Thursday, January 11, 2018



©Edward R. Close January 11. 2018

The year was 1685. Traveling across Germany in a Pferdekutsche (stagecoach), Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz and a traveling companion stopped at an inn for a short rest and a drink. Leibniz was already famous. About as famous in Germany as Einstein was in the US in the 1950s. He was a polymath: a medical doctor, mathematician, linguist, philosopher, scientist; he had invented something called “the calculus”, and he had produced the world’s first mechanical calculator that could perform multiplications and divisions. When he identified himself, the people in the inn laughed. They could not believe that this mud-spattered, ordinary-looking man could be the most famous man in Europe!

“So, then, Mr. Philosopher, what is the most important question a human being can ask?” One of the scoffers queried.

Leibniz frowned, cleared his throat, and said: “The first question a man of science should ask, is ‘Why is there something rather than nothing?’”.

Everyone laughed, and returned to their bier steins, shaking their heads, not realizing that what they had just dismissed as nonsense was, in fact, the ultimate question.

Why is there something rather than nothing? Modern science’s answer is “the Big Bang”. But that is actually no answer at all. The idea of something exploding into existence from nothing, is nonsense, and you don’t have to be a scientist to know that it is nonsense.

To find the answer, we must go back another 1,435 years, to the time of Diophantus of Alexandria. Diophantus was a Greek mathematician who lived in the third century, and died at the age of 84, sometime between 285 and 299 AD. How do we know how old he was when he died? He left a mathematical puzzle on his grave stone, which, when solved, reveals his age.

Inscribed on his tombstone was the following poem (translated from the Greek):
Here lies Diophantus. Now this wonder behold,
Through art algebraic, the stone tells how old:

God gave him his boyhood for one-sixth of his life,
One twelfth more as a youth, his whiskers grew rife;

After another one-seventh, had marriage begun;
And five years later, came a bouncing new son.

Cruel Fate took the child of this master and sage
When he was only one-half his father's final age.

Consoling four years with the science of numbers,
The sage ended his life, and in this grave slumbers.

A high school algebra student today can solve this puzzle by writing and solving two equations in two unknowns. Hint: Let X = Diophantus’ age at the time of his death, Y = the son’s age at the time of his death, and use the clues given in the poem to construct simultaneous equations.

Diophantus specialized in finding whole number (integer) solutions for algebraic equations. As a result, equations for which there are integer solutions are now called Diophantine equations.

What does this have to do with Leibniz’s “ultimate” question? To answer this question within the question, we have to refer to the mathematical work of a man who was nearly 40 years old when Leibniz was born, and died when Leibniz was only 19.

In 1637, an obscure French jurist, an amateur mathematician named Pierre de Fermat, had already answered Leibniz’s ultimate question, but he probably didn’t know it! In the margin of a page in a book on Diophantine equations he wrote: “I have found a marvelous proof, but the margin of this book is to small to contain it.”

Fermat’s proof of what became known as “Fermat’s Last Theorem”, was never found, and the renowned French thinker of the day, Rene Descartes, called Fermat “an uneducated trouble-maker” and tried to discredit him as an amateur. As it turned out, Fermat was at least as good a mathematician as Descartes. You may recall Descartes’ statement: “I think; therefore, I am!” But, of course, this is no more an answer to the question of existence than the Big Bang answer, because it leads to the deeper questions of what is ‘thinking’ and what is ‘being’.

Fermat’s proof ultimately depends upon the logical method of infinite descent. If something is assumed to exist on a large scale, and can be reduced by logical steps to a version of the same thing, but on a smaller scale, then it can be reduced again and again, until you arrive at a version of the same thing at the smallest possible scale. Then it can be easily proved to be either true or false, existing, or not existing.

Notice that the Big Bang theory is a form of infinite descent. The idea that the universe is began as the result of an explosion from a dimensionless point 13.8 billion years ago is obtained by an infinite descent in space and time, starting with something, i.e., what we have now, descending to nothing. But, that makes no sense. So, maybe it was a very dense mass that existed before the big bang? But, if so, where did that come from? What existed before it exploded? Something or nothing? If it was something, then the big bang was not the beginning of everything, only the beginning of the expanding universe we have today. If it was nothing, then we have a paradox with the production of something from nothing. If your answer is “God created it”. Then God existed before the big bang, and you can’t say there was nothing before the big bang.

