TIME IS NOT WHAT WE THINK IT IS

 ERC 2010

TIME, THE STUBBORNLY PERSISTENT ILLUSION

AFFLICTING CONSCIOUS BEINGS

© Copyright July 2022, Edward R Close

Introduction

These posts reflect the results of my on-going efforts, for about 70 years now, to understand the true nature of reality. These efforts were prompted by an experience I had at the age of fifteen, an experience that set me on a path of science, education, and self-study. After many years, when Dr. Vernon Neppe, MD, PhD, and I first met in person in this life, in Amsterdam in 2010, we were both professionals who had been successful in different fields of science for many years. We discovered that we had reached similar conclusions about the nature of reality, despite the differences in our cultural and educational backgrounds, so we  joined forces to combine and advance our work, and together we developed the Triadic Dimensional Vortical Paradigm (TDVP), a model of reality based on our independent research and the work of several notable scientists of the past, including Albert Einstein and Max Planck, who were instrumental in the last major paradigm shift, a shift in the understanding of the nature of matter, space, and time that prepared the way for a more comprehensive shift to the science of the future which will include the reality of consciousness and Spirit.

Together, we have made an astounding number of discoveries, but by far the most important finding of TDVP was the discovery of gimmel, the third form of volumetric reality which proved to be the organizing non-physical component of atomic structure without which there simply would be no physical universe.

We discovered gimmel while applying the quantum calculus I had developed using normalized data for the electron and quarks from the Large Hadron Collider to define natural quantum equivalence units. When the quantum calculus I developed in 1986, called the calculus of dimensional distinctions (CoDD) was used to analyze the structure of the most stable known physical object in the universe, the proton, the non-physical component of objective reality was discovered.

 

In this series of posts, I am identifying the assumptions that need to be more accurately defined in order to expand the logical system of scientific analysis to include the non-physical aspects of phenomena experienced by conscious beings, and, last but not least, to resolve the “Mind of God” paradox revealed in the last post. This paradox arises from the proof that infinity is necessarily incomplete. In the last post, I explained that the Mind of God paradox results from certain erroneous assumptions about infinity and time. The assumptions associated with the concept of infinity were explored using set theory, and in this post, I will focus on the assumptions associated with the concept of time.

 

The Cultural Aversion to Mathematical Logic, A Brief Lament

Before getting into the details of the assumptions underlying our illusions about time, as revealed by the logic of relativity, quantum physics, and the Triadic Dimensional Vortical Paradigm (TDVP), please permit me the luxury of briefly calling your attention to the recent historical trend toward a pandemic of public disinterest in mathematical logic. I find this cultural aversion, which is especially prevalent in the United States of America, regrettable, and lamentable because it has the potential of completely destroying Western Civilization by devaluing the critical thinking skills that were preserved from times of higher mental and spiritual virtue in the distant past by a handful of philosophers of natural science.

 

We live in an era of explosive mass media sound bites that have short-circuited critical thinking to the extent that the mere mention of the word ‘mathematics’ or ‘logic’ causes the average American to quickly turn away and look for an easily accessible shiny object promising immediate gratification. During my lifetime, (I started public school in St. Louis Missouri in 1940) I have seen the attitude of American public education change from one of honoring intellectual achievement to one of promoting dull mediocrity. As a result, mathematics has become confused with the simple repetitive operations that computers can be programmed to do, and the elegance of pure reason is in danger of being lost to the average person, allowing self-serving individuals in our government and educational institutions to promote a false intellectual elitism that does nothing but divide the citizens of our county and promote class warfare.

 

OK. Now I will get off my soapbox. But I hope that this brief rant will encourage readers to pause and think about some basic concepts of mathematical logic as they apply to consciousness and the conceptual models of reality that we are discussing. Here are some thoughts along that line:

 

·         Scientific paradigms are systems of logic designed to model reality, the ultimate system of mathematical logic.

·         No model of reality is a theory of everything unless it includes consciousness because consciousness is a major part of reality.

·         The system of mathematical logic underlying reality has the same mathematical structure as the logic of consciousness.

