Mind effecting REG - EPR paradox -Quantum mechanics

timf1234

Banned
T
Joined
Oct 8, 2005
Messages
468
Dear friends,

Page 120, of book, Healing Words, by Larry Dossey, M.D. claims there are several scientific experiment have been done that demonstrates mind changes the outcome of REG (Random Event Generator) by a small percentage.

Of course, I do not think so. But I also want to be open minded. What do you folks think? I would like to hear from you.

The Author of this book claims that Mind Science foundation in San Antonia, Texas, Physicist Helmut Schmidt have demonstrated this and that his work is published in, according to him, "prestigious" Foundations of Physics.

Author reasoning is based on EPR paradox, and quantum mechanics theory that sometime implies that things doesn't happen until a conscious mind observe it. In other word, even according to quantum mechanics mind does affect matter even outside one's body.

I would like to hear your thoughts on it.

Thanks.
 
Last edited:
Without reviewing any of the claims or even Googling anything, I can see absolute bunk here. I should let someone with much better understand of quantum mechanics explain because I hardly know anything on the subject.

But really the EPR paradox (and most issues with quantum mechanics) only allpy on a "quantum" level. The problem with observing or measuring things in a quantum system (very very very incredibly small) is that the observer or measuring device itself affects the system. So if I observe a quantum system, I interfere with it. That interference may cause some property of the system to change. But the only way to observe the system is to cause an interference as a result of that observation. Similarly, the only way a system may obtain a property may be to be interfered with by an observation. So the property of the system does not exist until you observe it.

The EPR paradox is that the effects on a system from the interference of one meausrement appear to simultaneuosly affect another measurement on the system. This is counter-intuitive that information cannot travel faster than the speed of light. But I think it really comes down to (at least theortical) proof that the rules for observing and measuring quantum system and quite different from the rules for observing and measuring every day objects (which I guess might be called a Newtonian system?).

So "mind changes" would not affect a Random Event Generator (REG). The only way quantum machanics would have an effect would be if you first observed the REG at a normal (Newtonian) level and then observed the REG at a quantum level (however you could do that). If you conducted both observations simultaneously, both the normal data and the "quantum" data would match exactly to the expected results of the REG. The only "change" or "affect" that you would see is that "quantum" data would appear somewhat unexplicable in terms of Newtonian mechanics.

In order to affect the REG in terms of quantum mechanics or the EPR paradox, you would have to introduce a quantum level measuring device into the system. Simply changing your mind or "thinking hard" (which would be outside the quantum system) does not have any effect on the system, quantum or otherwise.
 
timf1234 said:
Author reasoning is based on EPR paradox, and quantum mechanics theory that sometime implies that things doesn't happen until a conscious mind observe it. In other word, even according to quantum mechanics mind does affect matter even outside one's body.
Click to expand...

If I'm not mistaken, that's one of the aspects of the Copenhagen Interpretation of QED.
I can't remember what it's called, but I do remember that a viable and competing interpretation is gaining credence, as it removes the need for a conscious observer to "collapse the wave function" as the CI calls for.
 
timf1234 said:
Dear friends,

Page 120, of book, Healing Words, by Larry Dossey, M.D. claims there are several scientific experiment have been done that demonstrates mind changes the outcome of REG (Random Event Generator) by a small percentage.

.
Click to expand...

The REG nonsense was done to death here and one of the seminal papers was humorously (and violently) deconstructed by Pixiemixa. I also believe that one of the principle investigators disavowed the results.

If you think about it, these "studies" are basically uncontrollable.

Anything that invokes them is crap. Has to be. And the person doing the invoking is a fraud. Why? Juiliette Lewis said it best in Natural Born Killers "You shoulda known".
 
The "conscious" observer crap is not a part of quantum mechanics or the Copenhagen Interpretation. It is simply an add-on by woos.

Linda
 
Last edited:
Ed said:
The REG nonsense was done to death here and one of the seminal papers was humorously (and violently) deconstructed by Pixiemixa. I also believe that one of the principle investigators disavowed the results.
Click to expand...

I don't know which paper you are refering to above but I have not yet read an explanation, other than fraud, of how the PEAR RNG experimental design could generate 3 RNG chance devitations that correlate with their 3 pre-stated operator intentions. They randomised the 3 intention conditions so that the only way a systematic bias in the RNG could produce the results was for the RNG to produce more 0's in the "try to produce more 0's" condition, more 1's in the "try to produce more 1's" condition, and an equal amount of 0's and 1's in the "try not to affect it" condition. Can anyone come up with a mechanism as to how this could happen under the PEAR design? The only one I can think of is simply the mechanism of random chance but that is not very satisfactory considering the odds against chance. I think this is why the sceptical focus is on operator 10. The only way to sceptically explain the PEAR RNG results is fraud. And of that explanation, I am sceptical...

If you think about it, these "studies" are basically uncontrollable.
Click to expand...

Could you explain what you mean?
 
davidsmith73 said:
I don't know which paper you are refering to above but I have not yet read an explanation, other than fraud, of how the PEAR RNG experimental design could generate 3 RNG chance devitations that correlate with their 3 pre-stated operator intentions. They randomised the 3 intention conditions so that the only way a systematic bias in the RNG could produce the results was for the RNG to produce more 0's in the "try to produce more 0's" condition, more 1's in the "try to produce more 1's" condition, and an equal amount of 0's and 1's in the "try not to affect it" condition. Can anyone come up with a mechanism as to how this could happen under the PEAR design? The only one I can think of is simply the mechanism of random chance but that is not very satisfactory considering the odds against chance. I think this is why the sceptical focus is on operator 10. The only way to sceptically explain the PEAR RNG results is fraud. And of that explanation, I am sceptical...



Could you explain what you mean?
Click to expand...
I believe that Ed is alluding to the calibration problem. How would you calibrate the RNGs?
 
Dragon said:
I believe that Ed is alluding to the calibration problem. How would you calibrate the RNGs?
Click to expand...


Run the RNG for a prespecified length of time with no continuous feedback to minimise PK effects. You would of course need some feedback at the end of the run in order to observe whether the RNG has behaved according to chance. The assumptions would be 1) that feedback by observation of the RNG output is necessary to influecnce the RNG and 2) that the experimenter observing the result of the calibration run was not trying to influence the result.

If the empirically determined control runs churn out random chance results and the experimental runs don't then we have some explaining to do!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom