[extropy-chat] quantum `pseudo-telepathy'

[scerir]

[D.B. pointed out ...]
> http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0306042
> Quantum entanglement, perhaps the most 
> non-classical manifestation of quantum 
> information theory, cannot be used 
> to transmit information between remote parties. 
> Yet, it can be used to reduce the amount 
> of communication required to process a variety 
> of distributed computational tasks. We speak
> of pseudo-telepathy when quantum entanglement 
> serves to eliminate the classical need to 
> communicate.

Telepathy as Shimony's "passion at a distance"
between entangled pairs? 

In those years (1933-36) in which Einstein,
but also Popper, were thinking about
measurements of correlated observables,
and related uncertainties, and predictions and
retrodictions, and 'non-separability' of quantum 
entangled systems, and Grete Hermann developed
her "relative state" interpretation of QM (now 
known as MWI) and - it seems so, according to Max
Jammer - also the first "retrocausation" solution 
of EPR effect (decades ahead of Huw Price, O. Costa 
de Beauregard, Pegg, Hoyle, etc.), W. Pauli
and C.G. Jung were corresponding about telepathy,
as well as 'psychic' entanglements, 'non-separability'
of systems, and 'retrocausations'.

- Pauli to Jung, Zurich, 26 Jul. 1934, [comments, snips]
"Jordan's essay ['Uber den positivistischen
Begriff der Wirklichkeit'] a copy of which is enclosed, 
was sent to me for appraisal by the publisher
of the Journal _Die Naturwissenshaften_. [...]
As for the author, P.Jordan, I know him personally.
He is a highly intelligent and gifted theoretical
physicist, certainly one to be taken seriously
[co-inventor of matrix mechanics, transformation
theory, second quantization, etc.]. [...] I would
be interested to hear your opinion on the
contents of the essay, especially as Jordan's
ideas seem to me to have a certain connection
with your own. In the last section of the essay 
in particular, he comes very close to your concept
of the collective unconscious. [...] I _do_
have certain misgivings about the picture
(p.12), according to which the conscious should
be located as a 'narrow borderline area' to the
unconscious. Might it not be preferable to advocate
the view that the unconscious and the conscious 
are complementary (i.e., in a mutually exclusive 
relationship to each other), but not that one
is part of the other? [Btw, according to Pauli
complementarity was the essential content of QM].
[....]"

-Jung to Pauli, Zurich-Kusnacht, 29 Oct. 1934
"With regard to Jordan's reference to parapsychic
manifestations, spatial clairvoyance is of course
one of the most obvious phenomena to represent
the relative nonexistence of our physical image
of space. Taking this argument further, he would also
necessarily have to bring in temporal clairvoyance,
which would represent the relativity of the image
of time. Naturally, Jordan looks at these phenomena
from the physical point of view, whereas I do so from
the psychic point of view - specifically from the fact
of the collective unconscious, as you have correctly 
noted, which presents a layer of the psychic in which
individual distinctions of consciousness are more or
less extinguished. However, if individual consciousnesses
in the unconscious were extinguished, then all
perception in the unconscious would occur as in one person.
Jordan states [see quantum 'non-separability'] that a sender 
and a receiver in the same conscious 'space' observe 
the same object at the same time. One could just as easily 
turn this statement around and say that in unconscious 
'space', sender and receiver are one and the same perceiving 
object [non-local observer, Goedelian issues]. [...] 
Carried to its ultimate conclusion, Jordan's approach 
would lead to the supposition of an absolute unconscious
space in which an infinite number of observers are looking
at the same object. The phychological version would be:
In the unconscious there is just one observer, who looks
at the infinite number of objects. [...] By the way,
it has just occurred to me that on the subject of time
relativity there is a book by a student of Eddington,
Dunne, _An Experiment with Time_, in which he deal with
temporal clairvoyance in a similar way to how Jordan
deals with spatial clairvoyance. He postulate an infinite
number of time dimensions that more or less correspond
to Jordan's 'intermediary stages'. I would be very
interested to hear how you respond to these arguments
of Dunne's. [...]"

Note that many of these questions (multidimensionality
of time, non-separability of quantum systems,
non-separability of observers, entanglements in
space, entanglements in time, non-distinguishability 
of all present states of a system from within the system, 
non-distinguishability of all past and future states 
of a system from within the system, impossibility of 'picture
in picture', time-symmetry, interferences between quantum
objects and their mirror images, entanglements from the
future/measurement to the past/emission, conceptual 
impossibility of TOEs, hidden carriers of informations, etc.) 
are still on the table ...
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0207029
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0205182
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0102109
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0012060
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9801061

s.

'Algebraic nonseparability entails geometric nonlocality; 
emphasis on its time aspect can be worded atemporality.' 
-Olivier Costa de Beauregard