A new Epistemology

Copyright © 2000 by Dr. Tienzen (Jeh-Tween) Gong

Part three

7) The criteria for constructing a Fictitious Universe:

  1. Is there any criterion for constructing the Fictitious Universe?
  2. Is there any value for an arbitrarily constructed Fictitious Universe? and how to determine its value?
My Fictitious Universe is constructed with a "process" which divides the FU into four stages.
  1. FU0 -- Before the creation of Fictitious Universe, if there is such a thing.
  2. FU1 -- The creation of FU, the FU big bang.
  3. FU2 -- The FU rules (base) which govern the operations of the created Fictitious Universe, and it has 7 rules.
  4. FU3 -- The created Fictitious Universe which must encompass the following universes.
Yes, there is one criterion for this FU epistemology, that is, the FU3 is given. FU3 is, in fact, not fictitious at all. The FU0, FU1 and FU2 are arbitrary, and we can do whatever we like to them as long as they lead to the creation (or reproduction) of FU3.

The FU2 is truly arbitrarily created. I made it up for two purposes. FU2 is quite successful for these two purposes but fails to create the FU3. However, this partial success still gives me a great encouragement. There must be something more fundamental than FU2 not yet discovered. And, the best thing we can do at this point is to re-exam FU2 item by item.

The rule A1 of FU2 is created to solve one question -- Where is tomorrow?
See http://go.to/FictitiousUniverse
Under "Where is Tomorrow?"

The rule A2 is only a consequence of A1.

The rule A3 is created for not violating the uncertainty principle.

With A1, A2 and A3, the following physics issues are resolved.

  1. It gives rise to a 48@64 stuff which can "luckily" resolve the following issues.
    a) Three generation of quarks.
    b) How to calculate the weak mixing angles.
    c) How to calculate the electric fine structure constant.
    Note: these might be pure lucks, but why should I care!

  2. A1 and A3 give rise to the idea of holes. There is a hole (the imaginary universe without any matter or energy) as the place for "tomorrow" to reside in.
  3. A sinking hole makes the h-bar (an intrinsic spin) much easier concept to be accepted. So, there is rule A5.
  4. It luckily also reproduces the followings:
    a) Supersymmetry
    b) How does the Supersymmetry break?
    c) Superstring with an internal structure.

Rule A4 is selected because I need it for calculating the weak mixing angles, etc..
So for, only two physics variables (time, space) and two physics constants (c, h-bar) are arbitrarily selected for this Fictitious Universe, the FU2. After these things (T, S, c, h-bar) were created by the given definitions, would they come alive and make some affairs of their own with others? The rule A6 is one of the possible affair among them. Luckily enough, it is a known physics concept -- force. Wow! It can even do wonders.

Why should I care whether the rule A6 is right or wrong? It is very useful, and it is in.

I need rule A7 for two reasons.

FU 2 is very successful in reproducing the physics universe, but...

8) Law of creation:
Well, I still cannot see any direct connection between the FU2 and a moral universe which is part of FU3.

Luckily enough, except one only criterion (that we must recreate FU3, the real universe), the FU epistemology has no other restriction. We can do whatever we want, including things which are physics impossible.

Is it possible to "remove" the entire physical universe from its existence? I don't know the answer for a real universe, but it certainly can be done in the Fictitious Universe. I can easily take out Time, Space and their derivatives from FU2.

Please note, I need 7 rules for FU2 in order to reproduce the physics universe. However, there is one thing (A7) remaining after a physical universe (time, space and their derivatives) is removed from FU2. Obviously, the physics universe is bigger than a physical universe. Perhaps, the rule A7 is the key we were looking for. Rule A7 might be the root of all universes.

I didn't truly know what is FU0 or FU1. I also didn't know how to transform FU0 to FU1 and FU1 to FU2. Again, lucky enough, the FU epistemology allows us to do whatever we need as long as it can reproduce FU3. So, I arbitrarily choose rule A7 to be the entire FU0 and to see what it will happen.

In FU0, there is only one rule -- A7, and there is only one thing -- the "nothingness." Philosophically, can "nothingness" be a thing? This will be a great issue for the future discussion. Now, I like to know that what this "nothingness" can do or that what I can do to this "nothingness."

The FU epistemology allows me to be here in addition to the FU0 and allows me to do something to this FU0 as long as I don't change its essence.

Can I create something in FU0? If I create a +1 energy (matter) in FU0, a -1 energy (ghost) must be created at the same time in order for FU0 remains to be FU0. Topologically, we can see the above process (creating something from nothing) as matter and ghost form a ring (or a donut) with the "nothingness" in the middle and around.

Law of Creation -- If B is created by "creating something from nothing process," B (the something) must remain to be "nothingness" in essence.
See http://clik.to/CreationLaw

From the law above, we can draw some conclusions (or corollaries).
It does not matter whether the Law of Creation is valid or not. If it can lead to the construction of FU3, it will be great.

Finally, we have a tool to construct FU3. The Law of creation is not a new thing in FU0. It is a different expression of FU0.

Just for the sake of convenience, I define that FU1 as a FU with many Bs. There is no difference between FU0 and FU1 in essence, by definition.
FU1 = {B1, B2, B3, .....}

If we can show that physics universe is a B1, that mathematics universe is a B2, etc., then FU3 is reproduced from FU0. Wow! that is, there is also no difference between FU0 and FU3 in essence.

The following theorems will help us to construct a TOE (Theory of Everything) machine.

A four color theorem was proven. Here are two seven color theorems.

TOE machine consists of two parts:

"Pseudo-science," some physicists said.

Well, the FU physics is, in fact, not science,
not science at all.

FU physics does not use scientific methodology in any way,
not one bit.

FU physics, of course, is physics because it not only addresses the core issues of physics but can solve many physics issues which cannot be resolved by the traditional physics.

Subject: Re: Invitation 2
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 12:34:35 +0200
From: "Ponti Venter" FILJJV@puknet.puk.ac.za
To: tienzen@iewu.edu


I shall remain in the group reading your posts. Being a philosopher I do not reject the ideas out of hand. I do have problems understanding what you are about sometimes, because I do not understand quark physics. I do wonder whether it is viable to reduce life phenomena and moral phenomena to physical phenomena, but I shall try to read what you say about it. I do know that Einstein and Bohr tried such reductions, but they have not convinced me.

Ponti Venter

From: Zhe Ma, zhema@udel.edu
Date: Sun Apr 8, 2001 7:00pm
Subject: very good e-journal

Dear friends:

My response to this e-journal is a) This e-journal does provide some interesting points. Thank you very much for sending me this!

Best wishes!

Subject: Re: Invitation 2
Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 18:22:55 +1000
From: "Julia Watkin" juliawatkin@hotmail.com
To: tienzen@iewu.edu

Thanks I would like to stay subscribed. Thank you for your most interesting comments and excuse a brief reply. I am not currently at my own university.

Julia Watkin

A new Epistemology

Back to: A new Epistemology

[goto other TOE topics]