Physics Without Causality

[CFTraveler]

by Richard Shoup

http://www.boundaryinstitute.org/bi/art ... sality.pdf (http://www.boundaryinstitute.org/bi/articles/Physics_without_Causality.pdf)

My kind of article.

[ButterflyWoman]

I have previously explored the idea of retrocausality. I first heard about it from my husband (Mr Science Guy) and was fascinated, but didn't understand much of it. Then I had a very striking dream about it (though in the dream, nobody used the word "retrocausality" ;)), and the concept has been coming up ever since. This thread is just another nudge to remind me, I suppose.

(If anyone's interesting, the journal entry I wrote about the dream of retrocausality is here: http://spiritualadventures.blogspot.com ... ality.html (http://spiritualadventures.blogspot.com/2010/10/retrocausality.html) and I don't normally post links to my blog posts, but it seems in context ;))

[eyeoneblack]

It is always surprising to discover contemporary authors citing books and authors I have read and enjoyed and cited myself among my many musings in these forums and others. Shoup, in his citations at the end of the article list
18. H. Price, Time’s Arrow and Archimedes Point, Oxford University Press, 1996.
which I mentioned in the "Books, Movies ..." forum writing about the movie Inception.

I read it years ago and just reread it recently. Shoup adds a good deal to the discussion. I didn't gather Price was anything mystic like, but he gives a good argument for time symmetry of physical/quantum laws. It's a great read but probably TMI or TMD for most readers. I found it on the half-off table at the bookstore - a new release that hadn't sold
well. But that's the way I buy books, on a hunch.


Characteristics of the Phenomena
From the significant body of experimental evidence, a few important properties of these anomalous psi phenomena have emerged. We list a few of them here for interest, for reference later, but without thorough discussion.
1. Time/order independence (clairvoyance vs. precognition) - Evidence suggests that a target can be chosen before or after the subject’s response with equal success.
2. Complexity independence (goal orientation) - Evidence suggests that the complexity of the task doesn’t matter, only the desired outcome.
3. Selectivity - Evidence suggests that a subject can “tune in” to a particular target.
4. Experimenter effect (belief, audience) - Evidence suggests that some experimenters routinely obtain significant psi effects, while others do not, even with the same experimental protocol.
5. Small effect, unavailable to evolution - Evidence suggests that while the survival value of even a little psi ability would be quite high, evolution has not selected for it and produced much more in living systems.


Hmmm. "evolution has not selected for (psi ability)". I find that statement really problematic. Animals, it seems to me, are literally swimming in a psychic sea. Their survival depends on abilities we can’t hardly understand. Dogs and cats, ferried hundreds of miles cross country, find their way home. Wildlife anticipates an earthquake. Shoup himself argues humans anticipated the events of 9/11.

[eyeoneblack]

I would add this as an edit, but my OS makes RT typing nearly impossible beyond a certain number of lines.

The statement that evolution has not selected for psi abilities is technically an invalid statement. Natural Selection selects for survival advantages. That is a valid statement. If psi abilities in animals and humans are a survival advantage then we must conclude evolution has selected for it, otherwise we must challenge the validity of the natural selection model.

The callenge, of course, is proving psi phenoema, which is just what Shoup's article is all about - gathering evidence. :wink: