A new Epistemology

• The conception of God is way beyond the scope of traditional physics because it has the following birth defects.
  • 1) Physics laws are significantly different from the real (physical) world.
    • a) Almost all physics laws have time symmetry or CPT symmetry at least. But, time has a definite direction in the real world. The direct CP-violation might give a clue on matter asymmetry. But time asymmetry is seemingly having a very different origin.
      
    • b) The increase of entropy is viewed as a law and is taken for grand. Why should it forever increasing? Physics knows it does but cannot provide an explanation. Physicists claim that physics is only to describe nature and not to explain it. Really? Physicists seemingly enjoy explaining nature if they can and become defensive if they cannot.
      
    • c) Is "intelligence" a reality, or a part of the physical world? If not, then the physics of God could not be known by any physicist, and there would be no physicist. But, but there is no link of any kind between traditional physics and the reality of intelligence. Physics of physicists is now excluding the issue of intelligence from its scope. But, physics of philosopher must demand a physics which encompasses all physical realities, including the intelligence.
      
    • d) Is the spiritual world a reality or a physical reality? For many, the spiritual world is in no doubt a reality. For traditional physics, the spiritual world is now way beyond its scope. And, how does the moral world arise from a physical universe?
      
    • e) The physical universe has a kind of beginning, but all physics laws fail at that point of beginning. There is no hint of any kind that the traditional physics can address the process of creation something from nothing (that is, a simple question of how the beginning begins).
      
  • 2) The traditional physics are significantly different from the mathematics universe which contains two strange "things," the nothingness (zero) and the infinity. But, the "nothingness universe" has no physical meaning. An infinite universe has also no physical meaning. In the current mathematics thinking, there is no mathematics process which can transform infinity to finite. However, if physics laws must encompass mathematics (as Universe should encompass everything), there must be a physical process which can transform infinity to finite and a process which can transform nothing to something.
  • 3) The traditional physics cannot answer many of "our" (human's) metaphysical inquiries. a) Why are there constants of nature? b) How do physics laws arise themselves? Is our metaphysical inquiry not part of the physical world?
  
  
• Can God be understood in terms of philosophy? What is the "first principle" in philosophy? How does this first principle come about? If it comes from something else, then this "else" should be the first. Can we find a beginning for this vicious circle?
  
• Can God be understood in terms of religion? Theologians claim that God is absolutely incomprehensible, but His presence can be felt with our hearts. Even though this statement could be true (and it is true for many), it has no truth value in terms of knowledge.

1. Reproduce all physics laws.
2. Construct a TOE machine which is able to construct a TOE (Theory of Everything).
   • The first principle of philosophy --- creating something from nothing is understood.
   • The rise of physics laws and mathematics universe is understood.

• http://clik.to/quark
• NeutronDecay
• http://clik.to/BioLife
• http://clik.to/Epistemology
• Creation Law
• TOE Society
• http://clik.to/NewParadigm

Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 16:28:59 -0500
From: Vladimir Bondarenko, vbond@atmosp.physics.utoronto.ca
To: World Community of Physicists and Philosophers
Dear Colleagues,

Thank you for inviting me to collaborate with World Community of Physicists and Philosophers.
I would like to resume my membership in the WCPP and participate in the fruitful discussions.
With Christmas Greetings and all Good Wishes for the New Year.
Yours sincerely,
Dr. V.Bondarenko.




From: Werner Luxbacher, w.luxbacher@kabsi.at
Date: Sun Dec 3, 2000 12:30pm
Subject: Re: A new Epistemology 5

Hi Tienzen,
Thank you for Formalization of an odd problem, and congratulations on it. I like it very much. It contains a lot that I find interesting, and exceedingly little that I should have preferred to see handled otherwise. I want you to add a valid Ethic in terms of contemporary Philosophy to your Universe.................As it stands, It`s would be of use trying to square this circle............Best wishes.
Werner

• Part one
  1. The happy coincidence
  2. The Occam's happy coincidence
  3. The ultimate Occam's happy coincidence epistemology
• Part two
  4. Reproduce the known physics (I)
  5. The fictitious universe / reproduce the known physics (II)
  6. The beauty contests / wrestling matches
• Part three
  7. The criteria for constructing a Fictitious Universe
  8. The law of creation
• Part four
  9. Playing with numbers???
• Part five
  10. TOE machine and TOE (Theory of Everything)
  11. The rise of moral universe
• Part six
  12. A new Paradigm (I)
  13. The truth index for FU physics
• Part seven --- A new Paradigm (II) --- How to think the unprovable and the unthinkable
• Part eight -- Can God be understood?