The following is a copy of my presentation to the founding members of the Academy for the Advancement of Post-Materialist Science, August 26, 2017
MATHEMATICS, PHYSICS AND CONSCIOUSNESS
A Presentation by Edward R. Close, August 2017
First, I want to thank Dr. Gary Schwartz, Dr. Marjorie Woollacott, Dr. Charles Tart, and all who have worked so hard to make the Academy for the Advancement of Post Materialist Sciences and this meeting possible, including our anonymous benefactor. This meeting is the beginning of something I have dreamed of for many years.
I am struck by the similarities among the intellectual and psychic experiences of those gathered here today, but this should not be a surprise! It is evidence for what Erwin Schrӧdinger declared in his wonderful little book “What is Life?” published by Cambridge University Press in 1967, when he said: “There is no evidence that consciousness is plural.” Many of us know that all things are connected at a fundamental level, and, my friends, it is time for the first real scientific paradigm shift since relativity and quantum physics!
I want to start by sharing an experience I wrote about in my first book, “The Book of Atma”, published in 1977. It reveals the motivation that has propelled me throughout my life:
It was the summer of 1951. I was fourteen. I found a little book on analytical geometry written in German among some old books. Reading it, I had the distinct awareness that I already knew this mathematics. It was as if I were remembering, not learning. Also, I had just discovered the work of Albert Einstein, which had opened a whole new world for me.
One evening, in the twilight just after sunset, I walked out of the little house on my parent’s farm in the Southern Missouri Ozarks, past a line of catalpa trees, to the bank of a pond. I had been thinking about the “electrodynamics of moving objects” as described in Einstein’s special theory of relativity, and I had reached a point beyond which I could not go. Frustrated, I looked up at the sky and complained: “God, I want to know everything!”
What followed was totally unexpected, but so real that I knew it was completely natural. Suddenly, I could “hear” the silence around me. My surroundings took on a glow, as if everything were alive. My conscious mind seemed to melt, and the distinctions between my physical body and the surrounding landscape seemed to fade. I was filled with an all-pervading feeling of well-being. I knew I had received my answer! I would be a theoretical physicist!
I could spend my twenty minutes describing the series of psychic experiences and epiphanies that led Dr. Vernon Neppe and me to develop the Triadic Dimensional Distinction Vortical Paradigm (TDVP), and list the paradoxes it has resolved and the phenomena it has explained that are not explained by the current materialistic paradigm, but that would only scratch the surface. Instead, I want to address Dr. Gary Schwartz’s last item in his list of important questions: “Do we need an expanded mathematics, as Close and Neppe propose, to advance Post Materialist Sciences?”
Of course my answer is yes; but let me illustrate and emphasize this answer with a short history of the development of the new mathematics that unites number theory, geometry, relativity, quantum physics, some aspects of string theory, and the consciousness of the observer.
A paranormal experience in 1957 resulted in my discovery of the work of Pierre de Fermat. My College roommate, now Dr. David Stewart, and I were carrying out experiments in which we obtained verifiable information not available to us by normal sensory means. One of the most successful of these experiments was submitted to Dr. J.B. Rhine at Duke University. During one of our early experiments it was revealed that I had access to memories of the life of Pierre de Fermat. We obtained mathematical representations of concepts that far exceeded my training at the time, but were verified by my physics professor.
In 1637, Fermat wrote in the margin of his copy of a book on Diophantine equations, that he had found a “marvelous” proof that the equation xn + yn = zn has no integer solutions for n >2. But his proof was never found. After receiving my degree in mathematics and physics in 1962, while teaching mathematics, I spent considerable time trying to access Fermat’s marvelous proof. Sometime during that period, I realized that Fermat’s Last Theorem, considered by most to be nothing more than a hypothesis in pure number theory, had important implications for quantum physics if x, y and z represent the radii of elementary particles that combine to form what we experience as ordinary physical reality.
This led to the realization that a quantum mathematics was urgently needed for describing the quantized reality we live in. The differential and integral calculus of Newton and Leibniz are inappropriate for describing quantum phenomena because they depend on a continuity of the variables of measurement that does not exist in a quantized world. I believe that the inappropriate application of Newtonian calculus to quantum phenomena gives rise to much of the ‘weirdness’ of quantum physics that physicists like to talk about.
I found the basis for the needed quantum mathematics in G. Spencer Brown’s calculus of indications published in his 1969 book “Laws of Form.” And it was obvious to me from the results of the Aspect Experiment resolving the Einstein/Bohr debate, that we have to have a mathematics that incorporates the consciousness of the observer. I published the basic concepts of an adaptation of Brown’s Calculus which I called the Calculus of Distinctions in my book, “Infinite Continuity,” in 1990. The Calculus of Distinctions is different from Brown’s Calculus of Indications in several ways that I do not have time to go into here. Unfortunately, that book is now long out of print, but the basic logic is published in an appendix to my 1996 book, “Transcendental Physics.”
In those references, I show that the drawing of a distinction is comprised of a triad:
1. the object of distinction
2. the features distinguishing the object from everything else, and
3. the consciousness of the observer.
Thus, a distinction is inherently triadic, and the consciousness of the observer is implicit in the logic of the CoD. Therefore, application of these basic concepts inherently includes the consciousness of the observer in the equations of science. I later adapted the CoD to reflect the multi-dimensional geometry of finite distinctions and the differentiation of existing distinctions from conceptual distinctions in the Calculus of Dimensional Distinctions (CoDD).
With the help of Russian-born mathematician Vladimir Brandin in 2003, and Dr. Vernon Neppe, from 2008 to the present, application of the CoDD has allowed me to develop the definition of a true quantum equivalence unit that I call the Triadic Rotational Unit of Equivalence (TRUE), and the discovery of the third form of the substance of reality, necessary for the stability of atomic structure. This third form cannot be measured as mass or energy, but is detectable in the total angular momentum of any rotating physical system. Dr. Neppe proposed the name gimmel for the third form for a variety of interesting reasons.
We decided to call the new paradigm TDVP: Triadic because that was the nature of the underlying structure of mass, energy and consciousness. Dimensional, because to be consistent, the mathematics had to incorporate extra dimensions beyond three of space and one of time. Vortical, because of the spinning nature of elementary particles, and Paradigm to emphasize that it is a shift from the current materialistic metaphysics of modern science.
Physicists talk about a “theory of everything”. But you can’t have a theory of everything if everything is not included in it. I see the discovery of gimmel as the fulfillment of my efforts over the past 30 plus years to put consciousness into the equations of science. Gimmel has all the earmarks of consciousness, or at least of an agent of consciousness, acting through what I call the conveyance equations, to bring the logic of the multi-dimensional substrate of Primary Consciousness into the 3 Spatial dimensions, 1 Time dimension, and 1 dimension of Consciousness, i.e., the domain of physical observation.
The discovery of gimmel eliminates materialism as a viable metaphysical basis for science. It eliminates materialism because gimmel is inherently non-material, and because I have proved that it is necessary for the stability of quarks and subatomic structure. Without it there would be no physical universe. The discovery of gimmel answers Gottfried Leibniz’s unanswered first priority question: “Why is there something rather than nothing?”
I believe that gimmel is the manifestation of consciousness in physical reality. This view is justified in part because the elements and compounds supporting organic life forms prove to have the highest levels of gimmel. TRUE units and gimmel provide the necessary basis to analyze and quantify consciousness working within our physical/spiritual/conscious reality.
Through the use of TRUE unit analysis and LHC data, and applying the principles of relativity and quantum physics, several unexplained phenomena have been explained quite elegantly by TDVP. Because TDVP includes consciousness in the equations of science, and therefore is more comprehensive than materialistic theories, it can provide the mathematical basis for investigating and describing psi phenomena like those experienced by virtually everyone in this room.
My answer to Gary’s question about whether the Academy needs an expanded math is this: It is my personal belief, based on over 50 years of explorations of mathematics, physics and consciousness expansion techniques, that mathematics is not merely a tool, mathematics reflects the actual structure of reality. And if you look at the history of science, every real scientific paradigm shift of the past has been accompanied by new mathematics. The paradigm shift to the primacy of consciousness can be no exception. It is my opinion that, in this case, a new mathematics is even more crucial than ever before because of the magnitude of this shift. Post-Materialism Science cries out for a new more comprehensive mathematical paradigm, and in my opinion, that new paradigm is TDVP, and the new math is the Calculus of Dimensional Distinctions.