Abstract—The problem of devising a theory for paranormal phenomena (psi) may be separated into, first, the basic physical mechanism and second, the psychological aspects of how and when people are able to elicit psi. Observational theory addresses primarily the first aspect, the basic physical mechanism of psi. A problem is that the known types of physical interaction do not fit the existing data. The measurement problem in quantum mechanics can be used to hypothe-size an observer who adds information at the collapse of the wave function. For each random event one of the possible outcomes becomes realized as the event is being observed. The basic tenet of observational theory is: the statis-tics of single events become biased if the observer is motivated and prefers one of the possible outcomes over the other. Features of observational theory are: its predictive power, proven with re-gard to retroactive psychokinesis (PK); parsimony: the same mechanism ex-plains ESP as well as PK; fruitfulness, as there is a direct relationship with quantum mechanics; and openness to crucial experiments. The falsifiability criterion poses some problems: these are discussed in relation to Lakatos’ methodology of research programmes. Observational theory is a solution to the problem of the mediation of psi, thus providing a framework for the psychological problem of the manifesta-tion of psi. Henceforth, the observation of the outcome should be regarded as formal part of parapsychological experiments. There is reason for cautious, patient optimism about the acceptance of observational theory.
Abstract—The problem of devising a theory for paranormal phenomena (psi) may be separated into, first, the basic physical mechanism and second, the psychological aspects of how and when people are able to elicit psi. Observational theory addresses primarily the first aspect, the basic physical mechanism of psi. A problem is that the known types of physical interaction do not fit the existing data. The measurement problem in quantum mechanics can be used to hypothe-size an observer who adds information at the collapse of the wave function. For each random event one of the possible outcomes becomes realized as the event is being observed. The basic tenet of observational theory is: the statis-tics of single events become biased if the observer is motivated and prefers one of the possible outcomes over the other. Features of observational theory are: its predictive power, proven with re-gard to retroactive psychokinesis (PK); parsimony: the same mechanism ex-plains ESP as well as PK; fruitfulness, as there is a direct relationship with quantum mechanics; and openness to crucial experiments. The falsifiability criterion poses some problems: these are discussed in relation to Lakatos’ methodology of research programmes. Observational theory is a solution to the problem of the mediation of psi, thus providing a framework for the psychological problem of the manifesta-tion of psi. Henceforth, the observation of the outcome should be regarded as formal part of parapsychological experiments. There is reason for cautious, patient optimism about the acceptance of observational theory.
The possibility of retrocausation has been considered to explain the occurrence of anomalous phenomena in which the ostensible effects are preceded by their causes. A scrutiny of both experimental methodology and the experimental data is called for. A review of experimental data reveals the existence of such effects to be a serious possibility. The experimental methodology entails some conceptual difficulties, these depending on the underlying assumptions about the effects. A major point is an ambiguity between anomalous acquisition of information and retrocausation in exerted influences.A unifying theory has been proposed, based upon the fundamental randomness of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanical randomness may be regarded as a tenacious phenomenon, that apparently is only resolved by the human observer of the random variable in question. This has led to the “observational theory” of anomalous phenomena, which is based upon the assumption that the preference of a motivated observer is able to interact with the extant indefinite random variable that is being observed. This observational theory has led to a novel prediction, which has been corroborated in experiments. Moreover, different classes of anomalous phenomena can be explained by the same basic mechanism. This foregoes retroactive causation, but, instead, requires that macroscopic physical variables remain in a state of indefinite reality and thus remain influenceable by mental efforts until these are observed. More work is needed to discover the relevant psychological and neurophysiological variables involved in effective motivated observation. Besides these practicalities, the fundamentals still have some interesting loose ends.
We note that, as soon as retroaction and nonlocality (in an ordered way) inter- fere with physical phenomena, we may get the impression of miracles (para- normal phenomena) from a local causal point of view: the latter cannot explain them. 2. We start from some well-known processes, such as Young's double-slit experi- ment and EPR, in order to extend relevant feedback processes and nonlocal co- herence to living organisms and their influence on the environment. 3. We explain how retroaction emanating from living organisms may take the shape of goal orientation and make psychokinesis (PK) and clairvoyance easier to understand. We discuss concrete models of PK and clairvoyance and of strik- ing coincidences and telepathy. 4. Our physical model joins with the observational that dominates in professional parapsychology. 5. We investigate how far such a model implies humankind to be a four- dimensional organism up to a certain degree, taking into account hitherto un- known interindividual unconscious communications. 6. In all, our theory implies a change of paradigm, which also leads to an integra- tion of deterministic God does not play dice and antireductionist A micro- process acts as a whole. That is, it introduces nonlocal determinism in which the psychological dimension is inherent.
In this paper, we consider the unnecessarily antagonistic relation- ship between anomalies such as psychic phenomena ( ) and theoretical physics. Characteristics of Psi are discussed along with categories of possible explanation and mechanisms. A hypothetical Psi experiment is created to ex- plore the implications of random processes in which constraints are present, one of which may be on the future . A simple rotation of the experiment di- agram suggests nonlocality phenomena in quantum physics. A revision of our thinking about the concepts of causality and randomness are argued as key to a deeper understanding of Psi and the quantum realm in general.
This paper explores the role of the mind in the physical world. We begin with a brief introduction to distinct types of retrocausal phenomena connected with parapsychology and physics. We provide an introduction to laws of quantum mechanics (QM) that lead some to surmise connections between QM and psychic phenomena (psi). Next, we present our argument that verification of psi will require changes to QM. As a possible placeholder for these changes we introduce “Mind”, from Cartesian dualism. This area of research points the way to connections between two fundamental issues in science: the mind-matter hard problem and the measurement problem of QM. Positive outcomes of carefully executed experiments could demonstrate a close relationship between these two problems, including the possibility that sentience plays an important role in the fundamental laws of physics. We focus on a version of Daryl Bem’s seeing the future experiments, which should allow for discrimination between various interpretations of QM. Finally, although the authors are psi skeptics, we suggest methodologies that may enable psi phenomena to be acceptable to mainstream science.
PK experiments with prerecorded targets (Schmidt, 1976) are interesting because they suggest a variety of new test arrangements to study the basic PK mechanism. In addition, they permit the inclusion of independent observers who, with little time investment, can obtain first-hand evidence of any anomalous effects that may occur. Four such experiments with different independent observers, different subject populations, and minor variations have been performed previously (Schmidt & Braud, 1993; Schmidt, Morris, & Hardin, 1990; Schmidt, Morris, & Rudolph, 1986; Schmidt & Schlitz, 1988) with the first author as main experimenter and the other one or two authors acting as independent observers. The results of PK experiments with prerecorded random events appear most interesting and most puzzling because the subject's mental effort is made long after the random events to be affected have occurred. One tentative viewpoint (Schmidt, 1978; Walker, 1979) is that the subject's mental effort could act backward to the time when the random events were generated and recorded. This would imply a noncausal mechanism in the sense that the effect (the biasing of the random events) occurs before the cause (the mental effort). It might be this element of noncausality that makes psychic phenomena so intuitively implausible and at odds with the known principles of physics. Another viewpoint (Schmidt, 1982) is based on the quantum theoretical notion that there is no if there is no observer. Thus, the decisions of the random generator might become reality only when the subject observes the outcome during the test session. The subject's effort would not have to act into the past because the decision on the outcome would not yet be made until the subject received feedback during the PK test session. In this case, a preobservation of the recorded events should inhibit the subject's success, because the preobservation would make the random decisions real so that the subject's subsequent mental effort would come too late. For this reason it seemed particularly interesting to conduct an experiment in which half of the prerecorded random events had been preinspected so that one could compare the possible PK effects on the preobserved and not-observed events. One previous study (Schmidt, 1985) has indicated an inhibition of the PK effect by preobservation. In view of the central role of the question, however, further studies of the preobservation effect seem most important. In this and the four previous studies, the question of highest priority was whether a PK effect could be demonstrated under tightly controlled conditions. Because preobservation might inhibit the PK effect, we decided in advance to base the possible evidence for the existence of PK only on the results from the not-preobserved events. Although the independent observer was somewhat skeptical about the existence of PK, he was very interested in a possible preobservation effect because of its possible implications for quantum theory. Our subject pool consisted primarily of martial arts students as a matter of practical convenience. This population was relatively easily accessible and one that the experimenter had not yet explored. No attempt was made, however, to compare martial arts training and skill with PK performance systematically. METHOD The study was structured into 20 units such that a unit could be considered as a mini-experiment. Each unit was subdivided into 100 blocks of binary data. The sequence of binary data in each block determined two partial results, an even result and an odd result, arising from the even- or odd-numbered bits in the sequence. The partial results were defined so that by inverting the bits in the sequence (interchanging 1s and 0s) the signs of the partial results were inverted. In following the procedure for each unit, the experimenter used a true random generator to record the random bit-sequences for the 100 blocks on floppy disk. …
In parapsychology, unlike psychology, there is no known way to determine whether any measured effect comes from the (so-called) subjects - S, or the (nominal) experimenter - E. In each generation parapsychology has been dominated by a mere handful of experimenters who report regular extra-chance results, while the great mass of experimenters encounter, at best, only sporadic success. This paper pursues the view that parapsychology's elite are themselves particularly endowed with psi ability: they attribute scoring to subjects, in line with the psychological tradition, while it actually comes from their own psi. The Geiger counter of the radioactive man ticks everywhere! It is suggested that the experiment using subjects is a ritual tailored to maximize experimenter-psi. Today the experiment with subjects seems to replace the Juju of former times. The E-centric view explains why parapsychological experiments can rarely be repeated by different experimenters. Skeptics maintain that many parapsychology results are due to the experimenter affecting his results in an improper way: the E-centric model agrees, but suggests that he does so with his mind rather than with his hands. What has been lacking until now are systematic methods to measure how much of a psi effect is due to subjects, and how much to the experimenter. The physics-based Observational Theories break this impasse. An outline is given of the author's take on these theories as Minimalistic Observational Theory (MOT). The parapsychological experiment is physically no more than a source of (informational) entropy which is acted on by psi. If the subject is the source of psi then he affects the result at the level of the trial. On the other hand, if the experimenter is the source of psi he (typically) affects the experiment as a single global unit. The consequences of this elementary dichotomy are remarkably wide-reaching and testable. Only two examples are noted here: for E-psi a small experiment is as good as a big one and the usual measure of effect size (based on the trial) is inappropriate; another is that the error mean squares in ANOVA will be depressed by E-psi. The effects predicted by the MOT allow partitioning of the effect into S and E components. Typically Psi effects are small and differences between models are smaller still; so a great deal of data is required. Recourse must be taken to meta-analysis as well as the modern ultra-large experiment.