Dr. Drago Karol Golli; Tel./Fax. Number: +386 1 4272091; Ob dolenjski železnici 104, 1000 Ljubljana, SLO; Informational only Research papers
Dr. Drago Karol Golli, ❶Title/Direction–Pontrjagin’s Maximum Principle in Optimisation of Chaotic Bifurcation of mental Worlds in Ethical Judgments: Subtitle/Subdirection–The Universe and the Human Being as a Machine Subsubtitle/Subsubdirection– Subsubtitle/Subsubdirection–Economical-l O: ❷Index Terms, Key Words–■Spiritual and physical Grandunified/uniting Theory instead T, ■Deductive anthropo-cosmo collational epistemology, ■Cybernetic Pontryagin principle, ■Controlled Hamilton conservative mind system, ■Lagrange potential energy as ethics as natural law, ■Mannish womanish ■Mathematical physics as union of science and philosophy,■Ncs for new knowledge ■Nharmonious society■. s, Additional Key Words and /manifoldsstudyTD. K. Golli’s or between –-Physusrotation and revolution to the Right as higher, and joy ceducational crisis, promiscuity and fertility and singlemother/motherhood crisis, S. Kulić, , etc. ❸
Highlights/Climax/Zenith–Complition of ’scollational Pontryagin, , , Complition of human as natural law of ethics in, Complition of cybernetic harmonious B Bhuman , Complition of spiritually and physically , Complition of (the third) as–, Complition of I. Newton gravitational waves or scalar state space method , Complition of t were ❹
AbstractSynopsis/Synopsa//Epitome–Thr Palmer’s synthesis Freud-Marx-Jung and Pontryagin’s principle, Lee’s uniting of Kant-Marx is being proved for anthropo-cosmo epistemology hypothesis that this principle unites the human spiritual-physical mind for beginning and present Universecombining deterministic chaos, quantum mechanics
ur and/or evolutioning for Lee’s purpose/direction of the Universe; universal solution up to found optimisation criterion, differential equation type/order and control route (Regelstrecke) for my hydrogen atom; plementing Hawking, Lee and Einstein an invention that time machine must be time optimal machine; plementing Palmer my minus “spacetime-timespace” cybernetic 3rd reversibility; plementing Lee a potential energy as a link between ethics-physics; solution of ethical paradox; complementing Einstein the condition for Lagrange to restrict potential energy in the search for differential equation for Grand uniting (unification) theory; quarks-electron anticipation. I believe that science doesn’t expect from an individual a time machine prototype and a-posteriori accelerator experiments. Applicable to all sciences, unexplored understanding of cognition, to dualism between Good-Evil, communism-capitalism or peace dilemmas, world crisis, and many individuals psychological testing/modeling.
Drago Karol Golli; Tel./Fax. Number: +386 1 4272091:
Ob dolenjski železnici 104, 1000 Ljubljana, SLO: Research papers
Index Terms, Key Words–spiritual and physical Grandunified/uniting theory instead T, deductive anthropo-cosmo collational epistemology, cybernetic Pontryagin principle, controlled Hamilton conservative mind system, Lagrange potential energy as ethics as natural law, mannish womanish mathematical physics as union of science and philosophy,cs for new knowledge harmonious society
s, Additional Key Words and /manifoldsstudyTD. K. Golli’s or between –-Physusrotation and revolution to the Right as higher, and joy ceducational crisis, promiscuity and fertility and singlemother/motherhood crisis, S. Kulić, , etc.
Highlights/Climax/Zenith as the Complition of–
 ’scollational Pontryagin, ,
 human as natural law of ethics in
 cybernetic harmonious B Bhuman
 spiritually and physically
 (the third) as–
 I. Newton’s gravitational waves, or scalar state space method
 t were as the final frontier
I. INTRODUCTION - FROM SELF- TO GRAND UNITING SUPREME-CONTROL
The human everywhere refuses the chance of transcending time (t) and space (V) (due to transcendence it is difficult to strictly discuss the idea of structure, relativisation is needed ), and, following only the theory of t deterministic chaos, constructivism and phenomenology, he consents even to ‘mere controlling’ (fortune seeking) – “selbst-Steuerung“ – in the manner even of a machine for its piston-valves and/or without minus (–) plus (+) error (e) testing. So, he is cut off from criterion (direct or indirect rule) – goal function (g) – and only sucks up disturbances (d) of mental worlds in physical (Ph) and spiritual (Sp) reality. The question for science (R. Descartes) is: Could it be – and how far, and how, and if only above the Ph human – physical mind (PhM) and spiritual mind (SpM) originally exsist as union (U). In seeking universal (Uni) or fundamental theory, I must proceed from comprehensive theories with philosophical, sociological, psychological, physical and, due to ethics, even theological ambitions to Universe (UN), as well as all sciences, chaos and Gaia theory. All the way up to the grand uniting theory (GUT) – monism – including all such reasonable advanced theories as general relativity theory (GRT), special relativity theory (SRT) and quantum mechanics (QM), with the still unexplored 3rd and ultimate and maximal stage from cybernetics, i.e. optimal control (OC), which uses g and optimal (extremal) control law (CL) – under differential equation (DE) controlled! W. R. Hamilton’s V conservative systems (CS). Corresponding to this is a trinity as a.) philosophical-political-theological U Kant-Marx , which is the subject (S) and dual with regard to Palmer as the object (O), b.) Palmer’s psychological-sociological-physical U Freud-Marx-Jung , and c.) superior and rigorous – in symmetry (Sym) radical cybernetical-mathematical-technical  Pontryagin’s maximum principle (PMP) whose application on CS seems to be the adequate and the only way so far found that can join the SpM and PhM. PMP as balance (number 12) is in fact a condition for GUT, also because PMP exceptionally allows bounded control vectors (u) (manipulation, therapy) or acting also in imaginary (j) V, provides local an extremal solution but only the necessary condition, and minimises the influence of feedback connection (FbC); additionally it would prove, within Lee’s U, especially the epistemology.
II. PROBLEM - ANTHROPO-COSMO EPISTEMOLOGY (PHILO-PSYCHO)
K. Marx says that what is being exchanged is just the mass (m), but not the energy (E) and information (I) – just on the basis of a struggle. As to I. Kant, the reflection (else inferior or vague) of the objective (neutral) world (synthetic) is only possible for consciousness (Csn), but to this Marx adds forms of Existence. Kant claims that an O to be known cannot be comprehended as it is, but is rather synthesised by S, to arrive at an objective (and ethic) truth – a-priori forms of cognition make possible Uni synthetic judgements. It is however collational epistemology (CE)  which is a complete U (in mezzo segment, in Fig. 1, as last 5th step to bi-uni-un-heteronomous SCN, in C. G. Jung the steps from ego to “Self”), based on K. Marx’s cognitive reflexive dialectical method (G. W. F. Hegel) and I. Kant’s cognitive synthetic transcendental method.
But with regard to spiritual world (SpW), many consider the technical CS as unrealistic for physical world (PhW), for CS does not comprise d and forces (F) from outside, nor friction, and is typical of vacuum. But, d can be compensated through outer, extreme (undelayed) OC. The Sun system is just an approximation of a perpetual motion machine (PMM) (Fig. 1), and there is no d within the short term limit, which is why it does not require u.
