Thursday, January 25, 2024




Edward R. Close, BA, MST, PhD, PE,

Distinguished Fellow, ECAO

Existential and Conceptual Mathematics

This is a discussion about mathematics, consciousness, and eternity. Let’s start by asking: What is mathematics? Almost no one alive today knows what mathematics is, and public education is largely to blame. For something that starts out with the simplest, most boring ideas imaginable, like counting things, distinguishing between groups of things based on their similarities and differences, adding, subtracting, multiplying, dividing, and recognizing equivalences, the subject we call mathematics, as it is taught in our schools today, is complex, confused, and confusing. What we are taught about mathematics today is a muddled mixture of half-truths that only reveal the tip of the iceberg of the logical structure of objective reality. Emblematic of the unnecessary confusion of academic mathematics is the fact that the word describing the subject is a plural noun. If mathematics is plural, then what are its parts? If you are familiar with what passes for education in this world today, then you would probably agree that the word ‘mathematics’ refers to all of the methods of quantitative reasoning. Arithmetic is one subject, geometry is another, algebra is one, and the list goes on to include all of the subjects that involve calculation.

From simple arithmetic to the most advanced form of quantitative analysis, mathematical subjects were developed to deal with numbers and numerical problems. They are logical procedures that transform numerical descriptions of things, simple statements of obvious facts, into quantitatively equivalent expressions that provide answers to some of the questions we like to ask about the things we see and experience. In short, mathematical subjects are designed to provide effective ways to analyze the reality we experience.  

I think that most people, including most mathematicians, will probably agree with this definition and be happy to add a few more subjects to the list, including ‘the calculus’, a specific analytical method developed in the natural science of Western Civilization more than 300 years ago. I, however, disagree with using the label ‘the calculus’ to describe a specific mathematical procedure. I do so in an effort to try to eliminate at least one source of confusion that comes from using the same word to describe two or more different things. Mathematical terminology should be as simple and precise as possible. But, like many words borrowed from an ancient language, the original meaning of the word calculus has been obscured in modern usage.

Most dictionaries give some form of two different definitions for the word ‘calculus’, with the mathematical operation of infinitesimal approximation developed by Isaac Newton and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, known as “the” calculus, generally given as the number one definition. This reflects current common usage and tries to legitimize the mis-use of the word calculus for one specific method of calculation. Here’s an example of what I found online:

1.      Calculus: a branch of mathematics that deals with the finding and properties of the derivatives and integrals of algebraic functions by methods that were originally based on summations of infinitesimal differences. The two main types of ‘the calculus’ are differential calculus and integral calculus.

2.      Calculus: any method or logical system of calculation and analytical reasoning.


Definition number 1 attempts to describe one specific member of a subset of operational methods belonging to the larger set defined by definition number 2. The fact that a specific mathematical method has been called “the calculus” by those who use it to solve a specific class of problems involving change in objective forms over time, is a prime example of how we have mis-used basic grammatical forms of words borrowed from earlier forms of the Indo-European languages to represent recently re-defined or re-discovered concepts. The word ‘calculus’ is the diminutive form of the Latin word calx, which means ‘stone’. Thus, ‘calculus’ means small stone or ‘pebble’. The current usage of the word calculus in English, and in most other modern languages, came about because the Romans used small pebbles arranged in columns on a counting board to make the task of counting things, and performing simple mathematical operations like addition and subtraction, easier. The different mathematical tasks performed by moving pebbles on the counting board became known as ‘calculations’ because of the use of small, round stones (calculi) on the board.


The simple counting board with movable pebbles evolved into the abacus and later into calculating machines, while the meaning of the word calculus evolved into a general descriptor for all known methods of calculation. A thousand years later, the word calculus was re-cycled and used again. This time it was mis-appropriated to represent a method for finding the limiting values of the sums of infinitesimally increasing or decreasing differences, and first mechanical, and then electronic calculators using simple binary logic were constructed. This use of the word calculus to represent two categorically different levels of computation is just part of what makes mathematics difficult and confusing for many students today.


The subject of mathematics, or more precisely, mathematical logic, is about much more than just dealing with numbers. If that were not true, we wouldn’t need the word mathematics at all, we could just use the word ‘numbers’ and call math the study of numbers. So, what is the actual meaning of the word mathematics? There are a number of different definitions given in online dictionaries now for the word ‘mathematics’. They differ slightly, depending on the avocational orientation of the person writing the definition; but the simplest one I’ve found is “Mathematics is the study of number, quantity, and space”. The key concept underlying the three proper nouns in this awkward definition, number, quantity, and space, is the concept of ‘separation’. ‘Study’ implies separation of the student (or students) and that which is being studied. Or, more generally, mathematical reasoning arises from the separation of things after the primary separation drawn by every conscious being, which is the distinction of ‘self’ from ‘other-than-self’. ‘Quantity’ implies that substances exist that can be separated into different categories based on the nature of their content and extent, and space is defined by the measurable extent that separates objects.


If mathematical reasoning is based on separating things, as in the conscious act of drawing distinctions, then considering mathematics as a study of numbers without reference to the consciousness that perceives objective existence, is misleading and incomplete. If mathematics is to be useful as a tool to study the nature of reality, then, in addition to numbers, mathematics must deal with things that have measurable features of content, extent and intent; it must deal with substances, shapes and forms that exist in the real world, and with consciousness itself. It must at least include the subjects we call geometry and mathematical physics. The word ‘geo-metry’ literally means ‘earth measurement’, but since the time of Euclid, it has been used to mean more than just the measurement and study of the shape of the earth. It is the study of the shapes of separate and combined objects, and ‘physics’ is the study of physical objects that are separate, have weight, and occupy measurable volumes of space.


