Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home

Current Essay Contest


Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fnd.

Previous Contests

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fnd.
read/discusswinners

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discusswinners

How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams
read/discusswinners

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Steve Dufourny: on 9/6/17 at 11:45am UTC, wrote Hi Peter,hope you are well, Hi Mr Sarfatti, It seems Mr Sarfatti that you...

james akerlund: on 3/28/17 at 4:40am UTC, wrote Hi Jack, It is good to see another person who pursues retrocausality in...

Jonathan Dickau: on 3/24/17 at 17:43pm UTC, wrote Interesting note.. Thanks for sharing Jack. I agree with your assessment...

Jack Sarfatti: on 3/24/17 at 15:52pm UTC, wrote On Mar 24, 2017, at 3:57 AM, Alex Hankey wrote: Jack, No mechanism of...

Jack Sarfatti: on 3/24/17 at 5:16am UTC, wrote On Mar 23, 2017, at 5:01 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote: The point is that it...

Jack Sarfatti: on 3/23/17 at 21:46pm UTC, wrote PCTC is a variation on Yakir Aharonov's "weak measurement" connected with...

Jonathan Dickau: on 3/23/17 at 21:08pm UTC, wrote Thanks for the feedback Jack.. I'll keep reading your sources, and offer a...

Jack Sarfatti: on 3/23/17 at 3:38am UTC, wrote Annie Jacobson's new book Phenomenon (advance copy sent to me by the...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

thuy lien: "9 THINGS WE WERE SEEN FROM RED DEAD REDEMPTION 2 TRAILER ROCKSTAR HAVE US..." in Collapsing Physics: Q&A...

Anthony Aguirre: "Our mission at FQXi has always been to push boundaries, and to try to focus..." in FQXi's New Large Grant...

John Cox: "Victor, I have reread your post and still find agreement. Realism vs...." in What Is...

Victor Usack: "RE John R Cox. You are quite right. Without the math we’ve got..." in What Is...

Anonymous: "hello Bob" in The Complexity Conundrum

shery williams: "Office Setup is the full suite of Microsoft productivity software that..." in Are We Merging With Our...

thuy lien: "The faction in Bannerlord: Battania King: ‘Caladog’ -partially..." in Collapsing Physics: Q&A...

thuy lien: "Good article, thanks for sharing. hell let loose metal gear survive far..." in Blurring Causal Lines


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

The Complexity Conundrum
Resolving the black hole firewall paradox—by calculating what a real astronaut would compute at the black hole's edge.

Quantum Dream Time
Defining a ‘quantum clock’ and a 'quantum ruler' could help those attempting to unify physics—and solve the mystery of vanishing time.

Our Place in the Multiverse
Calculating the odds that intelligent observers arise in parallel universes—and working out what they might see.

Sounding the Drums to Listen for Gravity’s Effect on Quantum Phenomena
A bench-top experiment could test the notion that gravity breaks delicate quantum superpositions.

Watching the Observers
Accounting for quantum fuzziness could help us measure space and time—and the cosmos—more accurately.


FQXi FORUM
December 16, 2017

CATEGORY: Wandering Towards a Goal Essay Contest (2016-2017) [back]
TOPIC: The Post-Quantum Physics of Matter, Mind, Consciousness by Jack Sarfatti [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Jack Sarfatti wrote on Mar. 1, 2017 @ 20:04 GMT
Essay 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 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.

Author Bio

Jack Sarfatti is an American theoretical physicist. Working largely outside academia, Sarfatti specializes in the study of quantum physics and consciousness.[n 1] He argues for retrocausality as the explanation of entanglement consistent with relativity. Sarfatti was a leading member of the Fundamental Fysiks Group, an informal group of physicists in California in the 1970s who, according to historian of science David Kaiser, was crucial in triggering interest in Bell's theorem.

Download Essay PDF File




Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 2, 2017 @ 22:19 GMT
Dear Jack

Nice essay, interesting, provocative and nicely written, also agreeing my own essay's identification of the importance of QM in neural processes and AI. Unfortunately you don't develop the 'on topic' angles which I was hoping for, and p2 is horribly short of paragraph breaks!

I've liked your work for some time. However I'm now concerned you've abandoned John Bells real...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Jack Sarfatti replied on Mar. 5, 2017 @ 21:34 GMT
Perhaps this may help?

