Saturday, April 27, 2019


A Facebook friend has asked a question:

Maybe you can explain the reason for the mandatory death of a person – you, your parents, your children and all others?” - Valery Chuprin

I Believe that this is an important question, and that there is a good answer to this question. Here’s my answer:

It seems that we enter this world through pain and suffering, that of ourselves and of our mothers, knowing not where we came from, or why we are here. But we soon see that other people, like mother, father, sisters, and brothers, relatives and non-relatives, all die sooner or later, and by inference, we come to realize that our ultimate fate will most likely also be death, by some form of bodily destruction: accident, disease or old age.

It seems that we are painfully born into an on-going story - not of our making - but in which we must act and interact, and over which we have little or no control, and from which we will depart in pain and suffering again. It is reasonable to ask: what is the reason for this? It seems very unfair.

One answer, put forth by some, is that there is no answer, no reason. Our existence is an accident brought about by random events, and our experience of the world is ultimately meaningless. Examples of this thinking:

Shakespeare’s Macbeth (Act II, Scene I) : "Out, out, brief candle! Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more: it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

About the fate of man, based on the second law of thermodynamics, the British philosopher Bertrand Russell said he believed that: “…his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labour of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of Man's achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins.”

The attitude of Shakespeare’s character and England’s Nobel laurate philosopher, is echoed and updated to modern physics in America’s Nobel Prize-winning physicist Steven Weinberg’s statement: “The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless.” This is by far the dominant hypothesis of modern science.

While, as a physicist, I respect Steven Weinberg and agree with some of his views, I do not agree with this conclusion that reality is meaningless. My reasons for not agreeing are both scientific and experiential. The scientific reason first: In 1989 I developed a system of mathematical logic I call the calculus of distinctions. Applying it to certain popular scientific hypotheses, like the big bang, expanding universe theory, and Olber’s paradox, I discovered some logical contradictions that led to the realization that the calculus of Newton and Leibniz was inappropriate for application to quantum phenomena. Deriving a three-dimensional quantum equivalence unit that I called the triadic rotational unit of equivalence (TRUE), and using it as the basic unit of a new calculus, I developed a quantum mathematics that I call the calculus of dimensional distinctions (CoDD). In this system of quantum mathematical logic, all descriptions of physical phenomena are in the form of Diophantine equations; i.e., equations whose meaningful quantum solutions are integral.

In 2008, I joined forces with Dr. Vernon Neppe, a true polymath, who, among other things is a neuroscientist, to develop a comprehensive new paradigm we call the Triadic Dimensional Vortical Paradigm. In 2010, we began explaining some experimental observations that have no viable explanation in the current mainstream physical paradigm, such as why the elementary particles that form the atoms of the periodic table, have a ½ intrinsic spin, why the quark “mixing angle” is exactly what it is, and why quarks combine in threes to form protons and neutrons.  

Applying the CoDD to the description of known atomic structure in 2012, I discovered there would be no stable atoms without the existence of a non-physical form that organizes otherwise sterile physical particles into meaningful structures consistent with the logic of consciousness, supportive of organic life, the vehicle through which consciousness expresses itself in the physical universe. This was something new, something unknown to modern science to this point, so we had to represent it unambiguously, and Dr. Neppe suggested calling it “gimmel” the third letter of the Hebrew alphabet, for a number of reasons. The discovery of gimmel changed everything. It reveals that consciousness is just as much a part of reality as matter and energy; in fact, it is not only fundamental, it is primary in the formation of the physical structures of the universe. Importantly, as the primary form of the triad of mass, energy and mind, consciousness, like mass and energy obeys the law of conservation of the substance of reality. This means that consciousness, like mass and energy, can undergo changes, but cannot be destroyed. With consciousness as the primary form, guiding elementary particles to form meaningful physical structures, all evolution is driven by the mathematical logic of consciousness, known traditionally as spirit.

Now, I can introduce the second reason I cannot agree with the hypothesis that existence is meaningless: the conscious experience of spiritual phenomena. Many people, including me, have had near-death experiences (NDEs) out-of-body experiences (OBEs), and pre-birth memories that have been corroborated and validated by objective observation. Some have had transcendental or mystical experiences. The discovery of gimmel and its mathematical relation to consciousness provides the scientific basis for the study of such experiences and the functioning of consciousness in the physical domain, including real NDE and OBE experiences such as seeing objects and events while outside the body, that can be validated later, and the reality of the survival of consciousness beyond the experience of the death of the physical body. The discovery of gimmel puts consciousness into the equations of physics. Thus we have a new science that transcends physical science. Such studies and experiments are being conducted in a few laboratories around the world now.

So, to answer my friend Valery’s question: I explain the death of the physical bodies of our loved ones and our selves as part of the spiritual journey of individualized consciousness. I discuss this in some of my posts, and in  much more detail in Secrets of the Sacred Cube, a Cosmic Love Story, the forth-coming book by my late wife Jacqui and myself. The book is in the final stages of production and should be available shortly.

Why do we have to suffer and die? To learn, and grow spiritually, to transcend the physical. You may not remember, but you chose to be born, to experience the dualities of pleasure and pain. the one does not exist without the other. Identification with the physical body brings both pleasure and pain, Through this process, we learn that we are not the body, we are eternal spirit, growing from the confinement of the finite body, through Christ Consciousness, to Cosmic Consciousness.


  1. If pain and pleasure are requirements of our physical bodies, why would the afterlife feel like anything at all without a body? Our minds feel nothing, at least in this life, without a body.

    I look forward to the book! A lot! I plan on gifting it to the right persons. I hope its ready before January of next year as that coincides with Gary Schwartz's work with the soulphone.

    No need to reply, but I would love for you to be interviewed by various media via youtube. I am very interested in learning how we could detect evidence of design in our DNA and if we could detect memories of experience encoded in DNA.

    1. I've been interviewed by Jeffrey Mishlove on youTube channel New Thinking Allowed.