[extropy-chat] Re: Damien grants psi evidence

[Dirk Bruere]

BillK wrote:

>On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 14:51:43 -0600, Damien Broderick wrote:
>  
>
>>Of course it's also obvious that psi effects *must* usually be small, since
>>we don't see paranormal effects most of time. Experiments are designed to
>>concentrate or elicit these effects, making them visible to an extent not
>>found in ordinary daily life.
>>
>>As for statistical competence, it's worth noting that Utts is a professor
>>of statistics at UC, Davis, with a PhD in Statistics. This is not an
>>argument from authority, but it does suggest that she's not reaching these
>>conclusions out of ignorance.
>>
>>    
>>
>
>The problem with 'remote viewing' is that it is subjective. It is
>mostly based on a single judge saying how similar a rough sketch is to
>the chosen subject. The judge does not take into account how much
>*more* similar the sketch might be to many other subjects not under
>consideration. It is a bit like a 'cold-reader' fishing for hits among
>his audience. ' I have a young man here - Joe, John, James, etc.
>If you start with biased data, which itself will vary depending on the
>opinions of different judges, then the statistical analysis will be
>clever garbage.
>
>  
>
I consider that, for scientific purposes, having two people involved is 
a waste of time.
It would be far more productive IMO to concentrate on PK effects on 
machines eg random number generators.

>Utts commented in her 1995 paper:
>"8. There is compelling evidence that precognition, in which the
>target is selected after the subject has given the description, is
>also successful."
>
>So, either she now has time travel as well, or this is evidence that
>the whole process of matching rough sketches with selected pictures is
>a bag of worms.
>  
>
I think that may well be what is involved.
I even suggested a hard science expt to test something similar, but 
never got any feedback on its viability from a theoretical POV.
Here it is in case you are interested:
_________

Something that has been on my mind for a few years, and I thought it was 
about time I exorcised it.
It flows from a 'naive realism' concerning quantum measurement and 
embodies a number of dodgy 'ifs'. The latter lead to a simple 
experimental test.
It begins with the Delayed Choice expt and a Cramer style interpretation 
of a 'backward in time signal' upon measurement that sets a 'real' 
unique path for the photon retrospecively. Given that view we have a 
temporal loop whose parameters can be changed according to where and 
when the measurement is made.
The question that has nagged me is: Is that loop local limited to the 
photon/apparatus or does it essentially 're-run' the universe over that 
duration?
To provide a test requires another dubious assumption. Namely that, if 
we 'rerun' the universe over again the results of a quantum measurement 
will not necessarily be the same. That they will still exhibit a random 
quality ie that re-runs will not be identical on a small enough scale.
Anyway, to the test.
An interferometer with (say) a 4uS transit time (eg monomode fibre in 
Sagnac configuration). We also have a random number generator based upon 
(say) a radioactive decay providing a single quantum event clocking a 0 
or 1 from a high speed counter.
Over a period of time the count should be fairly predictable 
statistically and evenly distributed between 0,1.
However, what we do is to trigger a measurement on the interferometer 
within 4uS of getting an output from the random number generator of a 1.
If the 're-run' is affecting the universe as a whole the result will be 
that the output of the RNG is skewed towards 0.
Any comments and statements of impossibilities are welcome (as long as 
they are accompanied by an explanation).
_________

-- 
Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millenium
http://www.theconsensus.org