John C. Cramer’s TI and the Super Symmetric Deterministic Raspberry MWI with Free Veto.-Free will.

John C. Cramer’s TI and the Super Symmetric Deterministic Raspberry MWI with Free Veto.-Free will of Benjamin Libet.
TI or Transactional Interpretation is found to be fully in line with our daily reality of Free Will or better Free Veto, in a super deterministic clockwork World, as Benjamin Libet proposed and tested in 1984. 
Both Based on the Handshake idea of superluminal entanglement signals between copy universes according to Quantum FFF Theory.

see: Democratic Free Will and Telepathy in the Instant Entangled Multiverse.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1612.0026v3.pdf
and: Free Will Readiness Potential Ratios, the Key for a Multiverse Number Calculation.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1803.0100v1.pdf
and:  Testing Proposals for Human Free Will in the Raspberry Multiverse, Local Entanglement and M&M Lightspeed.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1811.0125v1.pdf
and: The Conscious Undivided Multiverse,
http://vixra.org/pdf/1905.0123v2.pdf

Open letter to John G. Cramer , (4-augustus 2019)

Dear professor Cramer,

I found your interesting paper on TI called:
The Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Nonlocality (2015)
At the conclusion you write:
"Is free will possible in such a system? It is our view that it is. Freedom of choice
does not include the freedom to choose to violate physical laws. The transactional
handshakes between present and future are acting to enforce physical laws, and they
restrict the choices between future possibilities only to that extent."

Dear professor, do you still stand for this conclusion?
Or could it be that Benjamin Libets measurements about the Readiness Potential of subjects could lead to a different kind of handshake between Supersymmetric ( CPT) subjects living far away from each other inside the raspberry multiverse.
see my paper: "The Conscious Readiness Potential Ratio Multiverse."
http://vixra.org/pdf/1907.0250v2.pdf
See perhaps also::
"John Cramer’s TI and the Super Symmetric Deterministic Raspberry MWI with Free Veto.-Free will."
https://bigbang-entanglement.blogspot.com/2019/07/john-cramers-ti-and-super-symmetric.html


Sincerely yours,

Leo Vuyk.

Stop Global warming by geostationary Origami screens.

Stop Global Warming and climat change by local Solar screening of  large Geosynchronous Origami panels each stretched by 6 satellites in star formation, at 35000 km above earth, to form low pressure areas and clouds at sea.
 including semi controlled weather patterns.

According to Quantum FFF Theory.

Former attaempts to deploi sail to use the sun energy. ( mylar sail for space propulsion )

MWI: and the 11 fold connections (dimensions) in our brain for a 12 fold entangled multiverse?

See THIS article

and: https://bigbang-entanglement.blogspot.com/2019/07/the-copenhagen-interpretation.html

.

The Copenhagen interpretation reinvented with support of Benjamin Libet.

NEUROSCIENCE beats QUANTUM MECHANICS.

QUANTUM MECHANICS explained by NEUROSCIENCE !!

The Observer- Subject/ object relation of the Copenhagen interpretation reinvented, without half dead/living  Cats and leading to an Entangled Raspberry shaped Multiverse with 8 or 12 entangled CP symmetric universal bubbles (or berries)
see: "The Conscious Readiness Potential Ratio Multiverse"
http://vixra.org/pdf/1907.0250v2.pdf
and : The Conscious Undivided Multiverse.
http://vixra.org/abs/1905.0123

Conclusion:  there are always more observers (80%) RPII, to follow -by entanglement at universal distances- the initiative of RPI = observed (<20%).

Benjamin Libet found indications for the entangled 8 or12 fold Entangled Raspberry Multiverse already in 1983, by his RPI-RPII splitting measurements combined with a 20-80% splitting found later by Trevena and Miller .see: Free Will Readiness Potential Ratios, the Key for a Multiverse Number Calculation.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1803.0100v1.pdf
see also: 
The 11 fold connections in our brain:

The Benjamin Libet discovered two different Readiness Potentials (RPI and RPII: INTERPRETED by me, AS THE  OBJECT AND SUBJECT separated FAR AWAY from each other, but entangled from the start of the big bang inside different  CP symmetric COPY UNIVERSES) .
Libet did not Notice the ratio constancy, other did notice them later. with an average  20-80% result for RPI respectively. RPII see Trevena and Miller ( <20%) : http://vixra.org/pdf/1803.0100v1.pdf

Former essays about Consciousness in the  Multiverse
Free Will Readiness Potential Ratios, the Key for a Multiverse Number Calculation.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1803.0100v1.pdf
Democratic Free Will and Telepathy in the Instant Entangled Multiverse.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1612.0026v3.pdf

Wikipedia about MWI and Copenhagen interpretation:
 Some versions of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics proposed a process of "collapse" in which an indeterminate quantum system would probabilistically collapse down onto, or select, just one determinate outcome to "explain" this phenomenon of observation. Wavefunction collapse was widely regarded as artificial and ad hoc^{[citation needed]}, so an alternative interpretation in which the behavior of measurement could be understood from more fundamental physical principles was considered desirable.

