Text Size


JS: Nick you continually miss the key points here.
Of course presponse & RV are not orthodox physics experiments.
However, Helmut Schmidt's retro-PK experiments were and Henry Stapp published a paper in Phys Rev A about them for which they would have hung him if they could - You know who I mean.

The RetroPsychoKinesis Project
Retropsychokinesis experiments are now on-line. ... Channeling evidence for a PKeffect to independent observers by H. Schmidt, ... Henry Stapp's controversial 1994 modification of quantum mechanics which accomodates RPK-phenomena. Stapp acted as an independent observer on some of Helmut Schmidt's more ...
Observation of a PK effect under highly controlled conditions
by H SCHMIDT - Cited by 35 - Related articles
By HELMUT SCHMIDT ... The discovery of PK effects on prerecorded random events (Schmidt, 1976) did not .... of the subject in the test session has a retroactive effect on the moment the random events were generated (Schmidt, 1975, 1978). ..... Henry Stapp is a theoretical physicist at the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory.

Physical reality is bigger than orthodox physics experiments done so far.

On Aharonov's claims. I say his retrocausal INFORMAL LANGUAGE (Bohm) interpretation is TRUE, but Godel-undecidable within the algorithmic RULES of the orthodox quantum physics GAME.

Get out of your box. Think more like a homicide detective - presponse, remote viewing are CLUES.

On Dec 21, 2012, at 12:32 PM, nick herbert <quanta@cruzio.com> wrote:

NH: You may choose to muddy the waters, Jack.
by citing other non-physics experiments.
But restricting the topic to Aharonov's claims.
Even smart people make mistakes.
Smart people learn from their mistakes.
Dumb people never do.

Jack:  Have you learned from yours? ;-) Nick u also miss my logical point here as well as the significance of the presponse data. The presponse data + your friend Russell Targ's published evidence on CIA vetted precognitive remote viewing proves that real retrocausality is the fundamental fact of nature even though it is covered up encrypted as it were (passion at a distance) in the orthodox quantum limit. Now you can simply deny the validity of the presponse data and say that Radin, Bierman, Bem, Targ, May et-al are bad scientists and that their data is bogus. Indeed that's what James Randi et-al will say if pushed to the wall.
We then have a religious paradigm war like the Shias and the Wahabbis ;-)
Of course, the real proof in the pudding will be conscious AI nano-chips based on Antony Valentini's "signal nonlocality" but no one will try to make them if they believe what you believe - a bias against the very notion.

On Dec 21, 2012, at 11:50 AM, nick herbert <quanta@cruzio.com> wrote:

NH: On the interpretation of weak delayed-choice measurements as retro-causal: given three choices: necessary, sufficient or mistaken, Nick Herbert votes
(along with Kastner) for "mistaken".

On Dec 21, 2012, at 9:45 AM, Ruth Elinor Kastner wrote:

REK: If the fancy new experiments don't require it, then it shouldn't be claimed that they have demonstrated it. And remember that the fancy new experiments have no different ontological status than any other  qm experiment. There is no new physics here and certainly nothing
meriting an invoking of  'back from the future' as pertaining only to those experiments, as the popular press keeps suggesting. This is all hype and nothing more.

From: JACK SARFATTI [sarfatti@pacbell.net]
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2012 2:20 AM
To: Ruth Elinor Kastner

Subject: Retrocausality is a sufficient but not a necessary explanation in orthodox quantum theory

Jack: They do not require, it i.e. retrocausality is not necessary, it is sufficient. Invoking retrocausality does not contradict any orthodox quantum experiments. Retrocausality is a true Godel undecidable proposition within the too limited rules of the orthodox quantum theory game.

On Dec 20, 2012, at 11:01 PM, Ruth Elinor Kastner <rkastner@umd.edu> wrote:

REK: Jack, you'll need to say which argument you're talking about. If it's the claim in the abstract from the arxiv preprint I mentioned (http://arxiv.org/abs/1206.6224), yes, all the results
are nicely predicted by ordinary qm and do not require 2-state formalism as 'the only 'reasonable resolution' as claimed by Aharonov et al in that abstract. In fact the alleged 'contradictions' that they claim need 'resolution' are spurious; under a standard qm analysis, which I've already provided, there are no special problems or contradictions that need 'resolving' by recourse to a different formulation.

Jack: As I said. Yakir & Co only have an argument of sufficiency of the retrocausal interpretation in which psi* is a post-selected advanced destiny influence and psi is the pre-selected retarded history influence colliding as it were in the intermediate weak measurement. Since orthodox quantum theory is degenerate in this regard, i.e. admits a meta-Hilbert space of Godel undecidable Bohmian "informal languages" or interpretations, e.g.

1) Copenhagen epistemological

2) Bohm ontological

3) Parallel Worlds (Tegmark Level 3)

4) Cramer Transactional

5) London-Wigner consciousness reduction --> Penrose Orch OR


Only strong signal nonlocality in Antony Valentini's sense can settle the issue.

Libet --> Radin --> Bierman --> Bem

I claim is clear evidence for the breakdown of orthodox quantum theory in living matter.

Quantum theory is only limiting case of a more general post-quantum theory as special relativity was for general relativity.

REK: So they are taking something that is perfectly sensible under standard qm and making it seem strange and obscure to create an apparent need for their formulation. There are no special problems with these experimental phenomena under a standard qm analysis. It all boils down to steering of quantum systems (by way of weak measurements) into tilted error states more likely to give certain 'strong' outcomes. So of course the strong outcomes are more likely to have come from the weakly measured states which lean toward those outcomes. It's just the shoe factory analogy: If Alice is known to have a high rate of defective shoe production on Saturdays (because she partied too hard the night before), if Bob gets a Saturday shipment, he's going to find that more of those shoes are defective. That doesn't indicate that Bob's identification of a particular defective shoe forces that shoe to retroactively have been (probably) made on a Saturday the week before. It just means that it's more likely to have been made on a Saturday. This is all ordinary statistical inference,
no different conceptually from my inferring that in the past you interacted with your computer because I got an email from you. My getting that email did not retroactively influence you to have done something in the past. Neither do any of the fancy experiments referred to recently in the popular press require a 'back from the future' explanation.

