**PROOF**

**©**

**Edward R. Close September 15, 2016**

This post is
dedicated to three of my heroes: Albert Einstein (1879 – 1955), Kurt Gӧdel
(1906 – 1978), and George Spencer Brown (1923 – 2016), three geniuses who have
made some of the most important contributions to our understanding of the
nature of reality in the history of the human race.

I was recently
asked to write an obituary for one of these great men for the Journal of
Scientific Exploration. I was honored and pleased to be able to pay tribute to British
polymath, G. Spencer Brown, the author of “Laws of Form”, a work very important
to my life’s work and to the mathematical basis of the Triadic Dimensional Vortical
Paradigm (TDVP) developed in collaboration with Dr. Vernon M. Neppe, MD, PhD.

See a tribute to George Spencer Brown at the end of this post.

This post is about
proof. The concept of “proof” is often misused in everyday discussions. For
example, we hear “Donald Trump’s failure to produce his tax records

*proves*he has something to hide.” Or “Hillary Clinton’s fainting spell*proves*she is not physically fit to be President of the US.” And “The way the World Trade Center Towers collapsed*proves*that the government lied about 9-11.” These three statements are*theories*, more correctly called*hypotheses*or*conjectures*, and the word “*proves”*in each statement should be replaced by the word “*suggests”*. These hypotheses may or may not prove to be true.
In this post we
will use the word “proof” very precisely. Proof is defined as follows:

*A Proof is an indisputable chain of logic that connects evidence for a specific hypothesis with a specific unavoidable conclusion.*

I will use a
simple mathematical example to illustrate the precise meanings of the words “hypothesis”
and “proof”:

Consider the
infinite series of whole numbers: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc. If I add 1+2+3, I get 6;
if I add 2+3+4, I get 9; and if I add 3+4+5, I get 12. Noticing that these
three sums are all divisible by 3, I might jump to the conclusion that the
addition of any three consecutive numbers will always produce a number that is
divisible by 3. But I have not

*proved*this*hypothesis*for all sums of three consecutive numbers. The three sums I’ve done only*suggest*my hypothesis, they do not prove it. I can continue to add sequences of larger and larger numbers: 4+5+6=15; 5+6+7=18; etc. But I still do not have proof, only a stronger hypothesis. Someone may suggest that it might only work for single digit numbers. So to test this conjecture, I might try 10+11+12 and get 33, obviously a number divisible by 3.
So far so good, but I still don’t have

*proof*that*all*such additions produce multiples of 3. In fact, I could continue until I filled pages with examples, or use a computer to check millions of sums of three consecutive numbers, and I still would not have a proof. My hypothesis is still just a hypothesis. It seems likely that it is true, but trial and error demonstrations constitute a feasibility argument, not proof.
I can, however,

*prove*my hypothesis very simply as follows:
Let n = any whole
number. Then n+1 is the next number and n+2 is the number after that. Then,
n+(n+1)+(n+2) represents the sum of three consecutive numbers.

This
representation can be simplified mathematically, as follows:
n+(n+1)+(n+2)=n+n+1+n+2=3n+3=3(n+1), obviously divisible by 3 regardless of the
whole number value of n.

Because I have

*proved*it, I may now state my hypothesis as a*:*__theorem__**.**

*The sum of three consecutive numbers is always divisible by 3*
Mathematicians
call a hypothesis a

*conjecture*until a proof is found, then the hypothesis becomes a*theorem*. Scientists like to call a hypothesis a*theory*, and when proved, a theory becomes a*paradigm*, a successful working model of reality. I have made this distinction in earlier posts, and I repeat it here because it is easy for anyone not familiar with the terminology of mathematics and science to confuse “*theorem”*with “*theory”*because of the similarity in spelling. So keep in mind that a*theory*, whether called a conjecture or a hypothesis, is a concise statement of something that is thought to be true, and*may*be true, but has not been proved. Such a statement becomes a*theorem*or a paradigm shift only after it has been proved with indisputable mathematical logic. As stated above:*A Proof is an indisputable chain of logic that connects evidence for a specific hypothesis with a specific unavoidable conclusion.*

By using this
precise definition, we can avoid confusing feasibility arguments, however
convincing they may be, with actual proof.

