambiguities because ambiguities allow argument/discussion without agreement, and agreement is required for an absolute. I believe that the two-party system, that represents society today, and in the past, is no longer adequate and that our more complex society desperately needs a better system, if for no other reason that we are (literally) killing the planet with the present system.

 

We have to assign a goal, and that must be Survival of the Best (mathematics of concepts) because Survival of the Best (mathematics), that we have been using, has failed us as a guide/absolute, so, the answer, if there is one, lies in the mathematics of concepts and, particularly the realization that there are no absolutes unless we define them. Indeed, we have based our political system on ‘democracy’ as chosen by some Greek Cities nearly two thousand five hundred years ago, but then we let the idea ‘slip’ over time, and the time has come to re-appraise our political system. There is something very wrong with a system that changes leaders so often (I am referring to Rudd-Gillard-Rudd-Abbott-Turnbull), apart from the lack of a global logos. ‘No single English word corresponds neatly to logos (word/definition/account/reason/argument/rationality)’ (The Plato Reader, Tim Chappell, p x) and I am tempted to add the word ‘logic’ because they are all part of the fifth dimension.

 

‘During the Classical era of Ancient Greece many city-states had forms of government based on democracy, in which the free (non-slave), native (non-foreigner) adult male citizens of the city took a major and direct part in the management of the affairs of state, such as declaring war, voting supplies, dispatching diplomatic missions and ratifying treaties. These activities were often handled by a form of direct democracy, based on a popular assembly. Others, of judicial and official nature, were often handled by large juries, drawn from the citizen body.’ (Wikipedia, Greek democracy) Needless to say, this was not the (practically) universal voting that we see today and chapter 22 discusses the necessity of reducing the vote of those that receive government support and suggests a means of doing so. This is crucial because a proverb (a simple solution of the mathematics of concepts) says ‘if you derive a benefit, you can’t vote for it’, and anyone diagreeing with this would be openly ridiculed, except, apparently, in politics!

 

The Greeks of the time were very concerned about educating their young because absolutes had to be set by the parents in the way of morality etc., just as has to be done today. Socrates was ‘attacked by Aristophanes as a scientific enthusiast and a religious skeptic, and finally put to death by the restored democracy in 399 [BC] on the charge of corrupting the youth and blaspheming the gods.’ (The Republic, Plato, translated by A. D. Lindsay, p xvi) ‘Socrates in the Meno …  whether a boy should be sent to the sophists in order to learn virtue, and Anytus exclaims against the idea, saying that any Athenian gentleman taken at random would do the boy more good. The argument of the Meno makes it clear that these were the only alternative methods of education…. the Republic is not only an account of the philosophic life; it is a treatise on education.’ (p xvii)

 

‘The philosopher is described as the saviour of society, and his main work in saving society is to turn all the powerful educative forces of public opinion and environment to the aid of virtue…. The anti-moral doctrines are put into the mouth of a sophist that we may realize that these are not only the opinions of an individual; they will be taught to the younger generation. The other side to this is seen in Book VI, 492, where Plato’s complaint against the sophists is not that they are subversive of ordinary opinions, but that they are not revolutionary enough. The sophists tell people what they wish to hear. They give public and emphatic expression to opinions already in the air.’ (p xvii) I would like to accentuate ‘and his main work in saving society is to turn all the powerful educative forces of public opinion and environment to the aid of virtue’ and say that this is what I am suggesting/promoting here.

 

The above should give enough attractors/concepts/quotations to enable us to make some observations. Firstly, as mentioned above, in a probability universe there are no absolutes and this proves that Plato’s works apply as much to us today as they did then, with a little modernizing. Secondly, the description of the sophists’ methods reminds me of the modern politicians’ methods of giving people what they want. To repeat ‘Plato’s complaint against the sophists is not that they are subversive of ordinary opinions, but that they are not revolutionary enough. The sophists tell people what they wish to hear.’ I can do nothing but agree and strongly suspect that this course of giving too much (an absolute) has led to the Armageddon that the planet is facing and has not protected the environment ‘properly’. The word ‘properly’ requires an absolute, not a politician’s ‘chipping’ away of the environment for self-interest.

 

Thirdly, from above, ‘the philosopher is described as the saviour of society’ is revealing because the Greek philosophers are teaching formal lessons about science, ethics etc. This is far from the two methods used at the time (above), and aligns well with modern universities, however, universities hold vast amounts of knowledge in a form that is difficult to use effectively in a day-to-day sense. Universities house specialists because specialists hold depth of knowledge and this book attempts to show why generalists are necessary to ‘over-arch’.

 

I need to digress because in the previous chapter (66), we discussed the Theory of Everything/Consciousness because the fifth dimension consists of ‘players’ acting out (logically, not interpersonally as discussed below) the future (on the ‘stage’ of space-time) and the over-arching ‘factor’ was Consciousness that (quite legitimately, I believe) can be viewed as a continuum from the Big Bang to the Big Blink. This ‘interlocking’ of concepts is logical because everything is linked and as you know more concepts your creativity increases, after all, the Mathematics of the Mind evolved using the mathematics of concepts, and the more concepts considered, the better the solution (usually). As soon as we bring a ‘generalist’ into the ‘over-arching’ of speciallities, we necessarily have to use the mathematics of concepts and ‘linkages’ appear between concepts, so, bear with me because concepts will ‘link’ together, and often in fundamental ways. This derivation/chapter is a prime example.

 

Consider the quotation: ‘today’s science and mathematics so far transcend the achievement of the Greeks that no modern scientist is likely to study Euclid, or Hippocrates or Archimedes for other than purely antiquarian reasons. Modern philosophers, by contrast, continue to discuss problems which were first raised some two thousand five hundred years ago, and they often do so in terms which their Greek predecessors would have found fully intelligible’. (Greek Philosophers, Keith Thomas, General Editor, Past Masters, Forward) Now mathematics is defined as an absolute, and is a subset of the mathematics of concepts, but can/should philosophy be defined as an absolute without context? By moving Plato’s work into a modern context, I am taking it from the antiquarian and making it part of the modern scene/context and making it useful/necessary to the determination of a better form of government. In other words, a concept must have a context and that context must change in/with the modern world (mathematics is designed not to change).

 

The quotation above needs a little more explanation, in that the mathematics of concepts that Plato used (mathematics had not been invented) in his writing was lost (or not consciously developed), presumably because mathematics produced such spectacular advances. Remembering that measurement and logic are a dualism (that I am using for convenience) and technology ‘blossomed’, but understanding lagged behind, as shown in chapter 2 where misunderstandings presented ‘problems’ as mathematics ventured into the (more logic) realms of relativity, gravity, force fields, ‘spooky action at a distance’ etc. where logic was necessary to understanding the processes. At the same time, mathematics is the exact part of, and a subset of the mathematics of concepts and produces measurement that led to technology and the lack of appreciation/control of the associated logic has led us into the world’s problems. This is a very important point because you can measure and not affect a system (except quantum mechanics), but applying logic is changing (Fittest to Best and) iteration to mind/brain and that has led to our world’s problems because we did not know how to control it. The dualism can be seen in the fifth dimension CEM (concepts/entanglement (a+b=1)/measurement (a,b)) arising out of probability space.

 

I have started formalizing the mathematics of concepts and consequently, bearing in mind that I don’t understand/know philosophy, I have modernized Plato’s work (on politics), in context, to ‘map’ it into the present day. I think that this shows that generalists have a very important role in translating the specialists’ work to benefit government/voters’ knowledge in the same way, in fact, the triumverate of specialist/government/voter is what this whole chapter is about.

 

Why did this ‘flowering’ of philosophy end? Was it ‘stunted’ by the spectacular rise in mathematics, or ‘in the fourth century [BC] the history of Greece is a record of petty struggles, constant intrigue, and universal faction.’ (The Republic, Plato, translated by A. D. Lindsay, p xv) This fighting/competition is still with us as manipulation is rife, from businesses wanting more customers, Churches more souls to save, governments more growth/employment etc., and where is it to end? Manipulation occurs because there is no agreed absolute and I believe that over-population is the basic cause that must be controlled.

 

The world needs leadership and Plato has left a legacy using the original mathematics of concepts and, being a general mathematics, it contains all solutions and answers, if we extend his work. The quotation of ‘universal faction’ epitomizes the state of the federal and state parliaments over the last few years and begs the question ‘are politicians the best people to make judgements on our behalf?’. We have mentioned that Plato is just as relevant today, so, let’s ‘wake’ Plato and try his suggestions to try to find a ‘best’ political system for ourselves and the world.

 

Is there any real difference between Plato’s time and our time? Firstly, today’s politicians are similar to the sophists in nature, and secondly, the cities were small and communication face-to-face, whereas today, the distances are large, but thanks to modern technology, we can be face-to-face. I believe that Plato’s ideas were ignored by leaders for their own ends because they wanted control and thus we find that little has (significantly/logically) changed. However, I have endeavoured to overcome this retention of power, see below, so, can Plato’s work be revived, with a little ‘modern organization’, and given a second chance?

 

‘If we are to understand the true principles of man’s conduct, we must try to discover what man’s specific function or purpose is, what he is meant by nature to do, and we must look for this, not in his selfish and individualistic actions, but in the actions in which he co-operates with other men.’ (The Republic, Plato, translated by A. D. Lindsay, p xxi) The Michelson-Morley experiment shows that we live in a probabilty of existence space, and I believe, that what we call energy and matter are two states (like water, ice, steam) of Consciousness and that we are a ‘logic machine’ (atom, molecule, life/breeding) that evolved because we could and are playing out a ‘logical’ future. We evolved a reality because it helps us compete/exist with less stress, but that reality has no absolutes and we must define absolutes in order to coexist with other people and we learn these within the family in the form of creation-myths/teaching.

 

Plato spent a lifetime studying these interpersonal relationships and they are valid today (with a little modernizing of context), so, from above, he imagined philosophers defining/refining the virtues of the populus through teaching the young through schools, as above, but the study of philosophy has itself suffered from the expansion of knowledge and the splitting into separate studies, so, I am suggesting, at its simplest, that each university (or federal government) employ, within the university, a generalist and that that generalist help ‘pull’ projects together, and that each generalist from each university be available to form a team that can advise/enlighten/gauge-the-worth of policies desired to be implemented by the government.

 

Whilst I believe that this book has shown the need for generalists, I am trying to replicate Plato’s time by amalgamating the (specific areas of) learning of modern universities into a ‘generalist’ which defines a mathematics of concepts and further, that generalists from all universities form a group to advise the government, again forming a mathematics of concepts and thus, in their agreement, an absolute. One small problem is that academics are definitely ‘left wing’ and their verdict might have to be a spread covering Labour/Liberal viewpoints so that voters can better judge the absolute in the light of the voters’ personal choice. I believe that this is the only way that universities can communicate usefully with the government and the voters in a modern world and whilst Plato believed that philosophers have the personality/knowledge to govern, the question is debatable. The personalities of politician and philosopher are completely different, but together they come closer to Plato’s ideal.

 

To restate the previous paragraph, politicians are similar in personality to the sophists, who were disliked by Plato, but philosophers can hardy be expected to like the ‘spotlight’, kissing babies etc., so, as we need both (defining an absolute), we separate them and leave them where they are most happy: the politician in the ‘limelight’ and the philosophers in the universities. The union of the two is, as Plato would approve, for the philosopher to tell the politician what to do, but, whilst this seems to be sensible, it is an unlikely outcome, as politicians like to have a ‘captain’s pick’, if they can get away with it, unless we ‘engineer’ otherwise.

 

From previously, using the ‘biocomputer’ method of tracing the multitude of iterations of multi-celled organisms, we proposed a placebo/nocebo continuum/contract between the cells and the mind/brain that could be called consciousness and that required that every cell send inputs to the mind/brain and every cell receives messages from the mind/brain. Organisationally, this simply means that every cell has to be in contact with, and be in contact from, the mind/brain and it is easy to see that Plato’s ‘choice’ is deficient in one ‘link’, and that is from philosophers to the general voters, however, this would have occurred, to some extent through the philosophers’ control of students’ knowledge and the ‘tightness’ of the Greek community.

 

To expand, the voters elect the politicians and the media tells the voters what the government is doing/planning through the news and the government receives polls through the media about the public’s perception of the government’s performance. Sounds good, but Plato wants the philosophers to control the politicians, and that can only be done if the philosophers present their ideas to the voters, and this can be done easily via the media. Now two cases occur, firstly, the government issues a policy, then the philosophers comment publically, which is reported to the voters and that affects the polls of voters, or secondly, the government sends the proposal to the philosophers, gets a reply and reappraises the proposal, changes the proposal until it gets sufficient support from the philosophers then announces the policy. The second is most likely/sensible, and that means that the philosophers are advising the government, which is what we want. Notice that an iteration is occurring with the philosophers providing an absolute, and taking the blame away from the politicians and turning them into statesmen/stateswomen with relevant/sensible policies. This appears to signal the demise of the political parties, which is good because they are factional, manipulative and divisive.

 

If each generalist/philosopher puts in a vote for ‘virtue’ using Labour/Liberal preferences, the media runs the total with the voters satisfaction (as they do now), the voters then have an absolute to be able to compare the government’s policy/performance. This is already being done to a limited extent because there are organizations that post opinions, but these do not make an ‘over-arching’ absolute that will slowly change as the philosophers (necessarily) express more/less concern for current policies. Also, I believe that it is crucial as a first step, that a simple model, using readily available data, be used to make a person’s vote represent that person’s ‘worth’ to society as was done in chapter 22 (and was done in Plato’s time).

 

We lost control 10,000 years ago when we used our mind/brain to over-ride Survival of the Fittest and the result is chaos, but chaos can be handled if we put limits on something (eg 0<a<1) and the mathematics of concepts gives a formal foundation for agreement from a group of philosophers. Philosophical problems such as limiting population, improving home-life to decrease mental problems, the ‘problem’ people should be encouraged to not have children by pension payments etc. The philosophers will revel in the solutions to these problems (I have already done some work on them and they are solvable) and that allows the politicians to become statesmen/stateswomen with policies that win votes and allow absolute choices that have been rated by the philosophers to take to their parties and constituents. Chapter 62 contains the Philosophy of Leadership and the best leader is, in my opinion, the one that is correct most often, and as the philosophers have (effective) responsibility for policy, that lessens the problems of political leaders being ‘rolled’.

