PROCEEDINGS INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON CYBERNETICS AND SOCIETY SEPTEMBER 19-21, 1977

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: STARGATE
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP96-00787R000200080055-4
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: U
• Document Page Count: 38
• Document Creation Date: November 4, 2016
• Document Release Date: November 5, 1998
• Sequence Number: 55
• Publication Date: September 19, 1977
• Content Type: REPORT

Approved For Release, 2002/05/17 : CIA-RDP96-00787R00022000080055-4
PROCEEDINGS
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE
ON
CYBERNETICS AND SOCIETY
September 19-21, 1977
Sponsored by:
IEEE Systems, Man and Cybernetics Society
With the cooperation of:
College of American Pathologists
Human Factors Society
IEEE Computer Society
IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society
Mayflower Hotel, Washington, D.C.
Approved For Release 2002/05/17 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000200080055-4
 ApprovedO"or Release. 2002/05/17 : CIA-RDP96-df87R000200080055-4
IEEE Catalog No: 77CH1259-1 SMC
Library of Congress Catalog Card No: 75-28733
Copyright Q 1977
The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc.
345 East 47th Street, New York, NY 10017
Approved For Release 2002/05/17 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000200080055-4
 Approved For Release 2002/05/17 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000200080055-4
A NOTE FROM THE CHAIRMAN
With this conference we celebrate the 20th anniversary of the founding of this Society, even though our current
name has been with us only for the past seven years. Our worldwide membership of about 5000 members represent
many disciplines all brought together by the unifying thread of the "systems" approach to problem solving.
In this regard, we are indeed pleased to present John Warfield with our Outstanding Contribution Award. John
spent the past several years grappling with a methodology for coping with complexity. His concepts associated with
Interpretive Structural Modeling have been tested and proven as demonstrated by the session organized by
Raymond Fitz on this subject.
I feel it necessary to note that we have departed slightly from the conventional in this conference and have
introduced two sessions which, to some of our readers, may appear controversial.
The first is the session, Scientific Studies of Acupuncture. Acupuncture, as you know, originated thousands of
years ago in the orient and only recently received serious attention by Western medical scientists. Did you know that
acupuncture flourished in the U.S. from 1820 to.1850? According to a researcher at the National Library of Medicine,
acupuncture had been introduced to the U.S. from Europe and a substantial number of articles appeared on this
subject in the U.S. medical literature of the period; however, interest waned as he found only six articles for the
period 1850-1900. Today, the situation has changed. Western medicine now agrees there is something to
acupuncture. Its analgesic properties are recognized but not understood. Bruce Pomeranz of the University of
Toronto, whose article appears here, recently received international attention on his discovery of a possible
mechanism that describes why acupuncture works. Stephen Kim, trained in both Eastern and Western medicine, is a
trained acupuncturist. He departs from traditional methods by making use of an electronic device for locating
acupuncture points. His paper reports striking success over the traditional methods. The session is rounded out by
recent research by other investigators: Lee, Clifford and Mau. Clearly, acupuncture has now become a valid
research subject for biocyberneticists.
Our second unconventional area is Research in Psychoenergetics, organized by Hal Puthoff of SRI. The
presentation of this session is the outgrowth of the spectacular luncheon talk by Hal and Russ Targ at last year's
conference for which they received our Franklyn V. Taylor Best Presentation Award. Recognizing that their
professional integrity was at stake, they have gone to great lengths to assure impeccability of their work; neverthe-
less, a reviewer of their original paper which appeared in the IEEE Proceedings last year stated, "This is the sort of
thing I would not believe in even if it were true." Notwithstanding such emotional reactions, psychic phenomena are
a reality, and Hal Puthoff's session of first-rate carefully selected papers is worthy of your consideration.
Finally, among the unusual presentations, I commend your reading Bill Gevarter's excellent summary, "A Wiring
Diagram of the Human Brain as a Model for Artificial. Intelligence."
William H. von Alven
Chairman
Approved For Release 2002/05/17 : Cmp4-RDP96-00787R000200080055-4
 Approvedr Release 2002/05/17 : CIA-RDP96-07R000200080055-4
COMMITTEE
'William H. von Alven .......................................................................Chairman
Ed Connelly .... ........................................................................ Vice-Chairman
Symposium Organizers/Directors:
fames D. Palrtier ................................ ................................... Societal Systems
C. C. Li .... .................... Biomedical Systems & Biocybernetics
Andrew P. Sage ............................................Systems Science, Methodology & Engineering
Thomas B. Sheridan ................................ ................. . Man-Machine Systems
Hans Oestreiaher ............................................Pattern Recognition & Artificial Intelligence
Short Course Organizers:
]Decision Analysis in Medicine: Methods and Applications ............................. E. A. Patrick, MD
Societal Systems Methodology ............................................. A. P. Sage and J. N. Warfield
Public Presentation:
A Scientific View of ESP ................................................ Harold Puthoff & Russell Targ
Luncheon Speakers:
Society and Technology Assessment ................................................. Gretchen Kohlsrud
The Computer Invades the Farm ........................................................ Arthur D. Hall
The Computes' Invades the Home ........................................................ Jerald J. Zeger
Approved For Release 2002/05/17 , CIA-RDP96-00787R000200080055-4
 Approved For Relew 2002/05/17 : CIA-RDP96-00787R00022000080055-4
with the initial condition that
_ 2(k + k') to
k5 [1 - e m
which is the achived velocity w of the follower
during the inspection period totOwe have
kS - ?Lk _L k)to - 2(k + k' (t - to)
k+k'-[1 -e m ]e m (8)
The spiral after-effect (SAF) is the velocity of the
stimulus relative to the follower, namely,
2(k+k )to - ? k+k (t-to)
SAF=0-w=-'k+k,[1 - e m le ?1 (9)
Since k and k' are positive, this equation shows that
the SAF is always opposite to the direction of the
stimulus S.
In equation (1), the mental force F is assumed to
be proportional to the difference of S and w, namely,
increasing S would increase F; however, at high speed
of S, w can not keep pace with S, and F will level
off and can not increase unlimitedly with S, thus
F would be
F = k(1 - e-s - w) (1)'
For small S, equation (1)' will transform to equation
(1). Also, the total mass is equal to ,rr2d, where d
is the density, thus
2 k+k' t
SAE k+k {1 - e-s)[l - e nr2d o]
e 2(r+dk')(t-to) (9)?
2
Equation (9)' shows that SAE is related to the
inspection period to exponentially, also the effect
decays with time t exponentially, these are
experimentally verified by Eysenck and Holland (1960)
and by Stager & Burton (1964). Stager & Burton (1964)
also show that the constant, which in this model
would correspond to 2(k + k')/,rr2d, increases
slightly with lessen the inspection period, this is
probabily due to the fact that with a shorter
inspection period, only a smaller area of the stimulus
may be covered by the field of attention (Chiang, 1973,
1976), thus r is smaller then it should, which
increases the constant. Equation (9)' also shows that
the SAE increases exponentially with the stimulus
angular velocity s, this is confirmed experimentally
by Mehling, Collins & Schroeder (1972). For a given
angular velocity, the linear speed of eliciting
motion in the retina is proportional to the size r or
the visual angle. By inspecting equation (9)', it
can be deduced that the period of SAE shows a peck
with r, indeed, experiments of Mehling, Collins &
Schroeder (1972) show this to be the case. It is
hoped that future experiments can be conducted in a
systematic way according to this equation such that
various effects and parameters may be estimated.
In summary, a dynamic perceptual model of
movement after-effect is proposed, quantitative
calculations from this model can be made and agree
with the existing data. The awaked state, hyponotic
state and the qusi-hyponotic state can also be defined
from this model. This model investigates into the
working mechanism within the brain and identifies
many parameters in a dynamic machinery, which would
help not only to the understanding of the brain, but
also to diagnosis the pathology of the damaged brain.
This model may also be used to build a more inteligent
machine which behaviours similarly to human being.
REFERENCES
1. Chiang, C. 1973. "A theory of Muller-Lyer illu-
sion", Vision Res., 13, 347-353.
2. Chiang, C. 1975. "A theory of Pogendorff illu-
sion" Jap. Psychol. Res. 17, 111-118.
3. Chiang, C. 1976. "A theory of ambiguous pattern
perception", Bull. Math. Biol. 38, 491-504.
4. Eysenck, H. J. & H. Holland, 1960."Length of
spiral after-effect as a function of drive."
Perceptual and Motor Skills, 11, 129-130.
5. Mehling, K. D., W. E. Collins'and D. J. Schroeder.
1972. "Some effects of perceived size, retinal
size, and retinal speed on duration of spiral
after-effect". Perceptual and Motor skills,
34, 247-259.
6. Stager, P. & A. C. Burton. 1964. "Graphic record-
ing of the spiral after-effect: a study of its
magnitude and rate of decay." Canad. J.
Psychol. 18, (2), 118-125.
FIGURE LEGEND
Fig. 1. A flow chart of perception mechanism
of periodic movement.
Recognized
Signals
Subjective
Controller
Periodic
Signals
Approved For Release 2002/05/17 : C IIA-RDP96-00787R000200080055-4
507
 Approver Release 2002/05/17 : CIA-RDP96-87R000200080055-4
0. Costa ce Beauregard
Institut Henri Poincare, Paris, France
Intrinsic time symmetry plus (wavelike) addition
of partial amplitiudes herald the advent of a new para-
digm, where advanced waves and information as orga-
nizing power are o less operational than retarded
waves and information as gain in knowledge.
I. Introduction
According to all dictionaries the meaning n?l,
or fundamental, of the word Paradox is: a surprising
but (perhaps) true statement.Copernicus' heliocen-
trism has been a "paradox".
Such a paradox was also contained in Einstein's
Special Relativity. What Einstein did in 1905 was
neither discuss tie mechanical theories of the ether,
nor elaborate newmathematics, but rather taylor the
conceptual frame after the (group property) of the
Lorentz-Poincar6 formulas 1 faithfully expressing
the phenomenon of;no ether wind.
Today the situation is much the same, except
that the paradox shows up at the end of the story
rather than at its beginning. In 1927 Einstein, at
the 5th Solvay Council 2, that is, over the very
cradle of the "New Quantum Mechanics", cast the mali-
gnant spell it is my duty to discuss today. Neither
he 3, nor later Schrodinger, nor de Broglie 5, nor
others, did believe the paradox to be the true,
Copernican one, as we know now through experimen-
tat:Lon 6.
In imitation; of Einstein's 1905 approach I will
today neither discuss hidden variables theories and
Bell's theorem, nor will I fiddle with the mathe-
matics. No: just using the plain; well known mathe-
matics of the neoquantal mechanics of 1924-1927, and
purposely doing so in the simplest conceivable form,
as I deem appropriate for expressing a new paradigm -
for "unveiling the Sense of the Scriptures" - I will
show which ingrained natural belief is unambiguously
excluded by the experimental results on photon pairs
issuing from a cascade transition - very much like
the belief in an ether wind has been excluded by the
Michelson experiment. I will then proceed by unrave-
ling the statement written since long ago in the
accepted formulas, where nobody took the care to read
it, but where the;experiments now require us to do so.
The Sense of the Scriptures (as I will show) is
that the elementary stochastic event of quantum
mechanics, the transition, or collapse of the wave
function, does possess an intrinsic time symmetry -
as also did the coll. ision in classical statistical
mechanics, where it gave rise to the famous Loschmidt
and Zermelo paradoxes. However, the Einstein 2 1927
Paradox (better known as the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen7
1935 paradox) is made much more severe than the old
ones through Born's replacement of the law of addition
of partial probabilities by the wavelike law of
addition of partial amplitudes, entailing the "neo-
quantal" correction expressed by the off diagonal
terms.
It is this combination of intrinsic time sym-
metry with a wavelike probability calculus which
causes the sting of the paradox, and which heralds
the advent of an ominous paradigm, where advanced
waves, and information as an organizing power, are
de jure symmetrical to retarded waves, and to infor-
mation as a gain in knowledge.
II. Correlation Pe,larizations in Atomic Cascades:
A Dramatic Experimental Result.
The "neoquantal" mechanical expression for the
probabilities of answers (yes, yes) and (no, no),
(yes, no) and (no, yes),when photon pairs issuing from
a cascade transition at C and propagating in opposite
directions along an axis x meet linear polarizers L
and N of relative angle a is, for the 0-1-0 type
cascade
_ = 2 cos ot, = = 2sin2a,
and, for the 1-1-0 type,
t
a. (2)
= = 2 sin' = = 2 cos
Experimental verifications are excellent 6
Had these experiments been performed in the days
of the old "paleoquantal" mechanics, they certainly
would have produced the same sort of commotion as did
the Michelson experiment. They do require, in de
Broglies 6 words, a radical revision of"our familiar
notions concerning space and time".
