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.'

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

    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

    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

      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

        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

        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

          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

          Hello Manuel

          Richard Feynman in his Nobel Acceptance Speech (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1965/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

          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

            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

            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

            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

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

              Best wishes,

              Manuel

              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,

              JayakarAttachment #1: Spin_simplex.pdf

                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.