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.

        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

        • [deleted]

        • Post #157

        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

        • [deleted]

        • Post #158

        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 the representation of a state information. If there is no informational reality independent of the observer, then the value of the density of dark energy, which existed before being measured by man, would not exist, and therefore the observer either. Obviously, in clear contradiction with reality.

        On the other hand, if there were a number of information representative of the states unified entity geometrizables of space-time mass-energy, independent observers and their measurements, then as explained Cassimir effect, which is the result of the force of the virtual photons, NO OBSERVABLES?

        The main problem is that quantum mechanics is an incomplete theory. A substrate in the space-time grid-mass-energy, as a non-separable and independent of the act of measurement.

        The key could be, again, could be in the virtual states with imaginary values​​, and therefore with speeds exceeding that of light. For this reason these unobservable states would be responsible for both the entanglement, as the apparent paradoxical effects of these.

        Another thing different is as emerges a probabilistic mathematical theory, for the simple reason that there are no measurable virtual states. In fact, as I demonstrated in my essay, every particle is accompanied, or has a double value: virtual (higher speed of light) and non-virtual, maximum speed c

        This would be the reason for the probabilistic nature of the double slit experiment, but this does not mean, and I agree with Einstein, and I think that is what is also clear from his essay, that there is no deterministic reality it appears.

        The problem is that this reality is not directly measurable, would be the real heart and initial cause of reality, and therefore both the bit, and its causative consequences, or it

        Good essay last causative nature of reality. A question very, very difficult and that you have tried with success.

        Know a lot more of what little we know.

        From humility and good work of his essay, I congratulate you warmly to continue this research first class.

        Thanks for your interest in my poor essay.

        Greetings Mr. Manuel Morales

        Congratulations

        Angel Garces Doz

          Hi Manuel,

          Thanks for the very kind reply! I think I've replied more comprehensively to it on my thread. I'm just trying to check in with all the other threads before the deadline.

          Best wishes,

          Antony

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

          Regards,

          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

            Thanks Jonathan,

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

            Best wishes,

            Manuel

            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

            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

            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

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

            Best of Luck,

            Jonathan