Paul Feyerabend, a student and a severe critic of Karl Popper and possibly the #1 philosopher of science of our time, after reading a half page of my writing entitled "The Foundation Of Knowledge Is Faith, Not Reason" sponsored me for seven and a half years as a Research Associate at the Philosophy Department of the University of California at Berkeley, where I was able to attend all the classes I wanted free of charge to start my career in post-science. [NOTE: Permanent entities, such as DNA and permanent software, or quantities, such as price and value, which depend on future expectations to infinity in time are generally not empirically verifiable; only time-invariant quantities are empirically verifiable. Thus, post-science, dealing with life and value, must depend on faith in mathematics and logic. The foundation of knowledge is faith, but faith should be kept to a minimum and reason, maximum.] Feyerabend also asked his friend Benson Mates, the biographer of Liebnitz, to help me in his absence, and even after his death. Feyerabend and I talked several times over the phone and met only twice, totaling less than an hour.
Chitoor V. Ramamoorthy is one of the most knowledgeable computer scientists I know. Prof. Ram is a pioneer of software engineering and published one of the first books with that title. Before another person can fully understand the Permanent Software, Prof. Ram will be the only person who supports it with the understanding that the current foundation of computer science based on temporary software is wrong and that the Permanent Software has thus far no detectable logic errors. Prof. Ram has encouraged many of his Ph. D. students to study the Permanent Software. I want thank Prof. Ram particularly for putting T. L. Kunii and I together. Kunii is now my best friend. In late 2003, Prof. Ram was invited to join the WuKuniiChing Jumpulse Team to promote world-wide the solution of complete automation applied to the completely automated iteration process in the Infinite Spreadsheet and to the completely automated Permanent Software.
Tosiyasu L. Kunii was introduced to me by Chitoor V. Ramamoorthy. Fifteen minutes after we met, Kunii told me that my discovery of ball control also solved one of the most important problems in robotics, which was the Japan's Sixth Generation Computer Science. Kunii is considered the top computer scientist in Japan. Kunii recommended that I restart the research into robot touch, or bounceless collision between a robot hand and the contacting object. Being my best friend, Kunii is the representative of Post-Science Institute in Japan. Kunii, being a intellectual from the East with Western scientific training, contributes descriptive knowledge, corresponding to the artistic culture of the East, in contrast to the structural knowledge, which characterizes the Western scientific culture. He uses his imagination and perception freely and is a refreshing change and a valuable addition to post-science research, which requires perception in social science and creativity in life science.
T. L. Kunii is an international expert in computer graphics, Dr. Kunii founded the Computer Graphics Society (CGS) with headquarters in Geneva and the Information Science Department at the University of Tokyo. He is one of the Founders and the first President of the University of Aizu and was on the Educational Reform Committee in Japan. He graduated from the University of Tokyo with his Ph. D. in chemistry. In 2003 Dr. Kunii introduced the concept of Linear Integration to support his promotion of the Open Source Project, which could become a Japanese national program to switch to Open Source and, if successful, ultimately spread world-wide.
Ta-You Wu was known to me through his book on plasma physics during my early years in the graduate school at MIT. I was impressed by his physical thinking and by the fact that he was a Chinese. I met Wu in 1990 when he was the head of Academia Sinica in Taiwan. Fifteen minutes into our first meeting during which we agreed that the theoretical foundation of plasma physics was wrong, he told me that he was willing to support me fully for whatever I was planning to do. I was unable to use his support because my mother fell sick in 1991 and passed away at the end of 1993. After meeting T. L. Kunii, I immediately contacted Wu, who was replaced by Yuen Tse Lee as the President of the Academia Sinica in 1993, to work on touch research. Two weeks after I contacted him, he called me one night and told me that we had discovered a new concept and he had invented a new name for the concept. He called the new concept "jumpulse" to denote a sudden change of force, in relation to impulse, which is a sudden change of momentum. Interestingly, the night before, when I call him and during our conversation he mentioned that he truly disliked people who invent new names for concepts. I flew over to Taiwan for his 90-th birthday party to publish his concept of jumpulse in the Chinese version of the Tennis Magazine and to "test" Wu for the title of Father of Robotics, based on my opinion that a robot should be defined as an intelligent mobile machine which can safely make contact with its uncontrolled environment. Wu passed the test and gave an physical explanation of ball control identical to that of mine. Wu told me at his birthday party that he would live for two more years. He died in four after spending an exhaustive, but futile, effort trying to convince physicists in Taiwan and elsewhere our discovery of jumpulse. T. L. Kunii, I, and the discovery of jumpulse could be credited with extending, but, more importantly, vitalizing the final years of, his life. Wu published the definition of jumpulse in a Chinese physics journal. I had earlier objected the publishing of his paper because I wanted three of us to co-author a paper on the full solution of touch. However, I forgave him for going alone on the publication when he died three months after its publication; he could not wait. Wu passed away on March 4th, 2000. Just three days later, my patent on the Infinite Spreadsheet was approved. I regret that my intense fight with the Patent Office over the patent prevented me from going to Taiwan to see Wu, but on March 3rd, 2000 (4th in Taiwan), I received a phone call in during my non-customary afternoon nap from Wu. He said nothing on the phone, but later I suspected that something happened to him and called his student Paul Lee, who confirmed that Wu has passed away ! Wu's spirit shall live with us for over a thousand years when people realize that jumpulse is the fundamental concept in the construction of robots with the ability to touch. Jumpulse could become a major hit in the 2008 Olympics held in China and in the hot topic of space exploration by the Chinese. His spirit is still the guiding force in our newly formed WuRamKuniiChing Jumpulse Team. In my opinion, by surpassing even Newton in thinking physics, Wu should be considered the greatest scientist in Chinese history.
Ta-You Wu, the Father of Chinese Physics with two Nobel Prize students, coined the word "jumpulse" to denote a sudden change of force, as impulse of Isaac Newton is a sudden change of momentum. For over three hundred years, no one has realized that Newton did not solve the problem of touch, or bounceless collision, which is needed for exerting a force or push. Jumpulse has the unit of force with 1 wu = 1 newton. Today, while all humans can touch by their natural ability to applying jumpulse, no robot can touch an object without bouncing off, as a ball bounces off a racket. Ball control is the ability of a player to keep a ball in contact with a racket for a prolonged period of time during impact and is the secret of consistency in sports. Ball control needs one jumpulse, and touch, two jumpulses. The discovery of touch requires the ability to think simultaneously two physics phenomena, namely, those at the two ends of a spring. It requires a perceptive mind with analytic training, such as that of Ta-You Wu. By bringing his perceptive ability into the Western science, which he had helped introduce to the East, Ta-You Wu opened a new world of knowledge beyond science and left mankind with his greatest legacy.
Gerard Debreu (Nobel 1983 Economics), who is considered by Kenneth Arrow (Nobel 1972 Economics) as the most advanced thinker in the economic supply and demand model, met with me for about an hour in his Berkeley office and commended that my definition of value was good. I defined value in the Infinite Spreadsheet as the sum total of all the benefits and losses to infinity in time. Debreu has solved the infinite spatial problem for value in his book Theory Of Value, but he has incorrectly solved the infinite temporal problem on page 34 of his book. The Infinite Spreadsheet is the mathematically rigorous solution to the infinite spatial problem. Debreu should be credited as the first person to demand the consideration of infinite time and space for the problem of price. Unfortunately, the significance of his contribution is equally matched by the abuse and the neglect he has suffered. I kept contact with Debreu, calling him once or twice a year, after our first and only meeting.
Kenneth Arrow told me over the phone that he refused to work with me because I was too arrogant, after receiving my letter in which I stated that there is only one way to see the problem of price determination. Arrow probably thought that the only way meant my way. What I really meant to say was first stated by a 17-th century independent thinker, of whom I am a modern version, Benedict de Spinoza that the only way to consider social science is to use no abstractions and to follow reality exactly, and there is only one reality. He subsequently agreed to meet with me, but limited the time to 45 minutes. I asked Joseph Messina, a Professor of Finance and the Department Chairman at the San Francisco State University to go with me. The reasons for inviting Messina were that Messina was recommended to me to understand the Infinite Spreadsheet by Mary Dum, who was representing the real estate appraisers to work with me, and that Messina, by his own admission for almost twenty years and by the feedback of many testers of the Infinite Spreadsheet, had never agreed with me on, nor understood, the Infinite Spreadsheet. Our meeting extended to an hour and a half with a deterministic valuation demonstration, which Arrow said was good. My verbal exchange with Arrow was extremely intense, with his stopping me and telling me to go to the next topic after only about a third of my full explanation. I have never met a person with a better comprehension ability. I did most of the talking, for about an hour. I invited Messina to also talk for about ten to fifteen minutes, but for the entire hour and a half, Arrow was either fanatically rigorous in his intellectual mannerism or simply arrogant, which I believe was unlikely, that he did not say a single word to Messina, which I found most strange. The most important question Arrow asked me was that what is wrong with the discounted cash flow method. I believed that the question was in reference to page 34 of Theory Of Value by Gerard Debreu, in which the infinite temporal dependence of price was considered incorrectly. My answer was that in order to use the method correctly, a distinct rate should be used for each and every year, and the rate, thus, cannot be obtained from market comparison, making the discounted cash flow method unusable, or, at least, impractical. I feel that Arrow and Debreu are the only two people I know who possess the needed background and intellectual capacity to understand the Infinite Spreadsheet fully. I called Arrow in 2003. Again, he refused to work in real estate valuation, for which the basic problem solved by the Infinite Spreadsheet has become a de facto market standard in the form of Argus Financial Software, but seemed to be still interested in the Infinite Spreadsheet. Now that all the Infinite Spreadsheet software are accessible on the web, Arrow could be one of the few people who I need to contact for help in understanding and explaining the Infinite spreadsheet.
K.T. Li told me that his economic policies were based on the principle of "Putting People to Work." I first met Li in 1985 in a restaurant in San Francisco, while we were both waiting to be seated. My mother identified Li, and I went over to ask him if he is aware of the developing US Savings and Loan Crisis, which I had tried to avert based on the recommendation of Tom Dum, a real estate appraiser in Berkeley and the husband of Mary. After eating, he came over to ask more questions and we had become close friends ever since. He and I co-chaired possibly one of his last meetings of his life on post-science in 1998. He was the architect of the Taiwan Economic Miracle. I believe that he is one of the main persons who are influencing the Chinese economic policies today. He contributes the industrial policies to the Chinese economy, while Milton Friedman guides China in the free market. In one of his final letter to me dated April 10, 1998, Li wrote me and I quote in full "Dr. Ching, , (new paragraph) It is with pleasure to receive your FAX dated April 6, 1998 inquiring about my views on Chinese economic reform. (new paragraph) I feel deeply sorry that I am unable to make some comments on the points as advised in your kind FAX. I think such a reform is good for the Chinese economy. Since Dr. Roos has already expressed his willingness to update Mr. Zhu on recent progress in valuation research, I think there is no need for me to do it again. (new paragraph) Thank you for your writing to me. Best regards, (new parafraph) Sincerely yours, Signature." Li passed away in 2001. Dr. Roos is Robert Roos, who first helped me contact Jiang Ze Min and Zhu Rong Jie in 1992. Roos was once the Chairman of the San Francisco Bar Association and received Mayor Jiang Ze Min of Shanghai, when Jiang visited San Francisco. Thereafter, Roos became one of the first person to introduce to China the US legal system, which I basically disagree. From the point of view of post-science, a legal system should be based on laws of nature and on the specifications of our creation, as mankind is part of the creation of nature and as a driver must based his speed limit, even without any man-made restrictions, on the design specifications of the car manufacturer.
Milton Friedman should never be taken lightly. He is one of three people I know who have the mental capacity to exceed what is needed in thinking social science, the other being K. T. Li. With the passing away of K. T. Li, Friedman is the only living person I know outside of Post-Science Institute who can think social science. Friedman should be credited for solving the problem of inflation, which is the main cause of world-wide military conflicts, with his empirically discovered time-invariant velocity of circulation of the broad money supply, M2. Our first contact was when he responded to an article by my secretary Gertrude Young. He wrote her that her article was not scientifically professional. Science deals with time-invariant quantities, which are the only type of knowledge which can be empirically verified. By identifying the velocity of circulation as time invariant, Friedman has extended the scientific method of empirical verification into social science. However, the most significant quantities in social science, namely, prices, decisions, and plans are time-variant, which means they change continually to infinity in time, never stay constant because they change with changes in future expectations, which never stays constant. The most efficient remark on the distinction between science and social science was made casually, after reading my 100-plus-pages write-up "Quantitative Supply And Demand Model Based On Infinite Spreadsheet" by Sumner Davis, a Berkeley Physics Professor and a former Chief Scientist of NATO, who said to me on our way to the Faculty Club for lunch: "Science does not have time-invariant quantities." I only thanked him for the lunch; the world will thank him for his statement. A patent with the same title of the write-up was approved in 2000. It would not be possible to get the word "Infinite" through the patent office without the effort of M. Irshadullah, the Examiner, and Joseph Rolla, the Technical Director, to whom future generations should be grateful that the solution to value is in print. The solutions to time-variant quantities must depend on very rigorous derivation, such as mathematics and logic, reflecting the principle of non-consequentialism of the 18-th century philosopher Immanuel Kant. Friedman and I had communicated, though sparsely, since the early 1980s. We first met when I invited him as the first of a number of Western intellectuals whom I picked from my acquaintances to give a scheduled series of lectures to the Chinese students and scholar in the San Francisco Bay Area. Friedman gave the lecture in May of 1989, and a month later, students, who heard his lecture, went back to China to write speeches for the student revolt. Some top leaderships in China had accused Friedman for being one of the major causes of the student revolt of June 4. Today, China and the world should be grateful to Friedman for having contributed to the changing of leaderships in China from the old revolutionaries to the new technocrats and, as the result, for changing the course of destiny of China and the history of the world. Anything Friedman touches can have explosive consequences. Personally, I suspected that his advises to Ronald Reagan had contributed to the fall of Russia. Friedman once wrote me that he believed in the 100% reserve banking system, which required banks to just put the money of the depositors in safes, charging a negative interest rate for safe storage and for writing checks. I replied that as drastic as his system sounded, the validity of his system was verified by the S&L Crisis, after which all the positive interest depositors received from banks would be paid back to the government as taxes to pay for the losses due to the S&L Crisis. I invited Friedman and his wife Rose to join me twice for dinner parties, during which I noticed that his license plate is PQ=VM2 and he drove an Infiniti as I had for the Infinite Spreadsheet, which uses a minimum of about 50 time-invariant inputs. Friedman and I had a debates on over-valuation versus inflation as the cause of the S&L Crisis. Since the stock price, unlike the stubborn, downward-resistant, real estate prices in the S&L Crisis, is completely flexible, it is very unlikely that the stock price can be over-valued. Alan Greenspan violated Friedman's Quantity Theory of Money and his equation PQ=VM2 by not supplying sufficient money to the explosive, exceeding 50%, growth of the Internet Industry. The investors of the Internet stocks were far more correct in judging the Internet stock prices. To interfere in the working of the free market, Greenspan violated the most basic principle of Friedman. At least, Greenspan needs to explain what he meant by over-valuation, which due to the flexible stock prices is impossible for the stock market. The 1976 Nobel Prize in Economics did not do Friedman justice. I contacted Friedman in 2003 to inform him the successful conclusion of our joint effort in influence China on the 14th anniversary of the Ten Ann Men Incident, which had been used by me with effective aid from Friedman to contribute to the installation in China the current Technocratic leadership. He denied that he "empirically verified the time-invariance of the velocity of money" and challenged me on relevant contributions from post-science, while I tried to do was to thank him for his instrumental help in the Ten Ann Men Project and to invite him to join Toy Dancing Doll and me to dance. I would consider Friedman the only person who has build an intellectual mountain in the 20-th century by moving mankind closer to the Age of Social Science.
Hugh Ching, Founder of Post-Science Institute, Thanksgiving Day 2001 (Updated 2004)