THE CALCULUS OF CONSCIOUSNESS IS
THE
MATHEMATICS OF IMMORTALITY
Edward R. Close, BA, MST, PhD, PE,
Distinguished
Fellow, ECAO
Existential
and Conceptual Mathematics
This is a discussion about mathematics,
consciousness, and eternity. Let’s start by asking: What is mathematics? Almost
no one alive today knows what mathematics is, and public education is largely
to blame. For something that starts out with the simplest, most boring ideas imaginable,
like counting things, distinguishing between groups of things based on their similarities
and differences, adding, subtracting, multiplying, dividing, and recognizing
equivalences, the subject we call mathematics, as it is taught in our schools today,
is complex, confused, and confusing. What we are taught about mathematics today
is a muddled mixture of half-truths that only reveal the tip of the iceberg of the
logical structure of objective reality. Emblematic of the unnecessary confusion
of academic mathematics is the fact that the word describing the subject is a
plural noun. If mathematics is plural, then what are its parts? If you are familiar
with what passes for education in this world today, then you would probably agree
that the word ‘mathematics’ refers to all of the methods of quantitative reasoning.
Arithmetic is one subject, geometry is another, algebra is one, and the list goes
on to include all of the subjects that involve calculation.
From simple arithmetic to the most
advanced form of quantitative analysis, mathematical subjects were developed to
deal with numbers and numerical problems. They are logical procedures that transform
numerical descriptions of things, simple statements of obvious facts, into quantitatively
equivalent expressions that provide answers to some of the questions we like to
ask about the things we see and experience. In short, mathematical subjects are
designed to provide effective ways to analyze the reality we experience.
I think that most people, including
most mathematicians, will probably agree with this definition and be happy to
add a few more subjects to the list, including ‘the calculus’, a specific
analytical method developed in the natural science of Western Civilization more
than 300 years ago. I, however, disagree with using the label ‘the calculus’
to describe a specific mathematical procedure. I do so in an effort to try to eliminate
at least one source of confusion that comes from using the same word to
describe two or more different things. Mathematical terminology should be as simple
and precise as possible. But, like many words borrowed from an ancient language,
the original meaning of the word calculus has been obscured in modern usage.
Most dictionaries give some form of
two different definitions for the word ‘calculus’, with the mathematical
operation of infinitesimal approximation developed by Isaac Newton and Gottfried
Wilhelm Leibniz, known as “the” calculus, generally given as the number one
definition. This reflects current common usage and tries to legitimize the mis-use
of the word calculus for one specific method of calculation. Here’s an example
of what I found online:
1.
Calculus: a
branch of mathematics that deals with the finding and properties of the derivatives
and integrals of algebraic functions by methods that were originally based
on summations of infinitesimal differences. The two main types of
‘the calculus’ are differential calculus and integral
calculus.
2.
Calculus: any
method or logical system of calculation and analytical reasoning.
Definition number 1 attempts to describe
one specific member of a subset of operational methods belonging to the larger
set defined by definition number 2. The fact that a specific mathematical method
has been called “the calculus” by those who use it to solve a specific
class of problems involving change in objective forms over time, is a prime
example of how we have mis-used basic grammatical forms of words borrowed from earlier
forms of the Indo-European languages to represent recently re-defined or re-discovered
concepts. The word ‘calculus’ is the diminutive form of the Latin word calx,
which means ‘stone’. Thus, ‘calculus’ means small stone or ‘pebble’. The current
usage of the word calculus in English, and in most other modern languages, came
about because the Romans used small pebbles arranged in columns on a counting
board to make the task of counting things, and performing simple mathematical operations
like addition and subtraction, easier. The different mathematical tasks performed
by moving pebbles on the counting board became known as ‘calculations’ because
of the use of small, round stones (calculi) on the board.
The simple counting board with movable
pebbles evolved into the abacus and later into calculating machines, while the meaning
of the word calculus evolved into a general descriptor for all known methods of
calculation. A thousand years later, the word
calculus was re-cycled and used again. This time it was mis-appropriated to
represent a method for finding the limiting values of the sums of infinitesimally
increasing or decreasing differences, and first mechanical, and then electronic
calculators
using simple binary logic were constructed.
This use of the word calculus to represent two categorically different levels
of computation is just part of what makes mathematics difficult and confusing for
many students today.
The subject of
mathematics, or more precisely, mathematical logic, is about much more than just
dealing with numbers. If that were not true, we wouldn’t need the word
mathematics at all, we could just use the word ‘numbers’ and call math the study
of numbers. So, what is the actual meaning of the word mathematics? There are a
number of different definitions given in online dictionaries now for the word
‘mathematics’. They differ slightly, depending on the avocational orientation
of the person writing the definition; but the simplest one I’ve found is “Mathematics
is the study of number, quantity, and space”. The key concept underlying the three
proper nouns in this awkward definition, number, quantity, and space, is the
concept of ‘separation’. ‘Study’ implies separation of the student (or students)
and that which is being studied. Or, more generally, mathematical reasoning arises
from the separation of things after the primary separation drawn by every
conscious being, which is the distinction of ‘self’ from ‘other-than-self’.
‘Quantity’ implies that substances exist that can be separated into
different categories based on the nature of their content and extent, and space
is defined by the measurable extent that separates objects.
If mathematical
reasoning is based on separating things, as in the conscious act of drawing distinctions,
then considering mathematics as a study of numbers without reference to the
consciousness that perceives objective existence, is misleading and incomplete.
If mathematics is to be useful as a tool to study the nature of reality, then, in
addition to numbers, mathematics must deal with things that have measurable features
of content, extent and intent; it must deal with substances, shapes and forms
that exist in the real world, and with consciousness itself. It must at least include
the subjects we call geometry and mathematical physics. The word ‘geo-metry’ literally
means ‘earth measurement’, but since the time of Euclid, it has been used to mean
more than just the measurement and study of the shape of the earth. It is the
study of the shapes of separate and combined objects, and ‘physics’ is the
study of physical objects that are separate, have weight, and occupy measurable
volumes of space.
In the book, Laws of Form, arguably one of the most
important books ever written about the form of the logical system of thought
underlying existence, logician George Spencer Brown emphasizes the concept of separation,
when he says that the theme of his work “is that a universe comes into being
when a space is severed or taken apart.” The laws that Brown reveals with
his calculus of indications, implicate the existence of an underlying intelligence
within which individual conscious minds may exist and resonate. However, Brown
shied away from addressing the probable existence of a meta-mind, or even
an existential meta-reality existing behind the logical forms manifested
in the structure of the physical universe, because of the difficulties that the
requirement of existence imposes on logical analyses and the application
of inductive and deductive reasoning. To avoid these difficulties, he chose not
to link the logic of calculation to existence until the process reaches a meaningful
conclusion, and then only if it is necessary to interpret the results in a
real-world meaningful way. The calculus I will describe here differs from
Brown’s calculus of indications in several significant ways, but most importantly,
in the calculus of dimensional distinctions, the linking of mathematical logic to
existence is restored to its rightful place of importance.
