The Brain: ZenUniverse 2.0


“Tao can Tao not Tao”

Lao Tzu

If you have seen ZenUniverse 1.o and liked it.  You will be pleased to know that I have made some major enhancements to this concept.  We will still have the Six Solids, but we will expand considerably on the classifications.

In this version I will incorporate my work describing the six areas of human endeavor:

  1. Astrics
  2. Physics
  3. Archics
  4. Chemics
  5. Bionics
  6. Datics

Then I will correlate them with the Brain’s major regions.

The ordering of everything is very deliberate.

I am not going to belabor you with commentary.

Simply scroll up and down through the tables and think about the correlations and the model of the brain at the end of this post.

So, without further adieu:

Zen Astrics

These are the kinds of theories that can exist.

You might notice the number of sides for each seems large.

What has been overlooked is solids have an outside, midside and inside.


Zen Physics

These are the kinds of space that can exist.


Zen Archics

These are the kinds of arts that can exist.


Zen Chemics

These are the kinds of natures that can exist.


Zen Bionics

These are the kinds of skills that can exist.


Zen Datics

These are the kinds of numeracy and literacy.


Zen Brain

Each of the above areas of endeavor correlate with the representation of the brain in the fundamental table below.


  1. GREEN: EYE: OCCIPITAL LOBE: visual center of the brain
  2. YELLOW: EAR: TEMPORAL LOBE: sensory center of hearing in the brain.
  3. SKY: NOSE: BRAINSTEM: control of reflexes and such essential internal mechanisms as respiration and heartbeat.
  4. BLUE: TONGUE: PARIETAL LOBE: Complex sensory information from the body is processed in the parietal lobe, which also controls the ability to understand language.
  5. RED: JAW: FRONTAL LOBE: control of skilled motor activity, including speech, mood and the ability to think.
  6. ORANGE: BODY: CEREBELLUM: regulation and coordination of complex voluntary muscular movement as well as the maintenance of posture and balance.



Hope there was food for thought.



Universe: Interrogative Spaces


In my previous post I gave thought to Tim Brown of IDEO’s “design thinking”, Clayton Christensen’s “Innovator’s Dilemma”, Malcolm Gladwell’s “Tipping Point”, and Buckminster Fuller’s “Synergetics” concepts.  What emerged was the above Czerepak Framework.  My claim is this framework is fundamental to designing a system.

The thing that the above table shows is interaction within what I am now going to call the “Interrogative Spaces”: HowSpace, WhatSpace, WhySpace, WhoSpace, WhenSpace, WhereSpace, HowMuchSpace, HowManySpace.  Each ellipse I call a “vortice”.  The Interrogative Spaces are composed of one or more vortices.  The Framework above shows how Spaces are composed within the Interrogatives,  but what about interactions between the Interrogative Spaces?   A good example is speed or velocity.  Speed is the intersection of WhenSpace and WhereSpace:

v = r / t

Where v is velocity, r is radius and t is time.

If you are increasing Speed, which is acceleration, you have one dimension of WhereSpace and two dimensions of WhenSpace:

a = r / t’ * t”

Where a is acceleration, r is radius, t’ is the first clock and t” is the second clock.  You cannot measure acceleration with one clock. This uniqueness of every vortice applies to all the Interrogative Spaces and all inter-relationships between all of the Spaces.  .

Another way to look at the Interrogative Spaces is as sets and subsets.  The first row are the complete Space vortice sets.  The second row are the first Space vortice subsets.  The third row is the intersect between the row two and row three Space vortice subsets. And the fourth row are the intersects between the row two and row three and row four Space vortice subsets.

I do not believe that anything is constant.  Not the speed of light, not gravity, not cosmology.  Every intersection of dimensions creates a vortex in Universe and every one is unique.  We are simply unable to measure and manage the uniqueness of everything, therefore we make generalizations which create models that can always be falsified.

Universe: Hexahedron Theory

Hexahedron Schema:

  1. 4 Axes are Dimension Particle Sets
  2. 8 Vertexes are Space Particle Sets
  3. 12 Edges are Force Particle Sets

Additional Schema Components:

  1. 4 Axial Plane Sets
  2. 6 Edge Plane Sets
  3. 16 Axial Plane Triangulation Sets
  4. 24 Edge Plane Triangulation Sets

Look at the vertexes of the hexahedron as entities.

Entities are Sequence->Value->Type

Look at the edges and axes of the hexahedron as associations.


are: SourceEntity->VerbEntity->TargetEntity

or: SourceAssociation->VerbEntity->TargetEntity

The instances for the entities and associations are the sets we are working with.

The key is the universe is composed of particles of a broad variety.  But every particle is simply an association in the form of a set.  The lowest order particles are event and point.  They are one dimensional particles.  All subsequent higher dimension particles can be reduced to a subset of these particles.

I have revised my theory to include the observer in the system.  I am of the opinion that the observer is not unary but binary having two hemispheres to the brain.  Position and Velocity are composed of sets not points and are observed separately by the ordinal and cardinal hemispheres of the observer.  Consequently, the universe is not probalistic, but wholly deterministic.

Where – When : Space – Time

Sequa is an ordinal point set while frequa is a cardinal event set.

What – How : Mass – Light

Quala is an ordinal sequency set while Quanta is a cardinal frequency set..

Why – How Much :  Gravity – Energy

Grava is an ordinal quality set while Erga is a cardinal quantity set.

Who – Whom : Ordinality – Cardinality

Orda is an ordinal gravity set while Erga is a cardinal energy set.

I think there are even higher order entities and associations, but I have still to work them out.

Set Physics

I have been giving theoretical physics a thorough and systematic going over and I think I’ve come up with a unified solution that incorporates gravity and all the particles.

I’m thankful for the work of:

  • Issac Newton
  • Albert Einstein
  • R. Buckminster Fuller
  • Max Plank
  • Richard Feynman
  • and a broad array of experimental physicists

Giants whose shoulders I stand on.

Each row in this model is a set of particles.  Everything is ultimately composed of distance and time.

I am creating a new taxonomy because the existing names do not consistently define the particles of the system.






How Much

System Schema

The structure of the schema is three dimensional and composed of three shells:

Inner Tetrahedral Intrashell:

Middle Octahedral Intershell:

Outer Icosahedral Boundary Shell:

The edges, vertexes and connections between the shells are all significant in revealing the dependecy of the particles upon one another.

This is the best I can do for a two dimensional representation:


Network Schema