Considering Theoretical Foundations to Remote Viewing

This forum is for the discussion of psychokinesis and extrasensory perception.

Moderators: ryguy, chrLz, Zep Tepi

Re: Considering Theoretical Foundations to Remote Viewing

Postby dazdude » Thu Jun 26, 2008 12:43 am

At that date, Mumford claimed that they were only going to look back three years from the end of the 24-year program.

sorry but this statements says it all and clearly shows the competancy of HYMAN and the AIR team and their objectives, whatever you say you cant get away form the fact that an evaluation of only three years out of 24 years of data is not scientific to rubbish all 24 years of data - its also not good science practise.

daz
User avatar
dazdude
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 134
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2008 12:23 am
Location: UK


Re: Considering Theoretical Foundations to Remote Viewing

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Thu Jun 26, 2008 4:49 am

dazdude wrote:
At that date, Mumford claimed that they were only going to look back three years from the end of the 24-year program.

sorry but this statements says it all and clearly shows the competancy of HYMAN and the AIR team and their objectives, whatever you say you cant get away form the fact that an evaluation of only three years out of 24 years of data is not scientific to rubbish all 24 years of data - its also not good science practise.


Are you familiar with what statistical sampling theory is, and what it says with regard to your claim that this is "not good science practice"?

Let me give you a domain example: We don't have to actually fly an airplane for 24 years to get enough data to accurately predict how it will age across many different structural and mechanical performance metrics. In fact, most airliners are designed to last at least 25 years... and what is amazing is the coincidence that within 3 years of a new airplane type flying (even if only a few airplanes are ever built) we can gather enough sample data to calculate predictable fatigue performance.

Perhaps it is not a coincidence the Stargate researchers chose only 3 years of data... in fact, what I am telling you with the story above and the reference to statistical sampling theory is that it is NOT a coincidence. Furthermore, if it were "bad science" then it would not work to predict aircraft fatigue and aircraft lifetimes. It would be UNSAFE for us to use it if it were "bad science!" Yet as sampling of data beyond three years continues, the accuracy just gets better. Moreover, if RV is such a highly-developed capability over the time of the studies of Stargate, then it stands to reason that the LAST THREE YEARS of the work would be the most accurate!!

So are you saying what we do with airplane is bad science too? It sure is accurate (i.e. it reflects REALITY)
Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

Re: Considering Theoretical Foundations to Remote Viewing

Postby Gary » Thu Jun 26, 2008 5:09 am

Ryan, I have to reject the reference you supplied since it is based on quantum-metaphysics, as it proclaims:

"Since 1975, enthusiastic adcovates of "mystical physics" have claimed that the New Physics (especially Quantum Physics) lends scientific support to a pantheistic worldview of New Age beliefs about "creating your own reality."

The subset described above does NOT include quantum theories based upon an interpretation of quantum REALISM:

Objective State Reduction
Pilot Wave Theory (de Broglie Bohm)
Many Worlds
etc. ...

If time permitted I could attempt to explain why this is so (I participated in Hameroff's discussion forum in the 1990s).

[UNRELATED SIDE NOTE FROM QUANTUM MIND -- I think both sides of this debate might find this post from Quantum Mind of interest:

http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa? ... &H=1&P=647 ]

This quote posted by Ryan is important:

Due to wave/particle duality, the math of quantum physics must be probabilistic, and even though we cannot use the equations of quantum physics to predict the location where an individual electron will hit the wall, we can predict the probability of this electron hitting at each location on the wall, thereby predicting the pattern (which shows wave-interference!) that forms when a large number of electrons have hit the wall.

Valentini has shown that the probability distribution discussed in the quote is only one of a family of possible distributions in pilot wave theory.

The cat argument is incomplete; quantum information theory says that in some very real sense the cat is both alive and dead, unless you invoke a "realist quantum collapse" OR theory, as suggested by Roger Penrose.

Ryan, you need to understand that the theories I have presented here are not "mind creates reality" metaphysics, but related more closely to "nuts and bolts" (A.D. would say nuts and dolts :-) ) quantum computing devices.

I hope that helps. Think of the analogy of a "quantum radio" system.
Gary
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 845
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:28 am

Re: Considering Theoretical Foundations to Remote Viewing

Postby Gary » Thu Jun 26, 2008 5:50 am

I just came across this new paper from HENRY STAPP, for a different point of view on the mind/matter problem:

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0803/0803.1625.pdf

This work was supported by the Director, Office of Science, Office of High Energy and
Nuclear Physics, of the U.S. Department of Energy under contract DE-AC02-05CH11231

In the context of theories of the connection between mind and brain,
physicalism is the demand that all is basically purely physical. But the
conception of “physical” embodied in this demand is characterized
essentially by the properties of the physical that hold in classical
physical theories. Certain of those properties contradict the character
of the physical in quantum mechanics, which provides a better, more
comprehensive, and more fundamental account of phenomena. It is
argued that the difficulties that have plagued physicalists for half a
century, and that continue to do so, dissolve when the classical idea of
the physical is replaced by its quantum successor. The argument is
concretized in way that makes it accessible to non-physicists by
exploiting the recent evidence connecting our conscious experiences
to macroscopic measurable synchronous oscillations occurring in
well-separated parts of the brain. A specific new model of the mindbrain
connection that is fundamentally quantum mechanical but that
ties conscious experiences to these macroscopic synchronous
oscillations is used to illustrate the essential disparities between the
classical and quantum notions of the physical, and in particular to
demonstrate the failure in the quantum world of the principle of the
causal closure of the physical, a failure that goes beyond what is
entailed by the randomness in the outcomes of observations, and that
accommodates the efficacy in the brain of conscious intention.
Gary
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 845
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:28 am

Re: Considering Theoretical Foundations to Remote Viewing

Postby Access Denied » Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:27 am

Gary wrote:Ryan, you need to understand that the theories I have presented here are not "mind creates reality" metaphysics, but related more closely to "nuts and bolts" (A.D. would say nuts and dolts :-) ) quantum computing devices.

Gary, I suspect Ryan understands the issues at hand MUCH better than you think. :D

I also know both Steve and Ryan have MUCH more important things to be doing right now than running around in circles with you so I’d appreciate it if you could leave them be and focus your crticism on me. :mrgreen:

Please take a number and have a seat. All calls will be answered in the order they are received. Thank you for your patience.

FANTASTIC series of posts and research Ryan... damn you’re quick. :) I was going to type up something very similar but I see others have already done so much better than I could I think. I often find myself struggling for the right words... I keep coming up with qua, quack, quackery

Gary, I will address the various neo-Bohm interpretations and the MWI in the QQ thread later. I've been working on a post just for you. In the meantime I suggest you look up the definition of "interpretation". :wink:

P.S. I'd say “Nuts and Volts”
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Re: Considering Theoretical Foundations to Remote Viewing

Postby dazdude » Thu Jun 26, 2008 10:44 am

So are you saying what we do with airplane is bad science too? It sure is accurate (i.e. it reflects REALITY)
Ray


well that's not what several phd scientist are claiming (May & Utts & Puthoff).
Do you really believe that with a controversial subject like PSi that looking at three years of work /results out of 24 and from only one source and not ALL sources is good science and a proper and complete evaluation?
Can you , hand on heart really say that you believe this is the best way to have done this and that you see nothing wrong here?

Also what about all the other things Edwin May and Utts bring up - people not being interviewed, no intel value - yet people given medals for the ops they did RV wise for intel reasons, etc, etc - don't you see a CIA cover-up/whitewash?
If you take ALL of Edwin May's comments and the comments form Utts and Puthoff then you have to with an objective mind come to the conclusion that this was nothing but a whitewash job - these aren't stupid/ uneducated people making false claims they are professionals who have held top secret and intel clearances for years whilst working for some of the biggest think tanks an intel.

daz
User avatar
dazdude
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 134
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2008 12:23 am
Location: UK

Re: Considering Theoretical Foundations to Remote Viewing

Postby Gary » Thu Jun 26, 2008 1:55 pm

In support of the argument made by Daz, there are numerous foreign research programs with databases which may not have been available to STAR GATE (although it is possible that some redacted material under the headers labeled "foreign" might be protecting sources/methods used to collection intelligence on some of these programs).

I'm going to be busy for the next five days or so but I'll try to check back to this thread when I get the chance.
Gary
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 845
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:28 am

Re: Considering Theoretical Foundations to Remote Viewing

Postby Gary » Thu Jun 26, 2008 2:09 pm

Access Denied wrote: Gary, I will address the various neo-Bohm interpretations and the MWI in the QQ thread later. I've been working on a post just for you. In the meantime I suggest you look up the definition of "interpretation". :wink:


Just a heads up for AD re: "interpretation" -- What once was philosophy is no more, since information theory says "all information requires physical representation" -- thus "many worlds" can be falsified by a building a quantum computer, Shan's theory makes new predictions that can be experimentally tested, Valentini's expanded pilot wave theory makes predictions for cosmology, etc.

