Saturday, December 30, 2017


चलो वहां प्रकाश हो! QUE LA LUMIÈRE SOIT! 讓那裡有光! ¡QUE HAYA LUZ! دعه يكون خفيفا!

At some point, everyone who draws breath must ask the ultimate question. It comes out in many different forms: What is this all about? What is life? Where did we come from, and where are we going? What is the meaning of existence? What the (bleep)?!! What is the nature of reality? What is the answer? It is this ultimate question that is behind all human efforts to know: science, religion, philosophy…

The answer, however complex it might seem, can be summed up in one sentence:  Understanding of the nature of light is understanding the nature of reality

Light is radiant energy. Its first corporeal form is the electron. The electron’s measurable and observable characteristics form the true quantum unit, the Triadic Rotational Unit of Equivalence (TRUE), the basic unit of the Calculus of Dimensional Distinctions (the CoDD), and applying the CoDD to the analysis of subatomic structure, we discover the mass-less, energy-less volumetric equivalence of gimmel, the non-physical agent of consciousness required for the stable existence of life-supporting matter. This means that the physical universe exists solely for the purpose of the expression and experience of spiritual reality.

I have applied the CoDD to the mainstream concepts of the solution to Olber’s paradox, look-back time, the red shift, the big-bang expanding universe, and constant light speed, and found that there is something wrong. If my translation of these concepts into the language of the CoDD was appropriate and accurate, - and the translation of hypotheses is admittedly the most difficult part of the application of the CoDD - then these concepts as they are currently accepted in the mainstream scientific community, are not logically consistent. The CoDD analysis shows that these concepts, taken together, do not form a logically consistent theory.

Astrophysicists tell us that space-time may be either curved or flat. If it is flat, then the universe is infinite, and the red shift is not due to motion, but rather to distance, and without outside influence, or inside organizing activity, the universe would expand to maximum entropy, as the second law of thermodynamics predicts. The Hubble telescope data so far tends to support the hypothesis of an infinite universe, because, contrary to the accepted answer to Olber’s paradox, the farther we look, the more stars we see; and even if, at the end of every line of sight there is a star, we don’t see them simply because they are too far away. If this is the reality and there is no universal organizing factor, then, as Bertrand Russell famously said, all the works of man, however great, will disappear in the great heat death of the universe. But that picture doesn’t include any consideration of the primacy of consciousness.

The only reason space-time might be other than flat, is because of the existence of content as mass and energy. In the aggregate, however, they are uniform, which would give the appearance of uniformity and again a flat universal geometry. But the existence of anything is dependent upon the existence of stars and an observer who can see them. If space-time is curved, and the curvature is uniform, then the expanding universe is an illusion, the multi-dimensional universe can only expand into itself, and everything that has happened, or will happen, is already happening now. Any constant, uniform movement of a consciously observed quantum event in space-time will eventually return to the point of origin, implying a recurring cycle in time. If the curvature is not uniform, then we have the illusion of multiple universes, and an infinite number of them. But this contradicts the definition of universe and leads to logical paradox. In all three cases, space-time, or extent, has no meaning at all without individualized consciousness, and localized consciousness depends on the existence of the conversion of light to electrons, protons and neutrons, atoms and molecules, and the organic life forms that support consciousness which organizes and animates molecules, atoms, etc.

Before you decide whether you want to accept or reject the idea that understanding the nature of light is the answer to the question of existence, let’s look at the simple equation made famous by Albert Einstein: E = mc2. Solving this equation for c, the speed of light, it becomes: c = √(E/m), the square root of E divided by m, where E is energy and m is mass. Apply this to the entire universe, and you have the true meaning of the statement “the speed of light is constant” and you’ll find that it doesn’t mean what the average person thinks it does.

At any given point in time, the speed of light radiating through space is constant everywhere in the universe for everyone, regardless of relative motion. (That’s the first assumption of Einstein’s theory of relativity.) But, the equation tells us that the speed of light is defined by the ratio of energy to matter. So, if everything were light with no mass, i.e., mass would be zero in the equation, then the universe would be expanding at an infinite speed (c = √E/0 = ∞). But, as soon as there is a particle, even one photon of light converted to an electron, c becomes finite. In the universe today, the ratio of energy to mass is such that the speed of light in a vacuum is 186,282 miles per second (299,792 kilometers per second). But, the ratio of energy to mass has not always been what it is now, producing that exact speed, and, in this dynamic universe of ours, it will not be the same in the future. In fact, there is evidence that the speed of light was greater in the past. [See J. Casado (2003). "A Simple Cosmological Model with Decreasing Light Speed".]

The passage of time depends on the speed of light, so, if the velocity of light was different in the past than it is today, and will be different in the future, then the passage of time was faster in the past, when there was less matter and more energy, and will be different in the future than it is today. Think about that for a second. What is measured on our time scale today as a million years, would only have been a few seconds at one point in the very early stages of the universe when there was very little matter. This means that when we look at light from a distant star, we can’t assume that the billions of years measured on today’s time scale, that we take to be the time it took for that light to reach our telescope, is correct. During the first part of the trip, when there was very little matter, and the speed of light was much greater, the light expanded through a lot more space in much less time. This means that the universe is much younger and much larger than we are led to think it is by assuming that light has always traveled at the same speed, and that there was a big bang.