I also remember seeing it I think it was by Penrose a whole list of different scenarios for different scales of orch OR but I can't quite remember where I saw it

I think I can say is that when Roger talks about non-computability that is physically realized by post quantum local retro causal entanglement messaging due to action reaction between waves and particles

Indeed I think this also relates to Godel's incompleteness theorem because incompleteness in mathematics depends upon all mathematics being an algorithm and which steps occur in only One Direction in "time"

In terms of graphs Godel only tacitly considered tree graphs without closed loops that correspond to CTCs (Deutsch Lloyd)

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 3, 2017, at 9:45 AM, Hameroff, Stuart R - (hameroff) wrote:

I'll try and find a copy. For some reason its not on my website at the moment.

I agree the pathway qubits are topological and resistant to decoherence (or premature OR which replaces decoherence).

We (me, Tuzsynski et al) described that in our 2002 paper 'Conduction pathways in microtubules'. Bandyopadhyay has experimentally shown quantum states in microtubules for as long as 0.1 msec.

s



--



Author Jack Sarfatti replied on Mar. 6, 2017 @ 19:22 GMT
This paper has just come to my attention

"Quantum theory from rules on information acquisition

Philipp Andres Ho ̈hn

Vienna Center for Quantum Science and Technology, and Institute for Quantum Optics and Quantum Information, Austrian Academy of Sciences, Boltzmanngasse 3, 1090 Vienna, Austria

E-mail: p.hoehn@univie.ac.at

Abstract. We summarise a recent reconstruction of the quantum theory of qubits from rules constraining an observer’s acquisition of information about physical systems. This review is accessible and fairly self-contained, focussing on the main ideas and results and not the technical details. The reconstruction offers an informational explanation for the architecture of the theory and specifically for its correlation structure. In particular, it explains entanglement, monogamy and non-locality compellingly from limited accessible information and complementarity. As a by-product, it also unravels new ‘conserved informational charges’ from complementarity relations that characterise the unitary group and the set of pure states.'

My comment: I like this approach. Nonlinear non-unitary non-statistical PQM would also follow from this kind of way of looking by allowing keyless entanglement signaling equivalent to Sutherland's action-reaction weak destiny/history wave-particle Lagrangian and Valentini's "sub-quantum non-equilibrium" ~ CTC non-algorithmic processing NP -> P etc.

On Mar 6, 2017, at 11:04 AM, art wagner wrote:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1612.06849.pdf



Steve Dufourny replied on Sep. 6, 2017 @ 11:45 GMT
Hi Peter,hope you are well, Hi Mr Sarfatti,

It seems Mr Sarfatti that you confound a lot of things there, it is a pure nonsense.The problem is that yoy mix a lot of works of people and that implies a lot of confusions about this emergent consciousness.But it is just my opinion of course.See the contests, there there are severzal relevant pappers about this consciousness.But your ideas are just odd.Sorry.

report post as inappropriate


Author Jack Sarfatti wrote on Mar. 2, 2017 @ 22:56 GMT
You have misunderstood my text. Perhaps I was not clear enough. I reject the wave-only interpretations of QM including Bohr. I am using Rod Sutherland's mathematical extension of David Bohm's 1952 pilot wave theory to relativity using local retrocausality entanglement with action-reaction between waves and beablles in a Lagrangian framework. Everything waves and particles etc. are real.

Bell liked Bohm's idea. Bell was mistaken to reject local retrocausality in favor of nonlocality. Bell confused the latter with superdeterminism needing a fatalistic rejection of free will. Huw Price has explained all this in detail.



Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 3, 2017 @ 14:09 GMT
Jack

OK, I understand. No, that didn't come across. It makes a little more sense now, though while 'real' waves going both ways is one thing (or even 2!) and fine, going back in time is quite something else of course. But I have a question on your response; "Bell was mistaken to reject local retrocausality in favor of nonlocality."

Can you direct me to where John Bell 'accepted' non-locality? I agree that's a wide (mis!)understanding of his conclusions, and he certainly used QM's own assumptions in 'testing' it. Having studied him and his work for some time it seems clear to me he REJECTED those assumptions (is the word "wrong' not a hint?!).

I do agree what I think you really meant, that he didn't consider retrocausality as such seriously so didn't even suggest it was being tested.

But Jack, please focus on this; I know you're deeply embedded in your own solution, but, however unlikely, I assure you what I'm showing you is that "astonishing" way to derive the WHOLE of QM', predictions, findings, apparent weirdness and all, from the very simplest classical mechanism. Shockingly it produces (and reproduces each time) the orthogonal complementary Cos2 curves. It's so simple it'd take you minutes to follow it through and reproduce them yourself. It is then simple to falsify - yet nobody has!

Why do so many theoretical physicists dive for the nearest sand pile to put their heads in rather than look!?? (I note you didn't suggest you'd read it!) Is it that once you write something you feel wedded to it forever?

As Bell said, " Professional theoretical physicists ought to be able to do better.”

The question is Jack, can you? or are you just another 'head in the sand' theorist?

Best

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Author Jack Sarfatti replied on Mar. 4, 2017 @ 00:55 GMT
My laptop keyboard is being replaced so this will be short on small iPad.

The references in the essay to Huw Price and Rod Sutherland should answer your questions. I am using the Bohm picture. QM is not adequate. It's incomplete as Einstein thought. PQM is to QM as GR is to SR. Your idea does not pertain to the topic of my essay.



Author Jack Sarfatti replied on Mar. 5, 2017 @ 04:22 GMT
Got laptop back. I meant to add to the essay

“Suppose there is even something vaguely teleological about the effects of consciousness, so that a future impression might affect a past action.” Roger Penrose, “The Emperor’s New Mind” pp 442-445 (1989)

“It seems to me that biological systems are able in some way to utilize the opposite time-sense in which radiation...

view entire post





Joe Fisher wrote on Mar. 4, 2017 @ 16:02 GMT
Dear Jack Sarfatti,

Please excuse me for I have no intention of disparaging in any way any part of your essay.

I merely wish to point out that “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.” Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955) Physicist & Nobel Laureate.

Only nature could produce a reality so simple, a single cell amoeba could deal with it.

The real Universe must consist only of one unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.

A more detailed explanation of natural reality can be found in my essay, SCORE ONE FOR SIMPLICITY. I do hope that you will read my essay and perhaps comment on its merit.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate

Author Jack Sarfatti replied on Mar. 4, 2017 @ 16:43 GMT
That Einstein quote is one of my favorites and I repeat it many times.

But what is your point and how does it pertain to what I'm trying to explain in my essay, which is the physical nature of our non-algorithmic retrocausal post-quantum consciousness as well as other forms of consciousness that would also include nano/machine consciousness indeed perhaps consciousness of the universe it self once we understand it's universal purely natural physical mechanics. Freeman Dyson in his wonderful essay "time without end" has posed this issue.



Author Jack Sarfatti replied on Mar. 4, 2017 @ 20:16 GMT
Please excuse some of the typos and missing words because I have been sending these messages on a very small keyboard into my laptop is fixed also I'm talking to Siri



Joe Fisher replied on Mar. 5, 2017 @ 18:10 GMT
Dear Jack,

If you would kindly read my essay, SCORE ONE FOR SIMPLICITY, you would find out that my point am that only Nature could provide simple visible reality. Reality has nothing to do with complex invisible “physical nature of our non-algorithmic retrocausal post-quantum consciousness as well as other forms of consciousness that would also include nano/machine consciousness indeed perhaps consciousness of the universe it self once we understand it's universal purely natural physical mechanics.”

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate


Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Mar. 6, 2017 @ 12:53 GMT
Nice essay Prof Sarfatti,

Your ideas and thinking are excellent. You gave nice historical background of Cosmology. The image given by you and bootstrap work is nice….

Your words… “Our common sense is a psychological illusion in which time only seems in our consciousness to flow from past to present to future. This irreversible "arrow of time" (aka Second Law of Thermodynamics)...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Author Jack Sarfatti wrote on Mar. 6, 2017 @ 16:36 GMT
If it ain't broke don't fix it it's not a good idea to try to reinvent the wheel

What I'm trying to say is that I will not waste any of my time on new theories when Einstein's theory works perfectly well if it is properly applied, the same for quantum theory

what I am doing is radically conservative in John Wheeler sense

I am building upon battle tested well-established theories



Author Jack Sarfatti replied on Mar. 6, 2017 @ 16:42 GMT
PS I am only interested in this particular form in discussing the details of Roderick Sutherland's important new extension of quantum theory

I will not spend any time on people's original ideas for fundamental new theories of physics




Thomas Howard Ray wrote on Mar. 6, 2017 @ 17:49 GMT
Just as sweet the second time around.

