Advertisements

Initiation of Hadronic Philosophy by Stein Johansen

Home/Aether, Geometry, Hadronic Mechanics, Mathematics, Unified Theory/Initiation of Hadronic Philosophy by Stein Johansen

Initiation of Hadronic Philosophy by Stein Johansen

In this paper Stein Johansen introduces, apparently for the first time, the novel ‘hadronic philosophy’,
namely, the philosophy underlying the novel hadronic mechanics and chemistry, invented by
R.M. Santilli and constructed to its present level by himself along with contributions from
numerous other scientists around the world. It is stated that the emergence of hadronic
mechanics, as well as the new hadronic sciences in general, follows the usual pattern of scientific
revolutions, characterized by generalization, broadening and lifting from earlier theories. The
hadronic sciences de facto have far-reaching ontological underpinnings as well as implications,
consistent with the ontological framework established by David Bohm as well as the differential
ontology worked out by the author. The direct universality of hadronic mechanics is consistent
with a universal differential ontology, while Gödel’s theorem(s) is argued not to hold ontological
universality and truth. In differential ontology the universality of causality is implied in the very
concept of information. This follows the intuition of Einstein, and the information flows
corresponding to the new, non-trivial time categories established by hadronic biology represent
scientifically legitimate causality operators. From the fundamental ontological attributes of the
abstract category of “border”, implied in the very category of information, it is argued that the
Fibonacci algorithm is the elementary and universal form of nature’s information processing.
The generation of prime numbers is stated as glued to the unfolding of the Fibonacci sequence.
Also, it is shown by a complementary weeding out approach that there is a pattern in the prime
number sequence, as well as what pattern this is.

Stein E. Johansen – Institute of Basic Research

[email protected]

University of Science andTechnology, Trondheim, Norway

[email protected]

To most scientists David Bohm is known as a master of quantum physics, suggesting a new
interpretation of quantum physics named the CAUSAL interpretation of quantum physics, and
suggesting the notion of “hidden variables” determining particle attributes from the quantum
potential, as well as a more “loose” and speculative philosophical notion of an “implicate order”.
However, this comprehension does not do justice to the scientific life work of Bohm, and misses
most of its most radical and far-reaching results. As a physicist Bohm was not only concerned
about quantum physics. He worked out the platform of plasma physics as a new important field,
he was the first – in 1959 – to discover non-locality (the Bohm-Aharonov effect), and he was
concerned about working out a fruitful framework for a synthesis of quantum physics and
relativity theory by anchoring physics as a whole from deeper underpinnings which quantum
physics and relativity theory did agree about. In this work he argued that the Copenhagen
interpretation was a WRONG interpretation, due to a philosophical mistake in category when
asserting that chance and causality could be established as categories at the same footing, or
even worse: That the universe was build from chance as OPPOSED to causality, as expressed in
the famous saying of God playing dice. Bohm argued from strict philosophical category logic
that there exists NO such thing as a category of randomness SEPARATED from causality; such
thoughts had to be judged as ILLUSIONS from MISTAKES in thinking correctly. Hence, he
named his interpretation of quantum physics CAUSAL, and this not to be understood as an
ALTERNATIVE interpretation, but as the ONLY possible without making mistakes of category
LOGIC. However, his work The Undivided Universe, finished at his day of death in 1992, wore
the sub-title An ONTOLOGICAL interpretation of quantum physics, hinting at the causal
interpretation having its foundation in a specific ONTOLOGY, and the establishment of such an
adequate ONTOLOGY being the most important achievement of the life work of Bohm,
quantum physics more to be regarded as a precisely established mathematical and experimental
KEY HOLE to understand the significance of this ontology for scientific works and adequate
thinking IN GENERAL, whatever the concrete issue at hand. Bohm was much more than a
physicist, he also made fundamental contributions to the theory of communication and
language, to informatics, meaning theory and culture theory, and to the theory of art. All these
works were anchored in the SAME ontology which was quite sophisticated, complex, precise and
richly differentiated, as well as with some radical new achievements, such as the stressing of
higher order having the primacy of explanation, causality being universal, the higher unity
SIMULTANEOUSLY manifesting in consciousness and matter, and the four forces of physics
just representing more trivial and superficial laws of the universe, far from being the
FOUNDATION of the universe as still believed by most scientists as well as by the ordinary
western mind-set. In spite of this, for strange reasons Bohm’s ontology and philosophy are still
not much known and absorbed. To me, beyond doubt Bohm was one of the greatest
PHILOSOPHERS of the last century, a philosophy being inspired by his contributions to the
different sciences, as well as MAPPING and CATALYZING these contributions. The scientific
work having the greatest impact on Bohm was Hegel’s Wissenschaft der Logic, and Bohm talked
about the quest of physics as giving this Logic FEET, so it could WALK.

Let me pass to the life work of another genius from the last century, and – different from Tesla or
Bohm – still being around and still busy fulfilling tremendous scientific revolutions initiated by
himself, as well as creating powerful technologies with far-reaching and potentially wonderful
implications for the 21. century: Ruggero Maria Santilli. My impression is that Santilli has not
wasted much of his precious time to intercourse with hermetic academic philosophy. The proof
of the pudding lies in the eating; neither did Tesla engage in quantum physics to work out his
inventions, nor does Schumacher make all the complex algorithms of his racing car mind
available to conscious out spelling. The important thing is what kind of philosophy is being de
facto IMPLIED and IN ACTION in Santilli mathematics and the hadronic sciences, and if some
radical new thinking is at hand here, even if it to some extent is what Michael Polanyi called
TACIT KNOWING. In this little lecture I will outline some foundations of the implicate order of
hadronic science, a radical and potentially powerful hadronic PHILOSOPHY, that far from being
an issue for speculation, taste or superficial garniture, may be established as a FERTILIZER for
the further scientific and technological progress, as well as for the general supra-paradigm for
what Robert Pope, heading the Science-Art Research Centre of Australia, has called the second
Renaissance from CREATIVE physics. If Bohm, at least in some crucial aspects, succeeded in
giving Hegel feet, Santilli and his co-workers have succeeded in moving the feet to WALK, and
even more: to fuel and move cars to DRIVE, and in the upcoming future even space ships if
Betavoltaic and the Caribbean aristocrat state of New Utopia is about to succeed. If Bohm
worked out a more abstract cartography or at least crucial guidelines for a new and much more
ambitious science, Santilli and hadronics by now de facto have MAPPED much new scientific
territory, or delivered a lot of MEAT to the skeleton, hence having established a new and much
more healthy and vigorous living ORGANISM of science.

In his analysis of the history of the science of physics, Bohm made some significant
modifications to the famous paradigm theory of Thomas Kuhn. Among other things Bohm
stressed how every revolution in physics follows the same essential pattern: successive leaps
from restricted and separated theories to broader and more overarching theories being able to
cover the separated theories as well as anomalies and new kinds of phenomena by a LIFTING of
earlier theories to a more abstract level and a higher order with a more universal conceptual
framework. In this way we have experienced successive synthesises of electricity with
magnetism, then with the weak force, and then with the strong force, as well as attempts to
integrate gravitation in a Grand unified theory. Also, Bohm stressed that later liftings quite often
was ENFOLDED as a theoretical potential in much earlier theories, but that this was not
understood and unfolded before much later, such as the case with the Hamilton/Jacobi theory
from 1860.

The creation and development of hadronic science has already to be judged as a prototypic case
following this general pattern of successful periodic scientific revolutions in the evolution of
science. In his groundbreaking Foundations of Hadronic Chemistry, published the first year of the third
millennium, and probably the most important scientific book published since Newton’s
Principia, Santilli states as a main objective the submission of a GENERALIZATION BROADENING
of quantum chemistry which extends the theory to include an invariant
representation of the most GENERAL possible NON-unitary transforms representing SHORT RANGE
NON-linear, NON-local, and NON-potential interactions. This extension is necessary to
explain the overlapping of valence electrons in the iso-electron, the so-called FIFTH force in
nature, first modeled by Animalu in 1994, and the key to understand superconductivity and the
new chemical species of magnecules. Also, this extension is necessary to understand
IRREVERSIBILITY in time characteristic of chemical reactions and biological processes. At the
same time hadronic chemistry PRESERVES the validity for closed-isolated REVERSIBLE
systems and for quantum chemistry where the fifth force is NOT involved.
In general, the construction of the more advanced and covering theory is made by
PRESERVING the axiomatic consistency of quantum chemistry and the abstract Lie axioms, but
in a way that submit BROADER REALIZATIONS of said axioms. The same is the case for the
axioms of special relativity, giving room to supplementary and more complex theories of
relativity as well as non-relativity, developed inside the new and huge theory castle of hadronic
physics.

This LIFTING of old stream physics, chemistry, and biology, was not possible without the
discovery of new and powerful numbers and the development of new landscapes of
mathematics, initiated by Santilli in 1978 and constituting the successive floors of iso-, geno and
hyper-mathematics (with isoduals for anti-matter), necessary to explain more complex
systems of nature than what was possible for quantum physics having only complex numbers to
its disposition and hence limited to make partly unrealistic presuppositions such as all particles
being point-like.

Hence, quantum chemistry is no longer to be regarded as the ONLY scientific chemistry, but as
the most simple BRANCH or lowest floor of hadronic chemistry, overlaid by the more complex
branches or floors of iso-chemistry, geno-chemistry and hyper-chemistry. All in all, the hadronic
sciences represent a lifting and reconfiguration of ALL pre-Santilli mathematics, physics and
chemistry.

As already stated, this broadening-universality is the PROTOTYPIC pattern of far-reaching
scientific revolutions. To take Newton as an example, a crucial insight towards broadeninguniversality
was to assume the SAME laws of nature, in casu gravitation, to encompass objects
BOTH of heaven and earth, a thought alien to the mind set of Middle Age man. And, as for
Newton, far-reaching implications will unfold from the broadening, lifting and generalization to
hadronic science, and has ALREADY unfolded from there. Mathematical maturity of genomathematics
was not achieved before the year 1996, with corresponding physical maturity the
year after, and with the astonishing prediction, discovery and patented technology of
magnecules in the year of 1998, a hallmark in the history of chemistry as the take-off year
revealing for exploration a huge, new terra incognita of hitherto unknown substances with some
spectacular and extremely useful attributes, as far as I can see the most important scientific
discovery and expansion in the history of chemistry since the discovery of the periodic table.
Hadronic chemistry has already been able to establish a higher chemistry explaining and
designing superconductivity in fluids and gases, with powerful ecological applications for new
clean and cheap enough fuels able to clean up the atmosphere, and to overcome the increasing
global energy crises connected to the peak oil scenario. Also, there already exist strong
indications of a huge potential for using specific types of magnecules or perhaps hypermagnecules
to improve farming as well as human health by adequate ingestion.

Hadronic science has cleaned up most of the scientific fog with regard to synthesizing microand
macro-physics from a lifted and more universal physics, a physics already having showed its
immediate potent implications for developing more advanced chemistry and related chemical
technology. However, the lifting to a level of mathematics and scientific abstraction being able to
overcome the obstacles of irreversibility, has also shown its potency for radical progress in
BIOLOGY, as indicated by the studies of Illert and Santilli in conchology, and by Santilli stating
that the genome having such a degree of complexity to require hyper-mathematics. In the
history of science, the field of biology usually has been delegated to a grey zone between the hard
and soft sciences. With the emergence of hadronics, biology as a tendency has been pushed
under the same umbrella as the sciences of chemistry and physics, this congruent with the
tendency of hard science to include broader domains when having developed more powerful
mathematics. Also, I will suggest that the landscape of hyper-mathematics in its time will show
fruitful for upcoming advances in even more complex fields of nature, such as systems of
meaning, culture and communication. The structure of the hypernumber is ontologically two
folded, with one higher number connecting plural lower numbers, hence indicating similarity to
poly-vocal words and signs. All in all, hadronics shows the pattern of a Grand unified theory, but
on a level far above the restricted dream of old stream physics about a grand unified theory
embracing only the four forces. At least as a strong tendency, hadronics is in accord with Bohm’s
arguments about nature enfolding much more complex laws and patterns than the second or
third order laws of old stream physics. On the last page of Foundations of Hadronic Chemistry
Santilli predicts the discovery of hyper-magnecules in living organisms, not being reducible to
the five forces so far discovered. This implies an ontology inverting the old paradigm which
understood nature as just a gigantic building made by the blocks of elementary particles and
forces. Rather, the approach has to be top-down, acknowledging more complex laws of nature in
living systems, corresponding to the more complex relations of the higher Santilli landscapes of
mathematics.

John Wheeler posed the picture of the evolution of the universe in the model of the letter U, the
evolved human creature through its thinking eye looking back on its origin, and in this way
hinting at laws of self-reference being manifested at some step in the evolution of the universe.
In complexity science, relations of self-referentiality and self-organization have been studied for
20 years, also connected to the theories of autopoiesis formulated by the biologists Maturana
and Varela and the growing field of second-order cybernetics which includes human
consciousness.

In general, there is an inadequate limitation in the ordinary approach drawing a basic line
between soft and hard sciences. What counts as an objective fact, is what most scientists
experience as the most compelling perception to their sober senses, i.e. the most compelling
SUBJECTIVE experience of facticity. In this sense, the hardest fact is the softest fact; there is no
such thing as experimental facts SEPARATED from human perception. Hence, the ontology of
even the hardest physics de facto IMPLIES a RELATION between the subject and the object.
The topological figure of the KLEIN-BOTTLE is adequate to understand this dynamic
interpenetration of subject and object CONSTITUTING what counts as an objective fact from a
UNITARY operator unfolding in BOTH subject and object, the movement of the Klein-bottle
systematically SWITCHING between its 3D-manifestation and its invisible 4.D-manifestation,
hence offering an abstract template for the general relation between matter and consciousness
from an overarching framework containing both domains of reality as necessary aspects of the
universe as a whole. The Necker-cube is a perceptual object where the perception is irreversibly
forced to switch between two different variants of the abstract cube, inverting each other insideout,
effectively demonstrating that the human perception has enfolded in its very construction a
hidden Klein-bottle operator. Important points related to the universal significance of the Kleinbottle
have been worked out by the multi-disciplinary scientist Steven Rosen and the Australian
philosopher Melanie Purcell. Also, the Klein-bottle seems to be the only operator able to explain
dimensional generation – or rather unfoldment, when viewed top-down, such as consciousness
moving in and out of dream space every night.

Chris Illert proved that the correct representation of the growth of sea shells as Angaria
Delphinium requires a DOUBLING of the Cartesian coordinates, i.e. a 3×3-dimensional space.
Hence, to our 3D-limited PERCEPTION this real hyperspace is not visible, but on the other
hand our 3D perception must be COMPATIBLE with the growth from hyperspace. Santilli
showed that this apparent contradiction is resolved when acknowledging the MULTI-VALUED
character of biological structures, requiring hyper-mathematics for analysis. Klein-bottle
operators seem useful to understand the dynamic constitution of such multi-valueness and the
interface between the restricted perception and the higher dimensionality of hyperspace.
Another important theoretical contribution to the further understanding of the 3D/hyperspace
paradox is the organic geometry developed by Erik Trell. Trell has shown that any n-D space,
whatever the number of n, can be translated in toto to a corresponding structure in 3D space.
Therefore, it is possible to translate any complex space to quite simple 3D correlates, leaving the
algorithm of the discontinuous STEP from one state of growth to the next as the only universally
necessary supra-3D operator, and indicating that the universe is a configuration of nothing else
than 3D spaces, apart from the discontinuous steps inside such a space or between different 3D
spaces. This takes away much of the mysticism of multi-dimensional theories.

In the philosophy of Jakob von Üexkull, there is the key concept of Umwelt, specific to every
species and organism. What is beyond its Umwelt, is not available for the organism, and does
not count as information for it as such, but only as the difference the external difference makes
INSIDE the Umwelt, depending of the organism’s sensory apparatus and its overall constitution.
Santilli has stated that with regard to the notion of time, in analogy to the notion of space, we
must distinguish between the intrinsic or actual reality of time flows and these time flows as
perceived by our senses as conventional time inside the organism’s Umwelt. However, the two
time flows have to be COMPATIBLE, which is mathematically achieved by the basic invariant of
the product of intrinsic time squared and the sensory unit squared. Hence, the focus is lifted
from a common sense notion of time to the overarching RELATION between hypertime and
conventional time, this in some analogy to the Klein-bottle not regarding the subject and object,
4.D vs. 3D, consciousness vs. matter, as autonomously separated, but focusing the RELATION
constituting the relata and their mutual dynamics. From this lifting a more complex and
consistent theory of time is offered from hadronic science, than the earlier picture of reversible
time of quantum physics co-existing with the one-way time arrow of thermodynamics. Also, the
subjective quality of perceptual time is being respected as a more primary notion than the quasiobjective
time flow of old stream physics, as argued by Bohm in the book Thought as a System.

The German physicist and philosopher, Eva Ruhnau, has summed up the empirical studies of
human time perception, showing a clear hierarchical structure of time windows characteristic
for our species, and – without our conscious knowing – CONSTITUTING our concept of
“objective” time intervals. Following the invariance equation of Santilli, the pace of time must be
experienced as inversely proportional to the span of the time window, a span that will vary with
the specific Umwelt of the specie. From the invariance assuring compatibility between
hypertime and Umwelt time, Santilli deduced four different new categories of time provided
already by isotopies and their isoduals: Motion forward in future, backward in past, forward in
past, and backward in future. Climbing up from iso-structures to GENO-structures, necessary to
understand irreversibility, adds four new time categories to the model, irreversibility elegantly
being explained from the difference between the generalized units for forward and backward
motion in time. Climbing up to HYPER-structures adds another four categories of time. Hence,
state-of-the-art for hadronic theory of time is a clear-cut panorama of 12 different categories of
time flow having to be involved in the make-up and work-out of the biological world (in addition
to the basic category of the NOW). Of course this is a complexification as well as a radical
departure from the ordinary common sense mind set, but it is done by using the precise power
of scientific abstraction, necessary to leave the limitations of the immediate Umwelt. Besides,
the common uni-linear notion of serial time is a quite restricted notion of time compared with
the notions among sages of most cultures in history, as for example the more complex time
theory of the old Maya cosmology.

