Sunday, February 28, 2016



In the last post, we concluded that the big bang expanding universe is an illusion. But it is a measurable illusion. The universe as we perceive it through the physical senses is a reflection of a small part of reality, but certainly not reality itself. But, if something can be weighed and measured, how can it be an illusion? In this post, I will attempt to shed some more light on the ever-receding illusion of smoke and mirrors we call the universe. If I succeed, the light shed on the illusion will be reflected back three-fold and then six-fold, and nine-fold, etc. like the images in two mirrors facing each other in a restroom, with smaller and smaller images stretching to the edge of perception, -except instead of reflections in two-dimensional mirrors, we have three-dimensional quantum images endlessly reflected like fractals in two five-dimensional reciprocating mirrors, stretching on, into infinity.

Since the invention of the telescope by a Dutch eyeglass maker in 1608, astronomers have been trying to understand what the universe is and how it works by reducing what they see in the telescope to mathematical formulas and using those formulas to predict things, and then going back to the telescopes to look for the predicted phenomena. This process has been repeated over and over again by astronomers, astrophysicists and cosmologists. The process is the same even with radio telescopes like the one in Arecibo, Puerto Rico that I visited in 1973. I was impressed with the wild orchids growing out of the limestone walls of the giant sink hole it is located in, as we walked around the huge parabolic disc, to rappel down into the Rio Tanama’, below.

When the math used was Kepler’s ellipses and Newton’s laws, the universe appeared to run like clockwork, with a few minor aberrations. When Einstein added Minkowski’s math the aberrations disappeared, and with the math of Schrӧdinger and Heisenberg, quantum physics added a touch of uncertainty. But the universe was understandable and predictable within practical limits. But quantum mechanics threw a bit of a monkey wrench into the works. We began to see hints of something else, something profound and unexpected: the consciousness of the observer was indicated as a critical part of the picture. And when Vera Rubin’s discovery of ‘something’ which was not the matter and energy we were familiar with, making up much of the universe was finally recognized as real and the universe that seemed simple and clock-like, even with Einstein’s general relativity, became dark and mysterious again.

Physical scientists in general, and cosmologists in particular, realized that for some unknown reason, much of reality is hidden. Not only do our senses detect just a narrow speck of the spectrum of energies available in the universe, there is also a huge part of the universe that is not made of the matter and energy we have been studying for centuries. In 2010, the seven-year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) data allowed us to determine the cosmological constants and distances with great precision, telling us that: the universe is 13.77 billion years old, the Hubble constant is 70.4, the universe has a pretty ‘flat’ geometry (within four tenths of one percent of having no curvature, i.e., being Euclidean), and is 24% ‘dark matter’, & 71.4% ‘dark energy’ leaving only 4.6% ordinary matter and energy as we know it. One could say that we have very precisely determined how little we know about the universe.


With Gӧdel’s Incompleteness Theorems, and the Calculus of Distinctions, the universe becomes conscious and infinite. The exploration of the hidden part of reality is the future of science. The future of cosmology is much greater than its past. We have not fully explored even the 4.6% of it we know as the physically observable universe. 95.4% of it is still unknown, beckoning us to come out of the dark ages of simple materialistic corner of science, into the far reaches of the nine dimensions of space, time and consciousness.

Saturday, February 27, 2016


I have argued in these posts that mathematics is far more than a tool invented by human beings for solving problems that can be translated into numbers; that in fact, the logical structure of mathematics is a reflection of the logical structure of the universe. If I am right, mathematical theorems, like the Pythagorean Theorem, Fermat’s Last Theorem, and Gӧdel’s Incompleteness Theorems embody deep facts about reality and the universe. In this post, I will demonstrate this with an example: the history of our knowledge about the universe.

Gӧdel’s Incompleteness Theorems prove that no logical system is ever complete. The universe, which I believe is the ultimate logical system, is the ultimate example. The observable physical universe appears to be expanding away from us at a rate that is always greater than our ability to observe it. During my lifetime, astronomers’ estimates of the size of the universe have been revised upward a number of times. I remember headlines like: “Astronomers say the universe is twice as large as we thought it was!” And: “The size of the universe is three times as great as previously estimated.” And, on it went. In 1928, an astronomer from Iowa, Edwin Hubble, discovered that the red shift in light from distant stars increased with the distance to the star, indicating that the universe might be expanding.

Hubble reasoned that an expanding universe, if it started expanding from a point at some time in the past, the size of the universe would depend upon the length of time back to the ‘big bang’ beginning. Using the best estimate of distance at the time, which was based on how the brightness of a certain well-known type of star varies with distance, he estimated the size of the universe. His estimate of the age of the universe, however, was less that the carbon-dated age of the oldest rocks on the Earth! Obviously, something was wrong.

Only 8 years after his epic discovery of the red shift, Hubble had doubts that the universe was actually expanding. He was quoted in a Time Magazine article, dated December 14, 1936 saying:
To assume that the shifts really indicate receding velocity forces one to adopt a very curious model of the universe …The model is closed and very small – a large fraction of it can be observed with existing telescopes – and is packed with matter to the very threshold of perception … In short, the necessary adjustments and compensations suggest that the [expanding universe] model may be a forced interpretation of the data.

But, in spite of Hubble’s misgivings about the expanding universe theory, the big bang theory is generally accepted as fact by mainstream astronomy and current data from the Hubble Space Telescope indicate that the universe is 10 times greater than Hubble estimated in 1936. In just 80 years, our best estimate of the size of the universe has increased ten-fold.