One nit to pick:

" ... we now know how to make observed quantum entanglement connecting widely separated particles consistent with Einstein's relativity."

Though I know this is the majority view, no one has ever observed quantum entanglement without first assuming that which was to be proved.

Relativity suffers no such disadvantage. Better to make quantum theory a subdiscipline of information theory.

A thought on the matter continuum: What if higher orders of consciousness are just higher orders of differentiation? Then Gell-Mann is right—the continuum of consciousness is bounded by an infinitesimal decay rate and an infinite growth rate. That is, from the least constituents of matter to the most rarefied forms of matter, the matter continuum (Einstein & Mach) is a consciousness continuum.

report post as inappropriate

Author Jack Sarfatti replied on Mar. 6, 2017 @ 19:31 GMT
"One nit to pick:

' ... we now know how to make observed quantum entanglement connecting widely separated particles consistent with Einstein's relativity.'

Though I know this is the majority view,"

In fact it's not. Majority view is that there is some kind of "faster than light" nonlocalty and that does contradict Einstein's CLASSICAL assumption that no action at a distance outside the light cone. The advantage of local retrocausality as recently convincingly argued by Huw Price, Rod Sutherland and others is that it explains the completely metric independent nature of quantum entanglement. That is, with the old idea of Costa de Beauregard's "zig-zag" (also found in Aharonov's and Cramer's models) the spacetime separations between the future strong measurements of the parts of the entangled whole are irrelevant - they can be timelike, light like or spacelike.

"no one has ever observed quantum entanglement without first assuming that which was to be proved."

Your remark is unintelligible to me.

"Relativity suffers no such disadvantage. Better to make quantum theory a subdiscipline of information theory."

Very vague, what's your point?



Thomas Howard Ray replied on Mar. 6, 2017 @ 19:43 GMT
"no one has ever observed quantum entanglement without first assuming that which was to be proved."

Your remark is unintelligible to me."

Quantum entanglement is an illusion, with no physical basis.

"Relativity suffers no such disadvantage. Better to make quantum theory a subdiscipline of information theory."

Very vague, what's your point?"

Relativity is mathematically complete; quantum theory is not.

report post as inappropriate

Author Jack Sarfatti replied on Mar. 6, 2017 @ 21:10 GMT
You do not understand what I am saying. Quantum theory is not complete as a physical theory in the same way that special relativity is not complete physically. General relativity is to special relativity as post-quantum mechanics is to quantum mechanics. Special relativity and quantum mechanics both fail to obey the action-reaction organizing meta-principle. There is no back reaction of matter on spacetime in special relativity. Similarly, there is no back reaction of matter and spacetime on their respective quantum information pilot waves in quantum theory in the Bohmian picture. The Copenhagen et-al pictures are seriously incomplete because they only have quantum information waves without any matter and any spacetime as classically independent "beables" in the sense of the Bohmian picture.

As far as formal completeness, Godel "proved" that any formal system of sufficient complexity is incomplete if it is to be consistent.




Author Jack Sarfatti wrote on Mar. 8, 2017 @ 03:05 GMT
Antony Valentini has argued that the Born-Feynman probability rule (i.e, to take the modulus square of complex number path amplitudes ~ exp[i(classical action)/hbar] and to add the amplitudes coherently before squaring when the outcomes cannot be distinguished, but to square first before adding when they can, is not a fundamental law of nature, but is an accident corresponding to what he calls...

view entire post




Author Jack Sarfatti replied on Mar. 8, 2017 @ 03:09 GMT
That w equation did not come through OK I need to change the < to (

w = (destiny|x)J(x|history)/(destiny|history)

integrating over all (destiny| as a complete set with the Born weights |(destiny|history)|^2 gives

= (history|x)J(x|history)




Author Jack Sarfatti wrote on Mar. 8, 2017 @ 21:34 GMT
Comments on David Kaiser's How the Hippies Saved Physics relevant to the essay,

“Little could Herbert, Sarfatti, and the others know that their dogged pursuit of faster-than-light communication—and the subtle reasons for its failure—would help launch a billion-dollar industry. … To Stapp, Bell’s theorem and the landmark experiment by group member John Clauser led to the...

view entire post





Héctor Daniel Gianni wrote on Mar. 11, 2017 @ 23:51 GMT
Dear Jack Sarfatti

I invite you and every physicist to read my work “TIME ORIGIN,DEFINITION AND EMPIRICAL MEANING FOR PHYSICISTS, Héctor Daniel Gianni ,I’m not a physicist.

How people interested in “Time” could feel about related things to the subject.

1) Intellectuals interested in Time issues usually have a nice and creative wander for the unknown.

2) They usually enjoy this wander of their searches around it.

3) For millenniums this wander has been shared by a lot of creative people around the world.

4) What if suddenly, something considered quasi impossible to be found or discovered such as “Time” definition and experimental meaning confronts them?

5) Their reaction would be like, something unbelievable,… a kind of disappointment, probably interpreted as a loss of wander…..

6) ….worst than that, if we say that what was found or discovered wasn’t a viable theory, but a proved fact.

7) Then it would become offensive to be part of the millenary problem solution, instead of being a reason for happiness and satisfaction.

8) The reader approach to the news would be paradoxically adverse.

9) Instead, I think it should be a nice welcome to discovery, to be received with opened arms and considered to be read with full attention.

11)Time “existence” is exclusive as a “measuring system”, its physical existence can’t be proved by science, as the “time system” is. Experimentally “time” is “movement”, we can prove that, showing that with clocks we measure “constant and uniform” movement and not “the so called Time”.

12)The original “time manuscript” has 23 pages, my manuscript in this contest has only 9 pages.

I share this brief with people interested in “time” and with physicists who have been in sore need of this issue for the last 50 or 60 years.

Héctor

report post as inappropriate

Author Jack Sarfatti replied on Mar. 13, 2017 @ 04:38 GMT
Your comments on time are off-topic to my essay. Again, I am only interested in comments and queries related to the content of my essay in which I claim to have solved the "hard problem" (David Chalmers). Please, those of you with other theories, this is not the proper forum.




Saibal Mitra wrote on Mar. 12, 2017 @ 22:59 GMT
Suppose that we build a large classical computer that simulates a brain and we use that to control a robot. This robot would claim to be a conscious person just like you and me, but I guess you would then argue that this cannot be true?

report post as inappropriate

Author Jack Sarfatti replied on Mar. 13, 2017 @ 04:35 GMT
Yea, it cannot be true if PQM is true. Classical computers do not have giant quantum coherent pilot waves that receive impressions directly from their classical electomagetic fields and charges. Qualia are those impressions. Therefore, no classical computer can be conscious as a matter of fundamental law IF PQM is a good map of that territory that we call physical reality.




Author Jack Sarfatti wrote on Mar. 13, 2017 @ 04:54 GMT
"Anonymous" does not understand special relativity when IT writes

"Special relativity is internally consistent, however. Try tinkering with one of these postulates:

-- the laws of nature are uniform in all inertial frames.

-- the speed of light is constant in vacuo."

The correct statement is that the speed of light in classical vacuum is the same invariant number for all inertial observers in uniform (non-accelerated) proper motion relative to each other. To which we should add "in the absence of spacetime curvature" although even in that case special relativity holds locally to good approximation when the weightless inertial observes (zero local proper accelerations) are separated from each other by distances small compared to the local radii of 4D spacetime curvature.




Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Mar. 21, 2017 @ 05:47 GMT
Hello Jack,

This essay gave me a lot of food for thought. I was not familiar with Sutherland's work prior to encountering this, but I did download some of your references and additional materials cited in comments here on the forum. Frankly; I was a little disappointed about the essay itself, after reading some of your lucid comments here, because I thought your angle well fit the topic but was not so well articulated that you deserved full credit for clarity.

I see it it as highly likely that you are correct about how including retrocausal terms solves a lot of standing problems. H.D. Zeh was quite emphatic, both in his Direction of Time book and in correspondence, that it is crucial to include both the retarded and advanced solutions, if we want to see how the local is mapped to the global picture. And I also think such things enter our perceptual schema.

I have given a fair amount of thought to the idea that our brains our constructed hemispherically (or with lateral specialization), but have mostly identical structure on either side, because they are operating on information in reverse directions of time or process. Where one hemisphere takes reality apart the other searches for unifying context, but this is the same process in two directions. Likewise with mathematical differentiation and integration - they are the same operation in opposite directions.

This paper has details.

Does Lateral Specialization in the Brain Arise from the Directionality of Processes and Time?

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Author Jack Sarfatti replied on Mar. 23, 2017 @ 01:37 GMT
I don't think your idea is plausible, but I could be wrong.



Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Mar. 23, 2017 @ 21:08 GMT
Thanks for the feedback Jack..

I'll keep reading your sources, and offer a query if something curious pops out.

Regards,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate


John C Hodge wrote on Mar. 23, 2017 @ 01:24 GMT
Jack Sarfatti:

I've seen your page, back-action, and retrocausality pages on Wikipedia. I'm seeking references on retrocausality that may assist me in my research on the STOE model. The prime focus is "can the math or the approach of retrocausality be combined or interpreted as the van Flanders faster-than-light gravity waves?". The STOE model also suggests the gravity wave emits from...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Jack Sarfatti replied on Mar. 23, 2017 @ 01:35 GMT
Why not read the essay? The references are there. STOE is silly a waste of time. We don't need any bouncing drops also. Sutherland's theory does what's needed.



John C Hodge replied on Mar. 23, 2017 @ 03:34 GMT
I did read the essay. It doesn't work. Experiments reject your

model. But thanks for telling me you cannot help. NowI can ignore you.

Hodge

report post as inappropriate

Author Jack Sarfatti replied on Mar. 23, 2017 @ 03:36 GMT
What experiments?




Author Jack Sarfatti wrote on Mar. 23, 2017 @ 03:38 GMT
Annie Jacobson's new book Phenomenon (advance copy sent to me by the author)

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...

view entire post




Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Mar. 24, 2017 @ 17:43 GMT
Interesting note..

Thanks for sharing Jack. I agree with your assessment and I hope others including Annie J will come around. I think some of the statements made were a smoke screen to blur how effective the precogs really were. I know some of the people once involved, and the results of experiments were far more encouraging than the public was led to believe. Mechanism or no; you can't simply deny it when something works, and say because you can't explain it that there is no explanation.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate


Author Jack Sarfatti wrote on Mar. 23, 2017 @ 21:46 GMT
PCTC is a variation on Yakir Aharonov's "weak measurement" connected with Rod Sutherland's locally retrocausal post-Bohmian Lagrangian.

"Closed timelike curves (CTCs) are trajectories in spacetime that effectively travel backwards in

time: a test particle following a CTC can in principle interact with its former self in the past.

CTCs appear in many solutions of Einstein’s...

view entire post





Author Jack Sarfatti wrote on Mar. 24, 2017 @ 05:16 GMT
On Mar 23, 2017, at 5:01 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

The point is that it must be physically possible (on the assumption that the PQM guide wave is the seat of human sentience)

for information to get from the constituent particles to the PQM guide wave in order for there to be awareness of the configurations

of matter.

No back action, no sensory awareness of the material world.

EXACTLY!

PS some details is the distinction between advanced destiny wave for intuition, creativity

& retarded history waves for memories in the weak measurement picture in which retrocausality signaling is essential.




Author Jack Sarfatti wrote on Mar. 24, 2017 @ 15:52 GMT
On Mar 24, 2017, at 3:57 AM, Alex Hankey wrote:

Jack, No mechanism of reduction of wave packets has any hope

per se of yielding an understanding of the taste of blue cheese,

or the quality of perception of the colours saffron, emerald or indigo.

I disagree. Any physics of consciousness including Stapp's, Penrose, mine that explains qualia explains all those...

view entire post





james r. akerlund wrote on Mar. 28, 2017 @ 04:40 GMT
Hi Jack,

It is good to see another person who pursues retrocausality in physics. I want to thank you for pointing out to me the papers of Rod Sutherland. I will read them when I have time. Thanks also for the lecture on Vimeo. Your paper has all sorts on info that I am interested in. Thanks.

Good luck in the contest.

Jim Akerlund

report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.