##
The role of TDVP

From the broader viewpoint of TDVP, it is not surprising that
mainstream science, focused as it is on the limiting philosophy of reductionist
materialism, has lost touch with its metaphysical roots, and thus cannot
explain how it is that a large part of reality is not available to us for
direct observation, but makes its existence known only indirectly through
quantum phenomena like non-locality and quantum entanglement, as well as the
near light-speed vortical spin of fermions

^{7};^{69}^{28}^{; }^{70}and the effects of so-called dark matter and dark energy^{7}^{; }^{12}^{; }^{69}in the rotation of spiral galaxies^{ }^{45}
TDVP also answers the real need to
explain why we sometimes catch glimpses of a broader reality in rare
extra-corporeal (out-of-body) experiences and other documented

*psi*phenomena. The current mainstream scientific paradigm cannot explain so-called anomalous phenomena and the “missing” portions of reality because there is no place in its formulation for phenomena that may involve more than matter and energy interacting in three-dimensions of space and one dimension of time. TDVP, on the other hand, reveals a multi-dimensional reality and the need to recognize a third form of reality, not measurable as mass or energy, in the equations of science. As we shall see, TDVP provides a theoretical basis for a much deeper understanding of reality, as well as providing the appropriate tools for exploring it.**Refutation of atomic materialism**

In other publications, we
have refuted materialism at the atomic level mathematically

^{1}. This is because protons plus neutrons plus electrons alone, or quarks plus electrons alone cannot form the stable integral combinations that we call atoms and molecules. There has to be a third substance.^{1}Without extra TRUE units of “gimmel”, volumetrically atoms cannot exist as stable combinations of integer multiples of TRUE units.^{11}
Effectively, this means
that our current perception of any atom or element without gimmel, the
mass-less, energy-less third substance, most likely linked with consciousness,
will not provide an atom that can exist for any length of time, which is why
the pure Standard Model of reductionist materialist Physics has to be
incorrect.

^{1}Moreover, although we’re dealing with gimmel here, even without applying gimmel calculations, the mathematical derivation cannot result in stable atoms even when applied either volumetrically or based on mass calculations.^{1}Effectively, the quantal concept of the atom existing in a universe of pure materialism is simply incorrect because without a third substance it cannot be an integer.^{ }^{1}^{, }^{11}#
DO WE LIVE IN AN ACCIDENTAL UNIVERSE OF RANDOM COINCIDENCES? (PART 6)

Dividing the world of our experiences
into the internal or subjective and the external, assumed to be completely
independent of any form of consciousness as the current scientific paradigm
does, alienates consciousness from the ‘real’ world of the physical universe
and leads to an endless chain of irresolvable paradoxes. Consciousness remains
left out of the equations of mathematics and physics.

##
Alternate realities

The prevalence of this attitude among
scientists is expressed very well by MIT physicist and science writer Alan
Lightman in his 2014 book

*“The Accidental Universe”*. We know that if any one of a number of cosmological parameters were only a minimally different, there would be no chance for life as we know it. In talking about the apparent ‘fine-tuning’ of the physical universe, Lightman points out that*“Intelligent Design is an answer to fine-tuning that does not appeal to most scientists.”*(p. 12)^{71}^{r }However, when confronted with the observer-related non-locality of Bohr’s solution to the EPR paradox^{72}, many scientists have preferred the “multiverse theory”, devised to preserve the ostensible Cartesian duality of a separate mind and body, except that the “mind” for them does not have relevance or exist, and the preference is to keep consciousness completely out of the picture of ‘scientific objectivity’. The “multiverse” has also been called the "alternate universes", meta-universe and parallel universes. Technically, with some linguistic and descriptive variations, they usually refer to as hypothetical sets of infinite or finite possible universes including our current 3S-1t human living experiences.
In the multiverse theory, there are
many, many parallel universes. Just how many there are is unknown and
unknowable, because your consciousness only exists in this one, and
unfortunately you cannot experience any of the other universes. Thus, just like
the spate of string theories, there is no hope of proving or disproving such a
theory. Even though these scientists pride themselves in being ‘hard-nosed’
objective scientists (read:

*materialists*), it doesn’t seem to bother them that string theory and the multiverse theory cannot be tested.
These models together
comprise everything that exists relating to the entirety of space, time and
matter and energy, plus the laws and constants in physics and biology that
describe them. These constants likely vary with each “world”, and amongst the
variations are describing probabilities. These superficially appear theoretical
models that sound possibly
feasible but they have their difficulties. At best, these models can
only be internally consistent (reflecting ostensibly feasible possibilities)
and thus, applying Popperian falsifiability, do not even qualify as scientific
hypotheses

