Saturday, June 30, 2018



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

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

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

Nobody can exist “in a dimension”. A dimension is a measure of extent like length, width or height.
If those using the term another dimension have any inkling of what they are trying to convey, what they should say is another dimensional domain. Let me explain: A point (mathematical singularity) is a zero-dimensional domain; a line as a one-dimensional domain; a plane is a two-dimensional domain; a volume is a three-dimensional domain, and space-time is a four (or more) dimensional domain. Now, the question is not whether there are higher-dimensional domains. The problem is, how do we get there from here?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ERC 6/30/2018

Thursday, June 28, 2018


© Edward R. Close, June 28, 2018

Science is not now, and never will be, a complete, unchanging body of knowledge. Our understanding progresses slowly, for the most part, by incremental discovery of the details of reality, but, occasionally science leaps forward, with the sudden discovery of a new and more productive way of thinking about reality. Thomas Kuhn, physicist and historian, in his insightful treatise, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, called these sudden changes paradigm shifts.

A paradigm shift occurs when there is a complete overthrow of one or more of the basic assumptions of science. For example, the classical assumption that space and time are the same everywhere was overthrown by Einstein’s discovery of the mathematical relationship between the motion and acceleration of the observer and the measurement of space and time. And Planck’s discovery of the quantization of energy and mass overthrew the notion of the apparent infinite divisibility of reality. What basic assumption does TDVP overthrow? The assumption of scientific materialism. With the discovery of the mathematical necessity of the existence of a non-physical aspect of reality, TDVP puts consciousness into the equations of science, and refutes the assumption of scientific materialism, held by most scientists for centuries.

German physicist Max Planck, saw past scientific materialism and started the revolution culminating with TDVP. In the early 20th century. He said:

"I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness." – Max Planck

Einstein added to the developing revolution with his special and general theories of relativity. For the first time in the history of modern science, the state of the observer relative to the dynamics of moving objects was found to affect the observations and measurements of physical reality. Did Einstein, like his personal friend Max Planck, believe that there is something real beyond physical reality? His spirituality is revealed in the following statement:

I want to know God's thoughts - the rest are mere details.” – Albert Einstein

A paradigm shift always brings new science, and new science requires new math. Just as in every other paradigm shift, e.g., Newton’s laws of motion, relativity and quantum physics, TDVP requires new math. That new math is the Calculus of Dimensional Distinctions (CoDD), a mathematical system logically prior to conventional mathematics, adapted for application to quantum reality.

In answering the question “What is TDVP?”, I would be remiss if I did not emphasize and clarify the point that the logic of TDVP shines a bright light on the primacy of consciousness. Why is this important? Because recognizing the primacy of consciousness is the key to understanding how and why applications of the logic of the CoDD answers questions and resolves paradoxes that have persisted unanswered and unresolved for decades in the current mainstream paradigm of scientific materialism. This fact about TDVP may sound amazing, and you might expect its answers and proofs to be complex and difficult to comprehend, but the logic is so basic that I believe that I can explain it in simple terms that anyone can understand.

Because the experience of consciousness is primary, it is best to start with a brief discussion of consciousness. Everyone experiences it, but no one is able to define it completely satisfactorily because it is the essence of what we are, the essence of being itself. Expecting the human mind to analyze consciousness is like expecting an eye to be able to see itself without a mirror. Whatever consciousness is, without it, there simply would be no awareness, no knowledge of this, or any other world. Everything we do, know or think depends upon it.  To define something means to compare it with something already known, but consciousness is unique; there is nothing with which to compare it, and all analogies always fall short. As the primary experience of self, consciousness simply is the essence of self-aware existence. As Max Planck observed: “we cannot get behind consciousness”.

We can, however, identify and describe the actions performed by consciousness: The actions of consciousness arise from within consciousness itself as the desire for experience. That desire is propagated sequentially from self to other-than-self in three stages: 1. The realization of Identity, 2. The formation of a conscious Intent and 3. The actualization of intent as an Impact on other-than-self. Consciousness thus becomes an observer, and a participant in reality by the actions of drawing distinctions and organizing those distinctions into logical patterns.

All possible forms of reality knowable by a conscious observer, arise from the initial act of separation: i.e., the creation of the distinction of self from everything else. Any distinction is triadic, consisting of: 1. That which is distinguished, 2. That from which it is distinguished, and 3. The conscious self that draws the distinction. For the purpose of differential experience, the conscious self must consider itself to be separate from that which it is able to distinguish, and thus the distinction of self from other is the first distinction. All forms of objective reality arise from this initial act of severance, and while it may seem that we may separate reality any way we please, the logic of the CoDD shows us that the basic forms arising from the act of separation are the same. The framework of reality is that of embedded dimensional domains, much like the layers of an onion. The basis of all conceivable symbolic representation, all logic, language, and all knowledge of, and understanding of any reality, is the conscious action of the drawing of distinctions. This is why the CoDD provides a powerful tool for analyzing reality.

The most basic description of reality possible, is a multi-dimensional mosaic, a picture of reality composed of multiples of the most basic distinction possible; and the most basic distinction possible is the smallest possible quantum of the substance of reality. In the TDVP, that smallest quantum of mass that can be distinguished in the three-or-more dimensional reality we experience, and used as the basic unit of distinction, is the electron.

At this point, I must ask you to accept an a priori assumption, an assumption that is the basic foundational hypothesis of TDVP. The proof that this assumption is valid comes in the form of answers to questions and resolutions of paradoxes in the current scientific paradigm that cannot be obtained in any other way. A number of these have been published under the authorship of Close and Neppe or Neppe and Close. The assumption is the proposition that there is a single elementary measure which applies to all aspects of reality; a quantum equivalence unit to which all quantifiable aspects of reality can be mathematically related. In TDVP, we call that quantum equivalence unit the Triadic Rotational Unit of Equivalence (TRUE), for reasons that will become clearer as we proceed.

This is a significant departure from the current methods of mathematical physics, and a deliberate extension of Planck’s discovery of the quantization of energy to include quantization of all observable and measurable aspects of finite reality. Planck started down this path by developing a system of “natural” units that became known as Planck units, with five universal constants set equal to unity, making them natural units of measurement, and Einstein carried the ball a little farther by showing us the mathematical equivalence of mass and energy with E = mc2. In Planck units, c, the speed of light, is one of the five universal constants naturalized to unity. Notice that when c is naturalized to 1, Einstein’s famous equation becomes simply E = m, making energy and mass equivalent in Planck units. In TDVP, we naturalize all of the measures of reality, mass, energy, space, and time to unity, which naturalizes c, but not the other universal constants which were naturalized by Planck for computational convenience.

The TRUE is the basic unit of the calculus of distinctions, a system of mathematical logic designed for application to quantum reality. I use the word “calculus” here in the broadest possible sense, to mean a system of logical processes by which expressions representing a distinction or a combination of distinctions are transformed to other, equivalent distinctions by the fundamental operations of mathematics re-defined for quantum mathematics. Defining the TRUE based on the electron, links the CoDD to reality, so that the the logic of the CoDD correlates directly with the structure of reality. Application of this new quantum math across all scales of measurement, from the quantum to the cosmos reveals the true nature of reality. With TDVP, we not only get to know God’s thoughts, we get a glimpse of how God’s mind works!

I do not claim to have created this major scientific paradigm shift single-handedly. The new science of TDVP is built on foundations laid by many scientists; notably, it stands on the infinities of Georg Cantor and the Diophantine equations of Pierre de Fermat; and more recently, on the work of Planck, Einstein, Pauli, Von Neumann, Gӧdel, and others. I have been blessed to have the support of a number of brilliant people, including Dr. David Stewart, PhD, a geophysicist who was my roommate in college, and for that reason, has listened to my ideas about math and science for more than 60 years, my wife Jacqui, whose unwavering support I’ve enjoyed for more than 40 years, and I’ve been working in equal collaboration for more than 10 years with Dr. Vernon Neppe, MD, PhD, who, without question, is the most brilliant and accomplished polymath alive today.

Recently, TDVP is being considered favorably by an increasing number of scientists, including Dr. Adrian Klein in Israel, Dr. Gary Schwartz, PhD, a respected author and professor at the University of Arizona in Tucson, and several members of the Academy for the Advancement of  Postmaterialist Sciences (AAPS). Further exploration and promotion of TDVP has been energized recently by the enthusiasm of Dr. Surendra Pokharna, PhD physicist visiting from India. The only question I have now is whether this paradigm shift from the dead end of materialism into the expansive realm of consciousness and spirituality will be accepted by mainstream scientists in time to save humanity from the materialistic path to self-destruction. I am optimistically hopeful that it will happen within my lifetime.

With the discovery of gimmel, the indifferent particles assumed to exist in sub-atomic physics and galactic cosmology are gone, replaced by vortices of energy spinning in multiple planes of rotation. I think it is fair to say that TDVP is like a colon cleanse for the body of modern science: The lifeless dirt and grime of materialism are flushed out and swept away by the living energy of dynamic vortices infused with conscious meaning and purpose.

Edward R. Close  6/28/2018

Tuesday, June 26, 2018


I spent most of my childhood here in Southern Missouri, and the kind of rainstorm with heavy downpour that we had this morning was typical of what we called “spring rains” which usually occurred in early April in the 1940s and 50s, not late June. Rain this time of the year was mostly occasional spotty showers from cumulus clouds building up in the afternoon, not the several hours of downpour at any time of day or night that we have experienced for several years now.