Santilli has proved that the most general Lie-admissible theory implies nonunitary time
evolution, and can only be connected to quantum mechanics via a nonunitary transform on a
Hilbert space over the field of complex numbers. However, the use of nonunitary transforms
without LIFTING quantum physics has to generate lack of invariance and theoretical
inconsistency predicting different values for the same quantity under the same conditions at
different times. Different from this crucial limitation of quantum physics, hadronic chemistry
has the most general nonunitary structure that is possible, and shows DIRECT UNIVERSALITY
in the fixed frame of the observer. Hence, making a nonunitary transform the fundamental
generalized unit of the theory seems to overcome some crucial difficulties connected to the
observer problem, by lifting the Archimedean point to the RELATION between Umwelt and
hyperspace. Bohr regarded the wholeness of the observation/measurement situation as unique
and expressed epistemological pessimism concerning any real understanding of the subclassical
world outside our Umwelt, apart from working out formulas for statistic probabilities of
quantum events. Contrary to this, the direct universality established by hadronic physics
promotes an epistemological optimism concerning access to true knowledge from the frame of
the observer, even in much more complex issues than those treated by quantum physics. This is
much more in line with Bohm’s statement of an INFINITE potential for human access to the
information of the universe.

In his last book from 1982, Quantum Theory and the Schism in Physics, the great philosopher of
science Karl Popper, pointed out Santilli – and ONLY him – as the upcoming future of physics,
delivering sufficiently advanced mathematics to restore the Rutherford model of the neutron,
and creating hadronic physics able to overcome the basic limitations of quantum physics in a
new theoretical framework re-establishing the “sane” Einstein approach for an overall physics
built on causality.

Santilli has stated “that backward motions of time within biological structures is as causal as the
conventional motion forward”. More precisely, the isodual isotime – referring to a negative unit
of time – satisfies the same basic invariance as the conventional time perceived by our senses.
This is contrary to the popular notion of physical causality where motion backward in time
seems non-causal and therefore either absurd or requiring strange kinds of explanation, this
notion also being an obstacle for admitting and understanding experiments from the last dozen
years claiming to have observed velocities faster than of light in vacuum. However, the common
notion of physical causality in physics is much to shallow to grasp the core of causality as well as
the precise nature of its physical manifestation. To claim the impossibility or the non-causality
of the effect preceding the cause, only shows that this relation is an unfolded manifestation of
ANOTHER relation, or set of relations, that HAS to be causal, a distinction leading to a
necessary differentiation of reality LEVELS.

Gödel’s First Incompleteness Theorem from 1930 may serve as an important case illustrating
the hidden limitations when presenting theorems of logic and informatics without framing them
inside a sufficient and consistent ontology. To my knowledge the theorem has never been
seriously challenged or criticized, with the exception of some recent important statements from
Peter Rowlands. In the core of Gödel’s argument for the theorem stands the self-referential
statement: “This statement is unprovable”, which through the coding scheme of Gödel
numbering, translates to the Gödel Sentence G, saying “M cannot prove G”, where M is a formal
system for whole number arithmetic. Gödel claimed to have proved that 1) G must be true for
any consistent formal system M; 2) for any M, G is not possible to prove FROM M; hence the
conclusion that for every formal system truths will exist in logical space not possible to prove
from the restricted part of logical space covered from M.

However, when saying “This statement is unprovable”, “this statement” as a fragment INSIDE
the expression is never TOTALLY the same as the WHOLE expression. Viewed from OUTSIDE
the expression, the Gödel sentence cannot at the same time and in the same regard be BOTH the
whole expression and a fragment of the same expression. It is like saying: “Concerning the space
you are now in the viewing of, it is not possible to know whether it is true that you are viewing it
or not.” Is this saying true? The observer would say that obviously it IS true that he is viewing a
space, hence the expression claiming this not possible to decide, has to be WRONG. On the
other hand, it is possible for the observer that if he could view the SYSTEM of himself and the
space from an OUTSIDE space, for example an awake person observing a person dreaming or
immersed in a virtual reality consol, then the first observation could turn out to be UNTRUE in
another sense, i.e. inside a BROADER supra-framework. And he would have reason to believe
that in SOME such cases, depending of the SPECIFITY of the space observed, it WOULD be
possible to decide if the space was true in this sense, as for the virtual reality display; and in
OTHER such cases, as with a powerful hallucination, it would NOT be possible to decide if the
space was true in this sense as long as the person was immersed in the hallucinations. This
simple analogy illustrates that whether a Gödel sentence is true or not, or whether it is possible
to decide this, depends on FURTHER QUALIFICATORS of meaning and ontology. Of course
one may choose minimalistic qualificators such as a Flatland ontology of thought space with
simple rules for moving symbols around. Such a choice of simplistic procedures for the
movement of thought in a conflated universe of formal logic may be convenient as well as
fruitful for restricted tasks of research. But at the same time, such a choice will dramatically
limit the implications possible to draw from relations of logical space to relations of nature
OUTSIDE logical space. Already the hierarchical structure of time windows in human
perception shows that our reality is basically multi-layered. Whatever the fruitful consequences
of the Gödel theorem for informatics and logic, I find this important to clarify due to the high
overall prestige of the theorem, having made a great impact towards scientific pessimism and
post-modern nihilism, and claimed to be the final proof that many truths will never be possible
to discover or decide, hence not much use in trying too hard.

In general, self-referentiality such as the Gödel sentence, installs an ontological paradox,
claiming the part and the whole to be the same. DE FACTO this implies a VERTICAL
ONTOLOGICAL DIFFERENTIATION in at least two LEVELS, because the paradox can only be
resolved by the formulation of the identity on ONE level, and the non-identity on ANOTHER
level. By CONFLATING these levels and IGNORING the ontological differentiation necessarily
enfolded in the argument, the Gödel theorem gives a false impression of ontology NOT being
crucial for the reasoning, HIDES its ontological anchoring and restriction, and DENIES the
CONTRADICTION at hand when using paradox operators, presupposing at least two levels, and
in spite of this simulate that legitimate logical reasoning still can be done inside the silent
ontological framework of just ONE ontological level. For more complex reasoning, whether
inside or outside formal logic, paradox operators seem extremely potent, such as for example
Klein-bottle-operators or holographic operators, the last ones crucial in the ongoing
development of quantum holography computers extending the quantum informatics of David
Deutsch and powered by the supra-mathematics developed by Peter Rowlands. But for clear-cut
and powerful reasoning, paradox operators have to be anchored in a precise and differentiated
enough ontology and used consistently inside this ontological framework. For many tasks, it is
sufficient that an adequate ontological architecture stays implicit if mastered precisely enough
by tacit knowing, as in much everyday communication. For other and more complex tasks of
science, I will argue – as Bohm or complexity scientist William Sulis – that radical and fast
ontological progress is crucial for the further progress of science.

Most scientists still believe to live in a binary universe, with matter and consciousness, where
something either are existing or non-existing, real or illusory, and where facts and statements
are either true or non-true. In the Middle Ages we had the great conflict between nominalism
and realism, not agreeing about concepts being real or not, however implicitly agreeing about a
binary ontology being the condition for the conflict. Of course concepts are real in some sense,
but not in the same sense or at the same reality level as material objects. And the concept of
Santa Claus is not real in the same sense that the concept of George Bush. In mathematics the
concept of 0 is not real in the same sense as the concept of 4, a negative number does not have
the same kind of reality as a positive number, and so on. To answer precisely in WHAT sense a
phenomenon is real, one needs a richly differentiated and concise ontology with much more
than two boxes.

I have written a book to establish such a concise DIFFERENTIAL ontology, including a
differential epistemology, because a mapping of thought always is implied in a mapping of
overall reality. In this ontology there are three dimensions apart from 3D space + time, named
algorithmic, meta-algorithmic, and trans-algorithmic. The overall configuration of these
algorithms makes up the structure of a system, unfolding in the non-algorithmic PROCESS of
the system, the unity of structure and process established at a level of abstraction sufficiently
high to describe ANY dynamical system and hence with a catalyzing potential for ANY science.
Each dimension has different levels, degrees and spaces, and as a whole this establishes an
ontological architecture where everything existing will have its proper place. From this matrix,
an ILLUSION can be determined as something placed at a WRONG spot or room in this reality
map. However, in perception and in thinking there are a lot of NECESSARY illusions involved,
such SIMILI operators being crucial for many movements between different ontological floors
and rooms.

The generality of this ontology is ensured and worked out by a systematic and quite rigorous
unfolding of what is implied or tacitly enfolded in the very concept of INFORMATION.
Concerning QUANTITATIVE concepts of information, we have the useful concept of Shannon
on one hand, and the in some sense contrary concepts of Chaitin and Kolmogoroff on the other
hand, as well as the concept of Zurek trying to synthesize the two. However, all the quantitative
concepts have as their basic the QUALITATIVE concept of Gregory Bateson, defining
information as “the difference that makes the difference”. To my knowledge, there has not been
done much work to qualify this qualitative definition significantly further, apart from a few
points made by Bohm and some more points worked out by myself. In this context it is sufficient
to use the definition of Bateson. If information is to be understood as an input-difference
making an output-difference, there has to be a NECESSARY relation between the two
differences in this making. Hence, the universal, abstract, and elementary concept of
CAUSALITY has to be determined as this relation. This means that the notion of causality is
situated in the heart of the very concept of qualitative information, representing the GLUE
between differences CONSTITUTING information. Therefore, there is no information, no
thinking, no description or no explanation apart from causality. The question must be how the
abstract concept of causality unfolds in different TYPES of causality on different levels and
domains of reality, and how these types COMBINES to complex operators of thought.
I have tried to nest up the causality complex and solve the fundamental problems related to it,
not by discussing causality separated and per se, but by deducing the different necessary and
sufficient types or branches of causality from a map of the necessary ONTOLOGICAL
architecture of reality as being a reality of INFORMATION. From such an ontological
framework, the causality operators is anchored and falls out as different modes of moving
around in the building, depending on which room in the building the move has as its departure
and destination. From a dozen of BASIC causality types (in addition to the abstract, universal
type), more secondary causality types is (re-)constructed as representing specific
COMBINATIONS of the basic types. As examples on such secondary combinations can be
mentioned chance causality, intentional causality and physical causality. With regard to the last
one, it is clearly shown that this is NOT a basic type of causality, but a specific combination of
basic ones, this holding truth also for simple mechanic causality as of billiard ball clashes.
Newton’s laws can be reformulated in such a framework, showing clearly that there is no such
thing as physics without supra-physics, i.e. without meta- and trans-algorithms. Also, the
common notion of “energy” can be reformulated inside such a causal-ontological framework,
showing that it is non-scientific to limit a priori the concept to a closed and restricted domain of
reality, such as in Pavlov-like reactions against the possibility of tapping vacuum energy.

A useful analogy to understand the causality thematic is to imagine the different causality types
as the move pattern specific for different chess pieces. To move from one room to another in the
ontological matrix, different causality types have different paths and potentials for moving. As
chess has a limited amount of pieces, there is a limited amount of basic causality types with
corresponding paths. However, some squares can only be connected by COMBINATION of
moves by DIFFERENT pieces. In the ordinary mind-set such causality combinations are not
understood as such, but conflated to the movement of a virtual quasi-piece. This is due to
economy of thought, to the difficulties involved in abstract precision to understand the issue,
and to the capacity of the human un-(or rather supra-) conscious being able to handle huge
amounts of algorithmic information content with speed and precision, in spite of the
consciousness having little or no knowledge about the involved algorithms, such as in most
sensory-motoric behaviour. However, the unconscious is not always that clever in hitting the
mark, as illustrated by all kinds of superstition, paradigmatic blockings and psychological
defence mechanisms. For good scientific solutions of basic and complex issues connected to
causality, a more conscious and micrologic understanding of causality seems fruitful. The
precise understanding of why and how different time flows established by hadronic biology is
NOT violating scientifically legitimate causality operators, may be one of many such fields. For
example, RETROACTIVE causality falls naturally out as a specific type of causality in my study,
removing the dogma of backward flow of information being impossible.

The implications of precise ontological abstraction and reflection may be more direct and far-reaching
than understood by most scientists. I will give an example by sketching an argument
from my book related to my determination of the ontological status of BORDERS.
For difference to make a difference and constitute information, it must make a difference FOR
something/someone, as stated by Bateson himself. This third entity constitutes the concept of a
SUBJECT in the most abstract sense possible, following from the very concept of information.
For a subject to perceive a difference, it must spot a BORDER in its environment (including
inward perception). However, a border as such can never exist in the environment at the same
ontological level as the environment itself. This has to be the case because there cannot be any
physical domain existing BETWEEN a phenomenon and the different phenomenon on the other
side of the border. The border itself cannot have any physical extension, but is VIRTUAL in
relation to the environment, an inherent category of the subject PROJECTED into the
environment. Due to the necessity of this projection, the subject experiences falsely the border
as outside itself in its immediate experience and elementary reflection. And without this
projection, there IS no border, no difference, and no information. As a metaphor we can imagine
the border projector from the inherent algorithms of the subject, as a universal thought knife,
experienced by the subject only second-hand as border cuts INSIDE the environment. This is a
basic, necessary illusion, involved in ALL information processing done by all kinds of subjects.

Information can only be processed by the subject projecting inherent algorithms to an
ontological level at least ONE LEVEL LOWER than what is the case from the bird’s eye view of
adequate reflection. The borders APPEAR as autonomous inputs constituted from outside, but
ARE not inputs, but algorithms of the subject PROJECTED into the input. On the other hand,
this projection is the only way to CONSTITUTE the input as a REAL input for the subject to
process, because it is the ONLY way borders can be made and processed, and the only way for
information to exist. Hence, it has to be universally true BOTH that the subject projects
differences downwards the ontological hierarchy, i.e. an ILLUSION, AND that this projection is
a necessary operator to constitute information, i.e. the universal building block of what’s REAL,
i.e. NOT an illusion, including the architecture of ontological levels as such. To USE it’s thought
knife the subject HAS to throw it to the lower level to constitute an input possible to process and
hence to produce an output necessary to proceed to a HIGHER ontological level. This is a
universal basic paradox enfolded in the very quality of information, and hence in the general
make-up of the universe. However, this is not an unresolved paradox, but the way the universe
works and walks. With necessity the basic unity of information processing must have this double
nature, both projecting an algorithm to one step below its real existence, and USING this
projection to reach the next higher step in its successive processing. We can imagine this double
nature as the walking thought as having to step one step back in the ontological staircase with
one “thought foot”, the other foot still standing on its original step and regarding the first foot as
not being its own, in order to in the next run discontinuously JUMP to the step above, the first
foot leaping two steps, the second only one. Thereafter, this procedure has to be repeated for
every further walk by thought.

Then let’s go to empirical nature itself with her quantitative laws, to check out this result from
strict philosophical abstraction, in this context of course only possible to present as a short-hand
sketch. In an increasing degree the Fibonacci series has been shown to pop up in natural
systems, and it may also be that deviations from the series can be described from second order
Fibonacci series. Still Mother Nature’s preference for the Fibonacci algorithms, especially
striking in biological growth, is regarded as a great mystery.

The Fibonacci algorithm proceeds from a number B in the series to the next number C, by
moving back from B to the preceding number A and then moving forwards by adding A and B
into the proceeding number C. This is equivalent to stepping one step back with one foot, and
then jumping with both foots to the step above. Hence, the form of the algorithm is EXACTLY
THE SAME as the pattern described above as the abstract, universal and elementary form of
border constitution and information processing. Thales of Miletus stated that if being did not
have a quantity, it would not be. This must mean that the Fibonacci series expresses the
QUANTITATIVE aspect with necessity involved in ALL information processing of nature,
because it is implied in the universal QUALITY of the very category of information. Whether and
how this fact APPEARS on a manifest level for human observation is quite another question.
By Pavlovian reflex most scientists will protest that nature can be that simple. The answer is that
following from strict philosophical reasoning, nature HAS to be that simple in its source code.
How this elementary form unfolds in complex manifestations is an issue for a mountain of
further research. In philosophy there is a line of thinking about the unitary whole holding
ontological primacy, encompassing philosophers as Plotinus, Kant and Hegel, and also of the
unitary whole when passing a critical threshold of complexity having to unfold in systematic
DIFFERENTIATION, as in the monoplural ontology of Bohm, and the branched structure of the
hypernumber in Santilli mathematics.

The universal Turing machine established the concept of an algorithm from the combination of
the simple basic operators: Binary READING of an input string, MOVING to a neighbour field,
binary WRITING on this field, HALTING or not, and moving to the NEXT state representing a
combination of these operators. By the means of this simple concept Turing proved that ANY
binary input-information could be translated to ANY other output-information with the
convenient combinations of algorithms, i.e. data programs. This may indicate that information
in a less restricted sense than required by the Turing machine, as a matter of fact the most
ULTIMATE sense, enfolds even more astonishing insights and powerful applications after
revealing the basic key steps. I argue that the Fibonacci algorithm, in quality as well as in
quantity, is the universal elementary form of ALL information processing, whatever the
complexity of the subject involved.

Then some words about a related subject, the PRIME NUMBERS, the algorithms of the
generative order from its hidden generator a great enigma of mathematics, if not solved by
Chun-Xuan Jiang without my attention. In spite of prime numbers still being used to generate
numbers for cryptography believed to be random, it is obvious from for example the Ulam spiral
that there IS an ORDER in the prime number generation. In spite of being an amateur in the
hallmarks of mathematics, I will pass some preliminary and elementary remarks in the issue,
which perhaps will be of some interest even for the world elite mathematicians in this audience.
For every whole number bigger than 10, except 12 and 15, the number can be written as a
combined multiple of the numbers 5 and 3:
(1) N = m5 + n3; m>0, n>0.
From this we can construct the following matrix:
Fig. 1
There exist three possibilities to make a cut in the matrix in such a way that every number shows
up only once. Just to colour the issue, I have given colour terms to these three bands of
numbers:
1) The Blue Band, corresponding to the five upper rows.
2) The Red Band, corresponding to the three left columns.
3) The Violet Band, corresponding to a diagonal field.
Here I will only discuss the blue band. There can not be any prime numbers in the row for n=5,
and neither in the columns that are multiples of m=3.
To easily get a picture of the underlying prime number generator, we first imagine ALL
remaining odd numbers in the blue band as being prime numbers. This is the case for the first
two “chambers” of the blue band. However, in the third chamber, which can be imagined as
constituted from the first ROTATION of the left, first chamber, the number of 49 shows up as
the first anomaly not being any prime number. The same will be the case for all clean multiples
of 7 located in chambers further to the right on the blue band. 7 is the only lower number
OUTSIDE and BEFORE our matrix, which acts as a “bullet” and “shoots out” odd numbers in
the blue band, removing their prime number status. However, the prime numbers from the two
first chambers will deliver the same ammunition when exposed for enough rotations for
multiples of internal combinations of these prime numbers or combinations with the number of
7, to show up at the corresponding arrival spots in the upcoming chambers after further
rotations. For example, 77 is shot out from the prime number universe in chamber no. 4 after
the first rotation of chamber no. 2, being a multiple of the “bullets” 7 and 11.
I have not been able to find a mathematical formula to grasp this successive out-shooting of
prime numbers from the chamber rotation constituting the blue band. However, this simple
model gives a clear understanding of the fact that there IS an order in the prime number
generation, as well as a good intuitive understanding of WHAT kind of order it is. For example,
it is easy to understand that this generative order includes as a tendential law more and more
prime number candidates to be shot out with increasing amount of rotations. To work out the
mathematics of this may be difficult, but there is no mystery around concerning the underlying,
inner workings of the prime number generator.

This was a NEGATIVE approach to the prime number generator by displaying the pattern in the
successive and increasing REMOVING of prime number candidates from the blue band. Now I
will sketch a POSITIVE approach to the problem by displaying the pattern in the systematic
EMERGENCE of new prime numbers.
Let’s write some of the first Fibonacci numbers in the same split-code of 5- and 3-multiples:
Fig. 2
(2) F(N) = m5 + n3
N F(N) m n m+n m-n
6 8 1 1 2 0
7 13 2 1 3 1
8 21 3 2 5 1
9 34 5 3 8 2
10 55 8 5 13 3
11 89 13 8 21 5
12 144 21 13 34 8
We see that both m- and n-series follow the Fibonacci sequence, and the same for the series
(m+n) and (m-n). We also see that for the same Fibonacci number, m always is a Fibonacci
number one step above the Fibonacci number of n; hence there is a Fibonacci RELATION
between m and n. Since we have argued the Fibonacci algorithm as the elementary form of
information processing, this indicates that the split-code of 5- and 3-multiples is not just a freewheeling
mathematical exercise, but intimately related to this elementary form, probably
expressing some necessary two-sidedness of the same elementary “coin” and a source code for
Fibonacci FRACTALITY.

There is an intimate relation between the Fibonacci series and the generative order of prime
numbers:
1) When factorizing the Fibonacci numbers, for each new step in the Fibonacci series, at least
one NEW prime number, not being a factor of any earlier Fibonacci number, emerges as one of
the factors of the corresponding Fibonacci number. This is always the case, with the sole
exceptions of the Fibonacci numbers no. 6 and no. 12, 8 and 144 respectively. This means that
the Fibonacci sequence, which can be illustrated as a spiral, at every rotation throws out at least
one new prime numbers as its factor. The question is WHY this is the case, and HOW the
relevant prime number is “thrown out” from the actual step in the Fibonacci spiral.
2) When numbering the Fibonacci numbers from when they show up in the series, apart from
number 5 it seems always to be the case that for a step number being a prime number, EITHER
the Fibonacci number from the step before OR from the next step contains a factor that is
IDENTICAL to said prime number. This indicates that the prime number succession has a
DIRECT LINK to an INHERENT pattern in the Fibonacci “staircase”, as two aspects of the same
process, the closeness of the link further indicated by the pattern of stepping one step back and
one step up being characteristic for the UNIVERSAL Fibonacci algorithm of information. Again,
the question is to work out exactly WHY and HOW this is so.

The outstanding Finnish scientist Matti Pitkänen has argued that the very form of the SOUL is
constituted from prime numbers, a comprehension connected to some esoteric claims. At least
the remarks above ought to be sufficient to indicate that the riddles connected to the Fibonacci
algorithm and to the prime number generator are aspects of the SAME scientific problem, and
that the solution of this problem may offer a golden key to a significant expansion of human
understanding, in science and perhaps beyond.

Bibliography
ANIMALU, Alexander Obiefoka Enukora: A nonlocal-nonhamiltonian theory of pairing in high-
Tc superconductors, Hadronic Journal 17, 349 (1994)
ANIMALU, A. O. E., with R. M. Santilli: Nonlocal isotopic representation of the Cooper-pair in
superconductivity, International Journal of Quantum Chemistry 29, 175 (1995)
ANIMALU, A. O. E.: A new theory on the structure of the Rutherford-Santilli neutron, Hadronic
Journal, 26, 637 (2003)
ANIMALU, A. O. E.: A Gauge-invariant relativistic theory of the Rutherford-Santilli neutron,
Hadronic Journal 27, 599 (2004)
ARINGAZIN, Ascar Kanapievich: Exact solution of the restricted three-body Santilli-Shillady
model of H2 molecule, Hadronic Journal 23, 1 (2000)
ARINGAZIN, A. K.: On variational solution of the four-body Santilli-Shillady model of H2
molecule, Hadronic Journal 23, 57 (2000)
ARINGAZIN, A. K.: Isoelectronium correlations as a non-linear two-dimensional two-particle
tunnel effect, Hadronic Journal 23, 619 (2000)
ARINGAZIN, A. K.: Toroidal configuration of the orbit of the electron of the hydrogen atom
under strong external magnetic fields, Hadronic Journal 24, 395 (2001) 395-434
ARINGAZIN, A. K., with R. M. Santilli: A study of the energy efficiency of hadronic reactors of
molecular type, Hadronic Journal 27, 273 (2004)
ARINGAZIN, A. K., with R. M. Santilli: A study of polycarbonyl compounds in magnegases,
Hadronic Journal 27, 331 (2004)
BATESON, Gregory: Mind and Nature. A necessary unity, Dutton, New York (1979)
BOHM, David: The Undivided Universe. An ontological interpretation of quantum theory, with
B. J. Hiley, Routledge, London (1993)
BOHM, David: Science, Order, and Creativity, with F. D. Peat, Bantam, Toronto (1987)
BOHM, David: Thought as a System, Routledge, London (1994)
GARIAEV, Peter et al.: The DNA Wave computer, paper at Computing Anticipatory Systems
2000,www.rialian.com/rnboyd/dna-wave.doc
GARIAEV, Peter: Genetica,
http://www.self-managing.net/genetica/Engl.htm
HADRONIC JOURNAL 21, Issue no 6: Special Issue Dedicated to Hadronic Chemistry (1998)
HELLERSTEIN, Nathaniel: Diamond: A Paradox Logic, Series on Knots and Everything, vol. 16,
World Scientific, Singapore (1997)
HELLERSTEIN, Nathaniel: Delta: A Paradox Logic, Series on Knots and Everything, vol. 14,
World Scientific, Singapore (1998)
ILLERT, Chris: Foundations of Theoretical Conchology…from Self-Similarity in Non-
Conservative Mechanics, Hadronic Press, Palm Harbor, Florida (1992)
JIANG, Chun-Xuan: Foundations of Santilli’s Isonumber Theory with Applications to New
Cryptograms, Fermat’s Theorem and Goldbach’s Conjecture, International Academic Press,
America-Europe-Asia (2002)
JOHANSEN, Stein E.: Grunnriss av en differensiell epistemology, Ariadne, Bergen, Norway
(English translation in transit: Outline of Differential Epistemology) (2006)
KAIVARAINEN, Alexander: Virtual replica of matter in bivacuum and possible mechanism of
distant mind-matter and mind-mind interaction, Journal of Non-Locality and Remote Mental
Interactions 1 (1) (2002)
OKOYE, C. M. I., with A. O. E. Animalu and G. C. Asomba: Nonlocal twoband model of Cooper
pairing in high temperature superconductivity as predicted by hadronic mechanics, Hadronic
Journal 20, 585 (1997)
PITKÄNEN, Matti: Topological Geometrodynamics.
http://www.physics.helsinki.fi/~matpitka/index.html
POLANYI, Michael: The Tacit Dimension, Anchor Books, New York (1967)
POPE, Robert: Science-Art and Global Human Survival Technology (speech at Yangzhou
University, China),
http://www.science-art.com.au/china_lecture.pdf (2001)
POPPER, Karl: Quantum Theory and the Schism in Physics, Hutchinson, London (1982)
PURCELL, Melanie Claire: What are the relationships between infinity and zero? The
implications of a cyclic universe and the diagonally woven single joined thread Klein Bottle,
Proceedings of the Fifth Australasian Philosophy Postgraduate Conference, University of New
South Wales, Sydney (1998)
ROSEN, Steven M.: Science, Paradox, and the Moebius Principle. The
evolution of a “transcultural” approach to wholeness, State University of New York Press, New
York (1994)
ROWLANDS, Peter, with B. Diaz: A universal alphabet and rewrite system,
http://arxiv.org/ftp/cs/papers/0209/0209026.pdf (2003)
ROWLANDS, Peter: (by British ComputerSociety):
Nilpotence,http://www.bcs.org.uk/siggroup/cyber/nilpotence.htm
ROWLANDS, Peter (by British Computer Society):
New Era Study Program,
http://www.bcs.org.uk/siggroup/cyber/newera.htm
ROWLANDS, Peter: Citebase,
http://citebase.eprints.org/cgibin/search?submit=1&author=Rowlands%252C%20Peter
RUHNAU, Eva: The Now, Time, and the Quantum, with M. Bitbol, Editions Frontières, Gif-sur-
Yvette (1994)
RUHNAU, Eva: Time, Temporality, Now, with H. Atmanspacher, Springer, Berlin (1997)
SANTILLI, Ruggero Maria: Elements of Hadronic Mechanics Volume I: Mathematical
Foundations Naukova Dumka, Ukraine Academy of Sciences, Kiev (second edition 1995)
SANTILLI, Ruggero Maria: Elements of Hadronic Mechanics, 1994 Volume II: Theoretical
Foundations Naukova Dumka, Ukraine Academy of Sciences, Kiev (second edition 1995)
SANTILLI, Ruggero Maria: Foundations of Theoretical Conchology, with C.R. Illert Hadronic
Press, Palm Harbor, Florida (1995)
SANTILLI, Ruggero Maria: Isotopic, Genotopic and Hyperstructural Methods in Theoretical
Biology, Ukraine Academy of Sciences, Kiev (1996)
SANTILLI, Ruggero Maria: Foundations of Hadronic Chemistry with Applications to New Clean
Energies and Fuels, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston-Dordrecht-London (2001)
SANTILLI, Ruggero Maria: The novel magnecular species of hydrogen and oxygen with
increased specific weight and energy content, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 28, 177
(2002)
SANTILLI, Ruggero Maria: Iso-, geno-, hyper-relativities for matter and their isoduals for
antimatter, and their novel applications in physics, chemistry and biology, Foundations of
Physics 33, 1373 (2003)
SANTILLI, Ruggero Maria, with A. K. Aringazin: Structure and combustion of magnegases,
Hadronic Journal 27, 299 (2004)
SANTILLI, Ruggero Maria: Elements of Hadronic Mechanics, Volume III: Applications and
Experimental Verifications Naukova Dumka, Ukraine Academy of Sciences, Kiev (In
preparation)
TRELL, Erik: Scheme for a time antenna in three-dimensional Hausdorff space, Speculations in
Science and Technology, 7, 269 (1984)
TRELL, Erik: On rotational symmetry and real geometrical representations of the elementary
particles with special reference to the N and ] Series, Physics Essays, 4, 272 (1991)
TRELL, Erik: Real forms of the elementary particles with a report of the ^ resonances, Physics
Essays, 5, 362 (1993)
TRELL, Erik: The eightfold eightfold way: Application of Lie’s true geometriske
transformationer to elementary particles, Algebras Groups and Geometries, 15, 447 (1998)
TRELL, Erik: Original Diophantine Equations Lodge BC without ABC. Review, Bulletin of
Calcutta Mathematical Society, 12, 29 (2004)
TRELL, Erik: Invariant Aristotelian from the smallest to the largest scales, Hadronic Journal 28,
1 (2005)
UEXKÜLL, Jacob von: Umwelt und Innenwelt der Tiere, J. Springer, Berlin (1909/1921)
WHEELER, John Archibald: Geometrodynamics, Academic Press, New York (1962)

Advertisements
By | 2017-05-22T03:58:18+00:00 May 22nd, 2017|Aether, Geometry, Hadronic Mechanics, Mathematics, Unified Theory|Comments Off on Initiation of Hadronic Philosophy by Stein Johansen

About the Author:

Comments are not currently available for this post.

%d bloggers like this: