A new Epistemology

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

Part five

10) TOE machine and TOE (Theory of Everything): To reduce life phenomena and moral phenomena to physical phenomena was never possible before because of two reasons.



If they are all created by the same creator with the same creation law, their essence must be the same although they might have different looks (appearances).

According to the "Law of Creation," only donut can be part of universe. They must all be donuts (the topological representation for nothingness).

What is donut?

If two universes above can be reduced either to D or to D1, then these two universes have the common root. This becomes a machine for constructing TOE (Theory of Everything). For example:
If P (physics) is reduced to D1 (7 dimensions), and if MO (moral universe) is reduced to D (topological donut) then P and MO have the same common root, and they are reduced to each other.

TOE machine consists of two parts:


Is quark system a donut?
Quark system needs 7 dimensions --- 3 quark colors, 3 generations, and one colorlessness.

Is the material universe a donut?
a) All matter have positive energy. Yet, they must be confined by a negative energy (the gravity). So, it looks like a donut.
b) In addition to the 7 quark dimensions, there are 4 more space-time dimensions for universe. Is universe still a donut?
1) The time superstring defined by equation zero is, of course, a donut by definition.
2) The material universe is a donut created by time-superstring-donut. A donut making a donut has 11 dimensions (see explanation below), and it is still a donut.
Finally, the space-time world sheet has (or needs) 11 dimensions.
There are four (4) visible cosmic dimensions:
(Xee, Yee, Zee) and T are ordinary 4 space-time dimensions.
There are seven (7) hidden quantum dimensions:
Not only are we able to visualize 11 dimensions of this universe in terms of Topology. This scheme even reproduces the entire Quark theory and resolves the "Three Generation" issue.

Is mathematics universe a donut?
See the chapters at http://go.to/FictitiousUniverse
Is life (even a single cell bacteria) a donut?
See the chapter at http://go.to/FictitiousUniverse
Is moral universe a donut?

11) The rise of moral universe:
Traditional physics handcuffs itself to laboratories. Any reality (intelligence, moral truths or mathematics, etc.) which cannot be squeezed into a test apparatus of a laboratory is deemed to be beyond the scope of physics.

This "scope" strategy not only forgives the traditional physics's inability to address many simple common truths but hints that "only" physics facts are the genuine truths, and any other proclaimed truths (philosophy, metaphysics, theology, etc.) are non-science. This strategy worked very well in the 20th century.

But, no more! Now, FU physics not only is able to reproduce all known physics laws but can go beyond the "scope" of traditional physics.

FU physics must encompass all common truths. Yes, the FU physics handcuffs itself to a real, real universe which encompasses all known (or unknown) truths. That is, intelligence, moral truths or theological truths must be addressed in FU physics.

Can moral truths be encompassed in any kind of physics? See my book "The Divine Constitution," page 78;
"Up to now, most philosophers, scientists and theologians accept a notion that the matter of value is different from the matter of fact, that ought to be is different from that that is. So, the descriptive statement is different from the prescriptive statement."

From: rune berg, rune@physics.ucsd.edu
Date: Fri Mar 23, 2001 10:57am
Subject: Re: A new Epistemology 11
I think you're misinterpreting what physics is and what moral is. Moral is a survival instinct that some animals have including humans. Moral "truth" I guess is really the way the animal interprets it's own instinct. It's similar to e.g. I like apples doesn't mean that it's a physical truth that apples are good. It has nothing to do with physics.
Rune W. Berg

From: "Stephen O'Kane" stgok@mistral.co.uk
Date: Sat Mar 24, 2001 6:01am
Subject: Re: A new Epistemology 11
Dear Tienzen Gong,

I am not quite sure whether I was the one who said you have a moral universe if there is 'intelligence' which can make 'choices', but I agree with that general idea. No - I reckon intelligence itself cannot be defined in terms of physical laws. But perhaps the conditions which give rise to intelligence (which are the origins of intelligence, in other words) CAN be so defined?

Certainly physical laws constrain the choices we can make, but they also set the patterns of technologies we use when making choices. One of the points about evolution (and history) many people find hard to grasp is that things can develop so they become quite distinct from their origins. Intelligence can, I suggest, develop through physical processes but emerge as something - an ability - which is constrained by physical laws but not defined by them. The same point applies to any ability we, or any organism, might have such as the ability to run, swim, etc. But it is clearer with intelligence that the ability goes beyond the physical starting point.

Would you agree about that?

Yours
Stephen O'Kane (stgok@m...)

Yes, superficially, the matter of value is different from the matter of fact; that ought to be is different from that that is.

Yes, if there is "intelligence" which can make "choices," there is a moral universe.

Can the above facts be reduced to a TD (Topological representation of a Donut)?

It is laws of behavior giving rise to choices and to a moral universe. The world of behavior has the following players.



With these four players and one axiom, a set of law of behavior can be constructed.

The moral universe arise from these laws of gives and takes.
Example one: Why should we save mosquitos?
B(saving mosquitos) will enhance our own survival.

Example two: I cannot digest orange very well, and it gives me a running belly, but apple is okay with me. So,
C(orange) > C(apple), and I will often choose apple over orange.

Example three: I like orange the same as I like apple.
When I just ate one apple, then
M(apple) would probably larger than M(orange) at that moment. My next choice could well be an orange instead of an apple if an orange is available at that moment.

The above laws of behavior govern the entire ecosystem (from self, gself, all the way to Cosmos). So, plants convert the sun light, water and mineral into flowers (a big investment) for honey bees, and bees act as sex surrogate for plants, etc..

In fact, the equations for taking and giving have the same formula.
B(action) >= M * P * D(s)
If we define an action function:
A(action) = 1/(M * P)
then, B(action) * A(action) >= D(s)

B(action) = delta B(action)
= B(action) - B (no action)

B(no action) = 0 by definition

Often, B(no action) > B(action)
It is the same for A(action).

This formula of moral action is identical to uncertainty principle of physics if we make the following comparisons.

  1. D(self), the constant of Death or Alive, the hinge of moral universe is similar to h(bar), the hinge of the quantum world.
  2. B(action), the benefit of an action is similar to x (the position) of physics.
  3. A(action), the motivation for action is similar to p (the momentum) of physics.
Now, the law of behavior of electrons of quantum physics has an identical formula to the law of behavior of intelligence.
Delta x * Delta p >= h-bar
Delta B(action) * Delta A(action) >= D(self)


A "self" can be viewed as a topological sphere which separates itself from the others. However, the action of "take" will punch two holes, breaking others and putting into itself. The same is true for the action of "give."

That is, the laws of "give" and "take" punch every self (or gself, Elf) into a donut (a sphere with two holes, at least).

The entire Moral Universe is governed by the laws of "give" and "take." The Moral Universe has a TD (topological representation of a Donut) too.

With a TOE machine, there is a TOE (Theory of Everything).

See http://go.to/FictitiousUniverse

Does "intelligence" have a TD?

A new Epistemology

Back to: A new Epistemology

[goto other TOE topics]