I am probably about as qualified to comment on global warming as anyone alive today, for two reasons: First, being more than eighty years old, I have lived through some of the greatest environmental crises in human history, and second, I have a PhD in environmental science and engineering, and my PhD thesis was on the environmental impact of human activity on water resources. I was one of seven charter members of the USGS Department of Interior Systems Analysis Group formed in 1967, and was involved in the modeling of environmental systems for more than 10 years. The Systems Group consisted primarily of PhDs from Harvard, Stanford and Johns Hopkins Universities, and we were involved in state-of-the-art modeling of environmental systems, including the modeling of storm cells developing and moving along cold fronts and cyclonic storm systems, as well as long-term effects of natural and man-made phenomena on the ecosphere of the planet.

I can tell you that there are many environmental trends indicating trhat global warming is happening, including the northward migration of animal species like the armadillo and the brown recluse spider. A study of historical records and physical evidence like tree-rings, polar ice-boring cores and geologic strata indicates that climate changes similar to, and even more dramatic than what we are experiencing now, have occurred many times in the past. That is not to say that human activities have not contributed to this warming trend, but the very real underlying natural cycles will not be denied, in spite of human activities.

I can tell you, from direct experience from the 1930s until the present, and from the study of government data, that the effects of human activities were much greater from the 1920s until the 60s than they are now. I can remember “red mud” rain falling in Southern Missouri from wind-blown dust carried from the “dust-bowl” of Kansas and Oklahoma, caused by over-farming of the land and years of  drought. Coal was the major fuel for heat in the Midwest in the 1940s because much of the timber had been clear cut in the 20’s to build cities in the East. A layer of black soot covered everything in cities like St. Louis and Chicago. I remember staying with relatives in St. Louis for a while when I was five, and my father had a construction job in St. Louis County. When I played outside even for a few minutes, I would be covered with the black soot that was everywhere and my mother would have to wash my clothes and I would have to bathe to get rid of the grime. I can still remember the smell of coal smoke. Many people died of tuberculosis from breathing the polluted air.

Less than 100 years ago, people died in droves around the world from air pollution. Because of industrial development in the US and Europe, from the late 1800s until the middle of the 20th century, air and water pollution were rampant. In 1948, industrial air pollution created a deadly smog that asphyxiated 20 people in Donora, Pennsylvania, and made 7,000 more very ill. Smog and soot had many serious health impacts on the residents of the world’s large cities. Only 66 years ago, when I was in high school in 1952, pollutants killed at least 4,000 people in London over the course of several days. Acid rain, first recorded in the 1850s, was another problem resulting from the burning of coal in plants and homes. The release of sulfur and nitrogen compounds into the atmosphere negatively impacted plants, fish, soil, forests and some building materials. Some Eastern US and European rivers were so polluted with industrial waste that almost nothing could live in them, and they were clogged with floating debris.

I worked as an actuarial mathematician in downtown Los Angeles in 1960, when the smog was so thick, you could see it hanging under the efflorescent lights in the office building where I worked. A deep breath was almost always followed by an involuntary cough! Smog alerts were common, during which the elderly and very young were warned to stay indoors.

We’ve come a long way since 1960, and the majority of  people alive today have no idea how bad air and water pollution was in those days, and therefore have no idea what tremendous progress has been made over the last 60 years in the cleanup of our environment. Despite the progress, global warming has not only continued, it has accelerated. The data show that human activities don’t have as much effect on global trends as we thought they did in the 1960s. Natural cycles are still dominant. But politicians will magnify or minimize the effect of the contribution of human activities on global climate change, depending on their political agendas.

Monday, June 25, 2018




Recently, a physicist said to me: “While infinity may be a useful concept, it does not actually exist.” I respectfully disagree. Let me see if I can explain why.

In TDVP, using the logic of the calculus of dimensional distinctions (CoDD) and Triadic Rotational Units of Equivalence (TRUE) Analysis, we may investigate the question of whether the concept of infinity is an existential reality (I use the word ‘existential’ here as it’s root meaning, not in the more diffuse sense of the philosophy of existentialism), or a convenient mathematical and theological fiction.

Why is the mathematical logic of the TDVP appropriate for investigating this question about infinity? Because it combines the basic concepts of pure mathematics with the basic concepts of physics. It does this by defining the basic distinction of pure mathematics as equivalent with the smallest mass of quantum entity, the electron. This ties the mathematics of the CoDD to the mathematical structure of the physical universe.

