Text Size

Stardrive

Tag » David Deutsch

Einstein was writing all this before modern quantum theory. Today we know that the Aether is the quantum vacuum filled with virtual particles that are off mass-shell i.e. E^2 =/= (pc)^2 + (mc^2)^2 Also contact forces are caused by off-mass shell virtual photons in the non-radiative near field including longitudinal polarizations absent in real photons on the mass shell (light cone). Action at a distance is in the Wheeler-Feynman classical sense confined to the photon mass shell (aka light cone) but including advanced back from the future destiny waves generalized to "confirmation" quantum de Broglie waves by John Cramer in his TI. This is in addition to the more familiar retarded history waves. de Broglie waves are faster than light in phase quantum information when m =/= 0 though slower than light in energy transport. nonlocal EPR correlations are explained by retrocausal advanced confirmation destiny waves in the Feynman zig zag (term coined by O Costa de Beauregard). On Jun 22, 2014, at 8:09 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote: And he said almost the same things in 1924: http://www.oe.eclipse.co.uk/nom/aether.htm On 6/22/2014 7:46 PM, art wagner wrote: The Einstein Ether (1920): http://www.bonus.manualsforall.com/Educational/Albert-Einstein/Albert Einstein - Ether And The Theory Of Relativity.PDF

 

"Let us illustrate the problem of signalling with the assistance of the ubiquitous experimenters Alice and Bob. We will place Alice and Bob at some distance apart, and between them there will be a source emitting pairs of entangled particles. To avoid relativistic complications we will assume that Alice, Bob, their detectors, and the particle source are all mutually at rest in an inertial frame (the ‘lab’ frame). Pair after pair of particles are emitted by the source and detected by Alice and Bob's apparatuses, who record their results. Alice and Bob are free to alter the angle of their detectors with each run of the apparatus.

 
What each experimenter will record is an apparently random sequence of ups and downs, like the results of an honest coin repeatedly tossed; and yet, when they compare results afterward, they will note that certain correlations, generally sinusoidal in form, stand between their results. For example, if the particles are spin-1/2 fermions, and if Alice and Bob are measuring spin in a particular direction, then the correlation between their results will be -cos@ where @ is the angle between Alice and Bob's detectors. Sinusoidal correlations like these readily violate mathematical inequalities such as those defined by Bell (1964).  Itamar Pitowsky (1994) showed that the Bell Inequalities are examples of “conditions of possible experience” first written down by George Boole; these are consistency conditions between measurement results on the assumption that the results of one measurement and the way it is carried out does not influence the measurement of the other particle at the time of measurement. This means that the particular sequence of results that Alice and Bob get at their respective detectors could not have been encoded in the particles at the source; for some relative angles their results are too well correlated or anti-correlated for them to be due to local causes built into both particles when they were emitted” Kent Peacock "The No-Signalling Theorems: A Nitpicking Distinction” 
 
Here is the setup
 
Bob is closer to the pair source S than Alice.
 
B — S—————A
 
Bob does not change his settings.
 
Alice at the last moment changes her settings in delayed choice fashion AFTER Bob’s particles in the entangled pairs has already been detected.
 
This is done in pulse fashion so that there is a good statistical sample of particles in each pulse.
 
Each setting (ai,b) b-fixed has random outputs 1,0 for each individual detection.
 
Using the statistical rules of orthodox quantum theory Alice and Bob compare their raw data after the experiment is over and from the fraction of coincidences in each pulse, Bob can infer the sequence of settings a1, a2, …. aN for N pulses, which is the encoded message.
 
It is obvious, since Bob did nothing at all,  that Alice’s free will choices of settings a1, a2, …. aN for N pulses  (which is the message) is the active future cause of the back-from-the-future coincidences, unless you want a paranoid conspiracy theory.
 

 

Now of course this is not Valentini’s “signal nonlocality” that is a larger theory violating orthodox quantum theory the way general relativity violates special relativity globally though not locally. With Valentini’s PQM extension of QM Bob can know in advance what Alice will choose even before she chooses it without doing the hindsight correlation analysis. However, any attempt by Bob to cause a paradox will fail either for reasons given by Thorne and Novikov or by David Deutsch.

I disagree

When the events are complex and significant they are not statistical 
New rules apply Vallee's high strangeness 
When an alleged computer from the future tells me in 1953 of what will happen to me in 1973,which happens in fact and which is the cosmic trigger for the narrative in david kaisers MIT book etc that's a real time loop in a block universe in my opinion.
Remember CIA tape recording of my 1953 memory made in 1973 during SRI visit ties in with uri Geller narrative. 
The rules of the game are more like a homicide police investigation rather than statistical analysis of unitary S matrix measurements.
More is different
Emergence of new rules with increasing complexity uniqueness of historical events.

Sent from my iPad

On Apr 7, 2014, at 7:44 PM, Ruth Kastner <rekastner@hotmail.com> wrote:

Yes to clarify I don't rule out that there could be legitimate pre-cognitive experiences. The question is what can be inferred from those. Having well-documented cases of correct predictions does not automatically imply that the future consists of actualized specific events. 


From: beowulfr@interlog.com
To: iksnileiz@gmail.com

Subject: RE: From deadhead to think-outside-the-block head? DR. QUANTUM
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2014 21:35:31 -0400

Yes Z, but Ruth doesn’t seem to have a problem with discussing the implications of precognition as a possibly real phenomenon.  Like me she seems to be willing to discuss it, but not to go out on a limb and wholeheartedly agree with Jack.  So, we were discussing whether precognition would definitely favor Jack’s theory, or whether it could be explained in her theory as well.  She and I both seemed to make the point that viewing of future events doesn’t necessarily mean that someone is viewing the only possible future – there could be a number of possible futures.

 

Actually, on this point I remember reading some books by Lyall Watson back in the 1980s or early 1990s.  Watson had various of these sorts of psychic precognition examples listed.  I remember that he specifically claimed that aircraft, trains or other vehicles that are going to crash statistically have fewer people on them – that there is a rash of last-minute cancellations before the trip.  I don’t know how rigorous his statistics were and whether this is really true.  However, just assuming for a moment that it is, and that people do have an innate precognitive sense, what does Watson’s argument imply about the future?

 

As I remember Watson’s argument, he is not saying that people have a specific vision of dying in a fiery crash (although IIRC he claims that sometimes that does happen) but just that people get a bad feeling about the trip and come up with some excuse to cancel and do something else.  The precognition in his argument therefore happens at a sort of half-conscious level.

 

Either the people who last minute cancel are never going to die/are not “supposed” to die (whatever that means; maybe Jack’s future cosmological horizon quantum computer is post-determining that they live longer), and the precognition happens in order to actualize the future that is there all along.  Or, the cancellations are simply weird effects at a classical level, kind of like a Novikov self-consistency principle that would cause odd coincidences to happen to prevent you from changing history if you travelled to the past through a wormhole.

 

Alternatively, a future existed in which those people did die, and they precognitively sensed it, and so actualized a different future where they avoided death.  This would mean that the future is changeable through precognition, so multiple possible futures must exist.

 

From: Paul Zielinski [mailto:iksnileiz@gmail.com
Sent: April-07-14 9:08 PM
To: Robert Addinall

Subject: Re: From deadhead to think-outside-the-block head? DR. QUANTUM

 

Except that we were also talking about Ruth Kastner's alternative model for "retro-causality". Which
doesn't agree with Jack's.

Remember?

On 4/7/2014 5:39 PM, Robert Addinall wrote:

 

Anyway, this is exactly what I was saying the other day – for the purposes of this conversation accepting Jack’s concept of precognition as a proven reality is fine.

 

On Mon, 7 Apr 2014, Ruth Kastner wrote:
 
Yes to clarify I don't rule out that there could be legitimate pre-cognitive experiences. The question is what can be inferred from those. Having
well-documented cases of correct predictions does not automatically imply that the future consists of actualized specific events.
_____________________________________________________________
 
 
On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 1:18 PM, JACK SARFATTI <jacksarfatti@gmail.com> wrote:
Every really wealthy person I know well personally has an uncanny talent to make good decisions financially.
I am not talking only about stock market.
For example, the Marshall Naify had extraordinary powers akin to Uri Geller’s and Ingo Swann. I personally experienced “mental time travel” with him (shared telepathic experience) to past events (Ancient Egypt, Middle Ages). He saw the potential of cable TV early and was one of the creators of what led to Comcast.
I have also noticed other evidence in them of paranormal talent.
I am not saying this as a scientific fact - only a subjective observation - folklore.
I am not saying that 100% of the 1% are precognitive but that a significant fraction are.
Even successful criminals and evil leaders are.
 
On Apr 9, 2014, at 12:59 PM, CloudRider@aol.com wrote:
 
Question, for Jack, et al...
Is it possible... or have you considered (seriously, with respect)... that what's in play here is a form of human perception perhaps located somewhere on the autism spectrum, even higher-functioning than Asperger's?
 
I am not a brain neuroscientist. I do not know.
 
If such a condition were to allow "tuning" to different signals from what "typical" receivers (people, brains) are capable of picking up. Not to imply "disability" or abnormality, per se, but a "stretch" in what most people are able to perceive... or perceive and retain in consciousness. Also, Jack's signal had to have a 'sender,' who quite likely would know about the "tuning" aspect of human perception, in the 1950s quite new to us.
 
Exactly my point! HIGH STRANGENESS - REALITY OF THE UNCANNY THAT MANY STRAIGHT SCIENTISTS OUT OF FEAR SUPPRESS.
 
Vallee and Davis Physics of High Strangeness ... - skinwalker ranch
www.skinwalkerranch.org/images/Vallee-Davis-model.pdf‎
by JF Vallee - ‎Cited by 6 - ‎Related articles
Oct 24, 2003 - clarify the issues surrounding “high strangeness” observations by ... Jacques Vallée has a Ph.D. in computer science; Eric Davis holds a Ph.D.
You've visited this page 2 times. Last visit: 3/1/14
High Strangeness by Laura Knight-Jadczyk and Arkadiusz Jadczyk
www.cassiopaea.org/cass/high_strangeness.htm‎
The term "high strangeness" is attributed to Dr. J. Allen Hynek who addressed the ... French scientist, Jacques Vallee writes in a paper about High Strangeness:.
High strangeness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_strangeness‎
Wikipedia
Within the domain of Ufology, high-strangeness is a term used to denote a ... It is perhaps of interest that Jacques Vallee, a close colleague of Hynek, has in a ...
 
 
This doesn't explain "contacts" by some kind of external source using conventional physical means (i.e., the telephone); could these have been an effort to "simulate extraordinary stimulation" by scientists studying such phenomena. I.e., if selected for programming, how to reach Jack (others?) without alarming them?
 
Well, the phone calls were real. Who made them is still a mystery.
 
Conversely, "extraordinary" ET or UT entities intending to contact and influence (this young scientist, retrocausally identified from the future) could have used the telephone because "supernatural" modalities of such "contact" might have triggered a psychotic break or other rejection reaction, by Jack's mother or any subsequently engaged psychiatrists brought in to "help" normalize their target, getting him locked away or chemically restrained, as quite obviously has happened to many other such "revelatees" over millennia?
 
That did not happen to me. But remember I was part of the USG superkids project out of Columbia University AFTER the phone calls throughout high-school with early admission into Ivy League Cornell with full scholarship for four years.
 
This project (also associated with Ayn Rand) was funded by born in Brooklyn (where I lived):
 
The Eugene McDermott Scholars Program - The University of Texas ...
www.utdallas.edu/mcdermott/‎
University of Texas at Dallas
Feb 25, 2014 - Established by Mrs. Eugene McDermott in support of her husband's dream, the McDermott Scholars program provides select UT Dallas ...
‎Application Information - ‎The McDermott Award - ‎Meet the Scholars - ‎Contact Us
Eugene McDermott Library - The University of Texas at Dallas
www.utdallas.edu/library/‎
University of Texas at Dallas
Online catalog, list of newly acquired titles, and general information for the lecture series and the McDermott and Callier Libraries.
‎Databases - ‎Library Hours - ‎Journals - ‎eBooks Collections
Eugene McDermott - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_McDermott‎
Wikipedia
Eugene McDermott (1899-1973) was a geophysicist and co-founder first of Geophysical Service and later of Texas Instruments. Born in Brooklyn, New York, on ...
‎Early career - ‎Geophysical Service - ‎Texas Instruments - ‎Philanthropy
You've visited this page 4 times. Last visit: 11/25/13
 
"IT" used the phone because that approach would not necessarily provoke a panicked response the way a "Biblical" manifestion of revelatory experience likely would have, i.e., "messianic" distortion or psychic break.
 
Either way, the net effect was to recontextualize Jack's personality and "genius," providing direction (both overt and subliminally, likely) and opening his mind to a stream of ongoing but more subtle signals later on.
 
Credulity, post-exposure, would be interesting to some scientists contemporaneous to the experience?
 
http://humanbeingsfirst.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/cacheof-summary-paper-the-invasion-from-mars-readings-in-social-psychology-1947-hadley-cantril.pdf
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadley_Cantril
 
 
On Apr 9, 2014, at 12:08 PM, Paul Zielinski <iksnileiz@gmail.com> wrote:
 
So Jack is not going to be satisfied with retro-causal connections between mere possibilities.
 
For him the future is fully actualized and physically influences the present through CTCs in an
eternal block universe.
 
For him, that is what "precognition" means.
 
On 4/9/2014 11:51 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
I disagree
When the events are complex and significant they are not statistical
New rules apply Vallee's high strangeness
When an alleged computer from the future tells me in 1953 of what will happen to me in 1973,which happens in fact and which is the cosmic trigger for the narrative in david kaisers MIT book etc that's a real time loop in a block universe in my opinion.
Remember CIA tape recording of my 1953 memory made in 1973 during SRI visit ties in with uri Geller narrative.
The rules of the game are more like a homicide police investigation rather than statistical analysis of unitary S matrix measurements.
More is different
Emergence of new rules with increasing complexity uniqueness of historical events.
 
Sent from my iPad
 
On Apr 7, 2014, at 7:44 PM, Ruth Kastner <rekastner@hotmail.com> wrote:
 
Yes to clarify I don't rule out that there could be legitimate pre-cognitive experiences. The question is what can be inferred from those. Having well-documented cases of correct predictions does not automatically imply that the future consists of actualized specific events.
 
From: beowulfr@interlog.com
To: iksnileiz@gmail.com
 
Subject: RE: From deadhead to think-outside-the-block head? DR. QUANTUM
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2014 21:35:31 -0400
 
Yes Z, but Ruth doesn’t seem to have a problem with discussing the implications of precognition as a possibly real phenomenon. Like me she seems to be willing to discuss it, but not to go out on a limb and wholeheartedly agree with Jack. So, we were discussing whether precognition would definitely favor Jack’s theory, or whether it could be explained in her theory as well. She and I both seemed to make the point that viewing of future events doesn’t necessarily mean that someone is viewing the only possible future – there could be a number of possible futures.
 
 
Actually, on this point I remember reading some books by Lyall Watson back in the 1980s or early 1990s. Watson had various of these sorts of psychic precognition examples listed. I remember that he specifically claimed that aircraft, trains or other vehicles that are going to crash statistically have fewer people on them – that there is a rash of last-minute cancellations before the trip. I don’t know how rigorous his statistics were and whether this is really true. However, just assuming for a moment that it is, and that people do have an innate precognitive sense, what does Watson’s argument imply about the future?
 
 
As I remember Watson’s argument, he is not saying that people have a specific vision of dying in a fiery crash (although IIRC he claims that sometimes that does happen) but just that people get a bad feeling about the trip and come up with some excuse to cancel and do something else. The precognition in his argument therefore happens at a sort of half-conscious level.
 
 
Either the people who last minute cancel are never going to die/are not “supposed” to die (whatever that means; maybe Jack’s future cosmological horizon quantum computer is post-determining that they live longer), and the precognition happens in order to actualize the future that is there all along. Or, the cancellations are simply weird effects at a classical level, kind of like a Novikov self-consistency principle that would cause odd coincidences to happen to prevent you from changing history if you travelled to the past through a wormhole.
 
 
Alternatively, a future existed in which those people did die, and they precognitively sensed it, and so actualized a different future where they avoided death. This would mean that the future is changeable through precognition, so multiple possible futures must exist.
 
 
From: Paul Zielinski [mailto:iksnileiz@gmail.com]
Sent: April-07-14 9:08 PM
To: Robert Addinall
 
Subject: Re: From deadhead to think-outside-the-block head? DR. QUANTUM
 
 
Except that we were also talking about Ruth Kastner's alternative model for "retro-causality". Which
doesn't agree with Jack's.
 
Remember?
 
On 4/7/2014 5:39 PM, Robert Addinall wrote:
 
 
Anyway, this is exactly what I was saying the other day – for the purposes of this conversation accepting Jack’s concept of precognition as a proven reality is fine.
 
 
 

 

Some new additions to my Stargate book

Stargate 
Making Star Trek Real
Jack Sarfatti
Internet Science Education Project
Foreword

“The future, and the future alone, is the home of explanation.”
Henry Dwight Sedgwick 

“Sarfatti's Cave is the name I'll give to the Caffe Trieste in San Francisco, where Jack Sarfatti, Ph.D. in physics, writes his poetry, evokes his mystical, miracle-working ancestors, and has conducted a several-decade-long seminar on the nature of reality … to a rapt succession of espresso scholars. ... It's Jack Sarfatti against the world, and he is indomitable. …One of his soaring theories is that things which have not happened yet can cause events in the present.” Gold, Herbert. Bohemia: Where Art, Angst, Love & Strong Coffee Meet. 

There is now a significant body of results on quantum interactions with closed timelike curves (CTCs) in the quantum information literature, … As a consequence, there is a prima facie argument exploiting entanglement that CTC interactions would enable superluminal and, indeed, effectively instantaneous signaling. …. Using the consistency condition, we show that there is a procedure that allows Alice to signal to Bob in the past via relayed superluminal communications between spacelike-separated Alice and Clio, and spacelike-separated Clio and Bob. This opens the door to time travel paradoxes in the classical domain … offering a possible window on what we might expect in a future theory of quantum gravity. Quantum interactions with closed timelike curves and superluminal signaling, Jeffrey Bub and Allen Stairs, PHYSICAL REVIEW A 89, 022311 (2014)

‘In this case, Bob possesses the unknown state even before Alice implements the teleportation. Causality is not violated because Bob cannot foresee Alice’s measurement result, which is completely random. But, if we could pick out only the proper result, the resulting “projective” teleportation would allow us to travel along spacelike intervals, to escape from black holes, or to travel in time.” Seth Lloyd et-al 

This is a series of blog essays about teleological destiny, quick time travel to colonize Earthlike exoplanets through stargates, and the possibility that we are three-dimensional hologram images in a virtual reality programmed by a cosmological conscious super-intelligence that is alive and well on our future two-dimensional dark energy edge of space that we can ever hope to see with light signals. My speculative hypothesis-conjecture of this book is that our idea of time and cause and effect is profoundly wrong. In particular the “unproven theorem paradox” of time travel is not a paradox at all.
“The “unproved theorem” paradox points out that if there are CTCs, then it might be possible to take a published proof of a theorem into the past and present it to someone, who then uses it to produce the very manuscript that leads to the theorem’s publication Bub & Stairs op-cit 

Evidence on “brain presponse” (Libet, Radin, Bierman, Bem) suggests that our consciousness and creativity are such meme self-creating strange loops. The universe does only not emerge out of the past, but is also pulled toward the future for a purpose. This idea is not new in philosophy, but has reappeared in physics starting with the work of John Archibald Wheeler and Richard Feynman in the 1940s. This back-from-the-future effect is needed to understand the nature of both dark matter and dark energy that is most of the stuff in our accelerating universe and most importantly to understand our own consciousness and how to reach the stars and beyond.
 
Jack Sarfatti
6 minutes ago via Twitter
  •  
    http://t.co/1Su7kSJkJk
    Phys. Rev. A 89, 022311 (2014) - Quantum interactions with closed timelike curves and...
    journals.aps.org
    There is now a significant body of results on quantum interactions with closed timelike curves (CTCs) in the quantum information literature, for both the Deutsch model of CTC interactions (D-CTCs) and the projective model (P-CTCs). As a consequence, there is a prima facie argument exploiting entangl…
     
     
     
  • Jack Sarfatti "There is now a significant body of results on quantum interactions with closed timelike curves (CTCs) in the quantum information literature, for both the Deutsch model of CTC interactions (D-CTCs) and the projective model (P-CTCs). As a consequence, there is a prima facie argument exploiting entanglement that CTC interactions would enable superluminal and, indeed, effectively instantaneous signaling. In cases of spacelike separation between the sender of a signal and the receiver, whether a receiver measures the local part of an entangled state or a disentangled state to access the signal can depend on the reference frame. We propose a consistency condition that gives priority to either an entangled perspective or a disentangled perspective in spacelike-separated scenarios. For D-CTC interactions, the consistency condition gives priority to frames of reference in which the state is disentangled, while for P-CTC interactions the condition selects the entangled state. Using the consistency condition, we show that there is a procedure that allows Alice to signal to Bob in the past via relayed superluminal communications between spacelike-separated Alice and Clio, and spacelike-separated Clio and Bob. This opens the door to time travel paradoxes in the classical domain. Ralph [T. C. Ralph, arXiv:1107.4675 [quant-ph].] first pointed this out for P-CTCs, but we show that Ralph's procedure for a “radio to the past” is flawed. Since both D-CTCs and P-CTCs allow classical information to be sent around a spacetime loop, it follows from a result by Aaronson and Watrous [S. Aaronson and J. Watrous, Proc. R. Soc. A 465, 631 (2009)] for CTC-enhanced classical computation that a quantum computer with access to P-CTCs would have the power of PSPACE, equivalent to a D-CTC-enhanced quantum computer."
  • Jack Sarfatti This is high octane fuel for my starship warp engine with Q continuum telepathic psychokinetic mind-control.