Friday, August 26, 2016

SPECIAL PRESS RELEASE


Special Press Release:
Dr Vernon Neppe and Dr Edward Close win prestigious ISPE international prize: the Whiting Memorial Award for 2016.

Dr. Edward Close and Dr. Vernon Neppe were honored on 9 August 2016 with the coveted 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’) (www.thethousand.com) to “reward individuals and groups, whose accomplishments and goals exemplify the ideals of ISPE”.
This international award is open to anyone worldwide in any discipline, 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.” This sought after Prize, therefore, can be given to anyone worldwide in any discipline. 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.” ISPE advances no political, governmental, religious, race, gender, ethnic, activist or academic agenda. “This is what ISPE is all about: Making our world better by encouraging profound excellence”, emphasized Stephen Levin, the ISPE President. “This award should have happened a long time ago to Drs Neppe and Close. It’s well-deserved and too long coming.” 

What is unique is that the ISPE organization played a special major role in this first joint award of the Whiting Prize: Vernon Neppe MD, PhD, Fellow Royal Society (SAf), and Edward Close PhD, PE, actually met through their ISPE membership. Moreover, these two scientists deliberately specifically joined ISPE to collaborate with another member on developing a unified theoretical model for reality: They had both already developed their own models but “we regarded that as insufficient. We needed to combine any expertise and knowledge we had to progress with this task, which we regarded as, and still regard as, the ‘song we’re singing in this world’This work gone beyond us and we realize that development of an entirely new model of reality is of groundbreaking importance,” Dr Neppe commented.

The two scientists have subsequently worked together for eight years and probably spent 4000 hours each on their TDVP paradigm shifting work. Drs Close and Neppe have needed to apply the empirical and theoretical findings of quantum physics, mathematical logic, philosophy, biology, psychology and consciousness research. But often it has been their creative jumps into the unknown that have been most important. Hundreds of scientists worldwide have examined aspects of the Neppe-Close work, which many have compared with an advanced multidisciplinary graduate degree which requires significant study and application. Therefore, there are only a few experts worldwide.

The Whiting Prize has not been awarded to an ISPE member since 2008. The ISPE is a worldwide 1 in 1000 intelligence organization currently with about 500 members that emphasizes progression through different levels of accomplishment. Drs Close and Neppe have both attained the highest public level of ‘Diplomate of the ISPE’ (where there are about 2 dozen worldwide). Diplomate is the highest public level of ISPE achievement: Currently there are about two dozen such Diplomates worldwide.

This is not their first award for their research: In February 2013 in Puebla, Mexico, Dr Neppe and Dr Close received the well-respected Gabino Barreda Award and medal involving the earlier version of their critically important metaparadigm “Triadic Dimensional Distinction Vortical Paradigm” (TDVP).
By that stage, Close and Neppe had empirically shown how Space, Time, and Consciousness (STC) are all separate, and not just being ‘derivative of each other’ in our 3S-1t reality. Instead, STC is always in union. They further argued cogently that we have gone beyond Minkowski’s 1908 union of ‘Space-Time’ and as of 2011, we have their new proposed union of ‘Space-Time-Consciousness’ (STC).

The Space-Time-Consciousness (STC) union is strongly substantiated in their massive 500 page book ‘Reality Begins With Consciousness: A Paradigm Shift that Works’ (www.brainvoyage.com) and in peer-reviewed publications. They contended there must be a ‘triad’: Not only is Space and Time always together, but that three of Space, Time and the Extent of Consciousness are inseparably tethered together.

They had also demonstrated that the Neppe-Close model of the ‘Triadic Dimensional-Distinction Vortical Paradigm’ (TDVP) is very versatile in explaining numerous facets of reality without contradiction: TDVP scores perfectly on criteria for a a so-called ‘Theory of Everything’ (TOE). TDVP scores 39/39; other than their own previous models at 27 and 23/39 respectively, none of the 21 others examined have scored even 20/39.
They had also proposed a mind-brain philosophical model that could justify our regular three spatial dimensions in a moment of time experience of reality, as well as the infinite, survival after death, altered states of consciousness, and psi. This is the Neppe-Close philosophy of Unified Monism, incorporating their TDVP scientific and mathematical model. This is well supported. and allows a different perspective from the philosophically restricted options of ‘Consciousness is derivative of Space-Time or Mass-energy’ or vice versa: ‘Consciousness’ in this context has its own dimensional ‘extent’ identity—this ‘extent’ of consciousness is necessarily inseparably tethered to Space and Time. They argued that life, and order have links with the infinite, and that there is still meaning in the inanimate.

However, ironically, that Mexican award preceded what might have developed into even more major contributions, which were direct results of those previous hypotheses and findings. But this time they could prove their work mathematically and extend it in paradigm shifting ways. These scientists were able to mathematically demonstrate that finite reality involves 9 spinning dimensions, that all particles are in union with the third property ‘gimmel’ thought to be consciousness at least in part, that this gimmel is mass-less and energy-less and in union with mass and energy such that every fermionic particle at the subatomic level have different properties and that the materialistic model of the atom is refuted, and that the proportions of dark matter and dark energy to the cosmos, correlates exactly with the ratio of gimmel to TRUE in the equivalent cosmological elements, namely predominantly Hydrogen and also Helium. These findings suggest that the same laws of nature apply for quantum, macroscopic and cosmological levels, something different from current thinking about ‘quantum weirdness’.

Effectively, their work goes a long way to showing that spirituality and science are linked together and that mathematics is part of the broader reality of our existence, not just a way of calculating.
These scientists look forward to furthering their work and facilitating others to incorporate these concepts into their further research. They have never received any funding and hope this recognition may be an impetus for this to change.

This is a preliminary announcement: For the present, we can direct readers to www.VernonNeppe.org. More detail will be found particularly at http://vernonneppe.com/major_m edia.aspx.

Readers might find the YouTubes on www.vernon.neppe.org/presents. html also useful, plus research pages like http://www.vernonneppe.org/res earch.php and Dr Edward Close’s blogs on http://www.erclosetphysics.com / .

Thursday, August 25, 2016

THE SINGULARITY CONTRADICTION IN MAINSTREAM SCIENCE


SINGULARITY

Just what is a singularity? Merriam-Webster defines a singularity as follows:
1.      :  something that is singular, as
a :  a separate unit
b :  unusual or distinctive manner or behavior : a pecularity
2.     :  the quality or state of being singular

3.     :  a point at which the derivative of a given function of a complex variable does not exist but every neighborhood of which contains points for which the derivative does exist
4.     :  a point or region of infinite mass density at which space and time are infinitely distorted by gravitational forces…
We will be talking about singularities in the sense of definitions 3 and 4. Definition #3 defines a mathematical singularity in terms of algebraic functions and differential calculus. In non-technical terms, it simply means a dimensionless point. Definition #4 is the physics definition of a singularity, derived from Einstein’s general relativity, describing, e.g., the theoretical origin of the universe in the big-bang theory.
In his 2006 non-fiction book about artificial intelligence and the future of humanity, futurist Ray Kurzweil uses the term the Singularity, in the sense popularized by Vernor  Vinge in a 1993 essay "The Coming Technological Singularity”. Kurzweil introduces what he calls a law of accelerating returns, and predicts a rapid increase in technology, leading to a technological singularity that will transform humanity by enhancing our physical lives with genetic alterations, nanotechnology, and artificial intelligence. Once the Singularity has been reached, Kurzweil says that machine intelligence will be more powerful than all human intelligence combined.

My short story about “Kurzweil’s Singularity” is fictional, of course, but it raises some serious questions. The current materialistic scientific paradigm is based on some assumptions that may or may not be true. One such assumption is that consciousness ‘emerges’ only when a certain level of complexity arises either from natural biological evolution or human technology. But what does emergence mean? Is consciousness a localized field of some sort? Is it some form of energy that we haven’t yet discovered? Is consciousness something from nothing, or is it created in some way, originating at the point when there is sufficient complexity of a specific type? If so, created from what? If fields of consciousness are created from energy, there may be ways to determine where that energy comes from. We can ask the following questions:

Is there less mass or energy associated with the structure of an organism when consciousness arises, or more? If there is less that would indicate that the organism’s consciousness is created, at least in part from some of the mass and/or energy of the organism. On the other hand, if there is no difference or there is more, that would indicate that consciousness is being created from mass and/or energy from the surrounding environment. The answer to these questions could be determined experimentally, if the moment of the awakening of conscious awareness can be determined. In the case of an AI machine like the one postulated in science fiction stories, this should be easy to do.
Consciousness, as we experience and observe it, seems to be associated to some extent with all sorts of organic life forms in different ways, depending on the ability of each specific life form to express it. An ant, e.g., exhibits consciousness differently than a bird or a bear, but all three are aware of their surroundings, and awareness is at least one indication of the presence of consciousness. There is also very convincing evidence that plants have some level of awareness. Does the obvious association of consciousness with life mean that organic life and consciousness are one and the same thing, or that life is a requirement for consciousness? Can, or does consciousness exist without life? Some quantum physicists have suggested that a form of consciousness may exist in elementary particles, because particles seem to ‘know’ what other particles are doing in situations like the double-slit and delayed-choice experiments. It seems that with the current scientific paradigm, we don’t know much about consciousness or its relationship to organic life, and yet life and consciousness are what most defines us as human beings.

Considering the theory favored by AI enthusiasts, that consciousness emerges from physical complexity, the most important question is: does physical complexity produce consciousness, like clouds produce rain; i.e., is the relationship between physical complexity and consciousness causal, or was consciousness there all along, just waiting for the right combination of electro-chemical-physical conditions through which it can become manifest? Using TRUE quantum unit analysis, we have shown that the latter is correct. Consciousness is primary.


The current scientific paradigm is based on the unproven metaphysical assumptions of materialism. Strangely enough, it has led to the conclusions that the universe originated in a mathematical singularity, and in the case of epiphenomenal consciousness, that consciousness originates from a singularity, in other words, reality is something from nothing, which is a strange position for materialists, since the basic assumption of materialism is that the material universe is the only objective reality. This logical contradiction that the physical universe originated from a non-physical source, i.e. nothingness, eliminates materialism as a viable basis for a scientific paradigm. TDVP replaces materialism by demonstrating that reality consists of three forms: mass, energy and consciousness, interacting in a 9- dimensional domain of space, time and consciousness. See posts on TRUE quantum units and TRUE analysis.

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.