PHYSICAL REALITY IS AN ILLUSION

The physical universe, of which we know only very little through the limited scope and imperfect lens of our five physical senses, is what we take to be reality, as long as we indentify ourselves solely as physical bodies. Since we are only capable of seeing a tiny fraction of the spectrum of electromagnetic radiation, hear only a negligible portion of the total range of vibrational sound, feel only the surface of the deeply fractal structure of molecules and atoms, and smell and taste far fewer organic compounds that many of our animal friends, what makes us think that the picture of reality constructed in our minds are complete? After all, that picture is nothing more than the subjective interpretation of streams of severely limited data, allowed to continue on its inward path to your mind only after it is processed and passed through multiple layers of physical and neurological filtering structures that are part of our pyhsical bodies. This reducing of bits, waves and fields of radiated and reflected energy to specific forms is not arbitrary, however, it is done for the practical reason of survival. Without this reduction of the spectrum of energies that flood the cosmos, to a manageable stream going into our brains, the physical vehicles forming a link between consciousness and the cosmos would be destroyed.

As we push the frontiers of scientific understanding beyond the simplistic pictures provided by our physical senses, the farther we go, the more we see that those pictures are imcomplete and misleading concerning the true nature of reality. The fact that our best pictures of reality, used by science to construct a Standard Model of reality, are incomplete and misleading, is reflected in the history of science. The Standard Model, the consensus of mainstream scientists, defended by many as the truth, is constantly changing. Examples abound: The consensus was once that the earth was flat and the center of the universe. The scientific model of reality is continually changing. Just during my lifetime, the confidently estimated size of the universe has changed by huge factors multiple times. The continental drift theory was rejected as psuedo-science when I was an undergraduate, but is now fully accepted as plate tectonics. And there are many more examples of the dynamic nature of scientific truth.

I have seen yesterday’s speculations become today’s reality many times since I was in my twenties in the late 1950s and early 60s. And this is as it should be. It is seen, in retrospect as progress. Perhaps the most instructive example is the search for the basic building block of the universe. As scientists studied the structure of physical reality, it became clear that the everyday objects of our experience were made up of smaller objects, and those smaller objects of yet smaller objects. The bodies of living plants and animals were found to be made of organic structures and cells, inanimate objects were found to be made of several types of macro-forms, supported by patterns of crystaline structures, and both cells and crystals were found to be made of molecules, and the molecules were found to be made up different atoms, which in turn were found to be made up of electrons, protons and neutrons.

But when scientists tried to find the most basic building block of atoms, it seemed to keep slipping through their fingers. The discovery by Max Planck that reality is quantized promised a bottom to this descent into micro-reality. From the point of view of a physicist, reality consists of only four things: matter, energy, space, and time. But physicist Max Planck said, in "'Das Wesen der Materie' ('The Nature of Matter')". Speech in Florence, Italy,, 1944.:

“As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear-headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such.“

And Albert Einstein, on page 155, in Relativiy The Special and general Theory, said:

“There is no such thing as empty space… Space-time does not claim existence on ots own, but only as a structural quality of the field.“

So, three of the four things physicalists consider as real, either do not exist, or they are not what our senses seem to tell us they are! What about the fourth one: energy? Quoting Planck again:

“All [of what we call] matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together.”

So is everything ultimately made of energy? Continuing on, Planck said:

“We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.”

So as long ago as 1944 (still well within my lifetime; I was born in 1936.) two leading physicists, Albert Einstein and Max Planck, now considered to be the founders of the two pillars of modern science: relativity and quantum physics, said that matter, energy, time, and space, have no existence of their own, and Planck went a bit further, he said that consciousness is behind matter and energy, the substance of physical reality.

So, to summarize, the four things we think of as the basic components of physical reality: space, time, matter and energy, are not what we think they are. This is just another way of saying they are illusions. And solid matter faded away as an illusion, as we learned atoms are mostly space. The “particles” we call electrons, protons and neutrons, are dependent upon energetic forces, and consciousness is behind the forces.

Application of the quantum math I’ve described in several publications, including Reality Begins with Consciousness, (Neppe and Close, 2015) and Is Consciousness Primary? (The Academy for the Advancement of Postmaterialist Sciences, 2019), reveals that consciousness (we called it gimmel) is present in electrons and the quarks that make up the protons and neutrons in every atom of what we call ordinary matter. Not only that, it is present in greater proportions in the elements of the periodic table that make up living organisms. Another important finding of analyses using quantum math is that individualized consciousness (you or me, for example) is part of the primary matrix of consciousness that is behind the forces that shape reality.

