Chapter 142: Social Engineering For A Future Religion
by
Abstract: religions tend to be old because they fill a basic and an important need, but are they what we want for our modern world and can they be changed to fill changing needs? Religion is based on the physical and is part of a new discipline of social engineering that emerges by re-evaluating the law of conservation of energy and understanding the physical, that is not accessed by physics and this allows us to understand the power of religion as a unifying force and ethical tool with a crucial role to play in a modern world, but we need to understand that new role and change religions to meet that need.
Keywords: the mind-brain; religion; fractal universe; relativity; social engineering; creation equation; “New Think”
Preface
Assuming that the law of conservation of energy is the bed-rock of physics [energy cannot be created nor destroyed], so, energy must be ‘something’ and considering that our universe was created out of nothing [the simplest surmise], there must be a relativity to energy that I could call organisation, which changes the conservation law to ‘energy plus organisation equals zero’. Now that physics has been made complete, social engineering appears as an orthogonal to technology [materials engineering] and the universe is obviously a fractal with the derivation generated by the creation equation. In other words, science has just been (somewhat) doubled and that previously hidden part can possibly explain the problems that we are having in society and the environment. Clearly, social engineering is all the ‘hard to manage’ organisation that physics, materials engineering and technology have ignored and, by so doing, are possibly endangering our civilisation. Further, the social sciences become amalgamated and can be seen as a ‘mirror image’ [orthogonality] to technology and so, must include religion, that has always stood ‘aloof’, but, as I will show, is akin to governance and is grounded in the physical.
Why Is Religion Necessary?
Technology has given us a ‘Heaven on Earth’ that we enjoy, but it can not last unless we control it, and the means is at hand, because social engineering is the ‘mirror image’ [orthogonal] of technology. As an example of the scope of social engineering, I will endeavour to show why religion has always been so important, why religion works and why it will be needed in the future and the form it could take. Religions are very old and there are calls for a modern religion, but, suggestions seem to be ‘armchair musings’ without understanding the physics behind religion. Yes, there is solid physics behind religion, but we have to ‘winkle’ it out and see where it leads us so that we can mould it to suit a new modern society.
All religions are social engineering, to some extent, but it goes much deeper than that because in a fractal universe created from nothing, everything must be relative to something else. Consider a family in the Palaeolithic, sitting around a campfire. Relativity requires a creation myth about where the tribe originated and when a death occurred, a relativity about where the spirit went, both relative to the present . These questions are essentially physical because both the emotional energy and the organisational component comprise the creation equation and show that social engineering is just as relevant as technology [materials engineering], but we must be wary of personalising our observations.
‘Descartes was a deeply religious man who believed wholeheartedly in the Christian soul. . . . He proposed that reality was separated into two distinct categories: the res extensa, or physically extended realm of matter in motion, and the res cogitans, an immaterial realm of thoughts, feelings, and spiritual experience.’ (The Pearly Gates of Cyberspace, Margaret Wertheim, p 36) Notice that this is similar to the creation equation, above. ‘One of the major effects of the scientific revolution was thus to write out of our vision of reality any conception of spiritual space’ (p 37) and a major consequence could be that physics is incomplete in that it is based on energy, and in particular, the law of conservation of energy. The new conservation equation [that energy plus organisation equals zero is a fact, not a ‘law’ because it was derived from first principles] shows that energy [feelings] and organisation are orthogonal and whilst independent, are entangled at least to the extent that they must always be equal.
Thus, ‘spiritual space’ is a relativity that cannot be dismissed completely, but is always there, if we wish to make use of it and so-called modern religions like humanism have a similar defect as does science which ‘has had one huge drawback: it could not deal with questions of value and meaning.’ (Homo Deus, Yuval Noah Harari, p 277) ‘However, humanism offered an alternative. . . . If we wish to know the answer to any ethical question, we need to connect to our inner experiences and observe them with the utmost sensitivity.’ (p 277) This is clearly ‘armchair musings’ and a reliable measure only at a personal level in a vote in a democracy and ‘truths’ [except absolutes and restrictions] can only be relied upon with the test of time. For example, killing another person is forbidden, and yet it is acceptable in war and killing to eat has been necessary for 3,000 million years of evolution and formed a large part of the early religions.
