Neppe and Close
ON INTELLIGENCE, ENLIGHTENMENT,
AND THE NATURE OF REALITY
The human intellect is finite, self-referential, devotedly self-centered, and its own best friend and worst enemy. Sometimes it obscures more than it illuminates, and Its most devious activity, which it even hides from itself, is the continuous frantic shoring up of the delusional belief that the real world is consistent with its carefully created conceptual view of itself and reality. The more intelligent and logically efficient the individual human mind, the more insidious this self-deception becomes.
Each of us has developed or adopted our own conceptual model of reality that seems to us to be very real. However, an individual conceptual model existing in the mind, even if internally consistent, is often found to be inconsistent with the conceptual models of others, and it is very unlikely that any of them are entirely consistent with reality. With a limited correspondence to realty, our views of the world are more or less manageable finite models of reality, existing only within our skulls. But, because we each believe that our own conceptual model is actually reality itself, we build up all sorts of walls of internally consistent logic to protect it from the intrusive influence of any other world view that might conflict with it, and even from actual, existing reality. To the extent that an individual’s mental world appears to coincide with the consensus worldview of the society in which he or she resides, even though that consensus is also very unlikely to coincide with reality as it actually exists, that individual is considered to be reasonably sane and knowledgeable.
At this point in human history, most of us tire, quite early in life, of having to work to find truth for ourselves. This makes us very vulnerable to the influences of ready-made imaginary conceptual consensus worldviews created by various political, religious, and educational organizations whose leaders seek to control us under the pretense that they are more enlightened than we are, or that their beliefs are truths revealed by someone who is, or was, more enlightened and aware of the nature of reality than we are.
This brings up a series of important questions related to the concepts of worldviews and truth. Let’s start with: 1) What is truth? 2) What is enlightenment? 3) Are there many levels of truth and enlightenment? 4) Who is qualified to say what truth is? 4) Is there an ultimate or final state of enlightenment? And 5) If there is an ultimate state of enlightenment, has anyone ever attained that state?
Beginning with the question of what is truth? I submit that a statement is true, if and only if, it corresponds 100% with reality. That, of course, raises deeper questions: Exactly what is the true nature of reality? Is it mutable or immutable? That is to say, is reality absolute and changeless, or is it evolving? If it is immutable, then it cannot be affected by what we do or think about it. If it is evolving, then we must ask: is it changing in response to our thoughts and actions, or is it altogether independent of us, changing randomly, or evolving toward definite goals according to its own rules? And, finally, are we, or can we ever be, capable of knowing reality well enough to determine whether our conceptualizations of it are true or not?
At first thought, it would seem that there are two possible answers to the question of whether we can know reality: Either we are capable of knowing reality, or we are not. The answer is that, as finite physical beings, we can, if reality is finite, and if our physical brains contain, or can evolve to contain, enough cells, circuits, and synapses to correspond with the complexity of reality. And the answer is we cannot, if reality is infinite, unless our cognition is not limited to the capabilities of the physical brain. So, now we see that there are two even deeper questions that we must ask and answer first, in order to address this cascade of important questions, they are: Is reality finite or infinite? And is consciousness capable of operating outside of the physical body and beyond the functions of the brain?
At last we come to core questions that can and must be answered conclusively. Not only is there a growing mountain of solid evidence generated by scientists who have the courage to go beyond the limits of the current mainstream paradigm of materialistic physicalism, despite establishment censorship, but there is also a growing number of people who have had personal experiences of consciousness outside of and beyond the physical body and brain, who are speaking up.
As a scientist with both overwhelmingly positive experimental evidence that the physical universe is an epiphenomenal series of forms arising from the substrate of Primary Consciousness, and direct personal experience of my own consciousness operating outside of my physical brain and body, I can answer the last question above, without hesitation, in the affirmative. It should be understood that the acceptance of this evidence and experience constitutes a real paradigm shift from the assumption that consciousness is an epiphenomenon of physical reality, to a paradigm recognizing consciousness as fundamental, if not primary.
Consciousness definitely can function outside of, and beyond the physical body. I have seen evidence of it in meticulous experimental data, and experienced it myself, in near-death experiences (NDEs) and out-of-body experiences (OBEs). I have written about this in Secrets of the Sacred Cube, a Cosmic Love Story, Close, ER and JA, 2019. From the perspective of the multi-dimensional field of primary consciousness, which mainstream physicists call the zero point field (ZPF), the body’s brain and nervous system acts primarily as a receiver of the logical patterns of primary consciousness, and secondarily as a transmitter and organizer of the logical patterns of consciousness in the physical world.
Working our way backward, the next question we can answer is: “Is reality finite or infinite?” All the evidence points to the conclusion that reality is infinite. Mainstream science generally treats reality as finite, only because their tools of observation and measurement have a finite range of application. But as we refine the tools and discover more of reality, the finite reality that physical scientists are studying is constantly expanding and changing. This is why science is always incomplete. This is why the history of science shows many examples of radical changes in the body of statements considered to be scientific facts.
