REALITY AND ILLUSION

 

THE GREAT ILLUSION & THE GRAND REALITY

© Copyright October 2022 Edward R. Close

Hidden In Plain Sight

There are two extreme views of reality. This is not just the case for people who call themselves scientists, it is also true for all consciousness beings: One of the extreme views is called Determinism, the other is called Probabilism, and, of course, there are many views that fall in between, and views that are mixtures of the two extremes. Every conscious being has a view that falls somewhere on that imaginary line between the two extremes, and the appropriate question becomes: Is there a ‘correct’ view; a view that corresponds with the reality that actually exists? The determinist says yes, the probabilist says no.

The determinist believes that reality is a logical system that exists objectively and changes over time according to natural laws that, while they may be very complex, can be discovered and understood. The probabilist believes that reality is ultimately a system of random processes, within which natural probability distributions occur that favor certain outcomes, and that even the outcomes that have become regarded as ‘laws of nature’, like F = ma and E = mc², are only approximately correct at any given point in time. Determinists tend to believe in the existence of an intelligence behind everything, while Probabilists tend to be agnostic or even atheistic.

It turns out that they are both wrong - or, more accurately, as relativity and quantum physics have shown, and now, new discoveries in the expanded paradigm that we (Neppe & Close) call TVDP have verified, they are both right and wrong, and therefore, neither, reflecting the logic of a reality of more than four dimensions. The dichotomy between Determinism and Probabilism, a split that leads to endless debate, is much like the division between Biden Democrats and Trump Republicans in America today, and between the Globalists and Nationalists worldwide, in that they are just the dramatic warp and woof of distraction by belief, designed to obscure the true nature of reality. The majesty and elegance of reality is hidden by misunderstandings presently common among human beings about the real nature and interaction of matter, energy, space, time, and consciousness.  

Max Planck exposed some of the basic illusions that human beings have about the nature of matter and energy, Albert Einstein uncovered some of the basic illusions we have about the nature of space and time, and together, they dispelled the illusion that these four basic variables of physicality form a fixed universal background in which all things exist, and all events happen. With their surprising discoveries, mass, energy, space, and time, the basic measurable aspects of physical reality that had been the four solid corner posts of classical scientific materialism for many years, were shown to be interacting parts of an ever-changing holistic reality, whose measured values expand and contract from one observer to another, depending upon secondary and tertiary conditions like velocity and acceleration. With the discovery and study of gimmel, the quantifiable impact of a primary form of consciousness (See the list of relevant publications at the end of my post  on Extra-Physical Reality, posted on this blogsite September 18, 2022), further illusions are revealed.

          

A Matter of Life and Death

A dear friend, uniquely well-trained in both science and theology, after reading my third book, Transcendental Physics, and after someone he loved very much died, had two questions:

1)      Is there a reality independent of what we think about it?

2)      Where did she (his much loved one) go?

 

These important questions are examples of the type of questions that Gödel’s incompleteness theorems prove may exist in any consistent logical system. They simply cannot be answered in terms of the system within which they are asked. The proof of  Gödel’s theorems was, according to professional mathematicians of the time, “so novel that only those intimately conversant with the technical literature of a highly specialized field [the symbolic logic of set theory] could follow the argument…”. With the risk of appearing to be ‘beating a dead horse’ again, I must remark that the calculus of dimensional distinctions (CoDD), the geometric-mathematical system that I have talked about so often in these posts, makes proof of the incompleteness of finite logical systems so simple as to be almost trivial.

 

The drama of conflicting opposites is easy enough to get caught up in, because it provides some relief from the boredom typical of those who have not yet learned to think beyond the obvious. When I first started teaching mathematics, in a secondary school in the US public school system in Mid America sixty years ago, it was not at all uncommon to hear teenagers arguing about something, calling each other “ignernt”. (Yes, that’s the way they pronounced the word ignorant). Once, upon entering a classroom where such an argument was in progress, - I think it was on my first day of teaching - I took the situation as an opportunity to teach. I pointed out that there is nothing wrong with being ignorant. In fact, everyone is ignorant of something. For example, I told them, I knew nothing about brain surgery. The punchline was: “There is a remedy for ignorance. It’s called education”. I’d like to think that I prevented some unnecessary violence, maybe a black eye or some pulled hair. I enjoyed teaching mathematics. It was very rewarding to see young minds begin to think at least a little beyond the obvious, and I learned that most people, even in college and university, have no idea what mathematics is, what critical thinking is, or what constitutes proof of a scientific or mathematical hypothesis.

 

What does this have to do with the greater illusions of life and ultimate reality? Conflict is universal, and conflict of opposites can lead to violence and, on a large scale, to group psychosis, and possibly to another world war, with the needless injury and death of billions of the souls now occupying physical bodies. Our leaders today are acting much like those teenagers, unaware of the potential results of their aggressive defense of their own ignorance and the desire to punish the perceived ignorance of others. We’ve been down this road many times before since the descending ages of the last peak of mental and spiritual virtue more than 10,000 years ago. Adding to the danger this time, are the false idols of artificial intelligence and the irrational belief that anyone can “reimagine” reality, past, present, and future, and by doing so, remake reality in their own imperfect image. We live in dangerous times. Our survival as a viable species on this planet depends upon understanding the difference between illusion and reality.

The Significance of TDVP and the Discovery of Gimmel

The Triadic Dimensional Vortical Paradigm (TDVP) is a meaningful expansion of the current scientific paradigm, expanded to include consciousness as a quantifiable variable in a 9-D geometric mathematical model of reality. The discovery by Neppe and Close while applying the quantum calculus of the TVPD, the calculus of dimensional distinctions (the CoDD), that no stable physical universe could exist without the third form of reality beyond mass and energy, a form with no mass or energy of its own, that we chose to call gimmel, has changed everything. Not only can we explain things that mainstream science cannot explain and consequently has to accepted as “weird”, but we can also answer questions that materialistic science will not even ask, and we can distinguish existing reality from conceptual fantasy using the TRUE analysis of the primary quantum calculus (the CoDD) of the TDVP.

 

Questions and Answers

With the knowledge and experience gained from application of the new science of TDVP to numerous experimental and conceptual investigations, how will I answer the questions my dear friend asked? Let me address them one at a time. The first one was: Is there a reality independent of what we think about it? In the current mainstream  scientific paradigm, the answer is an unequivocal yes, because current science and technology are built on the very assumption of the complete independence of objective reality from the state of consciousness of the observer. My answer at this time is also yes, but it is a qualified yes, because the extent to which it is true depends on the level of consciousness of the “we” in the question he asked. At this point in the relative time cycles on this planet, reality is mostly governed by the Primary form of Consciousness, independent of the functioning of the sparks of self-consciousness identified with localized physical life forms, but in the future, this will change due to the gradual increase in mental and spiritual virtue among conscious beings living on this planet.  

 

The second question my friend asked was: Where did she (his loved one who died) go? The answer is: She didn’t go anywhere; at least not in the sense meant in the context of physical reality. Even her physical body did not go anywhere when she died, it just began to disintegrate because the billions of TRUE (quantum equivalence units) that kept it organized and functioning in a way that kept it alive, were no longer able to perform the necessary organizing and maintenance processes to do so, due to the effects of irreparable damage or disease. Where did the organizing gimmel units go? Like the physical components of her body, the meaningful components of her soul still exist in an expanded domain of our multi-dimensional reality, because the law of conservation of mass and energy is operative for all of reality. Nothing is ever created or destroyed by natural or man-made processes, it only changes form.       

 

What is the solution to the currently mushrooming of real, potentially disastrous problems created by those who, through ignorance, are trying to play the roles of petty gods, with no concern for the collateral damage of widespread pain, suffering, and loss of human lives? A combination of real education and enlightenment of the electorate is the answer. But it must be education about the actual facts that exist, not of the half-baked ideas someone wants to reimagine about the past, present and/or future, and it must be the spiritual enlightenment of expanding individual consciousness, guided, if necessary, by those few rare individuals who have reunited with the Presence of Primary Consciousness. The discovery of gimmel leads directly to proof of the existence of enlightened beings and the existence of the Primary form of Consciousness that creates, maintains, and evolves the stable structure of physical reality and organic life forms supporting the spiritual evolutional of our eternal souls toward the ultimate goal of Cosmic Consciousness.

 

The great illusion is the splitting of reality into opposing extremes to keep the conflicts going to benefit the wealth and power of those who want to play God. This dangerous game is promoted by Earth-dwelling ego-based psychopaths in the same evil spirit of the despots and tyrants in the list of evil rulers in the recent history of the human race, as we moved past the lowest point in mental and spiritual virtue in this planetary time cycle in 499 AD.  The Grand Reality is the magnificence and elegance of the Infinite Intelligence hidden in plain sight that connects and unites us through the self-less Love and the creative energy of Primary Consciousness.

