Friday, November 16, 2018


Where did everything come from? Was the universe as we know it engineered by a conscious intelligence to have purpose and meaning, or did it just happen by accident? Is this a question that can be answered within the scope of human intelligence? Many answers have been offered over thousands of years of human history by thinkers of all sorts: philosophers, theologians, scientists, and mystics. But, are any of the answers truly final and definitive? Or do they come with arguments convincing enough to compel you to live your life as if they were true? Apparently, many people have thought so, because over the history of life on this planet, bloody wars have been fought over some of the answers to this question, and many people have died defending their beliefs in what they considered to be the correct answer to this question.

If you have been reading my books, papers, and/or posts, you probably won’t be surprised to learn that I think there is a definitive answer to this question; and that I believe I have found it. Do I dare offer my answer for you and the rest of the world to consider? Why not? At my age and stage in life, it makes little difference whether anyone listens, agrees, disagrees, or simply ignores me. I am happy with my answer, and I find that that is enough for me. You are free to accept it, reject it, think about it, or ignore it. It’s completely up to you.

A Starting Point
I think we can agree that, without question, there is something real that actually exists, and you and I are part of it. Without this supposition of an existential reality containing at least you, me and the universe, we have nothing to talk about. So, given that there is something, how did this something come to be what it is now? That is the question, and there are three possible answers: 1) Something from nothing, 2) nothing from something, and 3) something from something else.

To believe that number 1 or 2 is the reality, you have to discount nearly all the evidence at hand. No one has ever seen something arising from nothing, or something disappearing into nothing. Even when it appears that way, a thorough investigation always reveals that one of the most basic laws of physics holds in every case: the law of the conservation of mass and energy. In all of the experiments ever conducted into the physical, chemical and biological processes of our universe, we see only change, never creation from nothing, nor total annihilation of anything. In even the most violent explosion, the sum total of all matter and energy before and after the explosion is always the same. In other words, the empirical evidence from our experience is for number 3, not 2 or 1. Something never arises from nothing, something never degrades to nothing and the something we have now came from something else, because it was different in the past, and, in our dynamic reality, it will be changed from what it is now into something else, but the sum total of mass and energy will remain the same.

Despite the evidence, historically, mainstream science and mainstream religion have both declared that 1, 2 or a combination of them is the true nature of reality. In the theory of a big-bang expanding universe, e.g., the equations of general relativity predict a mathematical singularity at the origin event and mathematical singularities in black holes, with the semi-stable world of our experience existing somewhere in between. The current scientific paradigm sees reality expanding from a mathematical singularity at the beginning of spacetime, with everything eventually falling into the singularities of black holes. This is a process of something from nothing (1) becoming nothing from something (2) unless you assume that the nothing is not really nothing, but some other form of the something we have now; but then, you have number 3, don’t you? In the current scientific paradigm, quantum field theory (QFT), with particles defined as quantized states of underlying fields which are more fundamental than the particles, is, in my opinion, closest to reality. But, QFT, using matrices with values subject to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle as perturbations of the underlying fields is more descriptive than it is explanatory.

In Catholic theology, creatio ex nihilo (creation out of nothing), is a doctrine invented by early Roman Catholic theologians after the original teachings of the pre-Christian Judeans, Jesus and the first Christian theologian, Origin, were subverted by the Emperor Justinian in his anathemas against Origin, in 553 AD. Justinian realized that the teachings of the Jewish Gnostics and the followers of Jesus constituted a serious threat to his power because in his interpretation of early Christian teachings, Origen had written:

"Each soul enters the world strengthened by the victories or weakened by the defects of its past lives. Its place in this world is determined by past virtues and shortcomings."

Such teachings were in direct conflict with what Justinian saw as his divine birthright as a Roman Emperor to rule the world, so he seized on this statement and related ideas in early Christian doctrine, as documented by Origen, that undermined the exclusivity of the Roman Emperors’ claim of divinity. If people were allowed to believe that by being virtuous, they could rise to the level of an Emperor, i.e., to the status of a god, or even sons and daughters of God, then the power of the Emperors would be seriously threatened. He decided that he must declare this idea to be heresy and take strong measures to stamp it out. The anathemas, an edict that he prepared for this purpose, read in part:

"Whosoever teaches the doctrine of a supposed pre-birth existence of the soul, and speaks of a monstrous restoration of this, is cursed. Such heretics will be executed, their writings burned, and their property will become the property of the Emperor."

