Friday, April 29, 2016

THE MOST IMPORTANT QUESTIONS


IT’S TIME TO ANSWER THE IMPORTANT QUESTIONS

Jacqui and I initiated this blog in September 2012 with a post entitled “The Search for Truth”. At that point in time I'd been working with Dr. Vernon M. Neppe, MD, PhD, internationally known neuroscientist for three years, developing TDVP, the Triadic Dimensional Distinction Vortex Paradigm (TDVP).

Since that time, I have posted more than 200 posts including some videos and details of the paradigm shift to a consciousness-based scientific paradigm, TDVP, including mathematical derivations of TRUE quantum units and proof of the reality of gimmel, the third, non-physical form of the substance of reality. Science has answered many questions about matter and energy, chemistry and biology; but many of the most important questions to human beings have remained beyond the reach of science … Until Now.

With TDVP we have expanded the domain of science to include non-physical human experiences that have been excluded from mainstream science for almost 100 years. TDVP has provided proof that there are real spiritual phenomena and experiences beyond imagination, fantasy and ego-based wishful thinking, and that they represent legitimate areas of scientific investigation. This is beginning to lead a few, even scientists, out of the illusion of materialism.

In 2009, with this comprehensive paradigm, we envisioned the next logical step beyond Dr. Neppe’s Vortical Pluralism, and my Transcendental Physics, which I had introduced in 1997. In seven years, The TDVP Paradigm Shift has done the following:

• TDVP Resolves the Conflicts between Relativity and Quantum Physics
• Provides a Rigorous Mathematical Basis for Incorporating the Observer as Participant in scientific investigations
• Puts Consciousness into the Equations of science
• Explains Unexplained Facts like why quarks combine in threes to form the stable building blocks of reality, and resolves puzzles like the ½ intrinsic spin of elementary particles and the mix of elementary particles in the Large Hadron Collider data
• Provides Mathematical and Geometrical Evidence of Nine or more Real Dimensions
• Unites the Various Scientific Disciplines
• Provides a Comprehensive Framework for all scientific investigation
• Explains why more than 95 percent of reality is hidden

This brings us to the point where we can start answering the really important questions like:

• What is consciousness?
• How do we experience complex, sophisticated ‘qualia’ like love?
• Who are we?
• Where did we come from, and where are we going?
• What is the meaning and purpose of life, reality and human experience?

Which of these questions is most important to you?

Wednesday, April 27, 2016

WHAT IS CONSCIOUSNESS?

NOTE: THIS POST STARTS WITH A REPETITION OF THE LAST POST SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO GO BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN POSTS TO GET THE WHOLE PICTURE.



THE MATHEMATICS AND GEOMETRY OF CONSCIOUSNESS 

The goal of natural science from the beginning has been to explain everything. In modern times, this quest has been articulated as the search for a ‘theory of everything’ abbreviated as TOE. Einstein’s unsuccessful quest for a unified field theory, a theory combining all the physical forces in the universe in one consistent theory, has been interpreted by physicists since Einstein as a quest for a TOE, reflecting the belief that everything can be explained in terms of physical principles. For twenty years I have been saying to anyone who would listen that there can be no real TOE unless consciousness is included in the equations describing reality. See “Transcendental Physics”, page 208. I am not alone in this, others, like Peter Russell, Amit Goswami, Sir Roger Penrose, Stuart Hammeroff, and Vernon Neppe, to name a few, have been saying something similar. But mainstream science has not been able to define what consciousness is, let alone represent it in the equations of a TOE.

To understand why modern science has not been able to put consciousness into the equations describing the laws governing the physical world, and why modern science has found no way even to define consciousness in relation to physical reality, we must go to the roots of the axiomatic approach used in modern mathematics. We must go back nearly 2,600 years to a period of about 370 years in length, to the world of Pythagoras (582 -507 BC), Plato (428 -348 BC), Euclid (325 -265 BC), and Archimedes (287 -212 BC), and review the ideas of these ancient Greek natural philosophers, because they formalized the ideas that make up the foundations of the modern understanding of mathematics and geometry, because, as I will explain, consciousness, mathematics and geometry are intimately related.

The axiomatic approach, developed by the Greeks, starts with the definition of a set of self-evident facts (axioms) and then derives or deduces logical conclusions that must be true if the axioms are true. Pythagoras used the axiomatic/deductive method to prove his famous theorems. Plato regarded axioms as reflections of a ‘perfect’ reality of which matter and energy were only imperfect reflections.  Euclid formalized the axiomatic approach applied to geometry in his ‘Elements’ of Geometry. And Archimedes applied the axiomatic approach to practical problems, and became the first engineer and experimental scientist in the modern sense. The difference between Archimedes’ pragmatism and Plato’s idealism is roughly the same as the difference between the experimental and theoretical scientists today. I believe that we need both Platonic and Archimedean scientists, but in this discussion, I intend to show how the predominance of the Archimedean approach in modern science has led to a misunderstanding of what mathematics, geometry and consciousness actually are. And we must go back to Euclid to see where and how the thinking deviated from the path that leads to defining consciousness.

Using the axiomatic approach that emerged from the thinking of the three Greek philosophers, Pythagoras, Plato and Euclid, as pragmatically interpreted by Archimedes, early modern scientists, notably Descartes and Laplace, diverted scientific thought into the dualistic interpretation of reality that led to the reductionist materialistic philosophy of science prevalent today, reflected in the ‘Standard Model’ of physics. Reductionist materialism leads naturally to a belief in absolute determinism as reflected in Descartes and Laplace’s statements in the 1700’s to the effect that it would only take a few years for scientists to determine the initial conditions of the universe, after which the complete history and fate of the universe could be calculated using Newtonian mechanics. A more recent statement of belief in determinism is found in Stephen Hawking’s “A Brief History of Time’, 1988. He predicted a TOE by the year 2000. …Of course that didn’t happen, because, as I will explain, consciousness has been left out of the equations.

