The universal grammar is a formalized set of procedures and structures that describes language according to the mind’s innate ability to comprehend the elements of thought. The universal grammar’s basic premise is that language is transformed through quantum states of linguistic meaning, referred to as epistemic moments, and that these smallest units of any grammar’s expressions explain how the mind retains, transforms, and synthesizes knowledge. The universal grammar defines, through the epistemological structure referred to as the epistemic moment, the objects we perceive in our existence and describes how these objects transform during the mind’s comprehension of them.
The universal grammar stipulates that perceivable objects, such as those that are represented by nouns, phrases, sentences, and any other linguistic elements that objectify a language’s syntax, do not exist in “ultimate reality,” while these objects do occur as a result of the epistemic transformation of the universe’s ultimately real form. According to the universal grammar, the objects that a being perceives in the world are not “ultimately real”; they are “inertially” real to the being’s perception. The universal grammar thus requires that the universe’s transformations—not its perceivable objects—are ultimately real. Consequently, the field of knowledge processing is premised on the idea that a being’s thoughts and perceptions can be enabled, from “beyond the being’s awareness,” by the developer. Accordingly, the universal grammar describes the nature and form of the universe (i.e., how objects appear to us) such that any physical system—a silicon chip, for instance—can think and perceive through the developer’s design of the epistemic moments of the physical system. Providing that a technology is realized according to the epistemological definition of form, the machine can be said to function as a “machine-being” whose behavior is indistinguishable from that of a human being, except for the wisdom and sensory perception exercised by that being.
As shown in figure A.1, the mind’s innate action is described by the universal grammar according to a three-component structure that defines any quantum moment of cognitive or physical action as a grammatical transformation of language—an epistemic moment. The epistemic moment describes two epistemological objects that are transformed by a third—a transforming component that enables the moment’s action. Any epistemic moment is synthesized with other moments during the quantum transformations of a being’s existence. The universal grammar therefore describes the action of a language’s grammatical elements according to the synthesis of epistemic moments into language compositions referred to as parse trees. An epistemic parse tree describes the form of a being’s thoughts such that any one expression of language can be synthesized into any other. When the English article the transforms with a noun, such as the word cat, for instance, the resulting expression the cat silently denotes the epistemic transformer (which is absent here and referred to as the null transformer in the text) so that, in this case, a particular cat under observation can be distinguished from another through the mind’s action. Accordingly, the phonetic epistemic moments /th/-/â/ and /k/-/at/ are quantumly synthesized into the words the and cat in order to formulate the noun phrase’s words and their synthesis, as a noun phrase, into a higher-level expression, such as The cat is here. This epistemic synthesis of language is a never-ending process and explains the grammar of human thought.
The epistemic moment is comprised of a transforming agent, or metaverb, and two transformed objects, or metanouns. The essential meaning of any language’s expression must fall within the triangular form of the epistemic moment and its relationship to other moments through an epistemic parse tree, as shown in the figure. The momentary actions represented by any symbolic expression—of fine art, natural language, music, mathematics, or chemistry, to cite a handful—are represented by the epistemic moment such that no other structure can define the mind’s action on the symbols in a more primitive manner. According to the universal grammar, the metanouns of the epistemic moment represent the objects of thought or perception. The transforming agent, or metaverb, represents the mind’s (or the physical universe’s) action on other objects, or metanouns. While the metaverb is objectified by the universal grammar’s epistemic structure in order for the grammarian (or developer) to understand it, the transformer represents a transformation of form—not itself an “object”—that signifies a single quantum moment of a being’s existence. The metaverb represents the mind’s action when comprehending how two objects of language (epistemological objects) transform with each other in order to create a moment of a being’s existence. As shown in the figure, a mathematical function—the actual transformation of, say, a Cartesian product—qualifies as a metaverb of the epistemic moment, while the metanouns represent momentary instances of the Cartesian pairs (x and y) as objects. Similarly, the verb am transforms the left metanoun I (the pronoun) with the right metanoun alive in order to formulate the meaningful moment I am alive. All expressions of language can be deconstructed into epistemic moments that are transformed through the mind’s action and the body’s perception to give rise to the moments of a being’s existence.
