Sunday, July 29, 2007

Daily Life or The Way The World Goes

Some days ago i had to visit the bathroom of very good friends of mine...

and there happened what sometimes happens – little yellow spots on the floor and i instinctively thought: “What a slut!” Of course, i immediately apologized to her, even though it occurred only inside my head...

but you know: actions depend on decisions, decisions depend on description – our actions and decisions are based on our description of the world outside. What we think determines what we do. So, since i respect that woman, i could never allow myself to think like that, especially because i know that she wasn’t the “causer”. And before i could say “Jack Robinson”, i was pondering about the spots, the right to produce ugly things, the duty to clear them away, Mr. Bush and the Iraq War,the meaning of life and the way, the world goes...

i always do that. I even mulled over the Major and the Minor Arcades and came to the conclusion that the latter must be much younger than the first. Anyway...

of course, i remembered the fierce struggle about toilet seats and the first time i heard of it and that i simply thought: “ridiculous”...


“ridiculous” – especially the women, of course...

because in that struggle they are the losers, the ones who react with outrage...

while the winners scoff at them...

yes, that’s it and i guess, everyone knows that. It is not about sitting or standing, it is not about “the pride of man” and the “nagging wife”...

it is about Mr. Bush mocking the begging death-row inmate...

it is about power creating contempt, about dominance and humiliation, about masters and slaves...

i’ve heard that the French Aristocracy dropped their biological waste also wherever and whenever they wanted. It’s all about the rights without the duties, the right to produce ugly things while others have the duty to clear them away...

even at the core of society, the family, the parents, there has to be a master and a slave...

that is what the toilet seats are all about – and be honest, my dear males, it is not your “freedom” you defend, you do not fear the “dominance” of the women by demanding to “mark your territory” however you want. They just reject the humiliation of duties without rights, they just defend themselves using the principle of reversibility, because (again, be honest, my dear males) if the women would do the ugly things, YOU would never clear them away, wouldn’t you?

And so i shook my head in despair…

to survive, humankind has to learn to live democratically, to reach the state of justice as the optimum for efficiency, because since we act as a whole to kill our Earth, we simply have to act as a whole to learn to safeguard our natural resources. It is all about the fact, that each information processing system, be it cell or society, has an apex of intelligence, a level, where further increase of intelligence would no longer be “economical”, no longer results in a sufficient increase of “profit” = improvement of prognosis and decisions (Gain cost function of intelligence). Our brains, our individual “systems” reached that point once – and invented language to overcome it, showing the way the world goes – towards dense communication among brains, among individuals to create a stable network.

But in a physical world of conservation of energy, resource awareness is a Must to survive, which means, that information processing systems have to care for efficiency, for “load-balancing” of the network of interactions.

For humankind – that simply means: justice.

I know, there is only a small probability, that you can accept this fact: justice as a physical state of a dynamical, interacting system marking the state of the highest efficiency.

But i guess, you may believe the stock market?

Just think of the conclusions of justice as the optimum of efficiency: What does that mean, what happens, when a system moves towards or away from the optimum? What happens with more justice or less justice (given the same resources)? More justice leads to more effectivity, less justice leads to less effectivity. That’s it.

And we, in our “pseudo-democracies”, reached a state where the loss of justice is already so remarkable, that the loss of effectivity becomes...


measurable at the stock market level:

Employee Satisfaction and Equity Prices

and it goes on...

Distrust – The Hidden Cost of Control

Work Life Balance, and Productivity

Labor Unrest and the Quality of Production

Strikes, Scabs and Tread Separation

Sure, these studies are fare more sophisticated and scientific than just: “increase of justice => increase of effectivity”…

but i guess, you’ll see what i mean.

We urgently have to overcome the power games in our lifes, because how can we live in democracies without all those Mr. Bushs mocking about others begging for mercies, be it death-row inmates, mothers of KIA soldiers or Iraqi children, if we aren’t even able to live in democracy as parents, as husbands and wives?

Husbands and wives – do you know, that the Afghans not even have a word for “wive”? AFAIK they call them “possession”…

how should people like that be able to reach a state of more dense communications? When half of the population treats the other like goods, not souls? Do you really believe, that masters will ever listen to slaves? No, you don’t – and me too. That’s the reason why i think that the next step of evolution (towards a more dense communication, a more intertwined network of intelligent individuals, creating a body out of disparate parts) will not be done by humankind, but maybe by the successors of the crows.

How should the future look for a species, where the dominant part claims to base his dominance on his ability to dispose his biological waste however he wants? Waste as basis of manly pride? Wouldn’t that mean that every boy’s dream would be to become a garbage man?

Or is it about the “causer” of the waste – the duality of the reproduction organ? So is it about telling the women, that they themselves decide what to do with their body – and never care about the wishes of the women – neither in reproduction nor in hygiene? Wouldn’t that shed an interesting light on the discussion about abortion, where the men also claim to have the right to decide and the women as the “working body” only have the duties? Wouldn’t that shed an interesting light on societies with forced marriages and laws, where rape is the right of the husband upon his wife?

All about power, about masters and slaves…

even at the heart of our lifes, where fathers and mothers, where love and respect should be…

Ask and Embla, Philemon and Baucis…

just a fairy tale of synergy?

Husband and wifes – only rapers and toilet attendants?

how should we be able to survive when our world goes like that?

And so i shake my head in despair...

Sunday, July 22, 2007

Varus – Or: To Each Rome Its Own Teutoburg

If you know Rome, you know the name “Varus” and the “Germanic Tribes”, signifying the end of Rome, and you certainly know the famous words “Quinctili Vare, legiones redde!”. You know the “Battle of Teutoburg Forest” and maybe “Kalkriese”, but do you know “Waldgirmes”?

“Waldgirmes” is the modern name of a Roman “starting city”, abandoned after the disaster in Teutoburg.

After Teutoburg, anything was different for Rome. History was changed:

Roman Empire:
”Being cautious, Augustus secured all territories west of Rhine and contented himself with retaliatory raids. The rivers Rhine and Danube became the permanent borders of the Roman empire in the North.”

Battle of the Teutoburg Forest:
”The battle abruptly ended the period of triumphant and exuberant Roman expansion that had followed the end of the Civil Wars 40 years earlier. Augustus' stepson Tiberius took effective control, and prepared for the continuation of the war. Rome gradually slid into a period of tyranny and oppression lasting much of the rest of the first century.”

Each Empire, like each other Schoolyard Bully, needs the Smell of Death around it, needs the fear instilled even by its name, needs the aura of invincibility – and exactly that Arminius took away. It wasn’t only the fact, that the other people noticed that Rome was defeatable...

Publius Quinctilius Varus:
”So great was the shame, and the ill luck thought to adhere to the numbers of the Legions, that XVII, XVIII and XIX never again appear in the Roman Army's order of battle.”

Rome never forgot Teutoburg and the “Bello Variano” – never was able again to believe its own fairy tale of invincibility.

Teutoburg taught the Romans, that no one ever can forever create an Empire based on believings. And don’t think that Varus was an idiot – he just has to pay the price for ignorance, because ignorance is not always a bliss. Empires are based on power and power is based on control, but to control systems, intelligence and knowledge is much more important than force.

Rome did know that – Rome perfectly, maybe intuitively knew, that brute force isn’t a tool for politics, isn’t a working strategy for society, because you always don’t have to control the direct impact but the consequences, and the consequences of the consequences and the....

and the more force you push into a system, the more interactions and consequences you have to control. To get in power, brute force might work – as long as destruction is your goal, the destruction of the power of the "enemy", but to stay in power, destruction is only counterproductive, because the destruction might easily be the destruction of YOUR power. Remember Croesus, Pythia and the river Halys?

Enters “Waldgirmes”...

The starting city, proving “Phase II”. After the conquest and suppression of the “new land” by brute force and overwhelming destruction, the “redevelopment plan” comes into focus. And this simply means: Build “Second Romes” everywhere, buy the people with luxury and goods and marketplaces, while demanding taxes and compensation for all the fine things – and especially demanding obeisance and slavish obedience.

You surely know “Life of Brian”? Remember the “What have the Romans ever done for us?” sketch?

Doesn’t that sound very familiar? Very modern?

First kill, than cash?

Doesn’t remind you “Waldgirmes” of the plans to get the Iraq oil? First maim their children, then buy their souls with the American Way of Life?

Doesn’t that shed a new light on the comparisons of America with Rome? Rome as “role model” for the “PNAC”...

But for each Rome there is an Arminius – because the more power, the more to control and after a while it is impossible to know enough to control the system, so you become dependent...

dependent on your underlings...

dependent on their input...

Varus wasn’t an idiot, he just couldn’t learn everything about the new provinces he had to “civilize”. He had successfully subdued Syria and so got order to do the same with Provincia Germania. And he did his job, but never had the time to get to know the country and its people...

and he never learnt the language, the portal to the soul...

