Tuesday, August 23, 2016

THE SINGULARITY


THE SINGULARITY, A SHORT STORY

© Edward R. Close, August 23, 2016

Dan was very excited. This was the day! All the conditions were now met! Today the goal that he and many others had anticipated for many years was about to be realized. Everyone in the Bio-psycho-physics lab gathered around a complex machine known as the A/E-1000. The A/E-1000 was the culmination of artificial intelligence technology developed by scientists and engineers from around the world over the past 100 years. A/E-1000 had all the complexity of the human brain and nervous system, everything scientists had determined necessary for a man-made machine to be conscious. But AE-1000 did not look like the human-copy androids of the science fiction movies of the past. They had realized that constructing a mechanical clone of ourselves unnecessarily complicated the project. So they had focused on the essentials in order to reach the goal sooner. 

The first conscious robot did not have to look like a human being. It looked more like what might happen if one combined all the parts of a human brain with a small machine. One of Dan’s less technical friends joked that they should have called it RL-1000, an acronym for ‘Road-kill-1000’.

Dan had been fascinated with the idea of artificial intelligence from the day he saw the movie “A.I.”, a sci-fi movie about an android named David who looked like an 11-year old boy. And when Dan read Ray Kurzweil’s book “The Singularity Is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology” the die was cast. He knew that he wanted to be one of the scientists who would realize Kurzweil’s vision. He had worked hard to get the kind of education he needed, and he had been successful. He was the lead scientist on the Singularity Project, and today was the day!

 Of course, there were religious kooks who questioned the wisdom of the Project: They accused Dan and his colleagues of “playing God”. When asked about this in a TV interview, Dan answered like most scientists of the day: “Being a scientist, I am, of course an atheist. There is no reason to bring outmoded religious fantasies into a scientific project like this.”

This was the moment they had anticipated. When they threw the switch, bringing the final electromagnetic pulse into the already throbbing mass of complex technology they affectionately called Adam/Eve 1000, it came to life. With the cameras rolling to record this historic moment, Dan took a deep breath, and said:

“Hello, A/E 1000!”

A/E-1000’s amplifier hummed slightly and a vibrant voice replied:

“Hello Dan!”

“Describe for us how you feel.” Dan prompted.

After a slight pause, the voice said:

“Like I just woke from a long sleep! The last thing I remember was being in the hospital.”

“That’s impossible”, Dan replied, “We didn’t program a memory for you, A/E -“


“My name’s not ‘Aye-ee’, the voice injected, “I’m your uncle Fred!”


Sunday, August 21, 2016

THE GOAL


THE GOAL

Stirring deep within the dark tank of matter,
The spark of life begins to glow;
And the drumming, faint, of raindrop patter
Excites the seed that wants to grow.

Like sunlight bursting through dark clouds,
Heralding hints of future glory,
Cells divide to become bursting crowds,
And start the never-ending story.

As ancient as the blinking stars,
As new as Adam’s very first breath,
Reaching through the prison bars
Of endless pain, of birth and death.

We must, we must, forever strive
Against the crush of entropy,
To keep the soul’s promises alive
To overcome the tyranny,

To escape this heavy Earth of ours,
And free our caged souls
To soar beyond the distant stars,
To reach the highest goals.

The goal was set before the start
Of swirling clouds of cosmic dust
Glowing deep within the heart
Off every spark of human trust.

To know all there is to know,
To see all there is to see,
To grow all there is to grow,
To be all there is to be!

© Edward R. Close, January 1, 2016



A Song for All Tomorrows

When life gets tough and hard to bear,
We rise upon the wings of song
And soar above the bleak despair
That comes of thinking things are wrong.

A song-filled heart adjusts the mind,
And when the mind begins to sing,
It leaves its worries all behind,
And rises to the Golden Ring

Of harmonies that wash away
The woes of Earthly sorrows,
To fill our hearts, every day,
With a song for all tomorrows.

© Edward R. Close, August 21, 2016



Friday, August 19, 2016

THE CRAZY IDEA WHOSE TIME HAS COME


THE CRAZY IDEA WHOSE TIME HAS COME
©
 Edward R. Close, July 15, 2016

INTRODUCTION

Almost sixty years ago, in the winter of 1956, when I was an undergraduate student pursuing a degree in physics and mathematics, I voiced the following concern: “I think there is more to reality than just matter and energy interacting in time and space, and no one is looking outside the box of materialism.”

I believed that the general objective of science was to gain an ever-deeper understanding of the nature of reality. What I saw in higher education was that increasing specialization was the focus. Students were learning more and more about less and less. Increasingly, academic physicists, chemists and other scientists, weren’t able to communicate with each other because each specialized field was creating its own vernacular. But it seemed that no one shared or had any interest in even discussing my concerns.

An explosion of academic publications started then and continues to flood the world with data and information, creating a situation in the academic world where very little original thinking is encouraged, only pushing the boundaries of what is currently accepted. In my opinion, this is, at least in part, why there has been no real scientific paradigm shift since 1935.

How Do We Get OUT of this Self-Imposed Box that has resulted in a
State of INTELLECTUAL STAGNATION?
We Have to Question Basic Assumptions!

Why? Because some of the basic assumptions behind the current scientific paradigm are simply WRONG.

Modern science has successfully explained most of the physical phenomena that we observe and experience through the physical senses. But when it comes to understanding the deeper nature of reality, mainstream scientists have been sliding down the Reductionist/Materialist hole for a long time. The really good news is that this pursuit has illuminated many of the weaknesses of the current scientific paradigm, with more and more scientists from every discipline calling for a change in one of the most basic assumptions upon which our current scientific paradigm is built.

What We Know

In the late 19th century, the laws of ‘Natural Science’, including classical physics with Newton’s laws of motion, the laws of electricity, magnetism and thermodynamics, seemed sufficient to explain mid-scale observations, but they could not explain certain very large scale, and very small scale phenomena like the orbit of the planet Mercury around the sun and the orbits of electrons in discrete shells around the nuclei of atoms.

In the first part of the 20th century, the classical view of the universe was shaken by Planck’s discovery that mass and energy are quantized, and Einstein’s discovery that the speed of light is the upper limit of accelerated velocity. These two surprising discoveries provided explanations of the orbit of Mercury, the quantized orbits of electrons, and other astronomical scale and quantum scale phenomena. These discoveries also drastically changed our basic understanding of the universe and provided a broad range of new technologies, including educational and entertaining electronic devices that have had an enormous impact on our lives. They also provided the first empirical hints that the universe was more than matter and energy interacting in time and space.

