Comments on David Kaiser's How the Hippies Saved Physics relevant to the essay,

"Little could Herbert, Sarfatti, and the others know that their dogged pursuit of faster-than-light communication--and the subtle reasons for its failure--would help launch a billion-dollar industry. ... To Stapp, Bell's theorem and the landmark experiment by group member John Clauser led to the "conclusion that superluminal transfer of information is necessary."6 And so the agenda was set. The question of superluminal information transfer, and whether it could be controlled to send signals faster than light, would occupy Herbert, Sarfatti, and the others for the better part of a decade.

Their efforts instigated major work on Bell's theorem and the foundations of

quantum theory. Most important became known as the "no-cloning theorem," at the heart of today's quantum encryption technology"

[Sarfatti Comment of March 8, 2017

I now realize, though many of my colleagues are still stuck in the "faster than light" explanation of quantum entanglement, that "local retrocausality" i.e. future dynamical causes of past effects explain all of quantum entanglement weirdness.

What John Bell really proved is that the common sense idea that there are only past causes of future effects is wrong. There is no need to invoke faster-than-light action-at-a-distance that is in violation of the 'spirit' if not the "letter' of Einstein's special theory of relativity. The local retrocausal explanation of quantum entanglement is more general than the faster-than-light explanation because the former neatly explains why the space-time separations among the future strong measurements of the localized parts of the entangled network make no difference in the absence of intervening noise decoherence from the environment. The idea of future causes of past effects in a block universe was already introduced by Wheeler and Feynman for classical electrodynamics and then for quantum theory by Feynman. It was taken up by I.J. Good, Fred Hoyle, Yakir Aharonov, John Cramer, but most importantly by Oliver Costa de Beauregard in his "zig-zag" back in the 1950s. We were all aware of it in the 1970s, but because of Bohr's ghost in the hypnotic rhetoric of the Wizard Wheeler, we were in a spell and did not properly realize its importance until recent work by Huw Price at Trinity College, Cambridge and Roderick Sutherland at the University in Sydney. Therefore, all the references to "faster-than-light" in Kaiser's book do not reflect my current view on the meaning of quantum theory. Of course my efforts and Nick Herbert's efforts in the 1970s to make a faster-than-light quantum entanglement communicator using only quantum mechanics were doomed to failure because no one then really understood its limitations. It was only through our failures that others like Stapp, Eberhard, Wheeler's students Zurek and Wooter's et-al were prodded into inventing the no-cloning and other no-signaling theorems. However, this does not mean that Nature does not allow locally decodable keyless entanglement signaling. In fact Nature does allow it in living matter as seen in brain presponse and the SRI CIA precognition data et-al. It just means, as Einstein thought, that quantum mechanics is incomplete and that God does not play dice with the universe.

"Suppose there is even something vaguely teleological about the effects of consciousness, so that a future impression might affect a past action." Roger Penrose, "The Emperor's New Mind" pp 442-445 (1989)

"It seems to me that biological systems are able in some way to utilize the opposite time-sense in which radiation propagates from future to past. Bizarre as this may appear, they must somehow be working backwards in time." Sir Fred Hoyle, "The Intelligent Universe", p. 213 (1986)

The issue of using entanglement as a command-control-communication network is a separate issue the realm PQM (Post-Quantum-Mechanics) that contains QM (Quantum Mechanics) as a limiting case in the same way that Einstein SR (Special Relativity) is a limiting case of GR (General Relativity). Eugener Wigner's "action-reaction" organizing meta-theoretic principle for construction of theoretical physics models is the common thread connection PQM to GR. QM and SR both violate Wigner's action-reaction principle restored by Rod Sutherland in his fully relativistic weak measurement Bohm pilot-wave/particle Lagrangian able to handle many-particle entanglement in a completely local retrocausal "zig-zag" manner that dispenses with the need for higher-dimensional configuration space. Sutherland has also applied this idea to field theory in his paper "Naïve Quantum Gravity."]

