FOUNDATIONAL QUANTUM REALITY LOOPS by Wilhelmus de Wilde

Dear Wilhelmus

I am glad that you have included backward causation in your picture, and that you see space and time as emergent. I agree. How do you see the role of symmetry at a fundamental level? Is it emergent? Symmetry of space and time means that the laws of physics are unchanging over space and time. If that were not the case it would be hard to do science. Does this mean that symmetry must be fundamental?

Dear Philip,

Your question "Symmetry of space and time means that the laws of physics are unchanging over space and time. If that were not the case it would be hard to do science. Does this mean that symmetry must be fundamental?聽" is linked to the approach you have in your essay.

"symmetry is agebraic" you say, so it is part of a "language" that is an intermediate between thinking and reality (both emerging phenomena). In my approach fine-tuning is an essential result of the Reality Loop the agent is part of. (if its was not fine-tuned the agent would be a different agent in a different reality loop. One of the languages agents are using to explain this fine-tuned reality is emerging algebra (symmetry).

You argue "I expect to find this symmetry in a pre-geometric meta-law that transcends spacetime,taking a purely algebraic form, only beyond that point will it be emergent, rising from immutable relationships between systems of information." Indeed in this approach symmetry transcends space-time because space and time are (dimensional) restrictions (emerging from total simultaneity), and algebra/symmetry/thinking are not limited by these restrictions because they are the "cause" through consciousness of reality. The what you are calling "immutable relationships between systems of information" is maybe too strictly bound to our emerging reality. My approach places the "rising" outside our reality, so even more foundational.

"If those leaders say that symmetry is unimportant because it is emergent or that geometry is more fundamental than algebra, other possibilities may be neglected."

Fully agreed, every emerging phenomenon is essential in a specific reality. Geometry is a description methodology, to be compared to filling in data in a computer, it is the software (thinking) that is concluding.

Thank you for your attention Philip and

Best regards

Wilhelmus

Wilhelmus, your approach has freshness but you are not driving full strength from total or may i call Uinversal or cosmic consciousness. Just widen the scope of your theory towards totality of physical phenomena and not confined to few explanations and forget about the agreement with facts as discovered experimentally. I have seen repetition of experiments resulting in opposing interpretations. The reason lies with how we postulate the basic tenents in a theory. Let me cite an experience about a theory we used widely to reproduce the excitation functions of nuclear reactions, like inelastic scattering. We could successfully assign spin /parity to excited states relative to the ground state known values successfully. The propounder of the theory was Herman Feshbach of MIT. He expressed surprise that we could utilise his imperfect theory so very well. As excitation fuctions were reproduced well only when the valus saturated but not at lower energies of excitation where the predictions were off by a huge margin. This led another theoretician to attribute the lower rising part of excitation function to be affected by level width fluctautions due to comp! We then found that the entire compound nucleus formation as an intermediate state was indeed causing such discrepencies! Such is the beauty of eperiment affecting improvement in the theorrtical approach through refining iniyial postulates!! Hurrey hurrey

Wilhelmus,

No reasonable perception of the universe can be discarded by a thinking person. I never considered that my perception is folded into the big bang image of figure 2b, but what if I don't subscribe to the big bang and what about those who posit a big bang inversion. I suppose all are part of an infinity of realities, a tiny part of total consciousness.

None of us know the true fundamental, but yours is a fascinating addition. Each of our concepts contributes to the miasma of reality loops, some more esoteric than others.

Good luck.

Jim HOover

Wilhelmus

SUCH dishonest scoring is imposed on all of us. I am visiting a relative at the hospital and will get back to you.

Jim

Wilhelmus,

Having been a victim of a 1 and a 2 score already w/o comments, I keep track of my own scoring. I am now checking my spreadsheet and find that I scored you on 2/7 with a 7.

Regards,

Jim Hoover

Hi Wilhelmus,

We both find the Planck units fundamental. You favor the Planck area, I favor the Planck mass.

We both like and reference the work of Roger Penrose.

We both feel that current trends in mainstream physics are goofy.

We both believe that emergent phenomena are illusions, which are sometimes annoyingly persistent.

I think I got that right. So, it feels like I will be voting for myself :)

Don Limuti

Dear Wilhelmus,

Pleasant and interesting work, despite a bit speculative and provocative. I appreciate that you think that the Plank area is fundamental. I surely agree with this point. In fact, considering the the Plank area as being a fundamental unit permitting to emerge from the space-time is in agreement with my recent studies on black holes. But in my approach the spatial volume is not constant. It is energy-dependent instead.

I have a question: Is there room for the Anthropic Principle in your Reality Loops approach?

In any case, your Essay was a nice reading. It deserves my highest score. Congrats and good luck in the Contest.

Cheers, Ch.

The more i read your esssay, the more i am able to comprehend its understanding. You illustrate it well in terms of degrees of consciousness finally terminating in total consciousness ( equivalent God .)The logic behind creation of our Universe, including how the living beings evolved from shrubs, to plants, animals and eventually the man. Your essay has received the attention due to it and it is going up with the passage of time. I wish you get rated to get a Prize. Our essay is just a poor draft in comparison, as my younger author could not find time due to many pre-occupations he happens to have at this period of time, our ill luck!

Consciuosness is at the heart of everything we become aware of. Thus, degree of awareness contains the secret of success. I post my ranking as top in my jedgement!

Hello Wihelmus,

Happy to see your essay, I liked it,

spherically yours, take care

Mr. de Wilde,

I had a first read of your essay and it was a pleasant lecture. Allow me a second read (before rating it) for a more profound understanding. I will appreciate if you could explain in some simple way the word "consciousness". What are you referring at, more precisely? Anyhow, I do appreciate (and subscribe to) the substance, emerging from your "mental images", picturing what you perceive as being real.

By the way, I tried to explain the in-congruence between your remarks and the essay referring at (in my opinion there are't any), for making it clearer for you in case you would like to rate it.

Respectfully,

Silviu

Dear Wilhelmus de Wilde,

You wrote a good essay, but it would be even better if you were familiar with the New Cartesian Physics isbased on the principle of physical identity of space and matter, the French philosopher, mathematician and physicist Rene Descartes. I call upon everyone here to develop his theory everething on the basis of achievements of modern science. Look at my essay, FQXi Fundamental in New Cartesian Physics by Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich Where I showed how radically the physics can change if it follows this principle. Evaluate and leave your comment there. Then I'll give you a rating as the bearer of Descartes' idea. Do not allow New Cartesian Physics go away into nothingness.

Sincerely, Boris Dizhechko

Dear Wilhelmus:

Your essay clearly has some originality. I will read more of your work.

Thank you for complementary comment on my essay, "The concept of "fundamental" must keep evolving". In addition, I would be delighted if you can develop a mathematical expression for the concept of a self-looped oscillatory entity in the CTF. Please keep me informed. Feel free to go to my web to down load relevant papers: http://www.natureoflight.org/CP/

I will separately send you Ch.11 of my optics book, "Causal Physics: Photon by Non-Interaction of Waves", Taylor and Francis, 2014. It validates the potential reality of CTF from the viewpoint of experimental optical sciences.

Now a philosophical comment. You say:-

"Emergent phenomena are ILLUSIONS originating from a space and timeless Point : a NOTHING."

I understand what you mean. However, I do not like the word "illusion" while explaining nature; because our brain has evolved with the analytical capability to enjoy many true optical illusions (play of the neural network), while figuring out how to separate illusions from elusiveness. The Moon is always there in its orbit even if all humans shut their eyes at night. The reality of the cosmic universe is not our illusion. However, it has remained elusive (limitation of our knowledge), even though we have been trying hard for centuries to explain all the detailed laws behind its origin and evolutionary behavior.

In ancient Indian philosophy, the word "Maya" has been used to describe this elusiveness of the universe. Unfortunately, I believe it was the first translator of Indian philosophy, Friedrich Max Müller, who used the word "illusion" as a translation for the word "Maya". I wish he had used the word "elusive".

Sincerely,

Chandra.

Dear Wilhelmus,

I highly appreciate your beautifully written essay.

I hope that my modest achievements can be information for reflection for you.

Vladimir Fedorov

https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3080