Basudeba,
Thank you for bringing your essay to my attention. I will review it.
As far as, your comment, "You should have pointed out the inter-connectedness and interdependence as the reason for selection than non-selection." I have indeed pointed out the references you mention. Regarding 'non-selection' this too is an equally important function, for it falsifies selection. Thus, nothing has been excluded for everything has been included.
Manuel
Manuel
"our existence relies upon our ability to select. Hence No Selection = No Existence"
Nonsense. Our existence is no different to that of a brick, and does it have the ability to select? You may also have realised that our (and indeed any sentient organism) awareness of existence is enabled by the receipt of a physical input, ie existence exists independently of the mechanism which has evolved to enable possessors thereof to be aware of it. Or put the other way around, if all sentient entities were wiped out, existence would continue.
"Your insistence that nature is about 'knowledge' (bit) is false"
Really? So a)tell me how we can know what is not part of our existence, b) how we receive awareness of 'nature' other than through physically existent representations thereof (the obvious one being light).
I am then fully aware of the fact that what we can potentially know (be aware of), ie physical existence is a function of physically existent states and that something is causing alteration therein. That is, any given reality is the physically existent state at that time of whatever comprises it. In other words, more progress would be made investigating function (or influence as Kevin puts it) rather than substance.
Paul
Paul, you really do need to take up your argument with nature directly to see if your opinions are correct. You fail to realize your opinion, my opinion, or anyone else's opinion are irrelevant when comes down to it.
You talk about the effects of existence which are not fundamental to the knowledge of our existence. I talk about the cause of our existence base on empirical evidence, not conjecture. From this evidence came my summarization that, "our existence relies upon our ability to select. Hence No Selection = No Existence" Fundamentally I have found that nature is not about its effectual states. As effects of nature 'knowledge' is our issue. Nature either exist or does not based on the casual acts of selection; the construct of which is predetermined.
I welcome anyone who wishes to argue with nature to conduct the Final Selection Experiment for themselves. I repeat, if you honestly think your opinions supersede nature... then go for it! Otherwise, why fool yourself to thinking that your opinions are superior to that which gives you the ability to exist. We are done with this discussion as far as I am concerned for nature has the final say.
Manuel
Manuel
"Paul, you really do need to take up your argument with nature directly to see if your opinions are correct"
Take any 'object'. A bush in the garden for example. We know it changes (size, colour, leaves on/off, etc). If we examined it with an electron microscope we would see even more alteration. Yet we still call it the bush, ie the same object, when clearly it is different. And we rationalise that by conceptualising in terms of 'it changes'. Which is a contradiction because if it has changed then the resulting it is not the original it. The point here being that our entire ontological conception is wrong. We are deeming existence on the basis of superficial physical attributes, not how existence occurs. The bush is only a bush in the sense that it retains certain characteristics .
If we differentiated further until no more was possible, then what we would find is a physically existent state of whatever was being considered. In other words, that bush, as with everything else, is a sequence of definitive, discrete, physically existent states. Any given one is the reality at that time, only one state exists at a time. There are mechanisms causing these alterations.
This has nothing to do with selection. In the sequence of existence, as knowable to us, each state (or combination of) causes a subsequent state. How and why this all started is not knowable to us, because it is extrinsic to our existence. We can either invoke beliefs or a recurring theme which solves nothing. This concept: ""our existence relies upon our ability to select" is wrong. We, and any other sentient organism, do not 'select' anything. The only form of 'selection' involved is that what is potentially knowable, ie physical existence, is, possibly, only one form of existence, because it is a function of a physical process. But we do not do any selecting, we receive physical input. The extent to which we can then process that, and 'alter' it in arriving at a perception, is another matter. A perception is not reality, it is a perception of reality.
Paul
So Paul, how's your mechanical skills? Once shown how to change a tire on a car would you be able to do it? Better still, have you ever played tic-tac-toe? The reason for asking is that both instances are absolute functions. Although there may be several ways to jack up a car in order to take a tire off, there is only one way to remove the tire from the bolts that retain it, i.e. remove the bolts. Same mechanism of absolute function goes for tic-tac-toe, the grey lines within the circular graphs in the figues of my paper should look very familiar to you. However, for a selection/state event you only need 'two' sequential Xs... simpler still! But like quantum mechanics, an indirect selection event only serves to give us a partial picture of what is going on.
