Re: [Starfleet Command] Re FQ Foundation Destiny of Universe article, I.J. Good, Sciama, Wheeler-Feynman, Hoyle-Narlikar (Dr. Quantum)
- The long Sciama quote at the end of Saul-Paul's post suggests extensions to what may be the only profound and decent idea I've ever had in fundamental physics: The equivalence, (or complimentarily) of quantum effects in different interpretations of QM.In the DeBroglie-Bohm interpretation, it is the quantum potential that's responsible for all departures from classical mechanics. In the many-universes interpretation, it is the effects of other universes upon ours which accounts for all nonclassical effects. In the Feynman path integral approach, it is alternative paths. In the Sciama/Good/Susskind/Sarfatti scheme, it is the future boundary conditions. In the Wheeler-Feynman-Kramer picture it is also the future (absorber) boundary condition. In the Bohr-Heisenberg picture, quantum departures from classical causality are "inherent" - i.e. there is no "picture".So the point is: The future, the quantum potential, the effect of other worlds, and "inherent quantum behavior" are all equivalent. They make equivalent predictions. They produce the equivalent quantum effects.They are complimentary tools in the quantum mechanic's tool-crib. While each might prefer one tool or the other under different circumstances anyone can, in principle, build all of quantum physics with any one of the tools.
On Jul 24, 2010, at 10:52 AM, JACK SARFATTI d<Sarfatti@...> wrote:http://stardrive.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1637:the-destiny-of-the-universe&catid=43:science&Itemid=82Thanks Saul-Paul I will cite this in Destiny Matrix 2010 - I don't understand why Nick would impute malicious motives to anyone as consciously trying to "steal" I.J. Good's thunder. I can't speak for FQ Foundation, Aharonov of course or for Davies, but Fred and I were already discussing this general idea when we were on the physics faculty at SDSU in the late 60's and did not know of I.J. Good back then. Also as a matter of fact I do give I.J. Good explicit mention for his related concept of "GOD(D)" in Destiny Matrix 2002 first edition since I.J. wrote me a letter in late 70's - curious story in DM - will send it later. Thanks for this. PS Don't forget to add anything for the new edition that will be marketed on IBooks etc - also you with others will get a fair share of any profits & movie shares etc - should that happen. If we get into that situation we will all meet and come to a consensus.PS I independently thought that signals from the future would make quantum uncertainty certain the same sense below, i.e. that quantum randomness was simply the effect of only taking retarded causation into account.I also independently thought of Novikov's globally self-consistent loops in time, i.e. Feynman amplitudes for inconsistent histories would cancel out to zero. Kim Burrafato is a witness to that.So clearly the idea has been in the air for some time - your Sciama quote below. Of course Hoyle and Sciama knew each other at Cambridge so it's no surprise that idea was known there.On Jul 24, 2010, at 9:47 AM, Saul-Paul and Mary-Minn Sirag wrote: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 jointly by 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 alone would 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 CosmosDennis W. Sciama, Trinity College, CambridgeAs 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 in discussions 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 the state 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 and 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 boundary conditions. His knowledge of the past boundary will delimit the possibilities considerably, but it is clear that to the observer the system will appear to contain indeterminate 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 to account 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 Newmann, there are hidden variables; 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, will be 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 24, 2010, at 2:33 AM, nick herbert wrote:On Jul 23, 2010, at 11:03 AM, nick herbert wrote:The notion that knowledge of a future boundary conditioncould eliminate quantum uncertainty was first put forthby 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:“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 1970’s is now becoming mainstream. For example, the FQ Foundation website 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. It could 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. It’s 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 some of the universe’s biggest mysteries, including how life arose. What’s more, the researchers claim that recent lab experiments are dramatically confirming the concepts underpinning this reformulation. …‘It’s a very, very profound idea,’ says (Paul )Davies. (Yakir) Aharonov’s take on quantum mechanics can explain all the usual results that the conventional interpretations can, but with the added bonus that it also explains away nature’s apparent indeterminism. What’s more, a theory in which the future can influence 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 mysteries too: 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 have impossibly high energies? These questions cannot be answered just by looking at the past conditions of the universe. But perhaps, Davies ponders, if the cosmos has 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, might together perfectly explain these cosmic conundrums.”by Julie Rehmeyer on July 2, 2010Herbert Gold wrote in “Bohemia” (Simon & Schuster, 1993)
“The Bohemian physicist…contributes a balanced scientific non establishment for this expanding society. I don’t mean to disparage the work; either…among all the blatherers there sometimes appears a breakthrough thinker. Originality has always required a fertile expanse of fumble and mistake. That’s the beauty of the option. Your wastrel life might turn out to be just what’s required to save the planet. …Sarfatti’s Cave is the name I’ll 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, the nature of causality, our conceptions of logic … He has published papers in respectable physics journals. His poetry is widely photocopied. His correspondence with 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 and has evolved from us …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 to telepathic messages from the future. The genius must be well trained in his or her craft and intellectually disciplined with the integrity of the warrior in order to 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 also the 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 Borgesian quantum solipsism. Existentialism is wrong because it is an incorrect extrapolation of the old physics. Breton’s surrealism, with its Jungian idea of meaningful coincidence, is closer to the truth. This would then be “The Final Secret of the Illuminati” - that charismatic chain of adepts 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 the eleventh-century mystic Rabbi Sarfatti…with rapt descriptions of how events from the future cause events in the past.” p. 115
 Princeton’s Richard Gott has a new book “Time Travel” (2001) with essentially this idea years after I suggested it starting around 1973 based on my contact in 1953.
 The influence of Harvard‘s Henry Dwight Sedgwick on my thought here is obvious.
 This precognitive remote viewing funded by the CIA and the DIA, as told in James Schnabel’s “Remote Viewers: The Secret History of America’s Psychic Spies”, is a violation of quantum physics but not post-quantum physics. The mathematics of this is in papers by Antony Valentini.
 Book by Robert Anton Wilson
 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 on America, mentions such precognitive dreams in the horridly evil videotape released by the Pentagon.