Theory of five elements (fragment of "The Next Wonderland")

"....

The cat jumped at once on the strange table in the middle and began to watch the movements of the bald man wrapped up in the sand clothes. The man was looking for something among the set of subjects of this room. However, it was to be noted that a certain pattern was felt in their position.

- Do you have something for me? – I asked as I was sure that my role would consist of gathering the information.

- What?

- Shouldn’t you pass me something?

- I should find the fifth element for the tableware.

- Just the fifth?

- Just the fifth! Everything should be of five elements, – he straightened himself up keeping for his back. - Imagine that we’re creating the world in which all the phenomena are interconnected and continuously replace each other. Let’s try to find a minimum quantity of the phenomena the interaction of which would satisfy these conditions. For example, the phenomenon №2 can be generated by the phenomenon №1 and be destroyed by the phenomenon №3. That is three phenomena are enough at the first sight. But in that case the phenomenon №1 cannot be generated or destroyed by the phenomenon №2. In fact they’d be mutually generated or mutually destroyed, and as a result it’d reduce to the termination of changes or to the "bad" infinity. It turns out that the phenomenon №3 should generate and destroy the phenomenon №1 simultaneously, and that does not suit us for the same reasons. Let’s add one more phenomenon №4. Now we assume that the phenomenon №3 destroys the phenomenon №1, and the phenomenon №4 generates it. As for the phenomenon №1 everything is all right. The phenomenon №3 is generated by the phenomenon №2 and is destroyed by the phenomenon №4. As for the phenomenon №3 everything is all right, too. However, there is a problem with the phenomenon №4. It can neither be generated nor destroyed by the phenomena №1, №3; and the phenomenon №2 cannot simultaneously generate and destroy the phenomenon №4. In short only five phenomena provide the mutual transformations and the «normal work» of the cause-and-effect relations. Therefore, studying any transformations and processes it is necessary to single out five mutual-generating and mutual-destroying phenomena. All the phenomena can be divided into five groups or "elements" as well. Such a division would allow us to understand the dynamics of changes in our world.

While speaking he went round the five-cornered table and examined carefully each thing which came across him. The cat of mine was watching him all the time and was about to jump on his back from time to time though I had such a feeling that he wouldn’t notice it.

- Well, let’s go then?

- Yes, go to the light, - he waved his hand uncertainly.

"

These financial arrangements - a drug.

The current crisis - a crisis of confidence. This crisis can be described in one word - disappointing. There are several financial mechanisms that make people think they are richer than it actually is. Rejection of these mechanisms is tantamount to a denial of the dream for many people. These financial arrangements - a drug.

About surplus value with humor (fragment of "The Next Wonderland")

 " The second man in the other corner looked very excited. He was taking tea after the sandwich noisily.
- Hello, my friend! – He shook my hand so vigorously that the crumbs from his lips flied off in all directions. He noticed the coin in my hands and his eyes began to shine. – Do you know what you’re having?
- Money.
- It’s the work of men which is equivalent to the given coin. Let’s admit that you’ve received it for your work. And here’s mine and I’ve received it for my work, – he took out the same coin. – Now we’ll exchange them. It’s the fair exchange. Isn’t it?!
- As though it is. What for one exchanges then?
- Here you are! - He was not listening to me. – If the capitalist spends the certain sum of money and receives the greater one, he has paid to his workers less than he should pay «fairly». The variation in prices, that is the surplus value, he has put in his pocket. What a swindler! – He said it to the next corner.
He embraced me tightly and came back to his sandwiches. I understood that he was giving me a piece advice, so I went to the third corner. The third man was drinking coffee and fingering his beard nervously. He got up from the armchair, greeted me and shook hands with me.
- No, it is impossible!
- What do you mean? 
- They’re just robbing us! – He looked angrily at the second man. -  In order to work and recreate at the enterprise the worker requires not so much: the minimum quantity of meal and clothes, the dwelling and the transport. In the case of a fair exchange, his wages should be equal only to the fulfillment of his work. However, the wages is sufficient just for some extra consumer’s purchases, trips, hobbies and entertainments. It means that they have recovered the greater cost from their work than it should be. The surplus value and the exploiting of the capitalists by the proletarians are present! "

The paradox of Zenon (fragment of "The Next Wonderland")

The cat understood at once that it was time for us to go. It jumped off the table and slipped quickly into the door. We crossed the white room and entered the pearl one. I felt a smell of the east incense and saw the sofas draped by silk and the low tables. In front of the big picture representing a sight from the window there was a woman with a fur collar dressed in the style of the beginning of the last century. Having turned gracefully she made a smoke through the long cigarette holder, let the smoke out slowly and studied my face with squinted eyes.

- The man.

- Yes.

- I see. I am just doomed to the men society, – she put her hand to the forehead with a theatrical gesture.

- You’re bored with us.

- I’m just tired. I just work for men and nothing more. Now I’m finishing all the things for Lennon.

- Who’s he?

- The man.

- What are you finishing?

- Everything, –she sighed. – He has left a priori here, has explained nothing to nobody and has died. Have I to answer for him!

- What a priori?

- Like that. Do you know the theory of relativity?

- In general.

- Then I’ll explain it to you.

- Let’s consider the paradox of Lennon about Bahille and the turtle. Bahille can easily get to the point where the turtle has been, but it will move to another point for this time. It can continue for a long time and Bahille will never catch up with the reptile.

The wrong conclusion about the unassailability of the turtle is considered to be caused by the absence of knowledge about the operations with the infinitesimal quantities. It is said that each segment on which Bahille catches up with the turtle is less than the previous one, therefore its length tends to zero, but the sum of these infinitesimal segments will be equal to some final distance. Let’s consider the last infinitesimal segment on which Bahille should overtake the turtle. No matter how small the segment is, the turtle should spend some time to go for a distance. It’ll be like that on each segment regardless of its length. That is the reference to the infinitesimal quantities does not allow us to solve the paradox. Isn’t it?

- Probably. – I answered mechanically.

- Let’s imagine the artist who wants to paint a continuously varying landscape. First he looks at the landscape surrounding him, and then he turns to the easel and paints. But when he compares his painting with the nature it appears that the landscape has changed. He takes the brush and the colors again, and the things can repeat themselves infinitely. He will never achieve the accurate similarity because of the variability of the object. Bahille behaves himself like that. He looks where the turtle is at the present moment and aspires to this point. Having reached it he sees that the reptile has gone to another point. And it’s up to the infinity. So it’s impossible to overtake the object if you don’t know where it will be in the future and if you behave yourself as if don’t know it.

- It’s just as you say. – I thought about myself and about my life.

- If Ahille has no suggestions of how the turtle will move, he will have to operate according to the algorithm offered in the paradox, and he will never overtake it. Besides, the turtle can move unpredictably in order to disappear in one point and to appear in another one. In this case even if speed of the turtle is insignificant, Bahille cannot catch up with it. He can appear only in those points where it has been before. If the object of the pursuit moves indefinitely, it’s possible to overtake it only by chance.

The most surprising thing is that Bahille doesn’t change the speed according to the algorithm of the pursuit of the turtle. That is for the casual observer the turtle moves quite definitely, and Bahille’s speed slows down to the speed of the reptile. But for the runner himself the movements of the turtle are unpredictable, and its own speed remains the former. From the point of view of the casual observer Ahille’s time began to go more slowly. The analogy with the theory of relativity is obvious. As the speed of the "cosmonaut" comes near to the speed of light his own time is being slowed down.

Let's assume that the movement of the turtle consists of the number of chaotic micro-movements in different directions and with different speeds. However, while summing up they form the movement with constant speed and in the certain direction. The casual observer is not able to distinguish fine and uncertain movements of the turtle. He believes that it moves in regular intervals and straightforwardly. Therefore the observer has no reasons for which it’s impossible to overtake and outrun the reptile. Bahille tries to catch up with the turtle at the micro-level. It’s subtle and unpredictable for him, therefore he can’t overtake it. If one continues the analogy with the special theory of relativity at the macro-level, the speed of light is constant and the direction is definite. Therefore there are no reasons for which it would be impossible to exceed the speed and "to overtake" the ray of light. However, physics consists of the processes occurring at the micro-level. But at the micro-level the movement of the photons of light is unpredictable. Might the speed of material bodies be inaccessible for this reason? Probably, the weight is a measure of certainty. The particles of light with zero weight at rest possess the maximum uncertainty that makes them inaccessible as the turtle is for Bahille.