Is there an answer? Yes, there is an answer, and Pierre de Fermat discovered the key to it while studying Diophantus’ equations. But, as I said, Fermat himself, probably did not realize that he had the answer to the ultimate question. That realization had to wait for more than 300 years.

In 1900, Max Planck discovered that the matter and energy of the physical universe exist only in multiples of a very, very small unit. This means that in the physical universe, infinite descent to zero is impossible. Descent stops at the smallest quantum. This is, after all, what Fermat’s infinite descent is about. It stops with an integral form, not zero. The infinite part of the name infinite descent is used because it can start with any assumed object, however large, and then descends to its smallest possible integral form.

In 1986, I developed the calculus of distinctions, derived from George Spencer Brown’s calculus of indications, adapted it for use in a quantum reality, and applied it to the big-bang expanding universe theory. I published the results in a book titled Infinite Continuity in 1990.

Here are two excerpts from Infinite Continuity:

From the first paragraph of the Preface:
“The digital clock beside my bed read ‘1:11’. It was one-eleven am, January 16th, 1986, and I had just awakened from a very vivid dream. A stone had dropped into a clear, dark pool, filling it with golden ripples of spreading light, and at the center of my awareness the pieces of an intricate puzzle had suddenly fallen together. Grabbing a pencil and paper, I began writing as rapidly as I could. So vivid were the details, so clear the understanding, that the heart of the vision flowed out onto the paper that night.”

From the last paragraph of Part V, Summary and Conclusions:
“We stand again on the threshold of a new scientific frontier. As science recognizes the connectedness of all things, the need to integrate the knowledge we have gained becomes more urgent. The formalization of a new science is required. This new science will encompass the existing paradigm, and yet transcend it by including the relationship of [Primary] Consciousness to matter and energy, and the relationship of individual consciousness to existential reality.”

The calculus of distinctions applied to quantum reality became known as the calculus of dimensional distinctions and one application developed in collaboration with Vladimir Brandin, was published in Elements of Mathematical Theory of Intellect, Moscow Interphysics Laboratory, Moscow, Russia, 2003.

Finally, in 2011, in collaboration with Vernon M. Neppe, MD, PhD, internationally renowned neuroscientist, I completed the proof of the existence of a third form of reality, which Vernon named gimmel, not measurable as mass or energy, and therefore non-physical. With that, the proof was complete, and the answer to Leibniz’s question was finally clear: There is something rather than nothing because there is no such thing as nothing.

This also validates Einstein’s statement in the final appendix of his book on relativity, written only a few years before his death, where he suggested that there is no such thing as empty space.

This answer bears emphasizing:

Fermat’s method of infinite descent applied to quantum cosmology proves that there never was nothing, there is no absolute beginning or end, only changes in form. Nothingness is a fiction, a meaningless concept conjured up by confusing changes of form with beginnings and ends.

Wednesday, January 10, 2018



Atoms and molecules and compounds all vibrate at different rates, depending on the number of electrons bonds, the mass of the nuclei, and other factors. When molecules combine to form complex compounds, their vibrations combine, forming symphonies of vibrations. All things made up of atoms vibrate, and the electron motions in those vibrations generate electromagnetic fields that radiate in all directions, as electromagnetic radiation, including biophotons, and other frequencies outside of the narrow band of visible light. We are surrounded by energy fields emanating from every physical object in the universe. These emanations are mostly invisible, but they exist, just as certainly as radio and TV signals exist all around us.

You are not only bathed in energy from everywhere, you are also a source of radiant energy yourself. Energy radiates from the atoms and molecules in your brain, heart, and other organs, as well as from your hands and feet. These energy fields, consisting of a number of frequencies, combine to form an electromagnetic symphony of vibrational frequencies that broadcasts your unique signature out into the universe. Your energy signature is more complex and unique than your fingerprints. And scientists are developing instruments more and more sensitive to analyze the frequencies emitted by atoms, molecules, organs and every object in the universe.

