Spin States of Selection: Predetermined Variables of ‘bit’ by Manuel S Morales

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

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

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.

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

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

Manuel

"However, you are free to conduct the Final Selection Experiment for yourself in order to substantiate your stated position"

I do not need to do any experiment to prove the particular point, which is we cannot transcend our own existence (ie know the entirety of nature/any other such phrase). This cannot be done, and if you think it can please explain how. Somewhere in this exchange/essay you asserted this could be done with this notion of selection, which the more you explain, the more I can understand it to be a fallacy.

Incidentally, I am not challenging nature, I do not understand where you get that idea from. Especially since I have clearly stated that we cannot know that we know 'nature'. It is you who is asserting that, with this concept of selection, ie we can have more knowledge than is actually possible. What is absolute is what is potentially knowable to us of 'nature', much of which we will never get to know even then. And that is a function of a physical process which involves sensing.

Paul

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

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