WHAT
IS REALITY? EXISTENCE AND THE PROBLEM OF TIME
We saw in earlier posts how the existence of the third
form of the substance of reality, which we’ve called ‘gimmel’, explains why there is
something instead of nothing. It even explains why there are conscious organic
life forms. But it doesn’t explain exactly how they came into being, or where
they came from. But particle physicists, by conceptually rolling back the clock
from here and now, in accordance with the known laws of physics, have come up
with a theory, called the Big Bang Theory, as an explanation of the origin of
the universe. But the BB theory doesn’t explain the existence of conscious
beings, or even how stable atoms are formed. It’s pretty questionable on many
levels, as we will see.
To analyze this in a comprehensive manner, the Triadic
Dimensional Vortical Paradigm (TDVP) developed by Edward R. Close (me), a
mathematician and physicist, and Vernon M. Neppe, a neuroscientist and
physician, recognizes the existence of consciousness as a basic component of
reality. An important task of TDVP, is to bring physics and neuroscience
together. I will approach this task here by starting with the question: What is
a particle physicist? Is a particle physicist a physicist made of particles, or
a physicist who studies particles?
This sounds facetious, but a particle physicist would
probably say that he/she is both. A particle physicist believes that everything is made up of particles, and
reality can best be understood by takings apart and studying the pieces. But we
argue that is incorrect. The whole is always greater than the sum of the parts,
and a particle physicist is a conscious human being, and as such, is much more
than a conglomeration of physical parts, and an atom is much more than
electrons, protons and neutrons stuck together in various physical
configurations. Physical reality, until now erroneously thought of by
mainstream scientists as being capable of stable existence independent of
consciousness, contains not only mass and energy, but also consciousness.
Particle physicists have a very basic problem they
don’t seem to recognize, or know how to deal with … or even want to know how to deal with. It’s the
question of beginning: what, when and where was the beginning? What was the
first particle, when and where did it exist, and where did it come from??? I’m
going to deal with the question of beginning here. Actually, I have no choice,
I have to, because the calculus of distinctions, a major tool of TDVP, applied
to the interaction of mind and matter as finite distinctions implies there are
no beginnings or endings, only change. Given that I exist, I am here, and it is
now. Given that the universe also exists
here and now, how did this happen?
The particle physics answer is the big bang theory: There
was a big explosion about 13.7 billion years ago, and the first particles came
from that. Really? You mean to tell me that there was nothing, and suddenly
there was an explosion from a mathematical singularity (a dimensionless point)
and, instead of flying apart forever, the pieces got together and eventually
formed everything we see now? How did this happen? Explosions, as we know them,
don’t create things, just the opposite, they destroy things. There’s obviously
something major missing from this picture. Not only that, the logic of the standard
model of particle physics leads to the necessity of there being ‘particles’
with no mass and/or no energy. What? Wait a minute, what is the definition of a
particle?
If reality is not adequately described by the current
materialistic paradigm, and the universe didn’t originate in a physical big
bang explosion from nothing, the most important question is: How did the universe as we know it arrive at
the negative entropy level of organization we experience in the here and now?
OK, here’s the problem: The current scientific
paradigm assumes that the observer, the human component, has no direct connection with physical reality.
In the prevailing paradigm, consciousness has only an indirect relationship to
physical reality through the physical senses, and is represented in the
mathematical description by a point in the four-dimensional space-time domain
of the physical universe. In TDVP, this is recognized as a false assumption. TDVP
builds upon the indications from relativity and quantum mechanics that
consciousness is an integral part of reality, and includes the action of
consciousness in the equations. It does this by replacing the binary logic of
mass and energy in a four-dimensional domain with the triadic logic of mass,
energy and consciousness in a nine-dimensional domain, embedded in infinity. It
recognizes the fact that only a small portion of reality is directly available
to the physical senses, but that the rest of reality contributes meaning and
purpose to conscious experience. So, how does this provide us with a better
understanding of reality? Let me answer this in the first person:
Given that I exist, I am here, and it is now, and the
conditions in this here and now define the reality I experience. Given that the
universe also exists here and now, I apparently arrived at this
mass/energy/space/time state defined by my present state of
consciousness, by one specific route; but I
have a finite range of several different choices available to me by which I may
create my future. This state of affairs describes my conscious experience of
the present and the so-called arrow of time that differentiates the time
dimension from the space dimensions in both quantitative and qualitative ways.
dimensionometrically, it seems that I have only seven degrees of freedom: two
in each of the three dimensions of space, giving me the freedom to move to any unoccupied
location in 3D space, but only one degree of freedom in the time dimension. But
quantum physics and the calculus of dimensional distinctions tell me that time,
like space, is actually three-dimensional, and while, just like in space, I can
only experience one timeline through 3D time, defined by the series of choices
I make, under certain circumstances, choices made in the present can change the
route by which I arrived in the here and now. The implications of this are
immense.
One interesting implication is that it is possible
that I can deliberately change my present state of conscious experience by
making choices in the present that will change the path by which I arrive at
this state. To be continued.
