I have to get this out of my system before I can finish reading this paper... Pardon me.
Here's the paper I'm in the middle of reading... Lucadou, W.v., Romer, H., and Walach, H., (2007) , 'Synchronistic Phenomena as Entanglment Correlations in Generalized Quantum Theory', Journal of Consciousness Studies, 14 (4), pp. 50-74. (abstract)
The premise of the paper is that entanglement correlations will explain 'synchronistic or psi' phenomena. Can't argue with that yet, because I haven't gotten that far into the paper.
I stopped at the descriptions of various 'observations' associated with psi phenomena. Quoting now from pages 52-53 (my emphasis)...
(a) The well known decline effect: Whenever a psi-experiment at first shows positive results, later data or replications will wipe out the primarily observed effect and will, possibly after tantalising revivals (see footnote 8) eventually level off to the null hypothesis.
(b) The reciprocity between effect strength and reliability of psi phenomena: the more drastic an effect, the less reproducible it turns out to be and vice versa.
(c) Elusiveness (evasion): When one tries to pinpoint psi phenomena, they show a tendency to disappear, where they are sought for and to surface at some other unexpected place. This is the so-called displacement effect.
(end quote)
I'm going to argue that there is already an underlying common denominator in these phenomena. It is the same denominator that we've touched on before in this blog. The common thread here is EXPECTATION.
Picking apart the wording of these descriptions will point out that in each case observations have been made that alter expectations for future results. Here we go...
"Whenever a psi-experiment at first shows positive results [observation], later data or replications will wipe out the primarily observed effect [fail to meet the expectation generated by the first observation that such results continue at the given strength/rate]" When you think about it, expectations are really the only things that change from the first set of results and the later data or replications. None of the conditions of the experiment change. One has to wonder if failure to observe the first set of results would have allowed the effect to continue unchecked.
"the more drastic an effect ['drastic' means I have compare this effect to previous effects I have observed and expectations I have about what should be a normal effect], the less reproducible it turns out to be and vice versa [Bigger effects are, by definition, more signifcant to the observers. The more significant an effect is, the more impact it has in the reorganization of associated memories and the generation of future expectations.]"
"When one tries to pinpoint psi phenomena ['pinpoint' means that I know when and where I can expect to see psi phenomena], they show a tendency to disappear, where they are sought for [expected] and to surface at some other unexpected place [didn't even have to insert the word]"
Expectations and their various components and precursors are what we use to navigate in Smearland. Sometimes the effects are intentional (if you are good at what you are doing), and sometimes they are unintentional. Expectations can be manipulated fairly easily, leading to a plethora of testable hypotheses.
I expect that I will now be able to calmly finish reading this paper. :)
