2004-12-05
Quantum entanglement and telepathy
Some interesting thoughts about telepathy, paranormal abilities and quantum
entanglement.
>----- Forwarded message from scerir -----
>
>From: "scerir"
>Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2004 21:29:30 +0100
>To: "ExI chat list"
>Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] quantum `pseudo-telepathy'
>X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
>Reply-To: ExI chat list
>
>[D.B. pointed out ...]
> > http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0306042
> > Quantum entanglement, perhaps the most
> > non-classical manifestation of quantum
> > information theory, cannot be used
> > to transmit information between remote parties.
> > Yet, it can be used to reduce the amount
> > of communication required to process a variety
> > of distributed computational tasks. We speak
> > of pseudo-telepathy when quantum entanglement
> > serves to eliminate the classical need to
> > communicate.
>
>Telepathy as Shimony's "passion at a distance"
>between entangled pairs?
>
>In those years (1933-36) in which Einstein,
>but also Popper, were thinking about
>measurements of correlated observables,
>and related uncertainties, and predictions and
>retrodictions, and 'non-separability' of quantum
>entangled systems, and Grete Hermann developed
>her "relative state" interpretation of QM (now
>known as MWI) and - it seems so, according to Max
>Jammer - also the first "retrocausation" solution
>of EPR effect (decades ahead of Huw Price, O. Costa
>de Beauregard, Pegg, Hoyle, etc.), W. Pauli
>and C.G. Jung were corresponding about telepathy,
>as well as 'psychic' entanglements, 'non-separability'
>of systems, and 'retrocausations'.
>
>- Pauli to Jung, Zurich, 26 Jul. 1934, [comments, snips]
>"Jordan's essay ['Uber den positivistischen
>Begriff der Wirklichkeit'] a copy of which is enclosed,
>was sent to me for appraisal by the publisher
>of the Journal _Die Naturwissenshaften_. [...]
>As for the author, P.Jordan, I know him personally.
>He is a highly intelligent and gifted theoretical
>physicist, certainly one to be taken seriously
>[co-inventor of matrix mechanics, transformation
>theory, second quantization, etc.]. [...] I would
>be interested to hear your opinion on the
>contents of the essay, especially as Jordan's
>ideas seem to me to have a certain connection
>with your own. In the last section of the essay
>in particular, he comes very close to your concept
>of the collective unconscious. [...] I _do_
>have certain misgivings about the picture
>(p.12), according to which the conscious should
>be located as a 'narrow borderline area' to the
>unconscious. Might it not be preferable to advocate
>the view that the unconscious and the conscious
>are complementary (i.e., in a mutually exclusive
>relationship to each other), but not that one
>is part of the other? [Btw, according to Pauli
>complementarity was the essential content of QM].
>[....]"
>
>-Jung to Pauli, Zurich-Kusnacht, 29 Oct. 1934
>"With regard to Jordan's reference to parapsychic
>manifestations, spatial clairvoyance is of course
>one of the most obvious phenomena to represent
>the relative nonexistence of our physical image
>of space. Taking this argument further, he would also
>necessarily have to bring in temporal clairvoyance,
>which would represent the relativity of the image
>of time. Naturally, Jordan looks at these phenomena
>from the physical point of view, whereas I do so from
>the psychic point of view - specifically from the fact
>of the collective unconscious, as you have correctly
>noted, which presents a layer of the psychic in which
>individual distinctions of consciousness are more or
>less extinguished. However, if individual consciousnesses
>in the unconscious were extinguished, then all
>perception in the unconscious would occur as in one person.
>Jordan states [see quantum 'non-separability'] that a sender
>and a receiver in the same conscious 'space' observe
>the same object at the same time. One could just as easily
>turn this statement around and say that in unconscious
>'space', sender and receiver are one and the same perceiving
>object [non-local observer, Goedelian issues]. [...]
>Carried to its ultimate conclusion, Jordan's approach
>would lead to the supposition of an absolute unconscious
>space in which an infinite number of observers are looking
>at the same object. The phychological version would be:
>In the unconscious there is just one observer, who looks
>at the infinite number of objects. [...] By the way,
>it has just occurred to me that on the subject of time
>relativity there is a book by a student of Eddington,
>Dunne, _An Experiment with Time_, in which he deal with
>temporal clairvoyance in a similar way to how Jordan
>deals with spatial clairvoyance. He postulate an infinite
>number of time dimensions that more or less correspond
>to Jordan's 'intermediary stages'. I would be very
>interested to hear how you respond to these arguments
>of Dunne's. [...]"
>
>Note that many of these questions (multidimensionality
>of time, non-separability of quantum systems,
>non-separability of observers, entanglements in
>space, entanglements in time, non-distinguishability
>of all present states of a system from within the system,
>non-distinguishability of all past and future states
>of a system from within the system, impossibility of 'picture
>in picture', time-symmetry, interferences between quantum
>objects and their mirror images, entanglements from the
>future/measurement to the past/emission, conceptual
>impossibility of TOEs, hidden carriers of informations, etc.)
>are still on the table ...
>http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0207029
>http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0205182
>http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0102109
>http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0012060
>http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9801061
>
>s.
>
>'Algebraic nonseparability entails geometric nonlocality;
>emphasis on its time aspect can be worded atemporality.'