In the book, Laws of Form, arguably one of the most important books ever written about the form of the logical system of thought underlying existence, logician George Spencer Brown emphasizes the concept of separation, when he says that the theme of his work “is that a universe comes into being when a space is severed or taken apart.” The laws that Brown reveals with his calculus of indications, implicate the existence of an underlying intelligence within which individual conscious minds may exist and resonate. However, Brown shied away from addressing the probable existence of a meta-mind, or even an existential meta-reality existing behind the logical forms manifested in the structure of the physical universe, because of the difficulties that the requirement of existence imposes on logical analyses and the application of inductive and deductive reasoning. To avoid these difficulties, he chose not to link the logic of calculation to existence until the process reaches a meaningful conclusion, and then only if it is necessary to interpret the results in a real-world meaningful way. The calculus I will describe here differs from Brown’s calculus of indications in several significant ways, but most importantly, in the calculus of dimensional distinctions, the linking of mathematical logic to existence is restored to its rightful place of importance.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          Mathematical logic is the logic of existential separation, reflecting the physical, mental, and spiritual structure of objective reality. Without the organizing presence of consciousness in the processes of calculation, mathematical logic is simply a binary thought form; yes or no, zero or one, true or false. Boolean algebra and the calculus of indications of G. Spencer Brown’s Laws of Form are forms of symbolic notation for the simple operations of binary logic. With the inclusion of the conscious action of the drawing of distinctions and numerical indicators of dimensionality, the primary calculus becomes a system of triadic logic, and the Calculus of Dimensional Distinctions (CoDD), a naturalized extension of the primary calculus, is its notation. It is important to note that while a system of symbolic mathematical notation is a human invention, the form of mathematical logic underlying reality is not. The form of existential mathematical logic reflects both the substance and the shape of objective reality. Any useful symbolic representation of mathematical logic is a written language that can be learned and used by conscious beings, and thus mathematical logic is ‘the language of science’.


As Max Planck noted, all meaningful definitions imply that some form of consciousness exists behind the symbols. He said: “We cannot get behind consciousness, everything we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.


With this understanding, we realize that the innate logical structure of existence is mathematical in nature and that the ‘creation’ of the physical universe, in the Biblical sense of Genesis, cannot be the “creatio ex nihilo” (creation from nothing) imposed upon Christian thought by church theologists after 553 A.D. when the ‘anathemas against Origen’ were forced on the Catholic Priesthood by Roman Emperor Justinian, under the threat of death and destruction, for purely political purposes.


The stable logical forms of the physical universe are existential. They are real. They are the essence of reality. In other words, mathematics is the study of the innate logical form, the structure of reality, manifesting in the physical universe in the existence, geometry, and substance of objective reality. Sadly, the exclusion of Euclidian geometry (sometimes called ‘plane geometry’) from the basic requirements of public education in the US, along with the deliberate removal of any mention of the existence of any higher form of intelligence behind objective reality, is in large part what has brought about the downfall of modern education.


A beautiful little Book titled Analytische Geometrie, published in German in the late 1800s, a book that I found in a box that my father bought for a dollar at a garage sale when I was a teenager, reveals far more about the origin and logical basis of mathematics than anything being taught in today’s colleges and universities. After I absorbed the contents of that book and two other books on natural science during the summer of 1951, memories of things I learned in past lives began to surface in my consciousness, and I began to see the connecting links between mathematics, linguistics, natural philosophy, and the logical structure of reality, as it is ‘educed’ or drawn out of the empirical existence of Primary Consciousness and manifestly expressed in conscious lifeforms as experience in the physical universe. And it became clear to me that the mathematics being taught in our schools was based on inconsistent and erroneous assumptions. But the failures of the conceptual mathematics of public education is not what this essay is about. It is about the logic of the primary calculus of Consciousness, existence, and Immortality.

In an effort to avoid losing readers who may not have much in the way of math and/or science background, I will do my best to define technical terms as I go. The word ‘empirical’ means “information based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation and measurement or conscious experience, rather than theory or pure logic.”

The word ‘math’ comes from the Proto-Indo-European root ‘mendh’ meaning ‘to put together or learn’ this root word is also related to Greek, Slavic, and German words meaning mindfulness, awake, intelligent, observant, thoughtful and careful, revealing the fact that mathematical reasoning is a fundamental part - and I would argue, the most important part - of the meaningful education of young minds, along with reading and writing skills.


While we’re at it, let’s have a look at the word ‘education’, because it actually does not mean what is implied by ‘education’ in our schools today. Here’s a typical modern definition found in an online computer search:


“Education : The process of receiving or giving systematic instruction, especially at a school or university in the modern system of public education.”


Contrast this with the original meaning of the word ‘education’: The root word ‘educe’ comes from the Latin verb  'Educare' which means 'to lead out or bring forth'. In times of greater mental and spiritual virtue, we understand that the knowledge that is being brought forth into the expanding consciousness of individual sentient beings is present in the substrate of reality in the form of higher-frequency energy patterns that can be received and absorbed by conscious beings who are sufficiently aware and ready to receive it.

Today’s computer definitions of the word ‘education’ are definitions of indoctrination, not definitions of learning. That’s why no one with common sense can understand mathematics now in the depth that it is understood in the ages of higher mental integrity both before and after the present time. What I experienced in the summer of 1951 by reading a few books on basic math and science and thinking deeply about what I read, was education! What I experienced in years of public and private schools after that, was a mixture of education and indoctrination – and I can see that formal education has gotten progressively much worse in the past sixty years.

When education is entrusted to government, and the government becomes corrupt, the purpose of public education becomes indoctrination, which then progresses on into crass political propaganda, as the government becomes increasingly more corrupt, using public education to make sure it retains its power. Unfortunately, this is the natural evolution of bureaucratic social organizations in times of low mental and spiritual virtue like the time we are experiencing now. Sadly, real mathematical logic has been lost in the processes of ‘modern’ education. This essay is an effort to right the floundering flagship of reason once again.

Why is understanding the seminal relationship between mathematics and education so important in the course of an effort to explain the difference between existential mathematical logic and conceptual mathematical imagination? Because we need to know how to determine, beyond reasonable doubt, what is real and what is false. Using mis-guided conceptual mathematics instead of empirically proven existential mathematics to solve real-world physics and engineering problems leads to unnecessary complications and error. In particular, it yields incommensurable scalar values in solutions of descriptive algebraic equations that do not represent anything that actually exists in the real-world, but are, never-the-less, reasonable fictions used to make the Standard Model of scientific materialism seem to work.

Believing that conceptual mathematical forms are real leads to erroneous and often paradoxical answers and conclusions. Prime examples of such fictional concepts are the much sought-after ephemeral dimensionless and massless ‘particles’, that are imagined existing and “imparting” mass or other characteristics to other ‘particles’ of matter in order to make a particle-based quantum theory seem to work. There actually are no solid particles of matter in the stable atomic structure of objective reality at all. Elementary quantum-scale objects are entirely different in form and substance than the conceptual illusions called particles. - But I am getting a little bit ahead of myself. To assure that the quantitative results obtained from mathematical calculations are valid in the domain of human experience, we have to use mathematical logic, operations, and procedures that correspond with processes that actually exist. Otherwise, the solutions to mathematical equations and our interpretations of them are questionable; they often have incommensurable numerical values, and they are usually wrong.