The idea that you are surrounded by your own energy body, consisting of a suite of vibrational frequencies is no longer just a theory, or a new-age fantasy. The recent discovery of quantum vibrations in "microtubules" inside the neurons in the brain by anesthesiologist, Stuart Hameroff, MD at the University of Arizona and British mathematical physicist Sir Roger Penrose, PhD of Oxford University, validates the idea. Stuart Hamaroff is a colleague I've known for more than 10 years, and I have met Sir Roger Penrose. They conclude in papers published in books and technical journals that the vibratory states of these microtubules in the brain correlate with various states of consciousness. They suggest that “EEG rhythms (brain waves) also derive from deeper level microtubule vibrations, and that from a practical standpoint, treating brain microtubule vibrations could benefit a host of mental, neurological, and cognitive conditions.” Enhancing brain microtubule vibrations should enhance cognitive functions such as mental clarity and focus.

Monday, January 8, 2018



Consciousness is a bridge between two worlds: the world of spirit and the world of the physical universe. As conscious beings, we are much like a traveler with one foot in each of two boats. If we can manage to keep the boats going in the same direction, we are OK; if not, insanity will be the result. In so much as we are able to align the two, we are more or less sane. But, we cannot completely deny either world. To do so may seem to be a way to live sanely in one world or the other, but it ultimately leads to disaster.

The key to understanding both worlds lies in recognizing that a different metric applies to each world. By metric, I mean the standard of observation and measurement. The spirit world requires an infinitely continuous metric, the physical world requires a finitely discrete metric. Each of these metrics has its own system of mathematical logic. Applying the mathematics of one to the other results in paradox. The quantum world is finite and discrete, the Spiritual world is infinitely divisible, the macro-world of our daily experience is both. Thus, your consciousness is the bridge between them. 

The calculus of distinctions (C0D) is a system of mathematical logic that also serves as a bridge, because it contains measurements of mass, energy and consciousness as gimmel, it contains both metrics: the infinitely continuous metric and the finitely discrete metric, as subsets. The calculus of dimensional distinctions (CoDD) describes the worlds of our experience as dimensional domains. See posts with the key words 'Calculus of Distinctions', 'Calculus of Dimensional Distinctions' and 'Gimmel'.  

Edward R. Close, the Eighth of January 2018

Thursday, January 4, 2018


We exist in a world of laws, physical laws, psychological laws and spiritual laws. Science tells us that the universe has existed for billions of years and will exist for billions of years to come. How is it, then, that some of us, in just a few years in a physical body, come to think that we know more than the universe? The folly of this reasoning is obvious, and is reflected in the words: “The wages of sin are death.”

There is no sin except action contrary to the laws of the universe. These laws are mathematical. You violate them at your own risk. Alignment with them is crucial. Your survival and the survival of human beings as a species depends upon it. So why not spend a little time every day, preferably just after arising every morning and just before going to sleep every night, aligning yourself, body, mind and soul with the laws of the universe?

How does one do this? It is easier than you might think. The main problem lies in your thinking. The universe is conscious and all-inclusive. Alignment with the laws of the universe is quite natural, if you can even momentarily quiet the chatter of your mind. The laws of physics, mind and spirit are always there. The seemingly random confusion of life is in your thinking, not in the existential reality of the universe. If you throw off the misperception of irrational desires and false expectations, the truth emerges like the sun when storm clouds are blown away.

Wednesday, January 3, 2018


We must learn to see without eyes,
To hear without ears,
To feel without fingers,
To smell without a nose,
To taste without a tongue,
To walk without feet.
To think without a brain,
To fly without wings,
And finally, to become all things.

Only then can we know
the universe is created so
That everything does not depend
upon beginning or an end

We must learn from the hard race we have run,
From the corners of the world, from far below and above:
The blazing jewel within, bright shining as the sun
Is nothing more and nothing less, than G_d’s eternal Love.

Ed Close, December 26, 2017

Sunday, December 31, 2017

Saturday, December 30, 2017


चलो वहां प्रकाश हो! QUE LA LUMIÈRE SOIT! 讓那裡有光! ¡QUE HAYA LUZ! دعه يكون خفيفا!

