The previous Chapter (Chapter 28) has provided some bases on the metaphysical differences between the two different political systems (the Western democracy and the Eastern Confucianism).
The detailed discussion on the Eastern Confucianism is discussed in the book (Bible of China Studies; US copyright #TX 8-685-690, collected by many Ivory League University Libraries, and its pdf is now available at https://tienzengong.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/bible-of-china-studies.pdf). In summary, it has three key points.
One, the SOURCE of the legitimacy of the political power is from the MANDATE OF HEAVEN (Heaven’s Will).
Two, the manifestation of this legitimacy is the HEAVENLY MORALITY, imbedded in the conscience of every Chinese individual; that is, people’s will = Heaven’s Will.
Three, the operational mechanism is the ‘Trinity of Chinese Governance’, with the following circle, the 3 legs (citizens, King/central power, and bureaucrats) of the political cauldron:
{People’s will = Heaven’s Will} — > {King/Centre Government, ordained by Heaven’s Mandate, People’s will} —> {King/Centre Government rules over the bureaucrats} —> {Bureaucrats governs the people}
On the other hand, the Western democracy EXCLUDES any influence from the HEAVEN on two standpoints.
One, Thomas Paine wrote, “There never did, there never will, and there never can exist a parliament, or any description of men, or any generation of men, in any country, possessed of the right or the power of binding and controuling posterity to the ‘end of time,’ … The vanity and presumption of governing beyond the grave, is the most ridiculous and insolent of all tyrannies. (Rights of man, page 9)
Two, From John Locke (Two Treatises of Government) and Jean-Jacques Rousseau (The Social Contract), the key point is: exchanging (abandoning) the NATURE RIGHTS (morality based) with a civil contract (human ethics).
Thus, the Western democracy is based on the following three points.
One, the SOURCE of the legitimacy of the political power is from the General Will of its citizens. Two, the manifestation of this General Will is the human ethics (a social contract), not heavenly morality, the separation of the Church and State. That is, the Western democracy expels any transcendental MORALITY but is totally about human ethics.
Three, the operational mechanism is a voting system and a manmade governing system (such as the 3 branches system of the US), see Note 6.
From the phenomenology (external expressions of a system), the Western democracy encompasses many inequalities: the racial inequality, the economic (livelihood, health care, ) inequality (see note3
in Chapter 26), justice inequality, etc.
Are these inequalities the direct consequences of the system, the manifestations of its essence? Or are they the foreign invaders which are unable to be eradicated by the system? To answer this question, we must revisit its metaphysical foundation.
For the Confucianism, it is based on the heavenly morality,
the 仁{= 人 (human) +
二 (two)}; that is, 仁is about the ‘Otherness-ism”, putting others first while annihilating the SELF. So, the key human right of Confucianism is the “right of life (survive) of others”. If all others’ lives are in danger, it is the shame of my life. If all others’ lives are in danger because of the acts of king (government), I (a self) will rise to rebel (even with the sacrifice of my own life). In Confucianism, the ‘right to rebel” preempts all other rights.
On the other hand, the Western democracy is based on exchanging the nature rights to a social contract. This exchanging process amplifies the Self-interests in all exchanges, and this leads to INDIVIDUALISM. This self-interest leads to competition. In all competitions, there are winners and losers, and thus the inequalities.
So, the key human right in the Western democracy is the RIGHT of doing the exchange, and this right is manifested as the right to VOTE. With this ‘right to vote’, all other rights (racial equality, economic equality, justice equality, etc.) are no longer as rights but are the awards/privileges of the competitions.
So, all the inequalities in the West are not foreign elements but are the direct consequences of this democracy system from its essence: via the right to vote and kills all the rights of equality in principle while they might still be preserved in some practices. The first amendment: freedom of speech is just a social contract. The right to protest (an extension of the freedom of speech) can never become the RIGHT of rebel.
By all means, I am not trying to judge which system is better here. All that I am trying to do is to show that political systems are all isomorphic to the physics system (the Physics – TOE), as the Political TOE. And that will be the major task in the next Chapter (Chapter 30). However, I should still describe those political systems as they are first.
As I have written an entire book on the Eastern Confucianism, I will use this chapter to describe the Western democracy system.
The phenomenology of the Western Democracy
In the previous Chapter (Chapter 28), I have described the Western democracy on it metaphysical level: Exchanging Nature Rights (Morality) with a social contract (human ethics).
This exchange assumes:
that Human Nature (self-interest, individualism) is similar and will reach a General
that the competitions (leaded by self-interest) will maximize the General Welfare for the entire population.
that the human ethics (without the support of heavenly morality) can ensure the operations of the two assumptions
These 3 assumptions are interlinked. If any one of the three is wrong, the entire system collapses. These three principles above are implemented via a two-step system:
Step one (the metaphysical base): strip all human rights with one (right to vote); that is, putting
everyone on an equal footing. From this equal footing, everyone must compete, and the winner takes more.
Step two (the implementation): via differentiation and integration. The right to vote is differentiated to individual (1) which is infinitesimal, near zero (0) in practice in a society. That is, the political power can only be regained if those differentiated individual can be integrated. So, in practice, the political power in the West is not about the ‘right to vote’ but is all about the ways and the abilities of integration. So, this system immediately divides people into two classes:
being differentiated (infinitesimal, near zero politicalpower),
the integrators, the political
Integration needs an integrating machine, which costs a lot of money. That is, with money, one can become an integrator, the power holder. Without the money, one can only be integrated.
That is, the Western democracy is a legal term to divide people into two groups: the HAVE and the have- NOT.
Democracy = mercantilism
In essence, democracy via ‘right to vote’ is an inherent diverging power and the inherent driving force for all inequalities.
Furthermore, if there are more than one way of integration, the assumption 1 (reaching General Consensus) will eventually be wrong, and a greatly divided society will be the inevitable outcome, see the graph below.
So, the assumption of John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and Thomas Paine that a human ethics-based system (without the backbone of heavenly morality) can lead to General consensus and Common Welfare is wrong, both on the metaphysical level and on the implementation realities. The fact is that
this Western democracy will inevitably decay into extremes in principle.
A theoretical analysis
Without the backbone of Heavenly morality, all social contracts will inevitably decay into extreme contradictory extremes.
With upholding the “right to vote” as the preempting right, it will inevitably lead to all kinds of inequalities, as the true Nature human Rights {right to live (health care, job, etc.), right to no fear of unjust killing (by police, etc.), etc.} becomes privileges (the spoils of the competitions).
Yet, some particular political structures (such as the American one, with three branches) can further amplify the two processes (diverging on general consensus and increasing the inequalities) above.
The US system of three branches is claimed to be balanced and mutually checked. Are these three branches balanced with equal power (1/3 for each)?
In principle, the Congress has the power of creating (legislation) the laws (the social contracts). The President (executive) can only execute the legislated laws.
The Supreme Court is to settle the dispute of any issue in the country, by interpreting the laws.
Seemingly, this is a system of truly dividing the three distinguishing powers (functions) of a nation to three branches, in principle.
Although there is a checking power implemented in Congress to check the other two branches with the power of impeachment, there is not a single success case in the past 240 years in the US history in practice. In a dynamic equation, if variable X should drive a consequence Y; yet, in real measurement, Y was never detected in Z amount of time. Then, the power (effectiveness) of X can be easily calculated and an upper limit can be easily established. In this impeachment case, the real measurement is ZERO in 240 years; that is, its upper limit is (1/240) % < 0.4% chance to be effective in the future.
For the most recent case, even if Donald Trump were 100% guilty as charged, he will not be convicted in practice by any means. Can ever a president or supreme court justice be removed from office (not just in the 240 years) in a practical way? The simple arithmetic analysis shows that that chance is not good.
First, the checking (removing) process on other branches is DIVIDED into two steps (impeach by the House and convict by the Senate), just and fair in principle but could be totally unjust and unfair in practice.
A rascal President or Supreme Court Justice will not be impeached if he is protected by the House. If he is impeached by the House, he can still be protected by the Senate. That is, any rascal President or Justice can dodge the fate of being removed by playing the politics, courting the House or the Senate. The historical record has proved this scenario. In the historical record, the TRUE checking power is just a joke, not a reality thus far, and most likely will stay as a joke in the long, long future.
（Bible of China Studies；US copyright#TX 8-685-690）一书中进行了讨论，该书由许多常春藤联盟大学图书馆收集，其pdf文件现在可在https://tienzengong.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/bible-of-china-studies.pdf).
