Dear Akinbo,

The question mark is indeed implying that I do not have an answer nor an interpretation of this theory. My interpretation however of "reality" is that our so called "material" reality has limits, the reality as we are aware of is emerging from a lower level, and from our reality is again emerging a higher reality.

The "construction" of matter is a product of physics, and physics gives us the four forces among them the standard model of partcles, and the four fundamental interactions of nature : gravitation, elecromagnetic force, weak interaction and strong force

But if we go deeper and deeper in this core we only are meeting lesser and lesser so what about thiese interaction that is said to be the one taht is colliding the core ?

The Higgs Boson is to be the origin of the Higgs field, resposible for the "mass" of particles, but what if the mass of particles is only an emerging property ?

Wilhelmus

Eckard,

I understand that you cannot agree with some or perhaps most of my inetrepretations of reality. I am not asking to be agreed upon I just participate my ideas to be discussed. If Archibal Wheeler would agrre....I just don't know, I wish he should still be there to give his opinion. My "bewildering" utterances are just interpretations of the present viewpoints of some also "successful" physicists. But succesfull means that your opinion is shared with a lot of others, and that is not nececerrely the ONLY hypothesis regarding the perception of our reality.

Thank you for your rating

Wilhelmus

Respectfully Wilhelmus,

I found your essay to be truly engrossing. I unequivocally agree with your masterful assertion that: "Every primal sequence has in itself ALL probabilities because this noumenon is infinite and cannot be devised in parts like before and after."

    Wilhelmus,

    I enjoyed your unique perspective and terminology of matter as, "Matter is one of the "Crealities" * (Creation of Realities) from our consciousness." I searched for how you attempted to describe how such Crealities come to exist. It seems that you are saying that reality is a cognitive phenomenon. This leads me to ask, how do Qubits come into existence? I must have missed this point.

    I appreciate your originality and insight, well done. I hope you will have a chance to review my entry as well.

      Wilhelmus, this is very thought-provoking. I like your synthesis of concepts: conciousness, acausality, the pure state, qubits and the primal sequence of information. It fits well with my way of seeing things. I hope that more physicists can take on board ideas like this and make progress from it towards a complete theory. Best of luck.

        Wilhemus

        "Our perception of reality is in a deterministic way expressed in the choice between

        extremities"

        Our perception of reality is irrelevant to the physical circumstance, an independently physically existent representation thereof being what is received. In the case of sight this is known as light.

        "Latest research is pointing more and more towards the choice of one PURE State that is one of an infinite number of possibilities between these two extremities"

        Any given reality is the physically existent state of whatever comprises it at that time. There is, by definition, only one such state at any time.

        "with what we call the "Primal Sequence", the origin of origins"

        You cannot know the 'origin' of existence, because you cannot transcend your existence. You can only concern yourself, scientifically, with what is potentially knowable to us. What this 'ultimately' is, or how it came about, etc, are unanswerable. We are trapped in an existentially closed system, which is a function of a physical process. As always, there may be an alternative to that, but we cannot know it.

        "So "time" is the illusion that our consciousness is creating"

        Time is neither an illusion, nor does consciousness create anything. Time is concerned with the rate at which realities alter, ie are superseded by the subsequent reality in the sequence. This is what timing does, compares rates of change. In the case of a crystal timing device, for example, the reference is crystal oscillations.

        Paul

          Hi Wilhelmus,

          You hit the nail on the head by asking in your reply what if mass... is an emerging property? Wheeler also suspects, mass may be from the massless, ...

          You didnt say whether your "preons" can be similar to my monads, or perhaps you will answer that later? Then what do you mean by 'point-like'? Is it zero-dimension or not?

          Regards,

          Akinbo

          Dear Akinbo,

          Your "monads" as they were used by Leibniz, are not similar to the idea of preons. I took the fork in the road that led me to the conclusion that the material universe cannot be divided ad infintum into smaller parts, this deterministic thinking leads to "singularities" and I just cannot imagine that a dimesionless point (whatever it may be, it can just be a "NOTHING") ledas to a reality. In my perception it is consciousness that is tha origin of our CREALITY, and our so called material universe is (untill now) limited by the Planck length and time. The monads of Leibniz are atomistic and represent "matter". In my perception ""IT" doesn't "MATTER", because matter is only existing in our memories. ALL point like reperentations of matter lead to paradoxes.

          best regards

          Wilhelmus

          Thank you very much Phillip for this encouraging post, you see that I took your essay of last year "The Universe, an effect without Cause" as refernce because that also inspired me.

          Wilhelmus

          Paul,

          We have different perceptions of what is reality, this is not starnge at all because every individual ahs a different consciousness and so has different interpretations, which is a good thing because of that we are now discussing...LET THRER BE LIGHT.

          What is a "physically existant state" , in my essay the part "dematerialisation" is giving my viewpoint. To me physically existent is only an appearance of the past.

          I changed the word "illusion" to "CREALITY". We just cannot agree on your point that consciousness does not create anything, for me it is the opposite, perhaps the truth is in the middle, I just don't know, but untill now ther are no arguments that can convince me of your viewpoint.

          best regards and good luck in the contest

          Wilhelmus

          Wilhelmus

          "We have different perceptions of what is reality, this is not starnge at all because every individual ahs a different consciousness and so has different interpretations"

          Reality is independent of us, and does not occur on the basis of perceptions.

          "What is a "physically existant state"

          The physical state that whatever exists is in, ie reality at that time.

          "To me physically existent is only an appearance of the past"

          Obviously, in the sense that for it to "appear", ie be potentially knowable, it must exist first. But then the key word is appear. The appearance of something is not the same as something. We are interested in what existed, not what appeared to do so.

          "We just cannot agree on your point that consciousness does not create anything"

          Other than a perception, please explain to me how the sensory/brain processing creates anything.

          Paul

          Paul:

          My perception of consciousness and its possibilities are written in "THE CONSCIOUSNESS CONNECTION", my essay of last year.

          You are communicating your own perception of reality, which is true for YOU, but is different for me. I will never try to convince you of my opinion, the only thing I can do is communicate my perceptions and how I am aware of them.

          What you call "reality at that time" is the past and does not exist any more.

          "Appear" : Everything you are aware of and what you call reality, is processed by your brain and is being experienced as reality but is in fact just the past.That is why it appears different for each of us. Reality is NOT the same for everybody it is NOT existing CREALTY is the only "existing" solipsistic reality that through decoherence is becoming a objective "illusion".(creality of a multitude).(and of course this is only my personal^point of view that I am participating with YOU).

          Wilhelmus

          "You are communicating your own perception of reality, which is true for YOU, but is different for me"

          This is science, not religion. There is no room for individualistic beliefs. And as I said, for one thing, quite obviously, we do not create physical existence, ie the consciousness is irrelevant.

          Paul

          All the essays published here are individualistic approaches and perceptions of scientific and philosophical data. An individual can "believe" in his parceptions (like apparently you are doing also) but may be always aware that his ideas that are based on data from "today" may be not longer valid tomorrow.

          In your perception consciousness is irrelevant, fine, but not for for me, in your perception you are right and I am right in mine, this has nothing to do with religion, becuase mine is not a "belief" but a hypothesis based on scientific data.

          Wilhelmus

          W

          Obviously, anybody is free to believe in anything. But in science the aim is to have statements which correspond with existence as known to us. And if you can explain to me how consciousness affects the physical circumstance, please do so.

          Paul

          Paul,

          my hypothesis is published in two articles :

          "Realities out of Total Simultaneity" : http://vixra.org/abs/1112.0013

          and

          "The Consciousness Connection, a Metaphysical Concept" : http://vixra.org/abs/1211.0019

          They are also published in the

          "JOURNAL OF CONSCIOUSNESS EXPLORATION & RESEARCH"

          Volume 3, No 10 : "Quantum Aspect of Psychiatry & Foundation of Reality"

          table of contents : http://jcer.com/index.php/jcj/issue/view/29

          best regards

          Wilhelmus

          W

          Thanks but can you please just post a paragraph on here which answers my question, ie how does consciousness affect the physical circumstance.

          Paul

          Paul,

          The keyword for my assumption that consciousness is influencing "reality" (whatever it may be) is the Young double slit experiment , wher the act of aware observing is regulating the outcome of wave or partcle behaviour. Then ther is Wheelers Delayed Choice Experiment. Furhermore I propose that the "material" universe is limited by the Planck Length and Time (these limits can be reached at any point and time in our causal universe), beyond that begins a another "dimension" (perhaps not the right expression) that I call TOTAL SIMULTANEITY, this is a non-causal dimension where ALL probable and nonprobable (for us) slices of block universe like alpha moments are "available". It is our non-causal part of consciousness that is also "available" there and through entanglement with its causal part is creating our CREALITY (Illusion) of causal space and time. You may say that it is humbug, but this kind of reasoning is also used in Loop Quantum Gravity. You can also say that it is not realistic and deterministic, you are right, but I am happy to be able to think free.

          best regards

          Wilhelmus

          W

          Reality occurs independently of whatever detects it. By definition, because any sentient organism receives a physical input, it does not create it in its head and then somehow telepathically communicate it with every other sentient organism. We all see St Pauls, because something which constitutes what we label as St Pauls is physically existent, and a light representation of it is being caused as a result.

          Consciousness, or any other such associated process, has no effect on the physical circumstance.

          Paul