On Oct 19, 2012, at 9:18 AM, Jack Sarfatti <
Sent from my iPhone in London, Kensington Palace Gate area
Begin forwarded message:
From: Dick Bierman <
Date: October 19, 2012, 4:30:34 AM GMT+01:00
To: nick herbert <
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" <
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 <
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.
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.
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.
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 10:34 AM, nick herbert <
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.
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 <
Subject: presentiment meta-analysis published
Date: October 18, 2012 1:31:10 AM GMT+01:00
To: JACK SARFATTI <
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
(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)
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (1)
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:
Join in our ongoing discussions and theoretical science writings:
Dr. Sarfatti may be reached at his e-mail or using Internet site:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To respond or comment directly to the group's archive, reply via e-mail:
ExoticPhysics mailing list