For a connoisseur of PMP it seems that Lee’s U is based on PMP, on W. R. Hamilton’s function (H) in CS with the centre in SpM, under optimum, as can be concluded from explanations of CE, theo-personal Returnal Resurrection and its analogies with nonlinear 2 point boundary problem (NLBP) from PMP; and those of C. G. Jung’s ego to “Self”. Palmer’s U is based just on chaos (e.g., intuition ), M. Planck’s constant (h), S. Rosen’s series, virtual particle (VP), enactivism (no epistemologic base), I Ching (is not a religion), USA constitution, spontaneous J. Clifford’s differentiating compensation cycle with the centre (focus) in PhM, etc., without OC for d, as can be concluded from the use of just FbC, mirrors (as in cognitivism) and holonomics. Plato says that PhM originates from Sp heavently kingdom (Fig. 1) and J. Locke stresses baby’s mind as free tabula rasa . Independent relation maybe exists between only ±altruism-complexity as Good-Evil; T. H. Huxley puts identity ‘Good = Evil‘ even for human nature, N. Chomsky stresses the human’s ability for complexity and B. F. Skinner genetics and environment (Env) – degrading the human as not being an initiator ; while Lee  says that if human (he was not created in SpW) lived eternally on Earth (in G. Grabovoi’s sense), there would be no necessity for SpW, which God had in creation before the Fall (a trap: angelic Evil changes the position), ergo, God did not make the human as fallen, and Ph death is not due to the Fall.
Since both U have been published descriptively, I needed several year to synthesise texts  and  and to decode analogies (Fig. 1), as well as to draw up the cybernetic control routes (CR) – schemas. Because QM wave and elementary particle (EP) are identities, I have abandoned – with respect to t derivative (d/dt) for state (x) and partial derivatives (∂/∂) for PMP as d/dtx = ∂H/∂Ψ ≡ f(x, u, d) – to model and/or simulate (for decree g) the PMP ‘adjoint’ d/dtΨ = – ∂H/∂x ≡ – Ñxg – [∂f/∂x]TΨ (T is transposed), and because of a simplification towards e.g., linear wave function (ψ) as ψ0exp(– jEt/h), the use of E. Schrödinger’s ψ DE, which should behave regularly in t and where there is no chaos, P. A. M. Dirac’s DE, soliton DE, or of H. L. F. Helmholtz’s DE, O. Klein and W. Gordon’s DE, Korteweg-de Vries’s DE, T. Kaluza and H. Klein’s DE, superBreathers etc.
Because of the here involved nature of d (as d4/dt4d), I don’t dare, via high cybernetics at the required DE (if found), to use simulating solution finding for NLBP, and for Ψ – when Ψ by itself is unstable. In a case of Hamiltonian x-equations  for CS, J. L. Lagrange’s (L) equations regarding potential (Epot) and kinetic energy (Ekin) are simplified to H(q, p) = Ekin + Epot, where from the I. Newtonian law follows the momentum (p) as d/dtp(d/dtx) = F, and it is assumed that the same system is to be analysed in another coordinate system x = x(q).
III. RESEARCH HYPOTHESES -INTER-MULTI-TRANS-META DISCIPLINARY
UN also is constantly under bifurcations leading to countless self-copies (images; J. Piaget says that to copy is not knowledge, and to manipulate is not to understand, but K. Lorenz speaks about stamping/impressing as social learning, S. Freud, for purposeful/unCsn represion, about bifurcations of Csn and that woman has no feeling for justice, and K. Marx about stopping of represion at 4 year old child ), and while for this there are mathematical theorems, no such cybernetic theorems exist. My 2 key theses are:
a.) by going above chaos, PMP makes possible the integrating of the SpM and PhM (integrating psyhology) in a cybernetic OC model (or framework or concept) or theory – relating to ethics: only love (l) is higher,
b.) if this is so, PMP gives the condition for Uni (not relative) model and/or theory, which includes and complements major (Uni or special) other models and/or theories, also psychology (passion, linear trajectorial reasoning, lateral thinking etc.), philosophy (consequentialism, absolutism, I. Kant etc.) etc.
IV. THEORIES - FROM CHAOS, QUANTUM MECHANICS, UP TO EINSTEIN
■Lee  states via H. Terasawa that Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle (UP) is incorrect regarding m, since m derives from (primeval) preEnergy (EPRE) – formless (vacuum) vibrating E field (as a cause, VP plasma). The human has always been a being of t and V, with S and O forms of thought. Man has always been active (to act!), and women tender and passive. The cognition cannot be achieved through the passive thinking process such as reflection, but through CE (theory is harder than praxis; no T. S. Kuhn’s relativity ). ■Palmer , in addition to (F. J. Varela’s) reversibility (Rev) of timespace (t/V) as causality (Cau) for duration past-present-future-‘nowhere’ (ad hoc observer), uses a Rev of spacetime (V/t) as extension (Ext), where, with chaos (720o, –3 and 0 edge continuous-binary; ontological shells and 512 = 29 as the short term memory limit, Fig. 1), both structurally computable – by bypassing the DE (Fig. 1). A “transition to the new world with a new past-future” is important. For L. E. Dickson’s 3 extraordinary (logical) algebras, sedenion (the loss of division is fusion, which cannot produce U, Fig. 1) shows anticommutativity xy = – yx; only after bifurcation to (between) Freud-Marx self-controlling ±FbC there occur (strangely controlled) ‘Magicians‘ (postulated, where PMP for the dead is positioned with –xT) and 3 special O, when ‘Magical’ self-generating metasystems (MSGMS) (Fig. 1) ignoring a g (like elections) nominate someone from the swarm and lead others to annihilation as ±m. In the case of an emergent MS (EMS) cycle, in between the system-MS there are only metaphors for a Dionysian dance of demons and J. Clifford’s cycle; in the C. G. Jung’s collective unCsn there is a conversational sociological dialogic memory (if the receiving human is in a MS mode, the other one is in a special or system mode, Fig. 1). On a reflexive level (Lee’s SpM, Fig. 1), however, reflection is (destructive) singularity (Sng) in the field of interfered mirrors. For the creation of a myriad of UN, as ±E, however, the theory of many worlds does not recognize annihilation for UN. Holon is the balance without surplus-lack, a representation (not abstraction ) of chiasmic Rev of intertwining pairs or extremes of viewing a part-Whole, when, because of UP there is doubt concerning the EP-wave. This is a mezzolevel between micro-macro (Fig. 1), when simultaneously something “neither is nor is not”, e.g., living-cognitive. ■Schuster  states about CS, that for V elements in CS a J. Liouville’s theorem applies. According to (cybernetic) state x phase method (SPM) , the CS exhibit no attractions: no fixed points, limit cycles (LC), strange attractors and Sng, but they can nevertheless have chaotic areas (see chaos maps), but these coexist with regular areas. CS are either classic or QM, and that in simple (W. Ockham’s razor) technical systems with just a few degrees of freedom (df) – the number of independent unconstrained/unbounded/unlimited dimensions (D) and excluding the t – their movement is complicated in SPM V. But QM for the electron for harmonic oscillator has no diffusion. For the rational (Fig. 1) numbers (Shrödinger, Palmer) the electrons in periodic potential will move freely, and all are delocalised, while for irrational they are probabilistic. In S. Newhouse’s proof the small d have small d/dt and d2/dt2, but not necessarily d4/dt4. It is also possible to have V chaos. ■D. E. Deutsch  states that in QM the problem of positioning of the observer to the observations can be solved. ■Bruce  states (G. Pruitt) that the many worlds interpretation (MWI) is like QM on a larger scale (Fig. 1), when in reality every possibility takes place and the copies of UN are perpetually simultaneously in creation, down to EP, what is missing is the Original UN as the most stable, coherent and substantial with regard to various copies, and the spiralling out of the trajectories of psychology of mass  resp. ■Beer  states (H. von Foerster, D. E. Deutsch) that what is disregarded are analogies and recursions (Fig. 1). ■Hawking  sees UN as unaffected from outside, as a complete theoretic cosmological U Einstein-Feynman-Penrose-Deutsch, also with black holes (BH). •GRT is not Uni. Thus, E = mc2 may not be entirely accurate, but it considers gravitation (Gr) and connects real t with 3D V. It offers Rev just in 3D V, while it allows the high speed (w) demonic immediate communication (DIC), greater than light velocity (c) via short cut or worm hole (WH), by means of the t machine (TM). •SRT does not consider Gr but offers a straight and smooth t; it does not allow knotted t nor absolute t, nor DIC. •QM is just a probability theory and has not been solved entirely; at macroGr it is immersed  in sociological phenomenology allowing DIC with closed loops at microlevel (K. Gödel). •QM vacuum fluctuations (QMVF) theory is not clear and involves some confusion due to m and curving; it considers the piling up of outbursts of loaned E, and the VP, as e.g., at the event horizon, e.g., of BH, where density (ρ) of strange –E exsists or ρ–E; it considers QMVF and EMS cycle (according to GRT, vacuum has a m which, differently than in the