Text Size

Stardrive

Tag » Dean Radin
On Sep 18, 2013, at 11:12 AM, Dean Radin <dradin@noetic.org> wrote:

This article on that same website is also very good. Apparently no one dares propose the possibility that nature as we observe it is literally shaped by our expectations:

https://www.simonsfoundation.org/quanta/20130524-is-nature-unnatural/

I interpret the results of psi research as pointing toward the same possibility.


best wishes,
Dean

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Chief Scientist, Institute of Noetic Sciences
Co-Editor-in-Chief, Explore: The Journal of Science and Healing
Author, Supernormal and other books
Personal website 


On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 8:08 AM, nick herbert <quanta@cruzio.com> wrote:
Thanks, Gaby.
This is not only a marvelous discovery
that I had never heard of
(I live in the woods after all)
but a beautifully written article
describing the discovery
and iys possible implications.

Nick

On Sep 18, 2013, at 2:48 AM, Jungle Girl wrote:

https://www.simonsfoundation.org/quanta/20130917-a-jewel-at-the-heart-of-quantum-physics/
Complications in Physics Lend Support to Multiverse Hypothesis | Simons Foundation
www.simonsfoundation.org
Decades of confounding experiments have physicists considering a startling possibility: The universe might not make sense.
  • Jack Sarfatti Jim should have done more elementary calculations of simple cases in his book. I will not make the same pedagogical mistake in my book.

    Jim's Sciama vector theory of gravity which I soundly reject as beyond the fringe of plausibility as well as Einste
    in's tried and true battle tested tensor theory of gravity which I accept as The Word made Flesh from GOD(D) herself are BOTH classical field theories. Feynman diagrams
    Feynman diagram - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feynman_diagram
    In theoretical physics, Feynman diagrams are pictorial representations of the mathematical expressions governing the behavior of subatomic particles.
    Motivation and history - Representation of physical reality
    are for quantum field theory and beyond, e.g. supergravity STING theory. 

    Of course, if one used classical field perturbation theory some remnant of Feynman's technique should survive. The effects of off-mass-shell virtual particles will be ignorable i.e. internal lines smeared over into a glob. However, the idea of using the amplitudehedron to compute solutions of nonlinear classical field theory might not be completely stupid? Jim's vector theory of gravity is relatively Mickey Mouse and does not need all of this fancy Dan math.

    MY VERSION of Jim's theory is very simple and does not need all his numbo jumbo about fictitious forces etc.

    One simply postulates in a Popper falsifiable manner:

    observed inertia = (Nonlocal Mach screening factor)(Local inertia)

    Local rest mass comes from several sources at different levels

    1) Higgs vacuum field for leptons, quarks, W bosons

    2) quantum chromodynamics for hadrons (confined ZPE of the quarks)

    3) standard low energy nuclear, atomic, solid state, chemical bond binding energy physics

    Finally we have the split

    (Nonlocal Mach screening factor) = Aharonov Destiny + Aharonov History

    The BACK FROM THE FUTURE DESTINY piece is the Wheeler-Feynman Hoyle-Narlikar-Cramer ADVANCED FUTURE LIGHT CONE INFLUENCE FUNCTIONAL constrained by our future dark energy TOTAL ABSORBER de Sitter event horizon (a hologram quantum computer).

    Similarly, for the RETARDED past light cone part constrained by our past particle horizon.

    OK now use plain vanilla Einstein GR

    Newton's 2nd law of TEST PARTICLE mechanics is

    DP/ds = F

    P = (Nonlocal Mach factor)(Local Inertia)V = (Phi)mV

    V = tensor 4 velocity of test particle

    D/ds = d/ds + (Levi-Civita DETECTOR terms)

    ds = proper time of test particle differential along its CLASSICAL world line

    (Levi-Civita DETECTOR terms) ~ 0 when the detector is on a timelike geodesic and is not rotating.

    d(Phi mV)/ds = (dPhi/ds)mV + Phi(dm/ds)V + (Phim)dV/ds

    This is only for timelike test particles NOT for PHOTONS!

