Morales Studio web site TEAM USA Olympic Baseball prints
NY Giants SB XXI
NY Giants SB XXV


Tempt Destiny Initial Findings Presentation

Smithsonian/NASA Astrophysics Data System

Destiny Has Been Scientifically Proven

If this is your first visit to, you are probably wondering what does football, artwork, and the big game have to do with science and destiny? Allow me to explain.

This all began innocently enough when I created artwork to support the NY Giants Super Bowl quest for SB XXI and SB XXV. The paintings reproduce on these billboards were incomplete so that if the team went on to win the SB I would then complete the artwork by painting the football silver to reflect the trophy won. The completed artwork was then reproduced as the NFL licensed NY Giants Super Bowl Commemorative Series limited edition prints (see link). As history shows, each time this cause and effect event took place the NY Giants went on to win the SB, a 2-for-2 track record. The stage was now set to see if this 2-for-2 track record was about luck or was it destiny, i.e., predetermined event or series of events or what physicists call superdeterminism.

News 12 video aired on February 2, 2008:

By repeating what had been done before I had the model for my experiment. Unlike the scientific method of predicting effects (guess) to validate a theory or hypothesis (another guess) in order to establish cause, the Tempt Destiny experimental model establishes cause first in order to correctly and without ambiguity align cause with its effects. From 2000-2012 football fans voted 24/7 online each year to have their team on the next Tempt Destiny billboard in support of their team's SB bid. The team with the most votes would determine the team selected – ACT. However, the team selected also needed to compete in the SB in order for the selection to come into existence – POTENTIAL. When an act simultaneously pairs with its potential, then and only then, do you have a selection event. In other words, the act of selection determines the existence, and thus cause, of the effects that follow. If you stop to think about it, you cannot select what cannot be chosen and you cannot cause something to happen until a selection has been made. Tempt Destiny Results

Evidence shows, how an act becomes and act is predetermined. What is not predetermined is the existence of the act itself.

Einstein Was Correct ... Almost:
As the unambiguous empirical evidence has shown (see TD Experiment Results), the initial conditions of a selection, i.e., pairing an act directly with one potential (one SB team) or pairing an act indirectly with more-than-one potential (one of the two SB teams), do not preexist. They can only come to exist and for that to happen their construct needs to be predetermined as innate mechanisms of what we call Nature. This means that the two mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive acts of selection are nonlocal hidden variables such that these variables cannot exist locally as observable or measurable physical states. As the evidence has shown, Albert Einstein was correct about the notion of hidden variables that would provide a more complete description of reality. However, he was incorrect as to where to find them.


How To Contest The Results

If something exists we can observe its scale, measure its weight, and determine when and where we made our observation. So if reality is truly based on the existence of what we can observed or measure, then we can apply this logic to answer the following question:

How much does a direct or indirect selection weigh, what are their scales, and where was the mutually exclusive selection variable you used to read these words located when you used it?

What this means is that the logic we use to perceive reality is based on the existence of physical effects, not the cause of such effects. Case in point, what is real to you are the letters you are now reading and not the selection mechanism you just used to read them. For example, the effect of reading these letters caused the effect of reading words, i.e., effect causing effect. This is what we typically assume to be cause and effect, i.e., the existence of something (effect) causing the existence of something else (effect). If you step back and think about it, by placing cause second to effect we have violated cause preceding effect which in turn blinds us to what is causal and what is not.

The logic we use to perceive reality is incomplete if it is not inclusive of the two laws that govern our existence. To test if the acts of selection are indeed fundamental laws of Nature and not merely cognitive acts, we can contest the findings in real life as follows:

Ho - If the two acts of selection are not necessary for your existence then you can safely conduct the Final Selection Thought Experiment in real life and continue your existence.

Ha - If the two acts of selection are necessary for your existence then you cannot conduct the Final Selection Thought Experiment in real life in order to continue your existence.

Final Selection Thought Experiment:

Let's say that one morning upon awakening you find yourself absent of the ability to choose, e.g., paralyzed from the neck down. This means you cannot choose to move your body whatsoever. You cannot choose to take in any fluids. You cannot choose to take in any nourishment. You cannot choose to relieve yourself, et cetera. Nor can you have others indirectly choose for you. The outcome is absolute. The effect of a physical system to no longer have the capacity to make direct selections is certain death.

The assumption that selection is some sort of option, a freedom of will, is unsubstantiated by the fact that this predetermined mechanism we call choice is how energy works which is a fundamental necessity, not a metaphysical or cognitive option, of our physical existence. In other words, when the origin variables of selection come to exist, energy exists, for they are one and the same. As the thought experiment illustrates, we have the ability to choose because we do not have the option to not choose in order to exist.

So it comes down to this, either our logic is wrong in how we perceive reality or Nature is wrong and needs to correct itself in order to suit our perception of it. To date, I have found no one foolish enough to willingly put their logic to the test against Nature itself by conducting the thought experiment in real life, nor do I recommend doing so.


What Do We Replace Science With?

Due to the findings obtained from conducting this experiment, a heated debate has been raging at regarding how the scientific method is fundamentally flawed due to its reliance on predicting effects. The grave concern is by disregarding the present knowledge of Nature based on physical effects such disregard will come at a high price. What do we replace it with?

Let's begin by asking how did we get into this mess of using experiments based on effects in order to establish Internal validity which is a crucial measure in quantitative studies in the first place?

If you researched the history of how science came to be you would find that it was first founded on superstitious beliefs of cause and effect. Later these beliefs turned into what we call religion today. Eventually mankind developed methods for testing their beliefs/theories/hypotheses (guess) by predicting effects (guess) in what is called an experiment. This method of inquiry, if successful, then needs to be repeated by others in order to test for bias and to test the validity of the prediction made. The more successful the prediction the more confidence we have that the prediction was correct. This method serves as the cornerstone/foundation of science. By obtaining knowledge of a guess supported by empirical evidence, we have advanced what we think of as knowledge from superstitious beliefs of cause and effect, to quantitative beliefs of cause and effect.

If this guessing game we consider to be knowledge is correct, then it is necessary for cause of the effects predicted to be singular. If cause is not singular, then empirical evidence obtained via prediction of effects is based on omitted-variable bias and thus invalid. The unambiguous empirical evidence obtained in the experiment clearly shows without any ambiguity that there are two mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive origin variables, i.e., direct and indirect selection, that give rise to effects, not one.

Religion based on the theory of single cause, i.e., a God, or science based on single cause of an elementary particle that gives mass to the universe, i.e., Higgs boson, rely on this fundamental assumption. Therein lies the Achilles heel of the logic of perceiving reality via effects. In the past, mankind has used superstitious beliefs and quantitative beliefs to explain Nature's mysteries. In light of the findings, I am compelled to ask, what good are such beliefs if they do not reflect the fact that we cannot act in violation of the two laws that govern our existence?

Fortunately for science it allows for new knowledge to supersede past knowledge. In light of the findings and in order to make a smooth transition from the old paradigm of effects causing effects to a new paradigm based on cause and effect, perhaps the moniker for science based on prediction should now be named "Effectual Science" in order to distinguish it from knowledge to be gained from "Causal Science"?

Religion on the other hand has always been based on belief in conjecture and so will remain anybody's guess which explains why there are so many "true" beliefs. I began this experiment as a practicing Roman Catholic. After reluctantly coming to terms with the findings, I needed to make a choice to accept Nature's laws which I cannot contest or to continue to fool myself into thinking otherwise. To fool myself into thinking otherwise would be to call Nature a liar. Unlike practitioners of faith, I do not consider myself to be so special that I can dictate to Nature my terms of acceptance of its laws.


International Journal of Fundamental Physical Sciences

Application of the Tempt Destiny findings published in a peer-reviewed fundamental physics journal:

Assumed Higgs Boson Discovery Proved Einstein Right


Is Particle Physics Valid? - Crime Scene Investigation

As stated earlier, the scientific method is based on the logic of causality being effectual. It uses prediction of effects in order to obtain empirical evidence to substantiate its theories. This method of investigation is no different than assuming that all brake-ins (effects) are caused by burglars (effects), i.e., effect causing effect. For example, you come home after a weekend holiday to find your front door has been broken-in (effect). You call the cops to launch an investigation to find out who violated your domicile. They arrest a known burglar living next door who couldn't account for his whereabouts at the time of the break-in. He even has some of your stuff that you forgot you loaned to him and BINGO - case solved!

Later, you find out that a family member, who had been drinking heavily that weekend, had broken into your house realized that he was at the wrong house and decided to go to his home without telling you of what he did.

As illustrated by the crime scene investigation, without knowledge of cause you can only make assumptions. In a peer reviewed fundamental physics journal article "Assumed Higgs Boson Discovery Proved Einstein Right", I investigated if the two origin variables of selection were accounted for in the empirical method of conducting particle collision experiments and found that they were not. When you collide packets of 100,000 million protons into each other you have an indirect selection experiment, i.e., an act pairing with more-than-one potential. As my findings show in Table 3 of the Tempt Destiny experiment final results, when you do not have knowledge of which of the two mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive selection variables that caused the effect observed, e. g., a particle collision, you unavoidably obtain false positive data.

Tempt Destiny Results

The multibillion dollar Large Hadron Collider (LHC) built by the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) from 1998 to 2008 was constructed in such a way that empirical evidence obtained is unavoidably biased by the omission of which type of selection event (direct or indirect) caused which particle collision effect, an error that can only produce false positive data. This means that the LHC cannot be used to validate various theories of particle and high-energy physics for which it was designed. Yet somehow, the LHC data was used to validate the discovery of the Higgs boson (a.k.a. God Particle) in 2013 which also gained the Nobel Prize in physics in October that same year even though both CERN and the Nobel committee were notified of the omission error in the summer of 2012. In January 2013 after my peer-reviewed findings were published, I notified the Nobel committee once again of the unambiguous empirical evidence.

For the Higgs boson discovery to be valid, particle collisions must take place without a selection event first being made in order for there to be no omitted-variable bias. When CERN physicist, Adam Jacholkowski, was challenged to prove if such an event could indeed take place, he responded:

"@ Manuel You write, " prevent the particle beams from intersecting in order to prevent the selection events from happening. If you still have collision effects then the two acts of selection did not cause the particle collision effects and you would have proven my findings invalid." OK, but this is something we are doing routinely when the beam is lost accidentally, when testing the apparatus without beam (noise study), when collecting cosmics in our apparatus for the calibration purpose (alignment), when there is only one circulating beam in the accelerator (for beam-gas background study) etc. In all these cases we do not see any event of interest from the physics point of view that is we do not observe any kind of collisions. So what is your conclusion in this case?"

My response, "You have validated my findings". Indeed, as the Tempt Destiny experiment had shown, it is impossible to conduct an experiment without a selection first being made. As confirmed by CERN physicist, Adam Jacholkowski, the same holds true for particle collision experiments which cannot take place without the selection event of two particle beams intersecting. And so by not accounting for which type of mutually exclusive selection event (direct or indirect) caused the particle collision effects, by scientific standards, a discovery cannot be made or founded on omitted-variable bias.

Given the turn of events I am compelled to ask, is omitted-variable bias the new accepted standard for scientific discoveries? If so, then why bother with the pretense of conducting experiments at all since such bias can only lead back to conjecture, not to the advancement of knowledge.

What this all comes down to is that science is built on a house of cards which is how it should be in order for discoveries to be made. The discovery of Einstein's nonlocal hidden variables has revealed that Nature is indeed super-deterministic. Unfortunately, the implications of this discovery has revealed that the scientific method is fundamentally flawed since it is based on the assumption of cause being singular (see - Without Knowledge Of First Cause Can Science "Correctly" Predict Effect?). Case in point, quantum physicist Anton Zeilinger's comment:

"[W]e always implicitly assume the freedom of the experimentalist... This fundamental assumption is essential to doing science. If this were not true, then, I suggest, it would make no sense at all to ask Nature questions in an experiment, since then Nature could determine what our questions are, and that could guide our questions such that we arrive at a false picture of Nature." see – Superdeterminism

The good thing out of all of this is that science is not dogma and so can adapt to new information and correct itself accordingly as it has done in the past. The question is, with so much money, ego, and reputations at stake, will it?


Without Knowledge Of First Cause Can Science "Correctly" Predict Effect?

general science journalThe 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 (metaphysical 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):

[000000010000] - Direct Selection Events

What this means is that the act of selection does not preexist because it is a part of a dichotomy which necessitates the simultaneous existence of its potential for the effect of a selection to come into existence.

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:

[111111111111] - 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:

[1011] - 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., [111111111111]?

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 Science

First Cause and the Theory of EverythingEnergy equals gravity squared

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 their proper order. In doing so, we find that the pairing characteristics of the two causal acts of selection correspond with the pairing characteristics (attraction) 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.

Morales signature

© 2015 Manuel Morales

See: Tempt Destiny Timeline


Home I Legacy I Program I Science I Stats I Store I Contact

New Orleans Saints
Pittsburg Steelers
Missing Billboard image