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.

Friday, October 27, 2017



page 4:
Transcendental Physics proves that a pervasive form of consciousness, (God) not only exists, but necessarily preceded the creation of physical reality."

Pp 59-60:
“With proof that materialism is an incomplete and inadequate theory, science can no longer use it as a basis for understanding reality. Ironically, it is not a thought experiment or theoretical consideration that has brought about the downfall of materialism, it is a meticulous empirical experiment. Scientific materialism has literally been hoisted on its own petard! And the blow is final. The assumption that physical reality exists independent of the conscious observer is simply incorrect. Still, because of ingrained belief in this assumption, the death of materialism is not yet general knowledge.”

In a recent review of Space, Time and Consciousness, an unpublished manuscript by this author, that elaborates on some of the points made in Transcendental Physics, a reviewer said:

“I'd say that your refutation of materialism may constitute one of the biggest philosophical breakthroughs in the last 2500 years… -- a world historic event.”

Page 272: “Once it is understood that reality is much more than matter and energy interacting in time and space, and that this greater reality can be investigated objectively, the doors will be thrown open for science to grow as never before,”

I published several original poems at the beginnings and endings of some of the chapters of Transcendental Physics For example, on page 260, at the beginning of Chapter Ten, you’ll find:

The Cosmic Whole

Bathed in diurnal rays both day and night,
We sleep, always blinded by the light.

What’s new is old, what’s old is new,
Once discerned, what’s one is two.

The simple seed becomes a tree,
The atom’s speed, - eternity.

Both time and space
Enshroud the soul,
‘til we embrace

The Cosmic

P 199:
“It is now time to turn back, investigate consciousness in an objective manner and develop a scientific understanding of consciousness comparable to our current understanding of physical reality.”

Transcendental Physics is available from Barnes and Noble and other book handlers and on Anyone who wants an autographed copy, can send a check or money order for US $40.00 (to cover the cost of the book plus handling and shipping) to:

EJC Advantage, LLC
P.O. Box 368
Jackson, MO 63755

Wednesday, October 25, 2017


A two-page article in a recent issue of the prestigious science magazine EXPLORE is hailed as "a bombshell". The lead authors of this article are three of the founding members of the new Academy for the Advancement of Post-Materialist Science. I was invited to become a member and met with the lead authors of this article and six other members of the Academy at Canyon Ranch near Tucson Arizona in August. We are currently working on the first book to be published by the Academy, a 10-chapter volume entitled Is Consciousness Primary?
Click on the title below and follow the link to read the article and see what others have to say about it.


Monday, October 23, 2017


Picture taken about 2005 or 2006

Marble Hill, 2008

2008: Singing a Christmas Cantata with the Bollinger County Community Choir, directed by Mrs. Lee Stewart. Jacqui is in the front row, on the right end, and I’m on the right end in the back row. That’s Dr. David Stewart second on my right.

2010: With Cherie Ross, in make-up for the second day of filming in Egypt of the Young Living documentary film the Frankincense Trail.

With my trusty camel, I was the Physician/Priest in the Frankincense Trail Caravan in the Ancient City of Petra, Southern Jordan, 2010.  

Jacqui in Brisbane, October, 2011

2011: Here we are in the sky-lift up into the Rain forest near Cairns Australia in 2011, a few days after we had been guest speakers at a Young Living Regional Convention in Brisbane. Below: Feeding a wallaby kangaroo. 

2011: Living in Tucson Arizona.

2011- 2012: A tree fell on our house in Missouri. The Pythagorean Conference was cancelled five days before opening date, and on Black Friday, November 26, 2012, Jacqui had acute kidney failure. I almost lost her. She was in St. Joseph's Hospital in Tucson for 11 days, and we had to move back to Missouri. She has been on dialysis ever since. But life goes on; it's not about waiting for the storm to stop, it's about learning to dance in the rain!

2013: At the International Conference on Science and Spirituality, Puebla Mexico with Drs. Neppe, Sagi and Lazlo.

Young Living Convention 2014, we achieve the rank of Gold!

Here I am, October 23, 2017, just a few minutes ago, I'll have a haircut and beard trim tomorrow, and I may still look like the 2007 picture! Or maybe not!

