Assumptions about nature of mind

I would like to rant about assumptions, which MMI researchers make about nature of mind from sheer fact, that intent could influence QRNG.

  1. We can’t claim, that mind has quantum nature. Because, for now, we barely know anything about mechanism, which could influence random outcomes of quantum systems. And can’t even tell, how much important is MMI for processes of mind. Quantum processes, indeed are important for biochemistry of brain. Otherwise cells can’t translate DNA into RNA. But how much does it influence actual thought process?
  2. We can’t claim, that MMI is property of mind. We can only claim, that mind can affect random generators through unknown means. But we can’t be sure, that mind is only phenomena, which can do that. There is experiment, where aglae is used to produce MMI. Despite questionable results, it’s pretty probable, that aglae is enough to produce, at least, anomaly in RNG. Plus, there were experiment, where chickens were used to produce MMI.
    So, probably, it’s more likely, that living systems could influence random numbers. But, I doubt, that any living system has mind.
  3. We can’t claim, that MMI prove, that our mind exists outside of our brain. Because, there weren’t experiments, where MMI was produced by incorporeal mind.
    Well, there are a lot of EVP evidence. But could we be sure, that it’s same phenomena? And could we be sure, that EVP signal is produced by incorporeal entity, not by subconscious influence of corporeal operator? Despite, I think, that it is, we have no proof.
  4. We can’t claim, that MMI is property of intention. Since we have GCP. And Ulf recently proven, that GCP data is correlated with Google trends and market movements.
    But no one has intention to influence these RNG. They are being influenced passively by ambient activity of billions of people or something else. So, something else besides focused intent influence RNG too.

What we could claim about MMI and mind?

  1. Mind can influence random numbers with focused intent, using unknown mechanism.
  2. MMI could be used to influence random numbers retroactively. So, any system, which can produce MMI could influence flow of time.
  3. MMI could surpass complexity of influenced system to certain extent to increase probability of desired outcome.

Your observations are indeed fascinating, highlighting our limited understanding of consciousness and the ‘mind.’ These are the Hard Questions of existence, and I’d like to offer additional points for discussion.

The fundamental question about the mind is whether it is a form of energy or a self-organized pattern that can exist independently of physical structures, like the human brain. This ties into the concept of ‘survival’ – the persistence of personality or memories after physical death. Quantum mechanics suggests that patterns and relationships can transcend our conventional experience of time. If the mind emerges from the brain, those patterns may persist in a quantum realm. The lack of time (as we experience it) in quantum mechanics may make it extremely difficult to prove one way or the other if effects can be observed without a physically-embodied mind.

Another intriguing question is whether the mind or intention, which is essentially a specific pattern within the mind, can influence the probability of certain outcomes from a distance, without direct causal interaction. This isn’t limited to binary results from a random generator but applies to a broader range of events and conditions.

Regarding MMI testing, the use of pseudorandom generators instead of true or quantum random generators has been illuminating. In theory, the outcome of a pseudorandom generator, determined by its algorithm and state, shouldn’t be influencable. Yet, tests have shown a shift in probabilities towards the intended outcome. This suggests that influencing a pseudorandom generator involves choosing the right moment to start the trial, making the desired outcome more likely. This indicates that mental influence isn’t as straightforward as altering a random bit’s outcome.

The results hint at a deeper quantum effect underlying MMI or A.C.E. Here, Occam’s razor becomes relevant – the principle that the simplest explanation among competing theories is likely the correct one. It suggests a common principle underlying various phenomena: matching pseudorandom numbers with a target value, changing true random generator outputs, and retrocausality, which involves altering previously measured but unobserved results.

What could this unifying principle be? In quantum mechanics, two ideas might explain MMI observations. First, there’s entanglement between the intended outcome and the subsequent observation. Second, a weak quantum measurement allows for minimal information about a system without collapsing its wavefunction, or it can slightly alter the wavefunction by interfering with the quantum vacuum, thus affecting the probabilities of different outcomes.