This was, of course a powerful incentive for Christians priests and monks to remove any such references from the scriptures from which they taught. Without the teaching of the eternal nature of the soul, theologians were free to shape the doctrine of the church in a way that ensured that the masses had to depend upon the Church of the Holy Roman Empire for salvation. It was a way to control the masses, pure and simple, and perpetuate the power of the Holy Roman Empire. Most other major religions, with the exception of Islam, which, like Judaism and Christianity, is also of Abrahamic origin, are not encumbered by this illogical assumption of creatio ex nihilo.

OK, you may say, so what does it mean if number 3 is the real answer? In my opinion, it changes things very profoundly: With no absolute beginning or end, we must look at human history in a completely different way. No longer burdened by the misconception that everything was created out of nothing and that consciousness is something emerging from organic neurology evolving only a short time ago, we begin to see that our simplistic linear view of things was very misleading. The cyclic nature of things taught by the philosophies of the orient begins to make more sense.

Researchers who claim there is evidence that some of the ancient stone structures scattered around the planet are much older than mainstream archeologists believe, may not be as wacky as they seem. When viewed through the lens of belief in answers 1 and/or 2, their claims can’t be right, but if you drop the irrational belief in a linear progression from nothing to something, and accept the evidence for the eternal existence of something, you have to take their evidence seriously, because civilization, just like everything else, undoubtedly progress in cycles. Our fixation that we are the epitome of the development of sentient species for all time, due to the illogical belief in answers 1 and 2, is as egocentric and as wrong as the idea widely believed a few hundred years ago that the earth was flat and the center of the universe.

I have found that the logical structure of the universe is reflected in the logical structure of pure mathematics, and vice versa. This finding, combined with recognition of the endless process of something from something else, means that physical reality is a quantized logical structure embedded in the infinitely continuous multi-dimensional field of consciousness, and the illusion of beginnings and ends is only meaningful in relation to the amount to which we are identified with finite physical bodies. Identification with the undifferentiated field of consciousness allows us to see time in the same way we see space: three dimensional. Once freed from the illusion of being limited to finite three-dimensional objects evolving in one, unidirectional dimension of time, and rising into the perception of 3-D time, we see that everything exists eternally, and only appears to evolve in cycles of finite duration.

So, the answer to the original question: “Where did everything come from?” is everything has always existed. There is no absolute beginning or end, only endless cycles of change. This answers a lot of otherwise unanswerable questions, including Leibniz’s question, the first question natural science should answer: “Why is there something rather than nothing?” There is something because there has always been something, and there will always be something. Nothingness is an illusion. The illusions of absolute beginnings or ends are perpetuated by certain traumatic changes, like the birth and death of the physical body. So, everything that is something came from something else that existed before the beginning of the process or processes that changed it into the something we have now, and the something we have now is already being transformed into the something else that will exist in the future. But awareness expanded into the 3-D time and 3-D consciousness predicted by pure mathematics, becomes awareness of the reality behind the illusions of 3 space- 1 time.

In the beginning of one cycle, we find the end of the previous cycle, but they are not the same. The new cycle is one of greater awareness than the previous one, because we have learned and expanded our awareness; and thus we rise in a progressive spiral from the finite into the Infinite.

ERC 11/16/2018

Saturday, November 10, 2018


One of the founders and first President of the Academy for the Advancement of Postmaterialist Science (AAPS), Dr. Gary Schwartz, has suggested that I prepare an online course designed to help people understand Transcendental physics and the Triadic Dimensional Distinction Vortical Paradigm (TDVP), the shift to a consciousness-based science. The previous post, “TDVP MATHMATICS AND THE STRUCTURE OF REALITY”, together with this post, articulate the basis for such a course.