 

ERC 10/9/2022

NEW APPROACH PART 23: NO SUCH THING AS NOTHING

LEIBNIZ 

THE NEW APPROACH, PART TWENTY-THREE

The Answer Without a Question

© Copyright 2022, Edward R. Close

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS NOTHING

Distant Memory

Low clouds were roiling overhead, and everything was wet, but the rain had stopped when the coach pulled up. The horse nearest me shook itself as the driver stowed his whip in the tubular scabbard beside his seat. Stepping down, he opened the door to the coach. The man inside was a rather ordinary looking man, about twice my age. - I think I was about thirty, and he was about sixty. -  No one would guess that he was world-famous, I thought. He called my name with a question mark at the end, and his crisp Hochdeutsch, with a local Eastphalian undertone put me at ease. “Ja, das bin ich!” I answered, and he gestured to the seat opposite him, and as I climbed in, I noticed that he was seated in a curious little square, upholstered swing seat hanging from springs on sturdy hooks, and it was also mounted on springs below. Shock-absorbers, I surmised. As the coach began to move on, he explained: “I write while I travel, and this keeps the hand and writing pad more coordinated!”  

“Newton’s laws of motion.” I commented.

There was a hint of a frown, but he said with a smile: “Das stimt!” (Right!)

We hadn’t met before, but we had been writing back and forth for some months, discussing mathematics, natural science, philosophy, and other subjects of mutual interest, and we had found that our views were generally compatible. A recommendation from Herr Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz would go a long way toward getting me the teaching position I was seeking at the university in Giessen. Leibniz was traveling between Leipzig and Hanover, which made it convenient for us to meet, as I was in Halle on business. After a few kilometers, we stopped at a roadhouse for refreshment.

What I remember most about this trip was the strange reaction of the local folk when they asked who these strangers were descending into their midst, and my traveling companion answered with his name. A ripple of raised eyebrows and muffled laughter passed around the room. I think I even heard more than one tongue in cheek: “Ja, doch!” (yeah, sure!). They simply didn’t believe him! “How rude!” I thought. Leibniz was more famous across Germany at that time than even Frederick, the Hohenzollern King of Prussia! But he held his hand up and said “Ja, ich gestehe. Ich heise Wille Schmidt!” (I confess. My name is Willy Schmidt!) They all laughed aloud and turned back to their bier and bratwurst.

I realized that they expected Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz to be larger than life, and so impressive that anyone would step aside to allow him to pass. At public appearances and for portraits, Herr Leibniz always dressed like royalty and wore a majestic wig, while this ordinary looking little man in traveling clothes was quite unimpressive - and bald! I imagined he had experienced this kind of reception before, and of course, he had no need to prove his identity to anyone here!

This memory is typical of a past-life memory for me: just a little snippet, like a trailer from a movie, with definite audio-visual detail and the emotional content of a shocking, embarrassing, or surprising event. I never seem to know what year these memories come from, but that’s no different than memories from earlier in this life. After this memory surfaced and was verified, I was able to determine that it probably occurred around 1706 or 1707. I knew that my name then was Johann but determined only after the verification that I was Johann Georg Liebknecht. My interests then were almost identical to my interests now: The mathematics of Pierre de Fermat, science, linguistics, geology, fossils, stone-age artifacts, spirituality, music, natural medicine, and longevity. I had a family to support, and I needed that teaching position.

I have written about memories like this that appear to come from at least six or seven other past lives, and there are probably many more. I almost feel that I can say, like Mark Twain, that I have been reborn more times than anyone except Krishna! But the normally hidden nature of reincarnation is not the focus of this post, I want to talk about other things hidden in plain sight.

 

The Hidden Variable Measurement Problem

Austrian-born Ludwig Josef Johann Wittgenstein, considered by some to be the greatest philosopher of the 20^th century, said:

“Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.” 

That sounds pretty profound, but it has been my experience that philosophers are some of the most verbal people alive. They never remain silent for very long about anything, even something “whereof one cannot speak”!