Mathematical logic is the logic of existential separation, reflecting
the physical, mental, and spiritual structure of objective reality. Without the
organizing presence of consciousness in the processes of calculation, mathematical
logic is simply a binary thought form; yes or no, zero or one, true or false. Boolean
algebra and the calculus of indications of G. Spencer Brown’s Laws of Form
are forms of symbolic notation for the simple operations of binary logic. With
the inclusion of the conscious action of the drawing of distinctions and numerical
indicators of dimensionality, the primary calculus becomes a system of triadic
logic, and the Calculus of Dimensional Distinctions (CoDD), a naturalized
extension of the primary calculus, is its notation. It is important to
note that while a system of symbolic mathematical notation is a human
invention, the form of mathematical logic underlying reality is not. The
form of existential mathematical logic reflects both the substance and the
shape of objective reality. Any useful symbolic representation of mathematical
logic is a written language that can be learned and used by conscious beings, and
thus mathematical logic is ‘the language of science’.
As Max Planck
noted, all meaningful definitions imply that some form of consciousness exists behind
the symbols. He said: “We cannot get behind consciousness, everything we
regard as existing, postulates consciousness.”
With this understanding,
we realize that the innate
logical structure of existence is mathematical in nature and that the ‘creation’
of the physical universe, in the Biblical sense of Genesis, cannot be the “creatio
ex nihilo” (creation from nothing) imposed upon Christian thought by church
theologists after 553 A.D. when the ‘anathemas against Origen’ were forced on
the Catholic Priesthood by Roman Emperor Justinian, under the threat of death
and destruction, for purely political purposes.
The stable logical
forms of the physical universe are existential. They are real. They are the
essence of reality. In other words, mathematics is the study of the innate
logical form, the structure of reality, manifesting in the physical universe in
the existence, geometry, and substance of objective reality. Sadly,
the exclusion of Euclidian geometry (sometimes called ‘plane geometry’) from the
basic requirements of public education in the US, along with the deliberate removal
of any mention of the existence of any higher form of intelligence behind objective
reality, is in large part what has brought about the downfall of modern
education.
A
beautiful little Book titled Analytische Geometrie, published in German
in the late 1800s, a book that I found in a box that my father bought for a
dollar at a garage sale when I was a teenager, reveals far more about the
origin and logical basis of mathematics than anything being taught in today’s
colleges and universities. After I absorbed the contents of that book and two
other books on natural science during the summer of 1951, memories of things I learned
in past lives began to surface in my consciousness, and I began to see the connecting
links between mathematics, linguistics, natural philosophy, and the logical
structure of reality, as it is ‘educed’ or drawn out of the empirical existence
of Primary Consciousness and manifestly expressed in conscious lifeforms as
experience in the physical universe. And it became clear to me that the
mathematics being taught in our schools was based on inconsistent and erroneous
assumptions. But
the failures of the conceptual mathematics of public education is not what this
essay is about. It is about the logic of the primary calculus of Consciousness,
existence, and Immortality.
In an effort to avoid losing readers who may not have
much in the way of math and/or science background, I will do my best to define technical
terms as I go. The word ‘empirical’ means “information based
on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation and measurement or conscious experience,
rather than theory or pure logic.”
The word ‘math’
comes from the Proto-Indo-European root ‘mendh’ meaning ‘to
put together or learn’ this root word is also related to Greek, Slavic, and
German words meaning mindfulness, awake, intelligent, observant, thoughtful and
careful, revealing the fact that mathematical reasoning is a fundamental part -
and I would argue, the most important part - of the meaningful education of
young minds, along with reading and writing skills.
While we’re at it,
let’s have a look at the word ‘education’, because it actually does not
mean what is implied by ‘education’ in our schools today. Here’s a typical modern
definition found in an online computer search:
“Education : The process of receiving or giving
systematic instruction, especially at a school or university in the
modern system of public education.”
Contrast this with the original
meaning of the word ‘education’: The root word ‘educe’ comes from the Latin verb 'Educare' which means
'to lead out or bring forth'. In times of greater mental and spiritual
virtue, we understand that the knowledge that is being brought forth into the
expanding consciousness of individual sentient beings is present in the
substrate of reality in the form of higher-frequency energy patterns that can
be received and absorbed by conscious beings who are sufficiently aware and
ready to receive it.
Today’s
computer definitions of the word ‘education’ are definitions of indoctrination,
not definitions of learning. That’s why no one with common sense can understand
mathematics now in the depth that it is understood in the ages of higher mental
integrity both before and after the present time. What I experienced in the
summer of 1951 by reading a few books on basic math and science and thinking
deeply about what I read, was education! What I experienced in years of public
and private schools after that, was a mixture of education and indoctrination –
and I can see that formal education has gotten progressively much worse in the
past sixty years.
When
education is entrusted to government, and the government becomes corrupt, the
purpose of public education becomes indoctrination, which then progresses on into
crass political propaganda, as the government becomes increasingly more corrupt,
using public education to make sure it retains its power. Unfortunately, this
is the natural evolution of bureaucratic social organizations in times of low
mental and spiritual virtue like the time we are experiencing now. Sadly, real
mathematical logic has been lost in the processes of ‘modern’ education. This essay
is an effort to right the floundering flagship of reason once again.
Why
is understanding the seminal relationship between mathematics and education so important
in the course of an effort to explain the difference between existential mathematical
logic and conceptual mathematical imagination? Because we need to know how to
determine, beyond reasonable doubt, what is real and what is false. Using mis-guided
conceptual mathematics instead of empirically proven existential mathematics to
solve real-world physics and engineering problems leads to unnecessary complications
and error. In particular, it yields incommensurable scalar values in solutions
of descriptive algebraic equations that do not represent anything that actually
exists in the real-world, but are, never-the-less, reasonable fictions used to
make the Standard Model of scientific materialism seem to work.
Believing
that conceptual mathematical forms are real leads to erroneous and often
paradoxical answers and conclusions. Prime examples of such fictional concepts are
the much sought-after ephemeral dimensionless and massless ‘particles’, that are
imagined existing and “imparting” mass or other characteristics to other
‘particles’ of matter in order to make a particle-based quantum theory seem to
work. There actually are no solid particles of matter in the stable atomic
structure of objective reality at all. Elementary quantum-scale objects are
entirely different in form and substance than the conceptual illusions called particles.
- But I am getting a little bit ahead of myself. To assure that the quantitative
results obtained from mathematical calculations are valid in the domain of human
experience, we have to use mathematical logic, operations, and procedures that
correspond with processes that actually exist. Otherwise, the solutions to mathematical
equations and our interpretations of them are questionable; they often have incommensurable
numerical values, and they are usually wrong.
More
definitions: 1) Commensurable means having a common measure of size, extent, or
content. Therefore, in the context of this discussion, the word incommensurable refers to numerical values that have
no common unit of measurement, i.e., no common divisor. 2) Scalar values are numerical
values representing the magnitude of a measurement, as opposed to vectors or
volumetric values, which include geometric (shape) and content (substance) information
defining the phenomena being analyzed. In physics, for example, a number
representing relative motion, used in a sentence like: “The speed of light is
constant and equal to 299,792,458 m/sec., relative to all observers, regardless of relative motion” is
a scalar numerical value, while an object’s ‘velocity’ and impact are values that
include geometric information like the direction of motion relative to the
reference frame of the observer in a finite multi-dimensional matrix and
content information, like mass/energy equivalence, and density.
