PATTERNS
OF REALITY
©
Copyright 2022, Edward R. (Ed) Close
Introduction
Hello! My
name is Ed Close. Who are you, dear reader? Maybe someone who has read some of my
posts before. If not, then not only is this an introduction to what I am going
to talk about in “Patterns of Reality”, it’s an introduction to me as a person,
as well. As of this moment, I have placed 571 posts on this blogsite. One might
think that is more than enough. The last one was number 24 in a series that
explains pretty much who I am and what I’ve been up to for the past few hundred
years. I also have several books in print and a number of papers and articles. You
can read or re-read them if you have time and want to.
Notice
that the by-line on this post is just my name. I’ve dropped the PhD, PE, DSPE, Charter
Member…Distinguished Member…etc., etc. some of which I could legitimately still
attach to my name; but I’ve done that for a reason: I am retired. I am not
PhD-ing, PE-ing, or DSPE-ing, … any more. I’m just Ed Close, and that’s enough.
I am still writing though, that’s part of who I am. You can still call me Dr.
as a title of respect, if you’d like, or just call me Ed Close, or “that guy
who writes all sorts of crazy stuff”. I don’t care. I don’t need any more accolades
or praise. When I skip on the next life, I am hoping that I will have made some
difference in the world for the good of myself and my fellow human beings who
have to go on with this drama; but that’s not up to me.
I don’t
mean to suggest that I am going to walk off into the sunset anytime soon. Not
at all! I woke up this morning knowing that I still have a lot of work to do.
The patterns of thought and structures of gimmel-guided electrons, quarks, atoms,
compounds, cells, organs, and symbiotic organisms that make up my physical body
are still very much active in the game of life, and this life is not over until
the real “Big Guy”, the one who spoke the reality we all experience into
existence, says it is. So there! Enough said about me.
In the
pursuit of identifying the Patterns of Reality that can change lives for the
better, I intend to draw on things I’ve learned during the 85 years of this
life, and beyond. One thing I’ve learned, is that the experiences of life, even
those that seem chaotic and uncertain – like a stumbling trial and error path through
a frightening minefield of death and destruction - are actually governed by hidden
patterns designed to further consciousness expansion and spiritual evolution. I
tried very hard to boil a lot of the apparent randomness down in previous
blogposts. The patterns I want to identify now, through a further distillation
of life and death experiences, are the guiding patterns of reality that can be recognized
by separating the patterns that are real and profound from the trivial and
often illusory concepts that are not real.
Patterns Real and Imagined
The idea
is surfacing more persistently as time goes on, that anything we can imagine
can be manifested, and the history of the progress of science and technology over
the past 200 years – a sizable part of which I have experienced myself – seems
to bear this out. When I first started getting interested in science and
mathematics in this life, a few years before the end of World War II, - “the
war to end all wars” according to the hopeful US President Franklin Delano Roosevelt - television was a new invention and cars were replacing horses, even in the
Ozarks. People began to imagine all sorts of fantastic things for the future, and
some of it has come true.
If we can
affect the patterns of reality by what we imagine, we must be very careful what
we wish for. Reality is not as simple as it looks on the surface. It exists in more
than two dimensions, and until our consciousness is expanded beyond the duality
of simplistic two-dimensional thinking, trying to motivate reality to manifest
what we wish for can be dangerous. In the part of reality that we perceive
through the physical senses, i.e., the contents of three-dimensional space and
one unidirectional dimension of time, the asymmetric 4-D pattern guarantees that
what is manifested will rarely, if ever, be what the dreamer dreams of, and it
may even be the opposite of what was intended, especially if the dream is
absolute or profound. The concepts of true and false, and simple versus
profound, are distorted by an incomplete understanding of the nature of reality.
Niels Bohr, the Danish physicist who explained the layered
structure of the atom and was instrumental in the development of quantum
physics, put it this way:
“The opposite of a correct statement is a false
statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound
truth.”
The first
sentence of this statement is an obvious example of binary logic based on the
assumption that a meaningful statement is correct if it corresponds with
reality, and false if it does not. The second sentence raises some important
questions: Are there distinctly different levels of truth? What is a profound
truth? Is a profound truth absolute, a priori, self-evident, i.e.,
needing no proof? If so, the assumptions upon which systems of logic, including
philosophical, political, and scientific theories are based may be profound
truths. If they are not, the theories are flawed or at least incomplete.
The existence of profound truths implies the existence of other, not-so-profound
truths. What is the difference between a profound truth and a simple truth?
Alfred
North Whitehead and Bertrand Russell, in their three-volume work Principia
Mathematica, elucidating the foundations of mathematical logic, identified
three types of statements: true, false, and meaningless. But in the development
of the quantum calculus of dimensional distinctions (CoDD), we find that some
statements that are meaningless in a binary system of logic are actually
meaningful in a higher-dimensional triadic model of reality. This is consistent
with G. Spencer Brown’s findings in Laws of Form. A truth that does not
qualify as profound, is either simple or an indicator of the existence of a
higher dimensional domain with more than 3 or 4 dimensions. How can we tell
what kind of truth a given true statement is? Let’s look at some examples.
True or False
Let’s
start with the statement: “All crows are black.” I think that this statement,
if true, is a simple truth, the opposite of which is false. I grew up in the
country where I saw a lot of crows. All of them were black. I have also seen
crows in other parts of the world, and all of them were black. So, this
statement may well be true, but I can’t prove it because I have not seen every
crow that exists. But suppose it really is true. Suppose that at this instant,
every crow that exists is black. That truth could change at any time. Some demented
person might spray-paint a crow orange, or through mutation, a crow might hatch
that is white or brown. Conclusion: The statement “All crows are black” may be
true at one time and false at another time. A truth that can change to false over
time cannot be classified as profound, and so must be classified as simple and provisional,
as opposed to complex and profound.
One man,
perhaps one of the smartest men who ever lived, Rene Descartes, famously said:
“I think, therefore, I am.” That sounds pretty profound. But is it? If the
statement can be verified as true and can be generalized to apply to all of thinking
beings, - and if its opposite may be a profound truth too, then it will surely qualify
as a profound truth. The first step is to determine whether or not it is true.
The “I think” and the “I am” parts of the statement can be verified and accepted
as true because there is no doubt that Descartes existed, and the fact that he
did a lot of thinking is quite well documented. If the “therefore” part is also
true, then the statement can be generalized to apply to all thinking beings
simply by removing the personal pronouns and replacing the “therefore” with
“implies’, so that the statement becomes: “Thinking implies existence”.
In this
context, opposite means in opposition to, or in contradiction of the original
statement. In this case, for Descartes’ statement, there are four possible
statements in opposition to “I think, therefore I am” and its generalization,
“Thinking implies existence”: there is one converse statement and three negating
statements. To be thorough, we must look at each of them. The converse
statement is “existence implies thinking”. This opposite statement certainly
isn’t a profound truth because it isn’t even true. E.g., the rock I was holding
in my hand in the picture above exists, but most people would agree that it
doesn’t think. It holds a lot of information about the Earth’s crust in a
certain location and time period, but it doesn’t think.
The negative
opposites of Descartes’ statement are: The nominative negation: “Not thinking implies
existence”, the objective negation: “Thinking implies non-existence”, and the
complete negation: “Not thinking implies non-existence”. Considering each opposing
statement separately, I think we can agree that none of them are profound, or
even true. Therefore, Descartes’ statement “I think therefore I am” may be true,
and it is certainly more complex than the statement about black crows, but is it
also provisional like the black crows statement? The answer to that depends on
the definitions of thinking and being, and the process that might make the conjunctive
adverbs “therefore” or “implies” true. So, we must look deeper into what is
meant by “thinking” and “being”, and whether or not they are causally connected.
Thinking
is a mental activity associated with electrical and chemical processes in complex
physical structures known as brains. Thinking should not be confused with
computing, which can be done automatically by a properly programmed machine. And
being is a synonym for existing, implying the status of being an existing part
of reality. The discovery of the existence of gimmel, a stabilizing non-physical
feature of reality, means that Descartes’ statement is true, if, and only if, the
process represented by the word “therefore” or “implies” in the general case, is
also supported by the presence of gimmel. Since any mechanism that could link
thinking to being depends on the stability of electrons, and protons, which
contain specific numbers of units of gimmel, Descartes’ statement is verified
as a truth that is more complex than a simple truth, but not a truly profound
truth.
In Search of Profound Truth
So far, we
have only found examples of a simple truth and a complex truth. To be honest, I
didn’t really expect “All crows are black” to be a profound truth, but I had greater
expectations for “I think, therefore I am”. However, just like in the case of
the crows, Descartes’ clever declaration turns out to be true and complex, but
not profound. Do profound truths exist, as Bohr suggests, or are all a
priori assumptions provisional because of the asymmetrical nature of time?
If so, this could be the hidden basis of Gödel’s incompleteness theorems and
there may not be such a thing as profound truth. But I don’t think so, and it
is worth taking a moment to explain why I am convinced that profound truths do
exist.
When
symmetric dimensions of time and consciousness were added to the
four-dimensional (4S-1t) model of the Standard Model of particle physics to
produce the TDVP system of mathematical logic, we were able to derive a
calculus that explained a substantial number of things that were paradoxical
and contradictory in conventional Standard Model analyses. These included
explaining why only triadic combinations of elementary particles produce stable
subatomic structures, deriving the Cabibbo quark mixing angle from theory,
explaining the additional mass of protons and neutrons formed from up- and
down-quarks, and many more. Following the time-honored axioms of “the proof is
in the pudding”, and the simplest possible answer is usually the correct one
(the law of parsimony), I conclude that profound truth does exits.
To determine
whether I am right, I need to find an example of a profound truth. Where can we
find such a treasure? As indicated above, profound truths might be found hidden
in plain sight among the a priori assumptions supporting successful
theories like relativity and quantum physics; so, let’s look there. One
unifying statement that stands out because it connects the two theoretical
pillars of modern physics is Einstein’s statement: “the speed of light is constant”.
This statement and the complementary declaration of “no preferred reference
frame” is the basis of the special and general theories of relativity. The same
statement, paired with Planck’s discovery that energy and mass are quantized also
underlies quantum mechanics and quantum physics. So perhaps the constancy of
the speed of light is a profound truth.
Surely, Einstein’s
constant light speed is a more profound statement than Descartes’ thinking
implies being, - or is it? First, we need to understand exactly what Einstein
meant when he declared “the speed of light is constant”. Is the speed of light
the same in every circumstance? No. Light travels through space and transparent
and translucent things at different rates. The speed of light in water, for
example, is about 25% slower than the speed of light in the near vacuum of
space. This appears to be a case where the opposite is also true, conforming
with Bohr’s remark that the opposite of a profound truth may also be a profound
truth! The speed of light is constant for every observer, but the speed of
light is not constant in every circumstance. But, if the speed of light varies
depending on physical circumstances, isn’t that a provisional truth? And what
about time? Might not the speed of light actually change over time? If so, can constant
light speed really be a profound truth?
Obviously,
Einstein was not saying that the speed of light is the same under all
circumstances, but then, what was he saying? He was saying something more
amazing and consequential – and more profound. He was saying that the speed of
light is always the same for all observers, regardless of the motion of the
source and receiver. For example, if astronaut scientists in two different
rocket ships flying through space at the same time are measuring the speed of
light coming from a light source into their ships and one of the ships is moving toward
the light source at a high rate of speed, while the other is moving at a high rate of
speed away from the source, they will both measure the speed of the sunlight they
receive to be exactly the same! Contrary to the expectations of classical mainstream
physicists of the 1800s and early 1900s, experimental evidence verified Einstein’s
declaration that this is true.
If this concept
of constant light speed doesn’t seem strange to you, then think about what it
would be like if, instead of light, the scientists were measuring the velocities
of moving physical objects like bullets or other projectiles. The scientist
moving away from the place of the object’s origin would find a much slower object
velocity than the one moving toward it. The actual velocity of each object could
be determined by the addition or subtraction of velocity vectors. Not so with
light. Why? If light is a purely physical phenomenon, then, whether scientists
are measuring the speed of arrival of a photon or a wave front, why wouldn’t
the law of addition of velocity vectors hold? The fact that it doesn’t, and all
observers detect the same light speed despite relative motion of sources and
observers, points to profound truths about the nature of space, time, and the
propagation of light. It turns out that space and time have no objective existence
of their own, and light is evidence of a primary universal constant.
The
quantum equivalence unit, or Triadic Rotational Unit of equivalence (TRUE) used
as the basic unit of measurement, is defined by setting the mass and volume of
the free electron, the smallest stable elementary object, equal to one; and the
quantum calculus mentioned so often in previous posts and publications, the
Calculus of Dimensional Distinctions (CoDD), is derived by setting the speed of
light equal to one. The result is a normalized whole-number system of multi-dimensional
mathematical logic that serves as the descriptive quantified language for the
Triadic Dimensional Vortical Paradigm (TDVP) model of reality.
Application
of this normalized TRUE system of mathematical logic to analyze the simplest combination
of elementary objects, i.e., the combination of quarks to form a proton, has
revealed some interesting serial numerical patterns that may have significance for
future research. The next post will explore some of those patterns.
ERC – 5/7/2022