Date: Sun, 29 Dec 1996 13:32:38 -0800 From: "Jack Sarfatti, Ph.D."

Sarfatti wrote: RE: Re: Politeness vs. Goodness BY: sarfatti@well.com to ALL on Fri Dec 27 1996 06:46 pm

Hey Jeffrey, I also hear that Dannion Brinkley will be on that Ship of Fools. Now I really do want to communicate with him directly by email etc. He is much more important that Uri Geller ever was. If he is the real Mc Coy he is extremely important living data for my post-quantum physics of consciousness. I really must know if it is really true that he precogged Reagan and Chernobyl. How much money did he really win and how consistently using his power? Etc. Please, as a trained parapsychologist do some in-depth research on that trip on him and let me know. This is the most important paranormal investigation you ever did. Do not fail your SAR's PSI Service.

Mishlove, a protege of Arthur Young's , author of Roots of Consciousness and moderator of TV series Thinking Allowed replied:

Hi Jack -- Whatever conflicts you may have with Gary Z., I would appreciate it if you dealt with him directly and did not involve me as a go-between.

Sarfatti: I was just joking about you dealing with Gary. I just want people to know that IMHO he is a moral fraud because he cheated his First Teacher, Me, who created his leading presence in the New Age out of the 10% in profits to The Dancing Wu Li Masters. The simple facts are that Gary was a depressed failure in North Beach (he was on Lithium) when I moved in as his room mate at 372 Green Street in the mid 70's. I once stopped him from attempting to shoot himself with his service revolver from Vietnam by driving around with him all night in his Alpha Romeo. I brought him to Esalen over the objections of Dulce Murphy and I wrote much of the first drafts of the relativity quantum parts of the book. I continually gave him feedback. We had agreed that I would get 10% of the book. He renegged on some phony excuse that Lee Myers (an old Cornell buddy) came to his apartment and asked him to put the agreement in writing. I had nothing to do with Lee doing that. I didn't even know about it until after it happened. Lee took it on himself to try to protect my interest. I could have sued and stopped publication of the book, but I did not do so. Gary should be a man and honor his contract with suitable interest. He probably made at least a million dollars on the book.

For background see Martin Gardner's, Science, Good, Bad and Bogus, "Magic and Paraphysics" and more recently Vic Stenger's The Unconscious Quantum, Murray Gell Mann's, The Quark and The Jaguar for the opposition view to books like Fred Alan Wolf's The Spiritual Universe and Nick Herbert's Elemental Mind and Faster Than Light. Wolf's book, The Body Quantum was the precursor to Deepak Chopra's Quantum Healing. Wolf's book Star Wave is about advanced quantum waves from the future and their connection to consciousness.

Mishlove: As for Dannion Brinkley, I'll see what I can learn about him -- but I am not particularly optimistic that I'll come up with anything interesting. As a "trained parapsychologist," my advice to you (if you are interested in precognition) is to refer to the experimental research on the subject. A good summary of that work is included in the 1993 edition of The Roots of Consciousness . Give me the bottom line. Is Dannion the real Mc Coy, or is he a liar in your professional opinion? I don't care about the small statistical effects of Ed May et-al. I am interested in the alleged dramatic cases such as the ones reported in the Eric Robert's movie "Saved By The Light". Are those true? What's your opinion of Raymond Moody?

Mishlove: Precognitive experiments are reported in the research literature every year by various laboratories. The results seem to be among the most well-confirmed in the field of psi research. Even the DAT theory suggests that ostensible psychokinesis is better explained as a form of precognition.

Sarfatti: Yes, I know all that. It's all on my psiwars.html But don't evade the issue here. All that May stuff may be fine, but it pales in significance to the precognition patterns allegedly made by Dannion Brinkely which are many orders of magnitude more significant for my back-action theory if they are actual facts! The facts, Jeffrey, just give me the facts. Does Brinkley have the "right stuff"?

From: "Jack Sarfatti, Ph.D."

Jack Sarfatti wrote: Yes, but first understand the beauty in my pattern that is right before you. Open your eyes and look at My Light. Break the chain around your neck. Emerge from that dark and shadowy den of confusion.

Wayne Shanks wrote: ease up jack....you are getting scary.

Sarfatti: I am alluding to Plato's Allegory of The Cave. Did you ever read it?

Shanks: many years ago in philosophy class......i was pointing out that you should keep the mesia complex down to a minimum or we might have to nail you to a tree ;-)

Sarfatti: It's "Messiah", and it is a Family Tradition.

If I were a Guru like Deep Pockets Chakra,

deedle deedle doodle doodle doo,

All day long I'd drive up and down the Strip in my big Rolls Royce,

if I were a Spiritual Man...

Oh crucify me on the lone prairie with the Holy Blood drippin down my side.

Then, I could say, that I died in the way, that Christ, My Gran Paw died.

Oh, don't throw sticks and don't throw stones,

Fer they're again the rules,

Just hang me upside down on that Golden Cross

Mit der stakes stickin' through my Gucci shoes,

For I want Fame!

and I want ant My Name

On the lips of a billion fools! :-)

Shanks: I find your reasoning Very interesting, but let's keep grounded. Sarfatti: Must we? Shanks: Remember the proof is in the pudding. Sarfatti: Life's a pudding full of plums .. no, I guess Bohr proved that wrong (for the atom).

Shanks: I have been following your posts and reading your web pages for over a year on and off. I am a graduate student in physics at U of Maryland. The problem is that I find most of your jargon rather thick. What would be a good background source to help absorb you current rants :-) Perhaps some Bohm?

Sarfatti: Yes, Undivided Universe

Shanks: Perhaps some Stapp?

Sarfatti: Yes, a soup son of Mind, Matter, and Quantum Mechanics. Take of these elements all that is usable,

wrap them all up with Penrose and Josephson

Set them to simmer, and wipe off the scum,

And the physics of consciousness is the residuum!

Shanks: Thanks I will probably grab the Bohm book first.

Sarfatti: My terminology is all very standard if you know the literature in the field. Shanks: yes...I got that feeling it took me several posts before I understood what a beeble was. Safatti: To be able, or not to be able,

That was the question, that Bohm struggled with after his fateful meeting with Einstein on the Quad. We are not sure if God was there or not. I allude to Bertrand Russell on Bishop Berkeley and the Einstein Bohr debate.:-)

Shanks: I have been playing around with the M.W interpretation and the horribly ill defined "morphic field theory".

Sarfatti: What is that? Shanks: This is the favorite theory of a guy named "Sherndake" I am sure I spelled his name wrong. Sarfatti: Yes, it's Sheldrake not Shmemdrek. (Professor Shmemdrek the colleague of Doctor Chronkite).

Shanks: he is a crony of Terence McKenna, you know the mushroom guy that thinks the universe will end in 2017.

Sarfatti: Well Terence is a solipsist. That's probably when he will end. I recently shared a hot tub with him at Esalen with Feynman's last girl friend.

Shanks: The point is that morphic field theory says that a "form" is more likely to be manifest, if it is already widely manifest. --that made a lot of sense.

Sarfatti: Not sure, but It sounds like Bohm said it better in The Undivided Universe on "active information". See my activinf.htm when I do it soon. Also it sounds as if forms Bose-Einstein condense wanting to go into the same single form state so to speak because of action at a distance.

Shanks: From a classical probability point of view the idea of a morphic field is simply the more red chips you throw into the urn the more likely you are to draw a red chip. Sarfatti; No I don't think so. See Bells' essay on Bertlemann's Socks. That's like trying to explain the quantum violation of Bell's inequality locally. Gell-Mann tried that with many-worlds, but E J Squires says he is wrong. But even Stapp accepts that many-worlds without counter factual definiteness (CFD) can be local and agree with QM which is what Gell-Mann asserts is the right stuff.

Shanks: The structure we see in reality is not so much a function of so many laws, but a measure of the relative density of states in our "sample space". I am not sure if this idea of sample space has a one to one correspondence to Hilbert space. Sarfatti: I sense you are on the wrong path here. This "sample space" seems very mystical in the context of what Sheldrake vaguely anticipates.

Shanks: The idea is that this sample space is composed of elements, and representation made by sub sets of elements can have the properties of individual elements. a trivial example would be the ordered set of numbers corresponding to e^x. the set is not only composed of the elements given by the definition, but the set is also populated by any derivative of the function e^x. you might say it is not only composed of a first level definition, but is then reinforced by an infinite number of inter-element relations. Because of the self similar properties of the exponential set you would say that it is more dense in the space of function than the function x^2. In such a set of all functions you would have an implied ordinality of the elements.

