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

Manuel

What caused any given event (ie reality-which is a specific physically existent state of whatever comprises it) must fulfil certain strict criteria, because physical influence cannot 'jump' physical circumstance. That is, in terms of order, any given existent state cannot be the cause of another unless it was the predecessor in the sequence. While in terms of spatial position, it could only have had physical influence if it was adjacent to the position now 'occupied' by the resulting effect, because alteration in spatial position is a difference (ie another reality). And as with any difference, this can only occur 'one degree' at a time. [What constitutes a 'degree' for any given physical attribute is irrelevant to this generic argument]. The point is that either something remains in one existent state, or there is a difference, and difference can only occur in discrete existent stages (a 'degree'). To put this simply, if the two spatial positions being considered are not adjacent to each other, then there were other spatial positions in between, and whatever physically existed must have been in each, sequentially, to be where it is now (the differentiation of spatial positions being a 'degree'). This simple principle applies to any physical attribute.

Now, the other point revolves around what caused the alteration which results in one physically existent state being superseded by another (both of course do not co-exst). That cannot be something which is physically disconnected with what occurs. Neither can something have physical influence and not be physically existent. Indeed, it must be what occurs.

In other words, the whole way in which we conceive reality is ontologically incorrect. There is a tendency to conceive in terms of objects, when in fact what physically exists at any time (the reality) is the physically existent state of whatever comprises it. And there is the concept of something else having an effect on the object, whereas this can only be whatever constitutes what is being wrongly being thought of as the object.

That is, either there is ultimately an inert substance (which could occur in different types) which 'carries' the 'properties' which are the determinant of change, or the 'properties' are themselves the ultimate substance in our reality.

The key to all this is the realisation that any given reality is the physically existent state of whatever comprises it. Then the rules as to how the sequence must occur, etc, are easy, in generic words! In practice, how this manifests is extremely complex and beyond our ability to differentiate in experimental mode. The degrees of alteration and duration are vanishingly small. Apart from anything else, in the context of sight for example, we are dependent upon the ability of light to comprehensively and accurately capture and transmit all that occurs, leaving aside our ability to decipher all that if it did so.

On your question: "Also how do we obtain an initial causal event, that being an event that did not exist until it does?" There can be no answer to this, because it transcends our existence. We just have to accept that whatever is demonstrably the start point for existence as knowable to us, is the start point.

Paul

Manuel

I read your nicely illustrated essay with interest and in trying to understand what you are up to better, read links to some of your other papers and the Linkedin discussions. Very interesting. As Paul knows, I have just enough energy at my age to deal with my own research and some left to discuss only a few new issues cropping up in the many fqxi essays. I think I understand your reasoning and feel you have pinpointed an important flaw in thinking through experiments in QM: it is automatically assumed that everything is statistical, probabilistic (coin-at edge of cup concept). You say there is an additional alternative (coin in the cup). You then carry this scenario - to make conclusions about determinism and - on rather thin grounds I feel - the four forces.

Using your thought-experiment I go further and say (contradicting in some ways my philosophical conclusions in my present fqxi essay!) that there is no inherent probability in nature - the coin is always in the cup. Probability arises from an exquisite order underlying the Universe. My ideas are described in Beautiful Universe Theory . I think it is important for a researcher with your original clear-headed thinking to understand Eric Reiter's discoveries about the photon . I had long suspected that the photon was not a point particle - an idea that gave rise to the probabilistic interpretation in QM. I was thrilled to find that Eric had proven that experimentally. I know that my comments leave much to be said, but for now allow me to leave it at this. I am no great sports fan, but as a fellow artist I enjoyed your dynamic football paintings in the billboards you created.

With best wishes,

Vladimir

Hello Manuel,

Your quote: - "We find that we have the ability to choose because we do not have the ability to not choose in order to exist" - really jumped out at me. I think you've hit on something key here. Like Wheeler pointed out yes/no decisions always are made. Choice is merely an illusion.

Nice work - please take a look at my essay if you get the time.

Best wishes,

Antony

Manuel

"There is indeed an answer to ALL of this and yes it does transcend our existence. This 'knowledge' of existence is not the starting point"

I am surprised by this response, because I thought that was the simple bit. There is existence of some form or other. We are enabled to be aware of it through a physical process (forget how proficient we are at identifying all there is to be aware of, and the accuracy with which we do so). This means that what we can know has to be regarded as possibly only one form of existence. However that is irrelevant in so far as it is all we can potentially know, ie we must just accept that there may be an alternative. The important point is that we can only know, and we can only know what is potentially knowable. This is the existentially closed system within which we are trapped. We can of course invoke any belief (ie knowledge without any experienceable-direct or hypothetical-substantiation), but that is not science.

In simple terms, we could, though it is very unlikely in many areas, eventually know all there is that is knowable. We will become aware of this by default, because we can only know from within the closed system, ie after sufficient time and continued investigation, no new knowledge arises. Now, this is not the same as knowing everything/what is ultimately happening/or any other such phrase. Because there is always the possibility of an alternative, and we cannot transcend our own existence. Neither is this the same as hypothesis, proper hypothesis being in effect virtual sensing. That is, it follows the rules of sensing and overrides certain identifiable issues in order to establish what could have been sensed had we been able to do so.

This seems to be a key statement: "If we are to uncover the fundamental interaction

of our physical universe then we need to establish what is causal and what is not. Here we find Wheeler's 'it from bit' doctrine of how physical laws are cast as states of information to be insufficient by not stating how those states of 'bit' came to exist in the first place". This is not true. We cannot know how or why whatever comprises our existence occurred. We can only arrive back at a logical start point based on an understanding of what has subsequently occurred. Neither does this assist in identifying the fundamental interaction(s). Something, or a range of such, is causing alteration in whatever comprises existence (which may also be a range of types). Indeed, these two may be different aspects of the same thing (or things) but that is detail(!). The important point is that something is 'going on', and we need to find out what that is. But what is 'gong on' is only manifest to us in what might be a particular form, ie we can only know what is 'going on' as it is potentially knowable to us. And that is difficult enough, and in many case unachievable, but the potential is there. We then just have to accept we can know no more.

Reality is not pre-determined. It appears to be so because it is functioning to certain rules. Another way of expressing this is to identify what, in generic terms, a reality is. And that is a discrete, definitive, physically existent state of whatever comprises it at that time. Existence necessitates discrete/definitive, which is where relativity/QM has gone wrong, because they, effectively, assert some form of indefiniteness in reality. They did not mean to, which goes back to my first post. I am not sure that anybody is consciously stating anything other than cause trumps effect ( to use your phrase). The differential is between what was said and, given a proper understanding of reality, what that can actually mean. [Incidentally what we do and think is irrelevant to the physical circumstance, because it has already occurred. Or in the case of the 'future', it has not occurred, ie something then occurs which is different to what would have otherwise have done so. But that is just a definition of cause/effect, so is meaningless. The future is not pre-existent. But I do not think you are saying any of this].

Paul

Manuel,

Thanks for your inciting comments. I will go through your essay and post my comments soon.

Thanking you,

Sreenath.

Manuel

"No selection = no existence" But this is just a principle, a very condensed way of expressing all that is happening. It does not, and cannot-other than in terms of an unsubstantiated belief-enable the identification of what 'ultimately' existed, because we cannot transcend our own existence. To put this simply, I can assert that the existence we are aware of is no more than a shoot-em-up game created by green giants with six heads. Now, that assertion is immediately rejected because it is 'preposterous'. But really its rejection can only be on the basis that there is no experienceable evidence to support this. And that is the point, if A there is always the possibility of not-A, which can never be known (my giants). Our existence is A, we are trapped in an existentially closed system.

I am also becoming confused by your depiction of effect causality. I can, obviously, understand the need to ensure we differentiate what caused what, and not get side-tracked by the order or whether something is a superficial representation of something else. But I sense this is not what you are pointing to. I make the distinction between whatever comprises existence and the physically existent state it is in. Reality is whatever state whatever comprises it is in at that time. In other words, not only is the concept of objects ontologically incorrect, the investigation in terms of substance is not really the correct approach. So I am now wondering, out loud, whether when you refer to effect, you are effectively referring to the differentiation between state and substance.

Because the simple fact is that what we know about existence is that:

-something exists independently of the mechanisms whereby it is detected

-that something occurs differently, ie there is alteration

So it is a sequence and there is a physical cause of the change.

"What is predetermined is that for existence to come into being requires the paring event of a selection with its potential"

This sounds like an alternative way of expressing 'effect (existence) causes next effect (existence)', although I really do not understand what it can mean in terms of reality. Such words as 'choice' are worrying, existence does not function on the basis of choice. And certainly anything we do does not affect the physical circumstance (but I do not think you are implying that). You seem to be endowing what is just a mechanic with a characteristic that is not there.

Paul

Dear Manuel

Thanks. I am afraid I am not on the same page with you about a predetermined Universe. The order I speak of is in the causal,local,linear interactions (i.e. non-probabilistic) between each building block of the Universe and the contiguous blocks (or nodes) constituting the vacuum, dark matter, matter, radiation etc. Beyond that the interactions evolve by self-assembly by exchanging angular momentum from node to node. There is no 'plan' or preferred pathway hard-wired in the universal lattice. In that way it is vary like the artificial life computer program with each cell interacting with its neighbors according to a simple rule.

This is my personal website its a hodge-podge of all sorts of things!

Best wishes,

Vladimir

On your last paragraph..., why would you prefer Final to First selection?

You didnt quite say why in your response.

Regards,

Akinbo

Dear Manuel,

I went through your thought provoking essay and appreciated your innovative endeavour to unify all the four forces. But have you derived the relationship between them theoretically? Your equation E = G2 is interesting and I too have a basic equation in QG and the equation is E = kg; where 'E' is quantum of energy possessed by a particle in the field of QG, g = gravity or acceleration and 'k'= QG constant. You will find it in my previous fqxi essay contest of 2012 and my article is on QG.

Can you, please, give me the details (website) of the Tempt Destiny experiment?

I will shortly give my score on your essay and I will rate it highly.

Best regards and good luck in the contest.

Sreenath.