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

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

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 of physics, as such, physical beings cannot act in violation of the laws of their own physical existence and vice versa.

I take it that your theory is based on the idea that a realistic QM has to be super-deterministic. But there are now several other types of realistic QM (a couple based on quaternionic QM were mentioned in my essay). Have you thought of experiments that would reveal other types?

> After twelve consecutive years, from 2000-2012, the Tempt Destiny experiment obtained empirical evidence that the events of physical reality are predetermined to be certain or uncertain although not exclusively one or the other.

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. Have you made an estimate of the significance of the pattern you found? What pattern of outcomes in the football games would convince you that your theory is incorrect?

> In other words, observation or measurement of the effects of selection events alone gives us a false sense of reality.

You make a good point about differentiating effects and causes. Ken Wharton's essay describes what he calls the Independence Fallacy when interpreting QM. Do you see a connection with his argument?

> If we understand that a dichotomy is a division into two mutually exclusive or contradictory entities, then it is also understood that it is necessary that both complementary entities exist simultaneously for either to exist at all.

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.

> The assumption that selection is some sort of option, a freedom of will, is unsubstantiated by the fact that this machine we call choice is how energy works which is a fundamental necessity, not a philosophical option, of our physical existence.

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.

Hugh

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

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

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

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

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.