Monday, October 30, 2017


©Edward R. Close 10/30/2017

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


  1. 'Some have called it God'. Indeed, Ed, in its many contentious and religious forms - Hence, I opine that 'Ultimate Force', as introduced to me during my profound mystical-initiation of 1980, be a better term to equate with Max Planck' s 1944 statement, and thereby eventually expunge all associated religious diversity from your own TDVP treatise. IJN!

  2. I haven't been reading you for a while. Very nice article as usual, and of course you are completely right about the potential unlimited reach of Science (and how limited it currently is).

    On the topic of scientific investigations of non-physical phenomena, I'd like to add something given that you explicitly mentioned the reality of mediumship:

    In my opinion, it is by adding mediumship to the standard scientific toolbox that science will finally progress for real into the new realm (which as you have found with the discovery of the gimmel, is not really a separate, META-physical realm but a larger and encompassing PARA-physical realm)

    This has been proposed far too many times, and many have worked along this line in the past (even the very recent past), yet it seems to me that too little have been achieved.

    I figured that the main reason is that mediumship is largely seen as a sort of gift, or rare trait, and that in order to make scientific use of mediumship, scientists on one side need to team up with mediums on the other (this is how is usually, if not consistently, done)

    I have a different view, as I believe mediumship is a skill, not a trait. As such, in my opinion, the proper method would be to train the skill of mediumship, in the same way the skill of, for example, mathematical and logical expression and reasoning is trained, as part of the development of scientific abilities.

    As I might have mentioned before, I have a dayjob and a family taking up almost all of my time, but for what is worth, I am trying to make some slow but steady progress on putting my words above into something concrete.

    1. If you are not already aware of the work of Dr. Gary Schwartz, Professor of Psychology, Medicine, Neurology, Psychiatry, and Surgery at the University of Arizona in Tucson with mediums. I think you'll find it of interest. Gary has published more than four hundred and fifty scientific papers, including six papers in the journal Science. Gary has also co-edited eleven academic books, is the author of The Energy Healing Experiments (2007), The G.O.D. Experiments (2006), The Afterlife Experiments (2002), The Truth about Medium (2005), and The Living Energy Universe (1999). His new book The Sacred Promise: How Science is Discovering Spirit’s Collaboration with Us in Our Daily Lives was published in January 2011.The Energy Healing Experiments (2007) received the Gold Medal from the Nautilus Book Awards. Dr. Schwartz is one of the founders of the Academy for the Advancement of Postmaterialist Science. of which I am now a member.

    2. Incidentally, his "Afterlife Experiments" was recently brought to my attention, but I didn't know of the rest. His new book seems specially interesting to me. Thank you for pointing it out!

  3. There are countless proofs that you can't even write them down in a book. Anyways your post was brilliant and highlighted the proof with the authentic facts.