SOME UNEXPLAINED MYSTERIES OF PHYSICS

    First, no one knows what mass really is; we do not know for sure whether inertial and gravitational mass are one and the same.  General relativity says it is, and we know from experiments that if any difference exists between inertial mass and gravitational mass that difference is very small indeed.  But we do not know positively that there is not some small but finite difference.  And we have no idea why the mass of a moving object increases with respect to a static observer.  It is simple to calculate in special relativity how much the mass increases as a function of the velocity, but no one has the foggiest notion why this happens.  Particularly so since an observer standing on the moving object and moving along with it sees no increase in its mass at all.
    This poses a real paradox; if we try to assign some absolute notion to the idea of mass, then any object has an infinite number of masses, all at the same time and all different.  There are two ways to determine mass: (1) by its resistance to a disturbing force, and (2) by its ability to occupy three-dimensional space.  The latter requires that mass be volumetric, i.e., that mass be L³ dimensionally.
    But look at the weird properties of a photon!   If we measure its resistance to a disturbing force, we find that no force on earth can accelerate or decelerate the photon.  If we measure the mass of a photon by the first method, it appears to have infinite mass.  Yet if we measure it by the second method, it can have no mass at all, because a photon is not volumetric; it is two-dimensional.  It therefore has infinite mass and zero mass simultaneously.
    Furthermore, we can take the viewpoint that whatever its mass is, it can only have one.  If that is so, then infinite mass and zero mass must somehow be the same thing!  Which contradicts the three laws of logic.  However, this should not concern us too greatly; many things contradict the laws of logic and are nonetheless true.  So while it is presently "illogical" for infinite mass and zero mass to be identical, we should hold on to the idea that this may very well be true.
    Additionally, one of the great cornerstone assumptions in physics is that gravitational field and electric field are mutually exclusive - i.e., they are totally different things.  Yet a physicist named Santilli has proved that this is not so, and that they are either partially the same thing or totally the same thing.  And there the matter stands, so we do not fully understand what electric field and gravitational field are, or how to go about turning one into the other, although Santilli's work seems to imply that this is at least theoretically possible.  We must therefore invoke a new concept of reality.

URI GELLER

    Uri Geller has demonstrated numerous capabilities: he has affected a magnometer inside a Faraday shield; bent and broken metal objects; caused a fresh flower to wither and dry in seconds;  permanently changed the crystal structure of nitinol; altered magnetic programs on computer cards; influenced a Geiger counter;  de materialized matter; and demonstrated the inceptive Cyborg effect, thought-photography, telepathy, and the Geller effect (the sympathetic stimulation of a psi-positive).
    It is useless to attempt to explain the feats performed by Uri Geller in terms of the ordinary fields and effects of known physics.  Nothing short of a new physics paradigm will suffice.  This new paradigm must encompass both mind and physics within the same theoretical framework, if it is to succeed in explaining how mind affects matter.
   In terms of present physics and logic, the mind is regarded as totally separate from matter.  For mind and matter to interact, some aspect of mind must be the same as some aspect of matter, i.e., to move matter, a force is required.  Force is the time rate of change of momentum.  To generate a force capable of moving matter, mind must be able to change momentum.  But since momentum can only be obtained from something which possesses momentum to give up, then the mind must somehow possess momentum.
    If this is so, then the momentum must ordinarily exist in a separate three-dimensional space, since it apparently does not ordinarily exist in laboratory three-dimensional space.  Such a situation requires at least six spatial dimensions and one common time dimension, such that the mind (mental phenomena) is a set of objective physical phenomena existing in an ordinary objective three-dimensional space, but one which is three orthogonalities away, spatially, from the laboratory three-dimensional space.
    Mental changes upon physical objects would thus imply orthogonal rotation of mental objects from the mental three-dimensional space into or closer to the laboratory three-dimensional space.  Everett's many-worlds interpretation (MWI) of quantum mechanics contains a structure where such representation is possible, and the MWI is consistent with the entire experimental basis of modern physics.  Thus from the MWI it is possible to objectively model the mind and matter, and from that, psychotronics as well.

MY APPROACH TO PSYCHOTRONICS

   In twelve years of intensive work on this question, I have evolved a conceptual approach, which is consistent with present physics but extends it.  A new concept of reality is involved, however, and severe demands are made on the individual to stretch his framework of comprehension.  The perceptron concept is an abstraction that allows the modeling of perception itself - either mental perception or physical detection.  The fourth law of logic (to be explained shortly) involves the age-old identity of opposites whose apparent necessity has baffled logicians, philosophers, and scientists for centuries.  With the perceptron concept, we can at last comprehend how the identity of opposites is accomplished, and when it is accomplished.
   This immediately solves the age-old philosophical problem of change.  The fourth law also closes logic into a complete, closed metalogic, encompassing both physics and metaphysics.
    Let us use as a definition of reality: reality is that which can be conceptually and mathematically modeled and fitted to the phenomena existing in one or more minds.   Physical reality is that which can be modeled and fitted to the phenomena existing in all minds.   Mental reality can be modeled and fitted to the phenomena in one mind.   Mental and physical realities comprise "normal" reality.  Complex or "paranormal" reality is that which can be conceptually and mathematically modeled and fitted to phenomena which exist in more than one mind, but not in all minds.
    From perception theory I have succeeded in deriving a great deal of the present basis of physics, including Einstein's two postulates, Newton's laws, the law of gravitation, and the solution to the ontological problem.  (Unknown to me at the time, Ives had already done so for Newton's laws, the law of gravitation, and Einstein's postulates.  His work has unfortunately been ignored.)  In addition, the photon can be seen to be an ordinary three-dimensional particle existing in a three-dimensional space that is orthogonal to the laboratory three-dimensional space frame.  A stationary particle in the laboratory frame appears as a photon to the orthogonal spatial frame.
    Einstein's second postulate is usually stated as "the speed of light is the same for every observer."  Restated, this becomes "every photon in an inertial frame is moving at the speed of light, c, with respect to every particle in that inertial frame."  The corollary then follows immediately: every particle in that inertial frame is also moving at the speed of light, c, with respect to every photon in that inertial frame.
In a single three-dimensional space, this is incomprehensible.  Taking two orthogonal three-dimensional spaces, with the photons in one frame and the electrons in the other, it is perfectly comprehensible.
    From pure nothing - empty vacuum, absence of thing - one can generate everything, the presence of thing.  Here is direct proof that ultimately opposites are identical.  But to a mind rigidly programmed in three-law logic, such a truth is abhorrent.  Physicists consequently have done nothing with the idea that all our physical laws - or at least most of the great ones - can be straightforwardly derived from a special kind of a "piece of nothing" which I call a quiton.  And they have not seen that this constitutes a statement of a fourth law of logic - the identity of opposites on their common boundary.
    It is interesting to note that the paper which was handed to an American reporter, Robert Toth, by a Soviet scientist, and which caused the KGB to seize Toth and charge him with receiving Soviet state secrets, contained just such a theory as the basis of a unifying theory of psychotronics.  Yet none of our intelligence analysts seems to have picked up the overwhelming importance of what was in the paper, and Toth himself appears to believe that his KGB arrest was simply harassment.  In fact the paper did contain material on the basic Soviet approach to psychotronics - and thus to psychotronic weapons - and it was indeed state secrets that had been given to Toth.
    Everett's many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, with which very few physicists are familiar, provides a needed correction to the conventional monocular interpretation of relativity, and it allows a theoretically sound basis to be constructed for psychotronics.
    The conventional interpretation of relativity considers only a single observer at a time.  But if you can accept so simple a concept as that both you and I exist simultaneously, regardless of how we move with respect to each other, then I assure you that physics is startlingly different from what you may have studied in the ordinary university physics text book.
    Everett, originally a student of the world-renowned physicist Dr. John Wheeler at Princeton, for his Ph.D. thesis considered the problem of multiple simultaneous observers and worked out what this did to physics.  His highly innovative thesis provided a totally new interpretation of quantum physics and defined a startling new kind of reality in which all possibilities are physically real and exist.  This new physics is indeed very strange, but it is totally consistent with the entire experimental basis of physics today.
    I discovered that all my perception theory could be fitted precisely onto Everett's many-worlds interpretation.¹  On that basis, a theory or schema of biofields was derived that provides an approach to a unified field theory.  In fact, it predicts that any kind of field can be turned into any other kind of field, merely by correct and precise time synchronization.  It also offers a physical and exact model of mind and mental phenomena and a mental and exact model of physical phenomena!
     On this basis, a framework can be provided for psychotronics which is consistent with what we know of ordinary physics but which does not contain many of the limitations of ordinary physics.  In a strange sense Everett wrote the physics for the all-mind or the Supreme Creator's mind because an unlimited mind, so to speak, must already have thought of everything possible, and for an all-creative mind to "think" a possibility is for that possibility to be real.

                Fig. 3. Reality: a paranormal bridge with two ends

1.  Reality as a Paranormal Bridge with Two Ends

     In Figure 3, I show the nature of the problem of paranormal phenomena.  To understand it, we must first define more precisely some of the present concepts.  First, what do we really mean when we talk of "physical phenomena"?  To go into this, we must first destroy the notion that there exists some sort of separate, concrete reality totally apart from mind, for that notion is simply the old Cartesian assumption.  It has long been refuted as far as having any absolute validity, and this is well-known to philosophers and to foundations physicists.  According to Lindsay and Margenau in their Foundations of Physics. "physics has nothing to say about a possible real world lying behind experience."
     What is true is that we can experience and detect and know only a mental change - a change in the mind itself is all we ever experience directly.  For experience invokes the mind; we do not experience phenomena until the mind - used in the greater sense of the word to mean any mental detection - changes.
     Any detector detects or experiences only an internal change, never an external change, and this is true of the mind as well as a physical detector .
     So we never experience external physical phenomena; we experience only our own minds.  Specifically, each of us experiences his own mental phenomena.
     But here we must be a little more precise about what we mean by "mental phenomena."  What we usually refer to are the mental phenomena in a single mind.  And so we will take that as the primary definition: mental phenomena are the phenomena or changes in a single mind.
     But then what do we mean by "physical phenomena"?  For indeed this refers to something that is often remarkably different - or seems to be - from the phenomena or changes going on in our own heads.  Before we jump to the extreme conclusion that physical phenomena are simply mental illusions, we should recall the Zen master's approach.  He demanded of the student whether or not physical phenomena were real, and the student replied that they were not real, but only illusions.  Whereupon the master gave him a resounding knock on the head, and asked him whether or not the blow was real.  The student replied that the blow was indeed real.  Whereupon the master sent him back for further meditation, for he had learned nothing.  He had not understood that "mental" and "physical" are not mutually exclusive.
     If we look closely at how we may differentiate between mental phenomena and physical phenomena, we immediately hit upon a practical scheme.  Physical phenomena can be shown to exist in the mind of any observer, be he human, insect, or whatever, so long as he has consciousness.
     Suppose for a moment that I have a piece of chalk in my hand, held between my fingers.  I can touch the chalk, feel it, and see it. I can even taste it if I wish.  And so I hold up the piece of chalk and say:  "This piece of chalk is not just a mental impression, it is physically real."  How can I prove it?  And when I prove it, what exactly have I proved?
     Now suppose you do not wish to believe the chalk is real.  You simply bring in another observer; he looks at the chalk, he touches it, he tastes it, and he rolls it between his fingertips.  He confirms that he also detects or experiences the chalk.  Then a little bug flies in and lands on the chalk, crawling around on it, and poking at it with his little proboscis.  He also by his actions confirms that he has it in his own little mind.  In fact, we could bring in any sort of mind, and that mind could experience the chalk.
     And this of course is the clue.  What we have been calling physical phenomena can be shown to exist in every mind.  And when we say something is physically real, this is all we actually mean.  Nothing more, nothing less.  And this is why physical phenomena are so solid and concrete; they are infinitely repeated.  However, what we refer to as mental phenomena are in only one single mind and thus are not repeated at all.
     Now let us do a little thought experiment.  Suppose I have lapsed into some peculiar mental state because of the toxins from an infection I have contracted, and I am hallucinating vividly.  Suppose I pick up what I vividly see, feel, touch, and taste as a piece of chalk, and I claim that it is real. Indeed, to me it is very real.  And then suppose a second person comes into the room.  He will not see the chalk, touch it, feel it, taste it, and it will not be real to him.  Then suppose a third person comes into the room, and he does not see the chalk, he passes his fingers right through where I am seeing the chalk and does not contact or feel it, and he indeed cannot find it.  Thus what we call a "mental phenomenon" can be shown to exist in one mind only.  In this case of a vivid hallucination, the hallucinatory phenomenon was absent from the other observers' minds.
     But now let us change our thought experiment a little.  Suppose now that I am absolutely fit and fine physically and mentally, and am not hallucinating.  And suppose all the observers we bring in are also fine both physically and mentally, and not hallucinating.  And suppose we get the following results: some of us can see, touch, taste, and experience the chalk, and others of us cannot see, touch, taste, or experience it, no matter how we try.  In that case, what kind of phenomenon do we have?
      Well, we cannot exactly say the phenomenon is exclusively mental or exclusively physical.  But we also cannot say that it is exclusively nonmental or exclusively nonphysical.  In fact, we have an example of a third class of phenomena which are presently not recognized by science.  We simply have a paranormal phenomenon, one which can be shown to violate our definitions of mental phenomena and physical phenomena.
      And we can in fact take this as the definition of a paranormal phenomenon: a paranormal phenomenon can be shown to exist in more than one mind, and it can also be shown not to exist in one or more minds, i.e., paranormal phenomena exist in more than one mind, but not in all minds.  Our conventional science recognizes purely mental phenomena and purely physical phenomena; it does not recognize the third kind, since by the ordinary three laws of logic the third kind does not exist.  Paranormal phenomena constitute a bridge across a river between two banks; our present science does not recognize the bridge, but only recognizes the two banks, as shown in Figure 3.
      Paranormal phenomena thus appear erratic to ordinary objective science, for objective method after all is specifically designed to select only those phenomena that can be reliably repeated, and the nature of paranormal phenomena is such that they often (in fact usually) cannot be reliably repeated, except sometimes in a great many trials.  Normal objective method, if rigorously applied, can only discriminate a statistical effect from a great many trials.  Furthermore, if rigorously and lengthily applied, it will accumulate so many failures that it will cast serious doubt on whether the odd case that was paranormal was in fact nonaccidental.
      It is for this very reason that orthodox science, which is devoted to scientific method and rigorous protocol, has remained so comfortably adamant that paranormal phenomena do not exist.  The tool must be changed to fit the problem, and the present scientific toolbag does not fit precisely.  The tools are useful, but they themselves are not decisive within the bounds of present protocol.  The necessary change is quite simple: we must allow for the effects of mind, and for a union of both mind and physics, just as there exists in physics a union of both wave and particle.  In other words, paranormal phenomena must be repeatable sometimes, by competent experimenters and observers, but not necessarily always by all observers.
      "Ah ha!" the materialist is likely to exclaim, being unable to contain himself any longer.  "Solid concrete reality always is solid and concrete, however, and you cannot change that.  As long as that is true, then the laws of ordinary physics hold, and all is right with the universe.  We can always select our phenomena which are present in all minds, and this after all constitutes immutable physical reality.  In the face of that fact, all your arguments about mental phenomena in one mind and another kind of half-mental, half-physical phenomena are meaningless, for you are simply calling the superposition of purely mental phenomena on purely physical phenomena a third class, but it is a separable mixture, not a completely new kind."  And we may even be tempted to stir up a small bit of sympathy for the materialist's view.
      However, let us propose a resolution.  If we can show that concrete, solid, real matter can become absolutely nonconcrete, nonsolid, and hence nonphysical, then that ought to settle the question.  In a recent experiment it has been conclusively shown that two colliding protons pass right through each other in total violation of all physical rules, if their spins are exactly antiparallel.  Protons are the central building blocks of all matter.  In the nucleus of an atom, the protons and neutrons are continually switching identities, so even a neutron keeps turning into a proton, etc.  And these fundamental constituents of everything solid and concrete and real just go right through one another, without any effect whatsoever, simply by aligning their spins properly.  Collision theory fails, electromagnetic theory fails, and our concept of two particles bumping together fails.  This experiment totally annihilates the idea that physical reality is something absolute.  In fact, it establishes that physical reality itself is a function of the relations between the interacting participants; changing the relationships can simply cancel physical reality.
     So perhaps our definition of physical reality has some merit after all, and perhaps there really are three classes of phenomena.  The paranormal phenomenon is a bridge between mental and physical phenomena; specifically, every paranormal phenomenon must consist of an inseparably welded compound of the two.  And the objective method and its consequent experimental protocol must be changed to reflect this fact, if we are ever to develop a viable theory of paranormal phenomena.

2.  A Fundamental Correction to Classical Logic

     Let us now make a fundamental correction to Aristotle's three laws of logic.  First, there is no independent existence to mental phenomena; there is a perception operation involved when we think.  There is no independent existence to physical phenomena; there is a perception operation involved when we observe physical phenomena.  Furthermore, it takes a finite piece of time for the perception process to occur.  The logic symbol also requires a separate time interval; it represents a series of separately perceived operations that together comprise a decision algorithm.  So let us impose this criterion upon logic itself so as to constitute "logical perception " or the "logic of perception" or the "perception of logic."  We begin with Aristotle's third law of logic, A or not-A. the law of the excluded middle.
     We still insist that there is no such thing as A per se, but rather that there is a perceived A where A is the output of the perception process.  Similarly, there is no such thing as not-A, but rather there is a perceived not-A where not-A is the output of the perception process.  Let us think of a square box symbol as an abbreviation for the fact that perception has occurred, and anything written inside the box represents the output of that perception operation.  We can speak of the box either as mental perception, a description of thought, or we can speak of it as physical detection, a description of an instrumentation system that detects and measures.  Also, since each box requires a finite time to occur, we must carefully keep up with the individual little pieces of time, the delta t's.
    So applying this to Aristotle's third law, we have A perceived or outputted in time one, and not-A outputted in time two.  Note that to ascertain that A₁ and not-A₂ actually differ requires a series of operations in a separate time interval, in time three, that is assumed by the exclusive or symbol.  Looked at in this way, Aristotle's third law actually is the law of monocularity; it states that only one thing at a time is perceived.  Actually we had assumed this when we assumed that perception was a

finite process, so it is nice to find that Aristotle's third law justifies our assumption, once we understand the third law.  The exclusive or symbol assumes a third operation in time three, whereby it is determined that perception output one and output two actually differ.  But such an operation itself requires multiocular perception - i.e., collecting two outputs at once - and that in itself is a violation of Aristotle's third law.  The third law thus contains its own contradiction, and indeed each of the other two laws also contradicts the third law when one examines them meticulously.  Each can only be established as true by invoking or involving an operation wherein the third law is not true. 
    In time three we gathered up what had been perception output in time one, A₁,  and what had been perception output in time two, A₂, which we do not yet know is different from A₁, and put them both through the perception process, getting only one output - let us call it B - in time four.  By the nature of B in time four, we thus say in time five that the outputs in times one and two differ or not.  In either time one or time two, there is no indication whatsoever of difference or sameness existing between output one and output two.  Likewise, in time three there is no separate output one and output two, hence no indication of the sameness of, or difference between, outputs one and two. 
        So here we have arrived at the identity of opposites.  There is no perception of difference between A₁ and not-A₂ in time three.  And this constitutes a fourth law of logic:  the law of the boundary, or the boundary identity of exact opposites.  All that is necessary to identify opposites is to lose all perceptual distinction between them.  And that is accomplished by multiocular perception, of perceiving the presence of both at once unseparated, hence the absence of either exclusively present.  If A₁ and A₂ are exact opposites, then B₄ = 0, and [A₁, A₂] ₃ = 0.  We thus have the solution to the problem of nothing.  Nothing simply consists of the presence of the totality of all opposites. 
    Almost all the philosophers who have struggled with the problems of being, mind, and matter have faced the necessity for the identity of opposites, but none of them could understand how opposites could be identified.  By careful accounting of the separate time intervals required for finite monocular perceptions, the mechanism for identifying opposites is immediately clarified and revealed.  The laws of logic are simply laws of the operation of perception - nothing more, nothing less. 
    The new system of logic is closed.  All present paradoxes - contradictions of one or more of the first three laws - are resolved by the fourth law, which contains the negation of each of the first three laws.  The fourth law is in fact the law of the paradox.  Note also that the hidden time-three operation, which has actually been the application of the fourth law all along, is implied in each of the first three laws.  Identity or nonidentity between time-one and time-two outputs can only be established in a time-three operation.  The fact that either A or not-A exclusively exists can only be established by a separate operation which establishes that nothing else is there.  If separation of A and not-A is not permitted, then A and not-A cannot be distinguished. 
    Since these laws refer to perceptual operations, one can think of them operationally, or vectorially.  To close the vectorial system prescribed by the first three laws, the opposite or negation of each of the three vectorial statements must be present, i.e., this follows simply from the definition of what constitutes a closed system, vectorially speaking.  Since the fourth law contains the negation of each of the first three laws, then the four-law system is indeed closed, and the logician's dream of a closed metalogic is realized.  Furthermore, anything which contradicts any combination of the first three laws automatically is covered by the fourth law, which is the law of the paradox. 
   The new logic works as follows:  either the first three laws apply (separation of A and not-A is permitted), or the fourth law applies (separation of A and not-A is not permitted).  The fourth law applies only to - and in fact creates - a boundary.  The first three laws apply only away from a boundary. 

3.  A Physical Example

   Take the surface of a cube in deep space (Fig. 5).  Call the cube "thing," a three- dimensional concept.  Call the empty space around the cube "nonthing," a three- dimensional nonthing or absence of thing.  If we are standing inside the cube and look at its boundary surface, we cannot find a single piece of that boundary surface that does not belong totally to the cube.  So we can very reasonably proclaim that by the first three laws of logic each piece of the boundary belongs totally to the cube, to "thing." But if in a different operation we are standing outside the cube, we cannot find a single piece of that boundary surface that does not belong entirely to the space surrounding the cube.  So in this case, we can claim by the first three laws of logic that the boundary surface belongs totally to "nonthing."
    Then in a third operation we can state that, by the first law of logic, each and every piece of the boundary surface is identical to itself, and of course we thereby identify what was thing with what was nonthing.  Specifically, what was thing in perception time one and what was nonthing in perception time two have been identified, by all distinction and separation between them being removed, in time three.  Identifying opposites simply consists of  "packing together" two previously separated perceptions into a single third unseparated perception.  And all we have done is apply the fourth law of logic, the law of the boundary.  Every single perceived thing has a boundary, where it both begins and ends its exclusive presence in perception output.  And at that boundary, the fourth law applies.  Thus the law is universal.  The fourth law defines a boundary. 
    In fact, in any perception, all four laws are applied.  They are applied in one of two fashions:  (1) the first three are explicit and the fourth implicit, or (2) the first three are implicit and the fourth explicit. 
    There are more examples that have baffled mathematicians and logicians.  All of these are simply boundary statements, i.e., statements involving the fourth law of logic.  For example:  "It is true that this statement is false";  "A line (length) is composed of points (nonlengths)";  "In a hologram, each part is the whole."
    Since logicians used only the first three laws, none of these statements was acceptable or understandable.  By the fourth law, there is no problem with these statements.  The first merely refers to the boundary between the operation used to establish "truth" and the operation used to establish "falsity."  There is another class of operation where neither truth nor falsity exclusively applies - i.e., a class of operation which cannot distinguish between "true" and "false. "
    The second statement has long been a painful trauma to logicians and foundations mathematicians.  Today foundations mathematicians seldom attempt to define line or point.  Instead, they simply say:  "There is a class of entities called lines.  There is a class of entities called points.  Lines are made up of an infinite number of points.  "This way, they avoid trying to explain how "length" (line) can be made up of "nonlength" (points). 
    However, they could easily have avoided the difficulty, and still retained the definition of a line as a length, and a point as a nonlength, in the following manner.  "There is a class of entities called lines.  A line is and has length.  There is a class of entities called points.  A point is and has nonlength.  We may have a separate perception that shows nonlength, and another separate perception that shows length.  In yet a third perception which infolds both the first two perceptual characteristics, we may say that a line is comprised of points so long as we realize that line and point do not separately and exclusively exist in the comprised-of state."
    By the same token, we can say that "the whole is comprised of the sum of the parts" only if we realize that "whole" and "part" do not separately and exclusively exist in the comprised-of state, but instead they inseparably and nonexclusively exist therein. 

4.  New Definition of Zero

    To a monocular perception process, multiple presence constitutes absence of the exclusive presence of any particular one.  Therefore such a multiple presence is monocularly unperceivable, and hence becomes a zero to a monocular detection process.  This allows new definitions of zero, and a solution to the problem of nothing. 
      Consider that a monocular detection process asks the question,  "Is there a single exclusive thing present in my input?"  If the answer is yes, an output is generated and perception occurs.  If the answer is no, no output is generated and perception does not occur.  The answer "no" occurs in two fashions:  either total absence, or presence of two or more simultaneously.  For either of these cases, monocular perception gives no output, and perception does not occur, i.e., the absence of perception occurs. 
      Now note that the monocular perception cannot tell any difference in the two input conditions.  To it, there is no distinction between the two conditions.  The lack of any difference at all constitutes identity.  Thus to a monocular perception process, condition one is identical to condition two when they are infolded together in condition three.  That in fact derives the fourth law of logic.  Total absence and multiple, unseparated presence are identical insofar as a monocular detection process is concerned. 

5.  Einstein's Postulate

    As an example of strange problems we can deal with in a four-law manner, let us examine a little more closely one of Einstein's postulates of special relativity, which states that the speed of light is the same for every observer.  Let us restate the postulate as "every photon is moving at the same speed relative to every particle."  We can pick any electron in the laboratory frame.  Every photon in the frame is moving at the speed of light with respect to the electron, by Einstein's postulate.  Now let us pick any photon.  By Einstein's postulate, every electron is also moving at the speed of light with respect to this photon. 
    Now we can look at the situation from the viewpoint of the photon.  With respect to it, every electron in the laboratory frame is moving at the speed of light, which violates the common interpretation that ordinary objects cannot move at the speed of light.  In fact, three-law logic is violated but four-law logic is not violated.  In four-law logic, an object can have infinite mass and zero mass simultaneously. 
    The electron's frame and the photon's frame are rotated orthogonal to each other.  What we were calling a photon in the laboratory frame, is a perfectly ordinary three-dimensional object in its own frame, which is orthogonal to the laboratory frame.  The electron (lab-frame) thus appears as a photon in the rotated frame of what we previously called a "lab-frame photon."  Either an electron or a photon is both three-dimensional and two-dimensional simultaneously - in fact, the concept of separate, exclusive dimensionality only applies after one or the other dimensional aspect has been exclusively separated (observed). 
       Mass is determined by the resistance an object poses to an accelerating or disturbing force.  Mass is also tied to three-dimensional objects;  i.e., it is an L³ concept dimensionally.  A photon, moving at the speed of light, can neither be speeded up nor slowed down; hence in one sense it exhibits infinite mass.  On the other hand, the photon (which is a three-dimensional object in its own frame) has lost a dimension in its intersection in the laboratory frame, due to orthogonality.  Therefore the photon appears as a two-dimensional L² entity in the laboratory three-space.  And in that sense, the photon must have zero mass since it is only two-dimensional.  By the fourth law, the boundary opposites are identified.  Thus at the orthogonal boundary of three-space, zero mass and infinite mass become identical.  And the photon exhibits both zero mass and infinite mass simultaneously because it is an entity that is on the boundary of the L³ "mass exhibiting" world.  The photon has always happily behaved in a four-law manner, even though physicists could not comprehend its behavior with the three-law logic ingrained in their heads. 

6.  Synchronicity of Concepts

    As is so often the case, two persons appear to have derived the new logic simultaneously, myself from perception theory and Hubbard from manifold theory. 
     Dr. J. Hubbard was one of the scientists who first developed the atomic bomb.  His profound work fully substantiates the new logic and the new reality paradigm.  Dr.  Hubbard believes that the system includes language, logic, and the interaction of life-bearing systems.  In short, he believes it includes psychotronics.  The relationship between mind and matter is, like Santilli's electric and gravitational fields, not mutually exclusive; they are either partially or totally one and the same thing.  According to my research, they are both partially and totally the same thing, i.e., they are of exactly the same nature totally - a closure of the entire physical universe - but only partially intersecting, by a fraction of approximately 10^-42.  In the same fashion a mind is an entire physical world, but it only minutely intersects this physical frame, and then only in a portion of this physical plane. 
    Dr. Hubbard has shown that the four laws of logic emerge in the form of set relationships, that the single dimension parameter generates the second, third, fourth, fifth and up to Nth dimensions of the manifold, by repetitive operations on itself.  This allows a firm basis for orthogonal intersections of one less than the dimensionality of the lowest-dimensioned intersector.  It provides a firm basis for orthorotation and for my approach to psychotronics. 

Next Chapter