 

The mathematics of concepts ‘contains’ both a measurement and a logic and the fundamental aim is that the planet can be saved, that the policies to do that, are academically based, and not based on pressure groups, that the pressure on politicians to perform ‘miracles’ is replaced by just being able to perform, the universities take their rightful place and responsibility in making policies, the generalist brings research ‘together’, the voters get what they need (not just want), and everyone seems better off, especially the environment. I think that Plato would be pleased to think that he saved the planet and not merely ‘society’ (p xvii)

 

I have heard that this century will be called ‘the Age of the Mind’, but as we have seen, the mind/brain, like (probably all of) the body will increase as we need/use it/them more (exercising muscles etc.) and as the mind/brain is based on the mathematics of concepts, which is part of the fifth dimension, it might be better to call it ‘the Age of Logic’ or the Second Coming/Chance. This is our chance to bring ‘everything’ together under a ‘control’ that works and this is our chance to define/act-out an interpersonal, international, environmental, technical etc. future and the key to this happening is politics stripped of its current biases/unfairnesses, using a logical base, as described above, that benefits everyone, including the planet, but not excessively.

 

The system that I have advocated seems simple, but it is based on a number of derivations and everything links together as one would expect from a good solution. Additional ‘points’ are that firstly, the mathematics of concepts ‘opens up’ mathematics into a general mathematics that contains solutions to everything, secondly, the concept of no absolute, and having to set an absolute is crucial and needs the best/Best people involved. The Churches are based on the absolute of ‘love’ and that idea took over most of the world, the knights had ‘chivalry’ as a code, and ‘virtue’ is a worthwhile aim. Thirdly, Plato used concepts to define a system/organization that could change something that was ‘killing’ the world to something could make it a paradise. Fourthly, the ‘vote’ is a measurement and a logic combined. A majority vote measures ‘opinion’ but not the logic of what is needed/necessary and the ‘proper’ absolute must be chosen and universities are the logical choice to define it, not a party room. Fifthly, very little change is needed to the political system because only the direction/concepts have been better aligned and the political parties that were designed to take advantage of the political/government/world situation have been made less important.

 

However, the mathematics of concepts is inter-linking and where to stop is arbitrary (we have changed a two-way into a three-way arrangement), also, an organizational change is a change/’flip’ of ‘state’ into the unknown using planning, capital, faith etc. Plato and I have tried, but as my friend Terry says, ‘until the Voters discover they can vote largesse from the public treasury, from that moment on, the majority always vote for the Candidate promising them the most benefits from the Public Treasury.’ All the derivation above is to try to stop that happening, and the prestige/reputation of Plato will not be enough unless we can find a statesman/stateswoman to implement it.

 

The Philosophy of Leadership is simply that the best leader is the one that is correct most often, and people will support someone that they can believe knows the best way, even if someone else does the ‘spruiking’. The ‘modern’ Churches are built around one word/absolute, namely, ‘love’ and Saint Peter widely spread the Word and that Word/absolute was all encompassing (love your enemy/neighbour etc.) whereas we are using the mathematics of concepts to seek solutions between concepts. Notice that the Churches ‘lost’ the Holy Spirit (their lack of a sensible/close relation to the environment is well known), whereas to be consistent they needed to love the environment (the original Holy Spirit, in my opinion, chapter 1).

 

‘Virtue’, I believe, demands care of the planet, and with this derivation, do we finally understand how everything works? The Theory of Everything/Consciousness could be considered the scenery/back-drop/players to the ‘play’ in the theatre of space-time and Plato’s (modernized) works could be interpreted as the interpersonal interaction/concepts between the players. The answer may be no! The interaction/dialogue ‘between the players’ may form a sixth dimension! We know that there are no absolutes, so the ‘space’ that ‘contains’ the dialogues must be continuous and the concepts exist, so that ‘space’ may be a reality/dimension. In other words, space-time is four, Consciousness is five and consciousness/creativity/communication may be six, but herd members follow a leader to food, so is a new dimension dependent on the ‘quality’ of the thought or do we widen the fifth?

 

The mathematics of concepts contains everything (because it is an iteration of ‘knowing’/measuring) and we mentioned that we required the government to possess reality and the mathematics of concepts like the police and judiciary, so talking about reality, I’ll give a simple reason why the political system must change using the concept of a biocomputer. A reality requires a steady state and 10,000 years ago we used the mind/brain to alter that state and the population grew and so we are not currently in a reality (steady state). Armageddon MUST occur to reduce the population and keep it stable, unless we change the political system to manage population. Remember that it is only technology keeping Malthus’s prediction at bay. The herd is Survival of the Fittest, the transition may be Survival of the Best (mathematics) and the sixth dimension might be Survival of the Best (mathematics of concepts), then, Plato and the other philosophers might be working in a sixth dimension because, as above, they could still talk with each other.

 

Example: because this is so new/different/important, I thought that I would put in an example to show how effective this method can be in guiding/controlling governments through the reporting of government policies by the universities through the media to the voters with virtue as the aim. Most of the countries use the capitalist system with some degree of democracy because it is (probably) considered the most ‘efficient’, but using Plato’s idea of involving the universities as ‘policy generators’, turns a two-way into a three-way organization, and the ‘flip’ might happen (virtually) ‘over-night’. Countries could easily incorporate Plato’s idea because it is simple to install, (practically) costless and much more efficient and ‘steals a march’ on any country not using it.

 

Now, as above, there is a measurement (using Plato’s system) and the logic, which, in part, is the freedom to use it, so, I could say that all countries are welcome to use Plato’s system except Australia until they fix/make-morally-right the star-chamber that they have in the Department of Immigration (chapter 62). As a generalist, and the only one involved at the moment, I am attempting to tell voters that the Australian government is deficient and whilst they could use Plato’s system, as it is not patented (measurement), but morally should they use it if I do not allow them (logically) to do so? I am trying to stress the duality of measurement/logic and wonder if the Australian government would implement Plato’s system in spite of me withholding my approval until the star-chamber in Immigration is fixed? Would the media publicity and discussion damage the government that is attempting to bring ‘virtue’ into its system? Can one be virtuous and allow a star-chamber? This applies to human rights etc. and surely these are questions for universities to ponder/question, not political parties.

 

In conclusion, in watching our political leaders on television, I would be a lot happier if I knew that the policies that they are ‘pushing’ were rated/supplied by all the universities, not some political party room, and when I think that our world depends on this system, I despair.

Chapter 66: The Theory of Everything, the Philosophers’ Stone and the Second Coming/Chance

 

http://darrylpenney.com

 

Abstract: This is the Theory of Everything and the probability space that we live in is relative, and absolute goals must be assigned if we are to take control of our evolution (Plato’s problem). Consciousness provides the basis of everything from the Big Bang (of Consciousness) through evolution of consciousness/mind/brain/body, and is the fifth dimension CEN (mathematics of concepts/entanglement/measurement). The Theory of Everything is apt because we are ‘players’ defining a logical future through the fifth dimension on the ‘stage’ of space-time, further, if it is the Theory of Everything, we will be able to link the Big Bang with quantum mechanics, and that is done. An example is given of the logic of force fields and in particular that gravity is propagated instantaneously without the need of gravitons or gravitational waves. The Philosophers’ stone represents Man’s aspirations without realizing adequate goals and the world is now in an Extinction Event, but the use of a general mathematics of concepts will allow agreed goals to be set and implemented and could produce a Second Coming/Chance. An example is given showing that politics and the lack of goals is reducing political leadership to a level that is promoting an extinction event.

 

This chapter is a derivation of a fundamental ‘continuum’ that requires amalgamation of parts of commonly used academic disciplines such as physics/chemistry/philosophy/botany/nutrition/mathematics and so on because there are no absolutes of disciplines (1). Everything is linked together by entanglement and nothing can exist without reference to everything else as shown by the mathematics of concepts and this makes a statement that ‘generalists’ are as necessary as ‘specialists’ in the academic world. This chapter could be considered as an abstract/condensation of the derivation of the preceding 65 chapters, and secondly, that ‘physics/chemistry/philosophy/botany/nutrition/mathematics and so on’ will not change because they are subsets within the mathematics of concepts and the fifth dimension.

 

Philosophy

I want to repeat a quotation given at the beginning of the book because I need to define a context. “When we talk about mathematics,” [John von Neumann] wrote towards the end of his life, ”we may be discussing a secondary language, built on the primary language truly used by our central nervous system.” (The Shallows, Nicholas Carr p 176) Mathematics is a special case (the secondary language) that is a subset of a completely general mathematics of concepts (primary language) that is used by our cortex. That is why nothing will change except our understanding and to illustrate, let me say that Isaac Newton is reputed to have watched an apple drop and deduced that the apple is accelerating and secondly, is moving towards the centre of the earth and that’s how the Theory of Gravity evolved with acceleration to the centre of mass.

 

I agree with that, but, I am saying one extra fundamental thing: that the apple is repeating its motion, and that repetition is a form of consciousness and Consciousness, which is logic, is everywhere when we look at the universe in the correct way and it is called the fifth dimension. Everything is attracted to everything else (Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity) otherwise there would not be planets/suns/us and the potential energy of gravity is part of the Conservation of Energy in our universe and thus is propagated instantly. No gravitons, no gravitational waves, no wondering about speed – its all about simplicity, and that is a simple solution of the mathematics of concepts (Occam’s razor). Notice the change in context from the ‘physical’ (our world O) to the logical (world O and P).

 

Physics/mathematics

In the beginning, there need not be anything, but the probability of existence always exists, and forms a reality (2) because it is continuous and complete and contains certainty of existence (at 1). A mathematical probability space comprises 3 space, time passing and a+b=1 (where a and b are two measurements, for simplicity), our world (O) has 3 space, time interval and acknowledgement of a fifth dimension (Kaluza and Klein) (3) and the universe (P), I maintain, has 3 space, time passing and CEM (mathematics of concepts/entanglement/measurement) (4).

 

The Big Bang produced Consciousness (potential/heat/unknown energy), that has a minimum of two states (energy/mass) (5), changing in time to Consciousness (potential energy etc.) to Consciousness (mass etc.), that is, physics (energy to mass), chemistry (mass to atoms/molecules) and finally to biology (life). Consciousness (big C) is over-arching, whereas  consciousness (little c) is the usual definition of being able to ‘think’. The equation a+b=1 has no absolute (unique) solution and leads to a+b=a+c where a,b and c are measurements/observers and b=c for a speed of light a, which is the result of the Michelson-Morley experiment (6). This enigma (that the speed of light is the same for observers moving/accelerating relative to each other) is thus necessary in a probability space because everything is relative to the measurer. Einstein used (some) of this result in his Special Theory of Relativity (7), but it is crucial to recognise that his theory was the relation between b and c, and not that b=c for a measurement, which is more fundamental.

 

Notice that Einstein assumed a probability universe (in line with Michelson-Morley) and a probability space has no absolutes, only relativities (a+b=1) (unlike a universe that really really exists) and that relativity produces Plato’s problem of no absolute (8). We have to define an absolute to have a goal, and that was Socrates’ solution (‘know yourself’) (9) because we must define an absolute and that (probably) needs a formal mathematics of concepts for everyone to be able to agree on an absolute/goal.

 

Further, a probability space/universe contains the ‘proof’ of the postulate of the Conservation of Energy (Consciousness) because a+b=1, whereas an absolute space/universe need not have conservation. The Theory of Everything contains Everything ‘played out’ by logic figures (that are us!) because how else are decisions to be made. It is sensible/logical that we evolved a reality in a probability of existence space because conservation exists but we do not need to really really exist, and that makes things/life a lot easier and simpler.

 

The mathematics of concepts is general and contains all the answers, but not exact, because of its very nature and obviously accords with Godel’s incompleteness theorem (10) and simple solutions are proverbs and I would like to introduce ‘where there is smoke, there is fire’. Now, we know that this is not really true, but we can use it as a ‘pointer’ to look at concepts that have been neglected because they may be the ‘nuggets’ that show where current theories are not inclusive. In particular, the uncertainty between position and momentum (delta x times delta p is greater than or equal to h bar/2) and Heisenberg’s time uncertainty principle (delta E times delta t is greater than or equal to h bar) (11) are well known, but not used much.

 

So, we start with a ‘spark’ of Consciousness (Big Bang) that is pure Consciousness (potential/heat/unknown energy) but there is an uncertainty relation, above, between energy and time, so time is created along with energy and ‘expansion’ proceeds at some rate (perhaps called ‘inflation’) and produces ‘cooling’, and when matter is created, the uncertainty, above, creates space and so on. This is a simple theory, but it is interesting that it ‘links’ the Big Bang with quantum mechanics and it links them simply, as we should expect  (Occam’s razor). If we consider the tunnel effect, that a particle can be in classically ‘impossible’ positions’, the fact that it can, could be thought of as a wave packet ‘width’, or, turning that mechanistic approach to a logical basis, there must be ‘room’ to accommodate the possibility and so energy creates time and a particle creates space. To repeat, a probability space is a measuring space that must be able to accommodate ‘possibilities’ (12).

 

It is interesting that the same process could cause a Consciousness (energy) ‘packet’ that we call a photon, to generate time and space, that could be a speed that is indeterminate until measured and any measurement is relative to the measurer. It is a simple explanation, but it allows the possibility within a Theory of Everything and a probability space is a simple space. Occam’s razor stresses simplicity, so it may form a logical explanation to the Big Bang and why light moves, and move it must if we are to survive. There is also the multiverse selection logic (the strength of gravity and the speed of light are two requirements) because we have been able to evolve in this universe and reality doesn’t care whether we exist or not exist, as long as we measure and choose.

 

It is tempting to ask ‘What caused the Big Bang?’, and again, there should be an answer, so, it could be possible that as it is acknowledged in (11) that virtual particles ‘pop’ into existence in empty space and if that space is a probability space (of Consciousness), a virtual particle of Consciousness is created, and that is, of course, a Big Bang. It should be remembered that ‘time passing’ is required in probability space (P) and that has nothing to do with a time interval in world (O). Intriguingly, our universe might exit in a Big Blink at any time! (Chapter 27)

 

From Chapter 29 ‘a gravitational field has a magnitude that we need for us to exist on our planet and changes continually so that the result is the conservation of energy over the entire universe and is a measure of the potential energy of two points with respect to a third point (potential well) and requires a mind to determine it and use it.