Conclusion: religion is clearly a comfort to the individual, but in a fractal it works at all levels and so, is important at the family level [the family that prays together, stays together], the business and the state level. Social engineering allows us to understand the physics of religion and lay it open for inspection.
A General Warning
In a modern world, a significant number of people feel that religion is outdated and not relevant and I want to show why they may be making a mistake,. We should recognise that organisation, and in particular, social engineering, where we try to engineer people and organisations, is fraught with difficulties and one can understand why physics tried to minimise its use. However, I believe that social engineering, as an orthogonal to technology [materials engineering] is the way to save our civilisation from the impending crises of overpopulation, over-consumption etc.
In the physical sciences, the measurer is taken to stand outside of the experiment and have nothing to do with it except observe, but the conservation equation [energy plus organisation equals zero], is actually the creation equation and generator of a fractal that we call the universe [see below] and everything in that universe is relative to something else and entangled with everything else. The mind-brain is a parasite with it’s own agenda and that fact is a restriction that must be imposed on any person dealing with social engineering. ‘Coalition-mindedness makes everyone, including scientists, far stupider in coalition collectives than as individuals. . . . Forming coalitions around scientific or factual questions is disastrous, because it pits our urge for scientific truth-seeking against the nearly insuperable human desire to be a good coalition member. Once scientific propositions are moralized, the scientific process is wounded, often fatally. No one is behaving either ethically or scientifically who doesn’t make the best case possible for rival theories with which one disagrees.’ (This Idea Is Brilliant, Edited by John Brockman, John Tooby, p 499) I say this because Yuval Noah Harari may be Jewish and he says little about Christianity, as might be expected, but Christianity is, I believe, a breathtakingly daring social engineering experiment that changed the operation of a goodly part of the world.
We have a ‘brave new world’, but not an ‘informed new world’ and that is leading to an impending catastrophe. Physicist, John von Neumann believed that ‘”the human species has been subject to similar tests before and seems to have a congenital ability to come through”’ ( The Planet Remade, Oliver Morton, p 316) and that hope is not good enough, whereas updating the traditional law of conservation of energy requires a better understanding of organisation, which is the ‘corner-stone’ of civilisation and an integral part of religion and enables us to see religion in a new way [bottom-up] that shows why it works and how it can work better.
The Scope of Religion
(A) In the beginning, survival of the fittest worked well for 3,000 million years, and ‘if you needed something from the caribou, the fig trees, the clouds or the rocks, you addressed them yourself’. (Homo Deus, Yuval Noah Harari, p 107) This was the first religion, with a covenant between yourself and the world at large, ‘foragers had to constantly ask themselves what deer dream about, and what lions think. Otherwise they could not hunt the deer, nor escape the lions.’ (p 111) The universe ‘runs’ on relativity and the form of the universe is the lack of relativity, below, and measuring the organisation of the surroundings ‘affords’ an energy in the mind-brain that tells the brain [amygdala] that the thought [action potentials of the senses] should be remembered. ‘Affordances are what the environment “offers the animal …. either for good or ill,” according to Gibson”. (This Idea Is Brilliant, edited by John Brockman, Daniel C. Dennett, p 147) ‘The huge gap in Gibson’s perspective was his refusal even to entertain the question of how this “direct pickup” of information was accomplished by the brain.’ (p 148)
The creation equation [energy plus organisation equals zero] is completely different to the law of conservation of energy used in traditional physics because energy changes, as long as organisation changes commensurately. [If organisation is ignored (put constant), as physics tries to do, the law of conservation of energy emerges.] So, measuring organisation produces energy and measuring energy produces more organisation, so, the ‘gap’ above, is the transfer of organisation of the surroundings to the mind-brain with an emotional [energy] ‘label’. Also, burning sugar in the brain [a release of energy] creates thought [more organisation] and the rearranging of the organisation of the ‘punch-line’ of a joke [more organisation, less complication] produces energy that we expel as laughter.
