PATTERNS OF REALITY
© Copyright 2022, Edward R. (Ed) Close
Hello! My name is Ed Close. Who are you, dear reader? Maybe someone who has read some of my posts before. If not, then not only is this an introduction to what I am going to talk about in “Patterns of Reality”, it’s an introduction to me as a person, as well. As of this moment, I have placed 571 posts on this blogsite. One might think that is more than enough. The last one was number 24 in a series that explains pretty much who I am and what I’ve been up to for the past few hundred years. I also have several books in print and a number of papers and articles. You can read or re-read them if you have time and want to.
Notice that the by-line on this post is just my name. I’ve dropped the PhD, PE, DSPE, Charter Member…Distinguished Member…etc., etc. some of which I could legitimately still attach to my name; but I’ve done that for a reason: I am retired. I am not PhD-ing, PE-ing, or DSPE-ing, … any more. I’m just Ed Close, and that’s enough. I am still writing though, that’s part of who I am. You can still call me Dr. as a title of respect, if you’d like, or just call me Ed Close, or “that guy who writes all sorts of crazy stuff”. I don’t care. I don’t need any more accolades or praise. When I skip on the next life, I am hoping that I will have made some difference in the world for the good of myself and my fellow human beings who have to go on with this drama; but that’s not up to me.
I don’t mean to suggest that I am going to walk off into the sunset anytime soon. Not at all! I woke up this morning knowing that I still have a lot of work to do. The patterns of thought and structures of gimmel-guided electrons, quarks, atoms, compounds, cells, organs, and symbiotic organisms that make up my physical body are still very much active in the game of life, and this life is not over until the real “Big Guy”, the one who spoke the reality we all experience into existence, says it is. So there! Enough said about me.
In the pursuit of identifying the Patterns of Reality that can change lives for the better, I intend to draw on things I’ve learned during the 85 years of this life, and beyond. One thing I’ve learned, is that the experiences of life, even those that seem chaotic and uncertain – like a stumbling trial and error path through a frightening minefield of death and destruction - are actually governed by hidden patterns designed to further consciousness expansion and spiritual evolution. I tried very hard to boil a lot of the apparent randomness down in previous blogposts. The patterns I want to identify now, through a further distillation of life and death experiences, are the guiding patterns of reality that can be recognized by separating the patterns that are real and profound from the trivial and often illusory concepts that are not real.
Patterns Real and Imagined
The idea is surfacing more persistently as time goes on, that anything we can imagine can be manifested, and the history of the progress of science and technology over the past 200 years – a sizable part of which I have experienced myself – seems to bear this out. When I first started getting interested in science and mathematics in this life, a few years before the end of World War II, - “the war to end all wars” according to the hopeful US President Franklin Delano Roosevelt - television was a new invention and cars were replacing horses, even in the Ozarks. People began to imagine all sorts of fantastic things for the future, and some of it has come true.
If we can affect the patterns of reality by what we imagine, we must be very careful what we wish for. Reality is not as simple as it looks on the surface. It exists in more than two dimensions, and until our consciousness is expanded beyond the duality of simplistic two-dimensional thinking, trying to motivate reality to manifest what we wish for can be dangerous. In the part of reality that we perceive through the physical senses, i.e., the contents of three-dimensional space and one unidirectional dimension of time, the asymmetric 4-D pattern guarantees that what is manifested will rarely, if ever, be what the dreamer dreams of, and it may even be the opposite of what was intended, especially if the dream is absolute or profound. The concepts of true and false, and simple versus profound, are distorted by an incomplete understanding of the nature of reality.
Niels Bohr, the Danish physicist who explained the layered structure of the atom and was instrumental in the development of quantum physics, put it this way:
“The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth.”
The first sentence of this statement is an obvious example of binary logic based on the assumption that a meaningful statement is correct if it corresponds with reality, and false if it does not. The second sentence raises some important questions: Are there distinctly different levels of truth? What is a profound truth? Is a profound truth absolute, a priori, self-evident, i.e., needing no proof? If so, the assumptions upon which systems of logic, including philosophical, political, and scientific theories are based may be profound truths. If they are not, the theories are flawed or at least incomplete. The existence of profound truths implies the existence of other, not-so-profound truths. What is the difference between a profound truth and a simple truth?
Alfred North Whitehead and Bertrand Russell, in their three-volume work Principia Mathematica, elucidating the foundations of mathematical logic, identified three types of statements: true, false, and meaningless. But in the development of the quantum calculus of dimensional distinctions (CoDD), we find that some statements that are meaningless in a binary system of logic are actually meaningful in a higher-dimensional triadic model of reality. This is consistent with G. Spencer Brown’s findings in Laws of Form. A truth that does not qualify as profound, is either simple or an indicator of the existence of a higher dimensional domain with more than 3 or 4 dimensions. How can we tell what kind of truth a given true statement is? Let’s look at some examples.
True or False
Let’s start with the statement: “All crows are black.” I think that this statement, if true, is a simple truth, the opposite of which is false. I grew up in the country where I saw a lot of crows. All of them were black. I have also seen crows in other parts of the world, and all of them were black. So, this statement may well be true, but I can’t prove it because I have not seen every crow that exists. But suppose it really is true. Suppose that at this instant, every crow that exists is black. That truth could change at any time. Some demented person might spray-paint a crow orange, or through mutation, a crow might hatch that is white or brown. Conclusion: The statement “All crows are black” may be true at one time and false at another time. A truth that can change to false over time cannot be classified as profound, and so must be classified as simple and provisional, as opposed to complex and profound.
One man, perhaps one of the smartest men who ever lived, Rene Descartes, famously said: “I think, therefore, I am.” That sounds pretty profound. But is it? If the statement can be verified as true and can be generalized to apply to all of thinking beings, - and if its opposite may be a profound truth too, then it will surely qualify as a profound truth. The first step is to determine whether or not it is true. The “I think” and the “I am” parts of the statement can be verified and accepted as true because there is no doubt that Descartes existed, and the fact that he did a lot of thinking is quite well documented. If the “therefore” part is also true, then the statement can be generalized to apply to all thinking beings simply by removing the personal pronouns and replacing the “therefore” with “implies’, so that the statement becomes: “Thinking implies existence”.
In this context, opposite means in opposition to, or in contradiction of the original statement. In this case, for Descartes’ statement, there are four possible statements in opposition to “I think, therefore I am” and its generalization, “Thinking implies existence”: there is one converse statement and three negating statements. To be thorough, we must look at each of them. The converse statement is “existence implies thinking”. This opposite statement certainly isn’t a profound truth because it isn’t even true. E.g., the rock I was holding in my hand in the picture above exists, but most people would agree that it doesn’t think. It holds a lot of information about the Earth’s crust in a certain location and time period, but it doesn’t think.
The negative opposites of Descartes’ statement are: The nominative negation: “Not thinking implies existence”, the objective negation: “Thinking implies non-existence”, and the complete negation: “Not thinking implies non-existence”. Considering each opposing statement separately, I think we can agree that none of them are profound, or even true. Therefore, Descartes’ statement “I think therefore I am” may be true, and it is certainly more complex than the statement about black crows, but is it also provisional like the black crows statement? The answer to that depends on the definitions of thinking and being, and the process that might make the conjunctive adverbs “therefore” or “implies” true. So, we must look deeper into what is meant by “thinking” and “being”, and whether or not they are causally connected.
Thinking is a mental activity associated with electrical and chemical processes in complex physical structures known as brains. Thinking should not be confused with computing, which can be done automatically by a properly programmed machine. And being is a synonym for existing, implying the status of being an existing part of reality. The discovery of the existence of gimmel, a stabilizing non-physical feature of reality, means that Descartes’ statement is true, if, and only if, the process represented by the word “therefore” or “implies” in the general case, is also supported by the presence of gimmel. Since any mechanism that could link thinking to being depends on the stability of electrons, and protons, which contain specific numbers of units of gimmel, Descartes’ statement is verified as a truth that is more complex than a simple truth, but not a truly profound truth.
In Search of Profound Truth
So far, we have only found examples of a simple truth and a complex truth. To be honest, I didn’t really expect “All crows are black” to be a profound truth, but I had greater expectations for “I think, therefore I am”. However, just like in the case of the crows, Descartes’ clever declaration turns out to be true and complex, but not profound. Do profound truths exist, as Bohr suggests, or are all a priori assumptions provisional because of the asymmetrical nature of time? If so, this could be the hidden basis of Gödel’s incompleteness theorems and there may not be such a thing as profound truth. But I don’t think so, and it is worth taking a moment to explain why I am convinced that profound truths do exist.
When symmetric dimensions of time and consciousness were added to the four-dimensional (4S-1t) model of the Standard Model of particle physics to produce the TDVP system of mathematical logic, we were able to derive a calculus that explained a substantial number of things that were paradoxical and contradictory in conventional Standard Model analyses. These included explaining why only triadic combinations of elementary particles produce stable subatomic structures, deriving the Cabibbo quark mixing angle from theory, explaining the additional mass of protons and neutrons formed from up- and down-quarks, and many more. Following the time-honored axioms of “the proof is in the pudding”, and the simplest possible answer is usually the correct one (the law of parsimony), I conclude that profound truth does exits.
To determine whether I am right, I need to find an example of a profound truth. Where can we find such a treasure? As indicated above, profound truths might be found hidden in plain sight among the a priori assumptions supporting successful theories like relativity and quantum physics; so, let’s look there. One unifying statement that stands out because it connects the two theoretical pillars of modern physics is Einstein’s statement: “the speed of light is constant”. This statement and the complementary declaration of “no preferred reference frame” is the basis of the special and general theories of relativity. The same statement, paired with Planck’s discovery that energy and mass are quantized also underlies quantum mechanics and quantum physics. So perhaps the constancy of the speed of light is a profound truth.
Surely, Einstein’s constant light speed is a more profound statement than Descartes’ thinking implies being, - or is it? First, we need to understand exactly what Einstein meant when he declared “the speed of light is constant”. Is the speed of light the same in every circumstance? No. Light travels through space and transparent and translucent things at different rates. The speed of light in water, for example, is about 25% slower than the speed of light in the near vacuum of space. This appears to be a case where the opposite is also true, conforming with Bohr’s remark that the opposite of a profound truth may also be a profound truth! The speed of light is constant for every observer, but the speed of light is not constant in every circumstance. But, if the speed of light varies depending on physical circumstances, isn’t that a provisional truth? And what about time? Might not the speed of light actually change over time? If so, can constant light speed really be a profound truth?
Obviously, Einstein was not saying that the speed of light is the same under all circumstances, but then, what was he saying? He was saying something more amazing and consequential – and more profound. He was saying that the speed of light is always the same for all observers, regardless of the motion of the source and receiver. For example, if astronaut scientists in two different rocket ships flying through space at the same time are measuring the speed of light coming from a light source into their ships and one of the ships is moving toward the light source at a high rate of speed, while the other is moving at a high rate of speed away from the source, they will both measure the speed of the sunlight they receive to be exactly the same! Contrary to the expectations of classical mainstream physicists of the 1800s and early 1900s, experimental evidence verified Einstein’s declaration that this is true.
If this concept of constant light speed doesn’t seem strange to you, then think about what it would be like if, instead of light, the scientists were measuring the velocities of moving physical objects like bullets or other projectiles. The scientist moving away from the place of the object’s origin would find a much slower object velocity than the one moving toward it. The actual velocity of each object could be determined by the addition or subtraction of velocity vectors. Not so with light. Why? If light is a purely physical phenomenon, then, whether scientists are measuring the speed of arrival of a photon or a wave front, why wouldn’t the law of addition of velocity vectors hold? The fact that it doesn’t, and all observers detect the same light speed despite relative motion of sources and observers, points to profound truths about the nature of space, time, and the propagation of light. It turns out that space and time have no objective existence of their own, and light is evidence of a primary universal constant.
The quantum equivalence unit, or Triadic Rotational Unit of equivalence (TRUE) used as the basic unit of measurement, is defined by setting the mass and volume of the free electron, the smallest stable elementary object, equal to one; and the quantum calculus mentioned so often in previous posts and publications, the Calculus of Dimensional Distinctions (CoDD), is derived by setting the speed of light equal to one. The result is a normalized whole-number system of multi-dimensional mathematical logic that serves as the descriptive quantified language for the Triadic Dimensional Vortical Paradigm (TDVP) model of reality.
of this normalized TRUE system of mathematical logic to analyze the simplest combination
of elementary objects, i.e., the combination of quarks to form a proton, has
revealed some interesting serial numerical patterns that may have significance for
future research. The next post will explore some of those patterns.
ERC – 5/7/2022