Dear Armin;

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

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

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

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

I hope to hear more constructive comments from you.

best regards

Wilhelmus

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

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

Dear Johannes:

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

The Planck Wall is the (untill now) the down limit of length (1.616252x10^-35m) and time (5.39121x10^-44s), behind this length and time it is impossible to devide it further, which I explain as that is no longer possible to divide it in cause and event, because that is deviding.

Reality is in my perception emerging from consciousness, because of the fact thet for example in the Young Double Slit experiment the result is depending on the fact if a conscious mind is measuring (observing) the outcoming results direct after the slits, if it is NOT observed by a conscious mind : the wave pattern is observed at the screen behind the slits, if observed the particle partioning on the screen is observed. So it is our consciousness that influences the result of the experiment.

In my perception I realised that the "awareness" of the result of an experiment is minimum 200ms after the "observation", this difference means that in these 200 ms we are not yet AWARE of our perception, the final result of the experiment is that in the time line we only are "aware" in the PAST of the perception. However this counts for the experiment and the wave function is "activated". So in fact my essential question is "if the conscious observer observes and is not yet aware of his perception, there must be a consciousness point in the future that realises this "collapse" of the wave function.

I found this relation in the fact that our consciousness has an eternal paralel in Total Simultaneity (where there is no arrow of time).

I understand your mentioning of the 0,2 light seconds, indeed it is a long distance and a long time too, but our Subjective Simultaneity Sphere (SSS) can have any radius the incoming data can come from near by or far away, in fact it is the angle that is important, if you look at the sky in the night the light of the stars seems to be on one sphere, but in fact it comes from different distances, the constellation you seem to see do only exist for the view point that you are on.

best regards

Wilhelmus

  • [deleted]

  • Post #50

Dear Wilhelmus

Interesting point of view

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

    Thank you Yuri for asking attention for this essay, I anwered there.

    Wilhelmus

    • [deleted]

    • Post #52

    Hi Wilhelmus. Do you agree that memory integrates experience and adds to the extensiveness of experience? I am still considering your essay.

      • [deleted]

      • Post #53

      Wilhelmus. Our sense of time integrates experience and adds to (or involves) the continuity, comprehensibility, and extensiveness of being, memory, space, thought, and experience. Do you agree?

        Hi Frank

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

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

        Wilhelmus

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

        Wilhelmus.

        5 days later

        • [deleted]

        • Post #56

        Hello Wilhelmus,

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

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

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

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

        Don L.

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

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

          Hope that you will sent me your future essay.

          Wilhelmus

          5 days later

          • [deleted]

          • Post #60

          Hello Wilhelmus,

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

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

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

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

          Thanks for the link,

          Don L.

          • [deleted]

          • Post #61

          Wilhelmus,

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

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

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

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

          Let me know what you think.

          Thanks,

          Don L.

            Dear Wilhelmus,

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

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

            2. Your account of the human experience of time is interesting. This reminds me of two things: one is the book Triangle of Thoughts by Alain Connes (one of the worlds greatest mathematicians and physicists) in which he discusses the nonlinearity of subjective time in the human consciousness. The other is Sara Walker's essay in this contest, which proposes a "top-down" understanding of life. If you take these things seriously and put them together with my causal approach, you get a very complex (but interesting) picture of time and consciousness (see the remark about multiple time dimensions in my footnotes).

            3. In regard to your section on subjective reality, you might like Amanda Gefter's essay here. She relates this view to some very modern physics (black hole thermodynamics, etc.)

            4. Your "consciousness foam of objective simultaneities" is a very nice conceptual tool. At small scales, the spheres are disjoint. They overlap at everyday scales, but remain quite different. At cosmic scales, they are virtually indistinguishable. The irony of this is that it implies that the most distant phenomena we can observe are in a sense more common to our mutual perception than events that occur in our immediate environment. Looking at the Hubble Deep Field is in a sense a more universally "human" experience than anything we observe on earth!

            5. When you say "space " is an "emerging" perception from time, this is very similar to my causal metric hypothesis.

            6. Regarding the "initial singularity," Cristinel Stoica has an essay in this contest in which he proposes a "singular" version of GR in which information can be preserved by a Big Bang-like event. You might find it interesting.

            7. When you mention the "histories of all possible universes," this is similar to my "causal configuration space."

            8. "Collapse of the wave function" refers to the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, which is probably no longer the dominant view (see, for instance, the essay by Gambini and Pullin in this contest).

            9. At this point you begin to make some very bold (and speculative!) proposals about the causal efficacy of consciousness, time-travel, precognition, etc. I can't possibly write (or even summarize) all my thoughts on these subjects, but I think yours are at least interesting. I do think that some of these issues are far beyond the current state of our science, however, and that it will be a long time before we know if any specific proposal about them is correct.

            Overall, a very interesting essay. Thanks again for pointing it out to me. Take care,

            Ben

              Dear Ben:

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

              Wilhelmus

              4 days later

              Dear (uncle) Hoang,

              I do not understand the essence of your last post.

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

              It makes me worry about your free speech.

              We agree with the last sentence.

              Wilhelmus

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

              Sergey Fedosin

                Dear Segey,

                Thank you for the concern,

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

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

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

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

                Thanks for the attention

                Wilhelmus

                • [deleted]

                • Post #69

                Hallo Wilhelmus,

                You wrote:

                Time is emerging only in our consciousness.

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

                Leo.