Dec 20 2012: Bell's theorem validates Counterfactual Definiteness which relates to effectual states of QM (spin up + spin down). Hence his statement that absolute determinism would be the only thing that would predetermine such states.
You are thinking in terms of effects causing effects, common mistake. "Causal moments" CANNOT exist prior to itself in order to be causal. Think about it.
Dec 19 2012: What makes you assume that the "causal" agents of selections of potentials exist before they exist? Such an assumption would negate causality as being causal.
One final note, I am not arguing for the evidence just presenting it. The evidence stands on its own. My opinion or anyone else's is irrelevant to the facts. Hence, the term "absolute" determinism.
Dec 19 2012: You asked, "What do you mean when you say "two causal agents"?
A: Direct selection (single slit), and indirect selection (double slits).
In the double-slit experiment, sometimes called Young's experiment (after Young's interference experiment), physicists have historically ignored the causal nature of the single and double slits as selection mechanisms. Instead, they focused on the phenomenon (wave-function collapse "effect") that takes place when an observation/measurement is made. Observation/measurement are "effects" of selections, not the cause of selections. So what we have here is the paradoxical interpretation of effects causing effects, not cause and effect.
This tiny detail is at the hart of the matter. I pointed this out in my initial findings of the Tempt Destiny experiment which is now included in the Smithsonian/NASA Astrophysics Data System: http://labs.adsabs.harvard.edu/ui/abs/2011APS..APRE13009M?
Dec 19 2012: The general assumption about absolute determinism is that it is understood to mean that all events are certain. However, evidence show that there are two causal agents, not one. This means that all events are either certain or uncertain dependent upon the type of selection made.
Direct Selection-->of one Potential-->Choice
Indirect Selection-->of more than one Potential-->Choice
Two types of causal agents-->Two types of physical states
Dec 6 2012: ... then you see the effect of a coin next to a cup. What caused the coin to be there is anyone's guess without knowledge of causality.
If you are referring to "How will this knowledge affect science and religion?" then consider this. Although science and religion are of different fields, they both share the same foundation/knowledge of how effects cause effects whether we are talking about a deity (effect) causing our existence (effect) or an observed or measured effect (elementary particle) bringing mass to the universe (effect). We have place causality as an effect of effects. Is it no wonder why we are so confused? ... and so the paradox of effectual causality rages on.
Dec 4 2012: I totally agree with your statement about finding the answer to the nature of our existence will lead to many new questions. If you visited the findings at TemptDestiny.com web site you see that this fundamental question has been addressed.
Regarding trends that you have mentioned, they all stem from lack of knowledge of causality. Currently all of what we call "knowledge", i.e., epistemology/ontology, is based on effectual causality (guessing). What I mean by that is without knowledge of how causality works, what we now call knowledge is nothing more than speculation.
Case in point: Let's say that you drop a coin "directly" into a cup; the outcome is certain, for there is only one potential selected - coin-in-cup. Conversely, you drop a coin "indirectly" into the cup by dropping the coin onto the rim of the cup; the outcome is uncertain, for there are more than one potential selected - coin-in-cup/coin-not-in-cup. By obtaining certain effects from a direct selection and by obtaining uncertain effects from an indirect selection, you now have addressed all causal possibilities.
You now observe two cups, each with a coin in them; can you tell which coin-in-cup "effect" was generated by an indirect or direct selection?
Without knowing which selection caused the coin-in-cup effect you can only make an assumption of how the effect was made. As demonstrated, if you know what "type" of selection occurred, you will know in advance if the effect of that selection is certain or uncertain for the two acts of selection predetermines both effectual states of existence.
So you see the answer to the question of "Is the world Super-deterministic" has been staring at us all along. I have found that once we change our perspective of what we "think" causality is you can't help but wonder why it has taken us (humanity) so long to see it. - See more at: http://temptdestiny.com/
REVELATION - How will this knowledge affect science and religion?
Dec 1 2012: Now we are getting somewhere. Which causal agent are you basing your assumption on? Evidence shows causality is a dichotomy, it s not a singularity. If you assume causality is a singular agent then you can only assume everything is a probability for effects causing effects is paradoxical.
Dec 1 2012: What exactly do you mean by "yes, that is what i said"? From your comments it appears your understanding of causality is based on effects causing effects instead of selection, which is causal, causing effects. Please clarify.
Dec 1 2012: A selection is made in your mind (thought) which sets off a series of physical events that instructs the body to move the head. See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=veqkUUOlLLE
Nov 30 2012: I believe our disconnect stems from the understanding of what is meant by "absolute knowledge" vs. "absolute determinism". This is a common source of confusion.
The coin-in-cup experiment clearly demonstrates absolute determinism (see: http://temptdestiny.com) The term determinism simply infers that a physical system behaves the same each time it is "replayed" from its original state, i.e., direct and indirect selection - same results each time. So we have only two mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive input variables of selection (cause) which in turn predetermines the two dichotomous output variables of certainty or uncertainty (effect). If everything is either certain or uncertain (absolute) then what else is there?
With the knowledge of how absolute determinism works, we can then obtain "absolute knowledge" of a physical state by knowing which type of selection has been made. If we do not have such knowledge then all we can do is guess. However, this lack of knowledge does not imply that such knowledge does not exist for we have established that for a physical state to exist necessitated that a direct or indirect selection took place prior to the observation or measurement of a physical effect.
... think about it. For further reading on this topic please review the initial findings of the Tempt Destiny experiment at: http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Unification%20Theories/Download/3571
TEDCred score: 0.00 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.
A comment on Conversation: Is the world Super-deterministic or not?
You are thinking in terms of effects causing effects, common mistake. "Causal moments" CANNOT exist prior to itself in order to be causal. Think about it.
A reply on Conversation: Is the world Super-deterministic or not?
One final note, I am not arguing for the evidence just presenting it. The evidence stands on its own. My opinion or anyone else's is irrelevant to the facts. Hence, the term "absolute" determinism.
A comment on Conversation: Is the world Super-deterministic or not?
A: Direct selection (single slit), and indirect selection (double slits).
In the double-slit experiment, sometimes called Young's experiment (after Young's interference experiment), physicists have historically ignored the causal nature of the single and double slits as selection mechanisms. Instead, they focused on the phenomenon (wave-function collapse "effect") that takes place when an observation/measurement is made. Observation/measurement are "effects" of selections, not the cause of selections. So what we have here is the paradoxical interpretation of effects causing effects, not cause and effect.
This tiny detail is at the hart of the matter. I pointed this out in my initial findings of the Tempt Destiny experiment which is now included in the Smithsonian/NASA Astrophysics Data System: http://labs.adsabs.harvard.edu/ui/abs/2011APS..APRE13009M?
A reply on Conversation: Is the world Super-deterministic or not?
Direct Selection-->of one Potential-->Choice
Indirect Selection-->of more than one Potential-->Choice
Two types of causal agents-->Two types of physical states
... Occam's razor.
A reply on Conversation: Is the world Super-deterministic or not?
If you are referring to "How will this knowledge affect science and religion?" then consider this. Although science and religion are of different fields, they both share the same foundation/knowledge of how effects cause effects whether we are talking about a deity (effect) causing our existence (effect) or an observed or measured effect (elementary particle) bringing mass to the universe (effect). We have place causality as an effect of effects. Is it no wonder why we are so confused? ... and so the paradox of effectual causality rages on.
A reply on Conversation: Is the world Super-deterministic or not?
Regarding trends that you have mentioned, they all stem from lack of knowledge of causality. Currently all of what we call "knowledge", i.e., epistemology/ontology, is based on effectual causality (guessing). What I mean by that is without knowledge of how causality works, what we now call knowledge is nothing more than speculation.
Case in point: Let's say that you drop a coin "directly" into a cup; the outcome is certain, for there is only one potential selected - coin-in-cup. Conversely, you drop a coin "indirectly" into the cup by dropping the coin onto the rim of the cup; the outcome is uncertain, for there are more than one potential selected - coin-in-cup/coin-not-in-cup. By obtaining certain effects from a direct selection and by obtaining uncertain effects from an indirect selection, you now have addressed all causal possibilities.
You now observe two cups, each with a coin in them; can you tell which coin-in-cup "effect" was generated by an indirect or direct selection?
Without knowing which selection caused the coin-in-cup effect you can only make an assumption of how the effect was made. As demonstrated, if you know what "type" of selection occurred, you will know in advance if the effect of that selection is certain or uncertain for the two acts of selection predetermines both effectual states of existence.
So you see the answer to the question of "Is the world Super-deterministic" has been staring at us all along. I have found that once we change our perspective of what we "think" causality is you can't help but wonder why it has taken us (humanity) so long to see it. - See more at: http://temptdestiny.com/
REVELATION - How will this knowledge affect science and religion?
A reply on Conversation: Is the world Super-deterministic or not?
A reply on Conversation: Is the world Super-deterministic or not?
A reply on Conversation: Is the world Super-deterministic or not?
A comment on Conversation: Is the world Super-deterministic or not?
The coin-in-cup experiment clearly demonstrates absolute determinism (see: http://temptdestiny.com) The term determinism simply infers that a physical system behaves the same each time it is "replayed" from its original state, i.e., direct and indirect selection - same results each time. So we have only two mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive input variables of selection (cause) which in turn predetermines the two dichotomous output variables of certainty or uncertainty (effect). If everything is either certain or uncertain (absolute) then what else is there?
With the knowledge of how absolute determinism works, we can then obtain "absolute knowledge" of a physical state by knowing which type of selection has been made. If we do not have such knowledge then all we can do is guess. However, this lack of knowledge does not imply that such knowledge does not exist for we have established that for a physical state to exist necessitated that a direct or indirect selection took place prior to the observation or measurement of a physical effect.
... think about it. For further reading on this topic please review the initial findings of the Tempt Destiny experiment at: http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Unification%20Theories/Download/3571