 

What is the current thinking on the subject of gravity? ‘In Physics, the graviton is a hypothetical elementary particle that mediates the force of gravitation in the framework of quantum field theory. If it exists, the graviton is expected to be massless (because the gravitational force appears to have unlimited range) and must be a spin-2 boson.’ (Wikipedia, Graviton) Further, ‘in physics, gravitational waves are ripples in the curvature of space-time that propagates as a wave, travelling outwards from the source. Predicted in 1916 by Albert Einstein to exist on the basis of general relativity, gravitational waves theoretically transport energy as gravitational radiation.’ (Wikipedia, Gravitational wave)’

 

Force is a world O concept, as is the acceleration due to gravity because force requires a time interval and this invokes a measurement (F = (mv-mu)/t) whereas in world P we have uninterrupted impulse interactions (Ft = (mv-mu)) and gravity can be thought of as a Consciousness (potential energy). The speed of changes of all forms of energy must be instantaneous across the universe otherwise breaches of logic would occur to the Conservation of Energy, thus the speed of gravity is instantaneous. Notice that the effect of gravity (Consciousness (potential)) can be thought of as energy and not as a force and that means that no particles or waves are involved, only the Conservation of Energy.

 

Biology

Notice also that Consciousness is a continuum because no absolutes exist in our universe and it can be seen that the Big-Bang/physics/chemistry/biology lead-into/form-the-start-of that continuum. There can be no point at which consciousness is/was attained, only points of progression and the major turning point occurred, I believe, in the Cambrian when fossils appeared. Cells are limited in size because of the thickness of the cell wall (can’t go back, Rule of Life (13)), but they made/evolved a contract to form multi-celled organisms (placebo/nocebo (14)) that increased in size, allowed the use of lensed eyes and a greater degree of consciousness with the formation of the mind/brain. Notice that this ability to see produced a need to plan attacks and larger teeth/bones/armour/consciousness that led to fossils being produced.

 

This Cambrian scenario added impetus to Survival of the Fittest (S/F), that had been continuing from chemistry, and evolution produced untold numbers of organisms of all types, but consciousness is one thing and the body is another and both had to evolve, but the body depends on its food supply and the mind has no separate existence, so they have to work together. Firstly, the reference to ‘untold numbers of organisms’ was made to show that life is a computer (biocomputer) and it is the only way that logic can produce a result. This is important because, in the same way that memories are laid down in the cortex (by logic iteration), there is no other way to determine a logical outcome (15). We, ourselves, are evolving a future in the probability of existence space because we can.

 

Nutrition

Secondly, ‘consciousness is one thing and the body is another and both had to evolve’ needs a little explaining for consciousness is evolving over the continuum, but the body lags behind as genes are slow to change, though epigenetics picks up the ‘pace’. A significant ‘point’, I believe, occurred 60 million years ago when primates used hunter/gatherer/farming to avail the body of luxurious amounts of phytochemicals and the modern degenerative ‘diseases’ (contrasting the types of diseases in mid-Victorian times when people lived as long as we do) (16), in my opinion, are a result of the very restricted modern diet. The modern ‘diseases include cancer, heart ‘disease’, Alzheimer’s disease, depression and so on. Notice that an absolute (of content, Plato) has to be assigned to be our goal in feeding our body, and it needs to be based on how we ate in the Palaeolithic, and further, the second Law of Life requires not just food, but a combination of state of mind/exercise/nutrition (17).

 

Politics

A measurement can be made by iteration or a mind/brain because it is the fifth dimension and there is nothing else to do the job (only space-time is left) and measurement is a+b=1 because the sum of a measurement at every point must equal 1, overall. Notice that this statement contains entanglement because a change in one point influences every other point. The mathematics of concepts must be available because it is a setting up of concepts ready for a comparison, that is iteration, and that involves choice and is logic and so it is not surprising that our mind/brain is based on the Mathematics of the Mind (general mathematics of concepts relating to us and our mind).

 

Consciousness changes, not so much over time, but with the state of mind and especially about how the mind handles logic. The next ‘milestone’ for consciousness/mind is the evolution from hunter/gather/farmer to farmer and that’s when it all started to go wrong. Consciousness changed from S/F to Survival of the Best (S/B) (mathematics) because we decided what we should grow and eat and we needed mathematics to count the production/marketing. This led us into an Extinction Event for many of the animals on the planet, and even extending to ourselves (global warming). I believe that mathematics, that caused the problem through technology, is a special case of the general mathematics of concepts and that it has been used without assigning appropriate goals (Plato’s problem) and that has left us in an Extinction Event (18).

 

What’s stopping us turning the aspirations of humanity (Philosophers’ stone) into the flowering of the Second Coming/Chance? The short answer is not recognising/using the mathematics of concepts. The police force forms a reality, the justice system is based on the Mathematics of the Mind but politics needs changing because it lacks consistent realistic goals (Plato’s problem) and a simple example should suffice. Over-population is the basic problem and giving social security to those with no/one children/child and letting those with more children (determination to breed, orgene (19)) be supported by their children, aligns firstly, with ‘determination/pain evolved a reality from the probability of existence’ and secondly, with S/B (mathematics of concepts) that the Best are able/richer/successful and should have more children (20). At the moment, social security tends to ‘cloud’ the political scene in two ways, firstly, the people on social security are mostly not the Best, and secondly, because those that gain from social security are allowed a full vote, which is ludicrous in the light of the proverb (a simple solution of the mathematics of concepts) that ‘if you benefit from it, you can’t vote for it’.

 

Religion

Tribal myths/teachings are a necessary part of our evolution underwritten by the need for females (in the main) to move to a new tribe to counteract inbreeding and these myths/teachings define family life and the way to survive in the tribe (third Law of Life). A mathematical/logical operator (Logic of the Half-truth) (21) is needed to define our world out of chaos and that is Truth and there is a place for a God of Truth if one needs a personal god. In my opinion/guess, the original Trinity, based on the three Laws of Life was used to explain (Chapter 1) the world of several thousand years ago and because the environment was to be used to eke out a precarious living, the second Law of Life (Holy Spirit) was ‘lost’. Now that technology can change the world, we need to reinstate the true meaning/position of the environment/Holy Spirit into the teachings of the Churches to preserve/protect the environment.

 

Prediction

Finally, a prediction is necessary, because, as I have said before, the ‘shifting sands’ of the mathematics of concepts needs a ‘reason to be’ else why go to the trouble? However, I now realize a more fundamental reason and that is Plato’s problem, that we must have an ultimate/absolute aim and as we are ‘players’ in the ‘theatre’ of space-time, the aim is our choice/iteration that comes via the mathematics of concepts. We can behave as they did in Sodom and Gomorrah, or, we can do as we have been doing by allowing politics to foster/support aggrandisement of politicians, which has led us into an Extinction Event, or, we can get behind a formal/absolute aim that carries/drives our evolution in the direction that iteration carried it, and that is, towards a Survival of the Best.

 

Perhaps a Golden-Age/Second-Coming is possible as listed above, but, similar to Sodom and Gomorrah, are there enough determined people to implement it? Perhaps I should hope for the best/Best and finish the chapters that suggest methods of attaining a modern Survival of the Best.

 

Notes/explanations

The above is new and is entitled The Theory of Everything because it is the fifth dimension and includes mathematics, speech, concepts etc., and in fact anything that is not space-time. These concepts have been used for a long time, but, I believe, have not been considered to be part of experiments. I also believe that force fields, gravity etc. are logical and will try to elaborate on the terms used, but I fear that I’ll only be introducing more strange concepts.

 

This book is, like Aristotle’s work, a personal journey and the journey will change your outlook/mind, so, as a final word, start at the beginning. Reviewers will not be able to use their existing expertise and I suggest a team from a university. To give an example, the general mathematics of concepts is based on Organisational Change Theory in Business Administration taught at the University of Canberra and many times I asked myself ‘Is this mathematics there/real/useful?’ and I believe that similar to microwaves left over from the Big Bang, there are clues, but they are subtle, but somehow a slight change of view opens up vast insights, as the Michelson-Morley experiment did above.

 

To repeat, I believe that I have shown/proved that specialists have their place and so do generalists, and the best/only options are a team of specialists or that someone starts at the beginning of the book. It is not difficult, just different.

 

(1) The mathematics of concepts sets up a formal array of concepts as attractors in Chaos theory that can never be accessed, but we are looking between the concepts (because there are no absolute concepts) and I am suggesting that ‘physics/chemistry/philosophy/botany/nutrition/mathematics and so on’ are part of the continuum of Consciousness. They are separate because people (world O) like-to/have-to specialise their interests.

 

(2) A reality is extremely important, whereas existence is not, because a reality is necessary for an organism to be able to live/exist/breed in an environment, otherwise it dies, and it needs to live long enough to breed so as to be part of the computation/Survival-of-the-Fittest/produce-a-result.

 

(3) (Kaluza-Klein Theory, Wikipedia): ‘In physics, Kaluza–Klein theory (KK theory) is a unified field theory of gravitation and electromagnetism built around the idea of a fifth dimension beyond the usual four of space and time. It is considered to be an important precursor to string theory’. What I am proposing is a unified field theory based on logic and whilst the aim is similar, the forms are completely different.

 

(4) Just as quantum mechanics use to consider the wave/particle duality, I believe that the fifth dimension is composed of several parts, and show ‘faces’ of mathematics of concepts/entanglement/measurement (CEM) at various times as needed. It is the property of a probability space that they are the same thing, but world O units are not the same as world P units and the same applies to concepts. The basic difference is time, because world O needs a time interval for the predator/prey situation, and that changes an impulse into a force which constitutes/initiates a measurement.

 

(5) If we are a naturally occurring ‘playing out’ of the future, a computer, whether mathematical, uses 0 and 1 (processor), north and south (memory) or yes and no (logical), needs two ‘states’, or for our universe, energy and mass. Energy and mass are such states and E=mc2 is a world O units converter. Another simple example is that the energy of a photon is proportional to its frequency and this is the mechanism of entanglement that the frequency/energy changes with potential energy movements to sum to 1 overall.

 

(6) Michelson-Morley experiment, Wikipedia) The Michelson–Morley experiment was performed over the spring and summer of 1887 by Albert A. Michelson and Edward W. Morley at what is now Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio, and published in November of the same year. It compared the speed of light in perpendicular directions, in an attempt to detect the relative motion of matter through the stationary luminiferous aether (“aether wind”). The negative results are generally considered to be the first strong evidence against the then-prevalent aether theory, and initiated a line of research that eventually led to special relativity, in which the stationary aether concept has no role. The experiment has been referred to as “the moving-off point for the theoretical aspects of the Second Scientific Revolution”.^’

 

(7) From chapter 27, ‘Einstein’s theory of special relativity results from two statements – the two basic postulates of special relativity: 1. The speed of light is the same for all observers, no matter what their relative speeds. 2. The laws of physics are the same in any inertial (that is, non accelerated) frame of reference. This means that the laws of physics observed by a hypothetical observer travelling with a relativistic particle must be the same as those observed by an observer who is stationary in the laboratory.’ ((pages.towson.edu/zrerev/conceptual/14.htm) From the first postulate (a relation b)=(a relation c)  where a is the speed of light and b and c are observers is similar, given that Occam’s razor is a solution of the mathematics of concepts, suggesting that the simplest solution is the most likely, and that from probability space that (a+b)=(a+c), suggests that we reside in a probability space where observers a and b are equivalent. Measurement is the deciding factor and a probability space is a ‘measuring’ space at all points, at all times.

 

(8) From chapter 63 ‘. Plato appears to be troubled by this problem: ‘in the first book of the Republic (332-3). If good living is a skill or art, what is it the skill to do? There seems no way of specifying the skill as ”the skill to do x“ without making it also the skill to do the opposite of x’. (Greek Philosophers, R. M. Hare, p 127)

 

(9) ‘”Know thyself”, advised Socrates …. Empathy is one of our greatest hopes for doing so’ (The Wonderbox, Roman Krznaric, p 53)

 

 

(10) ‘A number of scholars claim that Gödel’s incompleteness theorem suggests that any attempt to construct a Theory of Everything is bound to fail. Gödel’s theorem, informally stated, asserts that any formal theory expressive enough for elementary arithmetical facts to be expressed and strong enough for them to be proved is either inconsistent (both a statement and its denial can be derived from its axioms) or incomplete, in the sense that there is a true statement that can’t be derived in the formal theory’. (Wickapedia, Theory of Everything, Arguments against a theory of everything, Godel’s incompleteness theorem) The word is ‘incomplete’ because in the mathematics of concepts EVERYTHING is incomplete and an answer is built up by iteration, which is necessarily incomplete in the limit.

 

(11) ‘It is sometimes attempted to provide an intuitive picture of virtual particles based upon the Heisenberg energy-time uncertainty principle(with ΔE and Δt being the energy and time variations respectively; ΔE is the accuracy in the measurement of energy and Δt is the time taken in the measurement, and ħ is the Planck constant divided by 2π) arguing along the lines that the short lifetime of virtual particles allows the “borrowing” of large energies from the vacuum and thus permits particle generation for short times.^[18]

Although the phenomenon of virtual particles is accepted, this interpretation of the energy-time uncertainty relation is not universal. One issue is the use of an uncertainty relation limiting measurement accuracy as though a time uncertainty Δt determines a “budget” for borrowing energy ΔE. Another issue is the meaning of “time” in this relation, because energy and time (unlike position q and momentum p, for example) do not satisfy a canonical commutation relation (such as [q, p] = i ħ). Various schemes have been advanced to construct an observable that has some kind of time interpretation, and yet does satisfy a canonical commutation relation with energy. The very many approaches to the energy-time uncertainty principle are a long and continuing subject.’ (Wikipedia,Vacuum state, Virtual particles)

(12) From chapter 27, ‘cosmologists have accepted that “about 380,000 years after the Big Bang, the universe had cooled enough to allow the formation of hydrogen atoms”. (http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/db275/Cosmology/Chapter2, p 32)

We observe this event (inflation) where the speed of expansion of the universe for 380,000 years increased by 60 fold in the early part of the expansion that then appears to have suddenly reverted to normal when particles appeared. How strange!

