Introduction to the treatise

        Man and the Pauli exclusion principle.







Fundamentally the treatise Man and the Pauli exclusion principle finds three things:


I.              that man is subject to the laws of classical physics

II.            that man is subject to the laws of quantum physics and

III.           that conscious life is a consequence of man obeying the Pauli exclusion principle.


The treatise is based on facts. Thus there is no doubt that we as human beings are subject to the laws of classical physics (depicted as I in the drawing above); gravity may serve as an example. Also there is no doubt that the design (anatomy) of our nervous system coincides with the quantum mechanical description of an elementary particles choice between two options (II in the drawing). And finally there is no doubt, that we are equipped with a front and a back, which characterizes individuals (animals) with the property of consciousness, which according to the treatise is a direct consequence of so called ortho composition of TWO, that is a composition of TWO with the same direction of time (III in the drawing above). The meaning of the concepts ONE and TWO will be made clear in the treatise. Here I remind you that according to the subject of physics fundamentally there are two building blocks in this world, elementary particles (fermions) and their antiparticles. Consequently by picturing man as an ortho composition of these TWO I for one thing ascribe to man everything, which can be ascribed, for another break decisively with the subject of physics, but – and that is the point of the treatise – not with the laws of nature.   



The treatise´ form and content has been determined by the treatise´ project, which is to see man as a consequence of the laws of nature. Nobody should blame me for doing this by so simple means that my part may remind you of the child’s part in the fairytale of The Emperors New Clothes. Having said that it has been crucial for me to give The Academic Council (The Faculty of Medicine, University of Copenhagen) one chance to oppose, but the members of the Council chose to use the emergency exit or cat flap, with which the University of Copenhagen by virtue of The Notice of Treatise has equipped itself. This did not come unexpectedly, for new ways of picturing the world (changes of paradigm) will be met with opposition from many of those, who are more or less rooted in the old. As already pointed out the Council could hardly claim the opposite of the treatise, as it is common knowledge, that we as human beings are not raised above the laws of nature, on the contrary. I now quote (in my translation) The Councils ruling:


”The Faculty´s Research-strategic Committee´s Executive Committee (FFUF) has treated Aage Bergholt’s treatise, a monograph with the title: “Man and the Pauli exclusion principles” (note that this is not an error of mine; The Committee is manifestly of the opinion that there are several exclusion principles of Pauli) and hereby recommend, that The Academic Council rejects the treatise referring to The Notice of Treatise´ §4, subsection 2, no, 1. According to this announcement the Faculty can refrain from assessing a submitted treatise if it taking the treatise´ form or content into consideration is evident that the doctor’s degree cannot be conferred.

    FFUF has estimated, that the treatise does not reflect the academic level, which is required of a treatise. Neither form nor content live up to the basic requirements of science or other health scientific requirements - and it is difficult to see the health scientific relevance.” (End of quotation)


The treatise explains, what a human being is, what consciousness is and what evolution is, - from a scientific point of view. As to form and content the treatise by virtue of the choice of the physicist P.A.M. Dirac as source stands on rocky ground. The Committee’s “judgement” therefore is not only untrue, but appears completely unsubstantiated which off course can only rebound on the Committee itself. I shall deplore that science, which really does make a difference – now as before – immediately seems to be more about power than about truth.

    Readers with knowledge of scientific documentation will know, that scientific theories cannot be proved only falsified. Meaning that a theory lives on until it one day is shown defective (falcified) and if possible replaced by a new and better theory. The drawing with the quadratic boxes above represents three consecutive scientific schemes of things (scientific ways of picturing the world). Thus at the end of the 19th century many physicists were of the opinion that they were close as to the completion of their subject’s project. But then Max Planck observed that heat radiation was emitted discontinuously whereupon Niels Bohr in 1913 as one the first realized that the new could not be contained within the framework of the old, the theory of classical physics (I). A whole new scheme of things was needed (II), the consequences of which could not immediately be foreseen. But by definition that is the way it always is when an old way of picturing the world is replaced by a new one. And as explained in my treatise this is exactly the situation at which we have arrived, again! The reason being that conscious life (III) simply cannot be “treated” within the subject of physics.




I ask: what should The Faculty´s Research-strategic Committee’s Executive Committee have done, as a minimum?


Requirement no. 1:

The following has been clipped from the treatise’ Abstract: “The laws of nature are tied to phenomena, not to specific objects. Gravity may serve as an example, as it is tied to the phenomenon of mass and act on any object with that property, no matter whether the object is the Sun, the Earth, a stone or a human being!

    The treatise “Man and the Pauli exclusion principle” focuses on the phenomenon of choice of motion. The fact that the laws of nature as stated are universal and do not respect subject boundaries means, that the phenomenon of choice of motion is subjected to the same quantum mechanical natural laws and principles, no matter whether the choice of motion takes place in an elementary particle (fermion) or in a human being.”

    It should be clear, that The Faculty’s Research-strategic Committee’s Executive Committee’s task was to find one example, which beyond any doubt showed, that the described way of thinking must be rejected. Had they been able to do that, the treatise would have fallen. … But there are of course not two different forces of gravity, i.e. one pulling at a stone and another at “little mother” (the phrase taken from a danish stageplay), but on the contrary one and only one force of gravity, as the laws of nature as stated are universal and do not respect subject boundaries. This also applies to for example the electro-magnetic laws and obviously also to the law, which describes choice of movement.



Requirement no. 2:

From the treatise it also appears that The Faculty’s Research-strategic Committee’s Executive Committee was faced with the task of showing the presence of consciousness in an individual, who did not have a front (belly) and a back. The reason being that consciousness does indeed presuppose ortho composition of TWO, that is a composition of TWO with the same direction of time, from past (back) to future (front / belly), as the direction of time must be assumed to be defined as early as at the time of conception. But neither in this instance was FFUF able to live up to the minimum requirement of delivering one counter example, that is to point out an individual with consciousness but without a front and a back, which as stated is a consequence of ortho composition.

    The Faculty’s Research-strategic Committee’s Executive Committee has not delivered and its members are therefore faced with considering resemblances between species, which are not closely related, but in possession of consciousness.

… Problematizing the obvious may perhaps contribute to the Committess’s understanding, the obvious being, that Nature (Human biology) has given individuals with consciousness preference to those with an eye at the back of their heads. Or in other words: Nature has preferred composition of TWO with the same direction of time (ortho composition) at the expense of composition of TWO with opposite direction of time (para composition).






The core points of the treatise has been expressed in a simple symbolic language which has the advantage that the reader shortly after an introduction to the symbolic language will reach the heart of the treatise which is the chapters “Man as dynamical space of configuration for ONE elementary particle” (II in the drawing) and “The exclusion principle of Pauli” (III in the drawing). From here the reading is downhill.  


Legal disputes tied to the publication of the treatise Man and the Pauli exclusion principle will be settled in Denmark.


© Aage Bergholt December 2013.


Abstract Man and the Pauli exclusion principle.htm


Man and the Pauli exclusion principle.htm




Galileo Galilei put his telescope to one of his eyes and found that the moons of Jupiter were orbiting Jupiter and not the Earth. This is science at its best, because no matter what had been claimed until then, a finding is a finding! Galileo knew it and his opponents knew it, instantaneously!

    Correspondingly it applies that the realization that the human nervous system’s construction coincides with the description of an elementary particle’s choice between two options is a finding of which we all have to take note. People with other ideas will only have to raise a cup of coffee with their left hand in preference to their right hand (or vice versa) to learn what the score is. Add to this that the findings of my treatise fit into the boxes which they have to fit into. In other words we have arrived at yet another change of paradigm. The treatise tells us what a human being is, what consciousness is and what evolution is, - from a scientific point of view. Here I want to acknowledge, that Charles Darwin’s contribution accounted exactly for what he described, that is the observed variation between closely related species, based on environmental adaptation through natural selection.


In the treatise man – viewed as a construction – is described as similar to a composition of a particle – anti-particle pair (cf. the Abstract). It applies, that in ortho compositions of TWO one is in charge (the dominant), while the other (the non-dominant) is following suit. When you have read the treatise I ask you to return to what I am now writing. For you already know the concept of dominance or to work on orders from your working life, where we as human beings have no doubts whether we are at work and “gathering” or alternatively have taken time off and are “spreading”. You may see this as trivial, but Niels Bohr would have been dizzy as he would have realized that my description is not an analogy but an example of what is being communicated by the treatise. An example, which can be traced all the way back to the canonical variables, place (distance) and velocity.


Finally my readers should know, that the work which resulted in my submission of the treatise originally took a starting point in considerations regarding what we could do about the imbalance of the human choices, which had led to overpopulation, shortage of resources and environmental destruction (watch out for these words in the treatise). The described problems have been treated thoroughly by excellent people, for instance under the heading “Limits to growth”, but unfortunately without the desired impact. In short I ended with the view, that the prerequisite for a solution would be, that we scientifically understood ourselves afresh. This would imply taking on nothing less than the problem of unity of science, only respecting what we know works. Already from the starting point such a project had to be seen as “mission impossible”, but the reality is, that we nonetheless have to try before the described problems once and for all get beyond our control. I tried and the result was my treatise (mission accomplished) which represents my suggestion for scientifically understanding ourselves afresh. The idea was that if we could achieve that, we would also understand and hopefully in actual fact balance our choices, so that the aforementioned problems would gradually disappear.

    Anyhow back in 2013 The Faculty’s Research-strategic Committee’s Executive Committee was also faced with considering that if what we know works is to be respected, then there cannot be several suggestions for scientifically understanding ourselves afresh, but one only, namely the suggestion accounted for by the treatise. … It is important that you as reader understand, that if this was not the case, then there would be no reason to study my treatise.