Sarfatti: Interesting math, but I fail to see the physical relevance. Shanks: for the "real" world such a phenomena might present itself as a dynamical system that embodies a model of itself. if the moddle is sufficiently "close" to the real system the model contained in the system becomes a member of the systems configuration space. the interelement relations become elements of the set. If the internal model is dense enough (the fractal dimension of the system is high enough) the internal model over populates configuration space, shifting the probabilities in favor of the state represented in the model.

Sarfatti: You may be on to something. But try to say it clearer. Where's Crowell?

Shanks: This idea is somewhat reminiscent of what is going on in quantum cavity electrodynamics. (I agree the idea of vacuum polarization is more compelling in this case).

Sarfatti: What do you mean here? More detail.

Shanks: various ideas in set theory such as forcing also bring to mind this self similarity in sets.

Sarfatti: Yes, this is interesting. Are there any review papers on this stuff? Shanks: As I am not a Mathematician proper I find I am ill equipped to chew the problem properly, plus my studies have SLOOOOOWED things down. At first I never liked Bohm's pilot wave ideas, but I must admit that at least it is bearing intellectual fruit. Do you believe that the pilot wave view is mutually exclusive to the many worlds view, or are they compatible, with "pilot wave mechanics" providing a better "calculus"

Sarfatti: MW is not compatible with Bohm because MW has no CFD and can be local, Bohm's has CFD and must be nonlocal.

Shanks: I got this point from your web page. it seems to me that this local/nonlocal distinction is at best semantic.

Sarfatti: No, it is very physical. The locality of the many-particle quantum wave psi(x1,x2,x3 ..) in configuration space means it is generally nonlocal in ordinary space if psi is entangled i.e., not a simple product of single particle functions, but a sum of such products. Bohm explains all this very well.

Shanks: You say MW CAN be local. I agree, but MW need not be local (I guess you are implying this by the "can" )

Sarfatti: Yes.

Shanks: What is CFD?.....see there I go again.

Sarfatti: Counterfactual definiteness is a can of worms that Stapp is the expert on. See his book and his online papers. Bell's theorem it is sometimes said asserts that CFD, locality and QM are not compatible with CFD replacing objectivity. So one could have a local quantum theory without CFD. MW has no CFD but it does not follow that MW is local. Squires says it is not, and that there is an error in Gell-Mann's major idea in The Quark and The Jaguar's "The Story Distorted" where Murray attacks me since I co-wrote the "think tank letter" he cites there.

Shanks: I find your idea of bosonic/pilot wave computing interesting. I have been playing around with the idea of quantum computing with bosons for several years. The idea is to use the coherent system as a phase space filter rather than a superimposed classical computer. The problem is getting bosons to interact ( I guess by definition they do not if they are in a condensate).

Sarfatti: No, no. You can have condensates in an interacting boson system. It's just that at T = absolute zero i.e., the ground state there is not 100% condensation. HeII has maybe 10%. Although Worden has an interesting condensate model, it may not only be condensates since correlated fermions also play a role e.g., the electrons that control the tubulin conformations.

Shanks: I hope to read at some point about your ideas on how the "beeble" is a Bose condensate, but none the less interacts with brain system. Shanks: It's "beable". The "beable" is the classical material thing that is the outcome of the ontic collapse in Stapp's theory, or that is the system point in my Bohmian version that is trapped in the basin of attraction in configuration space set up by the quantum pilot wave. Here it is the Frohlich condensate of phonons. Their rocklike beable component are the coherent sound waves on the surface of microtubules that can be directly detected. This gives new meaning to "In the beginning was the sound, the Word etc..." Their thoughtlike component is the pattern in Hilbert space that is the active information coherently guiding or informing the synchronized motion of distant parts, like a ballet troupe, in ordinary space. Bohm describes this well.

Shanks: I have speculated that if morphic field resonance (<--Sherndake's term) is realizable it would be in a quantum computer, or quantum dynamic system. perhaps the brain is such a system Sarfatti: Develop this more. Any math models?

Shanks: thanks for the reply Sarfatti: Shanks for the memories. I Hope you get that? :-) Happy new year

Wayne S University of Maryland Space Physics dept.