NEW APPROACH INSTALLMENT FIVE

 

NOTE: I am posting this installment separately and in sequence in the first blogpost of this series so that you can read it here or in context below. 

FIVE; PARADOX AND PROGRESS

I happen to share the birth date of Danish physicist Niels Bohr. Not the same year, but the same month and day. He was born in 1885 and died when I was 26 years old. Bohr was one of the main players in the drama surrounding the birth of quantum physics, and the primary spokesperson for quantum mechanics in the famous Einstein-Bohr debate over quantum uncertainty. Albert Einstein, the theoretical physicist who inspired me to become a scientist when I was fourteen, sparked the debate by proposing an experiment that challenged the validity of the concept at the heart of quantum mechanics known as the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. That experiment, based on the belief that elementary particles were tiny, localized particles of matter, became known as the EPR paradox because Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen were the authors of the paper. The EPR experiment presented physicists with a real paradox because it demonstrated that, if elementary particles were what physicists thought they were, then the expected outcome of the experiment disproved the uncertainty principle. To Einstein, that meant that quantum mechanics was, at best, an inconsistent or incomplete theory. Niels Bohr understood this, but the following quote illustrates his attitude toward paradox:

"How wonderful that we have met a paradox. Now we have some hope of making progress."

This is the proper attitude for a scientist. Science only advances when paradoxes within its logical structure are explored and resolved. If it is a real paradox, it can only be resolved by expanding the existing model of reality. A real paradox reveals the incompleteness of the existing theory. All other so-called scientific advances are just the filling in of the details of an existing model, which requires no original thinking. Problem solving within the established paradigm is not science, it is engineering. Engineers are practical thinkers who solve day-to-day problems by applying science-based technology. I am not denigrating engineering. I made a living for myself and family for many years as a registered professional engineer (PE).  Engineering is about using science to solve technical problems, while science is about thinking outside the box and testing hypotheses about the nature of reality. Scientists should be looking for problems that cannot be solved using the engineering methods existing within the current paradigm. About problems that lie beyond the reach of engineering thinking, Bohr said:

“Every great and deep difficulty bears in itself its own solution. It forces us to change our thinking in order to find it.”

There is a wealth of insight in these two sentences. They contain deep truths about problems that can be addressed using mathematics, the language of science. The first sentence is true about any problem. However simple and easy, or deep and difficult a problem may be, if it is properly stated in the language of the paradigm within which it has meaning, then the solution, i.e., the answer to the question that it poses, is actually contained within the question itself. Any meaningful problem in an algebra text will demonstrate this fact.

The information needed to solve a problem is always contained within the statement of the problem. All that needs to be done is to translate the statement of the problem from English, German, or whatever, into mathematical expressions, so that you can use well-defined operations of calculation to transform the statement, through a series of simple steps, into a new form that is recognized as an answer. The second sentence relates specifically to the “great and deep” problems that Bohr concerned himself with as a scientist. If the problem is truly deep and difficult, we will have to “change our thinking” i.e., we have to think outside the box by expanding the paradigm, or developing new methods, to solve it.

I realize that there may be people reading this who already understand the points I am making. This post is not for them. It is for the millions of people out there, the average citizens of planet Earth, who shrink away in horror anytime they see the word “mathematics”. If you are one of those who hates mathematics, I am quite sure that it is because you were never taught what mathematics really is. What I want to do here is change the way you think about mathematics. Let’s start with the meaning of the word. It doesn’t mean “difficult stuff with numbers and abstract symbols”, as most people think. The word mathematics comes from the Ancient Greek word máthēma (μάθημα), meaning “that which is learned” or “what one is able to know”. Mathematics is not just “the language of science”, it is the heart and soul of science.

I have had several years of experience teaching mathematics, from practical applied math to mathematical physics, and advanced mathematical modeling, so I am not just blowing smoke rings. My first job, after earning a degree in physics and mathematics, was teaching math in the Newburg Missouri Public High School, where I was the complete Math Department. In my second year of teaching there, my students swept every category in a regional math contest where we were competing with several much larger schools. Even though I used the textbooks supplied by the state, I didn’t follow the state lesson plans. I always related mathematical principles to common-sense ideas that my students could relate to and understand. Over the years, I have had several very gratifying success stories teaching, but the first one happened at Newburg.

The first day of school in my first year at Newburg, a young man from a rural farming area south of Newburg, walked up to my desk as students were filing into the classroom and said:

“Mr. Close, my name is Gary Haven. I just want you to know that I don’t like math. I am only here because general math is a requirement for all Freshmen.”

“OK Gary,” I replied, “Thank you for being so honest! I just want you to know that I’m going to see what I can do about changing your mind about math.”

The second year Gary took every math class he could cram into his schedule, and eight years later, he graduated from one of the best engineering schools in the county with top honors in electrical engineering.

Mathematics should not be about showing others how smart you are. It should NOT be about learning how to manipulate abstract symbols to solve complicated problems, even though you may learn to do that. It should be about learning how to think rationally in a way that will increase your understanding of reality and make your thinking more efficient and effective. In my opinion, the way math is taught in our schools today, from grade school to grad school, is really stupid, and almost criminal. The way math is fragmented and turned into mindless memorization of detail, alienates and repels students, robbing them of an opportunity to develop critical thinking skills.

Learning to use mathematical tools to solve practical problems is important; but using calculators and computers to solve numerical problems without understanding the underlying principles, is a recipe for disaster. Pure mathematics should be understood to be what it actually is: a simple reflection of how your mind and the universe works. Science is about what we can say about the reality we experience, and math is about how we can say it in the most efficient way.  

Before I get into my explanation of a system of logic, I call the Calculus of Dimensional Distinctions (CoDD), a calculus that describes reality more precisely and efficiently, I want to introduce you to some key concepts needed to understand non-physical reality. They concern the axiomatic nature of science and the threshold between every-day consciousness and Turiyananda, the joy of experiencing pure consciousness.

First, an axiom is a self-evident truth. All systems of mathematical logic have two or more axioms upon which they are based. Within any consistent finite logical system of thought, an axiom is a question that cannot be answered within the system that allows it to be stated as a meaningful statement. I like to think of an axiom this way:      

The Question that cannot be Answered is the Answer that cannot be Questioned.

We have been told by some very intelligent people, specifically British mathematical philosophers Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead, that there are only three types of statements: 1) True, 2) false, and 3) meaningless. Sounds rather obvious, doesn’t it? If we accept this declaration, then we can ignore and discard meaningless statements because, well, because they are meaningless! If statements that appear to be meaningless in the context of our current understanding of reality are eliminated from consideration and we accept the statement of Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (another very intelligent person) that for every meaningful question there must also be a meaningful answer, then every meaningful statement is ultimately either true or false.

This binary thinking is in fact, the basis of the logic, philosophy, science, mathematics, and computer technology of Western Civilization. It turns out, however, that despite the fact that these axiomatic statements were pronounced by some of the most highly intelligent people of the world in recent history, none of these statements are true.

In the next installment of this series, I will explain how and why there are actually four types of statements in any language, including mathematics, not three, and I will also explain how this fact leads us back to the threshold of Pure Consciousness and the doorway to extra dimensionality where we will see how pure number theory relates to consciousness.