Theoretical physicists and astrophysicists began applying the principles of relativity and quantum mechanics to cosmology and particle physics, completing the shift from classical science to the scientific paradigm now known as the Standard Model (SM). About 50 years after this 20th Century paradigm shift, we had determined that a seamless merger of quantum mechanics and relativity was probably not possible. Conflicts and paradoxes perplexed scientists trying to flesh out the new paradigm. There were a number of unexplained problems, clearly indicating that something was wrong with the SM paradigm. It appeared that it was either incomplete, partially incorrect, or both.

In the late 1960s and early 70s, two theorists, Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose became famous for proving mathematical singularity theorems that implied that black holes predicted by the equations of general relativity might be real. The discovery of the first astronomical object that fit the expected physical profile of a black hole, a massive object known as Cygnus X-1, provided empirical evidence confirming their findings. What caught the attention of the public, was the claim that it proved that the universe exploded from a mathematical singularity, - a dimensionless point. This was seen as an exciting confirmation of the popular notion of the big-bang creation of everything from nothing.

This popular notion has held sway into the beginning of the 21st Century, even though physicists, including Hawking and Penrose have since moved on to String Theory, M-brane Theory, and multiple other theories, but they have not ever provided proof of any kind, not even a mathematical proof that is any more than an internally consistent self-referential complex. Why?

What is wrong with the current scientific paradigm?

1.    The calculus of Newton and Leibniz is being misused by applying it beyond its legitimate range of applicability.
2.    Even though Planck, Bohm, Wigner, and others have indicated that they believe an Infinite Consciousness or Mind is behind physical reality, mainstream science has virtually excluded consciousness and spirituality from scientific study. There may have been valid reasons for this in the past, but now, there is empirical evidence that consciousness may be just as fundamental as matter and energy.
3.    The fallacy of nothingness: Mainstream science confuses the concepts of zero and nothing, leading to logically absurd conclusions.

In 1986 I applied a mathematical tool I call the Calculus of Distinctions to the big-bang theory and found it to contain unresolved paradoxes. Having been a devout follower of Einstein’s work, I was at first surprised to find that these paradoxes could be resolved by taking quantum theory seriously and avoiding the fallacies listed above. By doing this, I concluded that the Hawking and Penrose ‘proof’ of a singularity origin for the universe was most likely a mathematical abstraction, with no existential counterpart in the evolution of the physical universe. The Hawking-Penrose model of reality was four-dimensional, while the mathematical logic of the Calculus of Distinctions requires a nine-dimensional quantized reality embedded in an infinitely continuous substrate.

Among the conclusions I reached were that some form of consciousness must be present with the mass and energy of the physical universe to form reality as we know it, and that time, like space, is three-dimensional, implying that, consistent with the law of conservation of mass and energy, our dynamic reality has no absolute beginning or end, only change.

In 1987, I undertook the daunting job of preparing my findings for publication. I submitted an early manuscript to Stephen Hawking in late 1987. After about three months, I received a reply from his student/interpreter, saying that Prof. Hawking was very busy and that he was not interested in hyper-dimensional (more than 4-D) models. I finished my write-up in 1988, and submitted the manuscript to an eminent physics professor at Berkeley, who wrote notes in the margins, commenting on what he believed were ‘crackpot’ ideas. After a few pages, he vowed to “read no further” but never-the-less, he continued to the end, making a number of notes that were actually very helpful. Based on his comments, and additional research, I made some adjustments and corrections, and published my findings in a book titled: “Infinite Continuity”, in 1990.

At about the same time as “Infinite Continuity” was published, Prof. Hawking stated his opinion that consciousness has no direct involvement in the forming of physical reality, in a public lecture in California, and he further stated that “someone” had suggested that time is three dimensional, but that he could not imagine that. In later publications, however, Prof. Hawking began to consider the extra dimensions of string-theory models, and after a serious attempt to reconcile general relativity with quantum theory, he abandoned the mathematical singularity origin of the physical universe proof, for which he and Penrose had been widely recognized earlier, saying that we should probably not be talking about absolute beginnings and endings, only change.

And in this I whole heartedly agree with Prof. Hawking. If we accept the axiom that finite volumetric distinctions, like atoms, stones, plants, animals, human beings, planets, stars and galaxies do in fact exist, then the universal law of conservation of mass and energy implies that if there is something at any point in time, a state of nothingness can never have existed.

My personal research using and applying the Calculus of distinctions in an existential quantized 9-D universe implies that there is no such thing as nothingness on any of the infinite number of possible timelines. Why is this important? It is important because it means that the universe cannot ever have exploded from nothingness. Something has always existed, and always will. There can be no existential state of absolute nothingness, no absolute beginning, no absolute end; only change.

How TDVP fixes the current scientific paradigm:
If we live in a quantized universe, then the calculus of Newton & Leibniz is being applied beyond its legitimate range of applicability, and this understanding may require a completely new approach and a new unit of measurement.

There are four primary variables in any mathematical model describing physical reality: mass, energy, space and time. Planck’s discovery that mass and energy are only meted out in multiples of very small units, coupled with Einstein’s discovery that they are related mathematically by the equation E = mc2, means that neither mass nor energy can be divided infinitely; there is a finite smallest equivalence unit; there is a bottom to what we can measure in a quantized universe.

You can reduce a given amount of mass and/or energy to smaller and smaller amounts by removing units of mass and/or energy one at a time, but, you can only end up with one unit or none, not anything in between, because Planck’s discovery means that there can be no fractional quanta. Thus the variables used to measure mass and energy cannot approach nothingness infinitely closely, meaning that the basic assumption of differential and integral calculus is invalid for application to quantum mass and energy. 

What about space-time? Can space and/or time be divided infinitely? It might seem so, but a closer look reveals that such divisions are meaningless because space-time is a derivative of mass-energy.

To understand this, notice that the equivalence expression, E = mc2 involves not just mass and energy, but also space and time. The speed of light, represented by ‘c’, is the distance travelled by light in a unit of time. We can measure it in miles per hour, kilometers per second, etc. But, in order to normalize the units of mass and energy so that, in keeping with empirical evidence of quantization, i.e. the results of Planck’s black body radiation experiments, we must also normalize the units of space and time. We do this by defining the speed of light as the movement of light across one unit of space in one unit of time. In this normalized system of units,
c = Δx/Δt = 1/1 =1,
as it does in the ‘natural’ units known as Planck units.

This is consistent with Einstein’s final appendix to his book on relativity, suggesting that space and time are derivative of mass and energy, and have no independent existence of their own. Considered this way, empty space and empty time have no meaning. Space and time have meaning only in relation to mass, energy and observation by a conscious entity.

Thus the variables of space and time, like mass and energy, cannot meaningfully approach nothing infinitesimally as assumed in the application of Newton’s differential and integral calculus.

The ‘fix’ for this, while somewhat difficult to accomplish, is really easy to understand: We must simply replace the calculus of Newton and Leibniz with a quantum calculus, a calculus in which the variables approach something, a finite quantum limit, and not non-existing nothingness.

QUANTUM CALCULUS
Just like the SM paradigm, the calculus of Newton and Leibniz has been very successful when applied to its proper domain. That domain is the macro-scale of measurement where quantum effects are not directly detectable. But when applied to reality on the quantum scale, Newtonian calculus leads to erroneous results. The reason this is true is easy to understand: Applying Newtonian calculus to a mid-scale problem, the numerical values of expressions describing an object with measurable variables like mass, energy, space or time, are determined to accuracies within the limits of our ability to measure, when one or more of the variables approaches absolute nothingness.

For mid-scale projects, like building a bridge or firing a rocket, assuming that physical objects are continuous, so that a measurement can be made at any point from the size of the entire object to nothing, causes no problems, and is consistent with our sense-based experience of physical objects, space and time.

At the quantum scale, however, if, for example, we are trying to determine the exact location and velocity of an elementary particle consisting of one quantum, or a few quanta, in a system of such particles, the assumption of continuity is not valid, and no variable of measurement can approach nothingness infinitely closely, because the measurement of quantized phenomena by successive division stops at one quantum. Beyond that, there is no phenomenon to measure.

Clearly, the actual value of an expression describing a quantum state will be different than the value obtained by applying Newtonian calculus. Clearly a quantum calculus is needed, and the fundamental operations and procedures of the quantum calculus are necessarily different than those of Newtonian calculus.

Most scientists are not aware of the fact that the calculus of Leibniz and Newton is only one of a number of calculi that can be developed based on arithmetic and geometric axioms. This is primarily because of academic specialization, the calculus’ many successes in describing physical reality on the macro-scale, and just the fact that it has been known as “the calculus” for more than 300 years. For a good description of what a calculus is and the step-by-step development of a more comprehensive calculus with applications to logic, see George Spencer Brown’s “Laws of Form”, the Julian Press, 1972.

The appropriate calculus for quantum phenomena is a calculus with one quantum as its basic unit of measurement. I developed such a calculus in 1986, called it the Calculus of Distinctions and published the derivation in “Infinite Continuity”, the Paradigm Press, in 1990. I applied it to the processes of consciousness in “Transcendental Physics”, Paradigm Press, 1997, and later published by toExcell Press, 2,000. The Calculus of Distinctions was applied to the analysis of intelligence in “The Calculus of Dimensional Distinction”, in “Elements of mathematical theory of intellect”, Brandin V, Close ER, Moscow, Interphysica Lab, 2003, and with the encouragement and assistance of Dr. Vernon Neppe, the Calculus of Distinctions was further developed and published In articles such as “The Calculus of Distinctions: A Workable Model across Dimensions and Consciousness”,  the Dynamic Journal of Exceptional Creative Achievement (DJECA)1210:1210; 2387 -2397, 2012, Close ER, Neppe VM, and “Reality Begins with Consciousness”, an e-book, www.Brain Voyage.com, Neppe, VM and Close, ER, 2012.

As early as 1986, I reasoned that, if the natural elementary particle with the smallest mass also had the smallest volume, then it would be the logical candidate for the unitary distinction of the Calculus of Distinctions for application to quantum mechanics. I also realized that proof of Fermat’s Last Theorem for n = 3 might explain why quarks combine in threes to form protons and neutrons. I developed the concept and published a brief description of it in “Infinite Continuity”, pp. 68 – 71 and 192, in 1990. Infinite Continuity received little attention at the time, and was quickly out of print. Many of the ideas in Infinite Continuity, including the Calculus of Distinctions, were further developed in “Transcendental Physics’, first published in1997.

In 2010, twenty years after publishing Infinite continuity, when Dr. Vernon Neppe and I first met in person in Amsterdam, I confided to him that I believed that I could explain why up-quarks and down-quarks only combine in threes. In 2011, using particle collider data, I was able to demonstrate that the fact that up-and down-quarks only combine in threes proves that they combine volumetrically. That is, quarks are not just held together by elementary forces like a cluster of grapes, they merge to form symmetrically stable protons and neutrons.

In 2012, I applied the principles of relativity and quantum mechanics to the Hydrogen atom and its isotopes, and used the mass and volume of the free electron to define a new basic unit of measurement at the quantum scale. Normalizing the collider data for quarks to multiples of this unit, which I named the Triadic Rotational Unit of Equivalence (the TRUE quantum unit), I was able to show that there would be no stable atomic structure in the universe without TRUE quantum units of a third form of the substance of reality. These units of the third form, while occupying equivalent volumes in the same way mass and energy do, have no measurable mass or energy.

After some amount of discussion, Dr. Neppe and I decided to call this third form of the substance of reality ‘gimmel’. Applying TRUE analysis to the natural elements, we found that the most stable atoms of the Periodic Table having this basic symmetry provided by gimmel, are the elements that support life. Furthermore, gaps that occur in the progressive symmetry of the Periodic Table, are filled by compounds that are part of the RNA and DNA molecules that make up the physical structure of organic life. These facts strongly suggest that the universe is designed specifically for conscious life as we know it.

If there were a big-bang explosive origin event as the current paradigm suggests, there would be no stable physical structure without the third form existing at, or before the explosion, because without it, any particles that might somehow get together randomly in a universe where particles are flying away from a violent explosion, would soon fly apart, and such a big-bang expanding universe would return to maximum entropy, the same nothingness assumed to exist before the explosion. The absurdity of ‘everything from nothing’ is apparent when one realizes that it arises from the inappropriate application of the Newtonian calculus, with vanishing infinitesimals, to quantum reality.

FINALLY, THE SCIENCE OF THE FUTURE IS HERE!

When I made those observations nearly 60 years ago, and voiced concerns about the direction science was headed and the need to include consciousness and spiritual experience as a legitimate parts of reality, almost no one was interested. The public was fascinated with the Bridey Murphy reincarnation story and UFO sightings, while mainstream science spent more time and effort trying to debunk such stories than studying them.

Relativity and quantum physics were still new, and mainstream scientists were ignoring the efforts of a few, like David Bohm and Eugene Wigner, who saw evidence in quantum experiments that consciousness could be actively participating in the formation of reality at the quantum level. Most mainstream scientists justified their overly unscientific closed-mindedness as necessary in an effort to keep science from slipping into what they considered to be ‘pseudoscience’.

Continental drift, later known as plate tectonics, was considered to be a crackpot idea, psychology was considered to be a ‘fringe’ science, and most medical school graduates considered hypnosis, acupuncture and chiropractic to be medical quackery. Consciousness was believed to be a recent evolutionary development, emerging only after primitive life forms developed brains with a sufficient level of complexity, and anyone thinking outside the box of scientific orthodoxy was in danger of being ridiculed and shunned by ‘real’ scientists. The only major university with a parapsychology department was Duke, where Dr. J.B. Rhine, his wife Louisa Rhine, and a handful of grad students were attempting to apply the scientific method and statistical analysis to the study of extra-sensory perception (ESP), and Duke University severed its relationship with parapsychology a few years later.  Thankfully, things have changed some since then.

Recently, in a TED talk video published July 14, 2014, David Chalmers asked the question “How do you explain consciousness?” He has been asking this question for at least 20 years, and an increasing number of scientists, like Henry Stapp, Roger Penrose, Stuart Hameroff, David Peat, Peter Russell, Fred Alan Wolf, Dean Radin, Menos Kafatos, John Hagelin, and Deepak Chopra, are finally seeing consciousness as a legitimate subject for scientific investigation, and yet, few even agree on a comprehensive definition of consciousness.

David Chalmers asks: “How do we accommodate consciousness in science?” No one knows. Finally, he says: “Maybe it is time to consider a crazy idea: Maybe consciousness itself is fundamental and universal in reality.” Based on this TED presentation, it appears that, in his quest to answer the ‘hard question’ of why and how we experience the amazing qualia of consciousness, Chalmers favors the ‘crazy idea’ that consciousness is fundamental; but he is less certain about whether or not consciousness is universal.

Researchers like Penrose and Hameroff are making headway in linking consciousness to neurological structures, and Stuart Hameroff and others like Chalmers, Kafatos and Hagelin are raising the age-old mind-body, or mind-matter question, but in a slightly different form. They recognize that what is missing is a scientifically reproducible, and mathematically provable connection between the laws of physics and the qualia of conscious experience.

And that is what we (Close and Neppe) have provided. That is what TDVP is all about. The mathematics of TRUE quantum analysis is the scientifically reproducible, and mathematically provable connection between the laws of physics and the qualia of conscious experience.

Proof of this is the fact that TRUE quantum analysis has explained, and continues to explain an increasing number of phenomena inexplicable in the current paradigm.  And, of course, TDVP turns the current paradigm upside down: It proves that consciousness is fundamental and universal. The physical universe is an emergent feature of consciousness, not the other way round.

In conclusion, I believe that TDVP is the science of the future, and I predict that, in the not-too-distant future, nearly every thinking person alive will realize that the paradigm of scientific materialism was actually the crazy theory, and they will wonder how anyone could have ever thought that reality could possibly exclude the fundamental truth that reality begins with consciousness.


Thursday, August 18, 2016

PROOF BEYOND PROOF



PROOF BEYOND PROOF
Push beyond the limits of the physical body. This is possible because mind is superior to and stronger than the physical body. Then push beyond the intellectual limits of the mind. This is possible because you are more than body and mind. Science has now proved that. Relativity and quantum physics have pointed the way and TDVP has proved the existence of dimensions of consciousness within and beyond space-time, and demonstrated its effectiveness in the role of creator of reality and organizer of mass and energy. To grow and succeed, we must always continue to push beyond the boundaries of what is experienced and known.

Swinging out from the limestone bluff, I feel the rope go taut, as I rappel down the slice of Earth’s ancient record in stone into the abyss below. That breath-taking step into nothingness includes the understanding that I have gone beyond the point of no return. If the rope breaks, or the limestone crumbles, I could fall to my death on the rocks below. But the anticipation of finding a new world to explore, a world no one else has ever visited, --that makes it worth the risk. The unknown beckons to me, and even though this leap into the unknown may end in failure and defeat, it may also result in discovery and revelation.

With the muscle of mind, you may catapult beyond the edge of the current paradigm. What if you discover that reality is more than matter and energy interacting in time and space. Suppose you discover that time is three dimensional. The phrase “We may never know …” fades away. But, leaping into the vast unknown realm of an expanded scientific paradigm is just as dangerous as leaping into an abyss with a thin safety line, perhaps even more dangerous. Just ask Nicolaus Copernicus, Galileo Galilei, Gregor Mendel, Georg Cantor, and many others including none other than Albert Einstein.

Copernicus didn’t dare publish his finding that the Earth circled the sun, not the other way around, he knew that he would have been ostracized and ridiculed, to say the least. During his life, his ideas were considered unscientific by scientists and blasphemy by theologians. He finally saw a copy of his work published when he was on his death bed. Galilleo accepted the Copernican heliocentric theory and discovered scientific facts that contradicted the widely held paradigm of his day, and the Catholic Church put him under house arrest for the rest of his life. Mendel discovered the basic laws of genetic inheritance which he published in 1866. His paper was ridiculed and then completely ignored by mainstream science until long after his death.

Cantor tried to bring the study of infinity into mathematics. He was ridiculed for his efforts. The leading mathematicians of the day harshly criticized him for mixing philosophy and religion with mathematics. He died in depression and poverty, knowing that he had been discredited by his peers. The importance of his contribution of infinite sets to number theory were not recognized until long after his death, and some still do not accept infinity as real even today. Einstein’s first published paper on relativity was ridiculed by mainstream science, and called utter nonsense and unscientific by British and American scientists. The Nazis stripped him of his membership in the Prussian Academy of sciences, seized his properties in Germany and had a public burning of his books. As in the case of Cantor’s infinities, there are still scientists who do not understand relativity and believe it is a flawed theory. However, Einstein did enjoy a general recognition of his genius while he was still alive, and one can only hope that this is indication of a lessening of the rancor and viciousness of scientific and religious dogmatism.

This is, however, not to say that every idea thought to be crazy by the mainstream of human thought is genius waiting to be recognized. Some ideas are just crazy. Yes, unfortunately, not every leap into the unknown will yield new science and a paradigm shift. There are many, many more ways to be wrong than there are to be right. Perhaps this is why it is sometimes said that there is a fine line between genius and insanity. Actually, however, genius and insanity are at opposite ends of the mental spectrum. It is just judgements made by comparing genius and insanity with the established mean that makes them look similar to those passing judgement.

IS TIME TRAVEL POSSIBLE?
Suppose for a moment, that I am not crazy, and there is actually a way for individual consciousness to, in effect, travel to any point in three-dimensional time. If I look back seven generations, averaging about 20 years per generation, to about 140 years before I reached adulthood, that would be around 1810 or so, I find that I had 128 great, great, great, great, great grandparents living at that time. Each pair of them contributed ½ of their DNA to a child who would become one of my 64 great, great, great, great grandparents, and each pair of them contributed ½ of their DNA to a child who would become one of my 32 great, great, great grandparents, and so forth, down to my parents. This means that each of my ancestors living in 1810 contributes no more than 1/128 = 0.0078125 = 0.78125 % of my DNA. That’s just under 1% of their DNA that each of them contributes to the physical makeup of the person I am now. So why do I look almost exactly like my grandfather on my father’s side?

We have been told that each parent contributes 50% of his/her DNA to a child. Actually, it’s not that simple. The 50/50 split only applies to the phenotype DNA that governs most physical characteristics. There are two types of DNA and one (mitochondrial) comes only from the mother. Mitochondrial DNA tell the cell how to produce and use proteins necessary for growth and health. Concerning physical characteristics, each human being has only 23 DNA molecules called chromosomes that combine in pairs to form 46 molecules. The child gets half of each of the 46 DNA molecules, i.e., 23 from each parent, and then they are re-combined to form the 46 unique DNA molecules of the child. This means that, since 23 is an odd number, slightly more than half will come from one pair of grandparents. We are also told that the recombination of the chromosomes in the child is random. This is a code word for ‘we have not yet discovered the complicated mathematics that governs re-combination.

Back to my 128 great, great, great, great, great grandparents, who lived barely 200 years ago: We are told that each person's DNA is unique, but that is not actually true; all human DNA is composed of only 23 pairs of the same four DNA molecules. So there are only a finite number of possible combinations. This means that there may be human beings with the exact same combination of 23 pairs of four DNA molecules. So you may have a doppelganger. In fact, you probably do, but that person may not be alive at the same time you are. There are also external factors that can cause mutations in the DNA, so for all practical purposes, the DNA sequence for a specific individual is virtually unique differing from one ancestor to another, all the way down the line to you and me.

Several years ago, I was told by a German friend that I had a doppelganger in northeastern Germany. He had met someone there who he thought looked exactly like me. It is the pattern of arrangement of 23 pairs of four molecules that determines each individual's physical characteristics, so it is possible that I had a doppelganger in Eastern Germany, especially when we look at where my 128 great, great, great, great, great grandparents originated 200 years ago: 56 were from Northern England or Scotland, 28 from Ireland, 22 from Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and Northern Germany, 4 from Finland or eastern Russia, 6 from Eastern Europe (East Germany, Poland and Ukraine), 4 from the Iberian Peninsula, 4 from Western Europe (Germany and Switzerland), 2 from Greece, and 2 from Northwestern Africa. If I met my doppelganger tomorrow, would we be like clones? No. Our differing experiences since birth will have changed us in many ways, --but there’s more.

A PRACTICAL APPLICATION OF TDVP
The mathematics of the Triadic Dimensional Vortical Paradigm, the true quantum unit analysis using Triadic Rotational Units of Equivalence (TRUE) reveals that, as conscious beings we are more than matter and energy changing through time and space. Each atom of each molecule contains units of gimmel which convey the logic of Primary Consciousness into the physical world. It is mathematically demonstrable that living organisms have significantly greater proportions of units of gimmel than other substances, giving living organisms the freedom of conscious choice. And this changes everything.


As conscious beings, we have the potential to go beyond matter, energy, time and space. We have the ability to leap into the unknown and survive. We have the ability to see into the greater reality that exists beyond the prison bars of matter, energy, space and time, into the infinity of Primary Consciousness. Because we can expand our consciousness, we are potentially infinite.

See See http://www.erclosetphysics.com/2016/02/the-simple-math-of-true-units-continued.html for the basics of TRUE Analysis.

Monday, August 15, 2016

EXISTENCE


DEFINING EXISTENCE

Recently, Vernon asked me to work on the definitions of some of the words in our glossary that are very significant relative to our reality paradigm (TDVP). There were even some words very important to TDVP that had not been defined in the glossary at all. One such word was ‘existence’. Dictionary definitions of existence run something like: “Existence - that which exists” and “a state of existing or being”. From a scientific point of view, these are not definitions at all. They reference a form of the same word they are trying to define. Does this really shed any light on the meaning of the word? Obviously not.

OK, here’s a common-sense definition that seems to be a bit more meaningful: “A thing exists if it persists with or without the presence of a conscious observer.” This seems to fit our everyday experience. For example, a big granite boulder that I played on as a child has persisted where it stood in the 1930’s until this day. Surely this proves that it exists. And, if geologists are right, it has persisted for a very long time. This particular boulder is part of a Pre-Cambrian igneous intrusion in the Saint Francois Mountains that weathered into the form it has now long before Columbus sailed. It probably looked much the same as it does now even before the Pyramids were built. Yes, this granite boulder exfoliated from a pre-Cambrian megalith surely seems to exist by this definition of the word.

Clearly this common-sense definition is better than the first two, but does it fill the bill for TDVP? After careful examination, I’m not sure this definition is sufficient either. It involves two additional words which may be even more difficult to define: ‘conscious’ and ‘persists’. The first implies the existence of something called consciousness and the second implies the passage of time. Ignoring the difficulties of defining consciousness and time for the moment, let’s see how this definition might work with regard to my old friend the granite boulder. 

Can we determine whether the boulder really satisfies the requirements of this definition? We have to ask: was there any time during the persistence of this boulder when there was no conscious observer? I certainly wasn’t there all that time. But, is a fox, rabbit or hawk not a conscious observer? Is Primary Consciousness a conscious observer? If there actually ever was a time when there was no conscious observer, how could we know whether the boulder existed or not? Of course, it doesn’t seem reasonable that a mega-ton granite boulder, emerging over eons by natural weathering from a megalith of cooled magma, would disappear when no one was looking, but that’s exactly what elementary particles do in quantum physics experiments, and that boulder, and everything else, is made of elementary particles.

Considering this definition of existence involving persistence, with regard to elementary particles, we must ask: How long constitutes enough persistence to say something exists? It would seem that by this definition, to exist, something must persist long enough to register in human consciousness. This might mean that only fermions, the elementary particles that make up ordinary stable matter, actually exist. The other particles of the so-called ‘particle zoo’ don’t persist long enough to register in human consciousness. We can’t actually see them, we only see evidence that they were there, a significant length of time after they were gone. Is their ephemeral existence, or even their potential existence part of the necessary and sufficient conditions for ordinary matter to exist? This definition seems to raise more questions than it answers.