Wheeler sent Sarfatti a preprint of his 1974 Oxford talk, for example, complete with its "participator" stick figure and self-actualizing universe cartoons, and it made a deep impression on Sarfatti. He began to cite it and build on its ideas even before Wheeler's essay had appeared in print.29 Sarfatti aimed to stitch these diverse ideas together. ... Sarfatti took the point that everyone's consciousness participates in shaping quantum processes, both by deciding which observations to make and by collapsing the multiplying possibilities into definite outcomes. Sarfatti recast Wigner's main argument in terms of action and reaction. Surely matter can affect consciousness--LSD and other psychedelic drugs had made that lesson clear enough--so why not posit an equal and opposite reaction of consciousness on matter? To Sarfatti, such a move paid double dividends: it opened up a possible avenue for understanding psychokinesis, and it offered hope that Age of Aquarius students might come back to physics classrooms, finding new relevance in the subject.30 Most mental contributions to the behavior of quantum particles, Sarfatti continued, would be "uncoordinated and incoherent"--that is, they would each push in different directions and, on average, wash out. But, as Uri Geller seemed to demonstrate, certain talented individuals might possess "volitional control" such that they could impose some order on the usually random quantum motions. Some "participators" seemed to be more effective than others. Moreover, thanks to Bell's theorem, these individuals could exercise their control at some distance from the particles in question. In short: perhaps Geller could detect signals from far away or affect metal from across a room because the quanta in his head and the quanta far away were deeply, ineluctably entangled via quantum nonlocality. Bizarre? No doubt. But was it really any more outlandish than Wheeler's giddy flights?31 Sarfatti's first effort to bring Geller and psi into the rubric of quantum physics appeared as the lead article in the inaugural issue of a brand-new journal entitled Psychoenergetic Systems. Brendan O'Regan, whom Sarfatti first met at the Stanford Research Institute psi lab before departing for Europe, helped launch the journal to feature just this kind of reasoned--and, granted, speculative--investigation into effects beyond the usual boundaries of science. ...

