RE-IMAGINING REALITY

 

CAN YOU RE-IMAGINE REALITY?

There’s a lot of talk these days about re-imagining things, like re-imagining the meaning of words, re-imagining gender, re-imagining government, re-imagining civilization, and re-imagining life in general. But there is a problem with this: To believe that you can re-imagine reality, you have to imagine that you were the one who imagined it in the first place.

There is a kernel of truth in thinking that you might be able to re-imagine things that are difficult in your life, but trying to re-imagine something that is objectively real, something that you did not yourself imagine in the first place, is fraught with challenges and some dangers that have to do with human error and a basic mis-understanding about what time is. To try to explain what I mean by this, I will relate things that have happened to me during my lifetime that led me to the discovery of gimmel, the non-physical third form of reality, existing in addition to mass and energy.

I was born in 1936, just after the ‘great depression’ in the San Francois Mountains of Southeast Missouri, to monetarily poor descendants of European immigrants. My father was twenty-eight years old, and my mother was only nineteen when they fell in love, and all they had when they married was twenty dollars and their clothes. When my mother was a little girl, her mother made her clothes from cloth cut from flour sacks. By today’s standards, my folks were very poor, but they were rich in the traditions of rural American families who worked hard, grew their own food, and lived normal lives, close to the land and nature.  

My father, born in 1908, served four years in the US Army (1925 -1929), and he volunteered again in 1941, to serve in the Navy until the end of World War II. At the war’s end, he was a petty officer in the Amphibian Scouts and Raiders, later to be known as the Navy Seals. My mother and I traveled by train from Arcadia Missouri to Ft. Pierce Florida in the Summer of 1945, to be with him for a few days before he was transferred to Treasure Island in the San Francisco Bay to be part of the invasion of Japan that was planned to occur in November 1945, in retaliation for the Japanese surprise attack bombing of Pearl Harbor Sunday morning, December 7, 1941, killing 2,403 Americans and wounding about 1,200 more, including military personnel and civilians

The invasion of Japan never happened because of the first, and so far the only deliberate use of atomic bombs to kill human beings. Approximately 200,000 Japanese were killed by atomic blasts detonated over Hiroshima and Nagasaka Japan on August 6 and August 9, 1945. The horror of those bombings ended World War II and saved the lives of thousands of US sailors and marines, including that of my father. The military strategists planning the invasion had expected in excess of 90% casualties in the first-wave amphibian forces, because the Japanese, including nearly all civilian males, were eager to die honorable deaths defending their homeland in classic Samurai fashion.

As a pre-teen child living in the hills of Southern Missouri during WWII, I didn’t experience the horrors of the War directly, but I remember the air-raid drills, food rationing, news reels in the local movie theater, and daily radio reports very well, and things that happened to me personally during the decade of the 1940s and something that happened to me in the Great Pyramid in Egypt in 2010, caused me to think of time in a very different way than most people do. Those events included a number of out-of-body experiences (OBEs) and two near-death-experiences (NDEs) The first NDE occurred when I was struck by lightning in 1947. I have related details of my memory of those experiences in my autobiography, so I won’t take the time or space to do that again here and focus instead on the insights they gave me into the nature of time.

As I’ve reported in a number of blogposts and published books and papers, I agree with Albert Einstein, who concluded, based on the implications of general relativity, that empty space “has no claim to an existence of its own”. Similarly, time also has no claim to an existence of its own. Put another way: space has no meaning without the existence of objects, and time has no meaning without the occurrence of events. These conclusions have some far-reaching implications about the nature of reality, that I have talked about in other posts and publications, so here, I will focus only on what they reveal about the nature of time.

Time, specifically the observation and measurement of time, depends upon the functioning of consciousness in the 3-D physical domain, and consciousness, as experienced by most of us, most of the time, only allows us to perceive the one quantum of time that we think of as the present. As long as one identifies as a physical body with all of its limitations, the past is always gone, and the future is yet to come. As physical beings, part of something called “reality”, the only time we ever experience is the present in the ‘here and now’. But the gift of consciousness comes with the ability to remember the past and imagine the future, giving us the illusion of the existence of a continuous timeline. But OBEs and NDEs dispel this illusion, showing us that all things that exist, ever existed, or will ever exist are available in the eternal here and now.

For example, after my first NDE when I was an eleven-year-old, that occurred when I was struck by lightning while swimming in a creek, I began to have occasional spontaneous OBEs, during which I saw things existing beyond the quantized space-time domain of the here and now. Some of the things I saw were independently verified almost immediately after the OBEs that revealed them, while others were not verified until years later. Most of the things I saw seemed trivial and unimportant to me at the time, including even some memories of past lives. I never shared those memories with anyone until I began to realize that they were not just imaginative dreams, many years later.

