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

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.

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

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

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

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

Hi Manual,

Thanks for an interesting essay. I equate it with the saying of a yoga instructor: No brain, No pain.

Thanks,

Don Limuti

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.

Dear Manuel. Hello, and apologies if this does not apply to you. I have read and rated your essay and about 50 others. If you have not read, or did not rate my essay The Cloud of Unknowing please consider doing so. With best wishes.

Vladimir

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

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.

"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

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

Manuel, no, I did not submit an essay this year, an "indirect selection" was made that prohibited me from doing so. But I did submit one last year.

Rob McEachern

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

Manuel,

I think I do understand your position, I just don't find it enlightening.

You ask "Can an experimenter conduct an experiment without first making a selection?"

It is highly enlightening to reflect upon why everyone that discusses the Schrodinger's cat experiment, directly selects the starting condition to be Cat=Alive rather than Cat=Dead, before they proclaim the experiment reveals the cat to be both dead and alive. As I have said elsewhere is these discussions, a little a priori knowledge goes a long way.

Rob McEachern

Manuel,

"We actually think our opinions matter when it comes down to understanding nature", because they do matter, at least with regards to our understanding. However, I believe, and it appears that you also believe, that our options, beliefs and understanding of nature, has little influence on nature, apart from our earth-bound technology (Which is mostly about how to cause various, desirable effects.) Nature is indeed not about our options, but our opinions about nature cannot be separated from our understanding of nature.

I'm not quite sure what you mean be highly *calculated* guesses. But consider the following rewording of your statement: "all we are doing is making highly accurate guesses without knowing why that is so."

If I could accurately guess which stocks will go up each day, I would soon be the richest man on earth. If I could accurately guess which chemicals would cure cancer, I could add many years of life to millions of people. Even if I have no idea why it works, it may nevertheless, be very beneficial to many people. That is the primary reason people seek to find causes for desirable effects. For the intellectually curious, it would be nice to gain an understanding of why and how each of these causes produce the desired effect. But benefits exists, even in the total absence of any such understanding.

When looked at in this way, there seems to be a clear distinction between technology and science. The first is satisfied with simply obtaining the benefit. The second seeks to understand why and how each newly discovered cause produces the effect. But the distinction is not really so clear. If one could guess the form of a new theory of everything, that was subsequently verified to actually work, no one would care that the theory was obtained via a guess - you would get a Nobel Prize regardless.

Personally, I do not view the role of science to be that of "explaining nature." It cannot do so. Its role is to describe nature. But that includes describing how to bring about (cause) any desired effect, including the ability to predict the future behavior of physical systems, via deductive logic.

Rob McEachern

"The fundamental flaw with this paradox is that it does not tell us anything about what caused the initial 'something' to exist in the first place"

That is True. And nothing ever will. Not Science. Not Religion. Nothing. And that is why Science (as opposed to scientists) does not even try to determine a "first cause". Science is content to merely find causes for desired effects.

Rob McEachern