retrocausation implies decline dick j bierman university of amsterdam presented at ‘the decline...

Retrocausation implies Decline

Dick J BiermanUniversity of Amsterdam

Presented at ‘the decline effect’, Oct. 19-21, Santa Barbara

The Argument• 1. Examples of across experiment declines in

anomaly research– No regression to the mean– Increasing quality?

• 2. Models:– Sensory metaphor is inadequate– All Anomalous effects are ‘retrocausal’

• 2. Paradoxes are 'forbidden' in Nature• Cumulative Effect size is limited to prevent

paradoxes• 3. MainStream decline = a.o. experimenter psi

effect?

No initial false positive followed by a random distribution of results around true effect size after initial measurement

Dice Experiments

Gradual decline to effect size of 0.Quality improvement?

0

Quality analyses (not actual data)

Quality

1/ pNSNS

Short reports: soInadequate quality assesment

True quality

More significant studies have better quality

So quality explanation cannot be ruled out but ...

However rebound?Ganzfeld

Quality increases Quality decreases????

Not only 'precognition' but all anomalous phenomena can and

must be modeled as ‘retrocausal’• Traditional Perceptional/informational

models – Extra SENSORY perception• 3rd EYE, 6th SENSE

Subject is supposed to 'scan' all environment (all space and time) to select relevant information, in this case the target. Requires near infinite amount of processing capacity.

Limit 'information' to future feedback

• Note that in Ganzfeld (apparent real time) telepathy research feedback is given.

• Anomalous correlations only with own FUTURE brain state

– Feedback is required

• Effect decreases with distance in time– Delayed feedback gives smaller effect size

Physics

• Contrary to Newtonian belief physics is quite liberal in accepting 'retrocausality'

– The advanced solution of EM theory (time-symmetry)

• Any retrocausal theory has to deal with paradoxes.

Very recent

Can a Future Choice Affect a Past Measurement's Outcome?

– Yakir Aharonov, Eliahu Cohen, Doron Grossman, Avshalom C. Elitzur

» (last revised 18 Sep 2012 (this version, v5))– An EPR experiment is studied where each particle undergoes

a few weak measurements of different spin-orientations, whose outcomes are individually recorded…… yet iv) The weak measurements' outcome agrees with those of the strong ones. The only reasonable resolution seems to be …namely that the weak measurement's outcomes anticipate the experimenter's future choice, even before the experimenter themselves knows what their choice is going to be. Causal loops are avoided by this anticipation remaining encrypted until the final outcomes enable to decipher it.

What about paradoxes

● Prediction of candle induced fire and responding with removal of candles is formally equivalent with grandfather paradox

• Novikov consistency principle:– Time-travel is posssible but not in a way that

potentially paradoxes might be created.

• Schmidt: Can effects precede their cause?– Foundations of Physics, 1978

• Yes but Fooling Nature i.e. Paradox creation) results in decrease of effect. DECLINE!!!!!

• Nick Herbert anecdote.

DECLINE

• If signal/noise ratio is improved then perfect predictions become more probable and hence paradox creation might be possible.

– Replication increases signal/noise ratio– Increasing sample size idem

Main stream declineExperimenter psi?

• Assume that any effect has two contributions:–Normal causal relation +– Anomalous experimenter (FB driven) psi

effect

• Then:– The experimenter-psi contribution will

decline.

• Experimenter psi is strongest in field of psi research due to self selection.

How to proceed in psi research

• Parallel replications– No sequential replication of parallel reps

Thank you for your attention

Very recent

Can a Future Choice Affect a Past Measurement's Outcome?

– Yakir Aharonov, Eliahu Cohen, Doron Grossman, Avshalom C. Elitzur

» (last revised 18 Sep 2012 (this version, v5))– An EPR experiment is studied where each particle undergoes

a few weak measurements of different spin-orientations, whose outcomes are individually recorded…… yet iv) The weak measurements' outcome agrees with those of the strong ones. The only reasonable resolution seems to be …namely that the weak measurement's outcomes anticipate the experimenter's future choice, even before the experimenter themselves knows what their choice is going to be. Causal loops are avoided by this anticipation remaining encrypted until the final outcomes enable to decipher it.