    The ROCKET PROPELLENTLESS PROPULSION term is

    (dPhi/ds)mV

    In addition there need be some classical field (from action) equations for Phi, but this Phi does not at all correspond to

    g00 = 1 - phi/c^2

    BTW on Jim's speed of light RED HERRING!

    classically ds = 0 and that's all one can really say correctly.

    In the general metric corresponding to an arbitrary timelike LNIF set of detectors

    ds^2 = g00c^2dt^2 + g0icdtdx^i + gijdx^idx^j

    for a classical optics light ray this is

    0 = g00c^2dt^2 + g0icdtdx^i + gijdx^idx^j

    i,j = 1,2,3

    If we define the PROPER LENGTH dL as

    dL^2 = gijdx^idx^j

    and PROPER TIME dT as

    dT^2 = g00dt^2

    then the light ray equation is

    0 = - c^2dT^2 + g0icdtdx^i + dL^2

    = - c^2dT^2 + g0ig00^-1/2cdTdx^i + dL^2

    You can always choose a local triad where gij = 0 if i =/= j and not change the dynamical physics

    define like Ray Chiao Ai = g0i

    Therefore, the light ray null geodesic equation is

    0 = - c^2dT^2 + g00^-1/2cdTA.dL + dL^2

    DEFINE c' = dL/dT

    Therefore, JIM IS WRONG! 

    0 = - c^2 + g00^-1/2A.c' + c'^2

    A.c' = cAcos(A,c')

    This is a SIMPLE quadratic equation for the speed of light that has two roots in general when A =/= 0.

    Also note the HORIZON SINGULARITY at g00 = 0

    c' = {-cAcos(A,c')g00^-1/2 +- [c^2A^2cos^2(A,c')/g00 + 4c^2]^1/2}/2

    = {c{Acos(A,c')/g00^1/2 +,- c[A^2cos^2/g00 + 4]^1/2}/2

    In the limit A -> 0 c' -> +,- c

    When A =/= 0 at a horizon we get two roots for c', i.e. 0 and infinity!


On Sep 8, 2013, at 11:05 AM, JACK SARFATTI <jacksarfatti@icloud.com> wrote:

"Radin draws attention to the similarities between psi phenomena, where events separated in space and time appear to have a connection which can't be explained by known means of communication, and the entanglement of particles resulting in correlations measured at space-like intervals in quantum mechanics, and speculates that there may be a kind of macroscopic form of entanglement in which the mind is able to perceive information in a shared consciousness field (for lack of a better term) as well as through the senses."
I distinguish two levels of entanglement "weak" and "strong.".  The former is consistent with the "no-signal" arguments of mainstream "orthodox" quantum theory. A small minority of "fringe physicists" (including me) think these arguments are circular. With weak entanglement, a third party Eve can in hindsight see patterns of parallel behavior in Alice and Bob although neither Alice nor Bob are directly aware of what the other is thinking etc. With strong entanglement (aka "signal nonlocality" A. Valentini) we have what most people think of as telepathy  and precognition. Alice knows directly and instantly what Bob is thinking. Indeed, Alice may know ahead of time what Bob will think, but hasn't yet.

On Sep 8, 2013, at 10:19 AM, JACK SARFATTI <jacksarfatti@icloud.com> wrote:

http://ricochet.com/member-feed/Saturday-night-science-Entangled-Minds

"Parapsychology is small science.  There are only about 50 people in the entire world doing serious laboratory experiments in the field today, and the entire funding for parapsychology research in its first 130 years is about what present-day cancer research expends in about 43 seconds.  Some may say “What has parapsychology produced in all that time?”, but then one might ask the same of much cancer research.

Of the fifty or so people actively involved in parapsychology research, I have had the privilege to meet at least eight, including the author of the work reviewed infra, and I have found them all to be hard-headed scientists who approach the curious phenomena they study as carefully as physical scientists in any other field.  Their grasp of statistical methods is often much better than their more respectable peers in the mainstream publishing papers in the soft sciences.  Publications in parapsychology routinely use double-blind and randomisation procedures which are the exception in clinical trials of drugs.

The effect sizes in parapsychology experiments are small, but they are larger, and their probability of being due to chance is smaller, than the medical experiments which endorsed prescribing aspirin to prevent heart attacks and banning silicone breast implants.  What is interesting is that the effect size in parapsychology experiments of all kinds appears to converge upon a level which, while small, is so far above chance to indicate “something is going on”.

Before you reject this out of hand, I'd encourage you to read the book or view the videos linked below.  Many people who do this research started out to dismiss such nonsense and were enthralled when they discovered there appeared to be something there."


see also

On Sep 7, 2013, at 8:27 PM, nick herbert <quanta@cruzio.com> wrote:

=======================================

An exploration of mind merge
using physics not chemistry
in less than 1000 words..

http://shorts.quantumlah.org/entry/bobandalice-0


On Oct 19, 2012, at 9:18 AM, Jack Sarfatti <sarfatti@pacbell.net> wrote:

Sent from my iPhone in London, Kensington Palace Gate area

Begin forwarded message:

From: Dick Bierman <d.j.bierman@icloud.com>
Date: October 19, 2012, 4:30:34 AM GMT+01:00
To: nick herbert <quanta@cruzio.com>
Cc: "SarfattiScienceSeminars@yahoogroups.com com" <SarfattiScienceSeminars@yahoogroups.com>, Dean Radin <dradin@noetic.org>, , Richard Shoup , Exotic Physics <exoticphysics@mail.softcafe.net>
Subject: Re: [ExoticPhysics] [Starfleet Command] Violation of orthodox quantum theory in the living brain: presentiment meta-analysis published
Reply-To: "Jack Sarfatti's Workshop in Advanced Physics" <exoticphysics@mail.softcafe.net>

Hi Nick,
Let me add to this that at the Parapsychological Association Convention in 2002 (Paris) Jan Dalkvist, Joakim Westerlund and I did already propose and discuss this theoretical alternative explanation for presentiment effects (it is mentioned in: http://archived.parapsych.org/pa_convention_2002_report.html ).  I ran some simulations to explore the potential magnitude of the effect and found that for larger number of trials the effect of a 'strategy' became smaller and smaller. So, apart from the fact that the 'strategies' were not observed in the actual data as Dean Radin already mentioned the effect has also theoretical limits. Dick


On Oct 18, 2012, at 6:06 PM, nick herbert <quanta@cruzio.com> wrote:

Thanks for the clarification, Dean--

Is there a publication somewhere where "expectation bias" is defined for this experiment
and the tests and results excluding it described?

Jack says: Good question.
Nick says: This would be an important publication because as Robin illustrates if people's emotions actually worked this way the results could simulate presentiment without being due to precognition.

Jack: Right.


Nick: Expectation bias says that as the picture number n increases the subject's anxiety about the next picture being disturbing naturally increases so that when that picture actually occurs the physiological measures are unusually high. After the stimulating picture, anxiety drops, only to slowly build up till the next stimulating picture. The result of this kind of emotional behavior would lead to high physiological scores on stimulating pictures without any sort of precognition.

Expectation bias predicts (for instance) not only high physiological scores on stimulating pictures N but also high scores on the neutral picture N -1 that immediately precedes the stimulating picture. I presume your tests for excluding expectation bias showed that scores on the N-1 picture were always close to chance.

Jack: Nick is on target - looking for loopholes just like in the debate over Bell's theorem.

Nick: When teaching kids at my wife's homeschool, I invented the world's simplest card game called "Pacific Octopus".

One card (usually the Ace of Spades) is designated as Pacific Octopus which is a giant, carnivorous monster  whose habit is to suddenly appear in the room and devour the kid or adult that draws the one card in the deck that will summon him.

One only has to play a single game of Pacific Octopus to watch expectation bias in action. The emotion in the room slowly  rises as each neutral card is pulled. Here I usually explain that there is little to worry about because there are so many cards  that the odds of you being devoured are small. This statistical reassurance does little to stem the rising tide of anxiety. Finally  the inevitable happens and someone is eaten by the insatiable sea creature. Then everyone relaxes and the day goes on. For reasons of maximizing dramatic intensity, I never played Pacific Octopus a second time with the same group.
Experience with this simplest of all card games convinced me that expectation bias was a real effect--that it could simulate precognition in the presentiment experiment and that for good science to be done it is important to securely close this loophole preferably for every experimental run.

I would be interested in papers which acknowledge the possibility of this particular kind of bias and show how its absence was measured.

