John Archibald Wheeler

October 30, 2016, the web site for the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies published an article, "Breaking into the Simulated Universe" by Eliott Edge. An attempt to argue against the idea of escaping out of the universe, if it is a simulation, as some Silicon Valley billionaires are rumored to be considering. In this paper, I will reveal why Edge is completely and totally wrong, although he has made an impressive, credible, cohesive and cogent attempt to present a convincing proposition. However, the simulation hypothesis, upon close analysis, is indefensible by anyone because it is based 100% on assumptions, both hidden and otherwise, which in most cases are demonstrably wrong.

This paper will deal specifically with the concept of extending some of the contentions and theories of John Archibald Wheeler into a more complete description of reality, supported in part by physical experiments. The subjects that will be dealt with are well known from quantum theory, and now lately-Nick Bostrom's simulation theory, but will be seen through a new reinterpretation that connects seamlessly, prior positions of Wheeler into a self-consistent model that defines the nature of the physical universe through the convergence of information universe models and the Everett/Wheeler hypothesis. Hints will be given, as to how the reported desires of so-called Silicon Valley billionaires to leave the simulated universe, can be fulfilled using on-the-horizon technology to accomplish time travel through the manipulation of the information based fabric underpinning reality. In whole, the following will be major points discussed: 1. J.A. Wheeler posited that even the greatest mathematical equation in the universe is missing something, the principle by which it can become real. He also said, "no phenomenon is a phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon. " 2. Wheeler developed his theory of "it from bit", explaining that the physical world was based upon information at a fundamental level 3. Seth Lloyd, taking that thought further, said that the universe acts like a giant computer processing the information contained therein. 4. Nick Bostrom posited that, in fact, our universe is a computer simulation created by our post-human descendants in the distant future. 5. Philip K. Dick science fiction writer and visionary, in his 1977 public statements mentioned, that due to to events in the past being "reprogrammed", things in the present could be changed so that an alternate universe splits off. 6. The universe is participatory, not just with humans, but everything else. *Just as various events cause a variety of phenomena, in the extreme cases, the universe responds in the extreme by producing alternate universes. This process resolves many of the issues related to quantum phenomena, parallel universes and time travel* 7. The detection of a simulated universe and escape therefrom is similar but not the same as doing so with an information universe. Escape from a simulated universe is impossible just as its detection may be. However, in this paper, a series of experiments will be presented that for the first time ever, establish such a possible detection as well as the method of ultimate escape from our information based universe.

Dedicated to Todd Harry Rundgren for his work between 1972 to 1980 as a technological and creative visionary, from whom the inspiration toward advanced, abstract thought and creativity ultimately made this research possible-and written for Nancy Edmonds Paull in memory of Ben Edmonds, who's reporting of Mr. Rundgren's activities lay the inspirational foundation for what was to come from me. Abstract For decades there has been confusion over the nature of time[1], retrocausality[2], and the nature of parallel universes[3] implied by the Relative State Interpretation of quantum mechanics (AKA many-worlds)[4]. However, beginning in May of 2016, I began a series of experiments testing a hypothesis I had-that retrocausality in quantum mechanics does not mean that the past has been changed, but instead a new parallel universe has been created that contains the result of the which-way-path change action which was initiated in the previous universe[5]. This new interpretation I call RetroWorldality, because there is no backward causation, but new worlds with a different past. What began as several separate and successful tests of this hypothesis, became over 20 different versions of these experiments (and ongoing) [6] which have now extended into testing the Relative State Interpretation itself-successfully, as well as the establishment of the conceptual foundation of five factors[7] stemming from the work of John Archibald Wheeler[8], Hugh Everett [9] and Rainer Plaga[10]. In this paper, I will unify the ideas of time, retrocausality, parallel universes, information physics and the Participatory Universe model, into one, self-consistent concept that resolves all of the paradoxes, issues and asymmetries in regards to temporal reality and project the trajectory of future technological breakthroughs, that are on the horizon, by using Todd Rundgren's song, Parallel Lines, to prove Hugh Everett's parallel worlds. Physicist John Archibald Wheeler was one of the most maverick thinkers-looking for meaning from the extreme implications of quantum mechanics. After studying the emphasis of the Copenhagen explanation of the double slit experiment, on what the observer knows and when, Wheeler realized that observation could seemingly control specific variables-in effect, a property could be selected after the fact and thus change the results of the experiment, regardless of how far in the past those results had been originally established. However, Wheeler wasn't taken seriously until it was conceptually proved true in 1984 in a laboratory at the University of Maryland by Carroll Alley, Oleg Jakubowicz, and William Wickes [11]. In this paper, two experiments will be discussed that take unique approaches yet to be attempted elsewhere that test, once again-both retrocausality singularly, and as a result of superpositional, probability state decoherence. These experiments are now formally named, the Todd Rundgren Parallel Lines/Parallel Worlds Project.

This paper will introduce the overwhelming evidence that a series of now more than 11 different experiments have shown that the parallel universes of Hugh Everett and, by extension, the Participatory Universe model of his PhD mentor, John Archibald Wheeler, are real. Skeptics are left with the daunting task of explaining away the five factors supporting this conjecture, as well as explaining how laser pulse hits can appear out of nowhere. Good luck with that...

In 2000, Ronald Mallett, professor at the University of Connecticut, designed the foundation for what would become a provisional patent for what he claimed was a time machine. He used obtaining that provisional patent as proof that his idea was valid, however he never revealed the fact that he subsequently allowed the provisional patent to expire, thus never submitting the more rigorous design and technical explanations and claims required to obtain a full or utility patent.

In this paper, I will reveal an analysis of Mallett's basic design for a time machine, as well as the LOTART design in which it was applied for submission for the US provisional patent, showing inherent aspects that were missed by Mallett that present crucial, and critical breakthrough physics, that point toward a documented and viable alternative that would accomplish the purpose for which Mallett claims is the reason for his work-the achievement of time travel to the past.

Weblink to full paper: https://tinyurl.com/yc9r6kys 

Abstract:

Ever since Einstein’s arrival at the forefront of science, mainstream physicists have tended to think of nature as a giant 4-dimensional spacetime continuum in which all of eternity exists all at once in one timeless block universe. Accordingly, much to the dismay of more process-minded researchers, the experience of an ongoing present moment is typically branded as illusory.
      Mainstream physics is having a hard time, however, providing a well-founded defense of this alleged illusoriness of time. This is because physics, as an empirical science, is itself utterly dependent on experience to begin with. Moreover, if nature were indeed purely physical -- as contemporary mainstream physics wants us to believe -- it is quite difficult to see how it could ever be able to give rise to something so explicitly non-physical like conscious experience. On top of this, the argument of time's illusoriness becomes even more doubtful in view of the extraordinary level of sophistication that would be required for our conscious experience to achieve such an utterly convincing, but -- physically speaking -- pointless illusion.
      It is because of problems like these that process thought has persistently objected to the “eternalism” of mainstream physics. Recently physicist Lee Smolin has brought up some other major arguments against this timeless picture in his controversial 2013 book Time Reborn. Although he passionately argues that physics should take an entirely different direction, he admits that he has no readily available roadmap to success.
      Fortunately, however, over the last 15 years or so, a neo- Whiteheadian, biocentric way of doing foundational physics, namely Reg Cahill's process physics, has made its appearance. According to process physics, nature is a routine-driven or habit-based process, rather than a changeless world whose observable phenomena are governed by eternally fixed and highly deterministic physical laws. Although, in the currently prevailing view, the universe is seen as a law-abiding natural world whose entire history -- past, present, and future -- must have been "called forth by law" in one go at the big bang, process physics suggests that the universe has come into actuality from an initially undifferentiated, orderless background of dispositional activity patterns which was driven by a habit-establishing, iterative update routine.
      In the process physics model, all such habit-establishing activity patterns are "mutually informative" as they are actively making a meaningful difference to (i.e., in-forming) each other. This mutual informativeness among activity patterns will thus actively give shape to ongoing structure formation within nature as a whole, thereby renewing it through stochastic (hence, novelty-infusing) update iterations. In this way, the process of nature starts to evolve from its initial featurelessness to then branch out to higher and higher levels of complexity, thus eventually even leading to neural network-like structure formation on the universe’s supra-galactic level of organization.
      Because of this noise-driven branching behavior, the natural universe can be thought of as habit-bound with a potential for creative novelty and open-ended evolution. Furthermore, three-dimensionality, gravitational and relativistic effects, nonlocality, and near-classical behavior are spontaneously emergent within the process physics model. Also, the models constantly renewing activity patterns bring along an inherent present moment effect, thereby reintroducing time in terms of the system’s ongoing change as it goes through its cyclic iterations. As a final point, subjectivity -- in the form of mutual informativeness -- is a naturally evolving, innate feature, not a coincidental, later-arriving side-effect.

Continuity inscribes itself in the heart of almost every system—philosophical, physical, mathematical, vital, perceptual. It is not unusual for both the domain and the "conceptual machinery" crafted to survey that domain to draw explicitly and implicitly upon continuity. But few of these systems have concerned themselves with the provenance of continuity, or evinced much of an appreciation for its (often) destabilizing effects. There might be a reason for this: those who have tried to bring continuity into focus—either by unifying its various instantiations in a single concept or by grounding its different instantiations in a logical or experiential invariant—have foundered on rather caustic shoals. It is no accident that Leibniz identified the composition of the continuum as the principal labyrinth palling philosophical praxis.

