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

        Comment on comment

        "First of all my maths is not sufficiently developed"

        This is not true for most contest participants but it is only necessary that they have not forgotten the logarithms. Unfortunately, even those who use the highest mathematics do not understand the role of logarithm, so they do not understand my essay.

        "making predictions in an emergent phenomenon (illusion) is a very difficult thing."

        That's true, that's why I worked on the prediction of primordial phenomena (Proton, neutron ...). That is to say, the simple truth is that one must first deal with simpler, then more complicated relationships.

        "I can try to make a prediction" . That is right. One philosopher has tried and calculated that we spend about 5g of mass on cognitive processes throughout our lives. The point is, he is neither a physicist nor a mathematician.

        Regards Branko

        7 days later

        Wilhelmus de Wilde re-uploaded the file Wilde_THE_COMPLETELY_UNKNOW.pdf for the essay entitled "THE COMPLETELY UNKNOWN" on 2020-03-25 10:48:58 UTC.

        Respected Wilhelmus de Wilde

        Please check my replies to your post on my essay

        Thank you for confirming your post which I posted on Mar. 6, 2020 @ 10:13

        My login failed and I got it back today....

        Best Regards

        =snp

        "... the past is a momentary deterministic written story in our memories and the future an indeterministic unknowable set of choices to be made by the partial consciousness of the emergent agent. ..." p. 1

        "... Essentially ALL physical theories are thought-models. ..." p. 6

        " ... If we could predict our whole life what would be the purpose of living it? ..." p. 8

        What precisely are choices? What precisely are thoughts?

        According to Steven Weinberg, "The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless."

        '"The First Three Minutes" by Steven Weinberg, 1993, Basic Books, p. 154

        Thank you David for your remarks.

        In my perception choices are not made in the past, the Now is an unreachable moment of the future but it is "here" where the choices are made through the partial consciousness of the agent. We are living in the past...

        Thoughts are an agent's. conscious experiences in the emerging flow of time. Thinking is becoming aware of one's consciousness, so is a meditation where we are trying to come free from the troubles that are consuming our pasts, we are trying to come closer to Total Simultaneity, the POINT Zero that contains the ALL.

        I don't fully agree with Steven Weinberg, because the more we "think" we understand the more we understand that this comprehension is only an infinite little part of ALL there is to understand. You become aware of the relativity of human life towards the whole shebang of our universe (micro and macro). It seems then pointless what your thoughts are adding, they are only a sparkle in infinity. But then I remember that an infinite line without a specific point is no more that specific line but becomes two lines. Then I think that even my minor thoughts, my whole life, is NOT wholly pointless, but is needed to bring two infinities together...

        just a thought

        Best regards

        Wilhelmus

        7 days later

        Dear Wilhelmus,

        You wrote a provocative and speculative, but also interesting and nice Essay. I have a lot of fun in writing it. In particular, I understood the meaning of "Total Simultaneity" which was not clear to me in your comments in my FQXi Essay page. I also agree with your conclusion that "Undecidability, Unaccountability and Unpredictability will always be an essential part of the freedom of our lives." I am going to give you a well deserved high score. Good luck in the Contest!

        Cheers, Ch.

        Thank you very much, Christian.

        I understand that "Total Simultaneity" is not easy to understand as an idea, because it is a new and not yet well-known approach.

        I would like to try to write an article that can be published in arXiv, but I need an endorsement, and I am not affiliated with an institution (only alumnus of the Technical University Delft.

        best regards

        Wilhelmus

        9 days later

        Dear Wilhelmus de Wilde,

        You and I have agreed some in the past, but this time I think my essay supports yours, as I understand TS.

        Einstein's special relativity demolished universal simultaneity in favor of the 'relativity of simultaneity'; in which case there is no NOW. As I understand TS, it is an awareness of the unity of Being/Becoming. You beautifully sum up the 3 Un's by saying:

        "Our acceptance of the three dual qualities is important, without them the tension of life is missing."

        While I agree that awareness of Total Simultaneity is paramount [I believe Abraham Maslow refereed to it as 'Peak Experience'] I think physics must be formulated in a more mundane or 'objective' fashion, and that is essentially in terms of energy flow in the eternal NOW, as opposed to the discombobulated multiple time frames of special relativity.

        I do agree with you that time is not 'material' or actually a 'dimension'. It is probably best understood as complementary or dual to energy.

        In any case, you might enjoy my essay: Deciding on the nature of time and space.

        Best regards. It's good to find old friends honing and improving their views to share with the world, and FQXi gives a wonderful forum to do so.

        Edwin Eugene Klingman

        Dear Edward,

        First of all it is good to meet again, I read already your comments before you participated in this contest, and I fully agreed and thank you for reading my essay.

        While reading your essay I made the following remarks:

        Special relativity is indeed not as simple as it seems, because it analyses an emergent phenomenon, as you say the "ontology" of space and time in this framework. The ontology of simultaneity in an emergent phenomenon becomes ALWAYS the relativity of simultaneity. I tried to escape this with the introduction of the Subjective Simultaneity Sphere (SSS), the stationary frame is then the conscious agent, that can be seen as the reference of reference.

        The velocity of light C, is for the conscious agent one of the borders of his reality, the maximum speed that the radius of his SSS can expand, so it doesn't mean that C is the ABSOLUTE velocity. You say : " Moving frames with arbitrary velocity are meaningless unless a universal velocity exists to which they can be compared.". Here you approach the same problem we all are struggling with "The Reference of Reference" You are right when you say: "moving reference frames are not accessible by us".

        I can only fully agree with you when you say "It views time as the intuitive common-sense notion that it is NOW everywhere in the universe, all at once, with one moment passing into the next moment; moments in time spanning the entire three-dimensional space." This is exactly what I mean to say that the real NOW is an unapproachable moment in Total Simultaneity.

        "Assignment of properties is essentially epistemology; the nature of the world is ontology. Assigning properties to the wrong ontology does not make sense" Bravo.

        When you say "Two different mathematic-based structures can co-exist for quite a while, but only one of the two ontologies actually exists." I should like to add that the co-existence of these two mathematical based structures is a coexistence in the PAST, they were thought of in the past, both ontologies were existing in the past and the future will bring a new ontology because "existing" is only the unapproachable NOW.

        Dear Edwin I really liked your essay and I didn't understand the first 1 someone gave you, but I see you are getting already the value it deserves, and I added now my personal valuation.

        Best regards and good luck.

        Wilhelmus de Wilde

        24 days later

        wilhelmus,very wide crosscutting essay. I like how you relate consciousness to AI. rated you well. I too have tried something on cognitive bias here https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3525.hope you like it.all the best in the essay.