ERC – 12/29/2021

CERTAINTY, UNCERTAINTY, CONSISTENCY, AND COMPLETENESS

 

PART 1: CERTAINTY AND UNCERTAINTY

Most people prefer certainty over uncertainty in most aspects of their lives. We like to have some idea of what is coming so we can prepare for it. Can we ever have absolute certainty? In this physical world that we happen to live in, the answer is no. The co-existence of conditional certainty and uncertainty may be the engine that drives the dynamic processes of the universe. In any finite physical system, the amount of certainty, i.e. relative predictability, depends upon the relative stability of the system and patterns of change that can be identified within the system.

When I was a mathematical modeler and systems analyst in the US government, my supervisor, Dr Nicholas Matalas, and I had many interesting discussions about determinism versus probabilism. Dr. Matalas was a PhD from Harvard specializing in probabilistic analysis, and I took the position of my hero, Albert Einstein, who was a determinist. Briefly, a determinist believes that we can model the quantifiable details of a physical system, write equations describing describing the effects of those details, and predict changes within the system and the outcome to be expected as the results of forces acting within and upon the system. The determinist sees statistics and probability as tools of estimation to be used only when we don’t know much about some part of the system. The probabilist, on the other hand, believes that randomness is a fundamental aspect of reality.

This difference of opinion about the nature of reality was the at the heart of a famous debate in the 1930s, with Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen on one side, and Bohr, Heisenberg, and Schrodinger on the other. The determinists did not like the Heisenberg uncertainty principle which defined the uncertainty of observations at the quantum scale of measurement in probabilistic terms as follows: If the measurement of the location of a moving particle is taken to be exact, then the measurement of the particle’s momentum can only be determined approximately within a predictable range of uncertainty, and vice versa. This prompted Einstein’s famous statement, “God does not play dice with the universe”. As a determinist, Einstein believed that when we know more detail about quantum physics, this uncertainty will disappear. His position was later generalized as a form of “hidden-variables theory”.

Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR) published a paper describing a conceptual experiment (also known as a thought experiment) based on assumptions that were generally accepted by particle physicists, involving a complementary pair of quantum particles produced in a well-known subatomic process that clearly contradicted the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, even though all known experimental measurements fell within Heisenberg’s predicted range of uncertainty. Thus it became known as the EPR paradox. Bohr and Heisenberg argued that the conclusion of the EPR thought experiment was wrong because it was based on the unwarranted assumption of the physical continuity of the particles that were observed at the beginning and end of the experiment. In other words, elementary particles in motion do not behave like tiny baseballs, as the EPR thought experiment assumed.

A mathematician named John Bell devised a way to prove whether or not the EPR thought experiment was correct. This mathematical expression, actually an inequality involving probabilities, became known as Bell’s theorem. This, however, is a misnomer, because it was not a mathematical theorem, it was a probabilistic hypothesis that could only be proved or disproved by conducting a very delicate physical experiment. The technology needed to conduct the experiment was not developed to the point that it could be performed with enough accuracy to produce indisputable evidence until more than a quarter century after Einstein’s death. When it was finally performed by a team of physicists headed by Alain Apect in France, it indicated that Bohr was right and Einstein was wrong!

Many people, including most mainstream physicists I think, jump to the conclusion that Einstein was wrong about the nature of reality and that a certain amount of uncertainty is a fundamental feature of reality, based on the experimental evidence from the Aspect experiment and other experiments that demonstrated violations of Bell’s inequality. This conclusion, however, does not necessarily follow. These experimental results only prove that EPR’s basic assumptions about the nature and behavior of elementary particles in motion were wrong, not that uncertainty is a fundamental aspect of reality. I believe it is still possible that Einstein was right, and that our inability to measure both location (position in space) of an elementary particle and the particle’s momentum (mass movement in time) with equal accuracy is an artifact of errors in our model of reality, not because of an intrinsic uncertainty in reality itself.

One of the things I learned modeling environmental systems, is that even a well-known part of the environment, like rainfall and runoff for a given river basin, is affected by a number of measurable input variables that can have a wide range of effects on the output, some major, and some minor. Some of the effects of these variables may be modeled using simple equations, some by more complex equations, and for some, we may not be able to write any equations at all, either because the functions are too complex, or because we don’t have enough data to define them. The relative importance of the input of these variables can be determined by sensitivity analysis, which simply means varying these inputs incrementally and seeing what effect it has on the output.

In order to produce a usefully predictive model within a reasonable amount of time, a mostly deterministic model can be augmented by using “stochastic” elements to represent parts of the model about which we do not have enough data to define a pattern of cause and effect, “Stochastic” in this context means that the input of the variables of such elements are determined by statistical or probabilistic analysis of the available data, not by a descriptive cause and effect equation.

What does all this have to do with YOU, a living, breathing, conscious human being? Perhaps a lot more than you may think! First of all, you are a modeler and systems analyst yourself, whether you realize it or not. Your modeling and analysis is being done mostly automatically after the first few years of your life by processes built up by the habitual repetition of patterns in your brain corresponding to the interaction of your consciousness with what you perceive to be things existing outside of your consciousness. This has been traditionally thought of as the problem of the interaction of mind and matter.

You are carrying around with you a model composed of many parts created by electrical and chemical activities in your brain triggered by sensory input as images in your mind. Those images are constantly being compared with new input data. The  very existence and continuation of the organism that you think of as your body depends on how well your model corresponds with reality, especially those parts of reality that can harm, disable or destroy the physical organism that acts a temporary vehicle for your conscious mind.

You may think that you are experiencing reality directly in your day-to-day life, but you are not! What you think of as reality is nothing more than a model that your mind has constructed, and the model you carry around inside your head is incomplete. If you don’t believe that, just look through a telescope or a microscope. They reveal a lot more complex details of the world beyond the range of receptivity of the senses of our physical bodies. Our senses are very limited, and telescopes and microscopes are limited too, only extending our perceptions a little bit. Are our models of reality doomed to be forever incomplete? To answer this question, we will need to explore the concepts of consistency and completeness as they related to the components of the logical systems that make up our models of reality.

I will continue this discussion in this post as time permits.

ERC - May 30, 2021 

PART 2: CONSISTENCY AND COMPLETENESS

Before we get into the concepts of consistency and completeness, so important to the modeling of reality, and also of critical importance in the logical structure of mathematics, i.e. the formalized symbolic representation of the logical structure of reality, it will be helpful to discuss the conscious process of modeling a little further. First, we must recognize that every valid model of any part of reality, like, e.g., Maxwell’s wave equation, E=mc², or one of the quantum calculus conveyance equations of TDVP, each one is a piece of the puzzle generally referred to as a “Theory Of Everything” (TOE), the Holy Grail of modern science.

The idea of a theory of everything grew out of Einstein’s quest for a unified field theory that would describe how all of the forces of the universe are related in one complete set of consistent equations. David Hilbert, one of the most brilliant and influential mathematicians of the 19th and early 20th centuries, saw this as part of a quest for a complete axiomatic system of mathematics. However, these dreams of a TOE were doomed to failure for two reasons: 1) Their conceptual model did not include consciousness, so, by definition it was not a TOE, and 2) Gӧdel’s incompleteness theorems. To see why Gӧdel’s incompleteness theorems eliminate the TOE physicists dreamt of, we have to look into the proofs of Kurt Gӧdel’s incompleteness theorems. They prove that no consistent system of logic, and therefore no physical TOE will ever be complete.

Gӧdel’s proofs are difficult to follow for anyone without a considerable amount of formal training in pure mathematics or symbolic logic; but what they imply about the conceptual modeling of reality is not hard to understand. However, before we discuss what Gӧdel’s proofs imply about the modeling of reality in general, and a TOE in particular, a brief discussion of exactly what logical consistency and completeness mean is necessary to avoid confusion. A logical system defined by a finite number of basic symbols, axioms, and rules is consistent when statements constructed from the basic symbols used in the axioms and rules do not contradict any of the axioms. And a logical system is complete if, and only if, every meaningful statement that can be constructed using the basic symbols can be reduced to one of the axioms by applying one or more of the operational rules a finite number of times.

A key step in Gӧdel’s proof is showing that any consistent logical system, as defined above, can be modeled in a field of integers by assigning a unique whole number to each and every element of the system of symbols, axioms, and rules, so that any statement that can be constructed in the system is represented by a unique finite whole number. This demonstration that any internally consistent logical system can be translated from any symbolic language (ӧincluding English) into a purely arithmetic code, makes it possible to define absolute consistency and generalize the incompleteness theorem without reference to truth or existence in reality.. In this way, any model of reality can be represented by a string of “Gӧdel numbers”.  

The Triadic Dimensional Vortical Paradigm (TDVP) is a logical system representing reality that can be translated into Gӧdel numbers. In TDVP, however, reality is defined as everything that exists, and logically demonstrable truth is identified with existence by defining the basic unit of observation and measurement as a quantum equivalence unit with the mass and volume of the smallest elementary quantum of reality, the electron. With reality as the ultimate absolutely consistent logical system, Gӧdel’s theorems of incompleteness apply to reality and all consistent models of reality constructed in human consciousness. The outcome is proof that any logically consistent model of reality ever constructed will never be complete. Does this mean that the dream of a TOE is a fantasy of the finite minds of theoretical physicists? No, not necessarily. To understand how a real theory of everything is still possible, we must investigate the nature of the dimensional domains of space, time and consciousness and their contents.

Albert Einstein’s conceptual model of a significant part of physical reality known as the theory of relativity, was been translated into a four-dimensional mathematical model independently by Hermann Minkowski, David Hilbert, and a few other mathematicians. Then, notably, Gunnar Nordstrom in Norway, Theodore Kaluza and Oskar Klein in Germany, and Wolfgang Pauli in the US, extended the Minkowski 4-D model {3 spatial dimensions and 1 dimension of time (3S-1T)} to a 5-D model, and were able to derive the Maxwell wave equation in five dimensions as part of the 5-D logical system. Wolfgang Pauli even extended the model to six dimensions. I find it very interesting that, as a mainstream physicist, he did not publish the 6-D model because it indicated the existence of non-physical particles, which he called “phantom particles”. Was the world just not ready yet for the non-physical content we call gimmel?

Einstein recognized the potential value of multi-dimensional mathematical modeling and encouraged Kaluza and Klein to pursue their research. So now, the relevant question becomes: Why has multi-dimensional modeling not been more successful?  The answer lies in the limited nature and use of applied mathematics over the past 300 plus years. By relegating mathematics to nothing more than a set of tools for macro-scale problem solving, contemporary science has failed to realize the real power of mathematical modeling. As a result, mathematical application has been disconnected from the greater reality that pure mathematical structure reflects. That greater reality includes everything from the finite quantum reality of elementary phenomena to the infinite continuity of the cosmos and Primary Consciousness.

With the foregoing discussions of certainty, uncertainty, consistency, completeness, incompleteness, and hyper-dimensional modeling as background, and new clues produced by the application of the calculus of dimensional distinctions in the theoretical framework, we can envision a TOE that models quantum and non-quantum reality as follows:

The TDVP Model of Reality is a Multi-Dimensional Self-Referential Logical System of Interacting Fields Exhibiting Triadic Content as Mass, Energy, and Consciousness Existing in 3 Orthogonal Three-Dimensional Domains of Space, Time and Conscious Extent. A Model incorporating these characteristics is Absolutely Consistent and Complete if Time is three- Dimensional. Therefore: TDVP qualifies as a Theory of Everything.

Definition of terms:

Reality: Everything that exists, has existed, or will ever exist.

Multi-Dimensional: Multi- a prefix meaning many; specifically more than three. Dimension: a measurable variable of extent.

Self-Referential: Something that cannot be referenced to, compared with, or equated with anything other than itself and things contained within it. This follows from the definition of Reality as everything.

Three-Dimensional Domains: Dimensions are measured in variables of extent, and space, time and consciousness have extent and logical structure.

Orthogonal Domains: Space, time, and consciousness dimensions are mutually orthogonal {oriented at 90-degree angles, consistent with Occam’s Razor (the law of parsimony)}.  

Science will begin to appreciate the powerful potential of mathematical modeling when scientists realize that the logical systems of consciousness, mind, and pure mathematics as defined in TDVP reflect the same elegant dimensional structure and meaningful content that is displayed at all levels of reality from the smallest quantum of the universe to the entire expanse of the infinite cosmos.

ERC- June 4, 2021

CONSERVATION WITH AN ATHEIST PART 3

Many Doors to God and the Universe

Disclaimer: It is not my intention to belittle anyone’s religion or belief system. The purpose of these discussions is to provoke thought. My real reason for presenting this dialogue is to explain some of the findings of Close-Neppe, Neppe-Close TDVP theory in a less pedantic way.

CONVERSATION WITH AN ATHEIST Continued

I stopped trying to discourage my atheist friend. He was persistent, and we seemed to be making some progress. So, I took a break from my research and invited him to have a latte at the local Starbucks. We sat down, and he began:

“As you know, I’m a member of MENSA, I have a degree in physical chemistry. I minored in probability theory, and I’ve also had a serious interest in cosmology for several years. So, I know something about science. But, I can’t buy the idea that the complex universe we live in came about through a series of random events because I’ve calculated the probability of just a few of the conditions that are necessary for the formation of stable, life-supporting structures, and because of the 2^nd law of thermodynamics, there is no way it could have happened in the 13.8 billion-year age of the universe!”

I agree. The 2^nd law of thermodynamics says that all finite physical systems tend to break down over time and decay toward maximum entropy – complete disorder. The energy of the big bang pushes everything apart, and if a few spinning particles got together to form a compound structure, it would deteriorate before it could encounter other particles, and because the universe is rapidly expanding, the chance of that would get smaller and smaller with the passage of time. (It seemed that we were finding some common ground!) There must be something else going on.

“Exactly so. But, I can’t buy the intelligent design theory either, unless we’re in an experiment that was arranged by someone who set things up and then went off somewhere and forgot about us, letting cause and effect and survival of the fittest take over.”

Well, I responded, I can’t buy the idea that Darwinian evolution explains the complexity of our universe either; especially consciousness. My research suggests to me that consciousness, not matter, is primary.

He Shook his head. “Why? And why do you think that this gimmel thing has something to do with consciousness? I follow your math. Given that elementary particles are spinning, and are made up of quantum units, something other than the mass and energy of quarks and electrons is necessary to complete the symmetry of protons and neutrons, but why try to relate it to consciousness?”

It’s inevitable. If it is not matter or energy, what else is there? Besides, it explains away quantum weirdness.

“How so?”

Are you familiar with the double-slit, delayed-choice experiments, and Bell’s theorem and the Aspect experiment?

“I think so, at least in general. They have to do with resolving the EPR paradox, don’t they?”

Yes, that’s right. They resolve the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox and establish the “weirdness” of non-locality and particle entanglement. If the ‘stuff’ of which everything is made can be either mass, energy or gimmel, then these experiments proving that particles or waves of matter and energy don’t exist as localized phenomena until observed, finally make sense!

“Are you saying it’s all gimmel until observed?”

You got it! And as gimmel, it doesn’t register as mass or energy.

“Let me mull that over and re-read your blog posts on gimmel, and maybe we can get back together tomorrow.”

THE DANGER OF ABSOLUTE KNOWLEDGE

THE DANGER OF ABSOLUTE KNOWLEDGE

IS SCIENCE BRINGING ABOUT THE END OF THE WORLD?

Warning: That which follows may be hazardous to your mental health!

Consider the following well-known philosophical statements:

1.) Knowledge is Power

2.) Power Corrupts; and Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely

If these two statements are true, and there is abundant evidence in human history to support them, then we must conclude that:

3.) Absolute Knowledge is Absolute Power, which Corrupts Absolutely.

And therein lies the danger.

Beyond simple physical survival, the goal of seeking knowledge is to know the truth. Defining reality as truth and truth as reality, i.e., truth and reality are identically the same, we seek to know as much as we possibly can about the nature of reality. It would seem that the more we know, the more control we have, to avoid the disasters of pain, sadness and death, and prolong our enjoyment of freedom, happiness and life; …that is, up to a point. As to the possibility of having absolute knowledge, Science and mathematics tell us that we can never know everything because the universe expands away and shrinks away from us at the same time, faster than we can learn to see it, ever revealing new mysteries of the very large and the very small, while we remain stuck in the middle, and Gӧdel’s incompleteness theorems tell us that we can ask questions that have no answers in the logical system within we ask them.

But this state of affairs exists only if we confine our search for reality to domains within a closed, finite universe. The instant infinity is accepted as real, everything changes. If intelligence is more than the mechanism of the brain, if it is infinite, then that intelligence can, effectively, know everything. In fact, the way the universe works, the intelligence need not be infinite, only effectively infinite in the same manner as the expanding universe. Let me explain:

Science cannot prove, and therefore cannot say, that reality is finite. Mathematics cannot prove, and therefore cannot say, that the logical system describing reality is finite. Our knowledge of reality is finite as long as our observation and measurement of it is limited by the finite three-dimensional domain of our physical senses and extensions of them. In fact, the nature of scientific observation, and the proof of Gӧdel’s incompleteness theorems prove that the physical universe, and the reality it is part of, are effectively infinite. Here’s why:

If the physical universe is expanding away from us at speeds that approach the speed of light at the farthest distance, as indicated by the red-shift data, it is only finite if we freeze it in time, like a snapshot, and this is what we do with any observation or measurement. If we expand our observation and measurement to the farthest reaches of today’s snapshot, we find that, because we cannot exceed the speed of light within the finite portion of reality we occupy, reality has expanded beyond our reach. The logical system of mathematics that describes our current knowledge of reality is based upon axiomatic principles that are correct within the logical system describing finite reality as we know it.

But, what if we discover new aspects of reality? To obtain a logical mathematical system that encompasses the new expanded reality, we need to find the additional axiomatic principle or principles appropriate to the expanded observable reality. So the expanding universe, and our expanding knowledge of it, make reality and the mathematical system that describes it effectively infinite.

Importantly, it appears that we now stand at a point in the expansion of our knowledge of reality where we are ready to take the third step into a complete understanding of the nature of physical reality, i.e., Absolute Knowledge. The first step was the paradigm shift to Einstein’s four-dimensional space-time, mass-energy reality. The second step was the shift of Bohr, Heisenberg and Schrӧdinger’s quantum physics with quantized reality. The third step is the Close-Neppe nine-dimensional space-time-consciousness reality, a true theory of everything.

A DISAPPEARING GENIUS

Most readers of the posts on this website know that I joined MENSA more than 30 years ago based on my Graduate Record Exam scores that indicated an IQ much higher than the 132 required for membership in MENSA. I enjoyed the MENSAN magazine and attended several MENSA gatherings and spoke at some of them including the Colloquium on Consciousness in suburban Detroit in 2002. Impressed by articles written by members of the International Society for Philosophical Enquiry (ISPE), an organization that required, among other things an IQ of 150 or above, I took their test in 2006 and became a member. I rose rapidly through the ranks of the ISPE to Senior Research Fellow, and based on my score there, I was recruited into two additional high IQ societies with even more restrictive requirements including even higher IQ scores, a high level of creativity, with documented accomplishments, and a high level of professional integrity.

In 2011 my wife Jacqui and I were invited to speak at a conference in Brisbane Australia. I knew that the founder of one of the high IQ societies I belonged to, was living in a remote part of Queensland south of the Cairns Rainforest. His documented IQ was 197. I wanted to meet him and see what he thought of TDVP. So I contacted him by email to let him know when I would be in Australia and attached some information and links to books and papers Dr. Neppe and I had published, related to our consciousness-based relativity/quantum physics paradigm shift. I received a reply from him stating that he had discovered much the same thing some years ago, but realized that general knowledge of the discovery would mean the end of the world as we know it. He also made it clear that he had retired to this remote tropical area in Eastern Australia to avoid publicity, and did not want to be disturbed. He gave me no specifics concerning exactly what he had  discovered that he believed would spell the end of the world, and no specifics concerning his location, so I was unable to meet with him, and because he asked me not to contact him further, I couldn’t learn anything more about his misgivings concerning his, and presumably our, findings.

I have been reluctant to tell anyone about this, and reluctant to pursue it further because of what appears to be a great danger to humanity. This is the first time I have written about it. I think it may have to do with the nature of multi-dimensional time and the collapse of the Schrӧdinger probabilistic wave function by conscious observation. While contemplating the mathematics of three-dimensional time a few years ago, I saw a way that time travel might actually be possible. My experience in the Great Pyramid of Giza, which I wrote about briefly in the last post, seemed to confirm this. But because time travel has the potential to destroy the world as we know it, I promised my beautiful wife Jacqui that I would not attempt to build a time machine.

WHAT HAPPENS IF ALL THE UNKNOWN BECOMES KNOWN?

The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics was Bohr and Heisenberg’s answer to the Einstein Podolsky Rosen (EPR) paradox. It said that physical systems do not have finite objective properties like particles or waves prior to being measured, and quantum mechanics can only predict a range of probabilities that measurements will produce certain results. Furthermore, the act of measurement done or arranged by conscious observers affects the system, causing the set of probabilities to reduce to only one of the possible values with the measurement. This was known as the wave-function collapse, where the wave function was the Schrӧdinger wave equation, actually a probability distribution function describing the possible quantum states before observation.