Jack: They do not require, it i.e. retrocausality is not necessary, it is sufficient. Invoking retrocausality does not contradict any orthodox quantum experiments. Retrocausality is a true Godel undecidable proposition within the too limited rules of the orthodox quantum theory game.

REK: Rather than the 'back from the future' explanation being more 'elegant' or 'simpler' as 2-state vector proponents claim, it is tendentious and misleading since it's based on taking results perfectly consistent with standard qm and trying to argue that they require something beyond standard qm. They don't. Remember the shoe factory. Now if someone gets reliable statistically significant deviation from the Born Rule, that's a completely different matter: in that case, both standard qm and the 2-state formulation fail.

Jack: I think the history-destiny picture naturally generalizes to include signal nonlocality - that's what John Cramer claims in his back from the future experiment and in Chapter 16 of Frontiers of Propulsion Science.

From: jack [sarfatti@pacbell.net]
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2012 1:16 AM
To: Kafatos, Menas

Subject: Re: I missed this.  You?

That's what I have been saying. However Ruth seems to think her argument refutes Yakir's
It doesn't Difference in logic between a sufficient explanation and a necessary one.

Sent from my iPad mini

On Dec 20, 2012, at 10:07 PM, "Kafatos, Menas" <kafatos@chapman.edu> wrote:

I agree with Ruth, they are not by themselves.

Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 21, 2012, at 2:33 AM, "Ruth Elinor Kastner" <rkastner@umd.edu> wrote:

Ok Jack -- the only thing I question is holding up these experiments in the popular press as evidence of retrocausality -- they aren't.

From: jack [sarfatti@pacbell.net]
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 7:25 PM
To: Ruth Elinor Kastner

Subject: Re: I missed this.  You?

Sent from my iPad

On Dec 20, 2012, at 3:11 PM, Ruth Elinor Kastner <rkastner@umd.edu> wrote:

The presponse data is a separate issue from what's going on in the experiments referred to by CL.

Jack:  Agreed The retrocausal phenomenon is moot in orthodox qm
Yakir agrees with that
The presponse data is a violation of it
So orthodox qm is not interesting for retrocausality
What Yakir shows is that there is no contradiction
It's like lifting a degeneracy in the meta Hilbert space of parallel qm interpretations

REK: I don't rule out that humans might be able to get around QM statistics and that there may be other physics out there, but my point is just that
_these experiments do not contain that new physics_. These experiments are perfectly consistent with standard QM without explicit retrocausality.
Therefore, of course they are also consistent with TI as an interpretation of standard QM. Yes in TI there are advanced states but these are sub-empirical; i.e.
their existence cannot be revealed/confirmed by experiment- -- at least not by these experiments. On the other hand, Valentini's work predicts deviations from standard QM (i.e. Born Rule).

Jack: That's my point.

REK: Only if there is deviation from the Born Rule is there truly
new quantum physics in this sense. In terms of the Transactional Interpretation, deviation from the Born Rule would mean that there might be some way to directly influence _which_ transaction is actualized from a set of possible ones.

Jack: Cramer say that in ch 16
I prove it using entangled Glauber states

From: jack [sarfatti@pacbell.net]
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 5:59 PM
To: Ruth Elinor Kastner

Subject: Re: I missed this.  You?

Right I still have not had time to respond properly in depth
But your critique noted
Crucial test is presponse evidence u ignore
Also Russ Targ's CIA RV SRI report
John Cramer disagrees w you in ch 16 of exotic propulsion book
I mean your not addressing issue that qm is limit of more general theory with entanglement signaling.

Sent from my iPad

On Dec 20, 2012, at 2:48 PM, Ruth Elinor Kastner <rkastner@umd.edu> wrote:

I've seen a discussion elsewhere about these kinds of experiments. As soon as you detect a single particle (say Alice's), a one-particle Alice state is necessarily detected
and actualized on Alice's side, even if nobody 'looked' at it (i.e. even if there is still epistemic uncertainty about what state was actualized) and that
collapses the pair (both Alice's and Bob's particles) in that particular run into a particular state . Then the subsequent measurements you perform on Bob's particle
will reflect the statistics of the state that was created via the detection of Alice's particle.

In the experiments involving a superposition of the interferometer mirror in a 'which-slit' and 'both slits' configuration, detection of Alice's particle projects that combined system of Alice + Bob + IFM mirror into a particular state, and then detection of the mirror in a particular state further projects Bob's particle into a particular state corresponding to the mirror's detection, so of course Bob's particle is later detected with statistics reflecting those earlier detections.

No explicit retrocausality is necessarily present in these kinds of experiments.
The claims are usually overstated based on a conflation of any given individual run with the statistical analysis of sets of runs.

From: jack [sarfatti@pacbell.net]
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 1:37 PM
To: Levit, Creon (ARC-P)
Cc: Kim Burrafato; Ruth Elinor Kastner; Fred Wolf; Daniel Sheehan; Nick Herbert; Saul Paul Sirag; Menas Kafatos
Subject: Re: I missed this.  You?

I know about this and I think kim already has it posted on Stardrive

Sent from my iPad

On Dec 20, 2012, at 10:26 AM, "Levit, Creon (ARC-P)" <creon.levit@nasa.gov> wrote: