Hi Manuel,

As I promised in my Essay page, I have read your Essay. I strongly appreciated it. In particular, I completely agree with your and Einstein's point of view on the uncompletness of quantum mechanics and on the needing to construct a more general deterministic theory beyond it. As I had a lot of fun in reading your Essay, I am going to give you a high score.

Cheers,

Ch.

    Thank you Christian for your support and kind words. As you are aware its not easy to go against the grain of popular opinion and for someone of your credentials to find merit in these findings, I find humbling.

    I wish you continued success in this contest.

    Regards,

    Manuel

    Thank you Hoang cao for sharing with me your viewpoint. I agree that states, which are finite, are absolute in that two states cannot simultaneously co-exist at one point in space time.

    My question you quoted is about how the fundamental acts of selection give rise to such states. I appreciate your viewpoint and have rated your essay accordingly. I wish you well in this competition.

    Regards,

    Manuel

    Hi Dear Morales,

    I have read your essay and I have find there such question:

    "How does something arise from nothing?"

    My dear! I have ask the same question myself in little bit different formulation: - Is it possible somebody made the sausage (for example) if I will give him all of information - the technology, process and materials description etc (let be encoded those even in binary system!) without meat? Thus, I am going rate your essay as a high. I will read it more detailed later. Please just open my work Essay text that I think you can read. Professor Christian very like it.

    Best wishes,

    George

      Hello Manuel,

      Contests FQXi-it contests new fundamental ideas. Your essay is a good example of depth analysis and new ideas presented in graphic form. You acknowledge Alexander Zenkina thought expressed in the article "Science counterrevolution in mathematics»: «the truth should be drawn with the help of the cognitive computer visualization technology and should be presented to "an unlimited circle" of spectators in the form of color-musical cognitive images of its immanent essence »http://www.ccas.ru/alexzen/papers/ng-02/contr_rev.htm

      You give a new opportunity to look at and understand the concepts of "matter", "energy", "information" from a new angle give a glimpse into the fundamental structure of nature. See also my essay. I think we are close in spirit to research.

      I wish you success and respect,

      Vladimir

        Vladimir,

        Thank you for taking the time to review my essay and for rating it based on the findings. I appreciate the link. That is some heavy stuff!

        Anyway, I have also reviewed your essay and found your perspective very much in keeping with the findings as well. At least you did not take 12 years of experimentation to come to your conclusion ;-)

        Best wishes,

        Manuel

        George,

        I too value Professor Christian opinion... and yours as well. Thank you for your kind words. I find it comforting to know that I am not the only one asking 'How does something arise from nothing?'

        I have reviewed your insightful essay and truly enjoyed reading it. I find rating it came easy. Best wishes to you in this contest.

        Regards,

        Manuel

        Manuel,

        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.

        Your above comment about mindsets calls to mind my belief that humankind has been unduly influenced by an anthropomorphic perception that falsely guides the Anthropic Principle.

        Your "abstract" comment, "In so doing, we find that the two acts of selection have gravitational characteristics, as such, serve to unify the strong, weak, and electromagnetic forces as one super-deterministic force," I find fascinating, though my mathematical skills kept me from seeing the connection in your graphics. The mystery of gravity and the separation of forces seconds after the BB must augur such a connective key 14 billion years after.

        Induced "States of angular momentum" correlating with other characteristic behaviors only attributed to quantum mechanics seems a unique manner of perceiving our reality -- perhaps fleeting images of macro and micro unification.

          James,

          Thank you for stopping by to review my essay and for the kind words. Funny thing, I was just reviewing your essay yesterday and was going to request your email address to run some questions by you, but you beat me to the punch. What is your email address? Or you can send me an email to: msm@physicsofdestiny.com

          Thanks,

          Manuel

          "This means you cannot choose to move your body whatsoever. You cannot choose to take in any fluids. You cannot choose to take in any nourishment. You cannot choose to relieve yourself, etc., etc. The outcome is obvious. The effect of a physical system to no longer have the capacity to make direct selections is certain death.

          Not True. Some *other* physical system can do it for you, as happens all the time, with people in a coma. Even if you consider everything to be just one system, problems remain. Fluids and nourishment may slam into you by chance; the chance might be small, but improbable life is not the same as certain death.

          Rob McEachern

            Rob,

            You are saying that another physical system would then need to do the 'selection' indirectly for another physical system's existence. I hope you realize that you have inadvertently confirmed that physical systems require direct or indirect acts of selection for their existence. The example I gave dealt with direct selection and its certain outcome. The example you gave dealt with indirect selection and its uncertain outcome. Thus, the existence of both states/outcomes requires the acts of selection for a physical system to exist. Nature is absolute in this regard.

            I truly appreciate you giving it some thought by presenting your argument.

            Best wishes,

            Manuel

            Manuel,

            Your statement, that I quoted, declared that the inability to make "*DIRECT* selections is certain death." I merely pointed-out that that statement is indeed false. "I hope you realize that you have inadvertently confirmed that" my statement was correct. *INDIRECT* selection remains an option.

            It was not inadvertent. I merely point out that the manner in which you have defined the terms "direct selection" and "indirect selection", as the only two possibilities preceding an "effect", causes the argument to reduce to the Anthropic principle; starting with the fact that something exists, it must necessarily be the case, that whatever conditions were previously necessary for that something to exist, must also have existed. If my life continues, then the conditions conducive to its continuance must have existed. If my life fails to continue, then the conditions conducive to that failure must have existed. "Nature is absolute in this regard."

            Rob McEachern

            Rob,

            I find the Anthropic principle deals with effectual states not with how those states were caused, i.e., came into existence. AP only deals with effectual states causing other effectual states. I have also found that followers of this principle have a hard time relating to the possibility that physical states are not fundamentally causal.

            Case in point, can the 'effect' of the Big Bang take place without a selection event first taken place? Can an experimenter conduct an experiment without first making a selection? I find your position to be cemented in the effectual mindset which will not allow you to understand what I have presented. Nonetheless, you are entitled to your opinion. Fortunately, nature is not about opinion, yours or mine.

            Best wishes,

            Manuel

            Dear Manuel S Morales:

            I am an old physician, and I don't know nothing of mathematics and almost nothing of physics, I am not prepared to really understand your essay, but I understand enough to appreciate your good job. Maybe you would be interested in my essay over a subject which after the common people, physic discipline is the one that uses more than any other, the so called "time".

            I am sending you a practical summary, so you can easy decide if you read or not my essay "The deep nature of reality".

            I am convince you would be interested in reading it. ( most people don't understand it, and is not just because of my bad English).

            Hawking in "A brief history of time" where he said , "Which is the nature of time?" yes he don't know what time is, and also continue saying............Some day this answer could seem to us "obvious", as much than that the earth rotate around the sun....." In fact the answer is "obvious", but how he could say that, if he didn't know what's time? In fact he is predicting that is going to be an answer, and that this one will be "obvious", I think that with this adjective, he is implying: simple and easy to understand. Maybe he felt it and couldn't explain it with words. We have anthropologic proves that man measure "time" since more than 30.000 years ago, much, much later came science, mathematics and physics that learn to measure "time" from primitive men, adopted the idea and the systems of measurement, but also acquired the incognita of the experimental "time" meaning. Out of common use physics is the science that needs and use more the measurement of what everybody calls "time" and the discipline came to believe it as their own. I always said that to understand the "time" experimental meaning there is not need to know mathematics or physics, as the "time" creators and users didn't. Instead of my opinion I would give Einstein's "Ideas and Opinions" pg. 354 "Space, time, and event, are free creations of human intelligence, tools of thought" he use to call them pre-scientific concepts from which mankind forgot its meanings, he never wrote a whole page about "time" he also use to evade the use of the word, in general relativity when he refer how gravitational force and speed affect "time", he does not use the word "time" instead he would say, speed and gravitational force slows clock movement or "motion", instead of saying that slows "time". FQXi member Andreas Albrecht said that. When asked the question, "What is time?", Einstein gave a pragmatic response: "Time," he said, "is what clocks measure and nothing more." He knew that "time" was a man creation, but he didn't know what man is measuring with the clock.

            I insist, that for "measuring motion" we should always and only use a unique: "constant" or "uniform" "motion" to measure "no constant motions" "which integrates and form part of every change and transformation in every physical thing. Why? because is the only kind of "motion" whose characteristics allow it, to be divided in equal parts as Egyptians and Sumerians did it, giving born to "motion fractions", which I call "motion units" as hours, minutes and seconds. "Motion" which is the real thing, was always hide behind time, and covert by its shadow, it was hide in front everybody eyes, during at least two millenniums at hand of almost everybody. Which is the difference in physics between using the so-called time or using "motion"?, time just has been used to measure the "duration" of different phenomena, why only for that? Because it was impossible for physicists to relate a mysterious time with the rest of the physical elements of known characteristics, without knowing what time is and which its physical characteristics were. On the other hand "motion" is not something mysterious, it is a quality or physical property of all things, and can be related with all of them, this is a huge difference especially for theoretical physics I believe. I as a physician with this find I was able to do quite a few things. I imagine a physicist with this can make marvelous things.

            With my best whishes

            Héctor