In other words, it's no longer 1970s "quantum metaphysics" -- these are new theories, with technological implications, which reproduce quantum theory as a limiting case, but also make new falsifiable predictions.

Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation points out that "Stephen Hawking is on record as a saying that the other worlds are as real as ours[32] and Tipler reports Hawking saying that MWI is "trivially true" (scientific jargon for "obviously true") if quantum theory applies to all reality[33]. Roger Penrose agrees with Hawking that QM applied to the universe implies MW, although he considers the current lack of a successful theory of quantum gravity negates the claimed universality of conventional QM."

David Deutsch argues that MW can be falsified http://www.qubit.org/people/david/Artic ... tiers.html


"To predict that future quantum computers, made to a given specification, will work in the ways I have described, one need only solve a few uncontroversial equations. But to explain exactly how they will work, some form of multiple-universe language is unavoidable. Thus quantum computers provide irresistible evidence that the multiverse is real. One especially convincing argument is provided by quantum algorithms — even more powerful than Grover’s — which calculate more intermediate results in the course of a single computation than there are atoms in the visible universe. When a quantum computer delivers the output of such a computation, we shall know that those intermediate results must have been computed somewhere, because they were needed to produce the right answer. So I issue this challenge to those who still cling to a single-universe world view: if the universe we see around us is all there is, where are quantum computations performed? I have yet to receive a plausible reply."
Gary
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 845
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:28 am

Re: Considering Theoretical Foundations to Remote Viewing

Postby Gary » Thu Jun 26, 2008 2:17 pm

One more point for AD to contemplate

According to Richard Feynman, physicists "gave up" at providing an explanation for reality with quantum mechanics (listen to Feynman's lectures on physics).

AD needs to explain what determines the exact point where a single electron will arrive on a detection screen. If he cannot do this, then he needs to explain why he has abandoned causality.
Gary
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 845
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:28 am

Re: Considering Theoretical Foundations to Remote Viewing

Postby ryguy » Thu Jun 26, 2008 2:30 pm

Gary wrote:AD needs to explain what determines the exact point where a single electron will arrive on a detection screen. If he cannot do this, then he needs to explain why he has abandoned causality.


Again - you ignore points already made. See the link above.

Due to wave/particle duality, the math of quantum physics must be probabilistic, and even though we cannot use the equations of quantum physics to predict the location where an individual electron will hit the wall, we can predict the probability of this electron hitting at each location on the wall, thereby predicting the pattern (which shows wave-interference!) that forms when a large number of electrons have hit the wall.


We also should avoid the reverse mistake, of extrapolating from small-scale to large-scale by assuming, as in mystical physics, that quantum descriptions of small-scale events (involving electrons,...) can be applied to other levels. This section explains why "things are not as strange as some people say they are."


When this real electron hits the wall, it attains a specific hitting-location because it interacts with wave/particles in the wall. This physical interaction, between electron and wall, occurs whether or not there is a one-way flow of information that occurs during passive observation by a human, so our "observation" is irrelevant for the interaction.


You, Gary, constantly confuse and extrapolate small-scale to large scale. You assume small-scale weirdness of the wave/particle interaction with the wall can be extrapolated to large-scale and can be applied to other levels.

As the author above points out wonderfully "things are not as strange as some people say they are."

-Ry
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Re: Considering Theoretical Foundations to Remote Viewing

Postby Gary » Fri Jun 27, 2008 4:59 am

Ryan, your response with the quote "Due to wave/particle duality, the math of quantum physics must be probabilistic, and even though we cannot use the equations of quantum physics to predict the location where an individual electron will hit the wall, we can predict the probability of this electron hitting at each location on the wall, thereby predicting the pattern (which shows wave-interference!) that forms when a large number of electrons have hit the wall." DOES NOT answer the question of WHY each individual electron chooses a specific location on the detector screen. Recall that each electron is fired one at a time towards the two slits, and it is only after many electrons strike the screen that a pattern forms (one which DOES NOT obey classical expectations of an object being fired towards the slits).

Recall therefore that each electron acts as if it were a wave passing through both slits but leaves a single spot on the detector screen. David Deutsch describes this as the interference of the electron with 'shadow electrons' in the other universes. Pilot wave theory describes this as a real electron with a real trajectory being guided by a wave-like information field.

We also should avoid the reverse mistake, of extrapolating from small-scale to large-scale by assuming, as in mystical physics, that quantum descriptions of small-scale events (involving electrons,...) can be applied to other levels. This section explains why "things are not as strange as some people say they are."

In the Penrose-Hameroff theory single quanta (a single electron) acts as a switch for a binary circuit -- thus the above is irrelevant for "quantum mind" theory.

When this real electron hits the wall, it attains a specific hitting-location because it interacts with wave/particles in the wall. This physical interaction, between electron and wall, occurs whether or not there is a one-way flow of information that occurs during passive observation by a human, so our "observation" is irrelevant for the interaction.


Again you seem to be confused by REALIST theories WITHOUT OBSERVERS (pilot wave, many worlds) and quantum metaphysics.





N
Gary
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 845
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:28 am

Re: Considering Theoretical Foundations to Remote Viewing

Postby Access Denied » Fri Jun 27, 2008 7:22 am

[sigh]

God I hate pseudoscientific scam artists…

Gary wrote:[snip] DOES NOT answer the question of WHY each individual electron chooses a specific location on the detector screen.

AGAIN the answer is it DOESN’T MATTER! In REALITY those conditions don’t exist… interaction with the environment (our world) DESTROYS quantum coherences and makes the choice… not some "hidden" variable.

The way I look at it is simple… all possibilities have to be available... otherwise everything is predetermined and there are NO CHOICES. Looking at the outcome for a single event for a single particle in isolation is ultimately meaningless.

I’ve already shown you through an example of CURRENT research how decoherence is a HUGE roadblock to the PRACTICAL realization of quantum computers… never mind the human brain.

Consciousness is a figment of your imagination… deal with it!

Gary wrote:Again you seem to be confused by REALIST theories WITHOUT OBSERVERS (pilot wave, many worlds) and quantum metaphysics.

No Gary, either you’re the one who’s confused or you’re trying to confuse (scam) others.

God plays dice [at least once]… deal with it!

REALIST? No thanks, I choose FREE WILL.

[waves to any Rush fans in the audience]


P.S. As I understand it both Stephen Hawking (“trivially true”) and Steven Weinberg (being just two notable examples) DO NOT believe the many-worlds interpretation to be LITERALLY true… i.e. the many other worlds are NOT REAL!

Don’t believe me? Go ahead and prove it to yourself…

Quantum suicide
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_suicide

Falsify that! 8)
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Re: Considering Theoretical Foundations to Remote Viewing

Postby Gary » Fri Jun 27, 2008 4:10 pm

Whew! At least AD is now acknowledging a few of the fundamental issues involved :-)

I wish I had more time to address this. AD asked for "falsifiable theory" and I presented a few possible options:

(1) OBJECTIVE (state) REDUCTION -- Penrose

(2) MANY WORLDS quantum information theory -- Deutsch

(3) PLOT WAVE THEORY -- Valentini's extension of Hiley, de-Broglie - Bohm, et al

Each of the above ideas can be tested in principle, since they reproduce the predictions of quantum theory AND make NEW falsifiable predictions beyond quantum theory.

AD would prefer to stay in that zone where Richard Feynman said "physics has given up" (Feynman audio lectures on physics).

All of the above ideas go beyond the standard interpretations of quantum mechanics by assuming an "objective quantum reality" rather than a metaphysical one. All of the above ideas go one step further by offering testable new predictions.

(1) Quantum superposition of a mirror test (Penrose)

(2) Quantum computer exceeding computational power of all matter in our visible universe

(3) Cosmological anomalies (which may already have been observed)

Any of these ideas may also present new technological challenges and opportunities.

We could add many more to the list, but notable for this discussion is Dr. Paul Werbos' idea (Werbos is a Director at the National Science Foundation) of backwards time signals, which he confirmed to me might be utilized in biological systems.
Gary
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 845
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:28 am

Re: Considering Theoretical Foundations to Remote Viewing

Postby Gary » Fri Jun 27, 2008 4:28 pm

Access Denied wrote:
Gary wrote:[snip] DOES NOT answer the question of WHY each individual electron chooses a specific location on the detector screen.

AGAIN the answer is it DOESN’T MATTER! In REALITY those conditions don’t exist… interaction with the environment (our world) DESTROYS quantum coherences and makes the choice… not some "hidden" variable.

The way I look at it is simple… all possibilities have to be available... otherwise everything is predetermined and there are NO CHOICES. Looking at the outcome for a single event for a single particle in isolation is ultimately meaningless.


Sounds like AD will be pulled kicking and screaming into the 21st century?

The idea that quantum theory is a true description of physical reality led Everett (1957) and many subsequent investigators (e.g. DeWitt and Graham 1973, Deutsch 1985, 1997) to explain quantum-mechanical phenomena in terms of the simultaneous existence of parallel universes or histories. Similarly I and others have explained the
power of quantum computation in terms of ‘quantum parallelism’ (many classical computations occurring in parallel). However, if reality – which in this context is called the multiverse – is indeed literally quantum-mechanical, then it must have a great deal more structure than merely a collection of entities each resembling the universe of classical physics. For one thing, elements of such a collection would indeed be ‘parallel’: they would have no effect on each other, and would therefore not exhibit quantum interference. For another, a ‘universe’ is a global construct – say, the whole of space and its contents at a given time – but since quantum interactions are local, it must in the first instance be local physical systems, such as qubits, measuring instruments and observers, that are split into multiple copies, and this multiplicity must propagate across the multiverse at subluminal speeds.


I mentioned that the theory presented here does roughly the same job for the multiverse as the theory of foliation into spacelike hypersurfaces does for spacetime in general relativity. There are strong reasons to believe that this must be more than an analogy. ... time must be associated with entanglement between clock-like systems and other quantum systems, as in the model constructed by Page and Wootters (1983), in which different times are seen as special cases of different universes. Hence the theory presented here and the classical theory of foliation must in reality be two limiting cases of a single, yet-to-be-discovered theory – the theory of the structure of the multiverse under quantum gravity. -- David Deutsch

The Structure of the Multiverse
Authors: David Deutsch
(Submitted on 6 Apr 2001)
Abstract: The structure of the multiverse is determined by information flow.
Gary
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 845
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:28 am

Re: Considering Theoretical Foundations to Remote Viewing

Postby ryguy » Fri Jun 27, 2008 5:09 pm

From a great 2003 NY Times Opinion Piece by Paul Davies

Here are some choice excerpts:

Scientists have long puzzled over this rather contrived state of affairs. Why is nature so ingeniously, one might even say suspiciously, friendly to life? What do the laws of physics care about life and consciousness that they should conspire to make a hospitable universe? It's almost as if a Grand Designer had it all figured out.

The fashionable scientific response to this cosmic conundrum is to invoke the so-called multiverse theory. The idea here is that what we have hitherto been calling ''the universe'' is nothing of the sort. It is but a small component within a vast assemblage of other universes that together make up a ''multiverse.''


This idea of multiple universes, or multiple realities, has been around in philosophical circles for centuries. The scientific justification for it, however, is new.


How seriously can we take this explanation for the friendliness of nature? Not very, I think. For a start, how is the existence of the other universes to be tested? To be sure, all cosmologists accept that there are some regions of the universe that lie beyond the reach of our telescopes, but somewhere on the slippery slope between that and the idea that there are an infinite number of universes, credibility reaches a limit. As one slips down that slope, more and more must be accepted on faith, and less and less is open to scientific verification.

Extreme multiverse explanations are therefore reminiscent of theological discussions. Indeed, invoking an infinity of unseen universes to explain the unusual features of the one we do see is just as ad hoc as invoking an unseen Creator. The multiverse theory may be dressed up in scientific language, but in essence it requires the same leap of faith.

At the same time, the multiverse theory also explains too much. Appealing to everything in general to explain something in particular is really no explanation at all. To a scientist, it is just as unsatisfying as simply declaring, ''God made it that way!''


Far from doing away with a transcendent Creator, the multiverse theory actually injects that very concept at almost every level of its logical structure. Gods and worlds, creators and creatures, lie embedded in each other, forming an infinite regress in unbounded space.

This reductio ad absurdum of the multiverse theory reveals what a very slippery slope it is indeed. Since Copernicus, our view of the universe has enlarged by a factor of a billion billion. The cosmic vista stretches one hundred billion trillion miles in all directions -- that's a 1 with 23 zeros. Now we are being urged to accept that even this vast region is just a minuscule fragment of the whole.

But caution is strongly advised. The history of science rarely repeats itself. Maybe there is some restricted form of multiverse, but if the concept is pushed too far, then the rationally ordered (and apparently real) world we perceive gets gobbled up in an infinitely complex charade, with the truth lying forever beyond our ken.


It's also intresting to note that a major aspect of the Multiverse religion...er..I mean "Theory" is that other Universes exist under varying laws of physics not like our own. This was a concept that was also promoted by the Serpo hoaxers.

-Ry
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

PreviousNext

Google

Return to PSI / Mind Control

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron