Manuel Morales

Artist - Researcher, Morales Studio LLC
Mount Laurel, NJ, United States

About Manuel

Bio

As an official artist for the US Olympic team, or as an artist painting in a Budweiser commercial, Manuel Morales' distinctive style of combining fluid mixtures of color with realistic rendering has been seen in many venues for over thirty years. From 2000-2012, Manuel's artwork had been the catalyst of a twelve year art/science experiment which obtained unambiguous empirical evidence of Albert Einstein's long sought after "hidden variables". The application of the findings has revealed that the scientific method of obtaining knowledge of effects gives us incomplete knowledge of reality as Einstein had suspected. These findings have been included in the Smithsonian/NASA Astrophysics Data System.

Manuel's art career began by airbrushing van and motorcycle murals to help pay his way through college to obtain his Bachelors of Fine Arts degree from the prestigious Parsons School of Design. This experience eventually led to a commission by Budweiser to paint a mural on a van for one of their commercials which aired from 1984-85. During the early days of Manuel's career he created artwork for magazines, book publishers, and commissions for clients which include: HBO, PEPSI, NY Giants, Simon & Schuster, MILLER LITE, SONY, Allied-Signal, OMNI magazine, and Readers Digest to list a few.

Manuel has also done private portrait commissions, fine art paintings, and original graphics which have been exhibited at galleries nationwide. He was one of a select group of artists commissioned to create artwork for the US Olympic Committee's Olympic Portfolio consisting of posters and limited edition prints to raise funds for TEAM USA.

With the advent of computer generated art, Manuel's career expanded to include creating graphic design for print and the web. This experience led to teaching computer art and graphics at the Newark School of Fine and Industrial Arts, Essex County College, and Burlington County College.

Manuel enlisted in the Air Force during the final year of the Vietnam conflict and then later joined the Air Force National Guard in his home state of New Jersey. His military experience as a carpenter in the Structural Maintenance and Support Team required that he learn all of the building trades. This training enabled him to build a home for his wife and children in southern New Jersey.

Languages

English

Areas of Expertise

Art, Science - biology,physics,arts,law, Home building and General Contracting, Project Management, writing, editing, web design / development

An idea worth spreading

The 12 year Tempt Destiny experiment provided a way to confirm that Albert Einstein was correct about the ‘notion’ of the existence of hidden variables which would give us a more complete description of reality. However, as the unambiguous empirical evidence has shown, the hidden variables of the two acts of selection are not local as Einstein had predicted. This means that energy is created, not conserved as previously assumed. The evidence has also revealed that there is a fundamental problem with the scientific method of using statistical ensemble as empirical evidence to substantiate scientific theories. In other words, the scientific method itself has been found to be fundamentally flawed in that it can only obtain knowledge of effects without knowledge of what first caused the effects observed. The findings show that the scientific method has its limits. In light of the facts, perhaps it is time to place cause 'first' in order to better understand its effects.

I'm passionate about

My passion is to understand nature on its terms by distinguishing the difference between what is causal and what is not. In so doing I seek to obtain a better understanding of our physical existence.

Universities

Parsons NY

My TED story

You live, you die, and stuff happens in between. So what is that about? If you're like me, you may have wondered how we came into existence and if our existence has a purpose, a destiny. As an artist, I have trained myself to look at things from multiple and sometimes unorthodox perspectives in order to see beyond the obvious. So when an unexplainable event took place with the creation and completion of two of my paintings, I found myself compelled to investigate this first cause theory of everything we call destiny, which postulates that all events or series of events are predetermined. This investigation has revealed that our perception of reality, i.e., effects causing effects, has placed the cart before the horse when we position cause second to its effects. My TED story is a story about how art, football fans, and the big game led to the discovery of first cause and the Theory of Everything.

Comments & conversations

222283
Manuel Morales
Posted about 1 year ago
IS THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD DEAD?
There is one more question I would like to add. Even if you think you could guess correctly, how would you know since the effects from a direct selection or from an indirect selection will appear to be the same, e.g., [111111111111]?
222283
Manuel Morales
Posted about 1 year ago
IS THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD OBSOLETE?
There is one more question I would like to add. Even if you think you could guess correctly, how would you know since the effects from a direct selection or from an indirect selection will appear to be the same, e.g., [111111111111]?
222283
Manuel Morales
Posted over 2 years ago
Is the world Super-deterministic or not?
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.
222283
Manuel Morales
Posted over 2 years ago
Is the world Super-deterministic or not?
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.
222283
Manuel Morales
Posted over 2 years ago
Is the world Super-deterministic or not?
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?
222283
Manuel Morales
Posted over 2 years ago
Is the world Super-deterministic or not?
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 ... Occam's razor.
222283
Manuel Morales
Posted over 2 years ago
Is the world Super-deterministic or not?
... 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.
222283
Manuel Morales
Posted over 2 years ago
Is the world Super-deterministic or not?
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?
222283
Manuel Morales
Posted over 2 years ago
Is the world Super-deterministic or not?
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.
222283
Manuel Morales
Posted over 2 years ago
Is the world Super-deterministic or not?
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.