Friday, September 14, 2018
WHAT IS LIFE?
© 2018, Edward R. Close
Life is what happens between the two extremely traumatic experiences called birth and death. Because the beginning and eventual end of life are so traumatic, they are all but eliminated from conscious memory. Most of us are programmed by society and by fear to think of one who tries to remember his or her actual birth experience as weird, and anyone who thinks about his or her own death as morose and unnaturally preoccupied with death. But is this aversion to studying and learning about the experiences of birth and death rational? I don’t think so. It is likely that one cannot fully understand what life is, without knowing something about what surrounds it. On a planet that is billions of years old, in a universe that is even older, the duration of one human life is a very, very short experience. Is it really all there is for you?
Why are the first and last steps in the journey of physical life considered to be so unpleasant that to even think about them is to be avoided at all costs? It is because of an unnecessarily emotional attachment to the physical body and identification with the purely physical aspects of being, to the exclusion of everything else. Of course, the physical processes of birth and death are very messy. They often involve intense pain and the unsavory mixing of blood and feces and other vital bodily fluids in a horrifying manner over which we have no control. In easier phases of life, when we have good health and a clear mind, we tend to maintain a detached position, as uninvolved with the grubby details of physical life as possible. Most of the physical processes of the body, like breathing, blood circulation, digesting of food and elimination of wastes, are carried out automatically. We rarely think about them at all, and then only if absolutely necessary.
During most of our lives, we are creatures of habit, performing most of our daily activities without thinking much about what we are, where we came from and where we are going. We avoid thinking about the physical aspects of the transitional stages at the beginning and ending times of birth and death. At those times we imagine that we must be fighting for life, trying either to get the involuntary processes going or keep them going, struggling with all our strength to get away from pain and the fear of ceasing to exist. But, is this fear based on the reality of the processes involved, or our imagination of what we think they must be like? Is such abject fear warranted? Those who remember going through these processes, almost without exception, say no. Most who report out-of-body experiences (OBEs) like near-death experiences (NDEs), or return- from-death experiences (RFDEs), tell us that leaving the body is actually a relief from anxiety and pain, and sometimes even a euphoric and blissful experience, not a horrible descent into nightmares or nothingness.
These reports of OBEs and NDEs, called psi phenomena by parapsychologists, are considered by most mainstream scientists today to be questionable claims, even though they have been documented and studied by independent researchers in Europe and the US for more than 100 years, and are, and have been accepted as real in many other parts of the world for centuries. In Wikipedia, we find the following definitions are offered:
“Psi is the twenty-third letter of the Greek alphabet, and was probably selected to represent paranormal phenomena as a shortened form of the word psychic. Parapsychology is the study of paranormal and psychic phenomena, including telepathy, precognition, clairvoyance, psychokinesis, NDEs, reincarnation, apparitional experiences, and other paranormal claims. It is identified as pseudoscience by a vast majority of mainstream scientists”.
If you have been reading my posts for the past couple of years, you know that because of my experiences and recent research, I do not share the view of most mainstream scientists. In this post, I’m introducing my own classification of OBEs, for reasons that I will explain below. Also, see my definitions of OBEs and NDEs in the second to last post below on this blog, "DESCRIBING THE TRUE NATURE OF REALITY". In my opinion, all OBEs, if real, are evidence of survival of individual consciousness outside the environment of a physical body, and they are suggestive of the possibility that in some form, every conscious being has already existed before birth, and will continue to exist after death. From reading accounts written by those who have experienced consciousness outside of their physical bodies, and from personal experiences and studies, I think life, and what goes before and after it, are just different experiences of one thing: consciousness. And I agree with Erwin Schӧdinger, who, in his book What is Life? said there is no evidence that the consciousness we experience is plural:
“It is not possible (my emphasis) that this unity of knowledge, feeling and choice which you call your own should have sprung into being from nothingness at a given moment not so long ago; rather this knowledge, feeling and choice are essentially eternal and unchangeable and numerically one in all men, nay in all sensitive beings”.
If the core reality of consciousness, devoid of personal and cultural overlays impressed upon it by the experiences of a given life, is eternal, unchangeable and numerically one in all sentient beings, then it is possible that memories of past lives, and perhaps even future lives may be part of the infinite field of consciousness of which the individual awareness of a given conscious being is part. When, under certain circumstances, the mind of an individual is freed from the confines of a physical body and the limited physical senses that are part of the body, it appears that he or she may have a glimpse, or even a prolonged look at a broader, more complete experience of reality, including birth and death.
In the development and application of the Triadic Dimensional Vortical Paradigm (TDVP), where consciousness, not matter, is held to be primary, we find that the possibility that various documented psi phenomena may be explained as the results of different kinds or degrees of OBE is a viable hypothesis, and looking at extrasensory perception (ESP) as a natural result of certain kinds of OBE leads to the recognition of several possible types of OBEs.
OBEs can be divided into three major categories: partial, complete and transcendental. Partial OBEs can be experienced while awake or asleep, and the appearance and the functioning of the physical body of the individual experiencing the OBE is ostensibly normal. Examples are: remote viewing exercises and involuntary dreams that yield real awareness of information not available to the individual through the physical senses, that is verified by others through normal means. I have personally experienced several partial OBEs with independent verification of specific information obtained during them.
Complete OBEs occur when the individual experiences leaving the body completely, like in cases of severe traumatic injury, or when vital signs fail on the operating table. In complete OBEs, the individual may be pronounced clinically dead, and yet experiences the event from a point outside his or her physical body. Complete OBEs are also called NDEs. I have also experienced this type of OBE and know others who have, including my wife Jacqui, and my friend Alan Hugenot.
In transcendental OBEs, there is no mortal threat or trauma, and the physical body continues to operate normally, but the five physical senses are heightened and accompanied by an extended global awareness that is independent of them. Transcendental OBEs are rare, and if reported at all, are usually considered to be scientifically inexplicable, advanced mystical experiences. In my opinion, they are only scientifically inexplicable if by science, you mean the limited philosophy of physicalism based on the metaphysical belief in materialism.
Certain complete and transcendental OBEs are RFDEs, and may include experiences of reincarnation with memories of past lives. I have shared in recent posts and in previous publications the fact that I have personal memories of past lives, know others who have, and in one recent post I shared the statements of a number of well-known people who have had memories of past lives.
As noted above, the study of psi phenomena, regardless how stringently controlled and analyzed, are generally considered to be “pseudoscience” by mainstream materialistic scientists. But, with the discovery and proofs of the existence of the third form of reality as part of every atom of the physical universe, the form we call gimmel, without which there would be no life-supporting, stable atomic and molecular structure, mainstream science as it exists now actually becomes pseudoscience, because its practitioners refuse to look at the evidence simply because they don’t believe it can be real. People who reject real data because it doesn’t fit their belief system, are not behaving as scientists. Scientists must be willing to look at the data and follow it wherever it leads, regardless of what their own beliefs are about the nature of reality.
The time has come for mainstream scientists to look beyond their belief in materialism, because there is indisputable experimental evidence and proof that a vast part of reality is nonphysical.
Wednesday, September 12, 2018
BEYOND A THEORY OF EVERTYTHING
After the experimental validation that the general theory of relativity in 1919, Einstein spent the rest of his life trying to develop a unified field theory that he hoped would link the forces of gravity, electricity and magnetism in one mathematically consistent paradigm. He was not successful, perhaps partly because the so-called weak and strong subatomic forces had not yet been discovered; but, even though Einstein didn’t succeed, his efforts inspired the search for what physicists began to refer to as the “theory of everything”. It was thought that such a theory would reveal all of the mathematical relationships between matter, energy, space and time. The idea that such a theory was possible fit into the philosophy of physicalism, a philosophy of science based on the belief that literally everything could be explained in terms of combinations and permutations of the four fundamental physical forms: matter, energy, space and time.
The dream of a theory of everything (TOE) is not new. In a sense, it expresses the goal of all science. The Greek philosopher Democritus (c.a. 460 – 370 BC), for example, thought that a complete understanding atoms, the building blocks of the universe, would lead to understanding everything.
Pierre-Simon Marquis de Laplace expressed it this way:
An intellect which at a certain moment would know all forces that set nature in motion, and all positions of all items of which nature is composed, if this intellect were also vast enough to submit these data to analysis, it would embrace in a single formula the movements of the greatest bodies of the universe and those of the tiniest atom; for such an intellect nothing would be uncertain and the future just like the past would be present before its eyes.
— Essai philosophique sur les probabilités, Introduction, 1814
Stephen Hawking, in a high-profile lecture in 1980, predicted that the coveted TOE would probably be found by the year 2000. Eight or ten years later, in an early popular book, he repeated the prediction more positively. but it still didn’t happen, but he kept thinking and writing about a final theory of everything in a series of books until he passed away in March 2018. In the 1980 lecture, he mistakenly stated that Kurt Gӧdel’s Incompleteness Theorem proved that a TOE based on physical axioms is possible. Later, he realized that Gӧdel’s theorem proved almost the exact opposite. It suggested that while a TOE might be possible, such a theory could not be derived from a finite set of physical axioms. This was not the first time Stephen Hawking had to revise statements he made about the mathematical description of a TOE. In the late 1960s, exploring solutions of Einstein’s field equations, he famously concluded that the big-bang universe began in a space-time singularity, a dimensionless point. But he had to reverse his position later, and in his book A Brief History of Time, 1988, P. 50, he stated that "…there was in fact no singularity at the beginning of the universe."
Stephen Hawking is not the first scientist to be wrong about something. In fact, I think you might be hard pressed to find a scientist who was or is never wrong, - even Einstein. Einstein called his decision regarding the cosmological constant in his relativity field equations his greatest blunder. His blunder was not that there was a cosmological constant. Understandably, he set the constant at the value necessary to have a stationary universe, which was the consensus among astronomers and cosmologists at the time (1917). The blunder he referred to was that he didn’t realize that the universe could be expanding, contracting or stationary, depending on the value of the constant.
It is not my intention to be unnecessarily critical of Professors Hawking and Einstein. Clearly, they were both geniuses, with reported IQs of 155 (Hawking) and 160 (Einstein), My point is that they were, after all, only human. They made mistakes. The level of fame attained by both men sometimes causes people to think of them as infallible. They were not. My second point is that science must move beyond the physicalist idea of a theory of everything.
The TOE envisioned by physicalists is a serious misdirection of scientific efforts toward a shiny object that does not exist. As Max Planck stated unequivocally: “there is no matter as such”. With the discovery of gimmel, the third form of the substance of reality, a form that has no mass or energy, we know that a large portion of the universe is not physical in the sense of consisting of physical matter and energy as measured in the Large Hadron Collider. We have shown with TDVP that most of what is being called dark matter and dark energy, is not matter or energy at all. It is the form of reality we are calling gimmel, and it likely has a direct relationship to what has traditionally been called spirit or consciousness.
A real description of reality must include all of reality, including consciousness, not just the physical tip of the iceberg.
The purpose of this post is to re-introduce the post below: DESCRIBING THE TRUE NATURE OF REALITY, which I’ve just updated. Please read on.
Saturday, September 8, 2018
THE STORY OF THE DISCOVERY OF THE TRUE NATURE OF REALITY.
A MAJOR PARDDIGM SHIFT
© 2018, Edward R. Close
The history of this story goes back at least 5000 years, with concepts originating in the East, Middle East, Arabia, and Northern Africa, inspiring Diophantus of Alexandria around 250 BC, Pierre de Fermat around 1640 AD, and Max Planck and Albert Einstein from 1900 to 1935, to look at the nature of reality in terms of multi-dimensional models. Modern mainstream science has had no major paradigm shift with regard to expanding the dimensional domain of science since quantum physics and general relativity were proved valid around 1935. Advances have happened, but they were within the scientific paradigm known as the Standard Model (SM). The new shift is from the SM based on materialism to a paradigm in which consciousness is primary, revealing the true nature of reality. It is difficult to do justice to the importance of the discovery of the true nature of reality in a short essay, but I must try. I have neither the time nor the patience to wait for the media and mainstream science to catch up.
I introduced the concept of the non-quantum receptor in a poster presentation at Tucson II (the second Toward a Science of Consciousness Convention) at the University of Arizona in 1996, and published it with an introduction to the calculus of distinctions in my third book, Transcendental Physics in 1997, re-released in 2000. Discussing these ideas in the Science Within Consciousness Journal and the Karl Jaspers Forum online, in 2000 to 2005, someone asked: “Putting forth such revolutionary ideas on line, aren’t you afraid someone will steal your ideas?” Someone else responded: “If you are introducing truly new science, no one in mainstream science will understand it even if you push it down their throats!”
The person making the second comment was right. The history of western science shows us that a truth outside the boundaries of the established paradigm, however valid, is initially almost universally ignored, and condemned as un-scientific nonsense. That was the case for paradigm breakers like Copernicus, Planck and Einstein, and it is now the case for ideas introduced by Close and Neppe. As Max Planck said:
“A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it”.
The purpose of this post is not to convince the believers in the current materialistic paradigm, it is simply to present a scientific truth as simply as possible and hope that the new generation of scientists will be open to going beyond the box of the current mainstream paradigm.
AN UNAMBIGUOUS DESCRIPTION OF OUR UNIVERSE AND THE COSMOS
(A Comprehensive Description of Everything)
Behind it all is surely an idea so simple, so beautiful, that when we grasp it
- in a decade, a century, or a millennium - we will all say to each other,
how could it have been otherwise? How could we have been so stupid?
how could it have been otherwise? How could we have been so stupid?
– John A. Wheeler, theoretical physicist
We know now that the physical universe available to our five senses and their physical extensions is only a very small part of reality. If we call all of reality the cosmos, then the physical universe we perceive through our senses is to the cosmos as a single sentence is to a 1000-page book, or as one novel is to all the books in all the libraries in the world. It is virtually a single unfolding thought in the infinite mind of God.
The Triadic Dimensional Vortical Paradigm (TDVP) is a major shift in the basis of scientific thought from a narrow materialistic view of reality limited to consideration of the physical universe, to a comprehensive description of everything. But, it is not a theory of everything (TOE). To clarify this, and present an unambiguous description of everything (DOE), it is necessary to define some basic terms.
There are some basic terms that most people interested in science, and even many professional scientists, often use ambiguously, so they need to be defined accurately and carefully for the purposes of this discussion. The definitions given below will clarify what the words mean in the new description of reality presented here. It makes no difference whether or not these definitions agree with dictionary definitions or with your personal understanding of what the terms mean. The definitions given below specify their meanings in the discussion that follows. Please refer to them any time the discussion seems unclear.
SCIENCE: The formal, organized effort to understand the nature of the reality we experience.
THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD: The practice of the process of proposing reasonable hypotheses, also called theories, and testing them against the experience of direct knowledge through observation and measurement. If a hypothesis is validated by experience, it is accepted, if not, then it should be discarded.
SCIENTIST: A person who engages in the practice of science.
TDVP: The Triadic Dimensional Vortical Paradigm.
TRIADIC: Consisting of three components, or a multiple of three components.
VORTICAL: An adjective describing a vortex spinning in three or more dimensions.
DIMENSIONAL: An adjective describing domains of extension.
PARADIGM: A comprehensive understanding of reality based on empirical data and mathematical proof.
DIMENSION: A measure of extent, like length, width or height. This term is often used incorrectly to mean a dimensional domain.
DIMENSIONAL DOMAIN: A specific well-defined extent of space-time and consciousness. For example, a line, extending infinitely is a one-dimensional domain; a plane, extending indefinitely in two mutually orthogonal directions is a two-dimensional domain; a volume extending indefinitely in three mutually orthogonal directions is a three-dimensional domain; and, in general, a volume extending indefinitely in n mutually orthogonal directions is an n-dimensional domain.
EXTENT: The measure of the variable distance, area or volume, of a dimensional domain.
CONTENT: That which occupies a dimensional Domain of three or more dimensions. Note that dimensional domains of less than three dimensions have no capacity for content.
ORTHOGONAL DIMENSIONS: Dimensions separated by an angle of rotation of 90 degrees, given that one complete rotation is 360 degrees.
VORTICAL SPIN: The rotation of a vortex.
INTRINSIC SPIN: The increase in vortical spin caused by simultaneous rotations around more than one axis, i.e., in more than one plane.
FIELD: A field is a dimensional domain of finite extent in three or more dimensions, with a well-defined distribution of mass-energy-consciousness content, for example, the gravitational field of a planet, the energy field of a magnet, or the extent of an individual’s consciousness.
MASS: The resistance to motion due to vortical spin.
ENERGY: Any force capable of creating, sustaining and altering a vortex, or distorting the distribution of a field.
UNIVERSE: A finite domain of three or more dimensions along with all its contents.
COSMOS: The infinite sum of all possible universes, past, present and future.
PRIMARY CONSCIOUSNESS: The Infinite Reality within which all things are embedded. The Source of all of the logical patterns of reality.
INDIVIDUALIZED CONSCIOUSNESS: Finite manifestations of specific limited fields and image content originating in Primary Consciousness.
THEORY: A hypothesis to be proved or disproved.
THEOREM: A hypothesis that has been expressed mathematically and confirmed by mathematical logic based on known axioms expressing direct experiences of reality.
CALCULATION: The process of transforming the form of a given representation of a known feature of reality to a different, equivalent form.
CALCULUS: A system of logical operations that transform the form of a given description of a known feature of reality to a different equivalent form. For example, the fundamental operations of arithmetic transform expressions of numerical values as in: 1+1=2, and (3 x 4)+1=13. Other examples include algebraic transformations such as: (x + y)(x – y) = x2 – y2, and differential and integral calculations like: d/dx(xn) = nxn-1, ∫nxn-1 = xn + C, etc.
DISTINCTION: Any form that can be distinguished from the rest of reality in some way.
THE CALCULUS OF DISTINCTIONS: The logical system of calculations that changes the form of a distinction or combinations of distinctions into different, but equivalent forms.
THE CALCULUS OF DIMENSIONAL DISTINCTIONS (CoDD): The logical system of calculations that transform the form of a dimensional distinction occupying a volumetric domain or combinations of volumetric distinctions into different, but equivalent forms.
DIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS: In a series of calculations involving mathematical expressions describing a stable physical relationship (most often expressions of one or more of the known laws of physics) in terms of distinctions measurable in units of mass/energy, space and time, the number and symmetry of the basic units of the final expression must match exactly the number and symmetry of the units of the initial expression prior to the series of mathematical transformations. Otherwise, there is an error either in physical conceptualization or mathematical logic. This a very useful analysis usually taught to first-year university physics students.
VOLUME: The extent of a dimensional domain of three or more orthogonal dimensions.
THE TRIADIC ROTATIONAL UNIT OF EQUIVALENCE (TRUE): The basic quantum equivalence unit of the CoDD, derived from the mas/energy equivalence of the electron.
QUANTUM: The smallest possible measurable unit of reality.
THE QUANTUM EQUIVALENCE PRINCIPLE: All observable and measurable objects in the universe consist of integral multiples of the quantum equivalence unit (TRUE).
DIMENSIONAL EXTRAPOLATION: The projection from an n-dimensional domain into an (n+1)-dimensional domain. The process of dimensional extrapolation from an n-dimensional domain where the numerical types of the dimensions are known, results in the definition of the mathematical nature of the (n+1)th dimension. For example, extrapolation from a 3-dimensional domain into a 4-dimensional domain reveals that the 4th dimension is measurable in the primary type of complex numbers, i.e., integer multiples of the so-called imaginary unit, the square-root of negative one (√-1).
THE DIMENSIONAL INVARIANCE PRINCIPLE: An n-dimensional domain can only be observed and/or measured from an (n+1)-dimensional domain.
DIOPHANTINE EQUATIONS: Diophantine equations are polynomial equations, usually in two or more unknowns, such that only the integer solutions are sought or studied (an integer solution is a solution such that all the unknowns take integer values). They are named after Diophantus of Alexandria (210 -294 AD).
DIOPHANTINE EQUATIONS: Diophantine equations are polynomial equations, usually in two or more unknowns, such that only the integer solutions are sought or studied (an integer solution is a solution such that all the unknowns take integer values). They are named after Diophantus of Alexandria (210 -294 AD).
Don’t worry if you don’t understand all of the details of the definitions of the terms listed above. They will become clear and meaningful as they are used in this discussion.
DISCUSSION: THE TRUE NATURE OF REALITY
I will begin by explaining how the practice of science based on belief rather than knowledge leads to erroneous conclusions about the nature of reality. Then I will explain how replacing belief with an analysis of experience replaces belief with knowledge and leads to a new paradigm. This will be followed by a broad-brush description of the nature of reality revealed by the new paradigm, and a description of how the new paradigm was discovered. Finally, I will list some of the major problems with the current mainstream belief-based paradigm that are explained by the new experience-based paradigm. I will provide references to publications containing the detailed derivations from empirical data and mathematical proofs of the basic parameters establishing the new paradigm that describes the true nature of reality and explain some of the conundrums and paradoxes of the current belief-based paradigm of mainstream science.
The Belief-based Standard Model of Reality
The current mainstream model promoted by most modern scientists is based on the metaphysical belief system of materialism, also called physicalism. In this belief system, the entirety of reality is believed to consist of matter and energy in the form of combinations of elementary particles and weak and strong forces evolving and interacting in the arena of a universal relativistic space-time domain. Consciousness is believed to be an epiphenomenon of physical evolution, i.e., something secondary to physical reality, arising when a sufficiently sophisticated level of physical complexity is attained. Mainstream scientists have not explained how this complexity could evolve from particles flying apart in a universe expanding from a big-bang explosion. They have not discovered what consciousness is, or how it arises from matter, but they express confidence that it will all be explained when a real “theory of everything” based on physical principles is finally discovered. But a physical theory of everything is an unachievable goal, because not everything we experience is physical.
The job of science is to explain everything we experience. Materialism is an attractive hypothesis because of its simplicity, but should not be used as the basis of scientific investigation because it fails the test of falsifiability. The hypothesis that a physical universe can exist without consciousness cannot be tested. To discover what is wrong with the mainstream theory, and understand why it leads to puzzles and paradoxes at both the quantum and cosmic levels of measurement, we only need to return to what we actually experience. Recall that the first definition listed above identifies science as the effort to understand the nature of the reality we experience, not what we believe or imagine might exist. The physical theory of everything envisioned by mainstream science is not really a theory of everything, because it does not include everything we experience in its axiomatic basis. Limited to physical reality, science cannot explain more than about 5% of everything we experience, and produces no answers for our most important questions concerning the ultimate nature of reality, the source of consciousness, and the meaning or purpose of existence.
