© Edward R. Close, July 15, 2016
Friday, August 19, 2016
THE CRAZY IDEA WHOSE TIME HAS COME
THE CRAZY IDEA WHOSE TIME HAS COME
© Edward R. Close, July 15, 2016
© Edward R. Close, July 15, 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, and no one is looking outside the box of materialism.”
I believed that the general objective of science was to gain an ever-deeper understanding of the nature of reality. What I saw in higher education was that increasing specialization was the focus. Students were learning more and more about less and less. Increasingly, academic physicists, chemists and other scientists, weren’t able to communicate with each other because each specialized field was creating its own vernacular. But it seemed that no one shared or had any interest in even discussing my concerns.
An explosion of academic publications started then and continues to flood the world with data and information, creating a situation in the academic world where very little original thinking is encouraged, only pushing the boundaries of what is currently accepted. In my opinion, this is, at least in part, why there has been no real scientific paradigm shift since 1935.
How Do We Get OUT of this Self-Imposed Box that has resulted in a
State of INTELLECTUAL STAGNATION?
We Have to Question Basic Assumptions!
Why? Because some of the basic assumptions behind the current scientific paradigm are simply WRONG.
Modern science has successfully explained most of the physical phenomena that we observe and experience through the physical senses. But when it comes to understanding the deeper nature of reality, mainstream scientists have been sliding down the Reductionist/Materialist hole for a long time. The really good news is that this pursuit has illuminated many of the weaknesses of the current scientific paradigm, with more and more scientists from every discipline calling for a change in one of the most basic assumptions upon which our current scientific paradigm is built.
What We Know
In the late 19th century, the laws of ‘Natural Science’, including classical physics with Newton’s laws of motion, the laws of electricity, magnetism and thermodynamics, seemed sufficient to explain mid-scale observations, but they could not explain certain very large scale, and very small scale phenomena like the orbit of the planet Mercury around the sun and the orbits of electrons in discrete shells around the nuclei of atoms.
In the first part of the 20th century, the classical view of the universe was shaken by Planck’s discovery that mass and energy are quantized, and Einstein’s discovery that the speed of light is the upper limit of accelerated velocity. These two surprising discoveries provided explanations of the orbit of Mercury, the quantized orbits of electrons, and other astronomical scale and quantum scale phenomena. These discoveries also drastically changed our basic understanding of the universe and provided a broad range of new technologies, including educational and entertaining electronic devices that have had an enormous impact on our lives. They also provided the first empirical hints that the universe was more than matter and energy interacting in time and space.
Theoretical physicists and astrophysicists began applying the principles of relativity and quantum mechanics to cosmology and particle physics, completing the shift from classical science to the scientific paradigm now known as the Standard Model (SM). About 50 years after this 20th Century paradigm shift, we had determined that a seamless merger of quantum mechanics and relativity was probably not possible. Conflicts and paradoxes perplexed scientists trying to flesh out the new paradigm. There were a number of unexplained problems, clearly indicating that something was wrong with the SM paradigm. It appeared that it was either incomplete, partially incorrect, or both.
In the late 1960s and early 70s, two theorists, Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose became famous for proving mathematical singularity theorems that implied that black holes predicted by the equations of general relativity might be real. The discovery of the first astronomical object that fit the expected physical profile of a black hole, a massive object known as Cygnus X-1, provided empirical evidence confirming their findings. What caught the attention of the public, was the claim that it proved that the universe exploded from a mathematical singularity, - a dimensionless point. This was seen as an exciting confirmation of the popular notion of the big-bang creation of everything from nothing.
This popular notion has held sway into the beginning of the 21st Century, even though physicists, including Hawking and Penrose have since moved on to String Theory, M-brane Theory, and multiple other theories, but they have not ever provided proof of any kind, not even a mathematical proof that is any more than an internally consistent self-referential complex. Why?
What is wrong with the current scientific paradigm?
1. The calculus of Newton and Leibniz is being misused by applying it beyond its legitimate range of applicability.
2. Even though Planck, Bohm, Wigner, and others have indicated that they believe an Infinite Consciousness or Mind is behind physical reality, mainstream science has virtually excluded consciousness and spirituality from scientific study. There may have been valid reasons for this in the past, but now, there is empirical evidence that consciousness may be just as fundamental as matter and energy.
3. The fallacy of nothingness: Mainstream science confuses the concepts of zero and nothing, leading to logically absurd conclusions.
In 1986 I applied a mathematical tool I call the Calculus of Distinctions to the big-bang theory and found it to contain 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 quantum theory seriously and avoiding the fallacies listed above. By doing this, I concluded 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 evolution of the physical universe. The Hawking-Penrose model of reality was four-dimensional, while the mathematical logic of the Calculus of Distinctions requires a nine-dimensional quantized reality embedded in an infinitely continuous substrate.
Among the conclusions I reached were that some form of consciousness must be present with the mass and energy of the physical universe to form reality as we know it, and that time, like space, is 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.
In 1987, I undertook the daunting job of preparing my findings for publication. I submitted an early manuscript 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 my write-up in 1988, and submitted the manuscript to an eminent physics professor at Berkeley, who wrote notes in the margins, commenting on what he believed were ‘crackpot’ ideas. After a few pages, he vowed to “read no further” but never-the-less, he continued to the end, making a number of notes that were actually very helpful. Based on his comments, and additional research, I made some adjustments and corrections, and published my findings in a book titled: “Infinite Continuity”, in 1990.
At about the same time as “Infinite Continuity” was published, Prof. Hawking stated his opinion that consciousness has no direct involvement in the forming of physical reality, in a public lecture in California, and he further stated that “someone” had suggested that time is three dimensional, but that he could not imagine that. In later publications, however, 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 proof, for which he and Penrose had been widely recognized earlier, saying that we should probably not be talking about absolute beginnings and endings, only change.
And in this I whole heartedly agree with Prof. Hawking. If we accept the axiom that finite volumetric distinctions, like atoms, stones, plants, animals, human beings, planets, stars and galaxies do in fact exist, then the universal law of conservation of mass and energy implies that if there is something at any point in time, a state of nothingness can never have existed.
My personal research using and applying the Calculus of distinctions in an existential quantized 9-D universe implies that there is no such thing as nothingness on any of the infinite number of possible timelines. Why is this important? It is important because it means that the universe cannot ever have exploded from nothingness. Something has always existed, and always will. There can be no existential state of absolute nothingness, no absolute beginning, no absolute end; only change.
How TDVP fixes the current scientific paradigm:
If we live in a quantized universe, then the calculus of Newton & Leibniz is being applied beyond its legitimate range of applicability, and this understanding may require a completely new approach and a new unit of measurement.
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; there is a bottom to what we can measure 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 differential and integral calculus is invalid for application to quantum mass and energy.
What about space-time? Can space and/or time be divided infinitely? It might seem so, but a closer look reveals that such divisions are meaningless because space-time is a derivative of mass-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 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,
as it does in the ‘natural’ units known as Planck units.
This is consistent with Einstein’s final appendix to his book on relativity, suggesting that space and time are derivative of mass and energy, and have no independent existence of their own. Considered this way, empty space and empty time have no meaning. Space and time have meaning only in relation to mass, energy and observation by a conscious entity.
Thus the variables of space and time, like mass and energy, cannot meaningfully approach nothing infinitesimally as assumed in the application of Newton’s differential and integral calculus.
The ‘fix’ for this, while somewhat difficult to accomplish, is really easy to understand: We must simply replace the calculus of Newton and Leibniz with a quantum calculus, a calculus in which the variables approach something, a finite quantum limit, and not non-existing nothingness.
Just like the SM paradigm, the calculus of Newton and Leibniz has been very successful when applied to its proper domain. That domain is the macro-scale of measurement where quantum effects are not directly detectable. But when applied to reality on the quantum scale, Newtonian calculus leads to erroneous results. The reason this is true is easy to understand: Applying Newtonian calculus to a mid-scale problem, the numerical values of expressions describing an object with measurable variables like mass, energy, space or time, are determined to accuracies within the limits of our ability to measure, when one or more of the variables approaches absolute nothingness.
For mid-scale projects, like building a bridge or firing a rocket, assuming that physical objects are continuous, so that a measurement can be made at any point from the size of the entire object to nothing, causes no problems, and is consistent with our sense-based experience of physical objects, space and time.
At the quantum scale, however, if, for example, we are trying to determine the exact location and velocity of an elementary particle consisting of one quantum, or a few quanta, in a system of such particles, the assumption of continuity is not valid, and no variable of measurement can approach nothingness infinitely closely, because the measurement of quantized phenomena by successive division stops at one quantum. Beyond that, there is no phenomenon to measure.
Clearly, the actual value of an expression describing a quantum state will be different than the value obtained by applying Newtonian calculus. Clearly a quantum calculus is needed, and the fundamental operations and procedures of the quantum calculus are necessarily different than those of Newtonian calculus.
Most scientists are not aware of the fact that the calculus of Leibniz and Newton is only one of a number of calculi that can be developed based on arithmetic and geometric axioms. This is primarily because of academic specialization, the calculus’ many successes in describing physical reality on the macro-scale, and just the fact that it has been known as “the calculus” for more than 300 years. For a good description of what a calculus is and the step-by-step development of a more comprehensive calculus with applications to logic, see George Spencer Brown’s “Laws of Form”, the Julian Press, 1972.
The appropriate calculus for quantum phenomena is a calculus with one quantum as its basic unit of measurement. I developed such a calculus in 1986, called it the Calculus of Distinctions and published the derivation in “Infinite Continuity”, the Paradigm Press, in 1990. I applied it to the processes of consciousness in “Transcendental Physics”, Paradigm Press, 1997, and later published by toExcell Press, 2,000. The Calculus of Distinctions was 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, and with the encouragement and assistance of Dr. Vernon Neppe, the Calculus of Distinctions was further developed and published In articles such as “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”, an e-book, www.Brain Voyage.com, 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. I also realized 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. Infinite Continuity received little attention at the time, and was quickly out of print. Many of the ideas in Infinite Continuity, including the Calculus of Distinctions, were further developed in “Transcendental Physics’, first published in1997.
In 2010, twenty years after publishing Infinite continuity, 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 only combine in threes. In 2011, using particle collider data, I was able to demonstrate that the fact that up-and down-quarks only combine in threes proves that they combine volumetrically. That is, quarks are not just held together by elementary forces like a cluster of grapes, they merge to form symmetrically stable protons and neutrons.
In 2012, I applied the principles of relativity and quantum mechanics to the Hydrogen atom and its isotopes, and used the mass and volume of the free electron to define a new basic unit of measurement at the quantum scale. Normalizing the 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 in the universe without TRUE quantum units of a third form of the substance of reality. These units of the third form, while occupying equivalent volumes in the same way mass and energy do, 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’. 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. Furthermore, 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.
If there were a big-bang explosive origin event as the current paradigm suggests, there would be no stable physical structure without the third form existing at, or before the explosion, because without it, any particles that might somehow get together randomly in a universe where particles are flying away from a violent explosion, would soon fly apart, and such a big-bang expanding universe would return to maximum entropy, the same nothingness assumed to exist before the explosion. The absurdity of ‘everything from nothing’ is apparent when one realizes that it arises from the inappropriate application of the Newtonian calculus, with vanishing infinitesimals, to quantum reality.
FINALLY, THE SCIENCE OF THE FUTURE IS HERE!
When I made those observations nearly 60 years ago, and voiced concerns about the direction science was headed and the need to include consciousness and spiritual experience as a legitimate parts of reality, almost no one was interested. The public was fascinated with the Bridey Murphy reincarnation story and UFO sightings, while mainstream science spent more time and effort trying to debunk such stories than studying them.
Relativity and quantum physics were still new, and mainstream scientists were ignoring the efforts of a few, like David Bohm and Eugene Wigner, who saw evidence in quantum experiments that consciousness could be actively participating in the formation of reality at the quantum level. Most mainstream scientists justified their overly unscientific closed-mindedness as necessary in an effort to keep science from slipping into what they considered to be ‘pseudoscience’.
Continental drift, later known as plate tectonics, was considered to be a crackpot idea, psychology was considered to be a ‘fringe’ science, and most medical school graduates considered hypnosis, acupuncture and chiropractic to be medical quackery. Consciousness was believed to be a recent evolutionary development, emerging only after primitive life forms developed brains with a sufficient level of complexity, and anyone thinking outside the box of scientific orthodoxy was in danger of being ridiculed and shunned by ‘real’ scientists. The only major university with a parapsychology department was Duke, where Dr. J.B. Rhine, his wife Louisa Rhine, and a handful of grad students were attempting to apply the scientific method and statistical analysis to the study of extra-sensory perception (ESP), and Duke University severed its relationship with parapsychology a few years later. Thankfully, things have changed some since then.
Recently, in a TED talk video published July 14, 2014, David Chalmers asked the question “How do you explain consciousness?” He has been asking this question for at least 20 years, and an increasing number of scientists, like Henry Stapp, Roger Penrose, Stuart Hameroff, David Peat, Peter Russell, Fred Alan Wolf, Dean Radin, Menos Kafatos, John Hagelin, and Deepak Chopra, are finally seeing consciousness as a legitimate subject for scientific investigation, and yet, few even agree on a comprehensive definition of consciousness.
David Chalmers asks: “How do we accommodate consciousness in science?” No one knows. Finally, 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 answer the ‘hard question’ of why and how 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.
Researchers like Penrose and Hameroff are making headway in linking consciousness to neurological structures, and Stuart Hameroff and others like Chalmers, Kafatos and Hagelin are raising the age-old mind-body, or mind-matter question, but in a slightly different form. They recognize 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 what we (Close and Neppe) have provided. That is what TDVP is all about. The mathematics of TRUE quantum analysis is the scientifically reproducible, and mathematically provable connection between the laws of physics and the qualia of conscious experience.
Proof of this is the fact that TRUE quantum analysis has explained, and continues to explain an increasing number of phenomena inexplicable in the current paradigm. And, of course, TDVP turns the current paradigm upside down: It proves that consciousness is fundamental and universal. The physical universe is an emergent feature of consciousness, not the other way round.
In conclusion, I believe that TDVP is the science of the future, and I predict that, in the not-too-distant future, nearly every thinking person alive will realize that the paradigm of scientific materialism was actually the crazy theory, and they will wonder how anyone could have ever thought that reality could possibly exclude the fundamental truth that reality begins with consciousness.