More definitions: 1) Commensurable means having a common measure of size, extent, or content. Therefore, in the context of this discussion, the word incommensurable refers to numerical values that have no common unit of measurement, i.e., no common divisor. 2) Scalar values are numerical values representing the magnitude of a measurement, as opposed to vectors or volumetric values, which include geometric (shape) and content (substance) information defining the phenomena being analyzed. In physics, for example, a number representing relative motion, used in a sentence like: “The speed of light is constant and equal to 299,792,458 m/sec., relative to all observers, regardless of relative motion” is a scalar numerical value, while an object’s ‘velocity’ and impact are values that include geometric information like the direction of motion relative to the reference frame of the observer in a finite multi-dimensional matrix and content information, like mass/energy equivalence, and density.

Max Planck realized that the concept of solid physical matter is a conceptual illusion and said: “There is no matter as such! … All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force… We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.

In the conscious, quantized world that Max Planck discovered - the world we actually live in - the measurable mass of any physical object is equivalent to a specific amount of energy quantized in an integral multiple of an extremely small quantum equivalence unit. Even though Planck made this discovery more than 100 years ago, at about the same time his friend and colleague Albert Einstein discovered that measurements of space and time are mathematically dependent on the velocity of the object’s motion relative to the observer, modern mainstream science still hasn’t understood what these discoveries imply about the nature of reality. In the current planetary time-cycle, just ascending out of the dark ages of negative mental virtue called the ascending Kali Yuga, this isn’t surprising. Most people today don’t understand the simple difference between the numerical value of zero, re-introduced into scientific thought about 1,523 years ago, and the concept of ‘nothing’.

Belief in the possibility that a state of absolute nothingness could exist is a conceptual illusion created by observing changes that occur in geometric forms. Forms come and go, but the essence of substance does not. The illusion of nothingness is completely dispelled by understanding the universal law of conservation of mass, energy, and consciousness, revealed by applications of the Primary Quantum Calculus that I started developing in 1986 -1989. The CoDD is based on the fact that physical objects are, as Planck discovered, quantized. All measures of mass, energy and consciousness occur only in multiples of the smallest possible, stable quantum equivalence unit. That smallest quantum unit is objectified by the mass, volume and structure of the free electron. Using the mass, volume, and form of the free electron as the tri-rotational unit of equivalence (TRUE), a number of the contradictions and paradoxes existing in the current scientific paradigm are resolved. See articles by Neppe and Close or Close and Neppe published in IQNexus.

Using the quantum equivalence unit (TRUE) as the basic unit of the Quantum Calculus, normalized and naturalized to the mass and volume of the free electron links mathematical operations of calculation directly to objective physical reality, and reveals and clarifies the importance of the difference between existential and conceptual mathematics. With the natural basic unit of measurement normalized to unity and equated to the smallest stable subatomic reality, the CoDD becomes a powerful tool for proving or disproving scientific hypotheses.

[It may be necessary to clarify the meanings of two key words here, words that are sometimes confused. Those two words are ‘theory’ and ‘theorem’. A theory is a speculation or hypothesis that has not been proved, while a theorem is a mathematical statement that has been proved.]

The effectiveness of using quantum calculus theorems to prove scientific hypotheses was demonstrated in Infinite Continuity, a book I published in 1989 (unfortunately, this book is currently out of print). The quantum calculus was also used to prove scientific hypotheses in Reality Begins With Consciousness, a book published by Neppe and Close in 2015, as well as in posts on my Transcendental Physics blog site: .

There has been a very unfortunate rift between theoretical and applied mathematics due to institutionalized specialization, beginning about a thousand years after the time of Plato and Aristotle. Because of this rift, modern mainstream science has failed to see the powerful potential of using mathematical theorems to test hypotheses of natural science. When I mentioned using the CoDD to prove one mainstream physical hypothesis and disprove another one having to do with the Big-Bang-red-shift expanding universe theory, during a discussion about TDVP, two very successful mainstream scientists, one a Nobel prize-winning physicist, and one an astronomer, said “Mathematics isn’t like that!”

In regard to the conceptually fragmented mathematics that mainstream scientists were (and still are) being taught in major universities and that they had been using for their entire careers, their dismissive statements about the possibility of using mathematics to test scientific hypotheses were perfectly understandable. The mathematical methods used by mainstream scientists today were developed before the discoveries by Planck and Einstein, when the matter and energy of physical reality were assumed to be existential and infinitely continuous. The connection between Mainstream mathematical methods and reality is incomplete and flawed because the units of measurement being used were arbitrarily chosen from a variety of human-scale measurement standards that were, and are, mathematically incommensurable, and “the calculus” was based on assumptions that are invalid in physical reality. But, when the basic units of measurement are equated to the smallest stable existing quantum and numerical and volumetric unity, mathematical incommensurability is eliminated.

Applied mathematics for the past 300-plus years has been dominated by the infinitesimal calculus of Newton and Leibniz. But the mathematical theory behind the infinitesimal calculus contains mathematical constructs that are both existential and conceptual, real and fictional, based on a priori assumptions. (a priori means self-evident, needing no proof). This mixture of incompatible assumptions does not cause obvious problems in the mathematical results for human-scale problems, because the logical contradictions in the theory are obscured by the extremely large differences in scale between the domain of our indirect experience of reality through the physical senses, and the extremely high-energy, high-velocity phenomena occurring at the extreme edges of the quantum and cosmological scales. The basic problem arises in the difference between discrete and infinitely continuous variables and the difference between existential and conceptual forms. These problems only come to light when the analysis is extrapolated or extended down to the unitary quantum scale.

The methods that Newton and Leibniz devised to overcome the huge measurement-scale differences between human measurement and the constants of physical reality, depend on the derivation of linear algebraic functions that accurately represent problems being addressed, and also approach finite values approximated by converging series of numerical ratios as the scale-variables approach zero. While the resulting infinitesimal approximation limits yield useful solutions for human-scale problems, they produce both irrational and transcendental numerical values in the analytical results. But irrational and transcendental numbers are not integers and therefore do not represent existential quantized realities, because, by definition, non-quantum phenomena do not exist in a quantized reality. This paradox is a direct result of conflating non-existential mathematical concepts with existential mathematical realities. An important quantum-level investigation where this problem becomes especially significant and troublesome, is in the scalar unitary projection from a three-dimensional domain into another domain with an additional dimension.

Applying Newton’s laws of motion and the law of parsimony, we can see immediately that the simplest way for unitary vectors to project sequentially from each existential dimensional domain into the next and form a stable rotational symmetry connecting up to four sequential dimensional domains, is for each vector to project orthogonally (at an angle of one-fourth of each rotation relative to the previous vector). As a result of the limits of mutual orthogonality in each triad of dimensional domains after the first projection, the scalar magnitude of every third projection has the scalar value of a different dimensional complex root of unity.

The forward end of each projecting vector is located one quantum length distance into the next dimensional domain, so, if that next domain is an n-dimensional domain, the vector’s length has to be equal to an nth root of unity for its volume and magnitude to represent the existential quantum location, as well as the equivalent scalar and volumetric units in the n-dimensional domain.         

Application of the Law of Parsimony, sometimes called Occam’s razor, to the mathematics of the unitary projection from each and every dimensional domain into the next one, has the advantage of eliminating numerical incommensurability from the 3- to 5-dimensional domain mathematics, which validates CoDD theory by matching empirical evidence. What is the law of parsimony? It simply says that when there is more than one potential path, a natural process will follow the simplest and most direct path to its logical end, in effect choosing the easiest path over other possible paths that are more complex. Einstein evoked the law of parsimony in his work. He expressed it as a primary principle of God and nature. He said: “Raffiniert ist der Herr Gott, aber Boshaft ist er nicht!” (The Lord God is impeccable, but he is not deceptive.) In other words, the intelligence behind reality does not deliberately and maliciously make things more complicated than necessary to achieve the logical end result, just to make things difficult for us!

To understand how the use of both existential and conceptual mathematics in the quantitative analyses of objective phenomena produces contradictions in our understanding of reality at the quantum and cosmological scales, we need to have a closer look at some of the fundamental concepts of mathematical logic to see how we can tell the difference between those that represent things that actually exist, and those that do not.

The simplest definition of a physical object, taken from that old entry-level college physics book I studied in the summer of 1951, is “it is that which has weight and occupies space”. To meet the requirements of this definition, an object in the dimensional domain of human experience has to exhibit quantifiable variables of extent and content that can be measured by a conscious observer. There are three geometric concepts in common usage that clearly do not meet these criteria: they are points. lines, and planes. This should be self-evident, but for clarity and emphasis, I will elaborate.

A point, the conceptualization that mathematicians call ‘a mathematical singularity’, has zero dimensions, and thus it has no extent, and no capacity to contain anything. It is, therefore, a useful concept of human imagination, but objectively non-existent. A line has one dimension, so it has extent, but no capacity for a single quantum of content. The length of a finite line segment can be measured by a conscious observer, but because it has no capacity for content, it does not meet the criteria of an existential object. A plane has two dimensions, and the area of a finite part of a plane can be calculated by a conscious observer, but it still has no capacity for containing quanta of mass, energy, or consciousness. A 2-D plane is therefore, like its logical precursors, geometrical points and lines, a useful concept, but it can claim no existence as a physical object existing in the dimensional domain we experience through our senses. Points, lines, and planes do not exist in physical reality. They are concepts drawn from the 5-D domain of Primary Consciousness and thus can only be approximated in the quantized 4-D domain of the physical universe.

There are several things to be learned from this simple analysis. In the sequential order of the logical expansion of an individual consciousness, the first three dimensions of existential reality are dimensions of space; the fourth is a dimension of time; and the fifth is a dimension of consciousness. The CoDD becomes a quantum calculus with tertiary logic, when the first three dimensions combine in a volumetric unit of geometrical extent, substantial content, and conceptual intent. This may seem like a leap into unchartered speculative territory, but it is justified because it produces results that resolve many of the perplexing paradoxes and contradictions in the current scientific paradigm, and it reveals the elegance of the higher-dimensional logic of the cosmos. The first 3-D domain, integrated as a volumetric unit combined with a 3-D unit of time and a 3-D unit of consciousness, completes the logically consistent finite 9-dimensional domain, embedded in and reflecting the logical structure of the Infinite field of Primary Consciousness known in previous times of high virtue as the Akasha.  

Results obtained with applications of the CoDD, based on the free electron quantum equivalence unit (TRUE), include explaining why only three specific sizes of quarks can combine to form stable protons and atoms, why neutrons have the specific mass they have, why fermions have an intrinsic ½ spin, why the Cabbibo quark- mixing angle has the value it has, why elementary objects spin at near light-speed angular velocities, and much more. Another important thing that has emerged, is the fact that consciousness manifests physically as measurable content in sub-atomic structure at the interface of space-time dimensional domains. We have obtained ample mathematical proof of this in several publications, including Reality Begins with Consciousness, Neppe & Close, PNI, Seattle WA, 2015, and Is Consciousness Primary? AAPS Vol. 1, Edited by G.S. Schwartz & Marjorie Woollacott, Waterside Productions, Cardiff CA, 2019.

The Origin and Role of Individualized Consciousness

Consciousness flows continuously out of the infinitely continuous substrate of reality, which is the Primary form of Consciousness, and into physical manifestation to form and inform conscious entities and enable them to gain experience in the physical universe. Expanding out of, and back into Primary Consciousness in a continuous cycle, this 9-D closed recycling process forms a toroidal energy vortex, and the logical structure of Primary Consciousness is conveyed into the physical universe in these spinning vortices.


Quantized reality is ultimately a logically consistent system of elementary potential and kinetic quantized energy vortices, and increasingly complex finite arrangements of those vortices are organized by the intelligence radiating from Primary Consciousness to be received in semi-stable structures that are complex enough to absorb some of the ultra-high frequencies of an internally consistent 9-D domain, contained in, and governed by the logic of the infinitely continuous, all-encompassing field of Primary consciousness. Otherwise, no metaphysical logic or mathematical science comprehensible to individualized conscious beings, would be possible. In this quantized reality, individualized conscious minds like yours and mine exist at the interface between the infinitely continuous field of Primary Consciousness and the finite quantized reality of the physical universe.

The best analogy in our 4-D physical reality that I can think of to compare this with, is the interface of two extensive bodies of water like the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. Because of differences in density due to different concentrations of dissolved solids and different kinetic energy in these bodies of water, reflected in measurable differences in turbidity, temperature, and color, the interface of the two oceanic bodies is visible on the surface. Carrying this analogy a little farther, the vortices spinning off on one side or the other and swirling along the interface, are analogous to elementary ‘particles’ spinning in the four-dimensional space-time energy field of the physical universe, and the fluid essence of the waters is analogous to the essence of the conscious substrate field of Primary Consciousness.

Like all analogies, this analogy comparing forms of mass, energy, and consciousness to spinning vortexes along the interface of bodies of water is not perfect, but it is close. The next step in this model of reality is to expand the mathematics of multi-dimensional domains from 3-D to 4-D and 5-D and inspect existential and conceptual mathematical structures relative to each of the dimensional domains. To explain this clearly, I need to define the word ‘dimension’ much more precisely than the way it is thought about and used in common parlance today. Anyone who has watched a few episodes of the Twilight Zone TV series that was aired 50 years ago and has been amplified in TV and movies ever since with improved special effects technology, understands what is meant by references to things “existing in another dimension”. However, this common terminology is imprecise. In fact, nothing can exist “in a dimension”. Things exist in dimensional domains, not in dimensions.

Dimensions are imaginary lines conceptualized with the intent of defining reference frames for measurements of the extent and content of physical objects. In the mathematical description of a reality that contains multiple objects, the values of those measurements are quantized, but  variable, and therefore they are called variables. Spatial dimensions are conceptual reflections of existing objective forms and, as Einstein observed, they therefore “can claim no existence of their own”. There is no such thing as space without objects, and no such thing as time without events. Thus, there is no objective backdrop called space-time without content. And content, the substance of reality, is measured in variables of mass, energy, and now, in the CoDD, for the first time in this time cycle, also of consciousness.

Until I narrowed the focus of the calculus of indications developed by G. Spencer Brown in 1969, by including consciousness and existence as requirements for the logical analysis of physical reality and developed the Calculus of Dimensional Distinctions (CoDD) in 1986, consciousness was assumed by mainstream science to have no existence of its own and no measurable variables of content or extent. In scientific descriptions, the observer was - and still is - represented by a dimensionless point, a mathematical singularity, with no direct connection to, impact on, or influence on objective reality. This was coupled with the belief that physical reality had existed for billions of years without meaningful organization or purpose before life evolved and living organisms became self-aware. In the current belief system of scientific materialism, self-aware individualized consciousness is imagined to be a very recent development and an epiphenomenon of physical evolution. We know now that this belief is false, and that consciousness cannot be equated with biological life. I knew this before I was born this time, because I remembered being aware of objective reality before entering my new infant body.                      

After the summer of 1951, when most 14-year-olds were fascinated with Marilyn Monroe movies and Elvis Presley’s music, my idol was Albert Einstein. I had fallen in love with science; but, as I said, I knew, even before discovering relativity, that the assumption that biological life was necessary for consciousness to exist, a major premise underlying modern science, was simply wrong. I had experienced objective conscious awareness outside of my physical body, and I had memories of being identified with other living physical bodies before this one. But it would be many years before I would be comfortable talking about these experiences and memories because I didn’t have the vocabulary to describe them, even though they were an important part of my personal experience contributing to my conceptual model of reality.

Once you realize that consciousness is a fundamental part of reality, rather than a random by-product of physical evolution, your understanding of reality is changed forever. Generally, in times of low mental and spiritual virtue in time cycles like the one we are in now, out-of-body awareness comes upon individual conscious beings when they are barely ready for it. It dawns on them like an explosion of light and expanding consciousness, over which they have little or no control. This is because, as individuals born on this planet during the slow growth of human civilization and group consciousness, we are surprised by sudden glimpses of the beauty and elegance of the higher frequencies of spiritual reality that surrounds us and informs physical reality. In flashes, we become aware of the interface of our perceptual domain with the higher- energy frequencies of domains with additional dimensions, domains that we cannot experience through the physical senses developed at this time in our bodies.  

Mathematical Modeling and Mandelbrot’s Fractals

As a mathematical modeler of environmental systems who had had dozens of spontaneous out-of-body experiences (OBEs) and temporarily expanded states of consciousness by 1985, I was motivated to try to find ways to expand my conceptual model of reality to include the world of greater depth and beauty that I had experienced during my OBEs. The result was the CoDD, and later, the Triadic Dimensional Vortical Paradigm, with the help of Dr. Vernon Neppe, MD, PhD. But my first inkling of how dimensional interfaces could be modeled came about 15 years earlier. I knew that non-existent conceptual planes could not be warped and curved by gravitational forces to form interfaces between dimensional domains, as some scientists tried to imagine it; that was too simple. Observation and measurement of existential interfaces reveal that they are rarely smoothly distorted planes. Projecting unitary vectors across interfaces between dimensional domains in quantized reality, involves encountering dynamic irregularities that were first described geometrically as ‘fractal dimensions’ by Felix Hausdorff in 1918. Fractal geometry was later used in the computer modeling of the interfaces of masses of different density by Polish-French-American mathematician, Benoit Mandelbrot and members of the Department of Interior USGS water Resources Division Systems Analysis Group, including me, in the early1970s.

I first became aware of the idea of fractal interface surface geometry in 1970, when I first met Benoit Mandelbrot. It was before he had developed computer programs to display the beauty of fractal geometry. At the time, I was a junior member of the newly formed US Department of Interior Water Resources System Analysis Group in Washington DC, and Dr. Mandelbrot was working for IBM in Watertown New York. We worked together a few times, modeling the development and movement of storm cells along weather fronts, and I had the privilege of being one of the first to review his paper using fractal geometry to model the coastline geomorphology of the largest of the British Islands.

At that time, I didn’t realize how important fractal interface geometry would become in my study of consciousness and multi-dimensional quantum calculus because the iterative set of equations that became known as the Mandelbrot set, producing interesting patterns in two dimensions, was very simple. It wasn’t until much later, when I expanded the concepts of interface dynamics to 3-D domains and beyond and studied John von Neumann’s work on the interaction of quantized energy with consciousness, that the importance of fractals became apparent. It wasn’t until 2012, after Mandelbrot passed on to the other side, and John von Neumann had almost replaced Albert Einstein at the top of my list of most revered and respected mathematical scientists, that I learned that Dr. Mandelbrot had studied under von Neumann at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton in 1953-1954, while I was still in high school.  

While working on a model of the interface of the infinitely continuous field of consciousness with quantized sets of spatially extended forms of physical objects and developing a  primary quantum calculus, I realized that in order to succeed in my efforts to introduce an existential quantum calculus, I had to re-unite several fields of mathematics and natural science that had drifted apart in modern times as objective mathematical logic was distorted in mainstream science by the inclusion of non-existential concepts. Over the years, the inclusion of non-existential concepts resulted in the evolution of disparate fields of theoretical and applied mathematics with incommensurable basic units, incompatible basic assumptions, and specialized methods with their own terminology. This distortion of natural science was happening in large part due to the academic inbreeding of institutionalized intellectual specialization and dumbed-down educational system.