(B) ‘In the wake of the Agricultural Revolution. Theist religions began to argue that the universe is not a parliament of beings, but rather a theocracy ruled by a group of great gods. . . . . at least in their beginnings theist religions were an agricultural enterprise. The theology, mythology and liturgy of religions such as Judaism, Hinduism and Christianity initially centred on the relationship between humans, domesticated plants and farm animals. . . . . The pilgrims did not come empty handed. They brought with them a never-ending stream of sheep, goats, chickens and other animals, which were sacrificed at the god’s altar and then cooked and eaten.’ (Homo Deus, Yuval Noah Harari, p 105) ‘The degradation of animals from sentient beings deserving of respect into mere property rarely stopped with cows and chickens. Most agricultural societies began treating various classes of people as if they too were property. In ancient Egypt, biblical Israel and medieval China it was common to enslave humans, torture them and execute them even for trifling offences.’ (p 112) [Christianity, in modifying this state of affairs must be a social engineering] I believe that it is imperative to continue looking at the state of farm animals today and we should consider ‘whereas theism justified traditional agriculture in the name of God, humanism has justified modern industrial farming in the name of Man. Industrial farming sanctifies human needs, whims and wishes, while disregarding everything else.’ (p 115) Apart from this deplorable state of industrial farming, we suffer from a number of mutated animal diseases and animal meat is a processed second grade food. [If the Trinity contained the environment, animals would have a voice]
© Consider the ‘teachings of the Chinese philosopher Confucius. It encourages a particular social order, respect for the elderly, the respect and elevation of teachers, and the overall good of the community, as a religion’ (Internet)
(F) Christianity is built on Judaism and is a social engineering construction that turned the savagery of the times into love and changed the world, especially for the poor. Christianity is a complete philosophical turn-around [orthogonality] to the times and must have appeared strange, but makes sense when based on the extension to physics that arises out of the creation equation. In other words, savagery [B above] was rife, and yet the relativity [love] is just as valid, as was shown by the rise in Christianity, and ‘love’ won, except in war etc., but ‘love’ is not quite correct, see below, and has placed society in grave danger.
(G) ‘Islam and Christianity are very similar’. . . . ‘ There are 3 main differences between Islam & Christianity’:
Conclusion: it is apparent that religion is necessary and that there is a ‘need to believe’ because, according to the creation equation, measuring the organisation of belief creates emotion in the mind-brain, apart from it’s social attributes, such as social coherence, bonding, preventing inbreeding, caring for the elderly etc. Further, I believe that the Trinity was originally ‘Father, Son and Environment’ and that this meaning was lost over the millennia for the Church has given the impression that the environment is for Man’s use, a concept that is placing the world in danger at the moment. Note that the environment is the host (literally), because we are parasites that have evolved to make use of it and a truth is that parasites should not kill the host. Hence an overall picture that makes more sense is Creation [energy], Golden Rule [organisation] and environment [host].
Prediction (as an orthogonal to the conclusion): relativity says that there must always be at least two orthogonal [independent, but entangled] somethings and I imagine on a ‘world stage’ this would translate to a number of trading zones, and within each zone, a common appearance, language, economic level and religion. Thus, there is room for a number of different religions, each in different zones, and the Corona virus has shown that the whole world should not be connected by physical travel and similar problems apply to manufacturing, research etc. In other words, globalisation, as a concept, is efficient, but relativity says that it is unstable, and this is confirmed by the shutdown to restrict the spread of the virus.
The Basis Of Religion
The bane of science for thousands of years has been, I believe, ‘armchair musing’ that turned out to be wrong and the reason that it was wrong was that our thinking is incomplete, in the same way that physics made itself incomplete because it tried to exclude organisation. Organisation is ‘pesky stuff’ because, for Life, it comes in two forms, top-down and bottom-up and I will use an example to illustrate. Top-down is like fishing with bait and depends on whether the fish is hungry, you cannot tell what type you may catch nor whether you will catch anything etc., whereas using a net scoops up everything and gives choice. Notice that the physical universe does not use this distinction because it requires the simplest logic, as Occam’s razor says, as a restriction, but Life does not have that restriction. Choice is defined by the mathematics of concept-context where a concept [affordance] and your mind-brain are afforded a ‘tag’ [energy] that is compared to other ‘tags’ to make a decision on a concept. Mathematics is based on the much more complicated counting of sheep and is a special case of the mathematics of concept-context.
