Back to the Future ?

[PJ]

I mentioned earlier in the thread where they prayed over medical records sorted randomly into two stacks one to be prayed over and one for a control and went back to check on the outcomes of the patients, those whose medical records were prayed over fared much better. The catch is that the prayers didn't take place until 10 years after all the patients had been discharged

Unless it's been set up in a way that DAT is excluded (someone had to decide which records went in which stack, or which tech/moment to use to decide) that'd get some critique, but it's still fascinating. One of my first books on metaphysics, I can't remember the name but it was by a preacher that arranged congregational volunteers to pray over plants. He tried to make it scientific, you know, rotating the plants and varying assignments and so on. Although he didn't totally succeed in the controls area (compared to a formal lab setting), still his results were very intriguing.

I read some stuff on the topic later (we are now reaching back into the paleolithic era, when I was a late teen) and one of the interesting things (related to 'prayer over plants') was that there seemed to be an 'effect' more related to someone's "attention" toward the plant -- positive or _negative_ -- than to what that attention was, really; as if any attention was good. That made me think that it was kind of an interesting throwback to Mesmer, who was quite SERIOUS about 'the fluid of the stars' and the 'energy' -- chi, we'd call it (but that's all been whitewashed into someone talking gently to you now, as if that's what hypnosis was in 1880 or something).

Humans "pay" attention, as I say (in magickal/metaphysical situations). To me that's interesting since it seems like when attempting to experiment on something, maybe the 'result-of-intent' is not always as clear as simply 'the result-of-attention'. What I'm trying (badly) to say is that maybe in this kind of experiment it's less important "what" happens as that "something, anything" happens. At least as a place to start.

I think psi is in a difficult situation that reminds me of an old saying I liked:


At first setting down as a fact fundamental
That nothing, with God, can be accidental.


You could throw 'psi' in there instead of God and have the same (though less benign) dynamic. If psi is real and if reality is if anything composed of its interactions, then there's pretty much no such thing as truly random, accidental, chance, luck, etc. once someone is paying attention to something. (In fact, even measuring to prove there is, could merely arrange situations according to the leading manager of the effort, to demonstrate that there IS chance, this itself being an effect, LOL.)

I once wrote about the alien situation that the whole thing was "so confusing that even the ancient philosophers would have thrown up their hands and got real jobs." I think some elements of psi have that level of boggling!

PJ

 

[blackcat]

PJ. yeah, somewhat analogous to quantum results only this would be, for one thing, on a macro scale, which would kill the idea that many scientists favor that quantum effects have no effect on the macro world. Plus the results would be expected before hand whereas in quantum studies, they have had no clue why what happens is what is happening and little if any clue what will happen next.

And Jon, I suspect you are still not getting it. The face on the 20 dollar bill was designed long ago. In order to change all the copies, you would most likely need to go back in time to the original and change it. THen all copies would be changed. Except that no one would ever have seen the original version. They would only have ever seen the changed copies through all time. Because the original version before you changed it would never have been copied, only the changed version. And so they would not realize you changed it, because to them, it had always been that way. From their perspective, the copies would have been the same for all their lifetime because you changed it way in the past. So they would not know about any change and if you said you changed it, they would just lock you up in the funny farm (assuming you even knew you changed it yourself)

Or on the flip side, it could be said we already know that you failed, because we see no change, and the reason for failure may be that there is a rule against paradox. Or it could be said that maybe you succeeded but you will never know, because none of us, not even you, ever saw the original. Or maybe you will do your experiment, and then you will check your $20.00 and see that "Marty" already exists mixed in the pattern of the hairs of the face and many people will say that you chose "Marty" cuz you knew it already existed there and so you were cheating, and only you will know for sure that you did not cheat and had no idea. Because historically that "Marty" had always been there and everyone who had ever looked had always found it there but it was just not common knowledge but it was always there precisely because you went back in time and put it there. Stuff in the collective memory now are things that were created in the past. By changing the now, you change the past, by changing the past, you change the now. You cannot separate the now from the past as they are (as far as we know or think we know) linked in a linear fashion. See what I'm saying?

If not, maybe Marv can explain it better than me..
-Eva

 

[PJ]

I'm just saying this seems like the simplest way to try to prove you can RI something "in the past". You rely on the existing collective memory of millions.

What you are implying (by accident I think) is, don't change the past; break the probability line somehow and move the entire collection of our current humanity to a separate line.

(I had this kind of experience for awhile in the early 90s, where multiple timelines were weaving in and out, which was as bizarre for the people and reality around me as for me I think. I did have 'memory' of the previous situation, but then again my 'awareness' was anomalous enough in 20 other ways that I can't promise I was 'normal' by any means. When I mention these things, I should sticky-note Leland's assurance that it's ok to be a little crazy on them LOL.)

Unfortunately I think that is an entirely separate thing from the initial discussion of retro-PK.

Jon think about it, it doesn't matter whether you are affecting something like the face of a $20 bill, or how many people today know that the $20 bill has a certain face on it. If you change the face that was originally put on it, it will have always been that way, and not only that, you probably would change your *own* past.

Maybe you already did the $20 bill experiment, changed it to someone different, and hence in the changed timeline that has resulted, either have no reason to do the experiment at all, or are preparing an experiment to change it again -- maybe back to what it started with LOL!

If after an announcement, on Larry King, say, that this is what you were going to do, people woke up one day and saw Marty McFly's picture on the $20 bill, or "Marv was here" on Col. Blanchard's telegram, or

Then people on the internet would, within 20 minutes, from their pajama-clad butts in computer chairs, and mostly in Swedish, prove that your 'prediction' happened AFTER 20s were ALREADY changed and hence was just making up something already existent and claiming you had something to do with it back in time.

As an ironic tie-in to RV, in 1996 Ed Dames went on the Art Bell show and told people--well, many things, but--he predicted that 'frogs would begin mutating' and that 'jet stream winds' would sometimes start coming closer to the surface of the earth. But this stuff had been published in science magazines going back years as existing issues that were becoming more noticed. Of course the general public doesn't read science magazines (which I think he was counting on lol) or know more than what the TV and radio tell them. So they really had no idea, given that talking heads on ABC had never mentioned this. Later, when yet another of many (for years) articles came out mentioning that frogs were mutating or jetstream winds were touching ground, Art Bell went "Wowie!" and the general public went, "Wow! He PREDICTED that!"

But you cannot predict something that has already happened.

How do you get around that in your model?? I don't see it?

PJ

 

[Jon_Knowles]

PJ wrote:

What you are implying (by accident I think) is, don't change the past; break the probability line somehow and move the entire collection of our current humanity to a separate line.

I knew someone would raise something like this. I almost mentioned it in my last post, but decided to let it ride. No, I am not raising anything about a "probability line". You are and that is one way to approach it. But I'm not getting into any of that. Call me a simple realist on this point, if you want.

Unfortunately I think that is an entirely separate thing from the initial discussion of retro-PK.

Jon think about it, it doesn't matter whether you are affecting something like the face of a $20 bill, or how many people today know that the $20 bill has a certain face on it. If you change the face that was originally put on it, it will have always been that way, and not only that, you probably would change your *own* past.

Isn't that the point? You are trying to change something that WAS that way, and now IS this way, a different way. How would you establish that: you appeal to the existing common memory of millions of people. This would be influencing the recent past, the past within sound living memory of millions. To me, that would be a form of "retro-PK" but people may differ on what that term means.

Maybe you already did the $20 bill experiment, changed it to someone different, and hence in the changed timeline that has resulted, either have no reason to do the experiment at all, or are preparing an experiment to change it again -- maybe back to what it started with LOL!

You are the one bringing in the idea of a "changed timeline". I make no mention of a timeline. Just show me the beef. As I say, I'm being a "simple realist" here.

Then people on the internet would, within 20 minutes, from their pajama-clad butts in computer chairs, and mostly in Swedish, prove that your 'prediction' happened AFTER 20s were ALREADY changed and hence was just making up something already existent and claiming you had something to do with it back in time.

You seem to imply their memories would have changed. I make no such assumption.

