A new Epistemology
Copyright © 2000 by Dr. Tienzen (Jeh-Tween) Gong
Can God be understood?
The Fictitious Universe Epistemology is able to:
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
- 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
- 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
- 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)
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.
Can we understand God after all issues listed above are understood?
Well, you will be the judge for this. My book The Divine Constitution might be able to provide some helps.
- Reproduce all physics laws.
- Construct a TOE machine which is able to construct a TOE (Theory of Everything).
From: Tienzen (Jeh-Tween) Gong
Please visit my home pages at:
http://go.to/FictitiousUniverse or at
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 16:28:59 -0500A new Epistemology
From: Vladimir Bondarenko, firstname.lastname@example.org
To: World Community of Physicists and Philosophers
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
With Christmas Greetings and all Good Wishes for the New Year.
From: Werner Luxbacher, email@example.com
Date: Sun Dec 3, 2000 12:30pm
Subject: Re: A new Epistemology 5
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.
Back to: A new Epistemology
[goto other TOE topics]