Dean Radin and Dick Bierman seem to disagree on the final conclusion of Annie Jacobson's book Phenomena re: KGB, CIA, DIA, MI6, MOSSAD ...

That the reality of remote viewing, precognition etc allegedly studied by KGB, CIA, MOSSAD, MI6 et-al is now well established statistically.

e.g. Ch 23, e.g.,

" ' 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

My claim is that Post-Quantum-Mechanics is the Popper-falsifiable explanation of these effects that can be tested in the nano-electronics laboratory with the kinds of applications envisioned here

Subquantum Information and Computation

Antony Valentini

(Submitted on 11 Mar 2002 (v1), last revised 12 Apr 2002 (this version, v2))

It is argued that  immense physical resources - for nonlocal communication, espionage, and exponentially-fast computation - are hidden from us by quantum noise, and that this noise is not fundamental but merely a property of an equilibrium state in which the universe happens to be at the present time. It is suggested that 'non-quantum' or nonequilibrium matter might exist today in the form of relic particles from the early universe. We describe how such matter could be detected and put to practical use.  Nonequilibrium matter could be used to send instantaneous signals, to violate the uncertainty principle, to distinguish non-orthogonal quantum states without disturbing them, to eavesdrop on quantum key distribution, and to outpace quantum computation (solving NP-complete problems in polynomial time).

 RECENT ADVANCES IN POST-QUANTUM MECHANICS

Jack Sarfatti 

ABSTRACT: Newton's mechanics in the 17th Century increased the lethality of artillery. Thermodynamics in the 19th led to the steam-powered Industrial Revolution in the UK. Maxwell's unification of electricity, magnetism and light gave us electrical power, the telegraph, radio and television. The discovery of quantum mechanics in the 20th century by Planck, Bohr, Einstein, Schrodinger, Heisenberg led to the creation of the atomic and hydrogen bomb as well as computer chips and the world-wide-web and Silicon Valley's multi-billion dollar corporations. The lesson is that breakthroughs in fundamental physics, both theoretical and experimental have always led to profound technological wealth-creating new industries and will continue to do so. There is now a new revolution brewing in quantum mechanics that can be divided into three periods. The first quantum revolution was from 1900 to about 1975. The second quantum information/computer revolution was from about 1975 to 2015. The early part of this story is told by MIT Professor David Kaiser in his award-winning book how a small group of Berkeley/San Francisco physicists triggered that second revolution. The third quantum revolution is how an extension of quantum mechanics has led to the understanding of consciousness as a natural physical phenomenon that can emerge in many material substrates not only in our carbon-based biochemistry. In particular, this new post-quantum mechanics will lead to naturally conscious artificial intelligence in nano-electronic machines as well as extending human life spans to hundreds of years and more. This development is not far off and is fraught with opportunities and dangers, just like nuclear power and genetic engineering. 

KEYWORDS: Quantum mechanics; Rod Sutherland; Retrocausation 

On Mar 26, 2017, at 11:38 AM, Dean Radin <[email protected]> wrote:

Note: My emails to the Foundations of Mind list are bounced. So I'm just sending this to you.

Dick said you can't make a profit using psi. I gave an example showing that his claim is false. I didn't say my example was representative of all known cases. For that we turn to Dick himself, who surveyed all known profit-making attempts and showed that they did indeed result in a profit.

Dick believes that progress in psi research can be facilitated by emphasizing the negative, in hopes of improving perceived seriousness and credibility among academics. I think that's exactly the wrong approach. It only provides explosive fuel for skeptics who have been extremely effective in causing this domain of research to not take place at all. And that they are effective is obvious: I estimate no more than 50 academics worldwide have an open, active interest in psi research, out of a pool of millions. In the US, I can think of a handful of university-based researchers who are openly interested in this area, and of them perhaps one, maybe two, are actually engaged in lab research.

I've looked at a large proportion of the psi experimental literature in detail, evaluating it not as though it was just another a database of physics experiments, or psychology experiments, but as a curious domain with its own challenges and rules that lives in the spaces between physics and psychology. What I see overall is strong evidence that something real is going on. Dick looks at the same literature and ends up with a 50/50 guess.

So if you're a funding agency and adopt Dick's assessment, there's no reason to pursue psi research. It would be a waste of money given more pressing priorities. By contrast, if you take my assessment, you'll see psi as a potential breakthrough anomaly waiting for an explanation. Dick's approach stops research. Mine keeps it alive. We have different interpretations of the same data.

My vision is that psi research will eventually become just another conventional topic that can be freely pursued by academics without fear. Visions do not manifest by emphasizing the negative. 

- Dean

 

On Mar 25, 2017, at 2:41 AM, Dick Bierman <[email protected]> wrote:

Dean’s response shows exactly the problem that has the scientific world in its grip. How is it possible that a number of psychological, biological, medical ‘facts’ have been presented that turn out not to replicate? The answer is: POST-HOC SELECTION leading to biased results.This is done often non-consciously for instance if after an experiment finishes the data of some subjects are removed in a biased way. But also Hypotheses are adjusted or even invented post-hoc, Many experiments (more than 50%) never make it to the literature. Editors think that non-significant experiments do not provide information (!!!!),

Anyway, here Dean selects 1 successful experiment post hoc out of many others. What would be required is a meta-analysis similar to the one I undertook on this type of experiments (the results thereof should be taken with a grain of salt because it is impossible to get at the results of the failed and unpublished experiments). I found a small mean net profit, much smaller than what would fit to the reported effect sizes where actual scoring rates are claimed to be about 15% higher than chance scoring rates in a binary gambling situation. The net mean effect that I found is largely driven by the huge profits in the 'silver future’- and 'Puthoff school' experiment.

The argument often used by parapsychologists to defend themselves against the criticism that 'no money is made by psychokinesis on the roulette' is that the PK effect size is smaller than the casino’s advantage is a correct argument. Because the reported PK effect sizes are very small (< 1%). That argument however fails for the situation where ‘precognition’ (ARV) is used in some associative way because the effect sizes reported there are so much higher.

As I said looking at all the data (including the data that Dean and Hal are talking about) I estimate the probability that we are dealing with real effect (in the sense that it can be replicated in a statistical way) is smaller than 50%. We, at the Heymansgroup (Heymansgroup.nl) of the University of Groningen therefore base half of our research on the idea of a robust replicable anomaly while the other half of our experiments (think for instance about our bilking experiment) assume that maybe there are fundamental constraints that do not allow replicability for these phenomena.

So I am not against assuming a 100% certainty and base your experimental approach on. Also it is good that at this point theoretical frameworks are developed that allow for retrocausal effects as if they are real in the traditional sense: Let 100 flowers blossom!!!

However the attitude of parapsychologist that are 100% certain and also claiming that it is all ‘non-local’ or ‘entanglement', whatever they mean by those concepts, is counterproductive at least in academic circles and actually frustrates progress.

Dick

On Mar 24, 2017, at 11:06 PM, JACK SARFATTI < [email protected]> wrote:

10-4

On Mar 24, 2017, at 2:25 PM,  [email protected] wrote:

In our ARV experiment to raise money for a school, 30 days in the silver futures market netted our investor $260K of which 10% ($26K) was provided to the school fund as had been negotiated at the beginning. See attached.

 

Hal Puthoff

 

In a message dated 3/24/2017 3:52:27 P.M. Central Daylight Time,  [email protected] writes:

On Mar 24, 2017, at 1:41 PM, Dean Radin < [email protected]> wrote:

Dick Bierman says: "It can be shown by simulation that these effect sizes would allow easy financial profit even taking into account high variability of these effects. However all these parapsychological institutes (including Dean’s) are asking for grant money again and again. This is totally inconsistent."

No. Money can be made, it's just not easy. It takes talent and long-term dedication. For an example, see this paper:

https://www.remote-viewing.com/ARVpaper.pdf

It reports a profit of $146,000 using Associative Remote Viewing. But it took 13 years. I find it faster and easier to raise funds the conventional way. 

- Dean

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 <[email protected]> wrote:

Thanks Dean

Exactly my point! :-)

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

On Mar 22, 2017, at 3:52 PM, Dean Radin < [email protected]> wrote:

On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 12:55 PM, JACK SARFATTI < [email protected]> wrote:

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