Search FQXi

If you have an idea for a blog post or a new forum thread, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org, with a summary of the topic and its source (e.g., an academic paper, conference talk, external blog post or news item).
Contests Home

Current Essay Contest

Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American

Previous Contests

How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008

Forum Home
Introduction

Order posts by:
chronological order
most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Anonymous: on 3/15/13 at 16:23pm UTC, wrote Hi Jason : Your computer is not going to ask you if it has a soul because...

Jason Wolfe: on 3/14/13 at 19:06pm UTC, wrote Wilhelmus, "All information together that forms our Subjective...

Wilhelmus Wilde: on 3/14/13 at 16:27pm UTC, wrote Hi Jason, You say there is no Soul, because everything is voltage...

Jason Wolfe: on 3/14/13 at 8:18am UTC, wrote Hi Wilhelmus, Neurobiology seems to be able to explain every aspect of...

Wilhelmus Wilde: on 2/24/13 at 17:20pm UTC, wrote "THE CONSCIOUSNESS CONNECTION" is still actual and awaiting your...

Wilhelmus Wilde: on 1/21/13 at 15:06pm UTC, wrote Hi Branden, I'll give you also my personal mail, but FQXi gives me a signal...

Wilhelmus Wilde: on 1/18/13 at 16:55pm UTC, wrote Hi Brandon, This thread is not dead at all, but I would ask you to naswer...

branden: on 1/17/13 at 18:00pm UTC, wrote wilhemus I just have to say im tired at the moment but interested in...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

Akinbo Ojo: "Marcel, I am not convinced that the rule of non-contradiction has a..." in Trick or Truth? — Essay...

Pentcho Valev: ""To the researchers' surprise, the light continued to travel at the..." in The Perfect Physics...

Marcel-Marie LeBel: "Akinbo, Time is the loophole in the rule of non-contradiction. You can`t..." in Trick or Truth? — Essay...

Robert McEachern: "You have confused what you, the receiver does (such as stop), based on a..." in Purifying Physics: The...

dieu le: "HOW GRAVITY READS WEIGHT How does gravity recognize that a steel ball is..." in Is the Past Infinite?

Steve Agnew: "One bit is not enough for prediction of action for an object. All..." in Purifying Physics: The...

Jim Snowdon: "Things happen. Real things, occur. Real things, endure. Real things,..." in Q&A with Paul Davies:...

John Cox: "James, Briefly, I've lots of snow to contend with. 1: On the orbital..." in Alternative Models of...

RECENT ARTICLES

Purifying Physics: The Quest to Explain Why the “Quantum” Exists
A new framework for the laws underlying reality could explain why nature obeys quantum rules, the origin of time’s arrow, and the power of quantum computing.

Searching for the Impossible
A quest to discover which computational tasks can never be resolved.

Six Degrees to the Emergence of Reality
Physicists are racing to complete a new model of "quantum complex networks" that tackles the physical nature of time and paradoxical features of emergence of classical reality from the quantum world

Quantum in Context
An untapped resource could provide the magic needed for quantum computation—and perhaps even open the door to time travel.

Spot the Difference to Reveal Exotic Particles
Questioning the symmetrization postulate of quantum mechanics and the notion that electrons are indistinguishable could reveal whether hypothetical new particles exist.

FQXi FORUM
March 3, 2015

CATEGORY: FQXi Essay Contest - Spring, 2012 [back]
TOPIC: The Conciousness Connection by Wilhelmus de Wilde [refresh]

Author Wilhelmus de Wilde wrote on Aug. 8, 2012 @ 12:52 GMT
Essay Abstract

Our five senses ask for the reference of reference, which cannot be found in our causal material reality. We all have a subjective reality that is presented as a simultaneity sphere around our consciousness. Consciousness not being a material entity with length or volume, can be treated as a singularity. The cutting circles of the different spheres around the percipients form a foam (origin of decoherence) of objective mutual reality (history). Our Reductionist Causal Deterministic Universe (RCDU) is limited by the Planck Wall. Before that causality doesn’t exist , we call this “dimension” Total Simultaneity (TS).. The causal time-line (β-time) consists of entangled Alpha–probabilities (α-P’s) . Each “observer” is the origin of his own causal time lines. Free will makes the choice of an infinity of α-P’s in TS. Subjective individual time travel can happen without being conscious of the process (until now). We explain the double-slit experiment, the “spooky action at a distance”, the Many World Interpretation, Entropy, Time travel and free will. We indicate that the reductionist way of interpreting is only valid for a limited part of our reality and may not lead to the “truth” finding of the whole. The “emergent” way of approach may be more effective and create an understandable “being” of WHAT IS. (Parmenides, Greek Eleatic School of Philosophy, 515 BC) .

Author Bio

Born the 26'th of July 1945. Studied at the Technical University of Delft. Married in 1978 with Corrine and has two sons. Grade : Engineer (Ir, now Msc) in 1987 (architecture). Lives now in France (retired). Interests: Science, Philosophy.

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Aug. 8, 2012 @ 17:54 GMT
Wilhelmus. Thought and the direct bodily experience of physics (including by the eye) is fundamental to physics. The basics of typical, ordinary, and foundational experience, including that of dreams, all fundamentally and essentially involve physics (and physical theory/ideas).

This is why modern physics is lost and in pieces. They lack the basics.

Thank you for your essay and for raising consciousness.

report post as inappropriate

Author Wilhelmus de Wilde replied on Aug. 9, 2012 @ 14:57 GMT
Thank you Frank for your comprehensive reply, I tried to give an interpretation that could be usefull, I see that our subjective simultaneity spheres are very near.

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Aug. 9, 2012 @ 00:17 GMT
Dear Wilhelmus de Wilde,

It's good to see that you are still pursuing consciousness as something physicists cannot totally ignore. It also seems that you are making progress from your earlier essays. As you may recall from my first essay, I do not believe that consciousness (which I define as awareness plus volition, or free will) arises from putting the Lego blocks in the right order. Instead, I define intelligence as consciousness plus logic, and it is the logic (of 'thinking') that evolves as structures become more complex. Also, as you know, my current essay takes a different view of wave function collapse. But aside from these differences, I agree with you that consciousness is at the root of physics (obviously!) and it is good to keep reminding us of this fact. I enjoyed your well written essay and catching up with your current thinking, and I wish you luck in this contest.

Best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Author Wilhelmus de Wilde replied on Aug. 9, 2012 @ 15:03 GMT
Dear Edwin, I am honoured that you are one of the first to read my essay, of course there are differences in our perceptions, first of all I am not claiming that I found the TRUTH, it is just another interpretation of the perceptions of my subjective simultaneity sphere, but it can be a facet of the answers that we all are looking for. In our earlier discussions we have met our differences , for me it has enriched my understanding , it is no use to become specialised (short sighted ?) and remain on an interpretation that will have changed anyway in 100 years. Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate

Azzam AlMosallami wrote on Aug. 9, 2012 @ 01:53 GMT
Dear Wilhelmus,

Your essay is very interesting. I have a paper entitled " The Comalogy" http://vixra.org/abs/1206.0002 The name COMALOGY is derived from CO which means CONSCIOUSNESS and MA, which means MATTER. Therefore, COMALOGY is a theory that studies the relationship between consciousness and matter as a result of the unification between Quantum theory (Copenhagen school) and Einstein's relativity theory (General and Special) in concepts, principles, and laws. The Comalogical theory considers consciousness as primary and matter as secondary and that consciousness creates matter, not vice versa. Comalogy agrees with the concepts, principles and laws of Quantum theory (Copenhagen school), and changes its abstractions, to descriptive,imaginative, and cognizable data.

I formulate my paper http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1272 depending on what I proposed in my previous paper "comalogy"

I hope to read it and then we discuss.