Let's admit that the material particle radiates constantly other particles which move with a great part of uncertainty and with the speed of light. These radiated particles could play the role of the turtle if the material particle directs to the place where the particle-turtle appears being radiated by it. In this case the radiating particle could not exceed the speed of light.

Let's consider the other paradoxes of Lennon: the Spear, the Dichotomy and the Stage. The moving subject differs from the subject in rest since it requires more place if one do not consider a zero interval of time. The spear will fly some meters for one second therefore it requires more space than the spear in rest. But if one considers only a moment of time, the flying arrow takes as much place as the arrow in rest. Hence, it’s impossible to define the movement of the object in a moment of time. But it’s possible to say the same thing about any moment of time of the flight of the Spear. If one approves that the arrow is dark blue at any moment, it’s possible to say that it’s always dark blue. If the arrow does not possess the properties of the moving object at a moment, it does not move in general. The paradox can be removed only by having established the minimal interval of time.

- You’re quite right.

- Speaking about Dichotomy we realize that it’s necessary to introduce the restriction and the distances, too. Otherwise, in order to move even for a meter we are to realize the infinite number of points. In fact each segment has its middle; each half segment has its middle too, and so on and so forth. Let’s admit that we are able to realize only the final number of points. But whatever great the overall number of the points tending to the infinity may be, the part of the realized points will tend to zero. Hence, we cannot realize the distance in general. The paradox is removed by the introduction of the minimal indivisible length.

If there is an indivisible length and indivisible time there should exist the special speed limit equal to their attitude. Its properties are considered in the paradox the Stage. Let admit that there are some numbers consisting of the objects being away from each other on the minimal indivisible distance. In front of the observer who moves with the speed limit along with the row B relatively to the row A, the objects of the row A occur one after another. As for the speed limit the time between these occurrences will be equal to the minimal indivisible time interval. If the speed of the movement increases, the time between the occurrences of the objects will become less than the time-limit. Hence, the objects of the row A will stop to exist for the objects of the row B, and vice versa. Therefore the speed shouldn’t be greater than the speed limit. Then there is the following paradox. If the row C moves relatively to the row A with the speed limit in the opposite direction, the rows B and C would stop existing for one another but remain existing for the row A. The paradox is removed if one assumes that the speed limit cannot be exceeded and it must be the same for all systems of the countdown.

Thus, the paradoxes of Lennon are paradoxes only if to admit the existence of the infinity in the physical world. If there is no infinity, there are no logic contradictions, too. In order to remove the problem of the infinity one should introduce the minimal indivisible intervals of length and time. And it will reduce to the concept of the maximum speed limit and its constancy for all systems of the countdown. There is the necessity of creating of the mechanism of restriction of the speed for material objects. The radiated particles moving with the speed limit and can hardly serve this purpose. The specified «measures of struggle» with the infinity correspond to the postulates of physics.

While explaining the woman walked up and down the room. She constantly sat down on the sofa and got up from it. Right after her the cat jumped on the warm place. It lied languorously there overturning itself from side to side. Having turned her back to me the woman stopped and said:

- Let me alone. I am tired of being your shadow.

THE PARADOX OF ZENON ABOUT AHILL AND THE SPECIAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY (fragment)

In the article the explanation of Zenon’s paradox about Ahill and is offered to a turtle, without connection with the representation of infinite number of pieces. And the analogy between this paradox and some positions of the special theory of relativity is shown, too.

We shall consider the paradox of Zenon about Ahill and a turtle. Ahill can easily get to the point, where was a turtle, but for this time it will move to another point. So it can proceed infinitely long and Ahill will never catch up a reptile.