·         Only a conscious mind can create a logical model of the way consciousness experiences reality because only consciousness can experience itself as part of reality. Therefore, the reality that we experience is a product of a conscious mind.

 

Time is a very subtle part of the consciousness we experience directly, so let’s have a look at what Einstein actually said about time:

 

“We (physicists) know that the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion”

“When you think about it, time is an arbitrary construct”

“Time and space are modes by which we think

and not conditions in which we live”

“Time and space are not conditions of existence,

spacetime is a model for thinking”

– Albert Einstein

 

Relativity, Quantum Physics, and Assumptions about Space-time

Albert Einstein spoke about time on many occasions, and his quotes seem to bounce back and forth in one’s mind like the endless reflections of a rainbow around a bright light in a house of mirrors. They reflect the illusions of both time and space because together, as spacetime, they form the 4-D conceptual domain known as Minkowski space. They also allow us to have a peek at Einstein’s state of mind when the quotes were uttered or written. By the end of his life, Albert Einstein had begun to recognize the foreshadowing of the next great paradigm shift away from simple materialism, looming as the result of the acceptance of the counter-intuitive discoveries of quantum physics and relativity, but he would not abandon the convictions of a deterministic physicist. His clinging to a physicalist mind set is revealed in statements like:

 

“The physicist seeks to reduce colors & tones to vibrations, …thought and pain to nerve processes, in such a way that the psychical element as such is eliminated from the causal nexus of existence, and thus nowhere occurs [in the physicist’s model of reality] as an independent link in the causal associations. It is no doubt this attitude, which considers the comprehension of all relations by the exclusive use of only ‘space-like’ [and by extension, ‘time-like’] concepts as being possible in principle, [to represent] what is at the present time, understood by the term ‘materialism’ since ‘matter’ has lost its role as a fundamental concept.”

A mind like Einstein’s, much like science itself, evolves over time, and, I know that, like many other thinkers and writers, I tend to pick the quotes, as much as possible, that coincide with what I believe – and/or know. I also believe that the last insight he had about this subject and took the trouble to write down and publish, is likely to be the best one. In the 5^th and final appendix to the 15^th and last edition of his classic book; Relativity the Special and the General Theory, a Clear Explanation that Anyone Can Understand, on June 9^th, 1952, less than three years before he passed on to the other side of the one-way mirror of consciousness, he wrote:

 

“It is characteristic of Newtonian physics that it has to ascribe independent and real existence to space and time as well as to matter, for in Newton’s law of motion the idea of acceleration appears. But in this theory, acceleration can only denote ‘acceleration with respect to space.’ Newton’s space must thus be thought of as ‘at rest’, or at least as ‘unaccelerated’, in order that one can consider the acceleration, which appears in the law of motion, as being a magnitude with any meaning. Much the same holds with time, which of course likewise enters into the concept of acceleration.”

 

I recommend reading Appendix V, the final addition to Einstein’s “clear explanation that anyone can understand” in its entirety for yourself, if possible, because it gives you, in Albert Einstein’s own words (translated from the original German, the native language in which his thoughts were formed), about as clear a picture as you will find of his thoughts about some of the most important concepts behind the theory of relativity. In that appendix, titled “Relativity and the Problem of Space”, Einstein articulates the reasoning that leads to a very important view of space and time that I want to emphasize and elaborate in the context of the analysis we initiated in the last post.

 

In this last footnote to his explanation of relativity, he concludes that, unlike objects with measurable amounts of mass and energy, space and time cannot “claim any independent existence of their own”. This is a very important factor in determining how we can proceed to complete our analysis in the effort to resolve the mind of God paradox because it means that the assumptions underlying the notions of time and space, key elements in the concepts of acceleration, relative motion, and sequential events, cannot be represented as sets, or elements of sets of existing objects in the same way the assumptions about infinity were in the last post. We must, therefore, find a different way to analyze the assumptions that have created the current wide-spread persistent illusion of time.

 

In addition to the quotes above, a few more quotes may help to clarify the logic of the axiomatic assumptions that need to be corrected to resolve the mind of God paradox and provide the basis of the shift to a new, more comprehensive phenomenology that is provided by the TDVP model. (Phenomenology is the study of consciousness and the experience of reality.) Einstein made no claim to be the first to see a problem with assuming that space, and by extension, time, possess the same level of objectivity ascribed to matter and energy:

 

“Time and again since remotest times, philosophers have resisted such a presumption. Descartes argued somewhat along these lines: space is identical with extension, but extension is connected with bodies; thus, there is no space without bodies and hence no such thing as empty space. … The weakness of this argument lies in what follows. It is certainly true that the concept of extension owes its origin to our experiences… But from this it cannot be concluded that the concept of extension may not be justified in cases which have not themselves given rise to the formation of this concept. Such an enlargement of concepts can be justified indirectly by empirical results. The assertion that extension is confined to bodies is therefore of itself certainly unfounded. We shall see later [in this appendix], however, that the general theory of relativity confirms Descartes’ conception in a roundabout way. … The psychological origin of the concept of space, or of the necessity for it, is far from being so obvious as it may appear to be… The idea of space, however, is suggested by certain primitive experiences.”

 

He goes on to provide an example of the “primitive experience” in the awareness of physical objects placed in boxes. Such an experiences gives rise to the concept of space as something fundamental but does not prove that “empty space” would not still exist if neither objects, nor boxes, nor any kind of containers existed. The reader may have already realized that the boxes and objects example he describes is equivalent to a set theory conceptualization, even though Einstein does not identify it as such. In the set theory language of the last post, one would argue that, if there were no objects, and no sets of objects, finite, or infinite, then a null, or empty set would have no meaning. On the other hand, because there is no way to test this empirically, the argument does not prove conclusively that there would be no space or time without the existence of matter and energy. (This weakness also applies to the argument about infinity in the last post.)   

 

Next, he explains how the principals of relativity, i.e., “no preferred reference frame and constant light speed”, in the special theory of relativity - which deals with uniform unaccelerated relative motion - eliminates the psychologically intuitive concepts of universal spacetime and simultaneous events, consistent with Lorentz’s work and the Michelson-Morley experiment. Then he discusses the details showing how the general theory of relativity does, indeed confirm Descartes’ logical leap to the conclusion that there is no such thing as “empty space”, and consequently no such thing as spacetime without material events. It can be summed up this way:

 

Physical objects are not in spacetime, but physical objects are spatially and temporally extended. In this way, the concepts of ‘empty space’ and time without events lose their meaning.

 

Next, I want to show how the conclusions of Planck and Einstein about the quantized and relativistic nature of matter-energy and space-time, combined with the potential resolution of the mind of God paradox from the last post, require fundamental changes in our basic intuitive assumptions about time.

 

Recall that Max Planck, said “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.” And Einstein agreed with Planck. He said it this way: “Space and time can claim no existence of their own. … What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses. Matter is spirit reduced to a point of visibility. There is no matter.”  

 

However, input data in the form of electro-chemical impulses that the physical sense organs deliver to the brain through the neurological networks existing in our bodies for the conscious mind to process and store as mental images, lead us to assume things about processes that we can’t see because of the extremely small-scale size of quantum phenomena. We think that objective reality is made up of matter and energy interacting dynamically in space and time. The a priori assumptions that support the concept of the existence of an external objective reality are the assumptions that matter, energy, space, and time are actual existing things that make up objective reality. Einstein and Planck are telling us that this is not true.

 

Our assumptions seem to be verified by the fact that we can measure matter as mass, energy as force, space as volumetric dimensions, and time as duration of physical events, all of which we perceive through the senses. But this handy verification is clearly circular reasoning because our proof of the existence of physical objects depends upon the existence of physical objects, and proof of the existence of time as an objective reality, depends on the existence of mass-energy events that depend upon the existence of time!