Conclusion: What we think of as physical reality is an illusion.

Application of the calculus of dimensional distinctios, the quantum calculus, shows that the basic building blocks of reality are formed in the underlying reality of Primary Consciousness by the conscious drawing of distinctions. As sentient beings, we are quantums of conscioiusness evolving in a dynamic quantized world floating in the infinite domain of Cosmic Consciousness. Thus we are all connected in consciousness, and the evolution of reality is not random, it is meaningful change driven by Spiritual forces.

ERC 9/22/2019

TDVP CONTROVERSY

Drs Close, Stewart and O'Brien at a conference

TDVP STIRS SOME CONTROVERSY

A critique of the Triadic Dimensional Distinction Paradigm (TDVP) has been published in the fourth quarter 2018 issue of Telicom, the journal of the International Society for Philosophical Enquiry (ISPE), an organization in which both Dr. Vernon Neppe and I hold the highest earned rank. We have prepared separate responses: My response deals mainly with the math and physics, while Dr. Neppe’s response deals with the philosophy of science aspects of the criticisms. Our responses will be published in the next issue of Telicom.

I hope all who have read the critique, entitled “An Evaluation of TDVP” by physicists J.E.F. Kaan and Simon Olling Rebsdorf, will also read our responses. The “evaluation” contains more than forty misunderstandings, misinterpretations and erroneous statements, stemming mainly from the authors’ failure to understand the basics of TDVP physics and mathematical proofs.

Scientific paradigm shifts are often strongly denounced, maligned and ridiculed by mainstream scientists when they are first introduced. There are many reasons that this happens, including defense of established ideas, vested interest, intellectual arrogance, and pride. TDVP is no exception. In fact, because it introduces consciousness into the equations of physics and includes explanations of spiritual phenomena, it draws more criticism, anger and vitriol from mainstream scientists than most paradigm shifts, partially because many mainstream scientists are avowed atheists.

One of the claims that critics like Kaan and Rebsdorf make is that no “real” scientists have reviewed our work. Nothing could be further from the truth. The book “Reality Begins with Consciousness” (www.BrainVoyage.com) by Neppe and Close, and an increasing number of peer-reviewed papers, as well as journal articles and posts on this blog, have been well received by a growing number of scientists world-wide. Over 200 scientists have reviewed some or all of our work. Here are a few comments by some of them:

Dr. David Stewart, PhD, DNM, mathematical physicist, author of 17 books, the world’s leading authority on therapeutic essential oils, has read almost all of our work. He wrote:

“The Close-Neppe seminal work in creating TDVP constitutes one of the most profound and far-reaching discoveries and developments in the history of the sciences. …“When two polymaths make discoveries that are so groundbreaking they change the whole fabric of reality, it is clear that this is Nobel Prize material.”- “The authors’ many years of labor will be appreciated for centuries to come. …The exceptional metaparadigm of the Neppe-Close TDVP model certainly is worthy of the highest of prizes because it has redefined the spiritual within the scientific, and with another related Neppe-Close achievement LFAF (Lower Dimensional Feasibility Absent Falsification) has allowed the formal integration of spirituality into science by extending definitions of science to include what is feasible. These works are actually Nobel Prize worthy, and have been for a number of years. The only thing that could have been argued against a Nobel in 2016, was to say, ‘All these mathematical calculations fit. But are they, in fact, empirically based? Are they relevant? Or are they just as irrelevant as the various String Theories or Superstring Theories?’ We can now say quite definitively that ‘the truly remarkable and meaningful Neppe-Close TDVP work is empirically based’: The CERN data calculated using mass-energy equivalent figures are exactly the same derivations that appear for the Close-Neppe Triadic Rotational Units of Equivalence (TRUE). This means that their TDVP data is real and based on mathematically sound empirical data, not just mathematical. In other words, combining the third substance ‘gimmel’ that Close demonstrated is absolutely necessary for our stable quantal, macroworld, and our cosmological existence, the mass/energy volumetric equivalence of subatomic particles -- namely electrons (1), protons (1836) and neutrons (1839)--exactly correspond with the normalized figures …This means that TRUE and gimmel is real. There is now no argument that these discoveries are relevant and empirically verifiable ….”

Israeli scientist, Dr. Adrian Klein, DD, PhD, a leading biophysicist, has critically examined almost all our work. He says TDVP is:

“The beginning of the ultimate disclosure about the nature of an all-encompassing reality…A monumental work forcing obsolete preconceptions to crumble. The 21st Century's revolutionary paradigm shift …(Neppe and Close) have unique moral strength to confront destabilizing adversities …to underpin this universal truth with physical-mathematical rigor and proofs.…Demolishing by these proofs the last crutches of materialistic tenets, they bring a massive contribution to the advancement of Real Science… (TDVP) has laid a foundation for all future science to develop. The world of scientific understanding, in all fields, has been permanently changed, and set in a new direction. The future of all mankind is forever brighter because of what they have done.… they will both be awarded … a Nobel Prize in Physics (or) equivalent Mathematics Fields Medal. …The Neppe-Close contributions will change mankind's future. A seismic shift in understanding the understanding process itself! …The 21st Century's revolutionary paradigm shift.

Indian atomic physicist Surendra Pokharna, PhD says:

 “These two scientists [Close and Neppe] were unanimously equal recipients of the rarely awarded worldwide highly respected, prestigious interdisciplinary, open-to-all prize, the 2016 Whiting Memorial Award from the…ISPE for TDVP…an earthshaking paradigm shift. (www.tddvp.com) Their extraordinarily groundbreaking TDVP paradigm which they jointly have painstakingly developed over ten years. stands as the most profound scientific work of this century. TDVP deserves a Nobel Prize in Physics (and) involves not just one breakthrough, but constitutes many revolutionary advances. [They have proved]  we cannot have any particle, tiny or macroscopic or in our astronomical reality, without what is called ‘gimmel’— Neppe, Close and I and others regard gimmel as consciousness, or its vehicle as there is simply no other explanation … Neppe and Close have provided the data to solve complex questions by TDVP. Effectively, once one introduces extra dimensions, infinite continuity which embeds the 9 finite quantized dimensions, and consciousness/gimmel—“the God Matrix”— with math proofs plus unified reality as key points, the solutions for all finite reality become easier. This is why their TDVP model—unlike any other scientific model based on the Theory of Everything (TOE) criteria analysis—works, and why TDVP so closely reflects and encompasses the spiritual aspects.”

Dr. Alan Hugenot DSc, a uniquely qualified physicist and parapsychological researcher wrote:

“After having first read their papers my initial personal reaction was ‘This deserves a Nobel prize’! Later, I discovered that these two polymaths belong to the same high intellect societies in which I held personal membership, and in my opinion, they appear to be amongst the most creative thinkers currently advancing science in our world today.” … Ultimately, these two creative genius scientists have changed the world. …in order to look at the mathematics, Neppe and Close have recognized that there needs to be volume in everything. And if something is volumetric, this means it is 3-dimensional; it effectively can be calculated mathematically in terms of cubes. This leads to a whole string of Diophantine equations and what calculations do and do not fit within our empirical reality… the far-reaching implications of the TDVP groundbreaking paradigm… worthy of several separate Nobel Prizes”. …“The Neppe-Close contributions …might take 50 years… to register with the myopic main-stream scientific establishment, which continues to ignore the clear implications of the delayed choice double-slit experiment, comfortable in their classical Newtonian perspectives. So large is this sea-change in science, because this relates to 3s-1t (as well as the ‘hidden’ additional dimensions) that it will modify our understanding of Relativity theory. Relativity is not wrong; but there has to be extensions of this theory beyond our currently limited standard model…even Planck’s quantum has been modified by Neppe-Close.…this difference is profound.”

The well-known author, Dr. Larry Dossey MD, winner of numerous awards, Chief Editor of Explore, said:

“…an enormous contribution whose significance may surpass, even the profound implications of TDVP for cosmology and physics…Neppe and Close have reversed the dismal conclusions of materialistic science toward consciousness, and have made the concept of immortality and the survival of bodily death scientifically respectable…The main contribution of Neppe and Close has been made, the deed is done. This may make all the difference in humanity’s psychospiritual equipoise. …It is difficult to imagine a greater contribution.”