This article builds on C. S. Peirce’s suggestive blueprint for an inclusive outlook that grants reality to his three categories. Moving away from the usual focus on (contentious) cosmological forces, I use a modal principle to partition various ontological layers: regular sign-action (like coded language) subsumes actual sign-action (like here-and-now events) which in turn subsumes possible sign-action (like qualities related to whatever would be similar to them). Once we realize that the triadic sign’s components are each answerable to this asymmetric subsumption, we obtain the means to track at which level of complexity semiosis finds itself, in a given case. Since the bulk of such a “trinitarian” metaphysics would be devoted to countenancing un-interpreted phenomena, I argue that current misgivings about sign-based ontologies are largely misplaced.

A válogatás közel negyven év műfordítói munkásságát öleli fel. A költői teremtőerő képei mellett szépen megfér Whitehead gondolatainak költőisége és Wheeler tudományos viziója is. A kötetben szereplő fordítások többsége különböző hazai és külföldi kiadványokban már napvilágot látott, de akad közöttük olyan is, amely nyomtatott formában most jelenik meg először.
A kötet tartalmából:
Rigvéda-himnuszok, verses betétek a Brihadáranjaka- és a Cshándógja-upanisadból, a Dhammapada gyönyörű versei, Szeng-can zen-pátriárka himnusza Keletről; William Wordsworth, Arszenyij Tarkovszkij és Peter Handke (a Tükör, a Sztalker és a Berlin felett az ég versbetétei) Nyugatról; plusz egy gyönyörű magyar népballada és József Attila valamint Baka István versei angolul.
Végül három kozmológia:
(i) a fizikus Wheeler költői víziója, amely a kvantum-gravitáció illetve kvantum-kozmológia kutatóinak több nemzedékét ihlette évtizedeken át;
(ii) a filozófus-matematikus Whitehead kozmológiai főművének az organikus folyamat-filozófia végső értelmezésével foglalkozó, himnikus magasságokba emelkedő V. része;
(iii) a híres Nászadíja-himnusz (Rigvéda X. 129) kozmológiája Fórizs László költői tolmácsolásában.

Una doverosa avvertenza, di seguito non si vuole specificatamente discutere della consistenza, dal punto di vista della fisica e più in generale della scienza, dell’ipotesi dell'Universo Olografico, della Fisica dell’Informazione, dell'Argomento della Simulazione, del Modello ORCHestrated Objective Reduction, argomenti che chi scrive ritiene più metafisici che fisici, ma solo ricostruire la genealogia delle idee alla base delle ipotesi citate, trattandole come idee connesse tra loro e soggette a mutua influenza reciproca, prescindendo dal loro valore epistemologico per la filosofia della scienza o, in senso più ampio, la conoscenza dei metodi dei principi secondo i quali la scienza costruisce sé stessa.
Per quanto poco plausibile possa sembrare l'idea che la realtà che percepiamo possa essere un ologramma o addirittura una simulazione generata da un computer, motivo per cui la fisica deve anche trattare l'informazione, è indubbio che negli ultimi anni queste idee hanno raggiunto una grande popolarità, sia nella cultura popolare, che in alcuni ambiti della fisica teorica.
Di seguito s'intende evidenziare le reciproche contaminazioni tra le idee ascrivibili alla scienza ed alla filosofia e le concezioni pseudoscientifiche espresse dalla cultura di massa che hanno portato alle ipotesi precedentemente elencate.

: In his PhD dissertation in the early 1970s, the Mexican-Israeli theoretical physicist Jacob Bekenstein developed the thermodynamics of black holes using a generalized version of the second law of thermodynamics. This work made it possible for physicists to describe and analyze black holes using information-theoretical concepts. It also helped to transform information theory into a fundamental and foundational concept in theoretical physics. The story of Bekenstein’s work—which was opposed by many scientists, including Stephen Hawking—highlights the transformation within physics towards an information-oriented scientific mode of theorizing.  This “informational turn” amounted to a mild-mannered revolution within physics, revolutionary without being rebellious.

In this paper, I argue that the distinction between information and data lies at the root of much confusion that surrounds the concept of information. Although data are ‘out there’ and concrete, informational content is abstract and always co-constituted by information agents – a set which includes at least linguistically capable human beings. Information is thus not an intrinsic property of concrete data, but rather a relational property, which relies on the existence of information agents. To reach this conclusion I first argue that the semantic content of human-generated data is co-constituted by the information agent. In the second part I broaden the scope and argue that environmental information also depends on information agents. I further consider and reject both Dretske’s view of information as an objective commodity and foundational accounts of information, that take information to be the fundamental ingredient of reality.

✪ This paper was awarded the Pierre Bayle Bokaal 2014 - an award for the best student essay of the Faculty of Philosophy of the Erasmus University Rotterdam ✪

In my paper I want to review the already explored parallels between Phenomenology, Qbism and Participatory Realism and push it to it´s logical extreme. I shall argue that Wheeler´s self-excited circuit, "The law of no Laws", Husserls Paradox of the Ego, and Qbism´s intrinsic randomness, do in fact share common ground and eventually give rise to a radical, yet consistent Weltbild. I. Circles I want to start with 2 crucial quotes containing Husserlian insights from different phases of his career, bringing 2 apparently contradictory statements into opposition: "The take-home message of Husserl's genetic inquiry is that the original constitution of abstract objects depends, first, on life-world experiences of real things, and, second, on higher-order acts of idealization." (Berghofer, P. and Wiltsche, H. (2019), p.22) This refers to the idea, that all sorts of (mathematical) idealizations use the physical, empirical as a starting point for the process of idealization. For example, when applying the operation of eidetic variation on a rope, the mental process of decreasing diameter and curvature gives rise to the

TO READ THE PREVIEW SCROLL DOWN TO READ THE PREVIEW SCROLL DOWN

A connected discussion of Absolute Physics and modern cosmology emphasizing gravitation and inertia, with concluding remarks on the rageful “spiritus mundi” that is said to stalk the World.

For official full paper, see: https://tinyurl.com/yc9r6kys (date of publication: October 18, 2017).

Ch5. Process Physics - A biocentric physics
Process Physics, Time and Consciousness: Nature as an internally meaningful, habit-establishing process

Ever since Einstein’s arrival at the forefront of science, mainstream physics likes to think of nature as a giant 4-dimensional spacetime continuum in which all of eternity exists all at once in one timeless block universe. Accordingly, much to the dismay of more process-minded researchers, the experience of an ongoing present moment is typically branded as illusory.
Mainstream physics is having a hard time, though, to provide a well-founded defense for this illusoriness of time. This is because physics, as an empirical science, is itself utterly dependent on experience to begin with. Moreover, if nature were indeed purely physical – as contemporary mainstream physics wants us to believe – it’s quite difficult to see how it could ever be able to give rise to something so explicitly non-physical like conscious experience. On top of this, the argument of time’s illusoriness becomes even more doubtful in view of the extra-ordinary level of sophistication that would be required for our conscious experience to achieve such an utterly convincing, but – physically speaking – pointless illusion.
It’s because of problems like these that process thought has persistently objected against this ‘eternalism’ of mainstream physics. Just recently, physicist Lee Smolin even brought up some other major arguments against this timeless picture in his controversial 2013 book ‘Time Reborn’. And although he passionately argues that physics should take an entirely different direction, he admits that he has no readily available roadmap to success.
Fortunately, however, over the last 15 years or so, a neo-Whiteheadian, biocentric way of doing foundational physics, namely Reg Cahill’s Process Physics, has been making its appearance on the scene. According to Process Physics, nature is a routine-driven or habit-based process, rather than a changeless world whose observable phenomena are governed by eternally fixed and highly deterministic physical laws. Counter to the currently prevailing view of such a law-abiding natural world, Process Physics suggests that the natural universe comes into actuality from an initially undifferentiated, orderless background of dispositional activity patterns which is driven by a habit-establishing, iterative update routine.
In the Process Physics model, all such habit-establishing activity patterns are ‘mutually in-formative’ as they are actively making a meaningful difference to (i.e. ‘in-forming’) each other. This mutual in-formativeness among inner-system activity patterns will thus actively give shape to ongoing structure formation within the system as a whole, thereby renewing it through stochastic (hence, ‘novelty-infusing’) update iterations. In this way, the system starts to evolve from its initial featurelessness to then branch out to higher and higher levels of complexity, thus leading to a neural network-like structure formation.
Because of this noise-driven branching behavior, the process system can be thought of as habit-bound with a potential for creative novelty and open-ended evolution. Furthermore, threedimensionality, gravitational and relativistic effects, nonlocality, and near-classical behavior are spontaneously emergent within the system. Also, the system’s constantly renewing activity patterns bring along an inherent present moment effect, thereby reintroducing time in terms of the system’s ongoing change as it goes through its cyclic iterations. As a final point, subjectivity – in the form of mutual informativeness – is a naturally evolving, innate feature, not a coincidental, later-arriving side-effect.