Author Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde replied on Mar. 5, 2020 @ 10:27 GMT
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_INT
ERPRETATION 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.
Wilhelmus de Wilde
Bookmark and Share