This is a very thorough treatment of the question of choice - and your conclusion seems to be that reality is founded on choice. This is true, with the caveat that as evolution proceeds, the domain of our certainties and predictable outcomes expands. Our perceptions are determined by choice at any given moment - but the resulting facts are added to the body of our more or less permanent knowledge.

This points to the fact that the field from which we choose at any moment exists independently of us, and we are continuously evolving upon its surface.

My focus, as you might have gathered from my essay, is increasingly on the evolutionary aspect of both observer and Cosmos, and the effects of their continuous correlation. I submit that it is in this area that our key assumptions must be reconsidered.

The evolving observer is continually assessing reality based on memory and expectation. Evolution never stops. At every moment of perception, past and future are drawn together to create the present; and the result is either an evolutionary improvement, or a defect.

Thus, the observer is always 'measuring up' reality - Bit (mind) and It (the field of observation) never enjoy a stable relationship: they are in perpetual correlation.

Though this describes my take on the subject of choice (it is subject to a greater reality, one that we are continually discovering), it was interesting to immerse myself in your very thorough working of the subject, and I wish you all the best in the competition.

John

    Manuel - I finally got around to reading your essay. I can see that an enormous amount of work has gone into it and that you have some extremely insightful ideas.

    You referenced Taylor when you said that "spin is an intrinsic form of angular momentum 'thought' to be solely a quantum-mechanical phenomenon for it does not have a counterpart in classical mechanics".

    However, it does have a counterpart in classical electrodynamics -- going back to Poyting's original papers. It can be interpreted as a spin dependent part of the Poynting vector since the complex quantities determine the polarization of light taking values ±1 for left/right circular polarizations the z-component of the angular momentum density.

    In 1909 Poynting described a mechanical analogy of angular momentum transfer to the optical absorber from circularly polarized light. This was subsequently measured by Beth in 1935, the interpretation of which was believed to validate the concept of intrinsic spin of photon.

    I made reference to this in my essay, where I additionally related the helical motion down the photon path to be the ontological source of subtime. The reversal of subtime is thus represented as the advanced and retarded wave of the electromagnetic propagation.

    I think this supports the point you are trying to make.

    Good luck in the contest.

      My pleasure Manuel,

      I hope you liked my essay too.

      Best wishes - glad to see you high up in the ratings.

      Best wishes,

      Antony

      Thank you John for sharing your thoughts. When I refer to choice, I refer to it more in context of a machine and not so much about knowledge of options as stated in the last paragraph of my essay.

      Regarding the evolutionary aspect of this machine, perhaps you may want to review my original paper of these findings which show how Choice/Chance Mechanics is an evolution mechanism: PHYSICS OF PREDETERMINED EVENTS: Complementarity States of Choice-Chance Mechanics

      I too am looking forward to the great reevaluation to come. This should be interesting. Best to you in the competition and in your writing endeavors.

      Regards,

      Manuel

      Hi Antony,

      My apology for not leaving a message behind when I reviewed and rated your essay highly on July 2. That was a hurried day for me to say the least. I am glad to see that my support of your essay, among many, helped you out in obtaining your much deserved rating.

      I believe it was your statement, "Hence, it seems decay onward to 5-dimensions isn't favoured either symmetrically or asymmetrically, giving 3-dimensionality a limit in our reality and in information exchange." that resonated with me the most.

      Best wishes and good luck,

      Manuel

      Hi Paul,

      Thank you for your comments and kind words of support. You have given me several things to consider and review relating to both of our perspectives on this fundamental topic.

      Best wishes,

      Manuel

      Dear Manuel,

      We are at the end of this essay contest.

      In conclusion, at the question to know if Information is more fundamental than Matter, there is a good reason to answer that Matter is made of an amazing mixture of eInfo and eEnergy, at the same time.

      Matter is thus eInfo made with eEnergy rather than answer it is made with eEnergy and eInfo ; because eInfo is eEnergy, and the one does not go without the other one.

      eEnergy and eInfo are the two basic Principles of the eUniverse. Nothing can exist if it is not eEnergy, and any object is eInfo, and therefore eEnergy.

      And consequently our eReality is eInfo made with eEnergy. And the final verdict is : eReality is virtual, and virtuality is our fundamental eReality.

      Good luck to the winners,

      And see you soon, with good news on this topic, and the Theory of Everything.

      Amazigh H.

      I rated your essay.

      Please visit My essay.

      Manuel,

      Do you find any empirical evidence for producing matter from information...?

      best

      =snp

      Dear Manuel,

      very interesting essay. I also discuss the influence of gravitation to the selection process (measurement in quantum mechanics i.e. collaps of the wave function by gravitons). Here is the link to my essay

      All the best

      Torsten

        Hi Torsten,

        Thank you for your comments and for pointing your essay out to me. Sounds like we have something in common in more ways than one! I will take a look.

        Thanks again,

        Manuel

        Hi Manuel,

        Thank you for your post. I rated your essay back in July and as I mentioned in my previous post, I think very highly of your essay and am extremely impressed with your graphics. Thank you for taking the time to read and evaluate mine. I wish you the very best.

