Essay Abstract

Fundamental in our experienced reality is: its emergence from the Planck Area. An infinity of realities can be emerging from this area, graphically represented as Reality Loops. The border of the Planck Area and those emergent realities is not a strict line but consists of a mingled area, where arise also fluctuations of both Emergent Bubbles and Planck Area Bubbles. These fluctuations are the origin of changes of the cosmological constant and so responsible for differences in the appearance of the specific reality. (Inflation or Deflation). The process at the origin of this emergence can be compared with the effects of the Inflation theory of our own universe. The Planck Area harbours ALL simultaneous probabilities of ALL events and ALL simultaneous forms of Consciousness. The Initiative for Completeness is the fundamental "force" of Absolute and Total Consciousness in the singularity of the Planck Area. ALL probable realities emerging from this POINT are a contribution to Completeness.. The incomplete consciousness of an agent in his specific emerging reality is a contribution to the Completeness of Total Consciousness. Emergent phenomena are ILLUSIONS originating from a space and timeless Point : a NOTHING.

Author Bio

Indepent researcher. Alumnus Technical University of Delft.

Download Essay PDF File

Hi Wilhelmus,

A nice approach with the Planck area. For me, this is similar to Boskovic's non-extended point (my previous essay).

Regarding: Fundamental in our experienced reality is its emergence from the Planck area.

Do you agree that the opposite applies? Fundamental in our experienced reality is its finishedd with Planck area.

How do I explain Planck's values can be seen in my this year's essay.

Regarding: Are time and space eternal, without a beginning or an end?

It is undoubtedly that the time is eternal, and that the space is final at some point in time, but it takes place infinitely in time.

Very nice drawings and explanations. Really good essay score 9.

Regards,

Branko

    Hi Wilhelmus. Thank you for sharing your model, I can relate to and make sense of the beginning far more easily than later on. I can understand the desire to correlate the model with space-time and the Big bang as that is a pillar of mainstream science, and also the desire for unity of everything. I really don't like the everything from nothing idea. It doesn't make sense to me. I think 'inflation' is based upon a misunderstood effect that is observed rather than cause of the physical universe. Do you have any further thoughts about the NOTHING, that you can share? Is it like inside a magicians hat, where everything is individually there but unknowable. Or is it like mixing paint where if you add all of the colurs they loose their individuality and become altogether black and unknowable, or akin to some other analogy? Kind regards Georgina

      Dear Branko

      I have problems with proving that I am not a robot so this is the third time that I write this answer.

      Out of an emergent reality there can emerge a new different point from where new realities are emerging. This new point is however always and everywhere in contact with the original point of creation.

      In my model Planck area cannot be SEEn, because seeing is an emergent quality, the border of emergent and Planck is explained in the essay.

      Time and Space in an emergent reality are "existing" as emergent phenomena.Infinite time and space means that they have no beginning and no end...Maybe there is areality where time and space SEEM eternal for the agent involved, however then it is an illusion...Time and space are both ETERNAL AVAILABILITIES as ETERNAL ROBABILITIES in the Point of Origin of our reality.

      I will read an rate your essay now

      thank you for making me think again

      Wilhelmus

      Dear Georgina,

      It was only three month ago that I thought "Inflation is a crazy idea".

      But I was not able to explain my perception that a "whole" reality can emerge from a point where there is no space and time, so...in order to try I used this "crazy" idea, which does not mean tht my own idea was also crazy. I only used it because scientists seem to accept it and find it a good explanation. My use of it is NOT the explanation of the HOW but just using an IMAGE. In fact the emergence of other dimensions like time and space out of what we are experiencing as NOTHING is difficult to understand.

      I could also have explained it in this way : When we are observing our universe from far outside it will become a point, inthis point EVERYTHING is SIMULTANEOUSLY happening for this outside agent. In this exemple we are however still in a spacelike surrounding and having a time like experience, we are NOT OUTSIDE REALITY, we are still inside our Subjective Simultaneity Sphere. If we could place ourselves outside of our reality (through consciousness) it would be possible to become conscious of the Total Simultaneity of the POINT from where realitie are emerging.

      I try to describe this point that is time and spaceless (for us) as ALL and Nothing together. Nothing means NO MEANING (for us), but it can represent MEANING for other forms of consciousness...From our perspective however "THE INITIATIVE" comes from this for our understanding "NOTHING".

      I hope I could explain some things you asked

      and will also read your essay.

      best regards

      Wilhelmus

      Wilhelmus,

      Great thinking and ideas. Your SSS is nicely consistent with my work and our previous discussions. I also like your elliptical Wheeler 'reality loops' idea in response to QM's 'renouncement of common-sense representations'. (A quote from paper you cited).

      But we're both realists. If a common sense cause for all the 'weird' experimental findings emerged Wouldn't you, like me, prefer it? Those findings are based on unproven assumptions so are actually only interpretations!

      So consider; A builder (Wheeler-Aspect gmb) fits a round loft window with the pivot vertical not horizontal so wind can opens & shut it & rain enters at some angles = damp ceiling patch (2 days later), small OR large, with little correlation to how much rain. They get roofer & plumber to check carefully but no cause is found. They tell you and the client it's a spooky unphysical effect with no 'common sense' cause.

      Would you take their word for it? I suggest not! I didn't either. I went to the loft & experimented by rotating the round frame 180o, and indeed to all angles. I found when open to the east with an east wind & rain it poured in! But not with a WEST wind! - but if rotated again, it did! Then at 90o it either poured in all the time, or if reversed not at all!!

      I told the builders but they called me a crackpot as I don't believe nature's weird!

      That's exactly what's happened with QM. The experiment in my essay confirms it, being the first to account for ellipticity on all 3 rotational axes, and complementarity between two REAL states over 90o. Absolutely all weirdness evaporates, My 'delayed choice' fig needs no backward causation, it's just an error assuming particulate photon energy and just ONE path. It's just that ellipses only reveal max energy at one orientation!

      Do read my essay carefully and see if you understand it. One thing's certain, to the builders of QM I'll be a crackpot, so you may be the only one!

      (Remind me to tell you about my recent 'tidewind' finding with some of the Delft lads).

      Very best

      Peter

        Dear Wilhelmus de Wilde,

        You state "in the so-called space-time... There is NO absolute simultaneity." I wonder why you claim that. Is it to be compatible with the consensus view of special relativity? I'm somewhat confused by your 'backward causation' arguments and multiple worlds discussion. I know this is your second essay to focus on total simultaneity. On page 7 you discuss an area which is the seat of the simultaneity of ALL forms of consciousness. I've read your essay twice and am still somewhat confused about this.

        My own essay treats the history of Einstein's view of simultaneity. I invite you to read it and comment on anything you find relevant.

        Best regards,

        Edwin Eugene Klingman

          Wilhelmus de Wilde,

          You wrote: "In our reality experienced objects are existing sensations."

          I have concluded from my deep research that Nature must have devised the only permanent real structure of the Universe obtainable for the real Universe existed for millions of years before man and his finite complex informational systems ever appeared on earth. The real physical Universe consists only of one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light.

          Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

            Joe,

            I can agree with your "one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension" it has direct lines of connection with the mergence out of the Planck Area of what I call "REALITY LOOPS".An infinite amount of "Realities" is emerging from ONE SINGLE infinite dimension, in my perception a "dimension" that we cannot understand. The what you call "NON SURFACE LIGHT" can be seen as what I am calling "CONSCIOUSNESS"

            Wilhelmus de Wilde

            Dear Edwin,

            First of aal my reaction on the comments you have on my essay 5thank you for paying attention to it..)

            "In the so called space-time there is no absolute simultaneity". The so called means "emerging", as it emerges out of the Planck Area where time and space are all simultaneous, only at the border line that I described as vague and full of exitations, all simultaneity is lost once the "reality" emerged. The so emerging "reference frames" are each one differnt from the other which is in accordance with Einsteins relativity theory.

            "Backwards causation" Wheelers delayed choice thought experiment is no longer a thought experiment but has been executed and is a phenomenon that we have to count with. My model can explain it as you have read. I understand that is (like everything in quantum mechanics) a bit strange to get trusted with..

            The confusion that arises when I introduce "Total Consciousness" is understandable. The basic reason for consciousness is the experience and implementation of our emerging reality. In order to realise that we need a "first cause" that I call "INITIATIVE". This first cause cannot originate out of only emergent phenomena. There is of course "causality from emergent phenomena" but then the mergence has already "occurred".

            I also have read your essay and will give a reaction after this one

            Good luck and regards

            Wilhelmus de Wilde

            Dear Wilhelmus,

            I read with great interest your deep analytical essay with important ideas and conclusions aimed at solving the problem of a single "foundation" of knowledge. Only I believe that the "big bang" hypothesis must be subjected to a very deep philosophical doubt in the spirit of Descartes.

            Yours faithfully,

            Vladimir

              Dear Vladimir,

              My "mentioning" of the BB was only a way of explaining the foundationl idea of my model.

              EMERGENCE from a time and spaceless Planck Area to a reality with time and space a beginning of a reeality,that can be compared to the ide's we have right now of the BB, only it is not at all a BANG and not BIG at all,

              it is just a Silent Emergence (SE) of just one of the infinite realities.

              best regards

              Wilhelmus

              Dear Wilhelmus,

              Your essay was a beautiful reading, as you approach with bravery some themes of actuality in fundamental physics. You make interesting connections and propose intriguing ideas. When you commented on my page, I wondered about the connection you made between our essays, I think it is this inseparability, holism. Another theme you approach, which I touched in my previous essays, is that of the apparent ambivalence of causality, as shown in Wheeler's delayed choice experiment. I also liked your emphasis on the Plank area.

              Best wishes,

              Cristi

                Dear Wilhelmus de Wilde,

                While I am familiar with back propagation in neural networks, I wonder if Wheeler's construct of back causation is something new and trustworthy. The word for sunday in Russian language is resurrection. I rather trust in a causality that doesn't loop within a logical circle.

                Could you please tell me by whom and when the expression Planck area was first used? Why didn't you refer to https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Planck_area ? Should I take the time and read your earlier essays?

                Admittedly, I cannot even conceive an Euclidean point of reality, not to mention expressions like eternal probability.

                Perhaps I could better understand your scientific background if you revealed in which department of Delft University you were employed.

                Regards,

                Eckard Blumschein

                  Dear Eckhard,

                  Wheelers Gedanken experiment is not at all a "new" idea, he proposed it already in 1978. Only in 2007 and 2015 I gave you the link to the paper in my earlier post to you) it was proven. So it seams that our "reality" is far more "strange" as we like to admit. On page 5 of my essay you will find the explanation I gave using the model of FQRL. The causality you favour is still in action , it is just one of the four loops of reality mereging from Total Simultaneity (Planck Area ?).

                  The "official" meaning of a Planck Area is the square of the Planck Length, its symbol in physics is Ap. I have to agree with you that the word AREA is not a good one as I mention it also in my essay on page 4 (3.1).

                  In my earlier essay The Purpose of Life on illustratio 2 (page 6) and 3(page 7) I gave an idea of the boarder between "REALITY" and the "dimension" it emerged from. The AREA is NOT an Area, and I am thinking about a new term, so thank you for pointing it out to me...

                  The Euclidean Point of Reality is an emergent phenomenon (illusion). An Eternal Probability is again beyond this illusionary reality. Probabilities are also available in our Reality, and it depends on which Loop we are choosing (free will) on which probability we will make a memory. All probabilities in our specific reality represent ALL Reality Loops that can emerge from Total Simultaneity. 5 I think I will fall back on this first description of the "area wherfrom realities are emerging.

                  I studied Architecture in DElft (title in 1988), which is far from Physics but encourages creative thinking.....When I was 8 years I wanted to go study physics and Einstein was my favorite scientist, till my 12th I added the then available quantum physics as a hobby...and then...my hormons started to win the war and I decided to take a CREATVE art direction : Architecture in DElft. But in the meantime Physics were still my hobby, later on accompanied with ¨Filosophy". I am living since 20 years on a farm far from society in France happily with my wife Corrie.

                  So now you know me (a little).

                  Best regards

                  Wilhelmus

                  Dear Chistie

                  Thank you very much for reading my essay.

                  Indeed holism can be found back in the treatment of the reality loops, what is graphically indicated as a one dimensional line is in fact a four dimensional emerging reality. The only problem with the term "holism" is that it is tending towards the mystical part of reality, and it just that part that You and I want to explain. Also in holography only ONE dimension is added to the two dimensional surface, in my holistic perception we jump from two to four dimensions, and indeed I am still studying thet phenomenon of interference and diffraction.

                  best regards

                  Wilhelmus

                  Dear Wilhelmus,

                  An interesting philosophical exploration into the workings of the Universe and our consciousness.

                  One question I am left pondering though: you describe traveling on different loops - changing from one to another etc - how is this changing of loops achieved? What causes the change to occur and how is the loop chosen from the many possible loops?

                  Regards,

                  Declan

                    Hi Declan,

                    Thank for reading my essay.

                    Your question about "travelling" between Loops :

                    It could be compared to the MWI interpretation however, realities don't split up in my model. If for instance you have to make a choice between 4 possibilities and you choose n°3 then : Of the 4 loops representing the 4 different realities only the third one continues. The other 3 are staying as probabilities and not as whole realities like in MWI. Another example : If you could go back in time "replace" yourself to a Loop that is in concordance with your memory and existence of your grandfather and decide to kill him in that specific Loop, the reality you experience in your own Loop is continuing incl. the so called time-travel.. The other Loops became probabilities like the one where you did decide not to go on a time travel and the Loops containing all the other probable decisions you had to make. So the moment you are killing your grandfather is not influencing your "existence". It SEEMS as you hopped over but in fact it is only the choice between so the word "travelling" is not the right expression.

                    This is also how I explain Free Will.

                    Regards

                    Wilhelmus

                    4 days later

                    Dear Wilhelmus,

                    It is wonderful that we share common views on consciousness and thinking.

                    Your point about an illness such as Alzheimer's affecting consciousness / I is intriguing. I had not thought about it. Does an Alzheimer patient have a different kind of consciousness compared to a healthy person?

                    I do have reservations about the Hameroff-Penrose ideas relating to consciousness, because I feel the `gravity induced wave function collapse' hypothesis being applied there first needs to be properly understood / experimentally verified in the context of laboratory physics systems.

                    I liked it that you discussed the delayed-choice experiment. In my view, it supports the studies that we do not understand everything about how quantum phenomena relate to the classical flow of time. Something is missing in our understanding of time in quantum mechanics.

                    Regarding the recent work of Unruh et al. on quantuum and universal acceleration, kindly also see the views of https://arxiv.org/abs/1801.00138

                    Kindly help me understand in what way you are relating Planck area to the search for the `fundamental'? And also the relation between consciousness and Planck area.

                    I have enjoyed the variety of ideas presented in your essay, and am glad to notice overlaps with mine.

                    My best wishes,

                    Tejinder

                      Dear Wilhelmus,

                      I admit that I have not yet given your essay a thorough reading...but while browsing I can see some very interesting notions that you bring in. It is very well written. For example, I agree with your conclusion "The TIME, SPACE and MATTER that we are aware of are only ILLUSIONS". They are akin to the idea of holograms of space and time, and thus vary with any change in the reference frame. So, everything that manifests is simply an illusion - might be a temporary reality for one but illusion for all others. I wonder if the same applies to the so called "consciousness". We may be wrongly describing "consciousness" by the notion of "absoluteness". "Absoluteness" may be a weaker notion and may not be apt to comprehend "consciousness". What do you think?

                      Kind regards,

                      Anil