Monday, July 18, 2016


 Edward R. Close, July 18, 2016

Almost sixty years ago, in the winter of 1956, when I was an undergraduate student pursuing a degree in physics and mathematics, I voiced the following concern: “I think there is more to reality than just matter and energy interacting in time and space, but  no one seems to be interested in thinking outside this box of materialism.”

Even today, mainstream science is still stuck in the same box. Most of the millions of academic publications that have flooded the world since 1956 are focused on filling in the details of the currently accepted scientific paradigm. Few dare to push the boundaries of the paradigm, and to go outside of it is professional suicide. Data indicating that the paradigm might be incomplete or even wrong is largely ignored.

Scientists working for the government or a major university must conform to the rules and policies of the system. I’ve done both in my long career, but I chose, after getting my PhD, and working my way up in the system, to work outside the system, taking graduate and post-graduate courses at a number of major universities to keep up with developments in the current paradigm while pursuing my own independent research. In the last seven years, I joined forces with another outside-the–box thinker, Dr. Vernon Neppe, MD, PhD, and together we have developed a new paradigm we call TDVP.

Question:  How Can Science Ever Get OUT of the Self-Imposed Materialist Box?

Answer: We Have to Question the Basic Assumptions of the Current Paradigm.

Why? Because some of the basic assumptions behind the current scientific paradigm may simply be WRONG.

Working within the current paradigm, mainstream scientists have been very successful, explaining most of the phenomena that we observe and experience through the physical senses. But when it comes to a broader understanding of the nature of reality, mainstream scientists have been stuck in the Reductionist/Materialist hole for a long time. The good news is that the efforts to fill in the details of the model incorporating classical physics with relativity and quantum mechanics have illuminated some problem areas in the current paradigm. More and more scientists from every discipline are recognizing the need for radical change in our understanding of matter, energy, space and time. They just don’t seem to know what that radical change might be.

What is wrong with the current scientific paradigm?
1.     Even though the great innovators of the last century, including Albert Einstein, Max Planck and more recently others have indicated that they believe that an Infinite Conscious Mind is behind physical reality, mainstream science has virtually excluded consciousness and spirituality from scientific study. There have been valid reasons for this in the past, but there is increasing empirical evidence that consciousness may be just as fundamental as matter and energy.
2.     The fallacy of something from nothing: The current paradigm concludes that the universe as we experience it is the result of an explosion that happened some 13.8 billion years ago, but fails to explain why the explosion occurred, and how a highly organized, stable universe like ours could evolve from nothing.
3.     Mainstream scientists are applying the calculus of Newton and Leibniz to quantum phenomena beyond its legitimate range of applicability. This is the source of some of the quantum ‘weirdness’ physicists talk about.

In 1986, I applied a mathematical tool I call the Calculus of Distinctions to the standard model of the universe, and found that the big-bang, red-shift expanding universe theory contains unresolved paradoxes. Having been a devout follower of Einstein’s work, I was at first surprised to find that these paradoxes could be resolved by taking the quantum nature of physical reality seriously. By doing this and avoiding the fallacies listed above, I found that the Hawking and Penrose ‘proof’ of a singularity origin for the universe was most likely a mathematical abstraction, with no existential counterpart in the dynamics of the physical universe.

Other conclusions included the revelation that time, like space, must be three-dimensional, implying that, consistent with the law of conservation of mass and energy, our dynamic reality has no absolute beginning or end, only change.

I submitted an early manuscript presenting my findings to Stephen Hawking in late 1987. After about three months, I received a reply from his student/interpreter, saying that Prof. Hawking was very busy and that he was not interested in hyper-dimensional (more than 4-D) models. I finished writing the manuscript in 1988 and published my findings in a book titled: “Infinite Continuity” in 1990.

At about this same time, in a publicized lecture in California, Prof. Hawking stated his opinion that consciousness has no direct involvement in the forming of physical reality, and he further stated that someone had suggested to him that time might be three dimensional, but that he could not imagine that. In later publications, Prof. Hawking began to consider the extra dimensions of string-theory models, and after a serious attempt to reconcile general relativity with quantum theory, he abandoned the mathematical singularity origin of the physical universe idea, saying that we should probably not be talking about absolute beginnings and endings, only change.

I completely agree. Research conducted by applying the Calculus of Distinctions at the quantum level produces a surprising conclusion: There is no such thing as nothing because the laws of physics imply that there can be no existential state of absolute nothingness. Therefore, in our quantized universe, there was no absolute beginning and there can be no absolute end, only change.

We can begin to understand what is necessary to correct the current paradigm by considering the following facts:  1. We live in a quantized universe. 2. All existential forms are made up of multiples of quanta of mass and/or energy. 3. Mass and energy are two forms of the same thing, related mathematically by the equation E = mc2.  If we live in a quantized universe, then we need a quantized calculus to replace Newtonian calculus because in Newtonian calculus, the important processes of differentiation and integration depend on the assumption that the variables can approach nothingness infinitesimally closely.

There are four primary variables in any mathematical model describing physical reality: mass, energy, space and time. Planck’s discovery that mass and energy are only meted out in multiples of very small units, coupled with Einstein’s discovery that they are related mathematically by the equation E = mc2, means that neither mass nor energy can be divided infinitely; there is a finite smallest equivalence unit; in other words, there is a smallest possible scale, a bottom to the precision with which a measurement can be made in a quantized universe.

You can reduce a given amount of mass and/or energy to smaller and smaller amounts by removing units of mass and/or energy one at a time, but, you can only end up with one unit or none, not anything in between, because Planck’s discovery means that there can be no fractional quanta. Thus the variables used to measure mass and energy cannot approach nothingness infinitely closely, meaning that the basic assumption of the differential and integral calculus of Newton and Leibniz is invalid for application to quantum mass and energy. 

But, what about space-time? Can space and/or time be divided infinitely? It might seem so, but a closer examination reveals that such divisions are meaningless because the space-time continuum is not a stand-alone reality, it is a derivative of mass and energy.

To understand this, notice that the equivalence expression, E = mc2 involves not just mass and energy, but also space and time. The speed of light, represented by ‘c’, is the distance travelled by light in a unit of time. We can measure it in miles per hour, kilometers per second, etc. But, in order to normalize the units of mass and energy so that in keeping with empirical evidence of quantization, i.e. the results of Planck’s black body radiation experiments, we must also normalize the units of space and time. We can do this by defining the speed of light as the movement of light across one unit of space in one unit of time. In this normalized system of units,
c = Δx/Δt = 1/1 =1.
This is consistent with the ‘natural’ units known as Planck units, and it is also consistent with Einstein’s final appendix to his book on relativity suggesting that space-time is derivative of mass and energy, and has no independent existence. Space and time have meaning only in relation to mass, energy and observation by a conscious entity. In TDVP, as in relativity, the concepts of empty space and empty time have no meaning.

Thus the variables of space and time, like mass and energy, cannot meaningfully approach nothingness infinitesimally as assumed in the application of Newton’s differential and integral calculus.

The remedy for this problem is easy to understand: We must simply replace the calculus of Newton and Leibniz with a quantum calculus, a calculus in which variables approach a finite quantum limit, not nothingness.

Newtonian calculus is very successful when applied to macro-scale problems. But when applied at the quantum scale, it leads to erroneous results. For example, if we are trying to determine the exact location of an elementary particle in a dynamic system, the assumption of continuity is invalid. No variable of measurement can approach nothingness infinitely closely because the accuracy of the measurement stops at one quantum. The quantum value of the expression describing the location of the particle will be different than the value obtained by applying Newtonian calculus. The appropriate calculus for analyzing and describing quantum phenomena is a calculus with one quantum equivalence as its basic unit of measurement.

