Political Science and the Equation of War

copyright © March 2007, Tienzen (Jet-Tween) Gong

In the book The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order (ISBN 0-684-84441-9), Dr. Samuel P. Huntington wrote, "Terrorism historically is the weapon of the weak, that is, of those who do not possess conventional military power. Since World War II, nuclear weapons have also been the weapon by which the weak compensate for conventional inferiority. In the past, terrorists could do only limited violence, killing a few people here or destroying a facility there. Massive military forces were required to do massive violence. At some point, however, a few terrorists will be able to produce massive violence and massive destruction." (Page 187 - 188).

The above passage was written in 1996, five years before the event of September 11, 2001. It was truly a great insight. However, it is not a scientific prediction because that the Political Science is not a physics-like science. Many people believe that the Political Science can never be like physics because Political Science deals with the subject of intelligence and free will while physics describes only some mindless particles and forces. I do not wish to challenge this kind of opinion. I, however, would like to point out that there are many more differences between Political Science and Physics in addition to intelligence and free will. If those differences are reduced or eliminated, would Political Science be more physics-like? Before we give out another opinion, perhaps, the best way is to find out their differences first.

A. The difference between Political Science and physics-like science

  1. The difference in the way of defining terminology
  2. About charges
  3. An example of dynamic system
  4. The ambiguity of terminology in Political Science

B. The dynamics of Political Science

  1. Religion charges: exclusiveness verse inclusiveness, etc..
  2. The world religions, civilizations and their interactions
  3. The difference between Pre- and Sub- in the dynamic system
  4. Political force equation

C. The equation of war

  1. Quantum collapse and quantum probability
  2. About war charges and their interactions
  3. A hypothetical example: the war cloud between USA and China

D. Conclusion

The difference between Political Science and physics-like science

I. The difference in the way of defining terminology

In Physics, there are entities (galaxies, chemical compounds, atoms, protons, quarks, prequarks, etc.) which interact among one another via charges (source of interaction) in a field (space and time). So, a physics equation can be written as a function (interactions) with some variables (entities, charges, fields or the combination of them). So, Physics is, indeed, very simple, and it consists of only five items.

  1. Entity -- an object which can be distinguished from the other objects.
  2. Charge -- a source of interaction which allows an entity to interfere the other objects.
  3. Field -- a stage or a playground for the entities to roam or to show off their charges.
  4. Variable -- a quantitative representation of a situation created by the three factors above.
  5. Function (interaction) -- the result or the hodgepodge of many variables.

Although political actions are constantly intervened by both intelligence and free will, there is seemingly no reason to prevent Political Science for adapting the physics methodology above. Let us make a try.

Of course, this is only my wild guess. Yet, I do discover a problem. Religion is listed as both an entity and a charge, and United Nation can be either an entity or a field. This is not an issue of right or wrong. In science, when a term has multiple meanings, it will render an equation becoming meaningless. If we want the term of religion to be an entity, then the force (charge) of a religion must use a different term. If we want the Political Science to be more physics-like, we must be sure that all its terms are clearly defined without any ambiguity, and this requirement has nothing to do with intelligence and free will.

II. About charges

Then, what is charge? In Physics, it has, at least, three types of charge, the unitary charge, the binary charge and the ternary charge.

  1. Unitary charge:
    Any unitary charge cannot stir up too many different scenes. It, in fact, can only produce one thing. In physics, the mass of any entity is a unitary charge. The mass of my body and the mass of an electron is exactly the same thing although they are having different quantities. Thus, a unitary charge can only produce one kind of interaction and result. In the case of mass, it produces only one kind of force, the gravitation.

    If I guess or assign that grace is a unitary charge of all religions, it will also only produce one kind of result, the love of humanity. And, this grace charge can be used in the calculation of any political equation which contains this charge.

  2. Binary charge:
    Obviously, a binary charge can whip up many different combinations. In physics, the electric charges (+, -) and the magnetic charges (north, south) are binary charges. The simplest interaction of binary charges is the same as the electricity; the same charges repulse and the opposite charges attract, and this interaction can be written in a mathematical table.
    Interaction of electric charges
    electric
    charges
    Positive Negative
    Positive Repulse Attract
    Negative Attract Repulse

    There are many other types of binary charge interaction, and they can also be represented with mathematical tables. For convenience, I am using (0,1) to represent the binary charges and Int (2) as interaction 2, Int (3) as interaction 3, ....

    Interaction 2 of (0,1)
    Int (2) 0 1
    0 0 1
    1 1 0

    Interaction 3 of (0,1)
    Int (3) 0 1
    0 0 0
    1 0 1

    Interaction 4 of (0,1)
    Int (4) 0 1
    0 0 1
    1 1 1

    Many readers might already notice that Int (2) is, in fact, the Addition table for binary arithmetic, and it could be the representation of electric charge interaction. That is, the electric charge interaction is an addition-like interaction. The Int (3) is, in fact, the Multiplication table of binary arithmetic.

    If the political interactions can be described in terms of some charges, then the Political Science will become a physics-like science. Again, this effort does not have anything to do with intelligence and free will. I will demonstrate a religious binary charge in this paper later. It is better to know about the ternary charge now.

  3. Ternary charge:
    It is not hard to guess that the algebra of ternary charge is very complicated. So, I will just show a very simple example here.

    For a ternary charge, it needs, of course, three symbols. Let us choose them as 1, 2 and 3. The simplest ternary charge interaction is the interaction of complement, such as;


    With the above definitions, an algebra table of this ternary charge can be constructed. I will show part of the table below.

    Complement interaction of ternary charge
    Ternary charge 1 2 3
    1, 1 * 2 3
    1, 2 2 1 #
    1, 3 3 # 1
    2, 1 ... ... ...

    Seemingly, this is a very strange interaction. First, we have not used 1, 2, 3 in this manner before. Second, we did not know any actual example of this kind of interaction in our life experience. Indeed, my choice of using 1, 2, 3 as the symbols to represent this ternary charge was not a good choice. In our life experience, we do know a color law, three primary colors. Every primary color is the complement of the other two primary colors. When all three primary colors are mixed together, the result becomes colorless. So, using three primary colors as the symbols of a ternary charge will be a much better choice. So, let us re-write the above table in terms of colors below.

    Complement interaction of ternary charge
    Ternary charge Red Yellow Blue
    R, R * Y B
    R, Y Y R #
    R, B B # R
    Y, R ... ... ...

III. An example of dynamic system

If the charges of Political Science are much more complicated than the charges of the physical world, they could be more complicated than ternary charge. However, there is a chance that some charges of Political Science can be described with these three well-known charges. Anyway, let us look into one ternary charge of the physical world first.

The physical world is built up in a form of a hierarchy, as follow:

  1. Marco-world, the large body -- controlled with a unitary charge, mass, the gravitation.
  2. Chemical compound -- controlled mainly with a binary charge, the electric charge. The magnetic charge also contributes some controls in this arena.
  3. Atoms -- in addition to the above binary charges, the nucleus is held together with a strong force, the residual of a ternary charge.
  4. Proton or Neutron -- is composed of quarks which carry a ternary charge. As we can guess it, physicists give that ternary charge a name, the color charge. And, that model is called Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD), as chromo- means color.

In QCD, there are six quarks. But proton or neutron is composed only with two of them, the up quark and the down quark. The names of up or down are just names. In fact, the QCD is very simple.

The fact that proton carries one unit of positive electric charge, its structure must be as:

Proton = [ u (+2/3), u (+2/3), d (-1/3)] = +1 electric charge
and
Neutron = [ u (=2/3), d (-1/3), d (-1/3)] = 0 electric charge

Yet, both proton and neutron do not show a ternary charge. That is, the ternary charge of quark must be cancelled out in the quark interaction. And, indeed, it does.

Proton = [ u (red), u (yellow), d (blue)] = colorless
and
Neutron = [ u (red), d (yellow), d (blue)] = colorless

Well, the most advanced physics is just this simple. The quark dynamics consists of:

  1. Two charges:
  2. One field -- three seats (in proton or neutron).

Seemingly, we can translate the American Constitution into this quark language, such as:

America = [ Congress, Court, President ] = sovereignty
or
Sovereignty = [ People, Territory, Government ] = nation

Of course, this will be a mammoth work, and I will not try to do it here with one stroke.

IV. The ambiguity of terminology in Political Science

In Dr. Huntington's book, The Clash of Civilizations ..., it has many good information and many more great insights. Those material are also organized into a very good structure. After reading it, we are truly enlightened. Yet, we are unable to come up with some laws or equations with those information and insights. That is, we are unable to make any scientific prediction with those information. There is, at least, one problem. Many terms are not clearly defined. Dr. Huntington wrote, "Religion is a central defining characteristic of civilizations, and, as Christopher Dawson said, 'the great religions are the foundations on which the great civilizations rest.' Of Weber's five 'world religions', four -- Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and Confucianism -- are associated with major civilizations. The fifth, Buddhism, is not." (page 47)

In page 65, Dr. Huntington quoted a table from World Christian Encyclopedia: A comparative study of churches and religions in the modern world A.D. 1900 -- 2000.

World population adhering to major religious traditions (in %)
Year/
Religion
1900 2000 (est)
Western Christian 26.9 29.9
Orthodox Christian 7.5 2.4
Muslim 12.4 19.2
Nonreligious 0.2 17.1
Hindu 12.5 13.7
Buddhist 7.8 5.7
Chinese folk 23.5 2.5
Tribal 6.6 1.6
Atheist 0.0 4.2

While these two passages were quoted from someone else, Dr. Huntington failed to point out whether the Confucianism is a religion or not. Does Confucianism equal to Chinese folk religion? Without knowing these answers, how can he define the Sinic civilization in terms of his saying, "Religion is a central defining characteristic of civilizations, ...."? However, I do agree that we cannot truly understand a civilization only from an economic, technological, and political point of view. So, now is the best time to find out whether Confucianism is a religion or not.

The book Christianity and Chinese Religions (ISBN 0-385-26022-9) was co-authored by Dr. Hans Kung (professor of ecumenical theology at the University of Tubingen in Germany) and Professor Julia Ching (a native Chinese scholar, professor of religious studies at the University of Toronto). Professor Ching wrote, "Are the Chinese a religious people and is their civilization rooted in religious beliefs? Had they gods, myths, and heroes as did other peoples -- Greeks, Hindus, and even Japanese? It may seem strange to raise such questions, and yet these are questions which have often been answered negatively by those scholars who specialize in one or another aspect of China's traditional and modern culture." (page 4).

Dr. Kung wrote, "But this means that, seen globally, China is not the entirely incomparable and (ir-)religious foreign element that some philosophers of the European Enlightenment assumed it to be. Rather, with all the similarities and differences one might observe, China is part of parcel of the single 'religious history of humankind' (Wilfred Cantwell Smith). Next to the other two still-existing great religious river system of Semitic-prophetic and Indian-mystic origin, China has shown itself ever more clearly (the significance of 'sage' = sheng [] (holy) is striking) to be a third completely independent system." (page 36, ibid)

Again, Dr. Kung wrote, "This is becoming especially apparent in Taiwan. In spite of an enormous injection of personnel, money, and time, in spite of forty years [over 55 years now] of unhindered missionary work, Christianity is stagnating there. Only 3.5 percent of the nineteen million Taiwanese [23 millions now] could be won over to Christianity; and a large proportion of these are from the non-Chinese aboriginal population. And yet, Chinese folk religion is experiencing an unparalleled revival after extended political and cultural suppression under the Japanese colonizers (1985 - 1945). This flowering of a Chinese folk piety mixed with Buddhist, Taoist, and Confucian elements can be seen above all in the restoration and new construction of numerous temples. In Taiwan there are apparently around twelve thousand altogether. How is this development to be explained? It is more than a matter of economic prosperity; it also has to do with the search for spiritual sources in the traditions of one's own people and with all the feast and pilgrimages that the new media of communication encourage. ...
It need not be denied that such folk religion can be an opium of the people instead of a remedy for them. Mao Tse-tung and the Chinese Communists undoubtedly had good reason for their rejection of religion. " (page 48 - 49, ibid).

In the preface, Dr. Kung wrote, "But a comparison between Christianity and the Chinese religions, this third great world religious 'river system' besides the Semitic-prophetic and the Indian-mystic? This is in fact my working hypothesis, one that will be confirmed again and again in the course of this book: within the single 'religious history of humankind' (Wilfred Cantwell Smith, Towards a World Theology [Philadelphia, 1981]), the Chinese religions are not some kind of Far Eastern and exotic appendage of general religious history, to be treated as marginal or as an afterthought as the textbooks usually do. No, the Chinese religions must be taken seriously as a third independent religious river system, equal in value to the others." (in Preface, ibid).

In the book The Clash of Civilizations ..., Dr. Huntington wrote, "The Chinese have to date consistently defeated intense Western efforts to Christianize them. If, at some point, they do import Christianity, it is to be expected that it will be absorbed and adapted in such a manner as to be compatible with the central elements of Chinese culture." (page 76)

From these five passages, we get the following impressions:

  1. The Chinese was and still is consistently able to defeat intense Western efforts to Christianize them.
  2. The Western theologians, including those in the time of European Enlightenment, view Chinese people is not religious.
  3. Dr. Kung gave some mixed signals: Note: is the center point of Confucianism. Yet, Dr. Kung did not formally declare that Confucianism is a religion.

In the book The Clash of Civilizations ..., Dr. Huntington wrote, "Perhaps the most important cultural diffusion not the result of conquest was the spread of Buddhism to China, which occurred about six hundred years after its origin in northern India." (page 49)

Over 50% of Buddhism Sutra was translated into Chinese by 鳩 摩 羅 什 who was born in a place where is now Kashmir. He was a renowned Buddhism teacher in six century A.D.. When his fame reached the Western China, the king sent a large army to kidnap him from Kashmir and made him the Teacher of the State. Furthermore, he, being a monk, was forced to accept a harem in order to preserve his seeds. With this true story, Chinese people, at least, at six century A.D. was religious fanatic.

Seemingly, this kind of story and issue has not much to do with my objective here, to transform Political Science to a physics-like science. Not so! As the saying of Dr. Huntington, religion is, indeed, a central defining characteristic of civilization. Now, the question is no longer whether China has a religion or not. The question is whether we truly know the definition of religion. If China is a third religious river system, why is no one knowing about it before? While Dr. Kung insisted that Chinese religion is the third religious river system of humankind, why was he unable to put a finger on it?

Although these issues are truly important, I, after all, have no time to discuss them in detail here. I will only give out a conclusion here, and move on to my original objective.

  1. Confucianism is an invisible religion:
    Confucius said, " 民 可 使 由 之 , 不 可 使 知 之 。 " (People can be taught to do things, but do not teach them the knowledge of why.) One way to achieve this is to camouflage the writing language. Over two thousand years, every Chinese learns the Chinese writing word as a stand along character while all (100%) Chinese words are composed of only from 220 word roots. If this root word system is known by everyone, the Chinese writing system can be mastered by any foreigner in six months, and the Chinese culture will become naked in front of the whole world.

    In the book Christianity and Chinese Religions, Professor Ching wrote, "A phrase frequently found in the Book of History [ 尚 書 ] introducing royal pronouncements is Wang jo yue [ 王 若 曰 ]. The difficult term is jo []. Some philologists have explained it as 'The King, seized by the spirit (jo), said.' In this light, the kings appear to have made many speeches in a trance state, communicating what they had heard from the divine, or at least they were perceived as having done so. The loss of the etymological meaning of the word jo has caused Chinese exegetes and Western translators to understand it to mean 'The King said to the following effect.' " (page 25).

    There is no excuse for the errors in the above passage, especially as Professor Ching is a native Chinese scholar. Indeed, the Chinese Etymology is heavily camouflaged and is deeply hidden. It is not completely lost. Furthermore, the common meaning for the word is "as... something" or "if...something." There is no chance of any kind for it to be a spirit of any kind. Let us look at the following words, (flower) , (tea), (bitter) , . All these four words share a word root (on the top of each word) which is a word root to identify that word is a name of a grass-like plant. You might already notice that the word (bitter) and the word are very similar. The word is a name for a vegetable which is very bitter, so it also means bitter. The cross () right above the (mouth) in the word is a different way to write the word root (grass or weed). By pointing that cross directly into the mouth, it signifies to swallow it quickly as it is very bitter. Now, we might guess that the word is a kind of vegetable which can be enjoyed slowly as that cross sits on the side of the mouth. Indeed, it is. is the name of a chive-like vegetable, and it is always served on the side of a main dish. That is, it is not the main thing. So, its derived meaning today is "as ... something."

    In the old time China, king's pronouncement was called edict. In professor Ching's passage, that king { 周 成 王 } was only a few years old kid then, and the country was ruled by his uncle ( 周 公 ), the most famous Duke of Chou who was the one setting the foundation for an 800 years of Chou dynasty. Thus, the pronouncement of a kid king can only be call as-edict. This was the reason that the text was written "King (as...) pronounced."

    Indeed, no one today knows that the word was a name of a vegetable as it was only recorded in an ancient dictionary which no one uses any more. Yet, since Chou dynasty, it already means "as ... something" or "if ... something." In fact, it gives rise to the meanings of many other words, such as ( a promise, not yet something concrete), (provoking, not yet become a fighting).

    If 99.99% of native Chinese scholar does not know that Confucianism is a religion, what is the chance for foreigners to know better?

  2. Being an invisible religion, Confucianism is
  3. In order to prove my view above, we need look into the following issues:
  4. Conclusion:
    As Dr. Kung's saying, Chinese religion is a third religious river system. In China, there is only one religion, the Confucianism which begets one kid (the folk religion) and adapts two foster kids (Sinicized Buddhism and Taoism). Thus, Chinese religious river is as follow:

    Confucianism: with three sub-religions


    Perhaps, not everyone agrees with this conclusion. Without knowing that Confucianism is a religion and that it is the mother or foster mother of all Chinese religions, we will not be able to define a very important religion charge. So, I must make this conclusion at this moment because that it is the center point of a religion charge, the exclusiveness and the inclusiveness. I will write about this issue in detail soon.

The dynamics of Political Science

I. Religion charges: exclusiveness verse inclusiveness, etc.

By knowing that Confucianism is a genuine religion, we are now able to deal with Dr. Huntington's saying, "Religion is a central defining characteristic of civilization." Now, we are able to introduce two charges for religion.

  1. Charge one, the missionary -- this is a binary charge, aggressive or passive.
  2. Charge two, the Absoluteness, or simply Godness:

This Godness charge is obviously a binary charge, and it can have a few different types of interaction.

Interaction (A) of Godness charge
Godness
Charge
Exclusive Inclusive
Exclusive Exclusive Exclusive
Inclusive Exclusive Inclusive

Interaction (B) of Godness charge
Godness
Charge
Exclusive Inclusive
Exclusive Exclusive Inclusive
Inclusive Inclusive Inclusive

Of course, as a binary charge, the Godness charge can have many other possible interactions. I have listed two of them. They show two possible pathways or outcomes when two religions met. The interaction A is a multiplication-like interaction. When an exclusive religion is stronger, it annihilates the other religion. The interaction B is an addition-like interaction. When an inclusive religion is stronger, it absorbs or adapts the other religion.

With the concepts of charges, interactions and pathways, we can now consider two cases below:

Is there any difference between these two cases in terms of charges - interactions dynamics? Seemingly, at this level, the intelligence and free will is not a factor at all for distinguishing the Political Science and a physics-like science. If it is a factor, it will be in a different level.

II. The world religions, civilizations and their interactions

Now, by knowing the charges of religion, we are now able to calculate the effects of religions on different civilizations. By knowing what is civilization, we are able to calculate the dynamics of humanity. The religious system of this world is as follow:

  1. Semitic-prophetic religion:
  2. Indian-mystic religion:
  3. Sinic-moral religion: Confucianism
That is, there are only three root religions. Each root religion degenerates into a few religions. Some religions are further degenerating into a few sects (denominations). It is very important to make this hierarchy very accurate in order to define charges and fields of interactions very clearly.

With this chart of religion of the world, we are able to define the world civilizations.

  1. Semitic
  2. Hindu
  3. Sinic -- Chinese
Obviously this chart is defined with the chart of religion. In the book Comparative Philosophy (ISBN 0-911714-10-3), Dr. Archie J. Bahm wrote, " 'Comparative philosophy,' in the sense being clarified here, involves, as a minimum, comparisons of views from all the major civilizations of the world and, as a maximum, that is, as an ideal, comparisons of all views from all civilizations. From the perspective of the present writer, there are three major civilizations -- the Indian, the Chinese and the European." (page 5)

Although Dr. Bahm did have the same view as mine, many other scholars see the term of civilization with somewhat different definition. Again, its definition is very important in terms of the dynamics of charges and fields of interactions. So, I will define the three civilizations above as root civilizations. The term of civilization is defined with religion. That is:

The following is the chart of world civilizations:

  1. Western (Catholicism and Protestantism)
  2. Orthodox
  3. Islamic
  4. Hindu
  5. Sinic
The following chart includes the sub-civilizations:
  1. Western (Catholicism and Protestantism)
  2. Orthodox
  3. Islamic
  4. Hindu
  5. Sinic

This chart is very close to the real world. That is, our definition for civilization is not too far off. For the Political Science to be a physics-like science, its model must be valid for the entire human history. Furthermore, that model must be calculable. However, the above definition is still a conception definition and is not calculable. Worst yet, I do discover some problems.

In the Quark model,

proton = [ u (red), u (yellow), d (blue)]

This equation provides four precise information:

  1. Quarks (u or d) are precisely defined. They are the sub-particles of proton.
  2. Their electric charges are precisely described and balanced.
  3. Their color charges are also precisely described and balanced.
  4. Their field of interaction is precisely described, as three seats inside of the proton. Inside the proton, these three quarks interact very strongly. The attractive force is so strong that proton can never decay (fall apart) by itself. However, outside of the proton, its power reduces sharply. Yet, it still can provide enough force to hold mid-size (atomic number smaller than 90) nucleus together. For large nucleus, it often will decay. Outside the nucleus, this quark force has absolutely a zero power.

On the contrary, the function (or the equation) of sub-civilization or State has three big problems.

  1. The definition of Sub-civilization (SC) = SC (religion, geography, history) is seemingly already very clear for many. But, what are those variables? Are they sub-particles of SC, similar to the case of proton - quarks model? Are they variables of function SC? Is SC a function or a particle (entity)? Without knowing these, we are unable to deal with it as a science.
  2. We do not know the field of interaction for those variables.
  3. For proton, quarks are its sub-particles. Yet, religion is obviously not a sub-particle of sub-civilization or of a state.

Unless we can resolve these issues, we are not any closer to our goal, to transform Political Science to be a physics-like science.

First, let us look at the field of interaction of religion. Historically, the interaction between three religious river systems was very small, either there was no interaction or a significant effort resulted almost nothing. On the other hand, the interaction inside the river system was and still is very strong and did and still do often become military conflict. So, we can define two charges:

  1. The root charge: This is a charge carried by root religions. The interaction between root charges of religions is very weak. With only three root religions, it is a ternary charge. From the examples of history, it is seemingly producing a repulsive force. It prevents other root charges from invading it. This is similar to the quark color charges. When a red quark is taken up one seat in a proton, the next quark must settle with a yellow or a blue color. When both red and yellow are taken, the third quark has no choice but turns its face to a blue color. Now, it becomes understandable of why only 2% of Indians are converted as Christians while the British colonized India for over 100 years.

    Note: While quark color charges are repulsive in the above described situation, they are also producing a very strong force to hold the proton together. With these root charges of religion, the humans become a humanity.

  2. The root degeneration charge: it is very strong inside its root system. It can be a binary charge (fellowship, rivalry). When two religions who both carry exclusive Godness charge and rivalry root degeneration charge, there will be conflict between them for sure.

    While electric charge is a binary charge (+ or -), a particle can carry only one of them, such as, proton (+), electron (-). On the contrary, a religion can carry both fellowship and rivalry at the same time.

    In physics, the electric charge is called scalar charge. All charges (unitary, binary or ternary) that we have discussed so far are scalar charges. Yet, there are vector charges, that is, a charge contains two or more components, such as the root degeneration charge of religion contains two components (fellowship, rivalry).

    Note: Only particle (entity) can carry charges. Charge cannot carry charges. The vector charge consists of two or more dimensions. For a three dimension vector charge, it can always be reduced to a set of three scalar charges. This fact does not mean that charge carries charges.

    The vector algebra is a very mature discipline. I will show only one operation here, the inner product.


    The interaction (inner product) = (FA, RA) * (FB, RB)
    = (FA * FB + RA * RB)
    = F (A * B) + R (A * B)
    = Fellowship (A * B) + Rivalry (A * B)

    The inner product of two vectors is a scalar, a number. Obviously, if the fellowship number is bigger than the rivalry number, there is peace between A and B. Otherwise, there will be conflict between them. Seemingly, the degeneration between Catholicism and Protestantism resulted more fellowship than rivalry. On the contrary, the degeneration between Christianity and Islam produced more rivalry than fellowship.

With the introduction of these two religion charges, the model of religion dynamics is very close to the real world. The entities, the charges, the interactions and the fields of interactions in this model are all clearly defined. However, I still see some problems.

III. The difference between Pre- and Sub-

In physics, only particle (entity) can carry charges. The field is a space-time for particle to roam around and for interaction to play out. Yet, the field of this religion model is also religions, that is, the particle (entity) and the field cannot truly be distinguished in this religion model. Perhaps, the Political Science is different from Physics after all.

Yet, there are some cases that particle and field are, indeed, cannot be distinguished in physics.

  1. In Newtonian physics, the mass charge is carried by particles (entities). In General Relativity, Einstein claimed that mass is the result of a wrinkle on the space-time sheet, that is, the mass charge is carried (or produced) by the field (the space-time). If his claim is correct, the Einstein mass charge will travel in this space-time sheet as a wave, the so-called gravitation wave. Yet, no such a wave is discovered thus far, although the General Relativity has some limited successes in some other predictions.

  2. Today, physics is separated into two disciplines, the classic physics (the Newtonian physics) and quantum physics. They roam in two different fields, the classic field and the quantum field. However, if we can define a quantum charge (q0, q1), then a unified field which carries this quantum charge can represent both classic field and quantum field: This is not just a new way of representation. It changes the entire concept of physics. That is, the field can carry charges. Then, the difference between a particle and a field might not be significant any more. However, at this point, this suggestion is all mine. After all, this is just a different way to see an issue. It could be a philosophy but is not a science.

In the book Super Unified Theory (ISBN 0-916713-01-6), it outlined a Prequark model, as follow:

Thus, religion being both entity and field is no longer unacceptable. The other issue is that religion, as a particle, is obviously not a sub-particle of a sub-civilization while it acts like one in the definition of sub-civilization. Can Prequark Model provides another rescue? I think so, but it will take a tortuous road.

The quarks can be written as the composite of prequarks as follows:

The quark color charges are also correct. As V is vacuum, I will not write V out in the following equations; so the quark color, as the charge of the field, can be seen. The Prequark Model above is very simple. However, I am discussing it here because it is the only model which can provide solutions for transforming Political Science into a physics-like science.

Now, the Prequark Model, indeed, is a great language for describing quark model. Yet, according to the tradition of physics, only when prequarks are discovered in the laboratory, it becomes a verified theory. As we often need two id cards to identify a person, it is the same in physics. To identify a particle, it is necessary to know its mass plus, perhaps, its electric charge or one of the other charge.

The prequark V is vacuum. Thus, it might not have any mass. So, the chance to discover V prequark in the laboratory is not good. How about the A prequark? First, we need to make a guess, the range of A's mass. As V is vacuum, we can omit V and write d quark as:

d quark = (V, V, -A) = ( , , -A)
From the hint of d quark, we can make three guesses about the mass of prequark A.
  1. All d quark's mass is coming from the prequark A. That is, mass (d) = mass (A).

    This guess obviously cannot be correct for at least two reasons.
  2. If the General Relativity is correct, then a field has mass too. So, the mass of A-prequark is smaller than the mass of d quark. This guess is also very unlikely. If the mass of A is smaller than d quark, it could be discovered in the laboratory long ago as we have enough energy to produce it.
  3. The mass of prequark A is much, much, much higher than the mass of d quark. It is much heavier than we can produce in our laboratory. How can this be?

    When two protons form an atom, the mass of the atom is less than the sum of two proton's mass because some mass is converted as energy to bind them together. If the ticket price is very high for entering into the quark field, the prequark A might use out 99.99% its mass-energy for entering into the quark. Seemingly, this is the best guess.

Thus, the prequark A, as a sub-particle of quark, is much more massive than the composite quark. So, the religion, as a constituent of a sub-civilization or of a state, can of course be much more massive than either of them.

The prefix sub- means less than or subordinate. The prefix pre- means earlier or prior to. According to the above description, the prequark is not less than quark in terms of mass. Yet, it is prior to quark as it is the constituent of quark. Thus, this is the reason for choosing the term Pre-quark instead of Sub-quark in the Prequark Model.

In the physics hierarchy, only prequarks break out the particle - subparticle axiom. Is there a similar example existing in our daily life experience? The best example is the visible iceberg (v-iceberg). As a particle, it can be written as:

V-iceberg = (big chunk ice, ocean water, empty space above)
Only with these three constituent parts, any v-iceberg can thus be seen or be measured. Yet, every constituent of this v-iceberg is much more massive than the v-iceberg itself.

Without the concept of pre-particle (not sub-particle), it will be very hard to define the term state (nation) in terms of religion, race and history, as each one of those is often more massive than a state itself. Without clear definitions, the Political Science cannot be a genuine science.

IV. Political force equation

Now, not only are we able to define many terms, we have done the followings.

  1. Root religions, religions, ..., civilizations, ... states and international organizations are defined as particles (entities) which can carry charges.
  2. By knowing the charges, the interaction between charges can be calculated.
  3. By discovering the pre-particles, Note: Without the understanding of these two, there is no chance to transform Political Science to a physics-like science.
  4. By knowing particles, charges and fields, a field theory can be constructed. That is, a force equation can be written.

    Political force equation
    = K * [charge A(1) * charge A(2)] / [delta space * delta time]

Now, we can check out two cases of religious (not political or economic) interactions: Of course, there are many charges for religion. I have listed four sets of them.
  1. Grace -- unitary charge
  2. Godness -- inclusive verse exclusive, binary charge
  3. Root charge -- ternary charge
  4. Root degeneration charge -- a vector charge (fellowship, rivalry)
We can calculate the force of each charge with the force equation above.

The equation of war

I. Quantum collapse and quantum probability

Even without the knowledge of the concepts of charges and equations, many people do reach the above conclusions. However, the model above does make the analysis easier. Yet, if we stop here, this model is not very useful. So what if we get a quantified number for both cases, such as: case 1 = X and case 2 = Y? For the question of what the probability of war between country A and country B is, how can the number X and Y play a part to calculate that probability? In order to calculate this kind of probability, we must look at some concepts of quantum probability first.

For every quantum system, it consists of four concepts:

  1. Quantum states -- for a system, such as (country A, country B, war charge), it forms many possible scenarios. Each scenario is one quantum state.
  2. Quantum probability -- from many quantum states of that system, each quantum state will have a probability comparing with the other quantum states.
  3. Quantum collapse -- before the manifestation of a quantum event, that quantum system has many quantum states, and each quantum state has a probability for its manifestation as an event, such as, state (9) has the probability of 1% to become an event. However, when state (9) manifested as an event, its probability is no longer 1% but is 100%. This is called quantum collapse. The quantum probability give us some information about the chance to manifest for each quantum state before the quantum collapse. For example, I brought one million Lotto tickets while Mr. A. brought only one. Thus, my chance to win is one million times higher than Mr. A's chance. However, Mr. A could be the winner, not me. When Mr. A won, his winning probability is no longer smaller than mine but is 100%. That is, however small a quantum probability is, it could turn out to be a 100% quantum reality.
  4. Quantum tunnel -- a quantum state has a zero quantum probability, yet it could turn out to be a 100% quantum reality. For example, I brought one million Lotto tickets while Mr. B had none. One month after the drawing, a Lotto ticket was blown to Mr. B's door step, and it is the winning ticket.

With quantum probability as an example, we are now able to construct the probability equation of war with the following steps:

  1. To find or to define a charge -- war charge
  2. To calculate the war charge interactions
  3. To calculate the force of that war charge with the Political force equation (a unified force equation) which uses the field of interaction as the denominator
  4. With the above (charges, interactions, forces, fields) and their combinations to find out all possible scenarios (quantum states)
  5. To construct a quantum probability equation for this charge or charges
  6. To calculate the probability of each quantum state

Obviously, as soon as we find out or define the war charge, the rest steps are simply mathematics. So, what is war charge?

II. About war charges and their interactions

The war charge for civil war is completely different from all other wars. So, I will not discuss the civil war here. For all other wars, there are two kinds of motive for war, war of survival and war of wants.

This war charge (survival, wants) is obviously not a scalar charge. However, every vector charge can always be reduced to a set of scalar charges. And, there are always many different kinds of interaction between a charge. I will show two kinds of interaction here and treat them as the interaction of scalar charges. The following is the algebra table for this Int (S) interaction.
Will war start table
Int (S) DS OS WW
DS 0 S S
OS S S S
WW S S S

Although there are many types of WW, there is no need to write out each one of them in the above table, as each kind of them will always start the war. However, in a different interaction (such as, who will win the war), each type of WW might react differently. Let us define the term victory first.

