A new Epistemology

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

Part six

12) A new paradigm:
There is a simple "fact" that traditional physics is unable to provide theoretical calculations for neither Cabibbo nor Weinberg angles, nor for electron fine structure constant. Traditional physics is also impossible to reduce life phenomena and moral phenomena to physical phenomena.

Of course, there is a simple "reason" for that because the most important "ingredient" (or truth) for those calculations is way beyond the scope of traditional physics. This ingredient consists of two parts:

This new ingredient is not only improving the traditional physics but establishing a new paradigm.

The paradigm of 20th century --- science connotes truth. Any other claimed truth is only a proclamation.

The paradigm of 21th century --- Science is, of course, still one of the truth machine, but it cannot reach the domain of spacelessness or of timelessness which house a huge un-computable universe. The Occam's Happy Coincidence Epistemology (OHC) is the best truth tester. OHC epistemology is able to cover all universes.

From: Paul Nord, pnord@exodus.valpo.edu
Date: Mon May 7, 2001 3:05pm
Subject: Re: A new Paradigm 3

Alas I fear that FU physics has run into a moral dilemma. When faced with the question, "Why should we bother with FU physics?" the only answer is to retreat to some moral goal of truth and knowledge. These cannot be derived from physical laws or physical theories. I did hear one person suggest "instinct" as a possible reason. But when one says that a bird flies south by instinct all he really says is that he does not know how the bird does it. The word "instinct" just becomes a catch-all for the unknown forces of nature. What is humorous is that FU physics is trying to uncover the unknown forces of nature but cannot even begin to do so without calling on the unknown to give the whole pursuit meaning and direction. The only place you will find it is on the Tao. When I say "Tao" I refer to any one of hundreds of ancient traditions which, more often than you might have been led to expect, agree on the rules for a "good" life:

"Good" can only be defined in terms of the Tao and only understood from within the Tao. Good does not exist on its own in the vacuum of space. It is our traditions, or perhaps something far beyond them, that give stuff purpose.

I do not truly understand what Dr. Nord has in his mind about the word instinct. I will discuss the word instinct from my own understanding as follows:

13) The truth index of FU physics:

Truth index (of FU physics) = Occam's happy index of FU physics
There are four ways to qualify Occam's happy coincidences:
  1. Simply better
  2. by uplifting
  3. by upbringing
  4. As a unifier

The followings are the Occam's happy coincidences for FU physics.
  1. Equation of Wonder --- simply better.
  2. Magic mixing procedure --- simply better.
  3. Prequark model is uplifted by three plain happy coincidences:
  4. Why are there three generations of quark? --- simply better.
  5. Explanation for Neutron decay --- simply better
  6. Why is physics universe having 11 dimensions? --- simply better
  7. Both proton and neutron are Turing machines --- simply better & as a unifier
  8. Explanation for Frictional Quantum Hall effect --- simply better
  9. Quark as a superstring --- simply better
  10. A theoretical definition for electric charge --- simply better
  11. A theoretical definition for mass charge --- simply better
  12. Unification of electric & gravitational forces (a FU version, at least) is uplifted or up brought by the followings:
  13. The uncertainty principle --- simply better
  14. Unifies physics & mathematics universes --- as a unifier and simply better
  15. Unifies physics & moral universes --- as a unifier and simply better
So, the Occam's happy coincidences value for FU physics (the probability for the above set (15 elements) to be a random event) is
OHC(V) = (1/2)^15
= .000030517
So, the truth index of FU physics is:
TI (FU) = 100 - OHC(V)
= 99.996948 (%)
> 99.75 (%)

A new Epistemology

Back to: A new Epistemology

[goto other TOE topics]