Realities Out of Total Simultaneity by Wilhelmus de Wilde

Dear Wil

I'm surprised at the lack of posts so far, and at your lowly position. I suppose it may be to do with the way people think, and our common architectural training has allowed a far broader perceptual 'language'.

I agree with no 'big bang', and that GR and QM as currently interpreted cannot be united, also indeed the spiral as a key form and mechanism (equivalent to DNA). I shall help you to a more respectable score, and hope you may also enjoy and score my own empirically based essay, which offers a local and real way around cyrrent issues.

best wishes

peter

Dear Wilhelmus de Wilde,

It's hard to read all essays, and I come to you because of a comment you made to Zenil:

You said "in my opinion there is a difference between Intelligence and Consciousness, with our total intelligence we can construct the LHC, but it is our consciousness that asks always WHY, like a child that won't stop asking WHY, the HOW is the intelligence and the Why our consciousness, the intelligence can be constructed by our (Turing)machines, but the consciousness until now we could not reproduce so this is perhaps not a digital "substance", so not reproducible in the digital way (?), like a piece of art, you can copy it but the copy will never be the original."

I have been frustrated by many fqxi conversations over the failure to distinguish between consciousness and intelligence. We seem to clearly agree. Thank you.

I define consciousness as awareness plus volition (free will)

I define intelligence as consciousness plus logic

where by logic I mean the physical logical 'hardware' such as the Turing machine you reference, or the neural connectivity of our brains.

I would invite you to read my essay which is based on the unity of an analog universe that attempts to establish the best correspondence between the model and the whole. It is the sister essay to my previous essay on consciousness.

I agree with a number of statements in your essay, such as: "no separate past, no separate now and no separate future. It is the All in One, the Total Simultaneity." Others, such as Georgina Parry, have developed this or an equivalent perspective in other blogs.

If I understand you correctly, you are positing consciousness in the larger universe, and 'intelligence' in the self-evolved neural computing machinery. This is essentially what I wrote my previous fqxi essay on Fundamental Physics of Consciousness, the sister of my current essay.

To deal with physical reality and consciousness in ten pages is impossible, and there is no chance that our two essays would overlap in every detail, but I think we agree on some key points.

My current essay in this contest is ranked much higher than my previous essay on consciousness, so I hope that you enjoy my essay, and ask if you do to vote for me.

Thank you for writing about consciousness. I am convinced (with Penrose and a few others) that any serious theory of physics must include consciousness.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Wilhelmus,

I liked your comparison of the quintessence to hyperspace. I have been talking about 5-fold (pentality) symmetries for a couple of years. I think it is the origin of mass, and you correctly emphasize that we only know about the 5% baryonic matter - not dark mass, dark energy, etc.

Our ideas have more similarities than differences, perhaps because the Sun was travelling through the same patterns of stars for our births (your birthday is July 26, mine is July 25, although I'm younger...).

I agree that the Black Hole "singularity" is not a singularity. Your point was that an extra dimension of size 10^-31 cm is sufficient to prevent a true infinity. I like your ideas on Consciousness, although this borders on Philosophy (that's OK - I like Philosophy).

I disagree on the Big Bang and Inflation. I think that the Big Bang was a singularity that must exist in the seemingly infinite Multiverse. In this sense, the Multiverse may seem to have always existed, but a broken TOE symmetry could have produced the phase transition necessary for an event such as Inflation to produce many self-similar scales. Our Universe is a small fractal fragment of dust within an infinite Cantor set.

You made a small error - I think on page 7. You quoted the temperature of the Cosmic Background Radiation with a comma rather a decimal point - To me that implies a number a thousand times larger.

Good Luck in the essay contest & Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

p.s. - I was thinking about your spiral time. I think that there are at least two different kinds of time. I also think that there are multiple scales. B.N. Sreenath suggested that we need logarithmic spirals to fit larger and smaller scales (my reinterpretation of his ideas).

Have Fun!

Wilhelmus,

Do you not see a connection between the singularities of Big Bang and super-massive black holes? I see analogue in this relationship, especially with equations of string theory compatible with some singularities. The connection seems to support both in a recycled universe.

Enjoyed your essay.

Jim Hoover

Dear James,

In fact I came to my idea of the ultimate limits of our 4-d Universe while studying articles about what happened before the big bang, there we encounter the Planck Scale, after that nothing is anymore measurable , you enter the Multiverse (like in the Kaluza-Klein proposition and Calabi-Yau, only my approach is not mathematical because I think we cannot describe a "fifth" dimension with the senses and means we have available), the singularity of the so called BB is no longer present it becomes a point in the Multiverse.

I applied the same reasoning to a black hole, for there also we have to approach the untill now accepted singularity, but there we will meet the same problem of the Planck Scale (perhaps gravity becomes as strong as other forces, and infact GR predicts : any experiment with enough energy to probe the Planck Lenght must nececerrily form a black hole in the process (FQXi Blogs : Topic : The planck Scale : Gravity's ultimate limit, blogger Mark Wyman))

In fact we meet at every point (not only the high energy points in black holes) in sace/time the Planck scale, so our Universe surrounds or forms a hologram around or in this what I call Quintessence.

So the connection is clear it is a full yes but not only for the supermassive Black Holes but for every quantum in our Universe.

Yes Jim, the what you call "recycling" is a process that is infinitely taking place in the Multiverse (Quintessence), once after the Planck length we enter there where there is no more causality no more determination, time is no more like an arrow, every moment existing in our 4-d Universe originates from there, here it will "Pass", there it is "eternal?". The what you call Big Bang is a timeless happening (moment). Perhaps the word recycling is not right and do we have to back to Hermes Trismegistus who wrote already in his Emerald Tablet : "The Formation of the Microcosm is in the accordance with the Macrocosm", on the lowest scale you meet the highest scale, apply this to the eternal time moments of the Quintessence et voilà...

If you dare to think a little further then you can solve a lot of questions by applying this view, but I know it is only one of the bunch and the real Truth is I thinnk not to find here.

I also read your essay, which is very readable, on page 5 you yourself also give the border of our Universe and the follow up is going to the Big Bang and the SMBH, the analog site of our Universe that gives the idea of continuum, in my opinion is caused by our consciousness, a consciousness that is able to handle infinities that in our 4-d world can not exist because of the limits we live in (see posts above).

So Jim thanks for your attention and Good Luck in the contest. (I will rate you too).

Wilhelmus.

Wilhelmus, this is a very thoughtful and philosophical essay. I like the idea that the ways we can join the stars to make constellations is similar to the arrow of time, perhaps you were thinking of Feynman diagrams too.

good luck

W

You asked me to comment, but you know what I'm going to say!

The only 'wall' that exists is the limit of our ability (including non-humans) to experience entities. Nothing exists unless we can experience it (either actually or on a logically inferred hypothetical basis). The maximum we could potentially experience of any given entity is dependent on the capacity of the medium conveying the experiential information to differentiate reality. What lies 'beyond' experience is a matter of metaphysical conjecture and irrelevant for scientific endeavour. We do not create our reality, we experience it, albeit since the process of experience involves a number of interferences, these have to be reverse engineered in order to establish the original state that existed independently of us. Time is the experience of change (both in terms of sequence and rate). In sight experience, the rate of change is interferred with by relative speed (ie distance). The concept of time is a measuring tool, it is not an intrinsic dimension of our reality. Our reality is three dimensional.

I suspect all theories can be merged via a proces of correction, if everyone properly distinguishes between what is an intrinsic characteristic of our reality and how we intefere with it when experiencing it. That is, eliminate a number of metapysical assertions that are masquerading as objective statements under the guise of complex maths purporting to represent our reality.

Paul

Dear Wil,

You are absolutely right about consciousness. Science can only answer how things work, but cannot answer why do they exist. Only I or conscience knows why, because of love to create. We are experiencing the singularity of conscience and are able to express it.

Universal I or singularity or conscience is the absolute truth and is the cosmological constant.

If universe is the meaning of understanding of one's surroundings, then it is created with every birth and destroyed with every death. Universe is in a steady big bang state. Multiverse is just multiple interpretations made by bodies and minds of the conscience (soul or singularity). What one perceives of self (soul) is not the same as another, this is the multiverse with in the universe or singularity that we live in.

S=BM^2 (S-Soul, B-Body, M-Mind)

Truth is simple, accepting it is not.

Love,

Sridattadev.

Dear Wilhelmus,

You are absolutely right by saying that "for mankind Love and hate come from the same source". But a wise man knows it is better to be loving for sustaining the existence of his kind. As a realized human, I am just another father of 3 kids trying to share the knowledge of the absolute truth I experienced with in and importance of love for continued sustenance of human life.

Universal I or conscience or absolute or singularity or god is of everykind and has no begining and no end, its origin is beyond human comprehension so is its end, simply put it begins where it ends. As a human we can experience this singularity in our heart and know that it exists and its nature is Total Simultaneity as you have expressed. This truth is inherent in each one of us and has been expressed by several spiritual teachers like Lord Krishna, Moses, Jesus, Lord Buddha, Prophet Mohammed, Shirdi Sai, Guru Nanak and many more all along in different ways. I am just trying to convey this simple truth to all the scientific community, which is trying so hard to understand the reality of the universe and In the process creating complex theories of the inherent simple truth and getting lost in virtuality. It is time for our human kind to wake up from this virtuality (entangled intelligence) and experience the absolute self and live in love and peace.

Love,

Sridattadev.

I derive an equation for consciousness in my Essay (Eq. 1), which in technical english states that 'consciousness' is: consciousness is sometimes a wave that not observed whether detected or not, and always the result of an observation of a detection of a particle.

Nobody cared then, nobody cares now, and nobody will care in the future when I do the same, but will derive another equation for C, using results [in technical English] from the LHC. They will continue not to care as I equate this new equation to the one mentioned above from the essay. And still caring less, they will ignore the fact that when these two derived equations are equated, the result will be an equation in which the classic young's double-slit experiment is expressed in terms of said LHC results, and vice versa. All with no mention of consciousness, which is required [at some point] in all human experimentation/interpretation. At that point, some may start to care. Enough to steal my idea, have a laugh at my non-professional attempt and develop it further. Then it's back to the not caring. Maybe I should just stop taking it personal i'm being ignored in these threads and that my essay is so bad (apparently) it's not even worth acknowledging. Adeiu!

Oh yeah, almost forgot. While we are all concentrating fiercly on not caring about my threads or essay, it's worth mentioning that in the same essay, I derive equations for each of Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics. If I had more time, I would manipulate those equations and transform them into one equation, where all three laws are represented. The technical english interpretations would speak of each law in terms only of the other two laws. If you love I. Asimov (or even the field of robotics which he invented), this would be a fascinating result. And a great source of plot ideas for future 3 laws books, incidentally. OK, go back to not caring. And I'll try to care just a little less too.

Law I: A robot may not injure a human being, or through inaction, allow a h.b. to come to harm...

F = 1 = R(1-I)H+JHI

for example. see essay for def. of symbols.

Good Morrow Wilhelmus:

Dank u vriendelijk, Wilhelmus. How' s Nederland? Ik zou zo willen bezoeken als u kon helpen? Uw commentaren waren divers en enigszins beknopt bij verscheidene punt. U bent duidelijk hartstochtelijk over u verhandeling. Dank die voor hij inspanning mijn poging eigenlijk om te lezen nemen. Het zou het begin van vrij verreikend iets kunnen zijn. En zal zo van u. Ik verheug me op het lezen van het. En ernstig, ive nooit aan scandanavia? kreeg een kleine ruimte voor een couupleweken. lol? voorzien van een netwerk here.give me tijd en voor u verteren om met contact te onderbreken. NetherLand@QuantumWidgets.com zullen aan me voor bepaald... krijgen thanx opnieuw