^{73}. Variations occur for example, in Tegmark’s model, the limitations are set mathematically.^{68}^{; }^{74}##
LFAF: Multidimensional
approaches

These models could qualify
scientifically using the Neppe-Close model of Lower Dimensional Feasibility, Absent Falsification” (LFAF)

^{41}if they were feasible, but there are some problems, such as lack of dimensional definitions, category errors, internal contradictions of knowledge that are not taken into account, and definitions of the finite and infinite. We must be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath water and LFAF is directly involved with the study of multiple dimensions beyond the 3S-1t domain of the world revealed by our physical senses.^{6}^{; }^{75}^{5}The difficulty with these models is not so much what is conceptualized as what is ignored and left out; and what is ignored are aspects that we regard as key features of reality, namely additional dimensions, including dimensions of time and consciousness. The most basic axioms and theorems of pure number theory, confirmed by the calculus of dimensional distinctions^{10}, point to the existence of at least*nine finite dimensional domains,*sequentially embedded in groups of three. There is compelling evidence from relativity and quantum experimental data that the dimensions of each of these additional triadic dimensional domains, encompassing the 3S-1t domain, have progressively much more complex qualities than the dimensions of the domain available to us through the physical senses.###
Calculus of distinctions and LFAF

The
current standard model theories appear to make the category error of equating
space and time, on the other hand, the TDVP model of a reality of at least
nine-dimensions has clarified phenomena not explained by the current standard
model, promises to explain more, and even more importantly, promises to unify
all of our understanding of reality under one consistent paradigm. We make
these comments not as pure speculations but as important pieces of the jigsaw
puzzle of science. It does this by applying the Calculus of Distinctions (CoD)
to clarify the relationship of dimensional measures to mass and energy, which
in CoD reflect content. Therefore, although the current standard model paradigm
might be feasible scientifically applying LFAF, it is difficult to fit their
jigsaw pieces together when, at least in most varieties of the standard model,
there are contradictions of category errors, and infinity is not incorporated
in them.

###
Careful analyses with LFAF

Therefore,
just because the theoretical concepts are feasible, the models have to show
internal consistency and take into account all pieces of the jigsaw puzzle of
reality. We believe that not only are many pieces missing because they take
into account only 3S-1t, if the remaining further dimensions (e. g. our
demonstrated 9-dimensional spin model) are ignored, some of those jigsaw puzzle
pieces would simply not fit together.

To
generalize is difficult, because each model is sometimes slightly or sometimes
grossly different. However, a legitimate theory must be internally consistent
taking everything into account. The limitation to the current models of physics
and perceptions of multiple 3S-1t existences might involve incomplete knowledge
because such factors as psi, non-locality, altered states of consciousness are
not properly taken into account, and sometimes, not at all.

#
SUPPORT FOR THE HYPOTHESIS OF A 9-DIMENSIONAL SPIN FINITE REALITY MODEL
(PART 7)

**Validity of 9-D spin**

The validity and predictive power of a 9-dimensional spin finite
reality model is now well-established by the previous work of Close and Neppe

^{26}^{9}. This predominantly relates to the first major discovery associated with the Neppe-Close Triadic Dimensional Vortical Paradigm (TDVP): derivation of the*exact*value of the Cabibbo angle from 9-dimensional spin model principles, but is also substantiated by additional supporting discoveries and data. The 9-D model is also necessary and important in the derivation of TRUE (Triadic Rotational Units of Equivalence) units and the third substance, gimmel.
Consequently, it is appropriate to discuss briefly the support
for the 9-dimensional finite spin model here. The Cabibbo mixing angle is an
empirically derived theoretical mixing angle in particle Physics that could not
be derived from the prevalent current Standard Model of Particle Physics.
Consequently, the reason why the strange empirical Cabibbo angle value of
around 13.04 degrees perplexed scientists for 50 years

^{25}might have been because apparently, no-one had tested a 9-D spin hypothesis before. Our work in 2012 provided a solution.^{24}^{; }^{26}^{}

Close and Neppe applied well-defined physics, with well
substantiated empirical data, including well-defined constants such as the Bohr
radius (radius of the hydrogen atom), speed of light, Planck’s constant, rest
mass of the electron, its radius and charge, the Coulomb constant, Ï€ and added
well-defined equations and principles, such as the Lorentz correction, the
principle of conservation of angular momentum, kinetic energy equation, De
Broglie’s wave equation, Coulomb’s equation, the centrifugal force equation,
the wave length of a rotating body and calculations of magnetic moment. These
applications allowed for a detailed mathematical derivation of the mixing angle
of elementary particle fermions, exemplified by a Cabibbo-like mixing angle in
elementary particles, with the empirical calculation in quarks already having
been found to have been the 13.04 degrees±0.05 and our derived figure being
13.032 degrees.

^{24}Furthermore, a thought experiment replication that we did found the figure to be 13.0392 degrees.^{76}
The authors also applied
these principles to fermion rotation and intrinsic spin

^{28}^{; }^{70}utilizing the basic concepts of a unified space-time-consciousness theory of finite reality from the Neppe-Close Triadic Dimensional distinction Vortical Paradigm (TDdVP)^{5}. This included applying two new mathematical techniques that we have developed as part of this TDVP model, namely dimensional extrapolation across rotating dimensions, and the principles of the calculus of distinctions.^{10}
We have shown how only a 9-dimensional vortical (spin) model
produces a legitimate derivation. These results can easily be replicated by
applying the relatively simple mathematics to the dynamic rotation of
elementary particles as nine-dimensional objects.

However, both the Standard Model of Particle Physics and the
various String Theories with folding
dimensions and none of which involve 9-dimensional spin, fail. This result can

__only__be derived by applying the dynamic rotation of elementary particles as nine-dimensional objects: Results using any other dimensional models with any number of dimensions besides 9 are falsified, although exponents of 9 (e.g. 81 dimensions) are not directly falsified.
Deriving the Cabibbo mixing angle mathematically supports a
component of the broader TDVP hypothesis, namely that finite reality consists
of a 9-dimensional vortical (spinning) model. As sentient beings, we may be able to distinguish only part of our
finite reality, reflecting only our subjective 3S-1t experience of three
spatial dimensions, in the present part of one time dimension. Nevertheless,
those 4 dimensions could reflect part of the feasibility of the larger 9-dimensional
spin (vortical) unified finite reality
of the essential substrates, including mass/energy measurement of subatomic
particles. This may produce results that are incomplete, based on the overt
experiencing of three dimensions of space within a moment of time.

^{26}Yet, some dimensions may be hidden from us in our restricted 3S-1t subjective reality and we might get a more complete picture from mathematical analysis of particles spinning in 9D.
Our 9D spin findings,
because of their breadth, have generated several novel ideas for testing and
application. The authors have proposed
that the essential substance of finite reality manifests as various
dimensionally related combinations of matter, energy and consciousness in 9
finite dimensions. On-going research includes analyzing the third
substance of reality we have called “gimmel”.

^{1}We propose that this third mass-less, energy-less substance is most likely related to consciousness, and that it is appropriate to examine this hypothesis in this paper. Although the TDVP hypothesis of a 9-dimensional finite reality is strongly supported by our findings, the relevant mathematical derivations do not explicitly reveal the nature of specific qualities of the dimensional substrates of Space, Time and gimmel as the postulated substance of consciousness.##
The TDVP model and the multiverse

Our TDVP model of
“life-tracks” has some superficial similarities to the multiverse because it
recognizes that in the continuous infinite different experiential realities may
exist. The universes are not parallel or alternate. They are very real in that
they are dynamically existing, but they are covert and in the physical reality
are limited to single individual choices.

^{8}^{77}. Effectively, Consciousness is part of the equation of the measurable extent of reality just as space and time is. These make up numerous quantized finite dimensions, and these in turn, are embedded in an infinite continuity. Moreover, the content of Consciousness is as legitimate as mass and energy, not something to be excluded.
Therefore, the major difference in TDVP compared with the more
classical broad ideas of parallel existences, is the critical inclusion of
consciousness as part of that objective reality. The jigsaw feasibility puzzle
here is producing testable results and explaining observations that the current
materialistic paradigm cannot explain. Individual consciousness and a
unification of realities (what we call Unified Monism) allow for the
development of events that could change because of freedom of choice creating
branches of a tree that may register in 3S-1t reality. These trees are tiny
components of an infinite forest. So these do not reflect everything that
exists. What exists is a reality that is molded and exhibits an infinite continuity
and is dynamic and modifiable. In the classical multiverse, this is a finite
series of events that happen, or parallel worlds, or transfinite realities.

^{77}The infinite is not perceived as an infinite continuity as in the TDVP concept of the infinite.*In this paper, we take the time to explain exactly how we put consciousness into the equations as part of objective reality, and show how doing so explains many things inexplicable in the current materialistic paradigm.*

**NOTE: This paper in its entirety is available on www.**

**iqnexus.org.**
## No comments:

## Post a Comment