Sunday, April 17, 2016


We saw in earlier posts how the existence of the third form of the substance of reality, which we’ve called ‘gimmel’, explains why there is something instead of nothing. It even explains why there are conscious organic life forms. But it doesn’t explain exactly how they came into being, or where they came from. But particle physicists, by conceptually rolling back the clock from here and now, in accordance with the known laws of physics, have come up with a theory, called the Big Bang Theory, as an explanation of the origin of the universe. But the BB theory doesn’t explain the existence of conscious beings, or even how stable atoms are formed. It’s pretty questionable on many levels, as we will see.

To analyze this in a comprehensive manner, the Triadic Dimensional Vortical Paradigm (TDVP) developed by Edward R. Close (me), a mathematician and physicist, and Vernon M. Neppe, a neuroscientist and physician, recognizes the existence of consciousness as a basic component of reality. An important task of TDVP, is to bring physics and neuroscience together. I will approach this task here by starting with the question: What is a particle physicist? Is a particle physicist a physicist made of particles, or a physicist who studies particles?

This sounds facetious, but a particle physicist would probably say that he/she is both. A particle physicist believes that everything is made up of particles, and reality can best be understood by takings apart and studying the pieces. But we argue that is incorrect. The whole is always greater than the sum of the parts, and a particle physicist is a conscious human being, and as such, is much more than a conglomeration of physical parts, and an atom is much more than electrons, protons and neutrons stuck together in various physical configurations. Physical reality, until now erroneously thought of by mainstream scientists as being capable of stable existence independent of consciousness, contains not only mass and energy, but also consciousness.

Particle physicists have a very basic problem they don’t seem to recognize, or know how to deal with … or even want to know how to deal with. It’s the question of beginning: what, when and where was the beginning? What was the first particle, when and where did it exist, and where did it come from??? I’m going to deal with the question of beginning here. Actually, I have no choice, I have to, because the calculus of distinctions, a major tool of TDVP, applied to the interaction of mind and matter as finite distinctions implies there are no beginnings or endings, only change. Given that I exist, I am here, and it is now.  Given that the universe also exists here and now, how did this happen?

The particle physics answer is the big bang theory: There was a big explosion about 13.7 billion years ago, and the first particles came from that. Really? You mean to tell me that there was nothing, and suddenly there was an explosion from a mathematical singularity (a dimensionless point) and, instead of flying apart forever, the pieces got together and eventually formed everything we see now? How did this happen? Explosions, as we know them, don’t create things, just the opposite, they destroy things. There’s obviously something major missing from this picture. Not only that, the logic of the standard model of particle physics leads to the necessity of there being ‘particles’ with no mass and/or no energy. What? Wait a minute, what is the definition of a particle?

If reality is not adequately described by the current materialistic paradigm, and the universe didn’t originate in a physical big bang explosion from nothing, the most important question is: How did the universe as we know it arrive at the negative entropy level of organization we experience in the here and now?

OK, here’s the problem: The current scientific paradigm assumes that the observer, the human component, has no direct connection with physical reality. In the prevailing paradigm, consciousness has only an indirect relationship to physical reality through the physical senses, and is represented in the mathematical description by a point in the four-dimensional space-time domain of the physical universe. In TDVP, this is recognized as a false assumption. TDVP builds upon the indications from relativity and quantum mechanics that consciousness is an integral part of reality, and includes the action of consciousness in the equations. It does this by replacing the binary logic of mass and energy in a four-dimensional domain with the triadic logic of mass, energy and consciousness in a nine-dimensional domain, embedded in infinity. It recognizes the fact that only a small portion of reality is directly available to the physical senses, but that the rest of reality contributes meaning and purpose to conscious experience. So, how does this provide us with a better understanding of reality? Let me answer this in the first person:

Given that I exist, I am here, and it is now, and the conditions in this here and now define the reality I experience. Given that the universe also exists here and now, I apparently arrived at this mass/energy/space/time state defined by my present state of consciousness, by one specific route; but I have a finite range of several different choices available to me by which I may create my future. This state of affairs describes my conscious experience of the present and the so-called arrow of time that differentiates the time dimension from the space dimensions in both quantitative and qualitative ways. dimensionometrically, it seems that I have only seven degrees of freedom: two in each of the three dimensions of space, giving me the freedom to move to any unoccupied location in 3D space, but only one degree of freedom in the time dimension. But quantum physics and the calculus of dimensional distinctions tell me that time, like space, is actually three-dimensional, and while, just like in space, I can only experience one timeline through 3D time, defined by the series of choices I make, under certain circumstances, choices made in the present can change the route by which I arrived in the here and now. The implications of this are immense.

One interesting implication is that it is possible that I can deliberately change my present state of conscious experience by making choices in the present that will change the path by which I arrive at this state. To be continued.

1 comment:

  1. Indeed, Ed!IMMIO, what we come to believe in the now can direct our future path, ad infinitum! Amun!