Eventually, we aim to understand how visualizing an intended result can become entangled, to some extent, with the actual observation, influencing the chosen outcome. It’s a complex and abstract topic, but these discussions help inch us closer to understanding. Note, even this statement of certain ideas brings us into a realm with many unknowns and unanswered questions.

Additional explanation may be required to begin to understand the idea of entanglement between “intention” and “observed results.” These are abstract ideas, but for both intention and results certain patterns of neuronal firings must exist in the brain of the test subject. As we explore how the brain works, we (collectively) become more aware that quantum mechanical principles can be operative, even in such a “hot and wet” environment.

  1. I precisely started that topic to remind, that we haven’t any results in framework of QRNG research, which suggests existence of incorporeal mind, even if QM somehow allow it.
    Despite, I never seen good enough claims, that it does, through.
  2. PRNG+operator, which has choose right moment is equal to TRNG. Because brain is very noisy place. So, it’s expectable, that precise moment of neural avalanches could be influenced with intention.
  3. However, I never seen evidence, that MMI has something to do with observer effect in QM framework. Despite fact, that something perform observations. QM has no experiment or theory, which could suggest, how to predictably influence results of wave function collapse with observation. Or, at least, I don’t know it.
    Also, since, we can agree, that MMI has something to do with retrocausality, actual mechanics of MMI might be something a lot weirder and unexplored than QM. Temporal mechanics, for example.
    We shouldn’t make hasty assumptions about how it works. That’s one of reasons, why MMI isn’t accepted by mainstream science. Hasty unproven assumptions and bad methodology.

If we want to actually get further in field of MMI we shouldn’t seek for hasty claims. We should condense facts, which we figured out so far and try to build sort of theory, which can predict something.

Which results I find most important?

  1. MMI increase compressibility of random binary signal.
  2. MMI could influence complex indeterministic systems to increase specified result.
  3. Supposedly MMI has certain limits on amount of affected bits per second.
  4. MMI could influence RNG retroactively.
  5. MMI could be produced with emotional ambient activity. Also it could be produced by animals and aglae.
  6. MMI can surpass complexity of feedback loop.

P.S. I even support idea of existence of incorporeal mind. Just there wasn’t any published results, which suggests, that incorporeal mind can influence QRNG. Neither I believe, that science as methodology and social institution is ready to explore incorporeal entities.
But I highly doubt, that quantum mechanics is convenient framework to build theory for MMI.

I need to admit, that sheer existence of MMI is very hard evidence to support ideas of spiritual phenomena. However, it’s to early to tell, how precisely it works. Neither there are any obvious possibility to explain it in QM framework. Or to support any spiritual belief system.
There are very big gap between “emotions and focused intent can influence QRNG” and “we know, that there is soul and how it connected to body”. If we want to remain in, at least, borderline scientific field, we shouldn’t be hasty with our assumptions.

  1. I don’t know of any evidence in any field that suggests the presence of incorporeal mind. If there were, I don’t know how anyone could guarantee that there was never any physical form out of which that mind could have emerged. Beliefs in incorporeal mind generally come from religious teachings without the tiniest shred of scientific evidence. The “religious” position is, ‘you just have to believe it because it’s true.’

  2. It’s true that the time a person chooses to initiate a trial is variable and somewhat random within certain limits. However, that does not explain how the brain could know what time is the right time, especially if the random bit to be matched is not seen or known by the test subject.

  3. There are a number of papers describing how the observer affects quantum results in MMI experiments. Dean Radin was an author on several of them. Helmut Schmidt (physicist) wrote several papers on his experiments with nuclear decay timing. In them he derives quantum mechanical equations that he meant to describe his observation equals collapse theory for A.C.E. (though he did not use that term).

I don’t consider myself to be hasty after 30 years of study and research in the field – I am a very careful researcher and scientist, and I only propose what I have observed in at least hundreds of experiments with statistically highly significant results. I have no position to push; I am only interested in what is true.

  1. That’s neighbour field of parapsychology research. EVP, or instrumental transcommunication. There are huge amount of records of voices of supposedly incorporeal speakers with pretty few explanations, how it works.
    There is some evidence, that EVP might be one of MMI related phenomena. Since one of sources of such voices is noises in zener diode. However, it’s not enough to make conclusions.
    EVP generally has even less plausible explanation.
    Plus, yeah, there are very few EVP experiments, which can suggest, that phenomena occured without presence of conscious operator. So, it raises a question of source of effect.
  2. That’s a same if we use qrng powered random walker to choose bits from prng bit stream. It works pretty well too. However, I need to point out, that it feels different to direct influence to random walker. And more similar to how I focus intention to affect random generator in computer games.
    Of course, “it feels differently” isn’t enough to claim anything. However, that suggests idea for experiment, where operator should guess, what his intention is trying to influence, pure QRNG, bits from PRNG, which are chosen by QRNG, or precise bits from PRNG output.
    However, it’s generally interesting question, how even MMI surpasses complexity of influenced system.
  3. I’ve checked Dean Radin. There are a lot of books. I’ll need a bit of time to process.
    I’ve searched for Helmut Schmidt works. There are experiments, which supports MMI influence on TRNG. However, I haven’t found QM based theory of that experiments. Could you help me to find works, where such theory is suggested?

My rant isn’t directed to your works mostly. You are careful about statement of nature of consciousness.
However, Ulf Holmberg published works, which are very valuable to MMI research. And he basically managed to find evidence, which prove point of GCP. However, he is far less careful about such matters.

Nice to see a real deep philosophical thread here. I think most people on here are aware that the statistically observed results from this phenomena are just that, and whilst we have some ideas and theories about the underlying medium, the mechanism of action, is still not well understood and we’re not being hasty about trying to find out.
But isn’t that how ideas and assumptions turn into hypothesis and theories to then further the scientific approach of attempting to prove or disprove said ideas?

A couple of the difficult aspects of this area of research are:

  1. Statistically significant results from an experiment can’t prove on their own the mechanism.
  2. We are one of only a handful of research fields that also have to take into consideration the biggest premise of the scientific method - that we’re in a materialistic, objective reality. Until such time as some ground breaking results are discovered, these fields will tend to be on the fringe.

Here is a link to one of Dr. Helmut Schmidt’s articles:, Collapse of the State Vector and Psychokinetic Effect. There are several others by him and some commenting on his theories.

Using a simple example where there are only two possible eigenvalues (possible physical outcomes), Schmidt proposes the outcomes exist in a quantum superposition, and an observation collapses the superposition to one of the states with increased probability for the intended one. He also suggests an incomplete (partial or weak) observation can partly collapse the superposition so that a subsequent observation has a lesser effect.

Schmidt was a leader in the field. He designed equipment based on pure quantum measurements to respond to mental influence.

Helmut Schmidt and a test subject.

Well, most important result of last time is Ulf’s research. Which proofs very interesting thing:
Neither conscious intent, nor observation, nor existence of feedback loop is needed for MMI. Sheer emotional and cognitive activity of billions of people is enough to shift entropy of quantum random generators.
No one focus intent to shift outcomes of GCP random generators. It register passive effect.
Either it’s widely different phenomena from intentional MMI, or we should reconsider our ides about it.
Basically, it means, that conscious activity affects entropy production rates of unstable systems.

Also, possibly, intentional MMI works on differences in how brain produce entropy because of work of its homeostasis. It’s pretty much logical, if brain produce less entropy, when it successfully got what it wanted. In that case, observed desired shift in probability of qrng.
Thermodynamics might be more convenient framework to analyse MMI than quantum mechanics.

I believe there are properties of mind, mental influence and anomalous phenomena that cannot be explained by classical physics. These include: action at a distance, action forward and backward in time, and action produced even when shielded from known forces. Only quantum mechanics theory seems to allow for any or all of these actions to occur. At the same time, present understanding of quantum mechanics is primitive and does not yet include the necessary principles to describe and understand what mind is and how it actually interacts with our physical reality. That would require a real breakthrough, and research in MMI may directly contribute to such a revelation.