In the previous post, I discussed the difference between the Aristotelean and the Platonic approach. The Aristotelean approach (Aa) emphasizes the use of mathematics as a tool to solve problems, while the Platonic approach (Pa) looks deeper and sees mathematics as a reflection of the logical structure of reality. The Aa is primarily descriptive, while the Pa is primarily explanatory. So, contrary to the belief of scientists like professor Rowan-Robinson, quoted in the previous post, neither is wrong, both are needed, and they must be integrated in the search for truth.

Publishers tell authors writing for the general public to avoid equations. They say something like: “With every equation, you lose a thousand readers.” Most mathematicians, however, think in equations, and most physicists use equations to describe physical processes. Equations are the sentences of the language of mathematics and science; and every branch of science and engineering has developed its own language. To understand Transcendental Physics and TDVP, you must set aside such specialized languages and learn a new language, a language integrating physics and geometry, engineering and theory; thinking and doing. That language is a primary calculus that I call the Calculus of Distinctions (CoD). It includes procedures like Dimensional Extrapolation {moving from an n-dimensional domain to an (n+1)-dimensional domain}, quantum equivalence units, called Triadic Rotational Units of Equivalence (TRUE) and Diophantine equations that I call Conveyance Equations, because they convey the logic of consciousness into physical structure. Are these intimidating terms for you? They won’t be if I’m able to develop a course comprised of clear, simple steps from the basics to the integrated language of TDVP.

Understanding the CoD is the first crucial step toward  understanding TDVP. Inspired by George Spencer Brown’s “Laws of Form”, I developed the calculus of distinctions in 1986, and published the basics in my second book, “Infinite Continuity” in 1990, and expanded on it in “Transcendental Physics” in 2000. Even now, more than 30 years after the first inspiration, only a few people, probably less than half a dozen, understand the importance of the calculus of distinctions, a system that integrates mathematics, science and consciousness.

I’m called a mathematician, physicist, logician and cosmologist because I’ve gone through the training and hazing of formal education: from high school math and science to college and university courses in applied and theoretical science and engineering, attaining degrees, and going on to post-graduate research. But in this integrated course, I must rise beyond, and go deeper than those specialized labels. I am no longer a physicist or an engineer, no longer an Aristotelean or Platonic thinker, a scientist or a lay-person, neither a materialist nor a spiritualist, I am an integrated human being. And the task I am setting for myself is nothing less than to explain in simple terms, the integration of the human search for truth, i.e., the integration of mathematics, science, philosophy, and spirituality.

·      Physical reality is quantized. This simply means that the basic measures of physical reality, i.e., mass and energy, only occur in multiples of one very small unit, and that is the smallest quantum unit.

·      An exact equivalence exists between mass and energy. That means that mass and energy are simply two different forms of the same thing. This is expressed mathematically by the simple equation E = mc2, where c, the speed of light, is defined as the distance travelled in a given unit of time, like miles per hour, or meters per second.

·      In observing, describing and measuring physical reality, there are two types of variables: variables of extent: width, length and depth, and variables of content: mass and energy. All other measurables are combinations of these.

·      To describe quantum reality in its simplest form, all units of measurement of the variable of observation and measurement must be normalized directly to the quantum equivalence unit of mass and energy. This is done very simply by naturalizing the speed of light to unity; i.e., by defining the speed of light as one, so that c = one unit of distance divided by one unit of time. In other words, c = 1/1 = 1. In this system of units, with c = 1, from which c2 = 1, the equation E = mc2 becomes E = m, signifying a one-to-one relationship between mass and energy.

·      Along with the two types of physical variables of content and extent, there is a third type of variables, the variables of consciousness. They are the variables of intent, resulting in impetus and impact on physical reality, leading to meaningful structure and purpose.

·      There are no “separate realities”. Quantum reality and macro-reality are one and the same, and that reality includes both physical objects and conscious beings. Therefore, a comprehensive science must include both consciousness and physical objects, and the way in which they relate to each other.

