Online Retrokinesis

[Ed]

Let me try explaining this in another context--one which a reader might be able to understand with no more than a layman's understanding of quantum mechanics. I will assume you are familiar with the Schroedinger's Cat gedankenexperiment, as that is the one most commonly treated in popular science literature.

The stream of qubits is analogous to a stream of Schroedinger's cats. Each cat is set up in a superposition; no cat is actually dead or actually alive just yet--they are "both." Quantum mechanics dictates that, upon measurement, the ratio of dead cats to alive cats should asymptotically approach 1:1. The hypothesis presented is that, given a particular conscious observer, the asymptotic probability will deviate from this (a hypothesis which I have no comment on as of yet). The state of each cat is indeterminate until observation, and the results can ONLY be interpreted statistically. This is a crucial point in quantum mechanics, one which I am not manufacturing.

If one were to repeat this experiment, but instead of using superposed Schroedinger cats, used previously killed ones, we would run into a severe difficulty. Do you now see why?

Understand completely. If QM is the basis for the RNG effect this makes sense. But how does one know? Start simple and go from there.

 

[Humphreys]

Not right away, if you interrupt the experiment. But try and check your log a bit later. It is there. Well, it is on mine, and I've tried what you suggest.

Okay will do. I'll keep an eye on it.

This is kinda like the real 'psi' experiments; gotta look for the loopholes

 

[flyboy217]

I am not interested in taking the issue up with them. My argument is with you. You have neither vindicated that the reality of retropsychokinesis entails that you have actually changed the past (rather than merely created it), nor have you vindicated that these QM experiments justifies the conclusion that one has changed the past (rather than merely created it).

I do not understand why you are arguing with me at all. If I claim that my quantum mechanics textbook explains so-and-so, why would you insist on arguing with ME? If I have made any claims of personal belief on the matter of quantum mechanics, let me apologize now. LANL keeps abreast of the latest updates on the field, and Zeilinger is a world-renowned expert in it. I am merely pointing out his, Wheeler's, and Einstein's tentative explanation that:

"And yet, when a quantum measurement traces a certain history,
it seems to take an active part in the very formation of
that history."

If I mixed up "formation" and "change" of history, this is a philosophical point, and I apologize profusely. This is merely one modern interpretation of QM. I have no interest in debating it with you.

Right , so you're unable to back up your assertion.

I have picked up Radin's book right now. I will let you know as soon as I have located the claim. It is NOT my assertion.

(edited)

 

[CFLarsen]

Let us set aside all claims of psi for the time being, as this seems to be unnecessarily clouding the conversation.

The concept of probabilistic measurement is the very crux of quantum mechanics. When you say "one bit to be changed," what do you mean? Once a qubit has been measured once, all further measurements will yield exactly the same result. If it has not been measured before, and all we know is its quantum state (in this case 1/sqrt(2) (|0>+|1>)), then there is NO way of determining what the outcome will be. The best we can say is that, asymptotically, the number of qubits measured as |0> will equal the number measured as |1>.

Are we clear on this point?

Yes, but I am not arguing QM at all. I'm talking about a bitstream, used in P.E.A.R. and on this website.

I really don't know how to be more clear about just one 0 being changed to 1.

 

[flyboy217]

Understand completely. If QM is the basis for the RNG effect this makes sense. But how does one know? Start simple and go from there.

My post was an attempt to explain that part of QM to CFLarsen. Without that understanding, the hypothesis would not make much sense.

I do not know that QM is the basis for the RNG effect. I am explaining what I understand to be the basis for it. If, indeed, there is a QM explanation for it, it seems that would be the first place to look. Indeed, I do not know of any other places in physics that might allow for such strange behavior. I do not even know if this should allow for it.

 

[flyboy217]

Yes, but I am not arguing QM at all. I'm talking about a bitstream, used in P.E.A.R. and on this website.

If the bitstream has not been observed by anyone yet, then it (being generated by radioactive decay) is still in an uncollapsed state. That is why making claims about the bitstream is making claims about QM. As mentioned before, a valid argument might be that such a stream is liable to be affected by too much interference to maintain a coherent superposition.