case of Em, regarding known cosmological constant influences the Ext). •QM&Gr theory is not complete, but it is of key importance for the beginning point/state (X0,UN) of UN as maximal Oness, when the big bang (BB) did not occur in V (V only occurred through BB, t/V first). GRT should have X0,UN in BB, and the end in BH, but BH is not a finite x of UN; it considers a spherical shape of encoded 4D, complementing the GRT also for Rev in t (t as vector). •QM linked to UP is more of a novelty. •Semi theory deals with m according to QM, while V and t are classic. •SuperGr theory (up to 11D) is partial, it works with infinite (∞), and is more suitable for the curving (6D etc.), FbC and low E. •Superstrings are more useful for knocks; since UN is not entirely in superSym x, the ∞ are being canceled only down to a minimal remainder of Evacuum ≠ 0. •Cosmic strings theory cannot remove or freeze VP; with ambient straight t, they work with ∞, allow DIC for 2 directions in pair only, without looking for proper (right) m for TM. •All the GUT are unclear, approximate, and they tell nothing about X0,UN; although they have their home there. •QM electrodynamics (and as relativistic) with e.g., He superfluidity (R. P. Feynman, D. E. Deutsch) is very promising. •The model of straight p-branes and unhollow bubbles, L. Randall’s model of unhollow saddle-shaped p-branes and P. Townsend’s model of p-branes speculate with Sym and Env. The accelerating of m to c is “impossible”, m and E are identities. BH are not entirely black; QMVF need pairs of VP, which are briefly subjected to EMS (are ‘firsts’ in Pierce’s terms), and only if one falls into BH, the other one becomes free, as if BH were radiating up to ∞, during which process +E is being lost, and thus m. It is as if only at high QM levels the QMVF and great F of Gr make possible the TM (t travels) that solves the w > c and WH (Einstein-Rosen’s bridge, gateway or tunnel) dilemmas; with regards to BH, WH allows 2 directions, when cosmic strings spread throughout the entire UN. ■Weinberg  states that theory of Creation has complemented the theory of BB, which was spontaneous. In philosophy a stationary model is preferred. A. Einstein did not find a stationary solution, and had to distort it by a cosmological constant (Friedman). It is not known for sure when t would stop if the Ext of UN were to be reversed. ■www.addic7ed.com  states that, although it seems that 2 EP (superpair) in V and t are under the influence of division, they show connectivity, for if something happens to one of them (a change of spin), the other is in A. Einstein’s DIC remotely. Superstring theory fail to explain the curving, and neither does it reach ∞; however, it considers curving of up to 22D and a concept of 0D Akasha, and joins, via WH and DIC, 2 points in V for all t. In so far as fluid and flexible, V and t travel. ■Wichmann  states that all current theories are phenomenological, and they don’t yield GUT, which, surprisingly (as e.g., “golden rule” ) must be simple (as much believable ). It is “impossible” either for ∞ bifurcations or only for m. In the case of molecule-atom-nucleus, FGr is disregarded; but there are areas where, at a potential obstacle the potential function Epot(x) strangely exceeds the allowed total energy (Etot), which is “impossible” in technics. Because of E surplus, the wave is partly reflected back and in part manages to push forward (Fig. 2), via strange QM ‘tunnelling’, through the prohibited area, when reflected wave has j amplitude (A); this is resonance, which is not important with high wave lengths (λ) (Palmer’s mental interference and ±E). QM wave and EP are identities. Neither A. Einstein (with Sym solutions) nor his successors have succeeded (T. Kuhn doubts about usefulness and sequencing of these ) in incorporating in a natural manner other natural F. It is still unknown whether m should be just expressed as m0 = E/c2; for then, irrespective of whether EP moves or not, and what happens with Ekin, m would be assumed to be m0. Others understand m to mean entire Eentire/c2; only indirect data are involved. Only by QM is it possible to describe all in an identical manner. ■Benz  states that God is t (in Lee, a rational-empiric vertical formula) and that it is not that so far mathematical setting was wrong, or, in the case of DE, not worked out, but (H. Poincaré) because of the nature of the problem; undistinctness increases with the number of O, their interconnection and the complexity of theories. UN must be under Ext. ■Klaus , and has arrived at cybernetics, states that FbC is only spontaneous – the level of a child. ■Thouless  states that for analogies with arguments (J. P. Teplov), Uni and steady rule (Kant ) applies, that it is possible to infer one characteristic from another, only if there is Cau relationship. ■Vattimo  states that 20th century philosophy was afraid of metaphysics (L. Wittgenstein), technics (W. Benjamin) and of GUT (J. F. Lyotard). As a solution (like Lee), separation (intrinsic or unintrinsic ) Good-Evil is higher than Left-Right. ■Bennett  gives the synergetic society, converging on Ideal. ■Banks , as regards L. Euler’s points movement for L in approximation of the way in V, sees a combination of ∑Li as beauty (Plato). ■Friedland  determines the unmeasurable variables by means of observers. ■Csaki  says that E PMP OC saves E and often wades into t = ∞.
V. EXPERIMENT - STATE-SPACE METHOD, RESEARCH LIMITATIONS
K. Ohmae says (D. K. Goli, 1999) that researcher should never a-priori think about something as “impossible”. Hawking  warns the sciences not to deride the ideas which might contribute to GUT, and Wichmann  states that physics may stay forever without (fundamental) GUT. Lee  says that in every research the question to be asked is how and why UN has come about, in what direction (as out of crossbow) it goes – an “(uninductive) transition to the ultimate restored (Original) world” is urgent (Dewey believes that the science is in conformity with the values as soon as the society begins to improve – utilitarianism ). So, ethical and natural laws are not opposites (G. E. Moore, R. M. Hare ), and Uni explanation is thus necessary first (but what is ‘necessary’ could be Cau linked to wrong O, Env or right ). This all is why, in addition to SPM and Lee’s methodology, I follow a dual  of reductionist (physicalism ) Western (Fig. 1) and dispositional (numerology, invisible etc.) Eastern sciences – and 13 extra methods: logical inspects for all behaviours/developments – by real support, structural-processual-recursional-pattern equivalents/identities, Whole, indexes (Sym, Rev, bifurcations, maximum, stability, orthogonality, sensible paradoxicality etc.), holes/e in theories/praxis, analytical/cybernetical/ontological development, encoded numbers, correspondences, combinations, parallels, analogies with arguments, cosmological argument, and the only candidate found (not as paradoxically something being better than optimal or “impossible” real t optimisation even of g) to fulfil the required conditions computationally. For my a-priori direct thought/mental experiment:
1.) what interests me is not that which, like in Palmer , lies densely (self-controlled) behind, such as nonrigorous (‘Mafician’) MSGMS, considering entropy (s), the weaving between present D in 4D V interval ±I/s//E/m; or surplus-lack compensation in gestalt-metaEnv (T. Stonier), although gestalt (reciprocal support, ±s, sociology) formation gives the world as our UN (the differentiation of the paradox of Beings with holonomic mirroring of larger contexts, where there exists for MS a certain level of B. Pascal’s triangle, and where there can arise a world of any complexity), Pluriverse’s reflection; or psychologically or logically possible paradoxical +E PMM (Fig. 1) as Sng (rarely only possible in evolving system; E. Husserl; taking into account inertial frames, extending the Spencer-Brown evolutionism laws into a law of interpenetration) in 4D limited V/t; or, with regard to fixed points, what is rotating round the 4th 4D axis; or 3 alternating hyperalgebras and internal interbinding in t/V-V/t matrix (H. Minkowski 4D V/t continuum, which isn’t 4D Euclidean V, A. Cayley and L. E. Dickson); or double Ph view (but T. Aquinas’s Sp double duty consequence in civil law ), e.g., ego as the Whole – ergo, as the system – “Self” as inherently complementarity landscape (BH, miracle, Sng),
2.) my interest focuses only on my discovery of superU of Lee-Palmer (here I finded CS, Fig. 1); calculus as DE (if for it, at PMP for SPM, a transformation can be found at all) with full determinism, in the continuous region (without probability luck paradox on critical ethical judgments, as M. Heidegger’s Pure Being, Fig. 1); a controlled! CS up to DIC Ideal; that which, further up, transcends t and V (not Marburg school’s transcendentalism) – and that is (as –xT) the 3rd Rev “–V/t –t/V” (Palmer says that asymptotic C. G. Jung’s collective knowledge is eternally just stepping back, ±I mutuality exists as Rev operation is “unachievable“); and, with (classical) electromagnetic (and QMVF hydrodynamic) compensation (pumped, giving back of stolen Epot); my t optimal TM considering of d up to d4/dt4.
I don’t dare to speculate about neutrines, Higgs’s God bosons, Palmer’s  superBreather and solitons, and from QMVF, as addition to hydrogen (H) and helium (He), about (due to GUT and X0,UN) exotic molecules. For SpM, in style of Einstein-Rosen-Podolski  or L. da Vinci logical test thus PMP has been proved, that “ethics for all t and V” contains not only C. Darwin’s descending open theory and FbC (descriptionism ) that caused today crisis (attack on dualism, how to know W. Ockham’s Sp complexity ) but primarily (D. Hume’s normativism ) the direct connection (DirC). To prove:
1.) my Uni for PMP → I must return to SPM V, which encodes t in trajectories (t as an implicit function appears as a parameter), and I provide special interbinded areas with still acceptable t and V, where I. Kant, or Lee’s  and A. Einstein’s  maxim “God does not play with dice” applies, with the real meaning  here being that otherwise all humans are in fact fools of chaos, because tj is just a metaphysic – mathematical construct (Lee criticizes Zenon paradoxes, and a sophystry of the same kind is that an O “neither is nor is not” in t and V), and the problem, outside cybernetics, are d and S. W. Hawking’s inflation – as supposed natural law. In SPM I don’t accept additional D as tj, and womanish scalar waves, for this would divert me from today atom, from preatom and NLBP; naive secondary tj sphere surface (K. Popper’s avoidance ) is not convenient (as if in mechanics a hole were drilled through a dam for resultant F),
2.) PMP as my condition for Original U SpM-PhM, → I must return to X0,UN (B. Russel’s self-containing, fundationalism ) by cybernetics, which poses questions about causes, and is an umbrella top theory for “all” sciences; since the state there was the same, ergo, PMP is (clearly) Uni,
3.) necessity  for a centre for S-O and CE, → instead of into soup of VP (VP has no nucleus ), I must venture into the atom (not in any, and neuron has nucleus, too), and results are astonishing (Fig. 3),
4.) supposed U of moral-ethical-natural coherent laws and “transition to restored world” , not only to new one as in Palmer (similar to constructivist ‘new market bidder’ ), → I must return to QM and ‘do away’ with it at certain (border) points (Fig. 3), since a certain key portion of stolen Epot is there (Fig. 2) – the world has been deprived of reason (not as paralysis ),
5.) U of the PhM and 2 SpM  (from PhW first and then SpW, Fig. 1, Fig. 3), → I must return (due to NLBP) to DIC, which is why focus (Frege, foundation ) is placed on technical TM, where at required fixed final t (in Lee it is free) as a problem already at 1st order DE in the case of PMP  an nonanalytical solution arises as NLBP (as CE, Fig. 3).
VI. RESULTS - ETHIC 3 MIND PARADOX TIME-OPTIMAL TIME-MACHINE
Be that as it may, in the scope of the problem under study, I present (not intuition or “golden rule” ) (Fig. 3):
1.) 13 = 4 + 5 + 4 Sym structural analogy (Fig. 1 as my basic finding) for my finding of a superU Lee-Palmer for CS positioning (Fig. 1) and for superior OC finding,
2.) Epot as link (Fig. 2) for moral rules (to act!; I. Kant), ethical (the Norm, personality; Plato) and natural laws,
3.) a CR for DirC-FbC PMP OC, starting with my choosen H atom,
4.) radical condition for restricting also L, to seek (search) a DE for GUT for atom’s H(q, p) = Ekin + Epot to produce PMP’s Ψ (covariant model, nucleus) as only and exclusively Epot,
5.) BH and white hole, smaller than atom (G. Lemaître) for DIC (I did not include neuron level); to complete A. Einstein’s (materialistic) geometric GRT – for PMP, than, L must be (strange 0•∞) valid for Sp macro as H = Epot + mc2 or Epot + m∞2 = etc. = const or cosmological constant, too, and for micro for m0 or Eentire/c2,
6.) TM as urgently t optimal (simple) TM with shocking criterion g = 1 as ideal Oness (my 3rd Rev “antiV/t antit/V” cancels ∞),
7.) for atom’s nucleus, 3 quarks can – out of 13 (absurd if not, Fig. 1) – have further parts, likewise an electron.