 

My simple model, says that time was created by the potential energy of the certainty of a universe being able to be created, and remembering that time is a half-truth, and that velocity is undefined (or alternately, that space did not exist, and speed is a distance interval divided by a time interval, or as length is required to devise a clock, and also, an atomic clock could not be built, because there were no atoms!), how do we know what the expansion speed was, and so the concept of ‘inflation’ is indeterminate. “After thermalisation of at least the baryons, photons and neutrinos is complete, the standard Hot Big Bang era begins.” (p 41) I think that my ‘explanation’ is simpler and fits the facts better, also it was derived from the “first principles” of logic, and logic exists in all of the universes, considered here.’

 

(13) The Rule of Life is that evolution acts as a logical computer with untold numbers of iterations and life evolved because it could and we are ‘players’ evolving a future, but one (general) rule is that each step is forward and there is no going back. Examples might be the ‘poor’ design of our eyes and the nerve that had to elongate with the giraffe’s neck.

 

(14) The placebo/nocebo contract is basically a set of cells, from necessity, joining together and evolving a better form of consciousness that comes out of the architecture of the brain cells and acknowledges that communication exists in a two-way direction so as to enhance the organism’s performance in a Survival of the Fittest way.

 

(15) This refers to the method of laying down memories in the cortex especially. I envisage short term memories/action-potential-strings being held in circular ‘strings’ of nerves, but long-term memory, viewed as an organisational problem, can only be effected by iteration until an ‘adequate’ close fit is achieved. There are about 4 chapters outlining this and is necessary for creativity, in my opinion.

 

(16) ‘How the Mid-Victorians Worked, Ate and Died’ by Paul Clayton and Judith Rowbotham shows that, discounting the first 5 years, the mid-Victorians lived as long as we do, without modern medicine and that they died of infectious diseased and not the lifestyle ‘diseases’ that are common today. Their paper was invaluable in defining targets/points-of-interest in aligning the body, mind and lifestyle.

 

(17) I believe that there are three interdependent Laws of Life that can be usefully used to describe the interaction of world O and world P and may have evoked the Trinity in the pre-mathematics era of the Bible (see chapter 1). Like the mathematics of concepts, the laws are ranked in relevance and the second law, quoted above, I suspect to be the Holy Spirit that has been ‘lost’ for 2,000 years, and is the environment and its interaction with people and is state of mind/exercise/nutrition. Whilst these were of very limited interest in the past, their neglect in modern times, I believe, led to the degenerative ‘diseases’ because food is easy to get without exercise and has inadvertently triggered the death orgene.

 

(18) Mathematics requires concepts and logic, and is, I believe a special case of the mathematics of concepts, and as above, no attempt is made to incorporate the fifth dimension in experiments, but only to use concepts as ‘outside’ of the experiment/observer. One exception that I remember is the ‘Copenhagen effect’ in quantum mechanics where the measurer ‘forces’ a determination of the wave/particle duality at the instant of recording the experiment, but before reading the result. The break-down occurs in relativity etc., as discussed here, and further, I have shown that it is necessary in the social sciences and is fully discussed in the postscripts to the first chapters.

 

(19) Evolution from an organizational viewpoint shows non-logical practices that are necessary for the species but disadvantage the individuals. These practices should be genetic, but the Rule of Life means that organisms had to evolve another way and one of particular interest is the death orgene that uses ‘organization’ to kill off the old in order that the young should live to breed (in long-lived species).  The older members (females) of the tribe are better/more-experienced and more likely to survive but also more likely to inflict birth defects. There seems to be no reason that we can’t extend lifetimes significantly using state of mind/exercise/nutrition in the correct way, and anti ageing is the major theme of this book.

 

(20) Survival of the Best is discussed in four chapters that have not been put up because I have been too busy and they are not necessary until someone wants to decide on the Best. I can only offer solutions based on evolution (as a biocomputer) as a way of setting up the mathematics of concepts, but it requires discussion/decision that lies in the future and I believe that a goal must be set, and that that is sufficient at the moment.

 

(21) The Logic of the Half-truth is: true, false, true part of the time and false the rest of the time, both true and false at the same time (chaos). This is an extension of logic to create a reality by making it continuous and complete. It is necessary to decide among the attractors of the Mathematics of the Mind and the most important is mathematics that is defined as a Truth because it is based on building logically from a few basic assumptions (at least that is the aim).

 

 

Chapter 65: The Continuum of Physics/Consciousness, the Theory of Everything, Empathy and Compassion

 

http://darrylpenney.com

 

Abstract: consciousness is a continuum because there are no absolutes in the probability of existence space in which we live, and from the Big Bang, consciousness was the physics of energy/matter that supported the universe and life (Survival of the Fittest) until the placebo/nocebo contract enabled the formation of a mind/brain that allowed more effective competition with Survival of the Fittest/mind/brain. The mind/brain improved as the cortex enlarged and 65 million years ago, primates used hunter/gatherer/farming techniques until 10,000 years ago when Man used Survival of the Best/mathematics to change the food supply, but mistakes were made leading to an Extinction Event, that I believe needs the Survival of the Best/Mathematics of the Mind to redress.

 

This continuum of consciousness fits/links with physics in a fundamental way, bringing the five dimensions (space-time-CEM) together, bearing in mind that time interval is an invention. With this interpretation, the Big Bang is Consciousness and we are the logic ‘players’ in the evolution of consciousness, and I have called this the Theory of Everything. Empathy and compassion are used to show the relativity of human thought/opinion over time and the need to define agreed absolutes of behaviour.

 

I have said before that consciousness in organisms created the Cambrian ‘Explosion’ when hard parts, such as bone and teeth began to appear in the fossil record. Prior to this time it was thought that organisms were small and literally had to bump into each other to initiate a predator/prey situation. The increase in physical size allowed the formation of the lensed eye that allowed a predator to pursue a prey some distance away and plan an attack. At the same time, the prey had more time for evasive action and it can be seen that it became necessary for organisms to increase in size, which needed thicker bones, larger muscles, larger fins, larger teeth and enhanced mind/brain to ‘orchestrate’ the predator/prey situation that produced the fossils that we find.

 

This produced the placebo/nocebo continuum for multi-celled organisms and led to the creation of a mind/brain and I said that this created consciousness, and in the light of the preceding chapter, I was both right and wrong (chaotic). In chapter 63, I found that there were no absolutes and the sudden emergence of an (apparent) absolute of consciousness indicates that there may be a better explanation. It appears that consciousness has different guises over a continuum and we might best think of the evolutionary path as being denoted by ‘peaks’ over that continuum.

 

It might be useful to expand these thoughts further by repeating the proverb ‘handsome is as handsome does’ from the last chapter that illustrated the fact that there are no absolutes in a probability space in which we live. In the same way, ‘consciousness is as consciousness does’ has the same ‘ring’ of relativity. What is consciousness? Is it the ability to think? But, do we think as Survival of the Fittest as in the pre-Cambrian, or Survival of the Fittest/mind/brain after the Cambrian. The primates (as an indication) increased their mind/brain size with evolution, but still used Survival of the Fittest/mind/brain along with hunter/gatherer/farming.

 

Further, the mind/brain evolved and farming started in several places around the world about 10,000 years ago with Survival of the Best/mathematics, but using a special case (mathematics) inevitably led to problems and so we are in an Extinction Event, not only for the animals, but also for ourselves (from global warming). To complete this sequence, it is now apparent that physics was the ‘intelligence’ driving the formation of the planets and life (and along with chemistry etc. are still with us) in the far past, and in the future, a general mathematics of concepts is needed to circumvent the problems that have accumulated due to our ignorance and inability to manage properly.

 

The above two paragraphs show that in a relative world there can be no absolutes, and so we shouldn’t expect a sudden appearance of consciousness. In Chapter 7: A Mathematics of the Mind, that is the second chapter that I wrote, “even the simplest elements and chemicals ‘think’, in a ‘system’ sense, driven through quantum mechanical patterns to find the lowest energy states, such as in the molecule H2 or O2 etc., similarly there is a probability of finding an electron in a ‘classically impossible’ position called the tunnel effect etc. Thus the phrase, ‘I am, therefore I think’ seems to be consistent with the world around us, so, as to formulating a prediction, one must ‘construct a bottom-up picture of events. Only then can one appreciate the remarkable fact that complexity can be the result of basic processes that are relatively simple’ (The Material World, Rodney Cotterill, p 405).”

 

 

I will expand the above because of the ramifications of bringing concepts such as logic/consciousness/concepts/measurement etc. into the discussion, when they have never had a recognisable ‘place’ in science, and this fact indicates a ‘re-shuffle’ of thought is necessary. Logic/consciousness/concepts/measurement have always been recognised along with space-time, but have not been fitted together, and if we can fit them together, we have a Theory of Everything that uses five dimensions. Further to this, science recognises a necessity of a fifth dimension (chapter 63), but is a little confused as to what it should be. I believe that there are five dimensions, space-time and CEM (mathematics of concepts/entanglement/measurement) with the proviso that ‘time’ is not quite correct (see later).

 

Firstly, this raises the possibility, from above, that consciousness is another name for a natural ‘playing out the future’ from the energy of the big bang, where the energy condenses into matter and our particular universe, of the multiverse, allows consciousness to evolve. Chemistry is the consciousness that drives chemical reactions and physics is the consciousness that drives physical reactions, but what drives logical reactions? I believe that the answer is something like us in the probability of existence space! Physics and chemistry are still with us, but with life came logic and as life became more complicated, so did the logical decisions and we invented (formal) logic/mathematics, but these are special cases of the Mathematics of the Mind and the Logic of the Half-truth and using a special case as a general case is fraught with ‘traps’.

 

Secondly, as mentioned above in the first paragraph, the Cambrian provided an example of an Extinction Event brought about by a reality change, possibly in part, by the creation of the mind and the resulting formation of (as we will see, a major ‘peak’ of) consciousness. Previously, it was mentioned that consciousness resulted from the generation of an element of randomness in the brain resulting from induction in adjacent dendrites producing iteration, or possibly the storage of slightly different memories producing the iteration that produced ‘choice’.

 

Thirdly, we are in the midst of another Extinction Event that has been brought about by humans, after farming was introduced, 10,000 years ago and it is occurring because we have changed reality in a poorly understood way because we are using Survival of the Best (mathematics) without realizing that mathematics is a special case of the general mathematics of concepts.

 

Fourthly, artificial consciousness exists in the form of automobile licence readers where character recognition, using variation/iteration techniques reads the number plate and checks it against a list of registered vehicles and warns when a number is not on the list.  This corresponds to an organism’s choosing a course of action, and as important/crucial as this sounds it can be carried out by a machine and it is measurement that has the important/crucial effects, due to the entanglement in our probability space.

 

Fifthly, we need an anti-extinction event to curb the run-away population explosion and a means of planning a sustainable future and that is, I believe, the Survival of the Best (Mathematics of the Mind). A proper, workable solution can only be found using a general mathematics of concepts because how do we know that the solution exists unless we know that a solution is obtainable, and that is only assured in the general case. Some of the government’s policies are mis-directed/ludicrous/insane when viewed with a goal in mind, and we have seen how an absolute goal must be defined (Plato’s problem)!

 

Finally, in the same way that the mathematics of concepts (usually) produces more accurate answers as the number of concepts is increased, the ‘computer’ of evolution that we are part of, is producing an ‘answer’ that is ourselves whether, because we can (in probability space/multiverse) or someone set it up. Perhaps this is a restatement of Heidegger’s question!

 

The Theory of Everything

 

The points made above expand the high-lights of the beginning (Big Bang), the physics of expansion, the chemistry resulting from cooling, evolution of life and (possibly) the Big Blink when we ‘go’ out of existence. If we call the previous sentence a ‘consciousness time-line’, we produce a Theory of Everything because it has a place for everything, but it can also be looked at as the evolution of consciousness. It must be an evolution, otherwise it is an absolute and that is not allowed in a probability space.

 

We call the results of the Big Bang to be energy/mass because these are two states of something and I will call it ‘Consciousness’, because physics came first, then chemistry, then life, biology, what I have previously called consciousness, mathematics and lately, the (general) mathematics of concepts and we are the (logical) future playing out (in one of a multiverse) until some Big Blink eliminates our universe.

 

Looking at this from the point of view of dimensions, the dimensions of a probability space are three space, time passing and every point summing to 1, with time interval, that we use being a necessary invention in the predator/prey relationship (world O). I maintain that the fifth dimension is CEM (mathematics of concepts/entanglement/measurement).

 

I really can’t think of anything to add to this concept of a Theory of Everything because it is simple and concise, has a beginning and an end and is continuous and forms a reality, but that only means that we can insert whatever we like into it and we should find that it ‘fits’. Let’s take the emotional concepts of empathy and compassion, that are of very recent definition because they did not exist in evolution that is shown in the statement: determination evolved a reality out of the probability of existence.

 

What determined ‘determination’ must have been fear of pain because pain is universally used to teach the mind/body that certain actions are dangerous, so let us rewrite the statement as: determination/pain evolved a reality out of the probability of existence. I am using empathy and compassion that could be considered to be ‘opposites’ of  determination/pain to accentuate the strange ‘mixes’ that can occur when no goal is defined.

 

‘Giovanni Bernardone, known to us now as St. Francis of Assisi, is remembered for declaring, ‘Give me the treasure of sublime poverty: permit the distinctive sign of our order to be that it does not possess anything of its own beneath the sun, for the glory of your name, and that it have no other patrimony than begging. Empathy is the art of stepping into the shoes of another person and seeing the world from their perspective.’ (The Wonderbox, Roman Krznaric, p 53)

 

‘It is important when thinking about empathy to distinguish it from the so-called Golden Rule “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. Although a worthy notion, it is not empathy, since it involves considering how you –with your own views– would wish to be treated. (p 55) Perhaps the Golden Rule could be called compassion? I maintain that empathy and compassion are foreign to evolution, however, in the longer lived species, especially, it is necessary to teach the offspring how to survive before going out on their own (third Law of Life).