Euclidean and Non-Euclidean Geometries

Euclid of Alexandria was one of a very special group of intellectual souls with superior mental and spiritual virtue who reincarnated from the last Sat Yuga to preserve the core concepts of mathematical logic through the dark age of the descending Kali Yuga. Mathematical geometry, or the Logic of Form, originally part of natural science, was based on mathematical axioms like those described in Euclid’s Elements around 300 BC. The axioms of Euclid were self-evident a priori statements about simple forms like lines, planes, angles, and circles; shapes that could be drawn on flat surfaces, and a few simple volumetric solids. Euclid’s geometry was the only kind of geometry known to Western science for more than 2,000 years. But in the first part of the 19th century, circa 1813 - 1825, several mathematicians, independent of each other, - notably the prominent German mathematician Carl Friederich Gauss - began to explore what became known as non-Euclidean geometries.

Non-Euclidean geometries were developed by assuming that the fifth postulate of Euclid’s Elements could be arbitrarily replaced with conceptual alternatives. Two major branches of logically valid non-Euclidean geometries were developed simply by assuming that parallel lines could converge or diverge at infinity. Convergent lines produced geometries of convex surfaces, like spheres and ovaloid shapes called hyperbolic geometries, and divergent lines produced geometries with concave surfaces, called elliptic geometries. They were called hyperbolic and elliptic because of the shapes of the curves that the erstwhile parallel lines projected onto their surfaces. In this way, Euclidean geometry became just one of an infinity of manifold geometries. It is, however a very special geometry because it is the only flat, or ‘plane’ geometry.

Confusing conceptual geometry with existential geometry caused mathematicians to think that the square root of negative one was an imaginary number because it could not be located in a 3-D spatial domain. But ‘imaginary’ and ‘complex’ numbers are actually real. They existent in domains with more than three dimensions. Many problems in electronics and thermodynamics, involving energy transfer, cannot be solved without them. The appearance of imaginary numbers in solutions to equations describing n-dimensional domain phenomena, indicate the existence of an additional dimension. When a problem is described by an algebraic equation in a 3-D framework and the three solutions involve ‘imaginary’ or ‘complex’ numbers, the existence of a 4th dimension is indicated.

In a conscious projection from one multi-dimensional domain into another, awareness of an n-D domain implies the existence of an (n+1)-D domain. For example, a 3-D reality cannot be envisioned without the awareness of time, the 4th dimension, and we cannot conceive of the dimensions of the 4-D space-time domain, without observing or measuring them from consciousness in the 5th dimension. I think that is how mathematicians like Minkowski, Hilbert, and Friedman, realized that the 4th dimension had to be a dimension of time, while studying Einstein’s theory of relativity. It is also how I realized that the 5th dimension has to be a dimension of consciousness. The elegance of this vision appeared when I realized that each unitary projection into an additional domain was a root of unity, linking complex analysis to existential math in dimensional domains of 6 or more dimensions.

The conceptual development of non-Euclidean geometries led some people to mis-interpret fractal geometry as a geometry with fractional dimensions. This is not the case of course; fractional dimensions do not extend into other dimensional domains; they are objective measures of the existential roughness of interfaces between quantized domains of different mass and energy densities. The CoDD replaces the conceptual mathematics of imaginary points, lines, planes, and interfaces with the hyper-dimensional interfaces of individualized consciousness with existential reality in Primary Consciousness. Care should be taken not to confuse hyper-dimensional domains with non-Euclidean geometries.

Scientific Meditation

The title of this section is an example of double entendre (an expression that has two valid meanings, one obvious, the other obscure). In this section, I will be writing about scientific meditation techniques and about objective results from meditations that have been empirically and statistically verified. In 1996, I enjoyed doing a poster presentation at Tucson II, Toward a Science of Consciousness. My presentation was about the interface of consciousness and quantum physics. After one of the sessions, I asked a well-known physicist who was presenting, a man whose work I admired, if he had started meditating yet. He looked at me as if I had asked him if he had spoken with space aliens and said “No! why should I?” I didn’t get a chance to explain to him why I thought he should meditate, but I did have evidence that certain consciousness altering meditation techniques could make scientific investigation more productive. At that time, I had been practicing Kriya Yoga pranayama techniques of consciousness expansion for 36 years.


In my autobiography, I have written about some personal OBEs that started happening spontaneously when I was about 12 years old. During these experiences, my visual and audial senses were greatly enhanced and magnified. These experiences were temporary states of consciousness similar to those described by Patanjali in the Anima Sutra as Siddhis (powers of the soul). What I was experiencing was one of the eight siddhis that are attained through prolonged deep meditation. Experiencing them at an early age in this life was evidence that I had practiced pranayama techniques in past lives. This particular siddhi enables you to focus your sphere of consciousness to a point as tiny as an atom, proton, quark, or free electron.   


In 2019, I collaborated with Dr. Vernon Neppe and Dr. Surendra Pokharna (Neppe V, Pokharna S, Close E., Besant- Quantal Clairvoyance. IQNJ. 2019, 11: 3, 5-72. 200706 V10.43) Our study documented statistically valid evidence that Dr. A. Besant and associates, using rigorous experimental criteria, described the quark sub-structure of atoms, and obtained valid information about other subatomic structures in 1908 by practicing the Anima Siddhi meditation techniques found in Patanjali’s Yoga Sutras. Yoga means ‘union’ in Sanskrit. The Besant experiments probed the 92 known natural atoms of the Elements. At about the same time Annie Besant et al were probing subatomic reality using the anima siddhi, mainstream science was considering the elan vital or ‘life-force’ theory put forth by French philosopher Henri Bergson in his book Creative Evolution in 1907. Elan Vital was rejected by science because of lack of physical evidence.


Our 2019 study of Besant’s data provides indisputable empirical evidence documenting psi abilities operating during deep Yogic meditation. The data is statistically significant, with a statistical probability of about one in a billion-billion, with correlation coefficients approaching one. The results are virtually fraud-proof because the Besant data has been available for more than 100 years, and the correlation with the Neppe-Close Triadic Dimensional Vortical Paradigm (TDVP) was proved with TRUE quantal unit values, empirically validated and 100% replicable.


The Discovery of Gimmel, the Stabilizer of Logical Structure

The most noticeable and most remarkable thing about the physical universe is the great abundance of energy it contains. Everything is constantly moving. As conscious beings, we seem to be located in the middle of everything, moving relatively slowly while the largest things and the smallest things, farthest from us, things that we can detect through our physical senses, are moving much faster than we are. Both larger and smaller things are spinning and spiraling at such tremendous velocities that their rotation and spinning give them two kinds of stability: stabilities of form, which can be spherical, oval, or vortical, and stabilities of repeating patterns, that can be vibrational, orbital, or spiral. Some natural processes involve all of these forms and patterns, persisting for different lengths of time, from nanoseconds to eternity.

In the quest to understand the nature of reality, an important question to ask, is: Which physical object in the universe is the most stable ? The answer is the proton. Most of the objects that make up the elements of the periodic table, the stuff that mainstream scientists call hadronic matter, decay over time, and most of them decay very quickly relative to human time. But protons never decay, or if they do, their half-life is longer than the estimated age of the big-bang universe, which keeps getting older and older as we continue to learn more about it.

An even more important question, as it turns out, is: Why is the proton so stable? When I first learned about the amazing, functionally eternal stability of the proton, I was pretty sure that if I could learn why the proton is so super stable, then I would also be able to answer Leibniz’s most famous question, which was: “Why is there something rather than nothing?” Given the second law of thermodynamics, that says that entropy (disorder) always increases with time, explaining why things deteriorate and decay, Leibniz realized that there wouldn’t be complex structures in the first place, unless something very different had happened to override the entropy of natural decay sometime in the past, so he concluded that the first thing science should have asked, was “Why is there anything?”

Planck discovered the fact that there is no such thing as matter. This means that the subatomic objects cannot be particles of solid matter. If they are not particles, then what are they? An in-depth look at them in anima siddhi meditation reveals that they are energy vortices spinning in at least two or three dimensions simultaneously, in accordance with Newton’s 3rd law of motion (for every action there’s an equal and opposite reaction) because of the expansion of the 4-D universe. We also see that mass is simply the measure of how much an object resists to a force causing it to change its vector of motion.

Another expanded state of consciousness siddhi allows you to slow objective time down by speeding up the rate of your metabolism. When you do this, you see that quantal vortices combine by merging like spinning drops of water, and the combination formed has the combined angular momentum of the merging objects, obeying the conservation of energy law. Electrons are single 3-D, 1 TRUE unit vortices that are spinning at the speed of light. Up-quarks are 2 TRUE unit vortices spinning in 2 dimensions, giving them 22 = 4 TRUE units of mass due to their angular momentum. Down-quarks are 3 TRUE unit vortices spinning in 2 dimensions, giving them 32 = 9 TRUE units of mass due to angular momentum. Protons are composed of 2 up-quarks and 1 down-quark, and they must contain an integer number of TRUE units cubed, to be perfectly symmetrical and not decay due to unbalanced angular momentum.

When I returned to the US after my NDE in the Great Pyramid of Giza Egypt in 2010, described in my autobiography, I began to apply the CoDD  to analyze the merger of three quarks to form a proton, to see if I could discover why the proton is so stable. When I converted the data from the Large Hadron Collider for the mass of up- and down-quarks into naturalized TRUE units and combined their 3-D forms using CoDD logic, I was surprised. The Diophantine equation for the combination of two up-quarks and one down-quark did not yield an integral value for the TRUE unit cube-root of the volume of the proton. That meant that the proton couldn’t contain a whole number of quanta and would therefore be asymmetric and fly apart and decay due to its unbalanced angular momentum. In other words, the proton, composed of two up-quarks and one down-quark, shouldn’t be any more stable than any other subatomic object! Could I have made an error in logic or arithmetic? It had happened before, because I’m a mathematical modeler, not necessarily always a meticulous number cruncher, so I checked and re-checked my reasoning and my calculations. But there was no error. The proton couldn’t be as stable, as it clearly was in LHC data. How could both be true? I was confronted with a paradox!

Then, a remarkable thing happened! I remembered three famous statements about paradoxes, problems, and mathematical completeness. The first one was a profound statement by Danish physicist, Niels Bohr. When he was told that a quantum experiment that he had designed had produced contradictory results, he exclaimed: “How wonderful that we have met with a paradox. Now we have some hope of making progress!” The second statement was from Albert Einstein, who said: “No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it.” And the third was the essence of Kurt Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem, which proved that valid questions can be asked in a consistent logical system that can’t be answered within that system. At one quantum moment, these three profound statements converged in my mind to clarify a truth that made me realize that my computational paradox wasn’t a dead end, and together with what I already knew about conceptual and existential reality and mathematical modeling, that truth would enable me to resolve the proton paradox, and the end result was an amazingly profound discovery about the nature of reality: It has been designed with a purpose.

These statements by the three famous physicists are intimately related to each other, and also to existential reality, consciousness, and the discovery of Gimmel, the measurable organizing factor of physical reality and conveyer of the logic of Primary Consciousness into the physical universe. Bohr’s statement was a welcome answer for those who saw Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem as the end of mathematical certainty. I think David Hilbert was one of those thinkers, because his dream, his life’s work, was to accomplish the task of identifying the complete set of logically consistent axioms with which all mathematical questions could be proved or disproved. The incompleteness theorem was a disaster for Hilbert’s dream, because it proved that what he hoped to accomplish was impossible.

Some mathematicians thought that the incompleteness theorem implied that there were valid hypotheses that could never be proved or disproved. That is true in the absolute sense; however, the incompleteness theorem also implies that reality is potentially infinite, and therefore, a given hypothesis can be proved or disproved in a logical system that is expanded to encompass it. This is true because any consistent bubble of consciousness is a logical system by definition, and that makes Einstein’s statement relevant because it implies that a finite consciousness bubble can always be expanded to include more of existential reality.    

When I encountered the proton paradox, I had already had a background that included a BA degree in mathematics and sufficient coursework in geology, physics, and mathematics for Master’s degrees in all three subjects. I had worked as a mathematical modeler in a US Government Systems Analysis Group for several years and earned a PhD in environmental science and engineering with a one-year residence at Johns Hopkins University, and I was actively involved in ground-breaking bio-psycho-quantum-physics research with Dr. Vernon Neppe MD, PhD, founder of the Pacific Neuropsychiatric Institute. I had also been practicing Kriya Yoga consciousness-expansion techniques for 60 years, and I knew that the profound truths spoken by Bohr, Einstein, and Gödel fit in perfectly with my model of everything, to provide me with an insight of considerable significance. It was an insight that would enable me to complete my life’s mission to help bring science out of the dead-end illusion of materialism by producing empirical evidence that the organizing feature that stabilizes physical reality is pure consciousness, proving that the logic of consciousness is the primary underlying form of reality.


The Truth is not owned by anyone. It is freely available for anyone to discover. However, I would be egregiously remiss if I did not express my gratitude to the Eternal Light of Primary Consciousness, the Source of everything, and to the line of Spiritual Masters and teachers who have been my guiding lights throughout my journey of many lives, inspiring every true vision and thought I had. They are Christ, Buddha, Krishna, Mohammed, Kabir, Plato, Maha Avatar Babaji Maharaj, Lahiri Mahasaya, Sri Yukteswar Giri, Paramahansa Yogananda, The Aten incarnate: Amenhotep, Patanjali, Maitreya Buddha, and many other Fully Enlightened Beings. They are listed in no particular order here because they are all One with Primary Consciousness.


