"String Theory, Universal Mind, and the Paranormal"

[Limbo]

I was hoping y'all might take a gander at this and see what you think.

String Theory, Universal Mind, and the Paranormal

Brian D. Josephson
Department of Physics, University of Cambridge

Cavendish Laboratory, Madingley Rd, Cambridge CB3 0HE, U.K.

http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10

ABSTRACT

A model consistent with string theory is proposed for so-called paranormal phenomena such as extra-sensory perception (ESP). Our mathematical skills are assumed to derive from a special ‘mental vacuum state’, whose origin is explained on the basis of anthropic and biological arguments, taking into account the need for the informational processes associated with such a state to be of a life-supporting character. ESP is then explained in terms of shared ‘thought bubbles’ generated by the participants out of the mental vacuum state. The paper concludes with a critique of arguments sometimes made claiming to ‘rule out’ the possible existence of paranormal phenomena.

Keywords: ESP, string theory, anthropic principle, thought bubble, universal mind, mental state

* To appear in the Proceedings of the 2nd. European Samueli Symposium, Freiburg, October 2003

1. Introduction

Critics of claims of the paranormal, e.g. Deutsch (2001), have declared extrasensory perception (ESP) or other paranormal phenomena to be ‘nonsense’ . Such absolutist positions give little weight to the experimental evidence (Radin 1997) in support of the reality of such processes, and seem naive given the range of imaginative proposals concerning the nature of reality currently being put forward for serious consideration by conventional physicists. One important advance has been the superseding of the so-called Standard Model as a fundamental theory of nature by string theory (http://superstringtheory.com), where the Standard Model features merely as a subset of the set of permitted possibilities. As Carr (2001, 2003) (whose approach is centred on the alternative Randall-Sundrum picture) has suggested, such a change in perspective opens up new possibilities in science, including the possibility of accommodating paranormal phenomena within physics. In the following a number of concepts are combined, each in essence consistent with accepted ideas, resulting in a qualitative explanation for ESP, with the promise of an eventual clear cut basis for understanding paranormal phenomena in general.

[...]

 

[IXP]

A key assumption we make is one which, while it has no clear connections with experimental physics...

'Nuff said.

IXP

 

[CurtC]

Why do Nobel laureates seem to have more than their fair share of nutcases?
Seriously - Josephson, Shockley, Pauling...

 

[Limbo]

Maybe they know something you don't...?

 

[The Man]

Maybe they know something you don't...?

Or think they know something that they don’t, as exemplified by the quote posted by IXP.

 

[Limbo]

Or think they know something that they don’t, as exemplified by the quote posted by IXP.

Sure, there is that possibility as well. No denying it.

Still, it is a model that allows for ESP by a respected physicist. If (when) someday some aspect of psi is proven, these models might demand a closer look.

 

[OneDollarWilliam]

Critics of claims of the paranormal, e.g. Deutsch (2001), have declared extrasensory perception (ESP) or other paranormal phenomena to be ‘nonsense’ . Such absolutist positions give little weight to the experimental evidence (Radin 1997) in support of the reality of such processes, and seem naive given the range of imaginative proposals concerning the nature of reality currently being put forward for serious consideration by conventional physicists. When someone cites a work like The Conscious Universe (Radin 1997). It demonstrates either a lack of proper research, or an exceptional level of credulity. Dr. Radin's research uses large numbers and gross statistical fiddling to come up with numbers, which while positive, still fall within any reasonable margin of error. While we as skeptics should always leave room for the possibility of the paranormal real evidence should not involve mathematical acrobatics. While I would not wholly discount all of Mr. Josephson's report the use of Dr. Radin's research as a basic assumption does raise significant concerns.

 

[Limbo]

While we as skeptics should always leave room for the possibility of the paranormal real evidence should not involve mathematical acrobatics.

Would you accuse Jessica Utts of mathematical acrobatics as well?

 

[JohnG]

Our mathematical skills are assumed to derive from a special ‘mental vacuum state’

My mathematical skills certainly exist within a mental vacuum.

Everyone would like to have extraordinary powers of one kind or another. Me personally, I'd love to be able to fly. No, you don't understand. I'd really love to be able to fly just like Superman. Heck I'd even settle for being able to fly like the Greatest American Hero.