By defining a creation myth and an ‘after-life’, the organisation of a tribe’s life was changed and with it comes a sense of ‘oneness’ or satisfaction [energy] with the universe, as can be seen from the creation equation. This is why Churches, governments, families, organisations have uniforms, monumental buildings, codes of conduct, laws, strange costumes, marches etc. to increase the organisation that the viewer senses as emotional energy, such as awe, contentment, pride etc. Further, the more complex is the Bible, the more hymns, the more teachings and the more organisation produces more emotional energy in the member and the more satisfaction. That is the power of religion, and it is physical. It is physical because it uses the creation equation, whereas physics does not, and does not access the physical.
The creation equation, through the mathematics of concept-context, explains two practices that have been with us for a very long time, and these are democracy and the market system and they show how people make decisions, although society tries to limit these rights in various ways and for various reasons. This paper merely tries to lay out the ‘playing field’ because it is to people’s benefit to believe in something [gain emotional energy], and even further, if they must believe in something, then humanism [the worship of humankind] is the ‘default setting’. In other words, if people do not believe in a religion, they believe in humanism, so, it behoves religions to market themselves to attract adherents, for example, the Catholic Church may have tried to increase the number of their followers by restricting contraception which did not help over-population. So, if religions are to market themselves, we have to rate them for comparable features and social engineering is, like materials engineering, capable of exactitude [as far as the mind-brain can judge].
Conclusion: physics is based on the concept of energy, which is continuous, indestructible and infinite in size [a reality] and physics is a creation of the mind and has very little to do with the physical because it was conceived through ordinary thinking [top-down]. Social engineering entails a new way of thinking [“New Think”] because it includes the bottom-up of the physical and a different equation of energy and organisation as well as traditional physics [top-down].
Social Engineering
The above shows that religion follows technology and as farming progressed, so religion changed, and it could be said that technology invented religion, and because I am not a religious scholar, I will stay away from complex concepts and instead will offer a few examples, below. Christianity was ‘implanted’ into the world by a conscious act of God or by a mortal using social engineering. Whoever it was, it was a bold experiment that turned the savagery of the times, mentioned above, into ‘love your neighbour’. Whether the Bible is fact or fiction, true or false, social engineering shows that it was a bold plan and was desperately needed, just as other forms are needed today. Everyone knows that society’s population growth is excessive and unsustainable, but just as Christianity did 2,000 years ago, we can change society.
Consider the world’s religions: Buddhism and Humanism (inner thoughts), Confucianism (planned), Animistic (communication), Christianity (love your neighbour), Judaism (history) and “New Think” (a new way of thinking). How can there be so many different religions trying to fill a need? I believe that all of them are forms of organisation. “New Think” is an unusual addition, but, I believe that it has the power of a new way of thinking and may save our civilisation from imminent self-destruction, and is that not the definition of a religion? Are we made in God’s image, or can we become godlike? The concept of “New Think” is the combining of top-down science with the bottom-up of the physical, relativity and restrictions with the context of general mathematical physics and can be used with our existing brain. The creation equation must be used because social engineering is a part of it and only became recognisable when physics was expanded by the new conservation law [energy plus organisation equal zero]. An integral part of “New Think” is the generation of ‘truths’ from general usage, along with the physical absolutes and restrictions.
“New Think” arose out of fundamental physics and may produce a new religion or use the existing religions in a better way, but at least, there is the possibility of finding a means of controlling the population amicably and averting a crisis. The strength of “New Think” is that it is complete and contains all truths and restrictions, and we can be assured that it contains the answer if we ask the correct questions [like Delphi]. I have lauded Christianity as a social experiment, but is it complete? Firstly, combining the Old and New Testaments presents a God with two personalities, that could be expected with a composite religion, but not with one God. Secondly, the mantra of ‘love your neighbour’ is not quite ‘right’, because it contains no checks or balances and no relativity. Organisational truths are often found in the proverbs, simply because, if they were not generally true, they would not become accepted. Consider the biblical picture of the ‘lion lying down with the lamb’ as an example, so, clearly, Christianity’s ‘love your neighbour’ is not an evolutionary fact and even worse, ‘love your neighbour’ does not contain relativity because your neighbour might not love you, by reason of being of a different religion etc. In other words, ‘love your neighbour’ is a noble thought, but impractical to base an organisation on because relativity is a must if we want to align ourselves with the physical.