The Mathematics of the CoDD stable merging of combinations can be summarized in one mathematical expression. It is the doubly-infinite summation shown below, where m indicates the dimensional domain and n is the number of existential objects merging into the stable object represented by Xn+1 :



For anyone unfamiliar with this type of notation, it represents a double infinity of equations from which every combination theorem of the primary calculus can be derived. However, I will limit the demonstration and comments given here to an abbreviated presentation of the logical process that conveys order into chaos and led to the discovery of the existence of gimmel, in TRUE units, organizing every stable proton in every atom of the periodic table of elements.


The insight mentioned above was the realization that the proton paradox is easily resolved by expanding the system of existential logic to include a third form of the essence of reality that manifests physically as mass and energy. If the substrate of reality, i.e., the Akasha or zero quantum field is not composed of mass or energy, but pure consciousness which can manifest in a third form as well as mass and/or energy, then the proton can contain a combination of all three, producing a total number of TRUE units equal to a perfect cube, making it perfectly symmetrical and therefore virtually eternal!



Quark Merging Conveyance Equations

With Solutions Leading to Proof

of the Existence of Gimmel



Combination Equations




(X1)1 = (X2)1 → X1 = X2

Sequence of Identities



(X1)1 + (X2)1 = (X3)1                                                                               1 +1 = 2;   2 + 1 = 3;   3 + 1 = 4, …

Closure of Integers

With respect to Addition



(X1)2 + (X2)2 = (X3)2

Pythagorean Triples



(3)2 + (4)2 = (5)2

9 + 16 = 25

First Primitive

Solution of (2,2)



(X1)3 + (X2)3 = (X3)3

No Solutions (FLT*)



(X1)3 + (X2)3 + (X3)3 = (X4)3

CoDD Quantum Addition for (3,3)



(3)3 + (4)3 + (5)3 = (6)3                                                                  27 + 64 + 125 = 216

First Primitive

Solution of (3,3)



(1)3 + (6)3 + (8)3 = (9)3

1+ 216 + 512 = 729


Second Primitive    Solution of (3,3)



(24)3 + (38)3 + (106)3 = (108)3


Hydrogen Atom



* Fermat’s Last Theorem proved that there are no integer values for a combination of two quantized objects, but Diophantine integer solutions do exist for three quantized objects.

These Diophantine (integer) solutions of the conveyance equations, besides explaining why only three quarks can form stable nucleons and why protons are so stable, provide the exact number of TRUE existing in free and energy-shell electrons, up- and down -quarks, and in protons and neutrons. When the total TRUE units of mass/energy, and gimmel in each atom of the periodic table of elements is calculated, some very interesting patterns emerge. For example, the elements that are necessary for biological life, and those that are supportive of life, have higher concentrations of gimmel than those that are detrimental or destructive. See table below.

Evidence of Intelligent Design


(N = number of electrons)


TRUE Units


In TRUE Units


TRUE Units

Percent Gimmel


Relevance to


1 Hydrogen






2 Helium






3 Lithium






4 Beryllium






5 Boron






6 Carbon






7 Nitrogen






8 Oxygen






9 Fluorine






10 Neon






11 Sodium






12 Magnesium






13 Aluminum






14 Silicon






15 Phosphorus






16 Sulfur






17 Chlorine






18 Argon






19 Potassium






20 Calcium






21 Scandium






22 Titanium






23 Vanadium






24 Chromium






25 Manganese






26 Iron






27 Cobalt






28 Nickel






29 Copper






30 Zinc






31 Gallium






32 Germanium






33 Arsenic






*Rank of Relevance to Consciousness and Life: All of the natural, stable and semi-stable elements of the periodic table are necessary, to some degree, for the existence, maintenance, and spiritual evolution of organic life forms capable of receiving the vibrational frequencies and patterns of consciousness. This table ranks the first 33 natural elements from 1 to 5, 1 having the highest percentage of gimmel, the organizing feature of consciousness that makes intelligent life possible on this planet. Hydrogen is ranked #1 because it is Primary and essential, not only for the existence of biological life, but also for all other elements to form. Elements ranked 2 are necessary to support life, and Those ranked 3 and 4 play minimal roles, usually in compound combinations with other elements that mitigate or neutralize the negative and harmful or destructive effects that they would otherwise have on conscious organic life forms. Elements ranked 5 are lethal. It is also interesting to calculate gimmel percentage for biological chemical compounds. The DNA/RNA nucleic acid molecules score high percentages, as does water.


Every conscious being has a model of reality built up of experience-based memories and logical or fanciful extended images in his or her mind. Everyone tends to believe that his or her own personal conceptual model of reality is reality - until it clashes with existential reality in a way that becomes uncomfortable or even intolerable. Biological life provides opportunities for conscious beings to correct and improve their conceptual models of reality, and this process is called learning. From a point of view outside of your bubble of consciousness, the learning process is an expansion of the bubble of your personal conceptual beliefs about reality to contain more and more of actual existential reality. The goal and purpose of life is to expand your consciousness until it is congruent with existential reality. Until then, there will be problems and paradoxes.


During this lifetime, as I’ve reported in my autobiography, my Transcendental Physics blogsite, and elsewhere, memories of past lives and between-life experiences have surfaced because of the consciousness expansion due to my daily practice of the Kriya Yoga techniques. When an individual’s bubble of consciousness expands beyond the physical body, even temporarily, that individual begins to see more of reality and realize that the paradoxes of one multi-dimensional domain can be resolved in expanded higher-energy dimensional domains.



Consciousness is primary. Stable structure exists in physical reality only because of the presence of gimmel, the organizing function of consciousness. None of the dynamic forms of matter, energy, and consciousness, have any independent existential reality of their own. The forms and substances of reality are innately interdependent. We can’t have one of them without the others. This becomes obvious when an individual consciousness expands into the quantum and cosmic domains. If any part of reality - mass, energy, time, space, or consciousness - is left out of the mathematical description of objective reality, science is incomplete and the reality that we experience in the mid-range of observation and measurement is logically inexplicable. But, as part of the Akashic substrate of Primary Consciousness, your consciousness and mine is immortal, and the purpose of our existence is to expand our bubble of consciousness and light. We are immortals, on our way to becoming One with Primary Consciousness.