• Laurel Weiner likes this.
• 

  Jack Sarfatti I think Yakir only claims that real retrocausality is a sufficient consistent interpretation of orthodox quantum theory, but not a necessary condition. My claim, consistent with Antony Valentini's papers, is that the experimental presponse data from Libet -> Radin -> Bierman -> Bem is a violation of orthodox quantum theory's no-entanglement signaling "theorems". Therefore, that proves with a high degree of Baysean confidence in my opinion, that real retrocausality is a fact of nature and quantum theorists need to expand their boundaries if they are to remain intellectually honest.
  
  On Dec 20, 2012, at 4:32 PM, 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.
  
  RK
  ________________________________________
  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 wrote:
  
  The presponse data is a separate issue from what's going on in the experiments referred to by CL.
  
  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
  
  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).
  
  That's my point.
  
  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.
  
  Cramer say that in ch 16
  I prove it using entangled Glauber states
  
  Best
  Ruth
  ________________________________________
  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 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.
  
  RK
  ________________________________________
  From: jack [sarfatti@pacbell.net]
  Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 1:37 PM
  To: Levit, Creon (ARC-P)
  
  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)" wrote:
  
  http://phys.org/news/2012-04-quantum-physics-mimics-spooky-action.html#nRlv

  

  Quantum physics mimics spooky action into the past

  phys.org

  Physicists of the group of Prof. Anton Zeilinger at the Institute for Quantum Op...See More

• Joe Ganser, Theodore Silva and 2 others like this.
• 

  John Collier Not surprising. James Leggett's work on the theory of weak measurements more or less implies this. I wrote in 1997 in a review of a book on hte direction of time: The chapters by physicists James Leggett and Phil Stamp deal with the distinction between...See More

  8 hours ago · Like
• 

  Jack Sarfatti So does Antony Valentini's but in a different way.

  8 hours ago · Like
• 

  Leonardo Varesi Yes, but do you think that in quantum gravity theories applied for example to blacks holes, this fact would be a serious problem to be reassessed?Isn't it?

  6 hours ago · Like
• 

  Jack Sarfatti NO

  about an hour ago · Like · 1
• 

  Jack Sarfatti Violation of Heisenberg's Measurement-Disturbance Relationship by Weak Measurements
  Lee A. Rozema, Ardavan Darabi, Dylan H. Mahler, Alex Hayat, Yasaman Soudagar, Aephraim M. Steinberg
  (Submitted on 31 Jul 2012 (v1), last revised 15 Aug 2012 (this version, v2))
  
  While there is a rigorously proven relationship about uncertainties intrinsic to any quantum system, often referred to as "Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle," Heisenberg originally formulated his ideas in terms of a relationship between the precision of a measurement and the disturbance it must create. Although this latter relationship is not rigorously proven, it is commonly believed (and taught) as an aspect of the broader uncertainty principle. Here, we experimentally observe a violation of Heisenberg's "measurement-disturbance relationship", using weak measurements to characterize a quantum system before and after it interacts with a measurement apparatus. Our experiment implements a 2010 proposal of Lund and Wiseman to confirm a revised measurement-disturbance relationship derived by Ozawa in 2003. Its results have broad implications for the foundations of quantum mechanics and for practical issues in quantum mechanics.

  8 minutes ago · Edited · Like
• 

  Jack Sarfatti Compare to: 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: Quantum Physics (quant-ph)
  Journal reference: Pramana - J. Phys. 59 (2002) 269-277
  DOI: 10.1007/s12043-002-0117-1
  Report number: Imperial/TP/1-02/15
  Cite as: arXiv:quant-ph/0203049
  (or arXiv:quant-ph/0203049v2 for this version)

  7 minutes ago · Like

It will take me time to carefully read & ponder all this. Meantime I hope others do as well. Of course, signal nonlocality in Valentini's sense settles the issue of whether retrocausation is not only real, but is controllable of practical use as suggested also in the presponse brain-mind experiments and the CIA SRI RV experiments. That goes beyond the domain of validity that even Yakir has considered. I agree with Yakir's logic below that I personally find impeccable. The new physics of course is in the Popper falsification of his last sentence: Causal loops are avoided by this anticipation remaining encrypted until the final outcomes enable to decipher it.
Now this is the point that many still don't get. With Tony Valentini's "signal nonlocality" there are Novikov causal loops in which Bob's future strong measurement final outcome is decrypted by Alice BEFORE Bob even knows what choice he will make.

This is proved by CIA/DIA experiments (assuming of course they are correct)

Harold E. Puthoff - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_E._Puthoff
Harold E. Puthoff (born June 20, 1936) is an American physicist who, earlier in his ... H. E. Puthoff, CIA-Initiated Remote Viewing At Stanford Research Institute, ...
Background - Ventures in Austin - Scientology - EarthTech
Remote viewing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remote_viewing
In 1972, Puthoff tested remote viewer Ingo Swann at SRI, and the experiment led to a visit from two employees of the CIA's Directorate of Science and ...
History - Scientific studies and claims - Recent research
You've visited this page 3 times. Last visit: 12/4/12
CIA-Initiated Remote Viewing At Stanford Research Institute
www.biomindsuperpowers.com/Pages/CIA-InitiatedRV.html
CIA-Initiated Remote Viewing At Stanford Research Institute. by H. E. Puthoff, Ph. D. Institute for Advanced Studies at Austin 4030 Braker Lane W., #300. Austin ...
You've visited this page 3 times. Last visit: 12/5/12
On Dec 5, 2012, at 1:47 PM, Ruth Elinor Kastner <rkastner@umd.edu> wrote:

This recent preprint from Aharonov et al claim that the "only reasonable" way to understand these is by invoking retrocausality and make the unsupported claim that the weak outcomes 'anticipate the experimenter's future choice'. This is the paper I analyze in the previous drafts I attached:

"Can a Future Choice Affect a Past Measurement's Outcome?
Yakir Aharonov, Eliahu Cohen, Doron Grossman, Avshalom C. Elitzur
(Submitted on 27 Jun 2012 (v1), last revised 18 Sep 2012 (this version, v5))

An EPR experiment is studied where each particle undergoes a few weak measurements of different spin-orientations, whose outcomes are individually recorded. Then the particle undergoes a strong measurement along a spin orientation freely chosen at the last moment. Bell-inequality violation is expected between the two strong measurements. At the same time, agreement is expected between all same-spin measurements, whether weak or strong. A contradiction thereby ensues: i) A weak measurement cannot determine the outcome of a successive strong one; ii) Bell's theorem forbids spin values to exist prior to the final choice of the spin-orientation to be measured; and iii) Indeed no disentanglement is inflicted by the weak measurements; yet iv) The weak measurements' outcome agrees with those of the strong ones. The only reasonable resolution seems to be that of the Two-State-Vector Formalism, namely that the weak measurement's outcomes anticipate the experimenter's future choice, even before the experimenter themselves knows what their choice is going to be. Causal loops are avoided by this anticipation remaining encrypted until the final outcomes enable to decipher it. "  > end quote from Aharonov etal

Ruth
________________________________________
From: JACK SARFATTI [sarfatti@pacbell.net]
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2012 4:28 PM
To: Ruth Elinor Kastner

Subject: Re: [ExoticPhysics] Paul Werbos on back from the future physics (Wheeler-Feynman-Hoyle-Narlikar-Aharonov-Cramer …)

Yakir does say that his results can be understood in the orthodox way. However, different ways of looking at the problem are asymmetric in terms of extending the orthodox theory to a larger domain of validity as special relativity was extended to general relativity where special relativity is only true locally but not globally in the presence of real (tensor curvature) gravity fields.

Similarly, Yakir's "Wheeler-Feynman" approach, Cramer's approach, Bohm's approach all lend themselves naturally to entanglement signal nonlocality violating orthodox quantum theory extensions of the the latter in natural ways.

This is in contrast to, for example, Asher Peres's interpretation in which such an extension is not even thinkable.



On Dec 5, 2012, at 1:11 PM, Ruth Elinor Kastnerwrote:


Attached is my quantitative analysis of allegedly wondrous experiments allegedly requiring retrocausation and/or claiming to show loophole in Bell's thm.  My analysis (attached) shows that no retrocausation is necessary and there is no such loophole in Bell's thm. The experiments have no new physics and are all straightforwardly accounted for by standard QM.

Ruth
________________________________________
From: JACK SARFATTI [adastra1@me.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2012 3:37 PM
To: Jack Sarfatti's Workshop in Advanced Physics

Subject: Re: [ExoticPhysics] Paul Werbos on back from the future physics (Wheeler-Feynman-Hoyle-Narlikar-Aharonov-Cramer …)

good question Z

I think Ruth is wrong, but it will take me time to properly refute her argument

On Dec 5, 2012, at 12:29 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

Then what do they show?

On 12/5/2012 12:27 PM, Ruth Elinor Kastner wrote:

They show nothing of the sort. This is all hype.

