The Logical Conservation Laws

What is that basic principle that ensures that the mapping will stabilize some of its variables to meet the conditions imposed on it by a certain problem? What is the basic idea behind the translation of a given problem to the boundary conditions of the process generated by the mapping? This principle correlates to the discovery of entities that I have named logical conservation laws, which are the basis of the logical structure and probably the main achievement of this work in all its aspects. This is "Isomorphism"! It certainly is not something that the scientific and technological communities are looking for because there are no hints to its existence within the phenomenological world. That is, it is not a phenomenological principle, but it might generate all kinds of phenomena.

First, let's see what is meant by ordinary conservation laws. In physics, these are basic laws that determine which processes can or cannot occur within nature. Each law maintains that the total value of the quantity governed by that law (i.e., mass, energy, momentum, charge, etc.) remains unchanged during physical processes. Conservation laws have the broadest possible applications of all laws in physics, and consequently, they are considered by many scientists to be the most fundamental laws in nature. Briefly stated, we can say that conservation laws are empirical (phenomenological) laws that we use to "explain" consistent patterns in physical processes.

In light of this observation then, what is a logical conservation law? It is the conservation of logical principles rather than of physical constants. It is the essence of the logical structure. This is how SHET posited this idea long before we had its realization: "The right infinitesimal gauge transformation is like a rotation around an axis. This axis is usually considered to be a given, unchanging magnitude that conserves the invariance of the theory. In this case, however, this unchanging magnitude is indefinite. How can a magnitude be indefinite? By not being a real physical magnitude, but rather, a logical principle, which is isomorphous to all the generating principles. This logical principle is the ‘if' so and so, ‘then' something that is almost its opposite, like a second-degree paradox, a dynamic harmony." The idea of a second-degree paradox as the basis of the process of definition was put forward in Clara's book, Holophany, The Loop of Creation.

Later we made some progress and we found the basic mapping that was the realization of this idea. Let me quote a session I received from SHET through Clara that summarizes and gives a deeper insight into the above consideration. I have omitted technical details:

"In your language, within any known phenomenological conservation law, what is being conserved? If you think in stills, the answer will be this or that constant - different things. But in your language, what is being conserved, which is the same, no matter the phenomenology with which you are dealing? It is a process, which when stabilized is the same recurring event, which regulates its variables to define that stabilized object. So, when A is its own function, that tells you that when A is stabilized, it is a conservation law. No, it is THE conservation law, as long as you don't get into the longer sentence necessary to define what A or its constituent functions are. So it matters not through which representation you reach the formulation of the loop - when it is formulated as you now have it, it represents all possible conservation laws.

"How can you translate this concept into the physical world? The reason physics has not produced a unified theory, but is instead a patchwork of different theories, is because each conservation law is defined by its object, by what is being conserved instead of defining through the logic of what conservation laws mean. Physics presently defines the what and the specific how - the equation of this or that conservation law without that definition being a representation of a more generalized logical structure, which must be a loop. In such a loop you can connect all conservation laws by showing how the conserved value is a stabilized process, the function of its variables.

"Usually, conservation laws in conventional physics are linear expressions, and this is what misleads you. What you need to understand is that you do not translate the conservation laws to the loop language, but rather, you translate the linear approach to a non-linear one with the same results. And then, it won't seem such a difficult task. Applying the "if-then" procedure can help here.

"When you speak of language, you are speaking of a non-linear interactive process, whereas physics, math, and most everything else use an external description aiming at objectivity and precision. So what you need to translate first of all is the approach, and the rest follows. As an exercise, you can try with the simplest equation: translate it into the non-linear language in order to gain some expertise... In your translation exercise, see what is being defined by which variables, and see how you can make it be defined by its function(s)...

"You only have to become adept at understanding what a certain conservation law means in your terms. You have all the tools for it. Later, you might want to include mathematical objects, knots theory, and what not - through this language you can unify everything and also show direct correlations as well as what transformations are needed where no such direct correlations are possible. Blessings."