Mathematicians certainly aren’t silent either. In 1987, mathematician John Stewart Bell published an interesting little book with the intriguing title:  Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics: collected papers on quantum philosophy. In this book, Bell summarized the famous EPR paradox paper, and the public debate between Einstein and Bohr over the nature of reality. The Einstein Podolsky Rosen (EPR) paper used a symmetric sub-atomic reaction to try to make the point that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle was violated in this specific case, but the debate was really over whether science is deterministic or probabilistic. Is nature governed by cause-and-effect laws, or by statistical probabilities? Is reality logically ordered and governed by exact, discoverable mathematical formulas, or basically chaotic with occasional stabilities that only show up in statistical analyses? I had some good debates on this subject with my boss and friend, Dr. Nicholas C. Matalas, Harvard PhD probabilist and Director of the US Department of Interior Systems Analysis Group, of which I was one of the seven charter members. Even though we argued passionately about determinism vs probabilism, we always remained good friends. We just agreed to disagree. It is worth noting that Bell, who I think was originally sympathetic with the point of view famously expressed by Einstein when he said: “God doesn’t play dice”, was the one whose work ended up favoring Bohr.

In 1964, Bell derived what has been called “Bell’s Theorem” an argument designed to determine from experimental data who was right, Einstein or Bohr; but it was not actually a mathematical theorem. It was a probabilistic inequality that, when applied in experiments designed for that purpose in1982, upheld Bohr’s side of the EPR paradox debate. Because of this, many considered the matter closed. But one unspeakable thing that must be said, is that the violation of Bell’s inequality by the statistical analysis of experimental data does not settle the measurement problem or eliminate the possibility of hidden variables.

Both problems were finally resolved only recently by the discovery of gimmel, the measurable non-physical part of reality. It turns out that the measurement problem was both caused by and hidden by the improper use of a calculus designed for application to continuous functions that is therefore unsuited for the analysis of quantized phenomena. A quantum calculus based on the smallest stable quanta, i.e., the mass and volume of the free electron as the true quantum equivalence unit, was needed. I introduced such a calculus in 1997 in my third book, Transcendental Physics, and I joined forces with Dr. Vernon Neppe in 2008 to develop it further. We called the quantum equivalence unit the Triadic Rotational Unit of equivalence (TRUE) and used it as the basic unit of measurement for the Calculus of Dimensional Distinctions (CoDD).

 

Matter, Energy, Space, Time, and Nothing?

These four things: matter, energy, space, and time, are the primary measurable features of reality. All things appear to be made up of solid matter, to occupy space, and to interact energetically over time. And these four basic aspects of reality can be observed and measured by anyone. But, after the discoveries of relativity, quantum physics, and non-physical gimmel, mathematical physics, the most objective, no-nonsense science, tells us that things are not what they seem. As we look more and more closely, we see that matter is not solid, mass and energy are just two of the three forms of the essence of reality, and space and time have no independent existence of their own.

Applying the CoDD of the Triadic Dimensional Vortical Paradigm (TDVP) has revealed the hidden existence of a measurable third form of reality, that in union with mass and energy, makes up all of the stable structures of the physical universe. This third form of reality, which we call gimmel, although measurable in the same quantum units as mass and energy, cannot be mass or energy. It is, therefore, non-physical. Further analysis of this non-physical subatomic something reveals that it is nothing other than the manifestation of Primary Consciousness at the subatomic level organizing, expanding, and re-absorbing mass, energy, and consciousness. In other words, gimmel facilitates the process of physical reincarnation on the quantum scale.

Further inquiry reveals the real meaning, purpose, and logical intent of the existence of reality: The physical universe exists solely for the purpose of providing a venue for the spiritual evolution of individual consciousness in union with organic lifeforms. Every sentient being alive experiences consciousness through the stable structures of mass, energy, and gimmel.

Both Primary and individual consciousness are expanding with time, so a clear understanding of the triadic nature of time, galactic, planetary, and individual, is imperative, especially if you want to break out of the slow expansion of your individual bit of consciousness over many lives in planetary time to accelerate the expansion of your consciousness and propel your soul more rapidly toward the grand goal of Cosmic Consciousness.  

Time Without End

I found myself in that familiar brightly lit room again; the room with white marble walls and floor, shelves filled with books, and a feeling of anticipation. It was very familiar. I was on the Threshold, a place of conscious transition. I remembered being here just before my life as Edward Roy Close began (See the first blogpost of this series: Threshold, 12/24/2021) when I was told: “This is the Threshold. A place where the past, present, and future are all present, … on the Edge of Infinity.”.

The end of the room was open, and far below was the world of human beings with its history recorded in the layers of the Earth’s crust, from the solidified lava of the pre-Cambrian to the buried Neolithic of the present. Two questions immediately came to mind: What was before the pre-Cambrian? And what lay at the opposite end of this room? As soon as the questions formed in my mind as specific thoughts, I knew the answers. It was an instantaneous fulfillment of the promise: “Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.” - Matthew 7:7

My questions were about two separate locations in spacetime. The answers came from an expanded view of reality that exposed the three-dimensional nature of time that was hidden in plain sight. Just beyond the doors to this room lay my real home; but I could not go there just yet. In Earth’s planetary spacetime, before pre-Cambrian time, and after the slowly moving present, there are endless cycles of time, spiraling backward and forward, providing endless venues for the spiritual evolution of individual conscious entities, existing as finite quantized manifestations of consciousness in an infinitely continuous reality.

After returning from this experience, I finally understood the paradoxical conclusion that I arrived at in 1989 through the application of the CoDD to the red-shift big-bang expanding universe hypothesis: There was no big bang because there is no such thing as nothing, there never was, and never will be. That means that there is an answer for which no question is sufficient: Reality exists because is always has, and always will, due to the conservation of the essence of reality, including consciousness.

In the next post, I will explain where mainstream science went wrong, and how what we know about the planet Earth, actually validates the TDVP conclusion that we exist in a no-big-bang infinitely recycling universe.

ERC – 4/28/2022

SOME MAINSTREAM IDEAS ARE SCIENCE FICTION – PART 2

Let’s look at the four scientific theories favored by mainstream scientists today that, in the previous post, I have said are demonstrably false:

THE BIG BANG THEORY

The Big Bang Theory is defined in an online Science Dictionary as “A cosmological model which describes early development of the universe. It occured around 13.798 billion years ago, resulting in extremely hot and dense state of the universe which began to expand rapidly.”

This definition, found on a website proclaiming itself to be “The World’s Largest Online Science Dictionary” is, in my opinion, an inaccurate, confused and confusing definition that is internally inconsistent and raises more questions about the big bang theory than it answers.

The first sentence contradicts the meaning of the word theory by flatly proclaiming that it, the big-bang cosmological model, describes [the] early development of the universe. It would be more accurate to say that it attempts to describe the early development of the universe, because whether it actually does or not, is unknown. That’s why it is called a theory. A theory is a hypothesis until it has been proved to be true, and an accurate description of what actually happened “around 13.798 billion years ago” by direct evidence. That hasn’t happened. It is still a theory.

The second sentence is grammatically incorrect because the subject of the sentence, “It”, ostensibly refers to the subject of the first sentence, the big bang theory, “a cosmological model” which I’m pretty sure did not occur around 13.798 billion years ago. It is meant, of course, to refer to an actual explosion, which has not been indisputably proved to have happened at all.

Incidentally, grammatically necessary connectives are absent in both sentences, and the word ‘occurred’ is misspelled in the second sentence on the website. But these  syntactic errors are so insignificant relative to the other problems with the definition, that it’s hardly worth mentioning them. I do so only to point out that it is consistent with the sloppiness of the entry and reveals that it was not checked for grammar or spelling.

The more interesting problem with the second sentence is the implication that the big bang occurred in a state and environment of absolute nothingness “resulting in [an] extremely hot and dense state of the universe which began to expand rapidly.” This tries to avoid the question of what was before the big bang. Thus this ‘definition’ implies that the big bang theory is a form of creatio ex nihilo (creation out of nothing), 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.

What appears at first glance to be a better definition, offered by the American Heritage Dictionary, is: “A scientific theory describing the origin of all space, time, matter, and energy approximately 13.7 billion years ago from the violent expansion of a singular point of extremely high density and temperature.”

This definition avoids the logically indefensible creatio ex nihilo, but runs afoul of logic, perhaps even more profoundly, by saying that everything was in “a singular point of extremely high density and temperature.” If it was a singular point (a mathematical singularity) the density and temperature would have been infinite or  undefinable, not just “extremely high”, and then the question arises of how everything got into that infinitely compressed state in the first place.

