Put your Hands on the Plough: And Never Look Back

Put your Hands on the Plough:
And Never Look Back
By
Peter Anyebe
0.0 Preamble
I shall be sixty, 60 in September of 2016. Between 1974 and 1988 I went in and out of the
university four, 4 times, to acquire a first, 1st
degree and three, 3 masters degrees. Since then in
the last twenty-eight, 28 years I have applied this background to research how to create value,
PoF and then to reduce same to make wealth, ROI. Along with this rather modest experience, I
hold the following four, 4 nuggets close to heart, as the motivators that got me unto and kept me
on this path:
Money is only an idea to represent how much value you have provided for others
Money will come from attuning to your soul’s wisdom,
Serving others, and putting the energy around you into a higher order,
Greater harmony and a more beautiful state
Higher intelligence and higher life are meant to be preserved and sustained,
Usually by lower life
If you want to rise in position and power,
You must rise in intelligence and wisdom
All conditions in life are created by consciousness
You manifest exactly what you perceive
You free yourself by being emotionally detached from choices
You trap yourself when you are attached to choices
When you are attached, you are in a state of wanting or lacking
When you are detached, you are in a state of being desireless
Enlightenment is about knowing why detachment gets you your desire
Letting go of all attachments is the way to end all suffering
Incidentally, all of these nuggets come from Enoch Tan. This does not mean that we are agreed
on all counts, especially with regard to his bit about reality as follows:
Physical reality is an illusion created by consciousness to rediscover itself
Agape Consultants
8, De-Bangler Street
Gboko, Nigeria
+234(0)703-430-2486
anyebepeter@yahoo.com

You are consciousness itself and whichever point of view you are
experiencing at any giving point of time and place, everything else around
you is a projection from you
You are more than just the particular person that you are.
You are the entire universe itself
I agree with Immanuel Kant that the history of mankind can be seen, in the large, as the
realization of nature’s secret plan. This means that every person who was ever born has a
definite role, which determines their contributions to the attainment of the universal purpose.
The greatest debt that anybody owes themselves would therefore be, to find this role and fulfil it.
To find the role, answers to the „what‟ question. And to fulfil it, answers to the „how‟ question.
The first, 1st
would be a reference to the choice of motives, as in big-C. And the second, 2nd
would be reference to objectivity, as in small-c, which would involve the capacity to reconstruct
the standard procedure for the performance at task in approximation of the natural order, N-O.
The rest of this work attempts to explore how these would be so. It attempts to point to the
following:
Due to the effect of gravity that has resulted in a curved space-time, there is a difficulty
with the perspective of reality that people present, which can be noted to be warped and
distorted. In addition and more as a consequence, relativity presents an infinite number of
alternatives from which to choose, which further complicates the problem of
reconstructing reality.
How has this problem been resolved?
And if not, how may it be incorporated into the concepts of knowledge, learning, and
performance; to optimize the person, the organization and other institutions, and
therefore society at large?
1.0 Platonian Forms and Objects
Plato presents a theory of knowledge in his discussion of the image of the divided line and the
myth of the cave. In the image of the divided line, Plato distinguishes between two levels of
awareness as follows:
Opinion and
Knowledge.
Claims or assertions about the physical or visible world, including both commonsense
observations and the propositions of science, would only be opinions. Some of these opinions
may be well founded and some may not be; but none of them counts as genuine knowledge. The
higher level of awareness is knowledge, because there reason, rather than sense experience, is

involved. Reason, properly used, results in intellectual insights that are certain, and the objects of
these rational insights are the abiding universals, the eternal forms or substances that constitute
the real world.
The myth of the cave describes individuals who are chained deep within the recesses of a cave.
They are bound, so that vision is restricted and they cannot see one another. The only thing
visible is the wall of the cave upon which appear shadows that are cast by models or statues of
animals and objects that are passed before a brightly burning fire. Breaking free, one of the
individuals escapes from the cave into the light of day. With the aid of the sun, that person sees
for the first time the real world and returns to the cave with the message that the only things they
have seen heretofore have been shadows and appearances, and that the real world awaits them if
they are willing to struggle free of their bonds.
The shadowy environment of the cave symbolizes for Plato the physical world of appearances.
Escape into the sun-filled setting outside the cave symbolizes the transition to the real world, the
world of full and perfect being, the world of forms, which is the proper object of knowledge.
Forms have greater reality than objects in the physical world both because of their perfection and
stability and because they are models, resemblance to which gives ordinary physical objects
whatever reality they have. Everything in the world of space and time is what it is by virtue of its
resemblance to, or participation in, its universal form. Then the ability to define the universal
term is evidence that one has grasped the form to which that universal refers. Ultimately
therefore, the theory of forms is intended to explain how one comes to know and also how things
have come to be as they are. In philosophical language, Plato‟s theory of forms is both an
epistemological (theory of knowledge) and an ontological (theory of being) thesis.
2.0 Contradictions
The contradiction is a philosophical concept that has trailed the attempt to understand being, but
which may not have been clearly connected with the scientific concept of relativity, as made
popular by Einstein. For Hegel, knowledge is not obtained in the position of the subject-object
split, in which the object is grasped as something separate from, and opposed, to the thinker. In
order to know the world, the person has to make the world their own. People and things are in a
constant transition from one suchness into another; hence "a thing is for itself, only when it has
posited (gesetzt) all of its determinates, and made them moments of its self-realization; and is
thus, in all changing conditions, always “returning to itself".
In this process "entering into itself becomes essence." This essence, the unity of being, the
identity throughout change is, according to Hegel, a process in which "everything copes with its
inherent contradictions, to unfold itself as a result." "The essence is thus as much historical as
ontological. The essential potentialities of things realize themselves in the same comprehensive

process that establishes their existence. The essence can 'achieve' its existence when the
potentialities of things have ripened in, and through the conditions of reality”. Hegel describes
this process as “the transition to actuality."
For Aristotle however, A is A. In his Law of Identity, everything that exists has a specific nature.
Each entity exists as something in particular, and has characteristics that are a part of what it is.
And identity is the concept that refers to this aspect of existence; the aspect of existing as
something in particular, with specific characteristics. This concept is important because it makes
explicit that reality has a definite nature. Then since reality has an identity, it is knowable. And
since it exists in a particular way, it has no contradictions.
The seeming conflict arises because both philosophers make reference to different aspects of the
same phenomenon. While Aristotle is interested in the character of phenomena which is in-situ,
Hegel is concerned with the process by which the phenomenon is formed, which is becoming.
Recall the conclusion from physics that there seems to be no single mathematical model or
theory that can describe every aspect of the universe, and with each additional theory or model,
the concepts of reality and of the fundamental constituents of the universe have changed. Instead,
there appears to be a network of theories, to explain the different angles of the same thing.
Because of this relativity, the number of models could be a myriad. Indeed, relativity would be a
reduction of contradictions, into a form that can be measured. Then the challenge would be
how well the numbers are managed.
3.0 Indeterminacy and the Sum over Histories
In describing Einstein‟s general relativity, Hawking makes reference to Platonian duality when
he talks about watching an airplane flying over hilly ground. Thus although it follows a straight
line in three-dimensional space, its shadow follows a curved path on the two-dimensional
ground. Similarly, the mass of the sun curves space-time in such a way that although the earth
follows a straight path in four dimensional space-time, it appears to us to move along a circular
orbit in three dimensional space.
Einstein made the revolutionary suggestion that gravity is not a force like other forces, but is a
consequence of the fact that space-time is not flat, as had been previously assumed. It is curved,
or warped, by the distribution of mass and energy in it. Thus bodies like the earth are not made to
move on curved orbits by a force called gravity; instead, they follow the nearest thing to a
straight path in a curved space, which is called a geodesic. A geodesic is the shortest (or longest)
path between two nearby points. For example, the surface of the earth is a two-dimensional
curved space. A geodesic on the earth is called a great circle, including the equator and the
longitudes, and is the shortest route between two points. As the geodesic is the shortest path
between any two airports, this is the route an airline navigator will tell the pilot to fly along. In

general relativity therefore, bodies always follow straight lines in four-dimensional space-time,
but they nevertheless appear to us to move along curved paths in our three-dimensional space.
This is a classic explanation of the distinction between forms and appearances. It is also a
graphic presentation of indeterminacy and uncertainty. The human perception is warped by
appearances, making it difficult or close to impossible, to predict phenomena accurately. It is
jaundiced, distorted, prejudiced, and biased; and can only be accurate when forms are discerned.
Then the difficulty that relativity and gravity present would have been resolved. Although Kant
argued that noumena cannot be known, the resolution of the difficulty with the definition of the
boundary conditions of the universe opens up the black box, to point to noumena, or the natural
order, N-O.
For instance, it is the combination of quantum mechanics with general relativity that introduced a
new possibility that did not arise before; to the effect that space and time together might form a
finite, four-dimensional space without singularities or boundaries, much like the surface of the
earth, but with more dimensions. This paved the way for the resolution of the uncertainty and
indeterminacy in curved space-time. The uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics implies
that certain pairs of quantities, such as the position and velocity of a particle, cannot both be
predicted with complete accuracy. Quantum mechanics deals with this situation via a class of
quantum theories in which particles don‟t have well-defined positions and velocities but are
represented by a wave. These quantum theories are deterministic in the sense that they give laws
for the evolution of the wave with time. Thus if the wave is known at one time, it can be
calculated at any other time. The unpredictable, random element would therefore be introduced
only when the wave is interpreted in terms of the positions and velocities of particles. But that
may have been the mistake. It was concluded that there may not be any particle positions and
velocities, but only waves. This makes time irrelevant, and makes events the critical element in
time-space.
The events are evaluated in terms of Feynman‟s sum over histories. In this approach, a particle
or event does not have just a single history, as it would in a classical theory. Instead, it is
supposed to follow every possible path in space-time; and with each of these histories there are
associated a couple of numbers, one representing the size of a wave and the other representing its
phase or position in the cycle. The probability that the particle, say, passes through some
particular point is found by adding up the waves associated with every possible history that
passes through that point. The crucial issue is the wavelike nature of the event, with the
associated amplitudes, which interfere with each other as they spread through space with their
respective wave patterns, either reinforcing or cancelling each other out at various points. Then
to sum over all the amplitudes of all the different paths, in a sum-over-histories, would allow
the different amplitudes to reinforce or cancel each other in such a way that the only path that
survives this interference process is the one that the particle actually follows. This path defines
the natural order, N-O.

The chart below shows how the wave packet becomes increasingly localized with the addition of
many waves in the superposition of several plane waves, to derive a common front, or
perspective of reality.
Severe technical problems are however associated with performing these sums. The only way
around these has been the peculiar prescription to add up the waves for particle histories that are
not in the real time that people experience, but take place in what is called imaginary time. To
avoid the technical difficulties with Feynman‟s sum over histories therefore, imaginary time
must be used. That is to say, for the purposes of the calculation time would be measured using
imaginary numbers, rather than real ones. Recall that this has an interesting effect on space-
time. The distinction between time and space disappears completely, to leave the event
standing alone and naked. Imaginary time is a well-defined mathematical concept. Given any
ordinary or real number, and multiplying it by itself, the result is a positive number. For instance,
2 times 2 is 4. But so is (– 2) times (– 2). The imaginary numbers however, give negative
numbers when multiplied by themselves. Thus the one called i, when multiplied by itself, gives
(– 1). This means that 2i multiplied by itself gives (– 4). Real and imaginary numbers can be
pictured in the following way:
The real numbers are represented by a line going from left to right, with zero in the
middle. The negative numbers, like – 1, – 2, etc. on the left, and positive numbers,
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sequential_superposition_of_plane_waves.gif

like 1, 2, etc. on the right. Then imaginary numbers are represented by a line going
up and down the page, with i, 2i, etc. above the middle, and – i, – 2i, etc. below.
Thus imaginary numbers are in a sense numbers at right angles to ordinary real numbers. To
apply these principles to the definition of the boundary conditions of the universe, in relation to
its beginning and its end, the sum of histories are pictured as being like the surface of the earth,
with the distance from the North Pole representing imaginary time and the size of a circle of
constant distance from the North Pole representing the spatial size of the universe. The universe
starts at the North Pole as a single point. The circles of latitude at constant distance from the
North Pole get bigger southwards. This corresponds to the universe expanding with imaginary
time. The universe would reach a maximum size at the equator and would contract with
increasing imaginary time to a single point at the South Pole. Note however that although the
universe would have zero size at the North and South Poles, these points would not be
singularities, any more than the North and South Poles on the earth are singular. They would not
define a beginning and an end in the usual sense. The laws of science will therefore hold at them,
just as they do at the North and South Poles on the earth, to establish a necessary condition for
the definition of boundaries. The graphic similarity between a universe that is self-contained and
without boundaries, and the earth, is clearly visible in the chart below:
Recall that the no-boundary condition is operationalized in the N-O when the standard procedure
for the performance at task is iterated, ad-infinitum; for as long as is required, when work is
reduced into several smaller tasks. The standard procedure series, SPS is the analogue of the N-
O. It would therefore obey the fundamental scientific laws of conservation and continuity. In
addition however, with respect to thought, which is conceptualized as immaterial, the principle
of reciprocity would also have to be obeyed. Then people would become self-contained like the
universe, when the P-O is traded for the N-O.
Source: http://www.fisica.net/relatividade/stephen_hawking_a_brief_history_of_time.pdf

4.0 Duality
By the principle of reciprocity, the intuitive craving of the human person for certainty requires a
demonstration so convincing, as to leave no room for doubt. Given a position for instance, a
precedent needs to be identified, along with two, 2 antecedents; so that the antecedents build on
phenomena that occurred earlier in time, as evidence that the phenomena that follow, will
ultimately occur in the future. As analogues, both the standard procedure series, SPS and the
natural order, N-O are presented as units of reality. Thus a phenomenon would be adequately
defined by the following four, 4 features:
Antecedent1
Position
Precedent
Antecedent2
This format is analogous to the duality series in operations research, which has been adopted as
the outline of the N-O as follows:
Maxima
Minimax
Maximin
Minima
This would be equivalent to the reduction of all the different paths in a sum-over-histories, into
four, 4. And it requires that people are sufficiently focused, Fc to scan all the possibilities, and
also sensitive, Sn to distinguish these four, 4 items from the other options. This is done
intuitively, Pc given the whole spectrum of alternatives from which to select. Then the selected
content, C would have to be formatted as in the above series, to derive the standard procedure for
the performance at task, √n, which formatting requires rationality, Rn. It is these capacities that
are evaluated on the F-Scale, when the P-O is measured against the N-O to define the factor-f0.
Serially:
3. Intuition, Pc Waves-Duality
2. Focus, Fc 6. Motives, f0b
1. Sensitivity, Sn 5. Personality, Fb
4. Rationality, Rn
3. Intuition, Pc Normality
2. Character, C 6. Objectivity, f0p
1. Performance, √n 5. Personality, Fp
4. Rationality, Rn

The distinction between f0p and f0b is based on another distinction, between big-C and small-c,
much like the distinction between G and g for gravity in physics. Big-C represents an ultimate
Choice, on which all subsequent choices depend, when the other decisions are made. The first,
1st
Choice determines all the possibilities that can become available, from which to make the
other choices. It is the choice of procedures, between the soul principle and what has become
commonly referred to as the quantum jump. When the soul principle is chosen, the possibilities
are derived from revelation. With quantum jumps however, the person concerned is the source
of all the possibilities, according to the information they have been able to access. In both cases
therefore, insight is drawn from a pool of knowledge, which represents the possibilities that are
available. Then security and certainty would depend on the safety of the pool. In a twist that is
characteristic of contradictions, the safety would be time sensitive, which time is supposed to
have been disabled by the sum over histories. This restricts the sums to objectivity, f0p which
would then be concerned with c; to locate them below motives, f0b which concern the higher
matters of C. Then until motives are given, objectivity and the sum over histories would be
redundant; despite that they apply to all motives, indiscriminately. Serially:
Because this work is concerned principally with objectivity and not motives per se, the F-Scale
also mimics the sum over histories when the scores on each of the four, 4 items is summed up; to
find the average score on each item by dividing by ten, 10, which is the total score on all the
items. Formally:
Moreover, the mind that has adopted the N-O, to think in terms of waves-duality and reduce
phenomena into the SPS has also been modeled to reflect the sum over histories. After it has
analyzed the phenomenon intuitively to derive the four, 4 strategic items, it also synthesizes
same, which capacity is evaluated as follows:
3. Precedents Decision
2. Certainty 6. Choice
1. Security 5. Motives
4. Antecedents
3. Motive Choice
2. Insight 6. Possibilities
1. Revelation 5. Soul Principle
4. Objectivity

