Retrocausality

S

Sciborg_S_Patel

#21
You put an Asterisk against the GoT... any reason?
Oops. Was going to talk more about GoT and forgot about it.

As for Vanini, I find the concept an intriguing one at a high level but I don't know how much of it actually checks out. Look forward to Ethan's comments.
 
#22
I've been meaning to comment on the Vanini paper. Read it shortly after posted here and enjoyed it. Had a few really neat ideas, but a couple I also found warranted perhaps a bit of caution. Maybe I can comment more this weekend.
Yeah, I still very much enjoyed her 2005 paper... but an article of hers from last year made me really wince...

http://www.ourancestorsonearth.com/edgescience_13.pdf (page 7)
 
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

#24
The RetroPsychoKinesis Project

The idea of the Project is to make use of recently established global computer networking facilities in order to explore the purported anomalous effect known as retropsychokinesis (from now on we shall refer to this as "RPK"). The existence of such an effect has such profound philosophical implications that, despite repeated and well-regulated demonstrations carried out for over 20 years, it has remained an obscure matter of parapsychological controversy. However, the emergence of the WWW has created an exciting new possibility.

Although attempts to create "online" interactive parapsychological experiments have already appeared on the WWW, these are in early stages of development and published results have not been extensive. These experiments are increasing awareness of the claims and methods of parapsychology research. But the collection of data for serious research purposes is obviously restricted, as subjects cannot be supervised, and the lack of control in the experiments jeopardises the credibility of any results obtained.

However, the "retrocausal" or reverse-time nature of RPK is such that problems of this nature can generally be overcome. The proposed experiment(s) would, in fact, bypass most of the usual obstacles which occur in parapsychological research. These include attracting and motivating appropriate subjects, the limitations on the number of subjects which can be tested in any reasonable length of time, the elimination of all possible fraud, and the difficulties subjects face in performing in unfamiliar laboratory settings or in the presence of sceptical observers. The difficulties in publicising and gaining acceptance for the results obtained has perhaps been the most significant obstacle. Experiments which yield significant results have generally been accepted by the "believers" and rejected by the sceptics as insufficiently well-regulated (a claim which is often justified, but which can never be overcome in the existing research format). However, this too could change, as we shall see.
 
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

#25
Simulating time travel: Doctor Who meets Professor Heisenberg

Einstein's theory suggests the possibility of travelling backwards in time by following a space-time path that returns to the starting point in space, but at an earlier time-a closed timelike curve.

This possibility has puzzled physicists and philosophers alike since it was discovered by Kurt Gödel in 1949, as it seems to cause paradoxes in the classical world, such as the grandparents paradox, where a time traveller could prevent their grandparents from meeting, thus preventing the time traveller's birth.

This would make it impossible for the time traveller to have set out in the first place.

UQ Physics Professor Tim Ralph said it was predicted in 1991 that time travel in the quantum world could avoid such paradoxes.

"The properties of quantum particles are 'fuzzy' or uncertain to start with, so this gives them enough wiggle room to avoid inconsistent time travel situations," he said.

Professor Ralph said there was no evidence that nature behaved in ways other than standard quantum mechanics predicted,but this had not been tested in regimes where extreme effects of general relativity played a role, such as near a black hole.

"Our study provides insights into where and how nature might behave differently from what our theories predict."

Examples of the intriguing possibilities in the presence of closed timelike curves include the violation of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, cracking of quantum cryptography and perfect cloning of quantum states.
 
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

#26
A critique of precognition & retrocausality, drawn from Part V:The Problem of Precognition of Braude's Psi & Out Picture of the World

"For example, some regard precognition as a counterclockwise form of perception or information-acquisition, while others do not consider it as obviously a cognitive phenonmenon at all. But partisans of the passive analysis all agree in taking some future event E (say, the event ostensibly precognized) as the cause of an earlier event E' (the precognitive experience). For example, tomorrow's plane crash might cause today's precognitive dream of the crash.

By contrast, the active analysis interprets precognition in terms of high-level clockwise psi...the precognizer might infer the likelihood of the plane crash from information paranormally obtained about, e.g., developing weather patterns, the maintenance (or lack thereof) on the plane...and the inference might manifest itself dramatically in the subject's dream material. In the [other] case, the subject might, for any number of deep (and presumably unconscious) reasons, simply cause the plane crash."


From here Braude goes into reasons why genuine precognition is, in his opinion, very unlikely. One argument is that the future is not a real thing, but merely a projection from present into as yet nonexistent time periods. The other is that even in a block universe, it's not clear why a precog could obtain a particular picture of the future relating to a very specific event. If we're getting information from the future, why only that particular piece of the future.

It's more in depth than that, but hopefully that's enough to pique some readers' interest...
 
#27
From here Braude goes into reasons why genuine precognition is, in his opinion, very unlikely. One argument is that the future is not a real thing, but merely a projection from present into as yet nonexistent time periods. The other is that even in a block universe, it's not clear why a precog could obtain a particular picture of the future relating to a very specific event. If we're getting information from the future, why only that particular piece of the future.
Playing a little it can be argued that the existence of precognition is evidence that at least some future events are real, being causes of precognitive experiences. It is true that this appears to be an causal connection isolated of the rest of reality, but may not be so, but the precognitive experiences are part of a larger retro-causal network unknown to us. It is true that in a block universe remains unexplained why that is perceived a future event in particular, but the idea of the block universe only establishes a necessary condition for real precognition, not sufficient conditions.

However, I do not advocate that precognition implies retrocausality. There are cases where the precognitive experience was employed by the precog to alter the course of events, invalidating the prediction. In these cases, the precognition could not be caused by the anticipated event because this never happened. My opinion is that in these cases the precognitive experience is caused by the present situation, which has implied some virtual future event, but altering the present situation, the future is altered.
 
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

#28
To explain precogs I had an off-the-cuff theory involving a block multiverse and reversed morphic resonance, but in all honesty I don't think we know enough about time, psi, or for that matter reality to say too much about what wouldn't be possible.

It's an old paper, so I'd be curious what Braude thinks now. I also can't help but think he's purposely understating the possibility for retrocausality in order to boost the idea of subconscious super-psi.
 
Top