Dear Don,

Thank you for taking the time to read/comment and rate my essay.

In my perception the concept of NOW has two sides, one side is the eternal NOW moment in TS and the other is the NOW experience in our time restricted emergent phenomenon that we call reality. Time is also an emergent phenomenon that only exists in our "minds". The illusion of living...

When we are creating Lexi's as AI this is also an emerging phenomenon, so when we are "thinking" that AI's (the children of our intelligence) are going to take over , this reality is an available probability in TS, it can become a reality in someones mind in a specific life-line (constituted of Eternal NOW Moments) in TS.

best regards

Wilhelmus

Thanks a lot dear Philip.

The cause of the asymetric appearance of our reality lies in the difference between an emergent phenomenon and its "origin" Total Simultaneity.

TS is time and space-less (eternal and infinite an both singularity), the emergent phenomenon that we experience as reality is time an space restricted.

But as it originates (is entangled with) from a time and space-less entity it is only the NOW including MEMORY that we are aware of and not the eternity of this NOW in TS.

Every ENM is unique for ach agent, so different from each NOW, Past and Future.

best regards

Wilhelmus

essay:The Purpose of Life

Dear Wilhelmus de Wilde,

It's been obvious for years that you are extremely focused on consciousness, so I'm not surprised that you partook of 'expanded' consciousness, 'back in the day'.

I very much liked your "searching for the announcer in the radio".

When I first read your essay I started to give you 10, but everyone that I pushed to the top so they would receive more visibility immediately got shot down by whatever troll lurks beneath the FQXi bridge biting passersby with 1's.

Also, I wanted more time to digest the meaning of your essay. While I think your scheme is magnificent, I was unsure how literally you meant it. For me experience of physical reality is key, but current projections of structure on physical reality are confused at best. Essays on consciousness seek to gain 'respectability' (the coin of the realm) by tying their systems to physics (the holy word of the realm). If the physics is mistaken (as much today is) it can take a perfectly good understanding of metaphysics in the wrong direction.

For specific analysis of physics aspects in contention, see my reply to your comments on my essay page.

I do believe in a physically real universe, but GR and QM have confused the issue via erroneous projections that are (at the moment) given credence. The universe will not simply vanish when these errors are corrected, but certain mystical and unphysical conceptions will vanish.

In short, I think you've developed a powerful way of describing the experience of local conscious beings in a unified reality existing Now. I think you should not try to tie it too closely to mystical elements of current physics which will not survive the century. Hopefully, not the next decade. As metaphor I buy your beautiful system, as physics not so much. Clearly, over the sequence of FQXi essays, you are getting closer to the truth. I am quite sure that you will continue to do so. I hope my comments are useful to you.

My very best regards; keep up the excellent work.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

    Dear Wilhelmus,

    This was a very interesting reading, which turns upside-down some of the usual ideas. Causality as we thought we know it is challenged whenever we try to make sense of quantum mechanics by using elements of reality, and you used this well in trying to elucidate if there is a purpose of the universe.

    Best regards,

    Cristi

      Thank you Christie,

      It is not easy to open a new box in the perception of physics...

      best regards

      Wilhelmus

      Thank you Edwin for the open mind you are showing.

      As different as we both are we are searching for the same solutions, without different colours there is no beautifull rainbow.

      You say "I tend to view our universe as existing in one ENM, and all local consciousness partakes of this Now." This is exactly what I mean to argue, My Derived Local (in space and time) Consciousness in a flowing time-restricted reality is a expression of Total Consciousness in Total Simultaneity. The NOW that that consciousness (field ?) is experiencing includes the whole historical flow towards this NOW Moment.

      "The observer isn't the cause" of a wave collapse" In my perception the fact that the observer (agent) is "measuring" an event that is from the past (he cannot measure the NOW because that is immediatly past...), one part (position or velocity) is fixed, the observer is NOT the cause of this so called collapse, it isn't even a collapse it is a search for position/velocity in the flow that exists only in the observers consciousness. So it seems as if the observer is the cause but he is not, the result is just as lost as is the future.

      So you see that we agree more as you thought...

      best regards

      Wilhelmus de Wilde

      Wilhelmus,

      This is language that helps us to touch the unfathomable, the inscrutable -- which are elements of our topic. For example, The choice is representing different available time-lines in TS. Total Simultaneity is acting like a wormhole connecting choices and time-lines. Or Total Simultaneity where all elemental interaction are done, happening or existing at the same time. Whatever is eternal must be out of time.

      The meaning of life and the universe needs ways to bridge time and infinity. Your piece helps to bring a little more clarity to these ruminations.

      Jim Hoover

        Dear Wilhelmus,

        Thanks for clarifying your 'collapse' argument. You are correct, we agree more now than I thought. Yes we do attack the same problem. It is so vast that there is room for two approaches. We focus on Now.

        Also, I said believe you misunderstood a comment on scoring in my response on my essay page. You might wish to reread it.

        Best regards,

        Edwin Eugene Klingman

        Dear Wilhelmus,

        I have to admit that I do not understand your text well. Do you mean that TC is the ultimate source of everything? If not, what could be this source? Is there any meaning of everything or it is rather a meaningless dream of the TC? How important are our ethical, aesthetic, scientific and philosophical efforts and why? What gives you any confidence in the worldview you share with your readers? Sorry for that many questions; you may consider them as nothing but reflection of my confusion with your essay.

        Best,

        Alexey Burov.

          Dear Alexey;

          Sorry that you did not quite understand my perception of the emergent phenomenon that is called reality. So I hope that I can explain it more clearly and answer your questions.

          Indeed I accept that TC is the "source" of everything, everywhere from any time restricted reality. TC is time nad spaceless.

          I argue that time and space are both restrictions from Total Consciousness in TS to create "realities".(without consciousness TS would only be just a singularity that didn't exist.

          ALL created Realities together (also those we don't understand) are represented as "availabilities in TS.

          These "availabilities" (available life/time lines) are forming you could say the "ALL". This ALL cannot be a complete set when any of the life-line availabilities are missing. So the specific life-line reality that you are experiencing NOW is essential for the completeness of ALL.

          TS is not a meaningless dream because it harbours the Completeness of Total Consciousness. In one of my articles in The Scientific God Journal The Consciousness Connection I compared TS to the Christian Holy Trinty : "The Father : TS (the ALL), Jesus Christ : the emergent human being with its causal part of consciousness and the Holy Ghost : Total Consciousness creating order out of chaos.

          All our efforts in our specific life-lines (originating from the ALL) are part of this ALL. A life-line is in TS only an excitation. Through the addition of time and space we seem to experience a "FLOW".(between a beginning and an end)

          In my essay I mentioned already that at each NOW moment the time-restricted consciousness is offered a choice out of an infinity of crossroads. This free-will choices seem to be made in the past (we are living in the past) here in our life-line, but don't forget that the moment of choice of your part of Total Consciousness in TS, timeless, eternal.

          The "confidence I am getting with this world-view is :

          1. Every creature is an essential constructive part of the "ALL".

          2. Even when your life seems useless it still counts as being an important part of a totality we cannot understand, without you the Totality is NOT a Totality.

          3. Birth and Death are two points on a by Total Consciousness created restricted beginning, end) life-line. There is at any moment the availability of an infinity of ME's. The Total ME is eternal. Death is only one of an infinity of ends of an infinity of availabilities.

          4. The "poal in my perception of time-restricted consciousness is coming closer to the Total ME, part of Total Consciousness and part of Total Simultaneity.

          (come closer to God ?)

          I quite understand the confusion because what I am proposing is a scientific approach of the essence of our emergent reality, the only thing I hope is that it will not be explained as a BELIEF.. 5Religions are always misused for Power).

          Don't hesitate to ask me more if you need to.

          best regards

          Wilhelmus de Wilde

          more articles I published :

          Reality out of Total Simultaneity. Scientific God Journal , volume 2 issue 4, june 2011

          A metaphysical Concept of Consciousness, Journal of Consciousness Exploration & Research. november 2012

          The Quest for the Origin of Created Reality. Journal of Consciousness Exploration & Research, vomume 4 issue 9, november 2013

          Thank you very much James.

          Each essay is helping to enlighten a little bit, the totality gives perhaps a good view of our goals.

          I am now gonne read yours.

          best regards

          Wilhelmus

          Dear Wilhelmus de Wilde,

          i am starting now to read your essay, it may take some time but i will comment on it when i am finished!

          Dear Wilhelmus de Wilde,

          your lines of reasoning remind me of the many near-death experiencers which had been interviewed and can be watched on youtube. They report some similar things. Especially there are cases where the experiencer could take a view into his future (and the things indeed developed due to what he/she saw - but not in the sense of a self-fullfilling prophecy).

          Some say that there are these life-lines of me and you, attached with different probabilities. But i would be cautious, because the paranormal can sometimes trick an experiencer with some information that does confirm what he/she does blieve anyways. I would not built a worldview out of what these things, but i restrict myself to only take the phenomenon as existing and the OBE's, the confirmations of what has been seen during the latter and the Healings also, as i annotated in my essay. Because it also could well be that the fact that in a near-death experience one can receive a look into ones own future, this is not due to a lawful metaphysical (mechanical) structure in these realms, but due to the sheer power of the entity which reins there (and knows all our subconsicousness) and which has created our world in the first place.

          I would not necessarily connect free will and the measurement process and consciousness as proving that if a quantum event is observed by a human, it does alter its behaviour. Remember that decoherence does explain this phenomenon also, without reference to human observers. Nonetheless i agree that due to free will, the observer can facilitate his/her own life - well, theoretically, but practically there are many things in life that aren't under our control, so i would not attribute a special role to a human observer when it comes to observe some quantum events. This would only lead to self-inflation as it seems obvious to me in esoteric circles, the latter believing that we can create everything we want (due to mere tought-control and such things!).

          I agree with you that the ranking of past and future can well be considered as not being rigid in the traditional order, there are possibilities (like i mentioned above) that this time structure isn't fundamental.

          Regarding the multiverse approach, i think that it could be that all possibilities are somewhat there in an abstract realm, independently of noticing them or not. But i would not necessarily conclude from this that this is a kind of natural law, but would firstly conclude that it also could well be a strategy for God to trace the possiblities what i will do next with my free will (if he does not know this for sure in advance) and transfer me to a better life-line if i would pray for that (he surely wouln't necessarily transfer me to the life-line *i* would prefer at the moment, but to the one God has identified to be the most likely for me to make it back to him without taking me my free will).

          Your essay is highly philosophical and metaphysical. Although the importance of consciousness in the whole scheme of things seems to be guaranteed for me (due to my considerations in my essay and my comments during the current essay contest), it is not entirely clear to me how knowledge about different timelines can solve the puzzles the current essay contest is concerned with. your considerations make some sense, they are - as far as i can see - consistent, but i miss some arguments which could underpin that your assumptions are a logical, means necessary consequence of something other, already known scientific or logical fact. Anyways, you made your case for a reality which is more than a deterministical and reductionistic machinery. Nonetheless, by searching for the meaning of life and all the rest, one has also to consider moral, ethical questions and also the problem of theodizee, the problem of evil - and if one believes in God as a personal intelligent entity, what this entity wants/wishes from us humans - and for us humans. And last but not least, how it is that we do live in a realm separated from this entity. I think if one does ponder about other dimensions and consciousness without such considerations, one has left out some important questions about fundamental reality. But because you have taken at least into account that the mentioned life-time-like dimensions could exist as possibilities, i give you a better rating than i would have done without. Because this could be a possible mechanism to explain the delayed choice experiments (and the other quantum weirdness).

          Best wishes,

          Stefan Weckbach

            Dear Wilhelmus,

            Thank you for your attention to my questions; your answers are really helpful. Following your invitation, I will ask you a bit more in order of better understanding.

            You write: "These "availabilities" (available life/time lines) are forming you could say the "ALL". This ALL cannot be a complete set when any of the life-line availabilities are missing. So the specific life-line reality that you are experiencing NOW is essential for the completeness of ALL." I think an important point is the meaning of these "ALL", its completeness. Does it mean that all thinkable worlds/availabilities are realized, even really bad? Or, may be, following Leibniz, your ALL include only the best of all possible worlds?

            Your essay is very different from others, and I highly appreciate this difference.

            Best,

            Alexey.

            Dear Stephan,

            Thank you for your honest comment on my essay.

            I would like to add some explanations for you :

            NDE:

            When our emergent body and mind complexity is reaching the finish of a certain life-line, it is still our restricted form of consciousness that stays "entangled" with Total Consciousness in TS. At that very point of the time-line, the restricted part (in the body) and the Total are very "close", so information of other available life-lines can leak through, or maybe even the singularity of Total Consciousness may become more "available" (maybe for us in the form of a bright light.

            Quantum observations by human beings.

            First of all I would like to enlarge the observers with animals, trees, plants etc, so every "living" agent. In my essay I indicated already that we are living in the past (80 milliseconds). The moment the "observation" is realised, the observer is not yet consciouss of what he observes. Furthermore each observation is about a wave function that gives us the probability of measuring the location or speed of a "particle". Once this probability has become a "certainty" it is about a certainty from the past. From the time of observation decoherence takes over, and the particle side of this emergent entity continues its way to the screen. (2 slit experiment). So decoherence is caused by measurement (observation). The specific time-line of the observer and its object has changed with the action of. The only neccecity for this event in our emergent phenomenon called reality is consciousness, because without consciousness ther would be no evaluation of the location/speed so no change....the wave would not "collapse". This is in agreement with my reamark that without consciousness there would not be any emergent phenomenon.This is the cause that we are experiencing the "FLOW" of reality.

            Multiverse:

            My perception is that each form of Multiverse and or paralel Universeis just an availability in Total Simultaneity that only becomes an emergent reality once there is a consciouss agent touching it with its (in our case) through time and space restricted life-line. The unity of Total Consciousness and Total Simultaneity (God ?) gives reason for nay time/life-line. Of course it is not a "physical" law in our own emergent reality, but just because of the fact that we are thinking about it (evaluations of our consciousness) confirms the existance of these probabilities.

            regarding : logical assumptions:

            You are right with your conclusion that me neither can explain EVERYTHING. Knowledge about different life/time-lines (that will always stay unknown by us because hey only "exist" as probabilities. It takes other emergent realities and consciousness agents to make them an experienced FLOW. ALL these flows (from agents) exist in TS. There is no time nor space in TS so we could even conclude that they are ALL represented as eternal singularities. The logic of my thoughts brought me to this perception taking in acount my own experiences (scientific and personnel).

            moral:

            When I am looking at our emergent reality and specifically our earth then I observe that each living being is just busy with survival (eating other species) and procreation (love and agression). The beauty of nature from flowers and the colours of autum are expressions of survival and procreation. The moment we a child is born it is for us the ultimate happiness. We don't yet take into account the food neede for continuing this life (his footstep on nature, the rest of the survivers). The counterside of this is that humanity is earching for a reason of life, the WHY. Religions are giving us support that there is a better life after death. Every human being (even atheists) is looking for GOD (their TEO). This search gives us a calm that has nothing to do with survival (in this earth) and procreation, but with our HOPE that after death there will be something better.

            It is this hope that drove me to search for a for me (and perhaps for others) acceptable explanation of GOD. My perception is not yet complete, I know, but I continue to think, and this essay contest , the essays I am reading (like yours) gives me more HOPE.

            best regards

            Wilhelmus

            Dear Alexey,

            I will try to explain what I meant with ALL and the completeness of the Total YOU.

            I introduced the TOTAL Consciousness, including the Total Consciousness of ALL agents.

            An emergent agent in an emergent reality is just ONE life-line of that specific agent. The agent there is an individual because he is not the complete Unity. The emergent agent is furthermore restricted through time an space while the Totality is time and spaceless.

            The Total YOU could be described (in our restricted way) as the totality of ALL possible (and the impossible : the ones you did not yet think about) and available time/life-lines.

            So YES, all the bad ones are available too. But also the "best of all worlds" is an availability.

            During the FLOW of a specific time/life-line each NOW moment decisions are made and your specific time/life-line switches, the time/life-line you left still is available in TS.

            This process of continually switching and the coexistance of availabilities of the time/life-lines that are not chosen, I described as the origin of FREE WILL.

            In this specific emergent reality the time/life-line you are experiencing as a FLOW may exist as a singularity in TS, this doesn't mean that also your future would be concrete for this specific FLOW. Each Eternal Now Moment represents its own time/life-line. The emergent FLOW that we seem to live in can be compared to a time and spaceless singularity in TS.

            The complete YOU could be described as a complete set of singularities in TS.

            best regards and I like the exchange of thoughts with you.

            Wilhelmus

            Dear Wilhelmus,

            A great thing of your essay is its attempt to solve the entire puzzle, not just its part as many other. That is why I am asking you so many questions, trying to see it better. So, one more question :)

            As you may know, the fundamental laws of physics are very special (see Discoverability Principle in our essay). I think this fact is too important to be disregarded by ontology. Why do you think the laws are what they are? How can this fact be understood within your worldview?

