Monday, July 31, 2017



The big bang theory has been popular with the general public for more than half a century, but contrary to popular belief, the simplistic idea of a universe flying apart from a single explosion of an infinitely dense mathematical singularity (a dimensionless point) billions of years ago has never had unanimous support among physicists and cosmologists. The most obvious problem was that a straight-forward regression, or running backward in time in accordance with the general theory of relativity resulted in having stars that were older than the universe. This was side-stepped by Alan Guth’s rapid early inflation theory in 1981. There were other problems, and in 1989, I applied the Calculus of Distinctions to the red-shift constant-light-speed expanding-universe big bang and found that there were unresolved contradictions in the theory, indicating that the universe could not have originated in a singularity explosion. I also concluded that the universe has always existed in some form, and will always exist. I sent my findings to Stephen Hawking in 1989 and published them in 1990, but they were generally ignored by mainstream science. Professor Hawking responded that my ideas were interesting, but he didn’t have time to pursue them, and he had a problem with my assertion that time, like space, has to be three dimensional.
I am not the only one who had (has) problems with the big bang theory. The latest ripple comes from the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-wave Observatory (LIGO). See the Daily Galaxy site:
From the article: “Correlated noise in the two LIGO gravitational-wave detectors may provide evidence that the universe is governed by conformal cyclic cosmology (CCC) which assumes that the universe consists of a succession of [big-bang] aeons, says Roger Penrose of the University of Oxford. Penrose proposes that the apparent noise is actually a real signal of gravitational waves generated by the decay of hypothetical dark-matter particles predicted by CCC. Penrose argues that a significant amount of this noise could be a signal of astrophysical or cosmological origin – and specifically CCC.
Last month, physicists at the Niels Bohr Institute, writes Hamish Johnston, editor of, pointed out that some of the noise in the two LIGO detectors appears to be correlated – with a delay that corresponds to the time it takes for a gravitational wave to travel the more than 3000 km between the [recording] instruments [of the interferometer].

First proposed over a decade ago by Penrose, CCC assumes that each aeon begins with a big bang and proceeds into an unending future in which the universe expands at an accelerating rate. As this expansion becomes infinitely large, Penrose argues that it can be transformed back into the next big bang.”
This is a huge departure from the popular big bang theory and abandons the idea of an absolute beginning or end. After more than 27 years, Roger Penrose, co-author of the Penrose-Hawking Mathematical Singularity Theorems, appears to be agreeing with some of my 1989 findings.

Edward R. Close, July 31, 2017

Thursday, July 27, 2017


Link to the Power Point used in the second part of the St. Louis presentation Saturday July 22, 2017

The surface of the cube has 54 colored faces: 9 red, 9 orange, 9 blue, 9 green, 9 yellow, and 9 white. This makes 9x6 = 54 total. The cube appears to be divided up into 27 small cubes, but they are attached in the center so that they aren’t able to show all of their faces. If they were all colored on all 6 sides, there would be 27x6 = 162 colored faces, and there would be more possible configurations than all the visible stars in the night sky! Fortunately, they are only colored on 1, 2 or 3 sides.

There are 6 center pieces that never move relative to each other, with only 1 colored face. There are 12 edge pieces with 2 colored faces, and 8 corner pieces with 3 colored faces. This makes 6x1 + 12x2 + 8x3 = 6 + 24 + 24 = 54 colored faces, and that means that the number of different configurations possible is:

 N = [(1!x61)/6]x[(8!x38)/3]x[(12!x212)/4] =[(8!x38)x(12!x212)]/12

Fortunately, I didn’t have to work this formula out from scratch. It uses the concepts of combinations and permutations, for which mathematicians, with nothing better to do, have worked out formulae. Determining the number of all possible combinations and permutations is part of a broader mathematical subject known as combinatorics. If this sort of thing interests you, you can look it up on the internet. Carrying out these multiplications and divisions, we get the number of non-redundant configurations to be: N = 43,252,003,274,489,856,000.

This is still a very huge number of different configurations. But take heart! There are algorithms (sequential series of rotations) that reduce the number of necessary rotations to a reasonable number on a path through this maze of possibilities to a solved cube. By “solved”, of course we mean having all nine faces of each color neatly arranged on each of the 6 sides of the cube. Each side is “mono-chromatic”, i.e. all one color. 

In order to develop algorithms (formulas) for solving the cube, we must have a notation or code for describing all of the rotations needed.

Facing any given side of the cube, the front, or facing side is indicated by the label F. the left side is labeled L, right side R, upper side: U, back side: B, and bottom side: D. The bottom side is labeled D for “down” to avoid confusion with B for “back”. Further, for algorithms describing 90-degree (quarter-turn) rotations in the nine planes simulated by the cube: F, L, R, U, D, and B, denote clockwise rotations, and F’, L’, R’, U’, D’, and B’, denote counter-clockwise rotations. (Clockwise and counter-clockwise are defined as if you were facing the side being rotated.) It is good to practice each of these quarter-turn rotations, saying “L” when you turn the left side clockwise, and “L-prime” for L’, when you turn the left side counterclockwise, etc., until they become second nature.

Trying to learn how to solve the cube by reading written instructions alone, is like trying to learn to play a violin by reading. It is possible, but reading is no substitute for a good instructor. I will have more complete instructions and pictures in the book, but just having the algorithms may give you a start. Once you get started, you may even find some algorithms of your own.

Start by holding the scrambled cube with the red center square up. Look for the 4 two-faced edge pieces with one red face, and move them up, one at time, into the top layer with the red face up. Each of the 4 will be in place when its other face (not red) is lined up with its color in the middle layer below it. This will give you a big red “X” that will be your reference frame for the rest of the solution.

Next, find the 4 corner pieces that have one of their 3 colored faces red, and rotate them into place with the red side up and the other two colors matched up with the same color center pieces of the two sides. You will be able to rotate some of these into place without disturbing the red “X”, but when it is necessary to disturb it, you must restore it before going on to the next corner piece. When this is done, you will have completed one layer of the cube. No algorithms are needed to this point. Most people can get this far by trial and error. But it is best to practice doing this until it becomes routine, because the more efficient you become at this routine, the easier the next step will be.

Turn the cube over with the red side down, and proceed to the next step. You only have the 4 edge pieces to worry about in the second layer, because the 4 center pieces are part of your extended “X”. And, only one algorithm is needed to complete the second, or middle layer, but you may think of it as two, because it has a left-hand and right-hand version. Find the edge piece in the third layer that needs to be in the second layer and line one of its colored faces up with the same color center piece. Then use one of the algorithms below to put it into place. Use the right-hand version if the piece being moved into position is facing you, and the left-hand version if the piece is on the left face.

          Right-hand: U’L’ULF’LFL’ or Left-hand: URU’R’FR’F’R

The nice thing about these algorithms is that while moving the correct edge pieces into place in the middle layer, even though pieces in the first layer are moved, they are returned to their correct locations by the time you complete the algorithm. It took me about a week to work these out the first time, and I never wrote them down until recently. They may be confusing at first, but with practice, they become second nature.
Using the right- or left-hand algorithms above from 4 to 8 times should complete the second layer while preserving the first layer. When the first two layers are complete, you are ready to move on to the third, and most difficult layer.

Continue to hold the cube with the red side down. Only three more algorithms (with mirror-image versions) are needed to complete the solving of the cube. But they may have to be used multiple times while watching for specific TRIADIC patterns in the orange faces on the top of the cube. All three are designed to move the faces in the third (top) layer while preserving the two layers already completed. It took me much longer to discover them. The first one is designed to get the top layer arranged for the second one, and the second one is designed to get the top corners in place, and the third one is designed to move the edge pieces of the top layer clockwise or counterclockwise into place to complete the cube.

There are 8 possible patterns for the orange faces in the top layer when the first two layers are complete. Fortunately, you don’t have to know what they are (even though you will get to know them through practicing the algorithms given here). You just need to apply the algorithms below repeatedly, until you obtain a “backwards L” composed of three orange squares in the upper left-hand quadrant of the top face of the cube.
When that orange “backward L” appears, use the “mirror-image” algorithm below:
Now, check to see if the corner pieces are in place. Don’t worry if they are not turned correctly, just check to see whether the corner piece with, e.g., white, blue and orange faces, can be lined up with the white and blue sides, while the yellow, green and orange corner piece is lined up with the yellow and green sides, the yellow, blue and orange with the yellow and blue sides, and the white, green and orange with the white and green sides. Chances are good that they will not all four line up. Use the algorithm below repeatedly, until they do.


This is the most difficult step by far, and sharp focus, concentration, diligent practice and intuition are needed. With practice, you will intuitively find your way through this step.

If, when you line one corner up, none of the others are in place, use the algorithm above and check again. If two of the corners line up, but the others don’t, line the two that are correct up on your left and perform the algorithm again. Keep performing the algorithm until all four corners are in place. When they are in place, there are 3 possibilities: either 1) the cube is complete; 2) you have a large backward L triadic pattern on the top of the cube with three of the corners having colors other than orange facing up, and one orange face on the left side; or 3) a large backward L with the orange face of the lower left corner piece facing to the front. If you have #2, then, keeping the red side of the cube down, turn the cube to the right, so that the orange face of the corner piece on the lower limb of the backward L is facing you, and perform the following algorithm:
If you have #3, don’t turn the cube, and perform the mirror-image algorithm below:  
(Note that the 2 after the U or U’ means perform that quarter-turn rotation twice.)
At this point, you may have a completed cube, or you may have all the orange faces up, but with the edge pieces of the upper layer in the wrong positions. Use the following algorithm to move them clockwise around the top layer, or its mirror-image to move them counterclockwise, until you have a side-wise monochromatic completed cube.
Clockwise: R2UFB’R2F’BUR2; Counterclockwise: R’2U’F’BR’2F’BU’R’2
Congratulations! If you’ve made it successfully through to this stage, you have will have solved the cube. With practice, you will become more and more proficient at avoiding unnecessary rotations, and you may eventually be able to complete the cube from any scramble in less than one minute! HAVE FUN!

Ed Close July 28, 2017

Wednesday, July 26, 2017



This closed conference for CARE Instructors was not recorded. But a link to the powerpoints has been requested by participants and others who were unable to attend. Please click on "Care Presentation" below.

Questions and comments welcome.

Thursday, July 20, 2017



We get many comments on our workshops, a few even show up on the internet. Mark Siegmund of the Exceptionally and Profoundly Gifted MENSA SIG found this one. Here is a link:

Wednesday, July 19, 2017



? ? ?

There is a troubling trend in education that warrants further discussion because it is symptomatic of a very serious problem: The failure of our institutions of higher education, from high school on up, to distinguish between “being exposed to” and “actually learning”. As a result, we have people with diplomas and even advanced degrees, who have obtained them by parroting back statements and memorized procedures without ever having understood them. This is not just the dumbing down of public education, which has certainly been happening over the past fifty years due to over-crowding and lack of qualified teachers and the lack of physical facilities, but it goes much deeper than that.

This problem affects all fields of education, but let’s talk about mathematics, because that’s a discipline where ignoring the basics should never happen, and because math is one of my areas of interest and expertise. During my years of teaching mathematics, first at the secondary school, college-preparatory level, then at the college and university level, and later, teaching systems analysis math and optimization techniques to post-graduate scientists and engineers, I discovered that advanced math courses were being taught by people who had missed, or not understood some the basics during the early part of their education. It is possible to learn to apply mathematical formulas and procedures without understanding the basic concepts upon which they rest.

I was fortunate to have had a professor, Dr. Floyd Helton, the chairman of the Math Department where I earned my degree in mathematics, who emphasized understanding the basic concepts underlying mathematics. In calculus classes, e.g., he would not allow the class proceed until he felt that everyone who was capable of understanding, understood the basic concepts of enumeration, equivalence, inequalities, identity, constants, variables, functions, infinitesimals, and limits. And he discouraged students from enrolling in advanced math courses, unless they had more than a passing grade in college-level algebra, trigonometry and analytical geometry. This is apparently not often done in colleges and universities today, because there are hordes of people out there with advanced degrees in applied math, science and engineering who, surprisingly, do not understand the basics.

There are levels of understanding in any discipline, and it is especially important in mathematics and science to understand basic concepts. But the way math is taught in our schools today, forgoing thorough learning for expediency in processing students through the system, and confusing memorizing formulae with understanding logical processes, is a formula for disaster!

ERC July 19, 2017

Sunday, July 16, 2017



Aaahh,,,!!! A bright sunny afternoon,
At home, with my true love,
On the edge of civilization.
Enjoying Bach, Beethoven, and the Piano Guys…

A cup of Sumatran dark roast…
A red fox with white-tipped tail
Glides ghost-like across the back yard;
The neighbor’s tabby cat chasing a baby squirrel.

Joshua makes his chicken Alfredo with angel-hair pasta.
Could life be better? …Maybe…
Good music stirs the soul, good food satisfies,
And there is the deep love of those who mean the most to me.

Words are completely inadequate to share what I feel.

Am I the most blessed man in the world?
I hope not. Sure, my cup overflows,
But I know not the ecstasy of those
Who are much more than I,  One with Everything…

The Lord God is infinite, in Him my soul doth sing.

ERC July 16, 2017

Friday, July 14, 2017


Consciousness and awareness. Do not confuse “awareness” with “consciousness” They are not the same thing. Awareness is variable, it can change. There are an infinity of levels of awareness. You can be acutely aware of something like excruciating pain, and totally unaware of nearly everything else. Awareness is conditional. Consciousness is absolute. Consciousness is the primary form of reality. Awareness is secondary and fleeting.

Recently, I heard a scientist saying: “We are searching for the ‘source’ of consciousness in the human brain.” Searching for the source of consciousness in the human brain is like searching for the source of happiness in the muscles of a smiling face. You will not find it there. Consciousness has no source. It is the source, the source of all things. The brain is merely a receiver.

Rene Descartes famously said: “I think, therefore I am.” Was he implying that thinking is consciousness? If he was, then he was wrong. Literally, “I think, therefore I am” equates thinking with being. Does that mean that thought is the source of being? I don’t think Descartes thought this through very well. And yet much of modern science is based on Descartes’ thinking.  If thinking ceases completely, being does not go away. Thinking is not the source of being, any more than the brain is the source of consciousness. Consciousness has no source, it is the source. Primary Consciousness has no beginning and no end; and neither do you!

Expand your consciousness today. You are surrounded by life and beauty!  Be aware of everything around you, then expand that awareness to include the earth, the sky, and the cosmos. Don’t limit your awareness to what is going on in your head, or in your immediate surroundings. Go beyond awareness, become Consciousness itself. 

ERC 7/14/17

Sunday, July 9, 2017



I have been working for most of my adult life, and perhaps much longer, on what may seem to be three unrelated projects:

1. Trying to convince mathematicians that my 1965 proof of Fermat’s Last Theorem is valid;
2. Trying to convince scientists that consciousness, not matter, is primary, and
3. Trying to understand the True Nature of Reality and how I relate to it.

Finally, after all these years, I have realized that these three things are not unrelated at all, but in fact, they are intimately and deeply related. In a flash, I saw the deep unity of mathematics and science within the Sacred Oneness of all things. This realization doesn’t mean that science and mathematics as we know them are wrong, -they are just incomplete. Understanding how they are connected is, for me, an important part of understanding how we, as conscious human beings, are connected to the Whole. For me, this was an enlightening step of self-realization: the realization that the individual self, is, in reality, a spark of the greater Self of Holistic Reality. 

A Nobel-Prize-winning physicist who graciously agreed to review some of my mathematics once wrote: “You seem to regard maths as something like poetry, where you look for deep meaning in the explanations someone has given.  But mathematics is not like that…” 

While his comments about my 1965 proof of Fermat’s Last Theorem were insightful and helpful, this statement reveals a basic difference in our understanding of what mathematics actually is. The difference is understandable: For practical purposes, math is often considered to be nothing more than a man-made tool for solving quantitative problems. But that is done at the expense of dividing reality up into parts that are then erroneously believed to be unrelated. The point is that the underlying unity of mathematics and science has been hidden and nearly lost with the current practice of academic specialization, i.e., treating them as separate disciplines.

Just as mathematics, as the underlying logic of reality, is what connects the fractured disciplines of “the sciences”, Consciousness, as the underlying substrate of Reality, is what connects the fractured philosophical and religious beliefs of mankind. 

Ed Close, July 9, 2017

Saturday, July 8, 2017


I’ve mentioned in my blog posts that more than 200 scientists worldwide have reviewed the Triadic Dimensional Vortical Paradigm (TDVP), by Dr. Neppe and myself, and other writings by one or both of us. Because negative comments always seem to get the most attention, sometimes it seems that we are always having to defend our ideas from attacks by materialists and atheistic scientists. But a number of peer-reviewers, including scientists and philosophers, some of whom are highly regarded worldwide, have commented favorably and even endorsed TDVP in superlative terms. So I thought I would post some positive comments by some of these important scientists who have reviewed our work to put the negative comments into proper context.

Dr. Larry Dossey has published a completely unsolicited paper on the importance of TDVP as he sees it. Here are some key statements from Dr. Dossey, published in the journal Explore: The Journal of Science and Healing.  To download the article go to: (

“… At this precarious stage of our existence, humanity has never needed a paradigm shift such as TDVP more than now. … Enter Neppe and Close…TDVP stands supreme among the many contributions to science in general. … I resonate especially with the consciousness-related implications of TDVP…In their TDVP and the concept of STC — ‘Space-Time-Consciousness’ — immortality for some aspect of consciousness is a key implication. This feature arises not through the revelations of religion, but through mathematical and empirical rigor.
This is an enormous contribution whose significance may surpass, even the profound implications of TDVP for cosmology and physics, in general. …Neppe and Close have reversed the dismal conclusions of materialistic science toward consciousness, and have made the concept of immortality and the survival of bodily death scientifically respectable. …The main contribution of Neppe and Close has been made, the deed is done. This may make all the difference in humanity’s psychospiritual equipoise. 
It is difficult to imagine a greater contribution.

Dr. David Stewart, PhD, DNM. Physicist, Mathematician: I rank Dr. Edward R. Close and Dr. Vernon M. Neppe as peers of the major authors of modern physics and mathematics. I equate them with greats, such as Planck, Einstein, … Newton…. Their work has clarified, and extended the science and mathematics that these geniuses originated …I foresee the day when they will both be awarded other honors, such as a Nobel Prize in Physics and (equivalent in) Mathematics.

Dr. Adrian Klein, MDD, PhD, PhD, Israeli Dimensional Biopsychophysicist and Consciousness Researcher: “The 21st Century's revolutionary paradigm shift”; … “Unprecedented brilliance and potentially limitless scientific and philosophical outreach …yielding a fresh and accurate understanding of various investigation fields of Nature, and opening … groundbreaking development perspectives for Sciences.

Dr. Alan Hugenot DSc., Physicist and Engineer: “When taken altogether, the entire work is worthy of several separate Nobel Prizes”.

Dr. Joyce Hawkes PhD, FAAAS, biophysicist: “…any one of these [31] areas, let alone the combination would be a very substantial reason for Drs Neppe and Close to be recipients of major prizes”.

Here are brief comments by seven more scientists in seven different disciplines. The first two are recognized as leading experts in their disciplines in the world and the other five are very prominent scientists:

Stan Krippner PhD Transpersonal Pscycology: [Reality Begins with Consciousness is] “destined to become a classic in the literature on shifting paradigms and worldviews”

Dean Radin, PhD, Chief Scientist at IONS: “RBC [is] in a radical multidisciplinary class by itself”

Alan Bachers PhD: “an astonishing and prodigious accomplishment!”

John Poynton PhD: “encyclopedic … broad exploratory paradigm for new scientific ideas”

Lance Storm PhD: a paradigm shift that hails in, if not, beckons for, a kind of scientific overhaul and shift in thinking”

Helmut Wautischer PhD “will shape philosophical discourse … a profound value to the future of humankind…masterful…”

Dr. Frank Luger (Canada)astonishing that you could combine deep scientific notions with mysticism”.

Regarding my earlier book “Transcendental Physics” Here are a few unsolicited comments from readers:

Dr. Philip Petersen, PhD, Astrophysicist “Transcendental Physics is a rare treat… a substantial contribution to the advancement of quantum interpretation.”

Dr. Henry Swift, PhD, Experimental Physicist “This excellent book provides the next paradigm shift!”

Dr. David Stewart, PhD, DNM, Geophysicist, Author, Reccognized worldwide Expert in alternative Medicine “Science was confined in a self-imposed cage with the majority of the universe on the outside. Ed Close has broken the bars and forged a key link in the chain of advancement of mankind for the ages. This book should be read by everyone who seeks the truth... It could change your entire outlook of life forever, and change it for the better.”

Joseph Slabaugh, BSc “I bought Dr. Close's book Transcendental Physics and reviewed the proof of the existence of the original quantum receptor, which is a work a genius.”

Frank Jusczcyzk, University Professor and Author “I met Dr. Close and his wife recently at an Academy for Spiritual and Consciousness Studies conference held in Scottsdale, Arizona. Dr. Close was presenting a lecture on transcendental physics… I was impressed by the thoroughness and abundant detail he was able to communicate in a limited time. I subsequently bought his book, Transcendental Physics, and read it with great enjoyment… I feel that Dr. Close's book should be made required reading in our public educational system from the secondary level on…

“What I like most about Dr. Close's approach is his determination not to equivocate or temporize about what he is saying. Not beholden to outside influences such as career advancement, celebrity, or the prospect of gaining lavish research grants, Close flatly endorses the existence of a non-physical universe that has always existed and which is given localized reality by our individual, feed-back loop consciousnesses. He specifically supports the findings of the Double-Slit Experiment, the Copenhagen Interpretation, the Many-Worlds Interpretation, and the evidence for a non-local reality... most sources were not willing to go as far as what seemed to me to be the inevitable implications of what quantum physics was revealing. Dr. Close, in effect, says, ‘This is how I see it in its entirety, and the rest of you mealy-mouths can go take a flying leap.’ Refreshing.”

Milton Grasle, Author “It's refreshing to read something where the author is committed to the truth. Many scientists, or most scientists, are so bound up with an extremely narrow view of the scientific method that they never consider anything outside of that realm. I'm not saying that Ed Close doesn't follow the scientific method when analyzing his subject. He does that, but he also is open-minded enough to go a step farther and ask some very important and hard questions about the true nature of reality. This book is worth reading.”

Robert T. Krone, Scientist, Composer, and Polymath Dr. Ed Close: Paradigm Shifter Extraordinaire "In his blockbuster book, 'Transcendental Physics,' Dr. Ed Close shines the Light of Truth… Dr. Close exhibits that he is, indisputably, the new heavyweight champion of the world of physics and the noetic sciences. Dr. Close is truly a logistician's logistician, a mathematician's mathematician, a physicist's physicist, a scientist's scientist, and a polymath's polymath. His four decades of thought and meditation have been carefully distilled and …have culminated in a masterful work, 'Transcendental Physics,' that will cause Dr. Close to go down in history as… one of the truly Great Thinkers of All Time, a Scientific Paradigm Shifter alongside the likes of Sir Isaac Newton and Dr. Albert Einstein."

Anonymous Amazon Customer “This was one of my all-time favorite books,... The topic - the link between matter and consciousness - is intrinsically fascinating, and any attempt to explain it represents an ambitious undertaking which the author handles quite well. Although I'm not an expert in quantum physics I do have some background, and found this book persuasive and fun to read.”

You'll notice that several of the quotes even say that our work is worthy of the Nobel Prize. That's nice to hear. But, in fact, we have both, together and seperately already recieved several awards. Together, e.g., we have received an international award for excellence in education and the coveted Harding Award from the International Society for Philosophical Enquiry (ISPE) for exceptional service in the advancement of science and knowledge. 

Transcendental Physics is available on, Barnes and Noble and other book handlers nation wide. Reality Begins with Consciousness is available as an e-book on  

Thursday, July 6, 2017



This blog is meant to put the comments of one mainstream scientist who posted negative comments related to TDVP on a post stating that scientists are beginning to understnd that the universe is itself conscious into proper context.  

Over the years, since 2008, when we started working together on the Triadic Dimensional Vortical Paradigm, a scientific paradigm shift from materialism to a consciousness-based understanding of reality, Dr. Vernon Neppe and I have had discussions and correspondences with hundreds of scientists all around the world. In addition, we’ve done workshops and presentations at a number of conferences. For example, in February 2013, at the invitation of Dr. Stanly Krippner, PhD and Dr. Irma Azomoza, PhD, we had a workshop attended by 150 people and presented two plenary addresses in front of about 3,000 at the International Conference of Science and Spirituality in Puebla Mexico. More recently, in 2016 and 2017, we held a workshop and spoke at conferences in Chapel Hill, North Carolina and Scottsdale Arizona. I’ll be speaking in St. Louis Missouri and in the Bay area of Northern California at the Sunrise Center in Corte Madera later this year.

We have found, as have others trying to bridge the gap between science and spirituality, that many scientists, with the vested interest of a lifetime of working within the materialistic, and often atheistic paradigm of so-called mainstream science react angrily to the suggestion that their world view might be wrong. Some of them become so upset that occasionally they become verbally abusive, assaulting us and our work by resorting to expletives and name-calling. Hardly what you would expect from real scientists who are supposed be open-minded enough to weigh the evidence and go where it leads.

In fact, I have no problem with anyone who wants to align themselves and their future with scientific materialism; it is their right to believe whatever they want to believe, but I also have the right to believe that the evidence is increasingly clear that reality is much more than matter and energy interacting in space and time, and tht scientific materialism is a dead end. And the list of things not explained by the current materialistic paradigm that TDVP explains elegantly, grows all the time.

Ed Close July 6, 2017

Tuesday, July 4, 2017



On this Independence of the USA day, what does the future hold for our nation and the world? Read on to see what I predict.

Can the future be predicted? I will set the stage for answering this question by examining two statements that many people believe to be true. More than likely, you have heard these statements in thoughtful discussions, or even read them in print. The first is:

1. “No one knows what the future holds.”

Do you think this is true? Can you prove it that it is true? That would involve proving a negative, and this brings up the second statement, one that is often cited as one of the “laws of logic” by those who don’t know any better:

2. “You can’t prove a negative.”


Let’s take statement #1 first: Can psychics actually see into the future? Did Nostradamus really predict the death of the king Henry II of France, world wars and the rise and fall of the Third Reich, and a lot of other things? Skeptics point out that most of Nostradamus’ quatrains are couched in vague terms that can be interpreted in several ways. Believers counter that he had to make most of his predictions in coded form and leave out names for the most part in order not to get into trouble with the church or royalty. Being beheaded for heresy or treason was a real danger in those days! Perhaps the most convincing Nostradamus prediction was one of his first, published in 1555:

Here is the Nostradamus quatrain in question, translated from the original French:

Century 1 Quatrain 35
The young lion will overcome the older one,
On the field of combat in a single battle;
He will pierce his eyes through a golden cage,
Two wounds made one, then he dies a cruel death.”

King Henry II of France died in 1559 as the result of a jousting accident just 4 years after this quatrain was published. His opponent was six years younger than he was, and both had lions on their shields. The “single battle” in the second line is interpreted as the jousting match. The younger man’s lance was splintered and pieces of the broken lance went through the slits of King Henry´s helmet (the golden cage) and pierced his eyes and brain. The king died 11 days later after suffering paralysis, convulsions and respiratory problems – “Two wounds made one, then he dies a cruel death.”

Whether you believe that some people have the ability to see into the future or not, in some respects, the future can be predicted. In fact, that is what science is all about, using ideas, principles, and mathematical relationships that have been tested and proved to be valid, to predict the future. Given current conditions, science predicts the future locations of moving objects like elementary particles, missiles, and planets. In fact, in the 16th and 17th centuries, many scientists thought that the initial conditions of the universe could be discovered, all that of the future of the cosmos could be predicted using Newton’s laws!

More recently, science has discovered that time is not the simple linear, ever flowing forward dimension that it seems to be. See articles and papers (including some on this blog) about the double-slit and delayed-choice experiments. It now appears that the cosmos, of which we are a part, is conscious, and if we can expand our consciousness, the past present and future can be revealed. This is no longer unprovable mysticism.

Now, about statement number two: Of course there are negative statements that can be proved. Let’s take a simple example: Someone might make the statement “There are no round windows in the Empire State building!” This statement can be either proved or disproved simply by inspecting each and every window in the Empire State Building.

Actually, any given statement, positive or negative can be either true, false or unprovable in the system within which it is stated. It’s just that negative statements are often very hard to prove or disprove, and then, of course, there’s that third possibility: negative statements that can’t be proved or disproved within the limits of what is presently known. Will they become provable when more is known about the nature of reality?

Statement number two is itself a negative statement. So, if it is true, then it can’t be proved to be true. So is this a statement that cannot be proved or disproved? No. It is easy to prove that statement number two is false, because if we can prove even one negative statement to be true, then statement number two is false; and I can give numerous examples of negative statements that can be proved.

In fact, every high school algebra student learns to prove negatives. Take for example the negative statement that there are no integer (whole number) solutions for the equation X2–X= 1. This is a type of equation mathematicians call a quadratic equation, High school students learn that such equations can be solved using a simple formula, and that there will be two, and only two solutions to a quadratic equation. Applying the formula, we see that the two solutions for this equation are ½(1 +Ö-3) and ½(1 - Ö-3), neither of which is a whole number, proving the negative statement “there are no integer solutions to this equation. Notice that in proving this negative statement, we went outside the world of whole numbers, into the realm of complex numbers.

What high school students are most often not taught is that a negative statement can sometimes be proved true by turning it into a positive statement, and showing that the positive statement leads to an obvious contradiction. In the example just given, if we turn “there are no whole number solutions” into the equivalent positive statement; “Whole number values of X in the equation always produce contradictions, and show that this is true, then we have demonstrated that there are no whole number solutions to this equation, and the negative is proved. This proof is more difficult than plugging numbers into a formula, but much more revealing about the nature of mathematics and reality.

Now, statement number one is a negative statement: “No one can know the future.” We can turn this into a positive: “The future is unknowable.” And now, this is easily proved false. Anytime I apply scientific principles and predict a future event, I have proved that the negative statement “No one can know the future” is false.

Now, do the new revelations produced by applying the mathematical logic of the calculus of distinctions and the principles of TDVP prove that knowing the future in more complete way is possible? Does this mean that there are and always have been a few people with the ability to see the future? I think so, but you can decide for yourself.

The new science and mathematics developed by Neppe and Close have proved that consciousness exists in every atom of the universe. Can we, by connecting with that consciousness, know more of what the future holds? I believe so; and speaking only for myself, I will venture to make some predictions about the future. In honor of Nostradamus, I will present my predictions in poetic form.

Who are we? Where did we come from? Can we ever know where are we going?
Stepping out of our skin, we see that all is One, and we are on our way to knowing

That time is of our own invention. Drawing the distinction of self from other,
We fall into deep delusion, dreaming we are separate, each from one another.

But now, knowing that consciousness is One, we stand before an open door:
Stepping out of our narrow bony dungeons, we see the truth as never before.

Laid out before us, like a map upon the floor, the branches of cause and effect
Run, predicting timelines, through choices made, with which we may connect.

So what do we see? The evolution of consciousness is cyclic: rising and falling
Rising and falling; advancing through world events both beautiful and appalling.

But the Spirit of the Cosmos is the driving force, the material world is incidental
To the cyclic growth of the Sovereign Soul. Cosmic Consciousness is elemental.

Like a river’s relentless ebb and flow, regardless of earthquakes, wars and famine,
The course of nature’s spinning way supports conscious spirituality, not Mammon.

So, take heart, even though we see that we’re on the brink of great catastrophe:
It is almost certain that millions will die in a brief but bloody World War Three.

Unsustainable, as they are, major cities will be destroyed in little more than a day,
With less pain and suffering than by the natural corruption of social rot and decay.

What comes after the purge will be a far better world at last, for those who survive.
With re-connection to the Cosmic Universe, they’ll be thrilled each day to be alive!

Of course, I would rather see the unhinged radicals on all sides relent of their obsessional ranting and raving, hurling insults, and resorting to violence, and turn to finding peaceful solutions, but I don’t see that happening. I think the polarization has gone too far. Unfortunately, if history is any indicator, human development advances from catastrophe to catastrophe. The bright spot in this stormy cloud of predictions is that consciousness and life, its vehicle for advancement, are intrinsic, not accidental, and ultimately, an advanced, deeply spiritual form of life will win.

Edward R. Close July 4th, 2017