MORE ON GIMMEL AND CONSCIIOUSNESS

MORE ON GIMMEL AND CONSCIOUSNESS

© 2019 by Edward R. Close

The Significance of the Discovery of Gimmel

Non-physical gimmel is real and at least as important in the structure of physical reality as mass and energy and it very well may provide us with a refreshing new avenue to investigate consciousness in a systematic, scientific manner. In this discussion, I will use the triad of mass, energy and gimmel to address an important and very basic question about the nature of consciousness: the question of whether consciousness is an epiphenomenon of physical complexity, or the architect of it; in other words, which came first, matter or consciousness?

The current mainstream paradigm assumes that particulate matter, in the form of quarks, electrons, and protons, evolved first, producing hydrogen and other elements billions of years ago, and that self-aware consciousness arose only very recently, after sufficiently complex organic structures had evolved. But this is a very restricted view of consciousness, assuming that it is limited to the self-awareness in human beings and functioning perhaps, to a lesser extent, in other living organisms. In the light of the discovery of the necessary existence of gimmel in every single elementary particle for atomic stability, we have evidence that the logical structure of consciousness exists in every particle of the physical universe, suggesting that the reasoning leading to the mainstream model may be flawed. Consciousness, not matter, may be primary.

Consciousness and the Physical Universe

Self-aware sentient beings, in particular, human beings like you and me, are born into a world where an amazing plethora of complexity already exists, and apparently has existed for billions of years. Some of us, sometimes called scientists, are capable of conceptualizing different levels of complexity, and using objects that exist around us to build laboratories and instruments to investigate some of the existing complex objects discovered by those who have preceded us, like the atoms known as the elements of the periodic table.

The reality you experience, including your own body, appears to be made of a range of complex molecular and atomic structures, in turn made of electrons, protons and neutrons. Clever scientists before us have discovered that protons and neutrons are further composed of even more elementary entities, known as quarks: specifically of two sizes, called up-quarks and down-quarks, for reasons we need not go into here. All of these objects making up our environment appear to be made of atoms, starting with the simplest atom, the hydrogen atom, consisting of only one electron and one proton, ranging through more and more complex atoms consisting of hundreds of electrons, protons and neutrons; so everything appears to be made of atomic structures composed of only three things: electrons, up-quarks and down-quarks. Some of the atoms, at a certain level of complexity, combine to form life-supporting organic compounds that join together and form self-aware organisms like you and me, capable of conscious experience.

Limitations of the Standard Model of Particle Physics

When we decided to study these complex structures, to see what makes them work with Swiss-watch-like precision, we started with the hydrogen atom, the smallest and simplest structure existing at or near the threshold of observation and measurement using our physical senses and conceivable extensions of them. Gradually, we devised increasingly more sophisticated ways to break atoms apart and measure the mass and energy of the constituent particles indirectly. We had to devise indirect methods to do this because the sub-atomic constituents (electrons and quarks) are so very, very small that we couldn’t observe and measure them directly.

The methods we devised were intrusive and destructive, including ionization (forcing electrons out of the outer-most shell of atoms) and engineering collisions of protons (obtained by the ionization of hydrogen atoms) with each other and other atoms. More and more sophisticated methods were developed for accelerating particles and targeting other particles and atoms. Using powerful electromagnets, particles were accelerated to extreme velocities, with momentums great enough to penetrate complex atoms and break them apart. The atom-smashers, from the earliest versions, built in the late 1920s and early 1930s, from the Cyclotron, to the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) in use today, employ the same method: blasting atoms apart and examining the resulting fragments.

The Swiss watch analogy is instructive: An atom, considered as a finite object, separate from any more complex structure, is, like a fine Swiss watch, an intricate, dynamic structure of interacting parts. If you decide to take a watch apart to see how it works, hopefully, you have the appropriate watch-maker’s tools on hand, so that you can take it apart carefully, in order to observe how each cog-wheel, spring and ratchet operates and how they work together to produce a precise and accurate time-keeping instrument. But suppose you are a five-year-old child, and the only tool you have is a hammer. You manage to pop the case apart, but the mystery of how the clock works is not immediately apparent, so you continue to hammer it until you have produced as many bits and pieces to look at as you can. When you finally stop  hammering, the various constituent parts may be so damaged and even broken into pieces in the smashing process that, their function while they were in the watch is totally obscured.

If we count the number of pieces scattered around when our five-year old is finished hammering, we may have many times more pieces than the number of parts used in the construction of the watch, and studying them will not likely lead to much understanding of how a watch works. Particle physicists are like children with hammers. Their standard model of reality based on destructive collisions consists of as many as 80 or 90 particles and anti-particles. But most of these particles are not functional in the atoms making up the everyday stable world we experience, they are created by the atom-smashing process, and they decay rapidly, lasting for  only very extremely short periods of time under extreme high-energy conditions, which may or may not have existed at the time of the hypothetical big-bang origin of the universe.

The physical reality we experience is built up primarily of the mass and energy of three particles: electrons, protons and neutrons, combined in various stable configurations. And protons and neutrons are primarily comprised of the mass and energy of up-quarks and down-quarks, so at the most elementary level, the physical features of everything we experience in our lives on this planet are the results of combinations of electrons and quarks and the associated gravitational, magnetic and electro-magnetic forces that are generated as results of their interactions in space and time. The other members of the particle zoo, generated by the hammering of particles together in high-energy particle colliders, while interesting from a theoretical point of view, are so ephemeral they have little or no effect on the physical reality we experience as sentient beings.