The majority of people see in this paradox only an artful focus because the runner will easily catch up and overtake the sluggish rival. It is considered to be an error conclusion about unattainability of a turtle is caused by absence of knowledge of operations with infinitesimal sizes. Thus one can argue as follows: each piece on which Ahill catches up a turtle less than the previous, therefore its length comes to zero, but the sum of these infinitesimal pieces will be equal to any final distance. However we shall consider the last infinitesimal piece on which Ahill should overtake a turtle. As though it would be small, it is necessary to spend certain time for which the turtle all the same will creep any distance for its passage. And so on each piece it will not depend on its length. That is the reference to infinitesimal sizes does not allow to solve the given paradox.

Let's imagine the artist who aspires to draw continuously varying landscape. At first he looks at a landscape surrounding it, then addresses to an easel and embodies the seen. But, when he compares the drawn with the nature, it appears that the landscape has changed. He takes again a brush and a paint in hands and so he can repeat infinitely. He will never achieve the exact similarity because of variability of the object of the image. Ahill behaves in similar way. He looks where there is a turtle at present and aspires to this point. Having reached it he is convinced that the reptile has crept in another point, and so it will be indefinitely. That is impossible to overtake the object if you do not know where he will be in future, or you behave so as if you do not know this.

If Ahill has no no assumptions of how the turtle will move, he will have to act according to the algoritm offered in paradox, and it will never be caught up. Besides, the turtle can really move in an unpredictable way. It can disappear in one point and unexpectedly appear in another. In this case, even if the speed of a turtle will be insignificant, Ahill will not be able to catch up with it. He can appear only in those points where she was before. If the object of prosecution moves vaguely, it is only possible to overtake it casually.

The most surprising is that Ahill, following the given algoritm of prosecution of a turtle, does not change the speed. That is for the detached onlooker the turtle moves quite definitely and the speed of Ahill's movement decreases to the speed of this reptile. But for the runner himself the movement of a turtle is unpredictable, and its own speed remains the former. It is possible to say that from the point of view of the detached onlooker Ahill's time began to go more slowly. The analogy to the theory of a relativity is obvious. The more is the speed of the "cosmonaut" to the speed of light, the less is his own time.

Let's assume that the movement of a turtle consists of a set of chaotic micro-movements in different directions and with different speed. However, summing up, they form the movement with constant speed and in certain direction. The detached onlooker is not able to distinguish fine and uncertain movements of a turtle, he considers, that it moves rectilinearly and in regular intervals. Therefore the observer does not see the reasons for which it is impossible to catch up and overtake a reptile. Ahill tries to catch up with a turtle at a microlevel. For him it is imperceptible and unpredictable, therefore he cannot catch up with it. If one continues the analogy of the special theory of relativity at a macrolevel, the speed of light is constant, and the direction is definite. Therefore we do not see the reasons for which it would be impossible to exceed this speed and to "overtake" a ray of light. But physics is caused by the processes occurring at a microlevel. And the movement of light is unpredictable at a microlevel. Mayby therefore this speed is unattainable for material bodies? Probably the weight is a unit of definiteness, and a particle of light of zero weight at rest possess the maximal uncertainty that makes them inaccessible, as the turtle is inaccessible for Ahill.

The new economic theory and the new theory of cost

Introduction

It is not surprising that the crisis phenomena continue to destroy world economics. The economic science, not possessing the logical and harmonious theory of cost, cannot offer effective measures for struggling against crisis. Moreover, the majority of applied measures only aggravates it. In this article  the new concept of the economic theory and the new theory of cost will be proposed.

The small size of this introduction article does not allow to consider in details the questions mentioned in it, but we will try to specify the main principles of the proposed information economic theory.

Entropy growth as the progress purpose

What can be the main indicator characterising progress and degree of development? We  suppose, that the main indicator of progress is freedom, but freedom in a broad sense which is characterised by  a number of possibilities. The number of possible conditions is characterised by entropy size. Therefore entropy growth  is the aim of evolution.

  The entropy growth is considered to lead to chaos . This erroneous opinion is generated by false analogies with thermodynamic system. But thermodynamic entropy-is very specific. It defines growth of possible conditions of atoms provided that entropy of the whole system does not increase. As a result, growth of thermodynamic entropy leads to that at a considerable quantity of possibilities for atoms, for the system, as a whole,  there is only one condition possible. And it means, that information entropy of the whole system is equal to zero. This condition is called as "thermal (heat) death», and its distinctive feature is not maximum, but zero information entropy of the whole system. Thus, reduction of information entropy which further we will call simply entropy, - is bad, and the entropy increase - is good.

When we analyze entropy, it is necessary to distinguish various levels. System elements can have high entropy, and system - low, just as vice versa. In inorganic nature there is a tendency of increase in entropy on a low level, and entropy reduction at higher level. In a range, this tendency also can lead to heat death of system. But if entropy growth - is the universal aim of progress then during material world evolution  a way to increase entropy  at higher levels should be found.

The origin of life is- the solution of a problem of transferring entropy from lower level  to higher. The behaviour of a living mouse, is much more various and is unpredictable, in comparison with a small group of molecules of which it consists. Change in one molecule which is in nervous system, can lead to change in behaviour of the mouse and as a consequence to changes at macro-level. And now all the surface of the earth, and not only that,  unpredictably changes. Entropy is transferred from micro-level to macro-level due to living beings.

One more "thermodynamic" delusion is that the so called new connections (ties) between elements and new structures obligatory reduce entropy of elements, but this is not so. A modern human being, , coming to his or her working place, functions within the limits and rigid ones, but in exchange he or she receives a lot  of new possibilities, receiving  the payment for work and  free time. Thus, new connections can increase labour productivity that gives additional possibilities and  free time. A savage living in a wood, is constantly occupied by search of food and  his entropy is, much  lower, than that of a  civilised man, despite lacking numerous communications and restrictions.

Besides, new communications and structures can create  new institutes increasing entropy in a society. Each new institute – is a new degree of freedom, for the society as a whole and for the members of that society. Unlike the savage, a modern man can be engaged in art,  science,  politics, sports etc. Thus, new communications in a society increase entropy of a modern person, in comparison with a savage, at the expense of increase in labour productivity and growth of number of social institutes.

Supporters of  full employment at any cost sometimes assert, that the increase in labour productivity leading to unemployment - harms economy. However now, when we have defined the main criterion of progress, the inaccuracy of this statement is obvious. And hence the necessity to increase the number of institutes in a society for the increase of entropy and  further progress – is the conclusion not so obvious, but true.

The higher entropy of a system, the higher its adaptation to external conditions, and higher its resistance to threats of the environment. During disasters or military threats the  society unites. It is possible to say, that members of a society transfer the entropy to the state,  losing entropy themselves and becoming only  obedient performers. Further entropy can be transferred to the opposite direction - from the society to its members. 

This process of transfer of entropy from one level to another, often, has cyclic character. First the entropy of the community increases, at the expense of reduction of possibilities of its members, and then vice versa,  the cycle again repeats. Thus, the community eliminates external problems and satisfies requirement of the members for increase in personal entropy. But if the given group of people copes with all external threats only personal entropy will increase , and entropy of community will steadily decrease.It will decrease to such extent, that it cannot resist to new, unexpected threat.  Many civilisations were ruined in such a way.

And the last, that would be desirable to say about entropy in this small article. Entropy – is the growth of possibilities, and, hence, a necessary condition for the development. Besides, entropy – is at the same time the goal and purpose of the development. Hence, the big entropy leads still to greater  entropy increase. This is the explanation of the exponential  character of the development of mankind.

The cost theory

Now let us consider the cost theory. Imagine a person in droughty place. The more he is thirsty the  less is probability  that he will be engaged in something except water search, and his entropy will decrease. Having received water, the person will increase the entropy to initial level or above it, and this increase in entropy will be more the more desire he had had before that. Thus, cost is – the quantity of increase in entropy. The greater  expected increase of  the entropy, caused by goods gain, the greater is its cost.

The more the person wishes something, the less his entropy is, and  it increases  much greater, when the person receives the desired.

Drawing 1

Now imagine an exchange of water for bread. One person has wanted water, and another - bread. As a result of an exchange both of them increase their entropy. Thus, the result of a fair exchange - growth of entropy of all participants of the transaction. Hence, an exchange - a way to increase entropy. And entropy as we remember, - an embodiment of the general blessing. There is much more sense in it, than in existing theories of cost according to which people exchange, with something equal, say,  value, work expenses, etc. What for to exchange anything equal?!

Standard display of process of an exchange is the supply and demand schedule. And though it is a question of sale and purchase,  as a matter of fact it is an exchange. It is considered, that an ideal point of the market is the point of the balance, being at the point of intersection of a supply and demand. But what does this point mean? It means, that the seller would not begin to sell  cheaper, and the buyer-buy more expensively. Practically, it is a point of the least satisfaction from the transaction which receives both the seller, and the buyer. It is a point of the least entropy which is received by participants of the transaction. As a matter of fact, a balance point - the worst point of the market.

Drawing 2

In the process of formation, the market moves to the point of balance below a line of demand and above an offer line, at this time both buyers and sellers are satisfied  to a greater extent, than in a balance point. But if it is not the monopoly the market will tend to a balance point all the time, that is  it will spoil in due course. Therefore the greatest entropy is generated by the young, dynamical markets. And the old markets which have already been in a point of balance, - generate the minimum volume of entropy and, as a matter of fact, are problematic. 

Business cycles

The most stunning feature of entropy is that it should be reduced before being increased. It is possible to consider an investment as analogue of this process. Before receiving any sum, it is necessary to spend the smaller sum. And the bigger sum we invest, the bigger profit we may expect. The Same concerns  entropy. Before reaching something, that will give us  greater freedom and  greater entropy, it is necessary to sacrifice  freedom for some time. For example, in order to have the possibility to travel on water, it is necessary to construct a boat. During its construction, your entropy will reduce. To get food and to become free from it,  it is necessary to work as well, having reduced freedom and entropy etc.

Drawing 3

This schedule is similar to drawing 1. Cyclic character is the basic feature of increase of entropy. As a matter of fact, it is a unique way of increase of entropy at macro-level.

Thus, if you wish to increase entropy, you should reduce it. If the society does not presume considerable decrease in entropy then the subsequent growth will be insignificant. Therefore more developed economics  have more  possibilities for  further development. Money goe - to money.

It is impossible to increase  entropy gradually, therefore the attempts  to completely smooth business cycles - are harmful. The state during recession does not need to try to keep gross national product in the former volume, stimulating demand. It is necessary to "permit" recession, but thus not to admit export of resources and destruction of institutes because both resources, and institutes are necessary for the subsequent growth.  

Money

If at first one participant of the market has sold the goods to other participant, and then ,  bought something with the obtained money it is possible to consider the transaction equivalent to an exchange. But long time can pass between reception of money and acquisition  of any goods with it, and consumer ability of money can change. As a result the person will not receive  those goods  which he counted on. The possibility of such situation, is the basic problem of monetary circulation.

If to consider this situation in  terms of  the model of a simple exchange it will look so, as if having agreed on an exchange, one participant would satisfy the stipulated conditions, and another – would not. It will lead to redistribution of riches and to collapse of economic relations. Use of money, in modern conditions, without the due control will easily lead to similar situations. And namely this has led to modern crisis. And "deceit" is aggravated by that they try to solve a problem in the same way which  has  led to this problem.

In order not to be "deceived" in expectations  one should receive something in exchange. In  example it looks as: the person works, expecting to buy the car and the house, but inflation "eats" this money. If he cannot buy the car he should allow himself to buy something else that will allow him to receive  freedom and entropy not smaller than before. New values are necessary.

The conclusion

We suggest to study economic processes, studying change of entropy of economic systems at various levels. We consider, that the purpose of evolution of any system including entropy growth is economic. At microlevel such growth is provided by  laws of physics, at macrolevel  by- activity of living beings and activity of various groups of living beings, and in the sphere  of spiritual development - personal entropy increases  due to reduction of passions and desires.

P.S. Translated from Russian. I will consider a proposal from publishers and magazines.
andreyshvets@mail.ru