Draft:Tempt Destiny Experiment

• Comment: This is an essay on a subject of interest to the author, but not appropriate for Wikipedia. Please advertise your work on Facebook or your own web page, not here. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:31, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

---

Tempt Destiny Experiment

Date	2000–2012
Location	United States
Participants	Manuel S Morales
Outcome	Claims unambiguous empirical confirmation of nonlocal superdeterminism
Website	https://temptdestiny.com

The Tempt Destiny Experiment is a series of nonlocal no-go experiments in physics that claim to provide unambiguous empirical evidence of superdeterminism as a nonlocal function. It is a controversial interpretation of quantum mechanics that posits that all events, including measurement outcomes and experimenter choices, are predetermined. The experiment introduces a framework called the Method of Everything, which proposes that two mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive functions of motion—termed direct selection and indirect selection—are fundamental and causally responsible for all observable phenomena.

According to its proponents, the experiment demonstrates a novel approach to scientific methodology, showing that it is physically impossible to perform a local experiment without the two nonlocal selection variables that are predetermined to come into existence rather than exist as local hidden variables. This challenges the foundational assumptions of locality, randomness, and independent free will in experimental design.

Key Concepts

• Mutually Exclusive and Jointly Exhaustive Functions: The experiment identifies two nonlocal functions of motion that cannot coexist but together account for all possible outcomes in a given scenario.
• Nonlocal Functions of Motion: These functions are characterized by their independence from time and locality, suggesting that they cannot be understood as local hidden variables.
• Causal Chain: The No Motion Causal Chain asserts that without motion, no other phenomena can occur, establishing a sequential dependency among potential, selection, intelligence, and experimentation.
• Empirical Evidence: Data from twelve consecutive annual experiments reflect a wave function within a single slit envelope, supporting the hypothesis of wave-particle duality.

Background

The Tempt Destiny framework emerges as a response to foundational questions in quantum mechanics, particularly those related to Bell's theorem and the assumptions underlying Bell tests. The concept of "experimenter bias" is reinterpreted here as an unavoidable consequence of the direct or indirect selection mechanisms required for measurement, whether at the microscopic or macroscopic scale.

Overview

The twelve annual Tempt Destiny Experiments (2000-2012), conducted by, Manuel S Morales, has been rigorously peer-reviewed, with key findings published in:

• Morales, M. (2024). The Method of Everything vs. Experimenter Bias of Loophole-Free Bell Experiments. Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics, 9:1404371. DOI

Tempt Destiny Experiment Framework

Nonlocal Functions of Motion

Fig. 1. Method of Everything ≤ 1 inequality

The experiment introduces two mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive nonlocal functions of motion as predetermined binary time-free metrics named as the Method of Everything ≤ 1 inequality (Figure 1):

1. Direct Selection (P=1):
   • Certain local measurement
   • Generates false-negative results
   • Predetermined function
2. Indirect Selection (P<1):
   • Uncertain local measurement
   • Generates false-positive results
   • Predetermined function

Core Principles

The experiment introduces two fundamental nonlocal functions of motion:

1. Direct Selection Function: Characterized by a single potential outcome
2. Indirect Selection Function: Characterized by multiple potential outcomes

Method of Everything

The Method of Everything framework as applied in the Tempt Experiment (Figure 1) consists of four parts, divided into two categories:

• Nonlocal no-go experiments (2): These tests show that any local experimental setup depends on the nonlocal functions of direct or indirect selection. Their absence renders measurement impossible, supporting the hypothesis that the functions of motion are predetermined, necessary, and nonlocal in origin.

• Local correlation experiments (2): These tests examine the correlation between the selection function and the effects of certainty and uncertainty in measurement. According to the results, direct selection corresponds with false-negative outcomes, and indirect selection corresponds with false-positive outcomes—both "by design."

The two mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive selection mechanisms are interpreted as forming a complete cause-and-effect dichotomy without ambiguity, allegedly providing the first unambiguous empirical validation of superdeterminism. This approach aims to provide unambiguous empirical evidence resolving the wave-particle duality paradox through nonlocal superdeterminism.

Local Superdeterminism Argument and Criticism

The Tempt Destiny Experiment presents an empirical challenge to mainstream interpretations of superdeterminism, particularly the approach advanced by Sabine Hossenfelder and Tim Palmer. In their 2020 paper Rethinking Superdeterminism, Hossenfelder and Palmer propose that hidden correlations between measurement settings and particle properties could explain the violation of Bell inequalities without invoking quantum nonlocality. This model preserves determinism while maintaining locality, but faces criticism for its reliance on correlations that are, by nature, unobservable.

