Wednesday, March 16, 2016



I want to begin this post by thanking every one of you who have followed me this far. I really appreciate your interest and willingness to put forth some mental effort to understand what I am trying to tell you. I was warned by other scientists and writers to stay away from mathematics as much as possible. “You will lose dozens of readers with just the mention of mathematics, and an equation will scare off almost everyone” they said. Over the years, Dr. Neppe and I have certainly experienced the truth of this. We’ve found the warnings to be borne out, even when the readers are scientists. Even gifted scientists and mathematicians balk at the mention of new mathematics. No one wants to invest long hours and diligent effort to learn new mathematics. But, going against all conventional wisdom, I decided to take TDVP to intelligent, informed laypersons with these blog posts. I decided to do this because I believe that, intelligent readers, even without much formal training in mathematics and physics, are capable of understanding the truth.

Sprinkled throughout these posts are allusions to the calculus of distinctions, the mathematical, geometrical system of logic that has allowed us to reach the level of understanding that has produced explanations of some of the puzzles that have perplexed scientists for hundreds of years, not the least of which is why quarks combine in groups of three to form protons and neutrons at the heart of atoms. I want to embark now on revealing to you, dear reader, the basic truths of the calculus of distinctions, because I believe that you will comprehend them. Furthermore, I believe that comprehension will enable you to make the paradigm shift to understanding reality as consciousness based. You will be able to say with conviction as Planck did, and as I do: “I regard Consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from Consciousness.”

One online dictionary defines a calculus as: “A method of calculation”, but this is, of course, not helpful if you don’t understand the word in the first place! No understanding is gained when a word involving the same root is used in its definition. So what is the definition of ‘calculation’? Amazingly, the online dictionary defines calculation as “the act of calculating”! If you persevere, you will find definitions like “using mathematics to solve a problem”, or, if you find the Cambridge online dictionary, you have: “The process of using information you already have and adding, taking away, multiplying and dividing to judge the number or amount of something.” Good grief!

Add to this nonsense the fact that ‘calculus’ or ‘the calculus’ is almost always only used to mean specifically the abstract algebraic method of describing infinitesimal change developed by Newton and Leibniz, and it is no wonder that the average person avoids mathematics like the plague. Let’s see if we can bring some common sense to bear and shed some light on this problem of defining mathematics.

G. Spencer Brown’s Laws of Form
From the moment I developed the calculus of distinctions, I have recommended British polymath G. Spencer Brown’s wonderful little book “Laws of Form” to anyone wanting to understand the calculus of distinctions. In my opinion, Brown’s Laws of Form is the most important advancement in mathematics since Euclid’s Elements, and will eventually be recognized as the first step leading to the science of the future. Brown should be recognized as a genius of the first order. In this little book, of less than 150 pages, he re-aligns symbolic logic with mathematics and geometry and expands the Theory of Types (by Russell and Whitehead) to include the logical equivalent of imaginary numbers. This opens the door to the reality of extra dimensions in a way that they can be explored systematically. Unfortunately, Professor Brown may not see the real fruition of his work in his lifetime. He is now 93 years of age.

Back to definitions: G. Spencer Brown gives us a clear and concise definition of ‘calculation’ and ‘a calculus’ in Laws of Form. He says that ‘calculation’ is a procedure by which one form is changed to another, and ‘a calculus’ is a system of calculation. To fully understand what calculation really is, we must complete Professor Brown’s elegant definition of a calculus and calculation by including his definition of the term ‘form’. It is:  “The space cloven by any distinction, together with the entire content of the space, [is] the form of the distinction.” (Page 4, Laws of Form) In plain American English: the modification of any distinction whatsoever, from one form to another by some logical process, is calculation, and the steps and rules of the process define a calculus. Thus a calculus is simply a system of logically consistent rules and procedures, and the calculus of distinctions is the most general calculation system possible. All other calculi, including the calculus of Leibniz and Newton, are definable within the all-encompassing logical structure of the calculus of distinctions.

If the distinctions upon which the system operates are quantifiable, the calculus is a mathematical system. Space, time, mass, energy, and consciousness are all quantifiable using different types of variables. Space is quantifiable using three numerical variables of extent: x, y and z, or length, height and depth. Time is quantifiable as a fourth dimension of extent, using imaginary numbers to describe duration. Mass is quantifiable using numerical variables of content, as is energy, by virtue of its algebraic equivalence with mass (E=mc2). Consciousness is now also quantifiable in variables of content and extent, with the discovery of gimmel and its algebraic equivalence with mass and energy in TRUE units. (See prior posts on TRUE analysis and gimmel.)

In the representation of real phenomena in the simplest possible way, it is reasonable to assume that the most logical basic unit of observation and measurement might be determined by starting with the smallest naturally occurring elementary particle. The stable structures of physical reality under the conditions prevalent on the surface of this planet are composed primarily of three particles: electrons, protons and neutrons. The electron has by far the smallest mass of the three, as determined very accurately from many years of experimentation including many terabytes of particle collider data. [A terabyte is 1,000,000,000,000 bytes, a byte is eight bits of information, and a bit is one quantifiable distinction described in binary digit code consisting of zeros and ones for electronic computer calculations.] Starting with the mass of the electron as the quantum unit of mass, and applying the principles of relativity and quantum mechanics, we determined the number of triadic rotational units of equivalence (TRUE units) making up the quarks, protons, neutrons, atoms, and molecules of normal matter. This led to the discovery of gimmel, the third form of reality existing along with mass and energy to make up the stable structure of the universe. The details of this derivation and discovery have been published in several journals and in the book “Reality Begins with Consciousness” by Close and Neppe.

While it is putatively an application of Brown’s calculus of indications, the calculus of distinctions departs from, and differs from Brown’s calculus in a few specific, and very significant ways: it extends Brown’s calculus of indications to include consciousness as both the initiator of intent and originator of objective distinctions. Also, in the application of the calculus of distinctions to phenomena of the observable universe, existence is central, in contradistinction to some applications of Brown’s calculus of indications, where existence is often peripheral and unimportant in the processes of logical calculation.

The difference between existential and conceptual distinctions is clearly defined in applications of the calculus of distinctions to phenomena experienced by human observers in the following way: To exist, i.e. to be real, a distinction must possess extent, and content. The elementary particle with the smallest mass, the electron, upon which the TRUE quantum is based, has three dimensions when at rest. If it is moving, it has at least four known dimensions, three of space, and one of time, or four of space-time, if you like. This means that existential distinctions made up of TRUE units of mass, energy and gimmel, are at least three dimensional. Why? Think of it this way: In a quantized reality, in terms of dimensions, a point has zero dimensions, so it cannot contain anything. This makes a point, also known as a mathematical singularity, conceptual, not existential. In quantized reality, a line has length, but no height or depth, thus a line also has no capacity for even one TRUE unit of content. A plane is two-dimensional, but with no thickness, and therefore no capacity for TRUE unit content. Conclusion: In a quantized reality, points, lines and plans are conceptual.

It should be obvious at this point, that a quantized reality is very different from a continuous reality, and the mathematics will be very different than conventional Newtonian calculus, which assumes continuity. To be existential, a point must consist of one TRUE unit, a line must be a string of TRUE units, and a plane must have a thickness of one TRUE unit. You might argue that perhaps space and time are continuous even if mass and energy are not. The demonstration is beyond the scope of this post, but it turns out that, as Einstein suggested, space-time without mass and energy is meaningless. And it may not be too surprising to you at this point to hear that it also turns out, with the discovery of gimmel, that space-time-mass-energy is meaningless without consciousness.        

No purported theory of everything, like the various string theories, brane theory, and even Hawking’s current favorite, M-theory, is even a contender for a real theory of everything, because they do not include consciousness. TDVP, the Close-Neppe scientific paradigm shift, includes consciousness in the equations and has, as reported in these posts, and documented elsewhere, solved an ever-increasing number of puzzles. Stay tuned for more.

No comments:

Post a Comment