In the reductionist worldview of modern science, geometry and consciousness have one thing in common: they are both relegated to non-substantive roles in the universe, related only secondarily to the dynamics of matter and energy. In modern mainstream science, geometry is seen as the description of space-time, a passive backdrop to the dynamic interactions of matter and energy. And consciousness is seen as an emergent feature of matter and energy at certain, as yet, not well-defined levels of complexity. In this view, the geometric features of space-time are shaped by random variations of mass and energy throughout the universe; and consciousness is seen as an emergent, developing awareness, appearing only in organic life forms.

On the other hand, the theories of relativity and quantum mechanics, verified many times over by empirical data, suggest in different ways, that these conceptualizations of consciousness and geometry are flawed, and if not completely incorrect, at the very least, incomplete. Relativity, for example, reveals that the measurable features of physical reality depend upon the location and velocity of the observer relative to the objects of observation, and quantum mechanics tells us that the physical form exhibited by a quantum system depends upon choices made by a conscious observer. In both cases, the reality we can observe, measure or in any way experience is affected by the conscious observer. Based on these clues, is it possible that mainstream science has it backward? Could it be that instead of being secondary and emergent, mathematics, geometry and consciousness are actually fundamental aspects of existential reality?

The findings of TDVP support this idea, and Close and Neppe are not the only ones finding this. Books by Sir Roger Penrose and the research of Penrose and Hammeroff, Peter Russell, Amit Goswami, and a growing number of researchers support this view. What sets The Neppe-Close theory apart from the others is the fact that while others talk about the need to put consciousness into the equations of science, we have actually done it. As an important result of doing so, we have been able to explain things not explained in the current paradigm, things like why quarks combine in threes, the intrinsic spin of fermions, and other things that have puzzled scientists and mathematicians for half a century or more.

I have suggested that it is the Archimedean interpretation of the axiomatic method of Pythagoras, Plato and Euclid that has blinded mainstream scientists to the reality of consciousness, the reality of geometry and their intimate relationship. Let me explain this in a little more detail. Here are Euclid’s five axiomatic (self-evident) statements as translated from the Greek:
1. It is possible to draw a straight line from any point to another point.
2. It is possible to draw a finite straight line continuously in a straight line.
3. It is possible to draw a circle with any center and radius.
4. All right angles are equal to one another.
5. If a straight line drawn across two straight lines forms interior angles on the same side less than two right angles, the drawn lines will meet somewhere on the side on which the angles which are less than two right angles lie.
These axioms are a mixture of platonic and pragmatic interpretations of geometric features of reality. I said pragmatic, rather than Archimedean because when Euclid wrote his Elements, Archimedes hadn't been born yet. Archimedes focused on the pragmatic aspects of the Elements, as mainstream scientists have ever since. Let me explain how these statements are reflective of both Platonic ideals and practical application. The statements as written focus on the practicality of the physical representation of points, lines and angles using simple drawing instruments. The constructions presented in Euclid’s Elements are achievable using only compass, pencil and straightedge. The features of space that underlie these statements that are considered to be self-evident, can be seen more clearly if the statements are rewritten as follows:

1. A straight line is defined by the shortest distance between two points.
2. A finite straight line is continuous between any two points, and can be extended as far as we like.
3. Space is such that circles of any size can be constructed around any given point.
4. All right angles are equal to one another. (A right angle is defined as exactly one-fourth of a circle, and when super-imposed, all right angles are exactly congruent.)
5. If one straight line crossing two straight lines forms interior angles less than right angles on one side of the line, the two straight lines will meet at some distance away on that side of the crossing line. Visualizing this we could easily add that if the two angles are larger than right angles, the two lines will meet some distance away on the other side of the crossing line, and if the interior angles are both right angles, the two lines are parallel, and will never meet.

Note that in this idealized (Platonic) form of expression of Euclid’s axioms, points have no dimensional extent, lines are one-dimensional, with no thickness, and circles lie on a two-dimensional plane. In application, i.e. in practical construction with drawing instruments, however, they all have three dimensions, just as everything in the material world has. The representation of points, lines and angles may be a smudges of graphite on a sheet of paper or indentations drawn with a stick on a smooth area of sand. In either case, the representations are three dimensional. We can conceive of dimensionless points, and one-dimensional lines and two-dimensional plane surfaces, but in material representation, or as they relate to objects in the physical universe, they are three-dimensional. In fact, the elements of quantized existential reality are necessarily at least three dimensional.

This can be seen clearly as follows: A dimensionless point has no extent, therefore it cannot contain anything substantial. A one-dimensional line contains an infinite number of dimensionless points, but has no thickness, so it also cannot have existential content. Similarly, a two-dimensional plane containing an infinite number of one-dimensional lines, and a doubly infinite number of dimensionless points, has no capacity for existential content. Only geometrical forms of three dimensions or more are capable of containing existential substance.

This disparity between idealized conceptualization within our minds, and the world ‘out there’ that we experience in a limited way through our senses, must be borne in mind when applying mathematical and geometrical concepts to form any model of reality. This is the root of the confusion that causes scientists to think that there is one set of rules for the macro scale universe, another for the quantum scale, and that the two are incompatible. This is a confusion arising from the illusion that the internal and external worlds of our experience are separate worlds, and that the quantum realm, our everyday world, and the expanding cosmological universe are separate realities. They are not. There is only one reality. As Erwin Schrӧdinger said in his book ‘What is Life?’, “The world is given to me only once, not one existing and one perceived.”

We need to be very clear about this because it is the cause of much confusion. A TOE is a model. It is a model based on mental concepts existing in someone’s imagination, stored in their brain. But the brain, concepts, and model represented by language and mathematical symbols, are all part of the same reality. The model, moreover, must not be mistaken for the reality. We would never mistake a map, however detailed, for the countryside it represents, and we must never mistake our models of reality, which are based on the incomplete information obtained through the senses and processed in the brain, for the reality we are trying to represent with them.