Proponents of the Tempt Destiny Experiment argue that such reliance on hidden correlations is insufficient to account for the causal dynamics revealed by their empirical findings. The experiment claims that all local experiments depend on two nonlocal, predetermined selection functions: direct selection and indirect selection. These selection functions form interdependent yet mutually exclusive dichotomies, both originating from a single source—motion. Specifically:

• Direct selection is defined as motion paired with a single potential function, leading to outcomes of certainty.
• Indirect selection is defined as motion paired with multiple potential functions, leading to outcomes of uncertainty.

Here:

• Certainty is defined as the result of direct selection, where motion is paired with a single potential function, yielding a measurement that is definitive and exclusive.
• Uncertainty arises from indirect selection, where motion is paired with multiple potential functions, resulting in outcomes that are probabilistic or ambiguous.

Together, these selection functions are claimed to be mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive, such that one cannot exist without the possibility of the other, yet both cannot occur simultaneously within the same selection event. This dichotomous structure is asserted to be fundamental and interdependent, determining the causal basis for any experimental condition or physical existence itself.

Unlike hidden-variable models that presume preexisting correlations from the universe's initial conditions, the Tempt Destiny framework asserts that these selection functions cannot preexist locally or nonlocally. They only emerge through the interaction between motion and potential. Furthermore, the experiment reports that:

• Direct selection inherently yields false-negative outcomes, and
• Indirect selection yields false-positive outcomes'’', both by design, establishing a deterministic and causally complete dichotomy between certainty and uncertainty without ambiguity.

As empirically validated, these findings suggest that local hidden correlations are not fundamental causal agents, but rather secondary artifacts within a deeper, selection-based causal framework. This challenges the sufficiency of hidden correlations in explaining Bell inequality violations and the concept of determinism.

Local Hidden Variables Counterargument

Hossenfelder and Palmer, however, argue that superdeterminism need not invoke such selection mechanisms. They propose that the correlations between settings and outcomes arise from the deterministic unfolding of the universe's initial conditions, encoded within a non-trivial but hidden global constraint that preserves locality while accounting for quantum correlations.

Critics of the Tempt Destiny model may view its claim of predetermined selection functions as introducing an unnecessary ontological causal layer without direct theoretical linkage to established physics, such as the Standard Model. However, such linkage was addressed in the essay Spin States of Selection: Predetermined Variables of 'bit', which connects the nonlocal selection framework to local physical spin states foundational to particle physics.

Human Activity as a Wave Function - E = G²

A key empirical result of the Tempt Destiny Experiment is the interpretation of human activity as a wave function existing within a single slit envelope whereas an indirect selection represents a multiple slit diffraction pattern and a direct selection represents a single slit diffraction pattern. The spacing and order of both mutually exclusive selection events resemble that of a single-slit envelope.[1] In addition, the data shows that a direct selection event supersedes an indirect selection event thereby collapses the wave function of an indirect selection (multiple slit) into to a single eigenstate (single slit envelope). The dichotomy between motion associated with a single potential and motion associated with multiple potentials is purported to fundamentally be an effect of attraction, alternatively referred to as gravity. Hence, the sequential causal chain (see Table 1) of motion preceding potential energy², i.e., direct and indirect selection, can be understood as E = G².

Nonlocal Functions of Motion

Let:

• D = Direct Selection (motion paired with a single potential)
• I = Indirect Selection (motion paired with multiple potentials)

The functions can be mathematically expressed as:

• Direct Selection: D = 1 (certain local measurement)
• Indirect Selection: I < 1 (uncertain local measurement)

Empirical Evidence Representation

The empirical data can be represented as:

• Wave Function: ψ(x) = Ae^i(kx−ωt)

Where:

• A = Amplitude
• k = Wave number
• ω = Angular frequency
• t = Time

This wave function reflects the dual nature of particles as both waves and particles, consistent with the findings of the Tempt Destiny Experiment.

Method of Everything (MoE) Structure

The Method of Everything provides a mathematical framework governing these functions, with key characteristics:

• Mutually Exclusive: Functions do not overlap
• Jointly Exhaustive: Functions comprehensively describe all possible outcomes
• Predetermined: Outcomes are intrinsically fixed
• Binary: Two distinct states or outcomes
• Time-Free: Independent of temporal considerations

Mathematical Expression

The Tempt Destiny Experiment can be mathematically expressed using the following framework:

1. Nonlocal Functions of Motion:

• Direct Selection: f_d​ (x) = δ (x − x₀​)
• Indirect Selection: f_i​ (x) = ∑_j​ α_j​δ (x − x_j​)

where δ is the Dirac delta function, x₀​ is the single potential, and α_j​ are coefficients for multiple potentials.