Max Planck realized that the concept of solid physical matter
is a conceptual illusion and said: “There is no matter as such! … All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a
force… We must assume
behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind
is the matrix of all matter.”
In the
conscious, quantized world that Max Planck discovered - the world we actually live
in - the measurable mass of any physical object is equivalent to a specific
amount of energy quantized in an integral multiple of an extremely small quantum
equivalence unit. Even though Planck made this discovery more than 100 years
ago, at about the same time his friend and colleague Albert Einstein discovered
that measurements of space and time are mathematically dependent on the
velocity of the object’s motion relative to the observer, modern mainstream
science still hasn’t understood what these discoveries imply about the nature
of reality. In the current planetary time-cycle, just ascending out of the dark
ages of negative mental virtue called the ascending Kali Yuga, this isn’t
surprising. Most people today don’t understand the simple difference between
the numerical value of zero, re-introduced into scientific thought about 1,523
years ago, and the concept of ‘nothing’.
Belief
in the possibility that a state of absolute nothingness could exist is a conceptual
illusion created by observing changes that occur in geometric forms. Forms come
and go, but the essence of substance does not. The illusion of nothingness is completely
dispelled by understanding the universal law of conservation of mass, energy,
and consciousness, revealed by applications of the Primary Quantum Calculus that
I started developing in 1986 -1989. The CoDD is based on the fact that physical
objects are, as Planck discovered, quantized. All measures of mass, energy and
consciousness occur only in multiples of the smallest possible, stable quantum equivalence
unit. That smallest quantum unit is objectified by the mass, volume and
structure of the free electron. Using the mass, volume, and form of the free electron
as the tri-rotational unit of equivalence (TRUE), a number of the contradictions
and paradoxes existing in the current scientific paradigm are resolved. See
articles by Neppe and Close or Close and Neppe published in IQNexus.
Using
the quantum equivalence unit (TRUE) as the basic unit of the Quantum Calculus, normalized
and naturalized to the mass and volume of the free electron links mathematical operations
of calculation directly to objective physical reality, and reveals and clarifies
the importance of the difference between existential and conceptual mathematics.
With the natural basic unit of measurement normalized to unity and equated to the
smallest stable subatomic reality, the CoDD becomes a powerful tool for proving
or disproving scientific hypotheses.
[It
may be necessary to clarify the meanings of two key words here, words that are
sometimes confused. Those two words are ‘theory’ and ‘theorem’. A theory is a
speculation or hypothesis that has not been proved, while a theorem is a
mathematical statement that has been proved.]
The effectiveness
of using quantum calculus theorems to prove scientific hypotheses was
demonstrated in Infinite Continuity, a book I published in 1989 (unfortunately,
this book is currently out of print). The quantum calculus was also used to
prove scientific hypotheses in Reality Begins With Consciousness, a book
published by Neppe and Close in 2015, as well as in posts on my Transcendental
Physics blog site: www.ERCloseTPhysics.com .
There
has been a very unfortunate rift between theoretical and applied mathematics
due to institutionalized specialization, beginning about a thousand years after
the time of Plato and Aristotle. Because of this rift, modern mainstream
science has failed to see the powerful potential of using mathematical theorems
to test hypotheses of natural science. When I mentioned using the CoDD to prove
one mainstream physical hypothesis and disprove another one having to do with
the Big-Bang-red-shift expanding universe theory, during a discussion about TDVP,
two very successful mainstream scientists, one a Nobel prize-winning physicist,
and one an astronomer, said “Mathematics isn’t like that!”
In
regard to the conceptually fragmented mathematics that mainstream scientists were
(and still are) being taught in major universities and that they had been using
for their entire careers, their dismissive statements about the possibility of
using mathematics to test scientific hypotheses were perfectly understandable. The
mathematical methods used by mainstream scientists today were developed before the
discoveries by Planck and Einstein, when the matter and energy of physical
reality were assumed to be existential and infinitely continuous. The connection
between Mainstream mathematical methods and reality is incomplete and flawed because
the units of measurement being used were arbitrarily chosen from a variety of human-scale
measurement standards that were, and are, mathematically incommensurable, and “the
calculus” was based on assumptions that are invalid in physical reality. But, when
the basic units of measurement are equated to the smallest stable existing quantum
and numerical and volumetric unity, mathematical incommensurability is
eliminated.
Applied
mathematics for the past 300-plus years has been dominated by the infinitesimal
calculus of Newton and Leibniz. But the mathematical theory behind the infinitesimal
calculus contains mathematical constructs that are both existential and conceptual,
real and fictional, based on a priori assumptions. (a priori
means self-evident, needing no proof). This mixture of incompatible assumptions
does not cause obvious problems in the mathematical results for human-scale problems,
because the logical contradictions in the theory are obscured by the extremely
large differences in scale between the domain of our indirect experience of
reality through the physical senses, and the extremely high-energy, high-velocity
phenomena occurring at the extreme edges of the quantum and cosmological scales.
The basic problem arises in the difference between discrete and infinitely
continuous variables and the difference between existential and conceptual forms.
These problems only come to light when the analysis is extrapolated or extended
down to the unitary quantum scale.
The methods
that Newton and Leibniz devised to overcome the huge measurement-scale
differences between human measurement and the constants of physical reality, depend
on the derivation of linear algebraic functions that accurately represent problems
being addressed, and also approach finite values approximated by converging series
of numerical ratios as the scale-variables approach zero. While the resulting infinitesimal
approximation limits yield useful solutions for human-scale problems, they produce
both irrational and transcendental numerical values in the analytical results. But
irrational and transcendental numbers are not integers and therefore do not
represent existential quantized realities, because, by definition, non-quantum phenomena
do not exist in a quantized reality. This paradox is a direct result of conflating
non-existential mathematical concepts with existential mathematical realities. An
important quantum-level investigation where this problem becomes especially significant
and troublesome, is in the scalar unitary projection from a three-dimensional
domain into another domain with an additional dimension.
Applying
Newton’s laws of motion and the law of parsimony, we can see immediately that the
simplest way for unitary vectors to project sequentially from each existential dimensional
domain into the next and form a stable rotational symmetry connecting up to
four sequential dimensional domains, is for each vector to project orthogonally
(at an angle of one-fourth of each rotation relative to the previous vector). As
a result of the limits of mutual orthogonality in each triad of dimensional
domains after the first projection, the scalar magnitude of every third projection
has the scalar value of a different dimensional complex root of unity.
The forward
end of each projecting vector is located one quantum length distance into the
next dimensional domain, so, if that next domain is an n-dimensional domain, the
vector’s length has to be equal to an nth root of unity for its
volume and magnitude to represent the existential quantum location, as well as
the equivalent scalar and volumetric units in the n-dimensional domain.
Application
of the Law of Parsimony, sometimes called Occam’s razor, to the mathematics of the
unitary projection from each and every dimensional domain into the next one, has
the advantage of eliminating numerical incommensurability from the 3- to 5-dimensional
domain mathematics, which validates CoDD theory by matching empirical evidence.
What is the law of parsimony? It simply says that when there is more than one
potential path, a natural process will follow the simplest and most direct path
to its logical end, in effect choosing the easiest path over other possible
paths that are more complex. Einstein evoked the law of parsimony in his work.
He expressed it as a primary principle of God and nature. He said: “Raffiniert
ist der Herr Gott, aber Boshaft ist er nicht!” (The Lord God is impeccable, but
he is not deceptive.) In other words, the intelligence behind reality does not deliberately
and maliciously make things more complicated than necessary to achieve the
logical end result, just to make things difficult for us!
To understand how the use of both existential and conceptual mathematics
in the quantitative analyses of objective phenomena produces contradictions in our
understanding of reality at the quantum and cosmological scales, we need to have
a closer look at some of the fundamental concepts of mathematical logic to see
how we can tell the difference between those that represent things that actually
exist, and those that do not.
The simplest definition of a
physical object, taken from that old entry-level college physics book I studied
in the summer of 1951, is “it is that which has weight and occupies space”. To meet
the requirements of this definition, an object in the dimensional domain of human
experience has to exhibit quantifiable variables of extent and content that can
be measured by a conscious observer. There are three geometric concepts in
common usage that clearly do not meet these criteria: they
are points. lines, and planes. This should be self-evident, but for
clarity and emphasis, I will elaborate.
A point, the conceptualization
that mathematicians call ‘a mathematical singularity’, has zero dimensions, and
thus it has no extent, and no capacity to contain anything. It is, therefore, a
useful concept of human imagination, but objectively non-existent. A line has
one dimension, so it has extent, but no capacity for a single quantum of content.
The length of a finite line segment can be measured by a conscious observer,
but because it has no capacity for content, it does not meet the criteria of an
existential object. A plane has two dimensions, and the area of a finite part
of a plane can be calculated by a conscious observer, but it still has no
capacity for containing quanta of mass, energy, or consciousness. A 2-D plane is
therefore, like its logical precursors, geometrical points and lines, a useful
concept, but it can claim no existence as a physical object existing in the dimensional
domain we experience through our senses. Points, lines, and planes do not exist
in physical reality. They are concepts drawn from the 5-D domain of Primary Consciousness
and thus can only be approximated in the quantized 4-D domain of the physical
universe.
There are several things to be
learned from this simple analysis. In the sequential order of the logical
expansion of an individual consciousness, the first three dimensions of
existential reality are dimensions of space; the fourth is a dimension of time;
and the fifth is a dimension of consciousness. The CoDD becomes a quantum
calculus with tertiary logic, when the first three dimensions combine in a
volumetric unit of geometrical extent, substantial content, and conceptual intent.
This may seem like a leap into unchartered speculative territory, but it is
justified because it produces results that resolve many of the perplexing
paradoxes and contradictions in the current scientific paradigm, and it reveals
the elegance of the higher-dimensional logic of the cosmos. The first 3-D domain,
integrated as a volumetric unit combined with a 3-D unit of time and a 3-D unit
of consciousness, completes the logically consistent finite 9-dimensional
domain, embedded in and reflecting the logical structure of the Infinite field
of Primary Consciousness known in previous times of high virtue as the Akasha.
Results obtained with applications
of the CoDD, based on the free electron quantum equivalence unit (TRUE), include
explaining why only three specific sizes of quarks can combine to form stable protons
and atoms, why neutrons have the specific mass they have, why fermions have an
intrinsic ½ spin, why the Cabbibo quark- mixing angle has the value it has, why
elementary objects spin at near light-speed angular velocities, and much more. Another
important thing that has emerged, is the fact that consciousness manifests
physically as measurable content in sub-atomic structure at the interface of space-time
dimensional domains. We have obtained ample mathematical proof of this in
several publications, including Reality Begins with Consciousness, Neppe
& Close, PNI, Seattle WA, 2015, and Is Consciousness Primary? AAPS
Vol. 1, Edited by G.S. Schwartz & Marjorie Woollacott, Waterside
Productions, Cardiff CA, 2019.
The Origin and
Role of Individualized Consciousness
Consciousness flows
continuously out of the infinitely continuous substrate of reality, which is
the Primary form of Consciousness, and into physical manifestation to form and inform
conscious entities and enable them to gain experience in the physical universe.
Expanding out of, and back into Primary Consciousness in a continuous cycle, this
9-D closed recycling process forms a toroidal energy vortex, and the logical
structure of Primary Consciousness is conveyed into the physical universe in these
spinning vortices.
Quantized reality is ultimately a logically
consistent system of elementary potential and kinetic quantized energy vortices,
and increasingly complex finite arrangements of those vortices are organized by
the intelligence radiating from Primary Consciousness to be received in semi-stable
structures that are complex enough to absorb some of the ultra-high frequencies
of an internally consistent 9-D domain, contained in, and governed by the logic
of the infinitely continuous, all-encompassing field of Primary consciousness.
Otherwise, no metaphysical logic or mathematical science comprehensible to individualized
conscious beings, would be possible. In this quantized reality, individualized
conscious minds like yours and mine exist at the interface between the infinitely
continuous field of Primary Consciousness and the finite quantized reality of
the physical universe.
The best analogy in our 4-D physical
reality that I can think of to compare this with, is the interface of two extensive
bodies of water like the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. Because of differences in
density due to different concentrations of dissolved solids and different kinetic
energy in these bodies of water, reflected in measurable differences in turbidity,
temperature, and color, the interface of the two oceanic bodies is visible on
the surface. Carrying this analogy a little farther, the vortices spinning off on
one side or the other and swirling along the interface, are analogous to elementary
‘particles’ spinning in the four-dimensional space-time energy field of the physical
universe, and the fluid essence of the waters is analogous to the essence of the
conscious substrate field of Primary Consciousness.
Like all analogies, this analogy
comparing forms of mass, energy, and consciousness to spinning vortexes along the
interface of bodies of water is not perfect, but it is close. The next step in
this model of reality is to expand the mathematics of multi-dimensional domains
from 3-D to 4-D and 5-D and inspect existential and conceptual mathematical structures
relative to each of the dimensional domains. To explain this clearly, I need to
define the word ‘dimension’ much more precisely than the way it is thought
about and used in common parlance today. Anyone who has watched a few episodes
of the Twilight Zone TV series that was aired 50 years ago and has been amplified
in TV and movies ever since with improved special effects technology,
understands what is meant by references to things “existing in another
dimension”. However, this common terminology is imprecise. In fact, nothing can
exist “in a dimension”. Things exist in dimensional domains, not in dimensions.
Dimensions are imaginary lines conceptualized
with the intent of defining reference frames for measurements of the extent and
content of physical objects. In the mathematical description of a reality that contains
multiple objects, the values of those measurements are quantized, but variable, and therefore they are called
variables. Spatial dimensions are conceptual reflections of existing objective
forms and, as Einstein observed, they therefore “can claim no existence of
their own”. There is no such thing as space without objects, and no such thing
as time without events. Thus, there is no objective backdrop called space-time without
content. And content, the substance of reality, is measured in variables of mass,
energy, and now, in the CoDD, for the first time in this time cycle, also of consciousness.
Until I narrowed the focus of the calculus
of indications developed by G. Spencer Brown in 1969, by including consciousness
and existence as requirements for the logical analysis of physical reality and
developed the Calculus of Dimensional Distinctions (CoDD) in 1986, consciousness
was assumed by mainstream science to have no existence of its own and no
measurable variables of content or extent. In scientific descriptions, the
observer was - and still is - represented by a dimensionless point, a
mathematical singularity, with no direct connection to, impact on, or influence
on objective reality. This was coupled with the belief that physical reality had
existed for billions of years without meaningful organization or purpose before
life evolved and living organisms became self-aware. In the current belief
system of scientific materialism, self-aware individualized consciousness is imagined
to be a very recent development and an epiphenomenon of physical evolution. We
know now that this belief is false, and that consciousness cannot be equated
with biological life. I knew this before I was born this time, because I remembered
being aware of objective reality before entering my new infant body.
After the summer of 1951, when most
14-year-olds were fascinated with Marilyn Monroe movies and Elvis Presley’s
music, my idol was Albert Einstein. I had fallen in love with science; but, as
I said, I knew, even before discovering relativity, that the assumption that biological
life was necessary for consciousness to exist, a major premise underlying modern
science, was simply wrong. I had experienced objective conscious awareness outside
of my physical body, and I had memories of being identified with other living physical
bodies before this one. But it would be many years before I would be comfortable
talking about these experiences and memories because I didn’t have the
vocabulary to describe them, even though they were an important part of my personal
experience contributing to my conceptual model of reality.
Once you realize that consciousness
is a fundamental part of reality, rather than a random by-product of physical
evolution, your understanding of reality is changed forever. Generally, in
times of low mental and spiritual virtue in time cycles like the one we are in
now, out-of-body awareness comes upon individual conscious beings when they are
barely ready for it. It dawns on them like an explosion of light and expanding consciousness,
over which they have little or no control. This is because, as individuals born
on this planet during the slow growth of human civilization and group consciousness,
we are surprised by sudden glimpses of the beauty and elegance of the higher
frequencies of spiritual reality that surrounds us and informs physical reality.
In flashes, we become aware of the interface of our perceptual domain with the higher-
energy frequencies of domains with additional dimensions, domains that we cannot
experience through the physical senses developed at this time in our bodies.
Mathematical
Modeling and Mandelbrot’s Fractals
As a mathematical modeler of
environmental systems who had had dozens of spontaneous out-of-body experiences
(OBEs) and temporarily expanded states of consciousness by 1985, I was motivated
to try to find ways to expand my conceptual model of reality to include the
world of greater depth and beauty that I had experienced during my OBEs. The
result was the CoDD, and later, the Triadic Dimensional Vortical Paradigm, with
the help of Dr. Vernon Neppe, MD, PhD. But my first inkling of how dimensional
interfaces could be modeled came about 15 years earlier. I knew that
non-existent conceptual planes could not be warped and curved by gravitational
forces to form interfaces between dimensional domains, as some scientists tried
to imagine it; that was too simple. Observation and measurement of existential interfaces
reveal that they are rarely smoothly distorted planes. Projecting unitary
vectors across interfaces between dimensional domains in quantized reality, involves
encountering dynamic irregularities that were first described geometrically as ‘fractal
dimensions’ by Felix Hausdorff in 1918. Fractal geometry was later used in the computer
modeling of the interfaces of masses of different density by
Polish-French-American mathematician, Benoit Mandelbrot and members of the
Department of Interior USGS water Resources Division Systems Analysis Group,
including me, in the early1970s.
I first became aware of the idea of
fractal interface surface geometry in 1970, when I first met Benoit Mandelbrot.
It was before he had developed computer programs to display the beauty of fractal
geometry. At the time, I was a junior member of the newly formed US Department
of Interior Water Resources System Analysis Group in Washington DC, and Dr. Mandelbrot
was working for IBM in Watertown New York. We worked together a few times, modeling
the development and movement of storm cells along weather fronts, and I had the
privilege of being one of the first to review his paper using fractal geometry
to model the coastline geomorphology of the largest of the British Islands.
At that time, I didn’t realize how
important fractal interface geometry would become in my study of consciousness and
multi-dimensional quantum calculus because the iterative set of equations that
became known as the Mandelbrot set, producing interesting patterns in two
dimensions, was very simple. It wasn’t until much later, when I expanded the
concepts of interface dynamics to 3-D domains and beyond and studied John von
Neumann’s work on the interaction of quantized energy with consciousness, that the
importance of fractals became apparent. It wasn’t until 2012, after Mandelbrot
passed on to the other side, and John von Neumann had almost replaced Albert
Einstein at the top of my list of most revered and respected mathematical
scientists, that I learned that Dr. Mandelbrot had studied under von Neumann at
the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton in 1953-1954, while I was still
in high school.
While
working on a model of the interface of the infinitely continuous field of
consciousness with quantized sets of spatially extended forms of physical objects
and developing a primary quantum
calculus, I realized that in order to succeed in my efforts to introduce an
existential quantum calculus, I had to re-unite several fields of mathematics and
natural science that had drifted apart in modern times as objective mathematical
logic was distorted in mainstream science by the inclusion of non-existential concepts.
Over the years, the inclusion of non-existential concepts resulted in the
evolution of disparate fields of theoretical and applied mathematics with incommensurable
basic units, incompatible basic assumptions, and specialized methods with their
own terminology. This distortion of natural science was happening in large part
due to the academic inbreeding of institutionalized intellectual specialization
and dumbed-down educational system.
Euclidean and Non-Euclidean Geometries
Euclid
of Alexandria was one of a very special group of intellectual souls with superior
mental and spiritual virtue who reincarnated from the last Sat Yuga to preserve
the core concepts of mathematical logic through the dark age of the descending
Kali Yuga. Mathematical geometry, or the Logic of Form, originally part of
natural science, was based on mathematical axioms like those described in Euclid’s
Elements around 300 BC. The axioms of Euclid were self-evident a priori
statements about simple forms like lines, planes, angles, and circles; shapes that
could be drawn on flat surfaces, and a few simple volumetric solids. Euclid’s
geometry was the only kind of geometry known to Western science for more than 2,000
years. But in the first part of the 19th century, circa 1813 - 1825,
several mathematicians, independent of each other, - notably the prominent German
mathematician Carl Friederich Gauss - began to explore what became known as non-Euclidean
geometries.
Non-Euclidean
geometries were developed by assuming that the fifth postulate of Euclid’s Elements
could be arbitrarily replaced with conceptual alternatives. Two major branches
of logically valid non-Euclidean geometries were developed simply by assuming
that parallel lines could converge or diverge at infinity. Convergent lines
produced geometries of convex surfaces, like spheres and ovaloid shapes called
hyperbolic geometries, and divergent lines produced geometries with concave
surfaces, called elliptic geometries. They were called hyperbolic and elliptic
because of the shapes of the curves that the erstwhile parallel lines projected
onto their surfaces. In this way, Euclidean geometry became just one of an
infinity of manifold geometries. It is, however a very special geometry because
it is the only flat, or ‘plane’ geometry.
Confusing
conceptual geometry with existential geometry caused mathematicians to think
that the square root of negative one was an imaginary number because it
could not be located in a 3-D spatial domain. But ‘imaginary’ and ‘complex’
numbers are actually real. They existent in domains with more than three
dimensions. Many problems in electronics and thermodynamics, involving energy transfer,
cannot be solved without them. The appearance of imaginary numbers in solutions
to equations describing n-dimensional domain phenomena, indicate the existence
of an additional dimension. When a problem is described by an algebraic
equation in a 3-D framework and the three solutions involve ‘imaginary’ or
‘complex’ numbers, the existence of a 4th dimension is indicated.
In a
conscious projection from one multi-dimensional domain into another, awareness
of an n-D domain implies the existence of an (n+1)-D domain. For example, a 3-D
reality cannot be envisioned without the awareness of time, the 4th
dimension, and we cannot conceive of the dimensions of the 4-D space-time
domain, without observing or measuring them from consciousness in the 5th
dimension. I think that is how mathematicians like Minkowski, Hilbert, and
Friedman, realized that the 4th dimension had to be a dimension of
time, while studying Einstein’s theory of relativity. It is also how I realized
that the 5th dimension has to be a dimension of consciousness. The
elegance of this vision appeared when I realized that each unitary projection
into an additional domain was a root of unity, linking complex analysis to existential
math in dimensional domains of 6 or more dimensions.
The
conceptual development of non-Euclidean geometries led some people to
mis-interpret fractal geometry as a geometry with fractional dimensions. This
is not the case of course; fractional dimensions do not extend into other
dimensional domains; they are objective measures of the existential roughness
of interfaces between quantized domains of different mass and energy densities.
The CoDD replaces the conceptual mathematics of imaginary points, lines,
planes, and interfaces with the hyper-dimensional interfaces of individualized
consciousness with existential reality in Primary Consciousness. Care should be
taken not to confuse hyper-dimensional domains with non-Euclidean geometries.
Scientific Meditation
The title of this section is an example of double entendre
(an expression that has two valid meanings, one obvious, the other obscure). In
this section, I will be writing about scientific meditation techniques and
about objective results from meditations that have been empirically and statistically
verified. In 1996, I enjoyed doing a poster presentation at Tucson II,
Toward a Science of Consciousness. My presentation was about the interface
of consciousness and quantum physics. After one of the sessions, I asked a
well-known physicist who was presenting, a man whose work I admired, if he had
started meditating yet. He looked at me as if I had asked him if he had spoken
with space aliens and said “No! why should I?” I didn’t get a chance to explain
to him why I thought he should meditate, but I did have evidence that certain
consciousness altering meditation techniques could make scientific
investigation more productive. At that time, I had been practicing Kriya Yoga pranayama
techniques of consciousness expansion for 36 years.
In my autobiography, I have written about some personal OBEs
that started happening spontaneously when I was about 12 years old. During these
experiences, my visual and audial senses were greatly enhanced and magnified. These
experiences were temporary states of consciousness similar to those described by
Patanjali in the Anima Sutra as Siddhis (powers of the soul). What
I was experiencing was one of the eight siddhis that are attained
through prolonged deep meditation. Experiencing them at an early age in this
life was evidence that I had practiced pranayama techniques in past lives. This
particular siddhi enables you to focus your sphere of consciousness to a point
as tiny as an atom, proton, quark, or free electron.
In 2019, I collaborated with Dr. Vernon Neppe and Dr. Surendra
Pokharna (Neppe
V, Pokharna S, Close E., Besant- Quantal
Clairvoyance. IQNJ. 2019, 11: 3, 5-72. 200706 V10.43) Our study documented statistically valid evidence
that Dr. A. Besant and associates, using rigorous experimental criteria,
described the quark sub-structure of atoms, and obtained valid information about other subatomic structures
in 1908 by practicing the Anima Siddhi meditation techniques found in
Patanjali’s Yoga Sutras. Yoga means ‘union’ in Sanskrit. The Besant
experiments probed the 92 known natural atoms of the Elements. At about the
same time Annie Besant et al were probing subatomic reality using the anima
siddhi, mainstream science was considering the elan vital or
‘life-force’ theory put forth by French philosopher Henri Bergson in his book Creative
Evolution in 1907. Elan Vital was rejected by science because of lack of
physical evidence.
Our 2019 study of
Besant’s data provides indisputable empirical evidence documenting psi abilities
operating during deep Yogic meditation. The data is statistically significant,
with a statistical probability of about one in a billion-billion, with
correlation coefficients approaching one. The results are virtually fraud-proof
because the Besant data has been available for more than 100 years, and the correlation
with the Neppe-Close Triadic Dimensional Vortical Paradigm (TDVP) was proved with
TRUE quantal unit values, empirically validated and 100% replicable.
The Discovery of Gimmel, the Stabilizer of Logical Structure
The
most noticeable and most remarkable thing about the physical universe is the great
abundance of energy it contains. Everything is constantly moving. As conscious beings,
we seem to be located in the middle of everything, moving relatively slowly while
the largest things and the smallest things, farthest from us, things that we
can detect through our physical senses, are moving much faster than we are. Both
larger and smaller things are spinning and spiraling at such tremendous velocities
that their rotation and spinning give them two kinds of stability: stabilities
of form, which can be spherical, oval, or vortical, and stabilities of repeating
patterns, that can be vibrational, orbital, or spiral. Some natural processes involve
all of these forms and patterns, persisting for different lengths of time, from
nanoseconds to eternity.
In the
quest to understand the nature of reality, an important question to ask, is: Which
physical object in the universe is the most stable ? The answer is the proton. Most
of the objects that make up the elements of the periodic table, the stuff that mainstream
scientists call hadronic matter, decay over time, and most of them decay very
quickly relative to human time. But protons never decay, or if they do, their
half-life is longer than the estimated age of the big-bang universe, which
keeps getting older and older as we continue to learn more about it.
An
even more important question, as it turns out, is: Why is the proton so stable?
When I first learned about the amazing, functionally eternal stability of the
proton, I was pretty sure that if I could learn why the proton is so super
stable, then I would also be able to answer Leibniz’s most famous question,
which was: “Why is there something rather than nothing?” Given the second law
of thermodynamics, that says that entropy (disorder) always increases with time,
explaining why things deteriorate and decay, Leibniz realized that there wouldn’t
be complex structures in the first place, unless something very different had
happened to override the entropy of natural decay sometime in the past, so he
concluded that the first thing science should have asked, was “Why is there
anything?”
Planck
discovered the fact that there is no such thing as matter. This means that the subatomic
objects cannot be particles of solid matter. If they are not particles, then what
are they? An in-depth look at them in anima siddhi meditation reveals
that they are energy vortices spinning in at least two or three dimensions
simultaneously, in accordance with Newton’s 3rd law of motion (for
every action there’s an equal and opposite reaction) because of the expansion
of the 4-D universe. We also see that mass is simply the measure of how much an
object resists to a force causing it to change its vector of motion.