Consider for instance the case where a= TT/2
with the 0-1-0 cascades. The neoquantal prediction
= 0 means that all the photon pairs are found
with linear polarizations parallel to either of the
two orthogonal directions y and z of the polarizers
L and N. This would have stupefied the paleoquantal
physicists, who thought of the photons of each pair
leaving the source C as possessing a polarization,
compatible of course with the dynamics of the system,
but essentially independent of the orientations A
and B of the polarizers and even of their presence
or absence). In the 0-1-0 case these could have been
parallel linear polarizations with random directions,
or also,possibly, circular polarizations of equal
helicities. In any case the paleoquantal prediction
was, for a = 7r/2, that a large number of (yes, yes)
answers should occur. As a corollary, the sub-ensemble
of photon pairs with(parallel) linear polarizations
along y or z was thought to be of measure zero.
The experimental fact is just opposite:all the
observed photon pairs display this property, whence
necessarily the three following statements, heralding
the advent of a new paradigm:
1) The photons in each pair issuing from the source
C do not possess polarizations of their own, but
borrow one later, by interacting with the measuring
devices L and N.
This of course is a specification of a well
known general statement in the neoquantal mechanics,
of which perhaps there is no more direct experimental
proof than this one.
2) In the chance game which is played,the dice are
not cast at C when shaken in the cup, but later,
when rolling on the table, at L and N. They are,
however, correlated, and this is the Einstein 2
paradox, rejected by him 3, Schrodinger 4, de
Broglie 5, but now experimen ally demonstrated 6
3) The correlation existing between the distant
measurements at L and N is not tied, in space-time,
along the spacelike vector IN, which is physically
empty, but along the Feynman style zigzag LCN made
Approved For Release 2002/05/17 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000200080055-4
508
 Approved For Release, 2002/05/17 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000200080055-4
of the two timelike vectors which are physically oc-
cupied. In other words, the two measurements at L and
N do produce the same wave collapse - in their common
past. Again in other words, Einstein's prohibition
to telegraph into the past does not hold at the
level of the quantal stochastic event, the wave
collapse, so this statement is of a "factlike"8, or
macroscopic nature.
The quantal transition per se is essentially
time symmetric, just as was the collision in classical
statistical mechanics. However, the Einstein paradox
is much more severe than the "corresponding" Loschmidt
and Zermelo paradoxes, due to the wavelike character
of the neoquantal probability calculus, as will be
shown right now.
III. Neoquantal and Paleoquantal Calculations for
Atomic Cascades.
From the two (orthogonal) pure helicity states
La Lb and Ra Rb of a photon pair a, b, we build the
two (orthogonal) P-invariant states
2(L Lb + Ra Rb) = 2(Ya Yb + Z. Zb)
corrections. Incidentally, neither of these contribu-
tions is rotation invariant around x. Thus the paleo-
quantal plysicist would have randomized his result,
which can be done most easily by writing
2 sin 2A sin 2B = cos.2a - cos2(A + B), whence
= = 1 + cos 2a
= = 1 - 8 cos 2a
instead of (5) and (6).
So, while the neoquantal transition probabilities
are basis invariant, the paleoquantal ones are not.
The difference is due to the off diagonal terms, that
is, it stems from the wavelike nature of the neo-
quantal probability calculus. All this is well known
in general. So, the Einstein paradox is just one more
of the neoquantal extravagances.
IV. Neoguantal and Paleoquantal Correlations in General
The typical system under consideration is des-
cribed as a pure state Y' expanded as a sum of partial
amplitudes
2(La Lb - R. Rb) = 2 [Za Yb - Ya ZbJ (4)
where Y and Z denote the linear polarizations along
orthogonal axes y and z.
A and B denoting the angles with (say) y of the
linear polarizers L and N, and setting a = A - B, we
calculate now, using the neoquantal "golden rule" of
adding partial amplitudes and squaring their absolute
sum, the transition probabilities, first in terms of
circular, second of linear polarizations.