The current Hubble Telescope data also indicate that the rate of expansion of the universe is increasing, and the red-shift in the light from sources at the edge of the visible universe indicates that they are flying away with velocities approaching the speed of light. This begs the question: If the universe is expanding at light speed, is it not effectively infinite?

In the last post, we saw that the discovery of non-physical gimmel as a real part of the stable structure of space-time consciousness reality, leads to the following conclusion: Recognition of the role of consciousness as the organizing factor of physical reality, if we take any point in the nine-dimensional domain containing the physical universe as the space-time point of origin of the universe as we know it, we find that Hydrogen, Deuterium and Helium atoms had to already exist then and there, and this means that, as indicated by the calculus of distinctions, the expanding universe is a perceptual reality, measurable in 3S-1T, but it is ultimately an illusion. 

This illusion we call the physical universe is completely consistent with the hypothesis that the universe exists as a logical system subject to Gӧdel’s Incompleteness Theorems.

Thursday, February 25, 2016


In the last post I mentioned how a genius with one of the highest IQs ever documented has withdrawn from the world to a remote location in Australia after concluding that general knowledge of the understanding he has attained, if released, would spell the end of the world as we know it. I only learned of this when we sent him a summary of our quantum research findings, and attempted to get an invitation to visit him while I was in Australia in 2011. Since he didn’t invite me to visit, and he wasn’t specific about the nature of what he considered to be very dangerous knowledge, I wasn’t sure to exactly what concept or concepts he was referring.

Since 2011, I’ve had time to think about it and I have identified what I think was the probably the knowledge the disappearing genius was so concerned about. I outlined it in the last post; it was the concern that, due to the principles of quantum mechanics, the observation of the moment of the big bang will reduce the wave function of the universe to a single state in which everything is determined.  Then, as Laplace, Descartes and others have believed, with our knowledge of the physical laws governing the universe and the initial conditions of the origin event (the big bang), all the details of the past, present and the future, however minute or extensive, can be known. This would be a state of total predetermination, which would rob us of any incentive. Total knowledge of the past, present and future would destroy the enjoyment of risk taking and adventure into the unknown. In a finite deterministic universe, a computer program could print out the entire history of one’s life on the day of birth. Would anyone want to live in a world like that?

Is this scenario real? Let’s look at some more evidence:

Another way of understanding what quantum physics has taught us, consistent with Bell’s Theorem and the Aspect experiment, is: in order to avoid the EPR paradox, we have to accept the fact that elementary phenomena only become localized phenomena when they impact irreversibly on receptors. They do not exist like little baseballs in flight between the source, (e.g. a sub-atomic reaction or an LHC collision) and reception (observation and measurement), they exist in a state of multiple probabilities until an observation is complete.  John A. Wheeler, Nobel Prize winning physicist and a student of Einstein’s at Princeton, put it this way:

“No elementary phenomenon is a phenomenon until it is a registered phenomenon.”
Wheeler applied this principle to astronomical observations and noted that conscious choices made in the present could affect things in the past, even the very distant past. See his book “At Home in the Universe” page 126, for the thought experiment that led to the Delated-choice experiment. He noted that when light from a distant star is bent around a galaxy acting like a gravity lens, we can determine on which side of the galaxy a photon passed millions of years ago, by the way we choose to set up our observation today. This led him to propose a laboratory experiment called the delayed-choice, double-slit experiment that would prove or disprove the validity of Bohr’s solution to the EPR paradox, the idea that elementary phenomena only become localized when they impact irreversibly on receptors, and that before that they exist in a state of multiple probabilities until an observation is complete.
 Here’s how it works: A light source is set up to shine on a wall with two slits in it and a photographic plate is placed on a second wall on the other side of the first wall from the light source. Photons behave like waves if both slits are open, and like particles if one slit is closed. This means that whether a photon is a particle or wave depends on a choice that the physicist makes. Furthermore, Wheeler thought, if Bohr’s answer to the EPR paradox and the results of experiments like the Aspect experiment based on Bell’s theorem are correct, and there is no objective phenomenon until it registers on a receptor, we should be able to make the choice to open or close a slit any time before the light impacts the photographic plate and get the same results. Within a few years of Wheeler’s proposal, two teams of experimental physicists, one in the US and one in Germany, independently performed the delayed-choice experiment (with photons and other elementary particles) and the experiment worked, validating the Bohr solution to the EPR paradox. The delayed-choice experiment also reveals the fact that time is not what the physical senses lead us to believe it is.
Matter/energy phenomena originating from a source on one side of the wall with the two slits in it remain in the probabilistic state described by the Schrӧdinger probabilistic wave function, until the choice to open or close one of the slits is made, as long as the choice is made any time between the time the source is turned on, and the wave or particle impacts on the photographic plate. This leads to the realization that elementary phenomena, the experimental apparatus and the conscious choice of the experimenter are all intimately connected parts of the observation.
This realization lends considerable credence to the idea that our eventual observation of the origin of the universe will reduce the entire history of the universe to one deterministic chain of cause and effect events. Quantum physics tells us that the multiplicity of possibilities that appear to be open to us now, will be reduced to one predetermined outcome. The ever-expanding possibilities of many worlds will be reduced to one concrete finite reality. The absolute knowledge of the nature of the universe will be ours. But this is not necessarily a good thing, because we will no longer have any illusion of free will. We will have destroyed the mystery of existence, and painted ourselves into the corner of absolute knowledge.

The good news is that the discovery of gimmel, the third form of the substance of reality, the part of reality that carries qualities of consciousness, changes everything. I didn’t mention gimmel in this discussion until now because we hadn’t discovered gimmel before I went to Australia in 2011. I had discovered through the application of the calculus of distinctions and Fermat’s Last Theorem why protons and neutrons are comprised of three quarks, and how to put consciousness into the equations using the calculus of distinctions, but it wasn’t until we had defined TRUE units and applied TRUE unit analysis to the Diophantine equations of the conveyance expression, that the significance of gimmel became clear.
The complete explanation of how the existence of gimmel changes things involves understanding and using the mathematical tools of TDVP, including the calculus of distinctions. A detailed presentation of the calculus of distinctions is beyond the scope of this blog, but a general description of the logic involved is not. For readers who want to pursue an understanding of the calculus of distinctions, a good place to start is with George Spencer Brown’s calculus of indications in his book “Laws of Form”. A presentation of the basics of the calculus of distinctions is provided in Appendix D in my book “Transcendental Physics’, first published in 1997, available now on
In retrospect, I’ve discovered that I had already touched upon the solution to the ‘disappearing genius’ dilemma as long ago as 1989, in my book “Infinite Continuity” published in 1990 (presently out-of-print), but I didn’t see the full implications of the paradoxes within the current cosmological paradigm until we discovered gimmel. But let me not get ahead of the story. In the chapter on Olber’s Paradox and the Red Shift in “Infinite Continuity”, the calculus of distinctions is used to test the logical consistency of the accepted resolution of Olber’s paradox* and the red shift in the current paradigm.  The results of the calculus of distinctions test of the current paradigm for consistency, are summarized on page 145:
“Our conclusions are, therefore, that relativistic time dilation and space contraction are valid perceptual distinctions and that the red shift in light from distant stars cannot be due to motion.”
On page 146, the hypothesis that resolves this inconsistency is identified: “If radiant energy can travel faster than c, the speed of light, relative to a stationary observer, then there is no reason that objects such as very distant stars may not already be moving faster than c relative to our galaxy. The limitation is in our inability to perceive speeds greater than c. This does not eliminate, however, the possibility of their existence. The question becomes: do we exist in an infinitely expanding universe that, due to our perceptual limitations, appears to be closed, or in a stable universe that only appears to be expanding?”
At the conclusion of the chapter, on page 148, we find: “If the second hypothesis {the hypothesis that the universe only appears to be expanding} is correct, current cosmology is almost completely wrong. There was no “big bang” beginning and the observational evidence that the universe is expanding is, like the constant speed for light, purely perceptual… Infinity and infinite continuity may be the primary features of reality. In this case, beginnings and endings, effects of relative motion, and quanta of matter and energy, are all illusions created by the identification of consciousness, as observers, with finite, limited forms.”
If the big-bang expanding universe is an illusion, then the end of the world scenario of our retiring genius is also an illusion. Is it possible that the popular big-bang expanding universe is an illusion? My answer is: Yes, not only is it possible, it is provable.
The mathematical/dimensionometric applications of the calculus of dimensional distinctions, dimensional extrapolation and TRUE unit analysis that lead to the proof alluded to above have been presented briefly in earlier posts, and in detail elsewhere in other publications by Neppe and Close, or Close and Neppe, most of which have been peer reviewed. Those details are beyond the scope of this discussion, but the overall logic and conclusions are not.
The ‘collapse of the universal wave function’ dilemma is resolved with the proof that reality consists of the interaction of mass, energy and consciousness in nine finite dimensions. This proof is especially strong, cogent and powerful because it corresponds with pure number theory, clarifies algebraic geometry and resolves a number of questions that have puzzled physicists for decades, including the three quark composition of protons and neutrons, the intrinsic spin of fermions and explanation of the Cabibbo mixing angle of quarks.

I hope the reader will forgive me for indulging in a little bit of rhetoric here about the beauty and elegance of the calculus of distinctions, because this rhetoric is not absolutely necessary or critical to the discussion at hand. But the beauty of the calculus of distinctions is that it is the most appropriate mathematical system possible for application to quantized reality. And when the smallest possible quantum of reality is defined as the most basic unit of description, all combinatory equations become Diophantine (i.e. integer equations) and the infinitesimals of Newtonian calculus, that cause confusion in quantum physics, are gone. The calculus of dimensional distinctions begins with three dimensions, exactly where Newtonian calculus begins to become intractable.

In the application of the calculus of distinctions and dimensional extrapolation we see that extrapolation from the 3S-1t (three dimensions of space plus one quantum point in the next dimension, the dimension of a perceptual timeline), is Euclidian, i.e. ‘flat’ as opposed to curved, whereas a four-dimensional domain (3S-1T), is non-Euclidean, meaning that it has internal curvature. By moving from 3S-1T to the next set of four mutually orthogonal dimensions, dimensional extrapolation can be accomplished again with Euclidean geometry, using the Pythagorean Theorem. It turns out that, consistent with pure number theory, a new type of number is projected after each set of three dimensions: real numbers (integers in Diophantine equations) are sufficient for the first three, but imaginary numbers, i = the square root of – 1, are needed for the next three, and complex numbers, A + Bi, are needed for the third three. These nine dimensional domains, each embedded within the next higher dimensional domain, just as the first three are, appear to be sufficient to describe all known phenomena observable in 3S-1t, the world of our physical senses.