4
Pm + 1 = 2 (ΣPm ) + 1,
m=1
Then, the identity kit, Id-K which measures the factors Pc, Rn, and √n, to describe the
workforce; as well as the bill of health index, BHI which measures organizations to quantify
business results, both pattern after the sum over histories. The scores on the 144 items that are
measured on each of the three, 3 kits are summed up, to find the F-Ratio statistic and then the
final score as follows:
Score = 2 x F-Ratio - 1
For the BHI, it is the moving correlation coefficients, r that are evaluated, for the number of
years for which data is available. Recall that the measure of r includes summations. To sum up
all of these therefore, recall also that the coefficient of determination, R2
is a square function of r,
for R = r2
. Indeed, the model of humans that is presented in this work is a form of this relation,
for L = F2
. In its full presentation this would be, L = 1/A F2
, A → 1. And the growth model, L =
2F ± 1, is the differential of the same relation. While the mental ability for analysis is measured
as L = 2F – 1, since something is lost, synthesis is L = 2F + 1, for the gain, as presented earlier
above. Recall the dictum that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
5.0 The Immaterial Mind
So far in this work, an attempt has been made to show how the observed difficulties with gravity
and relativity, with respect to their effect on the human perspective of reality, can be resolved at
once with reference to Feynman’s sum over histories. This follows a reduction of the problem
into Heisenberg’s uncertainty and indeterminacy concept. But another difficulty is created
however. The mind has been commonly conceptualized as a material phenomenon, in the form
of the brain and its nervous system. A conception of mind that invokes immateriality would
therefore need special explanation.
Recall the criticism with regard to how something totally immaterial could be expected to affect
something totally material, to define the basic problem of causal interaction. Then an
explanation would be required, as to how something without any physical properties has
physical effects. Baruch Spinoza (24 November 1632 – 21 February 1677) for instance, who is
known to have laid the groundwork for the 18th-century Enlightenment and modern biblical
criticism, including modern conceptions of the self and the universe; came to be considered as
one of the great rationalists of 17th-century philosophy, as well as one of Western philosophy's
most important thinkers. To the question "What is?" he replied: "Substance, its attributes, and
modes". Thus for him, the universal substance emanates both body and mind, and while they
have different attributes, there are no fundamental differences between these aspects; which

formulation became a historically significant solution to the mind–body problem, known as
neutral monism. Recall the following quote, which was backed up by Einstein:
The universal laws of nature, according to which all things exist and are
determined, are only another name for the eternal decrees of God, which
always involve eternal truth and necessity. So that to say that everything
happens according to natural laws, and to say that everything is ordained
by the decree and ordinance of God, is the same thing
This is how Einstein supported this position:
I believe in Spinoza‟s God,” who reveals himself in the lawful harmony of
all that exists, but not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the
doings of mankind
The most beautiful emotion we can experience is the mysterious. It is the
fundamental emotion that stands at the cradle of all true art and science.
He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and
stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead, a snuffed-out candle. To sense that
behind anything that can be experienced there is something that our minds
cannot grasp, whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly: this
is religiousness. In this sense, and in this sense only, I am a devoutly
religious man
They were both thorough going materialists, which makes Spinoza totally opposed to Descartes'
mind–body dualism. Following René Descartes (1641), the mind is a non-physical and therefore
non-spatial substance. He clearly identified the mind with consciousness and self-awareness, as
well as distinguished it from the brain as the seat of intelligence; to become the first to formulate
the riddle of mind and matter in the form in which it exists today, together with all the
associated problems. Davidson, for example, subscribed to Anomalous Monism, according to
which there can be no strict psycho-physical laws which connect mental and physical events
under their descriptions as mental and physical. But all mental events also have physical
descriptions. And it would be only in terms of the latter that such events could be connected in
law-like relations with other physical events. For him, mental predicates are irreducibly different
in character, being rational, holistic and necessary; from physical predicates, which would be
contingent, atomic and causal. Bottom line however, the following two, 2 difficulties have been
crucial to the establishment of duality, with respect to the expected interaction between the
material and the immaterial:
First, 1st
it is not clear where the interaction would take place
Then there is the question of how the interaction takes place

Thus because the mind is assumed to be non-physical and by definition outside the realm of
science, the mechanism which explains the connection between the mental and the physical
would be a philosophical proposition as compared to a scientific theory. Specifically, the
argument from physics is closely related to the argument from causal interaction. Many
physicists and consciousness researchers have argued that any action of a nonphysical mind on
the brain would entail the violation of physical laws, such as the conservation of energy. Such
interactions would violate the fundamental laws of physics. In particular, if some external source
of energy is responsible for the interactions, then this would violate the law of the conservation
of energy. Dualistic interactionism has therefore been argued against, to the extent that it violates
a general heuristic principle of science, which is the causal closure of the physical world.
In general, two, 2 lines of arguments have been presented against these positions and in favor of
duality, as summarized in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Catholic
Encyclopedia:
First, 1st
the mind may influence the distribution of energy, without altering its quantity
Second, 2nd
it could be denied that the human body is causally closed, as the conservation
of energy applies only to closed systems
But physicalists have objected that no evidence exists for the causal non-closure of the human
body. And Robin Collins has responded to this objection that energy conservation objections
misunderstand the role of energy conservation in physics. Well understood therefore, scenarios
in general relativity violate energy conservation, and quantum mechanics provides precedent for
causal interactions, or correlation without energy or momentum exchange.
In this work, causal correlation is situated in an environment that is at once causally closed and
open. The mind is presented as the link between spirit and matter, which requires that it interacts
with both. It would therefore be necessarily characterized for this function, to have dual
characteristics; like light that is at once particle and ray, being also at the boundary between
spirit and matter. Mind would be at once analytic and synthetic; which would be synonymous
with fission and fusion, respectively. In both cases, these are forms by which energy is released,
albeit the seeming contradictions. When two, 2 balls collide for instance, as in fusion, energy is
released. And when the atom is split, as in fission, energy is also released. In analysis, F1 the
mind splits concepts, as in fission. And in synthesis, F2 it puts humpty dumpty back together
again, as in fusion. Moreover, this dichotomy presents the unique possibility for evaluation.
Analysis and synthesis would have to be consistent, for F1 = F2. Any observed inconsistency
would be ascribed to mental immaturity, for F1 / F2 > or < 1.
Immaturity would then be associated with the breach of conservation and continuity, which
would usually be due to the breach of reciprocity in the first, 1st
place. Reciprocity demands
contemplation, which is immaterial and would culminate in a correlate form that is material.
Then the idea that is contemplated would be equivalent to the source term in continuity; and the

