Essay Abstract

Abstract : Our perception of reality is in a deterministic way expressed in the choice between extremities. Binary/digital bits : zero and one/ yes or no. 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. There are more possibilities between Particle and Wave. We argue that in the search for the essence of matter and reality we become more and more aware that :"matter does not matter". Matter is one of the "Crealities" * (Creation of Realities) from our consciousness. A quantum computer , where the "Qubit" is the follow up of the "Bit" is one of the new ways to try to understand the layers emerging in our experience of reality. The infinite numbers of vectors of the Bloch sphere ,that represent any possible state of qubit, join the non duality of the particle/wave state. The Creality of time is expressed in "Neural coding" where we discover indications of timeless treatment of information between neurons. The creation of the reality of time and so the Creality of space/time is a direct action of our non-causal consciousness in cooperation with what we call the "Primal Sequence", the origin of origins. In order to get a better control of our Crealities we have to continue to expand our understanding of this ultimate Primal Sequence, this will however be an asymptotical one.

Author Bio

Born the 26'th of July 1945. Studied at the Technical University of Delft. Married in 1978 with Corrine and has two sons that live in Holland. Grade : Engineer in 1987 (architecture). Lives in France (retired). Interests: Science, Philosophy.

Download Essay PDF File

Dear Wilhelmus,

I liked the Planck time viewpoint which you explored in your essay, along with Schrödinger's cat. Nice concept of "crealities" too.

Hopefully you get chance to look at my essay too.

Best Wishes

Antony

    Dear Wilhelmus,

    I am intrigued by your essay and I have tried to understand the basic idea.

    It seems that your sentence

    "Our neurons are part of the operative causal chain, taking place in the (our) future (on the time-line) and "managed" by our non-causal timeless part of consciousness that" "activates" a vector of the Primal Sequence , this collaboration with our non-causal part of the consciousness we explain as the activity of the sub-consciousness."

    collects much that you want to tell us, when one also adds that a kind of "qubit" non-causal scheme may do the job. Am I right?

    These ideas are not so heretical if you relate them to the strange effects qubits may display such as non-locality (a form of non-causality) and entanglement when you go beyond the single qubit Bloch sphere.

    Good luck for the contest.

    Michel

      Dear Wilhelmus,

      While not agreeing with all the assertions made, the philosophical discussion sits well with me.

      You wrote: "However there are already new but not yet "proved" propositions that these quarks and leptons are not actually tiny "balls" (again) , but are containing smaller particles which physicists call "preons". If these preons ... are also considered as "point-like" meaning having no dimension[?]

      The question mark in square bracket is yours, implying you find this doubtful. Perhaps, your preons are same as monads, which I discuss here. You might also enjoy my references to Plato's views which I alo find in your essay.

      All the best,

      Akinbo

        Wilhelmus de Wilde,

        While I see your Crealities possibly inspired by Wheeler's speculations, you did not make this link plausibly obvious to me. For instance, I wonder if Wheeler did agree with your "infinite duration of the present moment" and other bewildering utterances of you. Wheeler was a successful physicist.

        Eckard

          Thanks Antony, I am going to read your essay now and will react on your thread.

          Good afternoon Uncle Hoang,

          It is good to have your support, thank you.

          I will react on your essay asap and also rate it.

          Wilhelmus

          Michel,

          Indeed there is in a "qubit" state an infinity of non-causal probabilities, just because of the fact that these states are not "realised" in in a life-line that is created by our consciousness, all these states however are "available".

          I think that non-locality and entanglement are not heretical at all, they are just an aspect of the "reality" that we are aware of AS FOR NOW. The interpretations we are giving in the form of all kind of physical theories and philosophies may seem heretical at a specific era of our history, but will become accepted as "normal" in another era.

          Wilhelmus

          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