FQXi Community

Essay Abstract

The notion of “it from bit”, as suggested by physicist John Archibald Wheeler, infers that information is fundamental to our physical universe. This effect trumps cause doctrine of different states giving rise to different effects is based on the paradigm of effectual causality, i.e., how observed or measured effects cause effects, not true cause and effect. We will explore how cause trumps effect by focusing on the mechanical functions of direct and indirect selection and then correlate their causal functions (bit) with their effectual states as states of spin (it). In so doing, we find that the two acts of selection have gravitational characteristics, as such, serve to unify the strong, weak, and electromagnetic forces as one super-deterministic force.

Author Bio

Manuel Morales’ career as an artist led to conducting a 12 year selection-based experiment to validate or disprove the theory of destiny. The findings are now included in NASA Astrophysics Data System. This quest has led to reevaluating ‘how’ we know what we know and to the pre-physical study of nature.

Download Essay PDF File

Mr. Morales,

I found your essay utterly engrossing. Your description of the coin in the cup determination analysis was very instructive. The graphics are truly spectacular, however, it is the clear explanation of the information contained in the graphics that really caught this reader’s attention. As for the ending, the only word I can think of to describe its impact is the word lovely.

report post as inappropriate

Thanks Joe for your review. I found it truly humbling.

I am glad that you found the graphics and content relevant. I began this paper two years ago around the time I did my APS presentation. I was not able to complete it until after I had created the graphics which then allowed me to put into words what I had come to understand.

Manuel,

This does seem to me to be a very interesting essay. While I do not have any math skills to speak of, my interest in physics is that I'm forced to encounter it on a moment by moment basis and the field seems to have little to say about what I experience. Your approach does seem to be fundamentally dynamic, where the convention is more of a static geometry. Which is all well and...

view entire post

Manuel,

This does seem to me to be a very interesting essay. While I do not have any math skills to speak of, my interest in physics is that I'm forced to encounter it on a moment by moment basis and the field seems to have little to say about what I experience. Your approach does seem to be fundamentally dynamic, where the convention is more of a static geometry. Which is all well and good, but only describes a limited fraction of reality. While my entry in this contest is a bit of a throwaway, it does give my view of the limits of information. A deeper factor in this would be the subject of my entry in the prior contest. That time is an effect of action which physics treats as parameter because we experience it as sequence, so it becomes a measure of duration, when the underlaying cause is change. To wit, it is not a fourth dimension from yesterday to tomorrow, but that tomorrow becomes

yesterday because the earth rotates. While I go into this in the essays, one correspondence with your approach is the inherent dynamism of cause/effect. To often it is assumed to be sequential, yet one event no more causes the next in the sequence than one rung in a ladder causes the next. Yesterday doesn't cause today. Cause and effect is, often non-linear, energy transfer. Light shining on a spinning planet causes the sequence called days.

I also think there is a basic explanation for gravity. We treat quanta of light as point particles, why why would they travel as such, having no internal structure? Wouldn't even quanta of light expand when released and contract when absorbed? Such that when light is released from mass, it expands. Think atomic explosion. So when absorbed into mass, it creates a vacuum. There is no observed dark matter, but there is lots of excess cosmic rays around galaxies and stars lack heavy metals on the perimeters of galaxies, but get progressively heavier as they form further in. So gravity is not so much a property of mass, as an effect of energy condensing into mass. The result is a cosmic convection cycle of collapsing mass and expanding radiation. With redshift being an effect of this intergalactic expansion of light being matched and balanced by the gravitational collapse of mass, so that the universe as a whole is not expanding.

This means space is both inert and infinite, since it has to properties to move, bend, bound, etc. This makes space both absolute and infinite. Mass is the attraction of the inert, while energy is the attraction of the infinite.

That non-linear transfer is better understood in thermodynamic terms, rather than temporal ones. Time is to temperature what frequency is to amplitude.

Could go on, but it's your thread. Good luck.

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Author Manuel S Morales replied on Jun. 20, 2013 @ 02:30 GMT

John you are correct in that this super-deterministic thing we call energy "only describes a limited fraction of reality". The acts of selection are not about context. These fundamental events are about what gives rise to existence. The effects you speak of happens afterwords in what we perceive as reality.

Thanks for your comments and the links to your essays. I look forward to reading them.

John Brodix Merryman replied on Jun. 20, 2013 @ 03:35 GMT

Manuel,

I would describe it as the other way around, that information is only part of reality, much as mass is only part of what constitutes energy. To my view, mass is structured, as is information, but energy is the more objective aspect of reality. Consider taking a picture as analogy for the uncertainty principle. If we want clarity/position, we use a very fast shutter speed, but if we...

view entire post

Manuel,

I would describe it as the other way around, that information is only part of reality, much as mass is only part of what constitutes energy. To my view, mass is structured, as is information, but energy is the more objective aspect of reality. Consider taking a picture as analogy for the uncertainty principle. If we want clarity/position, we use a very fast shutter speed, but if we want action/momentum, we use a longer shutter speed, that catches more of the actual dynamic, yet creates a fuzzy image. Energy and information are like that. In order to record information, there has to be some connection between observer and observed. Now the Copenhagen interpretation is that only what is observed is real, yet presumably the observer is real, even if it doesn't observe anything, so why isn't what might otherwise be existent, but is not observed, be equally real? So if something is moving, it cannot be said to have exact spatial boundaries, as it wouldn't be in motion. Consider that if you were to completely freeze all action, reality as we know it, would disappear, as even the most elemental level of quantum action would have to freeze as well. So while we can have very real energy, we cannot know its exact parameters and that is not a problem with just quanta, but everything. You can no more separate a car from its action(and context) then you can with a quantum of light.

All information is framing. There is no such thing as objective information, as it would quickly go to white noise and cancel out. Like with photography, there was to be focus, filtering, lens, shutter speed, aperture, etc. We can study detail, or we can generalize, but there is no middle perspective that can see both the top down big picture and all the constituent detail. It is a dichotomy. Both are ways of framing. There is no god's eye view. (A potential spiritual absolute would necessarily be the essence of being from which we rise, not an ideal from which we fell.)

So what I see in your description is how we frame/filter/etc. the states/cups and how that creates the results. ?

The fallacy of free will is that to decide is to determine(as you point out), so the very fact of expressing will is what it means to be deterministic. This doesn't mean fated, because the process is deterministic, but the cone of potential input is incomplete prior to the event. We set the cup, but the coin may not cooperate.

I realize you seem to be saying things similar, but a few levels removed from this and so I'm just describing how I see the situation to see if it makes some sense to you.

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Author Manuel S Morales replied on Jun. 20, 2013 @ 11:56 GMT

When you have information you have an effectual state. When you assume such states cause other effectual states you have effectual reality, i.e., effects causing effects. This can only give you a false/incomplete sense of reality for you did not come to terms with 'how' the information came to exist in the first place. In other words, effects cannot be the cause of themselves. I am afraid that you are putting the cart before the horse if you cannot answer 'how' such information you are basing your essay on is caused.

The Final Selection Experiment I have presented in my essay puts this debate to rest unless of course you wish to argue with nature which would be ill advised. Nature does not care about opinions, yours or mine.

show all replies (2 not shown)

Hi Manuel,

Truly beautiful and well thought out. This forum should also be for criticism and comments, so here goes…

RE: This asserts that existence is not caused but instead is a manifestation of various states of itself,

COMMENT: Wouldn't you then say we can have a binary choice, e.g. 1 for existence and 0 for non-existence?, These being the most fundamental of choice. As...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Manuel S Morales replied on Jun. 20, 2013 @ 14:07 GMT

Akinbo, thank you for your rating and well thought out response. It appears we are like minded in our understanding of what we call reality. I am very much looking forward to reading your essay. Thanks again.

Akinbo Ojo replied on Jun. 25, 2013 @ 15:28 GMT

On your last paragraph…, why would you prefer Final to First selection?

You didnt quite say why in your response.

Regards,

Akinbo

report post as inappropriate

Author Manuel S Morales replied on Jun. 25, 2013 @ 16:02 GMT

Akinbo, I used the term 'Final' due to the fact that for any physical system to no longer have the ability to make direct selections would lead to an absolute and thus final result. Nature does not play games when it comes down to it.

I am please to announce that I have had the pleasure to personally congratulate Nobel Prize-winning physicist, Gerard 't Hooft, that his deterministic beliefs have been substantiated by my findings as presented here in my essay. See Link

"Gerard you raised a very good point. In my casual analysis of selection events, gravity acts in place of the Higgs boson. This is why it is not necessary. The Higgs boson concept is based on effectual causality, not causality. A tiny flaw, yes, but fundamental nonetheless. For the most part the Standard Model stands up to the casual analysis presented in my findings based on absolute value functions. The findings also validates quantum mechanics as a deterministic system although a partial description of the complete function.

As presented in my essay, I am pleased to confirm your belief that there should be a deterministic theory underlying quantum mechanics. Congratulations, you are correct!"

Author Manuel S Morales replied on Jun. 25, 2013 @ 18:38 GMT

NOTE: I have caught some slack for posting the above comment congratulating Gerard 't Hooft in regards to his belief that there should be a deterministic theory underlying quantum mechanics. Although the empirical evidence is absolute, repeatable, and falsifiable, apparently I should not have been so enthusiastic to make this announcement here. I apologize if I may have come off presumptuous or overconfident. Please note, I am under no illusion that what has been presented will 'not' be generally accepted. This new perspective of reality took me years to come to terms with and so all I can hope to ask is for you to keep an open mind when reading my essay and ask yourself the question, 'what if?"

Dear Manuel

Unfortunately, your essay is too large for automatic translation capabilities of my computer.

Anyway, wish you success.

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1802

report post as inappropriate

Author Manuel S Morales replied on Jun. 21, 2013 @ 03:36 GMT

Hoang,

I am sorry to hear that you are not able to download my paper due to size issues. I do confess that it is somewhat larger than just a plan text document due to the four pages of graphics included in my essay.

Perhaps if you allow for some additional download time you will be able to view it. This is only five pages of text plus references to translate. Meanwhile, I will take a look at your essay.

Manuel

“This asserts that existence is not caused but instead is a manifestation of various states of itself, therefore effect trumps cause. This paradigm gives us a paradoxical reality of effects causing effects which gives us a reality that is uncertain and subjective”

By definition, being existent means it is “computable” (ie knowable), and existence results in the reception of information thereon, which enables that analysis. The issue is not the primacy of cause/effect, it is that QM asserts an idefiniteness in reality which does not occur. Indeed, you say this in your next sentence. QM is not asserting that effect does not follow cause, or is more ‘important’. It is, in effect, asserting that existence, ie the effect, could occur in various states and that the process of sensing has a determinant role in the actual outcome. This is nonsense, because an effect occurs, it does not occur in a variety of states. And it occurs before it is sensed, so sensing/measurement can have no effect on the physical circumstance, which must have been definitive for it to have existed.

However, in sequence what is an effect, from the perspective of the preceding cause (which was an effect) is a cause with respect to the succeeding effect. The tick being to differentiate the discrete states involved.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Author Manuel S Morales replied on Jun. 21, 2013 @ 11:53 GMT

Interesting twists to what I state as 'effects'. To put it clearly so that you may not confuse my meaning of the term, an 'effect' is something that exist. Your premise is based on something causing something, i.e., effectual causality. That to me is nonsense as you put it. Your logic would imply that you were never born. You never had parents for you were never caused (born). Sorry, but your logic fails me.

Paul Reed replied on Jun. 22, 2013 @ 06:46 GMT

Manuel

Your interpretation of what I said fails me. An effect, ie something that exists, does not do so in 'splendid isolation'. It resulted from the preceding effect, ie in that sense that that effect was a cause. And the effect will be the cause of the succeeding effect. Otherwise, nothing will happen. There cannot be something which exists, and then something else, which presumably exists, which is, independently, causing existence.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Author Manuel S Morales replied on Jun. 22, 2013 @ 09:44 GMT

Paul,

Please clarify you last sentence with an example. Also how do we obtain an initial causal event, that being an event that did not exist until it does?

show all replies (3 not shown)

Paul Reed replied on Jun. 23, 2013 @ 07:56 GMT

Manuel

What caused any given event (ie reality-which is a specific physically existent state of whatever comprises it) must fulfil certain strict criteria, because physical influence cannot ‘jump’ physical circumstance. That is, in terms of order, any given existent state cannot be the cause of another unless it was the predecessor in the sequence. While in terms of spatial position,...

view entire post

Manuel

What caused any given event (ie reality-which is a specific physically existent state of whatever comprises it) must fulfil certain strict criteria, because physical influence cannot ‘jump’ physical circumstance. That is, in terms of order, any given existent state cannot be the cause of another unless it was the predecessor in the sequence. While in terms of spatial position, it could only have had physical influence if it was adjacent to the position now ‘occupied’ by the resulting effect, because alteration in spatial position is a difference (ie another reality). And as with any difference, this can only occur ‘one degree’ at a time. [What constitutes a ‘degree’ for any given physical attribute is irrelevant to this generic argument]. The point is that either something remains in one existent state, or there is a difference, and difference can only occur in discrete existent stages (a ‘degree’). To put this simply, if the two spatial positions being considered are not adjacent to each other, then there were other spatial positions in between, and whatever physically existed must have been in each, sequentially, to be where it is now (the differentiation of spatial positions being a ‘degree’). This simple principle applies to any physical attribute.

Now, the other point revolves around what caused the alteration which results in one physically existent state being superseded by another (both of course do not co-exst). That cannot be something which is physically disconnected with what occurs. Neither can something have physical influence and not be physically existent. Indeed, it must be what occurs.

In other words, the whole way in which we conceive reality is ontologically incorrect. There is a tendency to conceive in terms of objects, when in fact what physically exists at any time (the reality) is the physically existent state of whatever comprises it. And there is the concept of something else having an effect on the object, whereas this can only be whatever constitutes what is being wrongly being thought of as the object.

That is, either there is ultimately an inert substance (which could occur in different types) which ‘carries’ the ‘properties’ which are the determinant of change, or the ‘properties’ are themselves the ultimate substance in our reality.

The key to all this is the realisation that any given reality is the physically existent state of whatever comprises it. Then the rules as to how the sequence must occur, etc, are easy, in generic words! In practice, how this manifests is extremely complex and beyond our ability to differentiate in experimental mode. The degrees of alteration and duration are vanishingly small. Apart from anything else, in the context of sight for example, we are dependent upon the ability of light to comprehensively and accurately capture and transmit all that occurs, leaving aside our ability to decipher all that if it did so.

On your question: “Also how do we obtain an initial causal event, that being an event that did not exist until it does?” There can be no answer to this, because it transcends our existence. We just have to accept that whatever is demonstrably the start point for existence as knowable to us, is the start point.

Paul

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Author Manuel S Morales replied on Jun. 23, 2013 @ 12:58 GMT

Paul, I am in agreement with 'most' of what you said until you stated, "On your question: “Also how do we obtain an initial causal event, that being an event that did not exist until it does?” There can be no answer to this, because it transcends our existence. We just have to accept that whatever is demonstrably the start point for existence as knowable to us, is the start point."

There is indeed an answer to ALL of this and yes it does transcend our existence. This 'knowledge' of existence is not the starting point. Existence is the 'end point' of ALL acts of selection which are extensions of these initial events. The evidence obtained from conducting the Tempt Destiny experiment is absolute and precise on this point. There is no ambiguity with the evidence that without a selection event occurring there can be no existence.

When I stopped resisting what nature had been telling me all along, then and only then, was I able to stop arguing with nature and accept it on 'its' terms instead of how I wanted nature to be understood. This, in a nutshell, is what I have presented in my essay. The lesson of which I am sharing with everyone. As presented, it all comes down to the Final Selection Experiment. I would be extremely foolish to argue with nature for I do not want to willingly transcend my own existence. The evidence speaks for itself.

Paul Reed replied on Jun. 24, 2013 @ 04:44 GMT

Manuel

“There is indeed an answer to ALL of this and yes it does transcend our existence. This 'knowledge' of existence is not the starting point”

I am surprised by this response, because I thought that was the simple bit. There is existence of some form or other. We are enabled to be aware of it through a physical process (forget how proficient we are at identifying all there...

view entire post

Manuel

“There is indeed an answer to ALL of this and yes it does transcend our existence. This 'knowledge' of existence is not the starting point”

I am surprised by this response, because I thought that was the simple bit. There is existence of some form or other. We are enabled to be aware of it through a physical process (forget how proficient we are at identifying all there is to be aware of, and the accuracy with which we do so). This means that what we can know has to be regarded as possibly only one form of existence. However that is irrelevant in so far as it is all we can potentially know, ie we must just accept that there may be an alternative. The important point is that we can only know, and we can only know what is potentially knowable. This is the existentially closed system within which we are trapped. We can of course invoke any belief (ie knowledge without any experienceable-direct or hypothetical-substantiation), but that is not science.

In simple terms, we could, though it is very unlikely in many areas, eventually know all there is that is knowable. We will become aware of this by default, because we can only know from within the closed system, ie after sufficient time and continued investigation, no new knowledge arises. Now, this is not the same as knowing everything/what is ultimately happening/or any other such phrase. Because there is always the possibility of an alternative, and we cannot transcend our own existence. Neither is this the same as hypothesis, proper hypothesis being in effect virtual sensing. That is, it follows the rules of sensing and overrides certain identifiable issues in order to establish what could have been sensed had we been able to do so.

This seems to be a key statement: “If we are to uncover the fundamental interaction

of our physical universe then we need to establish what is causal and what is not. Here we find Wheeler’s ‘it from bit’ doctrine of how physical laws are cast as states of information to be insufficient by not stating how those states of ‘bit’ came to exist in the first place”. This is not true. We cannot know how or why whatever comprises our existence occurred. We can only arrive back at a logical start point based on an understanding of what has subsequently occurred. Neither does this assist in identifying the fundamental interaction(s). Something, or a range of such, is causing alteration in whatever comprises existence (which may also be a range of types). Indeed, these two may be different aspects of the same thing (or things) but that is detail(!). The important point is that something is ‘going on’, and we need to find out what that is. But what is ‘gong on’ is only manifest to us in what might be a particular form, ie we can only know what is ‘going on’ as it is potentially knowable to us. And that is difficult enough, and in many case unachievable, but the potential is there. We then just have to accept we can know no more.

Reality is not pre-determined. It appears to be so because it is functioning to certain rules. Another way of expressing this is to identify what, in generic terms, a reality is. And that is a discrete, definitive, physically existent state of whatever comprises it at that time. Existence necessitates discrete/definitive, which is where relativity/QM has gone wrong, because they, effectively, assert some form of indefiniteness in reality. They did not mean to, which goes back to my first post. I am not sure that anybody is consciously stating anything other than cause trumps effect ( to use your phrase). The differential is between what was said and, given a proper understanding of reality, what that can actually mean. [Incidentally what we do and think is irrelevant to the physical circumstance, because it has already occurred. Or in the case of the ‘future’, it has not occurred, ie something then occurs which is different to what would have otherwise have done so. But that is just a definition of cause/effect, so is meaningless. The future is not pre-existent. But I do not think you are saying any of this].

Paul

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

hide replies

Manuel

I read your nicely illustrated essay with interest and in trying to understand what you are up to better, read links to some of your other papers and the Linkedin discussions. Very interesting. As Paul knows, I have just enough energy at my age to deal with my own research and some left to discuss only a few new issues cropping up in the many fqxi essays. I think I understand your reasoning and feel you have pinpointed an important flaw in thinking through experiments in QM: it is automatically assumed that everything is statistical, probabilistic (coin-at edge of cup concept). You say there is an additional alternative (coin in the cup). You then carry this scenario - to make conclusions about determinism and - on rather thin grounds I feel - the four forces.

Using your thought-experiment I go further and say (contradicting in some ways my philosophical conclusions in my present fqxi essay!) that there is no inherent probability in nature - the coin is always in the cup. Probability arises from an exquisite order underlying the Universe. My ideas are described in Beautiful Universe Theory . I think it is important for a researcher with your original clear-headed thinking to understand Eric Reiter's discoveries about the photon . I had long suspected that the photon was not a point particle - an idea that gave rise to the probabilistic interpretation in QM. I was thrilled to find that Eric had proven that experimentally. I know that my comments leave much to be said, but for now allow me to leave it at this. I am no great sports fan, but as a fellow artist I enjoyed your dynamic football paintings in the billboards you created.

With best wishes,

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Author Manuel S Morales replied on Jun. 24, 2013 @ 16:30 GMT

Vladimir,

Thank you for taking the time to review my essay and related links. I appreciated you sharing your viewpoint that "...that there is no inherent probability in nature - the coin is always in the cup. Probability arises from an exquisite order underlying the Universe."

If what you mean by your comment that existence is a predetermined function from this 'exquisite order' then I totally agree. I find that this order comes from the lack of order which gives us non-existence which in turn gives rise to existence (order) when a selection event occurs. I find that nature is perfect for it does not need to be. Fun stuff!

Anyway, I would like to see your artwork if you have a link, please share. Meanwhile I look forward to reading and rating your essay.

Thanks again,

Manuel

Vladimir F. Tamari replied on Jun. 25, 2013 @ 13:06 GMT

Dear Manuel

Thanks. I am afraid I am not on the same page with you about a predetermined Universe. The order I speak of is in the causal,local,linear interactions (i.e. non-probabilistic) between each building block of the Universe and the contiguous blocks (or nodes) constituting the vacuum, dark matter, matter, radiation etc. Beyond that the interactions evolve by self-assembly by exchanging angular momentum from node to node. There is no 'plan' or preferred pathway hard-wired in the universal lattice. In that way it is vary like the artificial life computer program with each cell interacting with its neighbors according to a simple rule.

This is my personal website its a hodge-podge of all sorts of things!

Best wishes,

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Author Manuel S Morales replied on Jun. 25, 2013 @ 16:22 GMT

Vladimir, I happen to agree with you that there seems to be "no 'plan' or preferred pathway hard-wired in the universal lattice."

What is predetermined is that there are only two ways for existence to come into existence. Who, what, where, and when are relative terms to the effects we call reality, not causality. What I have been describing is a new paradigm that places the acts of selection in their proper order. From there everything comes to fruition without contradiction or ambiguity, or not at all. Nothing has been excluded.

So nature does not need a plan (effects). All it needs to do is to exist... the manner of which is predetermined.

show all replies (1 not shown)

Hello Manuel,

Your quote: - "We find that we have the ability to choose because we do not have the ability to not choose in order to exist" - really jumped out at me. I think you've hit on something key here. Like Wheeler pointed out yes/no decisions always are made. Choice is merely an illusion.

Nice work - please take a look at my essay if you get the time.

Best wishes,

Antony

report post as inappropriate

Author Manuel S Morales replied on Jun. 24, 2013 @ 16:34 GMT

Hi Anthony,

Thank you for taking the time to review my essay. I agree with you in that 'choice is merely an illusion'.

I look forward to reading your essay.

Regards,

Manuel

Antony Ryan replied on Aug. 4, 2013 @ 03:47 GMT

My pleasure Manuel,

I hope you liked my essay too.

Best wishes - glad to see you high up in the ratings.

Best wishes,

Antony

report post as inappropriate

Author Manuel S Morales replied on Aug. 4, 2013 @ 05:03 GMT

Hi Antony,

My apology for not leaving a message behind when I reviewed and rated your essay highly on July 2. That was a hurried day for me to say the least. I am glad to see that my support of your essay, among many, helped you out in obtaining your much deserved rating.

I believe it was your statement, "Hence, it seems decay onward to 5-dimensions isn’t favoured either symmetrically or asymmetrically, giving 3-dimensionality a limit in our reality and in information exchange." that resonated with me the most.

Best wishes and good luck,

Manuel

show all replies (1 not shown)

Manuel,

Thanks for your inciting comments. I will go through your essay and post my comments soon.

Thanking you,

Sreenath.

report post as inappropriate

Author Manuel S Morales replied on Jun. 24, 2013 @ 17:38 GMT

I look forward to your comments.

Thanks!

Sreenath B N replied on Jun. 25, 2013 @ 17:04 GMT

Dear Manuel,

I went through your thought provoking essay and appreciated your innovative endeavour to unify all the four forces. But have you derived the relationship between them theoretically? Your equation E = G2 is interesting and I too have a basic equation in QG and the equation is E = kg; where 'E' is quantum of energy possessed by a particle in the field of QG, g = gravity or acceleration and 'k'= QG constant. You will find it in my previous fqxi essay contest of 2012 and my article is on QG.

Can you, please, give me the details (website) of the Tempt Destiny experiment?

I will shortly give my score on your essay and I will rate it highly.

Best regards and good luck in the contest.

Sreenath.

report post as inappropriate

Author Manuel S Morales replied on Jun. 25, 2013 @ 17:35 GMT

Here's what took place during the Tempt Destiny experiment: http://temptdestiny.com

From 2000 to April, 2012, fans of all 32 NFL teams were invited to vote for their favorite team to be featured on the next Tempt Destiny billboard. The Tempt Destiny billboard competition was an experiment to determine if choice predetermines the certainty or uncertainty of the event that follows, i.e., destiny. The premise is twofold. When a direct selection is made, the completion of the artwork is certain. When an indirect selection is made, the completion of the artwork is uncertain.The completion of the artwork is the final event/state of the selection made.

RESULTS: Over the span of twelve years, only once did a direct selection occur (SB XLII) with the completion of the artwork. Contrast this result with the three-out-of-three indirect selections that occurred in the final three years which resulted in both completion and non-completion of the artwork. These results are reflected in Figure 8 of my essay.

In "The Challenge" section, I did a linear analysis of the series of events which exhibits why when we do not know what selection was made we are led to believe everything is uncertain. When we are not ignorant of the selection event which caused the series of events to exist, then and only then, can we distinguish what was certain and what was not, e.g., coin-in-cup experiment. I found that our 'perception' of reality is what has blinded us to understanding what reality is. The mindset based on effectual causality blinds us to the fact that nature is 'super-deterministic' to coin a term by physicist John Bell.

show all replies (3 not shown)

Paul Reed you stated, "The important point is that we can only know, and we can only know what is potentially knowable. ...We cannot know how or why whatever comprises our existence occurred. We can only arrive back at a logical start point based on an understanding of what has subsequently occurred."