Let us look at one of the most famous and well-known of proverbs called the Golden Rule [Do to others as you would have them do to you] and look at the awkward case of murder being acceptable in the army. Clearly, defence and self-preservation of lifestyle is important to a religion when threatened by hostile forces, although there have been instances of non-violence. The Golden Rule must have a relativity, which, from the other person’s perspective, is that they should expect resistance and possibly death. Thus, the Golden Rule is a truth that should be part of every religion and the simplest example might be to give an illustration from real life. In the United States, children are asking for gun control to try to restrict school shootings, and similar applies to disgruntled workers in their place of business, but it is the workers and the children’s actions that are producing the desire for retaliation from other workers and students and the answer is ‘love your neighbour’, or, to use the Golden Rule [because it contains the relativity] that if you offend someone, you deserve the consequences. I believe that this shows that guns should be available in the community for defence and not restricted as they were in Australia by an opportunistic Prime Minister playing on emotion.
Conclusion: I could point out that firstly, religion can generate emotional energy in a person, family, state etc. due to the physics of the universe and thus has a physical effect, secondly, there is a contract between the levels of government and the populous that results in top-down and bottom-up agreements that are accepted [unwritten] and adjudicated by religion, thirdly, religion has an organisational ‘togetherness’ that acts as a unifying factor that benefits all concerned and fourthly, multiculturalism and religious tolerance are destabilising, as shown below.
Applying Social Engineering
Relativity suggests that: it is unlikely that one world government would be stable, and that means trading blocs around the world with the possibility of each having different religions, customs etc. and that these trading blocs, like areas have in the past, would form one religion, one people, one culture etc. and in the light of disease transmission, restricted travel between blocs. We all live on one Earth and the greatest threat to civilisation is ourselves through over-crowding bringing disease, poverty and misery, and the answer, I believe is social engineering because religion and government are not succeeding. In the first World War, the bigger the population, the stronger the army and the more chance of winning, but since then, technology and a well-equipped small standing army has become the norm.
Everything is built on relativity, such as democracy, the market-place, competition, species, etc. and, I believe that there is no place, in the long-run for man-made multi-culturalism, racism, religious tolerance etc. because they usually eventually incite violence. In particular, competition created evolution and trading blocs would provide an opportunity for blocs to compete on the well-being of its citizens and at the same time provide a visible scale of success. We see this repeatedly with the rise of civilisations and super-powers, with Russia’s managed economy falling behind the USA and China’s communism leaning toward capitalism.
Species die out when they can not compete as do organisations and in particular, religions, so change is a must and that is why this paper has been written. “New Think” is a new way of thinking and it is needed because we cannot manage civilisation.
‘Today’s problems cannot be solved with today’s mind’
Albert Einstein and many great thinkers …
(Fair Food, edited by Nick Rose, p 250)
Trading blocs allow different religions, but, there is a price to pay if religions are not kept ‘up to date’ and that price can be huge as given in the following examples where many millions of people died unnecessarily.
Examples of Macro-social Engineering
The Nazi regime in Germany has a bad reputation for its treatment of ‘undesirables’ in the Second World War, and these ‘undesirables’ can be divided into social ‘misfits’ and the ‘Jewish problem’. Clearly, an orthogonality has been created in the minds of the people through propaganda that these people are ‘different’ and not part of the mainstream population. The first is a problem in micro-social engineering, whilst the second contains a ‘truth’ that a group has deliberately set out to create an orthogonality within the German society based on religion. This resulted in an extreme solution to a stalemate that should and could have been addressed by social engineering by preventing multi-culturalism. Unifying Germany was presumably the aim and historical solutions have included ‘pogroms’ of various severity, forced conversions, partitioning or migration. Clearly, the political expediency of ‘multiculturalism’ is not stable and orthogonality tells us that in the future the only stable social structure is a number of regions of similar people that inhibit migration between the regions except for trade because the movement of legal and illegal ‘economic’ refugees from poor countries to rich countries is destabilising. The point of this example is not so much to apportion blame but that social engineering may suggest alternative solutions.
Also, consider the conduct of the Japanese soldiers in China, and elsewhere, during the second World War. ‘Many find it difficult to reconcile the barbarism of Nanking with the exquisite politeness and good manners for which the Japanese are renowned.’ (The Rape of Nanking, Iris Chang, p 54) For example, ‘After almost sixty years of soul-searching, Nagatomi is a changed man. A doctor in Japan, he has built a shrine of remorse in his waiting room …. I beheaded people, starved them to death, burned them, and buried them alive, over two hundred in all.’ (p 59) Reasons are suggested for this enigma (p 54), but religion may be involved because ‘Shinto is polytheistic and revolves around the kami, supernatural entities believed to inhabit the landscape’ (Wikipedia, Shinto) and is an ancient religion, as is Judaism, above, and they may need re-examining in a modern world.
Whilst religion has brought great benefits, it has wrought great harm, as above, and change is needed, but traditional religion is necessarily top-down and has done little to help other areas, such as the environment, though there is speculation that the Holy Spirit was originally the environment, was ‘lost’ through lack of use, and forms a Trinity with God the creator [energy, atoms] and the Son as love [context, organisation] in the community. Also, to repeat, Shinto is essentially pagan and the Old Testament is essentially a history and modern civilisation needs the protection and application of social engineering and its insight into guiding and stabilising populations through a Golden Rule. Thus, if the Golden Rule is a good guide, we have firstly, a measure of each religion’s humanity and secondly, a conduit into preserving the environment through the Trinity and thirdly, the Golden Rule should underlie all religions including atheists and form the core to unifying religion world wide. I should emphasise that unifying religion has been one of humanity’s unanswered questions, and yet, in “new Think”, it appears simple. In other words, it is not a large step to include the Golden Rule in all religions and ethics, because I believe it is a truth and a prerequisite to being considered civilised.
Religious instruction is on-going, unlike ethics, and religion is an organisation that brings people together, whereas ethics is personal and they appear to be opposites and in opposition, but looking through the ‘veil’ of “New Think”, they are a relativity that follows the creation equation, which means that they are independent, yet entangled. Both are necessary and both must be used because
ethics could be considered to be the concept and religion the context. I surmise that the present state of affairs is somewhat optimal, that on-going religious instruction be used and then a choice can be made at some point, by the person as to which religion, or part thereof is used. This is why, I believe that religion is so important as a civilising effect that changed the world 2,000 years ago, and, as above, I believe it is necessary to create a superior citizen, today.
Conclusion
There are many religions and I have only looked at Christianity from the viewpoint of “New Think” and it appears that the Golden Rule might firstly, make a better base if Christianity is to be considered a modern religion and secondly, the Golden Rule should be contained explicitly in all modern religions. We cannot escape relativity, and that suggests that the world will be composed of a number of trading groups and for stability, each group will have a central goal [orthogonal to multiculturalism] to compete to raise the living standards of citizens to an optimal level. The threat of pandemics makes the isolation of trading groups necessary and provides a reason to keep a modicum of essential manufacture in each bloc. In other words, social engineering of the individual, family and country is necessary for stability of lifestyle, safety from disease, competition between blocs, providing a future goal etc. and shows that globalisation may not be important in the future.
Prediction
In a fractal, as our universe appears to be, what is applicable to the country is applicable to the individual and firstly, each person should be brought-up within a religion to receive an ethical grounding and that should be, I believe, a version based on the Golden Rule. Secondly, competition on a personal level must be restarted to improve genetic selection of the next generation and this can be done using lessons from evolution and changes in society. Change should be sought voluntarily, and will be sought, because “New Think’ is logical and every parent wants the best for their children. This relativity [orthogonalisation], within the fractal is shown firstly, in genetic organisation [orgene – organisational gene, epigenetic] and secondly, in genetics [energy, mass] and shows the simple recurring theme of the simplicity of the fractal and why we need to change our thinking [“New Think”] to align ourselves with the universe as well as with the animals.
Overview
Our civilisation has problems that, I think, need a new way of thinking , as I have outlined. Animals seldom benefit from change, but when the logic of “New Think” is applied, the resistance to change should lessen sufficiently for change to occur and it could occur bottom-up, from those without a vested interest in the continuance of the hierarchy. This is a big ask, that those without power could change the world, and yet it happened with Christianity and in a fractal, is likely to happen again. Of course, it would be much easier if everyone realised that they could become extra-ordinary and members of a new race by changing their knowledge-base, and perhaps forming a ‘Second Coming’ on a personal and country base, as is possible in a fractal.
The core of civilisation is ethics [concept] and religion is the context and “New Think” is the only way that the two can be entangled, as they necessarily must and yet remain independent as they must. In other words, ethics is what civilisation needs [concept] and religion is the means of attaining it [context] and the base to the effectiveness of religion stems from the creation equation. Religion, as a social engineering needs to change with the times because it is too important for the ethical structure of society. Consider the ‘first ecumenical council of the Christian church, which took place in 325 in the ancient city of Nicaea (now Iznik, Turkey). The council condemned Arius and the Arian heresy that Christ is a created being and revised the creed to clarify the equality of God the Father and God the Son.’ (https://www.britannica.com/event/First-Council-of-Nicaea-325)
Why are we bound by a social construct created 1,700 years ago, especially one that needs a little tinkering for the new social engineering?
Finally, I have used “New Think” to show that religion is necessary, the form that it should take and its relationship to ethics, but in a fractal, the same can be done for the individual by changing society and it must be done if we seek a Homo sapiens sapiens that extraterrestrials might visit. Changing individuals is not much different to developing the superior fruits and vegetables that we enjoy today and it can be done by an organisation that has not previously been appreciated, but can now be seen to be physical and basic to everything.
The Form Of The Universe
Thus, relativity is the functioning of the universe and a lack of relativity is the form of the universe and a lack of relativity is easily created [and our understanding of the universe] by the ratios of the dimensions [energy (E), organisation (O), time (t) and length (l)] created by expansion . The five absolutes are firstly, the sum of energy and organisation is always zero [from the creation equation (1+(-1))=0], secondly, energy and organisation [dark energy] are necessarily created to balance the necessary expansion [for the creation equation to exist] of the universe [E/t+O/t, all volume], thirdly, the constant speed of light [with respect to any measurer] is l/t (all E and O) and fourthly, gravity [so called quantum gravity] is E/l+O/l (all t). The law of gravitation is:
E(mass1)/l times (for relativity) E(mass2)/l plus O(mass1)/l times (for relativity) O(mass2)/l
Notice that the ‘inverse square law’ is inappropriate [one mass, charge etc. can not exist] and is actually derived from the absolutes and relativity and the ‘+’ in the creation equation stands for all relationships [physical, logical, restrictive, use etc.] between two entities. Further, ‘as with the Schrodinger equation itself, we still have no fundamental way of deriving Born’s rule.’ (Beyond Weird, Phillip Ball, p 41) This is not surprising because Born’s rule requires the same derivation as the law of gravitation. ‘If the amplitude of an electron wavefunction at x is 1 (in some units), and at y it is 2, then repeated experiments to determine the electron’s position will find it at y four times (2×2) more often than at x…. How did Born know this? He didn’t. Again, he “guessed”’. (p 41). In every oscillation between a wave and particle [wave-particle duality], the particle has to reappear somewhere, and it appears with a probability dependant on the square of the amplitude of the wave because, as quantum gravity [absolute (4)] varies inversely as the separation, relativity requires the inverse square law [or the square law, in this case] and there is obviously relativity between the wave and particle.
‘Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle…. This restriction on precise knowledge does not apply to all pairs of quantum properties. It applies only to some, which are said to be “conjugate variables”. Position and momentum are conjugate variables, and so are energy and time (although the uncertainty relationship between them is subtly different from that between position and momentum) … I have never found an intuitive explanation of what makes two variables conjugate’. (p 150) The universe is created from an orthogonality [independent, but entangled at the origin] of energy [momentum] and organisation [position] and trying to measure an orthogonality [measuring each exactly is the same as between the two] is logically impossible because it is a restriction on the creation equation [independence]. Energy and time, along with organisation, volume and length are dimensions and must be orthogonal so that ratios can uniquely define absolutes.
Fifthly, the role of Occam’s razor and the principle of least action is crucial to the understanding of the functioning of the universe and the latter asks ‘why does light travel in a straight line?’. Newton’s laws of motion say that a photon must travel in a straight line otherwise the laws do not work and so misses out on vital information and is, again, ‘up in the air’. I believe that the answer is that there has to be a unique answer and the only unique answer in every case is the minimum and the organisation that belongs to the minimum energy is the most efficient organisation. I can say this with conviction because if either energy or organisation were not at a minimum, there would be two solutions at the same time and this would cause chaos in the functioning of the universe. This last sentence questions whether our universe is “real”, although derived from nothing is a bit of a difficulty, but then, what or where do we expect it to come from and suggests that it is an organisational solution based on possibilities created by measurement [such as Pythagoras’ theorem]?
If there is a creation equation, as I propose, the universe must be a fractal and everything in it must conform to certain simple rules. Adam Smith was the first to realise this in Economics, where an ‘invisible hand’ works so that what is good for the individual, is good for the economy. Clearly everything shows this form of the universe in its use and as an example, let’s look at Euler’s equation, which is claimed by Mathematics as the enigmatic relationship between the fundamental mathematical quantities pi, e, i, 1 and 0, though what 1 has to do with the others appears a little strange. However, as a description of the physical universe, it makes more sense because it determines the form of the universe [(e to the power i times pi +1) = 0 can be written (e to the power i times pi + e to the power 0) = 0, which is an expression of orthogonality and describes an expanding [e, simple interest expansion] sphere [pi] from 0 symmetrical [i] through the centre]. This ‘subsuming’ is the expected result in a fractal and Euler’s equation appears enigmatic because of the appearance of ‘i’ [the square root of ‘-1’], but it’s appearance becomes obvious due to relativity. Consider the quotation “wavefunctions generally contain ‘imaginary’ numbers – one involving the square root of -1, which is not something that has a physical meaning” (p 53). I am drawing attention to it because it shows the current confused thinking of physics, in that ‘i’ is an operator from quantum gravity [E/l+O/l for all t] because relativity is shown by ‘1’ and ‘-1’ from the inverse square law and that must be generated by ‘i’ and that is why “wavefunctions generally contain ‘imaginary’ numbers” because ‘i’ [and every number] is not only a number [concept], but also an organisation [context] and quantum gravity is the ‘spread’ from the atom [quarks] to gravity [in galaxies]. In other words, ‘i’ is imaginary because relativity always exists.
So, Newtonian physics is a creation of the mind and has nothing to do with the physical until general mathematical physics is used and then it can be seen that additional information is created from measuring organisation. For example Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity shows that there is a simple relationship between mass, length and time, but this is incomplete because the above says that energy, organisation, length and time are simply related through the ratios that destroy relativity. Einstein was looking at the relativistic changes, and clearly, organisation must be included, whereas the above looks at the things that don’t change [invariants of the universe]. Notice that we have just extended Einstein’s ‘special theory of relativity’ and that information is necessarily constrained to the speed of light, something that was a conjecture. Newton’s laws of motion, Einstein’s theory and Maxwell’s equations all hide organisation and that obscures the picture, for example, magnetism is an organisation that registers the relativity between a charged particle and the measurer as can be seen by its odd behaviour [sign depends on direction, magnitude on speed]. It is also important to realise that the dimensions are independent, but entangled organisationally.
Measuring organisation such as beauty, music, religion, buildings and parades etc. creates energy that we release as laughter, in extreme cases [good joke], dance energy [foot-tapping] or just feeling emotional energy of appreciation [Mona Lisa painting possibly due to the golden triangle ratios]. Thus, social engineering is necessarily orthogonal to material engineering and is the key to controlling our civilisation and preventing a (so far) inevitable break-down. The difficulty with the question of energy shows that Newtonian physics is convenient for us in our world, but does not consider the physical host that we live within [as parasites], and it behoves all good parasites to understand and consider the health of their host, for to kill their host is to die as well. This is a truth that we should seriously consider acting upon because “new Think” is based on truths.
“New Think” [concept] is a new complete way of thinking that uses the simplicity and ease of use of top-down traditional Newtonian physics with the bottom-up of the creation equation, relativity and the restrictions and a general mathematical physics [context] that creates a description of everything. This is not the law of everything that requires peer review, it is literally everything and raises our thinking to a new level because a complete physics generates a social engineering [orthogonal to technology] that, in a fractal, offers improvements in personal,group and country involvement.
References: no references have been cited because everything has been derived from first principles.
darrylpenney 