Hi Ronald, I am trying to achieve your book, but I do not have a kindle, so it takes some time, as I live in Europe.

best regards

Wilhelmus

  • [deleted]

  • Post #42

My novel The Angels' Footpath should be available for any electronic reader (using conversion software available on Amazon), and I have been getting hits from Amazon Germany and UK.

Hi Ronald, I succeeded to dowload your book on my PC, I will come back to you.

best regards

Wilhelmus

Dear Wilhelmus -- just like you I am intrigued by the question how to render consciousness emergent from fundamental physics. Achieving this will probably represent the 'final frontier' in science. Unlike you, I am rather pessimistic whether this will be achieved in the foreseeable future, but I do strongly hope this feat will be accomplished some day.

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

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

Wish you best of luck in the contest!

    Dear Johannes:

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

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

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

    best regards

    Wilhelmus

    • [deleted]

    • Post #46

    Hi Wilhelmus,

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

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

    Now, let me go on to how you attempt to connect your ideas to various parts of fundamental physics. Here, I must say that there are still some problems. I will list 3:

    1) The relevance of your idea to the problem is only implied. example: p. 1 "In this way, it becomes understandable how easy neutrinos pass...through our bodies.." I think you assumed that neutrinos are near Planck length, in which case they would be very small relative to us, and that this is the reason they would easily pass through. But you did not say this, you implied it. The problem is that a reader may fail to see the relevance if you leave some steps of your reasoning out.

    2) You may make wrong assumptions about standard physics: example : same as above. Under our current understanding, the reason that neutrinos pass easily through us is not because they are so small but because they only interact via the weak force and (presumably) gravity. They are completely uninfluenced by the electromagnetic force, which would cause a lot more of them to be stopped by our bodies.

    also, on page 4, Einstein did not introduce the "absolute ether", he dispensed with it altogether

    3) You describe mechanisms that don't map onto known physics. example: p. 7 the discussion on entanglement gives a formula, but it cannot be applied in any way to the equations in quantum mechanics that describe entangled systems. Also, I don't know if you know this, but once you consider entanglement between spacelike separated particles in a special relativistic context, you cannot even claim a preferred frame of referrence that "collapses" the entangled state. According to your model, in some frames, Alice measures the spin of A first and her "conscious awareness of the measurement" collapses state of B, and in other frames Bob measures the spin of B first and his "caotm" collapses the state of A. The only way to resolve this contradiction is to either postulate a preferred frame, contradicting special relativity, or allow for backward causation, contradicting causality. Entanglement is an especially subtle issue to grapple with.

    Ok, there are other issues but I think this is enough for now. So, overall I think this paper is better than your first, but before it will be taken seriously by scientists you will need to address the general issues pointed out above, and the only way I know is through the hard and sometimes thankless labor of working through the material and actually learning it so that one may attain a thorough understanding. Hope this honest feedback helps.

    All the best,

    Armin

      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.