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

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

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

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

      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

      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 example, an experimenter, or deity as per your example, cannot make a selection without the potential to do so. The findings show that the fundamental acts of selection consists of two dichotomies which do not exist until they do, i.e., first cause.

      S: "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"

      M: Currently physics is based on second cause, i.e., how observed or measured effects cause effects. However, it cannot supersede and thus invalidate a paradigm based on first cause, e.g., 'how' observed or measured effects come into existence in the first place. Therefore, a fundamental reevaluation will be required to acclimate this new paradigm. I have initiated such reevaluation with my most recent peer-reviewed paper:

      Assumed Higgs Boson Discovery Proved Einstein Right

      http://fundamentaljournals.org/ijfps/downloads/37-IJFPS_Dec_2012_44_47.pdf

      http://labs.adsabs.harvard.edu/ui/abs/2012IJFPS..37...47M

      Perhaps you may find the first paper based on the initial empirical findings of interest as well:

      PHYSICS OF PREDETERMINED EVENTS: Complementarity States of Choice-Chance Mechanics[link:gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Unification%20Theories/Download/3571http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Unification%20Theories/Download/3571[/link]

      http://labs.adsabs.harvard.edu/ui/abs/2011APS..APRE13009M?

      http://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/APR11/Event/145843

      Best wishes,

      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

        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.

          My pleasure Manuel,

          I hope you liked my essay too.

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

          Best wishes,

          Antony

          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

          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

          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.

          Manuel,

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

          best

          =snp

          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

            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

              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.