At some point, everyone who draws breath must ask the ultimate question. It comes out in many different forms: What is this all about? What is life? Where did we come from, and where are we going? What is the meaning of existence? What the (bleep)?!! What is the nature of reality? What is the answer? It is this ultimate question that is behind all human efforts to know: science, religion, philosophy…

The answer, however complex it might seem, can be summed up in one sentence:  Understanding of the nature of light is understanding the nature of reality

Light is radiant energy. Its first corporeal form is the electron. The electron’s measurable and observable characteristics form the true quantum unit, the Triadic Rotational Unit of Equivalence (TRUE), the basic unit of the Calculus of Dimensional Distinctions (the CoDD), and applying the CoDD to the analysis of subatomic structure, we discover the mass-less, energy-less volumetric equivalence of gimmel, the non-physical agent of consciousness required for the stable existence of life-supporting matter. This means that the physical universe exists solely for the purpose of the expression and experience of spiritual reality.

I have applied the CoDD to the mainstream concepts of the solution to Olber’s paradox, look-back time, the red shift, the big-bang expanding universe, and constant light speed, and found that there is something wrong. If my translation of these concepts into the language of the CoDD was appropriate and accurate, - and the translation of hypotheses is admittedly the most difficult part of the application of the CoDD - then these concepts as they are currently accepted in the mainstream scientific community, are not logically consistent. The CoDD analysis shows that these concepts, taken together, do not form a logically consistent theory.

Astrophysicists tell us that space-time may be either curved or flat. If it is flat, then the universe is infinite, and the red shift is not due to motion, but rather to distance, and without outside influence, or inside organizing activity, the universe would expand to maximum entropy, as the second law of thermodynamics predicts. The Hubble telescope data so far tends to support the hypothesis of an infinite universe, because, contrary to the accepted answer to Olber’s paradox, the farther we look, the more stars we see; and even if, at the end of every line of sight there is a star, we don’t see them simply because they are too far away. If this is the reality and there is no universal organizing factor, then, as Bertrand Russell famously said, all the works of man, however great, will disappear in the great heat death of the universe. But that picture doesn’t include any consideration of the primacy of consciousness.

The only reason space-time might be other than flat, is because of the existence of content as mass and energy. In the aggregate, however, they are uniform, which would give the appearance of uniformity and again a flat universal geometry. But the existence of anything is dependent upon the existence of stars and an observer who can see them. If space-time is curved, and the curvature is uniform, then the expanding universe is an illusion, the multi-dimensional universe can only expand into itself, and everything that has happened, or will happen, is already happening now. Any constant, uniform movement of a consciously observed quantum event in space-time will eventually return to the point of origin, implying a recurring cycle in time. If the curvature is not uniform, then we have the illusion of multiple universes, and an infinite number of them. But this contradicts the definition of universe and leads to logical paradox. In all three cases, space-time, or extent, has no meaning at all without individualized consciousness, and localized consciousness depends on the existence of the conversion of light to electrons, protons and neutrons, atoms and molecules, and the organic life forms that support consciousness which organizes and animates molecules, atoms, etc.

Before you decide whether you want to accept or reject the idea that understanding the nature of light is the answer to the question of existence, let’s look at the simple equation made famous by Albert Einstein: E = mc2. Solving this equation for c, the speed of light, it becomes: c = √(E/m), the square root of E divided by m, where E is energy and m is mass. Apply this to the entire universe, and you have the true meaning of the statement “the speed of light is constant” and you’ll find that it doesn’t mean what the average person thinks it does.

At any given point in time, the speed of light radiating through space is constant everywhere in the universe for everyone, regardless of relative motion. (That’s the first assumption of Einstein’s theory of relativity.) But, the equation tells us that the speed of light is defined by the ratio of energy to matter. So, if everything were light with no mass, i.e., mass would be zero in the equation, then the universe would be expanding at an infinite speed (c = √E/0 = ∞). But, as soon as there is a particle, even one photon of light converted to an electron, c becomes finite. In the universe today, the ratio of energy to mass is such that the speed of light in a vacuum is 186,282 miles per second (299,792 kilometers per second). But, the ratio of energy to mass has not always been what it is now, producing that exact speed, and, in this dynamic universe of ours, it will not be the same in the future. In fact, there is evidence that the speed of light was greater in the past. [See J. Casado (2003). "A Simple Cosmological Model with Decreasing Light Speed".]

The passage of time depends on the speed of light, so, if the velocity of light was different in the past than it is today, and will be different in the future, then the passage of time was faster in the past, when there was less matter and more energy, and will be different in the future than it is today. Think about that for a second. What is measured on our time scale today as a million years, would only have been a few seconds at one point in the very early stages of the universe when there was very little matter. This means that when we look at light from a distant star, we can’t assume that the billions of years measured on today’s time scale, that we take to be the time it took for that light to reach our telescope, is correct. During the first part of the trip, when there was very little matter, and the speed of light was much greater, the light expanded through a lot more space in much less time. This means that the universe is much younger and much larger than we are led to think it is by assuming that light has always traveled at the same speed, and that there was a big bang.

It was recently announced that an astronomical record has been broken: Astronomers have seen a galaxy farther away in space and time than ever before. They tell us that the light reaching us from this record-breaking light source, called z8_GND_5296, left it 13.1 billion years ago, and that the picture we see of it now comes from just 700 million years after the big bang! That is obviously a conclusion based on the assumption that the speed of expanding light energy has always been what it is today. What if that assumption is wrong, as my CoDD analysis indicates?

If, as current astronomical theory has it, the universe is about 13.8 billion years old, the most distant galaxy is flying away from us at near light speed, and if the speed of light has been constant over all time since the big bang, then we have a paradox: By the time light has reached us from a source13.1 light years away, that source will have sped another 13 billion light years away, and the universe will be at least 26.8 billion years old, not 13.8! The only way this paradox can be resolved, is for the speed of light to have been much greater in the past. This conundrum was partially resolved by Astronomer Alan Guth in 1979 by what is known as “inflation theory”, proposing that the early universe underwent a period of very rapid expansion.

In 1983 Guth, published a paper describing how his supercooled-universe scenario was not ideal, as the "triggering mechanism" to exit the state of rapid expansion would require "extreme fine tuning of parameters" and he believed that a more natural solution is required. (GUTH, ALAN H. "The New Inflationary Universe". Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences422 (1 Eleventh Text): 1–14). The more natural solution, in my opinion, is the natural slowing of light speed predicted by my CoDD analysis. However, the quantized nature of mass and energy does suggest a non-linear, discrete multi-phase process, not a continuous one. More analysis is needed.

Application of the CoDD reveals that reality is a dynamic balance of mass, energy and consciousness (as gimmel), all of which co-exist in the universe as the three finite forms of light (photons, electrons and gimmel), congealed by the distinctive action of a primary form of awareness, which metaphorically said: “Let there be light” and light transitioned from the multi-dimensional realm of Primary Consciousness, from conceptual to existential, guided by the dimensionometry of gimmel in space-time, into the physical universe. Applications of the CoDD and dimensional extrapolation also reveal that time, like space, is three-dimensional, and that in three-dimensional time, there are no absolute beginnings or ends, only change.

In the CoDD analysis, the law of conservation of mass and energy is naturally extended to all of the substance of reality, namely mass, energy and consciousness, which are conserved in all processes. This means that the concept of nothingness is an illusion; there never has been nothing, and never will be nothing. Primary Consciousness is the substance of reality and cannot be destroyed. Its first manifestation in the physical universe is light, a vibratory form of energy that becomes gimmel, mass and physical force as it weaves the structure of the reality we experience as part of the structure, without ever losing our true nature as parts, like tiny sparks of Primary Consciousness, evolving toward reunion with the source. Light becomes electrons, electrons become quarks, quarks combine under the guidance of gimmel to become protons, neutrons, and everything else.

I believe there will always be light and shadow, energy and mass, mind and consciousness, in never-ending cycles of creation, sustained physical existence, and destruction, as a flow of consciousness from Primary Consciousness to the physical universe and back again. The purpose of existence of the physical universe is to provide a finite stage for Primary Consciousness to experience reality through drawing the distinctions of individualized sparks of awareness, - that’s us, and our purpose is to expand our awareness until we become “Gleichwertig”, the same as Primary Consciousness. And I find it encouraging and comforting that within the framework of understanding the nature of light, using our God-given minds and the primary logic of the CoDD, all meaningful questions are answerable. 

ERC, December 30, 2017