本质上，通过选举权实现的民主是一种内在的分歧力量，是一切不平等的内在驱动力。此外，如果有一种以上的整合方式，假设1(达成普遍共识)最终将是错误的，一个大分裂的社会将是不可避免的结果，见下图。因此，john locke，让-雅克·卢梭和 thomas paine 关于一个以人类伦理为基础的系统(没有天堂道德的支柱)可以导致普遍共识和共同福利的假设是错误的，无论是在形而上学的层面上还是在实施的现实中。
Linguistics is, seemingly, well-defined with some sub-fields, such as, phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, pragmatics and some applied linguistics. Each sub-field encompasses all nature languages without a unified framework. That is, there is no common ground within or among these sub-fields linguistically to produce a universal language. Historically, the universal language was proclaimed with the economical and political supremacy, such as, Greek, Latin and English, etc.. They can, in fact, be the lingua franca for a short time period but will definitely fade into the history sooner or later. However, after the discovery of the PreBabel Principle in 2009, the linguistic based universal language and the Super Unified Linguistic Theory arose. A unified framework on linguistics is understood now. The following eight issues outline the framework of this Linguistics Manifesto.
谈谈朴素相对论，朴素相对论说的是什么呢？大家看一个景象，这是我们大家都非常熟悉的景象，晴天的时候月亮会从东边缓缓升起。可是在人类几千年的文明史里，没有哪部文学作品会给你描述地球如何升起的景象，直到有一天我们的人类自己能够进入太空的时候才想到这样的景象，地球出来了，这个蓝色的球非常漂亮，这说明什么？这说明这个景象始终是从我们脚底下能看到的景象，我们从来没想到如果把我们的观点（point of view），也就是你看问题的出发点挪到别的地方的时候，你是可以看到其他景象的，但是我们没有这种自觉。 所以养成换个观点去看世界的习惯很难，这也是为什么大家经常吵架的原因，我们总是从自己的观点看问题，而不是从别人的观点看问题，虽然很难，但如果养成了这种习惯其实非常有用。
The abc conjecture: there are a finite number of c (= a + b), for
c > rad (abc)^ (1+ ε); ε > 0, a real number
Or
c < K (ε) x rad (abc)^ (1+ ε) for ALL c; K (ε) > 0, a real number.
Let a = d + d1 = (p^n x dp) + d1; dp is the largest prime for d; d1 is the smallest integer for a to have a d.
Example: a = 17 = 18 – 1 = (3^2x 2) -1; 18 = d, d1 = -1, p = 3, dp = 2, n = 2
Doing the same for b and c;
b = e + e1 = (q^m x ep) + e1
c = f + f1 = (w^k x fp) + f1
So, the rad (abc) = rad (a) rad (b) rad (c)
For rad (c) >= c, f1 ≠ 0 is the necessary condition.
For c >= rad (abc), f1 = 0 is the necessary condition; that is, c cannot be a prime.
The sufficient condition (SC): rad (abc) = pqw (dp x ep x fp) < C
Some scenarios can be evaluated for this sufficient condition (SC).
Scenario 1: if d1 = e1 = 0 and there is a h1 (a natural number) while 1 < h1 < min {n, m, k}, then SC = true
Scenario 2: if d1 = 0 and there is a h2 (a natural number) while 1 < h2 < min {n, m, k}, then SC = true
Scenario 3: if e1 = 0 and there is a h3 (a natural number) while 1 < h3 < min {n, m, k}, then SC = true
Scenario 4: all other cases (the uncertainty).
All four cases, the SC = true.
For any give c (with f1 = 0, not a prime), there are S1 (number of cases meeting scenario 1), S2, S3 and S4.
Let S = S1 + S2 + S3 + S4; S can be finite or infinite.
Now, {rad (abc) < c} = {for any c (not a prime, f1 = 0), is S finite?}
For any given c, we can do some actual search for S1, S2, S3.
From our experience, S1 + S2 + S3 is more often as finite than not.
However, there is no way of guaranteeing that S4 is finite.
By not knowing the answer, we can try with tossing a coin on S4 of an arbitrary selected c: head = true; tail = false.
Then, the P (S) = {tail (50%), head (50%)} after infinite many tosses.
Law 1: There are infinite many c (= a + b) for c > rad (abc).
Obviously, law 1 is a physics law, verifiable via experiments.
Now, we can make a cheating weight (ε > 0, a real number) and add it to rad (abc) side as {rad (abc) ^ (1+ ε)}.
With this cheating weight on the rad side as {rad (abc)^ (1+ ε) < c}, then P (S) = {tail (< 50%), head (> 50%)} of each toss. Again, this can be verified physically.
After N tosses, P (S, N) = {P(S, tail)/N = (~ 0), P (S, head)/N = (~100)}; that is, for any c (a real number while a + b = c) there is always a N (ε) for each ε (a real number) to ensure that
{N (ε) x rad (abc)^ (1+ ε) > c}, N (ε) is the number of toss needed for that (ε).
Again, this can be verified physically.
The above process can be proved in four steps: induction (operational) progressive process, a verification TRAIN.
First, making the above simple tossing [selecting an arbitrary c (= a + b) and doing the actual search] process into a game with the following rules.
Every game consists of T (=10) tosses, which produces (i tails, j heads), T = i + j = 10 in this case.
So, P (SC = true) = j/T, P (SC = false) = i/T, P the possibility of SC
ΔP = P (SC = false) – P (SC = true),
If ΔP > 0, abc conjecture is false.
If ΔP < 0, abc conjecture is true
Let G = 1 when ΔP < 0; G = 0 when ΔP >= 0
This game will be repeated N times.
When N = 1, G1 = (0 or 1)
N = 2, G2 = (0 or 1)
…
N = n, Gn = (0 or 1)
Let G’n = (number of 1) – (number of 0); {(number of 1) + (number of 0) = n}
Definition 1: If G’n > 0 for all n > N (ε), [N (ε) a large number > 0], then abc conjecture is true.
Second, the cheating: a cheating weight ε is added on one side of the tossing coin.
That is: ΔX = {rad (abc)^ (1+ ε) – rad (abc)} = rad (abc)^ε
Law 2 (the indeterminacy): when ΔX = 0, the average of ΔP = 0 after n games (n x T tosses) when n is a large number.
Law 2 can be verified physically.
Law 3: when ΔX > 0, the average of ΔP < 0 after n games (n x T tosses) when n is large. (This can be proved by actual calculation and search with a finite n).
Third, the induction proof of law 1, 2, 3: these physically proofs establish a verification TRAIN.
Fourth, going beyond the induction: is there a math ghost rascal which can sabotage the above induction TRAIN?
The answer is no: a cheating game cannot be sabotaged even by a ghost rascal; see the ghost rascal law.
Ghost-rascal law — For a coin flipping (tossing) game (head vs tail), T is the number times flip as one ‘game’, N is the number times that that ‘game’ is played. If T >= 10 and N >= 10^500, then no amount of sabotage from a Ghost can change the outcome of this game.
This is a physics law which can be verified by actual verification to any large number N. This Ghost-rascal law is, in fact, the way that nature GENERATES the standard model particles, see Chapter four of this book. For nature, T = 3 and a finite number N is enough to guarantee the generating and confining the particle zoo.
Law 4:the induction TRAIN of Law 1, 2, 3 with a large n cannot be sabotaged by any math ghost rascal.
With this ghost-rascal guarantee, there is always an N (ε) for each ε (a real number) to ensure that {N (ε) x rad (abc) ^ (1+ ε) > c} for ALL c (= a + b), N (ε) is the number of toss needed for that (ε).
The abc conjecture is now proved.
However, this Ghost-rascal law is a physics law which can be verified via physics means. Without this Ghost-rascal law, the abc conjecture cannot be proved.
While the human math can only be proved via the lego rules, the nature math can and sometimes only be verified via physical means. In fact, the nature math is the nature laws (same as physics laws).
But what does this abc conjecture mean in the number (or physics) system?
Equation of Wonder: bigger the ΔX, smaller the ΔP < 0.
For every c (= a + b)
Let a = d + d1 = (p^n x dp) + d1; dp is the largest prime for d; d1 is the smallest integer for a to have a d.
b = e + e1 = (q^m x ep) + e1
c = f + f1 = (w^k x fp) + f1
Then {p, q, w, dp, ep, fp, d1, e1, f1, n, m, k} are the players for the dynamics of rad (abc).
Let Q be the dynamics of rad (abc) on those players.
With ΔX (on rad (abc)), there will be a ΔQ.
Definition 2: ΔQ = | h/ ΔP|; the larger |ΔP < 0| is, the stronger the possibility that abc conjecture is true. That is, the larger |ΔP < 0| is, the smaller ΔQ is.
Now, the equation of wonder can be rewritten as:
ΔQ = h/ ΔX or (ΔQ x ΔX = h), h is a real number and should be a constant.
|ΔP < 0| = h/ ΔQ is the possibility of whether there is infinite SC {sufficient condition (SC): rad (abc) = pqw (dp x ep x fp) < c} for an arbitrary c (= a + b).
That is, |ΔP < 0| = h/ ΔQ really defines the internal radical/prime dynamics for SC?
The equation {ΔQ x ΔX = h} shows that ΔQ (internal radical/prime dynamics) is confined by ΔX (the cheating weight).