·      Consciousness, i.e., conscious reality, is a reality that is as important as, if not more important than physical reality. Without it, there is no you or me.

·      The reality we experience, in all of its complexity, begins with the simple drawing of a distinction. This is why we (Neppe and Close) called our first book together “Reality Begins with Consciousness”. All the various forms of reality arise from the drawing of distinctions.

·      The first and most important distinction is the distinction of self from other.
·      Secondary distinctions are formed in the “other”. They are formed, or are recognized as pre-existing by conscious entities.

·      All of natural atomic structure (called hadronic matter by contemporary science) is made up of electrons, protons and neutrons. But protons and neutrons are made up of up-quarks and down quarks. So the three basic building blocks of stable atomic structure, capable of forming molecules, hadronic matter and sustaining life, are electrons, up-quarks and down-quarks.

·      The basic quantum equivalence unit is derived from the physical characteristics of the electron, the elementary entity with the smallest mass among the three basic building blocks.

·      All of the basic units of measurement of mass, energy, space, and time can be naturalized to the quantum equivalence unit, which, because of the spinning of elementary particles, and the inclusion of consciousness, is called the Triadic Rotational Unit of Equivalence (TRUE), the true quantum equivalence unit. See derivations in Parts 8 - 13 of the IQNexus article referenced in the previous post. (Putting Consciousness into the Equations of Science: The Third Form of Reality (Gimmel) and “TRUE” Units (Triadic Rotational Units of Equivalence) of Quantum Measurement, the IQNexus Journal, 2015 Vol. 7, No. 4.

·      This basic quantum equivalence unit (TRUE) is the basic distinction of the calculus of dimensional distinctions (CoDD), a subset of the primary logic of the CoD.

·      All measurements are integer multiples of this unit, and all equations describing the combination of elementary entities including electrons, quarks, protons and neutrons will be Diophantine equations, i.e., equations with integer (whole numbers: 1, 2, 3, …) solutions. This allows us to use mathematical theorems (independently proved relationships) like the Pythagorean Theorem and Fermat’s Last Theorem, to answer questions like why quarks combine in threes and why fermions have one-half integral spin.

An understanding of these basic concepts should enable anyone to follow the logical development of TDVP, including putting consciousness into the equations of science, and the solutions and explanations of many problems that cannot be adequately addressed in the paradigm of current mainstream science.

Friday, November 9, 2018



Mathematical Platonism:

Some scientists, when thinking about the nature of reality, make a distinction between the Platonic 40 and Aristotelian worldviews 41 : The Platonic view, a revision of which we ascribe to, is that the universe is the physical manifestation of a partly hidden, deeply mathematical reality; while the Aristotelian view is that mathematics is simply an invention of the human mind, developed as a tool used to process direct observations and measurements of the material universe. Michael Rowan-Robinson, Professor of Astrophysics at Imperial College, London, has articulately expressed his belief in the Aristotelian view in his well-written presentation of current observational cosmology, “The Nine Numbers of the Cosmos42. :

[The] “Platonic view, that the universe is a manifestation of some kind of ideal, mathematical form, is very fashionable today. Some of its proponents are so astounded by this insight that they are driven to a mystical interpretation. This deep mathematical structure is God, or the mind of God, or is evidence for a creator. But, why isn’t this insight, that the universe is deeply mathematical, sufficient in itself? The additional mystical interpretation doesn’t seem to add anything. There is, anyway, an alternative to this Platonic view, namely that we should think of mathematics as simply an invention of the human mind, which we use as a tool to model our limited perceptions of the universe… This Aristotelian view, which I share, sees the universe as something we try to characterize, measure, describe.”

Mathematical Platonism 43 incorporates three theses: The existence, abstractness and independence of mathematical objects. This means that had there not been any intelligent agents, or had their language, thought, or practices been different, there would still have been mathematical objects. Platonism must be distinguished from the view of Plato in history. ‘Platonism’ is simply inspired by Plato's famous theory of abstract and eternal Forms and Platonism is quite independent of its original historical inspiration. 43. But the Mathematical Platonism we describe is broader than the purely metaphysical ‘Platonism’ because we attempt in our models to incorporate mathematics directly into science recognizing that we can not only apply it empirically but use the equations of consciousness as part of the model.

Platonism implies that reality extends far beyond the physical world and includes objects which aren't part of the causal and spatiotemporal order studied by the physical sciences. Mathematical Platonism argues beyond naturalistic theories of knowledge. If philosophical analysis revealed mathematics to have some strange and surprising consequences, it would be unattractive simply to reject mathematics. With respect, the mathematics we present below are far beyond naturalistic mathematics, and extends to empirical particle physics and postulates beyond that. Therefore, Mathematical Platonism is very powerful as presented below.

As proponents of the Triadic Rotational Vortical Distinction Paradigm (TDVP), Drs. Vernon Neppe and Edward Close differ markedly from Rowan-Robinson. TDVP aligns to some extent with the Platonic worldview, except that is applied not only philosophically, but mainly based on empirical inductive and deductive reasoning and applying feasibility as a method of the Philosophy of Science. 41; 44 We are not therefore ‘astounded’ that the universe is deeply mathematical, - we expected it. And we are not ‘driven’ to ‘mystical interpretation’; we see it as natural, satisfying, and more to the point, explanatory. It explains many things that the materialistic Aristotelian worldview cannot. It is the materialistic Aristotelians who are astounded, and see speculation concerning a conscious substrate as ‘mystical’. The insight is ‘sufficient in itself’, only if we choose not to look any farther. It doesn’t seem to add anything only if you are content to ignore the clues in relativity and quantum physics that cry out for explanation. It doesn’t seem to occur to materialistic scientists steeped in Cartesian dualism that if there were not some kind of (Platonic, if you must) deeper reality, their mathematical descriptions would not work. The challenge to science is to explore the deeper reality. Reality is ‘mystical’ only if you don’t seek to understand it.

Mathematics is not just an abstract human artifact. Far from it, the deep logic of mathematics is invariant because it actually reflects the true underlying logical, intelligent structure of reality. The basic axioms and theorems of mathematics remain unchanged when dimensional transformations are applied. Thus the logic of mathematics is a prime example of invariance.

The only thing that is an artifact of the human mind is the notation developed to convey the mathematic and dimensional logic underlying reality. While it seems that we may invent whatever mathematical procedures we wish, the same invariant mathematical laws would be discovered by any sentient being. They would then be expressed in whatever symbolic language might be applicable.
All mathematical reasoning and description is based on the conscious drawing of distinctions, starting with the distinction of self from other, which then allows the drawing of three types of distinctions in the “other”: distinctions of extent, content and impetus, which are measurable, contain meaning and purpose, and impact on other objects. This reflects the very basic form of mathematical logic which Close developed and we’ve now amplified, the Calculus of Distinctions 10. It is combined with Euclidean and hyper-dimensional geometry, requires a nine-dimensional reality containing the basic “stuff” of the universe, and provides the framework for describing the elementary particles that appear to be the building blocks of the physical universe. This is the logical extension of very important work started by Hermann Minkowski, Albert Einstein, Georg Cantor, Theodor Kaluza, Oskar Klein, and others, who made significant progress explaining physical phenomena in the framework of multidimensional geometry 36; 8.

The third form

Based on the natural structure of number theory and mathematical invariants relating to dimensional domains, we developed TDVP as a paradigm that describes reality as consisting of the substances of mass and energy interacting within nine finite dimensions embedded within infinite domains containing a potentially infinite number of finite logical patterns. Based on clues from relativity and quantum physics, these domains contain the logical organizing structure that guides the evolution of a stable universe. We hypothesize that the infinite substrate may constitute consciousness itself with space and embedded within it, and mass energy also being contained within this infinite consciousness container (which we call “gimmel”) 12.