Sunday, October 22, 2017



I was pleased and honored to be among the group of scientists invited by the founding members of the Academy to write a chapter for this volume. We were asked to focus on the primacy of consciousness hypothesis and explain, based on our individual experiences, both professional and personal, how and why we came to consider it as a valid scientific hypothesis.

In my chapter you will find a brief account of a double life: By day, I earned a living by applying the scientific method as a systems analyst, mathematical modeler and professional engineer, while by night and on weekends, I single-mindedly sought to understand the meaning of existence and the true nature of reality by studying what is known as the perennial philosophy, practicing time-honored consciousness expansion techniques and pursuing independent research in several major universities.

As someone who has spent many years passionately seeking to understand the nature of reality at its deepest level, I can tell you this much:

I am quite certain that there is no reality without consciousness. Nothing would exist without it, and nothing can be known without it: CONSCIOUSNESS IS PRIMARY.

I can state this unequivocally because I have proved it to my satisfaction by personal experience and by using hard scientific evidence, valid experimental data and rigorous mathematical proof. In my chapter of the Academy’s first volume, I hope to exceed all expectations by presenting an outline of this proof, along with disclosure of a significant discovery that provides answers to, and explanations of many issues that have puzzled mainstream scientists for decades.

Ed Close, October 22, 2017


Based on my life's work and the discoveries published in collaboration with Dr. Vernon Neppe, I conclude that consciousness, represented mathematically by true quantum units of gimmel, shapes the fundamental fabric of objective reality which is continually being transformed into the measurable forms of mass, energy, space, and time, in mathematical accordance with the logical structure specified and represented by the Conveyance Equations. It is the mathematically logical nature of reality that makes both applied and theoretical science possible. 

Gimmel represents the transfinite substrate behind which finite mind, operating through the brains and bodies of sentient beings, cannot penetrate. Based on our research, however, I believe that behind gimmel exists Pure Primary Consciousness, the Infinite Intelligence that continually creates, sustains and dissolves all finite forms. As an expression of the intelligent substrate beyond space and time, conveying the intent of Infinite Intelligence, Primary Consciousness is a-temporal: it has always existed and will always exist. This means that there is no absolute beginning or end, only change from one form to another. I believe the universe exists as a projection or reflection of the logical, mathematical multi-dimensional structure of Pure Consciousness, through the self-organizing action of a conscious third form of reality represented by the symbol we call gimmel, existing in every quantum and every atom of the universe.

The discovery of gimmel is nothing more than a bare-bones beginning; the opening of a door to a new, much more comprehensive science, a science that can take us into a new, more detailed understanding of the vast nature of reality. We have developed the basics of a more inclusive calculus, a calculus that has allowed us, for the first time in modern history to take the measure of consciousness and put it squarely into the equations of natural science; but much more needs to be done. 

A much more detailed development and application of the Calculus of Dimensional Distinctions awaits the fresh young minds of the scientists of the future. The answers provided by this discovery afford only a glimpse of the broad landscape of the science of the future, a science that, in addition to answering all of our questions about the physical universe, will also boldly go into the greater domain of non-physical reality and explore the infinite possibilities of the human mind and spirit.

Friday, October 20, 2017



This chapter is a bare-bones beginning; the opening of a door to a new, much more comprehensive science, a science that can take us into a new, more detailed understanding of the vast nature of reality. We have developed the basics of an inclusive calculus, a calculus that has allowed us, for the first time in modern history to take the measure of consciousness and put it squarely into the equations of natural science; but much more needs to be done. A much more detailed development and application of the new calculus awaits the fresh young minds of the scientists of the future. The answers provided in this short essay afford only a glimpse of the broad landscape of the science of the future, a science that, in addition to answering all of our questions about the physical universe, will also boldly go into the greater domain of non-physical reality and explore the infinite possibilities of the human mind and spirit.

Monday, October 16, 2017



It is common these days to hear people absolutely blasting those with opposing political views, accusing them of dark motives and calling them derogatory names. Both sides are doing it. 

A word of caution: Be very careful. There’s a subtle difference between logical evaluation and judgement, and while you may think you are evaluating an issue, it’s easy to slip over the edge into judgement of other people, in which case you risk becoming subject to judgement yourself. One way to check this tendency is to ask yourself: Am I acting or reacting?

Action is a positive response to something or someone you oppose, while reaction is always negative, leading to further divisions and alienation. So, if you are offended by something someone says or does, take a deep breath and instead of calling that person names and hurling insults, present your opposing view in positive terms. You’ll be surprised how often the other person will back down, and at least partially agree with you. It is better to agree to disagree than to build walls of insults that divide you forever from someone who has a different opinion.

Your view of the world is strongly affected by your  world view, which is based on your personal belief system, which may be partially right and partially wrong. There is nothing wrong with reality. Reality functions according to the logic of the Laws of Nature. If you are religious, know that even though it may sometimes not seem so, God is always in control. So, if the world seems wrong, know that it is your attitude that needs to change, not the world. You can do only very little to change the way others think, while you do have a lot of leeway to change the way you think of others. 

Evaluate controversial issues carefully, but do not judge others if they see things differently. If necessary, take positive action to express your view, but do not react in anger and condemn others. If you do so, then you are most probably part of the problem.


Sunday, October 8, 2017


As my Face Book Friends know, yesterday I celebrated my 9x9 = 81st birthday. Thank you again for all the wonderful birthday wishes, comments and blessings. I wish to send Love and Light to each and every one of you, and please know that I am going to be around for a while longer, I still have a lot to do.

Would you believe that someone asked me a few years ago: “How long have you been retired?” My response was: “Retirement is not a meaningful word in my vocabulary.” What on Earth makes someone think I’m retired? People retire when they are tired of what they’ve been doing, and/or are getting ready to die!

Concerning death, the cerebral comedian Woody Allen said:

I’m not afraid to die, I just don’t want to be there when it happens!

I believe we are on this Earth to learn that life and death are passing dreams from which we all must one day waken, and for most of us, it takes a while. I worked as an actuarial mathematician, writing computer programs for the Univac computer for a major insurance company in downtown Los Angeles 57 years ago and saw statistics that showed that most men (I think it was about 87%) died within 6 months after retirement. I decided right then, never to retire.

How long do I plan to live? Let me answer that by quoting British biologist Thomas Huxley:

The rung of a ladder was never meant to rest upon, but only to hold a man's foot long enough to enable him to put the other somewhat higher.”

There is still so much to learn. I believe when one stops learning, one starts dying.

Try to learn something about everything and everything about something.”
- Thomas Huxley again.

I’ll go a bit further than that: Pick out something you love, it could be anything; I believe that if you really try to learn everything there is to know about something, anything real, and get even close, you’ll know a lot about everything else.

Most of you know about my efforts to get mainstream science out of the dead end of gross materialism. I’ve just finished writing a chapter for a book being published by the Academy for the Advancement of Post-Materialist Science that proves that the reconciliation of relativity and quantum physics in the new paradigm Dr. Vernon Neppe and I have developed, eliminates materialism as a valid metaphysical basis for science. Mainstream scientists who are self-acclaimed atheists hate this because it threatens their world view and overturns their life’s work. Some have resorted to calling us names.

No real scientist can possibly be an atheist. Because atheism does not meet the necessary criteria to become a scientific hypothesis. A scientific hypothesis must be “falsifiable”, i.e. it must be testable, and capable of proof or disproof. The hypothesis that God does not exist cannot be proved. On the other hand, the reality that nothing would exist without the organizing action of a higher form of consciousness is provable, - by direct experience. But mainstream scientific egos think they are authorities on the subject, declaring that because they haven’t experienced anything greater than their own egos, no one has!

 Quoting Huxley again:
Every great advance in natural knowledge has involved the absolute rejection of authority.”

Interestingly, Huxley, the grandfather of Aldous Huxley, the author of Beyond the Doors of Perception, defined himself as an agnostic. And that’s fine, every scientist should be an agnostic, especially about his own field. An agnostic is a skeptic, a doubter, a “doubting Thomas”. Concerning God, about all an agnostic can say is that God, if he exists, hasn’t appeared in front of him, or spoken to him. Of course, that is probably because most scientists don’t know how to stop thinking long enough to hear Him!

I have learned to live as if something wonderful is about to happen, - because it does, and has, repeatedly! Every day I see the sun rise is a wonder. The fact that there is something instead of nothing is an on-going miracle. Your existence as a conscious being is a miracle beyond miracles.

My plan, when the time comes to leave this body, is to exit consciously, unafraid and expecting something wonderful to happen!

Edward R. Close, October 8, 2017