Infinity as a useful concept in mathematics
In contemporary mathematics, infinity is the concept of a state or object being larger than any number of units of measurement, no matter how large or small the units are. When used in the context of “infinitely small," infinity is the concept of an object that is smaller than any single measurable unit, no matter how small the unit is. Special care must be taken to be sure that infinity is not erroneously treated as a number, because attempting to treat infinity as an actual number can lead to paradoxes. So, for contemporary mathematicians, infinity exists only as an abstract concept. The symbol

Infinity is also used in the definition of the cardinality of a set of objects as in a list, array, or ordered sequence of objects that does not have a finite number of elements. The set of positive integers is a good example. Again, one must be careful to avoid thinking of infinity as an actual number, because doing so can lead to confusion. For example, the set of integers and the set of even integers are both infinite, despite the second set being contained within the first set. Infinity is also used in the theory limits. Some functions approach a specific finite value as the independent variable in the function approaches zero infinitely closely, while other functions may approach infinity as the variable approaches zero. The concept of a function "approaching infinity" means that it grows larger without bound.
For macro-scale analytical geometry, with applications of integral and differential calculus, the concept of infinity is very useful, if continuity of space and time can be assumed. Determination of rocket trajectory and satellite orbits are good examples. In problems involving finite discontinuities in variables of extent and content, however, integral and differential calculus cannot be used, and contemporary mathematicians must resort to cumbersome finite-difference equations.

Georg Cantor’s Infinities
From antiquity, many philosophers and mathematicians contributed to the study of infinity, but it was Georg Cantor in the nineteenth century who established infinity as a respected mathematical subject, even though he didn’t get the recognition he deserved in his lifetime. Most of the other mathematicians of his time denounced his work as “religious philosophy”, not mathematics. Despite the disdain of his peers, Cantor created modern set theory single-handedly by defining the concept of one-to-one correspondences between sets. He started by demonstrating that the set of integers (whole numbers) can be aligned in a one-to-one correspondence with the set of fractions, and concluded that these two sets have the same infinity. This led to his most important discovery, when he proved that there are infinitely many infinities, of different sizes. For example, the infinity of points in three-dimensional space is much larger than the infinity of points on a line because three-dimensional space contains an infinite number of lines.

Infinity as used in Theology
For theologians, God's infinity is defined as something distinctly different than mathematical  infinity. In mathematics, the concept of infinitely large is derived from the concept of enumeration in the finite world of our experience by recognizing the impossibility of ever coming to the end of being able to add one to any number, no matter how large it gets; and the concept of infinitely small is conceived of by dividing unity by those larger and larger numbers obtained by the process of addition to get smaller and smaller numbers, ad infinitum. On the other hand, theologians claim that our ability to build  infinity from the finite, to understand that we can keep applying the fundamental operations of addition and division over and over, getting a new result each time, is grounded in the idea of the theological infinite as an attribute of God.

Theologians believe that God is infinite in a way that the finite mind can never understand; and that God's qualities cannot be determined by the addition of parts. Thus, God is not a completed whole, but rather, a Whole Being without limits'. [Leibniz, New Essays on Human Understanding, trans. Peter Remnant and Jonathan Bennett (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981), 157ff.]

Infinity as a necessary concept in TDVP
In the CoDD, the quantum mathematics of the TDVP, we have shown by the mathematical process of Dimensional Extrapolation, that any domain of n dimensions is embedded in a dimensional domain of n+1 dimensions. This means that the nine mathematically-definable finite-dimensional domains of the reality we experience is embedded in infinity. The forms that make up the elementary vortices that we can observe and quantify in 3S-1t, are conveyed from the logical structures of infinity (the mind of God, if you will) across the six dimensions of consciousness and time by conveyance equations containing gimmel, into the three-dimensional domain of everyday observation. However, as shown by quantum experiments like the double-slit and delayed-choice experiments, these forms are non-local (i.e., existing as potentials throughout infinity and the finite domains embedded in infinity) until specific distinctions are drawn by a conscious observer.


In the ultimate scheme of things, Infinity is real, not just a mathematical fiction. Without Infinity, there would be no gimmel, and, as demonstrated in the TDVP with the logic of the CoDD, without gimmel, there would be no universe.

Sunday, June 24, 2018


I believe we are at the point in human history where science and spirituality must be integrated if we are to survive as a species. 

Science based on materialism, the metaphysical belief that reality is nothing more than matter and energy interacting in space and time, is not capable of saving us from destroying ourselves. In fact, it increases the probability that we will. Mainstream science today is not equipped to investigate the deeper questions that need to be answered concerning the meaning and purpose of life, consciousness and spiritual experiences. It can, however, be augmented and expanded to include mind, consciousness and spirituality as part of the legitimate jurisdiction of scientific investigation. And it is critical that this is done soon.

