OOBE – Psi Uncertainty, Backward Causation and Simultaneity

From My Big TOE Wiki
Revision as of 14:40, 20 January 2012 by Ted Vollers (talk | contribs) (Created initial page based upon part of handout 4.)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

From a discussion between Tom and Ted and previously, others, as part of a Bulletin Board thread which discussed experiments in which 'prayer' for hospitalized persons after the fact was implied to modify their length of hospital stay:

Tom: Depending upon what you mean by the words, one could say the past, present, and probable future all exist at once -- they all exist in data bases (can be accessed from the present) at any time. On the other hand, I think such a statement is often more confusing than helpful because it leads, if taken literally, to a logical impossibility usually ending in a denial of free will. Free will choice (any real choice) in the present requires a unique and separate before (future) and after (past) state – or the choice is meaningless.

A "many worlds" concept that executes or actualizes the logic that everything that can happen does happen, also leads to a denial of free will -- if every possibility is actualized, there is no choice, just process. No free will implies no possibility of growth or evolution and thus no point or purpose -- i.e., no consciousness.

"Several worlds" that proportion a beings awareness (90% in this reality frame, 4% in another and 6% in yet another reality frame) would theoretically work but this concept is not likely to produce enough additional significant growth to warrant the extra complexity.

Seven (and others) have been getting it mostly right in the posts above. Seven said: “I do know that there are a significant quantity of experiments out there by Leibovici, Jahn, Dunne, and others, including the delayed choice Physics experiments, that appear to "prove" backward causation. The trick to the result, it seems, is that the past that is influenced must be "unobserved" by the conscious observer. They must not know the result of the past they are trying to influence. This leads me to believe that in some way the unobserved past is also a probable past, not existing until it is observed in the "present". In some ways the "past" is also the "future" in these instances.”

Tom: This is very close to the truth of the matter. The present defines what we call reality. Measurements in the present (the perception of information) define what probable future and uncertain past will be actualized into the minds of those interacting within the present moment. Remember – reality is just personal data delivered to a consciousness. The Virtual Reality Rendering Engine (VRRE - a metaphor for the source of our individual and shared data) can giveth and the VRRE can taketh away – its just data. We get the data and that defines our reality.

There is, in our PMR rule-set, a requirement for consistency – otherwise PMR would not be a very good or effective trainer. The Psi uncertainty principle requires that the existence of any inconsistency (local psi violation of the PMR rule-set) must be surrounded by enough uncertainty such that the PMR consistency requirement appears to hold in the minds of the many (rule-set consistency cannot be proven to a certainty to be invalid). This arrangement allows for whatever is uncertain within the PMR past or future to be modified by PMR intent/choice and then actualized in the present moment -- which leads to defining the present PMR reality.

Uncertainty in the past implies a probable past. Be clear that this uncertainty is the uncertainty in the PMR so called “objective” record. Uncertainty within this “objective” record is not reflective of uncertainty in the state vectors that make up the actualized past data base – everything is accurately recorded there.

PMR “objective” reality is defined by the individual and collective subjective perceptions, beliefs, interpretations, and memory of its players. Each player lives in his own personal reality and interacts with other player’s personal realities and with “the set” (environment) which has evolved according to the rule-set. Together they produce (more or less haphazardly) an “objective” record of what they (the recorders) think/believe happened – these are called “facts”. Because players must rely on belief based and experience based individual subjective interpretation and because they only selectively produce recorded “facts”, there is much room for uncertainty in the “objective” PMR record. The uncertainty in the PMR record, and the ability to manipulate “past events” within the bounds of that uncertainty by present intent, is constrained by (must be compatible with) the probabilities associated with the choices that make up the unactualized past. [Recall that the probabilities associated with un-actualized past choices are the same probabilities that were earlier associated with those probable future choices (the probable future that was not actualized by present freewill choices) that become the unactualized past.

A free will intent generated within consciousness is the only active ingredient – it is the “motive force” that moves or changes the data of consciousness. Intent can modify the probabilities within the probable future database (making a potential event more or less likely to be manifested in the present because a “measurement” collapses the probability wave to the most probable event). Intent can also modify the probabilities of past actualization (within the uncertainty associated with the “objective” past). Because of that intent, a potential historical event (or its effect) will be more or less likely to be manifested into the awareness of the present moment because it is again a “measurement” in the present that collapses the past or future probability wave to the most probable event.