It was recently announced that an astronomical record has been broken: Astronomers have seen a galaxy farther away in space and time than ever before. They tell us that the light reaching us from this record-breaking light source, called z8_GND_5296, left it 13.1 billion years ago, and that the picture we see of it now comes from just 700 million years after the big bang! That is obviously a conclusion based on the assumption that the speed of expanding light energy has always been what it is today. What if that assumption is wrong, as my CoDD analysis indicates?

If, as current astronomical theory has it, the universe is about 13.8 billion years old, the most distant galaxy is flying away from us at near light speed, and if the speed of light has been constant over all time since the big bang, then we have a paradox: By the time light has reached us from a source13.1 light years away, that source will have sped another 13 billion light years away, and the universe will be at least 26.8 billion years old, not 13.8! The only way this paradox can be resolved, is for the speed of light to have been much greater in the past. This conundrum was partially resolved by Astronomer Alan Guth in 1979 by what is known as “inflation theory”, proposing that the early universe underwent a period of very rapid expansion.

In 1983 Guth, published a paper describing how his supercooled-universe scenario was not ideal, as the "triggering mechanism" to exit the state of rapid expansion would require "extreme fine tuning of parameters" and he believed that a more natural solution is required. (GUTH, ALAN H. "The New Inflationary Universe". Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences422 (1 Eleventh Text): 1–14). The more natural solution, in my opinion, is the natural slowing of light speed predicted by my CoDD analysis. However, the quantized nature of mass and energy does suggest a non-linear, discrete multi-phase process, not a continuous one. More analysis is needed.

Application of the CoDD reveals that reality is a dynamic balance of mass, energy and consciousness (as gimmel), all of which co-exist in the universe as the three finite forms of light (photons, electrons and gimmel), congealed by the distinctive action of a primary form of awareness, which metaphorically said: “Let there be light” and light transitioned from the multi-dimensional realm of Primary Consciousness, from conceptual to existential, guided by the dimensionometry of gimmel in space-time, into the physical universe. Applications of the CoDD and dimensional extrapolation also reveal that time, like space, is three-dimensional, and that in three-dimensional time, there are no absolute beginnings or ends, only change.

In the CoDD analysis, the law of conservation of mass and energy is naturally extended to all of the substance of reality, namely mass, energy and consciousness, which are conserved in all processes. This means that the concept of nothingness is an illusion; there never has been nothing, and never will be nothing. Primary Consciousness is the substance of reality and cannot be destroyed. Its first manifestation in the physical universe is light, a vibratory form of energy that becomes gimmel, mass and physical force as it weaves the structure of the reality we experience as part of the structure, without ever losing our true nature as parts, like tiny sparks of Primary Consciousness, evolving toward reunion with the source. Light becomes electrons, electrons become quarks, quarks combine under the guidance of gimmel to become protons, neutrons, and everything else.

I believe there will always be light and shadow, energy and mass, mind and consciousness, in never-ending cycles of creation, sustained physical existence, and destruction, as a flow of consciousness from Primary Consciousness to the physical universe and back again. The purpose of existence of the physical universe is to provide a finite stage for Primary Consciousness to experience reality through drawing the distinctions of individualized sparks of awareness, - that’s us, and our purpose is to expand our awareness until we become “Gleichwertig”, the same as Primary Consciousness. And I find it encouraging and comforting that within the framework of understanding the nature of light, using our God-given minds and the primary logic of the CoDD, all meaningful questions are answerable. 

ERC, December 30, 2017


Monday, December 25, 2017


Here’s my Christmas message:

My wish for you is unbounded happiness, ecstatic joy and eternal bliss!

Regardless of your nationality, heritage or belief, you can achieve true happiness in this lifetime. The key is alignment. Not alignment with doctrine, dogma or belief, not accepting what someone else says is true, but true alignment, which is alignment with universal law. The universe operates on laws that are invariant and eternal. The first law is love, and, if you are a living, breathing human being, you already have that in your heart. That is the “grace of God”, the gift that in the innermost depths of your heart there burns a flame, and the warmth and light of that flame is LOVE. The second law is you must share that love, and ultimately return it to the source from which it came. The miracle is that the warmth and light of that love is not diminished by giving it away. The third law is: whatever you send forth is what will come back to you. Send forth negativity and hate, and that is what you will experience. Send forth love and light, and negativity and hate will fade away. The shadows of hate and fear, that you may imagine surrounds you, immediately disappear when the light radiating from the flame in your heart is allowed to shine forth. And the light of your love will attract whatever you need. It will even attract the personification of love as Moses. Christ, Buddha, Krishna, Mohammed, Kabir, … or the all-encompassing light of Ultimate Reality. The source of the love given to you as the very essence of your being from the beginning of time is the source of all abundance. When you are aligned with the law of love, the floodgates will open, and the universe will give you everything. And then you will know the secret: Everything is Love, and you are one with it, and that will bring you peace beyond all understanding, wisdom beyond all knowledge. My prayer for you is: May you know such love and peace now, and throughout the new year.

