Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home


Previous Contests

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discusswinners

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.
read/discusswinners

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discusswinners

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
read/discusswinners

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

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
read/discusswinners

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

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

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

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

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Maxim Khlopov: on 2/26/18 at 12:03pm UTC, wrote Dear Wilhelmus, I read with interest your essay. It would be interesting...

Steven Andresen: on 2/24/18 at 1:09am UTC, wrote Dear Wilhelmus Yes well done. I do identify with you as a person...

Wilhelmus de Wilde: on 2/23/18 at 14:47pm UTC, wrote Dear Vladimir The understanding and appreciation are highly valued. best...

Wilhelmus de Wilde: on 2/23/18 at 14:45pm UTC, wrote Dear Steven, I left already on February 16 a post and as mentioned there I...

Vladimir Fedorov: on 2/23/18 at 14:20pm UTC, wrote Dear Wilhelmus, …(copied to your and mine) Many thanks warm words about...

Steven Andresen: on 2/23/18 at 13:57pm UTC, wrote Dear Wilhelmus If you are looking for another essay to read and rate in...

Dizhechko Semyonovich: on 2/21/18 at 17:54pm UTC, wrote Wilhelmus de Wilde, Descartes was determined to create a theory of...

Wilhelmus de Wilde: on 2/21/18 at 16:39pm UTC, wrote Dear Boris, Sorry for my late reaction to your post on my essay. ...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Georgina Woodward: "Hi Ian, I've been thinking about choice of carrot or pepper. Behaving in a..." in Measuring Free Will: Ian...

Lorraine Ford: "(continued) 3. “…so this is what defines a free choice : the Zeta..." in Measuring Free Will: Ian...

Georgina Woodward: "What is happening in material reality provides the connection to inertia...." in Bonus Koan: Distant...

Georgina Woodward: ""We saw early on that as conformed by countless experiment, there is no..." in Bonus Koan: Distant...

andrea gonzalez: "Interesting stuff to read. Keep it up. If want to collect free gift card..." in Memory, Causality and...

Joe Fisher: "Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this..." in First Things First: The...

Poker Online: "https://www.jakartapoker.net/" in Downward causation:...

Enquire us: "Your Ro system desires regular maintenance to confirm it’s continually in..." in Agency in the Physical...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

First Things First: The Physics of Causality
Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

Thermo-Demonics
A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.


FQXi FORUM
August 25, 2019

CATEGORY: FQXi Essay Contest - Spring, 2017 [back]
TOPIC: FOUNDATIONAL QUANTUM REALITY LOOPS by Wilhelmus de Wilde [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde wrote on Jan. 12, 2018 @ 19:32 GMT
Essay Abstract

Fundamental in our experienced reality is: its emergence from the Planck Area. An infinity of realities can be emerging from this area, graphically represented as Reality Loops. The border of the Planck Area and those emergent realities is not a strict line but consists of a mingled area, where arise also fluctuations of both Emergent Bubbles and Planck Area Bubbles. These fluctuations are the origin of changes of the cosmological constant and so responsible for differences in the appearance of the specific reality. (Inflation or Deflation). The process at the origin of this emergence can be compared with the effects of the Inflation theory of our own universe. The Planck Area harbours ALL simultaneous probabilities of ALL events and ALL simultaneous forms of Consciousness. The Initiative for Completeness is the fundamental “force” of Absolute and Total Consciousness in the singularity of the Planck Area. ALL probable realities emerging from this POINT are a contribution to Completeness.. The incomplete consciousness of an agent in his specific emerging reality is a contribution to the Completeness of Total Consciousness. Emergent phenomena are ILLUSIONS originating from a space and timeless Point : a NOTHING.

Author Bio

Indepent researcher. Alumnus Technical University of Delft.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Branko L Zivlak wrote on Jan. 12, 2018 @ 21:15 GMT
Hi Wilhelmus,

A nice approach with the Planck area. For me, this is similar to Boskovic's non-extended point (my previous essay).

Regarding: Fundamental in our experienced reality is its emergence from the Planck area.

Do you agree that the opposite applies? Fundamental in our experienced reality is its finishedd with Planck area.

How do I explain Planck's values can be seen in my this year's essay.

Regarding: Are time and space eternal, without a beginning or an end?

It is undoubtedly that the time is eternal, and that the space is final at some point in time, but it takes place infinitely in time.

Very nice drawings and explanations. Really good essay score 9.

Regards,

Branko

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde replied on Jan. 13, 2018 @ 10:46 GMT
Dear Branko

I have problems with proving that I am not a robot so this is the third time that I write this answer.

Out of an emergent reality there can emerge a new different point from where new realities are emerging. This new point is however always and everywhere in contact with the original point of creation.

In my model Planck area cannot be SEEn, because seeing is an emergent quality, the border of emergent and Planck is explained in the essay.