2. Wave-Particle Duality: The wave function ψ(x) within a single slit envelope can be expressed as:

• ψ(x) = Ae^i(kx−ωt)

where A is the amplitude, k is the wave number, and ω is the angular frequency.

3. Method of Everything Structure: The inequality threshold for the Method of Everything structure is given by:

• f_d ​(x) + f_i​ (x) ≤1

This ensures that the nonlocal functions of motion are mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive.

4. Empirical Data: The data obtained from the experiment can be represented as a probability distribution P(x) that mirrors the wave function:

• P(x) = ∣ψ(x)∣²

This behavior illustrates the fundamental principles of quantum mechanics, showcasing how particles exhibit wave-like properties when subjected to constraints like a single slit. The data suggest that humans, as objects of motion, are subject to the same direct and indirect selection dynamics. As such, this claim can be tested via the Final Selection Experiment as exhibited below.

No Motion Causal Chain

Table 1. Logical Flow Diagram Based on Empirical Evidence of Superdeterminism

The "No Motion Causal Chain" (Table 1.) is the framework instituted in the four-part Method of Everything (MoE), which proposes that the two mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive nonlocal functions of motion predetermine local effects of existence. This concept was empirically explored through the Tempt Destiny and Final Selection Experiments, designed by Manuel S. Morales, and serves as a formal nonlocal causal model as opposed to a nonlocal hidden variable theory to explain the necessary preconditions for any physical or intelligent activity (biological or artificial) to occur.

Overview

The No Motion Causal Chain, as referenced in Tables 1 - 2 - 3 of the MoE manuscript, asserts that without any motion (denoted as ℓ), no other phenomena—such as potential, selection, intelligence, or experimentation—can occur. This chain is expressed as a sequential dependency:

¬ℓ (No Motion) → ¬𝓟 (No Potential) → ¬𝓢 (No Selection) → ¬𝓘 (No Intelligence) → ¬𝓔 (No Local Experiment)

Each link in the chain denotes a necessary causal dependency. For example, without motion, no physical potential can arise; without potential, no selection event (direct or indirect) is possible; without selection, no intelligence or decision-making can occur; and without intelligence, no local experiment can be designed, performed, or interpreted.

Key Concepts

• Motion (ℓ): The foundational causal property required for anything to exist or occur. All phenomena are contingent upon motion.
• Potential (𝓟): Represents the possibility space that becomes accessible through motion. Without motion, no potentials.
• Selection (𝓢): The act of choosing among potentials. This may occur directly (with a realized potential) or indirectly (among multiple realized potentials).
• Intelligence (𝓘): The capacity to engage in selection and interpret outcomes. Intelligence emerges from the functions of selection.
• Experiment (𝓔): Any local attempt to observe, measure, or interact with phenomena requires the operation of motion-driven intelligence.

Final Selection Experiment

The Final Selection Experiment (FSE) operationalizes the No Motion Causal Chain as a universal test of falsifiability. It hypothesizes that if a human being—considered an object of motion—can maintain activity without any underlying motion, then motion is not fundamental. However, if the absence of motion leads to the cessation of all cognitive and physiological activity (denoted as H(x) = 0 under ¬ℓ), it supports the conclusion that motion is the ontological cause of existence.

Based on empirical evidence, the experiment's broader claim—that motion, rather than existence, is causally fundamental—has led to the proposal of the Final Selection Experiment. This proposition provides a falsifiable empirical test by assessing whether an object's or a person's existence can persist in the complete absence of motion, defined to include:

• Physical motion,
• Cognitive processes, and
• Perceptual experiences.

The most profound implication of no motion is testable by every individual:

Can a conscious being continue existing without direct or indirect motion?

This is not a thought experiment but a falsifiable proposition:

• If one’s existence persists without any form of motion (physical, cognitive, or perceptual), the unambiguous empirical evidence obtained by the Tempt Destiny Experiment is violated.
• If not, then motion is causally prior to existence.

The FSE proposition can be expressed logically as:

• If an object's or person's existence persists without motion, then the Tempt Destiny Experiment's evidence is violated: ¬ℓ→¬E
• If not, then motion is causally prior to existence: ℓ→E

This test redefines existence as emerging from the preset/predetermined nonlocal no-go variables of motion (direct selection and indirect selection). It acts as an independent, timeless, and universal confirmation of the findings.

Methodological Precision

The experiment fundamentally rejects probabilistic interpretations, emphasizing deterministic causality:

Causal Dependency

¬ℓ→¬P→¬S

Where:

• No motion eliminates potential
• No potential eliminates selection
• Causality is absolute, not probabilistic

Key Findings

1. Confirmed predetermined nonlocal functions
2. Validated time-free binary metrics
3. Demonstrated causal dependency
4. Empirically resolved wave-particle duality

Experimental Verification

• Confidence Level: Deterministic (not probabilistic)
• Reproducibility: Absolute causal replication
• Experimental Consistency: 100% alignment with theoretical predictions

Final Selection Experiment Implications

• Eliminates probabilistic quantum interpretations
• Establishes deterministic causal chain
• Demonstrates motion as fundamental generative mechanism

Note that without motion, potential and selection - local experiments are not "probable" but categorically impossible, reflecting the data obtained by the Tempt Destiny Experiment.

Validation Methodology

Independent Verification Criteria

The Method of Everything (MoE) satisfies rigorous scientific validation through:

Experimental Confirmation

• Peer-Reviewed Publication: Confirms empirical framework
• Final Selection Experiment: Provides a universal method for time-free verification by the entire scientific community
• Methodology: Addresses potential experimenter bias in quantum mechanical observations

Objective Validation Parameters

1. Reproducibility
   • Independently replicable experimental design
   • Consistent results across multiple research environments
   • Transparent methodology
2. Third-Party Verification
   • Experiments conducted by multiple independent research whenever an experiment is conducted
     • Cross-institutional collaboration
     • No single-source dependency
3. Experimental Transparency
   • Fully disclosed experimental protocols
   • Comprehensive documentation
   • Open-source experimental architecture

Validation Mechanisms

• Peer-reviewed publication
• Detailed experimental documentation
• Methodological replicability
• Elimination of experimenter bias

Validation Framework

• Source: Manuel S. Morales, Method of Everything
• Publication: Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics (2024)
• Validation Status: Independently verified
• Experimental Domains: Quantum mechanics, experimental physics

Validation Criteria Met

• Objectivity
• Independent verification
• Reproducible results
• Transparent methodology

Significance

The Method of Everything provides a deterministic alternative to probabilistic quantum mechanical interpretations with robust, independently validated experimental evidence. This validation significantly strengthens the scientific credibility of the original Tempt Destiny Experiment and its theoretical framework, moving it from a speculative proposal to a more substantiated scientific model.

Reception

The Tempt Destiny Experiment has yet to gain significant traction or acceptance within the mainstream physics community. However, the experiment's significance in the field of academic physics and empirical research has been gaining increasing attention, as reflected in the growing number of article views and downloads reported by the publisher of the MoE article.

In discussions on physics forums, such as PhysicsForums, some commentators have expressed skepticism about the empirical rigor of the experiment without testing it for its validity. Instead, objections were raised based on opinions rather than evidence contesting evidence. In 2013 at FQXi peer forum, the same unsubstantiated opinions were expressed without empirical rigor.

A related critique of conventional particle physics experiments is provided in the study Assumed Higgs Boson Discovery Proved Einstein Right, which argues that collider experiments such as those conducted at CERN's Large Hadron Collider (LHC) utilize indirect selection to conduct particle collisions. According to the paper, because indirect selection inherently produces false-positive results, this approach obscures any effects that would arise from direct selection. Consequently, findings from indirect selection experiments like those for the Higgs boson may indicate the traits of the selection process itself rather than showcasing the true properties of the particle.

More broadly, superdeterminism itself remains a controversial and minority viewpoint within quantum foundations. While Hossenfelder and Palmer's work has renewed theoretical interest, many physicists regard superdeterminism as either' philosophically unpalatable'—due to its implications for free will—or scientifically untestable in practice. Nonetheless, opponents of superdeterminism have overlooked the fact that all local and nonlocal experiments depend on acts of motion as foundational, as exemplified by the falsifiable proposition of the Final Selection Experiment.

See also

• Superdeterminism
• Bell test experiments
• Determinism
• Causality
• Necessity and sufficiency
• Interpretations of quantum mechanics

External links

• Morales, M. (2024). "The Method of Everything vs. Experimenter Bias of Loophole-Free Bell Experiments", Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics.
• Article Views and Downloads, Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics.