THE ANSWER

When we moved back to Southern California in 1987, it was as if we had died and gone to Heaven. Over a period of ten years, our little family—comprising Jacqui, our son Joshua, who was ten years old in 1987, and myself—had  experienced a series of relocations that took us from Tampa Florida to Tennessee, Missouri, Colorado, and California; then to Europe, Saudi Arabia, and India; back to Missouri, back to California, back to Saudi Arabia, to Massachusetts, and finally back to California again.  During  those ten years, Jacqui survived a life-threatening bout with cancer, Josh survived the confusion of a variety of very different schools, and I survived a battle with the company that employed me as an environmental engineer because I tried to save a fragile desert ecology located on the Red Sea about half-way between Jeddah and the Holy Land. And we survived the Whitier earthquake that destroyed the house we rented north of downtown LA. Our lives had been like the hot-and-cold burning Hells of the Tibetan board game known as Rebirth! For us, coming back to Southern California and relocating to Rossmoor just north of Seal Beach was wonderful! We thought we’d probably stay there for the rest of out lives. But, God had other plans for us.

A popular bumper sticker in LA in 1987, something I saw while driving from our home in Rossmoor to my place of employment as a hydrogeologist in the offices of a Long Beach consulting firm, read: “Jesus is the answer!” with the iconic Christian symbol of a fish. I had to laugh out loud when I saw a counter bumper sticker emblazoned with the star of David, and “What was the question?” In my mind, I heard this quip humorously verbalized with a Jewish accent.

The bold, perhaps even rash title of this commentary is “The Answer”; so, if this blurb is ‘the answer’, then what was the question?  In my opinion, the key question that both science and religion should try to answer is: “What is consciousness?”   Why is this such an important question?  Because consciousness is the only thing we normally experience.  It’s our direct connection with Reality. Therefore, for sentient beings, Consciousness is Primary. So, the question becomes: ‘What is consciousness?’ and the answer is: Consciousness is Primary. Period, full stop, end of story.  As Max Planck once said, Consciousness has to exist prior to anything we can talk about. He said: “We can’t get behind consciousness.” But, of course, that is not the end of the discussion, so please read on. While you’re here, you may want to browse the more than 600 posts in the archives of the blog dealing with many more questions and answers relating science and religion to consciousness. Reply to any of them if you will; comments are always welcome.

CONSCIOUSNESS IS PRIMARY

Exactly what do I mean when I say consciousness is primary? Mathematically, it means that consciousness is the only truly independent variable there is. Scientifically, it means that consciousness is ultimately the only thing that actually exists. Spiritually, it means that literally everything is part of the reality that many people call God.

Over the years since 1987, I have proved, - at leat to my satisfaction and that of a few others - with mathematical logic and physical science, that a measurable non-physical reality exists behind all things, and Dr. Vernon Neppe, the first mainstream scientist to understand my proof and endorse it, named it Gimmel. Now, some on the atheistic left question whether I am a scientist, and others on the fundamentalist right question whether I am a Christian. While I have earned degrees in mathematics, engineering, and science, and I have studied philosophy and the world’s major religions, --- and I have supported both progressive and conservative ideas ---I do not identify as a scientist, mathematician, engineer, philosopher, theologist – or as a Republican or a Democrat. These labels relate to things that I have been involved in, done, and will probably still do in the future, but they are not who I am.

I am retired now, living in my beloved native land, in the Mark Twain National Forrest of the Southern Missouri Ozarks. But, if I am not any of those things mentioned above, then who or what am I? The answer is very simple:  I am consciousness.

ERC   9-16-2025, Close Waldheim, my home in the woods

NEW APPROACH INSTALLMENT FIVE

 

NOTE: I am posting this installment separately and in sequence in the first blogpost of this series so that you can read it here or in context below. 

FIVE; PARADOX AND PROGRESS

I happen to share the birth date of Danish physicist Niels Bohr. Not the same year, but the same month and day. He was born in 1885 and died when I was 26 years old. Bohr was one of the main players in the drama surrounding the birth of quantum physics, and the primary spokesperson for quantum mechanics in the famous Einstein-Bohr debate over quantum uncertainty. Albert Einstein, the theoretical physicist who inspired me to become a scientist when I was fourteen, sparked the debate by proposing an experiment that challenged the validity of the concept at the heart of quantum mechanics known as the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. That experiment, based on the belief that elementary particles were tiny, localized particles of matter, became known as the EPR paradox because Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen were the authors of the paper. The EPR experiment presented physicists with a real paradox because it demonstrated that, if elementary particles were what physicists thought they were, then the expected outcome of the experiment disproved the uncertainty principle. To Einstein, that meant that quantum mechanics was, at best, an inconsistent or incomplete theory. Niels Bohr understood this, but the following quote illustrates his attitude toward paradox:

"How wonderful that we have met a paradox. Now we have some hope of making progress."

This is the proper attitude for a scientist. Science only advances when paradoxes within its logical structure are explored and resolved. If it is a real paradox, it can only be resolved by expanding the existing model of reality. A real paradox reveals the incompleteness of the existing theory. All other so-called scientific advances are just the filling in of the details of an existing model, which requires no original thinking. Problem solving within the established paradigm is not science, it is engineering. Engineers are practical thinkers who solve day-to-day problems by applying science-based technology. I am not denigrating engineering. I made a living for myself and family for many years as a registered professional engineer (PE).  Engineering is about using science to solve technical problems, while science is about thinking outside the box and testing hypotheses about the nature of reality. Scientists should be looking for problems that cannot be solved using the engineering methods existing within the current paradigm. About problems that lie beyond the reach of engineering thinking, Bohr said:

“Every great and deep difficulty bears in itself its own solution. It forces us to change our thinking in order to find it.”

There is a wealth of insight in these two sentences. They contain deep truths about problems that can be addressed using mathematics, the language of science. The first sentence is true about any problem. However simple and easy, or deep and difficult a problem may be, if it is properly stated in the language of the paradigm within which it has meaning, then the solution, i.e., the answer to the question that it poses, is actually contained within the question itself. Any meaningful problem in an algebra text will demonstrate this fact.

The information needed to solve a problem is always contained within the statement of the problem. All that needs to be done is to translate the statement of the problem from English, German, or whatever, into mathematical expressions, so that you can use well-defined operations of calculation to transform the statement, through a series of simple steps, into a new form that is recognized as an answer. The second sentence relates specifically to the “great and deep” problems that Bohr concerned himself with as a scientist. If the problem is truly deep and difficult, we will have to “change our thinking” i.e., we have to think outside the box by expanding the paradigm, or developing new methods, to solve it.

I realize that there may be people reading this who already understand the points I am making. This post is not for them. It is for the millions of people out there, the average citizens of planet Earth, who shrink away in horror anytime they see the word “mathematics”. If you are one of those who hates mathematics, I am quite sure that it is because you were never taught what mathematics really is. What I want to do here is change the way you think about mathematics. Let’s start with the meaning of the word. It doesn’t mean “difficult stuff with numbers and abstract symbols”, as most people think. The word mathematics comes from the Ancient Greek word máthēma (μάθημα), meaning “that which is learned” or “what one is able to know”. Mathematics is not just “the language of science”, it is the heart and soul of science.

I have had several years of experience teaching mathematics, from practical applied math to mathematical physics, and advanced mathematical modeling, so I am not just blowing smoke rings. My first job, after earning a degree in physics and mathematics, was teaching math in the Newburg Missouri Public High School, where I was the complete Math Department. In my second year of teaching there, my students swept every category in a regional math contest where we were competing with several much larger schools. Even though I used the textbooks supplied by the state, I didn’t follow the state lesson plans. I always related mathematical principles to common-sense ideas that my students could relate to and understand. Over the years, I have had several very gratifying success stories teaching, but the first one happened at Newburg.

The first day of school in my first year at Newburg, a young man from a rural farming area south of Newburg, walked up to my desk as students were filing into the classroom and said:

“Mr. Close, my name is Gary Haven. I just want you to know that I don’t like math. I am only here because general math is a requirement for all Freshmen.”

“OK Gary,” I replied, “Thank you for being so honest! I just want you to know that I’m going to see what I can do about changing your mind about math.”

The second year Gary took every math class he could cram into his schedule, and eight years later, he graduated from one of the best engineering schools in the county with top honors in electrical engineering.

Mathematics should not be about showing others how smart you are. It should NOT be about learning how to manipulate abstract symbols to solve complicated problems, even though you may learn to do that. It should be about learning how to think rationally in a way that will increase your understanding of reality and make your thinking more efficient and effective. In my opinion, the way math is taught in our schools today, from grade school to grad school, is really stupid, and almost criminal. The way math is fragmented and turned into mindless memorization of detail, alienates and repels students, robbing them of an opportunity to develop critical thinking skills.

Learning to use mathematical tools to solve practical problems is important; but using calculators and computers to solve numerical problems without understanding the underlying principles, is a recipe for disaster. Pure mathematics should be understood to be what it actually is: a simple reflection of how your mind and the universe works. Science is about what we can say about the reality we experience, and math is about how we can say it in the most efficient way.  

Before I get into my explanation of a system of logic, I call the Calculus of Dimensional Distinctions (CoDD), a calculus that describes reality more precisely and efficiently, I want to introduce you to some key concepts needed to understand non-physical reality. They concern the axiomatic nature of science and the threshold between every-day consciousness and Turiyananda, the joy of experiencing pure consciousness.

First, an axiom is a self-evident truth. All systems of mathematical logic have two or more axioms upon which they are based. Within any consistent finite logical system of thought, an axiom is a question that cannot be answered within the system that allows it to be stated as a meaningful statement. I like to think of an axiom this way:      

The Question that cannot be Answered is the Answer that cannot be Questioned.

We have been told by some very intelligent people, specifically British mathematical philosophers Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead, that there are only three types of statements: 1) True, 2) false, and 3) meaningless. Sounds rather obvious, doesn’t it? If we accept this declaration, then we can ignore and discard meaningless statements because, well, because they are meaningless! If statements that appear to be meaningless in the context of our current understanding of reality are eliminated from consideration and we accept the statement of Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (another very intelligent person) that for every meaningful question there must also be a meaningful answer, then every meaningful statement is ultimately either true or false.

This binary thinking is in fact, the basis of the logic, philosophy, science, mathematics, and computer technology of Western Civilization. It turns out, however, that despite the fact that these axiomatic statements were pronounced by some of the most highly intelligent people of the world in recent history, none of these statements are true.

In the next installment of this series, I will explain how and why there are actually four types of statements in any language, including mathematics, not three, and I will also explain how this fact leads us back to the threshold of Pure Consciousness and the doorway to extra dimensionality where we will see how pure number theory relates to consciousness.

ERC – 12/29/2021

REALITY MATH, A FOLLOW UP

THE FOLLOW-UP TO ‘REALITY MATHEMATICS’ POSTED JULY 30, 2019

How does rational thought, including what we call science, develop? It develops by following and reflecting the logical structure of reality as more-or-less accurately perceived by sentient beings. The ability of sentient beings to perceive reality clearly rises and falls in a cyclic manner: The average mental virtue manifest in sentient beings increases gradually for 12,000 years to a peak, and then gradually decreases for 12,000 years, to a low point. Ascending and descending cycles of average mental virtue repeat over and over, with an even more gradual increase from one 24,000 year cycle to the next. See The Holy Science, by Swami Sri Yukteswar Giri.

Science develops during the ascending cycles, to the point that most sentient beings understand nearly everything at the peak, called the Satya Yuga (सत्य युग) in Sanskrit, and then deteriorates during the descending cycles, to the relative occlusion of knowledge for most, in the Kali Yuga (कलियुग).

What is the history of the development of science during the present ascending time-cycle pointing toward? In the current ascending cycle, the findings of Einstein, Planck, Kaluza, Klein, Nordstrom, Pauli, and a few others point toward understanding reality as a multi-dimensional field of existence, consisting of universal substance measured in three forms: mass, energy and consciousness, developing within the framework of nine dimensions, three of space, three of time, and three of consciousness.

The three dimensions of space are known to us as width, height and depth; the three dimensions of time are 1) the individual event timeline, comprised of the past, present and future, defined by conscious acts of the drawing of distinctions, 2) expansive time, defined by two or more non-congruent individual timelines, and 3) volumetric time, defined by two or more of the expansive planes of time, described as the two-dimensional time domains described above. The three dimensions of consciousness are: 1) finite individualized consciousness, 2) group consciousness, as in human, animal and plant consciousness, and 3) Primary Consciousness, the reality behind all forms. The nine-dimensional finite framework, within which objects exist and events happen, is encompassed by the trans-finite field of conscious substrate, embedded in the infinity of Primary Consciousness, the matrix from which all things arise. We don’t experience just three dimensions, as often claimed, but segments of five dimensions: segments of three dimensions of space, one dimension of time, and one dimension of consciousness.

The more aware we become of the substance and dimensions of space-time-consciousness, the more we understand reality, which appears to consist of quanta of matter, mind and consciousness, interacting in a nine-finite-dimensional field. At the peak of understanding, we realize that they are all one. Modeling reality as a consistent triad of distinct quantum forms of substance in nine finite dimensions, embedded in a trans-finite field, enables us to explain a number of things that have puzzled mainstream science for decades.

Mainstream science is stymied by certain phenomena because it is based on the limiting assumptions of materialism. Our new paradigm expands the axiomatic basis of  the logical structure of reality to produce a more comprehensive model that is more consistent with empirical data, and explains much more. Examples of things explained by the Neppe-Close model, the Triadic Dimensional Vortical paradigm (TDVP), include: the intrinsic ½ spin of fermions, the exact mass of the photon and neutron in atomic structures, the exact value of the quark mixing angle, called the Cabibbo angle, what gluons, bosons and other ephemeral “particles” really are, what dark mass and dark energy are, why and how so-called paranormal (psi) phenomena exist. Our nine-finite-dimensional model removes the so-called “weirdness” of quantum mechanics, integrates relativistic field theory and quantum field theory, and thus is a paradigm shift from materialistic science to post-materialistic science that really works.

EVIDENCE OF CLAIRVOYANCE

EVIDENCE FOR THE REALITY OF CLAIRVOYANCE

Last night was a time for several remarkable firsts! Dr. Vernon Neppe hosted a Seattle Consciousness Education and Research Society (SCERS) meeting in his home in Seattle, with Dr. Surendra Singh Pokharna, PhD, of the Science and Spirituality Research Institute in Ahmedabad, India as the guest speaker. Dr. Pokharna is a former Indian Space Research Organization scientist, and is associated with the Bhagawan Mahaveer Research Center in Rajastan. His presentation was titled: “Quantal clairvoyance and remote viewing in the context of the Neppe-Close TDVP (Triadic Dimensional Vortical Paradigm) and higher consciousness” The number in attendance was a record, and three non-local attendees, Ing. Ms. Grig Oprea, Dr. Narendra Bhandari and I were there virtually, via various electronic means. Ms. Oprea joined us from Bucharest, Romania, Dr. Bhandari from California, while I was in Southeast Missouri.

Dr. Pokharna’s presentation focused on the fact that descriptions of 92 atomic elements of the periodic table, obtained by Mrs. Annie Besant and Mr. Charles Leadbeater, of the Theosophical Society by clairvoyance starting as early as 1895, even before the electron was discovered, were remarkably similar to the results of the TDVP analysis recently obtained by Neppe and Close. Statistical analysis of the data shows that the probability that this similarity is coincidental and not causally related is extremely low. Furthermore, the Close-Neppe results are validated by exact numerical correspondence with Large Hadron Collider (LHC) experimental data. Conclusion: The ability of two Theosophical Society adepts, Besant and Leadbeater, to exhibit at least one of the siddhis (spiritual, attainments that are products of spiritual advancement through meditation and yoga) namely the anima siddhi, has been validated by TDVP and empirical data.

The substance of this presentation will be published under the authorship of Neppe, Pokharna, Close, and possibly one or two others, but last night’s presentation has prompted me to make some general comments about mathematics, consciousness, spiritual attainment, and psi phenomena like clairvoyance.

MATHEMATICS

I have been discouraged and sometimes appalled by admonishments and comments like: “No one wants to hear about mathematics!” and “If you include mathematics in your discussion, you’ll lose most of your audience!” It is worrisome to me that this reluctance to think about math appears to have increased markedly during the past fifty years. Unfortunately there is some truth in these statements, even among highly educated and intelligent people. We have to ask: is this just mental laziness? My answer is: No, I don’t think so. It is a now-rampant general misunderstanding about what mathematics really is, fostered by a failing educational system, especially here in the US.

The basic math of the current standard model of reality is inappropriate for the study of our quantized reality; and we have known that the reality we study in the core sciences is quantized for more than 100 years. But relevant comments by Max Planck and Albert Einstein, the intellectual architects of quantum physics and relativity, have been ignored by materialistic mainstream science, and continue to be ignored.

Max Planck, after a lifetime of studying the physics of matter, told us that there is no such thing as matter. He said:

“I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness. As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear-headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force … We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.”

And Albert Einstein, in one of the last additions he made to relativity, told us that there is no such thing as empty space. He said:

“There is no such thing as an empty space, i.e., a space without field. Space-time does not claim an existence of its own, but only as a structural quality of the field.”

It is interesting to note that Planck and Einstein were good friends who spent a lot of time together. These declarations by the two great mathematical physicists who gave us the last real paradigm shift, the shift from classical physics to relativity and quantum physics that happened more than 100 years ago, contain concepts that are critical to understanding the nature of reality and the nature of mathematics: Those concepts are: Consciousness is primary, physical reality is quantized, and thus a quantum calculus is needed which includes consciousness as a variable and corrects the error of thinking of space-time as a real background in which phenomena occur. The calculus of dimensional distinctions, the basic math of TDVP, embodies those concepts.

Applications of the calculus of dimensional distinctions solves a number of problems that have stymied mainstream science for decades, and clearly shows that mathematics is much more than just a tool to solve problems. Real math reflects the logical structure of reality and the matrix of primary consciousness behind it.

CONSCIOUSNESS

The new, more fundamental mathematics of TDVP reveals the fact that primary consciousness, not space-time, is the real background in which all phenomena occur, and that primary consciousness had to exist before the manifestation of any physical form was possible. It also tells us that no stable atomic structure is possible without the existence of a non-physical form of reality which we (Neppe and Close) have called gimmel. Gimmel is mathematically necessary for a stable physical universe to exist. Furthermore, the elements and compounds necessary for organic life contain more gimmel than elements and compounds that are detrimental to life.

TDVP reveals that, at this point in time, our sense organs are severe reduction valves, They do not allow very much of the spectrum of the energies of the nine-finite-dimensional reality, plus the infinite reality of primary consciousness, to flood our brains which are not yet capable of processing that much, and human evolution is driven by spiritual goals, not random physical processes. The manifestations of the geometrical and logical patterns of primary consciousness occur “top-down”, not “bottom-up” as hypothesized by mainstream science at this time. The result of this mistake is a blind science groping in the darkness of materialism. TDVP changes all of that.

CLAIRVOYANCE

Clairvoyance is just one of several psi-phenomena abilities tentatively defined by spiritual science at this time. Some other psi abilities identified by researchers in the field of consciousness studies and parapsychology include precognition, retrocognition, telepathy, clairaudience, and the psychic reception of all of the sense phenomena. But this view of psi phenomena is driven by limitations. If we think of psi phenomena in the more comprehensive framework of TDVP, they are all limited aspects of total awareness.

It is my opinion that all of these abilities, hypothetical or real, are possible facets of expanded global, or even universal awareness, known as cosmic consciousness, which is the ultimate goal of spiritual evolution. It is also my opinion that such psi abilities will arise as appropriate in the spiritual development of individual souls on their own spiritual paths, as reflected in the lives of the Spiritual Masters like Jesus and Buddha, and should not be thought of as goals in and of themselves. Focusing on development of siddhis for personal power is likely to be detrimental to the spiritual growth of any individual doing so. For real spiritual progress, it is far better to focus on resolving your own problems relating to your oneness with primary consciousness, and being of as much service to others as you can, because whatever you do to or for others will determine what happens to you. You, your soul, the earth, the cosmos, and everything within it is one and the same holistic reality. As you do unto others…

TDVP CONTROVERSY

Drs Close, Stewart and O'Brien at a conference

TDVP STIRS SOME CONTROVERSY

A critique of the Triadic Dimensional Distinction Paradigm (TDVP) has been published in the fourth quarter 2018 issue of Telicom, the journal of the International Society for Philosophical Enquiry (ISPE), an organization in which both Dr. Vernon Neppe and I hold the highest earned rank. We have prepared separate responses: My response deals mainly with the math and physics, while Dr. Neppe’s response deals with the philosophy of science aspects of the criticisms. Our responses will be published in the next issue of Telicom.

I hope all who have read the critique, entitled “An Evaluation of TDVP” by physicists J.E.F. Kaan and Simon Olling Rebsdorf, will also read our responses. The “evaluation” contains more than forty misunderstandings, misinterpretations and erroneous statements, stemming mainly from the authors’ failure to understand the basics of TDVP physics and mathematical proofs.

Scientific paradigm shifts are often strongly denounced, maligned and ridiculed by mainstream scientists when they are first introduced. There are many reasons that this happens, including defense of established ideas, vested interest, intellectual arrogance, and pride. TDVP is no exception. In fact, because it introduces consciousness into the equations of physics and includes explanations of spiritual phenomena, it draws more criticism, anger and vitriol from mainstream scientists than most paradigm shifts, partially because many mainstream scientists are avowed atheists.

One of the claims that critics like Kaan and Rebsdorf make is that no “real” scientists have reviewed our work. Nothing could be further from the truth. The book “Reality Begins with Consciousness” (www.BrainVoyage.com) by Neppe and Close, and an increasing number of peer-reviewed papers, as well as journal articles and posts on this blog, have been well received by a growing number of scientists world-wide. Over 200 scientists have reviewed some or all of our work. Here are a few comments by some of them:

Dr. David Stewart, PhD, DNM, mathematical physicist, author of 17 books, the world’s leading authority on therapeutic essential oils, has read almost all of our work. He wrote:

“The Close-Neppe seminal work in creating TDVP constitutes one of the most profound and far-reaching discoveries and developments in the history of the sciences. …“When two polymaths make discoveries that are so groundbreaking they change the whole fabric of reality, it is clear that this is Nobel Prize material.”- “The authors’ many years of labor will be appreciated for centuries to come. …The exceptional metaparadigm of the Neppe-Close TDVP model certainly is worthy of the highest of prizes because it has redefined the spiritual within the scientific, and with another related Neppe-Close achievement LFAF (Lower Dimensional Feasibility Absent Falsification) has allowed the formal integration of spirituality into science by extending definitions of science to include what is feasible. These works are actually Nobel Prize worthy, and have been for a number of years. The only thing that could have been argued against a Nobel in 2016, was to say, ‘All these mathematical calculations fit. But are they, in fact, empirically based? Are they relevant? Or are they just as irrelevant as the various String Theories or Superstring Theories?’ We can now say quite definitively that ‘the truly remarkable and meaningful Neppe-Close TDVP work is empirically based’: The CERN data calculated using mass-energy equivalent figures are exactly the same derivations that appear for the Close-Neppe Triadic Rotational Units of Equivalence (TRUE). This means that their TDVP data is real and based on mathematically sound empirical data, not just mathematical. In other words, combining the third substance ‘gimmel’ that Close demonstrated is absolutely necessary for our stable quantal, macroworld, and our cosmological existence, the mass/energy volumetric equivalence of subatomic particles -- namely electrons (1), protons (1836) and neutrons (1839)--exactly correspond with the normalized figures …This means that TRUE and gimmel is real. There is now no argument that these discoveries are relevant and empirically verifiable ….”

Israeli scientist, Dr. Adrian Klein, DD, PhD, a leading biophysicist, has critically examined almost all our work. He says TDVP is:

“The beginning of the ultimate disclosure about the nature of an all-encompassing reality…A monumental work forcing obsolete preconceptions to crumble. The 21st Century's revolutionary paradigm shift …(Neppe and Close) have unique moral strength to confront destabilizing adversities …to underpin this universal truth with physical-mathematical rigor and proofs.…Demolishing by these proofs the last crutches of materialistic tenets, they bring a massive contribution to the advancement of Real Science… (TDVP) has laid a foundation for all future science to develop. The world of scientific understanding, in all fields, has been permanently changed, and set in a new direction. The future of all mankind is forever brighter because of what they have done.… they will both be awarded … a Nobel Prize in Physics (or) equivalent Mathematics Fields Medal. …The Neppe-Close contributions will change mankind's future. A seismic shift in understanding the understanding process itself! …The 21st Century's revolutionary paradigm shift.

Indian atomic physicist Surendra Pokharna, PhD says:

 “These two scientists [Close and Neppe] were unanimously equal recipients of the rarely awarded worldwide highly respected, prestigious interdisciplinary, open-to-all prize, the 2016 Whiting Memorial Award from the…ISPE for TDVP…an earthshaking paradigm shift. (www.tddvp.com) Their extraordinarily groundbreaking TDVP paradigm which they jointly have painstakingly developed over ten years. stands as the most profound scientific work of this century. TDVP deserves a Nobel Prize in Physics (and) involves not just one breakthrough, but constitutes many revolutionary advances. [They have proved]  we cannot have any particle, tiny or macroscopic or in our astronomical reality, without what is called ‘gimmel’— Neppe, Close and I and others regard gimmel as consciousness, or its vehicle as there is simply no other explanation … Neppe and Close have provided the data to solve complex questions by TDVP. Effectively, once one introduces extra dimensions, infinite continuity which embeds the 9 finite quantized dimensions, and consciousness/gimmel—“the God Matrix”— with math proofs plus unified reality as key points, the solutions for all finite reality become easier. This is why their TDVP model—unlike any other scientific model based on the Theory of Everything (TOE) criteria analysis—works, and why TDVP so closely reflects and encompasses the spiritual aspects.”

Dr. Alan Hugenot DSc, a uniquely qualified physicist and parapsychological researcher wrote:

“After having first read their papers my initial personal reaction was ‘This deserves a Nobel prize’! Later, I discovered that these two polymaths belong to the same high intellect societies in which I held personal membership, and in my opinion, they appear to be amongst the most creative thinkers currently advancing science in our world today.” … Ultimately, these two creative genius scientists have changed the world. …in order to look at the mathematics, Neppe and Close have recognized that there needs to be volume in everything. And if something is volumetric, this means it is 3-dimensional; it effectively can be calculated mathematically in terms of cubes. This leads to a whole string of Diophantine equations and what calculations do and do not fit within our empirical reality… the far-reaching implications of the TDVP groundbreaking paradigm… worthy of several separate Nobel Prizes”. …“The Neppe-Close contributions …might take 50 years… to register with the myopic main-stream scientific establishment, which continues to ignore the clear implications of the delayed choice double-slit experiment, comfortable in their classical Newtonian perspectives. So large is this sea-change in science, because this relates to 3s-1t (as well as the ‘hidden’ additional dimensions) that it will modify our understanding of Relativity theory. Relativity is not wrong; but there has to be extensions of this theory beyond our currently limited standard model…even Planck’s quantum has been modified by Neppe-Close.…this difference is profound.”

The well-known author, Dr. Larry Dossey MD, winner of numerous awards, Chief Editor of Explore, said:

“…an enormous contribution whose significance may surpass, even the profound implications of TDVP for cosmology and physics…Neppe and Close have reversed the dismal conclusions of materialistic science toward consciousness, and have made the concept of immortality and the survival of bodily death scientifically respectable…The main contribution of Neppe and Close has been made, the deed is done. This may make all the difference in humanity’s psychospiritual equipoise. …It is difficult to imagine a greater contribution.”

Dr. Leonard Horowitz, award-winning writer, film-maker, polymath, and author of twenty-one books wrote:

“Math doesn’t lie. Nor does Neppe and Close misrepresent or omit substantive facts explaining reality in their thesis. … Geniuses Neppe and Close apply honest principles from their TDVP model that mathematically proves the existence and operation of the ‘Higher Intelligence’ administering precognition (or intuition). … (They) go further than anyone else in addressing the numerous aspects …neglected by their scientific predecessors… ”

Dr. Gary E. Schwartz, PhD, Professor of psychology, medicine, neurology, psychiatry, and surgery, University of Arizona, Tucson, wrote:

“Dear Ed and Vernon, First, it was wonderful hearing Ed present at the ASCI meetings. … I found myself understanding, appreciating, and celebrating what the two of you have been doing. In fact, as I look over the 40 years of my attending scientific meetings, Ed's presentation is among THE MOST MEMORABLE AND MEANINGFUL of my entire academic (and personal) life”.

Many more PhD professors and researchers have responded briefly to our book Reality Begins with Consciousness (RBC) as follows:

Dean Radin PhD, the world’s leading parapsychological researcher: Close and Neppe’s book, “RBC [is] in a radical multidisciplinary class by itself”;

Alan Bachers PhD: “an astonishing and prodigious accomplishment!”;

John Poynton PhD: “encyclopedic … broad exploratory paradigm for new scientific ideas”;

Lance Storm PhD: “a paradigm shift that hails in, if not, beckons for, a kind of scientific overhaul and shift in thinking”;

Helmut Wautischer PhD “will shape philosophical discourse … a profound value to the future of humankind…masterful…”

Joyce Hawkes PhD, FAAAS, biophysicist and the leading exponent of healing: “…any one of these [31] areas, let alone the combination would be a very substantial reason for Drs. Neppe and Close to be recipients of major prizes”;

Stanley Krippner PhD, pioneer of world Humanistic Psychology: “destined to become a classic in the literature on shifting paradigms and worldviews”.

And, there are many more.

We are currently corresponding with a number of PhD professionals interested in the applications and implications of TDVP and the natural quantum units of the calculus of dimensional distinctions. I have had a number of informal discussions with Mr. Kaan over a period of several years, but I can’t say that they were very productive, because his comments were generally negative, with no in-depth discussion of the concepts behind TDVP; and I have had no previous discussions with Mr. Rebsdorf.

As a preview of the Telicom articles pro-and-con TDVP, here are some brief excerpts from Kaan and Rebsdorf’s article, with excerpts from my reply. In their Summary and Conclusions, oddly placed at the beginning of the article instead of the end, they say:

“TDVP claims to have been able to improve on the Standard Model of Particle Physics (SMPP). Yet from our analysis, such “improvements” do not appear scientifically correct, i.e., they have not been derived with proper physics methods. In addition, there are no concrete, quantitative, accurate measurements/experiments to support TDVP’s claims.”

Farther along in the article, they expand several times on the claim that our methods are not “proper physics methods”. Here is one example:

“Close calculated negative numbers for gimmel, but then continued with some number juggling (with arbitrary integers for gimmel), until the whole thing seemed to work again, which is not an established sound method in physics.”

My response, in part:

“The negative calculated values were simply part of the iterative computation used to establish the minimum possible integral solution. None of the values used …were “arbitrary”. And any experimental or theoretical physicist should be familiar with the method of using best estimates as the starting point to iteratively zero in on the values that actually satisfy an equation. This method, called iterative computation, is used routinely and extensively in applied physics and engineering.” And I gave a reference supporting my answer.

Concerning their statement “there are no concrete, quantitative, accurate measurements/experiments to support TDVP’s claims” I responded with:

“In fact, we have checked upwards of fifty specific instances to see if TDVP actually works for prior existing experiments, and it does.”

The most important concept that K&R failed to grasp, is the need for a calculus with measurement units that are derived from the natural quanta of the real world. This failure is clear in their reference to Figure 1, on page 147 of their article:

 “… the mass values are assumed to be integers, apparently to be in line with quantum physics. Yet from the data in Figure 1, we can see the quark masses are not integer at all. The same will, of course, be found in any text on this topic.”

Excerpts from my answer:

“ …these data for quarks (in their figure), along with the mass of the electron, are the actual data used in the derivation of natural quantum units in the TDVP calculations. Quark masses are naturalized to the mass of the electron, the most accurately known quantum mass. The way they are naturalized is straight-forward and should be understood by any physicist or mathematician.”

And:

“ The derivation of natural quantum units for TDVP has been published several times, including in Reality Begins with Consciousness and in several peer-reviewed papers in addition to my Transcendental Physics blog — http://www.erclosetphysics.com.” (And, I gave references.)

“Any quantum physicist should be familiar with the conversion of SI units to natural units. and physicists should at least be familiar with naturalized Planck units. They shouldn’t have to be told why that, even though mass is quantized, the values in Figure 1 are not integers. They are not integers because the units of measurement being used are not naturalized quantum equivalence units.”

Why did two intelligent men (they are members of ISPE) with Masters degrees in physics make such obvious blunders? It appears that they did not actually try to understand TDVP because they were focused on defending the standard model.

As I say in my conclusions, at the end of my response article:

“It appears that the authors believe TDVP can’t be correct, because it includes consciousness as an integral part of reality, conflicting with the dogma of mainstream physics”.

After the responses are published in Telicom, I will post more.

