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Now, the other point revolves around what caused the alteration which results in one physically existent state being superseded by another (both of course do not co-exst).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

Paul, I am in agreement with 'most' of what you said until you stated, "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."

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. Existence is the 'end point' of ALL acts of selection which are extensions of these initial events. The evidence obtained from conducting the Tempt Destiny experiment is absolute and precise on this point. There is no ambiguity with the evidence that without a selection event occurring there can be no existence.

When I stopped resisting what nature had been telling me all along, then and only then, was I able to stop arguing with nature and accept it on 'its' terms instead of how I wanted nature to be understood. This, in a nutshell, is what I have presented in my essay. The lesson of which I am sharing with everyone. As presented, it all comes down to the Final Selection Experiment. I would be extremely foolish to argue with nature for I do not want to willingly transcend my own existence. The evidence speaks for itself.

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

      Paul Reed you stated, "The important point is that we can only know, and we can only know what is potentially knowable. ...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."

      Indeed Paul, your comments I have found to be the general consensus to date. However, the empirical evidence obtained via the 12 year Tempt Destiny experiment speaks for itself. No selection = no existence. It is as fundamental as that. When I realized that my understanding of reality was based on effectual causality, then and only then, was I able to understand the purity of causality. Causality can never exist until it does.

      When we observe or measure 'something' interacting with 'something' which then causes a 'something', we as effectual beings think that the interaction event was 'causal'. This is how we have blinded ourselves into thinking that effects cause effects. Effects cannot be the 'initial' cause of themselves. We think that the 'effects' of a selection event, such as interactions, particle collisions, fertilization, etc, are causal... BIG MISTAKE! This is why there has never been or ever will be the existence of an experiment without a selection event first occurring. You simply cannot get around this for nature is absolute on this point.

      What is predetermined is that for existence to come into being requires the paring event of a selection with its potential. The paring event itself is not what is predetermined as our effectual mindset would have us believe. It is the mechanics involved with this paring mechanism we call choice which is predetermined. The effects of the two acts of selection are what we observe as reality. When I came to terms with the simple fact that we think that the end point (existence) it the starting point, that is when I realized I have been fooling myself all along.

      As John Wheeler once said, "Surely, someday, we can believe, we will grasp the central idea of it all as so simple, so beautiful, so compelling that we will all say to each other, 'Oh, how could it have been otherwise! How could we all have been so blind for so long!'"

        Vladimir,

        Thank you for taking the time to review my essay and related links. I appreciated you sharing your viewpoint that "...that there is no inherent probability in nature - the coin is always in the cup. Probability arises from an exquisite order underlying the Universe."

        If what you mean by your comment that existence is a predetermined function from this 'exquisite order' then I totally agree. I find that this order comes from the lack of order which gives us non-existence which in turn gives rise to existence (order) when a selection event occurs. I find that nature is perfect for it does not need to be. Fun stuff!

        Anyway, I would like to see your artwork if you have a link, please share. Meanwhile I look forward to reading and rating your essay.

        Thanks again,

        Manuel

        Hi Anthony,

        Thank you for taking the time to review my essay. I agree with you in that 'choice is merely an illusion'.

        I look forward to reading your essay.

        Regards,

        Manuel

        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

        Paul, thank you for your detailed and well reasoned response. In order for you to understand what has taken me years to finally accept is that we are all effectual thinkers. This knowledge you speak of is all based upon the coin being in the cup (existence), not 'how' it got there. The simplicity of nature is what confuses us into thinking existence creates existence. It goes deeper than that as I have outlined in my papers.

        Hence, there has never been or ever will be the existence of an experiment without a selection event first occurring. Since you cannot argue this point then why continue to argue with nature? Think about it. This 'knowledge' you hold so dear is based on effectual causality, not causality. I have learned to accept nature on 'its' terms and stop trying to impose my dictums upon it. This lesson is what I have to share with everyone for my opinion means nothing. Nature rules!

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

        You didnt quite say why in your response.

        Regards,

        Akinbo

        John, I find myself in agreement with your position of information framing physical states as they are indeed effects/descriptions of the underlying selection events.

        Akinbo, I used the term 'Final' due to the fact that for any physical system to no longer have the ability to make direct selections would lead to an absolute and thus final result. Nature does not play games when it comes down to it.

        Vladimir, I happen to agree with you that there seems to be "no 'plan' or preferred pathway hard-wired in the universal lattice."

        What is predetermined is that there are only two ways for existence to come into existence. Who, what, where, and when are relative terms to the effects we call reality, not causality. What I have been describing is a new paradigm that places the acts of selection in their proper order. From there everything comes to fruition without contradiction or ambiguity, or not at all. Nothing has been excluded.

        So nature does not need a plan (effects). All it needs to do is to exist... the manner of which is predetermined.

        BTW - I like your colorful artwork. I hope you do well with it.

        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.

        Here's what took place during the Tempt Destiny experiment: http://temptdestiny.com

        From 2000 to April, 2012, fans of all 32 NFL teams were invited to vote for their favorite team to be featured on the next Tempt Destiny billboard. The Tempt Destiny billboard competition was an experiment to determine if choice predetermines the certainty or uncertainty of the event that follows, i.e., destiny. The premise is twofold. When a direct selection is made, the completion of the artwork is certain. When an indirect selection is made, the completion of the artwork is uncertain.The completion of the artwork is the final event/state of the selection made.

        RESULTS: Over the span of twelve years, only once did a direct selection occur (SB XLII) with the completion of the artwork. Contrast this result with the three-out-of-three indirect selections that occurred in the final three years which resulted in both completion and non-completion of the artwork. These results are reflected in Figure 8 of my essay.

        In "The Challenge" section, I did a linear analysis of the series of events which exhibits why when we do not know what selection was made we are led to believe everything is uncertain. When we are not ignorant of the selection event which caused the series of events to exist, then and only then, can we distinguish what was certain and what was not, e.g., coin-in-cup experiment. I found that our 'perception' of reality is what has blinded us to understanding what reality is. The mindset based on effectual causality blinds us to the fact that nature is 'super-deterministic' to coin a term by physicist John Bell.