Indeed Paul, your comments I have found to be the general consensus to date. However, the...

view entire post

Paul Reed you stated, "The important point is that we can only know, and we can only know what is potentially knowable. ...We cannot know how or why whatever comprises our existence occurred. We can only arrive back at a logical start point based on an understanding of what has subsequently occurred."

Indeed Paul, your comments I have found to be the general consensus to date. However, the empirical evidence obtained via the 12 year Tempt Destiny experiment speaks for itself. No selection = no existence. It is as fundamental as that. When I realized that my understanding of reality was based on effectual causality, then and only then, was I able to understand the purity of causality. Causality can never exist until it does.

When we observe or measure 'something' interacting with 'something' which then causes a 'something', we as effectual beings think that the interaction event was 'causal'. This is how we have blinded ourselves into thinking that effects cause effects. Effects cannot be the 'initial' cause of themselves. We think that the 'effects' of a selection event, such as interactions, particle collisions, fertilization, etc, are causal... BIG MISTAKE! This is why there has never been or ever will be the existence of an experiment without a selection event first occurring. You simply cannot get around this for nature is absolute on this point.

What is predetermined is that for existence to come into being requires the paring event of a selection with its potential. The paring event itself is not what is predetermined as our effectual mindset would have us believe. It is the mechanics involved with this paring mechanism we call choice which is predetermined. The effects of the two acts of selection are what we observe as reality. When I came to terms with the simple fact that we think that the end point (existence) it the starting point, that is when I realized I have been fooling myself all along.

As John Wheeler once said, "Surely, someday, we can believe, we will grasp the central idea of it all as so simple, so beautiful, so compelling that we will all say to each other, 'Oh, how could it have been otherwise! How could we all have been so blind for so long!'"

view post as summary

Paul Reed replied on Jun. 25, 2013 @ 07:30 GMT

Manuel

“No selection = no existence” But this is just a principle, a very condensed way of expressing all that is happening. It does not, and cannot-other than in terms of an unsubstantiated belief-enable the identification of what ‘ultimately’ existed, because we cannot transcend our own existence. To put this simply, I can assert that the existence we are aware of is no more...

view entire post

Manuel

“No selection = no existence” But this is just a principle, a very condensed way of expressing all that is happening. It does not, and cannot-other than in terms of an unsubstantiated belief-enable the identification of what ‘ultimately’ existed, because we cannot transcend our own existence. To put this simply, I can assert that the existence we are aware of is no more than a shoot-em-up game created by green giants with six heads. Now, that assertion is immediately rejected because it is ‘preposterous’. But really its rejection can only be on the basis that there is no experienceable evidence to support this. And that is the point, if A there is always the possibility of not-A, which can never be known (my giants). Our existence is A, we are trapped in an existentially closed system.

I am also becoming confused by your depiction of effect causality. I can, obviously, understand the need to ensure we differentiate what caused what, and not get side-tracked by the order or whether something is a superficial representation of something else. But I sense this is not what you are pointing to. I make the distinction between whatever comprises existence and the physically existent state it is in. Reality is whatever state whatever comprises it is in at that time. In other words, not only is the concept of objects ontologically incorrect, the investigation in terms of substance is not really the correct approach. So I am now wondering, out loud, whether when you refer to effect, you are effectively referring to the differentiation between state and substance.

Because the simple fact is that what we know about existence is that:

-something exists independently of the mechanisms whereby it is detected

-that something occurs differently, ie there is alteration

So it is a sequence and there is a physical cause of the change.

“What is predetermined is that for existence to come into being requires the paring event of a selection with its potential”

This sounds like an alternative way of expressing ‘effect (existence) causes next effect (existence)’, although I really do not understand what it can mean in terms of reality. Such words as ‘choice’ are worrying, existence does not function on the basis of choice. And certainly anything we do does not affect the physical circumstance (but I do not think you are implying that). You seem to be endowing what is just a mechanic with a characteristic that is not there.

Paul

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Author Manuel S Morales replied on Jun. 25, 2013 @ 13:14 GMT

Paul, thank you for your detailed and well reasoned response. In order for you to understand what has taken me years to finally accept is that we are all effectual thinkers. This knowledge you speak of is all based upon the coin being in the cup (existence), not 'how' it got there. The simplicity of nature is what confuses us into thinking existence creates existence. It goes deeper than that as I have outlined in my papers.

Hence, there has never been or ever will be the existence of an experiment without a selection event first occurring. Since you cannot argue this point then why continue to argue with nature? Think about it. This 'knowledge' you hold so dear is based on effectual causality, not causality. I have learned to accept nature on 'its' terms and stop trying to impose my dictums upon it. This lesson is what I have to share with everyone for my opinion means nothing. Nature rules!

Paul Reed replied on Jun. 26, 2013 @ 04:55 GMT

Manuel

What on earth is this 'selection event'? I am beginning to worry that you are confusing physical existence and all logical possibilities. We are concerned with investigating existence as is manifest to us. Whether we can detect all that manifestation is a practical point. The key is that we cannot be concerned with what is not even potentially manifest to us. If A there is always the possibility of not-A. But we are trapped in A.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (6 not shown)

Manuel,

Nicely explained essay, and perhaps the 'incompleteness' found by others is only as the universe evolution is not yet complete.

Let me run a scenario for you to test with your derivation. If we assume the evolution of the massively complex universe is 'predetermined' as normally understood, then we may still chose one of two options.

1. Only the 'rules' of interactive behaviour down to the smallest scale were predetermined, so no greater knowledge would know in advance what the effects down the line might be.

2. All interactions are known by some greater intelligence in advance, i.e. each scenario has been run before and the result in all cases is known so predetermined.

If the answer is 2. Which is equivalent to a 'tape playing' then there must have been some original case to create the recording on the tape in the first place. If all is predetermined in THAT way, then it would be possible for the intelligence to check ahead on the tape and see what will happen. There must then have been an original "first recording." Which then sets the question; "how do we know we are not that FIRST recording which predetermines all others!? Of course we cannot.

So reverting to option 1. If all interactions are predetermined but the resultant sequences leading to the further interactions not 'pre-set' as above, then we can simply revert to the present universe we understand. I can make any decision I wish right now, and have not done so before, but the rules strictly dictate my options.

There is a 'watershed' between those options. I can see no case not falling onto one or the other. How can something be PRE-determined if it has not been decided in advance exactly what happened in that particular case? But perhaps you have found another alternative I haven't seen which is in neither category.

Best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Author Manuel S Morales replied on Jun. 27, 2013 @ 04:31 GMT

"How can something be PRE-determined if it has not been decided in advance exactly what happened in that particular case?"

Peter, you raised the quintessential question often asked based on the common assumption that predeterminism is about 'something' being predetermined as you put it. What is predetermined is 'how' existence comes into being. Evidence has shown that there are only two...

view entire post

"How can something be PRE-determined if it has not been decided in advance exactly what happened in that particular case?"

Peter, you raised the quintessential question often asked based on the common assumption that predeterminism is about 'something' being predetermined as you put it. What is predetermined is 'how' existence comes into being. Evidence has shown that there are only two ways for existence to come into being. Physical properties of existence are related to effectual states of causality. What I have been describing is a new paradigm that places the acts of selection in their proper order. In physics we think that observation, measurement, interactions, or particle collisions, etc. are causal when in fact these terms are effectual descriptions of what happens 'after' a selection event. Case in point, ALL experiments are effects of a selection event. Thus, it is predetermined that in order for an experiment to take place a selection event must first take place. During the Tempt Destiny experiment, only 1 out of 12 direct selection events took place as opposed to having 3 out of 3 indirect selection events take place. The results were absolute, No Selection = No Experiment.

It is understood that determinism simply implies that a physical system behaves the same each time it is "replayed", e.g., direct and indirect selection - which gives us existence as exhibited in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2a of my essay. So we have only two predetermined mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive input variables of selection (cause) which in turn determines the two mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive output variables of physical states which are either certain/deterministic or uncertain/non-deterministic (effect). If everything that can be observed or measured is either certain or uncertain then what else is there? If you have knowledge of which type of selection has been made, you then have knowledge of the physical state of that selection prior to its existence. If we do not know which type of selection has been made (cause), then at least we can understand why we can only speculate. As it currently stands, we perceive that physical states (effects) cause physical states (effects) and think the paradox of effectual causality is reality as exemplified by your options.

The bottom line is that nature is not about effectual states. It is about 'how' effectual states come into existence... the 'manner' of which is predetermined.

view post as summary

Peter Jackson replied on Jun. 27, 2013 @ 12:44 GMT

Manuel,

I agree your last 'bottom' line; "that nature is not about effectual states. It is about 'how' effectual states come into existence... the 'manner' of which is predetermined."

A "manner" is different to an outcome, so "pre-determined" as afar as 'outcomes' are concerned is then not the "predetermined" of the 're-run tape' option I identified, which is many peoples 'fatalist' understanding of pre-determined, or a 'groundhog day' universe.

I have defined detection and creation of new measurable states as the chance of a ring (torus) formed by a rotating dipole intersecting at an angle, so at any point on its circumference, with another ring. As the two approach each other, what 'choice' is there to be made, or does the choice recurse back to creation?

I still feel you may need another way to explain what you are saying, and it's implications, to enable resonance with most readers.

Best of luck.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Author Manuel S Morales replied on Jun. 27, 2013 @ 15:27 GMT

Peter,

You hit it on the nail when you stated, "A "manner" is different to an outcome, so "pre-determined" as afar as 'outcomes' are concerned is then not the "predetermined" of the 're-run tape' option I identified, which is many peoples 'fatalist' understanding of pre-determined, or a 'groundhog day' universe."

This is the root of the problem. We tend to supersede effects over that of its cause and so we think that predeterminism is about certainty - NOT! The 'manner' dictates the outcome not the other way around. It is impossible to obtain the existence of any outcome certain or uncertain without a selection first being made. Nature is absolute in this regard and so opinion to the contrary is futile.

When we are ignorant of the causal events of selection, then we need to find better means to obtain predictability of existence. I find your solution to be in top contention in this regard and I hope you continue to do well with it.

As far as finding another way to explain my findings, and it's implications, to enable resonance with most readers, I must admit that such understanding will take time. This took me years to understand. I am no different than anyone else in that it is extremely difficult to change one's bias especially since we are all guilty of being effectual minded thinkers and so we insists that only something can cause something to exist. The best I can do is hope that readers of my essay can try to accept nature on its terms instead of how they want nature to be understood. If they do, then I will consider my efforts to be a success independent of the outcome of this essay competition. Don't get me wrong, I would still love to win this competition but for me to expect people to change their perspective on reality may be to much to ask...

Best of luck to you Peter, at least you are going with popular conventional wisdom of something causing something.

Manuel

Send to all of you

THE ADDITIONAL ARTICLES AND A SMALL TEST FOR MUTUAL BENEFIT

To change the atmosphere "abstract" of the competition and to demonstrate for the real preeminent possibility of the Absolute theory as well as to clarify the issues I mentioned in the essay and to avoid duplicate questions after receiving the opinion of you , I will add a reply to you :

1 . THE...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Manuel S Morales replied on Jun. 27, 2013 @ 05:15 GMT

What the ???? I believe we have a failure to communicate do to a language barrier.

One thing I did get from your comments is that you are stating that everything is unique and therefore absolute. So 'how' did these absolute states come to exists in the first place?

Dear

Thank you for presenting your nice essay. I saw the abstract and will post my comments soon.

So you can produce material from your thinking. . . .

I am requesting you to go through my essay also. And I take this opportunity to say, to come to reality and base your arguments on experimental results.

I failed mainly because I worked against the main stream. The...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Manuel S Morales replied on Jun. 28, 2013 @ 12:22 GMT

Satyavarapu,

When you do read my essay you will find it is based on empirical evidence not opinion. I do not hold the value of opinion highly.

Thank you for your comments, I look forward to reading your paper.

Manuel

Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 09:12 GMT

Manuel,

Do you find any empirical evidence for producing matter from information...?

best

=snp

report post as inappropriate

Dear Sir,

Wheeler’s opinions are faulty as ex-nihilo is not a logical concept – never observed. Information is specific data reporting the state of something based on observation (measurements), organized and summarized for a purpose within a context that gives it meaning and relevance and can lead to either an increase in understanding or decrease in uncertainty. Observation...

view entire post

Dear Sir,

Wheeler’s opinions are faulty as ex-nihilo is not a logical concept – never observed. Information is specific data reporting the state of something based on observation (measurements), organized and summarized for a purpose within a context that gives it meaning and relevance and can lead to either an increase in understanding or decrease in uncertainty. Observation (measurements) implies the combination of three factors: observer, observable and observation (including instrument and mechanism). All three are independent variables, whereas their totality – the information – is a variable, because the observable evolves independently with time. That is the objective reality. Your effectual reality relates to information only.

Causality and determinism are evident in all equations. The left hand side of all equations represents free will or causality, because we are free to choose or change the parameters. The right hand side represents determinism, otherwise there would be no theories. The equality sign depicts the special conditions like temperature thresholds etc. that must be satisfied to initiate the reaction. The other factors in the field that may influence the special conditions brings in the uncertainty. For example, if the coin is dropped on the rim of the cup, air may play a role in determining whether it will fall into the cup or not.

We have discussed the double slit experiment using protons in our essay: “INFORMATION HIDES IN THE GLARE OF REALITY by basudeba mishra http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1776” published on May 31 with astonishing conclusions. You are welcome to visit us.

In various threads here, we have pointed out that there is a dimensional difference physical objects and their mathematical representation. The graph may represent space, but it is not space itself. The drawings of a circle, a square, a vector or any other physical representation, are similar abstractions. The circle represents only a two dimensional cross section of a three dimensional sphere. The square represents a surface of a cube. Without the cube or similar structure (including the paper), it has no physical existence. An ellipse may represent an orbit, but it is not the dynamical orbit itself. The vector is a fixed representation of velocity; it is not the dynamical velocity itself, and so on. The so-called simplification or scaling up or down of the drawing does not make it abstract. The basic abstraction is due to the fact that the mathematics that is applied to solve physical problems actually applies to the two dimensional diagram, and not to the three dimensional space. The numbers are assigned to points on the piece of paper or in the Cartesian graph, and not to points in space. If one assigns a number to a point in space, what one really means is that it is at a certain distance from an arbitrarily chosen origin. Thus, by assigning a number to a point in space, what one really does is assign an origin, which is another point in space leading to a contradiction. The point in space can exist by itself as the equilibrium position of various forces. But a point on a paper exists only with reference to the arbitrarily assigned origin. If additional force is applied, the locus of the point in space resolves into two equal but oppositely directed field lines. But the locus of a point on a graph is always unidirectional and depicts distance – linear or non-linear, but not force. Thus, a physical structure is different from its mathematical representation.

Your final conclusion rests with Nature. You should have pointed out the inter-connectedness and interdependence as the reason for selection than non-selection.

Regards,

basudeba

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Author Manuel S Morales replied on Jun. 30, 2013 @ 07:55 GMT

Basudeba,

Thank you for bringing your essay to my attention. I will review it.

As far as, your comment, "You should have pointed out the inter-connectedness and interdependence as the reason for selection than non-selection." I have indeed pointed out the references you mention. Regarding 'non-selection' this too is an equally important function, for it falsifies selection. Thus, nothing has been excluded for everything has been included.

Manuel

Paul, you continue to side-step (rationalize) the issue at hand and that is our existence relies upon our ability to select. Hence No Selection = No Existence. If you think that you are an anomaly of nature in that you can challenge nature by existing without the ability to select then by all means go for it. Your argument is with nature, not with me.

If I do hear from you again then you have by default failed to substantiate your position, in which case, any continued discussion is mute and pointless. Your insistence that nature is about 'knowledge' (bit) is false. Nature is about the function (bit) of existence. It would be foolish of me to argue otherwise.

Manuel

Manuel

"our existence relies upon our ability to select. Hence No Selection = No Existence"

Nonsense. Our existence is no different to that of a brick, and does it have the ability to select? You may also have realised that our (and indeed any sentient organism) awareness of existence is enabled by the receipt of a physical input, ie existence exists independently of the mechanism which has evolved to enable possessors thereof to be aware of it. Or put the other way around, if all sentient entities were wiped out, existence would continue.

"Your insistence that nature is about 'knowledge' (bit) is false"

Really? So a)tell me how we can know what is not part of our existence, b) how we receive awareness of 'nature' other than through physically existent representations thereof (the obvious one being light).

I am then fully aware of the fact that what we can potentially know (be aware of), ie physical existence is a function of physically existent states and that something is causing alteration therein. That is, any given reality is the physically existent state at that time of whatever comprises it. In other words, more progress would be made investigating function (or influence as Kevin puts it) rather than substance.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Author Manuel S Morales replied on Jul. 1, 2013 @ 11:51 GMT

Paul, you really do need to take up your argument with nature directly to see if your opinions are correct. You fail to realize your opinion, my opinion, or anyone else's opinion are irrelevant when comes down to it.

You talk about the effects of existence which are not fundamental to the knowledge of our existence. I talk about the cause of our existence base on empirical evidence, not conjecture. From this evidence came my summarization that, "our existence relies upon our ability to select. Hence No Selection = No Existence" Fundamentally I have found that nature is not about its effectual states. As effects of nature 'knowledge' is our issue. Nature either exist or does not based on the casual acts of selection; the construct of which is predetermined.

I welcome anyone who wishes to argue with nature to conduct the Final Selection Experiment for themselves. I repeat, if you honestly think your opinions supersede nature... then go for it! Otherwise, why fool yourself to thinking that your opinions are superior to that which gives you the ability to exist. We are done with this discussion as far as I am concerned for nature has the final say.

Manuel

Paul Reed replied on Jul. 2, 2013 @ 04:45 GMT

Manuel

“Paul, you really do need to take up your argument with nature directly to see if your opinions are correct”

Take any ‘object’. A bush in the garden for example. We know it changes (size, colour, leaves on/off, etc). If we examined it with an electron microscope we would see even more alteration. Yet we still call it the bush, ie the same object, when clearly it is...

view entire post

Manuel

“Paul, you really do need to take up your argument with nature directly to see if your opinions are correct”

Take any ‘object’. A bush in the garden for example. We know it changes (size, colour, leaves on/off, etc). If we examined it with an electron microscope we would see even more alteration. Yet we still call it the bush, ie the same object, when clearly it is different. And we rationalise that by conceptualising in terms of ‘it changes’. Which is a contradiction because if it has changed then the resulting it is not the original it. The point here being that our entire ontological conception is wrong. We are deeming existence on the basis of superficial physical attributes, not how existence occurs. The bush is only a bush in the sense that it retains certain characteristics .

If we differentiated further until no more was possible, then what we would find is a physically existent state of whatever was being considered. In other words, that bush, as with everything else, is a sequence of definitive, discrete, physically existent states. Any given one is the reality at that time, only one state exists at a time. There are mechanisms causing these alterations.

This has nothing to do with selection. In the sequence of existence, as knowable to us, each state (or combination of) causes a subsequent state. How and why this all started is not knowable to us, because it is extrinsic to our existence. We can either invoke beliefs or a recurring theme which solves nothing. This concept: “"our existence relies upon our ability to select” is wrong. We, and any other sentient organism, do not ‘select’ anything. The only form of ‘selection’ involved is that what is potentially knowable, ie physical existence, is, possibly, only one form of existence, because it is a function of a physical process. But we do not do any selecting, we receive physical input. The extent to which we can then process that, and ‘alter’ it in arriving at a perception, is another matter. A perception is not reality, it is a perception of reality.

Paul

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

So Paul, how's your mechanical skills? Once shown how to change a tire on a car would you be able to do it? Better still, have you ever played tic-tac-toe? The reason for asking is that both instances are absolute functions. Although there may be several ways to jack up a car in order to take a tire off, there is only one way to remove the tire from the bolts that retain it, i.e. remove the bolts. Same mechanism of absolute function goes for tic-tac-toe, the grey lines within the circular graphs in the figues of my paper should look very familiar to you. However, for a selection/state event you only need 'two' sequential Xs... simpler still! But like quantum mechanics, an indirect selection event only serves to give us a partial picture of what is going on.

... the discovery comes into play when we combined both contradictory selection events together (figs. 7-8) which overlaps at the center of gravity thus giving us 'three' sequential Xs which form the absolute value function of our existence:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAQ-CPyKzq8

Anonymous replied on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 04:02 GMT

Manuel

I did not understand the purpose of the first paragraph. Then there is: “However, for a selection/state event…”, where is the selection? This is followed by: “But like quantum mechanics, an indirect selection event only serves to give us a partial picture of what is going on”. What selection event (let alone why was it indirect), and why is it only partial?

I might add in the context of asking those questions, that QM is incorrect, because it is based on presumptions that do not correspond with reality. As I said above, any given reality is a discrete, definitive, physically existent state of whatever comprises it. It neither occurs in any form of indefiniteness, nor does observation/measurement (or any form of sensing) affect the physical circumstance.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Author Manuel S Morales replied on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 16:50 GMT

Paul (Anonymous),

My comment was originally directed to Paul Reed. Sorry for the confusion.

You may find this ironic that I am in agreement with your position that QM is incorrect in the sense that it alone does not provide us a complete picture of reality. However, as exhibited in Fig 8 of my essay, I found the uncertainty principle and complementarity to be valid as well for they are reflective of indirect selection events.

I find your perception of reality to be based on effectual causality when you stated, "...any given reality is a discrete, definitive, physically existent state of whatever comprises it."

I see reality not as an effect of itself but as, "...any given reality is a discrete, definitive, physically existent state of whatever causes it."

Perhaps you may want to review the initial findings of the Tempt Destiny experiment as presented at the April, 2011, APS convention which served as the basis of my essay: PHYSICS OF PREDETERMINED EVENTS Complementarity States of Choice-Chance Mechanics

Regards,

Manuel

Paul Reed replied on Jul. 4, 2013 @ 04:45 GMT

Manuel

“You may find this ironic that I am in agreement with your position that QM is incorrect in the sense that it alone does not provide us a complete picture of reality”

Then you are not in agreement with me. QM is an incorrect model of physical existence because its presumptions are contradictory to how that occurs. Obviously, the work done is not all wrong, but that is...

view entire post

Manuel

“You may find this ironic that I am in agreement with your position that QM is incorrect in the sense that it alone does not provide us a complete picture of reality”

Then you are not in agreement with me. QM is an incorrect model of physical existence because its presumptions are contradictory to how that occurs. Obviously, the work done is not all wrong, but that is not the same as ‘not provide a complete picture’. For example, both the uncertainty and complementarity principles are wrong. Physical existence does not occur with some form of indefiniteness, whether we can discern comprehensively and accurately what did occur is another matter. Matter might exist in what we detect as particle and wave format, but it does not do so at the same time. Indeed, wave involves duration, ie a sequence of realities. So probably what is happening here is a confusion between the ultimate substance (which we is particle) and its physically existent state at any given time (reality), which in a sequence of realities is wave.

Your fig 8 confuses the range of logical possibilities for existence with what we can establish. Our physical existence is all that is potentially knowable (ie detectable). There may be another form of existence but we can never know it. So forget it, because that is religion, not science. Now, within that potentiality there is a huge proportion we do not know, but it is, or was, potentially knowable. For example, events that occurred long before any form of sensory system developed, or billions of miles away, are/were potentially knowable. The fact that we never had a chance of realising that potential is irrelevant. There was a potential. So the differential is between what we know and do not know of that which is potentially knowable. Not what is known and not known. The knowable is knowable (potentially). It occurred, it was definitive. Whether we missed the opportunity and get it wrong is entirely different matter.

“I find your perception of reality to be based on effectual causality when you stated, "...any given reality is a discrete, definitive, physically existent state of whatever comprises it."

Why, what else is it then? And when answering that please stay within our existentially closed system and do not invoke some assertion extrinsic to that.

“I see reality not as an effect of itself but as, "...any given reality is a discrete, definitive, physically existent state of whatever causes it."

! What caused the reality in question is the previous reality. You only seem to have one reality. Which is obviously not the case, since there is difference, ie we are not stuck in one physically existent state ad infinitum.

Paul

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (1 not shown)

Manuel, This delightful essay really woke me up. It is refreshing to see real experiments used to look at interplay between information and causality.

report post as inappropriate

Author Manuel S Morales replied on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 17:23 GMT

Thank you Philip for your comments. You made a good point, I somehow feel that this competition is more about seeking a consensus of opinion based on knowledge instead of 'how' we obtained such knowledge. Not sure if the later is of any interest here... time will tell.

It was a pleasure to rate your essay and I hope you will find my essay worth your consideration.

Regards,

Manuel

Manuel,

If given the time and the wits to evaluate over 120 more entries, I have a month to try. My seemingly whimsical title, “It’s good to be the king,” is serious about our subject.

Jim

post approved

Manuel,

thank you for stopping by and commenting on my essay. I read your entry and also looked at your site. The correlation that you found between the voters choice and the actual NFL winner is very intriguing (the bookies must be consulting your site daily lol). I also very much liked your artistic work. You pose interesting questions, bringing our attention to the fact that when examining complex phenomena it is hard to tell what are the causes and what are the effects. Does voters' choice reflect their confidence in their team? Or do both voters and teams merely reflect a hidden underlying reality? To me it seems like the second view is closer to truth.

This reminds me of a recent (3 years ago -?) experiments in psychology where 'operators' watching what essentially was a flip of a coin (something of a radioactive decay was actually used as the source of 'randomness' -- I don't recall the details now). So, the researchers found a statistically significant correlation between 'operators' guesses and the outcomes, suggesting some rudimentary form of precognition, or information flowing backwards (depends how one may prefer to interpret this). But imo the problem with such an interpretation is that it views operators and the machine 'abstractly', or apart from the real environment. What if both an operator and the machine were subject of underlying flow of.. time? or information or whatever.. and _that_ was the real 'cause' that 'made' humans to 'choose' between 0 and 1 and, at the same time, 'made' the machine to output 0 or 1. Curiously, it was the most relaxed and the least contriving (="trying to guess right") operators who had the best results. In other words, by simply following the flow they were getting it right.

You stirred these thoughts in my mind. Thanks for posing such interesting questions and good luck with the rest of competition :)

report post as inappropriate

Author Manuel S Morales replied on Jul. 8, 2013 @ 13:05 GMT

M.V.,

"Or do both voters and teams merely reflect a hidden underlying reality?"

Now that's a fascinating question, one of which I have passively pondered on and plan on looking into later. I am glad to hear that I have stirred some thoughts for you have done the same for as well. I look forward to reading your essay this week when this competition is back up and running.

Thank you for your comments and interest in the findings.

Manuel

Manuel

« This sense of effectual reality requires interaction with it in order to exist. This means that this essay you are reading did not exist until you chose to read it. This of course defies all manner of logic, yet here we are. »

I totally agree with what you write in these lines. In a sense, the reality "for us" exists only when we interact with it. This does not mean it does not exist for others, or it does not exist for itself. That is my position.

Regards

report post as inappropriate

Author Manuel S Morales replied on Jul. 8, 2013 @ 12:44 GMT

Amazigh,

Once we get this 'competition' back online again, I will review your essay which appears to be contrary to the popular wisdom. I truly look forward to reading your essay.

Manuel

Dear Manuel,

I hope for a good translation:

I read with interest your essay, and I am in perfect agreement with you that the reality is dual, as I also express it in my essay.

A question arises, to be completely consequent with what we assert, why the name of « quantum mechanics » if the reality is dual, why not « quantum and wave mechanics » ?

Thank you for appreciating my essay,

And I am going to rate your essay and good luck.

Amazigh

report post as inappropriate

Dear Manuel,

What an excellent essay and I comment you for this far excellent essay. I learned a lot from it and I had to read it several times and will read it again later. I completely in agreement with you that selection causes and effects existence. If I may say in my theory of KQID, I called this phenomena as the Wang Yaming's one bit as the unity of Giving first Taking later as one transaction as an act of selection: do first and reap the effect later as one bit. The "do" is also the effect as you pointed out. As you wrote below: "We have also established in Fig. 1 that it is necessary for a selection event to take place in order for a physical state to exist, hence, no selection = no existence." Yes, no selection no existence! We have the same conclusion and same concept in different language, translation, transformation but it is the same. I ranked it the highest so far. Fantastic! Never give up, continue the fight for all of us. Best, Leo

report post as inappropriate

Author Manuel S Morales replied on Jul. 11, 2013 @ 02:33 GMT

Thank you Leo for taking the time to review and rate my essay and for your kind words of support and encouragement.

Your paper sounds very interesting and I am looking forward to reviewing and rating your essay tomorrow.

Thanks again!

Manuel

Hi Manual,

Thanks for an interesting essay. I equate it with the saying of a yoga instructor: No brain, No pain.

Thanks,

Don Limuti

post approved

Hi Manuel,

As I promised in my Essay page, I have read your Essay. I strongly appreciated it. In particular, I completely agree with your and Einstein's point of view on the uncompletness of quantum mechanics and on the needing to construct a more general deterministic theory beyond it. As I had a lot of fun in reading your Essay, I am going to give you a high score.

Cheers,

Ch.

report post as inappropriate

Author Manuel S Morales replied on Jul. 15, 2013 @ 17:03 GMT

Thank you Christian for your support and kind words. As you are aware its not easy to go against the grain of popular opinion and for someone of your credentials to find merit in these findings, I find humbling.

I wish you continued success in this contest.

Regards,

Manuel

Dear Manuel

Thank you very much for your thoughtful attention.

Maybe I have not yet really understand your question: "So 'how' did these absolute states come to exists in the first place? " but will temporarily answer : every state is absolute - compared to all other states, even when the same nature - because : will can not have the two states co-exist in one place of space and at one point of time.

Thank you again - my email : hoangcao_hai@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Author Manuel S Morales replied on Jul. 17, 2013 @ 03:35 GMT

Thank you Hoang cao for sharing with me your viewpoint. I agree that states, which are finite, are absolute in that two states cannot simultaneously co-exist at one point in space time.

My question you quoted is about how the fundamental acts of selection give rise to such states. I appreciate your viewpoint and have rated your essay accordingly. I wish you well in this competition.

Regards,

Manuel

Dear Manuel. Hello, and apologies if this does not apply to you. I have read and rated your essay and about 50 others. If you have not read, or did not rate my essay The Cloud of Unknowing please consider doing so. With best wishes.

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Author Manuel S Morales replied on Jul. 17, 2013 @ 03:41 GMT

Vladimir,

I did appreciate your comments and rating of my essay and have previously replied in kind. I wish you continued success in the competition.

Regards,

Manuel

Hi Dear Morales,

I have read your essay and I have find there such question:

“How does something arise from nothing?”

My dear! I have ask the same question myself in little bit different formulation: - Is it possible somebody made the sausage (for example) if I will give him all of information - the technology, process and materials description etc (let be encoded those even in binary system!) without meat? Thus, I am going rate your essay as a high. I will read it more detailed later. Please just open my work Essay text that I think you can read. Professor Christian very like it.

Best wishes,

George

report post as inappropriate

Author Manuel S Morales replied on Jul. 17, 2013 @ 20:49 GMT

George,

I too value Professor Christian opinion... and yours as well. Thank you for your kind words. I find it comforting to know that I am not the only one asking 'How does something arise from nothing?'

I have reviewed your insightful essay and truly enjoyed reading it. I find rating it came easy. Best wishes to you in this contest.

Regards,

Manuel

Hello Manuel,

Contests FQXi-it contests new fundamental ideas. Your essay is a good example of depth analysis and new ideas presented in graphic form. You acknowledge Alexander Zenkina thought expressed in the article "Science counterrevolution in mathematics»: «the truth should be drawn with the help of the cognitive computer visualization technology and should be presented to "an unlimited circle" of spectators in the form of color-musical cognitive images of its immanent essence »http://www.ccas.ru/alexzen/papers/ng-02/contr_rev.htm

You give a new opportunity to look at and understand the concepts of "matter", "energy", "information" from a new angle give a glimpse into the fundamental structure of nature. See also my essay. I think we are close in spirit to research.

I wish you success and respect,

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Jul. 17, 2013 @ 20:37 GMT

Vladimir,

Thank you for taking the time to review my essay and for rating it based on the findings. I appreciate the link. That is some heavy stuff!

Anyway, I have also reviewed your essay and found your perspective very much in keeping with the findings as well. At least you did not take 12 years of experimentation to come to your conclusion ;-)

Best wishes,

Manuel

report post as inappropriate

Manuel,

I found that our 'perception' of reality is what has blinded us to understanding what reality is. The mindset based on effectual causality blinds us to the fact that nature is 'super-deterministic' to coin a term by physicist John Bell.

Your above comment about mindsets calls to mind my belief that humankind has been unduly influenced by an anthropomorphic perception that falsely guides the Anthropic Principle.

Your "abstract" comment, "In so doing, we find that the two acts of selection have gravitational characteristics, as such, serve to unify the strong, weak, and electromagnetic forces as one super-deterministic force," I find fascinating, though my mathematical skills kept me from seeing the connection in your graphics. The mystery of gravity and the separation of forces seconds after the BB must augur such a connective key 14 billion years after.

Induced "States of angular momentum" correlating with other characteristic behaviors only attributed to quantum mechanics seems a unique manner of perceiving our reality -- perhaps fleeting images of macro and micro unification.

report post as inappropriate

Author Manuel S Morales replied on Jul. 19, 2013 @ 02:23 GMT

James,

Thank you for stopping by to review my essay and for the kind words. Funny thing, I was just reviewing your essay yesterday and was going to request your email address to run some questions by you, but you beat me to the punch. What is your email address? Or you can send me an email to: msm@physicsofdestiny.com

Thanks,

Manuel

"This means you cannot choose to move your body whatsoever. You cannot choose to take in any fluids. You cannot choose to take in any nourishment. You cannot choose to relieve yourself, etc., etc. The outcome is obvious. The effect of a physical system to no longer have the capacity to make direct selections is certain death.

Not True. Some *other* physical system can do it for you, as happens all the time, with people in a coma. Even if you consider everything to be just one system, problems remain. Fluids and nourishment may slam into you by chance; the chance might be small, but improbable life is not the same as certain death.

Rob McEachern

report post as inappropriate

Author Manuel S Morales replied on Jul. 19, 2013 @ 20:13 GMT

Rob,

You are saying that another physical system would then need to do the 'selection' indirectly for another physical system's existence. I hope you realize that you have inadvertently confirmed that physical systems require direct or indirect acts of selection for their existence. The example I gave dealt with direct selection and its certain outcome. The example you gave dealt with indirect selection and its uncertain outcome. Thus, the existence of both states/outcomes requires the acts of selection for a physical system to exist. Nature is absolute in this regard.

I truly appreciate you giving it some thought by presenting your argument.

Best wishes,

Manuel

Author Manuel S Morales replied on Jul. 19, 2013 @ 20:35 GMT

Rob, I looked for your essay and was not able to find it? Do you have an entry in this competition?

Manuel

Robert H McEachern replied on Jul. 19, 2013 @ 21:10 GMT

Manuel,

Your statement, that I quoted, declared that the inability to make "*DIRECT* selections is certain death." I merely pointed-out that that statement is indeed false. "I hope you realize that you have inadvertently confirmed that" my statement was correct. *INDIRECT* selection remains an option.

It was not inadvertent. I merely point out that the manner in which you have defined the terms "direct selection" and "indirect selection", as the only two possibilities preceding an "effect", causes the argument to reduce to the Anthropic principle; starting with the fact that something exists, it must necessarily be the case, that whatever conditions were previously necessary for that something to exist, must also have existed. If my life continues, then the conditions conducive to its continuance must have existed. If my life fails to continue, then the conditions conducive to that failure must have existed. "Nature is absolute in this regard."

Rob McEachern

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (5 not shown)

Dear Manuel S Morales:

I am an old physician, and I don’t know nothing of mathematics and almost nothing of physics, I am not prepared to really understand your essay, but I understand enough to appreciate your good job. Maybe you would be interested in my essay over a subject which after the common people, physic discipline is the one that uses more...

view entire post

Dear Manuel S Morales:

I am an old physician, and I don’t know nothing of mathematics and almost nothing of physics, I am not prepared to really understand your essay, but I understand enough to appreciate your good job. Maybe you would be interested in my essay over a subject which after the common people, physic discipline is the one that uses more than any other, the so called “time”.

I am sending you a practical summary, so you can easy decide if you read or not my essay “The deep nature of reality”.

I am convince you would be interested in reading it. ( most people don’t understand it, and is not just because of my bad English).

Hawking in “A brief history of time” where he said , “Which is the nature of time?” yes he don’t know what time is, and also continue saying…………Some day this answer could seem to us “obvious”, as much than that the earth rotate around the sun…..” In fact the answer is “obvious”, but how he could say that, if he didn’t know what’s time? In fact he is predicting that is going to be an answer, and that this one will be “obvious”, I think that with this adjective, he is implying: simple and easy to understand. Maybe he felt it and couldn’t explain it with words. We have anthropologic proves that man measure “time” since more than 30.000 years ago, much, much later came science, mathematics and physics that learn to measure “time” from primitive men, adopted the idea and the systems of measurement, but also acquired the incognita of the experimental “time” meaning. Out of common use physics is the science that needs and use more the measurement of what everybody calls “time” and the discipline came to believe it as their own. I always said that to understand the “time” experimental meaning there is not need to know mathematics or physics, as the “time” creators and users didn’t. Instead of my opinion I would give Einstein’s “Ideas and Opinions” pg. 354 “Space, time, and event, are free creations of human intelligence, tools of thought” he use to call them pre-scientific concepts from which mankind forgot its meanings, he never wrote a whole page about “time” he also use to evade the use of the word, in general relativity when he refer how gravitational force and speed affect “time”, he does not use the word “time” instead he would say, speed and gravitational force slows clock movement or “motion”, instead of saying that slows “time”. FQXi member Andreas Albrecht said that. When asked the question, "What is time?", Einstein gave a pragmatic response: "Time," he said, "is what clocks measure and nothing more." He knew that “time” was a man creation, but he didn’t know what man is measuring with the clock.

I insist, that for “measuring motion” we should always and only use a unique: “constant” or “uniform” “motion” to measure “no constant motions” “which integrates and form part of every change and transformation in every physical thing. Why? because is the only kind of “motion” whose characteristics allow it, to be divided in equal parts as Egyptians and Sumerians did it, giving born to “motion fractions”, which I call “motion units” as hours, minutes and seconds. “Motion” which is the real thing, was always hide behind time, and covert by its shadow, it was hide in front everybody eyes, during at least two millenniums at hand of almost everybody. Which is the difference in physics between using the so-called time or using “motion”?, time just has been used to measure the “duration” of different phenomena, why only for that? Because it was impossible for physicists to relate a mysterious time with the rest of the physical elements of known characteristics, without knowing what time is and which its physical characteristics were. On the other hand “motion” is not something mysterious, it is a quality or physical property of all things, and can be related with all of them, this is a huge difference especially for theoretical physics I believe. I as a physician with this find I was able to do quite a few things. I imagine a physicist with this can make marvelous things.

With my best whishes

Héctor

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Manuel: "We actually think our opinions matter when it comes down to understanding nature"

Rob: ... because they do matter, at least with regards to our understanding.

I have found that our perception/understanding of nature, that which we call reality, is the root of the problem preventing us from obtaining the Theory of Everything. Our opinion matters to us so much so that it prevents us from understanding nature on 'its' terms. We want the fundamental interaction of our existence to be a particle that gives rise to the existence of the universe. In doing so, we bypass what caused the 'effect' of this interaction to occur in the first place. No selection = no interaction = no existence.

I have found that our focus on effectual states (elementary particles) causing effectual states (nucleus of an atom) is why this contest exist in the first place. We insist on a 'something' (bit) to cause a something (it). The fundamental flaw with this paradox is that it does not tell us anything about what caused the initial 'something' to exist in the first place. So here we are... expressing our opinions as if they actually matter.

"The fundamental flaw with this paradox is that it does not tell us anything about what caused the initial 'something' to exist in the first place"

That is True. And nothing ever will. Not Science. Not Religion. Nothing. And that is why Science (as opposed to scientists) does not even try to determine a "first cause". Science is content to merely find causes for desired effects.

Rob McEachern

report post as inappropriate

Author Manuel S Morales replied on Jul. 22, 2013 @ 02:02 GMT

Rob,

Your comment, "That is True. And nothing ever will. Not Science. Not Religion. Nothing. And that is why Science (as opposed to scientists) does not even try to determine a "first cause."" I find to be a paradoxical.

Without first cause, your comment infers that an experimenter can indeed conduct an experiment without 'first' making a selection. Then you go on to say that, "Science is content to merely find causes for desired effects." How can science find 'causes' when you have clearly stated it cannot even try to do so?

Perhaps at this point we should agree to disagree and leave it at that.

Best wishes,

Manuel

Robert H McEachern replied on Jul. 22, 2013 @ 14:08 GMT

Manuel,

Conduct the following experiment: Try to cause your car to start, by direct selection of your house key, to plug into the ignition. Then select your car key and try again. You can learn how to cause your car to start, without ever having to learn what caused you, the keys, the cars, the cosmos, or anything else.

Rob McEachern

report post as inappropriate

Author Manuel S Morales replied on Jul. 22, 2013 @ 14:24 GMT

"You can learn how to cause your car to start, without ever having to learn what caused you, the keys, the cars, the cosmos, or anything else."

You are correct Rob, if and only if, they exist in the first place. Thus you are talking about effectual causality, i.e., how observed or measured effects (keys) cause effects (start a car). I am talking about true (first) causality. You continue to miss this point time and time again? I do however, appreciate you trying to understand the findings.

Manuel

show all replies (2 not shown)

Robert H McEachern replied on Jul. 22, 2013 @ 19:12 GMT

You are correct Manuel. You are talking about a first cause. My point is that the first cause has been talked about for thousands of years. All talk and no action; after all of that time, no one, including you, has ever even succeeded in producing a logical demonstration that such a cause even exists, much less identified what it is.

The problem is, that deductive logic, the only type known to be capable of producing *certain* conclusions, given a starting premise, cannot be used to prove the premise. Hence, all "well reasoned" logical arguments, can only be demonstrated to be wrong or questionable, by demonstrating that the premise is false or dubious. Your starting premise, namely that a first cause exists, has been shown to be dubious; it cannot be shown to be true and it cannot be shown to be false - it is thus rendered dubious.

You stated that "You are correct Rob, if and only if, they exist in the first place" . That is indeed true, but it is just the Anthropic principle. All it really says is that something, your car key, can exist if and only if whatever was necessary for it to exist also existed. It is logically possible for there to be an infinite regression of such things, and thus no "first". It is also logically possible for there to a a circular chain of causes, rather than a linear one, so again, there is no "first", there is just an endless cycle. And that, of course, is why it is possible to debate the "first cause" in an endless cycle. Consequently, we do not need to agree to disagree, in order to break-out of this cycle. We only need to agree to break-out. Which is exactly my point. We do *not* need to directly select a "cause" or "reason" for the break-out, such as agreeing to disagree. We only have to directly select the break-out itself.

I shall.

Rob McEachern

report post as inappropriate

Author Manuel S Morales replied on Jul. 22, 2013 @ 21:12 GMT

Rob,

If you did conduct the Final Selection Experiment yet continued to exist without making any direct selections (or not have someone else make indirect selections for you), then and only then would your assumption of the lack of first cause be correct.

However, since you nor anyone else on this planet 'cannot' exist without the ability to select, then your argument is mute for it has been falsified thus the break-out is complete.

Best wishes,

Manuel

hide replies

Manuel,

In many ways your approach is interesting and fascinating.

Antoine Acke.

report post as inappropriate

Author Manuel S Morales replied on Jul. 22, 2013 @ 21:17 GMT

Thank you Antonie for your comments and support. I hope you do well in the competition.

Manuel

Author Manuel S Morales replied on Jul. 22, 2013 @ 21:19 GMT

Oops! I apologize for misspelling your name Antoine...

Dear Manual,

There is a concept, well known to the quantum information community, that

determines in what precise sense there is no destiny

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutually_unbiased_bases

M
utually unbiased bases play a fundamental role in many tasks of quantum information processing. There is no cause, just a set of possibilities with equal probability as soon as you select a mesaurement base uncorrelated (unbiased) to your previous choices.

I suspect that this concept may be useful for you.

In my essay, I am working at something quite different but structurally related, that you may wish to read.

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1789

Best wishes,

Michel

report post as inappropriate

Author Manuel S Morales replied on Jul. 23, 2013 @ 11:56 GMT

Michel,

I agree there is no destiny as commonly understood as the findings from a 12 year experiment clearly show. I also agree that counterfactual definiteness is indeed not causal and the main reason for subjectivity in quantum physics. The question I have for you is what caused the quantum states we hold so dear to exist to begin with? The answer to this question is what the empirical evidence obtained from this experiment has revealed.

Destiny is a theory that events or series of events are predetermined, and since events are moments of physical energy, then fundamentally destiny is a physical theory. Historically it is commonly assumed that if everything is predetermined (cause) then that must mean that everything is certain (effect). But what if this is not about predetermined certainty? What if this is about 'how' determinism is predetermined? If we understand that determinism simply means that a physical system behaves the same each time it is "replayed" from its original state, then this means that our focus on the effects of the original state has been in error.

May I humbly ask that you please take the time to review my essay in its entirety? There you will find that absolute determinism is also inclusive of states of counterfactual definiteness where we find that QM is indeed valid as a 'partial' description of the dichotomy we call reality.

Bottom line for followers of the uncertainty principle is that 'uncertainty without certainty makes uncertainty as certainty.'

Author Manuel S Morales replied on Jul. 23, 2013 @ 12:19 GMT

BTW - Michel, I did find your essay most worthy of merit and rated it highly on Jun 28, 2013. In hindsight, now that I see how things have played out in this 'competition', I should have rated you at 10 so that it would have helped you over the duration of this competition. My apologies, the exceptional insight and analysis you have exhibited in your essay deserves to be rated even higher than it currently is.

I truly hope you make it to the finals where I believe your work will be better able to stand on its own.

Manuel

Manuel,

in june you rated my essay positively, I see that your work is valued high, and it is also my conviction. So a little bit late but here still my respectful rating. I amvery aware that it is a struggle to keep a position, and I just do not understand the ratings given.

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate

Wilhelmus de Wilde replied on Jul. 23, 2013 @ 15:41 GMT

Manuel , I received message that I rated your essay already on june 25, with the age 67 Alzheimer is dooming, so I cannot push you up right now, because I did it already...

best regards

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate

Author Manuel S Morales replied on Jul. 23, 2013 @ 15:52 GMT

Thank you Wihelmus for your kind words of support. I find that the rating system is averaged out via the number of ratings made and the rating numbers received.

Best wishes,

Manuel

Dear Manual,

I red your paper another time. While I more or less agree with the first part

"the universal acts of selection are the fundamental causal

variables of our existence for we must first make a selection (cause) in order to observe (effect)", (although it is not related to entanglement), I don't understand the second part "Unification of Cause and Effect With The Four Forces".

What you say about selection is perfectly in agreement with quantum measurements (the relative position of Stern-Gerlach measurements of spin for example, see the book of Asher Peres for the 'classical' paradoxes it implies). In my essay, I am just analyzing these observables/selections as a whole, they have to be mutually commutative/compatible. This is also well in the spirit of Whheler's viewpoint.

Your second part is much more radical and I don't see how it fits the existing knowledge about the 3+1 forces. The spin is not a force, I agree that spins have to do with the selections but I don't understand your point with the forces. The quarks (strong force) have spin 1/2, the electrons (electromagnetic force force) have spin 1/2, W and Z bosons have spin 1 (weak force), the graviton has spin 2, one selects such spins in measurements but not thei masses for example.

Thank you for you interest in my opinion. But may be I still have to learn more from you.

Best wishes,

Michel

report post as inappropriate

Author Manuel S Morales replied on Jul. 23, 2013 @ 19:03 GMT

Michel,

I have found that determinism is anything that can be selected either directly or indirectly. A direct selection of one potential gives rise to a physical state of certainty as observed in the deterministic macroscopic domain. An indirect selection of 'more than' one potential gives rise to a physical state of uncertainty as observed in the non-deterministic microscopic domain. It is necessary that these two acts of selection exist for they both give us the dichotomy of what we call reality. The potential function gives us the potentiality (wave function) of existence of a selection event and its state. Since the two acts of selection are mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive, these two fundamental acts give us deterministic or non-deterministic states of reality. These finite selection functions then code (predetermine) the wave function of the potential state as exhibited in Fig. 8 of my essay.

Therefore the findings show that the uncertainty behavior of quantum mechanics is indeed a valid 'partial' interpretation of a deterministic reality. In other words, non-determinism is a function of determinism for existence/reality is a dichotomy. In this context, both deterministic and non-deterministic behaviors are causal for they both reflect the behavioral existence of a deterministic dichotomy. This existence is mirrored by states of spin. I hesitate at this point to elaborate further than what I have already stated in my essay since this is a topic I will discuss in more detail in my next paper.

I hope this helps.

Manuel

Manual,

Your discussion on cause and effect is very interesting. Your essay deserves a very high rating.

I believe in cause before effect. My theory posits that absolute motion is the true cause of all the forces and all the processes of nature. In addition absolute motion can explain the weird results of the double-slit experiment. A paper on this is available in the following link:

http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011experiment.pdf

Good luck with your essay.

Regards,

Ken

report post as inappropriate

Author Manuel S Morales replied on Jul. 23, 2013 @ 19:22 GMT

Thank you Ken for your kind words and support. After this is over, I plan to take the time necessary to properly review the experiment paper you have provided a link to.

Thanks again,

Manuel

Manuel,

Thank you for a stimulating essay. Your idea that causal functions and their effectual states have gravitational characteristics is very original.

It is also possible to consider causal functions as ontic and effectual states as epistemic, with the two related by the action principle. Ontic entropy (contraction of scale) acts as gravity and epistemic entropy (expansion of scale) acts as time. (See my essay "A Complex Conjugate Bit and It".)

In this way, quantum information theory contributes to your concept of QM as a deterministic system (providing that there is underlying quantum wholeness).

Best wishes,

Richard

report post as inappropriate

Author Manuel S Morales replied on Jul. 24, 2013 @ 20:59 GMT

Richard,

I recall reading your essay and found it original, very in depth, and intuitive in its analogy. I liked it enough to rate it highly on July 3, as I recall. Unfortunately at the time I did not realize how cutthroat this competition would be or I would have rated every essay I found to be original, insightful, and relative to the findings a 10. Instead I went by what the highest ratings were at the time which were around 5-6, and for that, I owe you an apology.

Since I found your essay of interest, I was wondering if we could continue our dialog via email when this is all over? My email address is msm@physicsofdestiny.com

Thank you for your understanding and kind words of support. Your work deserves to be in the finals and I wish you good luck in the competition.

Regards,

Manuel

Richard N. Shand replied on Jul. 31, 2013 @ 05:40 GMT

Manuel,

Thank you very much for your support. I really appreciate the feedback.

Certainly we can continue our dialogue. My email address is rshand@shaw.ca.

Best wishes,

Richard

report post as inappropriate

Hello Manuel

Richard Feynman in his Nobel Acceptance Speech (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/19
65/feynman-lecture.html)

said: “It always seems odd to me that the fundamental laws of physics, when discovered, can appear in so many different forms that are not apparently identical at first, but with a little mathematical fiddling you can show the...

view entire post

Hello Manuel

Richard Feynman in his Nobel Acceptance Speech (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/19
65/feynman-lecture.html)

said: “It always seems odd to me that the fundamental laws of physics, when discovered, can appear in so many different forms that are not apparently identical at first, but with a little mathematical fiddling you can show the relationship. And example of this is the Schrodinger equation and the Heisenberg formulation of quantum mechanics. I don’t know why that is – it remains a mystery, but it was something I learned from experience. There is always another way to say the same thing that doesn’t look at all like the way you said it before. I don’t know what the reason for this is. I think it is somehow a representation of the simplicity of nature.”

I too believe in the simplicity of nature, and I am glad that Richard Feynman, a Nobel-winning famous physicist, also believe in the same thing I do, but I had come to my belief long before I knew about that particular statement.

The belief that “Nature is simple” is however being expressed differently in my essay “Analogical Engine” linked to http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1865 .

Specifically though, I said “Planck constant is the Mother of All Dualities” and I put it schematically as: wave-particle ~ quantum-classical ~ gene-protein ~ analogy- reasoning ~ linear-nonlinear ~ connected-notconnected ~ computable-notcomputable ~ mind-body ~ Bit-It ~ variation-selection ~ freedom-determinism … and so on.

Taken two at a time, it can be read as “what quantum is to classical” is similar to (~) “what wave is to particle.” You can choose any two from among the multitudes that can be found in our discourses.

I could have put Schrodinger wave ontology-Heisenberg particle ontology duality in the list had it comes to my mind!

Since “Nature is Analogical”, we are free to probe nature in so many different ways. And you have touched some corners of it.

Good luck!

Than Tin

view post as summary

post approved

Hi Manuel,

I liked your essay very much. I do have a couple of questions, however. On page 3, in discussing the two-slit experiment, you talk about a "deterministic selection" being applied, which leads to the observation of a collapsed state, or eigenstate. Now, it's the presence of a detection screen behind the slits that makes such observation possible; so, it seems that the "selection" here is associated with the screen. But I'm not sure why you describe this selection as deterministic; for unless you make some additional assumptions, the effect of the screen on the relevant observed eigenstate appears to be only probabilistic, just like the effect of dropping a coin on the edge of a cup.

The second question concerns p. 6, in the discussion of Figs. 4a and 5a. If I understand correctly, you're identifying a spin-down orientation (-) with the non-existence of a selection event; but what is the rationale for this identification? Your remarks near the bottom of p. 5, in particular, seem to imply that a state doesn't exist if there's no selection associated with it; but in that case, it follows that spin-down states don't exist, which doesn't make sense (or, is blatantly false)- hence, equating spin-down with no-selection seems highly problematic.

I apologize if I've misunderstood your ideas, and I'd be grateful for any clarification.

Best of luck,

Willard

report post as inappropriate

Author Manuel S Morales replied on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 18:06 GMT

Willard,

Thank you for reviewing my essay and the kind words of support.

Regarding your double slit questions, the slits acts as selectors causing the effects observed on the detection screen. The screen gives us the effectual state of the selection made. When you referred to the coin-in-cup experiment please bear in mind that the opening of the cup represents the two acts of selection (single slit - cup opening, double slit - cup edge). Thus selection 'determines' effect and so without a selection event you have no effectual state. No assumption needed.

Regarding your second question, please note that the figures are in sequential order. I ask that you please review how we got to Figs. 4 - 6., which began in Fig. 2a. Only after a selection event has been made do we get states of spin up or spin down. Non-existence comes into play at the selection level, not the effectual state level.

I hope this helps.

Manuel

Willard Mittelman replied on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 04:21 GMT

Hello again,

Thanks for your helpful remarks. I still seem to be having some problems grasping your framework, however; I'll try to explain as best I can.

Your statement that selection determines effect seems to imply that selection is sufficient to produce an observable effect. Yet the selection of two open slits does not, by itself, produce an effect; it's also necessary to have a detection screen. Hence, selection here is not deterministic.

Of course, one can always say that selection in this case does determine something, namely that there are two different possible effects; but your own reference to "effects observed on the detection screen" suggests you're talking about actual, observed effects rather than possible ones. In any case, no one denies that selecting a particular experimental set-up determines a range of possible effects; what's at issue is whether actual effects or outcomes are causally determined.

Regarding spin and helicity, you say on p. 5 that "acts of selection are causal and when combined with their effectual states on the corresponding selection axis create a state of angular momentum." One difficulty I have here is that I can't think of any examples at all of "direct" selection of spin states. But more importantly, you don't seem to offer any specific, physical account of how the above-mentioned process of spin-state-creation actually works. Of course, we already know how spin can be measured using, e.g., a Stern-Gerlach apparatus. But you seem to be offering an alternative to standard accounts of (spin-)measurement; and I just can't tell what that alternative is.

I apologize, again, if I'm missing something.

-Willard

report post as inappropriate

Author Manuel S Morales replied on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 13:24 GMT

Willard,

You are correct in that the selection of two open slits does not, by itself, produce an effect. As I have stated in my essay, selections X of potentials Y are a dichotomy. For example, it is 'necessary' to have slits/selectors to cause the pattern effects observed on the detection screen. It is also necessary for the potential of something to go through the slits in order for a selection to take place.

Regarding spin and helicity, you speak of knowledge of such things. So can you tell me what causes spin in the first place?

If we understand that the acts of selection are first cause, hence deterministic, then all else follows. As far as greater detail regarding this topic of spin, I leave that for my next paper.

Best wishes,

Manuel

Manuel,

Very clear thinking. Theory has not blocked your visionary capabilities. I will return and read it again. Your rating is high, perhaps it will rise higher. Thank you for enterring your essay.

James Putnam

report post as inappropriate

Author Manuel S Morales replied on Jul. 27, 2013 @ 03:16 GMT

Thank you James for the kind words. I hope you will find my essay worthy of a reciprocal rating in kind.

Best wishes,

Manuel

James A Putnam replied on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 18:13 GMT

Manuel,

My own work repudiates theoretical physics. This resuts directly from making mass a definable property. In other words, the very first intrusion of theory is removed from this initial physics equation. All further changes result directly from the fact that all other mechanical properties and their units are definable in terms of mass, distance, and time. I say this only for the purpos of pointing out that, when I read the works of others that are accepting of theoretical physics, it requires me to do a great deal of translation for my own purposes. I haven't yet fully understood your essay. I find thoughtful original approaches, such as yours, worth learning about. For openers, I have just one easy question: E=G² is described as being dimensionally consistent. Can you please show the units for this equation? It would help me out. Thank you.

James Putnam

report post as inappropriate

Dear Manuel,

Cause-effect continuum is much expressional with, string-matter continuum scenario, while Tetrahedral-brane propagating at the wave-front is the source for a Spin simplex of coupled Tetrahedral-branes on eigen-rotational spin; in that the observation is realistic rather than probabilistic.

Additional details to my essay is been attached herewith

With best regards,

Jayakar

attachments: Spin_simplex.pdf

report post as inappropriate

Author Manuel S Morales replied on Jul. 27, 2013 @ 13:35 GMT

Jayakar,

Fascinating approach I must say and your web site made things clearer regarding your postulate that "...string-matter continuum is imperative for the information continuum to observe the realistic information of nature and to resolve the paradoxes in particle scenario." I found your essay, although different to my approach, to be truly insightful and original and worthy of merit.

Before I rate your essay highly, I would like to run some questions by you if I may via email. If interested please send me an email to: msm@physicsofdestiny.com

I look forward to hearing from you.

Regards,

Dear Manuel,

Your selection issue is anthropic and I do not think the nature (spacetime) needs us to exist or to select anything. What I call Reality is not It but our mere perception of It. We do not create It. We create an illusion of It and we call it Reality.

“If we are to uncover the fundamental interaction of our physical universe then we need to establish what is causal and what is not” This is chicken and egg problem and the solution is always the same - Darwinian evolution or the special case of a more general law of survival of the stable. The survival in the complex chaotic environment. The structured criticality is a property of that complex systems where small events may trigger larger events. This is a kind of chaos where the general behavior of the system can be modeled on one scale while smaller- and larger-scale behaviors remain unpredictable. The simple example of that phenomenon is a pile of sand.

In my opinion the slits are not selection mechanisms in the double-slit experiment. The experiment just shows the wave nature of particles. The wave does not select anything. The effect is an interference with itself. And to me that is the only nature of all particles. No duality.

I do not understand the chapter Unification of Cause and Effect With The Four Forces.

Best regards

Some more comments I have sent on your e-mail.

report post as inappropriate

Author Manuel S Morales replied on Jul. 27, 2013 @ 13:53 GMT

Jacek,

I find your understanding of what I have presented to be typical of the mindset that has us believing that observed or measured effects cause the effects we perceive as reality. Your chicken and egg analogy is reflective of such mindset. I have found that if we have given up on trying to understand what is casual (first cause), and what is not, to be the wall preventing us from a deeper understanding that reality is a dichotomy, not a singularity.

I base my opinion on actual empirical findings and offer to those who wish to falsify these findings a way to do so via the Final Selection Experiment. I truly hope you don't feel the need to go there for nature is absolute in this regard.

Best wishes,

Manuel

Hi Manuel

I thank you for drawing my attention to your essay. I really enjoyed reading it and I found it very interesting. You touch a very controversial topic, whether events are determined or not. I continuously think about chance and determinism, and I still don't reach a consensus. Both options are plausible and both have some objections.

I agree with some of your points but I also think that you make some assumptions in the experiment, that you do not mention. I also don't have clear what you mean by "direct" and "indirect" as in the case of the experiment with the coin. There you are assuming that the experiment is conducted in vacuum and that gravity works the same way all the time. Given these two assumptions, the outcome of the direct experiment is predictable, whereas for the other is unpredictable. So, in the forthcoming development of your model it seems to me that you're taking for granted that some laws such as gravity are well known.

I also agree that entanglement should be a local phenomenon but so far I haven't found a satisfactory explanation. I think your work helps a lot to understand this problem, although, I have to studied in more detail.

In the post you left in my entry, you mentioned that according to your approach GR does play a role in the microscopic world. From your work I could see that gravity plays a role but not GR. I'd be glad if you could explain how could you derive GR from your approach. Gravity in Newton's view is a force, in GR gravity is not a force but the curvature of space.

Thanks and good luck in the contest!

Best Regards

Israel

report post as inappropriate

Author Manuel S Morales replied on Jul. 30, 2013 @ 14:24 GMT

Isreal,

Thank you for taking the time to review my essay and for your comments. I shall do my best to address them as follows:

I: "Given these two assumptions, the outcome of the direct experiment is predictable, whereas for the other is unpredictable. So, in the forthcoming development of your model it seems to me that you're taking for granted that some laws such as gravity are well known."

M: The coin-in-cup experiment is about selection, not gravity. Without selection you have no coin-in-cup effect with, or without, gravity.

I: "I also agree that entanglement should be a local phenomenon but so far I haven't found a satisfactory explanation. I think your work helps a lot to understand this problem, although, I have to studied in more detail."

M: Hugh has said this better than I and so I quote, ""...the seat of choice is a world lower than the physical, that the physical emerges from." What we think of as locality are the physical effectual states that we observe or measure. As the graphs in my essay show, the 'attractive forces' of the acts of selections of potentials, i.e., gravity, is deeper than the locality of spin which correlates with Einstein's prediction nearly a century ago.

I hope this helps.

Manuel

Hi Manuel,

Thanks for a thought-provoking essay. While I am still digesting it, here are some initial thoughts and questions. You wrote:

> Destiny is a theory that events or series of events are all predetermined, i.e., absolute determinism or super-determinism, and since events are moments of physical energy, then fundamentally it is necessary that this theory applies to the laws...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Manuel S Morales replied on Jul. 30, 2013 @ 14:00 GMT

In response to your comments Hugh,

H: "I take it that your theory is based on the idea that a realistic QM has to be super-deterministic. Have you thought of experiments that would reveal other types?"

M: Actually Hugh, I found QM not to be super-deterministic. Instead, it is a part of what makes determinism super-deterministic.

H: "It strikes me that a sample size of 12 is rather small for detecting statistical effects, but I am unsure what was being measured in your test."

M: The construct of the experiment was not geared toward obtaining statistical outcomes/effects. Therefore sample size is irrelevant especially when you consider that selections of potentials is universal and absolute to physical existence. Hence no selection, no existence, i.e. the Final Selection Experiment.

H: "I am not sure exactly what you mean by "existence" here. For example, a dichotomy exists between finite and infinite. Yet I can imagine finite things existing without assuming that infinite things exist."

M: If one assumes finite things exist without the existence of infinite things, then how would you know what is finite? In addition, you would now longer have a dichotomy.

H: "In my Software Cosmos essay, I describe the simulation paradigm, the idea that the physical world is a simulation resting on a different information world. That means that the laws of the physical world could be deterministic, yet the laws of the deeper world (or worlds) it rests on would not have to be. Perhaps the seat of choice is a world lower than the physical, that the physical emerges from."

M: The empirical evidence show that you are correct in your statement "...the seat of choice is a world lower than the physical, that the physical emerges from." You said it better than I.

Thank you for your in-depth analogy of my essay. I wish you the best in the competition.

Regards,

Manuel

Hugh Matlock replied on Aug. 8, 2013 @ 08:56 GMT

Hi Manuel,

> M: The construct of the experiment was not geared toward obtaining statistical outcomes/effects. Therefore sample size is irrelevant especially when you consider that selections of potentials is universal and absolute to physical existence. Hence no selection, no existence, i.e. the Final Selection Experiment.

What role did the Tempt Destiny experiment play in developing your theory? Was it devised as a test of the theory or for some other purpose?

> M: If one assumes finite things exist without the existence of infinite things, then how would you know what is finite?

You might know something is finite by being able to count it (i.e. put it into one-to-one correspondence with a finite number) or measure it (i.e. bound it with finite sizes) or determine that it was contained in another finite object.

> In addition, you would now longer have a dichotomy.

The conceptual dichotomy, and the two terms, would still exist, as abstractions. But neither term (as abstract terms) exist in the physical world. However, examples of one term (the finite) could exist without examples of the other (the infinite) existing.