Classical physics provides a pretty good model of the part of reality experienced on the scale of the physical body and sense organs. This happens to be the midrange of reality. With the refinements of special and general relativity, the model provides a pretty good map of observable reality on the cosmic scale. And quantum mechanics provides a working model of reality indirectly detectable on the quantum scale. If the models don’t agree in the areas where they overlap, it doesn’t mean that reality operates by different rules at different scales, as scientists like to say it does, it means the models are wrong. Reality has no inconsistencies in it, the inconsistencies are in our models. 

However, it would be a mistake to say the models are completely wrong. They are not, they are only demonstrably wrong in the areas where they disagree. Like in the case of classical physics and relativity, it is probable that the models are incomplete in a way that makes them inaccurate beyond the scale in which they were conceptualized. The point here is that the so-called ‘Standard Model’ is actually a hodge-podge of models that fit together loosely and imperfectly, with conflicts and some holes that are not addressed at all. But this is not a bad thing. In fact, it is a good thing because it tells us that we need to go back and look at the axioms upon which these models were built, and the mathematical tools that were used to build them.

Returning to geometry and our representations of it, Platonic points, lines and angles have zero, one and two dimensions, respectively, but points, lines and angles as we experience them in reality, are all three dimensional. This tells us that if we want to understand what geometry is, we need to re-align the axioms of Euclid and our mathematical tools with quantum reality. 

The realignment needed to construct a comprehensive model of reality goes beyond just recognizing that our experiences of geometrical realities are three dimensional, it requires realizing that each and every finite distinction that makes up our experience of reality is at least three dimensional. This is, in fact, the real, most important message of quantum physics. The substance of reality, measurable in units of mass and energy, is quantized, and our experience of it is always in multiples of quantum units. Because of this, a complete overhaul of the current mathematical/logical system used to describe reality is needed. 

Newtonian calculus is a wonderful tool to describe motion in three dimensions of space, one dimension of time in mid-scale reality, however, it brings with it axiomatic assumptions that are invalid for describing quantum reality, and that actually causes conflicts between the Classical/Relativistic-scale model and the quantum-scale model. Newtonian calculus assumes that space and time, the measurable geometrical variables of reality are continuous, implying that they are infinitely divisible. This leads to results implying that substances (mass and energy) are also infinitely divisible, which is not true in a quantized reality.

Since the substance of reality is quantized, not only are points, lines and angles three dimensional, but any geometrical structure forming the boundaries of a distinction consisting of one or more quanta of the substances of reality must also be at least three dimensional. So the geometry of existential objects is necessarily existentially quantifiable. This means that the results of applications of Newtonian calculus at the quantum scale are inaccurate, and in some cases, existentially incorrect. Newtonian calculus works at the midscale because the quanta of reality are so infinitesimally small relative to midscale observations and measurements that the errors in calculated results are undetectable. But at the quantum scale, these errors are catastrophic.

To see how our understanding of geometry must change because of the discovery that reality is quantized, and how our mathematical system of logic must change, we must go back to Euclid’s axioms. To develop a mathematical system designed for application to quantized reality, we must define the mathematical elements of geometry in existential, not idealized terms. The concept of an existential point is the basic concept upon which the new geometrical mathematics must be built. An existential point in a quantized reality is a three- or more-dimensional minimal quantum volume, not an idealized dimensionless singularity.

I first conceived of, and began to develop the appropriate geometrical mathematics for application to quantized reality, the calculus of distinctions (CoD), in 1986. The basic logic of the CoD was published in my second book, “Infinite Continuity’ in 1990. The derivation and further development of the CoD into an effective dimensionometric mathematical system has been published more recently in “Reality Begins with Consciousness” (Neppe & Close, 2011, www.BrainVoyage.com) and a number of technical papers in professional journals. These derivations are beyond the scope of this discussion, but can be described here in general terms.

As a system of symbolic logic, the CoD has its roots in conventional Boolean algebra and George Spencer Brown’s calculus of indications (“Laws of Form”, George Allen and Unwin, London, 1969). However, the CoD is fundamentally different from these logical systems in three important ways: First, it incorporates axiomatic geometry (dimensionality) into its notation. Second, the basic unit of distinction is the existential three-dimensional quantum point. In traditional systems of symbolic logic and Brown’s Laws of Form calculus of indications, unitary existence is neither essential, nor necessary for application to problems of mathematics and logic, but existence is a requirement for the basic unit of a mathematical system of logic designed to apply to an existential quantized reality. Third, the basic existential quantitative unitary distinction of the CoD is derived from the empirical data of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), relating it solidly to the reality we experience through the physical senses.

The derivation of the basic existential quantitative unit of the CoD, which I call the Triadic Rotational Unit of Equivalence or TRUE quantum unit, from first principles of relativity and quantum mechanics, is beyond the scope of this post, but has also been published in the references cited above. TRUE units are derived through a method of normalization similar to the way Planck units are derived, but differ significantly from Planck units because Planck units are normalized to five universal constants, while TRUE units are normalized to the mass of the electron. It is important to note that TRUE units are derived from empirical data, and that the derivation and definition of the TRUE quantum equivalence unit from empirical data and the principles of relativity and quantum mechanics as the unitary quantum distinction of the Cod, allows us to avoid the inaccuracy and errors of the application of Newtonian calculus to quantum phenomena. It also allows us to start our CoD analysis at three dimensions, the point where conventional mathematics becomes very difficult and often intractable. The TRUE quantum unit also integrates relativity and quantum mechanics by providing unitary equivalence of mass, energy, space, and time as experienced by conscious observers drawing meaningful distinctions in the quantized images of reality delivered to their conscious awareness by the physical senses.

Clearly, proof of the equivalence of all of the existential parameters of measurement defining the minimum finite unit of distinction, the Triadic Rotational Unit of Equivalence, is crucial to this model; and just as clearly, that proof is very complex and subtle. It is also admittedly controversial, because it relies on defining the first existential distinction as the conscious distinction of self from other. But any trepidation we may have had regarding the validity of this approach, was dissipated by the fact that it allowed us to bring consciousness into the equations of science in a very real and meaningful way, which further resulted in a rational explanation of why the dynamically spinning structures we call electrons, protons, neutrons atoms and molecules are symmetrically stable, allowing them to exist long enough to support life as we know it.