As an ironic tie-in to RV, in 1996 Ed Dames went on the Art Bell show and told people--well, many things, but--he predicted that 'frogs would begin mutating' and that 'jet stream winds' would sometimes start coming closer to the surface of the earth. But this stuff had been published in science magazines going back years as existing issues that were becoming more noticed. Of course the general public doesn't read science magazines (which I think he was counting on lol) or know more than what the TV and radio tell them. So they really had no idea, given that talking heads on ABC had never mentioned this. Later, when yet another of many (for years) articles came out mentioning that frogs were mutating or jetstream winds were touching ground, Art Bell went "Wowie!" and the general public went, "Wow! He PREDICTED that!"

Now, to me, THAT is an entirely different point.

But you cannot predict something that has already happened.

I didn't say that. I say we will predict we will change something that already exists (in the recent past), and tomorrow people will see the results of our prediction, if we are successful. Something we all knew existed in a certain way in the recent past will be different. That will be the proof. (Again, I don't say this is at all doable. I am talking about the simplest way, it would seem, of 'proving it'.)

How do you get around that in your model?? I don't see it?

You just do it. Get Dean Radin on Larry King and try it out. Or warm up with Marv's experiment and put it on Facebook. You worry about your view of time, timelines, collective memory shifts, later. I'm being very pragmatic here.

A different analogy, for this: After we came out of the church, we stood talking for some time together of Bishop Berkeley's ingenious sophistry to prove the nonexistence of matter, and that every thing in the universe is merely ideal. I observed, that though we are satisfied his doctrine is not true, it is impossible to refute it. I never shall forget the alacrity with which Johnson answered, striking his foot with mighty force against a large stone, till he rebounded from it -- "I refute it thus." Boswell: Life of Samuel Johnson

My august phil teacher told us this story and said of Johnson: "How naive!" I thought about it and realized: Nope, Johnson was right. That's all the proof one needs. In this case, it's a matter of understanding the limits of philosophy. (Obviously there are huge differences on that point.)

Cheers,
Jon

 

[Jon_Knowles]

Eva,

I saw your post after I read PJ's and posted. But I explain my point of view in the reply to PJ.

You are making lots of assumptions in your post. As I say, I am just being a simple realist here, making no assumptions about how anything would have to be, how time must be, what would have to happen to our collective memories, etc. If one were able to make such a change using the rough scenario I suggest (which I distinguish from the 'timeline' cones and the like they use in physics books for us laypeople), then the world, science and philosophy would have lots of explaining to do. Trying to lay down ahead of time what must be or can't be for such a change to occur doesn't strike me as productive.

As to that $20 bill, yes, I said it would be hard. You would have to change all the plates too - not just the dollar bills. What a job. So Col. Blanchard's teletype message should be a lot "easier". Maybe there is something even easier than that.

One variant of good old American pragmatism at work here...

Jon

 

[blackcat]

Jon, I think you are still not getting it. But let me ask you something, how to do you plan to change all of the faces on all of the $20.00 bills? How do you plan to do that without going into the past and changing the original? If you go into the past and change the original, then how do you propose anyone would have any idea that there was ever anything different from what you changed it too? LIving memory is based on the past. If you change the past, you change living memory. People will have no living memory of a past that you have changed to no longer exist. You can only remember something that actually happened in your past. If you make a different past, there will be a memory of only that past. People will not have memories of a past that never existed because you changed it to a different past. People will not have memories of a past that never existed. They will only have memories of the one past that has existed since they were born and still exists.
-Eva

 

[Jon_Knowles]

Hi Eva,
I've explained my viewpoint. There's a difference in outlook, in philosophy in approaching this task, that's all. A few more tries at it...

In the above you make several statements about what must be: "If you change the past, you change living memory...They will only have memories of the one past". Who says? How do you know?

The challenge was to see if one could change something that existed in the past. With the implication that one could thereby "prove" it. PJ says you can't prove you changed the past and you concur. But you favor giving it a try, I gather, trying to change something in the past. I do too, if one has the time and interest, unlikely as it is to succeed. One way to do that is to set up a "simple" scenario where you compare something in the recent past that you have changed with something in the more recent past that provides the 'proof'. I outlined one.

It may be that it is doable but only under very special conditions. That would seem likely in fact. You can never prove, to me anyway, that it can't happen, that such an event (and the proof in the flesh, to to speak) could never transpire.

We have many instances of "white crow" (not a case of trying to change the past, granted) where then-current science or anthropology or biology denied something could ever be or happen. Man will never fly in a heavier-than-air craft. Such a thing as a platypus cannot exist. The sun can't last more than about 40,000 years because that's as long as that much coal could burn.

Yes, you say, 'But that's finding something in 'the present', not about changing the past and proving it. That can't be done and here's why.'

Who says? Maybe it is doable. Maybe with new technology and new science or Glenn Wheaton making 50 passes at it, it is doable. The only way we can prove it is doable is to try it.

Another thought about where I am coming from:

"The question whether objective truth can be attributed to human thinking is not a question of theory but is a practical question. Man must prove the truth — i.e. the reality and power, the this-sidedness of his thinking in practice. The dispute over the reality or non-reality of thinking that is isolated from practice is a purely scholastic question." Marx, "Theses on Feuerbach".

And with that, I'll end my part in this discussion. Unless someone does demonstrate the effect.

Cheers,
Jon

 

[malexeev]

PJ,
What is wrong with my original idea (especially with Marv's modification)?
Let say, there is a photo camera. Let say, it is the large format one. A person takes a sealed unexposed film from the package and put it in the camera. The same (or a different) person tries to put a message on the emulsion, for as long as he wishes. Later the film is developed and examined for a message. This can be tried for months, if necessary, to finagle the process. Intellectually, it is a piece of cake. If it works, eventually, an actual person (to be photographed) may be added and ironclad protocols could be put in place. Then we will know it works in the present. Only after that it would make sense to try and alter the past. If it would not work, there is a basic problem with altering the time. If it works (unequivocally), the past can be altered, and all the paradoxes are irrelevant. There is nothing special about the whole idea as mentioned above, except steps are separated and can be tried one at a time, while with a frontal attack, a failure does not signifies anything.

 

[malexeev]

Jon,
There is nothing wrong with trying any idea. It is just that a clear success would contradict all our life experience, and that of others before us. The test by mr Wheaton is straightforward enough, and if such a thing was (clearly) possible we would see these and other similar things happen every day. Reality seems to be firm enough to not allow this. I personally witnessed a few of possible reality shifts, but there was always uncertainty about those changes.

 

[RedCairo]

I forget the original idea (maybe back in the thread somewhere), but I've been kind of returning as an anchor to stuff done 'using the same approach as' the event that generated all this discussion, is all.

I think current-time PK experiments such as you describe sound great! I think it has to be in the present in order to be in a protocol that is provable.

I am personally focused on remote viewing and dowsing though. (Note that TKR is a 'remote viewing & dowsing' project.) I do find PK of interest, and I find healing of interest, and other kinds of RI, and I find many other psi arts to be of interest, and of course there is a little overlap in all of these. But they are armchair interests, I haven't time to pursue them and I prioritize RV.

PK is not by nature about data collection. So it has less in common with remote viewing than many other psychic arts.

We actually used to have all our different boards in one section, but ironically enough, it was Glenn dissing the project for our forum mixing stuff that wasn't RV in with boards that were, that caused us to move many of those boards down to a separate section of their own with the title "and other things viewers find of interest". RV is the focus at TKR, and it's always helpful to make sure people understand what isn't-RV so perhaps that helped in some way.

Since remote viewing is my focus, I'm not real into personally experimenting on other things like PK right now because I have a difficult enough time finding time for remote viewing, what with work and kid and online stuff.

But for people really into that or who are more interested in other psi forms than RV, I encourage it, it sounds like a lot of fun! All psi is cool. More power to ya.

Seriously, I think if someone would set up a website or something focusing on retro-PK and trying to work out a protocol and experments others could play in for that, that it would be really cool. It's a fascinating subject.

 

[RedCairo]

OK Jon I think I see what you mean. Marx aside, LOL.

You are just offering a completely different protocol is all. Marv was attempting to do something analogous to the original.

You left out a few words or timeline I think would have made your example clearer the first time. You're actually talking about changing the present/future/near-past. Or perhaps I still have it wrong but this is what my brain cells are putting together.

I am off work sick today. So my brain cells are not at their best.

1. $20 bills have existed for eons and at March 31 they have always been like so
2. On April 1 $20 bills change
3. On April 2 Person X publicly says that TODAY, they caused the change of YESTERDAY, and suggests everyone consider how $20 bills looked on Mar 31 vs. how they look now on Apr 2, which is obviously different. So they have memory to 'compare' the past version to the now-present version.

Proving the change was from them and not from some other agency might be tricky but the approach Malexeev suggested would probably work. (Which is a different approach, but being a present-time approach, could be controlled properly.)

 

[blackcat]

Malexeev, yes what you describe is similar to what I was talking about as a good idea for an experiment. You dodge the potential paradox problem by not dealing with something that has already been seen and scrutinized, which I think is wise because why add a potential giant pitfall of a time paradox when all we really want to do first is see if the ri is even possible.
-Eva

 

[daz]

Looks like this project is being presented at the next IRVA conference.

http://www.irvaconference.org/allgire_abstract.html

Daz

 

[njbr]

Looks like this project is being presented at the next IRVA conference.

http://www.irvaconference.org/allgire_abstract.html

Daz

wow, very very cool .... hopefully results/findings/info gets published for those who can't attend the conference .... I've always wondered when doing ARV if we're actually manifesting the outcome we predict to some extent, instead of viewing the outcome that is already established to occur.

 

[Marv_Darley]

Lol not cool at all IMO - this is one of the most ludicrous experimental designs I have ever heard of and I am shocked that the IRVA are wasting peoples' time with it. :

 

[KamiHorner]

Back to the Future

Thank you Jason for opening my yes, i had no idea of the existence of that OPS slots in displays.

 

[RVTrainee001]

The most amazing part of this project to me is the viewing itself. The outcome, the effects on film seem plausible but at the same time they make me think of pareidolia. either way, amazing viewing.

 

[fernat]

It seems obvious to me that anything that would have altered even a small event in the "past" would have an exponential effect on the "future" or "now" but we would have no knowledge of anything being changed. Everything that exists now is the result of everything that preceded it. We can remote view some aspect of the past and the future but that is not the same as being imbedded in that time frame which could make changes. Remote viewing the future will definitely alter the future for better or worse. Fernat.

 

[tbone]

It seems obvious to me that anything that would have altered even a small event in the "past" would have an exponential effect on the "future" or "now" but we would have no knowledge of anything being changed. Everything that exists now is the result of everything that preceded it. We can remote view some aspect of the past and the future but that is not the same as being imbedded in that time frame which could make changes. Remote viewing the future will definitely alter the future for better or worse. Fernat.

Maybe not. The so-called "Butterfly Effect", a chaos theory when supposedly a butterfly flapping its wings in South America can cause a hurricane in North America is well known. However, almost always these things are cancelled out early and disappear into nothing. So maybe nothing in the past that has been altered yet has had an exponential effect.

 

[fernat]

Maybe not. The so-called "Butterfly Effect", a chaos theory when supposedly a butterfly flapping its wings in South America can cause a hurricane in North America is well known. However, almost always these things are cancelled out early and disappear into nothing. So maybe nothing in the past that has been altered yet has had an exponential effect.

I am not a fan of the butterfly effect, weather events will come as they will with little input from humans although input from hundreds of millions of humans can cause global warming but that is another issue altogether. I simply want to point out that with a little input by humans a tiny event or change which could alter the observation of a photograph by adding a curiosity would have a remarkable effect on millions of people in the past 150 years, not necessarily by viewing or even knowing about the photograph but by the congruent nature of human activity. This change in human activity would have caused millions of people not to have been born or be born as others. a small change in habits and though processes would be magnified into a totally different world. So hypothetically our time traveler would risk anilation along with the world he knew (including this conversation) if he changed one iota of the past. Fernat