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.

BTW - Sreenath, do you have a link to your QG paper? You have peaked my curiosity.

NOTE: I have caught some slack for posting the above comment congratulating Gerard 't Hooft in regards to his belief that there should be a deterministic theory underlying quantum mechanics. Although the empirical evidence is absolute, repeatable, and falsifiable, apparently I should not have been so enthusiastic to make this announcement here. I apologize if I may have come off presumptuous or overconfident. Please note, I am under no illusion that what has been presented will 'not' be generally accepted. This new perspective of reality took me years to come to terms with and so all I can hope to ask is for you to keep an open mind when reading my essay and ask yourself the question, 'what if?"

Manuel

What on earth is this 'selection event'? I am beginning to worry that you are confusing physical existence and all logical possibilities. We are concerned with investigating existence as is manifest to us. Whether we can detect all that manifestation is a practical point. The key is that we cannot be concerned with what is not even potentially manifest to us. If A there is always the possibility of not-A. But we are trapped in A.

Paul

Yes. You will find my paper in the fqxi- 2012 essay contest 'Questioning the Foundations Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?'

For a much broader outlook, you can go to my web page 'www.sreenath.webs.com'.

Sreenath.

Paul, If I am confused then answer me this. Can you conduct an experiment without 'first' making a selection? If not why not?

The 'key' you speak of is based on effectual causality, not causality. As simply demonstrated in the coin-in-cup experiment, no selection = no coin-in-cup (effect). I was not satisfied with what we call 'knowledge' for I found it to be paradoxical or as you put it "trapped in A." I needed to step outside the rabbit hole you call A. And when I did I found myself on solid ground which enabled to understand what we have been ignoring all along.

Manuel,

Nicely explained essay, and perhaps the 'incompleteness' found by others is only as the universe evolution is not yet complete.

Let me run a scenario for you to test with your derivation. If we assume the evolution of the massively complex universe is 'predetermined' as normally understood, then we may still chose one of two options.

1. Only the 'rules' of interactive behaviour down to the smallest scale were predetermined, so no greater knowledge would know in advance what the effects down the line might be.

2. All interactions are known by some greater intelligence in advance, i.e. each scenario has been run before and the result in all cases is known so predetermined.

If the answer is 2. Which is equivalent to a 'tape playing' then there must have been some original case to create the recording on the tape in the first place. If all is predetermined in THAT way, then it would be possible for the intelligence to check ahead on the tape and see what will happen. There must then have been an original "first recording." Which then sets the question; "how do we know we are not that FIRST recording which predetermines all others!? Of course we cannot.

So reverting to option 1. If all interactions are predetermined but the resultant sequences leading to the further interactions not 'pre-set' as above, then we can simply revert to the present universe we understand. I can make any decision I wish right now, and have not done so before, but the rules strictly dictate my options.

There is a 'watershed' between those options. I can see no case not falling onto one or the other. How can something be PRE-determined if it has not been decided in advance exactly what happened in that particular case? But perhaps you have found another alternative I haven't seen which is in neither category.

Best wishes

Peter

    Manuel

    "Can you conduct an experiment without 'first' making a selection? If not why not?

    You do not make a selection in the sense that reality is altered. You decide to (or just do) consider A which exists instead of everything else which exists.

    "I found it to be paradoxical or as you put it "trapped in A."

    There is nothing paradoxical about this. We are part of existence and are only able to potentially know it via a physical process. The extent to which we can know what is potentially knowable is another matter. But what is potentially manifest to us may be completely different or significantly deficient, but we can never know, because we cannot transcend our own existence. That is, you cannot do this: "I needed to step outside the rabbit hole you call A".

    Paul

    "How can something be PRE-determined if it has not been decided in advance exactly what happened in that particular case?"

    Peter, you raised the quintessential question often asked based on the common assumption that predeterminism is about 'something' being predetermined as you put it. What is predetermined is 'how' existence comes into being. Evidence has shown that there are only two ways for existence to come into being. Physical properties of existence are related to effectual states of causality. What I have been describing is a new paradigm that places the acts of selection in their proper order. In physics we think that observation, measurement, interactions, or particle collisions, etc. are causal when in fact these terms are effectual descriptions of what happens 'after' a selection event. Case in point, ALL experiments are effects of a selection event. Thus, it is predetermined that in order for an experiment to take place a selection event must first take place. During the Tempt Destiny experiment, only 1 out of 12 direct selection events took place as opposed to having 3 out of 3 indirect selection events take place. The results were absolute, No Selection = No Experiment.

    It is understood that determinism simply implies that a physical system behaves the same each time it is "replayed", e.g., direct and indirect selection - which gives us existence as exhibited in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2a of my essay. So we have only two predetermined mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive input variables of selection (cause) which in turn determines the two mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive output variables of physical states which are either certain/deterministic or uncertain/non-deterministic (effect). If everything that can be observed or measured is either certain or uncertain then what else is there? If you have knowledge of which type of selection has been made, you then have knowledge of the physical state of that selection prior to its existence. If we do not know which type of selection has been made (cause), then at least we can understand why we can only speculate. As it currently stands, we perceive that physical states (effects) cause physical states (effects) and think the paradox of effectual causality is reality as exemplified by your options.

    The bottom line is that nature is not about effectual states. It is about 'how' effectual states come into existence... the 'manner' of which is predetermined.