Online Retrokinesis

[Lucianarchy]

Anyway, if psi can change history, it would also mean that all copies would be changed, wouldn't it?

Yes and No. PQ theory says there are infinite probabilities. It depends entirely on how you chose to percieve an act of observation. One thing is for sure, from a human perspective, the 'past' is nothing more than a re-collection of information and is constantly changing depending on how it is observed in the 'now'. The 'past' depends entirely on a belief / conscious investment.

 

[steenkh]

Are you familiar with the no-cloning theorem? It is not possible to clone a qubit (and preserve its quantum state, that is). This is an important point in QM.

If they were to copy the bits, it would have to be classically--in which case collapse has already occurred, and by hypothesis, further change is not possible. So if they were indeed copying them, we should see it as "no effect."

Actually, I have heard about it. But we are not talking about qubits here. The moment the qubit is stored on Fourmilabs conventional computer and sent over the internet, it is a normal bit stored in a way where QM has no noticeable effects. In other words, if the experiment works, somebody along the line could have taken a copy.

I understand that Fourmilab wants to test psi on QM effects, but this is not the case in this experiment.

 

[CFLarsen]

This is not mumbo-jumbo, although if you're not familiar with QM, I can see how it might sound as such. All claims of psi aside, this is very well understood in quantum mechanics.

I wasn't referring to QM as mumbo-jumbo. I was referring to the technobabble we hear as explanations for using these complex methods.

If the idea is to switch bits in a datastream, then you most definitely should simplify as much as possible: Have a string of 0's, and see if anyone can switch just one 0 to 1.

Why not do this with any of the purported RNG protocols? I think that I know.

I think I do too.

 

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

(edited to remove duplicate post)

Doop! That didn't really happen

 

[flyboy217]

Actually, I have heard about it. But we are not talking about qubits here. The moment the qubit is stored on Fourmilabs conventional computer and sent over the internet, it is a normal bit stored in a way where QM has no noticeable effects. In other words, if the experiment works, somebody along the line could have taken a copy.

I understand that Fourmilab wants to test psi on QM effects, but this is not the case in this experiment.

The interesting thing is that the qubit will not collapse merely by being recorded classically. The storage device will be put into a superposition along with the qubits. This is a point often brought up with Schroedinger's cat: if a video camera were to record the death/not-death of the cat, it wouldn't reduce the cat to one state. Instead, the video camera goes into a superposition with the cat. Only an "observation" will collapse this augmented state.

The main argument against this is that there's far too much "noise" to maintain the superposition, but I'm not sure of the implications. I believe it may be a very valid criticism.

 

[Ed]

Please see prior post. In this case, it needs to be random because, by hypothesis, they need to generate a stream of qubits that have not yet undergone collapse.

If the hypothesis were as general as "people can retroactively change reality," I would agree with you. But if the hypothesis is "consciousness can affect the probabilities of the state vector collapse" as it seems to be, this protocol is quite necessary.

Yes, but now you are theorizing in advance of the data. That is to say that you are proposing a mechanism for which the data are, at best, open to argument.

So, why not go back to basics ... can a person alter a stream of Zeros? You would agree, I assume, that a clear and replicable demonstration of something is an absolute requirement, no?

 

[flyboy217]

I wasn't referring to QM as mumbo-jumbo. I was referring to the technobabble we hear as explanations for using these complex methods.

If the idea is to switch bits in a datastream, then you most definitely should simplify as much as possible: Have a string of 0's, and see if anyone can switch just one 0 to 1.

I have invited Tez to explain this here. Apart from showing you several (IEEE award-winning) papers I have written related to Quantum Computing, I have no way of convincing you over the Internet that any of this "technobabble" actually makes sense.

The idea is NOT to "switch bits in a datastream." It is, again, to affect the probabilities of the collapse of the qubit's state vector. Although that hypothesis may sound/be crazy, the concept of state measurement is at least well defined. The concept of "switching just one 0 to 1" is NOT well defined at all.

(edited for clarity)

 

[Lucianarchy]

The point is, it works. Look at the data above.

Ed and Claus are making the same "why can't" fallacy of Ersby's "why can't Price [ add your own wish list here ]"

I dunno, may be they can. But here we're dealing with what works. If you think you know how it works, then let's here it. But work, it evidently does.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Yes but you can't change the past. You just determine its reality in the present.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Are you familiar with the delayed choice experiments? You can alter the history of an observable by the choice you make in the present. This could be called "changing the past."

Not possible. PLease provide references, preferably links.

I claim no QM ties to the RPKP project. Just an interesting thought.

Nothing about QM can be taken to mean you've altered the past.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You cannot possibly affect a pseudo-random number generator. It of course has to be genuinely random.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Have you read Radin or PEAR? Supposedly more than one group has demonstrated that pseudorandom number generators are just as easy to influence. Fishy, I know.

Links please. I find this difficult to believe. If in fact this is so, why do they use genuine random number generators? Being able to affect the execution of an algorithm is much more interesting.

I am genuinely interested in these links which verify what you say.

 

[Lucianarchy]

Maybe it's a 'parlour trick'. Have we got any magicians here who can tell us how the trick is done?

 

[Interesting Ian]

Thanks, flyboy217,

I had not seen that. But I am a bit worried about the statement that random numbers are mostly served from an inventory of "pre-built" hotbits. This may be fine for most random number purposes, but for a psi experiment it sounds as if it could cause trouble.

And even if Fourmilab is not sending these bits anybody else, it is still possible for someone with access to a server on the way to the end user to take a copy of all the packages and this would mean that both copies should be changed if the experiment works.

Anyway, if psi can change history, it would also mean that all copies would be changed, wouldn't it?

Huh?? Where on earth do you get this notion that psi can change history???

 

[flyboy217]

Yes, but now you are theorizing in advance of the data. That is to say that you are proposing a mechanism for which the data are, at best, open to argument.

I would be happy to save the theorizing until after the data are in. However, when one is examining the design of an experiment, it might also make sense to examine their hypothesis and assumptions, as we are doing.

So, why not go back to basics ... can a person alter a stream of Zeros? You would agree, I assume, that a clear and replicable demonstration of something is an absolute requirement, no?

Ed, I urge you: Have you studied quantum mechanics? If the suggested hypothesis relies on QM, it is not possible for me to debate this with you unless you have at least an elementary grasp of it. I myself am no expert in QM, but I understand the basics.

I do not follow the concept of "a stream of zeros." In the classical context, it would make sense to compare a stream of zeros to a stream of zeros and ones. In a quantum mechanical context, it doesn't make any sense at all.

RPKP: 1/sqrt(2) (|0> + |1>)
Ed: |0>

The first stream of qubits (RPKP) will "randomly" collapse as 0 or 1. The hypothesis is that consciousness can affect the probabilities with which each of these occurs. The second stream is already collapsed, and can thus not be affected.

I do not think I can explain it any better, at least not without you all having a better understanding of QM. I will try to refrain from posting further on this particular point.

 

[steenkh]

Huh?? Where on earth do you get this notion that psi can change history???

Here is a quote from Fourmilabs intro:

in other words, the human mind can in some (limited) sense "influence" or at least "select" the past.

 

[flyboy217]

Not possible. PLease provide references, preferably links.


Nothing about QM can be taken to mean you've altered the past.

Why speak on QM unless you've done some research about said claims?

http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0205/0205182.pdf

"As peculiar as quantum measurement is known to be,
its strangeness is even greater when one tries to determine
not merely the state of a system, but its entire
history. Past events are supposed to be unchangeable,
and as such the most essential aspect of reality. And yet,
when a quantum measurement traces a certain history,
it seems to take an active part in the very formation of
that history."

This is a well-known concept proposed by Wheeler and Einstein. As with many things in QM, it is also open to interpretation.

 

[Interesting Ian]

If one can change the past,

{sighs}

What are you talking about "change the past"?? Who is saying this??

 

[Interesting Ian]

Here is a quote from Fourmilabs intro:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
in other words, the human mind can in some (limited) sense "influence" or at least "select" the past.

Select is fine, but influence is simply nonsensical; a desperate measure to try and salvage materialism.

I knew you wouldn't be able to justify your assertion.

 

[Lucianarchy]

Select is fine, but influence is simply nonsensical; a desperate measure to try and salvage materialism.

I knew you wouldn't be able to justify your assertion.

When you realise that you are in fact, wrong, Ian, you will have altered your own history, because 'now', you believe you are right.

Right?

The shared balance of beliefs is what the past is. The sooner people 'realise' what is most probably going on, I predict the more striking the results of these observations will become.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Why speak on QM unless you've done some research about said claims?

http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0205/0205182.pdf

"As peculiar as quantum measurement is known to be,
its strangeness is even greater when one tries to determine
not merely the state of a system, but its entire
history. Past events are supposed to be unchangeable,
and as such the most essential aspect of reality. And yet,
when a quantum measurement traces a certain history,
it seems to take an active part in the very formation of
that history."

This is a well-known concept proposed by Wheeler and Einstein. As with many things in QM, it is also open to interpretation.

That paragraph is simply confused. Indeed a quantum measurement might well take an active part in the very formation of history. But this doesn't mean to say that you've altered the past. You and they are presupposing the concrete reality of a world in abstraction from any conscious observers.

However, I shall read that link.

Now, what about your claim that results are as equally strong when using pseudo-random numbers as for genuine random numbers??

 

[CFLarsen]

The idea is NOT to "switch bits in a datastream." It is, again, to affect the probabilities of the collapse of the qubit's state vector. Although that hypothesis may sound/be crazy, the concept of state measurement is at least well defined. The concept of "switching just one 0 to 1" is NOT well defined at all.

The P.E.A.R. experiment is designed to get a bitstream of 1's and 0's changed by "global events".

If it is possible to change a statistically significant number of bits to show an effect, then it is also possible to change just one bit.

So, the idea is to switch bits in a datastream.

One bit. That's all that is needed.

The point is, it works. Look at the data above.

I don't trust anything from your hand, you liar.

Ed and Claus are making the same "why can't" fallacy of Ersby's "why can't Price [ add your own wish list here ]"

No, we are not making any fallacies. All it takes is one bit.

I dunno, may be they can. But here we're dealing with what works. If you think you know how it works, then let's here it. But work, it evidently does.

Bull.

 

[steenkh]

I knew you wouldn't be able to justify your assertion.

What assertion? I said "if psi can change history", I did not assert that psi could change history. I just interpreted what I read at Fourmilab, as you saw from the quote.