The power of the CoD is yet to be fully realized. So far I have used it to streamline logical analyses, giving rise to proofs of several important scientific hypotheses and mathematical theorems, and the development of several new mathematical procedures, including Dimensional Extrapolation, the unitary projection from any n-dimensional domain into the n+1 dimensional domain, and derivation of the multi-dimensional quantum Diophantine Conveyance Equation. (A ‘Diophantine’ equation is simply an equation that is satisfied by integer solutions. It should be clear that with application to integer multiples of the TRUE unit, solutions of Diophantine equations are appropriate and necessary for use in models describing quantized reality.)

The Conveyance Equation expresses the logical structures of hyper-dimensional domains as they are conveyed mathematically into one- two- and three-dimensional domains. These logical structures include: the fundamental operations of integer arithmetic in the 1-D domain, the Pythagorean Theorem in the 2-D domain, and Fermat’s Last Theorem in the 3D domain. Application of these three specific subsets of the Conveyance Equation allows us to explain why quarks only occur in triadic combinations, and applications of these subsets of the Conveyance Equation using TRUE units, allow us to develop analyses of electrons, protons and neutrons explaining why they are stable, and explaining why certain stable natural elements, e.g., Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, Nitrogen, etc. form organic life through which consciousness is manifested in the physical universe.

Application of the CoD and TRUE quantum unit analysis has also revealed the existence of a third form of the substance of existential quantum reality, besides mass and energy, that is necessary for there to be any stable structure in the physical universe. Dr. Neppe and I decided to call this third form ‘gimmel’ to distinguish it from mass, energy, space and time parameters. Gimmel is present in specific numbers of TRUE units just as mass and energy are, and the exact number of TRUE units of mass, energy and gimmel in each of the elementary particles making up the elements of the Periodic Table is directly determined from empirical data and well-established physical principles. 

It is important to note that gimmel has been and is instrumental in conveying logical structure into the 4D domain of space-time. We hypothesize that this logical structure is a form of consciousness conveyed from the transfinite and infinite domains of hyper-dimensionality into the 4D domain that we experience through the senses.

The most revolutionary finding of TDVP is the finding that the existence of the universe in any, even semi-stable form depends upon the existence of gimmel before, during and after any origin event giving rise to the physical universe as it exists now. The undeniable interdependent existence of TRUE units of mass, energy and gimmel means that, while organic life is undoubtedly emerging from physical evolution, as current mainstream science contends, some form of gimmel, as the carrier of logic, meaning and consciousness has always existed, otherwise, nothing could exist because there would never have been anything from which it could evolve. 

The fact that the existence of gimmel is necessary for any long-term structural stability in the physical universe, and the fact that its presence in structures of matter and energy provides logical consistency and meaning not found in purely random processes, suggests that individualized consciousness, manifest in finite organic life forms, is orchestrated by gimmel to impact physical reality like points of light shining through the filter of the mass and energy of particles and waves and the transfinite domains of hyper-dimensionality, emanating from an infinite source beyond space-time.

Monday, April 25, 2016

CONSCIOUSNESS AND GEOMETRY



WHAT IS CONSCIOUSNESS?

The goal of natural science from the beginning has been to explain everything. In modern times, this quest has been articulated as the search for a ‘theory of everything’ abbreviated as TOE. Einstein’s unsuccessful quest for a unified field theory, a theory combining all the forces in the universe in one consistent theory, has been interpreted by physicists since Einstein as a quest for a TOE, reflecting the belief that everything can be explained in terms of physical principles. For twenty years I have been saying to anyone who would listen that there can be no real TOE unless consciousness is included in the equations describing reality. See “Transcendental Physics”, page 208. I am not alone in this, others, like Peter Russell, Sir Roger Penrose, Stuart Hammeroff, and Vernon Neppe, to name a few, have been saying something similar. But mainstream science has not been able to define what consciousness is, let alone represent it in the equations of a TOE.
To understand why modern science has not been able to put consciousness into the equations describing the laws governing the physical world, and why modern science has found no way even to define consciousness in relation to physical reality, we must go to the roots of the axiomatic approach used in modern mathematics. We must go back nearly 2,600 years to a period of about 370 years in length, to the world of Pythagoras (582 -507 BC), Plato (428 -348 BC), Euclid (325 -265 BC), and Archimedes (287 -212 BC), and review the ideas of these ancient Greek natural philosophers, because they formalized the ideas that make up the foundations of the modern understanding of geometry, because, as I will explain, consciousness and geometry are intimately related.

The axiomatic approach, developed by the Greeks, starts with the definition of a set of self-evident facts (axioms) and then derives or deduces logical conclusions that must be true if the axioms are true. Pythagoras used the axiomatic/deductive method to prove his theorems. Plato regarded axioms as reflections of a ‘perfect’ reality of which matter and energy were only imperfect reflections.  Euclid formalized the axiomatic approach applied to geometry in his ‘Elements’ of Geometry. And Archimedes applied the axiomatic approach to practical problems, and became the first engineer and experimental scientist in the modern sense. The difference between Archimedes’ pragmatism and Plato’s idealism is roughly the same as the difference between the experimental and theoretical scientists today. Most thinkers today will agree that we need both Platonic and Archimedean scientists, but in this discussion, I intend to show how the predominance of the Archimedean approach in modern science has led to a misunderstanding of what geometry and consciousness actually are. And we must go back to Euclid to see where and how the thinking deviated from the path that leads to defining consciousness.