Everett's Ph.D. work provided such an alternative interpretation. Everett stated that for a composite system – for example a subject (the "observer" or measuring apparatus) observing an object (the "observed" system, such as a particle) – the statement that either the observer or the observed has a well-defined state is meaningless; in modern parlance, the observer and the observed have become entangled; 
(which i.m.o. was the key invention of Everett)
we can only specify the state of one relative to the other, i.e., the state of the observer and the observed are correlated after the observation is made. This led Everett to derive from the unitary, deterministic dynamics alone (i.e., without assuming wavefunction collapse) the notion of a relativity of states.

However, i.m.o. the Key question should be: Are we human observers entangled with that Cat in the  box during opening of the box experiment?
OR: do we live inside a fixed number of entangled SuSy parallel ( anti matter) universes, with large distant entangled susy copy cat in boxes, with 50% chance for entangled atomic decay.?
However we have to accept a superluminal entanglement connection between the susy copy experimental systems (at universal distances) around the box.
And that is the problem.  Einstein did not accept superluminal signalling! or spooky action at a distance.

The Conscious Readiness Potential Ratio Multiverse

The Benjamin Libet discovery of two different Readiness Potentials (RPI and RPII) and the potential to VETO an act,  is reason to suggest the presence of a SuSy multiverse with entanglement down to each quantum.

However, Libet did not Notice, because he (or his successors) did not measure the ratio between RPI and RPII , as a base for the total number of SuSy Universes.

 see: http://vixra.org/pdf/1907.0250v1.pdf
or:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334481423_The_Conscious_Readiness_Potential_Ratio_Multiverse

Some interesting indications for democratic free will: Trevena and Miller and Benjamin Libet’s Readiness Potential. Benjamin Libet measured the so called electric Readiness Potential (RP) time to perform a volitional act , in the brains of his students and the time of conscious awareness (TCA) of that act, which appeared to come 500 m.sec behind the RP.
However, if we assume that the postulated 12 copy universes are each others observer to trigger randomly and alternating the collapse of the copy wavefunctions, (to trigger a volitional act, like Libet's subjects) in the other 11 universes.
Then as a consequence, we may expect that only 1/12 part or 8,3 % of all (human) timing of conscious intention to act, will show a reversed timing sequence between the so called Time of conscious awareness (TCA) came before the Readiness Potential (RP). indications in that directions, are already found by Judy Trevena and Jeff Miller (Otago university NZ).
See: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1219 1935&dopt=Abs tract
Trevena an Miller found surprisingly, that up to 20 % of all cases of human timings of Conscious intention to act, should be accounted as reversed in sequence thus: TCA before Lateral RP.
However, It was Stanley Klein, who described his reaction and the reaction of other professionals, that the 20% reversed timing cases, found by Trevena and Miller, should decrease, if more common measurement biases were accounted for.
See: page 274: http://cornea.berkeley.edu/pubs/161.pdf
Quotation of page 274 of the article by Stanley Klein: "The new data of Trevena and Miller (2002) indicate that the average time of the LRP still precedes the TCA, but by much less than does the RP.

However, Trevena and Miller argue that the averaging process can distort the story and that one needs to look at the percentage of times that the timing is reversed (TCA coming before the LRP).
They find that 20% of the time the TCA occurs before the LRP.
Based on that finding it is likely (they say) that the conscious decision to act comes before the LRP. A bias of 100 msec in the TCA could upset Trevena and Miller’s argument since the 20% with TCA before LRP would decrease substantially.
When the average TCA is shifted from 2200 ms to 2100 ms it is unlikely that there will be many occasions in which the LRP comes after the conscious decision to move.
I will go through the topic of bias carefully with special attention to the flash-lag effect (Nijhawan, 1994).
 I argue that the forward referral of the flash-lag effect, not a backward referral that had been suggested for this purpose, can compensate for the perceptual delay latency."
As a consequence,
If future experiments could be made more focused on this issue, then perhaps we could find more support for the hypothesis of such 12 fold trigger mechanisms to collapse every time a set of 11 fold copy wave-functions inside the other 11 fold entangled copyuniverses.