Summary—The Philosopher King Christopher tells the story of Christopher Bek and his life, his philosophy, his science and his management.
In 1987 I moved to Toronto after graduating from the University of Calgary with a degree in applied math—and found myself working for The Wyatt Company as an actuarial analyst. Actuaries use math to solve business problems. And whereas accountants look to the past, actuaries look to the future. In 1989 I moved back to Calgary with The Wyatt Company. In December 1990 I was back in Calgary during which I was doing a six-month stint in the San Francisco office of The Wyatt Company. I then bought a house in Crescent Heights located north of downtown Calgary. I left The Wyatt Company in 1995 and began consulting to TransCanada Pipelines and PetroCanada in developing Monte Carlo simulation models. In 1998 I began consulting with the CFO and treasurer of Canadian Pacific Limited. I also published the first five essays of the theory of one collection on 1 January 2001. In early 2001 Canadian Pacific Limited broke up into its five subsidiaries and was the beginning of my fall from grace. I lost my house in August 2003 and spent a year and a half in the hospital. In 2005 I moved into an apartment downtown. The following is a list of arguments and models that I developed from 1998 to 2007—ie. The Theory of One, The Bernoulli Model, Authority versus Argument, Determinism versus Freewill, Behaviorism versus Existentialism and The Philosopher King Christopher.
The Theory of One. It is well established that the greatest scientific problem of all time is how to marry relativity with quantum theory. Relativity is the natural law of space and time and is based on lightspeed. It describes spacetime dilation relative to lightspeed. The quantum theory of the atom is the natural law of matter and is based on both Planck’s constant and a probabilistic wave equation. The application of quantum theory includes the development of televisions, medical equipment and laser disk players. I have solved the problem of how to unite relativity and quantum theory with my theory of one by recognizing lightspeed and Planck’s constant as the very same boundary of the spacetime continuum. I further argue that even if my theory of one is wrong, it is still effectively right because it sets forth the pathway to truth—which is the question of how to unite relativity with quantum theory.
The Bernoulli Model. The Bernoulli Model is a risk management and decisionmaking methodology that presents the same consistent storyboard for all organizational risk factors. The storyboard sits atop a stylishly engineered portfolio of scientific management algorithms that form an advanced forecasting system that is mathematically accessible to executives. It is named after a family of Swiss mathematicians and is founded on portfolio theory developed by Harry Markowitz at the University of Chicago in 1952. Markowitz forever linked reward with risk in the same way that Einstein linked space with time in that both the expected outcome and the attendant uncertainty of outcome are required to complete the picture. The Markowitz Model concatenates the three algorithms of forecasting (eg. regression analysis), integration (eg. central limit theorem) and optimization (eg. linear programming)—in constructing a holistic portfolio optimization algorithm that serves to maximize reward for given levels of risk. Building on Markowitz, The Bernoulli Model expands along a multitude of dimensions including forecasting, efficiency analysis, utilization, accountability and comparability. It further adds the Delphi process to more specifically define values—utility theory to translate external values into internal values—Monte Carlo simulation to integrate heterogeneous risk components—the Camus distribution to four-dimensionally represent risk—and an alternative hypothesis to serve as the loyal opposition to the null hypothesis.
Authority versus Argument. The method of authority is the basis of Western society. Essentially it means that authority gets the last world and that government agents (eg. doctors and educators) are not responsible for answering to arguments. Consider that Descartes formulated his famous Cartesian model for constructing arguments which is—Order thoughts from simple to complex—Only accept clear and distinct ideas as true—Divide arguments into as many parts as necessary—Check thoroughly for oversights—And rehearse, examine and test arguments over and over until they can be grasped with a single act of intuition or faith. Initially, one faithfully or intuitively senses truth, which is followed up by constructing rational arguments and then intuitively capturing completed arguments. In other words, faith leads us to reason and then reason leads us back to faith. And we must remember what Socrates (469-399 BC) said—Follow the argument wherever it leads. However, using the method of authority, the conclusion is predetermined and arguments are thus constructed to meet with authoritarian dogma.
Determinism Versus Freewill. Determinism versus freewill contrasts the worldviews of determinism (ie. the view that our destiny is predetermined) and freewill (ie. the view that we are free to create our own destiny). The problem of determinism versus freewill has tormented philosophy ever since Saint Augustine. Determinism is the worldview that every event occurs necessarily from the antecedent events that gives rise to events. Determinism denies the possibility of freewill. Freewill is the worldview that refutes the notion that the will is completely determined—and claims that moral judgment is meaningless unless the will is free in its choice of actions. The doctrine of freewill rejects the idea that determinism applies to the actions of man. The debate between determinism and freewill is particularly important in the field of criminal psychiatry. The question arises—Is the criminal act the necessary result of a set of antecedent causes so that the criminal could not help doing what he did—or is the criminal free to do otherwise and therefore is responsible? In that our society is strictly deterministic, it could be argued that criminals are not responsible for their criminal actions.
Behaviorism versus Existentialism. Consider that the Freudian cognitive model makes the reality-based ego the decisionmaker who must choose between the internal values of the id, self, soul, mathematics, the method of argument and God—and the external authority of the superego, behaviorism, scholasticism, church, government, medicine and education. Remember the Socratic belief that by knowing thyself is the same as knowing God. Also remember what Sir James Jeans said—God is a mathematician. The authoritian cognitive model stands in direct contrast with the existential cognitive model. Existentialism is the philosophy which asserts that morality must be determined inwardly rather than from external authority. In its simplest terms, it is the ego acting like a searchlight that chooses between the id and the superego. The malignant cancer within society is the outwardly focusing behavioral psychological model—which denies the existence of consciousness—while the inwardly focusing existential model makes the soul primordially important.
The Philosopher King Christopher. Further to my letters of 28 September 2002 and 20 August 2003 to the Honourable Beverley McLachlin, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada in which I declared my sovereignship to the Sovereignty of Canada and 1 April 2003 in which I notified the Honourable Beverley McLachlin that any action against me was treasonable. In my letter to the Right Honourable Joe Clark of 21 July 2003 in which I brought criminal charges against Canadian honourables and doctors for totalitarianism, treason, heresy, child abuse and the unpardonable sin—which is the deliberate refusal to follow the light when seen. In applying the Divine Right of Kings doctrine which asserts that sovereigns are representatives of God and derive their right to rule directly from God. My theory of one establishes a divine connect between myself and God. In that the government has not accepted my argument, I would argue that it is operating in bad faith. And using the same argument, I would therefore declare my sovereignship as well as asserting my claim as God’s legitimate agent—ie. Christ. In that I am also a philosopher, I declare myself to be the Philosopher King Christopher.
Conclusion. The Theory of One unites relativity theory (based on lightspeed) and quantum theory (based on Planck’s constant) by realizing that lightspeed and Planck’s constant are the very same boundary of the spacetime continuum. The Bernoulli Model is an advanced application of portfolio theory that uses the algorithms of forecasting, integration and optimization. Authority versus Argument contrasts the method of authority with the method argument. According to the method of authority government agents are not responsible answering to arguments—while according to the method of argument government agents are responsible for answering to arguments. Determinism versus Freewill contrasts the worldviews of determinism (ie. our fate is predetermined) and freewill (ie. we are free to manufacture our own destiny). In comparing Behaviorism versus Existentialism—the Freudian cognitive model makes the reality-based ego the decisionmaker who must choose between the internal values of the id and the external authority of the superego. Behaviorism chooses the superego while existentialism chooses the id. In declaring myself the Philosopher King Christopher I would contend that the government had no legal right to take my house away from me. I would thus argue that the government owes me a house in Crescent Heights