Friday, March 27, 2015

http://stardrive.org/stardrive/index.php/news2/science/15210-important-paper-on-back-from-the-future-physics

Sunday, February 22, 2015

It’s a consistent narrative and Saul-Paul’s synopsis below makes it quite accessible to the intelligent layman.

I am not sure Einstein would like it because God does not play dice, but the price is teleological final cause retrocausality.

On Feb 22, 2015, at 5:40 PM, Ruth Kastner <rekastner@hotmail.com> wrote:


This is exactly Huw Price's approach -- basically time-symmetric hidden variables. And I think Ken Wharton has a version of it as well.

Yes, I.J. Good, Fred Hoyle, Sciama, Aharonov & others all had this same insight.

It makes much of the quantum formalism superfluous in the sense that the latter would describe only our ignorance of what is already the case in the block world. There is no room for the physical bootstrapping of events (i.e., becoming) from a quantum foundation.  It presupposes that spacetime is the whole story about what is real. It also does not give a nice physical basis for the Born Rule as does TI. That's why I'm not enthused about this kind of approach: by presuming that only spacetime events are real, it misses the new insights into reality that are offered by quantum theory, namely that quantum entities are physical possibilities that are precursors to spacetime events.

Best
Ruth


Subject: Re: I.J. Good & Sciama argue for back-from-the-future interpretation of quantum theory i.e. God does not play dice with the universe.
From: jacksarfatti@gmail.com
Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2015 16:36:00 -0800

To: creon.levit@nasa.gov

Yes I will cite much of it in my April 21 Savile Club talk in London.

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 22, 2015, at 11:23 AM, Levit, Creon (ARC-D) <creon.levit@nasa.gov> wrote:
Thanks, Saul-Paul.  That is some damn fine scholarship.


On Feb 22, 2015, at 10:40 AM, JACK SARFATTI <jacobsarfatti@yahoo.com> wrote:

For the historical record, Fred Alan Wolf and I were already thinking about this at San Diego State in the late 60s and early 70s.
I think Fred already knew about the 1964 Aharonov paper that led to weak measurements. Fred Hoyle was also talking about this, but of course, he worked with Sciama. Fred Hoyle was a frequent visitor to UCSD where I was a graduate student and listened to him. I forget now exactly when I read I.J. Good’s article on this, but Saul-Paul’s opera at Berkeley cites me on this as I recall while I was still at Abdus Salam’s ICTP in Trieste Italy - 1973-74.


From:  Saul-Paul and Mary-Minn Sirag <sirag@mindspring.com>

Subject:  Re: Preface to Second Edition Destiny Matrix 2010 (Dr. Quantum) Date:  July 24, 2010 9:47:18 AM PDT
To:  nick herbert <quanta@cruzio.com>


Nick & Jack,

Nick is referring to I.J. Good's short article "Two-way Determinism" on pp. 314-315 of "The Scientist Speculates" (Basic Books, 1962). Here it is:
------------
'Backward time isn't such a new thing, backward time will start long ago.' --Doog (after a popular song).

G.N. Lewis* outlined a theory of light in which the present is determined as much by the future as the past. Popper,** contradicting a familiar interpretation of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, claimed that the position and momentum of a particle can both be determined with arbitrarily high accuracy at a single moment of time, provided one has accurately observed both its earlier position and its later momentum at two specified moments. It is natural then to raise the following question.

Given a connected bounded piece of space-time, are all the elementary subatomic events within it that are classically describable (i.e. without explicit reference to quantum mechanics) fully determined by all the classically describable events outside of it? Or, if not, is there any neat way of describing how much indeterminacy is left? Can these questions be answered in terms of existing quantum mechanics, and do they raise interesting new mathematical problems?

If the answer to the first question is yes, then we could say that we have two-way determinism, since the present would be mathematically determined jointlyby the past and future, however remote. Note however that two-way determinism is a special case of what is usually called 'indeterminism', since the past alonewould not determine the present. This merely shows that language does not alway behave very well.