>-Olivier Costa de Beauregard
entanglement.
>----- Forwarded message from scerir
>
>From: "scerir"
>Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2004 21:29:30 +0100
>To: "ExI chat list"
>Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] quantum `pseudo-telepathy'
>X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
>Reply-To: ExI chat list
>
>[D.B. pointed out ...]
> > http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0306042
> > Quantum entanglement, perhaps the most
> > non-classical manifestation of quantum
> > information theory, cannot be used
> > to transmit information between remote parties.
> > Yet, it can be used to reduce the amount
> > of communication required to process a variety
> > of distributed computational tasks. We speak
> > of pseudo-telepathy when quantum entanglement
> > serves to eliminate the classical need to
> > communicate.
>
>Telepathy as Shimony's "passion at a distance"
>between entangled pairs?
>
>In those years (1933-36) in which Einstein,
>but also Popper, were thinking about
>measurements of correlated observables,
>and related uncertainties, and predictions and
>retrodictions, and 'non-separability' of quantum
>entangled systems, and Grete Hermann developed
>her "relative state" interpretation of QM (now
>known as MWI) and - it seems so, according to Max
>Jammer - also the first "retrocausation" solution
>of EPR effect (decades ahead of Huw Price, O. Costa
>de Beauregard, Pegg, Hoyle, etc.), W. Pauli
>and C.G. Jung were corresponding about telepathy,
>as well as 'psychic' entanglements, 'non-separability'
>of systems, and 'retrocausations'.
>
>- Pauli to Jung, Zurich, 26 Jul. 1934, [comments, snips]
>"Jordan's essay ['Uber den positivistischen
>Begriff der Wirklichkeit'] a copy of which is enclosed,
>was sent to me for appraisal by the publisher
>of the Journal _Die Naturwissenshaften_. [...]
>As for the author, P.Jordan, I know him personally.
>He is a highly intelligent and gifted theoretical
>physicist, certainly one to be taken seriously
>[co-inventor of matrix mechanics, transformation
>theory, second quantization, etc.]. [...] I would
>be interested to hear your opinion on the
>contents of the essay, especially as Jordan's
>ideas seem to me to have a certain connection
>with your own. In the last section of the essay
>in particular, he comes very close to your concept
>of the collective unconscious. [...] I _do_
>have certain misgivings about the picture
>(p.12), according to which the conscious should
>be located as a 'narrow borderline area' to the
>unconscious. Might it not be preferable to advocate
>the view that the unconscious and the conscious
>are complementary (i.e., in a mutually exclusive
>relationship to each other), but not that one
>is part of the other? [Btw, according to Pauli
>complementarity was the essential content of QM].
>[....]"
>
>-Jung to Pauli, Zurich-Kusnacht, 29 Oct. 1934
>"With regard to Jordan's reference to parapsychic
>manifestations, spatial clairvoyance is of course
>one of the most obvious phenomena to represent
>the relative nonexistence of our physical image
>of space. Taking this argument further, he would also
>necessarily have to bring in temporal clairvoyance,
>which would represent the relativity of the image
>of time. Naturally, Jordan looks at these phenomena
>from the physical point of view, whereas I do so from
>the psychic point of view - specifically from the fact
>of the collective unconscious, as you have correctly
>noted, which presents a layer of the psychic in which
>individual distinctions of consciousness are more or
>less extinguished. However, if individual consciousnesses
>in the unconscious were extinguished, then all
>perception in the unconscious would occur as in one person.
>Jordan states [see quantum 'non-separability'] that a sender
>and a receiver in the same conscious 'space' observe
>the same object at the same time. One could just as easily
>turn this statement around and say that in unconscious
>'space', sender and receiver are one and the same perceiving
>object [non-local observer, Goedelian issues]. [...]
>Carried to its ultimate conclusion, Jordan's approach
>would lead to the supposition of an absolute unconscious
>space in which an infinite number of observers are looking
>at the same object. The phychological version would be:
>In the unconscious there is just one observer, who looks
>at the infinite number of objects. [...] By the way,
>it has just occurred to me that on the subject of time
>relativity there is a book by a student of Eddington,
>Dunne, _An Experiment with Time_, in which he deal with
>temporal clairvoyance in a similar way to how Jordan
>deals with spatial clairvoyance. He postulate an infinite
>number of time dimensions that more or less correspond
>to Jordan's 'intermediary stages'. I would be very
>interested to hear how you respond to these arguments
>of Dunne's. [...]"
>
>Note that many of these questions (multidimensionality
>of time, non-separability of quantum systems,
>non-separability of observers, entanglements in
>space, entanglements in time, non-distinguishability
>of all present states of a system from within the system,
>non-distinguishability of all past and future states
>of a system from within the system, impossibility of 'picture
>in picture', time-symmetry, interferences between quantum
>objects and their mirror images, entanglements from the
>future/measurement to the past/emission, conceptual
>impossibility of TOEs, hidden carriers of informations, etc.)
>are still on the table ...
>http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0207029
>http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0205182
>http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0102109
>http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0012060
>http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9801061
>
>s.
>
>'Algebraic nonseparability entails geometric nonlocality;
>emphasis on its time aspect can be worded atemporality.'
>-Olivier Costa de Beauregard
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]