In the summer of 1951, after discovering the work of Albert Einstein, I had an OBE, the impact of which assured me that I would become a scientist following in Einstein’s footsteps, and after earning degrees in mathematics, physics, and environmental science and engineering, and several years of studying consciousness, in late February and early March of 2010, sixty-three years after my first NDE, I had another one in the Great Pyramid on the Giza Plateau in Egypt. You can find more detail about this second NDE by searching for ‘The Great Pyramid’ in the archives on this blogsite, and I have shared even more detail in my autobiography.

Like my first NDE, this one also involved a discharge of electricity, but it was much more intense and traumatic than the first one. Others who were in the Pyramid near me when it happened, actually saw the discharge, and I still have a scar where it struck my forehead. I realized later that all of this was only the outer evidence of the rapid down-loading of an amazing amount of complex information that went on continually for two days.

Every time I closed my eyes, even after I was carried out of the Great Pyramid, I saw a continual flow of faces and symbols, and heard a stream of voices speaking in several different languages. This didn’t end until we were in the Ancient City of Petra in Jordan two days later. After that, I had several interesting Deja-vu experiences during the next three days on Mount Nebo where Moses died, and on the Jordan River where John baptized Jesus. A few years later, in a chance meeting with a psychic who had authored a book on Pyramid Energy, a popular subject in the 1970s, I was told that my experience in the Great Pyramid was part of a world-wide shift in human consciousness.

All of the OBEs I have had over my eighty-seven plus years, especially those that were connected with these NDEs, confirmed my conclusions about the nature of time and strengthened and deepened my understanding of the relationship of space and time to consciousness. Spatial dimensions are a sub-set of the dimensions of time, and time dimensions are a sub-set of the dimensions of consciousness, and Primary Consciousness is the infinite substrate in which all nine finite dimensional domains of space, time, and consciousness exist. What does this mean? It means that we have access, through our connection with Primary Consciousness, with all existential events, past, present, and future. It means that we are immortal souls, sleep-walking on this planet until we finally wake up to who we really are and what our purpose is!

Back home, when I continued pursuing the work on the consciousness research started in 2008 with Dr. Vernon Neppe, MD, PhD, the founder of the Pacific Institute of Neuropsychiatry, I began to understand some of the information downloaded into my brain in the Great Pyramid and see how it related to relativistic experiments with clocks and measuring devices moving at high rates of speed and quantum physics experiments like the double-slit, delayed-choice experiment. I also began to see how those experiments actually confirmed my NDE-and-OBE-based conclusions about the nature of the 9-D space-time-consciousness dimensional domain, containing the mass-energy-consciousness substance of reality.

By application of the existential quantum mathematics of the Calculus of Dimensional Distinctions (CoDD), with the natural triadic rotational units of equivalence (TRUE) defined as the basic quantum equivalence unit, I concluded that time has three dimensions, analogous to the triadic dimensionality of space, and colleagues started asking, “what are the 3 dimensions of time?” Stephen Hawking, the famous author of A Brief History of Time,  after a brief review of the early manuscript of my book Infinite Continuity, a book about reconciling relativity and quantum physics with applications of the CoDD, said: “I cannot imagine three dimensions of time!”

A common statement I heard very often, was “We know what the three dimensions of space are, but what are the three dimensions of time?” This statement is perfectly emblematic of the common mis-understanding most people have about the nature of time, a common error that I am addressing here. Most people think that they know what the three dimensions of space are. Ask anyone, and they will very likely say “length, width and depth”, or some similar expression about the measurement of things. But such an answer does not define the concept of ‘space’, it only describes an imaginary framework for measuring the geometry of objects and the distances between them.

Space, as Einstein discovered, has no existence of its own, and time is exactly the same kind of non-existent conceptual fiction as space, created for the purpose of measuring the extent of duration between observed events. The problem with this is that these conceptual fictions lead us to the belief that there is a universal ether-like space-time backdrop in which objectivity reality exists and occurs, but a uniform space-time background demonstrably does not exist. Time is not something that flows at the same rate throughout the universe. The extent of its duration depends upon the variables of relative motion and mass and energy of the object observed and that of the observer.

Space-time dimensions are simply variables of extent. My late wife Jacqui was not a university-trained mathematician, but she understood this intuitively. In the lyrics of a song that she composed in the early 1970s, while working for Frank and Nancy Sinatra Music in Nashville, she wrote: “Time is just the distance between what I am and what I shall become.”

Space-time dimensions are measured in terms of variables of extent, and they actually have no existence of their own. It is the contents of the domain they define that has substance and meaning. Space-time is non-existent without content and intent, and any description of reality that does not include all of the basic variables of content, extent, and intent, i.e., mass, energy, space, time, and consciousness, is incomplete.

The variables of extent, i.e., the variables of space, time, and individual consciousness, are dependent upon the substantial content of mass, energy, and individualized consciousness, and the intent of individual and Primary Consciousness, for meaning and purpose. The three dimensions of time are local time, planetary time, and cosmic time, but they have no existence or meaning, unless they describe the extent of events involving quanta of mass, energy, and consciousness existing in the domain they frame, and, finally, as discussed earlier, consciousness, like mass and energy, measured in quantum equivalence units of gimmel, only occurs in whole-number units.

Discovery of the mathematical proof of the existence of quantum equivalent units of gimmel, the massless organizer stabilizing every proton in existence, was intellectually satisfying from my point of view, but it raised a new persistent question that came from friends and colleagues, as well as from materialist skeptics in mainstream science. That question was: ‘Exactly what is gimmel?’ It wasn’t long before I realized how similar this question was to the question ‘What is consciousness?’

Like consciousness, gimmel cannot be defined in terms of anything else, because, just like Max Planck said, “We cannot get behind consciousness”, we also cannot get behind gimmel when describing stable physical reality! So, gimmel is the measure of consciousness that exists in every proton and every electron shell, organizing every atom of every element of the periodic table! But now, a still deeper question arises: How does gimmel, the measurable aspect of consciousness, relate to the three dimensions of time? The answer to this question lies in the logic of the geometric symmetry organized by gimmel in atomic structure, individual consciousness, and the cosmos.

Returning to the statement above, declaring that the three dimensions of time are local time, planetary time, and cosmic time, let’s focus on them one at a time: Local time is what an individual soul experiences when identified with a physical body. It is based on the motions of localized biological processes. Planetary time is periodic and symmetric, based on the motion of the planet in the solar system, and cosmic time is based on the measurement of the speed of light. All of these measurements of time can be made commensurable in TRUE units by setting the speed of light equal to one.

This naturalization of the speed of light links all objective measurements of existential phenomena to TRUE, allowing us to convert all unitary systems of measurement, including Planck units and SI units, to TRUE and express the laws governing the form and substance of reality in Diophantine equations reflecting the underlying logic of Primary Consciousness. That’s why the CoDD produces so many explanations and resolutions of contradictions and paradoxes in mainstream science.

Now, we are finally ready to produce a definitive answer to the question asked in the title of this blog post: “Can we re-imagine reality?” The answer is really very simple: We can re-imagine our own subjective conceptual models of reality by changing our own a priori assumptions to be more nearly aligned with the logic of Primary Consciousness; but we cannot re-imagine existential reality. It is what it is. At the present time in planetary chronology, we have about 25% free will. The other 75% of experience is predetermined by the logic of Primary Consciousness, traditionally known as “the will of God”.

We are now 424 Earth years into the 2400-year ascending Dwapara Yuga. As we traverse the remaining 10,376 years to the next Satya Yuga, the high point of physical, mental, and spiritual virtue, when the average conscious being will be one with Primary Consciousness,  with 100% free will. See Shri Yukteswar’s book The Holy Science for the best available explanation of planetary time.

ERC Petra 2010

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

MODELING REALITY

 

Here is a link to a recent interview I did discussing modeling reality using the Rubik's cube as an analog model. of body, mind, and soul.

https://vimeo.com/551284463?fbclid=IwAR2Wp1yARVHdUCw5bP5JBDgqBGxwF5xQzOPb4D7FjwX-JOmDNr9LvOp8iAM

(To open the video copy the link above and paste into your browser.}

MODELING REALITY WITH THE RUBIK'S CUBE

SOLVING THE MYSTERIES OF REALITY WITH RUBIK’S CUBE

A Triad of Presentations

©Edward R. Close, April, 2017

As I prepare power points and discussions for presentations this summer, I’d like to pause to reminisce a little about some of the circumstances of my life that led up to the development of the Neppe-Close Triadic Dimensional Distinction Vortical Paradigm (TDVP), as a model of reality that is appropriate for modeling relativity and quantum physics, cosmology, and physical, mental and spiritual development.

From 1969 until 1974, with a background in mathematics and physics, I was one of the seven charter members of the US Department of Interior Systems Analysis Group in Arlington Virginia, a suburb of Washington, D.C. I was privileged to have the opportunity to work with several distinguished mathematicians with degrees from Harvard, Stanford, Johns Hopkins, and other leading Universities. At that time, I was working on my PhD at Johns Hopkins.

Under the direction of Dr. Nicholas Matalas, a Harvard PhD and world leader in probability theory, we constructed mathematical models of environmental systems. Our projects included modeling storm cell development, coastal geomorphology, the relation of sunspot activity to weather patterns, and water resources management models, among other things.

One of the mathematicians I had the privilege of working with was Benoit Mandelbrot, a soft-spoken, friendly man. At the time, he was working on his later-to-become-famous paper on fractals. As a member of the Systems Analysis Group, I helped peer-review his ground-breaking paper. More importantly, I was able to discuss fractals and other interesting mathematical concepts with him when he visited our lab in Arlington. I mention this because the use of fractals, which became a popular art form, in mathematical modeling, is analogous to the use of the Rubik’s cube to model reality.

The Rubik’s cube, while considered to be a toy, or at best a frustrating puzzle by most, is uniquely designed to model the dimensionality of reality. It has nine orthogonal planes of rotating cubes, handy for simulating the nine dimensions of the TDVP model of the universe. It has three horizontal layers that can represent the body, mind and spiritual characteristics of conscious beings, and it can equally well represent quarks, atoms and molecules, or planets, solar systems and galaxies.

Stay tuned for more detail.

SOLVING THE MYSTERIES OF SPACE, TIME AND CONSCIOUSNESS WITH THE RUBIK'S CUBE

SOLVING THE MYSTERIES OF REALITY WITH RUBIK’S CUBE

Introducing a Trilogy of Discussions about TDVP*

©Edward R. Close, April 22, 2017

1.       SOLVING THE MYSTERIES OF THE COSMOS WITH A RUBIK’S CUBE

2.       SOLVING THE MYSTERIES OF QUANTUM PHYSICS WITH A RUBIK’S CUBE

3.       SOLVING THE MYSTERIES OF LIFE WITH A RUBIK’S CUBE

WHY THE RUBIK’S CUBE?

It turns out that the Rubik’s Cube is a perfect geometric model of nine-dimensional reality at the cosmological, quantum and consciousness scales! It has nine planes of rotation representing the nine dimensions of finite reality. Three principles are involved:

1. The Principle of Symbolic Representation

2. The Principle of Symmetric Resonance

3. The Principle of Synchronous Relativity

THE PRINCIPLE OF SYMBOLIC REPRESENTATION:

All phenomena are nothing more than symbolic representations of Reality that occur in three finite forms, describable with three symbolic variables:

1. Variables of Extent: three sets of three dimensions

2. Variables of Content: mass, energy and consciousness

3. Variables of Intent or meaningful information: existential, conceptual and imaginary

THE PRINCIPLE OF SYMMETRIC RESONANCE

There are three forms of symmetric resonance:

1. Mass: elementary particles, atomic elements and the universe

2. Energy: photonic, electric and magnetic
3. Consciousness: individual, group and cosmic

The nine finite dimensions are embedded in an infinite substrate of pure consciousness. This allows all phenomena to resonate, maintaining a perfect symmetric balance as a whole. Symbolic representation of the interaction of the three forms of symmetric resonance in TDVP invokes the Principle of Synchronous Relativity.

THE PRINCIPLE OF SYNCHRONOUS RELATIVITY

The symmetric resonance of Reality as a whole requires synchronous interaction between all phenomena: Asymmetries present in any observational distinction drawn by an individualized conscious entity in less than nine-dimensions is immediately balanced by complementary asymmetries in other dimensions of the holistic nine-finite-dimensional domain. The manifestation of Reality observed by an individualized conscious entity is thus incomplete and relative to the dimensional framework available to that individual.

There are three levels of synchronous relativity:

1. Physical
2. Mental
3. Spiritual

IMPLICATIONS OF THE THREE PRINCIPLES

The mathematical logic of the holistic synchronous nature of Reality requires that time and consciousness, like space, are three-dimensional. The nine orthogonal planes of the Rubik’s cube provide appropriate symbolic representations of the nine dimensions of cosmic reality, quantum reality and spiritual reality. During the year (2017) I plan to present a series of lectures and workshops using Rubik’s cubes to describe cosmic, quantum and spiritual reality. I will keep you informed.

 *The Triadic Dimensional Vortical Paradigm, the Neppe-Close paradigm shift. See www.BrainVoyage.com.