In September 1975, Jack Sarfatti gave a presentation to the group on "Bell's theorem and the necessity of superluminal quantum information transfer." A month later, Herbert followed up with his own presentation on "Bell's theorem and superluminal signals."5 That December, Berkeley physicist and Fundamental Fysiks Group member Henry Stapp also weighed in. As he put it, "the central mystery of quantum theory is 'how does information get around so quick?'" To Stapp, Bell's theorem and the landmark experiment by group member John Clauser led to the "conclusion that superluminal transfer of information is necessary."6 And so the agenda was set. The question of superluminal information transfer, and whether it could be controlled to send signals faster than light, would occupy Herbert, Sarfatti, and the others for the better part of a decade. Their efforts instigated major work on Bell's theorem and the foundations of quantum theory. Most important became known as the "no-cloning theorem," at the heart of today's quantum encryption technology. The no-cloning theorem supplies the oomph behind quantum encryption, the reason for the technology's supreme, in-principle security. The all-important no-cloning theorem was discovered at least three times, by physicists working independently of each other. But each discovery shared a common cause: one of Nick Herbert's remarkable schemes for a superluminal telegraph. Little could Herbert, Sarfatti, and the others know that their dogged pursuit of faster-than-light communication--and the subtle reasons for its failure--would help launch a billion-dollar industry. Like Nick Herbert, Jack Sarfatti was quick to appreciate some of the practical payoffs that a faster-than-light communication device would bring. In early May 1978, Sarfatti prepared a patent disclosure document on a "Faster-than-light quantum communication system." The document was the first step in a formal patent application. In addition to filing his disclosure with the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks in Washington, DC, he sent a copy to Ira Einhorn, scrawling across the top: "Ira--please circulate widely!" (This was a year before Einhorn would be arrested for murder; his "Unicorn preprint service" was still in full swing.) [Sarfatti's talk] began by citing Clauser's experimental tests of Bell's theorem, before citing a preprint of Henry Stapp's paper on superluminal connections, which Sarfatti most likely received directly from Stapp at one of the group's weekly meetings.7 Sarfatti began to pull out of his downward spiral in the early 1980s. Perched at his regular location (Caffe Trieste, North Beach, San Francisco), he had fallen in with a curious crowd: politically conservative thinkers who were drawn to certain New Age ideas. Chief among them was A. Lawrence ("Lawry") Chickering. A graduate of Yale Law School, Chickering worked for the conservative magazine National Review before returning to his native California in the early 1970s to direct the statewide Office of Economic Opportunity under Governor Ronald Reagan. Near the end of Reagan's term, Chickering founded a new political think tank in San Francisco, the Institute for Contemporary Studies, and convinced such leading conservatives as Edwin Meese and Caspar Weinberger to join the Institute's board. Chickering quickly became known as the intellectual leader of the "New Age Right." Where others had seen only left-leaning collectivist ideas on display at Esalen or in the Eastern mysticism craze, Chickering discerned a strong element of "personal responsibility." Borrowing from est and the human potential movement, Chickering tried to hone anew "therapeutic vocabulary," as he explained to a journalist: some new means of discussing contentious political issues in a way that emphasized each faction's common ground. When Reagan was elected president in 1980, and Meese and Weinberger joined the new cabinet, Chickering suddenly had the ear of the White House. Sarfatti, in turn, had the ear of Chickering.7 Chickering sent memos to highly placed bureaucrats in Reagan's Defense Department touting Sarfatti's work and lobbying for funds to support further research. At a March 1982 dinner in Washington, DC, hosted by Secretary of Defense Weinberger--until recently a board member of Chickering's think tank--Chickering struck up a conversation with the undersecretary of defense for research and engineering. He followed up with a long letter a week later, to describe in more detail "the work of a physicist friend of mine which just might have profound implications for certain aspects of the technology of warfare."8 Chickering mentioned the CIA memorandum from 1979 that had expressed some interest in Sarfatti's ideas, and then made his pitch. "Jack says that if in fact we can control the faster-than-light nonlocal effect," then one could make "an untappable and unjammable command-control-communication system at very high bit-rates for use in the submarine fleet. The important point here is that since there is no ordinary electromagnetic or acoustic signal linking the encoder with the decoder in such a hypothetical system, there is nothing for the enemy to tap or jam." "I know this sounds like science fiction" or even "occult 'sympathetic magic,'" Chickering admitted, "but no one honestly knows for sure at this point." Wouldn't it be in the nation's interest to invest a little of the Pentagon's discretionary funding to test Sarfatti's hypothesis, rather than ignoring the idea until some rival country ran with it instead?9 ... Chickering introduced Sarfatti to a whole new network of people. Around the time of his memo to the Pentagon, for example, Chickering and a friend (the wife of the Reagan administration's new ambassador to France) met in Paris with physicist Alain Aspect, right in the midst of Aspect's groundbreaking experiments on Bell's theorem, to convey messages from Sarfatti.13 When an editor of the journal Foundations of Physics compared Sarfatti's unusual position to that of another "rogue" physicist who also sought to challenge physics orthodoxy without a stable institutional position, Sarfatti was quick to draw a distinction. "The difference is that I am now getting a sympathetic hearing at the highest levels of President Reagan's Administration ..." ... Newly immersed in Chickering's circle, Sarfatti's political leanings swung solidly to the right. He began to write with characteristic ire about the leftist excesses of people and groups with whom he had enjoyed close relations only a few years earlier. A typical rant dismissed "charlatans and 'New Age' anti-rationalists of the drug-crazed and meditation-glazed 'counter-culture,'" with their "pop-Eastern mysticism."15

[Sarfatti Comment March 8, 2017 Here Kaiser makes a mistake confounding cause with effect. He did not realize that my earlier memo of 1981 that got to Reagan via Paul Nitze and also Cap Weinberger Jr contained the words "rendering nuclear weapons impotent and obsolete."]

His ideas harnessing quantum entanglement likewise began to reflect the latest political hues. For example, Sarfatti imagined fulfilling Reagan's famous call to render nuclear weapons "impotent and obsolete"--the phrase Reagan used in March 1983 when announcing his new Strategic Defense Initiative, or Star Wars program--by shooting entangled quantum particles at enemy missiles from space-based battle stations. The particles would induce harmless nuclear reactions inside the warheads, rendering the fissionable material inert. Unlike many of his other brainstorms about Bell's theorem, this one made it into print, appearing in the journal Defense Analysis in the mid-1980s.16

"The application to deep space communications is obvious," Sarfatti concluded: messages could be relayed instantly across vast, cosmic distances. Benefits would accrue closer to home as well, such as "giving instant communication between an intelligence agent and his headquarters"--that is, espionage. Clearly his prior experiences with Harold Puthoff, Russell Targ, and their remote-viewing experiments at the Stanford Research Institute had left their mark. "In this case," Sarfatti clarified, "we would not use the above system but would use the same principle using e.g. correlated psycho-active molecules, such as LSD, affecting the neurotransmitter chemistry." Presumably the image of CIA agents doped up on LSD, communicating instantly with operatives half a world away via correlated brain impulses, seemed no more far-fetched than the parapsychological effects in which Sarfatti had been immersed for years.9"

[Sarfatti Comment - indeed they are not as shown by Hal Puthoff and Russell Targ.]