So, the prayer group using its intent to modify the healing of selected people from a list of people who had previously been hospitalized, found that those selected had statistically significant shorter hospital stays because the measurement (who on that list had shorter or longer hospital stays) had not yet been made (the result was uncertain) and the data that could be collected after the fact (interviewing those patients to see if the records were accurate) is likewise uncertain. There is no inconsistency in PMR – no “backwards causation”. Psi uncertainty requires that there be no proof whatsoever of any ill patients suddenly healed, or of records being magically changed as a result of the prayer group’s actions – it is perfectly reasonable, within the uncertainty of the situation, to assert that PMR reality trudged on completely consistent with the “objective record”. What happened was that a specific uncertainty concerning the relative duration of hospital stays these patients experienced was reduced by a measurement whose outcome was modified by the focused intent of the prayer group. It only produces a “gee Whiz – how could this happen” along with assumptions of backward causality if one erroneously believes that PMR reality is an objective physical reality.

Intent can modify the present moment (PMR reality) within the grey areas of uncertain outcomes of specific measurements, without disturbing PMR’s consistency, as long as the measured result falls within the bounds of probable outcomes.

Ted: Now looking at the concept of 'backwards' causality, we again come down to the collapse of a probability wave. In this case, we must be dealing with a past situation that has not been observed and thus already had the probability wave collapsed and the result 'fixed' as a reality.

Tom: .....we are dealing with a past situation where a specific piece of information content has never been observed in the PMR “objective” record, OR a specific piece of information content that at one time had been observed in the PMR objective record, but now that information has been permanently and irretrievably lost from the PMR “objective” record. Such lost information returns to the realm of probability – there is much uncertainty surrounding its existence. This is true even though every detail defining that specific content had been originally observed as a present choice sometime in the past and is now residing as data in The NPMR actualized history database. The information in the NPMR data base remains in NPMR – no records are lost in the NPMR database and its digital memory does not fade – everything actualized in that past present-moment remains recorded there. The uncertainty is in the PMR “objective” record. As time goes by and memories fade and records are destroyed, more uncertainty blossoms in PMR.

Bottom line: The uncertainty that can be manipulated by intent is not just potential existence/information that has never been measured in PMR, but also new uncertainties that are created as information drops out of the “objective” PMR record.

Ted: So we, individually or as a team of scientist/experimenters, can attempt to mentally, through prayer or meditation of some kind, attempt to modify some aspect of the past. Since this 'aspect of the past' has not been observed and thus recorded and fixed in the past, it is in fact open to change of it's probability wave, the only way in which it really exists. Then if the observation is made, in the present, which fixes the probability wave from the past, then we can find that we have modified the result that this probability wave collapses to, at least to our perception.

Tom: I would change: “Since this 'aspect of the past' has not been observed and thus recorded and fixed in the past,…” to read: Since this 'aspect of the past' is not to be found in the PMR objective record, it is thus not a part of the existing historical record and thus not fixed in the past (instead of a fixed/recorded/known factual event, it is now an uncertain event or a probable event within the past.

Ted: This raises a question for a clarification to my mind. If this past aspect existed only as a probability wave in the past because it was not collapsed then by a conscious observation, is it not still now a probability wave in (and of) the present, although we are speaking of a probability wave that could have been collapsed then in the past if an observation had been made then? Thus we are speaking of a probability wave of the past, that simply continues as a probability wave into the future, now, and is it not then as much a probability wave of now as of, potentially, the past. A probability wave is a probability wave . . . is a probability wave, until it is collapsed by a conscious observation at some time, when and if ever.

Tom: It may have been a probability wave in the future that simply migrated to a probability wave in the PMR objective record, i.e., information that was available within PMR that could have been noticed/measured/recorded but that was never measured or the result of that measurement was never recorded. The list of patients sorted by length of hospital stay is a good example. The data existed, that is why a measurement could be made to validate the effect of the focused intent. However that result (a list of the patients with shorter than normal stays) was never measured (made a part of the PMR objective historical record), thus psi uncertainty could allow intent to modify the result of a random selection of patients without violating PMR consistency. Had that measurement been made (had a document existed that listed all the patients with shorter than normal stays) then the psi uncertainty principle would have denied an intent focused on random patients from having any effect on who left the hospital early since that information would have been a matter of factual record in PMR). The circumstances also could have been that such a measurement was made (there was a document produced that listed all the patients with shorter than normal stays) but that document was subsequently destroyed. The destruction of the document returned that information to the status of unknown (i.e., there was sufficient uncertainty to allow an application of focused intent upon random patients to determine (to some extent) who went home early since there was no PMR objective record to contradict that outcome.

Ted: I believe that you [Tom] have in fact said this in effect, that all of reality is in fact 'fuzzy' and open to change to the extent that it has not been 'consciously observed' and thus caused a probability wave to be collapsed into an observation and thus fixed as a reality. Anything not yet observed [in PMR and made a matter of record], past, present or future, is thus open to conscious manipulation of the probability wave that represents it's existence, within the limits of that probability wave, until a conscious observation is made and the reality is thus fixed. Once observed, the reality becomes fixed. [Yes, but not necessarily forever]

Tom: Yes [with the brackets added], that is a correct summary.

Tom C

Return to the Central Linkage Page for Tom Campbell's Lectures