... the discovery comes into play when we combined both contradictory selection events together (figs. 7-8) which overlaps at the center of gravity thus giving us 'three' sequential Xs which form the absolute value function of our existence:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAQ-CPyKzq8
Manuel
I did not understand the purpose of the first paragraph. Then there is: "However, for a selection/state event...", where is the selection? This is followed by: "But like quantum mechanics, an indirect selection event only serves to give us a partial picture of what is going on". What selection event (let alone why was it indirect), and why is it only partial?
I might add in the context of asking those questions, that QM is incorrect, because it is based on presumptions that do not correspond with reality. As I said above, any given reality is a discrete, definitive, physically existent state of whatever comprises it. It neither occurs in any form of indefiniteness, nor does observation/measurement (or any form of sensing) affect the physical circumstance.
Paul
Manuel, This delightful essay really woke me up. It is refreshing to see real experiments used to look at interplay between information and causality.
Paul (Anonymous),
My comment was originally directed to Paul Reed. Sorry for the confusion.
You may find this ironic that I am in agreement with your position that QM is incorrect in the sense that it alone does not provide us a complete picture of reality. However, as exhibited in Fig 8 of my essay, I found the uncertainty principle and complementarity to be valid as well for they are reflective of indirect selection events.
I find your perception of reality to be based on effectual causality when you stated, "...any given reality is a discrete, definitive, physically existent state of whatever comprises it."
I see reality not as an effect of itself but as, "...any given reality is a discrete, definitive, physically existent state of whatever causes it."
Perhaps you may want to review the initial findings of the Tempt Destiny experiment as presented at the April, 2011, APS convention which served as the basis of my essay: PHYSICS OF PREDETERMINED EVENTS Complementarity States of Choice-Chance Mechanics
Regards,
Manuel
Thank you Philip for your comments. You made a good point, I somehow feel that this competition is more about seeking a consensus of opinion based on knowledge instead of 'how' we obtained such knowledge. Not sure if the later is of any interest here... time will tell.
It was a pleasure to rate your essay and I hope you will find my essay worth your consideration.
Regards,
Manuel
Manuel,
If given the time and the wits to evaluate over 120 more entries, I have a month to try. My seemingly whimsical title, "It's good to be the king," is serious about our subject.
Jim
Manuel
"You may find this ironic that I am in agreement with your position that QM is incorrect in the sense that it alone does not provide us a complete picture of reality"
Then you are not in agreement with me. QM is an incorrect model of physical existence because its presumptions are contradictory to how that occurs. Obviously, the work done is not all wrong, but that is not the same as 'not provide a complete picture'. For example, both the uncertainty and complementarity principles are wrong. Physical existence does not occur with some form of indefiniteness, whether we can discern comprehensively and accurately what did occur is another matter. Matter might exist in what we detect as particle and wave format, but it does not do so at the same time. Indeed, wave involves duration, ie a sequence of realities. So probably what is happening here is a confusion between the ultimate substance (which we is particle) and its physically existent state at any given time (reality), which in a sequence of realities is wave.
Your fig 8 confuses the range of logical possibilities for existence with what we can establish. Our physical existence is all that is potentially knowable (ie detectable). There may be another form of existence but we can never know it. So forget it, because that is religion, not science. Now, within that potentiality there is a huge proportion we do not know, but it is, or was, potentially knowable. For example, events that occurred long before any form of sensory system developed, or billions of miles away, are/were potentially knowable. The fact that we never had a chance of realising that potential is irrelevant. There was a potential. So the differential is between what we know and do not know of that which is potentially knowable. Not what is known and not known. The knowable is knowable (potentially). It occurred, it was definitive. Whether we missed the opportunity and get it wrong is entirely different matter.
"I find your perception of reality to be based on effectual causality when you stated, "...any given reality is a discrete, definitive, physically existent state of whatever comprises it."
Why, what else is it then? And when answering that please stay within our existentially closed system and do not invoke some assertion extrinsic to that.
"I see reality not as an effect of itself but as, "...any given reality is a discrete, definitive, physically existent state of whatever causes it."
! What caused the reality in question is the previous reality. You only seem to have one reality. Which is obviously not the case, since there is difference, ie we are not stuck in one physically existent state ad infinitum.
Paul
Paul,
There comes a point in a discussion where all that can be said is that we can only agree to disagree and leave it at that. You continue to think that your perception of reality supersedes the facts. You need to take up your argument with nature.
Good luck with that...
Manuel
Manuel,
thank you for stopping by and commenting on my essay. I read your entry and also looked at your site. The correlation that you found between the voters choice and the actual NFL winner is very intriguing (the bookies must be consulting your site daily lol). I also very much liked your artistic work. You pose interesting questions, bringing our attention to the fact that when examining complex phenomena it is hard to tell what are the causes and what are the effects. Does voters' choice reflect their confidence in their team? Or do both voters and teams merely reflect a hidden underlying reality? To me it seems like the second view is closer to truth.
This reminds me of a recent (3 years ago -?) experiments in psychology where 'operators' watching what essentially was a flip of a coin (something of a radioactive decay was actually used as the source of 'randomness' -- I don't recall the details now). So, the researchers found a statistically significant correlation between 'operators' guesses and the outcomes, suggesting some rudimentary form of precognition, or information flowing backwards (depends how one may prefer to interpret this). But imo the problem with such an interpretation is that it views operators and the machine 'abstractly', or apart from the real environment. What if both an operator and the machine were subject of underlying flow of.. time? or information or whatever.. and _that_ was the real 'cause' that 'made' humans to 'choose' between 0 and 1 and, at the same time, 'made' the machine to output 0 or 1. Curiously, it was the most relaxed and the least contriving (="trying to guess right") operators who had the best results. In other words, by simply following the flow they were getting it right.
You stirred these thoughts in my mind. Thanks for posing such interesting questions and good luck with the rest of competition :)
Manuel
« This sense of effectual reality requires interaction with it in order to exist. This means that this essay you are reading did not exist until you chose to read it. This of course defies all manner of logic, yet here we are. »
I totally agree with what you write in these lines. In a sense, the reality "for us" exists only when we interact with it. This does not mean it does not exist for others, or it does not exist for itself. That is my position.
Regards
Amazigh,
Once we get this 'competition' back online again, I will review your essay which appears to be contrary to the popular wisdom. I truly look forward to reading your essay.
Manuel
M.V.,
"Or do both voters and teams merely reflect a hidden underlying reality?"
Now that's a fascinating question, one of which I have passively pondered on and plan on looking into later. I am glad to hear that I have stirred some thoughts for you have done the same for as well. I look forward to reading your essay this week when this competition is back up and running.
Thank you for your comments and interest in the findings.
Manuel
Dear Manuel,
I hope for a good translation:
I read with interest your essay, and I am in perfect agreement with you that the reality is dual, as I also express it in my essay.
A question arises, to be completely consequent with what we assert, why the name of « quantum mechanics » if the reality is dual, why not « quantum and wave mechanics » ?
Thank you for appreciating my essay,
And I am going to rate your essay and good luck.
Amazigh
Dear Manuel,
What an excellent essay and I comment you for this far excellent essay. I learned a lot from it and I had to read it several times and will read it again later. I completely in agreement with you that selection causes and effects existence. If I may say in my theory of KQID, I called this phenomena as the Wang Yaming's one bit as the unity of Giving first Taking later as one transaction as an act of selection: do first and reap the effect later as one bit. The "do" is also the effect as you pointed out. As you wrote below: "We have also established in Fig. 1 that it is necessary for a selection event to take place in order for a physical state to exist, hence, no selection = no existence." Yes, no selection no existence! We have the same conclusion and same concept in different language, translation, transformation but it is the same. I ranked it the highest so far. Fantastic! Never give up, continue the fight for all of us. Best, Leo
Thank you Leo for taking the time to review and rate my essay and for your kind words of support and encouragement.
Your paper sounds very interesting and I am looking forward to reviewing and rating your essay tomorrow.
Thanks again!
Manuel
Dear Manuel,
I would like to rate your essay and I want to know whether you have rated mine. please, inform me at, bnsreenath@yahoo.co.in
Best regards,
Sreenath