All of the observations and measurements of scientific experimentation are possible only because of the conscious drawing of distinctions, not because of the pre-observation existence of an independent physical universe assumed by physicalists. The first distinction drawn is the distinction of self from other, the direct conscious experience of the separation of ‘in-here” from ‘out-there’. The first mistake of materialism occurs when reality is assumed to be binary, leading them to focus on the distinction between an object of observation and its surroundings, ignoring the third component, which is the conscious entity drawing the distinction. By relegating consciousness to a dimensionless point outside the domain of scientific observation and measurement, physicalism misses the key to understanding the nature of reality.
In fact, mainstream science is not science as defined. It has, however, played a very important role in the slow development of human civilization. By limiting the goal of research and experimentation to understanding the mechanics of physical reality, mainstream science has been very successful solving practical problems related to physical survival and the manipulation of the physical environment. But, that is not science as defined above; it is pragmatic technological engineering. By focusing on the mechanics of physical reality, mainstream science has ignored the ontological connection of consciousness with reality, and has therefore no effective way to study the nature of the relationship of consciousness to physical reality.
On the other hand, the limited practical approach of current mainstream science has served us well in one respect. Because of the successes of engineering technology, we no longer have to fight wild animals and the environmental elements to survive. We have created a safety buffer called modern civilization, creating a comfortable physical existence and providing the leisure time needed for a deeper look into the nature of reality. It is critical that we do this now, because if we squander the anxiety-free time provided by labor-saving devices produced by engineering technology in the pursuit of short-term gratification, the lack of a deeper understanding of the nature of reality will result in the decay and self-destruction of civilization.
Consciousness is actually the only thing that we experience directly, so it must be included in any serious scientific endeavor to understand reality. Everything else is perceived indirectly through the senses. To think of consciousness as less real than the objects it perceives indirectly is a fatal mistake, dooming mainstream science to the pseudoscience of physicalism and the dead end of materialism. This short-sightedness has led to loss of meaning, decadence and the decay of modern civilization. With an understanding of what is at stake, it is of paramount importance that we rectify the errors of materialistic science and physicalism as soon as possible. How do we begin to do that? By including consciousness in the equations describing reality. This is what is done in Close & Neppe's TDSVP. Let me explain how.
The Road to a Reality Paradigm
If the bricks of the yellow brick road leading to the Land of Oz were the elementary particles of particle physics, the Emerald City would be the mainstream paradigm. When the light of scientific inspection is expanded to the scope of the reality we experience, the hypothetical particles of mainstream science fade away and disappear like the bricks of Dorothy’s dream. When individualized consciousness dons the ruby slippers of the calculus of dimensional distinctions and clicks its heels, it awakens from the dream of materialism and returns to the reality of the greater cosmos. The discoveries of relativity and quantum physics reveal quantized building blocks at the bottom of physical reality, but, as Planck indicated when he said “there is no matter as such”, they are not physical particles at all. Instead, TDVP shows us that they are energy vortices, spinning simultaneously in multiple dimensions. To understand how and why this is true, we must apply the calculus of dimensional dimensions (CoDD) to analyze experience.
Going back to experience, then, we realized that conscious experience is triadic, not binary as assumed by the scientists who developed the standard model. We experience , the resistance of mass (1.), the impact of energy (2.) and the mutable image of a finite volumetric expanse of space and time as our field of awareness (3.). To properly describe quantized reality, we must have a set of unitary quantum distinctions to use, just as we use units of size, weight, and time, e.g., inches, pounds and minutes, to measure any normal size physical object. But, these conventional units are far too large to use to measure quanta. Trying to do so is like trying to measure the diameters of dust particles in units of light years, the distance between galaxies!
Planck defined quantum units for quantum reality by naturalizing certain fundamental constants of physics: the speed of light, the Coulomb constant, Boltzmann’s constant, and the gravitational constant. ”Naturalizing” them means setting the unit values of these constants equal to one. This is not some arcane definitional concept done for mysterious reasons. We unitize measures of physical objects all the time: We measure distances in multiples of one inch, or one meter, mass in multiples of one pound or one gram, and time in multiples of one second. However, the unitary length of one inch, the weight of one pound, and the duration of one second, are arbitrarily chosen for convenience of measurement and calculation. Setting fundamental constants of nature to unity at the quantum level provides “natural” units of measurement, which physicists call Planck units in honor of Max Planck.
The table below shows the relationships between these fundamental universal constants and conventional international units of measurement.
Speed of light
U/U = 1
U3/U∙U2 = 1
Coulomb (electric charge)
U3U/U2U2 = 1
U2U/U2 U = 1
U2U/U2 = U
Where L implies units of length, M→ mass, T→ time, Q → electrical charge, and ϴ → temperature in degrees, m = meters, kg = kilograms and s = seconds.
Notice that the basic unit types for measurement of the speed of light are length and time, and for the gravitational constant, they are length, mass and time. Considering the mathematical equivalence of mass and energy (E – mc2), these unit types, M, L and T, (mass, length and time) are all that are needed to describe physical reality. All other measurable variables can always be expressed in mathematical combinations of these three basic units. For example, density is mass per unit volume (M/L3), Force = mass times acceleration = Ma = ML/T2, etc. The reader can verify this for other physical parameters. The other two constants, Ke and KB, contain linear measures of electrical charge and temperature that may vary over the field of observation.
The CoDD requires naturalized units of measurement for use in calculation, just as the standard model does. So, one might ask, why not just use Planck units? To answer this question, we turn to TRUE, the quantum equivalence unit of the CoDD, combined with dimensional analysis (see definitions above. In the CoDD, we have defined the TRUE, the quantum equivalence unit derived from the physical characteristics of the electron, as the basic unit of the calculus. For this application of dimensional analysis, let U represent the TRUE, the quantum equivalence unit.
Looking at the fourth column of the table above, we see that the dimensional analysis of four of these universal constants shows that they are symmetric. That is, in quantum equivalence units, the dimensional domains of 1, 2 or 3 dimensions cancel out in the dimensional analysis, making the constant dimensionless. This means that c, G, Ke, and KB are unitary regardless of the size of the units used, whether inches, meters, grams, pounds, etc. when they are quantized and naturalized. Thus they are verified as being universal constants in the CoDD, just as they are in the standard model. The fifth constant, h, Planck’s constant, however, proves to be asymmetric, because the dimensional domains do not cancel. Thus h is not a universal constant, because its value depends on the units of measurement chosen.
This is not the only thing that makes the TRUE (quantum equivalence units) different than Planck units. The TRUE, the ultimate quantum units used in CoDD calculations, are natural quantum units based on the mass and volume of the electron, the elementary object with the smallest mass in the stable components of the natural elements. It is thus the true building block of the physical universe, and the Quantum Equivalence Principle (see definition above) implies that if the TRUE is the true quantum building block of the universe, then all real objects will contain integer (whole number) multiples of the TRUE, and thus the equations describing real phenomena will be Diophantine equations with integer solutions.
The fact that the Planck constant is not an integer in any system of units, tells us that Planck units are not quantum units, while triadic rotational units of equivalence (TRUE) are. This conclusion is verified by the many explanations of empirical observations and agreements with experimental data obtained by applying the CoDD with the TRUE as the basic distinction. These verifications with real data and logical explanations of observed phenomena that are not explained in the standard model paradigm, establishes TDVP as a valid scientific paradigm, not just a theory.