Using the axiomatic approach that emerged from the thinking of the three Greek philosophers, Pythagoras, Plato and Euclid, as pragmatically interpreted by Archimedes, early modern scientists, notably Descartes and Laplace, diverted scientific thought into the dualistic interpretation of reality that led to the reductionist materialistic philosophy of science prevalent today, reflected in the ‘Standard Model’ of physics. Reductionist materialism leads naturally to a belief in absolute determinism as reflected in Descartes and Laplace’s statements in the 1700’s to the effect that it would only take a few years for scientists to determine the initial conditions of the universe, after which the complete history and fate of the universe could be calculated using Newtonian mechanics. A more recent statement of belief in determinism is found in Stephen Hawking’s “A Brief History of Time’, 1988, predicted a TOE by the year 2000. …Of course that didn’t happen.
In the reductionist worldview of modern science, geometry and consciousness have one thing in common: they are both relegated to non-substantive roles in the universe, related only secondarily to the dynamics of matter and energy. In modern mainstream science, geometry is seen as the description of space-time, a passive backdrop to the dynamic interactions of matter and energy. And consciousness is seen as an emergent feature of matter and energy at certain, as yet not well-defined levels of complexity. In this view, the geometric features of space-time are shaped by variations of mass and energy throughout the universe; and consciousness is seen as a more or less developed awareness, localized in complex organic life forms.


On the other hand, the theories of relativity and quantum mechanics, verified many times over by empirical data, suggest in different ways, that these conceptualizations of consciousness and geometry are flawed, and if not completely incorrect, at the very least, incomplete. Relativity, for example, reveals that the measurable features of physical reality depend upon the location and velocity of the observer relative to the objects of observation, and quantum mechanics tells us that the physical form exhibited by a quantum system depends upon choices made by a conscious observer. In both cases, the reality we can observe, measure or in any way experience is affected by the conscious observer. Based on these clues, is it possible that mainstream science has it backward? Could it be that instead of being secondary and emergent, geometry and consciousness are actually fundamental aspects of existential reality? 

I will press on to show the relationship between consciousness and geometry as a fundamental feature of reality in the next post.

Saturday, April 23, 2016

SPACE, TIME AND CONSCIOUSNESS TRUTHS



SPACE, TIME AND CONSCIOUSNESS

EVERY THING IS EXPLAINABLE!
Let me explain:

By including consciousness in the equations of science (TDVP), Dr. Vernon Neppe and I have reached the point where we have everything we need to explain every thing. For example, I can explain exactly why it takes three quarks to form a proton or neutron, and why it takes three types of elementary particles to form the stable atoms that make up the physical universe. I can explain why fermions have ½ spin, and why the Cabibbo angle and other particle-mixing angles are what they are.
Does this mean that we have the “Theory of Everything” (TOE) dreamed about by physicists since Einstein hypothesized that there should be a unified field theory that would explain all of the known physical forces? No.

Those who think there is a TOE out there waiting to be discovered have not understood Gӧdel’s Incompleteness Theorems. I will explain this, but first, I must explain the difference between explaining every thing and a theory of everything. The word ‘thing’ refers to a finite physical object or concept. The word ‘everything’ means all that exists. To clarify: when physicists talk about a TOE, they are not actually talking about a theory of everything. They are talking about a theory of every thing, i.e. a complete physical theory. But, as I will explain, even that is problematic in light of Gӧdel’s Incompleteness Theorems.

Before I get into discussing Gӧdel’s Incompleteness Theorems, I will state four fundamental truths that can be proved conclusively with what we now know:

1.     Reality, which includes the physical universe, is an infinite logical system.

2.     The physical universe, available through the physical senses, is only a small fraction (less than 5%) of Reality.

3.     Reality is expanding in all nine finite dimensions, not just the three and one-half dimensions of relativistic space-time.

4.     Reality is more than an infinite logical system, it is an Infinite Intelligence that encompasses space, time and consciousness.

As an independent sentient being, you have the right to agree, disagree or reserve judgement concerning these four statements. But they rest on the solid foundations of proved theorems of axiomatic geometry, mathematics, logic, and physical science. These theorems include the Pythagorean Theorem, Fermat’s Last Theorem, the axiomatic principles of Relativity and Quantum Physics, and Gӧdel’s Incompleteness Theorems.  I am as sure of them as I am that I exist. If I can, I will impart that certainty to you in this presentation.

I have touched on the importance and applications of the Pythagorean Theorem, Fermat’s Last Theorem, the axiomatic principles of Relativity and Quantum Physics, and Gӧdel’s Incompleteness Theorems in these posts, and Dr. Neppe and I have published a book (Reality Begins with Consciousness) and a number of papers dealing with their applications in TDVP, but these foundation theorems are so important to TDVP in general, and the four truths stated above, in particular, that I want to elaborate on them a little more here.

Gӧdel’s Incompleteness Theorems
The detailed proof of Gӧdel’s Incompleteness Theorems is beyond the scope of this discussion, but understanding their meaning, importance and impact on human thought, are not. I highly recommend the book “Gӧdel’s Proof” by Ernest Nagel and James R. Newman to anyone who may want to pursue a deeper understanding than I can provide here. This book was written for the non-mathematician. In their words: “The details of Gӧdel’s proofs in his epoch-making paper are too difficult to follow without considerable mathematical training. But the basic structure of his demonstrations and the core of his conclusions can be made intelligible to readers with very limited mathematical and logical preparation.”

In a nutshell, Gӧdel’s Incompleteness Theorems prove that no internally consistent logical system is ever complete. I emphasize the use of the word prove here, because you need to understand that a theorem is not a theory. If it is a theorem, is has been proved. Another way to put Gӧdel’s proof is: In any system of logic, mathematics or geometry, logically legitimate questions can be raised that cannot be answered within the system.

Let this sink in a little. This explains why questions like why it takes three quarks to form a stable proton or neutron, why the Cabibbo mixing angle for quarks is 13.02 degrees, or why the elementary particles making up normal atomic structure have ½ intrinsic spin, are not explainable in the current scientific paradigm.

Gӧdel’s Incompleteness Theorems do not say that there are questions like this that can never be answered; they only say that there are questions that cannot be answered within the paradigm in which they were formed. They may, however, be answerable in a new, more comprehensible paradigm. This, in fact, describes the nature of science and human thought in general. Science, and any system of logical thought, however internally consistent, is never complete. With this in mind, let’s return to the four fundamental truths stated above.