Time and Space in an emergent reality are "existing" as emergent phenomena.Infinite time and space means that they have no beginning and no end...Maybe there is areality where time and space SEEM eternal for the agent involved, however then it is an illusion...Time and space are both ETERNAL AVAILABILITIES as ETERNAL ROBABILITIES in the Point of Origin of our reality.

I will read an rate your essay now

thank you for making me think again

Wilhelmus

Bookmark and Share



Georgina Woodward wrote on Jan. 12, 2018 @ 22:16 GMT
Hi Wilhelmus. Thank you for sharing your model, I can relate to and make sense of the beginning far more easily than later on. I can understand the desire to correlate the model with space-time and the Big bang as that is a pillar of mainstream science, and also the desire for unity of everything. I really don't like the everything from nothing idea. It doesn't make sense to me. I think 'inflation' is based upon a misunderstood effect that is observed rather than cause of the physical universe. Do you have any further thoughts about the NOTHING, that you can share? Is it like inside a magicians hat, where everything is individually there but unknowable. Or is it like mixing paint where if you add all of the colurs they loose their individuality and become altogether black and unknowable, or akin to some other analogy? Kind regards Georgina

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde replied on Jan. 13, 2018 @ 15:09 GMT
Dear Georgina,

It was only three month ago that I thought "Inflation is a crazy idea".

But I was not able to explain my perception that a "whole" reality can emerge from a point where there is no space and time, so...in order to try I used this "crazy" idea, which does not mean tht my own idea was also crazy. I only used it because scientists seem to accept it and find it a good explanation. My use of it is NOT the explanation of the HOW but just using an IMAGE. In fact the emergence of other dimensions like time and space out of what we are experiencing as NOTHING is difficult to understand.

I could also have explained it in this way : When we are observing our universe from far outside it will become a point, inthis point EVERYTHING is SIMULTANEOUSLY happening for this outside agent. In this exemple we are however still in a spacelike surrounding and having a time like experience, we are NOT OUTSIDE REALITY, we are still inside our Subjective Simultaneity Sphere. If we could place ourselves outside of our reality (through consciousness) it would be possible to become conscious of the Total Simultaneity of the POINT from where realitie are emerging.

I try to describe this point that is time and spaceless (for us) as ALL and Nothing together. Nothing means NO MEANING (for us), but it can represent MEANING for other forms of consciousness...From our perspective however "THE INITIATIVE" comes from this for our understanding "NOTHING".

I hope I could explain some things you asked

and will also read your essay.

best regards

Wilhelmus

Bookmark and Share



Peter Jackson wrote on Jan. 15, 2018 @ 21:46 GMT
Wilhelmus,

Great thinking and ideas. Your SSS is nicely consistent with my work and our previous discussions. I also like your elliptical Wheeler 'reality loops' idea in response to QM's 'renouncement of common-sense representations'. (A quote from paper you cited).

But we're both realists. If a common sense cause for all the 'weird' experimental findings emerged Wouldn't you, like...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde replied on Feb. 21, 2018 @ 15:49 GMT
Thank you, Peter, for your comments.

I will reply on your thread later.

respectfully

Wilhelmus

Bookmark and Share



Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jan. 17, 2018 @ 04:46 GMT
Dear Wilhelmus de Wilde,

You state "in the so-called space-time… There is NO absolute simultaneity." I wonder why you claim that. Is it to be compatible with the consensus view of special relativity? I'm somewhat confused by your 'backward causation' arguments and multiple worlds discussion. I know this is your second essay to focus on total simultaneity. On page 7 you discuss an area which is the seat of the simultaneity of ALL forms of consciousness. I've read your essay twice and am still somewhat confused about this.

My own essay treats the history of Einstein's view of simultaneity. I invite you to read it and comment on anything you find relevant.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde replied on Jan. 18, 2018 @ 11:04 GMT
Dear Edwin,

First of aal my reaction on the comments you have on my essay 5thank you for paying attention to it..)

"In the so called space-time there is no absolute simultaneity". The so called means "emerging", as it emerges out of the Planck Area where time and space are all simultaneous, only at the border line that I described as vague and full of exitations, all simultaneity is lost once the "reality" emerged. The so emerging "reference frames" are each one differnt from the other which is in accordance with Einsteins relativity theory.

"Backwards causation" Wheelers delayed choice thought experiment is no longer a thought experiment but has been executed and is a phenomenon that we have to count with. My model can explain it as you have read. I understand that is (like everything in quantum mechanics) a bit strange to get trusted with..

The confusion that arises when I introduce "Total Consciousness" is understandable. The basic reason for consciousness is the experience and implementation of our emerging reality. In order to realise that we need a "first cause" that I call "INITIATIVE". This first cause cannot originate out of only emergent phenomena. There is of course "causality from emergent phenomena" but then the mergence has already "occurred".

I also have read your essay and will give a reaction after this one

Good luck and regards

Wilhelmus de Wilde

Bookmark and Share



Joe Fisher wrote on Jan. 17, 2018 @ 16:47 GMT
Wilhelmus de Wilde,

You wrote: “In our reality experienced objects are existing sensations.”

I have concluded from my deep research that Nature must have devised the only permanent real structure of the Universe obtainable for the real Universe existed for millions of years before man and his finite complex informational systems ever appeared on earth. The real physical Universe consists only of one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light.

Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde replied on Jan. 17, 2018 @ 17:29 GMT
Joe,

I can agree with your "one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension" it has direct lines of connection with the mergence out of the Planck Area of what I call "REALITY LOOPS".An infinite amount of "Realities" is emerging from ONE SINGLE infinite dimension, in my perception a "dimension" that we cannot understand. The what you call "NON SURFACE LIGHT" can be seen as what I am calling "CONSCIOUSNESS"

Wilhelmus de Wilde

Bookmark and Share



Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Jan. 18, 2018 @ 11:46 GMT
Dear Wilhelmus,

I read with great interest your deep analytical essay with important ideas and conclusions aimed at solving the problem of a single "foundation" of knowledge. Only I believe that the "big bang" hypothesis must be subjected to a very deep philosophical doubt in the spirit of Descartes.

Yours faithfully,

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde replied on Jan. 18, 2018 @ 16:40 GMT
Dear Vladimir,

My "mentioning" of the BB was only a way of explaining the foundationl idea of my model.

EMERGENCE from a time and spaceless Planck Area to a reality with time and space a beginning of a reeality,that can be compared to the ide's we have right now of the BB, only it is not at all a BANG and not BIG at all,

it is just a Silent Emergence (SE) of just one of the infinite realities.

best regards

Wilhelmus

Bookmark and Share


Narendra Nath replied on Jan. 29, 2018 @ 12:12 GMT
Wilhelmus,your taking a Planck area as a unit to emerge out the 4 dimensional space time reality intrinsicaaly assumes the correctness of founding aspect of QM THEORY THRUGH the uncertainity equivalene. QUANTUM LOOPS ARE BOUND to emerge. Can you digress for me where you introduce CONSCIUOSNESS as an entity to descibe reality or lack of it! I am naive to request you to explain in less abstract manner. that will help provide insight to our understanding of consciousness. I too believe consciousness is tied to the origin of the Universe itself, as it is a pre-existence ever present entitity. Universes can emerge out of it through its cosmic nature!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde replied on Jan. 30, 2018 @ 15:50 GMT
Dear Narendra,

As an answer on your post on my thread of jan 29 :

It is NOT as you write that Planck area's emerge from 4 dimensional Space Time, in my proposal it is just the way around. In this essay I named TOTAL SIMULTANEITY the Planck Area, from where ALL realities emerge.

Total Simultaneity is space and time-less, it is an eternal point of creation.

The primal cause of this creation is the INITIATIVE FOR COMPLETENESS OF TOTAL CONSCIOUSNESS, also residing in Total Simultaneity.

You could also say : GOD is the Creator of ALL REALITY, the COMPLETENESS of GOD is the FIRS CAUSE of the creation (in his most broad way). TOTAL CONSCIOUSNESS residing in Total Simultaneity IS ansoluteness...(so..... I gave a scientific explanation of GOD)

best regards

Wilhelmus de Wilde

Bookmark and Share



Cristinel Stoica wrote on Jan. 20, 2018 @ 07:17 GMT
Dear Wilhelmus,

Your essay was a beautiful reading, as you approach with bravery some themes of actuality in fundamental physics. You make interesting connections and propose intriguing ideas. When you commented on my page, I wondered about the connection you made between our essays, I think it is this inseparability, holism. Another theme you approach, which I touched in my previous essays, is that of the apparent ambivalence of causality, as shown in Wheeler's delayed choice experiment. I also liked your emphasis on the Plank area.

Best wishes,

Cristi

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde replied on Jan. 20, 2018 @ 10:30 GMT
Dear Chistie

Thank you very much for reading my essay.

Indeed holism can be found back in the treatment of the reality loops, what is graphically indicated as a one dimensional line is in fact a four dimensional emerging reality. The only problem with the term "holism" is that it is tending towards the mystical part of reality, and it just that part that You and I want to explain. Also in holography only ONE dimension is added to the two dimensional surface, in my holistic perception we jump from two to four dimensions, and indeed I am still studying thet phenomenon of interference and diffraction.

best regards

Wilhelmus

Bookmark and Share


Narendra Nath replied on Feb. 7, 2018 @ 14:12 GMT
Wilhelmus, your approach has freshness but you are not driving full strength from total or may i call Uinversal or cosmic consciousness. Just widen the scope of your theory towards totality of physical phenomena and not confined to few explanations and forget about the agreement with facts as discovered experimentally. I have seen repetition of experiments resulting in opposing interpretations. The reason lies with how we postulate the basic tenents in a theory. Let me cite an experience about a theory we used widely to reproduce the excitation functions of nuclear reactions, like inelastic scattering. We could successfully assign spin /parity to excited states relative to the ground state known values successfully. The propounder of the theory was Herman Feshbach of MIT. He expressed surprise that we could utilise his imperfect theory so very well. As excitation fuctions were reproduced well only when the valus saturated but not at lower energies of excitation where the predictions were off by a huge margin. This led another theoretician to attribute the lower rising part of excitation function to be affected by level width fluctautions due to comp! We then found that the entire compound nucleus formation as an intermediate state was indeed causing such discrepencies! Such is the beauty of eperiment affecting improvement in the theorrtical approach through refining iniyial postulates!! Hurrey hurrey

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde replied on Feb. 21, 2018 @ 15:52 GMT
Thanks again dear Narendra

I will react on your own thread

Wilhelmus

Bookmark and Share



Eckard Blumschein wrote on Jan. 20, 2018 @ 07:24 GMT
Dear Wilhelmus de Wilde,

While I am familiar with back propagation in neural networks, I wonder if Wheeler's construct of back causation is something new and trustworthy. The word for sunday in Russian language is resurrection. I rather trust in a causality that doesn't loop within a logical circle.

Could you please tell me by whom and when the expression Planck area was first used? Why didn't you refer to https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Planck_area ? Should I take the time and read your earlier essays?

Admittedly, I cannot even conceive an Euclidean point of reality, not to mention expressions like eternal probability.

Perhaps I could better understand your scientific background if you revealed in which department of Delft University you were employed.

Regards,

Eckard Blumschein

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde replied on Jan. 20, 2018 @ 10:13 GMT
Dear Eckhard,

Wheelers Gedanken experiment is not at all a "new" idea, he proposed it already in 1978. Only in 2007 and 2015 I gave you the link to the paper in my earlier post to you) it was proven. So it seams that our "reality" is far more "strange" as we like to admit. On page 5 of my essay you will find the explanation I gave using the model of FQRL. The causality you favour is still...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Declan Andrew Traill wrote on Jan. 21, 2018 @ 00:36 GMT
Dear Wilhelmus,

An interesting philosophical exploration into the workings of the Universe and our consciousness.

One question I am left pondering though: you describe traveling on different loops - changing from one to another etc - how is this changing of loops achieved? What causes the change to occur and how is the loop chosen from the many possible loops?

Regards,

Declan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde replied on Jan. 21, 2018 @ 09:29 GMT
Hi Declan,

Thank for reading my essay.

Your question about “travelling” between Loops :

It could be compared to the MWI interpretation however, realities don’t split up in my model. If for instance you have to make a choice between 4 possibilities and you choose n°3 then : Of the 4 loops representing the 4 different realities only the third one continues. The other 3 are staying as probabilities and not as whole realities like in MWI. Another example : If you could go back in time “replace” yourself to a Loop that is in concordance with your memory and existence of your grandfather and decide to kill him in that specific Loop, the reality you experience in your own Loop is continuing incl. the so called time-travel.. The other Loops became probabilities like the one where you did decide not to go on a time travel and the Loops containing all the other probable decisions you had to make. So the moment you are killing your grandfather is not influencing your “existence”. It SEEMS as you hopped over but in fact it is only the choice between so the word “travelling” is not the right expression.

This is also how I explain Free Will.

Regards

Wilhelmus

Bookmark and Share



Member Tejinder Pal Singh wrote on Jan. 25, 2018 @ 17:44 GMT
Dear Wilhelmus,

It is wonderful that we share common views on consciousness and thinking.

Your point about an illness such as Alzheimer's affecting consciousness / I is intriguing. I had not thought about it. Does an Alzheimer patient have a different kind of consciousness compared to a healthy person?

I do have reservations about the Hameroff-Penrose ideas relating to consciousness, because I feel the `gravity induced wave function collapse' hypothesis being applied there first needs to be properly understood / experimentally verified in the context of laboratory physics systems.

I liked it that you discussed the delayed-choice experiment. In my view, it supports the studies that we do not understand everything about how quantum phenomena relate to the classical flow of time. Something is missing in our understanding of time in quantum mechanics.

Regarding the recent work of Unruh et al. on quantuum and universal acceleration, kindly also see the views of https://arxiv.org/abs/1801.00138

Kindly help me understand in what way you are relating Planck area to the search for the `fundamental'? And also the relation between consciousness and Planck area.

I have enjoyed the variety of ideas presented in your essay, and am glad to notice overlaps with mine.

My best wishes,

Tejinder

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde replied on Feb. 21, 2018 @ 15:56 GMT
Dear Tejinder,

Thanks a lot for taking the time to read my contribution.

I am very glad that you liked it, indeed we have overlaps.

I will still give a reaction on your thread

Wilhelmus

Bookmark and Share



Anil Shanker wrote on Jan. 28, 2018 @ 18:25 GMT
Dear Wilhelmus,

I admit that I have not yet given your essay a thorough reading...but while browsing I can see some very interesting notions that you bring in. It is very well written. For example, I agree with your conclusion "The TIME, SPACE and MATTER that we are aware of are only ILLUSIONS". They are akin to the idea of holograms of space and time, and thus vary with any change in the reference frame. So, everything that manifests is simply an illusion - might be a temporary reality for one but illusion for all others. I wonder if the same applies to the so called "consciousness". We may be wrongly describing "consciousness" by the notion of "absoluteness". "Absoluteness" may be a weaker notion and may not be apt to comprehend "consciousness". What do you think?

Kind regards,

Anil

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde wrote on Jan. 28, 2018 @ 18:58 GMT
Dear Anil.

I agree with you that "absoluteness" is a way for Total Consciousness to "express" itself, and to realise the Completeness tthat I indicate as "Total Simultaneity". Both expressions (Absoluteness and TS) are means to describe the totality of realities that can be experienced by ALL agents of ALL Realities. However these realities are NOTHING when there is no consciousness.

I thank you for taking your time to read an comment my essay.

rbest regards

Wilhelmus

Bookmark and Share


Narendra Nath replied on Jan. 29, 2018 @ 01:58 GMT
Wilhe;mus, your effort has the rare originality of fresh approach. It involves depth in understanding and comprehension of entity called CONSCIOUSNES. I find lot of confusion in the best of top ranking essays that it is being confind to human awareness only. It is in my and your opinion an rntity that exists for ever. In fact the Universe of ours is also ITS brain child if i digress to claim. Our understading of issues differ in words because of our respective cultural background. One need to rise above the self and take a look at one's TRUESELF! How many of us can try such introspection, remains the big Question!

I personlly rate your Essay as 9 out of 10 but shall put my ratings towrads the end of the competition, if you are not in a hurry about it.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde replied on Feb. 21, 2018 @ 15:47 GMT
Thank you very much, Narendra

but I think that your co-writer has already rated me.

Good luck in the contest

Wilhelmus

Bookmark and Share



Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Jan. 29, 2018 @ 18:00 GMT
Hi Wilhelmus de Wilde

You are wonderfully connecting the singularity of Plank area with consciousness of agent, your words “The incomplete consciousness of an agent in his specific emerging reality is a contribution to the Completeness of Total Consciousness. Emergent phenomena are ILLUSIONS originating from a space and timeless Point : a NOTHING” are really indicative of your superb...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde replied on Jan. 30, 2018 @ 12:20 GMT
Dear Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta

Thank you for your nice remarks on my contribution.

About your DUM :

I agree with all the points beginning with NO etc. Why ? Because I think that ALL of them were emergent phenomena in a past that applies to the emergent reality of an alo emergent agent, THEY ARE JUST ONE ILLUSION OF AN INFINITY NUMBER OF REALITY LOOPS. It is the result...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Jan. 31, 2018 @ 21:25 GMT
Dear Wilhelmus de Wilde

Thank you for your nice appreciation….

………….Your comments……

I agree with all the points beginning with NO etc. Why ? Because I think that ALL of them were emergent phenomena in a past that applies to the emergent reality of an alo emergent agent, THEY ARE JUST ONE ILLUSION OF AN INFINITY NUMBER OF REALITY LOOPS. It is the result of...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde replied on Feb. 21, 2018 @ 15:58 GMT
Dear Satyavarapu,

I have left a complete answer on your thread.

Thank you for reading my essay.

Wilhelmus

Bookmark and Share



Joe Fisher wrote on Jan. 31, 2018 @ 16:11 GMT
Dear Fellow Essayists

This will be my final plea for fair treatment.,

FQXI is clearly seeking to find out if there is a fundamental REALITY.

Reliable evidence exists that proves that the surface of the earth was formed millions of years before man and his utterly complex finite informational systems ever appeared on that surface. It logically follows that Nature must have permanently devised the only single physical construct of earth allowable.

All objects, be they solid, liquid, or vaporous have always had a visible surface. This is because the real Universe must consist only of one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light.

Only the truth can set you free.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde replied on Feb. 21, 2018 @ 16:00 GMT
Dear Jo

keep on thinking free

Wilhelmus

Bookmark and Share



Ulla Marianne Mattfolk wrote on Feb. 1, 2018 @ 17:02 GMT
Incompleteness of observations is a good term, pointing not to incomplete superposition, but an incomplete 'collapse'? It again Points to some selection, due to the frame the event interacts with, like some 'meaning'...

I like 'incompleteness of observations', because it put the focus in 'reality' as we call it.

A conscious agent is an agent that is aware of his “I AM”, not just...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde replied on Feb. 21, 2018 @ 16:01 GMT
Thanks Ulla

I will answer on your thread

Wilhelmus

Bookmark and Share



Philip Gibbs wrote on Feb. 5, 2018 @ 14:54 GMT
Dear Wilhelmus

I am glad that you have included backward causation in your picture, and that you see space and time as emergent. I agree. How do you see the role of symmetry at a fundamental level? Is it emergent? Symmetry of space and time means that the laws of physics are unchanging over space and time. If that were not the case it would be hard to do science. Does this mean that symmetry must be fundamental?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Feb. 5, 2018 @ 18:37 GMT
Dear Philip,

Your question “Symmetry of space and time means that the laws of physics are unchanging over space and time. If that were not the case it would be hard to do science. Does this mean that symmetry must be fundamental? ” is linked to the approach you have in your essay.

“symmetry is agebraic” you say, so it is part of a “language” that is an intermediate between thinking and reality (both emerging phenomena). In my approach fine-tuning is an essential result of the Reality Loop the agent is part of. (if its was not fine-tuned the agent would be a different agent in a different reality loop. One of the languages agents are using to explain this fine-tuned reality is emerging algebra (symmetry).

You argue “I expect to find this symmetry in a pre-geometric meta-law that transcends spacetime,taking a purely algebraic form, only beyond that point will it be emergent, rising from immutable relationships between systems of information.” Indeed in this approach symmetry transcends space-time because space and time are (dimensional) restrictions (emerging from total simultaneity), and algebra/symmetry/thinking are not limited by these restrictions because they are the “cause” through consciousness of reality. The what you are calling “immutable relationships between systems of information” is maybe too strictly bound to our emerging reality. My approach places the “rising” outside our reality, so even more foundational.

“If those leaders say that symmetry is unimportant because it is emergent or that geometry is more fundamental than algebra, other possibilities may be neglected.”

Fully agreed, every emerging phenomenon is essential in a specific reality. Geometry is a description methodology, to be compared to filling in data in a computer, it is the software (thinking) that is concluding.

Thank you for your attention Philip and

Best regards

Wilhelmus

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


James Lee Hoover wrote on Feb. 7, 2018 @ 18:04 GMT
Wilhelmus,

No reasonable perception of the universe can be discarded by a thinking person. I never considered that my perception is folded into the big bang image of figure 2b, but what if I don't subscribe to the big bang and what about those who posit a big bang inversion. I suppose all are part of an infinity of realities, a tiny part of total consciousness.

None of us know the true fundamental, but yours is a fascinating addition. Each of our concepts contributes to the miasma of reality loops, some more esoteric than others.

Good luck.

Jim HOover

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde replied on Feb. 21, 2018 @ 16:03 GMT
This good luck wish was not so honest Jim

you rated me a 2

Bookmark and Share



James Lee Hoover wrote on Feb. 9, 2018 @ 18:10 GMT
Wilhelmus

SUCH dishonest scoring is imposed on all of us. I am visiting a relative at the hospital and will get back to you.

Jim

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


James Lee Hoover wrote on Feb. 9, 2018 @ 21:04 GMT
Wilhelmus,

Having been a victim of a 1 and a 2 score already w/o comments, I keep track of my own scoring. I am now checking my spreadsheet and find that I scored you on 2/7 with a 7.

Regards,

Jim Hoover

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde replied on Feb. 10, 2018 @ 10:29 GMT
Jim

I do the same thing as you.

I posted you on 02/07

on 02/07 I received my 13th rating (the former being on 02/02) being a 2.

my 14 rating on 02/08 was a 6

so I cannot see how to change this....

Wilhelmus

Bookmark and Share



Don Limuti wrote on Feb. 10, 2018 @ 07:37 GMT
Hi Wilhelmus,

We both find the Planck units fundamental. You favor the Planck area, I favor the Planck mass.

We both like and reference the work of Roger Penrose.

We both feel that current trends in mainstream physics are goofy.

We both believe that emergent phenomena are illusions, which are sometimes annoyingly persistent.

I think I got that right. So, it feels like I will be voting for myself :)

Don Limuti

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde replied on Feb. 21, 2018 @ 16:05 GMT
Thank you Don,

It is always pleasant to meet related thinkers.

I will leave a full answer on your thread

Wilhelmus

Bookmark and Share



Christian Corda wrote on Feb. 15, 2018 @ 10:40 GMT
Dear Wilhelmus,

Pleasant and interesting work, despite a bit speculative and provocative. I appreciate that you think that the Plank area is fundamental. I surely agree with this point. In fact, considering the the Plank area as being a fundamental unit permitting to emerge from the space-time is in agreement with my recent studies on black holes. But in my approach the spatial volume is not constant. It is energy-dependent instead.

I have a question: Is there room for the Anthropic Principle in your Reality Loops approach?

In any case, your Essay was a nice reading. It deserves my highest score. Congrats and good luck in the Contest.

Cheers, Ch.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde replied on Feb. 15, 2018 @ 16:02 GMT
Dear Christian,

The Reality Loop approach is actually a kind of proof for the Anthropic Principle.

