Parapsychology and the Nature of Time

It partly follows on from the kind of thing discussed in this thread:
http://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-wa...tion-study

For example, some experimental observations can be interpreted either in terms of precognition of a randomly selected target, or in terms of psychokinetic influence on the process of selecting the target. My thought was just that perhaps neither of these is the right way to think about it. Could we instead think about it in terms of two random (or quasi-random) sequences of numbers - the guesses and the targets - and some process which is nudging those sequences towards coincidence?

An interesting hypothesis. For me, there seems to be a major problem with it, at least as an explanation of PK in general. This is the existence of many verified instances of macroscopic PK, where relatively large objects have definitely moved apparently under mental influence. Poltergeist phenomena are an example. Another that comes to mind is the many cases of physical mediumship investigated by reputable scientists, those that were definitely not fraud since many measures and controls were put in place against this. It would seem that such "contrived synchronicity" as you imagine would be stretched quite a bit to account for definite macroscopic non-quantum mechanical level movements of objects that very much seem to boil down to human intentionality followed by cause and effect. Of course, maybe there are really two entirely different phenomena operating here.

An interesting hypothesis. For me, there seems to be a major problem with it, at least as an explanation of PK in general. This is the existence of many verified instances of macroscopic PK, where relatively large objects have definitely moved apparently under mental influence. Poltergeist phenomena are an example. Another that comes to mind is the many cases of physical mediumship investigated by reputable scientists, those that were definitely not fraud since many measures and controls were put in place against this. It would seem that such "contrived synchronicity" as you imagine would be stretched quite a bit to account for definite macroscopic non-quantum mechanical level movements of objects that very much seem to boil down to human intentionality followed by cause and effect. Of course, maybe there are really two entirely different phenomena operating here.

Yes, I agree it's difficult to apply that idea to macro-PK, or indeed some of the more striking instances of spontaneous ESP. That was why I added the rider about "as manifested in the lab".

An interesting hypothesis. For me, there seems to be a major problem with it, at least as an explanation of PK in general. This is the existence of many verified instances of macroscopic PK, where relatively large objects have definitely moved apparently under mental influence. Poltergeist phenomena are an example.

Unfortunately, this can be the problem of lending credence to every story you hear.

Another that comes to mind is the many cases of physical mediumship investigated by reputable scientists, those that were definitely not fraud since many measures and controls were put in place against this.

Well that sounds more promising. What did you have in mind here?

Ah let's not get into a discussion about the validity of PK results in this thread. Thanks!

Personally I think Future -> Present precognition is the least likely Psi ability to exist, largely for reasons Braude has laid out:

How can bits of information be coming back without a causal arrow going from "Future" toward "Past"? Not just a causal arrow of limited scope, because that means explaining why only bits of information are sent back rather than a total causal flow that "crashes" into our
Past -> Present -> Future arrow.

I do realize there's the idea of Syntropy and how this relates to two opposing Arrows of Time, but while it sounds cool I cannot really see how this works anymore than I've been able to understand the "Time Does Not Exist" crowd. 

That said I also don't agree with Braude that what see as Precognition is really Macro-PK on a epic level scale - that also leaves too many questions unanswered about the godlike power of minds acting only in very limited fashion.

I cannot really see how this works anymore than I've been able to understand the "Time Does Not Exist" crowd.

Does a hole exist?  Well yes, if you include the surrounding material but in itself it isn't a thing.  Take away the surrounding material and there is no hole.  Similarly, take away all events and there is no time.  This is the same as what we mean by time doesn't exist.  The problem I had though was when I explored relativity to extremes, I discovered that events don't exist either in themselves but only relative to other events.  Creepy stuff.  We seem to live in an impossible universe.

Personally I think Future -> Present precognition is the least likely Psi ability to exist, largely for reasons Braude has laid out:

How can bits of information be coming back without a causal arrow going from "Future" toward "Past"? Not just a causal arrow of limited scope, because that means explaining why only bits of information are sent back rather than a total causal flow that "crashes" into our
Past -> Present -> Future arrow.

I'm not sure whether that's really a difficulty. If you saw it as complete freedom of future events to determine past events, then that would certainly contradict complete freedom of past events to determine future events. But couldn't there be a kind of interplay between the two?

I wonder if fluid dynamics could be a useful analogy. If you look at water flowing down a channel, then mostly upstream conditions are influencing downstream conditions. But an obstacle in the channel will have a certain influence on the flow upstream of it too. The combination of upstream and downstream influences can produce a stable and consistent pattern of flow. Couldn't a degree of influence of the future on the past be reconciled with the prevalent influence of the past on the future in a similar way?

And if the influence of the future only manifests itself statistically - say by biasing coin tosses by a few percent - then I think there's even less difficulty.

Does Linear Time (tm) realy exist at the fundamental level?

Yes. It exists as a function of how we project physical reality through our consciousness. 

How does precognition work?

Accessing information from parallel realities that are extremely close to the one you are creating.

Is time travel possible?

Time exists only as an illusion so, operationally, with their only being one moment - Now - you cannot travel to or through non-existence. From a space-time linearity POV, yes, you can (and automatically do) access parallel realities across many time lines (Deja Vu e.g.)

Are there time travelers among us?

No and yes, see above.

What is up with the Mandela Effect?

The idea that something has happened to our “timeline” sometime in the past that is now changing small things in our present reality/timeline? Or the idea that you create the past from the present (since time/memories does not exist, it is the only way to do so). You can create this physical reality if it suits and, apparently, it suits many to do so.

[/quote]



Others may choose to not have the Mandela Effect experience. 

This and That. Not This or That.

Does a hole exist?  Well yes, if you include the surrounding material but in itself it isn't a thing.  Take away the surrounding material and there is no hole.  Similarly, take away all events and there is no time.  This is the same as what we mean by time doesn't exist.  The problem I had though was when I explored relativity to extremes, I discovered that events don't exist either in themselves but only relative to other events.  Creepy stuff.  We seem to live in an impossible universe.

If you choose to see the universe (creation) as impossible, it is your choice to do so. Others, including myself, have found that there are only a few laws that universally are true, a simple concept or two on how to best exist in physical reality (as it related to learning and major theme exploration) and the ease that comes with trusting ourselves - and in doing so - trusting the way that our lives unfold.

If you choose to see the universe (creation) as impossible, it is your choice to do so.

No it is not my choice - I just happen to have explored the subject realistically.  Please keep your pretentious junk to yourself!