Turning analyzer L by AA'and N by AB will shift
the relative phase of the La Lb pair by (say) +Aa~
and then that of the Na Rb pair by -Aa. Thus the
partial amplitudes are, in terms of circular polari-
zations, eta and e-1a, whence (for the 0-1-0 cascades)
_ = 1 ia+e-ial2 = 2(1 + cos 2a), (5)
= = 2leia-e-ial2 - 2(l - cos 2a), (6)
Second, we use as orthogonal states the linear
polarizations Y and Z. The transition amplitudes
towards the (yes, yes) answer is cos A cos B for the
Ya Yb state, sin A sin B for the Za Zb state, cos A
sin B for the Ya Zb state, and sin A cos B for the
Za Yb state. Using the "golden rule" we recover
formulas (1) and (2) in the form
_ = 2(cos A cos B + sin A sin B)2
= -(cos2A cos2B + sin2A sin2B) + 2sin 2A sin 2B
= _ (sin A cos B - cos A sin B)2
1 2 2 2 2 1
= 2(sin A cos B+ cos A sin B) - 4sin 2A sin 2B,
In these formulas the contributions ( )/2 are the
paleoquantal predictions, assuming that the photon
pairs do leave the source as a statistical mixture
with(parallel) linear polarizations along y or z. The
contributions ?(sin,2A sin,2B)/4 are the neoquantal
IT> = Ecjl$j>~j> (10)
where and ~i span independent Hilbert spaces. The
subsystems ~j and ~j are thus coupledjalthough this
ooupling may not be a "present" one - as in the case
we are discussing. By definition Wj _ c~ cj and EWj=1.
A and B denoting the Hermitean operators of mea-
surements performed on ~ and i, the (basis invariant)
correlated mean value is
off diagonal terms are respectively
o = E Wi + C.C.
(14)
= EE c c. (11)
where, setting
_ , _ , (12)
the (non invariant) contributions of the diagonal and
(13) is the paleoquantal expression, implying separate
statistics on the subsystems, and (14) the neoquantal,
or wavelike, correction.
A = 0 in representations diagonalizing either
A or B, and then assumes the expression 0
of a mixture. But this is a semblance "relative" to
the frame - except of course if the corresponding
measurement is performed.
Formulas of Section III are specifications of
these.
V. The Essence of the Paradox
A little fable will help understand matters:
At midnight GMT two travellers leave the Calcutta
airport C, one for London L, one for Nagasaki N, each
carrying a closed box which contains, or not, the one
ball which a third man, in Calcutta, has enclosed,
behind a veil. Having landed at 6 GMT each traveller
opens his box, and immediately learns what the other
man finds.
The point is that, when made explicit, the
logical inference is not drawn along the spacelike
vector IN, but along the Feynman style zigzag LCN made
of the timelike vectors CL and CN.
Approved For Release 2002/05/17 : Csb&-RDP96-00787R000200080055-4
 Approved0pr Release 2002/05/17: CIA-RDP96-Q ,87R000200080055-4
There is no paradox in this because we have a
"local hidden variable" with value 1 in one box and
0 in the other.. The die is cast at C, and we have
between L and N pure telediction with no teleaction.
This is the very point which is changed in the
"wavelike probability calculus". Observers at L and N
may wait until the very last moment before deciding
which of two"inc:ompatible magnitudes" they will
measure - for instance, the linear polarization of
a photon along one of two directions of angle a.
Therefore it is at L and N that the die is cast
and, as there is a correlation, what we have between
L and N.is some port of telediction plus teleaction.
Vi.Relativistic Spinless Particles
Here is a short resume of a fully relativistic
formalism I have presented elsewhere 9. Units such
that c = 1 and4- 1 are used; ? = 1,2,3,4; x4 = it.
The space-time ta(x) and 4-frequency e (k) repre-
sentations of square integrable solutions of the
Klein-Gordon equation are associated with the
Hermitean scalar'product
= 2ka""2j>Ubd4' neaebe(k)dn ? (15)
The invariant a integral is over an arbitrary
spacelike surface a of (4-vector) element daa;[ 9,
denotes the Schrodinger or Gordon current operator
(difference of partial derivatives tothe.right and
the lef9t. The Ti integral is over both sheets of the
mass shell kX kA + k2 = 0, dr) denoting the length of
d111k(kXdrl = kdnA); e(k) +1, -1, 0 according as kX
ends on the positive or negative frequency sheet, or
off shell. In Dirac's 10 nbtatx.on
_ = ,
the double bar recalling that we are using a second
order equation. As usual, the condition =6(a,b)
defines orthonormality.
Introducingthe Fourier nucleus
= * =(2ff)-3/2 exp(ikX xX) (17)
if kA ends on the mass shell, 0 otherwise, we write
the reciprocal Fourier transforms as
= , = . (18)
Introducing the Jordan-Pauli propagator
axl Ix'> = . (21)
This formula expands the wave function and are Fourier
reciprocal, the position operator ih this formalism}
is (given a) xX, and is faithfully represented by x.
Two well known expressions of 2 = D+- D = Dret- Dadv ? (22)
The preceding reasoning shows that completeness of
the are related to each
other, and that the presence of both positive and
negative frequencies in (18), and both retarded and
advanced waves in (21), are not independent from each
other,
VII. Relativistic Spinning Particles
An integrally equivalent`( expression of (15) is
= i S0amX t~bd0~` = i55neaax abe(k)dr1X (23)
with aX = yX in the Dirac, =S, in the Petiau-Duffin-
Kemmer theory, etc... The simple bar recalls that we
are using a system of first order equations. Modulo
this change all equations are formall the same as
in Section VI. The Fourier nucleus now imply the projec-
tor projecting any solution of the Klein-Gordon
equation as a solution of the spinning particle
equation.
VIII. Intrinsic Time Symmetry of the Wave Collapse.
A New Paradigm.
The preceding formalism yields a fully relati-
vistiq description of a position plus spin measure-
ment performed on a quantal particle, and one very
well suited for discussing the recent measurements
of correlations 6. I will avoid inessential wording
by conferring a very small rest mass to the photon,
so that it isatrue spinning particle, and that the
measurements performed at L and N are position plus
spin measurements.
The relativistic position measurement performed
"at an arbitrary spacelike surface a" (rather than
"at time t") consists in asking "does the particle
cross a given element daX of a" (rather than" is it
inside dx dy dz"? The corresponding eigenfunction,
according to formula (21)1 is the Jordan-Pauli pro-
pagator in a position-plus spin measurement, which
means that if the particle is found "at x" (in the
above sense) it certainly has come inside the past,
and will go inside the future light cone. This, of
course, is known since Minkowski - except that the
measurement at x does collapse the wave. And this
collapse, due to the very formalism, affects neces-
saril both future (which is trivial) and past
which, due to prejudice of macroscopic origin, was
overlooked).
This is the Einstein 2 paradox and a truly
Copernican one indeed, as it is written down in the
very scriptures of the wavelike probability calculus
(especially in its explicitely relativistic 11 form)
and is experimentally verified 6. This neither
Einstein 3, nor SchrSdinger 4, nor de Broglie 5, were
ready to believe, when stating respectively that it
would "imply telepathy", or "be magic", or upset
our "familiar conception of space and time".
It turns out that a measurement performed around
the point-instant x is potentially tied to the whole
universe - to the inside of the future and the past
light cones; also, to the outside of the light cone
via pairs of timelike vectors.
Approved For Release 2002/05/'70: CIA-RDP96-00787R000200080055-4
 Approved For Relea 2002/05/17: CIA-RDP96-00787R000200080055-4
VVV
Einstein's prohibition to "telegraph into the
past" was thus only of a factlike, or macroscopic
character. And his prohibition to telegraph outside
the light cone, though strictly valid12 in terms of
direct signalling, is overthrown nevertheless by the
possibility of zigzagging via timelike vectors, some-
what like a sailboat uses side wind.
IX. Macroscopic Factlike Asymmetry
In the Dirac electron theory there is a complete
lawlike symmetry between positive and negative energies,
that is, between particles and antiparticles. In fact,
however, the electron is as common as the positron is
exceptional - which, on the whole, is true also of
matter and antimatter.
Something similar occurs with retarded and advan-
ced waves - and, as we have seen, this question is
not unconnected with the preceding one.
The intrinsic symmetry between retarded and
advanced waves is tightly connected with two other
ones 13 which should now be mentioned.
In quantum mechanics, retarded and advanced waves
are respectively used for statistical prediction and
retrodiction, which shows that the intrinsic symmetry
between them is tied with that between entropy increa-
sing and decreasing processes (known as the Loschmidt
and Zermelo paradoxes). Then, the factlike preponde-
rance of retarded waves is tied with that of entropy
increase.
As information is another name for negentropy
(especially when chance is taken as a primitive concept,
as in quantum mechanics) the intrinsic symmetry we are
speaking of is also tied with that between information
as gain in knowledge (the common, trivial sense) and
information as an organizing power (the rare, esoteric
sense). Both sides are exemplified in reception and
emission of a phone conversation.
Now, very much like the esoteric antimatter does
make a few incursions inside our familiar world of
matter, and we know now where to look for it or how
to produce it, so we should inquire if perhaps the
esoteric finality, that is, advanced waves, decreasing
entropy, information as will, does not perhaps make
a few incursions inside our familiar world of causa-
lity. Let us call anti-physics the corresponding
context, physics obeying by definition the (factlike)
Irreversibility Law (Second Law). The point is, as
we have seen, that quantum physics does have, essen-
tially and symmetrically, one foot in physics and one
in antiphysics - just as it has one hand in positive
and one in negative frequencies.
3
The antiphysics context is the one which Einstein
has termed "telepathy", Schrodinger 4 "magic", de
Broglie 5 the upsetting of "our familiar concept of
space and time". Parapsychology seems a good name for
References
(1) These were known already by Larmor in 1898 and,
almost exactly, by Voigt in 1887.
(2) A. Einstein in Rapports du 5? Conseil Solvay,
Gauthier-Villars, 1928, p. 253-256.
A. Einstein in Einstein Philosopher Scientist,
P.A. Schilpp ed.,The Library of Living Philoso-
phers, 1949, p. 85 and p. 683.
(4) E. Schrodinger, Naturwiss. 23, 844 (1935).See
p. 845.
L. de Broglie, Interpretation Causale de la
M6canigue Ondulatoire, Gauthier Villars, 1956,
p. 73.
(6) S.J. Freedman and J.F. Clauser, Phys. Rev. Lett.
28, 938, 1972 ; J.F. Clauser, Phys. Rev. Lett. 36,
1223, 1976; E: Fry and R.L. Thompson, Phys. Rev.
Lett. 3, 465, 1976. See also M. Lamehi-Raehti
and W. Mittig, Phys. Rev. D 14, 2543, 1976; A.R.
Wilson, J. Lowe and D.K. Butt, J. Phys. G2. 613,
1976.
(7) A. Einstein, B. Podolsky and N. Rosen, Phys. Rev.
.~I, 777,-1935.
(8) H. Mehlberg's terminology in Current Issues in
the Philosophy of Science, H. Feigl and G. Maxwell
eds.,Holt, Rinehart, Winston, 1961.
(9) 0. Costa de Beauregard, Precis de M6canique quan-
timue relativiste, Dunod, 1967.
(10) P.A.M. Dirac, Principles of Quantum Mechanics,
3rd. edition, Clarendon Press, 1947.
(11) For the connection with Feynman's formalism, see
0. Costa de Beauregard, Phys. Lett. 60A, 93, 1977.
(12) The discussion of tachyons is outside the scope
of this study.
(13) For more details, see 0. Costa de Beauregard,
Studium Generale 24, 10, 1971 where references
to the literature are given. See also Found.Phys.
6, 539, 1976.
Approved For Release 2002/05/17 :5tiA-RDP96-00787R000200080055-4
 Approved0pr Release 2002/05/17 : CIA-RDP96- 87R000200080055-4
J. P. Bisaha and B. J. Dunne*
Mundelein College, Chicago, Illinois 60660
An extension of earlier precognitive remote view-
ing experiments was conducted with two experimental
protocals: 1) using two subjects simultaneously
predicting where an experimenter would be 35 minutes in
the future, and 2) predicting over 24 hours into the
future over a distance of 5,000 miles. In the first
experiment seven trials were carried out with a total
of seven inexperienced volunteer subjects, tested in
pairs, to determine their ability to describe a remote
geographical location twenty minutes before the target
had been selected and thirty-five minutes before the
experimenter arrived at the randomly selected site.
Transcripts of subjects' descriptions were compared
against the seven targets and against each other by
six independent judges in a blind rank ordering
procedure. Theresults of this matching were: Group A
transcripts against tragets = p