THE
TRIADIC NATURE OF REALITY
A
CLEAR EXPLANATION THAT ANYONE CAN UNDERSTAND
© Edward R. Close, 2016
Toward the end of his life, Albert Einstein published a
little book entitled:“RELATIVITY, the Special and General Theory, a clear
explanation that anyone can understand”.
Of course, not everyone did, and most still haven’t.
I’m quite sure that Albert did not expect everyone to
understand it. Please note that he said that anyone can understand it, not
that everyone would.
He talked about measurement, and how the relative nature
of physical objects could be described in terms of the geometry of four
dimensions. In his final note to the fifteenth edition of the little book, he
suggested that space-time is a property of physical objects, and does not exist
as a separate, unchanging backdrop to the drama of events, as our sense data
leads us to believe. He suggested that in a four-dimensional reality, “the
concept of ‘empty space’ loses its meaning”. Clearly, the concept of empty time also loses its meaning; there simply
is no such thing as time without events.
In the previous post, I explained how the great minds of
science concluded that the finite concept of matter, energy, space, time, and
separation are illusions. In this post, I shall attempt to explain, in terms
that ‘anyone can understand’ how the extension of the theories of quantum
physics and relativity into descriptive dimensional domains beyond the four of
space-time reveals the true nature of reality. We (Dr. Neppe and I) call this
the Triadic Dimensional Vortical Paradigm (TDVP).
THE LOGIC OF MATHEMATICS REFLECTS REALITY
In
the previous post I told you what I know about the illusion presented to us by
the brain’s interpretation of the data it receives from the limited physical
senses. But I can do much more than just quote the opinions of great scientists
of the past. I can explain how I know
about this illusion by describing the logic of the mathematics that reflects Reality.
The
mathematics being applied by scientists operating in the current paradigm does
not accurately reflect reality. It is based on the 300 year-old calculus of
Newton and Leibniz, which is inappropriate for describing a quantized reality. Why
is ‘the calculus’ which served us so well before the shifts of relativity and
quantum physics now suddenly inappropriate? Because it is based on the mistaken
idea that the variables of measurement can approach zero infinitely closely. But
this simply cannot be the case in a quantized world.
The infinitesimals of
the calculus of Newton and Leibniz must be replaced by the quantum, which is exceedingly
small, but finite, providing the bottom of the infinite descent of the division
of the variables of measurement. The calculus of Newton works for most measured
variables only because the quantum is
so very small relative to our limited ability to observe and measure. Replacement
of the calculus of Newton and Leibniz with the Calculus of Distinctions became necessary
the moment Max Planck discovered that the physical universe is a quantum
universe. While Planck units, based on five universal constants, greatly simplifiy calculations, they are not truly quantum units. So, how do we define true quantum
units?
A
very much under-appreciated modern thinker, George Spencer Brown, stated in his
book “Laws of Form” that “…a universe comes into being when a space is severed
or taken apart”. This is the basis of his ‘calculus of indications’ which I
expanded and modified for application to quantum physics in the 1980s. I called
this expanded calculus the Calculus of Distinctions, with the unitary
distinction defined as the smallest possible quantum entity.
The basic unit of
measurement adopted for this calculus is the smallest possible space-time-mass-energy
equivalence unit, the true quantum unit. When this was done, puzzles and
paradoxes of quantum mechanics and relativity were surprisingly easily explained.
Many of these explanations have been peer reviewed and published, and have been
described in posts on this blog. A number of applications of the Calculus of Distinctions
to physical problems that I produced during the period from 1986 to 1989 were
published in a book entitled “Infinite Continuity” in 1990. For example, when
the Calculus of Distinctions is applied to the red-shift expanding universe, a
contradiction is found, and this contradiction is resolved only when it is shown
that the red shift is not actually due to relative motion, and that the observed constant speed of light is a
result of the limitations of the physical senses. In short, application of the
Calculus of Distinctions proves that the big-bang expanding universe is an
illusion.
THE TDVP PARADIGM SHIFT
So,
if space, time, matter, energy, and separation are illusions, then is nothing
real? Is it all imagination, all in our minds? To think so would be a
misinterpretation of the words of Newton, Planck, Einstein, and SchrÓ§dinger
mentioned in the previous post. As much as I object to statements declaring
that quantum physics is weird and cannot be explained in terms that can be
understood by anyone, statements made by several famous physicists, including Niels
Bohr, Erwin SchrÓ§dinger and Richard Feynman and then echoed again and again, by
nearly all mainstream scientists, I do agree with what Richard Feynman said when
asked about a certain quantum physics fact. He said that “If we can’t explain
it so that a freshman student can understand it, then we really don’t
understand it!” I would even amplify this to say that if we can’t explain a new
idea so that the average person can understand it, we really don’t understand
it.
But what if a new idea lies outside the current
understanding of science, i.e. outside the current mainstream scientific paradigm? Can we explain it so that a
scientist with vested interest in the existing paradigm can understand it? I
believe we can, and not only that, since a scientist working within the current
paradigm is really no different than anyone else with respect to a new idea
that lies outside the paradigm, if we really understand the idea, we should be
able to explain it so anyone can understand it.
TDVP is a paradigm shift in very much the same
way relativity and quantum physics were paradigm shifts. In Einstein’s relativity
as well as Bohr and Heisenberg’s quantum mechanics, the shifts were to relative
space-time and quantized mass-energy, respectively. In TDVP, the shift is to a
consciousness-based understanding of the nature of reality.
The various
discoveries and explanations of phenomena and empirical data coming after, and
still being produced by the relativistic and quantum paradigm shifts, are not
paradigm shifts by themselves, but the results of paradigm shifts. Similarly, new
ideas and explanations produced by TDVP of previously unexplained
phenomena are results of the paradigm shift not paradigm
shifts in and of themselves. But, exactly how does TDVP achieve the shift to a
consciousness-based understanding of reality?
To answer this question, I must begin at the beginning,
and the beginning of my understanding of the TDVP shift was brought about by
application of the Calculus of Distinctions to quantum mechanics and particle
physics. Clearly, this presents me with a unique challenge: How do I explain
the TDVP paradigm shift without getting into the complex details of the
mathematical derivation and application of the Calculus of Distinctions, involving
algebraic, numerical and geometrical demonstrations and proofs, during which I
would most likely lose most of my
readers?
I believe I can do it by telling my story in descriptive,
rather than mathematical terms. For those who may want to see the mathematical
demonstrations and proofs, they exist in a number of published and unpublished
papers, and will be further expanded, demonstrated and applied in future publications.
WAKING FROM THE ILLUSION OF MATTER
TO CONSCIOUS REALITY
In
this discussion, I will try to do something that, so far as I am aware, is almost
never done in technical presentations: I will try to avoid referring to
abstract mathematical concepts and procedures. Instead, I will describe the
major features of TDVP in descriptive, straight-forward concrete terms as much
as I can.
We
know now that it is an indisputable fact that we live in a quantized world.
What does this mean? It means that all of the substances of reality occur, and can
only occur, in multiples of a very
small, but finite amount. This very smallest amount may have many properties,
but we are only going to talk about its three most basic properties right now:
the property of occupying a minimum volume,
the property of maximum accelerated rotation
or spin, and the property of combination.
The
minimum possible volume is defined by applying the principles of relativity and
quantum mechanics to the free electron stripped from the electron shell of a
Hydrogen atom. Why the electron? Because the electron has the smallest mass of
any of the elementary particles making up the stable atoms that comprise the
universe we experience.
When the mass and energy of the electron is no longer
held in stable rotation around the nucleus of the Hydrogen atom, it begins to
contract, causing it to spin faster and faster, similar to the way a spinning skater’s
spin speeds up as she pulls her arms in. If the spin could exceed the speed of
light, the volume occupied by the free-spinning electron could go to zero, but
Einstein’s relativity tells us that the velocity of the spin cannot exceed the speed of light. Thus
the smallest possible volume is finite; that is to say, greater than zero. This
minimum mass-energy equivalence volume is the absolute ‘bottom’ of infinite
descent, and is defined in TDVP as one unit, the true quantum unit. Planck’s
discovery requires that all elementary particles must be comprised of whole-number
multiples of this absolute minimum unit.
When this unit is used to describe the
elementary particles that combine to form the stable Hydrogen atom, we find
that a third substance, not measurable as mass of energy, must be present for
the Hydrogen to be stable. This is why we call the true quantum unit the
Triadic Rotational unit of equivalence (TRUE).
I’ve
described how the properties of minimum volume and maximum spin are defined by
combining the principles of relativity and quantum physics; what about the combination
of elementary particles, multiples of the TRUE quantum unit, to form atoms?
In
the current particle physics paradigm, measurable electric, magnetic and
gravitational forces and secondary particles called ‘gluons’ are assumed to be
what holds the elementary particles that make up atoms together. In fact, these
measurable forces are measurable result of the symmetric combination of the
spinning elementary entities. A clue to this combinational symmetry is the fact
that quarks only combine in threes to form protons and neutrons.
Application of
a famous mathematical theorem known as Fermat’s Last Theorem to the combination
of two symmetrically spinning particles explains why two symmetric particles
cannot combine volumetrically to form a new symmetric entity. On the other
hand, combining three symmetric entities can produce a stable, symmetrically
spinning object. Mathematically, this result is obtained by solving the
whole-number equation (what mathematicians call a Diophantine equation) describing the
combination of three symmetrically spinning particles volumetrically. But these
integer solutions are only possible if there is a third form of the substance
of reality not measurable as mass or energy. We call this third form ‘gimmel’.
Recognition
of the existence of this third non-material form, and determination of the specific
amounts of it mathematically required for symmetry in the elementary particles
that make up the structures of the physical universe, explains the stability of
the Hydrogen atom, the most abundant element. It turns out that the stability
of the life-supporting elements exceeds that of other elements, explaining why
life is persistent and abundant in the universe.
The presence of gimmel
explains the ‘strange attractors’ found in chaos theory, and replaces the
randomness of chaos theory with a theory with meaning and purpose. The presence of gimmel
also explains the effects of what is erroneously called ‘dark matter’ and ‘dark
energy’ in the current paradigm. Ultimately, with TDVP, we demonstrate that it
is conscious meaning and purpose that drives the universe, not randomness and
chaos.
A
family of simple combinatorial Diophantine (integer) equations, which I call the conveyance equations, describes the
conveyance of the logic of a primary form of consciousness, the conscious
substrate of reality, to the 3S-1t dimensional domain available for observation
with our limited physical senses and extensions of them.
With the comprehensive
framework of TDVP, expanded to include consciousness in the form of gimmel, we
are able to explain many things inexplicable in the current materialistic
paradigm. Examples that have been published so far include explanations of the
triadic combinations of quarks, the intrinsic ½ spin of fermions (the particles
that make up the universe we experience), the exact value of the Cabibbo quark
mixing angle in the Large Hadron Collider data, the abundance of
life-supporting data, and the existence of so-called dark matter and dark
energy. This is just the ‘tip of the iceberg’, more explanations are
forthcoming.
The
fact that the TDVP model of reality, consisting of nine finite dimensions of
extent and three forms of content, mass, energy and consciousness, explains so many
empirical observations so simply, speaks strongly to the value of replacing the
current materialistic paradigm with the consciousness-based paradigm of TDVP.