            Cheers,

            Alexey.

            Dear Stefan,

            On your question : when are the changes taking place ?

            In my perception (theory) the reality you are aware of (formed by the memories you have from your birth untill NOW) is an "emerging phenomenon". When YOU are changing to another time/life-line maybe your new emergent memory contains a whole other "past". At hat very NOW moment you won't be aware of the changed memory. It will seem as if your life-line is continuing its "normal" flow. This can happen easily with emergent phenomenae. Concrete reality as we seem to experience is only an illusion (I don't like to use this word, but it explains the meaning sometimes easier than "emergent phenomenon". The changing of time-life-lines does not mean that the time/life-line you left is no longer "existing", indeed it doesn't exist any more in your New NOW experience, but still exists as "availabilities" (Eternal NOW Moments) in Total Simultaneity. It could be compared to changing to another document on your word processor, the documents you worked on before are still available on the harddisk.

            The what you are calling "updates" are not updates of NATURE, they are (see illustration 3 of my essssay) switches to other paths in TS, they have no influence on the emergent realities the agent iwas experiencing before the switch. Nature does NOT change (in the materialistic way). That is why I think that my perception is an easier explanation as the Many Worlds Interpretation, the splitting up in MWI leaves any moment two more "materialistc universes...while in mine the no longer experienced reality becomes (not in the new emergent reality) just a path of availabilities.

            The consistency and rationality of the physical microworld:

            Our collective memory informs us about the so called "progression" in our observations, from the pure philosophical ones of the Greek to the scientific results from the LHC and the perception of our UNiverse. This whole collective memory is a construction from a past , a specific time-line, forming the awareness of the position of our consciousness in this specific emergent reality.

            It consistancy and rationality is created by consciousness interpretations and dependant of the specific NOW moments experienced by its agents. They can change any moment...(see above).

            GOD does not know how a partcle....

            The quantum side of this emergent reality gives us already the idea of the blurriness of reality opposite to the much easier to understand concreteness of it. The lower the scale the more we approach the Planck Wall so Total Simultaneity and Total Consciousness, the more we are approaching the idea of GOD. Total Simultaneity and Total Consciousness are the ALL that we as restricted parts of it cannot understand. So although we are part of ALL as restricted emergent entity we cannot reach this totality (only hyperbolicly). My perception is that "GOD" (TS) does not need to "know" everything because it IS everything. The concepts "knowing" and "understanding" are imbedded in the restrictions of time and space.

            Projections result in a data stream onto spacetime:

            The word projections could be used to explain the contact between the emergent restricted consciousness and Total Consciousness in TS. I prefer to use the term of this "contact as entanglement. Space-time is an emergent entity from TS, the stream is NOT a stream, this stream also can be called the FLOW that we experience as emergent reality.(and is compressed in a NOW moment). This time restricted FLOW (stream) is only existing for the mergent agent in his emergent reality.

            The program that cannot be altered is in my opinion not a positive approach of our existence.First of all it is your free will at any ENM that that can change the flow of your life-line in TS. As a matter of fact the possibilities of so much probable life-lines is a very positive thought. The only back-draw is that we do not yet have the oppotunity to have infuence of REALLY change between these life-lines, at this very moment we may indeed be changing but still we are NOT AWARE. So I agree fullywith your last sentence : we have to transcend the limits (restrictions) of space and time in order to make a closer contact with Total Simultaneity.

            I hope this explained a little bit more my point of view and also hope you can give me a rating.

            best regards

            Wilhelmus de Wilde

            Dear Wilhelmus,

            thank you so much for your comments.

            I fully aggree: the lower the level, the more we approach GOD.

            As i wrote above, i already voted your essay.

            You wrote: "The concepts "knowing" and "understanding" are imbedded in the restrictions of time and space."

            This is interesting. i have to ponder about it.

            Best wishes

            Stefan Weckbach

            And yes, i fully agree to "Every human being (even atheists) is looking for GOD (their TEO). This search gives us a calm that has nothing to do with survival (in this earth) and procreation, but with our HOPE that after death there will be something better."!

            Yes, humans can sacrifice their life to something and many people do it day by day (in war, in terrorism). How can one explain this with the in-built Darwinian programs of survival? This is an example where human choices are independent of biological necessities.

            Thanks for your sentence which inspired me to think about it this way and to find a counterexample to the survival-credo!