Retrocausality

We have argued that:

1. All states and values are "real" and definite, including superpositions that are linear combinations of laboratory basis vectors. A superposition can also be thought of as an underdetermined value, and thus open to reduction by a future constraint.

2. All transformations are unitary, including quantum measurement. There is no "collapse", no fundamental randomness, and God does not play dice. Events considered quantum random such as measurement and radioactive decay are not actually causeless, but are partially determined by future boundary conditions and dependencies.

3. All evolution is thus time-symmetric, and so the appropriate conceptualization is via relations rather than functions. A relation in general is a constraint on joint values of several variables, a special case of which is quantum entanglement.

4. In general, one can send a message into the past via superposition or entanglement, and arguably have an effect on possibilities there. But the message cannot be received there because doing so would affect the superposition, removing possibilities, and in effect “send” a message instead.

5. Correlation due to past or future entanglement can appear to be information transfer if underdetermined events are involved. Future constraints can have an effect if the past does not determine the future completely, i.e. when a superposition exists.

6. Some well-known and confirmed psychic or “psi” phenomena can plausibly be explained in this way, including clairvoyance, precognition, and the apparent influence of the experimenter and future dependencies upon results.


7. By extension, unrecognized entanglements such as those discussed here may have significant implications across all of science, and for society as a whole as well.Implications for the General Psychology and for Society

“...a performance that may someday be considered understandable, but that, in these primitive times, so transcends what is said to be the known that it is what I mean by magic."
-- Charles Fort in “Wild Talents”, 1932

One of our goals in this research should be to build a better bridge between science and the entire human experience, to expand the reach and the intellectual power of science, and thereby to bring about a better partnership with the whole of nature including currently unexplained phenomena. It should be apparent that the generalized entanglement phenomena as discussed above, even if uncommon and only small in amplitude, can have significant philosophical meaning and impact beyond that it hason science. It potentially provides a sociological bridge to many varieties of traditional Eastern thought and wisdom, including a deep principle of connectedness that is mostly absent in orthodox Western science. It also enables a scientific worldview more inclusive of everyday human psychology and experience, and thus can allow non-scientists to better relate to the activities and meaning of science.In particular, there is a very large difference between the usual functional models of the world that encourage us to see everything unidirectionally in terms of use, manipulation, control, and competition, and the more symmetrical omnidirectional relational models we advocate that represent -- and encourage -- symbiosis, mutuality, co-existence, and cooperation.

We ask: Which of these is a better model for Science in the 21st Century?

Can a message be sent into the past

“We may say that there is at present no occasion and no reason to speak of causality in nature –
because no [macroscopic] experiment indicates its presence and … quantum mechanics contradicts it.”
-- John von Neumann, 1955

“The law of causality, I believe, […] is a relic of a bygone age, surviving, like the monarchy, only
because it is erroneously supposed to do no harm.” -- Bertrand Russell, 1913

People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion. -- Albert Einstein, 1955

Retro-causality is inherent to Physics and in respect to Psychology. If anything causality as it is commonly concluded, seems more a function of development in relation to consciousness.


Any thoughts?

reply to post by Kashai

Any thoughts?

Yes, actually, but only one.

If the thread begins with,

1. All states and values are "real" and definite, including superpositions that are linear combinations of laboratory basis vectors. A superposition can also be thought of as an underdetermined value, and thus open to reduction by a future constraint.

and your entire comment on, and explanation of the material is,

Retro-causality is inherent to Physics and in respect to Psychology. If anything causality as it is commonly concluded, seems more a function of development in relation to consciousness.

then I will freely confess I only have the faintest idea of what this thread is showing. I am also completely at a loss on how to evaluate the statements in your OP. While not quite gibberish to a non-scientific mind, they are quite close enough, thank you.

Would you please summarize and explain for those of us not trained in quantum entanglements and other aspects of modern physics? Thank you.

reply to post by Kashai


Time is conceptualized as a particular dimensional 'direction' in 4-dimensional space-time, where one second is equivalent to 299,792,458 m.

All events on the timeline exist simultaneously (it is static, not dynamic).

By the same token, reversing the polarity of the time value in an equation, does not reverse the process described! If you imagine gas diffusing from a bottle, reversing the time value does not put the gas back. It still spatially diffuses in negative time. The genie will not go back into the bottle!

It is our perceptual 'window' that can see only the present.

Most people confuse their perception of time, believing the perception to be the true nature of time, but the true nature of time is something outside of consciousness and is more of a physical/mathematical/engineering construct.

The physical substrate of this world exists despite our perception.

Consciousness emerges from the physical reality. Physical reality does not emerge from consciousness.

Despite the obviousness and self evidence of this fact, people continue to believe that somehow consciousness 'causes' reality.

There is not one shed of evidence that this is the case, nor is there any any mode of action which could explain why or how this would happen. There is also much fuzziness about what consciousness actually is, so, to make such outrageous claims without proof or supporting theory, and with such poorly defined parameters, shows the 'faith based' and unscientific nature of the belief.

Retrocausality then would actually be a misperception where we 'think' that we have affected reality, when the truth is that we had no option but to choose the only state that the universe allowed.

Here's a fun little RetroPsychoKinesis experiment.

www.fourmilab.ch...

You try to intend a line to move either left or right, when the data that determines it's movement is already predetermined.

What is beyond the superposition? A collapse is the answer and that is why causality is still applicable, it's simply that it cannot be applied to what one might call the boundary, that is if a collapse, an observation, is considered a membrane of sorts. What cannot be drawn from the superposition? It is the ocean which makes the rivers, or it is the source of the multi-verse.

Actually placing an emphasis reality generating consciousness, if anything is just another ideology in relation to the facts at hand. As are claims that what we can observe are, in and of themselves absolutes .Or can be construed as such, due to a belief in some arbitrary consistency despite very poor methods of testing.

Granted, testing the entire population to determine if the paranormal is in fact valid. Would require every scientist on the planet, to stop what they are doing and begin testing humans. The fact of the matter is there has been no formal effort to test the indigenous despite the fact they are the source of religion.

Consciousness creating reality has been dismissed by some as a result, not of any real basis. Conservative efforts to explain Consciousness are simply inadequate to the task. And without a real determination beyond what has been offered, in reality the conservative response is inadequate to any real answer.

Science is all about statistics and true skeptics are skeptical about everything, even there own ideologies.

physical/mathematical/engineering constructs is a conclusion based upon perception." A construct in the philosophy of science is an ideal object, where the existence of the thing may be said to depend upon a subject's mind." This also includes the belief that reality, on it own generated consciousness.

Any thoughts?

reply to post by Kashai


...or could best be described by the effect (result) of...
...either swimming against a stream or surrendering to its flow and doing nothing....

Nature does nothing...but surrender to its flow (lower states of consciousness follow this MO by default)
Higher states of consciousness, however, can fight a flow (despite the outcome)...and by definition are neither a contradiction of causality nor a proof of it...both fit the definition of 'collapsing' outcomes...

God does not play dice...we do...

As a paradigm that illustrates cause and effect (in terms of time - being essentially a static condition)...only a temporal based construct (albeit, illusory) has this ability...it is the reason we have so much trouble envisioning a construct of essentially non-time (and therefore, non-causality)...it doesn't 'seem' to make much sense, or indeed, elicit a clear purpose.

A99

reply to post by Kashai


In the Delayed Quantum Eraser experiment they actually influence an event in the past to conform to the outcome of their observation of another part of the setup in the present.(better said, at a later time.), just by learning the outcome of two possibilities.

Even though the event had already happened and should have been a definite thing.

According to our normal logic and view on time and space.

reply to post by akushla99


One purpose would be upon another scale we simply have not yet comprehended.

I've spoken of retrocausality often because I've experienced it and have spent a great deal of time trying to understand how it works. From my understanding it's a lot simpler than the quoted text in the original post.

There's the event timeline and the information timeline. They're perpendicular to each other rather than parallel.

Everything new is a combination of old. We are a part of this process which is how we travel along the information timeline. As we gain or form information, new events are 'manifested' in between currently existing events on the event timeline which we then experience. New events in the past don't alter our memories, we become aware of them in the present.

I am speaking more along the lines of knowing everything about the murder of a person. So much so that, because of such information, law enforcement is able to arrest and convict those who were really responsible.

An example of something I have done....

IMO fundementally our emotions are not subjective.

Any thoughts?

Originally posted by Kashai
reply to post by akushla99

 

One purpose would be upon another scale we simply have not yet comprehended.

...or upon purposes that have been comprehended, but are outside of the range of 'temporal' understanding (in as much as it is understood from a temporal construct POV...i.e. cause and effect)...

'Collapsing', in this sense, does not necessarily mean...disappearing completely, but, disassemblage of component circumstances used to build an effect/outcome faithfully...

There is, in effect, only 2 'time-zones' in which we can influence events...the present and the future...the outcomes of a consciousness' influence are always present as probabilities and possibilities (all of them)...the effect of swimming with, or swimming against the stream of this are the same (as, it is 'built into' a temporal construct)...in both instances they, 'collapse' outcomes...one is a passive involvement, the other an active involvement...a function of consciousness...

A99

reply to post by Kashai


You mean like remote viewing?

reply to post by MikeDeVries



That is one way to call it.

reply to post by Kashai


Tell me more.

You solved a murder with ESP?

reply to post by MikeDeVries


Yes I did and there is more, being able to do this is very natural to me. For me, it is simply absurd to consider this as impossible.

Especially given that the indigenous have never been tested.


Any thoughts?

Originally posted by Kashai
reply to post by MikeDeVries

 

Yes I did and there is more, being able to do this is very natural to me. For me, it is simply absurd to consider this as impossible.

Especially given that the indigenous have never been tested.


Any thoughts?

This is where the 'generated' pool of thoughts and emotions of subjective consciousnesses witnesses its own involvement as an individual 'unit'...
In this sense, 'observation/involvement' (and therefore the extent to which we influence, and/or 'affect' outcomes), comes into question.

A narrow path describes its own destination.
Good luck and all wisdom in the 'faculty'.

A99

reply to post by akushla99


Consider that with respect to the Multiverse each of us is akin to a facet in a diamond? The differences that seem to be reflected in each individual Universe, is integral in understanding another perspective.

This in relation to all perspectives as a whole in respect to the multiverse.

Seeing reality as we commonly do could very well be a developmental issue, an orientation meant to facilitate evolution.

Originally posted by Kashai
reply to post by akushla99

 

Consider that with respect to the Multiverse each of us is akin to a facet in a diamond? The differences that seem to be reflected in each individual Universe, is integral in understanding another perspective.

This in relation to all perspectives as a whole in respect to the multiverse.

Seeing reality as we commonly do could very well be a developmental issue, an orientation meant to facilitate evolution.

Completely agree brother/sister

A99

reply to post by Kashai


I absolutely believe in ESP powers.

I do fail to see what it has to do with retro causality.