What to think of PEAR
harry
<r...@maths.tcd.ie> wrote in message
news:er3461$ddp$1...@lanczos.maths.tcd.ie...
> e.Sh...@yahoo.com writes:
>
>>Thomas Smid <thoma...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>>> I would suggest therefore that the mentioned point is dropped from the
>>> charter.
>
>>Thomas,
>
>>The charter is perfect as is. "Posts about theories which are clearly
>>inconsistent with empirical evidence" is just a polite way of saying that
>>there is a clear difference between noise and reason.
>
>>I've heard historians' claim that the supposed ancient belief in a flat
>>earth
>>never was a dominant view. And even if it was and we were living then, I'm
>>sure that these moderators would allow debate on that topic. Please state
>>a
>>real topic worthy of debate that you think these moderators wouldn't
>>approve.
>
> I do not want to speak for Thomas, but perhaps it would be instructive
> to consider Princeton University's famous Princeton Engineering Anomalies
> Research group: http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/
>
>>From their site: "The Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR)
> program was established at Princeton University in 1979 by Robert G.
> Jahn, then Dean of the School of Engineering and Applied Science, to
> pursue rigorous scientific study of the interaction of human consciousness
> with sensitive physical devices, systems, and processes common to
> contemporary engineering practice. Since that time, an interdisciplinary
> staff of engineers, physicists, psychologists, and humanists has been
> conducting a comprehensive agenda of experiments and developing
> complementary theoretical models to enable better understanding of the
> role of consciousness in the establishment of physical reality."
>
> They add: "Beyond its revolutionary technological applications and
> scientific impact, the evidence of an active role of consciousness
> in the establishment of physical reality holds profound implications
> for our view of ourselves, our relationships to others, and to the
> cosmos in which we exist."
>
> I do not in any way endorse their conclusions or their research
> methods, but I do not think anybody is entitled to decide for
> me whether this topic is worthy of debate, and I believe there
> is a large chance that the moderators would not approve of
> posts making assertions such as those made by the professors
> at Princeton.
I had almost forgotten that one! But as this topic certainly belongs to the
foundation of physics, and the discussion is about large amounts of
empirical evidence, the "clearly wrong theory" rule doesn't apply and IMO it
almost *has* to be dealt with in this group.
If I remember well, some years ago when I read about it, there was some
discussion about the reliabilty of the statistical theory behind it; but I
got the impression that the results of such studies are simply ignored while
results of neutrino experiments are accepted, eventhough the statistical
toolbox and evidence seem to be comparable.
But then, I read somewhere else the suspicion of some kind of fraud (or, put
in a milder way, experimenter bias and selection of results): it was alleged
that all data relevant to the studies were done by one team only and stored
on a single computer. That sounds like a plausible route to explain it away.
I wonder if someone else has a well founded opinion on this matter.
Thanks in advance,
Harald
e.Sh...@yahoo.com
> > I do not want to speak for Thomas, but perhaps it would be instructive
> > to consider Princeton University's famous Princeton Engineering Anomalies
> > Research group: http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/
> >
> > I do not in any way endorse their conclusions or their research
> > methods, but I do not think anybody is entitled to decide for
> > me whether this topic is worthy of debate, and I believe there
> > is a large chance that the moderators would not approve of
> > posts making assertions such as those made by the professors
> > at Princeton.
>
> I had almost forgotten that one! But as this topic certainly belongs to
> the foundation of physics, and the discussion is about large amounts of
> empirical evidence, the "clearly wrong theory" rule doesn't apply and
> IMO it almost *has* to be dealt with in this group.
> Thanks in advance,
> Harald
I predict that PEAR will be closed by the end of the month.
(BBC News says that PEAR is closing their doors).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6353941.stm
For us, the issue isn't whether or not PEAR is worthy of debate. That is
to be determined by experimentalists. The foundations of physics are based
on what has already been verified and widely accepted by physicists.
Technically, even if PEAR were accepted it still wouldn't be physics.
Physics is the mathematical study of all conceivable universes. A universe
is a mathematical model that describes spacetime, matter, energy and their
interactions. Think of each model universe as filling one page in the atlas
of all possible universes.
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/
No one understands consciousness. There are no theories of consciousness
that make quantifiable predictions. Therefore PEAR is not physics.
Shubee
Christophe de Dinechin
> For us, the issue isn't whether or not PEAR is worthy of debate. That is
> to be determined by experimentalists. The foundations of physics are based
> on what has already been verified and widely accepted by physicists.
> Technically, even if PEAR were accepted it still wouldn't be physics.
If the experimenter can influence a physics experiment within statistical detectability, I say this
definitely impacts the foundations of physics, because it potentially invalidates a number of "high
sensitivity" experiments.
> Physics is the mathematical study of all conceivable universes.
I find this a pretty strange and restrictive definition of physics. Obviously, you do not consider
universes where PEAR would be considered mainstream physics as "conceivable"...
> A universe is a mathematical model that describes spacetime, matter, energy and their
> interactions.
Again, I differ with this definition. To me, *the* universe is a physical realm where we conduct
experiments and perform measurements. Then, we build mathematical models that describe how the
universe works. But the universe is not the model.
> No one understands consciousness. There are no theories of consciousness
> that make quantifiable predictions. Therefore PEAR is not physics.
Sorry to write that, but this statement seems wrong thrice to me:
1/ You imply that physics requires quantifiable predictions, not just qualitative predictions, nor
patient observation and collection of data. So, if I drop that glass and predict it will shatter to pieces,
it is not physics because I cannot predict how many pieces of glass there will be? If I observe that
some faraway space probe does not move as expected, it is not worth reporting to the physics
community because I did not make a quantifiable prediction, only reported a discrepancy?
2/ PEAR does apparently make predictions, specifically that the mind influences remote physical
apparatus measurably. This is a pretty spooky prediction, and many of us feel uncomfortable enough
with it to actually doubt them or secretely hope that there is a flaw. Yet, this is a prediction, and if
confirmed, it is definitely relevant to physics foundations.
3/ PEAR does not appear to be a theory of consciousness (where I define consciousness as the ability
we have to say "I am"), but a scientific study of remote influence and remote perception by the
human mind.
A slightly tangential thought: I invite readers of this forum to spend some time on the following
vs. evolution. I'm not interested in taking sides here, but in observing the dynamics of the debate.
Essentially, we have two obviously intelligent people absolutely unable to communicate. Each of them
plows along with his own theory, each of them has pretty serious arguments against the other's
theory, and none of them ever addresses the other's arguments.
I believe it has been scientifically proven that the brain makes up its mind first, and then tries to
prove or disprove the initial hypothesis (see for example http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/
content/article/2006/07/30/AR2006073000579.html). You need to keep that in mind when facing a
thesis that is hard to disprove, otherwise you introduce a bias in your thinking. Be honest with
yourselves, did you have an initial reaction along the lines of "creationists are stupid" and "this is a
waste of time" when first looking at the video above?
--
Best regards,
Christophe
e.Sh...@yahoo.com
On Feb 18, 2:33 am, Christophe de Dinechin <christo...@dinechin.org> wrote:
> On Feb 16, 5:41 pm, e.Shu...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > For us, the issue isn't whether or not PEAR is worthy of debate. That is
> > to be determined by experimentalists. The foundations of physics are based
> > on what has already been verified and widely accepted by physicists.
> > Technically, even if PEAR were accepted it still wouldn't be physics.
>
> If the experimenter can influence a physics experiment within statistical
> detectability, I say this definitely impacts the foundations of physics,
> because it potentially invalidates a number of "high sensitivity"
> experiments.
And if God not only plays dice with the universe but cheats, then I'd say that
this guiding principle also dramatically impacts the foundations of physics
but I wouldn't call it "physics proper." The physics part of this would be
whatever predictive mathematics might develop from the principle.
> > Physics is the mathematical study of all conceivable universes.
>
> I find this a pretty strange and restrictive definition of physics.
> Obviously, you do not consider universes where PEAR would be considered
> mainstream physics as "conceivable"...
Of course PEAR is conceivable. All their core myths are firmly rooted in our
culture. It is very easy to interpret PEAR science as the central theme of the
movie Ghostbusters (a spoof on science and pseudo-science). "Do you believe in
UFOs, astral projection, mental telepathy, ESP, clairvoyance, spirit
photography, telekinetic movement, full trance mediums, the Loch Ness monster
and the theory of Atlantis?"
You are obviously unfamiliar of what is commonly called the axiomatization of
physics. You are certainly free to make up your own reality and define for
yourself what that phrase is supposed to mean. Can you cite any reputable
authors to support your reinterpretation of the axiomatization of physics?
"The Axiomatization of Physics - Step 1: A Derivation of the Lorentz
Transformation" [1], which you have criticized, is clearly based on the widely
respected scientific perspective of David Hilbert.
Why Axiomatize Physics?
In the history of physics, ideas that were once seen to be fundamental,
general, and inescapable parts of the theoretical framework are sometimes
later seen to be consequent, special, and but one possibility among many in a
yet more general theoretical framework. ... Examples are the earth-centered
picture of the solar system, the Newtonian notion of time, the exact status of
the laws of thermodynamics, the Euclidean laws of spatial geometry, and
classical determinism. In view of this history, it is appropriate to ask of
any current theory “which ideas are truly fundamental and which are ‘excess
baggage’.” J.B. Hartle, Classical physics and Hamiltonian quantum mechanics as
relics of the Big Bang, Physica Scripta T 36 (1991), 228-236.
“The reductionist approach -- explaining physical phenomena in terms of
simple, mathematically precise, quantities -- has been extraordinarily
successful in almost all areas of physics. It goes against everything we have
learned about nature to propose a theory in which complicated macroscopic
objects, whose precise definition must ultimately be arbitrary, are
fundamental quantities.” A. Kent, Against many-worlds interpretations, Int. J.
Mod. Phys. 5 (1990), 1745-1762.
“A great physical theory is not mature until it has been put in a precise
mathematical form, and it is often only in such a mature form that it admits
clear answers to conceptual problems.” A. S. Wightman, Hilbert’s sixth
Pure Math., Vol. 28, AMS, 1976, pp. 147-220.
>> A universe is a mathematical model that describes spacetime, matter,
>> energy and their interactions.
>
> Again, I differ with this definition.
That's because you are opposed to mathematical abstraction.
> *the* universe is a physical realm where we conduct experiments and
> perform measurements. ... But the universe is not the model.
I hear what you're saying. You're opposed to the slightest hint or use of
mathematical abstraction. Please understand that I'm not opposed to real
observers doing real experiments in the real universe and publishing those
findings. I also have no objection to anyone using those findings to create
mathematical models of the real world.
> Then, we build mathematical models that describe how the universe works.
So the order is important? And physics must originate from a sincere desire to
model the real world?
> > No one understands consciousness. There are no theories of consciousness
> > that make quantifiable predictions. Therefore PEAR is not physics.
>
> Sorry to write that, but this statement seems wrong thrice to me:
>
> You imply that physics requires quantifiable predictions, not just
> qualitative predictions, nor patient observation and collection of data.
> So, if I drop that glass and predict it will shatter to pieces, it is not
> physics because I cannot predict how many pieces of glass there will be?
> If I observe that some faraway space probe does not move as expected, it
> is not worth reporting to the physics community because I did not make a
> quantifiable prediction, only reported a discrepancy?
As a practical matter, of course there are many gradations to the meaning of
physics. But what is the primary meaning of the word? I see nothing helpful
in not defining the ultimate goal of physics, which is axiomatization. It's
remarkable to me that virtually everyone these days is claiming to have
tremendous insight into physics, including authors not competent enough to
do middle school math and others who bemoan the complexity of real numbers,
calling them abstract, intangible and unphysical. Yes, physics often means
quantifiable or qualitative predictions and patient observation and collection
of data. But your opposition to what I've written is just a nonsensical
criticism of axiomatization, a protest against mathematics and a loud cry
in favor of occult science. Please note the meaning of the word "occult" –
"beyond the range of ordinary knowledge or understanding; mysterious." [2]
I don't mind acknowledging the existence of occult science. There are many
levels to physics. Who do you think best exemplifies real physics?