Sincerely,

Azzam

report post as inappropriate

Author Wilhelmus de Wilde replied on Aug. 9, 2012 @ 15:13 GMT
Dear Azzam, Thank you for your reaction.I will begin with studiyng your comalogy today , the question of what there was first is a typical reductionist one, in my interpretation consciousness IS, in Total Simultaneity, your own consciousness is a lign-up of alpha probabilitiesin TS, this TS is infinite, if you compare it to a line there is to the left and to the right an infinity, so if you move the alpha probability it does not matter, left stays infinite and right also, therefore your own time-line in TS is also infinite and so the part your consciousness in TS is eternal. Our causal part of consciousness "contacts" this alpha probability and so creates a causal beta time. So there is in his perception no before or after or what was first consciousness or matter. This is also the reason why "chaos" is difficult to understand for us causal creatures, in fact even the idea "random" cannot exist in a causal deterministic universe, because there is always a cause to cause "random". I hope to continue our discussion.

report post as inappropriate

Azzam AlMosallami replied on Aug. 9, 2012 @ 17:35 GMT
Dear Wilhelmus de Wilde,

I'm very happy that I found someone that can understand and discuss my theory. There is a good question for Einstein, what can I see the world if I'm riding a ray of light., but since there is no material system can move with speed of light, because it is required energy equals to infinity, So the right question what if all my mass is transformed to energy, in this case I'll move with speed equals to the speed of light. According to Comalogy, the light is a system owns rest mass equals to zero, so it is located in the infinity state, which is the state of energy and zero mass. At the infinity state, the spacetime length is equal to zero, So if I transformed from our material world to the infinity state i'll see all my life history exited with me at the same time, where there is no past or future, it is existed only present. But since I have a mass, and then I'm existed in the median state, and own spacetime length greater than zero less than infinity, I receive only one information element in my present, and at the moment of receiving this information by my present it is transformed to past, and this moment is equivalent to the concept of Collapse the wave function in quantum. Relative to the speed of light c in vacuum, it is subjective, and it is related to the system located in the median state. If all the information is existed in the infinity state at the zero spacetime length at the same present without past or future. and since the light is a system located in the infinity, thus in the infinity state the speed of light is equal to infinity. Information are transformed to us in our material world at the speed of light in vacuum. not by the light itself, and this measured speed is related to our mass. In the infinity state I can't decide which came first the chicken or the egg, because, the chicken and the egg are existed at the same present at the infinity state.

report post as inappropriate

Author Wilhelmus de Wilde replied on Aug. 11, 2012 @ 18:35 GMT
Dear Azzam, the speed of light is locally bound to a maximum, in reference to other "parts" of our awareness it can differ. Be aware that I say awareness, because in our causal experienced universe, (which may be a dream) the speed of light is maximised. Once you go compare our so called material existence (which is only in the past) with other causal entities (information that is received by our consciousness) you are comparing alpha-probabilities from TS, and these are not comparable, only your memories and the theories that are created in your consciousness can be compared. Your formula's e"explain" these interpretations and you can exchange them with other consciousness (like mine), the problems so of your "energy" and "mass" interpretations that are influenced by SR (history) are real for you but perhaps not for others. There is no chicken and egg problem, it is all in our mind. It is our causal existance that has birth and death which causes us to find the "first" cause, but in fact this first cause is YOU. Hope to continue our conversation. Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher wrote on Aug. 9, 2012 @ 14:33 GMT
Dear Author Wilhelmus de Wilde,

I found your brilliantly written essay utterly absorbing. I have only one picayune caveat to add to your masterful description of the machinations of human consciousness and it is this: In my thoughtful essay Sequence Consequence I note that no real physical snowflakes of the trillions that have fallen have ever been found to be identical. Yet physicists and mathematicians insist on using repeatable ageless abstract identical units for all of their supposed accurate measurements of physical phenomena. Although the Richard P Feynman quote you mentioned “We just have to take what we see, and then formulate all the rest of our ideas in terms of actual experience” is undoubtedly true, it does not explain to me why man seems to spend so little thought about what is happening here and now and prefers to addictively concentrate all of his energy on proving what might have happened before man came into existence.

report post as inappropriate

Author Wilhelmus de Wilde replied on Aug. 9, 2012 @ 15:28 GMT
Dear Joe, You make me shy, but thanks alot, it is always a great question if your ideas will be accepted and/or understood when you are touching ideas that are not 100% reductionist as is science. To your question : In a causal universe humans have the inclination to ask what comes after and what was before. In my perception , that goes along a bit with the Chinese way of thinking that there was no creator "before" the existing universe, but thet the "order" harmonic or not is one of the properties of our Universe. Where I go further as the Chinese is that I accept a Total Simultaneity wher ALL IS, this is NOT a Creator but a non causal eternal singulairity wher verey alpha probability is available for a causal part of our consciousnes. Before our (causal) consciousness came to existence it existed already as an (eternal) alpha probability in TS. Our history is created in the objective simultaneity sphere, so you can choose to study in detail this sphere if you want and become a specialist on history, the same with every other scientific branche.

These objective simultaneity spheres that are forming our history are influenced by study and research, to create new "interpretations", the TRUTH will perhaps never be found. Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate

Jayakar Johnson Joseph wrote on Aug. 10, 2012 @ 12:46 GMT
Dear Wilhelmus de Wilde,

I think, the ratio of chemical potential with gravitational potential in lattice of multiple localities determines the consciousness; in that sub-atomic gravitation also to be included.

With best wishes,

Jayakar

report post as inappropriate

Author Wilhelmus de Wilde replied on Aug. 10, 2012 @ 14:56 GMT
dear JJJ: the ratio of chemical potential is causal, the gravitational potential is emerging, our causal part of consciousnes is emerging once the material (chemical and biological) is set, this causal part of consciousness however is a part from the eternal consciousness alphe probabilities in TS and so in itself is also eternal. sub atomic gravitation is a possibility to be studied, perhaps it is a different "emerging" form of attraction on another scale as our marco scale.

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate

Jayakar Johnson Joseph replied on Aug. 11, 2012 @ 18:31 GMT
Dear Wilhelmus de Wilde,

As I am unable to understand your replay, will you please elaborate a little more. I think the assumptions I refer is not been noticed.

With best regards,

Jayakar

report post as inappropriate

Author Wilhelmus de Wilde replied on Aug. 12, 2012 @ 16:11 GMT
Dear JJJ,

In the model of your Coherently-Cyclic Cluster-matter Universe, you also indicate that point like is impossible to describe. Aren't you saying the same as I sais only I stop any material existence at the Planck length. You say : "Time is within the framework of dimensionality", I say "Time is an illusion created by our consciousness", however after this you come back with the "infinite Cycle Time, with Finite Duration", I think that we agrre together here only am placing this "moment" in Total Simultaneity and call it alpha-probability, that is to be "contacted" by our consciousness and so forming a beta time point (to become aware) in our causal universe. I like very much your essay, the string theory perception is one I do not share, because here also it seems a theory that goes to an infinite reductionism, rather then an emerging reality.

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson wrote on Aug. 10, 2012 @ 16:48 GMT
Wilhelmus

A fascinating, original and densely packed essay. I had to read some parts three times to fully glean the meaning, but worthwhile. It reminded me of my own, where a cursory reading will not allow engagement with the important key concepts wherein the value lies. As you know, I prefer to unravel and rationalise the falsifiable physical universe, so all the better to see the same job done well with free thinking about the conciousness realm. I suspect your Architectural training must help in funding that new perspective.

You should be aware that I entirely agree with the concept that your "α- P singularity in Total Simultaneity harbours ALL histories of ALL the possible universes" along with a fully physical representation of that metaphysical concept.

Also that; "What we perceive as chaos is in fact order", which I feel is one of the most fundamental truths beyond the current perception of human 'science'.

Very well done, and best of luck.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Author Wilhelmus de Wilde replied on Aug. 11, 2012 @ 18:05 GMT
Thank you Peter for your encouraging words. In the 2011 contest you were the first to post a comment and rate my essay, I will never forget that, in the past year I learned a lot from all the objects that were treated by FQXi, and I hope that my new essay is mirroring these thoughts. Good luck to you also.

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate

Azzam AlMosallami wrote on Aug. 13, 2012 @ 02:00 GMT
Dear Wilhelmus,

The Higgs boson and The COMALOGY http://vixra.org/abs/1206.0002

In my theory I consider the beginning of existence or the universe at t=0 is from energy not mass. Mass is created from energy. I name this state is the infinity state, it is the state of infinity energy and zero mass. At this state The spacetime length equals to zero. the light system is located at the infinity. At this state there is no past or future, there is only present. All the information that I live in my material world is coming from the infinity by the spacetime length. Since we have the mass, thus mass is creating the spacetime length greater than zero. Mass is a reluctance to receive all the information elements of all my life history in a zero spacetime length or at the same present. The higgs boson is creating this reluctance and creating the mass and the spacetime grater than zero. If there is no Higgs boson the particle will own rest mass equals to zero and thus its location will be in the infinity state same as the light beam. This illustrating why the particle without Higgs boson will move with speed of light in vacuum. The speed of light c is measured relative to a system which owns rest mass greater than zero, and c is locally constant. c is related to mass. The origin of the universe is not the mass, it is the energy. at t=0 everything in the universe was energy, and by existing the Higgs field it is created the mass and the speed of light c and the space and time what we know now, all of that are created at the time equals to blank time. Blank time is the time separation between the mass and energy. If I could leave my mass, and I transferred to energy, I'll find all my life history in the infinity state with me at the same present without future or past. The God particles forbidden me to reach that, they created my mass, time, space, and then past and future. Please read my paper http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1272 that interpreting what is the time and space according to our mass, and how I receive my information elements which are exited in the infinity state, and what is the meaning of the wavefucntion and the collapse of the wavefunction, all of these definitions are creater by mass.

report post as inappropriate

Author Wilhelmus de Wilde replied on Aug. 14, 2012 @ 16:09 GMT
Dear Azzam: You accept a point ZERO in your perception of the creation of our reality. In my interpretation there is no ZERO point in our causal universe, the limit is the Planck time before that : non causal Total Simultaneity. You say Mass is created from energy, but it can also be the other way around, so both mass and energy are just a way of our perception of "reality". Infinite energy is difficult to imagine, I struggled with the same problem and introduced the infinite probabilities in TS, NOT IN OUR CAUSAL UNIVERSE. Your spacetime length is also ZERO, which is in my perception not possible, again I created the limit of our causal universe at the Planck length and time. The idea of past and no future only present is interesting, it equals my view of the alpha probaility point in TS, only these points together form ALL the presents possible, and they are non-causal.About the Higgs boson I have no specific ideas, only that I think that we are chasing ghosts, I think that gravity and mass are emergent from side effects from TS. (see for that also the theory of Verlinde (quoted in my essay as refernce).Our paralels are in what you call "information elements exited in the infinity state" this is almost the same as my description of TS. I printed out your essay and will come back on it. Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate

Ted Erikson wrote on Aug. 13, 2012 @ 16:10 GMT
1st timer submission, not yet submitted, while reviewing similar works for End Notes.

Loved your paper as I am pursuing "panpsychism" as a consciousness of ALL things.

Approaching problem from "0" it would seem that the question, "Why do ALL things do what they do?" is apropos. I separate the identity of mass and energy as an inscribed sphere, tangent to the face of a regular tetrahedron, respectively. Interestingly enough they have equal surface-to-volume ratios at any size implying an equivalent "activity", or free energy. I've applied this in several ways.

Comment? (may use in end notes)

report post as inappropriate

Author Wilhelmus de Wilde replied on Aug. 13, 2012 @ 16:28 GMT
Hi Ted, I really want to learn more about "panpsychism". My first essay : "Realities out of Total Simultaneity" was also the first time that I took part in a contest and the first time that i wrote an essay on thoughts that I had already a long time, in this essay I explain more about Total Simultaneity, but this last one is more "organised". You mention the tetrahedron , hwhat do you think about the Dodecahedron, this polyhedron is containing ALL other five Platonic convex regular polyhedra. I see forward to your essay, of course you may use it in end notes. Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate

Ted Erikson replied on Aug. 14, 2012 @ 00:08 GMT
Why complicate the matter when the contrast between tetrahedrons and spheres can define equivalent actions of energy and mass? Composed of both by a tiny particle, the electron, it mediates contacts with all particles, atoms, molecules, bacteria, etc. around that suffer "feelings", i.e. panpsychism. Are they slaves to me or am I to them?

report post as inappropriate

Georgina parry wrote on Aug. 14, 2012 @ 21:47 GMT
Dear Wilhelmus,

I have read your essay. It is well written and enjoyable. I really do grasp your spheres of simultaneity explanation as I can fit it quite easily with my own way of thinking. About 2/3 of the way through I think, (it was some time ago that I read it) you began to loose me and it got complicated for me. Partly, I think, because of my own (unhelpful) resistance to what you were saying or how you were saying it.

It seems that you are talking about the equivalent of observer interaction with the data pool, in my way of talking. You wrote:"Free will makes the choice of an infinity of alpha-Ps in TS." That seems to tie in with what I have been saying to Tom and others on Julian Barbour's blog thread about the whole set of possible transformations of an object existing as data in the environment:I might interpret your "an infinity of alpha-Ps in TS" as all of the potential data, co existing simultaneously in the environment, from which an observer will select an incomplete set; from which his personal fabrication of external reality will be constructed.

It is a fascinating essay, though I do perhaps have to read your essay again to get used to how you are using the language to describe various concepts in order to thoroughly understand it.I hope you get lots of helpful feedback.Good luck.

report post as inappropriate

Author Wilhelmus de Wilde replied on Aug. 15, 2012 @ 15:46 GMT
Thanks a lot for your feedback Georgina, Your interpretation of my aalpha-probabilities in Total Simultaneity is quite all right I think, although I do not have your mathematical background, only the "environment" is not in our actual causal universe. It is also perhaps my english that is not 100% that makes it difficult to understand. I also read your essay with great interest, indeed we have paralel thinking. A great difference is I think that I deducted that our consciousness is "acting" in the "future" to create the past, a future that we at the very moment of perception it takes 200 ms for our machinery to become "aware") are not yet aware of. So we create our "reality" unconscious by our consciousness. That is in fact the great difference with the rest. Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Aug. 16, 2012 @ 07:09 GMT
Hi Wilhelmus,

I don't have a mathematical background. My degree is in biological sciences. I passed a course in statistics but there was not much mathematics other than that involved.

Yes I agree that the brain is processing information it has received ahead of awareness as a present, so using the normal temporal language that processing must be happening in the future compared to the observer's present experience. (There is experimental evidence to support that, some of which was shared at the last FQXi conference.) I do not regard that future to be somewhere else in time though, it is all happening simultaneously. The next present is being fabricated simultaneously with the experience of the current present, which is all happening in uni-temporal space (I mean by that space that has no time dimension but is fully simultaneous, which I think you call TS)

Yes when I talk about the external environment I am not talking about the space-time fabrication of the observer which he is experiencing as a sequence of presents but the space and arrangement of objects that exists unobserved.IE. Not the sequence of "patchwork" outputs from receipt of incomplete information and its processing but the source of the data. They are shown on different levels on my diagram 1. to show their apparent separateness even though they can only be within the same uni-temporal space. I have likened it to the whole fantasy realm inside a book. I also talk about the data that has the potential to become an observer's present experience but has not yet been received as pre-written futures, (Potential presents).

Wilhelmus, you are right that your essay is different from the rest in explaining that -very- important temporal peculiarity of reality. There are just a small number of people who really understand it and the consequences of it. I really feel privileged to have met someone here who does understand it and who will be able to empathise with the difficulty of clearly conveying to other people the concept, and its importance.

report post as inappropriate

Author Wilhelmus de Wilde replied on Aug. 16, 2012 @ 15:27 GMT
Dear Georgina, as a biological scientist you really have a wide view on the foundational questions of life and our experience of what we call "reality". As I read your post we agree fully on the different ideas only we use other words. Indeed "all potential presents" are in my TS, but also all the possible pasts and futures, comparable with (there are no words to express it clearly) a slice of a block universe (for each alpha-P) contracted to a singulairity. Indeed a book not yet read, but once read you could reread it if you wanted, the only thing is that we cannot (yet) control our causal part of our consciousness to perform the reread (sometimes it happens involontary and then people cal it "incarnation" when the book of someone who passed away is being read and becoming part of the life-line of the lliving causal individual. With this interpretation I can explain a lot of so called "weird" things that just become normal, but in this framework it is not applicable. By the way it is not easy at all to publish these perceptions, I know that my perceptions are only based on the sciences of today , so tomorrow perhaps they will have to change, but ...

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate

Ronald R. Cooke wrote on Aug. 16, 2012 @ 16:45 GMT
What are the theological implications of this discussion?

report post as inappropriate

Author Wilhelmus de Wilde replied on Aug. 17, 2012 @ 14:01 GMT
Dear Ronald. Of course when I came to the interpretation of Total Simultaneity ( the first thoughts are in "Realities out of Total Simultaneity", the first FQXi essay) I realised that this way of thinking was touching also much theological implications. I hesitate to begin this part of the discussion because of the fact that on FQXi we are discussing "science" and when you are starting a discussion on these "theological" implications , the participants will easily call you a "crackpot", just because of the fact that the object has a ùmore philosophical approach. I am already very yhankfull to FQXi that they accepted my essays. The fact that the "Templeton Foundation" is one of the financial supporters of FQXi, does not mean that we have to enter with threads in the dierction of "theology", because I think thet the Templeton Foundation" is really trying to find the most foundational answers that mankind is looking for, not being a certain "religion" but trying to find out why humanity always had a last answer when we asked about our "WHY".

My approach is only one of the many, and never I will say that it is the only one, because then I would make the same mistake as every "religion" has done before, my interpretation of the "reality" is one that is based on our scientific knowledge of TODAY, and verybody knows that ttomorrow we can and will find out new enigma's. The interpretation of Total Simultaneity is indeed one that could be an explanation of our "GOD" experience, just like in Christianity it is the human consciousness that is the origin of "everything", the triangle of causal consciousness, non causal alpha-P consciousness and causal Beta time, can be explained in the Christian view as "Christ" (human), The Father and the holy Spirit, this is just a coincidence and I do not want to make it a basic essence, because also the TS is the total of all probable universes, paralel and multi, it is our (causal)consciousness that acts as an antenna between TS and the causal world and so creates it out of the CHAOS (GOD ?) In this way the the causal consciousness is also non causal (devine?) and the universe as we are experiencing it (thanks to "objective simultaneity spheres" that are the cause of decoherence) as fine tuned to our living necessitys. This interpretation of Ts can also give the "oeace" for our souls because in this way all the "alpha-probailities" are eternal "existing singulairities , the points that formed our live-lines are eternal, even you could imagine that our live-lines are eternal in an infinite dimension, that is why we are able to contact other life-lines from the past or from the future.

I just gave a few indications of the theological implications, and I am working on a separate essay. I hope you undersatnd my reluctancy to answer you.

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate

Ronald R. Cooke wrote on Aug. 19, 2012 @ 15:56 GMT
I am but a simple layman. Although I got straight As in physics, this stuff you guys write about is off my comprehension charts.

I ask the question because I wish to explore whether or not 21st century science and 21st century theological thinking are - perhaps - on the same path of exploration.

For example: I believe (but can not prove) that the implications of quantum physics and e = mc2 open the door to a radical new interpretation of our Cosmos (all that there is) and universe (all that we can observe). This could lead to a more credible explanation of how (and why) we humans have a sense of the spiritual (however expressed in various religions).

I was delighted to read Stephen M. Barr's dissertation "Does Quantum Physics Make it Easier to Believe in God" because it opens up the possibility of a thoughtful (science based) discussion.

report post as inappropriate

Author Wilhelmus de Wilde replied on Aug. 20, 2012 @ 07:43 GMT
Ronald, I understand your question, my personal opinion is that indeed science and theological thinking are on paralel paths of exploration, both scientists and theologicans are trying to hold on their own convictions, scientists with their "Laws" and thelogicans with yheir "dogma's", but in fact they are both humans searching for the Truth. My interpretation of "reality" may be just another way of approach, nad yes it is close to both ancient beliefs and newest scientific theories. I will read Stephen M Barr and will come back to you here. regards Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate

Author Wilhelmus de Wilde replied on Aug. 20, 2012 @ 09:19 GMT
Thanks alot Ronald for bringing to my attention the "Big Questions On Line" site, I liked it very much, and read with great interest the essay of Stephen Barr. I would like to make the following remarks :

Indeed QM has thrown a monkey in our materialistic thinking. Consciousness is unmeasurable, just as i wroye that you can describe consciousness as a singulairity, a dimesnionless point (in...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Ronald R. Cooke wrote on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 19:39 GMT
Very thoughtful.

I need to study the QM / consciousness concepts more closely.

report post as inappropriate

Author Wilhelmus de Wilde wrote on Aug. 24, 2012 @ 14:07 GMT
Ronald, are you the author of "The Angels' Footpath" ?

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate

Ronald R. Cooke replied on Aug. 26, 2012 @ 20:56 GMT
Yes. I am the one.

I would be humbly gratified if you would read it and let me know if my physics is badly out of step with current knowledge.

You may also find the theology interesting.

Ron

report post as inappropriate

Author Wilhelmus de Wilde replied on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 16:11 GMT
Hi Ronald, I am trying to achieve your book, but I do not have a kindle, so it takes some time, as I live in Europe.

best regards

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate

Sridattadev wrote on Aug. 27, 2012 @ 19:46 GMT
Dear Wil,

I am glad to have been entagling with you through the inner "i" in us.

Wonderfully explained the true meaning and functioning of consciousness. As always my deepest regards and wishes are with you.

Love,

report post as inappropriate

Barry Kumnick wrote on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 03:14 GMT
Hi Wilhelmus,

You wrote:

"2. Existence is mathematically complete, consistent and closed, because it is itself and it generates itself from itself". Here I cannot agree, first : existaence is not something that can be difined as "mathematical" (my perception), it is not consistent and closed because it changes every Planck time. "It is itself and generates itself" here you are...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Barry Kumnick wrote on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 06:35 GMT
Hi Wilhelmus

"Our five senses ask for the reference of reference, which cannot be found in our causal material reality."

I have solved the semantic grounding problem, or as you call it the source of the "reference of reference". It definitely exists as part of causal material reality. Please see the attachment below for details. I have actually reduced semantic grounding to the...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 16:06 GMT
Hi Barry, Your interpretation of consciousness is the one of someone who thinks he is able to "construct" it himself. In your approach it is just the reductionist one, go back and back and back untill you arrive at zero or at onother infinty. I enjoy very much your thinking because also learn a lot from it, surely about the mechanism of thinking. However I "think" taht thinking is one of...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Wilhelmus de Wilde replied on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 16:08 GMT
sorry the anonymus is Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate

Ronald R. Cooke replied on Aug. 31, 2012 @ 22:57 GMT
My novel The Angels' Footpath should be available for any electronic reader (using conversion software available on Amazon), and I have been getting hits from Amazon Germany and UK.

report post as inappropriate

Johannes Vianney Koelman wrote on Sep. 4, 2012 @ 10:41 GMT
Dear Wilhelmus -- just like you I am intrigued by the question how to render consciousness emergent from fundamental physics. Achieving this will probably represent the 'final frontier' in science. Unlike you, I am rather pessimistic whether this will be achieved in the foreseeable future, but I do strongly hope this feat will be accomplished some day.

I see your essay as a brave attempt to shed ligh on the conciousness riddle. You present the reader with a whirlwind of facts and observations, and in all honesty I could not understand all of it. Probably I don't have the right background to do so.

What is very clear from your essay though, is that at fundamental (Planck scale) level an amazingly complex machinery is at work, as to render consciousness takes no less than 1040 Planck ticks.

Wish you best of luck in the contest!

report post as inappropriate

Author Wilhelmus de Wilde replied on Sep. 4, 2012 @ 13:45 GMT
Dear Johannes:

I do not see consciousness "emergent" from classical physiscs, but classical physics "emergent" from consciousness, therefore however i had to search for a reason why classical physics should be emergent and i found that in the way we are becoming aware of "reality", we are only "aware" of physics and its processes at a minimum of 200 ms after the moment that our consciousness is causing the event, that is the crux in my reasoning, this non-logical happening I can explain by the existance of a non causal part of our consciousness.

Please do not hesitate to question perceptions in my essay that you do not understand, I look forward to explain them.

The fundamental level untill "now" is the Planck length and time , but maybe in the future this "limit" is going to change, this does not mean that my perception will be of no value by then, because the most important thing is that there is in my opinion a limit where "causality" does no longer exist, and where we enter in Total Simultaneity (TS) .

best regards

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate

Johannes Vianney Koelman replied on Sep. 7, 2012 @ 18:10 GMT
Dear Wilhelmus -- thanks for the explanation. Obviously, my understanding of your essay didn't stretch far. I have a lot of questions (what exactly is alpha-time and beta-time, what really is the Planck wall, ... etc), but based your reply, I rather focus on how your theory renders reality emergent.

I am struggling with the idea of reality being emergent from conciousness, and yet consciousness apparently being delayed (compared to reality I assume?) by 0.2 s. This triggers the question: How do you see classical physics being emergent from consciousness? It seems you envision classical reality being projected on a sphereof radius 0.2 light seconds (about 10 earth radii) centered around the conscious individual? Or would this sphere be half the radius due to the reality being projected and then observed?

report post as inappropriate

Author Wilhelmus de Wilde replied on Sep. 8, 2012 @ 14:59 GMT
Dear Johannes:

The idea is not Alpha-time but Alpha-Probability, a probability in Total Simultaneity see :REALITIES OUT OF TOTAL SIMULTANEITY", so it is a timeless and non causal probability in a different "dimension" as our own causal one. This special probability that I call Alpha is for our (causal) consciousness the contact singulairity to create a causal point on the time line of our...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Armin Nikkhah Shirazi wrote on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 14:07 GMT
Hi Wilhelmus,

I just reread your essay and here is again my honest feedback.

This work is a vast improvement in communicating your ideas over the first paper. I actually understood the basic concepts that you were laying out. I recall that upon reading your previous paper, I could no more than get a rough idea. In this paper, however, I noticed that you were a lot more precise in...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Wilhelmus de Wilde replied on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 14:46 GMT
Dear Armin;

This is the kind of reaction I wished , critical and constructive.

On 1 (and 2). Indeed I only saw the "relative" scale of our body and a particle named neutrino, indeed i could have added the weak force, but is that still an assumption ?

on 3: Entanglement : isn't it a state that does not interfere with spatial circumstances ? the distance between two entangled particles is not important, they react as if they were ONE.The essence of my essay is indeed "backward causation". The alpha-P in TS is eternal, the non causal consciousness part in TS is connected withthe causal part BUT "causes" the "collapse" of the probability 200ms BEFORE the AWARENESS. So when we are observing an event and so causing this event to become causal, we are not yet aware of it, we will be only 200ms after this moment. in my perception this is not a contradiction, but a result from the two different "dimensions" of our non causal consciousness and our causal consciousness. The first one is INFINITE and the second one an event on our causal life-line, this life-line however has a continuous connection with the infinite part where all futures are present, so also the specific one that is the cause of our observation.

It is just another way of interpreting our reality, that is based on both the old philosophies and the latest results of our physics. Don't forget thet physics is searching for new insights, just like yours of diminishing dimensions.

I hope to hear more constructive comments from you.

best regards

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate

Yuri Danoyan wrote on Sep. 9, 2012 @ 17:00 GMT
Dear Wilhelmus

Interesting point of view

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1512

report post as inappropriate

Author Wilhelmus de Wilde replied on Sep. 10, 2012 @ 14:45 GMT
Thank you Yuri for asking attention for this essay, I anwered there.

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate

Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Sep. 13, 2012 @ 14:12 GMT
Hi Wilhelmus. Do you agree that memory integrates experience and adds to the extensiveness of experience? I am still considering your essay.

report post as inappropriate

Author Wilhelmus de Wilde replied on Sep. 13, 2012 @ 15:29 GMT
Hi Frank

Every experience is a memory, because we only become "aware" after 200ms.

The extensiveness of an experience is in fact the impression that an event is making on your Subjective Simultaneity Sphere, example : when aevent makes a deep impression the coulor on the SSS is "intense" and "burned" in your consciousness. The memeory will have a deeper influence as other bygoing events. It is our personal "attention" and interest that graduates these coulors on the SSS. So in this way the "I" is formed.

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate

Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Sep. 13, 2012 @ 14:22 GMT
Wilhelmus. Our sense of time integrates experience and adds to (or involves) the continuity, comprehensibility, and extensiveness of being, memory, space, thought, and experience. Do you agree?

report post as inappropriate

Author Wilhelmus de Wilde replied on Sep. 13, 2012 @ 15:43 GMT
Hi again Frank, Yes, my perception is that everyone has a private "sense" of time, because the time experience is formed in our consciousness , as I said the events we perceive are always in the past, so part of our memories, you can easily think back of your youth and revive your memories, it is as if you are back there. The space of your memories is a "thought". The extensiveness of your "being" the power of your "I" is formed by your choices and interpretations of the "coulors" of your SSS.

Wilhelmus.

report post as inappropriate

Don Limuti wrote on Sep. 18, 2012 @ 19:40 GMT
Hello Wilhelmus,

I know of many who say that we cannot know what consciousness is, because it is trying to look at your own eye with your own eye. It is a tough one if not impossible, so I admire you for going after it. May Parmenides be with you! You may have inspired my next FQXi essay "What is a thought that a man may know it." :)

As one of the posts above points out this is a much clearer essay than last year. I think a glossary of terms (that you take for granted) would be useful for a reader like myself. For example the phrase "reference of reference" could use an example like: how do you know your clock is ticking uniformly? Well of course you pull out your higher frequency clock and check your clock. How do you know this reference clock is ticking uniformly? Now you pull out your NIST clock and check your clock. How do you know your NIST clock is ticking uniformly? Well you do not know, it is taken as an act of faith that the cesium atom resonates uniformly! However no scientist would say that, so instead they make it an axiom that it resonates uniformly. I think this is the point you wanted to make?

We do have a common interest in Planck units. They are fundamental and fascinating. I have the scientist tendency to say that they are constant via fiat (axiom) just to make things easier. But many question the constancy of the gravitational constant (and other constants) which means they also question the Planck units. And I can see your point that the Planck mass may not be "constant".

Thank you for your interesting essay, and good luck in the contest.

Don L.

report post as inappropriate

Author Wilhelmus de Wilde replied on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 15:23 GMT
Thank you Don for your appreciation, the reference of reference is the most relative understanding that mankind has, we try to come to a sole reference without being aware that the only REFERENCE is YOU. All the moments that are in your memory and thus forming your history and the "I" together also form your life-line, you can compare it with the times that the earth went around the sun and then become aware of a time-lapse, if you consider them as elements of Planck-time , even a second becomes an eternity (in numbers), but isn't it all numbers that we are comparing ?

And even these numbers are becoming "thoughts". so are the Planck units, untill now they are for me the limit of causality. But there are already signals that perhaps the grainity of the universe is smaller see http://physorg/news/2011-06-physics-einstein.html The important thing for me is to accept that there are LIMITS to our causal universe, for that I refer to the Planck length and time.

Hope that you will sent me your future essay.

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate

Don Limuti replied on Sep. 24, 2012 @ 18:46 GMT
Hello Wilhelmus,

1. I do like your concept of the "point" as the entrance of consciousness.

2. My future essay was modeled after Warren McCulloch's thesis, "What is a number that a man may know it". His thesis advisor thought he was nuts. I am now having doubts that I am nuts enough for "What is a thought that a man may know it" although there are some at FQXi that think I am up to the task ;)

3. Your link above was interesting and not too surprising. Space as far as we can tell is continuous, and efforts to turn it into a quantized entity will not work. Even the Planck length may not be small enough. How you measure this I am still not sure even after reading the article.

4. In my own essay I assume that space is continuous, however motion (energy) is not, it is quantized at the Planck length.

Don L.

report post as inappropriate

Hoang cao Hai wrote on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 15:56 GMT
Dear

Very interesting to see your essay.

Perhaps all of us are convinced that: the choice of yourself is right!That of course is reasonable.

So may be we should work together to let's the consider clearly defined for the basis foundations theoretical as the most challenging with intellectual of all of us.

Why we do not try to start with a real challenge is very close and are the focus of interest of the human science: it is a matter of mass and grain Higg boson of the standard model.

Knowledge and belief reasoning of you will to express an opinion on this matter:

You have think that: the Mass is the expression of the impact force to material - so no impact force, we do not feel the Higg boson - similar to the case of no weight outside the Earth's atmosphere.

Does there need to be a particle with mass for everything have volume? If so, then why the mass of everything change when moving from the Earth to the Moon? Higg boson is lighter by the Moon's gravity is weaker than of Earth?

The LHC particle accelerator used to "Smashed" until "Ejected" Higg boson, but why only when the "Smashed" can see it,and when off then not see it ?

Can be "locked" Higg particles? so when "released" if we do not force to it by any the Force, how to know that it is "out" or not?

You are should be boldly to give a definition of weight that you think is right for us to enjoy, or oppose my opinion.

Because in the process of research, the value of "failure" or "success" is the similar with science. The purpose of a correct theory be must is without any a wrong point ?

Glad to see from you comments soon,because still have too many of the same problems.

Regards !

Hải.Caohoàng of THE INCORRECT ASSUMPTIONS AND A CORRECT THEORY

August 23, 2012 - 11:51 GMT on this essay contest.

report post as inappropriate

Hoang cao Hai wrote on Sep. 20, 2012 @ 11:59 GMT
Dear Wilhelmus de Wilde

“Our consciousness emerged from a certain order of particles. Our experience of time

emerges from our memory .We experience our order as unique and solely created for the

"I" which is the centre of our consciousness. The “I” has emerged from the experiences

memorized.”also similar to the view in the my absolute theory about "matter and consciousness"

Unfortunately, in this topic I'm writing about the universe.

I hope to be regularly exchanged with Uncle on this field more.

I rated 10 points for this essay.

report post as inappropriate

Don Limuti wrote on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 19:30 GMT
Wilhelmus,

I just realized there is an aspect of my work that if I rephrase it a bit results in the observer as the reference of reference (your thesis). Here is the insight "Light (all energy) is synched to the observer (you)." All measurements are referenced to you.

I will refer you to my website where I made a model of light and its motion via the Planck-Einstein relation E=hf. My conclusion was that light moves by hopping over space-time. In other words light is something that appears and disappears. The thing that appears is what I call a Planck Instant. It appears for a Planck length at "0" speed then disappears at the speed "c" for a wavelength after which it appears again. This means that the speed of light changes a little, so little that I doubt that it can ever be spotted (I have a graph of this).

The insight that caused this post was that "0" velocity means zero velocity with respect to the observer. All light is moving with respect to the observer! This is why we always see light as alway moving at velocity "c" independent of observer motion. See: http://digitalwavetheory.com/DWT/33_Mechanics_of_Digital_Wav
es.html http://digitalwavetheory.com/DWT/34_Speed_of_Light-_Another_
Look.html

While you are at it check out the rest of the website... you will see my connection to Parmenides.

Let me know what you think.