Reality is a logical system, and as such, it is infinite
Reality is the ultimate logical system, which all conceptual models, scientific, mathematical, geometrical, philosophical, theological, spiritual, or whatever, attempt to model. Gӧdel’s Incompleteness Theorems prove that Reality, as the original logical system, is always incomplete from the perspective of finite beings. No matter how many things we explain, the everything of Reality will always be beyond those explanations. Whenever we expand the logical system of our current understanding to explain something heretofore inexplicable, we will find that Reality presents us with new questions that cannot be explained within even our new paradigm. Thus, Reality is an infinite logical system.

The physical universe is a small fraction of Reality
Application of the principles of relativity and quantum physics imply that our physical senses and extensions of them are reduction valves. That is to say that they function not to bring all of Reality into our physical experience, but actually to keep most of Reality out, and bring only a very small part into our physical experience. In fact, our current knowledge of the central nervous system of sentient beings like us suggests that our brains are capable of handling much more than that delivered to them by the senses and neural pathways. Evidence provided by the Hubble space probe and TDVP TRUE analysis strongly support this conclusion.

Reality is expanding in nine finite dimensions
Dr. Neppe and I have developed a comprehensive model that incorporates nine finite dimensions based on the principles of relativity, quantum physics and number theory. Its implications, are vast and far-reaching. It explains why there are no absolute beginnings or ends, only change. In conjunction with the first Truth, it explains many previously inexplicable experimental observations, and implies, among other things, that consciousness, like mass and energy, obeys the laws of conservation, suggesting that survival of consciousness after the death and destruction of the physical body is not only possible, but probable.  

Reality is an Infinite Intelligence encompassing space, time and consciousness
This concept is considered by most people to be objectively unprovable. Some people, including some scientists, accept it, and some reject it. Many claim to have proof by personal experience. It has been considered by organized science and religion to be a matter of personal belief and faith. This is no longer the case. It is logically proved on the basis of the other three truths. Reality is an infinitely logical system that human beings and man-made models reflect imperfectly in mass, energy and consciousness in three dimensions of space and one of time. Proof of this truth changes the world and our understanding of it profoundly.


As far as I am concerned, these four statements are facts that have been proved beyond doubt and are thus unassailable, absolute Truths. The implications of these four truths are profound and far-reaching in their practical implications.

Thursday, April 21, 2016

NON-TECHNICAL QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS


QUESTIONS OFTEN ASKED AND MY ANSWERS 

The questions listed below and answered in this post have been asked of me personally by numerous people over the past 8 to 10 years. It is more efficient to answer them all here so that when I’m asked the same questions again and over again, I can refer the asker to this post. The questions I’m addressing here are not mathematical or technical in nature. They are more general questions related more to the historical and personal perspectives related to TDVP as a scientific paradigm shift than the actual theory itself. Dr. Neppe has also received these questions or slight variations of them. I’m quite sure that his answers are very similar to mine, because our thinking is so similar and parallel that it’s almost ‘spooky’ sometimes. But these are my answers. I take full responsibility for them.

The Questions
Here are the ten questions I hear most often:

1. Most scientific breakthroughs are made by people in their early twenties. How is it that you and Dr. Neppe are coming out with these ideas so much later in life?

In fact, both Dr. Neppe and I were recognized leaders in our fields early in life. Personally, I developed some of the basic ideas of Transcendental Physics before I was twenty, and I developed much of the math before I was thirty.

2. Why aren’t you associated with a major university?

Both Dr. Neppe and I have been associated with major universities, but personally, I left academia because of the departmental politics, and we both were interested in areas that are considered to be outside the proper disciplines of science by major universities. 

3. If your theory is, as you claim, “the science of the future” why haven’t mainstream scientists discovered it?

Partly because of the interdisciplinary nature of a comprehensive paradigm, and tendency of academic professionals to specialize, and partly because of the taboo of mixing so-called ‘hard’ science with metaphysical considerations.

4. Why aren’t you going through ‘normal’ peer-reviewed mainstream channels to get your ideas out?

It is interesting how often people assume that, since our work is unusual, it hasn’t been peer reviewed. Actually, we are going through normal channels, to the extent we can. We’ve had papers and articles developing many of the new concepts peer-reviewed and published in professional journals.

5. What makes you think your ideas are better than those of mainstream scientists?

For the most part, between paradigm shifts, mainstream scientists focus on working on details of the accepted paradigm to expand it and develop practical applications that attract funding.

6. Are you claiming to be smarter than most scientists, as smart even as Hawking and Einstein?

This question is usually posed by someone who thinks it is going to be a game stopper.  This question really means, and sometimes is even stated something like: “Who do you think you are to compare yourself with great scientists, do you really think you are as smart as them?”

Well, yes I do. And I’m not saying this to brag and elevate myself, I’m just stating it as a matter of fact. My documented IQ is higher than that of either Hawking or Einstein, and I believe that Dr. Neppe’s IQ is as high as mine, or higher. I’ll give a little more detail here for those who might be interested in IQ, but you can skip it if you want.

I didn’t know my IQ for most of my life and didn’t care. My score on the Graduate Record Exam was more than high enough to get me into MENSA and grad school in any university in the country, in spite of the fact that I took a nap during the eight-hour test, and chose to take the specific area part in a different field than the field in which I was getting a degree.

Stephen Hawking’s IQ is known to be 154, and Albert Einstein’s IQ has been estimated by experts as 160. I was told that my earliest IQ score (as a junior in high school) put me somewhere beyond the top of the reliability of the test the used, which was 160. Estimating my IQ from the GRE and the Army IQ test (AGCT), I estimate it was in the range of 180 to 200, and I was told that my score on a certain high-IQ society test taken in 2008 put my IQ at or above 182. Because of the relative rarity of a score at this level (a score of 182 with standard deviation of 15 is 1 in 43,508,721, or at the 99.9999977016 percentile of the general population) the confidence interval is more than 18 points. Claiming an exact IQ number like 197 is problematic and inaccurate, but there are a few people out there claiming IQ’s of 200 and above. Statistically, an IQ of 195 with SD of 15 would be 1 in 8,299,126,114, but there are only about 7,300,000,000 people on the planet. The point is that all someone like me can claim is an IQ above 180, and there are only a handful on the planet..

I know that many people who join high IQ societies do so just to inflate their own egos, and some of them like to perform mental tricks to impress people. I did a little of this when I was a sophomore in college, but quickly realized that such behavior was a waste of time, or worse. A high IQ is not worth much if you don’t choose to do something worthwhile with it.

7. You say there has been no real paradigm shift in physics, or even science in general since about 1935 with the acceptance of general relativity and quantum mechanics. Are you just ignoring all the progress that has been made in biology, particle physics and cosmology in the last 80 years?

No, those advances are all within the paradigm of relativity and quantum physics, not new scientific paradigms. TDVP incorporates them and more.

8. What makes you think that your “theory of everything” is better than all the other theories out there?

First of all, ‘theory of everything’ (TOE) is a misnomer. When mainstream physicists speak of a TOE, like string theories, M-brane theory, etc., they are talking about a theory uniting the known physical forces of the universe. TDVP is more nearly a TOE than those because it includes existing phenomena like psi phenomena and other rare-event phenomena not included in materialism-based TOEs. Sometimes, people refer to Einstein as trying to find a TOE.

To my knowledge, Einstein never spoke of a TOE as such. He was looking for a unified field theory that would eliminate the contradictions and paradoxes existing between relativity and quantum mechanics.  We made an objective comparison of all the purported TOEs we could find, in our book “Reality Begins with Consciousness’, with objective criteria including statistically legitimate non-physical phenomena, and none of them measured up to TDVP.

9. If, as you say, your theory incorporates science and spirituality, why aren’t all philosophers and theologians thrilled with it?

It is a matter of intellectual ‘turf’. Most theologians see us as scientists invading their territory. Philosophers who, like mainstream scientists are materialists, dualists, or even atheists, reject anything outside the box of materialism.

10. Why are you using social media to get your ideas out?


We exist in a new information world today where the new ideas of a real scientific paradigm shift can impact the general populace much more quickly than in the past. I believe that the general public are much more intelligent than the mainstream educated elite of the scientific establishment would like to think.

Tuesday, April 19, 2016

DOES GOD HAVE A SENSE OF HUMOR?



GOD HAS A SENSE OF HUMOR
God said, “Let Us make man in Our image …” Genesis 1:26

Who was He talking to?

I grew up in hilly country where there were a lot of rocks. A clever friend of mine once said: “There are two kinds of people in the world: rock-pile-ers and rock-rollers.” 

Now God is perfect, right? And He exists in a place of perfect peace and boundless beauty, called Heaven. So I imagine one day God got a little bored and decided he’d clone himself so he’d have someone to talk to. …
… Big mistake!

The clone had to be somehow different than God, of course, because if he was an exact replica of God, God would still be bored wouldn’t he? So, God 1.0 was a Rock-Pile-er, and God 2.0 was a Rock-Roller. How do I know God 1.0 was a Rock-Pile-er? Well, He was a Rock-pile-er the minute he started making things. But then He made God 2.0, the Rock-Roller, and all Hell broke loose!

Why did everything get so ‘interesting’ after that? It’s because rock-pile-ers and rock-rollers don’t get along very well. In fact, it turns out that they don’t even like each other.

As soon as the rock-pile-ers get a nice stack of rocks piled up on the hill, the rock-rollers come along and roll them down the hill, to watch them roll and bounce and go KER-SPLOOSH into the creek.

I never said this to my friend, but I think there are three kinds of people. Why? Because I don’t really care for piling rocks, or rolling them. I like to think about the rocks: What kind of rocks are they? Where did they come from? What was there before the rocks?

Let’s apply this to physicists. The rock-pile-ers are those, engineers really, who like to build things. Things like the Large Hadron Collider. The rock-rollers are the experimental physicists. They like to take things apart.

I can remember when as an undergraduate physics major at Central Methodist, I joined the Physics Club. We met at Mac’s, a bar about ten steps off campus, where we drank beer and waxed philosophical. One evening, sitting around a table at Mac’s, sipping beer, the president of the club, a senior named Newton (No, not Sir Isaac; George) said: “Hey guys, let’s blow up something and see what it looks like!” 

That was the beginning of Fledermaus, the rocket-science project. We called it Fledermaus, German for bat, because we met at night on the athletic field and tried to make thing fly, by sticking explosives under them, lighting a fuse, and running for cover. It gave us an excuse for blowing things up! But, I digress.

The engineering physicists are rock-pile-ers. They build things, like the LHC. The experimental physicists (rock-rollers) are the particle physicists who like to blow things up, and they both look questioningly at physicists like me, who don’t particularly care to get their hands dirty, scratch their heads and say: “OK … theoretical physicists, right?”

So God 1.0 said to God 2.0: “Let Us make man in Our image …”

“OK, what do we look like? Asked God 2.0, you haven’t made mirrors yet, you know.”

 God 1.0 sighed and they trudged down the hill to the edge of the creek.

“As I was saying,” God 1.0 began again, “Let Us make man in Our image …”

“What’s a man?” interrupted God 2.0, “Did you just make that up?”

“He’s going to look like that,” God 1.0 said impatiently, pointing to their reflections in the creek. 

And He began to wave his hand as they were looking at their reflections in the creek, but at that exact moment, God 2.0 stirred the water with a stick. And that’s why we have so many odd-looking people today.


Please send hate mail to God3point0@yoohoo.com

Monday, April 18, 2016

PROOF POSITIVE OF THE SHAPE OF THE EARTH



USE YOUR BRAINPOWER!
It is disappointing when I encounter people who don’t want to put much, if any, effort into thinking about anything outside their habitual comfort zone. It seems that most people would rather watch Television than read a non-fiction book, even if the book contains world-changing ideas and there is evidence that too much TV can cause brain atrophy. This may sound like a complaint, and I don’t want to be a complainer, I just want to spur people on to think just a little bit outside the box. Is it too much to ask people to try to understand a new paradigm, or why the old one doesn’t work? Is it too much to ask someone to think beyond one or two logical steps? Too often I’ve heard: “Oh, that makes my head hurt! I’m not a genius you know!