The principles of entropy may be part of the needed mathematical model of MMI; however, life, or specifically mind is anti-entropic. This means that living things cause higher organization with a corresponding reduction in entropy.

Indeed. It’s something I was wondered about between GCP and intentional intent setting. But my own personal take is that they don’t need to be treated separately and could possibly be part of the same phenomenon. If a large number of people are focusing on a particular event that is emotional, then one possible explanation is that it is an unintentional (as in they’re not all out to try and get a small bunch of researchers happy that their RNGs are spitting out statically significant results😁) collective intent.

About QM and retrocausality, classic QM hasn’t got any well defined theory of time. Time, observation, space are parts of axiomatics. They aren’t explained, but used as starting points to explain other things.
General relativity, on contrary has models of time loops. However, they are very crude ones. And can’t be used in our field as they are. Because, MMI certainly don’t involve infinite length infinite mass rotating cylinders, for example.
Overall, mainstream science has pretty few ideas, how to formulate temporal mechanics. If we’re dealing with actual retrocausality, we need to develop whole new area of physics.

About life, there is a catch. Life is anti entropic only for part of closed system. However, if we analyse overall ecosystem, life attempts to burn all available free energy as fast as possible. And increase overall entropy to maximum.
Most modern and developed theories of abiogenesis are based on idea, that self-replicating and energy seeking systems is way of nature to spend energy faster and produce more entropy. Even if these systems decrease inner entropy, while they have access to energy.

That’s what I’m talking about. GCP basically proves point, that MMI isn’t bound to intention. It’s caused by something else, which could be triggered with intention.
Possibly, and in my opinion, is very likely, that conscious mind isn’t even required to shift probability of qrng.
Real breakthrough will be if we find simpliest system, which can cause observable effect.

Quantum mechanics doesn’t explicitly define what time is; in many equations, time is not treated as a fundamental variable. While our experience of time is subjective, with Einstein famously remarking that ‘time is what clocks tell us,’ quantum mechanics itself doesn’t reject the possibility of quantum effects existing ‘outside’ of our conventional understanding of time. The equations of quantum mechanics are often unitary, implying reversible processes that work equally well forward or backward in time at the microscopic level. The possibility of time travel to explain retro- or forward-causality is seemingly too exotic and remote within the current scientific understanding to be a plausible explanation.

What you say is largely correct, especially regarding the second law of thermodynamics, which states that in a closed system, entropy can only increase. However, it’s crucial to consider the dynamics within local volumes of space-time. Every living organism and everything created by humans exist within these limited volumes. Life, by its nature, exhibits anti-entropic properties within specific local systems, creating order and complexity. While the overall ecosystem may contribute to an increase in entropy, the significance for us lies in understanding the intricate processes occurring within these specific, delimited spaces.

Quantum processes are reversible by definition, yes. Also quantum processes without collapse of wave function has constant entropy.
But reversibility and retrocausality are very different things.
There are speculative works about retrocausality in QM, however, nothing proven, IIRC.

Question is, if and which thermodynamic properties of life are related to our cause.

1 Like

Researchers are starting to get more into the possibilities of quantum mechanics. Notably, that quantum effects can and do happen at normal temperatures, and that entanglement is important, even in what are considered macroscopic systems.

One recent example of such research is:

Here are some more examples of interesting proposals about the nature of mind and MMI or A.C.E.

Preserving entanglement during weak measurement demonstrated with a violation of the Bell–Leggett–Garg inequality | npj Quantum Information This is a more fundamental article on QM because weak quantum measurements may be part of the psycho mechanical model, demonstrating that information can be obtained from quantum and entangled quantum systems without collapsing their wavefunctions.

There are probably hundreds more now, but I just don’t have time for extensive searching.

1 Like