LET THERE BE LIGHT!LASS ES LICHT WERDEN! ΓΕΝΗΘΉΤΩ ΦΩΣ!!ויהי אור
चलो वहां प्रकाश हो!QUE
LA LUMIÈRE SOIT!讓那裡有光!¡QUE
HAYA LUZ! دعه يكون خفيفا!
ПУСТЬ БУДЕТ СВЕТ!NIECH
BĘDZIE ŚWIATŁO! 光があるようにしましょう! BUDIŽ SVETLO!
DAAR LIG WEES! OLKOON ON VALOA! IŞIK OLSUN! LAAT
ER LICHT ZIJN! LUX
SIT! ХАЙ БУДЕ СВІТЛО!LÅT
DET BLI LJUS! வெளிச்சம்வரட்டும்!LASCIA
CHE CI SIA LUCE! LAI TOP GAISMA! BEET LE SÁASILO'!BYDDERGOLEUNI! God said: “Let
there be light, and it was light.”
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,
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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 Sciences. 422 (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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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
Brian Walker’s X squared plus one will be the subject of a
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.
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.
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:
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
the following 3 statements:
cars produced by the Ford Motor Company before 1927 were black.
2. 2. John
has two antique Ford cars, and they are both black.
John’s antique cars were manufactured before 1927.
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.
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:
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
B) ․ (V ϵB)
⸧ (P ․ V) ϵB, which has two possible, mutually
․ V) ϵB]
⸧ (P ․ V) and [(P ․ V) ϵB]
․ 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:
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.
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
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.
THE FILM DOCUMENTING THE FIRST GENERAL MEETING OF MEMBERS OF THE ACADEMY AT CANYON RANCH NEAR TUCSON AZ IN AUGUST 2017
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:
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:
WHAT WAS MISSING BEFORE EINSTEIN AND PLANCK?
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.
Einstein, mainstream science had no idea that matter and energy
are two forms of the same thing, their equivalence defined mathematically by E
WHAT IS STILL MISSING AFTER PLANCK AND EINSTEIN?
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
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.
WHY IS MAINSTREAM SCIENCE IGNORING CONSCIOUSNESS?
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.
WHY IS NEW MATHEMATICS NEEDED?
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.
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
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
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.
Evil is subtle, and good is easily ignored. And rightnow, 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.
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
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
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.
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
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
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.
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 everevenconsider 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
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
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
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
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
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.