Deriving and Applying a System of Quantum Equivalence Units

We have concluded that the basic building blocks of our physical reality, measurable in units of mass, energy and volume of space, spinning at some specific number of rotations per unit of time, are electrons, up-quarks and down-quarks. The free electron has the least mass of the three, and if we take that mass as the quantum unit of mass, normalize and naturalize the LHC masses of the up-quark and down-quark, we find that they have masses of 4 and 9 quantum mass units respectively. Then, by naturalizing the units of space and time (extent and duration), Einstein’s famous equation, E = mc² yields  a system of measurement in which the units of mass, energy, space, and time are equivalent. Noting that quarks, because they are rotating physical objects, are three-dimensional, I call these 3-D units quantum equivalence units. In the geometry of symmetrical rotating objects, application of Fermat’s Last Theorem proves that quarks must combine in threes to produce stable rotating objects. Because of these facts, the resulting basic units of quantum calculus are called Triadic Rotational Units of Equivalence (TRUE).

Using the TRUE as the basic unit of the Calculus of Dimensional Distinctions, an adaptation and expansion of G. Spencer Brown’s Calculus of Indications, from his seminal work Laws of Form, we have, for the first time since Planck discovered that physical reality is quantized, a quantum calculus appropriate for the investigation of quantum phenomena. With application of this system of mathematical logic, we are able to solve a number of puzzles that have plagued particle physics for decades, like explaining the EPR paradox, the double-slit and delayed-choice experiments, as well as explaining why the Cabibbo quark-mixing angle has the exact value it does, why fermions have an intrinsic spin number of ½, why neutrons and other complex particles have the exact masses they do, and much more.

A Wider Range of the Scientific Investigation of the Nature of Reality

By developing the proper tools for investigating quantum phenomena, and applying them to the known parameters of the elementary particles that make up the physical universe we experience, a third form of the substance of reality, necessary for structural stability, was discovered. We call that third form gimmel. Each and every elementary particle has to have an exact number of mass, energy and gimmel units to be stable, and thus the amount of gimmel in every combination of particles in physical reality can be mathematically determined. When this method of analysis was applied to the elements of the periodic table, we found that the major life-supporting elements, carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen, contain higher percentages of gimmel than other elements, especially those that are poisonous or detrimental to consciousness-supporting life. This strongly suggests that the universe is the result of intelligent design. The discovery of gimmel reveals that the self-referential structure of the physical universe is designed very specifically to support the development of complex living organisms capable of manifesting increasingly sophisticated forms of consciousness.

So what is gimmel that makes it capable of affecting the nature of the physical universe in this way? It is not some form of matter, or some form of energy, as I’ve pointed out in the previous post, because if it were, it would add to the measurable mass and/or energy of the particles that form protons, they would no longer be quarks, atomic structure would be unstable, and there would be no physical universe as we know it. Science can only describe what we experience and become consciously aware of through physical, mental or spiritual perception. That means that to understand what gimmel is, we have nothing but our experience to draw from.

Consciousness is the only thing we experience directly. Matter, energy, space and time are experienced indirectly through the reduction valves of the physical sense organs that only allow vibrational energies of specific ranges of frequencies to be channeled to the central nervous system where they are converted to images. Space and time have no existence of their own because space is simply the dimensional extent around and between objects, and time is the duration between events. Without objects and events, there is no space or time. So there are only three sources of our experiences: matter, measured as mass, energy, measured as force, and pure consciousness, measured as individual awareness. Since gimmel cannot be matter or energy, by process of elimination, it is pure consciousness.

Historically, when pure consciousness has been perceived in the midst of physical reality by finite self-aware individuals, it has been called the Holy Spirit. To complete the only model that is able to describe everything we can experience as human beings, we need only envision three finite dimensional domains of three dimensions each, embedded in an infinity of pure consciousness. All of the laws of physical, mental and spiritual reality are conveyed into the dimensional domains of finite quantized reality mathematically from pure consciousness in the mathematical ratios of mass, energy and gimmel. 

There could be no particles, no hydrogen atoms and no physical universe without gimmel. If, as concluded above, gimmel is pure consciousness, then consciousness is primary and matter secondary, not the other way around as assumed by the materialist mainstream scientific paradigm.

Pure consciousness, represented in the structures of the physical universe, is Planck’s “conscious intelligent spirit”, and Einstein’s “spirit … manifest in the laws of the Universe - a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble.”(See the previous post.)

ERC 3/18/2019

WHAT IS GIMMEL???

WHY IS THERE SOMETHING RATHER THAN NOTHING?

© 2019 by Edward R. Close

The great German polymath Wilhelm Gottfried Leibniz said: “Die wichtigste Frage, die die Wissenschaft zuerst beantworten sollte, ist: Warum gibt es etwas, statt nichts?“

Translation: “The most important question that science should answer first, is: Why is there something rather than nothing?”

Why has modern science virtually ignored this basic question despite the fact that one of the most respected thinkers in the history of Western science considered it to be so important? It is because of the fragmentation of Western thought by academic specialization, which I have disparaged in previous posts, and because mainstream science has no answer for this question. When a question is too difficult for scientists to find a way to formulate in a testable hypothesis, it is all too easy to claim it is really not a scientific question, and relegate it to the specialized community of professional philosophers. But, in this case, that is a cop-out.

Leibniz was absolutely right, why there is something rather than nothing is a question of the utmost importance, and it should be answered first, because the answer will change science in profound ways that will be hard for mainstream Western scientists to even imagine. The Triadic Dimensional Vortical Paradigm (TDVP) answers this question, and Dr. Neppe and I have addressed it in published works. I have also addressed it in other blog posts; but it seems that a brief, uncomplicated  answer is hard to find. so I want to focus on it here and provide a clear, concise answer.

It turns out that with the discovery of gimmel, the answer is immediately clear and straight forward: Without gimmel, there could be no stable subatomic structure, and the physical universe would not exist. So the answer to the question of why there is something rather than nothing, boiled down to its simplest form, is:

There is something rather than nothing because of gimmel.

But, if I want this post to stand alone, if I want this answer to be clear and definitive, I cannot assume that the reader knows what gimmel is. So, I must also answer the question: what is gimmel?

The best way to begin, is to first understand what gimmel is not. It absolutely cannot be matter or energy. Let me explain: In TDVP the mass and volume of the free electron define the quantum equivalence unit, which can be used to measure all elementary particles. This quantum equivalence unit, also called the Triadic Rotational Unit of equivalence (TRUE), is defined, and the TRUE value for the up- and down-quarks are determined using very exact data from the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), and we find that, mathematically, up- and down-quarks cannot combine physically to form the protons and neutrons of ordinary matter unless there are specific additional numbers of quantum equivalence units in their composition.  These additional TRUE cannot be units of mass or energy, because if they were, the resulting particles would not be protons or neutrons. The bottom line is: ordinary matter contains units of mass, energy and a third something that is neither matter nor energy. We call that third something gimmel.

Now, ask yourself: if gimmel is not mass or energy, exactly what is it? Everything physical is measurable in variables of content (mass and energy) and variables of extent (space and time). Gimmel cannot have even one unit of mass or energy. If it exists in space and time, what is it? There are clues in the quantum math and physics derivations that led to its discovery, but what do YOU think it might be? Please post your thoughts in “comments”. or send me a Facebook message.

TDVP IS NEW SCIENCE AND NEW MATH

WHAT IS TDVP?

© Edward R. Close, June 28, 2018

Science is not now, and never will be, a complete, unchanging body of knowledge. Our understanding progresses slowly, for the most part, by incremental discovery of the details of reality, but, occasionally science leaps forward, with the sudden discovery of a new and more productive way of thinking about reality. Thomas Kuhn, physicist and historian, in his insightful treatise, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, called these sudden changes paradigm shifts.

A paradigm shift occurs when there is a complete overthrow of one or more of the basic assumptions of science. For example, the classical assumption that space and time are the same everywhere was overthrown by Einstein’s discovery of the mathematical relationship between the motion and acceleration of the observer and the measurement of space and time. And Planck’s discovery of the quantization of energy and mass overthrew the notion of the apparent infinite divisibility of reality. What basic assumption does TDVP overthrow? The assumption of scientific materialism. With the discovery of the mathematical necessity of the existence of a non-physical aspect of reality, TDVP puts consciousness into the equations of science, and refutes the assumption of scientific materialism, held by most scientists for centuries.

German physicist Max Planck, saw past scientific materialism and started the revolution culminating with TDVP. In the early 20^th century. He said:

"I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness." – Max Planck

Einstein added to the developing revolution with his special and general theories of relativity. For the first time in the history of modern science, the state of the observer relative to the dynamics of moving objects was found to affect the observations and measurements of physical reality. Did Einstein, like his personal friend Max Planck, believe that there is something real beyond physical reality? His spirituality is revealed in the following statement:

“I want to know God's thoughts - the rest are mere details.” – Albert Einstein

A paradigm shift always brings new science, and new science requires new math. Just as in every other paradigm shift, e.g., Newton’s laws of motion, relativity and quantum physics, TDVP requires new math. That new math is the Calculus of Dimensional Distinctions (CoDD), a mathematical system logically prior to conventional mathematics, adapted for application to quantum reality.

In answering the question “What is TDVP?”, I would be remiss if I did not emphasize and clarify the point that the logic of TDVP shines a bright light on the primacy of consciousness. Why is this important? Because recognizing the primacy of consciousness is the key to understanding how and why applications of the logic of the CoDD answers questions and resolves paradoxes that have persisted unanswered and unresolved for decades in the current mainstream paradigm of scientific materialism. This fact about TDVP may sound amazing, and you might expect its answers and proofs to be complex and difficult to comprehend, but the logic is so basic that I believe that I can explain it in simple terms that anyone can understand.

Because the experience of consciousness is primary, it is best to start with a brief discussion of consciousness. Everyone experiences it, but no one is able to define it completely satisfactorily because it is the essence of what we are, the essence of being itself. Expecting the human mind to analyze consciousness is like expecting an eye to be able to see itself without a mirror. Whatever consciousness is, without it, there simply would be no awareness, no knowledge of this, or any other world. Everything we do, know or think depends upon it.  To define something means to compare it with something already known, but consciousness is unique; there is nothing with which to compare it, and all analogies always fall short. As the primary experience of self, consciousness simply is the essence of self-aware existence. As Max Planck observed: “we cannot get behind consciousness”.

We can, however, identify and describe the actions performed by consciousness: The actions of consciousness arise from within consciousness itself as the desire for experience. That desire is propagated sequentially from self to other-than-self in three stages: 1. The realization of Identity, 2. The formation of a conscious Intent and 3. The actualization of intent as an Impact on other-than-self. Consciousness thus becomes an observer, and a participant in reality by the actions of drawing distinctions and organizing those distinctions into logical patterns.

All possible forms of reality knowable by a conscious observer, arise from the initial act of separation: i.e., the creation of the distinction of self from everything else. Any distinction is triadic, consisting of: 1. That which is distinguished, 2. That from which it is distinguished, and 3. The conscious self that draws the distinction. For the purpose of differential experience, the conscious self must consider itself to be separate from that which it is able to distinguish, and thus the distinction of self from other is the first distinction. All forms of objective reality arise from this initial act of severance, and while it may seem that we may separate reality any way we please, the logic of the CoDD shows us that the basic forms arising from the act of separation are the same. The framework of reality is that of embedded dimensional domains, much like the layers of an onion. The basis of all conceivable symbolic representation, all logic, language, and all knowledge of, and understanding of any reality, is the conscious action of the drawing of distinctions. This is why the CoDD provides a powerful tool for analyzing reality.

The most basic description of reality possible, is a multi-dimensional mosaic, a picture of reality composed of multiples of the most basic distinction possible; and the most basic distinction possible is the smallest possible quantum of the substance of reality. In the TDVP, that smallest quantum of mass that can be distinguished in the three-or-more dimensional reality we experience, and used as the basic unit of distinction, is the electron.

