A new Epistemology
Copyright © 2000 by Dr. Tienzen (Jeh-Tween) Gong
Physics methodology is the interplay of the followings:
I have introduced a new methodology which does not observe
the nature but is the interplay of the followings:
- Observe the nature
- Construct a theory
- Test the theory
The validity of this new methodology is hinged on two points.
- Construct a Fictitious Universe with some arbitrary schemes.
- Derive some laws for this Fictitious Universe.
- Compare those derived laws with known physics.
- Use a new epistemology to calculate its truth value.
- A meaningful Fictitious Universe can be constructed, and a
comparison with the known physics can be made.
- A new epistemology must provide a valid
calculation for truth values.
The Fictitious Universe Epistemology has, in fact, two stages.
Stage one: Because the validity of the traditional physics is
now firmly established, it sets all standards. The validity of
FU physics, thus, must begin with meeting the standards. The
followings are rules for this "meeting standards process."
Stage two: It becomes very obvious after "the meeting standards
process" that FU physics is much bigger than the traditional
physics. The standards of traditional physics are not enough to
measure the beauty and the strength of this FU physics. A five
round wrestling matches (or beauty contests) are, thus, developed.
- When a standard is met, it is called a happy coincidence,
not a truth.
- Only when FU physics is "better" than the standard, it is
called an Occam's happy coincidence, still not a truth.
- Only Occam's happy coincidence will be given a score which
is the base for calculating the Occam's Happy Index.
- When Occam's happy index is larger than 99.75%, FU physics
is, then, claimed to be true.
1) The happy coincidence --- The chance for an arbitrary equation or procedure to produce an identical result to a known physics law or fact is, at best,
a "Happy Coincidence" which is no better than toss a coin.
Thus, the happy coincidence probability is 1/2 (50%). Happy Index = 100 - happy coincidence value
If there are a few happy coincidences in a given domain (or
discipline, such as, physics), they form a happy coincidence (HC)
set. The happy coincidence value of HC set can be defined as the
multiplication of its members' happy coincidence probability.
If a HC set has three members, its HC value is 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2
= .125 (12.5%).
And, we can define a
For the above example,
the happy index = 100 - 12.5 = 87.5(%)
If (a big if) we can equate the Happy Index to confidence level, then
we have a new epistemology.
2) Occam's happy coincidence --- The Occam's Razor has been used to distinguish the truth from the untrue. Thus, I will construct a much "sharper" Occam's Razor as follow:
If theory B comes out "after" theory A,
Note: The happy coincidence defined before is renamed as Plain
- if theory B = A (identical to), then B is false.
- if C is the intersection of A & B, and if A - C is not zero
(empty set), then B is false regardless of what B - C is.
- if B is better (>) than A, then B is an Occam's happy coincidence,
which has a probability value 50% (1/2).
And, we can define the Truth Index of a system (the Occam's happy
coincidence set) is the Occam's Happy Index
- The Plain Happy Index = 100 - the plain happy coincidence value of
- The Occam's Happy Index = 100 - the Occam's happy coincidence value
of a set.
Truth Index (of a system) = Occam's Happy Index (of that system)
When the Truth Index of a system is greater than 99.75%, that system
should be true.
It is very difficult to determine whether any theory B is better than a
theory A. Here, I will introduce four procedures to do this.
- Simply better --- B can resolve an issue C while A cannot, that is, B is simply better than A.
Example: The equation of Wonder can calculate electron fine structure constant while the traditional physics cannot. So, eWonder is simply better.
- Uplifting ---
If a plain happy coincidence B has at least three (not including itself)
linked (not un-related) plain happy coincidences, then B can be lifted by
them as an Occam's happy coincidence.
Example of uplifting:
The Prequark model can produce quite a few plain happy coincidences.
Thus, the Prequark model can be lifted as an Occam's happy coincidence.
- It can provide a great explanation of the mechanism for Neutron Decay.
This is a plain happy coincidence.
- Quarks carry a fractional electric charge, but leptons do not according to
the quark theory. Prequark model provides a "direct" explanation of the fractional
quantum Hall effect for electrons.
This is a plain happy coincidence.
- Prequark model views quark or lepton as a superstring which is composed of
This could also be a plain happy coincidence.
- Prequark model can provide an explanation for proton's stability.
- Up-bringing --- When we move into a territory untouched by any known physics, that is, there is no comparison can be made here.
The second procedure to "uplift" a Plain Happy Coincidence to an Occam's happy
coincidence is by "up-bringing."
If a plain happy coincidence is linked (in logic, mathematics, or physics,
etc.) to, at least, one Occam's happy coincidence, then, it can be up-brought
to an Occam's happy coincidence.
Of course, this "up-bringing" Occam's happy coincidence cannot be "up-lifted"
by the coincidence it tries to up-bring. In a Truth Index calculation, any
plain happy coincidence can be used only "once."
Example of an up-bringing:
Any physics or philosophy which cannot provide a direct explanation
of how biological life arose cannot be the final theory.
Bio-chemistry explains how life functions, not how it arises in terms
of the laws of physics. There is no direct evidence to show that the
rising of biological life is an inevitable consequence of the laws of
physics. Of course, the laws of physics must permit the rising of life
because we are, indeed, here.
It is very hard to define what life is but is not hard to define what
A bottle of gas carries some information; volume, temperature, pressure,
entropy, etc. These information can evolve too. However, this bottle
of gas cannot "process" its own information or any information around it.
Evolving information and processing information are two different things.
Even virus must process information to replicate itself.
In 1970s, John Conway came up a Life Game. He showed that the glider of
Life Game can construct a Turing computer, an information processing
machine, and a new discipline of "Artificial Life" arose.
Life Game is only a computer game. It lacks the essence of any biological
life, the mass.
But! But! But! If? If? If the glider is a graphic representation of some
basic building blocks of matter (such as: proton or neutron), then the glider
can give rise to biological life. When glider captures mass, it turns into a
wet stuff, the biological life.
According to the Prequark model, both proton and neutron are gliders.
This is, indeed, a great happy coincidence. But, is it an Occam's happy coincidence?
So, the bio-plain happy coincidence can be up-brought to an Occam's happy
coincidence by the prequark model.
- The bio-plain happy coincidence is strongly linked to the prequark Occam's
- The prequark model is not lifted by the bio-coincidence.
- As a unifier --- If B can unify two established disciplines C and D, B (whatever it is) is an Occam's happy coincidence.
Example 1: FU physics can unify physics and mathematics universes.
Subject: Dr. Jeh-Tween Gong's books
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 16:20:35 +0100
From: "Dr. Knud Werner", email@example.com
Dear ladies and gentlemen,
I stumbled into the IEWU site some hours ago and could not stop
reading since then. Especially the articles presented by
Dr. Gong are most fascinating and challenging.
In his article on Fermat's last theorem he introduced his theory
of coloured numbers which I'd very much like to become aquainted
with. He mentions some book of his several times, but unfortunately
without giving some reference.
As I was unable to find some book authored by Dr. Gong except
"Truth, Faith and Life" dating back to 1990 I'd like to know whether
the theory mentioned is developed within this work of his or which
is the title of the book he's referring to. A hint on how to
order some copy would greatly appreciated, too.
Many thanks in advance and best regards,
Dr. Knud Werner
Example 2: FU physics can unify physics and moral universes.
3) The ultimate Occam's happy coincidence epistemology --- we now can refine the Occam's happy coincidence epistemology as follow:
- The prototype of Occam's HC epistemology -- the member of
Occam's HC set must be a plain happy coincidence and must pass
Occam's Razor test. However, there is no "linkage" requirement
between the members.
- Occam's HC epistemology -- the members of Occam's
HC set must be linked (in logic, mathematics or physics, etc.)
among them. That is, Occam's Happy Index cannot be calculated by
lumping some unrelated Occam's happy coincidences together.
- The ultimate (the final) Occam's HC epistemology -- Ten points
(10%) will be deducted from Occam's Happy Index if an inconsistency
is found "in" this Occam's HC set. Five points will be deducted if
"any" inconsistency is found.
- If a system's Occam' happy index is larger than 99.75%, then that system is deemed to be true under this new epistemology.
A new Epistemology
Back to: A new Epistemology
[goto other TOE topics]