Thursday, December 21, 2017


At this most wonderful time of the year, with a heart full of JOY, I am beginning to think about the up-coming new year. I’m expecting some amazing things! What do I expect?

I’m no Nostradamus, but that’s actually a good thing, because I won’t have to sniff toxic fumes and write my predictions in cryptic quatrains for fear of being put under house arrest or being beheaded.
Here are my predictions. We will see how many of them prove to be correct.

There will be at least one amazing scientific discovery that will surprise about 99% of the people in the world, and ALL of the mainstream scientists.

The left half of the country (USA) will finally accept the fact that their candidate did not win the election and that the world is not coming to an end because of it.

The right half of the country will finally realize that their candidate did not win either, and that the world is not coming to an end because of it.

The rest of us will continue getting on with our lives because we know the world is in the hands of an intelligence far greater than that of any elected official.

 A scientific study will show that all far-right, and far-left thinkers are mentally unbalanced, something that the rest of us already knew.

The Academy for the Advancement of Post-Materialist Sciences will make the headlines with information that will amaze the world.

There will be at least three major disastrous events that will sadden us all, and there will also be at least three major events that will upset half of us and please the other half.

We will have proof that we are not alone in the universe.

We will learn that we will soon be able to live as long as we want, and that we should be living at least twice as long as we do now anyway.

Brian Walker’s X squared plus one will be the subject of a scholarly paper.

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!


© Edward R. Close, December 21, 2017

Here are the Initial Equations of the calculus:

The symbol indicating a distinction (upside-down L) represents a distinction of any kind. The blank on the right-hand side of equation 2.) denotes no distinction.

In this introduction to the application of the CoDD to real problems, we start with a list of logical expressions in symbolic logic and CoDD notation, with calculated values in the table below.

 *Note: The same logic symbols used by G. Spencer Brown in Laws of Form are used here to avoid confusion when the reader refers to Brown’s work. **A and B in this table represent algebraic variables or functions that may take on any value allowed in the CoDD.

CoDD expressions often involve nested symbols up to seven to nine levels deep, or more, conveying the geometric structure of the calculus and of existential reality. Three-dimensional representations would be more realistic, and three-dimensional representations can be developed for use in videos or slide presentations, but distinctions of four or more dimensions can only be represented by projections onto two-dimensional media, and are generally incomprehensible to anyone who has not spent a lot of time studying them. Two-dimensional nested expressions are used because they are relatively easily drawn on sheets of paper or a blackboard.

A Demonstration of Calculation:

Assume that a hypothesis about some aspect the reality we experience can be expressed in terms of the CoDD by the expression H consisting of existential distinctions:

These calculations reveal that H is equal to a non-distinction. Therefore, the hypothesis represented by expression H is false.

Application of the CoDD to a Simple Example:

Consider the following 3 statements:

1.     1. All cars produced by the Ford Motor Company before 1927 were black.
2.     2. John has two antique Ford cars, and they are both black.
3.     3Therefore, John’s antique cars were manufactured before 1927.

Those familiar with automotive history know that most cars produced before 1927 were black. Henry Ford famously said: “A customer can have a car painted any color he wants, as long as it’s black!” And everyone familiar with cars knows that the Ford Motor Company has also produced many black cars since 1927, and that there are black antique cars other than Fords. But suppose you didn’t know anything about cars other than what is given in the first two statements; how would you proceed? Even though this is a simple example, comparing the analysis using symbolic logic with the CoDD analysis is instructive.

Let the symbol P represent cars manufactured prior to 1927; let V represent John’s vintage cars; and let B represent black cars. Translating the statements from English to symbolic logic and the CoDD, we have:

Looking at the symbolic logic approach first, we see that the first two statements are given as true, and their truth in conjunction has the following logical consequence:

(P ϵ B) (V ϵ B) ⸧ (P V) ϵ B, which has two possible, mutually exclusive consequences:
[(P V) ϵ B] ⸧ (P V) and [(P V) ϵ B] ~ (P V). Thus, the third statement is not supported by the information given in the first two. It can be either True or False, therefore, while statements 1 and 2 are true, statement 3 is indeterminate; it may be either true or false, we just don’t know based on the information given.

Now, let’s look at the CoDD analysis. We start with the CoDD representation of statement #3 as our hypothesis: The groups of vehicles that P, B and V represent are existential. Therefore, they can be replaced by symbols of distinction, and we have:

This calculation is performed by applying initial equation #2 three times in the first step, three times in the second step, and once in the last step. Since this CoDD expression of statement #3 reduces to, and is therefore equivalent to non-distinction, the statement is false. Statement #1 and #2 taken together, do not imply statement #3. 

The CoDD is a powerful tool because it allows one to check the logical validity of statements and hypotheses of any kind very quickly once it is translated into the CoDD notation. With practice, it is much more direct and easier than conventional symbolic logic. The simplification steps for even a very complex CoDD expression can be done visually.

Edward R. Close December 21, 2017

Sunday, December 10, 2017



Let’s take this one step at a time: Is there intelligent life? We would hope so; but before we can answer this question in any meaningful way, we must first recognize that when we ask this question, we are assuming that we know what intelligence is, and we are also assuming that we know what life is. I don’t think there is much tangible evidence that we do. We are assuming that just because we can ask such a question, we are intelligent. But, let’s think about how we determine whether we are intelligent or not. We judge human intelligence based on IQ. But, exactly what is IQ?

IQ is defined as a numerical score obtained by dividing a person’s mental age by his or her chronological age, and multiplying the result by 100. The median raw score of many human test results is used to define the “normal” IQ, which will be then be 100. With this definition, and a measure of the variability of the data, called standard deviation, of 15 points, approximately two-thirds of individuals tested will score between 85 and 115, and about 2.5 % will score above 130, and 2.5 percent below 70. Intelligence defined in this way is related to human intelligence only; it says nothing about any other kind of intelligence. Are other life forms less intelligent than we are if they don’t have our vocal chords, or hands that can hold a pencil or peck out words on a keyboard?

If you score 132 or above on a standardized IQ test, you will qualify to become a member of MENSA, and other people, who don’t qualify, are expected to think of you as a genius. But, what does it really mean if you score 133, or even 200 on an IQ test? It means is that you are very good to extremely good at taking IQ tests. It means that, on a test that takes about an hour for the average person to complete, at that one time in your life, you scored much higher than the average of the general population. There are several assumptions built into this evaluation that, even though they were thought out by some very “smart” people, may or may not be true. In some ways, other life forms may be more intelligent than we are.

Certainly, there are some animals, like dogs, cats, horses, and dolphins, that have many abilities that we do not possess, and I would argue, based on my experience as a math teacher, that there are some dogs that are smarter than some people. The point is that we have a very narrow view of intelligence, and we shouldn’t assume that other life forms are more, or less intelligent than us based on human standards alone. Even if I score 200 on a battery of human IQ tests, I have no right to claim complete superiority over any other human being, and certainly no right to think I’m superior to other species.
It is the height of self-centered egoism to assume that the species Homo sapiens is the epitome of intelligent life in the universe. There is no evidence of that, and considerable evidence to the contrary. There very well could be a life form out there somewhere in the universe that could score 1000 or higher on our IQ tests. If so, does that make them superior to us? Not necessarily; we might be able to squash them like ants. Incidentally, how do we know how intelligent an ant is? Some small insects are more resilient and more complex structurally than we are. Have you ever looked at microbes under a microscope? Do we really know what intelligence is? I don’t think so.

OK, then; if we don’t quite know what intelligence is, what about life? Do we know what life is? We think of life as a state of being that distinguishes animals and plants from other things like rocks and toasters. Living things, at least on this planet, first appear in an infantile form, then, under the protection of adults, grow organically until they can reproduce, interact with their environment, enjoy life, suffer pain, and then die. But is this true for all life forms everywhere in the universe? Is there intelligent life out there? I think there probably is, but maybe we should first ask whether there is intelligent life in here.

Ed Close December 10, 2017

Monday, November 27, 2017


Uniting Science and Spirituality Video:



The members, in no particular order, except for Dr. Gary Schwartz and Dr. Marjorie Woollacott, founders.

Gary Schwartz, PhD, and his wife Rhonda
Marjorie Woollacott, PhD
Mario Beauregard, PhD
Imants Barrus, PhD
Dianne Powell, PhD
Dean Radin, PhD
Lisa Miller, PhD
Edward R. Close, PhD
Julia Mossbridge, PhD
Stephan A. Schwartz
Menas Kafatos, PhD

Members not present:

Charles Tart, PhD (participated via Skype)
Rupert Shelldrake, PhD
Vernon Neppe, MD, PhD

All members are well-known and established professionals in their own right and can be found online. To watch, click on Expanding Reality:

Saturday, November 25, 2017


© Edward R. Close, November 26, 2015

I have just finished writing a description of the development of the science of the future. It is to be included as a chapter in the first volume of the Academy for the Advancement of Post-Materialist Science, to be published soon; - I’m hoping within the next year. My chapter is currently being reviewed by the founders of the Academy and by Dr. Vernon Neppe, my research partner. In the meantime, here is a brief summary of the chapter. It contains an explanation of why current mainstream science cannot answer many of the most important questions we have about the reality we experience, what the mainstream paradigm is missing, and how the science of the future is expanded to be much more comprehensive and capable of addressing all of reality. The chapter asks and answers a series of questions:

Before Planck, mainstream science had no idea that reality is quantized, i.e., that reality only occurs in multiples of very small amounts of mass and energy called quanta.
Before Einstein, mainstream science had no idea that matter and energy are two forms of the same thing, their equivalence defined mathematically by E = mc2.

A mathematical expression of consciousness is conspicuously absent from the equations of mainstream science, despite the fact, that our only direct knowledge of reality is through the experience of consciousness. It should be clear that consciousness must be included in any truly scientific analysis of reality.

More than 85 years ago, Max Planck said: “I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as a derivative of consciousness.”

Planck’s discovery that energy is meted out by nature in multiples of a basic unit revolutionized our understanding of the nature of reality, but the implications of this discovery have not yet been fully realized by mainstream science. Something is still missing.

Science has been very successful investigating and exploiting the physical aspects of reality. But we are at the point where knowledge is rapidly out-striping understanding and wisdom. As a result, civilization is in danger of self-destruction. The short-sighted egocentric science of specialization and institutional departmentalization has made it almost impossible for scientists, engineers and technicians to see the big picture. Because of this, the danger of blundering into situations detrimental to the survival of the human species is rapidly increasing.

The Standard Model of particle physics has been constructed from terabytes of data obtained from destructive testing in particle colliders, and particle physicists have borrowed tools from the body of mathematical logic as needed to solve problems without regard for the axiomatic assumptions underlying them. As a result, some applications, while yielding useful results, produce a misleading picture of the nature of reality.

The most important example of how ignoring the larger picture leads to misunderstanding, is the application of the differential and integral calculus to quantum phenomena. The calculus of Leibniz and Newton, developed over 300 years ago, depends on the assumption that equations describing physical processes are continuous functions with variables that can approach zero infinitely closely. But quantum reality is not continuous, and the variables describing it are not infinitely divisible.

Put as simply as possible: The structures of physical reality cannot be divided indefinitely. This means that the calculus being used by mainstream physicists, while very useful at the mid-scale of reality, is inappropriate for application at the quantum level.

To avoid the confusion resulting from the application of inappropriate mathematical tools, and deepen our understanding quantum phenomena, the science of the future replaces the calculus of Newton and Leibniz with the calculus of dimensional distinctions (CoDD), developed by this author over a period of several years. A major part of the chapter for the AAPS book is a presentation of the derivation of the basic unit of measurement of the CoDD, the quantum equivalence unit, and its application to the description of quantum reality.

The science of the future must incorporate knowledge gained from the last two major scientific paradigms shifts, and move on to expand the scientific investigation of reality beyond the simplistic materialistic model to which mainstream science currently limits itself. It has done this by deriving the universal quantum equivalence unit as the basis of the appropriate quantum calculus, and combining the principles of relativity and quantum physics.  This enables us to put consciousness into the equations and re-unite science with its true metaphysical basis.

In the process of deriving the true quantum equivalence unit for the calculus of distinctions, we discovered a third quantifiable form of reality that exists in addition to matter and energy. We chose the third letter of the Hebrew alphabet, gimmel, to represent that third form of reality. Gimmel is not measurable as matter or energy, and is, therefore, non-physical. When the natural elements of the Periodic Table are analyzed using true quantum units, we see that physical reality is specifically designed to support life. Gimmel is nothing other than the mathematical logic of consciousness guiding the development of organic life as the vehicle of individualized consciousness.

For the first time in modern history, we have taken the measure of consciousness and put it directly into the equations of science. But much more needs to be done. A more detailed development and application of this approach to every aspect of reality awaits the fresh young minds of the scientists of the future. The answers provided in this chapter afford only a glimpse of the broad landscape of where the science of the future will go. It will be a science that, in addition to providing unambiguous answers to questions about the physical universe, will also be able to investigate the greater domain of non-physical reality and explore the infinite possibilities of the human mind and spirit.

“The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence”. - Nikola Tesla, 1856

I will try to keep up with the progress of the Academy for the Advancement of Post-materialist Science and post updates on this blog as often as I can.

Tuesday, November 14, 2017



by Edward R. Close, November 14, 2017

Evil is subtle, and good is easily ignored. And right now, we are at a critical point in the history of science and our civilization. University professors have been misguidedly teaching our children that everything is matter and energy evolving in space and time for many years. They are blinded by the intellectual trap of materialism. It has become common for mainstream scientists to say things like “The more we know, the more meaningless it becomes!” And “we are just accidental combinations of matter and energy flying away from an explosion that happened 13.8 billion years ago”. And young aspiring scientists are saying: “I’m a scientist, so of course I’m an atheist!”

This is not only wrong, it is subtly dangerous; - but the danger is not so subtle any more. The belief that when my body dies I cease to exist, leads to a self-serving attitude of “This is all there is, so I can do anything I want.” This is the reason crime, violence, murder and suicide are rampant in the world today. Science must change, and it must change quickly, if we are to survive as an intelligent civilization.

Science must change soon, and science can change, because intellectual atheism is not a valid scientific hypothesis, it cannot be proved or disproved within the current scientific paradigm. And anyone who is awake and aware of the elegant wonders of nature and the mathematical beauty of the music resounding throughout the atoms and the stars, knows in his or her heart that there is much more to Reality than matter and energy randomly revolving and dissolving in space-time.

About thirty years ago, I realized that conscious awareness depends on the existence of a real, but non-physical aspect of reality. In 1996 at the university of Arizona in Tucson, I presented the case for the non-quantum receptor at Tucson II: Toward a Science of Consciousness. And in 1997 I published my third book: Transcendental Physics. In 2008, I began to work with a world-renowned neuroscientist, Dr. Vernon Neppe, MD, PhD. As you may know, we have published numerous papers and manuscripts and we have spoken at national and international conferences announcing a new consciousness-based paradigm. But that is not what this post is about.

About five years ago, we discovered that, in addition to matter and energy, there is a third something that must exist at the quantum level for there to be any symmetrically stable subatomic particles. In other words, if there wasn’t something non-physical from the very beginning, there would not be a physical universe as we know it today. This discovery allowed us to work out a way to put consciousness into the equations of science, fulfilling a dream I had had for more than fifty years! By putting consciousness into the equations, we have explained things that have puzzled mainstream scientists for decades. But even that is not the point of this post.

The point of this post is that science must change, is about to change forever, and you need to know about it.

Scientists and theologians alike have told us for years that no one can prove with science and logic, that God and the human soul or spirit do or do not exist. This assumption has kept the world of scientists, whose “theories of everything” involve only matter and energy, and the world of spiritual people, who need no proof, forever apart. But this assumption is only true when science is limited to the materialistic belief system of current mainstream science. When the basis of science is expanded to include an element of consciousness, as we have done with the discovery of the third form of reality, which we call gimmel, that is no longer true.

The real existence of the world of Spirit and its interaction with physical reality is now a mathematically proven and scientifically demonstrable fact. Science is about to enter a completely new and exciting era. The real phenomena of spiritual experience can now be explained, within a scientific paradigm that also explains physical phenomena. For the first time in modern human history, every real phenomenon can be scientifically explored and explained.

In 1856, Nikola Tesla, the genius of electrical transmission and use, said: “The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence”.

This is what the work of Neppe and Close, and the new Academy for the Advancement of Postmaterialist Science is all about. Stay tuned!

Friday, November 10, 2017


An Assessment of The Golden Hills Indian Village
by Edward R. Close

A cluster of small mounds, located in a secluded spot in the southwestern part of the Golden Hills Trail Ride acreage, is somewhat unusual for this part of Missouri because most Native American Village sites in the area either did not include mounds, or if they did, the mounds have been obliterated by farming or other human activities. I first became aware of this site in 1951 0r ’52 while hiking across a rugged wooded area near Pond Springs branch, tributary to Big Creek and the Current River in the beautiful Missouri Ozarks. I was looking for caves to explore, and I occasionally came across evidence of abandoned Native American villages or camp sites. Artifacts like spearheads, arrowheads, pot shards, flint knives and other evidence of the Native American past were sometimes exposed along streams in this area by erosion after heavy rains. But this site was not near an obvious water source, and it was in an out-of-the-way, wooded area so you would not find it unless you literally stumbled upon the mounds. I noticed a small groundwater seep covered in leaves just outside the cluster of mounds that may have been a flowing spring in the past, before settlers began digging wells on farms and residences on the higher ground to the west.

This site was probably occupied by a small Native American group (estimated to be about 25 to 50 people), most likely families of the Piankeshaw Tribe, from around 1837 until about 1855 or 1860. While a positive identification of the tribe that built the mounds and an accurate determination of the dates of their occupation are not possible without a detailed archeological investigation, these estimates are based on written accounts found in historical records in South Central and Southeast Missouri. My reasons for believing that it was the Piankeshaw that lived there during these approximate dates, are outlined below.

The dominate indigenous people of Southern Missouri and Northern Arkansas when the European settlers arrived, were the Osage, the largest tribe of the Southern Sioux. But their villages were typically located along major streams, were much larger, and when they built mounds they tended to be elongated because they lived in lodges, not wigwams or teepees. They may have had hunting camps in this area, where they would have built smaller shelters, but typically, the temporary shelters of hunting camps were not built on mounds. The time and effort it took to build mounds was expended where occupation was intended to be year-round, not seasonal, as in the case of hunting camps. So, for these reasons, I believe it is very unlikely that this was an Osage site.

Indigenous tribes east and southeast of this area, the Illini, Quapaw and Chickasaw, most likely could not have built this village, because the Osage were fierce defenders of their hunting territory until they were forced to move west by European settlers. This area would have been even less accessible to the indigenous Missouria, Ioway and the Oto tribes who lived farther away north and northwest of the Osage territory. It is therefore very likely that this site was built by a non-indigenous group of native Americans who had been forced out of their native lands farther east by European settlers in the late 1700’s or early 1800’s.

Tribes known to have moved into the Missouri Ozarks in the late 1700’s and early 1800’s, hoping to settle there, at least temporarily, were the Miami, Shawnee, Cherokee, Delaware, Kickapoo, Sac and Fox. A temporary Shawnee village was known to still exist as late as the early 1900’s a few miles southwest of this site, on Big Creek above the Route 17 bridge. But the Shawnee and Delaware, who were related Algonquian speaking tribes, built long houses unlike the dwellings indicated by the size, shape and grouping of the mounds at the Golden Hills site. Because of this, and the probable time frame of the sites, it is unlikely that the two sites are related, and so, it was probably not the Shawnee or Delaware who built these mounds.

The Cherokee trail of tears in 1838 split into two branches about 100 miles east of Texas County, one group going northwest through the Salem Missouri area, the other going south into Arkansas. For this reason, and because the location, type of mounds and size of the Golden Hills site are not consistent with the temporary encampments of the forced march of the Cherokee, it is unlikely that the site was built by the Cherokee.

The site layout is not unlike that of the small villages of the Kickapoo, Sac and Fox, but I can find no evidence that these tribes ever built villages this far south in Missouri, or anywhere in Osage territory. This leaves the Miami. And we do have records of small bands of Piankeshaw, a branch of the Miami Nation, moving from Indiana and Ohio into southeastern Missouri around 1800. Like the Kickapoo, Delaware, Sac and Fox, they were Algonquian-speaking natives and they built small villages in secluded locations that would match the physical characteristics of the Golden Hills site. 

They built dome-shaped wigwams by burying the larger end of flexible poles in the ground, around a 10 to 15 ft. diameter circular mound, bending the upper ends of the poles over to meet above the center of the mound, and covering them with animal skins, grass mats and bark. Inside, the ground was covered with grass mats on top of evergreen boughs, except for a rock-lined fireplace in the center. The entry door would be covered with an animal skin flap, and a hole would be left at the highest point of the structure to allow smoke from a cooking and/or heating fire to escape.

As the Osage were being pushed westward, and other tribes from farther east were being forced to move by the pressures of the European settlers, dwindling groups of the Piankeshaw sought out sheltered areas in Southeast Missouri. From about 1805, a Piankeshaw village was known to be located in what is now known as Arcadia Valley. Taum Sauk Mountain, the highest elevation in the state, just west of Arcadia Valley, is named after the Piankeshaw chief who lived there. But, in 1836, high-grade iron ore was discovered in hills around the valley, and European immigrants from Germany, Ireland, and Eastern Europe poured into the valley to work in the mines. The Piankeshaw, who had sided with the British in the Revolutionary war, moved on west.

From all the historical records that I’m aware of, and the circumstantial evidence presented above, it is my opinion that the mounds at the Golden Hills site were probably built by the Piankeshaw as one of their last efforts to find a safe haven, away from routes travelled by the European intruders. They would have arrived at this sheltered location, now part of the Golden Hills Ranch, around 1837, and may have remained there until after the Piankeshaw treaty with the US Government in 1854. Eventually, the Piankeshaw, along with the illini, Wea and Kaskaskia, remnants of the Algonquian-language-speaking Miami tribes, merged with the Peoria, a larger Miami tribe, in Oklahoma. Present-day descendants of the Piankeshaw are part of the Native American culture in and around Miami Oklahoma.

Edward R. Close, PhD, November 10, 2017

Monday, October 30, 2017


©Edward R. Close 10/30/2017

OK, let's put our thinking caps on, and see if we can use a little more of our brain capacity than we normally do. People on both sides of the question concerning whether there is a supreme intelligence behind the reality we experience, seem to think that this is not a proper question for science to ever even consider asking. Philosophers and theologians consider the question as exclusively on their turf, and most mainstream scientists think that there is no way to determine the answer to this question using the scientific method. In my opinion, they are both wrong. Why? They are both wrong because there can be no boundaries for real science, science must go wherever the evidence leads, and the scientists who refuse to even consider the question are doubly wrong because there is plenty of hard evidence now to warrant addressing this question scientifically.

In this country, Dr. J.B. Rhine began the long road to making parapsychology, still considered by some to be pseudoscience, a legitimate subject for scientific study in 1931 at Duke University. In quantum physics, since about 1935, more and more refined versions of the double-slit and delayed-choice experiments have revealed the fact that the consciousness of the observer is somehow directly involved in shaping what we observe at the quantum level. And more recently, meticulous scientific studies by scientists like Dean Radin, Chief Scientist at the Institute of Noetic Sciences (IONS), and Gary Schwartz at the University of Arizona, have consistently produced more and more significant experimental evidence that psi phenomena like remote viewing, psychokinesis and even mediumship are real. 

It is past time to investigate this question seriously. So, how do we go about testing the hypothesis that the universe has an intelligent design with meaning and purpose? Anyone who has had direct personal contact with the intelligence behind reality has all the proof anyone could ever need. He or she knows. But words cannot adequately convey such knowledge, and that is not the kind of proof I’m talking about here. I am talking about scientific proof. Any legitimate question can be addressed scientifically in three steps:

1)    State the question as a hypothesis.
2)    Express the hypothesis or its consequences in primary mathematical logic, thereby turning the hypothesis into a theorem, and then
3)    prove the theorem to be either true or false.

The question of whether God exists can be stated either as a positive hypothesis or as a negative hypothesis. Positive: God exists. Negative: There is no God. This brings up some ideas that may confuse some readers, so we will take a short, but important side trip. I once heard a minister, discussing an atheist’s blunt statement that “there is no God,” state authoritatively that you cannot prove a negative! While his argument may have been otherwise persuasive, when he said this, he was dead wrong! The once widespread belief that a negative can’t be proved may have come from the fact that negative statements are often much harder to prove than positive statements, but negative statements can be proved. Mathematicians do it all the time. For example, take the statement that there are no prime numbers between 113 and 127.

For those not much accustomed to thinking about numbers, a prime number is any number that is only divisible by itself and 1. The numbers 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, and 17, for example, are prime numbers. The other numbers in this series: 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, and 16, are not. The statement “There are no prime numbers between 113 and 127” is a negative statement that can be easily proved by looking at the 13 numbers between 113 and 127. If you do, then you’ll find that they are all divisible by smaller numbers, and you will have proved a negative statement to be true.