At this point, I must ask you to accept an a priori assumption, an assumption that is the basic foundational hypothesis of TDVP. The proof that this assumption is valid comes in the form of answers to questions and resolutions of paradoxes in the current scientific paradigm that cannot be obtained in any other way. A number of these have been published under the authorship of Close and Neppe or Neppe and Close. The assumption is the proposition that there is a single elementary measure which applies to all aspects of reality; a quantum equivalence unit to which all quantifiable aspects of reality can be mathematically related. In TDVP, we call that quantum equivalence unit the Triadic Rotational Unit of Equivalence (TRUE), for reasons that will become clearer as we proceed.

This is a significant departure from the current methods of mathematical physics, and a deliberate extension of Planck’s discovery of the quantization of energy to include quantization of all observable and measurable aspects of finite reality. Planck started down this path by developing a system of “natural” units that became known as Planck units, with five universal constants set equal to unity, making them natural units of measurement, and Einstein carried the ball a little farther by showing us the mathematical equivalence of mass and energy with E = mc². In Planck units, c, the speed of light, is one of the five universal constants naturalized to unity. Notice that when c is naturalized to 1, Einstein’s famous equation becomes simply E = m, making energy and mass equivalent in Planck units. In TDVP, we naturalize all of the measures of reality, mass, energy, space, and time to unity, which naturalizes c, but not the other universal constants which were naturalized by Planck for computational convenience.

The TRUE is the basic unit of the calculus of distinctions, a system of mathematical logic designed for application to quantum reality. I use the word “calculus” here in the broadest possible sense, to mean a system of logical processes by which expressions representing a distinction or a combination of distinctions are transformed to other, equivalent distinctions by the fundamental operations of mathematics re-defined for quantum mathematics. Defining the TRUE based on the electron, links the CoDD to reality, so that the the logic of the CoDD correlates directly with the structure of reality. Application of this new quantum math across all scales of measurement, from the quantum to the cosmos reveals the true nature of reality. With TDVP, we not only get to know God’s thoughts, we get a glimpse of how God’s mind works!

I do not claim to have created this major scientific paradigm shift single-handedly. The new science of TDVP is built on foundations laid by many scientists; notably, it stands on the infinities of Georg Cantor and the Diophantine equations of Pierre de Fermat; and more recently, on the work of Planck, Einstein, Pauli, Von Neumann, Gӧdel, and others. I have been blessed to have the support of a number of brilliant people, including Dr. David Stewart, PhD, a geophysicist who was my roommate in college, and for that reason, has listened to my ideas about math and science for more than 60 years, my wife Jacqui, whose unwavering support I’ve enjoyed for more than 40 years, and I’ve been working in equal collaboration for more than 10 years with Dr. Vernon Neppe, MD, PhD, who, without question, is the most brilliant and accomplished polymath alive today.

Recently, TDVP is being considered favorably by an increasing number of scientists, including Dr. Adrian Klein in Israel, Dr. Gary Schwartz, PhD, a respected author and professor at the University of Arizona in Tucson, and several members of the Academy for the Advancement of  Postmaterialist Sciences (AAPS). Further exploration and promotion of TDVP has been energized recently by the enthusiasm of Dr. Surendra Pokharna, PhD physicist visiting from India. The only question I have now is whether this paradigm shift from the dead end of materialism into the expansive realm of consciousness and spirituality will be accepted by mainstream scientists in time to save humanity from the materialistic path to self-destruction. I am optimistically hopeful that it will happen within my lifetime.

With the discovery of gimmel, the indifferent particles assumed to exist in sub-atomic physics and galactic cosmology are gone, replaced by vortices of energy spinning in multiple planes of rotation. I think it is fair to say that TDVP is like a colon cleanse for the body of modern science: The lifeless dirt and grime of materialism are flushed out and swept away by the living energy of dynamic vortices infused with conscious meaning and purpose.

Edward R. Close  6/28/2018

PROOF OF THE CONSCIOUS AND INTELLIGENT MATRIX OF REALITY: GOD

PROOF OF THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

©Edward R. Close 10/30/2017

OK, let's put our thinking caps on, and see if we can use a little more of our brain capacity than we normally do. People on both sides of the question concerning whether there is a supreme intelligence behind the reality we experience, seem to think that this is not a proper question for science to ever even consider asking. Philosophers and theologians consider the question as exclusively on their turf, and most mainstream scientists think that there is no way to determine the answer to this question using the scientific method. In my opinion, they are both wrong. Why? They are both wrong because there can be no boundaries for real science, science must go wherever the evidence leads, and the scientists who refuse to even consider the question are doubly wrong because there is plenty of hard evidence now to warrant addressing this question scientifically.

In this country, Dr. J.B. Rhine began the long road to making parapsychology, still considered by some to be pseudoscience, a legitimate subject for scientific study in 1931 at Duke University. In quantum physics, since about 1935, more and more refined versions of the double-slit and delayed-choice experiments have revealed the fact that the consciousness of the observer is somehow directly involved in shaping what we observe at the quantum level. And more recently, meticulous scientific studies by scientists like Dean Radin, Chief Scientist at the Institute of Noetic Sciences (IONS), and Gary Schwartz at the University of Arizona, have consistently produced more and more significant experimental evidence that psi phenomena like remote viewing, psychokinesis and even mediumship are real. 

It is past time to investigate this question seriously. So, how do we go about testing the hypothesis that the universe has an intelligent design with meaning and purpose? Anyone who has had direct personal contact with the intelligence behind reality has all the proof anyone could ever need. He or she knows. But words cannot adequately convey such knowledge, and that is not the kind of proof I’m talking about here. I am talking about scientific proof. Any legitimate question can be addressed scientifically in three steps:

1)    State the question as a hypothesis.

2)    Express the hypothesis or its consequences in primary mathematical logic, thereby turning the hypothesis into a theorem, and then

3)    prove the theorem to be either true or false.

The question of whether God exists can be stated either as a positive hypothesis or as a negative hypothesis. Positive: God exists. Negative: There is no God. This brings up some ideas that may confuse some readers, so we will take a short, but important side trip. I once heard a minister, discussing an atheist’s blunt statement that “there is no God,” state authoritatively that you cannot prove a negative! While his argument may have been otherwise persuasive, when he said this, he was dead wrong! The once widespread belief that a negative can’t be proved may have come from the fact that negative statements are often much harder to prove than positive statements, but negative statements can be proved. Mathematicians do it all the time. For example, take the statement that there are no prime numbers between 113 and 127.

For those not much accustomed to thinking about numbers, a prime number is any number that is only divisible by itself and 1. The numbers 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, and 17, for example, are prime numbers. The other numbers in this series: 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, and 16, are not. The statement “There are no prime numbers between 113 and 127” is a negative statement that can be easily proved by looking at the 13 numbers between 113 and 127. If you do, then you’ll find that they are all divisible by smaller numbers, and you will have proved a negative statement to be true.

So, if the negative statement “there is no God” is open to proof or disproof, then the positive statement “God exists” is open to proof or disproof. But this brings up another question: Just because a statement seems to make sense, does that mean that it can be proved to be true or false? Maybe a statement can simply be unprovable. Is our hypothesis unprovable? Many have said that it is. But they are wrong. To prove this, we will have to consider something called Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems.

In 1931, an Austrian mathematician, Kurt Gödel, published one of the most important papers in the history of mathematics and science. It contained theorems with profound and far-reaching consequences. And yet, many, probably even most people have never heard of Gӧdel or his theorems. This is true at least partly because the proofs of the incompleteness theorems are complex and subtle, - not accessible to anyone without considerable training in mathematics and symbolic logic. Fortunately, their meaning is understandable. Gӧdel’s incompleteness theorems prove that in any logical system, there can be true statements that cannot be proved within the system. Could our statements regarding the existence or non-existence of God be such statements, statements that cannot be proved within the logical systems known as the current scientific paradigm? Yes, that could very well be the case.

Does that mean that they are forever unprovable? No! - Let me explain. At first, many people, even some mathematicians, misinterpreted Gӧdel’s theorems to mean that there are true statements that can never be proved. In the case at hand, e.g., they could conclude that even though one of our statements, either the positive or the negative, must be true, it can never ever be proved. But, this is not what Gӧdel’s incompleteness theorems say. They do say that there can be true statements that are not provable within a logical system like the current scientific paradigm. But they also say that no logical system is complete. So, if the current paradigm can be expanded into a larger logical system, then statements that are unprovable in the current paradigm may be provable in the new expanded paradigm.

This brings us back to our question of the existence or non-existence of God. Step one is easy. We have our hypothesis. Step two is a little more difficult. It is much like the word problems you may remember encountering in high school algebra. A verbal hypothesis can be translated into the language of mathematical logic to avoid the ambiguity of words. The word God, for example, may have a different meaning for every reader of this post, but, if you can translate the consequences of the existence or non-existence of God into terms of the primary mathematical logic in an expanded paradigm, then proof or disproof may be possible. It is important to note that turning a hypothesis into a mathematical theorem changes it from a theory, subject to endless debate, to a theorem that can be proved or disproved.

Of course, the three steps listed above are much easier said than done; but they have been done, and I will present the outline here of how they were done.

During the past 40 years, I have developed a primary mathematical logic that is capable of describing the phenomena experienced by sentient beings like us.  It is a calculus that is logically prior to conventional mathematics into which hypotheses can be translated for proof or disproof. It is called the Calculus of Dimensional Distinctions (CoDD). It re-unites number theory and geometry, and by deriving the basic units of the CoDD from data for elementary particles, provided by the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), the primary mathematical logic is united with physics. The quantum units whose values are derived from the LHC data for the three elementary particles: the electron, which, among the elementary particles that make up the natural atoms of the periodic Table of elements, has the smallest rest mass and volume, and the quarks that make up the protons and neutrons of atoms.

These units, used as the basic units of measurement for the CoDD, are called the Triadic Rotational Units of Equivalence (TRUE), or true quantum units. They are called rotational equivalence units because the particles are rotating, and because they embody the volumetric equivalence of the parameters of mass, energy, space, and time, as expressed by the equation E = mc². The physics and mathematical details of the derivation of true quantum units from LHC data, applying relativistic principles have been published in several technical papers and in posts on this blog.

In the process of describing, in true quantum units, the combinations of the quarks that form protons and neutrons, we discovered that no stable protons or neutrons, and thus not one atom, could form without the existence of a third something that is neither mass nor energy. This means that in the debris of a big-bang explosion, nothing stable could ever have formed without this third non-physical something being present. This means that materialism is not a viable basis for scientific inquiry!

But, what is this third form that is part of every atom, and thus responsible for the existence of the universe? It cannot be matter or energy, because then electrons and quarks would not have the masses revealed by statistical analysis of the many terabytes of data from the LHC. Since we have no name for it, my research partner, Dr. Vernon Neppe and I decided to represent it with gimmel, the third letter of the Phoenician and Hebrew alphabet. The discovery of gimmel, and its representation as multiples of the basic units of the CoDD in the equations of science led to another discovery: The atoms that have the largest percentage of gimmel are the elements that support organic life, Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, Nitrogen, Sulfur, etc. So gimmel causes the physical universe to form in the very specific fine-tuned way that allows the existence of conscious organic life forms.

Gimmel had to exist prior to the formation of any particle of the physical universe, otherwise, no stable atoms and molecules could form. This means that the non-physical logic that shapes the universe pre-existed the matter, energy, space and time that make up the universe. Logic is not associated with random accidents. Logic is associated with mind.

Max Planck, the father of quantum physics said: “As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clearheaded science, to the study of matter, I can tell you, as a result of my research about the atoms, this much:  There is no matter as such! All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds … the atom together. … We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Spirit. This Spirit is the matrix of all matter. - The Nature of Matter, a speech delivered in Florence, Italy in 1944.

Discovery of the existence of gimmel proves that he was right. A conscious and intelligent mind is behind the force that holds the atoms of the universe together in symmetric vibration, and our hypothesis is proved. There is a conscious intelligence behind all reality. Some have called it God.

THE LAUNCHING OF A NEW PARADIGM

The following is a copy of my presentation to the founding members of the Academy for the Advancement of Post-Materialist Science, August 26, 2017

MATHEMATICS, PHYSICS AND CONSCIOUSNESS

A Presentation by Edward R. Close, August 2017

First, I want to thank Dr. Gary Schwartz, Dr. Marjorie Woollacott, Dr. Charles Tart, and all who have worked so hard to make the Academy for the Advancement of Post Materialist Sciences and this meeting possible, including our anonymous benefactor. This meeting is the beginning of something I have dreamed of for many years.

I am struck by the similarities among the intellectual and psychic experiences of those gathered here today, but this should not be a surprise! It is evidence for what Erwin Schrӧdinger declared in his wonderful little book “What is Life?” published by Cambridge University Press in 1967, when he said: “There is no evidence that consciousness is plural.” Many of us know that all things are connected at a fundamental level, and, my friends, it is time for the first real scientific paradigm shift since relativity and quantum physics!

I want to start by sharing an experience I wrote about in my first book, “The Book of Atma”, published in 1977. It reveals the motivation that has propelled me throughout my life:

It was the summer of 1951. I was fourteen. I found a little book on analytical geometry written in German among some old books. Reading it, I had the distinct awareness that I already knew this mathematics. It was as if I were remembering, not learning. Also, I had just discovered the work of Albert Einstein, which had opened a whole new world for me.

One evening, in the twilight just after sunset, I walked out of the little house on my parent’s farm in the Southern Missouri Ozarks, past a line of catalpa trees, to the bank of a pond. I had been thinking about the “electrodynamics of moving objects” as described in Einstein’s special theory of relativity, and I had reached a point beyond which I could not go. Frustrated, I looked up at the sky and complained: “God, I want to know everything!”

What followed was totally unexpected, but so real that I knew it was completely natural. Suddenly, I could “hear” the silence around me. My surroundings took on a glow, as if everything were alive. My conscious mind seemed to melt, and the distinctions between my physical body and the surrounding landscape seemed to fade. I was filled with an all-pervading feeling of well-being. I knew I had received my answer! I would be a theoretical physicist!

I could spend my twenty minutes describing the series of psychic experiences and epiphanies that led Dr. Vernon Neppe and me to develop the Triadic Dimensional Distinction Vortical Paradigm (TDVP), and list the paradoxes it has resolved and the phenomena it has explained that are not explained by the current materialistic paradigm, but that would only scratch the surface. Instead, I want to address Dr. Gary Schwartz’s last item in his list of important questions: “Do we need an expanded mathematics, as Close and Neppe propose, to advance Post Materialist Sciences?”

Of course my answer is yes; but let me illustrate and emphasize this answer with a short history of the development of the new mathematics that unites number theory, geometry, relativity, quantum physics, some aspects of string theory, and the consciousness of the observer.

A paranormal experience in 1957 resulted in my discovery of the work of Pierre de Fermat. My College roommate, now Dr. David Stewart, and I were carrying out experiments in which we obtained verifiable information not available to us by normal sensory means. One of the most successful of these experiments was submitted to Dr. J.B. Rhine at Duke University. During one of our early experiments it was revealed that I had access to memories of the life of Pierre de Fermat. We obtained mathematical representations of concepts that far exceeded my training at the time, but were verified by my physics professor.

In 1637, Fermat wrote in the margin of his copy of a book on Diophantine equations, that he had found a “marvelous” proof that the equation xⁿ + yⁿ = zⁿ has no integer solutions for n >2.  But his proof was never found. After receiving my degree in mathematics and physics in 1962, while teaching mathematics, I spent considerable time trying to access Fermat’s marvelous proof. Sometime during that period, I realized that Fermat’s Last Theorem, considered by most to be nothing more than a hypothesis in pure number theory, had important implications for quantum physics if x, y and z represent the radii of elementary particles that combine to form what we experience as ordinary physical reality.

This led to the realization that a quantum mathematics was urgently needed for describing the quantized reality we live in. The differential and integral calculus of Newton and Leibniz are inappropriate for describing quantum phenomena because they depend on a continuity of the variables of measurement that does not exist in a quantized world. I believe that the inappropriate application of Newtonian calculus to quantum phenomena gives rise to much of the ‘weirdness’ of quantum physics that physicists like to talk about.

I found the basis for the needed quantum mathematics in G. Spencer Brown’s calculus of indications published in his 1969 book “Laws of Form.” And it was obvious to me from the results of the Aspect Experiment resolving the Einstein/Bohr debate, that we have to have a mathematics that incorporates the consciousness of the observer. I published the basic concepts of an adaptation of Brown’s Calculus which I called the Calculus of Distinctions in my book, “Infinite Continuity,” in 1990. The Calculus of Distinctions is different from Brown’s Calculus of Indications in several ways that I do not have time to go into here. Unfortunately, that book is now long out of print, but the basic logic is published in an appendix to my 1996 book, “Transcendental Physics.”

In those references, I show that the drawing of a distinction is comprised of a triad:

1.     the object of distinction

2.     the features distinguishing the object from everything else, and

3.     the consciousness of the observer.

Thus, a distinction is inherently triadic, and the consciousness of the observer is implicit in the logic of the CoD. Therefore, application of these basic concepts inherently includes the consciousness of the observer in the equations of science. I later adapted the CoD to reflect the multi-dimensional geometry of finite distinctions and the differentiation of existing distinctions from conceptual distinctions in the Calculus of Dimensional Distinctions (CoDD).

With the help of Russian-born mathematician Vladimir Brandin in 2003, and Dr. Vernon Neppe, from 2008 to the present, application of the CoDD has allowed me to develop the definition of a true quantum equivalence unit that I call the Triadic Rotational Unit of Equivalence (TRUE), and the discovery of the third form of the substance of reality, necessary for the stability of atomic structure. This third form cannot be measured as mass or energy, but is detectable in the total angular momentum of any rotating physical system. Dr. Neppe proposed the name gimmel for the third form for a variety of interesting reasons.

We decided to call the new paradigm TDVP: Triadic because that was the nature of the underlying structure of mass, energy and consciousness. Dimensional, because to be consistent, the mathematics had to incorporate extra dimensions beyond three of space and one of time. Vortical, because of the spinning nature of elementary particles, and Paradigm to emphasize that it is a shift from the current materialistic metaphysics of modern science.

Physicists talk about a “theory of everything”. But you can’t have a theory of everything if everything is not included in it. I see the discovery of gimmel as the fulfillment of my efforts over the past 30 plus years to put consciousness into the equations of science. Gimmel has all the earmarks of consciousness, or at least of an agent of consciousness, acting through what I call the conveyance equations, to bring the logic of the multi-dimensional substrate of Primary Consciousness into the 3 Spatial dimensions, 1 Time dimension, and 1 dimension of Consciousness, i.e., the domain of physical observation.

The discovery of gimmel eliminates materialism as a viable metaphysical basis for science. It eliminates materialism because gimmel is inherently non-material, and because I have proved that it is necessary for the stability of quarks and subatomic structure. Without it there would be no physical universe. The discovery of gimmel answers Gottfried Leibniz’s unanswered first priority question: “Why is there something rather than nothing?”

I believe that gimmel is the manifestation of consciousness in physical reality. This view is justified in part because the elements and compounds supporting organic life forms prove to have the highest levels of gimmel. TRUE units and gimmel provide the necessary basis to analyze and quantify consciousness working within our physical/spiritual/conscious reality.

Through the use of TRUE unit analysis and LHC data, and applying the principles of relativity and quantum physics, several unexplained phenomena have been explained quite elegantly by TDVP. Because TDVP includes consciousness in the equations of science, and therefore is more comprehensive than materialistic theories, it can provide the mathematical basis for investigating and describing psi phenomena like those experienced by virtually everyone in this room.

My answer to Gary’s question about whether the Academy needs an expanded math is this: It is my personal belief, based on over 50 years of explorations of mathematics, physics and consciousness expansion techniques, that mathematics is not merely a tool, mathematics reflects the actual structure of reality. And if you look at the history of science, every real scientific paradigm shift of the past has been accompanied by new mathematics. The paradigm shift to the primacy of consciousness can be no exception. It is my opinion that, in this case, a new mathematics is even more crucial than ever before because of the magnitude of this shift. Post-Materialism Science cries out for a new more comprehensive mathematical paradigm, and in my opinion, that new paradigm is TDVP, and the new math is the Calculus of Dimensional Distinctions.

THE PARADIGM SHIFT TO CONSCIOUSNESS

A SUMMARY OF THE PARADIGM SHIFT TO CONSCIOUSNESS

With this post I have now published 212 dissertations on this site. They have been posted over the past 3 years and 8 months in an effort to make the results of the work of a lifetime of almost 80 years available to anyone who is interested. For many years I have believed that mainstream science has tragically wandered into the dead end of materialism, and I have also believed that it can be put back on the track to real discovery and positive progress by recognizing that the physical universe available to our senses is in fact, only a small part of reality. I also expected that when consciousness is properly included in the equations comprising the scientific model of reality, new horizons beyond belief would be opened. That expectation has been slowly realized over the past 30 years. The pace of important findings and discoveries has increased significantly over the last six plus years during which I have worked in collaboration with Dr. Vernon M. Neppe.

In this post, I will attempt to summarize what I consider to be the most important findings in a way that anyone can understand. I believe it is important that I do so, because right now is the time that the truth I have been privileged to help bring to light is more important than ever before. We stand right now at the most critical juncture in human history. We can choose to go beyond the limitations of mechanical animal existence with the development of human consciousness and achieve the real purpose of all existence, or we can become just another failed species. The choice is ours.

Why is this information so critical at this time? Because mainstream science, while wonderfully successful at improving our animal comforts, technical applications, and the ability to destroy ourselves, has failed us miserably by turning its back on the part of reality that is most important to our survival: the spiritual essence of being, of which physical existence is but a miniscule part. It is time for scientists to open their eyes to the vast reality that lies beyond the purely physical.

THE PURPOSE: SPIRITUAL PROGRESS

The most important development of human civilization, and consciousness in general, is real spiritual advancement. Physical and intellectual development can be supportive of spiritual advancement, but they are secondary to genuine spiritual progress which underlies and drives all positive change. Social, political and philosophical development have often run counter to real spiritual advancement because institutional behavior tends to magnify the weaknesses and negative traits of the individual. The larger the institution, even though it may be organized with good intent, the more it magnifies negative tendencies. We will allow things to happen in the name of country, organized religion, or even institutional science that we would never do as individuals.

MATHEMATICS AND CIVILIZATION

What I wish to illuminate here is the backbone of the logic of reality, reflected in certain aspects of the history of mathematics and the corresponding rise and fall of civilization on this planet. It is hidden in three threads running through the conscious minds of mathematicians, natural philosophers and scientists from the end of the last ice age, about 12,000 BC, to the time of the known ancient civilizations: the Sumerians (4000 – 1600 BC), the Minoans (3000 – 1400 BC), and the Ancient Egyptians (4000 -1200 BC), to the Greeks: Thales (624 – 527 BC), Pythagoras (569 – 495 BC), Plato (428 -348 BC), Aristotle (384 – 322 BC), Euclid (330 – 260 BC), Archimedes (287 – 212 BC), Eratosthenes (276 – 194 BC), Hipparchus (190 – 120 BC), Geminus (10 BC – 60 AD), Menelaus (70 – 130), Ptolemy (85 – 165), Diophantus (200 – 284 ), and Theron (335 – 405), to the Arabs and Persians: Al-Khwarizmi (780 – 850), Abu Kamil (850 – 930), Omar Khayyam (1048 – 1131), to the Western Europeans: Fibonacci (1170 – 1250), Levi ben Gerson (1288 – 1344), Nicholas Kryffs (1401 – 1464), Cardan (1501 – 1576), Fermat (1601 – 1665), Leibniz (1646 – 1716), Euler (1707 – 1783), Gauss (1777 – 1855), Georg Cantor (1845 – 1918), Max Planck (1858 – 1947), Hermann Minkowski (1804 – 1909), Albert Einstein (1879 – 1955), Wolfgang Pauli (1900 – 1958), Kurt Gӧdel (1906 -1978), and G. Spencer Brown (1923 -  ). The gap from 1200 BC to 600 BC, between the end of the known ancient civilizations and the development of mathematics by the Greeks was bridged to some extent by Chinese, Hindu and Hebrew mathematics.

The idea that mathematics and civilization have advanced from virtually nothing to the current status during the past 3000 years is a fiction derived from the egoism of Western science, and it is a fiction not supported by fact. It is more likely that the viewpoint of Sri Yukteswar Giri (“The Holy Science”, written in 1894), derived from ancient Vedic texts, is true. Sri Yukteswar concludes that the development of consciousness, and consequently civilization, is cyclic, like everything else. There is ample evidence for this all over the planet. There are many megalithic structures dating from during, and even before the known ancient civilizations that we cannot duplicate today. The construction of many of them, like Gobeki Tepe in Turkey (dated about 10,000 BC), the Aswan obelisk (dated about 1500 BC) and Puma Punku in Peru (dated about 500 AD) required mathematics and engineering techniques unknown to mainstream science today.

MATHEMATICS REFLECTS THE LOGIC OF REALITY

The three threads of mathematics reflecting the logic of reality are the threads of geometry, algebra and number theory. How do these three aspects of mathematics reflect and describe the nature of reality? The images constructed in conscious minds depend upon the ability of conscious entities to recognize distinctions, - first the distinction of self from other, and then the recognition of finite distinctions (objects) within self and other. Distinctions consist of distinct shapes, with specific properties and meanings. Shapes, (geometric forms) are described using variables of extent, like height, width and depth. Distinct shapes may contain variable amounts of mass and energy, which may be described using variables of content. Distinctions existing in reality may also have other properties that impact the consciousness of the observer, or have meaning to the observer, like mechanical or organic motivation, that may be described in variables of impact or intent that are relative to the status of the observing entity.  Mathematics is the logical language describing the distinctions making up the structure and dynamics of reality in terms of the variables of extent, content and impact or intent.

WHAT IS A CALCULUS?

A calculus is a system of logical operations that permit calculation, where calculation is defined as the transformation of distinctions of one form into an equivalent distinction or distinctions of another form or forms. The operations that make up a calculus are the logical processes of the differentiation of variables, combination of shapes and integration of the properties of the distinctions to which the calculus applies. Every calculus has an arithmetic, an algebra and a scope of application. The details of calculi in general and the differential and integral calculus of Newton and Leibniz in particular, known for 300 years as ‘the calculus’ are beyond the scope of this post, but can be found in advanced mathematics texts. But it is relevant here to point out that the arithmetic of a calculus is based on quantitative distinction, enumeration and equivalence, and the operations that define the arithmetic are addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division, which may be commutative and/or associative, depending on the properties of the group of distinctions to which it applies.

FINDING THE APPROPRIATE CALCULUS TO MODEL REALITY

As explained in previous posts, the calculus of Newton and Leibniz is only applicable in the mid-range scale of reality. It yields erroneous results at the extremely large scale of relative velocity and space-time, and it gives inaccurate, and sometimes wildly incorrect results at the extremely small scale of the quantum. The solution at the upper extremes of observation and measurement is not difficult. Accurate calculations and predictions are obtained by applying relativistic corrections. But the solution at the lower extreme is a bit more difficult. It requires a calculus of discrete variables. Some of the elements of such a calculus are already available to us in the works of some of the mathematicians and scientists listed above. They are specifically: Pythagoras, Euclid, Diophantus, Fermat, Planck, Minkowski, Einstein, Gӧdel, Pauli, and Brown. Adapting and expanding Brown’s Laws of Form, applying Gӧdel’s incompleteness Theorem, the multi-dimensional approach of Pauli and Minkowski, Einstein’s relativity, Planck’s quantization, the Pythagorean theorem, Euclid’s axiomatic approach, and Fermat’s Last theorem (see the Posts on putting consciousness into the equations), I derived the Calculus of Distinctions, Dimensional Extrapolation, the Conveyance Equation, and the TRUE quantum unit, as the most basic distinction of quantized reality. This approach completes the re-uniting of geometry, Diophantine algebra and number theory in a logical system capable of modeling reality. The result is the new mathematics of TDVP, the appropriate metaphysical basis for exploring the nature of reality.

SUMMARY OF THE SUMMARY

The Triadic Dimensional Vortical Paradigm (TDVP) has provided a comprehensive model resolving paradoxes, and answering numerous questions that have puzzled mainstream scientists for decades. See lists and details in previous posts. The mathematics of TDVP describes the quantized geology, algebra and numerical nature of reality in terms of a truly quantum unit, the Triadic Rotational Unit of Equivalence derived from Large Hadron Collider data, and the principles of relativity and quantum physics.

Application of TRUE analysis to quarks, electrons, protons and neutrons, and the natural elements of the Periodic Table, has revealed a reality of three spatial dimensions, three time-like dimensions, and three dimensions of consciousness embedded in an infinite substrate of intelligence. It has also revealed the necessity of a third non-material form of the essence of reality that must exist in the universe in order for the dynamically stable structures of the universe to exist. So now we know why the universe is so fine tuned for life. Finite manifestation of Cosmic Consciousness, in the form of gimmel, the third form of the essence of reality, had to exist before the first particle of the physical universe could form, and thus we have the answers to the most basic puzzles of all: Why there is something instead of nothing? Who are we, and what is the meaning of existence and the purpose of life? 

We are sparks of the Infinite, inhabiting finite vehicles in space-time in order to learn how to live and grow into our cosmic potential.