Spin States of Selection: Predetermined Variables of ‘bit’ by Manuel S Morales

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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