Nick

Jack: Nick does have the knack for making difficult ideas easy to understand for the layman. :-)


On Oct 18, 2012, at 5:00 PM, Dean Radin wrote:

It is mentioned in the article as "expectation bias," which Dick and I (and others) have looked for in the actual data. None of us have found evidence in support of that hypothetical explanation.

best wishes,
Dean


On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 10:34 AM, nick herbert <quanta@cruzio.com> wrote:
I've looked over this paper meta-analyzing the "presentiment experiment" and am shocked that such a careful analysis completely ignores one very plausible explanation for this seeming retrocausal effect--namely Robin's anticipatory expectation informally expressed at http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=123256 but as far as I can tell never published. Radin claims to have excluded Robin's hypothesis for some of his experiments but I know of no formal replication of Radin's claim. Robin's Hypothesis is a  reasonable and entirely natural possible explanation for the presentiment effect and as such needs to be rigorously excluded before accepting presentiment as a fact.
The case for human presentiment is only as strong as the efforts made by its proponents to rigorously falsify it. The apparent failure to seriously test (or even consider--as in the MTU article)  Robin's anticipatory expectation hypothesis greatly diminishes my faith in presentiment as a real physical effect.

Nick Herbert
http://quantumtantra.blogspot.com


On Oct 18, 2012, at 1:44 AM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:


This is, in my opinion, more unequivocal statistics evidence for Antony Valentini's "signal nonlocality"  http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0203049 in strong violation of orthodox quantum theory's several no-entanglement signaling theorems in living matter. This backs up CIA-SRI precognitive remote viewing reports most notably published by Russell Targ. That is, the statistical predictions of orthodox quantum theory are violated in this data in which a non-random signal is detected from a future cause. The past effect and future cause are quantum entangled in time but we do not need a classical signal key to unlock the encrypted message from the future.


Begin forwarded message:

From: Dean Radin <dradin@noetic.org>
Subject: presentiment meta-analysis published
Date: October 18, 2012 1:31:10 AM GMT+01:00
To: JACK SARFATTI <sarfatti@pacbell.net>

http://www.frontiersin.org/Perception_Science/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00390/full

Predictive physiological anticipation preceding seemingly unpredictable stimuli: a meta-analysis

Julia Mossbridge1*, Patrizio Tressoldi2 and Jessica Utts3
1Department of Psychology, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA
2Dipartimento di Psicologia Generale, Università di Padova, Padova, Italy
3Department of Statistics, University of California, Irvine, CA, USA
This meta-analysis of 26 reports published between 1978 and 2010 tests an unusual hypothesis: for stimuli of two or more types that are presented in an order designed to be unpredictable and that produce different post-stimulus physiological activity, the direction of pre-stimulus physiological activity reflects the direction of post-stimulus physiological activity, resulting in an unexplained anticipatory effect. The reports we examined used one of two paradigms: (1) randomly ordered presentations of arousing vs. neutral stimuli, or (2) guessing tasks with feedback (correct vs. incorrect). Dependent variables included: electrodermal activity, heart rate, blood volume, pupil dilation, electroencephalographic activity, and blood oxygenation level dependent (BOLD) activity. To avoid including data hand-picked from multiple different analyses, no post hoc experiments were considered. The results reveal a significant overall effect with a small effect size [fixed effect: overall ES = 0.21, 95% CI = 0.15–0.27, z = 6.9, p < 2.7 × 10−12; random effects: overall (weighted) ES = 0.21, 95% CI = 0.13–0.29, z = 5.3, p < 5.7 × 10−8]. Higher quality experiments produced a quantitatively larger effect size and a greater level of significance than lower quality studies. The number of contrary unpublished reports that would be necessary to reduce the level of significance to chance (p > 0.05) was conservatively calculated to be 87 reports. We explore alternative explanations and examine the potential linkage between this unexplained anticipatory activity and other results demonstrating meaningful pre-stimulus activity preceding behaviorally relevant events. We conclude that to further examine this currently unexplained anticipatory activity, multiple replications arising from different laboratories using the same methods are necessary. The cause of this anticipatory activity, which undoubtedly lies within the realm of natural physical processes (as opposed to supernatural or paranormal ones), remains to be determined.

Wrong on last four words. The basic physics is understood.
Subquantum Information and Computation

Antony Valentini
(Submitted on 11 Mar 2002 (v1), last revised 12 Apr 2002 (this version, v2))
It is argued that immense physical resources - for nonlocal communication, espionage, and exponentially-fast computation - are hidden from us by quantum noise, and that this noise is not fundamental but merely a property of an equilibrium state in which the universe happens to be at the present time. It is suggested that 'non-quantum' or nonequilibrium matter might exist today in the form of relic particles from the early universe. We describe how such matter could be detected and put to practical use. Nonequilibrium matter could be used to send instantaneous signals, to violate the uncertainty principle, to distinguish non-orthogonal quantum states without disturbing them, to eavesdrop on quantum key distribution, and to outpace quantum computation (solving NP-complete problems in polynomial time).

Comments:    10 pages, Latex, no figures. To appear in 'Proceedings of the Second Winter Institute on Foundations of Quantum Theory and Quantum Optics: Quantum Information Processing', ed. R. Ghosh (Indian Academy of Science, Bangalore, 2002). Second version: shortened at editor's request; extra material on outpacing quantum computation (solving NP-complete problems in polynomial time)
Subjects:




best wishes,
Dean


__._,_.___
Reply via web post                           Reply to sender     Reply to group               Start a New Topic    Messages in this topic (1)
RECENT ACTIVITY:
Visit Your Group
These are the logs of the starship NCC-1701-280Z.  Its five-year mission to seek out new minds, new quantum realms.  To boldly explore physics where no physicist  has gone before (in physical, virtual, or quantum worlds)!

Starmind(tm) -- Your daily journal to the industry's brightest stars.  You get infinite knowledge only with Starmind:

All hits.  All Physics. All the time.  And now in parallel and diverging universes.  (Thus proving they don't exist as separate entities --But have we gotten to them yet or not?)

** Patronize any Yahoo! Group Sponsor at your own risk.

- - - - - - Message From Starfleet  - - - (Read below) - - - - - - - - - - -
To change any characteristic of your online membership access, visit via web:
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/SarfattiScienceSeminars

Join in our ongoing discussions and theoretical science writings:
http://groups.yahoo.com/messages/SarfattiScienceSeminars

Dr. Sarfatti may be reached at his e-mail or using Internet site:
http://stardrive.org
http://www.1st-books.com

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To respond or comment directly to the group's archive, reply via e-mail:

SarfattiScienceSeminars@YahooGroups.com
Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use • Send us Feedback
.

__,_._,___

_______________________________________________
ExoticPhysics mailing list
ExoticPhysics@mail.softcafe.net
http://mail.softcafe.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/exoticphysics

It's easy to argue both sides with statistics. Remember the stats proving smoking was good for u from tobacco companies years ago. I wonder how Dean et-al will respond to Nick's challenge here? Remember Russ Targ's CIA SRI claims on precognitive remote viewing, e.g. Red Chinese nuke test 4 days in advance Of course that's not a good statistical sample.

I don't find Robin's hypothesis convincing, but I am not an expert in statistical design of psychological experiments with living subjects. Also there have been analogous objections to the drug tests and medical investigations that rely on statistics.


Sent from my iPhone in London, Mayfair near the American Embassy.

On Oct 18, 2012, at 6:34 PM, nick herbert <quanta@cruzio.com> wrote:

I've looked over this paper meta-analyzing the "presentiment experiment" and am shocked that such a careful analysis completely ignores one very plausible explanation
for this seeming retrocausal effect--namely Robin's anticipatory expectation informally expressed at http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=123256 but as far as I can tell
never published. Radin claims to have excluded Robin's hypothesis for some of his experiments but I know of no formal replication of Radin's claim. Robin's Hypothesis is a
reasonable and entirely natural possible explanation for the presentiment effect and as such needs to be rigorously excluded before accepting presentiment as a fact.

The case for human presentiment is only as strong as the efforts made by its proponents to rigorously falsify it. The apparent failure to seriously test (or even consider--as in the MTU article)  Robin's anticipatory expectation hypothesis greatly diminishes my faith in presentiment as a real physical effect.

Nick Herbert
http://quantumtantra.blogspot.com