Friday, December 18, 2015
PUTTING CONSCIOUSNESS INTO THE EQUATIONS PARTS 2 & 3
Many physicists, including Einstein, Pauli and Hawking have dreamt of a ‘theory of everything’. But to this point, their dreams have not been fulfilled. The reason is simple. You can’t have a theory of everything if you doggedly exclude a major part of Reality from your theory. That major part of Reality excluded by contemporary reductionist science has two components, consciousness and infinity.
In this paper, we focus on the first concept, consciousness, in the context of that component of reality that we call the “finite” because that involves discrete quantized integral components that can be analyzed according to the principles of dimensionality.
Based on empirical findings in chemistry and also involving collider data and mathematical applications, our work extends Theoretical Physics. This extension is because this involves 9 dimensional spin models not just the 3 dimensions of space in a moment in (3S-1t) which is the basis of most current theorizing. Whereas 3S-1t can explain a great deal, our work has shown there are limits to some solutions that can only be solved by applying a 9-dimensional spin model. Because this involves going beyond the experiential 3S-1t to 9D finite spin, examination of life, and consciousness components, a new science Dimensional Biopsychophysics has developed.
For many years, we have insisted that the dream of a theory of everything is never going to be realized until we find a way to put consciousness into the equations of science. Close found the way to do this-using a new mathematical tool called the Calculus of Distinctions. The calculus of distinctions is critical not the traditional Newtonian-Leibnizian infinitesimal calculus, because empirically, this is what we should be applying as everything quantal is integral. We do not just tend towards zero. In reality, in the finite, we stop at the minimum being quantal, not at the tendency towards the zero of Newtonian calculus. The inspiration came to Close in a dream in 1986, and he published it in 1990 in a book entitled “Infinite Continuity” 35. But then, and even today, most scientists are unwilling to invest the considerable effort to learn this whole new system of mathematical logic. Therefore this is accessible only to a few. In this paper we discuss this further.
Since 1989, we have been determined to find a better way to explain putting the fundamental reality of Consciousness into the equations of science. In 1996, the mathematician and physicist, Edward Close PhD published the book “Transcendental Physics” 36, in an effort to make his 1990 work more accessible 35. It still reached a few more scientists interested in the merging of science and spirituality. One who shared Close’s vision, and became his research partner for the past seven years, was the neuroscientist Fellow of the Royal Society (SAf), Vernon Neppe, MD, PhD. Together Drs. Close and Neppe developed a comprehensive framework, a paradigm for the science of the future. We call it the Triadic Dimensional Distinction Vortical Paradigm (TDVP). It was first published as “Reality Begins with Consciousness” in 2012 37, and has been reviewed by more than 300 scientists and philosophers worldwide. We’ve also published a number of technical papers, and recently, we’ve found a way to explain the revelations of the Calculus of Distinctions of 1989, 1996 and 2011, in a more accessible way 10; 38. This paper does that, and in the process, we believe, it does much more.
This paper provides the answer to two important questions:
1. Why is there something rather than nothing? And:
2. What is missing from the current scientific paradigm?
The answer to both questions can be summed up in one word: Consciousness. Without consciousness there could be no physical universe; and yet, there is no place in the current paradigm for consciousness. The clues that consciousness is the answer to the first question are plain in both relativity and quantum physics, but most mainstream scientists, steeped in reductionist materialism, are blind to those clues, and their belief – it is not even a valid scientific hypothesis – that the universe could exist without some primary form of the consciousness manifest in sentient life, is stubbornly maintained and the clues are ignored. This implies that there are both finite and infinite aspects to reality.
Many of the key scientists of the past were deeply spiritual (for example, Georg Cantor, Albert Einstein, Isaac Newton, Wolfgang Pauli and Max Planck) but they did not dare to introduce consciousness into the equations of science. The model of TDVP attempts to unify science and spirituality, and emphasizes the tethering of consciousness 5; 6. This clearly fits this science-spirituality dichotomy. But the materialistic belief system widely taught in our educational institutions today brings otherwise rational people to scoff at, and ridicule, any mention of any form of intelligence superior to their own. This egotistical position of mainstream scientists is justified in their minds by the successes of materialistic science. But those successes lie almost entirely in the realm of explaining superficial physical mechanisms. Deeper and ultimately much more important questions about the meaning and purpose of manifest physical reality, life and conscious awareness, are beyond their reach. Those questions, of paramount importance to humanity, are within reach of meaningful analysis when consciousness is included in the equations of science. The purpose of this paper is to show how this is done.
In this world of human experience, we will never truly understand the Nature of Reality until our searches for scientific and spiritual knowledge are merged into one serious, combined effort. Once this happens on a global scale, we maintain that humanity will experience an explosion of new knowledge and understanding far beyond anything experienced so far in the current era of recorded history. In this paper, we show how consciousness is describable in the equations of quantum physics and relativity, and a few of the explanatory revelations produced as a result. And, we regard this is only the tip of the iceberg!
In 1714, the German polymath Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz stated that the most important question of all is: “Why is there something rather than nothing?”1 Science proceeds from the assumption that there is something, something that we perceive as the physical universe. In order to investigate this something that we appear to be immersed in, we go about trying to weigh and measure the substances it is made of and look for consistent structures and patterns in it that can be described mathematically. We call such mathematical descriptions “Laws of Nature”.
To find the laws governing the relationships between different features of physical reality, we have to define a system of units with which to weigh and measure those features. Historically, units of measurement have been chosen somewhat arbitrarily. For example, the units of the so-called English Imperial System were based on the practice of measuring things with what one always had at hand: parts of the human body. A horse was so many “hands” high; one could measure rope or cloth by “inching” along its length with a joint of one’s thumb or finger. Short horizontal distances were measured in multiples of the length of one’s foot, or the distance from the tip of one’s nose to one’s thumb on a laterally extended arm, and a mile was 1000 paces, when a pace consisted of two steps. Since not all people are the same size, measurements obtained this way are somewhat variably inaccurate. Consequently, units were eventually standardized so that the measurements of a given object, carefully obtained by anyone, should always be the same. But, even though units of measurement were standardized in many countries, the basic unit was not necessarily the same from one country to the next.
As physical science advanced, the need for international standards grew, and the international system of units (SI) based on invariant physical constants occurring in nature, with larger units being multiples of ten s the smallest unit, was developed. The number base of 10 was chosen because it was already used almost worldwide. It was a natural outcome of counting on one’s fingers, and starting over after every count of ten. Science generally uses SI units now for two reasons:
1. All but three countries of the 196 countries on the planet (the US, Liberia and Burma) use the SI metric system as their primary system of measurement. This is significant, even though the UK still uses a mixture of the two systems, as does the US and a few other countries to a lesser extent.
2. Computations are simplified when all units are related by multiples or factors of 10, eliminating the odd fractions relating inches, feet and miles, ounces and pounds, pints quarts and gallons, etc. in the English system.
Why are we pointing this out? In the process of developing the TDVP model, we find a need now to define a new unit of measurement based on discoveries of quantum physics and relativity. The purpose of this paper is to explain why a new basic unit is needed and how it is derived. It may seem to come as a surprise, that in the process, we provide an answer for Leibniz’s “most important question”, and introduce new science.
Beyond seeking practical applications that improve the quality of life, the motivation behind our efforts in science, religion and philosophy is the desire to know and understand the true nature of reality. Science, as we know it, is the science developed during the past 800 years. This is a very short compared to the length of life has existed on this planet: less than two ten-millionths of the apparent age of the Earth. This science seeks to understand the reality experienced through the physical senses in terms of the measurable parameters of matter, energy, space, and time. It is only in the past century, that based on a number of clues from relativity and quantum physics, we have recognized that science is incomplete. And it may be only in the past decade, that we have identified an urgent need to include the conscious actions of the observer in the equations of science. This is why we argue that Consciousness is truly the missing link in the current scientific paradigm.
In a universe where consciousness is an integral part of reality, meaningful structure is no accident. Conscious entities are able to recognize meaningful order and patterns in the reality they experience and interact with certain aspects of it to enhance and perpetuate existing meaningful patterns and structures that are beneficial to their existence and growth, creating negative entropy in the process. Could it be that consciousness is and always has been present in some form, even in the very most basic structure of reality, as quantum experiments seem to indicate? If so, we may have the answer Leibniz’s question. If consciousness is an integral part of reality, continually creating meaningful structure at the quantum level, there must be a way to include it in our scientific paradigm and the mathematics that describes it.The Neppe-Close TDVP model 8, and particularly Close’s Calculus of Distinctions 10; 38 and his Dimensional Extrapolation 3, plus the re-application of critically important largely ignored principles of number theory including Diophantine Equations and with Close’s Conveyance Expression, reflect serious efforts to upgrade the mathematics of the physical sciences 9 to include the direct and indirect involvement of consciousness 39. If successful, there is reason to believe that this new paradigm will provide a comprehensive framework within which all the branches of science can be expanded to include phenomena heretofore excluded from scientific investigation.