Also, Gӧdel’s incompleteness theorems prove that any representation of science as an internally consistent system of logic can never be complete. Thus, all internally consistent logical systems are capable of expansion. In addition, the red shift in light from distant stars indicates that the physical universe also follows this pattern of expansion into the unknown. So, even if a valid model of the physical universe can be said to be finite at any given moment in time, dynamic reality will expand beyond that, in the next instant. This conclusion that reality is functionally infinite brings us to a point where we can answer all of the questions posed above. Let’s take them in the order:
1) What is truth? Answer: 100% correspondence with reality. 1a) What is the nature of reality? Answer: Reality is the totality of everything that exists. 1b) Can we ever be aware of reality? Answer: Yes. That is the function of the mind and the senses.1c) Is reality finite or infinite? Answer: Reality is dynamically infinite. 1d) Do our thoughts and actions affect dynamic reality, does reality change according to specific discoverable rules, or does it change randomly? Answer: Our actions do affect reality, and reality does not appear to change completely randomly, as evidenced by the existence of the many verifiable deterministic laws of physical science. 1e) is consciousness capable of operating outside of the physical body and beyond the electrical and chemical functions of the physical brain? Yes, at least to a limited degree, and perhaps it will behave more and more that way as reality evolves. 2) What is enlightenment? Answer: Awareness and understanding of the nature of reality. 3) Are there various levels of truth and enlightenment? Answer: Yes. Distribution of the levels of enlightenment in individual consciousness beings forms a normal bell-shaped curve, and the body of truthful knowledge expands with the increasing levels of enlightenment. 4) Who is qualified to say what truth and enlightenment are? Answer: The most enlightened among us. 4) Is there an ultimate or final state of enlightenment? Answer: Yes there must be, but it is a moving target, due to the dynamically infinite nature of reality. 5) Has anyone ever attained the ultimate state of enlightenment? Answer: Yes, I believe so, but I cannot prove it.
This last answer requires additional explanation and some careful exploration of the interface of our individual consciousness with reality. These answers bring us to the deepest level of finite cognition, on the threshold of infinite continuity, where we have several choices. The road most travelled is the acceptance of the teachings of established authorities with blind faith and belief. Another choice is indulgence in self-deception, and a third choice is the search for conscious enlightenment. However, the analogy of forks in the road is not strictly valid because the three choices enumerated here are not mutually exclusive. Combinations of the three are open to us. Each of us must decide.
As I said, I believe there are ultimately enlightened beings, but I cannot prove it. Of course, it will be a great thing if ultimate enlightenment exists and if help is available to us from that level of intelligence and knowledge. But we cannot prove that an ultimately enlightened being exists because if such a being does exist, then by definition, that being exists both within, and outside of, and beyond, the domain of finite beings and finite logical systems. Fortunately, however, this inability to comprehend is a one-way feature of an infinite reality, because, while you may be unable to fully perceive the world and functional existence of a completely enlightened being, such a being, if one exists, can be aware of you and your world. There are two ways that this one-way restriction can be understood: by analogy, and by inductive mathematical proof of the existence of levels of intelligence superior to finite human intelligence.
As an analogy, consider an individual living micro-organism on your body, or in your immediate environment. While that specific micro-organism is able to act within its miniature world, and react to its environment with a natural rudimentary form of intelligence, it is unaware of your existence unless something you do affects it directly, and even then, it has no way of knowing anything about you, your world, or your level of intelligence. If something you do affects its world, it will be experienced by the micro-organism as part of its natural reality. If a fully enlightened being exists, then the analogy is that the micro-organism is to you as you are to the fully enlightened being.
From a mathematical point of view, when a quantum calculus with a multi-dimensional quantum-equivalence unit and validated Diophantine (quantum integer) theorems are applied to the physics of the proton, as Dr. Vernon Neppe and I have done in TDVP, we find that there would be no stable atomic structure without the existence of a non-physical form of the substance of reality. Many papers, several books, and a number of posts on this blog have been published detailing this discovery and its implications. This non-physical feature of reality, which we call gimmel, guides the development of physical reality in an intelligent and purposeful manner. The existence of a Primary Intelligence acting prior to the development of the physical universe is revealed by inductive reasoning, and the existence of a spectrum of conscious enlightened beings operating between Primary Intelligence and human intelligence, is revealed by deductive reasoning. Again, it is important to note that this is the beginning of a paradigm shift from the assumption that matter is primary to the realization that consciousness is primary.
Why is this important? Because when a new scientific paradigm is introduced, people capable of funding the needed research into its validity naturally ask established scientists to evaluate it. But most scientists who are well-established in the current paradigm, will be totally incapable of evaluating an actual paradigm shift. A recent example of a panel of scientists with training in mathematical physics asked to evaluate TDVP (the Neppe-Close Triadic Dimensional Vortical Paradigm) will serve as an example.
Reviewers reviewed a single unpublished Close-Neppe paper and noted, as a negative comment, that they could find no references to some of the key terms of TDVP in papers in mainstream mathematics and physics journals. It apparently did not occur to them that if they found such references, it would prove that they were not new ideas. Also, one reviewer confidently declared that, contrary to our conclusion that gimmel, the non-physical aspect of reality discovered by mathematical analysis as reported in the paper, there was no evidence of consciousness in atomic or sub-atomic structures. Then later, the same reviewer admitted that science currently has no idea what consciousness is. The question one has to ask this reviewer is: How can you declare no evidence of something, if you don’t know what you are looking for?
Although a fair number of qualified scientists have expressed confidence in TDVP as a real paradigm shift, there are several more examples of the type of current-paradigm circular reasoning highlighted above offered by mainstream scientists. It appears that Max Planck was right when he said:
“A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. … Science progresses from funeral to funeral.”
Dr. Neppe and I – and a few other competent scientists who have reviewed it - are convinced that TDVP, based on the sound experimental data of the Large Hadron Collider and the logic of quantum calculus analysis, is a valid paradigm shift from the limited scientific materialism of today’s mainstream science, to the broader consciousness-based science of the future. We are definitely not following the road most travelled, even though our new paradigm preserves much of the mainstream paradigm, while expanding it to include consciousness. Are we on the path of self-delusion, or enlightenment? It's up to you to decide.