Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site decwrl.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-pbsvax!cooper From: cooper@pbsvax.DEC (Topher Cooper HLO2-3/M08 DTN225-5819) Newsgroups: net.physics Subject: Why net.physics might be a forum for some psi discussion. Message-ID: <3131@decwrl.UUCP> Date: Tue, 16-Jul-85 13:12:23 EDT Article-I.D.: decwrl.3131 Posted: Tue Jul 16 13:12:23 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 18-Jul-85 06:18:27 EDT Sender: daemon@decwrl.UUCP Organization: DEC Engineering Network Lines: 100 >From: Mayank Prakash> >The point is not whether these "odd phenomena" are interesting or not, but >is this the appropriate bboard for such discussion. If you are interested in >discussing them, go to the proper forums, such as net.scifi or net.religion or >something. The net is already crowded with messages, and let us at least work >towards keeping things organised so that people don't have to waste time going >thru messages that do not interest them. > >- mayank. I am certainly sympathetic with this viewpoint: parapsychology is a field in its own right and no more a part of physics than it is a branch of psychology (though there are people in the field who will argue for each of these). I would like to point out that most of the discussion so far has been as scientific as most discussions in this newsgroup, a blend of unsophisticated speculation, misconceptions and some more or less knowledgeable discussion. No one has come on and claimed that their spirit guide has revealed to them that Uri Geller really has supernatural powers (though some people have come pretty close to the opposite statement :-)). There are, however, two reasons why I think people interested in physics should be interested in parapsychology. One of these reasons is independent of the "reality" of the phenomena in question. There is an underlying collection of facts on which modern parapsychology rests. These facts are frequently ignored but never knowledgeably denied. Only their interpretation is in contention. The facts are: in a significant fraction (roughly one-third) of experiments in which: 1) The outcome depends on sensitive statistical tests of large numbers of trials; 2) There is an "agent" (e.g., the experimenter) who has a particular outcome they would prefer; 3) All known ways that the outcome could be biased have been removed at, or more commonly, well above, the standards one usually finds in experimental science; the experiment ends up showing a statistically significant effect. It is irrelevant to my point whether or not this is due to "normal" or supposed "paranormal" influences. Of interest to this newsgroup are those classed as PK experiments by parapsychologists, i.e., those in which the data to which the statistical tests are being applied are produced by a "random" physical system, rather than by a human trying to "match" some set of targets. Note that I am not particularly talking about experiments done with entertainers of questionable ethics but those done with "unselected" people or the experimenter him/herself as the agent. What is the difference between this type of experiment and many modern physics experiments? The interpretation given to positive results; the amount of funding; the number of people involved; and the degree to which attempts are made to exclude fraud. I see no reason to assume that whatever causes the anomalies in PK experiments are not equally likely to effect physics experiments. You can certainly claim that the standards for excluding sources of error are higher in physics than in parapsychology, but I think you will have trouble backing up that assertion. If anything, the opposite is the truth, which is why the physicists who come into parapsychology to "put it on a firm, scientific footing" frequently make fools of themselves. You can also recite the oft made complaints about the absence of "replicatability" in parapsychology. The truth seems to be that parapsychological experiments are subject to the same 1-in-3 rule in replication as for the original experiment. This means that when conditions are as described above, there is a 1-in-9 chance that you will get both a spurious result and a spurious replication. I am aware of the fact that the picture of the evidence for PK is not what the Martin Gardner's and the James Randi's of the world would lead you to think it is. It is much easier to announce that a particular experiment (or frequently a set of informal observations) are THE case for psi and then present scenarios (frequently without proof) of how the observations could have occurred "naturally." If people are interested I can post citations to surveys of the evidence for you to examine. I will not belabor the second reason that people who are interested in physics might be interested in parapsychology. It is simply the implications to physics IF psychic phenomena, both PK and ESP, are accepted; and I doubt that anyone reading this who doesn't already accept that possibility will do so without examining some of the primary source material themselves. Most people agree, however, that, almost by definition, the consequences to physics would be profound. As an example, a physicist by the name of Evan Harris Walker claims that the properties implied for any "hidden variables" by the Aspect experiments are, if we assume that at least some of those variables are coupled with brain states, exactly what is needed to explain psi phenomena. This ties in directly with recent discussions in the newsgroup about the "completeness" of the Copenhagen interpretation of QM. Topher Cooper USENET: ...{allegra,decvax,ihnp4,ucbvax}!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-pbsvax!cooper ARPA/CSNET: cooper%pbsvax.DEC@decwrl Disclaimer: This contains my own opinions, and I am solely responsible for them.