This takes care of dimensional domains, where dimensions are defined as distinctions measureable in terms of variables of extent, - like space, time and consciousness, but what about distinctions of content, like mass, energy and information? Einstein’s work made it clear that four-dimensional physical extent, space-time, has no meaning without content, mass and energy. The calculus of distinctions makes it clear that the nine dimensional extent has no meaning without mass, energy and consciousness. When distinctions of mass and energy, which are equivalent, with their equivalence defined by the equation E = mc2, are included in the space-time dimensional domain mathematical description of reality, we have the general theory of relativity, where the curvature of four-dimensional space time is defined by mass/energy density. With the inclusion of consciousness, we have TDVP, the theory of space, time, consciousness, mass, energy, and consciousness.

With this background, we are ready to resolve the disappearing-genius, universal-wave-function collapse dilemma. From the limited perspective of 3S-1T, the propagation of light, in a non-Euclidean (curved) nine-dimensional domain, will cause distant objects to appear to move away from an observer with velocities that increase with distance. This illusion will be the same regardless of the observer’s location. This is why the cosmic background energy is so uniform and appears to be the echo of a big bang. But you may object that straight-line movement, like the propagation of light, in a symmetric non-Euclidean (curved) nine-dimensional domain will eventually return to its starting point in space and time, and that would mean that the history of the universe would be forever repeating, again destroying all spontaneity.  If so, you are slightly ahead of me.

Movement in a nine-dimensional ‘hyper-space’ reality is analogous to movement on a three-dimensional sphere, however, the universe does not consist of empty space-time. the mass/energy density of distinctions of content cause the dimensional curvature to vary near massive bodies and objects moving with velocities near light speed, and even if the effects of non-uniform density might cancel out over the great distances of an otherwise symmetric universe, quantization, with Heisenberg’s intrinsic uncertainty, might cause variations to occur that would mean that no history is ever repeated exactly. In addition, the discovery of gimmel as a real part of the stable structure of physical reality also proves the point, because taking any point in the nine-dimensional domain as the space-time point of origin of the universe as we know it, we find that Hydrogen, Deuterium and Helium atoms had to already exist, and this means that, as indicated by the calculus of distinctions test I performed in 1989, the expanding universe is a perceptual reality, measurable in 3S-1T, but ultimately an illusion.

Our common sense minds, dealing with conceptual reality constructed from the limited data supplied by our physical senses says: But how can it appear to be expanding based on physical measurements, if it is not? This is completely analogous to the arguments of people who did not understand Einstein’s relativity (and probably still don’t) who said how is it possible that two observers travelling at a large fraction of the speed of light relative to each other, can each see the other’s time slowing down? (The clock paradox.) Einstein’s answer was that there is no contradiction because each observer is measuring from his inertial frame which is moving relative to the other’s inertial frame of reference. Thinking that this is an unresolvable paradox arises from the mistaken idea that there is a universal reference time. While this appears to be the case with the relative velocities we normally experience, it simply is not so. Time dilution occurs with even the slightest relative motion, it is just too small to be noticed or measured with current technology until is a significant fraction of the speed of light.

  The bottom line: Reality is not boring.

Wednesday, February 24, 2016


Warning: That which follows may be hazardous to your mental health!

Consider the following well-known philosophical statements:

1.) Knowledge is Power
2.) Power Corrupts; and Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely

If these two statements are true, and there is abundant evidence in human history to support them, then we must conclude that:

3.) Absolute Knowledge is Absolute Power, which Corrupts Absolutely.
And therein lies the danger.

Beyond simple physical survival, the goal of seeking knowledge is to know the truth. Defining reality as truth and truth as reality, i.e., truth and reality are identically the same, we seek to know as much as we possibly can about the nature of reality. It would seem that the more we know, the more control we have, to avoid the disasters of pain, sadness and death, and prolong our enjoyment of freedom, happiness and life; …that is, up to a point. As to the possibility of having absolute knowledge, Science and mathematics tell us that we can never know everything because the universe expands away and shrinks away from us at the same time, faster than we can learn to see it, ever revealing new mysteries of the very large and the very small, while we remain stuck in the middle, and Gӧdel’s incompleteness theorems tell us that we can ask questions that have no answers in the logical system within we ask them.

But this state of affairs exists only if we confine our search for reality to domains within a closed, finite universe. The instant infinity is accepted as real, everything changes. If intelligence is more than the mechanism of the brain, if it is infinite, then that intelligence can, effectively, know everything. In fact, the way the universe works, the intelligence need not be infinite, only effectively infinite in the same manner as the expanding universe. Let me explain:

Science cannot prove, and therefore cannot say, that reality is finite. Mathematics cannot prove, and therefore cannot say, that the logical system describing reality is finite. Our knowledge of reality is finite as long as our observation and measurement of it is limited by the finite three-dimensional domain of our physical senses and extensions of them. In fact, the nature of scientific observation, and the proof of Gӧdel’s incompleteness theorems prove that the physical universe, and the reality it is part of, are effectively infinite. Here’s why:

If the physical universe is expanding away from us at speeds that approach the speed of light at the farthest distance, as indicated by the red-shift data, it is only finite if we freeze it in time, like a snapshot, and this is what we do with any observation or measurement. If we expand our observation and measurement to the farthest reaches of today’s snapshot, we find that, because we cannot exceed the speed of light within the finite portion of reality we occupy, reality has expanded beyond our reach. The logical system of mathematics that describes our current knowledge of reality is based upon axiomatic principles that are correct within the logical system describing finite reality as we know it.
But, what if we discover new aspects of reality? To obtain a logical mathematical system that encompasses the new expanded reality, we need to find the additional axiomatic principle or principles appropriate to the expanded observable reality. So the expanding universe, and our expanding knowledge of it, make reality and the mathematical system that describes it effectively infinite.
Importantly, it appears that we now stand at a point in the expansion of our knowledge of reality where we are ready to take the third step into a complete understanding of the nature of physical reality, i.e., Absolute Knowledge. The first step was the paradigm shift to Einstein’s four-dimensional space-time, mass-energy reality. The second step was the shift of Bohr, Heisenberg and Schrӧdinger’s quantum physics with quantized reality. The third step is the Close-Neppe nine-dimensional space-time-consciousness reality, a true theory of everything.

Most readers of the posts on this website know that I joined MENSA more than 30 years ago based on my Graduate Record Exam scores that indicated an IQ much higher than the 132 required for membership in MENSA. I enjoyed the MENSAN magazine and attended several MENSA gatherings and spoke at some of them including the Colloquium on Consciousness in suburban Detroit in 2002. Impressed by articles written by members of the International Society for Philosophical Enquiry (ISPE), an organization that required, among other things an IQ of 150 or above, I took their test in 2006 and became a member. I rose rapidly through the ranks of the ISPE to Senior Research Fellow, and based on my score there, I was recruited into two additional high IQ societies with even more restrictive requirements including even higher IQ scores, a high level of creativity, with documented accomplishments, and a high level of professional integrity.

In 2011 my wife Jacqui and I were invited to speak at a conference in Brisbane Australia. I knew that the founder of one of the high IQ societies I belonged to, was living in a remote part of Queensland south of the Cairns Rainforest. His documented IQ was 197. I wanted to meet him and see what he thought of TDVP. So I contacted him by email to let him know when I would be in Australia and attached some information and links to books and papers Dr. Neppe and I had published, related to our consciousness-based relativity/quantum physics paradigm shift. I received a reply from him stating that he had discovered much the same thing some years ago, but realized that general knowledge of the discovery would mean the end of the world as we know it. He also made it clear that he had retired to this remote tropical area in Eastern Australia to avoid publicity, and did not want to be disturbed. He gave me no specifics concerning exactly what he had  discovered that he believed would spell the end of the world, and no specifics concerning his location, so I was unable to meet with him, and because he asked me not to contact him further, I couldn’t learn anything more about his misgivings concerning his, and presumably our, findings.

I have been reluctant to tell anyone about this, and reluctant to pursue it further because of what appears to be a great danger to humanity. This is the first time I have written about it. I think it may have to do with the nature of multi-dimensional time and the collapse of the Schrӧdinger probabilistic wave function by conscious observation. While contemplating the mathematics of three-dimensional time a few years ago, I saw a way that time travel might actually be possible. My experience in the Great Pyramid of Giza, which I wrote about briefly in the last post, seemed to confirm this. But because time travel has the potential to destroy the world as we know it, I promised my beautiful wife Jacqui that I would not attempt to build a time machine.

The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics was Bohr and Heisenberg’s answer to the Einstein Podolsky Rosen (EPR) paradox. It said that physical systems do not have finite objective properties like particles or waves prior to being measured, and quantum mechanics can only predict a range of probabilities that measurements will produce certain results. Furthermore, the act of measurement done or arranged by conscious observers affects the system, causing the set of probabilities to reduce to only one of the possible values with the measurement. This was known as the wave-function collapse, where the wave function was the Schrӧdinger wave equation, actually a probability distribution function describing the possible quantum states before observation.
Because the basic philosophical position of most physicists was, and is, materialistic, many object to the Copenhagen Interpretation because it seems to require the involvement of the consciousness of the observer. Even Erwin Schrӧdinger, one of the architects of quantum mechanics objected to it. I think everyone has heard of Schrӧdinger’s famous cat who was said to be in a superimposed state, neither dead nor alive, in a box where a quantum process determined whether or not a poison was released, because, according to the Copenhagen interpretation, the quantum state of the mechanism that could release the poison was just a range of probabilities until observed by the experimenter. [Incidentally, if consciousness does actually cause the wave function to ‘collapse’ from a state of multiple probabilities to a single objective state, there is a flaw the famous Schrӧdinger’s cat scenario:  the consciousness of the cat was not considered. In fact, it is presumptuous to think that the consciousness of a human observer is the only effective form of consciousness at work.
Of course, Schrӧdinger never believed that the cat could be in such a state. He posed the situation as a thought experiment to underline the absurdity of the Copenhagen interpretation. But to the surprise of virtually every physicist, Bell’s inequality, sometimes called Bell’s theorem, and the Aspect experiment proved that the Copenhagen interpretation was correct, at least in principle.
Physicists who objected to the Copenhagen interpretation tried to think of alternatives that would avoid the EPR paradox without the implication that consciousness is directly involved in the shaping of reality. Alternatives include the many-worlds interpretation, the De Broglie-Bohm (pilot-wave) interpretation, and quantum de-coherence theories. But they all involve consciousness and a redefinition of time. From the simple double-slit experiment where we are able to see light as either particle or wave by the way we choose to observe it, to Wheeler’s delayed-choice experiments where the past can be determined by choices we make in the present, to resolutions of the EPR paradox, the unescapable conclusion is that the nature of reality is a product of the interaction of consciousness with a probabilistic physical universe.
Quantum physics tells us that reality exists in a state of multiple possibilities described by the Schrӧdinger wave equation until an observation is made. At the small end of the scale of the physical universe, we have a smallest possible distinction: the TRUE unit quantum distinction multiples of which define distinct finite quanta appearing out of the many possible states upon observation by a conscious observer. With the discovery of the TRUE quantum unit, defined by the limits of relativity, we have reached the bottom, so to speak, of reality. Reality at the TRUE quantum unit level has been condensed out of a range of possible states and stabilized as quarks, electrons, protons, neutrons, atoms, molecules, organic and inorganic compounds, living organisms, planets, solar systems, and galaxies, by the act of drawing finite distinctions, the act of observation. As we extend observation to the edge of the universe, we bring more and more of reality into finite non-probabilistic manifestation. Relativity and quantum mechanics has revealed the lower limit of reality. Is there an upper limit?

Hubble’s discovery of the red shift in light from distant stars increasing with distance, suggested that the universe began with an explosion from a beginning point in space and time. So we have a universe of many possibilities expanding from an unobserved quantum past. As we expand our observation farther and farther into the past by developing more and more powerful means of observation, what happens when we observe the first moment in space and time? Quantum physics tells us that the multiplicity of possibilities will be reduced to one. The ever-expanding possibility of many worlds will be reduced to one concrete finite reality. The end of knowledge and learning will be in sight: we will have absolute knowledge of the nature of reality. But is this a good thing? Or will we have destroyed the goose that laid the golden eggs?

The universe of many possibilities is one we are very familiar with. It could be argued that it is what makes life interesting, and perhaps even what makes life worth living. A world of infinite possibilities is an infinitely interesting place. The mental imagery of music and art suggest an infinity of possible worlds. Could it be that without quantum indeterminacy, the fountain of human thought, creativity, love and hate, and even self-awareness, the basis of consciousness itself, would dry up and disappear? Is the end result of science the end of the world? 
The answer in the next post..

Monday, February 22, 2016



In April of 1996 at the Tucson II: Toward a Science of Consciousness Conference at the University of Arizona in Tucson, I presented “The Case for the Non-Quantum Receptor”. The point of my presentation was that in our conscious perception of reality through the physical senses, the final receptor in the consciousness of the observer is non-physical. The basic concept was expanded upon in my third published book “Transcendental Physics”, published in 1997.

On the second day of the conference, as I was leaving the presentation hall after a very interesting presentation, I found myself walking beside an internationally known physicist. I turned to him and said “Have you started meditating yet?” He looked at me as if I had two heads, and said: “NO! Why should I?” Before I could answer, he disappeared into the crowd.

That mainstream physicist’s response typifies the conventional attitude of scientists that is still prevalent today. It reflects a belief in dualism that goes back at least to the thinking of Rene Descartes in the early 17th century. That belief confuses materialism with objectivity. Materialism is a simple philosophy that successfully answers many questions about the nature of physical reality, but it is totally unable to elucidate deeper, more important problems related to the conscious perception of reality. Relativity and quantum physics are rife with clues linking physical phenomena to consciousness, but they go unnoticed by the closed mind of a materialistic scientist. On page 206 in Transcendental Physics (now available on Amazon both as a quality paperback and as an e-book) I discuss the need for and evidence of what I call ‘inner objectivity’.

Reality is not just physical phenomena, matter and energy interacting in space and time, it also includes consciousness which is actually far more important to human experience than the mechanics of physical reality. Reality is not categorically compartmentalized the way dualistic thinking supposes it is. It is integral and undivided. Reality exists in an infinite spectrum of mass, energy and consciousness. It is the limitations of human perception and conceptualization that lead to the belief that reality can be understood by reducing it to unrelated parts and studying the fragments. The reductionist approach to science can only take us so far. In the end, we must put it all back together. The whole of reality cannot be comprehended unless we re-integrate space, time, and substance; mass, energy and consciousness. That is what the Neppe-Close paradigm shift is all about.

Let’s return now to an event mentioned in other TPhysics blog posts, including the last one: My experience in the Great Pyramid. That experience is an example of the integration of inner and outer objectivity in one event. A spinning ball of light came out of a corner of the stone walls of the Queen’s Chamber and struck me in the forehead. When it struck, I began to experience the effects of motions of which we are usually totally unaware. I immediately began to feel the spinning of the Earth and the movement of Earth around the Sun. The Earth is spinning at1040 miles per hour (MPH) at the equator, which translates to an angular velocity of about 910 mph at the Great Pyramid. In addition, the Earth’s revolution around the Sun amounts to 67,060 mph. As a result, I experienced what is known as extreme vertigo. The forces of these motions threw me to the floor and I threw up violently, and left the body. Once out of the body, I was aware of a much greater universe than we usually perceive, a universe of brilliant light of unearthly color and a wide range of sounds, a world of voices and faces, a universe of nine finite dimensions embedded in an infinite substrate.

I didn’t know until the next day that other people in the room had seen the ball of light too. I had told no one about seeing it. Until others told me that they saw the ball of light hit me, I thought it might have been purely subjective, some sort of hallucination. The fact that others had seen it, convinced me that the whole experience was real, that it was both outwardly and inwardly objective. I have spent much of the past seven years since the experience in digesting what I leaned, and integrating it as a piece of the puzzle of reality. 

In future posts, I will attempt to explain how this experience and other experiences of expanded consciousness fit into the TDVP expanded scientific paradigm.

Sunday, February 21, 2016



You, … to really see Reality,
Must go beyond you and me,
To three, and then to three times three,

To the three times three times three,
There to see the symmetry
Of atoms from the quarky three,

To the three beyond all three:
Birth, life and death of me,
To the infinities of Infinity!

You must go outside and beyond yourself to find your Self. Let me explain:

When I left the body in the Great Pyramid of Giza, I saw and moved into the three sets of three-dimensional domains: Space, time and consciousness.

Leaving the body can be painful, as in the pains of birth and death. But it can also be peaceful. We leave the body each night in deep sleep; if we did not, we would not live long.

To find the experience of Reality you must go beyond what you think of as yourself. There are three levels of this: You can go beyond body, into thought, beyond thought into Spirit, and beyond body, mind and spirit, into the Reality of Infinity.

"As above, so below." As within, without and beyond.

ERC 02/21/2016

Saturday, February 20, 2016



The LIGO scientists are to be commended on their detection of tiny magnitude long gravity waves from the collision of two black holes 29 and 36 times the mass of the Sun, 1.3 billion light years away. It is an amazing technological accomplishment. In terms of the general theory of relativity, however, it was no surprise. Most physicists knew it was only a matter of time; the time needed to develop the technology. Anyone who still harbors doubts about the validity of the theory of relativity will find its numerous successes hard to ignore. I can count at least half a dozen things explained by Einstein’s theories that Newtonian physics could not explain, including the perihelion precession of the planet Mercury, deflection of light by the mass of the Sun, the gravitational red shift of light, and the slowing of time as recorded by clocks on board planes circling the Earth compared to clocks on the ground.

Amazing and important as the detection of gravity waves is, like the detection of the Higgs boson, it is a technological triumph, not a scientific breakthrough. The only scientific paradigm shifts we’ve witnessed in modern times are relativity, with the special theory in1905, and the general theory in 1915, and quantum mechanics in 1935. Advances and discoveries since then have been the filling in of details after the paradigm shifts. TDVP, on the other hand, is a paradigm shift in the tradition of relativity and quantum physics. It requires new mathematics, and it explains things that Newtonian physics, relativity and quantum physics do not, like why three quarks form protons and neutrons, why elements like Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen and Nitrogen support life, and the ‘mixing angle’ of quarks. But, beyond that, TDVP provides the scientific basis for explaining conscious experience, even including OBEs, NDEs and psi phenomena. TDVP solves many long-standing puzzles. These explanations of puzzles not explained by classical science, relativity, quantum physics, or the standard model of particle physics have been published by Neppe and Close elsewhere, some in general terms in this blog, but most in technical papers,

More importantly, negative entropy, i.e. the movement toward logical patterns and meaningful organization in the physical structures of the universe is explained by the existence of the third form of reality, gimmel and its influence on the elements of the Periodic Table, molecular structure, and life-supporting organic compounds like amino acids, proteins, RNA, and DNA.

What does this have to do with gravity waves, microtubules and centrioles in the brain? Plenty. But we are just beginning to write the book of the nature of reality according to TDVP. So here I will only be giving broad-brush explanations and indications. 

Please stay tuned.

Friday, February 19, 2016



There is a super-abundance of food for thought in the news. I will attempt to organize my comments about these concepts into three categories:
1.) Gravity waves and space-time-consciousness domains, 2.) Cell structure and STC domains, and 3.) TRUE unit analysis and FLT related to triplet structures in 3S-1t.

In order to understand what the detection of gravity waves means, I think it is necessary to put it into the perspective of Einstein’s understanding of inertial mass and gravity in four-dimensional space-time. Einstein’s findings are counter-intuitive, and still poorly understood, even by most scientists. In spite of Einstein’s insights, validated many times, in many different ways, most people still think of space and time as separate, unchanging physical realities. In our everyday lives, it appears to work perfectly well to think of space as a uniform background within which things happen, and time as a record or history of events. But these ideas are mental constructs limited by the restrictions of our physical senses. The first clues that our common-sense view of space and time was incomplete, and probably even incorrect, began with the mathematical treatment of the propagation of electromagnetic wave energy, including visible light, with Maxwell’s wave equations around the middle of the 19th century, followed by empirical evidence that space was not what we thought in the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment in 1887.

Prior to the Michelson-Morley experiment, most scientists thought that, just as sound waves travel by alternating compression and expansion of the gaseous medium of air, light waves had to have a medium, a universal ‘ether’, through which they could travel. Air, the medium of sound waves was detectible as a physical substance made up of the molecules of certain gases. But the ether, thought to be a uniform stationary medium, had never been detected. The Michelson-Morley experiment was designed to detect the Earth’s movement through the ether (originally spelled aether, distinguishing it from the organic compound), using the interferometer.

The Michelson-Morley interferometer was set up to reveal the presence of ether by detecting the difference in the speed of light in perpendicular directions due to the motion of the Earth through the ether. Using the simple addition of velocity vectors, it was easy to calculate the expected difference in the speed of light waves travelling through the ether in the direction of the Earth’s motion around the Sun, compared with its speed when moving perpendicular to that motion, and in opposition to it. The apparatus was set up to send beams of light along two paths, perpendicular to each other, to mirrors arranged to reflect the beams back to the source, where they would interfere with each other, setting up interference patterns on a screen. The pattern was observed before and after rotating the interferometer. Interference patterns created by the intersection of the returning waves were expected to change as their relative velocities changed due to the rotation of the apparatus. The expected pattern shift was not observed. Based on these results, physicists and astronomers thought first that the ether was dragged along with large masses like the Earth, but eventually they concluded that there was no ether. That means that light somehow propagates through empty space without a medium.

The results of the Michelson-Morley experiment did not come as a surprise to at least one physicist who had been studying Maxwell’s wave equations. Albert Einstein was that physicist. . Maxwell’s wave equations, published in 1865, 22 years before the Michelson-Morley experiment, describing the movement of electromagnetic waves indicate that the speed of light has to be constant relative to its source and point of reception and/or observation regardless of relative motion. Einstein’s writings indicate that the result of the Michelson-Morley experiment was not a factor in the thought experiment central to his 1905 paper introducing the special theory of relativity. But Einstein’s conclusion was hard for the mainstream physicists of the day to accept. He concluded that the only way the speed of light could be the same for all observers was for the measurement of space and time to be different for objects and observers in relative motion.

What does this have to do with gravity waves? According to general relativity, the collision of a pair of massive objects approaching the size and density of black holes, would produce gravity waves large enough to be detected all across the universe. Such waves would travel at the speed of light and could be detected by interferometers. Einstein predicted the existence of such gravity waves in 1916, and in the 1970’s, Russell Hulse, an astrophysicist and Joseph Taylor, a physicist, discovered evidence consistent with Einstein’s prediction, that suggested that gravity waves were being emitted by a binary star system as the two stars were spiraling toward collision, and in September 2015, gravity waves produced by the collision of two black holes were actually detected by twin interferometers operated by the Laser Interferometer Observatory (LIGO).

If we accept the conclusion that the negative results of Michelson-Morley experiment prove there is no ether, then gravity waves are being propagated in the same manner as electromagnetic radiation, and can be considered to be part of the EM spectrum. This means that they travel across the universe at the speed of light. The main difference is that while the wave length of most radiation is smaller than the diameter of the source, the wave length of gravity waves detected by the LIGO interferometers are larger than the effective diameter of the source, and since colliding stars and black holes are very large, the waves produced are very long. The LIGO interferometers were designed to detect these fast moving long waves.

The LIGO interferometers are much larger than the interferometers used in the Michelson-Morley experiment. The perpendicular arms of the 1887 interferometer were 11 meters in length, while the arms of the LIGO interferometers are 4 kilometers long.  In addition, the LIGO involves two interferometer systems located far enough apart to detect long wave length distortions. Here is how the LIGO interferometers work: One very sensitive interferometer system, carefully isolated from local vibrations and movement is located in Louisiana and another one of the same size is located in Washington State, over 1800 miles away. A gravity wave, expands and compresses the measurable structure of everything, including the interferometers as it passes through. The LIGO is designed to detect and record the minute expansions and contractions and record their magnitude and of the time between them (wave length). Since they are travelling at or very near the speed of light, it is simple arithmetic to calculate the wave length (the distance between compression peaks). The first gravity wave detected from a cosmic collision was recorded by LIGO in September, 2015. Even for the collision of two black holes 29 and 36 times the mass of the Sun, 1.3 billion light years away, the magnitude of the wave detected by LIGO was tiny, about one-one thousandth of the diameter of a proton, (in the range of 3 to 4 TRUE units) and the wave length was in the 10 million kilometer range.

Consciousness researchers like Stuart Hammeroff and Roger Penrose, have hypothesized that tiny structures in the brain called centrioles, made up of in nine sets of three microtubules, are related to the functioning of consciousness in the human body. Microtubules are around 7 nanometers in diameter, a size structure that might resonate with the magnitude of gravity waves.

That's all I have time for now. Stay tuned for more on the three subjects listed above.

Wednesday, February 17, 2016



Newton and Leibniz sat on a wall,
Newton and Leibniz had a great fall,
And all the great forces of intellectual ken
Cannot put infinitesimals back together again!

We are, at long last, at the point in the history of science where science becomes poetry. Distinctions are the words, logic the meter, and the description of reality the poem. Like any good poem, the new science, TDVP, paints an enthralling picture. The dimensional domains of space, time and consciousness form the canvas, the calculus of distinctions is the paint, and the universe is the picture. Gimmel completes the picture, integrating the various parts, putting it all back together again.

Since the miraculous, inverse penultimate one-fifth of a century, 1905 to 1935, with the one-two punch of relativity and quantum mechanics, science has been fragmented. The approach has been reductionistic: take reality apart to see how it works. The extreme application of this approach is particle physics. Blast atoms apart and look at the pieces. We’ve smashed the watch with a hammer, now can we put it back together again?

Humpty-Dumpty is a story of entropy: once broken, he can’t be put back together as he was before the fall. You can’t un-ring a bell. The arrow of time, you know. But how vain and egoistic are we to imagine that we can undo nature, put asunder what God has brought together? But gimmel does what seems impossible in the physical world, it puts it all back together again, Thanks to gimmel, Nature reigns supreme with her super symmetry, and God is still on his throne!

In 1977, my first book, “The Book of Atma” was published. The introduction started with the following poem:

NARAYANA* – The “I Am”
Narayana fills all things
Narayana has no name
It is No Thing.
Transcendental, Alone

The cup still retains some heat:
So flowing ever on,
No stopping
Even when all motion ceases.

Flowing on: Life,
In vast ranges of mountain flowers-
In the summer night,
On and on, as ever, deep within and out.

And the forgotten is not forgotten,
Because the Sun, being,
Only NOW is-
No other ever was

Narayana                     ERC 10/01/74

* Narayana (SanskritNārāyaṇa) is the Supreme God according to Vedas, (including his different avatars), venerated as the Supreme Being in the Bhagavad Gita.

Now that we have answered the question ‘why is there something?’ with the discovery of gimmel, in keeping with Gӧdel’s infinity and Einstein’s relative curiosity, we can ask a new question: Does God, or Nature, or whatever you want to call integrated reality, have any choice in the way the universe is constructed?

“Although all forms, and thus all universes, are possible, and any particular form is mutable, it becomes evident that the laws relating such forms are the same in any universe.”
- George Spencer Brown, “Laws of Form”

Was Brown right? Stay tuned for further discussions