Recently, a
colleague referred to TDVP as a

*theory*. Dr. Neppe corrected him, saying: “TDVP is not a theory.” A theory is a hypothesis, but once it is proved, it is no longer just a theory. TDVP has been proved with empirical data and mathematical logic.
The colleague’s
use of the word theory, however, may not have been incorrect from his point of
view, if he had not read or understood the proofs demonstrating the validity of
TDVP. He can also be forgiven for
alluding to TDVP as a theory because misuse of the word theory is very common,
even among scientists who should know better. The theory of relativity, for
example, is not a theory. Relativity was a theory when Albert Einstein
published the special theory of relativity in 1905, even though the mathematics
strongly suggested it was correct, and it was still a just a theory when he
published the general theory of relativity in 1915. But it actually is no
longer a theory because it has been proved meticulously, many times over, many
different ways.

The fact that
relativistic corrections to Newton’s laws accurately predict observations and
measurements of real physical objects

*proves*the validity of relativity. Three examples of proof that relativity is a*law of nature*, not just a theory, are provided by the accurate determination of the following relativistic effects caused by extreme velocities and gravitational fields:
1. The perihelion precession of the planet Mercury

2. The deflection of light by the mass
of the Sun

The validity of relativity as a
law of nature has been confirmed many, many times by careful calculations of relativistic
effects using the equations of special and general relativity, with results falling
within the margin of measurement error. And the more precise the observations
and measurements become as technology is improved, the more accurately the calculated
results correspond with observation. Time dilation and length contraction for
objects moving with very high velocities relative to the observer have also
been measured and found to validate Einstein’s equations.

Calculations using the equations
of general and special relativity have matched real-world experimental data every
time, proving that relativity is no longer just a theory. It is a law of nature
representing a major paradigm shift.

I recognize that there are
intelligent people out there who still think Einstein was wrong. But I’ve found
that those people usually don’t grasp the significance of the fact that the
measurement of the speed of light is the same for all observers, regardless of
relative motion. Because of this, they perceive paradoxes within applications
of the ‘theory’, like the “clock paradox” or the “twin paradox”. They just
can’t shake the illusion, born of the limitations of our physical senses, that
space and time are universally present real reference frames unrelated to concentrations
of mass and energy and relative motion. The many demonstrations of the validity
of relativity prove that Einstein was right. In a relativistic space-time
reality of four or more dimensions, 3-D perceptual paradoxes like the clock and
twin paradoxes are resolved.

Similarly, quantum physics has
also amassed a great number demonstrations of validity, of

*proof*of counter-intuitive phenomena like non-locality, quantum entanglement. The details of quantum phenomena in a reality with more than 3 dimensions are “hidden” from our direct observation by the limitations of our physical senses and the extremely small size of quanta relative to the level of resolution provided by our sense organs and the technological extensions of them. As the details of reality not available for direct observation are filled in as the result of increasing refinement of application of the principles of relativity and quantum mechanics, indications of deeper reality are revealed. Increasingly, we have seen indications of the involvement of consciousness, hints of the need for a new paradigm that puts consciousness into the equations. That is what TDVP has done.
We now have almost as many demonstrations proving the validity
of TDVP as relativity or quantum mechanics. These proofs include explaining the
spin number of fermions, why quarks combine in threes, the Cabibbo angle, the
stability of life-supporting elements, and the existence and probable nature of
dark matter and dark energy, just to name a few.

TDVP started out,
about 7 or 8 years ago as the combination of ideas developed independently by
Close and Neppe, in Transcendental Physics and Vortical Pluralism,
respectively. The ideas came together in a nine-dimensional model of reality
that included space, time and

*consciousness*. Applying the*calculus of distinctions*, an expanded version of G. Spencer Brown’s calculus of indications to particle physics data, the model began to yield explanations of phenomena like those listed above that were not explained by the current scientific paradigm.
The calculus of
distinctions was first introduced and applied to cosmological problems in my
book “Infinite Continuity” published in 1990. In my next book, “Transcendental Physics” first
published in 1997, the calculus of distinctions was applied to the conscious
process of observation, predicting the existence of consciousness as a
non-quantum receptor.

Refinement and expansion of the calculus of distinctions
and application to the nine-dimensional spin model in collaboration with Dr.
Vernon Neppe since 2008, has resulted in the discovery of a third form of reality, that we call gimmel, which is necessary for the
existence of the universe as we know it.

*With the discovery of the existence of gimmel, the link between the physical universe and consciousness, we are developing new concepts and explaining more real phenomena on an almost daily basis, and providing proof that TDVP is the long-awaited and much-needed shift from the current materialistic metaphysical based science to a comprehensive consciousness-based scientific paradigm, at last uniting the intellectual and spiritual search for the truth.*

**A TRIBUTE TO GEORGE SPENCER BROWN**

G. Spencer Brown was a creative
mathematical logician extraordinaire, one of a handful of twentieth-century
polymaths who saw the need to integrate spatial and numerical mathematics into
a system of reasoning that is logically prior to conventional mathematics,
symbolic logic and mathematical science. While I never had the privilege of
meeting him in person, I became aware of his work in 1984 when I purchased a
copy of his exceptionally well-written book,

*Laws of Form*. This book is one of my most prized possessions. I re-read it from time to time, and gain new insights every time.
Similar to many
brilliant thinkers who forge ahead of their time in history, he was
misunderstood and misinterpreted by some who, although competent in their
individual fields of specialization, failed to see the larger picture he was
able to perceive. In my opinion he deserves a place of high honor in the
Meta-Mathematics Hall of Fame, if there were such an institution, for revealing
the connection of ‘imaginary’ numbers (an unfortunate misnomer) with symbolic
logic and geometrical representation.

G. Spencer Brown was
born in Lincolnshire England. He studied medicine and passed the First M.B. at
London Hospital Medical College, at the age of seventeen in 1940; but, after
serving in the Royal Navy from 1943 until 1947, he struck out in a different
academic direction at Trinity College, Cambridge, earning Honors in Philosophy
(1950) and Psychology (1951). From 1952 to 1958, he taught philosophy at Christ
Church, Oxford and earned
M.A. degrees in 1954 from both Oxford and Cambridge. His doctorate thesis “

*Probability and Scientific Inference”*was published in 1957.
During the 1960s, he studied under the Scottish
psychiatrist R. D. Laing. He also did post-graduate work with Bertrand Russel
and Ludwig Wittgenstein, and upon recommendation by Bertrand Russell, he became
a lecturer in formal mathematics at the University of London.

From 1969 onward, he was
affiliated with the Department of Pure Mathematics and Mathematical Statistics
at the University of Cambridge. In the 1970s and 1980s, he was a visiting
professor at the University of Western Australia, and at Stanford University
and the University of Maryland in the United States. In addition to his academic
pursuits, he played chess, held two world records as a glider pilot, and was a
sports correspondent to
the Daily Express. He has
also wrote novels and poems under the pen name

*James Keys*.
George Spencer-Brown died in
Wiltshire, England on August 25, 2016 at the age of 93.

I personally owe G. Spencer Brown
a deep debt of gratitude, because without some of the calculus of indications
theorems and innovative applications to logic published in his ground-breaking
book,

*Laws of Form*, my life’s work, documented in my books and other writings, especially*Infinite Continuity*and*Transcendental Physics*, and in*Reality Begins with Consciousness*, and a number of articles, papers and books written in collaboration with Dr. Vernon Neppe, would have been much more difficult, if not impossible.
In keeping with his statement in

*Laws of Form*:
“

*Although all forms, and thus all universes, are possible, and any particular form is mutable, it becomes evident that the laws relating such forms are the same in any universe*”,
I believe this
understanding should serve him well in any universe in which he now might find
himself!

Edward R. Close

A fine statement and tribute to GSB, Ed - Thankfully, his and your own serendipitous influence, IMMIO, certainly helped to add greater cosmic authenticity to 'Y= X Squared + One', and the subsequent, CCC article, which follows:

ReplyDeletehttps://www.facebook.com/notes/174177261444/The%20Ultimate%20Force%E2%80%99s%20Fundamental%20Calculus%20-%20According%20to%20Brian!/10154205041396445/

And, once again to reiterate - When it comes down to it, Ed, who really has to prove or disprove anything to others. In a cosmicated sense, it's what we believe in ourselves that really matters to the Ultimate Force, our Higher Self, which cannot be fooled - We're all our own judge, jury and hopefully not our own executioners! Amun!

ReplyDeleteMay the UF be with you!

https://www.facebook.com/notes/174177261444/The%20Fourth%20Ingredient%20of%20Y=X%20Squared%20plus%20One%20%E2%80%93%20According%20to%20Brian!/10154442539331445/

you start with talking about proofs and theories in mathematics, in physics it is different and you deviate from mainstream thoughts about such methods; anyway your 'proof' for Tdvp in terms of physics is ludicrous; it is not even hypothetical; it's just nonsense. And you should know it. As philosophical enterprise trying to combine science and spirituality you might be on the right track but if you continue to use pseudo physics like your 9D spin model you do harm to yourself; as for you gimmel, it's just a correlation, interesting but doesn't 'prove' anything; and certainly has nothing to do with either dark matter nor (probably dark energy); anyway certainly not with dark matter. You don't seem to know what dark matter is, as measured in experiments.

ReplyDelete