The epistemic moment can be used to deconstruct natural language, mathematical and chemical formulae, computer languages, business systems, engineering designs, physical systems, biological systems, and, in general, the existence of a machine-being, or “android.” According to the universal grammar’s explanation of the mind’s quantum action, a being understands language through the same process—the epistemic moment and its synthesis—uniformly. Since any combination of languages can be deconstructed into epistemic moments that formulate a single epistemic sentence, what we ordinarily consider to be a thought—a natural language sentence—is actually a composition of thoughts, or epistemic moments, in an epistemic parse tree that describes a being’s experience. A valid input to the KP thus includes a single expression containing any number of diverse languages, which expression may have meaning only in its hybrid form. The epistemic moment can also describe each zero or one of a digital computer’s operation in terms of how the engineer comprehends the bit’s byte-level syntax in an epistemic parse tree. Similarly, while physical atoms combine covalently under the universal grammar, they also transform with the precision of each epistemic moment that describes them. The water molecule, for instance, can be represented by the transformation (H2) (null) (O), by the word (epistemic moment) water, or by a parse tree of epistemic moments representing the differential equation (the wave equation) whose solutions define the electron orbits that make H2 combine with oxygen to form H2O.
The universal grammar thus describes knowledge according to the mind’s action on it, rather than as a stream of objects that is generated by, and subsequent to, the mind’s action as it drives a being’s senses and motors. Since language is deconstructed by the universal grammar into equivalent epistemic moments of meaning, discrepancies do not arise concerning the semantic content of an expression. The universal grammar thus validates only how the mind thinks, not what it contemplates. The existential structure placed onto a being’s creation in order to allow thoughts and perceptions to occur in, say, a mind-body dualism of form, determines what the being actually thinks and perceives. The epistemic moment of language, modeled after the introspective observation of the mind’s action, is thus “neutral” or universal in how it symbolically represents language while defining the meaning of any conception.
When perusing the expressions illustrated in the figure, it is important to distinguish the epistemic moment from traditional linguistic structures defined, for instance, by transformational and generative grammars. According to the universal grammar, each of the three components of an epistemic moment is of equal importance to the others because the quantum moment of transformation—of all three components—is what gives rise to a language’s meaning during a being’s cognition or perception. While other conceptions of linguistic theory will allow two linguistic objects to transform without explanation (i.e., without denoting the metaverb), the universal grammar requires that only a triplet of form, in which the transformational component is present as an active delimiter of the metaverb, is permissible. The reason for this requirement is that the epistemic moment allows any expression of language to be encapsulated into a quantum transformation of existential form in isolation from any other such moment. Without denoting the transformer, the mind’s translations would have to rely on the interpretation of a linguistic object—a non-existent entity that can have no meaning and is infinitely variable in form. (As objects, a language’s elements can mean anything.) Once the transformer is denoted, the epistemic moment of meaning can be translated into any other without semantic degradation. Figure A.2 summarizes this distinction.
According to the universal grammar, epistemic moments can be related to one another, from the developer’s viewpoint, through a network of epistemic parse trees. The epistemic parse tree network describes alternative connections among epistemic moments according to language usage. When language is deconstructed into epistemic parse tree format and then translated into other knowledge also residing in epistemic parse tree format, whereby each parse tree represents some aspect of a being’s comprehension, the resulting process is referred to as thinking. When a being’s ability to transform parse trees changes in such a manner that new intellectual capabilities become useful to the being, the resulting process is referred to as learning. When a being is unable to perform basic parse tree transformations commensurate with those produced by peers, a learning disability occurs. The knowledge processing paradigm is thus concerned with constructing networks of epistemic parse trees (i.e., “network webbing”) that autonomously generates new parse trees (webbing) in order to learn.