I really don't know how to be more clear about just one 0 being changed to 1.

Okay, then let's try this: What do you mean by "being changed." I understand this to mean the following: at some point in time, a bit is observed to be a 0, and then at some later time, it is observed to be a 1. This would not be sensible in the context of quantum mechanics. Once a measurement is complete, all future measurements must yield the same result.

The point is that none of these bits are being "changed"--they are merely being collapsed by a measurement. If you could explain what you mean by "changed," maybe I would understand better.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Ian
However, I shall read that link.

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

flyboy
Yes, please do.

Well it certainly doesn't justify your stance. The title of the very last section says:

ADMIT BACKWARD CAUSATION OR
ABANDON REALISM?

So we are not obliged to embrace backward causation (which is the same as altering the past), we simply need to abandon realism (ie the notion of an objective reality existing wholly independently of consciousness).

And of course this makes much more sense in the context of retropsychokinesis when we consider the data could be actually recorded onto a CD.

 

[CFLarsen]

If QM is the basis for the RNG effect this makes sense. But how does one know? Start simple and go from there.

Exactly: How does QM account for a macro-level event, such as a P.E.A.R. "egg" bitstream, steel balls falling either left or right, or a computer-generated bitstream from the Fourmilab site?

It comes down to three steps:

1. Find an experiment that can be replicated, and that shows the results.
2. Explain why QM can influence these macro-level events.
3. Prove that it does.

It's very, very, very simple.

 

[Ed]

If the bitstream has not been observed by anyone yet, then it (being generated by radioactive decay) is still in an uncollapsed state. That is why making claims about the bitstream is making claims about QM. As mentioned before, a valid argument might be that such a stream is liable to be affected by too much interference to maintain a coherent superposition.

So then if one were to program an action, say turning on a TV, but no one observed it one could change the "reality" of that TV by observation? Or is it that a given bit has a virtual state that is dependent on any manifestation of it?

BTW, if you attack Ian's worldview he get's silly.

 

[flyboy217]

Exactly: How does QM account for a macro-level event, such as a P.E.A.R. "egg" bitstream, steel balls falling either left or right, or a computer-generated bitstream from the Fourmilab site?

I don't know how it could account for the other experiments you mention. I never brought them up, in fact. And not to be pedantic, but the Fourmilab bitstream is not "computer-generated." It is generated by a well-accepted quantum mechanical process: radioactive decay.

From there, how it might maintain the superposition is anybody's guess. I have no hypothesis on how this might be achieved. But if such a thing could be achieved, it would yield only probabilistic results of the kind we have been discussing--an excess of one outcome or the other, and not a "change" in any particular observable.

It comes down to three steps:

1. Find an experiment that can be replicated, and that shows the results.
2. Explain why QM can influence these macro-level events.
3. Prove that it does.

It's very, very, very simple.

Sounds good.

 

[Interesting Ian]

I do not understand why you are arguing with me at all.

You have claimed that one can alter the past. I dispute this whether we are talking about QM or whether we are talking about retropsychokinesis..

 

[flyboy217]

So then if one were to program an action, say turning on a TV, but no one observed it one could change the "reality" of that TV by observation? Or is it that a given bit has a virtual state that is dependent on any manifestation of it?

The way I see it, it is best to understand the essentials of QM from a strictly mathematical perspective, and save the philosophizing for later.

In the case of the TV, it is in essence identical to Schroedinger's Cat. If the programming of the action was dependent on a quantum mechanical event that yielded a known superposition (in this case, a balanced one), then the "reality" of it is indeterminate until such time as an observation has been made. To be consistent with our restraint from philosophizing, we can take "reality" to mean that ALL future examinations of its state will be consistent with this initial observation. There is no way of predicting the actual value of the initial observation--this is strictly probabilistic.

BTW, if you attack Ian's worldview he get's silly.

I noticed. I didn't mean to attack anything however.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Ah, okay, I was mistaken. Ian has explained it. It is not that you are changing the pregenerated bit stream after it is generated. You are actually affecting the original generation of the bit stream.

Now, someone pointed out that this will only work with a truly random RNG, not with a software pseudo-random RNG. This is testable and should be tested.

Here's another test: Use the same bit stream to drive two clocks at the same time, with two subjects asked to skew their clocks in different directions. What would happen then?

Another: Reuse the same bit stream sequentially with the same subject, asking him to skew it in different directions. What would happen then?

How do we know the bit streams aren't used again in the future for another experiment? Are they systematically deleted after each experiment?

~~ Paul

 

[flyboy217]

You have claimed that one can alter the past. I dispute this whether we are talking about QM or whether we are talking about retropsychokinesis..

My bad Ian. When I claimed that one could alter the past, I only meant that one can, in effect, choose between alternate histories long after the event has occurred. My choice of words may have been misleading. Again, apologies.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Ah, okay, I was mistaken. Ian has explained it. It is not that you are changing the pregenerated bit stream after it is generated. You are actually affecting the original generation of the bit stream.

Yes that's it! At least that's how I would interpret it. People seemed to be disagreeing with me.

 

[Ed]

My bad Ian. When I claimed that one could alter the past, I only meant that one can, in effect, choose between alternate histories long after the event has occurred. My choice of words may have been misleading. Again, apologies.

No, you clearly contradicted Ian!

---skulks out----

 

[Interesting Ian]

My bad Ian. When I claimed that one could alter the past, I only meant that one can, in effect, choose between alternate histories long after the event has occurred. My choice of words may have been misleading. Again, apologies.

Well, looks like we don't have a disagreement then Oh well LOL

 

[Lucianarchy]

Claus, do you believe that a z score of 5.31 is in line with you could resonably expect of chance?

 

[steenkh]

If one were to repeat this experiment, but instead of using superposed Schroedinger cats, used previously killed ones, we would run into a severe difficulty. Do you now see why?

flyboy,

You seem to be the one here who understands QM best. If psi really can influence, select, or whatever, the qubits here, would that not in effect create a problem for QM? I mean, it is crucial for QM that these cats are superimposed alive and dead, but here we have psi killing off some of the cats, before their boxes have been opened, right?

 

[Lucianarchy]

ADDITION EFFECT FOR PK ON PRERECORDED TARGETS
BY HELMUT SCHMIDT
Originally published in Journal of Parapsychology, Vol. 49, Sept. 1985

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ABSTRACT: In the reported experiments, prerecorded binary events were exposed to two consecutive PK efforts, sometimes in the same target direction and sometimes in opposite target directions. The question under study was whether the two PK efforts would contribute equally to the outcome (which is the null hypothesis) or whether the first effort would have a stronger effect. The results reject the null hypothesis (p = .02) and suggest that the observation of the prerecorded events by the first subject may lock in these events so that any subsequent PK attempt can have no effect.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One of the most interesting questions raised by previous PK experiments with prerecorded targets is what happens if two consecutive PK efforts are made on the same targets. Do the two efforts add linearly or does the first effort have the greater weight?

When PK effects with prerecorded targets were first reported (Schmidt, 1976), two different interpretations of the effects were offered. One was based on a "teleological" psi model in which the time order between cause and effect was taken to be inverted, so that a later PK effort by a subject might affect the outcome of an earlier random event. The other interpretation, based on a "quantum collapse" model, borrowed ideas from quantum theory and suggested that nature makes the final decision on the outcome of a random event only at the time when the outcome is noticed by some human observer. In other words, the PK mechanism on prerecorded targets would not have to act on the past. Rather, the PK subject, as the first observer of the result, would make nature decide between two still possible outcomes.

These different interpretations and the associated psi models have recently been discussed in detail (Schmidt, 1984 http://www.fourmilab.ch/rpkp/retro.html ).[...]

http://www.fourmilab.ch/rpkp/addition.html