Unfortunately however the only thing the sight of a guy in the lotus position, bouncing around on a prayer mat proves to me is that he wants to fly, too.

 

[Limbo]

My mathematical skills certainly exist within a mental vacuum.

Everyone would like to have extraordinary powers of one kind or another. Me personally, I'd love to be able to fly. No, you don't understand. I'd really love to be able to fly just like Superman. Heck I'd even settle for being able to fly like the Greatest American Hero.

Heck I'd even settle for the ability to become weightless. I could use a fan or something for propulsion.

Unfortunately however the only thing the sight of a guy in the lotus position, bouncing around on a prayer mat proves to me is that he wants to fly, too.

Who said anything about flying, anyway?

 

[The Man]

Sure, there is that possibility as well. No denying it.

Still, it is a model that allows for ESP by a respected physicist. If (when) someday some aspect of psi is proven, these models might demand a closer look.

No, an actual model would have some math or at least some specific relationships, perhaps even formulate some testable hypothesis. When the central paragraph of this professed “model” simply consists of phrases such as “Assuming the validity of the scenario”, “to account for the phenomena we set out to explain” and “We assume, as would need to be assumed generally in the model”, that is not a model but just speculation to an intended goal. Referring to such intentional speculation as a model is how a respected physicist loses that respect.

 

[Limbo]

No, an actual model would have some math or at least some specific relationships, perhaps even formulate some testable hypothesis. When the central paragraph of this professed “model” simply consists of phrases such as “Assuming the validity of the scenario”, “to account for the phenomena we set out to explain” and “We assume, as would need to be assumed generally in the model”, that is not a model but just speculation to an intended goal. Referring to such intentional speculation as a model is how a respected physicist loses that respect.

Tell him that in an e-mail!

bdj10@cam.ac.uk

http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/email_list.html

 

[Lensman]

Heck I'd even settle for the ability to become weightless. I could use a fan or something for propulsion.




<snip>

Or eat a lot of beans.

 

[JohnG]

Who said anything about flying, anyway?

Fair enough, I just don't think string theory is something anyone should hitch their wagons to if they want to make the possibility of paranormal phenomena appear more scientifically tenable.

Even many respected physicists do not think there's any place for string theory in science (IIRC not because there's anything inherently outlandish about it, but rather because it can't be properly subjected to the scientific method), so why would making an association to the paranormal make either subject any more palatable to the hard nosed critical thinkers you might be hoping to convince?

 

[Limbo]

Fair enough, I just don't think string theory is something anyone should hitch their wagons to if they want to make the possibility of paranormal phenomena appear more scientifically tenable.

Even many respected physicists do not think there's any place for string theory in science (IIRC not because there's anything inherently outlandish about it, but rather because it can't be properly subjected to the scientific method), so why would making an association to the paranormal make either subject any more palatable to the hard nosed critical thinkers you might be hoping to convince?

Well..."convince" is not something I aim for much anymore. I just try to plant seeds. That way, when you're confronted with the legitimization of parapsychology someday, you may remember this string theory seed.

 

[The Man]

Tell him that in an e-mail!

bdj10@cam.ac.uk

http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/email_list.html

Certainly, if thought it would do any good, if he had expressed some interest in general feedback on that paper or if I wasn’t quite sure others, with far more standing then me, have already berated him about it (among other things). Funny though I do seem to recall someone expressing an interest in seeing what people think about it, oh wait that was you. You could have just said “I was hoping y'all might take a gander at this and tell him what you think” if that was all you wanted.

 

[fls]

I was hoping y'all might take a gander at this and see what you think.

String Theory, Universal Mind, and the Paranormal

Brian D. Josephson
Department of Physics, University of Cambridge

Cavendish Laboratory, Madingley Rd, Cambridge CB3 0HE, U.K.

http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10

ABSTRACT

A model consistent with string theory is proposed for so-called paranormal phenomena such as extra-sensory perception (ESP). Our mathematical skills are assumed to derive from a special ‘mental vacuum state’, whose origin is explained on the basis of anthropic and biological arguments, taking into account the need for the informational processes associated with such a state to be of a life-supporting character. ESP is then explained in terms of shared ‘thought bubbles’ generated by the participants out of the mental vacuum state. The paper concludes with a critique of arguments sometimes made claiming to ‘rule out’ the possible existence of paranormal phenomena.

Keywords: ESP, string theory, anthropic principle, thought bubble, universal mind, mental state

* To appear in the Proceedings of the 2nd. European Samueli Symposium, Freiburg, October 2003

1. Introduction

Critics of claims of the paranormal, e.g. Deutsch (2001), have declared extrasensory perception (ESP) or other paranormal phenomena to be ‘nonsense’ . Such absolutist positions give little weight to the experimental evidence (Radin 1997) in support of the reality of such processes, and seem naive given the range of imaginative proposals concerning the nature of reality currently being put forward for serious consideration by conventional physicists. One important advance has been the superseding of the so-called Standard Model as a fundamental theory of nature by string theory (http://superstringtheory.com), where the Standard Model features merely as a subset of the set of permitted possibilities. As Carr (2001, 2003) (whose approach is centred on the alternative Randall-Sundrum picture) has suggested, such a change in perspective opens up new possibilities in science, including the possibility of accommodating paranormal phenomena within physics. In the following a number of concepts are combined, each in essence consistent with accepted ideas, resulting in a qualitative explanation for ESP, with the promise of an eventual clear cut basis for understanding paranormal phenomena in general.

[...]

It seems like a more obvious approach would be to start with symmetry and deduce what would emerge relevant to paranormal phenomenon. I think the problem is that you need to start with known experimental facts, though.

I get the impression that parapsychologists are their own worst enemies. By relying on the kind of information that we know to be unreliable, such as conclusions drawn from meta-analyses, they are stymied by their seeming unwillingness to attempt to rule anything out - something that prevents the establishment of experimental facts. Josephson may have served them better if he had suggested a theoretical basis from which to derive experiments. Otherwise it just seems to encourage them to not consider themselves wrong.

Linda

 

[Limbo]

Certainly, if thought it would do any good, if he had expressed some interest in general feedback on that paper or if I wasn’t quite sure others, with far more standing then me, have already berated him about it (among other things). Funny though I do seem to recall someone expressing an interest in seeing what people think about it, oh wait that was you. You could have just said “I was hoping y'all might take a gander at this and tell him what you think” if that was all you wanted.

Don't get the impression that I don't appreciate your input...I do very much. I just can't address it. I would love to hear what Josephson would say to you, that's all.

 

[Limbo]

I think the problem is that you need to start with known experimental facts, though.

Maybe Josephson is. Maybe he is starting with experimental facts known to him, but not to many others.

 

[Limbo]

Here is something else by Brian D. Josephson and Jessica Utts:

THE PARANORMAL: THE EVIDENCE AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR CONSCIOUSNESS

Those who recognise that significant discoveries in science are very often prompted by observations that do not fit expectations will find a stimulating challenge in accumulating evidence that it is possible to elicit psychic functioning in experiments with ordinary volunteers acting as subjects. Even more convincing results occur with specially selected subjects.

[...]

Detailed analysis of the complete collection of experiments on this type of phenomenon shows that what holds, despite changes in equipment, experimenter, subjects, judges, targets and laboratories, is far greater consistency with the 1 in 3 success rate already mentioned than with the 1 in 4 chance expectation rate. Such consistency is the hallmark of a genuine effect, and this, together with the very low probability of the overall success rate observed occurring by chance, argues strongly for the phenomena being real and not artifactual.

[...]

What are the implications for science of the fact that psychic functioning appears to be a real effect? These phenomena seem mysterious, but no more mysterious perhaps than strange phenomena of the past which science has now happily incorporated within its scope. What ideas might be relevant in the context of suitably extending science to take these phenomena into account? Two such concepts are those of the observer, and non-locality. The observer forces his way into modern science because the equations of quantum physics, if taken literally, imply a universe that is constantly splitting into separate branches, only one of which corresponds to our perceived reality. A process of "decoherence" has been invoked to stop two branches interfering with each other, but this still does not answer the question of why our experience is of one particular branch and not any other. Perhaps, despite the unpopularity of the idea, the experiencers of the reality are also the selectors.

[...]