(reminds you also of Iraq?)

so he simply was dependent on someone who speaks the language and knows the culture...

as the Americans now need today...

and – think of the stories of “Mash” – needed translators and fraternizers since quite a while.

You see what i think? I think that Vietnam is the American Teutoburg, because it was the first time, America suffered “great shame” and for a while, power seemed to have lost its “power”.

But i guess the men of PNAC understood clearly, that invincibility is the foundation of an Empire – and that Augustinus acceptance of the fact, that Provincia Germania couldn’t be annexed by the Roman Way of Life, was the beginning of the end.

Battle of the Teutoburg Forest:
”Augustus' stepson Tiberius took effective control, and prepared for the continuation of the war. Rome gradually slid into a period of tyranny and oppression lasting much of the rest of the first century.”

I guess, Iraq might have had to serve a dual purpose: not only to make somebody money, but to get back invincibility.

But the men of PNAC forgot something very important – the belief in your invincibility cannot be restored by killing more human souls, the knowledge of the defeat will always be stronger.

So i guess, the men of PNAC will maybe learn, what Augustus had gained from cautiousness:


Time to recover, time to conquer others, time to stay in power – because Augustus knew that Rome could never stand a second Teutoburg.

And looking at the Green Zone, i guess, the men of PNAC now learn, how wise Augustus was.

Sunday, July 15, 2007

Who needs terrorists with…?

Who needs terrorists with leaders like…

Mr. Schäuble.

Do you know Mr. Schäuble? Probably not. Do you know the German famous magazine “Der Spiegel”? Maybe not.

”Spiegel #28/07, ‚Der Preis der Angst’, p. 25:
Der Rechtsstaat, so kann man den Innenminister verstehen, funktioniert nicht mehr…
Dann muss der Rechtsstaat eben dran glauben.
(The Rechtsstaat doesn’t work anymore, the Secretary of Interior can be understood....Therefore the Rechtsstaat has to bite the dust.)”

Rechtsstaat – do you know, what “Rechtsstaat” means?

The Principle of Constitutional State

I. The Principle of constitutional state includes and grants the following aspects:

The Federal Republic of Germany is a "Rechtsstaat". But what is a Rechtsstaat ? The Idea of Rechtsstaat is not new. Already in the 19th century basic elements of a Rechtsstaat were invented as the division of powers, legality of administration and the possibility for everybody to go to a court to claim his rights. But this only was a kind of formal Rechtsstaat. The recent history of Germany has shown, that these provisions aren´t enough to provide justice.

Even the Nazi-Government kept these formal provisions. But it was possible at this time to make a law, to be applied by the institutions of the formal Rechtsstaat which was unjust.

The Grundgesetz strengthened the Rechtsstaat by adding substantial, material contents to the constitution. As it was possible in former times to adjust the fundamental rights by the law, now its only possible to adjust the law to the fundamental rights. As Art. 1 III demands: The following basic rights shall bind the legislature, the executive and the judiciary as direct enforcable law.

After this provision all important decisions of the state need a basis on a statute that has to be legal under the provisions of the Rechtsstaat and the fundamental rights. In particular the Rechtsstaatsprinzip contains the following principles:

· Division of powers

· Hierarchy of laws

· Primacy of codified law (Vorrang des Gesetzes)

· Provision of legality (Vorbehalt des Gesetzes) - Theory of importance

· Principle of propotionality

· Prohibition of retroactive law - protection of confidence

· Principle of exactly defined law

· Guaranteed legal recourse (Art. 19 IV)

· Independence of judges (Art. 97)

· no one may be removed from the jurisdiction of his lawful judge (Art. 101 I 2)

· Existance of the Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht)

· Existance of the Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht)

· Existance of the Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht)

· immediate validity of fundamental rights for all state institutions

II. Impact of the Rechtsstaatsprinzip on the German Law

The Rechtsstaatsprinzip is the one principle with the most important impact on almost every field of law. Not only statutes have to be proved by the Rechtsstaatsprinzip, also administrative decisions and actions as well as court decisions.

To show the importance two very basic impacts will be shown now:

1. The possibility for everyone to go to the constitutional court

One very important impact of the Rechtsstaatsprinzip is everybodies possibility to go to the constitutional court to claim for his constitutional rights. If this opportunity would not be given, the Rechtsstaatsprinzip could not take any effect on the law. If the state would act in a way that does not respect the Rechtsstaatsprinzip and nobody could file an action against it, the state could go on acting in this unjust way without any consequences.

