BTW - I like your colorful artwork. I hope you do well with it.
Spin States of Selection: Predetermined Variables of ‘bit’ by Manuel S Morales
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.
Paul, when you stated "You decide to (or just do) consider A which exists instead of everything else which exists." you failed to recognize that in order to make a 'decision' (effect) you must first make a selection (cause) which substantiates my point - you cannot conduct an experiment without 'first' making a selection.
Sorry Paul, nature is absolute when it comes down to it.
What the ???? I believe we have a failure to communicate do to a language barrier.
One thing I did get from your comments is that you are stating that everything is unique and therefore absolute. So 'how' did these absolute states come to exists in the first place?
Manuel,
I agree your last 'bottom' line; "that nature is not about effectual states. It is about 'how' effectual states come into existence... the 'manner' of which is predetermined."
A "manner" is different to an outcome, so "pre-determined" as afar as 'outcomes' are concerned is then not the "predetermined" of the 're-run tape' option I identified, which is many peoples 'fatalist' understanding of pre-determined, or a 'groundhog day' universe.
I have defined detection and creation of new measurable states as the chance of a ring (torus) formed by a rotating dipole intersecting at an angle, so at any point on its circumference, with another ring. As the two approach each other, what 'choice' is there to be made, or does the choice recurse back to creation?
I still feel you may need another way to explain what you are saying, and it's implications, to enable resonance with most readers.
Best of luck.
Peter
Peter,
You hit it on the nail when you stated, "A "manner" is different to an outcome, so "pre-determined" as afar as 'outcomes' are concerned is then not the "predetermined" of the 're-run tape' option I identified, which is many peoples 'fatalist' understanding of pre-determined, or a 'groundhog day' universe."
This is the root of the problem. We tend to supersede effects over that of its cause and so we think that predeterminism is about certainty - NOT! The 'manner' dictates the outcome not the other way around. It is impossible to obtain the existence of any outcome certain or uncertain without a selection first being made. Nature is absolute in this regard and so opinion to the contrary is futile.
When we are ignorant of the causal events of selection, then we need to find better means to obtain predictability of existence. I find your solution to be in top contention in this regard and I hope you continue to do well with it.
As far as finding another way to explain my findings, and it's implications, to enable resonance with most readers, I must admit that such understanding will take time. This took me years to understand. I am no different than anyone else in that it is extremely difficult to change one's bias especially since we are all guilty of being effectual minded thinkers and so we insists that only something can cause something to exist. The best I can do is hope that readers of my essay can try to accept nature on its terms instead of how they want nature to be understood. If they do, then I will consider my efforts to be a success independent of the outcome of this essay competition. Don't get me wrong, I would still love to win this competition but for me to expect people to change their perspective on reality may be to much to ask...
Best of luck to you Peter, at least you are going with popular conventional wisdom of something causing something.
Manuel
Dear
Thank you for presenting your nice essay. I saw the abstract and will post my comments soon.
So you can produce material from your thinking. . . .
I am requesting you to go through my essay also. And I take this opportunity to say, to come to reality and base your arguments on experimental results.
I failed mainly because I worked against the main stream. The main stream community people want magic from science instead of realty especially in the subject of cosmology. We all know well that cosmology is a subject where speculations rule.
Hope to get your comments even directly to my mail ID also. . . .
Best
=snp
snp.gupta@gmail.com
http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.com/
Pdf download:
http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/essay-download/1607/__details/Gupta_Vak_FQXi_TABLE_REF_Fi.pdf
Part of abstract:
- -Material objects are more fundamental- - is being proposed in this paper; It is well known that there is no mental experiment, which produced material. . . Similarly creation of matter from empty space as required in Steady State theory or in Bigbang is another such problem in the Cosmological counterpart. . . . In this paper we will see about CMB, how it is generated from stars and Galaxies around us. And here we show that NO Microwave background radiation was detected till now after excluding radiation from Stars and Galaxies. . . .
Some complements from FQXi community. . . . .
A
Anton Lorenz Vrba wrote on May. 4, 2013 @ 13:43 GMT
....... I do love your last two sentences - that is why I am coming back.
Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on May. 6, 2013 @ 09:24 GMT
. . . . We should use our minds to down to earth realistic thinking. There is no point in wasting our brains in total imagination which are never realities. It is something like showing, mixing of cartoon characters with normal people in movies or people entering into Game-space in virtual reality games or Firing antimatter into a black hole!!!. It is sheer a madness of such concepts going on in many fields like science, mathematics, computer IT etc. . . .
B.
Francis V wrote on May. 11, 2013 @ 02:05 GMT
Well-presented argument about the absence of any explosion for a relic frequency to occur and the detail on collection of temperature data......
C
Robert Bennett wrote on May. 14, 2013 @ 18:26 GMT
"Material objects are more fundamental"..... in other words "IT from Bit" is true.
Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on May. 14, 2013 @ 22:53 GMT
1. It is well known that there is no mental experiment, which produced material.
2. John Wheeler did not produce material from information.
3. Information describes material properties. But a mere description of material properties does not produce material.
4. There are Gods, Wizards, and Magicians, allegedly produced material from nowhere. But will that be a scientific experiment?
D
Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jun. 16, 2013 @ 16:22 GMT
It from bit - where are bit come from?
Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Jun. 17, 2013 @ 06:10 GMT
....And your question is like asking, -- which is first? Egg or Hen?-- in other words Matter is first or Information is first? Is that so? In reality there is no way that Matter comes from information.
Matter is another form of Energy. Matter cannot be created from nothing. Any type of vacuum cannot produce matter. Matter is another form of energy. Energy is having many forms: Mechanical, Electrical, Heat, Magnetic and so on..
E
Antony Ryan wrote on Jun. 23, 2013 @ 22:08 GMT
.....Either way your abstract argument based empirical evidence is strong given that "a mere description of material properties does not produce material". While of course materials do give information.
I think you deserve a place in the final based on this alone. Concise - simple - but undeniable.
Satyavarapu,
When you do read my essay you will find it is based on empirical evidence not opinion. I do not hold the value of opinion highly.
Thank you for your comments, I look forward to reading your paper.
Manuel
Manuel
"Paul, when you stated "You decide to (or just do) consider A which exists instead of everything else which exists." you failed to recognize that in order to make a 'decision' (effect) you must first make a selection (cause) which substantiates my point"
But that is not what I wrote. I said, for fairly obvious reasons we are in an existentially closed system, we cannot transcend our existence. So if one labels that A, then there is always the possibility of not-A. But by definition, we cannot know it, knowability being determined by a physical process. There is no selection involved here, we exist and can only operate science within those constraints.
"nature is absolute when it comes down to it"
We can never know what nature is. We can only know what is potentially knowable to us. And it is highly unlikely that we will ever get to know all that, but that is a different point. The issue is what is existence for us, and how does that occur, not some meaningless philosophical debate about what might be.
Paul
Paul, you argue that "We can never know what nature is. We can only know what is potentially knowable to us."
You have failed to realize that your argument is not with me, it is with nature. In my essay, I have clearly pointed that out and why it is erroneous at best to base physical 'sates' as knowledge, e.g., the two cups each with a coin in them. I am sorry I am not able to make this point any simpler for you to grasp and for that, I owe you an apology. However, you are free to conduct the Final Selection Experiment for yourself in order to substantiate your stated position, "There is no selection involved here, we exist and can only operate science within those constraints."
If you so chose to challenge nature, my condolences goes out to your family and friends, for as the 'evidence' has shown "nature is absolute when it comes down to it".
Dear Sir,
Wheeler's opinions are faulty as ex-nihilo is not a logical concept - never observed. Information is specific data reporting the state of something based on observation (measurements), organized and summarized for a purpose within a context that gives it meaning and relevance and can lead to either an increase in understanding or decrease in uncertainty. Observation (measurements) implies the combination of three factors: observer, observable and observation (including instrument and mechanism). All three are independent variables, whereas their totality - the information - is a variable, because the observable evolves independently with time. That is the objective reality. Your effectual reality relates to information only.
Causality and determinism are evident in all equations. The left hand side of all equations represents free will or causality, because we are free to choose or change the parameters. The right hand side represents determinism, otherwise there would be no theories. The equality sign depicts the special conditions like temperature thresholds etc. that must be satisfied to initiate the reaction. The other factors in the field that may influence the special conditions brings in the uncertainty. For example, if the coin is dropped on the rim of the cup, air may play a role in determining whether it will fall into the cup or not.
We have discussed the double slit experiment using protons in our essay: "INFORMATION HIDES IN THE GLARE OF REALITY by basudeba mishra http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1776" published on May 31 with astonishing conclusions. You are welcome to visit us.
In various threads here, we have pointed out that there is a dimensional difference physical objects and their mathematical representation. The graph may represent space, but it is not space itself. The drawings of a circle, a square, a vector or any other physical representation, are similar abstractions. The circle represents only a two dimensional cross section of a three dimensional sphere. The square represents a surface of a cube. Without the cube or similar structure (including the paper), it has no physical existence. An ellipse may represent an orbit, but it is not the dynamical orbit itself. The vector is a fixed representation of velocity; it is not the dynamical velocity itself, and so on. The so-called simplification or scaling up or down of the drawing does not make it abstract. The basic abstraction is due to the fact that the mathematics that is applied to solve physical problems actually applies to the two dimensional diagram, and not to the three dimensional space. The numbers are assigned to points on the piece of paper or in the Cartesian graph, and not to points in space. If one assigns a number to a point in space, what one really means is that it is at a certain distance from an arbitrarily chosen origin. Thus, by assigning a number to a point in space, what one really does is assign an origin, which is another point in space leading to a contradiction. The point in space can exist by itself as the equilibrium position of various forces. But a point on a paper exists only with reference to the arbitrarily assigned origin. If additional force is applied, the locus of the point in space resolves into two equal but oppositely directed field lines. But the locus of a point on a graph is always unidirectional and depicts distance - linear or non-linear, but not force. Thus, a physical structure is different from its mathematical representation.
Your final conclusion rests with Nature. You should have pointed out the inter-connectedness and interdependence as the reason for selection than non-selection.
Regards,
basudeba