A new Epistemology

Part one

Physics methodology is the interplay of the followings:

Observe the nature
Construct a theory
Test the theory

I have introduced a new methodology which does not observe the nature but is the interplay of the followings:

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.

The validity of this new methodology is hinged on two points.

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."

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.

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.

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%).

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

Happy Index = 100 - happy coincidence value
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,

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).

Note: The happy coincidence defined before is renamed as Plain happy coincidence.

The Plain Happy Index = 100 - the plain happy coincidence value of a set
The Occam's Happy Index = 100 - the Occam's happy coincidence value of a set.

And, we can define the Truth Index of a system (the Occam's happy coincidence set) is the Occam's Happy Index
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.
1. It can provide a great explanation of the mechanism for Neutron Decay. This is a plain happy coincidence.
  See http://clik.to/NeutronDecay
2. 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.
3. Prequark model views quark or lepton as a superstring which is composed of three prequarks. This could also be a plain happy coincidence.
4. Prequark model can provide an explanation for proton's stability.
  See Proton
Thus, the Prequark model can be lifted as an Occam's happy coincidence.
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 non-life is. 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.
see http://clik.to/BioLife
This is, indeed, a great happy coincidence. But, is it an Occam's happy coincidence?
1. The bio-plain happy coincidence is strongly linked to the prequark Occam's happy coincidence.
2. The prequark model is not lifted by the bio-coincidence.
So, the bio-plain happy coincidence can be up-brought to an Occam's happy coincidence by the prequark model.
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", kwe@probits.de
To: info@iewu.edu
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]