Because the basic philosophical position of most physicists was, and is, materialistic, many object to the Copenhagen Interpretation because it seems to require the involvement of the consciousness of the observer. Even Erwin Schrӧdinger, one of the architects of quantum mechanics objected to it. I think everyone has heard of Schrӧdinger’s famous cat who was said to be in a superimposed state, neither dead nor alive, in a box where a quantum process determined whether or not a poison was released, because, according to the Copenhagen interpretation, the quantum state of the mechanism that could release the poison was just a range of probabilities until observed by the experimenter. [Incidentally, if consciousness does actually cause the wave function to ‘collapse’ from a state of multiple probabilities to a single objective state, there is a flaw the famous Schrӧdinger’s cat scenario:  the consciousness of the cat was not considered. In fact, it is presumptuous to think that the consciousness of a human observer is the only effective form of consciousness at work.

Of course, Schrӧdinger never believed that the cat could be in such a state. He posed the situation as a thought experiment to underline the absurdity of the Copenhagen interpretation. But to the surprise of virtually every physicist, Bell’s inequality, sometimes called Bell’s theorem, and the Aspect experiment proved that the Copenhagen interpretation was correct, at least in principle.

Physicists who objected to the Copenhagen interpretation tried to think of alternatives that would avoid the EPR paradox without the implication that consciousness is directly involved in the shaping of reality. Alternatives include the many-worlds interpretation, the De Broglie-Bohm (pilot-wave) interpretation, and quantum de-coherence theories. But they all involve consciousness and a redefinition of time. From the simple double-slit experiment where we are able to see light as either particle or wave by the way we choose to observe it, to Wheeler’s delayed-choice experiments where the past can be determined by choices we make in the present, to resolutions of the EPR paradox, the unescapable conclusion is that the nature of reality is a product of the interaction of consciousness with a probabilistic physical universe.

REALITY: THE RESULT OF OBSERVATION

Quantum physics tells us that reality exists in a state of multiple possibilities described by the Schrӧdinger wave equation until an observation is made. At the small end of the scale of the physical universe, we have a smallest possible distinction: the TRUE unit quantum distinction multiples of which define distinct finite quanta appearing out of the many possible states upon observation by a conscious observer. With the discovery of the TRUE quantum unit, defined by the limits of relativity, we have reached the bottom, so to speak, of reality. Reality at the TRUE quantum unit level has been condensed out of a range of possible states and stabilized as quarks, electrons, protons, neutrons, atoms, molecules, organic and inorganic compounds, living organisms, planets, solar systems, and galaxies, by the act of drawing finite distinctions, the act of observation. As we extend observation to the edge of the universe, we bring more and more of reality into finite non-probabilistic manifestation. Relativity and quantum mechanics has revealed the lower limit of reality. Is there an upper limit?

LOOK-BACK TIME AND THE BIG BANG

Hubble’s discovery of the red shift in light from distant stars increasing with distance, suggested that the universe began with an explosion from a beginning point in space and time. So we have a universe of many possibilities expanding from an unobserved quantum past. As we expand our observation farther and farther into the past by developing more and more powerful means of observation, what happens when we observe the first moment in space and time? Quantum physics tells us that the multiplicity of possibilities will be reduced to one. The ever-expanding possibility of many worlds will be reduced to one concrete finite reality. The end of knowledge and learning will be in sight: we will have absolute knowledge of the nature of reality. But is this a good thing? Or will we have destroyed the goose that laid the golden eggs?

The universe of many possibilities is one we are very familiar with. It could be argued that it is what makes life interesting, and perhaps even what makes life worth living. A world of infinite possibilities is an infinitely interesting place. The mental imagery of music and art suggest an infinity of possible worlds. Could it be that without quantum indeterminacy, the fountain of human thought, creativity, love and hate, and even self-awareness, the basis of consciousness itself, would dry up and disappear? Is the end result of science the end of the world? 

The answer in the next post..

QUESTION #3: OF THREE IMPORTANT QUESTIONS, PART 2

QUESTION #3: WHY ARE ELEMENTARY PARTICLES SPINNING SO RAPIDLY?

by Edward R. Close

In a previous post entitled “Three Important Questions” I asked the following three very important questions:

1. Why is there something, rather than nothing?

2. What are the most elementary things that make up the something?

3. Why are these most elementary things spinning with so much energy?

Questions 1, 2 and Part 1 of question #3 were answered in entries posted last week. Here are brief summaries of those posts:

Question #1: Why is there something rather than nothing?

Time and space are not uniform throughout the universe. All observations and measurements of space, time, mass, and energy are dependent upon the inertial state of conscious entities doing the observing and measuring relative to that which is being observed and measured. This means that conclusions drawn about conditions and events that occurred thousands, millions or billions of years in the past, when the universe had to be expanding at a different rate than it is now, based on the current analysis of light from distant stars, are misleading, if not outright wrong.

Discovery that a  third form of reality (not measureable as mass or energy) embedded in nine finite dimensions, makes it clear that a primary form of conscious intelligence necessarily existed before any particle could emerge from a big bang  origin of the physical universe. Why? Because we have shown mathematically that no purely physical, stable sub-atomic structure could overcome the dispersing action of the second law of thermodynamics without it. No atomic, molecular or cellular structure supporting life, - to become a vehicle of consciousness - could ever survive an explosion, never mind forming in debris flying away from such an explosion. That would be like expecting a stick of dynamite exploding in a junk yard to assemble a brand-new shiny Cadillac.

With the inclusion of this third form of the substance of reality, which we call Gimmel, the life-supporting elements of the periodic table: Hydrogen, Oxygen, Carbon, Nitrogen, and Sulfur, are stable and abundant in the universe. But they are abundant only because they contain high percentages of the stabilizing third form, Gimmel. Finally, because Gimmel cannot be measurable as mass or energy, the ONLY candidate for the third form of reality, the mathematically organized structure behind mass, energy, and Gimmel, and the three dimensions of space and one dimension of time of the physical universe, is a pervasive form of consciousness. The mathematics and logic of TDVP applied to the physical data of particle physics proves that the universe was and is designed for the manifestation of organic life as a vehicle for consciousness, and that’s why there is something rather than nothing.

Question #2: What are the most elementary things made of?

The Close-Neppe TDVP nine-dimensional spin model answers this question and unites relativity and quantum physics by putting consciousness into the equations of physics. The calculus of distinctions replaces the calculus of Newton and Leibniz to deal with the interaction of consciousness with the quantized physical universe.

The spinning bits of something that make up the observable and measurable physical universe, from the combinations of three quarks that make up the three elementary particles of atoms, which make up the molecules, compounds and cells, of animals, vegetables and minerals, everything occurs in triads, and the most basic of these spinning bits of something, the quarks, are also triadic. They are composed of mass, energy and a third form of reality. In order to be stable long enough to support life, they must be composed of three ostensibly different forms of the something: mass, energy and the third form which we are calling Gimmel. That third form of the something is the organizing factor that pervades the universe and conveys logical structure, meaning and purpose to the physical universe, the virtual tip of the iceberg of reality.

The spinning bits of something are made of three forms of the substance of reality; inertial mass, energy and gimmel without three forms, there would be no physical universe. And without the third form, there would be neither meaningful structure nor purpose, and no physical universe.

Question #3, Part 1: Why do the particles that make up the universe have an intrinsic spin?

In Part 1 of the answer to Question #3, you learned something currently unknown to and unexplained by mainstream physicists. You learned why spinning particles have an intrinsic spin contributing to their total measureable angular momentum. Whether a rotating particle has an extra 180 degrees of rotation (1/2 spin) as do fermions (quarks, electrons, protons and neutrons), or a multiple of 360 degrees (integer spin) as do bosons, depends upon in how many dimensions the particle is spinning. You even learned a way to prove this for yourself, using a Rubik’s cube or appropriately painted ball. But why are the particles spinning in the first place? That is the subject of the rest of this post.

Question #3, Part 2: Why are the particles that make up the physical universe spinning?

This part of the answer to Question #3 may be a bit more difficult to understand because we only directly sense the effects of existence in three dimensions of space and one moment in time in observable objects, and there is no reason that particles existing only in 3S-1t should have intrinsic spin, or should be spinning at all, other than momentary rotations in various directions caused by collisions with other particles and other external forces they might encounter. And yet, we know that elementary particles possess a tremendous amount of energy locked up in rapidly spinning sub -atomic particles, as evidenced by the enormous amounts of energy released by atomic and hydrogen bombs. If, however, elementary particles are only partially observable in three dimensions, the spin energy, as suggested by the explanation of question #3 Part 1, is explainable in terms of the additional dimensions.

The Calculus of Distinctions (CoD) puts consciousness into the equations describing reality by defining the first distinction as the distinction of self from other. Consistent with the solution to the EPR paradox with the proof of the violation of Bell’s inequality by elementary particles, this reveals the conscious drawing of distinctions in the ‘other’ created by the first distinction as intimately involved in the unfolding of reality in 3S-1t. The mathematics of the CoD suggest the existence of two more dimensions of time and three more dimensions of an even more subtle nature. Where are these dimensions? The finite dimensional domain of multi-dimensional reality is embedded in an infinite substrate. Our physical senses do not permit us to ‘see’ them, but the dimensions beyond the three of space and one of time do not exist ‘somewhere else’. They are co-existing domains and can be envisioned as follows: Exactly as lines can be seen as embedded in a plane, and planes can be seen to be embedded in a volume, volumes are embedded in time, and time is embedded in consciousness. The pure mathematics of number theory suggest that the three domains, of three dimensions each, are described by the three kinds of numbers: integers, imaginary numbers and complex numbers.

TRUE analysis shows us that the mass and energy of the 3S-1t domain revealed by our physical senses represent only the tip of the iceberg of reality. Please see the paper published in the December 2015 issue of the IQNEXUS Magazine for details. We find by solving the Diophantine equations of the conveyance equations for stable particles that the electron contains 105 times its measurable mass in TRUE units of gimmel. Similarly, all of the elementary particles consist of specific combinations of mass, energy and gimmel. When we include the additional dimensions of reality, we begin to see why elementary particles are rotating with high velocities of spin in 3S-1t. Light speed, the limit of observation and measurement in 3S-1t, is not the limit of nine dimensional reality. Because motion is not limited to the speed of light (the constant c = 670,616,629 miles per hour) in the nine-dimensional domain, the elementary particles in 3S-1t are tremendously rapid spinning vortices connecting the mass and energy of 3-D space with the other six dimensions of hyper-dimensional domains.

When Albert Einstein realized the implications of E = mc², he wrote four letters between 1939 and 1945 to then US president Harry S. Truman, warning him of the possibility of constructing a nuclear bomb and the dangers of such a bomb. Exploitation of our understanding of quantum and relativistic physics to this point has led to many technological advances, including both destructive weapons and constructive devises like more efficient computer TV and smart phone technologies. If, as TDVP predicts, the mass and energy of the physical universe is convertible to and from the third form, there will be both destructive and constructive consequences, and these consequences are likely to be more profound than the consequences of current technologies.

Seeking the answer to this question has led us to the major problem for science today: the problem of resolving the conflicts between the answers provided by relativity and quantum mechanics. Putting consciousness into the equations does this. Stay tuned for more about this.

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS BY A REVIEWER

Dear _____,

First of all, I want to thank you for your continuing interest in what Vernon and I are trying to do. As I think you know, we have asked a substantial number of people, scientists, mathematicians, philosophers, and serious thinkers of various kinds, to review our work. The most important of these reviewers, from my point of view, are those with sufficient training in mathematics and physics to be able to understand the basic concepts underlying Transcendental Physics and TDVP. These thinkers, one would hope, would be very open-minded and objective. However, based on the comments and statements of those who have responded to date, open-mindedness is quite rare. In, my opinion, those who have commented fall into of one the following categories:

1.)  Those who assume we don’t know what we are talking about. Their approach is to look for obvious errors and be done with us.

2.)  Those who have unconventional theories of their own. Their approach is to determine to what extent our ideas might support theirs. When they find at some point that they do not, they quickly lose interest.

3.)  Those with heavily vested interest in the so-called Standard Model. As with group #1, they search for any error at all to discredit our ideas because, if we are right, the paradigm they have invested their lives in must be wrong, and their life’s work is threatened. Our experience shows that they will do anything they can to defend the current paradigm.

4.)  Those who are truly open minded, as all scientists should be, and are willing to follow the logic of new ideas wherever it leads, even when the results conflict with their life’s work and/or their own belief system. So far, our experience is that such minds are very few and far between.

I have found that discussions with people in the first three categories are largely a waste of time. The first two have no interest in anything outside their own ideas, or ideas with which they are familiar, and people in the third group have no interest in anything outside the box of the current materialistic paradigm. I think you can probably identify some individuals in the discussions of the past couple of years who fall in to these categories. Two or three, for example, who sought to find flaws in the math, started by criticizing references to, and use of, some simple, basic mathematical concepts, but failed to understand the significance of these concepts in the new paradigm. Next, they offered counter examples to certain mathematical proofs and conclusions. When I pointed out flaws in their reasoning, they at first grudgingly admitted a mistake or two, and then got upset. One even told me that the discussion was not about criticizing his ideas. He even posted that he had “refuted” certain of my arguments, when it was easy to show that he had not.

I want to address your comments, but first, please permit me to recount a little more history to put the current discussions into proper perspective:

After studying the works of Planck, Einstein, Minkowski, Lorentz, Schrödinger, Bohr, and Heisenberg, while I was an undergrad physics student, I was convinced as early as 1956, that a theory of everything, even if it was defined only as a theory that would unify the known forces of nature, was not possible without including the actions of consciousness in the equations. I wrote about this around 1957 - 1959 or so. I also recognized that new math was needed, and that I needed to know more about number theory. I earned a degree in mathematics in 1962, and started in a graduate program in theoretical physics. I also found the basis for the new math I needed in George Spencer Brown’s ‘Laws of Form’ in 1962; coincidentally about the same time I studied John Bell’s inequality theorem and learned of Alain Aspect’s experimental resolution of the EPR paradox.