Hugh

report post as inappropriate

Dear Manuel,

I have read through your essay and I must say that it is a very impressive piece of work! You did produce a fine paper with interesting ideas. I do however have some comments.

In the first parts of your paper, you did mention that as per your destiny theory a super - deterministic model of reality should give us a much better understanding of our reality - this is like...

view entire post

Dear Manuel,

I have read through your essay and I must say that it is a very impressive piece of work! You did produce a fine paper with interesting ideas. I do however have some comments.

In the first parts of your paper, you did mention that as per your destiny theory a super - deterministic model of reality should give us a much better understanding of our reality - this is like being able to see into the future! But let's say that there exist a super intelligent being who possesses a SUPER computer which has the capability to compute the position of all the atoms of the universe( which is overly complicated as at this level as atomic behavior is as per per rules of quantum mechanics - the uncertainty principle, but let's assume it is true!), this will allow it to know in advance the events that will be occurring. Now let's say that it CHOOSES not to use his computer - it will then be observing the same reality as we do. So it always boils down to cause and effect and something in the mind of the observer which causes him/her or it to observe reality the way it is.

Secondly, you mentioned in your essay that you have produced a self - consistent quantized theory of gravity. As a student, I do not have enough qualifications to discuss quantum gravity in detail but your diagrams seemed to be rather clear however you need to insert the necessary mathematical construction and physical theories required for a theory of quantum gravity - but this is theoretical work, this contest is on a highly philosophical topic and it is for this reason that I have not inserted equations in my paper, it would have been difficult for me to compare with others.

Finally you said that electromagnetism is a function of gravity - then this means that your theory should have produce the Maxwell equations including a correction as per the theory of quantum gravity - I am not saying that you are wrong - again I am not qualified for that but only that some equations on the subject would have been interesting! Finally a further investigation of the theory ( just like we do for electromagnetism - showing gauge invariance thereby implying existence of a massless particle - the photon, your theory should have predicted existence of the a particle of gravity - could be the graviton.) This is just a suggestion as the right way of doing it would be far more rigorous than a simple proof of gauge invariance or invariance of the Klein - Gordon equation for an electromagnetic plane wave.

Again your essay was very interesting and I wish best of luck for the contest.

Salvish

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Author Manuel S Morales replied on Aug. 1, 2013 @ 14:57 GMT

Salvish,

Thank you for reviewing my work and for your comments. I have address your comments as follows:

S: "So it always boils down to cause and effect and something in the mind of the observer which causes him/her or it to observe reality the way it is."

M: There has never been or ever will be an observation or measurement without a selection event first taking place. For...

view entire post

Hi Manuel,

This is a cool essay with cool graphics. We seem to have some viewpoints in common. I am intrigued with your E=G². In my 3D Universe Theory I have redefined fundamental dimensions to just Length and Time and I get E=1/L² and G=1/L so it would fit with your E=G².

If you have time, please take a look at my essay and let me know what you think.

Best of luck with the contest.

Patrick

report post as inappropriate

Author Manuel S Morales replied on Aug. 1, 2013 @ 14:34 GMT

Patrick,

Thank you for the kind words of support and for introducing me to your 3D Universe Theory. I find the similarities interesting and worth looking into at greater depth.

Good luck to you as well in the competition.

Regards,

Manuel

This is a very thorough treatment of the question of choice - and your conclusion seems to be that reality is founded on choice. This is true, with the caveat that as evolution proceeds, the domain of our certainties and predictable outcomes expands. Our perceptions are determined by choice at any given moment - but the resulting facts are added to the body of our more or less permanent knowledge.

This points to the fact that the field from which we choose at any moment exists independently of us, and we are continuously evolving upon its surface.

My focus, as you might have gathered from my essay, is increasingly on the evolutionary aspect of both observer and Cosmos, and the effects of their continuous correlation. I submit that it is in this area that our key assumptions must be reconsidered.

The evolving observer is continually assessing reality based on memory and expectation. Evolution never stops. At every moment of perception, past and future are drawn together to create the present; and the result is either an evolutionary improvement, or a defect.

Thus, the observer is always 'measuring up' reality - Bit (mind) and It (the field of observation) never enjoy a stable relationship: they are in perpetual correlation.

Though this describes my take on the subject of choice (it is subject to a greater reality, one that we are continually discovering), it was interesting to immerse myself in your very thorough working of the subject, and I wish you all the best in the competition.

John

report post as inappropriate

Author Manuel S Morales replied on Aug. 4, 2013 @ 04:43 GMT

Thank you John for sharing your thoughts. When I refer to choice, I refer to it more in context of a machine and not so much about knowledge of options as stated in the last paragraph of my essay.

Regarding the evolutionary aspect of this machine, perhaps you may want to review my original paper of these findings which show how Choice/Chance Mechanics is an evolution mechanism: PHYSICS OF PREDETERMINED EVENTS: Complementarity States of Choice-Chance Mechanics

I too am looking forward to the great reevaluation to come. This should be interesting. Best to you in the competition and in your writing endeavors.

Regards,

Manuel

Manuel - I finally got around to reading your essay. I can see that an enormous amount of work has gone into it and that you have some extremely insightful ideas.

You referenced Taylor when you said that “spin is an intrinsic form of angular momentum ‘thought’ to be solely a quantum-mechanical phenomenon for it does not have a counterpart in classical mechanics”.

However, it does have a counterpart in classical electrodynamics -- going back to Poyting’s original papers. It can be interpreted as a spin dependent part of the Poynting vector since the complex quantities determine the polarization of light taking values ±1 for left/right circular polarizations the z-component of the angular momentum density.

In 1909 Poynting described a mechanical analogy of angular momentum transfer to the optical absorber from circularly polarized light. This was subsequently measured by Beth in 1935, the interpretation of which was believed to validate the concept of intrinsic spin of photon.

I made reference to this in my essay, where I additionally related the helical motion down the photon path to be the ontological source of subtime. The reversal of subtime is thus represented as the advanced and retarded wave of the electromagnetic propagation.

I think this supports the point you are trying to make.

Good luck in the contest.

report post as inappropriate

Author Manuel S Morales replied on Aug. 4, 2013 @ 05:28 GMT

Hi Paul,

Thank you for your comments and kind words of support. You have given me several things to consider and review relating to both of our perspectives on this fundamental topic.

Best wishes,

Manuel

Dear Manuel,

We are at the end of this essay contest.

In conclusion, at the question to know if Information is more fundamental than Matter, there is a good reason to answer that Matter is made of an amazing mixture of eInfo and eEnergy, at the same time.

Matter is thus eInfo made with eEnergy rather than answer it is made with eEnergy and eInfo ; because eInfo is eEnergy, and the one does not go without the other one.

eEnergy and eInfo are the two basic Principles of the eUniverse. Nothing can exist if it is not eEnergy, and any object is eInfo, and therefore eEnergy.

And consequently our eReality is eInfo made with eEnergy. And the final verdict is : eReality is virtual, and virtuality is our fundamental eReality.

Good luck to the winners,

And see you soon, with good news on this topic, and the Theory of Everything.

Amazigh H.

I rated your essay.

Please visit My essay.

report post as inappropriate

Dear Manuel,

very interesting essay. I also discuss the influence of gravitation to the selection process (measurement in quantum mechanics i.e. collaps of the wave function by gravitons). Here is the link to my essay

All the best

Torsten

report post as inappropriate

Author Manuel S Morales replied on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 21:17 GMT

Hi Torsten,

Thank you for your comments and for pointing your essay out to me. Sounds like we have something in common in more ways than one! I will take a look.

Thanks again,

Manuel

Hi Manuel,

Thank you for your post. I rated your essay back in July and as I mentioned in my previous post, I think very highly of your essay and am extremely impressed with your graphics. Thank you for taking the time to read and evaluate mine. I wish you the very best.

Sincerely,

Ralph

report post as inappropriate

Author Manuel S Morales replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 11:29 GMT

Thank you Ralph for taking the time to read and rate my essay. As I expressed on your essay page, I found your essay 'dead on'. I look forward to our continued correspondence in the future.

Best wishes,

Manuel

What interested me is your attempt to unify the forces. I really didn't understand what your diagrams were trying to say about causality. My own theories would indicate that the strong and weak forces actually don't exist. They are a product of an extremely faulty planetary atomic model. You do say that gravity is related to electrostatic forces which I would agree with.

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 12:16 GMT

Hi Franklin,

Thank you for your comments. Please note, that the findings my essay is based on is empirical and precise, thus free of conjecture. Feel free to apply these findings to your deeply intuitive model which I found to be truly highly original. Absolute determinism is first cause. As such, it serves as a basis to measure all other models. With this understanding, I just simply compared the Standard Model sub-structures accordingly and found it to be sound when first cause, i.e., gravity, was included. In doing so, I found that there are no paradoxes between the microscopic and macroscopic domains for determinism must also be non-deterministic in order to exist.

The findings show that there is a fundamental flaw with how we perceive our physical existence. Case in point, can the 'effect' of an interaction take place without a selection event first being made? This is why there has never been, nor ever will be, an experiment conducted without a selection event 'first' taken place. Physics is the study of what already exist, as such, it is based on second cause, i.e., effectual causality. Pre-physics, my field of study, is based on first cause for it is necessary that selections of potentials does not exist until it does.

I hope this helps.

Best wishes,

Manuel

report post as inappropriate

Dear Manuel Morales: In your essay you have penetrated the most fundamental core, still unresolved physical reality and therefore of quantum mechanics.

Is there a reality independent of the observer?

Some interpret that there is no reality unless an observation is made.

This interpretation is completely wrong, and indirectly you deduct in his essay: Yes, let's call the bit, or...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Manuel S Morales replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 22:47 GMT

Thank you Angel for your detailed review and compliments. Best of luck to you in the competition.

Regards,

Manuel

Author Manuel S Morales replied on Aug. 8, 2013 @ 16:23 GMT

Angel,

I am glad to see that your much deserved essay made it to the finals (top 40). Now it will be left up to the panel of judges to do their thing.

I would love to see how your approach could be applied to the findings. I say this in all humility, that the physicist that can predict first cause events as presented in my essay will most likely win a Nobel prize for doing so. Possible application methods will be the topic of my next peer-reviewed paper.

Best wishes,

Manuel

Thank you Manuel,

I appreciate the thoughtful comments left on my essay page. I am embarrassed to say that yours is one of the first essay I downloaded, but I have not read it through yet. I'll make sure I do so, before midnight.

I'll comment if there is time tonight, or tomorrow.

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Author Manuel S Morales replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 23:38 GMT

Thanks Jonathan,

That works for me. Let's hope this ends on a positive note this evening.

Best wishes,

Manuel

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Aug. 8, 2013 @ 00:37 GMT

Your essay resonates with me, Manuel.

I'll have more to say, but for now I'll tell you it made me cry at the end, because it reminded me of the final days of my Mom - who had Alzheimer's and died earlier this year. Slowly but surely, her ability to choose was ebbing away, and there were the little things like being able to pick up a spoon and put food into her own mouth - that I imagine made life worth living - but was taken away by my Dad so she would get enough to eat. I knew that it wouldn't be long, before she checked out, at that point.

I'd start talking about how we should not be spoon feeding our children with pre-digested knowledge, and instead must enlist their freedom to choose, but I think you know that. Much more to say on the value of play for Education, when there is time.

Have Fun!

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Aug. 9, 2013 @ 00:03 GMT

May destiny be tempted to treat you well in the finals, Manuel.

Best of Luck,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (1 not shown)

Dear Manuel,

With all my heart I congratulate you with the in third place in the first phase of the V International FQXi Essay Contest 2013!

I wish you continued success in your research!

I wish you new ideas for the good of all mankind!

Thanks for the nice comment and appreciation of my ideas!

I am very glad to have met you!

Thank FQXi!

Good summer holiday!

With great respect,

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Author Manuel S Morales replied on Aug. 11, 2013 @ 16:05 GMT

Thank you Vladimir for the kinds words of support. I wish you the same with your research and have a great rest of the summer as well.

Respectfully yours,

Manuel

Manuel,

Clearly written essay. The diagrams were interesting, but I did not find them helpful. You define "existence" based on interaction. Even in Quantum mechanics, interactions are not just binary. Momentum, mass-energy is conserved and particle can scatter in an infinite range of angles.

We know of existence due to interactions, but there is no proof that something does not exist without interactions.

Thank you for the essay, congratulations on third place,

Jeff

report post as inappropriate

Author Manuel S Morales replied on Aug. 13, 2013 @ 03:45 GMT

Thank you Jeff. I enjoyed your essay as well.

Regarding your existence comment, I do not define 'existence' based on interactions. We obtain 'existence' when we obtain a selection; the effects of which we call interactions. Thus, no selection = no interaction = no existence.

I hope that helps.

Best wishes,

Manuel

Manuel,

Can you make a selection without an interaction? If two states exist and you do not declare a state by an interaction (such as an observation) then would not both states still exist?

Thank you for your response,

Jeff

report post as inappropriate

Author Manuel S Morales replied on Aug. 13, 2013 @ 23:43 GMT

"Can you make a selection without an interaction?"

An interaction describes the 'effect' of a selection, not the other way around. Same holds true for observation or measurement both of which are 'effects' of selection events.

Manuel