So, if the negative statement “there is no God” is open to proof or disproof, then the positive statement “God exists” is open to proof or disproof. But this brings up another question: Just because a statement seems to make sense, does that mean that it can be proved to be true or false? Maybe a statement can simply be unprovable. Is our hypothesis unprovable? Many have said that it is. But they are wrong. To prove this, we will have to consider something called Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems.

In 1931, an Austrian mathematician, Kurt Gödel, published one of the most important papers in the history of mathematics and science. It contained theorems with profound and far-reaching consequences. And yet, many, probably even most people have never heard of Gӧdel or his theorems. This is true at least partly because the proofs of the incompleteness theorems are complex and subtle, - not accessible to anyone without considerable training in mathematics and symbolic logic. Fortunately, their meaning is understandable. Gӧdel’s incompleteness theorems prove that in any logical system, there can be true statements that cannot be proved within the system. Could our statements regarding the existence or non-existence of God be such statements, statements that cannot be proved within the logical systems known as the current scientific paradigm? Yes, that could very well be the case.

Does that mean that they are forever unprovable? No! - Let me explain. At first, many people, even some mathematicians, misinterpreted Gӧdel’s theorems to mean that there are true statements that can never be proved. In the case at hand, e.g., they could conclude that even though one of our statements, either the positive or the negative, must be true, it can never ever be proved. But, this is not what Gӧdel’s incompleteness theorems say. They do say that there can be true statements that are not provable within a logical system like the current scientific paradigm. But they also say that no logical system is complete. So, if the current paradigm can be expanded into a larger logical system, then statements that are unprovable in the current paradigm may be provable in the new expanded paradigm.

This brings us back to our question of the existence or non-existence of God. Step one is easy. We have our hypothesis. Step two is a little more difficult. It is much like the word problems you may remember encountering in high school algebra. A verbal hypothesis can be translated into the language of mathematical logic to avoid the ambiguity of words. The word God, for example, may have a different meaning for every reader of this post, but, if you can translate the consequences of the existence or non-existence of God into terms of the primary mathematical logic in an expanded paradigm, then proof or disproof may be possible. It is important to note that turning a hypothesis into a mathematical theorem changes it from a theory, subject to endless debate, to a theorem that can be proved or disproved.

Of course, the three steps listed above are much easier said than done; but they have been done, and I will present the outline here of how they were done.

During the past 40 years, I have developed a primary mathematical logic that is capable of describing the phenomena experienced by sentient beings like us.  It is a calculus that is logically prior to conventional mathematics into which hypotheses can be translated for proof or disproof. It is called the Calculus of Dimensional Distinctions (CoDD). It re-unites number theory and geometry, and by deriving the basic units of the CoDD from data for elementary particles, provided by the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), the primary mathematical logic is united with physics. The quantum units whose values are derived from the LHC data for the three elementary particles: the electron, which, among the elementary particles that make up the natural atoms of the periodic Table of elements, has the smallest rest mass and volume, and the quarks that make up the protons and neutrons of atoms.

These units, used as the basic units of measurement for the CoDD, are called the Triadic Rotational Units of Equivalence (TRUE), or true quantum units. They are called rotational equivalence units because the particles are rotating, and because they embody the volumetric equivalence of the parameters of mass, energy, space, and time, as expressed by the equation E = mc2. The physics and mathematical details of the derivation of true quantum units from LHC data, applying relativistic principles have been published in several technical papers and in posts on this blog.

In the process of describing, in true quantum units, the combinations of the quarks that form protons and neutrons, we discovered that no stable protons or neutrons, and thus not one atom, could form without the existence of a third something that is neither mass nor energy. This means that in the debris of a big-bang explosion, nothing stable could ever have formed without this third non-physical something being present. This means that materialism is not a viable basis for scientific inquiry!

But, what is this third form that is part of every atom, and thus responsible for the existence of the universe? It cannot be matter or energy, because then electrons and quarks would not have the masses revealed by statistical analysis of the many terabytes of data from the LHC. Since we have no name for it, my research partner, Dr. Vernon Neppe and I decided to represent it with gimmel, the third letter of the Phoenician and Hebrew alphabet. The discovery of gimmel, and its representation as multiples of the basic units of the CoDD in the equations of science led to another discovery: The atoms that have the largest percentage of gimmel are the elements that support organic life, Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, Nitrogen, Sulfur, etc. So gimmel causes the physical universe to form in the very specific fine-tuned way that allows the existence of conscious organic life forms.

Gimmel had to exist prior to the formation of any particle of the physical universe, otherwise, no stable atoms and molecules could form. This means that the non-physical logic that shapes the universe pre-existed the matter, energy, space and time that make up the universe. Logic is not associated with random accidents. Logic is associated with mind.

Max Planck, the father of quantum physics said: As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clearheaded science, to the study of matter, I can tell you, as a result of my research about the atoms, this much:  There is no matter as such! All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds … the atom together. … We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Spirit. This Spirit is the matrix of all matter. - The Nature of Matter, a speech delivered in Florence, Italy in 1944.

Discovery of the existence of gimmel proves that he was right. A conscious and intelligent mind is behind the force that holds the atoms of the universe together in symmetric vibration, and our hypothesis is proved. There is a conscious intelligence behind all reality. Some have called it God.