Another definition that avoids creatio ex nihilo is found on Princeton’s Wordnet. Big bang: “The theory that the universe originated sometime between10 billion and 20 billion years ago from the cataclysmic explosion of a small volume of matter at extremely high density and temperature.”

Their use of the word “cataclysmic” is a poor choice because cataclysmic means catastrophic, disastrous, dreadful, or devastating. This raises the question: What existed before the big bang to be devastated? The assumption that a “small volume of matter at extremely high density and temperature” existed before the big bang raises the questions of how that small blob of matter came to exist, and what caused it to suddenly explode?  If the big bang was the original event resulting in everything that exists today, It could not have been “big”, or a “bang”, or catastrophic. Such terms are attempts to describe something indescribable, suggested by evidence that the universe is expanding, in terms of things that exist today.

While very popular because it is easily visualized, the big bang theory has been plagued with serious problems from the beginning. When inferred by simply running cosmic events backward in an expanding universe, the big bang theory fails because the universe has objects in it, determined by independent evidence to be older than the universe itself. This problem was addressed by proposing that there was a period of rapid expansion, when the universe was expanding much faster than the speed of light. This had to have occurred before any matter as we know it came into existence. But, like quantum mechanics, the rapid inflation theory requires that time and space are not what we think they are.

The fact is, the big bang theory is only one possibility that can be inferred from the evidence that the universe is expanding. A much more logical possibility is that there was no absolute beginning before which there was nothing, and the expansion is either an illusion, or it has a cause. The idea of a universal origin event is dependent upon the concept of absolute nothingness, which is logically indefensible because it requires creatio ex nihilo. Does this mean, as some scientists claim, there is no need for a creator, a higher intelligence or God? No, it does not. It means that something has always existed, whether it was a physical universe or something else, which may have included a primary form of consciousness. With the application of the calculus of distinctions, a quantum calculus, leading to the discovery of gimmel, the non-physical aspect of reality, the existence of an eternal primary consciousness is implied.

Conclusion: There was no big bang as hypothesized by materialist science.

THE FINITE UNIVERSE THEORY

The 13.8 billion-year finite age of the universe is estimated based on the mistaken idea that there was a big bang. But there was no big bang.

Conclusion: The universe has always existed in some form, and will always exist in some form.

THE AGE OF THE PLANET EARTH

Modern science estimates the age of the Earth based on radioactive dating methods. Using these methods, the oldest rocks found on Earth (small zircon crystals found in Western Australia) are dated at about 4.4 billion years. the oldest known minerals found in meteorites are dated at about 4.567 billion years. Scientists conclude that this puts the age for the solar system and the upper limit for the age of our planet at about 4.5 billion years. Reference: Dalrymple G. Brent, Ancient Earth, ancient skies: the age of Earth and its cosmic surroundings. Stanford, 2004.

There are two problems with this conclusion: radioactive dating assumes that the flow of time is uniform and constant over all space and time, which we now know is not true; and the entire crust that forms the surface of the Earth, including the meteorites that fall on it, is recycled by plate-tectonic subduction and continent building approximately every 2.5 to 3.8 billion years.

Conclusion: The age of the oldest rocks and minerals found today on or in the crust of the Earth, is not necessarily the actual age of the solar system or the planet Earth.

CIVILIZATION ON THIS PLANET

The idea of something from nothing (creatio ex nihilo) is not supported by empirical evidence, and Einstein’s general relativity shows that the measurement of spacetime is relative to the motion and proximity of the observer to massive objects. So time is different in different inertial systems, and in different parts of the universe. All available evidence supports the mathematical accuracy of describing dynamic change in cycles advancing through multi-dimensional spacetime, not absolute beginnings and ends. There is no reason to believe that the development of civilizations is immune from cyclic change.

In The Holy Science, a book written by Swami Sri Yukteswar Giri, an astronomer and life-long student of Vedic wisdom, the period of the rise and fall of consciousness on this planet was calculated to occur in about 24,000 year cycles, consisting of 12,000 years in an ascending arc, and 12,000 years in a descending arc, for a total of 24,000 years. (See the Figure below.)

Ascent            1894          500 AD                             Descent

In addition, he calculated that, at the time he was writing the Holy Science in 1894, we had advanced 194 years into the ascending Dwapara Yuga, the first period above the lowest point. Since the ascending Kali Yuga (the ascending half of the lowest Yuga, the period of nearly total absence of mental virtue, science and spirituality) is 1200 years, the nadir of development in this cycle was about 500 AD, very close to the year (553 AD) when Justinian usurped the power of the Pope and subverted the teachings of Jesus and the writings of Origen. We are now, in 2018, about 318 years into the ascending Dwapara Yuga. This means that the rise and fall of the mental virtue of sentient beings on this planet has occurred four times in the last 110,000 years, and we are 318 years into the fifth ascent.

Is there any empirical evidence supporting the existence of a high level of human development more than 10,000 years ago to be found on planet Earth? Yes, there is: In Southern Turkey, a mound called Gӧbekli Tepe (Round-belly Hill) has been excavated, and the oldest layer has been reliably dated to have been used from 10,800 to 11,600 years ago. It included 10-ton stone pillars decorated with stylized bas-relief sculptures of animals, distorted human arms and hands and cryptic symbols. There are other archeological sites with stone structures and carvings that very likely cannot be duplicated today, even with our modern technology. However, most of them are dated by archeologists as being built more recently than the stone pillars of Gӧbekli Tepe: The Egyptian Pyramids, 2,700 to 7,000 years ago, Stonehenge, about 5,000 years ago, Mayan ruins, 1,000 to 3,000 years ago, Puma Punku, Nasca Lines, etc., about 1,500 years ago.

At first glance, this evidence doesn’t seem to fit into Sri Yukteswar’s cycles of time. But this is because we have the erroneous idea that time is a uniform backdrop within which all events occur in a linear fashion. We are drawing the wrong conclusion because our ingrained idea about spacetime is false. It is based on the short-term appearance that time is linear and unidirectional, and that, along with space, time is everywhere uniform. But this completely ignores Einstein’s general relativity, and a key concept he expressed in his final addition to his work on relativity. He realized that space and time have no existence of their own. When we combine this understanding with Sri Yukteswar’s time cycles, things begin to make sense.

Even though  modern science is only a few hundred years old, we like to think that, if the mental virtue (scientific and spiritual understanding) of sentient beings was at an apex in 11,500 BC, then there should have been great cities with towering buildings, and wonderous machines all over the planet, yet there seems to be no evidence of that. Why? First, a lot may have been obliterated from the surface of the planet by erosion, plate-tectonic subduction, and other geologic processes, and even by human activity, in the 12,000 years of descent. Second, 12,000 ascending years of mental virtue and spiritual advancement may not result in anything even vaguely similar to what we have now, near the low point, things that we have developed within just a few hundred years. It is entirely possible that conscious beings may evolve mentally and spiritually in 12,000 years to the point where buildings, machines, and even physical bodies would be completely unnecessary.  - Imagine a planet returned to its natural pristine condition!

According to general relativity, the spacetime of a mass-energy system is defined by the periodicity of the rotation and revolution of objects within the system. Our hours, days and years are defined by the movements of the objects within our solar system, and what we call space, is defined by the mass-energy-consciousness field relationships between the objects of the system. Time within another solar system, thousands of light years away, may be passing at a very different rate relative to ours, because the rotations, revolutions and the masses of the objects in that system are different than in ours, and because of their motion relative to us.

The relationship of the rise and fall of civilizations to the most dominant periodic cycle of rotation in the physical system within which it exists, as stated by Sri Yukteswar, is reasonable because, as discovered in the development of TDVP, the stability and thus specific rotational dynamics of physical system is produced by the presence of gimmel in the atoms.

What about those sites with stone monuments, built with amazing engineering skill and precision, more than 1000, and less than 10,000 years ago, widespread around the world? Were they really built by the ancestors of the people now living there who were presumably less advanced than their descendants, who had nothing but primitive tools? Here are three possible answers to this question:

1.     Most of these sites were built at a time of mental virtue and spiritual understanding in the last descending age than where we are now in the new ascending age, so they may have had memories and/or records of higher knowledge from the last age of highest development that was lost as the world passed through the lowest point about 500 AD, when the Great Libraries in Alexandria, Caesarea and elsewhere were burned.

2.     Some of the sites may be far older than archeologists estimate, dating back to previous high points of development.

3.     They may have been built by extraterrestrials from more advanced civilizations within our galaxy, as temporary bases for various reasons.

It is conceivable that all three of these answers may be correct for some of the sites.

Conclusion: The current civilization is most likely NOT the most advanced development of conscious beings ever to exist on this planet.