OTHER DIMENSIONS AND PLANES OF EXISTENCE

“OTHER DIMENSIONS” AND “PLANES OF EXISTENCE”

“There is no question that there is an unseen world. The problem is, how far is it from midtown and how late is it open?” –Woody Allen

I usually try to make my posts as understandable as I can, by providing the background for a given discourse so that the reader can grasp the message I wish to convey. But in this case, I’m going to forgo any elucidation of contextual predication and accept that those for whom this discussion might be meaningful will understand it, and anyone else will dismiss it as incomprehensible.

So-called “new age” people, and sometimes others, talk about “another dimension” and “planes of existence”. These are inexact and misleading terms that, frankly, indicate to me that those using them probably don’t actually know what they are talking about. For example, I’ve heard someone say: “The aliens exist in another dimension!” Or: My spiritual guides exist on another plane of existence.”

Nobody can exist “in a dimension”. A dimension is a measure of extent like length, width or height.

If those using the term another dimension have any inkling of what they are trying to convey, what they should say is another dimensional domain. Let me explain: A point (mathematical singularity) is a zero-dimensional domain; a line as a one-dimensional domain; a plane is a two-dimensional domain; a volume is a three-dimensional domain, and space-time is a four (or more) dimensional domain. Now, the question is not whether there are higher-dimensional domains. The problem is, how do we get there from here?

The idea of “existing on a plane” comes from the mistaken idea that we literally exist on a plane, the “Earth-plane”. We don’t. We actually exist in a multi-dimensional reality that starts with a three-dimensional domain. The surface of the Earth may be thought of as a plane, but, if you rise above it, but not too far, because if you ascend high enough (about 36,000 feet in an airliner), you will see that it is actually a curved surface, with bumps and divots in it. This should bring the realization that a two-dimensional domain can only be seen as such from the third dimension. This brings to light one of the invariants of dimensionometry: the recognition of the existence of an n-dimensional domain can only be obtained from a vantage point in an (n+1) dimensional domain.

Thinking about this gives you the conceptualization of multi-dimensional reality. In TDVP, with the application of a mathematical procedure I developed in 1989, called Dimensional Extrapolation, we have derived the mathematical nature of the dimensions of domains beyond 3-D. But mathematical derivations are reflections of the nature of reality, not actualizations of it. The ability to be able to describe something verbally and mathematically is the first step to experiencing it. That is the power of science and mathematics, they allow us to conceptualize and visualize reality beyond what is available to us through the physical senses.

Are there methods, processes and exercises that can help us to raise the level of our consciousness to the point of actually experiencing higher dimensions directly? Yes, I believe there are. This is one of the practical applications of TDVP. An understanding of TDVP provides a basis from which to ascend into higher dimensions. Is this the only way? No, but it does unite science and spirituality.

We live in a domain of nine finite dimensions, embedded in a 10-dimensional transfinite domain, embedded in the Infinite. How do I know this? The mathematics of TDVP, the Calculus of Distinctions indicates this, and I have experienced it briefly several times, and experience it partially all the time. How can one become aware of extra-dimensional reality? Remember I indicated above that describing something verbally and mathematically is the first step to experiencing it, 

Verbalization and mathematical description are just two aspects of the same thing, communicating experience with symbols. Most of us remember, as children, saying a word or phrase over and over again until it becomes meaningless, just sounds, conveying nothing. This is what someone speaking a language you are not familiar with sounds like, just noise. Different than the barking of a dog or the cawing of a crow, but just sounds.

Learning mathematics is exactly like learning another language, only it is harder because no one speaks pure mathematics. People do, however, speak German, Spanish, Hebrew, Hindi, etc. So, learning to speak another language is easier than learning advanced mathematics. So, start there. The average person who speaks only English, can learn to speak enough Spanish to get by in about a month if she/he puts his/her mind to it. German is a little harder because the grammar is more complex, but English is basically a Germanic language without the grammar and a few Latin-based words thrown in, so it’s not that hard once you get beyond over the grammar. Dutch and Swedish are “in-between” languages, somewhat intermediate between German and English.

Why should you learn another language? It will help you think in terms beyond your normal habits of speech. Learning to understand and speak another language literally opens a door to  different world. Slavic, Cyrillic, French, Arabic, and Oriental languages really open doors to different ways of thinking, and learning mathematics is like learning Greek or Latin. Learning math as a language, not just a tool to use to balance your checkbook or calculate square feet of floor space, allows you to think in math, and that will open the door to TDVP and extra dimensions.

The step (leap) from writing symbols and making sounds to the actualization of the meaning of those symbols and sounds in direct experience is a big one. The step from intellectual comprehension of the mathematical procedure of dimensional extrapolation (moving from one dimensional domain to another) to directly experiencing it is definitely not an easy one, but one very much worthwhile, because it enables you to perceive matter, energy, space, and time from a new perspective. The next step, however, attaining the awareness of all levels of consciousness of fewer dimensions than the one you occupy is an even bigger jump, but the view is tremendous.

ERC 6/30/2018