Thanks,

Don L.

report post as inappropriate

Author Wilhelmus de Wilde replied on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 16:11 GMT
Don, I am now studying your site, and will come back soon.

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate

Member Benjamin F. Dribus wrote on Sep. 29, 2012 @ 03:03 GMT
Dear Wilhelmus,

I just finished reading your essay. I must give you special credit for daring to write about topics most people will not touch. A few thoughts come to mind:

1. I appreciate your awareness of issues of scale on page 1. Although we know that different types of interactions dominate on different scales, our physical theories neither account for this nor sufficiently...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Wilhelmus de Wilde replied on Sep. 29, 2012 @ 14:42 GMT
Dear Ben:

Indeed your Causal Configuration Space and the whole causal approach are indeed paralel with my perceptions of causality, if it is observed in our way simultaneity gets a whole different load. I thank you for your constructive post, and will certainly read Alain Connes, and the essays you mentioned that I had not yet read, the discussion continues. It is wonderfull how a contest like this one is giving a platform for all kind of thoughts and indeed by putting together some of them a new perception is created.

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate

Hoang cao Hai wrote on Oct. 3, 2012 @ 04:18 GMT
Uncle de Wilde

as well as DEAR TO ALL THE AUTHORS AND READERS WAS INTEREST.

Today, I am finished reading all of the essays in this topic.

First of all, thanks again to FQXi and the donors has facilitated for us to have the opportunity get contribute to science.

Next, would like to express to other author by the thanks for the comments that you have contributed to give me, and sincere apologies to those of you that I do not have specific feedback for your essay.The reason that is because:

The placing for issues and measures to solve for the problems of your offer is completely different from mine, so I can not comment when we do not have the same views on one matter, the purpose is to avoid the discussion became conflict of ideologies,it is will not be able to solve the problem which we are interested.

The end, I hope that : we ( who want the human to put their faith in science) will have the same fear: to someday,every people told each other that:

WAIITING FOR SCIENCE HELPS IS VERY LONGTIME,

LET PRAY TO GOD OR A CERTAIN DEITY SOMETIMES EVEN FASTER !

report post as inappropriate

Author Wilhelmus de Wilde replied on Oct. 3, 2012 @ 14:58 GMT
Dear (uncle) Hoang,

I do not understand the essence of your last post.

It seems that you understood very well my essay as iin your post of september 20.

We agree with the last sentence.

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate

Hoang cao Hai replied on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 02:04 GMT
Uncle Wilhelmus

This is an article have nature as summary of the period "mutual self-assessment community", it only to published in the places I considered "friends".

You make me "shock my whole".

Hi..hi..hi

report post as inappropriate

Hoang cao Hai replied on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 09:02 GMT
Oncle Wilhelmus

Il s'agit d'un article ont la nature comme résumé de la période "mutuelle d'auto-évaluation communautaire», ce que pour publiées dans les endroits que j'ai considérés comme des «amis».

Tu me fais "choquer mon entière».

Salut .. Salut .. salut

Oncle voyez comment facile à comprendre?

report post as inappropriate

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 07:22 GMT
If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is
$R_1$
and
$N_1$
was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have
$S_1=R_1 N_1$
of points. After it anyone give you
$dS$
of points so you have
$S_2=S_1+ dS$
of points and
$N_2=N_1+1$
is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have
$S_2=R_2 N_2$
of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be:
$S_2/ N_2>S_1/ N_1$
or
$(S_1+ dS) / (N_1+1) >S_1/ N_1$
or
$dS >S_1/ N_1 =R_1$
In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points
$dS$
then the participant`s rating
$R_1$
was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process. I hope the FQXI community will change the rating process.

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate

Author Wilhelmus de Wilde replied on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 14:13 GMT
Dear Segey,

Thank you for the concern,

I also read your answers on the thread of James Dwyer, and understood that you thought that ratings were added up, I think it is normal that an average is taken of all the ratings as is FQXi doing now.

I agree with James, me too I am very bad with formula's, just a retired architect now plunging in phylosophy and quantum physics.

It is not my aim to win, however a little prize of some dollars would be very wellcome, my retirement is a minimum, but I am happy.

I hope you can rate my essay the way that you liked it.

Thanks for the attention

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate

leo vuyk wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 17:44 GMT
Hallo Wilhelmus,

You wrote:

Time is emerging only in our consciousness.

However, what is your idea about my oacillating atom clock at my wrist?

Leo.

report post as inappropriate

Author Wilhelmus de Wilde replied on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 15:43 GMT
Dear Leo,

The "clock" around your wrist may be an atomic clock, but it stays a frequency measurement instrument, like any clock.

Frequencies are references for us to make measurements (observations that we can compare with other observations).

So whatever frequency you are taking you always are bringing it back to your understandable universe of meters and yards, hours and seconds.

All these entities that we agreed upon (SI base units) are created so that we can compare and economically be in time on our work.

So it is not the clock that is the creator of time, time is creted in your mind, the past has gone, the future does not yet exist (as a measurable entity) and the "now" is already in tha past pnce we are "aware" of it.

We are creating special recognition points in order to "grab" the time dimension, like days, months, years, our anniversaries, you pay cheques, the special days in your life that were in past and celebrate them in the future so that you can "measure" the time untill ... (measuring the future).

All this is because we are living in a causal universe, where there is a before and an after, our consciousness is elaborating these experiences and so creating the flow of time.

The ultimate frequency of our universe is 5.39121 x 10^44 /sec.

If you have a wrist watch like that you will understand how long a second can be.

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate

leo vuyk replied on Oct. 8, 2012 @ 11:26 GMT
Dear Wilhelmus,

you wrote: Time is emerging only in our consciousness.

I wrote: However, what is your idea about my oacillating atom clock at my wrist?

I wanted to stress that time is indeed subjected to local circumstances as Lorentz transformations so time is only "local time"

Leo.

report post as inappropriate

Author Wilhelmus de Wilde replied on Oct. 8, 2012 @ 13:49 GMT
Beste Leo

The reference of refernce is YOU.

Your consciousness is the center of the Subjective Simultaneity Sphere, your local experience sphere, so also your local time experience.

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate

Cristinel Stoica wrote on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 13:59 GMT
Hi Wilhelmus,

You make some interesting and profound observations in your well written essay. I hope science will be able someday to tell more about consciousness, which, to my opinion, is the deepest and most important mystery. Good luck!

Cristi Stoica

report post as inappropriate

Author Wilhelmus de Wilde replied on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 15:47 GMT
Thank you Christi for your encouragement. The strange thing is that on one side science is aware of the fact that consciousness is the origin of reality (collapse of wave function) and on the other side it is still a subject that abstract and about "metaphysics", it cannot be caught in formula's (yet?)

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate

Don Limuti wrote on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 20:00 GMT
Hello Wilhelmus,

This is in response to a query made on my blog.

1. I favor "I am, therefore I think". However, the phrase: "Cogito ergo Spud, I think therefore I Yam" is much more humorous.

2. I do think the Planck length is a limit, but it is not a quantization on space, it is a limit on wavelength. A wavelength can start on any point of space, but can only have wavelengths...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Wilhelmus de Wilde replied on Oct. 7, 2012 @ 16:31 GMT
Dear Don,

Thanks for your post, about your idea for the essay : "What is a THOUGHT that a man may know it ?". It gives me already Thoughts. It is just like the so called "collapse" of a wave function, this "moment" is unknown (if it is in the Planck length and time then we are wittnesses of creation every "time", (I will work that out with the TS perception), before it was a wave and after a particle with mass etc, is this the way our "thoughts" originate, I do not know (yet), but I am thinking...

let us continue our conversation, it gives me ideas, thank you.

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate

S Halayka replied on Oct. 31, 2012 @ 18:25 GMT
LOL... Don!

report post as inappropriate

Don Limuti wrote on Oct. 9, 2012 @ 03:24 GMT
Hi Wilhelmus,

Our conversation gives me ideas to. I have had the most amazing revelation, and I am blaming you!

So, thanks for having the best essay in this contest.

The Reference of Reference is You!

Don L.

report post as inappropriate

Author Wilhelmus de Wilde replied on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 15:08 GMT
Dear Don,

Thank you for your encouragement and I really await your next work.

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate

Nikola Milovic wrote on Oct. 12, 2012 @ 17:02 GMT
It's time to start thinking and general awareness study. What is consciousness anyway? It can be said that this is a singularity, completely isolated from all possible material and physical characteristics. It is a spiritual "ether" that meets the holographic universe infinitely connected nodes where the flow of information and a variety of power and infinite in size, speed, strength and l everything else.

Awareness in our body is just routine logoid awareness.