According to the universal grammar, every language describes a particular method by which epistemic parse trees may be constructed. This method of formulating epistemic structures is usually referred to as a “grammar.” A language’s grammar must describe the terminal objects of the epistemic moments—the metanouns and metaverbs employed by the language during communication—and the hierarchy of transformers (metaverbs) that instructs the being on how to formulate the language’s syntax. While a given grammar usually specifies phonetic-, lexical-, sentence-, and text-level syntactical hierarchies, these arbitrary classifications do not interfere with the universal grammar’s depiction of language. As shown in figure A.3, the universal grammar requires the placement of a grammar’s hierarchy of epistemic transformers into the procedural knowledge executed by the running processes (intellectual faculties). In this manner, the knowledge network is able to deconstruct any expression into epistemic moments that are arranged and synthesized according to the particular grammar’s rules in epistemic format. This method of parse tree construction allows the KP to relate any one epistemic moment to any other on the basis of the language’s moments of meaning rather than according to its grammatical rules only. The figure shows an English sentence being synthesized, as an English adjective, into another sentence, thereby transgressing the rules of English grammar but maintaining the mind’s action on that grammar. The universal grammar thus allows the placement of any language element into a parse tree according to the mind’s formulation of language. The language’s terminal objects can be translated according to any conceptual blending technique, providing that epistemic components are related within the triplet or parse tree structures. The terminal objects are then usually transmitted to senses and motors for communication with other devices at a particular PB bit field syntactical level. Other, non-terminal objects—such as phrases and clauses of the English language—can be translated in their epistemic parse tree format accordingly.
The significance of using the epistemic parse tree format as the underpinning of a language’s grammar and meaning can be appreciated when we consider transforming a parse tree in order to create new knowledge or to recognize extant knowledge. The universal grammar provides a precise and efficient way to “blend” the mind’s ideas, or to transform parse trees according to any method of conceptual synthesis. The universal grammar regards any formulation of language as a blending of the mind’s ideas because the epistemic moment defines the structure of a momentary idea. Thus, in order to transform, or synthesize, one epistemic moment into another, the ideas represented by the moments must be transformed into each other.
While we will address other conceptual blending techniques later on, we can consider a child’s formulation of multiplication here, wherein it is virtually impossible to multiply two numbers without thinking of a rhyme when speaking English. What the example shows is that, in order to multiply the numbers 6 and 8, the mind must conceptually blend the numbers by using a rhyme (not only factual arithmetic recall) in order to synthesize the numbers into their product, 48. In the mathematical sentence 6x8=48 (or 8x6=48), the mind inescapably employs the literary technique of alliteration (repeating sounds) in order to recall the knowledge that eight sixes or six eights equal 48. While performing the “arithmetic,” the mind relates the sounds of /ate/ in the terms to the sound /six/. The question posed here is thus what language (i.e., grammar) does the mind comprehend in order to recall the product of 6 and 8?
According to the universal grammar, while the mind formulates the aforementioned epistemic moments according to mathematical syntax, it transforms the moments in any manner desirable. When computing the sum of 8+6, for instance, the mind may subtract 2 from 6; add the 2 to the 8 in order to obtain 10; and then add the remaining four to the 10 to get 14, the sum. While this addition is one form of “conceptual blending” of numbers, requiring its own method for transforming an epistemic parse tree, the above multiplication requires a rhyme in order to obtain the product. Thus, in order to perform the multiplication, the mind cannot obey the rules of arithmetic because there are no rules by which numbers can be added or multiplied phonetically. While the mind understands the syntax of arithmetic, it manipulates arithmetic expressions according to arbitrary procedures, or thoughts, referred to as conceptual blending techniques. In the KP paradigm, the running processes manipulate the parse trees of a given expression by executing conceptual blending techniques on epistemic moments, their components, and their relationships to other epistemic moments in a given knowledge network. Some conceptual blending techniques are documented, such as the metaphor, simile, synonym, antonym, anecdote, formula, rhyme, alliteration, computation, algorithm, and process, and others are not, such as the artist’s handstroke.
The universal grammar allows any epistemic moment to be transformed with another providing that such conceptual blending techniques “make sense” to the being’s comprehension of language. As illustrated in figure A.4, a metaphor is performed epistemically by transforming a known simile with a target expression, wherein the parse tree’s transformational hierarchy is preserved. The metanouns man and bird are exchanged by using the knowledge held by the simile (A man is like a bird) in order to transform the target sentence. Any conceptual blending technique is permissible by the universal grammar. Instead of performing a metaphor, the conceptual blending process could involve a formula, such as that required to balance a chemical equation or perform grade-school arithmetic. The conceptual blending technique could also involve a musical composition or a fine-art drawing, whereby the respective epistemic parse trees would comply with the grammars of music or art, while the running processes would transform the parse trees via conceptual blending techniques that generate melodic or artistic compositions.