VII. PHILOSOPHIC DISCUSSION - MACHINE-ATOM-UNITING ANCESTORS
Comparable to the Russian L. S. Pontrjagin (his “principle”; in 1952, owing to A. Andronov, jumps to OC – with PMP “bang-bang“ ±u CL of practical use, Fig. 3) is the Russian P. D. Ouspensky (his brilliant “Tertium Organum” as philosophy-psyhology-religion UN model, the various higher/lower centres from the inside and outside affected human mind as H48 for intellect, H24 for motion and H12 for emotion, when by himself this balanced machine may not attain any great idea or act, owing to beliving that human is not a machine makes him increasingly mechanical ) and British J.G. Bennett (his “Principle” or U God-human-UN or fact-value, combining all philosophical-religious-history-science-Sp systems ), which both followed the Russian G. I. Gurdjieff (his “Work”). Living in the same period, with A. Einstein and Soviets L. P. Teplov (philosophic/economic cybernetics) and A. D. Saharov (owing to his failed “transition to philosophy“ about convergence to U of communism – originally conceived as without totalitarianism label, conflicts/struggles, ergo, without jurisprudence, due to nonindividualism less infected with feminisms – and of capitalism – alas termed “principal“ – persecuted; L. S. Pontryagin, S. H. Lee and R. P. Feynman died in 1988) and cut off from cybernetics – it seems as if Palmer (China as centre) used Lee (his “Principle”; Christianity as centre), and he …. (A. Comte also provided a world ‘principle‘). Original predecessor of ultimate PMP and of Bellman’s dynamic programming equation in fact was C. Caratheodory in 1935. The youngest, S. W. Hawking (labelled with “Theory of everything”), does not say if Sp harmonious-familial-absolute-ultimate-transformic-altruistic(not in S. Freud’s sense or as J. B. S. Haldane’s helping)-impulsive deep l (Lee says – not in K. Lorenz’s sense – that l to animals or dog’s personality does not exist, B. K. Skinner, Fig. 3) and Ph E – active Sp (spiritualism) and passive Ph – follow for Existence (macro, including micro on large scale – superfluids also exhibit macro QM as autopoietic and closed for I and open for Ph d ; and movement), Beings (micro, East, mirroring of larger contexts; G. Deleuze and F. Guattari’s Wild as machines or antiawareness or as transcendence in immanence, M. Merleau-Ponty and M. Heidegger’s Hyper as without will unCsn immanence in transcendence violating B. Russel’s dictum, E. Husserl’s Process as immanence or M. Heidegger’s Dasein/essence, Pure as Csn illusionary continuity ) and for special systems (can become visible during movement from restricted economy of system/ego towards G. Bataille’s MS global economy and N. Bohr’s QM complementary ; mezzo) the same Uni law (not only M. Heidegger’s Heaven/Earth//imortals/mortals , Fig. 1). G. W. Leibniz’s God is not I. Newton’s God but who is now engaged in restoration, but Lee’s God the widest U transcendence-immanence (G. W. F. Hegel eliminates immanence by Logos, Marx transcendence, J. Wach none of them ). Namely Bennett gives (like Palmer) ‘Magicians‘ (B. Görtzel’s truncation into “unthinkable“) and (like Lee) Double responsibility, cosmic harmony (boundless transcendental Decree; in Palmer transcendent as Pure Being/Presence/Form, immanent as limited ), Evil as a “transition from the animal innocence to the human’s corruption“, and Hyparxis (the Will, Intervention) as Dispensation for restoration. Emotionalism and expressionalism  (FbC as only relative stable) negate ethical norms (Justice as higher nondual than Nomos, Fig. 1); consequentionalism accents its own justification with “all the means” and only the reference (xr) (nominal, equilibrium, steady state, goal); classical utilitarianism the hedonism and Dionysian dance. But deontology (I. Kant’s a-priori and Uni ) accents intrinsic structures/processes, the interventionism (DirC and PMP as stable; for privileged humans) a powerfull and even quick resonance (QM jump); J. S. Mill for utilitarianism inner Sp control variable; absolutism sees the circumstances and consequeces (and Env) as inexorably insignificant (Fig. 3) at solving the problem of paradoxical/e (to sacrifice, Lee’s indemnity law but not retalion) ethics. Lee  states that science focuses just on law, but it should also discover elements of argument, aspects of purpose and law of l (deism). The Heart as Cau inner true emotional (not as FbC, Fig. 3) and motivational impulsive F is the core of inner sungsang (PhM software for will as ethics/morality, for intellect as learning, for emotion as art) surrounded by hyungsang (hardware); and l is emotional F for movement from S to O and v.v. as initial condition (IC) on trajectory of l (P. Ekman’s measurable body emotional I, which tells nothing about what Evil is hidden ). Both represent the Purpose (Heart = l) above (and for) S-O to realise for U – number 13 (Fig. 1; F. Engels instead of struggle stresses harmonious actions between S-O correlatives centered on a common purpose ). In 3 embeded triangles mindfunctions-value-culture, ergo: Heart, than will-intellect-emotion, SpM (goodnes-beauty-trueness), ethics&morality-art-science&philosophy (K. Popper’s ethics as tautologism, E. G. Moore’s identity ‘ethics = intuition’ and naturalistic mistake: ‘Good = pleasantness’ as criticism for ‘ethics = natural’, A. J. Ayer’s “impossible” ‘God = Good‘ and circular/tautologistic on God based morality, J. S. Mill’s mind rejection of Original cause prefering experiencing phenomenological PhM and popular up to ∞ distant X0,UN and either self-caused or noncaused/first God – the most genius minds are afraid freely to dicuss about maximal bold themas, B. Russell’s “impossible” to explaine UN, S. T. Coleridge’s ‘intellect > faith‘ and that willing l of Christianity is not l of Truth – it ends in self-l and in ill compensation by basic needs and in seeking of art; A. Planting’s ontological argument that only “maximum of God“ is coherent-unexceptional-uncontradictory ).
Philosophical extrem is that free will (FW) should be a cause for Evil; or does not exist; or is an illusion due to Env; or that full FW does not comprise d and F from outside as in uncontrolled CS (bad decisions as the abuse of FW due to either individual’s or outer Evil); or that determinism and FW are incompatible, ergo, liberalism (e.g., principle of damaging) seeks natural Evil in the form of indeterministic QM to glorify QM  and to contradict Lee and A. Einstein (in spite of deterministic source the chaos is! foolery probabilistic and the only thing that QM defines well, with determinism = ½, is ψ). Because human’s 3 stages as forming-growth-completion (Fig. 1) resemble the Original personality-YangYin&harmony-creativity, Lee’s motivation theory stresses for X0,UN, in 360º, first a plan for a man (Fig. 1), then Creation in contrary direction (but in Palmer  simultaneous 2 directions parallelism with 720º spin chaos map, and emergent levels of topologic anomalism – the dual to algebras – as: continuously from –3 as much fragmental source, –2 as fragmental source, –1 as source, 0 as! 0D, than binary to 1 as Rev h, 2 as lemniscate curving, 4 as A. F. Möbius strip higher curving etc.; surreal/bisection from outside/Env, than binary/fused/chaos, natural/fuzzy, integer/probability, rational/forms and than real/system numbers, Fig. 1); the retrogressive “sacrifice” (to act!, Kant ) 1 master 2 stage t analogical (to wait!) 13-method repeatedly (nonparadoxically) subordinates (Fig. 3) Evil to Good for Leaders (not in W. Shakespeare’s sense ) in Sp recreation (less and less primitive through the courses oscillatory starting with Old Testament, intaglio traces in Palmer, only foundation as self-control, Fig. 1).
VIII. CYBERNETIC DILEMMAS - FOR VACUUM OSCILLATOR DIFF. EQUATION
For effective control  the nonlinear parts of DE must be approximated with linear DE without any loss of Uni/complete view of behavior of O, and independently of DE’s parameters and variables – only round (desired) xr at small deviations (stability in the small), i.e. operational set point (or Sng, Fig. 3), in SPM transformed as origin (phase portrait can be obtained by direct solution of DE, isoclines or by transformation of the starting DE into canonical form). Including xr and xd, e – as the new state vector (if d are included in the model), following Cau, is d/dte = Ae + Bu + E(xr, xd) (E is exogenous matrix). For quasilinearisation (e.g., the guess and Newton-Raphson for NLBP) the knowledge of xr in advance does not exist but u must be known.
For linear DE only – a Uni theory is available, where DE without u (used for A. M. Lyapunov stability test) is autonomous (intrinsic, passive, dissipative, natural, free, unexcited, unkicked, uncontrolled, unmanipulated, uncompensated, chaotic), ergo, spontaneous unforced under u = 0 (i.e. initial value problem; like GRT the inborn simple, quick and general heuristics – D. F. de la Rochefoucauld’s – not memories but judgments and the Whole ) as a free natural (own) self-controlled (repulsive spring) movement or O (free response of free O) due only to E from IC (fixed inputs only as x, d/dtx and d2/dt2x at t = 0 into O or plant) of DE. The 1st order DE (because of straight trajectories the analysis in SPM and elimination of t is “impossible”, e.g., inertial systems with d/dtx = const) covers only proportional (lag) and integral O (pure capacitive, unstable equation linearisation: the system cannot balance itself – every balance point/path here is not optimal; nonself-control, new xr is never reached) including only capacity to store the m, E (some systems store only some types of E) or p, and resistance of their flows – but not d2/dt2x (acceleration). But 1st order nonlinear DE (e.g., nonisothermal) could have more Sng and – depending on xr – the changing parameters (t-constant and gain, or nonlinear V changes). When DirC (as stable and potential for perfect prediction in slow O) is used, the problem is when structure and/or parameters (as constants or as strong or weak nonlinearity) of DE are unknown and/or latent and/or unmanifested (a discrete experimental identification of black-box with regression analysis of d, parametrs and even postulated model is needed for guesses and estimation, and observers for unmeasurable variables or for d). To find the best, saving and simple (up to 2nd order) analytic model e.g., 1.000 variants (or the chain of smaller models to quasicover overlapping areas) must be tested for linear (m and spring as independent of u and of x), nonlinear (spring’s constant depends on x), t-invariant, lumped parameters (ideal rigid m and massless noninertia spring’s constant), distributed parameters (spring has m), for stationary (properties of m and of spring are independent of t) and for Cau (system’s output depends on u only) variants, valid independently of IC (for large changes, too). Even to determine 1st d/dt is difficult because of amplification of the intrinsic numeric noise of irrational numbers (problematic is d4/dt4, too ). For completely controllable and observable O the FbC is suitable for unmeasured d (Fig. 3), too, and for unknown changing parameters (if any kind of nonlinearity is not included in DirC model). Under damping factor (ζ) (sliding friction, turbolence etc.) at ζ = 0, the 2nd order DE is ωn2d2/dt2x + 2ζωnd/dtx + x = Kru (ωn is natural period of oscillation of O; Kr is xr, or static, or simply gain of O) is valid for vacuum; x= x(t) and u is e.g., f(t). Some ζ could (overdamped, underdamped or criticaldamped) stop such linear eternal oscillator (torsion pendulum) for uncontrolled O. The normalised system d2/dt2x = u is e.g., free fall in vacuum, inherently 2nd order O; others must be 2 or multicapacitive (interacting/coupled or not, with added controller’s dynamics, when noninteracting or unilateral sequences, e.g., simple Cau, are never underdamped or in SPM have no Sng as fokus or spirals). Systems with dead t (inactive zone) and inverse response (nonminimum phase) are difficult to control. For intrinsic (undamped oscillator with m and Sym spring, spring is always a restoring F) DE d2/dt2x + a d/dtx = 0 the SPM demonstrates 1 Sng as center (if u ≠ 0 as 2 half-planes with semicircles, but if at ζ = 0 the x or d/dtx are limited by mechanical stops/saturations, the linear system becomes noncontinuously nonlinear), but with nonlinear C. A. Coulomb friction, even d2/dt2x – a d/dtx = 0 gives a saddle point (L. Randall’s model ) with condition for vacuum (ζ = 0) – only in the origin of SPM V (no damping in the vicinity of this point). The LC (soft or hard self-excited oscillation as the isolated closed paths which must enclose at least 1 Sng and are problematic to control) and closed curves (e.g., between 2 saddles with or without Sng inside) are not a (local) Sng point (only a very large d can change x from unstable LC to outer sucking stable LC and salvages the system). Nonlinear set of DE’s works as undamped synchronous machine – as intentional nonlinearities. But friction can in stable and linearly designed system generate a LC so that compensation can not follow u, causing local instability of O (e.g., in valve). But for free system (without forcing function the response of O follows only to E, stored in O, i.e. IC) in the vicinity of LC the linearisation is possible up to 3D when the oscillatory stability limit lies on the surfice of cylinder (outside it for all IC it is not more asimptotically stable). Van der Pol LC ocsillator is close to S. W. Hawking’s sphere, defined and finished on its equator. But the Sym LC can be analytically determined by the switching CL, too. A double oscillator for free motion in vacuum as CS can be represented by 2 coupled DE of 2nd order (4th order DE). Partial 1st order DE are easily solvable, which is, to avoid any deep analysing of processes, usable only for education, but such coupled DE are full of problems (L is linked to lumped parameters, but e.g., the heat, should demand distributed parameters, ergo, additional integrals).
The choosen DE must also satisfy t first (evolutioning, developing, nonlinear DE, hope, path) and than V (behaviour, circulation in V, restoration of human, repetition of leaders via ethic indemnity law, vertically first) spiral , and to fundationism (Fig. 3) for PMP oscillator machine (J. P. Teplov’s glaring door of cybernetics and teleologic dispute of human eye). For 3D in general (arbitrary) form the 3rd order DE (2 j complex poles at the origin for oscillations, and minimal 1 must be real for exponential part) shows inclined oscillatory cylinder in SPM, but in normal (canonically structured) form an axis centered upright one, e.g., the basis in seeking my DE is d3/dt3x + a d2/dt2x + b d/dtx + cx = u, with possibility to eliminate the 1st, and as friction its 3rd part (canonical modal decomposition gives the I about inner intrinsic properties of O, shows the true df – it is almost “impossible” in engineering for in italic to written df as variable or t dependent; gives a geometric picture for state vector movement and reduces the order of DE, when elimination of nondominant or slow eigenvectors is possible). IC (as starting points) on the eigenvector in nonmodal systems lead to straight (characteristic) trajectory.
In industry the models which include d2/dt2x (acceleration) are not needed. But for PMP with t OC, g = 1 (Fig. 3), in literature there are many solutions (analytical or by simulation) up to 4th order DE (“2 inputs x – 2 outputs u” rocket, and because of pure capacitivity, the decoupling nonlinear O; QM engine is expected). ■For Fig. 3, the 1st order (source, starting) DE e.g., d/dtx + c x = u or d/dtx = u or d/dtx = u1 + u2 or nonautonomous (already transformed for SPM) d/dtx = f(x, u, t) DE, or g = g(t), is not applicable. The d/dtx(x, u) = ax + bu is a Riccati type DE baypassing the NLBP with t progressive and t retrogressive integration which does not function for 3rd order. ■When the stopping of oscillations is wanted (to leave a vacuum, but not necessarily CS), pure inertial d2/dt2x = u is inapplicable (the automobile or free fall in vacuum), as well as d2/dt2x = au or d2/dt2x = u + d/dtu (with a double repeated pole) or (already transformed) d2/dt2x = 0 or u = const. – for free and fixed final t and/or for determination of switching t. The d2/dt2x + ωn2x = ku is undamped (vacuum) oscillating m on the spring, while noniteracting O is τ1τ2d2/dt2x + (τ1 + τ2)d/dtx + 1 = u. Of interest are nonlinear d2/dt2x + f(d/dtx) = ku with a possibility to be stable (Ψ2 is analytically solved in integral form); and nonlinear d2/dt2x = f(x, d/dtx, u) with (in transformed system) ∂f/∂x = const, or d2/dt2x– (s1 + s2)d/dtx + s1s2x = ku with H = 1 + s1x1Ψ1 + s2x2Ψ2 + (s1Ψ1 + s2Ψ2)u or d2/dt2x + f(t) = u1u2 with analytically solved combination of “bang-bang“ and continuous CL; and d2/dt2x – a d/dtx = d/dtu1 + d/dtu2 with only continuous solution; and d2/dt2x = d/dtu1 + ku2. ■The 3rd order O (crucial) in 3D is d3/dt3x + a d2/dt2x = ku, with PMP CL as uExtremal = – sign(– Ψ1 + Ψ2 + Ψ3); or ideal pure inertial O of 3 integrators, each without state FbC (Fig. 3) – as d3/dt3 = u. ■The industry (e.g., for machine production) is costly and uses compromises (functionalism, such as cybernetic FbC, Fig. 3) via linearisations etc. (for J. L. Lagrange polynomials or cubic convolution a – 16 – bicubic, – 4 – bilinear and nearest&neighbor interpolations, or decimation signal processing to reduce high frequencies through lowpass or FbC antialiasing Fourier filters; for rational or irrational), but I am limited because of the nature of this research and of t optimal (not subjected to the saturation, ergo, justification with “all the means” is needed) TM (simple, light, superconducting) from my anthropo-cosmo CE as controlled! CS (for vacuum and friction). What limits the use of nonlinear (“bang-bang“ and continuous) control is noise (very small d), long dead t and large changes, and IC vhich are far away from the orgin of SPM V (such “start-up” needs a specially developed additional PMP CL). Interesting for all cases are PMP (special) singular (continuous) OC, too. In the vicinity of SPM origin (at destination), many times a special suboptimal (as of Palmer) usual continuous control must be used to peacefully finish the path (journey); but in the systems with double FbC (one as ±gain) the engineer – often for only 1 combination of parameters – can find the solution, possibly as periodic through the origin on the switching line (at its end, the very high frequency – small A zigzags – must be silenced by usual nonlinear switching techniques – 2 position contactor – to eliminate the chattering). But the generalisation of OC theory are multivariable linear systems; but since in “2 inputs x – 1 output u” system the d/dt of changes are restricted, and a single OC criterion as g = 1 does not give a unique CL for every IC (or IC vector field), and other criteria must be added (e.g., d/dte as added input from FbC to PMP controller, Fig. 3). CL still needs to be obtained in advance from PMP.
IX. CONCLUSION - NEW DRIVE PHYSICAL KNOWLEDGE, INDUSTRIALISM
For PMP in sociology and theology there is no available literature, with the exception of philosophy, e.g., only an essay about U Kant-Marx, but nothing about PMP for Lee’s U. In psychology, there are references to I. Kant, K. Marx, Hanne Marx, and some other U, such as U Kant-deSade, U psychoanalysis-Kant, U Jung-Marx, U Kant-Freud-economy, but nothing about PMP for Palmer’s U. My U or cover of Lee-Palmer till now was unknown knowledge, too.
Through my cybernetical thinking the PMP is now expanded, Uni generalisated and developed as a complexity of interaction of philosophy (L. Wittgenstein says that it is wrong ), theology, sociology, family, beauty, evolution etc. Until now it was physics only, but not engineering (synthesis, not in G. W. F. Hegel’s sense or as compromise ), which contributed most to scientical (analysis) cognitional (limits), ontological and cosmological development/arguments (not only dispatch the irregularities) – the situation has now changed.
Theoretically (theory provides surety, while empirical data come from many, indistinct reasons, and dualism is harder than monism; if less rigourous solution exsist, then the logical limited postulates – tested by axiology – are available to ‘do away’ with self-relationality of science and its hypothetical methodologies ; M. Henry at unCsn exceeds M. Heidegger’s monism, and what lies between describes D. H. Gelernter as mirror worlds, cut off from reality ) and conceptually, I see my contribution as original, credible, coherent, total, relevant, important scientifically and practically, especially in insufficiently explored edges.
It would fill and direct the unexplored understanding of cognitive flow, show the distinct partiality of the problems of dualism (G. Ryle’s Sp machine, N. Malebranche’s occasional God, Descartes’s substance, B. Spinoza’s property, G. Berkeley’s SpW etc. ), specially in the Good-Evil continuum (Lee for: all U S-O, e.g., sung-hyung sang, absolute as Uni, J. H. Pestalozzi’s knowledge-ethics-technics, F. Fröbel’s Sp-Ph etc.);
it would contribute to a more complete grasping of Nature (problem of “the other minds” ), to creationism (Lee says that “creatio ex nihilo“ does not exsist), sociology (e.g., interference) and psychology (egoism-altruism, eroticism, “not self-Csn“, subCsn defense, H. H. Kelley’s attributivic processes in cognitive therapy, heuristic mind short cut – as WH, R. Nozick’s intrinsic enjoyment/murdering, pseudo reality/Env, difficultly diagnosable schizophrenia/superego in Bateson-Colby-Palmer, irregular human behaviour, D. Kahneman and A. Tversky’s rational losses-profits hazard, gestalt illusions, self-controlled learning/motivating, N. Chomsky, cognitive dissonance for xr – initiation etc. ; protoCsn and compensation condition for “SpM return” as a critique of F. Nietzsche and K. Jaspers “frustration” ; mirror distortions – anomalism );
it would contribute to history of science/philosophy/culture, to integrating (holistic) and philosophic psychology/sociology/jurisprudence (Palmer’s  B. Görtzel, J. O’Malley, B. Sandywell, M. Ashmore, A. Blum, A. Plotnitsky, for hermeneutics M. Scheler, J. Wach, G. Mensching, E. Schrödinger, too), to psychological/speculative theoretical physics and astrophysics, to mathematical/political psychology/philosophy, theory of knowledge (Lee says that no paradigmatic knowledge in PhW is possible without helping from SpW), astronautic and propulsion engineering (for currently limited only a-posteriori experiments; daring and physical less provable theories of peak innovative minds or new scientists are sometimes – and specially today – useful for major later advances in science and for shifting the margins of cognition to new, ‘impossible‘, or still ‘unexplained‘ paradigms), and to current jurisprudence (casuistic, false, but widely used as “scientific”).
It can contribute strongly to science in spite of the fact that some solutions have not been researched strictly with mathematics, but rather through logical acceptable postulates (without falling in metaphysics), since this failing is evaluated throught philosophy. As well as to advanced (true) industrialism (not as lobbyism/amendment FbC; T. Hobbes’s biblical Leviatan and t, or “no place for industry“ ) and to theory of true leaders (“one tribe one mind“ ) owing to Lee’s “restoration of human”. For world economic-religious-juridical crisis as well to applicative/evolutionist psychology as the framework for SISO (single input single output), MIMO (multiple ..) and BIBO (bounded ..) cognitional psychologic-sociologic testing/influencing/modeling of many individuals via my Ψ restricted DE, too. Either to l or peace or passive-active eternity/perpetuity philosophical questions and communism-democracy dilemma (prosperity 3·1/3 Russian flag; I Ching’s harmony-Sym-balance-revolutioning), or in the sense of ±FbC to analyses of Evil (A. Kohn’s ±mindstimulus ±gains, as if in such simple punishable method – without DirC – the motivation from outside would reduce the inner one ; in Lee only a genius finds 2 Hells – maximum principle of threat ; baby’s crying hardens the control of Env, L. Yarrow ; did at X0,UN God have Env?).
Lee says that the purpose for the Whole is primary, and that replacing God with constitution – in Palmer’s sense – has caused (masked) “contradiction of democracy”: conflict S-S, public criticism of the government, homosexual (today USA is more materialistic than destroyed communisms, such capitalism is not for us  – today human rights are not ethics). Since even civil attacker on the proprietorial or cultural Whole, triumphs mainly unpunished, using a method of exhausting the victim exactly by Benz’s  t, I say: A “contradiction of control”; ergo, dogmatism, authority, DirC, determinism and Lee’s identity maintaining aspect are not the aggressiveness, so criticised in psychology: sick obsession monitoring, neurotism in fundationism, indecision, seeking of surety, a royal role etc. (in S. Milgram only isolated humans are free of fighting with ‘system‘, but Right authoritarianism has become dictatorship, Uni aggression or intolerance to enemies or blind following of today ill norms/conventions, but in C. G. Jung the subordination to authority is not human uniqueness or revolt – cruel tests of initiation show the apology of humiliation, J. S. Mill’s obedience, J. B. S. Haldane’s altruistic blood relation neuropathy, DirC ).
Self-maintaining (±freedom without commands from outside as strange idealism) in the sense of machine’s FbC network of order (N. Wiener) can stabilise the balance (for Nature and even society, Internet and human) at small d only. But FbC at big d in minerals-plants-animals (the human as integration of Lee’s all things) does not guarantee stability (they spontaneously follow a new balance; alas Gaia theory was rejected in ecology and Env protection), but the human (politics, too) should follow the Original state (J. Baldwin’s USA ideal of highly more similar USA citizens – against earl Chesterfield’s conformism ; for many different wills the stability can be reached – FbC as bounded FW – and under OC and DirC it is possible to speak about the machine, too).
In fundationalism (Fig. 3) the brain (out of 1 cell developed organ) of a baby (emotions as the starting condition for walk, world citizenship for the language) and of BB must be structurally complete (if l and good heart exist), but the further development must be total (the trimming of neurons; not to be late for critical mind periods; S. Freud’s speculation that an altruist identifies himself with some helping humans from his early beginning past – neurotic sindrom ). What interests me is the willing mind activity (magnetic therapies e.g., TMS, DBS; mind-mind influence, medicinal reasons for Evil etc.), but not reflexes and sensoric stimulation of spinal cord. The searched for DE could be as it is (of 2nd order) in robotic human exoskeletons, where the central pattern generator (M. Munih, 2014, Institut Josef Stefan, Ljubljana) uses noncontinuously nonlinear 4-time oscillator (vibrator) for various motor primitives (jump, walk, swimming etc.) and – together with the control signal of measured reflexes produces movement.
For this I don’t dare to test the possible violation of conservation of static p (e.g., propulsion, see H), and x = x(q) for QMVF (Fig. 2) in different embeded inertial frames within relative coordinates, and SRT. Comparing invisible though detectable VP, if E is measurable or accountable, in my CS the dynamic E conservation law is not violated, also not the l law. But today jurisprudence law, based on instincts – lower as C. Darwin’s – is neither unified top moral principle nor Lee’s U, because the approach of ‘to wait!‘ ignores the heart and justice – l for facts is not l for Truth (liberalistically abusing the t for torture and using the evil method of dominoes – true solution or decisional tree never arises because of societal “FbC driving“ of Evil – prisoner dilemma, aphasia, and sparrows are always condemned to crumbs from horses, in J. Rawls’s diversity principle or egalitarianism, ergo, ‘justice = honesty’, but for M. Friedman ‘freedom > equality’ is valid ; cognitive disonance after decisons ).
 S. H. Lee, Fundamentals of Unification Thought, NY, Unification Thought Institute, 1952.
 K. D. Palmer, Reflexive Autopoietic Dissipative Special Systems Theory, CA, Aperion Press, 2000.
 F. Csaki, Modern Control Theories: Control State Space Methods, Budapest, Akademia Kiado, 1972.
 H. G. Schuster, Deterministic Chaos, Weinheim, Physik-Verlag, 1984.
 A. C. Bruce, Quantum Realities, http//www.100megsfree.com/farshores/rms01.httm (2010) and all the films on http//www.addic7ed.com.
 G. le Bon, Psichologie des foules, France, 1895.
 S. Beer, Diagnosing the System for Organisations, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 1985.
 S. W. Hawking, The Universe in a Nutshell, NY, Bantam Spectra, 2001.
 S. Weinberg, The first Three Minutes, NY, Basic Books Publishers, 1977.
 E. H. Wichmann, Quantum Physics, Massachusetts, Newton Education Development Center, 1967.
 A. Benz, Die Zukunft des Universums: Zuffal, Chaos, Gott?, Düsseldorf, Patmos Verlag, 1997.
 G. Klaus, Kybernetik in philosophischer Sicht, Berlin, Dietz Verlag, 1961.
 R. H. Thouless, Straight and crooked Thinking, R.H.T., 1979.
 G. Vattimo, Tecnica ed esistenza: Una mapa filosofica del Novecento, Milano, Mondadori Bruno, 2006.
 J. G. Bennett, The dramatic Universe, Charles Town, Claymont Communications, 1987.
 S. P. Banks, Control Systems Engineering, Englewood Clifs, Prentice Hall International, 1986.
 B. Friedland, Control System Design: An Introduction to State-Space Methods, USA, McGrow-Hill, 1986.
 P. B. Ouspensky, The Fourth Way, NY, Tatiana M. Nagro, 1979.
 B. Dupré, Originally entitled 50 Philosophy Ideas you Really Need to Know, Quercus Publishing, 2007.
 A. Furnham, Originally entitled 50 Psychology Ideas you Really Need to Know, Quercus Publishing, 2008.
 W. Roberts, Victory Secrets of Attila the Hun, NY, Bantam, 1993.
For information only:
A. My abbreviations (sorted owing to the 1st place of appearance):
time (t), space (V), minus (–), plus (+), error (e), goal function (g), disturbances (d), physical (Ph), spiritual (Sp), physical mind (PhM), spiritual mind (SpM), union (U), universal (Uni), Universe (UN), grand uniting theory (GUT), general relativity theory (GRT), special relativity theory (SRT), quantum mechanics (QM), optimal control (OC), control law (CL), differential equation (DE), conservative systems (CS), subject (S), object (O), symmetry (Sym), Pontryagin’s maximum principle (PMP), control vector (u), imaginary (j), feedback connection (FbC), mass (m), energy (E), information (I), consciousness (Csn), collational epistemology (CE), spiritual world (SpW), physical world (PhW), force (F), perpetual motion machine (PMM), Hamilton’s function (H), 2 point boundary problem (NLBP), Planck’s constant (h), virtual particle (VP), environment (Env), control routes (CR), elementary particle (EP), time derivative (d/dt), state (x), partial derivative (∂/∂), wave function (ψ), Lagrange (L), potential energy (Epot), kinetic energy (Ekin), momentum (p), love (l), uncertainty principle (UP), preEnergy (EPRE), reversibility (Rev), timespace (t/V), causality (Cau), spacetime (V/t), extension (Ext), ‘Magical’ self-generating metasystems (MSGMS), emergent MS (EMS), singularity (Sng), state x phase method (SPM), limit cycle (LC), degree of freedom (df), dimension (D), many worlds interpretation (MWI), black hole (BH), gravitation (Gr), speed (w), demonic immediate communication (DIC), light velocity (c), worm hole (WH), time machine (TM), QM vacuum fluctuations (QMVF), density (ρ), beginning point or state of the Universe (X0,UN), big bang (BB), infinite (∞), total energy (Etot), amplitude (A), wave length (λ), entropy (s), direct connection (DirC), hydrogen (H), helium (He), reference (xr), initial condition (IC), free will (FW), damping factor (ζ).
B. My abbreviations (sorted owing to the alphabet):
(A) amplitude, (BB) big bang, (BH) black hole, (c) light velocity, (Cau) causality, (CE) collational epistemology, (CR) control route, (CS) conservative system, (Csn) consciousness, (d) disturbances, (D) dimension, (DE) differential equation, (df) degree of freedom, (DIC) demonic immediate communication, (DirC) direct connection, (d/dt) time derivative, (e) error, (E) energy, (Ekin) kinetic energy, (EMS) emergent meta system, (Env) environment, (EP) elementary particle, (Epot) potential energy, (EPRE) preEnergy, (Etot) total energy, (Ext) extension, (F) force, (FbC) feedback connection, (FW) free will, (g) goal function, (Gr) gravitation, (GRT) general relativity theory, (GUT) grand uniting theory, (h) Planck’s constant, (H) Hamilton’s function, (H) hydrogen, (He) helium, (I) information, (IC) initial condition, (j) imaginary, (l) love, (L) Lagrange, (LC) limit cycle, (m) mass, (MSGMS) ‘Magical’ self-generating metasystems, (MWI) many worlds interpretation, (NLBP) 2 point boundary problem, (O) object, (OC) optimal control, (CL) control law, (p) momentum, (Ph) physical, (PhM) physical mind, (PhW) physical world, (PMM) perpetual motion machine, (PMP) Pontryagin’s maximum principle, (Rev) reversibility, (QM) quantum mechanics, (QMVF) QM vacuum fluctuations, (s) entropy, (S) subject, (Sng) singularity, (Sp) spiritual, (SpM) spiritual mind, (SPM) state x phase method, (SpW) spiritual world, (SRT) special relativity theory, (Sym) symmetry, (t) time, (TM) time machine, (t/V) timespace, (u) control vector, (U) union, (Uni) universal, (UN) Universe, (UP) uncertainty principle, (V) space, (V/t) spacetime, (VP) virtual particle, (w) speed, (WH) worm hole, (x) state, (xr) reference, (X0,UN) beginning point/state of the Universe, (∂/∂) partial derivative, (ζ) damping factor, (λ) wave length, (ψ) wave function, (ρ) density, (∞) infinite, (–) minus, (+) plus.
The copyright© for any part and for the whole of this article but for:
Drago Karol Golli, ergo, D.S., M.S. Drago Karol Golli, B.S.M.E.