Kaiser, David (2012-07-16). How the Hippies Saved Physics: Science, Counterculture, and the Quantum Revival . Norton. Kindle Edition.

Having reviewed Sutherland, I am curious as to where you find that our conclusions differ. I agree that apparent non-locality in 3D is local in 4D -- and said as much.

Dear Jack Sarfatti

I invite you and every physicist to read my work "TIME ORIGIN,DEFINITION AND EMPIRICAL MEANING FOR PHYSICISTS, Héctor Daniel Gianni ,I'm not a physicist.

How people interested in "Time" could feel about related things to the subject.

1) Intellectuals interested in Time issues usually have a nice and creative wander for the unknown.

2) They usually enjoy this wander of their searches around it.

3) For millenniums this wander has been shared by a lot of creative people around the world.

4) What if suddenly, something considered quasi impossible to be found or discovered such as "Time" definition and experimental meaning confronts them?

5) Their reaction would be like, something unbelievable,... a kind of disappointment, probably interpreted as a loss of wander.....

6) ....worst than that, if we say that what was found or discovered wasn't a viable theory, but a proved fact.

7) Then it would become offensive to be part of the millenary problem solution, instead of being a reason for happiness and satisfaction.

8) The reader approach to the news would be paradoxically adverse.

9) Instead, I think it should be a nice welcome to discovery, to be received with opened arms and considered to be read with full attention.

11)Time "existence" is exclusive as a "measuring system", its physical existence can't be proved by science, as the "time system" is. Experimentally "time" is "movement", we can prove that, showing that with clocks we measure "constant and uniform" movement and not "the so called Time".

12)The original "time manuscript" has 23 pages, my manuscript in this contest has only 9 pages.

I share this brief with people interested in "time" and with physicists who have been in sore need of this issue for the last 50 or 60 years.

Héctor

    Suppose that we build a large classical computer that simulates a brain and we use that to control a robot. This robot would claim to be a conscious person just like you and me, but I guess you would then argue that this cannot be true?

      Yea, it cannot be true if PQM is true. Classical computers do not have giant quantum coherent pilot waves that receive impressions directly from their classical electomagetic fields and charges. Qualia are those impressions. Therefore, no classical computer can be conscious as a matter of fundamental law IF PQM is a good map of that territory that we call physical reality.

      Your comments on time are off-topic to my essay. Again, I am only interested in comments and queries related to the content of my essay in which I claim to have solved the "hard problem" (David Chalmers). Please, those of you with other theories, this is not the proper forum.

      I have no idea of what you are talking about for the most part above. As I recall Wheeler said "Physics is simple when it is local." To which I add "All spooky seemingly nonlocal quantum entanglement is really made out of networks of locally retrocausal Costa de Beauregard zig-zags as explained in papers by Huw Price and also Rod Sutherland. Until you understand those papers you will continue to walk as blind men.

      "Anonymous" does not understand special relativity when IT writes

      "Special relativity is internally consistent, however. Try tinkering with one of these postulates:

      -- the laws of nature are uniform in all inertial frames.

      -- the speed of light is constant in vacuo."

      The correct statement is that the speed of light in classical vacuum is the same invariant number for all inertial observers in uniform (non-accelerated) proper motion relative to each other. To which we should add "in the absence of spacetime curvature" although even in that case special relativity holds locally to good approximation when the weightless inertial observes (zero local proper accelerations) are separated from each other by distances small compared to the local radii of 4D spacetime curvature.

      8 days later

      Hello Jack,

      This essay gave me a lot of food for thought. I was not familiar with Sutherland's work prior to encountering this, but I did download some of your references and additional materials cited in comments here on the forum. Frankly; I was a little disappointed about the essay itself, after reading some of your lucid comments here, because I thought your angle well fit the topic but was not so well articulated that you deserved full credit for clarity.

      I see it it as highly likely that you are correct about how including retrocausal terms solves a lot of standing problems. H.D. Zeh was quite emphatic, both in his Direction of Time book and in correspondence, that it is crucial to include both the retarded and advanced solutions, if we want to see how the local is mapped to the global picture. And I also think such things enter our perceptual schema.

      I have given a fair amount of thought to the idea that our brains our constructed hemispherically (or with lateral specialization), but have mostly identical structure on either side, because they are operating on information in reverse directions of time or process. Where one hemisphere takes reality apart the other searches for unifying context, but this is the same process in two directions. Likewise with mathematical differentiation and integration - they are the same operation in opposite directions.

      This paper has details.

      Does Lateral Specialization in the Brain Arise from the Directionality of Processes and Time?

      All the Best,

      Jonathan

        Jack Sarfatti:

        I've seen your page, back-action, and retrocausality pages on Wikipedia. I'm seeking references on retrocausality that may assist me in my research on the STOE model. The prime focus is "can the math or the approach of retrocausality be combined or interpreted as the van Flanders faster-than-light gravity waves?". The STOE model also suggests the gravity wave emits from photons in all directions, returns from the forward direction and influences the path of the photon in a diffraction experiment. A toy model predicted (yes, before the experiment was done) the type of experiment and the result that rejected wave models of light. Diffraction experiment and its STOE photon simulation program rejects wave models of light (http://intellectualarchive.com/?link=item&id=1603 and http://intellectualarchive.com/?link=item&id=1719 ).

        The problem is the simulation is a toy model that doesn't scale-up. The bouncing-drop (walking-drop) diffraction actual experiment [Fig. 5(c)} {Bush 2015, Physics Today, 68,8} { https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282806859_The_new_wave_of_pilot_wave_theory } suggests a similarity between the bouncing-drop and the STOE model. Both show a change of direction just BEFORE reaching the slit. This looks a lot like the retrocausality (not backward in time but from the drop (photon) out then returned much faster than the drop (photon) is moving and influence the drop(photon).

        Richardson, et al, 2014, arXiv: 1410.1373 suggested an analogy between wave-particle duality and bouncing drops. Their calculation does NOT agree with the STOE actual experiment or the drop experiment and doesn't cover the period just before encountering the mask. They ignored any back-action. I think this is why his model disagrees with both light and drop experiments. However, Leifer & Pusey {arXiv: 1607.0787} and Narasimhan & Kafatos {arXiv: 1608.0622} suggest retrocasality may be the link I seek.

        I've also thought the zero-point energy oscillation may be behaving like a drop in it up & down oscillation. But this has some pitfalls that may not agree with experiment.

        Do you have an insight or references?

        Hodge

          Why not read the essay? The references are there. STOE is silly a waste of time. We don't need any bouncing drops also. Sutherland's theory does what's needed.

          I don't think your idea is plausible, but I could be wrong.

          I did read the essay. It doesn't work. Experiments reject your

          model. But thanks for telling me you cannot help. NowI can ignore you.

          Hodge

          Annie Jacobson's new book Phenomenon (advance copy sent to me by the author)

          Sarfatti Commentary 1 of a series

          Annie's book complements David Kaiser's "How the Hippies Saved Physics." It has lots of interesting details on Puharich's early work on psi for the military and of course a lot interesting history on Uri Geller, Russ Targ, Hal Puthoff, Kit Green, Dale Graf, Edgar Mitchell et-al. The end of the book points out that CIA, DOD et-al lack a scientific understanding of the psi phenomenon. Unfortunately, there is no mention of Dean Radin's important experiments nor of the post-quantum physics that explains it adequately in my opinion.

          " ' A large body of reliable experimental evidence points to the inescapable conclusion that extrasensory perception does exist as a real phenomenon." the CIA concluded in 1975 ... 'There exists no satisfactory theoretical understanding of these phenomena ... ' Without a theory, the CIA was left with hypotheses, or conjecture." pp 377-78

          Yes, that was the situation back then when CIA and Werner Erhard, Andrija Puharich and others contacted me to work on this problem. See my book Destiny Matrix and Kaiser's book "How the Hippies Saved Physics" for more details. It has taken a long time to solve this problem. I now claim, with Roderick Sutherland's serendipitous mathematical breakthrough

          1. arXiv:1509.07380 [pdf]

          Interpretation of the Klein-Gordon Probability Density

          Roderick Sutherland

          Comments: 6 pages

          Subjects: Quantum Physics (quant-ph)

          2. arXiv:1509.02442 [pdf]

          Lagrangian Description for Particle Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics -- Entangled Many-Particle Case

          Roderick Sutherland

          Comments: 34 pages

          Subjects: Quantum Physics (quant-ph)

          3. arXiv:1509.00001 [pdf]

          Energy-momentum tensor for a field and particle in interaction

          Roderick Sutherland

          Comments: 9 pages

          Subjects: Classical Physics (physics.class-ph)

          4. arXiv:1502.02058 [pdf]

          Naive Quantum Gravity

          Roderick I. Sutherland

          Subjects: General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology (gr-qc); Quantum Physics (quant-ph)

          5. arXiv:1411.3762 [pdf]

          Lagrangian Formulation for Particle Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics: Single-Particle Case

          Roderick I. Sutherland

          Comments: 12 pages

          Subjects: Quantum Physics (quant-ph)

          6. arXiv:quant-ph/0601095 [pdf]

          Causally Symmetric Bohm Model

          Rod Sutherland

          Comments: 35 pages, 5 figures, new sections 12 and 13 added

          Subjects: Quantum Physics (quant-ph)

          That what CIA, Werner Erhard et-al were looking for has finally now been essentially found - not only an explanation for anomalous ESP, but the explanation for ordinary consciousness and the beginning of a technology for conscious AI and the ability to upload human memories (qualia) to The Cloud in the sense of The Singularity of Kurzweil.

          Precognition is an example of post-quantum locally retrocausal entanglement keyless signaling caused by action-reaction between Bohm's quantum information mental pilot waves and the classical level matter beables they interact with.

          Dean Radin, today as the Destiny Matrix would have it, said this at the same time an advance copy of Annie's book arrived at my door

          On Mar 22, 2017, at 5:47 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

          Thanks Dean

          Exactly my point! :-)

          Do you understand Stan Klein's $70K experiment?

          On Mar 22, 2017, at 3:52 PM, Dean Radin wrote:

          On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 12:55 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

          [JS] Does Dean Radin agree that his work was not done properly?

          ​Of course not. The relevant experiments have been conducted for decades, by dozens of independent researchers around the world, often under harsh scrutiny. With the current evidence in hand, consider that Jessica Utts, who was President of the American Statistical Association last year, said the following as part of her Presidential address to 6,000 professional statisticians from around the world:

          For many years I have worked with researchers doing very careful work in [parapsychology], including a year that I spent full-time working on a classified project for the United States government to see if we could use these abilities for intelligence gathering during the cold war.

          At the end of that project I wrote a report for Congress stating what I still think is true. The data in support of precognition and possibly other related phenomena is quite strong statistically and would be widely accepted if it pertained to something more mundane.

          Yet, most scientists reject the possible reality of these abilities without ever looking at data. And on the other extreme, there are true believers who base their beliefs solely on anecdotes and personal experience. I have asked the debunkers if there is any amount of data that would convince them, and they generally responded by saying "probably not." I ask them what original research they have read, and they mostly admit that they haven't read any. Now there is a definition of a pseudoscientist: Basing conclusions on belief rather than data.

          When I've given talks on this topic to audiences of statisticians I show lots of data. Then I ask the audience, which would be more convincing to you? Lots more data or one strong personal experience? And guess what, almost without fail the response is one strong personal experience.

          ... I think people are justifiably skeptical because most people think these abilities contradict what we know about science. They don't, but that's the topic of another talk.

          I would add to what Jessica said that it's a mistake to think that yet another experiment, however impeccably it's designed and regardless of who publishes it, is going to convince anyone of anything they presently think is impossible.

          Jack and others are offering theoretical models that view retrocausal effects not as unexplainable anomalies, but as phenomena that make sense. A viable theory is the only thing that will convince staunch skeptics. Even a money-making application won't work because hardcore skeptics can (and regularly do) explain away anything they don't like as flaws or fraud.

          best wishes,

          Dean

          www.noetic.org

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

          - Chief Scientist, Institute of Noetic Sciences deanradin.com

          ​- Distinguished Professor, California Institute of Integral Studies ciis.edu​

          - Co-Editor-in-Chief, Explore, an Elsevier journal explorejournal.com

            Thanks for the feedback Jack..

            I'll keep reading your sources, and offer a query if something curious pops out.

            Regards,

            Jonathan

            PCTC is a variation on Yakir Aharonov's "weak measurement" connected with Rod Sutherland's locally retrocausal post-Bohmian Lagrangian.

            "Closed timelike curves (CTCs) are trajectories in spacetime that effectively travel backwards in

            time: a test particle following a CTC can in principle interact with its former self in the past.

            CTCs appear in many solutions of Einstein's field equations and any future quantum version of

            general relativity will have to reconcile them with the requirements of quantum mechanics and of

            quantum field theory. A widely accepted quantum theory of CTCs was proposed by Deutsch. Here

            we explore an alternative quantum formulation of CTCs and show that it is physically inequivalent

            to Deutsch's. Because it is based on combining quantum teleportation with post-selection, the

            predictions/retrodictions of our theory are experimentally testable: we report the results of an

            experiment demonstrating our theory's resolution of the well-known 'grandfather paradox.'"

            This is for traversable ER wormholes/PQM EPR entanglement signaling in violation of the conditions used by Lenny Susskind et-al.

            "Although time travel is usually taken to be the stuff of science fiction, it is not ruled out by scientific fact. Einstein's theory of general relativity admits the possibility of closed timelike curves (CTCs) [1], paths through spacetime which, if followed, allow a time traveller to go back in time and interact with her own past. The logical paradoxes inherent in time travel make it hard to formulate self-consistent physical theories of time travel [2-6]. This paper proposes an empirical self-consistency condition for closed timelike curves: we demand that a generalized measurement made before a quantum system enters a closed timelike curve yield the same statistics - including correlations with other measurements - as would result if the same measurement were made after the system exits from the curve. That is, the closed time- like curve behaves like an ideal, noiseless quantum channel that displaces systems in time without affecting the correlations with external systems. To satisfy this criterion without introducing contradictions, we construct a theory of closed timelike curves via quantum post- selection (P-CTCs). The theory is based on Bennett and Schumacher's suggestion [7] to describe time travel in terms of quantum teleportation, and on the Horowitz-Maldacena model for black hole evaporation [8]. We show that P-CTCs are consistent with path integral approaches [9, 10], but physically inequivalent to the prevailing theory of closed timelike curves due to Deutsch [2]. Moreover, because they are based on post-selection [11], closed timelike curves can be simulated experimentally. We present an experimental realization of the grandfa- ther paradox: the experiment tests what happens when a photon is sent a few billionths of a second back in time to try to 'kill' its former self. ...

            Causality is not violated because Bob cannot foresee Alice's measurement result, which is completely random. However, if we could pick out only the proper result with probability one, the resulting 'projective' teleportation would allow information to propagate along spacelike intervals, to escape from black holes [8], or to travel backwards in time along a closed timelike curve. We call this mechanism a projective or post-selected CTC, or P-CTC."

            https://arxiv.org/pdf/1005.2219.pdf

            to be continued.

            On Mar 23, 2017, at 5:01 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

            The point is that it must be physically possible (on the assumption that the PQM guide wave is the seat of human sentience)

            for information to get from the constituent particles to the PQM guide wave in order for there to be awareness of the configurations

            of matter.

            No back action, no sensory awareness of the material world.

            EXACTLY!

            PS some details is the distinction between advanced destiny wave for intuition, creativity

            & retarded history waves for memories in the weak measurement picture in which retrocausality signaling is essential.

            On Mar 24, 2017, at 3:57 AM, Alex Hankey wrote:

            Jack, No mechanism of reduction of wave packets has any hope

            per se of yielding an understanding of the taste of blue cheese,

            or the quality of perception of the colours saffron, emerald or indigo.

            I disagree. Any physics of consciousness including Stapp's, Penrose, mine that explains qualia explains all those distinctions as different patterns of the entanglement of qubits in the macro-quantum coherent pilot wave that image the different electromagnetic beable patterns whose reactions cause them.

            The articles here measure the classical beable dynamics (independent of Planck's constant h) in the Sutherland PQM Lagrangian whose reactions on their Frohlich coherent advanced destiny and retarded history qubit pilot fields induce the qualia in our streams of consciousness.

            Our imaginings of things future are dancing impressions in our destiny fields. Our memories are dancing impressions in our history fields (remembrances of things past)

            Reading Thoughts with Brain Imaging - MIT Technology Review

            https://www.technologyreview.com/s/412084/reading-thoughts-with-brain-imaging/

            Feb 18, 2009 - Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) looks more and more like a window into the mind. In a study published online today in Nature, ...

            Scientists use brain imaging to reveal the movies in our mind ...

            news.berkeley.edu/2011/09/22/brain-movies/

            Sep 22, 2011 - BERKELEY -- Imagine tapping into the mind of a coma patient, ... Mind-readingthrough brain imaging technology is a common sci-fi theme.

            Scientists Can't Read Your Mind With Brain Scans (Yet) | WIRED

            https://www.wired.com/2014/04/brain-scan-mind-reading/

            Apr 29, 2014 - Scientists Can't Read Your Mind With Brain Scans (Yet) ... to reconstruct pictures of faces that the subjects had been looking at during the scan.

            Brain decoding: Reading minds : Nature News & Comment

            www.nature.com/news/brain-decoding-reading-minds-1.13989

            Oct 23, 2013 - On the left-hand side of the screen is a reel of film clips that Gallant showed to a study participant during a brain scan. And on the right side of ...

            Scan a brain, read a mind? - CNN.com

            www.cnn.com/2014/04/12/health/brain-mind-reading/

            Apr 12, 2014 - Scientists have made significant strides in being able to decode thoughts based on brain activity.

            You are simply stuck in primitive thinking.

            Indeed, your mode of thinking, your metaphysical brain-washing is the same as Deepak's and many others.

            You are like the pre-Copernican Scholastics who thought that Earth was the center of the universe.

            You have elevated qualia Q to an ineffable supernatural phenomenon.

            BTW PQM does not have reduction in the same sense that Penrose does - but that is a technical difference - the basic ideas are similar only the means are different. The basic idea is that qualia are excitations in the quantum bit mental field directly induced by classical electromagnetic sensory input signals. Penrose invokes tiny changes in the curvature of spacetime for the same tiny mass in a quantum superposition, my adaptation of Sutherland's PQM math relies simply on his new action-reaction Lagrangian prior to taking the PQM --> QM limit.

            PQM = Q/ = very complex entanglement pattern of a large number of qubits

            PS note that in Bohm picture Penrose's mass m is not in two places at once at all - it is only in one place, but the empty branch of the quantum potential overlaps with the occupied branch and that overlap has the mirage of spooky action-a-distance. See Bohm and Hiley "Undivided Universe" for details on how this works. There is never any literal collapse - empty branches of Q continue to exist and they can be re-awakened (resurrected) i.e. "quantum erasure" in principle if not in practice if the entanglement is to a huge number of environmental systems (environmental decoherence).

            Nor the feelings conveyed by the Brandenberg Concertos,

            or a good joke. And where do bliss and pain fit in all that.

            The endorphin system does not explain what it feels like when

            you use a good natural form of stimulation like creative activity.

            How can the reduction of wave packets cover such wide possibilities,

            and I am not even half way through the whole list!

            Do please think about this. It is a problem that is worth a couple of

            decades of thought to solve. At the moment most of us don't even

            begin to know where to look, though my opinion is that Omega

            Structures in Grottendieck's Topos theory may provide a good

            starting point.

            Does anyone have any thoughts on that one. Or any expertise to share?

            All best wishes to everyone,

            as ever,

            Alex

            On 24 March 2017 at 04:15, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

            In order for Orch OR to explain qualia Penrose tacitly assumes that the change in the wave function is the quale. This is very similar to PQM.

            In Penrose's theory it is the back-reaction of the classical gravity field beable on the electron beables inside the protein dimers etc. that in turn causes a change in the wave function of those electrons et-al that is the quale. Therefore, the wave function is an intrinsic mental field in order for Penrose's scheme to make any sense at all. Same for Henry Stapp's and Wigner's consciousness as collapse - the thing that collapses must be intrinsically thought like.

            On Mar 23, 2017, at 5:09 PM, wrote:

            It offers a physical mechanism for the von Neumann reduction of the QM wave function by conscious observation.

            Presumably any such mechanism, if artificially constructed, would have similar effects.

            On 3/23/2017 4:37 PM, Robert Addinall wrote:

            Ok, so Hameroff and Penrose's theory is sort of in the middle - proto consciousness is everywhere, but treats the local consciousness of an individual person or animal as happening actively in the brain.

            Still, most of these theories differ from "materialist" theories that seek to explain consciousness in the brain from electrical impulses and related well documented phenomena alone.

            Interesting note..

            Thanks for sharing Jack. I agree with your assessment and I hope others including Annie J will come around. I think some of the statements made were a smoke screen to blur how effective the precogs really were. I know some of the people once involved, and the results of experiments were far more encouraging than the public was led to believe. Mechanism or no; you can't simply deny it when something works, and say because you can't explain it that there is no explanation.

            All the Best,

            Jonathan