Ruth
________________________________________
From: JACK SARFATTI [sarfatti@pacbell.net<mailto:sarfatti@pacbell.net>]
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2012 3:25 PM
To: Exotic Physics
Subject: Paul Werbos on back from the future physics (Wheeler-Feynman-Hoyle-Narlikar-Aharonov-Cramer …)

*   Home<http://discovermagazine.com/><http://discovermagazine.com/>
*   »
*   April<http://discovermagazine.com/2010/apr><http://discovermagazine.com/2010/apr>
*   »
*   Back From the Future

FROM THE APRIL 2010 ISSUE
Back From the Future
A series of quantum experiments shows that measurements performed in the future can influence the present. Does that mean the universe has a destiny—and the laws of physics pull us inexorably toward our prewritten fate?
http://discovermagazine.com/2010/apr/01-back-from-the-future#.UL-msaWe1ho

On Dec 5, 2012, at 5:17 AM, Paul Werbos <paul.werbos@verizon.net<mailto:paul.werbos@verizon.net><mailto:paul.werbos@verizon.net><mailto:paul.werbos@verizon.net>> wrote:

The idea that causality might go backwards in time is certainly older than any of us.

Agreed. But that should not be confounded with the much stronger condition spelled out in Antony Valentini's paper here, which is what I am talking about.
Subquantum Information and Computation
Antony Valentini<http://arxiv.org/find/quant-ph/1/au:+Valentini_A/0/1/0/all/0/1><http://arxiv.org/find/quant-ph/1/au:+Valentini_A/0/1/0/all/0/1>
(Submitted on 11 Mar 2002 (v1<http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0203049v1><http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0203049v1>), 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:       Quantum Physics (quant-ph)
Journal reference:      Pramana - J. Phys. 59 (2002) 269-277
DOI:    10.1007/s12043-002-0117-1<http://arxiv.org/ct?url=http://dx.doi.org/10%2E1007/s12043-002-0117-1&v=35ec265c><http://arxiv.org/ct?url=http://dx.doi.org/10%2E1007/s12043-002-0117-1&v=35ec265c>
Report number:  Imperial/TP/1-02/15
Cite as:        arXiv:quant-ph/0203049<http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0203049><http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0203049>
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0203049


PW: Certainly we all know about HG Wells time machine, and about the concept of prophecy
of the future.

JS Agreed.

PW: And certainly Einstein himself was quite blunt about the claim that time is just
another dimension, and should not be treated otherwise. There is a sense in which
one might call special relativity itself a species of backwards-time physics (BTP).
Indeed, by playing with the definition of BTP (as many played with the definition of
BP and even tried to play with BTT), one could justify all kinds of statements about the history.

JS: OK

PW: For the backwards time interpretation of quantum mechanics, I had a special advantage.
I went to graduate school with one of the authors of the CHSH theorem and one
of the first two CHSH experiment, which is popularly called "Bell's Theorem."
(Though JS Bell himself uses the proper term CHSH.) It would be hard for anyone to
publish a paper explaining the paradoxical nature of quantum mechanics, and the CHSH
experiment, before the experiment came out and the theorem was widely disseminated.
Still, Von Neumann did look into these issues, and he did conclude that our conventional assumptions about "causality"
seem to be the basic problem in carrying through Einstein's program. (I cite the source in the IJTP paper.)

But that is just a starting point. If people get too deep into personality issues, the logical starting point will be lost,
and likewise all that it could lead to.

JS: OK

PW: The IJTP paper tries to get us back to empirical reality in this kind of issue. For example, the discussion
of Bell's Theorem experiments with imperfect polarizers could itself get somebody a Nobel Prize, if properly followed up on
by someone motivated to aim for a Nobel Prize. (I have too many other goals on my plate to
give that one any serious attention.) Most people try to forget the inconvenient fact that the first Bell's Theorem
experiment contradicted BOTH "local causal hidden variable theory" AND quantum mechanics in its present form.
The simple algebra in the IJTP paper basically offers a way to explain that, and nail it down.

JS: I need to study your argument as well as Ruth Kastner's rejection of Yakir Aharonov's back from the future History-Destiny double state vector interpretation.

PW: As for Aharonov... well, I do hope he can help with the cultural revolution we need to make.
Help and allies are badly needed, to get this beyond what I put into my own notebooks, and to get the experiments we need
as well. I think he has grown a lot in recent years, and he has done a great thing to try to move the mai nstream
out of its lethargy by epsilon... but...

.. In 2000, when I visited Brian Josephson in Cambridge, I found a very recent book from Cambridge University Press edited by Savitt,
with the current establishment work on "the arrow of time." Of the papers there, only the one by Huw Price really fit
the modern vision of BTP as **I** define it. Aharonov's paper had WORDS in the spirit of BTP, but the
mathematical formalism he presented simply is not consistent with BTP. More recently, he has sometimes sounded closer to
what I previously wrote, in his discussion of "preselection" -- but even so he often insists that it is just a matter of interpretation, that it's still the same theory of physics. How can we get different predictions and different technology if it's just a matter of interpretation and not a different theory?

JS: That's what Valentini's papers deal with and extension of quantum theory to include signal nonlocality "passion at a distance" violating orthodox quantum theory that is simply a limiting case of the more general "post-quantum theory". Weinberg and Stapp already published such models. Weinberg's is incomplete neglecting spontaneous symmetry breakdown in ground states of complex systems. Also my idea

http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~mdt26/pilot_waves.html - two slides in Lecture 8 on my back-action theory that implies Valentini's signal nonlocality

http://journalofcosmology.com/SarfattiConsciousness.pdf

And Brian Josephsons (& Pallikari) "Biological Utilization of Nonlocality"
http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/

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

PW: I had a good personal relation for years with Karl Pribram, until other people in our lives and the general pressure of time pulled us in different directions. I still remember one time when he looked very perplexed and said: "<http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/================PW:IhadagoodpersonalrelationforyearswithKarlPribram,untilotherpeopleinourlivesandthegeneralpressureoftimepulledusindifferentdirections.Istillrememberonetimewhenhelookedveryperplexedandsaid:>Paul, I have already been marginalized to a huge extent
by being too far out in left field for most of the establishment to accept. But you are way the hell to the left of ME... and also way to
the right at the same time. Neither group, the left nor the right, will be able to accept that." So... with technology and the mind,
I see real-world possibilities rather beyond what those other folks you cite do. But with what we know in physics today..
I see more promise for now in trying to simplify and unify what physics knows
than in exercising creative imagination in a way which is not so grounded in experience and experiment (as the superstring people do,
making the medieval epicycle guys look mild by comparison, mor elike angels on the head of a pin).

Concretely, what I see right now is the possibility that Einstein's original goals are still doable. In the IJTP paper, I spoke
of a many world BTP AND an Einsteinian BTP. By now, I see more concretely how to fulfill that theoretical goal,
with a few specific Lagrangians for a classical PDE, which generates quantum stuff as an emergent statistical outcome,
so long as one does the statistics correctly WITHOUT imposing the exogenous assumption of classical time-forward statistics.
Yea even a neoclassical version of the standard model of physics, without a need for renormalization...

But it's a long story, and today I must move on to read 180 new proposals to NSF...
That time of year...

Best of luck,

 Paul


_______________________________________________


<Weak measurement correlations with strong measurements.docx><specific calculation in reply to EC and AE.docx>

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

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/868/

Only signal nonlocality violating orthodox QM will resolve this.
The data from Libet -> Radin -> Bierman -> Bem
& Puthoff & Targ (SRI)
are evidence for signal nonlocality entanglement signaling (e.g. Antony Valentini's papers) as the essential signature of consciousness in my opinion. Nano-tech devices emulating microtubules et-al will result in a conscious AI robot in my opinion.

Henry Stapp argued that

1) statistical predictions of orthodox QM( i.e. Born probability interpretation aka sub-quantal HV thermal equilibrium as in A. Valentini's papers)

2) counter-factual definiteness

3) locality

are mutually incompatible.

If Henry is correct, then you can have 3) and 1) by violating 2).

Indeed that is Many-Worlds in sense of Everett. It is what Joy Christian, David Deutsch and Murray Gell-Mann seem to believe.

In contrast the ABL paper assumes 1) & 2) and violates 3) which is the dominant view and is also my own.

Only strong entanglement signaling violating current no-go theorems will settle this once and for all.

I claim that the brain data cited above is evidence for the latter.

"It sounds impossible, indeed as though it is violating one of science's most cherished principles – causality – but the researchers say that the rules of the quantum world conspire to preserve causality by "hiding" the influence of future choices until those choices have actually been made."

The latest Aharonov paper on back from the future weak measurements in relation to final strong measurements has the Catch 22 that precognition is not possible. However, that contradicts experiments so his theory must not be complete. Aharonov assumes signal locality and that is what observations challenge.

On Aug 9, 2012, at 9:18 PM, JACK SARFATTI <sarfatti@pacbell.net> wrote:

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2012/aug/03/can-the-future-affect-the-past

Feeling The Future: Is Precognition Possible? | Wired Science ...
www.wired.com/.../2010/.../feeling-the-future-is-precognition-possibl...Nov 15, 2010 – Most science papers don't begin with a description of psi, those "anomalous processes of information or energy transfer" that have no material ...
[PDF] Feeling the Future: Experimental Evidence for Anomalous - Daryl Bem
dbem.ws/FeelingFuture.pdfFile Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View
Feeling the Future: Experimental Evidence for. Anomalous Retroactive Influences on Cognition and Affect. Daryl J. Bem. Cornell University. The term psi denotes ...
You've visited this page 5 times. Last visit: 2/5/12
Daryl Bem's Home Page
dbem.ws/Feb 24, 2011 – Feeling the Future: Experimental evidence for anomalous retroactive influences on cognition and affect. Journal of Personality and Social ...
You've visited this page 5 times. Last visit: 2/23/12
Feeling The Future: CONUNDRUM
feelingthefuture.org/Read the original Feeling The Future. Psychologist Daryl Bem publishes a study on ESP, and academia (predictably) goes bananas. 2. SCIENCE FICTION: Can we feel the future through psi? Don't rule it out | Ed Halliwell ...
www.guardian.co.uk › Comment is free › Cif beliefJan 25, 2011 – Ed Halliwell: A study suggesting the existence of precognition should be carefully scrutinised – not dismissed out of hand.
[PDF] The Emotional Oracle Effect
business.illinois.edu/ba/seminars/2010/pham_paper2.pdfFile Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View
by AT STEPHEN - Related articles
Feeling the Future: The Emotional Oracle Effect. MICHEL ... feelings are better able to predict the outcomes of future events than individuals with lower trust ...
Feeling the Future: Experimental Evidence for Anomalous ...
rationalwiki.org/.../Feeling_the_Future:_Experimental_Evidence_for...Mar 15, 2012 – "Feeling the Future: Experimental Evidence for Anomalous Retroactive Influences on Cognition and Affect" is a paper submitted to and ...
[PDF] Feeling the Future - Columbia University
www.columbia.edu/~tdp4/Pham-Lee-Stephen-JCR2012.pdfFile Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View
by MT PHAM - Cited by 2 - Related articles
Jan 12, 2012 – Feeling the Future: The Emotional Oracle Effect. Author(s): ... in their feelings can predict the outcomes of future events better than individuals ...
Columbia Ideas at Work : Feature : Feeling+the+Future
https://www4.gsb.columbia.edu/ideasatwork/.../Feeling+the+FutureFeb 28, 2012 – Feeling the Future. Placing greater trust in one's feelings can help us forecast future events. Topics : Marketing · Organizations · Strategy ...
Daryl Bem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daryl_Bem In 2011, Bem published the article "Feeling the Future: Experimental Evidence for Anomalous Retroactive Influences on Cognition and Affect" in the Journal of ...

I explain the low value of the cosmological constant without a multiverse, without eternal chaotic inflation, without a landscape, without the need for large numbers like 10^500 and higher etc. The cosmological constant is simply advanced Wheeler-Feynman blackbody radiation from our detector-dependent future horizon that is completely redshifted down to virtual photons when it reaches us - or Type 1a supernovae in our past light cone because the horizons are infinite redshift surfaces in both directions of time. Also it explains the Arrow of Time.

hc/Lp^4 at the future horizon relative to the detector ---> hc/ALp^2 at the past detector is trivial in the retrocausal loop model that also fits Aharonov's destiny state vector.
On Aug 6, 2012, at 11:03 AM, JACK SARFATTI <adastra1@mac.com> wrote:

Fractal-Flows and Time's Arrow
Leonard Susskind
(Submitted on 29 Mar 2012 (v1), last revised 7 Apr 2012 (this version, v2))
This is the written version of a lecture at the KITP workshop on Bits, Branes, and Black Holes. In it I describe work with D. Harlow, S. Shenker, D. Stanford which explains how the tree-like structure of eternal inflation, together with the existence of terminal vacua, leads to an arrow-of-time. Conformal symmetry of the dS/CFT type is inconsistent with an arrow-of-time and must be broken. The presence in the landscape of terminal vacua leads to a new kind of attractor called a fractal-flow, which both breaks conformal symmetry, and creates a directional time-asymmetry. This can be seen from both the local or causal-patch viewpoint, and also from the global or multiversal viewpoint. The resulting picture is consistent with the view recently expressed by Bousso.

On Aug 6, 2012, at 10:54 AM, art wagner <wagnerart@hotmail.com> wrote:

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/1203.6440

Yes, this is very relevant to my current conversation with Dan Smith.