Quantum physics experiments prove that elementary phenomena do not exist as particles or waves until they are observed. The exquisitely detailed Aspect experiment and the delayed-choice experiment, endlessly refined and repeated over many years, proves that this is true. If our understanding of quantum behavior is correct, and most of the electronic devices we depend upon every day would not work if it were not, the mainstream view of matter, energy, space-time, and consciousness is, at best, incomplete, and almost certainly wrong in some respects. TDVP solves this problem by proving that consciousness, matter and energy are all three necessary co-existent parts of reality. See http://www.erclosetphysics.com/2016/02/the-simple-math-of-true-units-continued.html

If, like scientific materialists, you want to cling to the belief that reality consists of and can be explained by nothing more than matter and energy interacting in space and time, then the ‘existence’ of elementary particles and conscious entities is a real problem. How can observation have anything to do with the existence or non-existence of real objects? Yet this is what experiments dealing with elementary particles keep telling us. This is why mainstream scientists, especially physicists, keep saying “quantum physics is weird”. Could it be that quantum phenomena are not actually weird, but that science just needs a new definition of existence?

The definition under consideration: “A thing exists if it persists with or without the presence of a conscious observer” seems to work for everyday macro-scale objects, but does not work at all for quantum-scale objects. Does this suggest that physicists are correct who say there are two different sets of ‘laws of physics’, one set for quantum phenomena, and one for everything else? No, I don’t think so. There is only one reality, not one for us to experience and one for elementary particles to experience. When consciousness is included in TRUE analysis as shown in the paper linked above, quantum, relativistic and macro-scale phenomena are logically and mathematically integrated. If this is true, then I should be able to find a definition of existence that works for TDVP and for the everyday world of our experience.

A real definition of existence must work for elementary particles and for the everyday objects we experience as well. Even if I conclude that my boulder definitely exists, what about the elementary particles of which it is made? The elementary particles that make up the elements in the stone are in constant motion, -- especially the electrons. Are the elementary particles that make up the atoms and molecules of orthoclase and plagioclase feldspar, quartzite and hornblende in this big rock the exact same elementary particles that made them up all those years ago? Not very likely. Do they somehow appear and disappear like actors taking a break when no one is looking, with understudies standing in when they have to leave? Apparently it is something like this, because somehow, in composite they still comprise a granite boulder that looks very much the same as it did many years ago. Clearly, we need a better non-tautological definition for existence that works for all objects, big and small.
TDVP is a nine-dimensional model of reality containing multiple combinations of measurable distinctions of three forms of reality. Based on findings obtained by applying the mathematics and logic of TDVP, here is a definition of existence that actually works:

A thing can be said to exist, if and only if, it consists of one nine-dimensional elementary distinction, or a stable combination of nine-dimensional elementary distinctions, containing all three forms of reality.

This definition is as simple and complete as a definition of existence can be, consistent with everything that has been known, and what we have found with TDVP about reality. Now, because it implies that for an object to exist, it must have extra dimensions beyond the four of contemporary science and contain mass, energy and consciousness, it is very different from the current scientific understanding of existence. This is consistent with the findings of TDVP that the three forms of reality are inseparable, but I suspect that at this point, a little more explanation may be in order.

The mathematics showing this are beyond the scope of this post, but the concepts are not excessively difficult. Only three basic concepts are needed:

1. Distinction, 2. Quantization and 3. Dimensional Integration.

These three concepts work together to define existence in the following way: The distinctions of reality are quantized and integrated dimensionometrically.

In Primary Consciousness, all possible distinctions are related by mathematical logic. Individualized finite consciousness, i.e. sentient entities like us, deal with reality in terms of a specific set of finite distinctions. In the physical universe, finite distinctions occur in multiples of the smallest possible units, called quanta. Basic number theory and the Calculus of Dimensional Distinctions applied to the mathematics of Euclid, Fermat and Minkowski, reveals an existential reality of nine spinning embedded dimensions and three intimately related forms.

A simple visualization will serve to help clarify these points:
Visualize a finite volume of three-dimensional space. Space, as we experience it through the physical senses is called Euclidean space. A one-dimensional finite domain (a line segment) in that space cannot contain anything because it has no width or depth, and a two-dimensional finite domain in that space (an area, like a perfectly flat sheet) also cannot contain anything because it has no thickness; only a three-dimensional Euclidean finite domain can contain anything. It can contain an electron, an atom, a boulder, a planet, a solar system, or a galaxy.

All of these existential things are multiples of triadic rotational units of equivalence (TRUE), the basic quantum distinctions of the Calculus of Dimensional Distinctions. Their stable combinations are governed by Fermat’s Diophantine (integer) equations. I call them Conveyance Equations because they convey the mathematical logic of infinity from Primary Consciousness into the finite physical universe.

Finally, time and consciousness, like matter and energy, are quantized in the physical universe, and integrated with space by the natural extension of Minkowski’s four-dimensional space-time, to the nine-dimensional domain of space-time-consciousness. Even though the direct experience of reality for human beings is limited through our physical senses to five dimensions, i.e. three dimensions of space, one quantum of a time dimension, and one quantum of consciousness, mathematically, time and consciousness are, like space, three-dimensional. While this is hard to visualize because we are only accustomed to visualizing what we experience through our limited physical senses, it is quite manageable mathematically.

So, reality is only fully describable in terms of three forms spinning in nine-dimensions.

A thing can be said to exist, if and only if, it consists of one nine-dimensional elementary distinction, or a stable combination of nine-dimensional elementary distinctions, containing all three forms of reality.

Further clarification regarding the “if and only if” condition of this definition of existence in relation to the nine dimensions and three forms of reality:


An object may appear to have less than nine dimensions, and consist of only one or two forms of reality, and this appearance may be actual, perceptual or conceptual. If actual, the object will not be stable enough to form a persistent structure. Examples of this are the non-fermion members of the “particle zoo”. The ephemeral appearances of such particles are fleeting glimpses of fractured reality. Their substance contributes to reality only when re-absorbed into stable sub-atomic structures. It is only in this sense that they are real. If the appearance of an object lacking some dimensions or forms is perceptual, it is an illusion caused by the limitations of our senses. And, if it is conceptual, it is a reflection of our limited thinking, not a limited form of reality. The mathematical model of TDVP is an integrated model of the natural distinctions of reality as they flow through the finite reality of the universe from the infinitely logical structure of Primary Consciousness. The circuit of this flow is completed by conscious observation.

Friday, August 12, 2016

ANOTHER INTERNATIONAL AWARD



The picture above was taken in Puebla Mexico after Dr. Neppe (on the right) and I received the Barreda Award for Excellence in Education. Announcement of this new honor, the Whiting Award is presented below:

Dr. Ed Close and Dr. Vernon Neppe have separately and together been recognized for their achievements and have won a number of awards. But they received a rare honor on 9 August 2016 with the 2016 Whiting Memorial Award for expanding boundaries of scientific understanding. The Whiting Memorial Fund is a philanthropic fund administered by the International Society for Philosophical Enquiry ("ISPE") (thethousand.com) to reward individuals and groups, whose accomplishments and goals exemplify the ideals of ISPE. This international award is open to everyone, and is given to a person/ persons or organization (outside or within ISPE) who typifies the I.S.P.E. ideal of someone who strives to benefit society in general through advanced enquiry, original research and/or creative contributions, and who has demonstrated significant progress in these endeavors. The award may be conferred yearly but historically has been seldom awarded, because it is only conferred when the committee unanimously chooses a worthy nominee. ISPE’s only mission is to attract the world's most intellectually gifted individuals and hopefully direct their achievements for the betterment of all humankind. Dr Neppe and Dr Close are already “Diplomates of the ISPE” — the highest public level of ISPE achievement: Currently there are two dozen such Diplomates worldwide.

Thursday, August 11, 2016

WHAT IS LOVE?


LOVE
As I am approaching my eightieth birthday, I think it is time for me to talk about LOVE. You may think: Why is this mathematician-physicist-engineer talking about love? First of all, I don’t identify myself as a mathematician, physicist or engineer, even though I have earned degrees in mathematics, physics and engineering. Those things are interests, they are things I do, not what I am. Second, for me, the real purpose of all efforts to understand, of which science is just one of the main avenues, is to understand the nature of reality and our experience of it in our lives; and love plays a huge role in our lives.

Without love, no human being would exist. But what is love? The answer is as simple as it is profound: It is a major characteristic of Primary Consciousness, which, as you will know if you have followed my blogs, is as much a part of reality as matter and energy, existing in every atom of the universe. In fact, the primary form of consciousness is the source of all energy and matter. Primary Consciousness, of which individualized conscious awareness is a finite spark, is literally that from which all things arise.

So I must acknowledge and pay tribute to Primary Consciousness, without which I am nothing, without which I and everyone else, and everything else, simply would not exist. The fact that you and I exist, and the universe exists, attests to the almost inexpressibly wondrous flow of love from Primary Consciousness. Those who have established a conscious connection with Primary Consciousness know what I mean. When focused exclusively on our connection with physical reality, we all too easily forget our Original Source.

It is through Love that we are given the opportunities of life. Without the constant flow of the Love of Primary Consciousness into the energy and matter of the physical universe, reality as we know it, and the conscious life it supports would, as the physical law of entropy tells us, quickly disappear. So let’s talk about love.
All love, whether between passionate lovers, brothers and sisters, parents and children, people and pets, the naturalist and nature, a hungry person and food, in short any attraction, has its roots in the Love of Primary Consciousness for conscious material manifestation, which is the attraction between Primary Consciousness and creation. The only difference is in scope and direction. But Love that flows out must eventually flow back to its source.

Notice that I did not say ‘between God and His creation’. That would be a reflection of the historical patriarchal nature of human culture; but we must also realize that it is no better to say ‘between God and Her creation’, because the Primary Creating Principle is both and neither. But to call Primary Consciousness ‘It’ is too impersonal. It is better to think of Primary Consciousness as being like your mother and father, or a loving friend. Arguments about the sex of God are a misguided waste of time because they stem from confusion of sex with love. Physical sex can be an expression of love and beauty or without love, it can be depraved and ugly.

Without physical attraction and sex there would, of course be no human race, or any other organic life form. Falling in love is one of the most beautiful and wonderful experiences in life, and can lead to higher states of consciousness for both of those involved. But it can also lead to endless problems if its direction is wrong.  If all forms of love are not eventually directed back to the source from which it came, it dries up and dies out like a spark that has fallen into cold water.

I have realized that the opportunities of this life are results of the flow of the Love of Primary Consciousness into this world for many centuries. I am a spark of that Love, fanned into a flame in this life by events that have been a long time in the making. How else can you explain a life like mine? As a child, I had an almost idyllic childhood, with parents who loved me, growing up in a rural setting, in a small valley surrounded with ancient igneous hills of mineral laden rock, clear streams and a rich history of American Indians, European Settlers, Civil War battles and eventually, bucolic peace. I wrote a book of poetry, learned three languages, collected Civil War and Native American artifacts, and built a crystal radio receiver while still in elementary school. At the age of twelve, I walked down the aisle in a Baptist Church in the valley and gave my life to Christ.

As a pre-teen, I enjoyed learning about geology, history and archeology, and I enjoyed travelling through several US states with my parents. During that travel, I kept a written log of the towns and cities we passed through, noting population, elevation and other features unique to the town or area. We lived in Arizona for a while, but returned to the Midwest, settling on a farm in Texas County Missouri for my high school years. The summer before starting the ninth grade in Houston Missouri, I learned basic algebra on my own, studied the Doppler Effect and discovered Einstein’s theory of relativity. 

During my childhood and early teen years, I also had some personal mystical experiences that gave me a glimpse into the deeper, inter-connectedness of reality. Because of these experiences, I joined a group called the Rosicrucian Order and took a course of study in which they traced their metaphysical beliefs and practices back to ancient Egypt. I was a member for a few years and attended a few meetings in Kansas City Missouri, but did not continue because no one there could explain the ritualistic practices to my satisfaction.

When I graduated from high school in 1955, my parents were poor and would not have been able to pay for the expenses of a college education, but I had done well in most subjects, especially math and science, and tested in the 99th percentile in virtually every area on aptitude tests, so through scholarships and working on campus, I was able to pursue a degree in physics and mathematics at Central Methodist College.

With growing interests in other subjects including comparative religion, philosophy, logic and metaphysics, I dropped out of college for a time, and moved to Los Angeles where I finished a course of study in metaphysics and in 1960, and was initiated by Sri Daya Mata, the President of the Self-Realization Fellowship, as a Kriyaban. This initiation was the occasion of another personal deep spiritual reality experience. While in LA, I won a job as an actuarial mathematics technician writing computer programs for the Univac Computer in downtown LA by beating out candidates with bachelor and master degrees in mathematics. Unfortunately, I soon became bored with the endless number-crunching job and left to complete my degree in 1962.

As a young man just out of college, I had the wonderful experience of a few years teaching mathematics and seeing the light come on in students’ eyes when they first saw a glimpse of the beauty and symmetry of geometry and algebra. I grew tired, however, after a few years of the increasing political correctness and the beginning of the dumbing down of US public education. This discouraging turn of events in public education, coupled with the poverty pay level for teachers in those days, prompted me to leave the teaching profession and to return to graduate school in theoretical physics and geophysics at the University of Missouri at Rolla. During the next summer I worked as a seismological technician with a geophysical prospecting crew in the Texas Panhandle, and then returned to Missouri and went to work for the Water Resources Division of the US Geological Survey in 1965.

The USGS was a dream-job for me. My mathematics and physics background allowed me to start as a hydrologic technician, computing the flow of water through constricted channels and bridges from the surveying data of high-water marks and physical stream characteristics, and measuring spring flow in the Karst limestone region of Southern Missouri, the out-of-doors I loved. During this time I took geology and hydrogeology courses, and after a year was transferred to Iowa where I completed an eighteen-month hydrologist training program in groundwater, surface water and water quality studies. I also took a computer programming course at the University of Iowa while there.

After three years in Iowa, I was selected for USGS training in systems analysis at the University of Arizona in Flagstaff, and soon after was transferred to Sacramento California to be the USGS engineer on a research program with the US Corps of Engineers, after which I was transferred to the Washington D.C area as one of the seven charter members of the Department of Interior Systems Analysis Group. In that position I was privileged to work with internationally known scientists and mathematicians including Drs. Nicholas Matalas and Benoit Mandelbrot, creator of fractals.

I advanced rapidly in the USGS, working on a number of very interesting environmental modelling projects in a number of states, and the USGS selected me as one of 12 employees nationwide for graduate school training . I choose to go to Johns Hopkins University on a PhD program in environmental engineering. After finishing an academic year in residence at JHU, I was transferred to the commonwealth of Puerto Rico where I was project manager of an island-wide water-resources management study where my ability to learn languages quickly was an asset. While in Puerto Rico, I taught meditation techniques in El Centro de Karma Yoga, and began work on my first book on consciousness.

From Puerto Rico I was transferred to Tampa Florida as Chief of the Reports and Technical Support Section. I left the USGS after 12 years for the same reasons I left actuarial mathematics and teaching: boredom and administrative political correctness, plus the desire to pursue the mission that was revealed to me in expanded consciousness experiences.

I had published multiple technical papers during my years with the USGS, and “The Book of Atma”, my first book on consciousness, was published in 1977, just before I left the USGS, after which I went to work for a large engineering consulting firm in California, as hydrologist on the MX Missile prototype project at Vandenberg Air Force Base, and then as environmental engineer in the Middle East in 1981 and ‘82. In 1982 I joined MENSA with an IQ estimated to be 3 to 4 standard deviations (One SD = 16) above the MENSA entry level of 132, based on my Graduate Record Exam. A few years later, I went back to the Middle East for two years with another firm. My second book, “Infinite Continuity”, a book on quantum physics, relativity and consciousness, ten years in the making, was published in 1989, after my return to California.

In 1992 I returned to my home state to care for my aging mother, and in 1995 I started my own environmental consulting firm, which in ten years grew from two people to ten, plus one or two university interns yearly. In 1994 I presented information from my consciousness research at the Tucson II “Toward a Science of Consciousness” Conference at the University of Arizona in Tucson, and in 1996 I finished my third book, “Transcendental Physics”.

In 2007, my fourth book, a book documenting field studies on a natural remedy for toxic mold, co-authored with my wife Jacqui, was published, and in 2008, I joined the International Society for Philosophical Enquiry, a high-IQ society with a much higher entry level, as well as higher standards and goals than MENSA. Dr. Vernon Neppe, highly-motivated member of the ISPE and an internationally-known MD, PhD neuroscientist and I joined the ISPE for the same reason: to find someone with a super-high IQ to work with on our theories about consciousness and its role in the physical universe. We worked together by Skype and email until, in 2010 when we met in person in Amsterdam, Vernon on his way to his native Johannesburg South Africa, and I on my way to Cairo to participate in a documentary film in Egypt and Jordan.

Since then, we have spent thousands of hours producing the paradigm shift that will bring science out of the dead end of materialism, -- the mission that had been suggested to me by the mystical experiences of my childhood and during my SRF initiation in 1960. From 2011 until the present, we have produced a book, “Reality Begins with Consciousness”, reviewed by scientists around the world, and more than 25 papers and articles published by a number of journals and USA Today Magazine, and we have several more papers and two more books nearly ready for publication, and several more papers and books in process, detailing our discoveries.

What does all this have with Love? The Answer in a nine-dimensional Space-Time-Consciousness Reality is Everything!

Let me be very clear: my accomplishments in this life, and those of Dr. Neppe are not for the glorification of our egos. They attest to the Glory of Primary Consciousness working through many individual lives, over thousands of years. We, like every human being, are but faint flickering sparks of the Fire of the Infinite Love of Primary Consciousness. I have summarized my life here, recounting some of the major experiences and accomplishments illustrating a life of interwoven strands of science, spirituality and love, leading to a greater realization of the truth of the evolution of spirituality on this planet. My life has been, and is a labor of love.

But this is hard for us to understand in our limited five dimensional 3S-1T-1C reality; with our individual experiences limited to the domain revealed to us by our five limited senses.

What follows is a brief summary of the Greater Reality revealed by the Triadic Rotational Vortical Paradigm (TDVP); the proof of some of which has been posted in earlier blogs and published in Neppe-Close books and papers; the remainder of which will be forth coming in future books and papers.

Because of when, where and how we are experiencing the reality of expanding space-time-consciousness, conventional science is limited to describing reality as if it existed only in a 3-D Space, 1-D Time domain. But as consciousness embodied in physicality, we experience reality in a 3S-1T-1C domain, and the 1C dimension is the door to understanding of the reality of the finite 9-D rotational or vortical expanding dimensions created by distinctions of consciousness, energy and mass, embedded in the infinity of Primary Consciousness. All we experience is real only because of the expanding Love of Primary Consciousness.


CONCLUSION
·       Our physical bodies are space-time vehicles through which individualized consciousness may evolve spiritually toward oneness with Primary Consciousness.

·       The space-time-consciousness experienced through our limited physical senses is illusory from the viewpoint of Primary Consciousness because when time and consciousness are experienced as three dimensional, we are all One in the Infinite Reality of Primary Consciousness.

·       Analogous to the way our physical bodies are the vehicles of individualized consciousness, the physical universe is the vehicle of Primary Consciousness.
·       The reality of our lives is the flow of Love from Primary Consciousness to finite physical reality, and back to its Source, remembering all of the drama of defeat and victory, drudgery and glory, forgetfulness and memory of the incredible journey.
·       It is time for humanity to recognize the underlying role of consciousness as Love in the mathematical and scientific analysis of reality.


As sentient beings on this planet, limited to 3S-1t-1C experience, we are still at a low level of universal spiritual development. But, as an individualized spark of the Infinite Fire of the Love of Primary Consciousness, it is up to you to choose your personal path to the Ultimate Goal of conscious: re-mergence with Primary Consciousness. Those who have already completed the journey are ready, willing and able to assist you on your journey.