This analysis is not an equation of the odds of winning a war in calculating the military tactics. In the book Art of War by Suntze (written 2,500 years ago), it does have such an equation. Please read the article Satellite Killer, unbreakable codes and more at http://www.chinese-word-roots.org/cwr015.htm

As we are now investigating the nature of war, it is okay to assume that the starter of war is always the military winner, as he should know better before he starts a war. Yet, will he always be able to win the final victory? It is a reasonable assumption that the endurance for a long lasting war is much less for WW than for DS. Of course, there is no reason to make such an assumption. We can always use other assumptions to calculate their interaction table. For the two tables I am showing below, I will use the following two assumptions:

  1. WW will always gain the instantaneous victory, WW win.
  2. WW will always has less endurance for a long lasting war. Thus, DS will always win the final victory.
  3. 0 means no war, no winner. ? means unknown.

IV, Instantaneous Victory table
IV DS WW
DS 0 WW Win
WW WW Win ?

FV, the Final Victory table
FV DS WW
DS 0 DS Win
WW DS Win ?

Of course, there are many more such tables. In fact, the decision makers of national security are using this kind of information to formulate their war or peace decision although they might not write out those tables. That is, with these tables, we are able to deal with a war decision by evaluating many quantum states and by calculating the probability of each quantum state in an Equation of probability of a War. In addition to the motive of war, there are two more factors which will change the calculation of the probability. One is accelerator of war, the other the decelerator.

With these three factors (motives, accelerators and decelerators), the quantum states of any war cloud can be listed out as functions of these three factors and the combinations of them. And, the probability of each quantum state can be calculated. So, the probability of starting a war P (war) is:

P (war) = the sum of all probabilities of quantum states of this war cloud

The quantum states of this war cloud arises from the following factors:

So,
P (war) = P (war charges) = P (MO) + P (AC) + P (DE) + P (CO)

III. A hypothetical example: the war cloud between USA and China

Of course, MO, AC, DE and CO can be calculated with their interaction algebra table. With this equation, we can calculate the war cloud between USA and China. First, we must list out all possible quantum states.

Now, we can calculate the probability of state N with two steps:
  1. Let us assume that there are a total 10 quantum states for this war cloud. That is, there are 10 pathways for this war cloud to settle. Again, assume that the probability of each quantum state is the same. So, the chance for quantum state N to manifest is 10% among all quantum states.
  2. The internal dynamics of state N is as the following table:

    Go, no go decision chart
    Decision Accelerator
    verse
    Decelerator
    Motive
    verse
    Decelerator
    go go 0, 1
    no go no go 0

    This chart is very much self-explanatory. After the comparison of accelerator with decelerator, only a Go decision will invoke the second comparison (motive verse decelerator). Without any decisive factor being known, the simplest way to calculate is to give an even outcome, 50/50. That is, with this chart, the probability of (go) is 25%.

Combining the two steps above, the probability of state N to become a reality (go) is (0.10 x 0.25 =0.025) = 2.5%. Of course, this calculation used a few assumptions, and they are the simplest ones. With different assumptions, we will get a different calculation. The detailed charge interaction tables will provide us information for many different assumptions. In short, a number of calculations can be simulated with a computer model.

The probability for state N is seemingly small. However, according to the concept of quantum collapse, state N could be a quantum reality, let alone to say that there is still a power of quantum tunneling. At this point, it is the time to inject our human intelligence and free will into this mathematical calculation and to do everything we can to prevent the collapse of state N.

Conclusion:

Yes, the Political Science can be transformed into a physics-like science via the following procedure:

  1. Describing every political statement or act with a dynamics. For example, the statement "Two men was fighting in the garden at 4 p.m." can be re-written with a dynamics as follow: The above statement can be re-written as, "Two men who carry the charge (e) and charge (f) had the interaction Int (f) at Fi (p) and Fi (t)." This new statement is not only encompassing the original statement but is more detailed, and it can be used in a deeper analysis.
  2. In order to use the dynamics system above, every term must be defined according to the rules of dynamics, and it consists of three simple rules:
  3. Political Science is, indeed, much more complicated than Physics. Besides the Prequark Dynamics, the entity and the field are 100% distinguishable in the entire Physics, as only particle can carry charges. Only in the Prequark Dynamics, the field can carry charges too. In a sense, field becomes charge. That is, the entity (particle), the charge and the field are all becoming not distinguishable in Prequark Dynamics. Yet, this is also the case for Political Science. The United Nation is obviously an entity (particle). It is also a field. The Roman Church is, of course, an entity while it is also a field. Without using this Prequark Dynamics, the Political Science cannot truly be transformed into a physics-like science.

    This Prequark Dynamics is not truly in conflict with the term exclusion principle above. There is a major difference between the following two cases:

In Quantum physics, the act of observation of a quantum system can, in fact, change that system. That is, the very act of observation is changing the system which we are trying to observe. On the same token, can the equation of war of this article not only be as a tool for politicians to calculate the probability of a given war cloud, but it will become a part of that decision making. I hope that this Equation of War will bring peace to this world as everyone can see that there are always many other pathways (quantum states) in addition to the course of war.