 

Reality and The Role of Intuitive Assumptions

Our intuitive assumptions about infinity and time play a powerful role in the shaping of our beliefs about reality and even affect how we live our lives. Given that reality is what really exists, it should be obvious that when assumptions behind our beliefs are at odds with reality, many problems will arise because erroneous beliefs lead to mis-guided, ineffective, and possibly even destructive self-detrimental actions. In the last post and in this one, we have identified the a priori assumptions underlying beliefs about infinity and time that are held by most people, and we have seen how they are in conflict with the realities that are revealed by empirical investigation and logical analysis. The task now is to put what we have found out about infinity and time into the proper perspective related to what actually exists as objective reality, into practical application.

 

The universe is remarkably complex and stable, exhibiting numerous precise cyclical patterns that recur without beginning or end for as far as we can see or detect by logical extension, into the distant past and foreseeable future, despite the experimentally documented entropic decay of complex atomic, molecular, and macro structures with the passage of time. The universe appears to be expanding into an endless, perhaps even an infinite extension, toward the most distant visible objects, the enormous brightly burning stars called quasars. Because the contents of the dimensions of reality are quantized, we have been able to push our investigation, conceptually at least, down to the smallest quantum, and to trace the remarkable complexity and stability we perceive all the way down to the most stable physical object in the universe, the proton.

 

We found the proton to be a combination of three rapidly spinning objects called quarks, only one of which, the up quark, even begins to approach the stability of the proton. It is only gimmel, which occurs in measurable quantum equivalence units of volume, but with no mass or energy, that gives the proton additional mass and amazing stability. The fact that the total angular momentum of the three quarks is conserved and increased significantly in a mathematically predictable way in the proton, raises the question of why elementary objects like electrons and quarks are spinning relative to all observers at such high rates of rotation in the first place; an important question that no current theory other than TDVP, attempts to answer.

 

The answer turns out to be relatively simple, requiring nothing more complex than Newton’s Third Law of Motion: “For every force in nature, there is an equal and opposite reaction”. Elementary objects at the quantum level are spinning because the force expanding the universe evokes an equal and opposite reaction, which is the sum total of the inertia created by the spinning of localized vortexes (called elementary particles) in the fabric of reality. OK, I can hear someone saying: but now you have to answer an even deeper question: Why is the universe expanding? A flippant answer might be: “Because empty space sucks!” But we’ve just been explaining that there’s no such thing as empty space! - I can imagine Niels Bohr jumping up and down, dropping his pipe, and spilling his box of matches all over the floor in excitement and anticipation of the progress we are about make!

 

This paradox cannot be resolved quite as easily as the Mind of God paradox because it involves expanding the axiomatic basis of the scientific model of reality to the point where we can understand why the speed of light is the upper limit of relative motion, how one can perceive the extra dimensions beyond the three of space and one of time, and why time and space, like mass and energy, must also be quantized. I also want to get into how consciousness expansion related to this new understanding of time leads to an interesting practical application. But, since this post is already somewhat long, I will stop here and continue with this train of thought in the next post.

 

ERC – 7/16/2022

THE MIND OF GOD PARADOX

 

THE NATURE OF REALITY AND THE MIND OF GOD

© Copyright July 2022, Edward R Close

“As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clearheaded science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about the atoms this much: There is no matter as such! All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. … We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter. … 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 (the existence of) consciousness.” - Max Planck, the First Quantum Physicist

I completely agree with these statements by Max Planck. My agreement is based on more than sixty-four years of my own on-going study and research that has convinced me that, far from reflecting outdated unscientific religious faith, as many mainstream materialists like to think, Planck’s conclusions gathered above were, as he implies, based on a clearheaded appraisal of scientific investigation based on meticulous experimental design and real data. He was not expressing a wishful fantasy or subjective opinion. He was articulating a set of valid logical conclusions and predicting the science of the future. In my opinion, the conclusions clearly articulated above were written by a genius who was far ahead of his time!

It is, however, easy to say that we, and all of the details of the reality we experience, are materialized thoughts of a higher form of intelligence that is beyond our ability as human beings to comprehend. That appears to be the basis of traditional philosophies of religion and spiritual mysticism. But if Max Planck’s scientific view of reality is correct, and everything is materialized thoughts of an omnipotent transcendental mind, then exactly how does that work? Is it possible that we may be able to understand the processes and mechanisms by which an infinite mind is thinking us into existence? If this is the case, then discovering and understanding those mechanisms and processes will be of immense importance to us as individuals, and even more vital to the future of humanity.

The Way Forward

The last statement of the last discussion, posted July 2^nd, listed the three types of potentially consistent logical systems that make up the reality we experience. They are: 1) Incomplete parts of reality that are perceived by individual conscious beings primarily through the senses, 2) Mathematical models of the logical systems of the laws that govern reality, and 3) The finite objective universe visibly expanding into infinity.

The full statement, which is consistent with Planck’s statements, also says that those three logical systems, which are by definition, subject to the conclusions of Gödel’s incompleteness theorem, reflect the innate patterns of logic existing in Primary Consciousness, i.e., the mind of God. But is this merging of science with spirituality actually warranted by empirical evidence? And is there a paradox? Yes, and yes, of course there is, and we shall see that, instead of being a problem, that is a profound blessing and an opportunity to learn!

The Mind of God Paradox

If the three logical systems that form the reality we experience are incomplete, and they are reflections of the logical patterns of the mind of God, then the proof of Gödel’s incompleteness theorem implies that the mind of God is incomplete! This conflicts with the traditional religious belief systems that proclaim the absolute perfection of God. And this conclusion that the Mind of God is incomplete could even be considered as evidence that, instead of being created by a higher form of intelligence, we are, in fact, only creating the concept of a God-like potential ourselves, as we try to expand our collective consciousness by accumulating more and more factual knowledge and understanding more about the nature of reality.

Now, what we have here is what I like to call a Niels Bohr moment! Recall that Bohr said:

“How wonderful that we have met with a paradox. Now we have some hope of making progress!”

Here’s the crux of our paradox: How can a Perfect, Infinite God have an incomplete mind?

Let’s remind ourselves what the incompleteness theorem says:

In any consistent logical system, contradictions may arise that cannot be resolved using the logic of the system within which they have been stated.

Or as Einstein put it: “We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used to create them.”

It is very important to realize that the incompleteness theorem proved by Kurt Gödel does NOT say that there are paradoxes that can never be resolved. It simply says that there are perfectly valid questions that can be asked in any consistent logical system (modern science, for example) that cannot be answered within the system of logic in which it was articulated.

As I have pointed out before, reality is the ultimate logical system, and paradoxes arising in a consistent system of logic are evidence of either an incorrect or incomplete set of a priori (self-evident) assumptions. Paradoxes can actually be resolved by making appropriate changes in the system of logic we are using. How do we do that? We have to start by critically examining the relevant existing a priori assumptions of our system of logic. What are the a priori assumptions in this case? They are assumptions about the existence and nature of time and infinity.

So, let’s first have a look at the assumptions underlying the concept of infinity, The average person rarely thinks much about infinity, and those who do, including most mainstream scientists, assume that infinity is unattainable in the real world and therefore impossible to define, study, or further analyze. In the late 1800s, however, one mathematician in Germany disagreed with this assumption. That mathematician’s name was Georg Cantor.

Set Theory and Cantor’s Infinity of Infinities

The Russian-born German mathematician, Georg Cantor (1845 -1918), like Max Planck, was a genius 100 years before his time. He boldly investigated the concept of infinity, even though most of the mainstream scientists and mathematicians of his time considered infinity to be a concept of religious philosophy, and therefore, not at all a proper thing for a mathematician to study or even to consider as a real thing. Cantor paid a terrible price for his heresy against the mainstream establishment. After his brilliant discoveries were rejected out-of-hand by a leading member of his chosen profession, he suffered a series of nervous breakdowns and died in a psychiatric sanitorium in Halle Germany at the age of 73.

 

About 20 years after Cantor died, the methods that he developed to study infinities were generally accepted. Interestingly, they are the exact same methods used by Kurt Gödel to prove the incompleteness theorems. What are those methods? They are the fundamental methods of what is now known as Set Theory, a theory of mathematical logic that has proved to be very useful in many fields of scientific investigation. The concept of “a set” is so simple that it is often introduced in basic math classes as if it were a completely self-evident concept. Examples of sets are everywhere: like the set of desks in a classroom, the set of students in a class, the set of cars in a parking lot, etc. The concept of set is strongly related to the fundamental functioning of consciousness. So how does set theory handle the concept of infinity?

 

From a purely mathematical point of view, there are an infinite number of infinities, and every infinite set is based on one or more provable axioms or a priori (self-evident) assumptions. The idea that there could be different sizes of infinity seems counter-intuitive, but an example of a set of infinities of different sizes that can be easily visualized is the set that includes the infinite set of points on a line, the infinite set of points in a plane, and the infinite set of points in a volume of space. These form a sequential set of infinite sets where the first set is a subset of the second set, and both are contained in the third set. The number of points on a line is infinite, but since a plane contains an infinite number of lines, the infinity of points in a plane is larger than the infinity of points on a line, and the infinite set of points in a volume is even larger. While this seems intuitively obvious to me, a rigorous proof that there are infinite sets of at least one size between the size of countable sets and the size of uncountable infinite sets depends upon a famous proposition, the continuum hypothesis, being false. FYI, Cantor postulated that the continuum hypothesis is true, but failed to be able to prove it during his lifetime.

 

The continuum hypothesis says that there are two different sizes of infinite sets. The smaller-sized infinite sets have a one-to-one correspondence with the members of the infinite set of integers (1, 2, 3, …). Cantor called such a set a countable set, for obvious reasons, and the larger size of infinite sets is represented by the infinite set of the real numbers (the integers plus the rational numbers existing between them), which Cantor called uncountable because they could not be paired with the infinite set of integers. The importance of proving whether or not the continuity hypothesis is true, was emphasized by David Hilbert when he made it number one in his famous list of 23 important unsolved problems of mathematics, published in 1900. Only eight of the 23 problems have been resolved to date according to the consensus of professional mathematicians, and the continuum hypothesis is not among the eight that have been resolved.

 

There are ten basic axioms that are typically introduced by a mathematician in a formal presentations of set theory. [An axiom is defined as a statement that is either assumed as a priori (i.e., self-evident), or has been proved with rigorous logic from an a priori assumption, and is therefore accepted as true.] There are potentially an infinite number of set theory axioms because some axioms are themselves infinite sets. However, in our effort to resolve the Mind of God paradox, we only need to undertake a critical examination of the a priori assumptions of set theory that are directly related to the fundamental concept of the existence of infinite sets. Here is a set of relevant axioms and axiomatic definitions:

·        The axiomatic definition of set theory: Set theory is the system of mathematical logic that deals with collections of similar objects called sets. The objects that make up the sets are called members, or elements, of the set. Pure set theory is a calculus that deals exclusively with sets, so the only sets under consideration are those whose members are also sets. The theory of the hereditarily finite sets, i.e., those finite sets whose elements are also finite sets, the elements of which are also finite, is actually formally equivalent to the calculus we call arithmetic. Since arithmetic is already well-defined and axiomatically sound, the main focus and purpose of set theory is the study of infinite sets.

·        The axiom of the existence of infinity: There exists an infinite set that contains all definable sets (both finite and infinite) as elements or subsets, including the zero, or empty set.

·        The axiomatic definition of countable infinities: An infinite set is countable, if and only if all of its elements can be paired with the infinite set of integers (1, 2, 3,…).

·        The Axiomatic definition of uncountable infinities: An infinite set is uncountable if its elements cannot be paired with the infinite set of integers.

·        The axiomatic definition of equally infinite sets: Two infinite sets are the same size, if the elements of one set can be paired one-to-one with the elements of the other set.

·        The axiom of sizes of infinities: There are at least two different sizes of infinities: The size of countable infinite sets, which is equal to the size of the infinite set of integers and the size of uncountable infinite sets like the infinite set of real numbers, which contains the infinite set of integers and the rational numbers existing between them, making uncountable infinite sets necessarily much larger than countable infinite sets.

 

Discussion

The fact that the dynamic interactions of the existing logical systems of the three types listed in the previous post and again above, have produced the stable reality that we experience, provides us, as conscious beings, with a unique opportunity to investigate and understand the nature of reality. In the process of doing so, we came upon a striking paradox that I have called “The Mind of God paradox”.

Combinations of the three types of logical systems cannot form a physical universe stable enough to support conscious life forms, unless they conform to the same symmetric patterns of rotational volumetric extent that exists in the innate logical dimensional structure of space, time, and consciousness. The symmetry needed for the stability we experience in our natural environment is provided at the quantum level by specific numbers of triadic rotational units of equivalence (TRUE) of gimmel, the non-material third form of objective reality, discovered while applying the calculus of dimensional distinctions to analyze the stability of the combination of two up quarks and one down quark in the formation of a proton. And, of course, as we all know, each positively charged proton pairs with a negatively charged electron to form hydrogen, by far the most abundant element in the universe.

What does hydrogen have to do with set theory, the incompleteness theorem, space, time, consciousness, and the mind of God paradox? I’m glad you asked! The hydrogen atom is a finite set with three finite subsets: one electron energy shell, enclosing one proton, containing three quarks, comprised of an asymmetric number of quantal units (TRUE) of mass and energy, which is a rotational set of objects that only becomes stable in union with an appropriate number of units of gimmel. Gimmel, like the dimensions of space, time, and consciousness, has no physical existence, i.e., no mass or energy, of its own, but the existence of gimmel in the electron and quarks, expands the hydrogen atom into a symmetrical rotating structure that would be unstable without it, in which case, there would be no universe to support organic life, the vehicle of conscious minds, a finite set within the infinite set of logical systems that is the Primary form of Consciousness called the Mind of God.

Conclusion

Our study of set theory axioms related to infinity has revealed an error in the assumptions that gave rise to the Mind of God paradox. That error is the mistake of equating perfection with completeness. The exact opposite it true: The Primary form of Consciousness, i.e., the Mind of God, is infinite, but we didn’t realize that infinity is never complete. This conclusion is consistent with the truth revealed in the proof of the incompleteness theorem. Expansion of the consciousness of the finite is movement toward perfection, but perfection is a moving target, and that movement introduces the concept of time.

I mentioned that I considered the a priori assumptions about time and infinity to be relevant to the Mind of God paradox, and I chose to begin this critical examination of the relevant assumptions underlying the systems of logic we know as mathematics and science by first looking at assumptions about the existence and nature of infinity. In the next post, I plan to continue with a critical examination of our assumptions about time.

ERC – 7/7/2022

 

DISCUSSION: SPIRITUALITY AND THE MOST IMPORTANT QUESTION

WHAT IS SPIRITUALITY?

Spirituality is something even harder to define than consciousness itself, because it is an aspect of consciousness that transcends matter, energy, brain and mind. It is a mistake to try to define it in terms of any specific religious context or doctrine. Rather, it should be defined in the much broader context of the transfinite substrate of Primary Consciousness. It is an awareness of one’s subtle connection with the beauty and grandeur of Reality. It naturally fosters love and compassion for all living things. It transcends time and space.

The a priori assumption that no conscious intelligence could have existed before organic life evolved, is not a scientific hypothesis, because it is not falsifiable or provable. It is just as much a belief as the belief that there is a God. The later belief, however, can actually become a scientific hypothesis when the vague, undefined words ' a God' are replaced with the phrase 'some form of 'primary consciousness' and consciousness is included in the mathematical model of reality along with mass and energy. It is understandable that some scientists have confused organic life with consciousness, but there is ample evidence from quantum mechanics data and relativity that a broader form of consciousness operates at the quantum level, and always has.

THE MOST IMPORTANT QUESTION

In 1714, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, probably one of the most intelligent people in human history, declared that the most important question of all, the question science should resolve first, is: “Why is there something rather than nothing?” Why did he say this? Because the basic laws of nature: Newton’s laws of motion and the laws of thermodynamics tell us that there should be no universe at all!