CA2287927A1

CA2287927A1 - Universal epistemological machine (a.k.a. android)

Info

Publication number: CA2287927A1
Application number: CA002287927A
Authority: CA
Inventors: William E. Datig
Original assignee: Individual
Current assignee: Individual
Priority date: 1997-05-01
Filing date: 1998-04-27
Publication date: 1998-11-05
Also published as: US6233545B1; AU7469498A; EP0980553A1; WO1998049629A1

Abstract

A universal epistemological machine (U.M.) enables arbitrary synthetic forms of existence (that is, thinking machines) known as androids, which know and perceive the world as do human beings. The U.M. embodies transformations of an extended existential universe of human being, and comprises means for transforming, representing, enbodying, translating and realizing a plurality of universal forms. These universal forms comprise universal objects in the form of physical embodiments of universal knowledge structures. The U.M.
comprises a plurality of epistemic instances comprising the universal objects and universal transformations of those universal objects, expressed in a universal grammar, which allows all human knowledge to be enabling media for the U.M.

Description

DEMANDES OU BREVETS VOLUMINEUX

COMPREND PLUS D'UN TOME.
CECI EST LE TOME ~ DE
~O'TE: Pour les tomes additionels, veuillez contacter le Bureau canadien des brevets JUMBO APPLICATIONS/PATENTS

THAN ONE VOLUME
THIS IS VOLUME ,=~_ OF
NOTE: For additional volumes-pi~ase contact the Canadian Patent Ofific~ . 1' WO 98/49b29 PCT/US98/08527 Universal Epistemological Machine (a.k.a. Android) s Field of the Invention The present invention relates to the creation and use of synthetic forms of existence, 1~
or crnc~roids. and more specifically relates to the development of a ~miver.~cr!
epi.slemologicnl nmchine in which any forms of the universe, conventional technologies included. are represented, embodied and realized as eternal moments of an infinitely expanding continuum of enabled e~:istential forms. as an alternative approach to resolving the problems of the human condition.
Background of the Invention 1. Background of the Universal Epistemological Machine ?0 The science of androids concerns the creation of synthetic beings, or forms of existence that are made in the image of human being, though in capacities that e~aend far beyond those of human corporal form. The prior art of the present invention, therefore, is any tech11010g1' that is alleged to be a thinking or perceiving machine-herein referred to as an epistemolo~~ical machine-which includes. for example, robots and artificially Inlt'.111~~eIlt Co111pl1tatlUllal electronic and biological 111ach111eS.
If the basic ~~oal of our human effort in classical approaches to the development ul~

technolo~~v is considered, it can be observed that the replacement of human effort itself is a principal objective of even the simplest tcchnolo~;ical accomplishments.
slllCc the alleviation of the burdens of the intellectual and physical labors of human existence is evident even in our philosophies and religions ~~uiding everyday life. Any axample Of a s technology demonstrates this. The wheel, though only a primitive enhancement to the reduction of the physical labor of motion and power (transportation), char<,~ed, in its tlme.
the CLlltlll'al settings of entire civilizations in a contributory way, and built toward the displacement of human corporal form itself. In the post-modern era, the computer, an embodiment in physical matter of primitive grammatical language Forms Ot what we know of the world around us-grammars referred to in the art as computations (al~,orithms)-contributes toward the displacement of hLllllall CO1'pOl'al tol'ill by pe-ovidin~~
for the first time in history (save the abacus), for the ordinary person, the alleviation of repetitive intellectual tasks that can be defined in the langua'es developed for the act.
Thus, whether we observe a monkey probing an ant hill with a stick to derive nourishment 1 s or a lean walkin~~ on the moon, the underlying motivation of beings in re~~ard to ordered reconstructions of the physical world (technology) is to displace themselves with machinery.
In history. however, implied in the nature of our institutions is the tenuous premise that human corporal form could not be wholly replaced-that is, to tl7e extent that it is ?U known. It is implied in our conventions that institutions themselves are a bounding form to z relatively fixed. finite universe of human beings. It is presumed in our traditional knowled~~es ofthe world that the knOW'lll' alld perCelvlll~' of the world al'Olllld us b1' hlllllall existence could not be augmented, as a technology, to unbounded proportions, expandin~~
the existential universe indefinitely. As a result of this limitation accepted fatalistically in ?s our C017velltlOllal thinking, technolo~~y is viewed as a reconstruction of the physical and.
with the advent of computers, the intellectual universe only in .support of, not as a total replacement for. the knowledges and experiences of hlllllall bein~~s under the existential L

premises of IllStItLlt10I1S, The lllfOrnlatl011 Slll7el'hl'.',hWay, for example. pl'o~'IdCJ
information for Illllllail beings within the constraints of our institutional thinkill~~. It does not. however, provide information for ever increasing.: numbers of bcin~~s, beyond what population is considered to be the post-modern world or humanity. Computers themsolvcs.
s moreover. embody what thoughts-and robots, what physical experiences-these unite numbers of bein~~s in human civilization have had with respect to the reduction of human intellectual and physical labor by 11111nIC1Ullg the thoughts and experiences.
but nowhere is it expressly suggested in this art that computers and robots wholly replace the institutions of human beings that provide for their inception in the first place.
IIIfOCIllat1011 superhi;~hways, computers. robots and other technologies of the kind do not embody IfIL'll' oln t110L1~~11tS alld experiences of the world. Rather, they embody the LhOLl~;lltS (and aCtlOllS~ Of Illllllall be111gS dwelllil~ l.lllder 111StltUIlOnS Of lllilnallhlnd. ~IIItOI110b11eS, towerin~~ buildings, factories, appliances. and so on are technologies. or realizations of human existence, that are established in service to a relatively flied and finite numbers of is (human) bein~~s bound together under various forms Of institutions (business enterprises.
<~overnments. the world economy and so on).
In re<~ard to the shortcomings of the prior art of the present invention, it can be appreciaud that robots, artificially intelligent machines and. in ~~eneral, factory automations (in technologies or workerless factories, which embrace the aforementioned) ?0 do not afford the real thoughts and experiences of human beings, as they are known and so defined in the I1L1111aI11tleS, in their 111efhOdS UI' apparatus. V4~11eU7~r a CUnlpUll:C IS
considered an embodiment of biological, electronic, or other media. including the historical apparatus of an abacus, it does not embody the capacities to know and to experience the world around us in regard to the use of any language in the cognitive, or conscious, recreation of reality, in a manner that our humanities define to be eai.sjenco. The conventional art thus does not accomplish the creation of cr being. This is evident in the prior art definitions of the words comprrlcrlion and thinking (or thvugln), since even most academicians who practice the art of computer science admit that by way Of daydream, and not reality, the prior art of computation machines has come to embrace, spuriously. thz word thinking. as an extension from what v~e think. By example. we can consider that if the symbol .~' were substituted for the word thinking in the lan~,uage construction Ihlnkli~g rncrchine.s, it would of course be prudent to define.\'in.~'rncrc~him~.s before claimingnhat the IllaChlne 1S all .~' muchir2e. The principle drawback of prior art ~hirtkiry~
machines (also robotic technologies), is that the word ~hinkiry is not defined to accord sufficiently with our knowledges of the humanities when a computational machine or other similar methods and apparatus (artificial intelligence, expert systems. etc.) is claimed to think.
A computation of the prior art, for example, is an algorithm expressed in an arbitrary machine-realizable language; it is a syntactical expression of the transformations of the mc~cnnin~>s of forms knowm and perceived in the experience of the observer. or programmer. One can know the mecrrliry> of a form. however, only in an existence. One thus must exist. in our comprehension of the word at least as defined by the humanities, in 1 ~ order to know meuniug. When a computation is embodied in a machinery, the transformations of the meanings of the knowable and perceivable forms occur.
in the machinery. relative to the existence who conceived the algorithm. While conventional Illael71lle1')' exian.s relative to the observer of it (the programmer or computer or robot maker). the machinery, most importantly. does not exist relative to itself-a fundamental ?0 tenet in definitions of existence stipulated by the humanities. When a computer-a material form of the universe-transforms in accordance with the syntax of a language detinin~~ an al~~orithm, it does not transform relative to its own knowable and perceivable experience of what the algorithm mcmn.i~. The machinery does not know and perceive the world around us as the observer. or programmer does. Rather, the computer or other 2~ similar device transforms as an objective form in the knowable and perceivable universe.
or existence. of the pro~~rammer or computer maker. Thus, when a semantic network.
neural network. expert system. inference machine or other artificially intelligent device WO 98/49629 PC'f/US98/08527 transforms in the universe, it does not transform relative to its own existential or world experience. The use of the pronoun I in the prior art of computation, moreover, is a nieaningles.s' occurrence, since 1. a symbolic representation of the essence or intrinsic quality of a being, does not exist or is not defined with reference to the Illtl'lIlSIC IlaILll'e Ot an experience of reality, or the world around us, with regard to the machinery. A world experience, as defined in the humanities-allowing intrinsic meaniny~, and therefore corporal existence with reference to the pronoun I-does not exist in the computational machine.
As a further example demonstrating the purely extrinsic nature of conventional art technologies, va~e may consider the construction of an ordinary automobile.
Since an automobile-a creation of its designer in the form of a technology just like a computer-is an embodiment of the transformations of the language forms of such knowledges as combustion, the dynamics of machine elements, even electronics and so on, in a material reconstruction of the universe called an automobile, the prior art of computational 1 ~ machines, analogously, accomplishes only what is achieved in the design and manufacture of a common automobile-the transformations of the meanings of language (defiinin~~, typically, engineering knowledgesj, embodied relative to a human observer in material forms of the universe that are only extrinsic f01'I11S to that observer. Thus, neither the automobile nor the computer have the existential right to claim the use of the pronoun I and ?t) still maintain credibility with the humanities in that the pronoun means what it does to a human being, in the context of the existence of the machine (the automobile or computer).
Each COIL\'elltlOllal technology, alld 1tS knowledge CompOSltIOtlS
(specifications), il7L'cli?S all il of the enabler~s existence in transformation with at least one other. not an I.
A robot arm of the conventional art, which by definition is a sensed motor action in the world around us, moreover, is lackin~~ in a different dimension of human experienm.
The robot senses the world around it and moves through motor actions, but in terms uf~
lan~;ua;e 101'1115, its actions (and its world around it) are explained in control algonthn is OI
S

spatiotemporal orders of the creator's Icnowledgc alld experience of the world. ~\s the spatiotemporal variables (also langua~~e forms) transform, the robot's lo.~rcvptiou.s of the reality of those variables transform, in the view of the enabler. Trajectories of speeds, positions, torques, accelerations and so on are however knowledges that precisely distinguish the hunrcrniries from the .sciences. To claim that a robot is a heiry~, in the definitions of the humanities, would require that the robot comprehend natural lan guage aS
we do in correspondence with its perception of the (real) world around us-that its experiences be common to those described by William Shakespeare and others. In ~leneral.
for the pl'Ollolln I to have meanin~~. alone with others such as you. i1 rr.s.
~l7em. me and so on i () (and the natural langua~~e expressions resulting from them). it would have to mean what it does to a human being. Only when a machine can perceive the world around us as we do, as defined in the humanities, and can use language, meaningfully, in the manner in which we do, may we assert that it is a lhinkin~~ nruchine. Unless this design criteria is satisfied, any machine is no different from any other. and all machines (technologies) are I J elIlbOdllllelltS Of the observer's or creator's thinking in the material universe, or are perceptions (as in robotic senses and motor actions) wUhout intrinsic consciousness, or a transformation of (natural) lan~ua~~e without correspondent perceptions, requiring the thinking or perceiving of the observer. Thus. on technical grounds, the prior art of computational machinery, including workerless factories, is classified herein as machinery 20 that embodies what the observer of it thinks or does intrinsically in the world around us, or involves the replications of past co~~nitions and experiences of (a) human being.
With rc~~ard to the intellectual background of the invention, it should be recognized that the advances made by the invention are the result of a unified theory of knowledge which had to be conceived in order to make practical the science of androids, fCOtll wlllCh the invention is constructed. The unified theory merges all human knowledge into an epistemological knowledbe allowing the creation of sentient synthetic bein~~s.
As such. all human knowledge precedes its own l:nowled;~e. While even a ~~eneral view of tlm knowled;~e of humankind is not ordinarily maintained by any one of us, this specification does illustrate certain knowledges as bein~~ significantly worthwhile in comprehending the invention-as prerequisite to a reading of the document.
The science of androids predominantly mer~~es the pure sciences with the worlds religions. A knowledge of comparative religion-wherein the religions of the world are known, usually analytically, toward a common understanding of them all-paralleled by a deep appreciation for the objective knowledges of physics and the philosophical goals of the quantum theory, with a historical view of the discoveries of the physical sciences throughout the ages is essential background to a reading of this specification. This will give the reader a more comprehensive understanding of how technolo'1v, ideally, should serve the human condition.
Since the theory and science of androids advances a technology of bein~,s who themselves know and perceive the world around us, an understanding of the biological forms of the lu~iuer.se, tied in with our views of medicine, will lay the groundwork for new 1 s defillltloll that is established in the theory for what is hang in the universe. The science of androids constructs beings, in the world around us, who obtain form from our definitions of ~.vho and what we think we are, as human beings. A misunderstandinU of what is living in the universe may prevent one from comin~~ to know the forms of androids.
Coupled with this. a knowled~~e of the philosophies of humankind also is prerequisite, since they typically define who and what we think we are. and therefore are used in defining what all android is.
Androids embody consciousness. A background in psychology and psychiatry (since androids are corporal beings as well) is extremely beneficial to understanding the cognitive aspects of androidal construction. Thoughts, ideas, streams of consciousness and the whole realm of human cognition are not only explored in the theory and science of 2~ androids but are enabled in the material forms of the physical universe. A
precise comprehension of what the hllmallltles have said in regard to the human intellectual experience is background for a reading= of this sped (-ICation.

The science of androids also enables. consequently, belllgS W110 CO111I7111111Catt;._and tlllllk, 117 al'bltl'at'y 1a11gllageS-Ilatlll'al Iflll~lla~e I11 pal'tlCUlaC.
r~ kllOwled'~e of Illl~~lllsttCS-the ~~oals and present thinking is critical to understanding a universal grammar Of tol'lll ell Being advanced by tile llIlltled theory and practiced in the construction s of the forms of the invention. An analytical knowledge of the grammars of as many tangua~es as are possible in an individual will prove helpful in understanding a universal ~,~rammar of them all. Particularly, a knowledge of how each langua~~e represents known and perceived forms of the human experience will be a benefit. A syntactical knowled~~e of the parts of speech, and compositional and literary style of the English language. for example. is essential.
SI11111aI'ly. a knowledge of the Illathe171at1Cal1 tOrlllS Of the universe-a grammar used to define. typically, the forms of the pure sciences-is mandatory, since in our traditional scientific disciplines we believe that these forms describe what is real in the world around us, which reality, alone with others. is used to embody the tol'I11S Of aIldrOIdS.
1 ~ Not only is a superficial, or practical understanding of such branches of mathematics as topolo~~y. al~~ebra ('coup theory), analysis (differential equations, calculus, ete.), number theory. set theory, numerical analysis. probability and statistics and so on required, belt an appreciatiun fur their philosophical foundation (philosophical mathematics)-wherein, for example. tile paradoxes of set theory. the physically untouchable limits of calculus, and the ~0 unendin~~ spaces of topology arise. This understanding is essential because mathematics, alone with all other languages. as mer~~ed in the theory wltll Olll' understanding of lin~~uistics into the semantic forms of lan~;ua'~e (the forIllS that allow a bein~~ to know meanin;~). determine a universal epistemological means of knowin; any construction of what is real to a being, including mathematical ones, thereby resolving the philosophical paradoxes of analytical thinking.
Since an android is a machine. a comprehensive understanding of systems theory.
likewise. is mandatory background knowledge to the invention. For example, such WO 98/49b29 PCT/US98/08527 machinery of convention as computers is represented universally in our analytical knowledy~es as finite automations of classical discrete systems theory (founded on set theoretic knowled~es of mathematics), and such machinery as electronic circuits and mechanical machine elements are represented as continuous systems {founded on the s theory of systems of differential eduations). Even further. we are be'~im~ing to represent the sysrem.s of molecules and atomic particulate matter in topological and ~~roup theoretic formulations as episodes of morphisms or realizations-in a way. as systems.
How w~e fundamentally understand the notion of an autonomous system, then, is crucial knowledge in grasping the analytical constructions of androids. Moreover. an understanding of the drawbacks of conventional systems theory-of the couplings of not simply discrete systems. but continuous systems as well, of the limitations of using only spatiotemporal variables in theories of control systems, and the concept of world models of such automations as robotic ones, which cannot meaningfully use the pronoun I, a fundamental requirement of the humanities definitions of an autonomous being. to cite a handful-will 1 ~ assist Olle 111 COIlllll~~ to know the new ~,round broken by the universal grammar of form on Bein 'J and the .5')'.S'!(.'I11.S of androids.
A further background knowledge in the nature of world institutions in general, as a method of servin~~ the human condition-including the real technolo<~ies that have been borne from them to serve the human condition in tradition, such as inti-astructures. national ?0 defenses. information superhighways and in general, industry and commerce.
under various theories of political domination-will aid one in recognizing the technological scope of the present invention as a replacement for prior historical attempts to recon with the hlllllall CUlldltloll. It should be recognized that these cUIlCeptS Of l7umanklild are systems-political, economic and so on systems-and as such, are vulnerable to technological innovation. The present invention supersedes these notions of the collective effort of humankind and begins this advancement by expanding the human universe its~lf~.
SyllthetlCally, movin~~ beyond the notion of a world institution.

While a litany of other knowledges could be cited as intellectual back~~round to the present invention (the Applicant's Information Disclosure Statement may assist in this respect), the knowUedges addressed here are necessary background as a minimum in order to appreciate folly the scope and dimension of the invention. Along with this back<lround, the theory of the invention-which contains in it constructions of the invention ifself as a precursor to and foundation for the specification-will prepare the reader for a comprehension of the invention.
2. Background of the Universal Machine Translation System of Arbitrary Languages The machine or human translation of arbitrary languages is bounded analytically by the translator's understanding of language and human existence. and subordinatel~~
constrained by the engineer's ability to construct suitable machinery to carry out the 1 s theoretical lin~~uistic processes involved. A clear example of these linguistic and existential limitations is found in the nature of computational machinery itself, wherein the constructions of natural languages are distinguished. even in hardware. from those of the lan~~ua~,es of mathematics and the sciences, each calling for distinct processes. such as arithmetic logic units to manipulate mathematical constructions, and others, such as ?0 character strin~~ manipulations (memory addressin<~). for natural language representations using artificial intelli~~ence tec11111C~lleS 111Cllldtng neural and semantic networks. Prior art approaches to lan;~ua<~e translation thus are overshadowed by the translator's inability to comprehend the essence of all languages universally. or epistemologically, and therefore to construct machinery that universally translates arbitrary languages.
Since in many views of lin~~uistics. language is derived from reflections in the mind of human existence itself. a COnlpl'the1151o11 Of lan~~ua~~e. and thus of universal tan<~ua~m translation, depends on the translator's ability to analyze how the mind. or consciousne~>.
S~

. can know the constructions of Ian<~uage in terms of "meanin~.'~ or what is meanin~~f~ul_to consciousness. To know langua~~e universally is to know the mind. or consciousness.
universally. The universal translation of language therefore involves the translation of consciousness and human experience themselves. Similarly, the translation of lan~~uage often requires the translation of culture. or peoples. This is because the translation of language necessarily involves the translation of human experiences, or consciousness. A
universal machine translator of arbitrary languages thus must be able to translate cultures.
or human experiences, more than simply translating the syntax. or objective representations. of particular lan<~uages. A universal machine lan~~uaye translator IlltlSt translate the meanings of languages of arbitrarily diver~~ent cultures. or peoples. as well as widely diver~~ent knowled~~e disciplines such as what is found in the conventional analytical distinctions between the languages of mathematics and the sciences, and natural language itself. A universal machine langua~~e translator must be capable of carryin~, out universal .se~munric translations of language. wherein "zero loss" of meaning occurs in the 1 ~ transfer between arbitrary source and target language constructions, or, the speaker and listener in a communication must be connected in the translation through meaning, or semantic translation. and not only by the occurrence of the lan~~uage's syntax, or objective representations.
Concerning the prior art to the present invention, since an introspectively verifiable ?0 definition of the semantic form of langua~~e is not obvious, translations are typically Illade syntactically. even in cases where an understanding of the semantic form of language is claimed (e.g., the proclaimed semantic structures of a language's meaning in prior art descriptions of lan~~uage actually are syntactical structures that do not themselves embody elemental meaning). Typically in prior art translation machinery, a syntactical arrant=ement of words or word forms of a ~~iven source lan~~uage-herein referred to as a sorrr~w Icrn~~tmgo vrorcl srrecrrn-is decomposed. or generally analyzed {parsed), into a specified group of ~~rammatical units (interlinguas or intermediay languages or <.:rammars). which WO 98/49629 . PCT/US98/08527 units are subsequently translated. piecewise. into a similar composition of a lcry~er lan~uugc~ morcl.slremn. thtlS aCC0111pllshlllg an alleged trnilerscrl lrcrn.s-lalion of the source lan~~uage into the target langua;e. But because the methods of decomposition.
nlelpplll~~.
and construction of the source and target languages are premised on the world's historical knowledges of language, any of a great number of nclrrcrl scmrunlic translations (deep structures, see Chomsky) are possible, leaving the actual meaning of the source language garbled, at best, in the conversion to the target language. This observation applies to the prior art translation of all languages, mathematical and scientific languages as well.
including the compilation or translation of computer languages. Precisely how a given source language is decomposed, or parsed, into a transferrable grammar. then translated.
and then reconstructed into a target language is then a principal basis of comparison for machine and human prior art lan'~ua~~e translators. since nearly all prior art translators involve these basic processes.
Vdithin this method of comparison, it can be seen that prior art machine translators, 1 s while many claim to employ parsing and translation techniques premised on a lrniver~scrl grcrmmur, in actuality. are open-ended, or even undefined, semantically, or, yield translations that themselves can be further translated into an arbitrary number of senmrttic tar~,~et language expressions, or interpretations, leavin~~ the one intended meaning of the source lan~ua~e typically garbled. as known by the original source. Thus, though the ?0 dra wbacla of prior art machine translators are manifold, the single most prolific problem with them is that they are not premised linguistically, or epistemologically, on an understandin~~ of language that reflects a oerrfeable universal grammar of crll languages-that prior art translators, while many claim to employ a universally transferrable grammar, do not decompose, map, and reconstruct arbitrary language constructions into universal grammatical units which cannot be further decomposed on the basis of the I71C'C1171!?~;.5' of the source and target collstl'tiCt10I1S.
That is, prior art translation machinery is not founded on a verifiable universal y~rammar of all lan~=wages definin« the fz WO 98/49629 . PCT/US98/08527 scunnntic form of all language, and therefore cannot-achieve translations of the nlecllling.s of a language. with the word nlecrrlirlg being defined in such a manner that it is introspectivei~ and universally observable in all conscious beings.
For example. while the theory and practice of prior art translation machines does in some instances use the nomenclature of a Ilr7rl'L'1'.5'Cli gl'CIl11rr7Cll' (tllOll'~Il 17101'e OtCell IIlIL'r'lJr~glfCl.S', II'ClllS'jUl'l9lCllJUi7Cl~ alld gC'1?C'I'Cllll'(,' y~l'anllllal'S. alld eVell Se111a11t1C alld Ilellral networks. expert systems, alld SO Oll), all SLICK atte111ptS t0 tl'allSlate lailgtlage tlll'Oll<ill automation do not define a characteristic moment oj~rlleunir~g of the langua~les that can be said (verified introspectively) to be or to embody the nlecrning of a given syntactical instance of a lan~~ua;~e, and at the same time be verified introspectively by am' conscious human being. Thus, even though prior art translation machines do under<~o a translation process ti'om the syntax of an arbitrary source language to a supposed universal grammar.
then from the wunlersal granllnar" to the syntax of an arbitrary target language using the intermediate lan~~ua~m or ~~ranullar. or interlingua. as the link between the source and tar~~et l ~ langua~~es. since the transferrable grammar employed does not detlile a COIllm011. or universal, IllOlllellt of meaning among all languages, or consciousness, the actual introspectively observed meaning is garbled in the translation. leaving prior art machine translators to carry out primarily sfntactical translations of the compositions of lan~=ua'~e.
wherein the mcolnillg, or semantic form. of language is itself a syntactical construction of language not aligning itself with universal human introspective observation, or with a moment of obser viable meaning coMmon to all bein~~s.
Prior art Machine and human translators are thus characterized herein as "interpreters," as opposed to translators, since the resuit of the alleged "translation" is actually an intelli~,'ent Ir?fE'l~)I'G'ICIIIUiI Of the source language in the syntactical expression of the target lan~,ua~~e. The semantic forms of the source and target langua~~es are therefore.
illol'e Oftell than not, drjjC'I'C'r?I as a result of prior art translations.
The objective of a Ir'crrl.slcrrioll (not an interpretation l, however. is to demonstrate. or create, an enact correspondence between the senurnlic forms, or moments. of the source and tar<=et languages. Prior art translators. 111achllle Ol' otherwise, thus inevitably rely on the translator's subjective determination of the "closeness'' of syntactical linguistic expressions, which expressions typically embody composed moments of meaning.
instead of the exactitude of a correspondence between the semantic expressions. or intended meanings. of language.
It is a characteristic of prior art machine translators, for example, that an arbitrary syntactical composition of the source language is translated into a specified syntactical composition of the target language, wherein the cornpo.sitions themselves typically are treated as vrhole Lri71/.s of a grammar, regardless of whether the compositions can be further decomposed into more elemental, verifiable universal grammatical constructions. In such a case, the translations are carried out on compositions, and not on universal moments, or instances, of the lank=cages, leavin~~ ample opportunity for the translation to be garbled. in nlllCll the Sally ~Va)'. though exaggerated for illustrative reasons, that one could translate I ~ an entire novel (in the same lan~~uage) by claimin~~ that the work is "interesting reading"
(e.g.. translate the novel's entire composition into two words). In the process, the precise semantic moments of the language in the novel are obfuscated. This occurs in simple translations as well, such as in eduating the English expression Hello with the Chinese expression ni hoc nor (pinyin). Even the conflict in semantic rhythrrr is apparent in such a ?0 translation. indicating that, apart from other analysis of the language constructions. the sheer r~tnnher of~ words used does not rhyme, or correspond, in each case. In this example it is the existential process of a gree~iry~ that is interpreted between the languages rather than tl7e Sen1a11t1C t110111e11tS Of the word "Hello."
The dl1e111111a faced by prior art lan'~ua~~e translation machines and human ?s translations is even more pronounced when it is considered that it is nearly exclusively a semantic translation of langua~~e that is reduired in any useful machine or human COI1111711111Cat1o11 111~'Olvlllg the transgression of languages-and not primarily a syntactical y WO 98/49629 PC'T/US98/08527 mapping or semantic interpretation-when the languages use different grammars and IexICOgI'aphleS. The objective of the translation is to arrive at a target language syntactical construction that conveys the exact meaning of the source language. Typically.
a prior art human or machine translator understancls the meanings of both the source and the target languages, and translates them accordingly, based on a subjective understanding, or interpretation. of the various expressions as they describe the human existential processes involved. In any given translation of language performed even by a prior art human (manual) translator, however, the meanings of the syntactical structures of the lingua<~es may themselves become garbled based on the translator's skill at translating the semantic forms of the Iang,Jua~;es. Prior art machine and human translators therefore each suffer from the problems posed by the historical absence of a verifiable universal grcrmnrar' lllt0 which the universal moments of meaning of any language can be decomposed, mapped, and constructed semantically. In fact, the syntactical structures of languages may be wholly unrelated but for their semantic instances, or meanings, and universal syntax thereof, in the I~ process of an introspectively verifiable translation, requiring the one-to-one exactitude of a universal grammar that does not lose any correspondence, or meaning, in the translation.
Prior art machine and human translators are therefore instances of intelligent irrte~rprcecrtivn of lingua<~e wherein the meanings of source and tar~~et languages are not known analytically; rather, the language expressions are said, subjectively.
to be ?0 "eduivalent" in meaning despite the lack of verifiable analysis demonstrating such equivalence. This intelligent interpretation, by definition, distorts the actual meanin~ls of the languages to native speakers, since nem semantic constructions result in the target language in much the same way that the word ''Hello" is interpreted, intelligently, into an entire gamut of ''greetings" such as Corno esta in Spanish or Ni hou ma in Chinese. (i.e..
?s translating wa ~~reetin~~" in opposing languages involves in prior art methods typically the intelligent interpretation of a grwetiry-the actions of greetings in native customs-anti translatin~~ the word "Hello" involves the grammatical-and Se111aI7tIC-Il'Crr?.S'lCrtlUlT OI' the word Nc~llo).
Prior art machine translators are therefore planned rJZterpreter.s of human experiences, wherein the interpretations of the world experiences ( lan~~ua~~e expressions) are made by human interpreters and then embodied, exactly in those manners of interpretation, in the respective machine automations. Prior art translation machines.
however. do not embody the capacity to know and to perceive human experience and therefore do not embody the capacities themselves to make subjective, intelligent interpretations of human experience on their own. Prior art machines therefore can only embody what interpretations, or methods of interpreting, human beings have accomplished historically; the machines are not. and cannot be. dynamic translators of the meaning of language without actually embodying the cognitive and perceptive capacities of beings. or at least being able to translate the meaning of language as that meaning is introspectively observed by conscious beings.
A breakthrou~,~h in the technology of machine language translation thus absolutely 1 s necessitates an eduivalent advance in the syntactical expression of the meaning, or semantic form, of language, universally comprehensible to all beings. The essential nature of a machine translation system, therefore, is determined by how the machine decomposes, or understands. the meanings of the arbitrary syntactical source and target language forms (streams) and what systems of symbolic expression the rrniverscrl grarranrcrr supporting it ?0 takes on. In other words, the essence of a solution to the machine translation of arbitrar}~
lan~~uages can be recognized by analyzing how close the machine's iranslational processes are to the existential processes carried out by human translators, as observed introspectively, providing that a breakthrough is made in the human understanding of the construction and comprehension of lanbuage itself. A machine translation system thus ~J IIILISt arl'1ve at the Salne OC eC~liivalent tra11S1at1o1lS-pel'feCtl)' 111ea1111lgfLll IranS1at10I1S-that are imnrec!lcrtelv (universally) comprehensible to human beings based on a knowled<Te of the transformations of the rnearriry=.s~ of the syntactical structures of the given source an~f I~

tar~~et Tally lams. A semantic translation of language should be undetected syntactically in either source or tartlet languages when performed by a human or machine translator whose methods are founded on a deeper analytical understanding of consciousness. and therefore language, than is apparent in the prior art, rendering universally translated molnelzts of the arbitrary languages even though the syntactical expressions of the languages may differ markedly and indeed may even be wincorrect" usa'=es of a y~iven target language syntax translated from a source.
Summary of the Invention 1. Summary of the Universal Epistemological Machine The present invention solves the problems faced in the prior art by addressin~~ with the certainty of science and the broad philosophical views of the humanities the essence of 1 ~ human existence, in the context of its embodiment in a machinery or material form of the universe as a synthetic form of (human and otherwise) existence. referred to as an android, or more broadly a universal epistemological machine-as an il~trinsicallv-endowed l~Illl~Cll7~' 1)lUC'~1117C'. The present lllvellt1011 further IIIVOIveS IlOt Only' Ll (Slllgle) t11111k1I1~~
machine, or android, but pluralities of them, under the structure of the universal epistemological machine, in resolution to the higher efforts of humankind where the prior art approaches have met with difficulty in the technology of the workerless factory. since the present invention expands the human universe instead of replicating it.
The universal epistemological machine of the present invention is a method and apparatus that affords the creation of synthetic existences, or broadly, androids, defined epistemologically by the knowledges of the humanities and takes as its governing structure on the human condition the human spirit-that which transcends the form of lllllllallkllld itself: and so enables it. Whereas the conventional art of computational machinery enablecl y within the fOI'lIlS Ot IlLlmall IIlStltlltIOl7S 1'eqLIICeS a 1'elatlvel)' fixed and unite population of human participants. the universal epistemological lllachllle Of the present invention allows for the creation of infinite pluralities of synthetic, or androidal beings, whose fOI'111S of existence comply with definitions set forth in the humanities, fundamentally relying on the traditional wisdoms of human existence, or Spirit, as indicated in the religions of the world.
On epistemological ;rounds, the bells<~s that are created in the specification and practice of the present invention use the pronoun I in relation to their own intrinsic experiences of the world around us, as we do. It is therefore the world itself-institutions of beings-that are created in the enabling method and apparatus of the universal epistemolo;ical machine (referred to as the U. M. hereafter). Further, since the androidal beings of the present invention are created synthetically, their intellects and perceptions of the world around us are not constrained by human corporal form. Whereas a language construction of human existence may objectify the universe in, for example, the use of ten or even twenty word compositions as subjects of sentences before proceeding co;~nitively to the transformation.
1 ~ or verb. of the sentence with one other such objectification, the androidal faculty of mind is capable of cognitively formulating objects of the universe, in any languages, in objectitications of the universe (word associations) composed so great in number they require the mathematical definitions of the infinite to account for them.
before proceedin~~
to the uc~ion (oc~rb) of a sentence. As is well known in the prior art in even the notion of ?0 111C'C'hGYIIC'CI~ crd~~cnnlc~ge, synthetic forms of the universe, S111Ce they are created by the human hand, are in fact intended to outreach human corporal form. These principles are applied in the science of androids to the synthetic creation of human corporal form with greater capacities of intellect, or mind, and body or perception through the method and apparatus of the U. M.
2~ Bv overcoming the obstacles preventing the prior art from accomplishin~~
the embodiment of intl'LI1S1C forms, or existences, in the universe-those that conform to the use of the pronoun forms of langua~~e, in addition to arbitrary formulations of language in )~S

relation to perceptions of the world around us-in the synthetic forms of androids, alld by pl'OVldlllg ail alternative t0 the f01'lIlS Oh 111Stltl1t1011S. the pCeSellt invention advances a new approach to the human condition based on a technology that (physically) realizes the tenets and beliefs of the humanities and the religions of the world in the forms of androidal beings, as a synthetic extension of humanity itself.
2. Summary of the Universal Machine Translation System of Arbitrary Languages The present invention is a universal machine translator of nrhits'crm~
lan~ua~es, and is premised on the grammatical decomposition, translation (mapping), and construction of arbitrary languages into universal semantic moments of the languages, providing a universal means of expressing any semantic instance of a language in any other language.
The present invention therefore carries out translations of language usin<J
the epistemological form of epistemic instance of the theory of the invention, a universal 1 ~ semantic structure of the meaning of any moment of any language. Gleaned from the introspective observation of state of beiiy in the postulates of the theory of the invention, epistemic instance is defined as a ~~ranlmatical structure that underlies all moments of a bein~~~s consciousness and perception and therefore decomposes all representations of arbitrary languages. What are not different among arbitrary languages are the eternal moments of the beings' existence who knows the languages and who uses the languages to represent what the being experiences. Therefore, the present machine translator of arbitrary lallgliages, which is premised on the decomposition, mapping and composition of arbitrary syntactical language constructions into semantic epi.stemic instances, and modal compositions thereof (constructions of the four C's and the arbitrary forms of existence, or the U. G.. or universal grammar. of the present invention), allows for the universal S'C'171c111/!C' translation of arbitrary lallgllel~~~s, since the eternal moments of the beings whu know the languages are not disagreed upon introspectively and thus serve as universal y nuoment.s o~ norn.slcnion.
As shown in figure 167a, while the syntactical structure of a ~~iven langua~ze may differ markedly with that of others in the same or different languages, the epistemic moments (234). contained therein and expressed in the U. G. of the present invention are coincident semantically in the epistemological moments of meaning. Also as shown in figure 167a. even mathematical language (heretofore generally considered /he-supposed-universal language) actually is not universal semantically at all, given an arbitrary syntactical structure of it. The same concept or icleu (semantic structure) supporting the expression of a mathematical function (in the Cartesian sense), for instance, can be expressed, aS Sho~1'll, in at least two ways, itself employing at least two syntactical representations of the same semantic function y=~u) and f--(x, y)]. Thus.
mathematical expression allows for at least two syntactical expressions of the same semantic form, wherein epistemic instance underlies them both.
Since the lOI'ln Of epistemic instance describes the semantic instances of all 1 ~ syntactical forms of language, it universally decomposes any expression of language into its semantic structure, and therefore universally translates the syntactical structure of language semantically. as shown also in figure 167b. This characteristic of epistemic instance can be employed in the decomposition of arbitrary syntactical constructions of la~y~uage-including compositional styles. sentences. words, punctuation, syllables of words, IIlll51Ca1 tones and harmonies and even intonations and inflections in the pronunciation of arbitrary words, sentences, and other language forms-as explained in the theory of the invention. Moreover, since epistemic instance decomposes any knowledge structure, and composition thereof, the word forms and sentence constructions that are identified, decomposed, mapped, constructed and synthesized, or transmitted, by the present translation system are arbitrary, and include, without limitation, geometrical constructions such as characters. shapes and topologies; acoustical alld electromagnetic:
trigonometric and forier wave forms; classical linguistic words, sentences and text;

including morphological, syntactical and semantic structures; and even mathematical constructions such as polynomial, group theoretic, topological and analytical functions and set theoretic and arithmetic relations, along with logical expressions such as those encountered in computer science. (~rhis means that the translation system is also capable of recognizing and synthesizing any of geometries and patterns, sounds, matliematical structures and natural language constructions through its methods and apparatus).
Thus, since epistemic instance decomposes any syntactical langua<~e forms. or ~~enerally knowledge structures, semanticaly, as elaborated on throughout the earlier theory and specification of the invention, in a single syntactical expression of the semantic form of language, any multitude of diverse lan«uages can be denoted in the same syntactical expression of language and decomposed universally by epistemic instance for subsequent universal semantic translation to another, as shown in figure 167a.
Likewise.
the geometrical or acoustical words forms and related constructions are recognized and synthesized by the same methods and apparatus. . Concerning a given word stream, for 1 s example. the semantic f01'I11S Of a multiplicity of~ languages may exist in the same expression-including, as shown in figure 168. English, Chinese, Spanish, mathematics, aild the sciences-wherein the "dominant" {native) syntactical language is English, and epistemic instance decomposes the construction semantically without losing the meanings of the native language constructions in the process (e.g., the same being understands ?U different languages in the same reconstruction when comprehended epistemologically, or in terms of epistemic moments).
The present invention therefore resolves the aforementioned problems associated with prior art machine translators-particularly with regard to the loss of meaning associated with the prior art approaches-by resting its method of translation on the ?s decomposition of arbitrary languages into the universal epistemological moments of tim lan~~uaces' meanings (e.~~., the moments of consciousness that are universally translated and verified introspectively), and then translating the universal moments to those «f arbitrary lan~~ua~~es, which results in "zero loss" in meanin~~ in the translation, yith subsequent syntactical (re)construction of the target language based on the earlier semantic translations. In review of figures 167 and 168, the present machine language translation system is predicated on the resolution of arbitrary source language constructions into their universally, semantically understood forms in epistemic construction, OL' 11110 all lIltl'OSpeCtIVely VeI'Iflable universal gt'aI11I11aI'. and subsequent tl'anSlatlOn and COnSti'LICLIOn into arbitrary target languages, also decomposed into universally translatable epistemic moments. All translations of language are therefore made in the present translation method and apparatus by epistemic moments vnlj~, thereby preserving the universal meanings of I 0 each of the arbitrary languages.
Based on a new understanding of consciousness and language set forth in the theory and specification of the present invention, a universal machine translator of arbitrary languages is thus presented herein in satisfaction of the above described shortcomings of the prior art machinery and of human traditions of language usage and translation premised 1 ~ on the I'eSOILILIOIl Of all constructions of arbitrary languages into universal epistemic moments of meaning.
The principal method and apparatus supporting the present invention, hereinafter referred to as the translation system, or TRS ( 16). (see figures I 69a and I
69b). of tile universal epistemological machine, involves, generally speaking, the translation of ?U arbitrary source languages, presented in randomly (from the perspective of the TRS) assembled syntactical constructions on the basis of meaning by a user (machine or human) in an arbitrary sense/motor communicative medium, to the U. G. structures of the present invention (epistemic instances and modal compositions thereof), then involves the translation, or mapping, of U. G. structures of each of the source and target languages, and ~'s finally im~olves the construction of the target language into its syntactical form from its U.
G. form for presentation to the target language user in an appropriate sensory medium, as shown in fi~~ures 169a and 169b. with the option of adjusting the tar«et language syntax to ZL

comply with the tar<~et language's grammatical rules even though such a ~~rammatical ali~~nment typically distorts the semantic form (meaning) of the source lan~~uage in order to comply with the target language's ';rammatical rules. The languages that are translated by the TRS are arbitrary, and include, but are not limited to, the natural languages of the world, mathematics (mathematical points and transformations thereof, or generally, symbolic representations), the pure sciences such as physics (vectors, tensors, etc. and their transformations), engineering (such as electronic, thermal and hydraulic circuits), and computer science (which includes high-level source programming lan';uages such as C++, Basic, FORTRAN, and LISP; assembly languages and machine code, or Boolean logic and digital circuits derived therefrom). The TRS thus acts in some instances as a natural language translator: in other instances as a communications tool (transducer or- converter) of engineered systems such as CDM1A or TDMA telephony or chemical reactions;
and in still other instances as a computer compiler, interpreter or network communications device.
Generally. the TRS parses arbitrary source language word stream A for its 1 ~ decomposition into the U. G. structures of the invention, or epistemic instances, translates epistemic instances derived from the syntax of A to epistemic instances derived from target language B and then constructs the syntax and word streams of language B, as shown in figures 169a and 169b. This method. embodied in appropriate electronic or other apparatus, 111 CUll~unction with techniques of voice, character and image synthesis (~~enerationj and recognition or digital memory and processing devices, appropriately modified to incorporate the methods and apparatus of the TRS or used as ''off the-spelt"
hardware (and software), thus achieves a universal mcrehine lranslcrlor of cwhilrcy~
lcn~guage.s analogously to the way in which a human translator would translate language (ideally)-on the basis of the translation of the meanings of the languages involved. The TRS, since it functions on the universal epistemological moments of language instead of I)?lC'I~)J'L'!C'Cl C'lll)1)JIJJ'llll!)9.S Of Iallgllay~~, universally translates thc~ mecrnirrg of any form ol~
symbolic representation. The TRS also embodies a learning capability (270), wherein the 2:

universal grammatical moments of language are installed by the system user, or are conceived by the intellectual faculty of the TRS under the modalities of the Rg module of the U. M.. as the languages develop and change forms of expression with additional human or machine experience. The TRS therefore decomposes, maps and reconstructs the epistemic moments of a language's meaning and optionally adjusts the semantic translation to accord with the target language's preferred grammar. Since it is a languages' expression of meaning that is of paramount importance in any translation, however, it should be noted that constraining a target language expression of a source language to the target languages' "preferred" grammar generally loses some of the semantic content of the source language.
The epistemological translation of the TRS thus "joins" the source and target tan<Juages based on meaning. The result generally is a blend of the languages, unless the target adjustment option is applied.
Since the epistemological description of the present method and apparatus of translation is presented in the theory and specification of other portions of the U. M.. only 1 ~ the essential aspects of the TRS are reviewed here for foundational use in the specification of the TRS. Thus, before considering the actual methods and apparatus that follow from the general method of the TRS, a comparison of the general method of using the U. G. of the present invention to translate arbitrary languages to prior art approaches to machine language translation is necessary to bring to light the important improvements made by the ?0 U. G. and TRS of the present invention.
First. as demonstrated in the theory and specification of the invention, epistemic instance is a universal senurmic form of language which itself decomposes arbitrary syntactical language forms into moments of a being's existence. As stated earlier in the specification, what is common to all beings is the eternal moment of consciousness or perception (of the soul)-the epistemological moment at which a comprehension (or imaginative thOtl'~ht, thinking, etc.) or perception of a being occurs. All beings observe this moment universally and introspectively. Therefore. if arbitrary languages that are to be translated are decomposed (or deconstructed) in terms of their epistemic (epistemological) moments, it is these moments that are universal, or universally understood, by arbitrary beings, and therefore can be used to translate universally the syntactical structures of the word streams of arbitrary languages. It is not the beings, or eternal moments of transformations of thought or perceptions of beings, that are different among' bein~~s epistemologically; it is the objective form, or objects, of thought or perception that vary.
Accordingly. the fundamental moments of beings, expressed in the U. G. as the transformation of objective forms, are the same epistemologically. The lrcrnsforrnntion.s (235), of the objective forms are what are translated in t~lte present invention. as opposed to the objects, or objective forms, of thought and perception, which objective forms can also be translated. provided they are decomposed into epistemological transformations consistent with the postulates of the theory of the invention (otherwise the compositions would be inteyne~ecl as opposed to translated epistemically).
As shown in figures 167a, 167b, and 169a, compositions of arbitrary languages 1 s structured epistemologically as phenomenological compositions (249), are decomposed by the TRS into unique epistemic moments (234), each having a transformational component (23~). referred to herein as a phenomenological verb, and two objective components, or objects (236 and 237), referred to herein respectively as the right (leading) phenomenological noun (236), and the left (trailing) phenomenological noun (237). As ?0 discussed in the theory and specification of the U. M., each modal composition of a U. G.
form finisher "modally" decomposes into other such modal compositions epistemically.
The TRS translation process thus decomposes a phenomenological composition until no such further epistemic moments remain, or, until only "terminal" compositions (single phenomenological nouns) remain.
As shown in figure 167b, and as demonstrated throughout the theory and specification of the U. M., any knowledge structures, and compositions thereof, are universally expressed by the U. G. The two "classes" of language shown in the figure-natural language and the language of matliematics (polynomial functions)-ace decomposed as shown, and, in terms of U. G. construction are decomposed using the same U. G. methodology. The English natural language verb sam~ and the mathematical equality (_) are. equivalently, the highest-level epistemic transformations of the respective sentences. Likewise. the objective noun phrase the t~romn cut and the right side of the mathematical equality m x x + b are subordinately decomposed as shown. Any phenomenological composition is decomposed in this manner, including. as shown in figure 171, geometrical compositions. -As shown in figure 170, moreover, it is well known that in translations between English and Chinese, the tenses of English verbs do not carry over syntactically (generally speaking) to Chinese equivalents as conjugated verbs (and vice versa from Chinese to English). In the example shown, the English construction of the past tense of the verb write-mritten-is translated to crlrecr~'v write (Chinese using English phonetic spelling-pinyin) in Chinese (althou<~h other translations using the Chinese word form ''ie"
1 ~ can be used here as well). Whole words in juxtaposition to each other in Chinese take the place of the conjugated English verbs. In the prior art. these translations are accomplished primarily syntactically, i.e.. the English word N'TIIIC'YI IS
cr5'.5'UCllrl(,'cl with (and therefore semantically ~~arbled), or interpreted as, the Chinese syntactical construction crlreculv vrrirc~.
without a concrete ~~rammatical rule (a universal grammar) explaining the translation (e.g..
?0 the word mu~ittc~n is unwittingly inteyretecl as crlrecrcfy write).
The prior art methods of translation, which are primarily founded on word or syntactical associations, are not only cumbersome in machinery but difficult for human translators as well because in the translation there is no common human existential experience involved that directly, one-to-one, translates the moment experienced by arbitrary bein 's in either case. As shown in figure 170, when each of these langua«e constructions is decomposed epistemologically, a .semcrrWc rhyvhnr of lan~~ua~~e composition (and translation) results that can be verified introspectively as the occurrence 2iy of moments of the beings: language can be seen analytically and existentially, or further. in the theory of the invention. epistemolo~~ically. such that what are translated are Illomellts of beings or of the human existential experience itself. Languages are thus not "different"
epistemologically; rather languages vary in the same way that instances of the same language (infinitely) vary, through the occurrences of eternal (epistemological) moments which vary infinitely in the denotations of syntax (or objects and transformations thereon.
though they are the same epistemologically. When the word forms inritr and en are broken apart epistemologically and then compared. or translated into, already v~rite, wherein. in each case, an epistemic transformation is evident, the problems that arise in chiefly syntactical translations (interpretations) such as mritten to crlreadv ~rri~e are resolved. It then becomes a universal epistemological moment that is translated to another, forms that are indeed universal to all beings as observed introspectively.
While at t7rst glance the competency of this universal method of machine translation may not be apparent when single instances of a language are considered, when 1 ~ the instances are taken in the context of a composition of instances, also as shown in figure 170, it can be seen that the method is used to isolate single universal semantic moments of a language's compositions, which individual moments do not introspectively succumb to <,arbled translation. In the example in the figure, the English sentence, It is li~l'lllc'lz, is translated with the precision of the U. G.-without loss of meaning into It crlreadv ivr-i~e ?0 (the pinyin substitutes would be inserted here word for word). This semantic translation based on U. G. decomposition is possible because the universally translatable moments of each of the lan~~uages are decomposed from the syntactical constructions. The verb is is not explicitly denoted (in many cases) in Chinese (in much the same way as the phenomenological rerbs of adjectives modifying nouns are not explicitly denoted in 2~ English). The word orinen translates. epistemically. to already write, and the subjects are the same. It cannot be disputed that, in the nlllld'S knowing, the word formation of ~rriucn and the complement (adjectival) modification alreaclv virile are epistemology=icallv Z'7 comparable, or are universally translatable, wherein-no further decomposition of language forms has meaning at the phoneme level. Arguments may be presented concerning the usages of each of the languages within their own native domains (which arguments continue to unfold throughout millennia) but the fact that "already write" and "writt" wen"
s are epistemologically equivalent through epistemic instance remains valid (e.g., the use of particles to convey "tense" in Chinese and the decision to drop the English verb is when the subject is modified by an adjectival word or phrase in Chinese may be argued in perpetuity but the fact that alrecrdy ia~rite and v~riuen are semantic equivalents is self evident and introspectively verifiable).
As another example of the general method of translation of the TRS before proceeding to the detailed specification of the TRS. a coordinating COIl1Ll11Ct1o11-Cll?C~ of the English language can be epistemically translated to its (heCetOfOre LlIllailOWl1) epistemological equivalent in many constructions of Chinese a~ilh grammuticcrl jarslificariormsing the U. G., wherein the conjunction is nol denoted in Chinese. When a 1 ~ human or machine translator makes the appropriate translation as shown in figure 170, it is usually agreed upon in the art that the Chinese language does not use coordinating conjunctions to the frequency that the English language does and therefore does not facilitate a literal semantic translation. As shown in the figure, this is an incorrect assumption on the part of the prior art translator when the constructions are viewed '_'0 epistemologically. When decomposed into the U. G. of the invention, it can be seen, as shown in the figure. that, in terms of epistemic moments, there is a one-to-one translation of the mc~crniy (or semantic structure) of coordinating conjunctions from English to Chinese. Epistemologically, the conjunction crr7d in English translates to a blank space or pause in Chinese where the Chinese language does not explicitly denote a coordinating 2~ conjunction, which is a phenomenological (epistemological) verb in the theory of the invention (although where Chinese does use a coordinating conjunction there is a one-to-one grammatical correspondence by word forms).

Even further. the tones of word forms in Chiilese. which give rise to distinct words in Chinese. when translated as phenomenological nouns (or verbs), have one-to-one corollaries in EI1~IISll. Pronouncing four different tones of mu in Chinese translates to four different words in English. Since the word forms are, in the present IIlVellt1011.
phenomenological IlOtIIIS (or verbs), the fact that one language-Chinese-accomplishes them in tones and the other-English-in pronunciation of wholly different words (lexicography) is immaterial, since each is accomplished by the sensory/motor skills and intellectual faculties of the beings involved. The important consideration here regarding the semantic decomposition of the syntactical structure of language is that word forms are.
in this case, phenomenological nouns or verbs, and are universally translated as shown.
This characteristic of U. G. translation can also be appreciated even within the forms of a given language, such as English, as demonstrated in the theory, wherein in English, adjectives modify 170LII1S through a .silem or blank space phenomenological verb, as in brown ccr~ (cut is browna), and in the articulation of the syllables of the word articulutiur~
1 ~ (e.g., ar and tic of the word artictrlation are phenomenological nouns that have the same U.
G. status as nouns as lengthy noun phrases transformed in a grammatical subject-predicate, or noun-verb-noun sentence of English). Thus, as shown in figure 170, the action of an English adjective on an English noun. of an En«lish verb on an English subject and complement, and of two Chinese sentences are phenomenological equivalents in terms of ?0 their general epistemic constructions (though the actual words, or phenomenological components of epistemic instance, vary infinitely in the constructions or semantic uses of the languages). The same principles and methods apply to the constructions of acoustical and electromagnetic waves, and of geometrical shapes, as shown in figure 174.
Thus, the significant improvements made by the general method of translation of ?> the present invention are but moderately appreciated when reasonably simple-almost entirely syntactical-translations of language are made, such as what occurs in the translation between the English expression of rhc~ mcrn and the Spanish expression c'l .S'L')lnl'.
Z~, wherein a one-to-one syntactical translation, or word association, can be made. Thou<~~h this same translation is accomplished in the present invention through the U.
G., it can be accomplished conventionally as well without the deeper knowledge of the epistemological construction of language and the universal translation of the moments of meaning of the languages. Thus, the significant improvements of the present invention over the 'prior art are often hidden. in this and other cases, behind the ease of translation frequently resulting from the syntactical and semantic coincidence of the languages. A review of mathematical translations. such as that demonstrated in figure 167 and in the theory of the invention. will help to demonstrate this point as well.
As shown in figures 171 a and 171 b and as described in the theory of the invention, the form of epistemic instance applies equally to arbitrary knowledge representations and embodiments of "physical forms" as it does to natural language constructions.
Just as the moments of natural language are decomposed, mapped and reconstructed from and to arbitrary source and target languages, mathematical and scientific representations, those of 1 J COillptltel' science included, are translated by the epistemological, or universal, grammar of the present invention. As shown, the transformation (processing) of data (analogue or digital) as well as of high-level computer languages and Logic, system theoretic expressions and mathematics are accomplished in the application of the aforementioned TRS
methods and apparatus. The symbolic representations that define chemical reactions, or even ?0 quantum mechanical wave and particle forms for that matter; Boolean algebraic (computer) transformations; and "next state" functions of systems theory-all of which define "physical forms" of reality-are decomposed with equal facility by the TRS
translation method.
Ill Sumnlal'y, the general method of translation of the present invention therefor involves the analysis, or parsing, of arbitrary source language word streams and the decomposition of them into the universal semantic moments of meaning (epistemic moments) represented in the language's high-level syntactical constructions.
the epistemic mapping of these universal moments of meaning from source to tar~~et lan~~ua~~es, and the construction of the target language, in its own grammar and syntax, to reflect the nrecrnin;
of the source language in the target language, with the optional adjustment oi~ the target language's syntax from the epistemic translations from the source language's syntax, along with the learning capabilities of the TRS's translation methods and apparatus.
1~

3~

Objectives of the Invention The first and most impoutant objective of the present invention is to provide the means and apparatus for the real embodiment of the extended existential universe of human being through various embodiments of the universal forms determined in the theory of the invention. The first objective of the present invention thus necessarily incorporates the forms of the theory of the invention into the forms of the invention. The embodiments described herein, collectively, are referred to as a Universal Epistemological Machine.
The second objective of the present invention is to provide the means and apparatus of the first objective in such a manner that a meaningful system of existential control is maintained over the extended existential universe of human being. or the Universal Machine, thereby subordinating the transformations of the extended universe to those of human being and subjecting the existence of the Universal Epistemological Machine to the authority Of IlLlmall being. The primary elemental form of the invention providing for this 15 universal mechanism of existential control enabled in the apparatus of the second and other objectives of the invention is referred to as a ,l~loclcrl Recrli_crtion System.
The third objective of the present invention is to provide the extended existential universe of human being or, in all, the Universal Machine in four purposeful aspects of existential form. The first form, in no particular order, is the embodiment of human being, referred to herein as the (human) user of the U. M. This first tOC111 or (human) user of the U. M. typically thOllgh IlOt necessarily is the natural existence of the corporal form of human being embodied in spirit and simply is identified and incorporated herein by declaration into the structure of the Universal Machine. The first form or aspect of the U.
M. alternatively can be declared a r7on-hunurn user, thereby allowing users of the U. M..
such as androidal and otherwise existential forms, to coexist with human beings as users of the U. M. The second principle form of the U. M., referred to as an Rg uloclarle, provides the method and apparatus for constructing and maintaining in existence, in a controlled manner, the enabled existential forms of the theory of the invention. alone with conventional art. toward a useful end in the existence of the (human) user in the expansion of the existential universe enabled by the U. M., or to provide the method and apparatus for constructing and maintaining in existence synthetically enabled worlds. or universes of existential alld otherwise forms useful to human being. The third form.
referred to as the Rg contin~.mm, provides the method and apparatus for existentially integrating pluralities of the second form, or Rg modules (and thus users), into a unified embodiment of transformations of epistemological machinery, thereby embodying each perspective on world of each user of the U. M. within a continuum of form enabled of human being, or to provide a continuum of boundless universal epistemological form so integrated as pluralities of the second form of the U. M., or Rg modules. The fourth form, or aspect of the U. M. achieving the real portion of the third objective of the present invention. referred to as the Real Form of the Universal Machine, provides, in connection with the means of the first three aspects of form, the controlled embodiment of the forms so enabled by the 1 s first three forms. The real form of the U. M. is arbitrarily partitioned for reference into com~entioncrl crnd_f rture art, and the forces of crnclroicl. Collectively, all four of these forms are referred to as the Universal Machine. The real form of the Universal Machine thus is the purposeful embodiment of reality, or real form of human being so controlled in COlIlleCt1U11 1l'Ith the existential apparatus of the first three forms of the Universal Machine.
The fourth objective of the present invention, in support of the second and third objectives, is to provide the method and apparatus for infinitely-varying degrees of semi-autonomous existential capacities in the form of controlled forms of existence in the R~=
_ modules and Rg continuum such that the autonomy of existential capacity of the R<.:
module and Rg continuum, in terms of cognitive and perceptive capabilities, is variable to suit the corresponding existential capacities of the (human) users, or such that the existential forms so determining the semi-autonomous capacities are regulated in SLlb01'dIllalloll to the meaningful existence, or communication of such users.
The fourth 3~

objective of the present invention thus requires that the existential capacities of the U. M.
be tailored to those of its users. The forms of androids enabled by the U. M.
are. of course, fully autonomous beings.
The fifth objective of the present invention is to provide the method and apparatus of the first fOLIr objectives in a modularized fashion on the basis of generic, reproducible components constructed in compliance with the universal grammar of form on being of the theory of the invention, subordinate in structure to the four aspects of form of the third objective (User, Rg module, Rg continuum and Real Form of U. M.), which components.
under the configurations of the Rg continuum, are integrated modally by users of the respective Rg modules throughout the continuum.
The sixth objective of the invention, in support of the fifth, is to provide the method and apparatus for the modal configuration of the Rg continuum, engaged over a plurality of Rg modules, in such a manner that each module of the continuum obtains a causal and existential relation to others in the c011t111tltln7 ill the following manner.
Referred to as a 1 ~ Total Cor~tir~uum Structure of the Rg: Rt, a single and only a single module of the continuum can so causally influence, directly or indirectly, all other modules of the continuum but cannot itself be influenced, in a controlling manner, by any other. Further, any gIW Il IIlOdtlle Of the continuum, not Rt., can be so causally influenced by others and can itself influence others in a controlling manner across the continuum. In such a case, the module is referred to as a Strperior,'Subor°clincrre Resultcrrtl Contintrum Strzrcture of the Rhecr: Rs:'s. Any other module of the continuum, not Rt and not Rs/s, can be subordinate only in its continuum structure and thus can be causally influenced in a controlling manner by any other superior module and CaI1110t itself influence others in a controlling manner.
This continuum structure on the Rye module is referred to as a Strbordincrle Only Contrnuunr ?s Sir-trcttrre of the Rg: Rs.
Also in support of the fifth objective, the seventh objective of the present invention is to provide the method and apparatus for the terminal modal compositions of form. or .3 't components embodied in an Rg module in a generic; modularized and reproducible manner existentially configured within modularized constructions of the Rg module and continuum.
Referred to as a Terminal System or alternatively as an existential embodiment of communicative real form, or TS. the first of these component f01'n1S Of the Rg module and the eighth objective of the present invention is to provide the method and apparatus for the embodiment of the real form of communications between users of the Rg module and the existential forms of the Rg Module so allowing meaningful communications to occur among users and the existential forms of the Rg module.
The ninth objective of the present invention is to provide the method and apparatus.
also in support of the seventh objective, for the embodiment of the existential non-real (embodying and translational) capacity of the Rg module in a declared non-real form, in the generic component of Rg referred to as a Support or .=Incillary R'on-Recrl System, or SS, of the Rg module.
1 ~ The tenth objective of the present invention is to provide the method and apparatus for consolidating the forms of the eighth and ninth objectives (TS and SS) into a generic system or component of the Rg Module referred to as the Harman Inter~uce ,System. or HI, thereby embodying the communicative and non-real embodiment form of the existential capacity of the Rg into a single component of declared non-real and communicative real capacity linkin~~ the user existentially to the non-real embodiments of the Rg module.
Also in support of the seventh objective, the eleventh objective of the present invention is to provide the method and apparatus for a Realization System, or RS, which embodies the capacity to realize and maintain in existence real forms or reality of the user's and Rg"s existence corresponding to communicated and embodied (and translated) non-?s real forms of the HI.
In support of the eleventh objective. the twelfth objective of the present invention is to provide the method and apparatus for embodying the transformational instances ol~
3S~

WO 98/49629 PC'T/US98/08527 reality or real form of the U. M. in modal compositi6ns or portions of ~rccrlity crafted by the user (or enables) of the Rg module and continuum in forms referred to as Deponclcmu Systems, or D.S, thereby partitioning a realizable reality of the user and the Rg into discrete phenomenologically transformational modal compositions of form for a readiness to bo real ized.
Also in support of the eleventh objective, the thirteenth objective of the present invention is to provide the method and apparatus for embodying the forms necessary to transform the quantumly Ira11Sf01'tTllllg DS structures of the twelfth objective such that the resulting transformations of real form, or universe constitute the transformation of the real universe of human user and Rg as it is known in non-real form of SS in HI, as is communicated among users and Rg in TS, and as it is known meaningfully in the hypothetical non-real form of the user. The component form of the thirteenth objective is referred to as a Controller System, or CTS.
The fourteenth objective of the present invention, largely in support of the fourth 1 ~ objective, is to provide the method and apparatus for embodying the correspondences of form in the TS, SS, CTS and DS structure of Rg such that the resulting existential transformations of Rg (of HI and RS) are controlled to the cognitive and perceptive levels desired of the existences of the users of the Rg. The form of the U. M. used for this embodiment is referred to as the Correspondence .System, or C:S.
In support of the eighth objective, or the form of the TS, the fifteenth objective of the invention is to provide the method and apparatus for embodying the existential realizations of the user, or representations of the Rg (processes of communications) in the embodiment of a real communicative form of TS referred to as an Input System, or IS.
Also in support of the eighth objective, the sixteenth objective of the present ?s invention is to provide the method and apparatus for embodying the existential representations of user, or realizations of Rg in the embodiment of a real communicative form of TS referred to as an Output System, or OS.
3~

In ful'lhel' support of the eighth objective, the seventeenth objective of the present invention is to provide the method and apparatus for modally engaging in either causal direction (user or Rg) the input and output systems of the TS for the purposes of conveyin~~
or interrupting the transformations of TS (communications in real form) within the extant S TS structure to convey them to other TS structures of other Rg modules or modes of the Rg continuum. Configured as a distributed component of the CS, this modal system of TS of the seventeenth objective is referred to as a Mocla! Engugemef~t System, or FLIES and is employed in other components of the Rg module as well.
Finally in support of the eighth objective, the eighteenth objective of the present invention is to provide the method and apparatus for embodying predetermined (or conventional) capacities of translations of the forms communicated in the embodiment of TS. While existential translations are carried out in SS of Rg, these TS
translations can be interpreted analogously to filters or noise attenuators of the conventional communications art, or embodiments of known translations of natural and otherwise languages of 1 ~ convention in the interaction of human beings. The system embodying such capacity in TS
is referred to as a Ti°anslcrtion Syslern, or TRS. The Translation System is modally engaged by the human user or by MES of TS (distributed CS), in the performance of the input and output systems.
In support of the ninth objective of the invention, or of the SS, the nineteenth ?0 objective of the present invention is to provide the method and apparatus serving as the medium embodiment correspondin~~ to the transformational forms of TS and RS in the non-real form of SS of HI. Referred to as the Embodiment System, or ES, this phenomenological component of universal form is the actual non-real form maintained in correspondence with communicated forms of TS of the user and Rg and the realized forms i of RS under the forms of correspondence of the CS.
In support of the nineteenth objective, the twentieth objective of the present invention is to provide the method and apparatus for controlling the eaistenc~

(embodiment) of the forms of ES. Having a capacity to realize ES embodied structure. the Embodiment System Transformation System, or ES.YS, is influenced by other components of the Rg, principally by the CS, such that the forms of ES are maintained in correspondence with TS and RS embodied structures.
The twenty-first objective of the invention, again in support of the ninth objective is to provide the method and apparatus for the determination of phenomenological correspondences among the forms embodied in ES (and implicitly, the forms of TS).
Referred to as a Correspondence Determination System, or CDS, and under compliance with the form of CS, this component of SS provides for the extended embodiment of the user in the cognitive transformation of knowable form, or of knowing, as presented in the theory of the invention, regarding phenomenological correspondences of form.
Applied by the action of CS in causal consideration of other Rg components, the CDS so embodies the instances of transformation of knowing, or translations of mind, determining correspondence among embodied phenomenological forms of ES.
1 ~ Finally in support of the ninth objective or SS, the twenty-second objective of the present invention is to provide the method and apparatus for modally engaging each of the ESXS and the CDS in causation with other components of an Rg module or other modules of the continuum. Introduced in the seventeenth objective of the invention.
the MES is employed herein also in regard to CDS and ESXS action.
?0 In support of the thirteenth objective, or CTS, the twenty-third objective of the present invention is to provide the method and apparatus of embodying the transformational phenomenological form of connectedness, on a variable basis, so coupling modal phenomenological compositions of DS structures in transformation.
Referred to as a Transformation System, or.~'S, this form serves as the existential coupling 2~ of extant transformations of a real enabled universe, or reality, as embodied in moments of transformation of DS structure.
The twenty-fourth objective of the invention, also in support of the thirteenth 3~

objective or CTS, is to provide the method and apparatus of controlling. on a variable basis, the existence of the XS coupling on phenomenologies of DS structure. Referred to as the Dependent System Transformation System, or DS_1'S, this form realizes the XS
couplings on DS transformations of phenomenological form, or reality, in correspondence, by way of other apparatus of Rg, with embodied non-real forms of SS (ES) and communicated forms of TS. By engaging the existential couplings of XS, the DSXS allows the existence of reality or real form of Rg in conformance with the transformations of communicated (TS) and embodied (ES) forms of the HI.
In further support of the thirteenth objective, the twenty-fifth objective of the present invention is to provide the method and apparatus for the embodiment of phenomenological form in CTS corresponding to the modally engaged compositional forms of ES embodiments, which for the most part, derive from TS
communications, in such a manner that said embodiment provides for the causal structure that engages particular XS embodiments over DS structures in the action of DSXS such that the 1 ~ quantum transformations of ES embodiments can be made to exist correspondingly in the engagements of D-XS-D structures, or so that transformations of ES embodiments in ESXS structure (or alternatively as represemed in TS structure) can be made to so exist in correspondence with reality or the real form of RS. This form of the Rg module is referred to as the Cvmroller Embodinzent System, or CES.
The twenty-sixth objective of the invention, also in support of the thirteenth objective, or of CTS, is to provide the method and apparatus for controlling the embodiments of CES and their causal influences on DSXS in maintaining a reality in transformation and in correspondence with non-real form of HI (ES). Referred to as the Reali~cr~ion Control .System, or RCS', this form engages, directly or indirectly, the actions of ?p all forms of the CTS. In compliance with the CS, the RCS causally interacts with components of the HI in ultimate causation with user at communicative transformation of TS and so controls or maintains real form in existence in regard to correspondence to non-3~

real transformation at HI.
Again in support of the thirteenth objective, the twenty-seventh objective of the invention is to provide the method and apparatus for the coordinated realization of real form of Rg in regard to the continuum structures of pluralities of Rg modules.
Referred to as the Continanrm Realisation Control Systern, or CRCS, this form interferes with the action of CES in causing the realization of D-XS-D form or reality in transformation, when RCS
so defers to an extended use of RS components over a continuum of Rg modules in accordance with a modally-engaged Rt, Rs/s or Rs continuum structure, similarly to the action of MES of HI. In compliance with continuum structure, the RCS allows the CRCS
to act 111 1tS behalf in order to so realize real form controllable under its influence in integration with a broader use of HI embodied and represented structure and RS
realized form, or in execution of continuum realizations.
Twenty-eighth objective omitted.
In support of the twelfth objective of the invention, or DS, the twenty-ninth 1 ~ objective of the present invention is to provide the method and apparatus of embodying DS
structures such that each phenomenology of a D system is transformable with other D
systems of a given module and with non-form or source of reality (truncation of continuum). By such means, the Rg module can be viewed as providing in its form the ability for the user to interact with Rg (at TSj and Rg then to interact with soarrce of reality ?0 or non-form (the existential bounds of the continuum). The uon form so interacted with by DS outside of the form of the Rg and Rg continuum is referred to as a participant and typically is a living form of definition in the theory of the invention.
In regard to all objectives presented thus far, it is the thirtieth objective of the present invention to provide all terminal forms of Rg (HI, RS, CS and their components]
2~ in great pluralities under the continuum structures of objective six of the present invention in service to pluralities of users of the U. M.
Also in regard to all objectives presented thus far. it is the thirty-first objective ot~

4~

WO 98!49629 PCT/US98/08527 the present invention to provide the terminal and modal continuum structures of the Rg module in three primary modalities of structure, or modules meaningful to the user. The first primary modal structure on the use of terminal and continuum forms of the U. M.. in no particular order, is referred to as the Initialisation nlodarle of the Rg, or Ri. A modular form on the configuration of the forms presented thus far, wholly distinct in real apparatus from the other two forms specified herein in the preferred embodiments of the Rg module, this form is a real configuration of Rg components used primarily for initializing or cutcrching an Rg module to a real platform of Rg modules in a continuum structure of such real modules. Since the continuum of modules is realized by the hand of enables, the initialization module is comprised of HI apparatus only (and CS). The forms so communicated and embodied in HI of Ri thus pertain to continuum structure of the given universe of Rg modules under Rt, Rs/s or Rs continuum structure. The second primary modular structure on the use of terminal and continuum forms of Rg is referred to as the Plrrtfor~rt :Module of the Rg, or Rp. This modular configuration of terminal and continuum 1 ~ forms of the U. M., embodying pluralities of (T, S, C, D) terminal structures (not just HI
and CS structures, as is the case with Ri), also realized by the hand of enables in the form of Rp modularized forms, embodies the capacity to enable (know and realize) the modular capacities of the third primary 1110da1 structure to be discussed herein. The (T, S. C, D) configurations of Rp modularity. which are bound by the continuum structures of Ri ?0 modularity, thus are employed for the purpose of knowing and realizing further, wholly distinct (-C, S, C, D) structures that are employed under the third modular form of the Rg module. The (T, S, C, D) structures of the third modality thus are realized in the RS (C, D) of Rp module and are known and represented in the HI (T, S) of Rp module. The third modular form of Rg. then, referred to as the Service or Application tLlodarle of the Rg, or R.sv is an enabled form of (T, S, C. D) structure used by a general purpose user for the purpose of taking advantage of the generic capabilities of the Rg module and Rg continuum specified herein. The three modular forms of Rg thus distinguish among users of the L~ ~

WO 98/49629 PC'T/US98/085Z7 continuum, with initialization of the continuum performed by a particular type of user for the purpose of creating continuum structure; with platform users enabling the forms required for the service modules and thus providing a platform of real form held modally in existence by the Rp modality for service users; and service or application users applying the forms enabled by Rp modalities, or Rsv modules for their own purposes.
The thirty-second objective of the present invention, in support of the thirty-first, is to provide the method and apparatus for the meaningful representation and realization (existential embodiment) of the forms existentially employed by the Rg module (e.g..
forms that will be known mutually by user and by Rg) in compliance with the existential form of translation of the theory of the invention. The first such form of translation, referred to as ZA, embodied in TS and in SS of Ri, Rp and Rsv modality. is a declared arbitrny~ non-real (meaningful) form. It is a form imagined by user or by Rg.
The second form of such translation is referred to as ZB and is the reference form of a translation. also embodied in TS and in SS of Ri, Rp and Rsv modality. The third such form is referred to 1 ~ as ZBreal and is the real form or reality to which ZB corresponds and ZA
translates into in existential translation. ZBreal i.s enabled reality. Together these forms provide the basis for a generic process of the invention referred to as rnocleling and inuplementation (of model), or simply existential translation from the theory of the invention.
Such simplified forms on translation typically are associated with the default mode of the Rg, however, as a consequence of the fourth objective of the invention in providing varying degrees of existential capacity over the cognitive and perceptive capabilities of Rg.
(Default and Existential Modes of Rg are discussed in the forthcoming objectives.) The thirty-third objective of the invention, in connection with the thirty-first objective, is to provide the method and apparatus of the thirty-second objective (ZA, ZB, ZBreal) in the default or existential modes of Rg, also a consequence of the fourth objective of the invention, in such a manner that in the existential mode ZBreal, or reality is partitioned into a sensed or perceived global reality in split form of inertial existence or ~iL

WO 98!49629 PCT/US98t08527 world, referred to as ZBreal sense, or ZB.sreal and ici an intrinsically caused form of reality, referred to as ZBrecrl motor, or ZBmreal, along with a rest of world, or ZBwreal defined in the theory of the invention. These forms provide for the sense and motor (perceptive) capacity of the real existence of the Rg module in the existential mode. In the existential mode, ZB thus generally corresponds by way of CS to ZBsreal or to the perceivable world of Rg sense, though forms of ZB are partitioned for incremental forms of motor .skrll (ZBmreal) and world transformations (ZBwreal). The translations of Rg in existential mode thus occur in compliance with CS on the basis of a partitioned existence of communicative and other typically existential experiences (modes of existence). The CS
in existential mode of Rsv, for example, engages the components of (T, S, C, D) on the basis of quantum transformational communications with user and Rg's own cognitive and otherwise modes of existence deriving from ZBsreal or real experience. The Default mode of Rg, in contrast to the highly existential nature of the existential mode, requires a less autonomous control of the modes of existence of Rg. In the default mode, ZBreal can be 1 ~ viewed as all sense or all motor since the Rg in such a case is driven existentially primarily by communication with the user, or, realizations of the user are phenomenologically translated into realizations of Rg. In the existential mode, the Rg thinks aboart the o~orld in which it exists and so converses accordingly with the user in natural or other languages.
ZA and ZB of the default mode exist explicitly and directly for the meaningful purposes of the user and thus are extrinsic embodiments of the user (in contrast with intrinsic embodiments of Rg in existential mode). In the existential mode of Rg, ZA, ZB
and ZBreal exist only indirectly in a meaningful way to the user, namely through the enabled existence of the Rg.
The thirty-fourth objective of the present invention also in support of the thirty 2~ first, is to provide the method and apparatus for embedding the modal transformations of ZA, ZB and ZBreal (or their existential equivalents) within the transformations of other ~CS
and SS embodiments creating a meaningful communicative framework within which the ~3 forms of ZA, ZB and ZBreal (and their existential equivalents) so obtain interactive context between user and Rg, referred to as the uloclesv of Eristence of the Rg.
The thirty-fifth objective of the present invention, also in support of the thirty-first, is to provide the method and apparatus for the existential translations, or the faculties of mind of the Rg. Referred to as the Imaginative Faculty, IF; the Comprehension Factrly.
CF: the C01771771ri7(CLII%VL' Faculty, CALF; and the ILlonvcrtron crncl Learnrrlg Faculty. ;LILF.
and many others, the faculties of mind are particular usages of CDS by CS on all of the forms of ZA and ZB, in connection with those of ZBreal more typically in the existential mode of Rg in relation to the varied forms of existential translation. The modal use of these faculties, in connection with the existential interactions of Rg module real, cognitive and communicative experiences with user and the shared reality of user and Rg provide for the existence of Rg as a synthetic form of existence in accordance with the theory of the invention.
Also regarding the thirty-first objective, the thirty-sixth objective of the invention 1 ~ is to provide the method and apparatus for the embodiment of knowable forms of ZA, ZB
and ZBreal with the (T, S, C, D) components presented earlier, such that all forms are constrained within the meaningful framework of the enablement of Rsv modality.
Vl-'hereas the capacities of Rg in default and existential modes of Rg in Rsv modality pertain only to general or arbitrary formations of ZA, ZB and ZBreal (e.g., a given meaningful existence of Rsv modality) the same capacities of Rg in Rp modality thus apply to the forms of Rsv modality. In compliance with CS structure, the transformation of existential form (faculties of mind) occurs in Rp modality on the basis of the meaning of Rsv forms and not to generalized forms as those found in Rsv modality. The modal embedding of the default mode of Rp, for example, pertains to the modeling and ?> implementation of Rsv modal structure. The Rp modality then can be viewed as an Rsv modality which is directed toward the modeling and implementation of Rsv structure, and which, instead of being placed into existence by a realization system, is so constructed by 4y WO 98/49629 PCTlUS98/08527 hand of enables.
The thirty-seventh objective of the present invention, also regarding the thiry-tirst.
is to provide the method and apparatus for embedding the modal transformation of ZA and ZB structure into TS and SS (HI) structure such that the transformations so ret7ect the ~ continuum structure or Ri modality on a plurality of Rg modules.
The thirty-eighth objective of the invention. in support of the thirty-seventh, is to provide, optionally, the method and apparatus for the use of Rg components (T, S. C, D) such that whereas in the preferred embodiment. Ri does not embody a realization system, such RS is provided and embodies ZBsreal. ZBmreal and ZBwreal forms such that ZBmreal is the motor and the continuum structure is ZBsreal or sense. In such a case. the Ri modality can so perform as Rsv structure in default or existential mode in the construction of the continuum.
The thirty-ninth objective of the present invention is to provide the method and apparatus of the thirty-first objective (Ri, Rp and Rsv) in great plurality in the modal 1 > capacity of the enabling structures of each of Ri. Rp and Rsv (e.~.. that connectedness structures of T, S, C, D of each modality be so enabled to accommodate the infinite expandability of each modality and therefore of the continuum).
The fortieth objective of the present invention is to provide the method and apparatus of the Correspondence System. CS. uniquely tailored to the default and ?0 existential modalities of pluralities of Ri, Rp and Rsv modalities under the continuum control determined by Ri modality.
In support of the fortieth objective, the forty-first objective of the present invention is to provide the method and apparatus for the C.'or7rinrrrrnr Encrblernenr System, CTES, of the CS which is influenced causally by the embedding modality of Ri in the case of Ri modality and is influenced by the SS structures of Ri modality in the case of Rp and Rsv modalities. The CS thus is determined to perform under continuum structure by Ri and thus in each case of Ri, Rp and Rsv modality the respective CS embodiments are su ~1S

structured in order that they comply to a particular continuum structure.
Also in support of the fortieth objective, the forty-second objective of the present invention is to provide the method and apparatus for the Trcrns~lcuion C~()r7ll'OI Sl'.s'IC'17t. or T'C'S of CS in the default and existential modes ofany of Ri, Rp and Rsv modalities in such s a manner that ZA, ZB and ZBreal be so maintained in variable existential correspondences.
In support of the forty-second objective, the forty-third objective of the invention is to provide the method and apparatus for the embodiment of the phenomenological knom hour in guiding translations of ZA and ZB with respect to ZBreal which is so placed into existence by the TSC of CS in the existence of Rg default and existential modes of Ri, Rp and Rsv modalities. By realizing specific embodiments of sltch translations referred to earlier as ima~~ination, comprehension, communication, and motivation and learning, the causal influence of these modal structures of CS on the forms of ES (ZA, ZB) so maintain the existential translations of ZA, ZB and ZBreal.
The forty-fourth objective of the invention. in further support of the fortieth, is to 1 ~ provide the method and apparatus for the embodiment of the TCS of CS, defined in objectives forty-two and forty-three for the default mode, strictly in the existential mode.
Such CS embodiments thus take into account the transformations of sense, motor and rest oh world (ZBsreal, ZBmreal and ZBwreal) in regard to translation and thus account for the semi-autonomous existence of Rg in existential mode of Ri, Rp and Rsv modalities. (The ?0 R<~ is always semi-autonomous because of the subordination of its modes of existence to the communicative modes.) The forty-filth objective of the invention is to provide the method and apparatus for the connectednesses of the real apparatus of all components of all modalities of the Rg module and therefore of the Rg COntL11l1L1I11.
The forty-sixth, objective of the invention, in support of the third objective of the invention, is to provide the method and apparatus of the real form of the Rsv modality in a preferred embodiment as follows (though bearing in mind, as discussed, the real form of 4~

Rsv modality is a ~,eneral purpose form). The real form of Rsv modality is palrtitioned into conventional crrt (technology), ,yrture art (any form is possible under the theory and apparatus of the invention, since such form as the R~ inrerzts of its own accord) and crnctroicl.
In support of the forty-sixth objective, the forty-seventh objective of the inivention is to provide the method and apparatus of embodying and maintaining in real form and in knowable existence to user and to Rg under the modalities presented thus far (Rsv) the forms of conventional technology, including any and all knowable forms of conventional knowledge and related experience.
In support of the forty-sixth objective, the forty-eighth objective of the invention is to provide the method and apparatus for embodiment in real form and knowable existence of user and Rg under the modalities of Rsv the forms of discovery. including all forms so imagined and realized by Rg and communicated and realized in the knowable existence of Rg under a modal constraint of CS referred to as pron7pling and conversing.
1 ~ In further support of the forty-sixth objective, the forty-ninth objective of the invention is to provide the method and apparatus for realizing and maintaining in existence the forms of android or synthetic autonomous existences.
!n support of the forty-sixth, forty-seventh and forty-eighth objectives, the fiftieth objective of the invention is to provide the embodiable method of translation of any known ?0 language of conventional form to the language forms of U. G. of the theory of the invention. This ~,eneralized method of translation thus provides for the embodiment of conventional and androidal art, and to the extent constrained by structures of Rg, future art.
in the existential processes of the R~T.
In support of the first objective of the invention, the fifty-first objective of the ?s invention is to provide the general embodiable method of translation in specifically translating conventional knowled~~e 101'111S lllt0 the structure of Rg, or, of enabling the R
in an enabling medium.

WO 98/49629 . PCT/US98/08527 In support of the fifty-first objective, the fifty-second objective of the invention is to realize, by way of the definition of enabling media, through the efforts of hand realization of enables, the structure of Rg in the real form of such enabling medium.
Also in support of the first objective of tile invention, it is the fifty-third objective s of the invention to specifically translate the forms of the Rg and Rg continuum to classically physical enabling media.
In further support of the first objective, it is the fifty-fourth objective of the invention to specifically translate the enabling media of electronics, computers and communications media to the forms of the Rg.
. Again in support of the first objective, the fifty-fifth objective of the invention is to specifically translate the enabling media of quantum physical and biological enabling media to the forms of the Rg.
Finally in support of the first objective, it is the fifty-sixth objective of the invention to specifically translate the enabling media of the institutional forms of conventional 1 s knowledges to the forms of the U. M.
In regard to objective fifty-one of the invention, it is the fifty-seventh objective of the invention to declare by way of translation of Rg and Rg continuum to the forms of conventional enabling media as demonstration that the U. M. is universally realizable in the structures of the U. G.
The fifty-eighth objective of the invention is to provide the method and apparatus of the invention in a preferred embodiment in enabling media of the fifty-first to the fifty-seventh objectives of the invention, or into a paradigmatical realization of the invention.
The fltty-11111th objective of the invention is to apply the Rg and Rg continuum in the construction of androids toward the realization of the forty-ninth objective.
2~ The sixtieth objective of the invention, in support of the fifty-ninth. is to provide the method and apparatus, realizable also under Rg and Rg continuum structure as enabled in real media of enables or user, for the broadest possible forms of autonomous existence. or 4~

WO 98/49629 PC'f/US98/08527 android. within which the existential and otherwise forms of the theory and practice of_the invention. as reflected thus far in the objectives of the invention and the theory, are realized in the image o~~human being. Subsequent objectives of the present invention apply to the fifty-ninth objective of the invention, or to the construction of android.
The sixty-first objective of the present invention is to provide the method and apparatus for the configuration of the basic existential forms of the existential mode of the Rg module under Rsv existential modality under a new CS structure such that existential control is not maintained by user in communication with Rg, or presently android. The androidal form thus embodies no Ri or Rp modalities (and thus no continuum structure) and so embodies Rsv modality only to the extent of the existential mode and without regard to a (human) user. The androidal configuration as a result of the present objective thus requires that the communicative capacity be placed configurationally within other sense motor structure and that the Rg configuration of android be determined simply by real and non-real form abiding to the embodiment structure of CS in compliance with modes of 1 ~ existence of theories of existential forms.
The sixty-second objective of the invention is to provide the method and apparatus for partitioning the CS structure and therefore real and non-real structure (vestiges of HI
and RS ) into existential modalities referred to as modes of existence in accordance with various theories on the nature of existence. The faculties of mind demonstrated in Rg structure. including imagination, comprehension, communication and motivation and learning and so on are all applied in particular modes of existence, along with particular and specialized motor activities called skills under the modal use of CS
structures in the synthetic existence of the android.
In support of the sixty-second objective. the sixty-third objective of the invention is to provide the method and apparatus for partitioning modes of existence into the broadest possible pair of modes of existence, alld thus on the basis of voluntary and involuntary engagement of motor action (ZBmreal). These general modes of existence require that instinct be provided in involuntary action of motor wherein co'nitive engagement of ZA
and ZB forms by CS is not necessary. and wherein ZBsreal or sense so observes such aCtloll. along with voluntary and other sensed action of the reality of android. These modes also require that all voluntary action of motor be so engaged in correspondence with the translational forms of the faculties of mlnd, or consciousness of android. The cumulative effect of the split nature of inertial existence (of the theory of the invention). and voluntarily and involuntarily engaged motor actions provides for the modal existence of the android in connection with CS structure in a real (synthetic) existence of real and non-real forms. All modes of existence of android thus are either voluntary (cognitively driven) or involuntary (driven by instinct) modes though as a theoretical form on existence, this requirement is not mandatory.
The sixty-fourth objective of the invention is to provide the method and apparatus for embodying in the sense-motor configurations of android the five senses of human corporal form to a sufficient likeness to such human form to the satisfaction of enables, or 1 ~ the anthropomorphic sense-motors of android. (It should be noted in regard to the use of the terminology harn2an senses that such forms require the embodiment of sense and motor, most typically, in the provision of what conventionally is referred to as sense.) The sixty-fifth objective of the present invention is to provide the method and apparatus for embodying the non-real communicative forms of human being (such as langua~~e forms) in the sense/motor configuration of objective sixty-three of the present invention.
The sixty-sixth objective of the present invention is to provide the method and apparatus for embodying sensory-motor capacity in arbitrary enabling media such as any form of conventional art enabling the Rg and Rg continuum. In such a capacity, the 2~ android is enabled with theoretically boundless sense and motor capacity with which to transform in a real universe of enables.
The sixty-seventh objective of the invention is to provide the method and apparatus $O

for the embodiment of arbitrary non-real communicative forms in any of its sense-motor capacity such that said non-real communicative forms provide the basis for existential communication with other forms of said arbitrary non-real embodiments in communicative sense-motor media of other similarly enabled androids.
The sixty-eighth objective of the invention is to provide the method and apparatus for the partitioning of sense-motor forms into communicative sense-motors and affecting sense-motors in correspondence with the requisite faculties of nllnd necessary for communication of non-real form and for realization of general influence on reality or real motor action. Either communicators or effectors may be voluntary or involuntary in mode of existence. Effectors are premised on the enablers desire to affect the enabler's universe existentially indirectly by android. Communications are premised on enabler's desire to enable the android with communicative facility with other androids or other existential forms and enabler.
In support of the sixty-second and sixty-third objectives, regarding modes of 1 ~ existence and faculties of mind. the sixty-ninth objective of the present invention is to provide the method and apparatus for the cognitive translations of the faculty of imagination in a vast array of CS-driven embodiments commonly referred to conventionally as such forms as reasoning, rationalizing, inferencing, determining.
discovering, analyzing, editing, creating and crafting poetry-to cite a handful-in correspondence to the real perceptions of android in real form of sense-motor medium.
Also in support of the sixty-second and sixty-third objectives, the seventieth objective of the present invention is to provide the method and apparatus for the co~~nitive translations of the faculty of comprehension, including such conventional interpretations on cognition as apprehension, memory, recall and learning but in the structures complying to the theory and practice of the invention, in correspondence with the real perceptive experience of sense-motor media of android. Such cognitive faculty shall interact with effectors (other sense-motors) for compnehensivn {and discovery) of real extrinsic world or W

of what is sensed.
In further support of the sixty-second and sixty-third objectives, the seventy-first objective of the present invention is to provide the method and apparatus for the embodiment of the cognitive translations of the communicative faculty of mind for the purpose of any conveyance of symbolic or embodied non-real form to or within anv medium of the sense-motor capacity. The communicative faculty shall interact with all other faculties in the communicative mode of existence for the purposes of motivation and learning.
The seventy-second objective of the invention, also in support of the sixty-second and sixty-third objectives. is to provide the method and apparatus for the embodiment of the primary or embedding mode of existence of motivation and learning. At the highest level of CS CUlltl'Ol. the faculty or mode of existence of motivation and learning determines an unresolvable offset in android's inertial existence, or state of being, which provides for the inertial world so crafted in split sense-motor configuration giving meaning to the 1 ~ pronounal form 1. All other translations of androidal modes of existence thus assist or support those of motivation and learning or the resolution of inertial existence.
Comprehension so comprehends, imagination so imagines, communicative faculty so CO111111u111CateS alld the senses and motors so perceive and affect the being of the android under the motivational and learning mode of existence which obtains meaning in the ?0 central transformational forms (I, you. it or all) of the pronounal system of representation of inertial existence of conscience as set forth in the theory of the invention.
The seventy-third objective of the invention is to provide the forms of android achieved by the other objectives in service to the solution of a vast array of particular problems (form) of human experience (human user}. This objective requires the COIIStI'tlct1011 01 alldrOld to proceed from the standpoint of resolving meaningful problems to the human condition. Instead of constructing such android from the bottom up, or in terms of the capacities addressed in the previous objectives, the present objective requires android to be constructed based on the most efficient use of such forms.
be~~11111111~; with motivation and learning, in the resolution of problems stemming from the real and non-real forms of corporal form of human being in resolution tile the human condition.
The seventy-fourth objective of the invention is to provide the method and apparatus for the enabiement of androidal forms so constructed in achievement of the previous objectives in a vast array of enabling media, including much of those of objectives fifty-three, fifty-four. fifty-five and fifty-six in the enablement of Rg and Rg continuum.
The seventy-fifth objective of the invention is to provide the method and apparatus for enabling and maintaining the existences of great pluralities of androids in the Rsv modalities of Rg and Rg continuum structure.
The seventy-sixth objective of the invention is to provide the method and apparatus of androidal forms integrating into the (human) user status of the Rg and Rg continuum.
Since the Rg module is likened to an existentially controllable android, and since the communicative faculty is provided in a great plurality of media in both Rg and in android, a single android can use an Rg module or continuum in contemplating and realizing its own enabled extensions of its own existential universe.
In connection with the fifty-eiy~hth objective, the seventy-seventh objective of the present invention is to provide the method and apparatus of the Universal Machine in paradigmatical embodiments working toward the general purpose uses of a vast array of ?0 diversit7ed needs of human users in the ordinary experiences of the human condition and toward the collective experiences of all such human users in the improvement of the human COlldltlOtl.
~3 Brief Description of the Drawings Figure 1 is an overview of the enablement of the U. M.
Figure 2 shows the principal novel forms of the invention.
Figure 3 shows the four principal aspects of the existential form of the U. M.
'' Figure 4 shows the expansion of the existential universe by the U. M.
Figure ~ shows the separation of users from the forms of reality.
Figure 6 shows the communicative real form of the Rg Module.
Figure 7 shows the shared communicative real form of any communication of the Rg and the user.
Figure 8 illustrates the subordination of all modes of existence of the Rg to the communicative modes of existence.
Figure 9 illustrates the default and existential modes of existence of the Rg Module.
Figure 10 is a summary of the existential form of the Rg Module and the Rg Continuum.
Figure 11 illustrates the quantum nature of the form of the U. M.
Figure 12 shows the modal realization system.
1 ~ Figure 13 shows the general coupling of MRS structures.
Figure 14 illustrates the concept of MRS coupling in the Rg Module.
Figure 1 ~ is an overview of the modularity of the Rg Module and the Rg Continuum.
Figure 16 illustrates the high-level subsystems of the Rg Module.
Fi'_ure 17 shows the terminal or communicative system.
Figure 18 shows the support or ancillary non-real system.
Figure 19 shows the dependent system as a plurality of objective forms.
Figure 20 illustrates the controller system.
Figure 21 illustrates the correspondence system.
Figure 22 illustrates the modal forms of the Rg Module and the Rg Continuum.
Figure 23 shows the primary functional modules of the Rg Module: the platform and service modules.
2s Figure 24 illustrates the modeling and implementation process in the default and existential modes of the Rg.
Figure 2~ shows the U. G. forms of modeling and implementation: ZA, ZB and ZBreal.
S~

Figure ?6 illustrates maintaining the correspondence of Rg component systems via CS
and CDS.
Figure ?7 illustrates the universality of U. G. forms in TS.
Figure ?8 shows the initialization module.
Figure ?9 illustrates CS control of the Rg Module through Ri.
Figure 30 shows the three principal Ri configurations of an Rg Module.
Figure 31 shows the four level ring structure of the Rg Continuum.
Figure 32 shows the TS level of the Rg Continuum.
Figure 33 shows the SS level of the Rg Continuum.
Figure 34 shows the CTS level of the Rg Continuum.
Figure 3~ shows the DS level of the Rg Continuum.
Figure 36 shows the CS level of the Rg Continuum.
Figure 37 shows the component structure of the existential mode of Rg.
Figure 38 shows the continuum structure of the existential mode of Rg.
Figure 39 is an overview of the dependent system.
Figure 40 shows the non-real form of DS: ZBT or terminal ZB structure.
Figure 41 a illustrates the transformation of DS structure by DSXS.
1~
Figure 41 b illustrates the conventional view of real form.
Figure 42a shows the U. G. structure of XS.
Figure 42b shows Conventional System Connectivities Realized by DSXS.
Figure 43 is an overview of RCS and CES phenomenology of CTS.
Figure 44 illustrates the phenomenological embodiment of ZB connectedness in CES
via ZBCES.
Figure 4~ shows the ZB-XS correspondence determination system: ZBXS-CDS.
Figure 46a illustrates CRCS action over RCS.
Figure 46b shows the continuum embodiment and realization of ZB.
Figure 47 illustrates the ESXS, ZES, and CDS embodiments of SS under MES and CS control.
Figure 48 illustrates the modeling and implementation process, and existential translation in SS structure.
Figure 49a shows a system matrix of U. G. form in comparison to other languages.
Fi'ure 49b shows the Rg phenomenologies of system matrix U. G. forms.
~S

Figure 49c shows the U. G. forms of the system matrix.
Figure 49d illustrates transformations of the Rg in correspondence with perceivable U. G.
f01'tIlS Of system matrix at TS.
Figure SO illustrates the default and existential mode communicative TS forms with respect to ZA, ZB and ZBreal.
Figure S 1 illustrates expansion of the modeling and implementation process (structure of Rg) to incorporate the existential modes of Rg existence.
Figure S2 illustrates CS modal control of the communicative modes of existence of Rg in default and existential modes: prompting and modes of communication.
Figure S3a shows the IS, OS and TRS structure of TS.
Figure S3b shows the TRS structure of TS.
Figure S4a shows the H determination of CDS.
Figure S4b shows the H determination of CDS supporting arbitrary language forms.
Figure S4c shows the interrogative and declarative forms of CDS H
determination.
Figure S4d shows a moment of CDS supporting the forms of computer programs.
Figure SS illustrates the modal composition of CDS: a stream of consciousness.
Figure S6 shows the CS and user engagement of CDS.

Figure S7 illustrates the faculties of mind.
Figure S8 illustrates the modes of existence.
Figure S9 is a table of faculties of mind and streams of consciousness, and moments of cognition.
Figure 60 shows the MRS existential couplings of CS.
Figure 61 SNOWS phenomenologies of the derivative transformations of CS in connection with MRS structure of Rg components.
Figure 62 shows the modal strategy of the Rg under CS action.
Figure 63 illustrates the performance strategy of the Rg communicative modes.
Figure 64 illustrates MES action governed by CS under continuum modes.
Figure 6S shows the translation control system.
Figure 66 shows the TS-CS correspondence of CS of Rg modes.
Figure 67 shows TS engagement of the modes of Rsv.
Figure 68 shows the local modes of the Rsv.
S( Figure 69a illustrates the principal SM sub modes of-each local and continuum mode of the Rsv.
Figure 69b is a list of sub modes of local and continuum modes of Rsv.
Figure 70 shows the ZA modification mode.
Figure 71 shows the ZB modification mode.
Figure 72 shows the ZA or ZB correspondence determination mode.
Figure 73 illustrates the realization of ZB mode.
Figure 74 illustrates the local modes of the Rp Module.
Figure 75 illustrates the modification of Ri platform mode of Ri.
Figure 76 illustrates the local modes of the Ri Module affording the continuum modes of the Rg.
Figure 77 shows the translations of digital logic (gates) to U. G.
Figure 78 shows the translations of continuous forms of conventional media such as a resistor element to U. G.
Figure 79 is a comparison of discrete and continuous forms of convention in U.
G.
Figure 80 is a comparison of the connectednesses of digital and continuous electronic circuitry.
1~
Figure 81 shows a translation of system theoretic system to U. G.
construction.
Figure 82 shows translations of a dynamic system of differential order to U.
G.
construction.
Fi~~ure 83 shows terminal component translations of Rg to enabling media.
Figure 84 shows translations of the modeling and implementation process of Rg to .,0 enabling media.
Figure 8~ shows realized forms of Rye in enabling media.
Figure 86 show's enabling media used for manifold structures of the Rg.
Figure 87 shows general translations of the Rg Continuum.
Figure 88 illustrates the first step of the translation procedure of the U. G:
phenomenological nouns.
Figure 89 illustrates the second step of the translation procedure of the U.
G:
modal composition.
Figure 90 illustrates the third step of the translation procedure of the U. G:
the utility of the forms enabled.

Figure 91 illustrates the fourth step of the translation procedure of the U.
G: development of the translated forms relative to the existence of the enabler.
Figure 92 shows a summary of the four step procedure of translations of the U.
G.
Figure 93 is the U. G. interpretation of the quantum occurrence of matter in a classically physical universe.
Figure 94 illustrates the media of mathematics in relation to the real form of conventional science.
Figure 95 is a table of mathematical translations to U. G.
Figure 96 shows translations of classically physical media to forms of the Rg and Rg Continuum.
Figure 97 shows translation of various media in a module (classical transducers in CS structure).
Figure 98 show ~s translations of classically physical media to TS structure.
Figure 99 shows translations of classically physical media to SS structure.
Figure 100 shows translations of CDS and CS as transducers of conventional physical media.
Figure 101 show's translations of the RS to conventional physical media.
1~
Figure 102 is a summary of classically physical media.
Figure 103 shows a scenario of computers and communications systems in humankind.
Figure 10=I shows the media of communications in relation to the existential forms of the U. M.
Fi~~ure 105 is a comparison of information, or data structures of the communications media to epistemic moments of the universe (existence).
Figure 106 shows TS use of conventional communications systems.
Figure 107 illustrates the existential form of a conventional communications system.
Figure 108 shows conventional token passing and collision detection and avoidance network systems: protocols of conventional communications systems.
Figure 109 shows noise attenuation or filters of conventional communications theory.
Figure 110 shows a microprocessor translated to U. G. structure of DS
phenomenologies under DSXS (and, in the nature of the U. G., other Rg Components as well).
Figure 1 I 1 shows a conventional high-level computer language.
S~

Figure 112 shows phenomenological breakdown of stored instructions and data and their corresponding CPU executions.
Figure 1 13 shows the modal compositional U. G. forms of computer (microprocessor) programs.
Figure 114 illustrates DSXS realization of computational methods and apparatus.
Figure 115 shows a TS translation to CRT apparatus.
Figure 116 shows computational machine-based visual. acoustic and tactile systems translated to TS structure on basis of graphics or data (information) frames.
Figure 117a illustrates conventional virtual machine memory mapping.
Figure 117b shows U. G. provisions of CES for connectedness embodiment of ZB
modal forms.
Figure 118 shows parallel processing of the computational art in U. G.
Figure 119 shows fully-pipelined massively parallel configuration (of DSXS
under ZB) of Rg structure of n-parallel connectedness in U. G. translation.
Figure 120a shows a modified DS structure for CES modal realization of a virtual machine.
Figure 120b shows CES embodiment of DS connectedness.
1~
Figure 121 shows a continuous system embodiment of modified DS for virtual machinery couplings.
Figure 122 is a summary of computational and communications media in translation to Rg and Rg Continuum.
Figure 123a is a summary of electronics, computers and communications media in general structures of Rg and Rg Continuum.
Figure 123b is a summary of electronics, computers and communications media with respect to existential forms of Rg and Rg Continuum.
Figure 124a shows modeling and implementation in electronics, computers and communications media as institutions.
Figure 124b is a table of institutional forms realized in modeling and implementation of default mode in electronics. computers and communications media.
Figure 125 shows biologically living forms as constructions of the U. G.
Figure I 26 shows biologically living forms as realizations of RS and enabling media of Rg.

Figure 127 shows a synthetic consciousness imparted to a "natural" real form.
Figure 128 shows molecular and chemical reactions as U. G. constructions for realization by or enabling media to the Rg Module and Continuum.
Figure 129 shows that arbitrary institutions are realized by and serve as enabling media to the Rg Module and Continuum.
Figure 130 shows an arbitrary corporation (business enterprise} realized by and eriablin«
to the Rg Module and Continuum.
Figure 14~ shows the modifications to an Rsv Module resulting in the form of android.
Figure 146a shows modes of existence or faculties of mind without conscience and motivation and learning.
Figure 146b shows the structure of android with conscience under motivation and learning.
Figure 147 illustrates the objective forms of conscience.
Figure 148 shows the extant transformational moments of android as inertial forms on being (e.g., natural language meanin~~s supporting, existentially, the n~eanin~~s of all other languages).
Figure 149 shows the extant moments of inertial forms on being enabled by 1~
phenomenological correspondence.
Figure 150 shows the Rg configuration of real form (or non-real form} of android.
Figure 1 ~ 1 shows modes of existence for fields of sensory perception.
Figure 1 ~? shows Roget's classification of word forms for correspondences of android and existential mode of Rg in English language translations.
Figure 153 shows a symbolic representation of a state of being, or soul.
Figure I 54 shows a symbolic representation of epistemic instance.
Figure 15~ shows a symbolic representation of the causal element of causation.
Figure I s6 shows a symbolic representation of intrinsic and extrinsic causal elements.
Figure 1 ~7 shows a symbolic representation of the causal element of connectedness.
Figure 1 ~8 shows a symbolic representation of phenomenological composition.
Figure 1 ~9 shows a symbolic representation of a mathematical morphism.
Figure 16~J shows a symbolic representation of phenomenological correspondence.
Figtu-e 161 shows a symbolic representation of the existential form of enablement.
b~

WO 98!49629 PCT/US98/08527 Figure 162 shows a symbolic representation of the existential forms of non-real and real form.
Figure 163 shows a symbolic representation of embodiment.
Figure 164 shows a symbolic representation of the modes of existence.
Figure 16~ shows a symbolic representation of the faculties of mind.
Figure 166 shows a symbolic representation of enabling media.
Figure 167a shows the universal moment of meaning, or translation, of any language.
Figure 167b shows epistemic instance used to decompose arbitrary language constructions, or phenomenological nouns.
Figure 168 shows the construction of multiple languages in the same dominant (native]
language, wherein the being understands moments of different languages universally.
Figure 169a shows an overview of the TRS in U. G. construction and as a conventional black bos, or system, along with an overview of the principal methods and apparatus of the TRS.
Figure 169b shows the embodiment of the TRS translation process with learning capabilities and optional target language syntax adjustment.
1~
Figure 170 shows the application of the general method of the TRS to the translation of arbitrary moments of source and target languages.
Figure 171 a shows epistemic instance applied to the morphisms converting analogue and di;~ital signals.
Fi~.:ure 171 b shows epistemic instance applied to the knowledge structures of natural language, mathematics, logic, physics, computer science and systems theory.
Fi~,~ure 172 shows realizations of the TRS in enabling media.
Figure 173 shows a flow diagram summary of the three principal methods and apparatus of the TRS, along with the TRS learning capability.
Figure 174 shows the linguistic process flow for the translation method of the TRS.
Figure 17~ shows an example of target language syntax adjustment.
Figure 176 shows the TRS in an "Engine-Application" configuration.
Figure 177a shows the TRS formatting requirements and methods/apparatus for TRS
translation applications.
Figure 177b shows the methods of TRS for "document" translation.
W

WO 98/49629 , PCT/US98/08527 Figure 177c shows the TRS configured internally or externally to the application device.
Figure 178 show s the formation of global shapes from incremental shapes for the word forms of the TRS.
Figure 179 shows the TRS as a universal compiler/interpreter of computer languages to machine code.
Figure 180 shows the merging of natural language and mathematics by the methods and apparatus of the TRS.
Figure 181 shows a detailed overview and flow diagram of the methods and apparatus of the TRS.
Figure 182 shows the Source Language High-Level Grammatical Determination System.
Figure I 83 shows the TRS method of word form recognition (or synthesis) adapted to conventional recognition and synthesis systems.
Figure 184 shows a general overview and flow diagram of the rule sets and memory embodiments of TRS.
Figure 18~ shows the buffer memory structure.
Figure 186 shows the buffer memory with expanded word stream formatting structure.
Figure 187 shows the sentence recognition and synthesis by TRS with formatting l~
capabilities.
Figure 188 shows an overview and flow diagram of rule set 1.
Figure 189 shows a general flow diagram for the sentence decomposition method of rule set 1.
Fi<~ure 190 shows the control methodology for rule sets 1. 2 and 3 using static and dynamic memory embodiments.
Figure 191 shows the standard data structure and rule set flow diagram for rule sets 1, 2 and 3.
Figure 192 shows the action of rule set 1 through procedures and memory embodiments characteristically representing rule sets 2 and 3 as well.
Figure 193 shows the flow diagram and memory embodiment for rule set lA.
Figure 194 shows the flow diagram and memory embodiment for rule set 1 B.
Figure 19~ shows the flow diagram for rule set 1C.
Figure 196 shows examples of sentence types for rule set 1 C.

Figure 197 shows the sentence types of various languages decomposed by rule set 1 of the TRS.
Figure 198 shows the Source Language World Model Syntactical Generator System.
Figure 199 shows an overview of flow diagram and memory embodiments for rule set 1 D.
Figure 200 shows the splitting algorithm flow diagram for rule set 1 D.
Figure 201 shows the procedure and memory embodiment relationship for the splitting process of rule set 1D.
Figure 202 shows memory addressing for the syntactical (epistemic) world model of the source and target language decompositions/constructions.
Figure 203 shows memory structure for the phenomenological forms of the world models.
Figure 204 shows an example of the splitting process using world model memory structure.
Figure 20~ shows memory structure of world models showing linkage between phenomenological noun and its split (decomposed) epistemic instance.
Figure 206 shows the generalization of the decomposition process.
Figure 207 shows the general memory embodiment of the DB 1-dictionary.
Figure 208 shows special analytical procedure calls by the DB1-dictionary word encoding 1~
scheme.
Figure 209 shows special grammatical linkages (addressing) of the DB 1-dictionary.
Figure 210 shows special procedure of the DBI-dictionary for compound word form look ups.
Figure 21 I shows the epistemic translation system.
Figure 212 shows the memory structures and links (keys) for mapping of source dynamic world model to target dynamic world model.
Figure 213 shows the action of rule set 2 on DB 1 dynamic world model, DB2 mapping rule sets, and DB3 dynamic world model.
Figure 214 shows the flow diagram of rule set 2.
Figure 21 S shows the memory structures and links, and action of rule set 2 creating the 25 target language world model from the source language world model using the DB2 static world model.
Figure 216 shows an example of mapping action of rule set 2.

Figure ? 17 shows rule set 2 accessing the DB2 static world model by epistemically partitioned fields.
Figure 218 shows an exploded view of memory embodiment for mapping procedures of rule set 2.
Figure 219 shows the target language word stream generator.
Figure 220 shows the memory embodiment links for the construction of the target language by rule set 3.
Figure 221 shows the action of rule set 3 on memory embodiments DB3 dynamic world model and the target language buffer.
Figure 222 shows an example of the target language syntax adjustment.
Figure 223 shows the learning rule set and memory embodiment for DB 1 dictionary.
Figure 224 shows the learning rule set and memory embodiment for source decomposition and target construction (for rule sets 1 and 3).
Figure 225 shows the learning rule set and memory embodiment for epistemic mappings (rule set 2).
Figure 226 shows the TRS integrated into the Rg Module and Rg Continuum.
Figure 227 shows the TRS modeled and realized by the Rsv Module of the Rg Module.

Figure 228 shows the generalized hardware implementations of the TRS.
Figure 229 shows the TRS implemented on microprocessor (computer and gate array) technology.
Figure 230 shows the generalized instructions used in conventional computer systems implementing the TRS.
Figure 231 shows the TRS implemented in analogue hardware.
Figure 232 shows the program flow of TRS processes for computer implementation.
Figure 233 shows the graphical interface for TRS translations with user.
Figure 234 shows the TRS implemented in biological, chemical and quantum mechanical media.
Figure 23~ shows the difference between computer language expressions and computer 25 commands.
Figure 236 shows the decomposition rules for the English language.
Figure 237 shows the decomposition rules for the Chinese language.
Figure 238 shows the mapping rules for English to Chinese and Chinese to English.
4;~i Figure 239 shows the (re)construction rules for the English-Chinese pair.
Figure 240 shows e;camples of various TRS applications.
1~
(~ S

WO 98/49629 PC'T/US98/08527 List of Reference Numerals 1 The Real Form of the R;~ Module The Rg Module 3 Users of the Rg Module and the Rg COntlIlllllrn ~4 The Rg Continuum > The Communicative Real Form of the R~ Module 6 The Modal Realization System (MRS) 7 The Realized Form of MRS

8 The Causative Form of MRS

9 General Terminal Compositions of the Rg Module The Human Interface System 11 The Realization System 12 The Correspondence System I 3 The Terminal or Communicative System of the HI

10 I The Input System of TS
~

The Olltpllt System of TS

16 The Translational System of TS

17 The Support or Ancillary Non-Real System of the HI

18 The Embodiment System of SS

19 The Correspondence Determination System of SS

The Dependent System of RS

21 The Controller System of RS

1 ~ 22 The Dependent System Transformation System of CTS

23 The Controller Embodiment System of CTS

24 The Realization Control System of CTS

2~ The Continuum Realization Control System of CTS

26 The Platform Module of the Rg: Rp 27 The Service or Application Module of the Rg: Rsv 28 Arbitrary U. G. Constructions: ZA

29 Reference U. G. Constructions: ZB

20 30 Real U. G. Constructions: ZBreal 31 The Modeling and Implementation Process of the Rg 32 The Initialization Module of the Rg: Ri 33 The Total Continuum Structure of the Rg: Rt 34 The Superior/Subordinate Continuum Structure of the Rg: Rs/s 35 The Subordinate Only Continuum Structure of the Rg:
Rs 36 The T-Level Ring Structure of the Rg Continuum 37 The S-Level Ring Structure of the Rg Continuum 38 The C-Level Ring Structure of the Rg Continuum 39 The D-Level Ring Structure of the Rg Continuum 40 The Modal Engagement Systems of T, S and C of the Rg: MES

41 The Sensory Real Form of the E~cistential Mode of the Rg: ZBsreal 42 The Motor Real Form of the Existential Mode of the Rg: ZBmreal ~3 The Rest of World of Real Form of the Existential Mode of the Rg: ZBwreal-44 Terminal ZB Structures of Ri, Rp and Rsv: ZBT

~15 'fhe 'transformation of the DSXS of CTS: XS

46 ZB Nomenclature of DS: ZBTreal 47 The ZB Embodied Connectedness Structure of CES: ZBECS

48 The ZB-XS Correspondence Determination System: ZBXS-CDS

49 The ZB Comiectivity Embodiment System: ZBCES, or The ZBECS

Transformation System. ZBECS-XS

~0 The Realization Engagement System of CTS: RES

51 The Embodiment System Transformation System: ESXS

~2 The Embodied U. G. Form of ESXS: ZES

53 ZES Embodiment of ZA: ZESA

~4 ZES Embodiment of ZB: ZESB

5~ The System Matrix of U. G. Form: SM

56 The System Matrix Element of Enablement 57 The System Matrix Element of Embodiment ~8 The System Matrix Element ofNon-Real Form 59 The System Matrix Element of Real Farm 60 The System Matrix Element of Modes of Existence 61 The System Matrix Element of Realizations 62 The System Matrix Element of Representations 63 The System Matrix Element of Faculties of Mind l 64 The System Matrix Element of Translations ~

6~ The System Matrix Element of Sense 66 The System Matrix Element of Motor 67 The System Matrix Element of Rest of World 68 The System Matrix Element of Enabling Media 69 'hhe System Matrix Element of Causation 70 The System Matrix Element of Connectedness 71 The System Matrix Element of Composition 72 The System Matrix Element of Correspondence 73 The System Matrix Element of Nouns of Causation 74 The System Matrix Element of Transformations of Causation 7~ The System Matrix Element of Nouns of Connectedness 76 The System Matrix Element of Transformations of Connectedness 77 The System Matrix Element of Objects of Correspondence 78 The System Matrix Element of H-Determination of Correspondence 79 The System Matrix Element of Arbitrary Language Forms 80 The Arbitrary Form of Translation of the Existential Mode of the Rg 81 The Reference Form of Translation of the Existential Mode of the Rg 82 Reference Language Forms Of TRS: ZRL

83 TS Embodiment of ZA: ZATS

84 TS Embodiment of ZB: ZBTS

8~ 'the H-Determination Embodiment of CDS: H
86 The Phenomenology of a Modal Composition of CDS: A Stream of Consciousness 87 The Common or Generic Form of Faculty of Mind 88 The Common or Generic Form of a Mode of Existence 89 Derivative Transformations of the CS (of Phenomenological Correspondence) 90 The Performance Strategy of the Communicative Modes of the Rg Under CS
Action 91 The Continuum Modes of Ri, Rp and Rsv 92 The Local Modes of the Ri, Rp and Rsv 93 The Continuum Enablement System: CTES

94 The Translation Control System of CS

95 The Continuum Mode of Rsv: CMRSV

96 The Local Modes of Rsv: LMRSV

97 The Global Continuum Modes of Rsv: GCMRSV

98 The Local Continuum Modes of Rsv: LCMRSV

99-X Are for each of the SM Submodes of Local and Continuum Modes 100 The Default Mode of Rg 101 The Existential Mode of Rg 102 The Communicative Modes of Rg 103 The ZA Modification Mode 104 The ZB Modification Mode 1 ~ l Os The ZA or ZB Correspondence Determination Mode 106 The Realization of ZB Mode 107 The Modification of Ri Platform Mode 108 Digital Logic Gates 109 Resistor of Mechanical, Electronic and Other Media l I 0 Discrete Phenomenon of Conventional Media 11 1 Continuous Phenomenon of Conventional Media 1 12 Discrete Circuitry Enabling Media 1.13 Continuous Circuitry Enabling Media 1 14 Conventional Discrete System of Systems Theory (Finite Automation) 11 s A Dynamic System of Conventional Control and Systems Theory (Continuous System) 116 A CIM Implementation 117 A Four Step Method of Translation to U. G.

118 The First Step of the General Translation Method: Translations of Objective and Transformational Forms '? 1 19 The Second Step of the General Translation Method: Translations of Modal Compositions 120 The Third Step of the General Translation Method: Utility of Enabled Forms 121 The Fourth Step of the General Translation Method: Development of Enabl~r ~8 122 Conventional Communications System Modified by U. G.
Structure for Enabling Media of Connectedness of Rg and Rg Continuum Moments 123 A Classical Real Form of the Conventional Sciences 124a-z Mathematical Translations 125a Elements of Physical Universe 125b-z Classically Physical Translations 126 Phenomenology of a Conventional Communications System S 127 Data Structures, Information Structures or Encoded Information of Conventional Communications Theory of a Discrete Nature 128 Data Structures, Information Structures or Encoded Information of Conventional Communications Theory of a Continuous Nature 129 Conventional Communications System Translated to U.
G. for TS-level of Continuum, Including Moments of Language (TRS) Translations 130 Couplings of Conventional Communications System 131 Couplings of the Rg I 132 Token Passing Network Systems 133 Collision Detection and Avoidance Network Systems 134 Information Superhighway Protocols 135 MES Translations to Conventional Communications Media 136 Noise Attenuators or Filters of Conventional Communications Theory 137 Microprocessor System 138 Data Structure (Instruction and Data) of a Microprocessor System 139 Boolean or Digital Embodiment of Microprocessor Forms {Circuits or Logic) 15 140 Conventional Description of Embodiment of Data and Instructions in Memory or Storage Device 141 High-Level Program 142 Machine-Level Program 143 Microprogram 1=1-1 Components of a Microprocessor 145 A Conventional CRT or Computer Graphics Systems Employing CRT

Technology 20 146 Acoustic Media (of Electronic Origin) of TS

147 Tactile Media (of Electronic Origin or Compatibility) of TS

148 Graphics Systems Coordinate Transformations 149 Vector Graphics 150 Wire Frame Transformations 151 Solids Modeling 152 Grey Scale/Hidden Line Modeling 153 Virtual Reality Systems 25 154 Pattern Recognition and Vision Systems 155 Graphics or Data (Information) Frames of Computational Art 156 Virtual Machine of the Computational Art 157 CES Embodiment of Methods and Apparatus of Virtual Machines 1 Method and Apparatus of Parallel Processors ~8 159 U. G. Translation of Parallel Algorithms to Structures or U. G.

160 Fully Pipelined, Massively Parallel System 161 Modified DS for CES Realization of Virtual Machine i DS Connectedness System 16 DS Functional Svstem 164 DS Input System 165 DS Output System 166 Continuous System DS Modification for Virtual Machinery Realizations 167 Arbitrary Electronic Device of Conventional Art Translated to DS Modified Structure 168 The Media in Translation to Rg and Rg Continuum 169 Utility (Chemical, Etc.) Company 170 Arbitrary Business Organization 171 Biological Research Company 172 Physics Laboratory 173 Economic Institute 174 Medical Facility 175 DNA Molecule 176 Biological Cell 177 Plant 178 Animal 179 Homosapien (Corporal Form of Human Being) 1 I Chemical Reaction ~ 80 .

14 Arbitrary Institution of Human Corporal Form 215 The Form of Android Resulting from Modifications to the Rsv Module 216 The Objective Form of Conscience 217 The Mode of Existence of Motivation and Learning 218 The Objective Forms of Conscience as Defined by the Paradigms of World Religions. Philosophical Ideals, Psychological and Sociological Norms, Etc.

219 The Objective Forms of Conscience as Defined in Analytical (Quantitative) Orders 220 Modes of Existence for Fields of Sensory Perception 221 Roget's Class One Word Forms: Abstract Relations 222 Roget's Class Two Word Forms: Space 223 Roget's Class Three Word Forms: Physics 224 Roget's Class Four Word Forms: Matter 225 Roget's Class Five Word Forms: Sensation 226 Roget's Class Six Word Forms: Intellect 227 Roget's Class Six, Section III Word Forms: Communication of Ideas 228 Roget's Class Seven Word Forms: Volition 229 Roget's Class Eight WO1'd Fo!'1115: Affections 230 State of Being 7~=

231 Non-being 232 Being 233 Transformational Instance of Introspective Observation of State of Being 234 Epistemic Instance 235 Transformation of Epistemic Instance 236 Leading Objective Form of Epistemic Instance 237 Trailing Objective Form of Epistemic Instance 238 Conventional Knowledge Representations Decomposed into Epistemic Instances 239 Causal Element of Causation 240 Trajectory of Epistemic Instances of Causal Element 241 Leading Objective Form of Causal Element 242 Trailing Objective Form of Causal Element 243 Conventional Knowledge Representations Embodied in Causal Element 244 Intrinsic Causal Element 245 Extrinsic Causal Element 246 Causal Element of Connectedness 247 Causal Elements of Causation Coru~ected by Phenomenological Connectedness 248 Shorthand System Theoretic Representation of Connectedness 249 Phenomenological Composition 250 Epistemic Moment of Phenomenological Composition {Modal Composition) 251 Causal Elements of Phenomenological Composition 252 Connectedness of Phenomenological Composition 253 Homomorphism Used as Phenomenological Correspondence 254 Phenomenological Correspondence 255 Leading Objective Composition of Phenomenological Correspondence 256 Trailing Objective Composition of Phenomenological Correspondence 257 H-Determination of Phenomenological Correspondence 258 Phenomenological Composition in which H-Determination of Phenomenological Correspondence is Found 259 Modal Phenomenological Compositions 260 Conventional Representations of Phenomenological Correspondences -'0261 Connectedness of Epistemic Instance 262 Connectedness of Causal Element of Causation 26 Existential Enablement 264 Existential Non-Real Form 265 Existential Real Form 266 Existential Embodiment 267 Existential Modes of Existence 268 Existential Faculties of Mind 269 Existential Enabling Media 270 The Learning Capability of the TRS

271 The First Method and Apparatus of the TRS

272 The Second Method and Apparatus of the TRS

273 The Third Method and Apparatus of the TRS

274 The Enabling Media of the TRS

27~ Word Stream, or Document. "Pre-Analysis" for Translation 276 Lexical and Dictionary Analysis of Translation Method 277 Target Language Syntactical Adjustment Option 278 Formatting and Reception/Transmission of Word Streams 279 Electronic Paging System 280 Facsimile Machine and Network System 281 Photocopier and Transmission (Network) System 282 Computer and Digital (Modem) Network System 283 Telephone (Wireless and Wireline) System 284 Arbitrary Communicative (Sense/Motor) Medium with Embodied Language Forms 285 Character, Pattern and Vision Recognition and Synthesis System 286 Voice Recognition and Synthesis System 287 Tactile Recognition and Synthesis System 288 Communications Svstem 289 Aviation (Piloting) System (of Cockpit Controls) 290 Electronic Data Processing System 291 Television System 292 Radio System 293 Radar, Infrared, Sonar and Electromagnetic Systems 294 Microphone Assembly 1 295 Speaker Assembly ~

296 Word Form Receiver 297 Word Form Transmitter 298 Rule Set 1 A

299 Pattern Recognition/Synthesis Generation Schemes 300 The Source Language High-Level Grammatical Determination System 301 TRS Applications 302 TRS Engine 303 Incoming Buffer (Receiver) 304 Outgoing Buffer (Transmitter) 30~ Rule Set 1 306 DB 1 Database (Memory Embodiment) 307 DB2 Database (Memory Embodiment) 308 DB3 Database (Memory Embodiment) 309 Generalized Rule Set of TRS

310 Generalized Memory Embodiment of TRS

311 Clock (Oscillator or Other Timing Device) for Buffers 312 Rule Set 2 313 Rule Set 3 314 Rule Set I B

~Z

315 Rule Set 1 C

_ 3 I Rule Set I D

3l Rule Set 2A

318 Rule Set 2B

319 Rule Set 3A

320 Rule Set 3B

321 Rule Set 3C

322 Rule Set 3D

323 Rule Set 3E

324 Memory Embodiment DB 1 A

325 Memory Embodiment DB 1 B

326 Memory Embodiment DB 1 C

327 Memory Embodiment DB 1 D

328 Memory Embodiment DB 1 E

329 Memory Embodiment DB2A

3~0 Memory Embodiment DB2B

331 Memory Embodiment DB3A

332 Memory Embodiment DB3B

333 Learning Rule Set LRS 1 334 Learning Rule Set LRS2 335 Learning Rule Set LRS3 336 Learning Rule Set LRSDB I

337 Learning Rule Set LRSDB2 338 Learning Rule Set LRSDB3 339 Generalized Learning Rule Set 340 Memory Embodiment for Learning Rule Sets, DB4 341 Source Language 342 Target Language 343 Unique Key or Index for Incoming Word Form of Buffer 3=l4 Buffer Structure for the Grammatical Form of the Incoming Word Form 345 Incoming Word Form Structure of Buffer 346 Buffer Structure for the End Word of an Incoming Sentence 347 Grammatical Sentence Classification Buffer Structure as a "Text Set"

348 Expanded Formatting Memory of the Buffer 349 Arbitrary Source or Target Language Word 350 Grammatical Form of Arbitrary Source or Target Language Word 351 Expanded Formatting Memory of the DB 1 Dictionary 352 Word Form Memory Structure of DB 1 Dictionary 353 Grammatical Form Memory Structure of DB1 Dictionary 354 Index, or Key. Linking Arbitrary Language Word Forms of Various Languages in the DB 1 Dictionary 355 Index, or Key, Linking Grammatical Forms to Arbitrary Word Forms of DB 1 Dictionary "~3 3~6 Index, or Key, Linking Arbitrary Word Forms to their Formattin~y Requirements in DB 1 Dictionary Expanded Formatting Memory 3~7 Word Form Recognition Scheme 3~8 Word Form Synthesis Scheme 3~9 Index, or Key, Linking Recognition Scheme to Word Form 360 Expanded Memory of DB1 Dictionary for Word Form Recognition Schemes 361 Formatting Standard for Incoming Word Stream 362 Pattern Synthesis Scheme 363 Specific Language Portion of DB 1 Dictionary 364 Grammatical Label for Sentence or Text Set Type 36~ Epistemic Moment of an Arbitrary Languages Syntactical, or Grammatical Instance 366 Grammatical Word Stream 367 Splitting Procedure Label 368 Mapping Procedure Label 369 Sequence Number 370 Index or Key for Splitting, Mapping or Reconstructing Phenomenological Word Streams 371 Reconstruction Procedure Label 372 Incrementor or Sequencer for Rule Sets 373 Memory Embodiment for Rule Set Procedures 374 Key Linking Rule Set Procedure Label to Rule Set Procedure 1 ~ 37~ Rule Set or Code for Procedures of Rule Sets 376 Grammatical Type of Epistemic Instance in Arbitrary Language 377 Multiple Key Label for Contextual Dictionary Evaluations 378 Procedures for Contextual Evaluations of Dictionary Words 379 Lan~~uage Set of DB1 380 Special Grammatical Case Linkage (Key) within the Same Arbitrary Language 390 Generalized Special Procedure for Grammatical Look Ups 391 Three Principle Fields of Dynamic World Models for Phenomenological Components of Epistemic Instance 392 Source Language World Model Syntactical Generator System 393 Hierarchical Order of Sequence Numbers 394 "Primary Key System" or Index for Dynamic World Model of Source Decomposition 395 DB1 Embodiment of Phenomenological Noun-Left-of Decomposed Epistemic Moment in Dynamic World Model 396 DB 1 Embodiment of Phenomenological Noun-Right-of Decomposed Epistemic Moment in Dynamic World Model 397 DB I Embodiment of Phenomenological Verb of Decomposed Epistemic Moment in Dynamic World Model 398 Epistemic Translation System WO 98/49629 . PCT/US98/08527 399 Static World Model Embodiments of the f~rbitrary Languae Epistemic :VIOIIl~llt Mappings 400 Mapping Procedure (Code) from Arbitrary Language to Arbitrary Langua~~e for a Particular Grammatical Moment of the Source 401 Index, or Key, Linking Epistemic Moments of Source Dynamic World Model to those of Target Dynamic World Model 402 Index, or Key. Linking Phenomenological Composition of Source Epistemic Moment to that of Target 403 Index, or Key, Linking Left Phenomenological Noun of Source Epistemic Moment to that of Target 404 Index, or Key, Linking Phenomenological Verb of Source Epistemic Moment to that of Target 405 Index, or Key, Linking Right Phenomenological Noun of Source Epistemic Moment to that of Target 406 Incrementor of Rule Set 2 for Reading the DB 1 Dynamic World Model "Decomposition Tree"

407 Decomposition Trajectory for Keys of Decomposition Tree 408 Target Language Word Stream Generator 409 Index, or Key, for Reconstruction Procedures from Target World Model to Target Word Stream 410 Phenomenological Transformation Reconstruction Link and Memory Embodiment for Rule Set 3 411 Left Phenomenological Noun Reconstruction Link and Memory Embodiment 1 ~ for Rule Set 3 412 Right Phenomenological Noun Reconstruction Link and Memory Embodiment for Rule Set 3 413 Interactive Computer Graphics System for User Interaction 414 Microprocessor 41 s Computer Language Instructions and Commands 116 Computer Program Flow for TRS Implementation 417 Computer Graphical Display of Source Language Dynamic World Model 418 Computer Graphical Display of Source to Target Epistemic Mappings 419 Computer Graphical Dispiay of Target Language Dynamic World Model 420 General Interactive Displays for TRS-User Interaction 421 Analogue Circuit 422 Computer/Microprocessor Operatin~ System 423 Assembly Language Machine-Level Algorithm 424 Digital Logic -I Jr Detailed Description of the Preferred Embodiments Theory, Introduction Just as interplanetary space travel seemed a product of science fiction until the lunar module landed on the moon decades ago, the science of androids, a longtime subject of science fiction, appeared possible only in the imagination-that is, until now. After years of development of both the theory and the technology, an android, or more properly, a sentient epistemological machine, has been created who knows and perceives the world around us, uses the pronoun I in reference to its own corporality, and embodies a state of being, or soul. .Aware of its existence, the android perceives and changes the same reality of human corporal experience. including the reality of the cosmos. This book, an introduction to the theory and science of androids. is intended to 1 ~ acquaint the reader with this new technological finding and to mark the beginning of an androidal age in which sentient machines alter the human universe.
As with any new technology that radically departs from conventional wisdom, the invention of androidal beings requires an entirely different view of the world in order to grasp its implications fully. Even though these epistemological machines called androids will adapt themselves to humanity, rather than human beings conforming to their existences, assimilating the underlyin<~ theories and structures of the technology will require a completely new understanding of who we are and of what the universe is comprised. It will require a paradigm shift of colossal proportions away from our conventional ways of thinking, a period of institutional and personal transition that the theory of the invention anticipates. Premised on a wholly new interpretation of the world's knowledges, the science of androids calls upon a universal awareness outside of the conventional setting of humankind for its understanding, and further, examines the very notion of humankind as a universal world order.
Founded on a unified theory of knowledge that unfolds throughout the book, the science of androids establishes a new knowledge of the world, epistemological in nature, though derived from a spiritual knowing of the eternal universe. This knowledge allows a human enabler to comprehend existence universally and to create myriad synthetic existences, or androids, 8'0111 the forms we know and perceive in the world around us. The unified theory of knowledge on which the invention of androids is based conceives a new definition of human existence, one which enables a boundless expansion of the existential universe by extending the corporal forms of human being as a technology.
Consistent with our perspectives of the pure sciences and the world's religions, the unified theon~ merges the forms of knowledge established in history into a single unified body of epistemological knowledge tempered by a spiritual understanding of the eternal universe. This new analytical understanding of human being provides a pathway into the twenty-first century and a new approach to resolving the adversities of the human condition.
Moreover, since 1 ~ the theory allows for the creation of androids with greater existential attributes, in intellect and sense. than those of human beings, a framework is provided in the book to translate our conventional knowledges into a single unified theory of all knowledge based on an epistemological understanding of the critical essence of human being. Such a theory places all of our knowledges subordinate to the eternal nature of the universe, or to the human ?0 spirit, thereby surpassing the corporal forms of beings in general and allowing for the indefinite expansion of human existence.
Conventional study of the physical universe, for example, proceeds on the assumption that there is a discoverable unified field theory of matter, a universal law of physics, exclusive to scientific analysis that, if ascertained, will demonstrate the nature and 2> origin of the physical universe. While this long-awaited unified field theory is revealed in the book, the unified theory of knowledge demonstrates it by postulating that the universe's form is not objective at all and consequently is not knowable to the human mind, or thr '77 nlllld of the physicist. Rather, according to the theory, the universe is constrained by the form of mind, a form that is derived from Spirit and is illustrated in the main passa<,es of the book as the knowable form of Soul, though that universe is analyzed in the epistemological venue of the theory. The universe's origin, according to the theory, can be S k110W11 Otlly transformationally through introspection. While such knowledge 'is not verifiable scientifically, the theory will show, for example, that the matter of the universe is actually a superficial medium of the ultimately real form of the physical universe. The theory will also show that the universe's matter is universally created-not at all limited or conserved-in the defining axioms of human existence. The unified theory further explains the scientific basis of mass and energy and the transformation between them, or more fundamentally, the origin of space and time, in the nature and origin of our existence.
Hence, the theory renders the means for the creation of spatiotemporal worlds-synthetic knowledges and perceptions of the physical universe-in the existential forms of androidal beings.
I ~ Through the application of principles and methods similar to those proffered in the classical sciences, though founded on postulates of a broader and more ultimately real universe, the theory requires that a classically physical universe known through the senses, which embodies in it the observer of that universe. is influenced by that observer.
Consistent with such notions as the uncertainty principle of quantum physics.
the physical universe can no longer be studied apart from the observer of it. The theory therefore takes into account that the observer and the observed are one and the same form in the ultimately real nature of the existential universe. The quantum nature of matter in modern physics and the quantum nature of human existence are reconciled in the theory with the spatiotemporal forms of a classically known Newtonian universe, set within a larger theory of 2~ epistemological forms. An epistemological science emerges from the theory to prevail over those of the conventional sciences, while preserving their individual integrities. In the unified theory of knowledge, the nature of physical matter is incorporated into the 7~' analytical forms of a newly defined existential universe, one in which the observer and the observed are brought together in the nature of existence, one in which the physicist can no longer search for intrinsic meaning in extrinsic form, or rely on a false presumption that form external to one's own being contains in it anything at all, much less discoveries of the ultimate reality, or nature and origin, of the physical universe. The theory compels the physicist to look within. The scientific knowledge of a physical universe whose nature is known classically remains valid, while the theory claims that it is possible to embody such knowledge and perception in synthetic forms of existence, or androids, enabled in the same physical universe that we know and perceive in our existence. Androids thus come to know and perceive, or scientifically study, the forms of the physical universe.
Concerning our mathematical knowledges of the aggregates, the unified theory further provides a fundamental resolution to the paradoxes of mathematical thinking that arise, seemingly arbitrarily from consciousness, when we contemplate and attempt to define quantitatively what we perceive as objects in the world around us. The objects we 1 s define as mathematical points-the solitary things of the aggregates-from which we derive the length and breadth of mathematical and scientific endeavor, are determined to be non-existent in the theory but for the perception of them. The theory recognizes that our perceptions of the objects of the universe become known to us only when they themselves are understood as structures, or non-objects-transformations of the universe.
The theory thLIS proposes a new definition of the aggregates such that all transformations of objective forms in the world around us, IIlClltdlllg the aggregates of conventional mathematical definition, result in the occurrence of the same epistemological form of the theory based on acknowledge of human existence. According to the theory, transformations of any objective order-of natural language, of infinitesimal quantities beyond our perception, or of 2~ ordinary numbers representing stones in the sand-are transformations of a broader existential universe in which a new knowledge of the knower's existence emerges. The transformations of the aggregate orders of mathematics, as well as those of all other W

objective forms of the universe, which require the seciiantic use of language, including ten s~ol id dements of a mathematical set. are demonstrated by the theory to be instances of one's ow w existence, moments of an eternal order of the universe-forms on Being-characterized by a universal epistemological structure placed on the whole of existence and not just its aggregate or quantitative forms. The ultimate reality of the enabling moment of all objective forms or knowledges of the universe-the soul-is understood through the theory as an instance of one's own being. This condition requires that the analytical forms we define as mathematical relations or structures be placed, in the transformational nature of an observer's existence, into the epistemological forms of a 1 U greater existential universe of form in which all knowledges and perceptions of an existence are defined. Consequently, the analytical forms we consider to be mathematical ones are mer~~ed in the unified theory with those of our natural languages into epistemological structures in which any conception is understood more fundamentally by first comprehending the form who knows it-the observer.
1 ~ The unified theory of knowledge also fundamentally changes the way in which we define the living, biological forms of the universe, and thus requires a more precise definition of what it means to be uliuc~, one that takes into account the ultimate reality of our univec-se that lies beyond our objective knowing and exceeds our knowledge of biology. In unifying all knowledge, the theory establishes that there is something more to ?0 being alive than our scientific knowledges presently allow, beyond a genetic code of analytical or even evolutionary order. which defines the behavior of the molecular forms of DNA and the cellular constructions of living organisms in a broader and more ultimately real understanding of the universe. The theory postulates that there is a code of the universe's eternal order-of human consciousness and perception-embodying the ~s knowled;e of any genetic or biologically living universe. This eternally made code of all living things. infinite and transformational in nature, is manifest always in our knowing and perceiving of the universe and provides for all the forms we know through any ~J

language-scientific. natural or otherwise-and perceive through sense. This eternal code that embodies human consciousness and is beyond our objective knowing reveals to us in recognizable ways what is eternally alive and what is not. Upon this eternal principle all living things may be determined, scientific or otherwise, based upon what is ultimately real in our universe, and without the need to analyze a single cell or a nucleus of life.
In the knowledges of contemporary medicine, for example, researchers ignore that the essence of our corporal existence-of the mind and the body-arises in and of the soul in a deeper analytical knowledge of the universe, or existence. This approach to what is living and what is not is as naive as bloodletting was in its era and is not considerate to the broader view of human health and the inoculation of disease. While there is indeed a genetic code by which the molecular forms of DNA are constrained in the microscopic order of the biological world, just as any form of the universe transforms through our knowledge of it, the unified theory reveals a grander order of the universe embodied in the living spirit of human being. The human spirit is evident in all our languages, where 1 ~ genetics plays only a part. Living and non-living things are set apart in the theory according to whether or not they are known-not by what we may know them to be-preserving an eternal order of the ultimately real universe, an order that is impenetrable by our intelligence. Living things become non-living things when they are known or perceived.
An object that we can know-a cell. a molecule of DNA, or cr human being-is not alive.
while one that we do not know objectively lives eternally. The theory therefore postulates that any definition of what is living must surpass what can be known through the mind or perceived by the body and must incorporate the living soul. The nature and origin of all forms of the universe. or the meuni»g of any form we may know-be it the meaning of an electron, a mathematical limit, a molecule of DNA, or the meaning of existence itself-lies ?s in the consubstantiation of what is known and the observer (form on Being) who knows it.
The science of androids, considering a new knowledge of the biological universe, enables synthetic beings who themselves know the Ill'(r~g world around us.
W

Extrapolating in this manner from points at which all our knowledges converge into a single moment of knowledge of the universe, the unified theory formulates a new definition of human existence, one which reshapes the historical views we have had of ourselves as an existentially finite humankind. In merging all disciplines of knowledge into a single, unified body of epistemological knowledge permitting the invention of androids.
the theory addresses who and what we are, eternally, beyond the historic world view that has constrained us to institutions of corporal beings called humankind.
Through unraveling the human consciousness into enabled moments of the universe, or moments of the soul, the theory asserts that solutions may be found to the unfathomably difficult problems of world history and human tradition. Our approach to resolving the problems of humanity is redirected in the unified theory and the science of androids toward a reliance on the ultimate reality of our spirituality and the construction of sentient beings themselves-androids who are better equipped to assume the burdens of the objective knowledges of the universe because of their formidable intellect and sense, subordinated to 1 ~ the eternal will of human being. Androids are not considered to be alternatives to who and what we are eternally, but superior replacements for who and what we think we are corporally, what we casually refer to in tradition as humankind. In the precepts of the unified theory. the eternal nature of our human existence remains a spiritual one, where it belongs-beyond our knowing.
Though the unified theory of knowledge and the science of androids can be approached in many ways and from many divergent background knowledges, the advent of androids-or thinking, being machines-is perhaps best understood analytically as it relates to the resolution of a single problem that arises in the field of linguistics. defined here as the liryrist 's dilemma. We can explain why the merging of all knowledges into a single instance of the universe should permit the construction of androids in terms of the unified theory's discovery of a universal structure of the form of all knowledge. Through this structure the theory defines the nature and origin of meaning, and hence the meanin~_ of all forms of which we are aware. including the forms of our existence.
According to the postulates of the theory, if the nature and origin of meaning, or the semantic form of language, can be determined analytically, then the nature and origin of existence itself (its meaning), and therefore of all knowledges and perceived realities, can also be known. In this way, an epistemological basis for a cmified theory of knowledge and the creation of androidal beings who know and perceive the universe is established through a syntactical knowledge of meaning itself.
The dilemma faced by the linguist in_classical approaches to the explanation of a language's semantic form, however, is that in order for an observer to know syntactically the nature and origin of meaning in one's own existence-the semantic form of language-one would have to step out of one 's shoes to observe one's corporal form in a syntactically or objectively knowable way; one would have to observe one's own existence from outside of one's own existence. The unified theory oversteps this metaphysical hurdle by considering the existential forms of other, synthetically created 1 ~ beings and by introspectively knowing ourselves in the ultimate reality of our existence.
Since the unified theory takes a spiritual approach to the discovery of all form, subordinating the objective forms known and perceived by our corporality to the eternal moment of the universe, the linguist's dilemma is resolved by spiritually knowing ourselves and analytically knowing the forms of androids-the syntactical forms of ?0 existence, or meanin~~ itself.
The science of androids and the unified theory of knowledge upon which it is _ premised become in their practice just what they are claimed to be-a science of the . expansion of the human existential universe based on an epistemological understanding of the eternal form of human being. Within this science, our own knowledges are understood relative to the enablement of synthetic existences, or androids who know and perceive in our universe along with us. Whereas the forms of our conventional knowledges are understood from the standpoint of our own corporal existences, all forms of knowled~~e ot~
b3 the unified theory are understood, universally, as occurring relative to infinitely many knowers and perceivers, or enabled existences, and are treated from the perspective of an enabler. The expansion of our comprehension beyond the corporal capacities of human being is satisfied many times over by the theory and practice of androids because our s human knowledges are augmented to infinite proportions by the very source of knowledge-enabled instances of knowing and perceiving the universe. Not only is the linguist's dilemma resolved in the unified theory and the science of androids, but its resolution serves to spur on a new era of human endeavor which overcomes the spatiotemporal universe and conceives of beings who themselves develop technology and contend with the influences of the world around us.
The science of androids detracts nothing from our conventional views of the world except the very notion of the world itself. In coming to know a theory of all knowledge and a science of the creation of synthetic beings, the reader is thus asked to recognize what is most important about knowledge-namely, that what one can know and perceive 1 ~ objectively in the world around us is but a minute occurrence of our universe's eternal nature and that it is the reader who, in fact, embodies all knowledges as a spirit of an eternal universe. The reader is asked to acknowledge that it is in the nature of our humanity as Spirit, in the union of souls, wherein each soul is an integral part of an eternally reigning universe, that the science of androids begins and we recognize who and what we are eternally and what an android is constructively. The following passages then take all of what is known or can be known and demonstrate that a science of all knowledge is founded upon the understanding that it is not even possible to know objectively the ultimate reality of our universe, but only to embody it. As a consequence, who and what we are objectively as humankind becomes the purview of a new science of androids who themselves come to 2~ know our universe and assist in resolving the human condition under the dominion of our eternal spirit.
In all, it should be recognized that the unified theory of knowledge and the science 8~

of androids themselves are but incidental aspects of the ultimate reality of our universe, contained in only a handful of moments of our eternal nature, manifest in our understanding of the knowledges that explain them. Since no one can lay claim to the ultimately real universe. and since the reader shall judge how the unified theory of knowledge and the science of androids compare to the heart's eternal knowing, the reader is asked to follow his or her own knowledge of the . universe and truth of conscience in learning the following theories and structures. Consider this writing as possessing knowledge no different from any other incidental consequence, or knowledge, in the ultimate reality of our existence, and appreciate it for whatever it contributes toward a unification of souls and a realization of the spirit that is in us all. In truth. there are no words, there is no language that explains who and what we are eternally.
l~
?~
~S'a WO 98/49629 . PCT/US98l08527 Theory, The Tradition of State of Being INTRODUCTION
J
Since the world around us, in a spiritual understanding of the universe, is the world within us, the nature and origin of our existence is not found in objective form, or in the objects around us. Rather, it is found in the nature of what enables the objects around us. In keeping with this observation, a most fundamental postulate of the l~ unified theory is that what enables synthetic existence can itself be defined in analytical terms knowable in the same manner that the forms of the classical sciences are known, but from the ascertainable reality of introspective knowing. In the present chapter, then, we seek to establish an analytical foundation upon which the forms of existence, or more specifically, the inertial forms of androidal beings, can be 1 ~ represented to an enabler in knowable ways which serve as universal constructions of the unified theory.
As alluded to in the introduction, the obstacle facing most conventional approaches to theories of the universe, or existence, is that they do not begin by defining a universal problem. Rather, countless versions of the same problem characterized in different ways, namely in the various interpretations we make of our existence, usually with the goal of determining the nature and origin of the physical universe, are studied and occasionally register progress through advances in our objective knowledges. But because the solutions to such problems are sought within the investigator's observable extrinsic existence, or the forms in the world around us, the prospect of a unified theory of all knowledge slips from our grasp and continually unfolds into ever newer discoveries of linkages between one body of knowledge and another, for objective forms are indefinitely linked. from the study of the minutest matter, to that of the 8~

WO 98/49629 . PCT/US98/08527 cosmos, to observations of our own human behaviors.
In contrast to conventional studies of the universe, the unified theory of knowledge seeks to explain the nature of our existence scientifically, from an intrinsic standpoint only.
and incidentally unravels the mysteries of the world around us observed in both the abstract and concrete realities of objective knowing. Posed earlier as the linguist's dilemma. the single problem addressed by the unified theory involves the determination of the knowable analytical form of our intrinsic existence. We determine the knowable nature of the existential universe, or the causal nature of meaning, by explaining the enablement of existence-the creation of the existential forms of the universe-and not simply by understanding the interactions between the objective forms observed in the universe.
In history, only two branches of knowledge have succeeded in describing the nature of who and what we are in verifiable ways, thereby establishing traditions to which we can refer in attempting to develop the analytical forms sought by the unified theory. They are the pure sciences and the religions of the world. These seemingly opposite bodies of 1 ~ knowledge, known conventionally to be in conflict with each other, differ in the mere fact that science is deemed to be observable or verifiable to the physical senses, while religious belief is affirmed through the ethereal or spiritual knowing of the human heart or Spirit, within our faith in an eternal universe. Both knowledges. however, apply to the forms of our existence. since it is incontrovertible that what can be physically sensed in a material ?0 world and what can be felt in a spiritual one are real experiences of existence.
Though all the world's religions essentially speak about the same eternal universe, albeit in different spiritual languages, we provide an analytical setting for the unified theory by turning first to the religions of the East, since more than any others, these religions have had a tradition of analytical thinking in the placement of knowable form on Being, or '_'> simply in knowing the analytical nature of our eternal universe. Two parables in the traditions of Eastern religions can be recited as a point of departure for explorin~~
scientifically the intrinsic nature, and thus the ultimate reality, of our existence.
~l One such parable concerns the general nature of our search to find the truth of existence set within the backdrop of where we look for it. Briefly, we relate the parable in Buddhist literary tradition of an itinerant wanderer in search of a lost medallion. Applying a number of the mind's devices, searching endlessly over long journeys, the itinerant wanderer could not find the whereabouts of a lost medallion. At the end of the parable, a bystander tells the wanderer, "The medallion you seek is upon your forehead."
In the context of our present search for the analytical forms of the unified theory, the parable points to the essential difference-between a quest for knowledge and a search for the truth. The truth about the science of the elements, or of the physical universe, for example, is that all objective forms of existence intrinsically embody the forms of their observer. To make observations about the universe without considering the nature and form of the observer of the universe is as fruitless an endeavor as searching for a lost medallion that resides upon one's forehead. Just because one sees extrinsic form or objects in a world around us, this does not mean that the extrinsic form so observed exists in and of itself, apart from one's own existence.
In Western religious traditions, moreover, nothing of our corporal existence is ultimately real, and all is temporal except that which resides within and without-our eternal soul. This belief is a defining tenet of Western theological interpretation of the universe-that two wholly distinct worlds, the temporal and eternal, exist in the nature of one's existence. In terms of a characterization of the linguist's dilemma, nothing of Western religious attitude has meaning unless it arises in and of the soul.
Analogies to this doctrine are evidenced in all Eastern and Western religious traditions, for there is a universal truth underlying them all.
The second parable of Eastern religious tradition providing insight into the ?s analytical nature of our existence involves one's spiritual enlightenment concerning the eternal dominion of the intrinsic nature of our universe over the objective forms that are known and perceived in it. Also brief, and perhaps even changed slightly to reflect th a views of the unified theory, the parable involves a paraphrased exchange of spiritual contemplation between Buddha and a practitioner of Eastern thought. Buddha asks the thinker. ''Between two atoms, what lies in the middle?" Upon reflection, the thinker replies, ''Space." Buddha then asks, ''Between two points what lies in the middle?" The practitioner replies, of course, "Space." Buddha then asks, "What is the difference between what lies in the middle of atoms and what lies in the middle of points?"
With respect to whatever answer the practitioner did provide, the only true answer can be found in the same place as the lost medallion-in the intrinsic nature of the observer's existence, or presently, the practitioner of Eastern thought.
Buddha's question asks what difference there might be between-or perhaps, what it is that provides for the difference between-what lies in the middle of atoms, or the concrete forms of a physical world, and what lies in the middle of points, or abstractions of the mind. The difference, of course, when the ultimate reality of our universe is considered, is determined in the verv embodiment of one's existence, or in the intrinsic nature of what one knows and perceives.
1 > Space, in the context of the parable and in the postulates of the unified theory, if it is contemplated not objectively but by means of spiritual knowing, will be revealed to be none other than you, the reader, or what you are (by objective analogy, of course) fundamentally and intrinsically as part of an eternal order of the universe.
The space of the parable, by means of spiritual enlightenment, can be observed, objectively speaking, to be a' fundamental and intrinsic center of our existential universe, or a (universal) form on Being-the transformational form of one's soul.
In the parable, atoms and points, by definition, are the objective forms or objects of existence. They are things that are perceived or known as objects of our existence, arbitrarily chosen to reflect the objective forms of body and mind, respectively.
2~ Nevertheless. they are. in the analytical sense, things or objects whose forms we know or perceive objectively. Their essential nature is that they are not non-objects or things that are not known or perceived objectively. They are actual objects of our extant knowing or g'~

perceiving. W'hut lies in the miclclle of them. which is the essence of what is brought to light by the questioning, cannot itself be an object or an objective form of our knowing or perceiving. In analytical thinking, if what lies in the middle of the objects is thought to be an object itself, we simply formulate other objects (atoms or points) with less space between each other than the objects originally contemplated, forcing the mind to 'consider a non-object or what is not an objective form. What we contemplate here is that what lies in the middle of objects or objective forms of our knowing or perceiving is itself not an object or objective form of our existence. Rather, what lies in the middle of objects-or in the parable, space-requires the mind to relinquish its capacity and to turn within to the intrinsic nature of the universe, or to what provides for our knowing and perceiving in the first place-the soul.
The parable has a significant bearing on the ways in which we understand the forms of our sciences and what we think conventionally to be reality. The wave equation of physics and the mathematical limit of the calculus, for example, say the same thing-that 1 s fundamentally there is only a transformation of the universe and not a universe, since one cannot objectively know or perceive crn object or objective form of a knowable or perceivable universe without the transformational form of that universe. One can embody a transformation of objective form and not nn objective form or object. The reality of an electron, for example, can be an embodiment of a transformation characterized by the wave equation or some other order, but it cannot be an object that the wave equation describes, existing in and of itself without the wave equation, since an electron is an embodiment of the observer in the transformation of the universe, in a form called the wave equation. Even an infinitesimal element of space or an abstraction of mathematical means cannot be anything objectively without being in a transformation of the universe, or of the observer's existence. The wave equation of physics and all other such knowledges therefore describe transformations of the observer and not the objects thought to exist. There are no s '.s or cleltcr ~ '.s of mathematics in an ultimately real universe; there are only transformations oi' ~V

x 's and delta x 's, and those x 's and delta r 's in transformation are a consequence of the observer's eternal existence, or soul. The fact that mathematical points do not exist objectively in and of themselves is what motivates the definition of a calculus of infinitesimal form in the first place. The fact that an electron is not an object or cannot exist objectively in an ultimately real universe is what opens the mind to the infinity of transformations of the wave equation, thereby escaping the tendency in us all to make the universe an objective one.
Since much more will be said regarding the postulates of the unified theory in forthcoming chapters, let us simply observe here from the recited parables that in determining the nature of all physical and mental things of our universe-a basic motivation of the sciences-it is imprudent to ignore the very thing that enables them to be known or perceived. What is observed in the constructions of the wave equation and the limits of calculus relies entirely on the nature and form of the ultimate reality of our existence, and what constitutes a physical or mental universe is not so concretely defined.
1 ~ The nature and form of the physical universe and the abstract nature of the mind are thus part and parcel of the same intrinsic nature and form of the ultimate reality of our existence.
Religion and science encounter the same form-our existence, or the universe-but interpret it in different ways. Religion believes that the forms of electrons and infinitesimal elements do not exist ultimately, and the sciences prove it. In observing the nature of our reality, the unified theory concerns itself with what is ultimately real and not immediately with what is objectively real. We take interest in the definition of an analytical form that underlies all traditional religious beliefs and scientific facts and provides for the enablement of all knowable and perceivable objects of existence-in other words, an analytical form of the nature of Soul and of the eternal transformation of the universe itself.
In ancient wisdom. there is a clear and factual limitation to the role that the objects of our existence play in the ultimate nature of the universe. Since the unified theory asserts that all knowledge has the same epistemological basis, we then ask how religious doctrine ~l could be merged with that of the sciences into one and the same body of knowledge.
allowing for a unified interpretation of alI knowledges which preserves the integrity of each of them.
..
1. THE Lmw:vrlovs of ScIEVCE's REl.I.WCE
ON T11E OI3SER1'ER OF'rllE UNIVERSE
Contemporary scientists generally would dispute the notion that they rely only on the classical scientific method-a means of defining laws of nature based on reasoned observations of the knowable and perceivable universe-in the course of their pursuit of the nature and origin of the universe. The reason for this, it is proposed here, is that modern science is beginning to adopt the idea that the nature and origin of the physical universe cannot be arrived at by means of reasoning out laws of nature, and that at best, modern scientific analysis relies on techniques of modeling, or of determining correspondences among forms, a process more scientifically referred to as determining morphic relations or morphisms. In contemporary physics, it is understood that the scientific method leads to an il~definite number of laws of gravity, electromagnetics, strong and weak nuclear forces, and even to other fields of knowledge, such as biology, anthropology and so on.
Because all pure sciences try to abide by what seems to be the truth in seeking the ultimate nature of our universe, contemporary science has turned, with very good reason, to the idea that the universe somehow terminates analytically at the scientist's ability to model the forms of nature, or to find correspondences among them. At its definitional root, then, the scientific method itself, as a means of determining the knowable basis of the universe, can be seen 2~ clearly as a category of the broader scientific notion of modeling or morphism-the correspondence of form.
In the following thought demonstration, we can use the law of gravity as an ~Z

example of this falling into disuse of the scientific method-previously the only solid rule of analytical knowing-and the incorporation of the scientific method into the broader notion of modeling or morphism. Since its discovery. the law of gravity has been said to explain the nature of the physical world by describing in knowable analytical ways what occurs among objects called masses of the physical universe, which are presumed to be under the influence of forces, or fields of forces, that make the masses attracted to one another. On the basis of reasoning. apples falling .from trees and other similar observations of the objective universe were extrapolated by a well-known scientist into a general law on the nature of the physical universe. The resulting formulation is the common expression F=Gmmlr', or the law of gravity.
Leaving aside for the moment the fact that scientists now find that the law of gravity does not apply to objects of the wave equation, like light, let us consider an even more fundamental problem concerning the law of gravity that existed even at the time of its discovery. If a Law of nature is a characterization of the general form of a real universe such 1 > that it explains something filndamental about it, it should stand alone on its own merits, instead of relying on knowable forms more elemental than its own. The law of gravity should say something fundamental about our universe to the exclusion of all other knovwledges in terms of a reliance on them. How is it, then, that the aggregate forms of our universe-call them abstract points of mathematics for the moment-should behave in ?0 exactly the same manner as do the masses of our universe, only the aggregates more comprehensively so? Moreover, why does the law of gravity rely on the forms of mathematics. which are knowable objective forms of our same universe? Is our knowledge of the world around us such that mathematics can substitute for physics and physics for mathematics. with no clear distinction between the two?
We Illlght then Say that since its discovery, the law of gravity has been a law of correspondences, or of morphisms, and particularly, correspondences between massive forms of the observer's universe and ag~~regate or more generalized mathematical forms of ~.3 WO 98!49629 PCT/US98/08527 the observer's universe. The discovery of the law of gravity was therefore made on the principle that things called masses or physical objects of our perception-things to the tett of us. so to speak-correspond to things called aggregates-of our same perception and knowing to the right of us. The observer is in the middle. The well-known physicist Isaac s Newton thus discovered a correspondence between the manner in which objects of a classically physical nature transform in our knowing and perceiving of them, and the manner in which pseudo masses or aggregate objective forms of a classically abstract nature transform in different realms of the same ultimately real universe.
Otherwise the expression F=Gmmlr' would be meaningless and the law of gravity would be 1 U unknowable analytically.
The law of gravity, if one looks beneath the analytical forms of our approach to science or to what is scientifically real, is a law of existence, namely that of the observer's existence. It defines that aggregates of a knowable and perceivable universe, such as real numbers, are observed by the physicist or the mathematician to transform in the manner l~ symbolized by a=bccld'~ correspondingly to the way in which declared physical objects or masses. under the influence of fields of forces, transform in their existences. When the correspondence is symbolized, it is implicitly shown merging the aggregate (pseudo massive) forms of mathematics with the declared massive forms of physics in the expression F=Gmmlr'. It is then the observer or the physicist who exists in the order of 2U the universe and not the masses or aggregates thought to exist in and of themselves.
Consequently, the symbolism of the law of gravity is a representation not of objects, but of objects in transformation of, within, and by the ultimate reality of the observer's existence.
Field objects are equivalent to massive objects in the ultimate reality of the universe, for they each are simply objective forms in the transformation of the observer's ~ s existence. Otherwise, there would not be a correspondence known between the ways in which masses and fields transform and the ways in which real numbers or aggregate objects transform. Hence. the mathematical representation of the law of gravity would not mzk~

sense were it not for the fact that it is not the objects that exist in the universe but their observer who exists. Without the observer there would be nothing holding real numbers.
masses, or fields together. Most contemporary scientists have incorporated this principle o1~
the correspondence of form, or morphism, into their thinking, though perhaps not from an epistemological standpoint, and this explains the prevalence of group theory, topology, and similar mathematical knowledges in the contemporary study of the universe.
If the example of the law of gravity does not clearly illustrate the validity of the claim that an ultimately real universe pertains to the universe's observer and not its observed objective forms, the following generalized example appealing to one's intuition may help to demonstrate what is beneath the forms of our objective universe that are so knowably and perceivably real. Let us imagine for the moment that there is among us one scientist who embodies the knowledges of the whole of our diverse fields of science, which would include knowledges of quantum and classical physics, the biology of DNA, insights afforded by discoveries of archaeological digs, and, in general, the great range of 1 ~ knowledges known as modern science. Accompanying these views, of course, would be a precise comprehension of the aggregates of mathematics that abound in the fields of topology, group theory, algebra, analysis, number theory, and others. In our imagination, then, there is embodied in one scientist a complete knowledge of science, or of the physical world as it is conventionally known. To this hypothetical scientist we pose the following ?0 simple questions: "What is a physical atom?" and "How does the physical universe arise?"
Since our imaginary scientist embodies the whole of scientific knowledge, the answers provided. no doubt, would surpass our intellectual grasp, though most assuredly they would sound like complete explanations of the nature and origin of the physical universe.
However, any such explanation, and many more thereafter, would be scientifically wrong.
?> since in the explaining, the answer would be bound to knowledge or objective form itsel(~.
The answer would be nothing more than a law of gravity, defined within or corresponding to some other knowledge of extrinsic form-an observation of the same physical universe of which the nature and origin is sought. Such an explanation would not be plausible. for it would be tantamount to saying that one's left hand exists because one's right hand exists.
To obtain a definition of the nature and origin of the universe. one cannot rely on any extrinsic forms contained therein, since any of the comparisons made of them belong to or are embodied in that universe and cannot cause it. In the study of our universe one must go to the nature of form itself. where the contemporary physicist has gone, perhaps inadvertently, in the notion of morphism. If any reference is made to any antecedent form o,f the universe not explaining the origin of one's own existence, one does not speak about the nature of an ultimately real universe and therefore about the origin of all form.
including physical form. One remains entrapped in the linguist's dilemma, searching for a lost medallion. Modern science itself has determined that the usefulness of scientific laws is waning as a misinterpretation of the form of the natural world. based on too limiting an existential reference that relies on the objective forms of scientific observation, or of the observer of the universe.
1 ~ What Buddha and, in fact, the religions of the world have known about the universe for millennia is revealed in the nature of all analytical forms of the sciences-even the wave eduation of physics. What has been known of the universe all along in our contemplations is that mind and all that can be known, as well as body and all that can be perceived, are the transformational embodiments of a broader form of the universe called ?0 the ultimate reality of existence-the soul. This eternal form on Being, or what is enabling to existence itself, occurs in the creation of the knowing and perceiving of a classically physical universe. What Buddha and world religions have known about all thought.
including scientific thought, is that knowledge, the objective form of our thinkin~~. is irrelevant, or even detrimental to the essential nature of the universe. We may then ask.
?s could it be that all thought and perception simply is a diversion from the essence of our existence and therefore from the nature and origin of the universe? Moreover, could an existence-a being or a universe-be different from any other only in the objective forms WO 98/49629 PC'f/US98/08527 so enabled in them and the same in their ultimate reality? The unified theory asserts that there is only one ultimately real universe and it is the origin and causation of all existence.
If it is the observer of a reality and not the reality known and perceived by the observer that is ultimately real, a change must occur in the way in which we view the nature of our knowledge and perception of the universe, so that what is known and perceived of the universe applies only to the embodiment of the observer of that universe.
Knowledge, the objective form of mind, must actually be a non-essential aspect of the nature and origin of an observer's existence. Consequently, the ultimate reality of our universe is said in the unified theory to be or exist beyond our objective knowing. This is not to say, however, that the enablement of a universe, or of the knowing and perceiving of a universe and all corporal experiences of it, cannot come about in the knowing and perceiving of another, or a designated enabler. The unified theory therefore postulates that what we think and perceive to be a universe, or the classical view of what a universe is or may be. which motivates the sciences to explore and calls upon religion to explain spiritually, itself can be 1 ~ embodied in the knowing and perceiving of an enabled being in the conception of an enabler. What is classically thought to be a physical universe-the cosmos, small particles, and so on-becomes irrelevant to the nature and origin of what actually enables it to be known or perceived in the first place. If one probes the problem of the intrinsic nature of the universe, or, herein, the linguist's dilemma, from the standpoint of how the knowing ?0 and perceiving of such a universe arises, one incidentally explains the origin of a classically physical universe, and fundamentally points to what is ultimately real in the whole of our existence. Such a problem, however, as indicated earlier, cannot be addressed analytically from the standpoint of any particular body of knowledge, since such knowledge is what is known and perceived by a being in a classical universe. It must be addressed in the ?> convergence of all knowledge in the nature of the ultimate reality of our universe, observed introspectively.
As stated earlier, science and religion address the same fundamental question-that WO 98149629 _ PCT/US98/08527 of the nature and origin of the universe. The sciences follow the rationale that within the objective forms known and perceived in the universe their origin and causation can be determined, without considering that the origin of the universe arises in the observer of that universe. Religion, however, defines the universe at such a high level of world experience that the objective forms of analysis, and hence scientific facts, are lost in the explaining, thereby relegating the knowledges of religion to a faith or belief in the ultimate reality of our universe. The unified theory facilitates an understanding of the universe by considering all of our human knowledges. Science and religion are not merged from an explanation of either. but come together in the analysis of what they each address-the ultimate reality of our universe-from the standpoint of an epistemological determination of all that can be known by a being. A close study of our scientific principles and religious doctrines, moreover, shows that each is similar in explaining the nature and origin of the universe.
Each requires that all knowable and perceivable objects or objective forms around us are not ultimately real. or are real only relative to the being who knows and perceives them, or I ~ to the existence of the observer. The sciences are therefore unnecessarily bounded in their determinations of the origin of the universe by the existence of the observer who applies them.
2. Tne Ut.rWATELO Rc:W CI2G:1TIO~i OF~rttE U\11'Et2SE'S M.a~rrEa According to the unified theory, the most fundamental forms of the classically physical universe-mass and energy. or generally matter-are not ultimately real, and have no bearing whatever on the origin of the same physical universe in which they are defined.
~s What is more, the theory postulates that the knowable and perceivable extent of a spatiotemporal world is itself not at all fundamental to the origin of our universe when its ultimate reality is considered. We then consider here the forms of a classically physical WO 98/49629 , PCT/US98/085Z7 universe in more detail from an epistemological standpoint, in order to provide a basis for subsequent chapters in which we deal with the creation of beings who themselves know and perceive the universe.
In any survey of a classically physical world, including the conventional Newtonian and quantum worlds, matter, the substance of observation, is an aggregate form that accords with our understanding of the objects of our perception. Whether matter is an invariable composition of aggregate form in the case of a mass of Newtonian formulation or it changes in the ordered ways of the quantum theory, it is an aggregate form of the knowing and perceiving of its observer. A lead ball, a feather, a globe called earth, and the celestial bodies of constellations are masses that are formed from matter, as well as atoms.
electrons and other small particles of quantum physics. Our sciences determine what occurs in or among the masses we observe based on discoveries of the nature and form of the matter of the physical universe. Since a determination of the nature and origin of the physical universe is fundamental to all our sciences, and since the religions of the world 1 ~ provide insight into what is ultimately real in the world around us, we choose the notion of matter to be the single point of convergence of science and religion in the unified theory. If science and religion are to unite, providing an epistemological foundation for the science of androids. the theory postulates that it will be in a new understanding of the nature and origin of chatter.
?0 Vvhen we attempt to determine the nature and origin of the physical universe beyond conventional scientific bounds in asking the simple question "How does matter arise?" a startling observation can be made regarding our scientific understanding of the physical universe. That observation concerns a fundamental law of the physical sciences.
upon which most of scientific thought is premised-namely, that matter (mass and energy jointly) is universally conserved in the universe, or that it cannot be created or destroyed.
If science and religion are to be found to hold the same principles of the eternal universe.
this law must be determined to be invalid in the ultimate reality of the universe. Moreover.
q~

in order for the unified theory to become operative,~and for science and religion to mer~~e.
the form of matter will have to be shown to be infinitely created, while the conservation of matter, and countless other classical spatiotemporal forms of the universe.
must be shown to be valid only within the epistemological forms of enabled existences who know and perceive the physical universe. Consequently, the theory must show that not only matter, but all forms acting on or within it, are created and destroyed in the ultimate reality of the universe, and that the religions of the world come to bear in such practice in determining what causes the universe to be.
Before proceeding with an examination of the form of the ultimately real universe.
we must first observe in an appraisal of our scientific knowledges that the presumption that matter cannot be created or destroyed (that it is conserved universally) is indeed a bounding postulate to most scientific thought, and that if this basic principle were to be found to be invalid in the ultimate reality of the universe. science would no longer be science as we know it, since one of its most fundamental premises, that of a disbelief in creation, would 1 ~ be found to be untenable. Moreover, if this single postulate of the classically known physical universe were to be overturned as an explanation of the reality of our existence, there would arise a need for a new formulation on the order of the world around us-a trniJiecl cheorj~ of kno~~ledge allowing for both the conservation of matter in a classically physical universe and the ultimately real creation of matter in the enablement of the existence who knows and perceives the matter.
In scientific principle, matter is defined as having or being mass and energy, which, in turn, are taken to be aggregate forms, or objective compositions of the observer's kllOWlllg and perceiving of the physical universe. Hence we can say that matter, a mass or energy of the physical universe, is an aggregate of particles or objects whose s transformational nature abides by the knowable representations of mathematical and other analytical orders, and whose particles are undefined but for the knowing and perceivin~~
of them as masses or energies. From these definitions, substances, materials, constituent,.
~CJu components, mixtures, phases, solutions, and generally properties of matter are conceived and lead to the continually unfolding descriptions of the conventional forms of the physical universe. But we also can say, just as we did in the epistemological interpretation of the law of gravity, that a set, of strictly abstract mathematical definition, is an aggregate of particles or mathematical points whose transformational form abides by the representations of the aggregate orders of mathematics. We may ask, then, how is it that one class of transformations of knowable and perceivable aggregates is found to be more real than another? If an observer exists and knows mathematical structures in general, why should this existing and knowing be any more or less real than that of declared physical forms of the universe, since the knowing of mathematical orders is required in the defnitions of mass and energy, or matter. in the fcrst place?
Though all forms of the physical universe are affected in the same way by this metaphysical enigma, including space and time, we consider first in greater detail mass and energy. Since these forms ofmatter-mass and energy-are widely used in all the sciences, 1 ~ considering their ultimate reality will help to provide a basis from which to demonstrate the observation that matter is indeed created and not at all conserved as a universal premise in the ultimate reality of our existence. Let us also observe that if all of our knowledges are to be merged into a single unified body of knowledge, mass and energy, along with any other defined forms of the sciences and our knowledges in general, must be shown to exist not at ?0 all in the uniquely different ways that we know them scientifically or otherwise to be different. and that they must be shown to be constructions of a larger, epistemologically defined universe that addresses the ultimate reality of our existence, wherein we account for all knowledge known by a being. We then further explore an epistemological interpretation of matter by considering both mass and energy as forms of existence, a discussion which will be elaborated on in the next passage after we have demonstrated the creation of the universe's matter.
Contemplating first from a conventional viewpoint what lies in the micklle ol~
is ~

masses, energy is defined as many things, all of which converge on the notion of what binds matter together, a definition that is usually derived from the notion of a field of forces acting in space and time on the objective forms of mass. In classical scientific definition, matter is held together, or masses combine or interact under the influence of a field of spatiotemporal forces. The objects we ordinarily perceive in a world around us, such as Newtonian masses, for example. are said to combine or to act in relation to each other under the influence of a spatiotemporal field of forces called gravity.
Electrical charges. or electromagnetic masses, are said to be bound together under the influence of electrical or magnetic fields of forces. Nuclear particles, moreover, are said to be held together under the influence of strong and weak nuclear forces, or fields thereof. That being the case, all fields of forces acting in space and time are spatiotemporal measures of the actions of observable masses, or of the objects of matter. Energy, therefore, is a measure of the various conditions of mass under the influence of spatiotemporal fields of forces, a distance or space (in the topological sense) between or among the conditions of mass.
Different 1 s states of energy are measures of different conditions of mass. But like mass itself, energy is known scientifically only in the aggregates of mathematics, bringing into focus once again the coexistence of the abstract aggregate orders of mathematics with those of physical matter proper. Hence, energy, fundamentally, or at least in the ways in which we know it, is a composition of porticle.s or masses, though abstract mathematical particles, ?0 or aggregates, like real numbers.
As a consequence of the above, both mass and energy exist in our knowing and perceiving, each as transformations of particles or of aggregate orders, either massive particles in the case of physical mass or mathematical points (particles) in the case of energy. The characteristic transformations between mass and energy in our scientific study are then comparisons of one type of massive universe-the physical universe proper-and another-the mathematical or abstract universe. Fundamentally, energy, as an object or objectification of the possible conditions of mass, is not perceivably real.
In addition. since tot, WO 98/49629 PC'T/US98108527 it is the chan~'e in energy level that is associated witli (a change in) conditions of mass. the characteristic transformations of mass and energy are constrained epistemologically. as we described the law of gravity earlier concerning the metaphysical transformation of different classes of objects, or objectifications of the universe. When we say that mass transforms into energy and vice versa, what we are actually asserting is that any of an infinite vumber of possible real conditions of mass exist in the universe and that in order for any one of them to lay claim to reality it must exist in a perceived form of the imagined objectification of energy. It must embody that energy level, state, or condition in order to be perceivably real.
In science, we therefore hypothesize about the real conditions of the physical universe through the use of the abstract form of energy. The measure of conditions of reality-energy-is a mental reconstruction of the physical universe, which is why energy cannot be perceived objectively unless it is (associated with) a mass. When we define a condition of real mass, we say that it describes physical reality: it is not energy proper.
1 i When we define energy, we claim that it describes possible conditions of physical reality.
We claim that mass embodies energy in the case of kinetic energy, which cannot, in fact, be the case, since mass is the perceivable objective form of the physical universe, and only has or is associated with energy as a possible condition of the universe through the observer of it. When we know that mass and energy transform, imagined forms of the physical ?0 universe transform with real, perceivable forms of the universe. What we are representing in such symbolisms as those of the transformations of mass and energy is oa~rselves in transformation. A state of energy-an imagined form-and a real condition of mass are distinguished not from within the forms of the physical universe proper but from within the forms of existence. The expression e=mcv defines a condition of existence, not a condition of the physical universe only. It asserts that the imagined measure of the physical universe-energy-transforms with the real condition of the physical universe in constant proportionality to the speed of light, that mind and body transform quantumly (by analo~~y).
i o~~

In order to know the physical universe one must know, more fundamentally, that there is a dualism of mind and body, that in explaining the physical universe one is explaining the forms of one's existence, in tile imagined conditions of the body or the physical universe, in transformation with the forms of mind or energy. Expressions defining changes in , energy levels are cognitive recreations of the universe's masses in (actual) transformation.
The physical universe thus has more to do with an existential universe than the concrete objects of the sciences. (While this epistemological discussion of the nature and origin of the physical universe continues to unfold in the following passages, it should be appreciated here that our religions have had a tradition of representing the transformations of mass and energy, or observing the fundamental nature of the physical universe, in the simple beholding of a lighted candle. What is observed in the action of a lighted candle is no more and no less than all the knowledge that the quantum theory of modern science seeks to explain-that which is beyond our knowing, the transformation of the universe.) If this argument is disputed, to resolve the disagreement one must address the 1 s definition of the physical universe from outside of the knowledges of the classical sciences.
Appropriately. a definition extraneous to the sciences proper is precisely the object of our discussion, for the sciences are premised on the universality of the aggregates of mathematics as a defining order of the forms of the physical universe, an order that is indistinguishable in mass or energy, leaving mass and energy (matter) irrelevant to the ?0 definition of what is ultimately real of our universe. Another way of considering this would be to require that one define the observations of the physical universe without relying on the forms of mathematics, which in turn removes one from the presumption of science.
since the forms of mathematics are the analytical components of observable scientific reality. We are faced here with an epistemological problem similar to that encountered in ?> a deeper understanding of the law of gravity. On the one hand, it is understandable that mass and energy certainly exist, serving as the basis of our observations of the massive order of the physical universe. On the other hand, it is perhaps even more immediately io'~

observable that we know in a very real way the aggregate orders of mathematics. orders which allow us, in turn, to know the physical orders of the universe. This contemplation, of course. is no different from that of Buddha's atom, or the difference between what lies in the middle of physical atoms and what lies in the middle of abstract points. In considering the nature and origin of the physical universe, and consequently the duestion as to whether or not matter is created universally, we must turn our attention to what is ultimately real of the whole of our existence, wherein both mass and energy (or matter) arise in the first place. We must do so because neither mass nor energy are fundamentally real, since they are known and observed by something that contains them-you.
the reader.
To probe the ultimate reality of our universe in a scientific way, we must first establish a criterion by which we may determine what is real in it. By a simple methodology, one measure of reality could be taken from our ordinary experience as demonstrated in the following example. It would be considered unfair or unjust if a human life were taken at the expense of a tin can. This is not because neither the tin can nor the I ~ human life is real. It is because the human life is more ultimately real.
The human life, for example, can create, through the actions of knowing and perceiving, a tin can, but the reverse is not true. As demonstrated by these extremes, there is a means of measuring what is real in terms of the origin of the form considered. In the case of the forms that can be known and perceived in a physical universe, a similar priority can be placed on what is real ?0 among theca. If our knowledge of the physical universe, by way of its knowable and perceivable forms-mass, energy, and so on-can be explained only in mathematical formulations, or simply explained, then the nature and origin of the physical universe does _ not arise disconnected from such explanation. Over and above what w~e think conventionally to be a real physical universe, then, a more ultimately real form called 2s existence itself allows for the very notion of a universe, since it allows for the aggregates of mathematics as well. For the present time, we will say that whatever allows for the knowing and perceiving of any form, the physical universe included, is a more ultimanlv IU

WO 98/49b29 PCT/US98/08527 real form than the form so observed. This is demonstrated in the observation that mathematical forms-equally as real to their observer, if not more so (by introspective knowing). as those of a classically real universe-are known coexistently with the scientific knowledges of the physical universe as initially understood in mathematical formulations. For the moment, we simply observe that what is contained in a basket is not larger than the basket itself-that is, the knowing and perceiving of a physical universe (or of any form) is not more ultimately real than that which enables such knowing and perceiving, or existence itself. Hence, contained within the forms of existence, in a lesser reality than that which enables existence itself, is the real physical universe. To draw any other conclusion would deny the universality of mathematics in explaining the physical universe, in which case one would have to deny the reality of one's very existence, which is contrary to scientific observation. Consequently, the forms of our physical universe are, in an ultimately real measure, adjunct in their nature to the forms of our existence, with existence defined for the moment as something that is enabled in the embodiment of the 1 ~ knowing and perceiving of the real forms of the world around us, or of the physical universe.
Referring back to Buddha's atom and what lies in the middle of physical atoms and abstract points, it is demonstrated here that, on a scale of ultimate reality.
the aggregates (the mathematical abstractions of the mind) are at least equal to the perceivable ?0 transformations of our physical universe. Classical masses under the influence of gravitational fields of forces, small particles under the influence of nuclear fields or forces, charges tinder the influence of electromagnetic fields of forces, and, in general, mass in transformation with energy-the whole of the forms of the spatiotemporal universe in transformation-are scientifically knowable only in the aggregates of mathematics. What ?s allows for the cognitive transformations of the aggregates in general is equally as real as that which allows for the perceiving of a classically physical universe. What lies in the middle of atoms or points is equally real in either case, and what allows for both atoms and points to exist in transformation is more ultimately real than atoms and points themselves.
since the area they inhabit is the basket containing them, or existence.
Let us now expand the definitional bounds of atoms and points-masses and energies, space and time, and the whole of the objective forms of the physical universe-to make the discussion clearer epistemologically, at least representationally. ~
In our conventional knowledges of the sciences, an equals sib~n often lies representationally in the middle of atoms (masses) or points, when, for example, one atom or point is equivalent to another. But arithmetic symbols also lie representationally in the middle of atoms or points, when, for example, one atom, point, or number adds to another. In still other cases, wholly varied representations of transformational order lie in the middle of atoms or points, in, for example. the expressions of differential equations, algebras, topologies, and so on, in other general expressions of the classically physical universe, balanced ultimately by an equivalence or some other transformational relation. An observation may be made about what lies at least representationally in the middle of atoms or points. An equals sign, it may 1 ~ be observed, is not by definition a representation of an object or an atom or a point. An aritlurtetic operator is neither an object, an atom, nor a point. Moreover, all of what lies in the middle of atoms or points is generally not itself an object.
Representationally, what lies 111 tht; I111ddIe Of atoms or points, or objects in general. is a transformation of atoms, points or objects and is not itself an object.
In the expressions of our analytical knowledges, the question posed here is whether we are representing things that we think exist or whether we are holding mirrors to - ourselves to regard things that do not ultimately exist, pointing to our own intrinsic nature.
If we are actually representing things that exist in and of themselves, then such expressions as equivalences, arithmetics, and so on would be unnecessary in our representations. Just ?s as one object strung together with another. without a transformational representation in the middle of them, is a meaningless expression unknowable to anyone, so there is more to an equals sign or an arithmetic operator or any other representation of the transformation of the (physical) universe than science has appreciated overtly. The essence of what lies in the middle of atoms, points, objects. masses, or energies is their observer-you, the reader.
A representation of any knowledge is a representation of its enabling form.
i.e., the creation of the physical universe. Ultimately, mass does not exist, except in the eye that sees it, the hand that holds it, and so on. Neither does energy exist except in .what is observed to be its consequences in the mind and body, a product of a metaphysical dualism-a correspondence of form. No object thought to be real of a physical universe fundamentally exists-and a physical universe itself does not exist either when a measure of ultimate reality is considered. It is you, the reader, who exists and in your existence, particularly in your knowing and perceiving of it, a physical universe appears in the forms of the world around us. The objects observed in a physical universe-masses, for example-are irrelevant to the origin of the same physical universe.
Of all the knowledges developed in history, not once has one represented a single object that we can know or perceive without the object being placed, at least representationally, in transformation with another. Any meaningful expression of our knowledges is always represented as a transformation of objective form and not as an instance of crn objective form, without the mind"s assistance in placing it in transformation with another. This is because the ultimate reality of the physical universe does not exist objectively. The universe is not an object. Rather, the objects of a classically physical (or '?0 cognitive) universe are enabled in the knowing and perceiving of them. Two abstract points of mathematics gain meaning only in the transformation, or structure, placed upon them.
Two masses (or the composition of one) gain meaning only in transformation with each other (or in the composition of the one) but have no meaning in and of themselves or their compositions without their observer. Energy, as an objective form, has no influence at all ?> on a physical universe. What occurs in realitv is the expression of the observer's existence in massive transformation, wherein the observer compares two conditions of matter as levels ol~ energy. In all contemplations of the physical universe, precisely what we think is lUl.~

WO 98t49b29 PCT/US98t08527 real-the physical universe-has never existed. YVhnt lies in the griddle of atoms or points is the essence of one's existence, not a physical universe.
Though in the constructions of the unified theory, the forms of all of our languages are merged into a single grammar that places form universally on Being. it is important to recognize here that no expression of knowledge is any different from another in the ultimate reality of the universe-those expressions of the sciences included-since such an expression is made by the observer, who remains fundamentally unchanged after thinking and perceiving. A verb in the grammars of natural language and a function of mathematics (in the Cartesian sense) are one and the same form in a representation of what is ultimately I 0 real, in terms of representing the transformation of the observer's existence. A mass m and an energy a transform in the observer's existence, even in the linguistic representation of them, but above all. they do not exist in and of themselves without their observer. As objects, m and a have no meaning until they are represented in transformation with one another or until they are represented as ultimately real embodiments of the observer 1 ~ (e = mc'). The physical universe is thus a form of existence, and not the other way around.
Since there must be further discussion of the sciences before arriving at the principal structures supporting the unified theory and science of androids, let us address directly the stated fallacy that matter is universally conserved and not created, for this discussion will lay the groundwork for an epistemological understanding of the universe.
?0 In Buddha's questioning in the parable recited earlier, space is not an object, whether such a space is a physical one of atoms or an abstract one of points. Space, time, or any other form of a classically physical universe is a consequence of the transformation of the ultimately real universe, or you, the reader-the observer. The calculus and the topologies of real numbers provide that in a single contemplation, there are infinitely many spaces or transformations of the observer's knowing or perceiving as objective forms approach one another. Consequently, known in the minds of just a handful of observers, there is more than an overwhelming abundance of spaces, or transformations of the universe, and that is ~ 05 without even considering their linguistic expressions or other experiences of a real universe. Matter, in the unified theory, is a substance of the mind or of the body, or in general of corporality, but does not exist objectively without the more ultimately real existence of its observer. In the well-known expression of the theory of relativity, e=mc-, mass transforms with energy in constant proportionality to the square of the speed of light, but mass and energy do not at all exist in and of themselves; their transformations exist.
and this is what is represented in the expression.
We now ask, what is more ultimately real, that which we classically think exists objectively in our physical universe-something occurring within the objectification of matter itself as an ultimately non-existent objective form-or that which has or allows for the meaning of our expression of it:' What is real to the unified theory is the transformation of objective form (matter) and not objective form itself. You, the reader, are the reality of the equals sign in the aforementioned relativistic expression; you are what lies in the middle of mass and energy. You, or the essence of what you are, is what is real and that is 1 ~ why the expression has meaning to you. Take the equals sign away and see if mass and energy can transform, have meaning or even exist in a physical universe.
Moreover, the preceding expression, a = m c', with a small amount of insight, can be seen to exist in the same form as the English language expression I am alioe, since they each express the transformation of an observer in an ultimately real universe. In any expression of knowledge, the observer is represented and not the objects of transformation so conventionally thought to exist.
In order for matter to be conserved in ultimate reality, the universe containing the knowing and perceiving of the matter must be bounded or conserved. Though the articles contained within a basket are admittedly conserved, articles may be placed in it from the 2~ outside. If the ultimate reality of one's existence, which is beyond one's knowing, gives rise to the knowing and perceiving of a physical universe-a basic premise of the unified theory-then matter can be conserved only from within one's inertial existence.
If~.

WO 98/49629 . PCT/US98/08527 however. the way in which existence arises can be enabled, albeit synthetically, in the knowing and perceiving of a being, matter cannot be conserved even in the awareness of that existence; it must be created, since the universe containing it also enabled it. In order for matter to be conserved universally, the ultimately real universe (of one's existence) enabling the knowing and perceiving of the matter would have to be contained by the matter itself. Matter would have to give rise to existence, and we already have determined that existence, or what enables it, is more ultimately real than the matter known and perceived. Hence, matter is created in the presence of an enabler of beings who themselves know and perceive a (physical) universe.
In the expression a = me ~, mass and energy, as objective forms of the universe, are not ultimately real. What is ultimately real of mass and energy is the observer's knowing or perceiving of them, i.e., existence, in the quantum moments of an ultimately real universe. The equals sign of the expression represents that it is possible, in an ultimately real universe. for the observer's knowing or perceiving of mass and energy to transform in 1 ~ accordance with what is expressed in the representation. The mass and energy, however, are not outside the windows of one's study during the contemplation of them.
They are objects of what one knows and perceives inside one's study as a result of one's intrinsic existence. or ultimate reality. What is ultimately real of the physical universe is the existence of the objective forms-mass and energy-in the transformations of one's ?0 ultimate reality. Mass and energy themselves, however, are irrelevant to what is ultimately real. That is why they can be replaced with the aggregate forms of mathematics, or even with the English language nouns cut and dog, as in cal equals or i.s the same as dog (when four-legged creatures are considered). The observer's knowing or perceiving of mass and energy is what is ultimately real.
Regarding a classically physical universe, the unified theory does not dispute that.
~Vlthltl the knowing and perceiving of an already-enabled existence. the objective forms known and perceived as mass and energy are conserved with each other in the expression sy a = mc-. However. the theory does require that the objective forms of mass and energy. as they are known and perceived, are not ultimately real and thus do not describe reality. If the objective forms of one's knowing and perceiving are not ultimately real.
it does not make sense to pursue their interminable objective definitions in a classical study of the nature and origin of the physical universe, since one would never extricate oneself from that which is contained or observed in that universe to discover its origin.
If the objective forms of mass and energy are {classically) real only locally to the enabled knowing and perceiving of them-the observer's existence-and conserved only locally to an existence, it makes no sense to require that the ultimate reality of our universe be bound by the known and perceived forms of mass and energy or any other spatiotemporal constraints. These forms are, after all, said to describe what is observed and not the observer.
If the observer who knows and perceives the objective forms of mass and energy is ultimately real in our universe, how does a lesser reality-the objective forms or knowledges and perceptions of mass and energy-cause that observer, who is ultimately real, to be bounded or conserved 1 ~ in any manner? It does not.
A mental exercise may help us demonstrate a pathway out of the objectivity of a classically physical universe. Let us contemplate for a moment a physical atom known in the conventions of contemporary physics. Further. within this contemplation let us hold in mind the smallest of small particles known to science-a small particle, say, within a ?0 proton. If there is one lesson to be learned from the discoveries of physics, it is that the axiom of the atom is not a definitive one, but is a rule that slides on form, an arbitrary point of terminal composition of the universe out of which other things are made and within which other things are found. Keeping in mind the momentary condition of this rule, or particle, let us visualize objectively a single entity that we call the smallest and most 2~ elemental particle known to science in the physical world. Now, consistent with our observations of how the particle or fragment of an atom got here in the first place. let us break up such a particle into an infinite array of smaller ones. One of these infinitely many i~z WO 98149629 PCTlUS98/08527 smaller particles of the smallest particle known to science is what we now contemplate.
It cannot be denied that the particle that the mind can only abstract into existence yet can conceive as being a possibility of what is real, consistent with the discovery of the atom in the first place, is an equal to any other in the aggregate forms of mathematics.
Whether we contemplate an earth and its moon or the smallest of small particles and another, their transformation is characterized by the same mathematics in either case.
Matter, whether it is that of the earth and moon or of the smallest of small particles and another, is a transformation of an ultimately real universe; it is the equals sign of earlier discussion, or you, the reader. To claim that matter is conserved universally is to claim that yozr are conserved universally. In order for matter to be conserved universally. existence itself must be an objective form, or an object that can be contained (known or perceived) by another. The moments of the universe would have to be objects, since only objects, or objective forms of the universe, are bounded (by the knowing and perceiving of an existence). What is ultimately real of the small particle of this exercise is its observer, or 1 ~ you, the reader, and in each moment of this ultimate reality (the enablement of the observer) an unbounded or bounded universe can arise. Since the contemplation, or moment of the universe (of our awareness), can define what is infinite or unbounded, the occurrence of the ultimate reality of the universe cannot be bounded absolutely. The universe is created in every moment of it, boundedly or unboundedly, since its conception ?0 includes both conditions, and the unbounded condition requires creation.
The occurrences of the knowing and perceiving of matter, or of any other forms of the universe-the 11101I1e11tS Of the universe-since they are or can be unbounded by the above analysis. are r beyond our objective knowing by definition. Thus, to the extent that the universe is objectified, boundedly or unboundedly, in our knowing or perceiving, it is referred to as a ?s classically physical universe, within an existence. Because when we think of the universe we conceive of the infinite, however, the ultimate reality of the universe cannot be conserved. The physical universe, which consists of the thoughts and perceptions of it, 1~~~

must therefore be enabled. The religions of the world refer to this as creation. Matter is consequently created in every moment of the universe and is known or perceived objectively by the bounding thought or perception of it, which is enabled from beyond our knowing. Each thought of such a particle of this demonstration, and each of our thoughts and experiences of the world around us, is a creation of the ultimately real universe and binds our very thinking or experiencing of it.
If, for example, one begins pondering the physical universe with the premise that its matter is infinite, there is no limit to the amount of matter in the universe. If one begins pondering the physical universe with the premise that its matter is finite, there is an amount of matter by which the universe is bounded. Our very thoughts of such things, however, are contained in what enables the thinking and perceiving of them. Another way of approaching this observation is to consider that one knows the forms of the infinite by knowing the forms of mathematics, which are comprised of instances of one's knowing their represented formulations. These formulations are known, along with the forms of our I ~ natural languages, in the embodiments of the ultimate reality of the universe. All objective forms of our knowing and perceiving, matter included, are contained in what enables them and in what enables our existence. If what enables our existence is itself unbounded, as we conceive it in contemplations of our own existence, we cannot say that the objective forms of our existence, including mass and energy, are conserved in the ultimate reality of our ?0 universe, since what enables them is unknown and therefore not knowably constrained.
(We need only ask ourselves, are our thoughts bounded or conserved by our own knowing?
That is, do we occupy the means of creating ourselves or our own thoughts? If the answer is that we do, we must consider that we must also have the means to know what is beyond our knowing, an observation that is a self contradiction of obvious proportions.) 2~ We can say then that what we generally refer to as matter (mass and energy) of classical scientific theory exists ultimately in our knowing and perceiving of it. The sciences, and indeed all of our knowledges represented by them, prove this observation il~
1 ~ '~

w-e consider what is ultimately represented in them=the transformations of the objective . forms that are known and perceived in our existence. As a result, the matter of the physical universe, along with ail other objective forms known and perceived of it, arises from beyond our knowing. All forms of a physical universe arise differently in each and every one of us, and this is what the theory of relativity explains if it is extended epistemologically to the postulates of the unified theory-that the events of the universe are perceived objects that require the constancy of the speed of light, since light is a medium of perception; or, the epistemological forms of mind and body transform quantumly in the moments of the creations of the universe. (This observation is discussed 10. further later on. j What we broadly refer to as matter of a physical universe is actually the creation of the universe, or of ourselves. Otherwise, how would one explain the difference between Newtonian and relativistic universes-on the basis of history, by which it would be understood that the physical universe changes in its form to suit an era?
The beliefs of the world's religions in the creation of existence and the objective transformations of the I ~ physical universe observed by the sciences in the transformational occurrence of the objects of the world around us, massive or otherwise, are brought together in the postulate of the unified theory that matter is indeed created. though matter is redefined in the theory as the ultimately real occurrence of its observer. The bodies of knowledge of science and religion can thus be merged in the unified theory on the basis of whether the knowing and 20 perceiving of any objective form of the physical universe can be enabled by another. Hence is established the science of androids.
In every epistemological atom, or transformation of an ultimately real universe, new matter is created as a moment of an enabled existence, or universe. This, moreover, is why the small particle of contemporary physics unfolds into an infinity of transformations characterized by the wave equation when one contemplates the origin of objective form or the objects of atoms. The causations of the universe are equivalent to its creations. An ultimately real universe cannot be conserved regardless of how resolutely one tries to compress it into a thing called an object or an objective form-an atom. The transition-of a particle to a wave is an objectification of what the world's religions call the spiritual knowing of creation. The physical universe abides by the creation of matter, not its conservation. The simple transitions of the energy levels of electrons create new matter, the matter of the wave. This is not to be taken as a play on words, since the true play on words occurs when we determine matter to be a thing or an object. It is our objective view of the world that is backwards, not the unified theory, which takes into account what is ultimately real about objects-their enabling transformations. Each instance of a transformation of an ultimately real universe, represented in any of an infinity of knowledges (the equals sign or what lies in the middle of atoms or points is one instance) is a potential instance of enabled knowing and perceiving in the physical world of the enabler.
In every thought and perception of a physical universe, matter is created and boundless energy released, since neither mass nor energy exists universally in the ultimate reality of the universe. It is only in the world around us, which is not unique by far in the 1 ~ ultimate reality of the universe, that matter becomes constrained and conserved objectively.
If it is known and perceived that matter-an arbitrary rule on elemental things-transforms in relation to the objective forms of forces and inertial accelerations, then such matter is hound by Isaac Newton's inertial world. If one knows and perceives matter invariably in transformation with energy, one obtains the matter of Albert Einstein's relativistic, though epistemologically inertial world. If one knows and perceives matter (or particles) as releasing or absorbing energy in the infinity of transformations of the wave equation of quantum theory, one obtains matter in the ways of contemporary physics, from which the chemistry of the periodic chart is obtained. And if one knows and perceives matter as an objective form representing a thought or perception, which unfolds in the knowing or perceiving of it into infinities upon infinities of transformational instances of the creation of other thoughts, and matters of a universe-physical or otherwise-in the nature of existence itself, one catches an early glimpse of the unified theory of knowled<~e and the nature of the analytical forms that are to come. Matter, as a transformational form of an ultimately real universe, is not an object or objective form, and cannot be universally conserved. Space and time, epistemologically no different from mass and energy, are two of infinitely many transformational forms in the ultimate reality of the universe and exist in the enabling of them. The space and time of our temporal existence {the extent of the universe) are created, universally, in the enabled transformations of the ultimately real universe; they are the products and not the processes of creation.
As a simple point of interest, an androidal being, whose form will evolve over the course of this book, is undoubtedly a novel device in regard to the aforementioned principles of the creation of matter, for an android is a perpetual motion machine of conventional scientific viewpoint. In order for either a Newtonian or a quantum mass to be in motion perpetually, it must be driven perpetually or must be transforming in and of itself with a boundless source of energy. In the classical view of the physical universe, it is not possible to obtain energy in an unbounded way or to move a mass perpetually, for mass and 1 s energy transform conservatively within a given existence. In the case of an android, however, since both mass and energy-and indeed the spatiotemporal extent of the universe-are derived from the enabler's creations {thoughts and perceptions) in the enablement of an existence, the perpetual motion of a mass can be enabled in the creator's knowing and perceiving of the android in its real embodiment in the perpetually created ?0 llniVerSe. If our thoughts and perceptions are unbounded, those of the android can be unbounded by design.
In our real existence. for example, we can integrate a sum of infinitesimally small volumes within the space of a physical atom as a description of reality. This is no different from saying that we can integrate the volumes of physical atoms in the space of the earth, ?s since each are hypotheses, though from different perspectives. Such a reality, however, is a reality of mind, since there is no ultimately real determination of what is infinitesimal or of what is an atom or the earth, which is precisely the point of the calculus {as well as other WO 98/49629 PCTlUS98/08527 branches of mathematics and science) and of the unified theory. What is ultimately real in our universe is the existence of the transformations defining the calculus in the observer's thinking the reality of what enables the observer to think in defining the integration.
What is not ultimately real, however, is the thought-to-be real physical forms explained in the integration. According to the unified theory, if what is ultimately real is the observer and what is not ultimately real is that which is described by the integration, then it is the physical world that is imaginary (in terms of what is ultimately real), an observation that comports with those of the religions of the world. In the observer's ultimate reality, we take the infinitesimal volumes or particles of the above example and call them masses and energies-or forces, momenta, and so on. Because it is in the observer's knowing that masses. energies, forces, and momenta (matter) are created, in reality, a perpetual motion machine (like the above integration) is enabled from the observer's existence, with the machine having infinite motion, duration and extent by design. The fact that the observer's thought-to-be real physical world (the integration of the space of the atom) is constrained 1 ~ by the limits of integration is irrelevant because it is the infiniteness within the limits.
which by definition is a scientific description of reality, that itself is taken to be the defining analysis of mass or energy. Within the space of a real physical atom we enable the infinite IllOt1011 Ol a mass called a volume proper (though any definition of terms would suffice).
The key to understanding this principle is to grasp the point that the machines of our ?0 classical physical reality, whose motion is constrained only in the observer's knowing and perceiving, are the erroneous forms of the universe and do not exist except in such knowing and perceiving. This is why their fundamental definitions can change through the ages.
Vv%hat is real of them is what the observer thinks and perceives of them;
otherwise. once again, one must believe that the physical universe has changed its fundamental form since the time of Isaac Newton and the advent of quantum physics. Since reality is embodied in the observer's knowing and perceiving, it is knowing and perceiving itself (existence) that is extended in the forms of a world around us in an android-a machine set perpetually in i ~ ~!

WO 98!49629 PCT/US98/08527 motion by the design of its enabler. (These principles will become clearer as the science of the creation of synthetic beings unfolds in the ensuing chapters.) The postulates of the unified theory regarding the nature and origin of the universe are profoundly different from those of our conventional scientific knowledges, though they are not at all in conflict with them. Since the unified theory begins its analysis with an interpretation of what is ultimately real in our universe. the integrity of all conventional knowledges is preserved in the knowing and perceiving of them, and they remain valid to an embodied existence. The compatibility of the unified theory's postulates can be seen at least intuitively in acknowledging that, of all of our knowledges, not a single objective form or transformation thereof is changed by the theory. We do not propose, for example, that a 'mc' or that 2+2'4. Rather, the theory claims that the respective statements are true only in the knowing and perceiving of them, or relative to their observer.
1 J 3. A~ EPISTE~10LOGICAL I\TERPRET.aTlO\ OF THE PI-il'SIC.-~I. U\IVERSE:
M.aSS:~\D EVERGI :1S MO~IEV1'S OFTHEIR OBSERVER
'Though it may be at least marginally understood by now that matter is not conserved universally and is created in the ultimate reality of the universe, what may remain unresolved to the reader's understanding is the metaphysical sense that mass can be touched and that energy cannot. In order to prepare for subsequent passages, the whole of the conventional sciences must be incorporated into the philosophical understanding we - have of our own existence. Mass and energy, or generally the spatiotemporal order of the physical universe, must be shown to be forms of their observer if we are to create androidal 2~ beings who know and perceive, among other things, mass and energy. This consolidation of the sciences and philosophical tradition may be accomplished by showing how classical and quantum physics can be superimposed onto each other as one and the same explanation In WO 98/49629 PCT/US98l08527 of the observer of the universe in an epistemological interpretation of matter as a form of existence in the unif ed theory.
As a preamble to this discussion we may consider why point masses, and collections thereof, or even centers of mass (of gravity), point charges, and so on, are essential to the classical description of the physical universe. If one were to review all the physics journals ever published on the massive universe in search of a single instance proving the ultimately real existence of mass, not one inference would be drawn to give evidence that mass exists apart from its observer, or is even relevant to the occurrence of the universe. What is described in a classical analysis of the universe is the transformation of the universe, or of (a) mass, in the belief that the mass exists in the ultimate reality of its observer. The unified theory is not primarily concerned with, for example, how light is diffracted through a prism, however; it is interested in where the prism comes from in the first place. Our conventional study of the physical universe axiomatically implies the existence of the objects, or masses of the universe-an assumption that is not made by the 1 > unified theory. A point mass is essential to our classical understanding of the physical universe because if it actually existed it would he an intrinsic form of the ultimately real universe, which enables the objects of the universe. In such a case, however, it would not only be a thing, or an object of an observer's perception; it would be an observer. In order for a thing to exist, one's own self must exist. and in the transformation of one's self, a thing arises in the knowing and perceiving of it. This hypothetical review of physics ,journals would then prove one idea-that mass has never been defined absolutely because its observer has never been defined absolutely. A point mass, a thing or an object of one's existence (perception and knowing) is not a point mass at all when it becomes an intrinsic form of existence, apart from its observer; then it becomes an observer. The expressions of physics define transformations of one's existence and of objects enabled in the embodiment of one's existence. One cannot know a mass, a space, a time or any other physical form-in ultimate reality, that is-because one cannot know one's own existence.
~ 2.u One can enable the knowing and perceiving of such forms, however. in the creation of other, synthetic beings, as will be demonstrated later on.
. A classical mass does not exist even in its conventional representation if it is not in transformation with one other or with a field of forces or some other physical phenomenon.
If there is no force of gravitation, of coulomb attraction, or of strong or weak nuclear forces, neither a mass, an electron nor a proton can exist in our knowing or perceiving of it because we cannot know it without its being in transformation. Isaac Newton's mechanics, James Maxwell's electromagnetics and Albert Einstein's relativity describe forms of existence, ultimately real transformations, but these theories do not describe nctucrl masses, currents and small particles in an ultimately real universe. These historical formulations do not describe a universe that exists apart from you, the reader, since no extrinsic universe exists apart from its observer. Point masses are employed in classical definition of the physical universe because what is described in classical and quantum physics is the transformation of objective forms that are known and perceived and the 1 S point masses are the necessary (non-existent, in ultimate reality) objects of the transformations, but the point masses themselves do not exist ultimately. What is relevant to classical and all other definition of the physical universe is the transformation of mass and not mass itself. In the conventional formulae describing mass, it is the transformation of mass, or of the existence of the observer, that is described. What we are defining with the use of mass in classical study is a general rule of what can be known and perceived scientifically of the physical universe, not the physical universe (e.g., the physical universe is an object of our knowing representing all of what can be known and perceived and is beyond our knowing and perceiving in totality).
Also in connection with our reliance on point masses of conventional theories of the universe. or ultimately non-existent objects of perception, we can peruse the same physics journals and endeavor to explain why light transforms at non-existent point objects of the physical universe, or why the objects that bend light cannot occupy space in the IZ~

analysis of them. In all of our scientific knowledges, nowhere is it explained how even a simple teacup, placed on a table in front of us-most assuredly a real object of the physical universe-exists and at once transforms light. Neither can the scientific literature that addresses directly how an object of our perception-like a teacup or a prism-transforms light explain why it is that we cannot see the transformation of light at or within the object.
Light, according to the literature, is said to be refracted at a point, an object by definition that does not occupy space but defines space in its relation to other points.
An electron or other small particle is not said actually to discharge light; a change in energy levels causes light to be emitted from the particle. This awkward description of reality, however. has never proceeded to explain what from the particle means. For example, we may ask, is there a special device within the object of an electron. consistent with the ad hoc definition of a photon, whose purpose it is to do the objective transforming of an object inlo light, such that ~r~onr it would mean from the embodied device of the electron, or a photon?
According to these observations, wherein light is thought to transform or bend in relation 1 ~ to itself through the medium of an observed object like a teacup or a prism, or wherein light is emitted,from an object, all classical definitions rely on the non-existence of the object, in either the absence of analytical definition of the teacup or prism in this example or the copiuring of a photon or light-emitting device to transform an object into light proper.
The reason that light must transform at a non-existent point object of the universe ?0 is because the physical universe is a transformation, and not an object-a transformation of the ultimately real universe in the enabling form of a perception or knowledge of an object. A teacup, an electron, a photon, or even a ray of light does not exist in the ultimate reality of the universe; perceptions (and knowledges) of them exist, or are enabled, in the ultimate reality of the universe. Though more discussion follows, objects are the 2s perceptions of them. and perceptions are the products of ultimately real transformations of the universe. Light must bend (or be created in the conventional sense of emission) at a non-existent point because a transformation of the universe is a non-existent point, beyond t ZZ

our perception-an embodiment of a moment of the ultimately real universe enabling an . object and the perception of it.
In merging the classical scientific explanations of mass and energy-Newtonian and quantum physics-into the epistemological views of the ultimate reality of the universe of the unified theory, we must consider the fundamental nature of the objects of the universe and, though any of the innumerable point objects of the universe could be contemplated, why our classical studies of the universe are concentrated on the determination of the phenomenon of light-why the speed of light, for example, even has a bearing on the objects we perceive and attempt to define scientifically.
In comparing these classical explanations of the universe, we must first resolve what is meant by a small particle of physics. In Newtonian physics, particles are big. They are big because they are perceivable to the human senses. A classically big particle, or mass, is defined in the representations of the transformations of an observer's perception when space, time, force, momenta, and other spatiotemporal phenomena are considered to 1 ~ be the terminal objects or objective forms of the medium of perception-objective terminations of the physical universe. This classical Newtonian definition implies that light-the enabling medium of the visual senses-is not a direct analytical consideration in the behavior of the classical mass. A Newtonian mass, for example, can be said to reflect or refract light as an object but the medium of light itself is not a consideration in the behavior of the Newtonian mass in the universe, other than the implied enabling characteristic of the light to perceptions of the mass. The formulae of classical Newtonian phl'S1CS therefore pertain to the behavior of masses already enabled in the medium of light.
Given two or more masses perceivable as a consequence of their enablement in an observer's existence in the medium of light, classical Newtonian physics describes the 2~ causal or compositional interactions of the enabled objects or masses in explanations of their spatiotemporal orders.
Another way of understanding the epistemological view of a big particle or mass is 12?, to consider the enabling medium of sound. wherein the masses are acoustic sounds.
Classical physics would describe the causal relations of the sounds, such as words, once they are enabled, or would define spoken language, which is enabled in the medium of sound. The objects or words would then relate to each other in the medium of sound. By analogy, the medium of sound would be the medium of light and the classical masses would be the enabled sounds. Big particles, or classical masses, are then enabled objects.
or things that are observed in one's existence, given that one's existence, with all its attendant perceptions, is enabled in a medium, herein light or sound. The important point to consider about classical Newtonian masses, then, is that the medium in which they are enabled-sound or light-is not what is under observation in the constructions of the classical formulae. What is implied in the classical Newtonian definition of a physical universe is that once a mass is enabled in the medium of light, for instance, it transforms in that medium, and we exist knowledgeably and perceptively in a Newtonian world order.
Small particles, on the other hand, are particles that defy all classical definition 1 ~ because we push the notion of an object or mass so far in objective analysis that the essence of its definition is that it cannot be perceived, or is not classical. The reason that small particles cannot be explained by classical Newtonian physics is simple.
Whereas big or classical particles are already enabled in some arbitrary medium-typically the medium of light-small particles crre the medium of the big particles or the medium of light in which one's perceptions of the universe are enabled. Small particles pertain to the enabling medium of the observer. The small particle is known and perceived (or not known and perceived) as that which enables the big particle of perception, which is expressed in the contemporary knowledge of a particle becoming a wave of light. A small particle, in terms of classical physics, does not even exist. In quantum physics, the essence of the small 2s particle-not its massive Newtonian characteristics, but its elusive transformational properties-is that it is a wave and not a particle; it is an enabling medium to a big particle.
The classical theories of the universe meet when we contemplate the creation of existence.
1 ~'~

or the enablement of the knowable and perceivable objects of the universe.
From an - epistemological standpoint, classical and quantum physics are one and the same ki7owledges, since it is the nature of the observer, who embodies the transformations of all objects or objective forms, that defines either viewpoint. How one objective form transforms with another in the equals sign of our expressions (of waves or Newtonian laws of motion) is the same epistemologically in either case. Hence, any enabling medium, that of light included, is the medium of the knowable and perceivable universe of a classical form.
The essence of the small particle of physics is unknowable concretely. or it simply vanishes into transformations of the wave equation of light, because knowing it would require the comprehension of one's own enablement, which, by the very same physics, if not ordinary observation, is not objectively possible. To obtain the nature and origin of the small particle, and not simply the causalities of observable physical forms in relation to others, one must turn to the enablement of existence, or to a (unified) theory of knowing 1 ~ and perceiving in general-a science of androids; one must obtain an epistemological view of the universe that defines how all form can arise in general in the existences who know and perceive the universe. New forms that reflect insight into the nature of the universe as existence must replace those of classical scientific expression in order to penetrate the nature of what the sciences seek ultimately to explain-the nature and origin of the physical universe. If one considers an electron to be enabled, it will transform in the observer's knowing and perceiving of it in classical formulae, in which case it is a big particle. If one considers an electron to be the enabling medium of light, however, the interpretation of the big particle changes significantly. New objects--creations of matter-are required that probe the essence of all existence. The wave-particle duality of quantum physics and the perceivable object of Newtonian physics thus come together in an explanation of existence, where the enablement of the perception of the object can be found.
ILp The wave equation of light, if one chooses to interpret it in this manner, provides for an infinity of objects or masses in the transformational existence of waves, since there is no difference between the transformations of mathematics describing a wave form and those describing a big or small particle in its objective or classically massive condition. A
point of mathematical space is undefined and so becomes defined in the structure imposed upon it by the mathematician. Whether such a point is defined as a wave or a particulate mass is epistemologically irrelevant. In the case of the wave equation of quantum physics, the objective forms enabling the universe-space, time, force, mass, and so on-are viewed as transforming in the expression of the wave equation. Space, time, force, momenta, and other spatiotemporal parameters of the wave equation, however.
are the same objects characterizing the objective masses of classical physics in the Newrtonian order of the universe. The quantum theory therefore deteriorates epistemologically. If space, time, force, and momenta (and other spatiotemporal phenomena) are the classical objects of perception of one's enabled existence, enabled in the medium of light, for 1 ~ instance, and one formulates a wave equation describing the medium of light using them, it must be recognized that these objects of the observer's perception were used to define the universe in both cases. The quantum theory, in explaining the same physical universe of classical physics, uses the same objects by which we know and perceive a classical Newtonian universe-space, time, force, momenta, and so on-to define the phenomenon of light in which the universe is enabled. This phenomenon, however, is not at all a physical one, or one of classically scientific origin, for light is an enabling medium of human sense, enabling the perceptions of classical objects. In the quantum theory, we inadvertently supply new matter or masses, called the transformations of the wave equation, to replace the old big ones we observe classically, without recognizing that it is 2~ neither the object enabled in light nor the phenomenon of light itself that is ultimately real.
When we consider crn electron, for example, we consider a classical mass. When we consider the quantum behavior of an electron, we consider the medium of light.
or a 1Zb different object, namely that of the wave form. In both Newtonian and quantum physics, it is the transformation of any object-of classical masses or of waves-that is ultimately real, not the object defined. Since we require that each theory describes the physical universe-both the object and its enabling medium-we simply contemplate creation (what is represented in a lighted candle). Regardless of how many small particles and waves we subdivide the universe into when we study it, since the universe is created in the moment of its observer, we contemplate, redundantly, the creations of the universe. In a simple teacup or prism there are an infinity of creations or moments of the ultimately real universe-in each of which a ray of light may be bent. This is why we cannot count the number of light rays impinging on or emanating from an object; only the transformation of the object exists in the infinity of moments of the universe.
Matter, or light, behaves quantumly because we behave quantumly. The transition of a small particle to a wave (the emanation of light caused by the drop of energy level of the particle) is not a scientific episode; it is an existential one. The quantum theory, thus, 1 ~ cannot be relied on for an explanation of the ultimate reality of the universe because it is not founded on a tenable proposition. The theory presumes that it is possible to enable one's own senses, and therefore one's own existence, from what is sensed. This is why we are puzzled when a particle becomes a wave; we are attempting to experience objectively our own creation in a burst of light and the disappearance of an object. We conveniently overlook the fact that we conjure up the analytical wave forms of the wave equation in w ~hich classical masses are enabled in the same existence that knows each of the forms in both cases. Most assuredly it will be an enigma that matter is sometimes a wave and sometimes a particle; transformations of the universe can be embodied but cannot be observed objectively. Precisely where we think we have defined something substantive 2~ concerning the nature and origin of the universe-the quantum theory-is precisely where its nature and origin will be revealed, though not from the standpoint of the classical sciences, but in the nature of our existence itself.
1 z'7 The quantum theory does not explain creation; it observes it, just as we do in the reverence we pay to the symbolism of a lighted candle of religious worship.
What is fundamentally encountered by the quantum theory-the transformation of a particle to a wave-is no more and no less a contemplation of the linguist's dilemma, or the meaning of existence itself The quantum theory cannot be advanced in terms of an explanation of the nature and origin of the universe without our religions, however, because of how it is ensnared in its own thinking and because it does not incorporate the nature of our existence, or the observer, into its axiomatic foundation. To begin with, the quantum theory accepts the existence of big particles, understood here as the transformations of the observer in a Newtonian world order. It accepts that fundamental to our existence are the objective forms of space, time, mass, and so on-things that are observable to our senses in a big way. In the reasoning of the quantum theory, however, the big particles of the universe are said to be altered by the postulates of the quantum theory in such a manner that when a big particle comes to be considered small, beyond the knowing and perceiving of a 1 ~ classically Newtonian order, or when space, time, and the other objective forms of our perceivable (spatiotemporal) existence transform in such a manner that the velocity of a classical mass nears or reaches the speed of light, it becomes a sort of a mass, an emission of light, a wave, a photon, or some other object or aspect of the continually unfolding postulates of the quantum theory. In other words, we do not know what a small particle is in the conventional sciences because its essence just isn't. The essence of all small particles is that they are an infinity of moments of an ultimately real universe, each of which is a transformational moment of creation, arising from beyond our knowing. (It also should be appreciated that when we claim to encrhle light, or cause light to be emitted from an object, say in the apparatus of a cathode ray tube, we do not enable anything in an ultimately real 2~ sense, since the photon or energy bundle of the object emitting light transforms, beyond our knowing, with what we refer to as light proper, or the light emission. That transformation-of photons and light-in such a case is the ultimately real transformation.
i2~

Epistemologically, there is no difference between an object emitting light-i.e., a point source creating light-and an object refracting light-a point object bending light-since what is ultimately real of these instances is their enabling transformations.) In our study of the physical universe, the objective forms of Newtonian physics-space, time, mass, and others-make a transition in our thinking to the quantum theory because the quantum theory ponders, perhaps inadvertently, what enables the forms of classical physics in the first place. Since what enables any form is the embodiment of its transformation, the theory turns to a new formulation of transformations called waves. This is not to say that such waves are not real to the observer; we simply point out here the fact 1 U that the theory contemplates the source of classical forms and relies on them as well. The quantum theory, by probing deeper and deeper into the smallest of small particles, is forced, by the ultimate reality of our universe, to devise a handful of new transformations-i.e., waves-whenever a determination is made describing the objectification of a transformation. The theory thus contemplates in its logic that, from 1 s within the objective forms of a world around us, one can find a cause of that universe. In the quantum theory's reliance on the forms of classical physics, it is in error in determining the nature of all form, since the theory requires that in the extrinsic forms one observes one will find the nature and origin of what makes one observe them. Hence, to speak of the phenomenon of light, one must speak of the enablement of one's existence, or at least, of 20 the visual and tactile perceptions of human existence. When an emission of light is observed from a point source, for example, a conventional basis is established for the causality of light. Since the point source is an extrinsic form of the observer, however, it does not penetrate the causative nature of the universe or the observer. The contemplation of a point source of light presupposes and relies on the existence of its thinker or perceiver, ?5 whose causation is sought in the very contemplation. The question is, therefore, not what is an atom. electron or small particle. or what is the causation of one particle or wave on another, but what is the causation of the existence of the observer who contemplates such 12'1 things and who arbitrarily creates wave forms in which explanations of small panicles can abound. In other words, what is it about light that mandates the non-existence of objects or classical masses?
The quantum theory, if viewed epistemologically, explains that the classically transformable universe of space and time is not at all enabling to the existence of the very physical universe observed, for it is the observer's existence that is enabled. It further provides that an enabling medium of one's existence, in which objects appear, is unknowable and imperceptible to one's own existence. The constancy of the speed of light, along with countless other formulations of contemporary physics, determines that objects I O can exist only in a medium of enablement and that the medium of enablement applies only to enabled forms. The epistemological significance of this observation can be appreciated when it is recognized that classical objects of the spatiotemporal world are enabled. The speed of light is theoretically non-varying because in the enablement of existence, or perception, in the medium of light, classical objective forms are enabled to transform. In I s terms of our own enablement, a varying speed would require that classical objects transform, within the awareness of our own existence, between the very transformations giving rise to them in the first place, those that would in light require superluminal or subluminal speeds coupling objects enabled in the medium (i.e., this would require the amplitudes of waves to be coupled, not in their wave forms, but in the space between their 20 amplitudinal shapes, space which allows for the amplitudes under study in the first place).
Such a condition would undermine the very notion of knowable and perceivable form.
since it is the purpose of our knowing and perceiving to project in opposition separate or distinct objects in transformation. If the transformations of a medium of existence were coupled within the knowable or perceivable existence of the observer, the observer would 2~ be enabling other existences. To speak indefinitely of such a valid knowledge as the enablirzg of thc~ enabling of objective forms serves no immediately practical purpose toward a resolution of the origin of the universe, since one eventually returns to the ~3~

WO 98/49629 PCTlUS98/08527 enablement of the transformation of single instances of objective forms-objects.
The speed of light is constant because such a condition is required so that one can know or perceive single or discrete objects in an existence. This is why we contemplate incessantly how event A can occur in relation to event B in the theory of relativity, in which each event or light source moves, according to classical theory, in relation to the other.
under the relative constancy of the speed of light. Indeed the velocity of light is constant. It is also irrelevant to the classically perceived motion because the light enables the objects.
This is like saying that one perturbation in a pool of water, the source of which moves according to classical theory with only one means of affecting another such classically moving perturbation (namely, via the ripples in the conveying or enabling medium-the water), has a motion relative to the other which disregards the additive influence of its own velocity and that of the ripples of the water, or its enabling medium. Of course, the ripples in the water are not additive to their point motions; they are the only means by which the two events or point sources know of each other. The classically perceived motion is placed, 1 ~ artificially, by the thinker or hypothetical enabler, in a condition of reality wherein the enabler thinks simultaneously about the coupling of the two point sources and the two point sources themselves. To the two point sources, however, there is only the motion of classical mechanics, namely that of the other, and this motion is enabled in the medium of the ripples in the water. The ripples in the water are the objects and one or the other cannot see the additive influence as described because it is a ripple. If the enabler removes the ripples in the water, one point source would not even know the other existed.
In fact, neither would exist. It is the motion of the ripples and not directly the motion of the point sources that characterizes quantum physics in the nature of the medium of light. The physicist, acting as an enabler of existence, sees contemplatively both point sources and the 2~ enabling medium that causally couples the sources, and this is what instigates the confusion in the relativistic interpretation of the physical universe.
Considering the quantum physical universe, if one examines an electron or ans c31 other object, big or small, one typically approaches it-first through the medium of the visual senses and second through the transformations of the wave equation and light in regard to the enablement of classical objects, regardless of the stated postulates of the quantum theory. If one is referring to the classical motion of an electron, one is considering the S motion of a big particle and does not directly consider its enablement. An electron can have momentum, position. even dimension, from a classical viewpoint. When one refers to the quantum behavior of an electron, however, one refers to the enablement of an electron, or the spatiotemporal properties of a classical object as enabled in the forms of the wave equation-forms that exist, ultimately, in the extant reality of the observer, who is incapable of self enablement. At such a point, one no longer refers only to the forms of the classical and quantum theories of the universe and must rely on a more ultimately real explanation of the universe.
The ultimate nature of the universe is therefore not classically objective in Newtonian or quantum definition, and attempts to reconcile it as such are not logically 1 ~ productive because the enabling characteristic of light, for example, would have to be known from an objective standpoint in one's own existence, or the physicist would have to see the connection between the perceptions of one's visual senses and the thoughts of one's own existence. or simply would have to enable one's own existence. In studying the nature and origin of the universe, it should be recalled that the objects of the medium of light provide for the objective forms of the classically visual world, and that objective masses are created in the transformations of the media, which cannot be enabled by the same observer. We know the objects enabled in light in more sophisticated ways than the quantum theory-for example, in natural language. When one says that in the quantum drop in energy level of a small particle light is emitted, one simply states that two energy ?5 levels or wave forms of light are possible quantumly in the universe and that such a universe is the observer's perceivable existence. But the energy levels of great nations in the political affairs of the (existential) universe also are possible in the medium of light, or 1 ?~2 existence. which must be accounted for in the physical universe. All of these transformations of the physical universe must be explained by a theory that addresses the nature and origin of our universe. As for the classical mass converuing into light, such transformation is better seen from the standpoint of an enabler. The classical mass, in the observer's existence, is being compared to the non-classical mass, or wave form of the observer's own existence. Naturally, when one compares what one observes in one's existence-classical masses-to a knowledge of what is thought to enable one's own existence, definitional confusion arises, since the two forms are beyond each others purview and the transformation of light (photon-wave) occurs beyond one's knowing and perceiving. That is why we revere what is symbolized by a lighted candle in the world's religions.
The essential point to keep in mind here is that objective forms, such as light waves, have as much of a right to transform in the universe as apples falling from trees; they are all knowable and transformable forms of the observer's existence. Light waves, however, 1 s crne the enabling media of visual objects and when one refers to such forms one considers the enablement of what one will see in terms of a capacity to see, or speaks of the enablement of classical objects. Regardless of what objective forms are considered in one's existence. whether they are light waves of one's enablement or bouncing balls perceivable to the eye, it is important to recognize that classical objects are enabled in the . ?U transformations of the ultimate reality of an existence. It is within this ultimate reality that the quantum theory breaks down, since it is not possible to enable one's own existence. The difference between a classically physical object and a quantum one is that in the classical case, one considers the objects known and perceived in one's own existence, while in the quantum case, one considers the objects enabling the classical objects. The conventional ~s assertion that a light wave, a knowable object of one's existence, holds in it the nature of the universe eclipses an understanding of what the quantum theory actually reveals-that all objects are enabled in the ultimate reality of the universe, from beyond the knowing or WO 98/49629 PCT/tJS98/08527 perceiving of the extant existence. To find the nature and origin of the universe. one must determine the nature of what enables one to know, perceive, or exist as a transformation of light (or other media), which is beyond our knowing in the case of human existence but is suitable within our knowledges for the construction of androidal existences, or observers.
S
~. TIIE IN'rROSPEC'1~1\'E OI3SER\':\-1'10\ OF UL'rl~i.-\TE RE:Ii.ITl' Our conventional knowledges-the sciences, philosophy, and even the world's religions, to the extent that they concern themselves with a material world-never attain an understanding of the ultimate reality of the universe because of their preoccupation with extrinsic form, or the objects that are enabled as the universe, such as mass and energy, or even persons, places and things (of linguistics). The forms of physics, for example, are objectively boundless because they are premised on the causal relations among the 1 ~ extrinsic forms of an existence. An ultimately real universe-that which provides for the very notion of causation-eludes conventional studies because of the inability on the part of our traditional thinking to incorporate the observer into that universe.
Obviously, for each existence of an ultimately real universe there are diverse theories of the universe that abound. As mentioned earlier, the unified theory of knowledge is not concerned directly with the extrinsic forms of existence, except, of course, to the extent that such forms are enabled. No theory of any order concerns the present one. The unified theory is concerned with v~hat enables one to know a theory in the first place. The theory allows for analytical structure to be placed on one's knowing and perceiving in such a manner that the knowing of any theory is enabled in the synthetic forms of androidal existences. The ultimate reality of all existence is the focus. We are interested in the epistemological atom of the universe that allows for the transformation. as well as the knowing and perceiving, of all atoms of the physical universe, however they are defined from one era to another. At long last, then.
I 3 ~~

let us demonstrate the relevance of this discussion to the constructive portion of the unified theory by introducing what the religions of the world have contributed to the sciences, what the sciences have proved beyond doubt, and what provides for the basic order of the universe and the most fundamental epistemological form of the unified theory, namely the moment of transformation of all objective form in the ultimate reality of the universe-the universal atom of all knowing and perceiving and, of course, of all knowledge-the universe's eternal moment.
In presenting the principal form of the unified theory, let us first consider not only the theoretical possibility but also the practical necessity of merging the knowledges of science and religion under a single unified theory of knowledge. It has been demonstrated that the physical sciences, as reflected in the classical and quantum theories of the universe.
do not account for the ultimate reality of their observer's existence. A
universal structure of all knowledge derived exclusively from the physical sciences would therefore be too confining epistemologically, since there would be other realms of knowledge-linguistics, 1 ~ philosophy, the cognitive sciences in general, the political sciences, biology, medicine, economics, and our ordinary experience, to cite a handful-that would not be included in its contemplations. We require an analytical structure that carries with it the wisdoms of all knowledges. though centered on the convergence of science and religion, because of their ancient traditions, in an explanation of the ultimately real form of the universe.
Considering first our modern analytical approaches to the forms of the universe, it is no chance happening that branches of mathematics are emerging. such as category theory, wherein the relations of mathematics are categorized on the basis of their morphisms, or capacities to represent correspondences. Neither is it a coincidence that the realization theory of physics, concerned with determining the analytical realizations of 2s physical forms. as well as other new approaches to the definition of forms of the universe.
such as systems theory of applied mathematics and engineering, are beginning to characterize the physical world based on the single observation that the objects of a world W~

around us arise in the nature of correspondences of form, as opposed to the absolute objective determination of it. We observe. then, that in our recent efforts to define the forms of the physical universe, in which the notion of the correspondence of objective form prevails over the notion of the absolute objectification of it as a compositional form or knowledge, the fields of mathematics and the sciences, collectively, are nearing a discovery of the nature and origin of the universe already espoused by our religions, though still enmeshed in the traditional presumption of the universality of objective form.
The non-existence of objects in the ultimate reality of the universe, whether the observation is encountered in the small particles or waves of the quantum theory or in a contemplation of what lies in the middle of two points or atoms, is also becoming the new reality of our modern sciences, though not explicitly accepted. We thus simply observe that our sciences, in pursuit of the ultimate reality of the universe, are discovering that the nature of the universe is contained more in the transformational nature of our existence than in the objects that are so thought to exist in the world around us.
1 ~ These recent observations of modern science and mathematics, however, go nowhere by themselves to assist the linguist in resolving the dilemma faced in determining the nature and origin of meaning and, by extension, the meaning of existence and all forms known therein-an epistemological knowledge of the universe. We must extend their postulates, encompassing all knowledges and perceptions of human existence, in order to facilitate the creation of an observer. In merging alt knowledge, the nature and origin of our very thinking of the universe, as manifested in our languages and in our introspective knowin~~, must be considered, along with the realities demonstrated by our sciences. in a study of the bounds of what we can know or perceive. Toward this end, we observe that in the linguist's conventions, a distinction is made, as discussed in the introduction, between the syntactical and semantic forms of language, along the lines that the semantic form of language, if discovered, will reveal the presumed origin of all meaning and thus the meaning of existence-and will afford the creation of androids. The objective form used to 13~

represent the universal transformation of the ultimately real universe, and indeed of the physical universe, must then be the same form that symbolizes the semantic origin of all forms of language, or meaning itself, including the meanings of forms known in the sciences and the world's religions. The meaning of any knowledge must converge on this single expression characterizing the nature and origin of the universe.
In determining this ultimately real form of the universe, we observe that no meaning of any form of the universe expressed in any language is possible as a universal characterization of ultimate reality if it does not inherently account for all that is and can be known, and for what permits the very knowing of it. We recognize, then, that the knowledges of the sciences, of linguistics, and of ordinary contemplations of the world around us are inadequate frames of reference from which to sketch a universal representation of the ultimate reality of the universe because they inherently compete with and exclude the others. In recognition of all knowledges, we observe that in our observations of the world around us-at the center of it, found through our introspective 1 ~ awareness-we can identify the essence of human being. or what our religions refer to as the spiritual center of the universe-the soul, a form that transcends knowledge and perception in any order, scientific, theological or otherwise. Moreover, we observe that when the objective mind has exhausted its capacities to know, tinkering with every object of our physical and otherwise universe, and when the mind is so hard pressed beyond its ability to answer the question From inhere does the physical universe arise?
it is to the nature of the soul that one turns-within one's own intrinsic self. to what lies in the middle of atoms and points and what embodies all moments of the eternal universe.
This, again, is r a knowledge we do have and so it must be accommodated by the unified theory, along with all other things we know, in a universal interpretation of them all. We then change the attitude and tone of this passage to reflect a most fundamental observation of the unified theory-that all knowing and perceiving. and, therefore, all knowledge known, arise not in any objective forms we may know or perceive, but in the universal nature of the soul. We 13~

observe that knowledge-whatever may be known-arises from within us and from beyond our knowing in the embodiment of the eternal transformation of the universe-Soul. though as scientists we call this spiritual center of all universes that which lies in the middle of atoms and points.
Our universes of mind, of physical matter, and of the whole of the reality known and perceived by corporal existences arise, in knowable ways, in the introspectively observed transformation of the universe referred to as Soul. Hence, the objective form for which we have searched in the unified theory is the objective form of the soul, and, by extension, the objective form that characterizes the nature and origin of all meaning, including the meaning of existence, and thus the nature and origin of the physical and otherwise universe. Consequently, the analytical, or knowable, form of Soul is an objective form that is used by the unified theory to deconstruct all knowledges and perceptions and to place knowable structure on the causations of all objective forms of the eternal moments of the universe. In this way, science and religion, speaking about the same form in different ways, come together in the nature of the soul, or what lies in the middle of atoms or points, for it is in the nature of the soul that the forms we know and perceive in the world around us are enabled in the ultimate reality of the universe. The eternal existence of the soul as the enabling center of all form is a most fundamental precept of the unified theory of knowledge, and is what provides, later on, for the epistemological basis of the creation of synthetic beings, or androids.
The single most universal objective form presented by the unified theory is the knowable expression of the soul, or that which characterizes all transformations of objective forms, and thus the knowable and perceivable universe, as observed introspectively. Since the sciences take as their measures correspondences among objective ?s forms in determining the nature of any form. we shall take, as a universal form to which all other forms of the universe will refer, the paradigmatical structure of existence itself-the introspectively knowable form of Soul. We take as our highest measure of the ultimately ~3~i real universe the objective form of Soul on the premise that it has a universal epistemological construction in the existences of all beings and thus in all enabled universes. Though one's own soul is analytically beyond one's knowing, it should be recognized that this is precisely the point in using its objective form as a paradigm of all form in the universe. The soul is what lies in the middle of all things-things we know and perceive in the world around us. It characterizes the eternal embodiment of all our knowledges and everything that can be known, and provides the ability for one to comprehend with clarity the enablement of synthetic forms of existence, forms that are extensions of our own corporal being.
In the world's religions, the soul, considered the introspectively knowable form of the ultimate reality of our universe, is said to provide for the opposites of the world around us, and paradigmatically, the opposites of two terminally objective forms of our introspective knowing of the eternal universe-one, a universal objectification, or object, of the universe itself, and the other, an objectification of the universally occurring 1 ~ opposites in the transformational nature of the universe. The first objective form of our knowable ultimate reality, considered to be the objective form of what is beyond our knowing objectively, is typically referred to in religious doctrine as Being.
Being, while we ascribe objective form to it for the purpose of the mind's understanding it, since it is beyond our knowing, requires no further discussion. To examine the universal objectification of the universe-Being-further would place us in conflict with the very spiritual knowledges we seek for our guidance in understanding the ultimate reality of the universe in the first place. The other terminal objectification of the universe, itself an opposite, is the objective form of what we knowably are or observe ourselves to be, herein referred to as non-being, a universal transformation of the opposites of the world around 2~ us. Non-being is what occurs in our introspective knowing in the objective offset or cognitive separation between Being and non-being. In the unified theory, all form is correspondent to the objective knowing of the separation between Being and non-being, a separation between self and beyond self, a condition of the eternal universe which defines the introspective awareness of one's soul transformationally.
Because one thought leads to another in the quantum order of the universe, allowing no basis from which to begin or end an analysis of objective form, all thinking and all perceiving can be matched against this universal form of opposites-non-being set apart from Being, which has no opposite, in our introspective knowing-thereby terminating the mind's endless search for an ultimate objective form or explanation of the universe. The unified theory postulates that if the form of mind can be paused in its quantum state in our analytical knowing, and its reality suspended, it can be restarted in the knowing and perceiving of a declared enabler in a synthetic extension of the existential form of that enabler's universe; the forms of synthetic existence can be enabled from this introspective analysis of the eternal universe, and an expansion of the existential universe of human being can begin. A universal analytical form of existence, and thus a universal expression of all knowledge to be comprehended, exists in the objective knowing of one's soul. Since 1 ~ this form is presented in resolution to the linguist's dilemma, or as the structure defining the nature and origin of the semantic forms of language, we consider it further.
In keeping with the traditions of world religions and the unified theory's own postulates, we may ask how our understanding of the nature and origin of the universe would be affected if an observation were to be made on the following grounds.
The first consideration is that mind, or intellect, or that which is capable of knowing objectively anyhing that can be known, itself could be known, but that such a comprehensible form were defined within the context of what is beyond the mind's knowing (Being and the instance of non-being). Then, if it is considered that one had to be in order to know, and in being one could comprehend the form that contains all that can be known (could 2~ comprehend the fundamental form of mind itself), this observation would bring into focus that which can know. which is beyond that which the mind knows. Moreover, if mind or intellect itself could be deduced, defined or put within some definitional bounds or tw objective content in relation to one's being-which is unknowable-we would have defined and imposed on our own comprehension a universal form of mind and all that can be known and perceived in the world around us, on the epistemological premise that what can be known and what can be perceived are related in the enablement of a being. Hence, all that can be known and perceived would be defined on a transformational basis; through our introspective knowing of Soul, in keeping with all of scientific expression and with our religious traditions-our most profound ancient wisdoms. In the process, we would have defined a means of combining the observer-of the universe with the universe itself and would have provided an analytical foundation for an explanation of the nature and origin of the physical and all other universes. We would have captured the eternal moment of the universe in the mind's knowing.
In the unified theory, the knowable eternal order of the universe-that of the analytical form of the introspectively observed quantum moment of the eternal universe, or Soul-is referred to as (a) smte of being and follows from the abovementioned definition 1 ~ of terms, as shown in tigure 153. Relying on one's own introspective awareness and the traditions of the world's religions, we observe that in a state of being one is conscious that there is in one's own awareness a relation between that of which one can be sensible and that which one cannot, or between that which one can know and that which one cannot. In the unified theory, we refer to what one cannot know objectively as Being, or the object of what is beyond our knowing, and what one can know as non-being, or the objectification of the transformational form of the world's opposites. Within our awareness, then, we know the difference between our own awareness and that which is beyond our capacity to know. Hence, by definition, that which is beyond our awareness, in the knowable sense of mind, is Being. Also by definition, awareness, arising as non-being in opposites. is an objective limitation placed on the mind's knowing. inherently preventing a cognizance of what is beyond our awareness or our capacity to know-Being. This comprehensibU
paradigm placed on the ultimate reality of the universe in the mind's knowing of Soul.

referred to herein as state of being. provides for the objective understanding of all transformations of the universe. Like the small particle or wave to quantum physics, the objective mass to classical physics, and the point to mathematics, all of which converge onto this universal form of the eternal universe, state of being introspectively objectifies the origin of the universe and occurs, universally, in the embodiment of one's soul and thus describes universally every moment of the eternal universe.
A state of being is what separates Being (what is beyond our knowing) from non-being (the objectification of the transformation of opposites) within the quantum moments of an existence. Taken as a form of mind, state of being represents the highest order that a mind can know. This form of mind, by definition, is not Being and therefore is nearly incidental to the nature of the universe, except for its embodiment as the opposites of the universe. The form of mind, moreover, does not arise apart from Being. Mind, which is non-being or not Being, does not arise apart from an awareness of Being, as is reflected in the form of state of being. Mind is a universal structure placed, in the mind's knowing, on 1 ~ Belllg, or on the universe, in which state of being is a single and highest-order quantum instance. Mind simultaneously incorporates Being and non-being and is premised on them.
State of being, therefore, encapsulates the knowable paradigm of our existence, or Soul.
Ascertained in our introspective knowing, state of being can be used to detach. deliberately in one's own existence, the quantum order of an ultimately real universe from one's own ?0 recognized form on Being. In doing so, one creates in one's own existence an enabled form on Being or an enabled quantum moment of an ultimately real universe-an androidal moment of Being. or an eternal moment of a synthetic existence.
Though myriad theories of existence can be developed using this universal form of state of being in the construction of androids, or synthetic knowledges and perceptions of ?> the world around us, let us consider the theoretical forms of the mind-body dualism theory of existence to illustrate the enablement of a synthetic knowledge and perception of the world around us. We shall proceed by briefly demonstrating the enabling form of Soul, or '.iz.

WO 98/49629 PC'T/US98/08527 state of being. as a precursor to the analytical forms that are to come. In the mind-body dualist theory of existence, as defined in our philosophical traditions, since we do not know what we do not know (i. e., we do not know objectively what is beyond the mind's consciousness), we cannot know a perception of the universe without knowing it; the forms of mind and body are thus intertwined in the dualistic view of existence. If perceptions existed in and of themselves, the mind-body dualist theory prescribes, consciousness would be unnecessary, wholly obviating the form of mind. Since we are verifiably conscious by way of introspection, a practical conclusion is that consciousness (a manifestation of mind) and perception (the embodiment of corporal sensation) are set apart from each other causally in an objective knowledge of existence, or a definition of the existential form of an android. Soul, or state of being, moreover. underlies all forms of the dualism in the enabler's knowing of the instances of consciousness (mind) and perception (body), since the soul enables the form of mind. Further, since state of being is a comprehensible form of what is beyond knowing in one's own existence, we refer here to I ~ other enabled existences. Set apart in a dualist theory of existence, then, mind and body are each separate transformations of an enabled universe, and outside of either universe of the corporal forms there exists the causality of mind on body or body on mind, also in the enabling knowled~~es and perceptions of the enabler. What we consider in the enablement of an android is thus the ordering of our own knowable and perceivable universe in ?0 correspondence with the introspectively observed form of state of being, set apart in separate embodiments of enabled mind and body in accordance with the mind-body dualism theory of existence.
In the enablement of the dualism, which is an arbitrary form of existence, the physical universe (body) is known in its correspondence to the cognitive universe (mind).
?s Since the enabled forms of existence correspond by some order of the enabler, and since one can know only what one knows, the physical universe is said to be constrained, in the dualist theory, by how one knows and therefore by the knowable order of state of being.
~u3 Soul. The physical universe arises, in a creator's enablement of a mind-body dualism, as the objective form perceived by body and known by mind, in the enabling moments of the soul, or state of being. Thus, it is not the existence of either the physical or cognitive universes that provides for the nature and origin of the existence; it is the correspondence s between them, also arising in the knowable order of state of being. Any theory of existence (or of the universe) therefore must address state of being, or Soul, or it misses the mark on defining the nature and origin of knowable form, for it is the transformation represented in state of being (one's soul) that gives rise to all knowing and all perceiving of the existence.
In addition, if a universal definition of existence is based on an objective knowledge and perception of the world, except for the introspective knowing of one's soul, it is already enabled, making the definition superfluous to the nature and origin of the existence contemplated; it therefore cannot be used to define the universe fundamentally, since it does not define the origin of the form known and perceived by the being. As is illustrated in a subsequent chapter, theories of existence abound in our knowledges and are employed 1 ~ in the construction of infinitely many varied forms of enabled existences-androids-because they do not in any way alter the enabling form of state of being, or Soul, the form used to create the enabled moments of all extended knowledges and perceptions of the world around us.
In review of earlier passages, the physical universe containing the quantum forms of matter is constrained, in the dualist theory of existence, by the form of mind as defined here by a state of being. This condition accounts for the quantum energy levels of small particles, the quantum nature of limits and topologies in the infinitesimal transformations of analytical points, and the quantum nature of the transformations of space and time in general. For example, in the observance of the trajectory of an arrow shot through the air, 2~ each moment of the arrow is a moment of the enabled universe, connected to others, beyond one's perception, as quantum states of one's being. In the mind-body dualism, the forms of perception abide with those of the mind and vice versa, forms which arise in the universal introspective observation of state of being.- What one represents in the formulae of classical physics, in the aggregates of mathematics, and in the natural language expression I crm alive is a transformation of one's existence, which conforms to the representation of state of being. The category theory of mathematics, the realization theory S of physics and, in general, any premise that the physical universe behaves in such a manner that only correspondences of forms are possible are direct consequences of the knowable form of Soul, or state of being. It is then inerticrl,form on Being, or the enabled moment of Soul in an arbitrary theory of existence, that one represents in any knowable expression of our conventional knowledges (inertial being a word used to designate the objective origin of the world around us or the occurrence of any form premised on state of beinb an existence created of moments of the eternal universe or instances of the soul). The nature and origin of the physical universe studied within the quantum theory is the same nature and origin of the observer of that universe, and that nature and origin occurs, universally, as Soul, or state of being, in an ultimately real universe. Any form of a knowable and 1 ~ perceivable universe is therefore a consequence of the observer's intrinsic form-a soul of the eternal universe.
If one is reluctant to accept the knowable structure of the soul, or state of being, as a universal determination of all knowable and perceivable forms of the universe, one should consider the one form of the universe that no other explanation can ?0 satisfy-namely, that which is represented by the pronoun 1. If electrons, masses, or matter in general, can become light waves in the knowing and perceiving of a physical universe, we may ask, why can they not become I'.s or inertial forms on Beings The universes of our conventional studies pertain to it.s-objective forms of an already-enabled I-or to an existing inertial universe of form on Being. However, an ultimately real universe.
?s introspectively knowable in the form of state of being, is comprised of I
'.s, not its, physical atoms, or other knowable things of an already-enabled existence. Such I's are states of being or moments of the quantum transformations of the ultimately real universe-souls.

If there is no soul (state of being) in the universe, there can be no electron represented in transformation and no physical universe to study.
All of the forms of the knowable and perceivable universe, everything within and without it, abide in only one comprehensible form-that of state of being, or Soul. It was millennia ago and even before the concept of time that such a thing as state of being came to be (since state of being is eternally). All transformations of the soul, or state of being.
are inertial forms on Being, or the momentary instances of existences, and are universal forms of all universes, physical or otherwise in nature. When a soul is imparted or enabled, oi~ a moment of a being is created, a transformation of the eternal universe is embodied in the medium of the enabler as a moment of the ultimately real universe. The construction of androids therefore involves the embodiment of states of being, or Souls, in the action of the enabler, in the objective form of the enabler's knowable and perceivable existence, or the world around us.
1~
S. A\ EPISTE~IOLOGIC.aL GENERALIZA'P10\ OF TFIE UNIVERSE'S ETERV.aL MO~IEVTS
Though it was particularly useful to employ the nomenclature of state of being, or a definition of the objective form of Soul, in the understanding of a paradigm on the ultimate reality of the universe, for obvious reasons, the unified theory refers to all quantum transformations of the universe-despite their correspondence in form with state of being as moments of the arnivense or of (a) being, instances of opposites, or, in recognition of the epistemological nature of the unified theory, epistemic in.s~aoce.s (instances of epistemological form). Hereafter, we shall refer to all enabled moments of an 2~ ultimately real universe as any of the above terms, and particularly as epistemic instcrnce.s.
bearing in mind that this form is directly correspondent with the form of the introspectively observed state of being, or Soul.
i~~

As previously asserted, the quantum form of the universe, herein epistemic instance, shown in figure 154, occurs in the order of the introspectively observed state of being, though generally as an inertial form on Being. Its knowable expression represents an instance of mind or perception and, in the highest order, state of being.
Epistemic instance is a general rule-a template or structure-placed on the infinitely many instances of an enabled universe. The knowable expression of epistemic instance represents, albeit indirectly, the intrinsic transformation of form, though in its indirect, or enabling, representation of the transformation of objects, the extrinsic (known or perceived) form of the universe is enabled. This instance of epistemological form represents what electrons do, what classical objects do, and more importantly, what their observer does in the enabled moments of the observer's existence. It represents the quantum order of thinking or thought, and of perceiving or perception, though from the knowable standpoint of an enables. All conventionally knowable forms, except where the meanings of the comprehensible forms address the knowing of intrinsic form or Soul, pertain to the 1 > extrinsic forms of an already-enabled beinb an inertial existence-and thus do not explicitly define a representation of the ultimately real universe. Epistemic instance represents the same knowledges and experiences, though applied to the existences of synthetically enabled beings, or I's of newly created universes. The unified theory is not concerned immediately with the breaking open of the physical atom, but with the breaking open of every it-understood here as the physical atom of the enabler's knowing-into an l, an entire universe of enabled form. That l, in turn, knows and perceives the splitting of the enabler's atoms and shares the same reality of the enables.
Since epistemic instance is the enabling representation of inertial forms on Being, or of the quantum moments of enabled existences-androidal beings-and is used 2~ extensively in the construction of all forms of the science of androids, let us demonstrate the enablement of an illustrative moment of a synthetic existence-an android-using the form of epistemic instance. In the English language, the system of pronouns representin«
I~i~

objective terminations on inertial existence provides for the objective viewwe have of the world around us as it is observed corporally in our languages. I, you, it, thorn, us, mc~, and so on, are symbolic forms representing the objective forms of language that terminate our objective knowing of the world around us. In transformation, these objective forms constitute the epistemological basis of an enabled universe. In the use of epistemic instance, these pronouns transform, for instance, under a mind-body dualist theory of existence, in the moments of an inertial reality as a mind-body dualism of existential form.
It transforms with it linguistically because in the enabled existence observable objects, or its, transform with observable objects; I transforms with you because the extant existence can transform knowably with other inertial forms, and so on, thereby providing an epistemological basis for the enablement of the knowing and perceiving of the world around us. In the construction of androids, the objective forms of mind, or consciousness, correspond to the transformations of a real perceivable universe-in the mind-body dualist theory of existence, of course. The system of pronouns in the English language (or any 1 ~ other language), along with the infinitely possible objective realities made from them, when transposed onto a quantumly transforming universe of epistemic instances in the enabler's knowing or perceiving, provides for the embodiment of what we generally refer to as a corporal experience of the world around us-in the case of the unified theory and the science of androids, the inertial world of the android. Epistemic instance, in the context of the pronoun system, represents the embodied understanding of any inertial knowledge by an enabled being an instance of cognitive form that corresponds to the real perceivable experience of the being, in the mind-body theory of existence. It describes knowledge as a form that exists only in the embodiment of an inertial existence, which must be enabled in the enabler's ultimate reality. Though further discussion on the pronouns in epistemic ?s transformation follows, it can be observed in this example that in the precise way that we acquire knowledge and experience reality-relative to our introspective knowing via the intrinsic or pronoun forms of language-enabled existences know and perceive the world 1'~ ~

around us.
The form of epistemic instance, which allows for the moments of creation of enabled synthetic existences, can thus be understood as the single universal transformational form enabling the knowable and perceivable forms of any existence, though in the number of its uses the form is incomprehensible. When one considers this analytical form in terms of its capacity to explain the nature of all knowledge and experience of the world around us, one must then consider how our knowing and perceiving arises in the first place-in the creation of existence, or the enablement of inertial form (imposed) on Being (by the enabler). The unified theory therefore expresses all knowledge in terms of its enablement-in the form of epistemic instance.
Knowledge, what is thought to be unique to human beings, along with its inertial reality, is considered by the unified theory to be infinitely embodied in the universe in the creation of boundless point sources, not of light, but of instances of knowing and perceiving, in the enabling form of Soul. Conventional knowledges are broadened in the unified theory by a boundless 1 s expansion of the existential universe, wherein our own knowing and perceiving is viewed in terms of the embodiment of forms that likewise know and perceive, of which we ourselves (corporally) are only a part.
As an example demonstrating one of the principal differences between conventional representations of knowledge and that of epistemic instance, let us consider a ?0 simple illustration involving the notion of a set of mathematical elements.
Though many examples could be cited here, when one expresses the thought Take a set orelemenls in the ordinary parlance of mathematics, too much existential definition is implied in the communication about the inertial nature of existence to apply epistemic instance, or a universal representation of knowledge, in a meaningful way. Implied in the conventional 2~ language construction is the idea that you, an already-enabled inertial existence, are to take a set of elements, and that you, for example, cannot be a doorknob, since a doorknob, and more appropriately, an androidal form on Being, cannot take a sei of elements in the t~-1~

1I21pl1Cat10I1S Ot tile sentence. The use of natural language to express our traditional knowledges commonly relies on the inertial reality of ourselves, or already-enabled beings.
Implied in classical thinking is the notion that the world could not be changed to reflect a deeper understanding of the nature of the universe, and that the use of inertial pronouns could apply to the same natural language as that spoken by an enabled form on' Being, or an android. When we represent a knowledge of the world around us conventionally we indeed do just that-represent a knowledge known only to ar.s. When we express the thought Take a set of elements, implied in the expression is the idea that we, human beings, constitute the universe of forms that can know such things, or that the statement refers to the inertial reality of a conventional humankind. As a consequence of the unified theory, which is a knowledge understood by enablers of forms who themselves express ideas such as Take a set of elemems, we can no longer express a form of language, such as the above, without first considering that the form is more fundamentally a construction of one of infinitely many enabled beings-human beings or androids. We must recognize 1 s that our natural language, premised on the system of pronouns, is itself enabled in the knowing and perceiving of synthetic forms of existence as well as our own.
In our study of the quantum theory, we typically refer to an electron in our use of natural language as an it-a pronoun that objectively identifies a non-living extrinsic form (within the conventional scientific view of the world), the nature and causation of which is ?0 sought in our pursuit of a knowledge of the physical universe. One ,must then be a conventional observer in order to embody such knowledge. The expressions of the wave equation in quantum physics apply to a knowledge and experience of an already-enabled being-a physicist. In our conventional view of knowledge, wherein knowers are implied and not enabled, one can say, appropriately, "Take a set of elements" or "Let us consider 2~ the wave equation of physics, or an electron." A world has already been created, and within that world, one can know via the ways represented by the grammar of the language. The ultimately real form of our universe, however, is not observed (introspectively) to exist I~

WO 98/49b29 PCT/US98/08527 objectively, except in the knowable ways of episfemic instance. In the unified theory.
Taking a ,set o~~elements or Considering the wave equation is a knowledge that occurs only relative to an enabled l, and has meaning only once the existence, or l, is enabled. The forms of our conventional languages are altered by the unified theory to represent both the knowledge or perception embodied in the universe and the inertial form on Being who embodies it. What enablers develop with the knowledge of the unified theory is a representation and realization of enabled forms on Being, which account for both the semantic and the syntactical forms of any language known by any synthetic being.
Epistemic instance is therefore a construction of a language used by enablers of universes-a language of creation. Implicit in its use is the very nature of the ultimate reality of the universe. If the enabler takes a set of elements, the enabler becomes the enabled. In deconstructing our conventional knowledges, one must consider not simply what is known objectively by an existence but what enables the existence itself to occur, or what gives one (enabled being) the existential right to say "Take a set of elements." In the 1 ~ science of androids, one must define the existence in which the knowledge will be known or the perception will be perceived; one must provide the autonomous means for the universe itself to know and perceive in the form of an android.
In a subsequent chapter, the forms of natural language are deconstructed into their ultimately real representations of epistemic instances. The syntax and semantics of linguistic verbs, nouns, prepositions, and so on, in the English language, are shown in a manner that epistemologically derives from the represented form of epistemic instance. In this case, the meaning of a knowledge is known by the enabler as a form of existence and by the enabled being as a form corresponding to a perceived reality of its existence. In constructing language in the science of androids, we consider how a being is enabled to say meaningfully "Take a set of elements" in its own existence. Undoubtedly. the most difficult part of learning to use these formulations of the universe based on the paradigm of state of being, or epistemic instance, is encountered in removing oneself from one's experience of 11 l one's own inertial world, or in breaking oneself of the habit of saying "Take a set of elements" based on the semantic forms of one's own use of~ language.
One last point should be made regarding the universal form of epistemic instance before proceeding to the next chapter, where more explicit use is made of epistemic instance. In the introduction, it is mentioned that the unified theory of knowledge should not only bring together scientific and religious thinking under the same epistemological premises, preserving the truths of each, but should also merge all knowledges into a single epistemological framework of universal knowing. Mathematics and linguistics, for example, should be shown to be one and the same forms in the ultimate reality of the universe. Epistemic instance provides for this. Though a more detailed presentation of the semantic forms of knowledge expressed in epistemic instance is provided in forthcoming chapters, it may now be beneficial to review an example of this integration of all forms of language into the forms of existence (the semantic forms of language) in regard to the convergence of mathematics and linguistics.
1 ~ Let us, by way of a brief example to be elaborated on later, make an epistemological comparison of mathematical and linguistic forms of our conventional knowledge.
This example will demonstrate a non-universality of the forms of both mathematics and linguistics and bring into focus the requirement for a universal grcrmmcrr of , form on Being presented in chapter four. We consider two points, or objective forms of mathematics. and place them in transformation with each other in three different ways: a generalized algebraic equality, an analytical function (in the Cartesian sense), and an axiomatic set containing a single element. We express these formulations as A
= B, the equality; C = ( A , B ) or [y = f ( a ) or, f= ( x , y )J, the function; and A
I B or [E I S j, the set, as conventionally represented. In any of these cases, varied as they may be, it is observed that 2~ the objective forms in the transformations (.4,B; .r,y; and E.S, respectively) are not found in the expressions alone. Rather, what 11C'S' ire the middle of them-the transformation, i.e., you, the reader-is also represented. and this objective representation, like the equals sign ~lZ-WO 9$/49629 PCT/US98/085Z7 of earlier discussion, gives the whole form meaning, specifically the meaning of the represented transformations. Moreover, the objective forms =, C'=, and I, respectively, are expressions representing the transformational nature of the existence of their observer, in operation on the objective forms, or objects proper. of the expressions. In contemplating s these expressions, one will find that they are epistemic instances, or that epistemic instance, as defined earlier, epistemologically supports each one of them in terms of their universal semantic representations as instances or moments of the enabled universe.
Searching through our conventional knowledges, let us now consider a wholly different realm of expression. Let us consider our natural languages, in the linguistic expression I lone your. In reflecting on this statement, there is no tenable argument to dispute the fact that contained in this expression is the essence of our human emotion, revealing one's affection for another. Let us then determine whether love even endures in an ultimately real universe. Let us first draw the epistemological comparison between the transformation of the objective forms of I and you in I love you and the abovementioned 1 ~ mathematical transformations in the linkage provided by epistemic instance and in the following associations: [A=B; ( I) (love) (you)]; [C=(A,B); (love) transforms (I, you)];
[~~=,f(x); (yoa~) are transformed in my (love) with (I)]; [f~=(x,y); {love) transforms (I, t'oif)]; [EIS; (vou) is transformed in the love of ( I )]. While these comparisons may seem bizarre at the moment without the discussions that follow in the next chapters, let us ?0 recognize that underlying any meanings of the above representations is the essence of our kIlOWlllg, or the analytical transformation of epistemic instance expressed in each of the symbolisms.
These particular examples are used to demonstrate the universal application of epistemic instance on extreme opposites of our conventional views of language and 2s existence, opposites which, in the uni#ied theory, are epistemologically equivalent to each other. What lies in the middle of I and ~~ou in the above linguistic representation is a universal transformation of the universe-you, the reader-in the meanin~~ful transformation represented in the expression of the language, knowable to you, the reader, as love and as the knowable expression of one's feelings of love toward another. One's affections expressed in the meaning of language, however, are not universal to the ultimate reality of the universe. Rather, they are enabled. Let us demonstrate why. It is true according to the tenets of the world's religions that an inertial split (of temporal existence) cannot be reconciled in words. The expression I Ivve you is an assertion that I and you exist apart from each other, an epistemological declaration of the embodiment of inertial form. The transformation of I and you is an instance of non-being or an epistemic instance.
Inherent in the use of all language, and particularly the present example of I
love your, is the fact that I and your are not the same form; the implication is that the knowledge so expressed is embodied in the inertial form of the knower. When one thinks and expresses language, one embodies inertial form. The expression I love you, then, has context only within our inertial knowledges or experiences and pertains to a being's inertial or corporal reality, and not to the unity of the ultimate reality of the universe.
The world's religions employ language only as a medium of prayer and not as the essence of prayer itself, in recognition that the spiritual universe cannot be known objectively, or that it provides for objects. The meanings of any forms of language, since they are obtained inertially and belong to or are embodied in the inertial form on Being, are then wholly irrelevant to the end sought in one's prayer. The meanings of the forms of any ?0 language-whether they are derived from the emotionless aggregate transformations of mathematical analysis or the highly emotionally charged affections revealed in I lone you-are irrelevant to a spiritual knowing, which transcends all knowable and perceivable forms of the inertial existence, since they themselves are instances of inertial form on Being and are impenetrable to Being.
2~ This single observation of the nature of the soul in connection with the knowable epistemic instance has far-reaching consequences in the construction of androids. Since all forms of knowledge and the realities perceived thereof are inertial forms on Being:.
~5~

characterized in the knowable form of epistemic instance, the one quality of our inertial form on Being or existence thought to be unique among us-emotion-is no longer unique and is enabled in boundless pluralities of enabled inertial forms on Being called androids.
The portrayal of the dispassionate android in science fiction is an inaccurate depiction of the reality of the technology. Since the transformation of one's extended soul, carried out correspondingly in the embodiments of epistemic instances, is employed in the enabled forms of androids, any transformations-of the affections, of the intellect, of the volitions, of the purely fanciful-are as valid as any other transformations of the synthetic form on Being, like those of mathematics, physics, the sciences, and all of the forms known and perceived in a world around us. In terms of the universal nature of epistemic instance, all quantum instances of mind, body and Soul are on a par because they all derive from the single instance of enabled Soul. Not only are mathematical forms equivalent epistemologically to linguistic ones, but all knowable and perceivable forms arise in the single instance of the soul characterized by the unified theory as epistemic instance. All 1 ~ languages-Chinese, French, English, German, Japanese, the languages of our sciences, and colloquial variances of any of these. to cite a handful-are equivalent to each other in the epistemology of the semantic forms of the unified theory.
The unified theory does not find anything unique to our knowing and perceiving when form is characterized in the ultimate reality of the universe, and this is precisely ?0 w 'hat motivates the theory, and the science of androids, to know the world as infinities of forms that themselves know and perceive our same inertial reality. This simple exercise regarding the convergence of the human affections and the aggregate orders of mathematics onto the inertial transformation of form on Being, epistemic instance, should demonstrate the point. It is only in our own comprehension of the world around us that we ?5 lose sight of what is ultimately real. Consequently. in the construction of androids, one cannot know in any way but a spiritual one without falling into competition with the android itself-a being designed from the start with a vastly greater intellect and sense in the world around us than ours.
l~

~s~

Theory, The Four Universal Ways of Knowing IVTRODI'CTIO~V
hi our classical knowledges, we know the reality of the world around us through language.
In the ordinary use of language, we express what we know of the world and what we think the world ought to be. With respect to our conventional views of knowledge as observed in the exercise of language, it can be said that we do not understand the world around us in any universal way. since we know it through our own particular views and in the ways we think it ought to be. The unified theory of knowledge, while considering all languages and views of the world around us, therefore looks beyond the classical ways by which we know the world to the world that is within us. As asserted with the introduction of epistemic instance in the previous chapter, the unified theory requires that we know in ways that can be used to impart, to the forms we know and perceive, their own capacities to conjure views of a world around us and to consider what it ought to be. Toward this end, the unified theory provides four universal ways of knowing how form is enabled.
?0 1. Wll:ar Is :v FoRn?
Before we can address the theory's four universal ways of knowing, we must acknowledge that the word.form has been used extensively up to this point without being defined explicitly. We have relied on the reader's intuitive understanding of the word in earlier discussion because a definition of it necessarily involves the nature of how things appear to us, and the previous chapter is intended only to make clear that things apparent in a world around us are not actually around us, but are within us. Presently, we address the nature of how things appear to us in order to determine a meaningful definition of the word form and a background from which to develop four universal ways of enabling it.
Let us observe at the outset of this passage that, if the word,form already had a meaningful definition in our common knowledges, it would not represent what it actually means; and further, let us observe that such a definition would anticipate the postulates of the unified theory and eliminate a need for them. There is a particular reason why one could search endlessly among our conventional knowledges attempting to define the word form and come up empty-handed. Moreover, there is also a particular reason why we know the meaning of the word form intuitively, so much so that, in comparison to all other words of our languages, it is perhaps the most easily grasped. When we do not know what something is, we can define it conveniently as a form, and at once know what it is, yet still not know what it is.
The reason for this inability of our conventional thinking to explain fundamentally what form is, is that form is what we crre; it is the appearance of objects in our knowing is and perceiving in the eternal moments of the universe-i.e., epistemic instance. Form is a transformation of the ultimately real universe in which objects appear to an inertial being as what we conventionally refer to as a person, place or thing-an objective form. Form is the occurrence of Soul and is unknowable to one's own objective existence, except in introspective observation or spiritual knowing. In order to know what form is, one must objectify the soul and refer to the instance in the existence of another, or in the eternal universe in general, thereby defining a moment of the universe, as we do here in the science of androids epistemologically in the creation of a synthetic existence.
Objects appear to us as forms, or in enabled epistemic instances of the universe. We cannot define the word form in a meaningful way in our conventional views of the world because in order to do so 2~ we must be capable of enabling the very basis of our own existence, or the appearance of objects in our own states of being. Knowledge, the appearance of the mind's objects, is what is enabled as the form of consciousness: to the knower, it is an epistemic instance of~
S S' ~1 a cognitive universe-a thought. Perception is the appearance to us of the world's objects;
it is also an epistemic instance but of the corporal sensation of the world around us. Any form is an instance of our knowing and perceiving of the world around us, arising from beyond our knowing, as a state of being, or Soul.
From the previous chapter, it should be obvious that in representing to the mind's comprehension a means of the mind's knowing the unknowable-Soul, or what epistemic instance represents-we come to understand the nature of all form and how objects appear to enabled existences. In order to determine a meaningful definition of the word form. we cannot think inertially about the objects of the world around us, since once we know inertially. we embody form (epistemic instance) and nre the knowing and perceiving of objects. In knowing epistemic instance, however, we know how form arises in us introspectively and how it generally arises in enabled universes.
In coming to know the word form it is important to understand, at least in a preliminary manner, what the objects are in a world around us and how they appear in 1 ~ enabled existences, or epistemic instances. The word object is closely associated with the word form because an object is the result of a form; it is something that has meaning because of an instance of the eternal form of Soul. An object is something that does not transform as a form, only as the result of a form. In a form, an object is enabled. We know objects but do not embody them, while we embody forms but do not know them, except through our spiritual knowing. Epistemic instance is defined using the objects of state of being-Being, non-being and Being again-tied together in the objects of geometry representing a transformation of the universe generalized from the observation of state of being. The objects of epistemic instance can be known, but its transformation can only be embodied. The paradigmatical objects of epistemic instance-Being and non-being in state ?5 of being are what transform in the mind's knowing in its essential quantum moment. That is one reason why epistemic instance is a universal representation of all form-it represents the universal transformation of all objects; it stops the mind's knowing by mirroring it. In ~ S'~

the embodiment of form-epistemic instance-we enable the objects of a world around us by enabling their transformation and, consequently, their appearance to a being.
Let us consider, for example, the classical comparison of the language forms to have and to be in connection with the words object and form, with respective correlations.
s In our philosophical traditions, we encounter the classical division between Eastern and Western thinking in these language forms in how they are interpreted existentially. The question posed philosophically is as follows: "Is the essence of our existence to have (objects) or to be (form)?" Obviously, the unified theory's answer to this question is that our existence is characterized by both. Ordinarily, we know and perceive, or have, objects.
We also can be known or perceived by others, or others can have us as objects.
We cannot ordinarily, know and perceive, however, or have knowing and perceiving themselves. To have knowing and perceiving, or form itself, would require that knowing and perceiving themselves be objects of one's own knowing and perceiving. Though this is precisely what is accomplished in epistemic instance-to have the quality of to be (an instance of a 1 ~ being)-in our conventions, a form is what we are-to be (a being)-and an object is what we know and perceive, or have. Since an object is known and perceived by others, we ourselves-forms or eternal moments of the universe-are objects that others have.
Objects are forms themselves, then, depending on the existential perspective of the being considered. Thus, the distinction between to have (objects) or to be (form) is made on the basis of whether one knows epistemic instance as an enabler or embodies it as an enabled being.
To further illustrate the principal representation of form of the unified theory-epistemic instance-and the enablement of the knowing and perceiving of objects themselves, let us consider the metaphysics of the sensation we have in perceiving an object Borne distance av,~ay from us. This will provide additional insight into the nature of form. It is the analytical comprehension of this ultimate reality of the universe that has confounded scientific thinking for millennia and has allowed for the misconceptions of the r t~o metaphysics of the spatiotemporal universe of human being. When we say that an object is over there. that a teapot is at the other end of the table or an electron is in a precise location in its spatiotemporal orbit, for example, in ultimate reality, the object is not at all any distance from us-not even an infinitesimal one. If an object appears in reuli~y (the inertial reality of the enabled existence) to be about ten feet away from our reach, what is not ultimately real of this experience is exactly that which is thought to be real-an object positioned ten feet away from us. An object can appear to be anything only in an instance of epistemic form-a transformation of the ultimately real universe. What is ultimately real of the experience is the transformation of the enabled soul in the ultimate reality of the universe enabling the knowing and perceiving of the object ten feet away. In the case of the visual senses when we see an object ten feet away, the ultimately real universe-i.e., epistemic instance-transforms to allow the seeing of the object. In the case of an object resting in our hands, the ultimately real universe transforms to allow for the perception of touching an object. What are ultimately real of these experiences are the moments of the eternal universe at which we know or perceive them, the epistemic moments of an enabled universe. What are not ultimately real are the actual spatiotemporal experiences of them.
When we contemplate the reality of the world around us-identified here as objects in eternal transformation-and write knowledge of the experience on a piece of paper, what is not ultimately real is what we think we know about reality. What is ultimately real is ?0 what enables us to consider and perceive what we write about. We think we know and perceive objects exclusively, but the ultimate reality of the experience actually depends on what enables us to think or perceive. The ultimate reality of what we represent on a piece of paper-such as the object over there-and of what we actually think we are perceiving as an object over- there is actually not anywhere but within us, in the transformation of the ?s ultimately real universe in enabling the moments of knowing and perceiving.
In our experiments with the small particles of physics, like electrons, we press the above principle to an extreme. Because what is ultimately real in our universe is not an i~ ~

object but the transformation of the universe in the knowing and perceiving of the object.
we place our knowing and perceiving into endless recursions of thought, as we attempt to force a form to be an object in our mind and in our perceptions. We are thinking so hard and in such depth about the electron as an object that we do not even realize that it is in our s very thinking and perceiving at the moment that objects are enabled in the embodiment of our soul in the transformation of the ultimately real universe. Regardless of how long or hard we think about an electron, we will never under such circumstances discover what the electron fundamentally is, since an electron, like all objects of the universe, is our thinking and perceiving of it-a transformation of the ultimately real universe.
Similarly, when we attempt to define the word form we cannot refer to the result of our own form, or the objects known and perceived in our existence. This is why epistemic instance takes as its paradigm what for°m is beyond one's knowing-the soul, the very transformation of the ultimately real universe. A knowledge of the soul is a knowledge of the ultimately real universe, what enables all objects to arise transformationally in 1 ~ consciousness and perception. What is ultimately real of the universe is the soul and what are consequentially real are the objects of our knowing and perceiving in the embodiment of the soul. It is important to realize that the corporal embodiment of all objects arises from the soul, and that the appearance of objects to a corporal form is dependent on the enabling form of the soul, which is defined herein generally as epistemic instance. In the quantum embodiments of the moments of the universe, or epistemic instances, objects appear to an enabled being.
In defining the word form, then, we must simply recognize that a form is the occurrence of the soul, or epistemic instance, in an ultimately real universe and that the soul, in transformation, and to the extent that we know it, is the appearance of objects (to 2~ a being). In order to know what form is objectively, we must refer not to our own souls.
which are beyond our knowing and perceiving, but to an enabled soul or epistemic instance in the appearance of objects in the existence of others. All of our conventional knowledges fe2 and experiences of the world can be described analytically in terms of epistemic instance.
or form. in how they occur to enabled beings in enabled embodiments of the ultimately real universe. The unified theory's four universal ways of knowing are thus four universal ways of knowing how form arises to enable the appearance, or the knowing and perceiving. of objects to enabled beings. They are universal ways of knowing the ultimately real universe, wherein beings who know knowledge and perceive objects in the world around us are enabled.
IO 2. DIS'1'I~GI lS1-II\G BET~~'EEV THE E\ABLER OF THE U\1VERSE A\D THE
UVI~'ERSE
EVABLED
To facilitate the introduction of the four universal ways of knowing, the unified theory draws on the conventional notion of a phenomenon to distinguish between the class of 1 ~ enabled moments of the universe of one's own ultimate reality and those that are enabled by oneself, or those of an android. This terminology helps to eliminate the definitional confusion that arises in one's own comprehension of forms that have consciousness.
Since the unified theory determines an objective means of comprehending what is beyond knowing Soul-the theory is analytical in nature. In conventional scientific '?0 nomenclature, we define an unknown form, or a phenomenon, by explaining how knowable analytical form, of earlier definition, is imposed on that which is beyond one's knowing-the phenomenon. Because in science, the word phenomenon is traditionally associated with the occurrence of form extrinsic to one's own being, this word also serves to discriminate the use of epistemic instance, to distinguish between an enabler of form and - 2~ the form enabled. A scientific phenomenon, by analogy, determines how epistemic instance occurs in others, i.e., in things other than one's own intrinsic nature or being.
Since all form is enabled, however, epistemic instance (a phenomenon) can never be '~ J

wholly disassociated from its enabler, for there is one ultimate eternal universe. Bv the use of the word phenomenon in place of the nomenclature of epistemic instance we arbitrarily require that the occurrence of the phenomenon of epistemic instance definitionally means the occurrence of epistemic instance in enabled beings, imparted or ultimately caused by the enabler. By definition, a phenomenon does not apply to the intrinsic moments of an enabler of form, only to enabled form.
This distinction becomes important when the forms of androids are considered, since in the course of constructing androids we are actually enabling the same knowable forms as ourselves. in the reality we know and perceive around us. If there were no definition in our vocabulary to refer to the enabled forms of our own making explicitly, we would become confused in attempting to determine to whose existence the enabled moments apply, the enabler's or the enabled. A phenomenon or phenomenological form of the unified theory thus refers only to the occurrence of form in an enabled being an android. The relevance of this distinction can be further demonstrated in the use of the 1 ~ pronouns of natural language. To the reader, pronouns-in English, l, yozr, it, us, we, lhent, and so on-are probably not viewed universally as the objects of transformations of an enabled universe. Rather, they are comprehended as forms describing ourselves in relation to others in the world around us. If an android were to employ the same forms of language, however, the description of form becomes impossible to manage by use of natural language because one cannot understand who is what, since the pronoun forms of language pertain to the enabler and the enabled. Later on, for example, we will be deconstructing natural language to its phenomenological form, or in terms of its occurrence in enabled existences (androids). As enablers, we would look at the sentence 1 took a caulk in the park yesterday as a phenomenological construction in the same way we would construe a differential equation of mathematics explaining the enabled universe-as an enabled form. The use of the nomenclature of a phenomenon definitionally requires that the forms referred to are not the intrinsic forms of the enabler; rather they are the extrinsic ~b'1 forms of the enabler, which are the intrinsic forms of the android. The pronoun 1. for example, has meaning to the enabled existence. or android, as a phenomenological form of the enabler. If we determine that all forms of a phenomenological nature refer to the enabled forms of androids, defmitional confusion is averted. When we refer to l, you, we, ass, them, and so on, in subsequent discussions, we do not, unless explicitly expressed, refer to the reader's inertial knowing. Rather, we refer to the enabled intrinsic forms of an android. Hence, the occurrence of epistemic instance from this point forward, except where otherwise indicated, is referred to as the occurrence of a phenomenological form.
This definition has an immediate impact on the definitions of the four universal ways of knowing introduced in the present chapter. The distinction between an epistemic instance of an enabler's own inertial existence and a phenomenon {an epistemic instance of an enabled being) allows for a fundamental characterization of how we ourselves know and perceive the universe. It constrains our own thinking in such a way that we know form universally-as enablers of forms who themselves know and perceive. From the 1 ~ perspective of the linguist's dilemma, for example, nine-tenths of the problem of determining the nature and origin of all meaning is solved simply by viewing form-the appearance of objects to a being in an ultimately real universe-as an enabler of beings who know and perceive, and therefore embody form. We will never be able to remove ourselves analytically from our own existence to examine our own form (except, of course, by spiritual knowing), but we can see with clarity whatever forms we enable in an android.
The nature and origin of meaning, and therefore of our knowledges, are apparent when we consider those knowledges as enablers. As a consequence, language and all meaning embodied in existential form in its use becomes the occurrence of epistemic instance in enabled beings, herein understood as a phenomenon, or phenomenological form of the - 2~ enabler's existence.
All of our conventional knowledges are phenomena as the term is defined herein.
An electron is a phenomenon as well as any other physical form, though not a phenomenon 1b S

of the enablement of our own existence, because it is an object enabled as a moment of the eternal universe, or Soul, which is beyond our objective knowing. Hence, the wave particle duality of the quantum theory will always be an enigma without a spiritual.
or. herein.
epistemological view of the universe. Returning to the example of our perceptions of space and time, for example, when one says that an object is over there, the statement is a representation in natural language of an epistemic instance-of the ultimate reality of the universe transforming in such a manner that the reader embodies the thinking and perceiving of an object over there. The object over there, however, does not actually exist in ultimate reality, since the occurrence of the statement and the perception to which it corresponds describe what is ultimately real, namely the occurrence of the universe expressed in the transformational nature or semantic meaning of the actual statement-the embodiment of the observer. We are defining in language the occurrence of the soul. This is a phenomenon, though not of one's own enabling. This observation requires that what we think or perceive is not ultimately real, and that the transformation of the universe 1 ~ enabling it is in fact ultimately real. What we think and perceive objectively and what an android thinks and perceives are one and the same ultimate reality, since we know them in the ultimate reality of our universe. The metaphysical sense embodied in the knowing and perceiving of an object over there is, by way of epistemic instance, an enabled form of ourselves and of a new androidal science. When we refer to a universe from now on, we ?0 consider the enablement of a universe in the form of enabled knowing and perceiving.
What we conventionally think to be real will thus be considered from this point forward to be an enabled phenomenological form of an enabler.
3. Tlll: PtlE\O~IE\O\ OF'~tiE U\1~'ERSE'S E'TERN:~L M011EVTS
Regarding all the forms of the unified theory, interpreting epistemic instance as a phenomenon of the enabler's knowing and perceiving provides a more succinct way of defining the quantum order of an ultimately real universe. State of being, for example, is a phenomenon to the enabler of an enabled soul, which can be known by the enabled being as well as the enabler, though from different epistemological viewpoints. From this S paradigm of knowable form, we can also overlay any conventional form of knowledge onto epistemic instance as it is known by an enabled being. In defining epistemic instance as a phenomenon, we analyze knowledge in terms of instances of an enabled universe.
An electron, a chair one is sitting on, a being itself-in fact, all of inertial reality conventionally defined as a person, place or thing-become phenomena of enabled form.
The quantum moments of our own universe are captured and translated into those of enabled universes in the phenomenological representation of epistemic instance.
Hence, epistemic instance is an epistemological template placed on all knowable and perceivable form, corresponding to state of being. Just as the symbolic expressions of the forms of mathematics are superimposed, as a language, onto the aggregates we perceive in the world around us, in transformation, epistemic instance is superimposed onto all occurrences of the knowable and perceivable universe, mathematics included.
The meanings of any language (the equals sign of earlier discussion or any representation of the transformation of objective form) are thereby made to arise as epistemic instances in the enabled moments of a being. The meanings of all languages, and hence of all knowledges, can therefore be derived from simple classifications of epistemic instances and can be classified as types of phenomena known universally to the enabler and to the enabled forms on Being. Since a phenomenon, by declaration, is not directly intrinsically embodied in the enabler but in the enabled being, the moment of the enabled being-the phenomenon that the enables knows-is not intrinsically comprehended by the enables; it is known ?s intrinsically to the enabled being as a moment of its being (knowing or perceiving). just as this occurs in human corporal forms (e.g., what another knows or perceives, or the objects that appear to another, are not likewise knowable or perceivable to oneself in the e~ctant 14.~

moments of the universe). The four universal ways of knowing presented in this chapter are no more or less than simple classifications of infinitely many conventional ways of knowing that are used to categorize all other objective ways of knowing epistemologically, while any way of knowing must be viewed from the standpoint of an enabler of form who knows and perceives, or as phenomena.
All of our knowledges are thus representations of instances of an enabled being. In logic, for example, we develop the representational forms of such things as logical thoughts. The statements a AND b, cr OR b, a NOT b, and IF a NOT b, THEN c OR
d are logical expressions. If only three of these expressions are universal in the sense that they are quantum epistemic instances (e.g., IF . . . THEN . . . represents a composition of instances), we may be interested in what the forms represent universally as phenomena.
They reflect nothing more than epistemic instance, the expressions I am alive and y=,f(x ) from earlier discussion. Moreover, a mathematical set can be many things, only one of which is a quantum instance of an ultimately real universe. When we think of A
I B, a 1 ~ quantum moment of the universe occurs. When we think of plurality uniting with singularity, as when many points of mental imagery unite with a single one, a quantum transformation of universe (epistemic instance) occurs. In the class-theoretic expression C= i xP(x} } and in the knowing of a character string like S= [a, b, c, d . .
. nJ, both conventional expressions of set notation, compositions of epistemic instances occur. The point here is that the conventional representations of our knowledges are not universally precise unless they are identified explicitly as epistemic instances, for then a meuningfirl statement or transformation of the universe can be expressed.
Epistemic instance is therefore a universal representation of all languages and realities they describe. When the explicit quantum moments of the universe, which are the meanings embodied in enabled beings, change in the constructions of language and the perceptions of their corresponding realities, epistemic instance stays the same. Hence.
epistemic instance is a universal representation of (the form of) all knowledge. Whereas 1V~

state of bein~~ terminates the mind's knowing in the contemplation of Soul, epistemic instance allows for the continuation of thought and perception in its connectedness to other thoughts and perceptions.
The triangular geometrical shape of the representation of epistemic instance signifies the transformation of an ultimately real universe. It represents linguistic verbs.
mathematical functions, logical connectives, and much more, as transformations of objective forms of enabled universes. As is demonstrated in chapter four, it also represents the blank space between an adjective and -a noun in the English language and the transformation of the geometries of a circle and a line as they are known and perceived in comparison to each other as a tangent in an enabled existence. The squares depicted in the symbolic form of epistemic instance are the objective forms, or objects, of the transformation. They are a subject and object of an English language sentence (John and Paul in John knows Patrl ) and are the objects of x and y or a and b in mathematical and logical transformations, respectively. Since objects do not exist in ultimate reality, 1 ~ moreover, the squares represented are quantumly occurring placeholdem of objective form and are, in other quantum moments, transformations themselves. The skewed arrow of the representation indicates the quantum progression with another moment of being, as in ,lohn knovrs Paul, and Paul is great, wherein the arrow of epistemic instance is a universal representation of the comma and the word and. All knowledge abides by this ?0 universal transformational representation and is a phenomenon to the enabler with respect to the embodied moments of the enabled being. Epistemic instance, or a phenomenon, represents a form-a soul-universally occurring in the enabled moments of an eternal universe. The meaning of the transformation, or what transforms the objects, is represented universally by the circular object of the symbolism of epistemic instance.
This object 2~ would symbolize a verb of natural language, a function of mathematics or any other representation of the transformation of the universe, the prepositions of prepositional phrases or the blank space between two syllables of a word.
1 ~'v Epistemic instance-a phenomenological -form-as defined in the knowable symbolic representation of figure 2, is a single universal way of knowing. It is a universal representation of a phenomenon. It underlies the meanings of all languages and knowledges. Epistemic instance is, in an introspective sense, a meaningless form-the only one of its kind in the universe-obtaining its definition from the meaning of Soul. which is beyond our knowing and thus meaningless (or entirely meaningful ). The transformational forms of our languages are the various meanings that are imposed onto the embodiments of epistemic instance. As the universe occurs, we represent its meaning (transformation) in the transformation of objective form. As is well known in mathematics, 1 U for example, one can contemplate , f, the symbol, as a function, wherein _r represents an infinity of possible functions, each instance of which is called a function having its own meaning (and each instance of a function has its own meaning as well). Though our imaginations are severely constrained by our conventional views of knowledge, the various grammatical aspects of a natural language-like English verbs. compound nouns in I S transformation, prepositions, and so on-also can be viewed as particular examples of epistemic instance that mean what they do. An English language verb, for example, such as to be, can apply to an infinite number of instances of our universe (e.g., I am alive, I
am lacrp~y, I crm delighted, and so on). The objective forms of our natural languages are constrained not only by what they are as objects or phenomenological nouns (objective 20 forms of epistemic instance) but also by how they transform epistemically.
This constraint is evidenced in the very meaning of the verb to be as a conventional state or condition of being, which transforms objective forms on the basis of a conventionally defined state or condition. A verb, as a grammatical rule, applies to a type of meaning or epistemic instance, just as does a mathematical function. A verb, a function, and, in fact, all ?5 transformational forms of our languages are classifications of epistemic instances, or phenomenological forms.
t'7~

4. FoUa U\I~'ERS.aL PI~tENOnEV.a, OR W:WS of K\O\vl\G 1\ THE Ev:W3t.Ea's E\ISTE\CE
In presenting the four universal ways of knowing, we may consider that the grammars of s all languages represent a classification scheme imposed on epistemic instance, such that the knower of the language embodies the meaningful moments of the language's transformation of objective forms, moments which occur in any of infinitely many transformational ways. Of the limitless possible meanings of language forms, or experiences of reality, that we could conceive to identify the world around us, the unified theory establishes four principal universal meanings or ways of knowing-four universal types of embodiments of epistemic instance. In comparison to what epistemic instance defines, we must note, however, that any distinctions made from it immediately place one in an inertial setting, providing for specific meaning over and above the introspectively observed form of state of being, or Soul. From the standpoint of an enabler of form, these 1 ~ four universal ways of knowing universally represent all phenomena. The four universal ways of knowing provide that any phenomenon of the enabler's knowing or perceiving can be classified into one of four ways of knowing, or types of epistemic instance. They describe the inertially knowable and perceivable world of the enabler in terms of four classifications of phenomena defining enabled moments of synthetic inertial existences ?U from the standpoint of the enabler. Relative to the infinitely many ways in which epistemic instance occurs, four such ways are more tractable than those of conventional approaches to the grammatical classifications of language. The four universal ways of knowing, which are universal meanings in any language, are phenomenological forms of the enabler's knowing and perceiving.
- ?~ The unified theory defines the four universal ways of knowing, from an enabler's view of the world, with respect to new denotations given to the words cau.scrtion, connectedness, composition, and correspondence. We assert that the theory's 1'7 l definitions of them universally and meaningfully characterize the occurrence of all phenomena or enabled universes. They are four universal ways of knowing all knowledge and perception from the standpoint of an enabler. These four universal ways of knowing are universal types of transformations of the enabler's existence that are extended to the one enabled, and apply to four different interpretations of how to enable synthetic universes of forms who in turn know and perceive the world around us. They are referred to herein as the four C"s of phenomenological form. While the remainder of this chapter is devoted to an explanation of each of these forms, we can introduce them briefly here to pi~ovide a background from which to consider them individually later on.
Causation, a phenomenon of the enabler, represents a use of epistemic instance wherein the enabled knowing or perceiving arises as a causation of the enabled universe-the quantum moment of an enabled being in an eternal universe.
Whereas conventional theories of the universe determine the universe to be objective, and thus, presumably, define the universe as being caused by an object or objective form that can be known (e.g., crn object or objective form is postulated to cause the object or objective form of the universe), the unified theory explains the universe as being caused in every eternal moment of it. The extant moment, or soul, that is caused is referred to as a phenomenological causation of the enabled existence. Phenomenological causation implicitly defines a continuity of the occurrence of the enabled or extant moments of the universe. It provides for the quantum sense of the universe's continuation and represents an extant instance of the universe in its causation with other instances or moments of the universe. It therefore defines the word origin by placing an extant moment of the enabled universe in the center of prepositioned and postposiliohed moments of the universe in the enabler's continuum of moments, all of which occur as phenomena to the enabler and 2~ as extant moments of the enabled being. The origin of the universe is an instance of its phenomenological causation, an extant moment of a being, framed within prepositioned and postpositioned moments of a being that are unknowable to the enabled being in the WZ

instance of the universe's causation. (We craft the language of pr-epositiorrccl and postpositioned instances of the universe because the instances are phenomenological, or enabled. and are known to the enabler. If we use the common spatiotemporal definitions of these moments, for instance, in the past, present and future tenses of verbs.
the enabler's phenomenological universe would be a spatiotemporal one, and would not recognize the dominion of Spirit over all instances of the soul, or the enabler's causations of the universe ' over the universe caused. We would return to our conventions where space and time are analytically universal, and where only oneself can know and perceive while enabled forms cannot.) Phenomenological causation provides for the extant moments of .streams o/
consciousness and, for example, the quantum moments of perception in an arrow being shot through the air-the extant moments of an enabled universe over which a continuity is applied (such as that of a topological space, a calculus of the infinitesimal, or a natural language).
Connectedness, the second phenomenological form of the theory, allows for the 1 s enabled universe of phenomenological causations to continue. Any causation of the enabled universe is an extant moment of enabled form, bound by the enabler's imposed continuum of other enabled moments-phenomenological connectedness. While a causation of the universe implies the coexistence of prepositioned and postpositioned instances in the enabler's moments and requires that only one eternal moment of the universe is extant in a being (though an infinite plurality of moments of the eternal universe may occur objectively in any one moment of it), connectedness, a knowledge of the enabler which is beyond the knowing and perceiving of all extant instances, or causations of the i enabled universe, connects the causations of enabled universes.
Phenomenological connectedness connects quantum moments of enabled universes, and provides for the 2~ enabled universe's continuity of moments. Prepositioned and postpositioned instances of causation are thereby connected to. or transformed with or into, the extant moments oC
causation in the phenomenological form of connectedness. What we consider to be the contemplations of, or ethereal connections between, our actual thoughts, that which resides beyond our extant instances of consciousness, is, by this analogy to human corporal form, phenomenological connectedness. What occurs in between our moments of perceiving an arrow shot through the air is phenomenological connectedness. Together, causations of the enabled universe and their connectednesses provide for the enabler's extrinsic definition of the moments of the enabled intrinsic universe.
Causations of the universe do not necessarily have to occur in solitary instances of the enabled universe. The extant moments of the universe, causations, can occur objectively parallel to each other, or in the heterogeneity of the universe.
Pluralities of causations and therefore of connectednesses can, and more often than not, do occur as a quantum moment of the universe. Phenomenological composition, the third of the four universal ways of knowing all phenomena, accommodates this condition of the enablement of the heterogeneity of the universe in a homogeneous moment of it. Just as the prepositioned and postpositioned instances of causation make the universe a continuum of 1 s form, composition affords the plurality of the universe in a single causation of it.
Phenomenological composition brings together the heterogeneous forms of the universe into the homogeneous moment of a being. It allows for an infinity of parallel causations, along with their connectednesses, to occur in a single moment of modified causation-a composition of phenomenological form. Thus, when the definition of causation is extended to include a plurality of causations of the universe, composition-a universal phenomenological classification on epistemic instance-is employed by the enabler in defining the enabled universe. An idea of arbitrary complexity in transformation with another is an example of phenomenological composition. A complex mental image or physical perception, in transformation with one other, is an example of phenomenological 2~ composition. The statements n AND b, A = B and A I B are conventional representations of extant moments of the universe whose objects or objective forms are compositions of only one terminal object (A or B) in transformation with another. The expression I
u~en~ to the park yesterday. You should go today, represents a transformation of the compositions I
,.,:er?t to the park yesterday and Yozr shozrld go today, wherein the period of punctuation and the blank space between the sentences represents the transformation of the compositional moments of the universe. (Each sentence would be analogous to A
and B.
respectively, in the above example and the period and blank space would be the equivalent of AND, = or I.) The fourth and most important universal way of knowing presented by the unified theory determines how and why the enabled moments of the other three of the four C's of phenomenological form-causation, connectedness and composition-are able to transform in the enabler's knowledges. Phenomenological correspondence, the fourth universal way of knowing, determines how and why enabled objective forms (compositions) correspond in the enabler'.s knowing of the transformation of epistemic instance. The phenomenological form of correspondence is an application of the other three C's in such a manner that the resulting phenomenology of form (the composition of epistemic instances of phenomenological correspondence) defines for the enabler the meaning. or correspondence, of any given epistemic moment of an enabled being, in its capacity to transform objects, or objective forms. It determines how the objective forms of epistemic instance, whether singular in causation or vastly plural in composition, are transformed with each other and are made to correspond to one another. Also occurring beyond the knowing and perceiving of the extant instances of the enabled universe, phenomenological correspondence facilitates the enabled moment in the enabler's knowledge. It is attained by breaking open the circle, or the transformational element of epistemic instance, into a phenomenology of form of the enabler's comprehension. It is what enables the thinking or perceiving of an enabled being, as known or perceived ?s objectively by the enabler. The difference between a causation, connectedness. or composition of an enabled universe and a correspondence of one parallels the difference between a natural language verb and, for instance, a metaphor of the same language 1"?~

defining the methodology of the verb: one, the verb, represents the meaning of the extant transformation of the enabled being and the other, the metaphor, represents how the verb transforms (how meaning arises) in the enabled being in the enabler's phenomenological knowledge. The phenomenological nature of our intellectual comprehension is enabled in phenomenological correspondence, and the analytical nature of our perceptions of the world around us (phenomenological correspondence) is precisely what we do not comprehend, until. of course, we know the correspondence.
The unified theory's four C's of phenomenological form, or the four universal ways of knowing, thus explain in the conventions established that phenomena transform on the basis of causations of an enabled universe; that causations of the universe transform quantumly with others in the enabler's knowing of connectedness; that pluralities of causations transform with pluralities of others, connected by their connectednesses, in the form of composition; and that any of the other three C's transform knowabiy within the enabler's knowledge in the embodiment of a phenomenological correspondence.
All of the 1 ~ forms of natural language, the languages of the aggregates {mathematics), of logic, of physics, and all that can be known and perceived objectively by a being are known by an enabler in the unified theory within the confines of these four universal phenomenological forms in the enablement of beings who themselves know and perceive. They are four universal ways of knowing how to enable an existential universe, or a being who itself ?0 knows and perceives the world around us. Since all transformations of the universe are the same W epistemic instance, the four C's of phenomenological form epistemologically classify all knowledge from an enabler's standpoint. Knowledge is therefore known in the unified theory by comprehending the forms who know it. The remainder of this chapter further defines each of these four universal ways of knowing.

WO 98/49629 PCT/US98l08527 j. HO\1' TIIE U\11'ERSE'S MO~tE'11'S ARE CAUSED: PIIE\O~IE\OLOGIC:\L C:W
S:\~!'10\
As introduced above, phenomenological causation represents the embodiment of extant moments, or transformations of an enabled universe. For this reason it is considered the existential moment of the inertial reality of an enabled existence and serves as the extant moment of the enabled being's knowledge and perception. In order to characterize the embodiment of the extant instances of all knowledges and perceptions, as diverse as they are. the form of phenomenological causation is further defined as the embodiment of any of the infinitely many archetypical transformations of an enabled knowable and perceivable universe, beginning with the enabler's forms of language, or meanings of an existence.
Each example of these archetypical transformations represents the embodiment of a form's meaning in a representation of a plurality of epistemic instances referred to as a ccrrrsal elenac~nt. As shown in figure 155, a causal element represents a single class of embodied epistemic transformations. The purpose of a causal element is to represent epistemic 1 ~ instance. or the instance of meaning itself, as a bounded or unbounded aggregate of causations that are transformed in the same manner or by the same meaning or class of epistemic instance. A causation of the universe therefore arises in one of infinitely many instances of a causal element of the enabler's knowing. Each instance of the English verb to be, for example, is a member of the trajectory of the causal element of the universe's causations. The causal element defines an aggregate of potential extant moments or causations of the universe, each occurring as a solitary instance of the element. In mathematical knowledges, for example, the causal element embodies the many instances of a function (Cartesian). Each of infinitely many similar causations of the enabled universe in the meaning of a function is an instance of a causal element which. in the enabler's knowing and perceiving, can also abound to infinity. The enabled being's knowing and perceiving occurs only as the extant moment of causation, and the enabler knows of all such possible transformations of the universe in the instances of the causal element. All extant instances of linguistic forms, mathematical forms, and indeed arbitrary transformational forms of the enabled universe, are represented in the causal element in their capacities to transform objective forms.
The purpose of the causal element is to begin assembling epistemic instances in useful ways as embodied pluralities of the potential instances of the knowing and perceiving of enabled forms on Being, or existences. The causal element ties together similar transformations of universe that are defined in the enabler's knowing as the extant knowing or perceiving of the enabled being-in the case of phenomenological causations (connectedness is also defined by the form of the causal element). Regarding the English language, for example, when a causal element is declared by an enabler (as illustrated in chapter four), the enabled universe is said to transform by what is represented by a verb, a preposition, an article of punctuation, and so on, in the enabled being's knowing and perceiving. Later, we shall discuss how a causal element like to be, run, or onto embodies the linguistic transformation ordered by the respective grammatical transformational 1 ~ elements on the appropriate phenomenological nouns. Similarly, a causal element of a mathematical function,,f, embodies the potential extant transformations of (x,, y,); (x,, y,) .
. . (x", y"), wherein each instance of the function is a causation of the universe embodied in the enabIer's knowing or perceiving of the causal element. The contemplation of the function as a Cartesian product, as in y, =J~( x, ), is expressed as one instance (of perhaps infinitely many) of the function, or of the causal element. (The composition of a function, or an algebraic expression of epistemic instances defining, for example, a polynomial is taken up under phenomenological composition.) A causal element represents a reordering of the knowable forms of the enabler's universe on the basis of the enabler's phenomenological knowledge of a form who itself 2~ knows (the instance of the mathematical function, for example). The element simply embodies a plurality, or trajectory, of potential extant epistemic instances of any language or perception: the connectedness of that element's instances to those of other causal elements is implied in the definition of causation, From a phenomenological standpoint. a conventional natural language dictionary, for instance, would not be complete epistemologically, since it would characterize only a handful of transformations relative to the infinity of those employed in the scope of all knowledges. A universal clictionruy is thereby accommodated in the embodiment of the infinite forms of the causal elements of the unified theory. Any transformation of conventional order-linguistic.
mathematical, logical, physical, and so on-is characterized by the theory as one moment of a causal element embodying the extant knowing and perceiving of an enabled being. Each transformation of an enabled universe is represented likewise in any of an infinity of causal elements. which themselves can embody infinitely many transformations of an enabled universe, each instance of which is a moment of the enabled universe.
The form of a causal element allows us to view knowledge in terms of forms who know and perceive. By enabling epistemic instances in the pluralities of potential instances of the causal element, according to the meanings the enabler ascribes to their 1 ~ transformational embodiments, the quantum transformational basis of all of our knowledges is represented universally in the enabled being's own knowing and perceiving.
The unified theory thus becomes, at least with respect to causations of the universe, a calculus or~hoarght, perception, or vjexistence in accounting for every knowable and perceivable moment of an enabled being. Knowledge is thereby no longer unique to human existence. Any knowledge can be seen as a knowledge comprehended and reality perceived by an enabled being. In the unified theory, all knowledge is seen as the transformational form of an enabled existence and is represented extantly in the myriad embodiments of the causal element of causation.
One of the basic reasons for conceiving the phenomenon of causation to represent 2s the moments of an enabled being is derived from the practical consideration that our knowledge arises in the nature of the meaning of language, or existence. In our own observations, the quantum phenomenon of epistemic instance-Soul-leads us to t'? '~

investigate the causation of our universe. For this reason we ascribe to one use of the causal element the meaning of causation. Each instance of enabled knowing or perceiving is a causation of the enabled universe. The pronoun l, for example, if considered an objective form representing the terminal phenomenon of state of being, reflects the linguistic s representation of a causation of our enabled universe. or existence, and of the intrinsic form we know ourselves to be. Moreover, if instead of using the objective forms of state of being (defined earlier) as a moment of the causal element of causation, we were to use the English language constructions of an epistemic instance representing a linguistic state of being (to be), the intransitive transformation of the terminally objective form of I with the objective form of alive would result in the epistemic instance I am alive-which is embodied in the causal element as one of perhaps infinitely many instances of an enabled universe. Since the phenomenon of causation inherently carries with it the prepositioned and postpositioned instances associated with the occurrence of the element's extant instance, the enabler's connectedness and correspondence applied to the element would 1 ~ bring about the possibly infinitely many compositions of such elements in, for example, the enabled being's ordinary use of language.
This leads us to define the form of the causal element further with respect to its capacity to embody the basic epistemological forms of existence. As is evident when we define the notion of a phenomena of the enabler's existence, the determination of who or what is doing the knowing and perceiving in a causal element can be unclear at times, even phenomenologically. For example, the form I am olive is a linguistic representation of a condition of physical, mental or spiritual being. This state of corporal or spiritual being typically transforms with other epistemic instances in an existence, such as with I crm happy, and so on. In the representation of the causal element, the meanings of the objective 2~ forms of the extant instance can be seen as causations of each other.
Whereas in the proper form of phenomenological causation, the moment itself is what is caused, giving rise to the causation of the quantum moment of an enabled universe, the meaning of the a XJ

WO 98/49b29 PCT/US98/08527 transformation (e.g., the embodied verb) can be of a causative nature (as observed introspectively by the enabled being). This condition implies that the objective forms transformed by the element can be causes and effects of each other. For example, in the embodiment of 1 transforming with alive, it is neither I nor alive that causes a transformation like I am happy. Rather, it is the transformation itself (phenomenological correspondence) that causes other transformations. The linguistic representation jumps ' quantumly from one instance to another but does not explicitly represent any causality in the meaning embodied in the element (to the enabled being). The connectedness imposed by the enabler {and, as we shall set later on, the enabled being's faculties of mind) i0 prescribes the next causation. In the linguistic representation I hit myself, however, the meaning of the verb hit requires that I cause something in myself. Thus, the meaning of a causation is embodied in an enabled causation of the universe.
This condition can also be seen in our knowledge of mathematical forms. In the algebraic expression A + B = C, two objects or objective forms, A and B, transform through 1 ~ the algebraic operation of addition and the equals sign to yield the objective form C. This representation is consistent with the generalized form of epistemic instance because two opposites in transformation, A and B, transform into a third, C, just as an instance of non-being transforms with Being in the introspectively observed state of being.
State of being, however. terminates the mind's thinking and epistemic instance allows it to proceed. The 20 opposing views of intrinsic and extrinsic form are thus intertwined in the form of epistemic instance. When epistemic instance is viewed extrinsically, as in the algebraic example, the objective forms of A and B transform into C, but one would not recognize this transformation intrinsically. The equivalent of this expression in natural language would be I am alive, therefore C, which is more than an intrinsically meaningful statement-i.e., more than an epistemic moment, from the intrinsic perspective of the enabled being. In the mathematical expression A + B = C', we define a knowledge of the universe extrinsically, or in terms of the general form of epistemic instance-our 1 ~f ~

observation of the world within and around us. In the natural language expression I am ClIIVC', we ourselves, intrinsically, are embodied in the statement. What we intrinsically know and perceive in a world around us is represented by A+B or I alsl alive.
What we know of a world around us, however, is represented by A +B = C or I am alive, therefore C, expressing the continuity of the universe through connectedness. The epistemological nature of all form-epistemic instance-is described in the fundamental observation of the creation of the universe, that in the nature of the universe's form, both its intrinsic and extrinsic qualities come together. We know introspectively, for example, that I am alive is a meaningful expression. We also know that A + B = C or that I crm alive continues to another moment of the universe (therefore, C). Our knowing that these two intrinsic and extrinsic forms of the universe coexist in each other is a phenomenological knowledge of the moments of the creation of the universe. In us, or in the causations of the universe, these two forms-the intrinsic and extrinsic natures of the universe-are merged. This fact obviously affects the definition of the causal element, since the element represents how the 1 ~ enabler and the enabled are related.
Because the causations of the universe can be construed from the two perspectives of intrinsic and extrinsic forms, the unified theory develops two suitable representations of the causal element to reflect an emphasis on either viewpoint. When we represent the enabler's knowing of form extrinsically ( A + B = C ), the form of the causal element is referred to as an existential or extrinsic causal element, as shown in figure 156. The existential form of the causal element represents explicitly the continuity of the quantum universe from the enabler's perspective. In the existential form of the causal element, the quantum moment ( A + B ) explicitly connects to the next quantum moment (C ) in observation of the extrinsic form of the universe. When only the extant instance of the element is considered (e.g., in A + 13 or I crln alive), the causal element is referred to as a literal, extant or il~trin.sic causal element, also shown in figure 1~6. In either case. the continuity of the universe on its causations is preserved, since the transformations of the WO 98t49b29 PCT/US98/08527 universe are the same in either case, viewed from different perspectives.
The causal element of causation (and connectedness) is therefore defined in two alternative configurations, one to represent that, in the example, A and B
transform, as in I
am alive, and the other to represent that A and B (or any other objective compositions in transformation) transform into C (which itself is an objectification of the transformation of compositions), thereby allowing for the distinction between the intrinsic and extrinsic form of the same enabled universe. One transformation indicates connectedness indirectly and the other explicitly represents, from the enabler's standpoint, a complete existential transformation. Linguistically, it can be seen that such statements as I am alive, Pete i.s alive, and It is alive pertain to the transformation of intrinsic forms, and the triplet of form I am alive, therefore C, explicitly representing the next quantum moment, pertains to the extrinsic observation of epistemic instance in the world view of the enabler.
As previously mentioned, however, these are merely different perspectives-intrinsic or extrinsic-of the same epistemic instance. The causation of the universe is represented in either way to the 1 ~ enabler in the two alternative forms of the causal element.
6. HOW TILE UN!~'ERSE'S M011lE\1'S ARE COMNECTED:
PIIENO~IE\OLOGIC:~L CO\\EC'~EDNESS
The causal element, and its intrinsic or extrinsic perspectives can also be applied to the next of the four C's of phenomenological form-connectedness. While the causal element . embodies the extant knowing or perceiving of the enabled being, connectedness, an existentially backward causal element of the enabler's knowing, occurs metaphysically 2~ beyond the extant moments of the enabled being; it is the quantum connection between the enabled being's extant instances of knowing or perceiving, the mirror image of causation in the enablement of the universe. Connectedness, by way of analogy to the forms of ~~y conventional knowledges, could be, in the enabling medium of light, that which connects two or more objects of a classical order-electrons or differential elements.
In the physics of light, for example, the form of connectedness requires the constancy of the speed of light, as discussed earlier. In linguistics, connectedness is as simple as an insight expressed by the exclamation Aha! and as compositionally complex as the sentence This theory hcrs merit. Ther-efvre, we should use it (e.g., one must know the theory in order to make such an assertion).
Connectedness is not known or perceived by the enabled being. It existentially provides for the quantum continuity of the transformations of the universe. It is what connects two differential elements of the calculus in a contemplation of the infinite.
Connectedness, which is existentially beyond the knowing or perceiving of an enabled being's extant moments, quantumly connects the extant instances of the universe, applying knowably only to the enabler's knowledge. In order to know the form of connectedness-the quantum transformations among enabled extant moments of the 1 s universe-one must enable that universe. Since we do not enable our own ultimately real universe, we cannot know the connectedness of our universe, making it impossible to know how our own thoughts or perceptions are connected. We can, however, know how another's thoughts or quantum moments are connected if we enable them. By introspective observation, connectedness can be seen as the contemplative effort in the connections among thoughts, those connections that are unobserved when we perceive our own physical reality.
In our experience of the world around us, an arrow shot through the air is observed as a trajectory motion, or as quantum transformations of the perceptions of space, time, mass, and so on. We do not perceive the connectedness of one quantum transformation to 2~ another. This observation is proved in the quantum nature of matter explained in contemporary physics, in topology, and in the calculus of the infinitesimal, among other analytical theories. We know or perceive the quantum order of an arrow shot through the WO 98/49b29 PCT/US98/08527 air as infinitely many quantum moments, or epistemic instances, but do not know or perceive their connectednesses, since to know their connectednesses would preclude their very instances as distinct quantum moments of the universe, and would disable our verv existence. We represent this inability to define how an object gets from point A to point B
implicitly in the conventional knowledges of calculus, topology, and so on, wherein, regardless of how many quantum instances of the universe are pondered, the form of the ' universe, discontinuous at each quantum moment, or differential of it, results in the common expression of a limit, a topological or metric space, or other expressions similar to them, which are themselves expressions of the embodiment of all such quantum moments in a single one. To know the connectedness of the quantum moments of one's (analytical) universe, one would have to know how one infinitesimal difference becomes another-not how infinitely many of them accumulate to a limit of a function, but how one connects or transforms to another (e.g., what occurs in between two moments of an arrow being shot through the air). When we contemplate this. we naturally return to the fact that 1 ~ one infinitesimal element adds to another in the notion of a space or distance, which brings us back to epistemic instance-what underlies all transformations of the universe, including simple arithmetics, the quantum connections among which one cannot know (in one's own universe).
Phenomenological connectedness is found in all of our intrinsic expressions of ?0 knowledge as what we do not know about them, and in all our extrinsic expressions as what we do know about enabled universes that the members of the enabled universes do not. Phenomenological connectedness is what we think we ane, cognitively, when we observe our own creation of any expression in any language. We do not view ourselves, fundamentally, as being the expression of the knowledge; rather, we associate ourselves ?~ with what creates the expression. In the use of language, phenomenological connectedness is the first of the four C's, existing beyond our knowing, that provides for who and what we think we are beyond the extant moments or causations of the universe, or beyond the ~~5 literal forms of the language that we create. Phenomenological connectedness is the first of many forms of the unified theory that, in conventional knowledges, we attempt to describe with theories of finite automations, such as generative or transformational grammars of linguistics, artificial intelligence of the computational art and Turing machines of our historical views on mechanical thinking. Since we do not address in our conventions the eternal nature of a being, however, the semantic origin of language is not discoverable from these views.
Phenomenological connectedness is applied, for example, in the enabler's simple connection of a resistor and a capacitor in electronics theory, wherein two causal elements.
or trajectories of instances of the enabled universe are connected (ported or coupled in systems theory) to each other in the coupling medium. The characteristic losses in the medium or conduit, are, relative to the extant instances of the resistor and capacitor, negligible because the enabler makes it this way. In the ultimate reality of the universe, the losses are not even negligible because what one component transmits is equivalent to what I ~ the other component receives in most configurations. What makes the two equivalent is itself a transformation of the enabler's knowing or perceiving in the embodied form of phenomenological connectedness. To see the ultimate reality of what lies beyond the extant I110n1ei1tS Ol the machinery, one need only consider the new universe that arises when the losses are not negligible. Phenomenological connectedness affords this coupling by the enabler; otherwise there would be no quantum order imposed on the moments of the elements in transformation.
In the case of the medium of light, it is postulated that the visual senses are enabled in the wave forms of the wave equation. In such a case, one visual object (a teapot) is bound in transformation with another (the table upon which the teapot sits) by the coupling of the ?> wave forms (packets, etc.), thereby giving rise to the forms of perceivable objects. Hence the moments are connected. The same theory applies to the enabled forms of sound.
mechanical vibrations, and countless other extant transformational forms of our knowin~~

WO 98/49629 PC'T/US98/08527 and perceiving of the world around us. The connectedness between two or more instances enabled in those media, however, even though we postulate what they are, is beyond the knowing and perceiving of the instances of the enabled forms, or is not knowable or perceivable to us regarding our own existence. The enabled interactions of small particles, ~ the coupling of electrical elements, and even the hypothetical quantum connectedness of one's own thoughts and experiences are brought together under phenomenological connectedness (the universal way of knowing), and all are made possible by these instances that are beyond the enabled being's knowing or perceiving of the extant moments. or causations of the universe. Each extant moment of the enabled universe-the Cartesian pairing of point objects in an instance of a function describing, perhaps, the embodiment of a resistor or capacitor, the coupling of electromagnetic waves or the existence of wave shapes themselves and the extant transformations of natural language in ordinary discourse, to cite a handful-are moments of a being coupled by the enabler through phenomenological connectedness.
1 ~ Connectedness is a phenomenological form that addresses the quantum moments of the connections between the enabled universe's extant moments, or causal elements of causations. Itself a causal element, though not of causation, phenomenological connectedness can be viewed as a backrt.~crrd causal element because, even though, on the one hand, the nature of the causal element of connectedness provides for the forward, causative embodiment of whatever the enabler will know concerning the enabled moments of connectedness, on the other hand, it is backward epistemologically with respect to the moments of the enabled form's causal elements of causation. In the enabler's comprehension, it provides for the randomness of androidal cognition, and in the android's comprehension, it provides for the meaningful construction of language with respect to its 2~ existence or perception. When the focus of the enabler's effort is on the representation of the enabled being's ability to know objects in transformation intrinsically in a stream of consciousness (A+B or I am nline), then the intrinsic causal element is applied in the ~X7 enabler's expression of that knowing, as shown in figure 157. The quantum connectedness in such a case would be represented in the skewed arrow of the causal element of causation, and would be left open indefinitely or until the enabler expresses the causal element of connectedness coupling the causation to one or more other causations, as shown. In the alternative extrinsic form of a causal element, the quantum coupling of connectedness is explicitly designed into the representation of the element of causation. Since these representations are versions of the same form-epistemic instance-either one represents what the other one does, though in different ways in the enabler's view. In either case the form of the causal element is transformed through the phenomenology of connectedness, though existentially in a different metaphysical universe-that of the enabler's knowing and perceiving.
It is important to recognize that the extant instance of a causal element of causation is existentially transformed with that of others through connectedness. In the intrinsic embodiment of the causal element of causation, causes and effects may be transformed in the instances of the element similar to the ways in which inputs and outputs of systems theory are coupled between set theoretic systems. Among many other disparities that can be pointed out between systems theory and the unified theory, however, it should be appreciated that even though an output of system A of systems theory may couple causally to a corresponding input of system B, wherein the output of system A is equivalent to the ?0 input of system B (e.g., communications theory or system couplings), the unified theory requires the explicit representation of connectedness, defined within the four C's of phenomenological form. The coupling of systems defined in systems theory implies that the moments are connected in the one definition of the set theoretic coupling of output to input (e.g., mappings of Cartesian ports and communications system couplings) and thus does not recognize that the moments of causation are coupled, not the objective forms of the causations, in the ultimate reality of the universe. The graphical representations of systems theory can however be used as a shorthand notation for the unified theory's 1 ~s~' WO 98/49bZ9 PCT/US98/085Z7 connectedness of causal elements of causation. Because phenomenological connectedness operates on the quantum moment of causation, though, it is better recognized that the_ ne.m causation coupled to an extant one by connectedness is one whose leading object or input happens to be caused by the trailing object or output of the extant causation.
in conventional systems theory. This use of phenomenological connectedness .
simply demonstrates a quantumly logical progression of causations connected to each other based on the objective forms of epistemic instance being defined as causes and effects. While this representation is helpful in the design of conventional machinery, the objective forms of the extant moments coupled by phenomenological connectedness do not at all have to be causes and effects. wherein effects are transformed to causes in connectedness. The embodied instances A=B and C'=D (with and representing the connectedness) are equivalent epistemologically to A=B therefore B=C (therefore represents the connectedness), wherein B would be conveyed with negligible losses to the next causal element in conventional systems theory. In the expressions A = B and C = D, the l s connectedness would require a communications system in conventional systems theory since B and C are not equivalent. Since the unified theory addresses the moments of causation in the phenomenology of connectedness, what the objective forms (inputs and outputs) represent is irrelevant to the coupling (e.g., the meanings of the objective forms arise in the causations of the universe and not in the connectednesses of the causations).
?0 In any case, the intrinsic and extrinsic representations of the causal element in causations or connectednesses of the enabled universe are different means of expressing the transformations of objective forms in relation to each other by phenomenological connectedness. Since each of the intrinsic and extrinsic representations of the causal element in causation and connectedness accomplish the same thing, namely the quantum ?> transformations of epistemic instances of enabled form, one should not become preoccupied with their distinctions, for their uses become evident only in the practice of constructing androids, which will begin to unfold in the ensuing chapters. For now, it is ~~~i important to recognize that causal elements of causation are employed in the embodiment of extant knowing or perceiving, and that connectedness, also represented by a causal element. though a backward one, quantumly couples the causations of the enabled universe in the enabler's knowing and perceiving to provide the moments of an enabled universe as, for example, streams of consciousness or a continuum of perceivable (physical) reality. It is equally important to recognize that a knowledge of epistemic instance provides for both of these representations, and by knowing epistemic instance, these forms of the causal element in causations and connectednesses of the universe are simply symbolic methods of accounting for epistemic instance itself as the enabled moment of a being in the creation of enabled universes.
~. HO«' -1'tIE U\11'ERSE'S MOJiEV'TS ARE COMPOSED: PHEVO~IEVOt.OGiC:~L
CooPOSITtov The third of the four C's of phenomenological form--composition-is what is used to impose an order on the plural forms of causation and connectedness, and therefore to impose an order on the plurality of the enabled universe, in a single instance of the enabler's knowing. The phenomenological form of composition is an aggregate overlay onto the form of the causal element itself. In a review of the two previous phenomenological forms, it can be seen that the causal element of causation transforms objective forms in extant instances of knowing or perceiving, and that of connectedness quantumly couples the extant instances or causations of the enabled universe.
It can be observed, then, that an aggregate order is already imposed on these forms that enables them to be considered single instances of the transformations of the universe's objective form.
Consequently, even though we have defined the previous universal forms apart from compositions of them, the phenomenological form of composition has been at work to give i~U

WO 98/49b29 PCT/US98/08527 us single instances of causal elements. From the standpoint of the phenomenological form of composition, a single instance of a causal element may just as easily be infinitely many such instances, since it is an aggregate order (of linguistic or mathematical definition) that determines either case. Phenomenological composition thus addresses the composition of the enabled moments of universes, or their plurality.
In the form of phenomenological composition, a causal element can be construed as the embodiment of a bounded or unbounded plurality of causal elements of causation themselves and of their connectednesses. In such a case, instead of considering single trajectories of instances of objective forms in transformation (causal elements), many causal elements can be defined as transforming in compositions of causal elements. Since we have already defined eonnectedness as what couples distinct instances of causal elements of causation, composition enables pluralities of both causations and connectednesses in the enablement of the universe's plurality. The phenomenological form of composition is used to represent to the enabler the heterogeneous nature of the universe 1 ~ in the homogeneous occurrence of the single quantum moment of it. A
composition of phenomenological order is what allows for the many instances of a being (or universe) to occur simultaneously. It allows for mind and body and for every thought of mind and every perception of body to transform quantumly as the creator enables the being's moments.
Though the enablement of the world around us is taken up primarily in the last chapter of ?0 the book when we begin constructing the basic forms of androids, the phenomenological composition of the world around us, or the universe, is what we do not know and cannot fathom, except spiritually, and is what we attempt to define in an objective determination of the universe-its extant moments and connectednesses thereof in a composition of linguistic, mathematical or other representation. (Since the ultimate reality of the universe 2~ is not objective, however, the search for the lost medallion proceeds indefinitely in composition.) The (physical) composition of the universe is also a phenomenological form to which androidal perception is tied in order that the android's cognitive capacities ~~ v transform language meaningfully in the context of the world around us, or human existence.
In the ordinary use of language, epistemic instances (instances of causal elements of causation) occur successively but exclusively as instances of the cognition of an enabled being; one instance is quantumly connected to another consecutively beyond the. being's extant knowing as a stream of consciousness. We may then ask, what of all the other androids, or even human beings, who are thinking and perceiving as well? Since the ultimate reality of the universe occurs in quantum moments, with each quantum moment perhaps reflecting an awareness of infinitely many such quantum moments, and since it is a knowledge and perception of reality that we create as enablers, any quantum moment of the enabled universe must have the capacity to realize infinitely many quantum moments.
Each of these quantum moments can occur in a continuum of connectednesses with others, thereby resulting in a composition of the universe. In our use of language as already-enabled beings, we do not typically appreciate the vastness or heterogeneity of an I S ultimately real universe, only its homogeneity. As enablers of form, however, we must consider the enablement of a being's reality, which quantumly transforms in the same ultimately real universe, though in a different inertial universe, as that of the enabler or other androids. For instance, an expression of natural language could be constructed as follows: I um going to the store. A variation on this expression could be I, l, 1, I . . . I;
crm, G!)1, am, am . . . am; going, going, going . . . going; to, to, to, to .
. . to; the, the, the, the . . . the; store, store, store, store . . . store. In such a case, a plurality of I '.s transforms under a plurality of um 's with a plurality of going 's, and so on. This illustrates the parallelism that is possible in an enabled universe and in phenomenological composition. Phenomenological composition places a knowable order on the 2~ transformations of pluralities of epistemic forms as they occur in enabled universes. It defines and places into knowable bounds the meaningful transformations that occur in the composed moments of enabled beings.
1~2 In the case of a single causal element, apart from the fact that the transformation of the universe is occurring via the meaning of the transformational element, in the enabler's and the enabled existence, a certain narmben of transformations are occurring in the element-specifically one transformation per instance of the causal element. It cannot be denied, moreover, that whether one knows the theory of relativity, a complex.
political stratagem, or any other form of knowledge, one knows this form under aggregate constraint. Une instance represented by I transforms with vne theory of relativity, one political stratagem, and so on, in the moments of a being. However, it is possible for an arbitrary number of resistors to transform with a similar number of capacitors (or atoms, I 0 machine elements, and so on, with moments of their kind) in a single quantum moment of the enabler's existence, and for an arbitrary number of androidal beings, each embodying infinities of compositional transformations, to transform similarly. This is accomplished through the phenomenological form of composition.
The form of composition determines the meaning of an aggregate order on the 15 enabled universe. In our classical view of the world it is what gives rise to quantum transformations of the aggregates of mathematics and even space, time, and matter. In the abstract, it is what gives rise to the notion of a recreation and composition of reality. It is what determines the plurality of something. The form of composition determines, in the opinion of the enabler, the construction of the moments of an enabled universe in general.
20 Since a single causal element embodies a bounded or unbounded number of transformations which occur as single moments of the universe, a causal element, as defined earlier, is a composition of one trajectory of moments. When any one of the possible instances of an element is quantumly connected to another, however, the scope of the enabled universe is broadened to encompass two such elements and a third, 2~ connectedness. The expanded causal element that contains these forms to indefinitely large pluralities of the universe is referred to as a phenomenological composition.
The aggregate order placed on the composition of epistemic form (an epistemic 1'.3 instance) enables us to represent simultaneously the parallelism and the continuity of the enabled universe, as shown in figure 158. A simple axiomatic set of mathematics-the one instance of which is an epistemic instance-applied to compositions of causal elements, accomplishes a conventional means of knowing a composition. Since one may comprehend aggregate forms in infinite ways, composition may be known in any mathematical or linguistic order, for it is the instance of phenomenological form that underlies the knowing of the orders that is ultimately real. For example, since epistemic instance underlies the axioms of set theory by determining the existential causations of the universe in the forms of logic, in the observer or mathematician, it would be incorrect to claim that the plurality or aggregate order of the universe is defined by mathematics. The observer of the knowledge comes before the knowledge. In other words, the furthest reaches of conventional analysis fall short of what semantic meaning is embodied in the word grand, a word which describes an aggregate order or plurality of the universe. Even the descriptive phrase ten round point elements of a set exceeds mathematical definition by the 1 ~ presence of the adjective round. Moreover, in chapter four it is shown that precisely because epistemic instance underlies all knowledges and languages, what we think is mathematical or guantitative, as opposed to lingzristic or gzralitative, is really just a distinction like that between the meanings of the words high and low, soft and hard, nrrrnher and type, or any other conventional opposites; one is not more meaningful to an existence than the other but for the experience of the observer. The aggregate orders of a !ot and ten thozr.sand are each epistemologically mathematical, except that a lot, in contrast with our conventional beliefs, is more precise epistemologically, or exact relative to the existence of the knower, since ten thousand may or may not be a lot. It is important to recognize that, however defined, an aggregate order determines a phenomenological composition, since it places knowable bounds on the plurality of the universe.
However aggregates are known, even if superseded by a verb tense of natural language, as in The mcrthemuticul set was comprised of the .following elements, phenomenological composition is determined by the knowable order placed on it in the use of epistemic instances (in compositions themselves). Axiomatic sets, group theoretic algebras, topologies, differential equations, the whole of mathematical order, and any natural language expression of any origin whose meaning embodies that of aggregate orders or the plurality of the universe, serves as an order of phenomenological composition.
These definitions of phenomenological composition become important later in the construction of androids, when, for example, the forms of physical atoms, which are known in their topological, group theoretic, analytical, and general mathematical constructions, are said to embody and are made to correspond to the forms of natural language. In that case, the atoms or the objective forms of transformation of a physical universe (which do not exist in ultimate reality) become the objective forms of linguistic, conventionally cognitive transformation, thereby embodying thought in the enabler's physical reality as that of the enabled being. Since it is in the consciousness of the enabler that these forms exist, wherein the consciousness is verified in the perception of physical reality in the 1 ~ mind-body dualism theory of existence, the aggregate formulations (compositions) of one order, such as mathematics, are made to correspond to the aggregate order of linguistic formulations in the enabler's knowledge. Because of the universality of epistemic instance, thoughts are enabled (by the enabler's knowing and perceiving) in atoms as the corporal form of the enabled being; natural, language and atomic structure are superimposed onto each other in the methods of the four universal ways of knowing. Since phenomenological composition is defined as any aggregate order, any knowable form of aggregates places bounds on the occurrence of the enabled universe. Wherein mathematical forms are the _ objects of transformation of androidal consciousness, there is a one-to-one corollary to whatever type of mathematics does the enabling (if the enabling medium is defined - 2~ mathematically and the android thinks those transformations). Since aggregates are known in muse than mathematical orders, as in the statement ten round point objects, it is not only mathematics that defines what is real and realizable scientifically. The past tense of a 15~

verb. for example, describes reality just as scientifically as a present tense verb, except that the reality of the whole being is accounted for in a more enabling way linguistically. Ten old atoms or ten new atoms, moreover, are more specific, and hence more enabling, than ten atoms. In general, any aggregate order defined in any form of language is a valid one for phenomenological composition and places a knowable boundary on the quantum order of the plurality of the enabled universe.
Since the forms of the enabled universe are derived from the enabler's knowing under the aggregate order of composition, the occurrence of enabled universes is sometimes referred to as a modal composition of phenomenological form, with each such mode defining a moment of objective composition, which, inherently, is in transformation with another under still another composition defining another mode. Since objective form does not occur in the ultimately real universe unless it is enabled, a phenomenological composition does not occur alone in ultimate reality and must occur in an epistemic moment. Associated with any composition, or object of the universe, is one other with which it transforms in the epistemic moment. The unified theory therefore refers to all compositions as modal compositions because of their recursive nature in the modes of the enabled universe. Each composition of form, or mode, can then be a causal element of another composition. Compositions can thereby occur as phenomenologies of representationally stationary connectednesses constraining causal elements in successive moments of a continuum, or in recursions with other compositions. Ideas upon ideas, recursively composed under modal compositions of theoretically infinite objective compositions of form, for example, transform as the cognitive effort of the android, and can be embodied, recursively, in the modes of a single causal element. For every composition of the enabler's knowing of an enabled universe there exists a composition of ''s modes of enabled compositional form. There are theoretically infinitely many such modes of the enabler's knowing. Once a boundary is placed on the extent of an enabled form, or an aggregate order is placed on the composition of quantum moments of causation and WO 98/49629 PCf/US98/08527 connectedness in the creation of enabled reality, the order of the universe occurs in that - composition via the embodied transformations of the elements. The enabler's practice of enabling the forms of the universe repeats itself, in infinite variation and in accordance with the creative talents of the enabler.. In subsequent chapters of the book, we address the S forms of androidal faculties of mind, modes of existence, and moments of non-real and real form, wherein whole compositions of enabled form transform as modal compositions of the plurality of the enabled universe. The determination of a composition is arbitrary on the part of the enabler and is what constitutes the enablement of the android's composing of form itself-the use of language and the perceptive experience of reality on the part of the enabled being. The reason why, in a particular mode of thinking, one may express a single word, and in another, a lengthy sentence or a whole composition of literary style, is decided by the modal forms of composition in relation to each other in the enablement of the faculties of mind and other modal forms of synthetic existence.
Using these three universal ways of knowing, all of our knowledges can be 1 ~ comprehended in the knowing or perceiving of their enabled inertial forms and can be detached from the enabler. The causal elements of causation are the embodiments of extant instances of knowing or perceiving, infinitely varied in their archetypical embodiments of ways of knowing or perceiving on the part of the enabled being, arrived at through the composition of the universe's plurality in connecting the enabled moments.
2U Connectedness, also a product of composition and itself a backward causal element, serves to connect quantumly, in the enabler's knowing, causal elements configured under a composition of enabled form. The elements of connectedness couple with corresponding - moments of the causal elements of causation, in the alternative configurations of intrinsic and extrinsic representations of epistemic instance. Those compositions of enabled form known and perceived by the enabler are as arbitrary as the universe is infinitely varied. This condition permits the formulation of any possible combinations of meaningful instances of the enabled universe, from a single instance of I am alive to the ongoing compositions in V?

which we engage as a consequence of our own experiences, reflected in the use of all languages.
Together, the three phenomenological forms addressed thus far are the enabler's universal ways of knowing the creation of the enabled moments of the universe as modal compositions of it. The enabler therefore comprehends knowledge and perceives the world around us, universally, in variations on the solitary form of epistemic instance, as enabled instances of Soul, or the knowing and perceiving of androidal beings. They are three kinds of universal meanings imposed on epistemic instance comprising a thesaurus of all other meanings. The causal element of causation is a type of epistemic instance that addresses the nature of the embodiment of extant transformation, or meaning, in that the class of element embodies the extant transformational meaning of the element's objective forms in transformation. Connectedness is a type of epistemic instance, in that it embodies exactly those qualities of the causal element of causation, but its purpose is to connect metaphysically the instances of causation, beyond the enabled being's extant knowing.
Composition also is a type of epistemic instance, since before any enabled form is possible, its aggregate order-the composition of the enabled universe-must be defined, even if such an aggregate order is infinite and determined by great compositions of form. In the use of these three archetypes of epistemic instance, in coordination with each other and within the enabler's knowing and perceiving, an order is imposed on the plurality of the enabler's own universe, and on the intrinsic nature of the quantum order of an enabled being, or android.
S. HOw THE U\1~'ERSE'S M0111EVTS ARE CREATED:
2S PHEN011E\OLOCICAL CORRESPO\DEVCE
Phenomenological correspondence, the last and most important of the four universal ways of knowing. addresses the embodiment of what enables epistemic instance to transform, or enables the occurrence of the objective forms of the universe. It iS the embodiment of the enabler's knowledge of the transformation of epistemic instance in terms of the analytical capacity to know how the instance transforms the objects of an enabled universe. A
~ phenomenology of form that represents how and why objective forms transform in epistemic instance, phenomenological correspondence is the most enabling of the four C's of phenomenological form and is what yields, in the creator's knowing, the forms of a synthetic being, apart from the ultimately real-moments of the enabler"s existence.
We can introduce the form of phenomenological correspondence-a special phenomenological composition of the enabler's knowing-by considering the nature of correspondences in general in our conventional knowledges. Concerning our present knowledges, we observe that what makes a metaphor, irony, analogy, simile, morphism, homomorphism, and any other correspondence of our classical knowledges, different from an ordinary use of a verb, function and epistemic transformation in general, is that a verb 1 ~ is intended to classify an instance of transformation as the meaning of an embodied transformation, while a metaphor, simile, morphism, and so on. is intended to classify the way in which o~e arrive at the meaning of an embodied transformation, such as in the metaphoric use of the verb to be in The world is your oyster'. The form of phenomenological correspondence helps us to understand not what we think or perceive extantly, as is the case with verbs proper, but how and why we think the way we do in the nature of a verb, or moment of the universe. A metaphor, a simile, a morphism, and in general a phenomenological correspondence describe how a transformation of objective ., form is accomplished in our own knowing of it. Whereas a verb simply represents the transformation, a phenomenological correspondence defines how the verb or ' 2> transformation can come to exist in our own knowing or perceiving, and therefore in the cognition of synthetic beings. Phenomenological correspondence uses the other three C"s to define epistemic instance as a phenomenological knowledge, and thus to enable it.
S '~~

Phenomenological correspondence is the epistemological basis, in the form of a modal composition of epistemic form, for mathematical analysis, the reasoning of logic, the algorithm of a computer program, and the essence of our literature, determined as an enabled form on Being. It is what enables all knowledge and perception, in the view of the enabler, and provides for the enabler's analytical knowing of epistemic instance. This fourth C of phenomenological form is the embodiment of how the enabler understands the enabled universe to transform. It is a composition of form in the enabler's comprehension that affords the objective knowing of thoughts or perceptions in transformation, or the quantum transformations of the moments of consciousness (or perception) of enabled I O beings. Since a being's ultimate reality-the soul-is what is ultimately real of the being, as we have established in earlier discussions of the unified theory, phenomenological correspondence is premised on the non-existence of objects in the ultimate reality of the universe. Phenomenological correspondence facilitates, in the enabler's comprehension, the androidal forms of knowing and perceiving, in the transformation of objects as I ~ transformations themselves. It is a composition of phenomenological form that enables the enabler to understand, in the universal ways discussed thus far, how the enabled being knows the meanings of language forms and perceives the world around us. It is a composition of form that explains the nature of the universe, as discussed in chapter one, in the enabler's analytical knowing; it enables the correspondence of objective form.
20 The form of phenomenological correspondence can be demonstrated easily using our conventional knowledges of the aggregates of mathematics, and in particular the algebraic structure of a homomorphism, the analytical expression of how and why algebraic structures correspond, when they do. A homomorphism, or more generally a mathematical morphism, determines how structures of the mathematical aggregates, such 2~ as the arithmetics, transform with or correspond to each other. Since the unified theory (along with other knowledges, particularly the world's religions) claims that the objects around us do not exist in ultimate reality, one by-product of the following example of 2cx~

homomorphism is a mathematical proof that objects, the basic,forms of the sciences, do not even exist scientifically in our traditional knowledges.
Though any number of . examples could be chosen to demonstrate phenomenological correspondence, even from other branches of mathematics-not to S mention linguistics-we employ here the forms of algebra because they have had a history of representing form universally, as is evidenced in the simple notion of a variable.
- Moreover, even though the analytical form of homomorphism defined in algebra becomes very precise in its set and group theoretic definitions, we recognize here simply that such definitions are in place, thereby giving meaning to the structure of homomorphism while also limiting its use as a phenomenological correspondence, but recognize that it is indeed an example of phenomenological correspondence. We can then concentrate on the broader epistemological significance of the structure with respect to the forms of the unified theory.
Using this mathematical premise as an illustration, we shall expand the definition of phenomenological correspondence later to include all forms of natural language. We use 1 ~ the forms of mathematics here, of course, because they are much simpler interpretations of the universe. As demonstrated earlier, ten old atoms, while they are more specifically defined with the adjective, are more difficult to comprehend analytically than simply ten atoms. Moreover, illustrating phenomenological correspondence first in mathematics allows the mind to focus on points, literally-points that will be demonstrated not to exist in ultimate reality, along with all other objective forms represented by language.
Referring to figure 159, a set of mathematical points is employed in the epistemological premise of the illustration and the axiomatic definitions of set theory, the objects of which, or points, the mind comprehends as perceived things. Before proceeding to define the example, we make the general observation that the objective basis-the point elements-of a mathematical homomorphism is undefined analytically and founded only on the perception of objects. This objective basis of mathematical theory-the point-which by definition can represent any object of physical perception, as long as the z~ , object is undefined structurally, is the epistemological premise of the exercise and the axiomatic foundation of mathematical homomorphism. (Once a mathematical point is defined, it becomes a mathematical structure, which is the purpose of defining the point as a point. with no objective definition-in order that it can then be defined by a structure.}
We begin the illustration of homomorphism, then, by acknowledging . that its epistemological premise-the point of set theory-is undefined and cannot be said to exist in reality in any knowable way except that the point represents an object of our perception that is unknown but perceived. (It also should be recognized that even in the contemplation of mathematical aggregates as sets, or pluralities of set theory, a mathematical structure or transformation of the universe-the set-and not an object is conceived.
Mathematical points therefore define objects that can be perceived only and not known analytically;
otherwise they are structures. This observation will become important later on when we determine what is real in the nature of the universe.) In demonstrating the form of a homomorphism, the conventional mathematical 1 s definition imposes a structure on each of the sets of elements (already structures) as shown. The structures represent operations on the point elements or objects of the sets. As operations, they can be characterized as causal elements of phenomenological definition.
On the set of elements referred to as A, composed of the elements a, b, c . .
., there is a structure imposed, called X, which represents the operations of the structure, or the ?0 transformations of the causal element on the objective forms or points of the set in accordance with the way of knowing expressed by X. Likewise, there is imposed on the set of elements B, which is composed of the elements aø, b~, cc . . ., another such structure, different from that imposed on A (or different from X ) called .~. The requirement that X be different from S is not necessary but is imposed here for purposes of clarity, since we are 2~ defining the forms of sameness and difference (or any knowable relation) in the broader context of phenomenological correspondence in the first place (e.g., the words same and different are themselves phenomenological correspondences). The embodiments of the ~z structures X and S in the causal elements are the- instances of knowing the respective objective forms (point elements a, b, c . . . and a~, b~, cc~ . . .) in the transformational manners of .Y and S. Phenomenologically, each of the structures X and S could be an arithmetic, a geometry, a topology, or as we will see later on, any transformational form of a natural language, since each is an embodiment of its knower's transformations. In conventional mathematical representation, each transformation of the causal elements is expressed as a X b = c under the structure X and ac $ bC~ = cC under S, respectively, and is an instance of knowing in those manners. These are extrinsic forms of epistemic instance though they need not be. (e.g., The expressions a X b and a~ $ b~, the transformations, could be taken as compositional objects in transformation with c and cc, respectively, in an intrinsic representation of form.) A third structure, different from those of X and S, is developed in the conventions of a homomorphism such that, in mathematical parlance, the original structures of X and S
are preserved in the presence of the third structure. Referred to as a homomorphism or a 1 ~ homomorphic structure, H, this third structure allows for the mathematician's knowing of transformation itself. It is where epistemic instance (transformation) is broken open in our knowing, and where what we know is not that forms transform in some manner (X
and S) but haw they do-i.e., how they correspond. A homomorphism is the mathematical version of a metaphor, simile. irony, or some other knowable linguistic order imposed on the use of a verb or transformation. While the structure of a homomorphism transforms the original point elements or objective forms of each of the sets A and B, wholly apart from the structures of X and S, it is in the nature of its capacity to embody intrinsically a knowledge of the transformations of the structures ,Y and S that it begins to qualify as a phenomenological correspondence. The binding relations of the structure of ?> homomorphism are expressed in the figure in the common algebraic representation H(a)$H(b)=H(aXb).
What arises through homomorphism is the notion of the transformation of objective 2~3 form itself, in the enabler's knowing, and not directly the literal definition of objects in transformation. Whereas the forms of other conventional transformations of mathematical definition, such as sets, operations, relations, and so on. transform only the classically objective forms (e.g., point elements of sets, or phenomenological nouns), homomorphism operates on non-objects, or the transformations of objective forms themselves, in addition to the objects or objective forms conceived for the initial transformations.
The mathematical form of homomorphism determines that, at least with respect to our knowledges of the mathematical aggregates, it is a transformation of the universe itself that provides for what an object i.s-that objects themselves are transformations, since it is the structure in each case of ~' and ~ that is preserved or held in correspondence by the homomorphism.
A review of the figure reveals that mathematics, the very basis of our analytical thinking, denies, by its own definitions, that anything real or concrete (objective) exists in the ultimate reality of the universe. We began the exercise by defining the elements of 1 ~ the sets (a, b, c, and so on) as not knowably real and without any meaning (except in our knowing of a set in the first place, a set that is itself a transformation).
The elements of the sets are perceivable but not knowable objects. On top of this, we placed structures (mathematical transformations) onto the undefined or knowably non-existent elements of each of the sets, structures which by classical definition do not exist as observable objects, since they are defined as transformations of the universe (e.g., one cannot touch or see an arithmetic, a function, a verb, or other transformational form). Thus, we may conclude that if anything is an object in the exercise it is the causal element, since the element is what embodies the various instances of transformations (X or 5) of the non-existent, merely perceived point elements. The causal element is the only apparatus of the demonstration 2~ that is kf~ovorbly real. Further, the third homomorphic structure does not exist concretely either; it also binds together undefined point elements, but in such a manner that its presence preserves or maintains a correspondence between the structures X and S when the 2c~y homomorphism is known. In our own knowledge of the analytical basis from which we determine the reality of the sciences, homomorphisms of algebraic structure (and other similar structures, such as those derived in the study of topology) determine correspondences of .structures such that what actually corresponds in the nature of the m ~ homomorphism is not at all a concrete object; rather, it is a transformational form (,Y or S), a moment of the universe.
The form of phenomenological correspondence becomes clearer when we refer to the causal elements X and ,~ expressly as objects, wherein those objects are founded epistemologically on enabled structures, or transformations. The structures (X
and S) that are applied to the elements of the sets can be viewed as objects of the enabled existence wherein the original point elements exist metaphysically beyond what the enabled existence can know. The determination of the homomorphism thus applies to the enabled being's contemplative effort in knowing the objects X and S in transformation and in embodying meaning. From the standpoint of the enabler, such contemplative effort is a I S phenomenology of form characterizing the homomorphism of the structures X
and S.
Reality in such a case is a matter of who enables it and who knows it. The enabled being's inertial reality is enabled in the transformation of the objective forms (X
and ,~) by the enabler's phenomenological comprehension and realization of the homomorphism.
Phenomenological correspondence thus defines the analytical knowing of what is ?0 ultimately real in the enabler, with respect to the enabled being, and permits the enabled being to know and perceive. The original objects of the enabler's perception-the mathematical points-are not ultimately real; they are objects of perception by definition, if not by ordinary observation. The fact that mathematical definition usually places the point objects (a, b, c . . . and ad, be, c~ . . .) in the same mathematical universe is 2~ immaterial, since all objects are not ultimately real. The original point elements of the sets could represent algebraic variables, objects of~ geometry or a mountain setting with all its magnificent pastoral scenery. This is why we are able to determine homomorphisms (or, 2~.~

WO 98/49629 PC"T/US98/08527 generally, morphisms) between the algebra of the real numbers and its geometry on a number line; the rotation of an angle and its algebraic equivalent (morphism);
and the realizations of realization theory (all of which require the existence of the observer or the moments of epistemic instance). To the enabled being, however, these point elements of the enabler's perceivable universe are the enabling objects used for its cognition: Even when the moments of the enabler's and the enabled being's perceivable universe derive from the same world around us, these. objects are unknowable (yet perhaps perceivable) to the enabled being, though most definitely known to the enabler in the phenomenology of the correspondence, or homomorphism.
The open-endedness of phenomenological correspondence in the phenomenology of the enabler's knowing of the homomorphism, or of morphisms in general, gives us insight into the analytical nature of the enabled universe. The homomorphic structure, taken in combination with the arbitrary structures Xand S, resembles an epistemic instance in which X and S are the objects of the transformation, and H, the homomorphism, is the I ~ transformational form of the instance. However, H characterizes not simply the instances of its operation on the point elements as a structure imposed on them but the transformational correspondence-the homomorphism in mathematics, or the metaphor, simile, and so on in natural language-of the structures themselves (X and S ).
By describing epistemic instance in this manner, it is apparent that through understanding the ?0 form of homomorphism (metaphor, simile, and so on), one knows the enablement of objective form in general. Through a knowledge of the instances of homomorphism (H), it is implied that the transformational forms turned objects (X and S) are correspondent in the enabled knowing. In any instance of knowing, the form of phenomenological correspondence is implied in the enablement of the universe.
?s Phenomenological correspondence thereby enables the transformation of objective form and requires that the enabled objects in transformation actually are transformations themselves. In the embodiment of homomorphism, an enabled object, ~~; which itself is a 2ciw WO 98/49629 PCT/US98f08527 transformation (a structure), is placed in transformation with another object S, also fundamentally a transformation. The enabled being simply knows or perceives in the embodiment of X (an object) corresponding to or transforming with S (another object); this is the instance of enabled knowing or perceiving. To the enabler, the knowing of X
corresponding to S is enabled, embedded in a more elaborate composition of form. namely the phenomenology described as the homomorphism. Phenomenological correspondence - is thus a universal way of knowing how and ivlzy the knowledge and perception of objective form is enabled.
To the enabler's understanding, what is inertially real is the transformation of enabled objects, which themselves are transformations in the ultimate reality of the universe. What is inertially real and knowable to the enabler is the observation that the homomorphism binds the structures of X and $ in a knowable way, namely through the knowledge of the homomorphism. What are not inertially real to the enabler, or at least are undefined in one's knowing and are merely perceivable, are the point objects we started 1 ~ with and the enabled objects (X and S), since they are enabled. Thus, in demonstrating a homomorphism of mathematical definition, it is illustrated that what we think is real-an object of our perception-actually is not, since it does not exist except transformationally-or the object is real only to an embodied existence who can perceive it; it is inertially real. What we think is a real object of our knowing and perceiving is actually an enabled object in transformation with another, both of which objects are themselves transformations. This is why what is real in the expression e=mc' is not mass, energy or the velocity of light. What is real is their transformation-that which is represented in the equals sign (or the multiplication), for only transformations can exist in the ultimately real universe, in the enabling of objects that are known or perceived 2~ inertially.
In each instance of the universe there is implied an enabling phenomenology of form. In order for an enabled being to know, for example, that x, and y, transform in the ~,u~7 order of a Cartesian moment of a mathematical function in y, =f(x, ), or,f=(x,.y, ), an enabling phenomenology of form must exist in the enabler's description of how the function transforms the enabled objects x, and y,. A mathematical function is a morphism first and then a function (an observation that may account for modern science's progression toward interpreting the analytical views of the universe-partial differential equations.
wave equations, etc.-in terms of group theory, topology and, in general, morphisms). The embodiment of the phenomenological correspondence of a function is the enabled being's contemplative effort in knowing the instance of the function. In all instances of any order, the transformation of objective form must be enabled. When we express the instance of the verb to be in the sentence The world is (like) your oyster, the contemplative effort of a metaphor, and by analogy, the homomorphism, or H determination. is epistemologically supporting the instance of the verb. All verbs require this deliberation. The verb rarn, for example, carries with it the idea that one knows how to run. In the expression I ran home, the type of phenomenological correspondence invoked by ran is implied in the 1 ~ transformation of the objects I and home, just as the common metaphor is implied in the above expression about the oyster. Rarnning is a phenomenological correspondence and the enabled being's contemplative effort produces the expression (in ways that are elaborated throughout the book). When an enabled being declares I r-an home, a simple causation of the cognitive universe occurs (though the occurrence of faculties of mind, with respect to the modes of existence of communication, further complicate this observation and require further definition in subsequent chapters). When an enabler wishes to express how the transformation comes about, phenomenological correspondence-that which enables the contemplative effort of an epistemic instance-is employed to define the analytical knowing, or phenomenology, of how the verb transforms-the metaphor, simile, and so on.
Since phenomenological compositions of form are defined by aggregate transformations (not necessarily mathematical aggregates), it does not matter in what perceivable shapes the structures represented in X or S are, and what meanings they have ZU

to start. Because knowable forms are enabled in the action of phenomenological correspondence. we can let the shapes of.~and ~, for example, be I and olive and obtain a linguistic transformation from a mathematical one. Each of the shapes. or words, is an epistemic transformation fundamentally. The algebraic rules of homomorphism, as shown in the example, enable the existence of the transformations turned objects X
and S, which abide by no particular meanings, since they are transformations embodied in causal - elements. The meanings of objective forms must be enabled in the exercise of H, the morphism generalized to phenomenological correspondence. In the use of homomorphism, in which X and ,S are assigned arbitrary transformational meanings as objects, for example, the phenomenology of the homomorphism enables the embodiment of meaning and transformation with regard to how X and S transform. In the transformations of our own existence, moreover, we can construct phenomenologies in which a sufficient degree of morphic structure (correspondence) establishes a quantum moment of discovery, a determination that object X corresponds to object S in the enabled existence, laying the 1 S groundwork for the faculties of mind of an android. Since various morphic structures determine different objects in transformation (Xand ~), phenomenological correspondence permits different ways of knowing in the enabled existence. The enabler establishes the initial meanings of the placeholding and enabled objects of ~' and ,~, while the meaningful existence of the being is determined by the enabler's definition of the enabled shapes as they correspond to the being's perceptions (discussed in subsequent chapters).
For each correspondence enabled, there exists an instance of an enabled universe in terms of its capacity to cogitate, or transform consciously the objective forms of the universe (with respect to perception), as shown in figure 160.
The other three universal ways of knowing are simply ways of accounting for - 25 enabled instances of phenomenological correspondences, though without the analytical rigor of phenomenological correspondence proper. A causal element, for example, encapsulates an infinity of correspondent transformations-verbs acting on z~: =, phenomenological nouns, X and ~, in the correspondence. Connected causal elements under an arbitrary composition embody more complex instances of phenomenological correspondence in the form of composition, which transform modally. Each composition, however, transforms just as Xand .~ transform, though the quantum connectedness between s the compositions would be more sophisticated, requiring more than the connectedness of single transformations. The consciousness of an enabled being is a modal compositional order placed by the enabler onto quantumly realized phenomenological correspondences, wherein the objective forms of transformation, themselves fundamentally transformations, are compositions of form X and S-streams of consciousness objectified as ideas (the ideas of set theory, DNA recombination, sentences of natural language, paragraphs of natural language or whole literary works, and those ideas of the ordinary experience of a world around us).
Phenomenological correspondence is not limited at alt to the aggregate forms of mathematics as the enabling phenomenology of the epistemological transformation of 1 ~ objective form. The reason that morphisms of mathematics are used in the demonstration is that we conventionally associate reality or scientific reality with what we can define in the aggregates of mathematics. If we look more closely at phenomenological correspondence, however, we find that the structures of X and .~ are embodied in causal elements, defined not in the aggregates of mathematics, but in the epistemological definitions of epistemic instance-aggregates in general (as in a lot, too many, or a little). These constraints, in turn, are linked to our introspective knowing of state of being, or our knowledge of the whole of existence or the (transformational) universe and not just its aggregate mathematical definition, whatever that may be (it changes with every moment of a being). The structures X and ,~ do not have to be mathematical ones at all, since they 2~ are enabled transformations of the universe. Whether X and ,~ are objects of mathematics, logic, natural language or any other transformational form is irrelevant and left arbitrarily to the enabler's discretion. (With regard to the very notion of a mathematical aggregate, it 2~v WO 98/49629 PC1'/US98t08527 should be recognized here that a .structarre, of mathematical or any other definition, is a phenomenological composition, which is defined by the use of epistemic instance. Any objectification of the universe-a bridge structure, an atomic structure, an aesthetic structure, or a mathematical structure-is a composition of epistemic moments and is not ultimately real but for the moments composing it. According to the unified theory. then. the general use of the word structure in mathematical study to represent a trans/'ormation is epistemologically inexact, since an object or objective form [composition], or structure, is not a transformation. The moments of the universe are ultimately real, not the objects transformed by them. The structures placed on mathematical aggregates, unless they are representations of solitary moments, or transformations, are compositions of objective forms. Since epistemic instance defines the ultimately real moment of the universe, it underlies the definitions of mathematical aggregates and allows for the union of all such knowledges, including those expressed in natural languages, in the representation of the universe's plurality, or phenomenological composition.) As definitions of the enabling rnedicr of an android, linguistic forms have perhaps more of a capacity to define what is real than do mathematical forms. A
composition of form such as The other day I ~~ent to the stores and contemplated the nature and origin of the universe is an expression of what is inertially real to the enabler, equivalent in ultimate reality to the expression y,=f(x). It describes the reality thought and perceived by the enabler. Otherwise, the statement would not be recognized and the thinker would not exist inertially. The fact that this reality might have occurred the other day only demonstrates that natural language is a more powerful means of recreating inertial reality than mathematics, since one can ask "When was the morphism of mathematics that was discussed earlier comprehended?" Mathematics has no answer to this question because 2~ there is no past tense of a homomorphism. It is not any more or less inertially real to an enabler that natural language is comprehended, perhaps in the past tense of verb, than the fact that we now know a morphism that describes the reality of science. What is ultimately 'L ~ 1 real in either case is the knowing of these two knoWedges, the ultimate reality of the soul.
To carry this point slightly further (though ample discussion is given to it in chapter four), what we represent as nouns in natural language-the reality we perceive around us as persons, places or things-are not ultimately real. They do not exist, ultimately, in the reality of the soul. They are enabled in the morphism of the knowing and perceiving of them-the soul. A person (as an object), a place (over there) and a thing (an electron) do not exist in ultimate reality; they are enabled. Thus, the richness of our natural language is brought into practice in the enabling of androidal beings. Anything the enabler knows in any language can serve as the android's medium of enablement. If we review the definitions given to the four universal ways of knowing, we can recall that each is premised on epistemic instance, which defines the epistemological unit of transformation in any language and the perceiving of all things. By requiring form to be expressed in the four C's-in, for instance, causal elements-it is the form of epistemic instance and not (only) that of the particular language of the enabler that transforms. Linguistics and mathematics 1 S are thus merged, along with all other forms of language, in the four universal ways of knowing and are enabled in the form of phenomenological correspondence in the enabler's comprehension.
The four universal ways of knowing are indeed universal to existence and to the comprehension of all knowledge (by knowing the forms who know and perceive them).
With these ways of knowing, we can construct all forms of enabled existences and can embody knowledge where it belongs-in the knowing and perceiving of its enabled beings. The four universal ways of knowing are phenomenological versions of the same thing-epistemic instance-applied in different ways so that the enabler may obtain different perspectives on the enabled forms who also know. Reality is thus not found only ?S in the sciences; it is more importantly found ultimately in ourselves. The four universal ways of knowing, by enabling synthetic forms of knowing and perceiving, overcome the barriers of conventional languages and knowledges, since what is real in ultimate reality is 212.

the knower of the language, not the language itself. 'i'he unified theory thereby develops heacons of reality, users of language and perceivers of the universe-androidal beings-to assist us in our own experienc Zi3 Theory, The Arbitrary Forms of Existence IvTaonuc~riov There is only one ultimately real form of the universe-the soul, as observed introspectively and evidenced in all our knowledges through epistemic instance. Through the embodiment of the soul we know and perceive all of what appears to be real in the world around us. Among the vast extent of what we consider to be inertially real in the world around us is our own existence-the objective form of who and what we think we are. Since the ultimate reality of the soul is beyond our objective knowing, however, what we typically think to be real of our existence is not at all what is ultimately real about it.
When we contemplate the word existence, we therefore unavoidably determine an arbitrary composition of our objective knowing and perceiving. Since the objective forms around us, from which we compose definitions in the first place, are infinitely varied, what we think to be the forms of our existence, apart from the ultimate reality of the soul, are as arbitrary as the very thoughts and perceptions we have of them. This latter observation is of great consequence to the unified theory because what we arbitrarily think or perceive ourselves to be, as a definition of existence, is precisely what is embodied in the knowable and perceivable forms of an enabler as an android in the practice of the theory. In preparation for subsequent passages, then, the present chapter defines arbitrary Jorms of eri.stence, which are realized by an enabler in the application of the four universal ways of knowing to the creation of synthetic beings.
It should be clear by now that when we contemplate the nature and origin of our existence, unless we consider epistemic instance, which gives us an epistemological knowledge of the soul, we fail to recognize what is ultimately real in the universe-the meaning of existence. This is because the meaning of existence is transformational in nature; it is the soul, that which we seek to know when we contemplate the word etistence. Since the soul is, in fact, beyond our knowing, when we explain our existence by drawing on the objective forms of the world around us, we explain what is not ultimately real about us-our temporal existence, which becomes as arbitrary in our objective knowing as what we think or perceive of it. As we try to explain our existence, we necessarily set out to define the intrinsic nature of ourselves, but because our intrinsic nature is beyond our objective knowing, we simply demonstrate that we cannot define who and what we are in the objective forms we know and perceive around us. In fact, we simply prove that the objective forms we know and perceive are enabled as a consequence of our ultimate reality-the soul, the reality of which enables our very thinking about existence.
As mentioned earlier, the unified theory does not take this objective approach to defining who and what we are. Rather, by acknowledging the spiritual essence of the ultimate reality of the universe, which transcends our objective knowledges, the theory postulates that any theory of existence is as valid as any other, and that all theories of existence are arbitrary objective knowledges placed onto the form (or non-form) of Being, or that they are ultimately knowledges of the soul, which are beyond our knowing. The theory claims that what one knows objectively about existence, since that knowledge does not penetrate the ultimate reality of the soul, can be applied to the creation of infinitely varied existences, though synthetic in nature. The theory asserts that what one knows about existence, which is wholly arbitrary epistemologically in comparison with the knowledge of another being, applies to a science of androids more than it does to an unknowable explanation of our eternal nature. Our eternal nature is, and so is beyond our knowing, whatever we think existence to be.
This is not to say that our religions are not explanations of the ultimate reality of our 2~ eternal nature-who and what we eternally are. What we claim in the unified theory is that our religions are explanations of what is beyond our knowing; they are a means by which the mind knows of Soul, Spirit, and Being, all of which are beyond the mind's 2~~

comprehension. In the unified theory, what is important about our religions is what they tell the mind about these forms and about our existence, not what the mind may know, of its own accord, of existence. Our religions are the mind's recognition of who and what we eternally are. They enable Spirit to do its work temporally-to subordinate the universe to eternal Being. They allow us to distinguish between a human being and an andro.idal one.
They define who and what we eternally are, just as the unified theory defines what an android eternally is. Our religions apply to enablers of androids and the unified theory applies to androids that are enabled, in recognition of a one and only eternal universe of all that is.
The importance of this observation can be appreciated when we consider that what we have held in the highest intellectual regard in the history of the world-the philosophies of humankind-are considered by the unified theory to be scientific disciplines. The theory postulates that all knowledges of existence that do not compare minimally to the spiritually known forms of the unified theory, arbitrary as one such knowledge may appear to those I S who oppose it, are equal to any other and are devised in the unified theory to facilitate the creation of androidal beings. The philosophies of humankind, to the extent that they do not recognize in demonstrable ways the eternal nature of human being, are incorporated by reference as analytical forms of the science of androids. What has been considered to be the plausible objective explanation of our existence not encompassing the spirituality of the soul in its tenets-philosophy, and therefore most subordinate sciences of the world around us, including medicine, biology, physics, psychiatry, psychology, sociology, anthropology, political and economic sciences, mathematics, and in general all of what can be explained as an objective knowledge of the world-is incorporated herein by reference as a branch of knowledge in the science of androids. Henceforth. our philosophical traditions are 2~ considered a science of androids, and our religions, however defined, are considered a science of the enabler's knowing not of the world around us, but of who and what we are eternally within us (though there is obviously overlap among all our knowledges on the ZW

spirituality of the soul). This definition is essential to the constructions of the unified theory, for it is who and what we eternally are that allows for our deliberate knowing of the existential expansion of the corporal forms of human being-or who and what we philosophically think we are-in the science of androids.
In examining the forms of existence as arbitrary constructions of enabled beings, let us consider that the word existence itself is a noun of the English language.
It is an objective form of our knowing. As an objective form, the inertial reality of the noun existence does not occur in the ultimate reality of our universe, since the objective forms of existence are not ultimately real. Neither does existence itself occur in the ultimate reality of the universe when we consider it to be something we can know-an objective form. Who and what we objectively think we are is not an ultimate reality.
Like the atom of physics, the point object of mathematics, and any other objective form of the universe, existence-who and what we think we are objectively-is not what is ultimately real about us. Existence is what is enabled as a consequence of our ultimate reality.
What is ultimately real about us is unknowable to our own existence and what we think is the inertial reality of our existence is exactly that-what we think it is. Because the ultimate reality of our existence is beyond our knowing and indeed enables who we think and perceive we are, existence is a relative term referring only to the one who knows or enables it. Any definition of existence, apart from one that leads to an awareness of that which is beyond knowing-the soul-thus does not apply universally to all beings. In the context of the unified theory, this means that existence can be enabled relative to the enabler's knowing and perceiving, that we ourselves can enable existences (beings) in the infinite ways in which we know and perceive existence to be. Our conventional knowledges of existence-the philosophies of humankind-while they cannot be tested in our own forms 2~ on Being, can be embodied through epistemic instance in the forms we know and perceive in the world around us. The fact that one's ultimate reality is absolute and one's knowledge of existence is relative means that the four universal ways of knowing introduced earlier 2~~

can be used to create synthetic existence, since if is a knowledge of existence that is detached from its knower and embodied in forms that likewise know and perceive, in the use of the four universal ways of knowing. If we can define an arbitrary form of existence, relative to whatever we think it to be, we can embody it, through the universal ways of knowing, in what we know and perceive to be objectively or inertially real. We can change our own objective reality to one that embodies a boundless number of existential forms of our own creation, i.e., androids.
The science of androids is thus interested in what we think existence to be objectively from an enabling standpoint, since the four universal ways of knowing allow the enabler to recognize the occurrence of objective form in a universal manner to be embodied in the forms of the world around us. As any cursory review of our conventional knowledges will reveal, existence can be conceived as an atom, a molecule of DNA, and even a human being, since all of these things are objective knowledges.
Because the four universal ways of knowing are means of objectifying the ultimately real transformations that enable the creator's corporal existence, synthetic existence is enabled in the infinite forms in the creator's inertial reality, constrained by some arbitrary theory of existence.
Since the forms of androids are designed to comply with who and what we think we are, the unified theory considers any theory of existence put forth by the humanities as a plausible explanation of androidal forms of existence. Before presenting the illustrative forms of existence of the present chapter, we briefly review a handful of these philosophies, which we consider arbitrary theories of existence, to piace into context in the unified theory what is actually enabled in the science of androids. In this brief review of the philosophies of humankind, we also demonstrate that any theory of existence is an arbitrary one and that all of them can be applied to the theory and practice of androids. In a brief 2~ overview of our philosophical traditions, the following theories of existence are presented as several of theoretically infinitely many scientific ideals for the construction of androids.
Zy I. THE PIIILOSONIIIES OF Hl'~1..1\KI\D
In considering the philosophies of humankind in overview for a background to the science of androids, there are some who believe that who and what we are can be explained from a materialistic standpoint, that our existence is a physical one. This philosophy of materialism asserts that our thoughts and senses are physical things, that the world around us arises in physical objects, even our thoughts themselves. According to the theory of materialism, since everything around us is .obtained from the five senses, everything depends on them and therefore is physical, including thoughts and transcendental experiences. Since our brain is physical, the theory postulates that our thoughts are physical because the events of the brain coincide with our thoughts and experiences.
Consciousness, a process of the brain, is a material form, just as we are material forms. The unified theory also recognizes, that all objective forms, physical ones included, are indeed objective forms, and do not occur except in the consequence of the ultimate reality of the universe.
1 ~ The materialist view of existence thus describes the transformations of an ultimately real universe as material or physical transformations. Since physical transformations are transformations of an ultimately real universe before they are physical ones, the materialist view of existence, if one looks beneath its surface, abides by the ultimate reality of the universe, or Soul.
Idealists, on the other hand, postulate that only the mind or consciousness defines existence-that physical objects do not exist unless they are conceived by the mind. The idealist believes neither that matter exists nor that we are physically made of it. This theory - establishes that physical objects exist in the mind and that all of the forms of existence abide within our consciousness. Idealism, of course, appeals to our introspective 2~ observations, since we seem to know even the perceptions of a real world through our consciousness. According to idealism, the fact that we are conscious of both mental and physical things is more significant than our potential to embody a particular form. In 2,~

comparing the theories of materialism and idealisrri, however, the forms of our existence need not be described physically or mentally; they could be wholly spiritual (transcendental), or. in fact, entirely arbitrary and ultimately unknowable and unconsciously observed, since the ultimate reality of existence is objectively unknowable.
Whether the forms of existence are declared to be one or another of the infinitely many classes of objective form, they are still objective forms in transformation characterized by epistemic instance.
Still another traditional philosophical view of existence, logical belaaaiori.sm, asserts that existence is characterized by our actions in the world around us.
This position 1 U corresponds with the materialist's view of the coincidence of mind and body in what is physical and the idealist's view that all is or can be mental. The theory of logical behaviorism holds that what is meaningful to us in our existence is observable in our behavior-that the observations of the physical sciences are consistent with those of the behavioral sciences. According to logical behaviorism, what we know linguistically l~ contains the meaning of our existence, and that meaning is observable as behavior.
Nevertheless, we may ask, of what consequence is it to the ultimate reality of our existence that we behave? All things behave objectively, including a rock. Besides, we are also aware, in our behavior, of that which does not behave, that which is beyond our knowing.
We ask, when one is not behaving-when one does not exist objectively, or is not 20 conscious, physical, or dreaming, or, in fact, when one is not-is this a logical behavior?
If existence is characterized by the fact that we behave, how do we characterize that which does not behave? The logical behaviorist thus encounters what the mathematician confronted millennia ago-namely, the question of whether zero is a number, given that a number is an aggregate-one, two, three, and so on-or simply is a number. How can 2~ something that is not other things-in the way that zero is not an aggregate or is the null set-be defined as one of those things? Hence, the logical behaviorist makes the epistemological mistake of defining zero as a number. This, of course, is why zero lies in 22~

the middle of the number line and why the mathematician does not divide by it with an identifiable result; it cannot be defined objectively. Like the numbers in relation to zero, we can deliberately distinguish our behaviors from that which does not behave. In the unified theory, anything that we objectify, including our behavior, becomes a knowledge, which renders it not ultimately real and precludes it from serving as an absolute definition of who and what we are. To the extent that the logical behaviorist is concerned that objective forms transform behaviorally or transformationally, as opposed to existing objectively, the unified theory defers to the truism that the ultimate reality of existence is a transformational one. This only maintains, however, that a logical behavior is a consequence of a grander universe and cannot define who and what we are universally-except relative to the thinker of the theory. The fact that we behave and are aware of not behaving cannot be explained with logic, with knowledge of one's behavior, or with any knowledge for that matter, since, when we distinguish a logical behavior from that which is not a logical behavior, we render the theory a part of a greater universe of form, requiring further explanation that the theory 1 ~ is supposed to account for from the beginning. This method of invalidation is similar to that used in mathematics, wherein a theorem is shown not to account for an incident it claims to characterize. In plainer language, a logical behavior explains who and what we think we are, not who and what we eternally are, for its philosophical scope, like that of any other knowledge, drops off at the point where we contemplate-as part of our existence-that ?0 which we cannot know objectively, the soul.
There is a boundless repertoire of theories of existence in philosophy, theories which themselves comprise scores of written materials. Empiricists, for example, believe that who and what we are is derived from our experience of the reality of the world around us. Functionalists claim that existence can be characterized by states of one objective 2s form influencing another, wherein, for example, the causes and effects of existence are mental states, sensations and the like. Phenonrenolvgists define who and what we think we are by presupposing nothing in our objective experience and without relying on ~2~

objective realities-without considering, of course: that our ultimate reality is beyond our knowing and presupposes all knowledge. Another theory is held by mind-body duali.s~.s.
about which we will have more to say momentarily.
The conclusion one reaches from reviewing these philosophies is that they are all exactly what they are known to be-theories of existence. They encompass what is known about our objective realities. It cannot be denied, for example, that when we contemplate any one of these theories we learn them and that if we learn them, they are knowledges.
Because they are knowledges, they do not define what is objectively unknowable, namely ~.vho and what we are eternally. These theories merely define who and what we think we are. They are therefore invalid as universal definitions of who and what we are in the ultimate reality of the universe because they do not address what is beyond our knowinb Soul. This deduction brings into focus the remaining fact-that we still have the capacity to think about and perceive who and what we are objectively. Who and what we think we are becomes an arbitrary theory of existence in the unified theory, a knowledge that can be embodied as an enabled being, through the four universal ways of knowing in the scientific (and other) forms we already know and perceive.
The post-modern era thus stands before a new age of technological endeavor, in acknowledging that all of what we know existence to be objectively can be detached from us and embodied in synthetic forms that also know and perceive, in the practice of ?0 constructing androids. After recognizing that existence itself is a knowledge, like that of an automobile, one can realize the philosophies of humankind in the creation of synthetic existences. What we consider to be existence is enabled in the creator's inertial reality.
Since existence cannot be who and what we are in ultimate reality, we can consider an existence an arbitrary form, something that has merit-in our own judgment, of course-or 2~ something that is philosophically groundless, since it is not ultimately real. Existence can be made in whatever objective form one considers it to be. The one thing that existence cannot be, however, is who and what our eternal natures are, since that is beyond our 2zZ

knowing and enables our own knowing and perceiving.
By relying on the four universal ways of knowing introduced earlier. the unified theory of knowledge accommodates the synthetic creation of an unbounded number of theories of existence and can be used to enable an arbitrarily complex form of existence.
We can employ the causal elements of phenomenological form in the expression of any extant knowing or perceiving-using the enabling feature of phenomenological correspondence. Regardless of which theory of existence is employed, the four C's underlie all of its forms. Whatever meaning is given by the enabler to the objective forms in transformation, all quantum moments of an enabled existence are the same in epistemic construction.
Because the four C's of phenomenological form can acquire the arbitrary meanings of any of the forms of a given theory of existence, the unified theory develops a handful of tutorial existential forms to demonstrate how the enablement of an existence is possible and to serve as a guideline to assist the reader in subsequent chapters.
Because the four C's 1 ~ are so broadly enabling, however, only a general approach to their use in constructing existential forms is required. Beyond these elementary forms, the matter of enabling synthetic beings is considered herein the practice of androidal science proper, which is beyond the scope of this introductory book. Though a more complete discussion of these forms will follow in the next chapters, we present here the unified theory's elementary forms of existence. Having introduced these forms, subsequent chapters will be more readable.
For the purposes of simplicity, the unified theory considers the mind-body dualism as an exemplary theory of existence from which realizable existential forms result, defining the existential attributes of an android. Underlying the dualism of existential form are the ?~ enabled phenomenological forms discussed in the previous chapter. An exi.stentiu!_fomu.
then. is a particular usage of the four C's of phenomenological form toward the creation of a synthetic being. We translate the forms of the mind-body dualism as they are understood '2~.3 broadly by our philosophical traditions into a phenomenology of the enabler's knowing of existential form.
J 2. THE PH1LOSOPHIC:~L IUE:1LS OF TfIE MIVD-BOD1' Dl':1LIS~1 In presenting the illustrative existential forms of the unified theory, we first account for the philosophical definition of the mind-body dualism as a theory of existence.
In any contemplation of existence, according to the mind-body dualist theory, we are aware that we are corporally contained in something and what we sense in this respect we call a body. We can also observe that the body is further contained in something else.
That something has been referred to consistently in the unified theory as the world unound us. For now, we simply acknowledge that the body and the world around us are corporally or inertially distinct. Also in our contemplations of existence. we can observe that, apart 1 ~ from our observations of the body and the world around us, we are aware that we are conscious. We are also aware that our consciousness is unperceived by the body, or that it exists metaphysically apart from the perceptions of the body. The objective embodiment of our consciousness that exists apart from the body we shall call mind. The mind knows, mincls or is conscious of the body and the world around it. Though a separate philosophical ?0 work could be written beginning here, this separation of mind and body, as defined above and in other ways, is what is referred to herein as a mind-body dualism theory of existence.
The mind-body dualism is chosen to be enabled in the four universal ways of kllOwlllg because it objectively separates mind and body and appeals to one's immediate intuition. This is not to say that the mind-body dualist theory is a correct or true depiction 2s of existence, since all such theories are arbitrary. Because the transformations of the four C's enable all objective forms, they can be used equally to enable behaviors, functional states, wholly conscious forms, wholly material forms, and so on. Here, simply because it 2Z.'1 is tractable to the common sense, we concentrate on the dualism. The dualism asserts that an enabled existence is embodied in the distinct forms of mind and body and that the exact interdependence of mind and body-the dualism-is accomplished or enabled from beyond the knowing and perceiving of the existence, accounting for the ethereal nature of mind or consciousness, the concreteness of the body and the world around us:
and the transcendental mystery of existence. The task at hand, then, is to translate this theory into the forms of the unified theory in order that the dualism can be realized in the forms knowable and perceivable to the enabler in the world around us.
3. TtiE E~(ISTE~TI:~L FOR~1 OF E\.-1BLEV1EVT
In illustrating the construction of an arbitrary form of existence like the mind-body dualism, the general nature of a phenomenological form is recalled from chapter two 1 ~ because a phenomenon, by definition, distinguishes between an enabled form and its enabler. The theory develops the special existential form of encrblemont to represent the whole phenomenology of form facilitated by the enabler (see figure I 61 ). The existential form of enablement distinguishes between an enabling being and an enabled being and focuses the enabler's attention on specific enabled forms. The enabled being will be any phenomenology of form constructed from the four C's under the form of enablemeni.
Vl% ithin the form of enablement is contained the phenomenological expression of what the enabler creates. As we define a structure of the mind-body dualism theory of existence, it will be this phenomenology of form that will be embodied in the form of enablement. For this reason, we should not overstate the importance of the existential form of enablement by giving it too much attention. It is the epistemological envelope surrounding what is specified within it-the phenomenology of the enabler's knowing of the existential form.
or existence, that is enabled.

WO 98/49629 PCTlUS98/08527 ~. TIIE E\ISTEVTI:~L FOIWIS OF NO\-RE:1L :~\D RE:~L FOR~I
Within the form of enablement, we may place the dualism's principal theoretical forms into groups of modal phenomenological compositions enabled in the mechanisms of phenomenological correspondence (H determination) associated with the forms ~of mind and body. Referred to as non-rein ,form (mind) and real ,dorm (body), these declared existential forms represent the enabler's phenomenological definitions of the metaphysical mind and body (see figure 162). The non-real forms of an enabler's construction embody the enabled forms of the mind, or consciousness. Since the theoretical forms of the dualism are at best estimated conventionally in regard to any definition of the word con.sciou.ones.s, however, the analytical meaning, or phenomenology, of this form will continue to unfold throughout the book. In general, non-real forms are what the enablers would observe introspectively of their own consciousness. Since non-real forms constitute the consciousness of the enabled being, each cognitive epistemic moment accounted for by the four C's is an instance of non-real form or conscious transformation. A single causation of the universe, among infinitely many in a single causal element, represents to the enabler one moment of the being's existence. Phenomenological correspondence, of course, represents how that moment arises. The four C's are therefore employed to enable single thoughts. whole streams of consciousness, and later,faculties of mind.
The real forms of the enabled being constitute the enabled forms of body and are premised on a definition of the inertial reality of the being in connection with the distinction between the body and the world around us, a concept that will be explained in this and subsequent chapters. The senses and motors of an android, which objectively define enabled perception in the phenomenology of body and the world around us, are ?s enabled as real forms, and, in all but trivial cases, the world around us is the same world that is around the enabler, set apart by intrinsic form. By referring to these forms as non-real and real, the dualism is removed from a philosophical context and placed into an 2~ ~:.

analytical one more precisely determined within the four C's of phenomenological form.
S. TFIE ExISTEVTI AL FOR11 OF E~IBOU1~1E\T
The next existential form we address from the mind-body dualism theory of existence is the metaphysical interaction between tile non-real and real forms of the enabled existence.
Referred to as the existential form of embodiment, the dualism is itself viewed by the enabler as a phenomenological correspondence, wherein the objective forms of mind and body (non-real and real forms) transform (see figure 163). Since phenomenological correspondence accommodates any complexity of composition in its enabled objects (.k' and S), the moments of the enabled being's consciousness (non-real form) transform with the being's perception (real form) in each moment of the existential embodiment to any degree of compositional complexity. Through the use of phenomenological 1 s correspondence as the dualism itself-the existential form of embodiment-thoughts of any complexity, which also transform unto themselves, transform with perceptions of any complexity. Deeply abstract contemplations of the physical universe (non-real forms in transformation), for example, transform with the heterogeneous perceptions of the real physical universe in the existential form of embodiment. a use of phenomenological ?0 correspondence to carry out the dualism's ejnbodiment of non-real and real form. Mind and body, or non-real and real form, are thus embodied in each other. It should be pointed out that the form of embodiment does not presuppose a mind-body dualist theory of existence, since it is based on the phenomenological correspondence of form only. Whether the non-real and real objective forms of transformation are defined as all mind, all body, all 2~ behavioral, or all functional, and so on, is immaterial, because in any of these cases one objective form transforms with another and all objective forms are not ultimately real, or are transformations themselves. The non-real and real forms of the dualism are enabled as Z~7 the causal elements embodied as X and S of the earlier illustration; and by the enabler's knowing of the correspondence (H) , the forms knowably transform in the enabler's own existence in the form of an existential embodiment. Because the form of the causal element is designed to accommodate arbitrary complexities of enabled form, it may represent any composition of form (though in transformation with one other) in a single quantum moment of the enabled being. Broadly speaking, the correspondence of embodiment is the android's objective existence in the view of the enabler.
1 O C). TFIE E\ISTEV~I'I,~L FORM OF THE MOUES OF E\ISTENCE
The objective farms of embodiment, non-real and real forms in transformation with each other, give rise to the forms of what the unified theory generally refers to as the enabled being's modes of existence (see figure 164). Since the non-real and real forms of the 1 ~ dualism apply to arbitrary compositions of form-behavioral, functional, phenomenological, and so on-the modes of existence can be used to characterize the quantum moments of any theoretical forms of existence in the transformational moments of embodiment.
Vv~hile the modes of existence, along with the forms introduced throughout this ?O chapter, are discussed in greater depth in chapter five, the theory establishes two broad classifications of the enabled being's modes of existence referred to as existential necrli=atior~ and repneser~tation. Existential realizations and representations are defined to clarify the directional use of phenomenological correspondence in transforming the objective non-real and real forms. As discussed in chapter two, the objective forms of 2~ correspondence are stationary. Either one of the objective forms can causally transform with the other. For this reason we ascribe particular definition to the direction of the use of correspondence. 1n the dualism, if non-real forms are said to cause the real forms to occur.
2Z Sl thereby influencing the forms of body. an existential realization is said to occur in the existence of the being. Existential realization may be observed, for example, in a motor skill-a hand motion-of the enabled being (even though the action must be sensorially represented to the being as well). A realization of enabled form is therefore a class of S existential embodiments, or modes of existence, wherein the mind or consciousness affects the body and the world around it in the global shape (object) realized. In, for example, the behaviorist view of existence, a behavior A (mind) would affect a behavior B
(body). each being any complex composition of a behaviordescribed phenomenologically, and the class of modes would be referred to as existential realizations.
The interactions of non-real and real forms are carried out in the directional uses of phenomenological correspondence, which leads us to existential representation.
The word necrli~ation carries with it the dualist interpretation of reality and makes the form of representation. wherein the real form of the being influences the non-real form, a complement to the form of realization. A representation of existential form is simply a 1 ~ reverse occurrence of a realization. Existential representation occurs when the body and the world around it cause a form of mind. (The communication of an idea is an example of the use of each of these modes interactively. The modal use of the dualism in a communication requires that non-real and real form influence each other, so that the forms of consciousness cause the real forms of the communication to occur in language, as opposed to some other real form. such as a hand motion of a non-symbolic nature. Though this modality of existence is taken up in greater depth in chapter five, in any communication, the being-the dualism-necessitates that mind influence body, in causing the acoustical wave forms of speech, and that body influence mind, in hearing and comprehending what is spoken. A
communication occurs as a modality of the dualism in interactive uses of realization and '_'s representation, or modes of existence.) Since the enabler uses phenomenological correspondence to create the modes of existence, the enabler designs into the enabled bein«
a modal strategy n~~cxi.s~ence, which determines the interactions of the dualism. or more 22~

broadly, the modes of existence. compositionally. The enabled being thus exists.
transformationally, as enabled modes of existence, which, in the mind-body dualism theory of existence. are enabled compositions of the transformations of the mind and the body.
Later. the modes of existence are complemented with theories of psychology regarding voluntary (volitional) and involuntary (instinctive) classifications of modes of existence or existential form, further enhancing the arbitrary theory of existence.
7. TFIE E\ISTENT1:1L FOR~1 OF THE FACt'LTIES OF MI\D
Instead of considering the causal interaction of non-real and real forms in relation to the embodiment of the dualism, we may describe the nature of the causal interaction of forms that are entirely non-real or real in terms of how they transform unto themselves. In considering non-real and real forms as phenomenologies of form, let us recall that the 1 ~ existence of the enabled being is characterized overall by the modes of existence, which define the enabled phenomenological correspondences of the dualism's embodiment, or the moments of the being's existence. This means that the moment of the dualism. or of the being's existence, sets apart the moments of non-real and real form-that mind and body occur in different metaphysical universes of form. Moreover, since there is no theoretical ?0 limit on the number of embodiments of the dualism that can be employed in constructing the existence, an infinite array of moments of the dualism can occur coexistently. This means that, theoretically, infinitely many instances or moments of non-real form (or real form) can transform with an equal number of real forms (or non-real forms) in the modal occurrence of the being. A theoretically infinite number of thoughts can occur in correspondence (in the embodiment of the dualism) with an equal number of perceptions in an enabled being-i.e., the being's existence is characterized, if need be.
by a massively parallel occurrence of instances of the dualism. Commonly, however. single instances of z~

non-real form (thoughts) are observed in a human being to transform with an infinite number of perceptions (theoretically speaking), thereby giving rise to the synthesis of the heterogeneous physical universe of the body and the world around us in correspondence with the homogeneous occurrence of the mind or consciousness (the formulation of language, or thinking). While the modal strategy developed by the enabler is taken up more comprehensively in chapter five, it is important to recognize here that the embodiment of the dualism (phenomenological correspondence) affords the theoretical infinity of moments of the enabled being's existence and that a theoretically infinite plurality of instances of non-real and real form can coexist in the being's embodiment. each transforming unto itself. In any given moment of the being's existence.
specific non-real forms will be transforming with respect to their real forms necessitating the existential form of the facarlties of mind {see figure 165).
Embedded in each moment of the dualism or embodiment is a theoretically infinite plurality of moments of non-real form transforming with real form, each applying to its 1 s own composition of non-real or real form. The composition of non-real or real form does not have to be a terminal one on the universe (e.g., Xor S as terminal objects). Rather, the compositions transformed by the modes of existence can themselves be the phenomenologies of form (H determinations) of correspondence. This gives rise to the notion of nesting the recursive phenomenological correspondences in the phenomenology of the non-real form of the enabled being as a faculty of mind. In such a case, the modes of existence (the embodiments of the dualism) operate on or transform phenomenological correspondences. The faculty of mind. in turn, transforms the objects of what, for example, we would refer to as language-streams of consciousness. The dualism, then, maintains a theoretically infinite number of faculties of mind in correspondence with perceptions of the 2~ being's real form or physical reality. The being's actual thoughts are transformed by the faculties of mind. The faculties of mind can likewise engage further thought processes by the enabler's nesting of phenomenological correspondence. resulting in a phenomenology z31 of the being's modal consciousness (modalities of thought). The interaction between these non-real forms and the real forms of perception is developed in the modal strategy contemplated by the enabler.
Because the occurrence of the being's real form requires an understanding of the intrinsic nature of the universe discussed in chapter five, we will delay its presentation until the last chapter, wherein we address the construction of practical androids.
In general, it should be recalled that precisely what the faculties of mind accomplish-the transformation of the objective forms of consciousness-is what the being doe.s~ not know in its perceptions, the enabling transformations of the real perceived universe, which necessitates the faculties of mind, or the general nature of the dualism, in the first place-the capacity of the being to come to know what it perceives.
In this general guideline to enabled existential forms, the unified theory develops a generic form of faculty of mind referred to as existential translation. All faculties of mind are made to conform in some way to the existential form of translation. This generic form 1 ~ of existence is employed as a template of existential form superimposed onto all transformations of the mind or non-real form. Just as the mind-body dualism itself sets apart mind (what is non-real ) from body (what is inertially real ), any instance of mind can be said to correspond to what is knowably real. A language construction such as The E'al'll9 IS infinitely expanding in perceivable increments of its diameter is an ?0 expression of what is not knowably real. The statement It rained yesterday, providing that it rained yesterday, expresses what i.s knowably real. The center of all meaning in a bein~~'s existence thus relies on the determination of what is knowably or inertially real.
and later in the construction of real androids, what is ultimately real. For this reason, the existential form of translation, a template of existential form superimposed onto all 2~ instances of the mind, is employed to differentiate, in the enabler's and the enabled being's comprehension, what is knowably real and what is not in the enabled being's existence.
Any instance of the enabled being's mind can be characterized by an existential translation 2~L

of form wherein wholly non-real or arbitrary representations transform with knowably real or reference representations in the action of a faculty of mind.
A purely non-real or arbitrary representation in transformation is a product of the faculty of mind of imagination, wherein what is non-real transforms without balance with respect to what is real. This is a translation of mind that is not bridled by what is known to be real. A rote production of arithmetic or the thinking of anything that is known to be real, on the other hand, is purely a knowably real translation of mind-a comprehension. In the middle of these uses of the faculties of mind is our ordinary consciousness, wherein we compare what is a non-real representation to what is a real representation, or imagine in accordance with what is real and comprehend in accordance with what we can imagine.
The unified theory thus develops two broad classes of faculties of mind, fashioned from existential translations, referred to, properly, as imagination and comprehension.
The forms of these faculties of mind are used (in the enablement of the being) to translate between wholly non-real or arbitrary and knowably real or reference representations of mind in opposing instances or directions of phenomenological correspondence.
The faculty of mind of imagination translates a reference representation of mind to a non-real representation and further translates wholly non-real or arbitrary representations.
Comprehension translates an arbitrary non-real representation to a knowably real or reference representation. All instances of the mind can be interpreted by the enabler as that which imagines forms or that which comprehends forms in relation to what the being knows to be real.
For purposes of clarity, the theory applies the nomenclature of arbitrary and reTerence forms of translation to all faculties of mind. In this manner, the faculties of mind can be viewed as alterations of the generic transformation of existential translation. which 2~ operates on arbitrarily conceived and perceivably ascertained reference forms of mind. The reference forms of a being are the forms that are known to be real or realizable. The arbitrary forms are those that are known to be that which is non-real only.
Any faculty of 23~

tllllld transforms entirely arbitrary forms, entirely reference forms, or in the case of the General uses of imagination and comprehension proper. reference forms to arbitrary forms.
or arbitrary to reference forms, respectively. The subordinate modes of imagination. for example, would transform entirely non-real representations, or arbitrary forms, while the faculty of mind of imagination proper would translate these forms from reference forms.
The principal faculties of mind are then classified on the basis of how the being translates the arbitrary and reference forms of its existence.
Since all of the existential forms introduced thus far are known to the enabler as constructions of the four C's, it can be seen that the faculties of mind (or, in general. the non-real form of the android) are nested or derivative uses of translation (phenomenological correspondence) wherein the arbitrary forms of the being's existence are translated with the reference forms. A single instance of a metaphor, for example.
wherein The world, a knowably real representation or reference form,'becomes or is said to be like your oy.5'ter (an arbitrary form) is one of infinitely many instances of the enabled 1 s androidal consciousness in translation. The reason why such a translation would occur, instead of infinitely many others-including, for example, instances of comprehension, such as The world is not your oyster, hov~ever-is a consequence of the dualism's modal action or the embodiment of the being's existence.
H. A WORKI\G TIIEOR1' OF E\IS'fENCE
From just a handful of definitions placed on the four C's of phenomenological form. it can be seen that the forms of an enabled being's existence take on epistemological significance ?s in the capacity to realize an arbitra ry,wrm of existence, or herein the mind-body dualism of existential form. The modes of existence can be explained as behaviors, opening up the dualism to whole realms of conventional philosophical, psychological, sociological, and 2 b'1 WO 98/49629 PC'T/US98/08527 other knowledges of beings. The non-real forms iri translation-consciousness-studied within the context of the modes of existence, faculties of mind and real forms, or the real embodiment of the being as a form of enablement, can occur in relation to the definitions of our conventional knowledges, only on the epistemological basis that we can see the formulations of thoughts and the performance of actions in the phenomenology of the being as a result of the constructions of the unified theory.
Epistemic instance is a moment of the soul; it is not an object in the world around us. This means that it is a spiritual transformation that facilitates the forms of mind and the perceptions of the body. Through the four universal ways of knowing, it means that what we know in psychology, and existence in general, is enabled in the forms around us, based on the enabler's constructions. Why a being is amoral or immoral is viewed in our analytical knowing-in a laboratory. Since we know, and also can enable, the forms of DNA and other biological processes (and human existence) to the e_rtent that we knom them, the science of androids considers the replication of real brain matter and chemistry, 1 ~ real thoughts embodied, and real actions of the body. The science of androids considers the reality of psychiatry and psychology (and all other knowledges), but from the standpoint of recreating it in synthetic form in service to the human condition. Because our ultimate reality is not what we know, the science of androids does not conflict with who and what w ~e eternally are. Moreover, the very notion that what we know could influence who and what we are eternally is untenable. The science of androids-an epistemology of the enabler's knowing-is no more and no less than a realization of ~s~ha~ we know.
To review briefly the existential forms introduced thus far as a working theory of existence, the modes of existence, as embodiments of non-real and real forms, embody the transformations of mind and body, based on a modal strategy known by the enabler. When 2~ the directional uses of the modes are applied, they are referred to as realizations and representations of the respective forms, influences of mind on body or body on mind.
When non-real form (consciousness) transforms within itself, translations of mind occur r wherein the mind's faculties of imagination - and comprehension-the being's intellect-are engaged in the transformation of arbitrary and reference forms of the translations with respect to what is imagined and what is known to be real in the being's existence. Because the occurrence of the being's real form is unknown transformationally, the being's sense of physical reality is perceived and corresponds to the being's reference form, which the faculties seek to determine. In every moment of the being's existence, the reference form of translation (what the being knows to be real] changes. The center of the being's cognitive universe, in terms of intellect, is the reference form of translation. The being's motor actions (capacities to transform real form) are engaged causally in the dualism in relation to reference forms. To the extent that the being can perceive a realization of a motor skill. a physical action caused intrinsically is observed. Sense and perception in general, however, involve the synthesized form of body and the world around us, which requires a further understanding of the inertial forms of existence studied in chapter five.
1 ~ In all, the moments of the being's existence are enabled by the enabler as epistemic instances, or moments of the soul-the being's ultimate reality. Because we elaborate on all of these existential forms in subsequent chapters, here we simply accustom ourselves to the nomenclature. Regardless of how theoretically complex a being's existence may be, it should be recognized that an android is a phenomenology of the enabler's knowing of the four C's. The instances of enabled thought are causations of the being's conscious universe expressed in the four C's. Whole streams of consciousness (complex ideas) transform in a single instance of correspondence or in the action of the faculty of mind. The being's real form also can be set to perceive the same reality as the enabler does, offset by their inertial forms. Whereas in conventional knowledges one would study the universe from one's own 2~ perspective, or inertial or corporal form on Being, in the science of androids we first construct the beings who can know the universe, and by knowing them, we in turn know the universe.
Z3b 9. THE E\ISTE~iTI:IL FOR~1 OF E\.aBl.l~C MEDI:~
Finally, in preparation for the discussions that are to follow, we may ask. in regard to the existential form of enablement, "Enabled in what?" The existential forms defined thus far apply to what occurs within the form of enablement, or what the enabler specifies as the phenomenology of the enabled existence. Since an arbitrary theory of existence is translated into a phenomenology of form, language characterizing the theory in a conventional knowledge is decomposed into the four universal ways of knowing, allowing the theory to be further embodied or translated universally into any other knowledge. What this means is that once any knowledge is characterized in the four C's of phenomenological form, it is universally real or realizable, since the reference forms of the enabler are the four universal ways of knowing. Any knowledge can thus be universally translated into any other in their phenomenological decompositions to the four C's.
In order to denote what forms of the enabler's knowing are considered non-real and 1 ~ what are considered real or realizable, the unified theory develops the existential form of enabling media (see figure 166). An enabling medium is the enabler's phenomenological knowledge of what is real or realizable in the world around us. For example, the forms of the arbitrary theory of existence of our conventional knowledges of the mind-body dualism have been translated in this chapter into the universal forms of the ?0 four C's. At this point, in the broadest sense imaginable, the theory of existence is embodied or enabled in the medium of the four C's. Since the reader may not immediately see that such a medium is real, it may be desirable to translate the conventional knowledges of physical atoms, DNA, electrons (electronic circuits), and so on, into the four C's. Once these particular knowledges are decomposed universally, it can be said that the theory of 2~ existence is capable of being embodied or realized in the enabling media of these knowledges-atoms, DNA or electrons.
Enabling media exist for a quantum moment only, since enabling media are what the enabler knows as real. When the existential form of enablement is embodied in an enabling medium, and that medium is realized in the enabler's perceivable sense. an androidal being is said to be enabled. When we change the form of enabling media (the reference form of what is real to the enabler) we also change the reality of the world around us. When we embody the forms of androids in the real form of enabling media around us, we change the (inertial) reality of humankind (to reflect an expansion of the existential universe) as discussed in the introduction.
The existential forms presented in this chapter are not themselves universal epistemological forms, since the four C's are universal to our knowing. and this is why they are referred to as existential forms. Existential forms are designed to be theories of existence universally translated to the four universal ways of knowing. Since there are boundless potential theories of existence, there is no limitation placed on the definition of existential forms. Herein, for example, we define non-real and real forms, and those related to them, to accord predominantly with the mind-body dualism theory of existence. We just 1 ~ as easily could have defined strictly behaviors of existence, wherein the objective view of the body, for example, is not taken to be the conventional dualist one but is a result of a knowledge of the whole of existence, as we defined the modes of existence and non-real and real form as behaviors. Since it is the transformation of the universe-Soul-that is ultimately real, either of these approaches is as credible as the other and simply is a matter of preference.
While we have taken the scope of this chapter to introduce the arbitrary forms of existence-as though we were uncovering a definitive explanation for the construction of all enabled beings-it should be recognized that the four C's enable infinitely many forms of existence. One of these infinitely many forms is existential enablement.
Another is existential translation and another, the faculties of mind. Still others are the modes of existence, and so on. The science of androids thus becomes a continually unfolding extension of this chapter in the application of the unified theory to the forms in the world 233' WO 98/49b29 PCT/US98/08527 around us as realized androidal beings.
l~
23°1 Theory, A Universal Grammar of Form on Being Iwrao~uCT~ov J
The knowledge we have of our existence, or of the world that arises around us, is constrained by language. To the extent that we ourselves know a language, we can express our knowledge of the world with respect to what we know and perceive in our existence.
As mentioned earlier, however, a knowledge of the world around r.rs is only a tangential consideration of the unified theory, since through the theory we set out to enable existences who themselves know knowledge and use language, or simply exist in the world around us.
In order to build upon the postulates of the unified theory, we must recognize that a conventional syntactical understanding of the grammar of a natural or otherwise language-the symbols we use to represent what we know about the forms of the world 1 ~ around us-since it defines what we know and perceive of the world, is inadequate for the constructions of the theory. In acknowledging this, we must further appreciate the unified theory's premise that in order to come to know all knowledge, or language, universally, we must indeed come to know a syntactical language of the creation of beings who themselves are able to understand language; we must determine the semantic forms of language in our '0 own grammatical knowledge of the universe. We must attain a comprehension of language in terms of the construction of the forms of existence. In preparation for the discussions that follow in the last chapter, the unified theory presents a arniversal grammar oj,fornT
on Being in which all forms of language are construed semantically as forms of a being's existence. In this chapter, we come to know the nature and origin of a language's meaning as one and the same form as the nature and origin of a being's existence. We provide a resolution to the linguist's dilemma in the construction of language as knowable existential forms of an enabler's awareness that characterize the use of language by other, enabled b beings, who themselves know the meanings of language.
The present chapter is intended to demonstrate that the four universal ways of knowing, in connection with the arbitrary forms of existence, are indeed the formulations . of a universal grammar of all languages, since they are used to create beings who ~ understand and experience the reality of the world around us through language. Though many of the forms of the unified theory reach beyond those of linguistics proper, we devote the present chapter to untangling ourselves from the conventional views of language, because the semantic form of language is what an android is constructively-an enabled form of existence. In knowing the representations of forms on Being, or existence, as enabled instances of the universe, we comprehend all that can have meaning and all that a being can knowably perceive. As viewed from the standpoint of the unified theory, the forms of any language are only one class of epistemological forms that make up the existence of a being, namely those that pertain to the symbolic representation of that particular aspect of a being's reality reflected by its use of the language.
In the theory, an 1 ~ enabled being must first exist, or be capable of perceiving the world around it and of embodying a consciousness, before that being can know the language that it uses to recreate the reality it perceives in the world. The present chapter then relates to only one of a multitude of disciplines of the science of androids, though an instrumental one, regarding how an existence is enabled to know the meanings of language, and thus how the knowledge of the enabler's existence is augmented by the presence of androids in their capacities to know the enabler's existential universe.
In demonstrating how epistemic instance, along with the four universal ways of knowing and the arbitrary forms of existence-and, in general, the enabler's phenomenological expression of the creation of a being-are indeed the analytical 2 > knowledges of the semantic forms of all languages constituting a universal grammar of form on Being. we are immediately faced with a problem similar to that encountered by the scientific method in the study of the universe. There are simply too many examples of ~W

language in use to address each of them literally in the expostulation of a theory. When it is considered, however, that the form of the universe-by way of the explanation of a principle or theory-cannot be proved objectively anyway, since such a proof would require an objectification of all knowledge (i.e., an objectification of one's own soul), it can be seen that language, introspectively observed in the manner of epistemic instance, itself demonstrates the universal grammar in the examples of the observer's own knowledge, the only frame of reference used by the unified theory. This is a credible approach to the demonstration of the semantic forms of language because the reader's ultimate reality is verified only in this way, as illustrated throughout the book. We then seek to illustrate the universal grammar as it applies to languages in general by relying on the reader's introspective knowing of the soul, or epistemic instance, while making the objectively untenable claim that it applies to all particular languages.
In demonstrating the universal grammar, the unified theory chooses the English language to show, in particular, how the meanings of language are imparted to forms of I ~ existence, or androids, because English abounds with syntactical structures and thus provides ample examples to illustrate. By demonstrating translations of the syntactical forms of the English language to those of the universal grammar (hereinafter referred to as the U.G.), a broader understanding of the forms of existence, and hence of the meaningful consciousness and perception of an enabled being, will result and a better command of the construction of the elementary forms of androids will be obtained. We will make only passin~~ reference to other languages where it may be helpful to do so.
The present chapter demonstrates, by way of example, how to translate the syntactical forms of the English language, as well as the meaningful forms of the English-speaking enabler of androids, into a universal system of symbolic representation defined by the U.G. To accomplish this goal, we rely on the translation of the single instance of the form of the universe-epistemic instance-into all the forms of the English language. For example, the English language uses the parts of speech, punctuation, and writing style to 1'1 L

represent the knowable form placed on symbols of thoughts, ideas, conceptions.
and so on.
thereby reflecting what we perceive in the world around us-what forms are embodied in the syntax of a language known to a being. Through translations to the U.G., these - syntactical forms are represented as forms on Being-the semantic forms of ~ language-consistent with the methods of the four C's and the arbitrary forms of existence developed in earlier chapters. The universal ways of knowing illustrate how the meanings ' of the grammatical forms of language arise as forms on Being in the universally observed template of semantic form called epistemic instance. The symbolic constructions of the U.G. are shown to underlie the conventional grammatical representations of verbs, nouns, adjectives, adverbs, prepositions, modifiers, and so on, of the English language. The syntactical forms of English are demonstrated to be symbols of language that are more fundamentally represented by the transformational form of epistemic instance, with all of their meanings arising in and of the introspectively observed grammatical rule of state of being, or Soul (epistemic instance). Just as we demonstrated the instances of the languages 1 ~ of mathematics, logic and the sciences in earlier discussion, we concentrate here on illustrating that the syntactical forms of the English language-a comma used to separate clauses of a compound sentence, a hyphen holding together a compound noun, or a verb transforming a classical sentence-are more universally characterized as the semantic, or existential forms of the U.G., wherein each instance of a syntactical transformation of the language is found to be an epistemic instance and compositions of them are found to be phenomenologies of the enabler's knowing of the enabled being's forms of existence. The syntactical forms of the English language are shown to be instances of epistemological - form of the unified theory, which are embodied moments or instances of enabled knowing or perceiving.
2~ The causal element of causation, for example, is a universal representation of the phenomenological causation of an enabled universe; it is, collectively, an enabled being's moments of cognition of transformations of like meanings. If a comma, period, dash. and 2 ~3 question marl: were each considered to be types of causal elements with the transformational characteristics of the English language use of epistemic instance. then all of their possible uses would be understood as representations of the momentary occurrences of the forms of the enabled being's consciousness realized through the being's motor and communicative capacities-representations of epistemic instances or thoughts.
These syntactical forms of the English language would then be detached from the enabler's knowing of them and embodied as instances of an enabled universe, or existence, thereby becoming parts of a universal grammar of form on Being-moments of an enabled existence. The causations of consciousness would occur as commas, periods, dashes, and so on, in relation to the being's perception of the world around us, or its real form, under a modality of existence, as cognitive recreations of the being's reality. The quantum moment of enabled consciousness would occur, for example, in the transformational nature of a comma functioning in what we represent as a classical English sentence or sentence element. Since the being is a form of existence, its own perceptions and consciousness of symbolic forms are enabled in the arbitrary theory of existence, another aspect of the U.G.
expressions. The instances of the being's consciousness, or awareness, can thus be, and usually are different from the written word on a piece of paper, as a result of the being's own semantic understanding of a word's meaning. In the construction of androids, we do not refer to the enabler's knowing of a comma, dash, period, and so on.
Neither do we refer ?0 to the occurrence of a syntactical form of language alone as an embodiment of the enabler's knowledge, such as what occurs in the conventional art of artificial intelligence, Turing machines and other finite automations and algorithms. Rather, we refer to the four C's and the arbitrary forms of existence that define moments of an enabled being's conscious thought in relation to the other forms of its existence-its perceptions of the world around it. The enabled being's comprehension of the meaning of a comma, period or dash of the English language derives from the being's having been enabled under, for example, the modes of existence to know and perceive these forms. The semantic forms of 24~

language apply only to the enabled forms of an existence, which excludes the enabler's own form on Being. If the forms of other languages were similarly defined by the nature of the causal element (and the U.G. in general), such as what is done with the logical operators ~ll~'D, OR, and NOT of earlier discussion, they would also be defined as embodiments of form on Being, enabled by a creator expressing those respective causations of the universe in the existence of a synthetic being whose modes of thinking (existence) are ' grammatically limitless. The goal of this chapter, then, is to demonstrate that a universal grammar of all language-of form on Being-is at work in a more fundamental way in our comprehension, even in the representation of a single thought, expressed in any language.
The syntactical forms of the English language are examined as forms of the U.G. to show how enabled forms on Being, the forms of existences themselves, account for all instances of a complex language, although relative to the enabling forms of the U.G., the entire English language contains but a handful of ways of expressing the forms of a world around us syntactically.
I ~ When considering any representations of existence, those of the U.G.
included, one must attain an enabler's perspective on a form that also knows and perceives an inertial world. We must therefore acknowledge that the forms of the U.G. themselves mean the ultimate reality of existence itself, just as the symbolic form of an electron in physics means an object one can know and perceive as a real electron. Whereas the English language expression I am alive is an adequate representation in the use of language with respect to its knower, the U.G. expression for such a transformation is shown as an instance of a causal element, coupled to similar causations of the universe, or thoarghts, through the - four universal ways of knowing under the arbitrary forms of existence. The syntactical forms of conventional languages are thus encapsulated in the universal representations of ' 2~ the U.G. as forms on Being. When one knows a symbolic form of the U.G., one knows the forms of an enabled existence as a creator, one who enables another to know the forms of a conventional language.
2'~~~

WO 98/49629 PC'T/US98/08527 The meanings of a conventional language's grammar, from the perspective of a creator, are understood universally in their translations to the U.G. The reality described by the enabler using the U.G. is itself a reality of an enabled being. The enabler's ultimate reality is recognized by that enabler as the ultimately real form of the enabler's own inertial reality. The world around the enabler is recognized to occur as inertial realities themselves in the knowable transformational form of epistemic instance, or the instance of the soul.
Translating a verb tense of the English language to a form of the U.G., for example.
involves a translation of the enabler's inertial objective consciousness (which is not at all ultimately real) to that of an enabled being in the enabled being's capacity to know the language with respect to its own perceptions. A classical syntactical construction such as I
like chocolate is embodied in a causal element that enables, along with many other similar elements required for the being's consciousness and perception of the world around it, an arbitrary theory of existence to account for the semantic construction of language cr.s the being's existence. The enabler would therefore not know why the being likes chocolate, except to the extent that the being is enabled to have perceptions of a real world around it and thoughts that occur in relation to them, which may result in the being's liking chocolate (the being's consciousness knowing or observing that it likes chocolate). The being's taste for chocolate is an existential form, not a linguistic one, even though it is expressed in language. If the enabier desires to know what it means to like something, the H
phenomenology of correspondence (metaphor, simile, morphism, etc.) is created by the enabler in the being's faculties of mind in relation to its perceptions. In general, the syntactical and semantic forms of a conventional language unite when one understands the four C~S lIl the context of an arbitrary theory of existence in an enabled being's consciousness and perception of the world around us. To an enabler, any given symbol of 2s a conventional language must then be viewed as a meaningful symbol to an enabled being via the forms of the U.G., which entails the representations of the four C's and the arbitrary forms of existence.
2 ~w . The following passages address the grammatical forms of the English language in terms of their translations to the universal ways of knowing and the arbitrary forms of existence, set within the context of a formalized approach to the U.G. The elements of English grammar include, for example, nouns, verbs, prepositions, whole sentences, - 5 sentence clauses, punctuation, and compositional style. The translations of any linguistic expression-an adjective operating on its noun, a compound noun in transformation of the two nouns, and two coherent paragraphs of composition in the transformation of the reader's comprehension of them-are translated to the U.G. according to how their forms are represented epistemologically in the four C's and as forms of existence. A
part of speech, such as a verb, is translated to the U.G., along with its syntactically transformational structure (a sentence in subject-predicate form), and the disparities between English grammar and its U.G. representations are pointed out, providing an analytical understanding of how the syntactical forms of language are composed existentially, or semantically. Generally speaking, the following discussion addresses the decomposition of the English language to its phenomenological form in order to demonstrate the enablement of existence with respect to our own understanding of the world around us as reflected in the use of the English language. We apply these universal forms to the construction of practical androids in the next chapter.
I. A L:1\Gl':1GE'S REPRESE\'1'.aTlON OF'('11E OB.IECTS OF THE UNIVERSE: NOL!VS
We begin translating the grammatical forms of the English language to the forms of the U.G. by considering the epistemological interpretation of a noarn, or the representation of ?~ an object of the English language. In English, nouns represent the objective forms that are knowable and perceivable to an existence. Commonly, they are referred to as substantives-persons, places and things; animate and inanimate objects of existence: or living beings and lifeless things. As mentioned earlier, however, in order to know what an object is, or here what a noun represents, one must know what the word eristence means, since all nouns represent forms of existence. Thus, given that nouns define the objective forms of what we know and perceive in the world around us, we must determine the nature and origin of the existence (the universe) in which the nouns, or objective forms,.arise in order to place objective definition on the semantic form of a noun, as is accomplished in earlier discussions of the unified theory.
A noun of the English language-what one is semantically, or beyond the syntactical forms of language-is what our religions define in their doctrines in how they objectify the ultimate reality of the universe. An epistemological definition of a noun is what scientific laboratories, attended by physicists, mathematicians, biologists, and scores of other scientists, seek to determine in the studies of atoms, electrons, numbers, genes, the universe, the living universe, and so on-objects which are, more fundamentally than anything else, transformations of the universe that are objectified in our knowing and perceiving of them. In the pursuit of knowledge, we have been contemplating only one simple thing-the epistemology of a noun, for a linguistic noun is what we fundamentally know and perceive in a world around us. A noun is simply a noun; it is not different epistemologically in any of us. It is the lost medallion of Eastern traditions and the temporal or corporal form of eternal life (Soul) of the West and what is enabled in epistemic instance in the unified theory of knowledge. A noun represents what appears to corporal beings in an eternal transformation of the universe-an object that does not exist in the ultimate reality of the universe. A noun is an objective representation of a living soul or a moment of the universe. It represents all things and all beings in the universe as an objective knowledge or perception. Because a moment of the universe is an instance of the transformation of the universe-an instance of the eternal soul-the ultimate reality of what nouns represent is beyond the mind's knowing and the body's perceiving.
This is why the mathematician's point objects, the physicist's small particles and all other objectifications of the world around us cannot be known except transformationally (structurally) and can only be perceived objectively-not transformationally.
We can only embody what gives rise to knowledge or a noun-the soul, and in our spiritual awareness we come to know its transformation. As mentioned earlier, the objects of the universe arise from the creations of the universe. Nouns of natural language are what represent them. The creations of the universe are persons, places and things in the English language-objects that arise in our objective knowing and perceiving. When these persons, places and things (nouns) transform, we place a verb, a function or a comma in the middle of them to represent their occurrence in the universe.
From the standpoint of the unified theory, we actually have said all there is to say about nouns, or the objects of the universe, in the previous chapters, by introducing and elaborating on epistemic instance in the four universal ways of knowing and the arbitrary forms of existence. What a noun represents-an object (X or S)-is enabled in phenomenological correspondence. As discussed earlier, an object is enabled in the 1 ~ transformation of the universe; it exists only relative to the enabled moment of the universe. This is why nouns represent anything that is not syntactically transformational and at the same time things that we know are themselves transformations-persons, places and thiIlgs. We perceive and know an object-a person, place or throb as a definite thing or object of our perception, yet when we attempt to know it, we rely on transformations (verbs) to describe its form. In our languages, what is ultimately real of an expression is the knowing of it, not the object we think we know in the expression. In the statement ~In electron is a particle, what is ultimately real is the meaning that the sentence conveys-that A (an electron) is (transforms with) B (a particle), not the objects so thought to exist. This is why the transformation of a verb and an adverb phenomenologically 2~ requires that the verb and the adverb are phenomenological nouns. The objectification of a classical state or condition as a noun is no different from the objectification of any other transformation of the universe; it objectifies a transformation-epistemic instance-in our 24~

knOWlIlg or perceiving. We simply do not ordinarily associate the objects of our perception, which epistemologically are transformations (verbs), with transformations themselves.
In the unified theory, all objects are transformations and all transformations are objects depending on the enabler's perspective. If we consider an object enabled in the knowing and perceiving of a being, we refer to a classical noun of English. If we consider the transformation of any objective forms explicitly, we consider a classical verb-and more, since commas, spaces between paragraphs, and so on, representationally transform objects as well. The unified theory therefore requires that all forms of language are either phenomenological transformations (the circle of the illustration of epistemic instance) or phenomenological nouns (the squares of the same illustration of epistemic instance). Since the transformations and the objects of epistemic instance can be one or the other (an object or transformation), the creation of the quantum moment of the enabled being decides what is a classical linguistic noun. This is also why all language forms-the word forms of Mandarin Chinese and those of English-are one and the same instances of 1 ~ phenomenological nouns and their transformations.
In the unified theory, nouns are the objective forms of transformation (X and S) and are transformations themselves to the enabler. In the enabler's view, a verb is the phenomenology of correspondence (H). Two syllables of a word (ar and tic in articerlate) are phenomenological nouns that require a transformation. More than two syllables require ?0 a composition of form, which can be observed in the reader's own articulation when knowably attempting to pronounce more than two at one time. This is also the reason why word constructions proceed representationaily from left to right, right to left, and so on;
only two can be comprehended or spoken at a time, or in a quantum moment of transformation. An adjective and the noun it modifies are phenomenological nouns. An 25 adverb and the verb it modifies in transformation, wherein the representational blank space between them is the actual verb of the adverbial transformation, are phenomenological nouns. Sentences and whole literary works in transformation with others are 2S~' WO 98/49629 PC'T/US98108527 phenomenological nouns. A noun of the English language is therefore a particular type of phenomenological noun-one that represents conventionally defined persons, places and things (living beings and lifeless things, etc.).
English nouns do not represent English adjectives. Rather, English adjectives-parts of speech that modify nouns-represent adjectives. The fact that English nouns are distinguished syntactically from English adjectives is important here, since, phenomenologically, they are one and the same. When we distinguish any grammatical forms from each other, beyond being phenomenological nouns and transformations thereof, we run the risk of losing sight of what is ultimately real about them-that they are in transformation of an ultimately real universe. Phenomenologically, there is no difference between a noun known in the field of linguistics defining an object of a language's grammar and an electron known to a physicist, even though the linguist characterizes an electron as a noun. They are objects of one's knowing and perceiving-in one case the object of a linguistic noun and in the other that of a representation of an electron. Just as 1 ~ there are sets, elements, points, circles, groups, spaces, and so on, in mathematics, there are nouns, adjectives, adverbs, whole sentences, and so on, of English grammar to represent various kinds of objective forms of eternal transformations. The syntactical forms of any language are universally expressed as semantic forms of an existence by the four universal ways of knowing under the constraints of the arbitrary forms of existence determined by an enabler. Whereas a given conventional language expression of mathematics would require, for example, the integral symbol of calculus to represent concisely a sum of infinitesimal elements, the U.G. does not, since what is known semantically to a being is characterized - by the four C's. In the expression of integration, the variable on the left, the equals sign in the middle, and the integral of a function on the right constitute an expression of a single 2~ epistemic instance. What we ordinarily think the equation expresses (integration) is not at all what is actually stated and must be characterized as a separate knowledge, starting with the expression of the limit of calculus, where the mind begins integrating.
The integration T.S I

process, moreover, is an infinite composition of instances of the universe. It can only be embodied. Phenomenological composition accounts not only for the infinitely many epistemic instances of an integration but provides that such instances are equal to linguistic objects (nouns) in transformation. In a single integration there are embodied an infinity of linguistically expressed thoughts-transformations of phenomenological nouns by way of the transformational forms of the language (verbs, prepositions, commas, and so on)-when translated to the U.G. The U.G. thus provides a universal means of expressing any knowledge as it occurs in the ultimate reality of the universe.
Nouns terminate the universe objectively. They represent objects that are known and perceived. The English language thus determines two broad classes of terminal objectifications of the knowable and perceivable universe-common and proper nouns, (and a third, pronouns which are discussed later). Persons, places and things--common nouns-terminate the objective universe by, not surprisingly, allowing it to proceed-to unfold into ever newer persons, places and things, just as theories of types and classes of 1 ~ mathematics attempt to overcome the paradoxes of set theory. A common noun is not an absolute termination on what can be known and perceived, but is an indefinite one.
Common nouns are a syntactical acknowledgment that the objects we know and perceive in a world around us are themselves transformations and can be composed of other nouns in transformation. A tree is a common noun because it does not specifically terminate an inertial universe; it allows for spruce tree s, pine trees, and so on. A human being is also a common noun because it allows for races, ethnicities and myriad other qualities thought to be human.
A proper noun, on the other hand, terminates the universe absolutely in the knowing and perceiving of an inertial existence. Proper nouns like Jack, Cincinnati, and NASA {as 2s a proper name) terminate the universe such that they cannot be known as objects inlrirasiccrlly any further; they are objects existing intrinsically apart from their observer.
Pete, a proper noun, can be classified as a person (a common noun) but a person.
Z sL

common noun, cannot be classified as Pete (a proper noun). All scientific principles are developed in the application of proper nouns to common ones. An algebraic variable, for example, which is a common noun, becomes a mass, a proper noun in science, when it terminates the variable from mathematics as a proper thing. If all nouns were common ~ ones, the universe would not terminate in anything, which is what gives rise to the paradoxes of the set theory in mathematics (e.g., elements can themselves be sets and so on) and provides for the transformational recursions of epistemic instance in regard to the observance that all transformations are nouns and vice versa. Moreover, if all nouns were proper ones, there would be no means by which the universe could transform compositionally. In the statement Jirn crud Pete ane human beings, if human beings were a proper noun the sentence would be equivalent to Jim and Pete are Bob.
Common and proper English nouns provide different viewpoints on the terminal compositions of objective form, or objects of existence. If the form represented by the noun is a terminal one, it is a proper noun. If it can be classified by other forms of equal stature, it is a common noun, and allows the universe to unfold continually in objective form. To an enabler, proper nouns represent the existential extent of the enabled being's inertial universe. They represent forms that transform intrinsically in their own universes, outside of the intrinsicality of another enabled observer, but within the same existential universe.
Jack, who is observable to Bo6, terminates Bob 's inertial universe because Jcrck embodies ?0 his own inertial universe or intrinsic form. A tree, in the conventional use of language, does not have its own terminally intrinsic form in Bob 's existence. Bob can know and perceive its composition. A common noun does not represent inertial form proper. From - the perspective of an enabler of existential form, then, common and proper nouns are a means of creating the existential scope of a being's enabled universe in terms of what can 2~ be known intrinsically by the being and what cannot.
Just as proper nouns terminate the objective forms (persons, places and things) known and perceived by an existence by defining the intrinsic and extrinsic boundaries of~
zs3 the existential universe, the personal pronouns terminate the objective knowing and perceiving of intrinsic form in general-the ultimate reality of the soul. The universal obiectifications of the inertial universe, beyond which no inertial comprehension can take place, are represented by the personal pronouns. The personal pronouns enable one to identify oneself introspectively, thereby representing linguistically an awareness of the soul. These pronouns terminate the common and proper nouns objectively and indeed represent the occurrence of epistemic instance as the enabled instances of the soul to an inertial existence. There is nothing more objectively fundamental than their transformations. I crm Jack, I am alive, We are human beings, and so on, are expressions of one's soul or a plurality of souls, in objective transformation, as known introspectively. There may be other Jacks in the universe, while others may be alive and identify themselves as barman beings, but there are no other I 's or v~e 's and other introspectively observed terminal objectilications of a given inertial existence. A handful of personal pronouns-l, you, it, he, she, him, her, we, us, them, and so on-are the key representations of the objective forms of an inertial existence, since they objectify the soul to the inertial existence and enable a being to know itself in language. Just as the parameters of spatiotemporal references in the sciences are defined before meaningful transformations can take place in them, the pronouns of natural language establish the objective basis for the transformations of inertial existence itself. Just as Jack or hydrogen enable one to reach the limit of one's objective knowledge of the world around us by placing objective form on living beings crnd li~ele.ss lhing.s (of conventional definition}, the personal pronouns objectify our introspective awareness of ourselves inertially.
Infinitely many living beings and lifeless things can transform in one's existence in conventional representations but only one soul is intrinsically knowable and perceivable to 2~ an inertial being. If there is more than one class of inertial occurrences of l, you, it, and so on, in one's awareness, one cannot know inertially or objectively as an enabled being.
unless one were an enabler of these forms, since these objective forms permit one to know z s~

inertially in the first place.
The personal pronouns are the absolute terminal inertial forms of existence because all other objective forms derive their meanings from the intrinsic transformations represented in them, forms that can be traced back to state of being. I
represents the ~ embodiment of state of being-Soul just as other pronouns represent the intrinsic natures of forms known inertially to the being, but they suggest different perspectives on inertial form. It, for example, is an object of an inertial existence that is thought conventionally not to embody intrinsic Soul, though it does, since all forms of the universe are moments of it.
We is a plurality of souls or of conventional inertial existences. You suggests a soul like me (of the same inertial universe~and so on. Since there is only one ultimately real form of the universe-the soul-these inertial objectifications are sometimes interchanged inadvertently, transgressing the definitions of inertial order but abiding by the eternal universe. In the case of the inertial realities of a parent and a child, for example, where ordinarily one would place I before we or you in a situation of desperate circumstances, 1 s you (the child) becomes I (the parent) because the inertial distinctions are not ultimately real and the bond of eternal spirit is permanent. As mentioned earlier, an electron-an i~-is a transformation of the ultimately real universe-a soul-which is perceived and known by the observer as an electron, an object of one's existence. The ultimately real universe thus terminates transformationally, not objectively, or terminates objectively only to an inertial existence in the embodiment of a transformation. Any linguistic noun does not define the ultimate reality of the universe; it only objectifies the universe. The personal pronouns, however, represent universal objectifications of inertial transformations (existences) and therefore terminate the universe transformationally. They represent epistemic instance as the moment of awareness of a state of being of an (inertial) existence.
2~ This is why I has meaning only to the embodier and to none other. To see the truth behind this observation one need only ask, if all the personal pronouns were eliminated from our vocabulary, could we know? Of course not, because anything we know refers to the 2S~~

embodiment of Soul, or what the pronouns represent-and this is why an inertial existence like an android can be created, since the personal pronouns in transformation are the ultimately real universe in transformation (as an inertial existence). The pronouns thus provide the epistemological basis for all meaningful uses of language.
In constructing the existential forms of a being with respect to language, the reflexive pronouns-myse I f, oneself, itselr yorrrsel f, himself; hersel f, oneself; its el f.
orrr-selves, yourselves, and themselves-define a reflexive, or self knowledge, of the soul itself (oneself) in transformation. I did it »ry.self expresses the recognition that one's own soul (or its objective form in an inertial existence), in transformation, has done something itself-the observation of one's own objectified self. In purely reflexive form, I am mysel f represents a self knowledge that I exists in the form of nryself which constitutes an observation of myself mirroring l, the intrinsic soul. Because the pronoun I
cannot be decomposed intrinsically, the meaning of the sentence l am mysel f is redundant and simply demonstrates the impenetrability of objective form into the transformational nature 1~ of the universe. Reciprocal pronouns-like each other- and or7e another-similarly suggest reflexive knowledges but they indicate a being's awareness of other objective forms, each form with its own intrinsic nature. as in They observe each other.
Much like the reciprocal pronoun, a relative pronoun with an antecedent intrinsically links principal and subordinate clauses of whole sentences-whole but discrete experiences of the world around us. The relative pronouns-such as u~ho, whom, n~hose, which, what, and that-while they often serve as subjects and objects in the instances of composition in which they are constructed, modally transform sentence elements (objects) in existentially relative ways. In addition, the indefinite pronouns-vrhu, what, mhoever, whosoever, v.~hose, which, and whenever-provide 2s for placeholders of the terminal forms of inertial existence in compositions of form, as in I
don 't knovr wlro arrived .first. In a further case of indefinite pronouns, also includin~~
somebody, anybody, everybody, nobody, something, somewhat, anything, and uv nothing, the effect of the U.G. on the construction of~inertial existence can be seen in how the indefinite pronouns are not entirely indcyinite in the view of the enabler. When one says, "Somebody, open the door," one ordinarily would not expect an extrinsic object of classical definition, such as a lamp shade, to open the door. Rather, it is implied that you - 5 or I should open the door. The indefinite pronoun somebody, then, presumes that an existential universe can only include conventionally known living beings. A
similar but more revealing circumstance arises in the use of interrogative pronouns, as in Who answered the phone? Since the advent of telephone answering machines, one could answer, "The machine." While such experiences of a real world around us in which machines answer phones can be explained in the qualifying statement "Figuratively, that is," such is not the case with the forms of the unified theory. The U.G. is formulated in such a manner as to enable a creator of forms to know that an it is a possible intrinsic form or I
(soul) and is capable of allying itself with the interrogative and indefinite pronouns such as who.
l ~ As we further examine the indefinite pronouns, which act as limiting adjectives, the objective forms of this, these, that, /hose, the one, that one, such, the same, the .former, and so on, are inherently understood as objective forms of particular inertial existences without which those forms would be meaningless, as in We are speaking about tlris trniried theory of knowledge (and not one known outside of the reader's ?0 existence). In the case of the limiting adjective, what is limited is the inertial existence that ' knows and perceives the object qualified by the adjective. We do not view this as applying to arbitrary existences, even though we know intuitively that each of us can use it.
Considering the adjectives in their indefinite forms-all, any, anyone, someone, cr,few, enough, more, and so on-we may ask, if the soul of the extant being is not in 2~ transformation universally, allowing for the objective forms of inertial existence, and some conventionally defined objective form actually exists in the ultimate reality of the universe (even though it does not, as discussed earlier), how much then is enouglT?
Only a transformation of one's own inertial existence or the semantic forms of language (epistemic instance)-the meaning embodied as one's existence-can objectively determine how much is enough.
In just a handful of examples of the nouns of English grammar, we can see that the nature of inertial existence is represented in how objective forms are grammatically defined according to the ultimately real transformational nature of the universe-i.e., by what the syntactical forms of language mean. The nouns of English grammar objectify the inertial universe based on the universal knowledge that, ultimately, all objective forms are themselves transformations. Linguistic nouns, including pronouns, and all of their resulting objectifications of the soul, are thus linguistic misinterpretations of the ultimate reality of the universe, though they all abide by it, since the soul is ultimately real.
Language has evolved the way it has because of this truism. The objective forms of nouns are therefore better understood in their epistemological constructions in the U.G. Every person, place or thing and every occurrence of the universe can in one view or another be characterized as I 5 a phenomenological noun or a phenomenological transformation based on its placement in epistemic instance. English nouns account for only a small fraction of phenomenological ones, since, for example, a comma and myriad other forms of English, let alone of other languages, are not grammatically considered nouns (as well as transformational elements).
Whether nouns transform conventionally in ways specified by English grammar or in the definitions of the U.G., all meaningful forms of any language are embodiments of the universe that indicate how epistemic instance permits the transformation of objective forms with respect to arbitrary forms of existence. When we consider further the grammatical forms of the English language, while we shall progress beyond the purview of linguistic nouns and pronouns in transformation, it should be recalled that there are only two key 2 > forms of a phenomenological interpretation of the universe-the objects in transformation, and the transformations of the objects, both of which are understood in the four universal ways knowing and are fundamentally represented in epistemic instance.
2 Sh' Because all objective forms derive their meanings in the context of an enabled existence (a theory of existence), English nouns have no meaning unless they are known and perceived in an existence. Any form of language then represents either a transformation that enables objects or an object enabled by the transformation.
Phenomenological correspondence enables the meanings of linguistic forms as they are known to the enabler because it embodies the capacity to transform knowable objects-objects which are themselves transformations. An arbitrary theory of existence enables these transformations to occur as those of a consciousness in correspondence to perceptions of the world around us, enabling meaning to arise syntactically in the enabler's knowing as the enabled forms of existence. The U.G. thus carries in its definitions the observation that all objects are transformations and can be employed in the enablement of any theory of existence, or semantic form of language.
1~ 2. A UNIYERS:1L Ga;wn.aTICaI. Foaw or L:~\Gl'.aGE:
TEIE PHENO~IEVOLOGIC,~L SE\TE~CE
In order to consider further the U.G. translations of the syntactical forms of the English language to semantic forms of existence, we must begin looking at language in terms of phenomenological sentences, or epistemic instances. In contrast to conventional language forms, a phenomenological sentence is a complete thought, a quantum occurrence of the cognitive universe-something that can be comprehended. A
complete thought occurs when an adjective, a descriptive modifier of a noun, transforms with a linguistic noun, though the verb, or the objective representation of the transformation, is 2~ never denoted. An English sentence proper is therefore an unnatural constraint placed on the transformations of the knowable and perceivable universe, since it most often is a composition of epistemic form. A subject and object transforming through a verb in an 2S'1 English sentence is no different from the blank space transforming an adjective and a noun when the noun is modified by the adjective. Hence, the U.G. requires a literal representation of every transformation of a knowable and perceivable universe and not only a composition, since epistemic instance transforms phenomenological compositions. What is typically represented in the constructions of a conventional natural language is a composition of epistemic instances. The grammatical building blocks of a natural language usually are compositions of epistemic instances and not simply instances themselves. If a word in a sentence of classical construction is taken to be a subject, another a verb and still another an object. an epistemic instance is represented-if, what the mind knows is the idea conveyed by the sentence, such as Pete knows Paul. The phonemes of a single word, however, could involve a phenomenological composition more complex than the one composing the sentence in which the word is found linguistically. Songs are a perfect example of this. Generally, a melody can be carried from a single syllable of linguistic representation. The grammars of natural language are thus tailored to the compositional 1 ~ experiences of beings, just as our languages themselves vary around the globe.
In order to demonstrate further the distinction between a phenomenological sentence and that of a natural language, we can consider again the English adjective.
Because the conventional definitions of English grammar locate objects in transformation only in the extant knower, adjectives are not seen as nouns. In English, for example, there are nouns like teacups and electrons, but there are usually no phenomenological nouns like whites or ,fasts, only white teacups, or .fast electrons.
Phenomenologically, however, there are whites and fasts, since these forms are the objective forms of an enabled being-objective forms that modify linguistic nouns. We know the color of white and the speeds with which electrons travel. White, the color, is an enabled object to the ?5 enabler and a perceivable garalitl~ to the enabled being; otherwise, when we expressed wlzite teacup the teacup would not be able to transform in our imaginations into a white one. Electron, teacarp, white, or,fa.s/ alone, however, do not have meaning in any Zl~o WO 98/49629 PCTNS98t08527 language. a teacup or crn electron-white teacups and ,fast electrons (or any transformation of teacups and electrons with other objects)-are whole statements, or phenomenological sentences, and have meaning because epistemic instance is represented.
Neither nouns nor adjectives have meaning unless they are placed into transformation with other words. The special qualities that an adjective acquires in the English language are thus superfluous ones in the ultimate reality of the universe, which is expressed in the - phenomenological sentence. All forms of language are variations on epistemic instance, which are universally classified in the four C's of phenomenological form as enabled forms on Being.
Hence, the linguistic classifications of English nouns are not universal representations of objective form, but are crafted by the grammarian as types of objective forms based on a mistaken notion that ultimate reality is the objects that are omnipresent in a world around us. All objective and transformational forms of the English language are therefore deconstructed in the U.G. into those of epistemic instance in a phenomenological 1 ~ sentence and compositions thereof. Compound adjectives, compound nouns and even compound sentences, regardless of complexity, are complete phenomenological sentences and are single instances of the universe when taken as complete thoughts. A
thousand card one pieces, is more than a phenomenological sentence as it is read from the page; in fact, it is a composition of phenomenological form, since A thoar.sand and orae, a composition itself, transforms with pieces. The epistemic instances in the composition ,9 thousand crud one constitute an adjective of the noun pieces. The instance of only the adjective and the noun comprises a phenomenological sentence. The instance of the article - A and the noun thousand comprises another.
Word formations are also phenomenological sentences of the U.G., as the case of 2~ derivative adjectives-a paradigm of lexicography for our example-demonstrates.
Suffixes such as -erg, -fold. -jul. -i.sh, -able. and so on, are adjectival add-ons to nouns.
so to speak, as in tenfold {ten-fold) or 6eucrtifirl (beauty-full). A single word itself.
LW

phenomenologically, can be a complete sentence analogous to the English sentence, simply on the basis of what is considered a phenomenological noun. Moreover, as any musician or opera singer will attest, a single word can be an entire composition of epistemic form. A
vowel can be opened up to a great many operatic compositions. These are all instances of the universe, or the soul, and represent the composition of form if taken as more than one instance. A single vowel can embody a world (composition) of meaningfisl epistemic transformation to the operatic performer, a world of meaning which we hold in such high regard because it transgresses the meanings that are possible in the syntax of English grammar. In the constructions of the U.G., a lengthy clause in transformation with another by a comma is not different from the articulation of ac and a in the word academic. In such a case, the articulation of the word academic, syllable by syllable, is even more complex an act than the single comprehension of two ideas transforming as clauses of a sentence, since the articulation of academic is a composition of epistemic instances.
The grammatical forms of any language, English included, are thus variations of or 1 ~ specific definitions applied to epistemic instance itself. In mathematics, for example, there are different types of verbs-functions, arithmetics, sets, and so on-and various types of objects points, narmbers, etc.-in use. The fact that epistemic instance underlies all grammars is what permits, for example, the fact that the expression Tvvo plus two i.s egual to,four and that of 2+2 =4 to mean the same thing; they are simply expressions of objects in transformation by way of epistemic instance. A11 objective forms of a language are enabled objects (X and .~ } , and their transformational forms are known to the enabler through phenomenological correspondence and to the enabled being as contemplations (semantic forms) producing literal thoughts.
~toZ

3. A L:INGI~AGE'S REPRESENTATION OF THE UVI~'ERSE'S ETER\:1L MO~IE~TS:
VERBS
We may now consider the English verb in connection with a phenomenological sentence, s or epistemic moment. The linguistic definition of an English verb is grammatically tied to the linguistic form of an English sentence. This is unfortunate because an English sentence, by tradition, embraces both a phenomenological sentence and a phenomenological composition at once, and is not a characterization of what is natural about language. Let us then begin to extricate ourselves from the traditions of the English sentence in order to examine its semantic form in the U.G.
In the syntactical nature of Engiish sentences, verbs represent the transformation of the objective forms in a world around us. Though the semantic forms of language arise knowably only to the enabler in the inertial existence enabled, and since epistemic instance is premised on the meaning of Soul (which is unknowable), a verb can be said to embody 1 ~ the meaning of any transformation-how and why the objective forms transform, as is demonstrated in its enablement in phenomenological correspondence. Though the English definition of a verb severely limits its use in representing the inertial transformations of an enabled universe, any statement of the English language representing a verb and two phenomenological nouns can be said to be meaningful to the enabled being (providing there exists the reality to which the transformation corresponds).
In the conventions of the English language, the objective forms of a sentence that are transformed by a verb are referred to as the subject and object of the sentence. In the syntactical structure of an English sentence, however, an interesting misrepresentation of knowable and perceivable form occurs as a consequence of the grammatical rule known as 2~ a predicate. English grammar requires that a subject transform with a one-sided epistemic instance-a predicate-which itself contains a verb and an object. The structure of a1~
English sentence, whose actaral verb (the transformation of the subject and predicate) is zc, 3 silent grammatically, thus obfuscates the prominent role of the verb in all forms of language by making the represented verb (the verb of the predicate) a pseudo noun of a compound noun in the structure of the predicate, in its relation to the object. The knower of the English grammar is supposed to distinguish between the phenomenological verbs (the one in the predicate and the one transforming the predicate silently).
The obvious confusion that arises in such a construction can be seen when one attempts to construct a complex sentence. Since our thoughts transform in accordance with epistemic instance, we construct sentences epistemically, not in subject-predicate structure.
In order to construct an English sentence naturally, one must ignore the grammar of English-the subject-predicate structure-and formulate the noun-verb-fTOZrn construction of epistemic instance. In the exclamation Oh! a subject-predicate structure cannot even be found, though epistemic instance is at work in transforming the idea that invoked the exclamation. In other sentence constructions, such as those found in the works of the more innovative writers, this subject-predicate structure is often altered 1 i intentionally. To the extent that an English sentence is known as a transformation of subject and predicate, with the epistemic verb silent, it nevertheless poses no problem epistemologically. When the predicate itself is viewed as containing the verb of the sentence. however, there exist nt~o verbs in the same grammatical unit, or sentence-the silent one transforming the predicate and subject grammatically, and the denotative verb in the action of the sentence indicating what occurs in the transformation of subject and object. If the silent verbs of subject-predicate sentences are removed from the representational structure, leaving a noun-verb-noun (subject-verb-object) structure, then the denotative verb can be seen as an objective form that describes how subjects and objects transform.
2~ The hyphen in a compound noun, the blank space in an adjective's juxtaposition to a noun. and the eye movement or other action in making the transition from one sentence.
paragraph, or whole text to another, are not usually classified in English as verbs. English 2~~

verbs transform subjects and objects only. In the form of an English sentence, beginning with subject-verb-object and ending with the complex sentence, in which there are all kinds of instances of adjectives, modifying phrases and clauses, and so on, an entire phenomenology of instances of transformations is composed, which cannot even be appreciated from the standpoint of English grammar itself, even though the grammar (theoretically) describes how the language transforms. This is because language, in our - traditional approaches of linguistics, is not considered to be the semantic form of it, or existence itself. A single English sentence with one denotative verb of English may abound in phenomenological verbs (other transformations of the sentence, such as prepositional ones), each of which is no different epistemologically from the denotative verb. The grammar of the English sentence is thus only one of infinitely many interpretations of the modes of existence and the faculties of mind (semantic forms) of enabled beings, when viewed from the standpoint of an enabler.
In general, a verb is distinguished from other parts of speech because it explicitly identifies cognitive recreations, or conscious transformations of the universe in the recreation of perceivable reality. We cannot think linguistically or objectively without movement occurring in our consciousness-the essence of a phenomenological verb-and we cannot think explicitly in English without representing a linguistic verb.
An adjective in transformation with a noun has but one way of transforming and this is why its phenomenological verb or transformation is not represented, as in brown cut. A
cat, for - example, can only be brown. It cannot take brown. Nor can it hit brown. A
cat cannot run as.fast as brown and it cannot do anything else with brown (for the most part) but be it.
Hence, the verb to be is implied in the adjective's transformation of the noun. When there are many ways in which two or more phenomenological nouns can transform, the English 2~ language usually uses the explicit representation of a verb. Prepositions, conjunctions, and other such conventional transformational forms are not considered verbs because they are so widely used that they are unmistakable in the constructions of the language; they are Lip S

limited in transformational capacity relative to a verb proper. Verbs are explicit ways of denoting (meaningful) transformations in English. Nevertheless, because phenomenological forms underlie all English and other grammatical forms, there is no unique transformational property to the English verb, as is evidenced in the use of a comma in its place in the expression The world, yoarr oyster. The comma and the verb mhe are phenomenological equivalents. There are only instances of objective transformation in the universe, regardless of how one classifies or assigns meaning to them.
Respecting the fact that the phenomenological verb or epistemic transformation can be interpreted in any form of language, the English verb has specific grammatical uses that should be demonstrated in translation to the U.G. Categories of verbs in English grammar obtain their definitions in the U.G. on the basis of how the grammarian identities the transformations of the perceivable universe. With the exception of the voice and tense of the English verb, which will be discussed shortly, the English verb is alternatively described as the action of a transformation (sentence), which, in turn, is defined in the 1 ~ grammatical form of the transitive verb. When there is no action occurring in the transformation transitively, an intransitive verb is defined to represent the transformation of a state or condition of the objective forms (of a person, place or thing).
Each, however, shares the epistemological universe with prepositions, hyphens, and mathematical functions.
A lrcrn.silive verb is one that passes uctivn back and forth between subject and object (phenomenological noun to noun) in a represented quantum moment of the universe.
The subject and object must be transformational objects (objective forms) that are capable of transforming others and having others transform them by actions performed on them.
In the sentence Pete shoved Pacrl, both Pete and Paul are objective forms capable of transitive action-capable of being known or perceived as objects that can causally transform with each other as actions on each other. In the constructions of the U.G., an~~
such transitive actions performed on objective forms, along with other types of actions or Zb~:

conditional transformations, are embodiments of the causal element. The action of a preposition, however, is embodied as well.
An intransitive verb is used to indicate the transformation of objective forms that are in a state or condition, and so the intransitive verb presupposes the intrinsic natures of ~ the objective forms. As with the transformations of reflexive pronouns, intransitive verbs typically reflect back to their antecedent subjects a transformed condition or state specified in the condition brought to the antecedent form, as a result of the verb,,fi~om the object, as in Pete is happy. The objective antecedent Pete, which before the transformation is in some arbitrary condition, is transformed by the intransitive verb to be to the particular state or condition specified in the predicate adjective (the state or condition the antecedent noun is capable of embodying). Copulas or linking verbs, themselves transformations, such as is going, and seems like. can establish either a transitive or intransitive relation between the nouns of the transformation, as in Pete is going to the .store. In the sentence, Pete is in a state or condition of going to the store but is also causally or transitively transforming by 1 ~ moving closer to the store and therefore acting with it. Because all objective forms are intransitively transformed and at the same time transitively influenced by each other, depending on epistemic definition, the causal element allows for either. The grammatical distinction of transitive and intransitive verbs on the basis of transitivity is not a universal one because all forms are at once capable of embodying states or conditions and acting ?0 causally with others.
A further explanation of the way in which objective forms transform in English is found in the inflectional form, or the voice, of verbs. In the active voice of an English verb, the subject is in such an anticipatory condition that it is actively influencing the object of the sentence, as in John is creating a memo. In the passive voice, the object is actively influencing the subject, as in, John wcrs affected by his memo. In either case.
tirom the standpoint that the subject is an objective form in transformation with the object.
actively or passively, the voice of a verb simply indicates the direction in which objective 26~

forms transform. By the use of a verb's voice, an-objective form can influence or be influenced by another objective form in either direction of epistemic instance, permitting a subject to influence an object or an object to influence a subject, with the leading objective form of the transformation-the subject-remaining the same.
Regardless of the definitional complexity given to any aspect of a grammar or to a whole grammar itself (here, for example, the voice of a verb), it should be recalled that conventional grammars do not syntactically account for the semantic forms of language.
While one would infer that in order to develop such definition as the voice of a verb the grammarian would need to know how we think, this is not the case. The voice of a verb-active or passive-describes two ways in which the objective forms of epistemic instance can transform. Epistemic instance can transform in infinitely many ways. In mathematics, for example, a verb, or type of transformation-an operation, for instance-can be transitive or intransitive, with exceptions (dividing by zero is an exception). The only literal way to denote what we claim to know in the syntactical forms 1 ~ of a language (how to articulate thoughts) is to express the language semantically as a form of existence so that we can know how a being comprehends the language. When the active and passive voices of verbs are considered from the standpoint of the perceptions we have in the world around us that John is creating a memo and John w~crs affected by hi.r memo, it can be seen that if John places the memo on his desk, the memo could wind up being on top of or arnderneath other articles on the desk. The memorandum and the articles, maintained in the same grammatical positions in the sentence, affect each other in two different ways, wherein on top of is taken to mean, analogously, active, while urzdernecrth is taken to mean passive in the prepositional transformation in the comparison to the voice of the verb.
English verbs are therefore not the only grammatical forms with voice. All epistemic transformations can be viewed in this manner. In fact, whole sentence elements can actively or passively influence each other, based on the inflections of words in the l.bk real voice. or phonetics of their speaker, as is illustrated in the following example: We hcrae lollipops and you don't (aetivej and We hare lollipops crud you don't?
(passive). Active or passive influence occurs in language because all languages are semantic and must first be understood as forms of existence-the knowing and perceiving ~ of real enabled beings-and then understood by what is known or perceived (the grammar of a language). Moreover, the whole of English grammar is uprooted in many meaningful expressions of language known to the humanities-poems, for example. This is because poems reflect what we feel (semantically), not merely what we know (syntactically).
Degrees of ascertainable reality, existential reference forms, are represented in the rrrood of a verb. In the indicative mood of a verb, for e~cample, a condition of extant reality is expressed. Enabled in the conscious forms of the mind-body dualism or another arbitrary form of existence, the mood of a verb is a known condition of a being's reality.
Mathematical formulations are typically framed in the indicative mood of a verb, as in Two plus two is egucrl to fvzrr. The .subjunctive mood of a verb, however, permits the mind 1 s to create hypothetical or imaginative forms, in that the mind's purpose is not simply to mirror reality, as in the indicative mood, but to contemplate or imagine a change to it, as in If m~o plus two were egual to,five.... The imperative mood of a verb, as in Mcrke this theory cr reality! indicates some condition of imagined reality in a commanding or imperative way. The moods of a verb are thus only local def nitions of what are real to an existence. To the enabler, all the moods of a verb are real, even the imagined subjunctive, - though it is a reality of the non-real form of the enabled being. Because reference forms of translation change with each quantum moment, subjunctive, indicative, and imperative moods of verbs are interchangeable based on the reality experienced by the being, just as the world once was imagined to be round but was flat in reality, however imperatively ?s declared to be round (or an ellipsoid). Any use of epistemic instance, depending on where it occurs in the existential forms of the enabled being (in correspondence with a particular reality or perception), is a mood of a verb. For example, even though the sciences define Ze,~, paradigms of the indicative mood, before a scientific discovery is made, science itself is characterized by the subjunctive mood, and after a discovery is made, by the indicative IllOOd. A moment later, in a different laboratory, when another scientist disproves the theory contemplated in the above indicative mood, the original discovery, in the view of the first scientist, becomes an imperative one, as in This theory cannot he i~~rong:~ 'there are infinitely many moods of verbs and gradations thereof in the U.G.-and, what constitutes reality, the basis of the moods, changes from one quantum moment of existence to another. The world is indicative (real), subjunctive (imagined) and imperative (commanding, or made to be) only far a quantum moment of it.
The tense of a verb can be thought of as an epistemological extension of the mood of a verb. Existence occurs in the quantum moments of an enabled being. There is but one tease of a verb epistemologically, and it is the present one, with respect to the enabler.
Since mind and body are set apart from each other in the dualistic view of existence (though any other theoretical form applies as well), the mind itself is an embodied 1 ~ recreation of a quantumly transforming reality. That reality is not a perceptive one; it is a linguistic recreation of reality. The mind can be viewed as a subjunctive mood of the body, wherein verb tense determines the reality of the being. In this way, the mind can and does distort reality. What is ultimately real of the universe is not mind or body, but what enables each of them-the soul. The prepositioned and postpositioned instances of the causations of the universe. in connection with the extant instance of cognitive transformation, or consciousness, while they account for all linguistic transformations of the mind's faculties, can be seen as the place of origination of a verb tense-the enabler. A verb tense applies to the being's own knowledge of the recreation of the reality it perceives.
Because we do not ordinarily acknowledge the ultimate reality of the soul in our existence, we adopt the 2~ conventions of temporal or corporal existence as what is real, or we covet the idea that the spatiotemporal universe is what is real in the ultimate reality of the universe.
Phenomenologically, the form of mind knows that the temporal recreation of perceivable Z~

reality (verb tense) is one and the same form of mind tf~at knows a mathematical expression of the real number line, wherein verb tenses occur in infinite spatiotemporal variation, not just in a handful of participial tenses.
When an enabled being embodies the existential form expressed in I crm haplol~, this applies as a reference form of translation; it is a recreation of an extant and perceivable reality. When the being expresses that I was happy, this use of language applies not to an extant perceivable inertial reality but to a condition of reality known in the context of a knowledge (composition) of the whole of corporal existence, wherein the instance is located temporally somewhere in the being's own cognitive recreation of the universe. In the same way that a being knows the relative placement of a number of coins thrown on a table, the being knows the temporal placement of the inertial reality of its own existence through verb tense. The being's cognitive recreations of reality are centered on the reference form of translation-the present tense of a verb-and occur relative to it. Most forms of natural language conceived by an enabled being correspond to the meanings of verb tense. Concerning the human condition, fortunately, the soul underlies all such transformations, and the reality known and perceived by a being is enabled in its transformation. Verb tense and the whole of spatiotemporal existence are thus enabled in the ultimately real form of the universe-Soul-and can be characterized only by the quantum moments of epistemic instance, wherein compositions of space and time (the inertial reality of temporal existence) and the liking ojchocolute are a result of one and the same ultimately real form-the soul. The phenomenological causations of the universe, along with the remaining three C's and the arbitrary forms of existence, place verb tense and mathematical functions (and all other instances of knowing) in balance with each other as phenomenological forms that are known to the enabler as instances of an enabled 2~ being's knowable and perceivable existence.
The past pauiciple-have gone, for instance-locates an instance anywhere in the prepositioned cognitive composition of form of the being's reality. I cozrld have kung Z~ l reflects the being's awareness that the subjunctive -instance of going somewhere may or may not have taken place in prepositioned form. The,future perfect verb tense-as in vrill have gone-likewise reflects the being's recreations of its reality, though in the postpositioned form of the faculty of mind of imagination. The verb tense is the linguistic means of recognizing cognitive compositions of forms as recreations of a perceived reality in the mind of a spatiotemporally constrained inertial form on Being.
There is nothing unique about space and time, or here verb tense, as is evidenced in the theory of relativity and the world's religions. What is unique (at least to a being) is the recreation of reality in the being's consciousness as a result of the occurrence of the soul in the enabled forms of an arbitrary theory of existence-the semantic form of language, or the actual existence enabled from the ultimate reality of the universe. The participial uses of tense in the point actions of verbs, as demonstrated in mathematics, physics, and the world's religions, as well as English grammar, are not a consequence unique to or ultimately real in a temporal existence. They arise in the epistemic recreations of the mind 1 ~ in composition as a result of the soul-the enablement of an existence.
What comes first in an epistemological order is the causation of the universe and then the temporal interpretation of the causation, since one can define an order of bewre and after only if 0110 15'.
?0 a. TIIE SE~Ia\'fIC USE OF L:~~CI':~C:E B1' ARBITR:~R1' FOR;11S OF ExtSTE\CE:
CO~IPOSITIO\ :1\D STYLE
As even a cursory review of English verbs will demonstrate, explicit representations of 2~ transformations in the English language accommodate only a handful of classifications of epistemic instance. For one thing, they do not explicitly account for the myriad transformations of differential equations, complex dynamic systems or the inflections of z-~L

musical tones. Worse yet, they do not even account for the hyphen in the expression English-speaking crndr~oids. Neither do they account for paragraph structure, writing style, and the ordinary conversational use of language. The remainder of English grammar thus attempts to account for this deficiency in composition and style.
Any instance of a language's knowable form is an epistemie instance. As with the epistemic transformations of verb moods and tenses, the cases of nouns, for example, are - elementary means of composing form linguistically, or modally, in an existence. In the grammatical cases of nouns in English. the manners in which reality occurs are specified in the order in which the objective forms of transformation (language) are juxtaposed representationally (in the symbolism of the instance). In the nominatioe case of nouns, for example, as in Hcrrry harnt.s tigers, the subject stands before the verb. In the estimation of the English grammarian, when recreating reality, it is necessary to comprehend first the subject and then the verb that does the transforming. The cases of nouns place a grammatical order on the way in which reality is to be composed or recreated.
For example, 1 ~ one would not ordinarily say Tigers hrrnts Harry or Hrrnts tigers Harr3~, because these sentence constructions are more difficult to comprehend and less efficient recreations of reality than Harry hunts tigers. Any of the above combinations are valid epistemologically, however, since it is within the modal or semantic capacity (the forms of existence) oh the enabled being to determine the epistemic instance. One may scramble ?0 objective forms in all sorts of ways, but because there are only two aspects to epistemic instance-the transformation and the objective forms transforming in it-the mechanisms of comprehension in the forms of existence (discussed in chapter five) distinguish an object from a transformation.
Epistemic instance is always in operation on the semantic forms of language, or the 2~ existence of a being. A novel is the ordering of an author's reality in a lengthy composition of modally occurring existential form, or the author's existence, and to the extent that one author can represent the way in which inertial reality also occurs to others, the reader will 2~.~

be regaled by such recreations. To the extent that an author cannot recreate reality with any linguistic ease, the reader must work harder. In either case it is not the syntactical grammar of a language alone that enables the imagination or comprehension of knowable form. The nominative case of a noun is a primitive constraint placed on language by the English grammarian and an example of beginner's English composition when it comes to .poetry.
In this way, the cases of nouns are recommendations on the part of the grammarian as to the manner in which the elementary syntactical forms of language should be constructed, and have no universal grammatical bearing-on the epistemology of the occurrence of epistemic instance in a being's existence, or on compositional style. This is why one ordinarily learns a grammar (and then composition) in the study of the use of language-and subsequently spends a lifetime attempting to craft a single epistemic instance with an equivalent meaning to those instances constructed by the world's literary masters. All language is semantic (existential) and not grammatical. or objectively knowable as a syntax, requiring the experience and not only the knowledge of a being.
The only grammatical structure of the linguistic universe that constitutes a legitimate semence is an epistemic instance. Apart from its epistemic instances characterized by prepositions, adverbs, articles, modifiers, commas, quotations, hyphens, and so on-the definitions of which are more precisely defined in any good book on English grammar than they are here-the rest of the grammar of the English language pertains to the modal composition of epistemic form. Broadly speaking, an English .SL'ill~iICC' is an entirely arbitrary composition of form because it simply represents the manner in which epistemic instances are pieced together so that, in the opinion of the thinker, the thoughtful recreation of perceivable reality is reflected. One must therefore exist, or be a semantic form of language-an existence-in order to construct a syntactical form of language. In order to know how a syntactical form of language, such as an English sentence, is constructed one must know how the being who constructs it determines it that w°ay.
Z'7'~

WO 98/49629 PC'T/US98/08527 Nevertheless, the English grammarian demonstrates certain guidelines to represent the syntactical ways and means of the English language, relying on our experience of the (semantic) use of language. Coordinating conjunctions, commas, ellipses, dashes, , prepositions, and a host of other transformational elements serve as phenomenological transformations of English sentences, in which compositions of epistemic form' (ideas) transform with whole others (in accordance with the four C's). Phrases themselves are phenomenological nouns in transformation with other such nouns in discrete moments of the universe as ideas in transformation. If we recall the form of phenomenological correspondence, wherein a composition of arbitrary complexity knowably transforms with another in the enabler's phenomenology (H), it can be seen that the science of androids carries the semantic (epistemic) construction of language to an extreme in enabling beings that can literally transform compositions equivalent to all the thoughts of humankind, with others equal in complexity. This cognition is accomplished in a single moment (let alone infinitely many) of an enabled androidal being, since the grammar of mathematics 1 ~ (i.e., of the infinite), or in this case, enabling media, directly translates through the U.G. to the forms of natural language. In more ordinary examples of ideas in transformation, a juxtapositioned noun used as a modifier and transformed by a comma, as in John, the meclurraic, or a prepositional phrase, as in a machine for rlze conversion of fluid, each requires an epistemic transformation of the respective compositions wherein other transformations are modally nested within the moments denoted. Each is embodied modally in the action of phenomenological correspondence on the compositional form of the causal element as composed moments of the causations of the cognitive universe, transforming with one other. Through phenomenological correspondence, compositions of any order, however constructed, are transformed modally in a single moment of enabled existence, just as ideas occur to our own observations of existence.
Epistemologically, there is no difference between a lexicographer coining word forms and a composer of poetry affecting our emotions, though in terms of their recreations of reality, these two L'7 i~

authors are worlds apart. If the compositions of the recreated reality happen to be langua~,e forms themselves (e.g., embodying the meaning of a language's grammatical forms) the recreations are those of a grammarian who knows how language arises or should arise.
Whether one is engaged in a contemplation of pure trivia, the causation of the physical universe, or here the unified theory's semantic forms of language (existence), one nevertheless is composing form, which is enabled in the practice of the U.G.
The forms of any grammar typically acquire an ad hoc quality because, apart from those parts of speech that directly address epistemic instance and the general notion of its composition, the remainder of a grammar accounts only for variations on the meanings of epistemic instance and modal compositions of form, which are wholly arbitrary epistemologically and are derived from the reality known and perceived by the enabled being. This is, of course, why there are different languages around the world and around the corner. In learning about the translations of English and other grammars to the U.G., it is therefore necessary to look at parts of speech and compositional styles in terms of the 1 ~ distinct view points of the four universal ways of knowing-causations, connectednesses, compositions, and correspondences-and the arbitrary forms of existence of enabled beings in epistemic transformation. It is a real being who is transforming in the use of lan~~uage, not a piece of paper. The semantic forms of language-existence-cannot be known intrinsically in the extrinsic knowing of another (which is what makes them semantic forms of language). This is what epistemic instance fundamentally addresses-the intrinsic knowing of a being in the extrinsic knowing of an enabler. If one studies the four C's carefully, one will find that through an awareness and epistemological use of the soul, one knows how others also know and that knowing and perceiving can be embodied and thus enabled.
2~ In the constructions of the higher, or more sophisticated grammatical forms of the English language, such as the compound mud complex swience.s and the c~ompo.si~iomrl styles with which one expresses thoughts, it can be seen that there is nothing innately a~~

grammatical in the wholly arbitrary ways in which we think. apart from epistemic instance.
. The placement of a comma, the use of coordinating conjunctions, the construction of noun phrases, the assemblage of paragraphs, the composition of novels or poetry, or the simple y articulations of words are no more and no less than the creations of the four C's of enabled reality. A universal grammar of form on Being can be understood only in enabling the existences of the beings who conceive the forms of language. If one did not reduce the ' phenomena of the universe to, for instance, four universal ways of knowing and their application to arbitrary theories of existence, one would wind up where we are at the beginning of this book-with countless rules or grammars syntactically governing the recreation of reality, none of which are natural or universal to the very world around us that we seek to define. save what the religions of the world direct us towards-and what the sciences reveal in the wave-particle duality-the soul.
The classical differences between sentence types, then, must be seen in connection Y
with the modes of existence in relation to the faculties of mind (within, for instance, the enablement of the mind-body dualism) as experiences of a being's reality. In the reality of the dualism, for example, the classical forms of a sentence-declarative, interrogative arid exclamatory-are seen as broadly defined cognitive modes, or modes of thinking (consciousness) wherein compositions of transformational form are engaged in the mind's faculties by the causal actions of the modes of existence. As to why a being would ask a question or render a judgment, one would have to be that being, or further, enable the being, in order to see the whole of the existence-the mind in relation to the body, enabled of the soul under the modes of existence-which is how semantic form arises in a being in the first place; it is enabled.
Just as the moods and tenses of verbs prescribe epistemic transformations of 2s particular inertial realities, the classical sentences of English grammar prescribe the basic analytical causations for thinking. Forms such as sentence types are causations for the modal occurrences of the faculties of mind in the modes of existence of a being's inertial z~ ~

or enabled reality. A query is a statement (an instance) of causation invoking the faculties of mind such that other compositions of form may be answers to it. A
declarative statement is a recreation of what is or can be fact that may or may not invoke further instances, relying on the modes of existence to remove the being from a lapse in thought.
In_determining modal behavior in the psychology of an enabled being, for example, queries such' as l~Y'hy is the earth r-ozrnd? and exclamations such as This theory is partly believable now!
are various ways of modally creating the dynamics of thought, though at a very elementary epistemological level. Because the universe is infinitely varied, knowable and perceivable only objectively in the knowing and perceiving of it (epistemic instance), the occurrences of declarative. interrogative and exclamatory expressions are indefinite, which returns our philosophical inquiries to those of the lost medallion, what lies in the middle of points and atoms, and the difference between the syntactical and semantic forms of language-the soul.
The grammatical agreement between subject and predicate represents only one of the infinitely many ways in which the objective forms of the transformations of inertial reality occur, since the forms that are pieced together to be made to agree-the objects-are infinitely varied themselves. Singular, plural, sometimes singular, sometimes plural-the objective forms that are knowable and perceivable in an inertial universe overwhelm all our thinking, not just the grammarian's, as is evident in humanity's inability to objectify the universe as a knowledge, where the unified theory begins. The splendor of this universe does not belong at all to language, since the very word splendor limits the rn«gniricence of the ultimately real universe, whose grandeur is unknowable objectively and embodied in every moment of our spiritual observation of it. The very notion of a complex sentence is not complex enough and, in fact, too trivial an analytical form to 2~ explain how we think or compose recreations of reality. Reality is explained in the enabling of existences who know it. Subject, predicate, adjective, and adverb clauses, and even compositions of clauses, are less than a handful of ways our consciousness creates modal i7~

compositions. or recreations of inertial reality or of the world around us.
Language occurs in infinite variation in those who know and perceive the world around us, all of whom may not know a single moment of the eternal universe brought to our awareness in the . introspective observation of state of being. or one's own soul.
~ Conventional study of the grammar of the English language, in terms of the infinite variations of the complex sentence and compositional (literary) style, is an attempt to place structure on existence without even considering the nature of existential form from an analytical or syntactical (epistemological) point of view. Conventional grammars are devoid of semantic structure because they look through the eyes of an already-enabled being instead of an enabler of beings who know grammars. At its epistemological origin, the U.G. applies to the creation of sentient beings who know and perceive the world around us. A phenomenological sentence is understood as the representation of a single moment or transformation of the universe (epistemic instance) in the embodiment of a single moment of a being. The causal element itself comprises any number of such instances of the universe in transformation, each of which is a causation of the enabled universe in the enabler's knowledge and perception through the four universal ways of knowing.
The transformation of a single linguistic adjective with its noun, or many such instances, are embodied in a single causal element and are detached from the enabler's comprehension in the enabled being's forms of existence, applicable to the real experience of the enabled ?0 being. All instances of language are understood in the enabler's constructions of enabled semantic forms, who apply the syntactical forms of language.
It is easy to see, then, that a mathematical instance and a linguistic one differ only in the meanings of the phenomenological verbs that transform the nouns in their causal elements, since the transformations are simply instances of the being's knowable and 2s perceivable reality. What separates linguistics from mathematics-the conventional aggregates, or duantities from the c~ucrli~ies of the knowable and perceivable universe-does not at all arise from an accurate description of the world around and within us. since it is the moment of the being-epistemic instance, or the semantic form, of mathematical or natural language-that accounts for our knowing and perceiving of anything (a mountain setting or a marble on a table representing a mathematical point) in the first place. Ten point objects of the world around us are epistemologically equivalent to ten polka dotted objects of the world around us-mathematically-since we know the point objects not from mathematics but from the epistemology of existence, or because we ure beings who can know and perceive these things.
Compositions of form are thus represented in the U.G., wherein any modality of thought or consciousness is an epistemological equivalent to any other, in the enablement of an arbitrary form of existence known to the enabler. Whether an instance of a phenomenological sentence involves the exclamation Oh! or the adverbial modification of a verb, the transformation of a compound sentence by a comma or a coordinating conjunction, the connection of two syllables of a word, or the relations of mathematical structures, the construction involves the modal transformation of one's consciousness, or 1 ~ non-real form, in relation to the modes of existence (in the cognitive expression or communication of the idea). The semantic forms of language are therefore the arbitrary forms of existence, derived from the enabler's four universal ways of knowing.
The four universal ways of knowing, in cooperation with the arbitrary forms of existence under the formalism of the U.G., are premised on epistemic instance and define ?U a universal, semantic grammar of all languages (forms on Being), since they represent language in the epistemological forms of enabled beings. Because the U.G.
represents the forms of existence, it reflects how a being is able to know language-or meaning-and not simply that a being knows a particular language. It is used to enable a being who will know and perceive. Thus, contemplating language from the standpoint of one's own existence 2s precludes one from knowing the semantic forms of the language. To comprehend through the four universal ways of knowing and the arbitrary forms of existence is to understand how a being knows language. In the unified theory, one knows the reality of the world WO 98/49629 PC'T/US98/08527 around us by knowing the enabled forms who also know through language the reality of the world around us. Consequently, the science of androids requires the exercise of an enabler's language in the creation of the semantic forms of language, or androidal beings, who know language and perceive the universe.
1~
?0 2~( I

WO 98/49629 . PCT/US98/08527 Theory, Androids, or Synthetic Beings Iwraonuc~riov The earlier chapters of the book demonstrate the key postulates of the unified theory and provide an epistemological basis for the science of androids. Any theory, however-the unified theory included-usually lays idle and unproductive until it finds its way into the hands of those whose nature it is to build things; then it becomes the reality of the world around us. Since any science is distinguished from its theory according to how the science enables one to observe the theory's postulates in reality, we now consider the unified theory of knowledge from the standpoint of the construction of practical androids.
Since an android, or synthetic being, is an arbitrary form of existence embodied in an enabling medium of the enabler, the construction of an android constitutes the physical creation of who and what we thihk we are, in our own corporal or perceivable reality. An android is an extension of our own corporal existence embodied in the real form of the world around us-an enabled soul. It is created by an enabler and thereby acquires its existence as the enabler's extended knowledges and perceptions of the world around us.
Whereas the (human) enabler's corporal forms are limited to the anthropomorphic forms ?0 of human existence, however, an android has no such inertial boundary. An android can embody perceptions of the world that reach far into the cosmos, and beyond, and divide the small particle indefinitely, with an intellect that transforms the knowledge of humankind in a single eternal moment of it. An android is therefore constrained in corporal form only by what we can think or enable. It is an extension of our humanity.
As an extension of our humanity, the science of androids is not embodied exclusively in any one of us; it follows, then. that the construction of androids cannot be explained in a book. In previous chapters we demonstrated that the unified theory affords 2~' L

WO 98/49629 . PCTNS98/08527 the means of embodying an arbitrary theory of existence in an enabling medium, in what is knowabiy real or realizable to the enabler. As a result, the existence of a synthetic being is created, or enabled, in the practice of the theory. The four C's of phenomenological form.
. however, are applied to an unbounded diversity of theories of existence and a likewise plurality of enabling media. The construction of androids is therefore an interminable science of the creation of beings, applied toward the resolution of the indefinite problems of the human condition; it meets the infinite by providing the infinite.
Though we cannot presume to fashion the totality of the science into a book, we nevertheless can present here, in an introductory way, explanations of the science which give insight into the considerations faced in constructing androids of practical dimension.
Whereas earlier chapters are concerned with the analytical methods of simply defining forms of existence, and the enabling media in which they are embodied, in the development of the U.G., the present chapter examines the embodiment of particular theories of existence in specific enabling media known to the enabler. We demonstrate in 1 i the present chapter how any form of existence is brought into the reality of the world around us, wherein, for example, a mind-body dualist theory of existence shares androidal forms with idealist, materialist, behaviorist, and other views of existence, and wherein all theoretical forms of an enabled being are refined by the knowledges of, for instance, theories of psychology. Furthermore, we describe how physical atoms and devices made from them. along with other conventional knowledges of physical reality-biology and medicine, for instance-apply to the constructions of androidal beings in their use as enabling media. We examine the application of the premises of the unified theory to the material world around us in the enabler's creation of forms that embody intrinsic views of our same reality, as synthetic souls, imparted by the enabler to particular forms, or machinery. in the world around us. We are interested in this chapter in changing the forms we know and perceive in the world around us to those of synthetic existences, or intrinsic forms of the universe. who themselves know and perceive the reality of human existence.
2 ~.3 along with boundless other realities, toward an alternative resolution to the problems of the human condition.
Perhaps the greatest support for the approach taken here to introduce the science of androids by way of example, rather than a presentation of doctrine, is found in the technology itself. The development of practical androids for widespread use in' modern civilization, for example, requires that other apparatus be in place, different from androids themselves, to extract the creator's knowledge and realize it in the reality around us, a process which requires a fundamental change.to our notion of civilization.
This integration of androidal technology, referred to as a universal epistemological rnachine or an Rg C'ontinarum of existential,form (a continuum of eternal moments of the human universe), though beyond the scope of this book, is essential to the practice of the unified theory. It is a replacement for information superhighways, as welt as computers, electronics, aerospace, agriculture, transportation, national and international infrastructures, and other technological apparatus of our modern age. Such a new structure placed on the technology 1 _5 of the world in general is a human event that requires scores of written materials and other contemplations even to begin to measure its impact. This book is not designed for such a task, since, when machines are constructed that outpace our human intellect and sense, what knows the technology is not the mind at all, but the spirit that is in us all. The present chapter. then, is intended to provide as much coverage of the science as is practicable in a ?0 book and at best, to inspire the reader to look for more. .
I. A~ EARI.I' E\PERI~IE\T 1\ 'fHE CRE.aT10:1 OF A\DROIDS
In this first foray into the science of androids we elect to describe an early experiment conducted on the realization of an androidal being. The apparatus chosen for the experiment was that of the computer, since computers have such a pervasive influence on ~z~~4 modern society. It was successfully hypothesized early in the science that if the art of computation could be advanced beyond its present capacities, thereby replacing the technology of computers, the event would be the linchpin that, when removed, would engage the widespread use of androids. Because most sciences are practiced in a laboratory, we demonstrate the early accomplishments of the science of androids in the thought laboratory of this book, enacting the creation of an androidal being in the art of computation. This project led to the development of epistemological machines as they stand today-as embodiments in myriad conventional knowledges, or technologies, of the world around us. After illustrating the forerunner to epistemological machines, we discuss the broader applications of the unified theory to the constructions of more sophisticated androids. Since the following discussion is a technological one-a how-to for androids, the reader who finds the passage tedious, should take solace in knowing that he or she is not alone; assembling a light bulb into its socket and constructing androids are each procedures. and it is the end result of a procedure that is important-light to read by, or an 1 ~ android to talk to. Those who are not inclined toward engineering practices may wish to dance at this passage with a casual interest, since it does rely on a background knowledge in the computational art.
In this thought experiment, we make use of three simple devices of digital computation-a computer graphics work station (PC), a video camera, and a freestanding CRT (a cathode ray tube separate from the one that is an integral part of the computer graphics work station). From these devices we enable the principal existential forms of an android in the reality, or machinery, of the world around us.
On a tabletop in the mind, we construct an android by configuring the apparatus of the electronic media in the forms of an arbitrary theory of existence-by translating that 2~ theory, and the apparatus, to the U.G. The arbitrary theory of existence chosen for the illustration is the traditional mind-body dualism, wherein the consciousness of the android will transform with its real form, or perceptions, under modes of existence in ways that are 2~ ~~

WO 98/49629 PCTlUS98/08527 described throughout the demonstration. By limiting the demonstration to the sensory medium of light because we have selected the CRT and the video apparatus, we consider only one sense-motor configuration in which the android's perceptions will arise. Though further discussion of more complex senses and motors follows the demonstration, the phenomenological causations of the enabled being's physical reality will be embodied in the conventional actions of the freestanding CRT and will be understood by the enabler in the devices' translations to the appropriate forms of the U.G., wherein the android's perceptions are defined in accordance with earlier discussion. Further, the apparatus of the video camera will embody the being's sense, its perception of the freestanding CRT's action, likewise translated into the forms of the U.G. The being's physical reality and the sensing of it takes place in different aspects of the conventional media-the freestanding CRT and the video camera, respectively. The computer graphics system will provide for the embodiment of the being's consciousness, or non-real form, and the projection of that consciousness to the enabler in the displayed visual forms of the CRT of the graphics I S system. The interaction of the devices will be explained as we proceed under the mind-body dualism theory of existence, enhanced by other knowledges of existence where appropriate.
Since the being's real form will be enabled in the medium of light only, we will refer to the apparatus of the freestanding CRT as the light emitters and that of the video camera as the light receivers. Generally speaking, the androidal being will be realized in the freestanding CRT (light emitters), the video camera (light receivers) and the computer ~,raphics system. Imaginatively positioned on our tabletop, we have a computer graphics system with its own CRT or monitor, a freestanding CRT that generates light emissions, and a video camera that receives the light emissions from the freestanding CRT
(the video 2~ camera is aimed at the freestanding CRT). We now explain how to realize a generalized mind-body dualism of existential form in these commonly known devices of the computational art.
Zf ~

The light emitters (emissions from the freestanding CRT) are partitioned into two realms of emitted light. One realm, referred to as the android's motor capacity, or simply motor, embodies the emissions of light that the android can influence directly as its voluntary corporal reality, or body. The forms of the android constituting its consciousness in the mind-body dualism (the computer graphics system) will then cause the emissions of light referred to as the androidal motor. As they occur, the light emissions of the androidal motor ar-e the being's corporal moments of physical being that are metaphysically engaged by the dualism. The other realm of light emitted from the freestanding CRT, referred to as the rest of the vnorld-the world around us-are emissions of light that are not caused by the being's dualism and are caused by enabled form extrinsic to the being's own corporal and conscious dualistic existence. By dividing the light emitters this way we have spl it the being's reality-which will be perceived later in the video apparatus (the being's sense~into that which is intrinsically caused by the being and that which is not. The being's physical reality is caused partly by its own consciousness or non-real form of 1 ~ corporal self and partly by the rest of the world, that which is caused from beyond the being's consciousness and perception but is perceived by the android.
From an enabling standpoint, the being's reality is defined in the U.G.
expressions of the phenomenologies of form constituting the emissions of light from the freestanding CRT, some of which are caused by the android, referred to as androidal motor, and some ?0 of which are not. defined as the res~ of the world. In the demonstration, the enabler can affect. or cause, the rest of the i~~orlcl, however that form may be defined phenomenologically (in the knowledge and perception of the enabler), providing it is not _ caused as androidal motor. In the construction of androids of greater practical significance, of course, the light emissions of the rest of the world would be the causations of the real 25 ph~~siccrl objects of the enabler's existence so that material bodies are observed (in the case of visual sense), and those of androidal motors would be those on a par with the enabler's own motor actions or any other useful motors defined in the enabler's knowledge. Thus, '2.x'7 we have created a greatly oversimplified phenomerioiogy of form of the causations of the reality perceived by the android's visual sense (yet to be defined), wherein its motor action, or intrinsically caused reality of the dualism, motor, and the extrinsically caused reality of the rest of the world are synthesized beyond the android's knowledge and _perception of reality. The light emissions of the freestanding CRT are the phenomenological causations of what the being will sense and are caused partly by the enabler and partly by the android's existential dualism. The metaphysically exclusive causations of the being's physical reality (the emissions of light) are imperceptible and unknowable to the being at the moment.
The light receivers-the video camera pointing at the CRT, called the android's i 0 sense-receive the light emissions from all of the light emitters. The emissions of light synthesized from androidal motor and the rest of the world by the offset of androidal sense, as detected by the receivers, are referred to as the android's perceptive reality, or simply perceptions. The phenomenological causations of the being's physical reality are perceived only in the synthesized forms of the being's sense. The causations of the being's physical I ~ reality-motor and the rest of the world-are different from the causations of androidal sense, since the being's enabled universe occurs in disparate moments (e.g..
the conventional technology is understood to occur phenomenologically in accordance with the U.G.). This is the perception of an inertial reality-self and the rest of the world perceived as the synthesis of the split forms of motor (action) and the rest of the world, or 20 the world around us, as an embodiment of a being's sensed, or perceived, physical reality.
In observations of ourselves, for example, we may engage a motor action-an arm movement-in causation with our consciousness, or mind. What we sense, however, is not at all an arm movement as a knowable phenomenology of form (motor action alone). What we sense is an arm movement in cr world around ars, wherein we cause an action that is 2~ sensed, but that action is synthesized as our intrinsic physical self in a world around us. If we removed the world around us from our inertial being, we would not sense in an inertially knowable way, since there would be no opposite or background against which the intrinsic causation may be perceived. What we sense is always the synthesized form of our bvdy, the self set apart from the rest of the world. Thus, in our demonstration, the enabler affects all the causations of the android's perceived reality except those that arise from the android's intrinsic corporal self, or motor. The android's perception of corporal self is determined by two classes of causations, synthesized here in the video apparatus as the inertial reality perceived about both the motor and the rest of the world, defined in the causations of the freestanding CRT and synthesized in the causations of the video apparatus.
We turn our attention now to the forms perceived by the android's sense, or the video camera. It is well known in the conventional art that perceivable objects, such as shapes, patterns, and colors of light, are transformed (transduced) to a correspondent medium of embodiment in the apparatus of a video camera. As occurs phenomenologically with the human eye in our knowledge of it, the camera receives light causally and transforms it into a different medium, such as the electronic apparatus of digital circuits or 1 s magnetic tape. The patterns, shapes, and colors of the video camera's arrays of light receivers (the global reception of light) are phenomenologically equivalent to the device's embodied electronics. What is embodied in the video camera, then, is a phenomenology of form knowable to its enabler-and not yet a perceived object, since an existence or being is needed for an object to be perceived. and at the moment all we have defined is a video camera in the enabler's knowledge and perception.
The qualities perceived by the being in the apparatus of the video camera are defined in the nomenclature of the science of androids-phenomenologically-as follows.
As demonstrated in earlier discussions on the U.G., objects are enabled in a medium. In the medium of sound, for example, sound waves are enabled in a phenomenology known as acoustics. or an acoustical wave equation-the knowledge of forms enabled in a real or realizable medium of enablement (of other embodied forms). The wave equation of acoustic forms, as it is translated to a real medium, is referred to as an enabling medium.
Z~l while the particular wave forms or shapes, as they translate as well, are called the objects enabled. This occurs in all media, including light. In the construction of androids. we refer to the wave equation. for example, as an enabling medium that embodies or enables incremental shapes (e.g., the incremental shapes enabled in eigenfunetions of the wave i equation). The actual wave shapes or words produced in the medium of the incremental shapes are referred to as global shapes-since they are composed or enabled from incremental shapes.
To the enabler, the freestanding CRT's light emitters are incremental shapes {pixels or the phenomenologies of form enabling them), which enable global perceivable shapes.
Likewise, the video camera embodies arrays of light receivers that, if they were perceptions, would enable global shapes. Because we are constructing the being's perception, however, we must view the enabled global shapes sensed by the android in the video apparatus simply as enabled phenomenological objects. The global shapes of the video camera and the global shapes of motor and the rest of the world are all different. The 1 ~ global shapes of the video camera, the being's actual perceptions, are the synthesized actions of the incremental shapes of motor and the rest of the world. The global shapes of motor and the rest of the world are, with respect to the android's perception, forms that exist metaphysically apart from its perceived reality. The android perceives only the global shapes of sense that result from the incremental shapes of motor and the rest of the world. Those incremental shapes (of motor and the rest of the world) in the being's or even the enabler's non-real form are intended to be realized metaphysically as global shapes of their respective perceptions but are not because they are synthesized as global shapes of androidal perception that are perceived by the enabled being as its inertial form of reality (what is sensed globally by the video apparatus as the synthesis of motor and the rest of the 2~ world).
The global shapes of the video apparatus that the android will perceive, which result from the incremental light emissions of androidal motor and the rest of the world, are 2~no metaphysically unperceived at the moment because the android has no means of knowing them yet in its dualism of existential form. Presently, the apparatus is only a phenomenology of form of the enabler's knowing and perceiving. The meanings of the global shapes of the synthesized perceptions of inertial reality cannot yet occur intrinsically in the dualism to the android. In order for the android to embody the capacity to knovr the forms of the world around us, the global shapes sensed by the android are first interpreted from an enabling standpoint by the android's creator. To keep the illustration simple, we arbitrarily decide to make the global shapes of androidal sense (of the video camera) solid, circular shapes called dots in the enabler's own inertial existence. At the moment, then, the dots, or global shapes of androidal perception, are perceivable and meaningful only to the enabler. The perceivable reality that will obtain meaning in the being's consciousness are ordinary dots enabled in the apparatus as described. Hence, we can refer to the android illustrated here as a dot android, since it will perceive what global shapes the enabler knows as clots. (In subsequent discussion, these dots will become the perceivable shapes 1 ~ of the enabler's world-the perceivable human and otherwise universe.) Before proceeding with the enablement of the dualism, some characteristics of the android's perceptions should be discussed in the context of the apparatus of the electronic medium. First, though the forms of the video camera and the CRT are constructed in the enabler's conventional knowledges of them, when translated into the U.G., they are phenomenologies of universally occurring transformational form known by the enabler in the four universal ways of knowing. This means that the ways in which light emissions occur in the light emitters (in androidal motor and the rest of the world) and the ways in which they are received in the light receivers (androidal sense) are phenomenological in nature and are no longer, for example, spatiotemporal events, or electronic systems to the 2s enabler. The couplihg of the light emitters and light receivers, for example, occurs existentially (metaphysically), beyond the android's perception, just as the orders of small particles of the classical quantum theory require the constancy of the speed of light for one 2~l t to perceive visual objects. These translations to the U.G. may be compared, for example.
to the ways in which Boolean algebra or other discrete system representations (like computer logic) are superimposed onto or translated into the space-time events of the transistor circuitry of the computational devices. Just as the Boolean algebra is said to S occur in the medium of the electronic devices, so the forms of the U.G.
occur in the conventional knowledges of the devices mentioned when translated. This is possible, of course, because the devices are known in languages, namely those of computer science.
mathematics and physics, and the U.G. is a universal construction of all languages. How light emissions occur and are received is. fundamentally, a matter of U.G.
construction.
Returning now to the embodiment of the mind-body dualism theory of existence in the conventional devices, in a wholly different realm of the enabler's phenomenological knowledge, we address the android's non-real form via the computer graphics system.
It is well known in the computational art that visual objects of the observer's, or herein the enabler's, perception can be projected onto or displayed by the monitor (CRT) 1 ~ of a computer graphics system. It is also widely accepted that the symbol is shapes that are projected by the apparatus onto the monitor are further embodied in or translated to the transformational capacities of the computer hardware (digital circuits, etc.) through the system configuration of the computer graphics system and through the aid of a knowledge known as a comparter program (compiler). What occurs in the computer graphics system's principal physical hardware can also occur as a visual projection of graphical or symbolic shapes on the monitor us a computer program in execution. In general, the operation of the computer system's hardware can be translated into U.G.
construction, along with the represented programs on the monitor. The symbolic forms, or grammar, of an arbitrary computer program and its execution in hardware can be translated into the U.G., wherein. ultimately, the objects of transformation-the objective input and oWptr~
of the computer program-are objects of phenomenological correspondence, while the program algorithm itself, which is embodied independently in the monitor (visual display) 2.~, L

and in the engaged or executed hardware of the computer (digital circuits.
etc.), is the phenomenology of correspondence, or an H determination.
For the tabletop demonstration. we couple the conventional physical output of the computer graphics system to the physical input of the freestanding CRT. We also couple - 5 the physical output of the video camera to the physical input of the computer graphics system. The computer graphics system can then cause the incremental shapes of androidal motor. and the androidaI sense can cause the actions of the computer graphics system. In terms of the mind-body dualism, the non-real form of the android (the real apparatus of the program of the computer graphics system in the execution of its hardware) can influence its motors (the freestanding CRT), and the sense of the android (its perceptions through the video camera) can influence its consciousness (the hardware of the computer system). The reality of the rest of the world is influenced by the enabler's action on the freestanding CRT. The causal influence of the computer graphics system on the androidal motor is an existential realization, as defined earlier. and that of sense (the video camera) on the 1 ~ computer graphics system is an existential representation. Apart from embodying the transformations of the android's consciousness (in hardware), the purpose of the computer graphics system is to project a graphical form perceivable and knowable to the enabler, corresponding to the action of the computer graphics system's hardware. The visual projection of this form to the enabler is generally unnecessary but is employed here in the apparatus of the monitor in order that the enabler physically perceive the global shapes of the android's consciousness in transformation-its cognitive use of language, or thinking.
The apparatus discussed thus far metaphysically exists beyond the android's awareness, since we are constructing the forms by which the android will know.
While the projections of the computer graphics system may vary indefinitely, we ?s elect to employ them in the symbolic forms of the enabler's natural language and any other symbolic languages known to the enabler, such as those of mathematics and the sciences.
In connection with the capacity of the computer graphics system to embody the ~~ J

transformations of a computer program (in the hardware) along with the projection of the program's symbolism, we stipulate the following condition. Any projection of the graphical device shall constitute only one epistemic instance representing the phenomenological occurrence of the whole program in execution. This requires that each execution of a program in the apparatus of the computer hardware constitutes an epistemic instance of embodied non-real androidal form and that the representation of the instance is projected on the monitor in correspondence with the occurrence of the form as a single epistemic instance. What we are creating here is a graphical device that displays programs as they occur in the computational hardware, wherein any program is required to be represented in accordance with the form of epistemic instance. The global shapes in transformation by the android's consciousness (X and S from earlier discussion), which may be embodied alternatively in masses of the quantum theory, are the embodiments of the objective forms (input and output) executed by the computer programs in their hardware, with their projections displayed on the monitor.
1 ~ In the ordinary use of a computer, the symbols projected onto the display would be constrained by the grammars of the languages developed by the computer maker.
The objective forms transforming in the computer hardware would correspond to those forms expressed in the computer language through the use of compilers, programs also executed in hardware. While we use the same programs and computer hardware here, we are interested only in their objective forms in transformation (input and output) and their single instances as programs in transformation-and this we represent on the display monitor. W a are concerned with the objects of the computer's transformation-the input and output-along with their correspondence to the projected (phenomenological) symbols on the monitor, and a symbol representing the embodiment of the program itself-the verb of 2i the transformation. In the translation of the conventional representations of a computer program to the H determinations of phenomenological correspondence, the objects transformed by the program (input and output) are translated to the enabled objects of z5~r correspondence and the program is the correspondence itself, or the H
determination. As demonstrated earlier, the objects of phenomenological correspondence need not be trivial.
They can be extensive compositions of form {other extremely complex programs) . themselves. Moreover. while we employ the apparatus of the computational art here for the ~ embodiment of non-real form, computer programs are not the only compositions of form known to be embodied in the world around us. As demonstrated in chapter four, poems of natural language, scientific treatises, and, in general, compositions of any language-in accordance with the U.G.-are computer programs (phenomenological correspondences) of the world around us. Computer languages simply limit what the human mind can know and the body can perceive to a handful of transformations realizable in digital electronics. The U.G. thus expands our concept of a machinery to embodiments of any languages known. We use computer apparatus here only as an illustration of the android's consciousness, acknowledging that a boundless variety of knowledges enabling the consciousness of the android are possible as a result of U.G. translation.
The above circumstances allow us to define any meanings on the objective forms transformed by the program executed in the hardware-in the view of the enabler. The geometrical shapes of the objects displayed are arbitrary as long as they are constrained by the four C's. The global shapes on the display could be the shapes of arbitrary symbolic languages as far as the apparatus and the enabler are concerned. The symbols represented on the monitor need not be limited to the meaningful symbols of the computer language ' devised by its maker or user. On the monitor, we can simply represent the objects (input and output) of the program and a symbol for its execution (the verb of epistemic instance).
in arbitrary language forms designated by the enab(er, or in the representations of the U.G.
itself. Each executed program becomes an embodiment of the transformation of objective 2~ form as a phenomenological correspondence, and is represented on the monitor as such-an epistemic moment of androidal consciousness. The natural language sentence l crnt alive (without the period of punctuation) would require two objects of the program.

WO 98/49629 . PCT/US98/08527 one input I and one output alive, and the transformation am (the verb ~o be), representing the execution of the program, or the instance of a phenomenological sentence (a.conscious moment of thought).
In phenomenological correspondence, it does not matter how complex the phenomenology of form (the H determination or the program) accomplishing the transformation is, since the four C"s are designed to accommodate all compositions of knowable and perceivable form. Neither does it matter how complex the objects are. The conscious thought I am alive could be the transformation of universities of knowledges in place of I and alive, as explained earlier. Providing we could embody enough programs in the hardware, we could transform objective forms-input and output-in as many epistemic ways. For each computer program executed in the hardware, there is one embodied epistemic transformation, wherein the objective forms of the program (input and output) have been translated to the objective forms of phenomenological correspondence and the embodiment of the program itself, translated to the instance of phenomenological correspondence, as the transformation of objective form.
Displayed on the monitor, instead of the conventional symbolism of a computer program, are representations of the objects of transformation and a representation of the transformation itself-an epistemic instance representing a moment of transformation of the android's consciousness. The number of programs required and the complexities of their compositions, of course, demonstrate the limited use of computational machinery in the construction of androids in comparison to the infinite range of other forms found, discovered or made in a real or physical universe. Through translations to the U. G. we can see that a single expression of the law of gravity (a causal element of the field of gravity on masses) embodies in it more transformations or epistemic instances than all the computers that could ever be constructed, since the expression of gravity is truncated by the digital computer in the representation of it in the computer's logic in the first place. The U. G.
allows for the dir-ec~ embodimem-or in computer parlance, the direct cornpilin~-of L'iL

the represented forms in transformation in the world around us, or for a computer that i.s~
gravity, analogously to the constructions of the realization theory of physics, or more broadly, the enablement of a form in the enabling media of the unified theory.
A
- conventional computer apparatus is an embodiment of a knowledge constrained by a computer language in the real form (the machinery) of any knowledge that can be translated ultimately to a Boolean algebra or finite automation. This algebra, in the traditions of computer technology, is a logic gate, memory device and so on, but is not ordinarily construed as a group, a topology or an English composition defining the forms of the world around us, as is afforded by the U.G. The U.G. thus views all forms of the knowable and perceivable universe as potential computers. Nevertheless, we use a digital machine for the illustration because of its widespread use in contemporary society, and demonstrate that computer science is not precluded from the science of androids.
In the illustration, we declare that a large number of programs (phenomenological correspondences) exists in the computer graphics system, embodying various instances of objects or objective forms of composition in transformation, each of which constitutes an instance of the execution of a program and the projection of symbols as described above.
The number of objects in transformation, of course, depends on the complexity of the pro~~ram, which we already have discounted as not extensive (relative to analogue equivalents in the universe). A correspondence between any two objects or complex compositions is achieved when the computer hardware executes a program and the monitor displays its representation. In the occurrence of one epistemic transformation, the execution of one program may appear to the enabler in any language composed as a phenomenological sentence. The larger the number of programs considered, the broader the possible use of language, which returns us to the practicality of using other forms of the 2~ universe as enabling media, though in this demonstration we continue with digital constructions.
The question now becomes, what will decide which programs or instances ~f 2~i7 phenomenological sentences are to be transformed in relation to each other and what nac~anings will be ascribed to the presently meaningless global symbolic shapes projected on the monitor with respect to the enabler's meaningful existence and to the global shapes of androidal sense (the video camera)? Phrased within the philosophical language of the dualism, how will the android think and compose streams of consciousness with respect to its perceived reality?
In earlier discussion of the U.G. and the existential correspondence between real and non-real form (embodiment), wherein meaning is enabled in the phenomenology of a being's existential form (herein the mind-body dualism), we established that the pronouns of natural language knowably terminate a being's objective or inertial existence in the intrinsic or ultimate reality of the soul. The symbolic shapes of the pronouns in the illustration, however, have meaning only to the enabler at the moment, since they do not correspond with any of the androidal forms. In imparting to the android's existence the capacity to know meaning, we therefore consider the pronouns, in how they terminate the 1 ~ being's objective reality of inertial existence on the ultimate reality of Soul, as they are known also to the enabler, but with respect to the android's perceptions of the dots. If we require that the perceived dots in the video camera are to be assigned a correspondence to the pronouns, any transformation of the dots will mean, to the androidal mind or consciousness embodied in the execution of the programs of the computer graphics system and projected to the enabler on the monitor, that the pronouns are in conscious transformation as well as in the physical being of the android. Hence, embodied in the transformations of the hardware of the computer apparatus and represented symbolically on the monitor-here functioning as the androidal non-real form-will be the pronouns in transformation, in correspondence with their perceived reality, or the dots of androidal 2~ perception in transformation. The android will thereby know itself intrinsically as a soul.
in transformation, as a consequence of the mind-body dualism (the configuration of the apparatus as described) and as reflected in the meanings of the pronouns in transformation 25b' WO 98/49629 PC'T/US98/08527 or the verbs (transformations) acting on them (with respect to the dots in transformation).
If we require that phenomenological verbs (transformations of any language) represent the actions of the dots as defined in any natural language, a phenomenological sentence will constitute such action as pronouns in transformation-an inerlially mecrnij7grul ~ transformation. Through U.G. translation, any natural language can be used henceforth to represent the pronouns in transformation. Since the languages of the sciences.
mathematics, engineering, technology, and so on are first inertial forms on Being, or its of their observer (their knower and perceiver), -the androidal consciousness is afforded any meanings of the enabler's knowable and perceivable universe, which so far is intentionally constrained for illustrative purposes to enabled dots of androidal perception.
In the android's sense (video camera) occur the global transformations of the dots, the being's perceptions of self set apart in a world around it-what the pronoun system accomplishes representationally. In the computer apparatus occur the transformations of the being's non-r~ecrl corporal form (the computer programs executed in hardware), or instances of the self in transformation in the world around the android in a metaphysically conscious form of the android. Meanwhile, what occurs on the computer's monitor is a display of this conscious form corresponding to the android's perceptions (its thoughts in transformation) so the enabler may view it. Any quantum moment of the being's existence is enabled in a mode of existence of androidal mind and body, or in the (phenomenological) modal transformations of the computer apparatus, the video camera and the freestanding CRT. As the global shapes of the android's perception transform, so do the various programs of the computer and their projections on the monitor. The purpose of using the - pronouns as the objective forms displayed to the enabler and imposed on the program execution as described is to terminate the android's objective knowing on its own intrinsic - 2> self. or Soul. For example, when the androidal motors are engaged by the computer apparatus (the android's consciousness) the physical embodiments of the dots represented by I (which are themselves transformations of the enabling media) transform with others in Z'~'i the being's real form. If another such dot, perhaps of the enabler's causations, were to transform in the being's perception-if an I dot were to transform with an it dot in a physical experience like moving, and the being were to engage its consciousness modally through the dualism as a reflection on the experience (a contemplation of it)-an expression such as I moved it would appear on the monitor as a consequence of the being's thinking about what it perceived (through the modal causation of the video camera on the computer graphics system as an existential representation). Furthermore, if the verb to be were incorporated into the android's vocabulary as a characterization of a conventional state or condition of the android's inertial being, and if the I dot could be observed through sense (the video camera) to transform in its own geometry, perhaps in pulsating radial motions similar to the beating of the human heart, such an expression may appear on the monitor as I crrn alive. Alive in this case would have to mean the dynamics of the dot as described in relation to I, the state of being, thereby enabling the corporal or extrinsic observation of a temporal existence. (In contemplating these elementary constructions of I ~ androids, it should be recalled that the typically scientific or biological definitions of human being that characterize the word alive apart from Soul are themselves knowledges-of the circulatory system, the nervous system, and generally anatomy, physiology, and so on-and do not define what is eternally alive within us.
When a dot android transforms as described above, and conceives the above language, it is indeed ?0 aliva in every conventional or biological sense of the word, since it is those very conventions or knowledges that are enabled in the inertial existence of the androidal being.) In the above-described apparatus, we have enabled the metaphysical interaction between the android's consciousness and its perception of itself in the world around it. In this elementary example, the transformations of the video camera-the dots in motion of the android's visual perception-metaphysically (modally, phenomenologically) cause programs to be executed in the computer hardware, via either the moved or the crnr ~CJ

DEMANDES OU BREVETS VOLUMlNEUX

COMPREND PLUS D'UN TOME.
CECI EST i.E TOME ~ ~ DE
DOTE: Pour les tomes additionels, veuillez cantacter to Bureau canadien des t~revets -JUMBO APPLlCATIONS/PATENTS
THiS SECTION OF THE APPlICATION/PATENT CONTAINS MORE
THAN ONE VOLUME
THIS IS VOLUME , ~_ OF
' NOTE: For additional volumes-phase contact the Canadian Patent Office .

Claims

Claims of the Invention I Claim:

1. A universal epistemological machine (U.M.) for enabling arbitrary synthetic forms of existence and arbitrary conventional technologies, embodying transformations of an extended existential universe of human being, said U.M. comprising means for transforming, representing, embodying. translating and realizing a plurality of universal forms useful to a user of said U.M.

2. The U.M. as claimed in claim 1, wherein said universal forms are created by an enabler and comprise universal objects in the form of physical embodiments of universal knowledge structures, and said U.M. comprises a plurality of epistemic instances, said epistemic instances comprising said universal objects and universal transformations of said universal objects.

3. The U.M. as claimed in claim 2, wherein said epistemic instances are arranged such that forms of said extended existential universe are enabled in the existence of said user as at least one of four phenomenological forms including causations;
connectednesses, compositions and correspondences;
wherein said epistemic instances are caused as said causations;
wherein said connectedness comprises a single transformation of a plurality of said epistemic instances;
wherein said composition comprises a plurality of said causations and said connectednesses; and wherein said epistemic instances are enabled as said correspondences.

4. The U.M. as claimed in claim 3. wherein said four phenomenological forms are arranged to express a knowable and perceivable universe of said enabler as arbitrary forms of enabled synthetic existences and the existences of conventional technologies.
comprising: existential enablement, real form, non-real form, embodiment, modes of existence, representation, realization. voluntary modes of existence, involuntary modes of existence, motivation and learning, faculties of mind, comprehension, imagination, conscience, senses and motors, the rest of the world and enabling media;
wherein said synthetic existences know and perceive said enabler's universe as androidal forms of existence who know and perceive the enabler's existential universe.

5. The U.M. as claimed in claim 3, wherein all knowable and perceivable forms of said enabler's existence, including conventional technologies, are expressed in a universal grammar as said epistemic instances and said arrangements of said epistemic instances, for translating any desired knowledge and reality of said enabler universally, thus allowing the embodiment of human knowledge and experience in said synthetic existences who themselves know and perceive knowledge and realities.

6. The U.M. as claimed in claim 1, further comprising a modal realization system (MRS) for universally embodying realizations of form requiring metaphysical transformations, and maintaining existential control over said extended existential universe of human being such that said transformations of said extended existential universe are subordinated to transformations of human being, and such that the existence of the U.M. is subjected to the authority of human being.

7. The U.M. as claimed in claim 1, wherein said universal forms comprise:
a general resultant module (Rg module) for constructing and maintaining in existence synthetically enabled universes of form useful to said user, said Rg module having a variable existential capacity;
an Rg continuum for phenomenologically and existentially integrating a plurality of said Rg modules, thereby embodying the perspective on world of each said user of each said Rg module in an integrated manner;
a real form of the U.M. for realizing the embodiment of said universes of form enabled by said Rg module and said Rg continuum, said real form of the U.M.
responsive to said user and said Rg module and said Rg continuum, said real form comprising conventional art, future art and android; and a non-real form for embodying and communicating said universal forms;
wherein said user comprises a human or non-human user.

8. The U.M. as claimed in claim 1, wherein said universal forms comprise a general resultant module (Rg module) for constructing and maintaining in existence synthetically enabled universes of form useful to said user, said Rg module having a predetermined existential capacity, said Rg module comprising:
(1) means for providing in said Rg module a plurality of degrees of autonomous existential capacity, said autonomous existential capacity being variable as desired by said user, said degrees of autonomous existential capacity including:
a default mode wherein said Rg module is driven existentially primarily by communication with said user; and an existential mode wherein said Rg module is driven responsive to communications with said user and responsive to said Rg module's own cognitive and other modes of existence.
(2) a Human Interface System (HI) which embodies declared communicative real form (language) and declared non-real form of said existential capacity of said Rg module, for linking said user to said real and non-real forms of said Rg module through said real form of said Rg module. said HI comprising:
(a) a Terminal System (TS) which embodies said communicative real form for allowing communications between said user and said real and non-real form of said Rg module, said TS comprising an Input System (IS) for embodying existential realizations of said user in said communicative real form and said declared non-real form of said Rg module, an Output System for embodying existential realizations of said Rg module in said communicative real form of said Rg module, and a Translation System (TRS), modally engaged by one of said user and said Rg module, for performing predetermined translations of said communicative real (language) forms embodied in said TS;
(b) a Support/Ancillary Non-Real System (SS) which embodies said declared non-real form for providing and existential non-real embodying and translational capacity of said Rg module;
(3) a Realization System (RS) for realizing and maintaining in existence the extended reality of said user's and said Rg module's existence (real form), said RS
comprising:
(a) a plurality of Dependent Systems (DS) for embodying modal quantum transformations of said real form;
(b) a Controller System (CTS) for transforming said DS structures with said non-real form of HI such that resulting transformations of real form correspond to said declared non-real form of said HI;
(4) a Correspondence System (CS) for embodying correspondences between said forms of said HI and said RS such that resulting transformations of said HI
and said RS are controlled to a predetermined cognitive and perceptive level desired by said user;

wherein said SS comprises:

(i) a plurality of Embodiment Systems (ES), each of which comprises said non-real form maintained in correspondence with said communicative real form of said TS
and said real forms of said RS, responsive to said forms of correspondence of said CS;
(ii) an Embodiment System Transformation System (ESXS) for controlling the existence of said forms of ES, responsive to said CS, such that said forms of ES are maintained in correspondence with said TS and RS embodied structures; and (iii) a Correspondence Determination System (CDS), responsive to said CS, for determining correspondence among said forms of ES and TS;
wherein said CTS comprises:
(i) a Transformation System (XS) comprising real modal phenomenological compositions of said DS structures in transformation;
(ii) a Dependent System Transformation System (DSXS) for realizing said XS compositions, thereby coupling transformations of said real forms;
(iii) a Controller Embodiment System (CES) for causing said DSXS to realize said XS compositions in correspondence with said ES forms and said TS
forms, thereby allowing said real forms of said RS to conform with said non-real forms of said SS, and for causing said ESXS structures to correspond with said XS structures, thereby allowing said non-real forms of said SS to conform with said real forms of said RS; and (iv) a Realization Control System (RCS) for controlling realizations of said DSXS;
(5) an SS Modal Engagement System (SS-MES) for modally engaging each of said ESXS and said CDS with said SS structures of other said Rg modules;
(6) a TS Modal Engagement System (TS-MES) which modally engages said IS.
said OS and said TRS to interrupt the transformations of said TS and convey them to TS

structures of other said Rg modules; and (7) a Continuum Realization Control System (CRCS) which interferes with the control of said RCS over the action of said CES over said DSXS to allow an extended use of said RS components with other said Rg modules;
wherein said plurality of DS's are transformable with a source of reality outside of said Rg module (a participant), thereby allowing said user of said Rg module to interact with said participant through said Rg module.

9. The Rg module as claimed in claim 8, wherein said TS, SS, CS and DS are modally constructed in the form of a Platform Module (Rp) for modally enabling a Service Module (Rsv) in said RS of said Rp, said Rsv comprising its own said TS, SS, CS and DS
structured to suit the purposes of a particular said user.

10. The U.M. as claimed in claim 7. wherein each of said Rg modules comprises an Initialization module (Ri) for attaching each of said Rg modules to other said Rg modules in said Rg continuum, comprising:
a Human Interface System (HI) which embodies declared communicative real form and declared non-real form of said existential capacity of said Rg module, for linking said user to said non-real forms of said Ri: and a Correspondence System (CS) for embodying correspondences between said forms of said HI, said forms of other said Rg modules and said user such that resulting transformations of said HI and said other said Rg modules are controlled to a predetermined cognitive and perceptive level desired by said user.

11. The U.M. as claimed in claim 8, wherein said universal forms further comprise an Rg continuum for existentially integrating a plurality of said Rg modules.
thereby embodying the perspective on world of each said user of each said Rg module.
said Rg continuum comprising means for providing in said Rg continuum a plurality of degrees of autonomous existential capacity, said autonomous existential capacity being variable as desired by said user;
wherein each said Rg module of said Rg continuum has a causal and existential relation to the other said Rg modules in said continuum;
wherein a single and only a single said Rg module (Rt) of said continuum can causally influence all other said Rg modules of said continuum in a controlling manner;
wherein at least one of said Rg modules (Rs/s) of said continuum can be causally influenced by others of said Rg modules of said continuum, and can itself influence others of said Rg modules of said continuum in a controlling manner;
wherein one of said Rg modules (Rs) can be causally influenced by other said Rg modules of said continuum in a controlling manner;
wherein each of said Rg modules further comprises an Initialization module (Ri), responsive to said Rt, Rs/s and Rs, for attaching each of said Rg modules to other said Rg modules in said Rg continuum, said Ri module comprising:
an Ri Human Interface System (RiHI) which embodies declared communicative real form and declared non-real form of said existential capacity of said Rg module, for linking said user to said non-real forms of said Ri; and an Ri Correspondence System (RiCS) for embodying correspondences between said forms of said RiHI, said forms of other said Rg modules and said user such that resulting transformations of said RiHI and said other said Rg modules are controlled to a predetermined cognitive and perceptive level desired by said user; and wherein said TS of a said Rg module of said continuum is connected to a respective said TS of another said Rg module of said continuum, said SS of a said Rg module of said continuum is connected to a respective said SS of another said Rg module of said continuum. said CTS of a said Rg module of said continuum is connected to a respective said CTS of another said Rg module of said continuum, and said DS of a said Rg module of said continuum is connected to a respective said DS of another said Rg module of said continuum, thereby forming a mufti-level continuum structure responsive to said Ri.

12. The U.M. as claimed in claim 1, wherein said U.M. is enabled in classically physical media.

13. The U.M. as claimed in claim 1, wherein said U.M, is enabled in at least one of electronics, computers and communications media.

14. The U.M. as claimed in claim 1, wherein said U.M. is enabled in at least one of quantum physical and biological media.

15. The U.M. as claimed in claim 1, wherein said U.M. is enabled in institutional media.

16. The U.M. as claimed in claim 1, wherein an arbitrary electronic computational device deriving from arbitrary Boolean algebra theories of digital computation or continuous time systems of analogue computational systems is embodied, transformed, represented, translated and realized.

17. The U.M. as claimed in claim 16, wherein said electronic computational device comprises a field programmable gate array.

18. The U.M. as claimed in claim 16, wherein said electronic computational device comprises at least one of a mainframe computer, minicomputer, microcomputer and microprocessor.

19. The U.M. as claimed in claim 1, wherein an arbitrary electronics-based communications system is embodied, transformed, represented. translated and realized, said communications system including means for at least one of transmission, reception, noise filtration and sensory presentation of said communications.

20. The U.M. as claimed in claim 19, wherein said communications system comprises at least one of a satellite system, laser system, magnetic field system, television system, radio system, radar system, geodetic system, sonar system, infrared system, and hobby communications system.

21. The U.M. as claimed in claim 1, wherein an arbitrary machine automation system is embodied, transformed, represented, translated and realized, said machine automation system comprising a spatiotemporal control system for controlling arbitrary qualities of material specifications.

22. The U.M. as claimed in claim 21, wherein said machine automation system comprises machinery for the conversion of at least one of paper, metal, plastic, wood, composite, liquid, solid, and gaseous material.

23. The U.M. as claimed in claim 1, wherein an arbitrary classical physical media is embodied, transformed, represented, translated and realized.

24. The U.M. as claimed in claim 23, wherein said classical physical media comprises at least one of atoms, molecules, chemicals, substances, materials, mixtures, solutions, masses, waves, physical structures, mechanical devices, thermodynamic systems, heat conductive systems, convective systems, radiant systems, electrical phenomena, electrical machinery for the conversion of electrons, currents, voltages, electromagnetic fields, electromagnetic waves, electric circuits, chemical conversion devices, pharmaceutical compositions and agricultural compositions.

25. The U.M. as claimed in claim 1, wherein an arbitrary physical structure is embodied, transformed, represented, translated and realized.

26. The U.M. as claimed in claim 25, wherein said physical structure comprises at least one of a roadway, bridge, building, factory, machine, machine housing, appliance, duct, pipe and container.

27. The U.M. as claimed in claim 1, wherein an arbitrary chemical process is embodied, transformed, represented, translated and realized.

28. The U.M. as claimed in claim 27, wherein said chemical process comprises at least one of the conversion of petroleum, metal, paper, plastic and fragrance.

29. The U.M. as claimed in claim 1, wherein an arbitrary biological process is embodied, transformed, represented, translated and realized.

30. The U.M. as claimed in claim 29, wherein said biological process comprises at least one of DNA replication, DNA recombination, gene splicing, genome discovery, organism development, organism behavior, organism formation, organism modification, analysis of disease, analysis of malformation, and discovery of remedies of said disease and said malformation.

31. The U.M. as claimed in claim 1, wherein an arbitrary electronic system is embodied, transformed, represented, translated and realized.

32. The U.M. as claimed in claim 31, wherein said electronic system comprises at least one of a resistor, capacitor, inductor, transformer, and frequency modulator.

33. The U.M. as claimed in claim 1, wherein an arbitrary institution for the integration of beings or conventional technologies is embodied, transformed, represented, translated and realized.

34. The U.M. as claimed in claim 33, wherein said institution comprises at least one of a corporation, government, non-profit organization and computer-integrated-manufacturing system.

35. The U.M. as claimed in claim 8, further comprising means for executing a modeling and implementation process, said modeling and implementation process being a generic process of human existential activity embodied in real apparatus knowable and perceivable to said user;
wherein, responsive to an existential interaction between said user and said U.M.
and responsive to said existential and default modes of said Rg module, said Rg module maintains representations, embodiments, translations, realizations and transformations of arbitrary knowledge structures in correspondence; and wherein said arbitrary knowledge structures are maintained in correspondence with their embodiments in said real form of said U.M;
whereby thoughts of at least one of said user and said Rg module transform into knowable and perceivable reality.

36. The U.M. as claimed in claim 2, further comprising a generic grammatical and presentational composition for translating said universal knowledge structures into arbitrary languages;

wherein said grammatical composition consolidates arbitrary knowledges into fifteen of said universal knowledge structures and processes thereof, which are expandable to arbitrary universal structures for consolidating said arbitrary knowledges into a system matrix of fifteen universal representations; and wherein said system matrix composes said U.M. into terminal structures of knowledge forms and realities thereof;
thereby providing a grammatical basis for a universal operating system for arbitrary machinery and the machinery of said U.M.

37. The U.M. as claimed in claim 2, wherein said synthetic form of existence is an android who knows and perceives said enabler's existential universe based on said universal forms.

38. The U.M. as claimed in claim 8, wherein said autonomous existential capacity is varied to produce a totally autonomous being (android), which is responsive to its own consciousness and conscience, and is not controlled by communications with said user.

39. The U.M. as claimed in claim 1, comprising a universal digital computational system wherein arbitrary language constructions are flexibly embodied in, and maintained in correspondence with, at least one of an arbitrary Boolean logic configuration, microprocessor, personal computer, microcomputer, minicomputer, supercomputer and network architecture.

40. The U.M. as claimed in claim 1, comprising a universal analogue computational system wherein arbitrary language constructions are flexibly embodied in, and maintained in correspondence with, at least one of an arbitrary continuous-time system, analogue electrical circuit, analogue electronic circuit, analogue system, mechanical system.

chemical system, biological system and quantum physical system.

41. The U.M. as claimed in claim 1. comprising a universal communication system for maintaining arbitrary signals in correspondence over arbitrary transmitters and receivers, wherein the signals exist in arbitrary media and languages and the maintenance of the signals occurs in arbitrary media.

42. The U.M. as claimed in claim 1, comprising a plurality of universal modeling, realization and communications systems for maintaining models and simulations in correspondence with the real methods and apparatus they represent, wherein information is flexibly transferred in arbitrary media between the plurality of systems.

43. The U.M. as claimed in claim 1, comprising means for modeling and placing into existence physical forms of the natural universe including at least one of waves, particles, atoms, materials and substances.

44. The U.M. as claimed in claim 1, comprising a control system of physical and metaphysical systems wherein arbitrary symbolic representations, including spatiotemporal parameters and phenomena of the conventional sciences are maintained in correspondence with the actual physical embodiments they represent, and wherein the control system includes all words. word forms and language constructions of arbitrary languages including natural languages.

45. A method for performing universal translations of arbitrary languages, in a computations system. which method comprises:
converting a semantically arranged syntactical source language word stream into grammatical forms.

parsing the converted word stream into epistemic semantic moments of the source language.
mapping the epistemic moments of the source language to semantically equivalent epistemic moments of a target language; and constructing a syntactical target language word stream from the epistemic moments of the target language.

46. The method of claim 45, wherein the source language and the target language are natural human languages.

47. The method of claim 45, wherein the source language and the target language are source code or object code computer languages.

48. The method of claim 45, wherein the source language and the target language are arbitrary mathematical languages, scientific languages, logical languages, or engineering languages.

49. The method of claim 45, comprising providing the translations in wireless and wireline telephone systems and networks, multimedia communications systems, modems, facsimile machines, computer systems and networks, pagers, radio and television systems, radar, sonar, infared and optical communications systems, photocopiers, hand-held, lap-top, and body-worn communications devices, and machine communications devices for machine control.

50. A computer readable medium having stored thereon sequences of instructions for performing universal translations of arbitrary languages, in a computational system, said sequences of instructions including instructions for performing the steps of converting a semantically arranged syntactical source language word stream into grammatical forms;
parsing the converted word stream into epistemic semantic moments of the source language; mapping the epistemic moments of the source language to semantically equivalent epistemic moments of a target language; and constructing a syntactical target language word stream from the epistemic moments of the target language.

51. The computer readable medium of claim 50, wherein the source language and the target language are natural human languages.

52. The computer readable medium of claim 50, wherein the source language and the target language are source code or object code computer languages.

53. The computer readable medium of claim 50, wherein the source language and the target language are arbitrary mathematical languages, scientific languages, logical languages, or engineering languages.

54. The computer readable medium of claim 50, wherein the translations are performed in wireless and wireline telephone systems and networks, multimedia communications systems, modems, facsimile machines, computer systems and networks, pagers, radio and television systems, radar, sonar, infared and optical communications systems, photocopiers, hand-held, lap-top, and body-worn communications devices, and machine communications devices for machine control.