Dr. Leonard Horowitz, award-winning writer, film-maker, polymath, and author of twenty-one books wrote:

“Math doesn’t lie. Nor does Neppe and Close misrepresent or omit substantive facts explaining reality in their thesis. … Geniuses Neppe and Close apply honest principles from their TDVP model that mathematically proves the existence and operation of the ‘Higher Intelligence’ administering precognition (or intuition). … (They) go further than anyone else in addressing the numerous aspects …neglected by their scientific predecessors… ”

Dr. Gary E. Schwartz, PhD, Professor of psychology, medicine, neurology, psychiatry, and surgery, University of Arizona, Tucson, wrote:

“Dear Ed and Vernon, First, it was wonderful hearing Ed present at the ASCI meetings. … I found myself understanding, appreciating, and celebrating what the two of you have been doing. In fact, as I look over the 40 years of my attending scientific meetings, Ed's presentation is among THE MOST MEMORABLE AND MEANINGFUL of my entire academic (and personal) life”.

Many more PhD professors and researchers have responded briefly to our book Reality Begins with Consciousness (RBC) as follows:

Dean Radin PhD, the world’s leading parapsychological researcher: Close and Neppe’s book, “RBC [is] in a radical multidisciplinary class by itself”;

Alan Bachers PhD: “an astonishing and prodigious accomplishment!”;

John Poynton PhD: “encyclopedic … broad exploratory paradigm for new scientific ideas”;

Lance Storm PhD: “a paradigm shift that hails in, if not, beckons for, a kind of scientific overhaul and shift in thinking”;

Helmut Wautischer PhD “will shape philosophical discourse … a profound value to the future of humankind…masterful…”

Joyce Hawkes PhD, FAAAS, biophysicist and the leading exponent of healing: “…any one of these [31] areas, let alone the combination would be a very substantial reason for Drs. Neppe and Close to be recipients of major prizes”;

Stanley Krippner PhD, pioneer of world Humanistic Psychology: “destined to become a classic in the literature on shifting paradigms and worldviews”.

And, there are many more.

We are currently corresponding with a number of PhD professionals interested in the applications and implications of TDVP and the natural quantum units of the calculus of dimensional distinctions. I have had a number of informal discussions with Mr. Kaan over a period of several years, but I can’t say that they were very productive, because his comments were generally negative, with no in-depth discussion of the concepts behind TDVP; and I have had no previous discussions with Mr. Rebsdorf.

As a preview of the Telicom articles pro-and-con TDVP, here are some brief excerpts from Kaan and Rebsdorf’s article, with excerpts from my reply. In their Summary and Conclusions, oddly placed at the beginning of the article instead of the end, they say:

“TDVP claims to have been able to improve on the Standard Model of Particle Physics (SMPP). Yet from our analysis, such “improvements” do not appear scientifically correct, i.e., they have not been derived with proper physics methods. In addition, there are no concrete, quantitative, accurate measurements/experiments to support TDVP’s claims.”

Farther along in the article, they expand several times on the claim that our methods are not “proper physics methods”. Here is one example:

“Close calculated negative numbers for gimmel, but then continued with some number juggling (with arbitrary integers for gimmel), until the whole thing seemed to work again, which is not an established sound method in physics.”

My response, in part:

“The negative calculated values were simply part of the iterative computation used to establish the minimum possible integral solution. None of the values used …were “arbitrary”. And any experimental or theoretical physicist should be familiar with the method of using best estimates as the starting point to iteratively zero in on the values that actually satisfy an equation. This method, called iterative computation, is used routinely and extensively in applied physics and engineering.” And I gave a reference supporting my answer.

Concerning their statement “there are no concrete, quantitative, accurate measurements/experiments to support TDVP’s claims” I responded with:

“In fact, we have checked upwards of fifty specific instances to see if TDVP actually works for prior existing experiments, and it does.”

The most important concept that K&R failed to grasp, is the need for a calculus with measurement units that are derived from the natural quanta of the real world. This failure is clear in their reference to Figure 1, on page 147 of their article:

 “… the mass values are assumed to be integers, apparently to be in line with quantum physics. Yet from the data in Figure 1, we can see the quark masses are not integer at all. The same will, of course, be found in any text on this topic.”

Excerpts from my answer:

“ …these data for quarks (in their figure), along with the mass of the electron, are the actual data used in the derivation of natural quantum units in the TDVP calculations. Quark masses are naturalized to the mass of the electron, the most accurately known quantum mass. The way they are naturalized is straight-forward and should be understood by any physicist or mathematician.”

And:

“ The derivation of natural quantum units for TDVP has been published several times, including in Reality Begins with Consciousness and in several peer-reviewed papers in addition to my Transcendental Physics blog — http://www.erclosetphysics.com.” (And, I gave references.)

“Any quantum physicist should be familiar with the conversion of SI units to natural units. and physicists should at least be familiar with naturalized Planck units. They shouldn’t have to be told why that, even though mass is quantized, the values in Figure 1 are not integers. They are not integers because the units of measurement being used are not naturalized quantum equivalence units.”

Why did two intelligent men (they are members of ISPE) with Masters degrees in physics make such obvious blunders? It appears that they did not actually try to understand TDVP because they were focused on defending the standard model.

As I say in my conclusions, at the end of my response article:

“It appears that the authors believe TDVP can’t be correct, because it includes consciousness as an integral part of reality, conflicting with the dogma of mainstream physics”.

After the responses are published in Telicom, I will post more.

Is Consciousness an Emergent Feature of Reality?

Is Consciousness an Emergent Feature of Reality?

Unifying Quantum Physics, Relativity and Consciousness
Video #3 of 3

What Is Gimmel?

WHAT IS GIMMEL?

Copyright Edward R Close
September 28, 2017

Uniting Quantum Physics, Relativity and Consciousness
VIDEO #2 of 3

FAKE NEWS

FAKE NEWS

The following headline appeared on Mother Nature Network yesterday:

Large Hadron Collider Disproves the Existence of Ghosts

“Many people believe in ghosts despite the fact that scientific proof of their existence is tenuous at best. After all, science hasn't exactly disproven the existence of ghosts yet either, has it? Well, perhaps it has. According to renowned theoretical physicist Brian Cox, science has essentially already built the ultimate ghost detector — the Large Hadron Collider — and it has failed to detect anything that could explain ghosts. As he points out on The Infinite Monkey Cage on BBC radio, there's simply no more room left for ghosts in the Standard Model of Particle Physics.”

Actually, there never has been any room in the Standard Model of particle physics for ghosts. And, even if ghosts could be revealed in terms of physical parameters, evidence from the LHC would hardly be expected. Why in the world would a ghost hang around the LHC anyway?

However, the proof that there could be something not detected by the high-energy particle smasher may be right under their noses. They haven’t found dark matter particles or dark energy in the LHC, have they? And yet dark matter and dark energy make up more than 95% of the universe.

They go on to quote Brian Cox as saying:

"If we want some sort of pattern that carries information about our living cells to persist, then we must specify precisely what medium carries that pattern, and how it interacts with the matter particles out of which our bodies are made. We must, in other words, invent an extension to the Standard Model of Particle Physics that has escaped detection at the Large Hadron Collider.”

OK, that’s exactly what we’ve done with True quantum unit analysis and the third form of reality (gimmel, not detectable as matter or energy) which is indirectly detectable because it affects angular momentum and atomic stability. Mainstream particle physicists have missed it completely because they don’t believe there is anything other than matter and energy.

Brian Cox goes on to say: “That's almost inconceivable at the energy scales typical of the particle interactions in our bodies."

The article continues:

“The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) is the most complex experimental facility ever built; the largest single machine in the world. It's a particle collider that smashes particles together at incredible speeds to reveal any tinier particles that might emerge from the collisions. While the LHC can't be said to be definitively powerful enough to have detected every particle in the universe, it's certainly powerful enough to have penetrated to the fundamental levels that pertain to how our cells use energy.

‘I would say if there's some kind of substance that's driving our bodies, making my arms move and legs move, then it must interact with the particles out of which our bodies are made," continued Cox. "And seeing as we've made high-precision measurements of the ways that particles interact, then my assertion is that there can be no such thing as an energy source that's driving our bodies.’

In other words, there's simply nothing that's been identified by the LHC that could possibly carry on after our bodies die, not within the Standard Model.”

The writer of the article seems to redeem himself a little:

“But what about outside the Standard Model? After all, the Standard Model has been shown to contain some glaring holes, and many physicists today acknowledge that it's an incomplete theory as currently constructed.

Cox anticipates this rebuttal. He admits that there are plenty of problems with the Standard Model, but firmly contends that ghosts don't fall within the ‘known unknowns’ of the theory. In other words, the Standard Model explains enough of the universe to rule out an afterlife.”

NO, IT DOESN’T! This argument is just plain silly. It’s like saying atoms don’t exist because I’ve never seen one, and then saying since my theory explains enough for me, it rules out atoms.

The article goes on: “Cox's argument, if considered valid, might not be enough to convince those who believe in supernatural forces beyond what can be observed by science, but it at least backs such believers into their very own corner.

And perhaps there's still room for ghosts in the minds of the rest of us too. After all, just because ghosts aren't the stuff of physics doesn't mean they can't still haunt us.”

This ending to the article just shows that the writer has not thought very much about such things. It is the materialists who occupy a very small corner of reality.

BEYOND MATH AND PHYSICS: LIFE AND CONSCIOUSNESS

BEYOND MATHEMATICS AND PHYSICS: LIFE AND CONSCIOUSNESS

Mathematical Physics and Poetry

As you know, if you’ve read my resume, I am a physicist, mathematician and engineer by formal education and training. But, more importantly, before and after that, I am a human being. The purpose of this post is to put the findings of the Triadic Dimensional Vortical Paradigm (TDVP) into proper perspective: the perspective of life. Because, after all, without the existence of living, breathing, thinking beings, all the discoveries of science would be worthless. The mathematician (the first degree I earned) deals with things that can be measured and thus represented by numbers. The physicist (what I thought I wanted to be from the age 14) uses mathematics to describe relationships between matter and energy dynamically interacting in time and space. These two subjects, math and physics, are considered by most people to be difficult, complex, and virtually incomprehensible without extensive education. This, however, is a misconception perpetuated by the naiveté and egos of physicists. Mathematics and physics are, in fact, the simplest of subjects, because the complexities of life and consciousness are ignored. A science, whatever it is called, that considers only the interaction of matter and energy in space and time is a simple science. But it is easy for an academic mathematical physicist to forget this, and this deliberate ignorance of anything that cannot be weighed or measured, coupled with the arrogance of ego, leads them to imagine that they can produce a ‘theory of everything’!

True innovative, visionary scientists, of which there are precious few, know how little they know. I believe Albert Einstein was one, because he said “It is amazing that we can understand anything” and his motivation was to “know God’s thoughts”, in contrast with many mainstream scientists who “have no need for concepts like god or divinity”. In my opinion, anyone who claims to have a Theory of Everything (TOE) is simply announcing his or her ego and ignorance. Believing you can produce a TOE is mental masturbation, leading to intellectual impotence. Belief in scientific materialism is belief in a sterile universe devoid of life. A real scientist should be a poet, whose language is mathematics. A poet realizes that his words can never completely capture the majesty of reality, or the amazing miracle of life.

A mathematical statement like E=mc² is actually a poem dealing with things that we can observe and measure. Mathematics is a simple language, a language striped of meaning beyond weight and measure. But, like a poem, it can hint at the fullness of reality that exists beyond weight and measure. You can see that mathematics is just a simple language by realizing that the left-hand side of an equation is the subject, the equals sign is the verb, and the right-hand side contains the object, and indirect object of the statement. Complex mathematical functions can contain adjectives, adverbs, infinitives, and participles, but they are still just simple statements.   

Quantum Statistics and Physical Laws

Like a good poem, the mathematical statement of a law of physics states an underlying principle that predicts the probable outcome of an observation. Why do I say “probable”? We’d like to think that an equation like F = ma (Newton’s Second Law of Motion) is exact. It says the force possessed by a moving object is equal to its mass times the acceleration behind its motion. It is exact, however, only if the object’s mass is constant over space and time. For general purposes, the law works, for instance in determining the force with which a car traveling 60 miles per hour strikes a tree. If, however, the object is a space craft or rocket traveling at a velocity near the speed of light, the statement is inaccurate. But it is even worse than that: reality is messy relative to mathematical expressions. A physical object is made up of billions of molecules, atoms, electrons, protons, neutrons, and quarks. The molecules, atoms and sub-atomic particles that make up a physical object are in a constant state of flux. It is only in the aggregate, on the average, that the object obeys Newton’s law. But the law works for all practical purposes at the macro-scale of everyday objects. The actual force will be equal to ma, within the margin of measurement error. Therein lies the elegance and poetry of F = ma. Much like a poem, it conjures up images of real events which may be much more complex, with the economy of finite symbols.

Paradox, the Fount of New Knowledge

The longer I live, and the more experience I have, the more I realize that anyone who has never contradicted himself/herself, has probably not said very much of any importance. Conflict and paradox are inevitable in a world of infinite possibilities, and no one wants a world of absolute determinism. (See the posts on Dangerous Knowledge and the Disappearing Genius.) Scientists bemoan the fact that relativity and quantum physics do not seem to fit together as they should. But, knowing that reality obeys Gӧdel’s incompleteness theorem, and is thus effectively infinite, paradoxes in science should be seen as doorways to new knowledge, new science.

From Top Down, or Bottom UP?

If we look toward the stars in distant galaxies, toward the edge of the visible universe, the math of relativity applies; but, if we look toward the heart of the atom, the realm of electrons and quarks, quantum mechanics is the math that yields the correct answers. But, as conscious beings, we live in the middle, and I submit that the math of the calculus of distinctions, which includes consciousness as a real and active part of reality, is the appropriate math for us. And it is pure poetry, I believe, that the calculus of distinctions also works on the quantum and galactic scale! The reason it works is because everything is God’s thoughts, and God is just a human word for the logic and intelligence that is manifest in the reality of the universe we experience. We experience only a small part of the universe through our physical senses, and we can only observe and measure quarks and galaxies indirectly, but we are capable of being aware of their existence, and much more, through expanding our consciousness beyond that experienced through our physical bodies. 

Quantum Equivalence

The most unique and important finding of TDVP is the discovery of the mass/energy/space/time equivalence at the ultimate quantum level. See the posts on TRUE units and gimmel, and published books and papers available on www.BrainVoyage.com, and in scientific journals. This discovery allows us to understand why there is a universe, why there is something rather than nothing, and reveals the fact that the universe is designed from the beginning for organic life and the physical expression of consciousness. Discovery of this equivalence has enabled us to explain a number of things not explained in the current paradigm, like particle spin and the triadic combination of quarks.

Physical Reality Ultimately Depends upon Non-Physical Reality

The discovery of quantum equivalence is actual validation of the TDVP shift to a consciousness-based scientific paradigm. We have demonstrated that no stable particle could have emerged from a big bang origin event without the existence of gimmel, the basis of consciousness. Thus, current materialistic science is turned upside down. Scientists seeking to understand consciousness should not be looking for ways to explain consciousness in terms of matter and energy, they should be looking for ways to explain matter and energy in terms of consciousness. 

THREE VERY IMPORTANT QUESTONS

THREE VERY IMPORTANT QUESTIONS

In this post I will address the following three very important questions:

Why is there something, rather than nothing?

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

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

Why are these questions so important? Because without the correct answers to these questions, all our knowledge and understanding of reality may be based on incorrect assumptions, and this could be very dangerous. We could easily make mistakes that could destroy us. 

But, you may say, modern science has been very successful at explaining how the world works. Surely the answers to these three questions are well known by mainstream scientists. Modern technology, based on the knowledge and understanding of modern science, has produced the amazing electronic devices that so enhance our lives today; and mainstream scientists speak confidently about the big bang origin of the universe, the quantum nature of matter, atomic structure, details of distant galaxies, and black holes. Surely they know what they are talking about, -- don’t they? How could mainstream science be so successful without knowing the answers to these very basic questions about the nature of reality?

Leibniz pointed out the importance of the first, most basic question in 1671, but science has ignored it, and finding the correct answers to the second and third questions depend upon having the correct answer to the first question. Leibniz also declared in his “Principle of Sufficient Reason,” that there is a correct answer for every question. If we don’t have an answer to the first question, our incomplete understanding of the other questions implies an answer to the first question by default, and if that answer is wrong, we are treading on thin ice. The use of the atomic bomb in World War II and the many environmental blunders we've made through the unwitting applications of our incomplete knowledge of physics and chemistry since are prime examples of why this is so dangerous. 

In posts to come, I will address each of the three questions, starting with the first.

The Electron, Relativity and TRUE Units

In this presentation learn how the Electron and the Principles of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics determine the size and nature of TRUE Units, the shape of the electron, and a glimpse at one of the connections between consciousness and matter.



If the video does not appear above, click this link to watch on YouTube:

https://youtu.be/Cw8J17nKCrw

All intellectual material on this website are Copyright, 2015, by Edward R Close and may not be copied or transmitted through any means without permission from author. You are invited to provide a link to this website and share it with others who may be open and interested in the material covered.