Observational Theories appear to have died a slow death because they were unable to separate the effects of a single observer from the effects generated by other observers. This implies that the effects of all observers of the same event are somehow either 1) summed together or 2) subsumed under the effects of the strongest of the observers.
Two different dynamics, leading to different predictions, and different resolutions to those pesky philosophical questions - like the question of 'free will'. Is this question any more resolvable in Smearland?
I personally don't feel like the question has been completely resolved, so I'll briefly summarized what I see on each side of the argument...
Free Will - YES
Your consciousness represents a unique interface with whatever the ultimate reality is. The mechanics of the interface are such that, when you understand them well enough, you will be able to select outcomes in any situation, even situations where there are other observers. If your interface remains unique and isolated from any other observer interface, then the sum of your experience is entirely self-contained within the parameters of your interface. You are therefore free to learns it mechanics and determine your own experience to the extent that you are able to master them.
To me, this perspective is a little depressing. And there is one particular piece of evidence that has always kept me from falling into this view completely. Anyone who has ever been hundreds or thousands of miles away from a loved one and has felt that person sustain great injury or die at the moment it happens will never accept a viewpoint wherein we are not somehow connected to other 'observers'. Whatever the nature of that connection, this type of evidence is, IMHO, the strongest we have for resisting the urge to adopt the attitude of an isolated observer who can do whatever s/he wishes. Naturally, I can't prove that this isn't simply part of the mechanics of the interface, but if you've had the experience, it's pretty damn convincing.
Free Will - NO
The dynamics of multiple observer interactions are not completely understood, but, assuming they exist, projects like the Global Consciousness Project might provide insight into what is possible when the attention of a great number of observers in focused on a single event. Would any individual observer, even one well-indoctrinated in the 'isolated observer' perspective, ever be able to produce this level of effect in the presence of other observers? I would guess no, but then have we ever had such an observer available for testing?
If multiple observers are somehow cumulatively producing these effects, then this also implies we are never truly free from the ability of others to exert some type observer effect upon us. Hence, no free will - we are always to some extent the product of our interactions with other observers.
Free Will - SOMETIMES?
If we are connected to other observers in a way that gives them the ability to exert some level of observer effect upon us, then true freedom would lie in isolating ourselves from other observers. This would also imply that our ability to generate observer effects that 'defy the odds' would be greater when we were the sole observer of the system, or were working in concert with other like-minded observers.
Free Will in Smearland means 1) being able to choose your outcomes in any situation proportionate to your understanding of the mechanics involved, as well as 2) being free from being the sum of the expectations and effects of other observers. While the first part sounds desirable, would you really ever be able to attain, or would you even desire, the second part?
Something to ponder.
Right now my free will is telling me to get some more coffee.
Friday, January 05, 2007
Tuesday, January 02, 2007
What Mad Pursuit
(Warning: The following post will probably bore you unless you geek out on discussions about research methodology.)
"One should ask: What is the essence of the type of theory I have constructed, and how can that be tested? even if it requires some new experimental method to do so." - Francis Crick
You get the impression (while reading the Houtkooper article reviewed awhile ago) that psi researchers thought the Observer/Observational Theory approach to psi research was promising, but that they were stymied by the fact that traditional experimental methods left them unable to carry the research to more definitive conclusions.
Observational Theory is still talked about...
"Thus Observational Theory became one of the first theories of psi to predict and successfully confirm an outrageous time-reversed effect. Incidentally, the delayed-choice experiments discussed in the previous chapter provides exactly the same prediction as these 'retro-PK' experiments. The only difference is that those experiments are considered mainstream in physics." - Entangled Minds, by Dean Radin, (2006), p. 252
.... but why isn't it being actively pursued as a valid research approach to solving the observer problem?
The key to testing for observer effects is to be able to isolate the system from all observers save the one you are interested in. (Duh, you say.) One way to do this is to be both subject and experimenter yourself. This does wonders for your ability to learn about generating observer effects, but does little to generate 'publishable' data. Were your research methods invalid? No, but they weren't independently verified, so good scientists are hesitant to accept the results as genuine data unless you already have a good reputation in the field. (I understand Houtkooper and Dick Bierman both used themselves as subjects at times while testing Observational Theories.)
Another way to do this is to devise a test framework that has a number of key parameters 'open' - a range of possible values, from which the subject can select the ones to be used. This gives the subject more information about the system than the experimenter. (Information leads to the ability to generate explicit expectations.) This does not completely resolve the problem of the experiment or data checker ultimately selecting the outcome, but with proper computer coding and analysis of the data, it can help.
The final problem is that ultimately someone will see the results in an all-or-nothing framework while asking Did we get the effect? At this point they too have the ability to influence the ultimate outcome, according to Observational Theories. The proposed resolution?
Well now, the answer to that question might be the key to taking the Amazing Randi's one million dollar prize. ;)
"One should ask: What is the essence of the type of theory I have constructed, and how can that be tested? even if it requires some new experimental method to do so." - Francis Crick
You get the impression (while reading the Houtkooper article reviewed awhile ago) that psi researchers thought the Observer/Observational Theory approach to psi research was promising, but that they were stymied by the fact that traditional experimental methods left them unable to carry the research to more definitive conclusions.
Observational Theory is still talked about...
"Thus Observational Theory became one of the first theories of psi to predict and successfully confirm an outrageous time-reversed effect. Incidentally, the delayed-choice experiments discussed in the previous chapter provides exactly the same prediction as these 'retro-PK' experiments. The only difference is that those experiments are considered mainstream in physics." - Entangled Minds, by Dean Radin, (2006), p. 252
.... but why isn't it being actively pursued as a valid research approach to solving the observer problem?
The key to testing for observer effects is to be able to isolate the system from all observers save the one you are interested in. (Duh, you say.) One way to do this is to be both subject and experimenter yourself. This does wonders for your ability to learn about generating observer effects, but does little to generate 'publishable' data. Were your research methods invalid? No, but they weren't independently verified, so good scientists are hesitant to accept the results as genuine data unless you already have a good reputation in the field. (I understand Houtkooper and Dick Bierman both used themselves as subjects at times while testing Observational Theories.)
Another way to do this is to devise a test framework that has a number of key parameters 'open' - a range of possible values, from which the subject can select the ones to be used. This gives the subject more information about the system than the experimenter. (Information leads to the ability to generate explicit expectations.) This does not completely resolve the problem of the experiment or data checker ultimately selecting the outcome, but with proper computer coding and analysis of the data, it can help.
The final problem is that ultimately someone will see the results in an all-or-nothing framework while asking Did we get the effect? At this point they too have the ability to influence the ultimate outcome, according to Observational Theories. The proposed resolution?
Well now, the answer to that question might be the key to taking the Amazing Randi's one million dollar prize. ;)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)