Sunday, December 31, 2017
Saturday, December 30, 2017
LET THERE BE LIGHT! LASS ES LICHT WERDEN! ΓΕΝΗΘΉΤΩ ΦΩΣ! !ויהי אור
चलो वहां प्रकाश हो! QUE LA LUMIÈRE SOIT! 讓那裡有光! ¡QUE HAYA LUZ! دعه يكون خفيفا!
ПУСТЬ БУДЕТ СВЕТ! NIECH BĘDZIE ŚWIATŁO! 光があるようにしましょう! BUDIŽ SVETLO!
LAAT DAAR LIG WEES! OLKOON ON VALOA! IŞIK OLSUN! LAAT ER LICHT ZIJN! LUX SIT! ХАЙ БУДЕ СВІТЛО! LÅT DET BLI LJUS! வெளிச்சம் வரட்டும்! LASCIA CHE CI SIA LUCE! LAI TOP GAISMA! BEET LE SÁASILO'! BYDDER GOLEUNI! God said: “Let there be light, and it was light.”
At some point, everyone who draws breath must ask the ultimate question. It comes out in many different forms: What is this all about? What is life? Where did we come from, and where are we going? What is the meaning of existence? What the (bleep)?!! What is the nature of reality? What is the answer? It is this ultimate question that is behind all human efforts to know: science, religion, philosophy…
The answer, however complex it might seem, can be summed up in one sentence: Understanding of the nature of light is understanding the nature of reality.
Light is radiant energy. Its first corporeal form is the electron. The electron’s measurable and observable characteristics form the true quantum unit, the Triadic Rotational Unit of Equivalence (TRUE), the basic unit of the Calculus of Dimensional Distinctions (the CoDD), and applying the CoDD to the analysis of subatomic structure, we discover the mass-less, energy-less volumetric equivalence of gimmel, the non-physical agent of consciousness required for the stable existence of life-supporting matter. This means that the physical universe exists solely for the purpose of the expression and experience of spiritual reality.
I have applied the CoDD to the mainstream concepts of the solution to Olber’s paradox, look-back time, the red shift, the big-bang expanding universe, and constant light speed, and found that there is something wrong. If my translation of these concepts into the language of the CoDD was appropriate and accurate, - and the translation of hypotheses is admittedly the most difficult part of the application of the CoDD - then these concepts as they are currently accepted in the mainstream scientific community, are not logically consistent. The CoDD analysis shows that these concepts, taken together, do not form a logically consistent theory.
Astrophysicists tell us that space-time may be either curved or flat. If it is flat, then the universe is infinite, and the red shift is not due to motion, but rather to distance, and without outside influence, or inside organizing activity, the universe would expand to maximum entropy, as the second law of thermodynamics predicts. The Hubble telescope data so far tends to support the hypothesis of an infinite universe, because, contrary to the accepted answer to Olber’s paradox, the farther we look, the more stars we see; and even if, at the end of every line of sight there is a star, we don’t see them simply because they are too far away. If this is the reality and there is no universal organizing factor, then, as Bertrand Russell famously said, all the works of man, however great, will disappear in the great heat death of the universe. But that picture doesn’t include any consideration of the primacy of consciousness.
The only reason space-time might be other than flat, is because of the existence of content as mass and energy. In the aggregate, however, they are uniform, which would give the appearance of uniformity and again a flat universal geometry. But the existence of anything is dependent upon the existence of stars and an observer who can see them. If space-time is curved, and the curvature is uniform, then the expanding universe is an illusion, the multi-dimensional universe can only expand into itself, and everything that has happened, or will happen, is already happening now. Any constant, uniform movement of a consciously observed quantum event in space-time will eventually return to the point of origin, implying a recurring cycle in time. If the curvature is not uniform, then we have the illusion of multiple universes, and an infinite number of them. But this contradicts the definition of universe and leads to logical paradox. In all three cases, space-time, or extent, has no meaning at all without individualized consciousness, and localized consciousness depends on the existence of the conversion of light to electrons, protons and neutrons, atoms and molecules, and the organic life forms that support consciousness which organizes and animates molecules, atoms, etc.
Before you decide whether you want to accept or reject the idea that understanding the nature of light is the answer to the question of existence, let’s look at the simple equation made famous by Albert Einstein: E = mc2. Solving this equation for c, the speed of light, it becomes: c = √(E/m), the square root of E divided by m, where E is energy and m is mass. Apply this to the entire universe, and you have the true meaning of the statement “the speed of light is constant” and you’ll find that it doesn’t mean what the average person thinks it does.