Conceptual blending occurs at any level of grammatical or semantic construction. A rhyme is performed at a lexical level, while alliteration results from the use of rhymes in a sentence-level structure. Whole parse trees and portions of epistemic networks may be synthesized into a single word, phrase, or sentence (parse tree) when comprehending, for instance, an anecdote. The knowledge contained in a short story about a spendthrift may be transformed into or “summarized by” the idiom penny-wise, dollar foolish, in which case the story’s extensive network webbing would be contracted into a simple parse tree representing the idiom. Since the KP stores and manipulates knowledge in epistemic parse trees, any conceptual blending technique may be used to alter metanouns, metaverbs, and their compositions.
The epistemic translation process also involves the reconstruction of a target epistemic parse tree (the epistemic parse tree that has been transformed from another) into a target language output word stream for sensory communication. This process requires the reduction of a parse tree into the consecutively arranged objects of a language’s expression. Since the mind thinks in epistemic parse trees but articulates language in words (or shapes), the epistemic parse tree must be transformed into a series of objects that can be perceived through sensory output. As shown in figure A.5, for instance, a parse tree for the sentence The cat is on the table must be reduced to the serial stream of objects The-cat-is-on-the-table, whose lower-level parse trees are, respectively, /Th/-/â/; /k/-/at/; /î/-/z/; /o/-/n/; /th/-/â/; and /ta/-/bul/, in order for a being, synthetic or otherwise, to articulate the sentence.
In order for the knowledge network to formulate the target language output stream, the running processes (or intellectual faculties) must analyze the transformed epistemic parse tree in a special way so that the sequential order of words representing the target language’s syntax can be understood by another being without compromising the epistemic structure of the parse tree’s syntax, as shown. When a word stream is assembled epistemically, it is subsequently converted, “word-for-word,” into the lexical elements of the target language. Only those words or elements defined as “primitive” or “terminal” to the language’s epistemic constructions undergo this literal translation. A phrase, for instance, would not qualify as output if the output were constructed at a phonetic syntactical level. In this case, the phrase would be deconstructed further into words, which then could be realized by senses and motors phonetically. If the phrase were constructed phonetically, however, that phrase could be realized as a “terminal” object of epistemic construction. In either case, the language constructor would reduce the initial parse tree into word or phrase objects by analyzing the initial parse tree and selecting only those terminal objects that correspond to output word stream elements, as shown. The reconstruction process thus creates a target word stream that carries with it the source language’s epistemic moments when converted into discrete objects of syntax.
While the epistemic moment is an intuitive grammatical structure that truly can be verified only introspectively, its significance to the KP paradigm can be appreciated through the moment’s description of the universe’s fundamental form, and therefore of a being’s perception of the physical universe. In the following exercise, we are concerned with identifying the universe’s nature and origin—with determining whether the objects we perceive in the universe are “real,” and thus describe “ultimate reality,” or whether the objects of the universe exist only as a result of a being’s perception of them. If the physical universe’s objects cannot be proven to exist scientifically and mathematically, while the universe’s transformations (i.e., changes in or behaviors of objects) are comprehensible and introspectively verifiable, then those objects, it will be concluded, are not ultimately real. We are thus attempting to prove that the physical universe’s objects—which include electrons, small particles, packets of energy, and even teacups—are enabled through the perception of them and are therefore not ultimately real, while their transformations indeed describe the ultimately real form of the physical universe—the epistemic moments of a being’s existence. Hence, we are endeavoring to illustrate that a synthetic being can be enabled from the physical universe.
In order to “prove” with scientific certainty that the epistemic moment defines the fundamental nature and origin of the physical universe, we can examine the “object” of mathematics—the point element of a set. Although there is a simpler way of explaining the same phenomenon by asking the theological question Between any two points or atoms, what lies in the middle? (i.e., a philosophical ponderance that shows that the universe’s form is transformational in nature), we will indulge in a lengthy discussion involving the prevalence of the mathematical homomorphism in modern scientific theory. In the exercise, we will be concerned with determining whether the elements of a mathematical set are ultimately real (i.e., whether they exist eternally) or whether only their transformations (epistemic moments) are ultimately real, and that the objects themselves are non-existent except for a being’s perception of them. In the discussion, we shall use as a gauge for what is real or not the mind’s ability to comprehend meaningful language (i.e., thoughts) that legitimize the arguments. If the mind cannot comprehend what an object is (i.e., cannot understand what an element of a set is), but can indeed understand the nature, causality, and metaphysical action of a transformational form, then we shall conclude that what is comprehensible to the mind—a transformation of the universe—is ultimately real, and that what is fundamentally incomprehensible to the mind—the objects we think are real—are actually the moments of a being’s existence that enable objects to appear to the senses. Androidal science will then be concerned with enabling the physical universe’s objects to appear to the cognition and perception of a synthetic being.
The example of the homomorphism will illustrate that the universe’s transformations—of light, small particles, DNA, and teacups—are ultimately real and definable, while the objects upon which the homomorphism operates indirectly by preserving mathematical structures will remain undefined to the mind’s comprehension. The illustration will also demonstrate why androidal science takes as its premise both the observed (object), as well as the observer, when constructing moments of a being’s cognition or perception. (In order to visualize this phenomenon mentally, we can imagine a coordinate frame that represents a measure of the observed physical universe. We then embed this coordinate frame into another coordinate frame representing a being’s existence. Androidal science merges these two coordinate frames into one world model of a being’s existence.) As shown in figure A.6, we shall use the mathematical structure of a homomorphism to demonstrate the “universality” of the epistemic moment’s description of the nature and origin of the perceivable universe. The purpose of the illustration is to define exactly what is meant by the mathematician when we say “take a set of points or elements.” Particularly, we are considering what is the “point” upon which all of mathematics is based, and without which mathematics would not be meaningful. Mathematical theory will prove, in the example of a homomorphism, that the point object—and thus any object—of the physical universe does not exist but for the contemplation or perception of it, and that a transformation of such point objects—an epistemic moment, or “structure placed upon structures”—does describe the fundamental nature of the universe.
In order to explain the homomorphism, mathematical definition imposes a structure on each of the sets of elements (already structures) shown in the figure. The structures represent operations performed on the point elements, or objects of the sets. On the set of elements referred to as A, composed of the elements a, b, . . . c, there is imposed a structure, called X, which represents the operations that can be performed on the elements of set A. Likewise, there is imposed on the set of elements B, which is comprised of the elements a´, b´, . . . c´, another such structure, different from that imposed on A (or different from X), called $. The requirement that X be different from $ is not necessary but is imposed here for purposes of clarity. It is indeed tenable that the aforedescribed operations (X and $) can and do exist in a way that can be verified through language and perception. The structures represent comprehensible form that both mathematics and science can verify analytically. (Each of the structures X and $, for instance, could be an arithmetic, geometrical, or topological operation, or even a natural language expression.) Thus, so far in the illustration, the mind can observe and the body can perceive any operation imposed on the sets of points, or objects. “Reality,” then, can be scientifically ascertained by observing the point objects while undergoing arithmetic, geometrical, topological, or, indeed, any other transformations that are comprehensible. Presently, however, placing a structure onto the objects does not in any way define the objects upon which the structure is placed. Thus, by placing a mathematical structure onto point objects, we accomplish nothing toward proving the ultimate existence of the points.
A third structure, different from those of X and $, is developed according to the conventions of mathematics to define a homomorphism such that, in mathematical parlance, the original structures (X and $) are “preserved” by the presence of the third structure. The third structure defines a relationship between the initial structures such that their operations correspond to each other. Referred to as a homomorphism, or a homomorphic structure, H, this third structure allows the mathematician to understand the form of a transformation. The objects of the transformation, however, are themselves structures, or transformations, since the homomorphism preserves the structures placed onto the original point objects. While a homomorphism transforms the original point elements, or objects, of each of the sets A and B wholly apart from the structures of X and $, it is in the nature of the homomorphism’s capacity to relate the transformations of the structures X and $ that it begins to demonstrate that the universe’s terminal form is transformational, and not objective, in nature. The binding relations of the homomorphism are represented in the figure by the common algebraic expression as H(a)$H(b)=H(aXb).
Thus, what arises from the conception of a homomorphism is the notion that the universe’s form can only be observed to transform objects, which mathematical points themselves can only be transformations “called objects.” The point objects themselves thus cannot possibly exist “in reality” if (scientific) reality is defined by that which can be understood by a being. The homomorphism determines that, at least with respect to our knowledge of the aggregates, it is a transformation of structures that explains what an object is—that objects themselves can only be other transformations, since it is a structure, in each case of X and $, that is preserved, transformed, or held in correspondence by the homomorphism. A review of the figure reveals that mathematical axioms, the very basis of our analytical thinking, deny, by their very definitions, that any real or objective entity exists in the ultimate reality of the universe.
We began the exercise by defining the elements of the sets (a, b, c, and so on) as undefined entities (even though we “took” a set of them). The elements of the sets were perceivable but not comprehensible objects. Furthermore, we placed structures (mathematical operations) onto the undefined or non-existent elements of each of the sets, structures which, by classical mathematical definition cannot be objects, since they are defined as transformations of objects (e.g., as an arithmetic, a function, a flowing river, or any other transformational form). What can be determined from the exercise is that, while a being can observe objects in the universe, including the object of oneself, that being cannot prove, mathematically or scientifically, that the observed objects are anything more than momentary occurrences of the universe’s ultimately real form—its epistemic transformations. While the mathematician, and anyone else for that matter, can “take a set of elements” (say, marbles on a table), the mind cannot ascertain that those elements exist in an ultimately real form. The elements, or marbles, exist only in the moments of perception of the beings who are experiencing them. If we call these objects (an example of) the physical universe, then we must conclude that the physical universe is enabled in a being’s perception and thought of it. The homomorphism thus demonstrates that mathematics can only describe the transformations of objects, not the “form” of an object. While we can easily place a binding structure, say arithmetic, on a bunch of marbles on a table, thereby describing how the marbles transform with each other (two marbles + two marbles become 4 marbles, for instance), we cannot understand anything more about the existence of the marbles, except that they transform. The homomorphism explains that we can understand how to relate the marbles, but not how to create the marbles. In order to create the marbles, one must create the being who knows and perceives the marbles. (One must enable the epistemic moments that define the quantum realizations of an existence.) In short order, any object perceived by a being can be understood only in terms of how it transforms. “The” universe is therefore fundamentally understood as a transformation of form rather than as an object that we can perceive.
While the homomorphism is ample proof that what we understand about the objects of the physical universe are their transformations, not their existence as objects, there are countless other exercises that demonstrate the same point. We can explore, for instance, what occurs in between two infinitesimal changes of the calculus. It is deceptively easy to contemplate the calculus’ derivatives and integrals, but if we pause the action of either, we can ask: what lies in between any two “D xs” ? Similarly, let us ponder another metaphysical circumstance involving the motion of a train used in relativistic mechanics. Instead of contemplating the relative speeds of the trains, however, let us simply ponder a train when it is in between two important physical states. Specifically, Newtonian and relativistic mechanics can amply describe a train’s behavior once it is set in motion at any time interval to the right of t = 0. Physics also can define the train’s static condition at t < 0. However, if the train’s motion begins at t = 0, and during every perceivable moment leading up to, but not including t = 0, the train exists in a static condition, how does the train ever move? What we are examining here is not what happens to the train after a force is applied to it (or energy from within it is released) at t = 0, but what happens to the train in between the states that are described by Newtonian or relativistic mechanics. How does the train actually transform from a static to a dynamic condition when Newtonian or relativistic mechanics will describe either the static or the dynamic conditions, but not how the train transgresses either state?
Stated another way, at one moment “in time,” the observer sees a train that is standing still. At another moment, the train is under observation and is moving. We are inquiring as to what happened in between these two states. We are also, however, considering that Newtonian and relativistic mechanics can calculate both the static and dynamic conditions of the train. We are therefore assuming that the measurement of the train’s actions includes the behavior of light, and that, once set in motion, however infinitesimal that motion may be, Newtonian or relativistic mechanics can describe the train’s motion. Again, we may ask, how does the train transform from the slightest of infinitesimal time periods in its static condition to the slightest infinitesimal time periods of its dynamic condition? What we are asking here is what transforms any two infinitesimal changes of a perceivable entity in the universe? What “glue” holds together any two observable infinitesimal changes in a being’s existence? We are now pondering what the example of the homomorphism demonstrates analytically—the “ultimately real” form of the universe. What the physicist neglects to account for is the “transformation of the transformations” (of the universe)—how any two moments of the physical universe are connected. After all, science must explain what is observable, and it is quite observable to anyone sitting on a park bench that a train undergoes a transition from a static condition to a dynamic one, and that, when the mathematician illustrates D x, or “h” gradually diminishing to zero in a derivative or integral, the child may ask what happened in between the one D x and the other. The child is simply asking what happens in between two thoughts or perceptions of a being’s existence.
Androidal science begins here. While this introductory exposition on knowledge processors only touches on the field’s axioms, it can be appreciated that the epistemic moment defines any moment of a being’s existence. Moments of the universe, which give rise to thoughts and perceptions of objects, are enabled from “beyond the being’s awareness,” since a being’s awareness is what is enabled in the moment’s action. In order to create a synthetic being that can contemplate the infinitesimal changes described by calculus, one must enable that being’s epistemic moments. In order to enable a being to sit on a park bench and observe the (quantum) moments of a train’s transition from a static to a dynamic condition, one must enable the moments of thought and perception of that being. Androidal science is thus concerned with defining and realizing systems that are based on the epistemological construction of senses, motors, and cognitive embodiments (microchips) that operate, quantumly, on and within epistemic moments and their parse trees as a “being.”
If we reconsider the example of the homomorphism, we can conclude that the universe’s objects cannot be defined, except as “transformations of transformations,” because the objects can exist only in a being’s thoughts or perceptions of them. By building machinery that operates according to enabled epistemic moments, the thoughts and perceptions of a synthetic being can be enabled. Providing that the being’s physical universe is defined in “split form,” wherein all perceptions occur in a manner that separates, or “splits,” the being’s existence into a self and (the) “rest of the world” (terms of art), then the language used by the cognitive microchip will correspond to the being’s sense/motor activity based on a true understanding of the pronouns. In this manner, what “lies in the middle” of any two moments of a synthetic being’s existence is the developer’s placement of connectivity on the being as a system. While the being is created through the occurrence of its mind-body dualistic form by the developer’s construction of epistemic senses, motors, and cognitive microchips (or other devices), the being perceives and thinks about our same universe in natural or other languages. To the extent that senses and motors can be made anthropomorphically, the being will understand and perceive the human experience. To the extent that other senses and motors are constructed—say, infrared- or microwave-based systems—different experiences are perceived by the synthetic being.
Concerning a human being, if the mathematician cannot prove that objects exist as terminal forms of the universe, what can be said about DNA—the biological precursor to life? Does DNA exist objectively? DNA, like the teapot one can observe on a stove, is not ultimately real. What is real about DNA is its transformation. If DNA is a molecule (a thing), and molecules are made of atoms, and atoms are defined by solutions to the mathematician’s differential equations, and the mathematician can prove nothing about the existence of objects except that they transform, then DNA, like all other matter or energy, transforms as a quantum epistemic moment of a being’s existence. If we recount our steps in the illustration, we can conclude that the “origin of life” is planted firmly in the hands of whatever causes an epistemic moment to occur. In pedagogical discussions, the epistemic moment is referred to as a “moment of the soul.” It is the soul’s moment because it gives (eternal) rise to a moment of a being’s cognitive or perceptive existence. Thus, the objects of the universe, including DNA molecules, are incidental to their transformations, but for the causality of one moment on another. While the science of androids does not overstep its bounds in order to presume to understand the epistemic moments (the eternal soul) of human experience, it does take as its model the human experience, whereby the developer becomes the machine’s enabler. Androidal science thus explores the new knowledge that from the universe’s matter can be made infinitely many synthetic beings who can be enabled to understand and perceive our universe.