To avoid this and to make the state respect justice, the Grundgesetz provides actions against any kind of constitutional offences. In Art. 93 not only the peoples right to file an action is regulated (Art. 93 I No. 4a). The right to file an action is also given to state institutions with own subjective rights that could not be filed by individuals. E.g. in No. 1 highest Federal Institutions like the Parliament or the government can file an action if they have doubts about the interpretation of the constitution by one of the other federal institutions (E.g. a parliamentary group in the opposition can file an action against a law launched by the majority - of course this forces the Constitutional Court very often to decide political questions; so a decision is not made by over 600 MPs but by 8 Members of the Constitutional Court This fact isoften critizised). In No. 2 the Länder can file an action if there is a disagreement between them and the Federation. In No. 4b also local communities get a right to file.

All kinds of offences against the constition can be checked by the Constitutional Court. Not only offences against basic rights but also offences against the other fundamental principles of the state.

2. The Principle of proportionality

One very important element of the principle of constitional state is the principle of proportionality

All statutes, all adminstrative actions have at least to be proportional. The principle often is the last anchor to protect a right. To point that out: Fundamental rights can legally be limited by a law. Even the Constitution provides this opportunity. (E.g. Art. 8 regulates: All Germans have the right to assemble peacefully and unarmed without prior notification or permission. In the case of outdoor assemblies this right may be restricted by or pursuant to a law.)

After this article the state may restrict the right of outdoor assemblies by a statute, or if there already is this statute the administration e.g. the police can perform particular means at any assembly which offends this law. However neither the law nor the particular means of the administration may offend the Principle of Proportionality. This principle demands that the purpose of the statute or the action has to be fulfilled by an appropriate, necessary and adequate law or action.

This means that a restriction shall only go that far as necessary, not further.

E.g. if there is an outdoor assembly the state could have several means to avoid riots. It could prohibit the whole assembly. This is a appropriate means as it will surely take effect. But is this the only way to avoid riots ? If there is any other action imaginable which could reach this aim as good as a prohibition but which does not totally restrict the right of assembly a prohibition would not be necessesary.

In this particular case one could also think about a restriction to the place where the assebly can meet. If there is a place where riots can easily be controlled it is not necessary to prohibit the whole assembly. It wouls be sufficient to allow the assemply under the condition that ithas to take place at a less dangeraous place (E.g. a demontration of Kurds was replaced by the local authorites of Bonn from the city centre on a saturday to the opposite side of the Rhine)

But at least this less restricting means has also to be adequate. That means that after a comparison of the disadvantages on both sides, the restriction means must not be less important than the restricted right of the assembly.

This principle is to be applied on all law, on all statutes, on all ordninances and of course on all judgements.

(At the moment, the link is not reachable “due to the flooding which occurred in Hull and across Yorkshire on Monday 25 June.”)

”Spiegel #28/07, ‚Der Preis der Angst’, p. 27:
Mit den Kollegen bespricht der Innenminister seinen Plan, das Verfassungsgericht auszuhebeln.
(With other foreign ministers the Secretary of Interior will dicuss his plot to disempower the Constitutional Court)”

Against the Constitutional Court, against the Rechtsstaat...

Germany’s own Secretary of Interior openly and overtly declares the Rechtsstaat as too weak – so conclusion? He is against the Rechtsstaat...

And he is in “good” company: Google search “gegen den Rechtsstaat” (against the Rechtsstaat) shows Schäuble and the RAF (and Jörg Haida, btw)...

i guess, you don’t know the RAF – it was the German terrorist group fiercly fought by Germany in the 80s...

and now, Germany allows her leadership to do exactly the same as the RAF...

and worse...

because you certainly know these famous words:

”‚Nuremberg Diary’, Gilbert, G.M., New York: Farrar, Straus and Company, 1947 (pp. 278-279):

"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."

"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."

"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."”

It works the same way in any country, even in Germany...

and it starts with?

All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked”...

Remember? “The recent history of Germany has shown, that these provisions aren´t enough to provide justice” – that exactly was the reason for Germany’s “Grundgesetz [to] strengthen[ed] the Rechtsstaat”.

Each and everyone who attacks the Rechtsstaat goes the way of Hitler, because the Rechtsstaat was invented to protect the country against having to suffer the same fate as Nazi-Germany.

How could that have changed?

20 years ago Germany fought the RAF strictly inside the rules of the Rechtsstaat – and as it turned out, it was the only way to go. Germany got rid off the RAF without paying the price of appointing copies of the RAF as government.

