Read this edition from the top and you see one thread. It does not matter whether the subject is party politics, education, nuclear fusion or ship coatings — the error is always the same, and so is the solution.

**The error: thinking in boxes, scales and short-term projections.** **The solution: thinking in flows, dimensions and long-term projections.**

The same error in four forms

In physics the error lies in four dimensions. We try to explain the universe with x, y, z and t, and find ourselves in difficulty with dark matter, dark energy and the fact that black holes behave as entrances to something else. The solution: dare to take more dimensions.

In politics the error lies in parties. We bundle a hundred separate issues into a single vote, and find ourselves in difficulty because no party fits the actual combination of a citizen's convictions. The solution: decide issue by issue.

In education the error lies in numbers. We pay schools per diploma, and find ourselves in difficulty because the diploma thereby becomes worth less than it says. The solution: pay for outcomes.

In technology the error lies in fighting nature. We try to confine plasma with magnets, protect ships with poison, cool buildings with air-conditioning that blasts everything away — and find ourselves in difficulty because nature does not cooperate. The solution: learn from nature and move with it.

The same solution in four forms

Stop thinking in boxes. Start thinking in flows.

• In physics that means: dare to take more dimensions, and see that scale, value and multiplicity have their own laws.
• In politics that means: decide issue by issue rather than party by party, on measurable grounds, with independent oversight.
• In education that means: reward outcomes, not numbers, and give children risk again so they can learn.
• In technology that means: learn from nature rather than fighting it, and take biomimicry seriously as an engineering discipline.
• In economics that means: prevent accretion through a different surface, not by taxing after the fact.

Why this is called revolutionary thinking

Whoever sees this bridge naturally arrives at different answers to old questions. That is at the heart of what I call revolutionary thinking, and about which I am writing a book entitled A Plea for Revolutionary Thinking, Learning and Innovation.

Revolution here not as overthrow, but as reversal: looking from a direction from which nobody has yet stood. Galileo looked from the sun. Darwin from variation. Einstein from light. All people who did not think harder than their contemporaries — they looked from a different angle.

What I ask of you

In coming editions I will develop each of these subjects further. But the newspaper is not a monologue. You can think along in three ways:

1. Respond beneath an article — briefly, sharply, with argument. AI filters spam and insults; I read and respond myself. 2. A contribution of your own — if you suspect you can see a connection I have missed, write a short text (500–1,500 words). The best pieces I will publish as a guest contribution. 3. Suggest another subject — what would you like to see treated? Respond beneath this article.

A newspaper without discussion is a sermon. That cannot happen here.

Until a fortnight's time — in edition two I shall focus on whichever subject readers mention most. The choice is yours.