The Reality Loop "we" are experiencing is one where it seems as if EVERYTHING is made for us...

However this loop is only ONE from an Infinity, each agent in his own loop will have the same experience, and these agents may differ just a little or a whole lot, each one is at HOME in his own loop. Those other loops are until now unattainable for our specific sort.

Each time an agent makes a choice "the reality is not splitting up" (like in MWI) but all other Loops representing other choices become "unattainable", they "withdraw" in the behind Planck limits...

So the fine-tuning of our reality is a logical effect for the specific loop that we are calling REALITY. If our kind of agents were not in our specific loop, the loop is of no use, each reality has to be experienced (conscious of) to be a reality. A loop without consciousness is no loop...

I hope this explains your question.

best regards

Wilhelmus

Bookmark and Share



Narendra Nath wrote on Feb. 15, 2018 @ 14:59 GMT
The more i read your esssay, the more i am able to comprehend its understanding. You illustrate it well in terms of degrees of consciousness finally terminating in total consciousness ( equivalent God .)The logic behind creation of our Universe, including how the living beings evolved from shrubs, to plants, animals and eventually the man. Your essay has received the attention due to it and it is going up with the passage of time. I wish you get rated to get a Prize. Our essay is just a poor draft in comparison, as my younger author could not find time due to many pre-occupations he happens to have at this period of time, our ill luck!

Consciuosness is at the heart of everything we become aware of. Thus, degree of awareness contains the secret of success. I post my ranking as top in my jedgement!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde replied on Feb. 15, 2018 @ 16:20 GMT
Dear Narendra,

I thank you so very much for rereading my attribution to this contest.

The Reality Loops are an extension of the Total Simultaneity and Total Consciousness model of reality. In this essay, I tried to explain the idea by using explanations as used in "accepted" science. This does not mean that I am behind the idea of the BB or expanding universe, not at all. The beginning of a reality LOOP is just one of the infinite acts for completeness of Total Consciousness.

best regards

Wilhelmus

Bookmark and Share



Steve Dufourny wrote on Feb. 16, 2018 @ 16:14 GMT
Hello Wihelmus,

Happy to see your essay, I liked it,

spherically yours, take care

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde replied on Feb. 21, 2018 @ 16:06 GMT
Thank you, dear Steve,

greetings to Belgium

Wilhelmus

Bookmark and Share



Anonymous wrote on Feb. 17, 2018 @ 19:34 GMT
Mr. de Wilde,

I had a first read of your essay and it was a pleasant lecture. Allow me a second read (before rating it) for a more profound understanding. I will appreciate if you could explain in some simple way the word "consciousness". What are you referring at, more precisely? Anyhow, I do appreciate (and subscribe to) the substance, emerging from your "mental images", picturing what you perceive as being real.

By the way, I tried to explain the in-congruence between your remarks and the essay referring at (in my opinion there are't any), for making it clearer for you in case you would like to rate it.

Respectfully,

Silviu

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde replied on Feb. 18, 2018 @ 10:47 GMT
Dear Corciovei Silviu

Thank you for reading and commenting on my essay and also for answering on my points regarding yours.

I will begin with the points you ask on your essay :

1.I think we both agree here. It is quite clear for me what you mean.

2.Yes. But here its important to make the difference between intelligence and awareness/consciousness. As you say we are...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich wrote on Feb. 17, 2018 @ 20:33 GMT
Dear Wilhelmus de Wilde,

You wrote a good essay, but it would be even better if you were familiar with the New Cartesian Physics isbased on the principle of physical identity of space and matter, the French philosopher, mathematician and physicist Rene Descartes. I call upon everyone here to develop his theory everething on the basis of achievements of modern science. Look at my essay, FQXi Fundamental in New Cartesian Physics by Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich Where I showed how radically the physics can change if it follows this principle. Evaluate and leave your comment there. Then I'll give you a rating as the bearer of Descartes' idea. Do not allow New Cartesian Physics go away into nothingness.

Sincerely, Boris Dizhechko

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde replied on Feb. 21, 2018 @ 16:39 GMT
Dear Boris,

Sorry for my late reaction to your post on my essay.

Descartes had the combination of mathematics, physics and philosophy, which in our present time is not much seen, listening to someone like him is so advisable.

Also, his infinitesimal calculus gave a method to work with something that is difficult to understand in the "real" world.

"Cogito ergo sum" is one of my favourite thoughts, only I have made a difference by accepting that "thinking" is a quality of Consciousness. Only the consciousness as I see it is NOT the result OF COMPLEXITY, but complexity is a result of consciousness, (as you may have read in my essay).

Space and matter are both the same "emerging phenomena", at which I add also TIME.