correlate form would be the sink item. And for conservation, both would have to be related. In
other words, thought, f0 would need to predict behavior, Po for f0 = 2Po – 1. The factor-Po
measures the power, Po that is available to the personality, for responses to stimuli. Recall that f0
measures objectivity as the approximation of the N-O. In both cases, it is the number of essential
components into which phenomena are reduced that is measured.
Given a paradigm shift in which there are four, 4 realms of existence that include spirit, soul,
mind, and matter rather than the current one, 1 realm that includes only matter; the possibility of
causal openness and closure become apparent. Then energy, which would be the common
phenomenon that links all four, 4 realms would be sourced in spirit, and stored in matter, which
would then be the sink. And the mind would be required to tap into the source in the form of
accessing ideas, which when reduced into procedures would release the energy by fission. Recall
that ideas are unitary, holistic, and complete in themselves, much like the North Pole of the earth.
The procedures synthesize the idea to derive its correlate form, which would be an object that is
also holistic and complete, albeit continuous, and much like the South Pole. If the procedure
corresponds to the localized wave that connects the two, 2 poles, it would be evident in its
normality. This would be when the P-O approximates the N-O, as evident in the reconstruction
of the standard procedure.
Recall that performance has been evaluated at once as the factors f0 for thought and Po for
behavior. While f0 is mental, Po is behavioral. Then behavior would be triggered by the
procedures, which are stored in the brain. But the brain is material, and is only compatible with
waves. The procedures would therefore need to have been derived by the waves-duality principle
for compatibility of storage. It is de Broglie who asserted that every object in the universe is a
wave. This followed Feynman‟s observation that the electron does anything it likes. It just goes
in any direction, at any speed, forward and backward in time, however it likes, and then you add
up the amplitudes and it gives you the wave function.
This might explain the difficulty with turning what is known into what is done. Knowledge that
translates into action may have been derived by the waves-duality model, and all the others
would remain dormant. Waves-duality allows a spectrum of one, 1 to four, 4 items, for 1 ≤ Po ≤
4, which determines the quality of the performance and therefore soul. The soul is
conceptualized as the concatenation of all human activities, from the first, 1st
breath at birth to
the last breath at death. It would also be a mass of energy in storage, waiting to be put to work.
Thus energy exists in all four, 4 realms, but in different forms, to describe an open system that
allows the free movement of energy between the realms. In the spirit it is an idea, in the mind it
is objectivity, in matter it is procedure, and in the soul, power. But the system is also closed, to
the extent that it obeys reciprocity, continuity, and conservation, for maturity.
The power to make wealth by any person, PoF would therefore be a measure of maturation,
which could be evaluated as the forth, 4th
power of soul or Po. Then thought would be the
second, 2nd
power, and idea, the third, 3rd
. Serially:

Power to Make Wealth, PoF = Po4
- Matter
Idea = Po3
- Spirit
Conceptualization, f0p = Po2
- Mind
Actualization, Po - Soul
These relations have been investigated and found to be stable, as presented on the data below:
F-Score = 1.09 for all four, 4 measures of PoF, including PoF, PoF‟, PoF‟‟, and PoF‟‟‟ on the table
F(3, 64) = 2.75; 0.05%
Bibliography
1. Wilson, D. L. (1999). "Mind-brain interaction and the violation of physical laws." In B. Libet, A. Freeman, & K. Sutherland
(Eds.), The Volitional Brain (pp. 185–200). Thorverton, UK: Imprint Academic.
2. Mohrhoff, U. (1999). "The physics of interaction." In B. Libet, A. Freeman, & K. Sutherland (Eds.), The Volitional Brain (pp. 165–
184). Thorverton, UK: Imprint Academic.
3. Jaswal, L. (2005). "Isolating disparate challenges to Hodgson's account of free will." Journal of Consciousness Studies, 12(1), 43–46.
4. Clark, T. W. (2005a). "Hodgson's black box." Journal of Consciousness Studies, 12(1), 38–59.
5. Robinson, Howard, "Dualism", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy(Fall 2003 Edition), ed. Edward N.
Zalta,http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2003/entries/dualism/.
6. Maher, Michael (1909) "The Law of Conservation of Energy", Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 5, pp. 422
ff, http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05422a.htm.
7. Murphy, Nancy (2009). Downward Causation and the Neurobiology of Free Will. Springer. ISBN 978-3642032042.
8. Collins, Robin "Modern Physics and the Energy Conservation Objection to Mind-Body Dualism" The American Philosophical
Quarterly, Volume 45, Number 1, January 2008, pp. 31-42

Put your Hands on the Plough: And Never Look Back

More Related Content

What's hot

Viewers also liked

Similar to Put your Hands on the Plough: And Never Look Back

Recently uploaded

Put your Hands on the Plough: And Never Look Back