I developed such a calculus in 1986, the Calculus of Distinctions, published in “Infinite Continuity” in 1990, and I applied the Calculus of Distinctions to the processes of consciousness in “Transcendental Physics,” 1997 and 2000. The Calculus of Distinctions was also applied to the analysis of intelligence in “The Calculus of Dimensional Distinction” in “Elements of mathematical theory of intellect”, Brandin V, Close ER, Moscow, Interphysica Lab, 2003. The Calculus of Distinctions was further developed and published in articles including “The Calculus of Distinctions: A Workable Model across Dimensions and Consciousness”, the Dynamic Journal of Exceptional Creative Achievement (DJECA) 1210:1210; 2387 -2397, 2012, Close ER, Neppe VM, and “Reality Begins with Consciousness” Neppe, VM and Close, ER, 2012.

As early as 1986, I reasoned that, if the natural elementary particle with the smallest mass also had the smallest volume, then it would be the logical candidate for the unitary distinction of the Calculus of Distinctions for application to quantum mechanics. In a quantized system, variables can only have integer values, and the equations describing a quantized reality become Diophantine, meaning that only integer solutions correspond to reality. This brought me to the realization that proof of Fermat’s Last Theorem for n = 3 might explain why quarks combine in threes to form protons and neutrons. I developed the concept and published a brief description of it in “Infinite Continuity” pp. 68 – 71 and 192, in 1990.

Problems involving dynamic systems in three dimensions are difficult in conventional mathematics, and such analyses in more than three dimensions are often virtually intractable. On the other hand, using a calculus of quantized distinctions, the analysis is three-dimensional from the beginning and once the problem is set up, results can often be obtained by hand with a few lines of calculations. In my opinion, this computational simplification resulting from switching to a quantum calculus makes the trouble of learning a new system of mathematical logic worthwhile. And there is an added bonus: the Calculus of Distinctions can be used to evaluate hypotheses. If a hypothesis can be translated into the language of the calculus, a few calculations can determine whether the hypothesis is valid, or contains logical contradictions. As explained later, on page 8, I have built a bridge from the Calculus of Distinctions back to the Standard Model. Therefore, it is not necessary to be proficient in the Calculus of Distinctions to evaluate some of the work completed as a part of TDVP.

In 2010, when Dr. Vernon Neppe and I first met in person in Amsterdam, I confided to him that I believed that I could explain why up-quarks and down-quarks combine in threes. In 2011, using particle collider data, I was able to demonstrate that up-and down-quarks combine in threes to form stable rotating structures because they combine volumetrically. That is, the quarks in a proton or neutron are not just stuck together like a cluster of grapes, they merge to form symmetrically stable entities.

In 2012, I applied the principles of relativity and quantum mechanics to the Hydrogen atom and used the mass and volume of the free electron to define a basic quantum unit of measurement. Normalizing collider data for quarks to multiples of this unit, which I named the Triadic Rotational Unit of Equivalence (the TRUE quantum unit), I was able to show that there would be no stable atomic structure without TRUE quantum units of a third form of substance. These units of the third form occupy the same volumes as units of mass and energy, but have no measurable mass or energy. After some amount of discussion, Dr. Neppe and I decided to call this third form of the substance of reality ‘gimmel.’

Combining TRUE analysis with data on the abundance of elements in the universe, and computing the volumetric ratio of gimmel to mass/energy, we found it to be exactly the same as the ratio of dark matter and energy to ordinary matter and energy computed by astrophysicists using the Hubble Space Probe data. This strongly suggests that so-called dark matter and dark energy are either the same as or equivalent to gimmel!

Applying TRUE analysis to the natural elements, we found that the most stable atoms of the Periodic Table having this basic symmetry provided by gimmel, are the elements that support life, and gaps that occur in the progressive symmetry of the Periodic Table, are filled by compounds that are part of the RNA and DNA molecules that make up the physical structure of organic life. These facts strongly suggest that the universe is designed specifically for conscious life as we know it.  And ‘gimmel’ provides a way to evaluate the amount of consciousness present in a given form of matter.

When I voiced my concerns about science nearly 60 years ago, almost no one was interested. Even in 1996, when I attended the second ‘Toward a Science of Consciousness’ conference in Tucson, where I presented “the Case for the Non-Quantum Receptor’, the primary focus was materialistic. I talked with Henry Stapp, Amit Goswami, Charles Tart, and a number of others about this problem. At the Toward a Science of Consciousness conference in 2012, David Chalmers stopped and scanned my Poster Presentation on the findings of TDVP, but at that time he still seemed to me to be very much in the material/reductionist camp.

Recently, however, in a TED video published July 14, 2014, David Chalmers asked the question “How do you explain consciousness?” Now, David Chalmers, along with an increasing number of scientists, including Henry Stapp, Roger Penrose, Stuart Hameroff, David Peat, Peter Russell, Fred Alan Wolf, Dean Radin, Menos Kafatos, John Hagelin, and Deepak Chopra, appear to be moving toward the TDVP position that the non-physical aspects of consciousness are legitimate subjects for scientific investigation.

David Chalmers asks: “How do we accommodate consciousness in science?” No one knows. He says: “Maybe it is time to consider a crazy idea: Maybe consciousness itself is fundamental and universal in reality.” Based on this TED presentation, it appears that, in his quest to solve the ‘hard problem’ of explaining why we experience the amazing qualia of consciousness, Chalmers favors the ‘crazy idea’ that consciousness is fundamental; but he is less certain about whether or not consciousness is universal.

These researchers are recognizing that what is missing is a scientifically reproducible, and mathematically provable connection between the laws of physics and the qualia of conscious experience. And that is exactly what is provided in TDVP.

What is TDVP and How Does it Fix the Current Scientific Paradigm?
TDVP is an Acronym for the Close-Neppe Triadic Dimensional Vortical Paradigm (TDVP). TDVP argues that the assumption that consciousness is an epiphenomenon arising from complex structures of matter is wrong. TDVP presents compelling evidence that some form of consciousness is just as fundamental in the universe as mass and energy. Working from this basic assumption, TDVP introduces new mathematical procedures resolving the conflicts and paradoxes in the empirical data and the problem areas of the current paradigm.

Why is it called the Triadic Dimensional Vortical Paradigm (TDVP)?
TRIADIC - because it describes reality in terms of three types of variables of extent: Space, Time and Consciousness; three variables of content: mass, energy and consciousness; and three forms of consciousness: Primary, individual self, and individual other.
DIMENSIONAL – because the framework within which all phenomena and events are described is comprised of a series of three-dimensional domains.
VORTICAL – because physical objects are composed of rapidly spinning triadic quanta that form vortexes connecting space, time and consciousness domains.
PARADIGM – because it is not just a group of theories patched together, it is an integrated logical framework within which every sort of phenomena can be described.

TDVP turns the current paradigm upside down: It provides proof that consciousness is fundamental and universal, and that the physical universe is an emergent feature of consciousness, not the other way round.

TDVP is an expanded model of reality that incorporates all of the demonstrably correct features of the Standard Model as a subset of a larger self-participatory conscious universe. Like the paradigm shifts of the past, TDVP requires new mathematics.

The shift from classical physics to relativity required the new mathematics needed to describe reality as a four-dimensional continuum and the shift to quantum mechanics required the new mathematics needed to describe the dynamics of quantum probability: Schrӧdinger’s wave equation and Heisenberg’s probability matrices.

The TDVP shift from a dualistic material-based description of reality to a triadic consciousness-based description integrating classical physics, relativity and quantum physics requires the following trio of new mathematical tools:

1. The Calculus of Distinctions
A calculus derived from the conscious drawing of distinctions including the distinction of self from other, and inside from outside.
2. Dimensional Extrapolation
The process of rotation and projecting mathematically from an n-dimensional domain to an n+1 dimensional domain.
3. The Conveyance Equations
A set of Diophantine (integer) equations describing the volumetric combination of two or more objects comprised of multiples of quantum units (TRUE) of two or more dimensions.

The mathematics of TRUE quantum analysis, derived by applying these three new mathematical tools, is the scientifically reproducible, and mathematically provable connection between the laws of physics and the qualia of conscious experience.

As stated previously, one need not learn the Calculus of Distinctions, Dimensional Extrapolation, or the Conveyance Equations to evaluate the TRUE units and TRUE quantum analysis. I have developed the math of TRUE analysis by working backwards from the Calculus of Distinctions to build a bridge to the existing paradigm that anyone trained in basic physics and mathematics can follow, utilize, and evaluate the material.

Application of these new mathematical techniques has explained, and continues to explain an increasing number of phenomena inexplicable in the current paradigm, confirming the validity of TDVP. The following are conundrums, observations and measurements explained by TDVP that are not explained by the current scientific paradigm and the Standard Model of particle physics:

1.     Why up- and down-quarks can only combine in threes to form stable particles
2.     The exact value of the Cabibbo quark mixing angle
3.     The intrinsic ½ spin of fermions
4.     Why Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe
5.     Why some elements are much more stable than others
6.     Quantum entanglement and non-locality
7.     The nature of dark matter and energy and its ratio to ordinary matter and energy
8.     Why there is something rather than nothing
9.     The role of consciousness in the physical universe

By reversing the basic assumption of scientific materialism, TDVP expands the legitimate application of scientific analysis into areas long avoided by the current paradigm, and simplifies our understanding of the universe. In the process, it provides new analytical tools that allow us to determine whether a particular hypothesis represents an existential part of reality, or is merely a conceptual abstraction.

In conclusion, I believe that TDVP is the science of the future, and I predict that in the future nearly every thinking person alive will realize that the paradigm of scientific materialism was actually the crazy theory, and will wonder how anyone could ever have thought that reality could possibly exist without consciousness.

Browse this archives of Transcendental Physics blog for more.


  1. 'THE CRAZY IDEA WHOSE TIME HAS COME' is very much in keeping with the equally-bold and mystically-inspired concepts of my own Facebook sites, and I think I know full how Ed must be feeling in trying to make this far-from-craziness-idea become accepted by the mainstream scientific community. I face the same problem with regard to my 'seeing the forest (cosmos) rather than just its trees (constituent parts)' concept of my 'Y= X squared plus One' cosmogony. I only wish that we could mutually coordinate our efforts to the same truth-seeking cause - But, it seems never the twain shall meet in the cause of my generalized 'One' becoming 'officially and scientifically' equated with and thereby linked to Ed's fundamental and constituent part, 'Consciousness' - In my mystically-inspired opinion a great pity!

    I realize there might be a few details in the following article that Ed might not entirely agree with, but we all have to live and learn as we progress life after life, hopefully towards conscious perfection - Hope springs eternal! - Here's to the crazy ones! The article is quite long, and so I will just give the Internet reference where it can be accessed and read in full. This follows:!/10154034351076445/

    All for now, Brian.

    1. Hello Brian, Thank you for the link. I must confess that I've been overwhelmed my life's commitments and with lots of new reading material from a variety of sources, and I want to give the best attention I can to whatever I read. I have read your article now and think, as I have from the beginning that we have a very similar view of reality in general, with some differences reflecting the difference in our backgrounds, as might be expected. I am empathetic with your experiences but not sure about some of the anthromorphic characterizations of the UF your drama. I have to stay focused on my mission which is to communicate a deeper understanding of consciousness as primary to the mainstream scientists. A difficlt task, but one I feel must be done. They will never accept personal experiences as anything more than anecdotal and subjective until they understand enough intellectually to begin to open their minds to the possibility that someone like you might actually be right.

      May the UF be with you!


  2. Very interesting blog post! I think that you might be interested in my "Bubble Universe" conjecture. I have written a little book on the subject, and in it I propose that there are two continuing creations. One physical (that which is perceived through our senses), and another which is the "things of the spirit". The physical Universe exists because of a continuing creation that causes all of the visible properties of Universe to be exhibited (time, energy, forces, etc.) This creation is in the form of new invisible space coming from within each "bubble" of the finite Universe. Things of the spirit (consciousness, intelligence, logic, reason ...) exist and are not dependent upon the Universe to exist. It is only that these things of the spirit have to reside in a physical host to present themselves in the Universe. I have a blog and a post that is a non-technical summary of my ideas if you are interested. I too have been largely ignored by scientific community due to the stigma of recognizing that our spiritual part is not a result of our physical part. Here is a link to my blog:

    1. I like your approach, Dan, and will purchase a copy of your book. I don't think we are too far apart in our worldviews, except I see reality ultimately as unified monism. Dr. Neppe's Vortical pluralism was in some ways similar to your view, but as we worked together, dropped the 'pluralism.

  3. Greetings Dr. Edward Close,

    Please find a few journals (non or presently non main stream) that may be of interests to and or align with your emancipation, inspiration, aspiration, and passion:

    Furthermore, consider collaborating and support this global community efforts These teams and organizations could further provide you with additional information regarding exploration, publication, and collaboration.

    Please pass on the information if you considered them appropriate. And please sustain the advocacy and efforts. Best wishes and much successes forward.


    Vu Nguyen

    1. Thank you very much for the links to these organizations. I will definitely explore them. It is very encouraging to know that there now more and more people taking the central importance of consciousness seriously. While I expect there will be differences of opinion here and there, Ibelieve we are on the same team, trying to get the attention of mainstream scientists. I have seen a few climb out of the hole of materialism in the last 20 years.

      Thanks again!

      Ed Close

    2. Thank you very much for the links to these organizations. I will definitely explore them. It is very encouraging to know that there now more and more people taking the central importance of consciousness seriously. While I expect there will be differences of opinion here and there, Ibelieve we are on the same team, trying to get the attention of mainstream scientists. I have seen a few climb out of the hole of materialism in the last 20 years.

      Thanks again!

      Ed Close

  4. Thank you for your empathetic response to my comment, Ed. With reference to your reservations, though, about the anthropomorphic characterization of the Ultimate Force, I can only explain that as it became quite evident from the overall concept of my profound mystical-initiation of 1980 that this Force was desirous of transforming Its spiritual essence, via us, into a temporal/spiritual conscious existence, life after life, ad infinitum, and I was the one to give the glad tidings to humanity without getting persecuted in the process, like Jesus, fact or fiction, before me, I would of necessity in my whimsical scripture have to have literary licence to portray the Ultimate Force and its Leading Light and Guiding Power entourage, as having basic-innate anthropomorphic mind-sets.

    After all, Ed, if the Ultimate Force, our embodied Deity, has been obliged to operate through me as Its Emissary in a desperate effort to set things straight on planet Earth in the system of the Sun, and at the conclusion of my initiation proclaimed - This Voice was now your voice! – I think I have to be forgiven in bestowing allegorical and anthropomorphic minds to the Universal, Triadic, Construction and Demolition team. So, now like you, regardless of whether or not, anyone wants to believe in our many individual overtures, I feel I simply have to concentrate on furthering the cause of my mystically-inspired, broad-brush, see the forest rather than the trees, Y=X Squared plus One, cosmogony.

    And may the Ultimate Force be with you!

  5. Yes, it appears that we are, in fact, "made in His image". This is accomplished in the 3S-1t domain of the physical universe through the formation of photons, electrons, protons and neutrons, as revealed in the dimensionometric mathematics of the Conveyance Equations. This is hidden from our physical senses by the deliberate limitations of relative size He imposed on our physical senses. Why? So that He can experience finite reality through us, as we progress toward His infinite state. Thus the anthropomorphic characteristic is intrinsic.

  6. Yes, it appears that we are, in fact, "made in His image". This is accomplished in the 3S-1t domain of the physical universe through the formation of photons, electrons, protons and neutrons, as revealed in the dimensionometric mathematics of the Conveyance Equations. This is hidden from our physical senses by the deliberate limitations of relative size He imposed on our physical senses. Why? So that He can experience finite reality through us, as we progress toward His infinite state. Thus the anthropomorphic characteristic is intrinsic.

  7. Don't like 'His' or 'He', Ed, but otherwise, upon just finding your last comment, I think we are in accord. Amun!