Prof Wilde

Nice Essay

Excellent closing sentence

.........................but remember Undecidability, Unaccountability and Unpredictability will always be an essential part of the freedom of our lives.........................

And

Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability are very much undesirable properties and out-comes of any theory. That theory might have developed by a very reputed person or by a group of well-educated and knowledgeable persons. There is no point of poring resources, money and highly educated man power into that theory when that theory is failing on above three points.

In my essay just elaborated what should be the freedom available to an author when the " real open thinking" is supported. Have a look at my essay please.

"A properly deciding, Computing and Predicting new theory's Philosophy"

=snp.gupta

    Hi,

    If you are replying any of comments I posted on your essay, I request you to post a copy or intimation that you posted reply, on my essay

    "A properly deciding, Computing and Predicting new theory's Philosophy"

    also,they will intimate me,so that I can continue discussion....

    Best Regards

    =snp.gupta

    Dear Satyavarapu,

    Thank you for your remarks.

    First, have no fear because I am not a prof, nor am I connected to an Institution, so no Walls.

    The mathematics I got at the University of Delft are mostly forgotten, so I try to think free and simple.

    (A6) Yes indeed I use the expression singularity, the reason is that Total Simultaneity is out of reach for us, and I have no other means of expression.

    B 1/4: I fully agree.

    B5 may become verifiable when we create a quantum computer and the result is that we created Artificial Consciousness(not AI).so until now it is not verifiable but in the future, it will be.

    B 6/9 fully agreed upon.

    C1: In my opinion, there are too many NO's for an emergent reality, if you accept all that NO's you are describing my Total Simultaneity.

    C 2: I am a great fan of FREE THINKING.

    C 3: Now you come back after accepting all the no's, you are entering a model with all the rules and dimensions that belong in an emergent phenomenon like our reality. OF course, this is your interpretation of this emergent phenomenon and as I also argue: We just don't know. You and I are just adding conscious interpretations. Who am I to say you are wrong?

    C 4: Each model is remaining just a model with only partially events that are involved. (The further you go into history the lesser the chance that you exists, see my article https://www.academia.edu/40946114/The_TOTAL_SIMULTANEITY_INTERPRETATION I agree with your conclusion No BB.

    Your conclusion is about the development of new interpretations of our reality, I think we both are on that way you with your DUM (but only shortly explained in your essay) and I with my Total Simultaneity Interpretation.

    Best regards

    Wilhelmus de Wilde

    Wilhelmus de Wilde,

    Thank you for nice comparison of Both essays.

    You are correct, concepts are same wordings are different.

    I am just posting your post on my essay.

    N-body problem solution solves all these problems which is explained by all these 'NO's !!!

    Best wishes to Total Simultaneity Interpretation!!!

    =snp.gupta

    Hi Wilhelmus,

    Great essay and deep original ideas.

    But there are a few questions.

    1. According to the history of the thinking of mankind. You began your research only with the opening of fire. I believe that it is necessary to investigate the entire line of anthropogenesis of the genus Homo, starting with Homo habilis, from the first tool - the "chopper". This is about three million years ago. And further to the modern historical "point" - a nuclear missile with a separable warhead controlled by "artificial intelligence". If we look at this whole path, we will see on this path there are reference events - "points": the birth of homo erectus, the opening of fire, the appearance of a Neanderthal, the birth of homo sapiens ("mitochondrial Eve"), the "Neolithic revolution." That is, Six reference points in the becoming of consciousness.

    In my "Archeology of consciousness" I consider these reference "points" as turning points (inversion and reversal of consciousness). If you remember, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin set the task in the "Phenomenon of Man" to construct a curved line of consciousness from space and time To solve this problem, I introduced the concept of "vector of consciousness"(1990).

    Then we get an interesting "curved line": we, all of Humanity, now do not climb the "mountain" under the name Knowledge, but we have been falling for 10 thousand years after the Neolithic revolution into the "country" called "Ego".

    Here, at the point of modernity, - the Big Existential Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability for Humanity. But in science - a little undecidability, uncomputability, unpredictability...

    Respectfully,

    Vladimir

      Dear Wilhelmus,

      Thanks for your interesting essay. I enjoyed reading your recount of the history of humanity.

      Your concept of TS seems to me that it might be connected to quantum planckian. I'd recommend you to take a look at loop quantum gravity or spin foam theory.

      Best wishes,

      Wanpeng

        Dear Vladimir,

        Thank you for your comments.

        About the history of thinking as I treat it in my essay, it is only indicating the short time that we are exploring sciences, it is not the main item of my entry.

        Furthermore, I also indicate that this our "social memory3 in our emergent phenomenon Reality. So these memories are also emergent phenomena, originating from Total Simultaneity (and Total Consciousness) the Point Zero. These memories can change each moment the Point Zero of an agent changes (going into the future..which is a choice between an infinity of choices).

        History, so, is for me just a moment that can change each new moment...

        best reagrds

        Wilhelmus

        Dear Wanpeng,

        Thank you for reading my essay.

        I am familiar with the theory of the Lewandowski Group and Caro Rovelli. He argues that space-time is structurally somewhat similar to a fabric, it consists of a large number of very small fibres entangled in LOOPS. My perception of space-time-gravity is that it is an emergent phenomenon originating from Total Simultaneity. The seemingly Flow of time and space as an emergent conscious agent is experiencing is an illusion. It originates from time-space-gravity and dimensionless eternal Point

        Regarding the connection that you are indicating to quantum-Planckian, it is indeed the Quantum length and time that are for me (as yet) the borders of our emerging phenomenon called reality. I argue that from an emergent phenomenon the Planck length and time cannot be reached and so they are the limits of our reality (illusion).

        best regards

        Wilhelmus de Wilde

        Dear Wilhelmus,

        Many thanks! Please explain what is the ontological structure of the «Point Zero?

        Respectfully,

        Vladim

        Dear Wilhelmus de Wilde,

        Doesn't "the real NOW (Point Zero in Total Simultaneity)" contradict to Einstein's Relativity of time and to the fatal so called BU (block universe), not to mention my suggestion:calculate as if there was an accepted natural zero of (elapsed) time?

        Eckard

          Thank you for reading my essay Eckard.

          Einstein's relativity theory is a product of the emerged phenomenon called Reality. The real Now in my interpretation in Total Simultaneity. An emergent phenomenon and Total Simultaneity are totally separated entities. So, NO it is not contradicting Einstein. The Block universe is a totality of past, now and future model. So same interpretation.

          I will go read your essay tomorrow.

          best regards

          Wilhelmus

          Hi Wilhelmus,

          I propose a new interpretation of our Reality and the role of consciousness of agents. That would be great indeed.

          In 2009, when we met on LinkedIn this was already our discussion. Since then research in consciousness and its possible physical characteristics has improved, and I think it will improve more, but for now, it is still way ahead.

          Therefore, let me say something to your essay.

          I found it hard to read. It seems to me that you made it so dense because of the essay restrictions. And it is a difficult theme. I thought reading it, what is it to me? What can I do with it? How to make this practical applicable? I am an inventor and I always look for applications. And nothing came up. That is a pity for me. So I have to let it wonder through my mind. TS and Point Zero I like as idea. I will go through it a few times more and then I contact you by email. Thanks for your essay.

          Bests,

          Jos

            Thank you very much, Jos for trying to understand my essay.

            We both come from different worlds, you an inventor of practical things and me just a person being busy with thinking. But that means that both our activities are the same: THINKING.

            I am just giving another NEW interpretation of Physics which resolves a lot of problems they are having nowadays. It is very difficult to do so when you are not affiliated with an institution.

            If you have any specific problems to understand pls do not hesitate to ask me, I am always there for questions and critics.

            best regards

            Wilhelmus

            Dear Vladimir,

            Ontological means the metaphysical basis of "being".

            Being is a process that is time-related.

            In my perception, it is only the past that seems to be time-related and therefore NOT the dimensionless Point Zero.

            Ontology is a method of interpretation in our emerged phenomenon reality that leads to attempts to understanding "being".

            I hope this explains your question.

            best regards

            Wilhelmus

            Hi Wilhelmus,

            Thanks for your appreciation of mine. I've now finished you, 2nd time of asking! I did struggle a little to tie down you meaning at first, but we can think alike so once tuned in I followed your track. Nice to see read a different approach to mine but mutually consistent in so many ways.

            Do you really think we're 'at the beginning'? (p2) As theory is increasingly bogged down in a doctrinal rut, and the planet has growing issues I increasingly fear we may have had our time! But I'm an optimist so keep trying!

            I see you like Everitts "Many Worlds" theory. I confess I find it to etherial when we have practical matters to update. It apparently fell out of fashion due to it's lack of evidence and unfalsifiability, though you'll have seen I do agree the shared 'infinite sets' basis, though I certainly agree with Brouwer who we both cite, and importantly that so called 'collapse is CAUSAL caused by the interaction.

            I struggle to agree the comment you cite about 64 bit Quantum Computers, (partly as I've shown they're probably a pipedream as based on flawed assumptions! but you correctly point back to the Planck units.

            An all round 'well done'. Interesting and original. Good score coming, though I'll save it until I've read more essays. Congrats at your sojurn at No1. I'm a little envious as so few seem to be reading this year!

            Very best

            Peter

              • [deleted]

              • Post #20

              Dear Peter,

              I am NOT AT ALL a fan of Everetts MWI, on the contrary, I introduce a NEW Interpretation, the Total Simultaneity Interpretation (TSI).

              In TSI there are no more split-ups. ONE line is proceeding and te other from the split is turning back into Total Simultaneity.

              Perhaps it was a mistake to say that ALL future and past split-ups are ONE entity TS. It was just comparing Now we don't have any more split-up material realities to explain quantum physics...

              I hope you can understand it better now because this is really the essence of my thinking.

              There are more authors who don't understand this subject, so I think I will prepare an addendum and sent it to the participants of the contest. On the other side I don't know if they see it as "publicity" for my essay, so...

              Thanks for your attention

              Wilhelmus.

              Thank you Steve,

              Pls pay attention to the "Subjective Simultaneity Sphere"

              best regards

              Wilhelmus

              Dear Wilhelmus,

              Your essay is an outstanding analysis as it is with your essay at a past FQX contest. You have completely and qualitatively satisfied the topic of the competition, and therefore deserve a high score, 8. However, after so much of your engagement, I would expect some predictions, best if it is expressed by formulas .

              Having read my essay you will understand my analogy of writing an essay with a forecast of weather.

              It's okay to do a good weather analysis for needs outside the weather forecast, but the crown of a good weather analysis is a good weather forecast.

              After so much of your involvement, I would expect some predictions expressed by formulas. For me, every essay with predictions (formulas) is a challenge, and even if the formulas are insufficiently proven, I give extraordinary rate to those essays. Imagine, who would have known about Newton with his extraordinary analyzes if the analyzes were not followed by predictions.

              Regards Branko

              Thank you, dear Branco, for reading my participation,

              You ask to make "forecasts".(eventually with formula's

              I cannot. Why? First of all my maths is not sufficiently developed, and secondly making predictions in an emergent phenomenon (illusion) is a very difficult thing. Expectations yes because they are based on the past events, that are fluctuations inside our memories.

              I can try to make a prediction: IF we would be able to come closer to the Planck units of space and time, we would also approach our Point Zero (where our free will resides), and so be closer to the future of our life-lines. Not a bad future.

              Thanks

              Wilhelmus