# Entry

This detailed evidence at once clarifies the debate about the calculii. There was not one but 2 calculii, one geometrical and one mechanical. Of the 2 newtons is the more general. That a single calculus has been concocted is now evident, and that the Leibnizian form has been preferred is also clear. This leads to a confusion of what the 2 calculii are, and what they attempt to do.

In particular, Leibnizian calculus has no general method for mechanical curves, or for dynamical systems. The link to what increasingly became known as geometry further reduces it to a static formalism unusable in mechanics. That mechanics should give birth to geometry is without doubt a more utilitarian principle than geometry giving rise to mechanics. I find, therefore that I do better to start with the general dynamic system and from that derive or define principles accordingly, than by starting with some formal static system and attempting to squeeze reality into its form!

Starting with dynamic systems I may analyse the system into dynamic relations to which I may attach symbolic forms of the most simplistic nature such as a dot and a line. The synthesis of such symbols will suggest a bounded figure or form, and the combinatorial relationships may model or be modelled by formal relationships previously known or developed. If not, then I am at liberty to develop a model of my own and to devise both notation and procedural algorithm of my own

The spectroscopic data details the view of matter. The probability wave collapses several ideas into the wave idea. The wave idea requires a wave medium and this medium is analogised in as many ways as there are intellectual inquirers.

The concept or idea of energy has popularly become the label for these conscious experiences. . Te point is, this is just another model, which over time has become an identity with another model: the one we call reality. However, this model differs only. In that I accept it as fundamental. That is the fundamental dynamic from which I analyse my points, draw lines and create forms.

The idea of entanglement, probability and measorement. Niels Bohrs idea of photonics quanta for electron displacement . This idea of discretization reflects yhe Saturn ring problem thatbMaxwell sort of solved. Maxwell also employed a statistical approach to the behaviour of gases and combined these ideas into his electromagnetic models .

The use of statistics and probability means the behaviour of any material can be modelled through measurement data. .manipulating data meant that discrete behaviours are included in the syatem can be included as an ensemble.

it must always be remembered that facts and myths coexist as products of the human intellect, and that both, not one or the other but both are vital for the well functioning of the human mind.mthe experiential continuum consists in both.

In coming to a theoretical explanation of everything we do well to recall that such an explanation is only a model, and as models go, they are made of representative forms and materials. Therefore to make our model of anything other than pure thought forms is to misrepresent our experience, but is rather an encoding of our or my experience. My experiential continuum as a pure thought experience reveals many layers and kinds of thought from the signal from sensors both electrical and chemical to the sensations of vision and sound, proprioception and audition, the olfactory-gustatory in the kinaesthetic synaesthesia of the experiential continuum. To therefore accept the solidity or particularity of "reality" is to accept but one possible set of ideas called together a paradigm. The new paradigm is to accept the energy paradigm with energy being an idea or form for the nature of reality. It is a form which is beyond all forms, or a meta form. But the myth of this form or Idea runs deeply through our experiential continuum, standing behind a dazzling array of complex manifestations and phenomenon, and only really being encoded in symbolic code , represented by symbols not by any other form of representation.

The power of these symbols has been their Mechanical interpretation. Our ability, through centuries of symbolic coding to capture or model the one thing most vital to us and that is our process of interaction with reality. Our theories and codes are procedural instructions. They model how we must think and behave and interact with reality to model or create specific resultant experiences. These resultant experiences range from moving about to being moved about by incredible forces; from splitting open a corn head to nuclear fission; from combining foods to make a meal to combining elemental forms to create life in cells.

This powerful set of ideas, a paradigm of technological wonder is somehow broken, not complete, missing an important element. The missing element for such a representational paradigm which models our experiential continuum so well is the simple fractal geometry of Benoit Mandelbulbbrot et al, and those pioneers whose work he was able to bring together so ingeniously.

The simple rules are almost self similarity or almost self congruence at any scale encoded by the recursive identity iterated ceaselessly.

With such a self referencing, tautological structure I can devise a theory of everything that is represented in code by fractal ideas, fractal forms that are not solid or particulate, just endlessly fractal. To this endless fractality I apply the Newtonian philosophy of Quantity and these rules or notions are sufficient to exposit the mechanics of the heavens. To the fractality I apply the methods of grassmann, and these rules are sufficient yo exposit the quantum mechanics.

That this should be the way of encoding our experiential continuum is not obvious, but it is self confirming once accepted. The proof s in the technological and environmental impact we apparently have.