If two-way determinism is true it raises another, more philosophical, question, namely whether we should then say that future events are contributory causes of present ones.***


* Lewis, G.N.: Nature, volume 117, pages 236-8, 1926.
** Popper, K.R.: The Logic of Scientific Discovery: page 231, 1959. See also Sir Arthur Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World, London, 1928, chapter 14.
*** Compare pbis Nos. 104 (Computers, Causality, and the Direction of Time), 45 (Speculations Concerning Precognition), and 59 (Precognition and Reversed Causality).
-------------------------------------[end of quote from I.J. Good]

BTW: I gave a copy of this book to Andrija Puharich in the spring of 1973, when I was working on a story about Uri Geller for Esquire magazine (which was never published). In that story I also mentioned the idea that we are being influenced by us in the future. (Also both Uri and Andrija had discussed this idea).

As I have mentioned before Dennis Sciama discussed "two-way determinism" in the book "Determinism and Freedom" (edited by Sidney Hook, New York University, 1958; Collier Books edition, 1961). This is also short so I (again) will type it.
--------------------
Determinsm and the Cosmos
Dennis W. Sciama, Trinity College, Cambridge

As a physicist I have found the following working hypothesis very useful: violent controversy about a scientific problem is a sign that some simple essential consideration is missing. The polemic, as it were, tries to substitute for the missing point, but of course it never can. I think for instance that this has been so indiscussions of Mach's principle of the origin of inertia, and also of the problem of deducing irreversible macroscopic behavior from reversible microscopic laws.
Bridgman has reminded us that the physicists are conducting violent controversy about the meaning of quantum mechanics. This situation is in striking contrast to that prevailing in classical mechanics; for although classical mechanics is known to be false, there is no dispute as to its meaning. It is only in quantum mechanics (which is known to be true!) that there is such a dispute.
Application of the working hypothesis suggests that some simple point has still to be made. My aim in these remarks is to propose one possibility for this simple point, a proposal based mainly on the work of Dr. K. V. Roberts.

The basic way in which quantum mechanics differs from classical mechanics is the following: our inferences about the future must be expressed in terms of probabilities. This introduction of probability would enable us to make the calculation.

With this state of affairs in mind, let us make a new assumption. Let us suppose that in nature systems are deterministic in the sense that we can calculate thestate of a system at time t if we know enough boundary conditions referring to times other than t; but let us differ from classical mechanics by supposing that nature is so constructed that roughly speaking, half the boundary conditions must refer to the past and half to the future of the moment t. In other words, we assume that nature is such that "mixed" boundary conditions are always needed.

Presumably a system with such properties would be called deterministic. This is a matter of definition, of course; what is really important is that the behavior of the system is as well defined and intelligible as that of a system obeying classical mechanics. But now we must ask: How would a "mixed" system appear to an observer who himself is part of the system?

Now, such an observer, for reasons that cannot be elaborated here but that have to do with the second law of thermodynamics, is acquainted only with the past. Hence if he attempts to calculate the state of a system at a time t in his future, he will find that he cannot do so, for he does not know all the boundaryconditions. His knowledge of the past boundary will delimit the possibilities considerably, but it is clear that to the observer the system will appear to containindeterminate elements.

What sort of a theory will such an observer devise? In effect he will be forced to average over all those future boundary conditions that are compatible with his present knowledge. (Of course, at first he will not realize that this is what he is doing.) That is to say, he will be forced to introduce a probability calculus toaccount for his observations. The suggestion is that this probability calculus is just quantum mechanics.

In this way the correctness of quantum mechanics can be reconciled with a deterministic universe. In the language of von Neumann, there are hiddenvariables; they escape his ban because they refer to the future.

We are now in a position to answer the question: Is quantum mechanical probability subjective or objective? We have seen that the probability arises from the observer's ignorance of some of the determining conditions. The probability is therefore subjective.

So far the discussion has been academic in the sense that no new physical results have emerged. However there is an interesting possibility in this direction. For on the view presented here quantum mechanics is no longer a primitive theory; it is a formalism that is derived from a more basic theory. Now, Planck's constant h, is a measure of the "amount" of deviation from classical mechanics. In quantum mechanics as it stands today the numerical value of this constant is completely arbitrary. However, if quantum mechanics is deducible from a more basic theory, then presumably h, which is here a measure of our ignorance of the future, willbe expressed in terms of quantities fundamental to the basic theory. Such a relation could be tested experimentally, and so the theory could be checked.

---------------------------[end of quote from Dennis Sciama] All for now;-)
Saul-Paul
-------------------------

On Jul 23, 2010, at 10:24 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:


Nick
….

Good contacted me by letter on the ultraintelligent GOD(D) that I now place on the future de Sitter event horizon


Research and publications (Wiki) 
Good's published work ran to over three million words.[ 3] He was known for his work on Bayesian statistics. He published a number of books on probability theory. In 1958 he published an early version of what later became known as the Fast Fourier Transform[ 5] but in a journal so obscure that it never became widely known. He played chess to county standard and helped popularize Go, an Asian boardgame, through a 1965 article in New Scientist (he had learned the rules from Alan Turing).[ 6] In 1965 he originated the concept now known as "technological singularity," which anticipates the eventual advent of superhuman intelligence:
Let an ultraintelligent machine be defined as a machine that can far surpass all the intellectual activities of any man however clever. Since the design of machines is one of these intellectual activities, an ultraintelligent machine could design even better machines; there would then unquestionably be an 'intelligence explosion,' and the intelligence of man would be left far behind. Thus the first ultraintelligent machine is the last invention that man need ever make. [ 7]
Good's authorship of treatises such as "Speculations Concerning the First Ultraintelligent Machine" and "Logic of Man and Machine" (both 1965) made him the obvious person forStanley Kubrick to consult when filming 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968), one of whose principal characters was the paranoid HAL 9000supercomputer.[ 3] In 1995 Good was elected a member of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.[ 2]

On Jul 23, 2010, at 11:03 AM, nick herbert wrote:

The notion that knowledge of a future boundary condition could eliminate quantum uncertainty was first put forth
by I.J. Good (1916-2009) in "The Scientist Speculates-- an Anthology of Partially-Baked Ideas" published in 1964. As far as I am aware Good has priority in this speculation. ….

On Jul 23, 2010, at 3:19 AM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

Actually Henry Dwight Sedgwick has priority. ;-)


“The future, and the future alone, is the home of explanation.”
 Henry Dwight Sedgwick, “An Apology for Old Maids” (1908)


You are now about to enter into a real Twilight Zone X-Files in which we are 3D hologram images projected from the future Mind of God located on our 2D future event horizon associated with the dark energy accelerating the expansion of our observable universe. The UFO data suggest that we can make Star Trek real. Our Mission Impossible Quixotic objective is to create low power dark energy warp
drive and stargate time travel to the past and to parallel universes next door on neighboring branes. The tales that follow are the facts as truthfully as I, and the others, can recall. Believe it or not depending on your comfort zone dealing with the uncanny.


The basic idea of the Destiny Matrix, that our future influences our present that I have been professing since the 1970ʼs is now becoming mainstream. Forexample, the FQ Foundation website[1] published:


The Destiny of the Universe

“A radical reformulation of quantum mechanics suggests that the universe has a set destiny and its pre-existing fate reaches back in time to influence the past. Itcould explain the origin of life, dark energy and solve other cosmic conundrums. 
The universe has a destiny—and this set fate could be reaching backwards in time and combining with influences from the past to shape the present. Itʼs a mind-bending claim, but some cosmologists now believe that a radical reformulation of quantum mechanics in which the future can affect the past could solve someof the universeʼs biggest mysteries, including how life arose. Whatʼs more, the researchers claim that recent lab experiments are dramatically confirming theconcepts underpinning this reformulation. 

ʻItʼs a very, very profound idea,ʼ says (Paul )Davies. (Yakir) Aharonovʼs take on quantum mechanics can explain all the usual results that the conventionalinterpretations can, but with the added bonus that it also explains away natureʼs apparent indeterminism. Whatʼs more, a theory in which the future caninfluence the past may have huge— and much needed—repercussions for our understanding of the universe, says Davies.

Cosmologists studying the conditions of the early universe have been puzzling about why the cosmos seems so ideally suited for life. There are other mysteriestoo: Why is the expansion of the universe speeding up? What is the origin of the magnetic fields seen in galaxies? And why do some cosmic rays appear to haveimpossibly high energies? These questions cannot be answered just by looking at the past conditions of the universe. But perhaps, Davies ponders, if the cosmoshas set final conditions in place—a destiny—then this, combined with the influence of the initial conditions set out at the beginning of the universe, mighttogether perfectly explain these cosmic conundrums.” by Julie Rehmeyer on July 2, 2010

Herbert Gold wrote in “Bohemia” (Simon & Schuster, 1993)


“The Bohemian physicist…contributes a balanced scientific non establishment for this expanding society. I donʼt mean to disparage the work; either…amongall the blatherers there sometimes appears a breakthrough thinker. Originality has always required a fertile expanse of fumble and mistake. Thatʼs the beautyof the option. Your wastrel life might turn out to be just whatʼs required to save the planet. 


Sarfattiʼs Cave is the name Iʼll give to the Caffe Trieste in San Francisco, where Jack Sarfatti, Ph.D. in physics, writes his poetry, evokes his mystical, miracle-working ancestors, and has conducted a several-decade-long seminar on the nature of reality 

One of his soaring theories is that things, which have not happened, yet can cause events in the present… Obviously this has consequences for prediction, thenature of causality, our conceptions of logic  He has published papers in respectable physics journals. His poetry is widely photocopied. His correspondencewith the great in several fields is voluminous, recorded on computer disks. Cornell University BA, University of California
Ph.D., his credentials are impeccable.


Following is a quotation from a lecture given to a San Francisco State University physics seminar on 30 April 1991:”



Causality-Violating  Quantum  Action-at-a-Distance?


The universe is created by intelligent design but the Designer lives in our far future[2] and has evolved from us [3]…Perhaps all of the works of cultural genius,from the music of Mozart to the physics of Einstein, have their real origin in the future. The genius may be a real psychic channeler whose mind is open totelepathic messages from the future.[4] The genius must be well trained in his or her craft and intellectually disciplined with the integrity of the warrior in orderto properly decode the quantum signals from the future. The purpose of our existence would then be to ensure, not only the creation of life on earth, but alsothe creation of the big bang itself! We obviously cannot fail since the universe cannot have come into existence without us in this extreme example of Borgesianquantum solipsism. Existentialism is wrong because it is an incorrect extrapolation of the old physics. Bretonʼs surrealism, with its Jungian idea of meaningfulcoincidence, is closer to the truth. This would then be “The Final Secret of the Illuminati”[5] - that charismatic chain of adepts[6] in quixotic quest of their“Impossible Dream” of the Grail. Enough of my subjective vision, now on to the objective physics. pp. 14-16



“So now I am in the first hour of one of my deaths. The thought made me dizzy. I was reminded of Jack Sarfatti, Ph.D. physicist and reincarnation of theeleventh-century mystic Rabbi Sarfatti…with rapt descriptions of how events from the future cause events in the past.” p. 115




[2] Princetonʼs Richard Gott has a new book “Time Travel” (2001) with essentially this idea years after I suggested it starting around 1973 based on my contactin 1953.

[3] The influence of Harvardʻs Henry Dwight Sedgwick on my thought here is obvious.

[4] This precognitive remote viewing funded by the CIA and the DIA, as told in James Schnabelʼs “Remote Viewers: The Secret History of Americaʼs Psychic Spies”, is a violation of quantum physics but not post-quantum physics. The mathematics of this is in papers by Antony Valentini.

[5] Book by Robert Anton Wilson

[6] Heinz Pagels in “The Cosmic Code” also talks about this as well as his own dream of his death that came true. Usama bin Laden talking of his 911 Attack onAmerica, mentions such precognitive dreams in the horridly evil videotape released by the Pentagon.