 

Empathy and compassion are powerful forces, but there are no absolutes that have been set to guide their use and as an example, ‘In the early 1870s slavery was an accepted social institute throughout Europe.  Britain presided over the international slave trade and some half a million African slaves were being worked to death growing sugar cane in British colonies in the West Indies…. But within two decades something extraordinary happened. A mass social movement rose up that turned large sectors of the British population against slavery, leading to the abolition of the trade by Parliament in 1807…. Used empathy as its main strategic tool. (p71) This indicates the power of emotional forces and also that an absolute aim must be set, and it can be seen that the Survival of the Best offers an ultimate aim because people can change their colour etc. (over time).

 

Another example of philosophers ‘losing their way’ is shown in the following, that ‘the idea of nature as man’s resource had its roots in the belief that human beings were distinct from, and superior to, other creatures that inhabited the earth. Classical sources provided a veneer of justification. Aristotle had said that humans were alone in possessing rationality – and in being unable to wriggle their ears. By the Renaissance, others had suggested that they were the only creatures to have speech, make tools or display a spiritual conscience…. The difference between man and beast was most sharply drawn by Rene Descartes, who in the 1630s argued that animals were mere machines or automata, like clocks, while humans had minds and souls. This soon became the standard view. (p 220)

 

This view of philosophers was convenient and provided a view that changed the outlook of the times in the direction that pandered to peoples’ desires (death orgene) because ‘surely there could be nothing wrong with using soulless machines to plough your fields, or skewering a few for your evening meal. Medieval Britons rarely ate meat, but by 1726, Londoners were annually killing 600,000 sheep and 200,000 cattle’ (p 220) To repeat, ‘this view of philosophers was convenient and provided a view that changed the outlook of the times in the direction that pandered to peoples’ desires’, so what does the Theory of Everying have to say?

 

Because everything is relativistic in probability space, there is no sudden attainment of consciousness and the determination/pain that drove evolution is (presumably) the same for all creatures and there can be no excuse for treating animals as automata. Further, All organisms have minds of varying degrees of competence that have evolved for the ecological niche that is their home and as for rationality, how rational are the views held through history compared to the Theory of Everything that was derived from first principles through the mathematics of concepts.

 

‘”Know thyself”, advised Socrates …. Empathy is one of our greatest hopes for doing so’ (p 75) and it is necessary if we are to answer Plato’s question and assign absolutes so that we can define a goal to aim at, else we are like the proverbial seven blind men examining an elephant. I believe that mathematics led us astray and into the world of technology, and the time has come to embrace the mathematics of concepts, assign goals and put the world back on track.

 

 

Chapter 63: The Philosophy of Life, Proof of Probability of Existence, Heidegger, Michelson-Morley, Einstein, Plato and the Fifth Dimension

 

http://darrylpenney.com

 

Intention: I am wondering if the time has come for this Philosophy of Life to be accepted because it is needed to combat the degenerative ‘diseases’ that are common and (literally) save the world from human exploitation. If the time has not come, I will have tried and I’ll try again later, but it is a decision of circumstances and I will send this to random journals to see the response, and they are welcome to do what they like with it.

 

Abstract: academic disciplines and journals are specialists and there is a need for generalists to link the academic disciplines together to unlock new insights through entanglement leading to the Philosophy of Life from existence to the end aim (Survival of the Best). It will be seen that Heidegger’s question of existence plus the question of a ‘real’ measurement is similar to the experiment of Michelson-Morley, that demolished the ‘ether theory’ of the transmission of light and led Einstein to use that result as a necessary assumption of his Special Theory of Relativity, thus indicating that we live in a probability of existence universe with ‘underlying’ relativity leading to the solution of Plato’s difficulties by the necessity of defining an absolute for the future. Also, the fifth dimension expands Einstein’s space-time and shows that the relativity of measurement is more fundamental than Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity (of observers). The time is overdue to address the modern ‘diseases’ that we have brought on ourselves by lack of variety in food and the necessity to curb population growth and establish an ‘absolute’ goal for the planet to work towards and that is Survival of the Best. This ‘absolute’ goal can be predicted through iteration based on evolutionary practices of herds and primates to bring agreement through the mathematics of concepts, that forms part of a Philosophy of Life.

 

The Philosophy of Life defines a workable beginning (relativity and existence in a probability space) that makes sense (fifth dimension (CEM)) of the Michelson-Morley experiment and Einstein’s work and a workable end (Survival of the Best) through assigning a goal (Plato’s problem) derived through the mathematics of concepts (for agreement) that aligns with our evolution of a reality. We have caused an Extinction Event over the whole world because we have passed from iteration (Survival of the Fittest) to the use of the mind/brain with mathematics that is unfortunately only a special case of the mathematics of concepts and we need the Mathematics of the Mind to gain agreement of a course of action to put into place agreed concepts to reduce population, such as paying people not to have children.

 

Also, the mid-Victorians lived as long as we do (on average after adjusting for the first 5 years) without modern medicine because the types of ‘diseases’ have changed and our modern ‘diseases’ are caused by lifestyle. We can overcome this by keeping in mind (MEN) to have a long, useful and healthy life (re-set the death orgene) and our diet needs a very wide range of foods to overcome the modern diseases because it has not been recognised that we evolved over 63 million years to a primates’ particular hunter/gatherer/farmer lifestyle where all edible foods need to be conserved/farmed.

 

The transition of iteration (Survival of the Fittest) to mind/brain (Survival of the Best, mathematics) in our evolution indicates two extremely worrying problems that are occurring, namely an Extinction Event of animals and possibly of ourselves due to over-population and the health degeneration of the population due to diet change and solutions are suggested using the Mathematics of the Mind and a vastly more varied diet in the manner of our evolution.

 

Everyone seems to think that we exist, but this chapter indicates that ‘our determination evolved a reality out of the probability of existence’ and that we ‘live’ in a probability universe with certainty only at one extreme, and this means certainty that we exist in a probability universe not anything that could be called ‘really real’.

 

I personally think that we could be ‘the future playing out’, after all, there is no way of knowing the future unless ‘actors’ play the parts and we may be those actors in probability space because there is the possibility of certainty of existence at 1, which logically means that we must be ready if we need to exist. Indisputable evidence of this is given below and that realization prompted the dissemination of this chapter.

 

Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity was difficult to understand until it is realized that it is logical ONLY when it is realized that there is a simpler relativity that is fundamental and is being left out (cancels out) of the usual explanation. The mathematics of concepts is also strange until you accept that mathematics is a special case in our world (O) and E=mc2 is a special case, and what it is really saying is that E is a ‘state’ of m and that they are (effectively) the same thing but world O has different units for mass and energy and the c2 is there to make the units correct (steam/water/ice).

 

Einstein’s search for a Unified Field Theory would have been difficult as he did not recognise the fifth dimension and also that, I believe, that that dimension is logical, so an attempt at a ‘unified theory of life’ is given here. Chapter 29: ‘Spooky’ Action at a Distance and the Logic of Gravitational Fields indicates why he may have had problems. I am by no means demeaning his work, but like the philosophers, he used a top down approach using world O units and couldn’t break into world P that way. I used a bottom up approach and seem to have encountered fewer problems

 

As far as I can see, philosophy uses human concepts (world O) to look at certain aspects of the universe (world P), and as we have seen they are not the same, so, it is possible that certain parts of philosophy will remain ‘hidden’ until looked at in a different way, and I will give an explanation of Heidigger’s question: “Why are there things that are rather than nothing?” and “How do we know what is real?”. (Travels with Epicurus, Daniel Klein, p 10) The first question is below.

 

‘ON DARING TO THINK ILLOGICAL THOUGHTS IN OLD AGE ….

I pull Heidegger’s Introduction to Metaphysics out of my shoulder bag. This is the tome that opens with the stupifier, “Why are there things that are rather than nothing? … Martin Heidegger was a twentieth-century German existentialist … is asking us to confront the idea that existence itself can be called into question and this, he believes, is the ultimate philosophical question. (p 113)

 

‘Heidegger states that the question is “unfathomable”. First he tells us that this question is fundamental to all philosophy, and then he tells us that we are never going to get it anyhow. Something perverse in that.’ (p 114) ‘In old age I do seem to be able to get occasional glimpses that appear to transcend logic. I dare to think illogical thoughts.’ (p 115) ‘Maybe the positivists were right, after all: the reason that I cannot think about this stuff is because it is utter nonsense.’ (p 117) ‘I feel enriched, in part because I have trod where I dared not tread as a young man. The old man has mellowed to metaphysics.’ ( p 118)

 

The first thing is, I believe, that our mind/brain should get better as we age if we keep in mind MEN (state of mind/exercise/nutrition) and secondly, we have to look outside of logic into chaos through the Logic of the Half-truth (true, false, true some of the time and false the rest of the time, and both true and false at the same time (chaos)). It is immaterial whether we exist or not and we probably do not exist because that is the simpler hypothesis using Occam’s razor. To suggest that we exist requires a place to exist, gods etc. and all sorts of complications, but as will be seen, the probability that we exist, exists, because we MAY exist.

 

We think that we exist, if for no other reason than Descartes’ ‘I think therefore I am’, but this is incorrect because we evolved a reality and what we think to be existence is actually a reality. The probability of existence is continuous and complete (0 to1) and can form a reality, so, we are logical abstractions in probability space and don’t exist, but may exist (at 1, which is certainty). Now probability space contains 5 dimensions and from previously (in worlds O and P), for simplicity, in my opinion, the fifth dimension is CEM (mathematics of concepts/entanglement/measurement) and entanglement means that the sum of measurement over all points is 1 as is required in a probability space.

 

It has to be done somewhere and this is as good a place as any to clarify the statement from above that ‘we are logical abstractions in probability space and don’t exist, but may exist (at 1, which is certainty). A measurement creates certainty/existence-in-probability-space (an absolute), as will be shown below, but this is certainty/existence in probability space where a+b=1. The universe that people assume that they live in, a universe that ‘really really’ exists and requires a god to bring it about means a constant speed of light (that we know from experiment) must appear to vary to different observers moving with respect to each other, but in a probability world, the speed of light is the same for observers moving with respect to each other, as found by the Michelson-Morley experiment.

 

Particle ‘pairs’ can come into existence anywhere that there is the energy because they don’t change the summation (to 1) and don’t exist to the measurer (us) until measured (e.g. electron/positron/gamma-rays). Also, is energy something or nothing? It can be both and is a chaotic question because it needs bounds for an answer (remember that energy and matter are states of the same thing). That answers the question ‘Why are there things that are rather than nothing’. In other words, there is existence (at 1), but only in probability space (multiverse) that allowed us to exist/form-a-reality by measurement that comes about through iteration or a mind/brain. The ‘in the limit’ of iteration is a measurement and the measurement of our mind/brain is also a measurement and measurement is allowed and the sum of all measurements is the measurer’s reality. Put another way, we have a reality in ONE of the probability spaces (multiverse) with the physical constants that would allow us to exist if we did exist.

 

This makes Descartes statement true for the higher level of measurement by the brain and we are forced to the realisation that Decartes’ statement is both true and false at the same time and is a chaotic statement. This is not a philosophical disaster, it just means that we have to be careful how we apply it, and apply bounds such as 0<a<1 (logic bounds). Chaos is not formal logic that is always true or false. An example, as given previously is that water is necessary for life, too little will kill you (dehydration) and too much will kill you (drowning). Finally, reality is necessary, but not sufficient to survive and to evolve. Needless to say, the above is in my opinion!

 

Now the question, “How do we know what is real?”. In the first question we used the concept of reality and what is real is a more fundamental question and I will set the stage by repeating a paragraph from the previous chapter 62. Some of it repeats the above, but reality, and thus the question of what is real is critical to understanding reality.

 

This all sounds a bit strange and the reason is through the definition of ‘existence’! The Churches teach that we exist because God made the universe, and that means that absolutes exist because the universe is ‘real/exists’, whereas I believe that we exist in a probability of existence space and that there are relatives, but no absolutes, as has been mentioned before. Plato appears to be troubled by this problem: ‘in the first book of the Republic (332-3). If good living is a skill or art, what is it the skill to do? There seems no way of specifying the skill as ”the skill to do x“ without making it also the skill to do the opposite of x’. (Greek Philosophers, R. M. Hare, p 127) In the light of the above, philosophers seem to believe that we are ‘real/exist’, whereas I believe that ‘determination evolved a reality out of the possibility of existence’, noting that this reality contains the certainty of existence (in probability space, at 1) and this belief/derivation came out of the mathematics of concepts. So, if there are no absolutes, we have to define something to be an absolute so that we can measure it and bring it into (our) existence/knowledge/mind/brain.

 

I will repeat the phrase ‘we have to define something to be an absolute so that we can measure it’, and have used the idea ‘we can measure it and bring it into (our) existence/knowledge/mind/brain’ before, but I now realize that there is a ‘link’ between measuring and defining an absolute. This has come about in writing the previous chapter and I will try to clarify this important point in some examples, firstly simple examples of a lack of the absolute and secondly a re-hash of the Theory of Relativity.

 

It has been mentioned before that proverbs are simple solutions of the Mathematics of the Mind that we use as a ‘higher’ level of thinking/rationalization. I maintain that the universe in which we live is a probability of existence space, that contains certainty, and has no absolutes (even at certainty), and I will give a simple example, ‘handsome is as handsome does’ obviously depends on personal choice. Another example is the inevitability of death, and it has been mentioned that death is an organisational necessity for evolution (orgene) and works through the mind, and the main purposes of this book is anti ageing, that is, lengthening life, and the amount of lengthening that is possible is unknown. Thirdly, reality requires recycling by organisms, and in the limit, continental drift recycles everything through volcanoes.

 

Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity is the relativity between observers and is correct, of course, but at a higher level than the relativity between the observer and the measurement. I’m citing this to show the absoluteness that is required, when a measurement is taken, is inserted by the act of measuring and secondly, everyone agrees that the speed of light in a vacuum is constant. Now the Michelson-Morley experiment found that the speed of light was the same in all directions and this was in spite of the motion of the earth and the acceleration of being on the revolving earth’s surface. This led Einstein to use the assumption that the speed of light was the same to two observers, no matter what the speed differential between the observers.

