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.