The first step toward integrating science and spirituality is the rejection of the idea, still strongly held in mainstream science today, that science must be limited to the investigation of physical phenomena. This attitude is a relic of the past, a dark time when scientists were struggling to establish a rational approach to the study of the nature of reality. To survive and promote scientific inquiry, they had to avoid being labeled as practitioners of witchcraft and stay on the good side of organized religious authorities, who were torturing and executing heretics i.e., anyone who dared disagree with their dogma.

Ironically, the next step toward the integration of science and spirituality came from a deep study of physics, the very most basic physicalist approach to  science, the study of matter, energy, space, and time. It was the discovery of a non-physical feature of subatomic reality acting as an organizer at the level of quarks that opened the door through which science may escape the dead end of materialism.

This volumetric organizer we call gimmel proved to be mathematically necessary for the combination of up-quarks and down-quarks to form stable atomic and subatomic structures that make up the building blocks of the physical universe. Without gimmel, no stable life-supporting atoms and molecules could form. Even if, after the big bang, a stable particle formed as a random event, without gimmel, it would quickly decay back to the entropy of the randomness of debris flying away from an explosion.

The discovery of the existence of gimmel, and the way it relates to the mass, energy and the dynamics of the physical universe, working with Dr. Vernon Neppe in 2011, allowed me to put consciousness into the equations of the laws of physics, something I had been trying to find a way to do for more than 30 years. One of the first mathematical clues I found was published in an appendix of my first book, the Book of Atma, published in 1977, which was a book primarily about spiritual evolution.
I explored the clues further in my second book, Infinite Continuity a theory integrating Relativity and Quantum Physics, published in 1990, and I introduced the concept of the necessary existence of a non-physical receptor in the brain in a poster presentation called the Case for a Non-Quantum Receptor at Tucson II, toward a science of Consciousness, in 1996. This theme was developed further in my second book, Transcendental Physics, first published in 1997, and re-released in 2000. Eight years later, Dr. Vernon Neppe and I began working together, combining his ideas about vortices as the basis of physical structure at all levels of the physical universe with my transcendental physics to produce the Triadic Dimensional Vortical Paradigm (TDVP). Our research has resulted in the publication of a major book: Reality Begins with Consciousness in 2011, and a number of articles and papers since.

The point of this post is that now, with the discovery of gimmel, a non-physical aspect of reality, we are at last on the threshold of a new post-materialist science that expands the scope of rational science to include the study of consciousness, mind and spirit in the same logical framework in all of the different fields of science and technology. As new exciting discoveries have surfaced over the past 10 years from the application of TDVP and the quantum mathematics I developed from G. Spencer Brown’s Laws of Form in 1986, a system of mathematics I call the Calculus of Distinctions, more proof of the validity of this approach, in the form of explanations of the paradoxes of the current theory, and correlation with empirical evidence is being revealed almost daily.
Discovery of the real existence of a non-physical substance that shapes the nature of physical reality expands the ontology of reality to include consciousness, and eliminates materialism as a viable metaphysical basis of epistemology. When this discovery filters down to the average person, as it will when practical applications of the new paradigm become well known, the trend toward chaos, fueled by the frustration and ultimate disillusion of materialism will be reversed as science reveals the meaning and purpose of human existence.

If anyone reading this can offer any assistance in the dissemination of this work heralding a major paradigm shift with a real breakthrough integrating science and spirituality, please contact me on Facebook Messenger, Dr. Neppe at, or the Academy for the Advancement of Postmaterialist Sciences at I believe that getting this new science going beyond materialism is urgent.

Edward R. Close June 24, 2018

Saturday, June 23, 2018



We sometimes get the question: “So, WHAT IS TDVP??? What does it mean? –In one simple sentence, please”!! TDVP is our (Close and Neppe) attempt to explain things in a way that will allow us to answer any question we may think of to ask. “Oh, then it’s a Theory of Everything, right?”

 Well, yes and no. If you mean it as physicists think of it, where everything is matter and energy in space-time, then yes, but if you mean a REAL theory of everything, then no. A theory of everything has to have everything in it, and since 1931, with the proof of Gӧdel’s Incompleteness Theorems, we’ve known that no consistent logical system is ever complete. If reality is a consistent logical system, which I believe is a self-evident fact, otherwise there could be no laws of nature, then there can never be a theory of everything. With all due respect to the super-intelligent logicians who have struggled with this question, talking about the logic of Boole, Turing machines and artificial intelligence, it is really quite simple: Anyone with a bright two or three-year-old, already knows this, because he/she has experienced some version of the following verbal exchange:

“Daddy, Mommy, why is the sky blue?”

Because air scatters blue light more than any other color, sweetheart.

“Why does air scatter blue?”

Because air is made up of certain things we call gasses.

“Why is air made of those things?”

(Here the parent’s answer may differ, depending upon his/her knowledge of atmospheric science and/or his/her belief system.)

Because of the way the world was made (or formed).

“Why was the world made that way?”

Because Nature (or God, take your pick) made it that way.

“Why did it (or he) make it that way?

Because …

And, as any parent knows, any subsequent answer whatsoever, will be met with another ‘Why?’ followed with another ‘because’, and another ‘why?’, ad infinitum.

To the true believer in materialism, TDVP may well be a four-letter word! But many people would like to know what it is; not in mathematical or scientific jargon, but in plain English. Just what do these four letters signify? Let me see if I can answer.

There can be many four-letter words with many different meanigs.
Using the formula for permutations (mathematicians’ fancy word for combinations with repetition allowed, e.g.: AARP, BARB, CROC, DADS. EKES, FOOF, GOGO, HAHA, IBID, JAZZ, KOOK, LULL, MAMA, etc.),  P = 26equals exactly 456,976 different four-letter combinations can be formed from the 26 letters of the English alphabet. However, not all of them are used as words. For example, ZQPR and XJOX are not words. Computer searches of English dictionaries reveal that there are around 5,000 four-letter words used in the English language. So, just using four-letter words, a lot of thoughts can be conveyed, with meanings as varied as the acceptable and pleasing softness of GOLD, to the unacceptable nastiness of TURD. Now, add to that four-letter acronyms that can stand for four different related ideas, and you may have an idea of the power that any four letters can have.

Notice that letters and combinations of letters are neutral and meaningless by themselves. It is not the words or acronyms, but the thoughts your mind associates with them that pleases or offends. Letters and words are just symbols that may serve to please or annoy, enlighten or confuse. So, when you see the four letters TDVP in my blog posts, are they meaningful or confusing? Obviously, TDVP is not a word, it’s an acronym, but what does it convey? does it help or annoy? Is it a golden key to understanding, or a repulsive turd?

So, what is TDVP?
It stands for the Triadic Dimensional Vortical Paradigm, where by ‘Triadic’ we mean three-fold. By ‘dimension’ we mean measurable extent. ‘Vortical’ means spinning, like a tornado or whirlpool; and ‘Paradigm’ means a logically structured pattern of symbols describing everything we know about reality at this point in time. In these blogs, as well as in a number of papers, books and articles, we have explained what we mean by triadic, dimensional, vortical and paradigm in great detail. But when is explaining enough?

Albert Einstein is quoted as saying: “If you can’t explain it to a six-year-old, you don’t understand it yourself.” In the case of relativity, he must have meant a six-year-old with an IQ of around 160 or above. And TDVP is an order of magnitude more complex that general relativity.

He also said:Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.”

It seems that it is a widespread characteristic of human nature to conflate, confuse and misunderstand.
But, somewhere between these two quotes, you’ll find the twenty-five-words-or-less definition of TDVP. Here’s my attempt:

TDVP is a shift from belief in scientific materialism to an understanding of reality that includes consciousness in the equations, and spirituality in the paradigm.

That’s  25 words believe it or not!

Einstein also said:
There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle.

I choose the latter.

Edward R. Close 6/23/18

Wednesday, June 20, 2018



Before we bow down at the Alter of scientific materialism, because of the things it gives us, let’s have a look at what it really is. What we call modern science, rooted in the metaphysics of materialism, is really very new on this planet. For a brief moment in history it is like a new toy on Christmas, a shiny object distracting us from the deeper mystery of reality, and most likely a passing fancy. Science is just one result of human curiosity, a poorly organized effort to find out what nature is hiding from us.

I don’t think it was an accident that that I discovered science about the same time I discovered that girls were hiding something very exciting under their clothes. The realization that there are exotic features of reality being hidden from us, is what motivates us to find a way to uncover them. The more exotic and unbelievable they seem to be, the more excited we get!

But what happens when you uncover the reality behind a mystery? It is no longer mysterious. We may choose to be satisfied with what we’ve uncovered, --for a while-- but eventually, sooner or later, we will be motivated to probe deeper, looking for new mystery. The excitement of having a new car wears off about the time it needs new tires, new seat covers, or a new transmission.

If the universe and the opposite sex were so simple that everything could be known about them, and if we could enjoy the luxury of a true “theory of everything”, We would not be satisfied. No, in fact, we would be quite disappointed. If the materialist scientist’s theory of everything could actually be realized, and everything that could be known about reality were known, it would be like discovering that the person you thought you couldn’t live without was actually a very boring reflection of your own empty self. But True Love is forever new, forever exciting.

Fortunately, reality is not just matter and energy interracting in time and space. There is something very, very exciting hiding behind the façade of dead matter, empty space, dissipating energy, and this moment in time, and that mysterious something, that exciting essence of reality, will forever lure us on, far beyond the disappointment of the merely physical, beyond the dead end of materialism. The finite physical universe ends with the finite light-speed spin of the smallest finite quantum of mass and energy; but Reality just begins when you step into the Infinite and science merges with spirituality. 

--ERC 6/20/2018

Tuesday, June 19, 2018


A new Neppe-Close paper on Science and Spirituality has been published in the IQNEXUS Journal. The publication date is given as 06/01/18 in the journal, but it has been updated since then, and may be updated again with minor detail in the near future. To read the paper, click on, or copy and paste into your browser.

If this doesnt work for some unknown reason --as you may know, computers are weird and may do unexpected things,-- so just in case, here's an alternative way to access the website:

Type or just search for IQNexus Magazine. When you reach the website, scroll down to the latest issue, Vol. 10, No. 2, and click on the picture of the magazine cover. Inside the magazine, scroll down past the Table of Contents to our article, which is the first one:

Integrating Spirituality into Science: Applying the Neppe-Close Triadic Dimensional Vortical Paradigm

I hope you enjoy it!

Monday, June 18, 2018



After my customary 5 or 6 hours of sleep, I follow a morning routine. It consists of a series of physical, mental and spiritual exercises. I believe this routine is what keeps me feeling young and healthy. I am not fanatic about it however, I vary the routine some from day to day and may skip parts of it, or even skip it altogether, if circumstances force me to. For example, it is difficult to do certain yogic exercises on an airliner flying from the US to the Middle East or Australia.

I am always working on one or more, sometimes several, math, logic and theoretical physics problems. I don’t see anything unusual about that, it’s just who I am. And there seems to be a part of me that continues working even when my body is asleep. It is not uncommon for me to wake from a deep sleep with the solution to a problem that I have been contemplating for days, fully completed in every detail in my head.

This morning, after about six hours of sleep, I did my routine and then began to write; longhand, pen and paper. I usually transfer such writing to my computer for documentation. This was no different, and now, I’m going to share this morning’s thoughts with you here.

Belief is a two-faced trickster! A virtual Jekyll and Hyde: Belief can help you arrive at the truth, or it can totally keep you from knowing the truth. This is so because belief in something that is false can be just as strong as belief in something that is real and true.

How can we avail ourselves of the helpful Dr. Jekyll aspect of belief, and avoid the deception of the dark side of belief, the evil Mr. Hyde? We must start by looking at the nature of belief itself in a rational, pragmatic way: Given a certain belief, call it X, is there a way to test X? Is there a way to prove either that it is valid and true, or deceptive and false? The answer is yes, and such a test is the beginning of science.
But, you maybe surprised to find that even the idea that something can be tested, i.e., be proved true or false, -that very idea itself- depends on belief: the belief that there is an undeniable bona fide REALITY, against which any belief can be evaluated and tested. But, how do we know there is such an ultimate reality?

QUESTION: Can the belief that there is an ultimate, undeniable reality be tested? The question is, how can such a basic belief be tested? Against what?

But, wait! Surely this is just silly thinking. If I believe that I can fly by flapping my arms like a bird, I can certainly test that belief by jumping off the roof, out of a tree, or off a cliff. Which do you think I am going to decide is real: the belief that I can fly, or the broken bones and bloody pain I experience at ground zero at the bottom of the cliff?

What have we learned by this round of thinking about belief? I suggest that we have learned that there can be questions that appear to be perfectly reasonable questions to ask, that cannot be answered within the framework of the logic within which the question is asked. Questioning the existence of reality within the reality we can experience and know, is an infinite descent into absurdity, like trying to prove that reality does not exist.

But this realization is not new. A brilliant mathematician named Kurt Gӧdel proved this in1931! His proof is contained in the demonstration of the truth of two mathematical statements called the Incompleteness Theorems. The essence of the meaning of the proof is that logical questions can be asked that cannot be answered within the framework of the logic within which the question is allowed.

By asking a silly question, we have uncovered a deep truth: The truth or falsity of a belief can only be tested by direct experience. When I wake up on the ground in pain, I know that I can’t fly by flapping my arms like a bird in this reality. But mainstream science ignores direct experience, avoids it like the plague, as something subjective, and therefore unreal and untestable.

Mainstream science is based for the most part, on a firm belief in physicalism, better known as the doctrine of materialism, which says that everything can be explained as the result of matter and energy interacting in space and time, or in Minkowski space-time as updated by the theory of relativity. This belief system, a virtual religion for some, holds that consciousness is an epiphenomenon of matter and energy, and that without the existence of certain complex physical structures, consciousness simply does not exist. But this is a belief that is not provable within the physicalist paradigm, because a universe without consciousness cannot be investigated without consciousness. Because of this, materialism is unscientific, because for a hypothesis to be scientific, it must be falsifiable, and reality without consciousness cannot be verified without the existence of consciousness.

Let’s see if we can learn anything by asking another silly question:

When one decides to study science, as I did, one is told about the scientific method (something that almost no scientist actually uses). We are taught how to observe, weigh, measure and question in a way that insures that we will be led to find what the instructors want us to find. If we find something different, we have to do the experiment over until we get the desired results.

But, this observing, measuring and questioning involves standing apart from that which we observe and measure. It is this forced separation, which is mistaken for and conflated with objectivity, that makes it so difficult for us to actually know anything! It is this imagined objectivity that leads us to ask such an absurd question as “What is Consciousness?” It is this pseudo-scientific method that causes us to believe that if we have a name for something, we actually know what it is! But having a word for consciousness does not mean that we know what it is. To begin with, consciousness is not a what.

When I entered the academic world in the 1950s, as a physics major, I was taught that real science consisted of the mathematically exact discipline of physics and maybe, somewhat peripherally, its less exact stepchild, chemistry. This teaching was not overt, but it was implied. Real science involved objectively observing, weighing and measuring real things, activities that required the use of mathematical tools such as algebra, trigonometry and integral and differential calculus.

Less demanding, and more logically vague disciplines like geology and biology involved little or no knowledge of complex mathematics, just the observation and labeling of things. From the viewpoint of physics, they were not real sciences, they were more or less hobbies, like collecting stamps or butterflies. Psychology was a pseudo-science with ramblings about vague things like feelings and emotions, things that could not be weighed or measured with any exactitude. And parapsychology, ostensibly invented by some wacky Englishmen, and just being introduced in the US by J.B. Rhine at Duke University, should be dismissed as fantasy, bordering on lunacy. ---Some scientists still see things this way.

So, as a budding physicist, I knew that I had to have a working knowledge of mathematics. But when I turned to the serious study of mathematics, by the time I had earned a degree in the subject, I realized that applied mathematics, the handy tool for dealing with the quantification of things, actually depends on real mathematics: Underlying applied math is a mathematical logic more basic than the counting numbers, rational fractions and transcendental numbers, and the fundamental operations of arithmetic. I found that real mathematics was far more interesting than the simple tools that scientists were using for solving quantifiable problems like the balancing of chemical equations or determining the parabolic flight-path of a rocket. I was excited that there was a deeper form of mathematics that depends upon finite distinctions drawn by conscious beings. I realized that at the root of real science lay the undeniably real functioning of consciousness. The reality we experience, is a world created by the conscious drawing of distinctions.

Once you realize that consciousness is, as Max Planck declared, the reality from which all things arise, including matter, energy, space and time, you know that the question “What is consciousness?”- A seemingly straight-forward reasonable question, is one of Gӧdel’s ‘unanswerable’ questions; that is, it is a question that cannot be answered within the framework of the logical system within which it is asked. So, does this mean that it can never be answered? No, we cannot jump that conclusion, because there may be another logical framework, expanded beyond the simple calculus of applied mathematics, a different paradigm, within the question can be answered.

In the prevalent materialistic paradigm, consciousness can have no meaning or independent existence of its own. If matter and energy, time and space are all there is, then the existence of life and consciousness are complete mysteries because there is no mechanism by which matter can become conscious, and even if there were, consciousness could not exist without a physical vehicle. But, I have direct evidence that this is not true.

I have direct experience of evidence that consciousness does not depend on the existence of matter and energy alone. I have had, as have many other people, the direct experience of my consciousness and other forms of consciousness existing independent of physical bodies. Let me be clear: I have experienced being consciously outside of my physical body, observing, without the benefit of physical eyes, things that were verified after I returned to my body. Not only that, the application of the calculus of dimensional distinctions, as posted in this blog, as well as in a number of peer-reviewed publications, proves that consciousness is fundamental and primary. Some form of consciousness had to exist before any finite distinction, specifically particles emerging from the big bang, could ever become stable enough to form atoms and life-supporting chemical compounds.

The knowledge that consciousness is primary makes asking the question about what consciousness is, completely improper. Like a fish in water, we are immersed in consciousness, and in addition to that, since consciousness is primary, everything is derived from consciousness, and our essence is consciousness. As consciousness embedded in consciousness, we have nothing with which to compare consciousness because we have no direct experience of anything other than consciousness.

Is it not curious that materialist scientists see it as their primary purpose to prove that the universe has no purpose, and that materialist psychologists and philosophers think hard to prove that thoughts are not real, and believe firmly that beliefs are meaningless? When will they wake and realize that their own consciousness is real and that it is part of a Greater Consciousness: The Infinite Reality that is manifested finitely as the physical universe?

Ed  Close 06/18/2018