 

Well, this is it! As mentioned previously, ‘real/true’ existence requires absolutes and speed is an absolute so the speed of light should be different between observers (moving with respect to each other), and that is what we expect, but we see a paradox that made Einstein change to a non-absolute (relative) view of the universe by putting in the assumption, above, in the Special Theory. In other words, by that assumption, Einstein assumed a relative universe! If Galileo got into so much trouble with the thought of the earth going around the sun, Einstein is assuming a probability of existence world, and that is not what the Churches’ teach, but perhaps didn’t understand/worry about the ramifications of the assumption.

 

In a simple probability space measurements a and b have the relation a+b=1 which has no unique solution (relativity) and measurements by two observers b and c (a+b=a+c) means that b=c (Michelson-Morley experiment), and that means that measurements/observers for b and c are equivalent, whilst the relation between b and c require a (Lorentz) transformation, as Einstein found (the measurements cancel out).

 

So, the question: “How do we know what is real?” is again a relativity, in that it only becomes real to an iteration or a mind/brain when it is measured in world O, and if not measured it is indeterminate and goes about its business in world P. There are five dimensions, as recognised by science: “‘Theodor Kaluza and Oskar Klein made their fame among scientists by showing that recognizing the existence of a fifth dimension could solve their problems…. The answer, claim physicists, is that it is very small and curled up in a circle.’ (The Great Ideas That Shaped Our World, Pete Moore, p38) I believe that physicists, from that quotation, have assumed that the universe exists in space-time and also, that a circle having one dimension seems a little suspect, even if tiny. The concept of a logic dimension is strange, but is logical in probability space.” (Chapter 27: Existence, Reality and the Effect on Fundamental Physics) The other four are space-time and the 5th dimension is, I believe, CEM (Mathematics of concepts/entanglement/measurement).

 

It should be noted that reality is the (continuous) continuum of measurements of the surroundings so that animals share the same reality, otherwise magic happens and a predator strikes unseen/unheard etc. Reality is necessary for our survival and the body tries to make our environment real to us, as can be seen that the nose comes into focus when we touch it. In other words, the sight of your nose is not necessary to your reality until it is needed to be part of the picture! This occurs through the Rule of Life, because evolution is ‘one-way’.

 

The Philosophy of Life

 

From above, by experiment (Michelson-Morley) and theory (Einstein), we live in a probability of existence universe that only contains relatives (a+b=1) and we need to set an absolute to measure (Plato). To measure, we must create a reality for ourselves and that may be iteration or a mind/brain because it is the ‘intention/ability/determination’ to measure that allows us to use this particular probability space (Multiverse). Our particular universe must have gravity to allow planets to coalesce and is a basic part of the conservation of energy and leads to potential ‘wells’ in world P, whereas we use different units (time interval) in world O i.e.. Impulse Ft=mv-mu versus force F=(mv-mu)/t and time interval t is world O derived from predator/prey interactions and is used in velocity and acceleration. In other words, a measurement occurs when an impulse is changed to a force because it needs an intention by a mind/brain, or, put another way, when a momentum is changed by a photon or particle that is recorded and can later be known/accessed (a function of logic).

 

If the physical parameters did not allow us to evolve as we are, we wouldn’t be here in this form (multiverse), and our universe is made out of one substance that has at least two states (matter and energy) and that is conserved (a+b=1, conservation of mass/energy) and matter has a number of stable (and partially stable) states (particles) and the future can only exist if it is ‘played out’ by something that is logical and that is the fifth dimension CEM (mathematics of concepts/entanglement/measurement). Entanglement is a property of probability space and measurement is obviously possible between points (sum = 1) and measurement produces reality of measurement that leads to a reality for living. Chapter 29: ‘Spooky’ Action at a Distance and the Logic of Gravitational Fields is a realisation of the logical fifth dimension.

 

Competition ensures reality is common in a niche, whether by sight (to avoid others), feeling, hearing etc. or subconscious defences such as an immune system. A hunter/gather/farmer category is introduced that suggests that for 63 million years, primates enjoyed a luxurious variety of types of foods by necessity (of a type of farming) and the reduction in variety in modern living has resulted in the modern degenerative ‘diseases’ showing that we are bound to an environment that we evolved in, but can overcome these limitations by MEN (state of mind/exercise/nutrition) when we understand the bounds, because life is chaotic.

 

The mathematics of concepts leads to the Mathematics of the Mind that was used to create consciousness in (larger) multi-celled animals (in the Cambrian) and provided a two-way interchange with individual cells (placebo/nocebo continuum), and the food supply (with Survival of the Fittest) allowed the animals to evolve, except that humans eventually used technology (mathematics is a special case of the mathematics of concepts) and using a special case (instead of the general case) mismanaged (practically) everything and has placed the planet and our evolution/existence into jeopardy. This sad state of affairs came about because humans have no agreed goals that align with life, and this can be remedied (in a relative universe) by assigning an absolute (Plato’s problem) that can only be done through the use of a mathematics of concepts. I have suggested Survival of the Best to be the absolute and have suggested methods of attaining this ultimate evolution.

 

The use of the Mathematics of the Mind is crucial and I have suggested the use of philosophers/politicians as providing a necessary mix of learning/salesmanship to present solutions and use ridicule as the ‘stick’ to creating a world of lower population and harmony with the food supply (all the animals that share our world) and end this current extinction event. I believe that the three Laws of Life define our reality and show how the major religions are not well balanced (in total) and have demeaned the importance of the environment/world by ‘losing’ the Holy Spirit for the last 2000 years.

 

I have used the words Philosophy of Life because from start (existence) to finish (Survival of the Best) everything has played out with iteration (Survival of the Fittest) until our mind/brain took over (Survival of the Best, mathematics) and has caused problems because we need a well thought out goal (Plato’s problem) to reach so that we can measure our progress (Survival of the Best, Mathematics of the Mind) towards a goal.

 

I don’t have a reputation to make or uphold and am bypassing peer review and other slow steps in the dissemination of knowledge (such as books) in favour of the weblog on the internet. Secondly, all this is new and the best way might be to ask your readers to peer review it (they are just as qualified), also, the world doesn’t have time to examine this system in an old-fashioned way before implementing it, and I am not expecting the established scholars to embrace change and I feel that this is an opportunity for the young or young at heart. The book is a working journal that increases in difficulty as the work was put down, so it is easy to understand and the order of chapters, as written, is indicated. If anyone has improvements, they can be added and not all the chapters are up on the internet because the writing has progressed so rapidly and across so many fields, presumably, because it is so fundamental and new. The above is the ‘distillation’ of 500 pages into a few pages, and the book may need to be consulted.

 

Why do I call this a Philosophy of Life?

Effectively it defines a workable beginning (relativity) that makes sense (fifth dimension (CEM)) of the Michelson-Morley experiment and Einstein’s work and a workable end (Survival of the Best) through assigning a goal (Plato’s problem) derived through the mathematics of concepts (for agreement) that aligns with our evolution of a reality. We have caused an Extinction Event over the whole world because we have changed reality and whilst an extinction event is re-establishing reality across all life-forms, the question is, who decides what the new balance is to be in a relative universe?

 

Occam’s razor suggests the simplest system is the most likely (mathematics of concepts) and an actual existence, as suggested by the Churches leads to an absolute world, with a Maker, gods etc. and is more complicated than a relative universe that probably comes about naturally as a consequence of a probability of existence and doesn’t need to exist (except as a possibility).

 

I believe that we live in a probability of existence universe and that we are a logical future playing out, and this is why an iteration or mind/brain ‘works’ in this space, firstly because it can ‘work’ (multiverse/we-wouldn’t-be-here), and secondly, it is the only way to predict a future, in the same way that attractors ‘build’ a concept (limited in scope), ‘players’ are needed to determine the likelihood/possibility of the concept occurring, remembering that a measurement is needed to produce a reality (CEM).

 

Consciousness evolved in the Cambrian, but then evolved to the primate hunter/gatherer/farmer (60 million years ago) to the farmer/mathematics (10,000 years later) to (hopefully) Survival of the Best/mathematics-of-concepts. After that, anything goes! The key words are ‘Consciousness evolved’ and after that, evolved a greater ‘say’ in evolution, and that will have to wait for chapter 65.

 

We have passed from iteration (Survival of the Fittest) to the use of the mind/brain with mathematics (Survival of the Best, mathematics) that is unfortunately only a special case of the mathematics of concepts and we need the Mathematics of the Mind to gain agreement to a course of action to put into place agreed concepts to manage all of the factors that used to be managed by the predator/prey relationship. One suggestion to reduce population is to pay people not to have children because those that do have children, can be supported by those children, and that can be compared with the current practice of giving welfare to everyone except the rich and by doing that, we lose a ‘goal’ of selection.

 

Also, the mid-Victorians lived as long as we do (on average after adjusting for the first 5 years) without modern medicine because the types of ‘diseases’ have changed and our modern ‘diseases’ are caused by lifestyle. The solution is simple, but the death orgene is inbuilt into us to be lazy and eat what we want/like to eat (the seventh sense has been ‘hijacked’ by food marketeers and growers). We can overcome this by keeping in mind (MEN) to have a long, useful and healthy life (re-set the death orgene) and our diet needs a very wide range of foods to overcome the modern diseases because it has not been recognised that we evolved over 63 million years to a primates’ particular hunter/gatherer/farmer lifestyle.

 

‘East African chimps use the same medicinal plants as humans in that region. When the chimps eat leaves as food, they usually stuff their mouths as fast as they can, eating leaves of 150 to 200 species in this way. But they behave differently on the rare occasions when they eat the leaves of Aspilia, a member of the sunflower family …. The chimps test leaves by ‘mouthing’ them, and either reject the leaf, or swallow it whole. … Research has shown that the leaves contain a powerful antibiotic called thiarubrine-A, which kills worms and some bacteria.’ (100 Discoveries, Peter Macinnis, p 24)

 

This quotation is an example of the hunter/gatherer/farmer that we evolved to be because it was necessary to ‘farm’ edible vegetation to keep the ‘balance’ that was required, and this practice led to a wide range of phytochemicals available to the body and, I believe that reducing the availability of phytochemicals in the modern diet has caused the components of the body to be ‘running’ outside their ‘design limits’ to which they evolved and are showing this as ‘sickness’.

 

The transition of iteration to mind/brain in our evolution took us into farming that used technology to remove the restrictions that had been imposed on us by the hunter/gatherer/farmer and allowed us to plan what we wanted to eat. We made mistakes and have ended up with the modern health degeneration of the population due, I believe, to a restricted modern diet as indicated above and the solution is suggested of using MEN and a vastly more varied diet in the manner described above.

 

Mistakes were made in governing the rising population and have resulted in the Extinction Event that we find across the world. Technology is not suited to this problem (and in fact, created it) and I feel that it requires the Mathematics of the Mind to find acceptable concepts that can be agreed upon and put into action through the police, justice and political system, but, as has been mentioned before, the political system needs the Mathematics of the Mind to set goals that align with an absolute, such as the Survival of the Best. In other words, we have the means to ‘guide’ the future course of our evolution by agreeing to a course of events and putting it into motion (Survival of the Best, Mathematics of the Mind), and, we have to decide the goal because our universe is relative.

 

I have given one example that determination to breed is an orgene, in that it is illogical, but necessary for evolution and we want successful people to breed, so less determined people with very few children get welfare or tax relief in their old age, whereas people with more children can be supported by their children in old age. This example shows how an absolute goal (population reduction and fostering the Best) can influence politics and voters will vote for a higher aim, and the statesman suggesting it (Philosophy of Leadership). It should be noted that a re-balancing of the value of votes to those receiving money from the government is crucial and obvious, as mentioned previously.

 

If the reader is to take one thought away from this chapter, I hope that they will realise that for 50 years the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment (that the speed of light was the same to observers moving with respect to each other) has been totally inexplicable to me. I am pleased that I have laid that enigma to rest, to my satisfaction and the short answer is that the universe is a probability space and the enigma is a necessary logic of that space!

 

If a second thought is to be taken away, it is that ‘the enigma is a necessary logic of that space’, and that is the fifth dimension CEM (mathematics of concepts/entanglement/measurement)!

 

Thirdly, the modern ‘diseases’ show that we are linked to our evolution, and in particular, the large variety of the foods that we evolved to use and require to keep us healthy and we need to carry this into our modern diets etc. through MEN (state of mind/exercise/nutrition).

 

Fourthly, in using technology (mathematics) we have used a special case and not the general case (Mathematics of the Mind) and have created an extinction event and lost control of our local and global environment through over-population of humans without proper controls placed upon them.

 

Fifthly, we found that an agreed goal must be assigned (Plato) that we can all aim towards, and that a rational scheme can only come from a formal mathematics of concepts for agreement to contain the extinction event.

 

Sixthly, three interdependent Laws of Life define the interaction between our world (O) and the universe (P) (first law), the environment (second law) and the family (third law). The third law emphasises the success of teaching offspring and forces the use of a programmed death in the longer-lives species that can be reset by MEN (death orgene).

 

Seventhly, reality underlies life across the planet and requires that we coexist for long enough to breed and then be recycled. Everything must be recycled (by organisms and eventually continental drift and the associated volcanoes).

 

Eighthly, the above points are a whole/system/life that might be some sort of assemblage of probabilities that arose/evolved where it could in probability space because it could arise under the physical properties of our world (out of the multiverse) and we may be likened to a computer program’s result running in a ‘computer of life possibilities’. This equates to evolution being an iterative Truth/god that is used in this book to derive the Mathematics of the Mind, as mentioned in the first Law of Life. In other words, I have used the iteration of evolution as a type of ‘bio-computer’ to generate this philosophy and suspect that some of the above is a little repetitive, but its a complex system and many attractors are involved and as we look at slightly different problems, different attractors predominate.

 

 

Chapter 62: Immigration’s Star Chamber Unveiled, the Philosophy of Leadership, More on Existence and the Search for Politicians to Implement a New World Order

 

Positions vacant: for politicians able to walk the world’s stage and establish a New World Order overcoming the modern degenerative ‘diseases’ and curing the world’s problems of overuse of resources, global warming etc. using a mathematics of concepts and the derivations found in this book. Remuneration: none, qualifications: read the book.

 

 

http://darrylpenney.com

 

Abstract: the police force allows a reality, and the justice system is based on a mathematics of concepts, but the political system is ‘logically corrupt’ and a section of the Department of Immigration is acting as a Star Chamber. An analysis is given showing how leadership can be attained by creating faith in a group by using the mathematics of concepts to ‘prove’ that the leader is leading in the ‘best’ way, even when mistakes occur. Examples include, reducing the illogic of welfare recipients voting ‘rights’, recognising that ‘determination’ can be used to ‘improve’ the population and monitor its numbers etc. by redirecting welfare payments to the childless and further that compassion can have bad effects. A suggestion is made that Philosophy has ‘lagged’ over 2500 years and needs a mathematics of concepts, reality and existence in order to move as freely as technology has with mathematics .

 

The Public Service is commonly considered to consist of three separate and independent parts: policing, justice and government. The reason is, I suppose, is that it works, most of the time and well enough to not need changing. Change comes about when enough people are unhappy about something and create enough of a nuisance of themselves to force that change. However, whilst that is a method, is it the BEST method? The world is on the brink of disaster from a number of factors and clearly, not using a sufficiently adequate means of governing has lead to this unfortunate situation and we are trying to suggest a better method.

 

The Mathematics of the Mind (a mathematics of concepts) is, in my opinion, a general mathematics and will always produce solutions, but by the nature of the mathematics, the solution will be of varying usefulness, bearing in mind that the ‘best’ solution is a limit and beyond our ken, but we can get closer to it and get on the correct path by examining enough terms. It has been mentioned previously that the police act as a reality by looking out for us and making sure that our neighbours behave themselves, and if they don’t, they are penalised until they do. The justice system works according to the Mathematics of the Mind and so produces the ‘best’ result that is possible, in general.

 

This is a good start, in that two of the three (police, justice and public service) are as good as we can get them as a concept, and one problem is corruption, but that is an organisational problem that wends its way around concepts. However, ‘corruption’ is a lesser attractor and is composed of a range of maladies that range from those worthy of jail-time to career ‘wreckers’ and embarrassments and, in a moment, we will look at ‘logic corruption’, and find that it affects the whole community. In fact, it has been mentioned previously that the political system is in disarray and is massively ‘corrupt’ by logical standards, and in this chapter, we find that the Department of Immigration is, in one part at least, in my opinion, a Star Chamber (defined below), which is logically, very bad.

 

A digression might be useful at this point to place the concepts that we are using in perspective. I believe that we live in a probability of existence universe, and a property of that space, in a simple case, is a+b=1 as has been mentioned before, where a and b are measurements/observers, and this equation has no unique solution, only relativity and not absolutes, which means there is no easily defined ‘best/correct/right’ solution to concepts such as government, justice etc. This is hardly surprising as those concepts are for us, and we need the Mathematics of (our) Mind to determine them, remembering that reality requires that every-ones’ mind/brains must inter-link, which is a property of the Rule of Life and the function of the oldest parts of the brain.

 

As there are no absolutes, we must use iteration or a decision by a mind/brain if we are to use these concepts in a meaningful way. Keeping this very simple, starting 65 million years ago, the primates guarded a food supply territory and decided to allow a new entrant access, warned them off or fought to the death to keep them out. Ten thousand years ago, farmers did the same and eventually elected a ‘strongman’ to govern, and we use the same system today and call it democracy with the ‘strongman’ being police/justice/politicians/public service.

 

Our government system is still changing and as will be seen below, the increased taxation over the last 100 years and its re-direction into welfare payments has ‘skewed’ the political system. The Eureka Stockade is an example of the populous forcing the government to change. In 1854, ‘Mother England had only begrudgingly allowed limited franchise at home and its system of governance was still firmly entrenched in the halls of privilege, patronage and petty officialdom’ (Eureka Stockade, Geoff Hocking, p 25)

 

‘The ‘squattocracy’, who also made up the membership of the Legislative Council, demanded that the governor do something to bring the workers back to their farms, the shepherds to their flocks, labourers to their workshops and skivvies back into their parlours…. The squatters and the government had long kept the land out of the grasp of the working man, refusing to allow any purchase of property by any except the new aristocrats’ (p 23) ‘[The] Government, in fact, has done nothing forever for the diggers but tax them! The whole amount of taxation which the squatters, who hold the whole country in possession … pay to the government, is 20,000 pounds a-year. The diggers, on the contrary, pay in licences more than half a million a-year’. (p 57)

 

‘The battle at the Eureka Stockade, crude embattlement of broken drays, fallen logs and stakes driven into the ground, lasted for less than half an hour, yet 22 diggers and six troopers of the 40^th Regiment lay mortally wounded or already dead.’ (p 7)   ‘The only man sentenced to a term of imprisonment for complicity in the whole Eureka affair was the editor of the Ballarat Times, Mr Henry Seekamp. Seekamp was arrested in his own office on 4 December 1854, tried and jailed for sedition. (p 171)

 

So, we have the iterative effect of democracy guiding the politicians and also the strongman, kings and queens etc. that are not all that different, because if they don’t listen to the ‘will of the people’ they may be over-thrown by a coup, popular uprising or votes. I will repeat the statement, that these systems are not very different, provided that they govern by ‘Rule of Law’ and these have been written down and constitute the ‘absolute’ measurement that doesn’t ‘naturally’ exist. Usually these two types of system (democracy, dictator, king/queen etc.) are considered opposites and yet, we find them to be very similar. So what is the opposite to these ‘iterative’ means of governing? I believe that it is the Star Chamber because a Star Chamber uses a mind/brain with no reference to the public and no public accountability.

 

This is appalling that we should find this type of governance, but even worse that it should be found hidden deep within the public service! There exist rational outcomes within the Department of Immigration that are not being followed and decisions are being made by people, presumably by Sarah Fuller’s department. I thought that the public service was open and above board, but personal experience has brought this state of affairs to light (see below), and her actions could be thought to be responsible for implementing a New World Order, so perhaps we should thank her!

 

I will re-repeat the above statement, that these systems are not very different, provided that they are governed by ‘Rule of Law’, but the Rule of Law is a continuum that moves from the highly regulated life of today to the historical times when the law was decided by the leader. From above, the Eureka Stockade rebellion resulted from the ‘ineffectual and openly disregarded Lieutenant-Governor Charles Joseph La Trobe was at last recalled to England… the new governor was Sir Charles Hotham … however, the British government had insisted that he was to balance the disastrous colonial budget. Hotham had inherited an almost bankrupt bureaucracy with a deficit to the coffers of around 1,000,000 pounds.’ (p 76) Clearly, these gentlemen were successful in their careers, but were unable to handle the situation that they were given, and this chapter attempts to show how to ‘lead’ better.

 

From above, ‘the law was decided by the leader’, leads into a definition of a leader, and that definition haunts the political parties of today because it is very damaging to change leaders, so it would be advantageous to ‘know’ how a leader should behave, in the sense of what to do. As we have seen, measurement comes about through iteration and/or a mind/brain and that is what we see in the continuum of law/leadership because choosing a leader requires iteration, for the choosing, and we are choosing a mind/brain to lay down laws that are relative, not absolute. Murdering someone can be ‘planned’ and attract the death penalty or incarceration, or it could be ‘man-slaughter’, or an ‘accident’, or even ‘justifiable homicide’, depending on the circumstances.

 

So, a judge, lawyers, precedents, Department of Public Prosecutions, citizens’ outrage etc. establish a justice system that works, and it works, perhaps works well, because it is based on the Mathematics of the Mind (as above). Similarly, a leader ‘earns’ the trust of his/her followers because of the judgements that are made and each person is content because they believe that they will be treated fairly, bearing in mind that ‘fairly’ is a relative term. This book is about the use of the Mathematics of the Mind and finding a class of people that are called the ‘Best’ and these people would align with or contain the leaders, referred to above.

 

It is tempting to say, as in mathematics, that adhering to the Mathematics of the Mind is a necessary condition, but that would be ‘too strong’, but it is indicative. Clearly, it would be nice to say that the Mathematics of the Mind is a sufficient condition, but that would be too strong. Perhaps the best that we can say is that a leader using the Mathematics of the Mind would be more successful more of the time, because the answer is only known exactly in the limit, but is at least on the ‘correct’ track! In other words, a person using the Mathematics of the Mind will be correct more often, and when wrong, will have an excuse and (hopefully) a chance to ‘adjust’ the answer by adding more relevant attractors.

 

At this point, it seems sensible to point out that the world has problems of over-population, over-consumption, global warming etc as well as the degenerative ‘diseases’ and the latter have been looked at and can be dealt with on the personal level, but the former can not. Clearly, the political system needs fixing and, much to my disgust, a section of the public service, namely the Department of Immigration appears to need urgent ‘renovating’.

 

Why is the above so important, you may ask? It is important because the people making the decisions (politicians) are currently acting firstly, in the short term and secondly, want to keep their employment by rewarding their voters. Their interests are not wholly aligned with the voter’s interests and yet they are standing between the voters and getting the answers to the world’s problems. The problem is not the politician, who is trying to do two jobs, the problem is the voting system and in particular, social security recipients, those in jail etc need a lesser voice, and secondly, voters need to vote for a leader that they believe is looking after their long-term interests using a sensible plan, and not one that ‘toes’ a party line.

 

As an example of electoral illogic, Chapter 22: Magic, Proverbs, Politics and the Voting System discussed the problem of voters voting for governments that hand them more money as a means of being elected and proposed a sliding scale whereby the value of a voter’s vote decreased with their dependence on the public purse. This is not to say that they lose money, only influence over the politicians, and this is more in agreement with the original concepts of democracy.

 

The result of elections depends largely on a small number of swinging voters because the majority are committed to wealth, social security etc. and the relevant political party. The centre group would follow a leader/path that would tend to ‘save’ the world and rationalizing pensioner’s votes can be done in a later term at say 2% reduction each year. Notice that chapter 47: Getting Preferential Politics to Work is designed to give swinging voters more say, after all, they have twice the influence of the committed voter and they can send messages through the Independent votes. There has to be bipartisan agreement of ‘core’ items, for obvious reasons and a mathematics of concepts will ensure that. I have heard a politician say that they all agree to a path by ridiculing objectors and as I have said before, the Mathematics of the Mind shows the self-interest of objectors very clearly and it is a general method that can only be countered by adding more attractors to change the result, which is for the good.

 

Notice that this does not affect the amount of pension that pensioners receive, only their influence over the distribution. Along the same thinking, it has been put forward previously that compassion is addictive and there is nothing wrong with that, providing that it does not extend into subsequent generations as it does at present. People that could be considered ‘unsuitable’ are freely breeding and in some cases, to obtain increased welfare payments. The answer is, I believe, to reduce social security with each child because the determinant should be determination to breed. This is fully discussed in chapter 54: The Determination Orgene, Selecting the Best, and a General Solution to ‘Struggle Street’ and the World’s Overpopulation and suggests a way to reduce and select the subsequent generations and that it is much more sensible to reward those with very few children with a pension and allowing parents with more children to be looked after by their children.

 

These examples may seem strange because they are (somewhat) the reverse of current practice. I don’t know the reasoning behind their implementation, but they are illogical when an ‘absolute’ is brought into the measurement, and that absolute is (literally) saving the planet from humans. Understanding ‘measurement’ is necessary as I have just shown, if the right/correct answer is needed, and right/correct/success defines a leader, and the mathematics of concepts brings this out. Again, literally, we can’t afford to get this wrong!

 

We have to go back to the problem of measurement relativity (a+b=1) that has been discussed in previous chapters and comes about by using the concept of Survival of the Best as an ‘absolute’. Survival of the Fittest uses iteration and Survival of the Best uses a mind/brain. Again, we cannot escape the limitations of world O and world P that define the two sets of units that ‘cloud’ our thinking and lead to the three Laws of Life. The subject that mathematics is a special case of the mathematics of concepts is fully discussed (in the postscript) in chapter 2: The Philosopher’s Stone.

 

I believe that this problem has occurred in philosophy because the mathematics of concepts was not recognised because philosophers use top down reasoning and I used bottom up, that showed world P. ‘Today’s science and mathematics so far transcend the achievement of the Greeks that no modern scientist is likely to study Euclid, or Hippocrates or Archimedes for other than purely antiquarian reasons. Modern philosophers, by contrast, continue to discuss problems which were first raised some two thousand five hundred years ago, and they often do so in terms which their Greek predecessors would have found fully intelligible’. (Greek Philosophers, Keith Thomas, General Editor, Past Masters, Forward) Have philosophers missed something important? I suspect that they need the mathematics of concepts to understand the basics of philosophy!

 

This all sounds a bit strange and the reason is through the definition of ‘existence’! The Churches teach that we exist because God made the universe, and that means that absolutes exist because the universe is ‘real/exists’, whereas I believe that we exist in a probability of existence space and that there are relatives, but no absolutes, as has been mentioned before. Plato appears to be troubled by this problem: ‘in the first book of the Republic (332-3). If good living is a skill or art, what is it the skill to do? There seems no way of specifying the skill as ”the skill to do x“ without making it also the skill to do the opposite of x’. (Greek Philosophers, R. M. Hare, p 127) In the light of the above paragraph, all philosophers seem to believe that we are ‘real/exist’, whereas I believe that ‘determination evolved a reality out of the possibility of existence’, noting that this reality contains the certainty of existence (at 1) and this belief/derivation came out of the mathematics of concepts. So, if there are no absolutes, we have to define something to be an absolute so that we can measure it and bring it into (our) existence/knowledge/mind/brain.

 

Concepts are handled on a higher plane by proverbs and on a higher level by a personality that brings a wider situation to mind. Just as Judas Iscariot brings on the advent of the major religions, for the moment, until the situation clears, I will use Sarah Fuller as the ‘pivot’ that shows the illogic, in my opinion, of the stand of the Department of Immigration and politics in general and personalizes the search for a New World Order. I have no option but to let this personal matter for the moment, ‘lie on the table’ and try to work on the bigger ‘picture’ as Immigration does not seem to want to redress my situation.

 

The importance of finding ‘statesmen/women’ that can bring the politicians into the world of logic and reality is paramount and leaders that through logic and common sense can get everyone behind them

are necessary to attend to the world’s problems and I believe that the mathematic of concepts is necessary because it aligns political policy with the underlying ‘rightness’ of the three Laws of Life. However, it will probably be younger politicians, conversant with the mathematics of concepts and its ramifications that will lead change because the ‘Old Guard’ will probably be reluctant to change their thinking, and that will take time.

 

Finally, Plato was very interested in government and life and his works offer some pertinent thoughts, ‘philosophy is left with a crucial role, but it is not allowed to dictate to people what they are to find good in life…. If there are going in any case to be relatively few people who have the power of government and exercise its functions, even in a democracy, then Plato is surely entirely right in holding that it will be best if they receive, before they attain this position of power, an education which will enable them to exercise it wisely.’ (p 180) I would go further, and have mentioned previously that a ‘haggle’ of philosophers might be useful because politicians are principally salesmen/women and while they ‘work’ similar areas (or Laws) they have different functions/strengths.

 

But do we have time? The push for renewable energy is a move in the right direction, but it is not the key concern in the world’s problems and the policies should produce agreement with a minimum of party politics through the action of ridicule, which is more possible with a formal application of a mathematics of concepts.

 

 

Peter Dutton MP,

 

as minister@ border.gov.au I would like to inform you that certain aspects of your Department appear to be acting as a Star Chamber and acting, perhaps not illegally, but anti-legally in a possibly actionable manner.

 

‘In modern usage, legal or administrative bodies with strict, arbitrary rulings and secretive proceedings are sometimes called, metaphorically or poetically, star chambers. This is a pejorative term and intended to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the proceedings’. (Wikipedia, Star Chamber)

 

I am starting to suspect that the decision that my friend MIGHT over-stay her visa is offered as an excuse to refuse the visa, as it has happened twice. I am a normal successful, upright tax-paying citizen and this reason is so implausible that it may be that I am being ‘hounded’ for some ‘wrong’ that has appeared on my file. It seems pointless to ask if this is true, just as it seems pointless to ask how I might be successful in my endeavour for a ‘short stay’ visa as I received misinformation from Sarah Fuller on the last occasion that I sought clarification..

 

Your Department’s actions have caused, and are causing great inconvenience to both my friend and I, and I appear to have no effective means to redress the situation. My rights have been trampled and I can only appeal to you to reorganize aspects of your Department and grant a 12 months visa to Marites as a small measure of recognition of her pain and suffering. Whilst the pen may be mightier than the sword, it is all that I appear to possess and have to resort to emails to find a champion of my rights.

 

I have been advised that the most suitable legal avenue might be to pass this problem to the state Law Associations, presumably because the commonwealth, as with a multi-celled organism, must remain constantly in communication with the states in a two-way process. Needless to say, there is a similar relationship flow (placebo/nocebo continuum) between government and politicians.

 

Perhaps the time and opportunity has come to seek resolution through the mathematics of concepts as outlined on my website   http://darrylpenney.com     The mathematics of concepts (Mathematic of the Mind) is completely general and makes the consideration of concepts more transparent and brings about agreement because it can be seen that greed, self-interest, incompetence, errors etc. are apparent to all parties. So, a little ‘fireside’ chat might explain the problem.

 

A friend in the Philippines says that she has relatives that do this work at the Embassy, and I have her approval to present it here:

 

hi darryl,.just for your information ok?! the embassy grant the visa base on what you answer to their question, if your answer is right and satisfied them..they will grant it, but if you answer their question with sound suspicious, they will not tell you that your answer is not satisfied them..they will just deny your visa..coz part of the processing visa is interview! that is always the main reason why visa denied..by didn’t passing the interview! that’s it..so maybe the embassy denied the visa of the lady coz maybe when the embassy interview her, she maybe answer that might sound she will going to over stayed there..

 

As to Sarah Fuller’s letter of ‘explanation’:

 

what?! immigration said that? that she need to fund her trip?? i don’t believe that.. if sponsoring her didn’t grant her visa how much more if she will be fund her trip! it needs more documents and lots of money

 

The Embassy’s interview appears, to contribute to the understanding of the situation, but it only ‘appears’ to contribute, because it is not a reality as the mind of the interviewee is not constant nor is the mind of the interviewer continuous, and similarly for the application form, where no guidance is given by stating the absolute values that are required. Where reality is not continuous and relevant, magic things happen, and they are usually disastrous, as in this case. In other words, what would Marites gain by overstaying? If she did, firstly she has to be presumed to be dishonest and secondly, she wouldn’t be able to return. She could change her mind whilst here etc. even apart from my Statuary Declaration to be responsible for her debts. There are fundamental flaws in your organisational logic as applied to people!

 

The mathematics of concepts brings disputing parties together because they must agree with the mathematics, or face derision for attempting to pervert natural justice. I have shown that your Department was at fault in rejecting two attempts (for this inappropriate reason) to obtain a visa, so I suggest that you give Marites a 12 month visa, for a start. The longer that this goes on, the more people that will become familiar with this problem, and challenge your stand.

 

It is probably appropriate to simplify the concepts further to aid understanding. The system of Law is based on the mathematics of concepts, or more accurately, the Mathematics of the Mind where an iteration or mind judges, as a Judge does, from precedents in English Law (attractors or determinations of past judgements) brought to his/her attention by arguments of trial lawyers, and any judgements are reviewed by the Department of Public Prosecutions, and ultimately by public outrage and possibly a Eureka Stockade. This is in the image of the Mathematics of the Mind where there are no ‘absolutes’ and decisions are made on a number of attractors and the more attractors or concepts that are considered, the better the result. Only an all-knowing god can make a definitive decision because every piece of knowledge in the universe must be considered and knowledge is iterative as well as unknown and undefined until measured.

 

Two derivations are necessary: A. reality requires continuity and relevance, otherwise magic happens, and B. determination evolved reality from the probability of existence and I suggest my website http://darrylpenney.com for clarification.

 

The Law is a reality and overarches everything. A job interview is the prerequisite for joining a work reality, which leaves the non-work reality for the rest of the time, which together, form a reality under the Law. The Department of Immigration’s interview is not a reality because it is neither continuous nor relevant. It is not continuous because it occurs before entering the country and is not relevant because the state of mind cannot be ‘absolutely’ assessed, whereas proof of passport, criminal history etc. are known absolutes.

 

Hence, the Department has refused entry to people anti-legally. I use this term because it is not for me to judge the extent of the damage (in disappointment, monetary costs, discomfort etc.) that the Department has inflicted on people, nor do I profess to know the ‘ins and outs’ of the law. I know that Marites and I have been put to considerable inconvenience, cost etc., especially as each visit to the Embassy involves a 10 hour round trip on her part.

 

The Law is ‘just’, within workable limits, but the Department’s actions are not, and I ask that the state Law Associations consider the problem posed here. The Law is ‘reviewable’ but the Department charges $1604 to review a decision, otherwise it states that its determination will not be reviewed. We have nowhere to turn for help or advice, and I have no option but to call parts of the Department, a Star Chamber and try to get someone to reorganize it into a much more user friendly and efficient organization.

 

The states and commonwealth are in a similar organisational relationship as are the multi-celled organisms and evolution shows much insight. Lawyers and politicians need the mathematics of concepts that are their stock-in-trade, as shown above, and they may wish to consult my website, after all, the ‘one-eyed person is king in the kingdom of the blind’!

 

Regards, Darryl Penney   dwpenney2@bigpond.com

 

 

 

Peter Dutton MP,

 

as minister@ border.gov.au I am sending this complaint to you, and informing you that it is my intention to try to initiate a Class Action against your Department for compensation for mischief, inconvenience and defamation.

 

This is being done because it is easily provable, as below, and also, with the intention of providing a better set of guidelines for your organization in general, outside of a possible clique of some ill-informed and misguided ‘do-gooders’ with their own agenda that has caused this complaint.

 

I now have enough information from your rejection procedures to see that your Department is making fundamental errors in applying concepts and this situation is similar around the world because of a lack of a mathematics of concepts. You should be pleased that I have developed one and applied it to many cases and that it can be found on   http://darrylpenney.com

 

I repeat that you should be pleased that I have developed this mathematics because not only will it will allow you to put your Department in order, but it is applicable to all organizations and further, help right many of the world’s ills. The index to the website, which is currently running at 60 chapters, is appended to show the scope of this method.

 

For brevity, from the website:   ‘determination evolved a reality from the probability of existence’ and this fundamental determination leads to the fact that in the simplest case a+b=1 as a property of our probability of existence space. Thus any concept can only exist with a ‘reciprocal’ concept to be available to measure it, in other words, there are no ‘absolutes’ only relativity. Applying this simple statement to your Department, the law, according to NORCAS and Sarah Fuller, has provided ‘absolutes’, but not for the question of a visa holder returning to her own country and this was the reason given to reject two applications for short stay visas.

 

This simple statement proves my case, that relativity is imposed on your employees and they will produces errors because any judgement must be based on some absolute law of nature or man and the supposition that Marites will over-stay her visa cannot be justified without knowing her intension. Your model is flawed in this crucial point and worthless. That case is proven, but there are further ramifications of the practice, and that is intent.

 

We often need to personify concepts, such as Judas Iscariot or Sarah Fuller in this case and huge amounts of monetary damages can be awarded by judge and jury although, or perhaps because, they have little experience in any particular field, and as above they do not have a ‘measuring rod’ which requires a known reference to base damages on. It is apparent that your Department should exercise extreme care in making arbitrary decisions because they are undefinable, as in this case. Perhaps Your Department did what it did in good, if misguided faith, but the rules are straight forward that a Statuary Declaration or bond can be applied, without the necessity of rejection. This shows that Sarah Fuller’s letter was a sop sent to ill-inform me. Shame!!

 

The Department is making value judgements on the reasons that a visa seeker would not return home based on the conditions in that country and the serious error in not considering the person’s state of mind/intent. This attempt at a mathematical model would be laughable if it wasn’t so serious and causing me so much trouble. May I suggest that my website   http://darrylpenney.com       might supply more insight into the mathematics of concepts and to this end, I have attached the index of 60 chapters of the book to the end of this email to show that I have some expertise in this matter.

 

I believe that I have the grounds for a Class Action against your Department and I will have to seek legal advice. I have shares in IMF Bentham – International Litigation Funding and will seek their advice, and in the meantime, you have caused me great distress and I demand a 12 month visa for Marites immediately without prejudice to future action.

 

In short, my website derives the Mathematics of the Mind (a general mathematics of concepts) and entanglement that requires ALL concepts in the universe to be considered, and anything less imparts errors (lack of knowledge). Your attempt to make a rational decision is ludicrous and I am complaining that you have wasted my time, energy and money as well as undermined my reputation etc.

.

Also, I would like you to be aware that the Department is actively restricting tourism in a manner that affronts me and my rights in making decisions that are not theirs to make. This high-handed behaviour should not be tolerated. Please contact Sarah Fuller at visitor.policy@immi.gov.au for more information as it was she that wrote the letter quoted below.

 

But, what is ‘visitor policy’? I appreciate that terrorists and crime figures should be kept out of the country, but the decision-making process, above, was so inept, or apparently so inept, that it appears to target ordinary people, including myself! Add to this the oft quoted warning by your Department that decisions will not be reviewed, which is akin to saying that no guarantees are given, which is not common practice and I suspect, illegal.

 

Your Department appears to contain some fiefdom of incompetence, arbitrariness and other organizational ‘nightmares of yesterday’. I urge you to ‘take your medicine’, compensate the massive harm that your Department has done to (probably) thousands of visa seekers and bring your organization into the new century. I repeat that my website   http://darrylpenney.com is freely available for your consultation.

 

Conclusion: I suspect that your Department is engaging in Social Engineering and I have no objection to that, if it is being done in a ‘proper’ manner. My website is ultimately about the same subject, but it presents it on a rational basis.

 

Regards Darryl Penney   dwpenney2@bigpond.com

 

COMPLAINT I have just been informed that my second attempt to secure a short-term visa for Marites has been refused because Marites is an ‘over-stay risk’. I have property, highly educated etc and value Law and Order as it works to my advantage and for her to ‘over-stay’ would be un-thinkable as she could not return, also, this decision is an affront to me as I provided statuary declarations that I would be responsible for her debts whilst she would be in Australia. Your process is deeply flawed in the section that she is reputed to not pass. ‘Personal circumstances or other conditions in the applicant’s home country, that may encourage the applicant to remain in Australia, including:’ the most important reason is, if she over-stays, she can’t return to Australia! The most important reason has been left out! Probably because it is difficult to assess, but leaving it out skews the determination, leading to the necessity for me to complain! ’Whilst the applicant has supplied relevant information relating to her personal circumstances in the Philippines, the documentation supplied by the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the applicant has significant ties to the Philippines that would induce her to return home within the validity of her visa’ (NORDAS). This is akin to proving your innocence in court! The family consists of two parents, three sisters and a business! Previously, I complained to my local MP, Dr. Hendy MP (Eden-Monaro) that the organization of the Department was not operating properly, especially as an appeal cost $1604 and I thought that he should fix it, and he secured a letter from the Department of Immigration, that did not tell me what I wanted to know. The letter said, in part:
‘While I appreciate your disappointment at this visitor visa application being refused, all applicants are required to meet the legal requirements in order to be granted a visa. The criteria for a Visitor visa include that the applicant intends a genuine visit to Australia (i.e. a short stay for non-work purposes), meets Australia’s health and character standards and has adequate funds to support themselves during the period of the visit.’ (Sarah Fuller)

I took this to mean that she had to be able to fund the trip, so I put $2000 into her account to comply, even though I was sponsoring her. Whether I misinterpreted that part of letter, or whether it was unclear etc., I have ‘burnt my boats’ and am forced to seek a favourable outcome so that Marites can use the money for the trip. In short, I applied again only to find that she is viewed an over-stay risk, even when I gave her the money to cover the trip, which was the reason that I thought, that the first attempt had failed. I am happy to post a surety because I know that she will return and anyway, I am forced to reapply because I have given her the money for the trip, as I believed that I was what I was instructed to do by the letter from the Department. In conclusion, I am again complaining of the same problem with the Department’s processes and the loss of my rights and that I am forced to wait another 3 months to apply again. Marites, and I, deserve better treatment than this. I don’t expect anything to come from this complaint and my anger is (unfortunately) limited to complaining and the ballot box and I will now vote Independents/Labour until this is resolved. Sincerely, Darryl Penney dwpenney2@bigpond.com