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 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

Current Essay Contest

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

Previous Contests

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 Fnd.

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


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
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


Thomas Ray: "(reposted in correct thread) Lorraine, Nah. That's nothing like my view...." in 2015 in Review: New...

Lorraine Ford: "Clearly “law-of-nature” relationships and associated numbers represent..." in Physics of the Observer -...

Lee Bloomquist: "Information Channel. An example from Jon Barwise. At the workshop..." in Physics of the Observer -...

Lee Bloomquist: "Please clarify. I just tried to put a simple model of an observer in the..." in Alternative Models of...

Lee Bloomquist: "Footnote...for the above post, the one with the equation existence =..." in Alternative Models of...

Thomas Ray: "In fact, symmetry is the most pervasive physical principle that exists. ..." in “Spookiness”...

Thomas Ray: "It's easy to get wound around the axle with black hole thermodynamics,..." in “Spookiness”...

Joe Fisher: "It seems to have escaped Wolpert’s somewhat limited attention that no two..." in Inferring the Limits on...

click titles to read articles

The Complexity Conundrum
Resolving the black hole firewall paradox—by calculating what a real astronaut would compute at the black hole's edge.

Quantum Dream Time
Defining a ‘quantum clock’ and a 'quantum ruler' could help those attempting to unify physics—and solve the mystery of vanishing time.

Our Place in the Multiverse
Calculating the odds that intelligent observers arise in parallel universes—and working out what they might see.

Sounding the Drums to Listen for Gravity’s Effect on Quantum Phenomena
A bench-top experiment could test the notion that gravity breaks delicate quantum superpositions.

Watching the Observers
Accounting for quantum fuzziness could help us measure space and time—and the cosmos—more accurately.

January 22, 2018

CATEGORY: Is Reality Digital or Analog? Essay Contest (2010-2011) [back]
TOPIC: Realities Out of Total Simultaneity by Wilhelmus de Wilde [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Wilhelmus de Wilde wrote on Feb. 15, 2011 @ 12:55 GMT
Essay Abstract

REALITIES out of TOTAL SIMULTANEITY After the wall of Planck reality as we perceive it now no longer exists, we are entering a “fifth” dimension the TOTAL SIMULTANAIETY , called TS . This TS can be “reached” on every point of our 4 dimensional universe, every quantum of the universe has the diameter of 10 force -33cm, singularities only exist in our consciousness. In this TS all information of all parallel universes and multiversity constitution is simultaneously present and available, our consciousness is able to align points out of this TS and so create the observable analogue universe. The totality of information from other universes (also partly observable by other consciousnesses) is influencing our linear causal deterministic universe, the origin of gravity , dark matter and the dark force. The Big Bang is an imaginary non existing point in the TS area. Inflation is avoided by projecting inflation time into the area after the Wall of Planck, uniformity in the structure of space-time is guaranteed. Our mind with its 100 billion neurones is able to cope with infinities because it has parallels with the qualities of TS. We observe 4 realities : 1. quantum multi reality (quantum qubits), the origin. 2. analogue reality (sequence of points in TS) 3. digital virtual sub-reality (sequence of bits in analogue reality) 4. social analogue reality (sequence of human qubits) Quantum computers when approached as different from our digital sub-sequential bit computers can evolve as a future tool to be related with the so called parallel Universes. Ir Wilhelmus P.C.M. de Wilde France Februari 2011

Author Bio

Short Biography of Ir Wilhelmus P.C.M. de Wilde “LE PLESSIS” 41800 MONTROUVEAU FRANCE 26-07-1945 born in BREDA, The Netherlands. 01-09-1964 start of study architecture at the Technical UNIVERSTY of DELFT, Holland 01-10-1971 / 1984 divers activities like, disc jockey at Radio Stations in Holland, in the mean time the study was at the background. 1978 marriage with my wife Cornelia Hesterman. 1978 my son William is born. 1984 restart of the architectural study at the university. 03-11-1987 grade of Engineer (Dr) at

Download Essay PDF File

Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 28, 2011 @ 13:43 GMT
Dear Wil

I'm surprised at the lack of posts so far, and at your lowly position. I suppose it may be to do with the way people think, and our common architectural training has allowed a far broader perceptual 'language'.

I agree with no 'big bang', and that GR and QM as currently interpreted cannot be united, also indeed the spiral as a key form and mechanism (equivalent to DNA). I shall help you to a more respectable score, and hope you may also enjoy and score my own empirically based essay, which offers a local and real way around cyrrent issues.

best wishes


report post as inappropriate

Author Wilhelmus de Wilde replied on Mar. 1, 2011 @ 12:04 GMT
Thanks Peter, my full answer will be posted at your essay.


Garry replied on Sep. 8, 2011 @ 22:51 GMT
Are we not the physical manifestation of the universe understanding itself...Does time really exist except in our perception of it..maybe what people think is the spiritual world is nothing more than other universes not perceived by us ie..Dark Matter and Dark Energy..

report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Mar. 12, 2011 @ 07:42 GMT
Dear Wilhelmus de Wilde,

It's hard to read all essays, and I come to you because of a comment you made to Zenil:

You said "in my opinion there is a difference between Intelligence and Consciousness, with our total intelligence we can construct the LHC, but it is our consciousness that asks always WHY, like a child that won't stop asking WHY, the HOW is the intelligence and the Why our consciousness, the intelligence can be constructed by our (Turing)machines, but the consciousness until now we could not reproduce so this is perhaps not a digital "substance", so not reproducible in the digital way (?), like a piece of art, you can copy it but the copy will never be the original."

I have been frustrated by many fqxi conversations over the failure to distinguish between consciousness and intelligence. We seem to clearly agree. Thank you.

I define consciousness as awareness plus volition (free will)

I define intelligence as consciousness plus logic

where by logic I mean the physical logical 'hardware' such as the Turing machine you reference, or the neural connectivity of our brains.

I would invite you to read my essay which is based on the unity of an analog universe that attempts to establish the best correspondence between the model and the whole. It is the sister essay to my previous essay on consciousness.

I agree with a number of statements in your essay, such as: "no separate past, no separate now and no separate future. It is the All in One, the Total Simultaneity." Others, such as Georgina Parry, have developed this or an equivalent perspective in other blogs.

If I understand you correctly, you are positing consciousness in the larger universe, and 'intelligence' in the self-evolved neural computing machinery. This is essentially what I wrote my previous fqxi essay on Fundamental Physics of Consciousness, the sister of my current essay.

To deal with physical reality and consciousness in ten pages is impossible, and there is no chance that our two essays would overlap in every detail, but I think we agree on some key points.

My current essay in this contest is ranked much higher than my previous essay on consciousness, so I hope that you enjoy my essay, and ask if you do to vote for me.

Thank you for writing about consciousness. I am convinced (with Penrose and a few others) that any serious theory of physics must include consciousness.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Tommy Gilbertson replied on Jul. 17, 2011 @ 13:34 GMT
I derive an equation for consciousness in my Essay (Eq. 1), which in technical english states that 'consciousness' is: consciousness is sometimes a wave that not observed whether detected or not, and always the result of an observation of a detection of a particle.

Nobody cared then, nobody cares now, and nobody will care in the future when I do the same, but will derive another equation for C, using results [in technical English] from the LHC. They will continue not to care as I equate this new equation to the one mentioned above from the essay. And still caring less, they will ignore the fact that when these two derived equations are equated, the result will be an equation in which the classic young's double-slit experiment is expressed in terms of said LHC results, and vice versa. All with no mention of consciousness, which is required [at some point] in all human experimentation/interpretation. At that point, some may start to care. Enough to steal my idea, have a laugh at my non-professional attempt and develop it further. Then it's back to the not caring. Maybe I should just stop taking it personal i'm being ignored in these threads and that my essay is so bad (apparently) it's not even worth acknowledging. Adeiu!

report post as inappropriate

Tommy Gilbertson replied on Jul. 17, 2011 @ 13:42 GMT
Oh yeah, almost forgot. While we are all concentrating fiercly on not caring about my threads or essay, it's worth mentioning that in the same essay, I derive equations for each of Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics. If I had more time, I would manipulate those equations and transform them into one equation, where all three laws are represented. The technical english interpretations would speak of each law in terms only of the other two laws. If you love I. Asimov (or even the field of robotics which he invented), this would be a fascinating result. And a great source of plot ideas for future 3 laws books, incidentally. OK, go back to not caring. And I'll try to care just a little less too.

report post as inappropriate

Tommy Gilbertson replied on Jul. 17, 2011 @ 13:51 GMT
Law I: A robot may not injure a human being, or through inaction, allow a h.b. to come to harm...

F = 1 = R(1-I)H+JHI

for example. see essay for def. of symbols.

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Mar. 12, 2011 @ 23:19 GMT
Dear Wilhelmus,

I liked your comparison of the quintessence to hyperspace. I have been talking about 5-fold (pentality) symmetries for a couple of years. I think it is the origin of mass, and you correctly emphasize that we only know about the 5% baryonic matter - not dark mass, dark energy, etc.

Our ideas have more similarities than differences, perhaps because the Sun was travelling through the same patterns of stars for our births (your birthday is July 26, mine is July 25, although I'm younger...).

I agree that the Black Hole "singularity" is not a singularity. Your point was that an extra dimension of size 10^-31 cm is sufficient to prevent a true infinity. I like your ideas on Consciousness, although this borders on Philosophy (that's OK - I like Philosophy).

I disagree on the Big Bang and Inflation. I think that the Big Bang was a singularity that must exist in the seemingly infinite Multiverse. In this sense, the Multiverse may seem to have always existed, but a broken TOE symmetry could have produced the phase transition necessary for an event such as Inflation to produce many self-similar scales. Our Universe is a small fractal fragment of dust within an infinite Cantor set.

You made a small error - I think on page 7. You quoted the temperature of the Cosmic Background Radiation with a comma rather a decimal point - To me that implies a number a thousand times larger.

Good Luck in the essay contest & Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

report post as inappropriate

Dr. Cosmic Ray replied on Mar. 13, 2011 @ 00:55 GMT
p.s. - I was thinking about your spiral time. I think that there are at least two different kinds of time. I also think that there are multiple scales. B.N. Sreenath suggested that we need logarithmic spirals to fit larger and smaller scales (my reinterpretation of his ideas).

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate

James Lee Hoover wrote on Mar. 14, 2011 @ 00:10 GMT

Do you not see a connection between the singularities of Big Bang and super-massive black holes? I see analogue in this relationship, especially with equations of string theory compatible with some singularities. The connection seems to support both in a recycled universe.

Enjoyed your essay.

Jim Hoover

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Mar. 14, 2011 @ 12:29 GMT
Dear James,

In fact I came to my idea of the ultimate limits of our 4-d Universe while studying articles about what happened before the big bang, there we encounter the Planck Scale, after that nothing is anymore measurable , you enter the Multiverse (like in the Kaluza-Klein proposition and Calabi-Yau, only my approach is not mathematical because I think we cannot describe a "fifth" dimension with the senses and means we have available), the singularity of the so called BB is no longer present it becomes a point in the Multiverse.

I applied the same reasoning to a black hole, for there also we have to approach the untill now accepted singularity, but there we will meet the same problem of the Planck Scale (perhaps gravity becomes as strong as other forces, and infact GR predicts : any experiment with enough energy to probe the Planck Lenght must nececerrily form a black hole in the process (FQXi Blogs : Topic : The planck Scale : Gravity's ultimate limit, blogger Mark Wyman))

In fact we meet at every point (not only the high energy points in black holes) in sace/time the Planck scale, so our Universe surrounds or forms a hologram around or in this what I call Quintessence.

So the connection is clear it is a full yes but not only for the supermassive Black Holes but for every quantum in our Universe.

Yes Jim, the what you call "recycling" is a process that is infinitely taking place in the Multiverse (Quintessence), once after the Planck length we enter there where there is no more causality no more determination, time is no more like an arrow, every moment existing in our 4-d Universe originates from there, here it will "Pass", there it is "eternal?". The what you call Big Bang is a timeless happening (moment). Perhaps the word recycling is not right and do we have to back to Hermes Trismegistus who wrote already in his Emerald Tablet : "The Formation of the Microcosm is in the accordance with the Macrocosm", on the lowest scale you meet the highest scale, apply this to the eternal time moments of the Quintessence et voilà...

If you dare to think a little further then you can solve a lot of questions by applying this view, but I know it is only one of the bunch and the real Truth is I thinnk not to find here.

I also read your essay, which is very readable, on page 5 you yourself also give the border of our Universe and the follow up is going to the Big Bang and the SMBH, the analog site of our Universe that gives the idea of continuum, in my opinion is caused by our consciousness, a consciousness that is able to handle infinities that in our 4-d world can not exist because of the limits we live in (see posts above).

So Jim thanks for your attention and Good Luck in the contest. (I will rate you too).


report post as inappropriate

Philip Gibbs wrote on Mar. 15, 2011 @ 10:30 GMT
Wilhelmus, this is a very thoughtful and philosophical essay. I like the idea that the ways we can join the stars to make constellations is similar to the arrow of time, perhaps you were thinking of Feynman diagrams too.

good luck

report post as inappropriate

Author Wilhelmus de Wilde replied on Mar. 17, 2011 @ 15:35 GMT
Thank you Philip,

Thinking of Feynman Diagrams and then drawing them are two different things, thinking of them is the best way of interpreting because our consciousness can deal infinities, and those infinities infact are the basis of those diagrams isn't it, so when you say thinking of you are quite right.

Furthermore it is also the that the ideas of Gerard 't Hooft (my fellow countryman) about holographics were an inspiration (he also created the Feynman-'t Hooft gauges).

sorry for my late answer

congratulations with your score


Re Ality (Facebook) wrote on Apr. 27, 2011 @ 10:08 GMT

You asked me to comment, but you know what I'm going to say!

The only ‘wall’ that exists is the limit of our ability (including non-humans) to experience entities. Nothing exists unless we can experience it (either actually or on a logically inferred hypothetical basis). The maximum we could potentially experience of any given entity is dependent on the capacity of the medium conveying the experiential information to differentiate reality. What lies ‘beyond’ experience is a matter of metaphysical conjecture and irrelevant for scientific endeavour. We do not create our reality, we experience it, albeit since the process of experience involves a number of interferences, these have to be reverse engineered in order to establish the original state that existed independently of us. Time is the experience of change (both in terms of sequence and rate). In sight experience, the rate of change is interferred with by relative speed (ie distance). The concept of time is a measuring tool, it is not an intrinsic dimension of our reality. Our reality is three dimensional.

I suspect all theories can be merged via a proces of correction, if everyone properly distinguishes between what is an intrinsic characteristic of our reality and how we intefere with it when experiencing it. That is, eliminate a number of metapysical assertions that are masquerading as objective statements under the guise of complex maths purporting to represent our reality.


report post as inappropriate

Sridattadev wrote on Jul. 13, 2011 @ 14:51 GMT
Dear Wil,

You are absolutely right about consciousness. Science can only answer how things work, but cannot answer why do they exist. Only I or conscience knows why, because of love to create. We are experiencing the singularity of conscience and are able to express it.

Universal I or singularity or conscience is the absolute truth and is the cosmological constant.

If universe is the meaning of understanding of one’s surroundings, then it is created with every birth and destroyed with every death. Universe is in a steady big bang state. Multiverse is just multiple interpretations made by bodies and minds of the conscience (soul or singularity). What one perceives of self (soul) is not the same as another, this is the multiverse with in the universe or singularity that we live in.

S=BM^2 (S-Soul, B-Body, M-Mind)

Truth is simple, accepting it is not.



report post as inappropriate

Author Wilhelmus de Wilde replied on Jul. 16, 2011 @ 13:20 GMT
My dear Sri (do you mean Illustrus or just Mr ?)

Thanks for your post, you say "created with every birth and destroyed with every death", this is true when we look at the causal deterministic universe that we are "living" in, before birth there is no conscioussness and after death in the causal universe there is no more individual consciousness, but ... in the Total Simultaneity that I propose all the moments and places are simutanuesly presnet,it is the non causal "everything", you can compare it with "the center of everything where there is absolutely nothing and the center of nothing where there is absolutely everything" (thanks for your article). So in fact all the moments we survived are eternally present, but the word eternally has no meaning here.

Change the word Big Bang for "Origin", an origin is not a unique mement it is for every causal consciousness a special moment in Total Simultaneity.

For mankind Love and Hate come from the same source...

keep on thinking free


Sridattadev replied on Jul. 16, 2011 @ 20:08 GMT
Dear Wilhelmus,

You are absolutely right by saying that "for mankind Love and hate come from the same source". But a wise man knows it is better to be loving for sustaining the existence of his kind. As a realized human, I am just another father of 3 kids trying to share the knowledge of the absolute truth I experienced with in and importance of love for continued sustenance of human life.

Universal I or conscience or absolute or singularity or god is of everykind and has no begining and no end, its origin is beyond human comprehension so is its end, simply put it begins where it ends. As a human we can experience this singularity in our heart and know that it exists and its nature is Total Simultaneity as you have expressed. This truth is inherent in each one of us and has been expressed by several spiritual teachers like Lord Krishna, Moses, Jesus, Lord Buddha, Prophet Mohammed, Shirdi Sai, Guru Nanak and many more all along in different ways. I am just trying to convey this simple truth to all the scientific community, which is trying so hard to understand the reality of the universe and In the process creating complex theories of the inherent simple truth and getting lost in virtuality. It is time for our human kind to wake up from this virtuality (entangled intelligence) and experience the absolute self and live in love and peace.



report post as inappropriate

Sridattadev replied on Sep. 9, 2011 @ 16:14 GMT
Dear Wilhelmus,

Total Simultaneity is the Steady Big Bang State of the universe and conscience or singularity is the source. What we can see and feel with our senses is what comes out of TS or a big bang, but what we can know with in our selves is what is the source of the bang or TS.

There is no gravity, no entropy, no mass, no energy, no space-time in singularity or absolute conscience, yet it is the source of them all.



attachments: 3_UniversalLifeCycle.doc

report post as inappropriate

Tommy Gilbertson wrote on Jul. 27, 2011 @ 08:41 GMT
Good Morrow Wilhelmus:

Dank u vriendelijk, Wilhelmus. How' s Nederland? Ik zou zo willen bezoeken als u kon helpen? Uw commentaren waren divers en enigszins beknopt bij verscheidene punt. U bent duidelijk hartstochtelijk over u verhandeling. Dank die voor hij inspanning mijn poging eigenlijk om te lezen nemen. Het zou het begin van vrij verreikend iets kunnen zijn. En zal zo van u. Ik verheug me op het lezen van het. En ernstig, ive nooit aan scandanavia? kreeg een kleine ruimte voor een couupleweken. lol? voorzien van een netwerk here.give me tijd en voor u verteren om met contact te onderbreken. zullen aan me voor bepaald… krijgen thanx opnieuw

report post as inappropriate

Tommy Gilbertson wrote on Jul. 27, 2011 @ 08:44 GMT will get to me for sure.

report post as inappropriate

Author Wilhelmus de Wilde wrote on Aug. 2, 2011 @ 10:24 GMT
I am using the Planck length as a base of non causality.

The latest anaysis of Integral 5ESA gamma-ray observatory) places stringent new limits on the size of quantum "grains", it is replaced from 10^-35m to 10^-48m.

These observations of "tiny twisting effects" that are due to the quantum grains , and have become detectable signals , because of the fact they are being accumulated on the very large distance are indeed important for fundamental physics, and also for the view I propose in my essay.

The fundamental question here is "where is causality emerging", at the Planck length or below ?.

To answer this question is not so easy. Fact : before the Integral observations, it was the Planck length, now it could be the "Integral length" of 10^-48m. In fact for the view that I proposed it is not the exact point on a line that is fundamental, every length is a scale compared to another that makes for us our 4D Universe measurable and so causal to represents an idea in our consciousness.

The grains of space/time can and will be adjusted in their dimensinal scales when scientists are going further into the fundamental questions of reality, the idea of these grains being the limit of the causality and thus the border of Total Simultaneity will be the same.

keep on thinking free


Tommy Gilbertson replied on Aug. 5, 2011 @ 05:38 GMT
Ok, this is new news to me: where is the source of this information? That The latest anaysis of Integral 5ESA gamma-ray observatory) places stringent new limits on the size of quantum "grains", it is replaced from 10^-35m to 10^-48m. "

C'mon W., even the LHC cannot probe to the plank length to determine whether particles are better described as points or strings. What possible detail could determine that it's 10^-48? By defininition it has to be a mathematical result. We should really wait until we can verify the nature of particles strings or points? at the plank length first, before conjecturing even further?

In that vein, I propose that the Quantum Grain is made up of 2.5 units, each with a length of 10^-123. The reason this can be stated if that it is comfortably beyond the capability of probing, even with an accellerator the size of the known galaxy. Let's stop counting our chickens before they are even (in principle( experimentally verifiable.

Good wishes, friend


report post as inappropriate

Author Wilhelmus de Wilde wrote on Aug. 5, 2011 @ 15:26 GMT
Good afternoon to you Tommy, nice to meet again,

You can read the article in New Scientist:

I fully agree with you that all our limits are relative and can be placed everywhere you want them to be, I took the Planck length because of the fact that behind this limit we cannot make any prediction, time is of no more value and so on, so for me it was the border of causality, after that was the Total Simultaneity, as a matter of fact it does not matter me at all where is this limit of causality, it is for me important that it is there.

And as it is for now we will in the near future not be able to explore the area before the Planck length.

The limit of causality (stargate) is everywhere around us, its exact dimension is not important, the idea is.

keep on thinking free


Garry wrote on Sep. 8, 2011 @ 22:52 GMT
Are we not the physical manifestation of the universe understanding itself...Does time really exist except in our perception of it..maybe what people think is the spiritual world is nothing more than other universes not perceived by us ie..Dark Matter and Dark Energy..

report post as inappropriate

Author Wilhelmus de Wilde wrote on Sep. 9, 2011 @ 10:23 GMT
Garry, thanks for your reaction, as I wrote it is our consciousness that is the first "observer" and so causes the wave function to collapse into the particle function, so is the cause of the origin of our universe, the universe is as you mention understanding itself , it is us who cannot understand it 100%, because of the fact that we will never be able to know the whole TRUTH, we are able to observe only 5% of the matter, in our consciousness we understand infinities, that are not possible in the material 4D causal universe we live in, the other 95% can be other universes that will be undertood (also partially , when they are restricted like us) by other consciousness, thinking of them operating all together is a beautifull thought.

keep on thinking free


Sridattadev wrote on Sep. 9, 2011 @ 19:47 GMT
Dear Wil and Gary,

Once you experience the singularity or universal I with in, you will realize that there is absolutely nothing but your self and everything is what you want it to be, just a manifestation of the self.

I superpositioned my self to be me.



report post as inappropriate

[[ddlink]] wrote on Nov. 18, 2011 @ 10:20 GMT
intuitive Pink belt external turntable WomenCal 2385 self winding movement 40 clearly see the balance wheel is the .

report post as inappropriate

Aynat wrote on Dec. 4, 2011 @ 04:31 GMT
Since I was quite young, I have had moments of intuitive experience that I could not really define, except to describe them as an "awareness" that all moments (past present and future) are contained within THIS moment, NOW. These moments that can be described as feeling this way would come without prelude or effort on my part. I was not reflecting or meditating on these concepts.

They do not happen as often as they used to, but they do still occur, particularly if I wake in the middle of the night, in those first few moments that I am returning to an ordered sense of self and time, the normal "me" and "now".

In addition to these experiences I have had other moments of strong intuition that this physical plane of being is not always how its been for me. I am NOT talking about past lives or anything literal like that. These are purely, for lack of a better word, cognitive/spatial/spiritual experiences, and they are fleeting, and not part of any contemplative practice.

Anyway, while this is not per se on topic, I think it speaks to something about how we might be experiencing TS as you are describing it. These moments have been unquestionably moments of truth to me, truth beyond (even my own need for) analysis or any sort of skepticism. They stand apart from "ordinary" conscious experience but take place and move fluidly in and out of a fully awake non altered state (often during the day). I have not tried to re-create them. I hope they continue to happen as they have. They are memorable moments of being.

report post as inappropriate

Author Wilhelmus de Wilde replied on Dec. 5, 2011 @ 15:51 GMT
Congratulations Aynat, you are one of them whose consciousness has a special ability of being "aware" of TS, each human has, but everyone is different . To be honest with you this is why I participated here with FQXi, just to be sure that my point of view from the scientific side is not just a pile of bullshit. It is accepted and published (with slight alterations)also with "The Scientific God Journal", , volume 2, issue 7. I am working now on the religious and esoteric side of the human awareness and my study of for example all the monotheistic religions show immense paralels with my scientific theory, also your experience is one of these proofs about the functionning of our consciousness. (Just one example : Christianity : God the Father : TS; The Holy Ghost : our consciousness that is an intermediaire between the human being and TS, the Son : our material existence, the bearer of the consciousness, and this goes for all relogions !!!) If you agree I could refer to your experiences.

best regards

keep on thinking free


Author Wilhelmus de Wilde wrote on Feb. 13, 2012 @ 17:37 GMT
I hope that FQXi is thinking about a new conquest, since one year of participating with the atricles and blogs the basic idea of my essay did not change but it has more causality as I thought for other areas of science and philosophy.

Once the game is played no one visits any more the threads of the essays (only if you are mentioned on the home page (thank you for that FQXi)), it remains a silent wittness of the thought experiments of the interested people of our planet.

keep on thinking free


Author Wilhelmus de Wilde wrote on Mar. 19, 2012 @ 15:38 GMT
Just an idea FQXi :

Could the next essay conquest deal with the question :

Is there something inbetween Cause and Event ?

This question deals also with the beginning because if there is thare is someting before the Cause , it deals with a lot of scientific questions.

Hope to hear someting from you

think free


Sridattadev replied on Mar. 19, 2012 @ 17:43 GMT
Dear Wil,

I can say for sure that universal I or singularity exists before any cause (big bang). I causes everything. I is the root of TS.



report post as inappropriate

Author Wilhelmus de Wilde replied on Mar. 20, 2012 @ 16:26 GMT
Dear Sridattadev, I agree with you that the root of Ts is consciousness, and it will always be the consciousness of the "I". Consciousness has no masst nor length nor perceptable energy, to call it a singulairity is in line with mathematical CENTER. In our material causal universe with its limits (as for now Planck length and time) the singulairity does not exist, if it exists in TS is a different question I think. The center of our consciousness is an antenna that is receiving signals from TS, where the same center of that consciousness is existing as an eternal non causal probability. Though our consciousness is eternal ? The Big Bang did not occur I think, it is the entanglement of the of causal consciousness with non causal consciousness that is the origin of our "reality". This is what you can call the non causal eternal universal I.

I special asked for the question what is inbetween a cause and an event because this reasoning is typical of our 3+1 causal universe (created by our non causal consciousness), so inbetween can only be the Planck length and time , the same limit that when we approach it we enter in TS. So in fact my question is what is inbetween the slices of (causal) Block Universe, and this question I can answer with inbetween is TS.

thank you for the contact

think free


Sridattadev replied on Mar. 21, 2012 @ 17:42 GMT
Dear Wil,

You have understood my point absolutely.

Causal consciousness is in our brain and this describes "I am".

Non causal consciousness can be experienced in our heart and thats where "Universal i" resides. Yes, we can consider singularity as the absolute mathematical center of everything, hence it is everywhere, that is exactly what I am trying to convey to the cosomologists that all the black holes are connected at one central singularity and that the whole universe is a sphere of consciousness, described by S=BM^2, where S is the soul or non causal conscience (only one absolute soul shared by all), M is the mind or causal consciousness (cause and effect), B is the body that experiences it.

Please see Conscience is the cosmological constant.



report post as inappropriate

Author Wilhelmus de Wilde wrote on Mar. 27, 2012 @ 05:46 GMT
I am preparing a follow-up of the essay entitled :


think free


Author Wilhelmus de Wilde wrote on Mar. 27, 2012 @ 15:48 GMT

there are three kind of simultaneities :

1. The simultaneity that is experienced by an observer.

This can be imagined as a sphere around the observer where he is the center, On this sphere of course arrive signals from different distances and times , if you would colour them this sphere would be like a soap bubble. All the centers and spheres tigether form the foam of our reality.

2. The absolute simultaneity that is occurring in a slice of the block universe. These events are independent of an observer and as so will never be observable as simultaneous by an observer. It is about the events that happen on a certain time moment . This moment (perhaps with the length of the Planck time) is not dependant of relativity (AR and SR).

3 TOTAL SIMULTANEITY: as discussed in the essay. This is the non causal simultaneity of all the block universe slices, also of the paralel block universes, it looks like chaos but in fact it is the ultimate probability.

Our consciousness is by entanglement able to contact its counterpart moments in TS, like an antenna, no time is neede to arrange aan enatnglement.

think free


Thomas wrote on Apr. 10, 2012 @ 07:23 GMT
Hi, how do we reach TS?

report post as inappropriate

Author Wilhelmus de Wilde replied on Apr. 10, 2012 @ 14:59 GMT
Thomas, Ts needs not to be reached, it is everywhere. Once you reached the Planck length and "go" further (in fact you cannot go further because you are at the very limit of causality) then you "are" in TS. ou can reach it at every point of space in our universe (including yourself), for "Time" the same , you reach TS at any moment after the Planck time. So : those space/time quanta are the limits of our causal material universe, however our consciousness is acting like an antenna (emitting and receiving) that is the cause of entanglement and so decoherence of of the what we call "causal" universe, our consciousness is the origin of our "awareness". The quanta in TS however are eternal, which means that they are be comparable with points on an endless (to the left and to the right) line, so points in infinity that have no before and no after because before is the same as after (endless), these points cannot be referenced and so eternally existant. This means that in fact our consciousness like we are aware of right now has a point of entanglement in TS that is eternal, which means that we as individuals are also eternal in TS, only here in the causal universe we have a beginning and an end, that is like a life line formed in TS. But at any moment we can chose other points (there is an enless choice) available in TS , that is our free will. By making a choice you are changing from one life line to another, no need that paralel worlds need to be created at that very moment because they all are already "present" as probabilities in TS.

I just read an article about our "primitive" consciousness that emerges from deep primitive brain structures (
ess-emrges-awaken-anesthesia.html. This is in alliance with what I think of consciousness, it has a long "life-line" in TS and in our causality.

If you have more questions pls let me know

think free


Author Wilhelmus de Wilde replied on Apr. 13, 2012 @ 15:52 GMT

Thank you for answering on APS Linkedin.


Author Wilhelmus de Wilde replied on Apr. 13, 2012 @ 15:59 GMT
but I prefer to be answered here on FQXi.



Author Wilhelmus de Wilde wrote on Apr. 16, 2012 @ 15:27 GMT
The emerging of Realities out of Total Simultaneity explains also the wellknown discussion : "Why is there something rather then Nothing". The Total Simultaneity is an infinite entity (dimension ?). To explain the position of the quantum of consciousness in TS, we can imagine an infinite line and on this line a point, this point in fact doesnt divide the line in two because there are no coordinates possible to both sides of the line : so the point is everywhere on the line, the point in fact is also smeared out ad infinitum, so is the quantum of consciousness that is one of the probable points on the endless line of TS, an existing infinite probability, that is the cause of the collapse of this probability in our 3+1 causal universe, the fact that the eternal point is "available is enough to let collapse the wave probability in TS and olet originate a "reality" here. Our consciousness together are the cause (in our causal universe) of the decoherence of this reality to form a for our part of our consciousness a time-line.

think free


Author Wilhelmus de Wilde wrote on Apr. 18, 2012 @ 16:18 GMT
Is GOD equivalent with CHAOS so with Total Simultaneity ?

Total Simultaneity is an idea for us (causal beings) not to understand, because it seems like Chaos, everything possible is "mixed" up and infinite.

The mixed up is another "order" as the one we understand.

Humanity is in its short existance always intrigued by the idea of GOD or Gods, also to explain our temporal existance.

God is described as INFINITE and Omnipresent with all the knowledge possible, isn't this the same as Total Simultaneity, where all probabilities are infinite "present" (also those of all probable paralel universes) ?

We can compare it with the Trinity of Christianity , where The Father is Total Simultaneity, Jesus Christ is the HUMAN in the causal universe, and Consciousness is the contact inbetween thos two, the HOLY GHOST.

In Kabala Total Simultaneity is EIN SOF, the top of the ten Sephirot.

In Islam ALLAH is unique and not understandable by humans, the greatness of Allah is infinite.

In Budhism the ultimate goal in fact is NOHTING, being ALL, Nirvana being free of suffereing, free of causality.

to be contued

think free


Author Wilhelmus de Wilde wrote on Apr. 22, 2012 @ 15:02 GMT

The basic theorem of my essay is : “A human being is the creator of his universe by entanglement” .

Entanglement needs a second part at another place, and an “observer” to arrange the specific entanglement.

The what we call second part is a “space/time probability” in Total Simultaneity (TS).

The “observer” is his...

view entire post

Author Wilhelmus de Wilde wrote on Apr. 25, 2012 @ 09:44 GMT
For those who follow my thread :

Multiversity and Total Simultaneity.

The basic general thought of the existence of a Multiversity is that in the finite space of our Universe when completely filled with elementary particles, there is a finite number of ways that these particles can be arranged. The amount of arrangements would be 2 to the power of 10^118.

This could mean...

view entire post

Tommy Gilbertson wrote on Apr. 26, 2012 @ 21:57 GMT
Hi Wilhelmus--got your message! So, after glimpsing your above Commentary I just want to say, "Let's talk about some objective Reality, shall we"? Instead of our own personal theories, which may or not be correct?

Anyway, what is your comment on the newest tentative results from the Large Hadron Collider Experiments? The 2000 or so physicists who work there have come up with a Theory of Unification based on Unitarity. Here is the most current model of most theoretical physicists on the explanation of the Observed experiments from the LHC, i.e. what the detectors have measured as we crash protons together at the highest energies yet!

They have reinvigorated the Theory of SuperGravity. Quantum Mechanics (particles) and General Relativity (spacetime topology) is melded into a grand Quantum Gravity theory by explaining the LHC results as gravitons interacting. Remember that gravitons are only speculative, and have never been observed experimentally. Until now, where the superscientists are explaining the data they see by modelling the correllated pairs of gluons with one graviton: the two are the same thing!

Guons and quarks hold the protons together by exchanging particles. We understand all this, and it's old Standard Model knowledge. But by this recent development of claiming that this same interaction (results of our detectors) can be explained by considering the particles (gluons) acting in pairs and behaving like a graviton is revolutionary!

Our civiliation has proved that Reality behaves the same as our computers. According to Boolean Logic, which is based on human thinking! We live in a simulated reality. And if we accept that gravitons exist as the particles of gravity in this reality, it has been programmed with something like human minds. That's a good sign. To be continued...

Now stop with your own theories, and tell us what you have to say about the LHC results. Less opinion, more explanation. That's what we pay our taxes for!, "Making Tomorrow Happen. Today..."

report post as inappropriate

Author Wilhelmus de Wilde replied on Apr. 27, 2012 @ 15:31 GMT
Thank you Tommy for your reply, I really aprreciate it.

Sorry for (untill now) not reacting to the results of the LHC, just because of the facts that : it is of topic, this thread is about the theory in my essay and its implimentations on our perception of reality. Further on I follow on VIXRA ( Phillip Gibbs) all the results from the LHC, and if necerecerry post answers. Of course there are multiple theories that try to explain our "reality", mine is just one of them and I am not at all convinced that it is the right one, each day I learn and receive more information, the results you see here. We for example have both a specific thought about "consciousnes" that you even put down in a "formula". I appreciated very much your approach only you easily on the first pages use the word "soul" and then you "simplify" it by letting HS=C (Huamn Soul = Constant) This is something that I understand very well, but also a simplification thet is in my point of view to easy to apply. I hope that you can give me an answer why you did this because as a matter of fact your essay and mine together could give new entrances to questions.

think free


TommyG. wrote on Aug. 4, 2012 @ 07:11 GMT
Good luck bra--you got my vote. Between you and Georgina Parry, you two are the two I would most like to meet and continue to talk to. Yes, even above and beyond all of these brilliant theoreticians who are getting all the mini-grants and prizes, it it you who I admire more. I'm gone, like an unobserved wavefunction. Maybe I will create a page for just us non-professionals on to continue these important conversations without fqxi snickering at us by ignoring our contributions? What do you think? BTW comment on my fb page, 'cause I'm outta here and I'm not coming back.

report post as inappropriate

TommyG. replied on Aug. 4, 2012 @ 07:15 GMT
Please tell Georgina I said that. Because I know if i go and check out her essay thread, I will get sucked in to an interesting conversation in her thread and won't be able to exit gracefully.. This is me exiting gracefully. fqxi please stop pretending you support us non-professionals--you don't! You support the Names that have already established themselves, and SciAM only supports them and young up-and-coming scientists. The rest of us are fooling ourselves and creating interesting content here for to manipulate. Farewell friend. Hope to see you a lot, but elsewhere...

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Aug. 4, 2012 @ 08:50 GMT
Dear Tommy,

please do check out my essay. It is very different from last year's. Much more structured, easier to read and I hope unusual. I think you might be surprised. I would really appreciate hearing what you think, as I do value your opinion (and I won't argue if you'd really rather I didn't).

Thank you for your very nice comment. I'm glad you have enjoyed the conversation here on FQXi.I think you might be back. Which is stronger your curiosity or your will power?

report post as inappropriate

Author Wilhelmus de Wilde wrote on Aug. 5, 2012 @ 16:13 GMT
Thank you Tommy for your support, I am still waiting for the acceptance of my new essay. Georgina has created a great essay and her thinking is very clear and straight, not to be compared with others like you and me, we are a little bit wild isn't it ? but we must also be heard, so pls go on and finish your essay, you gave already an abstract, it will be mind-opening. Wilhelmus

Barb Gantt wrote on Dec. 16, 2012 @ 09:00 GMT
The universal in the particular.

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.