Awareness of our human beings grow only when we try to clarify the true causes of the phenomena around us. Our free will is tried all the allegations in paragraphs our perceptual senses and instincts. In mastering our mind, as a creator of our dreams and big brakes on the growth of consciousness, awareness selecting what was originally a full time recipient of our "achievements"

Logoid consciousness creates the universe from the "dark" entities in the universe.

The entire universe and everything in it is the work logoid consciousness.

We must not confuse the universe with the cosmos. Cosmos is the only part of the universe manifested in the form of matter and energy, is expanding and we can examine it, while the invisible part of the universe we can understand only by intuition, as subprogram of our consciousness.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Oct. 12, 2012 @ 19:00 GMT
Hello Mr Milovic,

Nice to know you. I like your words, they are relevant. The aether is connected with the singularities. The singularity is complex in fact. We have an infinite light above our physicality(the physical sphere in evolution).We can say that it is the Aether. We can say also that it is a singularity without motion and temporality.without times and dimensions so, and without...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Wilhelmus de Wilde replied on Oct. 14, 2012 @ 09:33 GMT
Nicola :

You bring in a new perception of the awareness of "ether". It is almost a poetical expression the way you touch it. I am still interpreting it in my perceptions.

Is your "logoid consciousness" the same as my causal consciousness ?

Thank you for opening our minds

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate

Author Wilhelmus de Wilde replied on Oct. 14, 2012 @ 09:36 GMT
Steve :

Thank you for a mind-opening post. Good to see you here, I awaited already a long time your appreciated opinion.

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous Dr. Witch wrote on Oct. 25, 2012 @ 02:28 GMT
I enjoyed your essay, Wilhelmus. Can you comment upon whether your aether concept touches upon the omnipresent Higg's Field, of which the particle called the Higgs has been verified at the LHC recently. And also comment upon the new physics that mayhap will result if this Higg's is nevertheless not 'the' exact Higg's we were looking for. And also, if time and space allow, comment upon TMG's article wherein said author derived a symbolic equation describing consciousness? thanks...

report post as inappropriate

Author Wilhelmus de Wilde replied on Oct. 25, 2012 @ 15:25 GMT
Dr Witch,

But you understood very well my thinking and the problems I did not touch, perhaps for the reason that they are not yet 100% matured.

Anyway I will try with pleasure:

My perception of aether:

The reference of reference is the consciousness. Aether in physics is a reference frame that is needed to...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Wilhelmus de Wilde wrote on Oct. 27, 2012 @ 14:36 GMT
Come on, The tread is still wide open, the winners may have been chosen , but other ideas wait for further discussion. I await your valued opinions, even if this subject may not be 100% physics.

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate

S Halayka wrote on Oct. 31, 2012 @ 17:23 GMT
Hi Wilhelmus,

What defines consciousness (loosely)? How does our consciousness affect the Universe, insomuch that the Universe may or may not have been different before humans emerged? Or are humans nothing special?

- Shawn

report post as inappropriate

Author Wilhelmus de Wilde replied on Nov. 1, 2012 @ 16:17 GMT
Hi Shawn,

Consciousness is defined by the human being, because it it is a "feeling" that we are aware of, we are aware of the "I", but how do you define your own "I" when it changes every moment you are receiving new data ? Your "I" is eveolving, because of the fact that your Subjective Simultaneity Sphere( SSS) is changing coulors every Planck time.

Our consciousness is affecting the universe you ask, the reality of your universe is just a result of your consciousness, because it is your causal part of consciousness together with the non causal part in TS taht is forming a life-line that you are experiencing as the "reality".

In TS there are an infinite number of probabilities "AVAILABLE" to our consciousness and to any other consciousness possible and probable. Our non causal consciousness (your own personal also) is an availability thet is always reachable by any consciousness, it is eternal. The life line that is created by the non causal part of our consciousness is unique, so special. The fact that consciousness in any form can create "reality" is not unique.

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate

S Halayka replied on Nov. 2, 2012 @ 04:37 GMT
Hi Wilhelmus,

I'll have to think on that for a while. I have seen some videos called Spirit Science on YouTube that kind of reminds me of what you're saying (but not the same). I'm not the biggest fan of the series (mostly due to silly swipes at "Mara" entities such as myself, but whatever), though it is very creative and the message is primarily about peacefulness.

My only problem is that I am adamant that humans are not special. Surely other animals also affect things in the way that you're describing. Plants and rocks probably don't play such a role in your theory?

- Shawn

report post as inappropriate

Author Wilhelmus de Wilde replied on Nov. 2, 2012 @ 14:43 GMT
Dear Shawn,

Every consciousness in my perception COUNTS.

Even the consciousnesses we do not know or understand, every consciousness has its own reality, in its own causal time/life-line (the term life is a term that is compared to our own way of life and surely also valuable for other life-forms that we just cannot perceive as that).

The observations we are making of our universe (our SSS) is the origin of a reality in which other life-fortms wioth other forms of consciousness are also taking part, this is the result of the cutting circles of our SSS's not only with the same forms of consciousness as ours but also with the SSS'sf other forms of existance with their own SSS (they are the origin of data on our own SSS).

This together with the Objective Simultaneity Spheres (OSS) is the result of the decoherence of our "total reality" in our memories.

When you look at a stone, you are aware of its form, the foramtion of ots molecules do not influence our senses in the way that the stone can communicate with us, only far away in your awareness you can sometimes feel all the history of the stone (its SSS together with the OSS of other so called "dead" material). The decoherence of the history of the stone "its reality" is though forming a "real history" and more.

Of course with other living beings (like cells etc) the same approach.

"EVERYTHING" is not only an observation of our consciousness (so part of our memory) but also an alpha^probability in Total Simultaneity.

Our life-lines in TS touch in this alpha probability ALL and EVERYTHING, this forming our total (illusive) reality.

I am preparing a chapter on this subject.

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate

S Halayka wrote on Nov. 2, 2012 @ 19:10 GMT
Hi Wilhelmus,

Thank you for the extra information on your theory. I see that you're on vixra, but you haven't uploaded your latest work -- I hope that you upload it. I'll keep an eye out for it.

Have a good day.

- Shawn

report post as inappropriate

Author Wilhelmus de Wilde replied on Nov. 6, 2012 @ 15:08 GMT
Dear Shawn,

I uploaded a more complete version of my essay ("THE CONSCIOUSNESS CONNECTION, A METAPHYSICAL CONCEPT") to Vixra. http://viXra.org/abs/1211.0019

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate

S Halayka wrote on Nov. 6, 2012 @ 15:42 GMT
Hi Wilhelmus,

I indeed saw that your work was uploaded to vixra. I will study it this week. Thank you.

- Shawn

report post as inappropriate

S Halayka replied on Nov. 6, 2012 @ 17:22 GMT
Hi Wilhelmus,

I don't have any really new questions beyond the ones I've already asked (I am still unconvinced that humans play a much grander role than dirt). I would like to note though that the absolute simultaneity concept reminds me of Mach's principle.

- Shawn

report post as inappropriate

Author Wilhelmus de Wilde wrote on Nov. 11, 2012 @ 16:00 GMT
dear Shawn;

absolute simultaneity is a term used by Einstein and indeed goes back to Mach.

TOTAL SIMULTANEITY is not comparable to "absolute simultaneity" (see my essay)

Humans and dirt ?

Both are perceptions of our consciousness.

Both have material formation, that of humans seems to be order and that of dirt disorder, but this order and disorder is a result of the composition of our consciousness wich is narrowed by the reception of our five senses, perhaps we need other senses to observe the consciousness of "dirt".

So the nomination that we humans have "grander" role as dirt is only relative to the senses applied.

best regards

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate

S Halayka replied on Nov. 11, 2012 @ 17:21 GMT
Hi Wilhelmus,

What is the difference between absolute and total simultaneity?

I'm pretty sure you've figured out by now that when I ask a question it's because I'm curious, and when I make a statement, it's because I'm certain. I'm actually curious.

- Shawn

report post as inappropriate

Author Wilhelmus de Wilde replied on Nov. 11, 2012 @ 18:40 GMT
Hi Shawn,

absolute simultaneity: The origin of this term comes from the "Block Universe", which is a method to view our universe cut in slices (in my perception slices of a Planck time), in each slice events are simultaneous, independent of an observer.

Total Simultaneity : all the slices of ALL probable and improbable universes together, in this TS there are slices where your consciousness is present, these slices are what I called alpha-probabilities.

Like you I will always stay curious, the "statements" I make are my perceptions of reality, and I am aware that it is not the whole Truth (the ultimate truth is not available in our mortal causal lives) so I am also aware that I only try to give my opinion that may or may not attribute to the truth finding.

best regards

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate

Author Wilhelmus de Wilde wrote on Nov. 18, 2012 @ 16:54 GMT
World Next Door : Michael Hanlon about Graham Greene : The hidden Reality. here Michael Hanlon askes at the end of his article "an intelligent place for consciousness".see . I will sent my essay to Michael and ask his opinion if my proposition is intellgent enough.

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate

Author Wilhelmus de Wilde replied on Nov. 18, 2012 @ 17:46 GMT
The article can be found on "AEON Magazine , Nature and Cosmos / Michal Hanlon Multiverse. Sorry that the link above did not work. http://aeonmagazine.com/nature-and-cosmos/michael-hanlon-mul
tiverse/

report post as inappropriate

Author Wilhelmus de Wilde wrote on Nov. 19, 2012 @ 15:33 GMT
Today I studied the implications of our history and evolution in relation with consciousness and Total simultaneity: (to be altered, under construction, follow the thread):

THE HISTORY OF HISTORY

We always want to understand the Start of Everything. In the materialistic reductionist way this beginning is inevitable a naked singularity, this is imagined as a dimensionless point, the...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Nov. 21, 2012 @ 15:25 GMT
Just a remark about the human brain : 100 billion neurons each one with 10.000 connections. IBM now simulates 530 billion neurones and 100 trillion synapses. It is about 5 times the capacity of the human brain , yet there is no consciousness...

report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Nov. 21, 2012 @ 15:42 GMT
Well, no consciousness can be detected in functioning human brains, either. If local connectivity of neural networks = consciousness, brain science would be exceedingly easy.

report post as inappropriate

Author Wilhelmus de Wilde replied on Nov. 22, 2012 @ 10:28 GMT
Dear Thomas, the anonymus was me, I answered you in the post that responded to Georgina.

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry wrote on Nov. 21, 2012 @ 20:41 GMT
Anonymous,

what definition of consciousness is used to determine that? Is it just asking if it is awake rather than just functioning? That question makes me think about the recent article posted on FQXi Nov 6 "Embracing complexity", talking about the complexity of systems, and systems of systems. Perhaps rather than just very many connections there has to be a certain amount of complexity...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Wilhelmus de Wilde replied on Nov. 22, 2012 @ 10:25 GMT
Dear Thomas and Georgina, Consciousness as I perceive it is emerging and so not detectable in the materialistic reductionist way. It emerges when a certain organisation of cells is achieved in human and animal life. Then our five senses are beginning to fill the memeory with events (data) and the interpretation of these data are creating the personality, the "I", because every being has his Subjective Simultaneity Sphere (SSS) see my essay.

The special organisation of the cells seems untill now the formula for life, abiogenesis (biopoiesis) is the search for how life could arise through natural processes from inorganic matter, and life the key to consciousness.

Life has indeed the urge to survive, which is a quality that is not yet reached in our attempt to create a copy of our brains. (I never heard a computer cry for data like a baby does when it is hungry) Your remark of revitalising in the "sleep" is a good exemple of how life indeed is continuously busy to survive.

When we succeed to construct a human brain or organic or non organic the question of creation of "individuality" coupled with the urge for survival might be important to also be the wittness of an emerging consciousness.

IBM just made a "chip" with an amount of connectivity that is even greater as the human brain, but what is missing is "life".

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Nov. 24, 2012 @ 15:53 GMT
Jacob D. Bekenstein proposed a simple experiment to detect the "foam" (Wheeler's conception of "space-time foam" , the assertion that on length scales of the order Planck length, spacetime is no longer a smooth manifold)like structure of our universe. On a quantum scale (as in this essay) the universe is made up of individual units which are thought to be rife with very small "black holes" (here we split perceptions, the limit of these units is the Planck length(untill now) and the lilit of causality) that pop up in and out of existence. What do you think are there tiny black holes or is there a limit of causality?

http://phys.org/news/2012-11-physicist-simple-foam-like-univ
erse.html

report post as inappropriate

Author Wilhelmus de Wilde replied on Nov. 28, 2012 @ 15:09 GMT
The expression : "individual units" is not appliquable in my essay, the limits of causality are just the Planck length and time, this means that everywhere around yoy you can reach this non causal "dimension" the Total Simultaneity". Every point in space is not an individual unit with a each one a different mini black hole as proposed here, but the entrance to a different dimension.

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate

Author Wilhelmus de Wilde wrote on Nov. 25, 2012 @ 17:15 GMT
Two atricles "FOUNDATION OF REALITY : TOTAL SIMULTANEITY" and "A METAPHYSICAL CONCEPT OF CONSCIOUSNESS" are published in "JOURNAL OF CONSCIOUSNESS EXPLORATION & RESEARCH" volume 3 issue 10 entitled "Quantum Aspect of Psychiatry & Foundation of Reality". I invite you to review the Table of Contents here and then visit the journal website to review articles and terms of interest.

link : Journal of Consciousness Exploration & Research

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate

Author Wilhelmus de Wilde wrote on Dec. 24, 2012 @ 16:43 GMT
A Merry Christmas to ALL, let it be the discovery of the Light.

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Dec. 26, 2012 @ 00:41 GMT
Physicist are too narrow minded [generally] to understand physics generally and fundamentally. You all have proven this at FQXi.org. Physics (as it is taught), and especially mathematics, require relatively narrow thinking. This walks hand in hand with being more easily swayed and brainwashed. We need open and broad minded thinkers here. I am not impressed with the discussions here, not at all really.

The ideas at FQXi.org are too fragmented, narrowe, inconsistent, and small. May I add, and even dishonest. FACT!

report post as inappropriate

Author Wilhelmus de Wilde wrote on Dec. 31, 2012 @ 11:10 GMT
I wish you ALL the best possible timeline in Total Simultaneity for the coming year.

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate

Author Wilhelmus de Wilde wrote on Jan. 15, 2013 @ 15:35 GMT
New Scientist, 5 january 2013, issue 2898, page 36-39 : "Quantum Shadows".

This very interesting article gives a new horizon on our perception of the "wave" or "particle" concept.The Young double slit experiment indicated that it was or a wave or a paricle that passed through the slits, depending on our observation. The new approach of Radu Ionicioiu of december 2011, from the Institute of quantum computing in Waterloo, Canada and Daniel Terno of the Macquari University od Sidney Australia proposed that the black is wave and white is particle but inbetween there is an infinity of grey tones...

This also means an infinity of perception tones and just we have to wonder what is the "quality" of observation to arrange a 100% particle. This hypothesis is in paralel with the Total Simultaneity percepion of the essays I wrote, where every form of observation is a probability, and also that our consciousness is the "creator" of reality that in essence is not material but an "illusion" created in our memory.

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate

Author Wilhelmus de Wilde wrote on Jan. 21, 2013 @ 15:06 GMT
Hi Branden, I'll give you also my personal mail, but FQXi gives me a signal when you write on my thread. wilhelmus.d@orange.fr

report post as inappropriate

Author Wilhelmus de Wilde wrote on Feb. 24, 2013 @ 17:20 GMT
"THE CONSCIOUSNESS CONNECTION" is still actual and awaiting your posts...During the 2011 contest some essays were mentioned in the forum updates, this has not been done untill now, however I think it is a good thing that the essays of the latest contest and not only the award winning ones get some attention like in the ones of 2011.

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Mar. 14, 2013 @ 08:18 GMT
Hi Wilhelmus,

Neurobiology seems to be able to explain every aspect of consciousness even down to the part of the brain that is "the self". Therefore, no soul is required. What I don't understand is how all these neurons and chemicals (which are just voltages and potential energies moving around, how they become the experience of the color blue or how endorphins translate into pleasant or pleasurable feelings. How are electrochemical voltages translated into the experience? At the deepest levels of who we are, we are chemically driven to experience information as feelings. No matter how many feedback loops through the brain there are, it just seems like something gets lost in translation.

report post as inappropriate

Author Wilhelmus de Wilde replied on Mar. 14, 2013 @ 16:27 GMT
Hi Jason,

You say there is no Soul, because everything is voltage difference and chemistry. A computer is also the same thing but the software is giving this machine usefulness to us in the form of images, sounds and information. These elements give us again feelings of well or not well being, which again is a step further as the software from the machine. All information together that...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Mar. 14, 2013 @ 19:06 GMT
Wilhelmus,

"All information together that forms our Subjective Simultaneity Sphere is forming during our lives a personality an EGO that differs from other EGO's. This Ego has consciousness, this consciousness is interpreting data, because interpretation of information gives the subjective view of the individual on an object."

Some of the circuit boards I troubleshoot have their identity programmed into the flash ram. When the processor accesses this information, does my circuit board experience consciousness? If consciousness is just circuitry, why doesn't my computer ask me if it has a soul? Why don't computers proclaim that there is a computer God whom they worship? Why don't computers complain that I shoved the USB drive into to port too roughly?

I don't believe you can build a machine that can feel pain or pleasure. To a computer, data is just data.

report post as inappropriate