        Sincerely,

        Ralph

          What interested me is your attempt to unify the forces. I really didn't understand what your diagrams were trying to say about causality. My own theories would indicate that the strong and weak forces actually don't exist. They are a product of an extremely faulty planetary atomic model. You do say that gravity is related to electrostatic forces which I would agree with.

            Thank you Ralph for taking the time to read and rate my essay. As I expressed on your essay page, I found your essay 'dead on'. I look forward to our continued correspondence in the future.

            Best wishes,

            Manuel

            • [deleted]

            • Post #157

            Hi Franklin,

            Thank you for your comments. Please note, that the findings my essay is based on is empirical and precise, thus free of conjecture. Feel free to apply these findings to your deeply intuitive model which I found to be truly highly original. Absolute determinism is first cause. As such, it serves as a basis to measure all other models. With this understanding, I just simply compared the Standard Model sub-structures accordingly and found it to be sound when first cause, i.e., gravity, was included. In doing so, I found that there are no paradoxes between the microscopic and macroscopic domains for determinism must also be non-deterministic in order to exist.

            The findings show that there is a fundamental flaw with how we perceive our physical existence. Case in point, can the 'effect' of an interaction take place without a selection event first being made? This is why there has never been, nor ever will be, an experiment conducted without a selection event 'first' taken place. Physics is the study of what already exist, as such, it is based on second cause, i.e., effectual causality. Pre-physics, my field of study, is based on first cause for it is necessary that selections of potentials does not exist until it does.

            I hope this helps.

            Best wishes,

            Manuel

            • [deleted]

            • Post #158

            Dear Manuel Morales: In your essay you have penetrated the most fundamental core, still unresolved physical reality and therefore of quantum mechanics.

            Is there a reality independent of the observer?

            Some interpret that there is no reality unless an observation is made.

            This interpretation is completely wrong, and indirectly you deduct in his essay: Yes, let's call the bit, or the representation of a state information. If there is no informational reality independent of the observer, then the value of the density of dark energy, which existed before being measured by man, would not exist, and therefore the observer either. Obviously, in clear contradiction with reality.

            On the other hand, if there were a number of information representative of the states unified entity geometrizables of space-time mass-energy, independent observers and their measurements, then as explained Cassimir effect, which is the result of the force of the virtual photons, NO OBSERVABLES?

            The main problem is that quantum mechanics is an incomplete theory. A substrate in the space-time grid-mass-energy, as a non-separable and independent of the act of measurement.

            The key could be, again, could be in the virtual states with imaginary values​​, and therefore with speeds exceeding that of light. For this reason these unobservable states would be responsible for both the entanglement, as the apparent paradoxical effects of these.

            Another thing different is as emerges a probabilistic mathematical theory, for the simple reason that there are no measurable virtual states. In fact, as I demonstrated in my essay, every particle is accompanied, or has a double value: virtual (higher speed of light) and non-virtual, maximum speed c

            This would be the reason for the probabilistic nature of the double slit experiment, but this does not mean, and I agree with Einstein, and I think that is what is also clear from his essay, that there is no deterministic reality it appears.

            The problem is that this reality is not directly measurable, would be the real heart and initial cause of reality, and therefore both the bit, and its causative consequences, or it

            Good essay last causative nature of reality. A question very, very difficult and that you have tried with success.

            Know a lot more of what little we know.

            From humility and good work of his essay, I congratulate you warmly to continue this research first class.

            Thanks for your interest in my poor essay.

            Greetings Mr. Manuel Morales

            Congratulations

            Angel Garces Doz

              Hi Manuel,

              Thanks for the very kind reply! I think I've replied more comprehensively to it on my thread. I'm just trying to check in with all the other threads before the deadline.

              Best wishes,

              Antony

              Thank you Angel for your detailed review and compliments. Best of luck to you in the competition.

              Regards,

              Manuel

              Thank you Manuel,

              I appreciate the thoughtful comments left on my essay page. I am embarrassed to say that yours is one of the first essay I downloaded, but I have not read it through yet. I'll make sure I do so, before midnight.

              I'll comment if there is time tonight, or tomorrow.

              Jonathan

                Thanks Jonathan,

                That works for me. Let's hope this ends on a positive note this evening.

                Best wishes,

                Manuel

                Your essay resonates with me, Manuel.

                I'll have more to say, but for now I'll tell you it made me cry at the end, because it reminded me of the final days of my Mom - who had Alzheimer's and died earlier this year. Slowly but surely, her ability to choose was ebbing away, and there were the little things like being able to pick up a spoon and put food into her own mouth - that I imagine made life worth living - but was taken away by my Dad so she would get enough to eat. I knew that it wouldn't be long, before she checked out, at that point.

                I'd start talking about how we should not be spoon feeding our children with pre-digested knowledge, and instead must enlist their freedom to choose, but I think you know that. Much more to say on the value of play for Education, when there is time.

                Have Fun!

                Jonathan