At any given point in time, the speed of light radiating through space is constant everywhere in the universe for everyone, regardless of relative motion. (That’s the first assumption of Einstein’s theory of relativity.) But, the equation tells us that the speed of light is defined by the ratio of energy to matter. So, if everything were light with no mass, i.e., mass would be zero in the equation, then the universe would be expanding at an infinite speed (c = √E/0 = ∞). But, as soon as there is a particle, even one photon of light converted to an electron, c becomes finite. In the universe today, the ratio of energy to mass is such that the speed of light in a vacuum is 186,282 miles per second (299,792 kilometers per second). But, the ratio of energy to mass has not always been what it is now, producing that exact speed, and, in this dynamic universe of ours, it will not be the same in the future. In fact, there is evidence that the speed of light was greater in the past. [See J. Casado (2003). "A Simple Cosmological Model with Decreasing Light Speed".]
The passage of time depends on the speed of light, so, if the velocity of light was different in the past than it is today, and will be different in the future, then the passage of time was faster in the past, when there was less matter and more energy, and will be different in the future than it is today. Think about that for a second. What is measured on our time scale today as a million years, would only have been a few seconds at one point in the very early stages of the universe when there was very little matter. This means that when we look at light from a distant star, we can’t assume that the billions of years measured on today’s time scale, that we take to be the time it took for that light to reach our telescope, is correct. During the first part of the trip, when there was very little matter, and the speed of light was much greater, the light expanded through a lot more space in much less time. This means that the universe is much younger and much larger than we are led to think it is by assuming that light has always traveled at the same speed, and that there was a big bang.
It was recently announced that an astronomical record has been broken: Astronomers have seen a galaxy farther away in space and time than ever before. They tell us that the light reaching us from this record-breaking light source, called z8_GND_5296, left it 13.1 billion years ago, and that the picture we see of it now comes from just 700 million years after the big bang! That is obviously a conclusion based on the assumption that the speed of expanding light energy has always been what it is today. What if that assumption is wrong, as my CoDD analysis indicates?
If, as current astronomical theory has it, the universe is about 13.8 billion years old, the most distant galaxy is flying away from us at near light speed, and if the speed of light has been constant over all time since the big bang, then we have a paradox: By the time light has reached us from a source13.1 light years away, that source will have sped another 13 billion light years away, and the universe will be at least 26.8 billion years old, not 13.8! The only way this paradox can be resolved, is for the speed of light to have been much greater in the past. This conundrum was partially resolved by Astronomer Alan Guth in 1979 by what is known as “inflation theory”, proposing that the early universe underwent a period of very rapid expansion.
In 1983 Guth, published a paper describing how his supercooled-universe scenario was not ideal, as the "triggering mechanism" to exit the state of rapid expansion would require "extreme fine tuning of parameters" and he believed that a more natural solution is required. (GUTH, ALAN H. "The New Inflationary Universe". Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 422 (1 Eleventh Text): 1–14). The more natural solution, in my opinion, is the natural slowing of light speed predicted by my CoDD analysis. However, the quantized nature of mass and energy does suggest a non-linear, discrete multi-phase process, not a continuous one. More analysis is needed.
Application of the CoDD reveals that reality is a dynamic balance of mass, energy and consciousness (as gimmel), all of which co-exist in the universe as the three finite forms of light (photons, electrons and gimmel), congealed by the distinctive action of a primary form of awareness, which metaphorically said: “Let there be light” and light transitioned from the multi-dimensional realm of Primary Consciousness, from conceptual to existential, guided by the dimensionometry of gimmel in space-time, into the physical universe. Applications of the CoDD and dimensional extrapolation also reveal that time, like space, is three-dimensional, and that in three-dimensional time, there are no absolute beginnings or ends, only change.
In the CoDD analysis, the law of conservation of mass and energy is naturally extended to all of the substance of reality, namely mass, energy and consciousness, which are conserved in all processes. This means that the concept of nothingness is an illusion; there never has been nothing, and never will be nothing. Primary Consciousness is the substance of reality and cannot be destroyed. Its first manifestation in the physical universe is light, a vibratory form of energy that becomes gimmel, mass and physical force as it weaves the structure of the reality we experience as part of the structure, without ever losing our true nature as parts, like tiny sparks of Primary Consciousness, evolving toward reunion with the source. Light becomes electrons, electrons become quarks, quarks combine under the guidance of gimmel to become protons, neutrons, and everything else.
I believe there will always be light and shadow, energy and mass, mind and consciousness, in never-ending cycles of creation, sustained physical existence, and destruction, as a flow of consciousness from Primary Consciousness to the physical universe and back again. The purpose of existence of the physical universe is to provide a finite stage for Primary Consciousness to experience reality through drawing the distinctions of individualized sparks of awareness, - that’s us, and our purpose is to expand our awareness until we become “Gleichwertig”, the same as Primary Consciousness. And I find it encouraging and comforting that within the framework of understanding the nature of light, using our God-given minds and the primary logic of the CoDD, all meaningful questions are answerable.
ERC, December 30, 2017
Monday, December 25, 2017
Here’s my Christmas message:
My wish for you is unbounded happiness, ecstatic joy and eternal bliss!
Regardless of your nationality, heritage or belief, you can achieve true happiness in this lifetime. The key is alignment. Not alignment with doctrine, dogma or belief, not accepting what someone else says is true, but true alignment, which is alignment with universal law. The universe operates on laws that are invariant and eternal. The first law is love, and, if you are a living, breathing human being, you already have that in your heart. That is the “grace of God”, the gift that in the innermost depths of your heart there burns a flame, and the warmth and light of that flame is LOVE. The second law is you must share that love, and ultimately return it to the source from which it came. The miracle is that the warmth and light of that love is not diminished by giving it away. The third law is: whatever you send forth is what will come back to you. Send forth negativity and hate, and that is what you will experience. Send forth love and light, and negativity and hate will fade away. The shadows of hate and fear, that you may imagine surrounds you, immediately disappear when the light radiating from the flame in your heart is allowed to shine forth. And the light of your love will attract whatever you need. It will even attract the personification of love as Moses. Christ, Buddha, Krishna, Mohammed, Kabir, … or the all-encompassing light of Ultimate Reality. The source of the love given to you as the very essence of your being from the beginning of time is the source of all abundance. When you are aligned with the law of love, the floodgates will open, and the universe will give you everything. And then you will know the secret: Everything is Love, and you are one with it, and that will bring you peace beyond all understanding, wisdom beyond all knowledge. My prayer for you is: May you know such love and peace now, and throughout the new year.
Thursday, December 21, 2017
At this most wonderful time of the year, with a heart full of JOY, I am beginning to think about the up-coming new year. I’m expecting some amazing things! What do I expect?
I’m no Nostradamus, but that’s actually a good thing, because I won’t have to sniff toxic fumes and write my predictions in cryptic quatrains for fear of being put under house arrest or being beheaded.
Here are my predictions. We will see how many of them prove to be correct.
There will be at least one amazing scientific discovery that will surprise about 99% of the people in the world, and ALL of the mainstream scientists.
The left half of the country (USA) will finally accept the fact that their candidate did not win the election and that the world is not coming to an end because of it.
The right half of the country will finally realize that their candidate did not win either, and that the world is not coming to an end because of it.
The rest of us will continue getting on with our lives because we know the world is in the hands of an intelligence far greater than that of any elected official.
A scientific study will show that all far-right, and far-left thinkers are mentally unbalanced, something that the rest of us already knew.
The Academy for the Advancement of Post-Materialist Sciences will make the headlines with information that will amaze the world.
There will be at least three major disastrous events that will sadden us all, and there will also be at least three major events that will upset half of us and please the other half.
We will have proof that we are not alone in the universe.
We will learn that we will soon be able to live as long as we want, and that we should be living at least twice as long as we do now anyway.
Brian Walker’s X squared plus one will be the subject of a scholarly paper.
Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
USING THE CALCULUS OF DIMENSIONAL DISTINCTIONS
© Edward R. Close, December 21, 2017
Here are the Initial Equations of the calculus:
The symbol indicating a distinction (upside-down L) represents a distinction of any kind. The blank on the right-hand side of equation 2.) denotes no distinction.
*Note: The same logic symbols used by G. Spencer Brown in Laws of Form are used here to avoid confusion when the reader refers to Brown’s work. **A and B in this table represent algebraic variables or functions that may take on any value allowed in the CoDD.
CoDD expressions often involve nested symbols up to seven to nine levels deep, or more, conveying the geometric structure of the calculus and of existential reality. Three-dimensional representations would be more realistic, and three-dimensional representations can be developed for use in videos or slide presentations, but distinctions of four or more dimensions can only be represented by projections onto two-dimensional media, and are generally incomprehensible to anyone who has not spent a lot of time studying them. Two-dimensional nested expressions are used because they are relatively easily drawn on sheets of paper or a blackboard.
A Demonstration of Calculation:
Assume that a hypothesis about some aspect the reality we experience can be expressed in terms of the CoDD by the expression H consisting of existential distinctions:
These calculations reveal that H is equal to a non-distinction. Therefore, the hypothesis represented by expression H is false.
Application of the CoDD to a Simple Example:
Consider the following 3 statements:
1. 1. All cars produced by the Ford Motor Company before 1927 were black.
2. 2. John has two antique Ford cars, and they are both black.
3. 3. Therefore, John’s antique cars were manufactured before 1927.
Those familiar with automotive history know that most cars produced before 1927 were black. Henry Ford famously said: “A customer can have a car painted any color he wants, as long as it’s black!” And everyone familiar with cars knows that the Ford Motor Company has also produced many black cars since 1927, and that there are black antique cars other than Fords. But suppose you didn’t know anything about cars other than what is given in the first two statements; how would you proceed? Even though this is a simple example, comparing the analysis using symbolic logic with the CoDD analysis is instructive.
