Application of the Tempt Destiny findings published in a peer-reviewed fundamental physics journal:
Smithsonian/NASA Astrophysics Data System
How Art, Football Fans, And The Big Game Revealed That The Scientific Method Is Fundamentally Flawed
FACT: It is self-evident that there has never been or ever will be an experiment conducted without a selection first being made.
So what do football fans choosing to have their team featured on a billboard have to do with the scientific method, first cause, and the Theory of Everything? See NEWS RELEASE
Our physical existence is governed by the laws of nature which means that we cannot act in violation of these laws. It was with this understanding that I devised an art experiment based on the premise that the acts of selection (cause) predetermines existence (effect). What sets the Tempt Destiny experimental method apart from the current scientific method which is based on the second cause logic of placing cause second to effect, i.e., effect causing effect, is that the Tempt Destiny experiment establishes the existence or nonexistence of cause first in order to establish effect. By observing cause and effect in its proper order, the unambiguous empirical evidence, as summarized below, has shown that the second cause logic used in scientific methodology is fundamentally flawed.
How so? The scientific method predicts effects in order to establish causality to validate hypothetical theories. Such a method necessitates that causality be a singular mechanism in order for prediction of effects to be a valid method to establish cause. With the discovery of Einstein's two non-local hidden variables, i.e., direct and indirect selection, scientists are beginning to find out that there is a HUGE difference between guessing correctly and 'being' correct. What this discovery means is that the scientific method currently being used to validate fundamental physical theories is based on an omission error of not factoring the fundamental acts of selection which are necessary to conduct its experiments. In other words, the scientific method seeks to establish causality while ignoring it from the get go.
In order to refute the unambiguous empirical evidence that energy and the two acts of selection (direct selection - DC, and indirect selection - AC) are one and the same, all you need to do is to conduct any experiment without first making a selection. This should be easy enough for anyone to do, if and only if, the findings are false.
Without Knowledge Of First Cause Can Science "Correctly" Predict Effect?
The unambiguous empirical evidence obtained in the 12 year Tempt Destiny experiment has revealed that there is a fundamental problem with the scientific method of using statistical ensemble as empirical evidence to substantiate scientific theories. As revealed in the "Assumed Higgs Boson Discovery Proved Einstein Right" article, in order for 'any' experiment to be conducted a selection must 'first' be made. Yet, as obvious as to the importance of the first cause acts of selection are to the existence of the events that follow, they are simply overlooked as cognitive acts (philosophical notions) instead of mechanical acts and thus become hidden variables.
From 2000 to 2012, football fans were invited to vote online 24/7 throughout the entire year for their team to appear on the next Tempt Destiny (TD) billboard. The two previous billboards were in support of SB XXI, and SB XXV championship victories, a two-for-two record that served as the benchmark for this experiment. (Note, the artwork presented on the billboards was left unfinished so that if the team completed their season by winning the SB, the artwork could then be completed by painting the football silver to reflect the trophy won.)
Here's the catch: The team with the most votes would also need to go to the SB in order for the selection to be complete since the sole purpose of the artwork/billboard is in support of a SB victory. This pairing of a single selection with a single potential would then give us a direct selection event. In the experiment, a direct selection had been obtained each year. However, only once out of twelve annual attempts did the selection made pair with its potential (1), versus no selection pairing (0):
 - Direct Selection Events
In the last three years of the experiment, I added the option if the direct selection event did not occur then an indirect selection (pairing a selection with more-than-one potential) would be made if one of the two SB bound teams had more votes than the other. We had 3 out of 3 indirect pairing events. After reviewing the results of each annual experiment, if we had conducted only indirect selection events for the entire 12 year span we would have had 12 out of 12 indirect selections which would also include the direct selection event:
 - Indirect Selection Events
Now lets factor in their effects. The effectual state of a selection of only one potential is certain/deterministic for there is only one potential selected (single slit). We had 3 out of 3 direct selections (2 prior to the experiment, SB XXI and SB XXXV) all with "identical" results. The effectual state of a selection of more than one potential is uncertain/nondeterministic for there are more than one potential selected (double slit). We had 3 indirect selections with "different" results (SB XLIV, SB XLV, SB XLVI). During the 12 year span we had 4 selection "pairing" events, 1 direct and 3 indirect:
 - Observed Effects of the Selections made (not in order)
Without knowledge of cause, can you correctly guess which effect (1) was caused by the mutually exclusive direct selection? And 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., ?
Knowledge of statistical ensemble/data without knowledge of cause can only provide incomplete knowledge of reality for there are TWO mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive first cause variables in nature. The second cause logic of placing cause second to effects (effect causing effect) gives us a false sense of first cause (cause and effect). As it stands, empirical evidence based on the second cause logic of effectual causality or reasoning/beliefs based on effectual causality are indistinguishable in regards to validity for both are based on conjecture. In science, evidence based on an assumption is a speculation, not a discovery.
The Inconvenient Truth - The Discovery of Einstein's Non-local Hidden Variables
Einstein had predicted that there were "hidden variables" which would give us a more complete picture of reality. Although these variables have shown not to be local as predicted, turns out Einstein was right after all. Eventually as the general public gets wind of this discovery and its implications, science will have a serious integrity issue to contend with if it continues on with business as usual without correcting itself when a new discovery has been made that supersedes previous knowledge. For the record, the initial findings were presented at the American Physical Society (APS) convention on April 30th, 2011. During the presentation, the audience conducted the coin-in-cup experiment in order to confirm the findings for themselves.
If science is to progress, we first need to recognize the limitations of the logic and methods used in scientific inquiry in order to address its limitations. As the findings show, trying to use an incomplete methodology to obtain complete knowledge of nature (a.k.a. the God particle) can only lead to conjecture. It is the responsibility of the practitioners of the art of science to correct themselves when fundamental errors have been revealed. If not, then it is up to others to advance science by picking up the torch that has been dropped by those who "Shut up and calculate!". Bottom line, we run the danger of making science sacrosanct when we pretend that a new discovery has not been made which supersedes previous knowledge in order to maintain the status quo. By doing so, we are no longer talking about science being ignorant of an omission error. We are now talking about willful ignorance of such an error in order to practice pseudoscience.
In science, for a hypothetical theory to be valid it must be able to predict outcome (1). If the hypothetical predictions are confirmed, it must then be repeatable by others (2). If repeatable by others, it must also be able to be falsifiable/contestable (3). The unambiguous empirical evidence obtained by the Tempt Destiny experiment meets such rigorous criteria plus supercedes current statistical scientific methodology by being absolute of all manner of cause and absence thereof (4):
- Unequivocal empirical evidence of two first cause variables (Tempt Destiny experiment)
- The experiment is repeatable, e.g., coin-in-cup experiment ( see Science page).
- The findings can be contested (Final Selection experiment, see pg. 9).
- The 'effects' of first cause are predictable in that first cause predetermines both deterministic and non-deterministic states of physical reality, i.e., everything.
Evidence of Absolute Determinism: The unambiguous empirical evidence shows that there are two causal variables in nature which determine if an effectual state (existence) is deterministic/certain or non-deterministic/uncertain which means that both states are determined in order to exist as such. The findings show that absolute determinism is not about effectual states being certain or uncertain. It is about how cause is predetermined.
It appears that we have been putting the cart before the horse when it comes down to how we perceive reality. When we apply this newfound knowledge of what is causal and what is not to the art of particle physics, we find a fundamental omission error has taken place regarding the recent Higgs boson (a.k.a. God particle) discovery. See NEWS RELEASE
As the evidence has shown, the two mutually exclusive acts of selection determine the certain or uncertain states of existence, and the potential of a selection gives us the existence of the selection and of its state. Since both causal dichotomies are collectively exhaustive, they give us a complete description of physical reality. The assumption that selection is some sort of option, a freedom of will, is unsubstantiated by the fact that this machine we call choice is how energy works, which is a fundamental necessity, not a metaphysical option, of our physical existence. In other words, ‘when’ a selection exists, energy exists, for they are one in the same.
The Theory of Everything is a theory that fully explains and links together all known physical phenomena, and predicts the outcome of any experiment that could be carried out in principle. Since there has never been or ever will be an experiment conducted without a selection first being made, we can predict the outcome (determined or undetermined states) of any experiment that could be carried out in principle with absolute precision. When we apply this newfound knowledge of energy consisting of two mutually exclusive causal functions as exhibited in the "Spin States of Selection" article, we can then unify the states of spin, once thought to be exclusive to quantum mechanics, with the mechanical functions of direct and indirect selection. In doing so, we find that the pairing characteristics of the two causal acts of selection correspond with the pairing characteristics of gravity which in turn causes the effects of the strong, weak, and electromagnetic forces. Thus, direct selection gives us the strong electromagnetic gravitational force and indirect selection gives us the weak electromagnetic gravitational force, which reconciles gravity with the laws of quantum physics to produce a complete and self-consistent theory of quantum gravity, i.e., the theory of everything, as one super-deterministic force — E = G2.
As theoretical physicists John S. Bell once predicted, "The only alternative to quantum probabilities, superpositions of states, collapse of the wave function, and spooky action at a distance, is that everything is superdetermined. For me it is a dilemma. I think it is a deep dilemma, and the resolution of it will not be trivial; it will require a substantial change in the way we look at things."
Perhaps it is time we look at things via cause and effect instead of effects causing effects in order to better understand our existence. With knowledge of what is first cause, the things that we thought we knew and the theories and ideologies based on second cause are now questionable. Obviously, I can only briefly touch upon the implications of the discovery of Einstein's hidden variables here for this topic would require a book(s) to try to attempt to encompass the ramifications of this knowledge. In the meantime, thank you for allowing me to share this discovery with you.
© 2014 Manuel Morales
News 12 video aired on February 2, 2008:
The quest for the next Tempt Destiny™ billboard is provided as a means for fans
to support their team and is not affiliated with the National Football League or NFL teams.
All Rights reserved. Designed and hosted by Morales Studio LLC Copyright © 2014