I developed the Calculus of Distinctions to deal with the interaction of consciousness and physical reality; and I first published some of the results of including consciousness in the equations in 1989 in “Infinite Continuity”. Prior to publication, I sent a copy of the manuscript to Stephen Hawking for review. He had a problem with the concept of three-dimensional time and rejected, out of hand the idea that consciousness had anything to do with reality at the quantum level.

I expanded some of the ideas, and published them again in ‘Transcendental Physics’ in 1996. My ideas were accepted and heralded as the new paradigm uniting relativity and quantum physics by several, including experimental physicist Dr. Henry Swift and astrophysicist Dr. Philip Anderson. It was discussed for months on the Karl Jaspers Forum and other internet forums and in the journal “Science within Consciousness” in the period 1996 – 1998. One participant suggested that I should be careful about sharing my ideas so freely on the internet, because “the ideas clearly represent a new paradigm, and unscrupulous individuals will steal them and call them their own.” Another participant quipped: “If you have something truly new, no one will steal it. You’ll have to cram it down their throats!” Unfortunately, the second comment proved to be the more accurate. Most people it seems, even scientists, believe that if they don’t understand something immediately, it must be wrong. As Max Planck said, “Science advances one funeral at a time.”

Now, on to your comments:  I am thankful for your comments because they give me an opportunity to more fully explain the concepts underlying the mathematics of TDVP. I will copy from your email and then respond:

You wrote:

“Here´s some new feedback, specifically about theoretical physics (or at least its required methods) within your theories, but not about the *whole* TDVP theory (except physics, possibly extended to broader, non-materialist realms), and especially about QM (again) in relation to your (or Ed's) 9 dim. Spin model:

When I first mentioned to you in some mails years ago theories with hidden

variables in QM (David Bohm), and now when you have a 9D spin model with apparently more detailed variables, I point to the necessity of QM again, or at least consistency with experiments.”

My response:

You refer to ‘hidden variables’. This term, as used in QM, refers to attempts by some physicists, notably David Bohm, Eugene Wigner, and a few others, to explain the non-locality quantum entanglement of Bell’s inequality and the EPR paradox in terms of underlying, inaccessible variables which, if there, would validate Einstein’s opinion that QM as developed by Bohr and Heisenberg was incomplete, and eliminate, theoretically, the probabilistic uncertainty formalized by Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle.

The additional variables of TRUE units in TDVP are in no way hidden variables of this sort. They are hidden only in the sense that they are not directly measurable. The magnitudes of TRUE units, including mass, energy and gimmel (the third form) for specific sub-atomic entities are all indirectly determinable, like many things in science. The amount of gimmel in a given particle does not affect the quantum uncertainty between the measurements of location and angular momentum any more than the amount of mass or energy in the particle does. Heisenberg’s relationship of probabilistic uncertainty is not affected by Gimmel, an indirectly measurable variable combining with units of mass and energy to make up the TRUE quantum units of all stable particles, and thus they are not ‘hidden’ variables in the sense proposed by Bohm, et al.

You wrote:

“I do not see how the use of integers only will improve consistency with the known QM framework and the experiments; there needs to be some randomization as well i -strongly-suspect. The reason is, like I posted, because of the (statistical nature of the) measurements.

My response:

Let me explain the importance of using integers in the analysis of the combination of elementary particles to form stable compound particles like protons and neutrons: Planck’s discovery that elementary particles are always integer multiples of a basic unit means that we are dealing with discrete, as opposed to continuous values in the statistical analysis of collider data. A discrete random variable has a very different probability distribution than a continuous random variable, and functions representing compound entities formed by the combination of integral numbers of basic units can only have integer values. This means we are dealing with equations with integer variables, known to mathematicians as Diophantine equations. I’ll elaborate on this more as I respond to your further comments.

You wrote:

In some way with some quantum logic Ed or your other math assistant might

be able to add this to this spin-model, in order to generate the most common

QM experiments, but it won't be easy.

My response:

This has already been done. And, while it wasn’t as difficult as you might imagine, it may be hard to grasp at first. This is actually what Dimensional Extrapolation with unitary extensions and integer solutions to the Conveyance Equations in TRUE units are all about. The 9-D spin model is an outcome of the mathematics, not the other way around.

You wrote:

“For the rest when describing physics at the Planck scale, just a 9D spin model is not enough of course, because it's not only *particle* spin,  there also is QM involved with (mass-less) *photons*, and in fact with a  whole  of other particles (some with rapid decay); called the particle 'zoo'. In fact the existence of most of these particles seems to come out of the quantum field theories inherent in the Standard Model, but that's another -and slightly broader- subject.”

My response:

Actually, the mathematics of TDVP accurately encompasses all known QM processes. The derivation of TRUE units is fully consistent with, and actually dependent upon the statistical nature of the quantum measurements of collider data. TDVP is also consistent with the existence of mass-less photons and the entire ‘particle zoo’. All of the particles detected in the debris from high-energy collisions decay under ‘normal’ conditions into photons, electrons and up- and down-quarks, the four sub-atomic entities that make up the physical structures of our everyday world. The other particles are teased into existence by high-energy collisions here on Earth, or are naturally produced in extreme conditions of heat and pressure like those in stellar processes. This becomes clear in the 9-D integral model. TRUE units describe the total mass/energy/consciousness composition of sub-atomic particles under normal conditions. Only the particle combinations with the TRUE unit values that satisfy integer solutions of the Conveyance Equation for n = m = 3, dictated by Fermat’s Last Theorem achieve symmetric stability.

You wrote:

“Now  I understand you or Ed have to start somewhere within the TDVP framework, i.e. with the 9D particle spin model, but then this would  only be a (minor) start, and certainly not a description or foundation of some 'new physics' or new paradigm in physics at large.”

My response:

As you might gather from my explanations above, I strongly disagree with this statement. While our presentations, as you say, must ‘start somewhere’, as a new paradigm, TDVP does not start with randomly chosen concepts. As a new paradigm must, it starts with proven fundamental mathematical and physical basics and expands them with new mathematics, new definitions and a new, more comprehensive theoretical framework, just as relativity and quantum mechanics did.in the early part of the last century.

Since 1935, there have been no paradigm-shifting new physics discoveries, only experimental and technological evidence of fields, particles and concepts that fit within the current materialistic paradigm. TDVP, on the other hand, with the inclusion of the action of consciousness, and detailed mathematical and dimensionometric applications of the Calculus of Distinctions, Dimensional Extrapolation and the Conveyance Equations, provides a new, expanded paradigm that not only encompasses and integrates known physics, chemistry, the life sciences, and verified paranormal phenomena, it provides answers and explanations for quantum and macro-scale phenomena not explained, or even explainable in the current paradigm.

You wrote:

Also i would like to come back on the subject of peer review (about stuff like

this 9D spin model) in the area of -theoretical-  *physics*.  … I would be more interested with which modern physicists you and-or Ed are talking in detail about the mathematical theories within your TDVP context.

My response:

We certainly agree about the importance of colleague review, and we have been eagerly seeking it for years. I have approached people like Stephen Hawking, Menos Kafatos, Henry Stapp, and Roger Penrose, and a number of mathematicians to get these ideas peer reviewed, and Vernon has approached many others. But finding qualified reviewers who are willing to spend their precious time reviewing something outside the box is easier said than done. See my comments above regarding the four categories of reviewers.

You continue:

This also because imho inventing workable validated theories in mathematical physics usually should not be much determined only by 'creativity' (although this may apply for generating hypotheses) but by having an understanding of experimental physics as w ell. Without the experiments, imho you are most of the  time  -in fact almost always-only  creating (highly) speculative 'theories' (in fact more  hypotheses  than theories); a well known fact in the philosophy of science btw, and mentioning things as new paradigms or being decades ahead of the others do not change such facts. NB it is not intended as (severe) criticism, but more as a suggestion how to continue the research and if also focus on the interconnections between your 'new physics' and the well-established older theories.

My response:

I certainly understand and appreciate this, as I’m sure Vernon does, but you apparently didn’t know that I’ve relied heavily on experimental physics in developing the mathematics.

You continued:

At least in your latest response on Ning you now seem to have acknowledged this, but then you also should admit that there is not much 'linkage' (yet?) between all the new ideas (including these TRUE units) with conventional 'fundamental' physics (apart from the periodic table, but that's not enough. Like i wrote earlier, in theoretical physics the quantum mechanics of the electron bands around the core (and the Pauli Exclusion Principle) are determining the periodic index; and also their reactivity with other elements. But that's another subject.  While it looks like an 'Eureka' experience finding such a new way of setting up the periodic table, together with some possible new findings, imho again more validation and verification is to be done to make it a workable theory instead of just a (wild) hypothesis.”

My response:

Again, you seem to be unaware of much of what we’ve published. As my previous discussion shows, there are multiple linkages between TDVP and fundamental physics, quantum mechanics and relativity. In addition to explaining why quarks combine in triads, the unique value of the Cabibbo angle, explaining the Periodic Table consistent with electron shell theory and Pauli’s exclusion principle, -but in much more detail-, explaining why fermions have an intrinsic spin number of ½, why photons, electrons, protons, and neutrons have the physical characteristics they do, and the quantization of angular momentum, as well as explaining non-locality and quantum entanglement, we are finding more links and explanations almost daily. If this doesn’t make TDVP “a workable theory instead of just a (wild) hypothesis”, I’d like to know what would.

You wrote:

About the methods used in general in your physics theories as part of your

Toe: maybe this '' C.O.D.' theory by Ed indeed is innovative new method which can be used in mathematical physics, to be recognized as such it should  be studied more in detail by others i suppose, and only then later it might be acknowledged as such.”

My response:

Unless you’ve read the published articles associated with “Reality Begins with Consciousness” and/or the posts on my Transcendental Physics blog, located at www.ERCloseTPhysics.com, you wouldn’t know that over the years, I have discussed the mathematical basis of Transcendental Physics and TDVP with a substantial number of professional mathematicians and mathematical physicists; I have approached at least fifty or sixty. I have documentation of many of these discussions in the form of letters and emails. Of these, only a handful, I believe 5 or 6 actually took the time to look at my work in any detail. The problem, as with getting reviewers for TDVP, is few are willing to invest much time to review anything outside the mainstream paradigm, especially if it involves new math. One professional mathematician, Dr. Vladimir Brandin, has endorsed CoD and used it in his studies of intelligence. We published one paper together:

Brandin V, Close ER: The calculus of dimensional distinctions: Elements of mathematical theory of intellect. Moscow: 2003.

Details of CoD and applications have been published in journal articles. We can supply copies if you want to see them.

I’d like to elaborate a bit more on the mathematical and dimensionometric bases of Transcendental Physics and TDVP for you by pointing out the difference between classical Aristotelian and Platonic reasoning as it pertains to mathematics and scientific research: Aristotelians see mathematics simply as a man-made tool, while Platonists see mathematics as symbolic reflections of an underlying reality. As such, the imperfect tools of human formulation can always be improved to more and more closely mimic and reveal the perfectly logical patterns of reality. I see the value of the Aristotelian point of view in technological and engineering applications, but I also subscribe to the Platonic point of view as valid in constructing a paradigm to illustrate the nature of reality.

To understand TDVP and the use of the CoD, I think it will be helpful for you to know that there are three basic concepts behind the mathematics of TDVP:

1.) There is a direct correlation between the structures of number theory and the structures of the universe. This is why even the most abstract mathematical theorem finds application in the real world sooner or later.

2.) The experimental resolution (Aspect, et al) of the EPR paradox implies consciousness involvement and non-locality. These features are explainable within the framework of a universe with more dimensions than the four of the space-time of Minkowski and Einstein (3S – 1T).

3.) Max Planck discovered that we live in a quantized universe, but mathematical physics has not been properly adjusted to accommodate this fact.

You may agree or disagree with basic concept #1. If you are primarily Aristotelian in your thinking, as many scientists are, you may see the correlation between the types of numbers and the measures of dimensions, as shown by Dimensional Extrapolation, as a remarkable coincidence. If you accept basic concept #1, you will agree that the correlations we’ve discovered are not coincidental.

Basic concept #2 by itself does not imply any specific number of discrete dimensions, but when combined with #1, a maximum number of nine finite orthogonal dimensions are derived.

Concerning basic concept #3, to adjust mathematical physics to a quantized universe, we must first recognize that the calculus of Newton and Leibniz does not apply at the quantum level because, for applications of differential and integral calculus to yield valid results, the domains of the variables involved must be continuous. In a quantized universe, distinctions of content, like mass, energy and consciousness, exist only in finite, discrete integer amounts, and, as we have shown in TDVP, the distinctions of extent, like space and time, are also limited to finite, discrete volumes due to the relativistic light-speed limitation on velocity.

So the dimensional domains of a quantized universe are not continuous. No variable in a quantized universe can approach zero infinitesimally closely, as it must be able to do for Newtonian calculus to yield valid results at the quantum scale. In TDVP, the infinitesimals of Newtonian calculus are replaced by the minimal distinctions of TRUE units, and the Calculus of Distinctions is the mathematical system I’ve developed to extend calculus to the sub-quark level. To be clear, the CoD does not replace Newtonian calculus at the macro scale; it extends calculation to the quark scale, analogous to the way relativity does not replace Newtonian physics at normal scales of measurement, and only comes to play in the vicinity of extremely massive objects, or when relative velocities are near light-speed.

In summary, contrary to the impressions you have portrayed in your email of Feb. 3, 2015, TDVP is, in fact a comprehensive new paradigm with new mathematics, allowing consciousness to be included in the equations of mathematical physics for the first time. This paradigm has explained a number of empirical observations not explained by the current paradigm. The new mathematics, rigorously defined in several published books and articles, reveals an existential nine-dimensional finite domain embedded in an infinite substrate which contains the blueprints of all of the stable forms that support life and consciousness in the universe. I have tried repeatedly since 1989 to obtain competent peer review, and Vernon and I have sought colleague review in every venue available to us over the past six years as we’ve continued to develop the new paradigm. If you have any questions or concerns, or require more detailed explanations, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Edward R. Close, PhD, PE, DISPE