Let the symbol P represent cars manufactured prior to 1927; let V represent John’s vintage cars; and let B represent black cars. Translating the statements from English to symbolic logic and the CoDD, we have:
Looking at the symbolic logic approach first, we see that the first two statements are given as true, and their truth in conjunction has the following logical consequence:
(P ϵ B) ․ (V ϵ B) ⸧ (P ․ V) ϵ B, which has two possible, mutually exclusive consequences:
[(P ․ V) ϵ B] ⸧ (P ․ V) and [(P ․ V) ϵ B] ~ (P ․ V). Thus, the third statement is not supported by the information given in the first two. It can be either True or False, therefore, while statements 1 and 2 are true, statement 3 is indeterminate; it may be either true or false, we just don’t know based on the information given.
Now, let’s look at the CoDD analysis. We start with the CoDD representation of statement #3 as our hypothesis: The groups of vehicles that P, B and V represent are existential. Therefore, they can be replaced by symbols of distinction, and we have:
This calculation is performed by applying initial equation #2 three times in the first step, three times in the second step, and once in the last step. Since this CoDD expression of statement #3 reduces to, and is therefore equivalent to non-distinction, the statement is false. Statement #1 and #2 taken together, do not imply statement #3.
The CoDD is a powerful tool because it allows one to check the logical validity of statements and hypotheses of any kind very quickly once it is translated into the CoDD notation. With practice, it is much more direct and easier than conventional symbolic logic. The simplification steps for even a very complex CoDD expression can be done visually.
Edward R. Close December 21, 2017
Sunday, December 10, 2017
IS THERE INTELLIGENT LIFE?
Let’s take this one step at a time: Is there intelligent life? We would hope so; but before we can answer this question in any meaningful way, we must first recognize that when we ask this question, we are assuming that we know what intelligence is, and we are also assuming that we know what life is. I don’t think there is much tangible evidence that we do. We are assuming that just because we can ask such a question, we are intelligent. But, let’s think about how we determine whether we are intelligent or not. We judge human intelligence based on IQ. But, exactly what is IQ?
IQ is defined as a numerical score obtained by dividing a person’s mental age by his or her chronological age, and multiplying the result by 100. The median raw score of many human test results is used to define the “normal” IQ, which will be then be 100. With this definition, and a measure of the variability of the data, called standard deviation, of 15 points, approximately two-thirds of individuals tested will score between 85 and 115, and about 2.5 % will score above 130, and 2.5 percent below 70. Intelligence defined in this way is related to human intelligence only; it says nothing about any other kind of intelligence. Are other life forms less intelligent than we are if they don’t have our vocal chords, or hands that can hold a pencil or peck out words on a keyboard?
If you score 132 or above on a standardized IQ test, you will qualify to become a member of MENSA, and other people, who don’t qualify, are expected to think of you as a genius. But, what does it really mean if you score 133, or even 200 on an IQ test? It means is that you are very good to extremely good at taking IQ tests. It means that, on a test that takes about an hour for the average person to complete, at that one time in your life, you scored much higher than the average of the general population. There are several assumptions built into this evaluation that, even though they were thought out by some very “smart” people, may or may not be true. In some ways, other life forms may be more intelligent than we are.
Certainly, there are some animals, like dogs, cats, horses, and dolphins, that have many abilities that we do not possess, and I would argue, based on my experience as a math teacher, that there are some dogs that are smarter than some people. The point is that we have a very narrow view of intelligence, and we shouldn’t assume that other life forms are more, or less intelligent than us based on human standards alone. Even if I score 200 on a battery of human IQ tests, I have no right to claim complete superiority over any other human being, and certainly no right to think I’m superior to other species.
It is the height of self-centered egoism to assume that the species Homo sapiens is the epitome of intelligent life in the universe. There is no evidence of that, and considerable evidence to the contrary. There very well could be a life form out there somewhere in the universe that could score 1000 or higher on our IQ tests. If so, does that make them superior to us? Not necessarily; we might be able to squash them like ants. Incidentally, how do we know how intelligent an ant is? Some small insects are more resilient and more complex structurally than we are. Have you ever looked at microbes under a microscope? Do we really know what intelligence is? I don’t think so.
OK, then; if we don’t quite know what intelligence is, what about life? Do we know what life is? We think of life as a state of being that distinguishes animals and plants from other things like rocks and toasters. Living things, at least on this planet, first appear in an infantile form, then, under the protection of adults, grow organically until they can reproduce, interact with their environment, enjoy life, suffer pain, and then die. But is this true for all life forms everywhere in the universe? Is there intelligent life out there? I think there probably is, but maybe we should first ask whether there is intelligent life in here.
Ed Close December 10, 2017