With the mathematical proofs provided in our published papers, TDVP attains the status of a theorem. It is no longer just a theoretical hypothesis. The following examples of successful solutions of some of the paradoxes and puzzles of the standard model, with references to the detailed presentations of derivations and proofs are offered as evidence of the validity of TDVP.
PROBLEMS SOLVED BY TDVP
1.) Why are protons and neutrons combinations of three quarks and not some other electrically neutral combination? Applications of the CoDD with TRUE to the Diophantine combinatorial equations show that other combinations are mathematically and dimensionally impossible because they would violate Fermat’s Last Theorem. The proof has beeen published in several of the references below.
2.) Why do fermions like protons have an intrinsic one-half integer spin? In standard model physics, intrinsic spin is considered part of quantum weirdness that cannot be explained in classical terms. The half-integer spin of fermions and whole-integer spin of bosons are postulated as numerical features of the quantum states of elementary particles, that cannot be derived from first principles and have nothing to do with physical rotation, even though they contribute to the total angular momentum of the particle. However, the application of 9-D spin dynamics in TDVP explains intrinsic spins perfectly well as the direct result of simultaneous rotation in multiple dimensions. Dimensional mathematical proof has been published. See References.
3.) Why do protons and neutrons have so much more mass than the combined mass of the quarks of which they are composed? The standard model posits particles called gluons that hold the quarks together and impart the extra mass to the combination even though in theory, they themselves have zero mass. TDVP derives the mass of the proton and neutron from CoDD applications with TRUE that agree exactly with the results of exhaustive statistical analysis of experimental data from the LHC. See these derivations in published reference listed below.
4.) The standard model does not explain from theory or from first principles why the Cabibbo quark mixing angle is 13.04 degrees, while TDVP provides a straight-forward derivation from 9-D CoDD dynamics calculating the angle at 13.0392 degrees. See References.
5.) The standard model does not explain why there is something rather than nothing. The standard model scientist assumes that consciousness is an epiphenomenon of matter that has no direct causative relationship in the formation, evolution and ultimate nature of reality. Because of this assumption, consciousness has no place in the equations used to describe reality in the theories of mainstream science. TDVP, on the other hand, by following the data of quantum physics experiments where they lead, found that there would be no physical universe if some form of primary consciousness did not exist prior to the formation of protons, neutrons and the natural elements. With the discovery of gimmel, the third (non-mass, non-energy) form of the essential substance of reality, TDVP explains why there is something rather than nothing. See References.
6.) Gimmel, the third form of reality discovered by applying the logic of the CoDD to the mathematical description of the combination of quarks that form stable protons in the 9-D dimensional domain of the finite cosmos, is the link between physical reality and primary consciousness, the substrate of reality, in which the 9-D finite domains of the physical universe and the cosmos are embedded.
This is only the beginning of a long list of fifty-some phenomena, paradoxes and puzzles not explained by the standard model, that are explained by TDVP using CoDD Diophantine integer mathematics with the TRUE quantum unit derived from data on the electron and quarks from DHC data. See References.
Max Planck discovered the quantization of energy, and Albert Einstein provided the equations expressing the equivalence of mass and energy. The Large Hadron Collider, the largest, most sophisticated machine developed by mainstream science so far, has produced mega terabytes of physical data defining the mass and energy of the building blocks of physical reality, providing very accurate estimates of the mass and energy equivalence of electrons and quarks for use as the basis for defining the true quantum equivalence units needed for the calculus of dimensional distinctions.
Reality is triadic, consisting of three sequentially embedded dimensional domains: space, time and consciousness, which are describable in variables of extent, and three forms of the essence of reality: mass, energy and consciousness, describable in variables of content.
Since the new paradigm has been validated with empirical data from the Large Hadron Collider and mathematical proof, as prerviously statedit is no longer a theory. Thus, since it is not a theory, TDVP is not a theory of everything, instead, it is a description of everything.
REFERENCES (A partial list of relevant publications)
1. Close, ER: Transcendental Physics, Gutenberg Richter, 1997, iUniverse toExcel, 2000.
2. Neppe VM, Close ER: The first conundrum: can the standard scientific model be applied to develop a complete theory of reality? IQNexus Journal 7: 2; 15-20, 2015.
3. Close ER, Neppe VM: Translating fifteen mysteries of the universe by applying a nine dimensional spinning model of finite reality: A perspective, the standard model and TDVP. Part 1. Neuroquantology 13: 2; 205-217, 2015.
4. Donoghue JF, Golowich E, Holstein BR: Dynamics of the standard model. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 1994.
5. Oerter R: The theory of almost everything: the standard model, the unsung triumph of modern physics. New York: Person Education. 2006.
6. Pokharna S: Is the modern science finally approaching Jainism? (original in Hindi). Ahmedabad: Jinendu. 2018, March 25.
7. Pokharna SS: The modern science appears to be approaching towards Jainism: Strong evidence that direct knowledge through consciousness is possible. 2018, in press.
8. Pokharna SS, Prajna C: Jain concepts and TDVP model for the theory of Everything: Some remarkable parallels. Transactions of International School for Jain Studies II: 2, 2018, In press.
9. Neppe VM, Close ER: Reality begins with consciousness: a paradigm shift that works (5th Edition) Fifth Edition. Seattle: Brainvoyage.com. 2014.
10. Close ER, Neppe VM: Putting consciousness into the equations of science: the third form of reality (gimmel) and the “TRUE” units (Triadic Rotational Units of Equivalence) of quantum measurement IQNexus Journal 7: 4; 7-119, 2015.
11. Neppe VM. Understanding Gimmel with Vernon Neppe. (YouTube). New Thinking Allowed,. 2018.
12. Close ER, Neppe VM: Speculations on the “God matrix”: The third form of reality (gimmel) and the refutation of materialism and on gluons. World Institute for Scientific Exploration (WISE) Journal 4: 4; 3-30, 2015.
13. Neppe VM, Close ER: Key ideas: the third substance, gimmel and the God matrix. Part 1. World Institute for Scientific Exploration (WISE) Journal 4: 4; 3-4, 2015.
14. Neppe VM, Close ER: The gimmel pairing: Consciousness and energy and life (Part 13D). IQNexus Journal 7: 3; 122-126, 2015.
15. Close ER, Neppe VM: Derivation and application of TRUE quantum calculus for the analysis of quantized reality, including empirically verifiable new approaches to mass, neutrons, protons, law of conservation of gimmel and TRUE, TDVP and Deuterium. 2018 In submission.
16. Neppe VM, Close ER: Relative non-locality and the infinite, in Reality begins with consciousness: a paradigm shift that works (5th Edition). Edited by. Seattle, WA: Brainvoyage.com. 376-379 2014.
17. Neppe VM, Close ER: The discrete finite contained in the continuous infinite: some speculations (Part 13C). IQNexus Journal 7: 3; 120-122, 2015.
18. Neppe VM, Close ER: The infinite (Part 13B). IQNexus Journal 7: 3; 117-120, 2015.
19. Neppe VM, Close ER: Special concepts in the finite and infinite anomalous process (Part 13). IQNexus Journal 7: 3; 114-122, 2015.
20. Neppe VM, Close ER: A proposed Theory of Everything that works: How the Neppe-Close Triadic Dimensional Distinction Vortical Paradigm (TDVP) model provides a metaparadigm by applying nine-dimensional finite spin space, time and consciousness substrates and the transfinite embedded in the infinite producing a unified reality. IQNexus Journal 16: 3; 1-54, 2014.
21. Neppe VM, Close ER: The Triadic Dimensional Distinction Vortical Paradigm (TDVP): The nine-dimensional finite spin metaparadigm embedded in the infinite Dynamic International Journal of Exceptional Creative Achievement 1401: 1401; 4001-4041, 2014.
22. Morgart E: The theory of everything has nine dimensions: The sparkling diamond and the quanta jewel turn quantum physics and the nine-pronged world of consciousness— on its ear. USA Today Magazine: 1 (January); 66-68, 2014.
23. Smullyan R: Gödel's incompleteness theorems. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1991.
24. Berto FJ: There's something about Gödel: the complete guide to the incompleteness theorem. New York: John Wiley and Sons. 2010.
25. Eddington A: The philosophy of physical science. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan. 1938 (republished 1958).
26. Neppe VM, Close ER: The important Eddingtonian analogy: Part 1 IQNexus Journal 8: 1; 21-22, 2016.
27. Neppe VM, Close ER: The second conundrum: Falsifiability is insufficient; we need to apply feasibility as well Lower Dimensional Feasibility, Absent Falsification (LFAF) as a scientific method IQNexus Journal 7: 2; 21-23, 2015.
28. Einstein A: Fundamental ideas and methods of the Theory of Relativity, presented in their development Papers 7: 31, 1920
29. Einstein A: Relativity, the special and the general theory—a clear explanation that anyone can understand (Fifteenth Edition). New York: Crown Publishers. 1952.
30. Eddington A: The expanding universe: astronomy's 'great debate', 1900-1931. Cambridge: Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge. 1933.
31. Koestler A: The Sleepwalkers. London: Hutchinson. 1959.
32. Planck M: Max Planck: Scientific Autobiography and Other Papers, in. Edited by. New York: Harper 33–34 (quotation) 1949.
33. Planck M.. circa 1950.
34. Planck M: There is no matter as such, in Web notepad: Everything noticed and interesting. 1918
35. Neppe VM, Close ER: Fifty discoveries that are changing the world: Why the Triadic Dimensional Distinction Vortical Paradigm (TDVP) makes a difference. IQ Nexus Journal 9: 2; 7-39, 2017.
36. Close ER, Neppe VM: Introductory summary perspective on TRUE and gimmel (Part 1) in Putting consciousness into the equations of science: the third form of reality (gimmel) and the “TRUE” units (Triadic Rotational Units of Equivalence) of quantum measurement IQNexus Journal 7: 4; 8-15, 2015.
37. Close ER, Neppe VM: Empirical exploration of the third substance, gimmel in particle physics (Part 10). IQNexus Journal 7: 4; 45-47, 2015.
38. Close ER, Neppe VM: The TRUE unit: triadic rotational units of equivalence (TRUE) and the third form of reality: gimmel; applying the conveyance equation (Part 12). IQNexus Journal 7: 4; 55-65, 2015.
39. Neppe VM, Close ER: Speculations about gimmel Part 5. World Institute for Scientific Exploration (WISE) Journal 4: 4; 21-26, 2015.
40. Neppe VM, Close ER: The fourteenth conundrum: Applying the proportions of Gimmel to Triadic Rotational Units of Equivalence compared to the proportions of dark matter plus dark energy: Speculations in cosmology. IQNexus Journal 7: 2; 72-73, 2015.
41. Neppe VM, Close ER: Applying consciousness, infinity and dimensionality creating a paradigm shift: introducing the triadic dimensional distinction vortical paradigm (TDVP). Neuroquantology 9: 3; 375-392, 2011.
42. Neppe VM, Close ER: The Infinite: essence, life and ordropy Dynamic International Journal of Exceptional Creative Achievement 1204: 1204; 2159-2169, 2012.
43. Neppe VM, Close ER: The necessity for infinity: Section 3. IQ Nexus Journal 9: 1; 24-29, 2017.
44. Neppe VM, Close ER: The fifteenth conundrum: Applying the philosophical model of Unified Monism: Returning to general principles. IQNexus Journal 7: 2; 74-78, 2015.
45. Neppe VM, Close ER: Unified monism: linking science with spirituality in a philosophical model. Section 9: In Integrating spirituality into science: applying the Neppe-Close Triadic Dimensional Vortical Paradigm (TDVP). IQNexus Journal 10: 2; 48-51, 2018.
46. Neppe VM, Close ER: Wondrous gimmel: Section 8. In Integrating spirituality into science: applying the Neppe-Close Triadic Dimensional Vortical Paradigm (TDVP). IQNexus Journal 10: 2; 42-47 2018.
47. Close ER, Neppe VM: Summary and conclusion gimmel, TRUE and the structure of reality (Part 20). IQNexus Journal 7: 4; 112-114, 2015.
48. Neppe VM, Close ER: Relative and dynamic psi, and gimmel: The non-local variants (Part 9). IQNexus Journal 7: 3; 74-83, 2015.
49. Söding P: On the discovery of the gluon. European Physical Journal H 35: 1; 3–28, 2010.
50. Gell-Mann M: Symmetries of baryons and mesons. Physical Review (Nuclear Physics) 125: 3; 1067–1084, 1962.
51. Gell-Mann M: The Quark and the Jaguar: Adventures in the Simple and the Complex. New York, NY: Henry Holt and Co. 1995.
52. Close ER, Neppe VM: The problem of determining the mass of the neutron: Section 7: In: Derivation and application of TRUE quantum calculus for the analysis of quantized reality. 2018, In submission.
53. Close ER, Neppe VM: Applying hydrogen-1 and deuterium: The origin of mass: Section 8: In: Derivation and application of TRUE quantum calculus for the analysis of quantized reality. 2018, In submission.
54. Close ER, Neppe VM: Why TRUE units have to be correct: the mass in the proton: re-affirming the truth of Triadic Rotational Units of Equivalence. Chapter 6 IQ Nexus Journal 8: 4 —V6.122; 70-96, 2016.
55. Klein A: Toward a new subquantum integration approach to sentient reality (unpublished), in. 1-40. Israel. 2010
56. Stewart D: The chemistry of essential oils made simple: God’s love manifest in molecules. Marble Hill, MO: Care publications. 2005.
57. Stapp HP: Mindful universe: Quantum mechanics and the participating observer. New York Springer-Verlag. 2007.
58. Radin D: Consciousness and the double-slit interference pattern: Six experiments. Physics Essays 25: 2; 157– 171, 2012.
59. Neppe VM, Close ER: Relative non-locality - key features in consciousness research (seven part series). Journal of Consciousness Exploration and Research 6: 2; 90-139, 2015.
60. Neppe VM, Close ER: The concept of relative non-locality: Theoretical implications in consciousness research. Explore (NY): The Journal of Science and Healing 11: 2; 102-108,.
61. Neppe VM, Close ER: Integrating spirituality into science: applying the Neppe-Close Triadic Dimensional Vortical Paradigm (TDVP). IQNexus Journal 10: 2; 7-108, 2018.
62. Neppe VM. The dyadic, creative Interface with Vernon Neppe (YouTube) On TDVP and the Neppe-Close relationship. New Thinking Allowed,. 2018.
63. Neppe VM, Close ER: Perspective: dimensional biopsychophysics: approaching dimensions, infinity, meaning, and understanding spirituality and the laws of nature: Section 13. In Integrating spirituality into science: applying the Neppe-Close Triadic Dimensional Vortical Paradigm (TDVP). IQNexus Journal 10: 2; 71-77, 2018.
64. Neppe VM, Close ER: On Non-locality III: Dimensional Biopsychophysics. Journal of Consciousness Exploration and Research 6: 2; 103-111, 2015.
65. Palmer WF: Cabibbo angle and rotation projection. Phys. Rev., D 8: 4; 1156-1159, 1973.
66. Reifler F, Morris R: Prediction of the Cabibbo angle in the vector model for electroweak interactions. J. Math. Phys. 26: 8; 2059-2066, 1985.
67. Close FE, Lipkin HJ: Puzzles in Cabibbo-suppressed charm decays. Physics Letters B 551: 3-4; 337-342, 2003.
68. Close ER, Neppe VM: The eleventh conundrum: The double Bell normal curve and its applications to electron cloud distribution IQNexus Journal 7: 2; 51-56, 2015.
69. Neppe VM, Close ER: The sixteenth conundrum: The general immediate implications of a nine dimensional reality IQNexus Journal 7: 2; 79-80, 2015.
70. Close ER, Neppe VM: Translating fifteen mysteries of the universe: Nine dimensional mathematical models of finite reality, Part II. Neuroquantology 13: 3; 348-360, 2015.
71. Close ER, Neppe VM: Mathematical and theoretical physics feasibility demonstration of the finite nine dimensional vortical model in fermions. Dynamic International Journal of Exceptional Creative Achievement 1301: 1301; 1-55, 2013.
72. Neppe VM, Close ER: The Cabibbo mixing angle (CMA) derivation: Is our mathematical derivation of the Cabibbo spin mixing angle (CSMA) equivalent? IQNexus Journal 7: 4; 120-128, 2015.
73. Close ER, Neppe VM: The seventh conundrum: the mathematical derivation of the Cabibbo mixing angle in fermions. IQNexus Journal 7: 2; 41-43, 2015.
74. Close ER, Neppe VM: The sixth conundrum: theoretical knowledge on deriving the Cabibbo angle. IQNexus Journal 7: 2; 39-40, 2015.
75. Close ER, Neppe VM: The Cabibbo mixing angle and other particle physics paradoxes solved by applying the TDVP multidimensional spin model. IQNexus Journal 14: 1; 13-50, 2014
76. Close ER, Neppe VM: The thirteenth conundrum: introducing an important new concept, TRUE units—Triadic Rotational Units of Equivalence. IQNexus Journal 7: 2; 60-71, 2015.
77. Anonymous. Planck mission full results confirm canonical cosmology model. Dark matter, dark energy, dark gravity,. 2015.
78. Neppe VM, Close ER: A data analysis preliminarily validates the new hypothesis that the atom 'contains' dark matter and dark energy: Dark matter correlates with gimmel in the atomic nucleus and dark energy with gimmel in electrons. IQ Nexus Journal 8: 3; 80-96, 2016.
79. Neppe VM, Close ER: The groundbreaking paradigm shift: Triadic Dimensional- Distinction Vortical Paradigm (“TDVP”): A series of dialogues. Telicom 29: 1-4 52-177, 2017.
80. Close ER, Neppe VM: The Triadic Dimensional Vortical Paradigm (TDVP) is valid and appropriate: The roles of neutrons and protons, particle emergence including decay and vortical spin - A response. Telicom 30: 3; 95-105, 2018.
81. Close ER: Can a quantum physics description of brain dynamics explain consciousness? Telicom 22: 1; 36-44, 2009.
82. Close ER, Neppe VM: Dimensions, consciousness and infinity. Dynamic International Journal of Exceptional Creative Achievement 1203: 1203; 2129 -2139, 2012.
83. Dossey L: The millennium of consciousness: reflections on the one mind. Explore (NY) 9: 2; 67-74,.
84. Nelson RD: Coherent consciousness and reduced randomness: correlations on september 11, 2001. Journal of Scientific Exploration 16: 4; 549-570, 2002.
85. Neppe VM: Phenomenological consciousness research: ensuring homogeneous data collection for present and future research on possible psi phenomena by detailing subjective descriptions, using the multi-axial a to z SEATTLE classification. Neuroquantology 9: 1; 84-105, 2011.
86. Neppe VM, Close ER: The different faces of psychology and the perspective of “Consciousness”: Part 2. IQNexus Journal 15: 2; 17-19, 2014.
87. Neppe VM, Close ER: EPIC consciousness: A pertinent new unification of an important concept. Journal of Psychology and Clinical Psychiatry 1: 00036: 6; 1-14, 2014.
88. Close ER, Neppe VM: Understanding TDVP through dimensions: chapter 5. IQ Nexus Journal 8: 4 —V6.122; 61-69, 2016.
89. Halpern P: The great beyond: higher dimensions, parallel universes and the extraordinary search for a theory of everything. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. 2005.
90. Neppe VM, Close ER: Toward a method of proof for added dimensions (Part 8). IQNexus Journal 7: 3; 68-73, 2015.
91. Neppe VM, Close ER: Dimensions and dilemmas (Part 13A). IQNexus Journal 7: 3; 115-117, 2015.
92. Neppe VM, Close ER: Reality, 9 dimensions, and TDVP, Section 1. IQ Nexus Journal 9: 1; 8-16, 2017.
93. Pico RM: Consciousness in four dimensions: biological relativity and the origins of thought. New York: McGraw. 2002.
94. Close ER, Neppe VM: The mathematics and logic of infinity Dynamic International Journal of Exceptional Creative Achievement 1204: 1204; 2140 -2158, 2012.
95. Close ER, Neppe VM: The role of mathematics in investigating the nature of reality (Part 4). IQNexus Journal 7: 4; 22-26, 2015.
96. Close ER, Neppe VM: Defining the basic units of quantum mathematics for a quantum calculus: Section 3: In: Derivation and application of TRUE quantum calculus for the analysis of quantized reality. 2018, In submission.
97. Stewart I: The mathematics of life. NY: Basic Books. 2011.
98. Wang H: From mathematics to philosophy. London Routledge and Kegan Paul. 1974.
99. Close ER, Neppe VM: The Calculus of Distinctions: A workable mathematicologic model across dimensions and consciousness. Dynamic International Journal of Exceptional Creative Achievement 1210: 1210; 2387 -2397, 2012.
100. Close ER, Neppe VM: Further implications: quantized reality and applying Close’s Calculus of Distinctions versus the Calculus of Newton(Part 19). IQNexus Journal 7: 4; 110-111, 2015.
101. Close ER, Neppe VM: Understanding the calculus of distinctions and its role in TDVP: chapter 8 IQ Nexus Journal 8: 4 — V6.122; 107-114, 2016.
102. Close ER, Neppe VM: Application of TRUE analysis to the elements of the periodic table: Section 9: In: Derivation and application of TRUE quantum calculus for the analysis of quantized reality. 2018, In submission.
103. Neppe VM: The Psychology of Déjà Vu: Have I been Here Before? Johannesburg: Witwatersrand University Press. 1983.
104. Neppe VM, Close ER: Integrating psychology into the TDVP model. IQNexus Journal 15: 2; 7-38, 2014.
105. Neppe VM, Close ER: The most logical psychology: The “horizontal” approach” to Transpersonal and Humanistic Psychology in the TDVP context: Part 3. IQNexus Journal 15: 2; 20-24, 2014.
106. Neppe VM, Close ER: The most logical psychology: The “vertical” approach” to the transcendental and Transpersonal Psychology in the TDVP context: Part 4. IQNexus Journal 15: 2; 25-38, 2014.
107. Bokulich A, Jaeger G: Philosophy of quantum information and entanglement, in. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2010.
108. Griffin DR: Parapsychology and philosophy: A Whiteheadian postmodern perspective. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research 87: 3; 217-288, 1993.
109. Neppe VM, Close ER: Re-evaluating our assessments of science: The approach to discovery, applying LFAF to the philosophy of science IQNexus Journal 8: 1; 20-31, 2016.
110. Neppe VM, Close ER: Resolving the scientific approach by amplifying the Philosophy of Science: Part 3 IQNexus Journal 8: 1; 25-31, 2016.
111. Whiteman JHM: Philosophy of space and time and the inner constitution of nature: a phenomenological study. London: George Allen and Unwin. 1967.
112. Neppe VM. Kabbalah, science, and spirituality with Vernon Neppe (YouTube). New Thinking Allowed,. 2018.
113. Neppe VM: Genius and exceptional intelligence. IQNexus Journal 6: 4; 7-66, 2014.
114. Neppe VM: The concept of genius and prodigies (Section 3). IQNexus Journal 6: 4; 24-33, 2014.
115. Neppe VM: The unsung “new factors” differentiating genius and prodigies (Section 6). IQNexus Journal 6: 4; 54-66, 2014.
116. Neppe VM: The creativity quotient and the hypothesized c factor: the property of
creativity (Section 5) IQNexus Journal 6: 4; 48-53, 2014.
117. Close ER, Neppe VM: The proton: Section 6: In: Derivation and application of TRUE quantum calculus for the analysis of quantized reality. 2018, In submission.
118. Bohr H, Nielsen HB: Hadron production from a boiling quark soup: quark model predicting particle ratios in hadronic collisions. Nuclear Physics B 128: 2; 275, 1977.
119. Dossey L: Creativity: on intelligence, insight, and the cosmic soup. Altern Ther Health Med 6: 1; 12-17, 108-117,.
120. Close ER, Neppe VM: Introductory perspective to the God matrix. Part 2. World Institute for Scientific Exploration (WISE) Journal 4: 4; 5-12, 2015.
121. Koberlein B. Measurements of neutron decay disagree, and we don't know why. Forbes Magazine,. 2016.
122. Miernik K, Rykaczewski KP, Gross CJ, et al.: Large beta-delayed one and two neutron emission rates in the decay of 86Ga. Phys Rev Lett 111: 13; 132502,.
123. Lorusso G, Nishimura S, Xu ZY, et al.: Beta-Decay half-lives of 110 neutron-rich nuclei across the N=82 shell gap: Implications for the mechanism and universality of the astrophysical r process. Phys Rev Lett 114: 19; 192501,.
124. Bales MJ, Alarcon R, Bass CD, et al.: Precision Measurement of the Radiative beta Decay of the Free Neutron. Phys Rev Lett 116: 24; 242501,.
125. Neppe VM, Close ER: Redefining science: Applying Lower Dimensional Feasibility, Absent Falsification (LFAF): Section 1. In Integrating spirituality into science: applying the Neppe-Close Triadic Dimensional Vortical Paradigm (TDVP). IQNexus Journal 10: 2; 9-13, 2018.
126. Neppe VM. Feasibility and falsification in science: On LFAF (YouTube). New Thinking Allowed,. 2018.
127. Neppe VM, Close ER: Interpreting science through feasibility and replicability: Extending the scientific method by applying “Lower Dimensional Feasibility, Absent Falsification” (LFAF). World Institute for Scientific Exploration (WISE) Journal 4: 3; 3-37, 2015.
128. Neppe VM. Science and pseudoscience. Retrieved 6 August 2018, Email to Surendra Pokharna 2018.
129. Wheeler JA: accessed August 2018. Brainyquotes of John Wheeler..
130. Close ER: Transcendental Physics. Lincoln: I-Universe. 2000.
131. Neppe VM, Close ER: Explaining psi phenomena by applying TDVP principles: A preliminary analysis IQNexus Journal 7: 3; 7-129, 2015.
132. Close ER, Neppe VM: Unifying quantum physics and relativity (Part 8). IQNexus Journal 7: 4; 36-40, 2015.
133. Georgia State University. Big bang nucleosynthesis. In Hyperphysics, at . 2005.
134. Schroeder GL: Genesis and the big bang. New York: Harper Collins. 1990.
135. Neppe VM. Questions and comments: Unexplained conundrums and paradoxes solved through TDVP. Retrieved 18 July 2018, Email to Surendra Pokharna 2018.
136. Popper K: A world of propensities London: Thoemmes. 1990.
137. Neppe VM, Close ER: The statistical proof of psi. Dynamic International Journal of Exceptional Creative Achievement 1207: 1207; 2277-2290, 2012.
138. Neppe VM: Six sigma protocols, survival / superpsi and meta-analysis.Accessed Jan 9 Accessed. 2011.
139. Neppe VM: Double blind studies in Medicine: perfection or imperfection? Telicom 20: 6 (Nov. -Dec); 13-23., 2007.
140. Neppe VM: Ethics and informed consent for double-blind studies on the acute psychotic. Medical Psychiatric Correspondence: A Peer Reviewed Journal. Model Copy 1: 1; 44-45, 1990.
141. Neppe VM, Close ER: What is Science? A perspective on the revolutions of change. IQNexus Journal 8: 1; 7-19, 2016.
142. Kuhn T: The structure of scientific revolutions 1st Edition. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press. 1962.
143. Neppe VM, Close ER: Revisiting Thomas Kuhn: An extended structure for Scientific Revolutions: Part 2 IQNexus Journal 8: 1; 11-19, 2016.
144. Close ER, Neppe VM: The twelfth conundrum: The thought experiment replication of 9 dimensional spin. IQNexus Journal 7: 2; 57-59, 2015.
145. Close ER, Neppe VM: The eighth conundrum: angular momentum and intrinsic electron spin. IQNexus Journal 7: 2; 44-45, 2015.
146. Close ER, Neppe VM: The nine-dimensional finite spin model (Part 14). IQNexus Journal 7: 4; 70, 2015.
147. Close ER, Neppe VM: Jumping beyond the current reality (Part 3). IQNexus Journal 7: 4; 19-21, 2015.
148. Close ER, Neppe VM: A new paradigm describing the nature of reality and what it implies for the future of science: Preface (Part 2). IQNexus Journal 7: 4; 16-18, 2015.
149. Neppe VM, Close ER: Section 3: Integrating the mechanisms of psi. IQNexus Journal 7: 3; 98-138, 2015.
150. Close ER, Neppe VM: The origin of mass: Section 5: In: Derivation and application of TRUE quantum calculus for the analysis of quantized reality. 2018, In submission.
151. Neppe VM, Close ER: Statistical demonstrations of psi. (Part 2). IQNexus Journal 7: 3; 18-32, 2015.
152. Neppe VM, Close ER: Theoretical bases to analyze psi (Part 3). IQNexus Journal 7: 3; 33-42, 2015.
153. Bauer H: Misleading notions about science and their consequences. WISE journal 4: 2; 30-36, 2015.
154. Bauer H: Dogmatism in science and medicine: How dominant theories monopolize research and stifle the search for truth. New York: McFarland. 2012.
155. Editor: Neppe, V.M. Close, E.R. The Whiting Memorial Award. Telicom 29: 1-4 11-14, 2017.
156. Editor on Neppe VM, Close ER: Special Press Release: Dr Vernon Neppe and Dr Edward Close win prestigious ISPE international prize: The Whiting Memorial Award for 2016. 2016.
157. Schrödinger E: What is life?: With mind and matter and autobiographical sketches. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1992.