Wilhelmus,

Brilliant stuff, full of wise and pertinent analysis excellently argued and written. I particularly thank you for the Heraclites quote, which I hadn't seen before but his description pre-empts my recycling mechanism for galaxies and unverses! www.academia.edu/6655261/A RECYCLING MODEL ALSO PRODUCING THE 'AXIS OF EVIL' AND GALAXY BARS

I found most excellent but it did...

view entire post

Wilhelmus,

Brilliant stuff, full of wise and pertinent analysis excellently argued and written. I particularly thank you for the Heraclites quote, which I hadn't seen before but his description pre-empts my recycling mechanism for galaxies and unverses! www.academia.edu/6655261/A RECYCLING MODEL ALSO PRODUCING THE 'AXIS OF EVIL' AND GALAXY BARS

I found most excellent but it did rather over-extend and loose rational coherence when trying to explain the 'counterfactual' and 'spooky action at a distance' interpretations of QM's findings.

However neither of those are necessary! as I've now shown both arise from using the wrong starting asssumptions! i.e. NOT describing any 'particle' dynamics, except assuming it can't be orbital angular momentum (OAM) because a 'single' momentum can't reproduce the weird findings.

Well here's the thing; OAM does NOT just have ONE momenta! Sure it has up/down linear momenta at the equator, but it ALSO has Maxwell's 'curl', which is orthogonally inverse!!. (try to tell me if any point on the equator is revolving clockwise or anticlockwise and the truth may dawn).

No 'spooky action at a distance' is then needed. Pairs share a spin axis, and findings are 'realtive' to detector orientation. So at identical EM dial settings A & B will always find the opposite, or if one is reversed, the same. Each particle therefore DOES hold 'both' sets of information! Just look from different angles - as your introduction tells us. Of course that's too important a discovery for most to notice. My essay also explains why. A few have and I think and hope you will too.

Anyway what it means is that the 'weaker' over-extensions of yours to try to tackle the muddy illogical metaphysical interpretations are unnecessary, acting as a 'proof' to leave the majority clarified and shining brighter.

Very Best

Peter

view post as summary

show all replies (1 not shown)

hide replies

show all replies (1 not shown)

hide replies

show all replies (3 not shown)

hide replies

Dear Wilhelmus de Wilde,

I read your essay several times before I received your letter. Very interesting work, it makes us think a lot. At the time, I explored some of the problems that you have set.

How do you say “Mankind is full of ideas” and “universe cannot yet be realised with our scientific method of thinking”. The Subjective Simultaneity Sphere (SSS). The origin of...

view entire post

Dear Wilhelmus de Wilde,

I read your essay several times before I received your letter. Very interesting work, it makes us think a lot. At the time, I explored some of the problems that you have set.

How do you say “Mankind is full of ideas” and “universe cannot yet be realised with our scientific method of thinking”. The Subjective Simultaneity Sphere (SSS). The origin of all “thoughts” is the reception of information. As I understand you, we are talking about the "noosphere - is the sphere of human thought”. I have researched this problem Singular technology – the research area promoting the country’s sustainable noosphere development Such factors as the formation of a new (noospheric) political and economic outlook and the changes in scientific and technological structure of economy are gaining paramount importance under the action of the law of time and the adequate need to change the logic of socio-economic behavior of the population of planet Earth.

I researched “The unity between micro and macro”. and Femtotechnologies

Femtotechnologies Presentation . In work the femtoregion of the simplyest element, atom of hydrogen, is considered. It is shown that the electron in atom of hydrogen has the difficult spatial structure taking which into account allows to specify fundamental constants, such as a constant of thin structure, the speed of light, Bohr radius of an electron. It is shown that on the basis of these constants it is possible to construct the fundamental scales scaling both internal and external fields of atoms. It allows to formulate macroquantum laws that govern the Universe. It means that without research atoms femtoregion it is impossible to eliminate an abyss which arose between gravitation and electromagnetism. It is shown that our model removes a number of theoretical contradictions and is perfectly confirmed by the last astrophysical experiments.

I also researched the opportunity of transfer functions of the human cerebral cortex in silicon neurochip Digital mind - one of the ways to immortality

Nanoclusters_as_superatoms_and_supermolecules

I hope that I was able to some extent «Come closer to the TOTAL YOU»

Best regards

view post as summary

Dear Wilhelmus de Wilde,

It's been obvious for years that you are extremely focused on consciousness, so I'm not surprised that you partook of 'expanded' consciousness, 'back in the day'.

I very much liked your "searching for the announcer in the radio".

When I first read your essay I started to give you 10, but everyone that I pushed to the top so they would receive...

view entire post

Dear Wilhelmus de Wilde,

It's been obvious for years that you are extremely focused on consciousness, so I'm not surprised that you partook of 'expanded' consciousness, 'back in the day'.

I very much liked your "searching for the announcer in the radio".

When I first read your essay I started to give you 10, but everyone that I pushed to the top so they would receive more visibility immediately got shot down by whatever troll lurks beneath the FQXi bridge biting passersby with 1's.

Also, I wanted more time to digest the meaning of your essay. While I think your scheme is magnificent, I was unsure how literally you meant it. For me experience of physical reality is key, but current projections of structure on physical reality are confused at best. Essays on consciousness seek to gain 'respectability' (the coin of the realm) by tying their systems to physics (the holy word of the realm). If the physics is mistaken (as much today is) it can take a perfectly good understanding of metaphysics in the wrong direction.

For specific analysis of physics aspects in contention, see my reply to your comments on my essay page.

I do believe in a physically real universe, but GR and QM have confused the issue via erroneous projections that are (at the moment) given credence. The universe will not simply vanish when these errors are corrected, but certain mystical and unphysical conceptions will vanish.

In short, I think you've developed a powerful way of describing the experience of local conscious beings in a unified reality existing Now. I think you should not try to tie it too closely to mystical elements of current physics which will not survive the century. Hopefully, not the next decade. As metaphor I buy your beautiful system, as physics not so much. Clearly, over the sequence of FQXi essays, you are getting closer to the truth. I am quite sure that you will continue to do so. I hope my comments are useful to you.

My very best regards; keep up the excellent work.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

view post as summary

show all replies (3 not shown)

hide replies

Dear Wilhelmus de Wilde,

your lines of reasoning remind me of the many near-death experiencers which had been interviewed and can be watched on youtube. They report some similar things. Especially there are cases where the experiencer could take a view into his future (and the things indeed developed due to what he/she saw – but not in the sense of a self-fullfilling...

view entire post

Dear Wilhelmus de Wilde,

your lines of reasoning remind me of the many near-death experiencers which had been interviewed and can be watched on youtube. They report some similar things. Especially there are cases where the experiencer could take a view into his future (and the things indeed developed due to what he/she saw – but not in the sense of a self-fullfilling prophecy).

Some say that there are these life-lines of me and you, attached with different probabilities. But i would be cautious, because the paranormal can sometimes trick an experiencer with some information that does confirm what he/she does blieve anyways. I would not built a worldview out of what these things, but i restrict myself to only take the phenomenon as existing and the OBE’s, the confirmations of what has been seen during the latter and the Healings also, as i annotated in my essay. Because it also could well be that the fact that in a near-death experience one can receive a look into ones own future, this is not due to a lawful metaphysical (mechanical) structure in these realms, but due to the sheer power of the entity which reins there (and knows all our subconsicousness) and which has created our world in the first place.

I would not necessarily connect free will and the measurement process and consciousness as proving that if a quantum event is observed by a human, it does alter its behaviour. Remember that decoherence does explain this phenomenon also, without reference to human observers. Nonetheless i agree that due to free will, the observer can facilitate his/her own life – well, theoretically, but practically there are many things in life that aren’t under our control, so i would not attribute a special role to a human observer when it comes to observe some quantum events. This would only lead to self-inflation as it seems obvious to me in esoteric circles, the latter believing that we can create everything we want (due to mere tought-control and such things!).

I agree with you that the ranking of past and future can well be considered as not being rigid in the traditional order, there are possibilities (like i mentioned above) that this time structure isn’t fundamental.

Regarding the multiverse approach, i think that it could be that all possibilities are somewhat there in an abstract realm, independently of noticing them or not. But i would not necessarily conclude from this that this is a kind of natural law, but would firstly conclude that it also could well be a strategy for God to trace the possiblities what i will do next with my free will (if he does not know this for sure in advance) and transfer me to a better life-line if i would pray for that (he surely wouln’t necessarily transfer me to the life-line *i* would prefer at the moment, but to the one God has identified to be the most likely for me to make it back to him without taking me my free will).

Your essay is highly philosophical and metaphysical. Although the importance of consciousness in the whole scheme of things seems to be guaranteed for me (due to my considerations in my essay and my comments during the current essay contest), it is not entirely clear to me how knowledge about different timelines can solve the puzzles the current essay contest is concerned with. your considerations make some sense, they are - as far as i can see - consistent, but i miss some arguments which could underpin that your assumptions are a logical, means necessary consequence of something other, already known scientific or logical fact. Anyways, you made your case for a reality which is more than a deterministical and reductionistic machinery. Nonetheless, by searching for the meaning of life and all the rest, one has also to consider moral, ethical questions and also the problem of theodizee, the problem of evil – and if one believes in God as a personal intelligent entity, what this entity wants/wishes from us humans – and for us humans. And last but not least, how it is that we do live in a realm separated from this entity. I think if one does ponder about other dimensions and consciousness without such considerations, one has left out some important questions about fundamental reality. But because you have taken at least into account that the mentioned life-time-like dimensions could exist as possibilities, i give you a better rating than i would have done without. Because this could be a possible mechanism to explain the delayed choice experiments (and the other quantum weirdness).

Best wishes,

Stefan Weckbach

view post as summary

show all replies (1 not shown)

hide replies

Dear Robert,

As we ALL are emergent agents in this emergent relity it is also for me sometimes difficult not to fall in the pitfall of accepting reality as REAL. Also it is quite difficult to obtain an "exteriour" viewpoint...

When we stay comparing an emergent reality with its Source (TS) I am inclined now to accept that any emerging reality (ER) that is "lived" by a consciouss...

view entire post

Dear Robert,

As we ALL are emergent agents in this emergent relity it is also for me sometimes difficult not to fall in the pitfall of accepting reality as REAL. Also it is quite difficult to obtain an "exteriour" viewpoint...

When we stay comparing an emergent reality with its Source (TS) I am inclined now to accept that any emerging reality (ER) that is "lived" by a consciouss agent is a singularity both in TS as in ER. The singularity in ER is the whole "memory" of the agent, that SEEMS to be a FLOWING experience for the agent. The singularity in TS is the Eternal Now Moment. The "FLOWING" experience needs the introduction of TIME (that does not exist in TS. So you could say that from the emergent singularity emerges the experience of TIME and its specific life-line.

The emergent SSS that I described produces for each agent its own data, and like the ever changing colours on a soap bubble each moment these data change through emergent time. The SSS is though just a method to explain our experience of reality out of a singyularity...

As I indicated TIME is a restriction needed for experience. As TS is a timeless Hilbert Space (complete set ?) of ALL ENM's of ALL consciousnes agents it is indeed the "Place" where everything is simultaneous...

So...now for the neutron decay : The data leading to the outcome of these experiments are experiences from your consciousness from your past, so from the FLOW of your reality awareness, also these data (once on your emergent SSS) are compressed in the singularity that is the origin of your life-line. So it is not "netron decay really happenes" but "the neutron decay data really were projected data on your SSS in your past".

Now you can say : Okay where is my free will ?

As there is an infinity of your life-lines in TS, each ENM that stands for a specific one is the one that is realised in time restricted decisions you made.

So as this speific life-line is compressed in the singularity of ER (entangled with Total Consciousness in TS) at each decision it can be imagined to jump to another ENM, so forming another new life-line. The last thought is a one that is restricted by Time and Space. So in TS there ARE already ALL life-lines available as probabilities, which means also the so-called NEW one that is realised by your decision in ER is already an ENM that is "lived" by another agent called Robert...This could mean that Free Will is our ability for consciousness in Emergent Reality (through entanglement with Total Consciousness in TS) to make INTERPRETATIONS that are leading to THINK and DECIDE. ALL these interpretations are in ONE singularity...

I know it is difficult to imagine and leads to many other INTERPRETATIONS, but it is a beautifull thought that is connected with the beauty of the experience of music. The awareness of the FLOW of a piece of music that in fact is timeless.

I thank you for every question asked, it makes me think, so if there are more don't hesitate.

best regards

Wilhemus

view post as summary

show all replies (1 not shown)

hide replies