What has changed?

The RAF was much more “effective” than Al-Qaeda, at least regarding Germany, and actually, as the “usual deaths” on our streets show, much less effective than cars and trucks – but the RAF couldn’t convince Germany to betray the Rechtsstaats.

There are two things different to the 80s:

America and the Secretary of Interior.

The first changed from a country, where war was not “biz as usual” to a country, where anything goes with the battle cry of “being attacked” (sounds familiar?)

And America is more than just a country for Germany, she is even more than just a friend – she is the “substitute id” of Germany. While Germany allowed Hitler to change history, America always stood tall against the evil, always defended democracy, always respected the human dignity of the individual as the best protection against dictatorship and (yes!) suffering, so it was much easier to deny the own identity and to copy the White Knight, which works fine...

as long as the Knight remained White...

And the second? The Secretary of Interior?

Wolfgang Schäuble:
"On 12 October 1990, Schäuble was the target of an assassination attempt by 32-year-old Dieter Kaufmann, who took the Smith and Wesson of his father and fired three shots at Schäuble after an election campaign event in Oppenau, injuring a bodyguard and Schäuble's backbone and brain severely. Schäuble has been paralysed and confined to a wheelchair ever since.”

Now, think of everything he says and does again.

“War and peace can hardly be distinguished”, “be able to use military means in extreme situations” and especially his urge to control and monitor everything, to look into private lives and computers...

is easily to understand, when you know “Dieter Kaufmann”, isn’t it?

The man is a VICTIM!

Out of a crowd of faceless people there came a shot – and crippled him for life.

His brain will never forget that, will never forget that he could walk and jump and go everywhere he wants until an evil guy destroyed his life – until Dieter Kaufmann.

His brain will never forget the harmless people around him – not able to protect him against Dieter Kaufmann.

His brain will never forget the bodyguards and policemen around him - not able to protect him against Dieter Kaufmann.

His brain will never forget the judges of Dieter Kaufmann – not able to give back his health.

No, of course he wants to avoid anything like that happen once more – he is a VICTIM and i guess, each and every psychotherapist knows the impact of a trauma like that on a human mind.

But why do the Germans follow? They live in peace since decades, they live in a country with one of the highest life expectancies, where the children can go to school and women can walk at night (mostly) without fear.

Decadence of pampered people?

That’s why they risk freedom, family, finances and future? They know about the destiny of people in nations without democracy and law – remember Russia? Remember China? And especially Hitler-Land?

No one should know the price for betraying democracy better than Germany.

”Spiegel #28/07, ‚Der Preis der Angst’, p. 24:
‚Wenn wir erkannt haben, dass jemand an die Wurzel des Gemeinwesens will’, sagt Schäuble, „dann können wir das doch nicht sehenden Auges hinnehmen.’.
(‚When we see, that someone is attacking the roots of the society, we cannot accept this with open eyes’, says Schäuble.)”

Sir, Yes, Sir!

But for me, the root of our society is democracy, is the respect for the individual, the search for the common good, for freedom and human dignity, all represented and protected only and solely by the Rechtsstaat...

and that, Sir, does not go with Big Brother and killing innocents for protection of innocents”. The “relativity of human dignity” (p. 28), you long for so much (i guess, because you wish, Dieter Kaufmann would have been killed before he could have shot)...

... is nothing else than a "rating" of life - understandable regarding self-preservation, but rating means rating ...

in Life worthy of Life and Life unworthy of Life - and that we know, don't we? Is nothing else than Hitlers attitude towards “untermenschen”.

Nothing else, Mr. Schäuble.

You should know better. Germany should know better.

Btw: For everyone interested in Riverbend – seems she is still alive and healthy and if my wishes could change things...

Yes, guys, that’s the fate of Nobodies, of people like you and me and Riverbend in countries without democracy, without a Rechtsstaat.

Do you really want THAT?


Long Live the Rechtsstaat! Long Live Democracy!

Sunday, July 08, 2007


Steven of the Last Chance Democracy Cafe wrote a story about Heaven – a heaven which sounds more like Disney World than anything else.

That reminded me of the old pan-european tale of Cockaigne, especially in the version of Ludwig Bechstein: “A country where water is wine and the houses made of sausages and roast pork, the fishes are already fried and come when called, just as the birds and young pigs do – that is Schlauraffenland”.

Ok, Stevens world was a little less food-focused, but i guess, that’s only because in our days hunger is not the worst problem for the average person.

And Steven doesn’t mention the next “fine” thing in Schlauraffenland: “Men can exchange their old wives for younger ones and the old wives can bath in the fountain of youth. Losers and lazybones win and get money for sleeping and liars are highly respected. And to be a professor, you have to be a greedy boor.”

Doesn’t that remind you of something?

Then the most interesting – and realistic part of the version of Bechstein: “The ones who are hardworking, do good and avoid evil, will never have friends in Schlauraffenland and will be thrown out, while the incompetent and arrogant are respected as noblemen. The one who lacks any skills becomes a duke, but only the laziest and most unqualified will become king.”

Ah, yes – nowadays we don’t have kings, but presidents...

Like the Bechstein version, Stevens’ heaven is something, rich people already can have: nice houses, good food and fine weather, consumer’s paradises, which doesn’t care for decency or honesty, but just for...


but honestly: rich people's world here on Earth - is truly our heaven?

(Update: Of course, Steven's true heaven looked different)

Sunday, July 01, 2007


Recently i was asked about the meaning of c2 in the famous equation: E = mc2. How could it be, that the maximum speed could be squared?

First of all – squares don’t change the origins, so it it actually doesn’t matter if the square is about a maximum or less. The interesting question therefore was the meaning of the square of speed.

And actually, the meaning of “meaning”. But regarding information, meaning is only something like the “amount of information”, we have about something of interest, because we understand something, we know its “meaning”, when we know its states and behaviors. We know, what a “tree” means, because we know how it looks and how it expands biosphere by offering some “extra space” for life, how it reacts on wind and storm: All that is told us by the simple word “tree”, is its “meaning”. Meaning gives us the ability to “reproduce” situations and processes, to trace the steps of the object of our interest and to foresee its actions and changes.

So the real question was, what the square of speed means. Looking at the “components” of speed, way and time, the question seems to be, what square of way and square of time means. Square of way is an area, but what is square of time?

Regarding the universality of time, i used the ansatz that the “time vector” cannot change direction, simply because the “direction” of change is the before-after-direction. Each and every change in each and every thinkable and unthinkable dimension will have only that simple direction: initial state -> end state.

So i looked at multiplications of vectors and decided to use the scalar product with cos(0) = 1. Then the question seems to be reduced to the question, what areas over time could mean and concluded that it means something like the speed of areas.

But honestly, i am not very happy about that reduction of the square of time, because that would mean something like t2 = t, which is only correct in case, t would be something like a “normal” dimension, which sounds a little weird. Then there is the fact, that change is only something like “differential time”: change creates time, but it creates it differently, regarding the “velocity” of the system. Think of GPS systems which have to consider relativity’s time dilatation.

When i argue with change, i would have to prove, that the differential can define an integral, which follows the laws of vector multiplication – and then i should have to show, why i use the scalar product in case of time and the vector product in case of the way. Oh, it is not that i wouldn’t have an idea where to start. Remember the definition of information? It describes the requirements for change to be representable by mathematical formulas: elements of change/transformations for a system/quality/eigenschaft, which do not only change the state of the observed "thing", but do it repeatably and coherently – therefore creating a mathematical group and functions on the set of values/states of the observed thing. In that case, each progress, each behavior of that observed thing is a series of changes with a well defined “time’s arrow”. Alas, i haven’t much of an idea how to continue. Would it make sense to link the change directly to physical action, which is always the reason for each and every change in universe, which then may lead to some quantification of time according to Planck’s constant? Then add some pinch of Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle and cook it on low flame until it is a continuous set of transformations with some symmetries, so that it satisfies the requirements of Noether’s Theorem? Then, maybe, “time’s arrow” would take the form of a vector...

Or not...

But the conclusion – regarding E = mc2, which is a proven correlation – is something like the maximum transportability of change of extendend objects (objects with surfaces), related to c as maximum transportability of change (speed of action) for massless (zero-dimensional?) objects, which could mean, that both the transportability of change of the “idealized” object, represented by its “center” and the protection of the coherence of the system, therefore the transportability of change for each subsystem under condition of conservation of the inner cohesion have to be considered (even with v = 0!)

Despite the fact, that this conclusion is based on the scalar product of a “time vector”, there seems to be some sense in that conclusion, because it would even give a hint, why our universe has just three continual and reversible dimensions – because it allows objects, described by only two parameters: center and surface, which is in case of balls center and radius. But that is also just an analogy from the two-body-problem.

Alas, those interesting conclusions depend on a very doubtful step – the reduction of the square of time. So question remains: what about t2?