But you may be smarter than you think. Why not try to use more of the brain power you have? Psychologists tell us that most people never use more than 10 to 20 percent of their brain power, so you could be anywhere from five to nine times smarter than you think you are, in fact, you may be smarter than your IQ test indicates. IQ experts used to think that everyone is born with a fixed Intelligence Quotient that will stay constant throughout your life, except for a possible decrease in case of injury and the eventual inevitable decline in old age. We now know, that that is not true. The experts are now saying that you can increase your IQ by perhaps as much as 10 to 15% by putting your brain to work learning a new language or exercising it by solving puzzles of different types. So, if you have an IQ score of 120 on a standard IQ test, by working hard, you might increase it to 132 to 138, which is enough to get you into MENSA! And if you have an IQ of 138 to start with, with hard work, you might raise it to 152, enough to get into ISPE. The average IQ of PhD recipients is about 130, and IQ experts have estimated Einstein’s IQ at about 160. Would you like to be smarter than the average PhD? Or smarter than Einstein?

It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that people who ascribe to some of the most outlandish false theories and/or conspiracy theories, are either pulling your leg, are not very bright, or are just too lazy mentally to follow the logic that clearly disproves them. The flat-earth hypothesis is a prime example of a false theory that you can disprove yourself in a few minutes, if you want to. The idea that the Earth is flat except for irregularities like mountains and valleys, of course, was common in most primitive cultures, because to the casual eye, it looks that way. In modern times, a number of relatively uneducated writers and preachers have argued that the Earth is flat. The Flat-Earth Society traces its roots back to an English writer named Samuel Rowbotham, who argued for a flat Earth based on the results of some experiments that failed to find any curvature of the water surface over the length of a drainage ditch in England. He published a book titled “The inconsistency of Modern Astronomy and its Opposition to the Scripture.” The ‘proof’ put forth by Rowbotham and others who supported the flat earth theory, was ‘proved’ back then by statements like:

There are rivers that flow for hundreds of miles towards the level of the sea without falling more than a few feet — notably, the Nile, which, in a thousand miles, falls but a foot. A level expanse of this extent is quite incompatible with the idea of the Earth's convexity. It is, therefore, a reasonable proof that Earth is not a globe.”

Anyone with a rudimentary acquaintance with logic, will realize that this is not a proof at all, but simply a feasibility argument. The concept behind this reasoning is that, if the Earth is round like a ball, and water seeks the lowest possible uniformly flat level, then a convex curvature would require that the water run uphill to the half-way point in its route to the sea, and downhill the rest of the way, and everyone knows that water always runs downhill. If the Earth is relatively flat overall, there would be no ‘hump’ of curvature to cause a problem. But this is not proof of a flat Earth, because the problem is also resolved if the Earth is actually spherical, and gravity, which causes water and everything else to seek the lowest possible level, pulls everything toward the center of the sphere. And Sir Isaac Newton, and others, showed that the gravitational pull of any spherical object, whether a cannon ball or the moon is always toward the center. So there are two possible ways to explain why the Nile flows tranquilly to the Mediterrean, making the statement no more than a feasibility argument.

The flat-earth nuts (I call them nuts advisedly, or maybe even lovingly, because I know that some of them are just enjoying poking fun at the scientific establishment, which I also enjoy) even have websites and a You-tube video that boasts 20 proofs that the Earth is flat! But every one of the 20 ‘proofs’ are bogus because they either ignore some well-known and easily provable fact, or they are based on unproved and unprovable assumptions. So I could publish sound counter arguments refuting each and every one of the so-called proofs. But I don’t need to waste my time doing that, because there is an easy demonstration anyone can do that proves unequivocally that the surface of the Earth curves between Denver and New York City by an amount consistent with a sphere having a circumference of approximately 24,900 miles. And this is a proof that anyone can perform. I’ve published it twice, but I’ll copy it here again for the readers’ convenience:  

All you need to do is have someone in New York City and someone in Denver call you on the same day, exactly when the sun comes over the horizon at their respective locations. (Notice that this eliminates any confusion that might arise from time zone differences because you are noting the times of the calls on your clock.) If the Earth’s surface is flat, the calls will come virtually simultaneously, because there are no mountains between Denver and New York high enough to block the line of sight. If the Earth’s surface is curved, the call from Denver will come in later than the call from New York, because the sun will be hidden behind the curvature of the Earth until it reaches the height necessary for it to be seen in Denver. If the Earth is spherical, with a circumference of about 24,900 miles, the calls will be about 2 hours apart. This is easily calculated, but completely unnecessary for the demonstration.  

If you get two friends to do this, you will find that the time between the two calls will actually be about 2 hours, give or take a few minutes depending on exactly where your friends are located in the Denver and New York areas. I can say this with great confidence because I effectively done the experiment myself. I have spent time in both Denver and New York City, and have friends in both areas, and we find that it is always necessary to allow that same amount of time difference if you are in one area and want to connect by telephone or skype at a specific time with someone in the other area. If the Earth were flat, the sun would be seen to rise at the same time in Denver and New York, but would reach the zenith (straight overhead) about 2 hours apart in in the two locations, Denver 2 hours behind New York. So the diurnal time difference would vary during the day, from zero to 2 hours, making synchronizing watches for a given time to schedule a phone call between the two locations very difficult. Obviously this is not the case; the time difference between similar solar inclinations in relation to the horizon in the two locations is always the same. Conclusion: the surface of the Earth between Denver and New York is effectively the surface of a sphere. Now that wasn’t hard was it?


Now, concerning government and NASA conspiracies; there is no doubt that they often lie to us. But it’s not to keep us from knowing that the Earth is flat! It’s just that the Flat-Earthers, in order to support their hypothesis, have to go to great lengths to explain the many things that have to be accounted for to maintain the illusion that the surface of the Earth is flat, and explaining away NASA photos showing the Earth’s curvature is just one of them. The Earth is definitely and provably an oblate spheroid spinning in space. Anyone who denies it is either delusional, not capable of following simple logic, or enjoying seeing how many people they can fool with confusing, half-baked arguments.