Another
expanded state of consciousness siddhi allows you to slow objective time
down by speeding up the rate of your metabolism. When you do this, you see that
quantal vortices combine by merging like spinning drops of water, and the
combination formed has the combined angular momentum of the merging objects,
obeying the conservation of energy law. Electrons are single 3-D, 1 TRUE unit
vortices that are spinning at the speed of light. Up-quarks are 2 TRUE unit vortices
spinning in 2 dimensions, giving them 22 = 4 TRUE units of mass due
to their angular momentum. Down-quarks are 3 TRUE unit vortices spinning in 2
dimensions, giving them 32 = 9 TRUE units of mass due to angular
momentum. Protons are composed of 2 up-quarks and 1 down-quark, and they must contain
an integer number of TRUE units cubed, to be perfectly symmetrical and not
decay due to unbalanced angular momentum.
When
I returned to the US after my NDE in the Great Pyramid of Giza Egypt in 2010,
described in my autobiography, I began to apply the CoDD to analyze the merger of three quarks to form
a proton, to see if I could discover why the proton is so stable. When I
converted the data from the Large Hadron Collider for the mass of up- and down-quarks
into naturalized TRUE units and combined their 3-D forms using CoDD logic, I
was surprised. The Diophantine equation for the combination of two up-quarks
and one down-quark did not yield an integral value for the TRUE unit cube-root
of the volume of the proton. That meant that the proton couldn’t contain a
whole number of quanta and would therefore be asymmetric and fly apart and
decay due to its unbalanced angular momentum. In other words, the proton,
composed of two up-quarks and one down-quark, shouldn’t be any more stable than
any other subatomic object! Could I have made an error in logic or arithmetic?
It had happened before, because I’m a mathematical modeler, not necessarily
always a meticulous number cruncher, so I checked and re-checked my reasoning
and my calculations. But there was no error. The proton couldn’t be as stable,
as it clearly was in LHC data. How could both be true? I was confronted with a
paradox!
Then,
a remarkable thing happened! I remembered three famous statements about paradoxes,
problems, and mathematical completeness. The first one was a profound statement
by Danish physicist, Niels Bohr. When he was told that a quantum experiment that
he had designed had produced contradictory results, he exclaimed: “How wonderful that we have met with a paradox. Now we have
some hope of making progress!” The
second statement was from Albert Einstein, who said: “No problem can be
solved from the same level of consciousness that created it.” And the
third was the essence of Kurt Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem, which proved that
valid questions can be asked in a consistent logical system that can’t be
answered within that system. At one quantum moment, these three profound
statements converged in my mind to clarify a truth that made me realize that my
computational paradox wasn’t a dead end, and together with what I already knew
about conceptual and existential reality and mathematical modeling, that truth would
enable me to resolve the proton paradox, and the end result was an amazingly
profound discovery about the nature of reality: It has been designed with a purpose.
These statements by the three
famous physicists are intimately related to each other, and also to existential
reality, consciousness, and the discovery of Gimmel, the measurable organizing
factor of physical reality and conveyer of the logic of Primary Consciousness into
the physical universe. Bohr’s statement was a welcome answer for those who saw Gödel’s
Incompleteness Theorem as the end of mathematical certainty. I think David
Hilbert was one of those thinkers, because his dream, his life’s work, was to accomplish
the task of identifying the complete set of logically consistent axioms with
which all mathematical questions could be proved or disproved. The
incompleteness theorem was a disaster for Hilbert’s dream, because it proved
that what he hoped to accomplish was impossible.
Some mathematicians thought that
the incompleteness theorem implied that there were valid hypotheses that could
never be proved or disproved. That is true in the absolute sense; however, the
incompleteness theorem also implies that reality is potentially infinite, and therefore,
a given hypothesis can be proved or disproved in a logical system that is expanded
to encompass it. This is true because any consistent bubble of consciousness is
a logical system by definition, and that makes Einstein’s statement relevant
because it implies that a finite consciousness bubble can always be expanded to
include more of existential reality.
When I encountered
the proton paradox, I had already had a background that included a BA degree in
mathematics and sufficient coursework in geology, physics, and mathematics for
Master’s degrees in all three subjects. I had worked as a mathematical modeler
in a US Government Systems Analysis Group for several years and earned a PhD in
environmental science and engineering with a one-year residence at Johns Hopkins
University, and I was actively involved in ground-breaking bio-psycho-quantum-physics
research with Dr. Vernon Neppe MD, PhD, founder of the Pacific Neuropsychiatric
Institute. I had also been practicing Kriya Yoga consciousness-expansion
techniques for 60 years, and I knew that the profound truths spoken by Bohr, Einstein,
and Gödel fit in perfectly with my model of everything, to provide me with an insight
of considerable significance. It was an insight that would enable me to
complete my life’s mission to help bring science out of the dead-end illusion
of materialism by producing empirical evidence that the organizing feature that
stabilizes physical reality is pure consciousness, proving that the logic of consciousness
is the primary underlying form of reality.
The Truth is not owned
by anyone. It is freely available for anyone to discover. However, I would be egregiously
remiss if I did not express my gratitude to the Eternal Light of Primary
Consciousness, the Source of everything, and to the line of Spiritual Masters and
teachers who have been my guiding lights throughout my journey of many lives, inspiring
every true vision and thought I had. They are Christ, Buddha, Krishna,
Mohammed, Kabir, Plato, Maha Avatar Babaji Maharaj, Lahiri Mahasaya, Sri
Yukteswar Giri, Paramahansa Yogananda, The Aten incarnate: Amenhotep, Patanjali,
Maitreya Buddha, and many other Fully Enlightened Beings. They are listed in no
particular order here because they are all One with Primary Consciousness.
The Mathematics of
the CoDD stable merging of combinations can be summarized in one mathematical
expression. It is the doubly-infinite summation shown below, where m indicates the
dimensional domain and n is the number of existential objects merging into the
stable object represented by Xn+1 :
For anyone
unfamiliar with this type of notation, it represents a double infinity of
equations from which every combination theorem of the primary calculus can be
derived. However, I will limit the demonstration and comments given here to an abbreviated
presentation of the logical process that conveys order into chaos and led to
the discovery of the existence of gimmel, in TRUE units, organizing every
stable proton in every atom of the periodic table of elements.
The insight
mentioned above was the realization that the proton paradox is easily resolved
by expanding the system of existential logic to include a third form of the essence
of reality that manifests physically as mass and energy. If the substrate of
reality, i.e., the Akasha or zero quantum field is not composed of mass or
energy, but pure consciousness which can manifest in a third form as well as mass
and/or energy, then the proton can contain a combination of all three, producing
a total number of TRUE units equal to a perfect cube, making it perfectly symmetrical
and therefore virtually eternal!
Quark Merging Conveyance Equations
With Solutions Leading to Proof
of the Existence of
Gimmel
|
n
|
m
|
Combination
Equations
|
Meaning
|
|
1
|
1
|
(X1)1 = (X2)1
→ X1 = X2
|
Sequence of Identities
|
|
2
|
1
|
(X1)1
+ (X2)1 = (X3)1
1 +1 =
2; 2 + 1 = 3; 3 + 1 = 4, …
|
Closure
of Integers
With
respect to Addition
|
|
2
|
2
|
(X1)2 + (X2)2
= (X3)2
|
Pythagorean Triples
|
|
2
|
2
|
(3)2 + (4)2
= (5)2
9 + 16 = 25
|
First
Primitive
Solution
of (2,2)
|
|
2
|
3
|
(X1)3 + (X2)3
= (X3)3
|
No Solutions (FLT*)
|
|
3
|
3
|
(X1)3 + (X2)3
+ (X3)3 = (X4)3
|
CoDD Quantum Addition for (3,3)
|
|
3
|
3
|
(3)3 + (4)3
+ (5)3 = (6)3
27 + 64 + 125 = 216
|
First
Primitive
Solution
of (3,3)
|
|
3
|
3
|
(1)3 + (6)3 +
(8)3 = (9)3
1+ 216 + 512 = 729
|
Second
Primitive Solution of (3,3)
|
|
3
|
3
|
(24)3 + (38)3 + (106)3 =
(108)3
|
The
Hydrogen
Atom
|
* Fermat’s Last
Theorem
proved that there are no integer values for a combination of two quantized
objects, but Diophantine integer solutions do exist for three quantized objects.
These Diophantine
(integer) solutions of the conveyance equations, besides explaining why only
three quarks can form stable nucleons and why protons are so stable, provide
the exact number of TRUE existing in free and energy-shell electrons, up- and
down -quarks, and in protons and neutrons. When the total TRUE units of mass/energy,
and gimmel in each atom of the periodic table of elements is calculated, some
very interesting patterns emerge. For example, the elements that are necessary
for biological life, and those that are supportive of life, have higher
concentrations of gimmel than those that are detrimental or destructive. See
table below.
Evidence of Intelligent Design
Nth ELEMENT
(N = number
of electrons)
|
Mass
TRUE Units
|
Gimmel
In TRUE
Units
|
Total
TRUE Units
|
Percent Gimmel
|
RANK*
Relevance to
Life
|
1
Hydrogen
|
18
|
150
|
168
|
89.3
|
1
|
2
Helium
|
80
|
256
|
336
|
76.2
|
2
|
3
Lithium
|
142
|
364
|
506
|
71.9
|
4
|
4
Beryllium
|
182
|
528
|
710
|
74.4
|
5
|
5
Boron
|
222
|
656
|
878
|
74.7
|
4
|
6
Carbon
|
240
|
768
|
1008
|
76.2
|
1
|
7
Nitrogen
|
280
|
896
|
1176
|
76.2
|
1
|
8
Oxygen
|
320
|
1024
|
1344
|
76.2
|
1
|
9
Fluorine
|
382
|
1168
|
1550
|
75.4
|
3
|
10
Neon
|
400
|
1280
|
1680
|
76.2
|
2
|
11
Sodium
|
462
|
1424
|
1886
|
75.5
|
3
|
12
Magnesium
|
480
|
1536
|
2016
|
76.2
|
2
|
13
Aluminum
|
542
|
1680
|
2222
|
75.6
|
3
|
14
Silicon
|
560
|
1792
|
2352
|
76.2
|
3
|
15
Phosphorus
|
632
|
1936
|
2558
|
75.7
|
2
|
16
Sulfur
|
640
|
2048
|
2688
|
76.2
|
2
|
17
Chlorine
|
702
|
2192
|
2894
|
75.7
|
3
|
18
Argon
|
808
|
2368
|
3176
|
74.6
|
3
|
19
Potassium
|
782
|
2448
|
3230
|
75.8
|
2
|
20
Calcium
|
800
|
2560
|
3360
|
76.4
|
1
|
21
Scandium
|
906
|
2726
|
3632
|
75.1
|
3
|
22
Titanium
|
968
|
2880
|
3848
|
74.8
|
4
|
23
Vanadium
|
1130
|
3024
|
4154
|
72.7
|
4
|
24
Chromium
|
1148
|
3136
|
4284
|
73.2
|
4
|
25
Manganese
|
1110
|
3289
|
4390
|
74.7
|
4
|
26
Iron
|
1128
|
3382
|
4510
|
75.0
|
3
|
27
Cobalt
|
1190
|
2536
|
3726
|
68.1
|
4
|
28
Nickel
|
1196
|
3632
|
4828
|
75.4
|
4
|
29
Copper
|
1292
|
3808
|
5100
|
74.7
|
3
|
30
Zinc
|
1310
|
3920
|
5230
|
75.0
|
3
|
31
Gallium
|
1416
|
4096
|
5512
|
74.3
|
4
|
32
Germanium
|
1480
|
4240
|
5720
|
74.1
|
4
|
33
Arsenic
|
1518
|
4458
|
5976
|
74.6
|
5
|
*Rank
of Relevance to Consciousness and Life: All of the natural,
stable and semi-stable elements of the periodic table are necessary, to some
degree, for the existence, maintenance, and spiritual evolution of organic life
forms capable of receiving the vibrational frequencies and patterns of consciousness.
This table ranks the first 33 natural elements from 1 to 5, 1 having the
highest percentage of gimmel, the organizing feature of consciousness that makes
intelligent life possible on this planet. Hydrogen is ranked #1 because it is
Primary and essential, not only for the existence of biological life, but also
for all other elements to form. Elements ranked 2 are necessary to support life,
and Those ranked 3 and 4 play minimal roles, usually in compound combinations
with other elements that mitigate or neutralize the negative and harmful or
destructive effects that they would otherwise have on conscious organic life
forms. Elements ranked 5 are lethal. It is also interesting to calculate gimmel
percentage for biological chemical compounds. The DNA/RNA nucleic acid
molecules score high percentages, as does water.
Every conscious
being has a model of reality built up of experience-based memories and logical or
fanciful extended images in his or her mind. Everyone tends to believe that his
or her own personal conceptual model of reality is reality - until
it clashes with existential reality in a way that becomes uncomfortable or even
intolerable. Biological life provides opportunities for conscious beings to correct
and improve their conceptual models of reality, and this process is called
learning. From a point of view outside of your bubble of consciousness, the
learning process is an expansion of the bubble of your personal conceptual
beliefs about reality to contain more and more of actual existential reality. The
goal and purpose of life is to expand your consciousness until it is congruent
with existential reality. Until then, there will be problems and paradoxes.
During this lifetime,
as I’ve reported in my autobiography, my Transcendental Physics blogsite, and
elsewhere, memories of past lives and between-life experiences have surfaced
because of the consciousness expansion due to my daily practice of the Kriya
Yoga techniques. When an individual’s bubble of consciousness expands beyond
the physical body, even temporarily, that individual begins to see more of
reality and realize that the paradoxes of one multi-dimensional domain can be resolved
in expanded higher-energy dimensional domains.
Conclusion:
Consciousness is primary. Stable
structure exists in physical reality only because of the presence of gimmel, the
organizing function of consciousness. None of the dynamic forms of matter,
energy, and consciousness, have any independent existential reality of their
own. The forms and substances of reality are innately interdependent. We can’t
have one of them without the others. This becomes obvious when an individual
consciousness expands into the quantum and cosmic domains. If any part of
reality - mass, energy, time, space, or consciousness - is left out of the mathematical
description of objective reality, science is incomplete and the reality that we
experience in the mid-range of observation and measurement is logically inexplicable.
But, as part of the Akashic substrate of Primary Consciousness, your
consciousness and mine is immortal, and the purpose of our existence is to expand
our bubble of consciousness and light. We are immortals, on our way to
becoming One with Primary Consciousness.
.JPG)
