Was rummaging around in the hard drive today and found this...
Houtkooper, J.M. Arguing for an Observational Theory of Paranormal Phenomena, Journal of Scientific Exploration, 16, 2002, pp. 171-185. (here)
A good summary of published research attempting to explaining psi phenomena by invoking the observer problem of quantum physics. Full of statements like...
"the statistics of single events become biased if the observer is motivated and prefers one of the possible outcomes over the other" (p. 171)
"The act of observation by a motivated observer of an event with a quantum mechanically uncertain outcome influences that outcome." (p.172)
"the only possible... mechanism for psi lies in the measurement problem and in hypothesizing a role for the conscious observer" (p.176)
This article is worth reading because 1) it wasn't written that long ago, 2) there just aren't that many people thinking along these lines, so it pays to pay attention to those who are, and 3) Houtkooper does a good job of explaining the complications that arise when trying to design experiments from this perspective.
Houtkooper makes some statements that are dead on - "that psi effects are independent of the complexity of the random process involved can be explained by the act of observation as the crucial event at which a psi effect is mediated" (p.180) - and some statements that contain erroneous assumptions - "an observer who adds information at the collapse of the wave function" (p.171).
This article should provoke several questions...
Why only give the observer a critical role in special case psi events? What about regular everday observations?
Where is the mechanism by which this observer influences the outcome? And how is it that it kicks in only in special cases? Or is it active all the time?
A hearty salute to Houtkooper for this contribution, especially that part where he takes on DAT. ;)