The brilliant physicist Wolfgang Pauli worked on developing five- and six-dimensional models until 1953, but didn’t publish his findings because he was bothered by the appearance of what he called “…rather unphysical shadow particles.”5 Since Pauli’s , science has discovered that just over 95% of the substance of reality consists of some sort of “shadow stuff”, presently called “dark energy” and “dark matter” 45-48and, not directly detectable through the physical senses or extensions of them. 12
The mathematics and dimensionometry of TDVP indicate that a third form of the “stuff” of reality is actually necessary in the sub-atomic structure of reality for there to be any stable elements in the physical universe; i.e. in order for there to be something rather than nothing.

The logic of TDVP also suggests that this third form of substance may be imbued with the qualities we associate with consciousness. It is interesting to note that late in his life, Pauli, who was regarded as the most brilliant mind of his day by many physicists, including no less brilliant minds than Albert Einstein and Max Born, dreamt of “unifying matter and spirit within the world of physics.”5

The untestable models of contemporary physics

In mainstream physical science, some progress is being made in multi-dimensional concepts with the acceptance of time as a fourth dimension, and the concept of multiple “curled-up” space-like” and “time-like” dimensions of various string theories, which, unfortunately, remain untestable 19-22; 49. Progress in developing testable multidimensional models with consciousness components has been hindered by the acceptance in the academic community of Materialistic Monism which excludes consciousness from the paradigm of physical science and has promoted an increasingly materialistic trend in scientific thinking in recent years. Also, formal education has become institutionalized and has prevented most mainstream physicists from looking outside the box of materialism for the link between consciousness and the physical universe, i.e. between the dimensionometric domains of mind and matter. In the established scientific disciplines, students who ask about the ‘higher intelligence’ spoken of by former scientists like Newton, Planck and Einstein, are often ridiculed by egotistic professors, and told that such ‘mystical’ concepts have no place in science.

TDVP and its pertinence

Guided by the mathematical structure of number theory, Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometry, particle physics data, and new mathematical tools created for the purpose of including the direct interaction of conscious entities with objective reality at the quantum level, we have developed TDVP, a model of reality that includes spinning elementary distinctions existing in nine finite dimensions embedded in a conscious substrate that contains all of the logical patterns, reflected and/or potentially reflected in the structure of the physical universe. Within the theoretical framework of TDVP, we are able to explain a number of phenomena that have remained inexplicable in the standard model of particle physics for decades, including the stability of the triadic combination of quarks 1, the intrinsic spin 28 of Fermions 24; 50, the Cabibbo mixing angle 26, and the step-by-step development of the structures of the Elements of the Periodic Table 1.

TDVP is a paradigm shift that explains why there is something rather than nothing. And, it expands the “Standard Model” of physics 3; 51 to include a new theoretical basis for the biological, psychological and life sciences, as well as for little-understood and rare phenomena like remote viewing, out-of-body experiences (OBEs) and other so-called paranormal or psi phenomena. 52 9 It even provides for a better understanding of spiritual experiences that have been occasionally documented to impinge upon physical reality under certain conditions.

Not surprisingly, TDVP also requires a significant expansion of our understanding of mathematics in general. In 1986, Close realized that George Spencer Brown’s Calculus of Indications, presented in “Laws of Form” 53, re-uniting for the first time, imaginary numbers with symbolic logic, and thus re-aligning the algebras of logic with mathematics, was the first step toward integrating number theory, geometry and mathematical physics into a comprehensive logical framework capable of describing and explaining physical, chemical, biological, neurological, psychological, and even spiritual phenomena.

We adapted Brown’s Laws of Form, creating the Calculus of Dimensional Distinctions (CoDD), a comprehensive mathematics dealing with the functions of consciousness, and applied it to some long-standing cosmological puzzles. Some of the results were published in “Infinite Continuity, a Theory Unifying Relativity and Quantum Physics” 35 in 1990, and in “Transcendental Physics, Integrating the search for Truth” 36. By introducing appropriate additional notational structure, the Calculus of Distinctions was refined to become the Calculus of Dimensional Distinctions (CoDD) in 2003 38. From 2008 to the present, we amplified this mathematical tool, recognizing it as the logical basis integrating all mathematics and applications to physical and spiritual reality has been systematically applied to develop the mathematical basis of TDVP. 10