My discoveries and insights derived from the fractal. Towards a theory of Quantum Chaos. Experts on fractal point out examples of fractals as trees and clouds; I say they are everywhere and everything and it is more interesting finding what is not fractal.
There is a climate paradox: modern greenhouse climate theory states or infers 98% of gases (nitrogen and oxygen) have no thermal role in the atmosphere. All thermal activity is due to the 2% greenhouse gases. This paradox I have termed the Dark Climate, or the Dark Gases.
The Denomination Standard (as opposed to the 'gold standard'): regularity in currency through time and place.
A unit of gold is said to (give and take a little) buy the same good through time - hence the gold standard. My hypothesis is: does the denomination 'size' of fiat money (currency) buy the same goods (opposed to the nominal size which will differ from time to time, place to place). How many of the lowest paper notes does it take to buy 'x' good - my case a big mac. I have found that in the developed world it costs generally around 2 of the lowest denomination notes for a McDonald's Big Mac (2012). Of course the amount grows the less developed the country - Sri Lanka 29. I conclude there maybe a 'standard note' (thank you to my student Paul) that will stand like a 'standing wave' over time and place; nominal prices will flow (rise) through it. Difficult to find a standard good, and there are lag times of course as note stay in circulation for some time in stable economies.
A momentous morning for me. As Copernicus and Galileo as my
inspirers, and after (this morning) uncovering and clearing some critical
details, I’m now not afraid any more – to speak, to show. Last month I
published on my blog two entries I had been working on for last 5 years: one on the fractal record of CO2, and
the other on the fractal profile of CO2 (still in progress).
This morning I published a complementary
‘wiki website (www.wikifractal.org) to
these entries that will show and democratise ‘the where(?)’ (the examples of a
phenomena – at all scales) (or not!). Where does a phenomena do as it is ‘said’
to do? Orbiting bodies and a sun centred ‘universe’ is a good case: before the
telescope and evidence, a world of dogma; and after, a world of ‘science’. With
the Hubble and (broken) Kepler telescopes we are now seeing orbiting bodies wherever
Wikifractal will reveal ‘the said’ CO2
properties (heat trapping) and the instances of a heat relationship – do not
repeat, anywhere; that the experiments and demonstrations used to prove CO2 is
a heat trapping gas are wrong, and make up what is (using the words of Richard
Dawkins) the greatest magic show on Earth and of all time.
Wikifractal.org aims to reveal the (true) shape – or fractal structure – of knowledge claims. It is an instrument: as a compass is to navigation, a tuning-fork to a musician – it is a truth detector.
Where Wikipedia.org deals with the what? and the how? (definitions and the like), Wikifractal.org deals with 'the where?' – the evidence, and the examples (of 'the what').The aim of Wikifractal.org is not necessarily to show proof of a knowledge claims, but rather, show that there is no proof, shape, or repetition to the claim. It aims to falsify, to clarify claims for all to see, for all to get the picture.By allowing the public to log the repeating presence (or not) of a said claim, and accumulating these logged cases at the claims different scales, a (fractal) shape of knowledge of the claim will develop (or not). If not, the claim is false. If yes when not expected, then the claim will be understood by all. What Wikifractal will shows is the 'claims' fractal record, its tree of occurrence –the ‘different’ occurrences of the 'same' knowledge claim. The fractal record – like the fossil record that inspired its name – will help expose the shape of the claim, not through time (though it may) as in the fossil record, but through the present, the now.
Wikifractal.org uses mathematicalinsights found in the fractal(what a termed 'the Laws of Knowledge'–uncovered atfractalnomics.comby wikifractals creator. As an example (insight)–
(scientific) phenomema have fractal structure, they repeat– inthe 'same', but ‘different’ way, at all (relevant) scales;order among the chaos.
this is to sayif something not fractal - or it does not repeat - it either surreal or myth.
viewing an object phenomena (or claim) when it is in a state ofceteris paribus– a monotonic environment, absent of any other fractal objects – truth and thus knowledge can be determined from the shape , but the scale or size of that object (or claim) cannot be discerned.moon image
Religion an Emergent FractalStructure Formed From the Life Force Survival. Blair D. Macdonald
First Posted:2013 -5 -7
Update: 2015- 12- 18
paper addresses a possible cause of religion or secular belief. It sugggests it
is an advanced, evolved manufestation of the life force survive. By the
developed human brain, survival must be managed for – and in – the afterlife.
The human mind can imagine the afterlife, and so must survive: religions have
evolved to meet this demand. This survival theory may also explain secular
The fractal, far from being only interesting images, and
complex mathematics, is also – as I am personally discovering – an instrument
of great insight; one that I am finding complements science, and its ‘mission’
to understand and explain the workings of the universe. I have been
attempting to decipher and understand this instrument; from classical
economics, to evolution, and even on quantum mechanics and the expanding
universe the fractal has not yet failed with its insight. So could it also help
us explain and understand other more humanistic issues too, the likes of
religion? The answer – I find – is yes.
As a (fractal) thinker, I see
patterns, and enjoy deciphering these patterns: religion is a pattern. I
am not the first to attempt an explanation of religion. To me, a fractal
explanation of religion, is an academic question that needs to be addressed,
this time in terms of insights from the fractal. I have discussed my theory
with a number of people, and have always gained their interest; now the
question is, can I write it as a blog entry, and make it convincing enough to
1.1The Fractal and Survival
Firstly, what is a fractal, and what does it have to
offer us to help explain religion – beyond being the often quoted, ‘thumbprint
A fractal (in brief) is a type of geometry; it is a structure that is
characterised by the ‘same’ but ‘different’ – at all scales. They emerge from
the repeating of a ‘simple’ rule. Trees, along with clouds, and waves are often
quoted as the classic examples. Fractal shapes are – literally – found
everywhere, and are from the insights they deliver – what I believe to be
– the foundation of what is called science. They are so universal, that to me,
it is more interesting to spot what is not fractal, than what is. I hope that
sound's familiar to the scientist reading. So even religions have a branching,
hierarchy, evolutionary nature. They also fit same but different.
1.2What is religion, and what causes religion (or a
To help answer and understand the question: what is
religion and what causes religion (or a religion)? I have chosen the common
tree to ‘stand’ as my fractal object, so you can think or a tree structure as a
religion structure. It does not need to necessarily be a tree, or
trees, as the universal nature of fractals suggests that I could have easily
chosen any other pattern, but trees – particularly – offer obvious
repeating 'fractal' pattern, and they have clear causality.As a
matter of interest, it was being among trees where I was inspired to think
about this religious explanation. The
explanation I come to should be scale invariant; that is not be constrained to
only religions as we know them, but also secular religions –even religions
1.3What is a tree?
Using the above fractal definition (same but different at all scales): the
‘same’ component in this fractal definition, in thetree’s primarily emergent
‘branching/standing structure of plants; and the ‘different’ is to account for
all the different variety of trees that exist now, and that have ever existed.
It is to view all the different plants types: the conifers, the mosses,
lycopods, and so on; and most recently the flowering plants. They have all
repeated the same basic (tree) structure and in so doing forming what we term
– in my case the English language, in a four letter word – a tree.
1.4What causes a tree (structure)?
So we have structure, but what is it that causes the tree
– where did they come from? Sorry, God is not an answer. The cause for such a thing should not only be
relevant to a tree type standing now; but also be for all tree types, or any of
the tree type structures that have ever existed throughout time. The cause should be a universal cause.
The standard explanation is sun-light: energy from the sun. Trees
are plants: reaching to the light and in so doing forming trees. There are
numerous references to this, including the BBC’s, The life of plants. “Plantshave
evolved woody stems to support and raise their productive parts to where it is
most productive.” I can hear DavidAttenborough’svoice
within me: “They grow high above their other competitors, where they have – at
least in the short term, and the long term when they evolve with this
adaptation – an advantage over their competition.
Through this (causal) light, we see that all the plant
types have achieved this same outcome and are what is termed anevolutionary
convergenceof which examples are abound ‘in the natural
world’* and include winged-flight.
* I put the natural world in inverted commas
because, as a fractal thinker, I cannot distinguish between natural and un-natural
(nature or cultural). More on this later because it is an important factor.
Religions, like the trees, have a structure that repeats
– here and now. Humans have evolved religious structures that have formed into
– just like with the plants – a few dominant kinds or types.
The cause for religion(s) will something – just as light
causes plants to form trees – be present in all religions. It will be something
common to them all, and will make them what they are. Without this they won’t
be. More than this, my cause for
religion will also be able to be reduced to something universal, something
actually common in everything, and everywhere, and it is not a deity. It will
be timeless, shared by the living, and (importantly) by the non-living. And, it
should exist so as to repeat attributes common or like religion outside the
context of what we think of as religion – it will converge. Just as plants have
many types or species, religion will also show up in places we would never
expect – in our case, the secular world, where there are no deities as such. This
is something I will return to later.
– it is to survive
Through the fractal, I have reasoned that
the cause of religion is the life force to live: it is survival – it is to
Fundamental, primal to our needs, instinctive, and
intuitive, are just some words to describe this – what is without a dealt – the
‘strongest’ of all life forces shared among all living things. Everything, in
someway or other,‘clings’ to life, strives, and fights to
survive – and often (almost always) at high cost.Even things non-living –
machines, brands, and even ideas – all seem to strive to survive; even if (in
the context of humans) through us humans. Take away this instinct – this life
force – and we have (maybe) nothing.
What happens when this law (of nature), or this drive for
survival (call it that) is ‘run through’ (so to speak) or amplified by a higher
processing-power brain: the likes of the newly evolved higher thinking human
brain? A brain that can – as far as we know, and (maybe) uniquely to humans –
do what no other animal has ever done, it can imagine. It has a brain power
that can actually imagine about survival; but that is not as important to my
argument as the thought that it can now imagine or think about what it isnot to
survive. It can think and imagine about death – it can now think and imagine
aboutafterdeath. Humans can,
combining the two together (imagination and death) think about a void,
emptiness – an after-life. The nature of survival is so hardwired, so strong a
force, that this after-life cannot be perceived empty, it cannot be a void –
the dead must survive, in death we survive. And so to accommodate this totally
new space, and survival in it, totally new ways have to be developed/evolved to
do just that – survive in it, and make it safe to survive in. Over time,
cultures developed ‘institutions’ to deal with this ‘new’ space, and the
structure that developed, we call religion.
Other animals strive to survive too, so why aren’t these
other animals religious? Through this ‘survival’ theory, technically they could
be, given they had the brainpower we have: so maybe too they would practice a
form of religion.
To back this up, it is known that there was a time, in
our evolutionary past, when human’s walked past the dead of their own, and that
that changed at sometime in our near past: where instead of walking past our
dead, as other animals do (today), they stopped and buried the their own dead,
practiced ceremony and thought about their dead as surviving – in new places,
in the heavens, for eternity.
Religion is an innate, emergence from this rule to
survive. Just as bling and other display items are
to sexuality – another fundamental life force associated to survival –
religion is to survival. It is a manifestation of survive.
To finish off with, this life-force of survival, is so
strong, so much part of us, so primal, that one doesn’t need a religious institution
to think such thoughts. In my experience, it takes a (mentally) very strong
person to fight this fundamental instinct – to tell them selves, there is no
after-life, and that we are just, as we have recently learnt, stardust. Even
those who have separated themselves from religion – self-confessed seculars – often think that we
go somewhere, not to heaven as such, but somewhere. It is a very powerful
We are so wired to survive and are prepared to pay for
our survival, this theory may also explain the likes of the massive health
system budgets we have today in our modern world. Like the Pyramid’s of Egypt,
and other religions sites, it is survival at all costs.
My next entry will deal with survival in the secular
would, and reveal a convergence (just as the plants have) in science itself.
An attempt to measure the fractal wavelength.
This entry came (to me) from working on the fractal spiral, the fractal wave, and de Broglie demand curve entries. I thought - as it is impossible to measure both time and distance - that it may be possible to measure - even if only in principle - the distance of the wavelength - based on a known dimension, the length of the triangle side (l).
Fig. 1 below shows the fractal and its (while developing) 'wave like' nature. It shows the wave takes 6 iterations to repeat or produce one cycle, but it does not show the length of the wave, the wavelength (λ).
Measuring the wavelength, an experiment.
I came to me that through a simple 'experiment', the wavelength (λ) may be measure, or at least better understood. Method:
Take the iteration 0 triangle, and post it on a wall.
Cut out from a paper print the iteration 1 triangle from the fully developed Koch snowflake
Hold the paper at arms length and sight the triangle 0 through the triangle 1 hole.
The arm length will be known as a standard observation distance*
Move forward or back with the paper extended at standard distance, and find the place where the triangle 0 appears the same size as triangle 1.
Make a mark of this distance.
Repeat the process, this time for triangle 2, mark the distance.
Repeat the process, this time for triangle 3, mark the distance.
Record the distances (in metres) then divide these distances by the triangle base length.
*There is an issue with the 'standard distance': The accuracy and thus validity of the distances measured in process 6,7,8 and 9 are dependent on the standard distance, and as this distance is subjective, there is a measurement problem. And thus no standard distance.
More to come.