Our inability to rewind time may cast some doubt about the genuineness of the effectiveness of our free choice capability. I suggest that the so-called presentiment anomalous experience can be used to verify this genuineness. The idea is to post stimulus compare averaged results from two apparently “similar” presentiment tests ("channels") carried out simultaneously on the same individual. Before the occurrence of the stimulus an experimenter decides, in real time, whether to observe the measurements in any channel or not and immediately performs this decision before the occurrence of the stimulus. A case in which a channel is observed during real time and a case in which it has not belong to different decoherent histories. This holds true because according to the “Orthodox Interpretation” of quantum mechanics the conscious observation collapses the multitude of possible pre stimulus measurements to just the perceived one. In such cases quantum mechanics imposes a disappearance of the retrospective presentiment effect. Thus, in such a parallel design one can compare what happens when an observation is carried out and is not carried out at the same time instance. The presentiment effect disappearance in the observed channel despite its appearance in the unobserved channel for the same moments is thus evidence for the effectiveness of the experimenter's willed observation.
Our inability to rewind time may cast some doubt about the genuineness of the effectiveness of our free choice capability. I suggest that the so-called presentiment anomalous experience can be used to verify this genuineness. The idea is to post stimulus compare averaged results from two apparently “similar” presentiment tests ("channels") carried out simultaneously on the same individual. Before the occurrence of the stimulus an experimenter decides, in real time, whether to observe the measurements in any channel or not and immediately performs this decision before the occurrence of the stimulus. A case in which a channel is observed during real time and a case in which it has not belong to different decoherent histories. This holds true because according to the “Orthodox Interpretation” of quantum mechanics the conscious observation collapses the multitude of possible pre stimulus measurements to just the perceived one. In such cases quantum mechanics imposes a disappearance of the retrospective presentiment effect. Thus, in such a parallel design one can compare what happens when an observation is carried out and is not carried out at the same time instance. The presentiment effect disappearance in the observed channel despite its appearance in the unobserved channel for the same moments is thus evidence for the effectiveness of the experimenter's willed observation.
Although small and embedded in strong noise, the surprisingly confirmed presentiment effect is deemed among the more reliable "psi" effects, although such an effect cannot reflect prediction in real-time. Rather, the effect reflects correlations found only in the historical past as a result of the end conditions represented by the participant's psychological responses to the stimuli. That is, the effect does appear, but in retrospect only. The current paper mathematically explains this suggestion through an orthodox interpretation of quantum mechanics whose ontology is outlined. The explanation is based on von Neumann's idea that the system's quantum state collapses when the participant's mind perceives an observation. The argument takes decoherence considerations into account. The presentiment effect's existence and its presented reasonable quantum explanation seem to support von Neumann's idea.
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. …
Recent experiments (gedanken or otherwise) and theorems in quantum mechanics (QM), such as new iterations on Wigner's friend and delayed choice, have led many people to claim that QM is not compatible with determinate and intersubjectively consistent experience (what some call absoluteness of observed events), such as experiences of experimental outcomes. In the case of delayed choice the tension is between our experience of free will and a possible "superdeterminism" at work in QM. At the very least, some have suggested that the only way to save absoluteness of observed events, is to give up one or more of the following assumptions: free will, locality, or the completeness of QM. Our goal in this paper is to provide a take on QM that explains why there is and must always be determinate and intersubjectively consistent experience about all experimental outcomes (absoluteness of observed events). Our take accepts the completeness of the theory and requires no invocation of relative states (e.g., outcomes being relative to branches, conscious observers, etc.). And finally, this take requires no allegedly hybrid models such as claims about "subjective collapse." We provide a take on QM that yields a single world wherein all the observers (conscious or otherwise) agree about determinate and definite outcomes, because those outcomes are in fact determinate and definite. We provide a realist psi-epistemic take on QM that saves the absoluteness of observed events and the completeness of QM, without giving up free will or locality. We also show how our realist psi-epistemic account eliminates the measurement problem and, coupled with our take on neutral monism, also eliminates the hard problem of consciousness.
The problem of measurement taken at face value shows clearly that there is an inconsistency inside the quantum formalism.The phenomenon of decoherence is often presented as a solution to it.A widely debated question is to decide between two different interpretations.The first one is to consider that the decoherence process has the effect to actually project a superposed state into one of its classically interpretable component, hence doing the same job as the reduction postulate.For the second one, decoherence is only a way to show why no macroscopic superposed state can be observed and so, to explain the classical appearance of the macroscopic world, while the quantum entanglement between the system, the apparatus and the environment never disappears.In this case, explaining why only one single definite outcome is observed remains to do.In this paper, we examine arguments for and against both interpretations and defend a position according to which the outcome that is observed is relative to the observer in close parallel to the Everett interpretation.
A variant of the von Neumann-Wigner Interpretation is proposed. Problems arising from the quantum Zeno effect are addressed as we have described previously. We do, however, offer some new, and perhaps unexpected observations. We are accustomed to thinking of wave function collapse as occurring consequent to laboratory measurements. We speculate that, whatever physical correlate of consciousness exists within the brain, it is quantum mechanical in the sense that a brain, left to itself, would eventually decohere into a state no longer compatible with its conscious functioning. Wave function collapse returns it to a state compatible with consciousness. Indeed, this may be its important reason for occurring. A universe without it simply could not play host to conscious brains. The fact that it also prevents us from encountering "absurd" situations in the laboratory is merely a fortunate dividend. Whenever a quantum measurement is made the universe's future history splits into a number of possibilities. This number may be very large or infinite. And we believe consciousness plays a vital role in this happening. A "conscious" universe where quantum measurements are being made allows for an enormous number of equally acceptable world-histories. An "unconscious" one, always evolving in a unitary fashion, allows for only one. If we assume that the decision as to which worldhistory is the real one (i.e. this one) is made at random we see that the universe is overwhelmingly more likely to be "conscious" than not.
A variant of the von Neumann-Wigner Interpretation is proposed. Problems arising from the quantum Zeno effect are addressed as we have described previously. We do, however, offer some new, and perhaps unexpected observations. We are accustomed to thinking of wave function collapse as occurring consequent to laboratory measurements. We speculate that, whatever physical correlate of consciousness exists within the brain, it is quantum mechanical in the sense that a brain, left to itself, would eventually decohere into a state no longer compatible with its conscious functioning. Wave function collapse returns it to a state compatible with consciousness. Indeed, this may be its important reason for occurring. A universe without it simply could not play host to conscious brains. The fact that it also prevents us from encountering "absurd" situations in the laboratory is merely a fortunate dividend. Whenever a quantum measurement is made the universe's future history splits into a number of possibilities. This number may be very large or infinite. And we believe consciousness plays a vital role in this happening. A "conscious" universe where quantum measurements are being made allows for an enormous number of equally acceptable world-histories. An "unconscious" one, always evolving in a unitary fashion, allows for only one. If we assume that the decision as to which worldhistory is the real one (i.e. this one) is made at random we see that the universe is overwhelmingly more likely to be "conscious" than not.