To make the many gradations of experts in physics apparent, let's classify
the four most distinguished categories. I see the practitioners of what is
commonly called "physics" as usually operating on one of four distinct levels.
Transitioning from one level to another may happen often, except for those in
the ground state. These four levels, from the ground state up, are the levels
of the occult, the theatrical, the physical, and the mathematical. Mystics
loathe the precision of mathematics and prefer that all of modern physics be
built on senseless sounding ambiguities. They thrive on half-baked
suppositions and unverified and unsubstantiated claims. On the next level up
are those who enjoy communicating the excitement of mainstream physics through
unenlightening language with just enough plausibility to make it sound
respectable. Theatrics and hype are their main teaching tools because of their
decision to communicate through riddles and paradoxes and the heroes of
physics. Next, the more useful physicists are engaged in doing practical,
experimental work. The highest-ranking physicists are mathematicians.
Mathematicians prefer to build on the indisputably clear foundations of simple
toy universes. You are most definitely not a mathematician.
Do you see the ascending scale? It progresses from the supernatural to the
sensational, to the mundane to mathematics. Mainstream society can see this
and would probably agree that this scale is going from what's the most fun to
the most unpleasant.
> 2/ PEAR does apparently make predictions, specifically that the mind
> influences remote physical apparatus measurably. This is a pretty spooky
> prediction, and many of us feel uncomfortable enough with it to actually
> doubt them or secretely hope that there is a flaw. Yet, this is a
> prediction, and if confirmed, it is definitely relevant to physics
> foundations.
This is the reason for my definition of physics, which I have offered as a
strategic defense against crackpot physics.
> 3/ PEAR does not appear to be a theory of consciousness (where I define
> consciousness as the ability we have to say "I am"), but a scientific
> study of remote influence and remote perception by the human mind.
The link I gave to the BBC News website [3] said,
"Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research lab (PEAR) was set up in 1979 to
examine human consciousness and its affects on computers and machines."
"A statement on the PEAR website said the lab was to transfer to a nearby
non-profit group, the International Consciousness Research Laboratories."
Shubee
1. http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
2. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/occult
3. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6353941.stm
LEJ Brouwer
> This is a debate for and against the axiomatization of physics.
I think research in both mathematics and physics involves an ongoing
(and probably never-ending) search for foundations as well as
implications. I do not think axiomatisation is or even should be the
ultimate goal (for one thing, it may not even be possible), but is
something which naturally occurs as we increase in our understanding.
Certainly axiomatisation is useful and indeed necessary to perform
rigorous calculations and make predictions, but it should always be
borne in mind that any set of axioms may at any time replaced by a
better set of axioms as our search progresses. I feel that research
into the foundations of mathematics has suffered because of the
staunch defence of axiomatic set theory against promising alternatives
such as Brouwerian intuitionism. I therefore think it is unwise to be
too dogmatic about axioms as this can lead to intellectual stagnation
(analogous to the current situation in string theory for example) - we
should not become too attached to a given set of axioms and should
always be prepared to reevaluate our positions should a more promising
paradigm come along. Of course recognising promising new paradigms in
turn requires that we remain in a state of mind where we are open to
new ideas.
As for esoteric/occult phenomena, I guess that this would overlap with
physics in as much as it can effect physical observations, but I think
there could be a serious problem when it comes to building
mathematical models of things which otherwise transcend the physical
realm. I see no reason why things which we cannot physically observe
should not exist, but doing experiments, and hence building
mathematical models, of that which is not observable is clearly going
to quite hard! :)
- Sabbir.
Oh No
>On 18 Feb, 23:18, e.Shu...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> This is a debate for and against the axiomatization of physics.
>
>I think research in both mathematics and physics involves an ongoing
>(and probably never-ending) search for foundations as well as
>implications. I do not think axiomatisation is or even should be the
>ultimate goal (for one thing, it may not even be possible), but is
>something which naturally occurs as we increase in our understanding.
>Certainly axiomatisation is useful and indeed necessary to perform
>rigorous calculations and make predictions, but it should always be
>borne in mind that any set of axioms may at any time replaced by a
>better set of axioms as our search progresses. I feel that research
>into the foundations of mathematics has suffered because of the
>staunch defence of axiomatic set theory against promising alternatives
>such as Brouwerian intuitionism.
I believe Kurt Godel and Stephen Kleene fitted intuitionism to
mathematical logic, thus completely undermining Brouwer's intentions. I
see no problem in the foundations of mathematics. It would be better if
more mathematicians studied it and got on board that this is a solved
problem, instead of claiming that category theory is foundational. The
difficult issue is not in the foundations of mathematics, but in
correctly understanding the use of mathematics as a tool to understand
the real world.
>I therefore think it is unwise to be
>too dogmatic about axioms as this can lead to intellectual stagnation
>(analogous to the current situation in string theory for example)
As far as I can tell one of the problems with string theory is that it
starts from dogma, not from axioms.
>- we
>should not become too attached to a given set of axioms and should
>always be prepared to reevaluate our positions should a more promising
>paradigm come along. Of course recognising promising new paradigms in
>turn requires that we remain in a state of mind where we are open to
>new ideas.
>
>As for esoteric/occult phenomena, I guess that this would overlap with
>physics in as much as it can effect physical observations, but I think
>there could be a serious problem when it comes to building
>mathematical models of things which otherwise transcend the physical
>realm. I see no reason why things which we cannot physically observe
>should not exist, but doing experiments, and hence building
>mathematical models, of that which is not observable is clearly going
>to quite hard! :)
>
>- Sabbir.
>
Regards
--
Charles Francis
moderator sci.physics.foundations.
substitute charles for NotI to email
Peter
> On 18 Feb, 23:18, e.Shu...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > This is a debate for and against the axiomatization of physics.
>
> I think research in both mathematics and physics involves an ongoing
> (and probably never-ending) search for foundations as well as
> implications.
Agreed
> I do not think axiomatisation is or even should be the
> ultimate goal (for one thing, it may not even be possible), but is
> something which naturally occurs as we increase in our understanding.
What else should be the ultimate goal?
Axiomatics is too complicated to "occur naturally". Else, axiomatics would
not be so seldom.
> Certainly axiomatisation is useful and indeed necessary to perform
> rigorous calculations and make predictions, but it should always be
> borne in mind that any set of axioms may at any time replaced by a
> better set of axioms as our search progresses.
I disagree. If the simplification, reduction, and completion of Newton's Laws
would be that simple, many would have done it, but only *few* actually did it
(I'm aware of Euler and Liebscher).
In other words, axioms cannot be exchanged as simple as dynamical variables,
otherwise, try it on your own :-)
> I feel that research
> into the foundations of mathematics has suffered because of the
> staunch defence of axiomatic set theory against promising alternatives
> such as Brouwerian intuitionism. I therefore think it is unwise to be
> too dogmatic about axioms as this can lead to intellectual stagnation
> (analogous to the current situation in string theory for example) - we
> should not become too attached to a given set of axioms and should
> always be prepared to reevaluate our positions should a more promising
> paradigm come along. Of course recognising promising new paradigms in
> turn requires that we remain in a state of mind where we are open to
> new ideas.
Paradigms and axioms are quite different things, aren't they?
> As for esoteric/occult phenomena, I guess that this would overlap with
> physics in as much as it can effect physical observations, but I think
> there could be a serious problem when it comes to building
> mathematical models of things which otherwise transcend the physical
> realm. I see no reason why things which we cannot physically observe
> should not exist, but doing experiments, and hence building
> mathematical models, of that which is not observable is clearly going
> to quite hard! :)
Things not observable by physical means are not subject to physics :-))
Peter