We are the same age Boris, I was born in July 1945 in Holland and live in France now for 20 years. I appreciated your essay highly and hope that will do the same to

mine

best regards

Wilhelmus de Wilde

Bookmark and Share


Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich replied on Feb. 21, 2018 @ 17:54 GMT
Wilhelmus de Wilde, Descartes was determined to create a theory of everything. He said: "give me matter and I will build the whole world." The space had been the matter that moves. We are part of the space, which for Descartes is a matter. No more dualism between matter and space, between mind and body. Consciousness arises when a body appears the ability to create in space the image of the external world and to remember him for discernment and judgment. In the center of this image of the external world is the body that created it and which is actively positioning itself to prolong its existence.

Would be great if this idea of the Great French philosopher, mathematician and physicist suddenly helped to overcome the current crisis in physics. Put 10.

I was born on 15 August 1945 in the southern Urals.

I wish you success! Sincerely, Boris Dizhechko

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri wrote on Feb. 20, 2018 @ 00:11 GMT
Dear Wilhelmus:

Your essay clearly has some originality. I will read more of your work.

Thank you for complementary comment on my essay, “The concept of “fundamental” must keep evolving”. In addition, I would be delighted if you can develop a mathematical expression for the concept of a self-looped oscillatory entity in the CTF. Please keep me informed. Feel free to go to my web to down load relevant papers: http://www.natureoflight.org/CP/

I will separately send you Ch.11 of my optics book, “Causal Physics: Photon by Non-Interaction of Waves”, Taylor and Francis, 2014. It validates the potential reality of CTF from the viewpoint of experimental optical sciences.

Now a philosophical comment. You say:-

“Emergent phenomena are ILLUSIONS originating from a space and timeless Point : a NOTHING.”

I understand what you mean. However, I do not like the word “illusion” while explaining nature; because our brain has evolved with the analytical capability to enjoy many true optical illusions (play of the neural network), while figuring out how to separate illusions from elusiveness. The Moon is always there in its orbit even if all humans shut their eyes at night. The reality of the cosmic universe is not our illusion. However, it has remained elusive (limitation of our knowledge), even though we have been trying hard for centuries to explain all the detailed laws behind its origin and evolutionary behavior.

In ancient Indian philosophy, the word “Maya” has been used to describe this elusiveness of the universe. Unfortunately, I believe it was the first translator of Indian philosophy, Friedrich Max Müller, who used the word “illusion” as a translation for the word “Maya”. I wish he had used the word “elusive”.

Sincerely,

Chandra.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Vladimir Nikolaevich Fedorov wrote on Feb. 21, 2018 @ 11:07 GMT
Dear Wilhelmus,

I highly appreciate your beautifully written essay.

I hope that my modest achievements can be information for reflection for you.

Vladimir Fedorov

https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3080

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steven Andresen wrote on Feb. 23, 2018 @ 13:57 GMT
Dear Wilhelmus

If you are looking for another essay to read and rate in the final days of the contest, will you consider mine please?

A couple of days in and semblance of my essay taking form, however the house bound inactivity was wearing me. I had just the remedy, so took off for a solo sail across the bay. In the lea of cove, I had underestimated the open water wind strengths. My...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde replied on Feb. 23, 2018 @ 14:45 GMT
Dear Steven,

I left already on February 16 a post and as mentioned there I voted you UP(8).(see your thread on the date of 16-02)

I was awaiting your comment and rating on my essay until now.(now I am on 19 ratings at 6.8)

I hope that you can appreciate my contribution, that is not only trying to explain the HOW but also the WHY.

good luck and best regards

Wilhelmus de Wilde

Bookmark and Share


Steven Andresen replied on Feb. 24, 2018 @ 01:09 GMT
Dear Wilhelmus

Yes well done. I do identify with you as a person passionate about seeking a deeper understanding of the world. Conventional science does not deal with the questions of How and Why, and so it is a task left to people like you and I. You begin at the smallest scale and imagine a circumstance from which the universe around us might emerge.

Our ideas do differ, as you have pointed out. But agreements are not the basis of this competition. This competition is about forming ideas and arguments for sharing with the community. We should test and assimilate each others ideas and see if they spawn new and interesting concepts for next years competition. You are a contributor to this contest and process. You now have a 6.9 average

Please forgive the short reply. I have several more essays to read and the days are numbered. But let us speak again

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Vladimir Nikolaevich Fedorov wrote on Feb. 23, 2018 @ 14:20 GMT
Dear Wilhelmus, …(copied to your and mine)

Many thanks warm words about my work and for mutual understanding.

I wish you happiness in your scientific work in search of truth.

Vladimir Fedorov

https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3080

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde wrote on Feb. 23, 2018 @ 14:47 GMT
Dear Vladimir

The understanding and appreciation are highly valued.

best regards

Wilhelmus

Bookmark and Share



Maxim Yurievich Khlopov wrote on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 12:03 GMT
Dear Wilhelmus,

I read with interest your essay. It would be interesting to find correspondence between our ideas, but in any case your essay deserves sufficiently high rating

With the best regadrs

M.Yu.Khlopov

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.